Homecoming Was the 2012 reboot pointless?

[X Knight]

after finally watching TASM 2, I still stand by my opinion that the reboot was pointless. especially if this series is truly over and the next incarnation will be another reboot from Marvel.

First, I will say, TASM 2 wasn't as bad as I thought. I actually enjoyed it more than TASM. but still, I never felt the same level of excitement, wonder, and enjoyment that I felt from the 1st 2 Raimi films.

There were some good/interesting ideas in the TASM films. It's just that the execution of the story and characters left a lot to be desired.

Not to mention the tone felt inconsistent between the 2 movies. TASM felt edgier, darker, grittier, more "real world." While TASM 2 felt more light hearted, more "comic book world," with camp bordering on Batman Forever/B+R level.

Plus, stuff like the whole parents sub plot that felt superfluous in the end, as well as subplots like finding Uncle Ben's killer that was dropped entirely.

Overall, it felt like they added stuff and changed things for sake of doing something different since they were doing an origin story again.

 

[Super Jim]

Was it "pointless"?

Nope, not from Sony's perspective. Not only did it keep the rights with Sony (which they will NEVER give up for anything less than so much that Disney will NEVER give it to them), but it set a new, updated movie-verse.

What I just can't get over it how so many of you guys are relating TASM2 to the joke that was Spiderman 3 or the campyness of Batman Forever and Batman and Robin. Let me just point out some things:

Batnipples!!!!!

The point is obvious...

TASM2 was no where as bad as Spiderman 3 or these Batman attrocities. Yes, Max Dillon was pitifully done:

But truthfully, the villains were the one place they mucked things up a bit, and this is something they can fix.

Just go forward with an Amazing Spider Man 3 with Garfield, but use a story that portrays a "real world" villain. For example, if they went with a Kraven the Hunter story and made it centered in the world of 2015, they could put things back on track...

 

[Lord]

Spider-Man 3's campyness didn't feel so bad in the context of the film because it was part of Raimi's style, always has been, his campyness works most of the time, that film was one of the instances where the film was hurt by too much of it, but it didn't come near Amazing Spider-Man 2's because of the way that movie was executed, look at Rhino, Electro, GG Harry or Kafka, they were just ridulous in their campyness.

Raimi's villains had some level of camp, but aside from a few problem in characters like Venom, it usualy worked and was more entertaining than ridiculous.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I never like Raimi's humor or camp.

It felt condescending as if to say "aren't these funny books dumb?"

 

[Lord]

Huh? He had it in Evil Dead, Darkman and Drag Me to Hell too, it's always been one of his trademarks.

 

[W/ Great Power]

Spider-Man 3's campyness didn't feel so bad in the context of the film because it was part of Raimi's style, always has been, his campyness works most of the time, that film was one of the instances where the film was hurt by too much of it, but it didn't come near Amazing Spider-Man 2's because of the way that movie was executed, look at Rhino, Electro, GG Harry or Kafka, they were just ridulous in their campyness.

Raimi's villains had some level of camp, but aside from a few problem in characters like Venom, it usualy worked and was more entertaining than ridiculous.

I agree with this.

I always thought there was a significant amount of cheese in Raimi's films, but it was handled much differently and the execution of the villains compensated for it.

For the record, I thought TASM1 had found a good balance and it worked very well. However, with TASM2, they tried too be too comic-booky, so to speak, and the poor handling of the villains (especially Rhino) combined with the cheese just left an overall bad taste in my mouth.

 

[Super Jim]

^ No one argues that the place where they went bad in TASM2 was the villains.

But simple question...

If they go forward with TASM3, but go with a main, solitary villain (not the S6), and keep it grounded in the reality of 2016, would you be happy? For example, if the main villain was nothing more than Kraven the Hunter who has been hired/lured into the hunt of his lifetime, with the purpose of getting Spiderman's blood (needed to "cure" Harry), and possibly one secondary villain, (like Cameleon) put in for support, along with support characters like Aunt May, Black Cat, Bugle staff, Empire State characters, and possibly a friend in MJ, would you be happy?

 

[Lord]

You sound as if you were the screewriter of the film

To be honest, i actualy hope they more or less go that road, i think that now Webb and SONY have a bigger reason to deliver a great movie, and keeping it focused with a single villain the Director realy wants to use will most likely lead to some good stuff. It would also suck for those that are invested in the rebooted universe to then have to see it rebooted, so i hope SONY gets to finish their arc.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

^ No one argues that the place where they went bad in TASM2 was the villains.

But simple question...

If they go forward with TASM3, but go with a main, solitary villain (not the S6), and keep it grounded in the reality of 2016, would you be happy? For example, if the main villain was nothing more than Kraven the Hunter who has been hired/lured into the hunt of his lifetime, with the purpose of getting Spiderman's blood (needed to "cure" Harry), and possibly one secondary villain, (like Cameleon) put in for support, along with support characters like Aunt May, Black Cat, Bugle staff, Empire State characters, and possibly a friend in MJ, would you be happy?

No, because I've lost faith in the people in charge. It doesn't matter what they do as long as the same clowns (Pascal, Arad, Tolmach, Webb) are around.

 

[LEVITIKUZ]

Was the 2012 reboot pointless?

 

[henzINNIT]

I thought it was pointless then, and most certainly feel the same now.

Sony never cared about quality. SM3 ticked their marketing boxes and made a ton of money, never mind how twisted the story became under their interference. Raimi walked away from 4 because he actually cared about the material and couldn't churn out a film fast enough. Webb was hired as a yes man. Everything we've seen since is the result of a studio having even more power to meddle and no idea what they are doing with it.

 

[Frodo]

Was it "pointless"?



What I just can't get over it how so many of you guys are relating TASM2 to the joke that was Spiderman 3 or the campyness of Batman Forever and Batman and Robin. Let me just point out some things:

All three had campy elements to them so in that sense , relating ASM2 to the films isn't unfair. Heck ASM had a giant talking Lizard with a welsh accent and that was quite campy. All the Spiderman films had camp in them to one degree or another.

Is ASM 2 as bad as Schumacer's films in general, no. However I do think its debatable whether SM3 is worse as a film overall .

 

[HarryOsborn]

Was it "pointless"?

Nope, not from Sony's perspective. Not only did it keep the rights with Sony (which they will NEVER give up for anything less than so much that Disney will NEVER give it to them), but it set a new, updated movie-verse.

What I just can't get over it how so many of you guys are relating TASM2 to the joke that was Spiderman 3 or the campyness of Batman Forever and Batman and Robin. Let me just point out some things:

Batnipples!!!!!

The point is obvious...

TASM2 was no where as bad as Spiderman 3 or these Batman attrocities. Yes, Max Dillon was pitifully done:

But truthfully, the villains were the one place they mucked things up a bit, and this is something they can fix.

Just go forward with an Amazing Spider Man 3 with Garfield, but use a story that portrays a "real world" villain. For example, if they went with a Kraven the Hunter story and made it centered in the world of 2015, they could put things back on track...

It's absolutely hilarious you used Jim Carrey's riddler when he is almost identical to jamie fox's max dillon! spider-man 3 is a let down with a consistent campy tone, amazing spider-man 2 has no plot and jumps from the dark knight realism to schumacher campiness in seconds.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

It seems like the price of admitting Spidey into the MCU is rebooting the character, again. At this point I have ask, was the 2012 Spidey reboot pointless? Sony could have done this deal with Marvel back in 2012. This would be the third reboot in a relatively short amount of time (Spider-Man 3 was only 7 years ago).

I felt Amazing Spider-Man covered too much of the same ground Spider-Man 1 covered and Amazing Spider-Man 2 had some of the problems Spider-Man 3 had, Spider-Man 2 is still the best of the bunch.

I felt the 2012 reboot happened way to soon after the Raimi Trilogy ended. I guess my preference is to try and fit the stuff Sony did with the new movies into the MCU (since I think another reboot at this point would kind of silly and too soon), but since Marvel doesn't want, I am wondering what this new Spidey franchise will do to avoid covering the same ground and making the same mistakes as the last two Spidey franchises.

dkr was 2012, and we will be treated with a new batman just 4 years after that.

Spoiler

instead of just having christian bale in the dccu

 

[Nemeres]

All three had campy elements to them so in that sense , relating ASM2 to the films isn't unfair. Heck ASM had a giant talking Lizard with a welsh accent and that was quite campy. All the Spiderman films had camp in them to one degree or another.

Is ASM 2 as bad as Schumacer's films in general, no. However I do think its debatable whether SM3 is worse as a film overall.

In terms of badness, I think SM3 is more memorable. I don't see anything from TASM2 enduring in the collective consciousness as much as emo Peter or the dancing scenes. That alone puts it below, imo.

 

[W/ Great Power]

^ No one argues that the place where they went bad in TASM2 was the villains.

But simple question...

If they go forward with TASM3, but go with a main, solitary villain (not the S6), and keep it grounded in the reality of 2016, would you be happy? For example, if the main villain was nothing more than Kraven the Hunter who has been hired/lured into the hunt of his lifetime, with the purpose of getting Spiderman's blood (needed to "cure" Harry), and possibly one secondary villain, (like Cameleon) put in for support, along with support characters like Aunt May, Black Cat, Bugle staff, Empire State characters, and possibly a friend in MJ, would you be happy?

What Ramsus said.

That sounds like a solid route to go, but by now I've realized many posters on here have consistently come up with better plot-lines than what we've gotten from Sony so far. I don't think they have it in them to come up with a congruent story like that.

Additionally, it's hard to bounce back from where TASM2 left off. What held TASM2 on it's shaky knees was the Peter/Gwen dynamic. A solid trilogy has to have a backup plan and arcs to fall on that it knows the audience will be interested in. They focused so much on Peter and Gwen, that their story to fall back on was the area with the most glaring issues: the development of villains. Now, no one is interested in what we have left - there is nothing from TASM2 that has left the audience craving for a sequel. Many people didn't like TASM1, but at least it had something which genuinely warranted another movie; unfortunately, TASM2 didn't have that at all.

The leaks about their ideas for S6 were the last straw for me. I at least had faith in Goddard to right the ship a little bit; but based on the emails, it seems like that just won't be the case.

 

[Spider2099]

Additionally, it's hard to bounce back from where TASM2 left off. What held TASM2 on it's shaky knees was the Peter/Gwen dynamic. A solid trilogy has to have a backup plan and arcs to fall on that it knows the audience will be interested in. They focused so much on Peter and Gwen, that their story to fall back on was the area with the most glaring issues: the development of villains. Now, no one is interested in what we have left - there is nothing from TASM2 that has left the audience craving for a sequel. Many people didn't like TASM1, but at least it had something which genuinely warranted another movie; unfortunately, TASM2 didn't have that at all.

I found TASM1 to be enjoyable. It had many, many shortcomings, but I think there were enough positive things in the film that gave me an interest in that world created by Marc Webb. I was annoyed by the presence of so many unresolved plots, but I really wanted a sequel to explain what happened to Peter's parents, what was going on with Norman Osborn, Uncle Ben's killer, and more Peter and Gwen. I was actually really excited for a sequel and I thought we were in store for something truly amazing. I saw TASM1 as the movie that "took a bullet" for the franchise and perhaps they could do something amazing with the next installment. By the end of TASM2, most of that had been ruined for me and I really could care less about seeing a third movie.

The leaks about their ideas for S6 were the last straw for me. I at least had faith in Goddard to right the ship a little bit; but based on the emails, it seems like that just won't be the case.

But wait, a giant sandman walking around NYC isn't enough to make it a great movie?

lol jk. I really hope this S6 movie doesn't get made.

 

[W/ Great Power]

I found TASM1 to be enjoyable. It had many, many shortcomings, but I think there were enough positive things in the film that gave me an interest in that world created by Marc Webb. I was annoyed by the presence of so many unresolved plots, but I really wanted a sequel to explain what happened to Peter's parents, what was going on with Norman Osborn, Uncle Ben's killer, and more Peter and Gwen. I was actually really excited for a sequel and I thought we were in store for something truly amazing. I saw TASM1 as the movie that "took a bullet" for the franchise and perhaps they could do something amazing with the next installment. By the end of TASM2, most of that had been ruined for me and I really could care less about seeing a third movie.

Agreed with everything you said.

TASM1, in my opinion, is still a solid 8/10 for me. I left the theaters genuinely intrigued that there might be something interesting that they have planned for the sequel. At that time it actually seemed like they had a plan for the series.

TASM2 and the leaks removed all doubt.

But wait, a giant sandman walking around NYC isn't enough to make it a great movie?

lol jk. I really hope this S6 movie doesn't get made.

No, thank you, but Godzilla will do

 

[Spider2099]

Agreed with everything you said.

TASM1, in my opinion, is still a solid 8/10 for me. I left the theaters genuinely intrigued that there might be something interesting that they have planned for the sequel. At that time it actually seemed like they had a plan for the series.

TASM2 and the leaks removed all doubt.

What makes me sad about TASM1 is that it's lasting impression is so highly dependent on the sequel. If the second film was a success, I think more people would be appreciative of the first film. With the second movie being awful, it sort of makes the franchise feel rather pointless, and TASM1 doesn't stand on its own. I still give it a 7.5-8/10, but my enjoyment of it has sort of been ruined since a lot of the mysteries introduced no longer intrigue me.

This makes me wonder about what James Vanderbilt's script for TASM2 was like.

No, thank you, but Godzilla will do

The Godzilla-sized Sandman in Spider-Man 3 saved that movie, right?

 

[W/ Great Power]

What makes me sad about TASM1 is that it's lasting impression is so highly dependent on the sequel. If the second film was a success, I think more people would be appreciative of the first film. With the second movie being awful, it sort of makes the franchise feel rather pointless, and TASM1 doesn't stand on its own. I still give it a 7.5-8/10, but my enjoyment of it has sort of been ruined since a lot of the mysteries introduced no longer intrigue me.

This makes me wonder about what James Vanderbilt's script for TASM2 was like.

What you mentioned is exactly the difference between TASM1 and TASM2.

TASM1 actually suffices as a standalone film that was solid. The plot was obvious, the movie flowed well from one scene to another, and it ended with everything still making sense. Even the Lizard, in my opinion, was developed well as a villain.

TASM2 doesn't stand on its own at all. It seems like a compilation of so many different stories. In one scene we're supposed to care about Electro, in the next Harry, then Peter's struggles, his parents, Gwen, etc. So many stories were being told at once, that it became impossible to dedicate the appropriate time to each of them. It felt like the series was fast forwarding just so it could get to the S6.

For the record, the different plot-lines themselves weren't bad. Instead of trying to shoehorn everything into one movie, a solid trilogy could have been constructed if all the plots and arcs were fleshed out.

The Godzilla-sized Sandman in Spider-Man 3 saved that movie, right?

Let's not go there, please

 

[Spider2099]

TASM2 doesn't stand on its own at all. It seems like a compilation of so many different stories. In one scene we're supposed to care about Electro, in the next Harry, then Peter's struggles, his parents, Gwen, etc. So many stories were being told at once, that it became impossible to dedicate the appropriate time to each of them. It felt like the series was fast forwarding just so it could get to the S6.

For the record, the different plot-lines themselves weren't bad. Instead of trying to shoehorn everything into one movie, a solid trilogy could have been constructed if all the plots and arcs were fleshed out.

I feel the same about TASM2. On paper, each plot-line is actually very good, but unfortunately they were all crammed into one movie. If they took their time fleshing everything out then I think we could have had one of the best Spider-Man stories ever told on film.

 

[HarryOsborn]

The Amazing Spider-Man is NOT a movie that stands well on it's own. All of act I is centered around Peter's parents, who are not mentioned again. All of act II is centered around Uncle Ben's killer, who is not mentioned again. All of act III is centered on the Lizard, who isn't built up very well. See what I loved about the Amazing Spider-Man was Peter's portrayal, the love story, the songs featured, the real world feel, and the hyper science that exists from the Oscorp company. However the movie was dependent on the sequel's success.

It would be like if in Empire Strikes Back Obi-Wan tells Luke to go to Yoda, then on the way he finds out his father might not have been a good guy so goes off to investigate that instead, but at the end before he gets answers Han and the gang are in trouble so he goes and fights off Boba Fett who's been following them since Act II. There would be a lot of intrigue, a lot of potential, but nothing is resolved by the end of the film thus it's entirely dependent on the sequel to give a satisfying conclusion to these story threads in order for the movie to hold up once the mystery is gone.

Sony instead decided to tease fans once again by setting things in place, but failed by only glossing over the unresolved threads with "Oscorp is evil". That's like making a world war II movie and showing a German scientist find evidence of a massive supernatural attack, and then find out the answer to the mystery is Hilter is bad- duh!

The thing that was good about Spider-Man 2 was that the meat of the film was about Peter, Ock, and Harry learning to give up their dreams for what is right and each character has a satisfying conclusion to their arcs. Ock makes the wrong choices and thus must sacrifice himself to right his wrongs, Peter makes the right choice by sacrificing MJ and his personal for the greater good and is rewarded with being allowed the love of his life, Harry refuses to give up his dream of having a loving father upon the revelations and pays with his sanity. I'd be lying if I said SM3 didn't hurt the film by taking away from Harry's cliffhanger, but that's the thing, it was just a cliffhanger- the beginning of a new thread, not one left unresolved. The Amazing Spider-Man had none of these payoffs and destroyed it's ability to stand on it's own, unfortunately what followed was awful, so it too therefore collapses.

 

[Venom'sDad]

No, because I've lost faith in the people in charge. It doesn't matter what they do as long as the same clowns (Pascal, Arad, Tolmach, Webb) are around.

Agree

 

[Spider2099]

The thing that was good about Spider-Man 2 was that the meat of the film was about Peter, Ock, and Harry learning to give up their dreams for what is right and each character has a satisfying conclusion to their arcs. Ock makes the wrong choices and thus must sacrifice himself to right his wrongs, Peter makes the right choice by sacrificing MJ and his personal for the greater good and is rewarded with being allowed the love of his life, Harry refuses to give up his dream of having a loving father upon the revelations and pays with his sanity. I'd be lying if I said SM3 didn't hurt the film by taking away from Harry's cliffhanger, but that's the thing, it was just a cliffhanger- the beginning of a new thread, not one left unresolved. The Amazing Spider-Man had none of these payoffs and destroyed it's ability to stand on it's own, unfortunately what followed was awful, so it too therefore collapses.

Even with the Harry Osborn cliffhanger, I don't think SM2 was ruined by SM3 at all. If the second film ended with Harry drinking the Goblin formula and we had to wait for the third to see what happened to him, it might be a little more drastic. He discovers his father's lab and all of his Goblin equipment (after finding out Peter's secret identity), and that's really it. SM2 stands on its own quite well, and that's something the filmmakers need to consider for future movies. Raimi made sure to focus on the current film being made, but left just enough "open" for future movies to thread overarching storylines, particularly with Harry.

 

[Spider-Fan]

The reboot was definitely pointless. The Spider-Man brand has never been worse in reputation critically or financially, and they didn't have to reboot period. So, yes.