New Spidey Trailer

[Mikezilla]

Anyone watched it yet? I have some beef with it, but I wanted to see some other opinions on it before I start my rant. Im a die hard spiderman fan, so I wanted to see some other fans opinions, and some fans but not that big of fans. Watch it. Then discuss! Go! 

[HaRuMaN]

Looks like they went back to the mechanical web slingers...

[Mikezilla]

ZOMG?!! ANOTHER COMIC BOOK MOVIE?!?

Let me guess.... some random loser gets a super power and farts around with it.  Then some other loser gets a super power and turns evil.  First guy makes a costume and fights him but it's not clear if he manages to kill him at the end.

ZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

I sort of agree with this, I really hate how they are wasting time doing another origin story. Its a waste of half the movie.

And yes Haruman, they went with the mechanical web shooters, which I think is rad, but I think they did it all wrong. The lights and the noise and the button pressing thing is kind of retarded... Have to see how it plays out I guess.

[Le Chuck]

It does seem like remakes are coming faster and faster out of the gate now.  Used to be you'd let a successful franchise cool off for a generation until you slapped a fresh coat on but it's getting ridiculous now.  I'm sure there will be a Green Lantern remake sometime next year to fix the most recent abortion.  

As for Spidey, I will go see it.  Looks like it has good pacing, some nice POV shots, and cool gadgets but I'm wondering why it was necessary.  Toby wasn't great but he wasn't awful either.  Wasn't Stan Lee just as consulted on the last incarnation as on this one?

[SNAAKE]

but its in...3D!!!1!

[Mikezilla]

Thats the thing, he can pretty much do anything, but its willpower based. The race track thing was lamesville. Blake Lively was the best part of that movie, the villain was retarded.

Yeah, the remake train for spidey was too damn soon. I know Spider Man 3 was one of the most horrible movies ever, but still, that was just 2007. Its a complete waste of time if you ask me, ESPECIALLY since they are doing the origin! Everyone on the damn planet knows how Peter becomes spidey.

The lizards head looks like a joke. He is too humanoid looking. See, I thought Tobey was awful. He made the idea of being spiderman boring, dull, and a chore. There was no wise cracking either, I know that wasnt his fault, but still. I wish they would have stopped at 2 on that series. One was good, and two was amazing (pun intended). I wanted to gouge my eyes out after the third one. Cant believe they ---fouled up beyond all recognition--- up Venom. Cmon... 

[Le Chuck]

Lizard's head... Abomination's head... same post production crew?  The difference is he's got claws and is green right?  Oh and a tail.  Totally different, my bad. 

[AtomSmasher]

It'll be interesting to see if Dennis Leary can pull off being a New York cop.  It's just so out of character for him.   

[Vigo]

I hope this one turns out. Looking from the trailer, I dunno....I don't think it will be bad though.

The dude who plays Spidey, Andrew Garfield, doesn't exactly strike me as a peter parker. I only saw him in the Imaginarium of Dr Parnassus, and he really didn't strike me as the type. More like he belongs on the set of a twilight film. The trailer makes him look like some emo skater kid....I don't know if they will really hit's science geek (not that toby's spidey really rung as science geek either, just more of a naive dork.) I'm reserving my judgement though.

I kinda am wondering about why they chose the Lizard...I know if you are planning a series of films, you don't start with your strongest villain, but the lizard doesn't even seem right for an origins plot.

[Vigo]

Lizard's head... Abomination's head... same post production crew?  The difference is he's got claws and is green right?  Oh and a tail.  Totally different, my bad. 

[Le Chuck]

Touché.   

[Howard_Casto]

The problem with super hero movies is that directors wan't to get all artsy-fartsy and ignore the primary rule of super hero movies..... NOBODY DIES, NOT EVEN THE VILLIANS!  The only people who stay dead in the comics is Uncle Ben and Bucky... and even they come back every now and again.

Tim Burton did a great job with the Batman films, but he pits batman against th joker in the very first film and kills him.  It can only be downhill from there. 

The did the same thing with the spiderman trilogy..... they start by killing off Green Goblin... ok that isn't too bad, but they Kill off Doc-Oc in the second!  That's the end of the franchise right there!  By the third one they are pulling in third stringers like Sandman. 


I'm not impressed with the spiderman reboot.  They just want more money and realize that the previous films killed off all the best villians. 


As for the Green Lantern film.... it was actually pretty good in terms of treatment.  The problem is that Hal Jordan is a fairly generic super-hero.  The things that always make GL books interesting is "the core" and all the fantastical villians and epic wars they get into.  So they face him up against a wispy cloud and have him do the final battle solo... brilliant!  Let's make a Superman film in which supes fights a bunch of regular bank robbers next!


Personally I've never found many of the super-powered superheros to be all that interesting.  The real heroes are the one's without any special powers, like batman and the punisher.  I mean if you are invulnerable like Superman aren't your only two life choices being a hero or being a total ---meecrob--- for NOT being a hero when you have all that power?

The exception of course is the "god" super heros like Thor..... there's something interesting about taking a public domain character and stuffing him in a cape and tights. 

[fallacy]

Only thing I thought when I saw the trailer was, You ripped off Mirror's Edge!






1:40

[Vigo]

I've heard there's a scene where he wakes up and looks at this hand and it's covered in white goo and then he lifts up his sheet and it's all over his stomach but then when he reaches for a sock he realizes it's just the web shooters gone off again.

[Bootay]

I think it looks ok. I am also a huge Spider-Man fan. The suit looks a little too Ben Reilly to me, and Andrew Garfield reminds me of a Justin Beiber kinda kid. He doesn't strike me as a Peter Parker. And I hate that they are doing yet another origin story. But whatever. I will watch every comic movie..they are becoming very cliche, but I can't help but watch them anyway.

[Mikezilla]

I think it looks ok. I am also a huge Spider-Man fan. The suit looks a little too Ben Reilly to me, and Andrew Garfield reminds me of a Justin Beiber kinda kid. He doesn't strike me as a Peter Parker. And I hate that they are doing yet another origin story. But whatever. I will watch every comic movie..they are becoming very cliche, but I can't help but watch them anyway.

Im with you on this, and what Vigo mentioned. I dont like the overall tone that the director has taken with this movie. He is trying to tweak the Peter Parker character by making him kinda emo, and a little punk rock ish, because nerdy is in right now, and he is supposed to be an outcast, how nerds were back in the 60's when spiderman was created. They have him with that stupid emo justin bieber haircut, a hoodie, and a ramones t-shirt and he looks all sad about his parents and  . I love how they say its the "untold story" when in fact, its an origin story. Which we have seen. Its stupid.  Since the Dark Knight was so successful, everyone thinks that a superhero movie has to be dark, and brooding etc. They dont get that is what makes up Batman, Superman, Spiderman, hell even the Xmen arent like that. Stupid Hollywood and their stupid formulas...

Spidey has a ton of awesome villains to work with. Hell, they could have made a movie with Venom in it, not ---fouled up beyond all recognition--- it up, and bam, set up carnage for the sequel, done a maximum carnage storyline, or they could have made the series with the symbiotes and spidey and venom have to team up... They havent even put in the black cat. JJJ isnt even in this movie... I dont even think he is a photographer... 

[yotsuya]

I'm glad you guys are having fun with this. Last time I got excited about a superhero movie was 1980. 

[HaRuMaN]

Kneel before Zod!

[Vigo]

JJJ isnt even in this movie... I dont even think he is a photographer... 

I was looking to see if JJJ was on there in IMDB as well. I felt JK Simmons was the absolute perfect Jameson and was hoping he would reprise the role. I was shocked to see that the role wasn't even in the movie. He goes all the way back to Spiderman issue 1.

Although I really highly doubt that he would translate to film very well, I personally would love to see Mysterio as a villian.

[SNAAKE]

bring back the doc

[Well Fed Games]

I have a hard time getting excited, as I really did like 1 & 2, and appreciated the fact they at least attempted Venom in 3. Not sure if a reboot is in order at this time when other Marvel IPs could be made into good flicks. But, I will see it, probably not in theaters, unless the reception is particularly good.

[Vigo]

bring back the doc

Ok, I have to ask...anyone besides me think that doc octopus (from the comics) always looked like elton john? 

[Le Chuck]

bring back the doc

Ok, I have to ask...anyone besides me think that doc octopus (from the comics) always looked like elton john? 

"Lookin' around, at all the crazy sights and sounds, dancing 'round like spidey on a string, never gonna find a web-slinger to change my mind, Ain't life a many tenticled thaaaaaang"


Not really.

[Mikezilla]

Mike - if you already know everything that's supposed to happen, and you've already seen one rendition of it, then what's the point of going to see it again?  The changes they're making to Spider-Man are the only things that are going to keep it engaging.  You can sit here and run your fingers about it, but guaranteed you'll have your butt in a theater seat opening weekend carefully cataloging EACH and EVERY variation.

 

PBJ - Thats the beauty of the movies. Its an entirely different medium. THATS the engaging part about it, its not pages in a comic. Besides, Im passionate about Spiderman because as a kid, he was THE hero for me. I want to see the movies done right. The first ones were ok, some aspects I loved, some I hated. There are certain things about the character that you dont change, thats the point of going to see the movie, you want to see what you know as familiar, but on a different medium.

I dont think calling me a tool is necessary, because anyone that is passionate about anything is going to note changes about something they care about being different, and for the worse. This just happens to be a character in a movie.

And of course Im going to see it. Duh. The effects really do look great though. You know, the other aspects of it take a back seat to the costume. Thats my only REAL gripe, I get the other things, and I like how they are trying to do the mechanical webshooters, I just HATE the costume. Everything about it sucks. 

[Ginsu Victim]

Ok, I have to ask...anyone besides me think that doc octopus (from the comics) always looked like elton john? 

Yep.

[Vigo]

I'm glad I'm not the only one. 

[nitz]

Watched the trailer...BLECH!

As others have mentioned, the guy just doesn't seem like Peter Parker. And my wife and I both thought that he looks about 18 and MJ (Gwen?) looks about 30. They look awkward together...if the trailer can't make them look good together, then the movie will never pull it off.

I think I could have certainly accepted someone else playing the role if they hadn't done a damn origin story (seriously, considering we just had 2 good movies + one decent one that began with an origin story, this is just lame ) and if they didn't look like they were trying to be like every junk action movie out there. I get why hardcore Spidey fans will need to see it, but I'm happy enough with Spiderman 1-3 and frankly can't be bothered with this.

Tim Burton did a great job with the Batman films, but he pits batman against th joker in the very first film and kills him.  It can only be downhill from there.  

I hesitate to call those great as I thought the tone and style were wrong, though the acting and production values somewhat made up for it. I do agree though that killing off the villain is bad...though in this case I doubt Jack Nicholson would have come back for a sequel anyway, or at least would have wanted a crapload of money (I think his salary for Batman was huge).

I actually thought the Batman reboot was ok, since I didn't think either Tim Burton movie felt quite right, and Batman Forever + Batman and Robin were garbage. But in the case of Spiderman, the first 2 movies were great, and the third was at least acceptable. A reboot just seems silly if not outright stupid, and just helps confirm for me that mainstream Hollywood movies are really going down the crapper.

I'm glad you guys are having fun with this. Last time I got excited about a superhero movie was 1980.  

That is my favorite superhero movie ever.   It's a bit cheesy/corny in parts, but for that movie, it seems to work.

[shmokes]

Yeah, that's Gwen Stacy, not MJ.

Honestly, the main problem isn't that they're doing an origin story. It's that Sam Raimi's origin story was particularly good. It's that fact that makes this movie entirely superfluous. It's like they think that since it's a new actor playing him we need to be reintroduced, which makes no sense since the whole conceit of acting is that we're supposed to be watching Peter Parker, not whatever-the-guy's-name-is who's playing him.

Don't get me wrong . . . there were minor problems with Sam Raimi's version--primarily that Peter didn't smash the spider after it bit him. It was obviously an aggressive spider and the fact that it's still running around means that it could create other spider-men. It was a stupid oversight. The biological web shooters, in my opinion, were far superior to the mechanical ones, accuracy be damned. Unless Spider-Man is taking place 100 years in the future those mechanical web shooters, with their web cartridges just strain the suspension of disbelief too much.

With that said, I admit that for total believability Spider-Man ought to be swinging around New York from web shot out of his ass.

[shmokes]

I do agree though that killing off the villain is bad...though in this case I doubt Jack Nicholson would have come back for a sequel anyway, or at least would have wanted a crapload of money (I think his salary for Batman was huge).

That wouldn't have been a problem. Jack Nicholson didn't die in Batman. Joker did.

And yeah, Jack Nicholson took a small payday for Batman (like $6 million) in favor of a backend percentage of everything. I read that he's made something like $100 million from ticket sales, DVD sales, merchandising, etc.  Same goes for Fonze in Happy Days. Henry Winkler took a small salary in exchange for a percentage of syndication profits. Happy Days turned out to be an incredibly popular show, and Henry Winkler turned out to be incredibly rich.

[yotsuya]

I'm glad you guys are having fun with this. Last time I got excited about a superhero movie was 1980.  

That is my favorite superhero movie ever.   It's a bit cheesy/corny in parts, but for that movie, it seems to work.

Fortunately, it didn't take itself seriously, nor did the audience, and a fun time was had by all.

[Gray_Area]

Hey, they're going to re-make Forbidden Planet, anything's possible.

A great movie, but backward even in its time.

[nitz]

Yeah, that's Gwen Stacy, not MJ.

Heh heh, I think my confusion over that sums up right there why this movie isn't for me - I never really read the comics, so all my knowledge comes from vague memories of the cartoon and Spiderman 1-3. For me, those movies were pretty good and don't need to be redone/remade/rebooted/whatever. But I can see it making sense for the die-hards...still, it just looks bad to me.

That wouldn't have been a problem. Jack Nicholson didn't die in Batman. Joker did.

I know that of course. Maybe my wording was slightly ambiguous. I meant that I doubt Jack Nicholson would have come back for a sequel if they had asked him to. Which they didn't, because they killed his character. I just sense that he wanted to put in an awesome performance (which he did), make a ton of money (which he did), but probably wouldn't do it again because it really couldn't be topped, and if he would have done it again, he would have no doubt wanted even more money to reprise it. I am basing this on absolutely nothing btw.

[shmokes]

For me it's just incredibly stupid to reboot it at this point. Spider-man one set an all-time record for opening weekend gross if I remember right. And then it went on to incredible success in tocket sales and DVD sales. Which means everyone saw it. Plus they loved it, audiences and critics alike.

So why reboot it? Put someone new in the Spidey suit because you can't get or don't want Toby anymore. I get that. But that's no reason to retell the story that everyone already saw and loved just a few years ago. Spider-man wasn't the Toby Mcguire story. It was the Peter Parker story. And as near as I can tell, Peter is still in the film. The fact that Toby is gone is irrelevant to the story.

[Bootay]

I agree. That's what I liked about The Incredible Hulk, they didn't bother putting us through another origin story again.

[SNAAKE]

For me it's just incredibly stupid to reboot it at this point. \

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

lots of it. simple as that.

[Howard_Casto]

(excuse the lack of quoting)


I disagree, Nitz... burton's batman films were infinately superior to pretty much every super hero film released since INCLUDNG the new batman films. 


He got the top three things right:

1.  Gotham City is the star of any Batman film... period... everything else is icing on the cake.

2.  Batman is boring (in the short term at least) and a downer as a whole, so focus on the villians

3.  Realism is IMPOSSIBLE when your arch emenies run around in halloween costumes doing stupid "themed" attacks... so just go with it. 


Those three points have relevance in other films as well, most notably Superman.... this is why the aforementioned Superman II was so frikkin awesome.

And quit posting pics of me guys!  I'll get embarrassed.

[Bootay]

Howard: I agree. The first 2 Burton films were exactly like how the comics were at the time. I didn't care much for the half man half big style of The Penguin, but it still had the tone.

Actually as much ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- that people give the Adam West Batman, those were dead on with what the comic was like at the time too.

Batman started off dark but after a few issues DC told the writers to introduce Robin and make it more kid friendly. After the introduction of Robin things slowly turned to Adam West style. Throughout the 50s and 60s Batman comics were exactly like Adam West Batman. Then in the 70s they rebooted the series and made him dark and brooding again.

As much as I like the new Batman films, they really aren't like the comics. Everyone rants and raves about Ledger's Joker, but he really isn't all that much like the comic version. I did like his version don't get me wrong. But Jack played him dead on when compared to the comic. I am not in any way knocking the new ones because I do enjoy them. (except for the Batmobile....I HATE the Batmobile in the new movies)

[Vigo]

  This is spot on with how I feel as well.    Maybe I don't mind DeVito's Penguin as much (Although I love Burgess Meredith's Penguin from the Adam West Batman series much more).

[Mikezilla]

The only reason Ledgers Joker got so much play, was because he died before the movie came out. Seriously. It was good and all, but cmon, it wasnt THAT great. I liked Nicholsons Joker WAY more. Dont get me wrong, I liked Ledgers joker, and it fit the tone for that movie, going with realism etc, but I dont want EVERY movie I see to be realistic, cmon. Its a superhero movie. Its the comics come to life.

Like Bootay said, Nicholsons joker was perfect, thats how he is in the comics. I loved Burtons Batman because thats what I grew up with, and the Batmobile is FAR superior, but I do like how the Nolan series shows how he actuall became Batman, with the training etc.

I also agree with shmokes regarding the need to "reboot" the series. The thing that pisses me off was that the last Raimi flick came out 5 years ago. Its not like a whole generation has passed and peope forgot who spiderman was or something. Hell, my grandma knows how spidey got his powers. Its a complete waste of time... and a waste because if it doesnt do well, they wont put any more money into it. I still want to see Venom done right. Screw the hokey villains like Vulture and Mysterio... This lizard is going to be lame too.

[Vigo]

Yeah, Nicholson's Joker was definitely perfect. He had jokes, gags, squirting flowers, everything joker, but Nicholson used it in a way that didn't diminish the character. He was still unsettling and scary. And who didn't want that batmobile? The new one just makes me think of a Hummer. Bulky and obnoxious. The origins in batman begins is excellent, and I love that they didn't just explain everything away as, "Oh, he's a millionaire, of course he can just buy all the gadgets he wants".

Screw the hokey villains like Vulture and Mysterio... This lizard is going to be lame too.

Mysterio hokey? Aww...I love Mysterio....but you are right, A guy with a fishbowl on his head that poofs around with stage smoke is on the hokey end.  It would have to take absolute brilliant directing and writing to make him good on the screen. As a kid, I used to love him as a villian though. I just always was a sucker for villains without any real powers, you usually got a little more of a plot out of their schemes. I agree completely about venom though. He is some of the best of the spidey series, and it was a shame to see it trashed the way it was. Which pretty much shut the door to make anything cool out of Carnage as well.

[shmokes]

For me it's just incredibly stupid to reboot it at this point. \

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

lots of it. simple as that.

It's not as simple as that. Dark Knight did better in the box office than Batman Begins. Spider-man 2 did better than Spider-man 1. Origin stories don't make more money by default. All they had to do is make Spider-man 4 and make it well. Remaking a super good, not even old film is a recipe for making less money, not more. Cos a bunch of people are going to be like, "Oh, they're doing a remake of a movie I just saw a few years ago, only this time it looks like it was cast by the WB. I think I'll pass."

[Bootay]

@Vigo: I like how all the villains were portrayed in the old Adam West series. They were straight out the pages of the books, at least for the tiime. (I have all the old books collected in hardcover).

[Vigo]

I agree. As a kid, I didn't have much of a comic budget. I grabbed about any second hand comic I could get a hold of, which were often from that era. About the biggest difference I could spot in the series was that Batman wasn't packing hostess fruit pies in his utility belt. 

[Dartful Dodger]

The new Spiderman movie looks dark. I'm going to like it.

[hypernova]

I'm wondering how much time will be spent on the history.  Obviously they didn't delve at all into Peter's parents in the last trilogy, other than they were dead.

I hope they don't do another Octopus.  They simply can't.  Not for awhile.  Alfred Molina played that villain to...I'll say it...perfection, IMO.

Trailer looks decent.  Not digging the Peter casting.  I thought the same...it does look like they're catering to the post-Twilight movie girl crowd and hoping males won't realize it.

[nitz]

He got the top three things right:

1.  Gotham City is the star of any Batman film... period... everything else is icing on the cake.

2.  Batman is boring (in the short term at least) and a downer as a whole, so focus on the villians

3.  Realism is IMPOSSIBLE when your arch emenies run around in halloween costumes doing stupid "themed" attacks... so just go with it. 

The funny thing is, I actually agree with you on all these points. And don't get me wrong, I don't hate the movie, I got it on VHS the year it came out and still have it, and watch it maybe every few years or so. But there's something about it that rubs me the wrong way a little, and I find it hard to put into words. The best I can come up with is that it feels like maybe it was trying too hard to not be like the '60s Batman TV series, and maybe they went a tad too heavy on the "darkness" factor. This may very well be true to the comics of the time, but I didn't read them. See, and I actually think the tone of the Nolan Batman movies is perfect, but someone said that it's not like the comics. And I still don't read them. So my view on these things is a bit different perhaps because I'm not comparing it to anything.

[Vigo]

I do know that Adam West hated Tim Burtin's Batman, said it lost the fun....but a big part of it seemed to be that he felt a little jaded that we wasn't invited to be a part of the film.

[Le Chuck]

With Batman it came down to actor choice for me.  Clooney and Kilmer couldn't do brooding the way that Keaton could (or at all).  Keaton brooded better than anybody, and that's the Batman, he is analytical to a fault; however, Keaton couldn't sell it physically without the mask.  That's where Patrick Bateman makes his money, brooding and in some ways as crazed as his nemisi in the films yet he's able to carry the role physically.  And just to go against the grain, huge fan of the new batmobile - finally a realistic ride for the dark knight.  That suped up slick sex cariage looked great but really, the HMMWV is a character unto itself and until Nolan's take it never matched the utilatarian aspect of the modern batman.

As for the new spidey I completely echo the complaint about a redux, but complaining about that is beating a dead horse.  Once we get a look at what they've done we may all change camps.  New franchise at least gives them th opportunity to reinvent the symbiote in all it's needed glory.   

[Gray_Area]

All comics have gone through different themes and styles. Like religion, they had to change or die out.

There is no comparison between Nicholson and Ledger. They both were exactly what was needed.

[shmokes]

That's where Patrick Bateman makes his money, brooding and in some ways as crazed as his nemisi in the films yet he's able to carry the role physically.

I think Christian Bale sucks bad at batman. He plays the role so two dimensionally, and the voice thing he does for his crime fighting alter-ego is downright laughable. It's the exact same voice I use with my five-year-old daughter when I'm pretending to be a monster. It's just so amateur, IMO. I actually think Christian Bale is a reasonably talented actor, but I think he's badly miscast in Batman. In fact, more like he just does a poor job. Physically he's a fine choice for Batman. His acting is just a problem.

It's an amazing testament to the writing and direction, I think, that the movies have been so good in spite of the crap performance by the lead actor.

[Le Chuck]

That's where Patrick Bateman makes his money, brooding and in some ways as crazed as his nemisi in the films yet he's able to carry the role physically.

I think Christian Bale sucks bad at batman. He plays the role so two dimensionally, and the voice thing he does for his crime fighting alter-ego is downright laughable. It's the exact same voice I use with my five-year-old daughter when I'm pretending to be a monster. It's just so amateur, IMO. I actually think Christian Bale is a reasonably talented actor, but I think he's badly miscast in Batman. In fact, more like he just does a poor job. Physically he's a fine choice for Batman. His acting is just a problem.

It's an amazing testament to the writing and direction, I think, that the movies have been so good in spite of the crap performance by the lead actor.

So it's amazing directing but Bale ruins the character's voice all on his own?  That doesn't make sense.  Yeah the voice is lame but there is a whole set of people who are there to help actors see themselves and collectively dropped the ball, and the fault for that lies not with Bale but with Nolan.  An amazing director would have said, "Ya know Chris, you're coming across pretty retarded, wanna try that again?" or some such other director talk meant to inspire or some ---steaming pile of meadow muffin---. 

[shmokes]

Yeah, I can see that. You're right. I guess it's just an otherwise extremely well directed film. It definitely helps that so many of the supporting actors, Michael Cain, Morgan Freeman, all of the villains, have been cast so well.

[ark_ader]

Yeah, I can see that. You're right. I guess it's just an otherwise extremely well directed film. It definitely helps that so many of the supporting actors, Michael Cain, Morgan Freeman, all of the villains, have been cast so well.

I thought batman was supposed to be a psychopath, hellbent on revenge for this slain family.

[Well Fed Games]

the voice thing he does for his crime fighting alter-ego is downright laughable.

[Mikezilla]

The new Spiderman movie looks dark. I'm going to like it.

Spiderman isnt supposed to be dark, thats the problem. This movie is so formulaic it drives me insane. "Hey, Twilight made a ton of money, lets make the lead guy look like that. Hey, The Dark Knight made a ton of money, lets make it dark like that".

They are even making the new Superman movie "dark". Its retarded.

I'm wondering how much time will be spent on the history.  Obviously they didn't delve at all into Peter's parents in the last trilogy, other than they were dead.

I hope they don't do another Octopus.  They simply can't.  Not for awhile.  Alfred Molina played that villain to...I'll say it...perfection, IMO.

Trailer looks decent.  Not digging the Peter casting.  I thought the same...it does look like they're catering to the post-Twilight movie girl crowd and hoping males won't realize it.

The only reason to mention Peter Parkers parents (hopefully) is to do the storyline in the comics where his parents came back, but they were robots programmed by the chameleon. It was one of the things that drove him over the edge, right before the clone came back and ---fouled up beyond all recognition--- everything up. Other than that, they are pointless. The tagline gets me every time. "The untold story. That was told in 2002". Yawn.

[yotsuya]

Spiderman isnt supposed to be dark, thats the problem. This movie is so formulaic it drives me insane. "Hey, Twilight made a ton of money, lets make the lead guy look like that. Hey, The Dark Knight made a ton of money, lets make it dark like that".

They are even making the new Superman movie "dark". Its retarded.

 

Pretend the above is a slow clap that builds to a loud roar.

[Gray_Area]

Spiderman isnt supposed to be dark, thats the problem. This movie is so formulaic it drives me insane. "Hey, Twilight made a ton of money, lets make the lead guy look like that. Hey, The Dark Knight made a ton of money, lets make it dark like that".

They are even making the new Superman movie "dark". Its retarded.

 

Pretend the above is a slow clap that builds to a loud roar.

Don't fault the makers. Fault the kids today.

Yeah, I can see that. You're right. I guess it's just an otherwise extremely well directed film. It definitely helps that so many of the supporting actors, Michael Cain, Morgan Freeman, all of the villains, have been cast so well.

How old are you two?  The voice isn't supposed to be scary. It's supposed to mask his own. Duhhh. Now, they could've made it smoother in the treble....

And Bale is an awesome actor. The Prestige, anyone?  3:10 to Yuma??  He's also a really cool seeming guy. (I watch the bonus materials.)

[Le Chuck]

How old are you two?  The voice isn't supposed to be scary. It's supposed to mask his own. Duhhh. Now, they could've made it smoother in the treble....

And Bale is an awesome actor. The Prestige, anyone?  3:10 to Yuma??  He's also a really cool seeming guy. (I watch the bonus materials.)

Short comment but a lot to go on there:
I haven't hung out with Christian Bale but am old enough to know that I would not use bonus materials as a judge of character.  I bet that if Al Quaida released a bunch of outtakes and publicity shots it would make bin Laden seem like a real pip, but I'm going to go out on a limb here and say he's not wasn't <yay CJSOTF>

Not sure if I'm too young or too old based on that comment.  My age is in my profile unlike most others so feel free to form opinions on that but I must advise that doing so will likely garner similar results as using bonus material.

Why would you defend the voice and then immediately criticize it?  It's like you're saying "you guys are wrong but I agree with you"

I did indeed like those two movies and American Psycho is one of my favorite films.  I generally enjoy his performance in everything, including the Nolan's Batman films but have the commonly shared opinion that he missed the mark on the voice.  I also think that shmokes' analogy was spot on.  I use that same voice to "intimidate" my 4 year old.  He loves it.   

[shmokes]

The Prestige was lame. As was Terminator Salvation and plenty of other Bale films (3:10 to Yuma was very good, though). By the way, if you think Bale is a super cool guy in real life you should check out the candid audio clip of him going ape ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- on one of the workers who walked into his line of sight during the filming of a scene (wrecking Bales concentration). He doesn't seem that cool to me. But I couldn't care less if he's cool in real life. If I had standards like that I'd find myself sitting through Ben Affleck movies.

Whether Batman's voice was meant to strike fear in the hearts of men or not (hint: it was), it sounded lame either way.

I'm 33.

[Mikezilla]

Spiderman isnt supposed to be dark, thats the problem. This movie is so formulaic it drives me insane. "Hey, Twilight made a ton of money, lets make the lead guy look like that. Hey, The Dark Knight made a ton of money, lets make it dark like that".

They are even making the new Superman movie "dark". Its retarded.

 

Pretend the above is a slow clap that builds to a loud roar.

  

Bale is a decent actor, but his lisp kind of bugs me. I dont know if its a lisp exactly, or if he just has trouble doing an american accent.

His voice in Dark Knight was ridiculous. I hated it. It was perfect in Batman Begins. It was a little gruff, but he could actually speak. In Dark Knight, he was growling so hard, he had to take breaths after every other word. 

Im 29.

[Green Giant]

The Prestige was lame. As was Terminator Salvation and plenty of other Bale films (3:10 to Yuma was very good, though). By the way, if you think Bale is a super cool guy in real life you should check out the candid audio clip of him going ape ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- on one of the workers who walked into his line of sight during the filming of a scene (wrecking Bales concentration). He doesn't seem that cool to me. But I couldn't care less if he's cool in real life. If I had standards like that I'd find myself sitting through Ben Affleck movies.

Whether Batman's voice was meant to strike fear in the hearts of men or not (hint: it was), it sounded lame either way.

I'm 33.

I am a fan of Bale, and I don't knock him for his blow ups on set.  He is a character actor.

If you want Christian Bale to play Batman, well don't steal on the set because he WILL run you down, break your arm, and then flee into the shadows. 

If you want a happy go lucky actor on the set get Tom Cruise, but then you will just have Tom Cruise as a secret agent, Tom Cruise is a future cop, Tom Cruise is a race car driver, Tom Cruise fly's planes.....sort of, Tom Cruise as Tom Cruise.

I love character acting far more than being yourself cause you can really connect with the character.  Sometimes the other end is good, but you have to like the guy.  Hence why mission impossible flopped so bad after Cruise went crazy.

Anyways, it's not like Bale went Russel Crowe crazy.


And 28.

[HaRuMaN]

Watch Bale in the Machinist.  Good movie...

[shmokes]

I'm not against Bale. He's done some good stuff. Frankly, Tom Cruise is pretty good too, and god knows I wouldn't have much interest in a personal relationship with that nutjob. Tom Cruise has done some out-of-the-box stuff. He was great in Collateral. Magnolia too (though I didn't really like the film). And his role in Tropic Thunder, Jesus Christ, I didn't even know it was him for most of the movie. The movie was nearly unwatchable, but there were a couple of amazing performances in it. And at least when he is just phoning in a performance as Tom Cruise, he's not bad. He has good timing, charisma, presence. He's not bad at all. He's just a scientologist which makes you want to dislike him. And he did have quite a string of the same formulaic movie over and over again, just in a different setting each time.

[SNAAKE]

Watch Bale in the Machinist.  Good movie...

for a while I thought some else played that thin guy role

like damn..how do you make dramatic changes like that..

[HaRuMaN]

From IMDB:

The producers of the film claim that Christian Bale dropped from about 173 pounds in weight down to about 110 pounds in weight to make this film. They also claim that Bale actually wanted to drop down to 100 pounds, but that they would not let him go below 120 out of fear that his health could be in too much danger if he did. His diet consisted of one can of tuna and an apple per day. His 63-pound weight loss is said to be a record for any actor for a movie role. He regained the weight in time for his role in Batman Begins.

[Green Giant]

Watch Bale in the Machinist.  Good movie...

for a while I thought some else played that thin guy role

like damn..how do you make dramatic changes like that..

To be honest I think I was more impressed with the fact he then spent 6 months going from that skeleton body to the 230 pound Batman body.  A 100 lb weight gain is one thing, but when half of that gain is pure ripped muscles.....impressive.

[Green Giant]

I'm not against Bale. He's done some good stuff. Frankly, Tom Cruise is pretty good too, and god knows I wouldn't have much interest in a personal relationship with that nutjob. Tom Cruise has done some out-of-the-box stuff. He was great in Collateral. Magnolia too (though I didn't really like the film). And his role in Tropic Thunder, Jesus Christ, I didn't even know it was him for most of the movie. The movie was nearly unwatchable, but there were a couple of amazing performances in it. And at least when he is just phoning in a performance as Tom Cruise, he's not bad. He has good timing, charisma, presence. He's not bad at all. He's just a scientologist which makes you want to dislike him. And he did have quite a string of the same formulaic movie over and over again, just in a different setting each time.

I am not saying I don't like Tom Cruise movies, but even in Collateral I never thought of him as a ruthless killer, just mean Tom Cruise.  

I can only thing of Tropic Thunder and Interview with a Vampire where Cruise really took on his characters.




I like be-yourself actors after all, but that usually is cause I like the actor.  I have always loved Clint Eastwood movies.  I just have more respect for the crazy character actors like Bale.

[Howard_Casto]

Here I'll sum it up:

Bale isn't a bad actor and shouldn't be blamed for the lame-ness that has been the last two Batman films.  The casting director that ever thought he would make a good Batman should.

For that matter a list of people that should be fired for their participation in the batman disasters:

The location manager....  it's Gotham City, not downtown LA!

The vehicle designer.....  The batmobile shouldn't look like a reject from a G.I. Joe playset.... motorcyles should be narrow enough that you can actually straddle them.

The writers....  Yeah let's make Ra's train Batman and take away all of his mystique and supernatural abilites...  while we're at it, let's do that whole "squeeze too many villians" bit like they did in the later batman films... that turned out real well.  Oh and don't forget we've got to make the Joker into a crime lord, because he just isn't dark enough already.   

The makeup effects guys....  Hmm lets see... scarecrow didn't look scary, the joker looked like a trauma patient, two-face was a over-cgied mess ect...



Basically both films lacked any redeeming value what-so-ever except for the fact that they were better than Batman and Robin... which is like saying you like getting raped in the face because it doesn't hurt as much as getting raped in the butt.  The astounding thing is that many people LIKED those films and much worse, think they are better than the original batman films, which let's face it, are masterpieces.  They have better production values certainly, but that's all they have. 

As for this whole "dark" trend:

Spiderman is a special case.  Rami and the principal actors said they wouldn't do a 4th spiderman due to the fact that the third one wasn't all the great and it had wrapped up the story rather nicely.  In other words they had artistic integrity.  The studios essentially said "screw you guys, we're making more films anyway"  and HAD to reboot the franchise because all the villains were dead.  Spiderman has had some "dark" times over the years, but we aren't talking about a "dark" treatment anyway, rather a (ugh...) "sexy" one.  Spiderman has been dark, but he's never been sexy.... he's a quirky, nerdy type of guy.  That's why we love him!  He should never be portrayed as "slick" or alluring in any way. 

As for superman... I just don't know what you can do with superman.  Christopher Reed IS Clark Kent and now that he is gone, you just can't do anyomore superman films until you find a suitable replacement.  The last guy really looked the part, but there was something missing.  He was also stuck in a terrible movie.  They basically ripped off the original superman film almost shot by shot and then the few things that the DID change, were just awful.  Supes can't hve a baby... that's like Jesus having a baby... the faithful just won't stand for it  and holdng a mountain of Kryptonite would surely kill him. 

They are trying to make supes more relevant in our jaded society by making him darker but that never works.  I think they just need to shelf him for now.  When someone comes up with a truely masterful story they should bring him out, but not until.

[shmokes]

Tim Burton's second Batman film wasn't very good, Howard. It was a damned sight better than what followed, but only the first one was an actually great film. And both of Nolan's films were excellent. I'm judging them solely on their merits as films. I've never read the comics so I can't comment on faithfulness to the source. But judging them exclusively on their merits as films has its advantages. Sometimes, and this is probably especially true when it comes to comics, sometimes the source material is stupid.

[Le Chuck]

As for superman... I just don't know what you can do with superman.  Christopher Reed IS Clark Kent and now that he is gone, you just can't do anyomore superman films until you find a suitable replacement.  The last guy really looked the part, but there was something missing.  He was also stuck in a terrible movie.  They basically ripped off the original superman film almost shot by shot and then the few things that the DID change, were just awful.  Supes can't hve a baby... that's like Jesus having a baby... the faithful just won't stand for it  and holdng a mountain of Kryptonite would surely kill him.  

They are trying to make supes more relevant in our jaded society by making him darker but that never works.  I think they just need to shelf him for now.  When someone comes up with a truely masterful story they should bring him out, but not until.

Check out Smallville.  Tom Welling looks the part and that series did a lot of off canon stuff but really captured the feeling and direction of the Superman comics.  The series blended a lot of the different story lines and universes fairly seamlessly and I would stand in line to see a movie with Tom Welling as the Big Blue Boyscout.  I know people poo-poo the WB (and for good reason) but they really got me hooked with Smallville.  Oh, and best Superman costume since Reeve slipped it on.

A disagree with your opinion on Nolan's Batman but I can see how some of the diehard community would feel that way.  I enjoy the current treatment very much and can't wait to check out the coming film.  

<Edit:  I did a quick search for "does Howard like Smallville?" and came up with this so disregard please as I think I have the jist of your stance.  I personally think one can be a Supe fanboy and a Smallville fanboy and happily walk the line between the two.  Just like Johnny Cash.>  

[Bootay]

I liked the Nolan Batman films. I think the first Burton film was more true to the comic, but the Nolan films were still good. I hated the Batmobile in the Nolan films, but other than that, they were good. As a comic fan it's hard to not compare the movies to the comics, but I do try and think of the movies as an alternate universe because I know there will be differences..some for the worst and some for the best. I don't know....

Plus there are some things that just don't translate well from comic to film. As a comic fan it is hard for me not to get irritated when they make things wildly different though.

But I personally think that MOST comic films have been true enough to get the main idea across and be at least half way enjoyable. (MOST=any comic movie to come out after the first X-Men, because let's face it, Aside from the first Burton Batman film...no one even tried to make good films out of comic characters.)

[dre-w]

I remember reading online somewhere when the reboot was first announced that the reason for it was something about a script was thrown out, another one made, toby didn't like it/didn't want to do it, and sony had a certain amount of time to do something with spiderman or else they'd lose the rights.. So they went with a reboot

[Green Giant]

I am thankful I don't real alot of comics or books.  It really lets me enjoy movies as movies without getting cynical when something isn't how you feel it should be.

Personally I love the first 2 80s-90s Batman movies, and I also love the new Batman movies.  Maybe my age allowed me to really love both of them.  I was 5 when I saw the first Batman, and I think the more theatrical feel appealed more to me back then.


The only comic I have read in the last decade would have to be The Dark Knight Returns which my buddy told me I had to read last year.  I don't know about you guys but I would love to see that story brought to the big screen.

[Mikezilla]

I remember reading online somewhere when the reboot was first announced that the reason for it was something about a script was thrown out, another one made, toby didn't like it/didn't want to do it, and sony had a certain amount of time to do something with spiderman or else they'd lose the rights.. So they went with a reboot

Yeah thats partially because of it, and also the choice of villains Raimi wanted to do, the studio (mainly Avi Arad) thought the villains were stupid. I personally dont like the idea of a reboot, for a ton of reasons, but the main one is that its a WASTE OF TIME. Fine, dont do the movies with Raimi and Tobey, like shmokes said, its not about the actor playing Spiderman, its about Peter Parker. Who cares if another actor plays him. Everyone knows how spiderman got his powers, and besides, this whole generation saw the Raimi movies. They arent going to change THAT much stuff, except for the web shooters. I would have rather made them stick with the organic ones and not waste time telling another origin story, then change em and do that all over again. Its retarded. 

As for superman... I just don't know what you can do with superman.  Christopher Reed IS Clark Kent and now that he is gone, you just can't do anyomore superman films until you find a suitable replacement.  The last guy really looked the part, but there was something missing.  He was also stuck in a terrible movie.  They basically ripped off the original superman film almost shot by shot and then the few things that the DID change, were just awful.  Supes can't hve a baby... that's like Jesus having a baby... the faithful just won't stand for it  and holdng a mountain of Kryptonite would surely kill him.

Superman is a great character, thats the thing, what CANT you do with superman? Hollywood is just too afraid to make a movie where the villains are either unknown, or too grandiose, especially after the Green Lantern debacle. Now they think they cant do anything cosmic, because Green Lantern failed. Cmon, Superman vs Braniac, or Doomsday? Someone that can go toe to toe with Supes? Tell me you wouldnt see a death of superman movie. Superman can do amazing things, we just havent seen someone write a story that showcases his abilities. I personally liked the Bryan Singer Superman, but there were too many undertones that dont jive with the character. He was trying to make Superman feel like an outcast, because the director is gay. I get it, but do that with another character, dont do that with superman. And the costume was retarded. The S was too small, and his boots were a joke. The red color was all wrong, and his cape shouldnt be leather. His cape should be a bright vibrant red, and wave like a flag. Leave the leather to Batman.

[Vigo]

 

Superman is the one superhero all of America, and pretty much most of the rest of the world has been familiar with for decades. My Grandpa read superman. Don't change the Sup'.

 

[shmokes]

He's sort of lame, though. That's a problem you have to get around.

[Mikezilla]

Superman is the one superhero all of America, and pretty much most of the rest of the world has been familiar with for decades. My Grandpa read superman. Don't change the Sup'.

 

 

He's sort of lame, though. That's a problem you have to get around.

No, thats the thing. He isnt lame, writers make him lame. The idea, and the comics, are awesome. Are you going based solely on the films? Superman is the quintessential hero. If it wasnt for him, there wouldnt be others. He is the first, and among the best. Aside from Batman, and Captain America, name some heroes before him? Hercules? Cmon. Yes, I agree, he wasnt been up to snuff with the other heroes based on film, but thats an unfair assumption. Aside from the remake, Superman movies were part of the time they were created. Im not excited about this new one either, because they are just rehashing what was the most successful Superman movie, the second one. It goes back to the formulaic stance Hollywood has on making movies. I would make a Superman movie for the ages, thats what George Lucas should do with all his money. Dont make a hokey movie about black figher pilots, give me 100 million bucks to make a Superman movie. It would be glorious! 

[shmokes]

No, thats the thing. He isnt lame, writers make him lame.

At risk of being that guy who spoils Santa Clause . . . um . . . Superman isn't a real person. He's fiction, i.e., created by writers. He is what he is written to be. I already cataloged what it is about him that makes him such a boring, two-dimensional character. It's not the movies. It's his stable of powers and lack of serious threats to his safety that make him suck. That he was the first, well, he has historical significance. I'll give him that. But if you are that concerned with the first, perhaps you should give up your iPhone and carry one of these instead:

[Le Chuck]

No, thats the thing. He isnt lame, writers make him lame.

At risk of being that guy who spoils Santa Clause . . . um . . . Superman isn't a real person. He's fiction, i.e., created by writers. He is what he is written to be. I already cataloged what it is about him that makes him such a boring, two-dimensional character. It's not the movies. It's his stable of powers and lack of serious threats to his safety that make him suck. That he was the first, well, he has historical significance. I'll give him that. But if you are that concerned with the first, perhaps you should give up your iPhone and carry one of these instead:

When I read comics I imagine myself to be the protagonist and there is only one superhero that I (from the time I was a lil' crumb-snatcher to this very moment) have dreamed of being... and it isn't one of the wonder twins.  Sup' has had some great story lines and some duds.  I don't have to think that Supe is in mortal danger to enjoy the narrative but because I am mortal I find myself transferring this trait to him because I can't relate emotionally to a god... even if I want to be one secretly.  Now if you'll excuse me I have to go iron my tights.   

[Howard_Casto]

Tim Burton's second Batman film wasn't very good, Howard. It was a damned sight better than what followed, but only the first one was an actually great film. And both of Nolan's films were excellent. I'm judging them solely on their merits as films. I've never read the comics so I can't comment on faithfulness to the source. But judging them exclusively on their merits as films has its advantages. Sometimes, and this is probably especially true when it comes to comics, sometimes the source material is stupid.

Burton's second film was BETTER than the first.  Mind you they took some extreme liberties with the penguin, one's that I really don't agree with, BUT there was a genuine story to tell... it isn't like these modern super hero movies where the "story" is that there is this guy that turns into a villian and the good guy beats the crap out of him... the end.  The sub-plot with catwoman and cobblepott's dead parents ploy were very well written and you simply don't see that in the modern batman films. 

They even went so far as to explain, in detail, how batman got his training in BB.  The disaster that was Ra  aside, you should NEVER explain Batman's training... you can delve into bits of it, but the fact that he "went away" for 20 years and comes back as some sort of demi-god is part of his mystique.  It's kind of like wolverine.... you can tell a story about how wolverine fought alonside the cap in WWII, but you can't explain his origins... that makes him lame.

[Green Giant]

No, thats the thing. He isnt lame, writers make him lame. The idea, and the comics, are awesome. Are you going based solely on the films? Superman is the quintessential hero. If it wasnt for him, there wouldnt be others. He is the first, and among the best. Aside from Batman, and Captain America, name some heroes before him? Hercules? Cmon.

Mandrake the Magician would like to have a word with you.

[shmokes]

None of that makes sense at all. You're just making blanket statements. As though by simply using the word "can't" you make it so. You "can't" do this. You "should NEVER" do that. You've offered nothing whatsoever to justify these axioms of yours.

Anyway, both Batman Begins and Dark Knight, but especially Dark Knight, had pretty well developed plots. Batman Begins' plot focused on the emotional trauma and training and characters that led to the development of Batman. That's a pretty compelling story there. It's downright laughable that you are criticizing the route Nolan took in favor of what any writer worth his salt knows is an incredibly lazy way out. It would somehow be better for a character to go away for twenty years and then suddenly return with magical, unexplained abilities. Well, that would be very convenient, yes. It also smacks of Michael Bay.

And hell, take off all the makeup and costumes and Dark Knight would have been a crime drama to make Scorsese proud.

Batman Begins and Dark Knight were both excellent films in their own right. I think if you were being honest with yourself you'd realize that your only complaint is that you are a big fan of the source material.

[Mikezilla]

No, thats the thing. He isnt lame, writers make him lame.

At risk of being that guy who spoils Santa Clause . . . um . . . Superman isn't a real person. He's fiction, i.e., created by writers. He is what he is written to be. I already cataloged what it is about him that makes him such a boring, two-dimensional character. It's not the movies. It's his stable of powers and lack of serious threats to his safety that make him suck. That he was the first, well, he has historical significance. I'll give him that. But if you are that concerned with the first, perhaps you should give up your iPhone and carry one of these instead:

You dont need to patronize me, I know that he is fiction. There is one thing to be created by someone, then to have that property mucked up by some writers. This thread devolved into batman and superman, but what we were talking about were some writers rendition of spiderman. Youre not getting what Im saying. Some writers had their take on batman in 1989, and 1997, that horrible abortion of a movie called Batman and Robin is a prime example of writers ---smurfing--- things up. His stable of powers are awesome. You should read Kingdom Come, then we can come back to this thread. Or Red Sun.

The phone analogy is terrible. They tried to update Superman before, and it failed. See the blue electric costume. You dont need to change the character, why do you think he has been around for so long?

And Howard, regarding the Batman movies... I am a fan of the original Tim Burton Batman, thats MY Batman, but to say that the new ones arent good, its kinda ridiculous. I know everyone is entitled to their opinion, but cmon. Granted there are things about the new one I dont like, the bat emblem on the costume, the bat mobile etc... But the reasoning as to WHY he IS Batman, is amazing. The whole fear aspect from the first one is gold. I would say Batman Begins, along side Unbreakable, is probably the best comic book movie out there.

[Howard_Casto]

And hell, take off all the makeup and costumes and Dark Knight would have been a crime drama to make Scorsese proud.

Batman Begins and Dark Knight were both excellent films in their own right. I think if you were being honest with yourself you'd realize that your only complaint is that you are a big fan of the source material.

And that right there is the problem.  You just admitted with those very words that they are NOT Batman films.  I'm a huge opponent of using a franchise as cheap publicity to promote a miedocre film.  And that is what is going on right here.  There isn't any "treatment" to a property... it is either faithful to the source material or it isn't.  If it isn't then the only reason to use the franchises name is to boost the sales of a story that doesn't have a leg to stand on by itself. 

There's no such thing as a good crime drama btw.... those are for screwed up little boys that somehow found something likeable in villianous monsters like gangsters. 

[Le Chuck]

And hell, take off all the makeup and costumes and Dark Knight would have been a crime drama to make Scorsese proud.

Batman Begins and Dark Knight were both excellent films in their own right. I think if you were being honest with yourself you'd realize that your only complaint is that you are a big fan of the source material.

And that right there is the problem.  You just admitted with those very words that they are NOT Batman films.  I'm a huge opponent of using a franchise as cheap publicity to promote a miedocre film.  And that is what is going on right here.  There isn't any "treatment" to a property... it is either faithful to the source material or it isn't.  If it isn't then the only reason to use the franchises name is to boost the sales of a story that doesn't have a leg to stand on by itself. 

There's no such thing as a good crime drama btw.... those are for screwed up little boys that somehow found something likeable in villianous monsters like gangsters. 

Oh come off it Howard, the exact same thing can be said of the Batman comics, and often has been in form of high praise.  At it's root Batman has always been a crime novel rather than a super hero novel.  We got it that you don't like the films but you don't have to try and gainsay every legitimate opinion and try to pigeon hole us into your twisted world view man.

And I'm going to assume your last line was self depricating humor because if it wasn't you are totaly delusional. 

[shmokes]

You dont need to patronize me, I know that he is fiction. 

Okay, granted, I wasn't very nice about that and I apologize. But I had already listed the things that make Superman suck as a protagonist and they are his fundamenatal qualities that transcend any writing from any particular periods of time. The things that make Superman suck are the fundamental things that make Superman Superman.

[dre-w]

I remember reading online somewhere when the reboot was first announced that the reason for it was something about a script was thrown out, another one made, toby didn't like it/didn't want to do it, and sony had a certain amount of time to do something with spiderman or else they'd lose the rights.. So they went with a reboot

Yeah thats partially because of it, and also the choice of villains Raimi wanted to do, the studio (mainly Avi Arad) thought the villains were stupid.

Nah I'm pretty sure that's the main reason..  If they had a longer window I bet they would've went with a 3rd script just to keep the OG Tobey. 

I'm curious, what were the stupid villains they had chosen?  I'm sure they weren't as bad as sandman..  I mean he was cool in the comic but man they really messed him up in the 3rd..  but yeh other than that, idk call me crazy,  I kinda liked it.  And I thought it was pretty bad ass when Spiderman went all fashioncore for a minute.  Everyone hates that part except me 

[Mikezilla]

You dont need to patronize me, I know that he is fiction. 

Okay, granted, I wasn't very nice about that and I apologize. But I had already listed the things that make Superman suck as a protagonist and they are his fundamenatal qualities that transcend any writing from any particular periods of time. The things that make Superman suck are the fundamental things that make Superman Superman.

Apology accepted.  Like I said, I get what you are saying, and typically the writers that are currently writing the stories make Superman the base of the story, but the rest of the characters make it more dynamic. Read Red Son, Kingdom Come, and Hush. Those are 3 examples of what a Superman story is, how he can be more "dymnamic", and how he can be a tool. After reading those, then maybe we will have a better conversation. 

I remember reading online somewhere when the reboot was first announced that the reason for it was something about a script was thrown out, another one made, toby didn't like it/didn't want to do it, and sony had a certain amount of time to do something with spiderman or else they'd lose the rights.. So they went with a reboot

Yeah thats partially because of it, and also the choice of villains Raimi wanted to do, the studio (mainly Avi Arad) thought the villains were stupid.

Nah I'm pretty sure that's the main reason..  If they had a longer window I bet they would've went with a 3rd script just to keep the OG Tobey. 

I'm curious, what were the stupid villains they had chosen?  I'm sure they weren't as bad as sandman..  I mean he was cool in the comic but man they really messed him up in the 3rd..  but yeh other than that, idk call me crazy,  I kinda liked it.  And I thought it was pretty bad ass when Spiderman went all fashioncore for a minute.  Everyone hates that part except me 

They were going to be the Vulture, and his daughter the Vultress (made just for the movie). The Vulture is ridiculously stupid. I dont see how a "villain" like that could be a spidey regular for over 40 years. They screwed Sandman up, yeah the effects were cool. And yes, you were the ONLY one that thought that scene was cool 

[Gray_Area]

At risk of being that guy who spoils Santa Clause . . . um . . . Superman isn't a real person. He's fiction, i.e., created by writers. He is what he is written to be.

Well, that's the whole thing. Fiction is imagination. Ultimately, I stopped reading comics, and started reading books a lot more, because there's far better writing, characterization....everything.

I think special features show a lot of behind the scenes things about the actors you wouldn't otherwise see. Ditto on many Tonight Show appearances in recent times, because they don't hold back much...sometimes at all. Which brings us to the Cruise exultation: who cares? I'm glad he came out and said whatever he wanted to say. Everyone should, always.

Ditto on Burton's Batman. Serious while otherwordly. 'Returns' was just bad.

And I think the voice on BB and The Dark Knight was electronic filter.

And, fashioncore? The night club thing? I thought it was delightfully nasty for such a PG character.

[Well Fed Games]

I can't wait till Dark Knight Rises, I love those flicks. Best thing to happen to Batman since the animated series (of course, the Rocksteady-developed games were kick-ass too...).

[Vigo]

Just saw this in the drive-in the other day. The movie wasn't bad, but it was just totally unnecessary. There really was no major innovation in the plot, it was just a cash grab. I'll stay away from real spoilers, but if you don't want to know anything at all about the film, don't read on.

Well, it wasn't a bad film, I just had a thought going on that in my mind that possibly they wanted to fix a bunch of things that could have been cooler from the first film. The mechanical webbing being one. Stupid thing is they added it but there was no point in doing so. He never ran out of webbing, never even needed to change a web cartridge. They were more innovative with his actual fighting though. He fought more like a spider, and used his web in a couple really clever ways.

They completely failed trying to capture the tragedy behind spider-man. It kinda devolved into a "ooh, spiderman is all cut up and comes home late". I always thought of Spidey as the one superhero you wouldn't want to be, because his life gets crapped on more and more every day. I think they tried to convey that, but it just didn't work.

Oh, and Emma Stone does not pass as a high schooler. At least a high schooler who isn't on meth.

[SNAAKE]

I can't wait till Dark Knight Rises, I love those flicks.

YOU CANT GIVE IN!

 

[trekking95]

Kneel before Zod!

Kneel before Loki!

Supervillain lines are so unoriginal. 

[Gray_Area]

The one time I happened upon it, I skipped it. I was skeptical of the reboot when I read about it pre-production, but now am curious, and don't want to ruin it.

[lilshawn]

watched it on sunday. It was alright. Left it wiiiiiide open for a sequel (of course). had some humor...some pretty great looking action bits... cheesy lovey dovey stuff.

if i had to rate it... 7.5/10 (Not awesome enough to pay to see again in the theater, BUT still may purchase it when it hits DVD...definitely if it was found in the $19 and under bin.)

[wp34]

I was surprised how much I liked the new Spidey movie.  I was really prepared to not like it as the movie really didn't need to be made.  But it was as good as it was unnecessary.  They tweaked the origin just enough to make it interesting and the love story was very good. 

[SNAAKE]

wtf is a dvd

[lilshawn]

wtf is a dvd

you know, those things you pirate off the internet, then stream to your television set.

it stands for "downloaded videos dick"