Page 22 of 22 FirstFirst ... 121819202122
Results 316 to 330 of 330
  1. #316
    Pirate King Backward Galaxy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 03
    Location
    The Danger Zone
    Posts
    11,011
    I don't understand why Sony is being portrayed as so afraid of the current state of the Spidey franchise. The last movie was pretty terrible, and it still made a ton of money. That said, if they really and truly are that worried about it, I'd say they have more to gain with respect to the Avengers crossover than Marvel. The only way it really helps Marvel at this point is if they can use Spidey in a supporting role in the smaller films, like a Hulk 3 or something.

  2. #317
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 11
    Posts
    10,738
    Quote Originally Posted by BoyScout-ManOfTomorrow View Post
    Venom's scrapped? Why? Because TASM2 wasn't as well received as was anticipated?
    Who knows but Sinister Six isn't though. Drew Goddard's script must be really god.

  3. #318
    Flying around :D CKent/KalEl's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 11
    Posts
    829
    The real Sinister Six aka the villains are Sony's board of directors and CEO's who called the shots on these two disasters (TASM 1 & 2). I highly doubt that Webb is a great or just a decent director on his own, but I can't know or make any sort of judgement based on these films because he was such an obvious puppet with an executive hand so far up his, you know what, that it isn't even funny.

    When you look at all that deleted stuff, script changes and all the last minute re-shoots done for both TASM's you realize that they would be, give or take a percent, about 80% different from what they are now! Osborn Sr. living until the third act, Mj in the movie, Harry finding out differently abut Peter=Spider-man, his motivations changed, freaking Richard Parker being ALIVE! Gwen dying in a different way...

    What Sony needs to do is to give up and let go. Take a billion or two from Disney and forget that they ever had control over such a great property. It's unbelievable the amount of crap they managed to do with Spidey starting with Raimi's SM3. Unbelievable. The level of incompetence is astounding. They manage to cast great actors but than they crap all over the story.

    I love Spidey almost as much as I love Supes, so it saddens my heart to see them suffering from so many bad choices coming from incompetent people. Interestingly enough (at least in my humble opinion), both Superman (1 & 2, Donnerverse) and Spider-Man (1&2 Raimiverse) had that something special, then they lost it with the third films from the franchise and never got it back with the re-boots.

  4. #319
    Pirate King Backward Galaxy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 03
    Location
    The Danger Zone
    Posts
    11,011
    Quote Originally Posted by jon-el87 View Post
    In my opinion, the problem isn't so much Sony. The elephant in the room is that Spider-Man's really more suitable for TV.
    Domestic / Foreign / Total
    Spider-Man: $403,706,375 / $418,002,176 / $821,708,551
    Spider-Man 2: $373,585,825 / $410,180,156 / $783,766,341
    Spider-Man 3: $336,530,303 / $554,341,323 / $890,871,626
    TASM: $262,030,663 / $495,900,000 / $757,930,663
    TASM2: $202,853,933 / $506,128,398 / $708,982,323

    Dems ain't TV numbahs.

  5. #320
    Pirate King Backward Galaxy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 03
    Location
    The Danger Zone
    Posts
    11,011
    Quote Originally Posted by jon-el87 View Post
    My post: stating that Spider-Man's more suitable for TV (as he's always been very much of a serialized character).

    Your post: stating why Spider-Man won't be on TV.

    We're not even talking about the same thing
    1: That's not the point of my post. You argue that it's more suited to television, but there is substantial evidence suggesting that it is incredibly suited to feature films. Otherwise, how can you explain that kind of success?

    2: Disagree with your premise, anyway. The fact that Spider-Man is a serialized character means nothing. ALL superheroes from the comics are serialized characters. Also, the way they're making these films now, you can (and studios do) tell serialized stories with feature films.

    Conclusions: Spider-Man is no more and no less suitable for tv than any other superhero character. Your reason for saying he is more suitable for tv doesn't work, because feature film franchises do that now. And the point itself is moot because the feature franchise makes hundreds of millions of dollars even when it sucks.

    No elephant.

  6. #321
    Flying around :D CKent/KalEl's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 11
    Posts
    829
    Quote Originally Posted by jon-el87 View Post
    In my opinion, the problem isn't so much Sony. The elephant in the room is that Spider-Man's really more suitable for TV.
    I respectfully disagree. For me, Raimi's Spider-Man 2 is still one of the top 5 comic book films ever made. It had everything, a charismatic villain with decent pathos about him, perfect hero's arc, good acting all around, well paced climax. It's a great freaking film. Why another like that wasn't made is all on the heads of decision making people involved. But It certainly can be done.

  7. #322
    Incurable Postaholic DA_Champion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 09
    Location
    Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia
    Posts
    4,343
    I think that all of these characters can be done well and done badly on either tv or film, it doesn't matter to me which of the two mediums is picked for any one character.

    I don't think though that every marvel character needs to be in one integrated universe. Having separate universes is fine.

  8. #323
    String Bikini Theory BoyScout-ManOfTomorrow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 09
    Location
    Uncanny X-Valley, Avengers World, Year 2099
    Posts
    6,230
    Quote Originally Posted by DA_Champion View Post
    I think that all of these characters can be done well and done badly on either tv or film, it doesn't matter to me which of the two mediums is picked for any one character.

    I don't think though that every marvel character needs to be in one integrated universe. Having separate universes is fine.
    Could they have their cake and eat it too? Solo movies in separate universes but enough leeway to allow crossovers/team-ups between the characters (in The Avengers scale).

    Whatever the movies decide to do they should concentrate on telling a good story first and not try to sell their next merchandise (Aunt May Does Dallas styled sequels/prequels/spin-offs).

  9. #324
    Pirate King Backward Galaxy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 03
    Location
    The Danger Zone
    Posts
    11,011
    Quote Originally Posted by BoyScout-ManOfTomorrow View Post
    Could they have their cake and eat it too? Solo movies in separate universes but enough leeway to allow crossovers/team-ups between the characters (in The Avengers scale).
    I've been thinking about this question with respect to the complications of having Spidey appear in an Avengers movie...

    1: Would Marvel pay Sony a flat fee to use Spider-Man or would Sony earn a percent of the gross? What would the percent be?
    2: An Avengers movie Spider-Man toy or other merchandise... who gets the money?
    3: If they want to make a crossover movie at the same time as Sony wants to make a movie with Spidey, what happens regarding scheduling conflicts? What happens if the actor gets hurt filming one and then can't film the other?
    4: A lot of actors have contracts to appear in X number of movies as the character for a studio. If it's a joint deal with Sony, do crossover flicks count?
    5: Even if they don't count, a lot of actors don't want to be one character their whole lives. It could become more difficult to sign actors to multi-pic deals if said actors think, "Okay, this is a 3 picture deal with Sony, so they can have their trilogy, but it probably also means I have to appear 3 times for Marvel, so it's really 6 movies".
    6: The many many many potential story implications.

    Anyone have issues I'm not considering? The biggest and most obvious hurdle is the money.
    Last edited by Backward Galaxy; 10-10-2014 at 06:38 AM.

  10. #325
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 11
    Posts
    10,738
    The thing is Sony don't need to sell they're a multi billion dollar company.

  11. #326
    Pirate King Backward Galaxy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 03
    Location
    The Danger Zone
    Posts
    11,011
    Quote Originally Posted by maasaloo View Post
    The thing is Sony don't need to sell they're a multi billion dollar company.
    In January, Macroaxis predicted a 78% chance of Sony going bankrupt.

    In September, they revealed to investors that their projected losses by the end of the fiscal year were 4x greater than what they expected, for a total of $2.14 bil.

    I'm not disagreeing with you, nor do I think Sony is in any real danger of going under completely, but business has been better for them. In the event that they did need money, Spider-Man would be a solid chip to play.

  12. #327
    String Bikini Theory BoyScout-ManOfTomorrow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 09
    Location
    Uncanny X-Valley, Avengers World, Year 2099
    Posts
    6,230
    If Sony were to sell Spider-Man back to Marvel their (Studios) Phase 4 marketing would write itself.

  13. #328
    Board Master Dagenspear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 11
    Posts
    2,196
    Ya know, one of the only things I'm gonna say I like about this movie is Dane Dehan. He's just so charismatic and emotionally open in every scene that he's in that it's really easy to just be completely engaged in his character and motivation in every scene. I enjoy almost all of his scenes.
    Last edited by Dagenspear; 04-12-2015 at 12:05 PM.

  14. #329
    String Bikini Theory BoyScout-ManOfTomorrow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 09
    Location
    Uncanny X-Valley, Avengers World, Year 2099
    Posts
    6,230
    So the Finnish Jysk is pulling out The Amazing Spider-Man 2 quilt covers from the market. Reason being they apparently have aromatic amines in them. Customers are advised to return the quilt covers and they get a full refund. I suppose some audience members would like to get a refund after seeing the movie.

    I'm expecting to hear the good news about Raimi's Spider-Man 2 quilt covers being discovered as a cure for cancer.

  15. #330
    Custom Title jon-el87's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 08
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    12,270
    Don't think I've watched this, since going late on opening night. Bought the blu-ray, but just put it on a shelf (next to the other four movies) and forgot about it.

    Max Dillon and Ale... Rhino comes across like archetypes, not real people. At least Dillon is hinted at being unstable and having violent tendencies, before becoming Electro (rather than him being a regular guy, who simply goes crazy upon getting powers), but would've liked to have seen some exploration of his past (and his obsessions and violent tendencies being more of an issue, before he becomes Electro).

    Dr. Kafka felt almost like a cartoon character. With his German accent, I kept expecting him to start talking about ze master race.

    The apparent OsCorp conspiracy felt forgotten and seemingly went nowhere (because of deleted scenes, erasing parts of the film). Not loving Richard Parker's DNA being used (and being key) to the spider that bit Peter. That means that only Peter, or another blood relative of Richard Parker, could get powers from being bitten by the spiders. It could not happen to just anyone. Peter's genetic bloodline makes him special.

    The bit with Friers (Michael Massee) going to visit Harry, and then going to OsCorp (where they store the gear for eventual Spider-Man villains), should've been a mid-credit sequence. A tease of what is to come (not part of the film itself). They shouldn't have had the film end with the guy in the Rhino suit and starting a fight with Spider-Man. The three Raimi movies and these two really seemed intent on connecting Spider-Man's rogue gallery to OsCorp. Only Venom and Sandman (unless that was an OsCorp testing ground, and I just missed it) were unrelated to OsCorp. They moved away from OsCorp created villains, with the two MCU Spider-Man movies... where all of his villains have ties to Tony Stark and grudges against him.

    Gwen continues being a useful ally, with her own agency... until Peter's battle with Harry, where she becomes a damsel in distress and is killed off. It bothers me. Not only, because it feels like Gwen could've swung herself to safety (rather than just passively hanging there), but because, after three films of MJ being a passive character who is always kidnapped by the villains and needs to be rescued, Gwen (a proactive character and useful ally) is the one who is killed off. It ends up feeling like the price she has to pay, for not just being a passive love interest in distress, in these two films. Granted, Gwen's death in the comics is a famous, iconic moment. However, that was because it had never happened before in superhero comics. The hero always saved the love interest. Since then, killing off the love interest of the hero (with the hero usually being male) has become a heavily criticized cliché and trope in superhero comics.

    While Gwen's death was a first in the comics, this wasn't the first time that it was done in a superhero movie. Daredevil, X-Men The Last Stand, X-Men Origins Wolverine (and probably some more. Depending on how you count: Lois Lane in the 1978 movie, even if she's brought back through time travel), had all done it before this film. Then you've got superhero TV shows like Smallville, which did it with Kyla and Alicia (and, even if undone through a time travel plot, Lana). Not to mention, all the movies and television shows, outside of the superhero genre, where they've killed off the female love interest of a male hero.

    In retrospect, I think that killing off Gwen was a mistake. Ironically, this movie was released the same year that Marvel Comics introduced the Spider-Gwen concept. If they hadn't killed off Gwen, and made more films in this series, they could've developed her into that... of course, this film establishes that only a Parker family blood relative could get spider powers. Preventing a spider from simply biting her, and giving her powers. So she couldn't become Spider-Woman... only a female blood relative of Richard Parker could (by all account, none exists, unless Richard had a secret daughter somewhere). With this film, Sony was trying to set up their own shared cinematic universe, but ensured that a soon to be obvious spin-off path (i.e. established character Gwen gets spider powers and becomes Spider-Woman) could never happen.
    Last edited by jon-el87; 12-02-2020 at 02:40 AM.

Page 22 of 22 FirstFirst ... 121819202122

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •