The Amazing Spider-Man officially pisses me off

I don't know, I've always felt that the Raimi films were big, dumb pieces of shit. I don't get the love for them at all, which is a shame because I really did Spiderman as a character and I loved the animated series from the early 90s. From everything I've heard this new film will be everything the Raimi films weren't, which is a very good thing.

Give em hell, Sebastian! Valid shit.

Here here! Raimi's Spider-Mans are the closest thing to an unabashed, living comic book as we've gotten so far. I love them, and that includes Spider-Man 3.

I don't think "more character driven" implies the last three films were never character driven, I believe it simply means... more character driven. Or maybe I'm just taking it too literally.

Anyway, I hope the flick turns out more like the comics than the Raimi flicks. I don't want to see New Yorkers cheering for Spider-Man again as if he were Superman.

Well said, OB.

 

The new tact in promoting franchise movies now seems to be "shitting on the ones that came before."

 

Is Hollywood following in the footsteps of Shia LaBeouf? 

Yeah, I'm taking 'more character driven' to be code for 'we have no money for big action sequences'.

 

Then again aside from the third film the original trilogy were fairly sparse with their action sequences. I'm still intrigued by what Webb can do with the property (I'm one of the guys who really loved 500 Days of Summers) and what Garfield can bring to the character. His previous works seems to suggest he'll be a great fit for Parker/Spider-Man.

Wow, that IS a long neck.

Sam Raimi made one good SPIDER-MAN film out of three attempts. Not a great record there.

He made three box office smashes that, for the most part, we're also critical successes. 

 

Pretty good track record, actually.

For some reason, people seem to look back and see the thing standing closest to them, which in this case, is Spiderman 3. And dear god, the amount of people, geeks and non-geeks alike, who say 'its teh werst movi EVAR!' is frightening. Maybe it's just a kid trying to prove he's better than his old man. Or maybe it's just positive, canned responses that the studio insists he puts forth.

Sure. If you value either of those things over your own personal opinion.

 

Me? I consider Raimi's webhead trilogy pretty much a letdown, saved somewhat by the admittedly good SPIDEY 2.

 

In theory, I have no problem with somebody taking a shot at bettering Raimi. It certainly could be done. But what I've seen and heard of this new one so far has yet to enthuse me.

I like Spider-Man 3 up until a point, the point where Venom arbitarily bumps into Sandman and they both decide to team up. Every bit of the movie after that is wretched and it casts a pall on the generally great bits of film that came before.

 

 

Well, not over my personal opinion, but over yours for sure. :)

 

Sometimes I think the first is actually the best, actually. It's certainly fun to watch Raimi finally have a big budget sandbox to put across his ideas. I think it's a tad clunky, but I think it's a good flick.

 

I'm looking forward to the new one, certainly. Still kind of shocked that they didn't let him put out a number four. As a Raimi fan, certainly happy to see him move on to other projects, though.

You nailed it. After that point I spent the last bit of the film letting out disappointing sighs. In fact the series is consistently great up until that gaff and then it just runs out of steam.

Heh heh. I tip my cap to you, sir.

 

I'll submit that there are things to enjoy about all of Raimi's films, I just wish we'd have gotten as much Funny Peter and Smart Peter as we did Mopey Peter. Or anywhere close, for that matter. The mishandling of Parker really killed things for me. I don't even find Maguire to be all that well cast in those films. (But at least his neck was properly proportioned. Zing!)

I genuinely believe that Sam Raimi had no idea what to do with Venom and sort of put off using the character until the last moment. The problem is that the inclusion of Venom sort of shorthands Venom (which isn't too big a problem, as Venom is a shitty villain) AND Sandman.

 

Even the action sequences are boring once Venom gets involved in the movie. There's imagination and actual action beats in the first few Sandman fights which just isn't there during that final battle.

 

Well, yeah. And cooked sewer rat tastes better than dogshit.

 

I did like the Sandman stuff in the first half of SPIDEY 3.

 

 

Edited by User_32 - 7/14/11 at 12:21pm

The "birth" of Sandman scene is quite possibly the most gorgeously executed scene from any superhero film of the aughts. Not a big fan of the rest of the film, but for that scene alone Raimi earns my love for SM3. Makes the whole jumbled mess worthy of existence.

At the very least, Spider-man 3 tried to lay the grounds of genuine character work and theme.  It wanted to tell a legitimate story.  It really is when the symbiote comes in that takes the film off the rails (but ironically leads to some of the film's most delightfully fun sequences).

 

I actually find most of the action sequences in 3 to be dull.  The visual fx, trying to make it work with a lot more unmasked digital doubles, never approach anything as engaging as the sequences in the 2nd film.

 

I've come to appreciate a lot of the third movie with time.

Just out of curiosity, are you referring to the second one or the first one? At first I assumed you're referring to "Spider-Man 2", but I know some people like "Spider-Man" better.

Those people are insane. Of course, I'm talking about SPIDER-MAN 2.

include the evil Peter dance number and I agree 100%

 

"Now dig on this..."
 

 

Spider-Man 3 was a studio controlled mess with some pretty significant flashes of Raimi's SM2 brilliance. Venom was so clearly shoved down Raimi's mouth so hard you could see the bruises on his lips for weeks after the film premiered. The only knock against the film that I'd hold 100% against Raimi is retconning the Sandman into uncle Ben's murder.

 

This whole "let's throw the previous films under the bus, but subtly" that Sony and Webb got going is douchey as fuck.

I'd be very interested to know what the third film would've been like without the symbiote.  The film moves along really well until Peter is informed of his uncle's real killer.  The rage that he feels there actually works with the use of the symbiote at that point in the story, but it feels like another movie has just started.  It would've feel that way if the movie hadn't spent so much time on the stuff concerning Peter/Spidey's celebrity and plans for marriage, Mary Jane's feelings of inferiority and neglect, and Harry's explosive amnesia (all of which I really like to varying degrees).

Yeah this is a great article Sebastian wrote and a well-worded defense of the Raimi movies. They're trying to justify their decision to reboot a franchise that was perfectly healthy both critically and commercially by insinuating that it was deficient. I know the studio can't just tell us Tobey Maguire got too expensive and they had conflicts with Raimi, but they could at least talk nice about the movies that cemented Spider-Man as a cinematically viable character in the first place.

 

I'm happy we're getting a Lizard movie, though, and not a movie where Anna Hathaway plays the "Vulturess." That was the most offensively retarded thing I have ever heard and I cannot believe it was actually gonna happen.

Wow, so I'm the only one with less than no interest in bothering with this exercise in marketing huh? Sony re-writing history to try and pimp this redundancy was always going to be a given surely. Can't talk up the last franchise when you dumped it so unceremoniously for this newer cheaper younger model.

Exactly. There's no way they're going to say "yeah those old films were amazing, but ours should be okay too!" Getting worked up over PR is totally pointless. 

From what I understand, 3 and 4 were going to be filmed back to back, with Sandman and Ben Kingsley as the Vulture. If I do say so myself, I think that would have been really awesome. Blame Avi Arad.

 

I don't want to speak for everyone, but the passive-agressiveness is the biggest turn-off. Just say, "This will be the best Spider-Man yet" and lay all your cards on the table. Even if it's a total lie.
 

Interesting.  Was it going to be two self-contained films or another Matrix/Pirates sequel situation?  Not knowing much about The Vulture, I don't know how one villain would've led to the other in terms of the personal stakes to Peter/Spidey.

 

Not sure. But they went as far as meeting Kingsley for the role. From what I hear, the tipping point for Raimi's fourth was also that character, as Sony reportedly said ANYONE BUT THE VULTURE. Raimi's hard-on for the classics may have did him in.
 

Take it from someone who loves most of Raimi's work and Spiderman. There is plenty we haven't seen and that trilogy barely scratched the surface.

 

Sony rebooted it way too damn quick but with Marvel/Disney prepping to get the rights back it makes sense.

 

I hated MaGuire and Dunst in those roles. Garfield and Emma Stone will be better the question is the direction.

 

I look forward to seeing a new interpretation.

I do remember reading about that back then.  Sigh... Larry David.  Hahahahah.

 

I wonder if Mavel/Disney had got the rights back would we have seen a continuation of Rami greatness?

 

As for this movie, I'm still not convinced it's worth my time.

The Spidey movies do AT LEAST $800 million worldwide EACH.

 

Sony will CUT OFF HANDS before they let this thing go back to Marvel.

Fucking A. I like the director, I love the cast but the kind of comments everyone is making are really putting me off this. And the worst part is seeing this work on a segment of the fans. Suddenly SM2 isn't awesome? Seriously, people?

 

 

Someone could easily say the same of the X-Men trilogy.

 

First film - Ok not bad its a start.

 

Second film - Awesome! As good as it gets comic book film wise.

 

Third film - Utter dog shit.

I wish most summer blockbusters contained half the wit, creativity and energy of SPIDER-MAN 3.

I actually think three films work nicley as a trilogy. Sure Venom is the weak link but the lead up with Brock trying to one up Parker is perfect. 

Indeed.  I haven't seen the film since its theatrical run, but I remember Grace's Brock being enjoyable.  The Brock-to-Venom transformation sequence in the church was pretty great too.

 

As for this new one, eh.  I don't mind a new creative team or anything.  It's just the origin angle that is bothering me.  

The thing is, as much as Spider-Man 3 fumbles the ball it doesn’t betray it’s characters as much as X-Men: The Last Stand, is nowhere near as plodding inert as Daredevil or Wolverine,  and isn’t as wilfully forgettable as Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer.

 

It’s a misstep in comparison to the good and the great films that preceded it, but it’s head and shoulders above the majority of pre-Iron Man superhero films.

 

I thought the first Transformers was more enjoyable than S3, though I was never a huge fan of the films (I've only revisited them in bits and pieces when on TV).

 

The problem the new Spider-Man people have is that they have to try and say the new film is different and worth the audiences time. As soon as Sony announced the reboot the online community went crazy in defence of Raimi, and though you certainly don't want Webb to be dismissive of the first three movies, it is understandable that they are doing what they can to disassociate themselves from them. 

By lying.