Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 135
  1. #16
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    3,904

    Default

    yeah, i'll jump on this bandwagon. there's been enough times when being too faithful/reverent to source material ("golden compass", "watchmen") without understanding the essence of what makes it work has just produced big, beautiful box office crap.

    are spider-man fans more inclined to squeeze tightly to a preferred depiction? i thought it was just a general fan thing across the board.

  2. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevinroc View Post
    Now this is something that should be discussed because considering how those movies went down, do they think that was a mistake? Because Sony rushed off to make a deal with Marvel Studios after these two films. Do you think that would have happened if Emma Stone played MJ?
    My guess is the films would have done even worse. It would have been more of a remake.

  3. #18
    Moderator Frontier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    48,604

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    My guess is the films would have done even worse. It would have been more of a remake.
    Considering that people have cited rebooting the franchise so soon, and touching on the same points the previous movies did, as as an element against the Amazing movies, I don't see how it could have hurt anymore if MJ had been the main high school love interest instead of Gwen.

    We'd still have no JJJ, Bugle, Harry, Norman, or wrestling element in the origin, and at least with Stone playing MJ she'd still probably win the love of tons of people without fear of getting killed off in a later movie .

    Do multiple Superman film franchises that feature Clark and Lois Lane together, and other essential Superman elements, equate to just being remakes of each other?

  4. #19
    Fantastic Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    278

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    My guess is the films would have done even worse. It would have been more of a remake.
    In the early stages of the reboot, I remember it being described as "the untold tales of the Raimi trilogy." Perhaps, with obvious changes, it would've been more successful that way.

    The problem was that they cast Emma Stone as "the girlfriend that dies". One of the only reasons Sony used Gwen was so they could kill her, and they constructed the ASM films around her death. They were planning to move on to Mary Jane, but they weren't expecting audiences to adore Emma Stone so much, and killing her ultimately killed the franchise.

    The whole reboot was just poorly conceived. What they should have done was a soft reboot. No origin story, no high school, no Osborns, and Emma Stone as MJ.
    Last edited by Spider-Tiger; 07-19-2015 at 11:41 AM.

  5. #20
    BANNED
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,469

    Default

    The point was to do a loose adaption of one of Spidey's most important stories. I guess they could have killed MJ off, instead, but then it's not even close to the same story anymore.

    I doubt killing Gwen is what hurt the franchise. Sony and Marvel wanted to tie Spidey to the MCU, so it was as good a time as any to start over. Woulda preferred Garfield alongside Evans and RDJ, but whattaya gonna do.

  6. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frontier View Post
    Considering that people have cited rebooting the franchise so soon, and touching on the same points the previous movies did, as as an element against the Amazing movies, I don't see how it could have hurt anymore if MJ had been the main high school love interest instead of Gwen.

    We'd still have no JJJ, Bugle, Harry, Norman, or wrestling element in the origin, and at least with Stone playing MJ she'd still probably win the love of tons of people without fear of getting killed off in a later movie .

    Do multiple Superman film franchises that feature Clark and Lois Lane together, and other essential Superman elements, equate to just being remakes of each other?
    Changing Amazing Spider-Man so that Emma Stone played MJ instead of Gwen would have meant that a film that already covers similar territory to the first Spider-Man (the origin) now has the same love interest.

    If Emma Stone had played MJ in a film set after the events of Spider-Man 3, it would have been a radically different movie than Amazing Spider-Man. It's impossible to compare.

  7. #22
    Really Feeling It! Kevinroc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    California
    Posts
    8,256

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    Changing Amazing Spider-Man so that Emma Stone played MJ instead of Gwen would have meant that a film that already covers similar territory to the first Spider-Man (the origin) now has the same love interest.

    If Emma Stone had played MJ in a film set after the events of Spider-Man 3, it would have been a radically different movie than Amazing Spider-Man. It's impossible to compare.
    Constructing ASM with Stone as MJ instead of Gwen already changes the movie we got. Beyond the parents story. That probably stays in (unfortunately).

    But I still believe it was a mistake to cast Stone as Gwen. And in hindsight, I don't understand how it can be argued that casting Stone as Gwen wasn't a terrible idea.

  8. #23
    Mighty Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,437

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevinroc View Post
    Constructing ASM with Stone as MJ instead of Gwen already changes the movie we got. Beyond the parents story. That probably stays in (unfortunately).

    But I still believe it was a mistake to cast Stone as Gwen. And in hindsight, I don't understand how it can be argued that casting Stone as Gwen wasn't a terrible idea.
    I am not so sure, myself... Primarily, because she was great, and it worked, and it seems like most people loved it. Secondarily, I wonder how many people knew who Gwen was, going into the movie. Sure, WE all knew who she was... and we probably told our girlfriends or siblings or whoever we saw the movie with.. but the average fan? I don't think the average fifteen year old had any idea who Gwen Stacy is and what her fate was. I mean not only does that fifteen year old not know who Gwen is, he might not know who MJ is! He might only know single, never-married Peter. To throw my anecdotal, for-what-it's-worth two cents in: My jobs are directly across from a movie theater. I was curious about Gwen's recognition rate, so I asked lots of people after the movie, during it's whole run. The overwhelming majority had never heard of her, prior to the movie. Why would they have? She has been dead for decades. Sure, she is an important part of the mythos... to us. Sometimes I (we) forget that the vast, overwhelming, enormous majority of people do not read comics.

    When viewed from that perspective, the casting takes on a different light... It changes everything, really. And as hard as it is to admit, the movies were not made to cater to the few tens of thousands of us regular comic readers, but the billions of non-readers.

  9. #24
    Really Feeling It! Kevinroc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    California
    Posts
    8,256

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel22 View Post
    I am not so sure, myself... Primarily, because she was great, and it worked, and it seems like most people loved it. Secondarily, I wonder how many people knew who Gwen was, going into the movie. Sure, WE all knew who she was... and we probably told our girlfriends or siblings or whoever we saw the movie with.. but the average fan? I don't think the average fifteen year old had any idea who Gwen Stacy is and what her fate was. I mean not only does that fifteen year old not know who Gwen is, he might not know who MJ is! He might only know single, never-married Peter. To throw my anecdotal, for-what-it's-worth two cents in: My jobs are directly across from a movie theater. I was curious about Gwen's recognition rate, so I asked lots of people after the movie, during it's whole run. The overwhelming majority had never heard of her, prior to the movie. Why would they have? She has been dead for decades. Sure, she is an important part of the mythos... to us. Sometimes I (we) forget that the vast, overwhelming, enormous majority of people do not read comics.

    When viewed from that perspective, the casting takes on a different light... It changes everything, really. And as hard as it is to admit, the movies were not made to cater to the few tens of thousands of us regular comic readers, but the billions of non-readers.
    That's not what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about is doing the Gwen Stacy story was one of the things that ultimately killed this franchise. That's why it was a mistake. Casting one of the most popular actresses as Spider-Man's dead girlfriend was a mistake.

    You said it yourself. You'd have loved Stone if she played MJ.

  10. #25
    Mighty Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,437

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevinroc View Post
    That's not what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about is doing the Gwen Stacy story was one of the things that ultimately killed this franchise. That's why it was a mistake. Casting one of the most popular actresses as Spider-Man's dead girlfriend was a mistake.

    You said it yourself. You'd have loved Stone if she played MJ.
    I am going to disagree, still... Maybe the plan was to have "Amazing" be a trilogy, with Stone in the first two only, with the third movie dealing with the fallout of her death.. In which case, having a loved actress doing a great job on the first two movies is a good thing. They wouldn't have had to replace her in the third, either; it's not like a love interest is mandatory. I think it's oftentimes assumed that MJ would have been up next, had "Amazing" continued, but that did not have to be the case.

    She was only Spider-Man's dead girlfriend, to the vast majority of the public I believe, for the very end of the second movie. Up until then, she was an engaging, lovely and well-liked character. She was only doomed from the start for hardcore fans.

    It's true, I do think she would have made a great MJ, also. I say that because I think she's super talented. I could see her playing any type of character, really, but a sassy, witty and outgoing MJ would play to some of her strengths, I think.

  11. #26
    Fantastic Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    278

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel22 View Post
    I am going to disagree, still... Maybe the plan was to have "Amazing" be a trilogy, with Stone in the first two only, with the third movie dealing with the fallout of her death.. In which case, having a loved actress doing a great job on the first two movies is a good thing. They wouldn't have had to replace her in the third, either; it's not like a love interest is mandatory. I think it's oftentimes assumed that MJ would have been up next, had "Amazing" continued, but that did not have to be the case.

    She was only Spider-Man's dead girlfriend, to the vast majority of the public I believe, for the very end of the second movie. Up until then, she was an engaging, lovely and well-liked character. She was only doomed from the start for hardcore fans.

    It's true, I do think she would have made a great MJ, also. I say that because I think she's super talented. I could see her playing any type of character, really, but a sassy, witty and outgoing MJ would play to some of her strengths, I think.
    That probably was the plan (at least, before they decided to world-build and do multiple spin-offs to compete with the MCU). However, killing Stone eviscerated the franchise of one of its most crucial (and widely praised) elements. I agree with Kevinroc. Had Sony still been able to use Stone alongside Andrew, the Amazing franchise might not be dead. They backed themselves into a corner.

    And the things that we know about Shailene Woodley's deleted scenes do suggest that (at one point) they had planned for MJ to come in and replace Gwen as love interest.
    Last edited by Spider-Tiger; 07-19-2015 at 07:14 PM. Reason: posted before I finished

  12. #27
    Really Feeling It! Kevinroc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    California
    Posts
    8,256

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spider-Tiger View Post
    That probably was the plan (at least, before they decided to world-build and do multiple spin-offs to compete with the MCU). However, killing Stone eviscerated the franchise of one of its most crucial (and widely praised) elements. I agree with Kevinroc. Had Sony still been able to use Stone alongside Andrew, the Amazing franchise might not be dead. They backed themselves into a corner.

    And the things that we know about Shailene Woodley's deleted scenes do suggest that (at one point) they had planned for MJ to come in and replace Gwen as love interest.
    Several proposed spin-offs went out of their way to find some way to include Gwen. Including a movie meant to take place in between ASM 1 and 2.

    I say again, casting Stone as Gwen was a huge mistake. The fact that so many people say that they would buy Stone cast as anyone really says all that needs to be said.

  13. #28
    Loony Scott Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Running Springs, California
    Posts
    5,896

    Default

    Also Gwen is just a weak character from the comics. They made her into MJ to pull off making her so interesting. At any rate it is risky killing a top actor, especially when that actor's character is so developed. In this case, I too felt all interest in the franchise leave me when she died. Whats left to follow if not for Peter and Gwen? The parent story (bleh!) and a whole bunch of completely undeveloped characters.

    And part of it is that they made her death no one's fault but her own. No story gravitas to that whatsoever. She died a modern woman, I guess, not as a damsel in distress. Maybe that was the goal.
    Last edited by Scott Taylor; 07-19-2015 at 08:19 PM.
    Every day is a gift, not a given right.

  14. #29
    Mighty Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,437

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevinroc View Post
    Several proposed spin-offs went out of their way to find some way to include Gwen. Including a movie meant to take place in between ASM 1 and 2.

    I say again, casting Stone as Gwen was a huge mistake. The fact that so many people say that they would buy Stone cast as anyone really says all that needs to be said.
    I guess that's what I don't understand: What is bad about buying Stone cast as anyone? For me, it just means that she is really talented and enjoyable. I'm not sure how it's a bad thing, as it relates to the movies...?

  15. #30
    Mighty Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,437

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Scott Taylor View Post
    Also Gwen is just a weak character from the comics. They made her into MJ to pull off making her so interesting. At any rate it is risky killing a top actor, especially when that actor's character is so developed. In this case, I too felt all interest in the franchise leave me when she died. Whats left to follow if not for Peter and Gwen? The parent story (bleh!) and a whole bunch of completely undeveloped characters.

    And part of it is that they made her death no one's fault but her own. No story gravitas to that whatsoever. She died a modern woman, I guess, not as a damsel in distress. Maybe that was the goal.
    I felt like there was plenty to follow, but I am easily pleased with superhero movies. Is there a character I like on screen, doing cool things? Then I'm most likely happy. I have liked them all, to some degree, even "Daredevil" the movie and the "Ghost Rider"s. I don't know why, beyond the fact that I am nuts for anything superhero related and am positive by nature.

    I do have one idea, though: it may be my age. I am old enough to remember living in a world without ANY Spider-Man movies. A world where the "Superman" movies with Reeves were the best thing out. So now, after decades of wishing, hoping, of false starts and rumors, I have all of the characters I love, up on screen, a couple of times a year!
    I have had so many wishes coming true, rapid-fire, for years now, and I'm just really grateful and happy to finally experience it all.

Posting Permissions

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