Hoooold up, please hold up. If you don't care about a movies quality, why spend 200+ million on it? If all you need for financial success is a movie title and some semblance of a film for 120 minutes on screen, why spend the big bucks on the film? Nobody wants these villians, and yet, regardless of quality, it is going to make a truckload of money because it is slightly similar to it? You're contradicting yourself, within 10 words. 10 words. Newsflash, the GA go see movies that are good, and involve things people want (need is too strong a word, people need water, people enjoy films)
Oh BRAB, don't kid yourself that a whopping big budget means you're trying to make a quality movie. Just look at the budgets Michael Bay's horrendous Transformers movies get for example, and they try and tell me they are all about making quality movies because they have budgets like that.
There's no contradiction. You just don't get that a big budget doesn't mean they're trying to make a good movie. Sorry but that's a fact.
Do you have this vision in your head of the Sony Execs running around naked in an office for two thirds of the production and then filming the actors improvising it in for the next third until we get some semblance of a film because quality doesn't matter? And spending 200+ million on it? I know you don't like the series, but to try to push this idea that they don't care about the quality, and are just pushing out a film that is bad, nobody cares about but will still be successful just seems so illogical, and so unlikely. I honestly think you're having me on or something.
You're only having yourself on if you think spending 200 million on a movie means they're trying to make the best quality movie they can. There's a saying that you have to spend money to make money.
And you'd still want the movie to be good correct? Regardless of whether they're copying the marvel model, they still don't want the film to be a livefeed of a whale birthing, they actually have to try. So this point doesn't really stand. Sony are actually competent, they're not children, they make things with the intention of actually selling things, sure, sometimes it ends up poor, but we still end up with a product that's to a standard where you can't sue them under consumer law.
No they don't give a toss if the movie's good as long as it makes money. One of the reasons they're changing strategy is because they had loss on awful the TASM 2, and they're trying to keep up with the competition who's kicking their ass financially.
If they cared about making a good movie they wouldn't be wasting time and money on a spin off nobody asked for or needs. They be focusing on doing a great TASM 3.
This is just money making competition. Quality doesn't come into the equation.
It's almost like I can copy my last response to this, in fact, how is this even adressing my point? I said the studio cared about making money and the films future, you responded by saying they're copying a concept that a.) made money and b.) was of a good quality... Huh? The writings on the wall, it's all about keeping up with the competition by disregarding quality and showing Toby maguire's greatest faces for an hour as a film. Craaazy stuff here. Let's copy a quality franchise by disregarding the quality of the films!
It's becoming abundantly clear you think Sony is run by a child or a horse.
After the quality of the last two Spider-Man movies, especially the latest one, it would be easy to believe Sony is being run by a child or a horse.
I don't know what you mean by the Tobey Maguire's faces remark, but it's probably an attempt to redirect the conversation into a Raimi one, which I am not going for.
But you're dead on in the copying another franchise and disregarding the quality. It's like all those slasher movies that came out after John Carpenter's classic Halloween in 1978. They all tried to duplicate the furniture of the movie; teenagers, sex, masked killer, without getting what made Halloween so special. Sony is doing the same thing. They're trying to duplicate the furniture of The Avengers by having a big budget, lots of super powered characters, action and sfx, without realizing what made Avengers special. It made the audiences care about their heroes by giving them all their own movies. Developing them as characters, getting them a fan base, and then putting them together in a movie.
Sony is so desperate they're taking six super villains, several of which were coldly received in the TASM movies, and another three that we have not even seen yet, throwing them into their own spin off,probably completely rewriting them into something they're not, just for the sake of having an ensemble movie like Marvel.
You know how I'd keep up with the competition? I'd revitalise the series. SONY ACTUALLY WANT THEIR FILM TO DO WELL AND OVER 25 YEARS OF FILM SHOW TO DO THAT YOU ACTUALLY NEED TO GIVE AT LEAST A SLIGHT AMOUNT ABOUT QUALITY ****
First of all no need for swearing. Second how you'd revitalize the franchise is irrelevant. This is nothing to do with what you or I would do. Third if Sony were showing they care about quality they wouldn't have used TASM 2 as a cluster mess of under developed sloppily written characters just so they could have a super villain spin off, which I repeat again there was zero demand for. They want it because they think it will make them Avengers like mega bucks.
If that's Sony caring about quality then I'm Mother Theresa.
Do you think it's in the realms of possibility that Sony interfered with the director because they had a vision of what was good for the franchise? (Be it right or wrong) Or are you saying that they delibretely messed with the director in order to make their film really poor? That seems like bad business. Multiple villians has worked before in the past (you're avatar has a picture from a movie it worked in) and the spinoff thing again, doesn't indicate sony want to burn their own franchise or something.
I think Sony deliberately messed with the movie to make it more financially rewarding, so they could set up their expansive universe and spin off movies. Which has nothing to do with quality. It's about money.
Main problem was the villians and a narrative that was unclosed, imagine if you had a film that could develop the villians and close that nasty S6 plot that would bog down the next spidey sequel? If only...
Or if they had been really smart they wouldn't have even gone the Sinister Six way and just done each Spider-Man movie as it comes, and used a villain or villains that are actually necessary and serve the theme and plot of each movie well, rather than being rail roaded in so they will ready for a spin off movie.
I replied in bold as I'm lazy as heck and can't format properly.
Also, Drew Goddard. Who hires him if it's just a cheap cashgrab? If it was, isn't it logical to spend as less money as possible? Isn't it more likely that sony actually want to make money, and have a film franchise? Isn't it likely that they're trying to one up marvel? What do all these things have as a common demoninator
Quality.
Hiring Drew Goddard does not mean they are looking for quality at all. He's like Marc Webb. He's a guy who's directed like what one movie? He's not a big name director. He'll be easy to control and manipulate and do the movie what ever way they want without any arguments.
We are judging their intention,since it is for the good of Spider-man
We just think the method they are applying in completely wrong.
To revive Spider-man they need to put their head down and write a good script for individual movies and let that speak for itself,and not sabotage the whole movie with needless polt points and villains just because they want sinister six down the line.They need to make good Spider-man movies and not get ahead of themselves with Venom and Sinister six and Black cat and God knows what else
I mean the whole advantage of Spidey being with Sony was his freedom and individuality,but with Sony going through with this half-assed attempt at a universe,why not have in in the actual MCU rather than a poor man's version of it
Exactly
