Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017)

[Dalekbuster523Bluray]

Originally Posted by kamphausd1

Personally, I've never been able to understand why so many people think the Raimi films are good.

Because they're entertaining films that perfectly capture the comic book vibe and offer a better explanation for Spider-Man's web shooting to the comic books.

[DisneyBlu]

Originally Posted by kamphausd1

Personally, I've never been able to understand why so many people think the Raimi films are good.

I find Spider-Man charming, the same way I find Superman: The Movie charming. There's a lot of cheese. It gets corny. While nostalgia plays a part, Spider-Man isn't a bad movie. I enjoy it a lot. I get this dumb smile while watching it. It doesn't get it all right, but it gets enough right. It's very much an adaptation of the 60s Lee/Ditko/Romita comics, and in that vein, some of the cheese can be overlooked. It almost feels like an 80s movie. It's very much a dated product of its time, but I love it.

Spider-Man 2, though... one of the best comic book movies of all time. It's a love letter to those Lee/Ditko/Romita comics. The spirit of those comics is embedded within every frame of that film.

I even like Spider-Man 3. Lots of problems, too many to go into here, but I like it.

I know Marvel will finally give us an accurate portrayal of Mary Jane. Raimi should have studied up on those comics from the 70s - 2000s, because he got MJ all wrong. Mary Jane Watson is one of Marvel's best female characters -- definitely my favorite. She's complex and interesting. In the movies, she's obnoxious and unlikeable. In the comics, you see why Peter Parker loves her as much as he does. In the movies, you go, "what the hell does Parker want with her?" Which isn't what you should be saying in a trilogy where a lot of focus is dedicated to the love interest.

[Infernal King]

Originally Posted by Darth Anakin

I would say nostalgia but none of them are that old. I guess people don't care if a director completely butchers a character like Spider-Man and horrifically miscasts Mary-Jane. Oh well, at least I have the Amazing films to watch whenever I want.

Please explain.

[Agent Bond]

Personally, I've never been able to understand why so many people think the Raimi films are good.

- The special effects

- The costume

- Maguire's performance as Peter Parker in 1 & 2

- Dr. Octopus

- the music

- Simmons was born to play JJJ

[dallywhitty]

Originally Posted by kamphausd1

Personally, I've never been able to understand why so many people think the Raimi films are good.

Great writing, great casting, great music. They have a lot of heart, too, and I think Spider-Man 2 operates as a drama just as much as it operates as a superhero film.

[imsounoriginal]

Originally Posted by dgoswald

Haha, that's certainly not a ringing endorsement. Now I'm curious to learn if i t really is as bad as you're saying.

If anything it's even worse; saw it with a free ticket and I still wanted my money back. I skipped ASM2 in theaters because I hated the first one so much, but I do kinda regret that because ASM2 nailed Spidey the best out of all movies; the rest of ASM2 was a mess, though.

Originally Posted by Dalekbuster523Bluray

Because they're entertaining films that perfectly capture the comic book vibe and offer a better explanation for Spider-Man's web shooting to the comic books.

Preach.

[klauswhereareyou]

I remember a little over a year ago people on these boards were touting how the IMDB user ratings for the ASM films were much higher than the Raimi ones, not so now! ASM 2 had dipped below 7, and ASM is borderline 7.

[Batman1980]

Originally Posted by Infernal King

Please explain.

Spider-Man is not supposed to be constantly crying or so depressingly poor all the time. He's also not supposed to be the butt of jokes all the time. Besides I really don't care if you get it or not, the Raimi trilogy will ALWAYS be inferior to the Amazing films in my eyes, nothing will ever change that.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by Darth Anakin

Spider-Man is not supposed to be constantly crying or so depressingly poor all the time. He's also not supposed to be the butt of jokes all the time. Besides I really don't care if you get it or not, the Raimi trilogy will ALWAYS be inferior to the Amazing films in my eyes, nothing will ever change that.

I don't care what he's "supposed" to be according to the specific comic runs you grew up on. What I care about is films being great films, and Raimi's first two Spider-Man movies are just that: great films. They have more filmmaking style and talent in a random 10 minutes of footage than the Amazing series has in all four hours.

[kamphausd1]

I do seem to be in the minority here, but when I look at the Raimi films I don't see great films with great writing and casting. I see films filled with groan-inducing cheesiness, phony acting, horrendous dialogue, excess humor that's very awkward, annoying and unfunny, villains that seem like they'd be more at home in the 60's Batman show, countless things that just make you go "WTF?", and a Peter Parker who's almost totally devoid of humor, sarcasm or charm, constantly lets people walk all over him, and usually looks bored out of his mind when he isn't crying or making dopey facial expressions.

Basically, I see movies that seemed like they were from the 60's or 70's but somehow ended up getting made in the early 2000's.

[Hellraiserfan]

Originally Posted by kamphausd1

I do seem to be in the minority here, but when I look at the Raimi films I don't see great films with great writing and casting. I see films filled with groan-inducing cheesiness, phony acting, horrendous dialogue, excess humor that's very awkward, annoying and unfunny, villains that seem like they'd be more at home in the 60's Batman show, countless things that just make you go "WTF?", and a Peter Parker who's almost totally devoid of humor, sarcasm or charm, constantly lets people walk all over him, and usually looks bored out of his mind when he isn't crying or making dopey facial expressions.

Basically, I see movies that seemed like they were from the 60's or 70's but somehow ended up getting made in the early 2000's.

Sadly I kind of agree. I still enjoy the first two Raimi films but I kind of cringe when still to this day I see people say Spider-Man 2 is the Best superhero/comic book film to date. Same with X-men 2 as the best of the X series.

I do believe some people generally still love it on that high of a level but I think with a lot of people they haven't reached that age or point in film maturity where they realize it's ok to not like films over time that they used to love. Almost a version of nostalgia, or maybe just nostalgia outright. For example, years ago I really, really liked X1 but now other than some scenes here and there it's pretty damn weak. I don't care about the excuses from Fox fans that it was the superhero film that ushered in the comic book movie era and they were taking a chance so it was given a small budget, etc.. It still feels like a made for TV film and the run time is way too short for an ensemble/group comic book movie. Singer got it right with X2(as a movie, not so much a great adaptation of the comics though)though, even though that movie doesn't hold up as well for me either.

[Batman1980]

Originally Posted by Hellraiserfan

Sadly I kind of agree. I still enjoy the first two Raimi films but I kind of cringe when still to this day I see people say Spider-Man 2 is the Best superhero/comic book film to date. Same with X-men 2 as the best of the X series.

I do believe some people generally still love it on that high of a level but I think with a lot of people they haven't reached that age or point in film maturity where they realize it's ok to not like films over time that they used to love. Almost a version of nostalgia, or maybe just nostalgia outright. For example, years ago I really, really liked X1 but now other than some scenes here and there it's pretty damn weak. I don't care about the excuses from Fox fans that it was the superhero film that ushered in the comic book movie era and they were taking a chance so it was given a small budget, etc.. It still feels like a made for TV film and the run time is way too short for an ensemble/group comic book movie. Singer got it right with X2(as a movie, not so much a great adaptation of the comics though)though, even though that movie doesn't hold up as well for me either.

Spider-Man 2 is still pretty good and Spider-Man 3 is unfairly maligned. Spider-Man 1 opened the door for the films that came after it but all 3 seem to be held up on a pedestal that suggests they are better than they are. Maguire was all right but Garfield exposed his flaws and Dunst was a terrible choice for MJ. What saves the Raimi trilogy from being a failure is all of the villains except Venom are well-cast, as are Mr. Jameson and Peter's aunt and uncle. I still think the Raimi trilogy is better than the Disney Spider-Man films will end up being but I hope I'm wrong.

[seannyd]

Originally Posted by kamphausd1

I do seem to be in the minority here, but when I look at the Raimi films I don't see great films with great writing and casting. I see films filled with groan-inducing cheesiness, phony acting, horrendous dialogue, excess humor that's very awkward, annoying and unfunny, villains that seem like they'd be more at home in the 60's Batman show, countless things that just make you go "WTF?", and a Peter Parker who's almost totally devoid of humor, sarcasm or charm, constantly lets people walk all over him, and usually looks bored out of his mind when he isn't crying or making dopey facial expressions.

Basically, I see movies that seemed like they were from the 60's or 70's but somehow ended up getting made in the early 2000's.

That's just Raimi's style though. It's weird, wacky, and a little off-kilter. He actually keeps that sort of thing relatively low comparatively. I mean, you look at his Spidey follow up Drag Me To Hell and you could throw a lot of the exact same "complaints" at it, but it just might be your own personal preference. And that's fine.

All I know is that when I saw the first Amazing movie, I was a little sucked in by how "grounded" it was to an extent and my gut reaction was that it was a "better made" movie when I first saw it. But I've recently revisited all the Spider-Man movies and it's shocking to me how poorly those movies track from moment to moment and how fluid and natural the Raimi movies are (sans 3).

Raimi creates a very strong arc that makes perfect sense from moment to moment in the two original films. You may not like his style that much, but there's no doubt to me that they hold up as at least solid movies, if not necessarily the best the comic book movies have to offer.

[Hellraiserfan]

Originally Posted by Darth Anakin

What saves the Raimi trilogy from being a failure is all of the villains except Venom are well-cast, as are Mr. Jameson and Peter's aunt and uncle. I still think the Raimi trilogy is better than the Disney Spider-Man films will end up being but I hope I'm wrong.

I agree with your opinion about the villains but heavily disagree with you that the Raimi trilogy will probably be better than the Sony/Marvel Studios versions. Three reasons why.

1. MS has more control then Sony has let on with that deal they made coming from insiders that have proven time and time again they have accurate sources.

2. People can say what they want about MS making dumb and mindless films but Kevin Feige has a passion for these characters and although, Yes, they do make some changes from the source material, you can tell the films are made with respect towards the comics and a lot of the time the changes aren't terrible or made just because someone felt they could do better. (Looks at Fox-Men films)

3. During that whole Sony leak one email that was leaked involved a back and forth between Kevin Feige and Amy Pascal(then major producer at Sony)in which Kevin was giving a lot of advice to them/her after reading the Amazing Spider-Man 2 script. Pretty much all of his advice was solid as s*** and would have vastly improved the movie and actually made it good, maybe even great. Of course just about all of it went ignored. (Side note) I still think Pascal shouldn't be allowed near Spider-Man. She stepped down after the emails leaked where she talked s*** about a lot of people in the industry and by stepped down I mean Sony gave her that option instead of outright being fired I imagine. Oh yeah, forgot that I have a fourth reason.

4. Sadly Pascal is still involved with making new Spider-Man films but at least they got rid of Avi Arad.

[seannyd]

Originally Posted by Hellraiserfan

I agree with your opinion about the villains but heavily disagree with you that the Raimi trilogy will probably be better than the Sony/Marvel Studios versions. Three reasons why.

1. MS has more control then Sony has let on with that deal they made coming from insiders that have proven time and time again they have accurate sources.

2. People can say what they want about MS making dumb and mindless films but Kevin Feige has a passion for these characters and although, Yes, they do make some changes from the source material, you can tell the films are made with respect towards the comics and a lot of the time the changes aren't terrible or made just because someone felt they could do better. (Looks at Fox-Men films)

3. During that whole Sony leak one email that was leaked involved a back and forth between Kevin Feige and Amy Pascal(then major producer at Sony)in which Kevin was giving a lot of advice to them/her after reading the Amazing Spider-Man 2 script. Pretty much all of his advice was solid as s*** and would have vastly improved the movie and actually made it good, maybe even great. Of course just about all of it went ignored. (Side note) I still think Pascal shouldn't be allowed near Spider-Man. She stepped down after the emails leaked where she talked s*** about a lot of people in the industry and by stepped down I mean Sony gave her that option instead of outright being fired I imagine. Oh yeah, forgot that I have a fourth reason.

4. Sadly Pascal is still involved with making new Spider-Man films but at least they got rid of Avi Arad.

To your third point, I actually read the e-mail and it appears that these were notes after the movie had already been filmed. He mentions a lot about the performances. But yeah, they were on point and it seems like they MAY have taken a little bit of his advice since he references things that we didn't see.

But they also ignored (or couldn't fix?) a lot of them. It does make me happy that his perspective seems to be "normal kid from Queens who becomes greatest superhero in the world."

Still don't know about the new director though...

[Hellraiserfan]

Originally Posted by seannyd

To your third point, I actually read the e-mail and it appears that these were notes after the movie had already been filmed. He mentions a lot about the performances. But yeah, they were on point and it seems like they MAY have taken a little bit of his advice since he references things that we didn't see.

But they also ignored (or couldn't fix?) a lot of them. It does make me happy that his perspective seems to be "normal kid from Queens who becomes greatest superhero in the world."

Still don't know about the new director though...

My mistake if that email was after the movie was filmed.

[seannyd]

Originally Posted by Hellraiserfan

My mistake if that email was after the movie was filmed.

No worries. The content of what you said was completely on point. I just thought it was interesting that it was an early cut of the movie as opposed to the script. I wonder if he had any insight at that stage as well.

[kamphausd1]

Originally Posted by seannyd

That's just Raimi's style though. It's weird, wacky, and a little off-kilter. He actually keeps that sort of thing relatively low comparatively. I mean, you look at his Spidey follow up Drag Me To Hell and you could throw a lot of the exact same "complaints" at it, but it just might be your own personal preference. And that's fine.

I actually like the Evil Dead movies and Darkman (haven't seen Drag me to Hell though) and I actually like the style he uses in those films. The difference though is that those are his own original creations, not adaptations of a popular source material that had been around for decades. He needed to do a far, far better job of keeping his eccentricities in check when shooting the spidey films.

And even though I hate the movie due to it's awkwardness, cheesiness, lame acting, worse dialogue and off the mark portrayal of Peter Parker, I do appreciate what they were trying to do with Spider-Man 2 in that they were trying to make it a much more personal, emotional and all around epic story (as opposed to the first movie which really had no story or plot at all). I still think they dropped the ball though.

And by the way, since I haven't seen it, does Drag me to Hell feature a guy who tries to rearrange the brooms in a closet for about and hour, awkward reaction shots of extras who yell things into the camera and a cheesy, vomit-inducing montage with Raindrops keep falling on my Head playing in the background?

[seannyd]

Originally Posted by kamphausd1

I actually like the Evil Dead movies and Darkman (haven't seen Drag me to Hell though) and I actually like the style he uses in those films. The difference though is that those are his own original creations, not adaptations of a popular source material that had been around for decades. He needed to do a far, far better job of keeping his eccentricities in check when shooting the spidey films.

And even though I hate the movie due to it's awkwardness, cheesiness, lame acting, worse dialogue and off the mark portrayal of Peter Parker, I do appreciate what they were trying to do with Spider-Man 2 in that they were trying to make it a much more personal, emotional and all around epic story (as opposed to the first movie which really had no story or plot at all). I still think they dropped the ball though.

And by the way, since I haven't seen it, does Drag me to Hell feature a guy who tries to rearrange the brooms in a closet for about and hour, awkward reaction shots of extras who yell things into the camera and a cheesy, vomit-inducing montage with Raindrops keep falling on my Head playing in the background?

No, but it does have a talking goat.

[kamphausd1]

Originally Posted by seannyd

No, but it does have a talking goat.

I might have to see it now.