Great Society

Children of the Sun => Movies & Entertainment => Topic started by: nacho on October 01, 2005, 11:11:48 AM

Title: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: nacho on October 01, 2005, 11:11:48 AM
So, wait, Spider-Man 2 is a slow-moving, tedious comic version of Spider Man which makes fun of the original movie and constantly makes heavy-handed references to Evil Dead 2?  I see.
Title: Spiderman 2
Post by: RottingCorpse on October 01, 2005, 11:12:45 AM
The hospital scene is classic Raimi, eh?

Are you just now watching it for the first time?
Title: Spiderman 2
Post by: nacho on October 01, 2005, 11:20:47 AM
Quote from: RottingCorpse
The hospital scene is classic Raimi, eh?

Are you just now watching it for the first time?


It's been low on my queue.  I'd say why, but I don't remember what I'm renting or burning anymore.  It's all a blur and I'm surrounded by burned DVD's!  I think I'm diseased.

Yeah, there's classic Raimi through the whole...damn...thing.  I see just about every movie he's done in there.  But when you start making more-than-nods to your movies and actually recreating scenes, it's a little rough, I think.  Especially when this movie is hollywood superhero go get 'em Spiderman!! and the other movies are gorefests or outrageous comedies shot on shoestrings.

I'm sitting here thinking (half way through)  YES, I KNOW SAM RAIMI IS THE DIRECTOR!  HELLO IVAN!  

Spider Man 2:  The best of Sam Raimi!  Or:  It's weird recreating scenes from Crimewave without all of the goofy characters.
Title: Spiderman 2
Post by: nacho on October 01, 2005, 11:42:55 AM
I have your life in my hands unless you give me what I need.  I am a god compared to you.

Okay, I'll give it to you.  But bring me Spiderman.

Okay!  Gosh!
Title: Spiderman 2
Post by: Nubbins on October 01, 2005, 12:01:11 PM
oh come on... it's not THAT bad.

I want Kirsten Dunst to come sit on my lap.
Title: Spiderman 2
Post by: jreale on October 01, 2005, 12:24:18 PM
Quote from: Nubbins
oh come on... it's not THAT bad.

I want Kirsten Dunst to come sit on my lap.


On deck in Nub's qeue: Bring it On.
Title: Spiderman 2
Post by: RottingCorpse on October 01, 2005, 12:25:17 PM
Quote from: nacho
Yeah, there's classic Raimi through the whole...damn...thing.  I see just about every movie he's done in there.  But when you start making more-than-nods to your movies and actually recreating scenes, it's a little rough, I think.


We in the directing biz refer to that as "style."
Title: Spiderman 2
Post by: Nubbins on October 01, 2005, 12:43:34 PM
Quote from: jreale
Quote from: Nubbins
oh come on... it's not THAT bad.

I want Kirsten Dunst to come sit on my lap.


On deck in Nub's qeue: Bring it On.


Busted!
Title: Spiderman 2
Post by: nacho on October 01, 2005, 12:50:37 PM
Quote from: Nubbins


I want Kirsten Dunst to come sit on my lap.


You could open cans with those canines of hers.

But, okay guys, let's meet in the middle on this.  It wasn't as bad as Pearl Harbor.
Title: Spiderman 2
Post by: Nubbins on October 01, 2005, 12:55:59 PM
Quote from: nacho
It wasn't as bad as Pearl Harbor.


Jesus Christ... what is?

What a piece of shit that movie was.  It was Titanic with kamikazes and battleships.
Title: Spiderman 2
Post by: nacho on October 01, 2005, 01:01:15 PM
Okay, okay.  It had good moments, it was fun overall.  I liked the subway scene, and the 2.3 seconds of Dafoe, and other stuff.  It was just Raimi having an overlong masturbation session, and the whole 14 hours of Hero Takes a Fall and internal struggle that got to me.  He made his choice in the first movie.  Now he makes his choice again.  Oh, and a third time.  No, a fourth and fifth time.  Okay, now he's made his choice.  And it all works out because all he had to do was make his choice.

It was a 130 minute prologue for the third movie.
Title: Spiderman 2
Post by: Matt on October 01, 2005, 02:05:07 PM
The deal is that in the first movie he made his choice and now he's seeing the consequences of that choice. He's seeing just how hard it is to balance everything and be a superhero.

The third movie is questionable. I think some of the actors are getting franchise fatigue. Maguire will probably leave because he's a little bitch.
Title: Spiderman 2
Post by: RottingCorpse on October 01, 2005, 04:03:15 PM
Quote from: nacho
It was a 130 minute prologue for the third movie.


We in the script writing biz call that "character arc."
Title: Spiderman 2
Post by: Cassander on October 01, 2005, 06:42:05 PM
i'm going to have to agree with nacho.  I really put off seeing spiderman 2 for a looooooong ass time because i hated the first one so much.  but all these people were guaranteeing me it was better because of Doc Ock.  


All those people are now dead.

The plot was almost the exact same as the first movie, except with fewer fight scenes.  And one of these fight scenes culminates in Spider-man saving people on a subway by digging his heels into the tracks...something that would absolutely kill him in the comic book.  He's got spider-strength...but he's no Superman.

Second, there was about a five minute span where absolutely everything that could go wrong does, just like in 500 million romantic comedies.  The whole mary jane thing was retarded throughout.  They tried to give Doc Ock some humanity and failed.

And beyond all this, they set us up to start all over again.  

Me watching ending of SPider-man 2: Oh well, at least maybe three will have Venom in it or something.  Maybe some Black Cat action. oo, wait, one more scene!

Movie: Harry...HARRY!

Me: FUCKING SHIT.  GREEN GOBLIN 2? SHIT.
Title: Spiderman 2
Post by: nacho on October 02, 2005, 03:09:39 AM
Quote from: Cassander


Second, there was about a five minute span where absolutely everything that could go wrong does, just like in 500 million romantic comedies.  


It's all about the comic music montage.  Raindrops keep falling on my head...  Haha, that's so clever!  Thank you Sam Raimi.  In the special features, does the scriptwriter get executed?

I think they should have all of the bad guys, or at least three of them, in the third movie.  Because that worked for Batman, right?  If you have four huge names, you don't need to worry about these clumsy scripts...you just don't have a script!
Title: Spiderman 2
Post by: Nubbins on October 02, 2005, 03:45:56 AM
Thank you, GS... if it weren't for you, my enjoyment of the Spiderman series may not have been completely ruined.  

Screw you all... Wonderboys is still one of my favorite movies of all time.

Toby still = rad... at least in my book.
Title: Spiderman 2
Post by: jreale on October 02, 2005, 03:50:24 PM
Quote from: Nubbins
Screw you all... Wonderboys is still one of my favorite movies of all time.

Toby still = rad... at least in my book.


My love of Wonderboys is only eclipsed by my fondness for The Ciderhouse Rules.  Screw you all!
Title: Spiderman 2
Post by: Matt on October 02, 2005, 04:02:48 PM
My roommate loves Wonder Boys. I'm afraid to like it because I don't want to end up like him. Also, I feel burned out on writing, movies about writers, and writing about writers.
Title: Spiderman 2
Post by: nacho on October 02, 2005, 04:06:42 PM
Quote from: Matt
My roommate loves Wonder Boys. I'm afraid to like it because I don't want to end up like him. Also, I feel burned out on writing, movies about writers, and writing about writers.


Time for Lunar Park!  Which is writing about readers.


Dear Loyal Fanbase:  Just, please...please, please, please...fuck off.  Signed, Brett.
Title: Spiderman 2
Post by: Matt on October 02, 2005, 05:26:25 PM
Fuck readers. I hate readers right now. Little pussy literati talking, shit is coming out of their mouths, about James Joyce and fucking J. D. Salinger, whom I love but goddamn if Holden Caulfield isn't the paradigm of what every motherfucking protagonist should be, according to literary critics. Which, by the way, fuck those guys too.
Title: The Rise and Fall of the Spider-man Franchise
Post by: Cassander on November 21, 2005, 03:44:13 PM
http://www.killermovies.com/s/spiderman3/articles/5481.html
Title: Re: The Rise and Fall of the Spider-man Franchise
Post by: nacho on November 21, 2005, 04:02:09 PM
They're starting to do that goddamned villain stacking!  What the fuck?  The superhero versus one villain -- always fucking classic.  Batman one remains a classic to this day, the first Spiderman raked in solid gold and Spiderman 2 rode those coattails...yet they insist on villain stacking, which turns the shit into foul filth mocked by everyone.
Title: Re: The Rise and Fall of the Spider-man Franchise
Post by: Cassander on November 21, 2005, 04:08:44 PM
beyond that....LOWELL FROM WINGS?  he's got about as much menace as....i dunno.  A sloppy joe?

and topher grace as venom?  WTF?

good thing i'm already boycotting!
Title: Re: The Rise and Fall of the Spider-man Franchise
Post by: RottingCorpse on February 24, 2006, 01:14:25 AM
http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=22567
Title: Re: The Rise and Fall of the Spider-man Franchise
Post by: nacho on February 24, 2006, 08:38:13 AM
Here's where everyone gets to fill me in on the meaning of the "black outfit."  Also, let me know how Harry knows it's the legendary black outfit given that it's the style of the poster.
Title: Re: The Rise and Fall of the Spider-man Franchise
Post by: RottingCorpse on February 24, 2006, 10:47:45 AM
First off, you know that movie studios intentionally "leak" shit like this to the fan sites right before they announce it to the mainstream, right? For the record, I like a lot of what Knowles does on his site. I also think he tries way too hard to be a "player." He doesn't need to. Harry is his own sort of inside/outside Hollywood beast and he should revel in that because it's a rare thing to in essence be nobody and yet yield such a cultural sway over the magic makers.

I could go off on a long rant on how Ain't-It-Cool-News is at once part of the problem and the solution with Hollywood and it's endless fascination with dreck, but it's really not that interesting of a debate.

That said, Harry Knowles is probably speaking truthfully when he said his "people" at Sony told him that it's the "legendary black costume" in the poster.

On the black costume, (GEEK ALERT): Back in the early 80s, Spider-Man and all the other Marvel super-heroes got whisked away to an alien planet so Marvel could cash in on huge crossover called "Secret Wars." (Okay, their motives weren't completely financial, and it was a pretty friggin' cool story. Think Escape from New York meets MechWarriors.)

Anywho... while there, Spidey's red and blue costume gets ripped to shreds. he goes to this glowing black ball thinking it's going to repair his costume. The black ball oozes over him, (kind of like the blob) and instead of being his red and blue, becomes the "legendary black costume," all black with big white eyes and a big white spider on the chest.

See, Secret Wars was Marvel's way of taking care of flagging sales. They "reimagined" a few of the characters by kind of shifting away from the status quo; The Thing could change back and forth from human to rocky, the Hulk got smart, and Spider-Man got a new costume.

So, Spidey gets back to earth and he can change his clothes by thinking about it, and life is grand as he kicks ass and takes names. Only thing is he's friggin' tired all the time because the costume is taking control of him while he sleeps and takes him out doing shit. Turns out the costume is an "alien symbiote" which is trying to meld with Spidey and take over his body.

Spidey finds out the alien's weakness is sound and goes up into a church tower where the bells SEEM to blast it apart. Only the alien survived, and bonded up with this whack-o Catholic who thinks Spider-Man ruined his life. He joins up with the symbiote to become the villain, Venom, who looks like Spider-Man's black costume except is has a big gaping maw like one of the creatures from the Alien movies.

Sound kind of stupid? It is really, though Venom is super popular in the comic book realm, so it's a no-brainer that they're pulling him into the movies.

I'll dig up some pictures.
Title: Re: The Rise and Fall of the Spider-man Franchise
Post by: nacho on February 24, 2006, 11:00:34 AM
So, in part three, everything up to the creation of Venom will be covered in a five minute prologue, right?
Title: Re: The Rise and Fall of the Spider-man Franchise
Post by: RottingCorpse on February 24, 2006, 02:45:42 PM
Actually, after the succes of the movie, Marvel released an "alternate" Spider-Man series based on the movies in which the symbiote was created in an Oscorp lab. I'm sure that's what they'll use for Part 3.

Here's the "tale of the black costume" with pictures.

http//www.spiderfan.org/characters/himself/costume/black (http://http//www.spiderfan.org/characters/himself/costume/black)

Here's some Venom pics:

http//www.spiderfan.org/characters/himself/costume/black (http://http//www.spiderfan.org/characters/himself/costume/black)
Title: Re: The Rise and Fall of the Spider-man Franchise
Post by: RottingCorpse on February 24, 2006, 02:55:50 PM
let me know how Harry knows it's the legendary black outfit given that it's the style of the poster.

http://spiderman.sonypictures.com/
Title: Re: The Rise and Fall of the Spider-man Franchise
Post by: Cassander on February 24, 2006, 10:05:44 PM
oh jesus christ. 
Title: Re: The Rise and Fall of the Spider-man Franchise
Post by: nacho on February 24, 2006, 10:20:52 PM
Well, glad Raimi's dead.  This leaves me with Jackson.  No one else has survived. 
Title: Re: The Rise and Fall of the Spider-man Franchise
Post by: Matt on February 25, 2006, 12:30:32 AM
I refuse to pronounce death until I've seen it, nor will I give up on Superman Returns.
Title: Re: The Rise and Fall of the Spider-man Franchise
Post by: nacho on February 25, 2006, 09:47:19 AM
The second one got wobbly, Matt.  Not bad... And, yes, I'll not walk into the third one with dark thoughts.  But I'm prepared.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: RottingCorpse on June 27, 2006, 03:31:05 PM
Teaser trailer for Spider-Man 3. Dig on the dark, moody tone.

http://www.apple.com/trailers/sony_pictures/spider-man_3/
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: Matt on June 27, 2006, 09:56:13 PM
That looks fucking AWESOME.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: Matt on June 27, 2006, 09:58:30 PM
Also, Nacho, I disagree. I think the 2nd one was stronger than the first. And looking at some of the camera angles in the trailer, Raimi appears to be playing around with some horror ideas when it comes to the symbiote. I have full faith that Spider-man 3 will kick ass. Totally.

From the trailer, we should have the second Green Goblin and the Sandman, but Venom doesn't appear at all, which suggests that either the CGI is still under progress OR that Venom is the tag-on to the end of the movie and that we face more of a conflict from Sandman and Harry Osborn.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: Cassander on June 27, 2006, 10:10:45 PM
you guys are naive. 

everyone knows that super-hero movies stop being cool when you start doubling up on enemies.  Sandman, Green Goblin 2, and Venom?  in a 100-minute movie?  plus the conflict with spidey/dark spidey?  plus gwen stacey bullshit?  this movie is going to suck, maybe not as much as 2, but it will be awful.  hopefully this franchise will die with 3, then come back in 10 years a la Batman Begins with the only movie anyone wants to see (so long as Raimi isn't involved): MAXIMUM CARNAGE!!!!!

Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: Matt on June 28, 2006, 01:48:24 AM
I'm unimpressed with Carnage. You like Todd McFarlane, don't you?
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: Cassander on June 28, 2006, 01:51:46 AM
how is carnage, a rampaging maniac with a shape-shifting body not better than sandman, a loser with a shape-shifting body and a freddy krueger sweater?

Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: Cassander on June 28, 2006, 01:52:59 AM
OR better than Green Goblin, Jr., who is an exact copy of his dad?  you really want to see the same villain again?  maybe this time spidey won't be tricked by the old "I'm an old lady caught in a fire disguised only by a shawl!" routine.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: Matt on June 28, 2006, 03:29:45 AM
Green Goblin Jr. has conflict between him and Spider-man, especially if the set-up is for Spider-man to ditch Mary-Jane for Gwen Stacy. Advocating Carnage as a villain is like asking Rattner to do X-Men 3, without the nuances and care of Singer... oh wait, they did that, and X3 sucked.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: Cassander on June 28, 2006, 10:08:59 AM
that...makes no logical sense at all.   
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: RottingCorpse on June 28, 2006, 10:22:38 AM
I'm going to side with Cass on the whole "multiple villains is a bad idea" issue. It's unnecessary, and it hampers the story because that's one more character you have to explain and integrate into the story. My big hope is that Venom is just being set-up for a Spider-Man 4.

There does seem to be a lot going on storywise in the trailer, but it all seems to tie together in the whole "Dark Spidey" idea. Again, I dig the darkness of it, and exploring how power corrupts seems a natural progression of theme for he character.

Raimi's got my nine bucks if he makes one of the villains is a one-armed monkey. I'm addicted to the brand. Shameful, but true.

Oh, and my wife thought the trailer was confusing and pretentious, and when I explained the Venom/symbiote concept to her, she replied, "That's really gay."
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: Cassander on June 28, 2006, 10:34:26 AM
what's really gay is that they'll probably make the symbiote something that Harry creates in his lab. 

Edit: I hope spider-man 4 is actually the whole Clone Saga. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spider-Man#Clone_Saga)  That'll serve you guys right for making this bland action, stale characterization, horrible acting-filled trilogy one of the most successful ever. 

Jeez, I really am bitter, aren't I?  I really wanted the spider-man movies to be good, but Raimi has shit on me more than Lucas.  With Lucas you at least kind of saw it coming.  That wizard's just a crazy old man.  But Raimi...why?  why?  Et tu, Willem Dafoe? 
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: RottingCorpse on June 28, 2006, 10:44:54 AM
what's really gay is that they'll probably make the symbiote something that Harry creates in his lab. 

Of course they will.

I think Raimi has done well. I love both the first and second movie. My fear is that you're getting the whole corporate studio "Bigger! Louder! MORE!" mentality creeping in.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: Cassander on June 28, 2006, 10:47:38 AM
Are you kidding?  That was there from day one.   The first movie was an episode of the Batman TV show with its plot cleverly hidden by special effects and Kirsten Dunst's boobies. 
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: Matt on June 28, 2006, 12:11:47 PM
Okay, I think I was trying to make a leap that requires reading this article:
http://doublearticulation.blogspot.com/2006/05/deconstructing-brett-ratners-x3-2006.html

The point of that was that the 3rd movie sacrifices the emotion and depth of the original two in favor of special effects and action, and the action doesn't even have depth or emotional impact, such as having Wolverine, who, in the movies, hasn't really done anything with Jean and can't spew bullshit about how he loves her.

I disagree, immensely, that Raimi's Spider-man hasn't been true to the comics in spirit. Have you read them recently? He's a teenager forever; there's very little maturity and development. Everything is about how bad drugs are and how many villains are created by the mis-use of drugs, they might as well have it be "DARE SPONSORS SPIDER-MAN: D.A.R.E. to websling!" That's classic Spider-man. Then the Ultimate Spider-man franchise is aimed at an even younger audience. The clone storyline? That's just revisionist bullshit to help reorganize the storyline. It would be like making an Infinite Crisis movie; no one would get it and no one would care. You say that packing on the villains is franchise fatigue; I'd agree with RC that there's studio pressure, but I really think Venom is just going to be set-up for Spider-man 4.

Just creating a super-villain Carnage and throwing him at Spider-man without reason is dumb. And Raimi or others have only said these people (Venom and Sandman and the Green Goblin 2) appear in the movie, not that they are the movie. Sandman is obviously in the movie. I see a cliff-hanger that involves losing Mary-Jane and losing the symbiote and a crushed Parker at the end of the movie, and then it leads to Gwen Stacy being killed in 4 by Venom or Harry Osborn if he makes it through 3.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: Cassander on June 28, 2006, 12:54:39 PM
Maybe I'm getting too old for these movies. Scary thought, huh?  I agree that the spider-man comics have always for the most part been pretty tame.

"Gosh darn that Harry Osborne!"

And the movies follow that same light-heartedness to a point.  Maybe the thing that gets me is grown adults acting like kids about these movies.  I'm not saying we shouldn't retain some kind of childhood excitement, but it seems too often that adults just turn off the critical parts of their minds whenever these monumental icons appear on the screen.  Like, I would be okay with everything you said if we were approaching it as a kids film instead of a real piece of movie history.  I would hold up as an example of a movie that is both kid-friendly and adult-friendly without ever slipping into formulaic, horrible writing or cliches--Raiders of the Lost Ark.  no nudity, hardly any cursing, but plenty of great, memorable special effects without going over the top.  There's zero believabliity factor, but things still manage to seem plausible.  Indy outruns a boulder is a lot more entertaining to watch than spidey stopping an elevated train. 

I just wish somehow that almost every single episode three of any trilogy didn't seem like some kind of brainless cash-in (the exception being, again, Indy and the Last Crusade; even Jedi retreads back into "let's blow up the death star...again!").  They're almost always worthless.  If they could just get as excited and pumped about #3 as the first movie, we'd get a lot better films. 

This is my last spider-man post for the day.  I'm getting too fired up. 
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: Reginald McGraw on June 28, 2006, 01:23:22 PM
Maybe the thing that gets me is grown adults acting like kids about these movies.  I'm not saying we shouldn't retain some kind of childhood excitement, but it seems too often that adults just turn off the critical parts of their minds whenever these monumental icons appear on the screen.  Like, I would be okay with everything you said if we were approaching it as a kids film instead of a real piece of movie history.

I guess I consider any movie with super heroes/comic characters a kids movie and thus I do turn off the critical part of my mind.  I'm also rarely disappointed with these types of movies (The Hulk being a glaring exception).

In general, I give a lot more latitude to movies that have fantasy or fantastic elements.  Just stick to whatever rules you set-up for yourself and make those elements cool.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: Matt on June 28, 2006, 01:30:56 PM
The thing is, I believe in comic book movies and superheroes as a legitimate storytelling medium to tell stories of great depth and substance. I believe this because I've seen it done in comic books and I've seen Singer's X-Men movies do it. The major problem with Spider-man 2 was the soundtrack and the accompanying tone it lent the movie.

I think part of it is grown adults acting like kids because that's when most people stopped reading comic books, especially superhero ones. Most of the people that read comic books these days are still viewed as childish or snobby pseudo-intellectuals who are okay with comic books being cool because a critic in the New Yorker really liked Watchmen, and Daniel Clowes is so artful and Alex Robinson does a great job portraying the real life situations we all face.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: RottingCorpse on June 28, 2006, 03:52:42 PM
Ultimately, you have to serve the story and characters best.

If all the elements, Good/Evil-Spider-Man, Gwen Stacy/MJ, Sandman, Harry Osbourn/GG2, Venom/Symbiote, etc. serve the story in a constructive way, then I'm all for it. Still, I'm with Cass in that it seems an awful lot to try to shove into a 100 minute movie.

Mat, I agree that comic books and comic book movies are legitimate storytelling mediums. All you have to do is compare how Superman was handled in the forties to how he's handled in Singer's new movie. (Or to stay on topic, look how Spider-Man was handled in the 60s cartoon compared with Raimi's films.)
The comics themselves are often ahead of the curve, but the movies are catching up.

And remember that above all, Hollywood just wants to make money and PROTECT THE BRAND!
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: Matt on June 28, 2006, 05:10:31 PM
Oh, I know, RC. Remember? Mr. Corporations-are-bad-for-the-market over here.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: RottingCorpse on November 10, 2006, 03:18:25 PM
Here's the new Spider-Man 3 trailer which lays out the story pretty well.

http://www.ifilm.com/presents/spiderman3

It's got my nine bucks.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: Nubbins on November 10, 2006, 03:21:53 PM
Here's the new Spider-Man 3 trailer which lays out the story pretty well.

http://www.ifilm.com/presents/spiderman3

It's got my nine bucks.

Yeah, I don't really understand why everyone seems to think these movies sucked so bad because I've really enjoyed both of them.  v :-\ v
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: Matt on November 11, 2006, 01:18:57 PM
So what do you guys think...we've got Sandman... no Venom seen...and the Green Goblin 2. Does this mean that he'll defeat the Sandman then go against the Green Goblin? Thoughts.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: RottingCorpse on November 11, 2006, 06:10:45 PM
I'm not that interested in getting into one of those "Ooo, do you think  . . ." debates.

However, my best guess is that Sandman is the main villain. GG2 is mnor and in the middle, when Spider-Man is "Dark Spidey." Then, You'll have Venom at the end after Spider-Man has gotten rid of the symbiote and is back to normal.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: Matt on November 11, 2006, 06:21:48 PM
You think they'd go for all three fighting in one movie, with this massive Venom/Spiderman third act battle?
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: RottingCorpse on November 11, 2006, 06:26:03 PM
Yep.

It makes sense. Spidey finds out Sandman is "responsible" for Uncle Ben's death. He finds the black suit, goes all evil, and tries to find Sandman. In the midst of all this, GG2 comes out for revenge, "Dark Spidey" fucks him all up. (Note that Harry Osbourn is in a neck brace in the trailer.) MJ is all "What have you become?" More Sand man fighting. Spidey realizes the black suit is making him evil. He ditches it. Brock finds it and Venom comes in at the end to terrorize him.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: Matt on November 11, 2006, 06:40:46 PM
See, I would imagine stretching it out longer than that and have a huge Venom vs. Spider-man movie.

I'm expecting something bad to happen at some point so Tobey Maguire can finally quit the franchise, the fool that he is.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: RottingCorpse on November 11, 2006, 06:44:42 PM
I like Venom, but I think a whole movie with him would be too much.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: nacho on November 12, 2006, 09:13:16 AM
Yeah, god forbid they have a movie where the hero must ferret out, battle and defeat one enemy.  Much better to have ADD enemies that he can battle every five minutes.  And all they have to sacrifice is plot and script!  That's the easy part!

I mean, who wants to make a long running and wildly successful series when they can blow their wad in one fell swoop and make twice as much money at the cost of the franchise?
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: RottingCorpse on November 12, 2006, 11:34:21 AM
I don't think you get my meaning, Nacho. A whole movie with just the Sandman would be all right and I think doable.

Venom is just a fanboy fodder villain and really not that interesting once you get over the initial concept.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: RottingCorpse on November 12, 2006, 03:52:36 PM
All right, Matt. Get a shot of Venom while it lasts. Sony should be pulling this in about an hour.

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/30671?holy_smokes___a_pretrailer_in_progress_of_spiderman_3_with_venom_footage
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: Matt on November 12, 2006, 05:09:34 PM
I really don't think that they could have all of that in one movie. It just seems like way too much, and Raimi seems to have better instincts than to try and shotgun us with all three villains in one movie. I can totally see that Venom shot as the finale or close to it for Spider-man 3.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: RottingCorpse on November 12, 2006, 05:11:21 PM
You may be right. That would be the smart way to do it.

Still, I think Venom will be the third act villain.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: Matt on November 12, 2006, 05:21:47 PM
Here's what I'm thinking. We're going to see Peter Parker ruin the other guy (I forget his name) and his photo career. Just fucking destroy it. So that when he encounters the Venom suit, he'll be ready to whip ass. Parker will also destroy his relationship with Mary Jane as well - anything good that Spider-man has will be over, by the end of this movie. He will meet Gwen Stacy in 3.

In four, Parker starts a relationship with Stacy, then she's killed by Venom or Harry as the Green Goblin part two, who will return if he's only in a neck brace by the end of the third movie. The culmination of the fourth movie will be Green Goblin and Venom, fighting Spider-man *together*, because that would be the next, most effective way to top out in terms of action after this movie. Spider-man will be fighting for revenge and whatever else.



Then Tobey Maguire will quit and you'll have the clone saga.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: RottingCorpse on November 12, 2006, 07:15:05 PM
All right, Matt. Get a shot of Venom while it lasts. Sony should be pulling this in about an hour.

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/30671?holy_smokes___a_pretrailer_in_progress_of_spiderman_3_with_venom_footage

And it's gone . . .
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: Cassander on November 13, 2006, 01:02:43 AM
wait...you guys think there will be a 4?  i thought this one was gonna be the last one.  granted, it's a hugely successful franchise, but we all know Movie 4 is where the dark place is, no matter how successful your franchise is. 


Phantom Menace
Alien: Ressurection
Rocky 4 (vs. Hulk Hogan)
Star Trek 4: the voyage home
Superman 4: the quest for peace (?)
Batman & Robin

need i say more? 

I maintain that this movie is going to blow, bigtime.  three villains is just too many, Tobey hasn't done anything but spider-man for 5 years, the peter parker/mary jane dialogue will all be forced, casserole bullshit, topher grace has no business being eddie brock, and james franco still doesn't deserve to be acting for a living. 

seriously...the amount of leeway this franchise is getting is staggering.  just because it's spider-man/raimi, it's like they're getting away with murder.  can you imagine if Peter Jackson had tried to water down LOTR the way they've done with spider-man then tried to hide behind his actor's names instead of the story?

so...gollum is now a wise-cracking black man played by chris tucker?

yep.

don't you think--

HIS COSTUME IS AMAZING.  DON'T HATE!

well, yeah, it looks all right.  but what about this  big fight you have at helm's deep?  Aragorn is not known for his skill with nunchuks...

THE FOOTAGE IS AMAZING AND WE'RE GETTING A GOOD RESPONSE FROM IT FROM THE TESTING AUDIENCE!!!!!!!

ok, whatever. 

Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: Matt on November 13, 2006, 01:37:18 AM
Singer changed aspects of X-Men. If he had continued where he wanted to go, I wouldn't have minded the changes.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: RottingCorpse on April 01, 2007, 12:47:30 AM
The "final" trailer.

Raimi and company have my nine bucks, but I'm not quite sure they've earned it. We'll see.

http://www.spiderman3oncomcast.com/ (http://www.spiderman3oncomcast.com/)
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: Matt on April 01, 2007, 08:50:48 PM
okay, so apparantly, there's three villains in this one.

sigh.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: Tatertots on April 01, 2007, 09:29:10 PM
Why anyone thought he first two were anything other than disgusting perversions of the spirit of the Spiderman comics is beyond me.

What the fuck is up with everyone? OMGLOVESTORYANDMARYJANE(A.K.A.SNAGGLETOOTH)ISSOHAWT!

I'm with Cass on this one.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: nacho on April 02, 2007, 08:48:05 AM
Can someone please explain to me the whole multiple-cast thing?  Three villains and all that.  Like Batman ended up doing. Because you'd think you'd want a franchise that can go on forever instead of introducing (and killing) every major villain/good guy from a decades-long series in one frantically written, incomprehensible two hour movie.  Why blow up a multi-gigillion dollar franchise?

Tyson -- the first one stuck with the geeks because it was Sam Raimi, and with everyone else because it was Spider Man with modern effects and a little bit of kinda love it, which seeped through thanks to Raimi.  The second one sucked.  And, now, we just see the end of Raimi.  Which is hideous and disappointing.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: RottingCorpse on April 02, 2007, 09:10:13 AM
Can someone please explain to me the whole multiple-cast thing?  Three villains and all that.  Like Batman ended up doing. Because you'd think you'd want a franchise that can go on forever instead of introducing (and killing) every major villain/good guy from a decades-long series in one frantically written, incomprehensible two hour movie.  Why blow up a multi-gigillion dollar franchise?

It baffles me. I think it has to do with the studio head honchos thinking, "The next one has to be bigger/better/faster!!!! MORE MONEY!"
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: nacho on April 02, 2007, 09:25:38 AM
But...don't they want to make millions upon millions every year with a James Bond-style cash cow?  They could make 10 Spiderman movies, instead they want to cobble everything together and, in the end, make the same amount they would have made on a regular movie with one bad guy.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: RottingCorpse on April 02, 2007, 10:02:11 AM
There's a lot of drugs out in California.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: Matt on April 02, 2007, 02:08:49 PM
also, the cultural industries don't operate in that way. The quickest bang for their buck. Long term-investment is too risky.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: nacho on April 02, 2007, 03:54:37 PM
The whole world makes me mad.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: RottingCorpse on April 02, 2007, 06:15:39 PM
We need Spider-Man now more than ever. He'll make things right.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: Nubbins on April 03, 2007, 02:11:22 PM
I think I'm going to like Spiderman 3... v :) v  I've liked all of them thus far.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: nacho on April 03, 2007, 02:26:45 PM
Oh, I'm going to see it, Nubbs.  I'm just going to regret it.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: nacho on April 09, 2007, 11:53:55 AM
So tell me about this Spiderman 2.1 thing with eight extra minutes that supposedly make the movie good.  It's downloading now, but I've never heard of it.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: RottingCorpse on April 09, 2007, 02:49:42 PM
It's news to me.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: nacho on April 09, 2007, 03:34:12 PM
Well, I'll let you know how it is whenever I get around to watching it.

Apparently it's slated for an official DVD release within the next couple of weeks.  At least, this download is from a DVD.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: Matt on April 10, 2007, 02:42:50 AM
Releasing multiple versions of a movie is a sure-fire way to stop people from pirating it! :hurfdurf:
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: nacho on April 10, 2007, 08:19:22 AM
I never understood that.  BIG RELEASE!!! $20.  EXTENDED CUT!!! $20.  DIRECTOR'S CUT!!! $20.  BOOTLEG VERSION!!!! $20.  BIG RELEASE RERELEASED WITH ALL CUTS INCLUDED!!! $20.

We're so pissed off that people have turned to downloading our films and it must stop now.  We're losing money.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: nacho on April 10, 2007, 10:42:46 AM
So let's start talking now about who the next Spiderman will be.


Quote
Tobey Maguire: Not sure about 'Spider-Man 4'

NEW YORK (AP) -- Tobey Maguire, star of "Spider-Man 3," isn't sure he'd play the superhero a fourth time.

"I appreciate movies from a standpoint of entertainment and distraction, and I also love when people make movies that help raise awareness," says the 31-year-old actor, whose films also include "The Cider House Rules" and "Seabiscuit."

"I don't really have a lot of formed ideas. It's more just thoughts," he tells Men's Journal in its May issue, on newsstands Tuesday. "I might do another 'Spider-Man' movie -- I don't know."

Maguire says "Spider-Man 3" has a "fresh story" for his character.

"The public is adoring him, and it goes to his head. He's behaving arrogantly and is self-involved, which changes the feeling of the character for me. And it just gets darker from there," he says.

Maguire says he talks to the media to publicize his movies -- "I don't feel compelled to share anything."

"I used to prepare to go to battle with journalists," he tells the magazine. "Now I don't have my feet planted. I won't talk about what I won't talk about, but I'm more relaxed about it."

Maguire says he began attending Alcoholics Anonymous meetings at 19 because his life had become oddly predictable.

"I have an addictive nature," he says, "an obsessive-compulsive nature -- well, I don't know that's what it is clinically. But I go to addictive extremes, and before I got sober, that became routine."

Maguire is engaged to Jennifer Meyer, a 29-year-old jewelry designer. They have a 5-month-old daughter, Ruby Sweetheart.

"When she smiles, it's the most fantastic thing ever," he says. "But it's not like I didn't expect that. I expected to fall completely in love with my child."

Columbia Pictures' "Spider-Man 3" opens May 4.

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: RottingCorpse on April 10, 2007, 02:59:52 PM
Jake Gyllenhaal
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: Nubbins on April 10, 2007, 03:01:05 PM
Michael Keaton
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: RottingCorpse on April 10, 2007, 03:02:48 PM
In a Joel Shumacher film.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: Nubbins on April 10, 2007, 04:39:52 PM
presented in Feel-a-round
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: RottingCorpse on April 10, 2007, 04:59:13 PM
Nipples on the Spider-Man suit!
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: Nubbins on April 10, 2007, 05:37:18 PM
thpidermaaaaaaaaaaaaan!
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: nacho on May 02, 2007, 12:42:56 PM
Early reports on three... I'm hearing more good than bad.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: Nubbins on May 02, 2007, 01:44:35 PM
I'm tellin you guys... I loved the first 2.  I thought they were great.  Then again, I think everything's great and I never read comic books growing up and I could care less about the movies staying true to themes and whatnot.  I'm not saying it's a bad thing to be pissed if it's not staying true because there are certainly movies that I've hated for that reason.  I guess in this case, my relative lack of experience with the Spiderman books and storyline is helping me like these movies more.... that and I can see past the CGI wankfest.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: Matt on May 02, 2007, 04:23:31 PM
I'm mostly in Nubbins' boat, but I do care about thematic consistency in the universe the movies create. Which is why X3 sucked.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: Nubbins on May 02, 2007, 04:41:19 PM
Can't remember if I saw X3 or not... I thought the first two X-Men movies were incredible though.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: Reginald McGraw on May 02, 2007, 04:50:06 PM
I'm mostly in Nubbins' boat, but I do care about thematic consistency in the universe the movies create. Which is why X3 sucked.

?? I thought you liked it.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: RottingCorpse on May 02, 2007, 04:54:22 PM
Because of the 48HFP, it'll be Monday night before I get this into me, but it'll happen.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: RottingCorpse on May 04, 2007, 07:20:59 PM
Okay, so reviews already!!!!

I'm waiting for the Matt deconstruction . . .
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: RottingCorpse on May 08, 2007, 10:46:29 AM
Mrs. RC and I took in a viewing last night and it's by no means a bad movie. When it's good which is about 75% of the time, it's pretty good. When it blows though, it blows pretty bad. Keep in mind that I love Raimi's almost campy sense of humor, so things like "dark" Peter Parker dancing down the street didn't bother me.

The effects are great, most notably the Sandman's birth which is perhaps the most emotional scene CGI has been able to render thus far.

The story is okay, though hard to swallow from a reality point unless you've read a lot of comic books. Parts of it play like a bad episode of Days of our Lives . . . from 1983. Amnesia, career fallout, doctored pictures, villain team-ups, and the "real killer" showing up. It's pretty juvenile, which of course would be fine if at other times it wasn't trying to be so serious.

I think there was a lot of studio pressure on this one. You feel the places where Raimi really wants to cut loose and then you see how maybe someone came in and said, "We should tone this down so nobody with a promotional tie-in gets pissed."

So, the good:

--Bryce Dallas Howard as Gwen Stacy and the whole MJ/Gwen jealousy thing which was a staple of the Spidey comics I read when I was seven.

--Sandman, though he gets big, huge, and monstrous and was nothing like that in the comics, which doesn't bother me really, but it's a weird characterization for a villain you're trying to make sympathetic. You'll understand when you see it.

--Venom, who is handled ten times better than he ever was in the comics. Raimi's horror roots try to shine through here, though again, somebody at the head of Sony probably had to clamp down on it.

--"Dark" Peter Parker . . . This is where a lot of folks are going to disagree with me, but nerdy Peter Parker getting turned dark by the black alien goo and trying to be a darkly cool guy (but still kind of nerdy) is the best part of the movie. He struts down the street a'la John Travolta in Saturday Night Fever, and does a goofy dance number with Gwen Stacy to make MJ jealous.

--There's a kick ass, low key fight between Harry and Peter that takes place in Harry's penthouse. No grand sweeping wide shots, and no CGI. Just a lot of combat and wire work that's the best fight of the film.

The Bad:

--The writing. It's too much for one movie. Things happen too fast and too slow and the pacing is just devilishly off. It's a big disappointment since the last movie was paced almost perfectly.

--The ending. Though are a few satisfying moments, it's also pretty weak with too many villians and plot threads to tie up in about twenty minutes time.

--Raimi's GOP sensibility. He gave money to Bush's '04 campaign I just found out, which makes Spidey's gratuitous stop in front of an American flag in the middle of a fight really unbearable to deal with to. There are a few other moments like this, but that's by far the worse one.

Overall there's a feeling of sloppiness form a story point of view, as if too many people we're putting in their two cents. That said, it's still a pretty fun movie.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: nacho on May 08, 2007, 11:46:47 AM
So, really, a bad movie.  Because you're a forgiving person, RC. 
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: RottingCorpse on May 08, 2007, 12:28:00 PM
So, really, a bad movie.  Because you're a forgiving person, RC. 

Yeah, likely.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: Matt on May 08, 2007, 01:41:43 PM
I've been busy and finances are tight, so I'm taking awhile to get around to it.

And while I wanted to like X3, Reggie, after seeing someone deconstruct the movie to its core elements, it disgusted me. And even while watching it, it still didn't feel good, it didn't leave me satisfied.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: nacho on June 27, 2007, 05:42:02 PM
I like how they're already talking about a huge team of bad guys.  God.


Quote
With "Spider-Man 3" breaking box office records around the world, it's not surprising that director Sam Raimi hasn't ruled out directing "Spider-Man 4."

"If I can't find the right story that would work for me and that I could tell really well, I would like someone else to tell that story. But if it's a great story and Sony will bring me back to the screen, I would love to," Raimi told MTV.com.

The third movie has done so well financially, if not critically, that Sony Pictures chief executive Michael Lynton told the BBC that "Everybody has every intention of making a fourth, a fifth and a sixth [sequel] and on and on."

So, who will Spidey battle in the next movie?

Even before the third installment of the web-slinger's story appeared on the big screen, rumors about who Spider-Man may have to contend with in the fourth movie included the villains Carnage, the Lizard and the Black Cat.

Raimi has other ideas. "I would love to see Electro, Vulture, maybe the Sinister Six as a team." he mused. "But ['Spider-Man 4'] will probably have to start with the central journey of the main character to arrive at the proper villain."

Also at issue is whether Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst would return to play Spider-Man and Mary Jane Watson. Raimi said that it "would be really hard" to direct "Spider-Man 4" without the two actors in those roles.

Maguire had initially stated he would not return for a fourth installment, but when it became apparent that "Spider-Man 3" was a huge hit, he said that he was willing to consider continuing his role as the web head.

"I would assume that they’re going to make more Spider-Man movies," Maguire said last month in an interview on NBC's Today Show. "I've had such a good time making them. For me, it all depends on if there's a great story for me, Peter Parker. If Sam Raimi is there, I'd be definitely excited to consider that possibility."
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: RottingCorpse on June 27, 2007, 05:44:25 PM
If they would go small and intimate like some of the comic book stories, that would be the way to go.

They won't, of course.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: nacho on June 27, 2007, 05:49:10 PM
I'm just stunned by this "team think" going on.  It's the Batman franchise all over again.  These absolute shit movies with half a dozen big boss bad guys squeezed into a two hour script.  I've asked this question before in this thread...what's the thinking?  Why?
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: RottingCorpse on June 27, 2007, 05:55:29 PM
The thinking?

"BIGGER! FASTER! MORE!!!!"
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: nacho on June 27, 2007, 05:56:20 PM
RAPE!!
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: RottingCorpse on June 27, 2007, 06:00:00 PM
I'm with you.

The Lizard would be a fantastic villain to do a smaller scale superhero film. His story has some creepy, but very human elements to it.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: Matt on June 30, 2007, 04:37:39 PM
Remember how Hollywood profiteering works. You want to get the most bang for your buck with as little risk as possible. Spider-man, for all intents and purposes, is risk-free. The prevailing business wisdom from then on out is that making a bigger investment in it is guaranteed to draw back bigger returns.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: RottingCorpse on June 30, 2007, 09:48:17 PM
Have you seen part 3 yet, Matt. I don't remember your review.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: Matt on July 01, 2007, 12:30:23 AM
there isn't a good pirated version out yet, so no, I haven't.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: nacho on July 01, 2007, 07:50:17 AM
Yes there is.  Get Maven's telesync.  Came out May 4th!

Spiderman.3.TS.XViD-mVs

Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: Matt on July 05, 2007, 11:31:29 AM
I'm not done, but the addition of the Sandman as the "real killer" is so fucking bad. For a moment, I thought the original guy was just gonna run through there, grab Church's jacket, and then run off in a brilliant non sequitur that would have set the tone for the entire addition of the DRAMA between Spider-man and Sandman.

And then Church slowly, for no fucking reason, aims and blows Uncle Ben away. Excellent cinema.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: Matt on July 05, 2007, 11:35:27 AM
Oh, and MJ stunningly turns from deeply in love with Peter to insecure, needy bitch. I can't say it's entirely unexpected, based on her previous behavior in the series, but I know that I'm rooting for Parker to hook up with Gwen Stacey.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: Matt on July 05, 2007, 12:17:10 PM
goddammit this movie makes no goddamn sense goddammit!
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: Matt on July 05, 2007, 12:19:32 PM
But evil young Osborn is "so good." I love it.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: RottingCorpse on July 05, 2007, 12:22:20 PM
It's pretty poorly structured. I'll say that.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: Matt on July 05, 2007, 12:23:20 PM
I agree with you about the Sandman CGI. It was beautiful. Otherwise, I think Spider-man 2 is kind of better than this one in terms of overall package.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: nacho on July 05, 2007, 12:28:18 PM
I'm not even inspired to download it.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: Matt on July 05, 2007, 12:46:56 PM
deus ex butler


correction: "awesome! wicked cool!"
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: Matt on July 05, 2007, 01:11:08 PM
and even with all of that, I really, really like the pay-off at the end. Certainly not the best chapter, but  it all makes sense in the end.

I'm really disappointed though that they didn't set up future Gwen Stacey drama. Also, if any of you have been following The Other storyline, it would've been a perfect set-up to replace the actor by a legitimate, comic-book method.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: fajwat on July 05, 2007, 07:41:43 PM
correction: "awesome! wicked cool!"

Know what's really awesome and wicked cool?

I BLEW SHIT UP YESTERDAY!
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: nacho on April 14, 2008, 08:59:32 PM
So watching the Rifftrax version.  Even they can barely save it... What a horrible movie.  I haven't watched it without the Riff, but there's no way I'd want to.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: RottingCorpse on April 14, 2008, 09:04:54 PM
SM1, SM2, or SM3?
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: nacho on April 14, 2008, 09:09:11 PM
Oh, sorry, part three.  I'm continuing a conversation from almost a year ago in this thread.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: nacho on April 14, 2008, 09:18:18 PM
Rifftrax is kind of nice with SM3, because it explains what the fuck.  I especially appreciate them pointing out that Gwen died, in the comics, falling from a bridge (and the James Cromwell character was killed by falling debris from said bridge), and how such a classic, powerful moment in the franchise is stolen for such shit in the movie.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: nacho on April 14, 2008, 09:50:22 PM
Wow...What the fuck is with that retcon?  They completely redo Uncle Ben's death scene?  What's the point of that? 
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: Nubbins on April 14, 2008, 09:56:44 PM
Spiderman 3 was awful.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: Matt on April 14, 2008, 10:27:36 PM
Gwen Stacey was hot. I think that's one of the few times I found Bryce Dallas Howard attractive.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: RottingCorpse on April 14, 2008, 10:34:23 PM
Yeah, SM3 is a steaming dogpile.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: nacho on April 14, 2008, 10:35:15 PM
Rifftrax is great:  "Phone Tag:  The Movie."  And that's what this shit is.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: RottingCorpse on April 14, 2008, 10:43:38 PM
It kind of is phone tag, isn't it.

Have you experienced Venom yet?
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: nacho on April 14, 2008, 10:53:56 PM
Um...yeah.  You mean Tobey McGuire acting as white as possible in what has to be the most embarrassing moments of any actor ever filmed?
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: RottingCorpse on April 14, 2008, 10:56:44 PM
Well, there is that.  You're still watching I take it?
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: nacho on April 14, 2008, 10:58:14 PM
Spidey's rejecting the Venom suit now.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: nacho on April 14, 2008, 11:09:12 PM
And where's this Butler been?  Oh, yeah, I'm just remembering events that didn't happen from the movie I wasn't in.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: nacho on May 28, 2008, 10:20:39 AM
God...

http://blog.wired.com/underwire/2008/05/the-next-spider.html

Quote
Sony Pictures has not confirmed the rumor, but Latino Review is reporting that Patrick Fugit (pictured) of Almost Famous has top crack at replacing Tobey Maguire as the new Spider-Man.

Most of the key players involved in the first three Spider-Man films have moved on. Writer-director Sam Raimi is in New Zealand working on Wizard's First Rule. Maguire has three movies in the can (none superheroic). And Kirsten "Mary Jane" Dunst went public Tuesday on E Online about the bouts with depression that sent her to a retreat a few months ago.

However, producer Laura Ziskin remains at the helm of the Sony Pictures franchise, and she's brought on James Vanderbilt (Zodiac) to write more adventures.

Fugit, 25, has quietly done some fine work in the indie movie realm since his 1996 breakthrough in Almost Famous. So what if he's not a marquee name? Neither were Maguire and Christian Bale before they put on the tights to fight the good fight. 
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: RottingCorpse on May 28, 2008, 01:23:09 PM
COme on. Did anyone think Sony would slaughter that big a cash cow?
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: RottingCorpse on July 31, 2008, 09:25:32 AM
Quote
Sony may bite on Spidey spinoff
Studio developing 'Venom,' seeking new writers


With Heath Ledger's villainous Joker drawing attention and boxoffice dollars, Sony is moving forward with "Venom," a potential "Spider-Man" spinoff based on a bad guy.

The studio is developing the project, based on the gooey nemesis who appeared in "Spider-Man 3" and is hoping the character could serve as an antidote to the aging "Spider-Man" franchise in the way that Fox has used Wolverine to add longevity to its "X-Men" franchise.

But getting any spinoff off the ground, let alone one centered on a villain, can be tricky.

The studio had commissioned a draft of the script from Jacob Estes, a writer of the specialty film "Mean Creek," released several years ago by Paramount Classics. He's also attached to the Plan B drama "The Gifted."

But the studio is considering going in a different direction from Estes' script and is seeking writers for a new draft.

Casting also is no simple matter. Topher Grace played the character in the film, but agents have been eyeing the role for their clients, as Sony is not yet convinced the actor can carry a tentpole picture.

Neither Sony nor Marvel would comment for this story.

In "Spider-Man 3," Venom is essentially a parasite that attaches itself to a host via a sticky substance that then gives the host special powers. The fact that it is a substance rather than a character could give Sony leeway to cast a new actor.

"Venom" came about as part of the licensing deal between Marvel and Sony for the Spider-Man movies, which contained provisions allowing for the use of spinoffs based on other Spider-Man characters.

The project is part of a larger feeding frenzy for superhero projects, scores of which have been signed up in the last few months while movies such as "Iron Man" and "The Dark Knight" light up the boxoffice.

Sony is developing a fourth "Spider-Man" film for 2011, but that picture would come out nine years after the original movie debuted, adding to the studio's desire to see new Marvel characters.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: Matt on July 31, 2008, 12:14:01 PM
okay, I might be fuzzy on my Spider-man history, but Venom has never, ever, ever been a good guy. Right?
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: RottingCorpse on July 31, 2008, 12:15:05 PM
In the early 90s he had his own serires as an "anti-hero."

Charlie Sheen was attached to a Venom project in the mid-90s. No shit.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: Matt on July 31, 2008, 12:16:10 PM
Haha... this is gonna suck so fucking bad. :)
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: nacho on July 31, 2008, 12:18:57 PM
Like the Spiderman movies have been!
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: RottingCorpse on July 31, 2008, 12:20:20 PM
I liked the second one okay.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: Nubbins on July 31, 2008, 12:30:07 PM
I liked the first two actually... the third was a steaming pile all the way through.  Put it to bed already.

I also like how the article Nach quoted back in May implies that Christian Bale was a nobody until he played Batman... they completely ignore the fact that the guy's been making incredible movies for the last 20 years.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: RottingCorpse on July 31, 2008, 12:31:53 PM
I liked the first two actually... the third was a steaming pile all the way through.  Put it to bed already.

Come on. Did anyone think Sony would slaughter that big a cash cow?
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: Matt on July 31, 2008, 01:08:02 PM
The first two were good popcorn movies, Nach. 3rd sucked.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: Cassander on August 03, 2008, 02:35:34 AM
should anyone be surprised that comic book movies are starting to follow the comic book trend?  i.e. attach a hot writer and artist to a known character and just exploit the shit out of it? 
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: RottingCorpse on August 03, 2008, 10:51:33 AM
As long as the films are good, I have no problem with that. However . . .
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: RottingCorpse on September 30, 2008, 05:08:18 PM
Raimi, Maguire, and Dunst are all in for Spider-Man 4 AND 5 apparently. This is the first I've heard anything about it.

Quote from: MTV
Kirsten Dunst Talks ‘Spider-Man 4,’ So Is She In Or Out?

For quite some time now, “Spider-Man” star Kirsten Dunst has had one major condition as to whether or not she’d sign-up for any future sequels of the franchise — that director Sam Raimi and co-star Tobey Maguire be signed on as well.

Well, now that the news has broken that both Raimi and Maguire have signed back on for a fourth and fifth installment – with a hefty paycheck attached as well — MTV News posed the big question to Dunst while she was promoting her upcoming film, “How to Lose Friends and Alienate People” with Simon Pegg. Is she in or is she out?

“I’m in,” said the actress matter of factly. However, when pressed to make the announcement official, Dunst quickly changed her tone, and rather cryptically added, “I’m not saying anything, I know there’s rumors…”

So while Dunst wasn’t quite ready to make any announcements, her “How to Lose Friends” co-star, Pegg, took the opportunity to break some [non]-news of his own.

“I’m in ‘Spider-Man!’” joked Pegg. “I play Mary Jane’s brother. He comes to New York from the university, and he says, ‘Hey, what are you doing hanging out with that web-crawler?’”
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: Matt on September 30, 2008, 05:24:22 PM
jesus. kill it.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: Cassander on September 30, 2008, 09:33:44 PM
oh god!

then again, if they have two more movies to do, that means one of them has to be Carnage, right?  which they should've done in the first place?
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: RottingCorpse on October 31, 2008, 09:46:10 AM
Quote
Playwright Penning Spidey 4

Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright David Lindsay-Abaire (Rabbit Hole) is in final negotiations to write Spider-Man 4 for Columbia Pictures, according to The Hollywood Reporter.

Sam Raimi and Tobey Maguire are back as director and star, as are series producers Laura Ziskin and Avi Arad. Kirsten Dunst also is expected to return for the latest movie featuring the Marvel Comics character.

The plot details are under lock and key.

Columbia always has gone off the beaten path during the development process when hiring writers for the Spider-Man movies. Alvin Sargent, a veteran scribe best known for 1973's Paper Moon and 1980's Ordinary People, served as a writer on the second and third films. Michael Chabon, another Pulitzer winner, also worked on Spider-Man 2.

James Vanderbilt previously wrote a draft of Spider-Man 4.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: nacho on October 08, 2009, 08:06:44 AM
Well, RC's gone for the week, so I won't bug him about now updating this thread...

Not only is Spiderman 4 (AND 5!) on the way, but they just announced a Venom movie this morning.

Please use your barf bags.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: Reginald McGraw on October 08, 2009, 10:49:22 AM
Wow.  Same principals?
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: Nubbins on October 08, 2009, 11:09:03 AM
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: nacho on October 08, 2009, 10:22:26 PM
More on the Venom shit:

Quote
Goodbye noble racing horse, hello envious heap of superpowered goo. Gary Ross, the Oscar-nominated filmmaker who directed Tobey Maguire in 2003’s Seabiscuit, is going to write a movie devoted to Spider-Man villain Venom.

According to Variety, Ross may also direct the Venom spinoff for Columbia Pictures. The studio has not confirmed Ross’ involvement. Zombieland co-writers Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick worked on earlier Venom scripts before Ross took over. (Ross is also rewriting Spider-Man 4.)

Topher Grace (That ’70s Show) portrayed the bitter superparasite in 2007’s Spider-Man 3 but casting decisions for the Venom spinoff have not been announced.

If not Grace (pictured), who would make a good Venom? How about Robert Pattinson? The Twilight heartthrob could switch it up with a pretty-boy take on the nasty evil-doer. Other contenders: Joshua Jackson (Fringe) or Wanted star James McAvoy.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: Cassander on October 09, 2009, 12:45:01 PM
sounds just like the twilight sequel!
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: nacho on January 12, 2010, 01:22:11 PM
I think RC posted about this in the remakes thread or somewhere... But, here it is again.  Just getting around to reading about it today...and holy shit.  How retarded can they possibly get?  (Not that I've ever really been happy with the franchise...but a teenaged prequel?!)

Quote
Director Sam Raimi and Tobey Maguire drove the massively successful Spider-Man trilogy to unprecedented heights but their reign atop the superhero movie franchise has come to an abrupt end.

A different director-star team, to be determined, will take the Marvel Comics character in new directions, according to a Monday announcement by Sony Pictures Entertainment.

The studio’s co-chairman Amy Pascal said: “We’re very excited about the creative possibilities that come from returning to Peter’s roots and we look forward to working with Marvel Studios, Avi Arad and Laura Ziskin on this new beginning.”

Spider-Man’s next batch of adventures, based on James Vanderbilt’s script, will focus on Peter Parker as a teenager. The change in creative regime wipes out any chance for a 2011 Spider-Man 4 movie, with the studio now touting a 2012 prequel release.

“This is a bittersweet moment for us because while it is hard to imagine Spider-Man in anyone else’s hands, I know that this was a day that was inevitable,” added Columbia Pictures president Matt Tolmach.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: RottingCorpse on January 12, 2010, 01:41:18 PM
I read about this. What they need to do is sit on it for a while. The problem is that Spider-Man is Sony's cash cow and if they don't do a big Spidey tentpole movie every few years, their profits slip. They'll burn the village down in order to save it.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: Matt on January 12, 2010, 01:46:23 PM
It will suck so bad.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: RottingCorpse on October 11, 2010, 05:47:22 PM
Casting, blah, blah . . .

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101011/ap_on_en_mo/us_people_rhys_ifans
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: nacho on October 11, 2010, 06:23:13 PM
zzzzzzzzzz.... Whaaaa....?  Mommy...?  Huh...? zzzzzzz...
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: RottingCorpse on January 13, 2011, 04:21:11 PM
First official pic of the new Spider-Man suit in the reboot. Meh.

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/48060
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: nacho on January 13, 2011, 04:52:46 PM
I'm just going to block Spider-Man from my reality.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: RottingCorpse on July 14, 2011, 04:30:04 PM
A bunch of Spider-Man reboot pics. Have I mentioned that I'm love with Emma Stone?

http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20483133_20510114,00.html#20988718 (http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20483133_20510114,00.html#20988718)
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: nacho on July 14, 2011, 04:34:37 PM
I'm in love with brunette Emma Stone. Not this hideous reincarnation.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: RottingCorpse on July 20, 2011, 02:28:28 PM
Reboot trailer.

Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: nacho on July 20, 2011, 02:33:56 PM
So since I'm not a comics nerd and haven't been following this BECAUSE STOP MAKING ROBOOTS!!! do we know who the villain is?
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: RottingCorpse on July 20, 2011, 03:01:32 PM
The Lizard.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: Cassander on July 27, 2011, 11:57:38 PM
wow.  that looks like this other comic book movie i saw.  called spider-man.  that also had out of date CGI.  on the plus side, this one won't have willem dafoe clutching a shawl around his green goblin helmet and chewing scenery.  i mean a CGI Lizard voiced by...I'm haven't even looked it up...Serkis?  Fishburne?  (gulp) Dafoe?  can't be as bad, right?  Right? 

Also, let me point out again, the whole franchise could have been saved 6 years ago by using Carnage.  Carnage was made for CGI.  Tobey Maguire wouldve only been needed for voice overs.  We could be on Carnage movie #3.  But no.  now we're rebooting with spider-man's tier two villains, who are really tier-5 villains when compared to anyone else's.  They're the worst.  No, really, I can't wait until summer 2014 when a 28 year old emma stone is being kidnapped by kraven the hunter played by Gerard Butler.  Pass the popcorn and percocet!
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: nacho on July 28, 2011, 12:09:41 AM
LOL.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: Cassander on July 28, 2011, 12:37:38 AM
barf.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: RottingCorpse on February 07, 2012, 09:33:18 AM
New trailer. They Nolanized Spider-Man. Probably a good thing.

Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: nacho on February 07, 2012, 10:34:11 AM
Reggie's kids will love it!
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: RottingCorpse on March 19, 2012, 01:49:15 PM
It's all about the viral video these days, eh?

Not a valid youtube URL
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: nacho on March 19, 2012, 02:32:18 PM
And I hate that trend.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: RottingCorpse on March 19, 2012, 03:12:11 PM
The Prometheus stuff has been pretty good.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: nacho on March 19, 2012, 04:47:24 PM
The Prometheus stuff has been pretty good.

See, I don't think so. I prefer the trailers. The faux (or real) nerdgasm "viral video" is tiring.

Back to my comment after the TED viral video for Prometheus. It's basically off topic, isn't it? Just geekdom stuff about W-Y, which the franchise has quietly been obsessed with since 1986 and, I feel, has gotten in the way of almost every installment since 1993.

Give me those sexy trailers.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: RottingCorpse on March 19, 2012, 04:55:21 PM
Well, yes. The sexy trailers are certainly where it's at.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: RottingCorpse on May 04, 2012, 11:37:32 AM
Latest (final?) trailer. I'm sort of willing to give it a real shot after this, though geekdom is really divided over this movie.

Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: nacho on May 04, 2012, 12:13:37 PM
Is geekdom divided because they paraphrase the opening monologue to Farscape?

Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: monkey! on May 06, 2012, 10:22:37 PM
Haha!

Farscape was fun.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: nacho on May 07, 2012, 07:17:02 AM
Claudia Black obsession in the house!
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: RottingCorpse on July 08, 2012, 10:52:38 AM
I forgot to mention I snuck out one morning and saw The Amazing Spider-Man.

I think I mentioned in the general Superhero thread that we're due for an "intimate" super-hero movie. This one's close. Sometimes it just feels like an indie drama about an teenaged outcast in love with the smart blond girl who's cop daddy prevents them from being together. The best scenes are Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone just being kids in love.

The movie's biggest problem is retelling the origin story. It really is too soon for this kind of reboot. They downplay it, and it's different enough that you kind of see why they retold it, but it takes you out of it every once in a while in a "Yes, yes, radioactive spider, Uncle Ben dies... can we please get another shot of Emma Stone in knee-high boots?" kind of way. Still, it's all tied into some "deeper" plot about who Peter Parker's parents "really were" which seems it's going to be the underlying story line of the movies in this iteration.

The performances are great. That Andrew Garfield dude playing Peter Parker/Spider-Man captures the character better than MacGuire did, and I thought MacGuire was pretty good in the role. Emma Stone makes it look effortless. (She always does.) And Denis Leary as her police Captain father is fantastic. Rhys Ifans as the Lizard is sort of wasted. The villain story is all but shoehorned in, and honestly not very well.

This movie's all set-up, which I can sort of see how they needed to do after three movies of Raimi, MacGuire, and Dunst. It's a great and emotionally investing set-up, and I'm certainly interested in what they do next. I just kind of wish I didn't have to sit through basically the same story I did twelve years ago just to wait for the sequel that will finally move the story forward.

Easily worth the $6 I paid for a morning matinee, which by the way I'll be doing for the rest of the summer. That's like 1987 prices!
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: nacho on July 09, 2012, 11:07:21 AM
Okay! So...the first movie is set up, the second movie will be passable, and the third movie will be overhyped and overblown as the end of the trilogy. That, then, will be followed immediately by another reboot, right?
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: RottingCorpse on July 09, 2012, 11:56:50 AM
Step 4. Profit!!!
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: nacho on November 19, 2012, 08:11:44 AM
Watching the remake now.

Does Uncle Ben's death become increasingly senseless with every remake? 20 years from now, an aged Brad Pitt starring as Uncle Ben will die because he trips on a banana peel and hits his head.

So is the mechanical aspect of the webs comic canon? Because I don't like it. How's he going to keep up his supply? Does he just constantly break into Ozcorp? I'd think, after a while, the Ozcorp people might notice... Plus he's leaving all these filaments everywhere for Ozcorp to identify.

Overall, though, I kind of enjoyed it. This is the movie Emma Stone went blonde for, eh? The greatest tragedy of our generation...

Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: Reginald McGraw on November 19, 2012, 09:11:57 AM
Mechanical web-shooters are canon, but also controversial.

http://geekout.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/19/the-great-amazing-spider-man-web-shooter-debate/

In the comics, Parker develops the web fluid formula himself and manufactures them.

I'm with you, I prefer organic web-shooters.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: RottingCorpse on November 19, 2012, 09:42:02 AM
Without rereading what I wrote about it earlier, my months later impression is that it was good but forgettable. The scenes that stick in my mind are the quiet ones between Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone.  It was all set-up for the sequels, yes?
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: nacho on November 19, 2012, 10:20:51 AM
Without rereading what I wrote about it earlier, my months later impression is that it was good but forgettable. The scenes that stick in my mind are the quiet ones between Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone.  It was all set-up for the sequels, yes?

Oh, yes. It's all about rebooting the franchise as a whole and not just the origin story. In fact, they claim that they haven't finished the origin story yet! It continues into a second movie.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: nacho on December 05, 2013, 12:07:44 PM
Jesus...why do they do this? Amazing Spiderman 2 has four super-villains.

Seriously, what's the rationale behind multiple super villains?

And is this a new record? The Batman series never did more than three, right?
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: RottingCorpse on December 05, 2013, 12:10:12 PM
I said in another thread, but we're witnessing the death knell of the superhero movie. The Avengers destroyed any chance of quality.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: nacho on December 05, 2013, 12:15:47 PM
You need to go into more detail. I get the hard act to follow business and all that... But there's no logical reason to squeeze four Big Bads into a two hour movie. How does that even fly? Not only do we have the horrific track record of superhero movies as an example of what not to do, but it's just impossible to approach from a storytelling angle...

If this is the death knell of the superhero movie, it almost feels like it's being done intentionally, you know?

I would also argue that the superhero genre never really got off the ground. Okay, Batman Begins was an interesting blip. But it was just that -- a blip. Dark Knight only stands out because of one actor's unique talents. The rest of the movie was a mess, as was DKR.

I can't think of any other superhero movies that even approached quality... Avengers, possibly, but only if you refuse to stop and think about it.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: RottingCorpse on December 05, 2013, 12:24:24 PM
The Amazing Spider Man 2 trailer:


The Avengers killed the super hero movie because now everything is about the crossover lead up to the big mamma-jamma all-star team movie. The next Superman movie is Superman vs. Batman starring Wonder Woman and the Flash, which will plant seeds for solo movies that will ultimately lead up to a Justice League movie. Spider-Man is cramming ten villains into one movie leading up to a battle royal with The Sinister Six in Spectacular Spider-Man 8. Fox and Sony have to keep churning out X-Men and Spider-Man movies every three years or the film rights revert back to Marvel. They're cash cows, which is fine, but with The Avengers, the methods of fattening the cow for the kill have changed dramatically.

One of these mega movies will flop terribly. It's inevitable. Then, the sea change.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: nacho on December 05, 2013, 01:01:30 PM
I don't understand how one of them hasn't yet flopped terribly.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: RottingCorpse on December 05, 2013, 01:14:24 PM
It's only a matter of time. People are looking to next summer's Guardians of the Galaxy, based off one of Marvel's C-List properties, to be the first to crack. Green Lantern flopped, but all the DC stuff is owned (not licensed, but outright owned) by Warner Bros. and they had Batman and Harry Potter to soak up the loss.

I guess my beef is that everything has to be "Bigger! Faster! More, More, MORE!" If they think they're going to make a jillion dollars anyway, take some creative risks.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: nacho on December 05, 2013, 01:21:33 PM
Yeah, that's what gets me, too. You know you're going to pack the theater... Why not have some real fun and do a good/interesting movie?
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: Reginald McGraw on December 05, 2013, 06:06:35 PM
Why not have some real fun and do a good/interesting movie?

See that's the hard part, as I see it. How many good/interesting movies are there? One or two a year? If you're lucky.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: nacho on December 05, 2013, 06:16:04 PM
Why not have some real fun and do a good/interesting movie?

See that's the hard part, as I see it. How many good/interesting movies are there? One or two a year? If you're lucky.

Point proven this year with the reaction to Gravity and 12 Years a Slave (and studios all pushing back their movies to avoid Oscar competition).

Except for the new All-Katniss studio that Lawrence apparently secretly owns.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: RottingCorpse on December 13, 2013, 05:35:13 AM
Oof. Yeah, it's time to write that superhero piece.

http://flash.sonypictures.com/movies/theamazingspiderman2/microsite/electroarrives/theamazingspiderman_pressrelease_1212.pdf (http://flash.sonypictures.com/movies/theamazingspiderman2/microsite/electroarrives/theamazingspiderman_pressrelease_1212.pdf)

Quote
SONY PICTURES ENTERTAINMENT TO EXPAND THE SPIDER-MAN UNIVERSE ON SCREEN WITH ALL-STAR WRITING TEAM

Alex Kurtzman, Roberto Orci, Jeff Pinkner, Ed Solomon, and Drew Goddard to Collaborate withMarc Webb and Producers Avi Arad and Matt Tolmach
on Developing the Universe and Expanding the Story in“The Amazing Spider-Man 3,” “Venom,” and “The Sinister Six”

CULVER CITY, Calif., December 12, 2013 – In a move to forge a new legacy in the story of Peter Parker on screen, Sony Pictures Entertainment, in association with Marvel Entertainment, is developing several new projects in the Spider-Man franchise, with Alex Kurtzman, Roberto Orci, Jeff Pinkner, Ed Solomon, and Drew Goddard to collaborate on overseeing the developing story over several films that will be produced by Avi Arad and Matt Tolmach, it was announced today by Doug Belgrad, president of Columbia Pictures, and Hannah Minghella, president of Production for the studio.

The five writers, along with the two producers and Marc Webb, have formed a franchise brain trust to expand the universe for the brand and to develop a continuous tone and thread throughout the films. Under the deals, the studio announced that Kurtzman & Orci & Pinkner are writing the screenplay for The Amazing Spider-Man 3, which the studio hopes Webb will return to direct; the film will go into production next fall for release on June 10, 2016. In addition, the team will build on the cinematic foundation laid by Webb, Arad, and Tolmach in the first two movies. They will expand the franchise as Kurtzman & Orci & Solomon will write the screenplay for Venom, which Kurtzman will direct; also, Goddard will write, with an eye to direct, The Sinister Six, focusing on the villains in the franchise. Hannah Minghella and Rachel O’Connor will oversee the development and production of these films for the studio.

In tapping these five writers, the studio and the producers are guiding the future of the franchise with the writer/producers who have each played significant and key roles in developing such highly successful franchises, films, and series as Star Trek, Transformers, “Alias,” “Fringe,” Men in Black, Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure, World War Z, “Lost,” Cloverfield, The Cabin in the Woods, and Marvel’s upcoming “Daredevil” series.

Commenting on the announcement, Belgrad said, “The Spider-Man film franchise is one of our studio’s greatest assets. We are thrilled with the creative team we have assembled to delve more deeply into the world that Marc, Avi and Matt have begun to explore in The Amazing Spider-Man and The Amazing Spider-Man 2. We believe that Marc, Alex, and Drew have uniquely exciting visions for how to expand the Spider-Man universe in each of these upcoming films.”

Arad and Tolmach added, “This collaboration was born out of the great experience we and Marc had working with Alex, Bob, and Jeff on The Amazing Spider-Man 2. With more than fifty years’ wealth of stories in the comic books to draw upon for inspiration, the Spider-Man universe is truly boundless; in addition, the Spider-Man comics have the greatest rogues gallery of any series, and to have the chance to explore that on film is truly thrilling. Until now, we have approached each film as a separate, self-contained entity, but with this move, we have the opportunity to grow the franchise by looking to the future as we develop a continuous arc for the story. That is what Alex, Bob, Jeff, Ed, and Drew will do in this unprecedented collaboration, and we’re excited about the directions they are taking the character and the world.”

The most successful franchise in the history of Columbia Pictures, Spider-Man is embraced all over the world. The four Spider-Man films to date have taken in over $3.2 billion worldwide. Spider-Man, Venom, The Sinister Six and other Spider-Man related characters are licensed to Sony by Marvel Entertainment.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: nacho on December 13, 2013, 08:38:55 AM
It's been time since Batman Forever.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: RottingCorpse on February 03, 2014, 05:32:02 PM
Meanwhile, I don't think I even need to see The Amazing Spider-Man 2 now.

Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: monkey! on February 03, 2014, 06:00:56 PM
Wow... that looks awful.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: nacho on February 04, 2014, 10:43:15 AM
How many bad guys are we up to?

Quote
A tweet from Marc Webb seems to have revealed that B.J. Novak (The Office) will be playing Alistair Smythe, aka Ultimate Spider-Slayer, in Amazing Spider-Man 2.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: RottingCorpse on March 28, 2014, 04:04:14 PM
Rereading old threads in an effort to procrastinate doing real work. I've tuned out the insane amount of Amazing Spider-Man 2 trailers, pictures, news, ads, madness, etc. There seems to be a real need for Sony to make this a massive hit, but I've literally been pummeled with so much Spider-Man shit since last fall, that my desire to see this movie is close to nil.

Which is sad because I actually kind of liked the reboot.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: RottingCorpse on May 05, 2014, 01:11:32 PM
Some mentioned turning off you IQ in another thread which reminded me I should catch a matinee of this horror show today.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: Reginald McGraw on May 05, 2014, 03:17:02 PM
I've heard from some that it might not be terrible. Very surprising.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: RottingCorpse on May 05, 2014, 06:11:02 PM
Man, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is really hard to unpack. It's good, yet it doesn't deserve to be... Or maybe it shouldn't be good, but is somehow good in spite of itself. I don't even know where to start. I'm going to try not to spoil, but there may be some stuff given away here.

I liked it quite a bit actually. I'll start there I guess. It's certainly not the train wreck that was Raimi's Spider-Man 3. More importantly, it's not (quite) the train wreck the trailers make it out to be. Despite some individual lapses in situational logic, it's a cohesive well-constructed story that actually builds upon itself in a satisfying way. It may be the first superhero movie where multiple villains actually make sense.

The first half-hour or so really sings. There's a Bourne-style opening scene showing exactly how Peter Parker's parents died which sets up some stuff with big nasty genetic mega-corporation Oscorp later. Then we see Andrew Garfield's Spider-Man doing his thing versus a funny, un-superpowered Paul Giamatti who gets thwarted and doesn't show up again until the epilogue as "The Rhino." The way he's used is basically as a bookend to illustrate the growth Spider-Man goes through over the course of the movie. It's a sort of cheesy device, but boy does it work.

Anyway, Peter's Spider-Man adventures almost make him late for his high school graduation where his on again/off again girlfriend Emma Stone is valedictorian. Like the first movie, the scenes between Garfield and Stone are the best part of the movie. They're seeing each other despite Spidey's promise to her dying father at the end of the last movie that he wouldn't get her involved with his shenanigans.

Then Jamie Foxx gets his villain origin story which feels like it should be in another movie, specifically Batman & Robin. It's necessary for what comes later, but it's way too overwrought and straddles the line of pure awfulness. There are lots of little logic details that threatened to take me out of it. Anyway, he turns into Electro but Spider-Man quickly dispatches him to Ravencroft, the supervillian prison. (The Ravencroft scenes are also pretty bad. I recommend going to the bathroom during them if you have to.)

Soon, Harry Osborn returns from boarding school to find out he's got the same disease as his dying father who was trying to find a cure with Peter Parker's father. He and Peter reconnect which works, but I don't know if it works because I believe these guys as friends or because the Raimi movies set up James Franco and Tobey MacGuire as Harry and Peter who are buds and I've been programmed to accept it. (The movie also asks to me believe Harry Osborn and Peter Parker are still really tight even though the last time they saw each other was when they were ten.) Anyway, Harry needs Spider-Man's blood to cure him, which he needs to do before his super-evil corporate board of directors cut him off from Oscorp completely. Emma Stone threatens to leave for Oxford and Peter starts digging around his father's past.

Writing this out makes it all sound absolutely ridiculous, and yet after a short section in the middle where they have to set up the clunkier plot elements, everything starts to fall into place and the movie whips along in a way that makes utter sense and in a weird comic book way is totally organic. By the time they get to the crazy battle royale in the third act, there are actually big stakes involved. I was riveted and 100% emotionally involved. I don't know how they did it.

The devil of course is in the details, and there's a lot of really little conveniences you're forced to swallow. The most egregious is when Emma Stone goes data mining at her Oscorp job which sets off the security dudes who have previously been established as utterly evil. There's this weird chase in the office building that Peter Parker eventually helps her get out of by thrusting into an elevator with Harry Osborn so he can find out she's Peter Parker's girlfriend. Convenient, sure, but not the biggest screenwriting crime ever committed. Right? However, it brings up all those nagging questions. Is her life in danger? Did she just quit Oscorp? Are these thugs going to keep hunting her? But the next time we see her, she's like, "I'm going to study at Oxford. I need to be happy, and I can't do that being Spider-Man's girlfriend." No mention of the time she played spy-games at her old job.

Most of the logic lapses aren't that bad, but could have been avoided if they hadn't tried to shove so much story in there. And maybe here lies the larger problem. (It's the heart of my "decline of the superhero movie" argument.) Many of the plot points I found extraneous seem to have to do with the "Spider-Man Universe At Large" rather than the particular chapter the moviemakers were laying out in front of me. The story of "Harry Osborn and the Quest for Spider-Man's Blood" is actually pretty solid if standard superhero fare. Even Foxx's Electro makes sense in it. Yet there's the greater "conspiracy" going on that they're using to set up other movies that seemed to get in the way.

In the end though, it charmed me more than not. Garfield and Stone have amazing chemistry. The story is pretty engaging, and the effects are just mind-blowing. (Spider-Man has never looked so good.) And the last few scenes are just perfect. In fact, I don't know if it could have been a more perfect way to end this imperfect movie.

So I don't know anymore.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: nacho on May 05, 2014, 07:10:23 PM
Wow... I didn't expect that.

So...what's this do to the front page article you'll never write?
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: RottingCorpse on May 05, 2014, 07:15:53 PM
Well, I think the core elements of my argument (slavish fan service, shared universe fatigue, the church of "bigger, better, faster") are still valid and part of what make ASM2 merely pretty good instead of great. Also, I'm not sure if this wasn't a case of being aided by low expectations. I won't know until I sleep on it a while.

Now really *is* the perfect time to write that piece.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: nacho on May 05, 2014, 08:07:55 PM
You keep saying that!
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: RottingCorpse on May 05, 2014, 08:42:36 PM
And I'll keep saying that...
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: RottingCorpse on May 07, 2014, 10:16:14 AM
After a couple days sleeping on it, I've decided ASM2 is about in the same class as the first Amazing Spider-Man... unoffensive with really nice moments, but never quite soaring either.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: RottingCorpse on May 08, 2014, 03:38:20 PM
Spoilers galore, but this is a really good piece on ASM2.

Quote
How The Amazing Spider-Man 2 fails at shared-universe storytelling

http://www.blastr.com/2014-5-7/how-amazing-spider-man-2-fails-shared-universe-storytelling (http://www.blastr.com/2014-5-7/how-amazing-spider-man-2-fails-shared-universe-storytelling)
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: nacho on June 10, 2014, 05:09:23 PM
Okay... I tried to watch The Amazing Spider-Man 2.

I couldn't bear it. It was an absolute mess, and clearly skewed to their 8 year old market. It made Spider-Man 3 look like high art.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: RottingCorpse on June 10, 2014, 09:12:42 PM
Wow, you're ranking it below Raimi's Spider-Man 3? I don't understand how that's possible.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: nacho on June 11, 2014, 06:56:00 AM
I'm ranking it below every Spider-Man where he did not constantly make sixth grade-level jokes to himself/directly to the audience, yes.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: RottingCorpse on June 11, 2014, 11:56:08 AM
Well, it is really for kids.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: nacho on June 11, 2014, 12:13:02 PM
And that's fine! But this was "for kids" in the same way Romper Room is for kids. They might as well have just given up the pretense and broken the fourth wall. "Hellooooo boys and girls!"

I think what really irked me was him singing the traditional theme song as he beat people up, after flying through the city jabbering nonsensically to himself (to us). It's actually technically bad at that point. He never runs out of breath or reacts to an impact? It feels like what it is -- the actor looping in a battery of unrelenting quips with no sense of the action taking place.

If I were a bad guy, I'd want to just start screaming, "SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP!!!"

And then we get Comedy Jamie Foxx, eh? What, they couldn't afford to hologram in Jerry Lewis in his Bellhop era?
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: RottingCorpse on July 23, 2014, 03:19:59 PM
The Death Knell of the Superhero Movie approaches...

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/spider-man-villains-movie-sinister-720605 (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/spider-man-villains-movie-sinister-720605)

Quote
Spider-Man Villains Movie 'Sinister Six' Gets Nov. 2016 Release Date
As part of the move, Sony pushed back "The Amazing Spider-Man 3" by two years to 2018.

Watch out Avengers, X-Men and Justice League.

Sony is entering the fray of comic-book super-teams.

The studio has dated The Sinister Six, a movie that features an all-star lineup of Spider-Man villains, for Nov. 11, 2016. As part of the move, Sony moved back its The Amazing Spider-Man 3 by two years to 2018. Amazing Spider-Man 3 and 4 had already been dated for June 10, 2016, and May 4, 2018, respectively.

The studio will move Uncharted into the June 10, 2016, spot. The Seth Gordon-helmed film is an action-adventure based on the best-selling PlayStation video game series that follows the adventures of treasure hunter Nathan Drake.

Sony is very high on Drew Goddard's take on the Sinister Six material, which is described as a rough script at this point. Goddard will write and direct the Spider-Man spin-off.

"With Sinister Six in the hands of writer-director Drew Goddard, we feel extremely confident placing the film on a prime date in 2016,” said Doug Belgrad, president of Sony Pictures Entertainment Motion Picture Group.

First introduced in 1964, the original members included Electro, Doctor Octopus, Kraven the Hunter, Mysterio, Vulture and Sandman. Electro, played by Jamie Foxx, was already introduced in Sony's The Amazing Spider-Man 2 this summer.

It is unclear which villains this incarnation will feature. Among the possibilities include Green Goblin, played by Dane DeHaan in The Amazing Spider-Man 2. The film's third act dropped so-called Easter eggs for the fans that hinted at potential future villains for the franchise. For instance, Doc Ock's mechanical arms were seen in the background of one scene. The movie also introduced The Rhino (Paul Giamatti) in its last scene.

Avi Arad and Matt Tolmach are producing Sinister Six.

As for Uncharted, the latest draft of the screenplay is being written by David Guggenheim, and the film will be an Arad/Atlas Entertainment production, produced by Charles Roven, Arad, Alex Gartner and Ari Arad. The video game series was developed by Naughty Dog and published by Sony Computer Entertainment America.

 "June 10 is a great date for Uncharted," Belgrad added. "It's just the right place for this exciting action-adventure film."
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: nacho on July 23, 2014, 04:49:59 PM
Tell us why!
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: RottingCorpse on December 10, 2014, 05:38:31 AM
I guess the bigger story here might be the Sony hack which North Korea apparently did with a Commodore 64, but some interesting tidbit about the future (or lack of) Spider-Man movies. Nothing incredibly new as there had been rumblings about Sony trying to figure out something with Marvel to help the ailing franchise, but it's interesting to know there was real fire behind that smoke.

The Spider-Man franchise is my biggest argument (or maybe Exhibit A is a better term) for what ails superhero movies in the long term; bloat, quantity over quality, and uncertain story direction in a desperate attempts to keep up with the Joneses who in this case is Marvel.

http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2014/12/09/sony-marvel-discussed-spider-man-movie-crossover/ (http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2014/12/09/sony-marvel-discussed-spider-man-movie-crossover/)

Quote
Sony, Marvel Discussed Spider-Man Movie Crossover

Sony Pictures has considered partnering with Marvel and producing an animated comedy as it looks to revamp its big screen strategy for “Spider-Man.”

Details of the discussions are contained in e-mails to and from Sony’s motion picture chief Amy Pascal, which were released on the Internet by hackers this week.

The e-mails reveal extensive discussions between executives at Sony and Marvel owner Walt Disney, all the way up to their respective chief executives Kaz Hirai and Robert Iger.

In an Oct. 30 e-mail, Sony Pictures president Doug Belgrad tells Ms. Pascal about a potential scenario that would see Marvel produce a new trilogy of Spider-Man movies while Sony retains “creative control, marketing and distribution.”

In a separate e-mail, Ms. Pascal tells a business partner that Marvel wanted to include Spider-Man in its planned third “Captain America” movie.

Some fanboys have clamored for Marvel Studios, which producers the blockbuster “Avengers” and “Iron Man” films, to take back control of Spider-Man from Sony, which has a long-term license. Sony’s last Spider-Man movie, “The Amazing Spider-Man 2,” received a mixed reaction from fans and modestly underperformed at the box office.

The talks with Marvel eventually broke down and Sony is now planning to go ahead with its own Spider-Man slate, according to people familiar with the matter. As of late November, executives were planning a “Spidey summit” for January to discuss future plans.  Among projects in development are an animated Spider-Man comedy that would be produced by Chris Miller and Phil Lord, the team behind “22 Jump Street” and “The Lego Movie,” as well as previously disclosed Spider-Man spin-offs focused on villain team Sinister Six, super-foe Venom, and women from the webslinger’s life.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: nacho on December 10, 2014, 07:14:45 AM
Is Spiderman originally a Marvel franchise? Or DC? I'd like to see an article on "how Marvel won the game," because when people think of superheroes I would think that they immediately think of DC characters, yes? Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, etc... But it seems to me like Marvel is god. Is it an ensemble thing? Sci-fi geeks do love their ensembles?

Anyway, I just looked it up...Spiderman is Marvel. Why does Sony own it again? Just a fluke? And if a random studio owns the franchise and has to keep cranking out movies to maintain their ownership, then is that really Exhibit A of what's wrong with the genre or is it Exhibit Z-stroke-567.8 of what's wrong with Hollywood? It's an unfortunate footnote, more like. No matter how bad it gets, isn't the response always going to be: What would it have been like if Marvel had the rights?

A quick scan of related geek blogs says that response is the current thinking. So does it really add to genre fatigue, or is it shrugged off as industry fuckery while we all wait for the next Marvel-helmed mega movie?
 
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: RottingCorpse on December 10, 2014, 10:25:55 AM
The history of the Spider-Man film saga is told in the "Lights, Camera, No Action" chapter of your "Greatest Sci-Fi movies Never Made." In my dream article, I would go back and race the origins of all these deals and how it got us to where we are today. However, the short and skinny is that in the wake of Tim Burton's Batman, Marvel sold off all sorts of ancillary rights to Spider-Man in a desperate attempt to stave off bankruptcy.  Literally half a dozen production companies could legally lay claim to owning the film rights to Spider-Man. It took years of legal wrangling, but ultimately Columbia Pictures (now owned by Sony) came out on top.

(Marvel's near bankruptcy in the 90s and the hubris that caused it would be a large talking point in my nonexistent piece because, well, kings fall.)

Sony's deal is the same as Fox's deal with X-Men: the studio has to make a movie every three years or the rights revert back to Marvel which now that they're *the* Hollywood super-power, are quietly (and not so quietly) trying to influence. They got the rights to Daredevil back from Fox an are launching multiple Netflix series based on all their "Hell's Kitchen" detective characters. (Daredevil, Luke Cage, Iron Fist, Jessica Jones/Spider-Woman.)

The Spider-Man movies have been textbook "law of diminishing returns" for Sony, but they understand that it's a huge property and are loathe to part with it. Ideally, they'd probably like to sit on it for more than three years and relaunch it later, but that kills the deal. Their Marvel maneuvering is trying to plug holes in the dike.

Personally, I blame Raimi's Spider-Man 3 for being a disaster though maybe that generation of kids just grew up and the new generation like Iron Man better.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: nacho on December 10, 2014, 12:59:30 PM

(Marvel... kings fall.)


"Drunk on its own power..."


Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: RottingCorpse on December 10, 2014, 05:55:25 PM

(Marvel... kings fall.)


"Drunk on its own power..."



That was so incredibly rewarding.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: RottingCorpse on February 10, 2015, 09:01:44 AM
And there it is.

For all my grumbling about Marvel, I approve of this move. Sony had really been mucking up the works with Spider-Man since Spider-Man 3.

http://marvel.com/news/movies/24062/sony_pictures_entertainment_brings_marvel_studios_into_the_amazing_world_of_spider-man (http://marvel.com/news/movies/24062/sony_pictures_entertainment_brings_marvel_studios_into_the_amazing_world_of_spider-man)

Quote
‘Spider-Man’ Scoop: Marvel’s Kevin Feige, Amy Pascal To Steer Spidey As Producers

New Spider-Man Will Appear First in an Upcoming Marvel Film Within Marvel’s Cinematic Universe

Marvel's Kevin Feige to Produce Next Installment of the Spider-Man Franchise with Amy Pascal

(Culver City, California, and Burbank, California February 09, 2015) – Sony Pictures Entertainment and Marvel Studios announced today that Sony is bringing Marvel into the amazing world of Spider-Man.

Under the deal, the new Spider-Man will first appear in a Marvel film from Marvel's Cinematic Universe (MCU). Sony Pictures will thereafter release the next installment of its $4 billion Spider-Man franchise, on July 28, 2017, in a film that will be co-produced by Kevin Feige and his expert team at Marvel and Amy Pascal, who oversaw the franchise launch for the studio 13 years ago. Together, they will collaborate on a new creative direction for the web slinger. Sony Pictures will continue to finance, distribute, own and have final creative control of the Spider-Man films.

Marvel and Sony Pictures are also exploring opportunities to integrate characters from the MCU into future Spider-Man films.

The new relationship follows a decade of speculation among fans about whether Spider-Man – who has always been an integral and important part of the larger Marvel Universe in the comic books – could become part of the Marvel Universe on the big screen. Spider-Man has more than 50 years of history in Marvel's world, and with this deal, fans will be able to experience Spider-Man taking his rightful place among other Super Heroes in the MCU.

Bob Iger, Chairman and CEO, The Walt Disney Company said: "Spider-Man is one of Marvel's great characters, beloved around the world. We're thrilled to work with Sony Pictures to bring the iconic web-slinger into the Marvel Cinematic Universe, which opens up fantastic new opportunities for storytelling and franchise building."

"We always want to collaborate with the best and most successful filmmakers to grow our franchises and develop our characters. Marvel, Kevin Feige and Amy, who helped orchestrate this deal, are the perfect team to help produce the next chapter of Spider-Man," said Michael Lynton, Chairman and CEO of Sony Pictures Entertainment. "This is the right decision for the franchise, for our business, for Marvel, and for the fans."

"Sony Pictures and Marvel Studios share a love for the characters in the Spider-Man universe and have a long, successful history of working together. This new level of collaboration is the perfect way to take Peter Parker's story into the future," added Doug Belgrad, president, Sony Pictures Entertainment Motion Picture Group.

"I am thrilled to team with my friends at Sony Pictures along with Amy Pascal to produce the next Spider-Man movie," said Marvel Studios President Kevin Feige. "Amy has been deeply involved in the realization on film of one of the world’s most beloved characters. Marvel's involvement will hopefully deliver the creative continuity and authenticity that fans demand from the MCU. I am equally excited for the opportunity to have Spider-Man appear in the MCU, something which both we at Marvel, and fans alike, have been looking forward to for years."

Spider-Man, embraced all over the world, is the most successful franchise in the history of Sony Pictures, with the five films having taken in more than $4 billion worldwide.

                                                     

ABOUT SONY PICTURES ENTERTAINMENT

Sony Pictures Entertainment (SPE) is a subsidiary of Sony Entertainment Inc., a subsidiary of Tokyo-based Sony Corporation. SPE's global operations encompass motion picture production, acquisition and distribution; television production, acquisition and distribution; television networks; digital content creation and distribution; operation of studio facilities; and development of new entertainment products, services and technologies. For additional information, go to http://www.sonypictures.com/.

ABOUT MARVEL ENTERTAINMENT

Marvel Entertainment, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of The Walt Disney Company, is one of the world's most prominent character-based entertainment companies, built on a proven library of more than 8,000 characters featured in a variety of media over seventy-five years.  Marvel utilizes its character franchises in entertainment, licensing and publishing.  For more information visit marvel.com. © 2015 MARVEL
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: RottingCorpse on December 09, 2016, 11:04:57 AM
Remember when I used to talk about the fall of Marvel? Boy, I was dumb.

Though I do mourn the loss of anything that resembles artfulness in these things.

Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: RottingCorpse on March 28, 2017, 11:09:38 PM
Speaking of Dante's 7th circle...

Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: nacho on March 29, 2017, 12:30:42 PM
I have completely lost track of where we're at in the Spiderman franchise. I know I haven't seen all the movies... And it feels like it's hit some sort of reboot singularity. Hasn't it been rebooted three or four times in the last, like, 7 years?
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: RottingCorpse on May 19, 2017, 04:18:45 PM
 mind-is-blown

http://variety.com/2017/film/news/tom-hardy-venom-spinoff-spider-man-director-ruben-fleischer-1202418721/

Quote
Tom Hardy to Star in ‘Venom,’ Ruben Fleischer to Direct

Tom Hardy will star in Sony’s long-awaited “Spider-Man” movie “Venom,” with “Zombieland” helmer Ruben Fleischer on board to direct.

While “Spider-Man: Homecoming” is still two months away from opening, Sony is acting quickly to build its extended universe, which starts with the “Venom” movie.

Although the studio has been meeting with directors for some time, the actor selection process sped up after Hardy exited J.C. Chandor’s action-thriller “Triple Frontier,” and Sony saw an opportunity to court an in-demand talent.

Fleischer showcased his ability to bring together dark themes and humor in “Zombieland,” and according to sources, Hardy is a huge fan of Venom. Hardy’s only previous film in the superhero genre is 2012’s “The Dark Knight Rises,” in which he played another baddie, Bane.

Scott Rosenberg (“Jumanji”) and Jeff Pinkner (“The Dark Tower”) will write the script for “Venom,” with Avi Arad and Matt Tolmach producing the movie, along with Amy Pascal. Palak Patel and Eric Fineman are overseeing the project for Columbia Pictures.

“Venom” is set to hit theaters on Oct. 5, 2018.

Since its inception in 1988, Venom has been one of “Spider-Man’s” most popular characters, making it a top priority for the studio to get a movie off the ground. The character is an alien symbiote that needs a human host to survive. The alien vests its victim with incredible powers. Venom made his first big-screen appearance in Sam Raimi’s “Spider-Man 3,” where he was portrayed by Topher Grace.

Throughout the history of Marvel Comics, Venom has appeared alongside Spider-Man, Iron Man, Deadpool, Hulk, and other Marvel Comics characters.

Hardy most recently starred in the FX series “Taboo” and can be seen next in Christopher Nolan’s World War II epic “Dunkirk.” He is repped by CAA and United Agents.

The film marks Fleischer’s first major tentpole since signing with CAA last year. He has primarily been working in the TV world, specifically on Netflix’s “Santa Clarita Diet.” He is also currently developing a sequel to “Zombieland.”

Fleischer is also repped by Management 360.

Hardy posted a photo of himself in a Venom T-shirt to celebrate the announcement.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: RottingCorpse on July 09, 2017, 11:52:06 AM
Spider-Man: Homecoming...

So this is reboot #3, this time partnered with the bloated Avengers storyline of the MCU, though Spidey actually benefits from existing in that world.

The film opens right after the big battle in the first Avengers and Michael Keaton's working class hero/villain is a contractor who just landed a sweet gig doing salvage of the big alien battle. However, he's quickly waylaid by Damage Control, Tony Stark's big corporate company responsible for superhero clean-up. (If these films are so obsessed with all the urban destruction they wreak, maybe they'd, I don't know, blow up less fucking buildings?)

Pissed of, Keaton drives off with a truckload of alien tech, which he and his team reverse engineer into weapons they sell to criminals. (The film makes a point of saying the Keaton is basically a street-level Tony Stark, who also made his fortune selling weapons.) Keaton engineers himself some scary metal wings and claws and becomes the Vulture, pulling of heists of Damage Control's trucks to get more alien tech to sell to hoods.

Flash forward to after the events of Civil War and Peter Parker/Spider-Man is dying for a next mission as part of his "Stark Internship." Stark has given him a high tech Spdiey suit, but only lets him access part of it's capabilities. Stark has also made Jon Favreau's Happy Hogan Peter's direct contact, but he ignores him in favor of organizing the Avengers big move from Avengers tower in NYC to a militarized compound upstate. Peter is stuck navigating high school while trying to find a crime spree big enough to get back on Tony Stark's radar. A bank heist using the Vulture's weapons kicks off an investigative caper he thinks will get him back into the big leagues.

Boring comic book shit, right? But what the film does is plant all this squarely in the world of a high school comedy in the mold of Sixteen Candles, Can't Buy Me Love, and Ferris Bueller's Day Off, which the film references a wee bit heavy-handily. Sophomore Peter just wants to fight crime, but he's also trying to hide his secret form his academic decathlon team while trying to impress hot senior Liz. His goofy best friend Ned finds out he's Spider-Man and uses Peter's crush on Liz to convince him Peter should use his Spider-Man alter ego to make them popular. In Peter's quest to be a future superhero, he's fucking up the here and now in high school. The more successes he gets, the cockier he gets. He hacks into the suit to release it's full potential (and it's hilarious "mother" style AI) and starts biting off bigger chunks of superhero mayhem, getting on the Vulture's radar in a bad way. After a disastrous fuck-up, Stark takes the suit from him and Peter has to decide what's important in his life.

I'm gonna stop here plot wise, because the third act of this thing is a lot of fun. There are some nice twists that I didn't see coming and it all unfolds in a way that makes you understand what a John Hughes superhero movie would probably look like.

I liked it. This reboot has benefitted from getting away from the stupid Uncle Ben origin and Harry Osborn shit, and just letting Spider-Man be a kid in love with the idea of being something bigger than he is. The performances are really what make it. The kids are great. The kid playing Peter Parker nails it. Marisa Tomei as Aunt May doesn't have much to do, but is memorable in every scene she's in. (There's a running joke through the movie about how hot she is.) Keaton is really, really good. It's one of the best takes on a Superhero villain we've seen in a long time because his motivations makes sense and even the way he and Spider-Man become intertwined feels based in reality that has narrative logic. You feel real stakes of the third act. (Which thankfully has nothing to do with the world ending.)

RC says check it out.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: nacho on July 09, 2017, 11:57:08 AM
Good to hear! So it only took them a half dozen movies to figure out WTF with this superhero, huh?

Quote
(If these films are so obsessed with all the urban destruction they wreak, maybe they'd, I don't know, blow up less fucking buildings?)

This bothers me about the whole universe -- the TV shows are obsessed with it, as well.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: RottingCorpse on July 09, 2017, 12:05:30 PM
It's not perfect, and it leans on those 80s teen movie tropes pretty heavily.  It's squarely aimed at high school kids, but it's all fun and swift and airy while at the same time feeling grounded in a world where both super-heros exist, but the world itself (at this moment) isn't at stake.

And it works by stripping away the dark teen angst and replacing with the more relatable, "OMG, I have debate team meeting with the girl I like." Which is more what real teenagers have to fucking deal with. The kids feel like real relatable kids.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: RottingCorpse on February 08, 2018, 07:59:39 PM
Spider-Man bad guy gets own anti-hero movie. For the uninitiated, this was the character that looked like Spider-Man with the toothy grin that Topher Grace played in Spider-Man 3.

Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: nacho on February 08, 2018, 08:00:58 PM
Oh, god. I just want the 70's TV show to come back.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: RottingCorpse on February 08, 2018, 08:11:36 PM
Did you watch Homecoming?
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: nacho on February 08, 2018, 08:27:07 PM
Did you watch Homecoming?

I stopped watching after the 12th reboot within 3 years.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: RottingCorpse on February 08, 2018, 08:30:39 PM
That's fair.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: RottingCorpse on April 24, 2018, 12:38:10 PM
I think... I think I'm getting old.

Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: nacho on October 02, 2018, 01:50:52 PM
Haha... Wow, indeed. Poor Tom Hardy. Venom is getting ruthlessly panned. Maybe... Some of my take away from these tweets is that it might be Deadpool-esque.

https://www.gamesradar.com/catwoman-level-bad-the-first-reactions-to-venom-are-in-and-ooft/
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: RottingCorpse on October 02, 2018, 11:19:59 PM
Have you heard the Russian bot Lady Gaga rumor? That Lady Gaga fans are spamming Tiwtter with bad reviews so people will see A Star is Born instead of Venom? We live in a weird world.

In other news, this looks like fun:

Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: nacho on October 08, 2018, 09:39:17 AM
I wouldn't put that past Lady gaga, actually..
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: RottingCorpse on December 26, 2018, 01:23:40 PM
Man, that Spider Verse movie might be one of the best superhero movies ever made. I wasn't expecting that. At all.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: nacho on December 31, 2018, 02:46:52 PM
Man, that Spider Verse movie might be one of the best superhero movies ever made. I wasn't expecting that. At all.

Everyone is raving about it. Guess I'll have to put it on the rotation...
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: RottingCorpse on January 16, 2019, 11:10:14 AM
My initial thought was that after Into the Spider-Verse, this falls a little flat by going back to the Marvel status quo of bloat. But on second viewing, I think the "school trip to Europe so I can't be Spider-Man" angle is kind of clever... though have we not learned from villain bloat here?

Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: nacho on January 16, 2019, 11:24:18 AM
Yeah. Marvel should try the Doctor Who method and take a year or two off.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: monkey! on January 21, 2019, 08:47:16 AM
How many fucking Spider-Man movies do we need?
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: nacho on January 21, 2019, 10:18:37 AM
How many fucking Spider-Man movies do we need?

It's actually a little alarming when you factor in all the cancelled films:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spider-Man_in_film

This has to be the most schizophrenic Marvel property. It's like a team of monkeys has been trying to get it right since the mid-70s (which, by the way, remain my favorite installments in the franchise...)
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: RottingCorpse on January 22, 2019, 04:55:40 PM
I like the 70s live action films as well, but that's almost certainly nostalgia at work.

Tom Holland is fine but the whole well is soured by all the reboots.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: monkey! on February 13, 2019, 05:22:05 AM
We only needed Emma Stone.
Title: Re: The Rise & Fall of the Spider-Man Franchise
Post by: nacho on February 14, 2019, 09:53:27 AM
We only needed Emma Stone.

We always need Emma Stone.