How to fix Spider-Man

Spiderman 2 is still one of the best CBM's ever.

@RobinHood Wouldn't Andrew Garfield also play Ben Reily in that scenario? Since Ben Reily is a clone?

All you have to do is let the comics unfold on the big screen and don't water down the characters.

@MisterSuperior - "Here's what you do:

1.) Write down everything Marc Webb did for his two films on a piece of paper.

2.) Toss that paper away and do the exact opposite that will respect the characters."

Honestly, I don't believe Marc Webb deserves all, maybe not even half the blame.

Here's what I'd do:

1. Find out what Marc Webb intended to do with his two films.

2. Compile all of Avi Arad & SONY execs. suggestions, demanded changes and things they required be in both films.

3. Toss all of Avi Arad & SONY execs. input in the garbage.


I'd be willing to bet a director's cut for either/both Amazing Spider-Man movies would be better than films we got. I mean look at Spider-Man 3, despite how good-great the first two films were, the studio gave Raimi less control and made more demands of what they wanted and what they felt needed to be in the Spidey 3. That's why it turned out to be the clusterf*ck it was.

TASM movies seem to have the same problem, TASM2 especially. There's so much potential for a good-great story/film, but it just felt overcrowded and forced. Like the open scene with the Parker's on the plane. What was that?? You forget about it because there's literally no reason to remember it when they don't revisit what happened.
Did the studio want the scene in the movie?? Did Webb and/or the writers have plans to come back to it, but were forced to cut that storyline from the final cut to accommodate other storylines/subplots/scenes the studio demanded??

It just doesn't make sense how tASM2 had the framework of potentially good story/movie, but some how ended up with a jumbled mess. I don't know much about Webb, but I have to believe he did a good job of salvaging what could've been a much worse movie. I guess that's the reason studios like to hire lesser known, up&coming directors instead of big name, established directors like Edgar Wright who demand creative control and refuse to cave at the studios' demands.

Hopefully, one day the truth will come out about what really happened with tASM movies and who's actually to blame for what could've been a much better franchise with a helluva Spider-Man.

@RobinHood - "@Mrcool210 Grant Gustin and Andrew Garfield look alike. Well, to me."

Can Andrew Garfield be the DC films Barry Allen???

Let Ezra Miller be Wally.

@MisterSuperior - "Now to me, after all that could be assumed doesn't fit with pretty much what we see, a Marc Webb being a Yes Man to Arad and Tolmach, who literally showed up in more interviews about TAS-M 1 and 2 than Webb ever did as if this was always Arad and Tolmach's vision and not Webb's. While, even saying this, one can say I shouldn't blame Webb, but when it always felt like he just figuratively bent over and took in all of those ideas, then I think Webb could still be given as much blame as Raimi for still putting in Venom into Spider-Man 3."

I disagree with that entirely. What relatively unknown or up&coming director is going to say no to directing Spider-Man despite next to no creative control?!?!? You make a good blockbuster movie with the most popular/profitable superhero on the planet right now and all the doors open for your career! Relinquishing creative control and being at the mercy of the studio is a sacrifice more directors than not would be willing to sign-up for.

Hell, who but Community, Happy Endings and maybe Arrested Development fans knew who Joe & Anthony Russo were before Winter Soldier?!?? No one, right??? (I mean I did, but that's because those are three of my favorite comedies of all-time.) They could almost literally do any project they want right now! The difference being, with Disney/Marvel & Feige, if you make a good-great movie, you get more creative control.
With SONY, it didn't matter who the director was, they wanted someone willing to make the film they wanted. I assume Marc Webb, like most directors, believed in himself, his intelligence and his talent enough he thought he compensate for making their movie, more than his movie. And maybe he thought if he makes their movie, he'd get to make his movie. Unfortunately, he didn't know that's not SONY's MO. After Spidey 2, Raimi earned/deserved to have final say and creative control, but SONY saw things differently. In hindsight, we know SONY, not Raimi, was to blame and were fantastically wrong. Yet, despite ruining the Spidey franchise, Avi Arad & SONY thought, they could still do it their way. Again, wrong!!

Honestly, why do you think Feige made damn certain the folks who ruined the two Spidey franchises get a film credit to STFU and stay far the f*ck away! If they weren't to blame, why did Feige feel the need to demote their roles with the Spidey reboot??? The writing is on the wall, pal. And Feige would know, he was an Executive Producer on Spidey 2&3 and TASM1.

Like I said, Webb deserves some of the blame, but no where close to all the blame. He took a job most any director would love to have, unfortunately for him it was with folks who were blinded by their own power and control to see how much more harm than good they were actually doing. And because they have said power, they can pass the brunt of the blame to someone else and no one is the wiser until the truth actually comes out, ya know??

@ImKennyPowers

Furthermore, what you're suggesting of him doing so doesn't make me one bit hopeful as others that believe a "director's cut" could even save TAS-M 1 and/or 2.

@MisterSuperior - "I don't know where you got it from that I didn't say an up and coming director shouldn't relinquish creative control to get his name out since they're so fresh in "the game". All I'm saying is BECAUSE he did such, he deserves as much blame as Arad and Tolmach, and I haven't heard any reasoning to say he shouldn't."

That's my mistake. Because almost all directors aspire to be well-known for their work and take opportunities that open new which help advance/further their careers. And, Webb was a lesser known director pre-ASM, he relinquished control of tASM and you described him as a "Yes Man." Therefore, I deduced you thought he was wrong for relinquishing control because in doing so it could potentially afford him more/better opportunities to advance/further his career and make a name for himself.

And if you admit he relinquished control and was merely a "Yes Man", how is he responsible "BECAUSE" he did SONY's bidding?? Why is he at fault for a accepting a job he believed he could and a job almost any lesser known or up&coming director couldn't say no to either?? Raimi earned/deserved the right to call the shots, but what happened?? If an established, well-known director coming off one of the biggest box office successes and arguably one of the best CBMs of all-time doesn't have final say or creative control, what can you do?? Seriously, I what can you do?? You make the best movie you can and hope for the best, but at the end of the days if you don't have all the tools or final say, you accept responsibility, but it's damn sure not you're fault! You were hired for a job, but you were restricted. You didn't have a blank canvas to work with you were given a coloring book and told to color inside the lines. hahaha.

@ImKennyPowers I don't know about the 2nd one, but the deleted scenes featuring Connors/Lizard were insanely integral to the 1st movie, his character, and the bond between him & Peter. A few superfluous scenes in the actual movie could have been exchanged for those, most definitely.

@ImKennyPowers

Now just realizing the time and mentally reminding myself that I now have to be somewhere in a bit, I'd like to add that I get what you're saying that since these up and coming directors have to at times relinquish certain or all creative control just to get their names out in this business, it's really a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" double edged sword, really. What you're saying makes sense and I'm not one to argue as I'd agree, but when you're dealing with such an important figure, not just in "comic book land", but a character that gives people hope outside of the comics, because the character is as much of a worldly icon than a lot of other things, it's something that you do need to respect and you should be far much vocal while than just being a Yes Man and that is where Marc Webb failed. That is where Sam Raimi failed for the most part for Spider-Man 3. And as I mentioned, that is where Joel Schumacher failed. Look at how many times Schumacher tries to save face now by A.) apologizing to fans over and over and B.) speaking of how he'd loved to do a "darker" Batman story on film.

That's just how the cookie crumbles, especially when you want these characters to be given justice on film and when you don't....it's heartbreaking when you've followed these characters since childhood.

But, alas, I am wasting even more time.

'til next time!

I wasn't sure if I should say that SM2 is the best, I've encountered some tasm fans so I've just written that there was no perfect Interpretation

@MisterSuperior - "Was it really a retcon story? Additional retcon is far away from a sin as alteration or subtraction retroactive continuity, and that's what that was. Adding another part, another layer to what happened to Uncle Ben's death. Plus, it's even through dialogue where Peter blasted George Stacy for never informing them of Flint Marko's involvement in the shooting, so it's not as much as changing the facts as retcons are mostly known for but just adding to it to give a clearer picture. Well, at least that's how I viewed it. It just shows how backhanded the police are, hah."

That's EXACTLY what retcon means! haha. "The common situation in fiction where a new story "reveals" things about events in previous stories, usually leaving the "facts" the same (thus preserving continuity) while completely changing their interpretation." It was established in the previous story that Peter accidentally killed Uncle Ben's murderer. The "new story reveals" Flint was actually Uncle Ben's murderer, not the other guy and that Flint accidentally shot & killed him. And it says "usually leaving the "facts" the same", in this case they changed who murdered Uncle Ben, but it doesn't change the fact Uncle Ben was murdered and it doesn't change the impact his murder had on Peter.

"I always felt like Lizard would've been perfect, as originally planned, for Spider-Man 2 myself. I think because of how Otto's arc felt like Curt's, there could be this synonymous arc between then two villains."

Agreed. And that makes complete sense about the similarities. The only reason I suggest it is to avoid introducing a whole new character and all his backstory. The storyline of Flint resorting to crime to save his sick daughter and the retcon of him being Ben's murderer was just too much. They had enough characters/villains to work with and the studio demanded they introduce Eddie Brock/Venom, so just introduce one new character/villain not two. They could/should have give Flint's screen time and part of the story to Eddie Brock. And if they still wanted three villains, use the already established Connors become the Lizard. It's just a personal preference because I thought it could more streamlined or simplified and they bit off more than they could chew. The whole Flint backstory and arc was unnecessary overkill to me.

On a related note, I didn't like how all Raimi's villains had good intentions with bad outcomes. The OsCorp board forced Norman's hand and he chose to be his own test subject in hopes it'd save his research project from being scrapped. Otto intended to provide a scientific breakthrough that would change and benefit the world. But, his pride/ego and commitment to his work literally consumed him. Flint turned to crime to pay his daughters medical bills. Harry wrongfully blamed Spider-Man/Peter for killing his father and did what he believed was right by attempting to avenge his father's death. Of course, he learned what he believed was wrong and sacrificed his own life to make amends and save his friend's life. None of his villains were truly evil or motivated by evil or villainous aspiration. They were all manifested by good intentions that backfired.

"Would Sony have fired Raimi, though? That's what I always wondered....if these directors actually put their foot down, would they have been fired and would it have gone that far? I can't believe studios would be so thick-headed when the directors possibly have better and more coherent storylines than the studios themselves."

I honestly believe they would have. Studios have all the power & they know know it, so if you don't do things their way, they'll find someone who will. Like I said before, their way or the highway. The studios pay the bills, they take the financial risk and almost all cases they want to control their investment. Sure sometimes studios like the writers/directors' vision for the movie or they have a good resume/track record, so the studios will let them do their thing. They might offer some notes, be it demands, questions and/or suggestions, but I don't believe studios ever relinquish full control and offer zero input. As for Raimi, Avi Arad/SONY wanted Venom in the movie. If Raimi refused, I have no doubt they'd fire him without a second thought. Coming off the success of Spider-Man 2, what director wouldn't want to direct it's follow up?!? They new the SM3 director's chair would be highly coveted opportunity for a lot of directors. SONY held all the cards and like all studios they have egos, they believe these are THEIR movies and it's a privilege to work on them. They're the ones taking the biggest risks. It's their name/reputation and financial invest on the line.

"I'd wait to see what Wright actually does next to see if it hurt his career or not. But my point is that, while it's obvious some directors have to do this, directors, if put in a bad spot, deserve as much blame of being behind a terrible movie as the studio itself."

My point about Wright is he's a different breed. He won't have trouble finding work because he's a well known, talented director and he's passionate about his work. To him, he wants to make movies his way or he'll find a studio that will. He's mentality/attitude is very much like the studios themselves. And I have a hard time believing Wright won't be able to find a studio willing to accommodate his demands because they know the quality of work he's capable of. I'd be willing to bet Disney/Marvel would hire Wright again for another project where he can create, has more freedom and isn't confined by an overarching shared universe where he's asked to connect the dots.

"But, do you even give Webb any blame, though? Or do you just blame Sony? Do you blame Raimi or Schumacher or do you only blame Sony and Warner Brothers, respectively?"

In my second reply to you I said "Webb deserves some of the blame, but no where close to all the blame." So, yes I do. haha. I primarily blame SONY because there's precedent with SM3. It's known they called most of the shots and they gave Raimi less control than he'd had on the prior two films and it was the worst film of all Spiderman movies, in my opinion. What do you think changed at SONY between SM3 and tASM that would lead anyone to believe they realized the err of their ways and wouldn't be as controlling the second time around, ya know?? That's why I brought up earlier how one of Feige's first demands/actions when teaming up with SONY for the Spidey reboot was to remove/demote those responsible for SM3 and tASM. Feige knows what's up. And I'd be willing to bet in hindsight, Feige would've stepped in sooner and flexed the Marvel muscle to help Webb/Garfield because neither deserve the majority of the blame.

"Why do some, and I put emphasis on some, fans praise the films as Webb's films, but yet when you speak against the films, one can't or shouldn't put blame on Webb for the films?"

It's a thankless recognition kind of thing, if you will. If you're not a sports fan this analogy might not make much sense, but I'd compare studios to referees, teams owners and/or GMs. They typically get more attention or mentioned when they do something wrong than when they do something good/right. George Miller is being praised for Fury Road, as he should, but I don't see much praise/credit being given to WB for taking the risk and green-lighting the film, ya know?? Even though Whedon and James Gunn wrote and directed their movies, you could argue those movies are more theirs than others, but the Russo brothers get the more credit/recognition than the writers or Disney/Marvel. That said, it's a collective effort all the way around, it's like a pie chart. Everyone shares the responsibility of getting movies from script to screen, but some more than others. Personally, I believe more often than not the studio has the lions share of responsibility, good or bad. In the case of tASM movies, because of the precedent with their control issues, I believe that justifies why in this case SONY deserves the majority of the blame.

Damn, I wrote so much more than I intended to. If anyone actually reads all of this it might take more than one sitting to get thru it all. haha. Sorry about that.

@ImKennyPowers

Are you reading my comments? Lol. I stated the three different kinds of retroactive continuity while saying that additional retcon is the least sinful type of retcon there is. I know what retroactive continuity is, but when you just add to something while it still makes sense, it's not as bad as some would believe it, thus nothing contradicts what happened to Uncle Ben as other forms of retcon. When Carradine wanted to explain to Peter in the first film, he very well could have told Peter that someone else shot Ben so it makes sense even if, at first, Sam Raimi didn't have the idea at hand of Flint having been the real murderer. Adding more layers to a situation is called additional retroactive continuity, but it doesn't have to be viewed as something really terrible.

It depends on what you would view as being too much for Spider-Man 3 too. To me, what was too much was using the symbiote all in one film. The best possible way to introduce the symbiote is to introduce it in one film and then use Venom in the following installment. I am reminded of both Spider-Man:TAS and TSSM where we see what the symbiote does first and then we see Venom and that should be the template for a film. To smother the symbiote's introduction with the only film in the series to use Venom is overkill, imo. I just never wanted that idea to be used in one film, and even while I have complaints with the novelization at hand, I felt that the novelization would have made up for a longer film too.

Hasn't that been the case for every villain though we've seen in films minus Aleksei/Rhino? Even Electro was someone that had good intentions of wanting to still be Spider-Man's "eyes and ears" but then felt disrespected. Harry Osborn wanted to save himself from death and continue to run his father's company. Connors, well, he wanted to save his life's work. Every villain, besides Aleksei/Rhino was someone that had good intentions. And I still don't know what Aleksei even wanted out of that plutonium.

I also hate how, Raimi's villains had a connection to Peter Parker while Webb's villains had a connection to OsCorp. I want some diversity when Marvel Studios takes over.

Marc Webb is a talented man himself too. (500) Days of Summer was a very intelligent rom-com, but my point was...let's see how studios feel about Wright now since he didn't accommodate with Marvel Studios. I just wonder if studios will hate that because of him, which is again, that double edged sword I brought up. Directors need to have that creative mind, but it's depressing just how much studios want to control everything nowadays.

Okay, so you would put blame on Webb too. Fair enough. I think they have equal amounts of blaming(always have), but I also don't think Feige will pull an Arad or Tolmach either. He's learned his lesson from Iron Man 2 and he knows, also, how Sony deals with their business when looking at S-M 3 thru TAS-M 2. But I disagree with the idea that a director should be given praise, but then not the criticism. I don't see it that way if you ask me. Directors deserve both, even if their dicks are in a vice because of the studios. It's why Schumacher gets the blame for his Batman films and it's why Raimi gets the much deserving blame for S-M 3 as well.

How to make a perfect Spider-Man movie:
1. Look at Spider-Man 2.
2. If your script falls short of that kind of quality: restart, then try again.