EDITORIAL: HOW THE 'SINISTER SIX' FILM CAN REDEEM THE SPIDER-MAN FRANCHISE

EDITORIAL: HOW THE 'SINISTER SIX' FILM CAN REDEEM THE SPIDER-MAN FRANCHISE

A 'Sinister Six' film may not be such a malevolent proposition if you take in consideration these ideologies in which addresses the issue how a 'Sinister Six' film can redeem the Spider-Man Franchise.

Editorial Opinion
By PrinceAwesome - Jul 25, 2014 12:07 AM EST
Filed Under: Spider-Man

What was your reaction when the ideal of the cancellation of a 'Sinister Six' film came in light of the preponderant waterpool of one's rumors? Compare it towards the recent announcement of stealing the Amazing Spider-Man 3's release date in order to unveil a Sinister Six film and you can see a vast comparison of one's perspective in the future of Sony's Spider-Man franchise. Many may perceive the notion of a 'Sinister Six' film as a totally unnecessary prospect that should not be delved to begin with, but what if there are a variety of reasons in which rebukes that a 'Sinister Six' film may mold a universe with more quality than the sheer calamity that was the Amazng Spider-Man 2 (in respect towards those whom enjoyed the film). What if the 'Sinister Six' may not only expand the universe Sony is so desperate to conceive, but an ideal in which can SAVE the Spider-Man Franchise? If this editorial has caught your attention - or if it has made you nod in dismay and compel your very worst of abundant outbursts - then perhaps it will convince you that the Sinister Six film may not be as much of a sinister idea to begin with.



AUDIENCES LOVE VILLAINS, WHY CAN'T THEY LOVE THE SINISTER SIX?

"There are villains by virtue of choices that people make but they always begin as humans, as characters. As flawed people; as tragic people. You know great movies have been made about a bunch of bad guys who get together to do something."
                                                    
   -Matthew Tolmach

I concur with the sentiment that Spider-Man has transcended into Marvel's very own 'Batman' conveyance in according to film, but it is agreed with all fanatics of Raimi's Spider-Man Trilogy and Marc Webb's 'Amazing' Franchise that each one has constituted a barrier in which perceives Spider-Man fatigue that has deprived Spider-Man from the phenomena it rightfully deserves. While 'The Amazing Spider-Man' has wielded an ignition of hope in order to break the barrier and its sequel alas has re-constituted the barrier again, the Sinister Six film may diminish these barriers in which has propelled the Spider-Man franchise into the sheer example of intriguing a 'quantity over quality' ideology. And by establishing a film in which stars the character's VILLAINS instead of the character himself, it can give us a nice break from the Spider-Man character while - at the same time - expanding a universe through the presentation of a decent story.

So, how can a franchise in which revolves around the inclusion of the Spider-Man character render itself as an omnipotent dominion without the Spider-Man character making any appearances in that film?

Well, about twenty years ago, there was this film called 'THE RESERVOIR DOGS'. Basically, the film has depicted a bundle of naive sycophants in which its primary intent was to escape from the clutches of being discovered by the police after executing a heist upon the commonwealth of a common bank composed of common people. Such notion would automatically be viewed as a brash immoral sense of one's lust for money and power, but the story has not portrayed these scoundrels as a group of imbeciles in which exudes malevolence, but the story has instead portrayed them as normal human beings. I am not suggesting to transcend the Sinister Six towards a deep, emotional film in which concedes redemption as the primary intent of these characters, but better yet, this film can be the very first comic book film to portray a film in which introduces the story in the perspective of the antagonist instead of the hero himself. If the Sinister Six film is utilized properly, THIS is the method they can go by in order to indulge a critical and commercial success. 

Rehash the formula of the cliche 'good guy vs. bad guy' ordeal in a comic book movie, and instead show the audience the reason WHY they are committing such contrivances before the public in a pulp manner. Not the vague excuse of bringing down the protagonist because they're perception of life is indeed the 'correct' perception, but perhaps convey the NECESSITY of them reigning anarchy towards the omnipotence of one's society because that is how sane people remain sane and differentiates them from those whom are INSANE, but alas,  each one of them are just as insane as the other since the causes of the antagonists are the same for the causes of society itself and that is the will to survive for the sake of one's purpose of existence. Through a decent balance of storytelling and characterization, this proposition can be carried effectively in which also wields another issue in crafting a 'Sinister Six' film ...



HOW CAN THE SINISTER SIX EXPAND THE SPIDER-MAN UNIVERSE?

Two villains have been introduced towards the Spider-Man Franchise discounting Electro (Goblin, Rhino), another two have been teased (Doctor Octopus, Vulture), and there are yet two more to introduce towards this universe before the Sinister Six could call themselves the 'Sinister Six'.  So, if two antagonists are in the vein of concluding an introductory in which induces them to become a member of the Sinister Six, how are these characters going to come about? What is the tone of the film going to be set? How many characters are to be unveiled?

“I had to talk to Drew Goddard and make sure these things were going to be played out in the future universe. There are some very specific plans, for example, for [Doc] Ock and for Vulture. Or the man in the hat at the end of the first movie. All those things emerge with varying degrees of emphasis."
                                                                                                                                                   
   -Marc Webb



From the lectures in which Sony needs to partake as a hindrance in which needs not to be re(re)-visited once more, it is prominent that this role balances the characteristics each member of the Sinister Six eclipses instead of prioritizing the expansion of a universe.

In short, let the story be the mere road map towards prosperity when constructing a cinematic universe.

And what will the story be compromised if the film is to star antagonists instead of protagonists as it always has remained since the genesis of the cinematic comic book lore?

 

THE BATTLE TO SECURE THE DECRETUM OF A CRIMINAL EMPIRE




Despite corroborated reports that a central figure has risen to claim greater control over the Russian organized crime families, the NYPD continues to deny the existence of the lazily nicknamed "Big Man." (Was "Scary Crime Boss" already taken?) Can't we come up with a more pointedly clever nickname for this hard-nosed criminal?

In the four months since the terrorist attack on OsCorp Tower, violent crime is way up. Everyone's afraid of everyone. The nuns are wearing bulletproof habits. Cabbies are afraid to HONK. Hot dog vendors are staying INSIDE their carts. I even overheard someone use the word SORRY.

Is this climate of fear a result of the NYPD shifting its focus towards the potential threat of super-human activity?

I don't know about you, but Spider-Man doesn't scare me. Nothing in red spandex scares me. It's time for the mayor's office to address the real question at hand: Which is a bigger police priority - organized crime or super-humans?

A source who requested anonymity said, "They just want to do real police work, not chase after unicorns, wall-crawlers and giant mutated reptile-men."


-Daily Bugle Viral



Synopsis:

In a city where crime hides at day and blooms at night, a fascade of eloquence is conveyed by the sheer preponderance of an endless civil war among two criminal empires: The Big Man's 'Enforcers' and Silvermane/Hammerhead's 'The Maggio'. A bloodbath has been conceived by the ideology of deeming New York as a sovereignity in which deserves to transcend beneath the scourge of ONE criminal empire. A stalemate has been attained for two years, but that is until Tombstone murders Silvermane in order to merge the Maggio with the Big Man's Enforcers in order to perceive a higher-ranking official of a young, hungry, and ascendant criminal empire and abandon an empire that is of the decrepit. Everyone has thought of the Gang War as a diminished cataclysm ... that is until the ascendance of the of a gang organization in which titles itself as the 'Goblin Gang.'

Now that another empire has risen, the Gang War has emerged from a hiatus, and resumed from the reticence of amnesia ... towards the incessant culpability of the austere streets of New York.

Traitors are killed. Technology is stolen. Plans are sold. Politicians are bribed. The media transcends into a beguile source of mendacity (enter J. Jonah Jameson and the Daily Bugle). Banks are a criminal's syndicate. Both empires hire/duresses common sycophants in order to escalate the war towards something bigger (enter Dock Ock, Vulture, Shocker, Shriek, etc.).

The Goblin Gang
  • Led by Harry Osbourne - as many of the company's top-ranked operatives would recognize - unveils a personal vendetta against anyone who dares render his use of authority as an egocentrical fantasy while the 'Gentleman' serves as his secretive right-hand man. Conducting to indulge the underworld business by selling (read: forging) the green formula at such a high price among empires, a wealthy profit is attained. Such profit - along with the shares invested in OsCorp - manifests into an investment of a vast library of illegal drugs and hired mercenaries. Customers of the Goblin Gang's green formula discovers the liquid as a hoax and declares war against them.


Key Members Are Consisted Of:

  •  Rhyno: Former member of the Maggio. Approached by the Gentleman when asked to wreak havoc among New York City and become a volunteer of an experiment in constructing a metallic body armor when imprisoned.
  • Doctor Octopus: Former scientist of OsCorp. Was approaced by Rhyno to conduct an estabishment of technological gadgets, including the creation of a machine that eclipses the resemblance of an octopuses' tentacles. Since the Gentleman did not want to afford losing any more money, he has assigned Doctor Otto Octavius to present himself as the mere volunteer of experimenting the new subsidized weaponry.
  • Vulture:  Former scientist of OsCorp. Worked side by side with Doctor Otto Octavius as the Chief Director of Weapons Manufacter. Was approaced by Rhyno to conduct an estabishment of technological gadgets, including the creation of a machine in which grants flight and combat towards an average soldier.
  • Black Cat: Naive cat burglar in which assisted the Goblin Gang in retrieving intelligience from the opposing empire after leaving OsCorp for reasons unknown as Felicia Hardy. Constantly changes identification.

The Enforcers
  • Led by the Big Man/Hammerhead. Arisen into the landscape of the criminal underworld when the Age of the Maggio has glistened over the malevolent syndicates of New York City. War has been conceived by the two, but was exalted into an abrupt halt when former Maggio member Hammerhead has murdered Silvermane and merged the Maggio criminal empire into the Big Man's Enforcers. The Gang War was thought of over until the Goblin Gang has emerged and has posed a vile threat towards the dominion of the Enforcers'.

Key Members Are Consisted Of:

  • Chameleon: Bounty Hunter. Half-brother and close companion of Kraven. Extended bounty hunting business towards Hammerhead at a local cantina in order to attain a customer in which is intrigued to diminish of any opponents that is against the Enforcers. Was informed there were three metahumans he wanted dead, regressed his services, but Kraven has accepted the offer in order to become the 'greatest hunter in the world'. Sardonically teases that the tables will one day turn and that he (the Hammerhead) will become the bounty eventually. Has the ability to manifest into any character desired a la Ethan Hunt (Mission Impossible Style)
  • Kraven: Bounty Hunter. Half-brother and close companion of the Chameleon. Hunter in which is obsessed over the game of hunting. Provides super strength, super agility, etc. by the consumption of a mere natural potion. Was given orders to diminish any metahumans in which pertained towards the Goblin Gang.
  • Shocker: Poor immigrant with a family in desperation for money. Hammerhead agrees to pay ten thousand dollars towards the poor immigrant if he agrees to volunteer towards an experiment in which is consisted of a suit that propels sonic booms and shock waves in order to retaliate against any superficial force.
  • Shriek:  Drug addict in which inhales and exhales desperation. Primarily plotted a bank robbery in which was a near success, but was shot in the head by a policeman thus inducing her into a comma. Was broken out of jail from an enigmatic entity. Was approached by Hammerhead couple of days later, guaranteeing her memory back and a swarm of cash. Agreed, was dosed with the formula green. Transcended into the insane character known as Shriek.



And alas, the conclusion is going to resolute with one of the criminal empires rising above and embarking the other into a cesspool of relinquishment thus electing the surviving antagonists into the 'Sinister Six' referendum. The propositon of the story may not be the best, but it is a vague essense in which conveys the potential of the Sinister Six film. If there are any regards towards the topic at hand, whether it is a concur or a strong disagreement - please unleash all the exuberances/turbulences towards the comment section since I believe that an argumentive perspective is an interesting aspect rather than a burden among those who (dis)agree with the sentiments I unveil before you all today.  Thank you all.

SPIDER-MAN 4: Talk Of The Movie Being Delayed Appears To Be Much Ado About Nothing
Related:

SPIDER-MAN 4: Talk Of The Movie Being Delayed Appears To Be Much Ado About Nothing

SPIDER-MAN 4's Working Title Has Been Revealed And It's Generating Some Major Gwen Stacy Speculation
Recommended For You:

SPIDER-MAN 4's Working Title Has Been Revealed And It's Generating Some Major Gwen Stacy Speculation

DISCLAIMER: As a user generated site and platform, ComicBookMovie.com is protected under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and "Safe Harbor" provisions.

This post was submitted by a user who has agreed to our Terms of Service and Community Guidelines. ComicBookMovie.com will disable users who knowingly commit plagiarism, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement. Please CONTACT US for expeditious removal of copyrighted/trademarked content. CLICK HERE to learn more about our copyright and trademark policies.

Note that ComicBookMovie.com, and/or the user who contributed this post, may earn commissions or revenue through clicks or purchases made through any third-party links contained within the content above.

1 2
DrKinsolving
DrKinsolving - 7/26/2014, 11:44 AM
No interest at all in seeing any more of Sony and Spider-Man. Sony tried to reboot the franchise to soon and the reboot is ruining Spider-Man, so far, the last 3 movies at Sony have not been anywhere near "Amazing". Marvel deserves a shot and Spidey deserves better, he deserves to come home

PrinceAwesome
PrinceAwesome - 7/26/2014, 3:56 PM
@AlphaAndDecima

The editorial suggests that the 'Sinister Six' film may save the Spider-Man Franchise, not the character itself. And if you ask me, I believe that Andrew's character has been portrayed quite decently on the big screen, but is trapped amidst a film in which lacked direction and interpretation of the story itself. 'The Amazing Spider-Man' shouldn't suffer from the scourges 'The Amazing Spider-Man 2' has impelled about.

@DrKinsolving

Another reboot will merely serve as a burden among the audience instead as a benevolent ideology towards the Spider-Man brand. A franchise shouldn't be rebooted after the failure of ONE measly film.
DrKinsolving
DrKinsolving - 7/26/2014, 4:14 PM
@PrinceAwesome

3 messy films in my opinion, and TASM technically isn't even a true reboot because some of the same people that worked on Raimi's films at Sony are working on Webb's.

Marvel also wouldn't be required to do an origin story, and the fact that Spider-Man would be able to interact with characters outside of his universe would be refreshing and give new interest to Spider-Man. Even though I know the chances of this happening are extremely slim
PrinceAwesome
PrinceAwesome - 7/26/2014, 5:57 PM
@DrKinsolving

I thought of the first installment of Webb's Spiderverse as a breath of fresh air from the horrid barbarity of Raimi's Spider-Man 3 and a film in which conveyed a plausible nascence for the Spider-Man brand. To each his own.

But there are also two films in which rendered Sony as a decent helmer of the Spider-Man franchise. If Marvel were to attain the rights of Spider-Man as of now, there would be a slim probability that we would be getting another Spider-Man film in the next ten years. Everyone was crying for Fox to revert the X-Men Franchise back towards Marvel, but then the incipient countenance of one film has renewed the audiences' interests of the X-Men franchise once more. Give Webb's Spiderverse some time.
DrKinsolving
DrKinsolving - 7/26/2014, 6:07 PM
I agree, to each his own.

10 years? No, he would definitely be incorporated sooner than that into the MCU, but we may not see some other Marvel characters that they own now, if they got Spider-Man back.

I never argued about X-men returning to Marvel because x-men have so many amazing stories within their own universe that would be incredible cinematically, plus with X-Men, Fox has so many more characters to work with than Sony with Spider-Man. Spider-Man on the other hand is a part of so many amazing Marvel stories that he can't be a part of because Marvel doesn't own the rights. But, to each his own.... If Marvel does get the rights back it will probably be 20 years from now, haha
DrKinsolving
DrKinsolving - 7/26/2014, 6:10 PM
Plus Webb's only signed on for one more movie, so it's not his Spider-Verse, it's Sony's, and Sony's marketing execs, and they, not Webb are ruining Spider-Man
DrKinsolving
DrKinsolving - 7/26/2014, 6:11 PM
Even though I don't believe Webb really understands the character, haha, sorry, I'll stop now
PrinceAwesome
PrinceAwesome - 7/26/2014, 10:29 PM
@DrKinsolving

Didn't Fiege mention that they currently have a movie line-up in which precedes through 2028? If they were to squeeze in Spider-Man they would have to re-invent the entire plan in order to concede Spider-Man into the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

I totally agree that constructing an entire universe after one character is a baffling proposition. The Amazing Spider-Man 2 had so much potential in order to emerge itself as a cinematic prowess among moviegoers, but has failed to indulge the audience since it has prioritized the creation of a universe instead of prioritizing the story itself (which is why I believe that this whole 'cinematic universe' fad is nothing but an ideal in which will sooner or later descend into deficiency, no matter how successful it is).

And personally, I classify Avi Arad as the problem of the Spider-Man Franchise. If it weren't for Arad suppressing Venom into Spider-Man 3, Raimi's Spider-Man Franchise would've prospered much more longer than its short-lived dexterity. Same thing happened in Sony's Rebooted Spiderverse. Only difference was that he desired to portray the Sinister Six into the big screen as soon as possible in order to rival Marvel's ascendancy.
PrinceAwesome
PrinceAwesome - 7/26/2014, 10:37 PM
@AlphaAndDecima

The portrayal of Garfield's Spider-Man is all viewed through the individual's perspective, and in my perspective, Garfield has played the character astoundingly impressive. I think of the first 'Amazing Spider-Man' as a prevailing candescence. Same cannot be said for the sequel.
DrKinsolving
DrKinsolving - 7/27/2014, 8:31 AM
@PrinceAwesome

True, Arad definitely has to go.

The MCU does have a movie line-up up to 2028 but they are still know for changing things on the fly, all of the films up to 2028 aren't written yet nor have they began filming. They just decided to put out 3 films a year instead of 2....

I also think that the MCU is doing things right as far as cinematic universes go. Spider-Man could easily be added into the MCU in an Avengers film or a team-up, with no origin required. Spidey idolized Captain America in the comics. Imagine Spider-Man showing up in a Cap movie, haha, then eventually a stand-alone
3DOldskool
3DOldskool - 7/27/2014, 9:58 AM
@PrinceAwesome

That's your opinion, but I do think that Garfield lacks the charismatic quality to draw to the entire audience as the lead actor. Not only is that the problem going on that is tearing the franchise bits by bits timely, but the reboot happened too soon after the horrid Spider-man 3. Just because you're a terrible cast who is covered by a decent script of characterization to look good doesn't necessarily mean that you're irreplaceable. He's definitely replaceable for sure.

@AlphaAndDecima

It's freaking hilarious when I find Webb fans writing articles like this and put Garfield on the same tier as RDJ to Iron Man. He won't be and never will, not even in one hundred years. Sony made the biggest mistake when they stuck their nose into Raimi's business for the third film and rebooted the franchise after wards. Losing the rights instead of rebooting would've been their BEST option. I'd rather Fox have it or Marvel/Disney retain the rights.
3DOldskool
3DOldskool - 7/27/2014, 11:40 AM
@AlphaAndDecima

While Sam Raimi couldn't even get the Spidey persona right either, at least, or at least I felt, that Raimi didn't try to make Spidey witty to the point where he sounds like a d-bag rather than being witty.

See how every time you bring that last part up to other people, they don't respond to you any more. You know why? Because they know you are right. They don't want to admit the truth and agree with it. They want Garfield to hold on to the role as long as possible because they think he's "perfect."
3DOldskool
3DOldskool - 7/27/2014, 1:20 PM
@AlphaAndDecima

They're thinking about bringing back Emma Stone for The Amazing Spider-man 3 right now, I just read a couple of articles on that when I googled her.

She's really annoying, I want her to stay dead! - The only likable thing Marc Webb did so far.
nuyhm7ai
nuyhm7ai - 7/27/2014, 2:37 PM
wow you guys are acting like brats here. okay, look i get that you're disappointed with how the new films ended up but right now this is suppose to be an editorial. an idea for what the sinister six film would be like and for one thing i really like this idea and it does fit well with the continuity and narrative. if it's something different let's hope it's great so for right now let's all shut up and give our thoughts here alright?
3DOldskool
3DOldskool - 7/27/2014, 3:09 PM
Nothing will save this franchise. They got the casts and directors wrong, how will this franchise redeem itself?

Raimi and Maguire's trilogy wasn't the best, but at least they gave life and soul to the character and plots.

Andrew Garfield is a respectable actor, but I just feel like he chose the wrong role.
nuyhm7ai
nuyhm7ai - 7/27/2014, 4:42 PM
nah, i feel that this is one of andrew's best roles. tobey on the other hand felt uncomfortable.

some people like andrew's portrayal mostly in 1 but wanted more from his character like with the deleted scenes and strongly demanded for both versions of a director's cut.

his spidey didn't feel that much like a douchebag at all. he seems optimistic and down to earth.

marc webb isn't even a talentless director. if you check out the deleted scenes, pre visualizations and find out about the rough cut version you can see he's not all bad. infact sam raimi's spiderman 3 was not favorable by all. judging by how things about the amazing spiderman 2 and with sony i do hope there are some more good news like signs of drew goddard, marc webb, and anyone behind the projects getting creative freedom and some talented writers from critically acclaimed shows and movies like the guys behind breaking bad and skyfall.

let's all just try and be civil alright?
3DOldskool
3DOldskool - 7/27/2014, 4:49 PM
@nuyhm7ai

Tobey was just given a bad script to work with.

And this is one of Andrew's best roles? I heavily disagree.
nuyhm7ai
nuyhm7ai - 7/27/2014, 4:53 PM
yeah, he played a modern day nerd and convinced us to how socially awkward and shy he was. i talk the same thing as him back in the day. we also share or sense of luck and joy. he was more likable in 1 than 2 though in some ways.

i really hope we get both director's cut versions of 1 and 2
3DOldskool
3DOldskool - 7/27/2014, 5:01 PM
@nuyhm7ai

Andrew played the same thing Tobey already played in Raimi's film in the origins. Without Tobey and Sam, there wouldn't have been a Spider-man movie to reboot by now. Try being thankful that you had them in the first place, and plus, his Peter came off more believable and less of a caricature than Andrew's Peter at least. Ask anybody on CBM.com, they will all tell you the same thing.
nuyhm7ai
nuyhm7ai - 7/27/2014, 5:03 PM
nah, tobey played an unconvincing role. he seemed so wooden. i liked him in 2 but 1 and 3 weren't his best strong suit. there are other sites who prefer andrew over tobey like comicvine, superherohype, youtube, etc.
3DOldskool
3DOldskool - 7/27/2014, 5:07 PM
@nuyhm7ai

Again, how is it Tobey's fault his character never evolved? He was a more believable awkward nerd than Andrew when he played the dorkish-dweeb looking Peter Parker. He was nowhere near the "hipster" type of look at all compared to him.

If you want to blame anybody for the lack of character development on the main star, blame it on the writers.

I enjoyed Tobey in the role, but his Peter Parker just wasn't very well written.
nuyhm7ai
nuyhm7ai - 7/27/2014, 5:13 PM
i really don't see how he's a hipster. tobey played a nerd but when he's trying to be nerdy it doesn't come across as believable. infact he's actually being treated like a nerd you see in the sitcoms and cartoons I.E.: the opening of spiderman 1
3DOldskool
3DOldskool - 7/27/2014, 5:40 PM
@nuyhm7ai

How does Andrew come off more believable as a nerd then? I think it's Andrew who was being treated like a nerd than looking like a nerd.

When Tobey puts his glasses on, you can clearly see he almost comes off like a science geek who studies chemistry in high school and college.

How does Andrew wearing glasses suppose to look more nerdy than Tobey? You obviously have bad taste in imagination.

http://wodumedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Tobey-Maguire-as-Peter-Parker-in-Spider-Man-2-14.jpg

http://www.zbrushcentral.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=407016&d=1398425468

Peter Parker isn't suppose to look like a cool skateboarder for your info.
3DOldskool
3DOldskool - 7/27/2014, 5:43 PM
I'm starting to think that you're a troll.
nuyhm7ai
nuyhm7ai - 7/27/2014, 6:15 PM
they both look like nerds and andrew does look like a nerd. it doesn't matter who looks the nerdiest it matters as who comes off as believable and andrew comes off as believable as to he he thinks, studies, and even feel some emotions and charisma while tobey doesn't seem to be anymore believable. whenever he tries to be nerdy it comes off as fake.

peter has charm when he grew up which made him get some love from other women. even in an issue of future foundation from jonathan hickman a hot space warrior who served under blackbolt find him more attractive.

also, nerds skateboard btw o've seen plenty of them do it in my highschool and college. infact, in the first film peter wrote some equations in all of his boards
nuyhm7ai
nuyhm7ai - 7/27/2014, 6:16 PM
and no, i'm not a troll. so can we please get to the topic at hand
3DOldskool
3DOldskool - 7/27/2014, 7:22 PM
@nuyhm7ai

andrew comes off as believable as to he he thinks, studies, and even feel some emotions and charisma while tobey doesn't seem to be anymore believable. whenever he tries to be nerdy it comes off as fake.

Clearly, your hate on Tobey Maguire comes off to be nothing more than an opinion that falls in the minority, and it's biased as well.

And to be honest with you, neither of them are that great of an actor.
nuyhm7ai
nuyhm7ai - 7/27/2014, 11:03 PM
@AlphaAndDecima

i can say that tobey is a great actor but the script he was given made peter seem all wooden and uncomfortable excluding moments of spiderman 2. while i liked andrew as peter and loved him as spiderman i thought he could've been done alot better if A) he would've gotten a fine script or B) if sony didn't edit some of his parts including some moments that would've been better with the story.

if sony also wanted to keep the rights they should let drew goddard, marc webb and everyone behind the franchise have creative freedom because as of what we're looking at tasm 2 underperformed at the box office, sony is having some financial issues and 2 of their screen writers left incluidng some mixed responses from fans and critics hopefully there'll be some more signs of good news like talented writers from critically acclaimed shows and movies handling the third spiderman movie from marc webb like vince gilligan or the skyfall writers
nuyhm7ai
nuyhm7ai - 7/27/2014, 11:04 PM
nah, both films originally had stronger scripts but were screwed over by sony
3DOldskool
3DOldskool - 7/28/2014, 8:45 AM
@nuyhm7ai

If we had the new writers for the Raimi films, we wouldn't have needed a reboot by now would we?

The only reason why Andrew exists is because he was needed for the reboot of the franchise so Sony can maintain the rights to Spider-man.

Tobey wasn't a great PP/SM, but at least he was the more LIKABLE actor in the role.

I can't believe people on this site think that an actor following a decent script will make up for the reputation of being a terrible cast to begin with. Andrew just never fitted my ideal PP/SM.
3DOldskool
3DOldskool - 7/28/2014, 9:03 AM
@AlphaAndDecima

Just being in it for the money and never read the script kind of tells me that he has no interest in the role.

I think I would prefer someone who really has heart for the role and not just in it for the pay check.

Also, Andrew is still young, he has a lot of time ahead of him to develop his career as an actor. What we can also see from the general standpoint is that he doesn't really attract the movie viewers as a whole as a lead actor in the franchise. It seems that he's missing the "charismatic quality" to capture the essence of being a big deal actor and superhero at the same time. I think what Sony never thought of about when they chose their actors/actresses is whether or not they would bring in money as a whole or just bring in money from certain demographics. This is not me saying that I dislike or hate Andrew, but the truth is that I don't think he was ready for this kind of stuff yet. As an actor, his best works so far have been The Social Network, Boy A, and The Red Riding, but not every great actor needs to become a part of a superhero role.

I hope you understand where I'm coming from. I prefer Andrew have stayed to making regular movies instead. He doesn't deserve this hate and I don't think anybody wants to hate him, but I feel like he plugged himself into the wrong role.
3DOldskool
3DOldskool - 7/28/2014, 9:59 AM
I wouldn't mind a recast for the lead actor and director at this point. It doesn't really hurt me.

Arad would've been better off losing the rights of Spider-man when the original crews left. Not really a fan of him either.
1 2
View Recorder