[blimpcityhero11]

Originally Posted by WTG

First off, if he was in it, it would be amazing. Second, it'd be pretty much impossible to have him in it with Sony owning Spidey.

Sony has seemed amenable to the idea. They were very very close to including the Oscorp Tower in the New York skyline in The Avengers. For Sony, it can only help them build this new iteration of Spider-Man by tying him to a franchise that made close to $1.5 billion in its first outing. But who knows? Sony might be content keeping their hero quarantined from the rest of the MCU since The Amazing Spider-Man seems set to finish not too far under Spider-Man 2's (the lowest grossing movie of the original trilogy) $783 million take.

Originally Posted by toothpaste

ant man

I am most excited for this movie out of the Phase 2 movies. It'll be awesome to see the TRUE Avengers team on the big screen. Honestly, I'd like them to just keep it to Ant-Man and Wasp as the sole additions to the team for A2. With Ant-Man likely being the last film before A2, it could be a nice segue into Ultron as a villain.

[Dodge725]

Originally Posted by blimpcityhero11

I am most excited for this movie out of the Phase 2 movies. It'll be awesome to see the TRUE Avengers team on the big screen. Honestly, I'd like them to just keep it to Ant-Man and Wasp as the sole additions to the team for A2. With Ant-Man likely being the last film before A2, it could be a nice segue into Ultron as a villain.

It seems they are keeping him away from the Phase 2 stuff though and letting that one come out whenever. Makes more sense for him to be there though than Guardians of the Galaxy. (Wanted Black Panther so much)

[NickIsI]

Originally Posted by deadkidsean

that's the reason every major motion picture is made, guy, don't for a second think any differently

Oh, I know, but there's a difference between making a movie to tell a story or to get a point across, and making one just to make money.

Please, give me one good reason WHY Spider-Man needed a re-boot in the same decade as Raimi's trilogy. However, since they did do it, they at least owe it to Spider-Man fans to do it right. Sony only had one thing in mind when making that shit stain of a movie.



I personally enjoyed The Avengers and hope they don't fuck up the sequel by adding The Amazing Spider-Man. I'd be fine with just Ant Man and/or Wasp.

[RyanPm40]

Originally Posted by NickIsI

Oh, I know, but there's a difference between making a movie to tell a story or to get a point across, and making one just to make money.

Please, give me one good reason WHY Spider-Man needed a re-boot in the same decade as Raimi's trilogy. However, since they did do it, they at least owe it to Spider-Man fans to do it right. Sony only had one thing in mind when making that shit stain of a movie.



I personally enjoyed The Avengers and hope they don't fuck up the sequel by adding The Amazing Spider-Man. I'd be fine with just Ant Man and/or Wasp.

Dude who cares why the studio did it? Why not care about why the director did it? Marc Webb is a huge fan of the comics, and Garfield is a huge Spider-Man fan. There may have been flaws in the film (I still loved it), but I think Andrew Garfield did an amazing job playing Peter Parker in this film, and anyone who thinks Tobey was any better is a fool, in my books :P

[deanster321]

Please, articulate how it was so horrible that you're going out of your way to let everyone know, past OMG IT WUZ ALL FER TEH MUNNY and the fact that it was a reboot in and of itself. I want to share in your enlightenment.

[WTG]

Originally Posted by NickIsI

Oh, I know, but there's a difference between making a movie to tell a story or to get a point across, and making one just to make money.

Please, give me one good reason WHY Spider-Man needed a re-boot in the same decade as Raimi's trilogy. However, since they did do it, they at least owe it to Spider-Man fans to do it right. Sony only had one thing in mind when making that shit stain of a movie.



I personally enjoyed The Avengers and hope they don't fuck up the sequel by adding The Amazing Spider-Man. I'd be fine with just Ant Man and/or Wasp.

One good reason: if they don't make the movie, the rights to a hugely popular franchise revert back to their biggest rival company.

[blimpcityhero11]

Originally Posted by Dodge725

It seems they are keeping him away from the Phase 2 stuff though and letting that one come out whenever. Makes more sense for him to be there though than Guardians of the Galaxy. (Wanted Black Panther so much)

Marvel confirmed it was a part of Phase 2 when it announced it at the SDCC panel. It doesn't have a release date yet, but there have been plenty of reports (plus a confirmation from Nick Frost and Simon Pegg) that Wright would be filming Ant-Man later this year/early 2013 when he finishes The World's End. In fact, many are speculating that Guardians of the Galaxy was not a release pushed from the original early June 2014 slot Marvel held, rather it was pushed to August to give Ant-Man the June release.

[ctmk]

After watching the Avengers I realized just how empty the movie was. Yeah it was funny, and the dialogue was clever but that was about it. The action was derivative and rather boring. The plot was...crap. If they can get an emotional core to these movies they would be leagues better.

[Dodge725]

Originally Posted by blimpcityhero11

Marvel confirmed it was a part of Phase 2 when it announced it at the SDCC panel. It doesn't have a release date yet, but there have been plenty of reports (plus a confirmation from Nick Frost and Simon Pegg) that Wright would be filming Ant-Man later this year/early 2013 when he finishes The World's End. In fact, many are speculating that Guardians of the Galaxy was not a release pushed from the original early June 2014 slot Marvel held, rather it was pushed to August to give Ant-Man the June release.

Didn't know that. Last I heard that was still wishy-washy. Thanks for the update!

[NickIsI]

Originally Posted by deanster321

Please, articulate how it was so horrible that you're going out of your way to let everyone know, past OMG IT WUZ ALL FER TEH MUNNY and the fact that it was a reboot in and of itself. I want to share in your enlightenment.

It was a horrible script. The CGI was terrible. They never actually define who Peter Parker is, and in my opinion, that's the most important thing in a Spider-Man film. We've seen the origin story done so much better so many times before, and the stuff they did change was a total washout. Everything is across the board awful. A world of immense probabilities is made to seems small and unimportant while robbing Peter of the accidental hero aspect of his personality that is the most important part of his character. Oh, and don't even get me started on Uncle Ben's death. And, Lizard, Lol. Most cliche super villian arc ever. And the big set piece moment at the end of the film with the cranes: Give me a break. I felt like I was watching a Disney movie.

But whatever, I'm done. I love Spider-Man, but that movie was dreadful and I don't understand how anyone could think otherwise. But again, that's just my opinion.

Goodnight.

[Dodge725]

Originally Posted by NickIsI

It was a horrible script. The CGI was terrible. They never actually define who Peter Parker is, and in my opinion, that's the most important thing in a Spider-Man film. We've seen the origin story done so much better so many times before, and the stuff they did change was a total washout. Everything is across the board awful. A world of immense probabilities is made to seems small and unimportant while robbing Peter of the accidental hero aspect of his personality that is the most important part of his character. Oh, and don't even get me started on Uncle Ben's death. And, Lizard, Lol. Most cliche super villian arc ever. And the big set piece moment at the end of the film with the cranes: Give me a break. I felt like I was watching a Disney movie.

But whatever, I'm done. I love Spider-Man, but that movie was dreadful and I don't understand how anyone could think otherwise. But again, that's just my opinion.

Goodnight.

I thought Garfield was actually a good Peter Parker, but totally agree with the accidental hero, Lizard, cranes stuff too. My biggest pet peeve was actually him and Gwen. Their relationship felt choppy like (500) Days of Summer, but that style doesn't work for a linear timeline movie like this. One scene he's asking her out, then we don't see her for 20 min and boom, he tells her his biggest secret. After credits scene sucked too, since it was in the trailer and told us absolutely nothing. If you're gonna do that, at least give us something for the next one to get excited over. Didn't hate it as much as you, but wasn't the biggest fan either. Think it did set itself up for a great sequel though.

[jwicklun]

The more I think about Amazing Spiderman, the more I dislike it. Very, very flawed script.

[blimpcityhero11]

Originally Posted by WTG

One good reason: if they don't make the movie, the rights to a hugely popular franchise revert back to their biggest rival company.

#1 reason for Sony. (It's likely to finish around $750 million worldwide.)

Originally Posted by NickIsI

Oh, I know, but there's a difference between making a movie to tell a story or to get a point across, and making one just to make money.

Please, give me one good reason WHY Spider-Man needed a re-boot in the same decade as Raimi's trilogy. However, since they did do it, they at least owe it to Spider-Man fans to do it right. Sony only had one thing in mind when making that shit stain of a movie.

In a way, yes, it was about money due to their rights to the character requiring a release by 2012 to continue the contract. Clearly, the Raimi trilogy did not age well. Fans want a respectable adaptation of the character, and that demand is not going to dwindle over time. It hardly matters if they made it 10, 15 or 20 years after Spider-Man 3, the money will be there.

If they really didn't care about the story, they wouldn't have cancelled Raimi's attempts to make Spider-Man 4. They got pretty deep into that pre-production with John Malkovich negotiating to play The Vulture and Anne Hathaway playing Felicia Hardy. Would she turn into the classic Black Cat? NOPE. She would've turned into The Vulturess. Despite this shit-brained idea, the movie probably still would've turned a solid profit on name alone.

Thankfully, Sony pulled the plug on it to give Spidey new life. You cannot tell me that that shitty idea would've been better for the character than The Amazing Spider-Man. Is The Amazing Spider-Man perfect? Hardly. However, the franchise is at least set to build off this and its inevitable retelling of the origin to sequels that are closer in tone and characterization of Spider-Man from the comics.

[aradiantsunrise]

Originally Posted by NickIsI

The sole reason the movie even exists is to fill out a balance sheet. Passionless shit. The movie is fucking awful, and if you think otherwise, if I were you, I would gauge my own eyes out. Also, Andrew Garfield was fucking awful as Peter Parker. A horrible Michael Cera impression was all it was.

[wileythekid]

could care less about the individual films, but I have no doubt Avengers 2 will be awesome