The Amazing Spider-Man

[jpanimation]

milojthatch, I know Raimi is a great director and he made Spidey what it was. Maybe you didn't read my post but I pretty blatantly stated that it was the producers that F'ed it up [Spider-Man 3]. I think at this point, most people know the story of what Raimi wanted and what he was forced to do.

It should've been the simple Sandman and Vulture breaking out of jail and Vulture trying to get him to team up. A nice, simple story with two villains with stories that work hand-in-hand. It was Sony who demanded fan-favorite Venom, who's whole story needs a movie of its own but instead got rushed and squeezed in Spider-Man 3. The 90's cartoon did Venom's arc over 3 episodes and MUCH better. John Jameson, who was introduced in Spider-Man 2, was complete wasted as they didn't even use him flying into space and bringing back Venom but instead just had it land on a meteor next to Pete's bike (WTF?). Between cutting that whole thing out, the awkward emo Peter, the random Sandman killed your uncle for Pete's Venom suit anger motivation, and the ten minutes of Venom screen time, they really screwed Venom up. They should've let Raimi make his movie and then gave Venom Spider-Man 4 to himself.

Other then screwing up Venom by shoving him in there, Harry was dumb. The whole ninja Goblin was retarded. As stated before, Flint killing Ben Parker was also stupid. Then they added Gwen Stacy, whose character is completely pointless here. She was perfectly casted, but really serves no purpose since her whole point of being was to die (two movies ago). The scene where Marko first becomes Sandman is perfect and really the only part of 3 I liked. All the excess characters and plots seem like they were shoved into Raimi's movie at the last minute on producer demand. This is why I'm happy Raimi walked away (wasn't fired). Sony was already saying Malkovich was to old to play Vulture and they once again were starting to make "suggestions" (the same kind that ruined Spider-Man 3).

Oh yeah, now I'm getting extra geeky but Eddie Brock was already working for the Daily Bugle in Spider-Man 1 (you have to pay close attention). This makes him being the new guy a plot hole in 3. Also, did anyone else notice the similarities between this movie and Peter Jackson's King Kong? Between the car in the web scene with Mary Jane falling from web-to-web (just like the vine scene in Kong with the V-Rexes and Anne falling from vine to vine) or the ending on the top of a building in New York, during a sunrise, with a protagonist dying. Maybe it was just me but it was still fresh in my mind only coming out just a little over a year earlier.

milojthatch, I read James Cameron's script but do you realize how long ago that was written? Seriously, read Peter Jackson's 98' Kong script, see all the dumbness and name changes he made, and then compare it the the much more mature (and faithful) final 05' product after he matured working on Lord of the Rings. I'm sure James Cameron's Spider-Man would be nothing like his original script but I'd still like to see what he'd do with it.

Either way, I was looking forward to Raimi's Spider-Man 4, as it sounded like he was pouring everything he had into it, but after hearing of the producer interference, I'm glad he walked away.

[2099net]

From what I can gather, Rami didn't want Venom in Spider-Man 3. I guess that's pretty true, because if you look at how Venom was actually seen and delt with in the film, he pretty much seems like an afterthought. It was a stupid idea anway - Venom has NO PERSONALITY and never could be like the [original] comic creation because he would be too graphic and scary for the audience. So we ended up with a watered down portrayal of an already 2D character. (Just look at how many roles Venom has had in the comics - never settling on one director for long to see how useless a character he was. Even now with the Scorpion hosting the symbiote as a "new" Venom, its still pretty much a one-trick character).

Yes Venom has a good visual, but that's about it (and even then in Spider-Man 3, there wasn't any money left to do that visual justice).

It's a shame, because the Sandman plot to Spider-Man 3, with no Venom, no Goblin and perhaps another draft could have possibly out-done the Doctor Octopus plot in Spider-Man 2. Marvel's key defining moment - the moment when the "Marvel Style" was born, and what has kept them popular for 50 years or so isn't the art, isn't the spectacle - its the characters. Marvel was the first to give superheros "real world" problems, and Marvel was also the first to humanise some of its villains. Rami understood this - I think he knew this when making Spider-Man but it didn't quite work for the Goblin - a fault of the costume and the static mask he wore which in retrospect didn't help to give emotion to the Spider-Man/Goblin confrontations. At times it was like watching an episode of Power Ranger with two masked foes talking and fighting. But he understood it for Spider-Man 2 and really delivered a knockout film as a result, and I believe he understood it for 3 - thus the semi-tragic Sandman character and thread. Shame the people controlling the money and ultimately cracking the whip didn't (and apparently still don't).

I don't know how much of this is Marvel Films fault - don't forget Spider-Man was an early Marvel Films release and we don't know what the licencing conditions are. I've still got a lot of faith in Marvel Films and in Marvel looking after their characters, so I'm prepared to give them the benefit of a doubt and blame Sony Pictures for this sad debarcle.

[milojthatch]

milojthatch, I know Raimi is a great director and he made Spidey what it was. Maybe you didn't read my post but I pretty blatantly stated that it was the producers that F'ed it up [Spider-Man 3]. I think at this point, most people know the story of what Raimi wanted and what he was forced to do.

It should've been the simple Sandman and Vulture breaking out of jail and Vulture trying to get him to team up. A nice, simple story with two villains with stories that work hand-in-hand. It was Sony who demanded fan-favorite Venom, who's whole story needs a movie of its own but instead got rushed and squeezed in Spider-Man 3. The 90's cartoon did Venom's arc over 3 episodes and MUCH better. John Jameson, who was introduced in Spider-Man 2, was complete wasted as they didn't even use him flying into space and bringing back Venom but instead just had it land on a meteor next to Pete's bike (WTF?). Between cutting that whole thing out, the awkward emo Peter, the random Sandman killed your uncle for Pete's Venom suit anger motivation, and the ten minutes of Venom screen time, they really screwed Venom up. They should've let Raimi make his movie and then gave Venom Spider-Man 4 to himself.

Other then screwing up Venom by shoving him in there, Harry was dumb. The whole ninja Goblin was retarded. As stated before, Flint killing Ben Parker was also stupid. Then they added Gwen Stacy, whose character is completely pointless here. She was perfectly casted, but really serves no purpose since her whole point of being was to die (two movies ago). The scene where Marko first becomes Sandman is perfect and really the only part of 3 I liked. All the excess characters and plots seem like they were shoved into Raimi's movie at the last minute on producer demand. This is why I'm happy Raimi walked away (wasn't fired). Sony was already saying Malkovich was to old to play Vulture and they once again were starting to make "suggestions" (the same kind that ruined Spider-Man 3).

Oh yeah, now I'm getting extra geeky but Eddie Brock was already working for the Daily Bugle in Spider-Man 1 (you have to pay close attention). This makes him being the new guy a plot hole in 3. Also, did anyone else notice the similarities between this movie and Peter Jackson's King Kong? Between the car in the web scene with Mary Jane falling from web-to-web (just like the vine scene in Kong with the V-Rexes and Anne falling from vine to vine) or the ending on the top of a building in New York, during a sunrise, with a protagonist dying. Maybe it was just me but it was still fresh in my mind only coming out just a little over a year earlier.

milojthatch, I read James Cameron's script but do you realize how long ago that was written? Seriously, read Peter Jackson's 98' Kong script, see all the dumbness and name changes he made, and then compare it the the much more mature (and faithful) final 05' product after he matured working on Lord of the Rings. I'm sure James Cameron's Spider-Man would be nothing like his original script but I'd still like to see what he'd do with it.

Either way, I was looking forward to Raimi's Spider-Man 4, as it sounded like he was pouring everything he had into it, but after hearing of the producer interference, I'm glad he walked away.

Sorry, I skimmed through your post, my apologies.

Either way as far as Cameron goes, from what I just read he will be too busy with sequels to "Avatar" to work on Spider-Man.

I think having just Sandman or adding Vulture would have been a better idea. They could have kept the black suite, it could still have worked, just not adding Venom to the mix...yet. He should have had a movie to be the villain all to himself. I stand by that feeling. Oh well, if Sony was just going to re-boot it anyway, at least he made the films, sort of.

[Mooky]

John Jameson, who was introduced in Spider-Man 2, was complete wasted as they didn't even use him flying into space and bringing back Venom but instead just had it land on a meteor next to Pete's bike (WTF?).

That's my main frustration with SM3. An alien life form lands right next to the hero of the movie. How convenient. And don't get me started on what they did (or didn't do, to be exact) with John Jameson.

As stated before, Flint killing Ben Parker was also stupid.

Stupid is too weak of a word. Idiotic is more like it.

Oh yeah, now I'm getting extra geeky but Eddie Brock was already working for the Daily Bugle in Spider-Man 1 (you have to pay close attention). This makes him being the new guy a plot hole in 3.

Small as that goof may be, it still bugs me to no end. A simpler solution would have been to have Brock return from abroad only to find his job given to a newbie, who then goes on to discover Brock's whole career is made of fabricated stories. It would have certainly been a better reason for his jealousy than "Parker's dating my girlfriend who's not even my girlfriend".

Ugh, typing this only reminded me what a wasted opportunity SM3 was. It's aggravating that fans can come up with better story than people who were actually paid to write it. When it comes to placing the blame for the mess SM3 turned out to be, people keep pointing to Sony, but I think Raimi shouldn't be let off the hook that easily. Even if Venom was forced on him, he still should have done his best to present that storyline on the film. And remember, Raimi's the one who came up with "clever" ideas of Sandman being Uncle Ben's murderer and Harry's amnesia (such a cliche).

[milojthatch]

John Jameson, who was introduced in Spider-Man 2, was complete wasted as they didn't even use him flying into space and bringing back Venom but instead just had it land on a meteor next to Pete's bike (WTF?).

That's my main frustration with SM3. An alien life form lands right next to the hero of the movie. How convenient. And don't get me started on what they did (or didn't do, to be exact) with John Jameson.

As stated before, Flint killing Ben Parker was also stupid.

Stupid is too weak of a word. Idiotic is more like it.

Oh yeah, now I'm getting extra geeky but Eddie Brock was already working for the Daily Bugle in Spider-Man 1 (you have to pay close attention). This makes him being the new guy a plot hole in 3.

Small as that goof may be, it still bugs me to no end. A simpler solution would have been to have Brock return from abroad only to find his job given to a newbie, who then goes on to discover Brock's whole career is made of fabricated stories. It would have certainly been a better reason for his jealousy than "Parker's dating my girlfriend who's not even my girlfriend".

Ugh, typing this only reminded me what a wasted opportunity SM3 was. It's aggravating that fans can come up with better story than people who were actually paid to write it. When it comes to placing the blame for the mess SM3 turned out to be, people keep pointing to Sony, but I think Raimi shouldn't be let off the hook that easily. Even if Venom was forced on him, he still should have done his best to present that storyline on the film. And remember, Raimi's the one who came up with "clever" ideas of Sandman being Uncle Ben's murderer and Harry's amnesia (such a cliche).

So far as SM3 goes, personally I'd love if we had a film version of The Secret Wars comics to faithful explain where he got the suite. Being as that wasn't going to happen, I agree, John Jameson should have been used to explain how the symbiote came to Earth, I can agree on that.

As for Sandman being the REAL Ben Parker killer, I didn't like it at first but the more I watch it the more the idea grows on me. It gives Sandman a more personal touch to Peter Parker's world. In the comics he is kind of a simple crook who gets sand powers. Now this adds more depth to his story.

The Brock thing was messed up, but give me any number of mega hit films and I bet we can find similar screw ups!

I kind of feel Raimi true enough could have done a few things different, but I think the Venom parts and all parts connected he maybe didn't do his best in part to get back at Sony, who forced it onto him. A I said, I like what they did to Sandman, and as for Harry, I'm not sure what to say. It is kind of a 50/50 split as for how good his story was.

[Disney-Fan]

Everyone is debating wether the idea is good or not but the only question I can come up with is how neccessary is a reboot to a barely-10-year-old franchise?

[jpanimation]

Well, they reboot Hulk with The Incredible Hulk and they're rebooting Fantastic Four. Ever since the Batman reboot took off, all the studios seem to think this is the next thing.

[Disney-Fan]

The difference is that those past franchises flopped critically and financially (to put things mildly). Spiderman is an acclaimed franchise that has worked really well. What's the point in pressing the reset button so soon? This just screams 'greed' all over it.

[SpringHeelJack]

To me, it doesn't scream "greed" so much as "laziness". It's a popular franchise that I'm sure would do well whether the studio made "Spider-Man 4" or "Spider-Man: Saved By the Bell". It's just far easier for a studio to say "Eh, screw it," and start over rather then trying to take the wrong turn made in "Spider-Man 3" which is just... sad that they won't even try.

[The_Iceflash]

Sony confirms Marc Webb to direct the new 'Spider-Man'

[ajmrowland]

Wow, a guy named "Webb" directing Spider-man.

[milojthatch]

I just read this from SuperHeroHype.com:

Webb, who has options on two sequels, will now tackle a Jamie Vanderbilt script that sees a “Spider-Man” movie that will look and feel very different from the big movies that went before it.

The plan for the movie is to be in the $80 million range and feature a cast of relative unknowns (so you can quash those Rob Pattinson or Gordon-Levitt rumors at this point). And the story will be pared down to center on a high school kid who is dealing with the knowledge that his uncle died even though the teen had the power to stop it.

The touchstone for the new movie will not be the 1960s comics, which were the inspiration behind the movies by Raimi, who grew on up on them, but rather this past decade’s “Ultimate Spider-Man” comics by Brian Michael Bendis and Mark Bagley where the villain-fighting took a back seat to the high school angst.



I still think this is a mistake and as much as I like the Ultimate Spider-Man comics, I don't think focusing on them alone for a Spider-Man film is a good idea.

Basically this comes to down to Sony wanting to show us how mighty they are and who owns the copyrights. Raimi didn't want to make the film they wanted made, so they fired him started over again. If Webb does the same thing expect the same results.

[blackcauldron85]

Next 'Spider-Man' movie coming in 3-D
http://hollywoodinsider.ew.com/2010/02/ ... er-man-3d/
(via community.livejournal.com/ohnotheydidnt

[Duckburger]

All this trouble just to keep those rights, Sony must be desperate. Though 'rebooting' a less-than 10 years old film franchise seems a bit too extreme.

I really liked Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst as Spidey and MJ. Sure the third movie wasn't good, at all - but still... Well, this officially blows.

[KubrickFan]

All this trouble just to keep those rights, Sony must be desperate. Though 'rebooting' a less-than 10 years old film franchise seems a bit too extreme.

I really liked Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst as Spidey and MJ. Sure the third movie wasn't good, at all - but still... Well, this officially blows.

Have you read the synopsis of part 4 that Raimi wanted to make? Believe me, it wasn't good.
Personally, I say: bring it on. Maybe the director will be closer to the material. Maybe not.

[ajmrowland]

It's not a matter of being closer to the source. It's a matter of being good at being a movie.

[Duckburger]

Have you read the synopsis of part 4 that Raimi wanted to make? Believe me, it wasn't good.
Personally, I say: bring it on. Maybe the director will be closer to the material. Maybe not.

I actually haven't - didn't even know there was one.

I didn't really mention Raimi though, it's not really the director I care much about, I just don't like the cast changes. And starting at the beginning of the story again is also something I'm not looking forward too.

[KubrickFan]

It's not a matter of being closer to the source. It's a matter of being good at being a movie.

And did you really think Spidey 3 was a good movie? Even the first one wasn't that good.

And Duckburger, Tobey was all right, but Kirsten Dunst wasn't. A different take on MJ could turn out to be much better, if they tried.

[blackcauldron85]

Avatar Team Meets with Spider-Man Director
http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=63364

[ajmrowland]

It's not a matter of being closer to the source. It's a matter of being good at being a movie.

And did you really think Spidey 3 was a good movie? Even the first one wasn't that good.

The 1st two were good. 3, not really, but I enjoyed it more on Imax.