How do you really feel about Sam Raimai Spiderman Trilogy?

[Brue]

Part 1 surprised me in a good way, the movie hit on a lot of elements that I thought it was going to do badly - but the action scenes stunk.

Part 2 - has much better action scenes, and I really enjoyed it.

Part 3 - Muddy plot - misguided attempts at humor - too many coincidences. Certainly the additional characters didn't help. Basically just kind of painful from start to finish for me.


About Raimi:
I think with a licensed project like Spider-Man, and certainly projects on that scale - you're not really talking about a director who's totally creatively free. There seems to be a lot of other 'cooks' in the mix.

Certainly executives at Sony and Marvel want to ensure that the movie hits upon certain things that will allow them to capitalize on both their investment and the property itself.

For example - adding characters allows Marvel to market and merchandise more of their intellectual properties - which is why I think there always seems to be pressure to use more and more characters in these movies as these franchises continue.

My guess is that there wasn't one single reason Sony rebooted the franchise. If part 3 was a phenomenon and everyone loved it, it might have improved it's chances of continuing. I'm sure one factor is that everyone involved had 3 movie contracts - and resigning probably makes things incredibly expensive - because everyone probably want's a raise. Rebooting gets everyone with fresh contracts. I'm not sure how much Marvel/Disney deal had to do with it either. At the end of the day I'm sure the producers and execs feel that Spider-Man is the star of any Spider-Man franchise - not anyone involved in the production - so why pay through the nose?

agreed on all counts

[Brazoo]

I agree with ya Joe. Sam Rami has publicly stated that he doesn't like the Venom Character. But the Studio obviously does, so they "Shoe-horned" him into the Script. Which is my biggest problem with Spiderman 3. I like the Movie, but think it was over crowded with Villains. If the Story was going to be about the black Symbiote Costume...then the story just have been just about Venom.

I'm almost positive I heard an interview with Raimi where he said he was getting pressure from Marvel/Sony to use Venom, and he didn't want to - but he kept talking to younger fans and kids who loved Venom and that changed his mind.

I'm thinking maybe shoehorning in Venom was the studio's doing or maybe shoehorning in Sandman was Raimi's doing - in any case, I totally agree with you - having both characters felt forced and it didn't work at all.

[The Bat]

My guess is the public will be fickle as usual

Take '89 Batman as an example ......

People loved it until they rebooted it and everyone had a new darling

I can see the past Spiderman franchise going in the same boat.

I disagree Mikey! I NEVER liked the first 4 Batman Movies...EVER!

Spidey 1 & 2 however I will always like.

[jwyblejr]

There were two villains too many in 3 if you ask me. First two worked because there was only one in each. In a way,I'm glad there was no 4. Look at how many were rumored to be in that before the reboot came along.

[MIB41]

I think everyone, especially Sony, will appreciate Sam Raimi & Co., once they release this abysmal looking "reboot". How quickly they forget what a monumental achievement it was to bring Spidey to the big screen in a credible way. Tobey Maguire absolutely nailed the vulnerabilities of Peter Parker, while Kirsten Dunst and James Franco did likewise with Mary Jane and Harry Osborn respectfully. And NO ONE has ever done a more artful interpretation of J Jonah Jameson then J.K. Simmons. Everyone loved him in that iconic of characters. And who can forget the great talents of Willem Defoe as Norman Osborn? So while Raimi did, at times, overstep the boundaries of artistic license when bringing some of these villains to life, he never forgot the heart of the characters that were the foundation of the story. The world fell in love with this cast and completely embraced those characters even when the story weakened by the third installment. And need I mention that Spider-man 3, for all it's glare of mixed reviews, actually finished AHEAD of Spiderman 1 and 2 in worldwide gross? YES.

So while Spider-man 3 may have been the first installment to receive a less than stellar review from fans (maybe because Spider-man 2 was THAT good?), it never lost it's ability to generate interest and box office receipts. People liked this cast. And for Sony to be so cocky as to assume audiences can simply disassociate themselves with these actors and embrace a whole new interpretation is misguided at best. Spider-man 3 was not a "Batman and Robin". It was not the first "Hulk". And it was not a tired franchise that was slipping at the box office. It was simply a film that had the grueling task of having to live up to the stellar achievements of Spider-man 2. Hard to do under any story line.

So, no matter what Sony does with the new "rubberized" Spider-man , they can not offer anything that won't be compared and scrutinized with the original cast. And for many who still loved this cast, that will only be a void no story or visual image can compete with. And let's be honest here... This new "reboot" was something no one, except Sony, truly wanted.

[boynightwing]

I really love the first two. I can watch them over and over.

I couldn't believe my eyes with the third.

If I had my way, the Sandman would have been left out completely. I really hated that suddenly he's the one who killed Uncle Ben.

I loved Topher Grace as Eddie Brock. I know he doesn't look a thing like the comic version. But I felt he was awesome. I loved when he was praying to God for someone to kill Peter Parker. Awesome. However, I would have ended the movie with him becoming Venom. Then you have an entire forth movie devoted to Venom Awesomeness.

I think the movie should have concentrated with resolving Peters issues with Harry as well as battling the effects of wearing the black costume. Black Spidey vs Green Goblin 2 would have been enough. Heck, they could have even called him Hob Goblin (even though he's not Hob Goblin) if they felt they had to mix things up a bit.

What would have been cool would have been a more exciting into to the Black Costume as well. In number two they introduced JJJ's astronaut son. They could have gone the way the 90's animated series went with the suit attaching itself to the space shuttle. Then Spidey had to figure out how to stop the shuttle from crashing. It would have been pretty exciting.

As far as a reboot goes...I don't understand why they have to retell the origin all the time. I think everyone knows how Spider-man started. Just tell a good Spidey story! Like James Bond did for 40 something years. We took certain things for granted with each Bond movie...like he's a spy and he has a guy named Q making cool stuff for him. Everything else we need to know will be provided.

[Mikey]

Since most of our generation likes the Raimi movies so much i'm assuming that makes Sony think they did something wrong

[samurainoir]

I loved the first two films so much, that I've probably developed a bit of a blind spot for the third one (I'm the same way about the original Star Wars trilogy and Superman).

One thing that struck me after seeing the Social Network was that I think they tapped the wrong guy for Peter Parker. Jessie Eisenberg can do that awkward nerdy character, which is Peter Parker, but the arrogance/sympathy he displayed playing the founder of Facebook really would suit Parker before he learns his lesson about his powers with the death of Uncle Ben.

I haven't seen any other film with Garfield, but his broody good looks seem kind of inappropriate for Spidey in the same way that John Romita's Peter Parker was just too handsome for some when he took over from Ditko.

[kennermike]

I think everyone, especially Sony, will appreciate Sam Raimi & Co., once they release this abysmal looking "reboot". How quickly they forget what a monumental achievement it was to bring Spidey to the big screen in a credible way. Tobey Maguire absolutely nailed the vulnerabilities of Peter Parker, while Kirsten Dunst and James Franco did likewise with Mary Jane and Harry Osborn respectfully. And NO ONE has ever done a more artful interpretation of J Jonah Jameson then J.K. Simmons. Everyone loved him in that iconic of characters. And who can forget the great talents of Willem Defoe as Norman Osborn? So while Raimi did, at times, overstep the boundaries of artistic license when bringing some of these villains to life, he never forgot the heart of the characters that were the foundation of the story. The world fell in love with this cast and completely embraced those characters even when the story weakened by the third installment. And need I mention that Spider-man 3, for all it's glare of mixed reviews, actually finished AHEAD of Spiderman 1 and 2 in worldwide gross? YES.

So while Spider-man 3 may have been the first installment to receive a less than stellar review from fans (maybe because Spider-man 2 was THAT good?), it never lost it's ability to generate interest and box office receipts. People liked this cast. And for Sony to be so cocky as to assume audiences can simply disassociate themselves with these actors and embrace a whole new interpretation is misguided at best. Spider-man 3 was not a "Batman and Robin". It was not the first "Hulk". And it was not a tired franchise that was slipping at the box office. It was simply a film that had the grueling task of having to live up to the stellar achievements of Spider-man 2. Hard to do under any story line.

So, no matter what Sony does with the new "rubberized" Spider-man , they can not offer anything that won't be compared and scrutinized with the original cast. And for many who still loved this cast, that will only be a void no story or visual image can compete with. And let's be honest here... This new "reboot" was something no one, except Sony, truly wanted.

Damn ! well said !

[The Bat]

I think everyone, especially Sony, will appreciate Sam Raimi & Co., once they release this abysmal looking "reboot".

I can see one possible flaw in your logic....what if the new Spiderman Movie actually turns out to be good? Could happen you know.

[HardyGirl]

I liked the first 2, the 3rd had too much going on. And the "bad boy Peter" was lame. I think Tobey McGuire makes a great Peter Parker, but a rotten Spidey. Someone should have done a voice-over when he was in costume. Spidey isn't supposed to sound like a wimp. I did think Doc Ock was spot-on. And having grown up on the 60s cartoon, I didn't even know who Mary Jane was until the first of these came out, (I was like, where's Betty Brant?) so I really don't have an opinion of her.

I guess that's it.

[huedell]

HardyGirl, not that I am a Spiderman expert, But I've always perceived
Peter Parker as being quite the wimp and that the voice in the Spiderman
cartoon from the 60s was too manly. That brings me to my next point
which is that I thought that the "bad boy Peter Parker" in Spiderman 3
was actually done quite brilliantly because essentially it was supposed to
be a nerd trying to be cool. Not a nerd that turns into a cool guy.

[LOU]

I think everyone, especially Sony, will appreciate Sam Raimi & Co., once they release this abysmal looking "reboot". How quickly they forget what a monumental achievement it was to bring Spidey to the big screen in a credible way. Tobey Maguire absolutely nailed the vulnerabilities of Peter Parker, while Kirsten Dunst and James Franco did likewise with Mary Jane and Harry Osborn respectfully. And NO ONE has ever done a more artful interpretation of J Jonah Jameson then J.K. Simmons. Everyone loved him in that iconic of characters. And who can forget the great talents of Willem Defoe as Norman Osborn? So while Raimi did, at times, overstep the boundaries of artistic license when bringing some of these villains to life, he never forgot the heart of the characters that were the foundation of the story. The world fell in love with this cast and completely embraced those characters even when the story weakened by the third installment. And need I mention that Spider-man 3, for all it's glare of mixed reviews, actually finished AHEAD of Spiderman 1 and 2 in worldwide gross? YES.

So while Spider-man 3 may have been the first installment to receive a less than stellar review from fans (maybe because Spider-man 2 was THAT good?), it never lost it's ability to generate interest and box office receipts. People liked this cast. And for Sony to be so cocky as to assume audiences can simply disassociate themselves with these actors and embrace a whole new interpretation is misguided at best. Spider-man 3 was not a "Batman and Robin". It was not the first "Hulk". And it was not a tired franchise that was slipping at the box office. It was simply a film that had the grueling task of having to live up to the stellar achievements of Spider-man 2. Hard to do under any story line.

So, no matter what Sony does with the new "rubberized" Spider-man , they can not offer anything that won't be compared and scrutinized with the original cast. And for many who still loved this cast, that will only be a void no story or visual image can compete with. And let's be honest here... This new "reboot" was something no one, except Sony, truly wanted.

Is there an "I'm not worthy" smiley for this post?! My sentiments exactly.
Spider-Man 3 probably took the top spot of the three films because of Venom. I'm not even a big fan of the character but there's no denying he quickly cemented himself into Spidey lore rather early on and became very popular. I didn't mind Spider-Man 3 at all...I mean yeah, the corny dancing and a few other things annoyed me, but hell, it was still I Spider-Man film! Nicholas Hammondites in the house surely remember how awesome it was in the theater when Tobey's Spidey starting web slinging for the first time! Cinematic magic! So growing up in the Superman The Movie era, I dreamed of seeing live-action Super Hero movies, I used to picture what the hero would look like. Now here I am immersed in the very thing I dreamed of!! Immersed in a massive number of killer Super Hero movies I have at my disposal and I love them all. You name it, I love it; Fantastic Four, Spider-Man, Daredevil, X-men, Iron Man, Superman, Supergirl, Hulk, all Batman films (Keaton and Bale), and more on the way! So I really just try to appreciate these SH films more than I can ever complain about them. Trying to emcompass 60+ years of a hero's comic history and various changes into a two hour film is practically impossible. So it seems they throw in elements from all the different eras into some the films. I own them all and I love them all. This next Spider-Man is going to feel weird to me I'm sure. I'll keep looking for that Raimi stuff (like having Tobey pose in the film in some classic Spidey poses) throughout the film...

Having said that, I not necessarily thrilled with the idea of reboots. I can get what Batman did the reboot after Schumacher drove the franchise into the ground; but Spider-Man and Fantastic Four could've gone on. In my opinion those films really caught way too much flack from fans. I loved the Spider-Man Trilogy cast as well and will miss them...

...and how about seeing JJJ on the Farmer's Insurance commercials?! He was such a PERFECT JJJ and instead of reprising the role he's doing commercials. Very, very, sad. This new Spider-Man reboot certainly has big red, webbed boots to fill in my opinion.

[HardyGirl]

HardyGirl, not that I am a Spiderman expert, But I've always perceived
Peter Parker as being quite the wimp and that the voice in the Spiderman
cartoon from the 60s was too manly. That brings me to my next point
which is that I thought that the "bad boy Peter Parker" in Spiderman 3
was actually done quite brilliantly because essentially it was supposed to
be a nerd trying to be cool. Not a nerd that turns into a cool guy.

Well, according the the comic's explanation of the costume, the mask was made to muffle/disguise his voice. I think the cartoon was using that info. Paul Soles did a great job splitting his voice between Peter and Spidey. So that's my reasoning behind that.

[Hector]

I liked the first 2, the 3rd had too much going on. And the "bad boy Peter" was lame. I think Tobey McGuire makes a great Peter Parker, but a rotten Spidey. Someone should have done a voice-over when he was in costume. Spidey isn't supposed to sound like a wimp. I did think Doc Ock was spot-on. And having grown up on the 60s cartoon, I didn't even know who Mary Jane was until the first of these came out, (I was like, where's Betty Brant?) so I really don't have an opinion of her.

I guess that's it.

Sharry...this is one of your most dead on posts ever...I agree with you 10 TRILLION percent...lol.

Tobey Maguire was a good Parker...but a lousy Spidey...and I couldn't agree with you more about his wimpy voice as Spidey...notice every time he got hit by his foes...he would yelp and scream like a high-pitched whimpering schoolgirl...