And that's a good thing?
Mar 27 - 05:35 AM
Mar 27 - 05:51 AM
I can't believe someone actually thinks that the director having creative control of the movie, as opposed to the studio having creative control, is not a good thing.
Go watch Babylon AD. *raises middle finger*
Mar 27 - 07:49 AM
Mar 27 - 08:27 AM
Come on, spiderman 1 is amazingly directed. The 3 was bad no doubt but the 1 have a lots of gems in it.
Mar 27 - 05:48 AM
I think this is a great thing. Personally, I don't think 3 was that bad, but even if it was the worst film ever created, 2 and 1 show that there is a lot of creativity here. And especially with the high bar that The Dark Knight set, there's no way that Spider-Man 4 will fail.
Mar 27 - 06:04 AM
There's always a chance that Spider-Man 4 will fail. I'm not saying it will and I'm not saying that it won't. We won't know until it hits theaters on May 4th, 2011. In the meantime, Spider-Man 3 was terrible because of the demands that Sony and Marvel made on Raimi. Without those two interfering and Raimi being left to do his thing his way, we might get something as good as Spider-Man 2. Then again, Barry Sonnenfeld was left to his own devices when he made MIB 2 and look how that turned out.
Mar 27 - 06:24 AM
Definitely a good thing. He probably had the most freedom with #2, which was the most well rounded of the series. 3 they forced venom into it, and it suffered a lot. Dude has one debacle and people forget all the good stuff hes done. Get some perspective people :)
Mar 27 - 06:59 AM
Nice, now I guess this will be good.
Mar 27 - 07:05 AM
I think the main thing that killed Spiderman 3 was Peter Parker's Staying Alive strut. He looked absolutely ridiculous. Everytime I see that whole segment I cringe and ask What was Raimi thinking?
Mar 27 - 07:11 AM
I don't know. Maybe Raimi was trying to go for a bizarre "Evil Dead" comedy thing to make up for Kirsten Dunst's career-killing performance (honey, go back to comedy; does "Bring it On" ring a bell)
Mar 27 - 09:01 AM
Spiderman 3 was OBVIOUSLY more studio-controlled, with the addition of one of the highest profile characters (Venom) it just wanted to be a cash-cow. Now that Raimi has control like in Spiderman 2 one of the highest grossing films, i think we'll be seeing one that is awesome and much more thought out than the others.About the article...is...there just a title and no text? or is my internet screwy? haha
Mar 27 - 07:15 AM
Me too, I don't see an article. Just a title.
Mar 27 - 07:22 AM
I recall reading elsewhere that Raimi said this time he is going to wait for the script to be in shape, that the problem with 3 was that the script wasn't good going in and they pushed him to make the movie faster. I think that if he does indeed get a good script to work with, this will be a very entertaining movie, like 1 and 2.
Mar 27 - 07:24 AM
I don't know what the article says, because I can't read it, but I don't think this is such a bad thing. The only reason the article exists in the first place was because with Sp3 Raimi WASN'T given creative control.
Now we'll get to see whether Raimi is the type of director who listens to fans reactions and applies it, or ignores it. If we have another dancing scene, we'll know that Raimi's vision is the most important thing to him, and it will be a good time to change directions. I have no problem giving him one more shot.
Mar 27 - 07:35 AM
Jim La Rose
Good thing. Raimi has vision. SM3 had too little Venom- totally felt shoe-horned in and not enough time given to Venom.
Mar 27 - 07:38 AM
SM3 wasn't horrible, but I agree with the script problems. That's what happens when one villain is yanked out and the studio demands another one be put in his place with total disregard to the storyline. It was a mad scramble, but they did a pretty good job pulling it all together, all things considered. And I think some of the silliness was Raimi thumbing his nose at the high mucky-mucks, and some of it was the conscious decision NOT to give everyone the Venom they wanted, because that would be the end-all, be-all of Spider-Man, not just his bad twin, and doing it like the comic might result in Venom becoming more popular than Spidey. Sam saw to it that THAT did NOT happen. But he did manage to alienate half his fan base in the process, which was kinda counterproductive. SM4 could further that divide or amend the sins of the past. I'm hoping lessons have been learned and some new excitement is injected into this great character.
Mar 27 - 07:55 AM
SM3 was horrible, hopefully he will pull himself together, he has a great superhero story and character to work with, SM2 AND 3 were shoking, they should of been awesome!
Mar 27 - 08:21 AM
Total creative control means no more Venom and no Carnage. Yay! Spend time developing Spidey's older villains, who are much more interesting.
Mar 27 - 08:30 AM
I agree with CFM's statement about director's having creative control.However, when I read that headline I couldn't help but say "uh oh" to myself. I'm not a big fan of the first two movies in general, but they are leaps and bounds above the third one. And come on now, Raimi may have had Venom forced on him but you can't tell me that the studio didn't give him a fair amount of control over that film. I saw 14 year old kids walk out on that movie by the second musical number with their middle finger raised. I highly doubt the studio would be stupid enough to alienate their core audience like that. That was all Raimi.
Mar 27 - 08:36 AM
Captain America Triumphs Again
175 cosplay pictures
Picture gallery of stoners in film
Chloe Moretz goes out-of-body