Amph Spider-Man & SSU Films (Madame Web, Venom 3, Kraven, Beyond the Spider-Verse)

^Agreed totally. I suspect Webb wanted to do a more grounded version and the studio agreed when they first hired him, then changed there mind mid-way through the first film.

 

I don't think when a movie makes 700 million dollars they're going to suddenly fold up shop and stop making Spider-Man movies. the source about the "delay" is literally just a random throwaway comment on an AICN article.

Dug this one a lot and I actually really liked the ending, even without any sequels and not seeing the rest of the Rhino fight. The point is that Spidey will keep fighting, even if it seems he has zero reason to do so anymore but he does what is right.

 

I don't understand the "Raimi is cheesy" criticism. Yes, Raimi had some moments of intentional humor. There were also times, like the "Raindrops Keep Falling on My Head" montage, that he tried to convey story information in a somewhat light-hearted manner. Tonally, though, all his films were very serious. Indeed, the other half of all fan complaints seem to be that this version of Parker was too morose and contemplative. I think, though, they were appropriate to the subject matter. He really was unsatisfied with life, the woman who raised him was being evicted, and he was actually failing out of school while struggling to support himself. Those plot points were each treated seriously, and all the characters involved reacted in a realistic, understandable fashion. I don't see how having jokes in a film can be said to change this overall serious tone.

Or are people referring to something else?

 

What I refer to as cheesy isn't a criticism of the Raimi films. When I watch those films, it seems to me like it pokes fun at its own genre, which is what I refer to as self-referential. It's intentionally silly and exaggerated. You're telling me you could imagine a real person somewhere in the world talking and acting like J.K. Simmons' portrayal of Jonah Jameson? It's stylised. But that's fine. I've also defended the dance sequence in SM3 just the other day in a different thread, and Peter's smug behaviour with the "emo hair" that is very popular to complain about. That's just Raimi's brand of humour, which you'll find all through all three films.

I just compared the two franchises' approach to silliness, that's all. Where Raimi's trilogy to me gives the vibe of laughing at itself and the conventions of its own genre in its sillier moments, ASM 2 is silly with complete earnestness. Between the two, I think it's actually easier for a casual audience to accept the world of the Raimi films at first viewing. And that's probably not a coincidence. That series started in 2002, remember?

Having said this, I enjoyed ASM 2 a lot. At some point during your viewing, you just have to tell yourself "it's a cartoon, just go with it". When you do that, it soars.

 

Thanks, Jabba, that song is now stuck in my head.

 

Anything about the Raimi flicks being "cheesy" basically boils down to complaints about Sam Raimi's specific stylistic quirks. Like the Doc Ock Awakens scene in Spider-Man 2 (still the best of all the flicks because it has a decent thematic subtext about 20something directionless malaise) it's very stuttery and loud and done with a lot of camera movements and quick editing and very much like something straight outta one of Raimi's "evil dead" flicks.

As for the "cheesy" of the Webb flicks, they do tend to clearly delineate in tone for each specific scene "this is a funny scene. This is a serious scene. This is a love scene" so the tonal shifts can be a bit jarring. However, I do think that Webb's movies are pretty darn great because it totally believes in the world, the characters, the situations, and fully goes for it. While Harry's descent from Harry to Goblin seems to be rather quick in ASM2, I think it's really well done because DeHaan is a great actor who sells each piece of Harry's story conviction. I never got a "villain overload" vibe from the movie, Harry is the main antagonist of the film, Electro is basically his muscle that he grabs, but we get to see Jamie Foxx put in also a very fun, very crazy performance for the flick's front end (the Times Square sequence in ASM2 I'd put up there with top 3 scenes in any Spidey-flick ever). My only gripe about Harry in the finale is that it's a little weird that he hangs back to wait until after Gwen and Pete vanquish Electro but, what the hell? It's so damn worth it for when Harry figures out Peter is Spider-Man and all he does is freakin' look at Gwen and look at Spidey.

You can accuse the Webb Spidey flicks of going on in a bit too many directions, one thing you can't accuse them of is taking an ironic perspective on it. It fully embraces the character and his world. Wherein, when you watch a Raimi Spidey flick, you get a whole bunch of Irony and jokiness but that's less what Raimi thinks about the character and more what he thinks about when he makes movies.

note to self: rewatch "A Simple Plan" by Sam Raimi, haven't seen in in a over a decade, have to see if it plays it as straight as I remember (thereby making it something of an oddity in Raimi's films, but it toally works).

Also, I, uh, still haven't seen Darkman. I think. Probably. Maybe. That means I should either A) watch it for the first time B) watch it again. It's shameful and I love Raimi and Liam Neeson, I'll admit. Just a blindspot.

 

For me, the biggest difference between Raimi's and Webb's Spider-Flicks is this, how Peter Parker became a superhero and the most famous line in Marvel Comics, "With great power comes great responsibility."

In Raimi's Spider-Man, Peter Parker learned that lesson right away after capturing (what was thought to be) Uncle's Ben's killer. In Webb's Spider-Man, Peter does not learn that right away, he's less the Amazing Spider-Man, but more of the Avenging Spider-Man. Meaning, he really wasn't interested in helping people or fighting crime out of guilt and responsibility, ala Raimi's Spider-Man, but rather out for revenge. Revenge is not the Jedi way.

Other major differences, Peter Parker's physical appearances and demeanor/personality change; Parker's real life struggles; strong central plot vs. multiple subplots to setup future films; film tone.

Webb's Parker outside of the Spider-Man suit was boring and melodramatic.

 

Thank you. This has always been what I've tried to express.

People like Ender Sai try to defend the new series by saying it shows Spiderman's growth as a hero. Maybe, but as a point of contrast, I think that really misses the mark on what happens in the two. Raimi's main character grasps his moral code early on, and grows as a hero in his struggles to reconcile that code with his other desires in life. Webb's Spiderman seems to have trouble grasping that such a code would be desirable in the first place, and I'm unclear on whether they'll ever get to a point where he will categorically accept that this is how he should look at the world.

 

No, Wocky, I defend it because the Spiderman on screen is actually Spiderman, or at least the Spiderman we knew from the comics. Admittedly I've not seen #2 yet, but #1 is so close to the proper Peter/Spidey that it shames the Raimi version.

 

"With great power comes great responsibility" is a bumper sticker. It's a slogan with no context. Why would his uncle even tell him that? He doesn't know anything about Peter's powers. Because he beat up ONE guy? Ben has seen Peter every day of his life for many years. He knows he's a skinny kid. What would possess him to presume that Peter suddenly has great power, that gives him greater responsibility? As far as he should realistically be concerned, Peter got lucky and beat someone who was harassing him. He doesn't know the personality of the nephew he has been raising like a son since childhood? He's suddenly concerned that Peter has become some delinquent thug?

In contrast, Ben's scolding of Peter in ASM 1 is contextual. He had made a commitment to pick up his aunt from work, and he had been irresponsible and forgotten. So Ben calls him on it, and in doing so invokes the memory of Peter's father to shame Peter about having fallen far from the tree. He imparts to him that Richard Parker believed that if you have the means and ability to help someone, you have a moral obligation, a responsibility if you will, to do that. And notice that he brings this up in a mundane context: if your aunt/mother is coming home late, and you have a car and a license, you should feel obligated to pick her up as a good nephew/son. As such, it's a much more natural and genuine moment than if he had made some speech about power and responsibility. What, is Peter running for the presidency or something? A mundane moral lesson can be extrapolated to extraordinary circumstances as well, but a pompous speech in a mundane context is just that: pompous. And transparently foreshadowing.

Edit: Also, he grows when it comes to his role as well. His goal at first is just vigilantism, but upon rescuing the kid and the other cars on the bridge from Connors' rampage, he embraces the other good uses he can put his powers to, and how his unique abilities are needed. This is also the first time in the movie that he himself embraces the persona the public have given him: Spider-Man.

He also feels directly responsible for Connors' actions because he was the one who gave him the working mutation formula, and so is trying to fix his mistake by finding and stopping the Lizard. A clear example of taking responsibility, and stepping up to do something that, in his own words, "maybe the police can't".

 

I'm not asking for the huge speech. You are absolutely right that it was ham-fisted and pretty unjustified in the Raimi version. But, in the first place, that's how the Spiderman story is originally written. In the second, and much more importantly, however stupid it was to have Uncle Ben convey those particular words, it's clear at every single moment of the Raimi trilogy that this is Spiderman's credo. It is what he is trying to live up to, and by thinking through its application to any situation that arises, you can at least see the pressure Peter feels to behave in a certain fashion, whether he ultimately does or not.

That's simply not true of Webb's series. While saving a child from a wrecked vehicle is heroic, neither it nor anything else in the first film conveys a sense that Peter feels any sense of obligation/responsibility at all. Contrary to Ender's last post, I simply don't see how someone can be called the character he "knew from the comics" when this very fundamental piece of motivation is missing. That's like saying your new version of Captain Ahab is the same as the one that appears in Melville's novel, except that your version has no vengeful obsession with the white whale, and instead just thinks that the carcass would turn a good profit if they happen to catch him while out at sea doing other things.

 

Yeah, I just felt like Uncle Ben's in Webb's Spider-Man that was the catalyst for Peter to become a hero.

It doesn't matter where the expression "With great power comes great responsibility" came from in Raimi's Spider-Man or from Stan Lee, but rather it's a very important part of the Spider-man mythos. Even in recent comic series, The Superior Spider-man, it's the foundation of Oct-Spidey to become a hero. It is the foundation of Peter Parker to becoming Spider-man.

 

And you missed the point entirely.

 

Nope, I think you did. Context doesn't matter, in the sense as to where the expression "with great power comes great responsibility." What matters that is was said; understood; and carried out to create Marvel's favorite super hero, Spider-man. It's part of the Spider-man mythos.

You say that to any Spider-Man fan (or to a comic book fan) and you'll get a nod of acknowledgement; like May the Force be with you. We all know what the expression means and the weight it carries.

 

Raimi Spider-Man was not Spider-Man - he was some well-meaning, sincere guy in a Spider-Man costume.It totally failed to show the dichotomy between Peter and Spidey, and consequently left us with a character without any edge or duality. Peter is repressed, Spidey is an unleashed trickster-figure.

I remember how disappointed I was in that first Spider-Man film.

 

No, I didn't miss your point. Your point is that the Webb-series is inferior because it didn't forcibly include a pointlessly grandiose phrase into a conversation where it makes no sense.

 

Where did I say Webb was an inferior film in comparing the biggest difference between the two films?

I thought Raimi's Spider-man made sense when Uncle Ben said it Peter shortly after Peter took down Flash Thompson, in that, just because you can beat someone up, doesn't mean you should.

 

Yeah, I know a lot of Spidey fans thought Raimi's films were missing the quips and Spidey humor when battling the bad guys. It's like having Deadpool's mouth fused such.

However, I felt there was a dichotomy between Peter and Spidey. In Raimi's films Peter Parker is poor (and I mean like the Good Times tv show poor), having a hard time at school and is having trouble keeping a job. He's not in control, no real power. In that way, he's very relatable. As Spider-man, he has power. He can make a difference.

 

As much as I love the ASM movies for getting Spider-Man "right", Spider-Man 2 is still my favorite Spidey film--even with the whole "drowning the sun in the river" solution.

 

He specifically dismissed that. His point and mine is about the way the ideal expressed by that phrase completely fails to resonate with Parker's conception of heroism in Webb's version, even though it is supposed to be central to the idea of Spider-Man.

 

Yeah, Spider 2 is my favorite Spider-man film too. That trailer is awesome. In the two minutes and thirty seconds, we see Peter Parker's real life is broke and tough, has trouble getting the girl and what happens if he throws away the responsibility of being Spider-man.

 

Wocky, when I make this point I am talking about how spidey behaves in the comics. Very rarely do they examine the psychology behind him - he just is who is he, he quips, he agile etc - and that was absent from the Raimi films.

I would say this; Raimi's Spiderman is to the comic character what Adam West's Batman is to the comic character.

 

Raimi's Spider-Man 2 I'd not only say it the best Spider-Man movie ever but one of the top 3 goddamned superhero movies of all time, so I don't expect the subsequent Spidey-flicks to be as good as that. That being said, I like the 2 Webb flicks maybe a smidge, a hair, an inch, more than Raimi's first Spider-Man movie. I absolutely love the first 40 minutes of Raimi's first spidey film, the Amazing Fantasy 15 adaptation, it's when the Goblin shows up that it gets somewhat less good (But I still enjoy it!) Best way I can describe the difference between the two, Raimi is the Silver Age Spidey comics, Webb's movies are more like Ultimate Spider-Man. Which doesn't make one better than the other, just different.

 

From IGN.com

Roberto Orci Off The Amazing Spider-Man Franchise, No Clear Timeline for TASM 3, Venom, or Sinister Six



By Roth Cornet

Writing and producing team Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman (Transformers, Star Trek, The Amazing Spider-Man, Sleepy Hollow and more) had an amicable split earlier this year, with each half of the team headed off to pursue their individual interests. Kurtzman is set to direct Venom for Sony and remain actively attached to the expanding The Amazing Spider-Man franchise, while Orci will put his energies into Star Trek 3, which he will in all likelihood direct once a script is approved, as previously reported.

The parting of ways left some wondering how involved Orci would remain with TASM, as he and Kurtzman were set to write the third The Amazing Spider-Man film. As of right now, the timeline for the release of the next several Spidey universe films has not been set, however.

"I don't know what their plans are for that franchise," Orci said when asked about his continued involvement. "I don't ever want to say never, but we have to figure out what their scheduling is in terms of when they want each movie. I've read probably as much as anyone else. There's a love for the Sinister Six, the idea of Venom -- there's an idea of Spider-Man's going to be one of these characters that's part of our business. He's such a popular character. Spider-Man's not going to go away any time soon. When it all happens and how and all that has yet to be determined."

Though many would assume that we'd see The Amazing Spider-Man 3 followed by either Venom or Sinister Six (which Drew Goddard is set to direct), it's possible that the order may be in the reverse, or perhaps we'd see Venom, TASM 3, followed by Sinister Six, or some other release order all together. What is interesting, is that when asked specifically about the third Amazing Spider-Man film, Orci said that he was, "not officially involved in it."

I don't want to say anything about what they should do," the writer said. "I don't want them to think I'm spilling the beans about something."

 

Figured something would give once Orci was announced as JJ's replacement in the director's chair for ST3