• Avi Arad doesn't want his precious Spider-Man in the Avengers
    68 replies, posted
Avi Arad shut the fuck up. Really, thats all that needs to be said.
What an idiot.
The Raimi trilogy (save for Spider-Man 3, we don't talk about [i]that[/i] movie here) was pretty amazing (heh) imo. They gave the idea that the people behind the movies actually cared about making them. They also had a solid, defined style, and while over-the-top, stylistically speaking, they didn't have the "in-your-face", forced "awesomeness" that a lot of new superhero movies have. It's the difference between saying "this guy is badass" and letting your audience decide that the guy is badass. TASM is more about the former, and Spider-Man is 100% the latter. I think the difference between Raimi's Spider-Man and TASM is comparable to Iron Man 1 vs Iron Man 2. The first one has likable characters, a simple yet solid narrative, and the charm of being much more unique than your average superhero film. The second one is bland, forced and has has the in-your-face attitude with all the action sequences and new, flashy characters. Unlike IM1, it doesn't feel like anyone gave a shit about making this movie, and, just like The Amazing Spider-Man, it feels like a cash grab. If in TASM2 they show Peter actually being affected by Ben's death, if they show good chemistry between him and his love interest and also if they have the plot be something you can actually care about then yes, I can totally see it getting past the heartlessness of the first movie. If not, it's just gonna be the first one with a few different villains and action scenes.
isn't avi arad responsible for ruining the new metal gear as well [editline]19th January 2014[/editline] Also, Sam Raimi's versions were infinitely better Why? They had Bruce Campbell. His presence only improves things.
[QUOTE=sp00ks;43593831]he's up there imo. the only superheroes i can think of that might be bigger are batman and superman[/QUOTE] I'm not sure, I'd say that Iron Man is bigger than Spider-Man these days. Though I will always think that Batman is the biggest but I may be biased.
I'm sure that they were going to put in Oscorp tower at the end of The Avengers but the deal fell through so that never happened.
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;43595601]idk what you're talking about the spider man movies brought back the superhero film genre after the bad batman flicks[/QUOTE] You mean the george clooney ones? I fucking love those movies [editline]19th January 2014[/editline] yeaaah opinions!
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;43594922]The original three movies are cheesy as fuck[/QUOTE] And that whole part about the Crane driver and his kid wasn't horribly cheesy now was it? Hell I think that freaking Crane driver got more screen time than a lot of the more important characters.
TSAM is a pretty good movie and i'm hoping the second is even better. It does look like it's way, way too busy though. The original spiderman trilogy had Tobey Macguire and he was not a good spiderman. The first movie was fine, and the second movie was awesome, but that was in a lot of ways thanks to Raimi and Alfred Molina, not Mcguire. I'd rather the new series than that older one.
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;43595741]The Raimi trilogy (save for Spider-Man 3, we don't talk about [I]that[/I] movie here) was pretty amazing (heh) imo. They gave the idea that the people behind the movies actually cared about making them. They also had a solid, defined style, and while over-the-top, stylistically speaking, they didn't have the "in-your-face", forced "awesomeness" that a lot of new superhero movies have. It's the difference between saying "this guy is badass" and letting your audience decide that the guy is badass. TASM is more about the former, and Spider-Man is 100% the latter. I think the difference between Raimi's Spider-Man and TASM is comparable to Iron Man 1 vs Iron Man 2. The first one has likable characters, a simple yet solid narrative, and the charm of not being much more unique than your average superhero film. The second one is bland, forced and has has the in-your-face attitude with all the action sequences and new, flashy characters. Unlike IM1, it doesn't feel like anyone gave a shit about making this movie, and, just like The Amazing Spider-Man, it feels like a cash grab. If in TASM2 they show Peter actually being affected by Ben's death, if they show good chemistry between him and his love interest and also if they have the plot be something you can actually care about then yes, I can totally see it getting past the heartlessness of the first movie. If not, it's just gonna be the first one with a few different villains and action scenes.[/QUOTE] It seems like this is what every new action movie suffers from nowadays, just compare new bond movies to older ones. They always try to make it the most badass, earth shattering dilemma they can think of. Something where an entire government or the world is in jeopardy because of this issue. Always 100% action and cgi. What happened to movies that relied on the actors portraying their characters than an insane story. it's kind of like comparing Quentin Tarantino's movies. I personally enjoyed Django as a good shooter/western/revenge flick. But the dialogue and characters ultimately fell flat when compared to Pulp Fiction or Reservoir Dogs. No one focuses on intriguing dialogue anymore
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;43595828]I'm not sure, I'd say that Iron Man is bigger than Spider-Man these days. Though I will always think that Batman is the biggest but I may be biased.[/QUOTE] After The Dark Knight, it'll be a looooong time until Batman isnt the biggest.
The new spiderman looks worse than the old pre-rendered cgi in games.
They'd better bring back J.K. Simmons. He was the best casting decision ever.
[QUOTE=FingerSpazem;43596034]You mean the george clooney ones? I fucking love those movies [editline]19th January 2014[/editline] yeaaah opinions![/QUOTE] its cool i like them more than the nolan flicks tbh. but i'm not a big fan of the last one, which was released in 97 iirc. they took the camp a bit too overboard. remember that spiderman was then a full 5 years later, and after spiderman, shit i think there was one huge blockbuster superhero flick each year. there was the first xmen in 2000 but that brought in like a third of the money that spiderman did
[video=youtube;K1MZIU_feIk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1MZIU_feIk[/video] I actually enjoyed this damned game
[quote]“I for one don’t see the value for us in it. I think we’re doing such a good job with the Spider-Man Universe. Spider-Man is arguably the number one character in the world. He shouldn’t make a cameo.”[/quote] None of this makes any sense at all.
[QUOTE=Dick Slamfist;43595789]isn't avi arad responsible for ruining the new metal gear as well [editline]19th January 2014[/editline] Also, Sam Raimi's versions were infinitely better Why? They had Bruce Campbell. His presence only improves things.[/QUOTE] God, I still wish Raimi made a 4th movie so they could pull the twist that all of Campbell's cameo appearances were actually him as Mysterio.
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;43595302]I've said this already, but TASM's Peter was too many things at the same time. Skater, photographer, genius, and also good looking, fashionable and romantic, but somehow socially awkward and nerdy.[/quote] Being attractive and fashionable was never part of his character (I don't really know where you got this from?), and he went from being awkward and socially outcast (not stereotypical hollywood nerd, like Maguire's Parker) to being more confident in his relationship with Gwen and generally believing in himself more because of the whole superhuman thing. [quote]Tobey's Peter was always the awkward nerdy dude, even after turning into Spider-man. Garfield turns into a smartass for some reason, add up the fact that also there's almost no allusion to the fact that he's a genius before he makes the web-shooters and you have a lot of stuff that feels out of place with his character.[/QUOTE] I'm genuinely wondering if we watched the same movie here Inventing shit and an amazing scientific mind were part of his character right from the start, you can see it in the remote lock he built for his door, Uncle Ben talking about how Peter was so smart that he couldn't help with his homework, and the way he picked up on Dr. Connors' scientific concepts so quickly after reading his website Being Spider-Man gives him an outlet for his pent-up frustration as a teenager, he lets loose because of the anonymity the mask gives him. It's clear he was already very intelligent, but just crippled by his awkwardness that's gone when he's in the Spider-Man situations, making it easier for him to be a cocky smartass. He never became a smartass as Peter, except for the first day where he humiliated Flash he was pretty much the same guy + the angst over Ben's death keeping him down for a while. He was always awkward with Gwen, she just found it endearing. There's a lot more to this movie than people seem to realise, I think most of the people who are so critical of it went into it expecting it to be bad and never really gave it a chance. I'd encourage people to watch it again and try to pay more attention.
[QUOTE=Zuimzado;43594127]Here let me help you [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/dTor4yf.png[/IMG] If that doesn't help you might want to buy a brain, i heard those come with common sense, free of charge[/QUOTE] That's not a very convincing argument, actually. The avengers made only 2x the profits of spiderman, but had like 6+ superheroes. If they put spidey in Avengers 2 they get much less money due to splitting the profits with other rights holders. Then Factor that with some fancy market saturation term that the marketing team comes up with that says spidey should only be in a movie every x years otherwise the public gets tired of him. Not saying I agree with the decision, but there's that.
[QUOTE=FunnyBunny;43602529]That's not a very convincing argument, actually. The avengers made only 2x the profits of spiderman, but had like 6+ superheroes. If they put spidey in Avengers 2 they get much less money due to splitting the profits with other rights holders. Then Factor that with some fancy market saturation term that the marketing team comes up with that says spidey should only be in a movie every x years otherwise the public gets tired of him. Not saying I agree with the decision, but there's that.[/QUOTE] Not all hero's rights are broken up amongst other studios. With Disney holding Marvel now, Spiderman was one of the few franchises they had they didn't have control of. Most of them are held just by Marvel or disney so there isn't so much of a problem with that
Well they still don't have X-Men or the Fantastic Four (among others, but those are the most significant,) the whole reason they went for the Avengers first is because they had a meeting and went over which franchises they still owned and realised they had all the founding members of the Avengers.
[QUOTE=FingerSpazem;43596090]It seems like this is what every new action movie suffers from nowadays, just compare new bond movies to older ones. They always try to make it the most badass, earth shattering dilemma they can think of. Something where an entire government or the world is in jeopardy because of this issue. Always 100% action and cgi. What happened to movies that relied on the actors portraying their characters than an insane story.[/QUOTE] Did you even watch Skyfall?
Still waiting for my Venom Movie
[QUOTE=Sir Drone;43603074]Still waiting for my Venom Movie[/QUOTE] A "Venom: Lethal Protector" films series would be beyond awesome.
[QUOTE=FunnyBunny;43602529]That's not a very convincing argument, actually. The avengers made only 2x the profits of spiderman, but had like 6+ superheroes. If they put spidey in Avengers 2 they get much less money due to splitting the profits with other rights holders. Then Factor that with some fancy market saturation term that the marketing team comes up with that says spidey should only be in a movie every x years otherwise the public gets tired of him. Not saying I agree with the decision, but there's that.[/QUOTE] Let's imagine that Spider-Man being on Avengers 2 gives Sony 33% of the profits or some bullshit number like that Let's roll up the gross numbers- Spider-Man's is 753,000,000 and Avengers' is 1,519,000,000 33% of 1,519,000,000 is 501,270,000. That's 66% of the money they made with Amazing Spider-Man. That's more money than what they made domestic. That's almost twice the budget of that movie. Which means with the money they make from a theoretically "bad" deal where they have to split the profits, they still get enough money to make two Amazing Spider-Mans. And let's not talk about what it'd sell outside of the movie theater. You think Spider-Man is famous? Think about how much more famous he's gonna get if he shows up in one of the most famous movie franchises of our time.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;43594470]I thought it was better than the original ones, then again it's not hard to make better than tobey maguire [img]http://dearjesus.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/tobey_maguire.jpg?w=500[/img][/QUOTE] Spider-Man 2 was incredible, whatchu talkin'
[QUOTE=Flyingman356;43602458]Being attractive and fashionable was never part of his character (I don't really know where you got this from?), and he went from being awkward and socially outcast (not stereotypical hollywood nerd, like Maguire's Parker) to being more confident in his relationship with Gwen and generally believing in himself more because of the whole superhuman thing.[/quote] What do you even mean "it's not part of his character"? If he's good looking, he's good looking. If a movie is trying to tell me that this good looking dude is socially awkward, it makes no sense to me. It feels out of place. And that's not good for characterization. Just imagine if Superbad starred Robert Pattinson and Channing Tatum instead of Michael Cera and Jonah Hill, that wouldn't make a lot of sense, now would it? Sure, we're talking about a movie where a guy gets powers from a spider bite, but that doesn't mean it needs to have zero logic. Hell, they didn't even make an effort to make him look socially awkward, they could've at least taken away the whole fashionable thing about him, I don't know, but if the movie doesn't give me any reason to think "oh yeah that's why he's an outcast", then it's gonna seem weird and poorly thought out. [quote]Inventing shit and an amazing scientific mind were part of his character right from the start, you can see it in the remote lock he built for his door, Uncle Ben talking about how Peter was so smart that he couldn't help with his homework, and the way he picked up on Dr. Connors' scientific concepts so quickly after reading his website[/quote] How is the audience supposed to know this? Remember that the first aspect of his character the movie introduces is how he's an outcast, but also how he's rebellious (skateboarding through the hallways, defending a guy in a fight, sleeping in class). They only show that he's smart afterwards, when he fixes the washing machine and much later with the door lock. So basically this tells us that he's rebellious, stands up for his friends, does all that cool shit AND he's a genius? Why is this guy an outcast again? On the other side, you've got Maguire. 100% nerd. MJ doesn't instantly fall in love with him? Completely believable. He's not hailed as the coolest kid in school after defeating flash? Makes total sense. Nothing distracts you from the movie experience because nothing breaks the atmosphere, unlike with TASM, where you'll go "oh I guess this happens for no reason, ok" every 20 minutes. [quote]He never became a smartass as Peter, except for the first day where he humiliated Flash he was pretty much the same guy[/quote] Well for one, we barely see Peter after that. The biggest scenes we see him in are the basketball one, the one where he fights over Spider-Man with his new girlfriend's father, and the one where he gets late to class and ends the movie with a witty comment. Sounds like a smartass to me. [quote]the angst over Ben's death keeping him down for a while.[/quote] Thanks for bringing up another thing the first trilogy did better than this movie. "keeping him down for a while" why yes, that's exactly how I feel about Ben's death in this film. I mean, it's not like it's supposed to be the [i]only reason he's Spider-man[/i] after all. Nah, it just keeps him down for a while. Raimi's version showed this way more clearly. TASM's Peter only seems to care about it for a little while after it happens, and it quickly goes away after a couple of action sequences that turn from "I'll avenge my uncle's death" to "generic superhero training montage". [quote]He was always awkward with Gwen, she just found it endearing.[/quote] Didn't really look like it to me. If that's what you got from the movie that's fine, but what I gathered was that she, for some reason, always had a crush on him. Seriously, she goes from acknowledging that his name is Peter to being all sweet to him and inviting him over to her house out of nowhere.
TASM was good. The Raimi films were better. There, I've shared my opinion for today.
[QUOTE=Zuimzado;43603918]Let's imagine that Spider-Man being on Avengers 2 gives Sony 33% of the profits or some bullshit number like that Let's roll up the gross numbers- Spider-Man's is 753,000,000 and Avengers' is 1,519,000,000 33% of 1,519,000,000 is 501,270,000. That's 66% of the money they made with Amazing Spider-Man. That's more money than what they made domestic. That's almost twice the budget of that movie. Which means with the money they make from a theoretically "bad" deal where they have to split the profits, they still get enough money to make two Amazing Spider-Mans. And let's not talk about what it'd sell outside of the movie theater. You think Spider-Man is famous? Think about how much more famous he's gonna get if he shows up in one of the most famous movie franchises of our time.[/QUOTE] Of course, this is all presuming Avengers 2 does the same as Avengers, which isn't going to happen. Looking at superhero franchises like the recent Batman movies and the X-Men trilogy, the second movie made two-three times as much as the first one. Of course, if Avengers 2 grosses two times more than the first movie, it'll have grossed 3 billion, which I don't think is gonna happen. But suppose they get to 2 billion. Sony still gets 660,000,000, which is almost as much as they made with the first Amazing Spider-Man movie.
I didn't like tasm because its too seriously "edgy" you can hate spider-man 3 all you can but I still think it was better than this.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.