SPIDER-MAN reboot

Jul 04, 2012 @ 02:32
If spiderman 3 wasn't shit then raimis wouldn't be critiqued as a director, because the first two films compared to the new installment were amazing.
Jul 04, 2012 @ 03:12
They were way better than the 3rd that is true but both they were all crappy adaptations of spider man. The action was cool yes but most of the characters and villains were butchered and/or changed from their comic book personas even when they didnt need to be.
Jul 04, 2012 @ 03:17
^ they should do the maximum carnage storyline (the one from the comics) thatd be the soo dope if they pulled that off.
Jul 04, 2012 @ 03:24
Watching this tonight whoop whoop. smokeyface
Jul 04, 2012 @ 03:38
They were way better than the 3rd that is true but both they were all crappy adaptations of spider man. The action was cool yes but most of the characters and villains were butchered and/or changed from their comic book personas even when they didnt need to be.


Well if your going off the comics then yeah its going to look bad for not following those story lines word for word, I was born in 91' and never got around to having time to read the comics so most my knowledge comes from the fox spiderman tv show. But some examples come to mind that i can mainly think of to prove your point and that would be doc oct in the 2nd film, who else do you felt that they changed too much?
Jul 04, 2012 @ 05:05
**SPOILER**
Who do you think was in dr conners cell at the end? My guess is norman osborn

All my friends are black but my wives are white

Jul 04, 2012 @ 09:09
Think its Hobgoblin.
Jul 04, 2012 @ 09:53
i've been hearing a lot that they've changed the lizard from his personality in the comics to pretty much be a norman osborn substitute since it would seem too same-y for them to do green goblin again. can you guys confirm this?
Jul 04, 2012 @ 17:35
They were way better than the 3rd that is true but both they were all crappy adaptations of spider man. The action was cool yes but most of the characters and villains were butchered and/or changed from their comic book personas even when they didnt need to be.


Well if your going off the comics then yeah its going to look bad for not following those story lines word for word, I was born in 91' and never got around to having time to read the comics so most my knowledge comes from the fox spiderman tv show. But some examples come to mind that i can mainly think of to prove your point and that would be doc oct in the 2nd film, who else do you felt that they changed too much?

But don't they change the whole story of the comic books up multiple times??? they have shit like "Earth-625" "Earth-999" "Earth392"
So why are the Comic Book Collector nerds getting so pissy over little plot changes? I feel bad for the people in charge of Marvel Movies because they have to choose which version of the character's universe they are going to portray or else an army of nerds will be furious.

btw was this movie any good?

|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| http://soundcloud.com/izuna ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Jul 04, 2012 @ 18:08
^Honestly it was okay, nothing great. It only got me more excited for batman and made me appreciate spider 1 &2 and avengers a lot more.
Jul 04, 2012 @ 18:11
This new franchise could do a lot of things right: introduce Venom/Carnage correctly, kill off Gwen Stacy.
Jul 04, 2012 @ 18:19
just seen it. there were cool moments while he was spider-man like the stan lee thing and... nothing else really. he took off his mask all the time for like no reason, the lizard looked like shit, the parent thing was unresolved, he was on a phone in the fucking sewers, etc.. the best stuff was gwen/peter and basically all their interactions, which isn't surprising given the director.

it wasn't even glaringly terrible. it was just kinda eh as far as what spider-man can be. it was like a good romantic comedy with spider-man pasted onto it.

and fucking lol at all the product placement. MY GOD like 15 sony logos.
Jul 04, 2012 @ 18:49
Originally posted by Inactive User
the best stuff was gwen/peter and basically all their interactions, which isn't surprising given the director.


Not surprising because they're fucking each other irl.
Jul 04, 2012 @ 20:22
Is the 3D necessary? I just ask because the normal 2D version is going to be playing for $2 next week at a local cinema and I don't know if I'd be missing out.
Jul 04, 2012 @ 20:29
Is the 3D necessary? I just ask because the normal 2D version is going to be playing for $2 next week at a local cinema and I don't know if I'd be missing out.


i saw it in imax 3d and there was nothing special about it, might've been cuz i saw it in the ghetto. Either way normal 2d should be alright
Jul 04, 2012 @ 20:35
Cool, thanks. It'll save me some money seeing it in 2d next week then.
Jul 04, 2012 @ 20:36
This new franchise could do a lot of things right: introduce Venom/Carnage correctly, kill off Gwen Stacy.


This. Drop gwen stacy and bring in felicia hardy (someone incredibly hot though to play her part)

Originally posted by Inactive User
the best stuff was gwen/peter and basically all their interactions, which isn't surprising given the director.


Not surprising because they're fucking each other irl.


The interaction scenes between them seemed longer than the action scenes. I really hope they make the sequel better with less of that romantic comedy shit
Jul 04, 2012 @ 23:40
i thought the film was pretty good. I had low expectations though. Disregarding story changes one thing for sure is that the new Peter Parker is a lot better than Toby's emo Spidey from the original films who say's fuck all and just stares blankly. The new one is a lot more comic accurate. This Spider-man actually cracks jokes and is sarcastic. His moves and combat during fight sequences is also more authentic to the comics. He comes across as really agile and nimble compared to the original Spider-man films.
Jul 05, 2012 @ 03:13
^
co-sign. I actually like this better than the Sam Raimi "Spiderman".

Inactive User

Jul 05, 2012 @ 03:25
Spiderman 3 is the movie of our generation. Who mad?
Jul 05, 2012 @ 05:41
for those of you who have seen it how does it compare to sam raimi's spiderman?

more like along side the first 3, this one is....?
Jul 05, 2012 @ 08:10
this makes you care about peter/gwen/aunt may/uncle ben more than the other ones did with mary jane and them. but imo the villains in every previous spider-man movies are all better than the lizard and even though andrew garfield is the better peter the fight scenes in the raimi films were more ambitious. everyone remembers the fights in them, but these were kind of an afterthought. other than the stan lee shit lol.
Jul 05, 2012 @ 11:23
stone > dunst
Jul 05, 2012 @ 18:27
Ehh, average but liked how it was much in-depth with the parents and uncle/auntie situation.

Heartbreak Boyz | Mia Khalifa Fan Club

Jul 05, 2012 @ 19:41
stone > dunst


All day.

I actually thought the movie was great. The cast was on point. And I definitely didn't mind seeing the origins of spider man all over again. Even though that was one of the main issues I was having going into the movie.

This one alone topples all 3 past Spiderman's. K. Dunst as mary jane? that was awful.

Instagram: kingkast1

Jul 05, 2012 @ 19:56
**SPOILER**
Who do you think was in dr conners cell at the end? My guess is norman osborn


it's been confirmed its not Norman Osborn
Jul 05, 2012 @ 20:02
for those of you who have seen it how does it compare to sam raimi's spiderman?

more like along side the first 3, this one is....?


I thought the original Toby M movie was better, just as an overall movie. yet i thought the actors were much better in this one.

Yet I liked the OG movie cuz there was more action, the Villain was a million times better and the story was just better.
Jul 06, 2012 @ 01:55
They were way better than the 3rd that is true but both they were all crappy adaptations of spider man. The action was cool yes but most of the characters and villains were butchered and/or changed from their comic book personas even when they didnt need to be.


what r u talking about? even within the comics there's multiple versions of each character's "persona". the first two raimi spider-man movies were so on point in this category. they were an homage to the original golden-age spider-man. the first two movies oozed that cheesy goodness that you find in comic books from the 60's - 70's.
Jul 06, 2012 @ 02:55
so i was watching the old spiderman movies on FX and im sorry but they were pretty bad. the effects and the cheesy acting completely ruin the great casting they had going on. i understand your point gold, about it being an homage to the golden era spiderman, but still.
Jul 06, 2012 @ 03:05
Spider-Man 2 >
Please login first to reply.