![]() |
movie Timeline
What year do all the movies take place in and how old are the characters meant to be like peter,Eddie,Harry MJ and Gwen?
I heard once its set in the sixties period is it true? |
Re: movie Timeline
I think Spider-Man 1 actually takes place in 2002. Then Spider-Man 2 takes place two years later (as said by Aunt May), and Spider-Man 3 takes place shortly after (weeks or months).
|
Re: movie Timeline
I think you're getting confused as to when Sam Raimi acknowledged the FEEL of the 60s with how he pertains more to the classic times of Spider-Man, but it definitely wasn't in the 60s(and I'm sure you should know this of the cars and what not in the films), but Picard's right...Spider-Man is 2002, Spider-Man 2 is 2004, but Spider-Man 3 is only six months after S-M 2.
|
Re: movie Timeline
I actually like that 60s feel of the first two Raimi movies. One reason why I never liked the idea of a symbiote being introduced in his series. People complained about the campiness, but that's just Sam Raimi's style, and I think it worked well with the character. Would have loved to see what Spider-Man 3 would have been without Venom being forced into the film.
|
Re: movie Timeline
Yah, that's one of the biggest problems with the 60s feel and how an alien symbiote is used, especially when Raimi has already created a scientific-oriented "universe" for his Spider-Man.
Although, that complaint may have been something that would have been brought up with Vulture as well if he ever showed up since it's just a guy that creates a pair of wings. Sandman would have definitely worked, but I don't know about Vulture, although he would've been ten times better than Venom since Raimi actually understood Vulture. To use Venom, I think a director should acknowledge the realm outside of science and that is why Mandarin could use ten alien rings since Iron Man 3 is set after Avengers because a world bigger than Stark's has been revealed already. |
Re: movie Timeline
The way Raimi handled the symbiote felt kind of like a 50s B-movie. But I agree, it didn't mesh with the established universe, with Peter being a scientist who interacts with lots of other scientists. How ridiculous for someone like Dr. Conners not to report an unidentified living organism that came from a freaking meteorite. For the world that had been established, that was most likely first contact with an extraterrestrial life form.
|
Re: movie Timeline
You know...for all these years, I never thought of how dumb it was for Connors not to have reported this symbiote he was given, lol.
|
Re: movie Timeline
Lol. My only thought was maybe he was keeping it for himself to study if it had any regenerative properties (for his arm) and it would somehow tie into his origin as The Lizard, but seeing as Lizard still wasn't even on the table for Spider-Man 4 that theory doesn't hold much weight.
|
Re: movie Timeline
I'm amazed by how different the Amazing Spider-man seemed in setting to Spider-man. Felt very 21st century. Even rather futuristic at times.
Then again, Raimi's film is rather hokey, while Amazing attempts to be dark and brooding for the most part. |
Re: movie Timeline
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: movie Timeline
That reminds me of TDKR compared to the previous two.
BB, TDK... both very serious, hardly any cheesy humour. Then there's TDKR... *sigh*. |
Re: movie Timeline
Quote:
"I gotta get me one of those!" "Nice ride!" "Nice trip, see you next fall!" etc., etc., etc... |
Re: movie Timeline
Hey I love all of that. There are definitely some funny things, like for example:
Spoiler!!! Click to Read!:
Let's not derail the thread, this could be interesting. When do they establish the time lapse between Spider-Man 2 and Spider-Man 3. |
Re: movie Timeline
Quote:
|
Re: movie Timeline
Quote:
|
Re: movie Timeline
Quote:
What? Why would you even think that's real? |
Re: movie Timeline
I think SM-3 pretty much has to be a few months after SM-2, simply due to the fact that I doubt Harry would have been waiting for too long to finally take his father's serum and try to avenge him. He was already pretty much at his breaking point at the end of SM-2.
|
Re: movie Timeline
Quote:
|
Re: movie Timeline
Quote:
But I'm not going to bother arguing this with you of all people as I don't want a 20 page discussion on Batman after seeing your arguments with other posters. I shouldn't have brought it up. Anyways, yeah. Why would you think that Raimi's trilogy was set in the 60s? There's plenty that makes it obvious that it's not. |
Re: movie Timeline
Quitter :cwink:
|
Re: movie Timeline
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: movie Timeline
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: movie Timeline
I feel bad for Dylan Baker and Billy Dee Williams.
|
Re: movie Timeline
A Billy Dee Williams Two-Face would have been pretty damn interesting.
|
Re: movie Timeline
Quote:
VIDEO-CLick to Watch!:
At about 17-18 seconds, he mentions a meteorite from the 70s. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:12 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SuperHeroHype.com, A property of CraveOnline, a divison of AtomicOnline, LLC © 2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.