The Amazing Spider-Man Would Spider-Man really be better off at Marvel/Disney?

[Spider-Aziz]

The Avengers made $1,511,757,910 in the box office.

Iron Man - $585,174,222
Iron Man 2 - $623,933,331
The Incredible hulk - $263,427,551
Thor - $449.3 million
Captain America: The First Avenger - $368,608,363

*Just to list the individual box office results*

I don't think Marvel Studios could really do that much better with Spider-Man. Their movies are generally B rated films, and just aren't that good IMO. As for Sony, we are not counting Ghost Rider. Within all honesty, I don't see how you could really make a good Ghost Rider movie either. Seems to fit the comics only IMO. With Spider-Man, Sony had done a great job with 2 movies, messed up with SM3, and did pretty darn well with TASM.

While Marvel has taken secondary characters and successfully put them on the big screen, I feel that other than Iron Man, they only work in a team (The Avengers). The solo movies are poorly done IMO.

Secondary characters, that's the thing
How come Iron Man made less than Spider-Man 2 in box office sales? I thought by most people it was pretty much a better film

 

[Hawkingbird]

Ah but Avengers made more than ASM because it was a better film

 

[Picard Sisko]

Secondary characters, that's the thing
How come Iron Man made less than Spider-Man 2 in box office sales? I thought by most people it was pretty much a better film

They are both generally considered really good films.

Ah but Avengers made more than ASM because it was a better film

The movie was so hyped, so of course it would make more money.

 

[Picard Sisko]

DVD sales/box office results are irrelevant to this argument. I am strictly talking about the quality of the movies.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

The Incredible Hulk needs more love
Hulk is notably bigger than the -considerably- rest of the second stringers in Avengers, had two good movies, both failed, and the Marvel one has more fun than the first
What are the odds of Spider-Man film being slightly lesser than Thor?

 

[Lorus]

The Avengers made $1,511,757,910 in the box office.

Iron Man - $585,174,222
Iron Man 2 - $623,933,331
The Incredible hulk - $263,427,551
Thor - $449.3 million
Captain America: The First Avenger - $368,608,363

*Just to list the individual box office results*

I don't think Marvel Studios could really do that much better with Spider-Man. Their movies are generally B rated films, and just aren't that good IMO. As for Sony, we are not counting Ghost Rider. Within all honesty, I don't see how you could really make a good Ghost Rider movie either. Seems to fit the comics only IMO. With Spider-Man, Sony had done a great job with 2 movies, messed up with SM3, and did pretty darn well with TASM.

While Marvel has taken secondary characters and successfully put them on the big screen, I feel that other than Iron Man, they only work in a team (The Avengers). The solo movies are poorly done IMO.

This post seems full of jumbled messages and ideas, unless I'm misinterpreting it. You mention that Sony is excused for Ghost Rider as you don't think a good Ghost Rider movie can be made (an utterly absurd statement if you ask me, but I'm just following what I interpret as your train of thought). Then, however, you make the assertion that with the exception of Iron Man, the other Avengers only work in a team. Assuming that by saying they only work in a team, you don't think they can work as solo films, do they not fall into the same category as Ghost Rider, ie, Marvel Studios is forgiven because what they were trying could never work anyway.

Surely the logical comparison is then, how does each studio handle the characters that do work in the way you have set out, or, how has Sony handled Spider-Man compared to how Marvel handled Iron Man. This leads to Sony having made two good movies, one outright failure and one ok movie, versus two good movies and one one ok movie. Ergo, from what you've written it seems that Marvel Studios would be seen as either equal to or greater than Sony when it comes to making good Spider-Man movies.

 

[Juicy J]

This post seems full of jumbled messages and ideas, unless I'm misinterpreting it. You mention that Sony is excused for Ghost Rider as you don't think a good Ghost Rider movie can be made (an utterly absurd statement if you ask me, but I'm just following what I interpret as your train of thought). Then, however, you make the assertion that with the exception of Iron Man, the other Avengers only work in a team. Assuming that by saying they only work in a team, you don't think they can work as solo films, do they not fall into the same category as Ghost Rider, ie, Marvel Studios is forgiven because what they were trying could never work anyway.

Surely the logical comparison is then, how does each studio handle the characters that do work in the way you have set out, or, how has Sony handled Spider-Man compared to how Marvel handled Iron Man. This leads to Sony having made two good movies, one outright failure and one ok movie, versus two good movies and one one ok movie. Ergo, from what you've written it seems that Marvel Studios would be seen as either equal to or greater than Sony when it comes to making good Spider-Man movies.

:
Perfectly said. I have yet to see an argument against Marvel Studios that I think holds that much water at all, I remain unconvinced that Sony could do a better job with the property.

 

[spider-neil]

I think the biggest problems I have with Marvel movies (with the exception of IM and to a lessor extent Avengers) is the movies feel like a adverts for something else, build up for something bigger. Which funnily enough is exactly the case.

 

[Juicy J]

I think the biggest problems I have with Marvel movies (with the exception of IM and to a lessor extent Avengers) is the movies feel like a adverts for something else, build up for something bigger. Which funnily enough is exactly the case.

Why would the Avengers even remotely feel like an advertisement for something else? That's the culmination of the 5 other movies, that's what it's been leading to.

 

[spider-neil]

Why would the Avengers even remotely feel like an advertisement for something else? That's the culmination of the 5 other movies, that's what it's been leading to.

The Thanos cliffhanger.

 

[Lorus]

I think the biggest problems I have with Marvel movies (with the exception of IM and to a lessor extent Avengers) is the movies feel like a adverts for something else, build up for something bigger. Which funnily enough is exactly the case.

I have to question the difference here between TASM leaving entire plot points unresolved as blatant sequel baiting, or adverts for TASM 2, and the Marvel Studios films including elements that will be shared across films.

Thor doesn't reference the Avengers at all within its plot and is only connected to the MCU through the knowledge that SHIELD and Hawkeye exist in the Avengers, the narrative though, is entirely self contained.

Cap also doesn't mention the Avengers, an argument can be made that the times square scene is an Avengers reference but it doesn't actually introduce any elements that then go unresolved, it just adds an element arbitrarily, which while not ideal doesn't undermine the film as an isolated narrative.

The Thanos tease in the Avengers is no more an advert than Spider-Man 2 is for having Harry discover the Goblin equipment at the end. If anything, it is less so as the Thanos scene is in the middle of the credits, after the narrative has arguably been given a defined end, and serves to underline a point of the film which relates to the evolution of the superhuman presence bringing Earth to the attention of cosmic beings.

Really, the only film particularly guilty of being such advertising is Iron Man 2, and really, that film is on par with TASM in terms of plot points that go unresolved. In fact, one could say Iron Man 2 is better in that regard as the SHIELD/Avengers aspect of the plot doesn't leave unanswered questions it just introduces an arguably pointless plot element, which although not ideal for a good film, at least makes it a complete one.

 

[Juicy J]

^ THANK YOU LORUS. That last post was so on point. These marvel studios criticisms are baffling to me. I'm fine with someone not enjoying the films, that's not the issue. What I just don't understand is that nearly all the criticisms you people are weighing against it is that they 'are just two hour advertisements' when really that has no basis in reality whatsoever.
None of you have yet to address a point I brought up in a previous post here, which is this; marvel studios is simply doing in the movies what they've been doing in the comics for 50 some odd years. Why is it that when characters crossover in the comics no one complains about it, but do it on screen and suddenly it's ruining the movie? It makes zero sense.
And I'm sorry spider-Niel but that Thanos complaint is really reaching. It's a cliff hanger. PLENTY of movies, books, comics, etc do that, including numerous other comic book movies. How is that all of a sudden a problem here? Heck if it's a problem in the Avengers then it must be an even bigger issue in ASM, where multiple plot threads were left unresolved and had a very similar cliff hanger ending. So if it's a problem that Marvel is doing in their movies, it appear that Sony is making the same mistake.
See where my confusion lies in these specific criticisms? I don't yet feel they carry any weight whatsoever.

 

[Jexx]

I love the MCU films and I love TASM; I think that they're both fine where they are at the moment.

 

[SpiderMarvelite]

Superior Spider-Man, Spider-Man 3 and Ultimate Spider-Man Cartoon.


Enough said.

 

[Picard Sisko]

^ THANK YOU LORUS. That last post was so on point. These marvel studios criticisms are baffling to me. I'm fine with someone not enjoying the films, that's not the issue. What I just don't understand is that nearly all the criticisms you people are weighing against it is that they 'are just two hour advertisements' when really that has no basis in reality whatsoever.
None of you have yet to address a point I brought up in a previous post here, which is this; marvel studios is simply doing in the movies what they've been doing in the comics for 50 some odd years. Why is it that when characters crossover in the comics no one complains about it, but do it on screen and suddenly it's ruining the movie? It makes zero sense.
And I'm sorry spider-Niel but that Thanos complaint is really reaching. It's a cliff hanger. PLENTY of movies, books, comics, etc do that, including numerous other comic book movies. How is that all of a sudden a problem here? Heck if it's a problem in the Avengers then it must be an even bigger issue in ASM, where multiple plot threads were left unresolved and had a very similar cliff hanger ending. So if it's a problem that Marvel is doing in their movies, it appear that Sony is making the same mistake.
See where my confusion lies in these specific criticisms? I don't yet feel they carry any weight whatsoever.

Most of the MCU solo films are crummy. Iron Man 2 was definitely the 2 hour trailer for the Avengers. The Incredible Hulk was good... but it felt like a stretched out episode of the 1978 television series with updated effects and CGI. Thor was meh, and I honestly only liked the scenes that took place on earth. Captain America was too corny, and although I didn't hate it, there was nothing to love about it IMO.

Point is, outside of the Avengers and Iron Man 1, Marvel/Disney hasn't proven to be the "best in the business." You cannot prove or disprove that statement as of yet, so let's see what else they have to give us. They have more chances to make more superhero movies simply because they have the rights to more characters. So they will be pumping out movies every year for quite some time. Will they be good, or even "the best?" Well, let's wait and see.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

Superior Spider-Man, Spider-Man 3 and Ultimate Spider-Man Cartoon.


Enough said.

I'm getting this piece by piece

Your avatar kinda gives you support Superior Spider-Man, and it's a Marvel decision
Not a fan of Peter's death the way it happened, but you don't look against reading more

Spider-Man 3 is Sony, I get that it was a let down, but it's not even a bad film, certain bad choices were made, but the film overall is rather decent

Ultimate Spider-Man is Marvel's thing, and it's a testament of -definitely not a good one- a choice Marvel made

Are you fully complaining about Marvel here? Saying Sony deserves some blame? What exactly?

 

[Micromind]

Spider-Man = Worldwide: $821,708,551

Spider-Man 2 = Worldwide: $783,766,341

Spider-Man 3 = Worldwide: $890,871,626

The Amazing Spider-Man = Worldwide: $752,216,557

Adding them up, we get = 3,246 million.

Now, movies from Marvel Studios,

Iron Man - $585,174,222

Iron Man 2 - $623,933,331

The Incredible hulk - $263,427,551

Thor - $449.3 million

Captain America: The First Avenger - $368,608,363

Let's add them, Avengers does not count as it is an ensemble movie, we are comparing solo super-hero movies here, = 2,288 mil.

So, Four Spider-Man movies made almost a billion more than five Marvel studios movies.
So, why should Marvel Studios do a better job than Sony ?

And how much better did The Incredible Hulk did then Ang Lee's Hulk at Marvel Studios ? Not that much (Hulk : $245,360,480 mil worldwide)

 

[Spider-Aziz]

Looks like many agree that Marvel Studios is not exactly the best place to house Spider-Man films and animation, and you guys back it up nicely

 

[GENERAL RAAM582]

Well for me, money doesn't count a good film or a better studio, but I see where you are coming from. With the exception of IM and TA, the other four Marvel movies have been average. I'd take SM1, SM2, and TASM over Thor, IM2, TIH, and CA any day. And I'd pick SM2 over IM too. Really, TA is the only unbeatable film.

 

[Picard Sisko]

Spider-Man = Worldwide: $821,708,551

Spider-Man 2 = Worldwide: $783,766,341

Spider-Man 3 = Worldwide: $890,871,626

The Amazing Spider-Man = Worldwide: $752,216,557

Adding them up, we get = 3,246 million.

Now, movies from Marvel Studios,

Iron Man - $585,174,222

Iron Man 2 - $623,933,331

The Incredible hulk - $263,427,551

Thor - $449.3 million

Captain America: The First Avenger - $368,608,363

Let's add them, Avengers does not count as it is an ensemble movie, we are comparing solo super-hero movies here, = 2,288 mil.

So, Four Spider-Man movies made almost a billion more than five Marvel studios movies.
So, why should Marvel Studios do a better job than Sony ?

And how much better did The Incredible Hulk did then Ang Lee's Hulk at Marvel Studios ? Not that much (Hulk : $245,360,480 mil worldwide)

I actually never thought that the Ang Lee Hulk film was terrible. It was a decent film with a great cast, but the direction they were taking was too strange for the Hulk.

Looks like many agree that Marvel Studios is not exactly the best place to house Spider-Man films and animation, and you guys back it up nicely

:up;

Well for me, money doesn't count a good film or a better studio, but I see where you are coming from. With the exception of IM and TA, the other four Marvel movies have been average. I'd take SM1, SM2, and TASM over Thor, IM2, TIH, and CA any day. And I'd pick SM2 over IM too. Really, TA is the only unbeatable film.

Although I like SM2 more than the Avengers, I pretty much agree with that.

 

[AF3619]

Superior Spider-Man, Spider-Man 3 and Ultimate Spider-Man Cartoon.


Enough said.

Actually Superior Spiderman could be a good adition

Spoiler

i heard a podcast of ComicBookCast and i think they are right, Doc. Ock is basically Peter gone wrong and now that he knows about Uncle Ben because he shares Peter memories, he can be Spiderman but now he will use his genious for good, but im afraid of two things his humor will fade away(no more friendly ) and he will be in the edge of killing someone(which i think Peter remaining part will stop him)

 

[Picard Sisko]

I want Peter Parker back. Might sound closed minded, but Peter Parker is part of what makes Spider-Man who he is: the everyman.

 

[AF3619]

I want Peter Parker back. Might sound closed minded, but Peter Parker is part of what makes Spider-Man who he is: the everyman.

he is still Peter Parker but not in mind, he will be back as soon as TASM 2 comes
or in TASM 3 they will reveal that in TASM Doc. Ock changed minds with him,lol


now he is the night,he is vengance, and he is a Genious he is ...Superior Spiderman

 

[Spider-Aziz]

I don't mind Peter'd death remaining permanent, I'm a Spidey completest (when it comes to Peter Parker, that is), his death was a good reason for me to drop new comic books as a whole, I mean Amazing Spidey was the last title I followed, I'll try to avoid news of his return to make sure I don't return to the title

 

[spider-neil]

Sony animated take on Spider-Man is imho the best incarnation of Spider-man ever outside of the comics and Disney animated take of Spider-Man is second only to unlimited Spider-Man as the worst incarnation to Spider-Man ever outside of the comics.

To be fair there is a difference between cartoons and movies but it is what it is. I am seriously scared for the future of the animated Avengers.