SPIDEY 4 becomes AMAZING becomes Marvel's SPIDER-MAN

[Dan]

An interesting analysis by Screen Crush on why the Amazing series was a disappointment from the word go.

Source: http://screencrush.com/the-amazing-spid ... ent-wrong/

Also, I'm thinking the thread title might need changing if we're going to use this to discuss the MCU Spidey. Just a thought.

[Ben]

Funny enough, before I read your post, I was thinking the exact same thing! Done!

[EricJ]

An interesting analysis by Screen Crush on why the Amazing series was a disappointment from the word go.

Source: http://screencrush.com/the-amazing-spid ... ent-wrong/

Okay, Electro gets passing mentioned in a paragraph, but not one joke about not only turning him into an idiotically pandering and way, way, wayyy off-comic "Revenge of the nerd" character--which had just about every fan quoting Jim Carrey Riddler lines from Batman Forever ("You were suh-posed to under-stand!")--but also throwing in an ambiguously gay "They're persecuting me and it's NOT MY FAULT!" tone to the character that borders seriously on the Tim Burton. Yes, the worst of Batman Returns, and the worst of Batman Forever, now packed together in ONE film!
There were online fan what-if discussions where Garfield and the fans were throwing around "Hey, like, what if they made Peter Parker gay in the third movie, wouldn't that be, like, really progressive?" They wouldn't, of course, since they were trying to work MJ into the third movie, but er......boyyy, would it not be that far a stretch after the second movie.
Just freakin' saying.

Reducing Rhino to a joke?--That we could maybe take. Promoting him on the poster as a major player in the movie despite five minutes of screen time at the beginning and five minutes at the end, and just used as nothing more than a 70's TV-show "End-credits freeze-frame"? THAT officially steps over the line. Even Venom in Raimi #3 got a least a respectable ending fight.
And now that they finally got Green Goblin right, or at least closer to the nasty tone of the original comic character than Willem Dafoe's Mecha-Joker...did they have to stuff that into the last five minutes of the movie, too, just so we could get more scenes of Peter and Harry being best emo-pals?

There is such a thing as a "Franchise killer". You have to see movies like this to understand what the term truly means. No one could make a third movie after this, even if they wanted to.

Also, I'm thinking the thread title might need changing if we're going to use this to discuss the MCU Spidey. Just a thought.

I say we abandon it altogether, and pretend the Amazing series never happened. (Assuming the MCU Spidey brings the snark that Amazing finally brought in, which,from the Civil War trailers, we can assume they did.)

[EricJ]

Amazing Spider-Man 2 is marginally better than its predecessor, largely because it has a few more highlights (like the thrilling opening chase through New York), but it’s still a deeply confused movie. It can’t decide whether it’s a colorful popcorn blockbuster or a bleak refutation of colorful popcorn blockbusters. At least Webb had the good sense not to conclude the movie with its original ending, where Richard Parker randomly shows up after decades in hiding to give Peter a rambling pep talk.

Yeah, that would explain a lot of things. (Like why Sony stuffed in another marketable villain at the end.)
Basically, it's a transition: The Raimi movies showed it could be done, the Webb movies got too overconfident with the Times Square battles, but finally refined the in-suit comic character (Peter out of the suit, not so much..), brought in the mix of "Snarky masked swinger" and "NYC's favorite son", and that's officially where the MCU picks up.
Fox should look to Sony and Universal as to WHY to let Marvel fix their own characters for them.

The whole mess of villains was supposed to follow on the planted line in the script that's supposed to set up the Sinister Six movie that ultimately never happened, but either you can get your Six OR you can do the iconic Goblin-kills-Gwen moment for fans' sake, but you don't stuff them ALL in, and then try to jam it down with one foot like an overstuffed suitcase!

[Dacey]

What does this even mean?

They also note that Venom is from Sony’s Marvel Universe and is not a spinoff but the first movie after Spider-Man from its Marvel Universe of characters.

http://deadline.com/2017/05/venom-movie ... 202098343/

So...Sony is having their own "universe" spinning off from Marvel's? What?

[Ben]

It's Arad and Pascal producing...waste of time after Homecoming.

[Dacey]

But where exactly does this "universe" exist? Within Disney's universe? If it does, won't that open up more legal issues?

[EricJ]

But where exactly does this "universe" exist? Within Disney's universe? If it does, won't that open up more legal issues?

Just legally outside of Disney's universe, featuring every single loophole that wasn't in the contract that gave Peter Parker back to Disney/Marvel.
Which is why the Venom movie will pretty much just be about Venom, and the hope of an animated Spiderman will be about the alternate Miles Morales canon.

Basically "Everything Sony CAN still do", just to thumb their nose back at the proper owners, and there just ain't that much left.
We might conceivably even see them try to reboot classic Ghost Rider again, just because Agents of SHIELD had to use the alternate canon.

[Dan]

Bumping this thread because of some cute pics of Holland and Zendaya filming in NYC earlier today.

http://hollywoodpipeline.com/Gallery/Sh ... leryPage=1

[ShyViolet]

I realize that this is kind of a blast from the past, but I can't help but find it sad that the original Raimi Spider-Man trilogy has sort of been "forgotten." Barring 2, not every film was perfect, but were all three darned good entertainment? You bet! (Yes, even part 3 to some extent. The Birth of Sandman scene, combined with the Christopher Young score, is one of the best moments in any superhero film ever, in my opinion.)

I'm not trying to belittle the newer films, I know they have many fans (plus I haven't even seen one so they could be amazing for all I know), and if people find them enjoyable, good for them. But there was just so much great stuff in the Raimi films: humor, thrills, drama, comedy (and even, lo and behold, OPTIMISM) that I really think teens and young adults would very much enjoy them.

Also, I must be dumb or something because I can't remember whether or not the Raimi films belong to Disney now (Since they were Sony's, not Fox's.) If so, no way could they ever be integrated into the MCU, and not just because of the Spidey films already existing in THAT Cinematic Universe.

From what I can see, (just my impressions) the tone of Raimi's films is considerably more like a "traditional" comic book (generally light-hearted even with occasional intense drama) and not a gritty MCU coming-of-age story, not that there's anything wrong with that. Meaning that in many ways the trilogy feels like it's from a bygone era.



So many questions and possibilities in these last five minutes. What did Mary Jane's surprisingly somber stare in that very last shot mean? Was she just now realizing what it would mean to constantly worry about Peter's safety every single day? Or even, perhaps, her own safety? (I'm guessing the actual Spidery 3 that Raimi wanted to make would have explored these issues, rather than the Beverly Hills: 90210 version that we actually got. LOL )

[Ben]

Sony still owns these Vi, though I believe Feige is still actually quite proud of them.

[Dan]

Again, it might be because of the circles I hang around a lot, but the Sam Raimi trilogy is never forgotten. They're essentially the measuring stick all Spider-Man films since are compared to, really.

[Ben]

Yeah...they’re still the best Spidey films for me and my pals too, since they're still the only true *Spider-Man* films that aren’t trying to shoehorn in connections to the MCU (seriously, Spidey is "a bit crap" until Tony Stark gives him a powersuit?) or kickstart an expanding franchise too soon by retrofitting a stupid father backstory with Richard Parker (not the tiger) that never went anywhere.

As much as I enjoy having Spidey in the MCU, for however long that lasts, they *are* larger MCU films, not Spider-Man films, so the original trilogy is where it’s at.

I’m eager to see where they go with the Spider-Verse, but hope, now this is a big critical and commercial hit, that they don’t try to overstuff things just because everyone wants a piece of it and now they can. But even those, with the alternate Spidey, are exactly that: alternate. I don’t think we'll ever see an undiluted, original Peter Parker on screen in his own films in the way they keep rebooting Batman with different actors, which is again why the Raimi films will remain the de facto standard bearer for original Spider-Man onscreen.

Well, if you don’t count the funky whaa-whaa Nicholas Hammond trilogy...!

[Randall]

Those first two Raimi film's are still the gold standard, even though I really didn't care for the casting of the leads, and HATE the organic webshooters. There is no perfect Spidey film, but Raimi got a whole lot right - much more than I could have hoped, really. I really enjoyed the MCU Spidey films, but they are way too reliant on having Iron Man connections.

[EricJ]

There is no perfect Spidey film, but Raimi got a whole lot right - much more than I could have hoped, really. I really enjoyed the MCU Spidey films, but they are way too reliant on having Iron Man connections.

The first Raimi broke the Marvel Curse, even if it didn't give us the "true" Peter; the second Raimi, I didn't much care for--Yes, they did a good update of Doc Ock, but in trying to do the "Spiderman No More" comic arc, they loaded Peter Parker down with the Trials of Job, and depressed the heck out of the audience. And the problems with the third movie have been...expanded upon at length.

Still, if anyone ever asks "What a Marvel Movie looks like", I'd still show them Raimi #1 long before The Avengers, Civil War, or even the first Bryan Singer "X-Men".