Who else feels sick?

[webhead731]

I mean, they really got alot of us fans hyped up for the last two years for Spider-Man 4. Last week it's in hold. Last week Tobey says they're just making it better. Yesterday, they tell us Vulture is John Malkovich. Today they say "Nevermind, just kidding". What. The. Hell?! Seriously. Are they serious? It's like a sick joke. There wasn't even a warning of this. I loved where this franchise was going. They've done so well in my opinion, and many others'. Now it's just done? We didn't even see everything! No Lizard, no Vulture.
Tobey, JK Simmons, Rosemary Harris, Cliff Robertson...GONE! It's too early for this. You don't restart a successful franchise. You restart failed ones that no one likes anymore.

:cmad:

This is like being a kid waking up for Christmas...to find nothing. :o

Really, I want...All I want is them to do Spider-Man 4. Please. That is all. :up:

[spida-man]

I agree.. I am completely shocked and angered that they are doing this..and I don't care what the brain dead fan boys say..SM3 did not SUCK. If they think it wasn't great, then fine...but it didn't suck..and the series doesn't need to be rebooted...not this early anyway....seriously they better be joking with this.

[Jick09]

Really, I want...All I want is them to do Spider-Man 4. Please. That is all. :up:

Ain't gonna happen.
Deep inside, I wanted to see the number 4 after the Spider-Man name.

But...I also wanted another direction for the series.
I got the second option. Not exactly what I was hoping for...but it might turn out great. I'm optimistic.

But sick? That's exagerated, dude.
I'm surprised, and that's it for now. I'm still absorbing the news.

[PROLIFIK1]

Sam needs to redeem himself. Thanks to Sony, we won't get to see that. I feel like this reboot will be a bad move as much as those hardcore SM fans wanted this reboot.

[Leenie]

I feel sick about it too.

I think Sony's made a huge mistake. Way to string the fans along for 2 years just to dump on them. Not cool AT ALL.

Also, I think it's far too soon for a reboot. The first movie isn't even 10 years old! Give me a break!

[webhead731]

Maybe they'll see this and decide it's a stupid idea. :o

[Spec Spider-Man]

I feel sick also...

[nameless_hero]

I won't be seeing the new one in theaters, just to protest...

[JaD]

I'm not sick, no. But incredibly bummed considering how much I was enjoying this franchise as a whole. To restart from the beginning with so much talent being pushed aside it's just, wow. Whose call was this and what are they thinking? You realize how talented the cast and crew for these films are? Why now? I'm not happy about it, no.

[VenomVsSpidey]

I'm willing to fight anyone to the death who talks smack about Raimi's movies right now. I'm absolutely disgusted with Sony. thanks for the buttrape guys :up:

[craigaat]

Some posters on here are totally exaggerating. They're only films. Spiderman 3 was ridiculous, any sequel following that with the same cast/crew would be terrible. The new series of films'll be even worse too, so be thankful you've got films you like.

[Leenie]

I just finished telling my mom about this piece of news. She's a huge fan of the Raimi trilogy, so she's not happy at all with this reboot.

My mom and I had a tradition with the Spidey movies. We saw all of them at the midnight shows together, as a "girls' night out" kind of thing. Both of us had a blast every time we went. Ah, memories ...

Unfortunately, my mom has already decided that she isn't going to see the reboot. I didn't think that she'd have such a strong negative reaction to this!

[Vile]

I believe I'll lose no sleep over this.

[Jack O Lantern]

What bothers me is that the movie was cancelled because he couldn't make a ummer release date, it had nothing to do with making it better

[henzINNIT]

I feel sick too. I was really looking forward to 4. I had total faith that Raimi would pull off another fantastic movie, but thanks to the studio's constant interference we'll never see the series continue. There's no way I'll watch it start over again for no reason. SM3 had issues but they make a great trilogy.

I'm also saddened that this turn of events has all but killed chances of ever seeing a Spider-man 3.1 as well. With the wealth of removed footage, there was a chance that a director's cut could do a lot to improve the film.

[Daybreak_st]

It's a huge surprise to me too. I didn't like SM3 but still don't see the need for a reboot. It feels like people are reboot crazy these days. Like "oh the last film didn't go well, what do we do...reboot!"

The could have easily just gotten a new director and new actors and move the franchise forward. Skip ahead a year, say MJ moved to hollywood to pursue her career. Focus on Pete in college as an established Spider-man. That's simple enough. You could tell any story you wanted, use any villain, sky's the limit.

I just dont' see the point in rebooting from ground zero. The movies are only 10 years old. And as was said, the first two were amazing, they really established what a good superhero movie was in the modern age. Now in rebooting you have to tell the same story over again, and unless you're making som significant changes it's a pretty basic story. How will you impove on it? Also the other films are very well know and still quite popular, now they are forcing comparisons between the new and the old since your covering the same territory from 10 years ago.

We'll see how it turns out, my preference tho is just to move forward already instead of retreading old ground. I can think of a few good reasons to reboot: 1) the series is dead in the water, no one likes it or will touch it (ex Batman & Robin) 2) a significant amount of time has passed and the franchise needs new life (ex. Star Trek) 3) some crazy element was added in a previous movie that hinders or stifles any new stories about the characters (this last one is iffy but an example is the kid from superman returns, to do any new movies your forced to deal with the kid, only other option is a reboot). Those three reasons i can accept but no apply to spider-man. If they re-introduce the villains do you really think they'll top Dr. Oct from spidey 2? Only time will tell.

[The Chris]

After I saw Drag Me to Hell I got so excited about Spider-Man 4, because it showed that Raimi when he has full control of his film, can still bring the awesome! Now I'm angry. I haven't been angry about movie news in a long time, in fact since Singer left X-Men. I had to literally calm myself down.

[블라스]

I agree.. I am completely shocked and angered that they are doing this..and I don't care what the brain dead fan boys say..SM3 did not SUCK. If they think it wasn't great, then fine...but it didn't suck..and the series doesn't need to be rebooted...not this early anyway....seriously they better be joking with this.

Not cool.
You can't call people "braindead fanboys" because they expected a movie that was at least as good as Spider-Man 2, and got that horrible mess instead.
Or hell, maybe you can, just like I can call people who like SM3 a bunch of "settle-for-anything fanboys".

[topdog1]

I agree.. I am completely shocked and angered that they are doing this..and I don't care what the brain dead fan boys say..SM3 did not SUCK. If they think it wasn't great, then fine...but it didn't suck..and the series doesn't need to be rebooted...not this early anyway....seriously they better be joking with this.

VERY cool.

Fanboy sniveling over that film has gotten to ridiculous levels. Could it have been a better film? Sure. Was it bad? Hell no.

I'm stunned by this news as well. There was plenty of time in the future for a reboot. They had a great cast in hand, why not leave Raimi alone and see what he crafted? You can never go back now. The movie franchise is in serious danger of becoming as stale as the books. Never letting Pete grow up or grow at all as a character. I don't want to see a high schooler for life Spider-Kid.

[jimmylace]

yeah I felt like the op when I heard the news. I do think that the movies could be improved upon and haven't fully exploited the character of spider-man but am still very much attached to the cast... its simply came out of left field completely.

There were aspects lacking from raimis movies -
not enough spider-man (and yes, the whole losing the mask thing), action scenes weren't the high points - generally bland as powers under-used, too much slow-mo, too much cgi, not enough quipping/too much moping, parker not growing up.

Now I may have said the above, but there were a hell of a lot of things that raimi got right. I wouldn't want the above at the expense of emotional resonance and weight. And THATS what I'm worried about.

It would take some SERIOUS talent to better raimis movies- my interest for a re-booted spider-man might have been pretty hot 5 years down the line, but at the moment its nigh on zero. Just feel robbed of an opportunity to see raimi knock it out of the park.Thanks to sonys attitude, my hopes aren't that high for a new spider-man, and this whole "making spider-man like the dark knight" thing has me worried. Thats what James Cameron did 15 years ago - SPIDER-MAN IS NOT THE CROW OR BATMAN!

[jrd550]

I feel sick... from spider-man 3 still. I love raimi but he allowed that mess to be filmed. The franchise needed new blood.

[El Payaso]

I can't be any happier that Raimi is not attached to this franchise anymore; he gave me an average first movie, a great second one, yes, but again a terrible third one; so it's kinda one out of three for me. I don't need any more stupid jokes or Superman references in Spiderman movies.

If another director comes and gives this a more serious approach I don't think anyone can take the smile out of my clowny face.

[Agent 194]

Have to admit I think it's a waste to have built up Doc Connors( in the true blue, in the know, fans minds) and not do something with him. The Lizard has awesome screen potential. and I appreciated Raimi's love and nods to the source material. However, I had many issues with every movie.

I look forward to a fresh approach. However, I feel I'll be disappointed if they turn it into a high school musical approach (without the music).

And, I've said it before but El Payaso I love that avatar. Long live Cesar Romero.

[El Payaso]

Have to admit I think it's a waste to have built up Doc Connors( in the true blue, in the know, fans minds) and not do something with him. The Lizard has awesome screen potential. and I appreciated Raimi's love and nods to the source material. However, I had many issues with every movie.

Same here, all his love and nods can't fix the flaws up.

As for the nods, the utility belt, Shazam, up up and away web, shirt open, I just HATED those.

I look forward to a fresh approach. However, I feel I'll be disappointed if they turn it into a high school musical approach (without the music).

If it's true that they're after a more serous/dark tone then I doubt.

Plus, Raimi's approach was kind of that, a teenage cheesey romantic comedy.

And, I've said it before but El Payaso I love that avatar. Long live Cesar Romero.

:up:

[Venom75]

Honestly,I'm more shocked thanm anything. Never saw this coming.
I just hope that the reboot series is taken more seriously(although I did love Raimi's films)and if(or when)Venom and the symbiote are included they they are made darker and given alot more respect.

[Dr.Dude]

I'm not going to lose sleep over it or anything but...

Yes, I feel sickened by it. Spider-Man's always been my favorite superhero, by far; my childhood hero, even. I love all three Raimi movies. If they wanted to get a new director, fine, a new cast, fine; it could be a new direction without starting from scratch. But rebooting after less than ten years, just so we can see the same damn story all over again? Especially after teasing us with signing Raimi, Maguire and all of them on again?

I pretty much just lost all interest in this franchise.

[sumspiderman]

I've been so angry the past 2 days, I can't believe they would hype it up for 3 years just to do this. I just can't get over it. and the only way I ever will is if the new movie rocks, which doesn't seem to look good if sony is in charge.


....that and spider-man 3.1.......I feel like if sam doesn't get the chance to do one last movie, his version of 3 needs to be seen.

[Donald Thomas]

....that and spider-man 3.1.......I feel like if sam doesn't get the chance to do one last movie, his version of 3 needs to be seen.

Aloha,
I'd also like to see Spider-Man 3 The Director's cut. But I don't think that's going to happen. Raimi/Maguire must be recognized as the guys who SET THE STANDARD for Super Hero movies.They have a lot to be proud of.At the same time-That was then and this is now.Now, Disney owns Marvel.A reboot with a High school Peter Parker, is much more of what they are looking for market wise.Can anyone say WEB SHOOTERS.Invented by a teen age genius on a limited income.Could be the Biggest toy of the Year!
Spidey rules

[vegeta21]

Yeah I feel pretty sick. I've had stomach pains and a stuffed up head all week. Hope its not H1N1.

[craigaat]

Not cool.
You can't call people "braindead fanboys" because they expected a movie that was at least as good as Spider-Man 2, and got that horrible mess instead.
Or hell, maybe you can, just like I can call people who like SM3 a bunch of "settle-for-anything fanboys".

Spot on mate.

[Chris Wallace]

I mean, they really got alot of us fans hyped up for the last two years for Spider-Man 4. Last week it's in hold. Last week Tobey says they're just making it better. Yesterday, they tell us Vulture is John Malkovich. Today they say "Nevermind, just kidding". What. The. Hell?! Seriously. Are they serious? It's like a sick joke. There wasn't even a warning of this. I loved where this franchise was going. They've done so well in my opinion, and many others'. Now it's just done? We didn't even see everything! No Lizard, no Vulture.
Tobey, JK Simmons, Rosemary Harris, Cliff Robertson...GONE! It's too early for this. You don't restart a successful franchise. You restart failed ones that no one likes anymore.

:cmad:

This is like being a kid waking up for Christmas...to find nothing. :o

Really, I want...All I want is them to do Spider-Man 4. Please. That is all. :up:
Glad to know I'm not alone. Many fans are jumping for joy but I say stop the madness. You don't need to reboot every damn thing. If the filmmakers who know what they're doing could just be left to their devices we won't have to scrap what has worked. But hey-Venom fanatics didn't get what they wanted in the 3rd film, so let's just throw the baby out with the bathwater, right?

[webhead731]

I think what hurts me the most is this...

Every year since 2000 I've been SUPER excited for every Spidey film coming out. Trailers, pictures, posters, figures, etc etc. Spider-Man 3's hype was the best for me, because I was staying up all night for trailers etc. :D
Literally, every year it's been like that. Just excitement. After Spider-Man 3, I knew there wasn't going to be a fourth one right away because it wrapped it up. I was still excited however, and watched all three like crazy. In 2008 it was pretty much "Yeah we're doing it" and it's been building up again these past years, and here this week it's gone. All of it. No warning, nothing.

That's what sucks the most. I was just so used to looking foward to these Raimi films, now I can't.

[Venom75]

I'll tell ya what though. I can't believe they're rebooting the franchise after just 3 films. Part 3 had alot of flaws and alot of people were split on it,but in no way was it horrible enough a movie for Sony to wanna start all over again. And even if the script for part 4 was turning out badly(Vultress?),then why not rewrite it,or work at it a bit more?
All this seems kinda extreme. It's like,"Well,part 3 wasn't the greatest and we're having scritp problems for part 4,so...let's recast everyone and just start over again!" :huh:

[Dr.Dude]

I think what hurts me the most is this...

Every year since 2000 I've been SUPER excited for every Spidey film coming out. Trailers, pictures, posters, figures, etc etc. Spider-Man 3's hype was the best for me, because I was staying up all night for trailers etc. :D
Literally, every year it's been like that. Just excitement. After Spider-Man 3, I knew there wasn't going to be a fourth one right away because it wrapped it up. I was still excited however, and watched all three like crazy. In 2008 it was pretty much "Yeah we're doing it" and it's been building up again these past years, and here this week it's gone. All of it. No warning, nothing.

That's what sucks the most. I was just so used to looking foward to these Raimi films, now I can't.

Oh, man, I agree with that completely. As much as I look forward to any comic book movie coming out, nothing ever got me as excited as when a new Spider-Man movie was coming; favoritism, admittedly but what can I say? Just a month ago, over the course of a week or so, I watched all three again for the first time in maybe two years and it brought back all the excitement I'd gotten from those movies in theaters--the kid inside jumping for joy, yadda yadda yadda. ;)

It's really saddening to realize that story is actually over now.

[webhead731]

I'll tell ya what though. I can't believe they're rebooting the franchise after just 3 films. Part 3 had alot of flaws and alot of people were split on it,but in no way was it horrible enough a movie for Sony to wanna start all over again. And even if the script for part 4 was turning out badly(Vultress?),then why not rewrite it,or work at it a bit more?
All this seems kinda extreme. It's like,"Well,part 3 wasn't the greatest and we're having scritp problems for part 4,so...let's recast everyone and just start over again!" :huh:

I don't think the mixed reception of Spider-Man 3 is it.

It's the deadline for the movie, the rushing of finishing a script, etc. They should go "okay let's fix it" not "......I'm stuck. Reboot!"
"We only tried for 10 minutes!"
"We suck."

End.

[Chris Wallace]

I said this in another thread, but I feel like they're gonna stop making sequels to anything anymore. Just make on movie, & then reboot!

[El Payaso]

Given the fact that rarely third parets are good and fourth ones are always awful, it doesn't sound too bad.

[Chris Wallace]

Given the fact that rarely third parets are good and fourth ones are always awful, it doesn't sound too bad.

http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=333178

[Timstuff]

Spider-Man 3's problems were Sony's fault. The movie was going to be about Sandman and Vulture, but at the last minute Sony forced Raimi to include Venom. Now Sony has full control over the franchise and are going to get some yes-man like Brett Ratner or McG to direct the reboot, so who knows what kind of dumb crap they're going to do.

[El Payaso]

Spider-Man 3's problems were Sony's fault. The movie was going to be about Sandman and Vulture, but at the last minute Sony forced Raimi to include Venom. Now Sony has full control over the franchise and are going to get some yes-man like Brett Ratner or McG to direct the reboot, so who knows what kind of dumb crap they're going to do.

So far we don't know who's directing. So far we do know SM3 sucked. And Venom doesn't sound bad for a third part, but Emo Parker dancing does, now assure me that that was Sony's fault.

[VenomVsSpidey]

well if the symbiote hadn't been forced on Raimi... :o

[webhead731]

So far we don't know who's directing. So far we do know SM3 sucked. And Venom doesn't sound bad for a third part, but Emo Parker dancing does, now assure me that that was Sony's fault.

Yeah, because he was SO emo. Emos dance all the time. :rolleyes:

[Spider-ManHero12]

I have to be honest, this has affected me. There was absoloutely no reason to reboot this franchise.

[Spider-ManHero12]

I have to be honest, this has affected me. There was absoloutely no reason to reboot this franchise.

[Eggyman]

Sickened by it? Sickened? Sweet beard-wearing Christ! Let's tone down the drama, eh? Let's get a lil perspective about this and be happy that we've had one good film, one great film, and one that made my balls shrivel... and now we're going to get new ones with a new tone and vision.

It's happy days as far as I'm concerned. Come on, Spideyhero, see the bright side. Raimi and Maguire have had their turn and now it's time for someone else to enjoy the awesomeness... this time with less dancing.

:)

[LightningFlash]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

A kid saying they'll fight people if they bash Raimi.

Another kid calling out "braindead fans".

Priceless.

Ahhh...you guys should be in school.

Go on. Go.

[LightningFlash]

well if the symbiote hadn't been forced on Raimi... :o

Sandman's change was Raimi's fault, not Sony.

Harry's get-up snowboard gear was Raimi's fault, not Sony.

Yes, the symbiote was Sony's fault, and Venom was Sony's fault, BUT Sam Raimi is the one who partially wrote the damn thing with a half-assed approach.

:doh:

Yeah, because he was SO emo. Emos dance all the time. :rolleyes:

Who else has hair like that?

Oh, no, Peter was so much a prep, it wasn't even funny.

And the Jazz scene was okay, it made sense. It being a place to dance.

And I understand that Raimi wanted the symbiote to make Peter somewhat cocky.

But besides guidos, have you ever seen a cocky man dance in the streets?

And how does EMO(yes, it is EMO hair, look it up. Now, the only reason I'd suspect you to be defending this is maybe you have hair like that) make someone cocky? Why would the symbiote think "This hair will make Peter badass in so many levels".

And another :doh:

[VenomVsSpidey]

peter is a serious dork. for a dork, who ALWAYS sees hope for tomorrow to give into a dark side, means that his darkness within....isn't very dark.

so, add a :doh: to you

[El Payaso]

well if the symbiote hadn't been forced on Raimi... :o

I think Raimi's awful sense of humour needed no forcing. Yes, this time we can blame Sony forcing the symbiote. This time.

Yeah, because he was SO emo. Emos dance all the time. :rolleyes:

Peter Parker does? Specially under the symbiote influence?

[webhead731]

[QUOTE=LightningFlash;17951416]Sandman's change was Raimi's fault, not Sony.

I think Sandman was changed for the better. Comic Sandman isn't much of a character, just good visually.

Harry's get-up snowboard gear was Raimi's fault, not Sony.

Listen to commentaries/read the Making of Book and you'll understand why. Harry was trying to kill Peter, not make a name for himself.

Though, I wish the mask could have been a bit more Goblin like.

Yes, the symbiote was Sony's fault, and Venom was Sony's fault, BUT Sam Raimi is the one who partially wrote the damn thing with a half-assed approach.

As far as I know, Sam didn't write Venom, Alvin Sergeant did. I thought he was handled almost just like the comic books. Venom just needed more development and screentime.




Who else has hair like that?

John Connor in Terminator 2, Peter Patrelli in Heroes season 1.

Ohhh they have swished hair...EMO! :rolleyes:

Oh, no, Peter was so much a prep, it wasn't even funny.

Peter was just a jerk. He reminded me of an old school (like in the 50's-70's era) jerk. "I'm gonna put some dirt in your eye", "find us some shade. Thanks hotlegs" "Keep the door open pops".

No emo or prep talks like that.

And the Jazz scene was okay, it made sense. It being a place to dance.

Agreed. The montage was hilarious, but wasn't needed. If they were going to use it (the dancing anyway) they could have had more of Peter being evil. They had quite a bit but not as much as I'd have liked.



But besides guidos, have you ever seen a cocky man dance in the streets?

Well...it is a movie. Have you ever seen a man swing on webs that shoot out of his wrists then land on a wall and stick to it?

And how does EMO(yes, it is EMO hair, look it up. Now, the only reason I'd suspect you to be defending this is maybe you have hair like that) make someone cocky? Why would the symbiote think "This hair will make Peter badass in so many levels".

Emo is partially looks but mainly the attitude. Emo hair also typically covers the eyes or one side of the face. They do everything opposite of being cocky, especially dancing. They don't want to be noticed. Peter was jazzy, dark, and way cocky. I assume Peter did the hair thing to make it look more messy, as a sign of rebellion maybe. Some scenes it was hardly actually parted to a side, it was just down. Should they have done the parted hair thing? No. Why? Because fans will cry "EMO" because they have no idea what an emo is.

And yes, I TOTALLY have hair like that. :rolleyes:

No, I have alot of hair, but it's out of my face. If anything, I had a bloated Eric Forman hair. It's grown out, someone told me Jim Morrison. :D And I'd agree.


Peter Parker does? Specially under the symbiote influence?

Doesn't make him an "emo" though.

[LightningFlash]

peter is a serious dork. for a dork, who ALWAYS sees hope for tomorrow to give into a dark side, means that his darkness within....isn't very dark.

so, add a :doh: to you

Serious dork or not, a darkness within from a very evil entity such as the symbiote would make the goofiest dork a force to be reckoned with. Not someone to laugh at.

Spectacular Spider-Man did it right, imo.

I think Sandman was changed for the better. Comic Sandman isn't much of a character, just good visually.

How was he changed for the better? By having a storyline involving his family that didn't even get a coherent ending as with the novel? And don't say Sandy's ending was to show forgiveness, because it didn't, it showed that a HERO let a VILLAIN escape.

Or do you mean with him being the real killer, and thus creating a useless retcon?

Better or not, I see no reason how one can be fine with a retcon that didn't need to be there. And surprised that so many fans just overlook that and still think that Raimi is to Spider-Man as Obama is to Nobel Peace Prize.

Listen to commentaries/read the Making of Book and you'll understand why. Harry was trying to kill Peter, not make a name for himself.

Though, I wish the mask could have been a bit more Goblin like.

I as well would've wanted Harry to have more of a Goblin-like look. But, that doesn't make sense at all really. If Harry is just out to kill Peter, then, okay, why even BOTHER to change up his father's gear? Why take time out to make him look like the Rocket Racer? If he just wants vengeance, why not just use the same suit as his father's? If it's no biggie, then why not just grab a pair of whitey-tighties and go after Peter? Hell, just get on a board naked if he didn't care and just wanted to kill.

As far as I know, Sam didn't write Venom, Alvin Sergeant did. I thought he was handled almost just like the comic books. Venom just needed more development and screentime.

"As far as I know".

No merit. So, as far as I know, Raimi did write Venom.


John Connor in Terminator 2, Peter Patrelli in Heroes season 1.

Ohhh they have swished hair...EMO! :rolleyes:

It's an idiotic hair cut, yes. It's the new trend. And idiotic.

And emo.

Oh, and idiotic.

Although, for John and Peter, they aren't wearing all black as Emo!Parker was.

Peter was just a jerk. He reminded me of an old school (like in the 50's-70's era) jerk. "I'm gonna put some dirt in your eye", "find us some shade. Thanks hotlegs" "Keep the door open pops".

No emo or prep talks like that.

He was emo for the way he acted with swishing his hair back.

He just acted like a jackass with those lines. Obviously Raimi wrote those lines in. Perhaps he's stuck in the 50s.

70s, really? Wow. Good job on not knowing your times.

So the symbiote makes Peter a tool. Again, as I've stated above, I see no reason why the symbiote made Peter a tool. And a senseless one. Even alcohol doesn't make someone sound like Sinatra.


Agreed. The montage was hilarious, but wasn't needed. If they were going to use it (the dancing anyway) they could have had more of Peter being evil. They had quite a bit but not as much as I'd have liked.

They should've shown him throw a man through a car window instead of showing pictures. And stopped with him acting like a Jew to Dr. Connors. Surprised, with so many rights groups, that Raimi didn't get hate for that.


Well...it is a movie. Have you ever seen a man swing on webs that shoot out of his wrists then land on a wall and stick to it?

Hahahaha.

Thought of a great joke.

Emo is partially looks but mainly the attitude. Emo hair also typically covers the eyes or one side of the face. They do everything opposite of being cocky, especially dancing. They don't want to be noticed. Peter was jazzy, dark, and way cocky. I assume Peter did the hair thing to make it look more messy, as a sign of rebellion maybe. Some scenes it was hardly actually parted to a side, it was just down. Should they have done the parted hair thing? No. Why? Because fans will cry "EMO" because they have no idea what an emo is.

And yes, I TOTALLY have hair like that. :rolleyes:

No, I have alot of hair, but it's out of my face. If anything, I had a bloated Eric Forman hair. It's grown out, someone told me Jim Morrison. :D And I'd agree.

Dude....emo douchebags are always trying to be cocky!

Look for Alternative Press(a magazine) and you will fine all of those tweenie emo bands trying to look cool and cocky. Hence why I say, Peter reminds me of an emo kid with his hair. He looks like he should be a member of Escape the Fate.

And...cool?

[Jick09]

Sandman was horrible indeed.
The little I know him from the comics is better then what they did to him in the movie.
I don't blame Hayden, though.

[LightningFlash]

I would never blame THC either. The acting was fine, it was just the story.

Besides Grace, Raimi did one good thing right in picking great actors to portray the villains.

[Chris Wallace]

peter is a serious dork. for a dork, who ALWAYS sees hope for tomorrow to give into a dark side, means that his darkness within....isn't very dark.



An argument I've raised for 3 years.

[Sony23]

I'm not just sick, I'm ****ing ANGRY. It would be different if Sam had not wanted to come back and they continued the story with a new director with a new approach that would benefit the franchise. The fact that Sam DID want to come back with the original cast but won't because of creative interference and not being able to meet the deadline (one that won't be met with the reboot anyway!!!!) is UNACCEPTABLE. Then rather than choose the option of continuing the story without him they reboot the franchise!? So in other words, the reboots will totally remove any relevance as the Raimi trilogy as being the "true" Spidey films? Which one is the "real" Spider-Man movie? That's BS. Did Raimi's version have problems? Of course they did. No one says they were perfect, but they were great Spider-Man films. Say what you want, but Sam Raimi has PROVEN he can make a great Spider-Man film. If not 1, he sure has hell made a great movie in the sequel. The fact that Sony would rather risk this proven success with another director that could be much worse with a story that we saw 9 years ago instead of allowing Sam to make another great movie speaks volumes to their stupidity and insatiable need to interfere in the creative process.

I personally hate the idea of a Spider-Man film without Sam Raimi and the fact that Sony Pictures have decided to screw the fans in this way is something I can't accept. I won't be seeing the film in protest. I really hope they read the comments and outrage they've caused and change their minds. Something tells me they're too stubborn and stupid for that.

[Chris Wallace]

I'm not just sick, I'm ****ing ANGRY. It would be different if Sam had not wanted to come back and they continued the story with a new director with a new approach that would benefit the franchise. The fact that Sam DID want to come back with the original cast but won't because of creative interference and not being able to meet the deadline (one that won't be met with the reboot anyway!!!!) is UNACCEPTABLE. Then rather than choose the option of continuing the story without him they reboot the franchise!? So in other words, the reboots will totally remove any relevance as the Raimi trilogy as being the "true" Spidey films? Which one is the "real" Spider-Man movie? That's BS. Did Raimi's version have problems? Of course they did. No one says they were perfect, but they were great Spider-Man films. Say what you want, but Sam Raimi has PROVEN he can make a great Spider-Man film. If not 1, he sure has hell made a great movie in the sequel. The fact that Sony would rather risk this proven success with another director that could be much worse with a story that we saw 9 years ago instead of allowing Sam to make another great movie speaks volumes to their stupidity and insatiable need to interfere in the creative process.

I personally hate the idea of a Spider-Man film without Sam Raimi and the fact that Sony Pictures have decided to screw the fans in this way is something I can't accept. I won't be seeing the film in protest. I really hope they read the comments and outrage they've caused and change their minds. Something tells me they're too stubborn and stupid for that.

:applaud

[Vile]

I'm not just sick, I'm ****ing ANGRY. It would be different if Sam had not wanted to come back and they continued the story with a new director with a new approach that would benefit the franchise. The fact that Sam DID want to come back with the original cast but won't because of creative interference and not being able to meet the deadline (one that won't be met with the reboot anyway!!!!) is UNACCEPTABLE. Then rather than choose the option of continuing the story without him they reboot the franchise!? So in other words, the reboots will totally remove any relevance as the Raimi trilogy as being the "true" Spidey films? Which one is the "real" Spider-Man movie? That's BS. Did Raimi's version have problems? Of course they did. No one says they were perfect, but they were great Spider-Man films. Say what you want, but Sam Raimi has PROVEN he can make a great Spider-Man film. If not 1, he sure has hell made a great movie in the sequel. The fact that Sony would rather risk this proven success with another director that could be much worse with a story that we saw 9 years ago instead of allowing Sam to make another great movie speaks volumes to their stupidity and insatiable need to interfere in the creative process.

I personally hate the idea of a Spider-Man film without Sam Raimi and the fact that Sony Pictures have decided to screw the fans in this way is something I can't accept. I won't be seeing the film in protest. I really hope they read the comments and outrage they've caused and change their minds. Something tells me they're too stubborn and stupid for that.

Sony realized that Raimi had stalled the franchise. Vulture in 4? Okay...then who? Electro? Kangaroo? Kraven? What next for Peter and MJ? They get back together! No, wait, they break up! NO wait! a kid! Nope, it's a gold fish!

The series just couldnt go ANYWHERE. Raimi adapted both the Goblin Legacy and Symbiote Saga in THREE FILMS. He also killed 4 A-lister villains in THREE FILMS...letting friggin' Sandman walk away.

Oh I know! Spidey 5: Return of Sandman

[Dangerous]

I hated the Raimi Spidey films, everything about them especially the cast who all sucked.

Can't wait to see Spider-man done properly on the big screen, here's hoping.

So I'm really happy about the reboot.

It sounded terrible, Vultress? Yuck!

My personal opinion of the People who are ticked off is that for the most part they are comprised of Spidey fans who came to know the character through the movies. So it's understandable that they are annoyed. 'Their' version of Spidey is over. Being a real fan myself, from decades before 2002 I understood the Raimi films were a poor imitation.

[El Payaso]

Doesn't make him an "emo" though.

That's true, it makes him an idiot.

And it's not only the notion of an emo hairdo - even if he's not an emo himself - as symbol of evil/dark side but the scene where he looks in the mirror and feels like he has to comb his hair like that. WTF.

[NinjaCarm]

I hated the Raimi Spidey films, everything about them especially the cast who all sucked.

Can't wait to see Spider-man done properly on the big screen, here's hoping.

So I'm really happy about the reboot.

It sounded terrible, Vultress? Yuck!

My personal opinion of the People who are ticked off is that for the most part they are comprised of Spidey fans who came to know the character through the movies. So it's understandable that they are annoyed. 'Their' version of Spidey is over. Being a real fan myself, from decades before 2002 I understood the Raimi films were a poor imitation.

Nicely said. Raimi's vision of Spider-Man if, anything, is simply infuriating to a true Spider-Man fan.

[Chris Wallace]

Nicely said. Raimi's vision of Spider-Man if, anything, is simply infuriating to a true Spider-Man fan.

Says the guy with a pic of Hammond in his avatar. Now that was infuriating. Cheesy costume-complete with utility belt, outborne web-shooters, vinyl boots & stand-alone gloves,, lame villains, boring plots, horrible FX, no Uncle Ben, no real motivation for Peter to become Spidey, and he had no personality. Ugh. And while fans complain about things like Tobey being frequently unmasked, Hammond was seen on a wall, sans costume or mask by a crowd of people. The clone episode had JJJ attend a party dressed as Spider-Man. His spider-sense told him about things happening in the next room but never alerted him to direct threats. It tool him a half hour to subdue ordinary thugs. His webbing was Halloween decoration & couldn't hold a toddler. It was just ridiculous. Give me a "Ranger Goblin" over that crap any day.
I am sick of seeing all these posts that claim that if you like the Raimi films, you're not a "true" Spidey fan. Nobody says that if you like the Superman films-be it DOnner, Lester or Singer, then you're not a true Superman fan. Nobody says that if you like the Burton or Nolan films, you're not a "true" Batman fan. It's so damn hypocritical. Did Raimi make some changes that I didn't agree with? Sure he did. I could have done with more wisecracks, more consistent spider-sense warnings, fewer shirt-rip sequences and less repetition. But none of this made the movies unenjoyable. I was able to enjoy both Burton's first Batman as well as Nolan's, despite the NUMEROUS things done wrong there. I didn't like ANYTHING about Donner's Superman except Reeve, but it's still on my DVD shelf. So Raimi's vision was different from yours. That doesn't make it a "bad" interpretation. But to pass judgment on everyone who disagrees with you is plain absurd.

[VenomVsSpidey]

:applaud:ikyn:highfive:

[webhead731]

Finally someone had the time to put that guy in his place. :up:

[LightningFlash]

Dang, I was hoping for a "I love Sam Raimi" reply from one of you fanboys.

Now I gotta go back to the game and watch the Cards lose.

:csad:

[Dr.Dude]

Says the guy with a pic of Hammond in his avatar. Now that was infuriating. Cheesy costume-complete with utility belt, outborne web-shooters, vinyl boots & stand-alone gloves,, lame villains, boring plots, horrible FX, no Uncle Ben, no real motivation for Peter to become Spidey, and he had no personality. Ugh. And while fans complain about things like Tobey being frequently unmasked, Hammond was seen on a wall, sans costume or mask by a crowd of people. The clone episode had JJJ attend a party dressed as Spider-Man. His spider-sense told him about things happening in the next room but never alerted him to direct threats. It tool him a half hour to subdue ordinary thugs. His webbing was Halloween decoration & couldn't hold a toddler. It was just ridiculous. Give me a "Ranger Goblin" over that crap any day.
I am sick of seeing all these posts that claim that if you like the Raimi films, you're not a "true" Spidey fan. Nobody says that if you like the Superman films-be it DOnner, Lester or Singer, then you're not a true Superman fan. Nobody says that if you like the Burton or Nolan films, you're not a "true" Batman fan. It's so damn hypocritical. Did Raimi make some changes that I didn't agree with? Sure he did. I could have done with more wisecracks, more consistent spider-sense warnings, fewer shirt-rip sequences and less repetition. But none of this made the movies unenjoyable. I was able to enjoy both Burton's first Batman as well as Nolan's, despite the NUMEROUS things done wrong there. I didn't like ANYTHING about Donner's Superman except Reeve, but it's still on my DVD shelf. So Raimi's vision was different from yours. That doesn't make it a "bad" interpretation. But to pass judgment on everyone who disagrees with you is plain absurd.

Great post, great post.

Also, the other thing that sickens me is the treatment of the Spider-Man character in general these days, not just with this reboot idea but also in every media form.

One of the things that made Spider-Man great, that went right along with the "everyman" quality that made him popular, was the fact that he evolved. He wasn't stuck in place, like most other superheroes. In contrast, he was the superhero who started in high school but graduated, went into college, experienced loss and got past it, got married, got a job as a teacher at his old high school, etc. It was real.

Now, it seems like all anyone wants to do is devolve the character. First there was this ridiculous "One More Day"/"Brand New Day" event in the comics, which threw the character back several decades; they could've easily brought back the old, more fun tone without rebooting everything. Ultimate Spider-Man, though it started out great, is still stuck in the high school years and has turned into something that only remotely resembles how Spider-Man should be. Now, even the movies are doing the same thing and resetting Peter back to being a teenager and I've got a feeling that this time, they're not going to let him get out of high school. Even if they do, though, they're just going to reboot it again in five years, so what's the point of caring anymore?

Pretty soon, Spider-Man in every media form is just going to just be like Archie Comics, which I think I remember Joe Quesada even mentioning in an interview. Spidey's going to end up being stuck in the same place forever, a franchise property instead of a fictional character, dying not out of terrible events but instead out of stagnation. I've loved Spider-Man more than any other superhero since I was four-years-old and I hope I'm wrong but right now, the forecast looks dark to me.

[El Payaso]

Says the guy with a pic of Hammond in his avatar. Now that was infuriating. Cheesy costume-complete with utility belt, outborne web-shooters, vinyl boots & stand-alone gloves,, lame villains, boring plots, horrible FX, no Uncle Ben, no real motivation for Peter to become Spidey, and he had no personality.

So.

You're just not getting the joke behind the avatar, right?

[Venom'sDad]

I hated the Raimi Spidey films, everything about them especially the cast who all sucked.

Can't wait to see Spider-man done properly on the big screen, here's hoping.

So I'm really happy about the reboot.

It sounded terrible, Vultress? Yuck!

My personal opinion of the People who are ticked off is that for the most part they are comprised of Spidey fans who came to know the character through the movies. So it's understandable that they are annoyed. 'Their' version of Spidey is over. Being a real fan myself, from decades before 2002 I understood the Raimi films were a poor imitation.

I'm not going to say I hate everything about the Raimi Spidey films... but there is certainly alot to be desired. Neitherless, great post overall. :up:

However, a reboot does not guarantee a properly done Spiderman adaption.... just guarantee the potential.

I'm still somewhat suspicious given Sony plans to use Vanderbilt's script that was intended for Sam Raimi. So I suspect we will still get some of Raimi's handprint/influence with it; even thought Raimi himself didn't like parts of it. Also, the script has to be tweak(heavily I imagine) to fit the "high school" years. It certainly was not originally written that way... obviously.

Here's wishing for the best... certainly a step in the right direction.

[Spider Jerusalem]

I am not sure what to think about the reboot.

My initial thought is that it will turn out badly. Raimi reportedly could not meet a deadline due to creative differences. If the reports about the 3rd movie plot being forced on Raimi are true, I can understand why he would have creative differences. This leads me to believe that whatever these issues are, will manifest themselves in this reboot since Sony no longer has someone to challenge the script.

I am not saying that Raimi's Spiderman was THE Spiderman. Raimi, IMO, did an excellent job with 1 and 2. While there could have been more wise cracks, I did feel he captured the essence of the character as a whole. Sure, I dont agree with all of the choices made. I would not have introduced MJ in the first movie, etc, but fans also need to realize that a movie is much different than a comic book and the average, non comic reading movie goer does not know who Gwen Stacy was, so the logical choice in MJ. Most movie goers do not know Peter is a genius, so it makes more sense in the movie realm to have his webbing a product of his new powers rather than spend a half hour explaining his genius. I too am a huge spiderfan but its important to understand that to make it work, some liberties must be taken.

Anyway, From the sounds of the 4th movie, it seems they may stray a little bit too far from what makes Spiderman and his villians great and maybe Raimi had a problem with that. Whether you liked Raimi or not, now Sony has no one as of yet to challenge the script.

I will wait until there is more solid news of the story before really making judgment I suppose. My opinion is that they should keep the first two movies as the established origin, scrap the 3rd as just a day in the life of Spidey, and make movies based on story lines from now on... Say the Kraven story line, etc.

[Dangerous]

Says the guy with a pic of Hammond in his avatar. Now that was infuriating. Cheesy costume-complete with utility belt, outborne web-shooters, vinyl boots & stand-alone gloves,, lame villains, boring plots, horrible FX, no Uncle Ben, no real motivation for Peter to become Spidey, and he had no personality. Ugh. And while fans complain about things like Tobey being frequently unmasked, Hammond was seen on a wall, sans costume or mask by a crowd of people. The clone episode had JJJ attend a party dressed as Spider-Man. His spider-sense told him about things happening in the next room but never alerted him to direct threats. It tool him a half hour to subdue ordinary thugs. His webbing was Halloween decoration & couldn't hold a toddler. It was just ridiculous. Give me a "Ranger Goblin" over that crap any day.
I am sick of seeing all these posts that claim that if you like the Raimi films, you're not a "true" Spidey fan. Nobody says that if you like the Superman films-be it DOnner, Lester or Singer, then you're not a true Superman fan. Nobody says that if you like the Burton or Nolan films, you're not a "true" Batman fan. It's so damn hypocritical. Did Raimi make some changes that I didn't agree with? Sure he did. I could have done with more wisecracks, more consistent spider-sense warnings, fewer shirt-rip sequences and less repetition. But none of this made the movies unenjoyable. I was able to enjoy both Burton's first Batman as well as Nolan's, despite the NUMEROUS things done wrong there. I didn't like ANYTHING about Donner's Superman except Reeve, but it's still on my DVD shelf. So Raimi's vision was different from yours. That doesn't make it a "bad" interpretation. But to pass judgment on everyone who disagrees with you is plain absurd.

Chris Wallace- I know this might sound a bit crazy, but what d'you reckon that Hammond-Spidey avatar might be in place out of humor?

As for me using the term 'real fan' I was using it to distinguish myself from the section of fans who came to know the character through the movies.

Those people will have only became fans because they loved the films, which in essence were a poor imitation of the source material.

As such in most cases they will have an affinity for the crap adaptations that were SM1-3 over the original comic series and in most cases not know the characters/stories as well as the hardcore geeks who have been buying Spidey comics for decades prior to 2002. ;)

[webhead731]

I was a Spider-Man fan before I saw the movies, and the movies made me love it more. I think they told the story wonderfully.

Were there changes? Yeah. But tell me what comic book movie didn't change stuff and was still successful?

[spidermanfreak]

What will the reboot succeed in

[Chris Wallace]

What will the reboot succeed in

It will succeed in creating division amongst fans that will last for generations.

[Spider-ManHero12]

I was a Spider-Man fan before I saw the movies, and the movies made me love it more. I think they told the story wonderfully.

Were there changes? Yeah. But tell me what comic book movie didn't change stuff and was still successful? Exactly! EVERY comic book movie has changes. Every single comic book film.

[david icke]

Just like to give a :up: to CW for his 'true Spider-man fans' rebuttal back there. I've been getting a little tired of folk accusing fans of the Raimi series of not being 'true' SM fans as well, that totally needed to be said.
Doesn't matter about the Hammond avi being a joke or not, that was the important part of the post.

As for the OP's 'feeling sick' point...I empathise with this feeling but I have to be honest, I am starting to get the feeling that the next Raimi Spdier-man would've been like that Marx Bros movie 'The MB in Casablanca', the one they made a bit later on to clear up Chico's gambling debts. ie They look a bit past it and it's an inferior echo of past glories.
The Vulture feels like he would have been a Goblin-lite figure, in action as well as in character; a baby plot could've been awful; I always thought Dunst looked fine in all 3 movies, but she just does not look right nowadays for the role, has put on the years; the plot sounded like Superman IV.
So, I don't like the thought of them spoiling what we already got, it's more of an ongoing story than the Superman movies, if 4 had been an awful tacked on domestic bliss ending that felt forced I wouldn't have been happy. I like it being a little up in the air with PP and Mj's future at the end of 3, like they now know they will have to fight for happiness.
Also, I kind of like the fact it ended with Harry's death, it's like Han, Leia and Luke going through the trilogy together, it being their story, not just Pete's.

So, they made a pretty tight trilogy, with some flaws here and there sure, but this reboot will be lucky to score as many hits over misses that this trilogy did.
That said, I am willing to be open minded and hopeful about the re-boot. As I am sure most fans are.

[Chris Wallace]

Exactly! EVERY comic book movie has changes. Every single comic book film.

And while some of those changes are eagerly embraced, others are met with flammable rage. Sometimes, however, fan response is downright hypocritical. It's ok to change this, but how dare you change that! In all likelihood, the best case scenario for the reboot will be a trade-off; closer to the comics than Raimi's films in some ways, radically different in others. Whether it will be a worthwhile trade-off remains to be seen. If it's as far removed as TDK & met with equal praise-particularly by the same people who have been acting like Raimi's just the Anti-Christ, I can't say I won't be a little annoyed by this.

[Spider-ManHero12]

And while some of those changes are eagerly embraced, others are met with flammable rage. Sometimes, however, fan response is downright hypocritical. It's ok to change this, but how dare you change that! Very true, my friend.

[RustyCage]

Sometimes, however, fan response is downright hypocritical. It's ok to change this, but how dare you change that!

I don't quite see how that's 'hypocritical'. If someone finds something satisfactory, they think it should stay, if they find something unsatisfactory, they want it changed. That's simply productive/constructive thinking. They want a better movie by eliminating the bad things and encouraging good things. Insulting them for not being as extremist as to say 'change it all or don't change anything!' is silly. Why scrap something good just for the sake of scrapping it?

There's nothing hypocritical about that behavior because they're still following the train of thought of improving Spider-man films via what they feel works and doesn't work. They haven't betrayed that point of pursuit one bit, and thus they cannot, by definition, be labeled as hypocrites.

No offense intended, but it seems like this is just a case of misusing a word when another might have been more appropriate.

Although, you may be referring to something more specific that poses a more valid point.. If so, citing that would make better sense of things.

[Chris Wallace]

Basically, I'm talking about movies like "The Dark Knight", which is DRASTICALLY far removed from the comics in almost every way but it's heralded as the greatest comic book movie ever by fandom in general, while everything that's NOT Batman gets nitpicked to death. And I've got plenty of examples: Joker can not joke, Scarecrow can be a glorified drug dealer, Ducard & Ra's can be the same person, Zzazz can be a hired hitman, Two-Face can have NONE of the personality traits he has in the comics, but reworking Green Goblin, Ock or Venom is just blasphemy. Fox can be the brains behind Batman, but it's lunacy to take away Peter Parker's gadgets. I've seen countless complaints against Dunst's Mary Jane, but Rachel Dawes (a completely made-up character, BTW) is arguably the most unlikeable love interest ever. I could go on & on with the years of "That's not how it was in the comics!", "Man-Spider" & all that other nonsense.

[topdog1]

I've never been that type of fan. I've always given the studios large latitude to change what they feel is necessary. When they announced no web shooters, not a peep out of me. When they cast a 6' 4" Wolverine, not a grumble. Even after the fact, some fanboys have trouble differentiating between the books, their own expectations and the films. I judge the movies on their own merit.

That being said, I'm dismayed at this reboot idea. I have tremendously low expectations for this film. Ultimate Line geared at tweeners + LOW budget can't equal anything worth a damn. I'm sorry but I have to vent just a little. There was NO need to do this at this point. With everyone in place, SM4 would've been a break even project for the studio at a worst case scenario. More than likely, it would've made huge cash again. Now, the genie is out of the bottle and can never go back. A cheap tweener reboot could have always happened in the future.

The last time I heard a studio come up with an idea like this it was a Lionsgate exec who said, "Hey, let's release The Punisher on the same day as Kill Bill. That'll be a great move!"

[Spider-ManHero12]

Basically, I'm talking about movies like "The Dark Knight", which is DRASTICALLY far removed from the comics in almost every way but it's heralded as the greatest comic book movie ever by fandom in general, while everything that's NOT Batman gets nitpicked to death. And I've got plenty of examples: Joker can not joke, Scarecrow can be a glorified drug dealer, Ducard & Ra's can be the same person, Zzazz can be a hired hitman, Two-Face can have NONE of the personality traits he has in the comics, but reworking Green Goblin, Ock or Venom is just blasphemy. Fox can be the brains behind Batman, but it's lunacy to take away Peter Parker's gadgets. I've seen countless complaints against Dunst's Mary Jane, but Rachel Dawes (a completely made-up character, BTW) is arguably the most unlikeable love interest ever. I could go on & on with the years of "That's not how it was in the comics!", "Man-Spider" & all that other nonsense. Once again, very well said. :up:

[Sony23]

Sony realized that Raimi had stalled the franchise. Vulture in 4? Okay...then who? Electro? Kangaroo? Kraven? What next for Peter and MJ? They get back together! No, wait, they break up! NO wait! a kid! Nope, it's a gold fish!

The series just couldnt go ANYWHERE. Raimi adapted both the Goblin Legacy and Symbiote Saga in THREE FILMS. He also killed 4 A-lister villains in THREE FILMS...letting friggin' Sandman walk away.

Oh I know! Spidey 5: Return of Sandman


Um..no. This is just speculation on your part and is just plain WRONG. Yes, there was creative differences, but it had nothing to do with Raimi stalling the franchise:

http://au.movies.ign.com/articles/106/1060521p1.html

Raimi had said from the beginning, that he would do a fourth depending on the script. You can see from that article, that he found disagreement with the studio on what the next film should be. What then does that tell you?

Sam Raimi simply had found that the studio was once again trying to control his direction. We've seen the result of that already - in SM3! Who cares if he wanted the Vulture? (I personally think he should've gone with the Lizard since he's been building it up for 3 films), if he was given the chance to make SM4 with the Vulture with a great story why should the studio care? We all know that Raimi favors the old Spider-Man villains and we've already seen the result when he is in full control. The result is Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2. So who's argument is valid on who should have control? Raimi or the Studio?

Put simply, this is really about Columbia Pictures wanting full control. This cluster**** of a film they're making now is anything but a decision made with the fans in mind. They wouldn't let Raimi make the film he wanted to make (one that DID have the fans in mind) so they let him walk. . Having the same cast and crew returning to a series for this long is rare enough as it is. The majority of people wanted a Spider-Man 4 NOT a reboot. Why we're not getting it after the original cast and crew were already involved is unforgivable. In fact, the only reboot there should be is at Columbia Pictures and Marvel Studios...starting with Avi Arad.

[spider-neil]

Basically, I'm talking about movies like "The Dark Knight", which is DRASTICALLY far removed from the comics in almost every way but it's heralded as the greatest comic book movie ever by fandom in general, while everything that's NOT Batman gets nitpicked to death. And I've got plenty of examples: Joker can not joke, Scarecrow can be a glorified drug dealer, Ducard & Ra's can be the same person, Zzazz can be a hired hitman, Two-Face can have NONE of the personality traits he has in the comics, but reworking Green Goblin, Ock or Venom is just blasphemy. Fox can be the brains behind Batman, but it's lunacy to take away Peter Parker's gadgets. I've seen countless complaints against Dunst's Mary Jane, but Rachel Dawes (a completely made-up character, BTW) is arguably the most unlikeable love interest ever. I could go on & on with the years of "That's not how it was in the comics!", "Man-Spider" & all that other nonsense.


*applaudes*

[Dangerous]

Basically, I'm talking about movies like "The Dark Knight", which is DRASTICALLY far removed from the comics in almost every way but it's heralded as the greatest comic book movie ever by fandom in general, while everything that's NOT Batman gets nitpicked to death. And I've got plenty of examples: Joker can not joke, Scarecrow can be a glorified drug dealer, Ducard & Ra's can be the same person, Zzazz can be a hired hitman, Two-Face can have NONE of the personality traits he has in the comics, but reworking Green Goblin, Ock or Venom is just blasphemy.

What BB/TDK did for the first time was capture the physical intensity of Batman in Christian Bale, made Batman believable, captured the bleak and brutal feeling of some of the greatest Batman stories such as TDKR & TKJ & perfectly captured the core essence/character of The Joker on screen and made him scary- as he is supposed to be.

Sure some stuff was altered, Joker was not hopping around like an idiot like Cesar Romero, but they totally nailed the essence of who the Joker is and what he stands for in an actor who fully realized him physically. The same can be said for Batman. And as for other key characters like Two Face- he may have been portrayed different in personality to how he is in the comics, but as a mentally stable smart guy going through a breakdown Aaron Eckhart was brilliant and convincing.

Stuff was altered in BB/TDK because they wanted to make these films more realistic and some of the characters were altered too, but the reason they are great films is because all the alterations WORK. The cast in TDK is amazing- Eckhart/Ledger/Oldman all provide incredible performances and are all totally believable.

By contrast when you watch SM3 it's like watching a kiddie’s toy commercial. The only character I thought was portrayed well was Sandman, he was great, the rest were terrible. The reason reworking Green Goblin (his costume) was blasphemy was because he looked idiotic! Not menacing at all but rather he looked like a power ranger!

The reason reworking Venom was blasphemy was because he looked lame as hell. Venom is a huge brute twice the size of Spider-Man (not just an inch or two both ways) who for a while Spider-Man thinks he’s not going to be able to stop. Venom is a main villain who should be the sole threat of a SM film, not treated as a chump like Bane was in B&R.

The Batman villains in question were treated w/ the respect they deserve in terms of visual likeness to their comic counterparts, screen time and the threat they presented, not only that they were enthralling to watch. The Spidey villains in question were not. Tho I will say Dafoe was great as Norman Osborn. BB/TDK were great films/ SM3 was crap.

See the difference?


I've seen countless complaints against Dunst's Mary Jane, but Rachel Dawes (a completely made-up character, BTW) is arguably the most unlikeable love interest ever.

So since Dawes was a newly invented character on screen what difference does she matter? Little. But if you are portraying a huge comicbook character such as MJ, there’s a big responsibility/expectation hanging over that and you better get it right!

Kirsten Dunst was crap as MJ for numerous reasons the two main being her not looking like MJ and the scriptwriters not understanding MJ’s character and writing her as someone else.

[henzINNIT]

This argument on comic-purity makes me feel sicker about this whole thing, just because I'm saddened by how Spidey became "cool" to hate on because of some mis-steps in the 3rd film. It was a great series, one of the best trilogies I've seen; and it's a shame we couldn't see another entry before this reboot comes.

It seems that the only people hopeful for this reboot are those purists who didn't like some of the changes the previous films made. That's fair enough, yet I can't help but feel this vocal group are the ones who won't be satisfied anyway. Come 2012, there will be another interpretation that inevitably won't fulfill the exact vision. That's pretty much the best case scenario; there's a chance that it will suck beyond belief as well.

[Dangerous]

I dislike all the Raimi Spidey films.
As a purist I'll be happy if-

1-PP/SM is portrayed by an actor who embodies the magnetism and strength that PP has in panel, meaning we don't get another drip w/ no personality like Maguire.
2-Spidey is full of quips
3-Gwen and or MJ are portrayed correctly in character and looks
4-Villain costumes are faithful
5-We get mech webshooters, no organics
6-Spidey's origin is fixed to radioactive Spider and Ben getting shot at home
7-The score is more uptempo and jazzy thus reflecting Spidey's personality
8-We see Spidey do some amazing stuff- how about the scene from ASM#33 where he presses that great weight above his head, iconic scenes like that.

[Spider-ManHero12]

^^ Some of those reasons are just plain stupid, might I add, but to each his own. I love all 3 films with a BIIIG passion. They are just incredible.

[VenomVsSpidey]

A Jazzy spider-man score?


:dry:

[Sony23]

I dislike all the Raimi Spidey films.
As a purist I'll be happy if-

1-PP/SM is portrayed by an actor who embodies the magnetism and strength that PP has in panel, meaning we don't get another drip w/ no personality like Maguire.
2-Spidey is full of quips
3-Gwen and or MJ are portrayed correctly in character and looks
4-Villain costumes are faithful
5-We get mech webshooters, no organics
6-Spidey's origin is fixed to radioactive Spider and Ben getting shot at home
7-The score is more uptempo and jazzy thus reflecting Spidey's personality
8-We see Spidey do some amazing stuff- how about the scene from ASM#33 where he presses that great weight above his head, iconic scenes like that.

You do realize with your last two posts, you've just proven Chris Wallace's point on hypocrisy don't you?

[Chris Wallace]

You do realize with your last two posts, you've just proven Chris Wallace's point on hypocrisy don't you?

He would never admit to such a thing.

[spider-neil]

Um..no. This is just speculation on your part and is just plain WRONG. Yes, there was creative differences, but it had nothing to do with Raimi stalling the franchise:

http://au.movies.ign.com/articles/106/1060521p1.html

Raimi had said from the beginning, that he would do a fourth depending on the script. You can see from that article, that he found disagreement with the studio on what the next film should be. What then does that tell you?

Sam Raimi simply had found that the studio was once again trying to control his direction. We've seen the result of that already - in SM3! Who cares if he wanted the Vulture? (I personally think he should've gone with the Lizard since he's been building it up for 3 films), if he was given the chance to make SM4 with the Vulture with a great story why should the studio care? We all know that Raimi favors the old Spider-Man villains and we've already seen the result when he is in full control. The result is Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2. So who's argument is valid on who should have control? Raimi or the Studio?

Put simply, this is really about Columbia Pictures wanting full control. This cluster**** of a film they're making now is anything but a decision made with the fans in mind. They wouldn't let Raimi make the film he wanted to make (one that DID have the fans in mind) so they let him walk. . Having the same cast and crew returning to a series for this long is rare enough as it is. The majority of people wanted a Spider-Man 4 NOT a reboot. Why we're not getting it after the original cast and crew were already involved is unforgivable. In fact, the only reboot there should be is at Columbia Pictures and Marvel Studios...starting with Avi Arad.

the people that wanted the reboot were the vocal minority. even on SHH most people wanted SM4 to move fowards. yeah, so SM3 wasn't so great (its darn sight better than a whole host of 3rd movies I could ist) you dust yourself down and move forwards with the next installment. I'm pissed that I wont see the dylan baker lizard realised.

I've watched SM2 this week and that movie absolutely ****s on BB and iron man (and not far off TDK imho) sony should have left him to get on with SM4, let him redeem himself after the direct himself admitted SM3 wasn't as good as it could have been.

[spider-neil]

You do realize with your last two posts, you've just proven Chris Wallace's point on hypocrisy don't you?


can you please explain how his last two points are hyrocrital? :huh:

[david icke]

I dislike all the Raimi Spidey films.
As a purist I'll be happy if-

1-PP/SM is portrayed by an actor who embodies the magnetism and strength that PP has in panel, meaning we don't get another drip w/ no personality like Maguire.
2-Spidey is full of quips
3-Gwen and or MJ are portrayed correctly in character and looks
4-Villain costumes are faithful
5-We get mech webshooters, no organics
6-Spidey's origin is fixed to radioactive Spider and Ben getting shot at home
7-The score is more uptempo and jazzy thus reflecting Spidey's personality
8-We see Spidey do some amazing stuff- how about the scene from ASM#33 where he presses that great weight above his head, iconic scenes like that.

You have just said that BB/TDK changes are fine because they 'work', whereas you want to change some things that were absolutely fine for the films, some minor changes that more than 'worked'.

In what way would changing the Spider to a 'radioactive' one make the movies better? At least with changing it to genetically altered, there is a science there that folk can understand, it makes the movie feel more realistic, and you get the cool graphics with the DNA strands linking up.

Ben gets shot at home is a change you want? Why, when the change worked for the movie? Imo it was far more dramatic to have to happen outside in public where Spidey could give chase to the robber's car, combining it with the first web swing, something not featured in AF15, and we also get the showdown with the killer in the abandoned building, which is the dramatic moment represented in AF15, we don't even see Ben shot in AF15.

and the last thing we need is whacky comedic music overstating Spider-man's lighthearted moments, it wouldd end up sounding like an ep of Ugly Betty.

A scene like the one in ASM 33? How about stopping the train from crashing in SM2? Exact same scenario, SM pushed to his limits.

As for the villans costumes/looks being faithful, they all were, apart from the Goblins, and even then, their method of operation, weapons, fighting style, strategy, was spot on.

[RustyCage]

Basically, I'm talking about movies like "The Dark Knight", which is DRASTICALLY far removed from the comics in almost every way but it's heralded as the greatest comic book movie ever by fandom in general, while everything that's NOT Batman gets nitpicked to death. And I've got plenty of examples: Joker can not joke, Scarecrow can be a glorified drug dealer, Ducard & Ra's can be the same person, Zzazz can be a hired hitman, Two-Face can have NONE of the personality traits he has in the comics, but reworking Green Goblin, Ock or Venom is just blasphemy. Fox can be the brains behind Batman, but it's lunacy to take away Peter Parker's gadgets. I've seen countless complaints against Dunst's Mary Jane, but Rachel Dawes (a completely made-up character, BTW) is arguably the most unlikeable love interest ever. I could go on & on with the years of "That's not how it was in the comics!", "Man-Spider" & all that other nonsense.

Ahhh now that's more sensible! I thought we were just talking about Spider-man here.

You're right, there's a different attitude toward how Spider-man on film should be handled compared to the Batman fandom. But I think that it's pretty understandable. For instance, in Venom's case he was just completely and utterly butchered and not merely 'different'. They also killed him off, so there's no potential chance for him to do things we wanted to see him do, like there is for characters like Zsasz, Joker (who was intended to appear again and may still in some form), and Scarecrow (who has reappeared and may again). And Two-Face was just bloody well written.

An advantage the Batman films have in the matter of killed off enemies is that they can still 'come back from the dead' in comic book fashion, while with Raimi's Spider-man films the continuity is now closed, the series' run is over. :csad:

And yes, Rachel being the most unlikeable love interest ever IS very arguable. :funny: We could have Dunst's MJ VS Rachel conversations for days, I guarantee it. I will say that Maggie wrecked Rachel for me, so as far as TDK goes, you win by default. Begins' Rachel would be my only argument.

[Dangerous]

delete.

[Dangerous]

^^ Some of those reasons are just plain stupid, might I add, but to each his own. I love all 3 films with a BIIIG passion. They are just incredible.

Like you said each to his own.
I think the Raimi films suck big time.
I’m really happy it’s over now.
As for the hopes I listed they are all based on bringing the film closer to the source.

A Jazzy spider-man score?

:dry:

Up tempo and jazzy, more like Spider-Man’s personality.

Like Spider-Man 67- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6o4-YtEd6Tk
And Spectacular- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoeOBDSgWBA

Not another generic Danny Elfman score that sounds like everything else he has
ever done, and conveys nothing that is Spider-Man.

You do realize with your last two posts, you've just proven Chris Wallace's point on hypocrisy don't you?

If you'd like to explain how, I'd be happy to show you how you have mis-interpreted what I said.

He would never admit to such a thing.

You're welcome to explain too.

???

But I think my next paragraphs will clear up the misunderstandings-

You have just said that BB/TDK changes are fine because they 'work', whereas you want to change some things that were absolutely fine for the films, some minor changes that more than 'worked'.

Some of the minor changes you speak of, may have ‘worked’ to some degree in the context of a blockbuster movie, or in your opinion, but were in fact symptomatic of a less faithful adaptation of Spider-Man than could have been and as such lessened my enjoyment of the films and for me did not work.


In what way would changing the Spider to a 'radioactive' one make the movies better? At least with changing it to genetically altered, there is a science there that folk can understand, it makes the movie feel more realistic, and you get the cool graphics with the DNA strands linking up.

Altering the origin to be a radioactive spider rather than a gm spider is a minor issue and would not make the film any better but would make it more comic faithful and pleasing to long term fans. Not all the issues I wanted to see altered are deal breakers. I merely listed all the stuff I would like to see changed this time. Some of them really important- PP being cast well, characters being written correctly, the quips being in place, others like the spider bite being not so crucial.


Ben gets shot at home is a change you want? Why, when the change worked for the movie? Imo it was far more dramatic to have to happen outside in public where Spidey could give chase to the robber's car, combining it with the first web swing, something not featured in AF15, and we also get the showdown with the killer in the abandoned building, which is the dramatic moment represented in AF15, we don't even see Ben shot in AF15.

I’d like to see the origin altered so that Ben was shot at home yes. Primarily because it would help differentiate this film as a new beginning and separate entity to the Noughties films, but also because it works much better in it’s original context- Ben getting shot while protecting his home from an invader.

In the original origin Spidey still tracks the killer down to the old warehouse and we still get the crucial showdown and moment of realization. It just makes more sense how it was originally presented, and gives Ben more dignity.


and the last thing we need is whacky comedic music overstating Spider-man's lighthearted moments, it wouldd end up sounding like an ep of Ugly Betty.

I never said anything about ‘whacky comedic’ music.

I’d like to see a score that better captures who Spider-Man is rather than another generic score that that sounds like it could have been lifted from any interchangeable Tim Burton movie and is boring and unoriginal.

Take the aforementioned Spectacular Spider-man theme music.
Is that whacky or comedic? Nope.
But it does capture who Spider-man is really well.

I’m not saying the new films theme music should have vocals over the top, but it would do well to take it’s inspirations from previous Spider-Man TV theme tunes.


A scene like the one in ASM 33? How about stopping the train from crashing in SM2? Exact same scenario, SM pushed to his limits.

Not exact same scenario.

In Spidey vs. train, Spidey was in a fight and then presented with a difficult challenge that he just about overcame. He was not practically dead on his feet to start with. The train scene did not recall his motivations and frustrations and tie them all together via his internal monologue to create a stirring momentum to his actions which resulted in victory from a starting point of being practically beaten.

I’d like to see stuff on screen similar to the greatest scenes from the comics; - for the scriptwriters to take their inspiration from those scenes and cook up something as awesome.

How about in ASM #230 when Spidey drove a gasoline tanker right into the Juggernaut and then Juggy just shrugged it off and kept going! Spidey’s eyes were popping out of his head and reading it is the most exciting thing ever!

I want to see stuff like that in the new film, stuff that really captures the intensity and awe inspiring spectacle of Spidey’s most memorable fights and struggles.

There was nothing as exciting and amazing as those two scenes from the comics in the Raimi films.
Nothing even close.


As for the villans costumes/looks being faithful, they all were, apart from the Goblins

I dunno which one was worse, but both the Goblin costumes were terrible.
And Venom was horrible as well. Not big enough, didn’t talk through his alien mouth, the raised webbing effect was lame.

So yea, faithful costumes on all the villains is something I’d like to see in the new films.

[david icke]

Some of the minor changes you speak of, may have ‘worked’ to some degree in the context of a blockbuster movie, or in your opinion, but were in fact symptomatic of a less faithful adaptation of Spider-Man than could have been and as such lessened my enjoyment of the films and for me did not work.

So, howcome the changes to BB/TDK did not lessen your enjoyment of those movies, despite those changes working in both franchises?
I mean, in the following statements, you do not explain how these changes did not work at all, so you are not explaining anything in as much as how your stance on the Nolan Batmans makes your stance on the Raimi Spider-man hypocritical.



Altering the origin to be a radioactive spider rather than a gm spider is a minor issue and would not make the film any better but would make it more comic faithful and pleasing to long term fans. Not all the issues I wanted to see altered are deal breakers. I merely listed all the stuff I would like to see changed this time. Some of them really important- PP being cast well, characters being written correctly, the quips being in place, others like the spider bite being not so crucial.

I only challenged your opinion on the changes made to the stories, not you ropinion on different actors, or more quips being used.
So, I'm a long term reader, from 77-93 I read SM comics constantly, all titles, ASM, MTU, PPTSSM, WoS, and the change did not bother me at all. In fact i wouldn't even go so far to describe it as a change, it did not affect the story one bit, in fact all it did was make the story more paltable and feel more real.
Radioactiveity was all the rage in the world back in the 50s and 60s, talk of atomic bombs etc, so stan used that. who's to say he would not have used genetics if he wrote AF15 today?

Again, it changed nothing.



I’d like to see the origin altered so that Ben was shot at home yes. Primarily because it would help differentiate this film as a new beginning and separate entity to the Noughties films, but also because it works much better in it’s original context- Ben getting shot while protecting his home from an invader.

In the original origin Spidey still tracks the killer down to the old warehouse and we still get the crucial showdown and moment of realization. It just makes more sense how it was originally presented, and gives Ben more dignity.

I don't see how it gives Ben more 'dignity'? The guy is just as honorable, but i can see what you mean, you like the idea that he went out like a hero, defending his home.
But, you could also say he was just as heroic or daft, if you want, about the movie Ben, getting in the way of a guy with a gun over some property and getting himself killed.

No-ones saying it would not be good to have some changes for the next movie, but that's not to say the change made for the 1st film was a bad one, that in some way lessened teh character of Ben, which is what you imply, by saying he would have more 'dignity'.
Ok, maybe a little, if you think about the fact he could have been defending May's presence in the house, but he could also have been doing something daft, putting May at more risk by trying to tackle a burglar instead of letting him get on his way.
Because he's always been refered to as the burglar, not the guy who was going to murder Aunt May until Ben intervened, it's the same scenario essentially, murder over property.



I never said anything about ‘whacky comedic’ music.

I’d like to see a score that better captures who Spider-Man is rather than another generic score that that sounds like it could have been lifted from any interchangeable Tim Burton movie and is boring and unoriginal.

Take the aforementioned Spectacular Spider-man theme music.
Is that whacky or comedic? Nope.
But it does capture who Spider-man is really well.

I’m not saying the new films theme music should have vocals over the top, but it would do well to take it’s inspirations from previous Spider-Man TV theme tunes.

The music used for cartoons is very different from those used for movies, and for good reason. Try playing some cartoon Spidey music along with the movies and I bet you get a whacky comedic effect akin to an ep of Ugly Betty.
'whacky and comedic' may not be the effect you were looking for, but it will probably be the effect you get.

why not just get in another composer using an orchestra for a new Spidey movie, because i can understand your complaints about Elfman scores sounding similar, although i thought he did a great job with the main themes for Spider-man.



Not exact same scenario.

In Spidey vs. train, Spidey was in a fight and then presented with a difficult challenge that he just about overcame. He was not practically dead on his feet to start with. The scene to did not recall his motivations and frustrations and tie them all together via his internal monologue to create a stirring momentum to his actions which resulted in victory from a starting point of being practically beaten.

I’d like to see stuff on screen similar to the greatest scenes from the comics; - for the scriptwriters to take their inspiration from those scenes and cook up something as awesome.

How about in ASM #230 when Spidey drove a gasoline tanker right into the Juggernaut and then Juggy just shrugged it off and kept going! Spidey’s eyes were popping out of his head and reading it is the most exciting thing ever!

I want to see stuff like that in the new film, stuff that really captures the intensity and awe inspiring spectacle of Spidey’s most memorable fights and struggles.

There was nothing as exciting and amazing as those two scenes from the comics in the Raimi films.
Nothing even close.

In you opinion, but in mine and many others, the train scene was one of those type of classic moments, what does it matter if he was dead on his feet beforehand in some, does he have to be in order for it to be a classic moment, what's wrong with the actual scenario causing him to pass out dead on his feet? the point is he was pushing himself beyond his limits and against the odds.

and you seem to be wanting something you will probably never get from a Spider-man movie, an internal monlogue.

I was talking about this on one of the threads on the top board last week. More than quips, more than anything else, this is a main ingredient of a Spider-man comic, and one of the main appeals of the books imo, that we will probably never get in the movies, his internal monologues.
They have only only used in superhero/comicbook movies for detective type stories like Rorschach, and Sin City, because they are traditionally used for detective stories in movies, it's not an idea too far out of the box. Whereas, if you were relying on an interior monlogue to carry a lot of scenes in your Spider-man movies, and then they came off as cheesey when it came time for the actor to overdub his lines(like they can do in a lot of movies), your Spider-man movie would be up crap creek.
No-one is going to risk the internal monologue for a Spider-man movie.
edit: Sony certainly won't anyway.


I dunno which one was worse, but both the Goblin costumes were terrible.
And Venom was horrible as well. Not big enough, didn’t talk through his alien mouth, the raised webbing effect was lame.

So yea, faithful costumes on all the villains is something I’d like to see in the new films.

Venom looked great to my eyes, in fact if he had looked any bigger he would have looked ridiculous, he looked just the right size, somewhat bigger than Spider-man and muscular, for it to look cool and tasteful in a live action setting. The raised webbing looked great as well, and was necesarry so there was texture on the black form so it could be seen in front of black backgrounds.
You did see him talk out of his alien mouth sometimes, there was a mixture, but Raimi likes to see the actor's face now and again, and I thought Grace looked good with the little sharp teeth he had. Venom's look was very faithful, with changes done to benefit the live action representation.

Honestly, if they were to implement the exact faithful look of Venom you wanted, we would have gotten something that looked confusing and ridiculous imo. Some changes are beneficial, in order to be faithful and make teh leap to live action. these characters are designed for paper , not film, they are not always going to make an exact translation possible without looking daft, so changes are necesarry.
Just like the Nolan Batman films.

I mean , you must see how your argument used to defend the Nolan BM films can and must be used in defnece of the Spider-man changes. You can't just drop that stance of logic for another franchise because it suits you, it's hypocritical.

[Dangerous]

There was nothing as exciting and amazing as those two scenes from the comics in the Raimi films.
Nothing even close.


Actually, I have to say the bit in SM1 were Gobby drops the sky car and MJ simultaneously was awesome.
That's about it.

[david icke]

Actually, I have to say the bit in SM1 were Gobby drops the sky car and MJ simultaneously was awesome.
That's about it.

C'mon man, the train car was pretty awesome too. :awesome:

I know the kind of moments you are talking about, I have that Juggernaught issue and am very familar with the master planner story. I'm just sorry you didn't get that thrill from more of the Raimi Spider-man movies.
I do hope you get more of a kick out of the re-boot, or re-appraise the Raimis and get a better kick, we can only hope the new ones are at least as good as the Raimi's and improve on some parts, that is the ideal, but what will probably ahpopen is that they get some things right and some wrong, or lacking, just different things.
If tehy are skimping on the budget because they are not selling enough playstations though, there will probably be less chance of those awesome Spidey action momenst, but I hope not, here's hoping they use their action moments wisely if there are to be less of them.

[Spider-ManHero12]

A scene like the one in ASM 33? How about stopping the train from crashing in SM2? Exact same scenario, SM pushed to his limits. Exactly! The fact that some bashers deny this baffles me.

[Excelsior.]

The melodrama in this thread dwarfs the melodrama in the Raimi flicks.

[Chris Wallace]

Ahhh now that's more sensible! I thought we were just talking about Spider-man here.

You're right, there's a different attitude toward how Spider-man on film should be handled compared to the Batman fandom. But I think that it's pretty understandable. For instance, in Venom's case he was just completely and utterly butchered and not merely 'different'. They also killed him off, so there's no potential chance for him to do things we wanted to see him do, like there is for characters like Zsasz, Joker (who was intended to appear again and may still in some form), and Scarecrow (who has reappeared and may again). And Two-Face was just bloody well written.

An advantage the Batman films have in the matter of killed off enemies is that they can still 'come back from the dead' in comic book fashion, while with Raimi's Spider-man films the continuity is now closed, the series' run is over. :csad:

And yes, Rachel being the most unlikeable love interest ever IS very arguable. :funny: We could have Dunst's MJ VS Rachel conversations for days, I guarantee it. I will say that Maggie wrecked Rachel for me, so as far as TDK goes, you win by default. Begins' Rachel would be my only argument.

It's not even just Spidey, really. It seems like Marvel films in general are regarded with a lot less tolerance for change than Batman films. Commissioner Loeb & Harvey Dent can be black, but Kingpin can't? Joker can kill the Waynes but Sandman can't kill Uncle Ben? (Not really defending the Sandman thing, just trying to make a point here) Catwoman can be a mousy secretary, Penguin can be a sewer-dwelling mutant and these are considered brilliant moves! I have seen FAR more complaining about Wolverine not wearing his yellow (or brown) tights than I have about Batman not wearing his grey ones. They love the Tumbler but why doesn't the Goblin's glider look more bat-like? How are deviations okay for one but the other has to follow the comics to the letter?

[Dangerous]

So, howcome the changes to BB/TDK did not lessen your enjoyment of those movies, despite those changes working in both franchises?
I mean, in the following statements, you do not explain how these changes did not work at all, so you are not explaining anything in as much as how your stance on the Nolan Batmans makes your stance on the Raimi Spider-man hypocritical.

I explained in detail why the changes worked in BB/TDK in post #83 of this thread, go read it again if you need a refresher. I will say I am more sensitive and particular about how SM is presented in film because he is my fav character so I am more particular about his on screen portrayal.

Some BIG problems I had with the Raimi films were stuff like-
1)- Maguire as PP just did not work for me as he seemed like too much of a wuss and had ZERO personality, by contrast Nolan Batman was not wussy in the slightest.
2)- The way GG beat the crap out of him in a mostly one sided fight at the end of SM1 was just plain wrong. Spidey never got a pasting like that from GG in the comics and it made him seem like GG’s play thing.
3)- Dunst as MJ, What?

These bigger things marred my enjoyment of the films.
That is aside from all the other stuff I have previosuly detailed.


I only challenged your opinion on the changes made to the stories, not you ropinion on different actors, or more quips being used.
So, I'm a long term reader, from 77-93 I read SM comics constantly, all titles, ASM, MTU, PPTSSM, WoS, and the change did not bother me at all. In fact i wouldn't even go so far to describe it as a change, it did not affect the story one bit, in fact all it did was make the story more paltable and feel more real.
Radioactiveity was all the rage in the world back in the 50s and 60s, talk of atomic bombs etc, so stan used that. who's to say he would not have used genetics if he wrote AF15 today?

Again, it changed nothing.

Like I said it was NOT A DEAL BREAKER for me, it does not affect the the quality of the film, BUT I would like to see the bite from a radioactive spider this time around because-

1)- If would help separate this new film from the previous series, and-
2)- It’s more comic faithful

We have a different preference on this matter.
It does not require that we debate it any further.


I don't see how it gives Ben more 'dignity'? The guy is just as honorable, but i can see what you mean, you like the idea that he went out like a hero, defending his home.
But, you could also say he was just as heroic or daft, if you want, about the movie Ben, getting in the way of a guy with a gun over some property and getting himself killed.

No-ones saying it would not be good to have some changes for the next movie, but that's not to say the change made for the 1st film was a bad one, that in some way lessened teh character of Ben, which is what you imply, by saying he would have more 'dignity'.
Ok, maybe a little, if you think about the fact he could have been defending May's presence in the house, but he could also have been doing something daft, putting May at more risk by trying to tackle a burglar instead of letting him get on his way.
Because he's always been refered to as the burglar, not the guy who was going to murder Aunt May until Ben intervened, it's the same scenario essentially, murder over property.

Reasons for Ben dying at home-

1)-It is comic faithful (always the best option)
2)-It would help separate this film from the previous series
3)-Ben dies with more dignity in that he is at home w/ May and not in the street like some dog

Again the Uncle Ben death specifics are not a deal breaker, just something that I would alter to my preference if I was writing the script.


The music used for cartoons is very different from those used for movies, and for good reason. Try playing some cartoon Spidey music along with the movies and I bet you get a whacky comedic effect akin to an ep of Ugly Betty.
'whacky and comedic' may not be the effect you were looking for, but it will probably be the effect you get.

I did not say play cartoon music over the top, I said -the producers would do well to take inspirations from previous Spider-Man TV theme tunes- when composing music for the new film. Spider-Man music needs to be more up tempo and original; it needs to convey WHO HE IS. The last score did nothing to this end.


why not just get in another composer using an orchestra for a new Spidey movie, because i can understand your complaints about Elfman scores sounding similar, although i thought he did a great job with the main themes for Spider-man.

I don’t think he did a great job.
I thought his score and main theme sucked big time.
It was boring unoriginal and sounded just like any other Elman score.

Why not get another boring composer and orchestra?
Because that’s what EVERY film does.
How about something original?
Take the Iron Man score- they used an orchestra, but they did something original and created music that recalled Iron Man and the metallic theme of the hero.


In you opinion, but in mine and many others, the train scene was one of those type of classic moments, what does it matter if he was dead on his feet beforehand in some, does he have to be in order for it to be a classic moment, what's wrong with the actual scenario causing him to pass out dead on his feet? the point is he was pushing himself beyond his limits and against the odds.

It just didn’t get my blood pumping.
The fight atop the train before that was great tho.
About the only good 2-3 minutes in SM2.


and you seem to be wanting something you will probably never get from a Spider-man movie, an internal monlogue.

I was talking about this on one of the threads on the top board last week. More than quips, more than anything else, this is a main ingredient of a Spider-man comic, and one of the main appeals of the books imo, that we will probably never get in the movies, his internal monologues. They have only only used in superhero/comicbook movies for detective type stories like Rorschach, and Sin City, because they are traditionally used for detective stories in movies, it's not an idea too far out of the box. Whereas, if you were relying on an interior monlogue to carry a lot of scenes in your Spider-man movies, and then they came off as cheesey when it came time for the actor to overdub his lines(like they can do in a lot of movies), your Spider-man movie would be up crap creek.
No-one is going to risk the internal monologue for a Spider-man movie.
edit: Sony certainly won't anyway.

You see, people throughout mankind’s history have ALWAYS said ‘this can’t be done’, or ‘this won’t work’ until one day; - BANG! Someone does it! –Shock-.

So what if only Rorschach and Sin City characters are the only comicbook films thus far to use an internal monologue; - they’re not going to stay the only two examples forever.
Look at non superhero stuff like TV classic ‘The Wonder Years’, or how about the film ‘Stand By Me’. Both great examples of internal monologue used well. Not superhero stuff, but I bet there were some doubters in the case of The Wonder Years about how well it would work.

Whether Sony would employ this technique is something different all together.


Venom looked great to my eyes, in fact if he had looked any bigger he would have looked ridiculous, he looked just the right size, somewhat bigger than Spider-man and muscular, for it to look cool and tasteful in a live action setting. The raised webbing looked great as well, and was necesarry so there was texture on the black form so it could be seen in front of black backgrounds.
You did see him talk out of his alien mouth sometimes, there was a mixture, but Raimi likes to see the actor's face now and again, and I thought Grace looked good with the little sharp teeth he had. Venom's look was very faithful, with changes done to benefit the live action representation.

Disagree on all counts.
Let’s leave it at that.

People will always except what is put in front of them in a film if it ‘works’ and then make excuses/trick themselves as to why a more faithful vision would not have worked. It's called 'backwards rationalization', you do it to re affirm your previous commitment / stance / actions. Or perhaps you actually believe what you are saying 100%. Point is- Anything is possible in cinema and art- just like Science has yet to discover thousands of secrets.


I mean , you must see how your argument used to defend the Nolan BM films can and must be used in defnece of the Spider-man changes. You can't just drop that stance of logic for another franchise because it suits you, it's hypocritical.

There no hypocrisy in anything I have said. I have explained my point of view and my reasons and acknowledged that I am closer to the character of Spider-Man than Bats thus I am going to be more critical of Spider-Man’s on screen representation.

HOWEVER there are several GLARINGLY inadequate aspects of the Raimi Spidey flicks (IMO) that just rub me up the wrong way and thus severely stilted my enjoyment of these films which I have detailed above, primarily amongst these the miss casting of PP.

[Dangerous]

Exactly! The fact that some bashers deny this baffles me.

Perhaps if you had actually -READ- my response, you would no longer be baffled? :whatever:

No 95 in this thread. :cwink:

[david icke]

I explained in detail why the changes worked in BB/TDK in post #83 of this thread, go read it again if you need a refresher. I will say I am more sensitive and particular about how SM is presented in film because he is my fav character so I am more particular about his on screen portrayal.

[...............]

There no hypocrisy in anything I have said. I have explained my point of view and my reasons and acknowledged that I am closer to the character of Spider-Man than Bats thus I am going to be more critical of Spider-Man’s on screen representation.

Yes, the parts I have bolded...EXACTLY. You will probably never be satisfied with any Spider-man film because there will never be one that fits exactly with what you imagine in your head, your own personal Spider-man film.
We all have those, but most of us are realistic with the fact that we will not get that, and that what works on page does not always transfer to screen well.

You have been hypocritical, for this reason. You've said it's ok to accept changes to Batman source material to make it work onscreen, but it's not ok to do that with the Spider-man universe.
Folk said you would not admit to being hypocritical on this matter, it's really no big deal to admit that, we all can be. But, you have been, and all you have done here is explain the reason *why* you are being hypocritical, without admitting that you were.



HOWEVER there are several GLARINGLY inadequate aspects of the Raimi Spidey flicks (IMO) that just rub me up the wrong way and thus severely stilted my enjoyment of these films which I have detailed above, primarily amongst these the miss casting of PP.

Yeah, as I said before, I was not talking about things like changing actors, I was talking exclusively about the points you made about how things in Spider-man books should not be changed at all when being adapted for the screen , while it was alright for things like that to be changed for Batman.

edit: I mean, you have said again that being 'comics faithful' is *always* the best option. But, you say this only for Spider-man, but not Batman, how can such a rule be absolutely necesarry for one character but not the other? That is where the hypocrisy lies.

[Dangerous]

Yes, the parts I have bolded...EXACTLY. You will probably never be satisfied with any Spider-man film because there will never be one that fits exactly with what you imagine in your head, your own personal Spider-man film.

Well, if you’d said that to me in April 2002 I would have said you were 100% correct.
But since then I have learned that I’ll never see MY Spider-Man film on the big screen and my expectations became a lot more realistic.

If I like the casting choices in SM 2012, and the characters are written more like their comicbook counterparts and Spidey is funny and the action and costumes are great… BELIEVE ME- I will be happy.


You have been hypocritical, for this reason. You've said it's ok to accept changes to Batman source material to make it work onscreen, but it's not ok to do that with the Spider-man universe.

I never said it was ‘OK to make changes to Batman’ nor did I ever say it’s ‘NOT OK to make changes to Spidey’.

What I said was that for me, the changes in the Nolan films worked and did not harm the films, but that in the Raimi films, the changes imo lessened the characters and movies. In that often characters etc came out for the worse as pale reflections of their comicbook counterparts. I also acknowledged that I am WAY more of a Spidey fan than a Batman fan and that could be taken into consideration.

There’s nothing hypocritical in offering my opinions on these films.
But for some reason you think there is.


Folk said you would not admit to being hypocritical on this matter, it's really no big deal to admit that, we all can be. But, you have been, and all you have done here is explain the reason *why* you are being hypocritical, without admitting that you were.

I agree; - admitting something is no big deal, but I think you have either genuinely misunderstood what I have been saying, or are trying to twist it into something it is not- hypocrisy, because you don’t like my opinion.


edit: I mean, you have said again that being 'comics faithful' is *always* the best option. But, you say this only for Spider-man, but not Batman, how can such a rule be absolutely necesarry for one character but not the other? That is where the hypocrisy lies.

Where did I say that only counts for Spider-Man?

I did not. You’re just assuming that, misinterpreting what I have said.

Being faithful to the source imo, unless we’re talking about yellow and blue X-Men outfits, is always the best option as a general rule. I did not just mean Spidey there, I meant EVERY comicbook film inc Batman. As it so happens, the Nolan films altered some of the main characters and from my perspective; they still worked and were great to watch.

In the case of some of the Raimi SM characters I have mentioned- the changes that were made to them were not as successful imo and often were symptomatic of producing a poor Spider-Man film.

Coming from a comic faithful perspective to is always the best general policy, but sometimes changes can be made and they work (Nolan films) and other times they don’t (Raimi).

There is nothing hypocritical about explaining what I thought worked and did not work in both film series and explaining why.

[Anubis]

I'm kinda gassy, but I don't think it's because of Spider-Man.

[david icke]

There is nothing hypocritical about explaining what I thought worked and did not work in both film series and explaining why.

I'm sorry, but the reasons you gave for the changes you wanted were flimsy, and I'm talking about the changes here, not actors.

Like, Venom's raised webbing shouldn't be there, why? Because it is not like that in the books, despite teh fact that they tested this and found it to not show up onscreen very well against a black background, you still don't want that change.
edit: I mean, the only reason you gave for the raised webbing being a bad idea is because it looks 'lame.' Whereas there is a very good reason for that slight aethsetical change being introduced, so that you can actually see the character onscreen and make out what he is doing.

and wanting Ben to be killed at home, why? Because he somehow has more 'dignity' dying there.
edit: Despite the fact that by making the story more concise it helps the movie a great deal due to time constraints, and could even be considered an improvement in a way, to have the robbery Pete fails to stop be part of the same crime that gets Ben killed.
which is a much better reason for the change.

Th ereal reasons you want these not be changed is because you , as you describe yourself, are a 'purist' when it comes to spider-man.

If you can't see how you are coming across, I can't say anymore on the subject.

You said the Nolan changes WORK(your caps), whereas you said these Spider-man changes did not, and have given no good reason why not.

It certainly gives the impression you just want an absolute transfer from the books, regardless of whether or not the chages benefit the movie.
But, you are ok with the changes to Batman because you are not so much of a fan, ie they don't bother you so they are ok and 'work'.
But, things that 'work' in the Raimi Spider-man movies, still bother you and should not be there, why? not because they don't work, but because they are not like the comics.

thank goodness they did not go with the black suit story from the comics though eh?

edit: dude, i don't mean to be harsh, you may not have said in exact words, 'It's ok for Batman books to have changes for the screen, but not Spider-man.', but in deed, with what you are posting, this is what you are saying, to my sensibilities anyway.

[Chris Wallace]

As do many fans-this character has to be translated directly, that one does not.

[Dangerous]

I'm sorry, but the reasons you gave for the changes you wanted were flimsy, and I'm talking about the changes here, not actors.

Flimsy to you, these are my feelings and thoughts on the Spider-Man films, stuff that stuck out to me as being crap.

Like, Venom's raised webbing shouldn't be there, why?

Because it looked Crap, …
Because Venom does not have any webbing on his costume maybe?
Heh


Because it is not like that in the books, despite teh fact that they tested this and found it to not show up onscreen very well against a black background, you still don't want that change.

edit: I mean, the only reason you gave for the raised webbing being a bad idea is because it looks 'lame.' Whereas there is a very good reason for that slight aethsetical change being introduced, so that you can actually see the character onscreen and make out what he is doing.

Fact is they could have made the costume a slightly different shade; - incorporated some more blue from the comics to get it to show up more against a black background.. or make it more light reflective… or they could have just added bodybuilder veins to him which would have produced the same effect as the raised webbing, but looked cool instead of lame.

On the other hand, Venom NOT showing up that well against a black background is perhaps preferable because that way he is more frightening in that he’s not easy for Spidey or the audience to see when he is near by.

That is how he was sometimes used in the original Venom apps- he often did blend into the background and you could only make out his eyes / teeth / Spider-emblem. This was done deliberately to make him scarier; - a threat you could not see in the dark, and it was frickin awesome.

Also the effect of this on a film audience would be a nice visual metaphor for Spidey’s loss of Spidey sense and serve to make Venom more scary on screen in the same way that the Alien was in 1979.


and wanting Ben to be killed at home, why? Because he somehow has more 'dignity' dying there.

If you need me to list the reasons again, here we go-

Reasons for Ben dying at home-

1)-It is comic faithful (unless you can improve something, always the best option).
2)-It would serve to separate this film from the previous series.
3)-and yes, Ben dies with more dignity this way, w/ Aunt May the woman he loves instead of in the street with everyone watching.

As I said this is not one of my main requirements, just something I’d ‘LIKE’ to see.
It is my opinion.
We REALLY do not need to chew this one over forever.


edit: Despite the fact that by making the story more concise

The way I see it is; - in SM 2002 it feels more like the story is rushing to get to the death.
It works much better with PP returning home, to his sanctuary, to find his Uncle dead and his world turned upside down. It’s more dramatic and more of a sucker punch this way because it happened at home at the end of his day.


it helps the movie a great deal due to time constraints,

The use of time constraints was symptomatic of trying to shove too much into one movie, but that’s another topic.


and could even be considered an improvement in a way, to have the robbery Pete fails to stop be part of the same crime that gets Ben killed.
which is a much better reason for the change.

No.
In AF#15 it’s still the same guy.
So what if he didn’t stop to get a coke and a snack in between crimes.


Th ereal reasons you want these not be changed is because you , as you describe yourself, are a 'purist' when it comes to spider-man.

Incorrect; - It’s because uncle Ben’s death worked much better in it’s original format in AF#15 for the reasons sated above.


You said the Nolan changes WORK(your caps), whereas you said these Spider-man changes did not, and have given no good reason why not.

I have explained numerous times.
Post #83 page 4 for example.


It certainly gives the impression you just want an absolute transfer from the books, regardless of whether or not the chages benefit the movie.

I do not want an absolute transfer of the Spidey books, want would be the point watching if it was exactly the same stories again? I’ve listed what I want, for your benefit here they are again-

1-PP/SM to be portrayed by an actor who embodies the magnetism and strength that PP has in panel, meaning we don't get another drip w/ no personality like Maguire.
2-Spidey to be full of quips
3-Characcters being portrayed / written correctly, and Gwen & MJ looking like their characters.
4-Villain costumes being faithful
5-Mech webshooters.

If the new film has these alterations I’ll be more than happy.


But, you are ok with the changes to Batman because you are not so much of a fan, ie they don't bother you so they are ok and 'work'.

Spider-man- I know the characters and stories very well, so naturally I am going to be more critical of what is presented to me in a SM film. I have already acknowledged this.
I am not saying my opinion is law, I am just saying it is my opinion. This is what I thought of both film series.

One of the main problems I had w/ the Raimi films is that Spidey just seemed to wimpy to me, and not himself- no quips. SM2 for example felt like a chick flick the way the PP/MJ story seemed to be the core focus of the script, rather than the soap opera stuff being 50% with the other half being all about the action like it is in the comics. The Nolan films did not suffer from this. I didn’t feel bored or agitated while watching them, and Chris Bale IMO was/is great as BW/BM.


But, things that 'work' in the Raimi Spider-man movies, still bother you and should not be there, why? not because they don't work, but because they are not like the comics.

They didn’t work for me. That’s why they should not have been as they were.
Not because everything was not like the comics, but primarily because for me,- Peter Parker & Spider-Man were not being portrayed correctly. And I don’t think anyone can say that about BB/TDK.


thank goodness they did not go with the black suit story from the comics though eh?

I don’t know if you are being serious about that or not, but the ‘black suit’ in SM3 was an absolute abomination; - just the red and blues after Spidey had been for a swim in some oil.

To me it was a travesty because the black suit from the comics is one of the absolute greatest and most beautiful pieces of graphic design ever created, right up there w/ the Bat-Signal / Emblem.

And despite what ever you may think about it not looking right on screen (tho I can’t imagine why- it would look sublime) I’d say there is a good chance of it being used in the new franchise and when that does happen I bet everyone will agree on how awesome it looks.


edit: dude, i don't mean to be harsh, you may not have said in exact words, 'It's ok for Batman books to have changes for the screen, but not Spider-man.', but in deed, with what you are posting, this is what you are saying, to my sensibilities anyway.

Then you have not read my posts properly.

[david icke]

Look, I did read your posts properly. I just didn't quote them because it's the same thing over and over between us.

I'm still of the opinion from reading your posts, properly, that you would not be satisfied with any spider-man film that was not like the exact one you have in your head.
No matter what they did you would find fault with it.

I mean, you're staring to say things like you would prefer a Venom who looked just like the comics version even if you could not see him properly onscreen, because you get panels where all you can see is his teeth and eyes.

and you would prefer 'body builder veins' over raised webbing. Honestly, i think if they had used 'body builder veins', you would probably be saying those were 'lame', and would now be suggesting raised webbing as a better idea.

as for Ben's death at home being the pref. Just because you say you want this for the next movie because it's a change does not mean you don't have a problem with the changed way they did it for SM1, because you do, and not for any good reason i can see presented here.

I honestly hope you get a Spider-man movie someday that you can sit back, relax and enjoy, but i doubt it, because if they did it just like the comics, you would have a black suit that did not make pete stronger or evil(thats the suit i was talking about, and btw the shiny test suit they made looked a little crap and did not show up on black backgrounds of course), and you would just see two pairs of white eyes and a couple of white spiders flying about the screen for the Venom/spidey fights. If that's your idea of a good faithful spidey movie, i have to say, I would imagine you would have the theatre to yourself for those flicks.

anyway, I'm done with this discussion edit: No offence, I just think we have both said our pieces and are going in circles now.

[Chris Wallace]

Well put, David.
Something else I've been noticing among the "pro-rebooters" is a lot of contradiction. They want a darker, more serious movie but they want Spidey to quip more. They want a simplified costume so that it seems more plausible that a 16-year-old with no money could have made it, but they want the mechanical webshooters so that it shows his genius. They want the story closer to the 616 comics but at the same time they seem to want it closer to the "Ultimate" storyline. I honestly think some of them are just on the bandwagon of bashing Raimi just for the sake of bashing Raimi.

[Spider-ManHero12]

Perhaps if you had actually -READ- my response, you would no longer be baffled? :whatever: oh, please. You're response was EXACTLY what it was. You were disliking the fact that we haven't seen SPidey struggle and ahve to try with all of his strength.

[david icke]

Well put, David.
Something else I've been noticing among the "pro-rebooters" is a lot of contradiction. They want a darker, more serious movie but they want Spidey to quip more. They want a simplified costume so that it seems more plausible that a 16-year-old with no money could have made it, but they want the mechanical webshooters so that it shows his genius. They want the story closer to the 616 comics but at the same time they seem to want it closer to the "Ultimate" storyline. I honestly think some of them are just on the bandwagon of bashing Raimi just for the sake of bashing Raimi.

The idea of having a simpler, ie more crappy looking, costume, because they want to be able to believe Pete made it is...crazy. That's just one of those suspension of beliefs you accept in these kind of movies, because otherwise you'd be watching a guy jumping about in a tracksuit with a ski-mask on, actually, kind of like the suit he wears to the wrestling.

I can see how you can have a darker movie, and have the quips though, as he uses the quips to keep him sane while dealing with the danger.
Personally, I don't need a 'darker' spider-man movie necesarily, just one that has a plausible convincing threat.
The Raimi movies were pretty serious, I'd just like some little details made more realistic, like JJJ going through his photos looking for the one shot that can incriminate spidey, other than just any generic photo with 'menace' plastered across it.

Yeah, the Raimi movies got a lot of things right, the right tone etc, it's a shame that folk are *so* gung ho about the change, as if Raimi was so off track, because they will be lucky to get a movie as good as those ones, and it will be a terrible shame if it takes a truly average or bad spidey film to make folk appreciate what Raimi did.

[Dangerous]

I'm still of the opinion from reading your posts, properly, that you would not be satisfied with any spider-man film that was not like the exact one you have in your head.
No matter what they did you would find fault with it.

I have already listed the 5 essential criterion I would like to see in the new movie, and told you I would be more than happy if these things happen. Heck, it would be 5 reasons why the film would be better than SM1-3.

If you don't think I'd be happy with a Spidey film that did these 5 things, it'll make no difference to me. I'll be too busy sitting in the theater every day loving the film.


and you would prefer 'body builder veins' over raised webbing. Honestly, i think if they had used 'body builder veins', you would probably be saying those were 'lame', and would now be suggesting raised webbing as a better idea.

What makes you say that?

You don't know me or what how my preference for on screen Spidey villains works, well, that is aside from me explaining my preference to you; - the more faithful to the source the better. And Venom has bodybuilder veins in the comics, NOT raised webbing.

As for the black against black issue, like I said, aside from the veins serving the same purpose as the raised webbing only looking cool instead of crap, they could also make him more blue looking- (see pic below) or make him more light reflective. But they wouldn't need to if they used veins instead of raised webbing. Either of the 3 would work for me though.

Blue/black Venom?
http://www.samruby.com/AmazingSpider-ManD/Large/AmazingSpider-Man378.jpg

.....and you would just see two pairs of white eyes and a couple of white spiders flying about the screen for the Venom/spidey fights.

I already explained to you in my previous post THREE ways how we could avoid the black suits being invisible against black, and again above. :cwink:

[david icke]

I already explained to you in my previous post THREE ways how we could avoid the black suits being invisible against black, and again above. :cwink:

Ok, but you also said you wouldn't mind it not showing up as well against the black bgrounds as you could have moments where you only see his eyes and teeth like the books. I mean, I had to make a joke about that somewhere.

But, in all seriousness, the things you are talking about, putting a mix of blue into the suit and having it shiny....the filmakers will have tried that out, they tried it out with the black spider-man suit they tested, that was just like the comics, it looked bad on film. someone posted up a photo of it, and it looked all shiny and pretty bland tbh, even before the filming problems it posed.
and how could they put in a mix of blue and black like the comics? By having blue shiny streaks mixed in? It would be nigh on impossible to achieve this kind of consistent effect on film, for it too look good and realistic, while ensuring it would show up against black backgrounds.
as for the body builder veins, seriously, to be noticable, and make enough of a difference as to make the suit stand out from black backgrounds, they would have to be exagerated to the extent that they would look ridiculous.

Sometimes you have to trust these experienced filmakers and the tests they did beforehand, to find the best possible solution to these problems while trying to remain faithful for the fans, and of course because the original designs are pretty good.

[VenomVsSpidey]

venom is way too huge anyways :o

[Dangerous]

Something else I've been noticing among the "pro-rebooters" is a lot of contradiction. They want a darker, more serious movie but they want Spidey to quip more.

Seems rather narrow minded to me that you’re not be able to picture a darker & more gritty SM film, in which the protagonist tells jokes while fighting.

I don’t suppose you are familiar with the videogame- MadWorld / Wii ?
There is an example of a dark and gritty game (heck, that’s an understatement; - it’s violent and gory!) that features comedic commentary over the top of the action and it works very well.

A board member in a different thread suggested that in SM 2012 fights and uncle Ben’s death should be dark in tone, but that the rest of the film, especially the soap opera elements would do well to take their cues from the Spectacular Spider-Man cartoon.
I thought that was quite a good idea.


They want a simplified costume so that it seems more plausible that a 16-year-old with no money could have made it, but they want the mechanical webshooters so that it shows his genius.

It’s a comicbook, get over it.

I think what pro rebooters, generally speaking, would like to see this time is a more faithful adaptation. That would inc- a) a more realistic costume from a 16 yr old w/ no money... and b) Webshooters! If that don’t sound realistic to you take it up w/ Stan Lee.


They want the story closer to the 616 comics but at the same time they seem to want it closer to the "Ultimate" storyline. I honestly think some of them are just on the bandwagon of bashing Raimi just for the sake of bashing Raimi.

Not me I hate USM, and I strongly disliked the Raimi films.
Personally I hope the film takes it’s inspiration from the following-

ASM#1-100- For correct characterizations, and inspiration for some great fights
McFarlane’s Torment story- For the dark and gritty elements
Spectacular cartoon- for the mood of the soap opera elements

[Dangerous]

Ok, but you also said you wouldn't mind it not showing up as well against the black bgrounds as you could have moments where you only see his eyes and teeth like the books. I mean, I had to make a joke about that somewhere.


The suggestion of the white eyes/ teeth / emblem against a blk background would be cool if it was used in just one scene, like it was in ASM#299 (Venom’s first app ;) ) but the fact that you zeroed in on that idea, and ignored my other three about how to make an all black venom more visible against dark hues, seems to me indicative of a somewhat begrudging perspective towards those that do not share a mutual affinity for your beloved Spidey films of yore.


But, in all seriousness, the things you are talking about, putting a mix of blue into the suit and having it shiny....the filmakers will have tried that out, they tried it out with the black spider-man suit they tested, that was just like the comics, it looked bad on film

and how could they put in a mix of blue and black like the comics? By having blue shiny streaks mixed in? It would be nigh on impossible to achieve this kind of consistent effect on film, for it too look good and realistic, while ensuring it would show up against black backgrounds.

This is not rocket science we are talking about, and with today’s CGI- ANYTHING can be achieved on screen. The reason the film makers tests on the suit failed initially is because they were going for the wrong angle to start with- using a real suit and CGI mix when Venom should have been 100% CGI. So what they were testing, CGI wise, was what would work well and look the same as that horrid material/suit they were using.

If Venom had just been 100% CGI as he should have been, it would have been very easy to have the edges of his musculature feature blue lighting (or he could have been more blue w/ his musculature ft black shading like ASM#378 I posted), or have him being more light reflective. Not that you would need to do either of these because the veins would work just fine, ala horrible raised webbing.

Besides, it’s not like Batman has had a problem showing up on screen in films like Batman89, Batman Returns & BB despite being 95% black, heh. And that was with laytex! Something much less pliable than CGI.


as for the body builder veins, seriously, to be noticable, and make enough of a difference as to make the suit stand out from black backgrounds, they would have to be exagerated to the extent that they would look ridiculous.

Nope, they’d just have to be the same size/color and cover the same areas that the raised webbing did on Raimi-venom. The result however, would be something that looked more like Venom rather than a horrid bastardization of both Spidey costumes rolled into one.


Sometimes you have to trust these experienced filmakers and the tests they did beforehand, to find the best possible solution to these problems while trying to remain faithful for the fans, and of course because the original designs are pretty good.

Like I said previously, a large percentage of fandom will often accept what is put in front of them in a comicbook film if it’s passable, and then lament/convince themselves how anything more accurate or better would have been impossible.

[david icke]

Like I said previously, a large percentage of fandom will often accept what is put in front of them in a comicbook film if it’s passable, and then lament/convince themselves how anything more accurate or better would not have been impossible.

Some appreciate that there are two entirely different mediums involved here, and not to change some aspects to adapt for the new medium would be stupid, and sometimes impossible to do without being unwatchable or ridiculous..

I mean, you are now saying you would prefer a more 'realistic', ie crappy looking, Spider-man outfit, one that looks like it could have been stitched up by a 16yr old, instead of the very faithful, great looking, and best superhero outfit so far in films being used.
and you say 'it's a comicbook, get over it.'?! Why not take your own advice and have a little suspension of disbelief so that we can enjoy a Spider-man movie with him looking cool, instead of a guy in a tatty tracksuit-like halloween costume with his ass falling out of his trousers as he leaps around.
Yeah, let's keep it very realistic in that regard, let's have his eyes on show as well, and have his fingertips and bare feet on show so we can realisticly imagine that he sticks to walls.

btw, Venom was CGI for a lot of shots, it was the CGI shots they were concerned with mostly not showing up against black backgrounds.
I feel you have very unrealistic ideas about thye creative process, it's like you just point to a comicbook cover and say 'I want it like that! CGI can do anything!'
Yeah, it can, but it doesn't always look that great, they went for the best look, the raised webbing was a minor add and you can't handle that!?
Man, I don't know how old you are, but you should have been around back in the days when all we had was the first two superman movies that were any good and faithful to the books at all. A bit of raised webbing, sheesh, they did a good job bringing Venom's look to the screen, and it was a good looking texture. Why Completely CGI what you can do practically? Practical will always look better and more real. Thank god they did not completely CGI him, yuck.

edit:and no, some fans don't just 'put up with' changes, they are smart enough to figure out why some things just would look crap onscreen.
I hadn't seen any photos of the test black suit spider-man they did, but i had a pretty good idea why they did not go with it, and was right about that once i saw the test photo someone posted up of it.

[Dangerous]

oh, please. You're response was EXACTLY what it was. You were disliking the fact that we haven't seen SPidey struggle and ahve to try with all of his strength.

My response explained in a number of different ways why the train scene was lacking for me.
If you are still baffled after that, I guess you just find it hard dealing w/ the fact that other fans have different opinions to yours.
Either that or you need to brush up on your reading skills. ?

[Dangerous]

Some appreciate that there are two entirely different mediums involved here, and not to change some aspects to adapt for the new medium would be stupid, and sometimes impossible to do without being unwatchable or ridiculous..

Agree.

There will always be some degree of compromise on certain issues.
But in the case of Raimi-Goblin’s and Raimi-Venom both were terrible re interpretations of the original character designs. Imo.

I mean, you are now saying you would prefer a more 'realistic', ie crappy looking, Spider-man outfit, one that looks like it could have been stitched up by a 16yr old, instead of the very faithful, great looking, and best superhero outfit so far in films being used.

I never said crappy.
You did.

I said a more realistic costume that a 16 yr old with little funds could produce.
Meaning a more comic faithful costume.
Meaning the spandex (not that you would have to use spandex per say) red and blues, with either sewn in black webbing, or the black webbing drawn on via permanent marker.

Essentially just the original costume, in the Romita Sr style.

What was great about that costume is; - not only is it the greatest looking costume ever, it would not actually cost that much to make. Heck a guy on these boards posted pics in the last two days (reboot costume thread / SM 2012 Spoilers) of a pretty awesome Spidey suit he made in recent times. All you would need is some great design skills, and some degree of stitching skills on a sewing machine.

Here’s a cool pic by Alex Ross’ of what the Romita costume would actually look like-

http://www.superherostuff.com/OtherItems/Images/spiderman_classic_alex_ross_poster_2.jpg


and you say 'it's a comicbook, get over it.'?! Why not take your own advice and have a little suspension of disbelief so that we can enjoy a Spider-man movie with him looking cool, instead of a guy in a tatty tracksuit-like halloween costume with his ass falling out of his trousers as he leaps around.

Alex Ross’ paintings really look like that.

Why don’t YOU take your own advice and have a little suspension of disbelief that it might actually be possible for the 2012 film to feature a Spidey costume that looks like it could have been made by a 16 yr old instead of a movie studio and is more faithful to the comicbooks, meaning- cooler looking.


Yeah, let's keep it very realistic in that regard, let's have his eyes on show as well, and have his fingertips and bare feet on show so we can realisticly imagine that he sticks to walls.

How exactly does that relate to the source?
It doesn’t.


btw, Venom was CGI for a lot of shots, it was the CGI shots they were concerned with mostly not showing up against black backgrounds.

I know.
BUT; - any CGI had to match up with that crappy suit/material that TG was wearing, thus the CGI was effectively being compromised.


I feel you have very unrealistic ideas about thye creative process, it's like you just point to a comicbook cover and say 'I want it like that! CGI can do anything!'

Fair enough.
I feel that I understand the creative process pretty well for a person not involved in these films.

My view of you on these matters is that I feel that you are less bothered about such characters visual identities being represented as well as it can be in these films, and have a tendency to except something as the ‘best possible option’ if it looks ‘OK’ (OK being something different from one person to another). So what.


Yeah, it can, but it doesn't always look that great, they went for the best look, the raised webbing was a minor add and you can't handle that!?

I can handle it pretty easily.
It just looks crap.
But you don’t seem to be able to handle that I feel this way about it, heh.

Why Completely CGI what you can do practically? Practical will always look better and more real. Thank god they did not completely CGI him, yuck.

Because the practical suit looked crap for the most part, but that’s probably more down to the costume design than materials used. Why CGI all of Venom, well the alien part, not Brock, because it is a freakin alien. It is not supposed to look like anything from this planet. Since all the SFX Venom bits are done with CGI anyway, why not just go 100% CGI Venom to create better consistency and thus free the costume design from the limitations of a practical suit.


edit:and no, some fans don't just 'put up with' changes, they are smart enough to figure out why some things just would look crap onscreen.

Of course, I’m obviously not as brainy as you that’s why I don’t understand that a crap looking Venom whose costume which is a bastardization of the red and blues & black costume is a better option than wanting something that looks more like Venom, which of course, would look crap onscreen. ;)

Damn, I wish I was as smart as you.

[david icke]

Of course, I’m obviously not as brainy as you that’s why I don’t understand that a crap looking Venom whose costume which is a bastardization of the red and blues & black costume is a better option than wanting something that looks more like Venom, which of course, would look crap onscreen. ;)

Damn, I wish I was as smart as you.

Dude, you're the one who assumes someone does not read your posts properly when they think your ideas are ridiculous and unrealistic.

and as for that home made Spider-man suit idea. You propose the idea that he should use a black magic marker for the webs?! lol, that's why I said that if they went 'realistic' to the point where they had a costume made up that looked like a kid made it, it would look crappy.
and the costumes in the comics are drawings, the point is, his costume looks cool in the books, it looks cool in the movies. What does not look aesthtically pleasing to the eye is some guy's halloween costume, yeah I saw the poster's home made suit, and if they used anything like that for a major spider-man film the audience would be pissing themselves laughing everytime he came onscreen, the movie would be a laughing stock.
Save that kind of thing for 'Kick-Ass' which is playing with that kind of idea, taking it a little more into the real world and giving him a crappy costume that is just a tracksuit basically(wet suit in the books), and is supposed to be funny in that regard.

EDIT: The point about the movie costume design is that they are trying to make a costume that looks as cool and as good as that Alex Ross pic you posted, and they did. They did not draw thin black lines on red fabric, why? because they wanted people to be able to see the webs, and make them out as well they can when they are looking at a drawing or a painting.
Are you seriously telling me that a person's home made Spider-man costume looks as cool or as good as that Alex Ross pic?



The reason i made the joke about showing his feet and hands is, if you are going to go realistic with the costume to the point you want to believe a kid made it, and it looks like crap, why not take to an even more ridiculous levels like that? I mean, if we're throwing suspension of belief out the window entirely.

Ok, I think we're done here. There's no point in discussing this anymore, we are on very different pages when it comes to this.

[Dangerous]

and as for that home made Spider-man suit idea. You propose the idea that he should use a black magic marker for the webs?! lol, that's why I said that if they went 'realistic' to the point where they had a costume made up that looked like a kid made it, it would look crappy.

That was just one idea for the webs.

Above all, what I want to see is a comic faithful suit that looks like it is made from readily available materials. Not something that looks like it was made by a super computer or movie studio out of expensive and complex materials.

That’s what I mean in terms of a ‘realistic’.


EDIT: The point about the movie costume design is that they are trying to make a costume that looks as cool and as good as that Alex Ross pic you posted, and they did.

That’s your take on it.

Imo the Raimi costume was no where near as cool looking as the Romita-Ross images.


They did not draw thin black lines on red fabric, why? because they wanted people to be able to see the webs, and make them out as well they can when they are looking at a drawing or a painting.

Take a look at this bust-

http://www.dynamicforces.com/images/spidermanminiheadbust.jpg

As you can see, the webs are just as visible here as in the comicbooks, AND could feasibly have been drawn on by a black marker. Also consider that in the comics, when Spidey is pictured a reasonable distance away from the ‘camera’ you can’t actually see the webbing on his costume.


Are you seriously telling me that a person's home made Spider-man costume looks as cool or as good as that Alex Ross pic?

No.

I was using that example to highlight how if a person knows his way around a sewing machine, he/she can make a pretty decent version of the red and blues. Obviously a similar back to basics take on the costume in the new film would look much better.

Also about that Ross pic- to have a costume look that good, all you would need is two main ingredients-

1) A guy who gets into ‘Spider-Man shape’. Maguire pretty much achieved this in SM1, and…

2) The Romita SR costume replicated exactly, with decent, flexible lenses, and more rigid boots with real soles.

You might laugh at this suggestion, but that’s only because it has never been done / seen before. I reckon it could look great. See the Spidey head bust above.


Ok, I think we're done here. There's no point in discussing this anymore, we are on very different pages when it comes to this.

You said that about a page ago.

[david icke]

You might laugh at this suggestion, but that’s only because it has never been done / seen before. I reckon it could look great. See the Spidey head bust above.

What in heaven's name has a bust got to do with a fabric costume? lol, seriously dude, just because it's 3D does not mean, 'they can make it like this!' It's still paint on a hard surface, nothing like fabric at all.
If you walked into an art school and said, 'I want the costume to look like this.', they would laugh you out of town. It would be like asking someone to lick a bit of paper with a cake recipe written on it and expecting them to know what the cake would taste like.
Showing that bust is exactly the same as posting the alex Ross pic.

About the closest thing we have to what you suggest is the Nicholas Hammond costume, and I'm talking about the webs here. The webs looks crappy, and indistinct.

The only place that costume you are imagining will ever exist is in your head. It's not do-able, no matter how they stitch the webs, or 'draw' them in they will never look as distinct as a fine black line inked or painted in a drawing.
That is the point of the thick raised, 3D mesh webbing of the Raimi films, to reflect light and give the webs more body and solidity, ie to make them distinct. Like the nicely thick inked lines of comic books that give the costume body and form.

All you seem to want is the Nic Hammond suit webs, although perhaps with thicker stitching, and that would not make much difference.


You said that about a page ago.

Yeah, but when you bring up crazy suggestions like drawing in the webs with black magic markers...I mean, how can I not respond to that? I can't get over it still.

[Spider-ManHero12]

My response explained in a number of different ways why the train scene was lacking for me.
If you are still baffled after that, I guess you just find it hard dealing w/ the fact that other fans have different opinions to yours.
Either that or you need to brush up on your reading skills. ? You're just proving my point about what I said a to you even more. Also, insulting me over an internet message board is quite pathetic.

As for your views on Spidey's suit, David Icke pretty much took the words out of my mouth.

[Chris Wallace]

I don't bother with people who can't seem to state their opinions without resorting to childish insults.

[Dangerous]

You're just proving my point about what I said a to you even more.

That you can't understand why I don't love the train scene in SM2 as much as the weight lifting scene in ASM#33, despite me explaining why it was lacking for me in numerous ways compared to that scene.

OK, fair enough you can't understand why I don't like it.
Let's leave it at that.


Also, insulting me over an internet message board is quite pathetic.

Suggesting you brush up on your reading skills was not an insult.
Just a friendly suggestion, since I explained my reasons clearly.
At least I thought I did.

[Dangerous]

I don't bother with people who can't seem to state their opinions without resorting to childish insults.

If that was directed at moi, I did not use any childish insults towards you.

I said; - that you not understanding how fans could want a more dark and gritty film that also featured Spidey telling jokes, seemed somewhat narrow minded to me. As if you were looking at this in very black & white terms. Suggesting you were being narrow minded and explaining why does not constitute a childish insult.

I then gave an example of dark and gritty & comedy being using together in the videogame Madworld. And there have in fact been countless other examples in the realm of entertainment over the decades, Evil Dead to name one of many.

In saying I won't bother to converse with someone who uses childish insults (whether they have done or not) sub communicates to me that you have nothing else to say because I shut down your argument.

[Dangerous]

What in heaven's name has a bust got to do with a fabric costume? lol, seriously dude, just because it's 3D does not mean, 'they can make it like this!' It's still paint on a hard surface, nothing like fabric at all.

Perhaps…
I was using it as an example tho, of what a Romita faithful costume COULD look like on a 3D model.
Personally I think using the right type of fabric; it COULD be possible to achieve that look.

Don’t forget the blue scaly parts of the Raimi costume looked ‘nothing like fabric at all’ as well. ;)


About the closest thing we have to what you suggest is the Nicholas Hammond costume, and I'm talking about the webs here. The webs looks crappy, and indistinct.

Web wise, yes that is the look I’d like to see.
Personally, I think the webbing pattern on that suit looks perfect.
Just the webbing pattern tho, overall the suit is horrible, no argument.

‘Marker pen’ was just as term of phrase, a way for me to try to explain the look I’d like to see. Don’t get too attached to ‘marker pen’ as something I would specifically want, obviously using sharpies themselves would look crap.

Web pattern wise what I want is something that looks like it is the suit, is not stuck on and does not reflect light like Raimi’s horrible raised webbing that often looked silver. In this respect, a PRINTED design would be the best, rather than ‘marker pen’ heh, or the webs being stitched into the suit.


The only place that costume you are imagining will ever exist is in your head. It's not do-able,

Making a Romita faithful Spidey costume that does not look lame on film is certainly within the realms of human capabilities, hehheh. Whether we will ever see it on the big screen is another matter.


no matter how they stitch the webs, or 'draw' them in they will never look as distinct as a fine black line inked or painted in a drawing.

Says you, when in fact despite all its crapness, the one thing that was great about the Hammond suit was that the webs which were perfect and in fact JUST as distinct as the comicbook version.


That is the point of the thick raised, 3D mesh webbing of the Raimi films, to reflect light and give the webs more body and solidity, ie to make them distinct. Like the nicely thick inked lines of comic books that give the costume body and form.

The raised webs reflecting light looked totally whack.
Often they came out a horrid silvery color instead of beautiful matt black.
And as I previously highlighted; - when Spidey is far away from the ‘camera’ in panel, you can’t see the webs anyway.

This time I would prefer if the actor in the suit was in good enough shape that Spidey had good ‘body and form’ without the need for crummy raised webbing, padding out or painted-on muscles.

Which after all is not hard.
The kid only needs to be in Ditko Spider-Man shape.
Heck, even Zac Efron can manage that right now, tho I hope to Satan he does not land the part.

EDIT- But then why is that?

Only because I associate him w/ those musical movies for kids.
He could be good at being Peter Parker, who knows.
I'm pretty open on the casting of this, so long as the actors can pass on a visual level.
PP just needs to have more of an edge this time, and not be a drip, and Efron don't grab me as the type.

[david icke]

Says you, when in fact despite all its crapness, the one thing that was great about the Hammond suit was that the webs which were perfect and in fact JUST as distinct as the comicbook version.


Why on Earth didn't you just use the Hammond outfit as the example of the webs you wanted on the suit? Instead of posting painted statues and comicbook pics?
I disagree though, the Hammond webs don't show up as distinct as the comicbook drawings, or look that interesting, in fact, a lot of the time he just looks like a guy in a big red sock.
In fact, the only time they look distinct and good is in close ups, and that's not good enough.

[Deaths Head II]

I disagree though, the Hammond webs don't show up as distinct as the comicbook drawings, or look that interesting, in fact, a lot of the time he just looks like a guy in a big red sock.

I totally agree.

[Spider-ManHero12]

That you can't understand why I don't love the train scene in SM2 as much as the weight lifting scene in ASM#33, despite me explaining why it was lacking for me in numerous ways compared to that scene.

OK, fair enough you can't understand why I don't like it.
Let's leave it at that. No, you said that it would be great to see SPidey fighting against the odds or something, which was obviously clear in S-M2 with the train scene. That's all you bashers do. Trying to change what you said.


Suggesting you brush up on your reading skills was not an insult.
Just a friendly suggestion, since I explained my reasons clearly.
At least I thought I did. NO, you're being an ass. Mainly if you're trying to say it's a "friendly suggestion".

Also, please don't say, "YOu shouldn't be name calling." You insulted me, my friend. Just saying.

[Spider-ManHero12]

I don't bother with people who can't seem to state their opinions without resorting to childish insults. Because that's the way bashers are. They call us ignorant, whe nthey never stopped and questioned themselves. They act like their opinion is more important.

[Dangerous]

Why on Earth didn't you just use the Hammond outfit as the example of the webs you wanted on the suit? Instead of posting painted statues and comicbook pics?

I was posting pics of the Romita-Ross suit to show what I would like to see.
On the subject of webs specifically, the Hammond webs work just as well.
I did not post pics of the Hammond suit because the overall costume is what I was talking about. ;)


I disagree though, the Hammond webs don't show up as distinct as the comicbook drawings, or look that interesting, in fact, a lot of the time he just looks like a guy in a big red sock.
In fact, the only time they look distinct and good is in close ups, and that's not good enough.

If you think they don't show up enough all they need to do is thicken them, and if you don't like the design then change the way they are drawn.

I was using them as an example to say that a printed on design is the best way to go rather than sticking hockey looking webbing onto the suit this time, so that we get something more streamline and closer to the proper design.

That would stop him looking like a big red sock, heh.

[Dangerous]

No, you said that it would be great to see SPidey fighting against the odds or something, which was obviously clear in S-M2 with the train scene.

WRONG.

I explained in post #95 on page 4 of this thread why I do not love the train scene in SM2 as much as the weight lifting scene in ASM#33.
I explained in numerous ways WHY it was lacking in comparison FOR ME.

Here is the excerpt from post#95, page 4 of what I said AGAIN for your benefit-


Not exact same scenario.

In Spidey vs. train, Spidey was in a fight and then presented with a difficult challenge that he just about overcame. He was not practically dead on his feet to start with. The train scene did not recall his motivations and frustrations and tie them all together via his internal monologue to create a stirring momentum to his actions which resulted in victory from a starting point of being practically beaten.


If you think I have altered the above quote in any way at all, or its context-
GO BK TO PAGE 4 AND READ MY POST AGAIN.
I dare you.

Maybe you will be able to remember it a little better this time.
Try READING my posts next time before trying to be a smart ass. ;)

That's all you bashers do. Trying to change what you said.

RIIIGGGHHHHTTTTT.
Bet you feel stupid now.

Also I'm not a 'basher', I just did not like the Raimi films on the whole.
That's not to say there wasn't some great stuff in there in small quantities.

Stuff I liked-

-Dafoe was superbly cast, and his performance was great.
-Sandman, ditto. He was cast brilliantly and looked great.
He just could have done with being a bit more ticked off.

NO, you're being an ass. Mainly if you're trying to say it's a "friendly suggestion"

Also, please don't say, "YOu shouldn't be name calling." You insulted me, my friend. Just saying.

I never insulted anyone.

I gave constructive criticism; - suggesting that you should brush up on your reading skills based on you not reading my posts properly- a statement proved above in this post of mine…. And suggested to whom I assume to be your 'friend' that he was projecting a narrow minded viewpoint in not being able to see how a film could be both dark & gritty and also feature jokes. I then explained why.

Which is more insulting;- that, or –

NO, you're being an ass.

Which amusingly comes from the guy who says-

Also, insulting me over an internet message board is quite pathetic.

So you are insulting AND pathetic by your own terms.
AND you seem to have a problem in reading/understanding other people’s posts.

Good day.

[david icke]

I was posting pics of the Romita-Ross suit to show what I would like to see.
On the subject of webs specifically, the Hammond webs work just as well.
I did not post pics of the Hammond suit because the overall costume is what I was talking about. ;)

But we were only talking about the webs on the costume when you posted up the bust, that's why I asked. edit: You just citing Hammond's costume would have saved a lot of time.



If you think they don't show up enough all they need to do is thicken them, and if you don't like the design then change the way they are drawn.

Not sure what you mean by change the design. I'm not into changing the shape of the webs at all, just keep them the way they are drawn in the books, the way Ditko's designed them, it's the way they are presented in live action that is the issue, so that the cool design can be seen and appreciated.


I was using them as an example to say that a printed on design is the best way to go rather than sticking hockey looking webbing onto the suit this time, so that we get something more streamline and closer to the proper design.

That would stop him looking like a big red sock, heh.

I don't think it would really, the lines would either still be indistinct , or so thick that they looked like the stitching on a wooly jumper, either way, the original cool web design of Ditko's would be lost on the audience(ie too small, can't vbe seen right, too big, looking like a wooly jumper, not cool looking anymore), whereas it came across well with the webbing on the Raimi suits.

[Dangerous]

But we were only talking about the webs on the costume when you posted up the bust, that's why I asked. edit: You just citing Hammond's costume would have saved a lot of time.

You brought it up first, before that the costume never entered my head.
Once you brought that up, I was like- 'Hey the Hammond Webs were awesome!', Heh :yay:


Not sure what you mean by change the design. I'm not into changing the shape of the webs at all, just keep them the way they are drawn in the books, the way Ditko's designed them, it's the way they are presented in live action that is the issue, so that the cool design can be seen and appreciated.

Agree.

I suggested changing the way they were drawn because aside from visibility issues, you also said they did not 'look that interesting'.


I don't think it would really, the lines would either still be indistinct , or so thick that they looked like the stitching on a wooly jumper, either way, the original cool web design of Ditko's would be lost on the audience(ie too small, can't vbe seen right, too big, looking like a wooly jumper, not cool looking anymore), whereas it came across well with the webbing on the Raimi suits.

Fair enough.

I believe a printed design could work on a new suit and look great.

[david icke]

You brought it up first, before that the costume never entered my head.
Once you brought that up, I was like- 'Hey the Hammond Webs were awesome!', Heh :yay:

Ok, just surprised I suppose as there are only the two live action Spider-man suits, and you never thought to reference that one.



Agree.

I suggested changing the way they were drawn because aside from visibility issues, you also said they did not 'look that interesting'.

What I meant by that was that the design looks great when done on paper with black inked lines, but when you use black thread lines on red fabric, it's not as interesting to look at because it is not as distinctive, and you can't make the design out as well.



Fair enough.

I believe a printed design could work on a new suit and look great.

I think that could look a bit cheapo, a bit like a t-shirt print or something.

[Dangerous]

Ok, just surprised I suppose as there are only the two live action Spider-man suits, and you never thought to reference that one.

There's way more than 2.

Aside from Raimi & Hammond there is also-

-The suit for the Toei Company's 'Spider-Man' or 'Tokusatsu' TV show from 1978-

http://i.annihil.us/u/prod/marvel/i/content/st/7114header_banner6777814.jpg

http://dailypop.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/spider-man-toei.jpg

http://www.**************.com/images/users/uploads/7601/Spider-Man%20Japan.jpg

I liked the eyes.

-The Universal Studios costume, also used by Marvel for 'official Spider-man appearances' at events.
I REALLY wish these babies were on sale to the public. Aside from the eyes which are too close together
and not that well shaped, these suits are freaking awesome-

http://xrayvision.today.com/files/2009/09/universal-studios-marvel-spider-man.jpg

http://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/00/14/20/aa/spider-man-at-the-character.jpg

-Then we have this fellow from from the 'Spidey Super Stories' segments which featured on The Electric Company
TV show of the 1970's-

http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x270/servewithchips/ElectricCompanySpiderManStealsComic.jpg

Plus there was an earlier version of the Universal Studios / official apps costume that Marvel used in the early
1970's for promotional purposes, It had slimmer eyes than the later day incarnation. I can't find a pic of it, but
there's many a pic of Stan with it in various Marvel and SM books.


I think that could look a bit cheapo, a bit like a t-shirt print or something.

Not if they could achieve the look of the Ross-Romita bust with a kick ass synthetically developed material. ;)

[Spider-ManHero12]

I never insulted anyone.

I gave constructive criticism; - suggesting that you should brush up on your reading skills based on you not reading my posts properly- a statement proved above in this post of mine…. And suggested to whom I assume to be your 'friend' that he was projecting a narrow minded viewpoint in not being able to see how a film could be both dark & gritty and also feature jokes. I then explained why.

Which is more insulting;- that, or –



Which amusingly comes from the guy who says-



So you are insulting AND pathetic by your own terms.
AND you seem to have a problem in reading/understanding other people’s posts.

Good day. No, you insulted me. You don't know me personally, so telling me to "brush up on my reading skills" isn't exactly something I'll take kindly whether you're insulting me or giveng me criticism.

I'm calling you an ass because that's EXACTLY what you were being to me. Stop turning this around.

Also, I'm NOT the one being the smart ass.

[Dangerous]

No, you insulted me. You don't know me personally, so telling me to "brush up on my reading skills" isn't exactly something I'll take kindly whether you're insulting me or giveng me criticism.

I'm calling you an ass because that's EXACTLY what you were being to me. Stop turning this around.

Also, I'm NOT the one being the smart ass.

Great comeback. ;)

[Spider-ManHero12]

^^ Now who's the smartass? :whatever:

[Dangerous]

Not you, after you got owned that's for sure. Heheheh.

All I said was get your facts right before you 'try to be a smartass'. ;)

Anyway, I think you and I are done now.

You've done a good enough job of making yourself look stupid without us needing to chew it over anymore.

[david icke]

There's way more than 2.

Aside from Raimi & Hammond there is also-

-The suit for the Toei Company's 'Spider-Man' or 'Tokusatsu' TV show from 1978-

http://i.annihil.us/u/prod/marvel/i/content/st/7114header_banner6777814.jpg

http://dailypop.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/spider-man-toei.jpg

http://www.**************.com/images/users/uploads/7601/Spider-Man%20Japan.jpg

I liked the eyes.

-The Universal Studios costume, also used by Marvel for 'official Spider-man appearances' at events.
I REALLY wish these babies were on sale to the public. Aside from the eyes which are too close together
and not that well shaped, these suits are freaking awesome-

http://xrayvision.today.com/files/2009/09/universal-studios-marvel-spider-man.jpg

http://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/00/14/20/aa/spider-man-at-the-character.jpg

-Then we have this fellow from from the 'Spidey Super Stories' segments which featured on The Electric Company
TV show of the 1970's-

http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x270/servewithchips/ElectricCompanySpiderManStealsComic.jpg

Plus there was an earlier version of the Universal Studios / official apps costume that Marvel used in the early
1970's for promotional purposes, It had slimmer eyes than the later day incarnation. I can't find a pic of it, but
there's many a pic of Stan with it in various Marvel and SM books.


Ah, i forgot about that Electric company show, and those Japanese(?) shows and movies, not sure if they were entirely official.
I wouldn't count the personal appearance costumes though as they are not designed to be seen onscreen.
Yeah, I do like the eye design on that top one as well.
But i think they all suffer from the same problem as the Hammond one, web-wise.



Not if they could achieve the look of the Ross-Romita bust with a kick ass synthetically developed material. ;)

That's the thing, you seem to be wanting some magic material to show up and be the answer to having the suit just like the one you imagine in your head.
They tried out all the materials possible for the Raimi suits, and went with the best solution.
The raised webbing was meticulously designed to stretch along with the material, and not go into any weird looking shapes, to stay consistent like a comic book drawing does.
Any kind of printed application to fabric would stretch in ways that were out of control and could look weird, awful and inconsistent. Another reason I feel they went with the best solution with the Raimi suits.

[Dangerous]

They tried out all the materials possible for the Raimi suits, and went with the best solution.

That may have been the case (trying out all the materials that were available), but instead of raised webbing they should have opted for a printed design.


The raised webbing was meticulously designed to stretch along with the material, and not go into any weird looking shapes, to stay consistent like a comic book drawing does.


It looked whack, and nothing like the comicbook.


Any kind of printed application to fabric would stretch in ways that were out of control and could look weird, awful and inconsistent.


That's funny, I don't see ANY of those symptoms on any of the suits I just posted pics of.

[david icke]

That may have been the case (trying out all the materials that were available), but instead of raised webbing they should have opted for a printed design.



It looked whack, and nothing like the comicbook.

Lots of people disagree, and feel it's the best way of representing the great design without it being lost in a red sock with black stitching, the red is overwhelming in the design when you try to reproduce the comic costume, red is one of those colours, it attracts your eyes away, especially from a negative colour like black, that is nowhere near as thickly represented in the costume.



That's funny, I don't see ANY of those symptoms on any of the suits I just posted pics of.

That's because those are fabric made webs, which have a different kind of problem. That response to was to your response to my problem with your 'printed webs' idea. I was talking about printed webs being stretched out into weird shapes.
All of those outfits suffer from the same red sock problem as the Hammond suit, as I said.

[Spider-ManHero12]

Not you, after you got owned that's for sure. Heheheh. Oh, yeah, I got owned. :whatever:

If I got owned, then you REALLY suck at it.

[Dangerous]

Lots of people disagree, and feel it's the best way of representing the great design without it being lost in a red sock with black stitching, the red is overwhelming in the design when you try to reproduce the comic costume, red is one of those colours, it attracts your eyes away, especially from a negative colour like black, that is nowhere near as thickly represented in the costume.

If they had printed the webbing onto the suit so that the webs were as thick as the raised webbing without it actually being raised / stuck on, it still would have stopping the red overpowering the costume, but also gave a more faithful reproduction.


That's because those are fabric made webs, which have a different kind of problem. That response to was to your response to my problem with your 'printed webs' idea. I was talking about printed webs being stretched out into weird shapes.

And none of those fabric suits suffer from-

1- The fabric 'stretch(ing) in ways that were out of control'
2- Or making the webs look 'weird, awful and inconsistent'

[david icke]

If they had printed the webbing onto the suit so that the webs were as thick as the raised webbing without it actually being raised / stuck on, it still would have stopping the red overpowering the costume, but also gave a more faithful reproduction.

Yes, but printed on webs would stretch into weird shapes, and look inconsistent , unlike the comic's costume.



And none of those fabric suits suffer from-

1- The fabric 'stretch(ing) in ways that were out of control'
2- Or making the webs look 'weird, awful and inconsistent'

I already said , that problem would be with the printed on webs, not the fabrics with black stitching.

lol, you are getting confused, there are different problems with the different approaches.

Printed on webs = problem with the webs being stretched out into weird shapes that are not consistent, and therefore not like the comic costume, looking bad as a result.

Red Fabric with stitched in black webbing(Hammond style) = The red fabric is overpowering to the extent that the black webbing design is indistinct and therefore carries none of the power of the original design, making him look like he is in a big red sock.

Raimi design = solves both these problems, by being designed to go along with any stretching the fabric makes, meaning consistent shapes, and is always noticable despite thick bright red fabric , due to it's more solid, reflective nature.

[Chris Wallace]

I don't think it's a good idea to ever use the Japanese Spidey or "The Electric Company" as examples to support your argument. That's like the fans on the Bat-boards who want to see the grey tights using Adam West as their example.

[Dangerous]

Yes, but printed on webs would stretch into weird shapes, and look inconsistent , unlike the comic's costume.

I don’t see how.

That’s not what happens with the Hammond / Jap / Universal suits which feature either stitched or printed webs. In the case of the Jap suit the webs were printed not stitched. Here the webs behave in the same way as stitched webbing with regard to stretching issues since the webs are fused with the main fabric of the costume in the same way stitched webs would be.

Meaning- they would not/don’t stretch in ‘ways that were out of control' or make the webs look ‘weird, awful and inconsistent'.

For you to suppose printed webs would behave wildly different to stitched webs for no good reason, and with no evidence is pure theory, and a pretty imaginative one at that.

[Chris Wallace]

Um..no. This is just speculation on your part and is just plain WRONG. Yes, there was creative differences, but it had nothing to do with Raimi stalling the franchise:

http://au.movies.ign.com/articles/106/1060521p1.html

Raimi had said from the beginning, that he would do a fourth depending on the script. You can see from that article, that he found disagreement with the studio on what the next film should be. What then does that tell you?

Sam Raimi simply had found that the studio was once again trying to control his direction. We've seen the result of that already - in SM3! Who cares if he wanted the Vulture? (I personally think he should've gone with the Lizard since he's been building it up for 3 films), if he was given the chance to make SM4 with the Vulture with a great story why should the studio care? We all know that Raimi favors the old Spider-Man villains and we've already seen the result when he is in full control. The result is Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2. So who's argument is valid on who should have control? Raimi or the Studio?

Put simply, this is really about Columbia Pictures wanting full control. This cluster**** of a film they're making now is anything but a decision made with the fans in mind. They wouldn't let Raimi make the film he wanted to make (one that DID have the fans in mind) so they let him walk. . Having the same cast and crew returning to a series for this long is rare enough as it is. The majority of people wanted a Spider-Man 4 NOT a reboot. Why we're not getting it after the original cast and crew were already involved is unforgivable. In fact, the only reboot there should be is at Columbia Pictures and Marvel Studios...starting with Avi Arad.

:applaud

[WhiteRat]

I can't be any happier that Raimi is not attached to this franchise anymore; he gave me an average first movie, a great second one, yes, but again a terrible third one; so it's kinda one out of three for me. I don't need any more stupid jokes or Superman references in Spiderman movies.

If another director comes and gives this a more serious approach I don't think anyone can take the smile out of my clowny face.

I agree with everything El Payaso says.I love the idea that they are rebooting it like they did with Batman Begins.The Raimi movies were carbon copy ripoffs of the superman movies with bad jokes.the first and third I rank as terrible,the second one was very good so it was one out of three for me as well.time to start it all over again.I myself could actually dance to this news.

[TheSlag]

I agree with everything El Payaso says.I love the idea that they are rebooting it like they did with Batman Begins.The Raimi movies were carbon copy ripoffs of the superman movies with bad jokes.the first and third I rank as terrible,the second one was very good so it was one out of three for me as well.time to start it all over again.I myself could actually dance to this news.

I agree. I hope they get the characters right with the reboot. I am excited by the possibilities.. hopefully they will deliver the goods.

But a more serious (less cheeze) approach to Spider-Man intrigues me, ESPECIALLY if they follow the characters and storylines of ASM.

[WomanOfSteel]

I feel sick... from spider-man 3 still. I love raimi but he allowed that mess to be filmed. The franchise needed new blood.

Couldn't agree more. Spider-Man 3 was horrible..1 and 2 not so bad..But with all these new superhero movies coming out, Spider-Man needed that reboot.

[Superman Prime]

Wasn't Spider-Man 3 the result of the studio corrupting what Sam Raimi originally wanted?

[Chris Wallace]

Noone wants to acknowledge this. It's much easier to hate Raimi.

[Nevincer]

:whatever:

It's not because it's easier to blame Raimi, it's because my problems with the movie had little to do with "teh greedy corporation$$$!!!", which is actually something I see parroted on message boards far more than this exaggerated minority opinion which is to criticize Raimi. Just look at the backlash at the reboot, it far outweighs the positive, so I don't know why anyone is trying to paint Raimi as the victim here.

For one thing, I had no interest in seeing the Sandman or the Vulture cinematically in any shape or form, and even if they were handled well that'd still be the case because I don't find either to be rich characters like the Goblins or Doc Ock. They just don't do it for me, sorry...

Sure, I would have watched it mererly to see the continuation of Spidey's story, but if all Raimi had to offer on that front was a bad retcon about Uncle Ben's murderer punctuated by stupid dance-offs, cheesy kid actors, reporters and a plethora of other stupid humour I would have just as much reason to hate it. :dry:

Those are the characteristics that made me hate SM3, the type of cheese that Raimi puts in the films and in this case went a step too far; sure, the handling of the symbiote and goblin stories were mediocre, but those weren't the biggest flaws, and if Raimi only included the cheese to purposely butcher the film after being forced by Sony to put in Venom then that says a lot about him as a director. That's all I have to say on the matter.

Oh, and in response to the thread title, I for one was ecstatic when the reboot was announced. Raimi's trilogy was my first proper exposure to the character, and yes his interpretation was cool in some ways, but from what I've learned a comic accurate spider-man sounds way more appealing to me, so I'm excited. Haters gonna hate :o

[Superman Prime]

It's not because it's easier to blame Raimi, it's because my problems with the movie had little to do with "teh greedy corporation$$$!!!", which is actually something I see parroted on message boards far more than this exaggerated minority opinion which is to criticize Raimi. Just look at the backlash at the reboot, it far outweighs the positive, so I don't know why anyone is trying to paint Raimi as the victim here.

We aren't trying to play the victim card on Raimi's behalf. We're just pointing fingers.

[Anno_Domini]

Noone wants to acknowledge this. It's much easier to hate Raimi.

Hate Raimi? No, not at all.

BLAME Raimi for giving us a very sloppy third movie? Yes.

Sure, it's one thing that the studio forced the symbiote and Venom, but do you blame the studio for Raimi giving us an awful version of the symbiote, giving us Venom for only a tiny amount of time, having Sandman be Uncle Ben's real killer and having dancing, hair flipping, too much crying and a very poorly-taste conclusion with Harry?

Yes, that's all of the studio's fault. Shame on us all for blaming Sammy Raimi :whatever:

[Rocketman]

The only thing that sickens me is that J. Jonah Jameson isn't included in this reboot.

[Nevincer]

The only thing that sickens me is that J. Jonah Jameson isn't included in this reboot.
Nah, I disagree. I think that's a good thing they're taking their time to introduce characters like Jameson and the Osbornes.

By waiting for the sequel until we see more of Parker's world like Jameson, him become a photographer, and being introduced to the head of Oscorp (which is apparently responsible for the Lizard and his radioactive spider bite in the reboot) the scope of the elements surrounding Peter can expand in a very natural way and leave us more to look forward to in the future.

Kind of like how in BB Batman mostly operated in the narrows, but in TDK they showed more of the larger part of the city, the mayor, introduced more iconic threats like Two-Face/Joker and it became more of a massive ensemble.

Also, J.K Simmons was Jameson. I appreciate taking more time before finding a replacement for him :oldrazz:

[Spider-Aziz]

I don't feel sick, expect the new movie to be a lot more fun than Raimi/Maguire's first movieAs a purist I'll be happy if-
2-Spidey is full of quipsIf they are as fun as Iron Man we'll all be happy
4-Villain costumes are faithfulOnly the first Green Goblin, there were some cool concept arts much better than the goofy costume released in theaters
As for Doc Ock being classic he would look too goofey
5-We get mech webshooters, no organicsI adore organics in the movies, adore mechs in other media
6-Spidey's origin is fixed to radioactive Spider and Ben getting shot at homeFor the next Batman series, I want a faithful adaption of Two-Face so close to his pre-tas counterpart, a cheesy villain overly obsessed with number 2

[henzINNIT]

Hate Raimi? No, not at all.

BLAME Raimi for giving us a very sloppy third movie? Yes.

Sure, it's one thing that the studio forced the symbiote and Venom, but do you blame the studio for Raimi giving us an awful version of the symbiote, giving us Venom for only a tiny amount of time, having Sandman be Uncle Ben's real killer and having dancing, hair flipping, too much crying and a very poorly-taste conclusion with Harry?

Yes, that's all of the studio's fault. Shame on us all for blaming Sammy Raimi :whatever:

With the exception of the Ben/Sandman retcon, all of these are a result of the Studio's changes. Raimi didn't understand or appreciate the Symbiote story, so you can blame him for that if you like, but he was pressured into making those changes.

[Anno_Domini]

He was still part of the writing team that wrote the damn script. The studio can push whatever they want, but it's the writers that are the ones that had a great idea of what to do and still gave us a sloppy mess.

And the retcon...man, Raimi messed up from the jump if he WANTED the retcon.

[Chris Wallace]

The only thing that sickens me is that J. Jonah Jameson isn't included in this reboot.

So far that's the thing that annoys me the least.

[henzINNIT]

He was still part of the writing team that wrote the damn script. The studio can push whatever they want, but it's the writers that are the ones that had a great idea of what to do and still gave us a sloppy mess.

And the retcon...man, Raimi messed up from the jump if he WANTED the retcon.

Eh I disagree still. I wouldn't expect any writers to cope well trying to assimilate major plotlines and characters that are unwanted and unnecessary in such a short space of time. They could have done a better job in many ares, but mistakes are made in a rush. Raimi had proven himself with two films and the studio should have trusted him.

The retcon was indeed there the whole time. Sandman was always in SM3 and that was always his connection to Peter. I don't like it either, there are better ways to tie people together without convoluting the past. Ahh well.

[Chris Wallace]

Raimi had proven himself with two films and the studio should have trusted him.


:up:

[Spiderine]

Nah, I disagree. I think that's a good thing they're taking their time to introduce characters like Jameson and the Osbornes.

By waiting for the sequel until we see more of Parker's world like Jameson, him become a photographer, and being introduced to the head of Oscorp (which is apparently responsible for the Lizard and his radioactive spider bite in the reboot) the scope of the elements surrounding Peter can expand in a very natural way and leave us more to look forward to in the future.

Kind of like how in BB Batman mostly operated in the narrows, but in TDK they showed more of the larger part of the city, the mayor, introduced more iconic threats like Two-Face/Joker and it became more of a massive ensemble.

Also, J.K Simmons was Jameson. I appreciate taking more time before finding a replacement for him :oldrazz:
I agree. They will probably make his existence known with the Daily Bugle but save his intro for the sequel when Peter starts work there.

[Web-Shooter]

Nah, I disagree. I think that's a good thing they're taking their time to introduce characters like Jameson and the Osbornes.

By waiting for the sequel until we see more of Parker's world like Jameson, him become a photographer, and being introduced to the head of Oscorp (which is apparently responsible for the Lizard and his radioactive spider bite in the reboot) the scope of the elements surrounding Peter can expand in a very natural way and leave us more to look forward to in the future.

Kind of like how in BB Batman mostly operated in the narrows, but in TDK they showed more of the larger part of the city, the mayor, introduced more iconic threats like Two-Face/Joker and it became more of a massive ensemble.

Also, J.K Simmons was Jameson. I appreciate taking more time before finding a replacement for him :oldrazz:

Well said, I agree completely. And I'm sure the Jameson in these films won't be teleported from some 40's screwball. The tone will have been established by the time the new JJJ has his first scene. It will be interesting to see how they keep him in character, without having him bounce of the walls to the degree we saw in Raimi's world..

[Anno_Domini]

JJJ being a hard-ass boss would fit just fine, imo. Just no goofy assistants as in Raimi's world and it'll fit just fine. It wasn't JJJ, in any way, that was making his a cheesey/goofy/over-the-top character; it was the people around him, imo.

[Web-Shooter]

JJJ being a hard-ass boss would fit just fine, imo. Just no goofy assistants as in Raimi's world and it'll fit just fine. It wasn't JJJ, in any way, that was making his a cheesey/goofy/over-the-top character; it was the people around him, imo.

Pretty much agree, although I do think that Simmons performance (and scenes with his staff) took it's que from those 40's comedies (and Raimi obviously) with that machine-gun type rapid dialogue.

[dan1]

:whatever:

Haters gonna hate :o

http://twenty-somethingtravel.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/haters_gonna_hate.gif

[El Payaso]

Wasn't Spider-Man 3 the result of the studio corrupting what Sam Raimi originally wanted?

Did the studio force dancing finger-gunning Peter in? Or the atrocious Butler scene? Or singing Mary Jane? Or the kitchen twist dancing scene?

[Nevincer]

Did the studio force dancing finger-gunning Peter in? Or the atrocious Butler scene? Or singing Mary Jane? Or the kitchen twist dancing scene?
:up::up:

Don't forget the British reporter, and Raimi's kids.

[El Payaso]

:up::up:

Don't forget the British reporter, and Raimi's kids.


AVI ARAD: Sam, you need to put your children there. And saying funny kids stuff. Say, Awesome! Wicked cool!... things like that.
SAM RAIMI: But Avi, that's not going to work. I hate that kind of humour. And they're MY children.
AVI ARAD: And I am the producer! Do as I command!
SAM RAIMI: (closes his eyes and whispers) Spider fans... forgive me...

[Web-Shooter]

Raimi has no one to blame but himself for that mess.

[Spider-Aziz]

AVI ARAD: Sam, you need to put your children there. And saying funny kids stuff. Say, Awesome! Wicked cool!... things like that.
SAM RAIMI: But Avi, that's not going to work. I hate that kind of humour. And they're MY children.
AVI ARAD: And I am the producer! Do as I command!
SAM RAIMI: (closes his eyes and whispers) Spider fans... forgive me...
Those were Raimi's kids? Didn't see that in the credits

[cloverfan98]

Raimi has no one to blame but himself for that mess.

Did those 2 seconds really ruin the whole movie for you?

[Anno_Domini]

The reporter, the news anchor and the kids took away the experience of the final battle. So, yes, it ruined a part of the film. As much as the sidewalk dance took away the experience of the symbiote, in which the symbiote was supposed to make Peter full of anger and rage, not full of...nevermind, won't go there.

[Spider-Aziz]

Some months back I received news the reporter committed suicide, is that a fact confirmed, or a plain rumor?

[Anno_Domini]

The news anchor died and the reporter hung herself.

I'm looking it up and apparently she fell into a depression when one of her friends committed suicide and she ended up hanging herself.

[El Payaso]

Did those 2 seconds really ruin the whole movie for you?

As much as 2 seconds of bat-butt ruined B Forever, yes.

[Spider-Aziz]

The news anchor died and the reporter hung herself.

I'm looking it up and apparently she fell into a depression when one of her friends committed suicide and she ended up hanging herself.
I see