SPIDEY 4 becomes AMAZING becomes Marvel's SPIDER-MAN

[Randall]

Yeah, I really didn't get that one.

And now, seeing that people won't even see a Spider-Man movie if it looks stinky, SS doesn't have much of a chance.

[Ben]

I do crack up when a $600-700m grossing movie is deemed "disappointing" because it made $60m less than the last one. Sony is learning the law of diminishing returns the hard way...

The problem is that a Spidey movie is a Spidey movie. Like most superheroes, you given them a villain, they beat them up, the end. Every movie is the same. And the problem really is exemplified with this series, which is struggling to come up to the level of Raimi's films (yes, even 3, the first half of which is pretty good).

Whereas Batman has a bit more going on with him, Superman largely has the same issue. The first two Reeve films built upon each other, but by 3 and 4 they become the same film (much as I love 'em), and here we are in not just to two Spidey films, but technically on the fifth that this generation of audience has seen in recent years.

Even the X-films have managed to build, introduce new characters and plots, and spin-off to solo character outings, so that their seventh film out now still feels new. I think they probably have two more left in them after Apocalypse, which will start to feel samey, and another Wolverine, which probably already feels samey (I didn't see The Wolverine), since again he's just one character and there's only so much you can do before it's just the same film, different villain.

That's where Sony is now, as opposed to maybe letting Raimi make the 4 he wanted to - a classical return to the comics' past with Connors becoming the Vulture - which could have finished off that series, leaving it a little while before Spidey came back again or indeed returned to Disney where he could feel new once more in the Avengers and such, which is how Disney/Marvel is cleverly keeping their solo characters feeling fresh each time.

Sony's problem really is that they're making these films for the sake of holding on to the character license, not because there's a story to tell. Adding some phoney baloney subplot about Richard Parker (not the tiger) isn't working...it feels tacked on because it is. And the Sinister Six? Was that going to be part of the franchise between 2 and 3, or 3 and 4, and does the story continue between them? Because why not just call it Amazing Spider-Man 3 or 4, since that's how it will come over to the audiences.

Audiences who, if they don't respond well to two or three villains per movie, are not going to respond well to six in one movie, are they?

[James]

It feels to me like two different people are writing the current Spider-man series. Scenes with Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone are wonderful. Scenes with any bad guy are just ridiculous. Maybe I'm spoiled by the more "realistic" feeling Marvel Universe films and the Dark Night trilogy, and maybe even the X-Men series. The villains in those films don't feel like cartoon characters. Spider-man baddies feel phony.

But again, Garfield is a HUGE improvement on Maguire!

[Ben]

Garfield in a Raimi movie would have been truly "amazing".

What's the Dark Night trilogy? (Sorry...*some*one was going to say something...!)

[James]

What's the Dark Night trilogy?

Oh my gosh, I can't believe you haven't seen it yet Ben! It's this amazing take on the Batman story by Christofer Knolan. Here's the poster for the middle film of the trilogy. Drop what you're doing and go check it out!

[Dacey]

I seem to be a minority on this (well, in this topic at least), but Garfield is honestly an awful Peter Parker for me. He's a good enough Spidey. But he's nothing like Peter Parker. Tobey Maguire FTW!

[Randall]

I prefer Garfield by a mile, but Maguire is definitely more in tune with the Parker nerdiness.

[EricJ]

I prefer Garfield by a mile, but Maguire is definitely more in tune with the Parker nerdiness.

Maguire is the best out-of-costume nerd, Garfield is the best in-costume wiseass.
One must take one or the other, as needed.

[Dacey]

They've put Rhino on the Blu-Ray cover, because of course they have...

http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=14256

[Ben]

Huh?

That's a terrible cover...you can't even see the villains clearly. And that Electro head? Did they know it was Jamie Foxx playing him in the movie? Did someone care to see what he actually looked like?

Poor, all around...

[Randall]

That Electro head is just ugly. I can't imagine anyone actually wanting to display it. Looks like it's from a horror movie.

[EricJ]

The Electro head was announced for preorder BEFORE the movie came out.
The cover with every other villain on it, and you can maybe spot Electro if you look closely enough, came after the theatrical run.

[Randall]

See, while still not great, this Japanese set is way prettier than the Electro head.

[Ben]

Yeah, but that's still a lot of tat trying to make up for a redundant movie. Honestly, it's like the trinket packaging is trying to be the reason worth picking up the title in the first place...

[Randall]

When collectors (ahem, like us) nitpick about whether or not there is a cover slip,or a Steelbook, etc... placing packaging before the film is not unheard of. And by most accounts (while still recognizing that some did like it), this film could use any push it can get.