Homecoming Was the 2012 reboot pointless?

[spiderman2]

Ok question. If sony could go back in time before they made asm1 and 2 but if they where to still reboot like they did how do you think they would do things differently when it comes to asm1 and 2? Would they still have done the orgin in asm1? Would they have still used the same villains ect?

 

[spiderman2]

I think a lot of people would argue that while SM3 had its flaws, it wasn't bad enough to warrant a reboot.

I think the biggest thing was that with how good sm1 and 2 where and with how good sm 3 looked form the previews that the hype was at such a high level that it made sm 3 look worse then it really was. I will put it this way even though I have liked ever sm movie at least a little bit if not more if sm 3 had lived up to the hype it would be my favorite super hero movie ever instead it is probly like around my 14 favorite ever witch is a big difference.

 

[W/ Great Power]

I have to disagree with that. And, considering that SM4 was looking to be twice as bad, a fresh start seemed necessary. Selling the rights would have been a better option, but 2010 was four years before the hacks....

Just because Raimi disliked a few scripts, it doesn't mean we can definitively say SM4 would have been twice as bad.

Hi there, W/ Great Power. I'm not on that list. Spider-man 3 made me want to kick Raimi out of anything Spider-man. A reboot sounded a great idea, or at least another director. Although if they had skipped the detailed origin plot (maybe have it as a flashback), it would have worked better.

One subpar film was enough to dispose Raimi from the entire series? He still gave us two great films with SM1 and SM2. If it weren't for those two films, Spidey would have no reputation in Hollywood right now.

I find it ludicrous how people can say that about Raimi but still support the train-wreck we just received.

People were saying that at the time , though I felt that they had pretty much played out the main arcs which were the Osborn saga, Peter's Guilt, The Peter/MJ relationship, Peter's own growth from kid to man, etc. While the ending wasn't satisfactory, I did feel that you could basically call it a trilogy and end it there. The cast was also getting too old and the best villains had been used imo. Yes there was Lizard, Vulture, Electro, Kraven etc, but at that point it was time to move on. Though I think its fair to say the GA didn't feel that version of the series ended on as bad a note as fans did.

That said, when they did reboot it , they basically decided to cover much of the same ground Raimi did all over again yet fashioning it as Gritty and updated. The problem with the ASM is that they started on a weak foundation and wrote themselves into a corner after just two films.

This is an entirely different argument, which I think is valid.

Peter's relationship, his growth/guilt, and the Osborns were all played out to the extent that they should have been, as you said. However, the movie standing on its own feet wasn't bad enough to have the series blown up from top to bottom. For example, if there was some kind of thread or subplot that needed another film to be fulfilled, I don't think people would have been clamoring against SM3 the way they are now with TASM2.

Sometimes I have a feeling that SM3 was purposely ended on the note in which it was, in case if a reboot was eventually agreed on. Who knows, maybe Raimi didn't see himself staying longer than SM3 once he sensed the hands on approach of Sony, and gave it closure in the best way he could.

 

[TheWallCrawler]

If this series is like 60% cringe worthy then the first series sm 1-3 was like 80% cringe worthy lol

Well yeah, I don't really care for either series at this point. It's hard to pick favorites when in the first series i hate the portrayals of the main characters and the second series just has terrible tone balancing and major script & pacing issues. That as justification, TASM2 might be my favorite just for how wacky it is, and let's face it, pretty visually pleasing

 

[The Joker]

I think a lot of people would argue that while SM3 had its flaws, it wasn't bad enough to warrant a reboot.

Agreed. But Spider-Man 3 wasn't the reason why the reboot happened anyway. Raimi's movies always delivered for Sony, and even the weakest one (SM-3) didn't get a rotten critic rating.

Unlike TASM 2, which was so bad and performed so weakly for Sony because of this that the franchise is in this sorry state now.

 

[LizardMan07]

Agreed. But Spider-Man 3 wasn't the reason why the reboot happened anyway. Raimi's movies always delivered for Sony, and even the weakest one (SM-3) didn't get a rotten critic rating.

Unlike TASM 2, which was so bad and performed so weakly for Sony because of this that the franchise is in this sorry state now.

If Spider-Man 3 wasn't the reason Sony rebooted, what was?

 

[GuestStar2004]

i still believe the reboot was needed as i have no interest in SM4 and i honestly couldn't see many directions they could have gone as raimis universe felt so restricted to just repeating itself and killing off most of the villains so they can't be brought back

i have many issues with the raimi series going from toby's peter, kirstens MJ, to just how cliche and cheesy some of the scenes got

TASM alone while isn't perfect gave me alot more of wanted i wanted from a spider-man movie

 

[The Joker]

If Spider-Man 3 wasn't the reason Sony rebooted, what was?

Sony pushing Raimi to release Spider-Man 4 for 2011 and he didn't feel he could have it done to his satisfaction by then so he walked. Raimi was all signed on to do Spider-Man 4. He even had creative control again: http://archive.news.softpedia.com/news/Sam-Raimi-Will-Have-Control-on-Spider-Man-4-108029.shtml

Sadly it didn't happen, and now here we are with this awful franchise that's sinking faster than the Titanic after only two movies.

 

[GuestStar2004]

If Spider-Man 3 wasn't the reason Sony rebooted, what was?

because raimi left, but i think it was said they were planning a reboot anyway after SM4 and that raimi wanted to close off his series with an official ending

 

[LizardMan07]

Sony pushing Raimi to release Spider-Man 4 for 2011 and he didn't feel he could have it done to his satisfaction by then so he walked. Raimi was all signed on to do Spider-Man 4. He even had creative control again: http://archive.news.softpedia.com/news/Sam-Raimi-Will-Have-Control-on-Spider-Man-4-108029.shtml

Sadly it didn't happen, and now here we are with this awful franchise that's sinking faster than the Titanic after only two movies.

Ahh, I see, makes more sense.

Yeah, Sonys ideas for sinister six were pretty dreadful, I'm not sure what would happen to the Spider-Man franchise as a whole if it actually made it to cinemas as described in the leaks

I feel like the re-reboot is driven in part by Garfield's sacking, Marvels need to get spidey for civil war and the fact that Spider-Man movies have been making less money since SM2.

 

[Venom Spectre]

Kinda. If 2 had a definitive ending then it wouldn't be pointless. But instead the movie set up future storylines like Harry wanting revenge, and the Sinister Six being formed. So yeah, it's kinda pointless now.

 

[Chris B]

Honestly, Sony should've just done a proper S-M4 even if Raimi wasn't going to direcent and they had to recast. They could've easily have started a new chapter in that continuity.

 

[X Knight]

what I wish they had done with the reboot, and what I really THOUGHT they were going to do, was to make it like the Ultimate comics or Spectacular Spider-man series, cast younger actors, and focus on Peter's HS years.

make it like the Harry Potter series where we can grow up with the characters and witness their friendships, bonds, challenges, rivalries, etc. so that by the time they do graduate and head off to college, we'll feel as if we've gone on a journey with the characters and really gotten to know them.

Peter, MJ, Harry, and Gwen would be the 4 main characters. The relationships amongst these 4, and how Peter being SM shapes and affects their relationships, should form the anchor or core of the films.

sure, they'd have to do the origin again. but setting the new movies primarily in HS with a younger cast would have differentiated it from the 1st SM movie - which, like TASM 1, focused on the tail end of HS right before graduation.

so....yeah.....I thought the 2012 reboot was pointless, because it largely retread the same path as SM 1, while doing it less effectively, imo.

 

[Tymminator]

what I wish they had done with the reboot, and what I really THOUGHT they were going to do, was to make it like the Ultimate comics or Spectacular Spider-man series, cast younger actors, and focus on Peter's HS years.

make it like the Harry Potter series where we can grow up with the characters and witness their friendships, bonds, challenges, rivalries, etc. so that by the time they do graduate and head off to college, we'll feel as if we've gone on a journey with the characters and really gotten to know them.

Peter, MJ, Harry, and Gwen would be the 4 main characters. The relationships amongst these 4, and how Peter being SM shapes and affects their relationships, should form the anchor or core of the films.

sure, they'd have to do the origin again. but setting the new movies primarily in HS with a younger cast would have differentiated it from the 1st SM movie - which, like TASM 1, focused on the tail end of HS right before graduation.

so....yeah.....I thought the 2012 reboot was pointless, because it largely retread the same path as SM 1, while doing it less effectively, imo.

 

[harryoscop]

what I wish they had done with the reboot, and what I really THOUGHT they were going to do, was to make it like the Ultimate comics or Spectacular Spider-man series, cast younger actors, and focus on Peter's HS years.

make it like the Harry Potter series where we can grow up with the characters and witness their friendships, bonds, challenges, rivalries, etc. so that by the time they do graduate and head off to college, we'll feel as if we've gone on a journey with the characters and really gotten to know them.

Peter, MJ, Harry, and Gwen would be the 4 main characters. The relationships amongst these 4, and how Peter being SM shapes and affects their relationships, should form the anchor or core of the films.

sure, they'd have to do the origin again. but setting the new movies primarily in HS with a younger cast would have differentiated it from the 1st SM movie - which, like TASM 1, focused on the tail end of HS right before graduation.

so....yeah.....I thought the 2012 reboot was pointless, because it largely retread the same path as SM 1, while doing it less effectively, imo.

 

[Smegger56]

IMO, the 2012 film was a good start to the new series. For me, it had the right tone and very good characterisation of spidey and Gwen.

They just lost the plot in 2. They decided to change the tone to a more Raimi/Avengers tone. Give us a VERY cartoon villain with Electro (could have been good if they'd not have gone cartoony with him) and the story was just meh. It was all about getting to the Gwen death. And that 'happy ending'... ugh.

TASM2, the decision by the studio to bring in Orci and Kurtzman and change the direction of the series, for me, hurt this franchise. Would staying closer to what TASM did have brought greater success? I don't know. Hind sight's a *****.

 

[Super Jim]

^ Can't tell you how much I agree with this!

The reboot wasn't/isn't that bad at all. There are so many positives and unfortunately, with people smelling blood in the Sony waters, these are being thrown aside with the slim hope of Marvel getting the rights back.

Listen people, it just ain't going to happen, no matter how many of us get on these threads and post that we want it to happen!

The reboot was needed, and it was refreshing to have Gwen as the love interest instead of MJ. Emma was amazing in this role! And her and Andrew's repoor was perfect. It was believable (go figure).

Whenever Andrew was in costume he was perfect, with the New York accent and the banter. This IS Spiderman!

Yes, sometimes when he was out of costume things got a little rough at times, but that wasn't the problem with the Amazing series.

If you really break it down, the problems have been the villain(s). In TASM1 we got the Lizard, who wasn't that great, but they made it fit the story. I gave them a pass on this one, as I often do with origin stories. They need to put so much focus and time on the origin that the villain becomes secondary. Again, I can accept that.

In number 2, just like Smegger56 above stated, it was all about getting to Gwen's death, while dealing with a poorly written villain. I think they got Jamie Foxx and figured that's it, he'll make it perfect, but again (as always) it's the writing.

Although at first I was concerned about the use of an Ultimate inspired Electro, the truth is, it worked. In many ways, this worked very well. The Times Square and Power Plant scenes were pretty epic. Unfortunately, it was almost everything else. From the effeminate Doctor Kaftka to the epic misuse of Chris Cooper, the movie missed the mark, but nothing was worse than the villains. Max Dillon was pitiful (and not in a good way). His whole mental dosorder story really took away from the good things. And don't even get me started on Giamatti's Rhino! Again, that was the writing (I have to assume).

But these are all things that can be fixed if and when they go forward with an Amazing Spiderman 3. Before I explain, let me point out some things...

1. Spiderman is one of the, if not the most known super hero and the general audience will turn up to see any blockbuster Spiderman film, whether it is released by Sony or someone else.

2. Sony is not going to just give away one of their most valuable commodities. In many ways it's a shame that Marvel sold ther rights all those years ago, or that they didn't put an expiration date on the ownership, but it is what it is. Sony will want so much from Disney for them to get the rights back, and there is just about no way Disney will give that. The parties have already walked away from the table, so this is not very likely. People need to just accept that Sony is keeping Spiderman. Maybe, and even hopefully I'll be wrong and Marvel will get the rights back, but I'm just not seeing it.

3. This January meeting thing they are having is likely not a meeting to discuss giving everything back to Marvel, but more likely to discuss where to go from here with their Amazong Spiderman series. Yes, they will likely discuss the possibilities of a deal, but as explained above, that coming to fruition is not likely. So where will they go from here.

It seems obvious that they will realize that they have a few options.

One is to go forward with the plans they have in place, which includes this stupid idea of a Sinister Six redemption movie. This would be a very bad choice.

That would also include their very bad plans to jump right into a Venom anti-hero solo movie or any other spin-off (was the Aunt May movie real???).

The second option is to go forward with the Sinister Six, but do it in a Spiderman movie. This would be almost acceptible, but at this point it's hard to believe that they could do a film of this nature justice. And if they fail on the next one they will ruin their one chance to make things right.

The last and best option (going on the concept that they will not give the rights back) is to do an Amazing Spider Man 3, with or without Garfield (I say with), but rein things in a bit. That means the Sinister Six is put on hold. That means that the story will need to focus on one main villain, and it needs to be a big one. One that both the GA and us fans would want to see. IMO, that means either Kraven or Mysterio, although a case could be made for some others, like Doc Ock or Venom. I believe they should hold off on Venom and introduce Eddie Brock, setting up the story for the next movie. Put the focus on a villain like Kraven, but keep it grounded in this evil Oscorp controlled world. Why is Kraven going after Peter? He's been hired/enticed to hunt Spiderman in order to get Peter's blood for Harry. It's simple and fits the past events.

The point is that they can save this franchise if they do the right things. Simply rein things in, disregard the stupid plans of a Sinister Six redeption movie, introduce the black costume and Eddie in the next one so the fourth movie can be 100% Venom, which then sets up Carnage for #5, and focus on one main villain in The Amazing Spider Man 3 (either Kraven or Mysterio). Do it right, and maybe, jusy maybe, they can save this franchise!!!

 

[JOE]

They sold out for the new trend, which happens to be universe building. I genuinely think they would have had a decent shot at it had that been the plan from the beginning. Then they wouldn't of shoehorned everything in TASM 2.

 

[Venom'sDad]

IMO, the 2012 film was a good start to the new series. For me, it had the right tone and very good characterisation of spidey and Gwen.

They just lost the plot in 2. They decided to change the tone to a more Raimi/Avengers tone. Give us a VERY cartoon villain with Electro (could have been good if they'd not have gone cartoony with him) and the story was just meh. It was all about getting to the Gwen death. And that 'happy ending'... ugh.

TASM2, the decision by the studio to bring in Orci and Kurtzman and change the direction of the series, for me, hurt this franchise. Would staying closer to what TASM did have brought greater success? I don't know. Hind sight's a *****.

 

[HarryOsborn]

QOS wasn't SM3 level bad.

Spider-Man 3 wasn't as badly received by the general public as many people on the boards act. It was like the Star Wars prequels, it wasn't what fans of the series wanted for an iconic story (The Symbiote Saga- Rise of Darth Vader/ Topher Grace- Hayden Christensen), but the general audience really didn't take offense to it. Not to mention even though Sandman became the killer, he shot Uncle Ben because he was startled by his partner running over to him- still leaving Peter at fault.

I'm not saying SM3 was good, but it was nothing a good fourth film couldn't rebound from. The problem however was that Sam Raimi didn't want to make another SM3 and couldn't find common grounds with the studio during scripting and opted out.

In my opinion the reboot was horribly mishandled from the get go. At the time the only superhero reboots we'd had were The Incredible Hulk and Batman Begins. What both of those films did that TASM did not, was tell a story new to the audience. TIH started with Bruce already infected and hiding in South America, which was where we last saw the version of Bruce in Ang Lee's Hulk. Batman Begins was an origin story, however none of the previous four films spent any time of Bruce's beginnings as the Batman- only offering brief flashbacks to the death of the Waynes in Batman and Batman Forever.

What Sony did wrong was retelling Peter's origin and offering a plot that blurred the lines between paying homage to SM1 and ripping it off (Connors having a split personality monologue after discovering Peter's identity, Peter getting bitten while flirting with the love interest and breaking the rules, Peter standing up to Flash/shirking chores being the catalyst for the Uncle Ben argument etc.). If Sony wanted to reboot the franchise they should have started with an established Spider-Man and waiting until at least TASM2 to retread ground from the previous trilogy. Even with TDKR giving the Nolan trilogy fans a defined conclusion, WB/DC isn't taking any chances and is giving an established old weathered Batman and waiting before retreading too much ground covered in those films. This was a decision made long before the critical failure of TASM2 as well.

 

[HarryOsborn]

IMO, the 2012 film was a good start to the new series. For me, it had the right tone and very good characterisation of spidey and Gwen.

They just lost the plot in 2. They decided to change the tone to a more Raimi/Avengers tone. Give us a VERY cartoon villain with Electro (could have been good if they'd not have gone cartoony with him) and the story was just meh. It was all about getting to the Gwen death. And that 'happy ending'... ugh.

TASM2, the decision by the studio to bring in Orci and Kurtzman and change the direction of the series, for me, hurt this franchise. Would staying closer to what TASM did have brought greater success? I don't know. Hind sight's a *****.

I was a big advocate of Marc Webb and Andrew Garfield as I was extremely impressed with the mature, yet fantastic universe of science they'd created. I felt the big problem with the first film were in the sloppy plot that (in my opinion) tried too hard to force a trilogy in wake of the Dark Knight's success. However the sequel leaves me wondering if that was really the case, Max Dillion could have been a solid relatable character if he wasn't portrayed in such a ridiculous manner (no combover, more normal mannerisms with a higher emphasis on a lack of confidence, etc.). Also there was a bigger hipster vibe in the sequel (somehow?), that leaves me questioning who was responsible for those decisions, and whomever that may be is responsible for the failure (in my eyes).

 

[Venom'sDad]

Hmmm, I dunno, I agree with Sm56, they started off trying to re-establish the character and open up the universe a little more. I think their template had more to do with Spectacular Spiderman animation then with Batman, which was three stand alone films(I'm aware of the Joker card at the end of BB). I do think they appreciated what Marvel was doing with it connecting films, and did want to replicate that, but the template was the animation.

I just think, the always dependable Avi Arad start interfering more, which lead to the Raimi-est of TASM2.

 

[Frodo]

Spider-Man 3 wasn't as badly received by the general public as many people on the boards act. It was like the Star Wars prequels, it wasn't what fans of the series wanted for an iconic story (The Symbiote Saga- Rise of Darth Vader/ Topher Grace- Hayden Christensen), but the general audience really didn't take offense to it. Not to mention even though Sandman became the killer, he shot Uncle Ben because he was startled by his partner running over to him- still leaving Peter at fault.

I'm not saying SM3 was good, but it was nothing a good fourth film couldn't rebound from. The problem however was that Sam Raimi didn't want to make another SM3 and couldn't find common grounds with the studio during scripting and opted out.

In my opinion the reboot was horribly mishandled from the get go. At the time the only superhero reboots we'd had were The Incredible Hulk and Batman Begins. What both of those films did that TASM did not, was tell a story new to the audience. TIH started with Bruce already infected and hiding in South America, which was where we last saw the version of Bruce in Ang Lee's Hulk. Batman Begins was an origin story, however none of the previous four films spent any time of Bruce's beginnings as the Batman- only offering brief flashbacks to the death of the Waynes in Batman and Batman Forever.

What Sony did wrong was retelling Peter's origin and offering a plot that blurred the lines between paying homage to SM1 and ripping it off (Connors having a split personality monologue after discovering Peter's identity, Peter getting bitten while flirting with the love interest and breaking the rules, Peter standing up to Flash/shirking chores being the catalyst for the Uncle Ben argument etc.). If Sony wanted to reboot the franchise they should have started with an established Spider-Man and waiting until at least TASM2 to retread ground from the previous trilogy. Even with TDKR giving the Nolan trilogy fans a defined conclusion, WB/DC isn't taking any chances and is giving an established old weathered Batman and waiting before retreading too much ground covered in those films. This was a decision made long before the critical failure of TASM2 as well.

I agree. The series was flawed from the start imo, so it wasn't as if ASM 1 was this great film and ASM 2 tanked. Alot of the fanboys loved it , while the GA was lukewarm to it at best. I think one of the main problems the ASM series had was that it was a series which didn't appeal to the mainstream as much as it did to the diehard fans who didn't like the Raimi films. The GA didn't think there was anything wrong with those films, but alot of the diehard fans did. I do think Sony was trying to appeal to those fans who didn't like the Raimi films by giving them a more"grounded" and "truer to the ultimate comics" Spiderman. They also wanted to emulate TDK trilogy, Harry Potter, The Avengers, and the CW type youth dramas because those had successful formulas. Instead of having one coherent vision for their series , Sony wanted it all, and you get that "have my cake and eat it too" sense from the emails in which their ideas are all over the place as to how to handle the franchise.

 

[Smegger56]

^ Can't tell you how much I agree with this!

The reboot wasn't/isn't that bad at all. There are so many positives and unfortunately, with people smelling blood in the Sony waters, these are being thrown aside with the slim hope of Marvel getting the rights back.

Listen people, it just ain't going to happen, no matter how many of us get on these threads and post that we want it to happen!

The reboot was needed, and it was refreshing to have Gwen as the love interest instead of MJ. Emma was amazing in this role! And her and Andrew's repoor was perfect. It was believable (go figure).

Whenever Andrew was in costume he was perfect, with the New York accent and the banter. This IS Spiderman!

Yes, sometimes when he was out of costume things got a little rough at times, but that wasn't the problem with the Amazing series.

If you really break it down, the problems have been the villain(s). In TASM1 we got the Lizard, who wasn't that great, but they made it fit the story. I gave them a pass on this one, as I often do with origin stories. They need to put so much focus and time on the origin that the villain becomes secondary. Again, I can accept that.

In number 2, just like Smegger56 above stated, it was all about getting to Gwen's death, while dealing with a poorly written villain. I think they got Jamie Foxx and figured that's it, he'll make it perfect, but again (as always) it's the writing.

Although at first I was concerned about the use of an Ultimate inspired Electro, the truth is, it worked. In many ways, this worked very well. The Times Square and Power Plant scenes were pretty epic. Unfortunately, it was almost everything else. From the effeminate Doctor Kaftka to the epic misuse of Chris Cooper, the movie missed the mark, but nothing was worse than the villains. Max Dillon was pitiful (and not in a good way). His whole mental dosorder story really took away from the good things. And don't even get me started on Giamatti's Rhino! Again, that was the writing (I have to assume).

But these are all things that can be fixed if and when they go forward with an Amazing Spiderman 3. Before I explain, let me point out some things...

1. Spiderman is one of the, if not the most known super hero and the general audience will turn up to see any blockbuster Spiderman film, whether it is released by Sony or someone else.

2. Sony is not going to just give away one of their most valuable commodities. In many ways it's a shame that Marvel sold ther rights all those years ago, or that they didn't put an expiration date on the ownership, but it is what it is. Sony will want so much from Disney for them to get the rights back, and there is just about no way Disney will give that. The parties have already walked away from the table, so this is not very likely. People need to just accept that Sony is keeping Spiderman. Maybe, and even hopefully I'll be wrong and Marvel will get the rights back, but I'm just not seeing it.

3. This January meeting thing they are having is likely not a meeting to discuss giving everything back to Marvel, but more likely to discuss where to go from here with their Amazong Spiderman series. Yes, they will likely discuss the possibilities of a deal, but as explained above, that coming to fruition is not likely. So where will they go from here.

It seems obvious that they will realize that they have a few options.

One is to go forward with the plans they have in place, which includes this stupid idea of a Sinister Six redemption movie. This would be a very bad choice.

That would also include their very bad plans to jump right into a Venom anti-hero solo movie or any other spin-off (was the Aunt May movie real???).

The second option is to go forward with the Sinister Six, but do it in a Spiderman movie. This would be almost acceptible, but at this point it's hard to believe that they could do a film of this nature justice. And if they fail on the next one they will ruin their one chance to make things right.

The last and best option (going on the concept that they will not give the rights back) is to do an Amazing Spider Man 3, with or without Garfield (I say with), but rein things in a bit. That means the Sinister Six is put on hold. That means that the story will need to focus on one main villain, and it needs to be a big one. One that both the GA and us fans would want to see. IMO, that means either Kraven or Mysterio, although a case could be made for some others, like Doc Ock or Venom. I believe they should hold off on Venom and introduce Eddie Brock, setting up the story for the next movie. Put the focus on a villain like Kraven, but keep it grounded in this evil Oscorp controlled world. Why is Kraven going after Peter? He's been hired/enticed to hunt Spiderman in order to get Peter's blood for Harry. It's simple and fits the past events.

The point is that they can save this franchise if they do the right things. Simply rein things in, disregard the stupid plans of a Sinister Six redeption movie, introduce the black costume and Eddie in the next one so the fourth movie can be 100% Venom, which then sets up Carnage for #5, and focus on one main villain in The Amazing Spider Man 3 (either Kraven or Mysterio). Do it right, and maybe, jusy maybe, they can save this franchise!!!

The spin off movie ideas where very strange. I wonder when that was decided? I feel the spin off films (and the aunt may film... sheesh) where all decided on after the release of TASM. I know they had an idea for a expanded universe with TASM1, but I wonder if it looked different to what they decided with now?

I felt the villain in TASM1 was better handled than TASM2. He could have had a bit more depth, I grant you, but he fit the part fine. It was Spideys origin story and showing Gwen and Pete develop. I think that's why the Lizard suffered a bit so I give that a pass.

I'm with you. I think if they can bring the tone back in line with TASM1, bring it better writers, we'll end up with a good finale to the TASM series (unless it makes a billion, I can see Sony dropping this series. Just a guess).

I thank you t:

I was a big advocate of Marc Webb and Andrew Garfield as I was extremely impressed with the mature, yet fantastic universe of science they'd created. I felt the big problem with the first film were in the sloppy plot that (in my opinion) tried too hard to force a trilogy in wake of the Dark Knight's success. However the sequel leaves me wondering if that was really the case, Max Dillion could have been a solid relatable character if he wasn't portrayed in such a ridiculous manner (no combover, more normal mannerisms with a higher emphasis on a lack of confidence, etc.). Also there was a bigger hipster vibe in the sequel (somehow?), that leaves me questioning who was responsible for those decisions, and whomever that may be is responsible for the failure (in my eyes).

I think the sequel was more to do with the success of Avengers. Whilst not cheesy as the Raimi films, it was 'brighter' than TASM, which was a more mature film I felt. But I do feel the tone of TASM1 was inspired by TDK (that doesn't mean it tried to be bats, it was just going for a more mature vibe). That's just a guess on my part.

Hmmm, I dunno, I agree with Sm56, they started off trying to re-establish the character and open up the universe a little more. I think their template had more to do with Spectacular Spiderman animation then with Batman, which was three stand alone films(I'm aware of the Joker card at the end of BB). I do think they appreciated what Marvel was doing with it connecting films, and did want to replicate that, but the template was the animation.

I just think, the always dependable Avi Arad start interfering more, which lead to the Raimi-est of TASM2.

I think TDK had 'some' influence on the tone of TASM. It went for a mature vibe (which is not to say the excellent SSM didn't play a part). But then the Avengers was a HUGE hit and so, I have no doubt, Sony and Arad decided to go with that style, but Raimi levels of cheese.

I think connecting the films was a fine idea. Expand the universe. But, IMO, the drastic change in tone and hiring writers, who I think can do good banter but write meh to **** stories, was a BAAAAAAAAAD move (hind sight hey Sony).

 

[HarryOsborn]

I think the sequel was more to do with the success of Avengers. Whilst not cheesy as the Raimi films, it was 'brighter' than TASM, which was a more mature film I felt. But I do feel the tone of TASM1 was inspired by TDK (that doesn't mean it tried to be bats, it was just going for a more mature vibe). That's just a guess on my part.

The original film was largely following in the footsteps of TDK, look at all of the producers comments on how the film was the first in a trilogy, and they went above and beyond to set one up. However like you said the sequel was trying too hard to jump on the Avengers Shared Universe bandwagon, when it really hadn't been set up.

As for the rest of the comment, the ASM2 was not "brighter" it was actually much cheesier than the Raimi films. The Raimi films had some cheesy lines like "eat your green vegetables" and a decent amount of camp, but TASM2 was essentially Batman Forever.