Calibanbutcher said:
Just a question: Would Spidermah have added anything of value to the Avengers movie?
Firstly: Spiderman has been on the Avengers roster, so if you're looking to add new characters (and they most likely are), he's an easy pick. Saves them from having to fund an origin story for a character nobody recognizes. If a red-and-blue jumpsuit wearing male swings into the scene, even the dumbest of audiences knows who that is. Not as many will recognize Black Panther, or Ant-Man, or other options.
Marvel really has three main "roads" they can go with the second "chapter" of their film universe.
1) You make the next Avengers film without any new characters, despite the roster for the Avengers changing on a regular basis in comic lore.
2) You make the next Avengers films while introducing brand new characters, who will need to be introduced in some way. Which means you either fork over the cash to make origin movies for them (and risk them being financial bombs), or you do as you did in the first Avengers and give them cameos in your existing major film franchises (which risks those films' finances instead, and isn't as likely to go over well with characters whose origins aren't as strongly tied to SHIELD).
3) You bring in well known, major Marvel Universe characters that have shown up on the Avengers roster at some time or another and that audiences would instantly recognize, potentially saving you money (since you don't necessarily need to do an origin story for someone well known) and bringing greater revenue in the grand scheme of things.
Given the choices, the one that saves the most money, makes the most money, and is arguably the best film is obvious.
It seems likely that Ant-Man will be added to the roster given the renewed drive to get a movie for him finished. That also opens the door for connected characters, like Wasp. So it seems Marvel is already going with either option 2 or 3. Now the problem: Since the X-Men are owned by Sony as well as Spiderman, that takes away good options for characters. Sony's insistence on grabbing a firm hold on the rights to both X-Men and Spiderman means that we'll never know whether or not Spiderman would "add something significant", because that team-up is now impossible.
Let's be honest: would the current Avengers cast honestly be hurt in any way from having even more badasses on the screen at a given time? Would having, say, Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch show up and contribute degrade the quality of the film? It's hard to argue that more characters wouldn't potentially aid in beefing up things for a massive galatic showdown with Thanos in the next Avengers film. Keep in mind this is a dude who is well known for killing over half of the Marvel Universe's superheroes on his own, he's a universe destroying sort of guy. Having a bigger roster for that film seems sort of essential, honestly.
Ramzal said:
Because you're not doing it in a rational sense.
Yes, I am.
You've made a decision off of two things. The first being the fact that they are putting out another Spider-man movie for money. Okay, they remade -every- marvel movie that has ever had any kind of movie or show to begin with for that purpose. Captain America had a show/movie, Spider-man had one, Hulk. These movies already had projects beforehand that didn't catch too much wind, but was attempted again because the current generation is all about these kind of movies involving superpowered heroes.
So if you've seen Captain America or any marvel movie already, you've already beaten your own cause.
This strain of logic helps illustrate that you don't understand what I'm talking about. So let me try to simplify it for you.
Would you say that the Batman movies are corporate cash-ins that were made purely to make mone, or a legitimate attempt to tell the Batman story in a way it hadn't been told before? How about Lord of the Rings? Were they corporate cash-ins, or were they trying to tell the story of the books in a manner adapted to suit an audience that probably hadn't read the books?
If you answered the former (that they are cash-ins) to any of those, you're an idiot.
There is a significant difference between a film that exists to make money and a film that exists to tell a story, and the difference is measurable. The Batman films demonstrate their intentions through the individuals they hire (buying Heath Ledger, Christian Bale, etc was not cheap), the way they do business, etc. The Avengers movie was a VERY expensive movie, especially when it came to buying Robert Downey Jr (who made more than all of his co-stars combined), and then on top of that, they had to afford Joss Whedon.
Let's compare to The Amazing Spiderman: a film featuring significantly cheap actors. Andrew Garfield's last big role was in "The Social Network", Emma Stone is an actor who has been in and out of various romantic comedies (few of which made big bucks), and Rhys Ifans is....has he been in ANY big films that weren't blatant cash-ins (Garfield: A Tale of Two Kitties, among others)? Their director is Marc Webb, who is far better known for his work in making music videos than his work in film making (this is his second major film behind). So you have here a roster of cheap talent in the lead roles and as director. So Sony did this for monetary reasons, they risked paying Sam Raimi and Tobey Maguire a hell of a lot more money.
On top of this, Raimi wanted more creative control over the next Spiderman film, because in Spiderman 3, the studio obligated him to put in story elements that he didn't originally want in there (which is part of the reason it fell so flat). Sony refused to give it to him.
We're not even comparing remotely similar situations. You're the one being irrational and not thinking here. Marvel has shown a willingness to shell out a LOT of coin to make the movies good, whereas Sony drove away its lead star and director....and to replace them with cheap people who were still new to the scene shows a clear indication of intentions. Even if you willfully choose to ignore the fact that Sony would lose the rights to Spiderman if they hadn't made this film (which requires a lot of denial to pull off), you can't ignore all of the evidence showing Sony's focus on money over story. That is why I refuse to support it, and if you can't wrap your head around it, that's honestly not my problem.
Worse off is the fact that you are making a very narrow minded decision off of a product you haven't tried yet. It's like saying you hate liver and onions without ever trying to eat it. Your opinion on the quality of a product you have not experience is as founded and valuable as a grain of dirt. (Not to sound insulting.)
This point of view is honestly more ignorant than the one you're against.
"Try before you knock it" is a fantastic form of logic when it comes to cheap articles or necessities. Food, water, shelter, etc. These are things I cannot go without, and so if I don't get "the perfect apartment", that's tough shit. I'll just have to find an affordable one I like and "try it out" before I throw in the towel and live on the street.
But in a tough economy, entertainment products are the first luxury to go out the window. Movie tickets are $10 and the concessions are more. Video games are $60. I don't WANT to "try it before I knock it", because that means that I'm gambling with my money. The reason people look for reviews and such is because they don't want to be forced to go to the film before making an opinion about whether or not it's going to be worth their time and money. They need that decision to be made before they go, because no smart individual is going to waste their money on something they have strong suspicions they won't like.
Not to mention that while you SAY this, I'm quite certain that you don't live this philosophy. How do I know? Well, let me ask: do you go to EVERY film you see advertised? Of course not. You pick and choose which ones to see based on your own pre-determined biased of what you like and what you do not. If you hate romantic comedies, you don't rush out to go see another one. You undoubtedly do the same with video games. I myself am not fond of FPSs, so when the next Call of Duty comes out, you can bet I'm not even going to give it a second glance. I don't have to "try" everything to know whether or not I'll like it. I can get informed, look up information about the game, watch reviews and gameplay footage, all before I make the decision to buy. Because that is what a SMART consumer does: they get educated and don't let commercials tell them what to spend money on.
If you realistically believe that people can't know whether or not they're going to like something before they've tried it, then I pity you, because you must waste an awful lot of your own money going to see lots of movies that you ended up hating. After all, you can't KNOW you'll hate it until you watched it right? So you must go to the movies every week so you can see all the films and decide which ones you like, and which were a waste of time, since you can't possibly decide "this is stupid and I won't waste my money on it" BEFORE you go to the movie....right?
Any movie made is for the sake of money. No one makes a fill in Hollywood for the sake of "This is going to be fun." The people who make those movies need to eat and have places to live. So anything made is for the sake of income.
Necessity does not excuse quality. If you choose to go into a job and you suck at it, you get fired. You need the money for your family, you say? Tough, you need to be GOOD at what you do, or you stop making money on it and have to find something else you're good at.
Plus, the reason I REALLY hate this argument is that it tries to make these millionaires sound like "they're just like you or me, and if they don't get the paycheck for that next multi-million dollar film, why they'll just die!". No, more like they'll have to settle for a slightly cheaper steak dinner each week.
Secondly, it's a problem that you say things/act so impulsively because the company has never done anything to hurt YOU. YOUR money wasn't put into making the movie, and I am sure you have done no writing for the script, no stunts, no acting, and you weren't behind a camera.
I don't deserve the right to choose how to spend my money because my money wasn't spent in making the film? What kind of nonsensical non-point is that?
It's a self entitled position that consumers constantly put themselves in that they have to feel as if they are being cheated for someone daring to put out anything that doesn't fit their -exact- demands. Again, the company that has funded making The Amazing Spider-man has done nothing to hurt YOU. It bugs me because people have this preconception of an evil company that dares mess with what a consumer DEMANDS they have a list of things handed to them, in a certain manner.
What are you even talking about? This has nothing to do with what I've said.
What I said: "I refuse to go see this movie, even if it may be good, because it was made under faulty business practices that I do not support".
What you're interpreting this as: "They didn't make the movie *I* want so I'm going to tell all my friends to boycott this movie!"
The two are literally nothing alike. Who are you arguing with?
They've done nothing to you. I can understand if you had no interest in the movie for the sake of it just not interesting you period, but honestly you are not making an informed nor a well thought out one. It's simply just...petty.
My point is very well thought out. I choose not to support a film whose basis is "how can we make the most money?" rather than "how can we make a good story?". That's a simple, logical reason to not go see a movie.
Now let's review
your key arguments:
1) If you've ever paid money into any movie based on another IP, you're supporting the "evil" corporations you claim to fight against. (this is akin to claiming that supporting Valve is the same as supporting EA....in other words, it's absolute nonsense)
2) You can't POSSIBLY know if you'll like something before you try it, so it's best to just gamble with your money. (this is something you clearly don't do yourself, so you're basically speaking on a makeshift pedestal so as to lord over a topic you have no authority over)
3) The corporation didn't "hurt" you, so it's perfectly okay for them to engage in any business practice they wish. (if a corporation engages in a bad business practice, it's perfectly okay to say "hey, that's kind of a dick move" even if you're not invested in it directly)
I'm sorry, but I don't see how my point of view is more irrational than yours.