A fan's rage

[Chris Wallace]

From my blog:
On January 11th, Sony Pictures announced that there would not be a "Spider-Man 4". THis was after numerous announcements, months of planning and the promised return of director SAm Raimi and the stars Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst. Apparently there were some major creative differences between Raimi-who had delivered two quality (and widely popular and successful) installments, and SOny, who seemed intent on controlling every aspect of the film. The studio decided instead of continuing the story or allowing Raimi creative autonomy, to re-start or, as fans have come to refer to it, "reboot" the franchise. This means that the nesxt film will have no connection whatsoever to the previous series, much like "Batman Begins".
I am bothered by this because it was clearly a business decision. Not an artistic or creative decision. It's not that there was simply no way to move forward. It's not that Raimi & Co. had failed irredeemable. The widely lambasted (yet still commercially successful) 3rd movie's true downfall lay in the inclusion of Venom, something that Sam Raimi had repeatedly stated he did not want. He didn't like Venom, he didn't want Venom, and there was no room for Venom in the project as he had planned it. He gave in, he compromised his vision, rebuilt the entire story to justify Venom's presence and the villain proved to simultaneously be both the movie's biggest draw and its biggest disappointment in fans' eyes. But in the hope of capturing the latest filmmaking craze and chasing the numbers pulled down by "The Dark Knight", Sony is spitting in the faces of everyone who supported Raimi's movies. I think it's simply wrong. I know money is important but the bean counters shouldn't be pushing the creators around. The two sides need to trust each other and not jump on the latest bandwagon. Restarting the Batman franchise was a necessary step. There was no way to move forward. That is not the case here. What worked for one does not work for all.

[VenomVsSpidey]

:up:

although I liked TIH, It proved your final sentence. It made LESS than the first, and we aren't sure if there's even gonna be a sequel.

[Chris Wallace]

I loved TIH, but part of the problem-I think-is that many people thought it was a sequel to the 2003 movie. Many people still think that, even having seen the movie. So that hurt its box office take, given that its predecessor wasn't very popular. Which is another problem I have with all this rebooting-it's confusing to the GA. I think the only reason why a lot of times we know the difference is because we follow the production from start to finish.

[VenomVsSpidey]

Oh I agree. skip the opening credits and a few other things, and TIH is Very much a sequel to Hulk. and I know alot of my friends are going to be asking "what the--? where's tobey maguire?"

[TheSlag]

Yeah, this REALLY needed a thread of it's own. :whatever:

I mean.. "Who Feels Sick" thread or a hundred of the others could in NO WAY contain the relevant thoughts here. :woot:

[VenomVsSpidey]

Yup.

[LightningFlash]

I was hoping from someone with "IAmSpiderMan" or someone on YouTube crying over something...

I guess this will do.

[VenomVsSpidey]

I guess LF.

[Chris Wallace]

Yeah, this REALLY needed a thread of it's own. :whatever:

I mean.. "Who Feels Sick" thread or a hundred of the others could in NO WAY contain the relevant thoughts here. :woot:

Did you complain when Sarcastic Fan posted his pro-reboot blog?

[LightningFlash]

I guess LF.

We agree on something, hahahaha

[El Payaso]

I loved TIH, but part of the problem-I think-is that many people thought it was a sequel to the 2003 movie. Many people still think that, even having seen the movie. So that hurt its box office take, given that its predecessor wasn't very popular. Which is another problem I have with all this rebooting-it's confusing to the GA. I think the only reason why a lot of times we know the difference is because we follow the production from start to finish.

TIH was average and formulaistic enough to have made more money, I agree.

[TheVileOne]

I understand how you feel. But there's nothing that can be done at this point.

Despite everything, I'm glad we got 3 movies with the same cast and crew. I mean it might not have been perfect and what Raimi and everyone else wanted but I'm glad they did the 3 movies and I mean just realize, that without those movies we probably wouldn't be here right now.

[kdiddy591]

I, too and mad but perhaps this is the best move. Think of it like an alternate reality or something and go into this new movie with an open mind.

[Chris Wallace]

I'm trying to.

[Shikamaru]

From my blog:
On January 11th, Sony Pictures announced that there would not be a "Spider-Man 4". THis was after numerous announcements, months of planning and the promised return of director SAm Raimi and the stars Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst. Apparently there were some major creative differences between Raimi-who had delivered two quality (and widely popular and successful) installments, and SOny, who seemed intent on controlling every aspect of the film. The studio decided instead of continuing the story or allowing Raimi creative autonomy, to re-start or, as fans have come to refer to it, "reboot" the franchise. This means that the nesxt film will have no connection whatsoever to the previous series, much like "Batman Begins".
I am bothered by this because it was clearly a business decision. Not an artistic or creative decision. It's not that there was simply no way to move forward. It's not that Raimi & Co. had failed irredeemable. The widely lambasted (yet still commercially successful) 3rd movie's true downfall lay in the inclusion of Venom, something that Sam Raimi had repeatedly stated he did not want. He didn't like Venom, he didn't want Venom, and there was no room for Venom in the project as he had planned it. He gave in, he compromised his vision, rebuilt the entire story to justify Venom's presence and the villain proved to simultaneously be both the movie's biggest draw and its biggest disappointment in fans' eyes. But in the hope of capturing the latest filmmaking craze and chasing the numbers pulled down by "The Dark Knight", Sony is spitting in the faces of everyone who supported Raimi's movies. I think it's simply wrong. I know money is important but the bean counters shouldn't be pushing the creators around. The two sides need to trust each other and not jump on the latest bandwagon. Restarting the Batman franchise was a necessary step. There was no way to move forward. That is not the case here. What worked for one does not work for all.

I am so sick of hearing this from fans. It wasn't 100% Sony's fault this franchise is getting a reboot. Raimi left on his own free will because he couldn't direct SM4 to the best of his abilities and finish it by 2011 and also because he had other projects coming up. Raimi himself told Sony to continue and do whatever they want. Am I saying that it's 100% Raimi's fault? No. But it really annoys me how people treat Sony as the evil masterminds behind this whole thing.

And I know many will say to me "Well, why didn't Sony give Raimi more time?"
Sony already gave Raimi two extensions. They weren't allowed to give him anymore extensions (I don't know why though).

Another thing that people said to me is "Why didn't they just get a new director and continue with SM4?"
About 2 years ago, Tobey said that he refuses to come back unless Raimi directs 4. If they get a new director, he will leave the project. Kirsten Dunst said she refused to do SM4 without both Raimi and Tobey.

Therefore, Sam Raimi leaving = Tobey leaving = Kirsten leaving.

[Shikamaru]

This was probably the best move due to several reasons:
1. SM4 would have had Vulture as the only villain. Vulture can't carry a movie by himself. The movie would have not been amazing but average.
2. The franchise wasn't going anywhere. In the first movie, GG was killed. In the second movie, Doc Ock was killed. In the third movie, Venom and New Goblin were killed while Sandman became a good guy and no longer a villain. SM4 would have had only Vulture and he would have probably died at the end. Raimi also said that he prefers to use only 1 villain in every movie instead of 2 or more. SM5 would have had another villain and SM6 would have had ANOTHER villain. The franchise wasn't going anywhere. It's not like it was going to end with some huge battle where all the villains gather or anything like that. The last 3 Spidey movies would have just been great good movies but with no twists and ongoing story.
4. We could improve a lot of things now. We could have a funny Spidey, a hot MJ, a better Green Goblin suit, a more corrupt Norman Osborn, etc. People have to stop looking at just the negative side of this decision but also at the positive side.

[VenomVsSpidey]

It's funny that you get tired of hearing about the reboot, because of those complaints that you just listed, they never get old. :rolleyes:

[Spider-ManHero12]

^^ All people do who hate these films think that they have say in the matter ,yet we don't. Sorry, guys, but us Raimi Spidey film fans have as much say as you do. There is NOTHING untrue about that.

[MessiahDecoy123]

The problem is SM3 is a crappy movie with or without Venom.

Raimi was leaning towards repeating the same mistakes with Spider-man 4.

So him leaving SM4 was a creative decision.

[CaptainStacy]

Yeah, this REALLY needed a thread of it's own. :whatever:

I mean.. "Who Feels Sick" thread or a hundred of the others could in NO WAY contain the relevant thoughts here. :woot:

And yet; here you are, posting in it.

Go figure. :yay:

[Doc Ock]

Its weird, I keep forgetting that the reboot even exists...and then it rears its ugly head again. But i'm probably going to see the reboot anyways. Because I loved TIH way more than Hulk. (in fact, TIH is one of my top 5 Marvel films)

[3dman27]

From my blog:
On January 11th, Sony Pictures announced that there would not be a "Spider-Man 4". THis was after numerous announcements, months of planning and the promised return of director SAm Raimi and the stars Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst. Apparently there were some major creative differences between Raimi-who had delivered two quality (and widely popular and successful) installments, and SOny, who seemed intent on controlling every aspect of the film. The studio decided instead of continuing the story or allowing Raimi creative autonomy, to re-start or, as fans have come to refer to it, "reboot" the franchise. This means that the nesxt film will have no connection whatsoever to the previous series, much like "Batman Begins".
I am bothered by this because it was clearly a business decision. Not an artistic or creative decision. It's not that there was simply no way to move forward. It's not that Raimi & Co. had failed irredeemable. The widely lambasted (yet still commercially successful) 3rd movie's true downfall lay in the inclusion of Venom, something that Sam Raimi had repeatedly stated he did not want. He didn't like Venom, he didn't want Venom, and there was no room for Venom in the project as he had planned it. He gave in, he compromised his vision, rebuilt the entire story to justify Venom's presence and the villain proved to simultaneously be both the movie's biggest draw and its biggest disappointment in fans' eyes. But in the hope of capturing the latest filmmaking craze and chasing the numbers pulled down by "The Dark Knight", Sony is spitting in the faces of everyone who supported Raimi's movies. I think it's simply wrong. I know money is important but the bean counters shouldn't be pushing the creators around. The two sides need to trust each other and not jump on the latest bandwagon. Restarting the Batman franchise was a necessary step. There was no way to move forward. That is not the case here. What worked for one does not work for all.

i agree the bean counters shoudn't control the moviemaking

[Chris Wallace]

And yet they are.

[Chris Wallace]

I can't say that the news about Field or Sheen is filling me with optimism, either.

[Joker]

Ha ha ha ha you don't think Sally Field or Martin Sheen are good actors, who are well suited to those roles? You've always been an idiot, but this is taking it to new levels.

[©KAW]

Oh I agree. skip the opening credits and a few other things, and TIH is Very much a sequel to Hulk. and I know alot of my friends are going to be asking "what the--? where's tobey maguire?"
Just tell them that he's in another movie playing the exact same damn character. :dry:

[Kurt Wagner]

this thread is hilarous

[Anno_Domini]

From my blog:
On January 11th, Sony Pictures announced that there would not be a "Spider-Man 4". THis was after numerous announcements, months of planning and the promised return of director SAm Raimi and the stars Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst. Apparently there were some major creative differences between Raimi-who had delivered two quality (and widely popular and successful) installments, and SOny, who seemed intent on controlling every aspect of the film. The studio decided instead of continuing the story or allowing Raimi creative autonomy, to re-start or, as fans have come to refer to it, "reboot" the franchise. This means that the nesxt film will have no connection whatsoever to the previous series, much like "Batman Begins".
I am bothered by this because it was clearly a business decision. Not an artistic or creative decision. It's not that there was simply no way to move forward. It's not that Raimi & Co. had failed irredeemable. The widely lambasted (yet still commercially successful) 3rd movie's true downfall lay in the inclusion of Venom, something that Sam Raimi had repeatedly stated he did not want. He didn't like Venom, he didn't want Venom, and there was no room for Venom in the project as he had planned it. He gave in, he compromised his vision, rebuilt the entire story to justify Venom's presence and the villain proved to simultaneously be both the movie's biggest draw and its biggest disappointment in fans' eyes. But in the hope of capturing the latest filmmaking craze and chasing the numbers pulled down by "The Dark Knight", Sony is spitting in the faces of everyone who supported Raimi's movies. I think it's simply wrong. I know money is important but the bean counters shouldn't be pushing the creators around. The two sides need to trust each other and not jump on the latest bandwagon. Restarting the Batman franchise was a necessary step. There was no way to move forward. That is not the case here. What worked for one does not work for all.

This thread was on top because of a recent reply, and I wanted to reply to this as well....

do you still have this same reaction to the reboot when we're about six-seven months away until the release?

[Venom75]

I have to be honest when I say that I'm still not that excited for this reboot. Maybe as the opening draws closer I will be,but this film hasn't captured my attention like all of Raimi's films have. With all those films(esp. part 3)I followed their creation like a religion. From leaked pics,spoilers and trailers. But with this reboot...it's nothing,really.

[Troy_Parker]

Meh, if you're a "fan" of the character, you should at least give this reboot a chance, tbh.

Although with the direction this movie's taking/taken, I can get why it might not appeal or seem too "edgy" to some of the fans.

[Bruce_Begins]

I find this new reboot much closer to character than Raimi's movies.

[SpideyFan866]

I have to be honest when I say that I'm still not that excited for this reboot. Maybe as the opening draws closer I will be,but this film hasn't captured my attention like all of Raimi's films have. With all those films(esp. part 3)I followed their creation like a religion. From leaked pics,spoilers and trailers. But with this reboot...it's nothing,really.

I have to disagree with you when you say that the Raimi series could have continued.

The overall storyline in the films dealt with the Osborns ans the Goblin legacy.

The Goblin storyline ended in SM3.

After that, any more films just would have been one offs. Bad ones with b grade Spidey villains, not that some of those aren't good.

The raimi series could have continue fine had the black suit/venom saga hadn't been squeezed into one film.

Can we blame Raimi for this? No, He had a particular vision (Sandman and Venom) that ultimately didn't work on it own as marketable ( as far as we know)

Can we blame Sony? No. Despite popular belief, It was producers Laura Ziskin and Avi Arad who convinced Raimi to use Venom at all.

Raimi is and was a fan of 60s comics. His films, except the third, are a tribute to the early Spidey stories. Thats why SM3 didn't work. You can't place Venom in a world based on the one portrayed in the 60s stories.

Sam Raimi's films were a tribute to the 60s books so the villains and arcs introduced in the 90s and 80 wouldn't have worked.

The series is shaping up to be more open minded and much more a generalized adaptation of Spider-man rather than taking from one particular era. Kinda like the Arkham games. It draws from multiple sources rather than jut one.

[Venom75]

Well,Raimi's series holds alot of memories for me,sure,but I am a HUGE fan of Spidey. Any movie with Spidey is something I wanna see...something I look forward to. Frankly,it kinda pisses me off that I'm not more excited for the new film. I mean,I wanna see it,certainly. But there's just none of that excitement that I had for the original trilogy. Not to suggest this new film won't be good. Maybe it just not as "new" as it was before?

[SpideyFan866]

Well,Raimi's series holds alot of memories for me,sure,but I am a HUGE fan of Spidey. Any movie with Spidey is something I wanna see...something I look forward to. Frankly,it kinda pisses me off that I'm not more excited for the new film. I mean,I wanna see it,certainly. But there's just none of that excitement that I had for the original trilogy. Not to suggest this new film won't be good. Maybe it just not as "new" as it was before?

I agree that the wonderment had when seeing the Raimi films isn't here because we we're seeing the character on screen for the first time.

But I still am very excited dur to some of my favorite elements from the comics finally being represented such as the web shooters and The Lizard.

I'm also very happy to see it borrowing elements from the Ultimate series as Peter's dad is a scientist.

I guess you just have to find the positives.

[Chris Wallace]

This thread was on top because of a recent reply, and I wanted to reply to this as well....

do you still have this same reaction to the reboot when we're about six-seven months away until the release?

Yup. Pretty much. Nothing has happened to make me look forward to it. As it stands, I have NO intention of seeing it.

[Anno_Domini]

Yup. Pretty much. Nothing has happened to make me look forward to it. As it stands, I have NO intention of seeing it.

Fair enough.

Would there be anything that the reboot can show that will get you interested? Would seeing the Lizard get you interested, or no?

[Chris Wallace]

Based on what I've seen the Lizard's gonna be an even bigger disappointment than the basketball suit. The trailer didn't impress me, the costume sucks, and they've done a lot of things that I just don't deem necessary-particularly the origin. WE DON'T NEED TO SEE HIM GET BITTEN AGAIN anymore than we need to see Krypton explode again.

[henzINNIT]

I felt much the same as Wallace did when news broke, feel the same now. Dangling SM4 in front of my face only to scrap it in favour of a reboot was gutting. Knowing that the upcoming film could have featured the original cast and crew if not for an imposed schedule sours any news on the reboot.

[Chris Wallace]

I tried to keep an open mind but Sony/Webb have not shown me one thing that makes me optimistic.

[Troy_Parker]

Unfortunate.

Oh well, can't win them all.

[Anno_Domini]

Based on what I've seen the Lizard's gonna be an even bigger disappointment than the basketball suit. The trailer didn't impress me, the costume sucks, and they've done a lot of things that I just don't deem necessary-particularly the origin. WE DON'T NEED TO SEE HIM GET BITTEN AGAIN anymore than we need to see Krypton explode again.

But Raimi's series did a lot of things that shouldn't have been. Imo, I think Webb's is much closer to the comics than Raimi's film series, especially with bringing in Gwen Stacy, which should've been first anyways.

And...it's been over thirty years since we saw Krypton explode...and I think we do need to see that again, haha.

[Kurt Wagner]

Based on what I've seen the Lizard's gonna be an even bigger disappointment than the basketball suit. The trailer didn't impress me, the costume sucks, and they've done a lot of things that I just don't deem necessary-particularly the origin. WE DON'T NEED TO SEE HIM GET BITTEN AGAIN anymore than we need to see Krypton explode again.

The costume is pretty cool... sure there are minor changes, but it definitely doesn't suck more than Raimi's raised silver webbing. If anything sucks, it's your attitude towards the reboot. Give it a chance and maybe you'll be surprised and might actually like it... And if you can't get yourself to give it a fair chance... then just close your eyes during the spider-bite scene so you don't have to watch it again... or skip the movie all together. But chances are that if you're like most haters, you'll only watch the movie to just reinforce what you already dislike.

[Troy_Parker]

The costume is pretty cool... sure there are minor changes, but it definitely doesn't suck more than Raimi's raised silver webbing. If anything sucks, it's your attitude towards the reboot. Give it a chance and maybe you'll be surprised and might actually like it... And if you can't get yourself to give it a fair chance... then just close your eyes during the spider-bite scene so you don't have to watch it again... or skip the movie all together. But chances are that if you're like most haters, you'll only watch the movie to just reinforce what you already dislike.

:up: :up: :up:

[Chris Wallace]

I couldn't disagree with you more, Kurt.

[Dark Phantom]

And...it's been over thirty years since we saw Krypton explode...and I think we do need to see that again, haha.

Technically it's been 6 years..... Superman Returns, anyone? :o

[El Payaso]

The costume is pretty cool... sure there are minor changes, but it definitely doesn't suck more than Raimi's raised silver webbing.

Make the webs not spider-webs is enough change to ruin any version of Spider-man design-wise. Changes like that might look small but they're not minor.

I hope all you know that I feel the tone of the new franchise feels much better to El Payaso.

[Anno_Domini]

Technically it's been 6 years..... Superman Returns, anyone? :o

Krypton explodes in SR?

[El Payaso]

Krypton explodes in SR?

Right at the beginning of the movie. First thing that happens.

[Spider-Aziz]

Right at the beginning of the movie. First thing that happens.
First thing to happen is an old lady dying and giving all she has to Lex Luthor

[Troy_Parker]

First thing to happen is an old lady dying and giving all she has to Lex Luthor

It happens just before the opening credits, before the scene you mentioned.

[Pac-Master]

Chris, what did you think of the SDCC footage descriptions, and why?

[SoNicRaDiATioN]

Based on what I've seen the Lizard's gonna be an even bigger disappointment than the basketball suit. The trailer didn't impress me, the costume sucks, and they've done a lot of things that I just don't deem necessary-particularly the origin. WE DON'T NEED TO SEE HIM GET BITTEN AGAIN anymore than we need to see Krypton explode again.

Man, sucks to be you I guess. Everything about this makes me confident that it will eviscerate Raimi's films. Just do what I do when Burton's Bat films or Raimi's Spidey films appear on television. See Elvis V. R. Goulet

[Anno_Domini]

Right at the beginning of the movie. First thing that happens.

Yah, but...it was probably looking just like Superman: The Movie.

Getting something new for Man of Steel is needed, imo.

[El Payaso]

First thing to happen is an old lady dying and giving all she has to Lex Luthor

There's a whole intro before that scene. And before the intro, Krypton explodes.


Yah, but...it was probably looking just like Superman: The Movie.

Well, no, it didn't.

[Anno_Domini]

What did it look like then?

Why would it be something new since it's a sequel to the Donner films? That makes no sense.

[El Payaso]

What did it look like then?

Haven't you seen the movie?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-W-XtWob9wo

Skip to 0:57.


Why would it be something new since it's a sequel to the Donner films? That makes no sense.

Yeah, like giving Superman a new suit, like making Metropolis other city than New York or like having different actors.

[Anno_Domini]

Haven't you seen the movie?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-W-XtWob9wo

Skip to 0:57.

Been a while since I've seen it, and this just passed my mind when I was thinking of Krypton exploding in SR....but still, I don't understand why the change for the destruction of the planet.

Yeah, like giving Superman a new suit, like making Metropolis other city than New York or like having different actors.

It still doesn't make any sense. This is meant to be a sequel to Superman II; even your reasoning, it should align to the same mythos. The actors may be different, but Singer and everyone tried to make their best by having everyone looking like how they were portrayed in Superman I and II. To create a different way of Krypton's destruction makes little sense.

[El Payaso]

Been a while since I've seen it, and this just passed my mind when I was thinking of Krypton exploding in SR....but still, I don't understand why the change for the destruction of the planet.

It's like when you do a modern Superman movie, no matter how related to the previous one might be, you use CGI and not only wires and blue screen when Superman flies as in 1977.

Like in STM Krypton is still light blue, its sun is still red and when exploding it still throws thousand of yellow, red and blue pieces in all directions. Just like in STM. They just added the sun implosion first and of course the visuals are much better, which is all good news.

It still doesn't make any sense. This is meant to be a sequel to Superman II; even your reasoning, it should align to the same mythos. The actors may be different, but Singer and everyone tried to make their best by having everyone looking like how they were portrayed in Superman I and II. To create a different way of Krypton's destruction makes little sense.

It was always described as a vague sequel, so they could make imrprovements in some areas. Marlonm Brando was still Marlon, his vopice, etc, the rest were different. Lois looked like the 1940's Lois not Kidder but Routh looked like Reeve, etc.

[Anno_Domini]

But still, even if SR tried to enhance the looks and effects, Man of Steel does deserve to show us something brand new, which I believe they'll do.

[SpideyFan866]

It was always described as a vague sequel, so they could make imrprovements in some areas. Marlonm Brando was still Marlon, his vopice, etc, the rest were different. Lois looked like the 1940's Lois not Kidder but Routh looked like Reeve, etc.

Superman Returns is considered a sequel to the first 2 Superman films as it ignores everything that occured in 3 and 4 and uses Supes and lois's romantic rendevous in 2 as the moment when Lois got pregnant.

So, you can call Superman 2 a quasi sequel to other for films as, like I siad, it ignores 3 and 4.

[Chris Wallace]

And...it's been over thirty years since we saw Krypton explode...and I think we do need to see that again, haha.

Has it? Smallville, Lois & Clark, the animated series-RETURNS!

[socool]

Has it? Smallville, Lois & Clark, the animated series-RETURNS!

Does that mean you're against Man of Steel too?

[Spider-Aziz]

Has it? Smallville, Lois & Clark, the animated series-RETURNS!
I need to watch Lois & Clark again. Watched the MXYZPTLK episode and I find it to hold nicely

[Anno_Domini]

Has it? Smallville, Lois & Clark, the animated series-RETURNS!

And there are a number of people that didn't watch Lois & Clark, or forget about that series, or didn't watch Smallville. And the cartoon? The same applies. We need to see it on the big screen again because it's been so many years. And Superman Returns as a sequel to Superman II, it's about time for us to be given something new and not belonging to the Donnerverse.

Does that mean you're against Man of Steel too?

Haha.

[Spider-Aziz]

Here are articles by a guy you may relate to his opinions on the movie Chris

Suck (http://www.spidermancrawlspace.com/wordpress/2011/07/25/why-the-marc-webb-of-spider-man-movie-is-probably-going-to-suck-especially-if-youre-a-fan-of-the-comics/)

Suck (cont.) (http://www.spidermancrawlspace.com/wordpress/2011/08/01/why-the-amazing-spider-man-movie-is-probably-going-to-suck-cont/)

Awesome (http://www.spidermancrawlspace.com/wordpress/2011/09/22/why-%E2%80%9Cthe-amazing-spider-man%E2%80%9D-movie-is-going-to-be-awesome-maybe/)

[El Payaso]

And there are a number of people that didn't watch Lois & Clark, or forget about that series, or didn't watch Smallville. And the cartoon? The same applies. We need to see it on the big screen again because it's been so many years. And Superman Returns as a sequel to Superman II, it's about time for us to be given something new and not belonging to the Donnerverse.



Haha.

Man, all of those are not connected to Donner. If people might or might not have forgotten about them.. we don't even know it for a fact.

[Anno_Domini]

Man, all of those are not connected to Donner. If people might or might not have forgotten about them.. we don't even know it for a fact.

Smallville is, and I am sure Superman: The Animated Series was and we know Superman Returns was as well.

Lois & Clark was not and is actually the most enjoyable Superman entertainment there is besides Superman I and II.

[Spider-Aziz]

Cause they didn't de-power him as they did in the animated series, and Dean Caine is terrific

[Anno_Domini]

I love the animated series, but I was never a fan of how they de-powered him throughout the series.

[SpideyFan866]

Smallville is, and I am sure Superman: The Animated Series was and we know Superman Returns was as well.

Lois & Clark was not and is actually the most enjoyable Superman entertainment there is besides Superman I and II.

None of the T.V. shows were directly ties to the Donnor series. Smallville and Superman TAS were, especially Smallville, were inspired by that series while Lois and Clark had no influence whatsoever.

If any of them were though, than I guess Smallville would be an Earth-2 version of the Donnor series as, despite a lot of changes, that series took all of its cues from that from having Jonathan Kent die (which first happened only in STM) to using the John Williams theme throughout the series.

[Anno_Domini]

None of the T.V. shows were directly ties to the Donnor series. Smallville and Superman TAS were, especially Smallville, were inspired by that series while Lois and Clark had no influence whatsoever.

If any of them were though, than I guess Smallville would be an Earth-2 version of the Donnor series as, despite a lot of changes, that series took all of its cues from that from having Jonathan Kent die (which first happened only in STM) to using the John Williams theme throughout the series.

So...is this agreeing with my statement or what? I don't understand, lol. I believe I have already said all of this that ties to SV and Superman: TAS to the Donnerverse.

[Spider-Aziz]

I love the animated series, but I was never a fan of how they de-powered him throughout the series.
Me and my bro discussed the de-powering move and joked about it a few times, then he compares this Superman to Chris Reeves in the first movie to how he held a helicopter in the Livewire episode

[Kurt Wagner]

I couldn't disagree with you more, Kurt.

How can you seriously hate something that's not even out yet? So many people did the same thing with Nolan's batman movies when the first pics of the tumbler arose on the internet... and pics of heath ledger as the joker. Hell, the casting announcement ALONE of Heath Ledger cause huge fan rage that was out of nothing... and look at the movies now, ranked up there as one of the best comic book movies.

And compared to Raimi's version, this new reboot maintains the humor without the cheesiness. It has great actors... great story... a great director... and it's as faithful if not more faithful to the Spider-Man comics as Raimi's versions.

What's your argument for disliking the reboot?

[mayo23]

The costume is pretty cool... sure there are minor changes, but it definitely doesn't suck more than Raimi's raised silver webbing. If anything sucks, it's your attitude towards the reboot. Give it a chance and maybe you'll be surprised and might actually like it... And if you can't get yourself to give it a fair chance... then just close your eyes during the spider-bite scene so you don't have to watch it again... or skip the movie all together. But chances are that if you're like most haters, you'll only watch the movie to just reinforce what you already dislike.

Given this guy's attitude, he won't like the film one bit. Don't you know you can't make someone like something when they're so set on hating it! By the way, what does it mean when someone says they're a "fan"? Usually that's the way a hate/rant thread always starts of, with the OP saying "I'm a HUGE fan, but"...blah blah blah, as if it makes their opinions more valid and not biased. I hate narrow minded people.

[SpaceWay2009]

Given this guy's attitude, he won't like the film one bit. Don't you know you can't make someone like something when they're so set on hating it! By the way, what does it mean when someone says they're a "fan"? Usually that's the way a hate/rant thread always starts of, with the OP saying "I'm a HUGE fan, but"...blah blah blah, as if it makes their opinions more valid and not biased. I hate narrow minded people.lol Yeah, that's usually the case.

[Chris Wallace]

How can you seriously hate something that's not even out yet? So many people did the same thing with Nolan's batman movies when the first pics of the tumbler arose on the internet... and pics of heath ledger as the joker. Hell, the casting announcement ALONE of Heath Ledger cause huge fan rage that was out of nothing... and look at the movies now, ranked up there as one of the best comic book movies.

And compared to Raimi's version, this new reboot maintains the humor without the cheesiness. It has great actors... great story... a great director... and it's as faithful if not more faithful to the Spider-Man comics as Raimi's versions.

What's your argument for disliking the reboot?

Bad costume desing, Garfield doesn't sell the character for me, I don't like the Lizard's look, don't see a need to retell his origin or bring his parents into it, how is it THE UNTOLD STORY if we know his origin & they're just changing it, Captain Stacy acting like Jameson...
I haven't seen anything to like, really.

[SpaceWay2009]

Will you still give it a chance?

[El Payaso]

Bad costume desing, Garfield doesn't sell the character for me, I don't like the Lizard's look, don't see a need to retell his origin or bring his parents into it, how is it THE UNTOLD STORY if we know his origin & they're just changing it, Captain Stacy acting like Jameson...
I haven't seen anything to like, really.

The costume, I cannot argue. It's bad specially when compared to Raimi's (although I admit it looked good enough in the trailer, but then again it's just a trailer). But hey, see the movie and then compare Garfield to Maguire. And Lizard doesn't look worse than Raimi's Green Goblin. The need of re-telling is the whole purpose of a reboot. And his parents are part of Peter's story that was omitted by Raimi (not saying it's a bad thing but it is certainly not bad to consider it). And correct me if I'm wrong but Raimi did change Spider-man's story (organic webshooters, non-radioactive spider, no Gwen Stacy dying, Marko killed Uncle Ben... accidentally - and btw, how is Webb changing Spider-man's story? I actually don't know).

[Bruce_Begins]

Bad costume desing
The suit looks bad in braod daylight pics, but it looks OK in the trailers, and it makes him look alien like and scary, something that would scare ordinary thugs.
Garfield doesn't sell the character for me
I thought that his acting was OK, at least he does not look like a mild mannered loser like Tobey did.


I don't like the Lizard's look
It is closer to Steve Dikto's Lizard, and they will have the Lizard say some lines for that he cannot have a long snout.

don't see a need to retell his origin or bring his parents into it
Reboot means telling the Origin story again, but from a new perspective,.

how is it THE UNTOLD STORY
It includes the back story about Peter's parents, something that was excluded in Raimi's movies.

if we know his origin & they're just changing it
Not really.

Captain Stacy acting like Jameson...
You have not seen the movie yet to claim that.

I haven't seen anything to like, really.
O.K.

[CConn]

Garfield is like 80 billion times better than Maguire. :o

[El Payaso]

Garfield is like 80 billion times better than Maguire. :o

If he has a better crying face - and every human being but Maguire does - then he wins. LOL.

[CConn]

I'm going to go as far as saying I don't know how real tried and true Spider-Man fans could have been at all pleased with Maguire.

He never matured past the uber-geeky 15yo Peter Parker only existed for about 25 issues of the comics.

Once he moved to New York in Spider-Man 1, and certainly in all of Spider-Man 2, his characterization should've matched the much more confident and comedic Peter Parker of ASM #60+.

[Jack O Lantern]

Define "real tried and true," Spider-Man fans. Is there a test? Or do you do you alone have the rules that govern this?

[CConn]

I mean people with a thorough knowledge of Spider-Man comics.

As said, if you analyze his characterization throughout the early run of ASM (from about #1-150, let's say), you'll see that Maguire's characterization doesn't match what Peter's personality was for the majority of those comics.

Like I said, Maguire's characterization was early Peter Parker (issues #1-30 or so, maybe). Which was fine for the first 30-45 minutes of the first movie, but once he moved into the city, his characterization should've progressed to his characterization in the later issues of ASM.

[Jack O Lantern]

You said he should have been more confident. What scenes show Peter has a lack of confidence?

[CConn]

Every scene with Mary Jane.

Most scenes with Aunt May.

Every scene with Norman.

Etc. al.

[Jack O Lantern]

Right.

Try this, give a specific example and then explain how that proves your point.

[lordofthenerds]

Every scene with Mary Jane.

Most scenes with Aunt May.

Every scene with Norman.

Etc. al.
2lju1vCkfmk&feature=related

[lordofthenerds]

You said he should have been more confident. What scenes show Peter has a lack of confidence?
FYUKKz83N7s&feature=related

[CConn]

Right.

Try this, give a specific example and then explain how that proves your point.I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were looking for such specificity.

I'll have to pull up the script or rewatch a couple scenes. I wouldn't want to misquote Tobey.

[CConn]

FYUKKz83N7s&feature=relatedHe sounds exactly like my ex-girlfriend. :o

Who now takes Prozac. :o

[Jack O Lantern]

FYUKKz83N7s&feature=related

The woman he loved broke up with him just as he was going to propose and he cried.


How did he show a lack of confidence? What would have confident person have done different?

[Jack O Lantern]

I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were looking for such specificity.

I'll have to pull up the script or rewatch a couple scenes. I wouldn't want to misquote Tobey.

Look, no need to apologize. Just admit you can't think of one and we'll move one.

[lordofthenerds]

The woman he loved broke up with him just as he was going to propose and he cried.


How did he show a lack of confidence? What would have confident person have done different?
Not cry?

[Chris Wallace]

Where does it say a reboot requires a whole new origin? Of the 3 Marvel reboots that have come out thus far, (Hulk, Ghost Rider, Punisher) not ONE has redone the origin. They did a quick recap and moved on.

[CConn]

Where does it say a reboot requires a whole new origin? Of the 3 Marvel reboots that have come out thus far, (Hulk, Ghost Rider, Punisher) not ONE has redone the origin. They did a quick recap and moved on.
I do agree that the origin didn't need to be retold. However, with ASM, it at least seems to tie into the overall plot of the film rather closely.

[CConn]

Look, no need to apologize. Just admit you can't think of one and we'll move one.
That's it. Once I'm done watching Star Wars, I'm popping in my Spider-Man Blu-ray and tearing you a new one.

[CConn]

Okay...

When he's talking to Mary Jane outside of the diner:
The awkward way he just stares crestfallen when MJ tells him she's going out with Harry, the way he can't barely muster up a reply when she reveals her embarrassment about big a waitress. It all belies a lack of confidence and immaturity. Honestly, his performance at times strikes me as if he's a child watching the world happen before him without totally understanding how to interpret or respond to it. It's always stuttering and nervous smiles. Uncomfortable glances and a lack for words.

The scene with Betty Brant also displays that same dopey nature: "I'm Peter Parker. I'm a photographer." You really can't get more awkward than that line and delivery.

During the Thanksgiving Dinner:
The entire scene characterizes Peter as unaware, stuttering adolescent. Not only does he project a dopey demeanor to his family with his excuses fto cover up being Spider-Man (which isn't too bad in and of itself), but he also displays a lack of confidence and downright intelligence by being unable to act nonchalant when attention is drawn to his injury, and by his inaction while Harry and Norman are being *******s to the love of his life.

When Mary Jane visits Aunt May in the hospital:
It doesn't start off too bad, asking MJ how she's feeling after the previous day is the right thing to do, but once MJ starts talking about how she feels about Spider-Man, and Peter starts going into his fake conversation with Spider-Man, again, he just seems like someone who has absolutely no clue what he's doing. It's obvious he's making the speech up as he goes long, which isn't too bad, but what really clinches it is that he can't just be upfront and honest about his feelings, rather he has to hide behind his other persona.

I will admit, a lot of it does simply come Maguire himself; his whole demeanor screams nervousness, awkwardness, and and insecurity. The way his voice If another actor had played the role, possibly they could have interjected more maturity and chrisma into the role.

Unfortunately, it didn't happen. More unfortunate, I'm quite sure Maguire played the character exactly the way Raimi intended it. Which while isn't bad for the movie (I do enjoy the movie, don't get me wrong), it just doesn't really match up with who Peter was in the comics at that time.

Even, if you aren't well versed in the originals, just go take a look at Spider-Man: Blue. The Peter Parker in that, to me at least, seems very much the polar opposite of the Peter Parker in the movies. He's juggling women and friends. Despite his constant bad luck, always seems to stay one step ahead due to his intellect and powers. That's the Peter Parker I'll always prefer.

[roach]

I'm going to go as far as saying I don't know how real tried and true Spider-Man fans could have been at all pleased with Maguire.



and this is where I stopped listening...sorry but this sounds a bit elitist...."only true spider-man fans would have hated the movie"
are the true fans the ones who read Amazing Fantasy 15 or Spider-man #1???
Do we not count fans who got into Spider-man thru Spiderman and his amazing friends??
or the animated series???
or the 70s Series???
or the movies??
or are they only fans of the comics???

[CConn]

Um, I didn't say anyone should hate the movie. I quite like both Spider-Man movies.

My point is simply that Maguire did not play the character accurately to the comics. That's what I mean by "tried and true". Not to be demeaning to anyone who became a fan from some other medium (my first exposure to Spider-Man was TAS), just that judging by comic faithfulness, it was not a strong performance.

I would liken it to Michael Keaton's Bruce Wayne; I love Keaton, but there were many aspects of the character that Burton and Keaton completely ignored (that said, I'd say Keaton's performances were 80 times better than Maguire's, but that's another story altogether. :o).

In any case, my general point is; Maguire played the 15yo version of Peter Parker for 3 movies - by the end of which he had to at least be 21-24 (in movie time, at least). That fact alone (no matter how good or bad his actual performance was) should make it pretty obvious that another, different, interpretation of Spider-Man is needed to really properly represent the character.

And I'm sorry if it sounds elitist, but that era of Spider-Man comics - late 60s, early 70s - were absolute pinnacle of the character. I've heard numerous people - of all ages - state that. It's not to be offensive to any other time or adaptation, it's just that those comics were that good. Probably one of the best comic runs of all time.

[CConn]

2lju1vCkfmk&feature=related
That was the best scene in that movie. :o

[Kurt Wagner]

Where does it say a reboot requires a whole new origin? Of the 3 Marvel reboots that have come out thus far, (Hulk, Ghost Rider, Punisher) not ONE has redone the origin. They did a quick recap and moved on.

Hulk and Ghost Rider were never reboots. They were sequels, especially The Incredible Hulk... It even picks up right where Hulk left off.
:doh:.

[Bruce_Begins]

TIH was a reboot but it felt like a sequel.

[El Payaso]

TIH was a reboot but it felt like a sequel.

Totally.

I'm sure it was made to be like that. So people who saw Ang lee's Hulk didn't feel disoriented.

But TIH clearly stablishes a different origin in that flashy sequence at the beginning.

[Troy_Parker]

GR 2 wasn't a reboot either... was it? It just retconned some stuff.

[CConn]

Let's pretend GR2 doesn't exist. :o

[Jack O Lantern]

Okay...

When he's talking to Mary Jane outside of the diner:
The awkward way he just stares crestfallen when MJ tells him she's going out with Harry, the way he can't barely muster up a reply when she reveals her embarrassment about big a waitress. It all belies a lack of confidence and immaturity. Honestly, his performance at times strikes me as if he's a child watching the world happen before him without totally understanding how to interpret or respond to it. It's always stuttering and nervous smiles. Uncomfortable glances and a lack for words.

The scene with Betty Brant also displays that same dopey nature: "I'm Peter Parker. I'm a photographer." You really can't get more awkward than that line and delivery.

During the Thanksgiving Dinner:
The entire scene characterizes Peter as unaware, stuttering adolescent. Not only does he project a dopey demeanor to his family with his excuses fto cover up being Spider-Man (which isn't too bad in and of itself), but he also displays a lack of confidence and downright intelligence by being unable to act nonchalant when attention is drawn to his injury, and by his inaction while Harry and Norman are being *******s to the love of his life.

When Mary Jane visits Aunt May in the hospital:
It doesn't start off too bad, asking MJ how she's feeling after the previous day is the right thing to do, but once MJ starts talking about how she feels about Spider-Man, and Peter starts going into his fake conversation with Spider-Man, again, he just seems like someone who has absolutely no clue what he's doing. It's obvious he's making the speech up as he goes long, which isn't too bad, but what really clinches it is that he can't just be upfront and honest about his feelings, rather he has to hide behind his other persona.

I will admit, a lot of it does simply come Maguire himself; his whole demeanor screams nervousness, awkwardness, and and insecurity. The way his voice If another actor had played the role, possibly they could have interjected more maturity and chrisma into the role.

Unfortunately, it didn't happen. More unfortunate, I'm quite sure Maguire played the character exactly the way Raimi intended it. Which while isn't bad for the movie (I do enjoy the movie, don't get me wrong), it just doesn't really match up with who Peter was in the comics at that time.

Even, if you aren't well versed in the originals, just go take a look at Spider-Man: Blue. The Peter Parker in that, to me at least, seems very much the polar opposite of the Peter Parker in the movies. He's juggling women and friends. Despite his constant bad luck, always seems to stay one step ahead due to his intellect and powers. That's the Peter Parker I'll always prefer.

Here's the Peter Parker from the time frame you're talking about.

http://imageshack.us/f/828/gwen2np.jpg

Look at him taking life by the balls.

And in Spider-Man Blue

http://imageshack.us/f/28/tumblrl68edhqlfp1qbpfel.png/

What a cool customer.

None of those scenes show a lack of confidence.

You use the scene outside the cafe as a scene of a lack of confidence. MJ tells him she's dating his best friend, reveals her embarrassment, by the end of the scene she's laughing and feeling good about herself.

In the hospital scene you want him to try and steal his best friends girl.

You seem to mistake awkwardness for lack of confidence. They're not the same thing. Peter is very confident in all three films. You're talking about a guy who went into a major New York Newspaper and was leaving with the photos because he wanted more money. That's not something someone does unless they're confident.

[CConn]

And him just being painfully awkward is any better?

My point is Peter Parker's whole demeanor is that of a socially unsure teenager. Not the more sophisticated 20-something he was in the comics around that same time period.

[Chris Wallace]

Hulk and Ghost Rider were never reboots. They were sequels, especially The Incredible Hulk... It even picks up right where Hulk left off.
:doh:.

Hulk 2003-Bruce becomes the Hulk as a result of his father's tainted DNA combined with his own experiments. Gen. Ross doesn't even MEET Bruce until after he becomes the Hulk and knows nothing of Bruce's work prior to this.
Incredible Hulk-Bruce becomes the Hulk as the result of a government-sanctioned experiment attempting to recreate the super soldier serum, which Ross knew about all along. Ross pursues the Hulk not to neutralize the threat-as in the previous film-but to find a way to duplicate the process.
Ghost Rider 2007-Johnny Blaze unwittingly nicks his finger and seals the deal with a crippled Mephisto in hopes that his dad's illness won't derail his plans with Roxanne. The change is only triggered at night, and his primary power is the Penance Stare, which sears the soul but leaves the flesh intact. Johnny has embraced the Rider at the end & gained a measure of control over him. No mention of Zarathos is made.
SOV-Johnny DELIBERATELY sheds his on the contract. The devil, Johnny's backstory & GR's powers are all QUITE different. ANd Johnny is desperate to free himself from Zarathos.
These are not sequels, my friend.

[Chris Wallace]

Will you still give it a chance?

As in go to see it? Why would I do that? I gave it a chance by watching the trailers. I wasn't impressed. What I won't do is give it my money. That's like buying an album when every single you've heard from it sucks.

[Web face]

Those trailers were only like 2.5% of the actual movie though. I get what youre saying kinda, but the trailers barely showed anything compared to what singles out of an album show. Would you be willing to see it if it got good reviews?

[El Payaso]

As in go to see it? Why would I do that? I gave it a chance by watching the trailers. I wasn't impressed. What I won't do is give it my money. That's like buying an album when every single you've heard from it sucks.

At this time and age, everyone knows how misleading a trailer could be.

[Sharkboy]

As in go to see it? Why would I do that? I gave it a chance by watching the trailers. I wasn't impressed. What I won't do is give it my money. That's like buying an album when every single you've heard from it sucks.

And if it does come out to heaps of praise. Will you then change your mind? or have you unquestionably doomed it before release?

[roach]

Why is it a big deal if he doesn't want to see it

[SpaceWay2009]

As in go to see it? Why would I do that? I gave it a chance by watching the trailers. I wasn't impressed. What I won't do is give it my money. That's like buying an album when every single you've heard from it sucks.I don't know. Trailers can be misleading sometime. Like the SM3 trailer. It looked really good, but the movie wasn't as good.

[Troy_Parker]

At this time and age, everyone knows how misleading a trailer could be.

#spiderman3

[Troy_Parker]

As in go to see it? Why would I do that? I gave it a chance by watching the trailers. I wasn't impressed. What I won't do is give it my money. That's like buying an album when every single you've heard from it sucks.

Not gonna lie, pretty much everyone has loved the trailers. Well, the second one has gotten praise from everyone. Webb's take on Spider-Man has captured the spirit just as well- even more than, imo -as Raimi's did.

I'm willing to bet this has more to do with the fact that this isn't Raimi's Spider-Man than anything else.

If it is indeed that, then I think that that's pathetic and blind fanboyism, but whatever.

[roach]

God forbid he have an opinion and stick to it...just because 'everyone' likes the trailer means nothing.
I went to see Hunger Games with a friend and we made plans to see the Avengers marathon....he wasn't impressed with the trailer

[Troy_Parker]

God forbid he have an opinion and stick to it...just because 'everyone' likes the trailer means nothing.
I went to see Hunger Games with a friend and we made plans to see the Avengers marathon....he wasn't impressed with the trailer

Did you read the rest of what I said? I don't care if he genuinely doesn't like it, but if it's out of some blind loyalty to Raimi, that's ****ing stupid.

[Chris Wallace]

I have not seen a trailer I hated for a movie I ended up liking in I don't know how long.

[CConn]

How could you not like the ASM trailers?

And I'm not being factious when I ask that...literally, what about it doesn't look good?

[Troy_Parker]

How could you not like the ASM trailers?

And I'm not being factious when I ask that...literally, what about it doesn't look good?

Ohh, man... if he uses the suit as the focal point for his dislike... :funny:

[CConn]

The only gripe I could see with it is that a lot of it has already been done in SM1.

But that doesn't by itself make it bad.

[Chris Wallace]

Not gonna lie, pretty much everyone has loved the trailers. Well, the second one has gotten praise from everyone. Webb's take on Spider-Man has captured the spirit just as well- even more than, imo -as Raimi's did.

I'm willing to bet this has more to do with the fact that this isn't Raimi's Spider-Man than anything else.
If it is indeed that, then I think that that's pathetic and blind fanboyism, but whatever.

Having a different opinion than the rest of you is pathetic and blind fanboyism? It can't be that I just haven't liked what I've seen? There has to be some deep-rooted refusal on my part to accept change? Maybe I'm just not pleased with it and that's all there is to it.

[CConn]

Well, maybe if you actually gave reasons why you don't like it other than whining about them ignoring Raimi's movies, people would take you as being more intellectually honest.

[roach]

Reasons why I am not looking forward to Amazing Spider-man
1. Tone. It seems too dark and doesn't fit with the tone of the comics.
2. Story. Did we really need to see the origin again
3. Suit. Yea the suit

[PSYLENTGuardian]

1. Tone. It seems too dark and doesn't fit with the tone of the comics.

I honestly don't see where you're getting this assumption. I saw nothing dark apart from the night cinematography, which still seemed pretty bright to me. ASM looks to be departing far from the tone of TDKR.

2. Story. Did we really need to see the origin again

If the director wanted to tell a brand new story, that'd be the time to ball up the old piece of paper, throw it in the trash, and start anew.
Granted, I myself would've rather seen something like what The Incredible Hulk did, but I understand the decision to tell the origin again. Especially since Peter's parents are coming into the picture.

3. Suit. Yea the suit
Visually, I like it. The trailer made it look like the suit out of Ultimate Spider-Man, and I really like that it has that comic book look while still being practical.
Honestly, I prefer Raimi's suit in terms of a faithful design, but I find the ASM suit appropriate for Marc Webb's take.

[Troy_Parker]

1. Tone. It seems too dark and doesn't fit with the tone of the comics.


You haven't read enough comics then. And besides, what's so dark about it? It just isn't as cheery or cheesy as Raimi's universe was. It's far from a "dark" tone.


2. Story. Did we really need to see the origin again


It's a reboot. They're obviously going to want to start from the beginning. I agree with what Psylent said, I'd have preferred an origin similar to that too, but this is the only way to play it safe tbh.


3. Suit. Yea the suit


Sorry, but this is ****ing stupid. You're not looking forward to this movie because you don't like the costume? Wow.

[Troy_Parker]

Having a different opinion than the rest of you is pathetic and blind fanboyism? It can't be that I just haven't liked what I've seen? There has to be some deep-rooted refusal on my part to accept change? Maybe I'm just not pleased with it and that's all there is to it.

Touchy touchy.

I did say "If".

What exactly aren't you pleased about? There's nothing in this movie that isn't Spider-Man. The soul of Spider-Man is in TASM, just as much as it was in Raimi's take.

[roach]

You haven't read enough comics then. And besides, what's so dark about it? It just isn't as cheery or cheesy as Raimi's universe was. It's far from a "dark" tone.

I have my father's comics which are the very first Stan Lee and Ditko comics all the way up to the Clone saga...Spider-man is not a dark character

It's a reboot. They're obviously going to want to start from the beginning. I agree with what Psylent said, I'd have preferred an origin similar to that too, but this is the only way to play it safe tbh.

not really

Sorry, but this is ****ing stupid. You're not looking forward to this movie because you don't like the costume? Wow.

No its not stupid. Its my opinion and can neither be wrong or right. Its how I feel

[CConn]

Reasons why I am not looking forward to Amazing Spider-manThats different (and a bit more understandable) than you think it'll be bad. :o

1. Tone. It seems too dark and doesn't fit with the tone of the comics.The trailers to me have looked a lot less campy than Raimi's Spider-Man, but I wouldn't say they look particularly dark. I mean, the Lizard stuff seems perfectly adult, but I never got the sense that it contradicted the comics.

Moreover, as I've already eluded to, Spider-Man's increased quipping actually reminds me more the glory days of his comics than Maguire's constant awkwardness.

2. Story. Did we really need to see the origin againI've always agreed with this point. It is pointless. I would've been perfectly fine with them just forgoing the origin and starting off a reboot with an established Spider-Man.

That said, they seem to be weaving some new back stories into the origin that might actually make it something new and interesting. Not to mention, we're still getting a new villain in Lizard, and a totally new plot line outside of the general construct of the origin, plus we'll finally see the Stacys as they were intended. So I don't see how just having a random Spider-Man movie with Lizard, Peter essentially married to MJ, and Gwen out of the picture would be much better.

3. Suit. Yea the suitI will not dignify that with a response. ;)

[CConn]

No its not stupid. Its my opinion and can neither be wrong or right. Its how I feel
I dunno, Kraven's Last Hunt was a hella dark comic. As was Spider-Man: Reign (which got a lot of critical praise), and so was a lot of the recent issues of ASM and SSM before OMD happened.

[Troy_Parker]

No its not stupid. Its my opinion and can neither be wrong or right. Its how I feel

1. Again, this movie isn't dark. If you're only looking at the Ditko era, then I can see how this movie is "dark" to you.

2. Yes. Really.

3. Sorry, but it is stupid. Would you hate somebody before you got to know them, simply because they were wearing a shirt that you didn't like?

[The Morningstar]

This movie doesn't look dark at all. It's just not campy.

And the scene in the back of the car with the thief is funnier than ANYTHING in Raimi's movies. That is Spider-Man right there.

It might be another origin story, but it's brining new elements into play, like the conspiracy with his parents. And of course we are getting a villain we've never seen before, plus a more accurate romance.

I would like to ask Chris Wallace to explain, in detail, what he doesn't like about the trailer and what doesn't make it look like Spider-Man. And to expand on that, what exactly, made the Raimi movies perfect, in terms of adaptations of the character. Because from what i've seen, this new take seems to simply be more accurate to the source material.

[CConn]

^ Exactly.

High five, Morningstar!

[The Morningstar]

High five!

[El Payaso]

This movie doesn't look dark at all. It's just not campy.

And the scene in the back of the car with the thief is funnier than ANYTHING in Raimi's movies. That is Spider-Man right there.

It might be another origin story, but it's brining new elements into play, like the conspiracy with his parents. And of course we are getting a villain we've never seen before, plus a more accurate romance.

I have to agree with every word there.

[The Morningstar]

High five!

Yea i mean, if someone really loves Raimi's version? Fine. But to basically boycott this new version after seeing a couple of trailers? That just... doesn't make any sense to me.

Especially when this new version seems to be so much more accurate to the source material, in terms of the little details (web shooters, the Stacey's) and overall tone.

I also think it shows some really inspired stuff. Like the part where Spidey is in the sewer, setting up what appears to be a proper spider web, most probably as some form of motion detector type thing. That's ingenious i have to say.

[MarvelKnight]

The only thing I hate about the costume is the suction cup shoes. If they weren't going to go with a 4th Raimi movie, why not just reboot the whole thing? I don't think it will be a 'dark' film, but I do think it will be a bit more violent than the previous incarnation. I also think we'll get a better sense of how formidable the enemy is which will actually make it seem like Spider-Man is in a fight for his life. I'm definitely cool with that. I just hope the suction cups go away in the final cut.

[The Morningstar]

They have rebooted the whole thing.

[Web face]

They're not actually suction cups, it's just the bottom of regular asics.

[The Morningstar]

I demand an answer to my question!!!!

[Chris Wallace]

Reasons why I am not looking forward to Amazing Spider-man
1. Tone. It seems too dark and doesn't fit with the tone of the comics.
2. Story. Did we really need to see the origin again
3. Suit. Yea the suit

Agreed on all 3.

[Chris Wallace]

Touchy touchy.

I did say "If".

What exactly aren't you pleased about? There's nothing in this movie that isn't Spider-Man. The soul of Spider-Man is in TASM, just as much as it was in Raimi's take.

Are the web-shooters lighting up in your avi?:doh:

[CConn]

Agreed on all 3.
No offense mans, but are you ever actually going to add something to the conversation?

I mean, you started the thread and the only thing you've really contributed on your own is "it's not Raimi's Spider-Man, so I don't like it" and "Don't call me a Raimi fanboy or you're a stupid jerk".

I'm perfectly open and willing to hear some intelligent reasons why you wouldn't be interested in the movie - and debate them intelligently without any stupid jerkness - but you're just contributing nothing to the topic. You almost remind me of a troll who just pops in to flame the fires then leave when people actually start expressing well-stated opinions.

[Web face]

Agreed on all 3.
Just curious, what do you guys (people that find the tone too dark) think about the latest Kellogg clips?

[PSYLENTGuardian]

Are the web-shooters lighting up in your avi?:doh:

They light up in the actual movie. I don't mind it one bit, to be honest.

[SoNicRaDiATioN]

No offense mans, but are you ever actually going to add something to the conversation?

I mean, you started the thread and the only thing you've really contributed on your own is "it's not Raimi's Spider-Man, so I don't like it" and "Don't call me a Raimi fanboy or you're a stupid jerk".

I'm perfectly open and willing to hear some intelligent reasons why you wouldn't be interested in the movie - and debate them intelligently without any stupid jerkness - but you're just contributing nothing to the topic. You almost remind me of a troll who just pops in to flame the fires then leave when people actually start expressing well-stated opinions.

Great post. It's getting to the point where nobody gives a cra_ what he thinks. Raimi troll at it's finest, like a dog chasing it's own tail. I know web-shooters don't light up your avatar CW, but do me a favor and moon walk into the dust bin of oblivion. Just watch Raimi's films and pretend this one doesn't exist. I guess being a member since 2001 elevates you above troll status. Opinion yeah right, we get it.

Just curious, what do you guys (people that find the tone too dark) think about the latest Kellogg clips?

Do you have to ask lol? Alan Smithee Sr. didn't help write the dialogue so the have to hate it...

[The Morningstar]

No offense mans, but are you ever actually going to add something to the conversation?

I mean, you started the thread and the only thing you've really contributed on your own is "it's not Raimi's Spider-Man, so I don't like it" and "Don't call me a Raimi fanboy or you're a stupid jerk".

I'm perfectly open and willing to hear some intelligent reasons why you wouldn't be interested in the movie - and debate them intelligently without any stupid jerkness - but you're just contributing nothing to the topic. You almost remind me of a troll who just pops in to flame the fires then leave when people actually start expressing well-stated opinions.

High five, CCon!

I would very much like detailed answers from Mr Chris Wallace. Or there shall be hell to pay! :BA

[MarvelKnight]

They're not actually suction cups, it's just the bottom of regular asics.

Thanks for the clarification.

[Chris Wallace]

This movie doesn't look dark at all. It's just not campy.

And the scene in the back of the car with the thief is funnier than ANYTHING in Raimi's movies. That is Spider-Man right there.

It might be another origin story, but it's brining new elements into play, like the conspiracy with his parents. And of course we are getting a villain we've never seen before, plus a more accurate romance.

I would like to ask Chris Wallace to explain, in detail, what he doesn't like about the trailer and what doesn't make it look like Spider-Man. And to expand on that, what exactly, made the Raimi movies perfect, in terms of adaptations of the character. Because from what i've seen, this new take seems to simply be more accurate to the source material.

First off, I never said the Raimi movies were perfect. Never once did I use that word. NO film adaptation is. And secondly, I have explained REPEATEDLY in detail what I didn't like about the trailer and don't care to continue doing so. Especially when every time I cite something I take issue with-for example, Capt. Stacy taking on Jameson's personality-I get "You don't know that for sure!" I'm not gonna keep repeating myself to people who have already made up their minds that I'm some sort of brainwashed zombie.

[Chris Wallace]

They light up in the actual movie. I don't mind it one bit, to be honest.

:facepalm: not to you, but to the plot device. Add this to my list of reasons. Overdoing the tech aspects of the webshooter. It's supposed to be a simple device and it's been turned into something out of Star Trek. This is what you guys are arguing will bring it closer to the comics? IMO, this is overcompensating for those who just LOATHED the organic webbing so much.

[Web face]

Thanks for the clarification.
No problem. I asked that question in the trailer thread of the spoilers section. Someone posted a pic of the asics he they are from. None of this would be spoilers right?

[MarvelKnight]

Don't believe so.

[SoNicRaDiATioN]

Maybe I should have posted the Beat it lyrics. "Just Beat it..."

But I prefer Weird Al's version "Just eat it"

[El Payaso]

:facepalm: not to you, but to the plot device. Add this to my list of reasons. Overdoing the tech aspects of the webshooter. It's supposed to be a simple device and it's been turned into something out of Star Trek. This is what you guys are arguing will bring it closer to the comics? IMO, this is overcompensating for those who just LOATHED the organic webbing so much.

Have ypou tried to make one of those things? Do you think it's simple?

[CConn]

First off, I never said the Raimi movies were perfect. Never once did I use that word. NO film adaptation is. And secondly, I have explained REPEATEDLY in detail what I didn't like about the trailer and don't care to continue doing so. Especially when every time I cite something I take issue with-for example, Capt. Stacy taking on Jameson's personality-I get "You don't know that for sure!" I'm not gonna keep repeating myself to people who have already made up their minds that I'm some sort of brainwashed zombie.
I haven't made up my mind you're brainwashed. I said that's what it appears to be. But I'm trying to give you an opportunity to more clearly state your complaints. But you're just not doing it.

Okay, you don't want to restate your detailed reasons for not liking it, but maybe you could just tell us the post # in this thread where you've stated any of your complaints in detail? I just reread all of your posts in this thread, and I haven't seen you go into anything in detail about your dislikes outside of your first post, which was entirely about the business end of the movie, and nothing about the actual movie itself.

Look, I'm not trying to be a dick. I'm not trying to even be at odds with you (or, at least, be at odds respectfully), but if you want people to come around to your way of thinking, or even respect your opinion, you need to actually state it and explain it intelligently.

If you can't do that, or don't want to, then there's no point in e en discussing this at all. Unless you're just looking to brainlessly commiserate and complain with other people who's made up their minds to hate a movie they haven't even seen.

[SoNicRaDiATioN]

Chris Wallace has already made his mind up. Don't count on any great insight, we haven't got any up to this point. No matter what happens with this film he will knock it. If it's great, he will knock it. He doesn't "care to continue" making points because he has nothing more to say. Yet he keeps knocking the film as if it's his duty. A troll personified and an epic bore in general.

[Web face]

Things are getting tense around here, why don't we all just back off of Chris Wallace lol.

[SoNicRaDiATioN]

Fair enough.

[amazingfantasy15]

High five!

Yea i mean, if someone really loves Raimi's version? Fine. But to basically boycott this new version after seeing a couple of trailers? That just... doesn't make any sense to me.

Especially when this new version seems to be so much more accurate to the source material, in terms of the little details (web shooters, the Stacey's) and overall tone.

I also think it shows some really inspired stuff. Like the part where Spidey is in the sewer, setting up what appears to be a proper spider web, most probably as some form of motion detector type thing. That's ingenious i have to say.

I call BS on that, name me the part in Amazing Fantasy #15 when Peter's hunt for his parents turns him into Spider-man. I also don't see anything in the trailer have I heard anything about him seeking fame and fortune when he first gets his powers. It seems like Webb has completely changed the origin outside of a spider bite giving him his powers. Also, I'm sure you mention the Stacey's because Gwen should come before Mary Jane, but Betty Brant should come before Gwen.

There's some interesting things in the trailer, but a lot of it rubs me the wrong way.

[CConn]

I call BS on that, name me the part in Amazing Fantasy #15 when Peter's hunt for his parents turns him into Spider-man. I also don't see anything in the trailer have I heard anything about him seeking fame and fortune when he first gets his powers. It seems like Webb has completely changed the origin outside of a spider bite giving him his powers. Also, I'm sure you mention the Stacey's because Gwen should come before Mary Jane, but Betty Brant should come before Gwen.

There's some interesting things in the trailer, but a lot of it rubs me the wrong way.
Well, obviously it's not going to be totally accurate to the source material. No live action superhero movie has been.

But personally, I concur with his thoughts on it seeming more accurate it tone to the early days of the Spider-Man comics. And I don't mean that everything is the same, but those little things about Spider-Man that were absent from the Raimi movies do seem to be there.

And he didn't just mention the Stacy's for the order in which Gwen appeared. He mentioned them for their overall portrayals. Spider-Man 3 totally ****ed both of those characters over and reduced them to little more than forgettable supporting characters. This new movie at least seems to have them more integrated in Peter's life.

That said, if stuff in the trailer rubs you the wrong way, that's totally cool. Especially of you can explain it as concisely and logically as you just did in this post (with the origin changes they're making).

But, I will say, if you're still holding out for a 100% faithful adaptation, I might want to slap you. Because by now - and like 30 superhero movies produced - it's pretty obvious there will never be an 100% accurate superhero movie.

[SoNicRaDiATioN]

When Andrew was revealed as the new Spider-Man in Cancun, I immediately thought he resembled Ditko's Peter.

Thankfully they went the Romita route with Gwen, Ditko's Gwen had a "queen of mean" look about her.

[amazingfantasy15]

Well, obviously it's not going to be totally accurate to the source material. No live action superhero movie has been.

But personally, I concur with his thoughts on it seeming more accurate it tone to the early days of the Spider-Man comics. And I don't mean that everything is the same, but those little things about Spider-Man that were absent from the Raimi movies do seem to be there.

And he didn't just mention the Stacy's for the order in which Gwen appeared. He mentioned them for their overall portrayals. Spider-Man 3 totally ****ed both of those characters over and reduced them to little more than forgettable supporting characters. This new movie at least seems to have them more integrated in Peter's life.

That said, if stuff in the trailer rubs you the wrong way, that's totally cool. Especially of you can explain it as concisely and logically as you just did in this post (with the origin changes they're making).

But, I will say, if you're still holding out for a 100% faithful adaptation, I might want to slap you. Because by now - and like 30 superhero movies produced - it's pretty obvious there will never be an 100% accurate superhero movie.

I'm not asking for 100% faithful, but the themes in Spider-man's origin are the character's driving factor. Peter feels guilty, it's a guilt that will never leave him, his ego and arrogance killed the man who raised him. Looking for his parents past isn't a welcome addition to the origin in my mind. If they leave out the showbiz bit, it cheapens the origin, if Peter's mind is focused on finding the causes for his parent's death and misses stopping a robber, it's not quite as bad as letting the robber pass by as an f you to someone that's slighted him. The quote of "With Great Power comes Great Responsibility" will lose meaning if he was using his power to find the cause of his parents death, it could be a conspiracy, stopping important research, it's only responsible to find out what happened. Raimi's origin, while making changes, was accurate because it hit every important beat in the origin. From what I've seen and read of Webb's it doesn't.

[SoNicRaDiATioN]

This film is for you. Too bad. You'll always have Sam though.

[Web face]

Who said his searching for his parents is what keeps him from stopping the guy that murders Uncle Ben? From what I have seen, it seems as though Peter's ego and arrogance will be what kills the man that raised him.

[Leenie]

Let's see ... Fans of the Raimi films seem to be too simple and close-minded for their own good, and supporters of the Webb film seem to be too pretentious for their own good. There, did I offend both sides equally enough?

Like buttholes, opinions are something that everyone has ... That doesn't mean you should BE a butthole about your opinion though.

(Not saying this to a specific person, just pointing this out to people who are waaaay too worked up over people having different opinions).

[CConn]

I'm not asking for 100% faithful, but the themes in Spider-man's origin are the character's driving factor. Peter feels guilty, it's a guilt that will never leave him, his ego and arrogance killed the man who raised him. Looking for his parents past isn't a welcome addition to the origin in my mind. If they leave out the showbiz bit, it cheapens the origin, if Peter's mind is focused on finding the causes for his parent's death and misses stopping a robber, it's not quite as bad as letting the robber pass by as an f you to someone that's slighted him. The quote of "With Great Power comes Great Responsibility" will lose meaning if he was using his power to find the cause of his parents death, it could be a conspiracy, stopping important research, it's only responsible to find out what happened. Raimi's origin, while making changes, was accurate because it hit every important beat in the origin. From what I've seen and read of Webb's it doesn't.How do you know he won't be in show business of some kind? How do you know they won't just have him not stop the robber because of some selfish reason? I don't think we've seen enough to say one way or the other.

[CConn]

That said, as I see more and more, I do see one potentially fatal flaw about the movie: This "untold story" business. On one hand, I think it could had some real depth to the character and the mythos and really give even greater meaning to the whole plot with Lizard and whatnot. And I get why they'd think that kind of thing is necessary in this day and age of TDK/X-Men First Class-type of superhero movies.

But at the same time, it does have shades of the age old comic writing blunder of retconning. I mean, wasn't Sins Past labeled as the same kind of "shocking untold story"? Generally, when writers go back and muck around with the origins, it rarely comes out well - at best it seems superfluous, at worst it's downright bad.

That said, that is a rule of comic writing; film is a bit different. And I would - obviously - hope/expect the "untold history" to not be anywhere near as insulting as Sins Past. But still...I could see how that might rub people the wrong way.

[henzINNIT]

I fear this intrigue about Peter's father is going to severely diminish his relationship with his uncle, and later the impact of Ben's death.

[Chris Wallace]

We already felt the impact of Uncle Ben's death 10 years ago; they're going in a different direction.

[Troy_Parker]

Nope.

"The first domino in the story is the parents. He goes out looking for his father and finds himself. That’s my tagline. But Uncle Ben, of course, and his death… well, you have to see the movie!" Webb teased. "But, there’s three elements that Marvel was very protective of and I think are very important parts of the Spider-Man origin story. Uncle Ben’s death transforms him and has a huge impact on him. That’s an incredibly important part of the mythology. I would never subvert that. That’s all I’ll say about that"."

But hey, I can understand your rage though. After all, this isn't a Raimi and co movie.

[Leenie]

Nope.

"The first domino in the story is the parents. He goes out looking for his father and finds himself. That’s my tagline. But Uncle Ben, of course, and his death… well, you have to see the movie!" Webb teased. "But, there’s three elements that Marvel was very protective of and I think are very important parts of the Spider-Man origin story. Uncle Ben’s death transforms him and has a huge impact on him. That’s an incredibly important part of the mythology. I would never subvert that. That’s all I’ll say about that"."

But hey, I can understand your rage though. After all, this isn't a Raimi and co movie.

Not gonna lie, that quote made me feel a LOT better about this movie. I still personally feel that the movie is unnecessary at this time (still feel it's way too soon for a reboot, but hey, Sony needed to keep the rights :dry:), but at least the very core of Spider-Man is going to stay intact. Good.

[SpaceWay2009]

Nope.

"The first domino in the story is the parents. He goes out looking for his father and finds himself. That’s my tagline. But Uncle Ben, of course, and his death… well, you have to see the movie!" Webb teased. "But, there’s three elements that Marvel was very protective of and I think are very important parts of the Spider-Man origin story. Uncle Ben’s death transforms him and has a huge impact on him. That’s an incredibly important part of the mythology. I would never subvert that. That’s all I’ll say about that"."

But hey, I can understand your rage though. After all, this isn't a Raimi and co movie.Thanks for posting that. That should settle down the people who think Uncle Ben won't die. :up:

[roach]

that does make me feel better

[Troy_Parker]

Well, I'm glad it's made some people feel better. :D

[BillPardy]

Thanks for posting that. That should settle down the people who think Uncle Ben won't die. :up:

Oh, I think Uncle Ben will die. I just think he'll die at the end of the movie. Since, in the trailer we can hear the line during the dinner scene, "Peter lives with his Aunt and Uncle." And then they go on to talk about Spider-man.
Now this could just be how they edited the scene, but I'm pretty sure Peter will be webslinging, and saving the day way before Uncle Ben bites it.

[Steve Sanders]

this thread is hilarous

Boy it sure is.

[Steve Sanders]

How can you seriously hate something that's not even out yet? So many people did the same thing with Nolan's batman movies when the first pics of the tumbler arose on the internet... and pics of heath ledger as the joker. Hell, the casting announcement ALONE of Heath Ledger cause huge fan rage that was out of nothing... and look at the movies now, ranked up there as one of the best comic book movies.

And compared to Raimi's version, this new reboot maintains the humor without the cheesiness. It has great actors... great story... a great director... and it's as faithful if not more faithful to the Spider-Man comics as Raimi's versions.

What's your argument for disliking the reboot?
Been lurking here for a while and this guy makes the most sense here.How can any die hard spidey fan not love that they are rebotting it especially since they are doing it right this time giving him the mechs?:whatever: sheesh.

A reboot was everybit just as much neccessary and Batman Begins was in the fact there many Batman fans that did not like any of the Burton/Scumacher Batman films. Same here with Spider-Man.Many were not at all happy with the Raimi films with him not having any mechs.

[roach]

Studios don't make the movie for the fans...if they did they would all be faithful adaptations
How could any die hard spider fan love this since they aren't using the suit that he has worn for 50 years (see what I did there). Its not for anyone of us to decide what makes a spiderman fan

[Steve Sanders]

Studios don't make the movie for the fans...if they did they would all be faithful adaptations
How could any die hard spider fan love this since they aren't using the suit that he has worn for 50 years (see what I did there). Its not for anyone of us to decide what makes a spiderman fan

except spider-man without the mechs is so stupid its not even funny.Major difference there.Fans can adjust to the costume.Half of them out there will never embrace the organics.Thats a central part of his character.Thank God sony learned from their mistakes and are doing his origin story right this this time with a reboot.The only thing I dont like about it is I think they are doing it too soon.should have waited at least a couple more years.

again this thread is hysterical that first post.lol.It was every bit as imperative they rebooted Spider-Man as much as it was for them to reboot Batman with Batman Begins.Both times they betrayed the source material so badly its disgusting they could have even thought of such a thing in the first place.

[roach]

where are you getting your numbers from...show me where half the Spider-man fans would never embrace organics.

Sorry but I dislike it when someone uses their opinion as fact. As if they represent the fans. Fact remains that the movies where highly successful. Seems to me not that many people minded organics.

[Steve Sanders]

where are you getting your numbers from...show me where half the Spider-man fans would never embrace organics.

Sorry but I dislike it when someone uses their opinion as fact. As if they represent the fans. Fact remains that the movies where highly successful. Seems to me not that many people minded organics.

thats funny because everywhere I went back then I heard people moaning about it all the time.I remember the huge numbers of people back then on message boards voicing their anger about it.

It was even mentioned in the tv guide back then when the movie came out the fan outrage everywhere across the country.:whatever: I kept the issue. Im sure I can find it somewhere,and of course it was successful,the name Spider-Man alone being the huge popular character he is was going to make it a success.where you been?:woot: If I can find that issue I'll be back again to post what they say in it otherwise I wont.

All I can is if you cant see like that other guy did how hysterical this thread is then nothing I say can change your mind obviously.

[Chris Wallace]

There seems to be a fairly common belief that my lack of support/enthusiasm for the upcoming Spidey movie stems from either some inherent resistance to change and/or some misguided sense of "loyalty" to the previous series. I don't know if I can dispel this but I'm going to try.
Although I did initially disagree with them scrapping the series and starting over, as I thought it was unnecessary and really wanted a 4th installment of the Raimi movies, hopefully bringing about a more satisfying conclusion to the saga than the dangling ending we'd gotten, I was at the same time curious as to what they were going to churn out. And I had EVERY intention of attending the movie despite my misgivings. Even after I learned they were putting him back in high school and redoing his origin. Even after I saw casting choices (PARTICULARLY Spider-Man himself) that I found questionable. Even when they took out Mary Jane AND Jameson. Even after I saw that ghastly abomination of a costume that they've got him wearing, (are they really saying that it's easier to believe a teenager made a rubber suit than a cloth one?) I still didn't give up hope. I waited patiently albeit with skepticism, for the pro's which would help to balance out the con's.
And they never came.
In the months that followed, not ONE single thing has happened to make me believe I should spend my money to see this movie. Nothing. THe trailers, the Lizard's look, the lines I keep hearing ("Do you think what happened to you was an accident?") all reinforce my belief that the order of the day was simply to make a movie that was DIFFERENT from Raimi's. Seems what they forgot to do was make it good. Although I will point out that 2 elements which were heavily protested by fans-the constant use of CGI animation for the swinging sequences and Spidey's frequent unmaskings-seem to be just as prevalent in the new movie and yet seem to be met with far less protest.
Bottom line-it simply DOES NOT look like a good movie. Period. If it did, I would support it. But it doesn't. And you know what? Think I'm narrow-minded. THink I'm brainwashed. I don't care. I can find better uses for my time AND my money.

[Troy_Parker]

If the reboot got an overwhelmingly positive reaction, would you still not care about it?

[CConn]

I want to just say firstly, that that's a pretty good post by Chris Wallace. While I don't agree wi him and, frankly, can't even quite comprehend why certain things he thinks are bad are bad, but still, his overall point of view makes sense. So kudos to that.

However, I do lalways find it funny in posts like those, people always act like their time and money is some dearly valuable possession, when in all likelihood they've wasted hours of their lives watching infomercials and spending money on similarly wasteful and forgettable commodities. :o

[roach]

I am not going to say I won't see this movie. I am a Spider-man fan first before being a Raimi series fan. There are somethings they look to do better than the first series...Spidey quipping and being more acrobatic is a plus.
I will see this movie...but my expectations will be low...or I'll be comparing this to Spider-man the whole movie. Many people like to bring up Batman Begins. Yet Batman Begins worked as a reboot because we never saw Batman's origin. This will be the second time seeing the spider bite and Peter discovering his powers. Its a retread of what we saw already.

[CConn]

Yeah, but it's not like retreads are anything new. Dracula's been remade about 80 times, Superman's origin has been retold countless times across all forms of multimedia... They'll always be "retreads" simply to update and bring new relevance to older or antiquated stories.

While I don't mean to be at all dismissive to SM1 (I enjoy it quite a bit), I think it's definitely aged rather poorly over the past 10 years. Compared to the Batman/X-Men/Avengers movies of the present, it does seem rather small and quite thoroughly campy.

I think BB is a fair comparison for this as - if it's good - it will/should bring some new relevance to the Spider-Man movie franchise..like BB did to an even greater extent for Batman.

[roach]

Yeah, but it's not like retreads are anything new. Dracula's been remade about 80 times, Superman's origin has been retold countless times across all forms of multimedia... They'll always be "retreads" simply to update and bring new relevance to older or antiquated stories.



while Superman has been in countless movies, TV shows and movies only a handful did the origin. The Christopher Reeve movie was the first time the origin was actually filmed. Superman's origin has been filmed in Superman the movie, Lois and Clark, Smallville, Superboy and the Animated series...so five really.

[CConn]

Six counting MOS.

Plus I was counting the multiple times Superman has been given a new "in continuity" origin in the comics...which he had had more of than any other major character. Action Comics #1, Man of Steel, Birthright, Secret Origin, and now Morrison's relaunch. Plus there had to be at least one reeling of the origin in radio.

But rather than be a poindexter and list them all numerically, I just said "countless".

Either way, that really has little to do with my overarching point.

[roach]

Six counting MOS.

Plus I was counting the multiple times Superman has been given a new "in continuity" origin in the comics...which he had had more of than any other major character. Action Comics #1, Man of Steel, Birthright, Secret Origin, and now Morrison's relaunch. Plus there had to be at least one reeling of the origin in radio.

But rather than be a poindexter and list them all numerically, I just said "countless".

Either way, that really has little to do with my overarching point.

i was only counting the movies that were out...and not the comics or anything else

[CConn]

...what's the difference?

It had absolutely nothing to do with the point I was making.

[roach]

i don't remember the point I was trying to make

[CConn]

You just propagated a geek stereotype. :o

[roach]

You just propagated a geek stereotype. :o

your welcome:woot:

[Dragon]

while Superman has been in countless movies, TV shows and movies only a handful did the origin. The Christopher Reeve movie was the first time the origin was actually filmed. Superman's origin has been filmed in Superman the movie, Lois and Clark, Smallville, Superboy and the Animated series...so five really.

It was also in the 50's George Reeves series.

[roach]

Here are some of the early reviews coming out for Spider-man. People who had an issue with the Raimi movies being all about Pete and MJ might not be too happy.

http://collider.com/amazing-spider-man-reviews/174622/