Sam Raimi Explains Why He Hasn’t Seen ‘The Amazing Spider-Man’

Published 2 years ago by

sam raimi photograph Sam Raimi Explains Why He Hasnt Seen The Amazing Spider Man

After a dispute between Spider-Man trilogy director Sam Raimi and Sony, the originally planned fourth installment was scrapped in favor of a reboot. Although many fans of the Raimi films scoffed at the idea of a reboot so soon, many of them eventually came around and made The Amazing Spider-Man one of the biggest blockbuster hits of last summer.

Of course, Raimi’s three Spider-Man films were massive commercial successes when they were released, but with Marc Webb’s adaptation receiving plenty of admiration from comic book fans and film critics (though there were a number of complaints, as well) and with development on The Amazing Spider-Man 2 already underway, the question is: Is Raimi bitter?

Under the circumstances, one could understand if he was. After all, a profitable and beloved franchise set sail without him on the ship that he helped build. He recently told The Huffington Post that though he respects everyone involved, he hasn’t seen The Amazing Spider-Man because he simply can’t bring himself to.

“Well, I’m a big Marc Webb fan and a giant fan of Emma Stone. And of Andrew Garfield. I saw him on Broadway in ‘Death of a Salesman’ – it’s just brilliant. And I love the producers of that movie because they are dear friends, and the writer. But I haven’t had the guts to go see the movie yet. Because I don’t want to go to my girlfriend’s wedding. I just can’t bring myself to do it. I don’t have the guts. But I hear it’s great. My wife even loved the picture and said it was a wonderful, excellently produced, beautifully acted, brilliantly written ‘Spider-Man’ picture. She’d tell me the truth and that’s what she said.”

Although Raimi hasn’t personally gotten up the courage to go see it for himself, he said that he is happy for the filmmakers, the cast and the fans.

“I’m happy for [Marc Webb] and all the team. And I only wish him the best and I salute them because it’s a tough job, too. And obviously he’s pleased the fans – so I’m proud for him. I’m happy for my friends on the picture.”

the amazing spider man sequ Sam Raimi Explains Why He Hasnt Seen The Amazing Spider Man

Andrew Garfield in ‘The Amazing Spider-Man’

Despite not being able to bring Spider-Man 4 to the big screen, Raimi seems to have handled these past couple of years gracefully. Of course, that’s easier to do when you stay busy. Since Spider-Man 3, Raimi has directed the surprise 2009 hit Drag Me to Hell and the forthcoming Oz the Great and Powerful (due in March) and is producing the highly-anticipated remake of his 1981 cult classic Evil Dead (due in April).

Be sure to catch The Amazing Spider Man 2 when it swings into theaters on May 2nd, 2014. Meanwhile, Raimi’s Oz the Great and Powerful hits theaters March 8th, 2013.


Source: The Huffington Post

Follow Daniel Johnson on Twitter @UODanJohnson
Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:


Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.

If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it. Keep in mind that we do not allow external links in the comments.

  1. IMO, Spiderman 1 was okay. It was a decent origin story with a nice ending fight with green goblin. Spiderman 2 was great, and is my favorite of the original 3. Great story, action and acting. It made me excited for the third movie. Spiderman 3 was crap in comparison. It was goofy, at times lazy, and over stuffed with character arcs and villains. Towards the end it just felt like a straight-to-cable, disney channel movie. Just like SM3, The Amazing Spiderman was disappointing. The first half of the movie was generally boring. Peter Parker was a studdering, mumbling fool and even though the chemistry betweeen Peter and Gwen was hyped up, I just didnt feel it and it felt forced. The villain was generic and the CGI for the lizard was sup bar, as was his motivations. Spiderman took off his mask way too much and there wasnt enough action. The ending was cliche and I left the theater unimpressed. Hopefully the sequel will be better. As far as TASM is concerned, Raimi has it beat….except for the 3rd movie.

  2. I hate to be the guy that injects the Dark Knight trilogy into every conversation, but I think the two (that being Spiderman 1 and The Amazing Spider-man) can clearly be separated into pre and post Dark Knight trilogy.

    Sam Raimi’s was good and embraced the goofiness of the original comics without getting campy; it was a huge improvement to the comic book movies that preceded it a few years early (not gonna name names but bat-nipples may have been invovled) but I don’t think it would hold up as well today. Where as The Amazing Spider-Man seemed to be influenced by the realism and grit of the Dark Knight Trilogy. To me that was a welcome change to the Spider-Man franchise. And while The Amazing Spider-Man didn’t hit every note right and it wasn’t without it’s cliches, I think it was a good re-introduction to a character and genre!

  3. I love Raimi’s version. I think Spider-Man 3 tripped over itself trying to compete with Batman Begins and not upping what had first made it the gold standard. Nobody was buying comics until Raimi’s Spider-Man. They were but not like THAT! Then Nolan’s Batman just blew the roof off the place. All Spider-Man had to do was make an as good sequel to SM2. That’s it. They didn’t need the gimmicks. They didn’t need the extra characters. Having three villains was good but they could’ve done it differently. When Harry was put in the hospital he didn’t have to wake up. Not until the very end like Bullseye did in Daredevil. Save The Goblin for the 4th Spider-Man film. Sandman was good but not great. Not like he was on the cartoons or in comics. They didn’t challenge what all he could do with the powers. He could’ve made his hands into machine guns, could’ve turned his arms into axes… set the bar for someone like Carnage to be there next time. Venom could’ve been played by someone much bigger than Topher Grace. In fact, the guy that played Sandman should’ve played Venom. Its like they gave the keys to the kingdom to an autistic kid that might be gay and expected it to work like with someone sired by metalhead male role models. Sorry, sweets. You and the fetal position GOP making SM3 lose in their cutting corners. Would you trust Sheldon or Howard to date Penny on The Big Bang Theory? No! That’d be very ew, right? So why does it seem like that’s exactly what’s still happening? Ok, you’re right. Its not because its a Democrat President. So they mess with you if they can’t with me. That’s how its different. I mean I’d like to help but when I did before it led to this. I can’t cancel out my helping at all for me cutting myself out the deal. They’re not letting themselves get cut out the deal. That’s what I’m saying. So don’t be Ricky in Boyz N The Hood. We stick together and we’ll get out of this alive. The Forbidden Kingdom. We don’t and its history repeated with you now as Doughboy’s late brother.

  4. It’s because The Amazing Spider-Man is a better movie!

    • Uh, no.

    • Exactly how is The Amazing Spider-Man a better movie?
      Ignore the Spidey verse content and focus on the way the story is build up,how the action scenes are so on and so on.In that aspect The Amazing Spiderman is very uneven.It takes a while for the real action to take place.So I get it that they wanted to pay attention to the characters.But if you are going to do something like that you have to make them real interesting.Why bother to put Martin Sheen in as Uncle Ben to barely do something with him except for his death.Don’t get me started about underusing Sally Field as Aunt May.She is an excellent actress but come one her role was incredibly insignificant especially if you compare it to the Aunt May in Sam Raimi’s version and the comics.The Lizard was an incredibly boring villain.Which is not Rhys Ifans fault,he did what he could.Brings me to the action.Are you kidding me?Nearly not as spectacular as in the previous ones.The supposedly more realistic web slinging (ha ha you said realistic beavis),yeah because web slinging is possible folks.Let me also address this Nolan darker thing.If it suits the character then I don’t mind it.But the Spiderman I know was never dark.Maybe in alternative story lines they made him darker.But you can’t randomly mix up original story line plots and mix them up with the alternative ones.Emo Peter Parker doesn’t work for me.But did they have to take the darkness thing literally?What about some web slinging when it was bright and light.Brings me to the pacing.It was all over the was slow then incredibly thrilling making you want to see more then the scene ends.Slow scenes again,another thrilling scene that is far too short too enjoy then slow scenes again.So let me be clear,I enjoyed The Amazing Spiderman but in no way is it better than the Sam Raimi ones,not even the third one even admitted that one was a little messy too.

      • A little messy?! I am hard pressed to come up with a worse superhero movie off the top of my head. Partly because of high expectations of course, since 2 was a great one and three was frequently embarrassing. Literally embarrassing. I don’t remember who I saw that one with, but I am sure I squirmed when Peter got so cheesy and “evil” and Venom became a total joke. No Sandman visuals can fix that heap of wasted potential. Tobey and Raimi went out with a thud on that one. I never thought a reboot was a good idea, but letting that team go again after blowing it would be a worse gamble.

  5. Obviously some people have no idea what they are talking about.I can’t take someone serious if they say evil dead is garbage.It’s a horror classic that has not lost any if it’s strength.

    • I don’t know what I am talking about cause I think Evil Dead is overated garbage? LOL! i’ts a horror classic? horror????… you must be one scared panzzy if this was in anyway horror to you. It was Raimi’s typical goofy campy crap! But hey, don’t take me seriously ya Raimi fan boy >:) or maybe your one of them sheep who wants to defend it cause liking what your friends like is “cool”

      • ha ha Funny guy.I have been watching horror movies since I was 4 and currently am 37 years old.In those years I have seen a lot of movies.And I watch what I want when I want.Nobody can persuade me to like a movie if I don’t like it.There are very few horror movies that scare me and I have seen some crazy s*** so.As to your definition of horror.Well,you have your perspective I have my own.It just happens to be a lot of fans and critics of the horror genre agree with me.And no horror,doesn’t always have to scary.The first Evil Dead was serious,creepy and could be considered scary for some.It certainly had good build up in atmosphere and a nice balance of suspense and gore.Evil Dead 2 was more like a parody of the first and more comical.Perhaps you are confusing the second with the first.But even then there is no doubt that both parts are horror.If you look at the horror genre and especially of the ones in the eighties most of them combined horror with comedy.Reanimator,Braindead and Return of the Living Dead are examples of that.But those are only a small selection of the huge amount of horror movies made in that decade that combined genre.By your comment I do sense you have very limited knowledge of the horror genre and that horror (as in terrifying and scary) should not always be taken literally.As for me being a fan boy.I like Sam Raimi’s work in general.But that does not mean I always like his choices.Especially when Spiderman is concerned.Still his Spiderman was superior to The Amazing Spiderman.Of course that is my opinion.As you have your opinion.Again check out some Eighties horror movies and tell me which weren’t campy.That is the whole reason those movies were good in the first place.These movies never took themselves seriously.Unlike some contemporary ones.Which often leads to failure.As for goofiness and camp in Spiderman.It was kept to a minimum so what the hell are you talking about.A little comedy never has hurt anyone and if one can mix it up with drama and other genres successfully like Raimi has what is so wrong with that.Spidey himself has a great sense of humour as does Stan Lee.Why would that suddenly not fit with Spiderman.So no you don’t know what you are talking about.

        • I never said it didn’t fit with Spider-man. I just simply don’t care for Sam Raimi. you are the fan, not me. I also did like the first 2 Spider-man movies. but part 3, Sam raimi really jumped the shark with his style of over the top, campy, goofy, almost retarded humor. As for Evil dead….I’ve watched so many horror movies from the eighties. I agree almost all of them are campy, like the Freddy movies. But I don’t see that as a real horror movie. Dead Alive was so silly…But I will admit, I did love it! So yea we do look at horror in a different way. I will also admit, I did like Dark Man, Sam’s first “super hero” movie. You can tell it is very much Sam’s style, wich I don’t care much about. But something about Dark Man. I liked.

          • And yea i know Sam did not direct Dead Alive. I was just naming another campy “horror” movie.

          • Fair enough,yeah Dark Man is a good example where his style worked extremely well.

            I am not sure if Sam Raimi is solely to blame for Spiderman 3.He was forced to use Venom which he made clear from the start was not a fan off.But studio execs pushed him.I don’t know the details of how much the studios were involved but I think it is almost safe to say that it has been huge on the third one.Since 3 stands out so much from the first two.I am a huge movie fan and always try to appreciate most movies in existence and Raimi happens to be one of so many film makers that makes movies I like.But I can be very critical of the way he has done things in the previous Spiderman movies as well.I did not like Raimi’s Mary Jane.Dunst did not portray Mary Jane as I knew her from the comics.Tobey was a little too nerdy at times compared to the Peter Parker I knew.Especially when it was underplayed how intelligent he was and made the web shooters and cartridges.But set aside those flaws Raimi’s Spiderman movies were spectacular and entertaining.TAS for me did not offer that experience throughout,only in a few scenes.But who knows maybe the sequel to TAS will be more to my liking.

            I am a child of the Eighties so maybe I can relate more to that decade.But I also like the older style horror flicks of the sixties and seventies.Serious,scary,gory,camp.But indeed there is only so much campiness one can take.Ever seen Brain Damage (1988).That one was barely fun because that was all campiness not one sense of dread or suspense.It also all depends on the mood.But that is why I love horror.Within the genre there are so many variations it is mind boggling and will not get tired of it.

            • Hey chrichton, I too am in my thirties, but grew up on a different movie diet than you did. Even as a kid I found horror to be unscary, which really disappointed me, and I didn’t get any joy out of the campy take on fright. Even the serious ones let me down. I recall the worst Halloween I ever had was when I watched the movie Halloween for the first time and was soooooo bored. Now it’s all torture porn, which may be scarier but it’s rarely worth watching I find.

              Your thoughts on Raimi and Evil Dead actually affected my opinion and outlook, especially since you weren’t a prick about it. I responded to your response on the previous page at the bottom, so go back if you want to know how youve enlightened me, and bring a hanky for your tears. See you around, fellow child of the eighties.

              • If the original Halloween, the Carpenter film, really bored you, you seriously need to watch it again. It’s the only good one in the whole franchise and beyond a horror movie, it’s actually a rather vicious onslaught on suburbia and the “american way of life.”

                • I’ll keep that in mind. I never even considered watching the sequels. It’s not as though I was wishing for torture-porn, but I had hoped that such a famous classic would actually scare me a little. My heartbeat was unaffected. Perhaps it has other redeeming qualities. It might be scarier if the Shatner mask just looked like Shatner… Your comments remind me of why I liked American Psycho, especially the ending voice over. “Even this confession has meant nothing.”. Huey Lewis was from my Highschool and town, and the first tape I ever owned, so layering his happy sounds over axe murder is bizarre to say the least. Cheers.

                  • I, like you, don’t usually get scared watching a horror flick. Very few, like The Exorcist, manage to make me somewhat uneasy, but for the most part, it’s all a popcorny guilty pleasure to me, the cool thing you watch among friends with beer and weed to fuel a good party. What I like about John Carpenter’s films is that, though they can serve as these “cool things” for sure, there’s always a social or political subtext. They’re more than just face value entertainment. It’s more subtle in Halloween than in many of his other movies, but it’s definitely there. Also, I just love the soundtrack.

                    • Exorcist is another letdown! I wanted it to scare me so bad! The most my heart raced was in false anticipation, literally! I heard growling and saw a gargoyle and wondered how freaky the film would get… And then, aside from that crab walking freak out, it was pretty tame. At least it wasn’t junk, and it had entertainment value, but I thought it would be scary.

                      Even I know the Halloween soundtrack, and it is catchy…

                      I get yer point about Carpenter though, so tell me, what are his best films?

                    • I’d definitely put The Thing on top of the list. Then I guess it’s up to your own sensibility. My own faves besides The Thing are Escape From New York, They Live!, Halloween, In The Mouth Of Madness and his remake of Village Of The Damned (starring Christopher Lee and Mark Hamill). I haven’t seen his latest film (The Ward) yet, but a friend told me it was pretty awesome.

                    • BFG666- The Thing was really original and I can see why it is a classic. Didn’t recall that it was Carpenter. I give him credit for that one; it even hold up as modern entertainment. Heard good things about They Live, but skipped Escape FNY since th best part of the sequel was the preview for First Contact, but I hear it was better at least. Mouth of Madness was a dissapointment long ago, but I was young and stupid so I have meant to see it again. H.P. Lovecraft and Sam Niel are an interesting mix. I don’t know those others… Thanks for the thoughts and suggestions! Nice to interact with film fans instead of just the casual audience that makes up my friends and family.

                      Oh yeah, and as far as fear goes, I thought the PG13 remake Posiedon was scarier than any horror film I’ve seen. Maybe just because dying from claustrophobic, frantic drowning scenarios pushed my buttons, but it was seriously tense. Same way a few eps of OZ freaked me out, melding the loss of fragile innocence with impending ass rape. But hey, maybe that’s just my little phobia.

    • love evil dead! the whole trilogy is brilliant! there are so many great quotes like in army of darkness “I got news for ya pal you aint leading but two things right now jack and sh**, and jack left town!” haha gets me every time.

  6. Spider-Man #1 & #2 were great, some of the best fight scenes ever in a superhero movie. #3 was OK, but not great. Sandman was pretty good as a villain. Need to dump from all superhero movies dancing superheroes, crying superheroes, drunk superheroes. Just don’t need them Or bedroom scenes, either; dump them, too. Then go from there is a more serious vein. The reboot Spider-Man was watchable, but not all that great. I would rank it probably last of the 4, although it is on about a par with Spider-man #3 overall.

    • @ Goldilocks

      I would be in agreement with ya.

  7. Raimi is a classy guy .
    I wish him well with his future projects

  8. OK, I want to say that I am a fan of SM and of the Sam Raimi films. Now that I’ve said that, I think everyone should look at the domestic movie profits to see how all 4 SM movies were received and enjoyed (enjoyment means repeat viewers):

    SM 1 – $403+ million
    SM 2 – $373+ million
    SM 3 – $336+ million
    ASM – $262+ million.

    I think that everyone agrees that SM 2 is the best Raimi film, but even taking inflation into account (SM 1 was released in 2002, SM 2 – 2004, SM 4 – 2007 and ASM – 2012), ASM does not come close to the 3 Raimi films, so can’t you say that fans enjoyed it more than the Raimi SM films (also consider that ASM had a 3D version with much higher prices, which I paid to see)?

    I say all of this because I didn’t think ASM was very good. IMO, the best thing about the movie is Emma Stone and the best scene is the Stan Lee library scene. I didn’t like Uncle Ben, Aunt May, Captain Stacy, Peter Parker (especially Peter Parker). I do hope that ASM 2 is better, I really do, but I just don’t understand why anyone thinks that ASM is better than ANY of the Raimi SM movies. It’s true that SM 3 was a major disappointment, overblown, and overcrowded; but I think the movies are better in every way possible vs ASM (story, characterizations, and acting).

    I would still like to see Sony go ahead and film SM 4 with Raimi and Toby Mcguire. Why not? It’s a different movie-verse than ASM and I think that it would out-perform ASM in ticket sales too. Maybe when the ASM trilogy is over…I can hope can’t I? But here’s hoping that ASM 2 and 3 are better than ASM 1 (the worst of the 4 SM movies).

  9. “Is Raimi bitter?” You mean better?
    “After all,a profitable and beloved franchise set sail without him on the ship that he helped build.” Do you mean he wasn’t completely in control but he helped the ongoing success of the franchise starting with the 1st movie?
    “Because I don’t want to go to my girlfriend’s wedding.” lol help me out what is he referring to as to what he means by that?
    help me out those are the only 3 sentences i didn`t get.
    anyway, maybe they could’ve done 1 more movie after that. maguire would’ve been 33/34 by the end of the making, a time which if you wanna have at least 3 children you gotta start having sex. but there was a dispute over what villains to use. they weren`t sure about using villains like the symbiote characters but there was a confusion because they used 3 of the few top powerful villains in SM3 which they screwed up.

  10. Just read a very funny novel, DA YELLER BRICK ROAD, that tells the original Oz story as it was “originally written” by Uncle Remus and later “appropriated” by Baum. It’s a funny take on Oz and well-worth a read.

  11. James Cameron, Dicaprio, and Kevin Spacey as the Green Goblin. I still remember the oil painted poster. It could’ve been worse (despite Spacey, who is awesome whatever he does).

  12. I enjoyed the amazing spiderman and am looking forward to the next but if Raimi made another spiderman movie while the amazing spiderman franchise is going. Id go see Raimi’s over Webb’s.

  13. I tolerated Raimi’s “rendition”, up until he forgot what made 1 & 2 successful.Then he made 3 so much more sappy with Parker and BJ. I liked the darker tone of Webb’s, (Something Raimi should’ve done i,e. Evil Dead) but fumbled, and how Parker actually displays his intelligence with his pet projects. Didn’t see Maguire as intelligent. He seemed more like a psychotic, repressed, sexual deviant. My 2¢.

  14. I don’t usually post on blogs but I just watched the Spiderman Trilogy again and I found myself bobbing my head excitedly every time Spiderman punched Doc Oc, crying (or close to) and six or seven moments, smiling warmly at Aunt May’s advice, and pins-and-needles happening when Mary Jane finds out, when Spiderman swings in to meet Venom’s challenge, and when Harry appears to reinforce Spiderman against Sandman. What happened in the Amazing Spiderman again? Hmm … couple of bland and massively repetitive fight scenes between Spiderman and Croc, a cold auntie who (now that I’ve seen AS2 trailer) has a secret agenda making her not the innocent aunt I loved, and a boring reveal of Peter Parker’s identity to Gwen Stacy … … … … … I wanted to leave the cinema when I first saw it. Tried to watch it again, was bored and stopped. In short, Raimi’s Spiderman was the WARMEST Superhero film I’ve ever seen and Amazing Spiderman was another Marvel Throw-Out-As-Many-Movies-As-Fast-As-Possible-Starring-Obnoxious-To-The-Point-Of-Repetitive-Heroes cold movie. I hated it. Love Raimi’s work and sad that there’ll never be a Spiderman 4.

    • I, like you, have a soft spot for Raimi’s Spider-Man because of how he nailed Peter’s character and the tone of the original comics. But you have to admit that Webb’s much better at portraying the superhero part of the character: Spidey’s moves are spot-on and suddenly slapped Raimi in the face, Garfield’s scrawniness only enhancing his, uh, spiderness, and he used classic Spidey attitudes like Raimi never did, like the cocoon or the webbing balls. Also, the web in the sewers and how Spidey is waiting for the weblines to vibrate is so typical of the predatory behavior of real spiders.

  15. So, He has a wife AND a girlfriend? Dear God! You are so gnarly, Samuel.

  16. tobey is our spidey, kirsten is our MJ, franco is our harry. enough said.
    toby, kirsten, franco’s chemistry was undeniable on the first 3 films of spiderman. no all the character were in sync. aunt may, uncle ben, simons as Jonah etc. Deyr all perfect. raimi’s spiderman was perfect. No argument on dat. Never considred Amazing spiderman as spiderman. I mean c’mon, TASM 1 &2 is noting compared to the first 3 movies of spiderman.