Sony, the Spider-Man universe, and dwindling box office

Feature Simon Brew 7 May 2014 - 06:19

With The Amazing Spider-Man 2 underperforming slightly at the box office, we look at Sony's future for the franchise...

It's probably best you don't read this if you've not seen The Amazing Spider-Man 2.

Many words have been written over the past day or two about the opening weekend numbers for The Amazing Spider-Man 2 in the US. The film opened with $91m, the second biggest opening weekend of the year in America, behind Captain America: The Winter Soldier's $95m Stateside start.

But whereas Captain America 2 was quickly lauded as a big hit, understandable given that it built substantively on the box office for its predecessor, there was warning lights all around the takings for The Amazing Spider-Man 2. We're not quite at the stage of calling a film that's just earned $91m in a weekend a flop, but words and phrases such as 'franchise fatigue' and 'disappointment' were being used. Bluntly, one franchise is on the way up, one isn't.

Looking at the numbers, you can see why. The original Spider-Man movie opened to $114m, with Spider-Man 2's opening weekend being $88m, Spider-Man 3's standing at $151m and The Amazing Spider-Man at $62m (albeit after an earlier in the week opening, which inevitably meant the weekend total was lower). Sony would have hoped for The Amazing Spider-Man 2 to nudge over $100m in its US opening weekend, but now analysts are predicting a $230m final gross for the movie in the States. By tens of millions of dollars, that'd make it the weakest performing Spider-Man movie at the US box office. And that's with the numbers for the four previous films not adjusted for inflation and rising ticket prices.

In short, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is struggling just a little. Not too much, but enough to cause questions to be asked.

That said, things aren't quite that simple. The new Spider-Man film has been hurt, for instance, by stronger than expected competition from Captain America 2. Furthermore, the real money isn't made so much in the US anymore, rather it's the international box office total that ultimately matters. Sony has a chance of breaking $500m non-US for The Amazing Spider-Man 2, and that'd make the film far from a flop at around the $730m mark.

However, caveats aside, there are truths in the hard numbers that Sony can't ignore. If The Amazing Spider-Man 2 does get to $730m, that's still below the $750m take of The Amazing Spider-Man (both got a bump from 3D admissions too), which to this point is the lowest grossing Spider-Man movie to date.

The problem for Sony is this: the Spider-Man cinematic franchise appears to be in box office decline, at the point where it has five more films (at least) lined up for it. Contrast that with what Marvel has achieved: every follow-up it's done to one of its films has earned more than its predecessor, and then it has the juggernaut that is The Avengers at the heart of it. The central core of the Sony Spider-Man universe should be the Spider-Man films themselves, but there's very real evidence that audiences are losing just a little interest. That's in spite of the reviews and reaction for The Amazing Spider-Man 2 being generally better than those for The Amazing Spider-Man.

So what's going wrong? Well, we'd argue a few things.

Firstly, Sony hasn't shaken off the fact that it rebooted a franchise that only needed a reworking for business reasons. Creatively, even accepting the bumpy Spider-Man 3, the films were working. But when Sony and director Sam Raimi's relationship deteriorated, and when the cost for the mooted Spider-Man 4 was set to push $300m, Sony went back to square one.

It didn't handle that stage well. The first teaser trailer for The Amazing Spider-Man infamously ended with a reflected look at Spider-Man in a window. There was understandable bafflement at the teasing of a character's appearance, when he'd only been on screen a few years before. Furthermore, the marketing then played up that we were getting an untold story, when in fact that was pretty much the last thing we ended up with (the untold element only really kicked in to any degree in the new sequel).

But most disappointingly of all, The Amazing Spider-Man redid the genesis story of Spider-Man with little to distinguish it from a film that had done the job better just over a decade before. The suspicion going into the film was that it was a boardroom reboot, and by the time the end credits rolled, there was precious little evidence to the contrary.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 certainly ups the ante, and we'd argue is a notably better film. But it too can't shake the feeling that it's a sequel to an unnecessary reboot. That's been a little unfair on some real talent at work, we should note. Director Marc Webb is on far surer footing this time around, whilst both Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone are really very, very good.

Yet it does feel like they've got their hands tied a little around their back. Even the post-credits stings feel business-tinged. One for X-Men: Days Of Future Past was part of a deal hatched to free Marc Webb from a Fox contract so that he could direct the new Spider-Man film. The other, of pictures teasing the Sinister Six, could only be clearly seen with a phone app, no doubt as a result of a commercial tie-in. Whether or not you find Marvel's credit stings enthralling or tiring, you can never accuse it of using said scenes to directly make a few extra quid.

The big problem, though, is that Sony needed The Amazing Spider-Man 2 to be a springboard. It needed it to be a Spider-Man 2, a Dark Knight, an X-Men 2. The kind of excellent sequel that invigorates a franchise, and leaves you salivating for the next instalment. And the film doesn't really do that. It sets up The Amazing Spider-Man 3, it sets up Rhino, it sets up the Sinister Six to a degree. But we'd wager that most people left the cinema feeling they'd got their money's worth, but not Googling to find out when the next one was coming out.

The fact that, in the US, the film has a CinemaScore of B+ is a further worry. The CinemaScore is a gauge of what audiences thought of the film on the way out. History shows that B+, while no disaster, is not good news. It generally means that hopes of word of mouth bump are dampened. To put it into context, this year films such as Divergent, Captain America: The Winter Soldier and Rio 2 had earned an A score. B+, meanwhile, was the score given to Brick Mansions, Need For Speed, Draft Day and RoboCop. Sony would want to be in the former pack. But its Spider-Man film finds itself in the latter.

As things stand, the plan remains for The Amazing Spider-Man 3 to land in 2016, with Sony set to announce release dates for Sinister Six and Venom imminently. It's expected that one will be released in 2017, one in 2018, and then in 2019 we'll find out if Spider-Man is getting another reboot (Marc Webb has already confirmed he won't make The Amazing Spider-Man 4, and there's a strong possibility that Andrew Garfield won't either).

There are certainly intriguing possibilities in the Spider-Man universe that Sony is planning, and the idea of a Drew Goddard penned and directed Sinister Six movie is a good place to start. But there must be warning sirens in Sony HQ right now. It's building a cinematic universe on foundations that are slowly subsiding. And they're subsiding, in large part, of a consequence of that decision to reboot the Spider-Man franchise so soon, which appears to have taken at least 20% of its audience with it.

It's all certainly salvageable, and a movie making north of $700m is no disaster. But it is a disappointment, and Sony's strategy, going forward, might just need some fine-tuning...

Follow our Twitter feed for faster news and bad jokes right here. And be our Facebook chum here.

Disqus - noscript

The reason Marvel films continue to be successful is they form part of a continuing story arc.
I have enjoyed all the Spider-Man films, but you get the impression that it will be a trilogy, then a reboot, then a trilogy then a reboot. Retelling the same stories over and over. Even die hard fans get tired of that after a time.
Ultimately the only way that the Spider-man franchise could make progress would be for it to be returned to its parent company. Which is obviously not going to happen.

Sony should amend their deal with Marvel, hand the creative side back to them but hold on to the distribution rights worldwide. Unfortunately I can't see Disney agreeing, with their perfect distribution and merchandising channel.

Too many cooks. Like in Spider-Man 3 there was too much crammed in. Even the new first one was uneven. Raimi's first two movies were coherent. The last three were made by commitee and it showed. It remembers me of the Batman series in the 90s. The first two by Tim Burton were clearly his vision, especially Batman Returns. After that they fell apart by changing director, direction, actors and tone. Ended with a mess. The Nolan trilogy was clearly the director's vision from start to finish. Same with most of the Marvel films. The change in tone in Iron Man 3 showed the skills and typical signs of its director. Same with Winter Soldier and Avengers. Marvel has a bigger plan, but they seem to trust their directors with less boardroom intervention. You can see Marc Webb's skills in the character relationships, but the rest couldn't be more generic. Man of Steel was a typical Zack Snyder movie, like it or not. But the new Spider-Man films look like they were made from a bunch of directors. That is no good filmmaking. And it is a good sign when the audience gets tired of that.

I guess I'm part of the 20% lost in reboot. I don't get the hate or dislike for the Original Trilogy(TM) so often voiced here on Den of Geek or in the comments (while admitting that there are also lovers, and that Spider-man 3 is often singled out).

Reboot tut nicht gut, to phrase it in German. And when there's already rumors about Garfield not returning for Spider-Man 3, you have to ask yourself what the gameplan for this franchise is.

As a movie-goer, I do not want to get invested in something that already right now looks like it's going belly up. I haven't seen TAS2 in the theatres, opting for the Winter Solider instead. Hell, I even went to see it twice, just so my girlfriend is in on the Hydra-Meme - and I enjoyed it as much the second time around.

So what could Sony do to bring its Spider-man back up to game? One of the hardest questions, I guess.

The only Spider-man movies from Sony(!) I would still pay silver screen money for to watch would be something like a reboot every two years with a different actor playing a different Spider-man from a different timeline and/or earth.

Like the Twilight Zone of Spider-mans. Spider-men?

I think there are a lot of reasons why Spiderman 2 was not the success it should have been. It was a good film...a 'good' film, not an excellent film or an awe inspiring film it was good, enjoyable and general box office fair. But that might be the point we have got used to this, we expect CGI, we expect the standard tropes and rollercoaster ride we watch as we see the set pieces, the emotional bit and the final climactic battle - its all been done before and a bit better (see Cap 2). Us as a market may have changed our tastes a little and want more of 'Under the Skin' for us sci-f geeks and maybe Lego Movies for kids - both of which were superb and a little bit out of the ordinary Maybe as companies try to capture lightening in a bottle to re-create a Iron man experience they are doing a breakdown of what was good, pumping it through spreadsheets, asking too many focus groups and overly analysing things to get the 'perfect' super-hero film - instead we get a vanilla, sanitized film instead that appeases and is fine but doesn't have that wow factor you get if you go a little bit off plan and don't expect too much. I see maybe that Guardians of the Galaxy might do this - trying something odd, unusual and fun which is something both Fox and Sony seem to miss in their superhero licences. While giving Marvel back the FF and Spiderman in some joint deal and getting a u director with a unique vision on-board (what for example would a Terry Gillian Dr Strange film or a Del Toro Inhumans or even a Spider-man Tarantino movie or Brad Bird FF film be like?). Don't let the studio interfere too much and let the artists who know the material do the jobs.

Good, well reasoned article. Im one of the 20% and I think you hit the nail on the head when you say that the box office is suffering due to a decision a while ago to reboot.

The biggest problem is that the new Spidey movies feel like they are made to cash in on the superhero buzz and quickly set up an expanded universe to hang on to Marvel's coat tails rather than because Sony has an idea for a great movie.

The moment they got Orci and Kurtzman on board, I lost all faith in the future of this franchise. Which is a shame, because Garfield makes a fantastic Spidey.

Like others here, I'm part of that 20% too. While I saw and enjoyed the majority of the original trilogy (and definitely suspect I'd prefer Garfield to Maguire, who constantly annoyed me in the original trilogy), I haven't even come close to being tempted to watch either of the newer films.

Boardroom reboot is a perfect expression really. Most origin stories are pretty dull when compared with seeing what the character can do at the peak of his powers. Consequently, there was no way I wanted to subject myself to that again. Another Green Goblin origin as well makes for about the most unoriginal and off-putting pair of plots I could have dreamt of.

10-15 years ago, Spiderman was arguably the most high-profile Marvel character out there - and by comparing the impending "Spiderman Universe" with the ever-expanding MCU, we can see how unimportant that is when that lack of mass-recognition prompts the studio to do something different. But unfortunately, we're now at a point where the only way to save the character is to work out a way to tie-in with the MCU and abandon this bloated and hyper-extended SMU idea.

(Marc Webb has already confirmed he won't make The Amazing Spider-Man 3, and there's a strong possibility that Andrew Garfield won't either).

Don't you mean 4???

This is all sepculation and assumption resulting in comparing TASM2 box office to Captain America 2 and the previous Spider-man Trilogy. Simon's lack of love for the Spider-man reboot is no secret and always seems to taint any Spider-man article on here which is a shame as it stops it from being neutral.

There is no denying that a lot of the reasons for the reboot were business related but short periods in between resets seem the way we are headed now, with Batman, Fantastic Four, possibly Green Lantern as such. Personally I feel 'The Amazing Spider-man' franchise has favoured very well and is far superior to the orginal trilogy, which on rewatching recently has not dated well at all. The CGI appears standard and some of the acting is questionable. And I would support my argument by asking anyone to watch the Honest Trailer for the Sam Raimi series!

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 has opened at the top of the North American box office with takings of $92m. It's the second best domestic debut of the year so far, just behind The Winter Soldier which took $96m in its first weekend. The Amazing Spider-Man 2 enjoyed an overseas haul of $116m this weekend. So not brilliant but by no means awful either. I feel it's far to early to assume a decline and far too assuming that the cause is due to it's reboot nature. There is no doubt that the reboot has its flaws but I for one enjoyed the new take and related to it more. Again personal preference dictates a lot, but I tend to enjoy the underachievers better. I remember Batman Begins coming out pretty low on the radar compared to previous Batman movies and we all know how well that turned out.

Comparing TAS2 to franchises like Fantastic Four and Green Lantern isn't helping your argument. :P Those were flawed even before the reboot. And word is still out on whether Affleck will be a "better" Batman than Bale - both in acting and within the story.



That wasn't my point. I wasn't comparing the TAS2 to those franchises at all. They were all there supporting my opinion that shorter time between reboots is very common now and in no way was I saying that TAS2 style and direction could hold a candle to such works as FF and Green Lantern...

It's not just fatigue from this franchise but franchises in general.

I've stopped going to the cinema to watch superhero films, sequels and reboots because I'm sick of them - I want original stories, not the same things rehashed.

Only superhero film I will be seeing is Ant-Man mostly because it hasn't been adapted before and I like the director. I probably won't see Avengers 2, new Star Wars or the final Hobbit film.

I've always been fairly clear, you're right: I didn't like TASM, I quite liked TASM 2. But the basis of this article was a lot of box office analysis that I read that pointed to a decline in admissions for Spider-Man films. That's straight fact though, which TASM2 isn't arresting.

I'm intrigued, in truth, as to where it all goes next. I though there were some strong moments in TASM2 in particular, and I'm not against new Spider-Man films. I've learned over the years that great movies pop up not always where people are expecting them, and in the case of Spidey, the quality is now on an upward curve for me. - Simon

I think Simon's article was actually more even-handed than your comment. Acting doesn't date, so if couldn't have been unimpressed with the original films for that. The simple reason these two new films aren't successful is because we've had recent Spiderman films already. When those originally came out, there hadn't been a Spiderman movie outside of the TV films from the '70s. There was an appetite there for it - an appetite which is no longer there, or at least is being sated by Marvel's films. Also, Garfield - although being 30 - could well look too young for many over 20s or over-30s to relate to. It's like Twilight and youth-centric while the 1st trilogy wasn't. I went with an open mind, enjoyed the relationship with Gwen Stacy and the 'new' material concerning his parents, but most of it was jumbled, pedestrian and overly familiar.

Totally agree. It might be dissapointing when you see the first in a franchise and not like it, but when the second comes out and is a big improvement it does give you hope that the next will continue the trend. Who knows, maybe a franchise that leaves you intrigued for the next (rather than a franchise that always ticks the right boxes and becomes something expected) is a better franchise in the long run? Maybe once the Garfield saga has run it's course Den of Geek can rewatch and write an article in persepctive? TASM may even work in that context for you Simon. Time will tell of course.

Acting does date I'm afraid. Watch those 1970's TV movies and you'll see that it does. Failing that an hour of James Franco's eye brow raising in Spider-man 3 will suffice. It's interesting you say about the youthcentric though as I was thinking the other day that the next reboot of this should be Peter Parker in his late 30's/40's. That's the comics I grew up reading. I'm really enjoying the Marc Webb stuff but this I feel would be a nice shake up.

You seemed to imply that a shorter time between reboots would be a good thing, which would not be my opinion.

That wasn't my intention so apologies. Merely that it seems to be becoming a trend for Hollywood that's all. Not always a good thing but not always bad either.

In that case we share the same opinion and no apology is necessary. The Godzilla Reboot, for example, looks exciting, whereas the Spider-man reboot definitely hurt itself by being so close to the original in both time and material.

That's what I think as well. SONY wanted toto get quick bucks but they seem to have overestimated earning potential of this movie. I guess the huge success of CA2 which had really good and plot (apart from jaw dropping action scenes) set the bar pretty high. I really hope that slowly the audience is getting tired of CGI crap fests without story and character development like Man of steel, The Amazing Spiderman 2, Transformers 2 and 3 or Transformers 4 which looks awful judging by trailers. I will keep my fingers crosses for the success of Neighbours next week and Godzilla in 2 weeks.

SONY wanted toto get quick bucks but they seem to have overestimated earning potential of this movie. I guess the huge success of CA2 which had really good and plot (apart from jaw dropping action scenes) set the bar pretty high. I really hope that slowly the audience is getting tired of CGI crap fests without story and character development like Man of steel, The Amazing Spiderman 2, Transformers 2 and 3 or Transformers 4 which looks awful judging by trailers. I will keep my fingers crosses for the success of Neighbours next week and Godzilla in 2 weeks.

The whole origin story template that superhero films employ is what has tested my patience. I didn't need to see Harry Callahan/John Mclaine graduating police academy and learning to become a bad ass cop to enjoy him taking down Scorpio/Hans Gruber. Do we really need to be fed every origin story in the exact same 3 act structure?

I think its burnout. Too many comic book movies all being done at the same time. And seriously comic book plots and origins are practically all the same. "insert superhero gets bitten/zapped/trapped/blasted by some form of Gamma raditiaon, said superhero gains powers, but loses a loved one. Any one else getting fatigued by all the similar stories.

I actually agree but TASM2 was actually the best "Spider-man" movie to day. I'm talking about the actual Spider-man scenes, the web-slinging, the opening, the music all fitted perfectly. Then again, CA2, in my opinion is the best solo-Avengers movie to date, I just think it was bad timing for Spidey.

short answer, no.

Captain America WS is the prime example of a sequel done right, I personally thought the first movie was the weakest (along with Iron Man 2) of the Marvel movies but I'll say that Winter Soldier was the best so far!

I've heard the CAP 2 is good, but i hear it was more akin to a spy thriller. Which is probably why it was so well recieved. Don't get me wrong i love a bit of comic book action. But i'm not really looking forward to watching AM2 or any of the others slated for release.

Personally I have no interest in seeing TASM2 because I did not think much of the first one and I have a cineworld unlimited card. I can imagine that those who have to pay will think very carefully about going to see TASM2.

you think that the marvel films have been based on great ideas? with the exception of one or two they've all been macguffin device alien invasion fare, the formula is becoming tired

Sony won't let the rights lapse without running the franchise into the ground first (not that they want to do that, just that's what it'll take)

What is getting me is that with all this rush to copy Marvel and talk of franchise fatigue no-one even mentions doing a James Bond with the character. Stand alone films and when the lead actor wants out change him and maybe have lose connections between them. this urge to create massive connected universes if mishandled is going to convolute the continuity so badly that a reboot is the only answer.

exactly this

Definitely agree that they're still feeling the effects of a reboot so close to Raimi's trilogy. I'm not someone that views that series as untouchable - Spidey 2 was the only one I felt strongly positive about - but it always seemed a danger to reboot so close to that. There was too little a gap for people to want Spider-Man back on their screens, no-one was clamouring for him because they'd just had him, for three high-grossing films.

Marvel did it with the Hulk reboot, just five years between them, but the original wasn't a huge hit like Raimi's trilogy and the reboot didn't exactly set the box office numbers on fire either. If anything that provides more evidence. It wasn't until The Avengers four years later from that that Hulk got a major boost. Even there, he still doesn't have a standalone sequel set up yet. It's building the desire in the audience, which the Amazing Spider-Man films never had much of a chance to do.

I didn't mind number 2 but it just felt a bit hollow. I'm also getting a bit tired of promises that "next one will be better" or that it's all building up to something. I'd rather each film to be strong enough on it's own without waiting for the follow up.

Personally I find the biggest problem with Spider-man, X-men and Fantastic four. Is that part of me just sees these movies as way to keep the copyright from reverting back to Marvel.

I felt TAS2 was some astute editing away from a brilliant movie. I like Garfield and Stone, I think they are leagues better than McGuire and Dunst in both presence and chemistry. But the films aren't quite up there with the Raimi trilogy. The first 2 movies especially never felt bloated and as a result their individual elements are that much more defined. TAS2 tries to do too many things and the individual elements lose their impact as a result.

Seems like the characters are there, the script is pretty much there but it gets bogged down with needless scenes and pointless near mid air misses. If they don't make more movies Marvel gets the license back which I feel would be a shame (no doubt I'm in the minority on this). Every one of the marvel heroes seems to get shoe horned into the extended universe and they do it really well, but for me Spiderman is a lone hero and the movies shouldn't be connected.

"It needed it to be a Spider-Man 2, a Dark Knight, an X-Men 2. The kind of excellent sequel that invigorates a franchise, and leaves you salivating for the next instalment. And the film doesn't really do that."

Excuse me? That's something that's a matter of opinion is it not? Because that's exactly what TASM2 did for me. I can't wait for the next installment in the franchise, because 2 was the best comic book movie I've seen since The Avengers. And since when is a B+ or over $700 million "bad"?

Personally, TASM2 sits comfortably on top of the list of Spider-Man films, even above Raimi's 2. In fact, every time I watch the Raimi films (excluding 3 because just no), they come off a little worse after every viewing, especially 1. I think if Sam Raimi had made and released S1 exactly the same way today, it would be slated as pretty bad.

I just feel that this film is being unfairly maligned because of reboot/remake fatigue, along with execrable blockbusters like The Expendables, every new Die Hard, G.I. Joe, when for me it does a better job of telling a Spider-Man story than any other attempt.

Spiderman 2 was fantastic. I loved the original trilogy, with the exception of number 3, but the new look Peter Parker is fresh and the chemistry with Emma Stone is brilliant.
There was a definite improvement to the first and I cannot wait for Spidey 3

Do you have any......Sexual Problems?

Personally I found the film rather camp, not Batman & Robin camp, more Batman Forever camp. It just seemed rather hammy, poorly written, poor pacing and not once did I particularly care for the characters or buy into their reasonings/justifications. I personally don't see the chemistry between Garfield / Stone. Shame really. It really was a steaming pile to me.

I think there's potential to be too down on a take of 91 million. It's a lot more than ASM1 took. Sure, it's not as good as Captain America 2, but that's a sequel to the Avengers in a way. Most movie money does not come the hardcore fans. It comes from the average public. So:
ASM2 follows ASM1 which not many people liked (or saw the point of) and didn't set the box office on fire. So to do 91 million is great in many ways.
Winter Soldier follows the Avengers (as far as Captain America is concerned). General public loved that film. So it did well (but not as well as Iron Man 3 I think).
In that context and with the fact that there are a lot more superhero films now (what was the dreadful Spider-man 3's competition back then?) 91 million doesn't look too bad at all.

I'm not surprised it hasn't done as well as expected - every single review I've seen pointed out that the story is a barely-coherent pile of contrivances, coincidences, and crow-barred in villains, entirely lacking in narrative flow or logic, and also the gargantuan run time - a 2.5hr+ Spider-Man movie? Sling your hook!

If they want me to part with my hard-earned cash they simply need to try harder with the script and story. Why are the studios so scared to make a superhero film with a simple, manageable story with a clear arc and a reasonable running time?

Sony are also having a laugh if they think they can build their own Avengers/Marvel mega-franchise out of Spider-Man.

(The real) Spider-Man 2 is one of my favorite films, and I've never watch these reboots out of solidarity for Sam Raimi.

It also set a horrible precedent of a) Too expensive? Reboot! b) Have to change the actor or director? Reboot!

What's going to tip over these superhero movies isn't a Batman & Robin bomb, but audience fatigue.

They're trying really hard to make Spiderman an arc-based franchise though. I think the reason that the Marvel ones are doing better is because they are just better films with better writers. Admittedly there's only so much you can do to make one superhero flick different from another but I think that the Amazing Spiderman series is a good example of what not to do.

Too many movies involve throwing piles of disconnected material on the screen in the hope that everyone will see something good in some of it.
That's why movies are getting longer, too. Directors and producers are afraid to cut anything that might appeal to someone in the prospective audience.
(Then there are directors who won't cut any of their precious sludge. Bay is coming out with Transformers 4--or is 40--and you know it's going to go too long with screeching metal scenes.)

Totally agree with this. It seems obvious that the big wigs at Sony care about one thing - making money.

Obviously all studios want to make as much money as possible, but with something like the Dark Knight movies, they clearly wanted to make great films as well.

Despite great performances from Garfield and Stone, these latest films just seem obsessed with re-creating what Marvel have done.

Spider-Man is better than that.

I think the main thing that has hurt the new Spider-Man movies is that they're okay, but far from great.

I know they won't, but they need to ignore what Marvel are doing and just focus entirely on themselves. At the end of the day, Spider-Man is Marvel's best character; if they make great great Spidey movies, it'll make a bucketload of cash (if that's all they're interested in).

it could just be that we all just no longer want Sony owning the franchize star of Marvel...its actually quite dissapointing to even see that Marvel isnt willing to fight for the flagship of its imprint....that maybe could explain the sales going down

When smaller films struggle to make that money its a success, yet $83 million opening weekend is fantastic for a film. It's all greed. Not every superhero film ever made is going to get $1billion Dark Knight money or $1billion Avengers money. This was not needed, in fact its saturation to be honest. Spider-man is not offering an alternative, its just copying marvel. if you are going to copy, you better do it better than them! I never really related to the character anyway but always gave the films a go. I love the old two, not a fan of three, not a fan of one, rather enjoyed this film so its disappointing that its not loved but not surprised either. oh well carry on and try do something fun with the character.

The reason Marvel works as a cinematic universe much better than Spider-Man is because you have a plethora of characters to choose from, rather than Spider-Man, his many villains, and a dozen or so side characters, several of which die just knowing Peter's secret. You can't really change the formula much for a Spider-Man film, all you can do is introduce new villains for him to fight.

At Marvel, if you want a fantasy film filled with magic, you can make Thor or Doctor Strange. If you want an espionage/thriller film, you can team up Captain America with Black Widow. If you want a heist movie, you can bring in Ant-Man. If you want an outer-space adventure, bring in the Guardians of the Galaxy. Their giant roster of heroes works to their advantage, so they can make multiple movies (all tied together), but it doesn't become stagnant because they can not only change the genre, but have heroes appear in each others' films, so you never know when Bruce Banner or Nick Fury will make an appearance.

Having a Venom film could work on its own (he's a darker version of Spider-Man who can face a villain (like Carnage) who's even more evil than he is), but I have no clue how a Sinister Six film will work. You have to include Spider-Man, and once you do, there will be much less sympathy for the team, which you would need if your goal is to have them headline the film.

I'd say that Iron Man 2 (and one could argue Thor, too) had too many cooks in the kitchen as well. Those films had so many things that were solely setting up for the Avengers (mainly setting up SHIELD), that it cost them narratively. But since then they've struck a good balance between tying into other films and maintaining each individual film's story, giving the creative teams the ability to make each film their own.

But hey, if the worst the MCU has to offer is Iron Man 2, we're in good hands.

As much as I would love to go on a rant against your opinion, all it is is an opinion, and us calling one another stupid wouldn't move the argument anywhere because it's entirely subjective. If you liked ASM2 more than the others, good for you, man.

THAT BEING SAID, the majority of critics and audiences ARE disappointed by it. It currently holds 55% on Rotten Tomatoes, the first of the five films to be considered "rotten". Add to that the fact that Marvel's films are introducing tons of characters in multiple genres (Thor was fantasy, Cap 2 was espionage/thriller, Guardians is an outer-space adventure, they've announced Ant-Man will be something of a heist film, etc), Marvel has room to grow out their cinematic universe in ways Spider-Man really doesn't.

Spidey's universe revolves around Spidey, and even producer Avi Arad is against introducing other Spider-Men like Miles Morales or Ben Reilly, further closing the door on different takes of the universe. Say what you will about each individual film, but Sony is on borrowed time with the character, and unless they make films that are universally acclaimed by fans and critics, they can't keep this up like Marvel can.

Ain't that just the cat's me-wow, heh heh, heh heh... Sorry.

Too late & too tired to get into extensive arguement on these points but I really have to say that 45% is not a majority of critics. (Rotten Tomatoes really need to stop confusing people. They should have their tipping point at 50%, not 60%. As it's really misleading folks whose arithmetic isn't the best..)

easy. Bring back Tobey Maguire and combine it with Garfield Spiderman.
Call it the Amazing Spider-men. Fans of both franchises will flock

actually Bay said before the TF4 will be 130 minutes long,,,a full 20 min shorter than 3.

the new spidey also lost the freshness factor. Everytime i watched the trailer in cinema i hear a collective goran from audience--another one!?
whereas Godzilla people seemed baited and curious

Ah, the real start of the MCU was the Ed Norton starring Hulk movie. It introduced the credit minis and the idea that Banner was trying to control the Hulk instead of get rid of him. This first mini introduced both Downey and Jackson as Stark and Fury, but while somewhat enjoyable, the film itself is mostly forgetable and not taken seriously by most. In fact many forge that it was the true first shot in the creation of the larger MCU because Iron Man was such a huge hit and the movies have gotten bigger and more epic in scope.

So it's the same problem DC faces - and they haven't come up with a good solution so far neither.

So Marvel knows how to do these movies right? I'm not going to argue against the all holy Box Office but that Avengers film was all just NOISE. Not once did I feel even slightly invested in the characters or care whether they survived or died. Just add one superhero, then another and another and yet another.

If ASM2 was all about business, why did Sony hire a relatively unknown director (known for a touching human story) to helm the series, not to mention not having a single big name in the cast? Why did they kill off a beloved character? Because it was important for the STORY to be told. I know no one cares about stories any more, but to me they still matter. And I for one, am dying to watch ASM3 and see where the story goes. Iron Man 4? Avengers 2? I really couldn't care less.

Mark my words, years down the line, people will remember ASM2 and feel it was remarkably under-rated.

What people?

Yes yes yes.

You heard right, it was like a classy spy thriller with action thrown in. They seem to have nailed the Steve Rogers character, plus Robert Redford is always good value.

"a franchise that only needed a reworking for business reasons"
You are kidding, right?

The Raimi films had more holes than a swiss cheese. At least the new ones have some semblance to the comics

Also, what's wrong with them not wanting Spiderman 4?
It worked for Batman. It told his story from beginning to end. Nolan proved you don't need 34 films just to get a point across.

the main reason this film didn't perform as well as the money men would have hoped is because it's s**t, hopefully hollywood will now realise that the likes of alex kurtzman (the same incompetent buffoon who wrote star trek into darkness) are a bunch of talentless hacks who have no clue as to how to write a truly engaging and logical screenplay

If you haven't been tempted to watch the new films, it's perhaps the fault of the marketing and not the films themselves. How can you judge the films based on whether you want to watch them or not? Those are totally different things.

I think Comic book films need to start following the comic book story-arc format. Keep the character in the same universe, maybe have an overarching story every now and again but also have one shots - maybe let a lesser known director take the helm of those.

Generally speaking I would agree with you - certainly I made the same argument when people were refusing to see the new Robocop on "idealogical" grounds.

But no amount of "marketing" in the world will get away from the fact that "The Amazing Spiderman" exists only because of a rights issue. That cynical financial taint is all over the first film, still sits there for me when discussing this second film, and is made even worse by the shoehorned-in and unoriginal attempt to create a rival to the MCU despite only having relatively minimal character rights.

I've read reviews and they've cemented the fact that neither of them are a film that are so good that I need to see them. They rehash some of them most unexciting aspects of the first series and do nothing new with them - giving money to a studio that will happily do that seems like a terrible idea to me.

"I've read reviews and they've cemented the fact that neither of them are a film that are so good that I need to see them." You form opinions on the basis of other people's opinions? Argument ends there.

The people who have already shelled a total of $500m to watch the film. And perhaps even you.

Finally got round to seeing this Movie last night. I thought it was really funny and well acted, even if it could have edited better/shorter. I had just as much Fun watching that as I did Cap2.

The Problem I think is general "Super-Hero" overload. Maybe not to readers of this website, but more so the general movie going audiences who don't go the cinema every week but maybe once per month.. Between April-May we will have had Captain America (2), TASM2 and X-MEN: DOFP. To try get the public to go see THREE Marvel (ie all Marvel based films) in such a short space is a bit too much. DOFP is the most expensive Super Hero movie ever made and is currently being advertised on TV on a daily basis with huge budgets.

My guess is Spider-Man 2 simply got squeezed in between the fresh Captain America (2) which had no competition and X-Men with distractions from the well marketed Bad Neighbours and imminent Godzilla epic. In 2015, Sony should re-think their release strategy. But from a Quality, Talent and Entertainment value, The Amazing Spider-Man franchise still has legs (pardon the pun),

Yes. It's called human interaction. And when it comes to deciding what I spend my money and free time on, I'm perfectly entitled to use opinions and reviews to do so.

Of course everyone is entitled to a lack of logic and independent fair judgement when choosing which movie to watch.

How do you recommend deciding what to watch then? Tossing a coin? For someone who started off suggesting I might have watched it if I had been more influenced by the way it was marketed, I'm not quite sure what point you're driving at here?

The reviews, previews, reaction and perhaps more than anything, general context to the film make it sound like an unappealing watch to me. This is all explained in my initial comment.

Which is exactly my initial point. That you are judging the worth of a movie based on whether you felt like watching it or not and on other people's opinions of the movie. No one can judge a movie till they have actually seen it themselves.

Not clear still? I give up.

Dear John?

Well one factor is that the comic book fans want Spidey in the MCU, not in some little Sony sandbox. Comic book fans are mostly patient. Boycott a few substandard movies and wham, Spidey/Hulk fist bump!

The upside of this, should this apparent decline continue, is that Sony might well consider cutting their losses (should they occur) and Marvel/Disney regain the rights to the characters currently held by Sony.

As a die hard sm fan since youth (albeit 22 years) it is mainly from the film appearing as if they are banking on superhero ideas and inflating the numbers of Gillian's for sequels. They changed too much of the origin and started again from the Genesis. Start from the middle, perhaps with leaven and killing him (almost). Sony owns it but does not know sm and true fans will never squander money or support Sony until they get it right

Villians not Gillian

Shut-up man! Don't give them ideas!!


These new Spiderman films. Kill them. With fire.

Do you think there is any possibility that although the box office was healthy (ish) there might be a knock on effect where the punters are not buying the Spiderman toys et al and that might be where the trouble lies as well.

Why don't Sony just cut their losses: offer Marvel a deal where Marvel will handle the entire production of all future spidey films but Sony retain a share of profits for the forseeable. Therefore they have a better chance of making more money over a longer period rather than trying and failing to keep it going themselves. MAKES SENSE SONY.

I have to say whilst the geek audience isn't the entire audience, just seeing how often someone will post about GIVE RIGHTS TO MARVEL has probably had a telling impact. I for one will see it on Netflix or wait for a non-geek mate to get it on Blu Ray, thought that decision isn't a hard and fast moral one in my case, it is a factor.

I felt really hopeful for this sequel with the first trailers, but the early word pushed me back into the territory of feeling it is more important not to support a film financially that I'd actually prefer to go to a Studio I can trust more. It's not because I am a Marvel Fanboy - I just want a Spidey film that is the very best it can be, without all the cynical boardroom elements taking over. If this was an A+ Spidey then I'd be happy whether it's Sony or Marvel. That being said i ultimately want Spidey in the Marvel universe and in the Avengers. The Nick Fury/Spidey scenes in Ultimate Spidey were great.

I think you'll find your opinion is a subjective one and not universal. i know you THINK you're correct, but then so does everyone else. I don't really care if this is 'more accurate' Spidey (The parent/origin business hahahhaha NO) The first two Raimi were just better FILMS and the third one was screwed up by producer Avi Arad chasing his venom boner, entirely against Raimi's own judgement . Unsurprisingly it's Arad behind this substandard reboot.

Do you remember that huge financial success called The Phantom Menace?

When will folks know the difference between subjective/objective facts, WHEN WHEN WHEN?

Sure why not

you mean the macguffin device that is building towards the infinity gauntlet right?

and if you re-watch Daredevil I really really doubt Affleck will be able to stand up to Bale... or Keaton (he will be better than Kilmer or Clooney thou) I would be a whole lot happier if he was directing.

Are you a writer by any chance?

They shouldn't have rebooted the franchise, but continued on with a different actor. Film companies seem to reboot stuff too early. I even thought the christopher nolan batman reboot was too soon after the tim burton films and now we have a new affleck batman too soon in the man of steel sequel. Jesus. I'm planning on doing a saphire and steel movie, then 6 months later I'm going to reboot it with the wayon brothers (one in drag). Eff you. The film companies should join forces amd have spidey join the avengers. Then everybody wins. I think the CO's of the film companies need to be rebooted, tired old men with short attention spans, dollar sign's in their eyes and sticks up their arses. Fantastic 4 reboot? I'd sooner eat a strange tramps toenail clippings on a bunion based bread mixed sandwich with puss sauce.

I want a Captain Britain movie to tie into the avengers next phase. Antman I dont care about, doctor strange? Dont care! A kick arse english bloke with a big stick would sort em out. He'd not be impressed with Stark or Rodgers. However I reckon he'd have a pint with Banner and get mullered on pints of mead or whatever was available with Thor and then piss in a doorway on the way home. He's lost his keys and then sleeps behind the shed till sunrise.He'll Probably then sign on then save the world. It's not an accurate representation of the British Cap. Amused me though.

I don't want to bet against Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci, they both worked for Xena/Hercules when I was a kid and I loved those shows. They both created "Sleepy Hollow" and I like that show. They created Fringe and THAT show was also very good.

But still; EVERY TIME I see their names at the beginning of a movie these days I feel my heart sinking. They're just not good at writing movies. Unfortunately they ARE good at writing movies that make lots of money (Transformers, Star Trek Into Darkness, Amazing Spiderman)

They write the most soulless movies I've ever seen, every single time, and I really hope that they fail soon. I hope that people start catching on, avoiding their movies and they are forced to move back to TV shows since that appears to be the ONLY place they have a bit of talent in.

That would be an odd deal to negotiate. Licencing their own property back to them when it expires naturally within 5-10 years and is probably under penalty of forfeiture if it's not in use!

I've had it with franchises like this. If I want to watch a continuing saga I watch television. While I might go to one Spiderman movie I won't go to a second. I prefer originality in movies and a never ending string of sequels and cross-overs just doesn't cut it.

Clearly we're all in agreement that it was rebooted too soon. My preference would have been for an off the wall one shot movie in between the Raimi set and a reboot. Spiderman: Reign would have been perfect as a pallete cleanser. Perhaps with William H Macy as Peter Parker.

I thought it only expired if it's not used, which is why I suggest Sony effectively employing marvel to produce and make the films but with profit coming to Sony as a deal so Sony have an incentive to actually let Marvel take creative control back without Sony having to be assholes and keep pumping out substandard films just to retain the rights. Ergo it IS still in use but Marvel get the creative gig. otherwise Sony can keep this up forever.

If it comes to another reboot, I'll avoid it.

Spider-Man two was not a good movie.

Indeed. I couldn't really care less for a Sinister 6 film. I'm genuinely not fussed about Venom being anything other than a supporting villain either. Does anyone really believe that Sony have the nous to give these stories the levels of pathos needed elevate them to any great standard of story telling ..... or will it just be ADHD marketing, a quick buck made from the kids?

I said " some semblance ", not more accurate.
Thing is, it doesn't matter if they were good films or not, they were out of date. If it had been released in the 70's, sure, it makes sense. You would have your bumbling office dork (akin to Reeves Superman), who spills the coffee and is late to everything... but Parker has moved on since then. In a big way. More likely to use an iphone than a notebook. He prob takes the photo's he gives to the Bugle on his phone... not a bulky reporter lens.
Raimi's Parker is bordering 'special'.

You have him turning up to the only non-scripted wrestling event ever, without even a medical? Don't even have the slingers! What next? Gwen Stacy being a dumb bimbo? one would stoop that low would they?
Oh, they did.

It is as bad as Burton's Batman - suuuuuure, they sold some movies. Suuuuuure, they were 'good films'. But they were as accurate to the comics as 300: Rise of a Fail is to history.

Sure, the movies cant always get it 100% right. But at least keep it somewhere near the modern canon, and not some comic read in the 70's as a child.

Agreed. All that'll happen is that Sony will make worse and worse Spider-Man movies, even if they get a 20-30% rating on Rotten Tomatoes they'll just wave around the movie in China or Japan and make sure that the international box office lets them continue on with their franchise zombie.

"Out of date". My god, what a F**cking stupid value system to apply to entertainment and art. I detect an autistic spectrum in your words. Don't worry fella, you'll never understand the romance of narrative or poetic storytelling, it's just the way you're wired. I'm not. You are the 'other' 50% of geeks and that's a divide I'll never cross.We will literally have no reason to debate on this further - we may as well speak different languages. Like Neighbours who remain civil but ultimately would prefer that the other doesn't ask to borrow the lawnmower.

I agree, why are they getting every goddamn gig?

On the other hand, I am 23 and I like having a young Peter Parker because most of the superhero movies we get have older characters, and I think that Andrew Garfield's young Spidey adds a bit of variety to the early 30s protagonists of the other franchises.
Then again, I have always liked the pedestrian aspect of Spider-man. I liked that he had to work for a living, and that we got to see him struggling with family issues. I enjoy the tiny moments in the new films when he struggles with washing his clothes, coming home late and getting a job.
I think that TAS 1 and 2 have their faults, but I liked them quite a lot because they do have everything I like about Spider-man. The previous trilogy may have had better quality, but it didn't feel 100% Spider-man/Peter Parker to me...

I'd be heart broken, if only because I agree with you. I think that they have it RIGHT THERE, but somehow they miss the diana.

It's so boring, why are these films exactly like the last ones, heck at least amazing Spider-Man had a new villain, this felt like the plot to Spider-Man 3 like I was going through the motions.

Where's Spider-Man and wolverines snappy dialogue from the comics,

Or Spider-Man and Shulk, or Spider-Man and Deadpool, or Spider-Man and Captain Marvel, or Spider-Man and dare devil, or Spider-Man and Luke cage... These films won't work without Spider-Man's amazing friends, he isn't boring in the comics, but that's more because he is never alone...

At Sony I feel like Spider-Man is forever alone, it makes me :(, I can see him sat up there on the Empire State Building, head in his lap crying... He has nobody... Make a deal Sony, buy some more characters, or trade, or release him from his solitude... Do something, don't just give us, doctor octopus again, and venom again, and sand man again, and generic villain that reminds me of the other villains again...

Fox are lucky they own so many heros and villains, they can reboot and reshuffle, it feels like wolverine has a huge playground. That's why the Wolverine franchise is soon to be on its seventh film and Spider-Man's only on his forth I guess...

Somebody needs to start a 'We want Spider-Man in Avengers 3' campaign.... I was extremely disappointed by The Amazing Spider-Man 2. Yes, it was better than the first one, but there were soooo many problems with it; they had too many sub plots, arguably too many villains and the ending was just ridiculous. You cannot end a super hero film with that sort of shot. On the plus side, a couple of the action sequences were really well shot, there were some good jokes and most if not all of the acting is very good indeed.

I think people stayed away away because they rebooted the franchise again. I had no desire to see another Spiderman origin story. I liked the first one.

It amazes me that producers want to spin off sinister 6 movie and the worst aspect of ASM2 were the villians. They were so one dimensional and lame that I cannot believe they think that will work out. I see a train wreck coming.

"you'll never understand the romance of narrative or poetic storytelling"
I do. And the romance in Raimi's Spiderfail was lame. Tobey came across more Rainman than realistic. But this is nothing to do with the romance, it's all to do with how they portray Spiderman and his world.
You obviously prefer the more comical side, with JJ on his meds, and Aunt May hanging with her walking stick. Like in the old 70's comics.
I prefer a darker interpretation.

ASM2 was so bad , but the first one was to. sony needs to give this franchise time to rest.

Sony had to make these Spidey movies in order the keep the rights from Marvel. But it actually backfired on them, because they are losing money. People still remember the Tobey version of Spidey. Do the right thing, Give the rights back to Marvel. We want Secret Wars movie.

Sony is watering down a drink people are ordering out of habit, and the orders are starting to drop off. The customer is noticing. Sinister Six? Seriously? Yawn.
At this rate Spidey will be in Avengers 3.

Andrew Garfield is 31 years old

Yes, I know, but he looks younger and his Peter Parker is clearly having 20s issues: studying, deciding what to do next, having to deal with your couple because of a grant abroad, having shitty underpaid jobs that you can't refuse, trying to have your space at your parents' place (although I don't have to hide superhero clothes, YET)...
I don't know how it works in UK or USA, but as a Spanish person in her 20s, I feel more than identified with what I see going on in the screen.

Sony doesn't have the freedom to wait a few years before making a quality Spider-Man. Disney and Marvel would take the rights back from them. So this studio is forced to produced poorly produced claptrap like the last two Spider-Man movies. Maybe Disney needs to make Sony an offer they can't refuse. Otherwise, Sony will learn the hard way that audiences don't want to see their version of Peter Parker and his host of silly villains.

This deal would never happen. Disney owns Marvel and Disney would release the Spider-Man movies, thereby pushing Sony out of any kind of profit opportunities.Disney, like they did with Paramount, would 'pay off Sony' for those rights. But Sony will not be paid off, so the deal won't happen. And while I am not one who believes that only Marvel can make a good movie out of their comic book characters, I do believe that it takes time, sometimes years, to come up with something of quality (Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2 from Sam Raimi, Superman the Movie, The Dark Knight Trilogy, The Captain America films). Sony, at this moment, is being run by the 'suits', demanding a Spider-Man every year or two because they know Disney will come calling if there isn't a Spider-Man always in the pipeline. Because Sony doesn't own the property like Marvel owns their properties (and DC owns their properties like Supes and Batman), the producers are forced by the suits to bring out junk. Perhaps this was why Sam Raimi eventually abandoned the series of movies (and we may have seen the beginnings of his frustrations with Spider-Man 3). To the studio, it's all about making money. To the artist, it's about making a good movie. But artists can be replaced, and will be. Spider-Man needs a tune-up, but the only way to do that is to retire him for a few years. That would mean Disney would get him, and Sony will not allow that. Too bad. I like Spider-Man.

The reboot was based SOLELY on Sony's DESPERATION and willingness to sell their collective souls just to keep the character. With Batman, There was an 8 year gap and it made more money than the last film. Tasm made less money than it's "horrible" predecessor, Fantastic Four is an example of Fox doing the same as Sony, And Green Lantern is PURE speculation at this point. Tasm2 is a critical and a box office flop when you take the other 4 films into account and for comparative purposes, You have too. This isn't about comparing Tasm2's success to other hero movies. Its about comparing it to films in the franchise, Which have ALL done better.

The older and better series (Raimi's) should never been rebooted.
They should have continue with Spider-Man 4 & 5 and expanding the universe with that series instead of retelling an origin story that was far more inferior than the original.
Sony really dropped the ball on that one and they could have made so much more money with having Spider-Man 4 on board and fixing the problems that Spider-Man 3 had.

As a Spidey fan I've enjoyed the new Spider-Man films because they've the central character and relationships are much better executed than in Raimi's films. However Sony do need to make more measured films and work on their marketing; there was far, far too much of the latter and it emphasised the main issue everyone was worried about with too many villains and too flashy; in the end I didn't feel it was overburdened in that department.

They should really take a look at their own animated series 'The Spectacular Spider-Man' as a way to better pace character development and introduction.

I hate the Raimi movies, I think they're completely overrated crap but the POS new movies make them look like The Godfather Part 2.

Sell it back to Marvel!

We do have a darker interpretation of Spider Man. It's called "One More Day".

TASM movie is quite accurate to the Peter of that comic.

I have to say that this iteration of Spiderman just doesn't feel right, Andrew Garfield is not the right person to play Peter, his mannerisms are on occasion annoying, there are times when a it just clicks, e.g. RDJ/Iron Man, Chris Hemsworth/Thor, Ruffalo/Hulk, to me, Garfield feels like Jeremy Renner/Hawkeye, a passable character but the actor does nothing to make the character stand out.
The director doesn't seem to have a handle on Spidey, the humour and wisecracks almost seemed forced and unnatural, I don't want to hark back to the previous Spidey, but in this case you have to salute Raimi/Maguire, the feel of Spidey was spot on, in the reboot, the charisma and charm of Spiderman is lost.
In the reboot original, Spidey didn't seem spectacular, Garfield swinging around in a warehouse on chains did not make me feel I was watching the beginnings of a superhero, it was just a kid swinging on a chain, nothing more, was he looking to be the next Tarzan or Spiderman? It was boring and unimaginative.
And in this one, what's with making Jamie Foxx look like Dwayne Dibley - Duke of Dork? It was an awful Electro, nice effects, but really washy acting and script, I never felt any threat from him, you just knew Spiderman would beat him or you just didn't care.
Rhino was the most laughable aspect, a fat bloke in a mechanised suit that looked like it was built in a chop shop, quite probably the most ridiculous thing I have seen in a movie since Toho unleashed their version of King Kong on us!
The only one to come out of this shambles with anything like a plausible acting experience is Emma Stone, she did Gwen very well and was really the only one I could honestly say worked.
Spiderman is failing because it doesn't feel like Spiderman, it's just not right, and Sony can carry on making movies, but until they identify where they are going wrong, I can only see it becoming worse, best bet, let Marvel take the reins, they know the character intimately, either that, or bring Sam Raimi back as a consultant.
At the end of the day, Spiderman needs to have the same charisma and wit as Tony Stark, he needs to be more spectacular, we need to feel like he is coming to our rescue and the people cheer him, in Spidey 1 and 2 (Raimi's), you cheered him on in your heart, it gave you a rush when spidey saved the day when all seemed lost, that feeling has gone from the franchise.

Sponsored Links