RiffTrax Forum

General Discussion => Movie Talk => Topic started by: TeamRAD on November 04, 2008, 03:09:40 AM

Title: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: TeamRAD on November 04, 2008, 03:09:40 AM
As much as I wanted to leave my beloved franchise after the third installment, the fanboy in me wouldn't allow it .

With 2007 Pulitzer Prize award winning David Lindsay-Abaire all but on-board to be the script writer, I thought it was time to start the thread. There must be another fan or two on the Round Table that wants this to succeed, right?  :) 

So, is MJ altogether being dumped from 4 & 5?

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/spider-man_movies/spider-man_4/news/?a=5118&t=Dunst_Dumped_for_Spider-Man_4__5

Obviously, Spider-Man director Sam Raimi has sensed our fear and he wants to calm us all down the best way he can - by dumping Dunst. Now, if he develops Gwen Stacy, played by actress Bryce Dallas Howard, into Petey's love interest, he'll start to win us back.

I'm still disappointed by the Green Goblin's death in the franchise's inception, because it ruined the possibility of seeing the defining moment of Spiderman, the death of Gwen, on the big screen. But if they do indeed drop MJ, and start developing Gwen in any capacity, I'll be all for it. I don't know how they'd spin it, but Gwen is sure a favorite of mine.

May of 2011 is a ways off, but believing Sam is going to deliver with this keeps this particular fanboy's heart pumping.


Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: ScottotD on November 04, 2008, 03:28:22 AM
yeah, if nothing else it'll shut up people moaning about part 3.
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: anais.jude on November 04, 2008, 05:44:32 AM
when Spiderman 3 came out Tobey and Dunst were all like "we don't want to make any more". So, why is Mr. Seasbiscuit signed onto this?
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: GregMcduck on November 04, 2008, 05:52:08 AM
Because he's a bad actor who can't get other work?
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: Chaos on November 04, 2008, 05:53:58 AM
It's all about the Benjamins.
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: anais.jude on November 04, 2008, 05:59:58 AM
Because he's a bad actor who can't get other work?

he's not a bad actor, though. Unless he's gotten lazy, that I would believe
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: Doctor Who? on November 04, 2008, 06:23:52 PM
I am not really itching for this to happen.

After TDN,IM,and TIH this year kind of raised the bar for superhero movies to the point where I don't really enjoy the Spiderman movies any more.

The only one I can watch now is SM2 and I don't think there are any villains left alive that will be as good as Doc Ock and the Green Gobin.

They should have just sent them to a Shield prison somewhere that they could ecsape from.

I really wish Marvel would reboot Spiderman.
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: Junkyard on November 04, 2008, 07:25:41 PM
What?! There are plenty of villains left to put in SM4!

(http://www.spidervillain.com/Villains/Kraven/KravenMU.gif)

Eh? Eh?

But yeah, they should stop at three. Don't think a reboot is a good idea at all, though.
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: TeamRAD on November 04, 2008, 07:27:55 PM
It's all about the Benjamins.

Oh yeah, something in the ballpark of 50 million plus profit shares. Ka-ching.


After TDN,IM,and TIH this year kind of raised the bar for superhero movies to the point where I don't really enjoy the Spiderman movies any more.
oot Spiderman.

I fail. I've yet to see TDN, IM, and TIH. When it comes to superheroes, my quota is met w/ Buffy and Spiderman.

The only one I can watch now is SM2 and I don't think there are any villains left alive that will be as good as Doc Ock and the Green Gobin.

(http://www.denofgeek.com/siteimage/scale/800/600/6421.png)

Say wha?  ;)

I really wish Marvel would reboot Spiderman.

It's much too early to reboot, and in Sam, I trust.

Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: Chaos on November 04, 2008, 08:18:33 PM
Sam isn't the problem (even though he kind of is). The problem is that it's not actually Marvel. They've done extremely well for themselves since taking the movies back in house. But they don't own the movie rights to Spiderman, so they can't do anything with it except slap their name on whatever the studio comes up with.

None of the Spiderman movies were good movies. Frankly, none of them were even good COMIC movies (which is measured on a different scale than regular movies).

Hulk was decent. Iron Man was really good. TDK, though not Marvel, was fucking incredible. These are the movies that have set the bar. No sequel to a crappily executed franchise is going to come anywhere CLOSE to the bar. But it's way too soon for a reboot (frankly I'm astonished that Hulk managed to be as good as it was, considering the previous abortion of a film). What Marvel needs to do is buy the rights back, drop the franchise entirely for 3-4 years, and then reboot it, and do it RIGHT. No more of this sniveling, whiney bullshit. And for the love of god, cast a starring female who can ACT.
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: Doctor Who? on November 04, 2008, 08:24:59 PM
I think Kraven would come off as gay in live action and it would be the most riffable thing ever,and they kind off gave doc ock the Lizard's background in SM2 so he's pretty much out.

I think they should do a reboot in five years and when they get to Vemon they shouldn't be afraid to go for an R rating so they can do him right.

Also NO CRYING!
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: bratpop on November 05, 2008, 12:04:29 AM
Something tells me Pulitzer-winning and Spider-Man do not a happy couple make. There was always too much drama in the series. Being better written drama wouldn't have made it fit the movies more. It would just make them less like comic book movies.

Although this guy wrote Robots and the High Fidelity and Shrek musicals, so it's not like he doesn't know how to produce cheese.
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: ScottotD on November 05, 2008, 12:07:51 AM
Javier Bardem playing Kraven as an evil mix of The Crocodile Hunter/Dog the Bounty hunter would rule.

None of the Spiderman movies were good movies. Frankly, none of them were even good COMIC movies (which is measured on a different scale than regular movies).

I think Spidey 2 is a great movie.
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: bratpop on November 05, 2008, 02:15:56 AM
Spidey 2 is ass. I really don't see what's wrong with the first one, other than it leading to the sequels. At least the dude only cried when his uncle croaked.
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: RobtheBarbarian on November 05, 2008, 02:25:44 AM
Even though it's a belief that only brings me conflict, I agree. I couldn't stand Spidey 2.
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: TeamRAD on November 05, 2008, 04:11:23 AM
Sam isn't the problem (even though he kind of is).

Yeah, he kind of is. :P

As much as I love Sam, he really dropped the ball by having Marko going from a two-bit criminal to becoming Ben's killer. That badly misfired, and that was all his call....no suits involved.

Secondly, I don't know how his brother, Ivan, became involved in the writing process for 3, but it possibly went a little something like this...

http://www.purpleslinky.com/Humor/Satire/How-Ivan-Raimi-Got-to-Write-Spiderman-3.159663

Why Sam & Ivan meddled with Sargent  and the S3 screenplay is beyond me in light of the success of S2.

Now on the other hand,  Sam wasn't the problem with the inclusion of Venom & Gwen Stacy. That was all Avi Arad, and it all became an amalgamation of poop.

Lastly, I habitually attempt to look for the positive in everything, and Spidey 3 is pretty taxing.

Sam's batting 2-for-3, so my trust is still w/ him.

None of the Spiderman movies were good movies. Frankly, none of them were even good COMIC movies (which is measured on a different scale than regular movies).

The first two installments of Spiderman provided everything I enjoy about the franchise in general, they were fun (regardless of some of the creative liberties Sam employed). I will never claim them to be anything other than that. If I want some substance on multiple scales, that's where Buffy comes into play.

I think they should do a reboot in five years and when they get to Vemon they shouldn't be afraid to go for an R rating so they can do him right.

I'll be forging a colony on Mars before a Spiderman movie obtains an "R" rating.  :D

Now after thinking about it for a minute, as a possible villain for 4...this would be outstanding....

(http://www.marveldirectory.com/pictures/individuals/k_1d/kingpin.gif)

But I digress, I just want some more news!




Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: Doctor Who? on November 05, 2008, 06:37:12 AM
Yeah but didn't they do him in Daredevil?

I really hope they take their time with Spiderman 4 because there is a lot they need to work on if this movie is going to turn out good.
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: bratpop on November 05, 2008, 10:01:10 AM
I don't think it's Sam's fault, per se. It's not like he has to make sucky movies. He just took the wrong approach. Maybe it was just the screenwriters. Maybe it was the casting. I mean I think he did screw up Army of Darkness pretty royally, but at least he admits it. Darkman was perfect. If Spider-Man had been like that, no problem. The Gift didn't suddenly have a musical number in it. A Simple Plan might as well be an unfunny Coen Brothers movie. I didn't see the f'ing baseball movie though. Maybe he just has a problem with sequels. Spidey 2 and 3 did make similar mistakes to the Evil Dead franchise. Though I think the humor in ED2 is perfect, you can admit that it's not in the same spirit as the first Evil Dead, and the injection of over the top Three Stooges humor in AOD follows suit a little, but it just gets further away from the source. That's pretty close to the Spidey franchise. Each one went a little further with the humor, the crying over relationships, the blaming of deaths, the fight scenes, etc. And so if the first one is good, and you keep getting further away from that, you keep getting further away from good. In the end, you have to blame Hollywood. Raimi isn't the Hollywood type, and the whole "bigger and better" sequel formula doesn't suit his style of filmmaking. But he was forced to use it. It IS a good argument not to have him do any more sequels. I think he'd be okay to still produce them. Get Zack Snyder to direct. He hates Superman. It follows that if you hate Superman, you must like Spider-Man.
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: Doctor Who? on November 05, 2008, 10:27:26 AM
I just wish they would let Spiderman have a sense of humor.

In the comics he is always cracking wise and that is one of the things that helps them get away with someone like kraven.  They use Spiderman to point out how silly he looks.  Where was that in the movies?
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: TeamRAD on November 05, 2008, 12:17:58 PM
Yeah but didn't they do him in Daredevil?

Sure, but I have never had any intentions on seeing the Daredevil picture.  :)

It makes sense, and it would be neat to see Sam explore the humanity within the big man. As source material goes, you can really work on the Spiderman/Jameson dynamic by using Kingpin's ordered abduction of Jonah as well. Finally, for fun and I don't believe it would get too untidy or overtly chaotic, you could introduce the Maggia.

It's just a playful thought.

I still believe a Kraven/Chameleon flick would work wonders too. And for the love of anything, cast Bruce Campbell as Mysterio! 

I just wish they would let Spiderman have a sense of humor.

Totally. Along with being a tragic figure who makes mistakes, his sense-of-humor is what I adore about Spiderman. But yeah, it's been lost throughout the first 3 installments, and is one-of-two lighthearted bones I've to pick w/ Sam.  ;)



Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: Doc Steve on November 05, 2008, 01:27:09 PM
Yeah but didn't they do him in Daredevil?

Sure, but I have never had any intentions on seeing the Daredevil picture.  :)

It makes sense, and it would be neat to see Sam explore the humanity within the big man. As source material goes, you can really work on the Spiderman/Jameson dynamic by using Kingpin's ordered abduction of Jonah as well. Finally, for fun and I don't believe it would get too untidy or overtly chaotic, you could introduce the Maggia.

It's just a playful thought.

I still believe a Kraven/Chameleon flick would work wonders too. And for the love of anything, cast Bruce Campbell as Mysterio! 

I just wish they would let Spiderman have a sense of humor.

Totally. Along with being a tragic figure who makes mistakes, his sense-of-humor is what I adore about Spiderman. But yeah, it's been lost throughout the first 3 installments, and is one-of-two lighthearted bones I've to pick w/ Sam.  ;)







Serious fans of the Lee/Ditko era will recall that Spider-Man often won battles by bluffing or rattling his opponents.  His ability to keep running his mouth often undermined the bad guys' morale.  IIRC, Kraven severely underestimated him during their first encounter because Spidey was so flippant. 
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: ScottotD on November 05, 2008, 03:03:43 PM
In Sam I trust.
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: Doctor Who? on November 05, 2008, 06:38:38 PM
Yeah but didn't they do him in Daredevil?

Sure, but I have never had any intentions on seeing the Daredevil picture.  :)

It makes sense, and it would be neat to see Sam explore the humanity within the big man. As source material goes, you can really work on the Spiderman/Jameson dynamic by using Kingpin's ordered abduction of Jonah as well. Finally, for fun and I don't believe it would get too untidy or overtly chaotic, you could introduce the Maggia.

It's just a playful thought.

I still believe a Kraven/Chameleon flick would work wonders too. And for the love of anything, cast Bruce Campbell as Mysterio! 

I just wish they would let Spiderman have a sense of humor.

Totally. Along with being a tragic figure who makes mistakes, his sense-of-humor is what I adore about Spiderman. But yeah, it's been lost throughout the first 3 installments, and is one-of-two lighthearted bones I've to pick w/ Sam.  ;)







Serious fans of the Lee/Ditko era will recall that Spider-Man often won battles by bluffing or rattling his opponents.  His ability to keep running his mouth often undermined the bad guys' morale.  IIRC, Kraven severely underestimated him during their first encounter because Spidey was so flippant. 

yeah that is why I like the 90s cartoon more then the new movies.

Spiderman acted like Spiderman.

Also we got Shield's flying fortress and they used magic when called for.
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: BBQ Platypus on November 06, 2008, 06:11:42 PM
Though I think the humor in ED2 is perfect, you can admit that it's not in the same spirit as the first Evil Dead, and the injection of over the top Three Stooges humor in AOD follows suit a little, but it just gets further away from the source.

The first Evil Dead movie had Three Stooges influences as well (watch some of the commentaries on the DVD - you'll see it).  There was humor there, but it lurked beneath the surface.  Personally, I think Evil Dead 2 improved on its predecessor in every conceivable way.  I even think the scary bits of ED2 were scarier than the ones in the first movie.
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: Chaos on November 06, 2008, 06:40:48 PM
Though I think the humor in ED2 is perfect, you can admit that it's not in the same spirit as the first Evil Dead, and the injection of over the top Three Stooges humor in AOD follows suit a little, but it just gets further away from the source.

The first Evil Dead movie had Three Stooges influences as well (watch some of the commentaries on the DVD - you'll see it).  There was humor there, but it lurked beneath the surface.  Personally, I think Evil Dead 2 improved on its predecessor in every conceivable way.  I even think the scary bits of ED2 were scarier than the ones in the first movie.

Those points are all valid. However, ED1's tree rape still trumps ED2. ;)
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: TeamRAD on November 17, 2009, 01:28:04 PM

Boooooooooooooo...

http://g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/700773/NO-Rachel-McAdams-Black-Cat-For-Spider-Man-4.html

I knew McAdams as Black Cat/Felicia Hardy was too good to be true. That would've been so perfect. Moreover, what in the hell...

"However, it seems highly unlikely that the film will go in this direction, given not only the potential Curt Connors/Lizard storyline, but another late-breaking "way out there" rumor that SM4 will feature Peter Parker and Mary Jane with a child."

Fuck me!   :D

Can I please write the reboot in '14, Sony?  :)

Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: ManUnderMask on November 17, 2009, 01:57:32 PM
That rumor is based on a casting call for a red headed toddler. There are people who take this to also mean Cletus "Carnage" Kassady and Doc Conner's son.
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: TeamRAD on November 18, 2009, 10:05:38 AM

The only way Carnage will ever be a part of this franchise is if Arad forces Sam into placing him in it. I'm sure whenever the Venom franchise is booted up, he'll be there as he would obviously fit the tone much better there.

Ack, now Stiles auditioned for the role of the Black Cat!   :D

If McAdams isn't being considered, someone hook up Elisha Cuthbert w/ an audition, please.

Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: Thrifty on November 18, 2009, 10:47:48 AM
This disdain of Spiderman 3 is just something I'll never understand.  It wasn't good, but neither were 1 and 2.
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: CrowTeeRobot on November 18, 2009, 10:57:52 AM
This disdain of Spiderman 3 is just something I'll never understand.  It wasn't good, but neither were 1 and 2.

Yes, but 1 and 2 didn't have street dancing scenes, Spider-Man hitting women, and Topher Grace as Venom.















Goddamned Topher Grace! Damnit!
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: Thrifty on November 18, 2009, 11:12:35 AM
This disdain of Spiderman 3 is just something I'll never understand.  It wasn't good, but neither were 1 and 2.

Yes, but 1 and 2 didn't have street dancing scenes, Spider-Man hitting women, and Topher Grace as Venom.

Goddamned Topher Grace! Damnit!

Yeah but 1 had a bad guy in a dumb Power Rangers mask who got killed by his own flying skateboard.
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: CrowTeeRobot on November 18, 2009, 11:20:10 AM
That's actually how he was killed in the comic. Also, yeah, the mask was stupid, but it was better than a skin tight rubber green and purple goblin suit.

Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: RobtheBarbarian on November 18, 2009, 11:22:48 AM
Let's say it was a lateral move.
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: TeamRAD on November 18, 2009, 11:32:09 AM

I love the Green Goblin and could care less about his gear. I'm just bummed they messed up the Stacy storyline w/ GG's death. That royally sucked.

Edit: I used Round Table "Stacey" instead of Stacy. Whoops!
:D

Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: mrbasehart on November 18, 2009, 11:40:33 AM

I love the Green Goblin and could care less about his gear. I'm just bummed they messed up the Stacey storyline w/ GG's death. That royally sucked.



There's rumours that after Spidey 4, they'll reboot the whole thing.  Gwen could feature more prominently in the next couple, especially as people are a little tired of the Peter/MJ thing.  I doubt if she'll be murdered by the Green Goblin again though.
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: TeamRAD on November 18, 2009, 11:56:41 AM

I haven't read/heard anything related to a reboot after the next installment. Isn't Sam signed on through 5, and possibly 6? I'd be surprised if he would be a part of that if it happens, and the more I think about it, a reboot will possibly only happen if Marvel gets a hold of the rights. I don't have any idea what the likelihood of that is.

And I'd be shocked if Gwen wasn't murdered by the GG if the reboot does so happen. It's so epically defining and nonetheless, pretty moving stuff.

Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: ScottotD on November 18, 2009, 05:00:39 PM

I love the Green Goblin and could care less about his gear. I'm just bummed they messed up the Stacy storyline w/ GG's death. That royally sucked.



 :highfive:
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: Darth Geek on November 18, 2009, 09:05:35 PM
I hope they don't have Black Cat in this one. She would just be in there for T&A (the same reason she is in the comic) and there is absolutely no reason why a female villain (or even partial villain)with no superpowers would be able to stand a chance in a world with superpowered characters like Spiderman and his various rogues gallery. Heck, even in the new Batman movies a female character like Catwoman would be a stain on the concrete, there's no way one would last in a movie where the main character can lift cars over his head.
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: ScottotD on November 18, 2009, 09:10:03 PM
What's she's there for depends on the writer, super-strength doesn't make you a good thief.
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: TeamRAD on November 19, 2009, 12:49:18 AM
I hope they don't have Black Cat in this one.

Well, you're the first, DG.  ;)

To be honest, I'm indifferent about her inclusion. I'd much rather see the exploration of a Peter/Gwen budding relationship, but I'm game for anything to cause mucho strife in the Peter/MJ relationship nowadays. And much like Scott said above, it depends on the writer, and I'm giving him an earnest chance.

The Lizard does so look to be in stone, and that's an excellent thing! Good things are happening sans the debunking of the McAdams rumor.

Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: a pretty girl is like on November 19, 2009, 09:38:57 AM
Nikki Finke is reporting Anne Hathaway has been approached for a role.  I believe they're going for the recently naturalized to the U.S. by way of England demographic.
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: Darth Geek on November 19, 2009, 09:48:06 AM
I hope they don't have Black Cat in this one.

Well, you're the first, DG.  ;)

To be honest, I'm indifferent about her inclusion. I'd much rather see the exploration of a Peter/Gwen budding relationship, but I'm game for anything to cause mucho strife in the Peter/MJ relationship nowadays. And much like Scott said above, it depends on the writer, and I'm giving him an earnest chance.

The Lizard does so look to be in stone, and that's an excellent thing! Good things are happening sans the debunking of the McAdams rumor.


Actually, I heard that Dylan Baker was saying he wasn't going to be in the fourth one because it was just going to be a cameo again
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: TeamRAD on November 19, 2009, 10:26:01 AM

DG...Baker, himself, confirmed he'll be in 4 as of late October.

Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: Russell on November 19, 2009, 10:49:15 AM
Speaking of, supposedly Black Cat is supposed to be in Spiderman 4? Why?! I mean seriously, is Black Cat any different than DC comic's Catwoman? I'm already scared.
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: Maverick Joe Six-Pack on November 19, 2009, 12:06:59 PM
Nikki Finke is reporting Anne Hathaway has been approached for a role.  I believe they're going for the recently naturalized to the U.S. by way of England demographic.

If they do go for Black Cat, I think Anne Hathaway would be pretty great.
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: ScottotD on November 19, 2009, 05:36:40 PM
Nikki Finke is reporting Anne Hathaway has been approached for a role.  I believe they're going for the recently naturalized to the U.S. by way of England demographic.

If they do go for Black Cat, I think Anne Hathaway would be pretty great.

Me too!
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: Russell on November 19, 2009, 06:27:00 PM
Ah yes! Yet another woman dressed up in a cat costume fighting crime. Movies with that kind of subject matter ALWAYS go over well! I apologize if this statement seems sarcastic in any way.
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: TeamRAD on November 20, 2009, 04:50:59 AM

Oh man, that isn't what I wanted to read this morning, the Hathaway news!

*isn't a fan*

I would, however, totally buy her as Shriek. That would actually be pretty badass. But the BC, I can't see it, but w/ Grace cast as Venom, I could see this happening. Whatever, just make the Lizard happen, Sam! (and some Gwen screen-time)

Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: TeamRAD on November 20, 2009, 06:03:52 AM

Interesting read...

So it sounds like there will be fewer foes in the next instalment. Raimi said he had learned some new lessons and storytelling tricks from his recent horror flick Drag Me to Hell which was a smaller and more intimate production.

He said: "I think I've learned about the importance of getting to the point and the importance of having limitations, and I'm hoping to take that into a production where I'm actually allowed to explore with more of the tools to pull it off with a little more splendour.

"I hope I don't lose that edge that I've just found. That would be my approach to Spider-Man 4: to get back to the basics."


http://blogs.coventrytelegraph.net/thegeekfiles/2009/10/sam-raimi-promises-spider-man.html

Is anyone really doubting him?

Eliza, I'll second this motion...

http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2009/11/19/eliza-dushku-addresses-those-spider-man-4-black-cat-rumors/

Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: TeamRAD on December 01, 2009, 06:19:58 AM

Hopefully Ill be able to evolve the character in a new direction, he says. Hell still be Peter Parker, but I hope I can move him forward a bit and take him to a place where there will be new challenges for me as an actor.

http://www.boston.com/ae/movies/articles/2009/11/29/tobey_maguire_loses_control/?page=3


Marvel Zombies, Tobey? I can support that!  :D

Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: ScottotD on December 01, 2009, 06:57:32 AM
 :highfive:
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: Darth Geek on December 01, 2009, 08:40:20 AM
I just hope that "new direction" is away from crying like a bitch.
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: esoobaC .T bocaJ on December 01, 2009, 10:57:17 AM
I just hope that "new direction" is away from crying like a bitch.

but then it wouldn't be Spider-man
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: Doctor Who? on December 01, 2009, 11:01:45 AM
I just hope that "new direction" is away from crying like a bitch.

but then it wouldn't be Spider-man

I think i will be waiting for netflix with this one.  After Spiderman 3 and movies like The dark knight I don't think a Spiderman movie will be worth my $7.50.
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: TeamRAD on December 02, 2009, 03:40:54 AM
I just hope that "new direction" is away from crying like a bitch.

but then it wouldn't be Spider-man

I think i will be waiting for netflix with this one.  After Spiderman 3 and movies like The dark knight I don't think a Spiderman movie will be worth my $7.50.

DocWho, I'll bet you a Rifftrax that you'll be seeing this at some point in the theater...:)

Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: TeamRAD on December 09, 2009, 05:10:03 PM

Okay, this has gotten so bizarre, and I'm hoping this is the worst rumor, ever...

http://www.movieline.com/2009/12/exclusive-spider-man-4-circling-john-malkovich-anne-hathaway.php?page=2

However, unlike in the comic books, this Felicia Hardy doesnt transform into the Black Cat. Instead, Raimis Felicia will become a brand-new superpowered figure called the Vulturess.

What?!!!! That makes zero-sense.  :D

What does this mean for poor Dylan Baker, whos patiently played Curt Connors in the last two installments? As much as it would seem that the series is setting up his eventual transformation into supervillain the Lizard, we hear that the suits simply cant bring themselves to sign off on such an odd-looking enemy instead, theyd rather hew closer to villains with a human face.

Awwwwww... :(

And as much as I don't care for the Vulture, the casting of Malkovich for the role has promise.  But the Vulturess?!!!! Sam, what in the hell?

*stares up at sky*

NO!!!!

:D

Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: Doctor Who? on December 09, 2009, 05:28:55 PM
Looks like my choice to never watch another Sam Rami movies after seeing Spiderman 3 was a good one.  He has lost any talent he may have had. He is insane now.
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: ScottotD on December 09, 2009, 05:45:56 PM
Blasphemy.

Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: mrbasehart on December 09, 2009, 05:53:51 PM
Looks like my choice to never watch another Sam Rami movies after seeing Spiderman 3 was a good one.  He has lost any talent he may have had. He is insane now.

Yes.  Let's write him off after delivering one slightly disappointing movie that seemed to be a product of internal battles with the producers and despite the fact that he made a really cool horror movie just recently.  No second chances!
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: RoninFox on December 09, 2009, 05:56:21 PM
I'll believe the rumors when I see them in practice.  Sure, I do think Raimi dropped the ball with Spider-Man 3, but I'm not going to believe everything I read on characters being changed or whatever.  I mean, rumors fly everywhere, I remember when it was common knowledge that Micheal Jackson was supposed to play the Joker in Tim Burton's Batman.  Everyone I talked to about it swore it was true.
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: ScottotD on December 09, 2009, 06:21:26 PM
Looks like my choice to never watch another Sam Rami movies after seeing Spiderman 3 was a good one.  He has lost any talent he may have had. He is insane now.

Yes.  Let's write him off after delivering one slightly disappointing movie that seemed to be a product of internal battles with the producers and despite the fact that he made a really cool horror movie just recently.  No second chances!

 :clap:
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: ManUnderMask on December 09, 2009, 06:34:29 PM
I'm going to give Raimi the benefit of the doubt, since this is still a rumor. Anyone remember Aunt May as Carnage in Spider-Man 3? So yeah.

Remember, this is just a rumor, so before you all start after Raimi with pitchforks and torches, wait for it to be confirmed. Then light one up for me.
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: Darth Geek on December 09, 2009, 06:52:00 PM
I will definitely wait to hear more than just rumors for now, but what worries me is it sounds like he's starting down a similar path as the last one. I'm really worried about this nonsense about "not wanting to see a goofy looking villain like the Lizard" when they are talking about John Malkovich in a bird suit! That has GOT to be studio execs talking, and that is what worries me. Sam Raimi would be able to make Lizard a really cool looking creature, which could be a darker turn for the Spidey franchise.

Sam, we know you watched Trick 'r Treat. You're telling me you aren't chomping at the bit like we are to see Dylan Baker as a supervillain?
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: ManUnderMask on December 09, 2009, 08:03:26 PM
If it is the execs, then it's just another reason why Marvel needs to send Stan Lee to "politely" suggest that these studios give the movie rights back to Marvel. Of the two live action movies that Marvel Studios has made (Iron Man, Incredible Hulk) I have not been disappointed and they both exceeded my expectations. Which means Marvel needs the rights back. NOW.
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: Darth Geek on December 09, 2009, 09:23:53 PM
If it is the execs, then it's just another reason why Marvel needs to send Stan Lee to "politely" suggest that these studios give the movie rights back to Marvel. Of the two live action movies that Marvel Studios has made (Iron Man, Incredible Hulk) I have not been disappointed and they both exceeded my expectations. Which means Marvel needs the rights back. NOW.
Um, I'm not sure these idiot execs know who Stan Lee is, they just scratch their heads when the directors insist on cameoing this old guy. No, I say send in Lou Ferigno for some aggressive negotiations on their pampered, overpaid asses.
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: Cosmic Muse on December 10, 2009, 08:12:12 AM
Looks like my choice to never watch another Sam Rami movies after seeing Spiderman 3 was a good one.  He has lost any talent he may have had. He is insane now.

Yes.  Let's write him off after delivering one slightly disappointing movie that seemed to be a product of internal battles with the producers and despite the fact that he made a really cool horror movie just recently.  No second chances!

 :clap:

I'd write him off because of what he did to Venom.  :angry: ;)
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: Courtney on December 10, 2009, 08:15:01 AM
Looks like my choice to never watch another Sam Rami movies after seeing Spiderman 3 was a good one.  He has lost any talent he may have had. He is insane now.

Yes.  Let's write him off after delivering one slightly disappointing movie that seemed to be a product of internal battles with the producers and despite the fact that he made a really cool horror movie just recently.  No second chances!

 :clap:

I don't want to blow anyone's mind here, but I'm starting to think that Doctor Who might have a small tiny tendency to overreact to things.
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: Cosmic Muse on December 10, 2009, 09:00:01 AM
Nikki Finke is reporting Anne Hathaway has been approached for a role.  I believe they're going for the recently naturalized to the U.S. by way of England demographic.

If they do go for Black Cat, I think Anne Hathaway would be pretty great.

Me too!

God...I hate Black Cat so much. She's a faker Catwoman knockoff than Halle Berry's character was.  ::) The only time I liked seeing Black Cat in a Spider-man panel was when Venom was smashing her face first into something.

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v83/Godzilla2000/BCFaceCrunch.jpg)

Now Felicia Hardy....I can stomach more.
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: ScottotD on December 10, 2009, 09:06:30 AM
Looks like my choice to never watch another Sam Rami movies after seeing Spiderman 3 was a good one.  He has lost any talent he may have had. He is insane now.

Yes.  Let's write him off after delivering one slightly disappointing movie that seemed to be a product of internal battles with the producers and despite the fact that he made a really cool horror movie just recently.  No second chances!

 :clap:

I don't want to blow anyone's mind here, but I'm starting to think that Doctor Who might have a small tiny tendency to overreact to things.


I honestly often get Plastic Self Cleaning Duck and Doctor Who confused pretty often, they both seem to channel Chicken Little in almost every one of their posts.
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: Cosmic Muse on December 10, 2009, 09:08:16 AM
I honestly often get Plastic Self Cleaning Duck and Doctor Who confused pretty often, they both seem to channel Chicken Little in almost every one of their posts.

I'd rather channel Turkey Lurkey.
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: Darth Geek on December 10, 2009, 09:23:41 AM
I honestly often get Plastic Self Cleaning Duck and Doctor Who confused pretty often, they both seem to channel Chicken Little in almost every one of their posts.

I'd rather channel Turkey Lurkey.
Of course. Don Knotts is awesome.
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: Courtney on December 10, 2009, 09:58:11 AM
I honestly often get Plastic Self Cleaning Duck and Doctor Who confused pretty often, they both seem to channel Chicken Little in almost every one of their posts.

I'd rather channel Turkey Lurkey.

I'd rather channel Murky and Lurky.

(http://www.mercadolibre.com.mx/jm/img?s=MLM&f=33160551_9257.jpg&v=E)
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: Doctor Who? on December 10, 2009, 10:07:55 AM
I'm pretty sure the bad casting and all the stupid dance and music was Rami's idea not the studio's.  Sorry but i don't have any faith in him as a film maker any more.  The last movie of his that i thought was really good came out almost two decades ago.  I really do not feel like paying to see another one of his movies.
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: TeamRAD on December 10, 2009, 10:15:24 AM
Anyone remember Aunt May as Carnage in Spider-Man 3? So yeah.

Of course, but that was an April Fool's joke initiated by IMDB, themselves. It's only December 10th!  :)

This Vulturess stuff has been a blast to talk about this morning as in the reactions of a couple of buddies of mine were hilarious. It's also fun to say out-loud, the Vulturess.

Nikki Finke is reporting Anne Hathaway has been approached for a role.  I believe they're going for the recently naturalized to the U.S. by way of England demographic.

If they do go for Black Cat, I think Anne Hathaway would be pretty great.

Me too!

God...I hate Black Cat so much. She's a faker Catwoman knockoff than Halle Berry's character was.  ::)

Do you enjoy anything?  :)

I'm pretty sure the bad casting and all the stupid dance and music was Rami's idea not the studio's.  Sorry but i don't have any faith in him as a film maker any more.  The last movie of his that i thought was really good came out almost two decades ago.  I really do not feel like paying to see another one of his movies.

Troll! Go back under your bridge, snob!!   ;)

PS: I enjoyed the stupid dance. It was silly and provided some much needed levity for me.
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: ScottotD on December 10, 2009, 10:24:59 AM
I liked the dance too, it felt very Rami to me.

I'm pretty sure the bad casting and all the stupid dance and music was Rami's idea not the studio's.  Sorry but i don't have any faith in him as a film maker any more.  The last movie of his that i thought was really good came out almost two decades ago.  I really do not feel like paying to see another one of his movies.

...so why read the thread?  :)
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: mrbasehart on December 10, 2009, 10:29:02 AM
I like to think it was his way of expressing himself after being forced to have Venom in the movie.   :)
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: Doctor Who? on December 10, 2009, 10:31:29 AM
Well if it felt Rami maybe then you will understand why i think he(in his own way)is just as bad a film maker as Bay.  They both are giving massive budgets to put whatever painfully stupid ideas they have on the screen,and I would not pay money to see a movie from either of the. 

The dancing scene made me want to burn the Spiderman comics i had at home,that is how bad it was.  Also Grace as Venom?! AAAAHHHH!
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: ScottotD on December 10, 2009, 10:39:25 AM
No I completely fail to understand your thought process as usual, I think Spider-Man 3 is the second misstep in Rami's whole career. 
 
A minute or two of a movie made you want to destroy things you love?  I'm reminded of this:

Quote
I don't want to blow anyone's mind here, but I'm starting to think that Doctor Who might have a small tiny tendency to overreact to things.


You haven't seen Transformers 2?  That surprises me since you seem to rant about that a lot, althought I could be confusing you with PSCD again.


Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: TeamRAD on December 10, 2009, 10:43:09 AM
I liked the dance too, it felt very Rami to me.

Totally, and I'm sure Sam had a lot of fun w/ it, too. It had his sense-of-humor stamped all over it.

I like to think it was his way of expressing himself after being forced to have Venom in the movie.   :)

...hahahahaha.  :)

Well if it felt Rami maybe then you will understand why i think he(in his own way)is just as bad a film maker as Bay. 

Good lord....

*places DocWho back into his cage*

I'll release you before the Rifftrax Live show next Wednesday, DocWho...so don't worry.

Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: Doctor Who? on December 10, 2009, 10:52:36 AM
Look I have said my piece.  I don't think Rami is a good enought filmmaker to warnet my risking money on one of his movies again.  I now go.
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: TeamRAD on December 10, 2009, 10:54:48 AM

Look I don't spend all my time gushing over Sam rami,I don't like most of him movies.  I will not spend me money on this.  If you can live with that then i am sorry.  Maybe we should have the mods weigh in on if formum members have to like Sam rami films or not.  People said that the scenes that I think are some of the worst put on film ever are very much in Rami style,I am saying that since i don't like those scenes I will not be waisting any more money on any more Sam rami movies.  I didn't think Spiderman 3 was the greatest thing the human race has ever produced,learn to live with that.

Awww, DW...why did you delete your post? It was awesome!!

And dude...

I am saying that since i don't like those scenes I will not be waisting any more money on any more Sam rami movies.

So you're gonna thumb your nose at Warcraft? You do know how much that's gonna own, right? But then why would you care, Raimi and the fantasy genre is gonna suck balls anyway.

And Sam's been kicking ass for nearly thirty years, Michael Bay, he's not.

Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: ScottotD on December 10, 2009, 10:58:15 AM
Look I don't spend all my time gushing over Sam Rami, I don't like most of his movies. 

Well, I suppose that would make gushing difficult

I will not spend me money on this.  If you can't live with that then i am sorry.

I accept your apology and concern over possibly mass suicide based on you disliking a director but I'm still not sure if you'll be spending money on the movie or not.  Perhaps you could have mentioned if you were planning to spend money on the movie earlier in the thread.


Maybe we should have the mods weigh in on if formum members have to like Sam rami films or not. 

That's what I like to see, some fresh ideas instead of all the usal negativity and ranting.  I support this suggestion.


People said that the scenes that I think are some of the worst put on film ever are very much in Rami style,I am saying that since i don't like those scenes I will not be waisting any more money on any more Sam rami movies. 

Someone dancing for under 10 minutes is one of the worst things put on film?  I guess you don't like 'dancing' movies either, see? we have some common ground.

Also, thank you for finally clearing up if you'd be paying to see this.

I didn't think Spiderman 3 was the greatest thing the human race has ever produced,learn to live with that.

Again, your concern over my ablity to continue living is touching.  I appreciate you're aware your stance against this movie that hasn't been made would be a shock since you're normally so calm and positive, I'm sure everyone on here who's said they think Spider-Man 3 is the greatest thing the human race has ever produced thanks you also.

 ;D

Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: Doctor Who? on December 10, 2009, 11:01:43 AM

Look I don't spend all my time gushing over Sam rami,I don't like most of him movies.  I will not spend me money on this.  If you can live with that then i am sorry.  Maybe we should have the mods weigh in on if formum members have to like Sam rami films or not.  People said that the scenes that I think are some of the worst put on film ever are very much in Rami style,I am saying that since i don't like those scenes I will not be waisting any more money on any more Sam rami movies.  I didn't think Spiderman 3 was the greatest thing the human race has ever produced,learn to live with that.

Awww, DW...why did you delete your post? It was awesome!!

And dude...

I am saying that since i don't like those scenes I will not be waisting any more money on any more Sam rami movies.

So you're gonna thumb your nose at Warcraft? You do know how much that's gonna own, right? But then why would you care, Raimi and the fantasy genre is gonna suck balls anyway.

And Sam's been kicking ass for nearly thirty years, Michael Bay, he's not.



I have to wonder why you are so upset about me not liking Sam rami movies.  Look I didn't like Evil Dead.  I thought Spiderman was decent at the time but since has aged badely,and Spiderman 3 was one of the worst superhero movies I have ever seen.  I don't like his movies and i don't care about Warcraft(The game or the movie)at all.  Warcraft isn't even on my radar that is how little I care.  You really need to stop letting what I think about movies upset you so much.  Also Have you heard the Spiderman rifftrax?  Maybe you should spend at least some of your time attacking Mike,Kevin,and Bill,they didn't seem to like the movies either.
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: TeamRAD on December 10, 2009, 11:05:28 AM

Good lord, just when I was about to go back on topic...

I could give a flying fuck what you like, DW.

The Vulturess isn't gonna happen.   :D

Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: ScottotD on December 10, 2009, 11:10:42 AM
STOP ATTACKING PEOPLE WITH MILDLY TEASING BANTER YOU THOUGHTLESS BASTARD!  ;D


Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: mrbasehart on December 10, 2009, 11:52:16 AM

Good lord, just when I was about to go back on topic...

I could give a flying fuck what you like, DW.

The Vulturess isn't gonna happen.   :D

If she is, I hope she's bald.
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: TeamRAD on December 10, 2009, 12:08:01 PM

I hope she's bald AND Brigitte Nielson.

:)

Malkovich and Nielson would bring the crazy in waves.

Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: Courtney on December 10, 2009, 02:06:30 PM

Look I don't spend all my time gushing over Sam rami,I don't like most of him movies.  I will not spend me money on this.  If you can live with that then i am sorry.  Maybe we should have the mods weigh in on if formum members have to like Sam rami films or not.  People said that the scenes that I think are some of the worst put on film ever are very much in Rami style,I am saying that since i don't like those scenes I will not be waisting any more money on any more Sam rami movies.  I didn't think Spiderman 3 was the greatest thing the human race has ever produced,learn to live with that.

Awww, DW...why did you delete your post? It was awesome!!

And dude...

I am saying that since i don't like those scenes I will not be waisting any more money on any more Sam rami movies.

So you're gonna thumb your nose at Warcraft? You do know how much that's gonna own, right? But then why would you care, Raimi and the fantasy genre is gonna suck balls anyway.

And Sam's been kicking ass for nearly thirty years, Michael Bay, he's not.



I have to wonder why you are so upset about me not liking Sam rami movies.  Look I didn't like Evil Dead.  I thought Spiderman was decent at the time but since has aged badely,and Spiderman 3 was one of the worst superhero movies I have ever seen.  I don't like his movies and i don't care about Warcraft(The game or the movie)at all.  Warcraft isn't even on my radar that is how little I care.  You really need to stop letting what I think about movies upset you so much.  Also Have you heard the Spiderman rifftrax?  Maybe you should spend at least some of your time attacking Mike,Kevin,and Bill,they didn't seem to like the movies either.

I adore Spiderman 2 and I attempted to rip it to shreds in the section I wrote, and I imagine at least some of the others who wrote on it love the movie(s) too.  That's the whole point of Rifftrax - making fun of movies.  I don't think we should have to school you on that part.  They've riffed on - some brutally so - some good movies that I assume at least one of the three has to like.

No one cares that you don't like Sam Raimi, dude.  No one's upset.  I think people are at most mildly amused by how upset you seem about it all.
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: Cosmic Muse on December 11, 2009, 06:33:46 AM
I like to think it was his way of expressing himself after being forced to have Venom in the movie.   :)

Being a director who likes horror, I'm shocked and surprised that Raimi hates Venom, whom is kind of horror genre inspired in general. I've loved Venom ever since his first appearance in the comics and I'm still pissed off about how he was handled in the movie. He should have been saved for the fourth film, not the third. Raimi should have said no. I'd have taken no Venom as opposed to a watered down version of the character that was only in the movie for less than 15 minutes. I hope Venom's solo films are much better a representation, and that Eddie Brock Sr. is the Eddie I knew from the comics in the 80's and that Topher's character was just his son. Considering what had happened in Spider-man 3 avenging the death of his son is a better motivation to want to kill Spider-man/Peter Parker than his comic counterpart.


I hope she's bald AND Brigitte Nielson.

:)

Malkovich and Nielson would bring the crazy in waves.



Sir Ben Kingsley (Who would've been a great Vulture and God knows he needs to be in a good movie. He's too good an actor to keep making these bad movies.) was set to play Vulture in Spider-man 3 until some preproduction meddling intervened and basically ruined the Sandman story Arc plus gave us a half assed Venom appearance.
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: TeamRAD on December 11, 2009, 09:40:57 AM
I like to think it was his way of expressing himself after being forced to have Venom in the movie.   :)

Being a director who likes horror, I'm shocked and surprised that Raimi hates Venom, whom is kind of horror genre inspired in general.


I'm not shocked whatsoever as it's pretty wide-known Sam's all about the silver-age of comics. I cannot say enough about Venom, because he was my gateway into the comic book world. He's always been the de facto badass for me, and Parker's ultimate foil, but looking into Sam's pedigree and personality w/o taking in the aforementioned knowledge into consideration, I'm not surprised whatsoever he wasn't a fan of Venom. In many ways, I envy that my late-father had the chance to grown up in the silver-age, that had to have been too much fun.

I like to think it was his way of expressing himself after being forced to have Venom in the movie.   :)

Being a director who likes horror, I'm shocked and surprised that Raimi hates Venom, whom is kind of horror genre inspired in general. I've loved Venom ever since his first appearance in the comics and I'm still pissed off about how he was handled in the movie. He should have been saved for the fourth film, not the third. Raimi should have said no. I'd have taken no Venom as opposed to a watered down version of the character that was only in the movie for less than 15 minutes. I hope Venom's solo films are much better a representation, and that Eddie Brock Sr. is the Eddie I knew from the comics in the 80's and that Topher's character was just his son. Considering what had happened in Spider-man 3 avenging the death of his son is a better motivation to want to kill Spider-man/Peter Parker than his comic counterpart.


I hope she's bald AND Brigitte Nielson.

:)

Malkovich and Nielson would bring the crazy in waves.



Sir Ben Kingsley (Who would've been a great Vulture and God knows he needs to be in a good movie. He's too good an actor to keep making these bad movies.) was set to play Vulture in Spider-man 3 until some preproduction meddling intervened and basically ruined the Sandman story Arc plus gave us a half assed Venom appearance.

And I'm sure if there's any substance to this Vulture rumor for 4, one would have to believe Kingsley will be under very heavy consideration again. If this character route is being taken, I'd very much prefer the eccentricities Malkovich brings to the forefront. Malkovich rules.

Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: Cosmic Muse on December 11, 2009, 01:07:29 PM
I'm not shocked whatsoever as it's pretty wide-known Sam's all about the silver-age of comics. I cannot say enough about Venom, because he was my gateway into the comic book world. He's always been the de facto badass for me, and Parker's ultimate foil, but looking into Sam's pedigree and personality w/o taking in the aforementioned knowledge into consideration, I'm not surprised whatsoever he wasn't a fan of Venom. In many ways, I envy that my late-father had the chance to grown up in the silver-age, that had to have been too much fun.

That's just too bad that Raimi is so limited in that respect. It really hampered my likability of Spider-man 3 because of how blase the character was handled. Not too many people realize that Venom saved Spider-man from fading away because in the 80's they were running out of original characters that fans could get interested in. They kept recycling all the old classics and were running out of storylines. Readership was starting to wane for the webslinger. I think Eddie Brock deserved and still deserves more respect than what he received in his first live action incarnation.
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: Darth Geek on December 11, 2009, 01:38:12 PM
I'm not shocked whatsoever as it's pretty wide-known Sam's all about the silver-age of comics. I cannot say enough about Venom, because he was my gateway into the comic book world. He's always been the de facto badass for me, and Parker's ultimate foil, but looking into Sam's pedigree and personality w/o taking in the aforementioned knowledge into consideration, I'm not surprised whatsoever he wasn't a fan of Venom. In many ways, I envy that my late-father had the chance to grown up in the silver-age, that had to have been too much fun.

That's just too bad that Raimi is so limited in that respect. It really hampered my likability of Spider-man 3 because of how blase the character was handled. Not too many people realize that Venom saved Spider-man from fading away because in the 80's they were running out of original characters that fans could get interested in. They kept recycling all the old classics and were running out of storylines. Readership was starting to wane for the webslinger. I think Eddie Brock deserved and still deserves more respect than what he received in his first live action incarnation.
Yeah, I was disappointed with how he was handled too. I'm glad we got the black suit, but the change in him was ridiculous. I'm not just talking about the dancing (which was stupid), but the idea that Peter Parker, who has already had a major change that gives him significantly more power than he had, gets the suit and the added power is what makes him cocky and a jerk? Huh? Making him a cocky douche isn't interesting, Sam. Making him more aggressive as he's handling criminals and The Sandman, that's interesting. The suit should have made him kill Harry Osbourn in a fight, and that made him decide to reject it. I also still say that the shot where Brock becomes Venom in the church was originally designed to be the last shot of the movie. Look at the camera movement and tell me that doesn't remind you of the last shot from the previous two movies.
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: Cosmic Muse on December 12, 2009, 02:28:21 AM
Yeah, I was disappointed with how he was handled too. I'm glad we got the black suit, but the change in him was ridiculous. I'm not just talking about the dancing (which was stupid), but the idea that Peter Parker, who has already had a major change that gives him significantly more power than he had, gets the suit and the added power is what makes him cocky and a jerk? Huh? Making him a cocky douche isn't interesting, Sam. Making him more aggressive as he's handling criminals and The Sandman, that's interesting. The suit should have made him kill Harry Osbourn in a fight, and that made him decide to reject it. I also still say that the shot where Brock becomes Venom in the church was originally designed to be the last shot of the movie. Look at the camera movement and tell me that doesn't remind you of the last shot from the previous two movies.

You know, I was always under the impression that the alien symbiote made Peter more aggressive and violent because it was inherently evil. If my memory serves me correctly, the symbiote had been banished to the Beyonder's realm from its homeworld by its own kind because of its violent nature, but don't quote me on that. I just don't get why a simple thing like that could have been so lost in translation like that. Again, the alien symbiote made Peter aggressive, not an Emo Douchebag.

Oh, and don't even get me started on the whole Eddie Brock Jr. thing. I own a lot of the Venom solo comics and his dad's name was Carl Brock, not Eddie Sr. I've even scanned, uploaded and linked to the panel where Peter Parker actually speaks to Carl Brock in San Francisco from Venom: Lethal Protector that was written by Venom's creator, David Michelinie. 
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: TeamRAD on December 15, 2009, 04:16:04 AM
I'm not shocked whatsoever as it's pretty wide-known Sam's all about the silver-age of comics. I cannot say enough about Venom, because he was my gateway into the comic book world. He's always been the de facto badass for me, and Parker's ultimate foil, but looking into Sam's pedigree and personality w/o taking in the aforementioned knowledge into consideration, I'm not surprised whatsoever he wasn't a fan of Venom. In many ways, I envy that my late-father had the chance to grown up in the silver-age, that had to have been too much fun.

That's just too bad that Raimi is so limited in that respect. It really hampered my likability of Spider-man 3 because of how blase the character was handled.

Sans the $330+ milliion it grossed domestically, there's a lot of blame to be passed around for the creative & likability misfires of it. Although my main one happens to be, for which I'm sure I mentioned earlier in this thread, is Sam & his brother messing w/ Sargent's script. With the critical/commercial success of 2, I don't have the slightest idea why they got involved, but they did, and that's the end of it. But I cannot fault Sam for how he handled Venom, it wouldn't be any differently if I was in his position and was commanded to place Carnage in the picture. I'm sure the results would be similar.  ;)

It's too bad, the potential and future of the franchise was off the charts prior to the release of 3, and now it's murky. Nonetheless, I have faith in the fanboy who's behind it, but would still love to ask him on the motivation of not having Gwen as the love interest in the original. The handling of Venom isn't the tragedy of the film franchise to date in my opinion, it was that.

I'm not shocked whatsoever as it's pretty wide-known Sam's all about the silver-age of comics. I cannot say enough about Venom, because he was my gateway into the comic book world. He's always been the de facto badass for me, and Parker's ultimate foil, but looking into Sam's pedigree and personality w/o taking in the aforementioned knowledge into consideration, I'm not surprised whatsoever he wasn't a fan of Venom. In many ways, I envy that my late-father had the chance to grown up in the silver-age, that had to have been too much fun.

That's just too bad that Raimi is so limited in that respect. It really hampered my likability of Spider-man 3 because of how blase the character was handled. Not too many people realize that Venom saved Spider-man from fading away because in the 80's they were running out of original characters that fans could get interested in. They kept recycling all the old classics and were running out of storylines. Readership was starting to wane for the webslinger. I think Eddie Brock deserved and still deserves more respect than what he received in his first live action incarnation.
Yeah, I was disappointed with how he was handled too. I'm glad we got the black suit, but the change in him was ridiculous. I'm not just talking about the dancing (which was stupid), but the idea that Peter Parker, who has already had a major change that gives him significantly more power than he had, gets the suit and the added power is what makes him cocky and a jerk? Huh? Making him a cocky douche isn't interesting, Sam. Making him more aggressive as he's handling criminals and The Sandman, that's interesting. The suit should have made him kill Harry Osbourn in a fight, and that made him decide to reject it. I also still say that the shot where Brock becomes Venom in the church was originally designed to be the last shot of the movie. Look at the camera movement and tell me that doesn't remind you of the last shot from the previous two movies.

I'm shocked there wasn't a reference to Michael Bay anywhere in that post, DG! I even did a Firefox search to make sure!!  :D

Yeah, I was disappointed with how he was handled too. I'm glad we got the black suit, but the change in him was ridiculous. I'm not just talking about the dancing (which was stupid), but the idea that Peter Parker, who has already had a major change that gives him significantly more power than he had, gets the suit and the added power is what makes him cocky and a jerk? Huh? Making him a cocky douche isn't interesting, Sam. Making him more aggressive as he's handling criminals and The Sandman, that's interesting. The suit should have made him kill Harry Osbourn in a fight, and that made him decide to reject it. I also still say that the shot where Brock becomes Venom in the church was originally designed to be the last shot of the movie. Look at the camera movement and tell me that doesn't remind you of the last shot from the previous two movies.

You know, I was always under the impression that the alien symbiote made Peter more aggressive and violent because it was inherently evil. If my memory serves me correctly, the symbiote had been banished to the Beyonder's realm from its homeworld by its own kind because of its violent nature, but don't quote me on that. I just don't get why a simple thing like that could have been so lost in translation like that. Again, the alien symbiote made Peter aggressive, not an Emo Douchebag.


I'm pretty sure your memory has served you correctly for the most part, but wasn't it banished b/c it wanted to commit itself to its host rather than fatally consuming the said host of its adrenaline? I interpreted the race as being insane, and it furthermore gives credence to the symbiote's sentient nature, the significance Parker's rejection played, and then the eventual birth of Venom.

Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: Darth Geek on December 15, 2009, 05:52:44 AM
I'm not shocked whatsoever as it's pretty wide-known Sam's all about the silver-age of comics. I cannot say enough about Venom, because he was my gateway into the comic book world. He's always been the de facto badass for me, and Parker's ultimate foil, but looking into Sam's pedigree and personality w/o taking in the aforementioned knowledge into consideration, I'm not surprised whatsoever he wasn't a fan of Venom. In many ways, I envy that my late-father had the chance to grown up in the silver-age, that had to have been too much fun.

That's just too bad that Raimi is so limited in that respect. It really hampered my likability of Spider-man 3 because of how blase the character was handled.

Sans the $330+ milliion it grossed domestically, there's a lot of blame to be passed around for the creative & likability misfires of it. Although my main one happens to be, for which I'm sure I mentioned earlier in this thread, is Sam & his brother messing w/ Sargent's script. With the critical/commercial success of 2, I don't have the slightest idea why they got involved, but they did, and that's the end of it. But I cannot fault Sam for how he handled Venom, it wouldn't be any differently if I was in his position and was commanded to place Carnage in the picture. I'm sure the results would be similar.  ;)

It's too bad, the potential and future of the franchise was off the charts prior to the release of 3, and now it's murky. Nonetheless, I have faith in the fanboy who's behind it, but would still love to ask him on the motivation of not having Gwen as the love interest in the original. The handling of Venom isn't the tragedy of the film franchise to date in my opinion, it was that.

I'm not shocked whatsoever as it's pretty wide-known Sam's all about the silver-age of comics. I cannot say enough about Venom, because he was my gateway into the comic book world. He's always been the de facto badass for me, and Parker's ultimate foil, but looking into Sam's pedigree and personality w/o taking in the aforementioned knowledge into consideration, I'm not surprised whatsoever he wasn't a fan of Venom. In many ways, I envy that my late-father had the chance to grown up in the silver-age, that had to have been too much fun.

That's just too bad that Raimi is so limited in that respect. It really hampered my likability of Spider-man 3 because of how blase the character was handled. Not too many people realize that Venom saved Spider-man from fading away because in the 80's they were running out of original characters that fans could get interested in. They kept recycling all the old classics and were running out of storylines. Readership was starting to wane for the webslinger. I think Eddie Brock deserved and still deserves more respect than what he received in his first live action incarnation.
Yeah, I was disappointed with how he was handled too. I'm glad we got the black suit, but the change in him was ridiculous. I'm not just talking about the dancing (which was stupid), but the idea that Peter Parker, who has already had a major change that gives him significantly more power than he had, gets the suit and the added power is what makes him cocky and a jerk? Huh? Making him a cocky douche isn't interesting, Sam. Making him more aggressive as he's handling criminals and The Sandman, that's interesting. The suit should have made him kill Harry Osbourn in a fight, and that made him decide to reject it. I also still say that the shot where Brock becomes Venom in the church was originally designed to be the last shot of the movie. Look at the camera movement and tell me that doesn't remind you of the last shot from the previous two movies. DIE MICHAEL BAY, DIE!

I'm shocked there wasn't a reference to Michael Bay anywhere in that post, DG! I even did a Firefox search to make sure!!  :D
Fixed it for you.

P.S. It's German. Roughly translated: The Uwe Boll, The.
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: Cosmic Muse on December 15, 2009, 06:53:15 AM
I'm a little puzzled about the Bay reference. My dislike of Bay stems from the fact only one movie he made entertained me, and that was The Rock. Raimi on the other hand, I expected more from him with Spider-man 3 because of how much I loved the previous two. He even had the gist of what it is like to possess a symbiote with the way Doctor Octopus' tentacles interacted with each other and Otto Octavius in Spider-man 2. As a Venom fan I was thoroughly underwhelmed by the way Venom was worked into the movie.
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: TeamRAD on December 15, 2009, 07:13:01 AM
I'm not shocked whatsoever as it's pretty wide-known Sam's all about the silver-age of comics. I cannot say enough about Venom, because he was my gateway into the comic book world. He's always been the de facto badass for me, and Parker's ultimate foil, but looking into Sam's pedigree and personality w/o taking in the aforementioned knowledge into consideration, I'm not surprised whatsoever he wasn't a fan of Venom. In many ways, I envy that my late-father had the chance to grown up in the silver-age, that had to have been too much fun.

That's just too bad that Raimi is so limited in that respect. It really hampered my likability of Spider-man 3 because of how blase the character was handled.

Sans the $330+ milliion it grossed domestically, there's a lot of blame to be passed around for the creative & likability misfires of it. Although my main one happens to be, for which I'm sure I mentioned earlier in this thread, is Sam & his brother messing w/ Sargent's script. With the critical/commercial success of 2, I don't have the slightest idea why they got involved, but they did, and that's the end of it. But I cannot fault Sam for how he handled Venom, it wouldn't be any differently if I was in his position and was commanded to place Carnage in the picture. I'm sure the results would be similar.  ;)

It's too bad, the potential and future of the franchise was off the charts prior to the release of 3, and now it's murky. Nonetheless, I have faith in the fanboy who's behind it, but would still love to ask him on the motivation of not having Gwen as the love interest in the original. The handling of Venom isn't the tragedy of the film franchise to date in my opinion, it was that.

I'm not shocked whatsoever as it's pretty wide-known Sam's all about the silver-age of comics. I cannot say enough about Venom, because he was my gateway into the comic book world. He's always been the de facto badass for me, and Parker's ultimate foil, but looking into Sam's pedigree and personality w/o taking in the aforementioned knowledge into consideration, I'm not surprised whatsoever he wasn't a fan of Venom. In many ways, I envy that my late-father had the chance to grown up in the silver-age, that had to have been too much fun.

That's just too bad that Raimi is so limited in that respect. It really hampered my likability of Spider-man 3 because of how blase the character was handled. Not too many people realize that Venom saved Spider-man from fading away because in the 80's they were running out of original characters that fans could get interested in. They kept recycling all the old classics and were running out of storylines. Readership was starting to wane for the webslinger. I think Eddie Brock deserved and still deserves more respect than what he received in his first live action incarnation.
Yeah, I was disappointed with how he was handled too. I'm glad we got the black suit, but the change in him was ridiculous. I'm not just talking about the dancing (which was stupid), but the idea that Peter Parker, who has already had a major change that gives him significantly more power than he had, gets the suit and the added power is what makes him cocky and a jerk? Huh? Making him a cocky douche isn't interesting, Sam. Making him more aggressive as he's handling criminals and The Sandman, that's interesting. The suit should have made him kill Harry Osbourn in a fight, and that made him decide to reject it. I also still say that the shot where Brock becomes Venom in the church was originally designed to be the last shot of the movie. Look at the camera movement and tell me that doesn't remind you of the last shot from the previous two movies. DIE MICHAEL BAY, DIE!

I'm shocked there wasn't a reference to Michael Bay anywhere in that post, DG! I even did a Firefox search to make sure!!  :D
Fixed it for you.

P.S. It's German. Roughly translated: The Uwe Boll, The.

...hahahaha. There we go!   :D

I'm a little puzzled about the Bay reference.

DG just enjoys hating on Bay (even in the Avatar thread!), and I was just playing around, per norm. It's all part of his charm. So you were thoroughly underwhelmed by the way Venom was woven into the movie? Well answer me this, do you know of anyone that was joyous or even "meh" about how it worked?? Because I don't know anyone of that nature.

Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: Elijah Baley on December 15, 2009, 08:05:47 AM
I was always a DC comics guy, so I never notice when Marvel pisses away its legacy. I mean, they'd have to resurrect Uncle Ben for me to notice a Marvel travesty of any sort.

That said, Spider-Man never seemed to have as interesting a Rogue's Gallery as any major comic book character. His villains' theme was generally different sorts of animals, if my reading is right. It just doesn't hold up to dangerous insanity --- Batman villains all shared some clinical derangement --- and the issues I read never had the kind of sustained, hamfisted social commentary that Star Trek and, relevantly, X-Men had. It's a cotton candy comic stuck in an age which demands its meat and potatoes.

That said, even I could believe that Venom would have been nice, paired with a villain and that Sandman would also have been nice, paired with a villain. They didn't work together at all. It'd be like the next Batman flick pairing The Clock King with Killer Croc.
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: mike5150 on December 16, 2009, 11:32:51 PM
I'm not shocked whatsoever as it's pretty wide-known Sam's all about the silver-age of comics. I cannot say enough about Venom, because he was my gateway into the comic book world. He's always been the de facto badass for me, and Parker's ultimate foil, but looking into Sam's pedigree and personality w/o taking in the aforementioned knowledge into consideration, I'm not surprised whatsoever he wasn't a fan of Venom. In many ways, I envy that my late-father had the chance to grown up in the silver-age, that had to have been too much fun.

That's just too bad that Raimi is so limited in that respect. It really hampered my likability of Spider-man 3 because of how blase the character was handled. Not too many people realize that Venom saved Spider-man from fading away because in the 80's they were running out of original characters that fans could get interested in. They kept recycling all the old classics and were running out of storylines. Readership was starting to wane for the webslinger. I think Eddie Brock deserved and still deserves more respect than what he received in his first live action incarnation.
Yeah, I was disappointed with how he was handled too. I'm glad we got the black suit, but the change in him was ridiculous. I'm not just talking about the dancing (which was stupid), but the idea that Peter Parker, who has already had a major change that gives him significantly more power than he had, gets the suit and the added power is what makes him cocky and a jerk? Huh? Making him a cocky douche isn't interesting, Sam. Making him more aggressive as he's handling criminals and The Sandman, that's interesting. The suit should have made him kill Harry Osbourn in a fight, and that made him decide to reject it. I also still say that the shot where Brock becomes Venom in the church was originally designed to be the last shot of the movie. Look at the camera movement and tell me that doesn't remind you of the last shot from the previous two movies.
I just don't remember him ever playing the piano. Can spiders naturally play piano? Oh, and would tarantula be too cheesy? For some reason I can only think of him Mysterio and Electro as big time villians. (besides kingpin, lizard and vulture)
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: TeamRAD on December 17, 2009, 05:06:18 AM

That said, Spider-Man never seemed to have as interesting a Rogue's Gallery as any major comic book character.


Interesting? Besides Venom, I can agree w/ you on that, Elijah. However, I do think they're a ton of fun, and that's forever been the appeal of the Spidey-verse for me. Fun.

My meat & potatoes lies in the Buffyverse, and that brings the fun & maddening philosophical backbone like no other comic I know. The only thing missing from Buffy is baseball.  ;)

Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: ScottotD on December 17, 2009, 05:13:20 AM
Really? I think Spider-Man is pretty much second only to Batman as far as villians go.
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: Sharktopus on December 17, 2009, 05:19:48 AM
Really? I think Spider-Man is pretty much second only to Batman as far as villians go.

Seconded. Sure, most of them are animal-themed, but - as J. Michael Straczynski tried to voice down our throats during his run - most are natural enemies of the spider: Scorpion, Lizard, Tarantula... Rhino. Okay, maybe not so much. Anyway, Spidey may only have 3 A-list villains but he has more B-list villains than anyone but Batman.
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: TeamRAD on December 17, 2009, 05:50:13 AM

I'm not denying the girth of Spidey's RG. It's splendid. I just only find one truly gripping.

Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: ScottotD on December 17, 2009, 05:56:47 AM

I'm not denying the girth of Spidey's RG. It's splendid. I just only find one truly gripping.



Agreed but most heroes have one major villian and then a collection.  Superman and Spider-man are the only two individuals who spring to mind with more than one (Lex and Bane, Osborne and Venom) but Supe's second tier is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay less impressive than Spidey's.
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: Sharktopus on December 17, 2009, 05:58:21 AM

I'm not denying the girth of Spidey's RG. It's splendid. I just only find one truly gripping.



Agreed but most heroes have one major villian and then a collection.  Superman and Spider-man are the only two individuals who spring to mind with more than one (Lex and Bane, Osborne and Venom) but Supe's second tier is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay less impressive than Spidey's.

I'm assuming you meant Brainiac but have Lucha on the brain.
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: ScottotD on December 17, 2009, 06:02:37 AM
No, I meant Bane, although I've never really read DC. Did Brainiac do something cooler than killing Kal-El?




Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: TeamRAD on December 17, 2009, 06:06:14 AM

I'm not denying the girth of Spidey's RG. It's splendid. I just only find one truly gripping.



Agreed but most heroes have one major villian and then a collection.  Superman and Spider-man are the only two individuals who spring to mind with more than one (Lex and Bane, Osborne and Venom) but Supe's second tier is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay less impressive than Spidey's.


I think you need to add DocOck to the list of major villains, but he's second tier...along w/ Venom. Osbourne will forever reign as the king. 

Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: ScottotD on December 17, 2009, 06:11:44 AM
Oh yeah, Oc is cool.  Everyone is under Osbourne though,


....he killed the woman he loves
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: Sharktopus on December 17, 2009, 06:13:08 AM
No, I meant Bane, although I've never really read DC. Did Brainiac do something cooler than killing Kal-El?

You're thinking of Doomsday, the creature that "killed" Superman. He barely qualifies as a character. Bane broke Batman's back back in the '90s when superhero comics sucked hard:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/59/Bane4s.png)
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: mrbasehart on December 17, 2009, 06:27:15 AM
I actually quite like The Breaking of the Bat and The Death of Superman as events.  Sure, you know that everything's going to go back to the status quo at the end, but there's some really cool stuff in the middle. 
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: Sharktopus on December 17, 2009, 06:34:27 AM
Here's my two cents on villains. Better grab a sammich and settle in.

SPIDER-MAN
A-List
Norman Osborn: arch-enemy, killed Gwen
Venom: creep doppelganger (Respect the umlaut!)
Doc Oc: twerpy science nerd foil

B-List
Kraven
Mysterio
Electro
Scorpion
Vulture
Sandman

C-List
Too many to list

BATMAN
A-List
Joker: Duh. Probably the greatest comic book villain ever created.
Two-Face: I know, he's way below the Joker, but has so much potential that The Dark Knight completely pissed away by killing him.

B-List
Ra's Al-Ghul
Penguin
Riddler
Poison Ivy
Scarecrow
Killer Croc
Mad Hatter
Clayface
Mr. Freeze
Bane

C-List
Ventriloquist/Scarface
Firefly
Dr. Phosphorus

SUPERMAN
A-List
Lex Luthor: prototype for the evil businessman AND evil superscientist archetypes
Darkseid: basically Space Satan

B-List
Brainiac
Metallo
Parasite
Mongul: Darkseid lite, but gets major bonus points for "What Do You Get For The Man Who Has Everything?"

C-List
Toyman

This is all off the top of my head - I'm sure I'm forgetting some major villains...

I'm such a nerd.
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: TeamRAD on December 17, 2009, 07:33:35 AM
Here's my two cents on villains. Better grab a sammich and settle in.

SPIDER-MAN
B-List
Kraven
Mysterio
Electro
Scorpion
Vulture
Sandman

How about adding Kingpin, Chameleon, Lizard, & Carnage to the B-List?   ;)

Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: Doctor Who? on December 17, 2009, 07:40:42 AM
I always thought of Chameleon as C-list.  All he can do is change shape so all Spiderman has to to is figure out it's him and then punch him.  He is not really that big a danger.  Most of the time he just seems to slip up and do something stupid ruining his own plan. Verry C list if you ask me.
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: TeamRAD on December 17, 2009, 08:06:26 AM

I always have Chameleon associated w/ Kraven and know he was a member of one of the incarnations of the Sinister Six. So yeah, I've a hard time placing him in the C-List territory.

:)

Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: Plastic Self-Cleaning Duck on December 17, 2009, 08:40:08 AM
SUPERMAN
A-List
Lex Luthor: prototype for the evil businessman AND evil superscientist archetypes

I'll always feel that "Superman's Greatest Enemy" being a mere human being diminishes him.....

But then, I'm from the Silver Age of DC - the time of Brainiac, Mr. Mxyzptlk, Bizzaro world, etc.   :)
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: MWolf on December 17, 2009, 09:14:56 AM
No, I meant Bane, although I've never really read DC. Did Brainiac do something cooler than killing Kal-El?

You're thinking of Doomsday, the creature that "killed" Superman. He barely qualifies as a character. Bane broke Batman's back back in the '90s when superhero comics sucked hard:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/59/Bane4s.png)

Doomsday wasnt really a good character. I believe the comics where Superman, Doomsday and that cyborg superman were going at it that they found out that Doomsday just believes superman to be a master that tortured him or something. Some scrawny paleish blue guy (nothing to do with green lanterns)
Anyways both series were pretty damn good. And seeing Superman pummeled to death over 8 or so books was pretty cool.

I still have the funeral for a friend black cover bloody superman logo. Good times =)
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: Sharktopus on December 17, 2009, 11:55:03 AM
How about adding Kingpin, Chameleon, Lizard, & Carnage to the B-List?   ;)

Can't believe I forgot the Lizard. I always think of Kingpin as an A-List Daredevil villain rather than a B-List Spidey villain, especially since he was pretty much just an obese mobster until Frank Miller got a hold of him. It's pretty easy to forget the Chameleon, isn't it?

And Carnage sucks. You might as well toss in all the Hobgoblins at that point.

SUPERMAN
A-List
Lex Luthor: prototype for the evil businessman AND evil superscientist archetypes

I'll always feel that "Superman's Greatest Enemy" being a mere human being diminishes him.....

I love the idea. It says brains beats brawn, even in cheezy superhero comics.
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: TeamRAD on December 18, 2009, 04:18:01 PM
How about adding Kingpin, Chameleon, Lizard, & Carnage to the B-List?   ;)

Can't believe I forgot the Lizard. I always think of Kingpin as an A-List Daredevil villain rather than a B-List Spidey villain, especially since he was pretty much just an obese mobster until Frank Miller got a hold of him. It's pretty easy to forget the Chameleon, isn't it?

And Carnage sucks. You might as well toss in all the Hobgoblins at that point.

I hear you on Kingpin, Shark, but he's undoubtedly a big-time force in the Marvel Universe, period. Hence why I suggested B-List status, and a certain someone just happened to be Spidey's archenemy in this particular game above the likes of Doc Ock & Venom in the very same game...

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9a/The_Amazing_Spider-Man_vs._The_Kingpin_cover.jpg)

One cannot mistake his presence...

I second your thought on Carnage but suggested it from a popularity POV. I may not like it, but it's very much so.

Finally, that "indefinite delay" speculation from the other day had me a smidgen on the nervous side...

http://www.superherohype.com/news/spider-mannews.php?id=8930

*wipes brow*

:)

Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: Relaxing Dragon on December 18, 2009, 04:23:09 PM
B-List
Ra's Al-Ghul
Penguin
Riddler
Poison Ivy
Scarecrow
Killer Croc
Mad Hatter
Clayface
Mr. Freeze
Bane

I'm waiting for the day when the Scarecrow moves up to the A-list. He's probably my favorite Batman baddie, and even though he was wasted in the recent flicks he was excellent in Arkham Asylum.
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: Courtney on January 06, 2010, 06:32:42 AM
Spidey 4 indefinitely delayed.

Quote
Spider-Man 4 was originally scheduled to begin filming in February of this year in order to make a May 2011 release date. Thats not going to happen now on account of the minor problem of not having a script. Didnt seem to stop them on the last one, and certainly didnt stop the last couple of X-Men films, so I dont really see what the big deal is.

In any case, the script has already gone through iterations by James Vanderbilt, David Lindsay-Abaire, and Gary Ross, the last of whom actually has a fairly decent screenwriting resume including The Tale of Despereaux, Seabiscuit, Pleasantville, and Big. Sam Raimi is apparently so unhappy with the script that production has been indefinitely delayed and the script shipped out to Alvin Sargent. After the last Spidey was less than well received, it makes sense that Raimi is being picky since thats how franchises get put on hold and rebooted by someone else five years down the line.

The only problem is that Sargent is the guy who wrote the last two Spiderman films and just happens to be married to Laura Ziskin, who has a producer credit on all 4 Spiderman films. The guy who crapped out Spider-Man 3s script and is being given a shot at writing Spider-Man 4 is married to a producer. Oh nepotism, is there any job you cant get done with half the competence and twice the price?
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: Action Batch on January 06, 2010, 08:04:39 AM
Whaaaaaaat? That's crazy. Spider-man 3 didn't have a script and that didn't stop anything.
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: Doctor Who? on January 06, 2010, 08:50:43 AM
Whaaaaaaat? That's crazy. Spider-man 3 didn't have a script and that didn't stop anything.

Isn't that the truth.
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: Plastic Self-Cleaning Duck on January 06, 2010, 09:07:58 AM
Whaaaaaaat? That's crazy. Spider-man 3 didn't have a script and that didn't stop anything.

Isn't that the truth.

Yeah....Mike Myers said that about his "Sprockets" movie and the studio tried to have him drawn and quartered for not shooting it anyway.

(probably learned his lesson from that and that's how The Love Guru got made)
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: a pretty girl is like on January 08, 2010, 06:49:18 AM
Looks like Paramount is throwing the gauntlet down by moving the Thor movie's release date two weeks ahead to May 6th, 2011.  Spiderman 4 technically is still scheduled for May 5th but that's highly unlikely at this point. 
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: Plastic Self-Cleaning Duck on January 10, 2010, 12:04:34 PM
From Screen Rant.com (http://screenrant.com/john-malkovich-confirms-vulture-in-spider-man-4-rob-40806/)

Quote
John Malkovich Confirms Vulture in Spider-Man 4?

With the mess that is the delay and behind-the-scenes dispute over villains between Sony and director Sam Raimi, it looks like we just may have a positive piece of news pushing the film in the right direction from a development standpoint. That is, the direction that the film may be made on time

While appearing on the Italian sports show Quelli Che il Calcio, Malkovich spoke about his involvement and confirmed that he is set to play the villain known as the Vulture in Spider-Man 4.

Theres no word on the other rumor about Anne Hathaway playing Vulturess and I think most of us hope it stays that way.

(http://screenrant.com/wp-content/uploads/spider-man-4-john-malkovich-as-vulture.jpg)
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: Doctor Who? on January 10, 2010, 12:23:20 PM
Well at least production is moving forward this week and that is more then could be said for last.
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: NRRork on January 11, 2010, 12:53:57 PM
This delay is unacceptable!

How long must we wait for this movie to suck?

(Yeah, okay, it's easy to be all bitchy and sardonic right now, but chances are I'll be there in the theater when this comes out, because I WANT it to be good. Kinda like the Star Wars prequels, we all went hoping this time Lucas would get his shit together.)
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: warofthebees on January 11, 2010, 02:41:30 PM
Kinda like the Star Wars prequels, we all went hoping this time Lucas would get his shit together.

Remember those days?  When the least of his crimes was having Greedo shoot first?

Anyway, all I want for Spiderman 4 is a Bruce Campbell cameo in which he plays Mysterio.  I will die happy.
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: a pretty girl is like on January 11, 2010, 02:54:07 PM
Ummm...it's over, Johnny.  From Nikki Finke's site:

Here's the Sony press release:

Spider-Man:  Summer 2012
Culver City, CA (January 11, 2010)  --  Peter Parker is going back to high school when the next Spider-Man hits theaters in the summer of 2012.

Columbia Pictures and Marvel Studios announced today they are moving forward with a film based on a script by James Vanderbilt that focuses on a teenager grappling with both contemporary human problems and amazing super-human crises.
 
The new chapter in the Spider-Man franchise produced by Columbia, Marvel Studios and Avi Arad and Laura Ziskin, will have a new cast and filmmaking team. Spider-Man 4  was to have been released in 2011, but had not yet gone into production.

A decade ago we set out on this journey with Sam Raimi and Tobey Maguire and together we made three Spider-Man films  that set a new bar for the genre.  When we began, no one ever imagined that we would make history at the box-office and now we have a rare opportunity to make history once again with this franchise. Peter Parker as an ordinary young adult grappling with extraordinary powers has always been the foundation that has made this character so timeless and compelling for generations of fans. Were very excited about the creative possibilities that come from returning to Peter's roots and we look forward to working once  again with Marvel Studios, Avi Arad and Laura Ziskin on this new beginning, said Amy Pascal, co-chairman of Sony Pictures Entertainment.

 Working on the Spider-Man movies was the experience of a lifetime for me.  While we were looking forward to doing a fourth one together, the studio and Marvel have a unique opportunity to take the franchise in a new direction, and I know they will do a terrific job, said Sam Raimi.

We have had a once-in-a-lifetime collaboration and friendship with Sam and Tobey and they have given us their best for the better part of the last decade.This is a bittersweet moment for us because while it is hard to imagine Spider-Man in anyone elses hands, I know that this was a day that was inevitable, said Matt Tolmach, president of Columbia Pictures, who has served as the studios chief production executive since the beginning of the franchise. Now everything begins anew, and thats got us all tremendously excited about what comes next.  Under the continuing supervision of Avi and Laura, we have a clear vision for the future of Spider-Man and cant wait to share this exciting new direction with audiences in 2012.
 
"Spider-Man will always be an important franchise for Sony Pictures and a fresh start like this is a responsibility that we all take very seriously," said Michael Lynton, Chairman and CEO of Sony Pictures.  "We have always believed that story comes first and story guides the direction of these films and as we move onto the next chapter, we will stay true to that principle and will do so with the highest respect for the source material and the fans and moviegoers who deserve nothing but the best when it comes to bringing these stories and characters to life on the big screen."

 The studio will have more news about Spider-Man in 2012 in the coming weeks as it prepares for production of the film.

Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: PlayMSTie on January 11, 2010, 04:21:23 PM
GAH! We're starting all over!?

[MST3K]This franchise is like a Mobius strip![/MST3K]
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: Plastic Self-Cleaning Duck on January 11, 2010, 04:30:09 PM
GAH! We're starting all over!?

[MST3K]This franchise is like a Mobius strip![/MST3K]

Translation: Rami and Maguire asked for too much money?
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: mrbasehart on January 11, 2010, 05:22:11 PM
GAH! We're starting all over!?

[MST3K]This franchise is like a Mobius strip![/MST3K]

Translation: Rami and Maguire asked for too much money?

Or too much control.  The Spider-Man comic gets rebooted a lot, so I don't mind.  As long as they make it good.
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: RobtheBarbarian on January 11, 2010, 05:26:25 PM
We have to watch his origin!? AGAIN!?

Fuuuuck, it's like playing the first 5 minutes of Fallout 3 then starting a new game and sitting through all the opening sequences again.
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: mrbasehart on January 11, 2010, 05:36:20 PM
We have to watch his origin!? AGAIN!?

If they do the origin again, I bet it'll be like it was in the newer Hulk movie.  Over before the credits finish.
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: NRRork on January 11, 2010, 06:17:23 PM
Well then there's no way in HELL I'm seeing it.

It's too early for a reboot. They're starting to seriously overuse that.

Which is par for the course in Hollywood: one movie does something clever, and imitators come along and milk it for all its worth.
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: Doctor Who? on January 11, 2010, 06:32:02 PM
Ummm...it's over, Johnny.  From Nikki Finke's site:

Here's the Sony press release:

Spider-Man:  Summer 2012
Culver City, CA (January 11, 2010)  --  Peter Parker is going back to high school when the next Spider-Man hits theaters in the summer of 2012.

Columbia Pictures and Marvel Studios announced today they are moving forward with a film based on a script by James Vanderbilt that focuses on a teenager grappling with both contemporary human problems and amazing super-human crises.
 
The new chapter in the Spider-Man franchise produced by Columbia, Marvel Studios and Avi Arad and Laura Ziskin, will have a new cast and filmmaking team. Spider-Man 4  was to have been released in 2011, but had not yet gone into production.

A decade ago we set out on this journey with Sam Raimi and Tobey Maguire and together we made three Spider-Man films  that set a new bar for the genre.  When we began, no one ever imagined that we would make history at the box-office and now we have a rare opportunity to make history once again with this franchise. Peter Parker as an ordinary young adult grappling with extraordinary powers has always been the foundation that has made this character so timeless and compelling for generations of fans. Were very excited about the creative possibilities that come from returning to Peter's roots and we look forward to working once  again with Marvel Studios, Avi Arad and Laura Ziskin on this new beginning, said Amy Pascal, co-chairman of Sony Pictures Entertainment.

 Working on the Spider-Man movies was the experience of a lifetime for me.  While we were looking forward to doing a fourth one together, the studio and Marvel have a unique opportunity to take the franchise in a new direction, and I know they will do a terrific job, said Sam Raimi.

We have had a once-in-a-lifetime collaboration and friendship with Sam and Tobey and they have given us their best for the better part of the last decade.This is a bittersweet moment for us because while it is hard to imagine Spider-Man in anyone elses hands, I know that this was a day that was inevitable, said Matt Tolmach, president of Columbia Pictures, who has served as the studios chief production executive since the beginning of the franchise. Now everything begins anew, and thats got us all tremendously excited about what comes next.  Under the continuing supervision of Avi and Laura, we have a clear vision for the future of Spider-Man and cant wait to share this exciting new direction with audiences in 2012.
 
"Spider-Man will always be an important franchise for Sony Pictures and a fresh start like this is a responsibility that we all take very seriously," said Michael Lynton, Chairman and CEO of Sony Pictures.  "We have always believed that story comes first and story guides the direction of these films and as we move onto the next chapter, we will stay true to that principle and will do so with the highest respect for the source material and the fans and moviegoers who deserve nothing but the best when it comes to bringing these stories and characters to life on the big screen."

 The studio will have more news about Spider-Man in 2012 in the coming weeks as it prepares for production of the film.



Ok this franchise is dead.  There is no way I am sitting through the origin again.  When is Hollywood going to learn that the first movie in a Superhero franchise is almost always the worst. Origins are dull everyone is always waiting for movie two when we can see some real action.
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: Nunyerbiz on January 11, 2010, 06:38:02 PM
It does seem awfully quick for a reboot... at this rate, Ironman 3 is going to be rebooted as a vehicle for one of the Jonas Brothers...

I'm sure as many did, I thought Spiderman 3 was a misstep and I'm bummed that Raimi and Toby won't be around to try and send off their series on a positive note... heck they probably could have even pulled Franco away from General Hospital... but alas... it won't be.
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: Doctor Who? on January 11, 2010, 06:41:14 PM
What I don't get is why everyone thinks Peter Parker can never age past 21.  Maybe it is just the fact that I read the comics in the 90s but I think there are some good stories to be told about an older Peter Parker.
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: Darth Geek on January 11, 2010, 08:30:27 PM
A)This property needs to revert back to Marvel.

B)They need to hire a good director for this, and they clearly don't prize that if they are willing to let Raimi go.

C)Woohoo! World of Warcraft, baby! I'm not even a gamer, but I am excited about Raimi doing this. Hope Bruce Campbell has a major role!
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: ScottotD on January 11, 2010, 08:37:54 PM
I hope Rami does another horror in the time he has before pre-production on the WoW movie,
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: Darth Geek on January 11, 2010, 08:42:27 PM
I hope Rami does another horror in the time he has before pre-production on the WoW movie,
Yeah, that would be good, too. How about a real monster movie a la Pumpkinhead or something.
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: mearnest on January 11, 2010, 09:39:20 PM
Doc and Nunyerbiz have pretty nicely summed up my feelings about this.  Sure, Spiderman 3 had some major problems but this is just stupid.
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: Pak-Man on January 12, 2010, 12:15:44 AM
IGN says Raimi bailed because he didn't feel like he could meet the deadline and preserve the movie's integrity. Rather than replace Raimi and Toby (Which would have been disasterous anyway) they decided to go with the reboot and keep Peter in High School (Which isn't the WORST idea, since most people seem to prefer dealing-with-teen-drama-while-saving-the-world Spider-Man to dealing-with-grown-up-drama-while-saving-the-world Spider-Man. Here's the whole story according to IGN:

http://movies.ign.com/articles/106/1060055p1.html
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: ScottotD on January 12, 2010, 02:18:30 AM
I think replacing Toby and Sam makes a whole lot more sense than what they're doing.  There's plenty of directors who I think could do a great job with Spider-Man,
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: bratpop on January 12, 2010, 03:08:41 AM
Quote from: Doctor Who?
When is Hollywood going to learn that the first movie in a Superhero franchise is almost always the worst.
Maybe when the first movie in a supehero franchise stops being good enough to BECOME a franchise? And when they realize that no sequel is ever going to make as much money as The Dark Knight? And also when the first movie in a superhero franchise stops being almost always the BEST?

Quote from: Pak-Man
most people seem to prefer dealing-with-teen-drama-while-saving-the-world Spider-Man to dealing-with-grown-up-drama-while-saving-the-world Spider-Man
Um, you know you can't base that on less than 50 minutes of decently adapted "teen drama" from the first movie versus four hours of terribly written original "grown up drama" from the sequels, right? Just because those movies sucked doesn't mean "most people prefer" teen drama. Especially if they drag that out for three movies. It's like saying most people prefer fingernail torture to third degree burns.
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: Sharktopus on January 12, 2010, 03:14:02 AM
I would like to express my feelings about rebooting Spider-Man through interpretive dance:

(http://i49.tinypic.com/2li924l.jpg)(http://i46.tinypic.com/20o1oi.jpg)(http://i45.tinypic.com/25jb1v6.jpg)(http://i45.tinypic.com/20z1p2c.jpg)(http://i49.tinypic.com/11k9mqw.jpg)
(http://i50.tinypic.com/mweb8k.jpg)(http://i49.tinypic.com/2wf0mqt.jpg)(http://i46.tinypic.com/11sl6qp.jpg)

I also cast my vote for Anton Yelchin for the new Peter Parker. I do get a vote, don't I?
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: ScottotD on January 12, 2010, 03:56:18 AM
Quote from: Doctor Who?
When is Hollywood going to learn that the first movie in a Superhero franchise is almost always the worst.
Maybe when the first movie in a supehero franchise stops being good enough to BECOME a franchise? And when they realize that no sequel is ever going to make as much money as The Dark Knight? And also when the first movie in a superhero franchise stops being almost always the BEST?

Quote from: Pak-Man
most people seem to prefer dealing-with-teen-drama-while-saving-the-world Spider-Man to dealing-with-grown-up-drama-while-saving-the-world Spider-Man
Um, you know you can't base that on less than 50 minutes of decently adapted "teen drama" from the first movie versus four hours of terribly written original "grown up drama" from the sequels, right? Just because those movies sucked doesn't mean "most people prefer" teen drama. Especially if they drag that out for three movies. It's like saying most people prefer fingernail torture to third degree burns.


You really didn't like Spider-Man 2 that much?  To me Dark Knight, Hellboy 2, Spider-Man 2 and X-Men 2 are the best Superhero movies around.  I like Superman 2 more than Superman and Batman Returns more than Batman too. 
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: Sharktopus on January 12, 2010, 04:19:39 AM
Here's my 2 cents: As a big Spidey fan, I quite enjoyed the first two Spider-Man movies, but I still felt like they missed the mark on two key fronts. In my humble opinion, Spidey's enduring popularity can be attributed to humor and youth, both of which were sorely lacking in the Sam Raimi movies. Spider-Man should be happy-go-lucky, dammit. Yes, Peter Parker is riddled with guilt and teen angst, but once he puts on that costume, he's a different person - swinging around, constantly cracking jokes, making the bad guys a captive audience to his schtick.

Secondly, likable as he is, Tobey Maguire is clearly in his 30s. There are plenty of mature, adult superheroes to make movies about. Spidey should be a teen, early twenties at best. I don't want to see Peter contemplating marriage and pursuing his master's degree, and I don't think the moviegoing masses do either. Hopefully a new Spidey movie will take a page from the Ultimate Spider-Man comics - which regardless of how you feel about Brian Bendis' other writing at Marvel, are easily some of the most balanced and entertaining Spidey stories since the '60s.
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: James of LinHood on January 12, 2010, 06:25:01 AM
Here's my 2 cents: As a big Spidey fan, I quite enjoyed the first two Spider-Man movies, but I still felt like they missed the mark on two key fronts. In my humble opinion, Spidey's enduring popularity can be attributed to humor and youth, both of which were sorely lacking in the Sam Raimi movies. Spider-Man should be happy-go-lucky, dammit. Yes, Peter Parker is riddled with guilt and teen angst, but once he puts on that costume, he's a different person - swinging around, constantly cracking jokes, making the bad guys a captive audience to his schtick.

Secondly, likable as he is, Tobey Maguire is clearly in his 30s. There are plenty of mature, adult superheroes to make movies about. Spidey should be a teen, early twenties at best. I don't want to see Peter contemplating marriage and pursuing his master's degree, and I don't think the moviegoing masses do either. Hopefully a new Spidey movie will take a page from the Ultimate Spider-Man comics - which regardless of how you feel about Brian Bendis' other writing at Marvel, are easily some of the most balanced and entertaining Spidey stories since the '60s.

I totally agree.

While I enjoyed the Tobey/Raimi Spidey trilogy, it clearly wasn't as good as it could have been (especially the third film).  Besides what Sharktopus mentioned, the Goblin costume always bugged me and Kirsten Dunst was never a good Mary Jane.

So, between doing Spidey 4 with the Vulture as the villain (YAWN!) or rebooting the franchise with new actors, I'll choose reboot any day of the week.
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: RoninFox on January 12, 2010, 06:57:40 AM
Here's my 2 cents: As a big Spidey fan, I quite enjoyed the first two Spider-Man movies, but I still felt like they missed the mark on two key fronts. In my humble opinion, Spidey's enduring popularity can be attributed to humor and youth, both of which were sorely lacking in the Sam Raimi movies. Spider-Man should be happy-go-lucky, dammit. Yes, Peter Parker is riddled with guilt and teen angst, but once he puts on that costume, he's a different person - swinging around, constantly cracking jokes, making the bad guys a captive audience to his schtick.

Secondly, likable as he is, Tobey Maguire is clearly in his 30s. There are plenty of mature, adult superheroes to make movies about. Spidey should be a teen, early twenties at best. I don't want to see Peter contemplating marriage and pursuing his master's degree, and I don't think the moviegoing masses do either. Hopefully a new Spidey movie will take a page from the Ultimate Spider-Man comics - which regardless of how you feel about Brian Bendis' other writing at Marvel, are easily some of the most balanced and entertaining Spidey stories since the '60s.

I totally agree.

While I enjoyed the Tobey/Raimi Spidey trilogy, it clearly wasn't as good as it could have been (especially the third film).  Besides what Sharktopus mentioned, the Goblin costume always bugged me and Kirsten Dunst was never a good Mary Jane.

So, between doing Spidey 4 with the Vulture as the villain (YAWN!) or rebooting the franchise with new actors, I'll choose reboot any day of the week.

Ah the Goblin costume...old forgotten complaint of mine.

You go through the trouble of hiring Dafoe to play Osbourne, a man who can easily pull off the deranged expressions required for the Goblin (which he proves in the mirror scene which may be my favorite scene in the entire series) then you stick a giant plastic mask on him, rendering that extreme facial expression meaningless for most of the character's on screen time.

Ah well, I enjoyed most of the trilogy, and in the case of 3 at least it made a good Rifftrax, but I'm curious what they can do starting fresh.  Maybe they can build to a good Venom story this way.
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: Nunyerbiz on January 12, 2010, 07:23:06 AM
Well, I can understand the Goblin mask from a practical perspective... A good chunk of Spiderman and Green Goblin screentime were done with CGI stand-ins... and I wouldn't have wanted some abortion like we saw in the SW prequels when they tried to paste Christopher Lee's face onto a stuntman's body. I suppose the mask could have been easily removable or had a visor or something so we could see Dafoe's face more often... but I think that would have been goofy for the obvious Dark Helmet reasons... Think they went for the lesser of two evils.
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: RoninFox on January 12, 2010, 07:26:20 AM
Well, I can understand the Goblin mask from a practical perspective... A good chunk of Spiderman and Green Goblin screentime were done with CGI stand-ins... and I wouldn't have wanted some abortion like we saw in the SW prequels when they tried to paste Christopher Lee's face onto a stuntman's body. I suppose the mask could have been easily removable or had a visor or something so we could see Dafoe's face more often... but I think that would have been goofy for the obvious Dark Helmet reasons... Think they went for the lesser of two evils.

I thought I remembered seeing in the special features that Dafoe insisted on doing as much of the in-suit acting as possible, knowing that stuntmen can be easy to pick out.  Anytime you would have been able to see his face, it still would have been him I think.
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: Nunyerbiz on January 12, 2010, 07:33:44 AM
Well, that's my point.... Either the design of costume was going to reveal more of his face... or he was going to be removing the mask ala Dark Helmet to do his dialog. If the design was changed so the face was visible at all times, then you get a special effects problem for the CGI team. If he's always removing the mask to deliver his lines... then that becomes it's own problem.
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: a pretty girl is like on January 12, 2010, 07:39:49 AM
IT"S BRATPOP!!  Hi, Bratpop!

The thing I like least about this is pushing the date back gives the studio an opportunity to try to make this a 3D movie.  That's fine and all for the parts with Spider-Man swinging around and fighting whichever villain(s) they choose but what about the other 75% of the movie where it's just characters talking to each other around Aunt May's kitchen table?
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: MSTJedi on January 12, 2010, 09:45:17 AM
IT"S BRATPOP!!  Hi, Bratpop!

The thing I like least about this is pushing the date back gives the studio an opportunity to try to make this a 3D movie.  That's fine and all for the parts with Spider-Man swinging around and fighting whichever villain(s) they choose but what about the other 75% of the movie where it's just characters talking to each other around Aunt May's kitchen table?

THRILL as the tea cup comes at you out of the screen as Aunt May asks one lump or two!
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: Darth Geek on January 12, 2010, 12:14:27 PM
IT"S BRATPOP!!  Hi, Bratpop!

The thing I like least about this is pushing the date back gives the studio an opportunity to try to make this a 3D movie.  That's fine and all for the parts with Spider-Man swinging around and fighting whichever villain(s) they choose but what about the other 75% of the movie where it's just characters talking to each other around Aunt May's kitchen table?

THRILL as the tea cup comes at you out of the screen as Aunt May asks one lump or two!
Great, we get to see the depth of her wrinkles. 3D is truly the wave OF THE FUTURE!
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: TeamRAD on January 12, 2010, 06:21:02 PM

Sam, thanks man! You did deserve to go out on a much better note. Now I may not be a WoW player, but damn, I cannot wait for the movie! Best of luck!!

Whelp, can someone please slip the suits the Season 1 DVD of The Spectacular Spider-Man or the compilation of The Ultimate Spider-Man books? Either of those paths would be so awesome!

And let's start the casting, I'm saying Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Parker, keep Bryce as Gwen (she was SO beautiful), and MJ...Emma Stone.

Regardless of what happens, I know I'll be there on day one, and here's nervously hoping the project lands into the right hands.

Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: Doctor Who? on January 12, 2010, 06:23:18 PM
Could Hollywood for once find some teenagers to play teenagers in movies.  I know it seems like such an insane idea but I laugh at every movie set in highschool because the stars are always in their late 20s.
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: RoninFox on January 12, 2010, 06:37:29 PM
Could Hollywood for once find some teenagers to play teenagers in movies.  I know it seems like such an insane idea but I laugh at every movie set in highschool because the stars are always in their late 20s.

The problem with that is that teenagers age more visibly than people in their 20s, so for a project like this which will obviously be made to produce sequels, you risk having someone look like a kid one movie, then an adult in the next when only one year was supposed to pass between the two stories.  Then you get comedians making bad jokes about it forever, like with the Harry Potter movies.
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: Sharktopus on January 12, 2010, 09:29:36 PM
The thing I like least about this is pushing the date back gives the studio an opportunity to try to make this a 3D movie.  That's fine and all for the parts with Spider-Man swinging around and fighting whichever villain(s) they choose but what about the other 75% of the movie where it's just characters talking to each other around Aunt May's kitchen table?

THRILL as the tea cup comes at you out of the screen as Aunt May asks one lump or two!

Wheatcakes in THREE DEE!

Just imagine having to look at Kirsten Dunst's Cabbage-Patch-Doll-from-Hell face in 3-D...
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: gbeenie on January 12, 2010, 09:41:55 PM


Whelp, can someone please slip the suits the Season 1 DVD of The Spectacular Spider-Man



What is this strange thing of which you speak? Don't you know all WB animated series have to be released on crappy three-episode discs first?
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: Sharktopus on January 12, 2010, 09:45:22 PM
Whelp, can someone please slip the suits the Season 1 DVD of The Spectacular Spider-Man

What is this strange thing of which you speak? Don't you know all WB animated series have to be released on crappy three-episode discs first?

RAAARRRGH! HULK SMASH DOUBLE-DIPPING HOME VIDEO COMPANIES!
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: BathTub on January 12, 2010, 10:11:11 PM
Bleh I think it's lame they are going for the reboot. They should just have given Raimi the time he wanted.
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: Sharktopus on January 12, 2010, 11:01:27 PM
There was a casting call for a young, red-haired kid and Tobey was looking forward to "evolving the character." I think Raimi wanted to make Spider-Dad and Columbia - thankfully - put their foot down.
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: MSTJedi on January 13, 2010, 12:37:08 AM
There was a casting call for a young, red-haired kid and Tobey was looking forward to "evolving the character." I think Raimi wanted to make Spider-Dad and Columbia - thankfully - put their foot down.

'Cause that worked so well for Superman . . .
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: Pak-Man on January 13, 2010, 01:10:27 AM
Doesn't he give birth to Spidergirl in an alternate Marvel future or something?
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: Sharktopus on January 13, 2010, 01:15:23 AM
Doesn't he give birth to Spidergirl in an alternate Marvel future or something?

Yup.
(http://www.samruby.com/Related/AmazingSpider-Girl/Large/AmazingSpider-Girl00.jpg)
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: FordPrefect on January 13, 2010, 02:41:12 AM
http://www.blogtv.com/vb/bm3FY2PHaeTGZ2VHbX
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: warofthebees on January 13, 2010, 12:15:46 PM
Ah well, I enjoyed most of the trilogy, and in the case of 3 at least it made a good Rifftrax, but I'm curious what they can do starting fresh.  Maybe they can build to a good Venom story this way.

They should have made Harry into Venom.  I know, it goes against the comic books, but really, is it any worse than having him ride a flying skateboard and immediately side with Spiderman?  Or having a character show up, decide to hate Spiderman, and then die in under 15 minutes?

I agree with a reboot, though.  Spiderman 1 and 2 were great, but I really felt that Spiderman 3 crapped all over the franchise and delivered it to an unreturnable hell, even accounting for the "Third part of a trilogy is always terrible" idea.
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: TeamRAD on January 16, 2010, 06:22:49 AM
So Marc Webb...

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/43627

If it happens, what do you think? His direction of (500) Days was awesome. I've no doubt he'd handle the characters w/ great care, but as for the action sequences, eek! It's some step up, but give it to him, Sony! He's good people!!

...and please, no tying of anything Spidey to Wes Anderson ever again. Thanks!  :)

Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: a pretty girl is like on January 16, 2010, 07:00:54 AM
So Marc Webb...

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/43627

If it happens, what do you think? His direction of (500) Days was awesome. I've no doubt he'd handle the characters w/ great care, but as for the action sequences, eek! It's some step up, but give it to him, Sony! He's good people!!

...and please, no tying of anything Spidey to Wes Anderson ever again. Thanks!  :)



i09 has Nimrod Antal, the director of the upcoming Predators, the underappreciated Armored and the awesome Kontroll, as Sam Raimi's first choice.   They've already got a working relationship since Raimi hired him for Armored.
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: TeamRAD on January 16, 2010, 11:03:35 PM

Wow, I would be totally onboard w/ Antal. That would rock!

Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: a pretty girl is like on January 19, 2010, 08:55:16 PM

Wow, I would be totally onboard w/ Antal. That would rock!

Looks like it's going to be Marc Webb, RAD.  I agree with you that he's got a good grasp of handling character relationships.  And I'm actually not too worried about the action sequences because as a video director he's got some idea of the nature of a self-contained set piece.  Besides, quick cuts and fancy camera tricks come with the territory of video directing.

Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: Darth Geek on January 20, 2010, 05:39:21 AM

Wow, I would be totally onboard w/ Antal. That would rock!

Looks like it's going to be Marc Webb, RAD.  I agree with you that he's got a good grasp of handling character relationships.  And I'm actually not too worried about the action sequences because as a video director he's got some idea of the nature of a self-contained set piece.  Besides, quick cuts and fancy camera tricks come with the territory of video directing.


Quick cuts and camera tricks are the antithesis of a good action sequence.
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: a pretty girl is like on January 20, 2010, 06:21:34 AM

Wow, I would be totally onboard w/ Antal. That would rock!

Looks like it's going to be Marc Webb, RAD.  I agree with you that he's got a good grasp of handling character relationships.  And I'm actually not too worried about the action sequences because as a video director he's got some idea of the nature of a self-contained set piece.  Besides, quick cuts and fancy camera tricks come with the territory of video directing.


Quick cuts and camera tricks are the antithesis of a good action sequence.

Not in today's Hollywood.
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: Doctor Who? on January 20, 2010, 07:03:16 AM

Wow, I would be totally onboard w/ Antal. That would rock!

Looks like it's going to be Marc Webb, RAD.  I agree with you that he's got a good grasp of handling character relationships.  And I'm actually not too worried about the action sequences because as a video director he's got some idea of the nature of a self-contained set piece.  Besides, quick cuts and fancy camera tricks come with the territory of video directing.


Quick cuts and camera tricks are the antithesis of a good action sequence.

Not in today's Hollywood.

That is why 95% of today's action movies suck.  You can't tell what is going on,who is who,and who is winning.
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: Sharktopus on January 20, 2010, 07:11:23 AM
That is why 95% of today's action movies suck.  You can't tell what is going on,who is who,and who is winning.

(http://www.getthebigpicture.net/storage/pics/09/bayformers.jpg)
MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: Darth Geek on January 20, 2010, 07:13:58 AM
That is why 95% of today's action movies suck.  You can't tell what is going on,who is who,and who is winning.

(http://www.getthebigpicture.net/storage/pics/09/bayformers.jpg)
MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Aah! Blam! Blam! Blam!
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: ScottotD on January 20, 2010, 07:24:23 AM

Wow, I would be totally onboard w/ Antal. That would rock!

Looks like it's going to be Marc Webb, RAD.  I agree with you that he's got a good grasp of handling character relationships.  And I'm actually not too worried about the action sequences because as a video director he's got some idea of the nature of a self-contained set piece.  Besides, quick cuts and fancy camera tricks come with the territory of video directing.


Quick cuts and camera tricks are the antithesis of a good action sequence.

Not in today's Hollywood.

That is why 95% of today's action movies suck.  You can't tell what is going on,who is who,and who is winning.


(http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/files/uploads/getoffmylawnunbrand.jpg)
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: Young_Nastyman on January 20, 2010, 08:30:15 AM
Late to the discussion but I will summarize my thoughts.

Yay for reboot, Felicia Hardy not being Black Cat and becoming the "Vulturess" was retarded and a great way to turn an already wary fan base against you, Marc Webb is an awesome choice to direct it
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: Sharktopus on January 20, 2010, 08:38:23 AM
The fact that his name is Webb must have influenced the decision somehow, even if just subliminally.
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: Plastic Self-Cleaning Duck on January 20, 2010, 11:20:19 AM

Wow, I would be totally onboard w/ Antal. That would rock!

Looks like it's going to be Marc Webb, RAD.  I agree with you that he's got a good grasp of handling character relationships.  And I'm actually not too worried about the action sequences because as a video director he's got some idea of the nature of a self-contained set piece.  Besides, quick cuts and fancy camera tricks come with the territory of video directing.


Quick cuts and camera tricks are the antithesis of a good action sequence.

Not in today's Hollywood.

That is why 95% of today's action movies suck.  You can't tell what is going on,who is who,and who is winning.
(http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/files/uploads/getoffmylawnunbrand.jpg)

From Spike.com (http://www.spike.com/blog/michael-bay-to-put/91593)

Quote
Michael Bay to Put Fewer Robots in Transformers 3

Quote
    Although the number of robots increased significantly from the first film for the second, the third film -- which will hit theaters in summer 2011, wont be as robot-heavy and there will be fewer explosions, a tight-lipped Bay said after the Q+A.

    There will be a nice crescendo ending, Bay said. It gets much more into the robot character. The last time you kind of met a few of the robots; this time youre gonna get a much cooler landscape.

Is this the same Michael Bay we've all come to know and love? Has someone else taken over his body?

Nope, this is the real deal. So for everyone who was overloaded by Revenge of the Fallen can look forward to -- at least for Michael Bay -- a slightly mellower film.

So Bay seems to be like us "old folks".now.
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: MSTJedi on January 20, 2010, 12:01:12 PM
So Bay seems to be like us "old folks".now.

'Bout damn time . . . Explosions and action are all well and good, but without an idea of just what the feck is going on (or caring what's going on, for that matter), it just doesn't work.
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: Doctor Who? on January 20, 2010, 12:44:08 PM
So Bay seems to be like us "old folks".now.

'Bout damn time . . . Explosions and action are all well and good, but without an idea of just what the feck is going on (or caring what's going on, for that matter), it just doesn't work.

Lucas said the same thing on a video I used to have called From Star Wars to jedi.  Then he went and made the Prequells and Indy 4.
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: MSTJedi on January 20, 2010, 10:41:41 PM
So Bay seems to be like us "old folks".now.

'Bout damn time . . . Explosions and action are all well and good, but without an idea of just what the feck is going on (or caring what's going on, for that matter), it just doesn't work.

Lucas said the same thing on a video I used to have called From Star Wars to jedi.  Then he went and made the Prequells and Indy 4.

Yeah, a Hollywood director's idea of subtle and the common (intelligent) person's is not necessarily on the same page.
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: TeamRAD on January 21, 2010, 04:00:16 AM

Wow, I would be totally onboard w/ Antal. That would rock!

Looks like it's going to be Marc Webb, RAD.  I agree with you that he's got a good grasp of handling character relationships.  And I'm actually not too worried about the action sequences because as a video director he's got some idea of the nature of a self-contained set piece.  Besides, quick cuts and fancy camera tricks come with the territory of video directing.

The word is the reboot will be using the "Ultimate Spider-Man" comics as its source material, and if that's true, the action will be taking a backseat anyway.  :)

Webb's perfect.

Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: Sideswipe on January 21, 2010, 08:18:29 AM
They are going to need a reboot for this reboot.
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: Doctor Who? on January 21, 2010, 08:26:38 AM
They are going to need a reboot for this reboot.

 :D

Couldn't have put it better myself.
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: Plastic Self-Cleaning Duck on January 21, 2010, 09:47:00 AM
So Bay seems to be like us "old folks".now.

'Bout damn time . . . Explosions and action are all well and good, but without an idea of just what the feck is going on (or caring what's going on, for that matter), it just doesn't work.

Lucas said the same thing on a video I used to have called From Star Wars to jedi.  Then he went and made the Prequells and Indy 4.

I think I used to have that video...it was on PBS originally, wasn't it?  And he also said that the movies started out as 12 episodes but he got it down to 9 and would be making them all eventually......which he now denies altogether ("How do you know Lucas is lying?".."His lips are moving.")
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: Doctor Who? on January 21, 2010, 10:28:23 AM
I think it was on PBS now that you mention it.  i saw it on video.  He said "SFX with out a story are pretty borring"  I also remember the nine episode thing and so does my mom.  I am going to have to try and track down that video on amazon at some point. I don't care that Lucas chamged his mind about how many movies he was going to make or what the backstory was.  I just find it sad that he used to know how to make good movies and somehow he forgot.  I find that sad because he has always seemed like a nice guy to me who is trying to make fun movies for us to enjoy.
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: ScottotD on January 21, 2010, 02:40:05 PM
They are going to need a reboot for this reboot.

What makes you say that?
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: Sharktopus on January 22, 2010, 04:55:15 AM
They are going to need a reboot for this reboot.

What makes you say that?

Because condemning movies before they've even been filmed has become the internet's favorite pastime. Well, maybe second favorite...
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: RobtheBarbarian on January 22, 2010, 05:00:24 AM
They are going to need a reboot for this reboot.

What makes you say that?

Because condemning movies before they've even been filmed has become the internet's favorite pastime. Well, maybe second favorite...

Condemning movies before they were released was the first thing Hitler did.
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: Sharktopus on January 22, 2010, 05:08:01 AM
They are going to need a reboot for this reboot.

What makes you say that?

Because condemning movies before they've even been filmed has become the internet's favorite pastime. Well, maybe second favorite...

Condemning movies before they were released was the first thing Hitler did.

And Hitler was a one-testicled vegetarian with a stupid haircut, so you don't want to be like him. Also, I think he was reponsible for some people's deaths, if I recall correctly.
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: RobtheBarbarian on January 22, 2010, 05:31:33 AM
(http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e276/diamondback88/nbc_the_more_you_know-784146.jpg)
Title: Re: Spiderman 4
Post by: Sharktopus on January 22, 2010, 05:37:34 AM
(http://images.southparkstudios.com/media/images/610/610_img_12.jpg)
Hitler was bad, mmmkay?
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: TeamRAD on February 12, 2010, 10:08:47 PM

*removes webbing from forehead*

We've a new street-date: July 3rd, 2012, and to no surprise, it's in 3-D. That alone could be pretty cool, and why can't they have this at Universal/Hollywood...

http://www.youtube.com/v/RIAnwDTB_ws&hl=en_US&fs=1


I don't wanna go to Florida to do this one thing, and man, if there's an after-life, I'm riding that thing every day.



Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Sharktopus on February 12, 2010, 10:25:21 PM
I hope it's real gimmicky, schlocky 3D too, with webs shooting right off the screen at you.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: TeamRAD on February 28, 2010, 06:55:41 PM

This can only be positive:

http://splashpage.mtv.com/2010/02/16/exclusive-james-cameron-and-marc-webb-meet-discuss-3-d-spider-man

...and Jim's spot-on, (500) days is surely enjoyable.

Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: bratpop on March 01, 2010, 01:41:22 AM
Let's take all the lack of focus on quality that modern big budget movies usually have, pull that back out from wherever it went, and put it towards pointless, gimmicky 3-D that will be seen by maybe a third of the market.

No! That's not stupid enough! When are they gonna make taste-o-vision where the whole audience has to go up and lick the movie screen to see if pumpkin bombs really taste like pumpkins?
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: satanloveskitties on March 01, 2010, 01:55:38 PM
I like sam rami but his movies tend to be cheesy... but in a good way . I dont think thats right direction for a good spiderman movie.
p.s. In my mind its not really a reboot if you have the same director ...and actors....and company..Maybe if spidey got a new director Rami could mull over a new EVILDEAD....
a boy can only dream
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: TeamRAD on March 01, 2010, 02:13:18 PM
Let's take all the lack of focus on quality that modern big budget movies usually have, pull that back out from wherever it went, and put it towards pointless, gimmicky 3-D that will be seen by maybe a third of the market.

No! That's not stupid enough! When are they gonna make taste-o-vision where the whole audience has to go up and lick the movie screen to see if pumpkin bombs really taste like pumpkins?

*cheers*

I missed you, bp!  :)

Maybe it's the residue from Webb's directorial debut, the rumored source material, the prospects of what can be done w/ a Spidey in 3D, but I'm really hyped up to see the development of this.

Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: ScottotD on March 02, 2010, 03:27:51 AM
I like sam rami but his movies tend to be cheesy... but in a good way . I dont think thats right direction for a good spiderman movie.
p.s. In my mind its not really a reboot if you have the same director ...and actors....and company..Maybe if spidey got a new director Rami could mull over a new EVILDEAD....
a boy can only dream

It does have a new director and actors...
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Johnny Unusual on March 03, 2010, 05:12:46 PM
I like sam rami but his movies tend to be cheesy... but in a good way . I dont think thats right direction for a good spiderman movie.
p.s. In my mind its not really a reboot if you have the same director ...and actors....and company..Maybe if spidey got a new director Rami could mull over a new EVILDEAD....
a boy can only dream

It does have a new director and actors...

Personally, I could do with Spider-Man waiting at least a decade before doing Spider-Man again.  I also think that as much as I like the Evil Dead movies, he should just do new and different stuff.  No need to be bogged down in franchises.  Make the best of this situation and do daring new things.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Sharktopus on March 03, 2010, 05:33:18 PM
I wouldn't mind a moratorium on Spider-Man movies for a while, either, but there's no way Sony's gonna let that cash cow go. Sadly, that means we'll probably never see Spidey meet the Avengers in live action outside conventions.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: bratpop on March 07, 2010, 02:34:57 AM
The problem with Sam is that his sole motivation for being a director is to rip off the Three Stooges. The only reason he's still working is because somebody offered him a franchise that he once had a painting of over his bed. That, and he's a rich producer who slaps his name on all sorts of inferior products that he has nothing to do with, like Tarantino and Roger Corman. But if it was up to his directorial efforts, I doubt he'd still be coasting on the fumes of "A Simple Plan."
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: mearnest on June 03, 2010, 03:44:20 PM
Thought this was interesting:
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1640688/20100603/story.jhtml (http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1640688/20100603/story.jhtml)
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: warofthebees on June 03, 2010, 04:03:23 PM
Thought this was interesting:
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1640688/20100603/story.jhtml (http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1640688/20100603/story.jhtml)

I don't like it, for two reasons.  One, at the risk of sounding a little racist, Peter Parker is a white guy.  He's always been white.  While a black actor can play a white character (Michael Clark Duncan was the only thing watchable in Daredevil, though it's not like he had much competition...), it doesn't work for such an iconic character.

My other argument against this is that with characters like Luke Cage, The Black Panther, John Stewart (Green Lantern, not the Daily Show), and The Falcon not having films, it makes no sense to cast a black actor in a white role.

Neither of those arguments are meant to be racist, but damn, it's hard to find a way to say that without sounding racist.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Kete on June 03, 2010, 04:06:19 PM
Thought this was interesting:
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1640688/20100603/story.jhtml (http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1640688/20100603/story.jhtml)

I don't like it, for two reasons.  One, at the risk of sounding a little racist, Peter Parker is a white guy.  He's always been white.  While a black actor can play a white character (Michael Clark Duncan was the only thing watchable in Daredevil, though it's not like he had much competition...), it doesn't work for such an iconic character.

My other argument against this is that with characters like Luke Cage, The Black Panther, John Stewart (Green Lantern, not the Daily Show), and The Falcon not having films, it makes no sense to cast a black actor in a white role.

Neither of those arguments are meant to be racist, but damn, it's hard to find a way to say that without sounding racist.

I can't believe you would say this.  Shame on you.  (I'm only kidding)
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: goflyblind on June 03, 2010, 04:10:57 PM
I don't like it, for two reasons.  One, at the risk of sounding a little racist, Peter Parker is a white guy.  He's always been white.  While a black actor can play a white character (Michael Clark Duncan was the only thing watchable in Daredevil, though it's not like he had much competition...), it doesn't work for such an iconic character.

the president's always been a white guy, the president can't be black. reason makes as much sense.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Sideswipe on June 03, 2010, 04:48:44 PM
No it doesnt.  President is a title and job taken by many different people.  Spider-Man has always been Peter Parker, Thomas Jefferson hasnt always been President. 
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: mearnest on June 03, 2010, 05:17:41 PM
At first I didn't like the idea either, but I heard a pretty solid argument that changed my mind.  Basically there's no reason a change of race would have to change the character.  Peter Parker is a nerdy, awkward kid.  He's grown up poor and has been raised by his Aunt and Uncle.  Plus, once he puts on the Spidey suit you can't see his skin anyway.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Kete on June 03, 2010, 05:21:05 PM
I think it would be cool, although, I've always been more of a DC fan.  If Marvel were more near and dear, I don't think I would like them messing with it that much.  I don't think I would like it if they cast a black Superman.  Not just because of race, but because it really does change the character.  It'd be like making Superman a architect instead of a reporter, or have him wear green instead of blue.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Tripe on June 03, 2010, 05:40:18 PM
Thought this was interesting:
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1640688/20100603/story.jhtml (http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1640688/20100603/story.jhtml)

I don't like it, for two reasons.  One, at the risk of sounding a little racist, Peter Parker is a white guy.  He's always been white.  While a black actor can play a white character (Michael Clark Duncan was the only thing watchable in Daredevil, though it's not like he had much competition...), it doesn't work for such an iconic character.

My other argument against this is that with characters like Luke Cage, The Black Panther, John Stewart (Green Lantern, not the Daily Show), and The Falcon not having films, it makes no sense to cast a black actor in a white role.

Neither of those arguments are meant to be racist, but damn, it's hard to find a way to say that without sounding racist.

Ahem

(http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb319/TripeHoundRedux/Forum%20Furniture/david_hasselhoff_nick_fury.jpg)

(http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb319/TripeHoundRedux/Forum%20Furniture/samuel-l-jackson-nick-fury.jpg)
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Darth Macho on June 03, 2010, 06:25:41 PM
Back when they were casting Sam Raimi's Spider-Man I recall Chris Rock lobbying heavily for the role of Peter Parker. Spider-Man is one of the few comic book heroes that appeals to inner city minorities and they identify with him on a level suburban white people just don't get.

So hell yeah, make Peter Parker black. Just don't give him any Will Smith quips ("Look out, black man swingin' on a web here!") and the movie ought to be fine.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: warofthebees on June 03, 2010, 06:28:20 PM
I don't like it, for two reasons.  One, at the risk of sounding a little racist, Peter Parker is a white guy.  He's always been white.  While a black actor can play a white character (Michael Clark Duncan was the only thing watchable in Daredevil, though it's not like he had much competition...), it doesn't work for such an iconic character.

the president's always been a white guy, the president can't be black. reason makes as much sense.

Someone already said what I would say, but I have to mention that this does not line up with my reasoning.

As far as Nick Fury:  He is black in the Ultimate Comics line (and modeled after Samuel L. Jackson), so there is a basis for that.  The Green Lantern had a black version of the character, John Stewart, so I would be able to accept that as well if he was the main character of the Green Lantern film.  But   Spider-man has never been black.  To me, it's like if Superman was played by a black guy.  It would just be weird to me.

I could accept Harry Osborne, Flash Thompson, hell, Mary Jane as a black character, because they are not as iconic as Spider-man, but Peter Parker is a white guy, and I can't imagine him otherwise.

I think the reason that Spider-man appeals to minorities is because he is one of the few heroes to wear a full face mask; he could be black, or asian, or hispanic.  To me, though, he isn't.

I feel like I should end all my posts in this thread by saying how I am not a racist douche...
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: TTYT on June 03, 2010, 06:33:50 PM
Mary Jane as a black woman would be awesome, especially if they found someone who was a natural redhead. Rrrowl!
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Tripe on June 03, 2010, 06:36:10 PM
As far as Nick Fury:  He is black in the Ultimate Comics line (and modeled after Samuel L. Jackson), so there is a basis for that.
Prior to 2001 there hadn't been, for almost four decades.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Bob on June 03, 2010, 06:36:17 PM
Yeah, it would be like rebooting "Steele" with Bill Walton in the lead  :D
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Doctor Who? on June 03, 2010, 07:00:10 PM
As long as they get a good actor and don't mess with the character why should skin color matter?

It's not like all black people at the same any more then all white people are the same.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: warofthebees on June 03, 2010, 07:13:35 PM
As far as Nick Fury:  He is black in the Ultimate Comics line (and modeled after Samuel L. Jackson), so there is a basis for that.
Prior to 2001 there hadn't been, for almost four decades.

But now there is a basis.  If there was a version of Spider-man who was black, I'd be fine with this.  But there isn't.  There is only one Spider-man.

I would like to see Isaiah Bradley, from Red White and Black make an apperance (even if just a cameo) in Captain America.  He was one of the black soldiers the super soldier serum was tested on, and the most successful until they perfected it and used it on Steve Rogers.

Skin color wouldn't matter, if it was someone not so iconic.  If it was a black Ghost Rider or black Hawkeye, I'd have no problem with it.  But I feel that making Spider-man black is like making Luke Cage white:  it just doesn't work.

As long as they get a good actor and don't mess with the character why should skin color matter?

It's not like all black people at the same any more then all white people are the same.

What if they took Spider-man's costume and made it black leather with a spider logo and no mask, like the X-Men costumes?  It would still be the same character, but he would look completely different.  I'd be willing to bet that far more people would be agitated by it.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Tripe on June 03, 2010, 07:17:57 PM
How about we make him Indian:

(http://www.samruby.com/Series/India/Large/India1.JPG)

As a matter of interest, how do you feel about the existence of the character Harley Quinn?


Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Bob on June 03, 2010, 07:27:54 PM
I guess we could have a Serbian Spiderman, but he might smoke too much for US audiences
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Doctor Who? on June 03, 2010, 07:32:38 PM
As far as Nick Fury:  He is black in the Ultimate Comics line (and modeled after Samuel L. Jackson), so there is a basis for that.
Prior to 2001 there hadn't been, for almost four decades.

But now there is a basis.  If there was a version of Spider-man who was black, I'd be fine with this.  But there isn't.  There is only one Spider-man.

I would like to see Isaiah Bradley, from Red White and Black make an apperance (even if just a cameo) in Captain America.  He was one of the black soldiers the super soldier serum was tested on, and the most successful until they perfected it and used it on Steve Rogers.

Skin color wouldn't matter, if it was someone not so iconic.  If it was a black Ghost Rider or black Hawkeye, I'd have no problem with it.  But I feel that making Spider-man black is like making Luke Cage white:  it just doesn't work.

As long as they get a good actor and don't mess with the character why should skin color matter?

It's not like all black people at the same any more then all white people are the same.

What if they took Spider-man's costume and made it black leather with a spider logo and no mask, like the X-Men costumes?  It would still be the same character, but he would look completely different.  I'd be willing to bet that far more people would be agitated by it.

A change in costume would indicate a change in character.  Unless you are saying it is impossible for a black kid to be a nerd and a hero(And that is pretty racist)I can't see where you are going with this.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Bob on June 03, 2010, 07:42:23 PM
Maybe "Spiderwoman" is the next reboot.   I bet Halle Berry could make it at least as good as Catwoman.....
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Sideswipe on June 03, 2010, 08:02:10 PM
why not change Marry Jane to a man, and rename her Harry Shane?
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Henry88 on June 03, 2010, 08:11:03 PM
why not change Marry Jane to a man, and rename her Harry Shane?

we do not need  spider man going down the rode of battlestar galactica or do i need to get the clown hammer.

Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: TTYT on June 03, 2010, 08:37:08 PM
Heck, if we're on that line, why not just make it Petra Parker - with the love interest still being Mary Jane? That would bring in the crowds.

Nerdy lesbian superhero woman who talks a lot of trash...Bam.

EDIT: That, or she could be bisexual, which would make for an interesting new dynamic between her, Mary Jane, and Harry Osbourne...
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Henry88 on June 03, 2010, 08:43:43 PM
Quote
Nerdy lesbian superhero woman who talks a lot of trash...Bam.

oh yes...BIG BAM
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Sideswipe on June 03, 2010, 08:50:10 PM
why not make her a sexy 35 year old librarian also, and the webs shoot out of her ass.  Like a real spider.  I always thought that was kind of stupid of Raimi to think that people wouldnt accept that Peter would be able to create the web shooters himself but him get spider superpowers from bieng bitten was completely believeable.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Pak-Man on June 03, 2010, 11:26:12 PM
This is just a thought experiment and isn't intended to reflect my opinion:

What if War Machine had been played by a white man?

What if Luke Cage were being played by Nick Cage?

What if any of these roles (Spiderman included) were played by a Hispanic man? Asian?
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: warofthebees on June 04, 2010, 04:15:00 AM
As far as Nick Fury:  He is black in the Ultimate Comics line (and modeled after Samuel L. Jackson), so there is a basis for that.
Prior to 2001 there hadn't been, for almost four decades.

But now there is a basis.  If there was a version of Spider-man who was black, I'd be fine with this.  But there isn't.  There is only one Spider-man.

I would like to see Isaiah Bradley, from Red White and Black make an apperance (even if just a cameo) in Captain America.  He was one of the black soldiers the super soldier serum was tested on, and the most successful until they perfected it and used it on Steve Rogers.

Skin color wouldn't matter, if it was someone not so iconic.  If it was a black Ghost Rider or black Hawkeye, I'd have no problem with it.  But I feel that making Spider-man black is like making Luke Cage white:  it just doesn't work.

As long as they get a good actor and don't mess with the character why should skin color matter?

It's not like all black people at the same any more then all white people are the same.

What if they took Spider-man's costume and made it black leather with a spider logo and no mask, like the X-Men costumes?  It would still be the same character, but he would look completely different.  I'd be willing to bet that far more people would be agitated by it.

A change in costume would indicate a change in character.  Unless you are saying it is impossible for a black kid to be a nerd and a hero(And that is pretty racist)I can't see where you are going with this.

How is changing the costume a change of the character?  He could still act the same, have the same powers, origin, etc.  Spider-Man was still Spider-Man when he was in the black costume and the Iron Spider costume, wasn't he? 

What if War Machine had been played by a white man?
What if Luke Cage were being played by Nick Cage?

I think that with limited black superheroes, it would be far more insulting to have a white guy play a black superhero then vice versa...but I still think Peter PArker should be a white guy.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: mrbasehart on June 04, 2010, 06:34:35 AM
I think Denzel Washington could've made either a good Batman or Superman.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: warofthebees on June 04, 2010, 09:47:34 AM
I think Denzel Washington could've made either a good Batman or Superman.

Denzel Washington is a better choice for everything.  Especially since in every film he's made, his acting sytle is just "How can I approach this in a more bad ass way?"

...holy crap:  Denzel Washington as John Stewart.  Greatest thing ever?
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Darth Geek on June 04, 2010, 10:37:29 AM
Well considering that the fact halle Barry is black is not the reason Catwoman sucks, there is a lot more going on when adapting comic book characters than their race. Characters like Peter Parker and others wher white was just the default are less of an issue if they are recast. Now if they cast a white man to play Black Panther, THAT would be a big deal, since he is an African prince.

There is no shortage of talented white actors who can play the role of Peter Parker/Spiderman. There aren't many white actors who can play The Kingpin, so that is different. And since they didn't change the character's behavior from the comics after they cast a black Michael Clark Duncan, then I'm not complaining (And he was one of the better things in that movie anyway, just not given enough to do).
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Sideswipe on June 04, 2010, 11:07:35 AM
So no Africans are white people?
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Bob on June 04, 2010, 11:12:53 AM
So no Africans are white people?

Pik Botha dislikes this.

(http://www.southafrica.to/history/Apartheid/PW_Botha/PW_Botha_finger_pointing.jpg)
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Tripe on June 04, 2010, 11:20:34 AM
Sort of looks like Larry David, I never noticed that.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Sideswipe on June 04, 2010, 11:23:20 AM
Sharlto Copley is upset as well

(http://blogs.coventrytelegraph.net/thegeekfiles/Sharlto%20Copley.jpg)
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Bob on June 04, 2010, 11:23:53 AM
Sort of looks like Larry David, I never noticed that.

"The Larry David and Pik Botha Show" would be a very good HBO show.   Think of how much fun Pik would have with Richard Lewis and Wynda Sykes.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Kete on June 04, 2010, 01:20:21 PM
Yul Brynner is black, right?

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/66/Yul_Brynner_in_The_Ten_Commandments_film_trailer.jpg/175px-Yul_Brynner_in_The_Ten_Commandments_film_trailer.jpg)
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Bob on June 04, 2010, 01:54:19 PM
Yul Brynner is black, right?

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/66/Yul_Brynner_in_The_Ten_Commandments_film_trailer.jpg/175px-Yul_Brynner_in_The_Ten_Commandments_film_trailer.jpg)

Countdown until someone posts an Al Jolson photo in 3..........2...........
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: warofthebees on June 04, 2010, 06:57:20 PM
Yul Brynner is black, right?

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/66/Yul_Brynner_in_The_Ten_Commandments_film_trailer.jpg/175px-Yul_Brynner_in_The_Ten_Commandments_film_trailer.jpg)

Countdown until someone posts an Al Jolson photo in 3..........2...........

Get with the times:
(http://assets.nydailynews.com/img/2008/08/14/alg_robertdowneyjr.jpg)
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: ScottotD on June 04, 2010, 07:19:57 PM
Yul Brynner is black, right?

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/66/Yul_Brynner_in_The_Ten_Commandments_film_trailer.jpg/175px-Yul_Brynner_in_The_Ten_Commandments_film_trailer.jpg)

Countdown until someone posts an Al Jolson photo in 3..........2...........

Get with the times:
(http://assets.nydailynews.com/img/2008/08/14/alg_robertdowneyjr.jpg)

That's different, he's not a white guy playing a black guy.  He's playing a white guy playing a black guy.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: MSTJedi on June 04, 2010, 07:26:03 PM
That's different, he's not a white guy playing a black guy.  He's playing a white guy playing a black guy.

"I'm the dude playin' the dude, disguised as another dude!"

Sorry . . . couldn't resist.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: a pretty girl is like on July 01, 2010, 05:38:36 PM
Here's our new Spider-Man:

http://www.deadline.com/2010/07/soni-pictures-selects-new-spider-man/#more-51361

Skinny and gangly is closer to Ditko's drawings than Tobey Maguire's short and doe eyed.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Darth Geek on July 01, 2010, 06:21:32 PM
Here's our new Spider-Man:

http://www.deadline.com/2010/07/soni-pictures-selects-new-spider-man/#more-51361

Skinny and gangly is closer to Ditko's drawings than Tobey Maguire's short and doe eyed.
Well, he's no high schooler, that's for sure. But given everything else on this project, I think the casting may not be what sink this.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: bratpop on July 02, 2010, 05:33:31 AM
Damn, I was really hoping they'd cast someone a lot more douchebaggy and British, the way I always imagined Spider-Man. OH WELL.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: a pretty girl is like on July 02, 2010, 08:27:53 AM
Damn, I was really hoping they'd cast someone a lot more douchebaggy and British, the way I always imagined Spider-Man. OH WELL.

Have you seen The Tedium of Doctor Parnasus?  He's very very very douchebaggy in that.  His douchebaggery contributed to Heath Ledger's death.  Allegedly.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Plastic Self-Cleaning Duck on July 02, 2010, 01:54:51 PM
Isn't Christian Bale a Brit, too?
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Relaxing Dragon on July 02, 2010, 02:10:16 PM
Isn't Christian Bale a Brit, too?

I believe he's Welsh. Same thing, right?
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: mearnest on July 02, 2010, 09:50:48 PM
Isn't Christian Bale a Brit, too?

I believe he's Welsh. Same thing, right?
Close enough.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: ScottotD on July 03, 2010, 03:34:03 AM
Isn't Christian Bale a Brit, too?

I believe he's Welsh. Same thing, right?
Close enough.

You Canadians  ;)
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Tripe on July 03, 2010, 06:14:50 AM
Isn't Christian Bale a Brit, too?
I believe he's Welsh. Same thing, right?
Close enough.
You Canadians  ;)
Nope, being Welsh does make somebody British, it doesn't make somebody English but it does make them British. Unless they're really bolshie about it, which I get the feeling Bale isn't. Not all the Welsh are all that keen on the nationalism, Dylan Thomas springs to mind for example.

It's interesting to see that the thing in most of the responses above is the common confusion by which people think British = English, it doesn't.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: ScottotD on July 03, 2010, 07:07:01 AM

It's interesting to see that the thing in most of the responses about is the common confusion by which people think British = English, it doesn't.

Interesting how exactly?
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: MSTJedi on July 03, 2010, 10:02:03 AM

It's interesting to see that the thing in most of the responses about is the common confusion by which people think British = English, it doesn't.

Interesting how exactly?

The same way most "Americans" think the U.S. is the only country in North America.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Bob on July 03, 2010, 10:10:11 AM

It's interesting to see that the thing in most of the responses about is the common confusion by which people think British = English, it doesn't.

Interesting how exactly?

The same way most "Americans" think the U.S. is the only country in North America.

Well, the only one that matters at any rate.   :D
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: CrowTeeRobot on May 02, 2011, 10:38:02 AM
Ladies and gentlemen, here's our Peter Parker.

(http://media.comicbookmovie.com/images/users/uploads/10300/spl273626_001-wm900-361x560.jpg)

Fucking Twilight hair...

On the other hand, Gwen Stacey is lookin' mighty fine!
(http://cdn.imnotobsessed.com/wp-content/uploads/emma-stone-golden-globe-nomination-1214-7.jpg)

And I don't like the new costume much.
(http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y87/Tsuyosa18/spidermansetpicsfeb4a5.jpg)
Blackened crotch? WTF?
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: MSTJedi on May 02, 2011, 11:08:24 AM
Please tell me that's not the costume . . . come on, people!
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Tripe on May 02, 2011, 11:19:25 AM
On the other hand, Gwen Stacey is lookin' mighty fine!
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
She'll have red hair again right, like in Easy A? Jobs a goodun. :)
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Doctor Who? on May 02, 2011, 11:25:18 AM
Ladies and gentlemen, here's our Peter Parker.

(http://media.comicbookmovie.com/images/users/uploads/10300/spl273626_001-wm900-361x560.jpg)

Fucking Twilight hair...

On the other hand, Gwen Stacey is lookin' mighty fine!
(http://cdn.imnotobsessed.com/wp-content/uploads/emma-stone-golden-globe-nomination-1214-7.jpg)

And I don't like the new costume much.
(http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y87/Tsuyosa18/spidermansetpicsfeb4a5.jpg)
Blackened crotch? WTF?

I have finally seen something that is just as stupid as the Batnipples.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: CrowTeeRobot on May 02, 2011, 11:30:57 AM
On the other hand, Gwen Stacey is lookin' mighty fine!
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
She'll have red hair again right, like in Easy A? Jobs a goodun. :)
Gwen Stacey, not Mary Jane there, Tripe.  ;)

Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Tripe on May 02, 2011, 11:34:04 AM
I don't know I've never read a Spiderman comic in my life, barely even watched the films, he's kind of boring as superheroes go, I simply remember foxy redheads. ;)

So again we'll have somebody who looks lovely with red hair having to flounce about with blond tresses instead, sigh.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Sideswipe on May 02, 2011, 11:50:20 AM
That cant be the costume.  That looks like some piece of shit costume someone made at home for comic con.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Scribblesense on May 02, 2011, 12:10:32 PM
That cant be the costume.  That looks like some piece of shit costume someone made at home for comic con.

That's the real thing. Here's an "official" photo:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Man I hope this movie bombs so Sony will give the rights back to Marvel.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Sideswipe on May 02, 2011, 12:20:20 PM
Fuck thats a terrible costume.  If they can't even afford a decent looking suit, I have a feeling there is going to be Spider-Man musical level webslinging in this movie.  Marvel is going to have to reboot this reboot.

he's kind of boring as superheroes go

He's just blandly written in the movies.  Watch some of Fox's old 90's Spider-Man animated show.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Tripe on May 02, 2011, 12:23:26 PM
No I've found him boring since the comic books, he just doesn't interest me as a character. :)
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Johnny Unusual on May 02, 2011, 06:37:01 PM
Ladies and gentlemen, here's our Peter Parker.

(http://media.comicbookmovie.com/images/users/uploads/10300/spl273626_001-wm900-361x560.jpg)

Fucking Twilight hair...

If I was told that was a picture of Harry Osborn after he joined a shoegazer band, then I might buy it.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Scribblesense on May 02, 2011, 07:32:22 PM
If I was told that was a picture of Harry Osborn after he joined a shoegazer band, then I might buy it.

The hell's a shoegazer?

Also, I just noticed he's holding a skateboard.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

If this movie is trying to bring back the 90's love for skateboarding and/or all things EXTREME, I am okay with this. Maybe I'll actually learn to skate this time around...
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Tripe on May 02, 2011, 07:37:46 PM
If I was told that was a picture of Harry Osborn after he joined a shoegazer band, then I might buy it.

The hell's a shoegazer?
It's a commonwealth term (thought it was just British but I guess it's known in Canada too), it means a kind of Artsy Alt Rock all psychedelia and walls of sound with the members of the band staring at the floor while on stage.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Johnny Unusual on May 02, 2011, 08:20:02 PM
Though doing some research, I'm wondering if I'm mixing up shoegazing with college rock.  There's probably some overlap and I imagine a lot of shoegazing with a lot of those groups.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: iv3rdawG on July 20, 2011, 12:52:32 PM
Trailer:

http://www.youtube.com/v/XxjrCF5_cfY?version=3&hl=en_US
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Darth Geek on July 20, 2011, 04:20:38 PM
I like the trailer, although I am just dissapointed that it is YET ANOTHER origin story.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Scribblesense on July 20, 2011, 05:48:42 PM
Suddenly we're playing Mirror's Edge?

Also, nothing about that trailer I liked. I don't like that Pete looks brooding and moody and "misunderstood", I don't like that they seem to be setting something up with his parents (unless they're just emphasizing them to get extra views, which I wouldn't doubt), I don't like that stupid green title card they have at the beginning. Appropriate Audiences be damned! :angry:

Not looking forward to this.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: sarcasm_made_Easy on July 20, 2011, 06:09:25 PM
Man im am with ya there.  Everything you said i got to ditto.  stupid whiny emo thingy, plus the mirrors edge CRAPPY cgi what was with that
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Sideswipe on July 20, 2011, 06:24:56 PM
how long do you guys think before this reboot gets rebooted?
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: D.B. Barnes on July 20, 2011, 06:30:09 PM
how long do you guys think before this reboot gets rebooted?

I'm waiting for Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark to be made into the biggest box office bomb since The Adventures of Pluto Nash.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Dim of the Yard on July 20, 2011, 06:39:03 PM
I don't know, it may be interesting. It looks like it's going to be taken a lot more seriously than the Sam Raimi creations were. I'm not actually entirely sure how I feel about it. But it does mean I'm totally going to expect a Gwen Stacey neck-snapping scene here.

Also, I'm shaking a teeny, tiny fist of rage that "With great power comes great responsibility" was not used. I get upset over the dumbest things.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: doggans on July 20, 2011, 08:17:12 PM
The first-person portion gave me horrible, horrible flashbacks to the "Doom" movie.

That said, I actually wouldn't mind seeing that in 3D.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: mrbasehart on July 20, 2011, 09:30:25 PM
Suddenly we're playing Mirror's Edge?

Also, nothing about that trailer I liked. I don't like that Pete looks brooding and moody and "misunderstood", I don't like that they seem to be setting something up with his parents (unless they're just emphasizing them to get extra views, which I wouldn't doubt), I don't like that stupid green title card they have at the beginning. Appropriate Audiences be damned! :angry:

Not looking forward to this.

IIRC, in the comics they turned out to be agents of SHIELD.  I doubt if they could actually use that, but perhaps they're hinting at it. 

And the Mirror's Edge thing was the first thing I thought of when I saw it. 

I can't tell if I like it at the moment, but it does seem to have a whole lot of serious injected into it. 
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Russell on July 20, 2011, 11:10:33 PM
Suddenly we're playing Mirror's Edge?
I thought the exact same goddamn thing watching the trailer. Also, something about the textures
of the buildings made the whole thing look kinda fake... dunno what that's all about
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: sarcasm_made_Easy on July 20, 2011, 11:12:25 PM
im wondering if its supposed to look awesome in 3d or something.  Although if thats true, that just might top cloverfield for vomit inducing. 
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Doctor Who? on July 21, 2011, 04:40:21 AM
That was a trailer for a new video game and the next Twilight movie not Spiderman,right?

Wow and I thought Rami's movies had too much angst.  Between that and the fact that this is an origin story there is no way I am seeing this movie.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Dim of the Yard on July 21, 2011, 07:32:56 AM
im wondering if its supposed to look awesome in 3d or something.  Although if thats true, that just might top cloverfield for vomit inducing. 

Yeah, that bit seemed absolutely catered to the 3D movie thing. Shame, because I actively make it a point not to see 3D movies (my head has enough problems without 3D screwing things up more).
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Kete on July 21, 2011, 09:19:23 AM
Personally, I think a reboot and a new origin story are dumb ideas, but Marc Webb's last movie (500 Days of Summer) was an amazing movie.  I'll give him the benefit of the doubt until I see this show.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: ScottotD on July 22, 2011, 04:24:38 AM
What percentage of trailers have unfinished CG?
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Bob on July 22, 2011, 04:51:22 AM
What percentage of trailers have unfinished CG?

Was this really an official completed trailer?    Because if it was, this convinced me to not even Netflix it.

It looks like crap on toast.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: ScottotD on July 22, 2011, 05:49:57 AM
So don't watch it, problem solved.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Bob on July 22, 2011, 05:51:10 AM
So don't watch it, problem solved.

Well, I am allowed to watch the trailer and determine for myself if the trailer looks horrible.

Problem solved.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Doctor Who? on July 22, 2011, 06:51:46 AM
I love it when people get full of themselves and act like not saying a movie looks bad makes them better then people who say a movie looks bad.

I mean it if saying a movie is bad makes someone a bad person why even have this section.  Couldn't we just save save a lot of bandwidth for Rifftrax but just having a banner at the top of the forum that says "all movies are good and if you don't like a movie just don't see it,no need to say you didn't like it or why",seems to me that would save a lot of money for Rifftrax since it is wrong to say a movie is or looks bad.

How are we supposed to debate movies if we are only allowed to talk about movies we like?
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: doggans on July 22, 2011, 07:00:57 AM
Was this really an official completed trailer? 

Well, it was a Comic-Con trailer, so God only knows how "complete" it was.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: ScottotD on July 22, 2011, 07:13:41 AM
So don't watch it, problem solved.

Well, I am allowed to watch the trailer and determine for myself if the trailer looks horrible.

Problem solved.

Well, I am allowed.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Bob on July 22, 2011, 07:17:57 AM
So don't watch it, problem solved.

Well, I am allowed to watch the trailer and determine for myself if the trailer looks horrible.

Problem solved.

Well, I am allowed.

I'm German-Irish myself.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: ScottotD on July 22, 2011, 07:26:27 AM
Sorry, I thought we were quoting each other randomly
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Russell on July 22, 2011, 12:04:25 PM
Sorry, I thought we were quoting each other randomly
Scott, if the effects are unfinished, the last thing you want to do is put them in the trailer
because the trailer is probably the most important aspect of movie marketing, it's the
thing that makes people WANT to see the movie. Granted, they might have wanted to
get a jump on the advertising, but if it's not finished, don't do it! It's like having a trailer
where you can see the green screen in the background. It may not be as obvious, but
it looks just as fake.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Kete on July 22, 2011, 12:35:03 PM
Sorry, I thought we were quoting each other randomly
Scott, if the effects are unfinished, the last thing you want to do is put them in the trailer
because the trailer is probably the most important aspect of movie marketing, it's the
thing that makes people WANT to see the movie. Granted, they might have wanted to
get a jump on the advertising, but if it's not finished, don't do it! It's like having a trailer
where you can see the green screen in the background. It may not be as obvious, but
it looks just as fake.

Like this?:
https://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=10150326323406807&oid=141884481557&comments
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Russell on July 22, 2011, 12:50:04 PM
Like this?:
https://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=10150326323406807&oid=141884481557&comments
Funny, but I think you're missing my point. There's a difference between behind the scenes
footage and a movie trailer. In behind the scenes videos, it's in theory okay to have unfinished
effects, hence the words "behind the scenes". However, it's not okay for a Trailer, because above
all, a trailer is supposed to make you believe in the experience, that it's more than a movie, and in
the case of the trailer for the Amazing Spider-Man, more then a something that looks like a damn
video game. 
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Kete on July 22, 2011, 12:54:11 PM
Like this?:
https://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=10150326323406807&oid=141884481557&comments
Funny, but I think you're missing my point. There's a difference between behind the scenes
footage and a movie trailer. In behind the scenes videos, it's in theory okay to have unfinished
effects, hence the words "behind the scenes". However, it's not okay for a Trailer, because above
all, a trailer is supposed to make you believe in the experience, that it's more than a movie, and in
the case of the trailer for the Amazing Spider-Man, more then a something that looks like a damn
video game. 

I'm just giving you a hard time.  I agree, there's a difference.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Russell on July 22, 2011, 01:02:14 PM
I'm just giving you a hard time.  I agree, there's a difference.
that's okay, sometimes I never know for sure what's going on on this forum. :D
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Bob on July 22, 2011, 01:16:23 PM
I'm just giving you a hard time.  I agree, there's a difference.
that's okay, sometimes I never know for sure what's going on on this forum. :D

Thats cuz your an Moran
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Russell on July 22, 2011, 01:17:47 PM
Thats cuz your an Moran
Who's Ann Moran? Relative of Gwen Stacy?
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: doggans on July 22, 2011, 08:49:46 PM
Scott, if the effects are unfinished, the last thing you want to do is put them in the trailer

While I agree that it's a bad idea, it's something that studios do all the time.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: sarcasm_made_Easy on July 22, 2011, 08:51:07 PM
example?
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Rainbow Dash on July 22, 2011, 09:15:52 PM
Looks good, though i was totally OK with them abandoning the web shooters in the Rami-verse.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: ScottotD on July 22, 2011, 09:56:31 PM
Scott, if the effects are unfinished, the last thing you want to do is put them in the trailer

While I agree that it's a bad idea, it's something that studios do all the time.

That's what I meant.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: mrbasehart on July 23, 2011, 03:05:57 AM
example?

Ang Lee's Hulk had unfinished CGI in its trailers, which was pretty damning because they were of the Hulk itself.  The Mummy Returns certainly had unfinished CGI in its trailers, because it had unfinished CGI in its film.  :)
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Doctor Who? on July 23, 2011, 04:08:16 AM
I have to say I thought the CG in the finished HULK movie looked unfinished.  Well at least there wasn't much of it in the movie.  I mean the film is like 18 hours long and he does not hulk out until hour 15.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Bob on July 23, 2011, 04:46:02 AM
I mean the film is like 18 hours long and he does hulk out until hour 15.

* insert imagine of laughing face as icons do not work *
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Darth Geek on July 23, 2011, 07:29:08 AM
I have to say I thought the CG in the finished HULK movie looked unfinished.  Well at least there wasn't much of it in the movie.  I mean the film is like 18 hours long and he does not hulk out until hour 15.
As someone who watched that movie repeatedly extreeeeemely slowly to riff it, yes the effects did look unfinished and particularly rubbery in most of the film. With the exception of the desert sequence. He actually hulks out four times in that movie, so there is more Hulk action than you think, it's just the painfully boring slogs in between that make it seem like less.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Scribblesense on July 23, 2011, 06:22:29 PM
Rumor has it, half the crowd walked out on the Sony Pictures panel at Comic-Con today when they started showing previews for the new Spider-Man.

Hehehe.

Not that it will matter. If there's one thing the movie industry has learned, it's that the opinions of hardcore fans really don't affect how well your movie is going to do (see: Spider-Man 3, Transformers 1-3, Crystal Skull, Scott Pilgrim).
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: mrbasehart on July 23, 2011, 07:01:41 PM
Agreed.  I think the bigger question is: are people becoming tired of Spider-Man and of comicbook movies as a whole?
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Russell on July 23, 2011, 09:44:09 PM
I think that Spider-man is a very polarizing comic book hero. Honestly, at this point in my life it's hard for me to
sympathize with the whiny kid and the whole "With great power comes great responsibility" bullshit all over
again. Yeah, it's terrible your uncle Ben died, but unless the franchise is in the right hands, I believe there's
very little anybody can do with the Spider-man legacy besides the fucking obvious. I mean Jesus, Sam Raimi's
vision of Spider-man was about as formulaic as you can get. I know the series has it's fans, but when it comes
down to it, a man with the powers of a spider is much sillier and the idea of such can induce absolute apathy
in the masses then with other super-heroes.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: sarcasm_made_Easy on July 23, 2011, 09:49:35 PM
I dare you to find me a non silly hero.  you are so dared. 
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Russell on July 23, 2011, 09:52:26 PM
I dare you to find me a non silly hero.  you are so dared.  
PERHAPS I need to restate myself! Spider-man is SILLIER than the rest! Yes, Spider-man is
WAY sillier than Thor, Captain America, and the Hulk in Ang Lee's vision. Yes, Hulk leaping
insanely implausible distances is less silly then a Man shooting webs from his wrists and
going all emo and dancing around like some cockblocked, ninny fucktard from the Twilight
movies.

Now, as mediocre as Thor was, I still liked the character better then Spider-man. Mostly because
even without his powers, Thor was still willing to run into danger headlong, and even though that
is arguably stupid, it's also pretty damn heroic, much more in my opinion than Spider-man.

I admit, Spiderman 3 probably permanently colored my perception of the series, characters
and all subsequent reboots. I'll give you that much.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: CrowTeeRobot on July 24, 2011, 11:51:26 AM
http://www.youtube.com/v/G_nHhlBFs2k?version=3&hl=en_US

I'm glad to see that the guy who's playing Spider-Man has such a connection to the character, this actually makes me feel better about this movie than before I saw this clip.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Cosmic Muse on July 24, 2011, 04:15:47 PM
Agreed.  I think the bigger question is: are people becoming tired of Spider-Man and of comicbook movies as a whole?

I personally think it's nothing to do with the genre but the fact that they're rebooting Spider-man so soon after the last Raimi Spider-man movie.

Well that and that Welsh actor who plays The Lizard acting like a huge drunken wanker must not have been a positive motivation for the audience to stay.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Russell on July 24, 2011, 08:39:25 PM
Well that and that Welsh actor who plays The Lizard acting like a huge drunken wanker must not have been a positive motivation for the audience to stay.
How are they going to get all that liquor out of the Lizard though? Oh, I got it! They could
drain the lizard! :D
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Cosmic Muse on July 25, 2011, 05:58:19 AM
How are they going to get all that liquor out of the Lizard though? Oh, I got it! They could
drain the lizard! :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Frd53vbCHLg
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: gbeenie on July 25, 2011, 11:35:12 PM
http://www.youtube.com/v/G_nHhlBFs2k?version=3&hl=en_US

I'm glad to see that the guy who's playing Spider-Man has such a connection to the character, this actually makes me feel better about this movie than before I saw this clip.

Same here.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Johnny Unusual on July 31, 2011, 06:32:49 AM
I'm a little late to the criticism of the trailer, but this trailer doesn't look promising.  I think my biggest issue is that it just doesn't look fun.  Yes, Spider-Man is often an angsty character, but what a lot of people forget is that said angst is balanced with humour and a general sense of fun.  Now maybe the trailer just isn't putting that on there, but overall it isn't working for me.  I kind of hope they don't have some sort of "Peter's parents are secret agents" sort of thing.  In fact, any hint of them turns me off.  I'm not really a fan of the whole "Peter's parents were spies" angle from the comic, but at least in continuity it's generally easy to ignore in the comics since Aunt May is the central parental figure.

The other thing is the casting, a lot of which feels like weird stunt casting (if that's what it can be called).  Denis Leary as JJJ?  Putting aside the visual difference, it feels like the casting director said "who's famous for anger?" and somehow hadn't heard of Lewis Black.  Denis Leary as JJJ would be great... as an SNL sketch.  (Actually, it just occurred to me that he would make a good Hobgoblin).  Still, we haven't seen him in action yet so let's hope he does something interesting with it.  Also, Martin Sheen as Uncle Ben seems like the most dull choice imaginable...

Overall, it just seems to moody and bummery for Spider-Man and just looks totally uninteresting.  Maybe the next trailer will turn me around, but the first one was such a turn off.  Also, I also don't need another origin story, and I LOVE origin stories.

[quote}Not that it will matter. If there's one thing the movie industry has learned, it's that the opinions of hardcore fans really don't affect how well your movie is going to do (see: Spider-Man 3, Transformers 1-3, Crystal Skull, Scott Pilgrim).[/quote]

Granted, that's true (and you can add Kick-Ass to that list since it had insane buzz and marketing).  However, some of those movies linger on the public conscientiousness longer than others.  Maybe they never make all their money back, but Indy 4 seems rather ignored these days.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: mearnest on July 31, 2011, 12:31:50 PM
Um, Leary isn't playing JJJ.  He's playing Captain Stacy.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Doctor Who? on July 31, 2011, 05:15:22 PM
The most important question is who will play Bonesaw.  He is the heart and soul of Spiderman and if you don't cast him right the whole film will fail.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Bob on July 31, 2011, 05:35:45 PM
The most important question is who will play Bonesaw.  He is the heart and soul of Spiderman and if you don't cast him right the whole film will fail.

Lanny Poffo?
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: CrowTeeRobot on August 01, 2011, 09:59:32 AM
The most important question is who will play Bonesaw.  He is the heart and soul of Spiderman and if you don't cast him right the whole film will fail.

Lanny Poffo?

Brian Blessed.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: sarcasm_made_Easy on August 01, 2011, 10:02:10 AM
Arnolds Glorious return to cinema
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Kete on August 01, 2011, 10:11:09 AM
The most important question is who will play Bonesaw.  He is the heart and soul of Spiderman and if you don't cast him right the whole film will fail.

The "Black Machismo" Jay Lethal, of course:
(http://thepwnerd.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/jay-lethal.jpg)

http://www.youtube.com/v/Yu8MLbw5uQ4?version=3&hl=en_US
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Darth Geek on August 01, 2011, 10:44:22 AM
The most important question is who will play Bonesaw.  He is the heart and soul of Spiderman and if you don't cast him right the whole film will fail.

Lanny Poffo?

Brian Blessed.
YESSSSS! That would be awesome!
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: RoninFox on August 01, 2011, 12:10:20 PM
The problem with the Bonesaw question is that you're assuming the movie will want the fun of Bonesaw.  If the trailer is any indication they're going to replace the fun wrestling scene with something more intense and serious.  I expect the new Spider-man will enter the octagon at a UFC event and narrowly defeat Brock Lesnar with a combination of acrobatics and a soliloquy on the nature of pain.

(I am of course willing to rescind any and all sarcastic remarks when the movie actually arrives, at which time they will be replaced by more accurate sarcastic remarks, having no bearing on whether the movie is good or bad)
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Compound on August 01, 2011, 02:43:04 PM
The most important question is who will play Bonesaw.  He is the heart and soul of Spiderman and if you don't cast him right the whole film will fail.

They could go the "Turn off the Dark" route.

(http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/7389/bonesawisplastic.png)

Yes, that is an  inflatable pool toy. No, that's not a joke.

Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Johnny Unusual on August 02, 2011, 09:50:09 AM
Um, Leary isn't playing JJJ.  He's playing Captain Stacy.

Really?  Well, that's a relief.  I guess I can see him as Captain Stacy.  Wait, then who is playing JJJ?  It's a plum role.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Kete on August 02, 2011, 09:55:55 AM
I just assumed he was playing Willem Dafoe.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Darth Geek on August 02, 2011, 09:56:35 AM
Um, Leary isn't playing JJJ.  He's playing Captain Stacy.

Really?  Well, that's a relief.  I guess I can see him as Captain Stacy.  Wait, then who is playing JJJ?  It's a plum role.
Odd, IMDB doesn't have that listed in the new movie. Maybe isn't working for the paper yet, but you'd think they would at least have J Jonah Jameson reacting to the Spiderman news.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Relaxing Dragon on August 05, 2011, 12:06:27 PM
I hope you're all ready for Spider-Man 2 in 2014 (http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/news/amazing-spider-man-2-release-date.php):

Quote
With almost exactly 11 months to go before The Amazing-Spider Man hits screens in July, Sony is already staking its claim to May 2, 2014 to release the second installment.

An unnamed Sony executive told Deadline Downtown, “I think it speaks volumes about our confidence in what we are seeing on the new film and our desire to move quickly on the next installment.”
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Darth Geek on August 05, 2011, 03:23:55 PM
I hope you're all ready for Spider-Man 2 in 2014 (http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/news/amazing-spider-man-2-release-date.php):

Quote
With almost exactly 11 months to go before The Amazing-Spider Man hits screens in July, Sony is already staking its claim to May 2, 2014 to release the second installment.

An unnamed Sony executive told Deadline Downtown, “I think it speaks volumes about our confidence in what we are seeing on the new film and our desire to move quickly on the next installment.”
I think it speaks volumes about their bottomless stupidity. Even if this new Spiderman turns out good, or sucks but makes a lot of money, they should still wait till it comes out.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Russell on August 05, 2011, 03:53:31 PM
I think it speaks volumes about their bottomless stupidity. Even if this new Spiderman turns out good, or sucks but makes a lot of money, they should still wait till it comes out.
Oh Trust me... it's gonna suck. More Teenage angst about the death of Gwen Stacy at the hands of
Green Goblin/Venom/Hobgolins/Dr Octopus/Vulture/Electro/The Lizard, Just what we needed! It's not
like the first three had enough of that shit.

But... there is a possibility they could handle this right, as much as it loathes me to admit that. But
dammit, I want my superheros to be men, not emo-punk tards. but, a Tardis would be cool.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Relaxing Dragon on August 05, 2011, 04:10:19 PM
According to comments I've read about people from that Comic Con panel and the footage shown there, the rest of the movie is very different in tone than the trailer would have you believe (because really, it's a trailer. When have those ever been the final word on what a movie is actually like?).
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: mrbasehart on August 05, 2011, 04:13:03 PM
I hope you're all ready for Spider-Man 2 in 2014 (http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/news/amazing-spider-man-2-release-date.php):

Quote
With almost exactly 11 months to go before The Amazing-Spider Man hits screens in July, Sony is already staking its claim to May 2, 2014 to release the second installment.

An unnamed Sony executive told Deadline Downtown, “I think it speaks volumes about our confidence in what we are seeing on the new film and our desire to move quickly on the next installment.”
I think it speaks volumes about their bottomless stupidity. Even if this new Spiderman turns out good, or sucks but makes a lot of money, they should still wait till it comes out.

It might be for rights reasons.  Sony have to prove they're using Spider-Man or the movie rights go back to Marvel/Disney and maybe announcing a sequel clears the way for them to keep the character for a little while longer.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: gbeenie on August 05, 2011, 06:28:13 PM
I hope you're all ready for Spider-Man 2 in 2014 (http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/news/amazing-spider-man-2-release-date.php):

Quote
With almost exactly 11 months to go before The Amazing-Spider Man hits screens in July, Sony is already staking its claim to May 2, 2014 to release the second installment.

An unnamed Sony executive told Deadline Downtown, “I think it speaks volumes about our confidence in what we are seeing on the new film and our desire to move quickly on the next installment.”

More like, it speaks volumes about the fact that if they stop making these things, Sony's option on the character will expire, and it will disappear down the deepest hole Disney can dig for it, never to be seen again by anybody who isn't Disney.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Scribblesense on August 05, 2011, 09:02:20 PM
The most important question is who will play Bonesaw.  He is the heart and soul of Spiderman and if you don't cast him right the whole film will fail.

Lanny Poffo?

Brian Blessed.
YESSSSS! That would be awesome!

I just had a vision of Blessed bellowing "BONESAW IS REEEEEEEEAAAAAAADDDYYYYYYYYY!!!!"

If this were to happen, I would die a happy man.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Darth Geek on August 06, 2011, 01:21:22 PM
The most important question is who will play Bonesaw.  He is the heart and soul of Spiderman and if you don't cast him right the whole film will fail.

Lanny Poffo?

Brian Blessed.
YESSSSS! That would be awesome!

I just had a vision of Blessed bellowing "BONESAW IS REEEEEEEEAAAAAAADDDYYYYYYYYY!!!!"

If this were to happen, I would die a happy man.
It's a shame Blessed is getting up there in years. I would pay good money to see him in a superhero movie. Particularly Thor 2.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Doctor Who? on August 06, 2011, 03:04:47 PM
The most important question is who will play Bonesaw.  He is the heart and soul of Spiderman and if you don't cast him right the whole film will fail.

Lanny Poffo?

Brian Blessed.
YESSSSS! That would be awesome!

I just had a vision of Blessed bellowing "BONESAW IS REEEEEEEEAAAAAAADDDYYYYYYYYY!!!!"

If this were to happen, I would die a happy man.
It's a shame Blessed is getting up there in years. I would pay good money to see him in a superhero movie. Particularly Thor 2.

Yeah I was hoping he would be in Thor.  He really is a great actor,it's such a shame his most famous roles are the ones in comedies where he parodies himself.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Darth Geek on August 06, 2011, 03:11:04 PM
Yeah I was hoping he would be in Thor.  He really is a great actor,it's such a shame his most famous roles are the ones in comedies where he parodies himself.
He was supposed to be Odin for a little while. And then Anthony Hopkins got cast. Sorry, Hopkins, you're good, but you just can't compete with that. I was so dissapointed.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Russell on August 07, 2011, 09:44:10 AM
Brian Blessed, that man is hilarious.
http://www.youtube.com/v/Pa5L8YjsiSk?version=3&hl=en_US&rel=0
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Doctor Who? on August 07, 2011, 10:13:09 AM
Yeah he is but if you watch some of his Shakespear work or I Claudius you will see that he is also a great actor full stop.  I just wish he would get more big acting roles.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Darth Geek on August 07, 2011, 11:15:11 AM
He's definitely the kind of guy that if given a big noticable role again could be a go-to guy for roles. I'm thinking like Bill Nighy after Shaun of the Dead and Pirates of the Carriebean 2.

And to not have him be in a big budget Thor movie of all things is a real shame.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Doctor Who? on August 11, 2011, 05:42:56 AM
I saw the trailer again in front of Captain America and strange thing but the CGI did not look as fake as it did on Youtube.  Still think it is too soon for a reboot but at least it doesn't look awful.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: D.B. Barnes on December 13, 2011, 01:11:45 PM
(http://www.iwatchstuff.com/2011/12/13/amazing-spider-man-untold-story.jpg)

I kinda like the poster.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Darth Geek on December 13, 2011, 04:53:15 PM
It is a good poster. It feels like a comic book cover, too. Is it a direct reference to any of them?
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: D.B. Barnes on December 15, 2011, 11:04:59 AM
Stills 'n' stuff.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: anais.jude on December 15, 2011, 12:11:48 PM
Did they hire Denis Leary to be a Willem Dafoe lookalike?
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Russell on December 15, 2011, 02:02:51 PM
Did they hire Denis Leary to be a Willem Dafoe lookalike?
No but I heard they almost hired you because they considered you to be a Kirstin Dunst look-alike? ;)
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: anais.jude on December 15, 2011, 02:20:57 PM
Did they hire Denis Leary to be a Willem Dafoe lookalike?
No but I heard they almost hired you because they considered you to be a Kirstin Dunst look-alike? ;)

I didn't realize you saw me that time in the rain
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Russell on December 15, 2011, 02:23:45 PM
I didn't realize you saw me that time in the rain
Everybody else has to put on their Dunst cap. ;D
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: anais.jude on December 15, 2011, 02:34:32 PM
I didn't realize you saw me that time in the rain
Everybody else has to put on their Dunst cap. ;D

I hate puns

Did they hire Denis Leary to be a Willem Dafoe lookalike?
No but I heard they almost hired you because they considered you to be a Kirstin Dunst look-alike? ;)

I didn't realize you saw me that time in the rain

Careful, RVR will be here in a minute with his boner on.

HI HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Russell on December 15, 2011, 02:54:45 PM
I didn't realize you saw me that time in the rain
Everybody else has to put on their Dunst cap. ;D
I hate puns
it's okay because I'm really not that Punny.

Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: D.B. Barnes on December 15, 2011, 03:12:52 PM
I didn't realize you saw me that time in the rain
Everybody else has to put on their Dunst cap. ;D
I hate puns
it's okay because I'm really not that Punny.

You know what to do, K.C.

http://www.youtube.com/v/J---aiyznGQ?version=3&hl=en_US
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Darth Geek on December 15, 2011, 04:06:00 PM
I would be a lot more impressed with the suit if this hadn't come after the Sam Raimi movies that did it so perfectly.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: shodan on December 15, 2011, 04:38:56 PM
i hope madam web is in this one.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Russell on December 15, 2011, 09:52:15 PM
i hope madam web is in this one.
I'd much rather see them do Venom right. None of this emo Brock bullshit.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: sarcasm_made_Easy on December 16, 2011, 05:20:10 PM
I would much rather see a brand new spider-man villain that has never been done before. 
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: shodan on December 16, 2011, 05:32:49 PM
I would much rather see a brand new spider-man villain that has never been done before. 
thats going to be hard to pull off.

 actually Kraven would make a good villain for this movie.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Darth Geek on December 16, 2011, 08:29:35 PM
I would love to see them do Rhino really well. He might not be a great villain for the entire movie, though. Maybe one that Spidey fights at the beginning, or one who works for a mastermind type main villain.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: shodan on December 16, 2011, 08:50:12 PM
I would love to see them do Rhino really well. He might not be a great villain for the entire movie, though. Maybe one that Spidey fights at the beginning, or one who works for a mastermind type main villain.
Mysterio maybe?
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Darth Geek on December 16, 2011, 08:55:08 PM
I would love to see them do Rhino really well. He might not be a great villain for the entire movie, though. Maybe one that Spidey fights at the beginning, or one who works for a mastermind type main villain.
Mysterio maybe?
Somebody like that. I loved the theory that Bruce Campbell's character would become Mysterio.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Sideswipe on December 16, 2011, 09:10:38 PM
Wich one?  I hope it's the french waiter!
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Darth Geek on December 16, 2011, 09:13:09 PM
Wich one?  I hope it's the french waiter!
I think the theory was that it was one character and he was an actor and those were all side jobs.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Sideswipe on December 16, 2011, 09:15:53 PM
Well, Quinton Beck, Mysterio, was a special effects guy.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Henry88 on December 27, 2011, 03:45:57 PM
I would love to see them do Rhino really well. He might not be a great villain for the entire movie, though. Maybe one that Spidey fights at the beginning, or one who works for a mastermind type main villain.

in a perfect world it would be the kingpin
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: shodan on December 27, 2011, 03:48:53 PM
apparently he's not going to be spiderman for a large part of the movie, if at all. this is looking to be an all backstory prequel, people.
Quote
Peter Parker spends his days trying to unravel the mystery of his own past, until the day that he discovers a secret his father held that will ultimately send him down the path of becoming "Spider-Man"
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: RoninFox on December 27, 2011, 06:12:00 PM
I knew it. Peter's father had an affair with the radioactive spider, didn't he?
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Darth Geek on December 27, 2011, 06:16:06 PM
apparently he's not going to be spiderman for a large part of the movie, if at all. this is looking to be an all backstory prequel, people.
Quote
Peter Parker spends his days trying to unravel the mystery of his own past, until the day that he discovers a secret his father held that will ultimately send him down the path of becoming "Spider-Man"
Why am I getting a disturbing HULK vibe? This sounds like what they did in that movie, where it was the experiments the father did that made the accident have different effects than it normally would.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: shodan on December 27, 2011, 06:20:37 PM
apparently he's not going to be spiderman for a large part of the movie, if at all. this is looking to be an all backstory prequel, people.
Quote
Peter Parker spends his days trying to unravel the mystery of his own past, until the day that he discovers a secret his father held that will ultimately send him down the path of becoming "Spider-Man"
Why am I getting a disturbing HULK vibe? This sounds like what they did in that movie, where it was the experiments the father did that made the accident have different effects than it normally would.
it almost sounds like its taking part of the plot from the Ultimate spiderman game and universe where his dad was a biologist that inadvertently created (and was killed by) the venom suit.

or maybe (hopefully) they explore the fact that his parents were shield agents.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: RoninFox on December 27, 2011, 07:10:43 PM
apparently he's not going to be spiderman for a large part of the movie, if at all. this is looking to be an all backstory prequel, people.
Quote
Peter Parker spends his days trying to unravel the mystery of his own past, until the day that he discovers a secret his father held that will ultimately send him down the path of becoming "Spider-Man"
Why am I getting a disturbing HULK vibe? This sounds like what they did in that movie, where it was the experiments the father did that made the accident have different effects than it normally would.
it almost sounds like its taking part of the plot from the Ultimate spiderman game and universe where his dad was a biologist that inadvertently created (and was killed by) the venom suit.

or maybe (hopefully) they explore the fact that his parents were shield agents.

I doubt Sony is going to use anything Shield related, since that would be giving attention to a rival studio, what with Shield being the core of Disney/Marvel's Avengers movies.

It's a damn shame, and  I really wish we could get all Marvel's characters under one umbrella, but hey, whaddya gonna do.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: shodan on December 27, 2011, 07:18:47 PM
apparently he's not going to be spiderman for a large part of the movie, if at all. this is looking to be an all backstory prequel, people.
Quote
Peter Parker spends his days trying to unravel the mystery of his own past, until the day that he discovers a secret his father held that will ultimately send him down the path of becoming "Spider-Man"
Why am I getting a disturbing HULK vibe? This sounds like what they did in that movie, where it was the experiments the father did that made the accident have different effects than it normally would.
it almost sounds like its taking part of the plot from the Ultimate spiderman game and universe where his dad was a biologist that inadvertently created (and was killed by) the venom suit.

or maybe (hopefully) they explore the fact that his parents were shield agents.

I doubt Sony is going to use anything Shield related, since that would be giving attention to a rival studio, what with Shield being the core of Disney/Marvel's Avengers movies.

It's a damn shame, and  I really wish we could get all Marvel's characters under one umbrella, but hey, whaddya gonna do.
then it looks like they might be raiding the Ultimate universe and trying to pass it off as canon with the rest of the movies that were made.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Sideswipe on December 27, 2011, 07:32:53 PM
apparently he's not going to be spiderman for a large part of the movie, if at all. this is looking to be an all backstory prequel, people.
Quote
Peter Parker spends his days trying to unravel the mystery of his own past, until the day that he discovers a secret his father held that will ultimately send him down the path of becoming "Spider-Man"

I'm going to make a movie called Horses, Horses, Horses;  and not have a single horse in it.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Darth Geek on December 27, 2011, 07:58:11 PM
apparently he's not going to be spiderman for a large part of the movie, if at all. this is looking to be an all backstory prequel, people.
Quote
Peter Parker spends his days trying to unravel the mystery of his own past, until the day that he discovers a secret his father held that will ultimately send him down the path of becoming "Spider-Man"

I'm going to make a movie called Horses, Horses, Horses;  and not have a single horse in it.
How about a movie called Monter A-Go Go and there is no monster. NAH! That'd be stupid.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: James of LinHood on December 29, 2011, 05:10:12 AM
apparently he's not going to be spiderman for a large part of the movie, if at all. this is looking to be an all backstory prequel, people.

Based on the spoiler pics from the set that I've seen, he will definitely be Spider-Man in this movie, probably for at least the last third of the film.

I don't see this as a bad thing considering that Batman Begins didn't have Bruce suit up as Batman until halfway through the film.  And I love that movie.

I'm not saying one way or the other if this movie will be good or not.  I think it's way too early to tell that with any certainty.  But, I'm willing to give it a chance.  After all, if I had to choose between a Spidey Reboot or Spidey 4, I'd choose Spidey Reboot any day of the week.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: gbeenie on February 01, 2012, 09:32:14 PM
apparently he's not going to be spiderman for a large part of the movie, if at all. this is looking to be an all backstory prequel, people.
Quote
Peter Parker spends his days trying to unravel the mystery of his own past, until the day that he discovers a secret his father held that will ultimately send him down the path of becoming "Spider-Man"
Why am I getting a disturbing HULK vibe? This sounds like what they did in that movie, where it was the experiments the father did that made the accident have different effects than it normally would.
it almost sounds like its taking part of the plot from the Ultimate spiderman game and universe where his dad was a biologist that inadvertently created (and was killed by) the venom suit.

or maybe (hopefully) they explore the fact that his parents were shield agents.

I doubt Sony is going to use anything Shield related, since that would be giving attention to a rival studio, what with Shield being the core of Disney/Marvel's Avengers movies.

It's a damn shame, and  I really wish we could get all Marvel's characters under one umbrella, but hey, whaddya gonna do.

Give it time. I guarantee that Disney has a cadre of lawyers poring over all those contracts Marvels signed before the acquisition, looking for a way out.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: shodan on February 01, 2012, 10:14:23 PM
apparently he's not going to be spiderman for a large part of the movie, if at all. this is looking to be an all backstory prequel, people.
Quote
Peter Parker spends his days trying to unravel the mystery of his own past, until the day that he discovers a secret his father held that will ultimately send him down the path of becoming "Spider-Man"
Why am I getting a disturbing HULK vibe? This sounds like what they did in that movie, where it was the experiments the father did that made the accident have different effects than it normally would.
it almost sounds like its taking part of the plot from the Ultimate spiderman game and universe where his dad was a biologist that inadvertently created (and was killed by) the venom suit.

or maybe (hopefully) they explore the fact that his parents were shield agents.

I doubt Sony is going to use anything Shield related, since that would be giving attention to a rival studio, what with Shield being the core of Disney/Marvel's Avengers movies.

It's a damn shame, and  I really wish we could get all Marvel's characters under one umbrella, but hey, whaddya gonna do.

Give it time. I guarantee that Disney has a cadre of lawyers poring over all those contracts Marvels signed before the acquisition, looking for a way out.
plus they've probably got disney's head hooked up to a super computer doing the same thing.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Sideswipe on February 01, 2012, 10:16:13 PM
Everyone knows Disney's head is attatched to the body of a giant robot spider.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Russell on February 02, 2012, 01:54:52 PM
No that's Richard Nixon's head you silly sailor.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Russell on February 02, 2012, 01:59:52 PM
No that's Richard Nixon's head you silly sailor.
Hey no need to get nasty.  I think that silly sailor was uncalled for.
Well, I might let you down on Silly Sailor.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Smith Dr John Smith on February 02, 2012, 02:02:22 PM
No that's Richard Nixon's head you silly sailor.
Hey no need to get nasty.  I think that silly sailor was uncalled for.
Well, I might let you down on Silly Sailor.

The goggles,they do nothing!
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: shodan on February 02, 2012, 02:02:56 PM
No that's Richard Nixon's head you silly sailor.
i forget though, was it Churchill or lenin who was hooked up to a distillery?
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Russell on February 02, 2012, 02:05:11 PM
No that's Richard Nixon's head you silly sailor.
i forget though, was it Churchill or lenin who was hooked up to a distillery?
This is not a productive area of discussion.   :D
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Sideswipe on February 02, 2012, 02:11:57 PM
No that's Richard Nixon's head you silly sailor.

Soldier.  I was never in the navy.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Russell on February 02, 2012, 02:54:47 PM
Soldier.  I was never in the navy.
O i c. Then I guess.... Sir yes sir! Bet your life savings on BoneSaw, brother!
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: D.B. Barnes on February 07, 2012, 03:36:26 AM
http://www.youtube.com/v/-tnxzJ0SSOw?version=3&hl=en_US

Quote
OFFICIAL PLOT SYNOPSIS

The Amazing Spider-Man is the story of Peter Parker (Garfield), an outcast high schooler who was abandoned by his parents as a boy, leaving him to be raised by his Uncle Ben (Martin Sheen) and Aunt May (Sally Field). Like most teenagers, Peter is trying to figure out who he is and how he got to be the person he is today. Peter is also finding his way with his first high school crush, Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone), and together, they struggle with love, commitment, and secrets.

As Peter discovers a mysterious briefcase that belonged to his father, he begins a quest to understand his parents’ disappearance – leading him directly to Oscorp and the lab of Dr Curt Connors (Ifans), his father’s former partner. As Spider-Man is set on a collision course with Connors’ alter-ego, The Lizard, Peter will make life-altering choices to use his powers and shape his destiny to become a hero.


Emma Stone as a blonde is starting to grow on me. I still think it makes her look more generic than usual, perhaps even a bit older, but still as cute as ever. Sorry, I'm veering off track...SPIDER-MAN!
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Darth Geek on February 07, 2012, 09:33:01 AM
*sigh* The fact that they devote HALF of that synopsis, and entire paragraph, to Peter Parker's home life situation, and only say Spiderman in the last sentance...be afraid people.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: D.B. Barnes on February 07, 2012, 11:12:34 AM
It doesn't mention him opening a business with Tom Haverford?

 :D +50 REFERENCE POINTS


Here are some new Spidey photos:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)



Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: shodan on February 07, 2012, 11:30:01 AM
so it looks like they're going the web cartridges route.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Smith Dr John Smith on February 07, 2012, 11:39:10 AM
*sigh* The fact that they devote HALF of that synopsis, and entire paragraph, to Peter Parker's home life situation, and only say Spiderman in the last sentance...be afraid people.

Yeah Frank Miller said it best when he said 'I go to Superman movies to see Superman fly",Don't wast have the movie on the origin story.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Russell on February 07, 2012, 03:08:14 PM
I'm curious... when they reboot the series again in say... 8 to 10 years, will it then be called the Spectacular Spider-man?

I'm a little disappointed they're having Spider-man go up against ONLY one villain(The Lizard)... I mean at this point why not the Sinister Six? Dammit, it would be a nice juxtaposition to the Avengers movie.

For those not in the Know, the Sinister Six are Doctor Octopus, Mysterio, the Vulture, Electro, Sandman and Kraven
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: monstermoviefanchicknj on February 07, 2012, 03:42:23 PM
For those not in the Know, the Sinister Six are Doctor Octopus, Mysterio, the Vulture, Electro, Sandman and Kraven

They don't sound very sinister to me  Half those names sound like WWE wrestlers.  But then, I never read any "Spiderman" comics or seen any of the movies.  And probably won't see this one either.  I don't care for comic book movies.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Russell on February 07, 2012, 03:48:15 PM
For those not in the Know, the Sinister Six are Doctor Octopus, Mysterio, the Vulture, Electro, Sandman and Kraven

They don't sound very sinister to me  Half those names sound like WWE wrestlers.  But then, I never read any "Spiderman" comics or seen any of the movies.  And probably won't see this one either.  I don't care for comic book movies.
Well, they could change the Sinister Six up so they don't suck anymore. Like maybe add Demogoblin, Venom, Carnage? I'm not mentioning Hobgoblin because that's too notoriously associated with a certain MST3K classic.... Mitchell.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: ScottotD on February 07, 2012, 03:50:04 PM
For those not in the Know, the Sinister Six are Doctor Octopus, Mysterio, the Vulture, Electro, Sandman and Kraven

They don't sound very sinister to me  Half those names sound like WWE wrestlers.  But then, I never read any "Spiderman" comics or seen any of the movies.  And probably won't see this one either.  I don't care for comic book movies.

I find the term 'comic book movie' strange, nobody says "I don't care for play adaptions" ...well, I'm sure somebody has but you see my point.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: D.B. Barnes on February 07, 2012, 03:52:19 PM
Comic book movies are fucking stupid. They're made for a bunch of acne-scarred virgins who live in their parents' basements rolling up D&D characters and jacking off into jizz-encrusted tube socks surfing My Little Pony slash-fic.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Russell on February 07, 2012, 03:57:03 PM
Comic book movies are fucking stupid. They're made for a bunch of acne-scarred virgins who live in their parents' basements rolling up D&D characters and jacking off into jizz-encrusted tube socks surfing My Little Pony slash-fic.
Dude! Harsh! For the record, I am NOT Acne Scarred!  :D
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Relaxing Dragon on February 07, 2012, 04:50:55 PM
Comic book movies are fucking stupid. They're made for a bunch of acne-scarred virgins who live in their parents' basements rolling up D&D characters and jacking off into jizz-encrusted tube socks surfing My Little Pony slash-fic.
Dude! Harsh! For the record, I am NOT Acne Scarred!  :D

Yeah, and my parent's house doesn't have a basement. And... no, no, that's about it.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Russell on February 07, 2012, 04:53:36 PM
Dude! Harsh! For the record, I am NOT Acne Scarred!  :D
Yeah, and my parent's house doesn't have a basement. And... no, no, that's about it.
Oh well, at least I'll probably be able to move out within the next oh... fifteen years or so.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: D.B. Barnes on February 07, 2012, 05:03:19 PM
Comic book movies are fucking stupid. They're made for a bunch of acne-scarred virgins who live in their parents' basements rolling up D&D characters and jacking off into jizz-encrusted tube socks surfing My Little Pony slash-fic.

Wow. You've outdone yourself, sir!  Though I think this is the second jizz-encrusted tube sock reference.  Need to branch out!

 :D

Is it?!? Man, my material is as stale as a...fuck!
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: TeamRAD on February 07, 2012, 05:12:20 PM

Tonally, it's definitely darker than anything Raimi did, and I'm really liking the choice of Garfield the more I see of him.

I'm there.

Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Russell on February 07, 2012, 05:26:15 PM
Tonally, it's definitely darker than anything Raimi did, and I'm really liking the choice of Garfield the more I see of him.
Anyone else get the feeling Gwen Stacy is going down at the end of the movie? And I don't mean in a sexual sense.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Smith Dr John Smith on February 07, 2012, 05:28:51 PM
Yeah you see the problem for me is that I hate it when Spiderman tries to be dark,I like it best when it is fun and exciting.  If I want dark superheros I have Batman and Watchmen. I thought the Rami movies were a little too dark and lacked a sense of fun at times and this movie looks even darker.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Russell on February 07, 2012, 05:31:09 PM
Yeah you see the problem for me is that I hate it when Spiderman tries to be dark,I like it best when it is fun and exciting.  If I want dark superheros I have Batman and Watchmen. I thought the Rami movies were a little too dark and lacked a sense of fun at times and this movie looks even darker.
Yeah.... true. It's a pretty fine line to deal with because if you want to have legitimate drama sometimes you have to radically shift the tone of the film. That's the way I understand it anyway.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Smith Dr John Smith on February 08, 2012, 03:01:18 PM
Don't get me wrong I hope I am wrong but from the trailers i get the feeling this movie is taking it's Qs from The Dark Knight when I think the movie that it should be taking them from Iron Man.  Iron Man was an exciting movie that had a sense of danger but also didn't lose it's sense of fun. From the trailers it looks like this movie is going to be all doom and gloom with out a single joke or smile.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Russell on February 08, 2012, 03:45:59 PM
Don't get me wrong I hope I am wrong but from the trailers i get the feeling this movie is taking it's Qs from The Dark Knight when I think the movie that it should be taking them from Iron Man.  Iron Man was an exciting movie that had a sense of danger but also didn't lose it's sense of fun. From the trailers it looks like this movie is going to be all doom and gloom with out a single joke or smile.
Yeah. You could be very right.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: mrbasehart on February 10, 2012, 11:13:33 AM
Tonally, it's definitely darker than anything Raimi did, and I'm really liking the choice of Garfield the more I see of him.
Anyone else get the feeling Gwen Stacy is going down at the end of the movie? And I don't mean in a sexual sense.

No, because Emma Stone is getting really popular right now.  Killing her off for the rest of the possible franchise would be a little short-sighted. 

I really dig the new trailer - Garfield seems like he might actually pull off one thing that Maguire never could: be funny. 
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Russell on February 10, 2012, 04:50:21 PM
No, because Emma Stone is getting really popular right now.  Killing her off for the rest of the possible franchise would be a little short-sighted. 
I really dig the new trailer - Garfield seems like he might actually pull off one thing that Maguire never could: be funny. 
Interesting, because the death of Gwen Stacy was a VERY big plot point of the original Spider-man series. Like you said, they're probably saving it for the next movie.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: mrbasehart on February 10, 2012, 04:51:34 PM
No, because Emma Stone is getting really popular right now.  Killing her off for the rest of the possible franchise would be a little short-sighted. 
I really dig the new trailer - Garfield seems like he might actually pull off one thing that Maguire never could: be funny. 
Interesting, because the death of Gwen Stacy was a VERY big plot point of the original Spider-man series. Like you said, they're probably saving it for the next movie.

And Osborne kills her.  He's not in this one (at least, not the main villain), but I suspect he might if Spider-Man goes to a sequel.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Russell on February 10, 2012, 05:11:10 PM
No, because Emma Stone is getting really popular right now.  Killing her off for the rest of the possible franchise would be a little short-sighted. 
I really dig the new trailer - Garfield seems like he might actually pull off one thing that Maguire never could: be funny. 
Interesting, because the death of Gwen Stacy was a VERY big plot point of the original Spider-man series. Like you said, they're probably saving it for the next movie.
And Osborne kills her.  He's not in this one (at least, not the main villain), but I suspect he might if Spider-Man goes to a sequel.
True, I don't expect comic book movies to follow canon anymore simply for... well, obvious reasons.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: BBQ Platypus on February 11, 2012, 02:51:50 AM
I was talking to another guy in my section about this film the other day.  I was all "meh," but he's excited for it.  

But you know what he said one of the biggest, most significant reasons for his excitement was?  The fact that Peter's webshooters in this movie are mechanical instead of organic.

Seriously?  People really give a shit about how his fucking webshooters work?  So much that they would list it as a MAJOR selling point for the movie?

I hate fanboys so much.  (This is why I smack myself in the face with a rolled-up Doctor Who poster every morning).
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Smith Dr John Smith on February 11, 2012, 03:22:29 AM
I was talking to another guy in my section about this film the other day.  I was all "meh," but he's excited for it.  

But you know what he said one of the biggest, most significant reasons for his excitement was?  The fact that Peter's webshooters in this movie are mechanical instead of organic.

Seriously?  People really give a shit about how his fucking webshooters work?  So much that they would list it as a MAJOR selling point for the movie?

I hate fanboys so much.  (This is why I smack myself in the face with a rolled-up Doctor Who poster every morning).

Yeah i don't get that at all.  It seems to me that the webshooters are just a plot device any way,so that tension can be created by having Spiderman run out of webbing when he is falling.  I have to say I liked the movie version better where we didn't have to see him invent them and he didn't have to worry about stopping the battle to refill on webbing.  And I say all this as someone who read all the Spiderman comics when I was a kid.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: TeamRAD on February 11, 2012, 06:23:18 PM
Tonally, it's definitely darker than anything Raimi did, and I'm really liking the choice of Garfield the more I see of him.
Anyone else get the feeling Gwen Stacy is going down at the end of the movie? And I don't mean in a sexual sense.

No, because Emma Stone is getting really popular right now.  Killing her off for the rest of the possible franchise would be a little short-sighted. 

Too true.

No, because Emma Stone is getting really popular right now.  Killing her off for the rest of the possible franchise would be a little short-sighted. 
I really dig the new trailer - Garfield seems like he might actually pull off one thing that Maguire never could: be funny. 
Interesting, because the death of Gwen Stacy was a VERY big plot point of the original Spider-man series. Like you said, they're probably saving it for the next movie.

And Osborne kills her.  He's not in this one (at least, not the main villain), but I suspect he might if Spider-Man goes to a sequel.

...or take the bonkers route and have Ultimate Carnage take her out.  ;)

Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Sideswipe on February 11, 2012, 07:00:26 PM
as long as he bites her head off.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Russell on February 12, 2012, 10:29:57 AM
as long as he bites her head off.
Umm... Not even if this were rated R would that happen.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: D.B. Barnes on February 19, 2012, 10:22:37 AM
Ladies and gentlemen...Shia Ralphio!

http://www.youtube.com/v/CxCl_vUOHoA?version=3&hl=en_US
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: D.B. Barnes on February 19, 2012, 10:41:13 AM
"One time I waited outside a woman's house for five days just to show her how serious I was about wanting to drill her. Turns out, it was the wrong house. She loved the story anyway. We got to third base. Over the pants."

Where is that damn "Like" button?!?
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Raefire on May 03, 2012, 04:44:13 PM
Well, shit...

http://www.youtube.com/v/vHtwfBvq5Mw&hd=1

From the looks of it, it seems like they're eschewing origin story stuff. That would be nice.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: MontyServo on May 03, 2012, 04:54:34 PM
Well, shit...
From the looks of it, it seems like they're eschewing origin story stuff. That would be nice.

Not going to watch the trailer since I plan on seeing it anyway and trailers tend to give away too much. (Case in point...  The red band trailer for MacGruber had every single laugh out loud moment from that film, making watching the actual film quite a chore.) 

Anyway, sounds good that they are going to skip the standard origin stuff and just get on with it.

Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Starman! on May 03, 2012, 05:30:54 PM
I'll be honest, I'm not really looking forward to this film since I love Raimi's films too much (even the third one). I grew up with the first film.

Sorry if this question is obvious, but are they going with the "Spidey makes his webs and shoots them out of a little gun thing" method like in the comics? I hope so.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Darth Geek on May 03, 2012, 05:35:05 PM
Yes. Spidey has mechanical webshooters in this one.

I am liking the look of the movie more now. But balking at the whole "his parents have something to do with Spiderman" thing going on here. It feels like bad retconning of the history, to me.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Smith Dr John Smith on May 03, 2012, 06:36:00 PM
Yes. Spidey has mechanical webshooters in this one.

I am liking the look of the movie more now. But balking at the whole "his parents have something to do with Spiderman" thing going on here. It feels like bad retconning of the history, to me.

Yeah it sounds like they are going with the bad retconing that happened in the comics in the 90s.  I never had a problem with the movie version of webbing,I mean it makes more sense that he just makes it himself then he some how magicly knows how to mix up cans of webbing just because a spider bit him.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: doggans on May 03, 2012, 06:40:06 PM
I mean it makes more sense that he just makes it himself then he some how magicly knows how to mix up cans of webbing just because a spider bit him.

His webbing had nothing to do with his spider bite; it had to do with his major. Because only a science major could create a device like that.

(http://schwanzerbergtells.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/spideys-web-02.jpg)
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Smith Dr John Smith on May 03, 2012, 06:45:18 PM
I mean it makes more sense that he just makes it himself then he some how magicly knows how to mix up cans of webbing just because a spider bit him.

His webbing had nothing to do with his spider bite; it had to do with his major. Because only a science major could create a device like that.

(http://schwanzerbergtells.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/spideys-web-02.jpg)

Still if the choice is between wasting time on a scene where he creates webshooters and just having him get webbing from a spider bite that gives him all his other powers then I would choose the later. It just seems like Rami's version was a better use of the film's screen time.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Darth Geek on May 03, 2012, 06:47:41 PM

Yeah it sounds like they are going with the bad retconing that happened in the comics in the 90s.
I thought the retcon had his parents involved with the developement of what became Venom, not Spiderman himself.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: doggans on May 03, 2012, 06:51:30 PM
Still if the choice is between wasting time on a scene where he creates webshooters and just having him get webbing from a spider bite that gives him all his other powers then I would choose the later. It just seems like Rami's version was a better use of the film's screen time.

BUT THEN HOW WOULD WE KNOW THAT HE'S A SCIENCE MAJOR?
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Smith Dr John Smith on May 03, 2012, 06:53:37 PM

Yeah it sounds like they are going with the bad retconing that happened in the comics in the 90s.
I thought the retcon had his parents involved with the developement of what became Venom, not Spiderman himself.

Well I have not read it in years but there was this whole thing I remember where his parents came back from the dead and it turned out they had something to do with the project that created the spider that bit him,it was all pretty stupid and I have not read them since I was a kid so I don't remember all the details except it was stupid.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Russell on May 06, 2012, 08:19:23 PM
What?! There are plenty of villains left to put in SM4!

(http://www.spidervillain.com/Villains/Kraven/KravenMU.gif)

Eh? Eh?

But yeah, they should stop at three. Don't think a reboot is a good idea at all, though.
His mother is named Marion Cravenwood.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: D.B. Barnes on May 15, 2012, 12:57:01 PM
Big Ol' Preview

http://www.youtube.com/v/16AwVWvjQhY?version=3&hl=en_US

The effects still look kinda funky to me. They're a bit videogamey.

Also, did the soundtrack do the whole WUB WUB WUB thing in the beginning?
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Henry88 on May 18, 2012, 03:49:48 PM
I do like the bit with Spidey giving the kid his mask....I like that moment a lot actually.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Starman! on May 18, 2012, 04:38:41 PM
I don't.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: BBQ Platypus on May 20, 2012, 09:24:20 PM
Odd that they should choose to include a scene that combines elements of setpieces from two of the Sam Raimi films - the bridge scene from the first one and the "mask off" train scene in the second.  Especially when they're going with the whole "This One Is Different!" angle.

I'd be just as unsurprised if the movie turned out to be good as I would be if it turned out to be a total stinkbomb.  But either way, I'm just not getting the overpowering urge to actually see it.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: ScottotD on May 20, 2012, 09:38:06 PM
I rewatched 500 Days of Summer the other day which has re-excited me for this, I think the trailer sets a nice tone too.

Maybe if they don't want to have to re-boot things they should sign the actors on for 4 movies but the directors on for 2? that way they won't make self-contained trilogies. 
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Relaxing Dragon on May 21, 2012, 09:51:00 AM
Or you'll just get the buildup for a trilogy and then a very weak finale (see: X-Men). As much of a debacle that Spiderman 3 was, I don't think a new director would've changed things. Not with how much the studio was interfering on it.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Nunyerbiz on May 21, 2012, 10:31:32 AM
I'd be just as unsurprised if the movie turned out to be good as I would be if it turned out to be a total stinkbomb.  But either way, I'm just not getting the overpowering urge to actually see it.

I'm expecting it to be a pretty decent movie... but I also have no real urge to see it... At least not until it can be had for $1 at Redbox. At some point, these rapid fire reboots run into diminishing returns in regards to my interest level.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Russell on June 09, 2012, 10:48:03 PM
If they're going to reboot the goddamn franchise(I realize it's way too late for an opinion like this), especially less than 5 years since the last Spider-man film, they better have a good reason. Unless you're going to deliver something on par with Batman begins... don't even friggin' bother. That's just my opinion though.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Raefire on June 10, 2012, 04:18:29 PM
Sony does have a good reason: So the film rights for the character don't revert back to Marvel.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: MSTJedi on June 10, 2012, 05:38:52 PM
Sony does have a good reason: So the film rights for the character don't revert back to Marvel.

There's money in them thar movie rights!
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Russell on June 10, 2012, 09:52:42 PM
Sony does have a good reason: So the film rights for the character don't revert back to Marvel.
If that's the impression I get from watching the movie I am going to walk right the fuck out and demand my fucking money back.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Pak-Man on June 10, 2012, 10:00:03 PM
I have a feeling we'd be talking about Spider-Man 4 if Raimi and MacGuire hadn't walked away from it. Reboot was about the only way more Spider-Man was going to happen.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: ScottotD on June 11, 2012, 01:29:21 AM
I think going into it expecting something on the level of Nolan's Batman movies is setting yourself up for a fall, leave your expectations at the door says I.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Russell on June 11, 2012, 07:25:08 AM
I think going into it expecting something on the level of Nolan's Batman movies is setting yourself up for a fall, leave your expectations at the door says I.
Le sigh. :(
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: gbeenie on June 11, 2012, 05:11:27 PM
Sony does have a good reason: So the film rights for the character don't revert back to Marvel.

There's money in them thar movie rights!

It's not just the money for one particular film. Once the rights to Spider-Man revert back to Marvel (which is now owned by Disney), they will NEVER be up for option again.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: gbeenie on June 11, 2012, 05:18:08 PM
I have a feeling we'd be talking about Spider-Man 4 if Raimi and MacGuire hadn't walked away from it. Reboot was about the only way more Spider-Man was going to happen.

What happened was, Raimi was originally gonna do it (I, for one, was eager to see him make up for Spider-Man 3), but was committed to make another film first. That would have put it being released too late to prevent reversion of the rights, so Sony said, "F.U., hippie," and started looking for talent to make a re-boot. I've got to give Sony some credit; at least they didn't go for a no-name hack to do some rush-job, and count on the name of the character to pull in an audience (*cough*GreenLantern*cough*)
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Johnny Unusual on June 11, 2012, 05:30:48 PM
Sony does have a good reason: So the film rights for the character don't revert back to Marvel.
If that's the impression I get from watching the movie I am going to walk right the fuck out and demand my fucking money back.

Theatres don't work that way.  You realize the theatre personnel's job isn't to make the movie, right?  If they didn't screw up, why should they owe you money?
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Raefire on June 11, 2012, 08:37:58 PM
I've got to give Sony some credit; at least they didn't go for a no-name hack to do some rush-job, and count on the name of the character to pull in an audience (*cough*GreenLantern*cough*)

To be fair, Martin Campbell isn't exactly a no-name hack, as Goldeneye, The Mask of Zorro and Casino Royale can attest.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: Russell on June 11, 2012, 09:34:57 PM
Theatres don't work that way.  You realize the theatre personnel's job isn't to make the movie, right?  If they didn't screw up, why should they owe you money?
Perhaps one of us mis-communicated, if it was me, i am sorry, but I'm pretty damn sure you know that's not what I meant.
Title: Re: Spiderman, Rebooted
Post by: D.B. Barnes on June 18, 2012, 02:23:40 PM
It would seem they're determined to release this entire movie bit by bit before it's released.

http://www.youtube.com/v/iyFZBdI7zlQ?version=3&hl=en_US

At this point, I'm not even sure I wanna see this as a rental. This guy kinda annoys me. I'll probably see it for reasons that involve blonde Emma Stone.