The Amazing Spider-Man Who to Blame?

[Avalanche™]

honestly guys......WTF just happened, last week we had tobey talk about the movie and the minor setback now we have no more tobey, sam, or anyone! im in shock that SONY just did this, and it seems like they did this easily,. how do you fire EVERYONE in a billion dollar franchise that was a failure.

who are you blaming?
was Sam being ignorant aout scripts and SONY' demands?
did SONY give sam an imposssible deadline?
blame the writers of Spidey3 for killing off one of the biggest villains in history(meaning not using him in future films, w/o a horrible work around)
blame the high salary for sam and the whole returning cast?

i really dont know what to say, it happened so fast

 

[VenomVsSpidey]

All fingers point tooooooooo.........

Spoiler

SONY

 

[TMC1982]

Sam Raimi for not being able to turn what he saw as "lemons into lemonade" concerning what the powers that be wanted compared to what he really wanted. The quality of the third movie suffered in large part due to his clear lack of passion to the Venom angle. Sony (Laura Ziskin and Avi Arad) should be just as responsible for simply being greedy and lacking foresight.

 

[bullets]

It all comes down to creative differences in this case. They basically couldnt agree on what to film . You can't blame raimi fo rwanting to do things his way and you can't blame Sony for pushing their agenda.

 

[Deaths Head II]

I blame Sony for being a bunch of *****ebags and caring only about making a profit. The way they treated Raimi and the others is just awful.

 

[TheSlag]

Sam Raimi for not being able to turn what he saw as "lemons into lemonade" concerning what the powers that be wanted compared to what he really wanted. The quality of the third movie suffered in large part due to his clear lack of passion to the Venom angle. Sony (Laura Ziskin and Avi Arad) should be just as responsible for simply being greedy and lacking foresight.

Agreed! There is plenty of blame to go around. Although I am happy with a reboot IF they do it right this time.

 

[Avalanche™]

Agreed! There is plenty of blame to go around. Although I am happy with a reboot IF they do it right this time.

because over $2billion is a failure?
an avg of 82/100 for a super hero trilogy is a badly reviewed flick?
countless awards
bringing a whole new generation and whole new crowd to super heroes and super hero movies was a bad thing?

dude shut up, i dont care about your post count, you sound stupid. anyone who thinks a REBOOT 5years after a very successful movie with a differant cast and director is a moron.

i would understand is Sam was like "Sorry sony, tobey, the rest of the cast and myself, want to move along with our careers"

but they ****ing fired them!

and what do you mean by this time? Incredible Hulk was ok,mainly bcause the original blew hard, and dont give me the batman franchise since they wee different directors and cast the prior 2movies anyway

 

[Avalanche™]

double

 

[Leenie]

Sony deserves more blame than Raimi does.

Raimi obviously still showed signs of interest and passion in the franchise AND he obviously cared about what the fans thought about his movies. Seems to me that Sony managed to suck all of that energy out of him.

If Raimi felt that Sony gave him nothing good to work with, then I don't blame him for leaving. If his interviews were any indication, Raimi wanted Spider-Man 4 to be a good movie. He even said that he acknowledged what he considered to be deserved criticism towards Spider-Man 3. That, to me, is a sign that the guy CARES about these movies and what others think about them.

 

[Artistsean]

Fist Conan and now Raimi? No!

I feel sick.

well, now that I thought about it a little.
a Spider-Man reboot could be good. Casting an actor who can better show Spider-Man's comedic wittyness, showing Peter's high School Days more and the trouble of leading a double life while being a teenager.
Not bad at all, could be fun.

But there are some movies that really needed reboots, like DD, Hulk, and FF.

If I didn't know that all the cast and crew were on their way back to the set I would say this was just the first reboot after the original cast ran its 3 movie coarse. But they were ready for 4, so I don't know.

 

[Mace Dolex]

One would think after three successful blockbusters that Sony would give Sam Raimi all the control he wanted for a 4th.

The increasing salary of the actors and increasing budget for SFX probably had a part in it.

 

[zeptron]

Raimi said that he was supposed to have FULL control. So Sony should have backed off.

They should have trusted him after SM1 and SM2. Maguire apparently did and that's why he left with him.

 

[TheSlag]

because over $2billion is a failure?
an avg of 82/100 for a super hero trilogy is a badly reviewed flick?
countless awards
bringing a whole new generation and whole new crowd to super heroes and super hero movies was a bad thing?

dude shut up, i dont care about your post count, you sound stupid. anyone who thinks a REBOOT 5years after a very successful movie with a differant cast and director is a moron.

i would understand is Sam was like "Sorry sony, tobey, the rest of the cast and myself, want to move along with our careers"

but they ****ing fired them!

and what do you mean by this time? Incredible Hulk was ok,mainly bcause the original blew hard, and dont give me the batman franchise since they wee different directors and cast the prior 2movies anyway

Shut up? Yep, and I "sound dumb"? And who "mentioned" post counts.. Oh Right, the "intelligent one" did. Post Envy perhaps?

And here I was quoting someone and agreeing with them, and YET, you quote mine to attack??? Never knew I had such a following. t:

The question and "point of the thread", not the point you hide under that beanie hat you wear is WHO is to Blame for the Reboot.

And there is plenty of blame to go around, despite your "accounting tale of the numbers".

 

[Mister J]

dude shut up, i dont care about your post count, you sound stupid. anyone who thinks a REBOOT 5years after a very successful movie with a differant cast and director is a moron.

Drop the attitude.

Discuss things without the antagonism or don't bother at all.

 

[Reikowolf]

Sony

They are the financial backers. If it's not broken DO NOT FIX IT. They had no business telling Raimi how to do his job. If Spider-Man 2 had made less than Spider-Man 1, then they had every right to be involved, but as it stood, there was no reason for them or Avi Arad with Marvel to change up the game plan going into 3.

Raimi was the creative talent, but at the same time, they were paying him. He had an obligation to listen to them. He did. Realizing the problems it caused in production and the final product, he pushed that he have full control over 4. They would not give it. He caused a halt in production to try and convince them otherwise, they would not budge and called him a 'gun for hire' he walked, understandably.

 

[KenK]

The thing I hate is people who say stuff like, "well Raimi obviously wanted to make a good movie for the fans", as if to say Sony wanted to make a crappy movie. No studio wants to make a crappy movie. And I can understand their desire to include things like Venom in the last film, because from their standpoint, the character did have some popularity in the comics. He's still a prominent fixture in the Spier-Man comics to this day. You can't blame the studio for taking note of that, and wanting the see that in the film. It's a problem when you have one group of fans that want to believe that their ideas of what should be in a Spider-Man film, and make assumptions for the general public.

And it can't just be a matter of, "well, he made these two great films before, why can't the studio just let him do what he wants?" Because that's not responsible on the part of the people investing over a hundred million dollars to produce the film! "Sony's just concerned with making a big profit!", OF COURSE THEY WANT TO EARN PROFIT!! Otherwise, you're not gonna get anymore of those films made!!! But I think too many people confuse this for executives have zero regard for how the film turns out. Sometimes, it looks that way, but I think it's foolish to believe that that's the case everytime these kinds of situations come about.

 

[Juggernaut33]

Who's to blame for what?!?!?!

The movie isn't even out yet. There's no way to tell if it's gonna be good or bad.
Sam Raimi' Spider-Man 4 might of been a failure of epic proportions, we'll never know for sure.

 

[Reikowolf]

The thing I hate is people who say stuff like, "well Raimi obviously wanted to make a good movie for the fans", as if to say Sony wanted to make a crappy movie. No studio wants to make a crappy movie. And I can understand their desire to include things like Venom in the last film, because from their standpoint, the character did have some popularity in the comics. He's still a prominent fixture in the Spier-Man comics to this day. You can't blame the studio for taking note of that, and wanting the see that in the film. It's a problem when you have one group of fans that want to believe that their ideas of what should be in a Spider-Man film, and make assumptions for the general public.

And it can't just be a matter of, "well, he made these two great films before, why can't the studio just let him do what he wants?" Because that's not responsible on the part of the people investing over a hundred million dollars to produce the film! "Sony's just concerned with making a big profit!", OF COURSE THEY WANT TO EARN PROFIT!! Otherwise, you're not gonna get anymore of those films made!!! But I think too many people confuse this for executives have zero regard for how the film turns out. Sometimes, it looks that way, but I think it's foolish to believe that that's the case everytime these kinds of situations come about.

You are so wrong.

Studios are not concerned if the movie is considered good or not, they are looking at $$

If I was wrong, we would not see movies like Epic Movie released in theaters. They are obvious cash grabs.

He did make two great films before 3, but more importantly, he made two very profitable films, which is why they should have let him continue. When the $$ stops being big, that's when the studio needs to get involved.

Look at the history of cinema and tell me when a studio pressuring a director has ever made a movie better.

Even the star wars prequels... although bad, made huge $$ for the studio, which is why they let Jar Jar Binks be in them.

If you look up the history of Speilberg, Lucas and Coppola, they made their careers out of going against studio execs and doing things their way and with a low budget and this resulted in huge $$ for the studios involved.

 

[Adrian89]

I just hope that Disney has NO influence on Spider-Man's Reboot. I don't wanna see Miley Cyrus or either of these Disney suckers in a SM Movie, ever.

 

[KenK]

You are so wrong.

Studios are not concerned if the movie is considered good or not, they are looking at $$

If I was wrong, we would not see movies like Epic Movie released in theaters. They are obvious cash grabs.

He did make two great films before 3, but more importantly, he made two very profitable films, which is why they should have let him continue. When the $$ stops being big, that's when the studio needs to get involved.

Look at the history of cinema and tell me when a studio pressuring a director has ever made a movie better.

Even the star wars prequels... although bad, made huge $$ for the studio, which is why they let Jar Jar Binks be in them.

If you look up the history of Speilberg, Lucas and Coppola, they made their careers out of going against studio execs and doing things their way and with a low budget and this resulted in huge $$ for the studios involved.

The original Star Wars trilogy was a success because Lucas had good collaborators. Fox let him do his thing, and he made one awful film after another.

Coppola just makes the random art film every once in a while that few people even acknowledge. Let's not even mention the film Jack!

Spielberg's just happy to be Spielberg.

What point are you trying to make?

 

[Steyin]

I'll blame whoever decided not to be true to the comics in the first place, which led to this downward spiral of poor stories and characterizations. Sure we got a good first and second film, and a decent 3rd, but in all honestly it was never truely the Spider-Man I grew up with in my eyes, so here's hoping to getting it right this time.

 

[Steyin]

**Double**

 

[vasNormandy]

I just hope that Disney has NO influence on Spider-Man's Reboot. I don't wanna see Miley Cyrus or either of these Disney suckers in a SM Movie, ever.

Ditto. Somebody mentioned on here when it was announced Disney now owns Marvel, that the Disney execs wouldn't harm the material because they know keeping true to the comics means money in their back pockets. I hope he's right.

 

[KenK]

I'll blame whoever decided not to be true to the comics in the first place, which led to this downward spiral of poor stories and characterizations. Sure we got a good first and second film, and a decent 3rd, but in all honestly it was never truely the Spider-Man I grew up with in my eyes, so here's hoping to getting it right this time.

What the hell are you talking about? Outside of including Mary Jane before Gwen Stacy, what was so drastically different? Peter was still bitten by a spider altered by science, still learns that "with great power comes great responsibility" once realizing he could have stopped the man that killed his uncle (it wasn't until the last film that they decided to pull a retcon!). Was everything after that really so off the mark. Especially when measure against the people who found the second film to be a vast improvement on the first, and as far as I'm concerned was still pretty true to the comics?

 

[baerrtt]

Sony.

However Raimi was sadly kidding himself if he thought they'd give him full creative control because, whether we like it or not, the character was always going to succeed in the movie medium regardless of whomever brought him to the big screen and quite honestly regardless of the quality. Quite frankly anyone outside of James Cameron or Steven Spielberg directing was always going to be a hired gun and us knowing the creative issues with the third movie makes this less of a surprise to me personally.