   $225 million, and full speed ahead.
  I don''t know if you all heard the news, but the Spider-Man 2 budget is locked at $225 million dollars.  The first movie made $228 million in 13 days at the box office.  And if you read the weblogs at the official site, its easy to see that everyone involved with the project is having lots of fun, and very dedicated to making this film absolutely superb, and it will ultimately kick major ass.  I''m very very excited.  Just remembering how much fun the first movie was to watch, makes me wonder how much further has the crew gone with the sequel.  My oh my.  Movie Movies Movies.  Oh joy.  
  I''m going to go see it when it comes out, it better be good.   ______________________________________________________________"It takes all kinds."   -Adam CarollaMy Site;quote:Original post by mink_trapper  I''m going to go see it when it comes out, it better be good.   ______________________________________________________________"It takes all kinds."   -Adam CarollaMy Site No need for doubt, the franchise is in good hands. ;  The only doubt I have is in the handling of Kirsten Dunst.  The one thing film makers seem to be consistant in is botching up romances.  If Peter reneges on what he said at the end of the first film, I will never respect Sam Raimi again.CM ;quote:Original post by Conner McCloud   The only doubt I have is in the handling of Kirsten Dunst.  The one thing film makers seem to be consistant in is botching up romances.  If Peter reneges on what he said at the end of the first film, I will never respect Sam Raimi again.CM   Sam Raimi has read the comics, he knows what hes doing.  The entire crew is listening to the fans, just read the weblogs.  And plus, I'm sure Stan Lee and co. won't just stand around and let Spider-Man 2 become Batman and Robin.  Edit: Listening to the fans can be a bad thing also, but Sam Raimi and producers knew what needed to be fixed, in addition to the fans pointing out the same things.  So, you can expect those smart remarks during fight scenes.  (read the weblogs)   [edited by - Spider-Man on February 4, 2004 11:44:38 PM];quote:Original post by Spider-Man   Sam Raimi has read the comics, he knows what hes doing.  The entire crew is listening to the fans, just read the weblogs.  And plus, I'm sure Stan Lee and co. won't just stand around and let Spider-Man 2 become Batman and Robin.  Edit: Listening to the fans can be a bad thing also, but Sam Raimi and producers knew what needed to be fixed, in addition to the fans pointing out the same things.  So, you can expect those smart remarks during fight scenes.  (read the weblogs)Like I said, the only doubt I have in Raimi et al doing a good job is in that one area.  And there are story lines in which Peter Parker and Mary Jane hook up.  The very fact that she's not dead implies they're willing to bend the history a bit in the interest pleasing audiences.I think they'll rise to the occasion. Even if they botch that one area, I'll bet the movie will be phenomenal.  But I can't get that one doubt out of my head.  Its too common a move.  *edit: and I don't read blogs, especially when they regard issues I am anticipating.  If it were up to me, I wouldn't even see a preview for Spiderman 2 before watching the film.  But that's not an option, and we all know it.CM   [edited by - Conner McCloud on February 4, 2004 11:53:32 PM];quote:Original post by Conner McCloud  If Peter reneges on what he said at the end of the first film, I will never respect Sam Raimi again.Is that Raimi''s call? I''ve often seen directors get criticised for things that I assume would fall under the domain of the screenwriters. Now, I know Hollywood is silly about rewriting scripts, so maybe directors have varying degrees of input to the story during rewrites, but would it really be fair blame the director for the handling of major plot points?This year''s Spidey movie is the first movie in years that I''ve been jazzed up to see. The first one far surpassed all of my expectations. I hope it wasn''t a fluke.;quote:Original post by BerwynIrish  Is that Raimi''s call? I''ve often seen directors get criticised for things that I assume would fall under the domain of the screenwriters. Now, I know Hollywood is silly about rewriting scripts, so maybe directors have varying degrees of input to the story during rewrites, but would it really be fair blame the director for the handling of major plot points?This year''s Spidey movie is the first movie in years that I''ve been jazzed up to see. The first one far surpassed all of my expectations. I hope it wasn''t a fluke.If it were up to the screenwriters, then I blame it on the director for letting it go through.  Its his film.Now, in a case like this there is also Stan Lee''s interests.  I use Lee to represent whomever has ultimate control over the franchise.  If Lee insists on a certain point, then the director can''t really do anything about it except not do the film.  So the blame shifts in that case.  CM ;quote:Original post by Conner McCloud  If it were up to the screenwriters, then I blame it on the director for letting it go through.  Its his film.It''s the producer''s or studio''s film, really (whoever signs the checks). Anyway, I wasn''t so much concerned specifically about who to blame if Spidey II has problems as I was with finding out if anybody knows, in general, how much control directors have over the story of their films. As I mentioned, I''m puzzled by how directors are often blamed or praised for story elements that seem to be outside their job description.quote:Now, in a case like this there is also Stan Lee''s interests.  I use Lee to represent whomever has ultimate control over the franchise.  If Lee insists on a certain point, then the director can''t really do anything about it except not do the film.  So the blame shifts in that case.Just FYI, I don''t know who the head honcho of the franchise would be (and from my understanding, Hollywood ends up with the lion''s share of creative control in comic book movie deals anyway), but I can tell you Lee has little or no legal rights regarding the franchise. He''s no longer in Marvel''s employ (Marvel comics no longer have "Stan Lee presents" on the credits page), and any input he is allowed would simply be out of respect for him.;  I think I agree on the Stan Lee thing.  I don''t think he has any say on what goes on with the films.  I say this because on disc 2 of the Hulk set, he sort of pouts about why Hulk wasn''t being called The Hulk, or The Incredible Hulk. 