The Amazing Spider-Man The Official Marc Webb Thread

[chaseter]

And it isn't Spider-Man. Remember everyone thinking Gavin Hood, acclaimed director of Tsotsi, would do great with Wolverine?

 

[bullets]

Its fine if they go for an indie teen feel for spidey in high school but I really hope it doesnt fall behind on the action aspect of the movie.

I'm not expecting much action this time around. I think I'm content with Raimi's Spider-man and not really excited about this as I was the first time around. This could turn out different though and I think alot of it depends if the new Peter Parker is likeable.

 

[rocco2216]

And it isn't Spider-Man. Remember everyone thinking Gavin Hood, acclaimed director of Tsotsi, would do great with Wolverine?

Yeah, but that's Fox, it's expected with them LOL. Plus the script was obviously already ****. No good director can polish a turd.

 

[chaseter]

Yeah, but that's Fox, it's expected with them LOL. Plus the script was obviously already ****. No good director can polish a turd.

I would have said the same thing before Sony messed with Raimi during SM3 and again with SM4. Sony has become Fox it seems.

 

[rocco2216]

I would have said the same thing before Sony messed with Raimi during SM3 and again with SM4. Sony has become Fox it seems.

Well, if you want to compare Spider-Man 3 to Wolverine yeah. But then again, Sam and his brother Ivan did write the script for 3.

 

[chaseter]

Well, if you want to compare Spider-Man 3 to Wolverine yeah. But then again, Sam and his brother Ivan did write the script for 3.

And Sony ala Arad pushed Venom into the mix and they tried the same thing with SM4.

Now, Sony hires a fresh, naive director to push around like Fox did. I would rather have a huge fan of the character, Raimi, running the show than someone who will film only what is written without caring about anything more...ala Gavin Hood.

 

[rocco2216]

And Sony ala Arad pushed Venom into the mix and they tried the same thing with SM4.

Now, Sony hires a fresh, naive director to push around like Fox did. I would rather have a huge fan of the character, Raimi, running the show than someone who will film only what is written without caring about anything more...ala Gavin Hood.

That's still no excuse on Raimi's part since he and his brother were writing the script. That "oh I couldn't make a great movie cause I had to use a character I didn't really care for" is an excuse, period. Sam didn't put his foot down did he? No, he agreed. He could have made it great or better than it was but he didn't. He can't keep using that as a crutch for why 3 wasn't that good. They didn't force any character on Raimi for 4. They wanted Black Cat in as a love interest, Sam decided to make her the Vulture's daughter. Sony wanted any other villain but the Vulture. They didn't know what villain though, just any but the Vulture. Is it so hard for Sam Raimi to choose a cooler classic villain?

 

[night0205]

Seriously, it seems like people forgot that SAM RAIMI wrote Spider-man 3! He's not much of a writer, he's a much better director, which isn't anything to be ashamed for, because writing is very hard, when you have to be original. But Spider-man 3 was all Raimi's responsibility, just stop with the Sony stuff. Just stop. There is no excuse, and Sam Raimi admits it. So should you.

And Sony & Raimi were just giving what the world was screaming for.

 

[rocco2216]

Seriously, it seems like people forgot that SAM RAIMI wrote Spider-man 3! He's not much of a writer, he's a much better director, which isn't anything to be ashamed for, because writing is very hard, when you have to be original. But Spider-man 3 was all Raimi's responsibility, just stop with the Sony stuff. Just stop. There is no excuse, and Sam Raimi admits it. So should you.

And Sony & Raimi were just giving what the world was screaming for.

Very true. But it wasn't all Sam's responsibility, and I also don't think Sam is a bad writer by any means. He did write Evil Dead 1 and 2, and 3 but he still wrote 1 and 2. The point is Sam Raimi had just as much to do with how 3 turned out by helping to write the script. It takes more than one person to make a film, it's a group effort. The criticism or praise doesn't go to one person.

 

[spider-neil]

raimi wrote a script that went from a to b to c, sony enter the mix and sam has to rewrite the script so it goes for a to b to d and back to c. almost certainly the movie would have been better if they had just left the sam the hell alone. evidence?

SM2 - sam left alone (as far as I'm aware)
SM3 - sony interference
drag me to hell - sam left alone

it wouldn't have been so bad if the villian forced on sam was someone like rhino, someone with little or no back story, but sony KNOWING the GG2 storyline would need closer added venom into the mix a character with a HUGE (yet dull, hate the frigging character) backstory.

so you have;
harry, who wants peter dead
peter and MJ, who are going to need screen time
the symbiote costume
EBJ and events that make him hate peter
peter taking off the costume
end fight sequence

all because sony and arid (*****!) 'THINK' that what the fans want. 'I'M' a fan and I wanted venom no where NEAR the franchise

 

[rocco2216]

raimi wrote a script that went from a to b to c, sony enter the mix and sam has to rewrite the script so it goes for a to b to d and back to c. almost certainly the movie would have been better if they had just left the sam the hell alone. evidence?

SM2 - sam left alone (as far as I'm aware)
SM3 - sony interference
drag me to hell - sam left alone

it wouldn't have been so bad if the villian forced on sam was someone like rhino, someone with little or no back story, but sony KNOWING the GG2 storyline would need closer added venom into the mix a character with a HUGE (yet dull, hate the frigging character) backstory.

so you have;
harry, who wants peter dead
peter and MJ, who are going to need screen time
the symbiote costume
EBJ and events that make him hate peter
peter taking off the costume
end fight sequence

all because sony and arid (*****!) 'THINK' that what the fans want. 'I'M' a fan and I wanted venom no where NEAR the franchise

Well I'm sure it would have been a much better film if they did leave Sam alone. You're missing the point. You among others want to put the blame ONLY on Sony. It's NOT JUST their fault. It takes more than one person to make a film good or bad or mediocre. Maybe the script was brilliant before Sony interfered, maybe it wasn't. So Sam can't still write a great script just because he had to switch out one character for another? He got lazy cause of that? Well that's no excuse regardless. You are in a minority of fans that don't want Venom cause face it, Venom sells. He is the main reason Spider-Man 3 did as well as it did, why it had as much hype as it did, why it had legs, and why it made the most money out of all three. And it's not just Sam that made the first two good. Everyone involved, cause it's a group effort in making a film, were the cause of how and why they turned out well. It's funny how when a director directs two good films him and the rest of the cast and crew only get praise, but when it's a bad film they're also involved in it's just the studios fault. Sam also wrote Army of Darkness, which is weaker than the first two Evil Deads, and yet he had no studio interference on that.

 

[spider-neil]

Well I'm sure it would have been a much better film if they did leave Sam alone. You're missing the point. You among others want to put the blame ONLY on Sony. It's NOT JUST their fault. It takes more than one person to make a film good or bad or mediocre. Maybe the script was brilliant before Sony interfered, maybe it wasn't. So Sam can't still write a great script just because he had to switch out one character for another? He got lazy cause of that? Well that's no excuse regardless. You are in a minority of fans that don't want Venom cause face it, Venom sells. He is the main reason Spider-Man 3 did as well as it did, why it had as much hype as it did, why it had legs, and why it made the most money out of all three. And it's not just Sam that made the first two good. Everyone involved, cause it's a group effort in making a film, were the cause of how and why they turned out well. It's funny how when a director directs two good films him and the rest of the cast and crew only get praise, but when it's a bad film they're also involved in it's just the studios fault.

the reason I put the blame on sony is because of sam's track record with the previous two movies, if THAT doesn't buy you creative freedom, what does?

interesting fact; SM3 made more money that TDK in the forgien market 554m compared to 465m, domestically however TDK made more that 200m more than SM3

 

[rocco2216]

the reason I put the blame on sony is because of sam's track record with the previous two movies, if THAT doesn't buy you creative freedom, what does?

interesting fact; SM3 made more money that TDK in the forgien market 554m compared to 465m, domestically however TDK made more that 200m more than SM3

What does Spider-Man 3 making more than TDK in the foreign market have to do with who's fault it was for why Spider-Man 3 wasn't as good as the first two. Are you saying other countries saw Spider-Man 3 mainly cause of Venom? It doesn't matter if TDK did better domestically. Spider-Man 3 still had a lot of hype cause of the symbiote and Venom. He's more marketable, sorry. Sandman and the Vulture, while there might have been a better story told, aren't as marketable. Plus, how do we know Sony didn't interfere at all with the first two at all? You think they let him do whatever without saying anything at all? They never gave him complete creative control. He didn't really do anything they disagreed until the third one. Studios aren't flawless no, but neither are directors, no matter how great they are, even Sam Raimi. Sam did a really good job with the first two, but he doesn't deserve all the praise.

 

[Cuyan]

Tyler Perry gets complete creative control of his films. As does Uwe Boll.

 

[rocco2216]

Tyler Perry get complete creative control of his films. As does Uwe Boll.

Examples of why most directors shouldn't get complete creative control LOL.

 

[Cuyan]

 

[rocco2216]

Well if you think Uwe Boll and Tyler Perry make great films, then to each his own I guess haha.

 

[night0205]

The sad thing is, when a Director decides to make a film, they take it upon themselves the consequences of the movie, good or bad. Film making is a team effort, but the Director is the coach, and he's responsible for getting the team to work together and win. We really don't know much about the drama behind the scenes of a lot of these films, but just because movie turns out well, doesn't mean Sony didn't interfere a lot, that's what a studio does, because it's their money, and they want to make sure it's working right. Sony takes responsibility as well whenever they release a bad film, but more specifically Sam Raimi and all Director's accept the responsibility for their specific movie.

 

[rocco2216]

The sad thing is, when a Director decides to make a film, they take it upon themselves the consequences of the movie, good or bad. Film making is a team effort, but the Director is the coach, and he's responsible for getting the team to work together and win. We really don't know much about the drama behind the scenes of a lot of these films, but just because movie turns out well, doesn't mean Sony didn't interfere a lot, that's what a studio does, because it's their money, and they want to make sure it's working right. Sony takes responsibility as well whenever they release a bad film, but more specifically Sam Raimi and all Director's accept the responsibility for their specific movie.

I agree, very true. I seriously doubt Spider-Man 3 is the first time Sony interfered or said anything at all. They were part of discussions that went on during pre-production. They didn't say, "Hey Sam surprise us, we can't wait to see what the script is going to be like or what you come up with." It's just this interference became public and when Sam and Sony had a harder time coming to an agreement and compromising.

 

[rocco2216]

This is really going to be a very fun and interesting two and a half years. t:

 

[night0205]

Believe what you want about Studios, but some of them are actually very good at making movies. The only Studio I think completely has failed at making movies was Twentieth Century Fox, because they went a whole decade making nothing but crap. There were a couple, but no more then what you can count on your own two hands. I did this in another thread, someone name five GREAT movies fox has made within the last ten years, without looking anything up? No one was able to in the other thread.

 

[spider-neil]

What does Spider-Man 3 making more than TDK in the foreign market have to do with who's fault it was for why Spider-Man 3 wasn't as good as the first two. Are you saying other countries saw Spider-Man 3 mainly cause of Venom? It doesn't matter if TDK did better domestically. Spider-Man 3 still had a lot of hype cause of the symbiote and Venom. He's more marketable, sorry. Sandman and the Vulture, while there might have been a better story told, aren't as marketable. Plus, how do we know Sony didn't interfere at all with the first two at all? You think they let him do whatever without saying anything at all? They never gave him complete creative control. He didn't really do anything they disagreed until the third one. Studios aren't flawless no, but neither are directors, no matter how great they are, even Sam Raimi. Sam did a really good job with the first two, but he doesn't deserve all the praise.

I posted the SM3/TDK box office because I thought it was interesting, I didn't know where else to put it.

 

[spider-neil]

going back to venom, the GA didn't know (or care) who venom was, that lame arse character was put in the movie because for the 'fans'.
anyone who thinks venom was in any way shape or form responsible for SM3' BO is seriously deluded.

 

[ultimatefan]

And it isn't Spider-Man. Remember everyone thinking Gavin Hood, acclaimed director of Tsotsi, would do great with Wolverine?

The problems with Wolverine had more to do with the script than direction. And being made by Fox. The iggest fear here, I think is see Sony turn into Fox.

 

[spider-neil]

the bottom line is;

if you have a director who is responsible for the creative vision of the movie i.e. how the movie looks and feels and that vision is a success both critically (RT SM1 90%/RT SM2 94%) and commerically (SM1 840m/SM2 780m) then you leave him the hell alone. he has EARNED the right for creative freedom.

seriously, I don't see what there is to argue about?

lastly sam's originally script was hacked to pieces for a villian I hate with a ****ing PASSION. it wouldn't have been so bad if the script was hacked to pieces for a villian I actually LIKE, like lizard, and what's more lizard being in SM3 would have made a hell of a lot more sense than venom and a lot easier to shoehorn in.