The Official "I Loved Raimi's Spider-Man' Thread - Part 1 of 99 Luft - Part 8

[Picard Sisko]

Yeah, what upset me most about the reboot was the fact that it felt like it was too soon. Meaning in the span of a few weeks/months, there were plans for SM4 to start filming, and then news of a reboot being written and cast, all to meet the May 2012 date. I just felt like they had rushed everything.

I know how you feel. Although, they had no choice because they needed to make a film by 2012 or they would have lost the film rights to Spider-Man.

And yeah, Raimi didn't really seem to think about sequels, which I have no problem with since that wasn't really the mindset at the time when it came to CBMs. If SM1 tanked, we definitely would not have gotten a SM2, even though Tobey and others signed on for three films. Franchises weren't guaranteed, which is why Avengers could never have happened in the past. Now, actors don't mind signing up to play a character in three movies because there's a good chance that a sequel will already be in the works before the first is even done shooting. The business has changed and expanded in the past decade, which is why I don't like to judge films like SM1 or SM2 to films like TDK or The Avengers.

If it weren't for films like X-Men (2000) or Spider-Man (2002), we wouldn't have the Marvel Cinematic Universe. These movies need to be appreciated more, but whatever. I don't judge Raimi for making it a standalone film because that's how it was back then. Nobody knew how successful a Spider-Man franchise would be.

Now, I think we were guaranteed a sequel to The Amazing Spider-Man anyway, and I'm happy they're creating a nice story arc that will be resolved over multiple films. Its the same thing with Prometheus; these movies are building the grounds to a new franchise and introducing us to stories that will be resolved over a number of films. There is nothing wrong with that. I can't wait to see where TASM2 goes.

Yeah, that stinks because they had no idea of making a franchise, so they made it a standalone film. It's almost as if Spidey had learned all his primary lessons in one film. I do like how ASM, they know they're making a franchise, so they made more room for growth.Man how far we've come.

Agreed. As Spideyville said, there was no guarantee of a Spider-Man 2, so it made sense to create a standalone film. It seems like in the new franchise, Peter is learning responsibility and developing into Spider-Man throughout the entire trilogy.

 

[Anno_Domini]

I'm a little disappointed that I neither love nor hate TASM. I despised it's conception, but there was a real chance to make something great with it. Outside of the new leads (whom I love), the rest of the film fell short and it ended up just being meh for me. Not feeling positive about the sequel either.

Thank santa for Avengers otherwise 2012 would have been a pretty dull year for comic book movies.

Agree with TAS-M. Aside from the actors, the movie fell flat, imo, but if I had to thank Santa, it wouldn't be just for Avengers...TDKR and Dredd both made my year when it comes to CBMs.

Maybe, just maybe, TAS-M 2 will be good and I will end up buying that movie for my collection as there's no way TAS-M will be among Spider-Man 2 and pretty soon, the '02 Spidey film.

 

[Picard Sisko]

I would thank Santa for all three comic book movies. I'd still rank them as:

1. The Avengers
2. The Amazing Spider-Man
3. The Dark Knight Rises

Still need to see Dredd.

 

[SpideyVille]

I know how you feel. Although, they had no choice because they needed to make a film by 2012 or they would have lost the film rights to Spider-Man.

Really? I didn't know that was the case. All I remember was SM4 being originally set to release in May 2011, but then it was delayed a few times because of the script until Raimi decided to walk out. It wouldn't surprise me though, because Sony really needs the Spider-Man franchise, given their poor financial state.

To be honest, I kinda wish Marvel had the rights for the films, so we could see a Spidey cameo in the Avengers.

If it weren't for films like X-Men (2000) or Spider-Man (2002), we wouldn't have the Marvel Cinematic Universe. These movies need to be appreciated more, but whatever. I don't judge Raimi for making it a standalone film because that's how it was back then. Nobody knew how successful a Spider-Man franchise would be.

Now, I think we were guaranteed a sequel to The Amazing Spider-Man anyway, and I'm happy they're creating a nice story arc that will be resolved over multiple films. Its the same thing with Prometheus; these movies are building the grounds to a new franchise and introducing us to stories that will be resolved over a number of films. There is nothing wrong with that. I can't wait to see where TASM2 goes.

Yeah, the original Superman and Batman films worked because those were the big two in comics and they have massive fan bases, but the success of Spider-Man, X-Men, and maybe even Blade (although I've never seen any of them) proved that more obscure heroes could be successful. Sure we had stinkers in the way, such as Daredevil and Fantastic Four, but the successes of these movies really helped paved the way for other heroes to get their own movies, especially for Marvel, who has since taken over as the dominant brand when it comes to movies (aside from Nolan's trilogy).

And yeah, I mentioned before how now more risks can be taken in movies, when it comes to villains and love interests. ASM, if it were made 10 years ago, would not have been successful because the Lizard is not a top draw, and it would be risky to kill off a love interest eventually, which is why I believe Raimi went with MJ and the Green Goblin right from the start.

Agreed. As Spideyville said, there was no guarantee of a Spider-Man 2, so it made sense to create a standalone film. It seems like in the new franchise, Peter is learning responsibility and developing into Spider-Man throughout the entire trilogy.

I would go as far to say that Nolan didn't even know if his films would be a trilogy. I remember hearing somewhere that the joker card at the end of Batman Begins was just a nod to Batman 1989, and he wasn't originally planning to bring in the Joker until he saw how well received the film was, and how he could make the character work in this new universe. But after TDK's success, I think he knew it was best to bring it to a close, and when you really think about it, TDKR was more of a continuation of stuff from BB than it was TDK, almost in the same way SM3 was more connected to the events of SM1 than it was to SM2.

 

[Anno_Domini]

I would thank Santa for all three comic book movies. I'd still rank them as:

1. The Avengers
2. The Amazing Spider-Man
3. The Dark Knight Rises

Still need to see Dredd.

I'd actually wanna punch Santa for TAS-M

 

[Picard Sisko]

Really? I didn't know that was the case. All I remember was SM4 being originally set to release in May 2011, but then it was delayed a few times because of the script until Raimi decided to walk out. It wouldn't surprise me though, because Sony really needs the Spider-Man franchise, given their poor financial state.

Sony needs to make a film every 5 years in order to retain the film rights.

To be honest, I kinda wish Marvel had the rights for the films, so we could see a Spidey cameo in the Avengers.

That would be cool. But I'm happy with what Sony has done with Spider-Man, but I assume that one day Marvel will get the rights back.

Yeah, the original Superman and Batman films worked because those were the big two in comics and they have massive fan bases, but the success of Spider-Man, X-Men, and maybe even Blade (although I've never seen any of them) proved that more obscure heroes could be successful. Sure we had stinkers in the way, such as Daredevil and Fantastic Four, but the successes of these movies really helped paved the way for other heroes to get their own movies, especially for Marvel, who has since taken over as the dominant brand when it comes to movies (aside from Nolan's trilogy).

And yeah, I mentioned before how now more risks can be taken in movies, when it comes to villains and love interests. ASM, if it were made 10 years ago, would not have been successful because the Lizard is not a top draw, and it would be risky to kill off a love interest eventually, which is why I believe Raimi went with MJ and the Green Goblin right from the start.

Agreed.

I would go as far to say that Nolan didn't even know if his films would be a trilogy. I remember hearing somewhere that the joker card at the end of Batman Begins was just a nod to Batman 1989, and he wasn't originally planning to bring in the Joker until he saw how well received the film was, and how he could make the character work in this new universe. But after TDK's success, I think he knew it was best to bring it to a close, and when you really think about it, TDKR was more of a continuation of stuff from BB than it was TDK, almost in the same way SM3 was more connected to the events of SM1 than it was to SM2.

I'm not sure if he planned on making a trilogy from the start, or if he would make any more films after Batman Begins. I do know that after TDK, he wanted to make a third, but then Heath Ledger's death got in the way. I'm sure TDKR isn't exactly how the third movie was going to be originally (as it was probably going to include the Joker somehow), but I'm glad it got made (even though it was a bit of a disappointment).

I'd actually wanna punch Santa for TAS-M

Sure, Anno. You do that.

I think this is the second time you said you would punch someone. The last time was when I mentioned how I applauded for Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter for how terrible it was. You responded with something like "If I saw someone doing that, I'd punch them."

 

[Anno_Domini]

Sure, Anno. You do that.

I think this is the second time you said you would punch someone. The last time was when I mentioned how I applauded for Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter for how terrible it was. You responded with something like "If I saw someone doing that, I'd punch them."

Of course. Because Vampire Hunter wasn't meant to be something special, TAS-M was. While some can say Vampire Hunter was terrible, it wasn't meant to be something so great to win over critics or anything, and I am totally fine with how Vampire Hunter came out to be. TAS-M, on the other end, at least had potential of redeeming Spider-Man after S-M 3, and it did not, imho. And being better than S-M 3 doesn't mean it did either.

Also, I like to punch I guess

 

[Picard Sisko]

Of course. Because Vampire Hunter wasn't meant to be something special, TAS-M was. While some can say Vampire Hunter was terrible, it wasn't meant to be something so great to win over critics or anything, and I am totally fine with how Vampire Hunter came out to be. TAS-M, on the other end, at least had potential of redeeming Spider-Man after S-M 3, and it did not, imho. And being better than S-M 3 doesn't mean it did either.

Vampire Hunter wasn't meant to be an example of fine, brilliant cinema, but it could have been an enjoyable popcorn film. And it wasn't IMO. It was a piece of crap, and I hated every second of it. I wanted to bang my head on the seat in front of me because of how bad it was.

TASM was special for me, as I'm sure it was for many other fans, and I felt it brought the Spider-Man movie franchise back to life after Spider-Man 3.

Also, I like to punch I guess

Anger Management?

 

[Anno_Domini]

Vampire Hunter wasn't meant to be an example of fine, brilliant cinema, but it could have been an enjoyable popcorn film. And it wasn't IMO. It was a piece of crap, and I hated every second of it. I wanted to bang my head on the seat in front of me because of how bad it was.

TASM was special for me, as I'm sure it was for many other fans, and I felt it brought the Spider-Man movie franchise back to life after Spider-Man 3.

Well obviously we disagree with TAS-M, as always. You find it special and you feel many other fans do, but I feel it isn't and I am positive many other people feel the same as I do as well.

And Vampire Hunter was indeed an enjoyable popcorn flick. And even though I don't eat popcorn when watching a movie, I could call it that. It was a kind of movie that I could turn my brain off and just enjoy it. Maybe that's how I could enjoy TAS-M though....ZING.

Anger Management?

Sure, if I had a problem. I do not

 

[The Joker]

Question; since Raimi is openly old school when it comes to Spidey, meaning he grew up with the 60's/70's Spidey comics, and therefore was obviously more into the classic villains like the Osborn Goblins, Doc Ock, Sandman, Vulture etc, would you have been satisfied if none of the new generation villains like Venom, Hobgoblin etc were never done, and Raimi only brought us the old school villains, assuming he had stayed on for a Spider-Man 4 and maybe even a 5th one?

 

[Anno_Domini]

With seeing how Venom was portrayed in Spider-Man 3, I'd definitely been fine if none of the new generation villains showed up. Raimi was an old school guy and didn't seem like he understood Venom, and guys like Hobgoblin would be unnecessary since we got two "goblins" already.

 

[SpideyVille]

Question; since Raimi is openly old school when it comes to Spidey, meaning he grew up with the 60's/70's Spidey comics, and therefore was obviously more into the classic villains like the Osborn Goblins, Doc Ock, Sandman, Vulture etc, would you have been satisfied if none of the new generation villains like Venom, Hobgoblin etc were never done, and Raimi only brought us the old school villains, assuming he had stayed on for a Spider-Man 4 and maybe even a 5th one?

I probably wouldn't mind, but I would need to have the difference between new school and Old school defined since I never followed the comics.

Personally, my ideal SM4 pairing would have been Lizard and Kraven, since they spent most of the trilogy building up Peter's relationship with Connors. I never cared for Venom and Carnage, and I could do without Hobgoblin. And the more I think about it, the more I wish we could have seen the Chameleon, maybe in the role of imitating Spider-Man to trash his good reputation. I also wanted to see a Shocker cameo to open up a film, similar to Scarecrow in TDK.

 

[Picard Sisko]

Well obviously we disagree with TAS-M, as always. You find it special and you feel many other fans do, but I feel it isn't and I am positive many other people feel the same as I do as well.

Obviously we disagree. And obviously there are people who disagree with you, and people who disagree with me. That's not saying much. Based on the polls here, the majority of members on the Spider-Man forums seem to like TASM (I think 8/10 or 9/10 was the highest vote).

And Vampire Hunter was indeed an enjoyable popcorn flick. And even though I don't eat popcorn when watching a movie, I could call it that. It was a kind of movie that I could turn my brain off and just enjoy it. Maybe that's how I could enjoy TAS-M though....ZING.

I think you took "popcorn" movie too literally.

Sure, if I had a problem. I do not

Physical violence sounds like a problem to me.

Question; since Raimi is openly old school when it comes to Spidey, meaning he grew up with the 60's/70's Spidey comics, and therefore was obviously more into the classic villains like the Osborn Goblins, Doc Ock, Sandman, Vulture etc, would you have been satisfied if none of the new generation villains like Venom, Hobgoblin etc were never done, and Raimi only brought us the old school villains, assuming he had stayed on for a Spider-Man 4 and maybe even a 5th one?

I would have preferred if he never introduced any newer villains. He wouldn't have been around for that much longer anyway.

 

[Anno_Domini]

I probably wouldn't mind, but I would need to have the difference between new school and Old school defined since I never followed the comics.

Imo,

Old school - anything under 1980

New school - anything after 1980

Obviously we disagree. And obviously there are people who disagree with you, and people who disagree with me. That's not saying much. Based on the polls here, the majority of members on the Spider-Man forums seem to like TASM (I think 8/10 or 9/10 was the highest vote).

On a TAS-M board, I am not surprise the majority enjoys the film, but there are some that still state their dislike of it as I do as much as there are few on the TDKR board that does the same. But, I am not just speaking on the forums either on said people that would agree with me.

I think you took "popcorn" movie too literally.

Popcorn movie:

A summer action flick, not monumental, a good waste of time

One only goes to see it as a excuse to eat popcorn and other junk food with friends.

Physical violence sounds like a problem to me.

Speaking on taking things TOO literally...

 

[Picard Sisko]

On a TAS-M board, I am not surprise the majority enjoys the film, but there are some that still state their dislike of it as I do as much as there are few on the TDKR board that does the same. But, I am not just speaking on the forums either on said people that would agree with me.

Other than you, there is Chaseter, and maybe a few others on this forum who really express their dislike or hatred of the movie.

Speaking on taking things TOO literally...

... I was joking about you taking it too literally.

 

[Anno_Domini]

Other than you, there is Chaseter, and maybe a few others on this forum who really express their dislike or hatred of the movie.

Yah....

but there are some

... I was joking about you taking it too literally.

Uh-hu.

 

[Picard Sisko]

So yeah, anyways...

 

[The Joker]

I would have preferred if he never introduced any newer villains.

It would work for me because the best Spidey villains are the old school ones, IMO. The symbiotes can go to hell.

He wouldn't have been around for that much longer anyway.

Well he was coming back for 4, and I wouldn't have shut off the possibility of a 5th one either.

 

[Picard Sisko]

It would work for me because the best Spidey villains are the old school ones, IMO. The symbiotes can go to hell.

 

[The Joker]

I'm with Raimi;

I had never read Venom in the comic books, since they came after my time. Because of that, I didn't have a natural inclination toward him. And when I read those comics, at [producer] Avi Arad's urging, I didn't understand where Venom's humanity was. I know that kids think he looks cool, and they think he's a good villain for Spider-Man. I actually didn't. What was it about Peter's own makeup that this villain represented some weaker or darker side to? Just looking like a dark version of him is not enough for me. The more I read [Venom stories], the less interested I became.

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20037557,00.html

 

[Picard Sisko]

To each his own. I completely disagree, but whatever.

 

[SpideyVille]

I might be in the minority here ,but I don't think Raimim would have ever done a movie with Carnage in it. Not just because he wasn't a fan of him, but moreso because that kind of character would have had to be watered down completely to fit the "childish" tone of his movies. And I mean that in the sense that his target was more towards children.

 

[Picard Sisko]

I think they should have let the guy make the movies he wanted to make, and maybe have him introduce the symbiote in there for future movies. So let him make 3-4 films, then move on to a new director that understands the newer material.

 

[The Joker]

Carnage has no depth. He's a one dimensional killing machine. Raimi would never see the attraction to a character like that.

 

[Picard Sisko]

I never cared for Carnage. But I think he works as a villain for Venom.