So, The Amazing Spider-Man franchise has gone the way of...

[The Fat Bioware Nerd]

...Tim Burton's Batman franchise and the Timothy Dalton Bond films. Basically what I'm saying is that it was a two-and-done. The Amazing Spider-Man franchise has garnered the same kind of lukewarm response that the Timothy Dalton Bond films have received in the past, basically nobody appreciated them at the time because people were angry. People were angry that Pierce Brosnan wasn't the new Bond and people were angry that Spider-Man 4 never came to fruition.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is like Batman Returns in a sense that nobody appreciated it because the film was viewed as a disaster, and the follow-up film would take Batman/Spider-Man into a new direction.

[Freya]

Well Spiderman is joining the Marvel Cinematic Universe now so it's a new studio. They have to do something different.

[The Fat Bioware Nerd]

Well Spiderman is joining the Marvel Cinematic Universe now so it's a new studio. They have to do something different.

Technically, it's the same studio because Sony Pictures has final script approval even though Marvel Studios has creative control...So anything Marvel does has to be approved by Sony.

[Ayen]

And both were great movies.

[The Fat Bioware Nerd]

And both were great movies.

Which movies are you talking about here, The Amazing Spider-Man Movies (1-2), the Tim Burton Batman movies (Batman '89 & Batman Returns) or the Timothy Dalton Bond movies? (The Living Daylights/Licence to Kill)

[escobert]

I liked the Batman and Batman returns. Never saw the newer ones.

I wasn't a big fan of the first 2 spider man movies and didn't watch any others after.

[Ayen]

And both were great movies.

Which movies are you talking about here, The Amazing Spider-Man Movies (1-2), the Tim Burton Batman movies (Batman '89 & Batman Returns) or the Timothy Dalton Bond movies? (The Living Daylights/Licence to Kill)

The Spider-Man and Batman movies.

[The Fat Bioware Nerd]

The Spider-Man and Batman movies.

So, you really liked Batman (1989), Batman Returns, The Amazing Spider-Man and The Amazing Spider-Man 2, am I right? That's cool.

[Ayen]

The Spider-Man and Batman movies.

So, you really liked Batman (1989), Batman Returns, The Amazing Spider-Man and The Amazing Spider-Man 2, am I right? That's cool.

Yes. Tim Burton Batman was the best we had before Chris Nolan came along and even after that I'd still rate them pretty highly. The Amazing Spider-Man got rid of the camp of the older movies and had a much more believable guy in the role of Peter Parker. It also made the leading lady more than just a damsel in distress. I liked the liberty they took with the villains better too.

Sam Raimi's Spider-Man had the superior Aunt May, though.

[Slothy]

Well Spiderman is joining the Marvel Cinematic Universe now so it's a new studio. They have to do something different.

Technically, it's the same studio because Sony Pictures has final script approval even though Marvel Studios has creative control...So anything Marvel does has to be approved by Sony.

Not really relevant. Saying Sony has final approval on anything that Marvel does with Spider-Man would be like sending me back in time to 1980 and giving me final approval on all of Neil Peart's drum tracks for Moving Pictures. I may be a drummer, but am I going to tell the man who's made some of the greatest rock songs and drum parts of the previous decade that I know better than him how to do it? Probably not. I'm gonna sit back and let the guy who's been way more successful than me and hasn't missed a step yet keep on making some really good albums with his band.

[The Fat Bioware Nerd]

Well Spiderman is joining the Marvel Cinematic Universe now so it's a new studio. They have to do something different.

Technically, it's the same studio because Sony Pictures has final script approval even though Marvel Studios has creative control...So anything Marvel does has to be approved by Sony.

Not really relevant.

It's kind of relevant. Who's to say that Sony won't veto any story ideas that Marvel might have, because they don't like them? Sony has final script approval, remember?

[Ayen]

Did you not read anything else Vivi said after that line? As long as it makes Sony money they'll keep their mouths shut, and given Marvel's track record there's not much doubt that it will make them money.

[The Fat Bioware Nerd]

Did you not read anything else Vivi said after that line? As long as it makes Sony money they'll keep their mouths shut, and given Marvel's track record there's not much doubt that it will make them money.

Studio executives have huge egos though. And it was huge egos which led to crappy "films" like Iron Man 2 and Spider-Man 3. Even Amazing Spider-Man 1 & 2 had some type of studio interference going there. I guess I'm just worried about the MCU Spider-Man reboot having the same type of interference going on there, because Sony was guilty of it three times over. Because of the mere fact that Sony has final script approval leads me to believe that they might try to throw their weight around.

Sony needs the Marvel Cinematic Universe a lot more, then they (Marvel Studios) need them. But who's to say that Sony won't veto a few story ideas here and there, because they've done it before.

[Egami]

But who's to say that Sony won't veto a few story ideas here and there, because they've done it before.

Well, if we are talking about Avengers 3, I really doubt they would veto anything Joss Whedon comes up wit. Just like the studios don't veto what Nolan comes up with because they know he delivers.

[Electroshock Therapy]

That's a shame, really, because it so much better than those embarrassing Sam Raimi films. A better Peter Parker, better stories, better character interaction, more heart, and better drama without jumping neck-deep into soap opera. And most importantly, it wasn't as camp as an RV park. How it was perceived lesser than the Raimi films is beyond me!