Avi Arad Responds to Feige Article, Takes Credit for Marvel Studios' Success

[Carabas]

The point made was doing the variant spider-man characters like Ben or Miles just doesn't make sense for the movies. Yes, comic audiences will buy "long lost clone" and "random black kid gets same powers", but mainstream audiences won't. You get one movie every few years...if people are going to be invested in them, then it's about Peter...not his clone, not kid who when you boil it down is black Peter, but isn't quite Peter, but otherwise, is the same.

I don't think maintream audience are even remotely as attached to the Peter Parker character as comicbook fans are. Mainstream audiences are mostly attached to some dude in a Spider-Man costume swinging though the city and beating up monsters.

[Legato]

I really agree. I am getting a bit tired of this constant praise of the MCU like every movie is completely perfect while every other company is only producing crap films which is so not true.

I love the MCU, its very faithful and has very individual films and the concept of the interweaving plotlines and a shared universe is really awesome but not every movie in the MCU was a milestone masterpiece. Hulk was pretty mediocre and his character didnt become really popular until Avengers. The first Cap movie was a bit dragging and rocky and among general audiences it wasnt all that popular. Iron Man 3 had its faire share of critics and detractors as well and Iron Man 2 actually was met with quite some negative backlash (Though I never agreed with that, I like both Iron Man sequels very much). The Thor movies were received well but not with a whole lot of praise (The 2nd Thor was also much less well received by critics if you look at the RT score). The only three films that so far were met with universal praise from critics and most fans were Iron Man, Avengers and Cap 2 (Which is more than deserved - all three are among the best superherofilms ever made IMO).

So while the MCU is pretty good and created something very awesome and groundbreaking - its not without its flaws. And the other companies have created great movies too. Sony did the first two Spider-Man films which were absolutely groundbreaking and paved the way for the evolution of the genre. Fox similarly produced the first two X-Men films , which in my opinion are still two of the greatest movies of all time in this genre (especially X2). And while X3 and the first Wolverine were a heavy decline in quality, I think that First Class and The Wolverine were excellent films (flawed in some areas but still really great films) and Days of Future Past certainly does not look like "a desperate cashgrab" to me. So far it looks like one of the most mindblowing movie in the genre to me. Of course I can not judge the film yet before I have seen it.

Similarly we dont know yet how DCs upcoming movies are gonna be like so I find it unfair to dismiss them in advance as movies that will "ruin the comic book movie genre with their lack of quality".

Marvel is doing great stuff with the MCU (especially lately) but not every one of their films is a masterpiece to behold and similarly both Fox and Sony have created great and not so great movies. And both companies still absolutely have the capacity to make great movies. So does Warner/DC by the way. lets be a bit more open minded shall we?

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.

[YoungThanos]

I don't think maintream audience are even remotely as attached to the Peter Parker character as comicbook fans are. Mainstream audiences are mostly attached to some dude in a Spider-Man costume swinging though the city and beating up monsters.

LOL, I would've paid to see that....

[AJBopp]

I understand that Raimi loves particularly the 60s and 70s era of Spidey because thats the stuff that he grew up on but as a director of a Spider-Man movie he has to consider all of the fans and their preferences, not just his own.

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.

[Lightsabretooth]

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?

[devil leonx]

According to an open letter from "Amazing Spider-Man 2" producer Avi Arad, he "single handedly put together the Marvel slate" and is responsible for the Studios' success.


Full article here.

Though he does sound bitter , I would not be surprise if he made a huge contribution to the Marvel film verse and things would be very different.

[KurtW95]

I kind of wish Arad handed the reins of the Spider-man franchise to somebody else.

Two words. GREG. WEISMAN.

[Slade Wilson]

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.

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.

[Carabas]

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.

No, no, he really should not. There's so many films we would never have gotten if directors only made what studioheads thought audiences wanted to see.

[Slade Wilson]

No, no, he really should not. There's so many films we would never have gotten if directors only made what studioheads thought audiences wanted to see.

So you want the directors of these movies only to put in there what they loved about it and not give a damn about what others love? You´re on your own with that, sorry. So not onboard with that notion.

[Carabas]

So you want the directors of these movies only to put in there what they loved about it and not give a damn about what others love? You´re on your own with that, sorry. So not onboard with that notion.

Well, I most certainly do not want directors to make films they themselves don't even like. That just gets you crap like Spider-Man 3.

[Slade Wilson]

Well, I most certainly do not want directors to make films they themselves don't even like. That just gets you crap like Spider-Man 3.

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.

[Carabas]

Being a massive Venom fan does not somehow entitle you to be able to watch Venom in a movie.

[Lightsabretooth]

So you want the directors of these movies only to put in there what they loved about it and not give a damn about what others love? You´re on your own with that, sorry. So not onboard with that notion.

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)

[Slade Wilson]

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)