PDA

View Full Version : The Bombastic, Spectacular and just plain Amazing Spider-Man!



irenicObserver
2012-07-02, 07:41 AM
The Amazing Spider-Man is soon to be released in theaters. This is a thread to discuss it and the previous trilogy and a little bit of the mythos on the side.

I'm hopeful about it. I saw a MTV show where the critics considered it well-done (although one considered the atmosphere too edgy). I'm especially glad he's the same snarky guy I've come to know in just about every other media portrayal.

I've always enjoyed Spider-Man. I think he was concieved as a realistic take on the superhero's secret lifestyle? His rogues gallery was always pretty cool to me, if leaning a little heavily on the animal themed.

Ramza00
2012-07-02, 08:21 AM
You found my weakness ... it is small knives.

erikun
2012-07-03, 03:03 PM
Well I just came back from seeing it, and thought it was pretty good. Just to break things down (since I'm apparently the first one talking about it).

The Good Parts

The re-writing of Peter Parker turned out really well. I was a bit worried that, given the actor's appearance and attitude, that he wouldn't end up very Peter Parker. He is. Oh, he's certainly changed. But he still comes off as dorkish (although not because of being a science geek) and still runs into problems with bullies (although not for being smart).

He's still a science geek, it just isn't the big thing defining his character.

Uncle Ben is still here, and it was handled really well. It was far better than Peter joining a wrestling match and allowing a robber to get away - the core idea is still there, but the details aren't quite as silly.

There were also a couple of points that seemed to be a nod towards the older fans. For example,
Remember how Peter would frequently setup cameras and take pictures of Spiderman fighting badguys? Well, Peter in this movie gets the same idea - and it doesn't quite turn out as it does in the comics.

The Bad Stuff

Action scenes seem to have taken cues from Michael Bay's School of Cinematography. Thankfully, the shaky cam isn't used much (mainly for a few first-person running shots) but the movie sure does love the spinning action shots for when Spiderman is jumping around. Fights tend to be pretty good.

3D sucks in this movie. The movie continuously blurrs background and foreground objects, but the whole point of 3D is that you don't need to blur objects to convey them being closer or further away! I can understand it happening during important character moments, so that we know who to focus on, but especially panoramic shots should not need to blur close objects to point out that they are closer. :smallannoyed: This is the reason people aren't liking 3D, people!

Several things just seem to come out of nowhere. Namely,
Peter Parker just happens to develop web-fluid and puts together a device to shoot it. The containers look like something from Oscorp, but Peter acts like it's something he put together himself. The camera, above, is another example. He talks about needing to stop the Lizard, but then sets up the camera as if needing proof to exonerate his name.

I can't help but feel that there were supposed to be parts explaining these situations, but were dropped without bother to put the explanation somewhere else. Oops.

leafman
2012-07-03, 06:27 PM
I liked it, I think they did Spider-Man justice. There was enough humor and the right kind of humor to give the film the right tone in relation to the comics and they did a good job of placing it too.



Several things just seem to come out of nowhere. Namely,
Peter Parker just happens to develop web-fluid and puts together a device to shoot it. The containers look like something from Oscorp, but Peter acts like it's something he put together himself. The camera, above, is another example. He talks about needing to stop the Lizard, but then sets up the camera as if needing proof to exonerate his name.

I can't help but feel that there were supposed to be parts explaining these situations, but were dropped without bother to put the explanation somewhere else. Oops.

I'm not totally sure about the web fluid, they show Pete looking it up on the internet, and they showed the containers at Oscorp, maybe he stole some containers or at least the recipe for the fluid and some empty containers. I think his comment about making it himself was more about the webshooters than the webfluid though since the fluid was more of a repurposed existing thing.
The camera deal, if I am remembering correctly, was for a reward, the paper he looked at was offering a bounty for evidence of the Lizard.

Dr.Epic
2012-07-03, 06:52 PM
You found my weakness ... it is small knives.

Quick, glue all the small knives together to make a super large small knife. The type of knife Cloud Strife would use to butter his toast.

Candle Jack
2012-07-04, 03:29 PM
I've seen a lot of people, critics included, get stuck on the mechanical web shooters and I don't understand why. Granted, he could produce webbing naturally in the Sam Raimi series, but Spider-Man used web shooters for, like, 30 real-time years in the comics. I believe that most of the cartoons followed suit. :smallconfused:

Xondoure
2012-07-04, 03:39 PM
I've seen a lot of people, critics included, get stuck on the mechanical web shooters and I don't understand why. Granted, he could produce webbing naturally in the Sam Raimi series, but Spider-Man used web shooters for, like, 30 real-time years in the comics. I believe that most of the cartoons followed suit. :smallconfused:

You know what they say: one person's ignorance is another person's face palm.

Jayngfet
2012-07-04, 10:30 PM
I really liked this movie, especially how they showed how little a divide between Peter Parker and Spiderman there was. I mean as in, Peter Parker has a reason to put on the suit and when he takes it off he's still covered in the bruises and cuts he got fighting crime. It doesn't just bleed into his normal life or overtakes it so much as just becomes an extension of who he is.

I was a bit skeptical of the whole "skateboarding basketball" thing, but it really showed off peter's slightly rebellious nature while allowing the whole "with great power" thing to come through without being said word for word.


Well I just came back from seeing it, and thought it was pretty good. Just to break things down (since I'm apparently the first one talking about it).

The Good Parts

The re-writing of Peter Parker turned out really well. I was a bit worried that, given the actor's appearance and attitude, that he wouldn't end up very Peter Parker. He is. Oh, he's certainly changed. But he still comes off as dorkish (although not because of being a science geek) and still runs into problems with bullies (although not for being smart).

He's still a science geek, it just isn't the big thing defining his character.

Uncle Ben is still here, and it was handled really well. It was far better than Peter joining a wrestling match and allowing a robber to get away - the core idea is still there, but the details aren't quite as silly.

There were also a couple of points that seemed to be a nod towards the older fans. For example,
Remember how Peter would frequently setup cameras and take pictures of Spiderman fighting badguys? Well, Peter in this movie gets the same idea - and it doesn't quite turn out as it does in the comics.

The Bad Stuff

Action scenes seem to have taken cues from Michael Bay's School of Cinematography. Thankfully, the shaky cam isn't used much (mainly for a few first-person running shots) but the movie sure does love the spinning action shots for when Spiderman is jumping around. Fights tend to be pretty good.

3D sucks in this movie. The movie continuously blurrs background and foreground objects, but the whole point of 3D is that you don't need to blur objects to convey them being closer or further away! I can understand it happening during important character moments, so that we know who to focus on, but especially panoramic shots should not need to blur close objects to point out that they are closer. :smallannoyed: This is the reason people aren't liking 3D, people!

Several things just seem to come out of nowhere. Namely,
Peter Parker just happens to develop web-fluid and puts together a device to shoot it. The containers look like something from Oscorp, but Peter acts like it's something he put together himself. The camera, above, is another example. He talks about needing to stop the Lizard, but then sets up the camera as if needing proof to exonerate his name.

I can't help but feel that there were supposed to be parts explaining these situations, but were dropped without bother to put the explanation somewhere else. Oops.

Shakycam during brief running scenes is entirely appropriate IMO. It's kind of the whole point of shakycam afterall.

As well, I felt that being a Science Geek was a HUGE part of Pete's character. I mean like a third of the big scenes and a few little ones all rely on Peter having a working knowledge of biology and engineering to get by.

The pellets were made by Oscorp, the actual shooters themselves were something Peter came up with though.

The camera was because the police didn't believe him about The Lizard, or that the guy even existed. Obviously in case the guy snuck off or got away it'd be good to have proof that yes, he is real, and yes, he is dangerous, and that no, he's not allied with spiderman.

erikun
2012-07-04, 10:48 PM
I'm not totally sure about the web fluid, they show Pete looking it up on the internet, and they showed the containers at Oscorp, maybe he stole some containers or at least the recipe for the fluid and some empty containers. I think his comment about making it himself was more about the webshooters than the webfluid though since the fluid was more of a repurposed existing thing.
The camera deal, if I am remembering correctly, was for a reward, the paper he looked at was offering a bounty for evidence of the Lizard.
Yeah, the web containers looked like the ones at Oscorp, but we didn't see him swipe any of them. I'm fairly sure I would have remembered that. Manufacturing spider webbing based on what was likely an advertisement on the Oscorp website just wouldn't make much sense - people don't generally post formulas for stuff they sell online, even assuming they manufacture it rather than harvest it from genetic spiders.

We could say he analyzed the webbing from the spider he brought home, but Peter didn't seem to really understand the complexities of his father's work. Taking it and improving on it to create synthetic webbing just seems a bit much.

And I do recall the mention of a reward in the scene before that. Tricky. However, I didn't see anything in Peter's personality that would indicate him wanting to grab a quick buck out of the situation - it seemed more like he was emotionally broken up over the whole thing, so saying "I bet I can save him and make some quick cash!" just feels a bit off to me.


I've seen a lot of people, critics included, get stuck on the mechanical web shooters and I don't understand why. Granted, he could produce webbing naturally in the Sam Raimi series, but Spider-Man used web shooters for, like, 30 real-time years in the comics. I believe that most of the cartoons followed suit. :smallconfused:
It's probably the it's-not-like-it-was-before mentality. I've seen a lot of negative speculation and feedback on the movie simply because it wasn't based on the 2002 movie, and is yet another 'origin' story.

I wouldn't be surprised if some movie-reviewers weren't even familiar with Spiderman beyond the last three movies, and so made a point to mention the differences. (Note that I haven't read any reviews, and so don't know what they are saying.)

Jayngfet
2012-07-04, 11:55 PM
Yeah, the web containers looked like the ones at Oscorp, but we didn't see him swipe any of them. I'm fairly sure I would have remembered that. Manufacturing spider webbing based on what was likely an advertisement on the Oscorp website just wouldn't make much sense - people don't generally post formulas for stuff they sell online, even assuming they manufacture it rather than harvest it from genetic spiders.



I just assumed he like ...asked. I mean he kind of just saved their whole biotech division and isn't asking for money. Handing him off a case of something already ready and done would be really simple and easy for them.

Of course with the hours scientists pull and the number of people who know peter both has the pellets and is capable of building a delivery system, as well as realizing the webs come from the pellets, are very small.

CarpeGuitarrem
2012-07-05, 02:09 AM
Yes!!! I came out of this movie so pumped. In my opinion? They nailed Peter, Gwen, and...well...everything. Even did a pretty good job with The Lizard. Also, the city-zipping was a delight to watch.

Xondoure
2012-07-05, 03:42 AM
The scene with the cranes... why? Why was that necessary? Gah, this film had really bad pacing, and was otherwise brilliant. All I have to say really.

JoeMac307
2012-07-05, 03:28 PM
I've seen a lot of people, critics included, get stuck on the mechanical web shooters and I don't understand why. Granted, he could produce webbing naturally in the Sam Raimi series, but Spider-Man used web shooters for, like, 30 real-time years in the comics. I believe that most of the cartoons followed suit. :smallconfused:

I think it is closer to 47 out 50 years of publishing history that he's been using mechanical web shooters. The only times I'm aware of him using organic webbing were the few issues in the mid-80s when he wore the symbiotic black costume before he realized it was alive, and for a year or so between The Other and Civil War he had organic webbing, but that has gone away, especially post-OMD.

Raimun
2012-07-05, 10:16 PM
Saw this today, yesterday, whatever. First off, 3D was totally unnecessary. All I remember about that aspect of the movie were the bulky glasses that I had to put on top of my own glasses. That said, the film was still worth it.

The guy playing Peter Parker/Spider-Man was certainly different from the guy who played him before. This time Spidey was more edgy and unruly but strangely, also more intelligent (as in booksmart). Aside from building webshooters, his intelligence was plot relevant too. I also liked how he taunted his enemies during fights.

The supporting cast was definitely stronger this time. J.Jonah Jameson will be missed but Gwen Stacy was cool and so was her father. Bonus points for exploring Spidey's real parents.

The Lizard was actually better villain than I expected. At first I was sceptical if the one armed, "not-really-a-villain" Curt Connors would really be enough. I mean, he usually doesn't have a long term villainous plan and his power set doesn't seem that challenging to spidey. Fortunately, neither of the above was true this time. The film had the best portrayal of the Lizard ever.

The action wasn't really the strong point of the movie and I was more entertained during the more quiet parts. The three Spidey-films before were definitely more high flying and Spidey seemed to be more powerful even during the first one. This time, however, Spidey seemed more speedy but I think he used a little too much webbing in his fights. Perhaps they tried to really portray him as a starting superhero? Oh, and Stan Lee had perhaps his best cameo. :smalltongue:

Some impressions: "Isn't skateboarding so ten years ago?", "Best basketball ever!" and "Dude! Put the mask on!"

Overall, the movie did work as a whole. I liked it but it wasn't one of the best superhero movies I've ever seen. It might be that the Avengers just raised the bar so high.

erikun
2012-07-06, 01:01 AM
The scene with the cranes... why? Why was that necessary? Gah, this film had really bad pacing, and was otherwise brilliant. All I have to say really.
It was probably a counterpoint to Uncle Ben's death. Uncle Ben makes the point that not doing something you should, even when you don't want to, can lead to bad consequences. The cranes make the point that doing something you should, even when you don't want to, can lead to good consequences.

The whole scene was kind of hokey, but I guess it turned out okay.


Saw this today, yesterday, whatever. First off, 3D was totally unnecessary. All I remember about that aspect of the movie were the bulky glasses that I had to put on top of my own glasses. That said, the film was still worth it.
Ah, that does remind me. I took off my 3D glasses about 15 minutes before the end, and guess what? No 3D effects. Absolutely none. I slipped the glasses on and off a few times to double-check. It seems like nothing after the final fight was in 3D.

I have to wonder how much more of the movie didn't bother with 3D either. I get the feeling that it was just produced as a standard movie, and then they just threw in the effect afterwards to sell the movie in 3D.

Raimun
2012-07-06, 01:50 PM
Ah, that does remind me. I took off my 3D glasses about 15 minutes before the end, and guess what? No 3D effects. Absolutely none. I slipped the glasses on and off a few times to double-check. It seems like nothing after the final fight was in 3D.

I have to wonder how much more of the movie didn't bother with 3D either. I get the feeling that it was just produced as a standard movie, and then they just threw in the effect afterwards to sell the movie in 3D.

There was the final moment of the final webswinging scene. Though the point of that scene seemed to be: "Of course we have 3D! Look! Web coming towards you! BAM! The End!" :smallamused:

I don't know why I spoilered this. It's not really a spoiler that a Spidey-film will end this way.


3D is just a gimmick that's somehow a fad now. I don't think it adds that much to the movie going experience. Sure, sometimes it's neat when stuff seem to literally hover above the heads of the audience but those are rare.

SaintRidley
2012-07-06, 02:15 PM
3D is just a gimmick that's somehow a fad now. I don't think it adds that much to the movie going experience. Sure, sometimes it's neat when stuff seem to literally hover above the heads of the audience but those are rare.

3D works a lot better when it's adding depth to the film rather than popping things out into the crowd. Make it look like I can continue walking when I get to the screen and you're fine.

For all the laziness in Avatar's story, it pulled this off well. Brave seemed to do it too.

SmartAlec
2012-07-07, 02:33 PM
Yeah, the web containers looked like the ones at Oscorp, but we didn't see him swipe any of them. I'm fairly sure I would have remembered that. Manufacturing spider webbing based on what was likely an advertisement on the Oscorp website just wouldn't make much sense - people don't generally post formulas for stuff they sell online, even assuming they manufacture it rather than harvest it from genetic spiders.

When we first see the web-shooters being worked on, there's a cardboard delivery box with the Oscorp logo and name on the table. Given that Peter had previously been looking at some promotional material for the webfluid on the Oscorp site, I assumed he'd just put in an order and bought some, or applied for a free sample or something.


The camera, above, is another example. He talks about needing to stop the Lizard, but then sets up the camera as if needing proof to exonerate his name.

I didn't think it was about exonerating himself, but just getting proof that would give him something that could make Captain Stacy take the threat of the Lizard seriously.

Anarion
2012-07-07, 05:03 PM
Saw it a couple days ago. I have to say that I liked the portrayal of Peter Parker. I felt like they really caught him as a high-school student, whereas in the 2002 film it seemed like he was already too mature for being a starting hero.


When we first see the web-shooters being worked on, there's a cardboard delivery box with the Oscorp logo and name on the table. Given that Peter had previously been looking at some promotional material for the webfluid on the Oscorp site, I assumed he'd just put in an order and bought some, or applied for a free sample or something.



I didn't think it was about exonerating himself, but just getting proof that would give him something that could make Captain Stacy take the threat of the Lizard seriously.

If you look on the web add, it has some notes about the biological cables being stronger than steel and still light, and then we see him with the Oscorp boxes working on a device he can wear to make an effective delivery mechanism. Showing the failures also implied he spent a while working on it, so that seemed totally believable to me.

The camera I thought was sort of based on two points. The first was that he wanted to prove to the police that the lizard existed so they would go pull in Curt Connors (since he didn't know they were doing that anyway). Then, he saw that newspaper add offering a reward for evidence of the lizard and it gave him the idea of setting up a camera, which he otherwise might not have thought about.

SmartAlec
2012-07-07, 05:13 PM
If you look on the web add, it has some notes about the biological cables being stronger than steel and still light, and then we see him with the Oscorp boxes working on a device he can wear to make an effective delivery mechanism. Showing the failures also implied he spent a while working on it, so that seemed totally believable to me.

Oh yeah, the webshooters he made. You can see him using a wristwatch as a casing. I meant that he just bought the webfluid online.

Pheehelm
2012-07-07, 09:45 PM
I liked it all right. I thought the Tobey Maguire movie did a better job with the origin story, especially the awkward dorky pre-bite Peter Parker, but this one did pulled off some things it seemed like they couldn't figure out how to do before, like mechanical web-shooters and of course the obligatory Spider-snark. Actually that was kinda a letdown; there wasn't nearly enough snark, especially towards the end, and what they had felt kind of forced to me. I guess I could write that off as him still adjusting to his new persona.

Also, when was pre-bite Peter Parker ever cool enough to ride a skateboard?

All in all, I think I liked the old one better, but this one did fine.

TheThan
2012-07-07, 10:16 PM
Yes!!! I came out of this movie so pumped. In my opinion? They nailed Peter, Gwen, and...well...everything. Even did a pretty good job with The Lizard. Also, the city-zipping was a delight to watch.

Really? Cool.
I felt that they really bombed on Peter and Mary Jane in the Sam Raimi films (The rest of the cast? Awesome) but really, the two main characters failed at being Peter Parker and Mary Jane Watson.

TheLaughingMan
2012-07-08, 12:32 AM
Really? Cool.
I felt that they really bombed on Peter and Mary Jane in the Sam Raimi films (The rest of the cast? Awesome) but really, the two main characters failed at being Peter Parker and Mary Jane Watson.

I thought Toby Maguire did a good job as Peter Parker, but not Spider-Man, y'know? I'll concede Mary Jane, though.

As far as the new movie goes, my family kind of agreed that, while it has received good scores, it still seems far too redundant to waste hard-earned cash on. :/

Xondoure
2012-07-08, 02:22 AM
I thought Toby Maguire did a good job as Peter Parker, but not Spider-Man, y'know? I'll concede Mary Jane, though.

As far as the new movie goes, my family kind of agreed that, while it has received good scores, it still seems far too redundant to waste hard-earned cash on. :/

Well the important thing in my mind is that this film sets up future Spider Man films much better than the first one. I mean to start things off they have Gwen Stacy.

ThePhantasm
2012-07-08, 08:47 AM
Erm, why is Spider-Man "bombastic"? He uses pretentious language that's largely devoid of content in order to impress people?? :smallconfused:

Raimun
2012-07-08, 12:30 PM
Erm, why is Spider-Man "bombastic"? He uses pretentious language that's largely devoid of content in order to impress people?? :smallconfused:

The Bombastic Bag-Man! (http://marvel.wikia.com/Spider-Man's_Suits#Bag-Man)

irenicObserver
2012-07-08, 05:37 PM
Erm, why is Spider-Man "bombastic"? He uses pretentious language that's largely devoid of content in order to impress people?? :smallconfused:

:| that was rather acerbic don't you think?

ThePhantasm
2012-07-08, 06:38 PM
:| that was rather acerbic don't you think?

It was sour or bitter of me to ask a question about the thread title? Why?

JoeMac307
2012-07-08, 08:29 PM
It was sour or bitter of me to ask a question about the thread title? Why?

Because you accused the OP of being pretentious, but you already know that

Traab
2012-07-08, 09:02 PM
Stop acting like a disreputable tatterdemalion Phantasm!

How was JJ handled in this movie? I always thought he was a bit too corny and over the top in the raimi version.

The Glyphstone
2012-07-08, 09:09 PM
Because you accused the OP of being pretentious, but you already know that

Indubitably.

Dienekes
2012-07-08, 09:14 PM
I think we need to stop using these sesquipedalian words.

leafman
2012-07-08, 10:49 PM
Stop acting like a disreputable tatterdemalion Phantasm!

How was JJ handled in this movie? I always thought he was a bit too corny and over the top in the raimi version.

Uh he wasn't. I mean he wasn't in the movie at all. I was a little disappointed, but it's probably better off without him, at least until Pete starts looking for a job.

Also can we please keep the verbiage within the forum's vernacular? :smalltongue:

Traab
2012-07-08, 10:52 PM
Uh he wasn't. I mean he wasn't in the movie at all. I was a little disappointed, but it's probably better off without him, at least until Pete starts looking for a job.

Also can we please keep the verbiage within the forum's vernacular? :smalltongue:

I apologize for my verbosity, it must have appeared to lack verisimilitude. Also, too bad about JJ. He has the potential to be a really fun character. I just wanted to see if he was done better this time. Ah well, maybe next film.

ThePhantasm
2012-07-09, 03:46 AM
Because you accused the OP of being pretentious, but you already know that


Stop acting like a disreputable tatterdemalion Phantasm!

I didn't accuse the OP of being pretentious. You guys are misunderstanding me. The OP was saying Spider-Man is pretentious... he called him bombastic, after all. I was wondering why. I haven't seen the movie, and I thought "bombastic" was an oddly specific descriptor.

Let me rephrase my original question slightly: Why is Spider-Man "bombastic"? Spider-Man "uses pretentious language that's largely devoid of content in order to impress people"*? Or is there some joke here I'm missing?

*definition of bombastic

Iruka
2012-07-09, 03:54 AM
People occasionally use "bombastic" as a synonym for "grande", "spectacular" or "impressive".

I have used it this way before and wasn't aware that your definition is in fact the only one given by dictionaries.

ThePhantasm
2012-07-09, 07:09 AM
People occasionally use "bombastic" as a synonym for "grande", "spectacular" or "impressive".

Really? That's new to me. I guess that explains things if that's what the OP meant.

I was starting to think it was some allusion to Spider-Man's personality or something in the film. One of my friends said she thought Spidey came off as mean-spirited and kinda arrogant in some parts. But like I said, I haven't seen the film yet myself, so I wouldn't know.

MLai
2012-07-09, 08:50 AM
Objectively, if I don't think of Spiderman movies as "a comic book movie", this latest one is better than the old Spiderman 1. Because all the stupid, cliche, and "comic book" moments/scenes are removed or changed into storytelling befitting a professionally-written movie.

(1) A pro wrestler taking on all comers? In NYC? I lived in NYC for 25 years and this happens about as much as everything you saw in Temple Of Doom happening in India.

(2) Peter finds his uncle's murderer almost immediately after it happened. How did he do that, exactly? New movie handles it much better -- he doesn't.

(3) Typical bookwormy nerd getting picked on by typical bully jocks in school, because he's a nerd. And then superpowers! Think about how old this stereotype is. It was old an inaccurate already, when the previous Spiderman came out. The new one does it better -- subverted, but not negated.

Peter is still an outcast. But not because he's nerdy in the Revenge of the Nerds sense. And all instances of him showing off his powers in school not only got him into trouble, but just made him look like a douchebag.

(4) Uncle Ben's famous words were much more natural in the new movie. Like how a real person would talk, rather than comic book speechifying.

(5) In the previous movie, scenes where Peter fought Flash and the burglar felt like righteous come-uppance, like new empowerment. In this movie, Peter was a teenage bully in pain. Someone said he felt mean-spirited. That's because he was. Those were not Peter's heroic moments; that only started after he rescued the kid. This movie did not treat the sudden empowerment like a comic book subject matter.

Rake21
2012-07-09, 11:19 AM
First off all, the movie was fantastic. Better than Spidey 3 by leaps and bounds, and at least as good as Rami's first Spider-man flick in my opinion.

Though:
I'm kinda courious what poor OSCORP intern had to deal with Nibbles, the 10 pound rat-lizard.

JoeMac307
2012-07-09, 03:01 PM
I enjoyed the new movie, but I had one question... maybe I missed where they explained it, and someone can tell me what I missed:

Why is it that when Parker gets bit by a random mutated spider, he gets stable, balanced spider powers, and doesn't become three quarters spider, one quarter human, but when Connors injects himself with the Lizard serum, he does become mostly lizard?

Did they explain somewhere:

1) why the spider gave Parker powers in the first place?
2) why those powers did not turn Parker into a giant hairy spider hybrid?
3) why Connors needed Parker's formula to create his serum, and why that serum ended up being messed up, while the random spider sitting around Oscorp all this time was a complete and total success?

Did I blink and miss something?

Please help a poor, addled, middleaged gentleman to understand.

Tyndmyr
2012-07-09, 03:30 PM
I enjoyed the new movie, but I had one question... maybe I missed where they explained it, and someone can tell me what I missed:

Why is it that when Parker gets bit by a random mutated spider, he gets stable, balanced spider powers, and doesn't become three quarters spider, one quarter human, but when Connors injects himself with the Lizard serum, he does become mostly lizard?

Did they explain somewhere:

1) why the spider gave Parker powers in the first place?
2) why those powers did not turn Parker into a giant hairy spider hybrid?
3) why Connors needed Parker's formula to create his serum, and why that serum ended up being messed up, while the random spider sitting around Oscorp all this time was a complete and total success?

Did I blink and miss something?

Please help a poor, addled, middleaged gentleman to understand.

Well, the spiders were created by his Dad. Mention was made of them changing everything. Of course, oscorp wasn't able to duplicate it, apparently, with other creatures. The regression formula is thought to be the answer, but apparently it is not a complete one.

Makes sense, really. Animals vary widely, and even something that works perfectly on one isn't guaranteed to work at all with a different lot.

Also, note that peter acting spider-like WAS a thing for a bit.

irenicObserver
2012-07-09, 03:59 PM
Erm, why is Spider-Man "bombastic"? He uses pretentious language that's largely devoid of content in order to impress people?? :smallconfused:


It was sour or bitter of me to ask a question about the thread title? Why?


I didn't accuse the OP of being pretentious. You guys are misunderstanding me. The OP was saying Spider-Man is pretentious... he called him bombastic, after all. I was wondering why. I haven't seen the movie, and I thought "bombastic" was an oddly specific descriptor.

Let me rephrase my original question slightly: Why is Spider-Man "bombastic"? Spider-Man "uses pretentious language that's largely devoid of content in order to impress people"*? Or is there some joke here I'm missing?

*definition of bombastic

The rhetoric of clarifying a question with a dependant clause is, within this premise, superfluous at best. The answer itself was simple enough and given soon after; it was a reference to the esoterica of the Spider-Man mythos. I can see you didn't intend any discernable malice, so I appreciate the discourse.

To delve further into the matter I believe there is an instance of the Spider-Man fighting the Mad Thinker on both the physical and intellectual. The dialogue was erudite with the highest language one would come to expect from The New Yorker.

ThePhantasm
2012-07-09, 04:10 PM
The rhetoric of clarifying a question with a dependant clause is, within this premise, superfluous at best.

Given that I didn't understand why you were using the word "bombastic" I felt it pertinent to emphasize what I understood its meaning to be so that we weren't talking past one another (something that happened anyways).


The answer itself was simple enough and given soon after; it was a reference to the esoterica of the Spider-Man mythos. I can see you intended any discernable malice, so I appreciate the discourse.

Wow, I thought the Bag-Man thing was just a joke. :smalltongue:

And no, I didn't intend (nor even unintentionally exhibit) any malice. The whole thing was just a question from the outset.

irenicObserver
2012-07-09, 04:57 PM
Typographical error by omission. moving on,,,

JoeMac307
2012-07-09, 05:01 PM
Well, the spiders were created by his Dad. Mention was made of them changing everything. Of course, oscorp wasn't able to duplicate it, apparently, with other creatures. The regression formula is thought to be the answer, but apparently it is not a complete one.

Makes sense, really. Animals vary widely, and even something that works perfectly on one isn't guaranteed to work at all with a different lot.

Also, note that peter acting spider-like WAS a thing for a bit.

Okay, but the spider that bit him wasn't his dad's.. It may have been based on his dad's work, but it wasn't among his dad's hidden possessions IIRC. It was at Oscorp. Are they supposed to be too stupid to realize they already have successful hybrid-genetic tech on site? Why would they need to duplicate it in another creature? Aren't spider powers amazing enough?

And the fact that Peter was worried about becoming a spider, and then totally abandoning that fear without any further testing, after an expert in the field becomes a lizardman, is a bit of a head scratcher to me.

Maybe I'm not missing anything, and the movie just hand waved it, since everyone in the universe knows Peter will be just fine in regards to his new gained Spider Powers. It is still lazy writing, and it doesn't make sense under scrutiny, unless I missed something.

So, what did I miss?

Xondoure
2012-07-09, 05:33 PM
Okay, but the spider that bit him wasn't his dad's.. It may have been based on his dad's work, but it wasn't among his dad's hidden possessions IIRC. It was at Oscorp. Are they supposed to be too stupid to realize they already have successful hybrid-genetic tech on site? Why would they need to duplicate it in another creature? Aren't spider powers amazing enough?

And the fact that Peter was worried about becoming a spider, and then totally abandoning that fear without any further testing, after an expert in the field becomes a lizardman, is a bit of a head scratcher to me.

Maybe I'm not missing anything, and the movie just hand waved it, since everyone in the universe knows Peter will be just fine in regards to his new gained Spider Powers. It is still lazy writing, and it doesn't make sense under scrutiny, unless I missed something.

So, what did I miss?

He stopped worrying about it because it didn't happen. However in comics the spider part has been increased before, so they could exploit it in a future installment if they wished.

Rake21
2012-07-09, 06:18 PM
Okay, but the spider that bit him wasn't his dad's.. It may have been based on his dad's work, but it wasn't among his dad's hidden possessions IIRC. It was at Oscorp. Are they supposed to be too stupid to realize they already have successful hybrid-genetic tech on site? Why would they need to duplicate it in another creature? Aren't spider powers amazing enough?

And the fact that Peter was worried about becoming a spider, and then totally abandoning that fear without any further testing, after an expert in the field becomes a lizardman, is a bit of a head scratcher to me.

Maybe I'm not missing anything, and the movie just hand waved it, since everyone in the universe knows Peter will be just fine in regards to his new gained Spider Powers. It is still lazy writing, and it doesn't make sense under scrutiny, unless I missed something.

So, what did I miss?

The aim of the study wasn't powers though. The only reason Connors has funding at OSCORP is because Norman Osborne is dying.

Stable spider-powers won't fix that. They have to figure out how to take that stability and apply it to another species that can cure Osborne.

Rake21
2012-07-09, 06:19 PM
Edit for double post

Raimun
2012-07-09, 06:41 PM
Okay, but the spider that bit him wasn't his dad's.. It may have been based on his dad's work, but it wasn't among his dad's hidden possessions IIRC. It was at Oscorp. Are they supposed to be too stupid to realize they already have successful hybrid-genetic tech on site? Why would they need to duplicate it in another creature? Aren't spider powers amazing enough?

Nope. You see, Connors tried to regrow his arm. It was kind of a big deal for him so lizards it was.



And the fact that Peter was worried about becoming a spider, and then totally abandoning that fear without any further testing, after an expert in the field becomes a lizardman, is a bit of a head scratcher to me.

Maybe I'm not missing anything, and the movie just hand waved it, since everyone in the universe knows Peter will be just fine in regards to his new gained Spider Powers. It is still lazy writing, and it doesn't make sense under scrutiny, unless I missed something.

So, what did I miss?

Yeah, they could have explained it better. Still, I never questioned it because it's totally obvious that radioactive/genetically engineered spiders work that way. It was as much of a fluke in the 60's Spidey-comics as well.

Reverent-One
2012-07-09, 06:58 PM
How was JJ handled in this movie? I always thought he was a bit too corny and over the top in the raimi version.

*Slaps Traab with a white glove*

I challenge you for this affront, sir. Pistols at dawn.

SmartAlec
2012-07-09, 07:09 PM
Speculation on the spider-powers, and future plot twists:

Is it possible Peter was genetically engineered, possibly a test-tube child? Was his birth connected to the research somehow, and that leads to the reason of why he was able to assimilate spider-powers so well? Could this be why it was Mr. Parker who was able to finally crack the decay rate algorithm - from studying Peter? The Parkers did seem rather old to have a child that young...

TheLaughingMan
2012-07-09, 07:12 PM
How was JJ handled in this movie? I always thought he was a bit too corny and over the top in the raimi version.

BURN THE HERETIC


Is it possible Peter was genetically engineered, possibly a test-tube child?

If the movie did that... I'd have to punch somebody. Preferably the writers, but I'm not all that picky.

EDIT: To clarify:

If this were a Sci-Fi type of deal or something, with like... some sort of plot-twist sort-of focus, then yeah, I could get behind a plot twist like that. But as is, it's just needlessly complicating something that most people wouldn't even care to think about. There's to much of a potential "jump the shark" moment for much good to come out of it.

Rake21
2012-07-09, 07:16 PM
Speculation on the spider-powers, and future plot twists:

Is it possible Peter was genetically engineered, possibly a test-tube child? Was his birth connected to the research somehow, and that leads to the reason of why he was able to assimilate spider-powers so well? Could this be why it was Mr. Parker who was able to finally crack the decay rate algorithm - from studying Peter? The Parkers did seem rather old to have a child that young...

Maybe, but, if they go that route, they'll need to some how make it not-sinister. The Parkers are always good guys. I don't think there's ever been an exception.

SmartAlec
2012-07-09, 07:22 PM
Maybe, but, if they go that route, they'll need to some how make it not-sinister. The Parkers are always good guys. I don't think there's ever been an exception.

They didn't seem to mistreat him... and it does make that 'some day you'll understand' comment from Mr. Parker make slightly more sense.

Dr.Epic
2012-07-10, 10:23 AM
So I saw it last night and I really loved it. Better than any of the other three. I thought Stan Lee's* cameo was amazing; his best ever. One thing though...
They didn't say "With great power comes great responsibility." Which I think did work - probably would have killed the mood of the scene - but it better be somewhere in future sequels.

*Do I have to spoil the fact he has a cameo? It's a Marvel film, and he specifically created the title character.

JoeMac307
2012-07-10, 10:25 AM
Nope. You see, Connors tried to regrow his arm. It was kind of a big deal for him so lizards it was.



Yeah, they could have explained it better. Still, I never questioned it because it's totally obvious that radioactive/genetically engineered spiders work that way. It was as much of a fluke in the 60's Spidey-comics as well.


Fair enough... needing regenerative abilities, that makes sense, both for Connors and Oscorp. That was plain, and I should have seen that.

And the implicit handwave... of course Spidey will get stable powers so why worry...? Fair enough. It just bothered me, for some reason. Just one of those things, I guess.


On another note, I wonder if they will bring in MJ at all? The Gwen in the movie seemed more like the Ultimate version of MJ in terms of personality and also in terms of her relationship with Peter.

However, bring in an MJ character could be important because I'm guessing they will pull an Amazing Spider-Man #121 on Gwen at the end of the next movie or at the start of the third movie (trilogy has been confirmed, if you haven't heard).

But if there is no MJ, then who will comfort Peter after Gwen gets kicked off the bridge and is accidentally killed by Peter (or was she)? In the original comics, it was MJ who kept Peter sane during the epilogue of Amazing Spider-Man #122, after all.

{Check out #3 of the Fifty Greatest Spider-man Stories on CSBG (http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2012/06/30/50-greatest-spider-man-stories-5-1/) if you aren't familiar with the events of Amazing Spider-Man #121 and 122 and are curious about what I'm getting at.}

JoeMac307
2012-07-10, 10:31 AM
*Do I have to spoil the fact he has a cameo? It's a Marvel film, and he specifically created the title character.

Don't let Steve Ditko hear you say that! The official story nowadays is that Stan Lee co-created Spider-Man with Steve Ditko.

But Jack Kirby did the cover for Amazing Fantasy #15, so there are some claims out that he should share some of the design credit as well! :smallbiggrin:

Tyndmyr
2012-07-10, 11:31 AM
I'm not *certain* that MJ appeared in the film, but there *is* an attractive redhead in the front row of the classroom scene towards the end that looks..very appropriate for the role.

Dr.Epic
2012-07-10, 03:41 PM
I liked how the Lizard retained his intelligence as a reptile. In the science lab, he just makes an improvised bombs and hurls it at Peter. It's a giant lizard with near super human intelligence.:smalleek:

JoeMac307
2012-07-10, 03:45 PM
I liked how the Lizard retained his intelligence as a reptile. In the science lab, he just makes an improvised bombs and hurls it at Peter. It's a giant lizard with near super human intelligence.:smalleek:

I liked this as well. It was how the character was originally presented in the early days of Amazing Spider-Man, and I felt it made him 1) more interesting and 2) a better challenge for Spidey.

Dr.Epic
2012-07-10, 03:46 PM
I liked this as well. It was how the character was originally presented in the early days of Amazing Spider-Man, and I felt it made him 1) more interesting and 2) a better challenge for Spidey.

Speaking of more of a challenge for Spider-Man...
I thought the gun shot wound added a lot of tension and was pretty good.

JoeMac307
2012-07-10, 04:16 PM
Who do you think will be / should be the villian(s) in the sequel?

Just like they used the Lizard, instead of Green Goblin / Doc Ock / Venom, I would like to see some other classic but lesser known villains in the next movie, like Chameleon, Kraven the Hunter, the Shocker, or Electro.

Dr.Epic
2012-07-10, 04:38 PM
Who do you think will be / should be the villian(s) in the sequel?

Just like they used the Lizard, instead of Green Goblin / Doc Ock / Venom, I would like to see some other classic but lesser known villains in the next movie, like Chameleon, Kraven the Hunter, the Shocker, or Electro.

I think at some point Vemon and the Green Goblin have to show up. They use Oscorp a lot in the first film and since Vemon was hardly in the other films and such a fan favorite, I think we'll see them both.

Karoht
2012-07-10, 04:48 PM
Green Goblin, Venom, Carnage, in that order. Thats my prediction.

My secret wish is however is, well, just about anything other than those guys.
Hydro. Sandman. Electro. Heck, I would be okay with them going into the Clone Saga stuff if they're careful about the setup.
Kraven? Meh. Shocker? Meh.

Just as long as they keep to 1 villian per film, I'm fine. Sinister Six would just be a train wreck of a film if they went for it.

Xondoure
2012-07-10, 04:57 PM
Green Goblin, Venom, Carnage, in that order. Thats my prediction.

My secret wish is however is, well, just about anything other than those guys.
Hydro. Sandman. Electro. Heck, I would be okay with them going into the Clone Saga stuff if they're careful about the setup.
Kraven? Meh. Shocker? Meh.

Just as long as they keep to 1 villian per film, I'm fine. Sinister Six would just be a train wreck of a film if they went for it.

I think two villains could be handled, but anymore and... it just doesn't work as well.

Dr.Epic
2012-07-10, 05:19 PM
Isn't the guy who killed Peter's Uncle the guy who becomes Sandman? If so, I think one of the reason Peter never caught him in this film is so they could introduce the Sandman in a sequel.

KnightOfV
2012-07-10, 05:34 PM
I enjoyed the new movie, but I had one question... maybe I missed where they explained it, and someone can tell me what I missed:




I had the same questions. My friend that I saw the movie with knows a bit about the Ultimate Spiderman series that this movie was influenced by (yes there are multiple Spiderman series with different continuities, but I digress.) These are the reasons he told me, but I have no idea if this is right.
Peter Parker's parents had already gotten their 'super serum' perfect and working, but only with spider DNA which the movie implied. We see the shot of the spider in the jar when Peter is a kid in his dad's office, and Doc Conners (the lizard) almost says outright that Peter's parents had it but then had to run from some bad men wanting to use the serum for evil. This made Doc Conners bitter at the family, because if they stuck around they probably could have figured out how to do lizard DNA and regrow his arm, and now he has to try and come up with the formula himself. The spiders are perfect, and have been for years, but Peter's dad designed the Spiders to only work with his (and consequently, his family's) blood, so no one at the labs would have gotten positive results with it. Peter stumbles in while chasing his past, gets bitten by the spiders his dad designed that only he can be positively affected by, and BAM superpowers. Meanwhile, Doc Conner's formula is still flawed, so he turns into a crazy, scaly lizard.

I bet this, or something very like it, will be revealed in the next movie, as it makes sense in the context of the story.

VanBuren
2012-07-10, 05:53 PM
I think at some point Vemon and the Green Goblin have to show up. They use Oscorp a lot in the first film and since Vemon was hardly in the other films and such a fan favorite, I think we'll see them both.

Venom is over-done. Enough so that I think, as integral as he is, we can do without.

Green Goblin on the other hand, I don't think you can not have him. As much as he may also seem to be overdone, it would be like having no Lex Luthor or no Magneto. You can do a movie or two without him, but not a whole trilogy.

Karoht
2012-07-10, 05:59 PM
Isn't the guy who killed Peter's Uncle the guy who becomes Sandman? If so, I think one of the reason Peter never caught him in this film is so they could introduce the Sandman in a sequel.

That was never a comic continuity. It was strictly Spiderman 3, according to Wiki.
Will the do that again? Well, the opportunity exists now.

Rake21
2012-07-10, 06:03 PM
Isn't the guy who killed Peter's Uncle the guy who becomes Sandman? If so, I think one of the reason Peter never caught him in this film is so they could introduce the Sandman in a sequel.

Flint Marko, Sandman, had nothing to do with the death of Uncle Ben in the comics. He's just another dude who fell backwards into some powers, only to go supercriminal. That was just one more thing wrong with Spider-man 3.

Dr.Epic
2012-07-10, 06:08 PM
Venom is over-done. Enough so that I think, as integral as he is, we can do without.

It'd be nice to see at least one film with him in it for more than 10 minutes.

Raimun
2012-07-10, 06:31 PM
They will have Green Goblin.

I just hope he will be scarier and more sinister than before and also, unarmored. Even if I have to admit it makes sense for a millionare supervillain to wear one. Then again, this is Green Goblin we are talking about.

Sinister Six might have potential. It would really look like a threat. There would be varied action. It would be the only way villains like Vulture, Shocker, Chameleon or Rhino would make it to the big screen. After all, Spider-Man is known for his big rogue's gallery.

Edit: Though, I'm still surprised that the Lizard made it. :smalltongue:

Then again, it could very easily just look ridiculous. They would really need some good writers (and actors) to make it look good but it's still possible. Remember the very first X-men? The film had at least 10 superpowered characters, most of them without origin stories and it pretty much revitalized superhero movies.

Edit: Sure, it was a team movie and everyone had the same origin (born that way) but still.

JoeMac307
2012-07-10, 06:51 PM
That was never a comic continuity. It was strictly Spiderman 3, according to Wiki.
Will the do that again? Well, the opportunity exists now.

Oh Lord, I sincerely hope they don't do that again. It drives me nuts that every single villain in every superhero movie has to be tied directly to the hero's origin.

That all started in 1989 with the ridiculous idea that the Joker killed Bruce Wayne's parents. Aargh, I really hate that.

The dude that killed the Waynes was just an average dude, and the dude that killed Uncle Ben was also just some average dude. In fact, that is kinda the entire point of both of those origins (i.e. crime is everywhere and all forms of it must be constantly combatted - not just your personal enemies, which is not very heroic, as Capt. Stacy points out to Peter in this movie, I might add)

Edited because iPads cause crazy typos, yo

irenicObserver
2012-07-10, 07:09 PM
@^: That's actually I realized that separates villains from heroes. They can both have an axe to grind and it may in fact be the whole reason they became what they are. But the difference lies in the fact that like Carrot Ironfoundersson they realize that
Personal isn't the same as important And that what made them who they are isn't all they are, that it's their cross to bear and push them to keep doing what they do.

I feel like Electro would be a strain on my Suspension of Disbelief in this grounded portrayal. He'd be kinda like Doctor Octopus in Spider-Man 2, but that was mostly due to bad science. This is all conjecture though, I'd have to see it onscreen to decide for sure.

Raimun
2012-07-10, 07:19 PM
I got it.

Living Brain! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Brain)

Dienekes
2012-07-10, 07:34 PM
Personally I can't wait until we get Gabriel and Sarah Stacy as villains in this movie continuity. Won't that be fun!?!

JoeMac307
2012-07-10, 07:38 PM
Personally I can't wait until we get Gabriel and Sarah Stacy as villains in this movie continuity. Won't that be fun!?!

I just puked a little in my mouth

Scowling Dragon
2012-07-10, 08:21 PM
I have heard very mixed reactions of the new spiderman movie from people I trust.

On one side RLM Half in the Bag (One of whom is a spiderman fan) hated it.

Yet Spoony liked it more then the originals (Though he is not a fan).

Interesting.

Logic
2012-07-10, 09:31 PM
I would love to see Shocker in the movies, but he can't carry a movie himself. And teaming him up with his typical allies still doesn't seem like enough. Unless someone makes a compelling Sinister Six movie script (I doubt it can be done) some villains will never be seen on the big screen.

Viable potential villains for future movies include, but are not limited to:
The Vulture
Kraven the Hunter
Scorpion (I personally think JJJ needs to be introduced before Scorpion)
Doctor Octopus
Electro
Hobgoblin
Hydro Man (with another villain, methinks)
Msyterio
Green Goblin
Venom
Jackal (though, he could just as easily be a terrible on screen villain.)

Traab
2012-07-10, 10:30 PM
I want to see the kingpin as the main bad guy, with the rhino as his hired merc. But that may drift a bit too close to the daredevil movie. How about the hobgoblin? Have a voice over in the second movie covering events that have taken place in a sort of time skip since the first film where we learn about the green goblin, (not that there is anyone interested in a spiderman movie that doesnt already know about him) to set the back story for the hobgoblin to move in and retool his stuff. We could also go the Tombstone route. Have it be spiderman fighting against the mob in the area and tombstone is the enforcer he keeps butting heads with.

The Sinister Six? That would honestly take an avengers length lead up of spiderman movies to arrange properly. Thats just too many bad guys that you have to create a backstory/creation for, as well as a reason to hate spiderman enough to join forces with other evil bastards, for a single movie to handle. Even if they put in two bad guys at a time, its still another 4 movies before we can see the six team up. But once again, it may be too close to ripping off earlier works if say, at the end of each, some representative of Fisk shows up to talk with the captured bad guys and make them an offer. Unoriginal is bad enough, outright copying of another franchise is pushing it too far.

Jayngfet
2012-07-10, 10:58 PM
My money is on Green Goblin and Kingpin, simply because they both fit into the whole "oscorp is crooked" angle they're pushing this time around. MAYBE they can tie Electro in there as another science guy hit by Oscorp but I can't see him as being a major thing if he's in ASM2.

Rake21
2012-07-10, 11:22 PM
How about a gang war?

The established criminal underworld, lead by either Kingpin or Silvermane depending on movie rights, is at war with an up and coming meta-human based gang, led by Tombstone. To try and keep hold of their empire, Kingpin/Sivermane brings in a new enforcer, either Shocker or maybe the Ultimate Marvel version of the Prowler.

The fighting spills out onto the streets, and it becomes Spider-man's problem.

Dienekes
2012-07-11, 12:20 AM
How about the hobgoblin? Have a voice over in the second movie covering events that have taken place in a sort of time skip since the first film where we learn about the green goblin, (not that there is anyone interested in a spiderman movie that doesnt already know about him) to set the back story for the hobgoblin to move in and retool his stuff. We could also go the Tombstone route. Have it be spiderman fighting against the mob in the area and tombstone is the enforcer he keeps butting heads with.

Yeah there is no way that anyone is going to make a big screen movie just skip over green goblin for hobgoblin with just a bit of narration to cover it, ever.

For one it's just poor showmanship and storytelling, and for another, Green Goblin is far more iconic and well liked than Hobs.

Now personally I do want to see Kingpin. I know that's stepping on DD's toes, but aren't they rebooting that too? Also I think a decade is a long enough time to bring back kingpin.

Selrahc
2012-07-11, 12:39 AM
Hobgoblin *could* work as a lead in.

In the comics, the Hobgoblin finds the stash of the Green Goblin after GG is dead, then uses it to build a criminal empire. If however, you have it that the Hobgoblin has found a stash of Green Goblin gear before the Green Goblin has chosen to reveal himself, then you get an entire film where we can start unravelling the psyche and powers of the Green Goblin, then be able to capitalize on it in the next film when he takes centre stage. Meanwhile the Hobgoblin film can be about a more simple plan to take over the criminal underworld.

Jayngfet
2012-07-11, 12:46 AM
Hobgoblin *could* work as a lead in.

In the comics, the Hobgoblin finds the stash of the Green Goblin after GG is dead, then uses it to build a criminal empire. If however, you have it that the Hobgoblin has found a stash of Green Goblin gear before the Green Goblin has chosen to reveal himself, then you get an entire film where we can start unravelling the psyche and powers of the Green Goblin, then be able to capitalize on it in the next film when he takes centre stage. Meanwhile the Hobgoblin film can be about a more simple plan to take over the criminal underworld.

I dunno if the team on ASM really wants to do "simple". ASM was a long, LONG movie that dealt with relatively complex things. There's no real reason to have Hobgoblin aside from having him. We know who Green Goblin is, we know what Oscorp is, Lizard was a perfect lead in that can be used to set up half a dozen bigger villains and concepts.

Simplification for the sake of it would be nonsensical at this point. They've got everything set up for a big overarching mystery and have the Osborns as this overarching antagonistic force. Deviating from the logical path and the chronological path to "simplify" things seems needlessly complicated.

MLai
2012-07-11, 12:51 AM
I was awed by how well Uncle Ben's famous speech was retooled in the new movie. And that's when I learned it wasn't actually a credit to the movie writers, as it is lifted word-for-word entirely from this:

“Power and Responsibility,” Ultimate Spider-Man #1-7 (http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2012/06/26/50-greatest-spider-man-stories-25-21/)

Great job, Brian Michael Bendis! :smallredface:

Selrahc
2012-07-11, 01:09 AM
Simplification for the sake of it would be nonsensical at this point. They've got everything set up for a big overarching mystery and have the Osborns as this overarching antagonistic force. Deviating from the logical path and the chronological path to "simplify" things seems needlessly complicated.

I'll confess, I've not actually seen ASM. That was just a brainstorm of a way to make Hobgoblin work.

Xondoure
2012-07-11, 01:23 AM
I was disappointed Harry wasn't already a friend in this film. I felt Parker sort of needed a friend, and it would make things so much more tense later on.

I actually think Kraven the Hunter could be interesting, so long as he was hired by another villain. He has more gravitas than say, Rhino.

Jayngfet
2012-07-11, 01:33 AM
I was disappointed Harry wasn't already a friend in this film. I felt Parker sort of needed a friend, and it would make things so much more tense later on.

I actually think Kraven the Hunter could be interesting, so long as he was hired by another villain. He has more gravitas than say, Rhino.

Peter being largely friendless was probably meant to make his scenes involving Flash that much more powerful. I mean to start with he's not sticking his neck out for a friend early on, he's risking himself for a guy he doesn't know anything about.

Then later, when Flash tries to be all supportive, it makes them both seem much more human, particularly Flash, who comes off as being less the psychopathic 80's bully he's usually cast as and more an actual human who's emotions have more range than "angry".

Xondoure
2012-07-11, 01:51 AM
Peter being largely friendless was probably meant to make his scenes involving Flash that much more powerful. I mean to start with he's not sticking his neck out for a friend early on, he's risking himself for a guy he doesn't know anything about.

Then later, when Flash tries to be all supportive, it makes them both seem much more human, particularly Flash, who comes off as being less the psychopathic 80's bully he's usually cast as and more an actual human who's emotions have more range than "angry".

Oh I agree it helped the Flash scenes a lot, and I did like that. Trouble is Flash is ultimately less important to the Oscorp plot, which they are pushing hardcore.

Jayngfet
2012-07-11, 02:02 AM
Oh I agree it helped the Flash scenes a lot, and I did like that. Trouble is Flash is ultimately less important to the Oscorp plot, which they are pushing hardcore.

Yeah, but weather or not Peter has non-Gwen friends outside maybe the debate guys doesn't really matter for those scenes. Those establish who peter is and who the people around him are. Flash as a character was a marker. Peter is better morally at first, then by the end Flash is the only one of them who can even make Capt. Stacy's funeral.

Flash being a jerky guy who understands when people face great loss manages to reveal who Peter is and set a benchmark for if it's good or Bad if he does or doesn't do things. Him being developed as a character made the whole movie better as a result.

VanBuren
2012-07-11, 02:09 AM
Oh I agree it helped the Flash scenes a lot, and I did like that. Trouble is Flash is ultimately less important to the Oscorp plot, which they are pushing hardcore.

It was probably one of my favorite scenes. Flash doesn't get angry when Peter shoves him against the locker, he just lets him vent. And it's not even that he's quiet because he's scared, but because Flash has been to that place where it just feels better to hit someone else.

And if he needs to be the target, then OK.

I mean, I don't agree with that thinking all that much. But I respect Flash for how he handled it.

Xondoure
2012-07-11, 03:44 AM
It was probably one of my favorite scenes. Flash doesn't get angry when Peter shoves him against the locker, he just lets him vent. And it's not even that he's quiet because he's scared, but because Flash has been to that place where it just feels better to hit someone else.

And if he needs to be the target, then OK.

I mean, I don't agree with that thinking all that much. But I respect Flash for how he handled it.

Again, easily one of the best parts of the movie. I'm not disputing that. And yeah, having Harry be there would have lessened the impact. But Harry is such an important part of Peter's life, especially with how he relates to being Spider Man and how much the double identity kills him inside, that I was still disappointed not to see him. I mean, if your going to have Green Lantern Goblin as a later threat, then establishing the Osborn family as people before you have one of them go completely insane makes for a much better story.

On a similar note, all of the side characters really shown in this film. I mean the main cast did a good job as well, but I can't think of a character who really disappointed me. Well, Aunt May was okay, but other than that...

Raimun
2012-07-11, 02:34 PM
Again, easily one of the best parts of the movie. I'm not disputing that. And yeah, having Harry be there would have lessened the impact. But Harry is such an important part of Peter's life, especially with how he relates to being Spider Man and how much the double identity kills him inside, that I was still disappointed not to see him. I mean, if your going to have Green Lantern as a later threat, then establishing the Osborn family as people before you have one of them go completely insane makes for a much better story.


Whoa! Spider-Man will fight Green Lantern? Finally, justice will be done and Lantern is punished for his movie.

Sorry, couldn't resist. :smalltongue:

Xondoure
2012-07-11, 02:49 PM
Whoa! Spider-Man will fight Green Lantern? Finally, justice will be done and Lantern is punished for his movie.

Sorry, couldn't resist. :smalltongue:

:smallbiggrin: My bad. :smalltongue:

VanBuren
2012-07-11, 03:05 PM
Isn't the guy who killed Peter's Uncle the guy who becomes Sandman? If so, I think one of the reason Peter never caught him in this film is so they could introduce the Sandman in a sequel.

Actually, IIRC...

The killer comes back later on and teams up with Mysterio and Spider-Man thinks of it as his chance to make up for his mistakes. Eventually, Peter unmasks himself as a way to explain why he's so dedicated to catching the guy, and the guy has a heart attack and dies because he thinks Peter will kill him out of revenge.

JoeMac307
2012-07-11, 08:50 PM
Actually, IIRC...

The killer comes back later on and teams up with Mysterio and Spider-Man thinks of it as his chance to make up for his mistakes. Eventually, Peter unmasks himself as a way to explain why he's so dedicated to catching the guy, and the guy has a heart attack and dies because he thinks Peter will kill him out of revenge.

I am pretty sure you are recalling correctly. IIRC, it happens in Amazing Spider-Man #200

It is pretty funny, because a much, much earlier issue of Batman has a similar situation

Batman unmasks to Joe Chill, the dude who killed the Waynes. Chill runs away and tells the nearest hoods that Batman unmasked in front of him because Chill created the Batman by killing his parents. The hoods are so POed that Chill inspired Batman that they immediately shoot him dead. Only afterwards do they realize that they killed him before they had a chance to ask him who Batman really is.

Dr.Epic
2012-07-11, 08:58 PM
One of my favorite scenes in the film was when Peter threw Gwen out the window. I just loved the set up to that.:smallbiggrin:

MLai
2012-07-12, 06:36 AM
Old Spiderman comics spoilers:

I was reading about the death of Gwen Stacy issue of Amazing Spiderman... the actual words from Green Goblin was that "the fall from a great height" killed her before she even hit the ground.

Wow, physiology/physics failure. Isn't GG supposed to be smart?

But the actual pictures seemed to depict that Gwen's neck snapped because Spidey webbed her and pulled her to a stop too suddenly. He's just lucky that didn't happen to her this time, ha.

Dr.Epic
2012-07-12, 11:22 AM
I also loved the scene where Peter's first adapting to his new strength.:smallbiggrin:

The Glyphstone
2012-07-12, 12:52 PM
Old Spiderman comics spoilers:

I was reading about the death of Gwen Stacy issue of Amazing Spiderman... the actual words from Green Goblin was that "the fall from a great height" killed her before she even hit the ground.

Wow, physiology/physics failure. Isn't GG supposed to be smart?

But the actual pictures seemed to depict that Gwen's neck snapped because Spidey webbed her and pulled her to a stop too suddenly. He's just lucky that didn't happen to her this time, ha.

You misread it. What GG said was

Gwen Stacy would have died anyways, hitting the ground after falling from a great height. Spiderman killed her by snapping her neck, but it was just a quicker death than not catching her.

KnightDisciple
2012-07-12, 12:55 PM
Loved the movie, on every count, really. I have maybe a couple of minor quibbles, but they're very minor.

Or, to put it another way: Toby McWho?

JoeMac307
2012-07-12, 02:48 PM
You misread it. What GG said was

Gwen Stacy would have died anyways, hitting the ground after falling from a great height. Spiderman killed her by snapping her neck, but it was just a quicker death than not catching her.


I don't think MLai misread it... MLai may have interpretted it differently.

Word for word, what GG says is

"A fall from that height would kill anyone-- --before they hit the ground!"

It seems to me that GG is specifically saying it is the fall that would kill her, implying it isn't the sudden stop (from hitting the ground, or being abrumptly caught by a spider-web).


Here (http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2012/06/30/50-greatest-spider-man-stories-5-1/) is a link to the specific scene we are discussing... scroll down to the #3 story, and it features the actual original pages. WARNING, the site being linked to has spoilers if you are not familiar with Spider-Man publishing history.

Rake21
2012-07-12, 03:01 PM
Old Spiderman comics spoilers:

I was reading about the death of Gwen Stacy issue of Amazing Spiderman... the actual words from Green Goblin was that "the fall from a great height" killed her before she even hit the ground.

Wow, physiology/physics failure. Isn't GG supposed to be smart?

But the actual pictures seemed to depict that Gwen's neck snapped because Spidey webbed her and pulled her to a stop too suddenly. He's just lucky that didn't happen to her this time, ha.

Historically, nobody knows what killed Gwen. The two biggest theories are either a) Spidey, in trying to save her, accidently broke here neck or b) Gwen was dead before Goblen dropped her, and just wanted to hurt Spidey even more by making him question if it was his fault.

JoeMac307
2012-07-12, 03:22 PM
Historically, nobody knows what killed Gwen. The two biggest theories are either a) Spidey, in trying to save her, accidently broke here neck or b) Gwen was dead before Goblen dropped her, and just wanted to hurt Spidey even more by making him question if it was his fault.

I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that either Gil Kane or the letterer put in the little "Snap" sound effect next to Gwen's neck when she is caught after the fact... If I'm remembering that correctly, and the snap was an "error", or not the original intent of Conway, then the possibility that she was supposed to be already dead before the Goblin dropped would be even stronger

EDITED: I did some research on the blog Comic Book Urban Legends, and found the truth:

As you can see here in Brian Cronin's excellent blog (http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2006/03/16/comic-book-urban-legends-revealed-42/) the letter column in Amazing Spider-Man #125 specifically states that it was the whiplash from the suddenly stopping when Spidey webbed her that killed Gwen. That is pretty crazy, that Marvel spelled out plain and clear exactly what killed her, in the letters column of all places!

Rake21
2012-07-12, 03:34 PM
I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that either Gil Kane or the letterer put in the little "Snap" sound effect next to Gwen's neck when she is caught after the fact... If I'm remembering that correctly, and the snap was an "error", or not the original intent of Conway, then the possibility that she was supposed to be already dead before the Goblin dropped would be even stronger

EDITED: I did some research on the blog Comic Book Urban Legends, and found the truth:

As you can see here in Brian Cronin's excellent blog (http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2006/03/16/comic-book-urban-legends-revealed-42/) the letter column in Amazing Spider-Man #125 specifically states that it was the whiplash from the suddenly stopping when Spidey webbed her that killed Gwen. That is pretty crazy, that Marvel spelled out plain and clear exactly what killed her, in the letters column of all places!


Huh, I'd never seen that before. I retract my earlier statement.

Edit:
Though, I do remember a story where Spidey said he wasn't sure how Gwen died. So maybe that works?

Hell, I don't know. I'm grasping at straws:smallwink:

Karoht
2012-07-12, 05:11 PM
If you want the whole story of what happened to Gwen Stacy, including the whole controversy that was just discussed in spoiler tags, check out the article on wikipedia.org
It's actually surprisingly in-depth.

JoeMac307
2012-07-12, 08:39 PM
Huh, I'd never seen that before. I retract my earlier statement.

Edit:
Though, I do remember a story where Spidey said he wasn't sure how Gwen died. So maybe that works?

Hell, I don't know. I'm grasping at straws:smallwink:

Brian Cronin's blogs are full of crazy stuff about comics I never knew about, especially his Comic Book Urban Legends posts. He even has a couple of books out full of weird little comic book behind the scene minutia

Dr.Epic
2012-07-13, 11:25 AM
Another thing I really liked was that the villain wasn't killed. I thought that was interesting. Like, he could return in sequels and maybe team up with another villain. I do think it's sort of become a little cliche in super hero films to kill off the villain at the end.

JoeMac307
2012-07-13, 12:39 PM
One of my favorite scenes in the film was when Peter threw Gwen out the window. I just loved the set up to that.:smallbiggrin:


I also loved the scene where Peter's first adapting to his new strength.:smallbiggrin:


Another thing I really liked was that the villain wasn't killed. I thought that was interesting. Like, he could return in sequels and maybe team up with another villain. I do think it's sort of become a little cliche in super hero films to kill off the villain at the end.

These are all excellent observations, Dr. Epic. I agree that the first two points are two of the coolest scenes in the movie. And I totally agree with your third point... I'm glad they avoided that trend as well.

Avilan the Grey
2012-07-13, 12:50 PM
I admit I haven't read the whole thread, nor seen the movie, but so far I fail to understand why a reboot is necessary? Way too early, I think (and so do several movie critics; it seems to get fairly low scores).

The Glyphstone
2012-07-13, 12:53 PM
I admit I haven't read the whole thread, nor seen the movie, but so far I fail to understand why a reboot is necessary? Way too early, I think (and so do several movie critics; it seems to get fairly low scores).

It has nothing to do with critical scores, or reviews, or anything. Sony's contract requires them to make a Spiderman movie every X years, or they lose the rights to make more Spiderman movies.

JoeMac307
2012-07-13, 01:18 PM
It has nothing to do with critical scores, or reviews, or anything. Sony's contract requires them to make a Spiderman movie every X years, or they lose the rights to make more Spiderman movies.

This is the exact same reason that Fox is trying to reboot Daredevil and Fantastic Four (http://www.totalfilm.com/news/fox-reveals-fantastic-four-and-daredevil-reboot-plans).

EDIT:
It is also the reason we'll probably never see Spider-Man or the Thing in an Avengers movie (they are Avengers in some of the comics nowadays), or Kingpin in a Spider-Man movie.

Tyndmyr
2012-07-13, 01:19 PM
This is the exact same reason that Fox is trying to reboot Daredevil and Fantastic Four (http://www.totalfilm.com/news/fox-reveals-fantastic-four-and-daredevil-reboot-plans).

Well, I feel that this Spiderman was an improvement. Let us hope those will be as well.

JoeMac307
2012-07-13, 01:21 PM
Well, I feel that this Spiderman was an improvement. Let us hope those will be as well.

That's setting the bar pretty low. Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer and Daredevil were not the best movies, superhero or otherwise. (Although I've heard the DD director's cut is much better than the studio version, but I've never seen it).

Tyndmyr
2012-07-13, 01:28 PM
That's setting the bar pretty low. Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer and Daredevil were not the best movies, superhero or otherwise. (Although I've heard the DD director's cut is much better than the studio version, but I've never seen it).

DD director's cut is much better, and is actually decent...I saw it first, and didn't understand the dislike until I saw the original, which apparently suffered badly in editing(not unlike green lantern, IMO). Still, it's no Avengers.

Both Fantastic Fours were weak, IMO. I'm really not impressed by either of those movies. Elektra was also pretty lackluster.

Comic book movies have become a much more serious genre of late, though, and are attracting a lot more talent and money. I think there's decent potential for improvement.

JoeMac307
2012-07-13, 01:38 PM
Comic book movies have become a much more serious genre of late, though, and are attracting a lot more talent and money. I think there's decent potential for improvement.

Small point... but IMHO, there is a difference between comic book movies and superhero movies.

Comic book movies are movies adapted from comic books. That includes 300, Road to Perdition, A History of Violence, Sin City, and others that don't include any superheroes, per se.

Superhero movies feature a central character with fantastic powers, usually in a modern setting. That includes Dark Man and Hancock, for example, neither of which were originally published as comic books.

Now yes, I recognize that the majority of comic book movies are also super hero movies, but they are not, strictly speaking, the same thing.

(It just kinda grates on me because people tend to think comic books = superheroes, and that is pretty limiting for an entire form media. It would be like saying tv = sitcoms or something).

Tyndmyr
2012-07-13, 01:41 PM
Oh, I agree. And I loved the hell out of Sin City. Fine film. 300 was decent, though not really falling into my favorite niches as much.

I think that perhaps superheroes are getting the lions share of the attention, but other stuff will probably share in it later. Hell, Walking Dead got a TV show...and even if it is abysmally stupid, there's always the possibility of something better later.

JoeMac307
2012-07-13, 01:54 PM
Oh, I agree. And I loved the hell out of Sin City. Fine film. 300 was decent, though not really falling into my favorite niches as much.

I think that perhaps superheroes are getting the lions share of the attention, but other stuff will probably share in it later. Hell, Walking Dead got a TV show...and even if it is abysmally stupid, there's always the possibility of something better later.

I thought the first season of Walking Dead was pretty good, but I admit that was before I started reading the comic.

Since then, I've gone back and read the first 30 or so issues (it is hard to tell which exact issue I'm up to because I'm reading a gigantic omnibus edition that doesn't break out issue numbers), and quite frankly, it's ruined the show for me. It is exponentially better.

The second season of Walking Dead was particularly bad, maybe because Darabont left.

The worst part of the show is the sheer amount of idiot balls the characters are juggling. But my brother's best friend works for AMC, so I'll keep watching the show as a form of solidarity. :smallsmile:

Avilan the Grey
2012-07-13, 01:57 PM
It has nothing to do with critical scores, or reviews, or anything. Sony's contract requires them to make a Spiderman movie every X years, or they lose the rights to make more Spiderman movies.

so? It does not explain the need for a reboot?

Xondoure
2012-07-13, 02:04 PM
so? It does not explain the need for a reboot?

No one was going to go see Toby Mcguire after Spider Man 3.

kpenguin
2012-07-13, 02:10 PM
so? It does not explain the need for a reboot?

A Spider-Man 4 would have been very expensive to make for numerous reasons. Rebooting Spider-Man allowed them to keep the cash cow that is the Spider-Man character while wiping the slate clean to keep costs down.

JoeMac307
2012-07-13, 02:15 PM
No one was going to go see Toby Mcguire after Spider Man 3.

I can definitely agree with that... and although I liked the Amazing Spider-Man movie, it does still beg the question, why another origin story?

I mean, long running franchises replace actors, even lead actors, all the time. James Bond is probably the easiest example.

So, the question to my mind is why did they have to reboot the series and start all over again with a new origin story? Why not just continue where Spider-Man 3 left off, and maybe ignore the stinkier bits?

I would posit that the reasons for not doing that are:


they wanted to appeal to the younger demographic with younger actors and a high school / early college setting, and

they want to be able to use the Green Goblin (almost definitely) and (most likely) Venom, as well as maybe Doctor Octopus or Sandman in later films, but all of these characters were left dead or made idiotic in the first three films.


Hence, the reboot.

Selrahc
2012-07-13, 02:18 PM
so? It does not explain the need for a reboot?

The cast and crew of the non-reboot Spider-Man films are big time movie folks who command high paychecks and have demanding schedules. Releasing another movie in the franchise with that group was discussed by studios, but didn't take off.

This movie is the result of Fox then having a contractual obligation to make another Spider-Man movie or lose the license.

JoeMac307
2012-07-13, 02:21 PM
This movie is the result of Fox then having a contractual obligation to make another Spider-Man movie or lose the license.

I thought it was Sony, not Fox?

Avilan the Grey
2012-07-13, 02:25 PM
The cast and crew of the non-reboot Spider-Man films are big time movie folks who command high paychecks and have demanding schedules. Releasing another movie in the franchise with that group was discussed by studios, but didn't take off.

This movie is the result of Fox then having a contractual obligation to make another Spider-Man movie or lose the license.

You are mixing up reboot and recast. You don't have to keep the same actors to keep the same continuity. The new origin story is COMPLETELY unnecessary.
After reading reviews and spoilers for this movie I think this is going the same way as the hulk movies and FF. It DOES seem to be a love- or hate movie, people are either giving it 4 or 5 of 5, or 2.

The Glyphstone
2012-07-13, 03:05 PM
You are mixing up reboot and recast. You don't have to keep the same actors to keep the same continuity. The new origin story is COMPLETELY unnecessary.
After reading reviews and spoilers for this movie I think this is going the same way as the hulk movies and FF. It DOES seem to be a love- or hate movie, people are either giving it 4 or 5 of 5, or 2.

Because Hollywood can't count past 3 in 99% of cases. Unless it's adapting an existing work with 3+ parts (Harry Potter, Twilight, James Bond), the Go-to model is trilogies. Once you've hit your Part 3 or 3rd movie in the series, it's time to start over.

Tyndmyr
2012-07-13, 03:13 PM
I thought the first season of Walking Dead was pretty good, but I admit that was before I started reading the comic.

Since then, I've gone back and read the first 30 or so issues (it is hard to tell which exact issue I'm up to because I'm reading a gigantic omnibus edition that doesn't break out issue numbers), and quite frankly, it's ruined the show for me. It is exponentially better.

The second season of Walking Dead was particularly bad, maybe because Darabont left.

The worst part of the show is the sheer amount of idiot balls the characters are juggling. But my brother's best friend works for AMC, so I'll keep watching the show as a form of solidarity. :smallsmile:

That's exactly the issue. The first season had a lot of promise, and while there was the occasional shoddy bit...no show is perfect, and I figured that once we got done introducing everything, we could pick up the pace and scale up the interesting bits.

Instead, the second season basically followed a formulaic "WE HAVE EMOTIONS, LETS YELL AT EACH OTHER" for every episode, while not progressing much of any plot, and occasionally a random char would do something abysmally stupid.

It had so much potential, that I watched the entire second season, hoping for a change, but I think I'm done with it for good now.

SoC175
2012-07-13, 03:35 PM
so? It does not explain the need for a reboot?Easy: They wasted Venom and that was the only chance to bring him back as he should have been done the first time. :smallsmile:

JoeMac307
2012-07-13, 03:35 PM
You are mixing up reboot and recast. You don't have to keep the same actors to keep the same continuity. The new origin story is COMPLETELY unnecessary.
After reading reviews and spoilers for this movie I think this is going the same way as the hulk movies and FF. It DOES seem to be a love- or hate movie, people are either giving it 4 or 5 of 5, or 2.

I gave reasons why the studio may not have seen a new origin story as being completely unnecessary.

I thought they were good reasons, but maybe not? :smallfrown:

Avilan the Grey
2012-07-13, 04:03 PM
I gave reasons why the studio may not have seen a new origin story as being completely unnecessary.

I thought they were good reasons, but maybe not? :smallfrown:

I don't think it is a good reason.

1. Up to "one more day" (which is the event that makes me never read Spider-Man again) letting spidey age slightly every year worked out splendidly. He was a college student / freshly graduated in the first three movies.

2. Not a good reason.

I must say to degree I dislike the idea of this movie simply because the reboot is so close to the originals. I fear a development with constantly rolling franchise reboots (like, unfortunately, the comic book industry (particularly DC) already does; I get very frustrated when in what feels like a great run DC just pulls the rug away and remakes everything leaving me with a sense of loss and a confused "hey I was watching that!" feeling. It seems like DC do a continuity reboot every... 2 years. Tops. Lately it is every 18 months or so) and that will be the death of the Superhero movie. I dread the reboot of Iron man in 3 years ("Now with a young edgy Tony Stark fresh out of highscool" :smalleek::smallfrown::smallfurious::smallsigh:)

Karoht
2012-07-13, 05:11 PM
so? It does not explain the need for a reboot?
"As disagreements between Sony and Raimi threatened to push the film off the intended May 6, 2011 release date, Sony Pictures announced in January 2010 that plans for Spider-Man 4 had been cancelled due to Raimi's withdrawal from the project. Raimi reportedly ended his participation due to his doubt that he could meet the planned May 6, 2011 release date while at the same time upholding the film creatively. Raimi purportedly went through four iterations of the script with different screenwriters and still "hated it".[36]
Source: Wiki

So the big reasons for the Reboot are:
-Director dropped out.
-Script was Terribad (Felicia hardy as the Vulturess? Really?)
-Actors were getting pricy
-Toby McWho? And other casting issues.
-Sony
-Wanted to cover a different aspect of the story, one they should have started with, but didn't, for a few reasons. Early concept stuff (back in the early 2000's) for Lizard was terrible from what I heard, nothing like what we got in this film, I think the capacity to tell this story the way they wanted to simply wasn't there.


@Iron Man Reboot
Um, after Avengers, they would have to be explicitedly stupid to reboot Iron Man, Thor, or Captain America. I could see a new Hulk Origins film, but there's actually fan demand for that now, still doubtful they'll do it. I think a reboot of any of the Avengers lineup is a long way away. Maybe more than a decade, maybe more than 15 years, maybe even 20. I think that more depends on the longevity of the actors, but that becomes a different debate really.

Avilan the Grey
2012-07-13, 06:27 PM
Well I still don't see why a reboot is a good idea. Of course as a comic book reader I am used to the same character being drawn and written by different people and still in the same continuity.

As for wanting to tell the story "in a way they should have" (my emphasis)... Quite frankly this version of the "story" seems much worse than the original.

As for the imagined Iron Man reboot: This is exactly my point. But some idiot executive meddler will screw things up. Eventually. They always do.

Xondoure
2012-07-13, 06:47 PM
Well I still don't see why a reboot is a good idea. Of course as a comic book reader I am used to the same character being drawn and written by different people and still in the same continuity.

As for wanting to tell the story "in a way they should have" (my emphasis)... Quite frankly this version of the "story" seems much worse than the original.

As for the imagined Iron Man reboot: This is exactly my point. But some idiot executive meddler will screw things up. Eventually. They always do.

Idiot executive meddlers go where they think the money is. You'd have to be an idiot revolutionary director/writer to want to reboot a cash cow like Iron Man when it's still the front runner in the race.

MLai
2012-07-14, 12:33 AM
The worst part of the show is the sheer amount of idiot balls the characters are juggling.
Compared to Falling Skies, the Walking Dead cast are a batch of Einstein commandos.

@ Avilan The Grey:
You haven't seen the movie yet, right? I thought like you while walking into the theatre ("Why they gotta reboot this is stupid. Who is this jerk, he doesn't look like a HS student at all. Oh he's skateboarding isn't he supposed to be geeky wtf is this crap.").

I walked out liking the movie. Not like as in Hunger Games like ("Meh it was alright I wanted to see what the fuss was about. I wasn't bored."), but more Iron Man/Thor like ("Hey that was actually pretty damn good. At least as good as old Spiderman 1, and in many scenes even better.")

I think it's worth watching in the theatres. But most ppl feel the 3D is crap, so just watch the Digital.

Avilan the Grey
2012-07-14, 03:57 AM
Compared to Falling Skies, the Walking Dead cast are a batch of Einstein commandos.

@ Avilan The Grey:
You haven't seen the movie yet, right? I thought like you while walking into the theatre ("Why they gotta reboot this is stupid. Who is this jerk, he doesn't look like a HS student at all. Oh he's skateboarding isn't he supposed to be geeky wtf is this crap.").

I walked out liking the movie. Not like as in Hunger Games like ("Meh it was alright I wanted to see what the fuss was about. I wasn't bored."), but more Iron Man/Thor like ("Hey that was actually pretty damn good. At least as good as old Spiderman 1, and in many scenes even better.")

I think it's worth watching in the theatres. But most ppl feel the 3D is crap, so just watch the Digital.

I won't watch it in a theatre I think, it just doesn't sound that interesting. But yes, reading the reviews from actual movie goers makes me think this is a love it or hate it movie. On one side you have the ones that hate what they did to the origin story, to Peter himself.
On the other hand you have the people who just love it.

MLai
2012-07-14, 04:42 AM
@ Avilan:

I think I said it in another forum, so pardon me if I actually said it here already... I see new Spiderman movie as a Hollywood movie more than a comic book movie. I think they were trying to take out all the stupid stuff that ppl just let slide because "it's a comic book movie." Ofc that would make comic book purists hate it, but I like it for that because I'm more a movies/TV guy and I can't stand some of the stupid comics stuff that became "classic."

Examples of old movie #1 stupid stuff because it was faithful to the comics:

(1) A pro wrestler taking on all comers (ppl off the street). In NYC? About as likely as everything in Temple Of Doom happening in India. New movie changed this scenario.

(2) Peter Parker being a nerd in the mold of Revenge Of The Nerds. That stereotype was tired back in 2000 when the old movie came out. New Peter is much more believable imo... geeky but not stereotypical insulting geeky.

(3) Some guy shoots Uncle Ben and Peter immediately finds him, ready for mano y mano. Wow, convenient. New movie changed this, and it was for the better too in terms of character dev for Peter.

Oh, and Peter pretty much manslaughtered the guy in old movie. I used to tell ppl how much I hated that, especially after the #3 stinker came out. Hey a*****e you killed an innocent man! How do you feel about that?! Oh right, nothing.

P.S. Oh Sam Raimi you can't work on Spiderman anymore? I won't miss you.

(4) Ppl complained about the "Tarzan scene", saying it's too sappy/convenient I guess. Hmm... they must have forgotten the comparable scene in the old movie where New Yorkers were throwing garbage at GG to defend Spiderman? Umm, I lived in NYC 25 years, and that is BS. New scene is more believable.

Avilan the Grey
2012-07-14, 06:17 AM
@ Avilan:

I think I said it in another forum, so pardon me if I actually said it here already... I see new Spiderman movie as a Hollywood movie more than a comic book movie. I think they were trying to take out all the stupid stuff that ppl just let slide because "it's a comic book movie." Ofc that would make comic book purists hate it, but I like it for that because I'm more a movies/TV guy and I can't stand some of the stupid comics stuff that became "classic."

Examples of old movie #1 stupid stuff because it was faithful to the comics:

(1) A pro wrestler taking on all comers (ppl off the street). In NYC? About as likely as everything in Temple Of Doom happening in India. New movie changed this scenario.

(2) Peter Parker being a nerd in the mold of Revenge Of The Nerds. That stereotype was tired back in 2000 when the old movie came out. New Peter is much more believable imo... geeky but not stereotypical insulting geeky.

(3) Some guy shoots Uncle Ben and Peter immediately finds him, ready for mano y mano. Wow, convenient. New movie changed this, and it was for the better too in terms of character dev for Peter.

Oh, and Peter pretty much manslaughtered the guy in old movie. I used to tell ppl how much I hated that, especially after the #3 stinker came out. Hey a*****e you killed an innocent man! How do you feel about that?! Oh right, nothing.

P.S. Oh Sam Raimi you can't work on Spiderman anymore? I won't miss you.

(4) Ppl complained about the "Tarzan scene", saying it's too sappy/convenient I guess. Hmm... they must have forgotten the comparable scene in the old movie where New Yorkers were throwing garbage at GG to defend Spiderman? Umm, I lived in NYC 25 years, and that is BS. New scene is more believable.

1. Don't care. Not that this scene was necessary, but it was nice to recognize it from the books.

2. Thanks for calling me insulting. I was exactly like Peter, only more bullied and less intelligent growing up.

3. I don't know what the change was in the new movie, but I never saw the old scenario as unrealistic.

And what guy are you talking about?

Oh and Ps. why not? He made two very good superhero movies, definitely in the top tier (better than Thor and the Hulk movies, better than all X-men movies but of course not as good as the Great Four (Iron Man, Iron Man 2, Cap and Avengers).

MLai
2012-07-14, 07:24 AM
Woah, don't take offense at misconstrued words. I don't feel like arguing with ppl about anything atm; just talking about Spiderman for god's sake.

1. I'm telling u but also expressing an opinion to anyone who wants to read it, in general.

2. The bespectacled nerd is a stereotype for all kids who get good grades in school, bonus points if he's Asian. IMO it's nice the new movie shows hey Peter's still booksmart and nearsighted, but that doesn't mean he has to act/dress like a stereotype.

3. I'm talking about the guy who shot Uncle Ben in the comics. In the old movie trilogy, Sam Raimi wrote it so that Sandman shot Uncle Ben remember?

4. Why not? Because #3 is pretty much on the level of Batman & Robin, to me. He was completely trolling the audience by movie #3.

As an aside, I like X-men 1 and 2, considering them on the level of Iron Man 1 and Avengers. X1 and X2 aren't as consistently awesome as Iron Man 1, but some characters and moments more than make up for it for me.

Avilan the Grey
2012-07-14, 11:36 AM
Woah, don't take offense at misconstrued words. I don't feel like arguing with ppl about anything atm; just talking about Spiderman for god's sake.

Don't worry about it :smallsmile:

I just dislike reboots, period. And remakes. Not only because it feels like 95% of everything is one of those two things, these days, but also because I am tired of them (as my rant about DC comics and their incurable desire to ruin good series every 24 months because they cannot figure out why they are not as popular as Marvel shows).

Kris Strife
2012-07-14, 11:43 AM
4. Why not? Because #3 is pretty much on the level of Batman & Robin, to me. He was completely trolling the audience by movie #3.

I recall hearing that 3 was the victim of quite a bit of Executive meddling, and Raimi wasn't happy with it himself. Don't know if that's completely accurate, it's just what I'd heard.

Avilan the Grey
2012-07-14, 11:45 AM
I recall hearing that 3 was the victim of quite a bit of Executive meddling, and Raimi wasn't happy with it himself. Don't know if that's completely accurate, it's just what I'd heard.

Their big problem was that in order to accommodate two A-list villains they needed a twice as long movie. Or they could have thrown Venom out.

VanBuren
2012-07-14, 01:39 PM
You are mixing up reboot and recast. You don't have to keep the same actors to keep the same continuity. The new origin story is COMPLETELY unnecessary.
After reading reviews and spoilers for this movie I think this is going the same way as the hulk movies and FF. It DOES seem to be a love- or hate movie, people are either giving it 4 or 5 of 5, or 2.

Don't think of it as a reboot of Spider-Man 616 (the normal canon), this movie seems to follow the Ultimate continuity if anything.


Their big problem was that in order to accommodate two A-list villains they needed a twice as long movie. Or they could have thrown Venom out.

Raimi didn't want Venom there in the first place.

MLai
2012-07-14, 08:47 PM
I'll agree that Venom was poorly wedged in, for movie 3. However, if any villain had to be removed I would have preferred it to be Sandman.

Because of the manslaughter thing. I mean this basic ignorance of law and morality is just egregious; it makes Spiderman out to be a sanctimonious hypocrite vigilante. "I forgive you Sandman"? What so I guess you also forgive yourself for causing the man who didn't kill you uncle to fall to his death. For me it's just as bad as say, the positively-spun abusive relationship in Metroid Other M.

And that's not even talking about the drastic origin rewrite which completely destroys the point of movie #1? Spidey can rest easy now; he could have stopped that robber and his uncle would still be dead.

Remove Sandman, write Venom in properly, and Toby McG can still have his good/evil struggle with the symbiote and his bromance quarrels with GG Jr. Remove Venom (and therefore the symbiote plot arc), and all you're left with is "I forgive you Sandman." :smallfurious:

VanBuren
2012-07-14, 11:57 PM
I'll agree that Venom was poorly wedged in, for movie 3. However, if any villain had to be removed I would have preferred it to be Sandman.

Because of the manslaughter thing. I mean this basic ignorance of law and morality is just egregious; it makes Spiderman out to be a sanctimonious hypocrite vigilante. "I forgive you Sandman"? What so I guess you also forgive yourself for causing the man who didn't kill you uncle to fall to his death. For me it's just as bad as say, the positively-spun abusive relationship in Metroid Other M.

And that's not even talking about the drastic origin rewrite which completely destroys the point of movie #1? Spidey can rest easy now; he could have stopped that robber and his uncle would still be dead.

Remove Sandman, write Venom in properly, and Toby McG can still have his good/evil struggle with the symbiote and his bromance quarrels with GG Jr. Remove Venom (and therefore the symbiote plot arc), and all you're left with is "I forgive you Sandman." :smallfurious:

Or have the symbiote plot and save Venom for the next one.

SmartAlec
2012-07-15, 11:38 AM
On the Reboot:

What was left, really? They'd done the Origin. They've done the Goblin. They'd done Peter in college, Peter in the Bugle. They'd done the romance will-they-won't-they with Mary Jane. They'd done 'Spider-Man no more'. They'd done Harry Osbourne-becomes-Goblin. They'd done a Peter-Mary Jane breakup. They'd done Venom.

What's left? What's iconic to Spider-Man that would draw in the crowds and make a good movie? Cosmic Spidey? The Clone Saga? That stuff with the animal totems? No... no, that way lies madness. The Raimi films blew through their A-grade material too fast.

So, back to the drawing-board. Base it on the Ultimates comic, like the other Marvel movies, and bring the visual style in line with them. Re-tell the origin, but keep in some mysteries for future film material. Start with Gwen Stacy, and leave the option open for her death. Same story, but told in a different way. Pace things better.

You might not like it, but it's a pretty sensible idea if there's going to be more Spidey films.

Avilan the Grey
2012-07-15, 11:51 AM
On the Reboot:

What was left, really? They'd done the Origin. They've done the Goblin. They'd done Peter in college, Peter in the Bugle. They'd done the romance will-they-won't-they with Mary Jane. They'd done 'Spider-Man no more'. They'd done Harry Osbourne-becomes-Goblin. They'd done a Peter-Mary Jane breakup. They'd done Venom.

I don't understand this argument. Are you saying the comic should reboot after each story arch? :smallconfused:

Selrahc
2012-07-15, 12:00 PM
Base it on the Ultimates comic, like the other Marvel movies, and bring the visual style in line with them.

People say that, but it isn't terribly accurate. It's more true that the movies draw elements from both Ultimate and 616 continuity, and then invent stuff to make it all fit.

From what I've heard about this movie, it doesn't sound like it is much like Ultimate Spider-Man, so much as its own creation attempting to be distinct from Sam Raimi Spider-Man and Comic Spider-Man with some fairly large changes.

VanBuren
2012-07-15, 01:34 PM
People say that, but it isn't terribly accurate. It's more true that the movies draw elements from both Ultimate and 616 continuity, and then invent stuff to make it all fit.

From what I've heard about this movie, it doesn't sound like it is much like Ultimate Spider-Man, so much as its own creation attempting to be distinct from Sam Raimi Spider-Man and Comic Spider-Man with some fairly large changes.

I dunno. It's got Peter remembering his parents, it's got his LI working for OsCorp, everyone's a bit younger, and Ben's speech is even taken pretty much verbatim from Ultimate Spider-Man.

Selrahc
2012-07-15, 02:02 PM
I'd bet it does take *some* influence from Ultimate. But given that both Ultimate and the movie are modern retellings of the Spider-Man mythos I don't think that's surprising. They're automatically going to cover similar ground. I don't think this movie sounds like it's drawing all that much from Ultimate considering that. It isn't using plots or characters. Just covering similar themes.

Reverent-One
2012-07-15, 02:19 PM
And that's not even talking about the drastic origin rewrite which completely destroys the point of movie #1? Spidey can rest easy now; he could have stopped that robber and his uncle would still be dead.


Incorrect. Uncle Ben was getting through to Sandman, it was only when the other guy ran up and grabbed his arm that the gun went off.

SmartAlec
2012-07-15, 06:31 PM
I don't understand this argument. Are you saying the comic should reboot after each story arch? :smallconfused:

Comics can do what movies can't - go on, and on. And on. Aaaand on. They have a lot more space for dialogues, recaps, explanations...

Movies based on comic-books, though, need to focus on the bare bones. Things get too complicated to follow otherwise.

Avilan the Grey
2012-07-16, 01:14 AM
Comics can do what movies can't - go on, and on. And on. Aaaand on. They have a lot more space for dialogues, recaps, explanations...

Movies based on comic-books, though, need to focus on the bare bones. Things get too complicated to follow otherwise.

No, not if they close the major arcs. I still don't see this as a problem.

irenicObserver
2012-07-16, 01:34 AM
About Spider-Man 3 I present this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HoNgMVFQNBI) for your entertainment. Frankly I very much disliked Sandman for the same reasons he is mocked in that video. He's a misguided guy that thinks breaking the law is okay because his daughter is sick. Don't get me wrong it's not like his story is unsympathetic, it's just a rather trite motivation for a guy that was just a petty criminal in the comics.


Well I still don't see why a reboot is a good idea. Of course as a comic book reader I am used to the same character being drawn and written by different people and still in the same continuity.

As for wanting to tell the story "in a way they should have" (my emphasis)... Quite frankly this version of the "story" seems much worse than the original.

As for the imagined Iron Man reboot: This is exactly my point. But some idiot executive meddler will screw things up. Eventually. They always do.

I think it's a conflict of mediums then. Sure, we're all tired of reboots, but that doesn't mean they can't tell a good story. The experience of reading is much in contrast to the methods used for the silver screen.

How can you say that about this version without actually seeing it? What's biased secondhand knowledge going to really give you?

I find this cynical. I'm done here.

Dienekes
2012-07-16, 01:59 AM
So I saw the movie. Probably don't have much new to say. It was ok. Not the best, not the worst, but ok. Honestly I place it around even with the first 2 of the earlier trilogy, of course better than the third.

The Good

This spiderman felt more like spiderman. He joked, he snarked, it was spiderman onscreen.
Watching the nerds discuss Spidermans rate of movement in an argument I'd be lying if I said I haven't partaken in similarly asinine discussions about comicbook characters
Gwen Stacy, she did good. Can't wait to see her die in a movie or two.
For the most part it cut back on the camp. Now I like a reasonable dose of camp, as I liked the first trilogy. But they went with a different style and it mostly worked.
The Lizard as a whole was cool, I liked the way they implemented his tail as a weapon. And that he kept his intelligence.
Peters first fight scene after he gains powers. Hilarious.

The Bad

The f***ing crane sequence. Oh dear lord, I could not stop laughing. Remember when I said you took out most the camp? Were you just saving it all up for one glorious peace of stupidity here?
Peter came off as a creep. Really. He wasn't charming, he was a creep. He wasn't nerdy, he was a creep. I'm sorry Gwen when you discover that someone has pictures of you saved on their computer the appropriate response is to slap them, not to ask for a date. This is a continuous trend I see in romantic storylines, and let me spell it out. Stalking is not cute. Obsessing over the image of a girl, is not romantic. Please, authors, writers, and playwrights stop portraying it as such.
Commissioner Stacy: Yes, Commish, charge the super-human monster alone. Don't bring the freakin' SWAT team, or the helicopter. No, you must fight this alone so you can get yourself murdered. Truly you are a master tactician.
Skaterdude Parker: Why? Was that an Ultimates thing? Now I guess it's a harmless change so it might not be best to put it in the Bad category, but why? Seems a gimmick to expand the audience.
So they took out that Spiderman becomes Spiderman from dumb luck (Ok, I guess), and went with instead he becomes Spiderman because he is irresponsibly stupid.

The Ugly
This could just be me, but did anyone else think that the Spider suit looked really, really bad in a few shots, like it was obviously touched up with CGI?
I still think the Lizard's face looked dumb

MLai
2012-07-16, 05:48 AM
So, uhh... how long are spoiler tags required for a thread specifically about the movie?

@ Dienekes:
Crane sequence - I still find it less camp than New Yorkers throwing garbage at GG while GG is fighting with Spiderman (old movie 1). At least here, it's 1 man who is being a Good Samaritan, after Spidey saved his son. Much more credible than average NYC bystanders acting like big dumb heroes. Are they going to throw garbage at ppl with guns during a gang war, or a bank robbery?

Peter "stalking" Gwen - Having a picture of her face zoomed from the class photo he took isn't really stalky. Neither is taking a picture of her just sitting there, not in an embarassing situation or such. They're just teenage things that happen. Obsessing over the apperance of a girl? This isn't an adult romance it's a teen crush (or at least starts out as such), he's allowed to express it clumsily.

Lizard's face - Personally I like it when zoanthropes/therianthropes retain human features on their animalistic faces, rather than getting a straight-up animal head slapped onto a hairy/scaly humanoid body. Lon Chaney Jr's wolf man, for example. What started as a sfx make-up limitation, turned into a pleasing aesthetic standard imo.

Besides, if he had to talk or emote while having a 100% lizard head, the effect would just look too Looney Tunes.

Dienekes
2012-07-16, 07:33 AM
@ Dienekes:
Crane sequence - I still find it less camp than New Yorkers throwing garbage at GG while GG is fighting with Spiderman (old movie 1). At least here, it's 1 man who is being a Good Samaritan, after Spidey saved his son. Much more credible than average NYC bystanders acting like big dumb heroes. Are they going to throw garbage at ppl with guns during a gang war, or a bank robbery?

No it isn't though. It's not just one good Samaritan it was one good Samaritan for every single crane they turned. One Good Samaritan they had to call up and tell to go make it to the cranes while everyone else is trying to flee, in New York traffic. The more you think about it, the more eye crossingly dumb it gets.

I can understand the Green Goblin thing, oh it's ridiculous. But it's people who are present acting in the heat of the moment. Honestly I don't think it'd be even that terrible if the dialogue after it wasn't atrocious. But it at least isn't people entering ground zero to help out after being told they need to evacuate. To help someone who helped 1 guy who wasn't even in charge of the company of men sent to act this way.

And also, who would think of doing that? What tangled mind would go from: I need to help Spiderman to If I align the cranes leading to Oscorp parallel to the ground Spiderman can swing on them to safety. At least for the GG scene we can see how it transitions: I have a can, the enemy is outof reach, I must throw can.

As for the stalker thing. I'll just say this. At my work when I was in high school someone did something very similar, stealthily taking pictures of one of the girls, and only one of the girls on his phone. He had a bunch. When she found out, her reaction was not "wanna go out?" It was one of disgust and revolution.

GolemsVoice
2012-07-16, 08:22 AM
If I remember correctly, she wasn't even that big on his desktop, more like the focus, but not totally singled out. So what? He's shy, he's in love, and pretty awkward. It's a bit strange, but not exactly unusual.

And the fotos: Didn't he take pictures of nearly everything/one? He's a photographer, so he just took the opportunity to take one photo of a beautiful girl.

MLai
2012-07-16, 08:30 AM
Inclined to agree w/ Golems. Now if he has dozens of photos of her, all plastered over the wall or kept in a secret album, that would be obsessive. :smalleek:

Dienekes
2012-07-16, 08:47 AM
If I remember correctly, she wasn't even that big on his desktop, more like the focus, but not totally singled out. So what? He's shy, he's in love, and pretty awkward. It's a bit strange, but not exactly unusual.

And the fotos: Didn't he take pictures of nearly everything/one? He's a photographer, so he just took the opportunity to take one photo of a beautiful girl.

She doesn't know that. All she knows is that he has photos of her on his computer, as announced so tactfully by some kindly old relative of Peters.

Maybe it's just me, but if I knew a girl was hiding pictures of me on her computer I wouldn't be looking for her number.

irenicObserver
2012-07-16, 09:24 AM
Yeah I don't know why people are putting in spoilers. It's common sense that there will be some in this thread and it's cumbersome for those actually involved (or me at least) to click through every one.
As for the stalker thing. I'll just say this. At my work when I was in high school someone did something very similar, stealthily taking pictures of one of the girls, and only one of the girls on his phone. He had a bunch. When she found out, her reaction was not "wanna go out?" It was one of disgust and revolution.

YES, YES! OVERTHROW THE BONDS OF OPPRESSION SET FORTH BY THE MAN!

Tyndmyr
2012-07-16, 11:05 AM
Compared to Falling Skies, the Walking Dead cast are a batch of Einstein commandos.

A "who is dumber" showdown between these two teams would in fact be legendary. I suspect that, if you pitted the teams against each other, they would manage to both lose.

SmartAlec
2012-07-16, 11:12 AM
No, not if they close the major arcs. I still don't see this as a problem.

Well, what can I say. You've likely never seen it as a problem because you've never seen it done. And you likely never will, because it's not a good idea.

Dienekes
2012-07-16, 12:31 PM
Yeah I don't know why people are putting in spoilers. It's common sense that there will be some in this thread and it's cumbersome for those actually involved (or me at least) to click through every one.

Ehh, never saw what was so cumbersome about clicking a button, but if everyones ok with the spoilers I won't do it anymore.


YES, YES! OVERTHROW THE BONDS OF OPPRESSION SET FORTH BY THE MAN!

Hah, that's what I get for posting as soon as I wake up. Of course I meant disgust and revulsion, which is a tautology anyway. Ouch, not looking too good with that post.

Avilan the Grey
2012-07-16, 12:31 PM
Well, what can I say. You've likely never seen it as a problem because you've never seen it done. And you likely never will, because it's not a good idea.

And why is that?

Muz
2012-07-16, 01:42 PM
I'm pretty sure I read (somewhere, don't remember where now) way back when the reboot was first announced that the reason they were doing so was, specifically, to de-age Peter a bit because they were worried Spiderman wouldn't appeal to the teen demographic.

Personally I think that's a really stupid thing to worry about (kids are definitely capable of enjoying movies about adults having adventures--I seem to recall Star Wars doing well...), but hey, that's Hollywood.

Rake21
2012-07-16, 02:17 PM
I'm pretty sure I read (somewhere, don't remember where now) way back when the reboot was first announced that the reason they were doing so was, specifically, to de-age Peter a bit because they were worried Spiderman wouldn't appeal to the teen demographic.

Personally I think that's a really stupid thing to worry about (kids are definitely capable of enjoying movies about adults having adventures--I seem to recall Star Wars doing well...), but hey, that's Hollywood.

A younger Peter Parker may have been part of it.

I think the main problem was that they backed themselves into a wall, plot wise. They'd burned through the majority of major villains in the first three movies. It's hard to go from the Green Goblin, Doc Ock, and Venom down to whoever was left. They could have gone the Lizard route, but he never would have seemed like as much of a threat as his predecessors. Or heck, maybe the Rodrick Kingsly could have been brought in, but I think most people were tired of goblins by then.

But instead, they were going to make Felicia Hardy into the Vultress... which would have been down right silly. Rami, who did an excellent job with the first two films, just kind of ran out of ideas.

So, they're left with two choices. A) Continue on in the same continuity with a new director, and probably new actors. B) Or, reboot the thing and try from scratch.

Can't blame them for going with option "B", and it worked out pretty well.

Traab
2012-07-16, 02:24 PM
A younger Peter Parker may have been part of it.

I think the main problem was that they backed themselves into a wall, plot wise. They'd burned through the majority of major villains in the first three movies. It's hard to go from the Green Goblin, Doc Ock, and Venom down to whoever was left. They could have gone the Lizard route, but he never would have seemed like as much of a threat as his predecessors. Or heck, maybe the Rodrick Kingsly could have been brought in, but I think most people were tired of goblins by then.

But instead, they were going to make Felicia Hardy into the Vultress... which would have been down right silly. Rami, who did an excellent job with the first two films, just kind of ran out of ideas.

So, they're left with two choices. A) Continue on in the same continuity with a new director, and probably new actors. B) Or, reboot the thing and try from scratch.

Can't blame them for going with option "B", and it worked out pretty well.

They could have done the Scorpion and covered JJ and his obsession with spiderman, they could have done Fisk and his Spider Slayers, though that might have gone too far into cartoon land, or been too close to transformer turf. They could have left a teaser at the end of the third movie and left clues for Carnage to show up. Hydroman is too close to sandman to work well, especially as back to back bad guys. Kraven I couldnt recall what his thing was beyond his tarzan act. He was some sort of crazy hunter wasnt he? So its like a most dangerous game scenario played out in new york. That could have worked. The vulture I dont recall as ever being especially effective as a bad guy.

They could have even gone the gang war route. Possibly tie in to daredevil turf and mention that the kingpin is out of prison and in knee braces, and in the mean time other gangs have moved in. Now spiderman is trying to keep the lid on the kingpin, the silvermanes, and their primary enforcer Tombstone as they war across the city trying to wipe each other out. Bring in Rhino for the Kingpin as a matching set of hard to hurt pure muscle thugs for spiderman to have to struggle with. Though honestly I would hope they alter the rhinos costume as the cartoon looked so stupidly silly he would have had to be juggernaut tough for me to stop mocking him.

Rake21
2012-07-16, 02:35 PM
They could have done the Scorpion and covered JJ and his obsession with spiderman, they could have done Fisk and his Spider Slayers, though that might have gone too far into cartoon land, or been too close to transformer turf. They could have left a teaser at the end of the third movie and left clues for Carnage to show up. Hydroman is too close to sandman to work well, especially as back to back bad guys. Kraven I couldnt recall what his thing was beyond his tarzan act. He was some sort of crazy hunter wasnt he? So its like a most dangerous game scenario played out in new york. That could have worked. The vulture I dont recall as ever being especially effective as a bad guy.

They could have even gone the gang war route. Possibly tie in to daredevil turf and mention that the kingpin is out of prison and in knee braces, and in the mean time other gangs have moved in. Now spiderman is trying to keep the lid on the kingpin, the silvermanes, and their primary enforcer Tombstone as they war across the city trying to wipe each other out. Bring in Rhino for the Kingpin as a matching set of hard to hurt pure muscle thugs for spiderman to have to struggle with. Though honestly I would hope they alter the rhinos costume as the cartoon looked so stupidly silly he would have had to be juggernaut tough for me to stop mocking him.

The big problem (ha) with Fisk is the licensing issue. Kingpin was bunched in with the Daredevil rights, which are with Fox.

I did suggest a similar gang war plot earlier in the thread, though. Great minds, huh:smallbiggrin:

Edit: And Carnage could work, but a problem comes with him. To make him anything other than a Venom-wannabe, you have to bring in the complete and utter brutality that is Carnage. That's hard to fit in a summer movie that families are going to go see.

Tyndmyr
2012-07-16, 02:39 PM
A younger Peter Parker may have been part of it.

I think the main problem was that they backed themselves into a wall, plot wise. They'd burned through the majority of major villains in the first three movies. It's hard to go from the Green Goblin, Doc Ock, and Venom down to whoever was left. They could have gone the Lizard route, but he never would have seemed like as much of a threat as his predecessors. Or heck, maybe the Rodrick Kingsly could have been brought in, but I think most people were tired of goblins by then.

But instead, they were going to make Felicia Hardy into the Vultress... which would have been down right silly. Rami, who did an excellent job with the first two films, just kind of ran out of ideas.

So, they're left with two choices. A) Continue on in the same continuity with a new director, and probably new actors. B) Or, reboot the thing and try from scratch.

Can't blame them for going with option "B", and it worked out pretty well.

The best option they really had in continuity was Morlun. You've got some serious epicness there, but yeah, they did burn out a lot of other options.

That said, it's perhaps a bit more mystical than they wanted to go.

Avilan the Grey
2012-07-16, 03:24 PM
I'm pretty sure I read (somewhere, don't remember where now) way back when the reboot was first announced that the reason they were doing so was, specifically, to de-age Peter a bit because they were worried Spiderman wouldn't appeal to the teen demographic.

(Getting reminded of "One More Day". *Shudder*)


A younger Peter Parker may have been part of it.

I think the main problem was that they backed themselves into a wall, plot wise. They'd burned through the majority of major villains in the first three movies. It's hard to go from the Green Goblin, Doc Ock, and Venom down to whoever was left. They could have gone the Lizard route, but he never would have seemed like as much of a threat as his predecessors.

let's see... who's left?

A-list villains left in the Spider franchise: Carnage, Lizard, Hobgoblin, Vulture, Kraven, Scorpion... And those are just the ones I remember after 5 seconds of thinking.

The Extinguisher
2012-07-16, 03:52 PM
The biggest reason to reboot the franchise is because the origin story is the most important part about Spider-man. Sure, you can make movie after movie about Spider-man beating up the bad guys, but that's not the point. Spider-man isn't, and shouldn't be about the villain of the week. It's about the character, about a real person as a superhero, which you don't get with other superheroes.

And the more you go on with the character, the harder it is to make a movie about Peter Parker.

Selrahc
2012-07-16, 04:04 PM
Mysterio could make a good movie villain.

Karoht
2012-07-16, 04:53 PM
Mysterio could make a good movie villain.Mysterio is my vote. Get away from the animal themed villians for a bit.
I mean, if they go ahead and do Scorpion, there will be more genetic hocus pocus going on. Mysterio is a gadgets and tactics kind of guy, very clever. I think that in terms of Spiderman's growth, this is the next kind of villian he needs to fight. Not another big tough guy.

If they keep involving Oscorp tech (I sort of hope they don't, but stay with me here), Mysterio could be an excellent set up for Green Goblin. Canon gets a bit sketchy at that point, but these films have said 'nuts to canon' a long time ago.

They can go back to genetic monkeying around in the third one. Scorpion maybe?

Part of me hopes, really hopes, that if they are going to do Norman Osborn Green Goblin, they take a very very long time to set him up first. Film 4 maybe. Really give Norman Osborn this major connection to New York City and the world they are in.

I have the comic book issue where Harry Osborn dies. It's an emotional, meaningful thing. I kind of hope that he never becomes Green Goblin in these new films, because the last film incarnation of Harry Osborn completely missed the point IMO.

kpenguin
2012-07-16, 04:58 PM
If they can find the right guy to pull off the MASTER OF ILLUSION, the MOST MYSTERIOUS MYSTERIO, then I'm all behind it. Ham away!

Karoht
2012-07-16, 05:13 PM
If they can find the right guy to pull off the MASTER OF ILLUSION, the MOST MYSTERIOUS MYSTERIO, then I'm all behind it. Ham away!Hell. Yes.

I loved Mysterio in the comics. So many gambits, so much misdirection. And just the right tech level to usually make him believeable.


Actually... Mysterio + Kraven the Hunter... It's the kind of team up that I think a competent set of writers could handle in a film. Could make for a really suspenseful Spiderman film.

But, what sort of Peter Parker growth or message do you think would come of Mysterio? Or Kraven? I could see Kraven using 'bait' as could Mysterio. That right there would really teach Peter about making those hard choices that he's going to eventually have to make. Either about himself, Gwen, or Aunt May. Mysterio was really good at using stuff like that to egg on Spiderman and pull all sorts of schenanigans, even without knowing who Spiderman was under the mask.


Edit:
Hmmm, from Wiki. Bolded important parts. Spoilered:
"The studio plans to produce a sequel to The Amazing Spider-Man. The company hired James Vanderbilt to write the screenplay and Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci to re-write it.[255][256] The film is set for release on May 2, 2014.[257] Webb stated that there will be a hint of the sequel's villain in the 2012 film.[258] The director also stated that the origin story will unfold not just in this film but in the planned films to come.[259] In June 2012, Webb said he is unsure if he will return for the sequel.[260] Even though he is unsure of his return he said he "wanted to create a universe that not only can withstand but anticipate future storylines" while also "working in and of itself for one movie."[261]

On July 3, 2012, the Facebook page of the film announced that this was a first in a film trilogy that will explore how Peter Parker was shaped by the disappearance of his parents.[262] The producer, Tolmach, has added that there "will be more than one, and at the very least three."[263]

Footnote1.^ Ifans said of the scene, "Connors is sent to an asylum, a high-security asylum ... [a]nd he's visited by, shall we say, a representative from Oscorp. How he gets into that cell and how he leaves that cell without the guards knowing? We have yet to find out."[264] The unnamed character, played by Michael Massee, is credited as "Man in the shadows".

SoC175
2012-07-16, 06:32 PM
Edit: And Carnage could work, but a problem comes with him. To make him anything other than a Venom-wannabe, you have to bring in the complete and utter brutality that is Carnage. That's hard to fit in a summer movie that families are going to go see.Well, since Venom was hardly in the movie they wouldn't really need to differentiate Carnage much, as the audience never got to knew Venom enough to notice if Carnage were done as a Venom-wannabe.

Yes, the comic book readers would know, but they're the minority of the audience.

Traab
2012-07-16, 07:24 PM
Well, since Venom was hardly in the movie they wouldn't really need to differentiate Carnage much, as the audience never got to knew Venom enough to notice if Carnage were done as a Venom-wannabe.

Yes, the comic book readers would know, but they're the minority of the audience.

Although, what little we did get of venom was honestly crazy enough to be cassidy. Seriously, that version of brock was freaking nutso.

Karoht
2012-07-16, 07:48 PM
I kind of wish Marvel would just do some kind of project for the Maximum Carnage series. Even if it was just a direct to DVD, multi volume sort of thing. Live action would be cool, animated/CG animated would be fine, so long as they created it with the logic in mind that this is definately NOT for kids. This is Carnage we're talking about. There is no PG version of this guy.

The Glyphstone
2012-07-16, 09:10 PM
I kind of wish Marvel would just do some kind of project for the Maximum Carnage series. Even if it was just a direct to DVD, multi volume sort of thing. Live action would be cool, animated/CG animated would be fine, so long as they created it with the logic in mind that this is definately NOT for kids. This is Carnage we're talking about. There is no PG version of this guy.

Animated/Cartoon + Not For Kids = Outside the Animation Age Ghetto = Does Not Compute. Hollywood 404 Error.

kpenguin
2012-07-16, 09:15 PM
Personally, I'm perfectly happy not having Carnage in my Spider-Man

Karoht
2012-07-16, 10:01 PM
Personally, I'm perfectly happy not having Carnage in my Spider-ManI'm perfectly happy not having him in my film Spider-man. Spinoff projects are a different breed, but that sort of goes off topic.

@Glyph
"Animated/Cartoon + Not For Kids = Outside the Animation Age Ghetto = Does Not Compute. Hollywood 404 Error."
Yeah, that's why I'm not holding my breath for such a project.

Avilan the Grey
2012-07-16, 10:14 PM
The biggest reason to reboot the franchise is because the origin story is the most important part about Spider-man. Sure, you can make movie after movie about Spider-man beating up the bad guys, but that's not the point. Spider-man isn't, and shouldn't be about the villain of the week. It's about the character, about a real person as a superhero, which you don't get with other superheroes.

And the more you go on with the character, the harder it is to make a movie about Peter Parker.

So what you are saying is that we should get a new version of the origin story every 5-10 years? That, if anything, sounds like milking a franchise to death. And again, the comic had been going on SINCE THE SIXTIES without milking the origin story all the time.

The Extinguisher
2012-07-16, 10:27 PM
So what you are saying is that we should get a new version of the origin story every 5-10 years? That, if anything, sounds like milking a franchise to death. And again, the comic had been going on SINCE THE SIXTIES without milking the origin story all the time.

Sure, why not? That's the most entertaining part of Spider-man's story anyway, and lets you play around with interpretations and breathe new life into the character. I don't mind seeing a new take every 5-10 years.

What I don't want to see is a comic book playing out on the screen, because it would not make for a good film. Comic books are a completely different thing, and can do different things, most notably a quick recap for anyone not caught up. And even comics have problems with keeping people updated. DC comics does reboots often, and Marvel created a whole new series so people didn't need to read 50 years worth of comics to catch up.

And again, Spider-man beating up the villain of the week isn't what he's about, and a movie about him needs to focus on the character of Peter Parker, which is difficult to do when you're eight movies in and fighting Living Brain.

Avilan the Grey
2012-07-16, 10:41 PM
Sure, why not? That's the most entertaining part of Spider-man's story anyway, and lets you play around with interpretations and breathe new life into the character. I don't mind seeing a new take every 5-10 years.

What I don't want to see is a comic book playing out on the screen, because it would not make for a good film. Comic books are a completely different thing, and can do different things, most notably a quick recap for anyone not caught up. And even comics have problems with keeping people updated. DC comics does reboots often, and Marvel created a whole new series so people didn't need to read 50 years worth of comics to catch up.

And again, Spider-man beating up the villain of the week isn't what he's about, and a movie about him needs to focus on the character of Peter Parker, which is difficult to do when you're eight movies in and fighting Living Brain.

Well, to each his own. I am tired of Batman movies for this very reason. I know the origin like the back of my hand, and if they are rebooting that franchise I will not watch it, because of this. It will just be a matter of "who will they cast this time" rather than anything interesting going on.

And I hate breaking it to you, but that is EXACTLY what Spidey is about. PLUS worries about paying rent etc etc. And you know what I feel about DC's constant reboots. I have adopted to them, but dropping a lot of comics after each reboot, since they tend to be worse after every time, or they just drop series I love (Power Girl).
Birds of Prey being the prime example this round, where pre-New 52 it was REALLY good and now it is just the Dork Age all over again (The trend to go back to the 90ies style of comics is something I hate, but hey I guess everything moves in cycles and todays younglings will think big guns and grimdark is COOL. Been there, done that, no thank you). And I LOATHE that they brought Barbara back as Batgirl.

Anyway, I guess this logic can be used for ALL superhero movies. But to me that is killing them. I DO NOT CARE for the Hulks origin a 3rd time. Seriously, I don't. Heck I am not sure I would sit through a second round of Captain America's origin. And don't tell me it won't happen. As soon as they have milked the Avengers (two more movies, probably) they will reboot both Iron Man and Cap, because they think viewers are morons and that the only interesting part is the origin.

Reverent-One
2012-07-16, 10:52 PM
Just got back from it. I liked it more than I thought I was going to. Enough to justify the reboot even. I think Garfield's and Stone's characters are just better than Maguire's and Dunst's. I could emphasize so much with him every time he just couldn't find the right words because I've been there so many times (to the point where a couple of those scenes were a bit painful).




The f***ing crane sequence. Oh dear lord, I could not stop laughing. Remember when I said you took out most the camp? Were you just saving it all up for one glorious peace of stupidity here?


I was surprised they were able to out-cheese the citizen helping him out scenes from the first movies. And I say this having liked those scenes.

Karoht
2012-07-16, 10:58 PM
Heck I am not sure I would sit through a second round of Captain America's origin. And don't tell me it won't happen. As soon as they have milked the Avengers (two more movies, probably) they will reboot both Iron Man and Cap, because they think viewers are morons and that the only interesting part is the origin.

Actually, I have terrible terrible fears of Marvel doing the Civil War or Secret War arcs. And if they're ever going to do it, it would be right after 2 more Avengers films is my guess. As far as the lesser of two evils is concerned, I would rather they reboot as opposed to digging for new material in bad places.

Digging for new material in good places? Trumps reboot any day, no questions.

Dragonus45
2012-07-16, 11:00 PM
Just got back from it. I liked it more than I thought I was going to. Enough to justify the reboot even. I think Garfield's and Stone's characters are just better than Maguire's and Dunst's. I could emphasize so much with him every time he just couldn't find the right words because I've been there so many times (to the point where a couple of those scenes were a bit painful).



I was surprised they were able to out-cheese the citizen helping him out scenes from the first movies. And I say this having liked those scenes.

I don't get why people are so down on those scenes, those are the scenes that make the movies for me. It's all about Peter doing what he can, and at his darkest moments getting shown that he has moved people, and that they are willing to stand up for him and help him when it matters. It's a very jackie robinson like character ark that I find most compelling despite any cheese.

Logic
2012-07-16, 11:03 PM
Actually, I have terrible terrible fears of Marvel doing the Civil War or Secret War arcs. And if they're ever going to do it, it would be right after 2 more Avengers films is my guess. As far as the lesser of two evils is concerned, I would rather they reboot as opposed to digging for new material in bad places.

Digging for new material in good places? Trumps reboot any day, no questions.

Civil War or Secret War will not happen without a major SNAFU at Sony AND Fox. Marvel doesn't get its toys back until those two studios "forget" to make a movie concerning the characters their respective movie rights cover.

kpenguin
2012-07-16, 11:04 PM
I, for one, also enjoyed that scene. I love sappy cheese like that and eat it right up.

Logic
2012-07-16, 11:14 PM
I, for one, also enjoyed that scene. I love sappy cheese like that and eat it right up.
While I am also a bit of a sap, and enjoyed that scene, it could have been done better. Personally, that actor was not very talented, IMHO.

Karoht
2012-07-16, 11:22 PM
Civil War or Secret War will not happen without a major SNAFU at Sony AND Fox. Marvel doesn't get its toys back until those two studios "forget" to make a movie concerning the characters their respective movie rights cover.
2 concerns

1-After 2 more successful Avengers films and a flop or two over at Sony/Fox, that might not be a problem anymore.

2-Two of the biggest characters already belong to Marvel/Disney, namely Iron Man and Capt A. Do what Xmen 3 did. Introduce an 'army' of generic mutants, or in the case of Civil War, generic heroes on both sides.

Admittedly I don't know much about the Secret War arc though. Just that there are Skrulls and Norman Osborn uses an Iron Man suit with a Captain America paint job called Iron Patriot. That's about all I know about that arc. There was a production still from Iron Man 3 with a suit that matches that description. It could be fake, it could just be for 4th of July in that film, but it still gives me nightmares that they could go ahead with that arc.

Reverent-One
2012-07-16, 11:35 PM
Admittedly I don't know much about the Secret War arc though. Just that there are Skrulls and Norman Osborn uses an Iron Man suit with a Captain America paint job called Iron Patriot. That's about all I know about that arc. There was a production still from Iron Man 3 with a suit that matches that description. It could be fake, it could just be for 4th of July in that film, but it still gives me nightmares that they could go ahead with that arc.

That's Secret Invasion, not Secret War (Secret War is a storyline involving Nick Fury taking unapproved military action and the consequences of this). Also, Iron Patriot is from the following story arc, Siege. Secret Invasion was a decent storyline though (some continuity issues aside). They actually just adapted it and used it in the Avenger's cartoon that's currently running.

The Extinguisher
2012-07-16, 11:42 PM
Well, to each his own. I am tired of Batman movies for this very reason. I know the origin like the back of my hand, and if they are rebooting that franchise I will not watch it, because of this. It will just be a matter of "who will they cast this time" rather than anything interesting going on.

And I hate breaking it to you, but that is EXACTLY what Spidey is about. PLUS worries about paying rent etc etc. And you know what I feel about DC's constant reboots. I have adopted to them, but dropping a lot of comics after each reboot, since they tend to be worse after every time, or they just drop series I love (Power Girl).
Birds of Prey being the prime example this round, where pre-New 52 it was REALLY good and now it is just the Dork Age all over again (The trend to go back to the 90ies style of comics is something I hate, but hey I guess everything moves in cycles and todays younglings will think big guns and grimdark is COOL. Been there, done that, no thank you). And I LOATHE that they brought Barbara back as Batgirl.

Anyway, I guess this logic can be used for ALL superhero movies. But to me that is killing them. I DO NOT CARE for the Hulks origin a 3rd time. Seriously, I don't. Heck I am not sure I would sit through a second round of Captain America's origin. And don't tell me it won't happen. As soon as they have milked the Avengers (two more movies, probably) they will reboot both Iron Man and Cap, because they think viewers are morons and that the only interesting part is the origin.

Maybe that's why I stopped reading Spider-man? I think it's far more interesting to explore Peter Parker's life, and the consequences of being a hero, than make another movie about superheroes beating each other up.

When was the last time you saw Captain America angsting about life?

irenicObserver
2012-07-16, 11:46 PM
The biggest reason to reboot the franchise is because the origin story is the most important part about Spider-man. Sure, you can make movie after movie about Spider-man beating up the bad guys, but that's not the point. Spider-man isn't, and shouldn't be about the villain of the week. It's about the character, about a real person as a superhero, which you don't get with other superheroes.

And the more you go on with the character, the harder it is to make a movie about Peter Parker.

One thing I really enjoyed about this movie was that all the little details gave it greater versimilitude. In all honestly I would hazard to argue that first three Spider-Man movies were a little detached from reality, everything felt kind of confined to these characters which weren't written very believably IMO. Here's a good quote on the matter:
In the production of this film, the director reinforced the word with his staff as the guiding principle[1] . Specifically, he wanted to create an ambiance in the story where the fantasy of a powerful superhero appearing in the contemporary world feels believable on its own terms. To achieve this artistic goal, Donner had his crew spend considerable effort developing techniques to make the visuals feel as convincing and lifelike as possible such as Superman flying. In addition, the writers strove to logically justify the character's classic details such as making his costume's chest symbol a crest of the House of El while Christopher Reeve rose to the challenge to give the title character an appealing sincerity while making the persona of Clark Kent feel like a believable disguise

Devonix
2012-07-16, 11:49 PM
I don't get why people are so down on those scenes, those are the scenes that make the movies for me. It's all about Peter doing what he can, and at his darkest moments getting shown that he has moved people, and that they are willing to stand up for him and help him when it matters. It's a very jackie robinson like character ark that I find most compelling despite any cheese.

I like the Idea of those scenes but feel that often times they are handled poorly Aka bad and sappy lines by the characters and contrived reasons for them to help.

I think the best way it was done was in Spiderman two where they just try and stand between Spidey and Doc Ock. They know they can't stop him, but they still try. Much more heroic than tossing trash and more believable than

Calling up every crane operator in the next ten blocks and getting them all to set up an elaborate stunt in less than three minutes real time. Hell it should take them longer just to get TO the cranes.

Dienekes
2012-07-16, 11:58 PM
I don't get why people are so down on those scenes, those are the scenes that make the movies for me. It's all about Peter doing what he can, and at his darkest moments getting shown that he has moved people, and that they are willing to stand up for him and help him when it matters. It's a very jackie robinson like character ark that I find most compelling despite any cheese.

I've been told no need for spoilers so I am not using them. You have been warned.

I will admit I enjoy a fine bit cheese. But it has to make sense within the framework of the story. Seeing someone Parker helped come back to help him in a crisis can be done very well. My only disappointment here is that it was not. There are just too many factors leading up to it, and the whole premise is just kinda dumb. Not one guy helping, but one guy getting someone else to call dozens of guys to enter a dangerous zone being evacuated, against New York traffic, to line up cranes so Spiderman can sling to Oscorp. It's ridiculous. They could have taken the same general premise: guy helps Spiderman, and made it a very touching, moving scene. Instead we got what I can only assume was a joke from the writers to outdo the original trilogies campiness.

Karoht
2012-07-16, 11:59 PM
Calling up every crane operator in the next ten blocks and getting them all to set up an elaborate stunt in less than three minutes real time. Hell it should take them longer just to get TO the cranes.

*Sigh*
The fact that the guy could reach them via radio ment that logically, they were already in the crane nests as it is. All they had to do was drop the hook, attach a load, and get it in the air and hanging over one street. Easy to coordinate, and doesn't take an incredible amount of skill or effort either. That could take 3 minutes rather plausibly... ...or 3 hours depending on what union they work for.
I'm kidding, I'm kidding.

Avilan the Grey
2012-07-17, 01:25 AM
Maybe that's why I stopped reading Spider-man? I think it's far more interesting to explore Peter Parker's life, and the consequences of being a hero, than make another movie about superheroes beating each other up.

When was the last time you saw Captain America angsting about life?

I stopped reading Spider-Man when I stopped reading comics altogether. About the time I was getting back in, I somehow focused more on DC (I was a Marvel fanboy growing up) and also One More Day ticked me off enough to simply boycott Spidey.

I think they handled him really well at Marvel up to that point, Slooowly aging him up over a period of 30+ years. Then Mr I-Hate-Married-Women (as he tends to do) destroyed that (he DOES have a habit of horribly maim, kill or destroy all wives to superheroes he can find, UNLESS they are mothers. That's why Susan Richards survived Ultimatum).

As for Cap, Spidey and Angst... Angst in itself is not interesting. Especially not if you are a sparkly vampire, but even if you are not... it does not make you an interesting person unless you are trying to impress 14 year old girls. And let's hope you aren't.

Also, I do not get why you need to replay the Origin all the time to show "consequences of being a hero". Unless you are a TERRIBLE writer, that is not necessary.

VanBuren
2012-07-17, 04:10 AM
So what you are saying is that we should get a new version of the origin story every 5-10 years? That, if anything, sounds like milking a franchise to death. And again, the comic had been going on SINCE THE SIXTIES without milking the origin story all the time.


I don't get why people are so down on those scenes, those are the scenes that make the movies for me. It's all about Peter doing what he can, and at his darkest moments getting shown that he has moved people, and that they are willing to stand up for him and help him when it matters. It's a very jackie robinson like character ark that I find most compelling despite any cheese.

And it's also something that stresses a fundamental difference between the heroes and the villains.

Spider-Man puts it all on the line to save people when he can, even when it gets in the way. When the chips are down, people will remember that. Regardless of the smear campaign by the Bugle and whatever other bad press surrounds him, there will always be people who will remember his good deeds personally. Always someone to pick him up when he falls. Heroes... people, they have each other.

Who does the Lizard have?

Dienekes
2012-07-17, 07:51 AM
*Sigh*
The fact that the guy could reach them via radio ment that logically, they were already in the crane nests as it is. All they had to do was drop the hook, attach a load, and get it in the air and hanging over one street. Easy to coordinate, and doesn't take an incredible amount of skill or effort either. That could take 3 minutes rather plausibly... ...or 3 hours depending on what union they work for.
I'm kidding, I'm kidding.

This would make sense except we see the guy whose kid Spidey saved operating one of the cranes. He was not part of the crane operation at all, nor was he with the cranes to begin with.

irenicObserver
2012-07-18, 04:03 PM
Here we find another exposé on Spider-Man history. (http://www.cracked.com/video_18435_the-awful-spider-man-movie-james-cameron-almost-made.html)

Sneaky Weasel
2012-07-18, 05:05 PM
I just watched to movie a couple days ago, and I thought it was great! A lot better than I thought it would be. I mean, at first I kind of wondered why they would even make a reboot like this, but after watching it I'm glad they did. In my opinion, far better than the previous trilogy.

I liked the lead actor, mainly because all his actions seemed believable and natural. And frankly, I thought all the other actors were pretty good too, especially the one who played Uncle Ben. I never remember actor's names, which is why I'm not mentioning any here.

The best part of the film for me was the Lizard. Definitely not a villain I would have expected, but he turned out to be one of the best villains in any superhero movie(in my opinion). I think the best type of villain is the one that you get to like, that makes you think 'he seems like a pretty cool guy', before turning to darker methods. Bonus points if the villain's end goal is something understandable and maybe not all that bad, as opposed to killing people or causing chaos or something.

Because, in my mind, would it really have been so bad if the Lizard had won? Honestly, aside from looking like a reptile, being a lizard would be better than being a human. Unless it turns people evil or something, which seems doubtful, who wouldn't want to be super strong and nigh immortal? Hell, I'd go for it any day.

Plus, the Lizard is just plain cool. Deadly, evil and scaly. One of the coolest villains I've seen. And I find it interesting that there's really no way Spidey could have killed him, or beaten him in a fight. Even wrapping him in a total cocoon of webbing only stopped him for what, thirty seconds? Although this also applies to a lot of other Spiderman villains as well, I suppose.

The crane scene...yeah. I'll pass. Too sappy to be believable, and...well, other people have said it better than me already. It wasn't enough to ruin the movie for me, though. Not by a long shot.

Oh, and in the scene were Spiderman gets shot in the leg? I had to snort with laughter at that, because the only thing that I could think about was 'I used to be a Superhero like you, but then I got a bullet to the knee". Ruined the drama for me a bit, but worth it.:smallbiggrin:

kpenguin
2012-07-18, 07:08 PM
Because, in my mind, would it really have been so bad if the Lizard had won? Honestly, aside from looking like a reptile, being a lizard would be better than being a human. Unless it turns people evil or something, which seems doubtful, who wouldn't want to be super strong and nigh immortal? Hell, I'd go for it any day.

Post-transformation, Doctor Connors was more aggressive and less morally, ah, bound than he was before, willing to murder Peter to get what he wanted. Definitely more bestial. When he was transformed back, he went back to caring enough to save Peter from falling off the side of tower and then checking on Captain Stacy.

Also, there was a scene where he seemed to be arguing with an echoey voice version of himself, indicating someone else was taking over...

Devonix
2012-07-18, 07:33 PM
This would make sense except we see the guy whose kid Spidey saved operating one of the cranes. He was not part of the crane operation at all, nor was he with the cranes to begin with.

Yes he specifically asks the guy working with him if he was still friends with someone else working at another crane company. IE meaning that he didn't even know all of the people involved and that people needed to be filled in.

irenicObserver
2012-07-18, 09:06 PM
Because, in my mind, would it really have been so bad if the Lizard had won? Honestly, aside from looking like a reptile, being a lizard would be better than being a human. Unless it turns people evil or something, which seems doubtful, who wouldn't want to be super strong and nigh immortal? Hell, I'd go for it any day.

I guess you could say the Lizard was more....:cool: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YMPAH67f4o) cold-blooded when he transformed. His transformation was flawed; as brought up by Peter in an earlier scene, the foreign DNA had overridden his human side. It made him partially feral, more vulnerable to temperature changes and frankly, it's nothing but unethical to force a change on people no matter how beneficial without consent. If anything I would like them to take one of those spiders, engineer them to work with everyone's DNA and give everyone an injection.

Karoht
2012-07-18, 09:54 PM
I guess you could say the Lizard was more....:cool: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YMPAH67f4o) cold-blooded when he transformed. His transformation was flawed; as brought up by Peter in an earlier scene, the foreign DNA had overridden his human side. It made him partially feral, more vulnerable to temperature changes and frankly, it's nothing but unethical to force a change on people no matter how beneficial without consent. If anything I would like them to take one of those spiders, engineer them to work with everyone's DNA and give everyone an injection.
There was also largely no guarantee that it would work on everyone. It could have just as easily killed people.

Gaelbert
2012-07-19, 09:01 PM
I enjoyed the movie for the most part. One thing that bugged me though, was the promise Parker made at the end to the policeman and how he broke it. "You remember that promise I made to your father as he was dying in my arms? His last wish? Well my aunt told me I was a pretty cool dude so I'm going to break it."

irenicObserver
2012-07-19, 10:14 PM
I thought the exact same thing. It ruined the drama of that scene and worst of all I saw it coming.

What gets to me though, is that scene where Peter threw Gwen out the window so carelessly, with no regard to the fragility of her body. This could potentially foreshadow his character growth at her ambiguous death. Do I smell a sequel plot point?

Jayngfet
2012-07-19, 11:03 PM
Well, to each his own. I am tired of Batman movies for this very reason. I know the origin like the back of my hand, and if they are rebooting that franchise I will not watch it, because of this. It will just be a matter of "who will they cast this time" rather than anything interesting going on.

And I hate breaking it to you, but that is EXACTLY what Spidey is about. PLUS worries about paying rent etc etc. And you know what I feel about DC's constant reboots. I have adopted to them, but dropping a lot of comics after each reboot, since they tend to be worse after every time, or they just drop series I love (Power Girl).
Birds of Prey being the prime example this round, where pre-New 52 it was REALLY good and now it is just the Dork Age all over again (The trend to go back to the 90ies style of comics is something I hate, but hey I guess everything moves in cycles and todays younglings will think big guns and grimdark is COOL. Been there, done that, no thank you). And I LOATHE that they brought Barbara back as Batgirl.

Anyway, I guess this logic can be used for ALL superhero movies. But to me that is killing them. I DO NOT CARE for the Hulks origin a 3rd time. Seriously, I don't. Heck I am not sure I would sit through a second round of Captain America's origin. And don't tell me it won't happen. As soon as they have milked the Avengers (two more movies, probably) they will reboot both Iron Man and Cap, because they think viewers are morons and that the only interesting part is the origin.

The problem is that a lot of comic stuff relies on the idea that the hero has been around for longer than a decade. I mean most of my favorite green lantern stuff revolves around the idea of Hal Jordan being this guy with over a decade of experience to him and just being kinda burned out at the way superheroing works. Hulk as a character only got good to me around World War Hulk, which needs you to accept that Hulk is a monster everyone is familiar with and they know nothing can stop after years of trying. The best recent Spiderman stuff relies on the concept that Peter, MJ, Jamenson, and all his friends and enemies moved beyond their initial stages YEARS ago.


Not to mention that in the specific case of Batman, retelling the origin story every decade or so cuts you off from 90% of the characters and themes. Batman and **** Greyson/MAYBE Jason Todd might work with Babs if you're feeling lucky. Cass, Steph, Damian, Tim, and the rest of Batman's extended cast effectively get shafted in one go, and it makes the chances of Seeing Nightwing INCREDIBLY rare.

Everyone and their grandmother knows Batman's backstory, most of them know Greyson's and plenty of people knokw he becomes nightwing later.

Can we please move beyond that? I just want to see the entire Batfamily on the Big Screen. I want a movie adaptation of Batman Incorporated. I want to see Terry McGuiness zoom around the futuristic skies in perfect context.

If you insist on starting back from square one getting to that point means either extending things or releasing more than one movie every 2-3 years. Unless you an release a Batman or Batman related movie annually you shoot yourself in the foot.

Logic
2012-07-19, 11:47 PM
Everyone and their grandmother knows Batman's backstory, most of them know Greyson's and plenty of people knokw he becomes nightwing later.Batman yes, but only nerd popular culture is aware of the rest, really.

Can we please move beyond that? I just want to see the entire Batfamily on the Big Screen. I want a movie adaptation of Batman Incorporated. I want to see Terry McGuiness zoom around the futuristic skies in perfect context.This won't happen. The audience wants to see Bruce Wayne as the Batman, not someone they have never heard of. Assume your Great Aunt Mildred were making a movie based on Batman, and that is the one that will get the green light from movie producers.


If you insist on starting back from square one getting to that point means either extending things or releasing more than one movie every 2-3 years. Unless you an release a Batman or Batman related movie annually you shoot yourself in the foot.It's hard to keep talent interested in a rehashing of the same project for years. And the audience is weary of some new actor jumping into the spandex (or kevlar, for Batman) every few years while saying it is all part of the same continuity. A reboot makes sense to the mooks in suits, and makes sense to the masses that shell out serious dough to see these movies. The studio is less interested in pleasing the very vocal but small comic-book nerd fanbase. Chances are, no matter what a studio does, there will be a huge amount of backlash from one small group of people that hated whatever-random-not-in-the-comics-thing studios put in the movie to make it appeal to a broader audience.

Jayngfet
2012-07-20, 12:32 AM
Batman yes, but only nerd popular culture is aware of the rest, really.


Greyson as robin has been around forever. He was on the Adam West show, on The Animated Series, was in the 80's movies, and was recently featured in young justice for an episode.

Richard Greyson as an adopted acrobat is something anyone who's ever heard of batman has no excuse not to know. It's been mentioned countless times in a string of projects longer than your arm, many of which are successful enough that we KNOW that hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people have seen them individually. If you have absolutley no idea who Batman is you've never seen a batman project besides the Nolan movies in the last SIXTY YEARS.



This won't happen. The audience wants to see Bruce Wayne as the Batman, not someone they have never heard of. Assume your Great Aunt Mildred were making a movie based on Batman, and that is the one that will get the green light from movie producers.


Hence why you need a long continuity to make it work. If the audience has seen the buildup then you can assume it'll work. I mean lets be honest, nobody had any real idea who Thor was until less than five years ago. Now he's had his own movie and a top spot in The Avengers thanks to the wonders of having good continuity and not assuming your audience are idiots with no access to google.



It's hard to keep talent interested in a rehashing of the same project for years. And the audience is weary of some new actor jumping into the spandex (or kevlar, for Batman) every few years while saying it is all part of the same continuity. A reboot makes sense to the mooks in suits, and makes sense to the masses that shell out serious dough to see these movies. The studio is less interested in pleasing the very vocal but small comic-book nerd fanbase. Chances are, no matter what a studio does, there will be a huge amount of backlash from one small group of people that hated whatever-random-not-in-the-comics-thing studios put in the movie to make it appeal to a broader audience.

...hence why you introduce other Batman characters. I mean lets face it, if you have the first robin grow up you can replace the actor, if Bruce gets old you can replace the actor. If you get a new robin or batgirl, that's a new actor. It's a setup that's literally built around the idea of bringing in new people every few years to keep things interesting.

Logic
2012-07-20, 01:13 AM
Greyson as robin has been around forever. He was on the Adam West show, on The Animated Series, was in the 80's movies, and was recently featured in young justice for an episode.
Ok, I jumped the gun and too quickly declared that the average audience member knows only the basic Batman story. Most are aware of his sidekick Robin as well, but only of Richard Grayson. (Jayson who? Tim who? Nightwing who? Huntress who?)


Richard Greyson as an adopted acrobat is something anyone who's ever heard of batman has no excuse not to know. It's been mentioned countless times in a string of projects longer than your arm, many of which are successful enough that we KNOW that hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people have seen them individually. If you have absolutley no idea who Batman is you've never seen a batman project besides the Nolan movies in the last SIXTY YEARS.




Hence why you need a long continuity to make it work. If the audience has seen the buildup then you can assume it'll work. I mean lets be honest, nobody had any real idea who Thor was until less than five years ago. Now he's had his own movie and a top spot in The Avengers thanks to the wonders of having good continuity and not assuming your audience are idiots with no access to google.
Batman is an icon. So much so, that the average movie-goer is highly unlikely to accept anyone in the Batsuit besides Bruce Wayne. And comic nerds would be even less likely to accept someone that hasn't worn it in the comics first.



...hence why you introduce other Batman characters. I mean lets face it, if you have the first robin grow up you can replace the actor, if Bruce gets old you can replace the actor. If you get a new robin or batgirl, that's a new actor. It's a setup that's literally built around the idea of bringing in new people every few years to keep things interesting.
Lots of characters does not make for a better series of movies. It worked for the Avengers, and could easily work for the Justice League. But a "Bat-family" series of movies don't exactly scream dollar signs to Warner Brothers. And Warner Brothers are a pretty risk-averse studio.

As to the main point, changing the character with the actor is fine in principle, but as I said above, as far as the silver screen goes, Bruce Wayne will always be Batman. If not always, then most likely for my lifetime.

kpenguin
2012-07-20, 01:39 AM
Ok, I jumped the gun and too quickly declared that the average audience member knows only the basic Batman story. Most are aware of his sidekick Robin as well, but only of Richard Grayson. (Jayson who? Tim who? Nightwing who? Huntress who?)

I think they're aware of Robin, not ****. You could have a Robin and it could be Tim or Jason and the audience would go along. It doesn't really matter, to the general audience, who's behind the mask.

Logic
2012-07-20, 02:03 AM
I think they're aware of Robin, not ****. You could have a Robin and it could be Tim or Jason and the audience would go along. It doesn't really matter, to the general audience, who's behind the mask.

Yeah, you're probably right on that point.

irenicObserver
2012-07-20, 11:26 AM
Isn't this technically off-topic?

Sneaky Weasel
2012-07-20, 05:30 PM
I guess you could say the Lizard was more....:cool: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YMPAH67f4o) cold-blooded when he transformed. His transformation was flawed; as brought up by Peter in an earlier scene, the foreign DNA had overridden his human side. It made him partially feral, more vulnerable to temperature changes and frankly, it's nothing but unethical to force a change on people no matter how beneficial without consent. If anything I would like them to take one of those spiders, engineer them to work with everyone's DNA and give everyone an injection.

Well piffle. I guess you're right. Thanks for ruining my lizard fun.:smallannoyed::smalltongue:

Jayngfet
2012-07-20, 10:23 PM
Ok, I jumped the gun and too quickly declared that the average audience member knows only the basic Batman story. Most are aware of his sidekick Robin as well, but only of Richard Grayson. (Jayson who? Tim who? Nightwing who? Huntress who?)


...so what do you do with the time you didn't spend introducing batman? You introduce all the others of course! I mean Lets face it, Batman has punched out both Al Ghuls, Killer Croc, Riddler, Joker, Penguin, and the rest of his rogues gallery so many times in so many different places you don't even need to set it up anymore. "Batman is punching out the Riddler, hey cool! Wait, who's this guy with the bird on his chest?"

It's not like you need to establish much at this point. Batman guy in shiny suit, Batman parents dead, Batman punch guy in costume, Batman punch other guy in other costume, Batman take young acrobat as ward.

We get it already. We don't need someone to explain who batman is and what he does. It's just kind of assumed at this point that if you grew up literally anywhere outside the darkest unlit third world hellhole you know how this goes.



Batman is an icon. So much so, that the average movie-goer is highly unlikely to accept anyone in the Batsuit besides Bruce Wayne. And comic nerds would be even less likely to accept someone that hasn't worn it in the comics first.


Do you have proof of this? I mean do you know a non comics fan who'll auto-boycott a film where Batman disappears and Robin has to take his place?



Lots of characters does not make for a better series of movies. It worked for the Avengers, and could easily work for the Justice League. But a "Bat-family" series of movies don't exactly scream dollar signs to Warner Brothers. And Warner Brothers are a pretty risk-averse studio.

As to the main point, changing the character with the actor is fine in principle, but as I said above, as far as the silver screen goes, Bruce Wayne will always be Batman. If not always, then most likely for my lifetime.

And look how that's gotten WB so far. They have ...Batman, and maybe superman to a much, MUCH lesser extent. Marvel has taken risks and even with Ant-man and Runaways falling through it's given them enough success to have a movie featuring a talking Raccoon and a Tree-Man in space before DC can even give any details about a Flash or Wonder Woman movie. Marvel managed to unobtrusivley add in the Howling Commando's, SHIELD, Black Widow, Bucky, and Arnim Zola, none of whom were featured in the movie.

You're basically saying here that DC can't do that, and will never be able to. I think they can't now, but I am certainly hoping they can in a few years.

Logic
2012-07-20, 10:53 PM
...so what do you do with the time you didn't spend introducing batman? You introduce all the others of course! I mean Lets face it, Batman has punched out both Al Ghuls, Killer Croc, Riddler, Joker, Penguin, and the rest of his rogues gallery so many times in so many different places you don't even need to set it up anymore. "Batman is punching out the Riddler, hey cool! Wait, who's this guy with the bird on his chest?"A movie that does not properly introduce its characters is asking for trouble.


It's not like you need to establish much at this point. Batman guy in shiny suit, Batman parents dead, Batman punch guy in costume, Batman punch other guy in other costume, Batman take young acrobat as ward.
I know your statement is an oversimplification, but you also have to think that there are mooks in suits that want this movie to get good reviews, and make billions of dollars. This is not the pitch you would want to give a movie studio.


We get it already. We don't need someone to explain who batman is and what he does. It's just kind of assumed at this point that if you grew up literally anywhere outside the darkest unlit third world hellhole you know how this goes.The character has the most impact if he has a chance to grow. The first movie of this series you propose needs the origin story. The Incredible Hulk got away without doing a proper origin story by virtue of being a "requel"- somewhere between a remake and a sequel, and it still told a mini origin story in the opening credits. Doing something similar MIGHT work for Batman, but I think it wouldn't work. It would definitely be hard to pull off.


Do you have proof of this? I mean do you know a non comics fan who'll auto-boycott a film where Batman disappears and Robin has to take his place?
And proof of an auto-boycott? No, I don't have proof, but I assume you are familiar with "NERD RAEG."



And look how that's gotten WB so far. They have ...Batman, and maybe superman to a much, MUCH lesser extent. Marvel has taken risks and even with Ant-man and Runaways falling through it's given them enough success to have a movie featuring a talking Raccoon and a Tree-Man in space before DC can even give any details about a Flash or Wonder Woman movie. Marvel managed to unobtrusivley add in the Howling Commando's, SHIELD, Black Widow, Bucky, and Arnim Zola, none of whom were featured in the movie.

You're basically saying here that DC can't do that, and will never be able to. I think they can't now, but I am certainly hoping they can in a few years.
I didn't say that DC can't do that, I said it was going to be difficult. As Avengers proved, it can be done, but it was still a difficult road. And Marvel hasn't officially greenlighted any of those Tier 4 characters for movies besides Ant-Man.

VanBuren
2012-07-21, 02:13 AM
Damn. I thought that was a spoiler for the comics.

:smallfrown:

Jayngfet
2012-07-21, 03:37 AM
A movie that does not properly introduce its characters is asking for trouble.


That's the thing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman_franchise_media)though. You don't NEED to spend a movie doing an origin story. People have had nine live action movies(and a project by Andy Warhol), five animated series with another one coming out next year, twenty five video games with no signs of stopping, nineteen theme park rides worldwide, eleven animated movies, and so many toys at such varying prices and officiality you can't NOT hit a batman toy in literally any store that you walk into that sells any form of toys. I wasn't even counting the Teen Titans or League stuff. There has literally been so much batman stuff that it would probably take you weeks to watch all the stuff with Batman in it even if you didn't stop to sleep or eat.

Batman is like, the one guy anyone can be expected to know any level of detail about. I haven't picked up any batman comics that aren't years old big name stuff from a public library, and I still, from being too lazy to change the channel and watching movies as they come out, can name literally a dozen different batman villains, about five or six costumed allies associated with him, pick out at least twenty individual gadgets he favors, and spot the differences between five separate batmobiles; hell, I could do all that by age 15 with basic cable and some matinee tickets and at that age I had never read a single batman comic at that point.



I know your statement is an oversimplification, but you also have to think that there are mooks in suits that want this movie to get good reviews, and make billions of dollars. This is not the pitch you would want to give a movie studio.


Obviously if this were an actual pitch to an actual group of executives I'd go into much more detail. If I wanted to appeal to their greed I'd go "yadda yadda more action figures to sell yadda yadda appeal to the horny teenaged boys with Barbra Gordon and Twilight fangirls with Greyson yadda yadda teenaged characters for broader appeal yadda yadda" and would justify everything I wanted in marketing speak about five hundred different ways.



The character has the most impact if he has a chance to grow. The first movie of this series you propose needs the origin story. The Incredible Hulk got away without doing a proper origin story by virtue of being a "requel"- somewhere between a remake and a sequel, and it still told a mini origin story in the opening credits. Doing something similar MIGHT work for Batman, but I think it wouldn't work. It would definitely be hard to pull off.


Yes, but again, we already had a "first movie", we had it done four times over. The 60's, 80's, and 00's batman movies were all very popular and damn near iconic. To set up the basics of batman's premise would be redundant because this isn't exactly say, The Flash where everybody kinda sorta knows who he is but doesn't actually know all that much about him, or worse yet Deadpool, who appeared once in the worst X-Movie in a butchered form. This is batman. I could walk into any classroom from Preschool to Gradschool or any Jobsite and talk to any random person there and they would be garunteed to know who batman is even if they can't even walk upright yet/anymore.

Obviously you're going to want to establish details about *this* batman for what makes him different, but on the whole you can gloss over why he became batman and who his major enemies are. You might make your Batman lighter than Nolan's version, and you might make your batman use different looking stuff, but you don't need to establish that this is a man dressed as a bat with a shiny car who fights crime. Just show him jump out of the car and punch a mugger and the audience members are most likely going to go with it.



PLEASE MENTION THAT YOU ARE SPOILING THE DARK KNIGHT RISES OUTSIDE THE SPOILER TAGS, especially since the movie came out TODAY in North America. And proof of an auto-boycott? No, I don't have proof, but I assume you are familiar with "NERD RAEG."


"NERD RAEG" is kind of a thing that happens anyway. You will always have someone complaining over suit design, or aesthetics, or stylistic choices. I mean lets face it while nerds might complain about a different character the actual numbers often point to that being a vocal minority. I mean Green Lantern: Mosaic was a John Stewart story that still sold more copies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Lantern:_Mosaic#Cancellation) than anything post Rebirth (http://www.comicsbeat.com/2006/08/24/dc-comics-month-to-month-sales-july-2006/) or New 52 (http://www.comicsalliance.com/2012/06/05/dc-new-52-sales-bump-data-charts/) starring Hal Jordan.



I didn't say that DC can't do that, I said it was going to be difficult. As Avengers proved, it can be done, but it was still a difficult road. And Marvel hasn't officially greenlighted any of those Tier 4 characters for movies besides Ant-Man.

GoTG is confirmed (http://filmonic.com/guardians-of-the-galaxy-movie-confirmed). I've heard crazy rumors that they're tossing around even more ideas like a Power Pack movie, but those aren't really taken seriously even in the context of rumor. The point that Marvel can apparently even make it to TALKING about Tier 4 while DC can't even do more than the tip of their own Tier 1 kind of speaks wonders on it's own.

irenicObserver
2012-07-21, 05:08 AM
Guys? Would you kindly take this outside?

Logic
2012-07-21, 05:56 AM
That's the thing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman_franchise_media)though. You don't NEED to spend a movie doing an origin story. People have had nine live action movies(and a project by Andy Warhol), five animated series with another one coming out next year, twenty five video games with no signs of stopping, nineteen theme park rides worldwide, eleven animated movies, and so many toys at such varying prices and officiality you can't NOT hit a batman toy in literally any store that you walk into that sells any form of toys. I wasn't even counting the Teen Titans or League stuff. There has literally been so much batman stuff that it would probably take you weeks to watch all the stuff with Batman in it even if you didn't stop to sleep or eat.

Batman is like, the one guy anyone can be expected to know any level of detail about. I haven't picked up any batman comics that aren't years old big name stuff from a public library, and I still, from being too lazy to change the channel and watching movies as they come out, can name literally a dozen different batman villains, about five or six costumed allies associated with him, pick out at least twenty individual gadgets he favors, and spot the differences between five separate batmobiles; hell, I could do all that by age 15 with basic cable and some matinee tickets and at that age I had never read a single batman comic at that point.

Obviously if this were an actual pitch to an actual group of executives I'd go into much more detail. If I wanted to appeal to their greed I'd go "yadda yadda more action figures to sell yadda yadda appeal to the horny teenaged boys with Barbra Gordon and Twilight fangirls with Greyson yadda yadda teenaged characters for broader appeal yadda yadda" and would justify everything I wanted in marketing speak about five hundred different ways.

Yes, but again, we already had a "first movie", we had it done four times over. The 60's, 80's, and 00's batman movies were all very popular and damn near iconic. To set up the basics of batman's premise would be redundant because this isn't exactly say, The Flash where everybody kinda sorta knows who he is but doesn't actually know all that much about him, or worse yet Deadpool, who appeared once in the worst X-Movie in a butchered form. This is batman. I could walk into any classroom from Preschool to Gradschool or any Jobsite and talk to any random person there and they would be garunteed to know who batman is even if they can't even walk upright yet/anymore.

Obviously you're going to want to establish details about *this* batman for what makes him different, but on the whole you can gloss over why he became batman and who his major enemies are. You might make your Batman lighter than Nolan's version, and you might make your batman use different looking stuff, but you don't need to establish that this is a man dressed as a bat with a shiny car who fights crime. Just show him jump out of the car and punch a mugger and the audience members are most likely going to go with it.

"NERD RAEG" is kind of a thing that happens anyway. You will always have someone complaining over suit design, or aesthetics, or stylistic choices. I mean lets face it while nerds might complain about a different character the actual numbers often point to that being a vocal minority. I mean Green Lantern: Mosaic was a John Stewart story that still sold more copies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Lantern:_Mosaic#Cancellation) than anything post Rebirth (http://www.comicsbeat.com/2006/08/24/dc-comics-month-to-month-sales-july-2006/) or New 52 (http://www.comicsalliance.com/2012/06/05/dc-new-52-sales-bump-data-charts/) starring Hal Jordan.

GoTG is confirmed (http://filmonic.com/guardians-of-the-galaxy-movie-confirmed). I've heard crazy rumors that they're tossing around even more ideas like a Power Pack movie, but those aren't really taken seriously even in the context of rumor. The point that Marvel can apparently even make it to TALKING about Tier 4 while DC can't even do more than the tip of their own Tier 1 kind of speaks wonders on it's own.
I want to make sure I am being perfectly clear: Your original point is one that appeals to me, I don't think I've even come close to implying that. I just don't see it being a see it becoming a reality, for all the reasons I have previously mentioned.

Yes, the world knows Batman: He is a phenomenon. But I think audiences will not like the "first movie" leave out the origin story. Despite the fact that everyone already knows the origin, you are going to be hard pressed to find a studio that doesn't want their version. And most directors/producers want a clean slate as well. From the perspective of the movie studio/industry, it makes more sense (and dollar signs) to include the origin. Good example of "superhero" movies that dropped the origin and were bad? 2 of the 3 Punisher movies. Dolph Lundgren, and Ray Stevenson both played Frank Castle, both their movies skipped the origin story, and IMHO were worse off for it.

I hate to be cynical, but there is a very good chance that Guardians of the Galaxy will suck and bomb at the box office. Bad move on Marvel's part. And if that is the case, that will unfortunately reinforce to the studios that "only big names can do well!"

Warner Brothers had better get its comic movies out the door, before they become terrified of anything that isn't Batman or Superman.

irenicObserver
2012-07-21, 07:02 AM
I guess not...

You know, you probably don't need to quote each other since not only is it redundant but it you two are the only ones really talking.

Dienekes
2012-07-21, 07:55 AM
Edited out since Jayngfet did as well
[/SPOILER]

Not gonna get involved with the rest of the argument. But this was a **** move. The movie has been out for a day and the way this quote is set up makes it really, really obvious what you just spoiled.

Jayngfet
2012-07-22, 04:53 AM
Not gonna get involved with the rest of the argument. But this was a **** move. The movie has been out for a day and the way this quote is set up makes it really, really obvious what you just spoiled.

Whoops. I tried noting it, but that's apparently not good enough. Since the point was made already it's probably best if I just cut that part entirely.


Back to the argument at hand: From a business perspective, again, you can literally think of hundreds of ways to explain it that would sound good to a studio executive. I could go for DAYS about it and not stop on how to explain it.

For the actual creative people, that's a hit or miss. A lot of people are fans of the whole In Media Rez thing, so it's not like it'd instantly stop there. You just need someone who doesn't like retreading old ground.

Jayngfet
2012-07-22, 05:26 AM
Not gonna get involved with the rest of the argument. But this was a **** move. The movie has been out for a day and the way this quote is set up makes it really, really obvious what you just spoiled.

Whoops. I tried noting it, but that's apparently not good enough. Since the point was made already it's probably best if I just cut that part entirely.


Back to the argument at hand: From a business perspective, again, you can literally think of hundreds of ways to explain it that would sound good to a studio executive. I could go for DAYS about it and not stop on how to explain it.

For the actual creative people, that's a hit or miss. A lot of people are fans of the whole In Media Rez thing, so it's not like it'd instantly stop there. You just need someone who doesn't like retreading old ground.

Sneaky Weasel
2012-07-22, 06:09 AM
This is a place to discuss The Amazing Spider Man. If you're going to argue about Batman, or if origins are good in movies, maybe you could move to a different thread. Start a new one about Super Hero origins, even. But unless it's about Spider Man, it really shouldn't be here, at least not for this long. And also, please take more care with spoilers. Thanks to you, I know how TDKR ends.:smallfrown:

MLai
2012-07-22, 08:15 AM
AFAIC, he's talking about Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns. I'm going to watch the new Nolan movie next week, and I'm not spoiled at all. Not one iota. Nope.

irenicObserver
2012-07-22, 04:25 PM
Really this is quite rude. Not only is this off-topic but you two are the only ones invested in this.

Anarion
2012-07-22, 10:37 PM
Thanks to you, I know how TDKR ends.:smallfrown:

You know, there are some studies saying that this won't actually ruin your enjoyment of the movie, so don't let it get to you.

Anyway, I have a spider-man based question. Do you think this movie is intended to be in it for the long haul? That is, with this reboot, could they get another 2-4 movies showing Peter Parker growing up, getting his job at the Daily Bugle, and growing into a more mature and effective spider-man? I'm a bit concerned due to their choice of love interest in Gwen Stacy because she really needs to die, which will cause trouble for further movies, but then if she doesn't die, comics fans will be really upset.

kpenguin
2012-07-22, 11:20 PM
New love interest popping up for a hero in a movie series happens all the time! Granted, the love interest change usually happens off screen between movies...

Anyway, what I would give for this on the big screen
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l7ypkji16i1qa49cuo1_400.jpg

Avilan the Grey
2012-07-23, 01:56 AM
New love interest popping up for a hero in a movie series happens all the time! Granted, the love interest change usually happens off screen between movies...

Anyway, what I would give for this on the big screen
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l7ypkji16i1qa49cuo1_400.jpg

Indeed.
Tiger, you just won the Jackpot. :smallbiggrin:

irenicObserver
2012-07-23, 01:14 PM
I believe that would be so much better. Mary Jane is introduced way too soon in every adaptation I have seen. I want to see the running gag of Peter avoiding Mary adapted to the big screen. I would enjoy watching her characterization as she comforts Peter after Gwen's death.

Tiki Snakes
2012-07-23, 01:43 PM
I'm honestly not sure Gwen Stacey does need to die. I mean, she was in the comics long enough to be a legitimate character outside of that single fact and it's not like this is the original or ultimate continuity specifically, so it's just as valid if they take an entirely different route with her character.

Dienekes
2012-07-23, 01:58 PM
I'm honestly not sure Gwen Stacey does need to die. I mean, she was in the comics long enough to be a legitimate character outside of that single fact and it's not like this is the original or ultimate continuity specifically, so it's just as valid if they take an entirely different route with her character.

Gwen Stacy always dies. It's her lot in the story, even moreso since they appear to be taking the romantic aspects of the originals where Gwen actually is a legitimate partner to Peter.

So in other words, if they're going to make me sit through a love triangle to get my Spiderman fix, they can at least give me the pleasure of watching that triangle brutally destroyed.

Xondoure
2012-07-23, 02:00 PM
I don't think Gwen should die until at least the third film, and Mary Jane needs to be introduced in the next film for that to work.

Tiki Snakes
2012-07-23, 02:40 PM
Gwen Stacy always dies. It's her lot in the story, even moreso since they appear to be taking the romantic aspects of the originals where Gwen actually is a legitimate partner to Peter.

So in other words, if they're going to make me sit through a love triangle to get my Spiderman fix, they can at least give me the pleasure of watching that triangle brutally destroyed.

Interestingly enough, I read up on the alternate versions of Gwen Stacey on wikipedia a few minutes ago.
(Ultimates Spoilers)
And apparently, in the Ultimate Universe not only did she get better, (eventually) she's currently alive, whereas Peter has been killed off.

Also, she was in the Amazing Spider-Man line for 8 years before she died, to be fair.

Selrahc
2012-07-23, 03:15 PM
Also, she was in the Amazing Spider-Man line for 8 years before she died, to be fair.

She was however, incredibly dull.

Although actually, I take that back. She was just incredibly dull when she was dating Peter. Her introductory narrative arc was a feisty back and forth competition with MJ over Pete's affections, with him playing a semi-oblivious role in the middle. It was kind of a thin characterization, but it was at least a little interesting. Once she "won", she just turned into a complete wet blanket with no more narrative drive and previous little personality. And she stayed in that dull as ditchwater narrative stasis pretty much until her death.

irenicObserver
2012-07-24, 03:02 PM
Which is why they killed her.
Interestingly enough, I read up on the alternate versions of Gwen Stacey on wikipedia a few minutes ago.
(Ultimates Spoilers)
And apparently, in the Ultimate Universe not only did she get better, (eventually) she's currently alive, whereas Peter has been killed off.

Also, she was in the Amazing Spider-Man line for 8 years before she died, to be fair.

Yeah, the movie seems to be taking bits and pieces from either continuity and running with it. I don't think Gwen has to die but it's certainly a plot point it wouldn't hurt to use.

MLai
2012-07-27, 08:11 PM
If this is a trilogy, and they have a plan for her character development, then I'd like her to die at the end of the 3rd movie, and the epilogue of the 3rd movie would be that scene of MJ staying with Peter. So MJ can be introduced in the epilogue of the 2nd movie, or somewhere in the 3rd movie.

Candle Jack
2012-08-19, 10:21 PM
I finally got to see this movie last night. All in all, pretty good. I like this take on Spider-Man — it's definitely quite a bit darker than the Sam Raimi films, but a good deal funnier and the fights are a lot better. Also, Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone have very good chemistry.

Three concerns I had with this film:

1) I get the sense that there is going to be a ****load of deleted scenes on the DVD, as there are bits and pieces that just feel missing. Indeed, I just learned that there's a missing scene where the Lizard actually does kill Norman Osbourne's flunkie.

2) This movie doesn't feel like its own story, but rather just the first part of a saga. That's all well and fine, but there's some dangling plot threads I hope they just don't drop.

3) They really should re-name this movie "The Amazing Spider-Man Won't Keep His Damn Mask On." Look, I know it's Andrew Garfield (or a stunt man) under there. I know he can't emote under the mask, but he takes off the mask to explore a goddamn sewer, for God's sake.

Otherwise, very good.

Any speculation on who the Man in the Shadows was? I know the popular guess will be Norman Osbourne, but this fellow seemed to exhibit some unusual abilities.

VanBuren
2012-08-20, 02:47 AM
I finally got to see this movie last night. All in all, pretty good. I like this take on Spider-Man — it's definitely quite a bit darker than the Sam Raimi films, but a good deal funnier and the fights are a lot better. Also, Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone have very good chemistry.

Three concerns I had with this film:

1) I get the sense that there is going to be a ****load of deleted scenes on the DVD, as there are bits and pieces that just feel missing. Indeed, I just learned that there's a missing scene where the Lizard actually does kill Norman Osbourne's flunkie.

2) This movie doesn't feel like its own story, but rather just the first part of a saga. That's all well and fine, but there's some dangling plot threads I hope they just don't drop.

3) They really should re-name this movie "The Amazing Spider-Man Won't Keep His Damn Mask On." Look, I know it's Andrew Garfield (or a stunt man) under there. I know he can't emote under the mask, but he takes off the mask to explore a goddamn sewer, for God's sake.

Otherwise, very good.

Any speculation on who the Man in the Shadows was? I know the popular guess will be Norman Osbourne, but this fellow seemed to exhibit some unusual abilities.

My roommate is hoping it's the Kingpin, but I would hate that for a variety of reasons. Like that he looks nothing like Wilson Fisk.

kpenguin
2012-08-20, 02:56 AM
Can't be Kingpin. Rights to him remain all tied up along with Daredevil. Tis the reason why they used Tombstone as the big bad gangboss in SpecSpidey instead of Kingpin.

Candle Jack
2012-08-20, 12:51 PM
One thought I had … could he be Mysterio? That "appear and disappear" trick is part of his whole act.

TheEmerged
2012-08-20, 02:11 PM
My pet theory?

It's Peter's dad

Candle Jack
2012-08-20, 03:22 PM
My pet theory?

It's Peter's dad

That's not true! THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE!

VanBuren
2012-08-20, 06:48 PM
That's not true! THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE!

Search your feelings. You know it to be plausible at the very least.

TheEmerged
2012-08-20, 08:19 PM
Okay, go ahead and take my geek card but... I didn't realize the Star Wars comparison there.

/facepalm.