The Amazing Spider-Man Raimi: "I have total creative control for Spider-Man 4"

[SpaceWay2009]

^Maybe the article you read was an old one? Raimi is going to direct SM4.

 

[Spider-Fan]

I remember many interviews way back he was unsure he was coming back, so that probably came from something old.

 

[E-Man]

This is good and bad.

Good because he will tell a story that he is comfortable with and will have a passion for. That is good, because it was obvious that he didn't give a damn about the Stacey's in this film, because he didn't feel that they belonged. Partially so with Brock, though he was slightly more important.

Bad, because he was the one who made Flint Marko the killer of Uncle Ben. He also wouldn't let Peter go fully dark when he was in the black suit. Spider-man: The Animated Series and Spectacular Spider-man did a darker depiction of the black suited Spider-man/Symbiote Peter than a PG-13 film was able to deliver....that's not right.

Kids could have accepted a dark Peter and we really could have seen the city grow to hate him, see his family/friends question why he's wearing the suit. This would have made the moment when he went back to wear the red suite in the 3rd act that much more epic....and it would have been more redeeming. Instead, the kids saw a guy that likes to dance get angry a few times.....and eat cookies. This was Rami's creative control, too.

Then again, he didn't fully understand the whole symbiote suit thing anyway....

If he makes it like Spider-man and Spider-man 2, I think we'll be fine.

-R

Co-sign. I have faith in Raimi, but I hope he's learned from his mistakes.

 

[Doctor Jones]

I think he will. I think since Sandman was a villain he and Maguire wanted to use he just wanted him there. And I'm glad we got to see him on film, I know love the guy, at first when I heard he was the villain I was very surprised someone so low brow as him would make it into a third film.

But i think Sandman could of accidently hurt Aunt May or MJ and that's what would prompt Spidey to go after him, but still keep Sabdman's storyline form the film about his family, I thought that was great.

Such a missed oppurtunity he was. If he was the main villain only, he would of been incredible. Too bad Raimi didn't egt his way.

 

[Chris Wallace]

Link: http://blogs.coventrytelegraph.net/thegeekfiles/2009/03/raimi-i-will-have-total-creati.html

Yes! Avi Arad can keep his nose out of this one.

 

[SpaceWay2009]

^Nice picture/animation! Where did you get it?

 

[Spidey Snooch]

You know, I love the job Raimi did with Spidey 1 and 2. I even enjoyed 3 for sheer entertainment value, but he CANNOT blame SM3's shortcomings on studio interference. At the end of the day, he and his doctor brother wrote a lazily-convenient, overstuffed script with more weak threads than an irregular sweater and more holes than swiss cheese. For God's sake, they introduced a freaking ASTRONAUT in the previous movie and they can't think of anything better than "symbiote lands, attaches itself to Peter's scooter"!? They only creative mistake the studio may have made was pushing Sam too hard. 3 epic movies in 5 years? I'm glad he got a vacation, hired a writer, and admitted the mistakes of the 3rd. If 4 can be half as good as 2, it will be gold. That is all...

 

[Doctor Jones]

I think even with the best writers in the world, SM3 with that much stuff still wouldn't of worked. I mean, how can you balance all those things.

I bet the original outline or script was damn stronger. God, I would love to read it, even if it was an outline.

 

[Infinity9999x]

I think even with the best writers in the world, SM3 with that much stuff still wouldn't of worked. I mean, how can you balance all those things.

I bet the original outline or script was damn stronger. God, I would love to read it, even if it was an outline.

I agree, with all the material crammed into SM3, it was in trouble. However, Raimi still holds quite a bit of that blame from me. For one reason,

He should have realized that, and planned accordingly.

The studio said he had to have Venom. Raimi didn't like that, but that's the way it works, and he had to accommodate. What he should have done however, was look at the script and realize, "Uh oh, there's too many players in the ball park here."

Now, he knew he had to finish up the Goblin arc, and he knew he had to have Venom...so, what he should have done, was cut Sandman, and used the extra screen time to make Venom a more developed character.

Now yes, I know Raimi doesn't like Venom, but I don't think that's a good excuse at all. You don't like him? Fine, you should have done something to make him more interesting! But instead, Raimi introduced a third villian that didn't need to be there, and tacked on a backstory to that villian that never had anything like that to begin with. It left me scratching my head, and wondering "why don't you do that to Venom?" Don't sit there and complain about how he's uniteresting and then give him the bare bones treatment! Do something about it!

Instead, Raimi just trugged ahead and shoved in the characters he still wanted, which in turn hurt the movie. He should have swallowed his pride and tried to do what was best for the movie itself.

 

[FaT_tONle]

You know, I love the job Raimi did with Spidey 1 and 2. I even enjoyed 3 for sheer entertainment value, but he CANNOT blame SM3's shortcomings on studio interference. At the end of the day, he and his doctor brother wrote a lazily-convenient, overstuffed script with more weak threads than an irregular sweater and more holes than swiss cheese. For God's sake, they introduced a freaking ASTRONAUT in the previous movie and they can't think of anything better than "symbiote lands, attaches itself to Peter's scooter"!? They only creative mistake the studio may have made was pushing Sam too hard. 3 epic movies in 5 years? I'm glad he got a vacation, hired a writer, and admitted the mistakes of the 3rd. If 4 can be half as good as 2, it will be gold. That is all...

Yup... Raimi is trying to give himself a pass with those comments... sorry Sam but that's for the fans and audience to decide and not you...

 

[Adrian89]

I agree, with all the material crammed into SM3, it was in trouble. However, Raimi still holds quite a bit of that blame from me. For one reason,

He should have realized that, and planned accordingly.

The studio said he had to have Venom. Raimi didn't like that, but that's the way it works, and he had to accommodate. What he should have done however, was look at the script and realize, "Uh oh, there's too many players in the ball park here."

Now, he knew he had to finish up the Goblin arc, and he knew he had to have Venom...so, what he should have done, was cut Sandman, and used the extra screen time to make Venom a more developed character.

Now yes, I know Raimi doesn't like Venom, but I don't think that's a good excuse at all. You don't like him? Fine, you should have done something to make him more interesting! But instead, Raimi introduced a third villian that didn't need to be there, and tacked on a backstory to that villian that never had anything like that to begin with. It left me scratching my head, and wondering "why don't you do that to Venom?" Don't sit there and complain about how he's uniteresting and then give him the bare bones treatment! Do something about it!

Instead, Raimi just trugged ahead and shoved in the characters he still wanted, which in turn hurt the movie. He should have swallowed his pride and tried to do what was best for the movie itself.

Absolutely right! I agree and I also agree with your older post (in your sig) about Raimi's vision on Peter Parker. It's a shame that Peter was still acting like a n00b, even after high school. Raimi didn't really show any evolution in his character during these movies (all 3 of them). And I doubt anything will change regarding his character with the 4th Movie, which is a shame.

 

[Casius--J]

I agree, with all the material crammed into SM3, it was in trouble. However, Raimi still holds quite a bit of that blame from me. For one reason,

He should have realized that, and planned accordingly.

The studio said he had to have Venom. Raimi didn't like that, but that's the way it works, and he had to accommodate. What he should have done however, was look at the script and realize, "Uh oh, there's too many players in the ball park here."

Now, he knew he had to finish up the Goblin arc, and he knew he had to have Venom...so, what he should have done, was cut Sandman, and used the extra screen time to make Venom a more developed character.

Now yes, I know Raimi doesn't like Venom, but I don't think that's a good excuse at all. You don't like him? Fine, you should have done something to make him more interesting! But instead, Raimi introduced a third villian that didn't need to be there, and tacked on a backstory to that villian that never had anything like that to begin with. It left me scratching my head, and wondering "why don't you do that to Venom?" Don't sit there and complain about how he's uniteresting and then give him the bare bones treatment! Do something about it!

Instead, Raimi just trugged ahead and shoved in the characters he still wanted, which in turn hurt the movie. He should have swallowed his pride and tried to do what was best for the movie itself.

Yeah I agree with this, when I first watched the movie I thought they shouldn't have included venom but since learning it was the studios that insisted him I feel that Sandman should've been the one to go! Even with his tacked on backstory I still didnt think he was an interesting villain, for me he was just THERE.

 

[SpaceWay2009]

I agree, with all the material crammed into SM3, it was in trouble. However, Raimi still holds quite a bit of that blame from me. For one reason,

He should have realized that, and planned accordingly.

The studio said he had to have Venom. Raimi didn't like that, but that's the way it works, and he had to accommodate. What he should have done however, was look at the script and realize, "Uh oh, there's too many players in the ball park here."

Now, he knew he had to finish up the Goblin arc, and he knew he had to have Venom...so, what he should have done, was cut Sandman, and used the extra screen time to make Venom a more developed character.

Now yes, I know Raimi doesn't like Venom, but I don't think that's a good excuse at all. You don't like him? Fine, you should have done something to make him more interesting! But instead, Raimi introduced a third villian that didn't need to be there, and tacked on a backstory to that villian that never had anything like that to begin with. It left me scratching my head, and wondering "why don't you do that to Venom?" Don't sit there and complain about how he's uniteresting and then give him the bare bones treatment! Do something about it!

Instead, Raimi just trugged ahead and shoved in the characters he still wanted, which in turn hurt the movie. He should have swallowed his pride and tried to do what was best for the movie itself.

I agree!

 

[Chris Wallace]

^Nice picture/animation! Where did you get it?

Found it on photobucket.

 

[dark_b]

i still think that if raimi would say '' NO VENOM'' they wouldnt push him. he himself said that they are friends with AVI ARAD and he listened to him.

 

[bryanss3]

I agree, with all the material crammed into SM3, it was in trouble. However, Raimi still holds quite a bit of that blame from me. For one reason,

He should have realized that, and planned accordingly.

The studio said he had to have Venom. Raimi didn't like that, but that's the way it works, and he had to accommodate. What he should have done however, was look at the script and realize, "Uh oh, there's too many players in the ball park here."

Now, he knew he had to finish up the Goblin arc, and he knew he had to have Venom...so, what he should have done, was cut Sandman, and used the extra screen time to make Venom a more developed character.

Now yes, I know Raimi doesn't like Venom, but I don't think that's a good excuse at all. You don't like him? Fine, you should have done something to make him more interesting! But instead, Raimi introduced a third villian that didn't need to be there, and tacked on a backstory to that villian that never had anything like that to begin with. It left me scratching my head, and wondering "why don't you do that to Venom?" Don't sit there and complain about how he's uniteresting and then give him the bare bones treatment! Do something about it!

Instead, Raimi just trugged ahead and shoved in the characters he still wanted, which in turn hurt the movie. He should have swallowed his pride and tried to do what was best for the movie itself.

I agree with that, but I think what they should have done was develop Eddie Brock's character better and after Brock becomes Venom use it as a lead in to SM4 instead of killing him off 15 minutes later. If did that maybe they could have had a better Story for Sandman, less dancing, and made Gwen and Captain Stacy actually feel like they are in the movie for a reason other than the fact that their from the comics.

 

[Doctor Jones]

Edit.

 

[Doctor Jones]

I agree, with all the material crammed into SM3, it was in trouble. However, Raimi still holds quite a bit of that blame from me. For one reason,

He should have realized that, and planned accordingly.

The studio said he had to have Venom. Raimi didn't like that, but that's the way it works, and he had to accommodate. What he should have done however, was look at the script and realize, "Uh oh, there's too many players in the ball park here."

Now, he knew he had to finish up the Goblin arc, and he knew he had to have Venom...so, what he should have done, was cut Sandman, and used the extra screen time to make Venom a more developed character.

Now yes, I know Raimi doesn't like Venom, but I don't think that's a good excuse at all. You don't like him? Fine, you should have done something to make him more interesting! But instead, Raimi introduced a third villian that didn't need to be there, and tacked on a backstory to that villian that never had anything like that to begin with. It left me scratching my head, and wondering "why don't you do that to Venom?" Don't sit there and complain about how he's uniteresting and then give him the bare bones treatment! Do something about it!

Instead, Raimi just trugged ahead and shoved in the characters he still wanted, which in turn hurt the movie. He should have swallowed his pride and tried to do what was best for the movie itself.

I think he did realize it, that's why he wasn't as committed. He still wanted the villain he wanted, I mean in terms of comittment, he was interested in the Peter/Sandman forgiveness story from the beginning, and removing that wouldn't make him as committed. So I think he had to accomodate some. It's not that simple saying, "Okay, that's too much, let's change it." Especially to producers who are your boss, I mean, Raimi probably did realize it, but that wasn't apart of what he wanted. I know Sam is classy enough not to name names, but if a producer has his/her say over something, then there it is, which baffles me all of a sudden the producers are barking requests to Raimi while the other two films went smoothly. He knew this, he knew there were too many characters, if he realizes that, does that make him a bad director? He really didn't have a choice from what it seems. I just give him credit for including a villain that he disliked and put him in for us.

I mean think about it, if Avi and Laura said, "Put Gwen or Venom in." How do you of think what would of happened if Sam said "No?" You can argue that Sam needed to just straight up say no, but you need to put yourself in the position of him. What would you of done? SM3 doesn't make him a bad director, and all of a sudden people want him out becaus of, I do agree that he needs ot make some changes (ie, the capture of MJ all the time) but he still made SM1 and SM2, and among that other great films.

 

[Jick]

i still think that if raimi would say '' NO VENOM'' they wouldnt push him. he himself said that they are friends with AVI ARAD and he listened to him.

Of course no. They wouldn't risk losing or firing a director who brought them more than 1.5 billion dollars within 3 years. If he was more strong willed, he'd have refused if he knew he wouldn't do a good job.

 

[LightningFlash]

I think even with the best writers in the world, SM3 with that much stuff still wouldn't of worked. I mean, how can you balance all those things.

I bet the original outline or script was damn stronger. God, I would love to read it, even if it was an outline.

That, I can't agree on.

The novelization, the ENTIRE thing, would've been glorious to watch on screen. It spread out the characters perfectly and neatly.

 

[Jick]

I don't. I can see all that stuff working out easily.
First, you have Spidey getting the symbiote and facing Sandman and Harry within the first 30 min, instead of showing Spidey only after 30 min, like what happened.
Second, you take all the romantic cr@p for an already established love out of the movie, along with Peter dancing in the jazz club and Harry and MJ cooking, and you'll have plenty of time to develop the villains and do more important things, such as showing Peter's dark side, how he changed, the damaged he've done and his redemption.

 

[Doctor Jones]

That, I can't agree on.

The novelization, the ENTIRE thing, would've been glorious to watch on screen. It spread out the characters perfectly and neatly.

That is a novel. A novel is able to have pages and pages to draw from, the author has free reign to expand on whatever he wants. Plus, if you do a complete copy of the script in the book form, it's like not even 200 pages. Hell, look at the Potter books, why the hell do you think they cut all that out? If they did it like the novel it would be damn long. Could it make it better? Sure, but it's a novel a movie's job is to tell a story in a compressed amount of time, not be a live book. You people aren't thinking realistically, it's just wants for a better film which is not gonna change, only where I can see an extended edition, but like that, it would be too long. Longer isn't always better. Hell, I think the extended edition if released could improve on the film alot, but you people are asking for too much from it.

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

^^ I second that.

 

[DACrowe]

I will say I don't think Sam ever lost sight of Peter Parker as a character or his development (and I think it is a bit silly to say he hasn't grown in the movies, even if he still acts like a geek). I personally hope he starts acting more confident in the next one as Sam said he wants to try something different and the end of SM3 implied Peter and MJ have finally grown up and are going to try a mature relationship for a change.

With that said SM3 is a very flawed film that is quite understandable to hate (I think it is actually a somewhat mediocre film that is highly entertaining and with more humanity than most summer blockbusters that came out summer 2007), but the dwell on who to blame is moot at right this point. I do think Raimi will learn from his mistakes and he likely will try to make SM4 a more streamlined, intelligent and hopefully mature film.

 

[Infinity9999x]

I think he did realize it, that's why he wasn't as committed. He still wanted the villain he wanted, I mean in terms of comittment, he was interested in the Peter/Sandman forgiveness story from the beginning, and removing that wouldn't make him as committed. So I think he had to accomodate some. It's not that simple saying, "Okay, that's too much, let's change it." Especially to producers who are your boss, I mean, Raimi probably did realize it, but that wasn't apart of what he wanted. I know Sam is classy enough not to name names, but if a producer has his/her say over something, then there it is, which baffles me all of a sudden the producers are barking requests to Raimi while the other two films went smoothly. He knew this, he knew there were too many characters, if he realizes that, does that make him a bad director? He really didn't have a choice from what it seems. I just give him credit for including a villain that he disliked and put him in for us.

I mean think about it, if Avi and Laura said, "Put Gwen or Venom in." How do you of think what would of happened if Sam said "No?" You can argue that Sam needed to just straight up say no, but you need to put yourself in the position of him. What would you of done? SM3 doesn't make him a bad director, and all of a sudden people want him out becaus of, I do agree that he needs ot make some changes (ie, the capture of MJ all the time) but he still made SM1 and SM2, and among that other great films.

I never said he was a bad director. I liked SM1 quite a bit. I've never really liked SM2, but I realize that, when you look at it purely as a film, it's very good. I personally have thought that Raimi isn't the right guy for Spider-man since SM2, as you can see from the post in my sig, but that's another topic.

Now, I can understand that Raimi was interested in a forgiveness story, but sometimes you have to make sacrifices. The forgiveness arc with Sandman was bad, because we barely saw the character, and the way it played out was weak. If he really cared about giving us that story, and wanted to do it well, he should have done one of two things.
1.) Cut Sandman and incorporated the forgiveness story into Venom's character.

2.) Cut sandman, created a better backstory for Venom, and saved the Sandman/forgiveness arc for another "possible" film if he comes back.

If he really cared about this theme and wanted to present it to us, he shouldn't have forced it in, because it hurt the idea. The story came off rushed, because it was. I know that, creatively, if I were in his position, I would have rather not done it at all, and saved it on the off chance that I might direct again, then force it into a movie when I know the best I could get out of it was a half finished product.

And really, he could have easily incorporated Sandman's story into Venom, and made Venom a more interesting character. Make Venom a divored dad with a sick daughter who works at the Bugle. You could have him be on okay terms with Peter, kind of friendly, but have Brock still be a bit of a jerk, so not too many people are fond of it. Brock's down on money because of gambling deubts, and he can't get his daughter hospital treatment because of it. He doctors some photos of Spidey to get some money, Pete (under the influence of the black suit) finds out and has him fired.

Brock's daughter ends up getting worse and Brock gets beat to a pulp by his deubt collectors. Then Brock gets the symbiote and becomes Venom. At the end with the climatic battle, you could have the original Sandman ending where the wife goes up with her kid and get's Brock to stop. Heck, if you want to push the emotional buttons even farther, you could have Brock sacrifice himself because he knows he can't beat the symbiote.

Right there you get the forgiveness theme, make Brock a more interesting character, and don't have to change established history in comics to do it.

Going back to the original topic though, all I was saying is that, yes, while Arad shares some of the blame for SM3, Raimi definitely has it on his head too.