View Full Version : Sony Rebooting Spider-Man for 2012!!!
Pages :
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
[
19]
20
Chris Wallace
03-17-2010, 03:09 PM
Chris, you probably remember two posters name Mr Parker and Bakerboy. They took the complaining about organic webbing to a whole other level.
Slag, you must remember them, too. The days of "Man-Spider".
All too well. Right behind MST3KPIMP, they were among the first "Opinion-Nazis" I ever came across on these boards.
"Opinion-Nazis" come on now, you don't see me labeling you "Raimi's Minions"...oh wait, yes I have. :)
MikeFrost
03-17-2010, 08:39 PM
forget the power rangers goblin, let's take inspiration from DB:E for teh new goblinz
I hate you. So much. For making me look and think of that abomination of a movie. I don't even liked DragonBall that much except for a nostalgia factor from my childhood but that movie screamed epic fail the moment it was announced... It is the godmother of **** adaptations.
Spider-ManHero12
03-17-2010, 10:06 PM
Another reason why I didn't have a problem at all with organics is because, as Sam Raimi said, if he could make web-shooters, he should be working for Nasa because of how smart he'd be. So true.
It's antoher example of what works great in the comics doesn't always work great on film.
The Joker
03-17-2010, 10:21 PM
Another reason why I didn't have a problem at all with organics is because, as Sam Raimi said, if he could make web-shooters, he should be working for Nasa because of how smart he'd be. So true.
.....I don't get this. Just because Peter is smart enough to work for NASA doesn't mean he has to. What's he going to do, walk into their office and tell them he invented webshooters?
That is one thing we never really saw in Raimi's movies. Peter never really got to display his smarts much. The discussion with Octavius about the fusion reactor is as close as we got.
It's antoher example of what works great in the comics doesn't always work great on film.
Hang on a second, so you don't think he should be working for NASA in the comics?
VenomVsSpidey
03-17-2010, 10:27 PM
I hate you. So much. For making me look and think of that abomination of a movie. I don't even liked DragonBall that much except for a nostalgia factor from my childhood but that movie screamed epic fail the moment it was announced... It is the godmother of **** adaptations.
:awesome::awesome::awesome:
TheSlag
03-18-2010, 01:27 AM
While I have never had that BIG of an issue with the organics, never to the point of the Man-Spider clannies that used to run around this place (although I thoroughly enjoyed riling them or listening to their rants)... I am not a Fan of the Organics either.
1) It takes away a key aspect of Peter, his intelligence and innovative thinking.
2) It takes away from the "every man" feeling that Spider-Man had for me as a kid growing up reading his comics. I could imagine, with a set of webshooters, I could also swing like Spidey. And ALL without the nasty side effects of growing spinerettes in my wrists or whatever.
Add to the above that it basically makes him more of a freak, slits in wrists, etc... and HOW does he produce so much webbing??? A real spider invests much resources to spin a web, and does not waste it.
And yes, they could (and should of) showed Spidey running out of webbing, say after an exhaustive battle or something.. but I prefer the running out of webbing via the web cartiridges myself.
Chris Wallace
03-18-2010, 06:57 AM
"Opinion-Nazis" come on now, you don't see me labeling you "Raimi's Minions"...oh wait, yes I have. :)
An Opinion-Nazi is someone who pushes their opinion as fact, and/or is completely intolerant of any opposing point of view. And it is NOT a term that I use lightly, but rather when it truly applies.
spider-neil
03-18-2010, 08:54 AM
there's a shocking lack of news. sony are going to waste more and more time and then when we hit 2011 they will rush everything. if they want the special effects to be half decent, I mean avatar quality then they should be spending a couple of years on the CG which pretty much means starting now.
Ajendo
03-18-2010, 10:12 AM
There is alot that I don't like about Raimi's films but organic webbing is one of those things he actually did very good in my opinion, so I'd like to keep it.
I think the whole organics thing is a minor factor when considering everything else that occured in Raimi's films. I would rather have the mechs though, because, the mechs are part of the character as initially intended and it's a statement of Peter's genius and by itself, it's a unique and one of a kind tool that, is ONLY associated with spider-man and nobody else.
However, I can understand the organics route taken and it works and is something that served as having the best of both as SM2 showed faults with his webbing abilities. But this is a reboot, a different approach and a different vision and interpretation of the 3 movies that came before it. I would like to see identifiable changes that don't compromise the characters even further just for the sake of being different. Raimi had orgs, ok this time we can have mechs.
I also pray that the powers that be don't literally take every concept USM has conjured up and throw it on screen. Hulk Goblin is a disaster of a concept. Honestly, people have snubbed SSM but that show by and large imo is the blueprint of how Webb's movies should go. A mix of 616 and USM that does not drastically compromise the source material to the point of despair.
Ajendo
03-18-2010, 10:20 AM
there's a shocking lack of news. sony are going to waste more and more time and then when we hit 2011 they will rush everything. if they want the special effects to be half decent, I mean avatar quality then they should be spending a couple of years on the CG which pretty much means starting now.
Just because we havn't heard much it doesn't mean the powers that be have their thumbs in their rear ends. The movie is in a state of preproduction, they don't have to be so forthcomming with news right now. Also, If I were Sony, I'd keep things on the down low right now too as, you have the likes of Iron Man 2, Cap and Thor kind of in the spot light right now with their tid bits. I'd wait for things to settle a bit and then start releasing some news, that'll have a lasting impact and generate a buzz, instead of potentially getting lost or overshadowed in all the haze of all the other stuff going on with other properties.
Chris Wallace
03-18-2010, 10:37 AM
there's a shocking lack of news. sony are going to waste more and more time and then when we hit 2011 they will rush everything. if they want the special effects to be half decent, I mean avatar quality then they should be spending a couple of years on the CG which pretty much means starting now.
Maybe, but not necessarily.
TheSlag
03-18-2010, 02:49 PM
For all those that claim that Sony handcuffed Raimi on his vision of Spider-Man, I find it amazing that Sony went along with the organics and did not force Mechs on Sam.
I would of thought that the new/improved Web Shooter Toys they could of introduced after SM1 came out (if it had been with Mechs) would of sold like Hot Cakes.
I know they (Web Shooters) will always be assoicated with Spider-Man regardless of Mech or Organic in Reboot (and in SM1-3), and I think sales of the toy web shooters probably increased with the release of SM1... BUT.. I think the sales would of sky rocketed to the kids IF the Mechs had been used in the movies.
Amazing to me.. that Sony/Marvel.. allowed that. Food for thought to those that think Sony always handcuffed Sam. And I am not saying they never handcuffed Sam at all... just saying that this (Mechs) was a unique opportunity to "Suggest" :cwink: to Sam to go that route.. and they did not.
Hopefully.. the Reboot.. we will get Mechs, and if it helps make Spider-Man movies more sucessful from a merchandising standpoint.. more power to them.. as that should mean more $$$ for the budget for future films, etc.
chaseter
03-18-2010, 03:04 PM
Uhhh they marketed and sold tons of web shooter toys throughout the entire time SM1-SM3 was going on. Do you not watch tv:huh::dry:
That was probably one of the most ridiculous things I have read on here. "Why didn't they go with mechs because that would sell more toys and make Raimi's movies better.":whatever::doh: Please excuse me for paraphrasing.:o
TheSlag
03-18-2010, 03:10 PM
Uhhh they marketed and sold tons of web shooter toys throughout the entire time SM1-SM3 was going on. Do you not watch tv:huh::dry:
That was probably one of the most ridiculous things I have read on here. "Why didn't they go with mechs because that would sell more toys and make Raimi's movies better.":whatever::doh: Please excuse me for paraphrasing.:o
Once again .. You NEED to learn to read and NOT take things out of context.
I stated in the post that they probably sold more web shooters with SM1-3, but I think (heck KNOW) they would of sold more IF mechs had been in the movies.
And as I have stated before (once again you need to read, as everyone seems to need to point out the obvious ALL the time to you), that Mechs brings other key aspects to Peter's character. So if they decide to go with Mechs just for increase merchandising rights, MORE POWER TO THEM, as it brings out key characteristics to Peter, as well as ensuring potentially more moeny (budget) for future movies.
Chris Wallace
03-18-2010, 03:16 PM
Still a weak argument.
Besides, nobody but NOBODY is saying that he was handcuffed from day one-only for the third installment.
chaseter
03-18-2010, 03:18 PM
I did read. I can read all of your little insults to people who liked Raimi's version and how disgusted you are with it and him. Web shooters are web shooters. A mech web shooter toy isn't going to make billions more than the web shooter toy that they have now. Why? Because they both do the exact same thing.
If you are fine with toy sales dicating how a movie is made, I am sure Transformers 1 and 2 are considered top of the line Oscar gold to you.
cough
TheSlag
03-18-2010, 03:21 PM
Still a weak argument.
Besides, nobody but NOBODY is saying that he was handcuffed from day one-only for the third installment.
Not an argument, jsut a statement. And I find it amazing that Sony did not handcuff Sam til the 3rd.
And if we get Mechs over Organics however, I am all for it.
chaseter
03-18-2010, 03:25 PM
Not an argument, jsut a statement. And I find it amazing that Sony did not handcuff Sam til the 3rd.
And if we get Mechs over Organics however, I am all for it.
I don't find it amazing. The first movie usually tests the water and if the second one raised the bar on the franchise, then studios get greedy to make the most amount of money. They step in because they think they know what is best. Same thing happened to X-Men.
TheSlag
03-18-2010, 03:32 PM
I did read. I can read all of your little insults to people who liked Raimi's version and how disgusted you are with it and him. Web shooters are web shooters. A mech web shooter toy isn't going to make billions more than the web shooter toy that they have now. Why? Because they both do the exact same thing.
If you are fine with toy sales dicating how a movie is made, I am sure Transformers 1 and 2 are considered top of the line Oscar gold to you.
cough
You know *cough* "Chester" *cough*.. you're like a broken record. I have NOT insulted anyone for liking any aspect of Raimi's films. I have disagreed with their opinion on several things, but never insulted them for their like or dislikes of the Raimi's film.
And here you are trying to stir up troble by trying to claim that. The post you replied to had NOTHING to do with insults or likes/dislikes of Raimi's version.. but YOU try to stir up trouble regardless (trolling).
You take OFFENSE if Kaw or anybody states a dislike to ANYTHING in Raimi's films.. saying they Harp on it. :rolleyes: Here's a clue Sherlock.. DO NOT read their posts then IF their opinions offend your "genteal" nature.
And have you heard of a little thing called advertising/promotion? Sheesh. IF the movie had promoted Mechs, they WOULD of sold "billions more" to quote you.
Now, exaggerations aside (which you're know for)... they would of sold MORE no doubt.
And AGAIN for the DESNE ones here (you).. I am not dictating HOW a movie should be made, AS I SAID, Mechs bring other key aspects to Peter's character (Read Boy Read), however the decision is made to use them.
And guess what, these movies are a "Business".. shocking I know.. but IF they make more money, we get more movies with bigger and better budgets...
A good thing "Martha" :rolleyes:
chaseter
03-18-2010, 03:37 PM
I'm a broken record!
If I am the pot, then you are the kettle. Scoot over.
TheSlag
03-18-2010, 03:38 PM
I don't find it amazing. The first movie usually tests the water and if the second one raised the bar on the franchise, then studios get greedy to make the most amount of money. They step in because they think they know what is best. Same thing happened to X-Men.
Wow.. an actual relevant post from you.. less attempts at lame insults.. maybe there is hope for you after all.
True about testing the water, but by the same proposition, first movies can be crap shoots, and these movies in general (comic movies) are about merchandising vs. good movie (or at least have been in the past), and as such, I find it amazing that Sony/Marvel did NOT hedge their bet by insisting on Mechs for the merchandising rights.
I think Marvel had the merchandising rights though, so that probably explains more why Sony was not as concerned.
But for the reboot, hopefully they will take that into consideration (although I think Marvel/Disney) still has the merchandising rights from the reboot too.
TheSlag
03-18-2010, 03:39 PM
I'm a broken record!
If I am the pot, then you are the kettle. Scoot over.
The saying is "the Pot calling the Kettle black".. get the analogy right at least.
chaseter
03-18-2010, 03:50 PM
The saying is "the Pot calling the Kettle black".. get the analogy right at least.
HAHAHAHA:hehe:
The analogy is that one of the same is calling out the other. That means that if the Kettle called the Pot black, it would be the same exact thing.:awesome:
chaseter
03-18-2010, 03:52 PM
Wow.. an actual relevant post from you.. less attempts at lame insults.. maybe there is hope for you after all.
This sentence is an oxymoron and has opened a black hole in the universe. Watch out.
An Opinion-Nazi is someone who pushes their opinion as fact, and/or is completely intolerant of any opposing point of view. And it is NOT a term that I use lightly, but rather when it truly applies.Or, it's an idiotic attempt to keep silence one who thinks Sam Raimi is a lame director who made really weak Spider-Man films. In that case, call me Hitler. :o
Doctor Jones
03-18-2010, 05:32 PM
I just think in terms of where it went and the pace of the first film, they didn't have much time to explain web shooters or fit them into it. They would show up and we would think, "Wait -- huh?
Rearanging the whole film around for web shooters is ridiculous.
Which is why I thiknk they should start off this reboot with no origin. He should have webshooters, but we don't need to hear anything. Making Peter already Spider-Man gives us great opportunites.
david icke
03-18-2010, 06:17 PM
Or, it's an idiotic attempt to keep silence one who thinks Sam Raimi is a lame director who made really weak Spider-Man films. In that case, call me Hitler. :o
Dude, he never said the term applied to you. You're casting the guilt on yourself by assuming so.
Oh, I'm plenty guilty. I happen to love the term.
VenomVsSpidey
03-18-2010, 10:02 PM
cool story bro :up:
david icke
03-19-2010, 06:58 AM
Oh, I'm plenty guilty. I happen to love the term.
Well, now you are backpedalling to save face. In the post I responded to, you disputed the fact the term applied to you, and tried to make out you were some kind of freedom fighter for the truth.
You seem like an alright guy KAW, but this kind of thing does not help your credibility. I am trying to dial it back a bit myself on messageboards, and yes, sometimes things can flare up without you meaning it to, and yes, sometimes folk deliberately provoke you for their own ends(not talking about on this site), but sometimes discretion is the better part of valour, rather than to go out all guns blazing. edit: and ultimately, there is no excuse for just blugeoning on with the same old attitude all the time if it is disrespectful to other posters.
It's just getting a bit repetitive, and there is a better poster in there, and I mean in both of us, we don't need to constantly hear the same complaints like they were fact.
My complaints are fact to me. Forgive me if I don't follow up on my posts with "IN MY OPINION". I have one nom de plume, you're just going to have to smarten up and realize that I'm not speaking for everyone. My attitude towards Sam Raimi or Organic Web-Shooters remains the same, that will not change, if you can love them, I can dislike them. Some of you just simply need thicker skin and stop taking what I say personally, seriously.
chaseter
03-19-2010, 01:04 PM
So to a colorblind person, the sky is grey. Does that make it a fact that the sky is grey?
Spider-ManHero12
03-19-2010, 01:31 PM
My complaints are fact to me. Forgive me if I don't follow up on my posts with "IN MY OPINION". I have one nom de plume, you're just going to have to smarten up and realize that I'm not speaking for everyone. My attitude towards Sam Raimi or Organic Web-Shooters remains the same, that will not change, if you can love them, I can dislike them. Some of you just simply need thicker skin and stop taking what I say personally, seriously. So what you're telling me is that you consider this fact? Well, my friend, you're going to have alot of people wanting to argue with you. Oh, and one more thing. It's not fact.You don't like his movies, that's your opinion.
So, let them argue away. They'll still be weak Spider-Man movies, that ran themselves into the ground much too soon. If that's an opinion and not fact, then we're all sitting here waiting for Spider-Man 4 to come out. :hehe:
E.Brock
03-19-2010, 02:10 PM
So, let them argue away. They'll still be weak Spider-Man movies, that ran themselves into the ground much too soon. If that's an opinion and not fact, then we're all sitting here waiting for Spider-Man 4 to come out. :hehe:
:up:
chaseter
03-19-2010, 02:17 PM
So, let them argue away. They'll still be weak Spider-Man movies, that ran themselves into the ground much too soon. If that's an opinion and not fact, then we're all sitting here waiting for Spider-Man 4 to come out. :hehe:
Let me tell you what is fact. Sony execs ran the series into the ground by pushing their own ideas and their own agendas. Yet for some odd reason, you think the new film will be great because Raimi was taken out of the equation:dry::doh: Sony wanted Vulturess. Guess who is still producing and paying for this movie?:awesome:
Spider-ManHero12
03-19-2010, 02:25 PM
So, let them argue away. They'll still be weak Spider-Man movies, that ran themselves into the ground much too soon. If that's an opinion and not fact, then we're all sitting here waiting for Spider-Man 4 to come out. :hehe: It's not fact. You're making yourself look like an idiot. Your opinion is smaller than a grain of sand to anybody, so stop saying that your opinion is fact, because it's not even close.
You see, guys? This is exactly what I mean. The bashers think only their opinions matter. They bash us for reacting to their comments about us, but make it look like we start it. Oh, if I was a mod.
Let me tell you what is fact. Sony execs ran the series into the ground by pushing their own ideas and their own agendas. Yet for some odd reason, you think the new film will be great because Raimi was taken out of the equation:dry::doh: Sony wanted Vulturess. Guess who is still producing and paying for this movie?:awesome:
Oh, so it's just Sony's fault now, even though Sam Raimi and his brother wrote the story for SM3 and Raimi directed it...and made Spider-Man all about a girl.
Where in any of my post did I say the new film is going to be great? I'm just happy Sam Raimi is gone because I didn't like him as a director. The new film could go either way, unlike you, I'm not in love with the director. So I can take him apart just as I do Raimi...and you can just bet I will if I don't like what I see.
It's not fact. You're making yourself look like an idiot. Your opinion is smaller than a grain of sand to anybody, so stop saying that your opinion is fact, because it's not even close.So we are waiting for SM4 then? :yay:
You see, guys? This is exactly what I mean. The bashers think only their opinions matter. They bash us for reacting to their comments about us, but make it look like we start it. Oh, if I was a mod.Why do you get so emotional over whether someone thinks something in fact or not. Does it really matter to you that much?
And if you were a Mod you'd do what, ban people who have a different opinion than yours. It's a message board do you not expect such things to happen?
Parker Wayne
03-19-2010, 03:17 PM
Oh, so it's just Sony's fault now, even though Sam Raimi and his brother wrote the story for SM3 and Raimi directed it...and made Spider-Man all about a girl.
Where in any of my post did I say the new film is going to be great? I'm just happy Sam Raimi is gone because I didn't like him as a director. The new film could go either way, unlike you, I'm not in love with the director. So I can take him apart just as I do Raimi...and you can just bet I will if I don't like what I see.
While I agree that its Rami's fault as much as it is Sony's (many campy scens were Rami's own doing), I think people are angry at you because you keep saying your opinion is fact. I'm not trying to persuade you, but why are you so focused on pushing your opinion as fact?
I also agree that the new films can go either way and I'm willing to give Webb a chance. However, I get the feeling that you will be a very hard Spiderman fan to please. :yay:
Ajendo
03-19-2010, 03:37 PM
I find it funny that Kaw has some of you pitching a fit like a bunch of cry baby school girls. You seem to be missing his point of view. The facts he's stating are what is apparant. Raimi's spidey movies became a creative disaster, something that started from the offset which is why after 3 movies in less than a decade we're getting a reboot.
Secondly, his opinions aren't going to waver. The fact is, he doesn't like Raimi's direction and the films are nothing to brag about for countless reasons. Raimi's departure is viewd upon as a good thing because it simply paves the way for a chance for a better alternative, something that simply wasn't there with Raimi on board.
The key factor in all of this is Raimi's absense. If Webb ruins this, then it's the same old nonsense repeating itself but the point is, right now, there's a chance for something new and different.
LightningFlash
03-19-2010, 03:45 PM
I wonder if people would complain that it isn't fact if God came around here to say that Raimi's films were terrible. Haha.
Spider-ManHero12
03-19-2010, 03:58 PM
Why do you get so emotional over whether someone thinks something in fact or not. Does it really matter to you that much?
And if you were a Mod you'd do what, ban people who have a different opinion than yours. It's a message board do you not expect such things to happen? I expect arguements, but nobody's opinion is fact. Is my opinion of thinking the films are great fact? Nope. Same goes for everybody,
Spider-ManHero12
03-19-2010, 04:00 PM
I wonder if people would complain that it isn't fact if God came around here to say that Raimi's films were terrible. Haha. One of the stupidiest posts all day. Seriously..I mean...
SpeterMan3
03-19-2010, 04:19 PM
I expect arguements, but nobody's opinion is fact. Is my opinion of thinking the films are great fact? Nope. Same goes for everybody,
:up:
david icke
03-19-2010, 04:48 PM
My complaints are fact to me. Forgive me if I don't follow up on my posts with "IN MY OPINION". I have one nom de plume, you're just going to have to smarten up and realize that I'm not speaking for everyone. My attitude towards Sam Raimi or Organic Web-Shooters remains the same, that will not change, if you can love them, I can dislike them. Some of you just simply need thicker skin and stop taking what I say personally, seriously.
No, it's not simply a matter of you not saying IMO after each statement, you're being facetious.
It's calling folk prejudiced, blind, 'Raimi worshippers', just because they hold a different opinion, that is how you state your opinion as fact and annoy people.
david icke
03-19-2010, 04:53 PM
I find it funny that Kaw has some of you pitching a fit like a bunch of cry baby school girls. You seem to be missing his point of view. The facts he's stating are what is apparant. Raimi's spidey movies became a creative disaster, something that started from the offset which is why after 3 movies in less than a decade we're getting a reboot.
Secondly, his opinions aren't going to waver. The fact is, he doesn't like Raimi's direction and the films are nothing to brag about for countless reasons. Raimi's departure is viewd upon as a good thing because it simply paves the way for a chance for a better alternative, something that simply wasn't there with Raimi on board.
The key factor in all of this is Raimi's absense. If Webb ruins this, then it's the same old nonsense repeating itself but the point is, right now, there's a chance for something new and different.
No, people are getting tired of being told they do not actually hold an opinion, that they are actually blind Raimi worshippers when they disagree with KAW, as opposed to being fans of Spider-man.
I couldn't care less what his opinion is, or care to, or expect him to change it, no-one expects that, folk do expect their own personal opinions to be respected though.
No, I will not be saying IMO, I'll continue to state it as fact that Sam Raimi's Spider-Man films are weak. If that annoys you than so be it.
E.Brock
03-19-2010, 05:00 PM
Raimi's films although having many good aspects to them, left wayyyyyyyy too much to be desired from a Spider-Man movie
VenomVsSpidey
03-19-2010, 05:04 PM
Oh, so it's just Sony's fault now, even though Sam Raimi and his brother wrote the story for SM3 and Raimi directed it...and made Spider-Man all about a girl.
Where in any of my post did I say the new film is going to be great? I'm just happy Sam Raimi is gone because I didn't like him as a director. The new film could go either way, unlike you, I'm not in love with the director. So I can take him apart just as I do Raimi...and you can just bet I will if I don't like what I see.
take out the symbiote who was demanded in by SONY and Arad.
That's (depending on how you look at it) two less story arcs. Let me clarify : SONY, the people you worship, are the ones who made SM3 not as good as 1/2. SONY is god to you. well, when we get webb doing a wolverine on us, at least we know sony won't be the people to blame, IT'S WEBB!
TheSlag
03-19-2010, 05:14 PM
It's not fact. You're making yourself look like an idiot. Your opinion is smaller than a grain of sand to anybody, so stop saying that your opinion is fact, because it's not even close.
You see, guys? This is exactly what I mean. The bashers think only their opinions matter. They bash us for reacting to their comments about us, but make it look like we start it. Oh, if I was a mod.
It IS a "FACT" that Kaw does NOT like Raimi's Spider-Man. DEAL WITH IT!
And WHY is it always YOU that is throwing around labels of "BASHER" Mr. Mod Wanna Be??? NOT very Mod Like Behaivor IMO.
And WHY does the fact that he or others do not like Raimi's Spider-Man or at least aspects of it (in my case) BOTHER you SO MUCH?
That is just stupid and childish behaivor.
VenomVsSpidey
03-19-2010, 05:16 PM
That is just stupid and childish behaivor.
:wow: now THERE is something you don't see everyday...
TheSlag
03-19-2010, 05:22 PM
Only when YOU look in the mirror.. :woot:
VenomVsSpidey
03-19-2010, 05:23 PM
Lolz1!1! :d
VenomVsSpidey
03-19-2010, 05:24 PM
Lolz1!1! :d
SpeterMan3
03-19-2010, 05:34 PM
It IS a "FACT" that Kaw does NOT like Raimi's Spider-Man. DEAL WITH IT!
That's not the issue though. It's how he presents his opinion as fact, period. We get that it's his opinion and don't even care that he doesn't like the movies. That's his prerogative. But it isn't everybody's view, and it isn't neccessarily correct, beacause there isn't a correct view. It varies from individual to individual. We just want our right to form (and voice) opinions (in the Spidey forums, at least) respected.
TheSlag
03-19-2010, 05:41 PM
That's not the issue though. It's how he presents his opinion as fact, period. We get that it's his opinion and don't even care that he doesn't like the movies. That's his prerogative. But it isn't everybody's view, and it isn't neccessarily correct, beacause there isn't a correct view. It varies from individual to individual. We just want our right to form (and voice) opinions (in the Spidey forums, at least) respected.
If he bashes you for your opinion or calls your opinion idiotic.. I agree with you then. But to simply be upset that he states it a fact that he does not like Raimi's Spider-Man is silly. Or to complain that he is "Constantly" bashing the films.. HEY.. That's his right! Just as it's the right of some others to constantly praise Raimi and the films.
I have more respect for those that fall in the midddle, who see aspects of the films that were very good while still seeing other aspects that were very bad... but that's just my opinion.
Now responding to insults slung you're way (while stooping to their level).. is understandable to me though. But in my case, it's more in good fun that truely getting personal. I mean come on.. It's a message board on the internet... what does it really matter if someone calls you something?
SpeterMan3
03-19-2010, 05:59 PM
If he bashes you for your opinion or calls your opinion idiotic.. I agree with you then. But to simply be upset that he states it a fact that he does not like Raimi's Spider-Man is silly. Or to complain that he is "Constantly" bashing the films.. HEY.. That's his right! Just as it's the right of some others to constantly praise Raimi and the films.
I have more respect for those that fall in the midddle, who see aspects of the films that were very good while still seeing other aspects that were very bad... but that's just my opinion.
Now responding to insults slung you're way (while stooping to their level).. is understandable to me though. But in my case, it's more in good fun that truely getting personal. I mean come on.. It's a message board on the internet... what does it really matter if someone calls you something?
All true, lol. I personally like the movies but I can acknowledge flaws in them. I myslef am fine with him not liking the movies. But he's not usually stating the fact that he doesn't like them as a fact. I wouldn't have a problem with that. He's often stating the opinion that the movies are just bad as a fact. That's the main issue.
And we really need more news. The boards are turning into The İKAW Show (Starring İKAW and the Hype Gang!). I'm sure he loves the attention, though. :awesome:
TheSlag
03-19-2010, 06:01 PM
LOL.. but it's an interesting show to me. :cwink:
david icke
03-19-2010, 06:34 PM
No, I will not be saying IMO, I'll continue to state it as fact that Sam Raimi's Spider-Man films are weak. If that annoys you than so be it.
No-one is aksing you to use IMO, or expects you to, you're avoiding the issue.
I myself only use IMO over on the Iron-Man boards when i am discussing Tony Stark working on something in the workshop. IMO(Iron-Man's Overalls)
Chris Wallace
03-19-2010, 06:37 PM
One of the stupidiest posts all day. Seriously..I mean...
Has it escaped your notice that a few people on this thread seem to think that God DID come down & condemn Raimi's movies?
Spider-ManHero12
03-19-2010, 07:36 PM
It IS a "FACT" that Kaw does NOT like Raimi's Spider-Man. DEAL WITH IT!
And WHY is it always YOU that is throwing around labels of "BASHER" Mr. Mod Wanna Be??? NOT very Mod Like Behaivor IMO.
And WHY does the fact that he or others do not like Raimi's Spider-Man or at least aspects of it (in my case) BOTHER you SO MUCH?
That is just stupid and childish behaivor. First offer, "Basher" explains what Kaw was doing. It's not an insult. Second, it doesn't bother me that some people don't like the films, what bothers me is how he continues to express his opinions as fact and thinks our opinions are stupid because we don't think the same. It's fine if you hate the films, but don't go around acting like EVERYBODY has to hate them, and if you don't hate them, you're a bad person. That's what makes me upset.
TheSlag
03-19-2010, 08:22 PM
First offer, "Basher" explains what Kaw was doing. It's not an insult. Second, it doesn't bother me that some people don't like the films, what bothers me is how he continues to express his opinions as fact and thinks our opinions are stupid because we don't think the same. It's fine if you hate the films, but don't go around acting like EVERYBODY has to hate them, and if you don't hate them, you're a bad person. That's what makes me upset.
1) he was bashing for expressing his opinion of disliking of Organic Webbing, changing the Killer of Uncle Ben (Retconning), making the story ALL about ONE girl... or for simply disliking Raimi as a director???? That is being a "Basher"?
2) how is he acting like that? Surely you're not that weak willed that someone's opinion is going to threaten you or your opinion??? Surely (Shirley :cwink:.. Joke from Airplane movie and not a shot) not.
Now, if he calls you an idiot or that your opinion is stupid (without provocation), then I agree that would be bashing and wrong. BUT, he can disagree with your opinion,
Maybe I need to go back and read where he said you were a BAD person if you like Raimi's Spider-Man.. cause I do not recall that, but I have not fully read all the posts either mind you.
Again, Opinions should NOT cause this much attacking.
Chris Wallace
03-19-2010, 08:36 PM
And we really need more news. The boards are turning into The İKAW Show (Starring İKAW and the Hype Gang!). I'm sure he loves the attention, though. :awesome:
No kidding.
VenomVsSpidey
03-19-2010, 08:41 PM
Again, Opinions should NOT cause this much attacking.
that's pretty damn hilarious. Cause I remember being called *ahem* "not a true spider-man fan" since I liked Raimi's movies. hmm...:o
TheSlag
03-19-2010, 08:48 PM
that's pretty damn hilarious. Cause I remember being called *ahem* "not a true spider-man fan" since I liked Raimi's movies. hmm...:o
Well please post where I called you that, and in what context too. I can only remember saying that if fans are ok with completing changing of the characters then IMO they were not true fans of the ASM Spider-Man.
I think THAT is a big difference WHEN taken in context. Something you (taking things OUT of context) seem to do quite a bit.
AND... I remember you making a single post saying "SLAG you're such an Idiot". <=== LOOK MA.. NO OUT of CONTEXT Whatsoever :woot:
Now, IF you're opinion meant anything to me.. you calling that might have meant something.. but.... :cwink:
VenomVsSpidey
03-19-2010, 09:51 PM
I never said you were the one to say I wasn't a true fan slag. But i'll be pretty hard pressed to search through the forums for whomever did :hehe:
TheSlag
03-19-2010, 10:35 PM
I never said you were the one to say I wasn't a true fan slag. But i'll be pretty hard pressed to search through the forums for whomever did :hehe:
Well since you quoted my post and made that commeent, you can see why I thought that was what you were saying.
If someone else called you that without provocation, and without any other context.. then they were wrong for doing it. But, 2 wrongs do not make a right. Or.. try not to let them push your buttons or stoop to their level... *tries to think of some other "swell" analogies.. *NOT* :woot:
Infinity9999x
03-19-2010, 11:29 PM
No, I will not be saying IMO, I'll continue to state it as fact that Sam Raimi's Spider-Man films are weak. If that annoys you than so be it.
Well, to be honest, then I'd say that you are quite simply wrong. There would be a good number of professional film critics that would refute you on your statement that Raimi's films are weak. Especially in regards to Spider-man 2.
Now, if you had said that you disliked them as Spider-man adaptations, I whole-heartedly agree. I don't think they're the best Spider-man adaptations, I found them lacking quite a bit.
However, when you view them purely as pieces of cinema, they're not bad at all. In fact, the first two are quite good. Spider-man 2, judged solely as a movie, is better then a good portion of the Superhero movies out there.
But again, this is me judging the film purely as a film and not as an adaptation. Many people forget to do this because they're too closely attatched to the source material. And as such, they call a film a bad movie when really it's a bad adaptation.
The Bourne Movies are a good example. They're good movies. Horrible adaptations. They're barely similar to the books, nearly completely different, yet still good movies. Same with Jurassic Park and JAWS. Much different from the books, yet good movies.
Darkness Falls
03-19-2010, 11:40 PM
i thought this was a thread about the spiderman reboot.... not
"The official İKAW repeatedly states how much he dislikes the raimi trilogy and that his opinion is above everybody elses thread" :o
my mistake.....:whatever:
MikeFrost
03-19-2010, 11:45 PM
YOU'RE ALL A BUNCH OF WEIRDOS!
amidoingitrite?
LightningFlash
03-20-2010, 12:19 AM
One of the stupidiest posts all day. Seriously..I mean...
That's not saying much coming from a Raimi fanboy.
And...stupidiest isn't a word.
Well, to be honest, then I'd say that you are quite simply wrong. There would be a good number of professional film critics that would refute you on your statement that Raimi's films are weak. Especially in regards to Spider-man 2.
Now, if you had said that you disliked them as Spider-man adaptations, I whole-heartedly agree. I don't think they're the best Spider-man adaptations, I found them lacking quite a bit.
However, when you view them purely as pieces of cinema, they're not bad at all. In fact, the first two are quite good. Spider-man 2, judged solely as a movie, is better then a good portion of the Superhero movies out there.
But again, this is me judging the film purely as a film and not as an adaptation. Many people forget to do this because they're too closely attatched to the source material. And as such, they call a film a bad movie when really it's a bad adaptation.
The Bourne Movies are a good example. They're good movies. Horrible adaptations. They're barely similar to the books, nearly completely different, yet still good movies. Same with Jurassic Park and JAWS. Much different from the books, yet good movies.Why should anyone care about the words of critics, what makes them a better judge over a movie than you and I? I judge these movies for my myself, I don't need to be told what to think about them from critics.
Doesn't matter how you label it...bad adaptation or the director's interpretation. There's far too many extreme changes and bad decision making in these movies for me to enjoy them. When the characters become unrecognizable, bacause you're combining two key characters into one (MJ/Gwen--Connors/Octavius), or making a super powered villain Uncle Ben's killer and Spidey letting him go scott free (and forgiving him) without a fight, and you're centering all the films around Mary Jane. Not to mention, your main character, Spider-Man himself, is a mute with no personality and the bearer of organics webshooters. Mix this with juvenile antics, silly executed scenes coupled with horrible dialogue. Just to name a few.
To hell with cutting corners, I call it what it is, weak Spider-Man films. Should I also called Batman & Robin a bad Batman adaptation, but a good movie. Maybe I should pat Michael Bay on his back for those horrible Transformers movies while I'm at it. It's nice that you all give leniency to certain directors, I on the other hand cannot, especially when it comes to Spider-Man. He's just too freakin' great of a character, after three films, they didn't even scratch the surface with this property. I still feel like I'm waiting for the first Spider-Man film to be released.
Ajendo
03-20-2010, 02:46 AM
Raimi's films although having many good aspects to them, left wayyyyyyyy too much to be desired from a Spider-Man movie
Agreed 10 fold on that, buddy. Raimi did a few things that were amazing but the films could and should have been a whole lot more.
Oscorp
03-20-2010, 05:50 AM
Seriously guys, shut up. Just shut up for a while and then shake hands. Then we'll move on to the NEW film!
VenomVsSpidey
03-20-2010, 11:15 AM
Same with Jurassic Park and JAWS. Much different from the books, yet good movies.
Lost world ftl....:doh:
:hehe:
spider-neil
03-21-2010, 04:29 AM
I loved the first movie, thought the second was freaking awesome (bettered only by TDK imho) and the less said about 3rd movie the better, but with that said I really hope the new movie isn't 'all about the girl' again, we've been there and done that. take the movie in a different direction other wise you might as well make SM4 but with an entirely new cast.
I fear however that is exacty what we are going to get, think about it, why else hire webb whose only movie is 500 days of summer? if they had hired matthew vaughn, or fincher (examples) then you know they would be thinking about a new direction. I think with the choice of webb you are pretty much going to get a rehash (themes) of what you have seen before but with a younger cast. betcha.
Then it will also result in the rehash of firing the director and his cast and rebooting the series all over again.
spider-neil
03-21-2010, 08:19 AM
Then it will also result in the rehash of firing the director and his cast and rebooting the series all over again.
there is going to be another reboot after this trilogy regardless. the rights revert back to disney in 2017 and they will definately make it themseves and go in a new direction.
That's great news, I thought Sony had Spidey forever like FOX, as long as the continue making films.
Pac-Master
03-21-2010, 08:50 AM
there is going to be another reboot after this trilogy regardless. the rights revert back to disney in 2017 and they will definately make it themseves and go in a new direction.
I thought the 2017 thing was just for the games?
Don't ruin this for me. :dry:
spider-neil
03-21-2010, 09:29 AM
nope it's the movies, hence the reason sony will try and get out at least 3 movies before then. hopefully they wont run it into the ground like the batman franchise before the reboot. also its entirely possible disney will let sony keep the franchise because they get a huge cut for essentially doing nothing.
No way, Disney would gets a much bigger cut if they licensed and distributed Spider-Man. Sony gets 50% of the movie licensing. Marvel's 50% is now shared with Disney. Get rid of Sony and it's 100% between Disney/Marvel (Movies/DVDs/Merchandising/TV-Cable rights) will all belong to Disney/Marvel.
Parker Wayne
03-21-2010, 11:22 AM
nope it's the movies, hence the reason sony will try and get out at least 3 movies before then. hopefully they wont run it into the ground like the batman franchise before the reboot. also its entirely possible disney will let sony keep the franchise because they get a huge cut for essentially doing nothing.
Really? I never heard of that deal. Where did you hear that from, if I may ask?
spider-neil
03-21-2010, 12:07 PM
Really? I never heard of that deal. Where did you hear that from, if I may ask?
basically marvel got a big fee for sell in the rights and they make money on every movie made. the contract becomes null and void if sony sit on the movie for more than two years but that will never happen as they can leave one scriptwritter on the movie and still fulfill the terms of the contract.
chaseter
03-21-2010, 12:24 PM
Where does it say that Spider-Man goes back to Marvel in 2017???
spider-neil
03-21-2010, 02:02 PM
Where does it say that Spider-Man goes back to Marvel in 2017???
read it somewhere, can't remember where
Nah, I think the 2017 is just for the video games, not the films. Sadly, as long as Sony keeps making Spidey movies they keep the film rights.
rocco2216
03-21-2010, 06:46 PM
Where does it say that Spider-Man goes back to Marvel in 2017???
Jim Hill from JimHillMedia.com wrote an article about it.
Darkness Falls
03-21-2010, 07:03 PM
double post
Darkness Falls
03-21-2010, 07:04 PM
i thought the deal was only for 6 films ? isnt that why they ditched spiderman 4 ? to make a new trilogy before the deal ended ? :huh:
Infinity9999x
03-21-2010, 07:39 PM
Why should anyone care about the words of critics, what makes them a better judge over a movie than you and I? I judge these movies for my myself, I don't need to be told what to think about them from critics.
Doesn't matter how you label it...bad adaptation or the director's interpretation. There's far too many extreme changes and bad decision making in these movies for me to enjoy them. When the characters become unrecognizable, bacause you're combining two key characters into one (MJ/Gwen--Connors/Octavius), or making a super powered villain Uncle Ben's killer and Spidey letting him go scott free (and forgiving him) without a fight, and you're centering all the films around Mary Jane. Not to mention, your main character, Spider-Man himself, is a mute with no personality and the bearer of organics webshooters. Mix this with juvenile antics, silly executed scenes coupled with horrible dialogue. Just to name a few.
To hell with cutting corners, I call it what it is, weak Spider-Man films. Should I also called Batman & Robin a bad Batman adaptation, but a good movie. Maybe I should pat Michael Bay on his back for those horrible Transformers movies while I'm at it. It's nice that you all give leniency to certain directors, I on the other hand cannot, especially when it comes to Spider-Man. He's just too freakin' great of a character, after three films, they didn't even scratch the surface with this property. I still feel like I'm waiting for the first Spider-Man film to be released.
There you would be right. I agree that they're weak Spider-man films. Spider-man 2 however, solely as a movie, is quite good. As a spider-man movie, or adaptation, it's not so good (in my humble opinion).
Yes, Raimi did make many changes to the characters, but you need to realize that it doesn't necessarily make the movie bad. The general public doesn't know the changes he made, and cinematicly, the movie works very well.
Again, would you call the Bourne movies bad? Because if you think the Spider-man films take liberties, you haven't seen anything until you read the Bourne books and watch the movies. Same with Jurassic Park.
You need to under stand, I'm not giving Raimi leniency here. I still have many, many problems with his movies. I can recognize however, when I put aside my preconceptions of the character and view it solely as a movie, that it is a good movie. Notice I am not saying it's a good Spider-man movie, or adaptation.
Raimi is a good filmmaker, he just made some decisions in the Spider-man franchise I don't agree with. However, what I'm emphasizing here is, there is a difference between the quality of a movie and the accuracy.
E.Brock
03-21-2010, 10:37 PM
what is the latest news as of yet???
E.Brock
03-22-2010, 12:22 AM
edit
Sam Fisher
03-22-2010, 01:21 AM
what is the latest news as of yet???
What news?
Chris Wallace
03-22-2010, 06:50 AM
There is none. This has become yet another thread of pointless bickering & Raimi-bashing. I think I'll ocme back to it when there is some news.
There's no way on Earth you're going to escape people bringing up their love or hate for Raimi's movies, bashing or praising will always ensue, where do you plan on running to to avoid this? Just wait until the massive comparing of Marc Webb's film to Sam Raimi's begins. There's going to be bashing and bickering coming from both sides, unlike anything that you've ever seen. There's nothing like seeing geeks bursting into flames, and me, I'm going to bring wood and oil.
chaseter
03-22-2010, 08:29 PM
It takes a real man to admit he is trolling.
Spider-ManHero12
03-22-2010, 10:36 PM
Edit - nvm
Everyone is trolling to you people who despises Raimi's films. :o
VenomVsSpidey
03-23-2010, 12:23 PM
nope. dac hasn't been, slag isn't.
just you :o
Nope, I've seen TheSlag name various elements that he likes from the films. Me, they're just 6 hours+ of mediocrity.
VenomVsSpidey
03-23-2010, 12:38 PM
exactly. slag ISN'T trolling. he complains about the films, but as a whole I don't think he likes them. so big deal. but unlike you he doesn't state his opinion as fact.
/true story.
But it is fact to me that they're mediocre.
VenomVsSpidey
03-23-2010, 12:48 PM
no, that's what we call a opinion.
You call it an opinion and I'll call it fact.
VenomVsSpidey
03-23-2010, 12:59 PM
damn double posts...
VenomVsSpidey
03-23-2010, 01:00 PM
http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/9238/coolstorybrowp.jpg
btw : it's a fact that you feeling the spider-man movies are mediocre is your opinion.
Sloth7d
03-23-2010, 01:03 PM
And Webster's Dictionary would call you wrong, but don't let that stop you.
Nah, I'm pretty sure the word 'mediocre' best describes the Spider-Man films.
david icke
03-23-2010, 01:15 PM
and so the bickering takes on new forms....
There's nothing wrong with thinking your own opinion is fact, it's when you tell other people who do not share your opinion that they are blind Raimi worshippers that is causing problems, that says your opinion is fact and their opinions are factually incorrect.
It's just causing bad vibes on the boards.
I mean, i have been on a sci-fi board and have been questioning why so many folk think 'firefly' is the 3rd greatest sci-fi/fantasy show of all time, and i think i have pissed a lot of folk off because i ventured a theory that they have more affection for it than other shows they enjoyed bexcause it was cut short.
Now, this was just a theory, that i proposed might apply to some people, i did not say it was fact, and it pissed people off. Imagine how much it is pissing people off to hear that they are factually incorrect in their assessment that the movies are more than mediocre, by suggesting their opinions are coloured by a greater love for the director than the character.
and this was just in one day, this is every frickin' day on the boards since the re-boot was announced. Because presumably you feel the re-boot decision backs you up in your assesment. Hence why you have posted about Raimi being sacked, despite offering no proof of this, and ran off from another board, reportedly, when folk asked you for proof of this. It seems you are just taking out your 5 yr disatisfaction with the Raimi films out on the spider-man fans who enjoyed them. this is what is causing problems.
anyway...
VenomVsSpidey
03-23-2010, 01:20 PM
true that icke! I mean, I love george lucas, but I'll be the first to tell you that unless he edits AOTC then IMO, it's not that great of a movie,, unlike the other two prequels.
oh noes, I like teh star warz prequels, GEORGE LEWKAS WARSHIPPER RIGHT HURR!!111
and so the bickering takes on new forms....
There's nothing wrong with thinking your own opinion is fact, it's when you tell other people who do not share your opinion that they are blind Raimi worshippers that is causing problems, that says your opinion is fact and their opinions are factually incorrect.
It's just causing bad vibes on the boards.
I mean, i have been on a sci-fi board and have been questioning why so many folk think 'firefly' is the 3rd greatest sci-fi/fantasy show of all time, and i think i have pissed a lot of folk off because i ventured a theory that they have more affection for it than other shows they enjoyed bexcause it was cut short.
Now, this was just a theory, that i proposed might apply to some people, i did not say it was fact, and it pissed people off. Imagine how much it is pissing people off to hear that they are factually incorrect in their assessment that the movies are more than mediocre, by suggesting their opinions are coloured by a greater love for the director than the character.Seriously, that sounds mental. Who knew that there were people so disturbed over what one feels is an opinion or fact. I don't feel that there's any bad vibes on this board at all. I do feel that there's a select few here who have very thin skin, and don't like to hear anything bad said about Sam Raimi's Spider-Man films, period.
and this was just in one day, this is every frickin' day on the boards since the re-boot was announced. Because presumably you feel the re-boot decision backs you up in your assesment. Hence why you have posted about Raimi being sacked, despite offering no proof of this, and ran off from another board, reportedly, when folk asked you for proof of this. It seems you are just taking out your 5 yr disatisfaction with the Raimi films out on the spider-man fans who enjoyed them. this is what is causing problems.
anyway...I have no idea why anyone would think Raimi wasn't canned. Even if you go by the press release it (Sony) said the reason that there's not going to be a SM4 was because of the "Time Constraint," why not move Spider-Man 4 up to 2012, giving Raimi plenty of time to sort out the script and villains. They moved the reboot up to 2012, why not SM4 instead? Come on, was this not a red flag for you? On top of that, Tobey, Spider-Man himself, didn't even know that they called SM4 off. He was still talking about SM4 and if it was still ago, while we were all reading the 'Press Release' that it was a wrap. That sounds like being fired to me, if it sounds differently to you, then so be it.
The problem here is, people don't like to hear constant disappointment about a movie(s) they love. Well I'm sorry, were both Spider-Man fans, in a Spidey forum--you're happy with the films and I'm not. So yeah, my posts are going to be a hell of a lot differently from yours. And if you think I haven't been called names "Basher," "Hater," "Troll," even a freakin' "Socialist" lol. But unlike you, I don't go crying about it, thick skin and all that stuff. :o
david icke
03-23-2010, 04:32 PM
Seriously, that sounds mental. Who knew that there were people so disturbed over what one feels is an opinion or fact. I don't feel that there's any bad vibes on this board at all. I do feel that there's a select few here who have very thin skin, and don't like to hear anything bad said about Sam Raimi's Spider-Man films, period.
Yeah, well that explains something, from reading the posts on the last couple of pages on this thread, it appears that the bad vibes and arguments have mainly been stemming from your attitude since you came to the boards. So, of course you don't feel the bad vibes as you are one causing them and don't feel like you are doing anything wrong.
but, i would put it to you that on some level you do know you are doing something wrong, as you immediately assumed CW was talking about you, and denied being an 'opinion nazi', and tried side-stepping the issue with talk of not using IMO, which was never anyone's problem.
and folk do fine going back and forward with differing opinions on the films, as folk have said, they get on fine with other posters who had a lot of problems with the Raimi films, but you seem to be the one they have a problem with all the time.
I have no idea why anyone would think Raimi wasn't canned. Even if you go by the press release it (Sony) said the reason that there's not going to be a SM4 was because of the "Time Constraint," why not move Spider-Man 4 up to 2012, giving Raimi plenty of time to sort out the script and villains. They moved the reboot up to 2012, why not SM4 instead? Come on, was this not a red flag for you? On top of that, Tobey, Spider-Man himself, didn't even know that they called SM4 off. He was still talking about SM4 and if was ago, while we were all reading the 'Press Release' that it was a wrap. That sounds like being fired to me, if it sounds differently to you, then so be it.
Well then that is why *you* think that, that is based on speculation, it doesn't mean it's a fact, as you have said in the past, and a 'fact' you have tried to use in support of your view that the films were mediocre. When folk asked you to prove this fact you could not, here, you have just offered up speculation based on flimsy circumstantial evidence.
The problem here is, people don't like to hear constant disappointment about a movie(s) they love. Well I'm sorry, were both Spider-Man fans, in a Spidey forum--you're happy with the films and I'm not. So yeah, my posts are going to be a hell of a lot differently from yours. And if you think I haven't been called names "Basher," "Hater," "Troll," even a freakin' "Socialist" lol. But unlike you, I don't go crying about it, thick skin and all that stuff. :o
lol, crying about what? I would looooove for you to explain that tough guy. Because i have the feeling you are a very weak individual in comparison to myself. That is my opinion based on what i read in your posts, I believe my opinion is fact based on this evidence, but we will never know for a fact will we? Unless you walk in my shoes, right? But, it's pretty frickin obvious to me who is the bigger cry baby here.
All you do is hang about these boards, no other boards on the whole site, spouting the same things over and over all day long at people.
People are ****ing fed up of it and have tried to be nice about it, put it in the best possible way, gave you hints to dial it back a bit, and still you bang on like the freedom fighter for truth when all you are is a weak individual who side steps the issue, avoids confronting the reality of the situation and tries to act as if they are some kind of tough guy.
Pal, you are stinking up the boards with your crap. I have done this myself on a message board without realising it at first, but i eventually take a frickin look at myself and at least try to adapt my behaviour.
You cry victim and try to claim there is no problem , despite the frickin' obvious claims on the last couple of pages, 'It's turning into the kaw show over here' , and people agreeing.
I would suggest if folk are fed up with kaw's attitude to certain things they just ignore his posts, it's obvious the guy is not going to change in the near future.
I mean, in a recent post today you said 'these people' , immediately drawing lines between one set of fans and the other, instead of refering to one poster.
anyway, i don't give a frick what you do, you are a very tiresome poster and i have bigger fish to ****ing fry,
You get far more attention than you deserve, and more time has been wasted on this board trying to sort thing sout with you than there should have been.
Do I think I am liked on these boards necesarily? no, but i try not to offend people, and respect their opinions, I don't try to make it all about me.
You do the frickin opposite.
Accusing me of being the cry baby, LOL, dude you have no self-awareness.
VenomVsSpidey
03-23-2010, 04:37 PM
woah..I'm totally diggin the :bh: icke. :up:
TheSlag
03-23-2010, 04:52 PM
I would suggest a little practice what is preached here. IF Kaw's or anyone's else's opinions (facts to them, for example Kaw NOT liking the Spider-Man movies is a fact for him) affect you so... IGNORE their posts.
I like discussing the negative and the positive about the movies. In hopes that we will get a better Reboot.
david icke
03-23-2010, 05:08 PM
I would suggest a little practice what is preached here. IF Kaw's or anyone's else's opinions (facts to them, for example Kaw NOT liking the Spider-Man movies is a fact for him) affect you so... IGNORE their posts.
I like discussing the negative and the positive about the movies. In hopes that we will get a better Reboot.
Yeah, I have to agree, I have restrianed myself from getting into this too much , in the hopes of not dragging it out any longer, but sometimes there is just something you have to say on the matter.
Everyone should just chill out and stop talking about this, everyone has now had their say on what is happening. Then, hopefully things will not be so antagonistic after things settle down. And if certain things do arise that posters find offensive or baiting, do not rise to the bait, it can be hard not to sometimes, lol, believe me I know, but it can be done, and we can all go back to exclusively discussing the merits of the movies of the past and the future, and how we personally feel they could be improved.
TheSlag
03-23-2010, 05:10 PM
/\... Well said! :up:
Yeah, well that explains something, from reading the posts on the last couple of pages on this thread, it appears that the bad vibes and arguments have mainly been stemming from your attitude since you came to the boards. So, of course you don't feel the bad vibes as you are one causing them and don't feel like you are doing anything wrong.
but, i would put it to you that on some level you do know you are doing something wrong, as you immediately assumed CW was talking about you, and denied being an 'opinion nazi', and tried side-stepping the issue with talk of not using IMO, which was never anyone's problem.
and folk do fine going back and forward with differing opinions on the films, as folk have said, they get on fine with other posters who had a lot of problems with the Raimi films, but you seem to be the one they have a problem with all the time.
Well then that is why *you* think that, that is based on speculation, it doesn't mean it's a fact, as you have said in the past, and a 'fact' you have tried to use in support of your view that the films were mediocre. When folk asked you to prove this fact you could not, here, you have just offered up speculation based on flimsy circumstantial evidence.
lol, crying about what? I would looooove for you to explain that tough guy. Because i have the feeling you are a very weak individual in comparison to myself. That is my opinion based on what i read in your posts, I believe my opinion is fact based on this evidence, but we will never know for a fact will we? Unless you walk in my shoes, right? But, it's pretty frickin obvious to me who is the bigger cry baby here.
All you do is hang about these boards, no other boards on the whole site, spouting the same things over and over all day long at people.
People are ****ing fed up of it and have tried to be nice about it, put it in the best possible way, gave you hints to dial it back a bit, and still you bang on like the freedom fighter for truth when all you are is a weak individual who side steps the issue, avoids confronting the reality of the situation and tries to act as if they are some kind of tough guy.
Pal, you are stinking up the boards with your crap. I have done this myself on a message board without realising it at first, but i eventually take a frickin look at myself and at least try to adapt my behaviour.
You cry victim and try to claim there is no problem , despite the frickin' obvious claims on the last couple of pages, 'It's turning into the kaw show over here' , and people agreeing.
I would suggest if folk are fed up with kaw's attitude to certain things they just ignore his posts, it's obvious the guy is not going to change in the near future.
I mean, in a recent post today you said 'these people' , immediately drawing lines between one set of fans and the other, instead of refering to one poster.
anyway, i don't give a frick what you do, you are a very tiresome poster and i have bigger fish to ****ing fry,
You get far more attention than you deserve, and more time has been wasted on this board trying to sort thing sout with you than there should have been.
Do I think I am liked on these boards necesarily? no, but i try not to offend people, and respect their opinions, I don't try to make it all about me.
You do the frickin opposite.
Accusing me of being the cry baby, LOL, dude you have no self-awareness.*Really, stating that I think Sam Raimi's films are weak is doing something wrong, is this what you call trolling, or is because you don't like what's being said? Just as I have to endure your love for the films, you have to endure my dislike for them, it all comes with being on a message board.
*What's flimsy about it, Sony said SM4 being canned was due to "Time Constraint," I didn't say it THEY did, then they moved the reboot up an entire year, 2012--why didn't they do this for Raimi's SM4...hmm?
*Why wouldn't I hang around the Spider-Man movie forum, I'm a Spidey fan, still waiting for a good Spider-Man film? :huh:
david icke
03-23-2010, 06:08 PM
*Really, stating that I think Sam Raimi's films are weak is doing something wrong, is this what you call trolling, or is because you don't like what's being said? Just as I have to endure your love for the films, you have to endure my dislike for them, it all comes with being on a message board.
Dude, I am going to keep this short and to th epoint, but i have said this already.
This, what you are claiming innocently to be the only thing you are doing, is fine, but it is not all you are doing. You are calling groups of people, 'Raimi worshippers' and with this meaning you are saying they do not have opinions but are blind sheep, it's not just as a joke you are meaning, you are setting out divisions and camps between fans on the boards by using phrases like 'these people...' and 'Raimi worshippers', and it is creating bad vibes.
People do not care that you don't like the films, it is the manner in which you are conducting yourself as a freedom fighter for the 'truth' that is annoying to folk, but it is *your* truth, *your* opinion, you cannot expect people to feel you respect *their* opinions, if you dismiss them as 'these people...', and 'Raimi worshippers'.
*What's flimsy about it, Sony said SM4 being canned was due to "Time Constraint," I didn't say it THEY did, then they moved the reboot up an entire year, 2012--why didn't they do this for Raimi's SM4...hmm?
*Why wouldn't I hang around the Spider-Man movie forum, I'm a Spidey fan, still waiting for a good Spider-Man film? :huh:
What i meant by that was not only are you saying the same things with the same attitude all the time, but it is going on *all* the time without much of a break for people timewise.
Try to stop putting people on the boards into different camps of 'Raimi fans' and 're-boot fans' in your mind, you may not even be concious of it all the time, but it is spilling out into your language all the time, enough that it is getting up people's backs.
Just be careful what you type up in regards to other people, vent about your problems with the films all you want, but remember they are your opinions, and if someone disagrees with you, their opinion is just as valid as yours, despite the fact you feel your opinion is fact, they may feel the same unwavering belief about their opinion.
Where does it get us if people try to force their opinion on another and dismiss the other's opinion as non-fact? It creates the bad vibes we have all been talking about.
As for the evidence thing, dude i have to say, really, it does not matter, but it is circumstantial evidence, which means it is flimsy, if it cannot theoretically be held up in a court of law, it is not definite proof, and therefore flimsy.
Yeah, and I'm called a Basher, Troll and Hater, so what's your point? Ya gotta be able to take what you dish out.
Good, if people don't care that I dislike the films, then they shouldn't care what I think is fact. I can't put anyone in a Raimi/Reboot camp, you put yourself there--I do acknowledge that it exist. Hell, the starter of this thread said he hopes the reboot blows up in Sony's face. I suppose that's my fault too. :o
What's flimsy is Sony saying that their departure was based on 'Time Constraint.'
MikeFrost
03-23-2010, 09:42 PM
Point being that you're mistreating the other members of this community. Your freedom of speech ends where others' freedom starts. You're called a basher, a troll and a hater because not only you don't let it go but you also keep arguing and further needless fueling a fire. I think you've made your point across quite clearly so why is there a need to constantly rub the same argument in others faces? I also don't like most of Raimi's movies yet you don't see me here constantly ranting on it everytime someone says otherwise.
You're free to complain about the movies but you can't complain about the other members of this place based on what they like or dislike.
If one thing's clear here, is that people have already made up their minds on whatever they like or not. There's no point in trying to change other people's opinions.
VenomVsSpidey
03-23-2010, 10:40 PM
ya just don't get it do you kaw? :facepalm:
TheSlag
03-23-2010, 10:54 PM
I "get" that the people who are complaining about Kaw going on and on (supposedly) are the ones egging him on. Probably to his delight too. :cwink:
MikeFrost
03-23-2010, 10:58 PM
Pretty much. You can't troll people without trollbait.
david icke
03-24-2010, 06:35 AM
Yeah, and I'm called a Basher, Troll and Hater, so what's your point? Ya gotta be able to take what you dish out.
My point is, you only seem to be interested in posting negative posts that get up people's backs.
I think it's very telling that someone posted a new thread called 'Trailer Ideas', and as far as I can see it's one of the only new threads you have not posted an opinion in. But I'm not surprised at that, because there is very little room to attack the Raimi films in such a thread, and no matter what you seem to be posting about, it *always* comes back to bashing those films.
You seem to have an agenda when it comes to bashing the Raimi films and trying to set up camps between the Raimi fans and pro-rebooters.
The desire behind this kind of posting seems to be so that you can take out your years of frustration with the films out on the fans who liked them, who in a twisted way you seem to blame for the movies, for accepting them and making them a success(and vainly to twist media information to back you up, as well as feeling the re-boot 'proves' something about their mediocrity), while trying to generate a hateful division between fans, so you feel there are people on 'your team' who will back you up.
Everytime I try to be sensible with you, you can't handle the truth of the matter and back up into some kind of pathetic tough guy persona followed by one of those little red faced smilies, it is tiresome.
But, for the good of the boards I am trying to get through to you. Hopefully some of this will penetrate through your delusions.
Good, if people don't care that I dislike the films, then they shouldn't care what I think is fact. I can't put anyone in a Raimi/Reboot camp, you put yourself there--I do acknowledge that it exist. Hell, the starter of this thread said he hopes the reboot blows up in Sony's face. I suppose that's my fault too. :o
Yeah, and how long ago was that? Have you read any comments like that lately? Because we already went through this, and you damn well know it,when the re-boot was announced there were folk who were pleased at the news, and rubbing it in the Raimi fans faces, and they ended up responding with such statements.
They were guilty parties on both sides of the arguing, but no-one has been exclusively posting in a negative manner on the boards in an antagonistic way apart from you. In fact , the only time I recall of you deliberately posting an 'innocent' post, is right after I have called you on this, in a weak attempt to prove me wrong.
edit: The only antagonism going on in the boards now stem from arguments between you and people.
The person who started the thread may also think that Sony don't give a crap about Spider-man, and are only interested in the money, so very well may want the re-boot to blow up in their faces. That doesn't mean they want to be arguing on the boards with someone accusing them of being a 'Raimi worshipper' or whatever.
What's flimsy is Sony saying that their departure was based on 'Time Constraint.'
I really don't give a crap about this, what it is is more of you trying to get ahold of flimsy evidence to back up your bashing.
I'll take the time to explain it as simply as possible, even though i know it is futile and you will buy into whatever delusions you have set your mind on that backs up your bashing...
What a company can do is make things very uncomfortable for an employee so that they leave, instead of having to pay them more money, not because they are creatively bankrupt(which is your flimsy argument).
Raimi and co having been put in impossible circumstances to make the kind of movie they wanted to make, leave, and so Sony automatically get a cut-price movie by using an unknown rookie director and lesser known cast. No one can demand a high salary due to the money they generated with previous Spider-man movies.
We do not know exactly what ideas were Raimi's, or what were as a result of sony's meddling, that is all speculation.
I post negative posts when I'm talking about the Spider-Man films, because of the huge potential that these films had, ruined by an uncreative and juvenile director, who seem to know little to nothing about the characters at hand. Why does this seem to bother you so much, making NOVEL long posts to everything that I say?
Hateful divisions between fans, you cannot be serious, how melodramatic can you get? Maybe I'll make two threads for those who "HATED" or "LOVED" Raimi's versions of the films to further separate us. Oh wait...someone beat me to it, darn.
Yeah, the films were just find the way they were, not creatively shot at all, that's why you reboot a 2.5 Billion dollar franchise. There was greed all around...from Sam Raimi to Tobey Maguire to Sony.
E.Brock
03-24-2010, 12:29 PM
This stuff tends to happen when there is nothing to discuss due to there being no real information on the reboot yet. When the dogs aren't fed, they get hungry, and eat eachother
david icke
03-24-2010, 12:46 PM
I post negative posts when I'm talking about the Spider-Man films, because of the huge potential that these films had, ruined by an uncreative and juvenile director, who seem to know little to nothing about the characters at hand. Why does this seem to bother you so much, making NOVEL long posts to everything that I say?
Because you just post the same thing every day, over and over, turning every subject you post about around to this. That is all you are interested in, bashing these movies and dismissing folk who liked them. You seem to have a bug up your ass about people who liked them, and blame them for the movie's success, and therefore your frustrations, and so on, you have nothing positive to say, nothing new to say, it's all about bashing, arguments and insults.
The reason I have been writing these novel long posts is because I have been trying to get you to understand, and have found it necesary to go into more detail.
Why the hell do you think it bothers me? Is it not apparent from my posts, lol, because what you are doing here is re-iterating what you are doing in the most innocent terms, but that is not all you are doing.
What you are doing that is bothersome has already been outlined by myself above.
Hateful divisions between fans, you cannot be serious, how melodramatic can you get? Maybe I'll make two threads for those who "HATED" or "LOVED" Raimi's versions of the films to further separate us. Oh wait...someone beat me to it, darn.
Yeah, those threads were started by people who talk in more general terms about the movies, parts they like, parts they don't. They do not go on about the same things day in day out and get into argumenst and insult people all the time.
Yeah, the films were just find the way they were, not creatively shot at all, that's why you reboot a 2.5 Billion dollar franchise. There was greed all around...from Sam Raimi to Tobey Maguire to Sony.
'Not creatively shot at all'....you are full of the hyperbole, really, this reminds me of the time you called the train sequence of SM2 'piss poor directing', and then back pedalled and said you liked it when i pointed out how the problem you had with it(mask removal), was not a problem at all.
This is you in a nutshell, 100%negative, you are so used to posting negative things you can't even recall that you once backpedalled and said something positive.
anyway, I'm going to post something that I happened to read in a magazine that comicbook writer Mark Miller said about Spider-man1:
"It's easy to be sniffy about this picture(and it has it's flaws), but something visually exciting happens every two minutes and a whole new generation of children got into superheroes watching Spider-man and the Green Goblin knock the beejeezus out of each other. Plus Tobey Maguire is amazing. I worried about him through every scene. He's Ditko's Spider-man made flesh."
KAW, dude, I am going to say something, and I'm being entirely serious here. but, i think these Spider-man movies have done something to you, I think you have gave yourself such unrealistic expectations that your grip on the reality of these movies is skewered. You can't even recall the scenes you said you liked here and there, your mind is so full of negativity, and that your negative take is the 'truth', and that 'the truth must be heard', you cannot take onboard the fact that people are fed up of your antagonistic, repetitively negative posting style, and keep pleading innocent.
I think it's time you took a good look at yourself buddy, a good *honest* look.
I'm not saying you should like the movies, but I am saying there is something going on that is very wrong if you feel the compulsive need to post the same negative opinions every day and antagonise others by dismissing their opinions as non-fact. There is also something wrong if you *only* feel the need to post in threads where you can turn the conversation around to your negative views on the previous series. You post in all the threads , but did not post in the trailer ideas thread, the one thread where you could not have wiggled it around to being negative about the films, without it looking very obvious.
It won't stop even when we get information about the reboot.
E.Brock
03-24-2010, 12:49 PM
true
david icke
03-24-2010, 12:58 PM
It won't stop even when we get information about the reboot.
Yes, I said this before in the thread, of course there will alwys be positive/negative comparisons between the two movies series, this is a stalwart of the misc Batman board. This is what the boards are all about, lol.
But, I would take stock of what you are saying sometimes, I mean, sometimes what you are saying is *so* removed from the reality of the thing, 'Not creatively shot at all', I mean c'mon. Your excessively high expectations were not met, you are a very picky fan, I get that, but try not to let your negative view of the films turn into a thing where you turn into a parody of a critic spouting hyperbole and only dealing in 100% absolutes. Have some self control and take stock of what you are saying.
LightningFlash
03-24-2010, 01:19 PM
Hah.
Because you just post the same thing every day, over and over, turning every subject you post about around to this. That is all you are interested in, bashing these movies and dismissing folk who liked them. You seem to have a bug up your ass about people who liked them, and blame them for the movie's success, and therefore your frustrations, and so on, you have nothing positive to say, nothing new to say, it's all about bashing, arguments and insults.
The reason I have been writing these novel long posts is because I have been trying to get you to understand, and have found it necesary to go into more detail.
Why the hell do you think it bothers me? Is it not apparent from my posts, lol, because what you are doing here is re-iterating what you are doing in the most innocent terms, but that is not all you are doing.
What you are doing that is bothersome has already been outlined by myself above.
Yeah, those threads were started by people who talk in more general terms about the movies, parts they like, parts they don't. They do not go on about the same things day in day out and get into argumenst and insult people all the time.
'Not creatively shot at all'....you are full of the hyperbole, really, this reminds me of the time you called the train sequence of SM2 'piss poor directing', and then back pedalled and said you liked it when i pointed out how the problem you had with it(mask removal), was not a problem at all.
This is you in a nutshell, 100%negative, you are so used to posting negative things you can't even recall that you once backpedalled and said something positive.
anyway, I'm going to post something that I happened to read in a magazine that comicbook writer Mark Miller said about Spider-man1:
"It's easy to be sniffy about this picture(and it has it's flaws), but something visually exciting happens every two minutes and a whole new generation of children got into superheroes watching Spider-man and the Green Goblin knock the beejeezus out of each other. Plus Tobey Maguire is amazing. I worried about him through every scene. He's Ditko's Spider-man made flesh."
KAW, dude, I am going to say something, and I'm being entirely serious here. but, i think these Spider-man movies have done something to you, I think you have gave yourself such unrealistic expectations that your grip on the reality of these movies is skewered. You can't even recall the scenes you said you liked here and there, your mind is so full of negativity, and that your negative take is the 'truth', and that 'the truth must be heard', you cannot take onboard the fact that people are fed up of your antagonistic, repetitively negative posting style, and keep pleading innocent.
I think it's time you took a good look at yourself buddy, a good *honest* look.
I'm not saying you should like the movies, but I am saying there is something going on that is very wrong if you feel the compulsive need to post the same negative opinions every day and antagonise others by dismissing their opinions as non-fact. There is also something wrong if you *only* feel the need to post in threads where you can turn the conversation around to your negative views on the previous series. You post in all the threads , but did not post in the trailer ideas thread, the one thread where you could not have wiggled it around to being negative about the films, without it looking very obvious.
Yet another NOVEL sized post, good for you. Yeah, what can I say, when someone comes along and actually makes a really good Spider-Man film, I'll have some really good things to say about it. As for now, I'm stuck with a mere skeleton of greatness that the Spider-Man films could have been. Tobey is a good actor, but he had awful scripts to work with and a weak story-teller in the director. Not seeing a Ditko/Lee Spider-Man in this mute version with no personality, where the movie is all about a freakin' girl (Mary Gwen Jane), sorry Mark Miller (is he also paid to only say good things about these Marvel Movies). That's the shame in it for me, you have great stories, a great character with many great supporting characters and you do very little with it. :dry:
Spider-ManHero12
03-24-2010, 01:38 PM
Because you just post the same thing every day, over and over, turning every subject you post about around to this. That is all you are interested in, bashing these movies and dismissing folk who liked them. You seem to have a bug up your ass about people who liked them, and blame them for the movie's success, and therefore your frustrations, and so on, you have nothing positive to say, nothing new to say, it's all about bashing, arguments and insults.
The reason I have been writing these novel long posts is because I have been trying to get you to understand, and have found it necesary to go into more detail.
Why the hell do you think it bothers me? Is it not apparent from my posts, lol, because what you are doing here is re-iterating what you are doing in the most innocent terms, but that is not all you are doing.
What you are doing that is bothersome has already been outlined by myself above.
Yeah, those threads were started by people who talk in more general terms about the movies, parts they like, parts they don't. They do not go on about the same things day in day out and get into argumenst and insult people all the time.
'Not creatively shot at all'....you are full of the hyperbole, really, this reminds me of the time you called the train sequence of SM2 'piss poor directing', and then back pedalled and said you liked it when i pointed out how the problem you had with it(mask removal), was not a problem at all.
This is you in a nutshell, 100%negative, you are so used to posting negative things you can't even recall that you once backpedalled and said something positive.
anyway, I'm going to post something that I happened to read in a magazine that comicbook writer Mark Miller said about Spider-man1:
"It's easy to be sniffy about this picture(and it has it's flaws), but something visually exciting happens every two minutes and a whole new generation of children got into superheroes watching Spider-man and the Green Goblin knock the beejeezus out of each other. Plus Tobey Maguire is amazing. I worried about him through every scene. He's Ditko's Spider-man made flesh."
KAW, dude, I am going to say something, and I'm being entirely serious here. but, i think these Spider-man movies have done something to you, I think you have gave yourself such unrealistic expectations that your grip on the reality of these movies is skewered. You can't even recall the scenes you said you liked here and there, your mind is so full of negativity, and that your negative take is the 'truth', and that 'the truth must be heard', you cannot take onboard the fact that people are fed up of your antagonistic, repetitively negative posting style, and keep pleading innocent.
I think it's time you took a good look at yourself buddy, a good *honest* look.
I'm not saying you should like the movies, but I am saying there is something going on that is very wrong if you feel the compulsive need to post the same negative opinions every day and antagonise others by dismissing their opinions as non-fact. There is also something wrong if you *only* feel the need to post in threads where you can turn the conversation around to your negative views on the previous series. You post in all the threads , but did not post in the trailer ideas thread, the one thread where you could not have wiggled it around to being negative about the films, without it looking very obvious. Perfectly said. :up:
Spider-ManHero12
03-24-2010, 01:42 PM
Yet another NOVEL sized post, good for you. Yeah, what can I say, when someone comes along and actually makes a really good Spider-Man film, I'll have some really good things to say about it. As for now, I'm stuck with a mere skeleton of greatness that the Spider-Man films could have been. Tobey is a good actor, but he had awful scripts to work with and a weak story-teller in the director. Not seeing a Ditko/Lee Spider-Man in this mute version with no personality, where the movie is all about a freakin' girl (Mary Gwen Jane), sorry Mark Miller (is he also paid to only say good things about these Marvel Movies). That's the shame in it for me, you have great stories, a great character with many great supporting characters and you do very little with it. :dry: That is ALL of your opinions, so stop making it sounds like everybody has to think the same. Believe it or not, my friend, What Icke is saying is true. It doesn't have to be that way, but it's true.
Wolvieboy17
03-24-2010, 01:43 PM
Yet another NOVEL sized post, good for you. Yeah, what can I say, when someone comes along and actually makes a really good Spider-Man film, I'll have some really good things to say about it. As for now, I'm stuck with a mere skeleton of greatness that the Spider-Man films could have been. Tobey is a good actor, but he had awful scripts to work with and a weak story-teller in the director. Not seeing a Ditko/Lee Spider-Man in this mute version with no personality, where the movie is all about a freakin' girl (Mary Gwen Jane), sorry Mark Miller (is he also paid to only say good things about these Marvel Movies). That's the shame in it for me, you have great stories, a great character with many great supporting characters and you do very little with it.
I love the way you totally ignored everything he said in his post about your attitude, in favour of giving a perfect example of exactly what he was talking about.
Yes, I said this before in the thread, of course there will alwys be positive/negative comparisons between the two movies series, this is a stalwart of the misc Batman board. This is what the boards are all about, lol.
But, I would take stock of what you are saying sometimes, I mean, sometimes what you are saying is *so* removed from the reality of the thing, 'Not creatively shot at all', I mean c'mon. Your excessively high expectations were not met, you are a very picky fan, I get that, but try not to let your negative view of the films turn into a thing where you turn into a parody of a critic spouting hyperbole and only dealing in 100% absolutes. Have some self control and take stock of what you are saying.
I don't lower my expectations for great material. I refuse to do it. I didn't with Batman, and Chris Nolan made a great Dark Knight. I didn't with Lord of the Rings, and Peter Jackson made a great LOTR. So why should I not have excessively high expectations for Spider-Man?
Spider-ManHero12
03-24-2010, 01:47 PM
I love the way you totally ignored everything he said in his post about your attitude, in favour of giving a perfect example of exactly what he was talking about. Indeed. I don't think there's any getting through to him.
Yes, they've got to me, I now love Sam Raimi films.
Wolvieboy17
03-24-2010, 01:55 PM
Yes, they've got to me, I now love Sam Raimi films.
No one wants you to love Raimi films, or care if you never do. What people do care about is a constant negative attitude that brings down the mood of the the rest of the forum. If you can voice your opinions without belittling the opinions of others, whilst being objective, go for your life.
Wolvieboy17
03-24-2010, 01:55 PM
Yes, they've got to me, I now love Sam Raimi films.
No one wants you to love Raimi films, or care if you never do. What people do care about is a constant negative attitude that brings down the mood of the the rest of the forum. If you can voice your opinions without belittling the opinions of others, whilst being objective, go for your life.
david icke
03-24-2010, 01:55 PM
I don't lower my expectations for great material. I refuse to do it. I didn't with Batman, and Chris Nolan made a great Dark Knight. I didn't with Lord of the Rings, and Peter Jackson made a great LOTR. So why should I not have excessively high expectations Spider-Man?
Read my post again, I will simplify it here...
I did not say your problem was that you had high expectations.
I said that the problem is that your high expectations not being met have turned your mind into a negative, hyperbolic critic who is increasingly given to statements that are very far removed from reality.
Saying things like 'not creatively shot at all, describing the train sequence as 'piss poor directing', these are exagerated and hyperbolic viewpoints, how can these observations be taken seriously?
You don't like teh movies, fine, but there is something wrong when you are given to 100% negative absolutes on every single aspect of the movies , and feel the need, the compulsion, to rant about this every, single, day, with the same points over and over, with absolutely *no interest* in contributing to threads that you cannot turn round into more of the same diatribes.
I'm repeating myself, because you keep refusing to acknowledge or discuss certain points, and because there is no other way to say it, I'm getting a taste of what it must be like to be you posting the same stuff over and over, and it's not a very interesting pastime, lemme tell ya.
Wolvieboy17
03-24-2010, 01:59 PM
Read my post again, I will simplify it here...
I did not say your problem was that you had high expectations.
I said that the problem is that your high expectations not being met have turned your mind into a negative, hyperbolic critic who is increasingly given to statements that are very far removed from reality.
Saying things like 'not creatively shot at all, describing the train sequence as 'piss poor directing', these are exagerated and hyperbolic viewpoints, how can these observations be taken seriously?
You don't like teh movies, fine, but there is something wrong when you are given to 100% negative absolutes on every single aspect of the movies , and feel the need, the comulsion to rant about this every, single day, with the same points over and over, with absolutely *no interest* in contributing to threads that you cannot turn round into more of the same diatribes.
I'm repeating myself, because you keep refusing to acknowledge or discuss certain points, and because there is no other way to say it, I'm getting a taste of what it must be like to be you posting the same stuff over and over, and it's not a very interesting pastime, lemme tell ya.
Let is go man. You can't teach a Dalek not to kill.
TheSlag
03-24-2010, 02:02 PM
I love the way you totally ignored everything he said in his post about your attitude, in favour of giving a perfect example of exactly what he was talking about.
Hey, I don't blame him.. DID you see the size of that dang post??? :woot:
Wolvieboy17
03-24-2010, 02:04 PM
Hey, I don't blame him.. DID you see the size of that dang post???
I guess some people on these boards DO have trouble reading lol
david icke
03-24-2010, 02:05 PM
Hey, I don't blame him.. DID you see the size of that dang post??? :woot:
lol, oh he read it alright, there would be no chance of him not curling up with a nice hot mug of coffee to read the official novelisation of 'the kaw show'.
TheSlag
03-24-2010, 02:07 PM
I guess some people on these boards DO have trouble reading lol
Hey.. I can reed and wryte... :cmad: :cwink:
No, seriously, I understand where Kaw is coming from, I hate when someone breaks down every single sentence to debate.. you know.. kinda can't see the forest for the trees and all.
And I am not saying Ick is... just looks like it at first glance... cause I have NOT read the post.
Wolvieboy17
03-24-2010, 02:10 PM
Yeah, but even if he read a single sentence, he still ignored it. There was no possible way to misconstrue Ick's meaning.
TheSlag
03-24-2010, 02:10 PM
lol, oh he read it alright, there would be no chance of him not curling up with a nice hot mug of coffee to read the official novelisation of 'the kaw show'.
lol.. you lost me at Coffee.. Mmmmmm.
And once again, I support anyone's (Kaw's too) to rant or rave about the movies. That is what we are here for. IF it upsets some that Kaw "constantly" does it (in their opinion), there is an easy solution...
Ignore it. But you cannot expect him to not reply when you quote him and comment, or attack him for "constantly" criticizing. (which again, his right IMO). just like it's the right of some to NEVER say a nary word about Sam's vision.
TheSlag
03-24-2010, 02:13 PM
Yeah, but even if he read a single sentence, he still ignored it. There was no possible way to misconstrue Ick's meaning.
How did he "ignore" it if he quoted it? I can agree with he chose not to debate each and every sentence with Ick.. but he did not ignore it.
Wolvieboy17
03-24-2010, 02:13 PM
Its more about him criticising others for like Sam Raimis movies, rather than the movies themselves... If it was just the movies, fine, opinions are opinions, but the former is just petty.
Wolvieboy17
03-24-2010, 02:13 PM
Its more about him criticising others for like Sam Raimis movies, rather than the movies themselves... If it was just the movies, fine, opinions are opinions, but the former is just petty.
Wolvieboy17
03-24-2010, 02:21 PM
How did he "ignore" it if he quoted it? I can agree with he chose not to debate each and every sentence with Ick.. but he did not ignore it.
He didn't address a single issue that Ick mention. All Ick was talking about was his attitude, and how negative it was, to which Kaw countered with a rundown on his opinion on the Spidey movies, which had NOTHING to do with the post, and he made no comment or reference to Icks original post. Since you yourself haven't actually read Icks post, perhaps you should do that before you judge, hmmmm?
TheSlag
03-24-2010, 02:23 PM
I agree (and have stated such) if the criticize was unprovoked, and purely without context. But I have seen cases where Kaw and others get attacked (or labeled as bashers) for ONLY their opinion.
david icke
03-24-2010, 02:25 PM
lol.. you lost me at Coffee.. Mmmmmm.
And once again, I support anyone's (Kaw's too) to rant or rave about the movies. That is what we are here for. IF it upsets some that Kaw "constantly" does it (in their opinion), there is an easy solution...
Ignore it. But you cannot expect him to not reply when you quote him and comment, or attack him for "constantly" criticizing. (which again, his right IMO). just like it's the right of some to NEVER say a nary word about Sam's vision.
I have already said to KAW that he is free to rant as much as he wants on the boards, that is not the main problem here. As Wolvieboy said, the main problem is in how he regards and relates to people who defend and like the movies.
He constantly refers and dismisses them as 'Raimi worshippers', saying they are blind and deluded to the fact that the movies are mediocre.
Look at what he just said about that quote i posted from cb writer Mark Miller, kaw said that Miller was only being postive about the movie(even though he was not 100% positive about it, saying it has flaws), because Marvel are paying him to say that! lol
It is this that is the underlying problem, that kaw feels he is some kind of lone freedom fighter for the 'truth', everyone else is either delusional or in Marvels payroll and he alone has the mission to go on and on about this 'truth', while not respecting that other people have *their* truths, *their* own opinions , that are just as valid as his.
and the fact he posts about this all the time, and *only* this, is symptomatic of the problem of disrespect, not that the compulsive posting *is* the problem.
Wolvieboy17
03-24-2010, 02:27 PM
Well thats great, we can go back in a time machine and defend him then, but i'm talking about this particular post now. I don't care whats happened in the past, i wasn't there. I'm not trying to be all high and mighty over everything Kaw has ever said, just pointing out what Icke meant, in the hope that we can all move on with discussion and get past petty disputes... He hates raimi, icke likes raimi... those are two opinions, and they can be discussed easily in a level headed manner as long as both parties are willing.
TheSlag
03-24-2010, 02:27 PM
He didn't address a single issue that Ick mention. All Ick was talking about was his attitude, and how negative it was, to which Kaw countered with a rundown on his opinion on the Spidey movies, which had NOTHING to do with the post, and he made no comment or reference to Icks original post. Since you yourself haven't actually read Icks post, perhaps you should do that before you judge, hmmmm?
Don't you hmmmm me.. Sing me the song instead of humming it. :cwink:
And sorry, I have seen SEVERAL similar posts to Ick's from others along the same lines, and you yourself said it.. Ick says his attitude is soo negative. AGAIN, that is his right, and it is a FACT to him, that he DID NOT like the SM movies.
And IF Kaw responded to how his view of the movies is negative, and Ick pointed out how KAW is always negative... isn't that the same issue that was being addressed?
BUT.. enough for me. I will let you carry on. This thread has been hijacked enough. Back to discussing the Reboot.
And hopefully a more serious/realistic approach to Spider-Man that is truer to the characters and storylines.
TheSlag
03-24-2010, 02:32 PM
I have already said to KAW that he is free to rant as much as he wants on the boards, that is not the main problem here. As Wolvieboy said, the main problem is in how he regards and relates to people who defend and like the movies.
He constantly refers and dismisses them as 'Raimi worshippers', saying they are blind and deluded to the fact that the movies are mediocre.
Look at what he just said about that quote i posted from cb writer Mark Miller, kaw said that Miller was only being postive about the movie(even though he was not 100% positive about it, saying it has flaws), because Marvel are paying him to say that! lol
It is this that is the underlying problem, that kaw feels he is some kind of lone freedom fighter for the 'truth', everyone else is either delusional or in Marvels payroll and he alone has the mission to go on and on about this 'truth', while not respecting that other people have *their* truths, *their* own opinions , that are just as valid as his.
and the fact he posts about this all the time, and *only* this, is symptomatic of the problem of disrespect, not that the compulsive posting *is* the problem.
I think you are reading WAY too much into his posts. I take it as simply his opinion, nothing more when he says Mark Miller was being paid to be postive. You are labeling him a "lone freedom fighter"?? What? lol or as the only truth crying from the wilderness (that makes more sense by the way in what you are assuming or implying)... but again.. to me.. it's simply his opinion. Nothing more.
david icke
03-24-2010, 02:32 PM
I agree (and have stated such) if the criticize was unprovoked, and purely without context. But I have seen cases where Kaw and others get attacked (or labeled as bashers) for ONLY their opinion.
I have been trying to point out to KAw the reasons why this may be happening though.
How can you take someone's opinion seriously, how can you not think they are just having an unreasonable, unthinking bashing session, when they post hyperbolic, 100% negative posts , on *every* aspect of the movies, saying they are 'not creatively shot at all', or dismissing the most lauded superhero/villan fight scene as 'piss poor directing', and giving no reason for this opinion other than some flimsy problem with the hero's mask not being on.
TheSlag
03-24-2010, 02:34 PM
Sounds like you're saying you do not respect his opinion to me is all. Which is fine. I do not get the jump to him Saying It's the TRUTH and only the truth. Or worse.. some type of Freedom Fighter.
david icke
03-24-2010, 02:34 PM
I think you are reading WAY too much into his posts. I take it as simply his opinion, nothing more when he says Mark Miller was being paid to be postive. You are labeling him a "lone freedom fighter"?? What? lol or as the only truth crying from the wilderness (that makes more sense by the way in what you are assuming or implying)... but again.. to me.. it's simply his opinion. Nothing more.
No, I disagree, lol, I wish I could agree, but there is definitely a sense of the 'one man on a mission' here, now the 'truth' has come out in the form of a re-boot, he feels he has some 'proof' to back up what he has felt all along in regards to these movies.
and I addressed some of the reasons why in my reply to you that I posted just before this one, so won't go into that again.
Wolvieboy17
03-24-2010, 02:36 PM
(Subject Change)
I reckon Megan Fox is hot. Who else thinks Megan Fox is hot?
Discuss.
david icke
03-24-2010, 02:37 PM
Sounds like you're saying you do not respect his opinion to me is all. Which is fine. I do not get the jump to him Saying It's the TRUTH and only the truth. Or worse.. some type of Freedom Fighter.
No, as I have already said to kaw today...it's that he *has* said positive things, like when I discussed that train sequence with him, he eventually said he liked the scene, lol, so why say it has 'piss poor directing' and then turn round 5mins later and say 'I liked it', if indeed you are not being an unthinking hyperbolioc basher who posts before he thinks.
TheSlag
03-24-2010, 02:39 PM
But again, you are both debating your opinions, nothing more.
But I have said my piece and I do not care to be the Co-Star of this Kaw Show as you guys (YES I SAID YOU GUYS LOL :woot:) "label it".
I AM.. STAR!!!.. STAR MATERIAL I SAY!!! *no frigginfrackin Co-Star* :cmad:
TheSlag
03-24-2010, 02:43 PM
(Subject Change)
I reckon Megan Fox is hot. Who else thinks Megan Fox is hot?
Discuss.
LOL.. I would call that a Cold.. HARD :cwink:"truth", even with the toe thumbs... but I would NOT want to be labeled a Freedom Fighter/Truth Sayer.. so I will say.. I agree.. IMO.
KIDDDING!!!!!
And not sure how this fits in this thread about reboot vs. say casting thread.. but I like the initiative to change the subject. :up:
Now.. About that time machine you mentioned earlier.. umm.. can I borrow it go back to pre SM1 and put my size 13 foot up Sam and Sony's "better side" to get them to do the story RIGHT? :cwink:
SpeterMan3
03-24-2010, 02:59 PM
I don't lower my expectations for great material. I refuse to do it. I didn't with Batman, and Chris Nolan made a great Dark Knight. I didn't with Lord of the Rings, and Peter Jackson made a great LOTR. So why should I not have excessively high expectations for Spider-Man?
I remember you saying that you didn't mind the changes in Nolan's Batman because you aren't as into the Batman stories as Spider-Man's. So it's not impossible that a big reason why your expectations were met was because you don't have as much love for the character. So how can you have the same expectations for something that you care more about, especially detail-wise?
david icke
03-24-2010, 03:03 PM
But again, you are both debating your opinions, nothing more.
Yes, of course, but it was merely an example I used when I was talking to kaw about a symptom of what has been going on here on the boards.
But I have said my piece and I do not care to be the Co-Star of this Kaw Show as you guys (YES I SAID YOU GUYS LOL :woot:) "label it".
I AM.. STAR!!!.. STAR MATERIAL I SAY!!! *no frigginfrackin Co-Star* :cmad:
lol, yes, I did not want to be so involved in this either, but I wanted to try talking to the guy and maybe clearing up some of the arguments, and folk's sticking points.
and yes, anyway, I am going to go over to another thread and see what you have said about this and that.
KAW...take it easy man, whatever you do, however you are feeling right now.
LightningFlash
03-24-2010, 03:58 PM
Again, I must say. Hah.
Hey, but at least the first Spider-Man movie was great.
But, Dafoe can make any film amazing. Why I wish we had more of him in Spider-Man 3. His lines that were in the novelization that weren't in the movie were very much needed. It would add more fuel as to why Harry becomes "New Racer Goblin", and pretty much showed that Norman didn't care for Harry's well-being ever and only wanted HIS revenge on Peter.
david icke
03-24-2010, 04:12 PM
Again, I must say. Hah.
Hey, but at least the first Spider-Man movie was great.
But, Dafoe can make any film amazing. Why I wish we had more of him in Spider-Man 3. His lines that were in the novelization that weren't in the movie were very much needed. It would add more fuel as to why Harry becomes "New Racer Goblin", and pretty much showed that Norman didn't care for Harry's well-being ever and only wanted HIS revenge on Peter.
I don't know what these lines are, but I got that from the movie/s as was. He was setting his son against his best, and probably *only*, friend under false pretences, pretty obvious if you ask me.
LightningFlash
03-24-2010, 04:15 PM
There are more scenes involving Harry talking to Norman after MJ's play, as are more lines between father and son before Harry kidnaps MJ, and then, lastly, another tiny conversation between father and son before he runs off to help Peter take on Sandman and Venom. I'm just one who enjoys the details, and more conversation between Norman and Harry would be something I would've preferred than 90% of what happened in the film.
TheSlag
03-24-2010, 05:12 PM
Reminds me of a scene I wrote in a Spider-Man story I wrote. I think more of the Harry/Norman interaction would of been fantastic.
I loved what little Brother vs. Brother we got in SM3, and think it was the best part of SM3, unfortunately.
Imagine, with a darker/more seriouse Harry, costume and all, not letting on so soon to Pete as to who he was. With Peter wondering WHO this is? And with MORE mind games by Harry, with the knowledge of who Peter is.
So much untapped potential there. Pity.
david icke
03-24-2010, 05:40 PM
There are more scenes involving Harry talking to Norman after MJ's play, as are more lines between father and son before Harry kidnaps MJ, and then, lastly, another tiny conversation between father and son before he runs off to help Peter take on Sandman and Venom. I'm just one who enjoys the details, and more conversation between Norman and Harry would be something I would've preferred than 90% of what happened in the film.
I get what you are saying, but I think for a movie, having all those talks with a hallucination/ghost would have been a little too much. I think they used the ghost of Norman sparingly so it did not come across as too hokey, and I feel they used it just enough so it wasn't.
but, i would have liked more darkside Harry in the movie of course, yeah, I would've liked a darker movie all round, concentrating on that area.
david icke
03-24-2010, 05:45 PM
Reminds me of a scene I wrote in a Spider-Man story I wrote. I think more of the Harry/Norman interaction would of been fantastic.
I loved what little Brother vs. Brother we got in SM3, and think it was the best part of SM3, unfortunately.
Imagine, with a darker/more seriouse Harry, costume and all, not letting on so soon to Pete as to who he was. With Peter wondering WHO this is? And with MORE mind games by Harry, with the knowledge of who Peter is.
So much untapped potential there. Pity.
Yeah, I am not sure about overplaying the ghost/hallucination thing for the movie, in case it got a little too hokey, but i get what you are saying, those moments were very good.
I don't know about Harry not revealing himself, I think Pete would have figured it out pretty much right away it was not the rocket racer, and that it was only Harry who would have access to such weaponary, as well as knowing his secret ID, and having a reason to stalk him.
I do think it would have been good for Pete to be more worried about what Harry was going to do next, but the memory loss negated that aspect.
But, we did get the great scene in the cafe due to the memory loss, a classic Goblin motif, with Pete unaware the memory has come back.
TheSlag
03-24-2010, 06:29 PM
Yes, the cafe scene with the "how's the pie"... "Sooo Good" *smile*. Absolutely loved that scene and wished for so much more.
And I agree to a point that Peter would of probably put 2 and 2 together to ID Harry as SURFER DOOOOOD :cwink: but I think it would of been better to see that and play with it more.
Obviously, I was never, and am still not a fan of how Harry came to know Peter's ID, with the unmasking by Harry (out of costume, or not really born a Goblin yet). I think they could of done SOOOO much more IF they had wrote it with Harry knowing, but Pete NOT knowing.
As in, more mind games, and Peter realizing that Harry is the New Goblin... at a better place or time... say a dinner party like the cartoon did, or somesuch. Where others (loved ones) are at stake.
I think the interaction between both would have been....
"Soooo Goood" :cwink:
TheSlag
03-24-2010, 06:32 PM
Oh, and as far as the ghost goes, I think they could of downplayed that where it would worked to perfection, like NOT showing Norman, just Harry.. in essence talking to his Dad (showing him slipping in a much more subtle way)... sinilar to what Raimi did (which I thought was greatness) when he had Molina.. carrying on a conversation with the tentacles in SM2 right after his transformation/exit from the ER... *GREATNESS.. so subtle, yet said sooo much.
I would of preferred that over what we got.
david icke
03-25-2010, 08:49 AM
Obviously, I was never, and am still not a fan of how Harry came to know Peter's ID, with the unmasking by Harry (out of costume, or not really born a Goblin yet). I think they could of done SOOOO much more IF they had wrote it with Harry knowing, but Pete NOT knowing.
As in, more mind games, and Peter realizing that Harry is the New Goblin... at a better place or time... say a dinner party like the cartoon did, or somesuch. Where others (loved ones) are at stake.
I think the interaction between both would have been....
"Soooo Goood" :cwink:
Ah, ok, I get what you mean now, that would have been good. He knew Pete's secret before Pete was aware of this too in the books, but they didn't really take full advantage of that either.
Maybe they will do something with that in the new movies, they did it with Norman to an extent, but of course it was an origin movie, so was pretty crammed and did not play out extensively at all.
Alex The Great
03-27-2010, 08:34 PM
What I never understood about SM3 was....why didn't Harry go crazy (You know, Goblin crazy) like Norman? Norman seemed to be more stable than Harry, and I don't think Harry has the brains to alter the chemical :huh:
The Joker
03-27-2010, 08:37 PM
What I never understood about SM3 was....why didn't Harry go crazy (You know, Goblin crazy) like Norman? Norman seemed to be more stable than Harry, and I don't think Harry has the brains to alter the chemical :huh:
I'd like to know how Harry set up the gas chamber lab in the secret Goblin lair, and how did he know how to use it, too. I mean this is the guy who needed help with High School science. How on earth did he manage all that?
Spiderine
03-27-2010, 09:41 PM
Someone also had to alter the formula that took out the insanity ingredient. Since Harry seem to be very much in control. Absolutely nothing explained there. Victim of lazy writing in order to focus on the 10 other subplots going on.
How did Harry make that cool looking suit? Unbelievable.
Alex The Great
03-28-2010, 12:05 AM
I'd like to know how Harry set up the gas chamber lab in the secret Goblin lair, and how did he know how to use it, too. I mean this is the guy who needed help with High School science. How on earth did he manage all that?
Maybe he just grabbed some old Oscorp files? :huh:
How did Harry make that cool looking suit? Unbelievable.
It was a horrible suit :csad:
david icke
03-28-2010, 07:41 AM
What I never understood about SM3 was....why didn't Harry go crazy (You know, Goblin crazy) like Norman? Norman seemed to be more stable than Harry, and I don't think Harry has the brains to alter the chemical
Remember that Norman had plenty of lucidity during his time as the Goblin, he doesn't even recall being the Goblin until after the big parade.
You could say the same for Harry, he is all Goblin crazy when he is holding MJ by the throat up against a wall, but is more lucid when he comes down to help Pete.
But, I know what you mean, it's one of those things that is inconsistent within it's own rules, and seems to be inconsistent within the movie too.
If you look at it as a side-effect that makes you more out of control etc, bringing on the madness, perhaps this madness can be of a lesser sort if the subject has friends around him etc. Harry had friends, Norman had no-one, so his mind could lash out more easily.
But, I agree that the effects do seem to be inconsistent between the two movies.
I'd like to know how Harry set up the gas chamber lab in the secret Goblin lair, and how did he know how to use it, too. I mean this is the guy who needed help with High School science. How on earth did he manage all that?
I was thinking it was a different Goblin lair that Norman had set up, with a mini-chamber in case he needed a re-charge, since we don't see the chamber during the fight with Pete in the lair connected to the penthouse. At least I don't recall seeing the chamber in there during that fight.
edit: If we do see it in that lair during the PP.HO fight, then we could just say it *was* there during the events of SM2, but we just didn't get a full tour of the lair then.
MikeFrost
03-28-2010, 07:57 PM
I'd like to know how come the butler knew that Norman killed himself all along and didn't bothered to tell Harry before it was too convenient.
zeptron
03-28-2010, 08:27 PM
A better question is where was he at all during the events of the first two movies. He was nowhere to be seen and now in 3 poof here he is.
The Joker
03-28-2010, 09:55 PM
I'd like to know how come the butler knew that Norman killed himself all along and didn't bothered to tell Harry before it was too convenient.
I hated that. What stupid, lazy writing.
A better question is where was he at all during the events of the first two movies. He was nowhere to be seen and now in 3 poof here he is.
In fairness he was seen briefly in the previous two movies. He was there when the Oscorp woman comes to tell Norman that they found Dr Stromm dead in the lab. In SM-2, he was there in the scene where Harry is boozing and looking at newspaper clips of Spider-Man, just before Ock arrives at the Osborn mansion looking for more tritium for his fusion machine.
Yeah, his line was "I'm going home sir," and "Your father only obsessed about his work"
That scene always sticks out to me because I think that's the first time we hear his name "Bernerd", and I think it is a weird name.
david icke
03-29-2010, 07:28 AM
I'd like to know how come the butler knew that Norman killed himself all along and didn't bothered to tell Harry before it was too convenient.
It was definitely the worst moment out of all 3 movies, even if you give your critisicm a pass, why would this info pacify Harry? He already saw Pete take control of his Goblin glider, why couldn't Pete have taken control of Norman's and flown it into him?
It plays better to skip that scene and just put it down to, when the chips are down, Harry eventually believes his best friend over the ghost/hallucination of his crazy Father, if the scene is not there it also makes a little more surprising when Harry shows up to fight on Pete's side.
LightningFlash
03-29-2010, 01:37 PM
"It plays better".
Why do people give the movie any kind of excuse of such?
The film has pathetic writing; don't make excuses for Raimi's actions. Dang.
I hated that. What stupid, lazy writing.
I heard a rumour a while back that there was originally supposed to be a reveal in SM3 that Bernard Houseman was actually a figment of Harry's imagination, and that the controversial line was supposed to represent Harry simply coming to terms with something he already knew. Not sure if this would've been something cut from the original script or would've been among those deleted scenes we keep hearing about, but that certainly would've been a significant improvement over what we got.
For whatever that's worth.
Reikowolf
03-29-2010, 04:45 PM
Am I missing something? Was Norman's last wish to not have Harry know, or wasn't it?
As for the butler dressing the wound. I'm pretty sure he mentioned that he loved both Norman and Harry, to that, it's not past the realm of possibility that he may have kept it a secret as to not have Harry disillusioned by the truth of his father who he loved so much.
Was it poorly acted?
yes
Was there no build up to it and out of nowhere?
yes
Was it implausible?
not really.
I find it harder to believe that Sandman would take Venom's offer. He even says to Spider-man that he doesn't want to fight him. Why does he want revenge all of a sudden? His main drive was his daughter.
If they had taken a chapter from the SM3 video game and had Venom hold his daughter ransom (on that note, how did Venom know about his daughter? it's a bit of a stretch if eddie brock knew from his job as a freelancer)
Reikowolf
03-29-2010, 04:47 PM
Am I missing something? Was Norman's last wish to not have Harry know, or wasn't it?
As for the butler dressing the wound. I'm pretty sure he mentioned that he loved both Norman and Harry, to that, it's not past the realm of possibility that he may have kept it a secret as to not have Harry disillusioned by the truth of his father who he loved so much.
Was it poorly acted?
yes
Was there no build up to it and out of nowhere?
yes
Was it implausible?
not really.
I find it harder to believe that Sandman would take Venom's offer. He even says to Spider-man that he doesn't want to fight him. Why does he want revenge all of a sudden? His main drive was his daughter.
If they had taken a chapter from the SM3 video game and had Venom hold his daughter ransom (on that note, how did Venom know about his daughter? it's a bit of a stretch if eddie brock knew from his job as a freelancer)
Venom 1988
03-29-2010, 05:20 PM
I heard a rumour a while back that there was originally supposed to be a reveal in SM3 that Bernard Houseman was actually a figment of Harry's imagination, and that the controversial line was supposed to represent Harry simply coming to terms with something he already knew. Not sure if this would've been something cut from the original script or would've been among those deleted scenes we keep hearing about, but that certainly would've been a significant improvement over what we got.
For whatever that's worth.
As far as I'm aware of, that is not true. It was originally supposed to be MJ coming to Harry for help and persuading him to aid Peter and rescue Gwen.
The Joker
03-29-2010, 07:00 PM
Am I missing something? Was Norman's last wish to not have Harry know, or wasn't it?
Unless the butler was psychic, how would he know that Norman said that?
As for the butler dressing the wound. I'm pretty sure he mentioned that he loved both Norman and Harry, to that, it's not past the realm of possibility that he may have kept it a secret as to not have Harry disillusioned by the truth of his father who he loved so much.
Yes, it's much better to watch Harry lose himself in booze, depression, and murderous obsession about Spider-Man.
"Your father only obsessed over his work". Really Bernard? Then why don't you tell Harry the truth about his father, so he won't go and make deals with Doc Ock, take Goblin serum, get put in hospital with amnesia, a bomb to the face, and eventually get himself killed.
I'm sorry, but the plot device with the butler was the height of absurdity.
I find it harder to believe that Sandman would take Venom's offer. He even says to Spider-man that he doesn't want to fight him. Why does he want revenge all of a sudden? His main drive was his daughter.
If they had taken a chapter from the SM3 video game and had Venom hold his daughter ransom (on that note, how did Venom know about his daughter? it's a bit of a stretch if eddie brock knew from his job as a freelancer)
This I agree with. The approach from the game would have been so much cooler, and made Venom seem more clever and intimidating, instead of the random meeting in the alley and the whole "Hey lets team up".
Could also have done without MJ being kidnapped again for the third time. It really didn't serve any significant purpose, unlike in the previous two.
chaseter
03-29-2010, 10:06 PM
Please don't reference SM3.
david icke
03-30-2010, 06:30 AM
"It plays better".
Why do people give the movie any kind of excuse of such?
The film has pathetic writing; don't make excuses for Raimi's actions. Dang.
lol, dude you have my meaning on ass backwards, I would reach down into my pants and grab my reading spectacles out of there pronto before you sit down, I said it plays better if you remove the whole frickin' butler scene from the movie. How this makes an excuse for the poor writing of the scene is beyond me.
As I said, if they had just relied on the fact that, when the chips were down, Harry's love for his friends was stronger than his psychotic delusions about his father, it *would* have played better. Y'know, kind of like how when it came down to it, Harry saved Pete's life instead of giving into the 'Goblin' persona and leaving him to die in Spectacular Spider-man 200, the issue when Harry died. edit: This, after having ranted and raved about how he was going to destroy Pete the whole issue, much like in these movies, it worked in that issue because we believed the strong friendship, and it worked in Spider-man 3 because we believed the strong friendship, I mean, who was thinking 'Thank god the butler told him that', when Harry showed up? I know I was thinking along the lines of 'Their friendship was stronger than the Goblin bs.'
He didn't need the 'butler push', the scene did not make sense anyway, but regardless, it was not needed for the series of events to work dramatically. Raimi put in a stupid, badly written, nonsensical scene, and the irony is, it was not needed anyway, they could have had it play out like SSM200.
Look, if the complete movie did not work for you , fine, but don't come charging in and try to make out that folk cannot talk about parts of the movie that *did* work for them, while discussing other parts that did not work, or should have been discarded.
I wasn't making 'excuses', lol, you didn't understand my post, so I would be a little more careful reading and understanding posts before responding with a post like that one.
MikeFrost
03-30-2010, 03:14 PM
This I agree with. The approach from the game would have been so much cooler, and made Venom seem more clever and intimidating, instead of the random meeting in the alley and the whole "Hey lets team up".
What's even sadder about that scene/subplot is that it was actually filmed but was ultimately cut from the final movie. The whole Sandman's daughter angle being forgot about halfway through the movie really hurt both villains.
It also made Sandman going "Oh I'm so sorry for trying to kill you out of my own free will" and then Spider-man forgiving him on the end totally ****ing absurd.
In the cut subplot, Penny was on that construction site held hostage by Venom. You can see in some of the trailers a scene where Sandman is in the construction site with his daughter and wife looking at him in the background.
For all that's worth tho, like Reikowolf said, it's still flawed because Eddie wouldn't really know about his daughter. Unless they showed us some scene in the Bugle where they're talking about running a piece on the escaped convict and they investigate his family... But it's still a big stretch.
Ajendo
04-03-2010, 02:13 PM
Ok, just got back from watching kickass and as I sat there watching this incredibly awesome movie, I felt an overwhelming sense of despair at how the spidey movies have been so mishandled. Kickass highlighted some of the "issues" that Raimi and co had problems with and essentially flipped the bird at all the nonsense.
First of all, these new spidey movies are set in high school, which many here have expressed their fear of. Kickass is set with kickass in high school, a geeky nerd, who wants a hot girl and has no super powers but a will to make a difference simply because he's fed up of people (including himself) being crapped on and people watching and doing nothing about it; (shame on you peter parker for turning your back on the poor fella getting his butt beat in the alley in sm2).
Kickass is a comic book movie with balls, something that Raimi's movies lacked and better yet is incredibly funny when needed without over bearing cheese, hell even Nicholas Cage managed to impress and entertain.
That crap about no one believing a geek like peter can knab a hot chick like MJ should be was, is and forever will be nonsense and only emphasises my opinion that Raimi just didn't understand and knew very little about spider-man.
Kickass manages to win the affections of the lead girl, played by Lyndsy Fonseca who plays the daughter in how i met your mother and Carlos and Gabby's niece in Desperate housewives. If she were cast as MJ in these new spidey movies, I for one would be happy.
In short, the only concerns we should have is for, these new spidey movies to straw away from Raimi's approach as much as possible and focus on a solid, witty, snappy script with genuine humour and not for PP to be some tired silly joke. The parallels between kickass and spider-man are apparant and I urge you all to go see it. Watching the movie gave me hope that Webb's approach to spider-man could give us something difinitive and special.
spider-neil
04-04-2010, 04:13 AM
I thought kickass was good but I enjoyed SM 1 and 2 better
back to the reboot, I really get the impression they are dragging their heels on this. if they want the CG to be avatar quality then they really need to be starting the effects now. they'll start the CG late 2011 and it will look rushed and unrealistic, betcha.
Venom'sDad
04-04-2010, 02:14 PM
back to the reboot, I really get the impression they are dragging their heels on this. if they want the CG to be avatar quality then they really need to be starting the effects now. they'll start the CG late 2011 and it will look rushed and unrealistic, betcha.
I seriously doubt the cg will be Avatar quality if the budget is only $80 mil.
Just saying......
:dry:
chaseter
04-04-2010, 11:45 PM
It will not be Avatar quality.
Why would anybody think it would be???
Alex The Great
04-14-2010, 01:30 PM
I seriously doubt the cg will be Avatar quality if the budget is only $80 mil.
Just saying......
:dry:
Wait, wasn't Jurassic Park 1 around that budget, or even less than that?
Because, well. JP1 had orgasmic effects
Aesop Rocks
04-14-2010, 01:32 PM
tyrannorgasmic rex! :awesome:
Venom'sDad
04-14-2010, 07:45 PM
Wait, wasn't Jurassic Park 1 around that budget, or even less than that?
Yes... back in 1991 or something. Which is the equivalent of about $200 mil nowdays based on todays inflation index.
$80 mil won't get you anything, but a made for TV film shown at the theaters. X-Files comes to mind anybody?
Yes... back in 1991 or something. Which is the equivalent of about $200 mil nowdays based on todays inflation index.
$80 mil won't get you anything, but a made for TV film shown at the theaters. X-Files comes to mind anybody?
I decided to do some research on this.
According to Box Office Mojo (http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=jurassicpark.htm), Jurrassic Park was released in June of '93 and the budget was $63mil
Using Tom's Inflation Calculator (http://www.halfhill.com/inflation.html) and using 1992 as the starting year (assuming the movie began production a year before) that puts the 2010 price at $99mil.
As my conclusion, I submit that on a $80mil budget, we should get some pretty decent CG.
Venom'sDad
04-14-2010, 09:35 PM
Hmm, interesting. I guess former President Clinton didn't know what he was talking about when he said the rate of inflation has doubled since he left office, under the Bush administration. Or he was just flat out lying.
Good fine mre. :up:
Spider-Dude
04-19-2010, 12:14 AM
Hmm, interesting. I guess former President Clinton didn't know what he was talking about when he said the rate of inflation has doubled since he left office, under the Bush administration. Or he was just flat out lying.
Good fine mre. :up:
Kudos
Pac-Master
04-22-2010, 06:27 PM
Heres a video interview with James Vanderbilt about the Losers... fast foward to about 3:20 for Spidey stuff.
http://video.about.com/movies/James-Vanderbilt-The-Losers.htm
Pac-Master
05-11-2010, 06:20 PM
I hate how secretive these films are. It's just too quiet. How are you supposed to build hype for a movie and you don't say anything about it? At first it gets you excited, but after awhile, it gets a little annoying.
I hate how secretive these films are. It's just too quiet. How are you supposed to build hype for a movie and you don't say anything about it? At first it gets you excited, but after awhile, it gets a little annoying.
I agree, except that it gets A LOT annoying. Look at how much James Cameron talked about Avatar, the guy couldn't shut up about it, certainly didn't hurt it at the box office either. They seriously need to start talking about the new film in a bit more detail. And stop acting as if being secretive is the only thing that this film has to offer, or at least I hope that isn't the actual case, again.
Pac-Master
05-11-2010, 07:55 PM
It's pretty boring. I know we have two years and all, but that doesn't mean you can't release information to peak people's interests.
Spidey_62
05-11-2010, 08:25 PM
Jon Faverau flat out says he wants the Mandarin in IM3 days after IM2's released, when it won't even be coming out until after 2012 and Sony will never reveal who the villain's are in their Spidey films ever.
Spider-Man seriously got hooked up with the wrong people all around--director, producers and movie studio. If this was Paramount, Universal or New Line Cinema there would be at least something to talk about. Sad ass Sony. :mad:
david icke
05-12-2010, 06:51 AM
Revealing the villan for a spider-man movie is a major big deal, it does not compare to the Mandarin for IM3, which is an easy guess, and who cares much at this point about IM3 anyway? and of course, in cultural interest terms, Spider-man is in a different league altogether.
The reveal of the villan is a strategically beneficial move for generating interest in the movie, they are being smart about that, and withholding until the fever pitch would be highest, that moment is not 'two years away'.
They are silent at this very moment because they have nothing else substantial to report right now, has anyone been definitely signed and cast in a major role? No. They have revealed everything else, direction(ultimate), time frame(hs), director, writer.
If a studio were to release the big juicy tidbit of the villan now it would be a dumb move from a publicity standpoint, what else will they have later on to release that will generate so much interest?
You will just have to be patient. When actors are meeting for talks for the villan role we may hear all the rumours as usual, but maybe not, they will be keeping this as secret as possible, given the leaks for SMIV. They will want to control that info's release for maximum impact.
This is early days, and any other studio would be playing it the same way.
Oscorp
05-12-2010, 10:34 AM
Actually I agree. You can't really compare revealing Iron Man 3 villain to revealing the Spider-Man villain. It's a bigger deal.
However, I'd really want them to at least give a clue or something. It would be fun to speculate around that. And I'd want to know how many villains there will be too.
Pac-Master
05-12-2010, 04:19 PM
Revealing the villan for a spider-man movie is a major big deal, it does not compare to the Mandarin for IM3, which is an easy guess, and who cares much at this point about IM3 anyway? and of course, in cultural interest terms, Spider-man is in a different league altogether.
The reveal of the villan is a strategically beneficial move for generating interest in the movie, they are being smart about that, and withholding until the fever pitch would be highest, that moment is not 'two years away'.
They are silent at this very moment because they have nothing else substantial to report right now, has anyone been definitely signed and cast in a major role? No. They have revealed everything else, direction(ultimate), time frame(hs), director, writer.
If a studio were to release the big juicy tidbit of the villan now it would be a dumb move from a publicity standpoint, what else will they have later on to release that will generate so much interest?
You will just have to be patient. When actors are meeting for talks for the villan role we may hear all the rumours as usual, but maybe not, they will be keeping this as secret as possible, given the leaks for SMIV. They will want to control that info's release for maximum impact.
This is early days, and any other studio would be playing it the same way.
To my knowledge, it was never publicly said that the reboot will be completely based on Ultimate. That's just speculation.
spider-neil
05-12-2010, 04:44 PM
the budget for the reboot hasn't been confirmed so we're speculating about how much sony are willing to spend on the CG
Doc Ock
05-12-2010, 05:42 PM
the budget for the reboot hasn't been confirmed so we're speculating about how much sony are willing to spend on the CG
Hopefully there will be very little CGI....
I am surprised there is no new news... If the movie is coming out in 2012 shouldn't they have more than just a director signed on by now? What's going on?
Is this movie actually going to come out?
Droogoonie789
05-12-2010, 09:15 PM
Any word on who's writing the script?
Pac-Master
05-12-2010, 09:21 PM
Any word on who's writing the script?
James Vanderbilt. He wrote Zodiac, and the Losers.
Karelia
05-12-2010, 09:24 PM
Yeah, I'd like to hear a little bit more about this film, anything really. Like who's going to be Peter Parker/Spider-Man... :D
And I really don't want to see a lot of CGI in this film. Only when needed, and if this movie is supposedly "low budget" maybe we won't have to worry about that as much.
Hopefully there will be very little CGI....I agree if Sony Imageworks are doing the CGI, horrible VFX company.
itsleroy
05-12-2010, 11:38 PM
There's been absolutely zero news on this movie for months, what the hell?
itsleroy
05-12-2010, 11:39 PM
(dbl post)
FilmNerdJamie
05-14-2010, 08:10 PM
Alvin Sargent Rewriting Spider-Man Reboot (http://www.iesb.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9353:alvin-sargent-rewriting-spider-man-reboot&catid=41:news&Itemid=71)
Pac-Master
05-14-2010, 08:19 PM
It seems like anytime we complain about no news, news mysteriously pops up, lol!
It's a bit strange that they would get the writer from the past films when they're going in a so called "new direction".
That is an interesting bit of news.
I'm surprised they are re-writing the script. Is this the sign of bad news?
I thought this would be a project with more steam behind it, but things appear to be progressing pretty slowly.
Thought I would share. This is pretty funny.
Gritty Superhero Reboot - CollegeHumor (http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1935552)
Hypestyle
06-02-2010, 12:27 PM
I hope they don't rehash the origin.. some flashbacks at best.. but, just like with Superman, we've already seen an expanded origin sequence..
Chris Wallace
06-04-2010, 06:46 AM
It seems like anytime we complain about no news, news mysteriously pops up, lol!
It's a bit strange that they would get the writer from the past films when they're going in a so called "new direction".
Further proof that there was no need to do it in the first place, I think.
louiebling$
06-09-2010, 02:16 PM
The Lizard is the Reboot Villan?
From the same sources that brought you both the Jamie Bell Spider-Man rumour and subsequent dissection of Sonys policy, plans and back-up plans, comes news on the Spider-Man 4 big villain. So, you know, playing on slightly shaky ground still. But thats Bleeding Cool for you That came of the back of news from Roger Friedman that Michael Fassbender has been given a choice between playing Magneto and a Spider-Man villain Not as we laughingly suggested yesterday, Elektro. But another of the Sinister Six, Dr Curt Conners, otherwise known as The Lizard. Will he be played by Fassbender? Maybe, maybe not. But I feel sorry for Dylan Baker, who played the character in the Sam Raimi Spider-Man movies and was up for the fourth, without actually getting a shot to go all prosthetic yet. I do hope they look to recent Amazing Spider-Man comics when designing the creature. Chris Bachalo does make him look rather splendid
SOURCE: http://www.bleedingcool.com/2010/06/09/the-lizard-as-big-bad-in-spider-man-4/
Further proof that there was no need to do it in the first place, I think.There's plenty of proof it needed to be rebooted, maybe you need Kirsten Dunst to bite you on the neck before you realize it.
Ajendo
06-09-2010, 02:48 PM
I hope to God we get the lizard as the villain. Been wanting to be the case for years. I also find it interesting that the various cartoon incarnations that featue the lizard are usually the better epsiodes of that series. As I mentioned in an another thead, if this new movie was a movie adaption of night of the lizard I wouldn't complain.
Give me the lizard dammit, it's different, it's about time and it WILL work!
Dark Knight
06-09-2010, 03:34 PM
Fassbender should play the younger version of Magneto and work with Vaughn, instead of being the villain in the high school musical Twilight version of Spidey! LOL
Fassbender as Magneto....EASILY!
Spidey_62
06-09-2010, 04:25 PM
Yes! I hope that is true, the Lizard has been my top choice the entire time.
SpeterMan3
06-09-2010, 04:40 PM
Okay, what's happened in the past week or so? I've been off the computer.
Pac-Master
06-09-2010, 04:46 PM
Okay, what's happened in the past week or so? I've been off the computer.
Rumors, rumors, and more rumors.
http://www.bleedingcool.com/2010/06/07/spider-man-is-tintin/
http://www.bleedingcool.com/2010/06/08/inside-the-jamie-bell-spider-man-rumour/
http://www.bleedingcool.com/2010/06/09/the-lizard-as-big-bad-in-spider-man-4/
Also, Michael Fassbender has been asked to play the villain, and is currently choosing between this and X-Men: First Class.
Rodrigo90
06-09-2010, 05:14 PM
Its gaining now, I think Bell may be indeed our new Spidey. :)
Chris Wallace
06-11-2010, 07:02 AM
There's plenty of proof it needed to be rebooted, maybe you need Kirsten Dunst to bite you on the neck before you realize it.
If only my computer had a copyright sign key, I wouldn't have had to read that. Sigh.
Chris Wallace
06-11-2010, 07:05 AM
He wore a costume and a mask. He had secrets. He saved and helped lives. He fought against evil and corruption. He was a genius. He possessed powers. He was loved and hated. He was idolized by many and emulated by children.
Michael Jackson was a SuperHero...
Fixed.
I had buy many shoes from http://www.nikegrossiste.com, this web cheap price and good qualityrequin nike (http://www.nikegrossiste.com)chaussure tn (http://www.nikegrossiste.com)requin tn nike (http://www.nikegrossiste.com)brand grossiste (http://www.nikegrossiste.com)
What kind of shoes do you think Peter Parker will wear in the reboot?
If only my computer had a copyright sign key, I wouldn't have had to read that. Sigh.Copy and paste the copyright sign like I did, don't let anything stop you from silencing me. :dry:
SpeterMan3
06-11-2010, 02:02 PM
Or hold down the 'Alt' key and type 0169 on your number pad thingy. İİİİ
I'm Venom
06-15-2010, 02:21 AM
I hope this reboot will do for Spider-Man what Batman Begins did for Batman, but with them talking about making it dark and gritty, Spider-Man isn't a character like Batman. Spider-Man is pretty much the opposite of dark and gritty, and it certainly doesn't fit the persona of a guy who banters and jokes with his villains.
It could be more accurate to the comics and should introdcuce Eddie Brock and, somewhere down the road, do Venom right. I'd run with something to the tale outlined in the original comic, where J. Jonah Jameson's actions lead to a mistrust of Spider-Man by the public. Also, web-shooters are a must.
Excelsior.
06-15-2010, 11:43 AM
It won't be Spiderman's "Batman Begins" because Spidey already had a origin flick.
I'm Venom
06-15-2010, 01:20 PM
This, uh, isn't Spider-Man 4, dude.
Spidey_62
06-15-2010, 02:43 PM
Yeah, it isn't gonna be an origin movie.
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.