The Amazing Spider-Man Too Soon!?

[FaT_tONle]

Now that isn't very nice! There is no such thing as a true fan of ANYTHING. What the heck would you define as a "true" Spidey fan?!

Someone who mostly agrees with DacMan ^^^.

God I hope so.

F4 and DD both deserve sooo much better than what they got. Especially F4.

If anything, it has been too long for a reboot in BOTH those franchises.

And Rebooting SM in 2012 gives them more than enough time to do it right.

Not really. Why can't Sony just honestly ask Disney for a realistic extension and allow both studios to show some sensibility? Spidey ain't showing up in Avengers, or Iron Man 3, or any Marvel movies in the near future. Even if Disney got it back they would sit on his films for the time being. Waiting a couple more years won't affect the BO in anyway. It will only help it for that matter. People were burned out from Jane's Punisher and Lee's Hulk, and it hurt the reboots' box office. I am convinced of that. If they were doing a sequel I can understand the rush, but the public needs more time between reboots to avoid burn out.

 

[Ajendo]

The way I see it, it'll depend on how much people have enjoyed the previous films. Let me put it this way, normally when I break up with a girl I try to leave it 6 months before getting attatched again... but once I went out with this girl who was absolutely useless and a horrible girlfriend. When I broke up with her I wanted a new girlfriend straight away because I felt I hadn't had one. Or one that wasn't worth mentioning.

Loool.

Anyway, I love USM and think it's been consistently good for most of its run thus far. However, I think USM maybe the foundation of the tone the films are looking for but the studio will try and utilise a combination of what makes spidey work from across all mediums.

 

[Ajendo]

Someone who mostly agrees with DacMan ^^^.



Not really. Why can't Sony just honestly ask Disney for a realistic extension and allow both studios to show some sensibility? Spidey ain't showing up in Avengers, or Iron Man 3, or any Marvel movies in the near future. Even if Disney got it back they would sit on his films for the time being. Waiting a couple more years won't affect the BO in anyway. It will only help it for that matter. People were burned out from Jane's Punisher and Lee's Hulk, and it hurt the reboots' box office. I am convinced of that. If they were doing a sequel I can understand the rush, but the public needs more time between reboots to avoid burn out.

A 5 year break isn't exactly being burnt out. Consider that all things are new.

 

[Bruce Malone]

To say casino royale is a reboot is kinda stretching things. I guess you can argue that every bond sequel is a reboot since aside from quantum they never actually reference the past movie.

 

[Deaths Head II]

They have some loose continuity here and there, specifically the characters. Like James' Russian friend from Goldeneye appearing in The World is Not Enough.

 

[chaseter]

First off, there's no reason to be a jerk. Second, he killed 4/5. And finally, I could not be happier they threw Raimi's Spider-Man 4 out the window after it came out that we WOULD be getting the Vulturess. Raimi was way to quick to throw the original material out the window and way to quick to make up his own crap. Once he made Sandman Uncle Ben's killer I was so done with him. When anyone thinks they shouldn't have reboot it, you need to say to them is "Vulturess" and that should be the end of the discussion.

And as far as when it comes out, I think anyone who doesn't want a Spidey movie as soon as possible isn't a real Spidey fan. Someone actually said up top maybe it needs another 30 years. WHATEVER! You people actually want to be 30 years older before you can go see another Spidey film! That's not a true Spidey fan. Period.

1. Green Goblin
2. Doc Ock
3. Venom
3.5 Goblin Junior

How is that killing 4/5

Raimi didn't create the Vulturess...Sony did. Sony also helped to ruin SM3. So, have fun thinking Sony isn't going to **** things up again!

 

[SpeterMan3]

Four villains out of five?

 

[El Payaso]

1. Green Goblin
2. Doc Ock
3. Venom
3.5 Goblin Junior

How is that killing 4/5

That's killing 5/5

 

[The Joker]

I think he means out of the five villains used, Raimi killed four of them?

 

[SpeterMan3]

I think he means out of the five villains used, Raimi killed four of them?

Yeah, I think so...

 

[TheSlag]

Not really. Why can't Sony just honestly ask Disney for a realistic extension and allow both studios to show some sensibility? Spidey ain't showing up in Avengers, or Iron Man 3, or any Marvel movies in the near future. Even if Disney got it back they would sit on his films for the time being. Waiting a couple more years won't affect the BO in anyway. It will only help it for that matter. People were burned out from Jane's Punisher and Lee's Hulk, and it hurt the reboots' box office. I am convinced of that. If they were doing a sequel I can understand the rush, but the public needs more time between reboots to avoid burn out.

SM3 2007. Reboot 2012. 5 years. More than enough time.

And as far as shooting the reboot, they already have their script(s) to shoot from, and have been thinking about this possibility for a while it sounds like, so again, plenty of time.

 

[chaseter]

That's killing 5/5

Read my first response to him. He complained that Raimi painted himself into a corner because he killed off too many villains. I responded by saying there are still a good amount of villains left. The 3/4 is me saying 3 or 4 or 5/6 is 5 or 6.

The quality of future movies have nothing to do with how many villains he killed off when there are still quite a few great villains left. How stupid And by the way, if you want to argue semantics, the proper term for killing 4 out of 5 villains is by typing 4:5.

Goblin junior wasn't a villain anyways.

 

[TheSlag]

/\... LOL.. wow, someone is getting a little defensive and "touchy" here. t:

Raimi did kill off 4 of the 5 villains in the film. It's just too bad IMO that he did not do us a favor by making it 5/5.. Oooops.. My bad 5:5 (LOL) and killin the damn flyin Sandy One. t:

 

[Bruce Malone]

They have some loose continuity here and there, specifically the characters. Like James' Russian friend from Goldeneye appearing in The World is Not Enough.

So did Casino with M. To me CR was more a prequel than a reboot. With it showcasing bond before he attained 00 status. Either way every time a new bond takes over, the franchise as a whole has its tone or style changed.

As for the thread yes 5 years is too short. Raimis/Tobey's spiderman is still fresh in ppl's minds. The only 5 year gap btw hulk franhcises hurt the TIH imo wang's version still being in ppls mind and thinking TIH was a sequel.

 

[chaseter]

He did kill 4 of the 5 villains he used. That wasn't the point. The point Dac was making is that somehow made Raimi a horrible film maker in regards to future Spider-Man films.

So sorry for me getting defensive when people use asinine points.

Jon Favreu is 1:1 in the villain killing department. Iron Man 2 must suck

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

This was defenitely WAYYY too soon, IMO.

 

[TheSlag]

No, his point was that Sam had painted himself into a corner with the killing of 4/5 villans, anad to a degree he has for future films in this franchise.

And if John F. continues that trend of killing villains, he will do the same to that franchise (limit potential for future films).

But you seemed to be more upset with his 4/5 vs. your 4:5.

I think Sam had painted himself into a corner with his overuse of villains in SM3, which is shared blame with Sony no doubt (still does not forgive his killing off of Venom in SM3, or poor lack of use overall, or Making Sandy Uncle Ben's killer (another personal attachment to Peter)).

This, left him with *yawn* Vulture and worse *throw up* Vulturess (possibly).

DEFINITELY Must "NOT" See Villains in my book.

 

[Dragon]

Obviously, since Sony intends to make a Venom film, Venom isn't dead. And as the comics have shown, dead rarely means dead. (Although Venom should remain dead).

 

[chaseter]

No, his point was that Sam had painted himself into a corner with the killing of 4/5 villans, anad to a degree he has for future films in this franchise.

And if John F. continues that trend of killing villains, he will do the same to that franchise (limit potential for future films).

But you seemed to be more upset with his 4/5 vs. your 4:5.

I think Sam had painted himself into a corner with his overuse of villains in SM3, which is shared blame with Sony no doubt (still does not forgive his killing off of Venom in SM3, or poor lack of use overall, or Making Sandy Uncle Ben's killer (another personal attachment to Peter)).

This, left him with *yawn* Vulture and worse *throw up* Vulturess (possibly).

DEFINITELY Must "NOT" See Villains in my book.

So, painting yourself into a corner by killing off 4 villains does what for future films? Please explain to me what Dac was trying to get across. Please explain what painting yourself into a corner means in regards to future films. Please tell me.

Why would anyone want to see the same villain over and over again when there is a list of great rogues waiting to get screen time? Why would you want to see Doc Ock get a trilogy treatment and cause Mysterio to never be in a movie?


Yeah, Vulture was the only villain left in Spidey's Rogues Gallery.

 

[MrSpyder]

As long as it's done well, I think most of us care about that

 

[TheSlag]

So, painting yourself into a corner by killing off 4 villains does what for future films? Please explain to me what Dac was trying to get across. Please explain what painting yourself into a corner means in regards to future films. Please tell me.

Why would anyone want to see the same villain over and over again when there is a list of great rogues waiting to get screen time? Why would you want to see Doc Ock get a trilogy treatment and cause Mysterio to never be in a movie?


Yeah, Vulture was the only villain left in Spidey's Rogues Gallery.

Have you ever thought that some villains are good enough to keep around for future films, or good enough/powerful enough to keep for more than one? Like Joker in TDK, or how GG1 should of been in Spider-Man. Or Venom should of been for SM3/SM4. It makes the story more epic, and in the case of Gobin, adds to his rightful place as Spidey's arch enemy. Heck, Raimi cheated us out of the Goblin Legacy.

And no one is saying just cause you do not kill off a villain does NOT mean you have to see him in every film, or over and over again as you try to imply.

But killing off villains DOES limit your storylines, and can lead to Limited choices like it looked SM4 was going towards.

And yes, Spidey has more villains, although limited Grade A villains (probably only Lizard remains in that category IMO). But just because you have the greatest villains in Comics, does not mean you should disprepect and lmiit their potential by ALWAYS killing them off.

That should be the exception, where it stands out more. You then have more options down the line.

 

[chaseter]

Have you ever thought that some villains are good enough to keep around for future films, or good enough/powerful enough to keep for more than one? Like Joker in TDK, or how GG1 should of been in Spider-Man. Or Venom should of been for SM3/SM4. It makes the story more epic, and in the case of Gobin, adds to his rightful place as Spidey's arch enemy. Heck, Raimi cheated us out of the Goblin Legacy.

And no one is saying just cause you do not kill off a villain does NOT mean you have to see him in every film, or over and over again as you try to imply.

But killing off villains DOES limit your storylines, and can lead to Limited choices like it looked SM4 was going towards.

And yes, Spidey has more villains, although limited Grade A villains (probably only Lizard remains in that category IMO). But just because you have the greatest villains in Comics, does not mean you should disprepect and lmiit their potential by ALWAYS killing them off.

That should be the exception, where it stands out more. You then have more options down the line.

This was originally going to be 6 films. I can name you 10+ villains that I would like to see at some point in a Spider-Man film before a reboot occurs and they start all over. So, when you call for villains to come back that we have already seen and cause great villains to never be on the big screen, then of course that is going to piss people off. Also, people whined that SM3 had too many villains, which it did. You can't have it both ways. You can't have all the big name villains come back and also give screen time to other Rogues. Batman also has a ton of great villains. Would it piss people off to have Joker come back every movie to take the spot light from other villains? You bet. It is redundant to a point of annoyance. The only reason to keep Spidey villains alive would be the formation of the Sinister Six...which I don't think can work in a live action movie. Not to mention how ridiculously expensive it would be for cgi and pay checks. I doubt it ever happens. As someone mentioned, dying means nothing in the comic world. You could easily bring back Doc Ock. Would I have wanted that to happen? No. His story was so great in SM2 I wouldn't want to see them bastardize it like they did with the death of Uncle Ben.

Your grade of villains is your opinion. Not everybody shares that opinion. There are people that like Mysterio more than Lizard or Electro more than Green Goblin.

 

[TheSlag]

This was originally going to be 6 films. I can name you 10+ villains that I would like to see at some point in a Spider-Man film before a reboot occurs and they start all over. So, when you call for villains to come back that we have already seen and cause great villains to never be on the big screen, then of course that is going to piss people off. Also, people whined that SM3 had too many villains, which it did. You can't have it both ways. You can't have all the big name villains come back and also give screen time to other Rogues. Batman also has a ton of great villains. Would it piss people off to have Joker come back every movie to take the spot light from other villains? You bet. It is redundant to a point of annoyance. The only reason to keep Spidey villains alive would be the formation of the Sinister Six...which I don't think can work in a live action movie. Not to mention how ridiculously expensive it would be for cgi and pay checks. I doubt it ever happens. As someone mentioned, dying means nothing in the comic world. You could easily bring back Doc Ock. Would I have wanted that to happen? No. His story was so great in SM2 I wouldn't want to see them bastardize it like they did with the death of Uncle Ben.

Your grade of villains is your opinion. Not everybody shares that opinion. There are people that like Mysterio more than Lizard or Electro more than Green Goblin.

There you go again implying that I am saying the same villain should be in EVERY film. READ! that is not what I am saying.

And yes, every fan has their A-List, but IF you took a poll, you would see the Mass Majority would agree on the A-Villains. And sorry, but most of those below the A-list villains cannot carry a movie on their own.

But, answer me this, what makes GG (in Raimi's verse), Spider-Man's arch enemy, say as opposed to Doc Ock, or Hell, Even Sandman (guess Sandy gets that honor here, since HE killed Uncle Ben and is a super powered villain (in case your gonna try to throw on the wall that the burglar should be))?

 

[sauronthegreat]

Even though someone likes Electro or Mysterio more than the Green Goblin, he cannot deny the fact that the Goblin is Spidey's arch nemesis, what Joker is to Batman.
Raimi just messed with the gradation of the franchise, that's why SM4 had such troubles with the villains. It is anti climatic to have the Vulture as the main villain, and use all the new and breathtaking special effects on him, after you had the Goblin in the first film and killed him off. You cannot finish a franchise with a villain like Vulture or Rhino, because they cannot posses a greater threat to Spidey than the Goblin. Who would be interested to see the Shocker or Scorpion after seeing Octopus and Venom. To use those villains you would have to have a great story for a film, and it appears the writers and Raimi found themselves in a dead end on that front.
I also think that only Mysterio would have been a villain who could bring something new to the old franchise. I would have also liked to see Electro or Lizard, but I guess we'll have more chance seeing them in the new franchise, and before Venom or the Goblin.

 

[Jack Phantom]

Personally, this is too soon for a complete do-over origin story back to high school approach like the studio has outlined. The other actors' faces and the storylines are still too fresh in the mindstream mind, in my opinion. Perhaps it would have worked better if it weren't such a drastic shift in timeframe and such.

Beyond the time factor, what really concerns me is that this film's budget is so low compared to the other films...this sort of movie and story naturally uses an expensive amount of effects - how do you pay actors worth their salt (even a cast of unknowns will want a decent paycheck and contract signing on to this franchise), pay for effects shots and marketing on the 80 million dollar budget the studio says is allocated?

The complete reboot, time frame and budget are enough to make most scratch their heads and wonder.