Sam Raimi Talks "Gut-Wrenching" EVIL DEAD Remake And THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN

Well.......Raimi is certainly a better sport about TASM than Dafoe was. LOL!

Raimi's Spidey trilogy should be in the Hall of Comic Book Film Fame

At least he's classy about it unlike dafoe lolol

TASM brought nothing new to the table. Raimi's first two films were much better.

Love Sam Raimi looks like a real good man. Funny as sh!t.

@Dante - Love that GIF man

I am a Raimi-ite. And although he may take the higher road, i will not:

This remake will suck the balls that noone else would suck.

@Prot3ctor. Yeah, it really was Sam Raimi's fault Spider-Man 3 sucked. Raimi already had the script written for 3 and Sony wanted him to add Venom due to demand from fans. Raimi doesn't like Venom and wanted to stick with Sandman. Raimi took the whole "I don't care" attitude and just decided to make a script that was a total mess and included the stupid emo break dancing scenes.

Raimi could have chosen to leave the stupid stuff out and could have taken Sandman out, focusing on Harry and Venom as the two villains. That would have been okay. Instead, he went ahead and directed a movie he knew fans would hate. I am glad he's gone from Spider-Man. I just hope Webb doesn't do the same thing.

@ImSuperman- I actually think Raimi's first 2 films were better than Amazing Spiderman too. So hes not alone.

isnt that always the answer? "I havent seen it yet, but i hear its great."

i believe edward norton said that about the Avengers

i believe terence howard said that about Iron Man 2

i believe thomas jane said that about Punisher: War Zone

If you look at the Spider-Man films objectively, and think that Raimi's Spider-Man 1, was better than TASM. You need to take the nostalgia goggles off. Yes, it has a place in your heart, it was the first Spider-Man movie you ever saw, but you need to get over that. Cause it is clouding your judgment. There are things that are better in Raimi's first film yes, but it was just too naive for my liking. Peter did not act like a teenager, and had like no depth, at all...

If Raimi's films took place in the 1960's, they would've been awesome. But when you look at the dialogue, no one in the 2000's would talk like that. It was terrible, and their portrayal of New York was just laughable and too happy. And the fact that all 3 of the movies used the damsel in distress formula is ridiculous, and really really dated. Thank goodness for TASM, Spider-Man 2 is the only other Spider-Man film that's better. But it's not by much, and even those movies are filled with plotholes, but for some reason they get a free pass. Yet the flaws of Webb's films do not go unnoticed. Wonder why this is.

Raimi should stay in the realm of the horror genre. At least he knows how to make a good horror flick.
His spiderman films were terrible to hardcore fans, even though the general audience loved them and I expect his OZ film to be the same. a complete slap in the face to the source material and a hit with people who've never read the books.

Raimi did a lot for Comic Book movies. he was able to bring villains you wanted to know about and still wanted to see fall. But one thing he didn't do, was bring the real Spider-man to the big screen.
That whiny, emo, gleeked-out schmuck was never even close to Peter Parker. Or, for that matter, neither did he introduce us to a Maryjane worthy of the name....
Thank you Sam, for the bad guys, but not for our hero.

Mark, here's a salute!

I really didn't want to see another origin story for Spider-Man.
I actually was forced to go see it by friends, even though, I'm the Comic Book Aficionado...
Yet, I have to admit, it really made me want to see him more. Thank God Mark Webb gave us a Spider-Man, and a Gwen Stacy, worth remembering.

The New Spider-man was a Complete Douchebag.

TASM was mediocre and shitty.

THAT is looking at it objectively.

Peter Parker was not a nerd, not even by "Today's standards" as so many ignorant people attempt to suggest. He was just mentally deficient ("I'll take 13 years to realize I should look up my father's name! You can tell I'm really concerned about the truth!") and couldn't make out a complete sentence.

And when he could, it was never funny. "Uh oh, someone's been a baaaaaaaad lizard." Comic gold! Right?

The film's full of inconsistency and gives off a disgusting odor of studio meddling and baiting.

"Hey, let's have an 'adorable' stuttering Peter Parker that's a bit of a rebellious loner to bring in the teenage girls!"

"Hey, let's throw in quips, Gwen Stacy and Mechanical webshooters! These additions won't require or recieve any effort, we'll just throw them in because HEY, these pseudo comic-book fans are so easy to buy".

Thankfully I didn't have to pay for my ticket, otherwise I would've refused to have seen this movie. It'd feel too much like whoring myself to Sony.

But hey, that's just me. If you like it, fine! Good, this is your Spider-Man and you're totally free to enjoy it. Just don't claim to have a superior opinion to people who prefer a different version or claim to be looking "objectively" while others are looking at things too "nostalgically".