The Amazing Spider-man

[The Dark Knight]

I feel for you guys, I really do.  I'm not the fan of Spidey that I am of Superman and Batman (and in that order) but I've been getting into the Michelinie/McFarlane run on Amazing the past week or so and, generally, dig on the Spiderverse.  Big fan or not, this is bad news for all fans of comics properties.

Thanks for your understanding and condolences.

Not long ago, I watched all three Spider-Man films and afterwards, I thought to myself how good they have been in comparison to other superheroes. I liked all three, and was expecting Spider-Man 4 and possibly Spider-Man 5 with the old gang back. The future of the series was assured for quite some time. The only serious threats I was expecting were delays.

Imagine my shock and disgust when I woke up and read the news Raimi and the cast had been dumped, and a reboot had been signalled. Everything was set up and the story was progressing, but Sony pulled the rug from under our feet and put the future, and quality, of the series at risk.

It?s pretty hard, nigh impossible, to be excited about a REBOOT that shouldn?t be happening in the first place.

[johnnygobbs]

I think the first two Spiderman films rank alongside the first two Superman films, Batman, Batman Returns and TDK, as the best superhero movies of all time.  If Sony had chosen to do a reboot after Spiderman 2 I'd be a lot more upset than I am now.  Although watchable and enjoyable on its own terms Spiderman 3 sapped much of the enthusiasm I felt for this franchise.  It's a pity, because like I've written elsewhere, the fault lied with the producers, not Sam Raimi, but for whatever reason, it inevitably compromised the franchise.  As far as I was concerned, it would not have mattered how excellent Spiderman 4 was going to be, the damage had already been done and it would have been impossible for Sony to recapture the good-will many fans of the series like myself felt after Spiderman 1 and 2.

I do feel bad for you Dark Knight, and respect you as a fellow fan of the Raimi Spiderman series, but I honestly don't feel as dismayed at the news of a reboot for the reasons given above.

[The Dark Knight]

Although watchable and enjoyable on its own terms Spiderman 3 sapped much of the enthusiasm I felt for this franchise.

In what way?

I don't really get the hate Spider-Man 3 receives. In certain moods, I rank it second after Spider-Man 2.

The only real issue I have with the film is the battle royale finale with Sandman and Venom. Even then, it doesn't really bother me that much. If anything, the film has an abundance of too many good ideas. How many films can you say that for?

Raimi always had the comic book charm of Spider-Man oozing off the screen. For example, when I see Tobey walk up the street with James Brown's cool "People Get Up and Drive Your Funky Soul" swaggering, I can't help but love it. Enjoyable laid back fun and very true to the character.  

It's a pity, because like I've written elsewhere, the fault lied with the producers, not Sam Raimi, but for whatever reason, it inevitably compromised the franchise.

If Spider-Man 3 was as bad as things got with the Raimi franchise, well, you could have coloured me excited. I think in time, the haters will come to realise what they have lost. By giving Raimi and Tobey the boot, I feel Sony have compromised the franchise. Not the other way round. The good times could have kept rolling, but alas.

[johnnygobbs]

I am by no means Spiderman 3's biggest hater.  In fact I quite like a lot of the aspects of this film that were derided by many of its more vehement critics.  For instance, I liked Parker's lapse to the dark side, including his emo look and his sub-Travolta strut down the street.  I even liked the retcon device of having Sandman be revealed as the real (albeit accidental) killer of Uncle Ben.  It added a greater degree of pathos to both Sandman and Parker's respective stories.

However, to say that there were too much ideas as opposed to too few in this film is still a back-handed compliment.  Venom's story was contrived and left little room for the filmmakers' to maneuver for future sequels since it ruled out Man-Wolf (whose story in the comic originally introduced the symbiote in a much more convincing manner than this film's plot), and by definitively killing off Venom at the climax, it both terminated any scope for developing the character further and limited the possibility of introducing Carnage in later films.  It's well documented that Sam Raimi was not keen on the character, and I can't pretend to be Venom's biggest fan either, however if he was to be introduced to the story he should either have been given the respect the film deserved, or Raimi should have insisted on dramatising another villain he was keen on, irrespective of studio pressure (after all he's done such a great job with thew first two films and was guaranteed to do so again if left to his own devices).  

Ideally, Raimi would have spread the story across two films, part 3 and 4, in order to fully develop not only the birth of Venom, but to provide more time to Gwen Stacy and Sandman, both of whom were short-changed.  Sandman's back-story for instance was beautifully set up at the beginning of the film, but then forgotten about for the remainder of the running time.  Furthermore, and without wishing to blast the first two films which I love, Parker and Mary-Jane Watson's romance seemed awfully compressed throughout the series, Parker going from a love struck teen in the first film to practically engaged by the end of Part 2.  There was nowhere else for Parker's personal life to go, unless Raimi had him engage in a series of sordid and uncharacteristic affairs.

Instead, I like to look fondly at Raimi's reign as director of the Spiderman films as culminating in arguably the most satisfying comic-book movie trilogy so far.  After all, Parker does state at the beginning of the first film that the story is essentially about a girl, a fact that is reinforced by Part 3's conclusion in which both Parker and Mary-Jane are reconciled and apparently bound together in love for the rest of their lives.  And if you don't like that reading of Raimi's unofficial trilogy, how about viewing it as the document of a friendship between two young men that is seemingly ripped apart by the end of the second chapter's events, but is finally resolved with Harry Osbourne's heroic and ultimately sacrificial aid to his best friend come the end of the final chapter.

Whilst I appreciate that I probably haven't convinced you The Dark Knight, I still think there are many things to be grateful for in view of the way Raimi's Spiderman series turned out.

[The Dark Knight]

Venom's story was contrived and left little room for the filmmakers' to maneuver for future sequals since it ruled out Man-Wolf (whose story in the comic originally introduced the symbiote in a much more convincing manner than this film's plot), and by definitively killing off Venom at the climax, it both terminated any scope for developing the character further and limited the possibility of introducing Carnage in later films.

I don't think so. There were plenty of other top tier villains left for the picking before they had to go to the Wolf Men.

Shocker. Mysterio. Chameleon. Morlun. Kraven. Lizard. Vulture. Scorpion. Electro. Rhino. Kingpin. And Carnage could have been done. Connors still had a sample of the symbiote left.

And while I like Venom a great deal, I positively love his death sequence. Parker smashing the poles to disturb the symbiote and throwing a goblin bomb in there just works for me. It's the only time he defeats a super-villain himelf properly in the trilogy.

Even if Venom's story should have been spread across two fims, with the news of the reboot, I'm glad how Spider-Man 3 is even more. It ties things off quite nicely. I'd much rather have some sort of payoff than not getting one at all.

Like you say, there are a few ways to read the trilogy and Spider-Man 3 as the end of that narrative. It's just, I wanted more.

[thecolorsblend]

Thanks for your understanding and condolences.

Think nothing of it.  Like I said, I'm not the biggest Spider-Man fan ever but even I realize how much we've lost out on here.  I don't care if the reboot is ten different kinds of awesome, I really dig on Raimi's Lee/Romite-lite approach.  I dig on Maguire's natural awkward nerdiness.  And who doesn't dig Kirsten Dunst's nipples?

A winning formula if I've ever heard of one.

Imagine my shock and disgust when I woke up and read the news Raimi and the cast had been dumped, and a reboot had been signalled.

I can't!  From a sheer business point of view, this is risky to the point of stupidity.  Sony is gambling everything on the hope that audiences will respond to a new vision.

Supposedly all Raimi wanted was more time.  Spider-Man 4 was scheduled for 2011.  The reboot?  2012.

Oh, the irony...

It?s pretty hard, nigh impossible, to be excited about a REBOOT that shouldn?t be happening in the first place.

No argument here, dude.  None.

If anything, the film has an abundance of too many good ideas. How many films can you say that for?

That very realization is what turned me around on Spider-Man 3, actually.  The only quibble I've got is Marko as Ben's actual killer and the implications that has on Peter's character trajectory.  But (A) Ben would still be alive if Peter stopped Carradine and (B) Ben is made slightly heroic.

Do the ends justify the alterations?  Eye of the beholder.

By and large, Spider-Man 3 brings home the bacon in terms of arcs, themes and so forth.  The plot is crowded but considering other summer blockbusters... cripes, I'll buy that for a dollar!

Shocker. Mysterio. Chameleon. Morlun. Kraven. Lizard. Vulture. Scorpion. Electro. Rhino. Kingpin. And Carnage could have been done. Connors still had a sample of the symbiote left.

See, that list right there is a reminder to us that Spidey's rogue's gallery could very well give Batman a run for his money.  I mean, yeah, Batman has a crap ton of enemies but don't they all basically come down to duality?  That each villain is somewhat similar to the hero?  It gets repetitive.  On some days, I'm almost glad that Burton exited the franchise when he did as yet another film about dualistic villains might've been a bit much.

But Spidey?  Those villains bring different baggage to the table.

And something else?  All the comics villains would've fit into the world Raimi created... unlike some other comics properties I could mention...

And while I like Venom a great deal, I positively love his death sequence. Parker smashing the poles to disturb the symbiote and throwing a goblin bomb in there just works for me. It's the only time he defeats a super-villain himelf properly in the trilogy.

In the Spidey 3 audio commentary, Raimi and Grace both sound pretty definitive that Venom died.  But I maintain there's a loophole in there.  I mean, the screen did get awfully bright.  Who's to say Venombrock didn't slip away to menace Peter another day?

Unrelated to anything, but Raimi has crafted a pretty impressive trilogy.  Not a set of three films, mind you, but a real trilogy.  Perfect?  Perhaps not.  But Raimi knew when to break away from the comics.  I realize the comics usually portray Spider-Man as the Charlie Brown of superheroes, and he was hardly that for most of the third one... but ya know what?  There's really only two possible outcomes- (A) the people of NYC would finally lynch the guy or (B) Spidey would eventually win over the city and be thought of as a genuine hero.  Spidey becoming a celebrity in Spider-Man 3, following everything he did in the first two, felt natural and logical.  He'd saved the city twice from supervillains and saved the city (and probably a substantial portion of the eastern seaboard) from getting 'sploded.

The citizens would eventually take notice.  And they'd either kill him or, more likely, be grateful.  It may not be entirely in keeping with the comics but it makes sense.

In some ways, it feels like the series should naturally close out with #3... but I wanted #4 and #5.

Again, the reboot may completely blow everyones socks off but no matter how good it is, it's got one helluva tough act to follow.  For reasons both artistic and financial, I'll never understand the reasoning behind this reboot.  Ever.

[The Dark Knight]

See, that list right there is a reminder to us that Spidey's rogue's gallery could very well give Batman a run for his money.

Exactly. Like you say, Spider-Man does offer a lot of very solid, memorable villains with range. Batman?s rogues gallery is the only real competitor. And again, like you say, they are mostly focused on duality. Spider-Man probably has the best technical villains in my book.

Unrelated to anything, but Raimi has crafted a pretty impressive trilogy.  Not a set of three films, mind you, but a real trilogy.

He did. If this reboot is substandard in comparison, people and Sony will soon realize how good they did have it. But, by then, that ship has long since sailed. And they'll be most likely rebooting yet again. This could unnecessarily quickly turn into a can of worms with long lasting consequences.

Sony shooting dead an established series that is still going strong makes zero sense. Dropping everybody and rebooting almost feels like Raimi's series doesn't really mean anything anymore. It does mean a lot, but you get what I mean. It now just exists and the past decade of story has hit a wall.

What's wrong with building a narrative and series these days? Companies seem have their finger on the reboot button as soon as one film has a mixed response. Madness. Are they going to reboot two films into the new series if an entry is again met with mixed response?!

In the Spidey 3 audio commentary, Raimi and Grace both sound pretty definitive that Venom died.  But I maintain there's a loophole in there.  I mean, the screen did get awfully bright.  Who's to say Venombrock didn't slip away to menace Peter another day?

That is true. While I consider him dead, there is that possibility. And it?s a possibility that would not be absurd given the comic tone of the series. I mean, I get it?s behind the very meaning of the film, but Two Face?s 'death' in TDK is basically the same in, er, execution. But any Two Face comeback is going to be more hard to buy in comparison. Which is quite a contrast, given one involves an exploding pumpkin bomb and a massive chunk of alien goo, and one simply features a man falling from a modest height.

The citizens would eventually take notice.  And they'd either kill him or, more likely, be grateful.  It may not be entirely in keeping with the comics but it makes sense.

Agreed. It seemed like a logical extension to me.

Again, the reboot may completely blow everyones socks off but no matter how good it is, it's got one helluva tough act to follow.  For reasons both artistic and financial, I'll never understand the reasoning behind this reboot.  Ever.

I will most likely get behind it eventually, simply for my love of the character and nothing else. I would still want the series to maintain it?s pride. But no matter how good this reboot may be, there will always be that cloud of what and should have been in its place.

[The Joker]

If this reboot is substandard in comparison, people and Sony will soon realize how good they did have it. But, by then, that ship has long since sailed. And they'll be most likely rebooting yet again. This could unnecessarily quickly turn into a can of worms with long lasting consequences.

Yes. To say the very least, Sony faces a very tough road ahead that apparently won't end until Summer 2012. 

I will most likely get behind it eventually, simply for my love of the character and nothing else. I would still want the series to maintain it?s pride. But no matter how good this reboot may be, there will always be that cloud of what and should have been in its place.

That's true. Even if the reboot is successful with fans and general audiences, the majority of fans of the previous decade's Spider-Man film franchise probably will simply not be able to atleast wonder what Sam Raimi's Spider-Man 4 would have been like. As there are a large number of people who grew up with Raimi's Spider-Man films, and will naturally always have a fondness for them.

Timing can affect a movie's performance at the box office to a certain extent, and the timing of this restart is very off. 10 years after the original? Are you kidding me? But in this day and age of remake/rebootpalooza, where attention deficit disorder is running rampant, it's not so surprising to think that Sony would actually go this route to be perfectly honest. Which is quite sad.

[The Dark Knight]

Anybody else see all of the Spider-Man DVD special features where Stan Lee talks about how awesome the movies are? Now he has no problem with them being rebooted.

Lots of you are asking what I think of the Spidey movie reboot. I think it's one of the reasons Marvel is so great. Here's why--

Marvel knows what makes a great Spidey film. If something isn't right, they're courageous enuff to dump it and start over. That takes guts

And I'll promise you this-- when the movie DOES get made, it'll have been worth the wait-- or my name isn't Generalissimo Lee! Excelsior!

Stan is a company man and is not going to trash talk the brand, but it does make me sick.

What else makes me sick is that the reboot is being billed as 'contemporary' and battling 'today's issues'. What the hell are they on about? They're getting around as if Raimi's films are period pieces.

[thecolorsblend]

Anybody else see all of the Spider-Man DVD special features where Stan Lee talks about how awesome the movies are? Now he has no problem with them being rebooted.

Lots of you are asking what I think of the Spidey movie reboot. I think it's one of the reasons Marvel is so great. Here's why--

Marvel knows what makes a great Spidey film. If something isn't right, they're courageous enuff to dump it and start over. That takes guts

And I'll promise you this-- when the movie DOES get made, it'll have been worth the wait-- or my name isn't Generalissimo Lee! Excelsior!

Stan is a company man and is not going to trash talk the brand, but it does make me sick.

What else makes me sick is that the reboot is being billed as 'contemporary' and battling 'today's issues'. What the hell are they on about? They're getting around as if Raimi's films are period pieces.

What other choice is there?  They have to justify a reboot somehow and they for damn sure can't argue that the movies didn't make truckloads of money.  I mean, they know they had options.  They could've given Raimi the time he wanted.  They could've fired him and brought in a new director to continue the franchise.  So on and so forth.

The only party insisting on a reboot is Sony.  Everyone else wants the previous franchise to continue in some form or another.  Framing this thing as though there's a flaw in the Raimiverse is the only option they have to justify rebooting.