Page 34 of 49 FirstFirst ... 2430313233343536373844 ... LastLast
Results 496 to 510 of 725
  1. #496
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    5,193

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by G. Boney View Post
    It didn't kill the franchise of course, but someone correct me if I'm wrong: Doesn't Sony have to keep making Spidey movies if they want to keep the film rights?
    They do. But I don't think you can say Spider-Man 3 killed the franchise when they famously gave the lead of that movie the largest contract in movie history to make a 4th and 5th film and had the main writer creating a script until he said he couldn't.

  2. #497
    King of Wakanda Midvillian1322's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    9,448

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KNIGHT OF THE LAKE View Post
    They do. But I don't think you can say Spider-Man 3 killed the franchise when they famously gave the lead of that movie the largest contract in movie history to make a 4th and 5th film and had the main writer creating a script until he said he couldn't.
    I dont know anything about any of that. Did they give him this contract before or after the bad reviews started rolling in?

  3. #498
    BANNED
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,989

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KNIGHT OF THE LAKE View Post
    This is incredibly revisionist

    1. Spider-Man 3 did not kill the franchise and anyone who thinks that is incredibly misinformed. You want to know how much confidence Sony had in moving forward? Tobey McGuire signed the biggest actors contract in history at the time for Spider-Man 4, well after the third film came out. They were ready to go. The problem was Raimi couldn’t get a script that he was satisfied with and he knew that they were rebooting once he was done because all the actors were publicly talking about how they were drained by the films. When Raimi told Sony he couldn’t do a script they moved on.

    2. Disney had a good deal. They exchanged oversight from Feige for Spider-Man, one of the world’s biggest characters, in their films. That’s not a massive investment from Disney. Literally all the financing came from Sony, the crew came from Sony, the contracts came from Sony, the production came from Sony. Feige who Disney already employed was told to give them oversite.

    It would cost billions for Disney to get Spider-Man from Sony, having Feige involved is in fact virtually nothing in comparison to that
    1. This all sounds like in the wake of the mess that Spiderman 3 was (and the public reaction to it) they couldn't find a workable way forward. So...yes....it killed it. When the director wants to stay on, the lead actor wants to stay on, the production company wants to make more......it seems rather odd to throw your hands up about the problem Spiderman 3 created. It created a problem so large that despite all the interest in continuing, they couldn't find a way. That's basically as textbook a "killed the franchise" moment as I can imagine.

    2. Sony also kept the vast majority of the profits. What Disney truly got out of the deal was saving Spiderman's image in the public. The Garfield movies along with Spiderman 3 had heavily soured the movie going public on Spidey. What Disney did was rescue one of their A-listers from Sony's incompetence. Yes, relative to buying the rights, it's a great deal. But that deal only existed because Sony had sucked their way into a corner with the rights. And, I'll repeat, their CEO is on record saying as much.

  4. #499
    A Wearied Madness Vakanai's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    12,545

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Theleviathan View Post
    1. This all sounds like in the wake of the mess that Spiderman 3 was (and the public reaction to it) they couldn't find a workable way forward. So...yes....it killed it. When the director wants to stay on, the lead actor wants to stay on, the production company wants to make more......it seems rather odd to throw your hands up about the problem Spiderman 3 created. It created a problem so large that despite all the interest in continuing, they couldn't find a way. That's basically as textbook a "killed the franchise" moment as I can imagine.

    2. Sony also kept the vast majority of the profits. What Disney truly got out of the deal was saving Spiderman's image in the public. The Garfield movies along with Spiderman 3 had heavily soured the movie going public on Spidey. What Disney did was rescue one of their A-listers from Sony's incompetence. Yes, relative to buying the rights, it's a great deal. But that deal only existed because Sony had sucked their way into a corner with the rights. And, I'll repeat, their CEO is on record saying as much.
    2. Didn't Disney get alot of if not all of the film based merchandising rights?

  5. #500
    BANNED Beaddle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    1,199

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KNIGHT OF THE LAKE View Post
    They do. But I don't think you can say Spider-Man 3 killed the franchise when they famously gave the lead of that movie the largest contract in movie history to make a 4th and 5th film and had the main writer creating a script until he said he couldn't.
    Its weird some people are saying spiderman 3 killed the franchise. reviews were mixed, there was a lot of studio internal issues since Raimi did not want to use venom, the movie earned its budgets back.What killed the franchise was when Raimi left before spiderman 4 went into production. Sometimes I am shocked by how much the narrative has so much change because of the MCU. I would commend the spiderman fans as I am one, the narrative was to use homecoming to wipe out sam raimi's spiderman impact, this is the reason the movie for a long time was portrayed as the best spiderman we have seen but many spiderman fans were not having it. they saw right through Disney's agenda and they also had the comics.

    Spending time here and on the spiderman forum, I am truly shocked to see just how much many spiderman fans dislike holland's spiderman, even dubbing him '''Iron Boy''. I guess Disney land has never been reality for real. those that think spiderman 3 killed the franchise, If sony announces a spiderman 4 tomorrow, there would be no bigger comic news story until the movie is out.
    Last edited by Beaddle; 09-03-2019 at 07:49 PM.

  6. #501
    Uncanny Member XPac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    31,711

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KNIGHT OF THE LAKE View Post
    They do. But I don't think you can say Spider-Man 3 killed the franchise when they famously gave the lead of that movie the largest contract in movie history to make a 4th and 5th film and had the main writer creating a script until he said he couldn't.
    Saying Spider-Man 3 killed the franchise admittedly is overly simplistic. Like Fox and the WB, this behind the scenes were a mess and that was really the problem. The problem wasn't Spider-Man 3 so much as Sony itself.

    Ultimately it comes down to Marvel Studios being a well run machine while Fox, Sony, and the WB are constantly scrambling around looking for the next quick fix. The movies really aren't to blame, its the studio.

  7. #502
    Uncanny Member XPac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    31,711

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beaddle View Post
    Its weird some people are saying spiderman 3 killed the franchise. reviews were mixed, there was a lot of studio internal issues since Raimi did not want to use venom, the movie earned its budgets back.What killed the franchise was when Raimi left before spiderman 4 when into production. Sometimes I am shocked by how much the narrative has so much change because of the MCU. I would commend the spiderman fans as I am one, the narrative was to use homecoming to wipe out sam raimi's spiderman impact, this is the reason the movie for a long time was portrayed as the best spiderman we have seen but many spiderman fans were not having it. they saw right through Disney's agenda and they also had the comics.

    Spending time here and on the spiderman forum, I am truly shocked to see just how much many spiderman fans dislike holland's spiderman, even dubbing him '''Iron Boy''. I guess Disney land has never been reality for real. those that think spiderman 3 killed the franchise. If sony announces a spiderman 4 tomorrow, there would be no bigger comic news story until the movie is out.
    I agree Spider-Man 4 would be huge. Spider-Man 3 frankly left a very bad taste in a lot of people's mouths, including Raimi. I'm sure we would have all liked it if the series had ended on a high note rather that with .... that.

    The reason Spider-Man 3 is ragged on so much is precisely because Spider-Man 2 was so good. Spider-Man 3 is like the last season of Game of Thrones ... It's a disappointment.

  8. #503
    BANNED
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,989

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vakanai View Post
    2. Didn't Disney get alot of if not all of the film based merchandising rights?
    Pretty sure Disney has all those rights already. Maybe I'm wrong, but Sony's rights over Spiderman are fairly narrow, which is why Marvel can merchandise and use the hell out of Spiderman in everything but films.

  9. #504
    Uncanny Member XPac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    31,711

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Theleviathan View Post
    Pretty sure Disney has all those rights already. Maybe I'm wrong, but Sony's rights over Spiderman are fairly narrow, which is why Marvel can merchandise and use the hell out of Spiderman in everything but films.
    I think I read once that Spider-Man gets like a billion dollars in licensing year, so marvel is pretty happy even when Sony's is getting the lions share of the movie profits.

  10. #505
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    5,193

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Midvillian1322 View Post
    I dont know anything about any of that. Did they give him this contract before or after the bad reviews started rolling in?
    No. Spider Man 3 came out in May of 2007. The contracts with Tobey were announced in late 2008 (like September I believe). It was over a year later. They knew the reception was mixed. Sometimes I think fans here retroactively think the reception was a lot worse than it was because people never discuss it kindly. It was the epitome of a mixed bag film. Fans liked the Sandman stuff and the redemption of Harry. They didn't like anything to do with Venom and thought MJ sucked in the film. It was generally viewed as a very mixed bag and a dissapointent after how good Spider-Man 2 was (which is still considered one of the best superhero films).

    Long story short: they locked up Tobey with what was the biggest contract of all time. They were going to do Spider-Man 4 and 5. They told Raimi to come up with a script and were willing to stay out of the way after how 3 went. Raimi's heart wasn't in it anymore. Sony basically told him they were planning on rebooting once he got his final say on the franchise. Because Raimi thought he couldn't do the film justice he bowed out. There was deadline on the contracts where the film had to have a start date by 2010 or Tobey and Raimi were relieved of their contract. Raimi told Sony that he didn't have anything and that they should just start their reboot now.

    They were clearly willing to stay out of Raimi's way and throw a blank check at the actors to make the thing happen. They just knew they needed a gameplan going forward because MaGuire and Dunst were talking about how sick they were of doing the films in every interview they did (and it was a noticeable topic at the time) to the point where Amy Pascal stepped in and allowed Tobey to have a ton of off time in his contract. So the reboot was always coming, it was just down to weather Raimi was going to do a few more films or not continue. It ended with him deciding to not continue.

  11. #506
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    5,193

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Theleviathan View Post
    1. This all sounds like in the wake of the mess that Spiderman 3 was (and the public reaction to it) they couldn't find a workable way forward. So...yes....it killed it. When the director wants to stay on, the lead actor wants to stay on, the production company wants to make more......it seems rather odd to throw your hands up about the problem Spiderman 3 created. It created a problem so large that despite all the interest in continuing, they couldn't find a way. That's basically as textbook a "killed the franchise" moment as I can imagine.

    2. Sony also kept the vast majority of the profits. What Disney truly got out of the deal was saving Spiderman's image in the public. The Garfield movies along with Spiderman 3 had heavily soured the movie going public on Spidey. What Disney did was rescue one of their A-listers from Sony's incompetence. Yes, relative to buying the rights, it's a great deal. But that deal only existed because Sony had sucked their way into a corner with the rights. And, I'll repeat, their CEO is on record saying as much.
    1. Well it wasn't. The only thing that held up Spider-Man 4 was that Raimi couldn't come up with a script he liked (and they stayed out of his way on this one). They were basically throwing a blank check at the actors to stay on board. They wanted a 4th and 5th film. The biggest problem was they knew all the actors didn't want to do it anymore because they were getting worn out and publicly saying so. So they pretty much made it clear that once Raimi/Tobey/Dunst were gone, they were going to reboot. Raimi knew this and when he couldn't find a script he liked he basically told Sony "you're going to reboot anyone it seems, why don't you just do that rather than have me waste more time doing something I can't.

    Was Spider-Man 3 great film? No it was a very mixed film and the reviews reflected that. Was it the worst film ever? No. Did it do anything that fundamentally damaged the franchise going forward? No. It wrapped itself up very neatly. Yeah Venom and Harry were dead, but both previous films killed major villains. It ended with Peter and MJ together and Spider-Man heroically winning. There was no reason theycouldn't do a film with Vulture (similar to Homecoming without the MCU stuff), a Lizard film like they always planned, a decent Kraven film, or really anything. The films all had some loose threads, but they were mostly self contained.

    Like you're just wrong and kinda trying to justify your dislike of the film by saying "it killed the franchise". It did no such thing. The actors and the director/writer were just burned out. Sony was throwing everything at them to keep going. Nothing about Spider-Man 3 intriniscally was why a 4th film was made. In fact Raimi himself said that he wasn't happy with Spider-Man 3 and was motivated to do 4 just to make the best film he could possibly make. He just ended up not being able to find a story he liked and bowed out.

    You can fantasize all these vague mysterious problems that you can't specify that "it caused issues behind the scenes", but that's not what happened.They were set to go, they got everyone on board, the director was motivated. Then he decided he didn't have a good story in him and didn't want to do less than his best and told Sony they should just move on. And they respected it and thanked him for his work.

    2. Sony kept the vast majority of the profits because they:

    A) OWNED THE RIGHTS TO THE CHARACTER
    B) Financed the films, hired the actors and the crew for the films, and assumed all the financial risk for the films.
    C) Were responsibke for the entire production of the films.

    Disney got a small cut because they had Feige oversee the process and give input on aspects of the film. It didn't cost Disney a whole lot to tell Feige to overlook some scripts and give his input.

    What Disney got out of the deal... how about having Spider-Man show up in Civil War, in Infinity Wars, and in Endgame? You know a character they don't own the rights to. The fact that this is being dismissed is saying volumes. As I said before, for the price of Feige they got a character that would have cost them billions of dollars.

    Sorry you just are ignoring the realities of the deal and the realities of what actually happened at the time and using generalities fanboys tout out to justify your narrative on this one. It simply isn't accurate. Spider-Man 1 and 2 were great films. Spider-Man 3 was a mixed bag that became a top 10 grossing film of all time. Amazing Spider-Man was following up a huge successful franchise and got respectable reviews and made just shy of what was typical for the prior franchise. Amazing Spider-Man 2 was the only one that got a Rotten rating on RT and was almost universally viewed as bad upon completion (and even then it got better reviews than things like Batman v. Superman by a significant margin), and it still made a lot of money.

    In fact the worst Spider-Man film still made more than any phase 1 MCU film save Avengers, made more than both Ant Man films, oh and made roughly the same amount as Winter Soldier. So this idea that it was damaged beyond repair because the worst film they had still had a 52% RT score and made 100 million less than what a standard Spidey-film generally makes is kinda laugable.

    I'll repeat, the reviews, the boxoffices, the actual events that happened, the terms of the deal, and the facts in general do not back you up in any way.

  12. #507
    BANNED
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,989

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KNIGHT OF THE LAKE View Post
    1. Well it wasn't. The only thing that held up Spider-Man 4 was that Raimi couldn't come up with a script he liked (and they stayed out of his way on this one). They were basically throwing a blank check at the actors to stay on board. They wanted a 4th and 5th film. The biggest problem was they knew all the actors didn't want to do it anymore because they were getting worn out and publicly saying so. So they pretty much made it clear that once Raimi/Tobey/Dunst were gone, they were going to reboot. Raimi knew this and when he couldn't find a script he liked he basically told Sony "you're going to reboot anyone it seems, why don't you just do that rather than have me waste more time doing something I can't.

    Was Spider-Man 3 great film? No it was a very mixed film and the reviews reflected that. Was it the worst film ever? No. Did it do anything that fundamentally damaged the franchise going forward? No. It wrapped itself up very neatly. Yeah Venom and Harry were dead, but both previous films killed major villains. It ended with Peter and MJ together and Spider-Man heroically winning. There was no reason theycouldn't do a film with Vulture (similar to Homecoming without the MCU stuff), a Lizard film like they always planned, a decent Kraven film, or really anything. The films all had some loose threads, but they were mostly self contained.

    Like you're just wrong and kinda trying to justify your dislike of the film by saying "it killed the franchise". It did no such thing. The actors and the director/writer were just burned out. Sony was throwing everything at them to keep going. Nothing about Spider-Man 3 intriniscally was why a 4th film was made. In fact Raimi himself said that he wasn't happy with Spider-Man 3 and was motivated to do 4 just to make the best film he could possibly make. He just ended up not being able to find a story he liked and bowed out.

    You can fantasize all these vague mysterious problems that you can't specify that "it caused issues behind the scenes", but that's not what happened.They were set to go, they got everyone on board, the director was motivated. Then he decided he didn't have a good story in him and didn't want to do less than his best and told Sony they should just move on. And they respected it and thanked him for his work.

    2. Sony kept the vast majority of the profits because they:

    A) OWNED THE RIGHTS TO THE CHARACTER
    B) Financed the films, hired the actors and the crew for the films, and assumed all the financial risk for the films.
    C) Were responsibke for the entire production of the films.

    Disney got a small cut because they had Feige oversee the process and give input on aspects of the film. It didn't cost Disney a whole lot to tell Feige to overlook some scripts and give his input.

    What Disney got out of the deal... how about having Spider-Man show up in Civil War, in Infinity Wars, and in Endgame? You know a character they don't own the rights to. The fact that this is being dismissed is saying volumes. As I said before, for the price of Feige they got a character that would have cost them billions of dollars.

    Sorry you just are ignoring the realities of the deal and the realities of what actually happened at the time and using generalities fanboys tout out to justify your narrative on this one. It simply isn't accurate. Spider-Man 1 and 2 were great films. Spider-Man 3 was a mixed bag that became a top 10 grossing film of all time. Amazing Spider-Man was following up a huge successful franchise and got respectable reviews and made just shy of what was typical for the prior franchise. Amazing Spider-Man 2 was the only one that got a Rotten rating on RT and was almost universally viewed as bad upon completion (and even then it got better reviews than things like Batman v. Superman by a significant margin), and it still made a lot of money.

    In fact the worst Spider-Man film still made more than any phase 1 MCU film save Avengers, made more than both Ant Man films, oh and made roughly the same amount as Winter Soldier. So this idea that it was damaged beyond repair because the worst film they had still had a 52% RT score and made 100 million less than what a standard Spidey-film generally makes is kinda laugable.

    I'll repeat, the reviews, the boxoffices, the actual events that happened, the terms of the deal, and the facts in general do not back you up in any way.
    Directly from Raimi: I was very unhappy with Spider-Man 3, and I wanted to make Spider-Man 4 to end on a very high note, the best Spider-Man of them all. But I couldn't get the script together in time, due to my own failings, and I said to Sony, 'I don't want to make a movie that is less than great, so I think we shouldn't make this picture. Go ahead with your reboot, which you've been planning anyway.'

    Spiderman 3's crappy quality was directly tied to his struggles to make Spiderman 4 work. You brush that off, but Raimi is tying the failure to make 4 work to 3 with that comment. And the studio was actively planning a reboot simultaneously to Raimi's efforts on 4 because they felt it might be necessary. Spiderman 3 was a box office success to be sure, but I chalk that up to the brilliance of Spiderman 2 and the promise of Venom leading to that. In terms of quality, it was largely panned as a terrible follow-up.

    And I'll just end with this, because it makes your narrative clearly the exact thing you accuse me of (read: justifying your own stance): Sony's CEO has public comments basically confirming that they'd been screwing up the character and needed Disney's creative to save their sinking ship. Spidey had become a late-night punch line. Audience was fatigued. And his own studio no longer trusted itself to do anything but screw up. THEY went searching for a lifeline. Disney didn't go begging. Sony did. Disney just saw an opportunity to save one of their A-listers.

  13. #508
    BANNED
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,989

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by XPac View Post
    I think I read once that Spider-Man gets like a billion dollars in licensing year, so marvel is pretty happy even when Sony's is getting the lions share of the movie profits.
    Right, they have the cake and the frosting...they just tried to strong arm the cherries too. If Morbius and the next Holland Spidey flop.....they may have Sony come crawling back for a second time. At that point, they may wish they took the 50% deal.

    If they do well....then they earn the right to keep making the movies. That's fine, just make them not crappy is all I ask. Considering it's been 15 year since there was a not-crappy Sony exclusive Spiderman.....I have doubts.

  14. #509
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    5,193

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Theleviathan View Post
    Directly from Raimi: I was very unhappy with Spider-Man 3, and I wanted to make Spider-Man 4 to end on a very high note, the best Spider-Man of them all. But I couldn't get the script together in time, due to my own failings, and I said to Sony, 'I don't want to make a movie that is less than great, so I think we shouldn't make this picture. Go ahead with your reboot, which you've been planning anyway.'

    Spiderman 3's crappy quality was directly tied to his struggles to make Spiderman 4 work. You brush that off, but Raimi is tying the failure to make 4 work to 3 with that comment. And the studio was actively planning a reboot simultaneously to Raimi's efforts on 4 because they felt it might be necessary. Spiderman 3 was a box office success to be sure, but I chalk that up to the brilliance of Spiderman 2 and the promise of Venom leading to that. In terms of quality, it was largely panned as a terrible follow-up.

    And I'll just end with this, because it makes your narrative clearly the exact thing you accuse me of (read: justifying your own stance): Sony's CEO has public comments basically confirming that they'd been screwing up the character and needed Disney's creative to save their sinking ship. Spidey had become a late-night punch line. Audience was fatigued. And his own studio no longer trusted itself to do anything but screw up. THEY went searching for a lifeline. Disney didn't go begging. Sony did. Disney just saw an opportunity to save one of their A-listers.
    I'm sorry this is an example of bias and delusion. There is nowhere in Raimi's statement where he said that Spider-Man 3 was the reason he couldn't get a script together for Spider-Man 4. If anything it says he was motivated by Spider-Man 3 to try to do better this time.

    You literally just projected your own feelings into his statement that says nothing remotely like what you are claiming. "But I couldn't get the script together in time, due to my own failings". Where the hell does he say his own failings had anything to do with Spider-Man 3? Nowhere. You want it to be true so you made it up.

    I'm sorry you are just flat out wrong. I didn't brush anything off, you flat out just made **** up. It's kinda frightening to be honets.

    Furthermore lets go more into the craziness. You said Spider-Man 3 was "largely panned".

    It has a 63% on rotten tomatoes, it has an average score of 6.2, it has 160 positive reviews to 96 negative reviews. That's not largely panned. It got a mixed reception.

    But I'm still amazed that you accuse me of making up my own narrative when YOU LITERALLY QUOTED THE DIRECTOR SAYING HE WAS MOTIVATED BY SPIDER-MAN 3 TO MAKE SPIDER-MAN 4 AND THEN SAYS IT WAS HIS OWN FAILINGS THAT HE DIDN'T GET A SCRIPT ON TIME, NOT REMOTELY BLAMING IT ON SPIDER-MAN 3, and you just blatantly projected into it so you could suit your narrative.

    So lets go into straight facts.

    1. Spider-Man 3 was the highest grossing Spider-Man film outside of Far From Home. So if that's a failure so is Homecoming. It was a financial success
    2. Spider-Man 3 you said was panned by critics. We have data from critics. It has 160 positive reviews to 96 negative reviews on RT. It has a fresh rating. It had many more positive reviews than negative. You can't say it was panned.
    3. Sony wanted to do Spider-Man 4 so bad that they negotiated a record breaking contract with Tobey to get him on board.
    4. Sony wanted to do Spider-Man 4 so bad that they negotiated for Tobey to have 6 months of off time whenever he wanted to take so they could get him back, in fact Pascal had to interfere so they could get that.
    5. Raimi sites Spider-Man 3 IN YOUR OWN QUOTE for why he wanted to do Spider-Man 4.
    6. Nothing in your quote supports that Raimi failed to produce a script because of Spider-Man 3, in fact he blames himself for it.

    Those are the facts thats support my position.

    You have one quote from a CEO. That CEO made that quote after 2 seperate Spider-Man films in an entirely different continuity where the most recent one just got the lowest gross of a Spider-Man 3 film. That Studio exec did not site Spider-Man 3 in that quote and it's for more likely he was talking about ASM 2.

    You're showing immense bias and the facts are completely not on your side. Do yourself a favor, don't accuse people of things when you can't even read the big quote you posted that you thought was some type of checkmate that actually in reality went against your point

  15. #510
    BANNED
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,989

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KNIGHT OF THE LAKE View Post
    I'm sorry this is an example of bias and delusion. There is nowhere in Raimi's statement where he said that Spider-Man 3 was the reason he couldn't get a script together for Spider-Man 4. If anything it says he was motivated by Spider-Man 3 to try to do better this time.
    He was motivated by it and couldn't do it. There is no "bias" in that. Raimi didn't have to bring up Spiderman 3 to say he wasn't happy with Spiderman 4. But he did. He tied it together, not me. I think you're falling victim to the very thing you're accusing me of.

    I have a quote from Sony's CEO and the fact that they went begging to Marvel. I mean, the "went begging to Marvel" is all the point I need really. The CEO just made it painfully obvious.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •