I like the MCU films too but, as you say, I'm not going to play ignorant and say they're perfect because they're not and I'm not going to give their mediocre films a pass just because other companies did worse films. Movie companies have made both good and bad films and Marvel is no different.
I'm also a firm believer in that I want both companies to strive to make good movies. Either it's Marvel, DC, Sony, or even Fox.
Not quite. A director (and studio) has to consider all of the potential audience for a movie and what they will want to see (preferably several times). What "fans" want really doesn't enter into the discussion, because they don't make up a significant sample of the potential audience.
Given the kind of business Spider-man 3 did, it's hard to argue that they made bad choices. You or I may not personally like their choices (you because Venom wasn't faithfully portrayed, me because, like Carabas, I think the concept of jealous old costume is terribly flawed as a Spider-man villain concept from the get-go), but the studio clearly got what they wanted in terms of sales.
Avi Arad, the man responsible for some of the worst Marvel movies ever is seriously now trying to take credit for the new Marvel movie universe? This is really an article from The Onion, isn't it?
Spider-Man 3 only made that much money because Spider-Man 2 was so popular and people were excited to see Venom. And with "fans" I actually meant the main audience. fans of the movie series not only comic book fans. My point still stands though. As the director of a Spider-Man movie Raimi (or anyone who directs such a movie really) needs to consider what others would love to see, not only what he wants to see.
Well then Raimi should have been replaced sooner or later because at some point the fans (namely me) would like something else then only the stuff Raimi loves. But since Raimi already has been replaced and will most likely never direct any Spidey movie ever again this discussion is kinda pointless anyway.
Being a massive Venom fan does not somehow entitle you to be able to watch Venom in a movie.
That's not how directors work. When you force directors to throw in crap they don't want you get Spider-Man 3.
And since they got rid of Raimi, the Spider-Man franchise has not been doing very well critically. Rotten Tomatoes has Amazing Spider-Man 2 at 55%(that's worse than Spider-Man 3)
Cant say anything about that since I havent seen ASM 2 yet. However I think that the critics scores reflect also the times in which they were made. I dont think the first Spider-Man by Raimi would get a 89 or 90 at rottentomatoes if it would come out today. Likewise its possible that a Spider-Man 2 which has 94 % at RT would not get such a score today. these scores mostly only reflect the critics of that time, not the actual quality of a movie which is mostly subjective anyway.
For instance I liked Webbs first film far more then Raimis, yet it has a far lower score at RT. Man of Steel only has like 55 % as well, yet I really loved that film. And there are probably a lot more examples as well.
But to be fair the first ASM did well critically as it had a rating over 75 % which I think is pretty good and qualifies as §doing well critically" in my book. Only once movies have a lower rating then 60-65 does it qualify as not doing well for me.
I´d rate it this way:
100 - 90: Stellar
80 - 90: Great
70 - 80: Good
60-70: Well done
50-60: Mediocre
Below 60: Not very good
Below 35: Pretty bad
Below 20: Waste of Time
Of course there are always excpetions for me personally and my own rating of a movie sometimes differs heavily from the general critics consensus such as with Man of Steel or Thor: The Dark World (both of whom I would have given ratings between 70 and 85)