The Amazing Spider-Man Too Soon!?

[TheSlag]

Since, again, a number of others have learned Peter's identity and no one else has been killed because of it, what difference does it make?

Oh, and one last point, it is important cause it takes Peter's story full circle, he lost his Uncle Ben when he refused to use his great power responsibly, while with Gwen, he lost the only girl he loved despite his great powers. If you do not think that is important, or could be very moving, that is your loss, not mine.

 

[TheSlag]

You make all kinds of great points. And then these guys just roll over them and call you a troll. I get the same thing. Instead of dealing with the issues we just get called names. These guys need to leave and go to some Raimi fan site already.

Yes, I get tired of seeing them throw out the "You're a troll if you have a critical view of all things Raimi", or posting troll pictures.

Like you said, all without debating the issue. Comes off as childish (one could say trollish) behaivor.

 

[chaseter]

Right. Cause when I point out someone is trolling it's me "whining." Dude your such a jerk it isn't even funny. Seriously. You need to back off. Because you know what? You just said I troll. Does that mean you're "whining"? Now THAT'S ironic.

But to get back on topic, Sony the film studio is not a person so I don't know why you included Sony with Arad and Ziskin. Do you not understand that Sony is a company and not an actual entity?

I didn't say you troll in that post. But, you can say other people troll but when it is implied back to you then you get offended

Do you want me to look up and list every exec and producer at Sony film studios and post all of their names instead of just saying Sony? Sony is an entity HAHAHAHA. A corporation under law is an entity.

 

[chaseter]

And you fail to see, or to comprehend, that Sam Raimi was this franchise biggest problem. Who decided to give us organics, or made Sandman Uncle Ben's killer, who decided to make Mary Jane a droll, depressing, unkempt and jealous little twit, who decided to turn Peter Parker into Peter Pan who never grows up or evolve, who decided to turn Spider-Man into a mute with no personality--who's loved by the public and giving his own parade and a key to the freakin' city, Sam Raimi?

Avi Arad and Laura Ziskin are indeed the other 40% of the Spider-Man franchise infection, I'll give you that. But at least it has a chance of survival having cut the other 60% that is Sam Raimi, Tobey and Kirsten.

Wouldn't it be nice if someday we can find cure for Spidey, by getting rid of the other 40% of his infection (Arad/Ziskin Disease), so we can see Spider-Man make a full recovery.

These message has been brought to you by DR. KAW.

Where did Dr. KAW get those statistics? May I see that report please?

Lets see, SM1 and SM2 were great movies, heralded by fans and critics as the greatest superhero movies to be created thus far, making tons of money, and generally well received. Yes, it is all Sam Raimi's fault. How dare he. How dare he make two movies that fans and critics adore. Bad Sam Raimi. But, when Sony/Arad/Zirskin, the supposed 40%, interject and force new characters and plot lines on him...he is suddenly a bad film maker and not apt to handle the job. We see this again with SM4. Yet somehow a few people on here live in a dream world where they think Sam was the entire problem and the world is now better off and the reboot will be HAXORZ AWESOMEZ. Oh to be naive. I guess it was all Brett Ranter's fault that X3 sucked? Lets blame Wolverine on Gavin Hood right? He did it all.

 

[VenomVsSpidey]

Where did Dr. KAW get those statistics? May I see that report please?

Lets see, SM1 and SM2 were great movies, heralded by fans and critics as the greatest superhero movies to be created thus far, making tons of money, and generally well received. Yes, it is all Sam Raimi's fault. How dare he. How dare he make two movies that fans and critics adore. Bad Sam Raimi. But, when Sony/Arad/Zirskin, the supposed 40%, interject and force new characters and plot lines on him...he is suddenly a bad film maker and not apt to handle the job. We see this again with SM4. Yet somehow a few people on here live in a dream world where they think Sam was the entire problem and the world is now better off and the reboot will be HAXORZ AWESOMEZ. Oh to be naive. I guess it was all Brett Ranter's fault that X3 sucked? Lets blame Wolverine on Gavin Hood right? He did it all.

 

[Doc Ock]

Where did Dr. KAW get those statistics? May I see that report please?

Lets see, SM1 and SM2 were great movies, heralded by fans and critics as the greatest superhero movies to be created thus far, making tons of money, and generally well received. Yes, it is all Sam Raimi's fault. How dare he. How dare he make two movies that fans and critics adore. Bad Sam Raimi. But, when Sony/Arad/Zirskin, the supposed 40%, interject and force new characters and plot lines on him...he is suddenly a bad film maker and not apt to handle the job. We see this again with SM4. Yet somehow a few people on here live in a dream world where they think Sam was the entire problem and the world is now better off and the reboot will be HAXORZ AWESOMEZ. Oh to be naive. I guess it was all Brett Ranter's fault that X3 sucked? Lets blame Wolverine on Gavin Hood right? He did it all.

Couldn't say it better myself. A year ago I might say Sony is ok, but now all I can say is ewww. I used to love Sony (and even FOX) but all that has disappeared faster than I ever thought it would.

 

[RustyCage]

Why would anyone want less Spidey films in the short amount of time we have in this life? Waiting longer is both silly and a WASTE.

 

[chaseter]

So quantity > quality? You should look into the Twilight series.

I would rather have 2 great Spider-Man movies that I can watch over and over again that 4 mediocre or lame movies. I can watch SM2 every day for the rest of my life...it's that good. I would rather we get a movie every 3 years than every year or two because then you end up with movies like Transformers, Twilight, etc...They rush to get those movie out as quick as they can...and they are mediocre.

 

[Dragon]

I assume you mean over many years and many stories which is not the same a movie timeline. I can only work off the years I read ASM, and I do not recall Doc Ock knowing who Spider-Man was, nor do I remember the Vulture, Kingpin, Scorpion, etc.

I didn't say anything about The Vulture or Kingpin. But Ock (Just prior to his death in the Clone Saga), The Goblin and Venom all knew his ID in the comics. And of course it would be over many years and storylines. As for the films, we won't be getting hundreds of them. So these things happening is a condensing of the ENDLESS storyline of Spider-Man from the comics.

The point here is that you and others are condemning Raimi for revealing Peter's ID and killing villains as being blasphemy, when all of this is in the source material.

Again, I can only judge from what I knew and read back during ASM. I do not know what "perverted" (it sounds storylines) have developed since, over the years.

And as far as Peter reacting to the death of Gwen Stacy, did you really expect them to write the story as "The Amazing Peter Parker"??? and have him quit being Spider-Man due to mourning? Really??? You think the sales of the comics would of been good? LOL t: Come on. Or you "really" think they were NOT going to write in another love interest? Really? Come on, you're more intelligent than that.

First off, Peter has quit being Spider-Man (Too many times in fact) for lesser reasons. He's quit because he was simply tired of it. He's quit because MJ nagged him into it. But I'm not suggesting he should have quit. I'm saying this Legacy that you're going on about isn't really that. It didn't really affect Peter's life in any big way. He still did the same things he would've done had the Goblin never existed.

But further, as I'd said, Peter has since learning of the Goblin being alive, done nothing to gain justice for Gwen (Either via revenge or the law). So if this Legacy is of such import, where are the ramifications?

You seem to be blaming the lack of the Goblin Legacy impact on the writing on the character to cater to selling comics.

Well, I am blaming the writing (What else would you blame?) but I'm also pointing out that this legacy that you're trumpeting that we were "robbed" of isn't a big deal anyway. It's just another storyline, that can be taken or left behind.

Oh, and one last point, it is important cause it takes Peter's story full circle, he lost his Uncle Ben when he refused to use his great power responsibly, while with Gwen, he lost the only girl he loved despite his great powers. If you do not think that is important, or could be very moving, that is your loss, not mine.

He didn't come full circle because of it. Full Circle means you're back where you started. That wasn't the case with Peter at all.

If anything, he'd come full circle with the death of Captain Stacy. With Cap, he lost another father-figure, due to direct action on his part. He used an untested formula to break Ock's psionic connection to his tentacles, which resulted in Cap's death. Thus his inaction killed Ben, his action killed Cap.

Gwen's death is a whole other equation and was never dealt with in the writing at all.

It has nothing to do with "Snap". According to Conway and Thomas, producers of the story, Gwen would have died whether Peter netted her or not. So there was nothing he could have done or not done to save her. Thus it has nothing to do with his powers or lack thereof.

Further, the scenario itself was BS. As the movies have so brilliantly displayed, Spidey's webbing isn't like rope. It's a flexible material which stretches and bungees. It would have to, otherwise Spidey would regularly wrench his arms from their sockets while web-swinging. So there'd have been no whiplash when he netted Gwen. And even if there were, one that would have resulted in her neck breaking is almost impossible. What's always puzzled me is that no one thinks to blame the impact with the Goblin's flyer (It always annoys me when people refer to it as a glider, since its jet-propelled). It's a hard metal device with sharp edges, capable of supporting a thousand pound load at least, that was flying at top speed (Fast enough to reach Gwen before super-fast Spidey could). In reality, it's likely such a hit would've cut Gwen in two.

So Spidey's guilt in her death has nothing to do with what happened on the bridge. His guilt, is in that he was always too cowardly to simply reveal his secret to her. What problem would telling her the truth have caused him? She wouldn't have snitched on him, And it would've saved the stress of constantly lying to her about his disappearances. But Gwen had no idea that she was walking with a target on her back, thus couldn't make her own decision about whether or not to distance herself from Peter. But again, this was never explored.

And as I'd mentioned, Gwen's death did nothing to change Peter's life and wasn't really the point of it. Gerry Conway simply wanted to:

1. Spark sales (Which failed, sales dropped)
2. Get rid of Gwen and link Peter with MJ (Big deal, since Marvel was constantly trying to get rid of MJ afterwards).

It had nothing to do with a Legacy or coming full circle.

 

[spider-neil]

So quantity > quality? You should look into the Twilight series.

I would rather have 2 great Spider-Man movies that I can watch over and over again that 4 mediocre or lame movies. I can watch SM2 every day for the rest of my life...it's that good. I would rather we get a movie every 3 years than every year or two because then you end up with movies like Transformers, Twilight, etc...They rush to get those movie out as quick as they can...and they are mediocre.

to be fair LOTR came out every year and was excellent

 

[DACMAN]

Great point. Be ready to get called a troll.

 

[DACMAN]

Why would anyone want less Spidey films in the short amount of time we have in this life? Waiting longer is both silly and a WASTE.

Ex-freaken-actly!

And in my opinion anyone that wants less Spider-Man films isn't really a fan of Spider-Man. One of them actually said we should have a break from the films for 30 years! 30 years!!! This site is infected by Raimi fans. But what I really love is at the end of the day they can kick and scream all they want. We still win, and Raimi is not coming back, Tobey isn't coming back and neither is Kirsten.

 

[david icke]

to be fair LOTR came out every year and was excellent

LOTR was one big movie that was released in 3 parts as the post-production was worked on inbetween releases.
They had the story and screenplay already written out and planned, not to mention all the roles cast for all 3 sections before shooting even started.
It's an entirely different situation to folk rush releasing sequels.

Tbh, I though they should have taken 3yrs with Spider-man 2, it turned out fine, but suffered a little from not having much in the way of Spider-man action. There's only two really developed set-pieces in that one showcasing Spidey's powers.

with less of a budget and a less experienced director, I wonder how a rushed spider-man movie will turn out.

edit: I mean, everyone knows that they stared filming the spidey/Ock train fight before they even had a script fully written for 2, so I think we can safely say that we will not be getting anything as developed and extensive as that in this new movie.

edit: I am just hoping for getting something akin to the 1st X-Men movie, spot-on characterisation and good interactions, with some classy action scenes, getting the most they can out of the limited budget. I am also hoping that the budget will be more than this 80mil rumour.

But, as a rule these movies should not be rushed, I think 3yrs between films is the right amount of time for them generally.

As said, SM2 has only two extensive Spidey action scenes, and it also suffers from what a lot of sequels do, doing re-heat beats from the original, mainly in the middle section. What a sequel has to do is find it's own flavour, and be a different kind of movie from the 1st one, while still maintaining the same rules for the universe, and tone. Best example of this is TDK to BB.
3yrs is the right development time for this kind of thing.

 

[TheSlag]

I didn't say anything about The Vulture or Kingpin. But Ock (Just prior to his death in the Clone Saga), The Goblin and Venom all knew his ID in the comics. And of course it would be over many years and storylines. As for the films, we won't be getting hundreds of them. So these things happening is a condensing of the ENDLESS storyline of Spider-Man from the comics.

The point here is that you and others are condemning Raimi for revealing Peter's ID and killing villains as being blasphemy, when all of this is in the source material.

No, the point is we have had 5 villains (GG1, GG2(surfer Dood), Ock, Venom, Sandman in the movies so far (3) and Sam is 5 for 5 on who has known Spidey's identify. As well as MJ, Various NY'ers, and Aunt May (it appears) all know as well. THAT is not a good track record.

First off, Peter has quit being Spider-Man (Too many times in fact) for lesser reasons. He's quit because he was simply tired of it. He's quit because MJ nagged him into it. But I'm not suggesting he should have quit. I'm saying this Legacy that you're going on about isn't really that. It didn't really affect Peter's life in any big way. He still did the same things he would've done had the Goblin never existed.

But further, as I'd said, Peter has since learning of the Goblin being alive, done nothing to gain justice for Gwen (Either via revenge or the law). So if this Legacy is of such import, where are the ramifications?

Yes, Peter has quit over MANY comic arcs, this is the movies which is only 3 to this point. There is a big difference in the implied time spans in both, as well as differences in the mediums (for example why in novels you can go into so much further character development that movies cannot afford the time, nor the patience of the viewing audience).

And I am not going to take away from the greatness that is Gwen Stacy's death arc, simply because at the time the writers wanted Gwen out, and MJ in, and thus chose to write it without the mourning or Spidey quiting.

Well, I am blaming the writing (What else would you blame?) but I'm also pointing out that this legacy that you're trumpeting that we were "robbed" of isn't a big deal anyway. It's just another storyline, that can be taken or left behind.

The writing was simply a plot device to write out Gwen and introduce MJ more to the forefront. Yes, it was poor writing, but just because it was poor writing to not have a more significant impact on Peter's (written) life at the time (as a means to intro MJ more as the MAIN love interest), does not diminish the impact of the story, as it HAS PROVEN to be as the arc is a classic that is revered now.

He didn't come full circle because of it. Full Circle means you're back where you started. That wasn't the case with Peter at all.

Yes, full circle was probably a poor choice of words, but it still furthered the story that even with his powers, he cannot save all. Just as powerful, if not more than the Uncle Ben storyline.

If anything, he'd come full circle with the death of Captain Stacy. With Cap, he lost another father-figure, due to direct action on his part. He used an untested formula to break Ock's psionic connection to his tentacles, which resulted in Cap's death. Thus his inaction killed Ben, his action killed Cap.

I can agree with that, but regardless, we did not get that storyline in Raimi's version either, along with the additional story of Gwen, the love of his life blaming Spider-Man for the death of her father. Pity.

Gwen's death is a whole other equation and was never dealt with in the writing at all.

It has nothing to do with "Snap". According to Conway and Thomas, producers of the story, Gwen would have died whether Peter netted her or not. So there was nothing he could have done or not done to save her. Thus it has nothing to do with his powers or lack thereof.

You are taking this all way too literal, with the SNAP. The point was simply, even with powers, he could not save the girl he loved, whether you think Gwen died from the snagging of the webbing or not, the storyline is still greatness. She paid the ultimate price for him being Spider-Man.

Further, the scenario itself was BS. As the movies have so brilliantly displayed, Spidey's webbing isn't like rope. It's a flexible material which stretches and bungees. It would have to, otherwise Spidey would regularly wrench his arms from their sockets while web-swinging. So there'd have been no whiplash when he netted Gwen. And even if there were, one that would have resulted in her neck breaking is almost impossible. What's always puzzled me is that no one thinks to blame the impact with the Goblin's flyer (It always annoys me when people refer to it as a glider, since its jet-propelled). It's a hard metal device with sharp edges, capable of supporting a thousand pound load at least, that was flying at top speed (Fast enough to reach Gwen before super-fast Spidey could). In reality, it's likely such a hit would've cut Gwen in two.

Again, way too literal, and missing the point. The point again being, she died because Peter "was" Spider-Man despite his powers.

So Spidey's guilt in her death has nothing to do with what happened on the bridge. His guilt, is in that he was always too cowardly to simply reveal his secret to her. What problem would telling her the truth have caused him? She wouldn't have snitched on him, And it would've saved the stress of constantly lying to her about his disappearances. But Gwen had no idea that she was walking with a target on her back, thus couldn't make her own decision about whether or not to distance herself from Peter. But again, this was never explored.

Neither here nor there in the point I was making.

So I guess you're saying movie Peter was a coward for not telling MJ too then? And for not telling Aunt May, and not telling JJ (since heck, he would be at risk too). Heck EVERYONE who he had any contact with would be at risk in this scenerio then.

And as I'd mentioned, Gwen's death did nothing to change Peter's life and wasn't really the point of it. Gerry Conway simply wanted to:

1. Spark sales (Which failed, sales dropped)
2. Get rid of Gwen and link Peter with MJ (Big deal, since Marvel was constantly trying to get rid of MJ afterwards).

It had nothing to do with a Legacy or coming full circle.

The after effect (as shown by the arc is so treasured now) did, but I agree the "intended" effect failed, and THUS explains why the story was written as such, and that is what you're main argument is. That because Peter was NOT written as mourning, it was NOT significant. Wrong. That was simply the way it was written at the time for the reasons you listed, as well as I did above. And as you said, it failed. But it still is a significant story arc in Spider-Man Mythos. A Legacy, if you will. (intended or not) t:

 

[TheSlag]

to be fair LOTR came out every year and was excellent

Great Point! Yes, quantity does not necessarially imply poor quality.

 

[Dangerous]

This site is infected by Raimi fans. But what I really love is at the end of the day they can kick and scream all they want. We still win, and Raimi is not coming back, Tobey isn't coming back and neither is Kirsten.

I freakin love it too!
I feel like yelling 'Suck it Raimi fans!' but if I did that, I might get in trouble.

I vividly recall sitting in the movie theater in 2002 at the age of 22 for the first showing of Spider-Man in Manchester/England. Watching trailers waiting for the film to start... I can't really put into words how excited I felt. It was as if my whole life had been building towards that day. Sounds pretty OTT but as a super fan of Spidey, it was literally the equivalent of a boxer walking down to the ring to face the world heavyweight champion, or the competitors of the men's 100 meters lining up for the Olympic final!

The moment I had dreamed about was finally here!

I became a Spiderfan at the age of 2 while watching 'Amazing Friends' and had collected the comics since the age of 10. I remembered all the film adaptation false starts, all the times it was said that Spider-man the movie was coming, particularly when James Cameron said after T2 his next film would be the ol' web head, in which Arnold would be Doc Ock! Weird. Alas it never happened.

So I'm sitting in the theater on my own at 11.00am on a Thursday waiting for the film... and then the black screen before credits that reads 'Spider-Man' in white.
Argghhh!!!! SO EXCITED!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I remember watching it intently, it taking up my full attention. Mesmerized.
If someone had keeled over and had a heart attack a few seats away from me I probably would not have even noticed, let alone cared.

After the film, I walked out of the theater thinking (telling myself) it was great. How could it not be? It’s Spider-Man the movie!!! But the fact was there was a significant portion of discontent within me that would take two years for me to even acknowledge. I told myself that the film was a 10/10 or at the least a 9/10, but the fact was deep down inside, subconsciously, I thought much less of it than that. I just did not know yet.

There was stuff about the film which I thought was great- Willem Dafoe, the speech GG gives SM atop the Bugle, the webslinging scene at the end... Hmm that was about it.

But amongst the stuff that rubbed me up the wrong way, primarily those being 'It's all about a girl' (-No Raimi, you just missed the whole point of Spider-man! IT IS NOT ALL ABOUT A GIRL, IT'S ALL ABOUT PETER PARKER!), The 'Green Goblin' costume- FAIL, the horrible raised webbing/ padded suit/ painted on muscles Spidey costume, Kirsten Dunst- Mary Jane?!, .....

Amongst it all…. The main thing that really ticked me off was Tobey Maguire.
As PP in all 3 films he had no backbone, came off like a total drip and wuss with zero personality. In effect NOTHING like PP, and as Spidey had the same weak voice and none of the webslinger's trade mark humor.

It wasn't until after watching SM2, that I could finally admit all these things to myself. SM2 played out like some lams ass MTV movie and the only good bit was the train fight at the end. What the heck was all that stuff about making Octavius into this likable normal guy at the beginning? We never saw any of that in the comics and those scenes were boring as hell to watch and only served to dilute the character and fluff out the film.

It was a bitter pill to swallow; - that the films I had waited my whole life for, had Spidey miscast amongst many other crappy issues. Like making the focus of the series a corny movie-ized romance story.

NOW FINALLY IT IS OVER!

NOW FINALLY WE HAVE A SECOND CHANCE TO SEE SPIDEY PORTRAYED CORRECTLY IN A MOVIE.

So I'm pretty damn happy about the reboot and glad it's happening now rather than later. The main thing I am concerned about is the guy who gets cast as PP/SM playing those roles with more vibrancy, personality and backbone. If we can see Spider-Man's & Peter Parker's personality's portrayed correctly this time, the new film will be 10x better than Spider-Man 2002 by default.

 

[TheSlag]

LOTR was one big movie that was released in 3 parts as the post-production was worked on inbetween releases.
They had the story and screenplay already written out and planned, not to mention all the roles cast for all 3 sections before shooting even started.
It's an entirely different situation to folk rush releasing sequels.

Isn't that the case with the script they currently have with this reboot? I thought they said the script would cover two films.

And I would assume (surely Shirley ) they would be casting for this movie as well as future movies as well.

 

[david icke]

Isn't that the case with the script they currently have with this reboot? I thought they said the script would cover two films.

And I would assume (surely Shirley ) they would be casting for this movie as well as future movies as well.

They have to cast and book the actors for seperate films, there will be new roles to cast in the second one, they will not be booking anyone upfront for that now. The 1st movie could be a disaster of course.

TLOTR was one big movie that had a shooting time of almost two years iirc. It's entirely different from prepping one movie for 6months, shooting the movie in 6 months, and then doing 3months post-production, everyone going off to do other work, or taking a break, and then coming back to do the same.
Whichever way you look at it, it's an entirely different situation, TLOTR is not 3 different movies, it's one movie that was released in 3 parts.

 

[david icke]

If we can see Spider-Man's & Peter Parker's personality's portrayed correctly this time, the new film will be 10x better than Spider-Man 2002 by default.

I am hoping that the characterisation will be spot-on in the new movie, I think it's the only thing that has potential to outshine the Raimi movies. Because, at this point, with hearing rumours of an 80mil budget, there is reason to believe that the movie will not fell as epic as the earlier movies, less Spider-man action and big New York scenes.
It's the characterisation that this movie is depending on, if that is sub-par we will probably be getting a spider-man film on a level of the 2nd FF film. If the rumours are true about that budget(I hope not) I think we will be getting a spider-man movie on that level of spectacle, ie only one major set piece that is well executed and truly exciting, with a smattering of little ones.
The new movie will most likely be like two or three eps of Smallville stuck together with better sfx, lots of high school/romance stuff, and a little superhero action here and there.

edit: but, to go back to your point that i quoted...even if the movie has spot-on characterisation...if it does not have convincing, iconic spider-man poses, physics and action, it will fail as a Spider-man movie.

 

[TheSlag]

I understand that, but I think they could take the same approach with the Reboot. Shoot the two movies (or 1 if you prefer) back to back, but distributing as two separate movies/release dates.

Similar to what they did with LOTR's 3 releases.

They have the script for two movies, or what will be shot as two movies.

 

[david icke]

I understand that, but I think they could take the same approach with the Reboot. Shoot the two movies (or 1 if you prefer) back to back, but distributing as two separate movies/release dates.

Similar to what they did with LOTR's 3 releases.

They have the script for two movies, or what will be shot as two movies.

I think money seems to be an issue here with Sony though, part of the reason they wanted rid of Raimi i suspect.
an 80mil budget is pretty ridiculous for a tried and tested blockbusting franchise like this.
They will want to test the water with the first movie i think.
I wouldn't want an inexperienced director handling two movies back to back either, he has only done one movie before, and it wasn't an action or sci-fi type.
I would prefer they take their time with the first one and get right, take tehir time with all of them. Make them all feel different to some extent.

 

[TheSlag]

I understand your point, but to me, if they have the script and the ability to shoot basically two movies at once, that in itself would save them quite a bit of the cost of shooting movies to begin with.

And I completely agree that to an extent, money was a driving factor in this decision. Cost savings. I can understand that to a point, since this is a business for Sony, as long as the end product does not suffer from it.

As far as the reported 80 million budget goes, I take that (do not know mind you) the 80 million figure is just the ball park figure they want for making the movie itself. Not the total investment in the flim itself.

i.e.... Distribution costs, copies cost, advertising, distribution, etc. would all be more, or added to that figure is the way I took it.

And of course that 80 million ball park figure is just that, a ball park figure, that could easily increase (or for that matter.. decrease) once the filming starts.

I think Sony knows they have a cash cow with Spider-Man, and I doubt they will let $$ spent keep them from delivering quality in that aspect.


And IF they do as you posted earlier, basically give us what is basically several episodes of Smallville clumped together as the reboot, it would be the BIGGEST MISTAKE Sony has ever made.

I certainly "hope" nor think they will though. The movie is primarially about Spider-Man, not Peter Parker (or Clark Kent as Smallville *spit* is).

Thank God!

 

[©KAW]

Where did Dr. KAW get those statistics? May I see that report please?

Lets see, SM1 and SM2 were great movies, heralded by fans and critics as the greatest superhero movies to be created thus far, making tons of money, and generally well received. Yes, it is all Sam Raimi's fault. How dare he. How dare he make two movies that fans and critics adore. Bad Sam Raimi. But, when Sony/Arad/Zirskin, the supposed 40%, interject and force new characters and plot lines on him...he is suddenly a bad film maker and not apt to handle the job. We see this again with SM4. Yet somehow a few people on here live in a dream world where they think Sam was the entire problem and the world is now better off and the reboot will be HAXORZ AWESOMEZ. Oh to be naive. I guess it was all Brett Ranter's fault that X3 sucked? Lets blame Wolverine on Gavin Hood right? He did it all.

You wanna see the report, check the Press Release of Sam Raimi, Tobey and Kirsten not coming back. If the movies were so great, like The Dark Knight is, why doesn't Sony allow Raimi 100% control over the movies like Chris Nolan. Sam Raimi was always a cheesy film maker, watch 'Evil Dead' or "Dark Man' simply too much cheese in his action films. The man can't control his cheese.

Yeah, so the problem is mostly Sam Raimi followed by his two stooges...Avi Arad and Laura Ziskin. Combined they don't know squat about Spider-Man...the films are proof of that.

 

[Deaths Head II]

If the movies were so great, like The Dark Knight is, why doesn't Sony allow Raimi 100% control over the movies like Chris Nolan.

Because Sony isn't Warner Bros?

 

[Deaths Head II]

You make all kinds of great points. And then these guys just roll over them and call you a troll. I get the same thing. Instead of dealing with the issues we just get called names. These guys need to leave and go to some Raimi fan site already.

You know if you guys didn't have such a smug attitude and if you didn't say things like this you probably wouldn't be called trolls. Just saying.