Green Lantern 2, The Flash Updates

[Kenny_Tha_Killa]

In the article that I provided, even Raimi himself said that he was given full creative control with SM 1&2. When Arad talks about changing certain aspects of Spider-Man (like having his webs coming out of his wrists) he said "we" decided to change that - when according to Raimi's comments, it was Raimi's decision all along. So what I was saying is that you shouldn't believe the Times article because it was heavily influenced by Arad and what he says isn't always true.

Did you actually read the entire article (including hyperlink) you posted? The two quotes you previously posted are taken waaaay out of context. (*Besides, "tremendous" is not the same as "full.")

---

"...the film was criticised by some for a storyline which featured too many villains and turned Parker into a moody emo. Raimi had reportedly also been clashing with Columbia (owned by, you guessed it, Sony Pictures Entertainment) over which baddies to feature in Spider-Man [hl=yellow]4[/hl], arguments which resulted in the studio publicly admitting that it was unlikely to meet its planned 6 May 2011 release date.

The director, famous for making the seminal Evil Dead comic horror movies before turning his hand to comicbook fare, had hinted previously that he did not have full control of Spider-Man 3. [hl=red]"They really gave me a tremendous amount of control on the first two films, actually," he said last year. "But then there were different opinions on the third film and I didn't really have creative control, so to speak."[/hl]

---

---

---

The [hl=red]second[/hl] paragraph is about SM3. Here's where those quotes came from (if you had clicked the hyperlink) that includes this little nifty quote:

More questions were thrown at the director about the issues surrounding Spider-Man 3 and the at-the-time Marvel head honcho [hl=red]Avi Arad’s[/hl] rumored insistence on Venom’s inclusion, but Raimi responded professionally and didn’t name names or play the blame game in his answers.

Raimi being a vet in Hollywood knows the first rule is not to name names or burn bridges, but I think you get the picture.


In regards to The NY Times thing, they proclaim him as the man behind the movies. As for the quotes taken directly from him, well no one has disputed it so there's no reason to believe it's not true. If you read up you'll see Avi's name pop up everywhere, and not just from The New York Times.

---

---

No, no, no. You are getting things all turned around. Go back and read my comment a little more carefully. When I spoke of the article being written before SM 3, I was talking about the article YOU provided. I was saying that at that time (three years before SM 3 hit the screens) there would have been no reason to verify what Arad was saying.

(*Besides, "tremendous" is not the same as "full.")

Now you're just getting nit-picky.

And no, the article that I provided is not taking what Raimi said out of context. Why? because of the very thing that I've been trying to get across to you - at the end of the day, the guys supplying the money have final say. For the sake of argument, let's say it was all Arad's idea to include Venom. Raimi didn't agree. So who was the referee in this battle for creative control? Sony - who else? Avi Arad is a figurehead for Marvel. Sony owns the rights to the Spider-Man franchise. All final decisions go through them. It's a no-brainer.

"More questions were thrown at the director about the issues surrounding Spider-Man 3 and the at-the-time Marvel head honcho Avi Arad’s [hl=yellow]rumored[/hl] insistence on Venom’s inclusion, but Raimi responded professionally and didn’t name names or play the blame game in his answers."

Yes, I get the picture.


And by the way, red highlights are hard on the eyes when you're trying to read text.

 

[Bleed_Through]

No, no, no. You are getting things all turned around. Go back and read my comment a little more carefully. When I spoke of the article being written before SM 3, I was talking about the article YOU provided.

No, no, no. I realize you're saying the NYT interview is before SM3, but that's separate from what I'm trying to point out to you. The quote particularly the part about SM3 is out of context without [link=http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/OnlyZodKnowsWhy/news/?a=6773]this[/link], and quite conveniently may I add considering a specific someone is referenced directly with the creative demands.

Raimi had [hl=yellow]reportedly[/hl] also been clashing with Columbia over which baddies to feature in Spider-Man 4

Yes, I get the picture.

For the sake of argument, let's say it was all Arad's idea to include Venom. Raimi didn't agree. So who was the referee in this battle for creative control? Sony - who else? Avi Arad is a figurehead for Marvel. Sony owns the rights to the Spider-Man franchise. All final decisions go through them. It's a no-brainer.

For the millionth time ...

It means they didn't have full creative control. That certainly doesn't let them off the hook.

Let me make an example: The Comedian shoots a girl while Dr. Manhattan watches. Just because Dr.M could have stopped it, does that let The Comedian off the hook for his actions? If you want to blame both sides then fair enough, all I'm trying to point out is this:

anyone who thinks there's going to be a big (or any real) shift in quality all of the sudden with the independent films, has another thing coming.

I was saying that at that time (three years before SM 3 hit the screens) there would have been no reason to verify what Arad was saying.

Just because it was before SM3 doesn't mean no one would call them on it if it were bs. Not to mention that Avi's name is mentioned practically everywhere even post SM3. Besides, I don't understand why you think the happenings on SM3 is the only issue.

Now you're just getting nit-picky.

It's not nitpicking at all. You clearly tried to claim that Raimi had full creative control over the first two films which cancels out what Avi said.

 

[Kenny_Tha_Killa]

Why do I get the feeling that I'm just going around and around in circles with you? Oh, because I am! I'm done picking apart comments. I've wasted enough time on this subject. I said before that Arad was partly to blame for how SM3 turned out, but that at the end of the day, Sony pays the bills so what Sony says goes. There are countless articles (of which I will not supply because I've wasted enough time on this) where Raimi talks about differences with Sony (not Avi Arad) on SM3 and leading to his decision to walk on SM4. I used SM3 because it was the best example so no, I don't think it's the only issue. Yes you are nitpicking. I didn't try to claim anything. All I did was post what Raimi said about Sony. If you want to try and twist that around to fit your agenda then that's your prerogative. I don't care. Goodbye.

 

[Bleed_Through]

Yes you are nitpicking. I didn't try to claim anything. All I did was post what Raimi said about Sony. If you want to try and twist that around to fit your agenda then that's your prerogative.

In the article that I provided, even Raimi himself said that he was given full creative control with SM 1&2. When Arad talks about changing certain aspects of Spider-Man (like having his webs coming out of his wrists) he said "we" decided to change that - when according to Raimi's comments, it was Raimi's decision all along. So what I was saying is that you shouldn't believe the Times article because it was heavily influenced by Arad and what he says isn't always true.

You either don't realize what you've said or you're the one trying to twist and turn things.

 

[Kenny_Tha_Killa]

Nope, no twisting here. I stand by what I said. That's the logical conclusion based on comments from Raimi and Arad. Believe what you want.

 

[ProtoScroto]

bleed through, forget it. i've attempted to reason with both jacob and kenny before. they're stupid, to put it plainly. i'd guess that they're both 14 years old. they just don't understand how the business works.

"the studios have the final creative control. That's the exact reason Sam Raimi walked out on Spider-Man 4 - because they screwed with him on SM3 (which he caught a lot of hell about) and they were trying to do it again on SM4. This time he stuck to his guns and told Sony to eff off. That's why the franchise was rebooted."

this is the babbling of some crazed conspiracy theorist. he's basically saying the director gets all the credit if a movie goes right and the studio gets all the blame if a movie bombs. and to that i say "You really haven't supplied any proof of anything."

maybe kenny will reply with "wow. you are so pathetic, i can't believe you read all of that and just copied and pasted what i said. that is lame." yeah, a genius at work. fuck these grandma's boys.