The Amazing Spider-Man Is anyone else mad at sony?!

[OP84CC82]

Disney's CEO is there CEO now

Disney's CEO is Disney's CEO. Marvel Studios may be owned by Disney, but since Disney themselves have more films to put out, they can't always look over the Marvel slate, so obviously, Marvel needs a CEO.

 

[cronosred]

Sony and Webb delivered a solid film and as long as they can deliver equally solid sequels I think it's in the right hands. Looking back at Marvel Studios past films I honestly don't think they would have done any better than what Sony did with The Amazing Spider-Man or Fox did with X-Men First Class.

 

[AbsractPo3tic]

Disney's CEO is Disney's CEO. Marvel Studios may be owned by Disney, but since Disney themselves have more films to put out, they can't always look over the Marvel slate, so obviously, Marvel needs a CEO.

They don't have one though man. I've checked lol..I've read everything. Feige is the guy in charge of the studio. Marvel Entertainment though, which is the umbrella the studio is under, does have a CEO and that would be this guy:

Isaac Perlmutter

 

[Picard Sisko]

IDK if they could have made a more solid origin film than SM1 to be honest, but w.e. Let's just see where the sequels go. Still, something just feels so wrong and I can't put my finger on it.

 

[Micromind]

Scenes are cut in every big budget movie, this is nothing new directors sometimes shoot many redundant scenes too so that they can make the final judgement on which shot fits better, for example Peter writing equation on Blackboard and in the movie he writes it on a paper, similarly in the movie Superman Returns Clark Kent reading the article buy Lois "Why the world doesn't need Superman" in his Home in Smallville but in the movie he reads that on the Lois Lanes's desk.


Also. Studio execs demand that the run time be shortened to accommodate as many shows as they can in a day, so many parts are cut, this practice is done by Every Studio, I am sure that even Avengers movie must be having ,many scenes cut form the final theatrical version even though Joss Whedon had shot them.

You have to remember that Sony wants to make money too, otherwise we would get in a situation like Ang Lee's Hulk (I liked that movie .) where director got the movie he wanted to but it was too long, that needed to be edited to shorten the run time but they didn't and in the end it made less money. so no sequel, the result - We got a vague reboot.

 

[D4rkShaDoWz]

Anyone who thinks this movie was made out of a genuine interest in retelling the origin story is in denial.

The marketing alluded to a completely different movie, but knowing Sony, the previous three movies made a TON of money. Why chance having your movie be different when you can make a ton more by playing it safe? Sony stuck with the formulaic approach and pretty much completely got rid of the the parents storyline so they could guarantee a big box office.

 

[Drummerdude7]

IDK if they could have made a more solid origin film than SM1 to be honest, but w.e. Let's just see where the sequels go. Still, something just feels so wrong and I can't put my finger on it.

No offense when I say this Picard, so please don't take it the wrong way, but I don't see why this thread was made. I think it's mostly cause I'm tired of people saying "It's Sony's fault" when things are cut, or when things go wrong. Even SM3 wasn't entirely Sony's fault...it was a combination of their interference, Avi Arad's interference, and a poorly written script by the Raimi's. Webb has said countless times that he made the movie he wanted to make, and things that were cut were cut for a reason. Can't we just leave it at that and be happy with the movie we got?

In any film like this, studios are going to "interfere". They're going to have their say, and at the end of the day, I don't think it's fair to suggest (like some have) that the studio "doesn't care about the character". Yes, at the end of the day, they care about making money...even Marvel Studios cares about that. But seeing past director commentaries, interviews with those involved with the films, and all the rest, I'd say it's a pretty silly suggestion that Sony only cares about the money.

Again, please don't take this personally, this is certainly not me railing against you...especially since we agree on so many things I am just tired of people dumping the problems on Sony when, if there's a problem with the film, it's generally a collective problem, not just the studio.

 

[Micromind]

I don't get the reasoning behind the argument -"Sony Studios wanted to keep movie making rights, they wanted to make money so they interfered." This may be news to some but Studios always have some influence on the movie.

WB has all the rights to DC characters still they did interfered with the movie - Green Lantern, why ? because this happens with every movie and every studio, Sony is no exception.

 

[Tony Stark]

My problem if they were going to shorten the movie, they needed to make sure the editing worked, and this film had the ********* editing I've ever seen in a major Hollywood film.

You take a movie like Avengers which had a 2hr 20min run time, and we know that at least 30 min of footage was taken out, but still the editing and the pacing of that film were fantastic. The runtime of TASM is 2 hr and 16 min, but the film just freaking drags on and on and on.

So I agree, you can't just blame this on Sony for wanting a shortened movie, 2:16 is a decent runtime, but the movie drags in so many parts and just looks like a jumbled mess. This is bad directing and bad editing, not Sony, although Sony can be blamed for many things.

 

[Micromind]

I agree that TASM had pacing and editing issues, that could be blamed on the movies editor and director (This movie is Webb's first big budget movie.)

 

[D4rkShaDoWz]

I don't get the reasoning behind the argument -"Sony Studios wanted to keep movie making rights, they wanted to make money so they interfered." This may be news to some but Studios always have some influence on the movie.

WB has all the rights to DC characters still they did interfered with the movie - Green Lantern, why ? because this happens with every movie and every studio, Sony is no exception.

I realize all studios have their own impact but sometimes their input can be too much. WB let Nolan have his creative freedom in making his Batman movies. For GL they stuck with a formulaic approach and look what happened.

For me, it's just a huge turn off to see that a movie was only made to keep the rights to their characters. My dream would one day be able to see Spidey as a part of Marvel Studios so that Spider-Man movies can continue to be made without having to be rebooted in the next 10 years or so.

But knowing Sony, they will never give up these rights. Just like Fox will never give up the film rights to X-Men.

 

[AbsractPo3tic]

No offense when I say this Picard, so please don't take it the wrong way, but I don't see why this thread was made. I think it's mostly cause I'm tired of people saying "It's Sony's fault" when things are cut, or when things go wrong. Even SM3 wasn't entirely Sony's fault...it was a combination of their interference, Avi Arad's interference, and a poorly written script by the Raimi's. Webb has said countless times that he made the movie he wanted to make, and things that were cut were cut for a reason. Can't we just leave it at that and be happy with the movie we got?

In any film like this, studios are going to "interfere". They're going to have their say, and at the end of the day, I don't think it's fair to suggest (like some have) that the studio "doesn't care about the character". Yes, at the end of the day, they care about making money...even Marvel Studios cares about that. But seeing past director commentaries, interviews with those involved with the films, and all the rest, I'd say it's a pretty silly suggestion that Sony only cares about the money.

Again, please don't take this personally, this is certainly not me railing against you...especially since we agree on so many things I am just tired of people dumping the problems on Sony when, if there's a problem with the film, it's generally a collective problem, not just the studio.

 

[AbsractPo3tic]

I realize all studios have their own impact but sometimes their input can be too much. WB let Nolan have his creative freedom in making his Batman movies. For GL they stuck with a formulaic approach and look what happened.

For me, it's just a huge turn off to see that a movie was only made to keep the rights to their characters. My dream would one day be able to see Spidey as a part of Marvel Studios so that Spider-Man movies can continue to be made without having to be rebooted in the next 10 years or so.

But knowing Sony, they will never give up these rights. Just like Fox will never give up the film rights to X-Men.

Green Lantern was made with the majority of DC comics brass behind it so how do we account for that? Who wrote the script? two comic guys and a tv writer. DC was in charge of that production because they are Warner Bros. DC Entertainment. So it is possible for the studios or companies that own these characters and create them on a weekly basis can be off. It happens. I read spider-man and I don't like every issue that comes out, doesn't mean that the writers are bad, just sometimes they miss the mark and that's what happened there.

As far as it only being made for that purpose, I just disagree

 

[Micromind]

I would like to point out that Marvel Studios's The Incredible Hulk and Iron Man 2 were not exactly greatest movies ever made on these characters either, both suffered from editing and pacing issues.

 

[AbsractPo3tic]

I would like to point out that Marvel Studios's The Incredible Hulk and Iron Man 2 were not exactly greatest movies ever made on these characters either, both suffered from editing and pacing issues.

I pointed that out earlier but apparently Sony is the only studio on the planet that has issues with their movies. Mickey Rourke came out somewhat recently and stated that a lot of the stuff he shot for iron man 2 got cut out due to Kevin Feige coming in and chopping the movie up. And I'm sure we all know about Ed Norton's issues with Incredible Hulk. It's not uncommon man, it happens. A LOT more than we all know

 

[Drummerdude7]

I would like to point out that Marvel Studios's The Incredible Hulk and Iron Man 2 were not exactly greatest movies ever made on these characters either, both suffered from editing and pacing issues.

Don't forget "studio interference". The main reason Norton was canned was because he had a different vision and clashed with Marvel and Leterrier when they got involved.

 

[AbsractPo3tic]

Don't forget "studio interference". The main reason Norton was canned was because he had a different vision and clashed with Marvel and Leterrier when they got involved.

Word. They haven't done anything any other studio on the planet hasn't done. Sometimes it's for the best and sometimes it's not. And again, right now, it's an assumption that they went in and cut up Marc Webb's movie. That's it.

 

[D4rkShaDoWz]

I'm not saying Marvel Studios is the greatest thing on earth, I just think that if you want a great Spider-Man movie to be made with all the Marvel blessings and MCU references, they would have to make the movie.

In addition, I'm not saying Sony is a bad distributor either but you can't deny the only reason this movie was rebooted was to make money and spawn off two other sequels.

I'm also not saying Marvel Studios doesn't want to make money, because that is simply not true. I just feel, going forward, especially with all the recent announcements of maybe lesser known Marvel characters that having Spidey in that same universe would be awesome.

 

[AbsractPo3tic]

I'm not saying Marvel Studios is the greatest thing on earth, I just think that if you want a great Spider-Man movie to be made with all the Marvel blessings and MCU references, they would have to make the movie.

In addition, I'm not saying Sony is a bad distributor either but you can't deny the only reason this movie was rebooted was to make money and spawn off two other sequels.

I'm also not saying Marvel Studios doesn't want to make money, because that is simply not true. I just feel, going forward, especially with all the recent announcements of maybe lesser known Marvel characters that having Spidey in that same universe would be awesome.

Yeah it would be very dope but I don't need to see it. I've always liked Spidey by himself. Thats a personal preference I know but that's how I prefer him. I think his universe is so full as it is that a lot can be done with him individually.

And I can deny it actually so I will lol. They have, well had, three people who loved making spider-man films and being in the spider-man business, so why not continue that? Once Sam and Tobey left, they were supposed to stop making spider-man movies?

 

[Iron_Burger]

The film is a lot of fun but there is a strong sense of "I dont give a crap" in the film's editing. Two examples from my second viewing:

1. That unneccessary shot of a newspaper clipping that says Peter's parents died in a plane crash. Seriously?

The entire movie Uncle Ben and Peter have said that Peter's parents vanished without a trace and now they are suddenly dead & buried in a cemetary somewhere in Queens? Very stupid decision that contradicts everything that came before it.

2. Ratha's fate. They show the Lizard attacking him..... and that's it!

He could have died on the bridge like the game says or he could be alive. Pure laziness not to do a reshoot to make the death clear or have a reaction shot of Ratha sticking his head out of the car and taking out his cell phone to say "we have a problem" or something similar.

 

[Robin91939]

Where are the big pacing flaws that people are seeing? Please site an example.

And where was the film "jarringly" over edited? Just because they took out a scene -- doesn't mean that the film suffered. Perhaps Webb and Sony decided they wanted Dr. Ratha back in a sequel. Maybe, MAYBE, his fate wasn't important to the central story?

I'd like someone to post some example of the sloppy editing and the horrible pacing.

-R

 

[AbsractPo3tic]

Where are the big pacing flaws that people are seeing? Please site an example.

And where was the film "jarringly" over edited? Just because they took out a scene -- doesn't mean that the film suffered. Perhaps Webb and Sony decided they wanted Dr. Ratha back in a sequel. Maybe, MAYBE, his fate wasn't important to the central story?

I'd like someone to post some example of the sloppy editing and the horrible pacing.

-R

Tried that theory already, man. Lol it's not flying with some people. Apparently, instead of them all deciding or Marc Webb deciding that some things could be left out because it wasn't that important or could be in a sequel, just doesn't work with people

 

[Robin91939]

The film is a lot of fun but there is a strong sense of "I dont give a crap" in the film's editing. Two examples from my second viewing:

1. That unneccessary shot of a newspaper clipping that says Peter's parents died in a plane crash. Seriously?

The entire movie Uncle Ben and Peter have said that Peter's parents vanished without a trace and now they are suddenly dead & buried in a cemetary somewhere in Queens? Very stupid decision that contradicts everything that came before it.

You do know that they could have disappeared that night that they left Peter with Ben and May and still never been seen again AND died in a plane crash? The two aren't mutually exclusive.

-Someone turns over Richard Parker's office.
-Richard and Mary Parker take Peter to Ben and May's for safe keeping (along with the briefcase holding the Decay Rate Algorithm).
-Richard and Mary leave and are not heard from or seen by May, Ben or Peter again.
-Sometime later a small aircraft crashes and the flight manifest lists Richard and May Parker as passengers -- they are presumed dead.


This still doesn't give ANY closure to what happened to the Parker's, who was responsible for making them leave, who destroyed his office or if there was foul play in the plane crash. They conveyed this -- all quite simply.

2. Ratha's fate. They show the Lizard attacking him..... and that's it!

He could have died on the bridge like the game says or he could be alive. Pure laziness not to do a reshoot to make the death clear or have a reaction shot of Ratha sticking his head out of the car and taking out his cell phone to say "we have a problem" or something similar.

Who cares?

Ratha wasn't an important character in the film. He was a "bad reflection" of Connors. Someone to show us what Connors, being noble, was up against. He was a man who had power but no principles, against Connors who had little power but had principles.

Ratha's fate in the context of the film (this is excluding whatever may have been deleted) is very unimportant. His storyline was wrapped. He wanted to test the OO Serum on unsuspecting veterans under the guise of a winter flu shot..... The Lizard stopped him. That's a wrap on him. There is nothing in the final film that alludes to Ratha knowing about any secrets of Peter Parker. There were allusions to him knowing about Connors and Richard Parker -- secrets that may be revealed in a sequel -- which is a reason why Ratha may have been kept alive.

-R

 

[Robin91939]

Tried that theory already, man. Lol it's not flying with some people. Apparently, instead of them all deciding or Marc Webb deciding that some things could be left out because it wasn't that important or could be in a sequel, just doesn't work with people

I think a lot of people read movie reviews and hear terms like "over edited" and "pacing issues" and latch on to them without really knowing how they apply or what it means to have those. They just become terms that are thrown around to sound like they are film experts.


Because one of the things that The Amazing Spider-man didn't have much of, was pacing problems.

-R

 

[Eddie Brock]

This still doesn't give ANY closure to what happened to the Parker's, who was responsible for making them leave, who destroyed his office or if there was foul play in the plane crash. They conveyed this -- all quite simply.

Or where they were going, even. You'd think if they were going into hiding, they'd bring Peter along. But clearly, whatever they had to do, it was too dangerous to keep Peter involved.