I'm seeing all this "#maketheamazingspiderman3" stuff on social media.
Have people FORGOTTEN why The Amazing Spider-Man 2 bombed so badly?
Go back and read WHY that movie was such a dumpster fire. Read up WHO was directly in charge of it and what he's up to NOW.
Once the fanboys figure that part out, how about you guys start a trend on social media for #makealexkurtzmanapologizeforRUININGtheamazingspiderman ? AFTER the studio bosses do THAT and proves they've LEARNED from their mistakes and kick that guy out of Hollywood, THEN we'll talk about giving Andrew Garfield a new Spider-Man movie!
Glad to see someone else point that out. It’s rather annoying seeing people ask for a TASM 3 when the first two sucked. And let’s not forget Andrew wanted Spider-Man to be bi so that he could date a black male MJ, which is an even worse idea than Zendaya’s Michelle Jones. If he wanted to come out, that’s fine, but he shouldn’t use Spider-Man to do it.
We get it, Andrew was actually pretty good in No Way Home. The thing is, he wasn’t the main Spider-Man, or even the most popular Spider-Man. With the bar set so low for him, it’s really not that big of a surprise that he managed to perform well in someone else’s superior movie.
This is what people don't seem to realize. Andrew in No Way Home as almost a completely Spider Man than the one he played in TASM. It's almost like he realized how bad he fucked up the character and tried to redo it.
Apparently you have a different definition of "bomb" than the studio does, since they immediately put ASM 3 on hold after ASM 2's "most profitable release" and began frantically changing directions trying to salvage their Spider-Man rights by throwing silly ideas out there like an Aunt May movie (none of which came to fruition, and led to the MCU rebooting Spider-Man again)
this isn't physics where you have an equation that tells you exactly what something is.
but a movie that makes $700m and turns a tidy profit isn't really a bomb. it's an underachiever, and something that makes people go off and do a re-think. i think that's a less incendiary way of putting it.
some people might be going back and saying that asm2 is actually quite good. i'm not one of them, & i don't think that's the broad take.
i think the more broad take is 'hey, isn't it great that andrew garfield, who's really such a terrific actor, got a chance to get his version of the character in a good movie and sort of redeem him? & it might actually be a nice idea if they took another run at it and gave him a chance to be the lead in a genuinely great sm film?'
that's the less cynical, embittered, and (most importantly) more accurate take, i reckon.
LOL. . .no, I have a different definition than YOU. By *no* stretch of the imagination can you say that one of the top 20 financially performing movies in a year that audiences gave a B+ "bombed." Let alone "bombed so badly."
Just quit it. . .your dislike of the movie is simply your personal opinion. "Bombed so badly" is a ridiculous, empirically false statement. Of course, since this is the internet, you can't admit you're wrong. So feel free to continue on your absurd path.
What "opinion" are you referring to? Have somebody you know that can actually think help you reread my posts.
(Hint: no "opinions" there; simply easily verifiable facts. Make sure you ask them to point to where I said I liked/disliked the movie.)
And no; your guess is wrong. Huzzah!!! You're two for two, in the stupidity sweepstakes! Close your computer, back away from it slowly, and go look in the corner for your prize.
It bombed in the sense that a Spider-Man movie should earn far more. Look at No Way Home's performance, or any of the 3 MCU or 3 Raimi Spider-Man films. They've all dwarfed the profits of the two Amazing Spider-Man films. So yes, while technically ASM2 earned a small profit-- about $70 million-- that's a flop when you consider what it should have earned.
Now we're parsing language. "Bombed in the sense that?" That phrase means whatever you want it to. "Underperformed" is probably fair, but even that's a slippery term.
What "should" a movie earn? Who decides? What are the metrics?
All valid questions, with no clear answers. You seem like a thinking person, so I'll just say this: my original response was simply a response to the statement that it "bombed badly." This is simply a ridiculous claim, by ANY metric.
I don't think it's ridiculous by the metric of what the minimum profit is that one should expect from a Spider-Man film. With 8 films out there, the fact that all but the two with Garfield made massive profits seems to me to indicate that the films were by no stretch successful.
Well, that's one metric. If your hopes, as an investor, are for a profit similar to previous installments, then I can understand a level of disappointment. However even given that narrow perspective, that's not what I'm referring to as "ridiculous." Again, it's the idea that that translates to "massive bomb." There are levels. . .a movie that outperforms 280 out of 300 releases and B+es with the viewers is simply NOT a "bomb," let alone a "massive bomb." To insist such is. . .not to put too fine a point on it. . .ridiculous.
Well, how about the metric of Sony giving up on a trilogy after only 2 films, abandoning all future plans for the character, and turning the most profitable superhero of all back over to Marvel, saying "make us a movie and give us some of the money, please?" That feels like something that wouldn't happen if they film were considered a success.
Last summer, Spider-Man made his debut in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (or MCU for short). This summer, the web-slinger will be headlining his own movie. But before his “homecoming”, Spidey was the star of two of Sony’s franchises. First, Sam Raimi a trilogy starring Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst. Then Marc Webb rebooted the series in 2012 with Andrew Garfield taking over the mantle. In both cases, the franchise’s started off well but then, through executive meddling, things didn’t go so well.
Then came The Amazing Spider Man 2, which had the lowest grossing domestic gross of any Spider Man film, grossing $202 million domestically. That being said, it was technically a hit at the box office, making $709 million worldwide. However, while that wasn’t much different from the first movie’s worldwide gross of $757 million, Sony was expecting the movie to make more money and, when it didn’t, they ended up firing Garfield (though the fact that he had a falling out with the head of Sony didn’t help matters either), they cancelled their plans for an Amazing Spider-Man franchise, and decided to reboot the whole thing all over again. But why wasn’t it the huge hit Sony was hoping for? Let’s find out!
I think they should leave Andrew Garfield's Spider-Man alone now. Thought he was fantastic in the film but his Peter Parker got his redemption. Tobey's Spider-Man as well, we now know things worked between him and Mary Jane.
There's already rumours that Andrew's Spider-Man is going to be the Spider-Man in the third Venom movie which is annoying as the Venom movies are awful.
I really enjoyed the first amazing Spider man. I was hesitant since I was a fan of Toby's but hated the 3rd movie. I loved the Amazing Spiderman but never got around to seeing the 2nd one. Maybe it's because I didn't like Jamie Fox's Electro (Love Jamie Fox but hated the dweeb persona he had to play) or maybe it was finding out Gwen died either way I couldn't bring myself to watch it. Still haven't seen it but thought Andrew was great and thought he stole the show in NWH. By the time they would have been in talks for a 3rd movie I believe they had already made the decision to put Spiderman into the Avengers. There were a lot more reasons for what they did other than a supposed 'bomb' at the box office. I also think people have had some time to reflect and realize the movie itself isn't that bad. People are so in the moment with movies. Like saying NWH is the BEST MOVIE EVER but give it a few months or a year and people will look back and see the flaws. There is never time allowed to just breath and reflect.
That all being said, what I really love about the MCU, Fox, Paramount is that they never 100% get rid of their characters. DC does this and it pisses me off. a movie does 'poorly' and suddenly it needs an immediate reboot, not giving the actors a chance to redeem themselves or for the next movie to tweek issues. I still fully believe Superman Returns deserved a sequel. But it's what DC does. X-men, I wasn't a fan of the 3rd movie at all. Kinda ruined the franchise and though they did soft reboot the story with a younger cast, they still used the original actors and threaded them into the stories. People hated the first Wolverine movie and instead of throwing Hugh Jackman away, they took some time, retooled the movie and made a better one. Same here with Spiderman. Bringing Andrew and Toby back into the fold show that they were not forgotten and completely thrown away. There is room for 3 Spiderman now and I think Andrew deserves a 3rd film.
Edited to change 'Disney' to 'DC'. for some reason I keep using 'Disney' for 'D' words in my post, lol
Superman Returns does not deserve a sequel because it never should have been made in the first place.
They were trying to do a 1970s style sort of sequel to the first two movies, but with 2006 technology.
It just didn’t work. With all the stuff that has been done in the comics after the Reeve films ended, Superman needed to be done differently and more on par with the 21st Century. Man of Steel and its sequels delivered on that front.
Fans are idiots. Even the first one didn't have mind-blowing support. Solid reviews, but nothing great. But after the 2nd one, there was zero interest in that series. Now Garfield is great, his movies are great, and we need more of him.