Andrew Garfield Blames Sony For Amazing Spider-Man 2 Failures

MovieBob

New member
Dec 31, 2008
11,495
0
0
Andrew Garfield Blames Sony For Amazing Spider-Man 2 Failures


Star say studio interference to blame for underwhelming sequel

To say that Sony's Amazing Spider-Man [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/tag/view/amazing%20spider%20man] franchise has been troubled would probably be an understatement.

The plot of the general uncertainty [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/escape-to-the-movies/5995-The-Amazing-Spider-Man] about the future of the franchise - which Sony was trumpeting as a powerhouse of yearly sequels, spinoffs and crossovers prior to ASM2's poor reception.

Now, Spider-Man himself is weighing in on what went wrong: And he blames the studio.

In an interview [http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/09/10/andrew-garfield-on-the-evils-of-capitalism-the-hacking-scandal-and-criticism-of-spider-man-2.html] with The Daily Beast, actor Andrew Garfield (who took over the role of Peter Parker/Spider-Man from Tobey Maguire after Sony canceled Spider-Man 4 in favor of a series-reboot) explained that while he was very fond of the sequel's original script, some folks in charge felt differently:


"I think what happened was, through the pre-production, production, and post-production, when you have something that works as a whole, and then you start removing portions of it-because there was even more of it than was in the final cut, and everything was related. Once you start removing things and saying, "No, that doesn't work," then the thread is broken, and it's hard to go with the flow of the story. Certain people at the studio had problems with certain parts of it, and ultimately the studio is the final say in those movies because they're the tentpoles, so you have to answer to those people."


Officially, Sony is still planning a series of spin-offs to debut before and after the eventual release of Amazing Spider-Man 3; including unidentified female character. [http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/spider-man-villains-movie-sinister-720605]

Source: The Daily Beast [http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/09/10/andrew-garfield-on-the-evils-of-capitalism-the-hacking-scandal-and-criticism-of-spider-man-2.html]

Permalink
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
Well, what would he say? "I'm Spider-Man, it's my fault."

I sort of expected something about editorial mandate or the like, but some of the stuff from the original cut that made it to bonus scenes didn't make it look like a better movie. Maybe it would have popped if it was all included, but I doubt it.

But you know what? I had fun with it. It was worth my money. And even at its worst, I'd watch it over the Raimi films.
 

youji itami

New member
Jun 1, 2014
231
0
0
Oh come on! it's been 4 months get over it Bob.

You complain about people screaming bias at you then ***** at a film you didn't like 4 months later!

What, did you do spend 3 hours every day since it's release looking for anything negative about a film so you could complain more?

Still I like the way the 2 ASM films are failures when the made more money than the 'success's' that are the 2 Thor films and the 2 Captain America films even though Disney spent far more money for less return.
 

Makabriel

New member
May 13, 2013
547
0
0
I finally got around to watching ASM2 and I came away feeling like I watched the pilot for a cheesy TV series. It's the best way I can describe it.
 

endtherapture

New member
Nov 14, 2011
3,127
0
0
piscian said:
Garfield was the only good thing about this series in mind. It's surprising how much people disliked him. I agree with what he said there are great parts of AZM 1 and 2 but they both felt like edward scissorhands was the editor. Like huge chunks of the movies don't make any sense or have the impact they should have with the audience because things are missing or told in the wrong order.
Bob doesn't like this Spider-Man because he is a cool skater hipster Tumblr guy, and is good looking and charming despite being fairly socially awkward. Bob is rooted in his GenX days so doesn't understand they need to update the character for the time, and resents the fact that whilst Garfield's Peter is a bit of an outlier in School, he's not the super nerdy science geeky being bullied type character that Bob is used to.

TASM1 was pretty good though, fun film, great cast and chemistry. TASM2 was a horrible mess of plot contrivances, poor pacing and bad chemistry.
 

youji itami

New member
Jun 1, 2014
231
0
0
endtherapture said:
piscian said:
Garfield was the only good thing about this series in mind. It's surprising how much people disliked him. I agree with what he said there are great parts of AZM 1 and 2 but they both felt like edward scissorhands was the editor. Like huge chunks of the movies don't make any sense or have the impact they should have with the audience because things are missing or told in the wrong order.
Bob doesn't like this Spider-Man because he is a cool skater hipster Tumblr guy, and is good looking and charming despite being fairly socially awkward. Bob is rooted in his GenX days so doesn't understand they need to update the character for the time, and resents the fact that whilst Garfield's Peter is a bit of an outlier in School, he's not the super nerdy science geeky being bullied type character that Bob is used to.

TASM1 was pretty good though, fun film, great cast and chemistry. TASM2 was a horrible mess of plot contrivances, poor pacing and bad chemistry.

And Bob's Spiderman only lasted 38 issues once John Romita, Sr. took over as artist Peter was still a nerd buy no longer a victim.
 

Cartographer

New member
Jun 1, 2009
212
0
0
youji itami said:
Oh come on! it's been 4 months get over it Bob.

You complain about people screaming bias at you then ***** at a film you didn't like 4 months later!

What, did you do spend 3 hours every day since it's release looking for anything negative about a film so you could complain more?

Still I like the way the 2 ASM films are failures when the made more money than the 'success's' that are the 2 Thor films and the 2 Captain America films even though Disney spent far more money for less return.
In what world are you living where the sequel to one franchise making less money than the original (ASM vs ASM2) makes it a "success"?

Across all three franchises, Captain America, Thor and ASM, the studios increased the budgets of the sequels by ~10%, but while both Thor 2 and CA2 made more money than their respective first instances, ASM2 made a whole lot less. Or shall we compare ASM with Raimi's output, which all cost less to make than either ASM film and all made more money?
Hell even in a world with no other superhero movies, yeah, ASM did "well" but ASM2 didn't.

If you enjoyed them, great, glad you were satisfied, but they were both great examples of how to really screw up making a movie; how to take a whole load of money and a licence to print more and end up with nothing but monopoly bills in comparison with what you'd expect.

Seriously, Spider-Man 3 did better than either ASM movie, that's what makes them failures!
 

Vausch

New member
Dec 7, 2009
1,476
0
0
endtherapture said:
piscian said:
Garfield was the only good thing about this series in mind. It's surprising how much people disliked him. I agree with what he said there are great parts of AZM 1 and 2 but they both felt like edward scissorhands was the editor. Like huge chunks of the movies don't make any sense or have the impact they should have with the audience because things are missing or told in the wrong order.
Bob doesn't like this Spider-Man because he is a cool skater hipster Tumblr guy, and is good looking and charming despite being fairly socially awkward. Bob is rooted in his GenX days so doesn't understand they need to update the character for the time, and resents the fact that whilst Garfield's Peter is a bit of an outlier in School, he's not the super nerdy science geeky being bullied type character that Bob is used to.

TASM1 was pretty good though, fun film, great cast and chemistry. TASM2 was a horrible mess of plot contrivances, poor pacing and bad chemistry.
I never once got the idea that Peter was socially awkward in AMS. I got the sense that he was fairly weak when he tried to stand up to a bully (HEY LOOK, OBVIOUS SETUP FOR LATER!), but then he skateboards off cuz that's what kids these days do...in the 90s. I seriously never see people skateboarding any more outside of the occasional longboard. You can update a character without revamping them to be what old people think is "hip".

Tobey Maguire's version of Peter is socially awkward. He was a dork, had trouble talking to some people, sometimes spoke in ways that just said "I don't know what to say please make this sound right", visibly bullied and clearly not athletic in any fashion until he was bitten. He looked the part so much better and really remains the epitome of portrayal as Peter Parker in my eyes. Garfield played a better Spider-Man but I'm mostly giving that to the script, since the first trilogy was low on wise-cracks (apparently that's all people needed to instantly dismiss the first trilogy from what I read in reviews).
 

endtherapture

New member
Nov 14, 2011
3,127
0
0
Vausch said:
endtherapture said:
piscian said:
Garfield was the only good thing about this series in mind. It's surprising how much people disliked him. I agree with what he said there are great parts of AZM 1 and 2 but they both felt like edward scissorhands was the editor. Like huge chunks of the movies don't make any sense or have the impact they should have with the audience because things are missing or told in the wrong order.
Bob doesn't like this Spider-Man because he is a cool skater hipster Tumblr guy, and is good looking and charming despite being fairly socially awkward. Bob is rooted in his GenX days so doesn't understand they need to update the character for the time, and resents the fact that whilst Garfield's Peter is a bit of an outlier in School, he's not the super nerdy science geeky being bullied type character that Bob is used to.

TASM1 was pretty good though, fun film, great cast and chemistry. TASM2 was a horrible mess of plot contrivances, poor pacing and bad chemistry.
I never once got the idea that Peter was socially awkward in AMS. I got the sense that he was fairly weak when he tried to stand up to a bully (HEY LOOK, OBVIOUS SETUP FOR LATER!), but then he skateboards off cuz that's what kids these days do...in the 90s. I seriously never see people skateboarding any more outside of the occasional longboard. You can update a character without revamping them to be what old people think is "hip".

Tobey Maguire's version of Peter is socially awkward. He was a dork, visibly bullied and clearly not athletic in any fashion until he was bitten. He looked the part so much better and really remains the epitome of portrayal as Peter Parker in my eyes. Garfield played a better Spider-Man but I'm mostly giving that to the script, since the first trilogy was low on wise-cracks (apparently that's all people needed to instantly dismiss the first trilogy from what I read in reviews).
You are obviously of the opinion that you like the old-style of Peter more. This film version was clearly based on the Ultimate Spider-Man. Both are valid options but having a slightly less geeky Spider-Man who's still a bit of an outcast makes it easier for the audience to relate. And Garfield did good anyway. There's room for both versions in films, we don't want every Spider-Man film to be the same.

And anyway I knew a ton of people who skated a few years back in my teenage days (not that long ago), people still do it and it's not cool, it's what the "outcasts" of the whole school thing do.
 

youji itami

New member
Jun 1, 2014
231
0
0
Cartographer said:
youji itami said:
Oh come on! it's been 4 months get over it Bob.

You complain about people screaming bias at you then ***** at a film you didn't like 4 months later!

What, did you do spend 3 hours every day since it's release looking for anything negative about a film so you could complain more?

Still I like the way the 2 ASM films are failures when the made more money than the 'success's' that are the 2 Thor films and the 2 Captain America films even though Disney spent far more money for less return.
In what world are you living where the sequel to one franchise making less money than the original (ASM vs ASM2) makes it a "success"?

Across all three franchises, Captain America, Thor and ASM, the studios increased the budgets of the sequels by ~10%, but while both Thor 2 and CA2 made more money than their respective first instances, ASM2 made a whole lot less. Or shall we compare ASM with Raimi's output, which all cost less to make than either ASM film and all made more money?
Hell even in a world with no other superhero movies, yeah, ASM did "well" but ASM2 didn't.

If you enjoyed them, great, glad you were satisfied, but they were both great examples of how to really screw up making a movie; how to take a whole load of money and a licence to print more and end up with nothing but monopoly bills in comparison with what you'd expect.

Seriously, Spider-Man 3 did better than either ASM movie, that's what makes them failures!

Spiderman 3 cost more to make than any other Spiderman film and made far more money than Spiderman 2 which made less than the first Spiderman film so I guess that makes Spiderman 2 a failure as well.

If the 9th highest grossing film world wide (5th with international gross only) based on Marvel characters is a failure then I guess comic films won't be around long before the studios stop making them through all the lost money.
 

Vausch

New member
Dec 7, 2009
1,476
0
0
endtherapture said:
Vausch said:
endtherapture said:
piscian said:
Garfield was the only good thing about this series in mind. It's surprising how much people disliked him. I agree with what he said there are great parts of AZM 1 and 2 but they both felt like edward scissorhands was the editor. Like huge chunks of the movies don't make any sense or have the impact they should have with the audience because things are missing or told in the wrong order.
Bob doesn't like this Spider-Man because he is a cool skater hipster Tumblr guy, and is good looking and charming despite being fairly socially awkward. Bob is rooted in his GenX days so doesn't understand they need to update the character for the time, and resents the fact that whilst Garfield's Peter is a bit of an outlier in School, he's not the super nerdy science geeky being bullied type character that Bob is used to.

TASM1 was pretty good though, fun film, great cast and chemistry. TASM2 was a horrible mess of plot contrivances, poor pacing and bad chemistry.
I never once got the idea that Peter was socially awkward in AMS. I got the sense that he was fairly weak when he tried to stand up to a bully (HEY LOOK, OBVIOUS SETUP FOR LATER!), but then he skateboards off cuz that's what kids these days do...in the 90s. I seriously never see people skateboarding any more outside of the occasional longboard. You can update a character without revamping them to be what old people think is "hip".

Tobey Maguire's version of Peter is socially awkward. He was a dork, visibly bullied and clearly not athletic in any fashion until he was bitten. He looked the part so much better and really remains the epitome of portrayal as Peter Parker in my eyes. Garfield played a better Spider-Man but I'm mostly giving that to the script, since the first trilogy was low on wise-cracks (apparently that's all people needed to instantly dismiss the first trilogy from what I read in reviews).
You are obviously of the opinion that you like the old-style of Peter more. This film version was clearly based on the Ultimate Spider-Man. Both are valid options but having a slightly less geeky Spider-Man who's still a bit of an outcast makes it easier for the audience to relate. And Garfield did good anyway. There's room for both versions in films, we don't want every Spider-Man film to be the same.

And anyway I knew a ton of people who skated a few years back in my teenage days (not that long ago), people still do it and it's not cool, it's what the "outcasts" of the whole school thing do.
I happen to prefer the 616 universe rather universally over the Ultimate universe. I like Miles Morales as Spider-man, but otherwise I thought pretty much everything in the Ultimate universe was pretty much as Bob describes: Everything HAS to be linked. Venom can't be an alien, he's gotta be a super-suit project Peter's dad was working on, Scorpion is a clone of Peter (They're both arachnids!), Oscorp is responsible for the spiders, etc.

That's true, but if you wanted both versions to be different, then why even have an origin? Everybody knows Peter's story since Spider-man is about as engrained in modern culture as Superman is. Peter can be geeky and an outcast, you just have to make it so that he's not whiny or that he becomes annoying because of it. To take a page from Guardians, if you can connect with a talking raccoon and a tree man, I'm pretty sure you can identify with a person that struggles when talking to people.

So it's practically a hipster thing because it's outdated and barely anyone does it any more. Wow, trends are frightening.
 

AkaDad

New member
Jun 4, 2011
398
0
0
youji itami said:
Oh come on! it's been 4 months get over it Bob.

You complain about people screaming bias at you then ***** at a film you didn't like 4 months later!

What, did you do spend 3 hours every day since it's release looking for anything negative about a film so you could complain more?

Still I like the way the 2 ASM films are failures when the made more money than the 'success's' that are the 2 Thor films and the 2 Captain America films even though Disney spent far more money for less return.
Oh come on! It's been 4 months get over it youji.

What, did you spend every day since looking for anything negative from Bob so you could complain more? :D
 

TKretts3

New member
Jul 20, 2010
432
0
0
I thought ASM2 was pretty good. There were a few things that could have been done better, but it was still good - certainly not as horrendous as some reviewers had led me to believe it would be. I saw Bob's review around the time the film came out in theaters, and based on that I decided to wait for it to be out on DVD. After watching it on DVD, though, I regretted that decision because almost nothing Bob said in his review, in my opinion, turned out to be true. The things that did were heavily overblown.
 

rasputin0009

New member
Feb 12, 2013
560
0
0
Amazing Spiderman 2 was awful. Three villains, Spiderman's backstory, and the Gwen Stacy romance in one movie is gonna be a clusterfuck of a story. They could have completely cut the Rhino and Electro scenes and ended up with a decent movie. All the movie seemed to me was a lame setup for more movies. And why do they feel the need to make all their movies blatantly connected? You might hide some clever hints into what could come next from the series, but nope, got to spell it out in capital letters to the audience and distract them from the current movie.
 

Seracen

New member
Sep 20, 2009
645
0
0
Huh...I was under the impression the film sold well, or at least broke even! Sony seems to be spinning another story entirely from what I read in this article. It's sad really, as I liked the CHARACTERS (if not the story and presentation) of the new series. To be honest, I didn't care much for the story or the films this go around...I was simply watching the chemistry between Garfield and Stone.

Ah well...here's hoping Disney or Fox buy it up. For those who ask "why Fox," I would answer: more movies and more universes mean more for us to enjoy. Ostensibly, if Marvel owned X-Men...we'd have to wait that much longer for X-Men: Apocalypse, as it would have to fall in line with the schedule for Avengers. Oh for sure, I'd LOVE to see the Avengers go up against the X-Men in the same film...but I am just as content to see two universes vie for my money (usually results in more variety, and if people know what they are doing, better products as well...though that doesn't always happen).

Still...it isn't likely to happen. Spiderman and Playstation remain Sony's sole bright spots in the corporate portfolio...
 

008Zulu_v1legacy

New member
Sep 6, 2009
6,019
0
0
I wonder if this means he won't be re-cast as Spiderman for the next movie. This to me seems like a subtle way of letting people know he in fact, may not be Spiderman anymore.
 

ElMinotoro

Socialist Justice Warrior
Jul 17, 2014
113
0
0
youji itami said:
SNIP

If the 9th highest grossing film world wide (5th with international gross only) based on Marvel characters is a failure then I guess comic films won't be around long before the studios stop making them through all the lost money.
If the 9th highest grossing film was projected and budgeted to be the highest ever, and you banked a ridiculous amount of money on it and got less than half your expected return, that counts as a failure.
 

VoidWanderer

New member
Sep 17, 2011
1,551
0
0
endtherapture said:
piscian said:
Garfield was the only good thing about this series in mind. It's surprising how much people disliked him. I agree with what he said there are great parts of AZM 1 and 2 but they both felt like edward scissorhands was the editor. Like huge chunks of the movies don't make any sense or have the impact they should have with the audience because things are missing or told in the wrong order.
Bob doesn't like this Spider-Man because he is a cool skater hipster Tumblr guy, and is good looking and charming despite being fairly socially awkward. Bob is rooted in his GenX days so doesn't understand they need to update the character for the time, and resents the fact that whilst Garfield's Peter is a bit of an outlier in School, he's not the super nerdy science geeky being bullied type character that Bob is used to.

TASM1 was pretty good though, fun film, great cast and chemistry. TASM2 was a horrible mess of plot contrivances, poor pacing and bad chemistry.
Wait a second!

Cool skater hipster Tumblr guy who is good looking (personal preferences) and charming DESPITE socially awkward? There is a likable person under that?

I have seen both ASM films and the original movies, and honestly I felt ASM Parker was just as awkward as the plot logic...

While I had no real objection to them rebooting the series, I felt that as a character Peter was unlikable. He acted like an ass to the people who literally raised him since his parents vanished. We never really see him use his skateboard apart from that weird training thing that felt like an ad for a Tony Hawk game. The only part that made me like Peter was when he stood up for the kid that Flash was bullying.

If he is not mend to be super sciency, how did he come up with the launcher for his store bought webbing, and why is it mentioned that he is the second smartest person in school... It felt so inconsistent with them trying to pay homage to the characters origins in the comics and movies while trying to make their own version of him.

In regards to Moviebobs opinions, I agree with him, the movies are a mess. Virtually every plot thread ties back to the Oscorp, including Spidey's gadgets. The character Peter is not a likable underdog, but the shy pup at the pound that no-one wants to adopt.

I have said this before and I will say it again, Sony should sell Spider-Man back to Marvel so they can save this slow-motion train-wreck.

If you guys have different views on the character, I am happy for you. But I found the movies and almost everything relating to them a mess.
 

Sanunes

Senior Member
Mar 18, 2011
626
0
21
Seracen said:
Huh...I was under the impression the film sold well, or at least broke even! Sony seems to be spinning another story entirely from what I read in this article. It's sad really, as I liked the CHARACTERS (if not the story and presentation) of the new series. To be honest, I didn't care much for the story or the films this go around...I was simply watching the chemistry between Garfield and Stone.

Ah well...here's hoping Disney or Fox buy it up. For those who ask "why Fox," I would answer: more movies and more universes mean more for us to enjoy. Ostensibly, if Marvel owned X-Men...we'd have to wait that much longer for X-Men: Apocalypse, as it would have to fall in line with the schedule for Avengers. Oh for sure, I'd LOVE to see the Avengers go up against the X-Men in the same film...but I am just as content to see two universes vie for my money (usually results in more variety, and if people know what they are doing, better products as well...though that doesn't always happen).

Still...it isn't likely to happen. Spiderman and Playstation remain Sony's sole bright spots in the corporate portfolio...
I can't see Sony ever giving up their rights to Spider-Man unless they are forced to do so even if the current movies aren't doing well there is always a chance to make another one that will hit the "Billion Dollar Club". Sony's real bright spot is their insurance division, for I think without it during the PS3 era they might not have survived during the low points.

As far as if the movie was successful versus unsuccessful we are not the people that make that decision and all we can do is the math based on the numbers we have given. Now I am pretty sure that Amazing Spider-Man 2 did make some profit, but at the end of the day was it the profit that Sony was expecting from it and if it wasn't to Sony that means the movie was a disappointment/failure.