Very true. While I actually liked Garfields spiderman better than Tobys. I think Toby was a much better Peter. And obviously the first two spiderman films were much better overall than the amazing films.
I don’t think Garfield’s performance was the problem… I thought the the 2nd film in the Amazing series was awful
Absolutely, at the time I think a lot of comic book fans were saying it would be cool to have Toby’s Peter combined with Andrew’s Spider-Man. In fact, I actually think Garfield really captured the jokiness of SM so well when he’s fighting crime probably the best ever in live action. Would have be awesome to see that with some quality version of his rogues gallery but we got just crappy versions of Electro, Green Goblin, etc and don’t get me started on Rhino (Lizard was okay but nothing special). I feel terrible for Garfield who is an awesome actor that he was surrounded by the junk of a production.
100% agree. He was one of the biggest highlights of the film in my opinion. I'm not the biggest multiverse fan, but having the 3 spidermen together worked really well. And it's something I hope they do again.
I said “critical and box office stinkers.” I used a conjunction for a reason; I didn’t say “or.” Words matter. And Sony’s Spider-Man films, with the exception of Morbius and Madame Web, have all made a lot of money. The critical reception has been hit and miss, but it’s been offset by being a very profitable enterprise for them.
I didn’t say they were well regarded. But they each made over $700M, a few multiples above their budget. They did well box office wise.
All of those films generally succeeded at the box office. I said the only films that weren’t “critical and box office stinkers” were Madame Web and Morbius.
Your theory is that Sony killed the Amazing Spider-Man series because it was so darn profitable?
Venom’s not everyone’s cup of tea, but the two films have earned $1.36bn at the box office.
I responded to you as you were typing this message.
it wasn’t “on wheels.” It was a conjunctive phrase. “critical and box office stinkers.” They did well financially. Some, not so much critically. It really isn’t that difficult.
Last I heard Marvel/Sony have been disagreeing over Spider-Man 4 so we maybe looking at another fight over rights coming soon.
www.hollywoodreporter.com
As much as I love the home trilogy, Like I've said before, I still think Disney should have forced sonys hand after the amazing Spider-Man 2. I don't think sony would have rebooted a 3rd time, so they would have probably gone ahead with amazing 3. Odds are it wouldn't have been great based on the first two and the 3rd Toby film. So either they truck ahead with more amazing films or reboot again or sell the rights back. You never really know, but I doubt if they did amazing 3 and it was a failure, they continue. They wouldn't risk the cash rebooting because, if I remember correctly, their is a time frame that they need to be in active production or the rights revert back. So they would need to reboot very quickly.
The Sony email leaks revealed a lot about the state of Spider-Man at the time prior to him entering the MCU. There is a lot in there if you care to read some of it.
Why do you keep calling them “leaks,” when it obvious it was a large scale hacking. Unless you’re willingly covering for the North Korean government.
I would have loved to see them try it. Sony is a shell of the company it once was. PlayStation has been the only real bright spot for them. Like I said, you never really know, but I find it hard to believe, after a 3rd failed reboot, they wouldn't have made some sort of deal. Who knows what could have happened, they could have rebooted and it would be fantastic. Personally I doubt it just from looking at every film they've had full control over since the mcu deal started. Heck, people were sceptical about the mcu reboot until they saw civil war. I know I was.
You are 100% right about the quality. But if you look at how the mcu has played out since endgame. Spiderman is the shining star. Sure they had some success with guardians, and strange did ok. But nothing to the success of far from home and no way home. So that's why said it reversed a bit. Because Spidey needed the mcu back then, now, from Sonys eyes, they think they can do it themselves and could be successful on their own again. So it's not that the mcu would be dead without spiderman. But sony undoubtedly thinks the mcu benefits more from Spidey than Spidey benefits from the mcu. I'm not saying they're right, I'm saying that's the mindset of Sony when it comes to negotiations.
This is an incredibly pathetic line of attack. You’re flailing.
