The SuperHeroHype Forums  

Go Back   The SuperHeroHype Forums > Spider-Man > Spider-Man 1, 2 & 3

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-06-2012, 09:57 AM   #1
Webzpinner
Symbiote-enhanced
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Utah
Posts: 355
Default How have the Spider-Man films stood the test of time? OPINION

I'm a HUGE Spider-Man fan. Have been for 30 years. Not a fanboy, and can be totally honest. With the recent explosion of quality comics-to-live media such as Avengers, The Dark Knight, Walking Dead, etc, I thought I'd revisit the Spider-Man franchise and see how it stands compared to recent standards in Heroic Cinema... I watched all three films, back to back.

Back in the 60's, Marvel reinvented the Super Hero by making the alter ego just as interesting as the costume. Tony Stark was an alcoholic. Parker was an angst-ridden nerd, Hulk was a pacifist who turned into the ultimate weapon. All that is lost in the SM films. Peter is full of angst, but not in a way the audience cares. Raimi took the character away from "Great power comes great responsibility" and changed it to "With great power, I'll whine until I get the girl" The focus on Mary Jane warped the franchise, and made everything that happened seem small and insignificant. Always rescuing MJ from the villain made Spider-Man less a protector of the city and more of her personal bodyguard. MJ almost never was kidnapped in the comics, and yet the comics continue for over 40 years....


My Non-professional observations, in a free flow of thought....

Tobey sucked, Venom was the best handled of all the villains, SM2 was the closest to FEELING like a Spider-Man film should feel, but Doc Ock was brutally abused into a depressed "Arms controlled" wuss rather than a maniacal evil genius. The games and merchandise are a million times better than the films.

Best scene in Spider-Man 1 is the very end, leading to the "sticking to the flagpole" iconic shot. The rest of the movie was junk. Aunt May was an annoying Heffer, William Dafoe looked more like Goblin WITHOUT the mask on... and Kirsten Dunst is the UGLIEST thing in Hollywood. I'd rather kiss Steve Buscemi in the rain than Snaggletooth Dunst. Harry looked stoned.

Spider-Man 2 managed to make Dunst look even uglier, Doc Ock was even MORE watered down than Goblin, and the "losing my powers because I'm a doubter" is just stupid. I'd have much preferred they have his powers wane due to a cold (happens in the comics frequently) rather than doubt. James Franco shows he can act!

Spider-Man 3 was the best of times, and the worst of times. Maguire was the worst. Sandman character was the worst (misguided father? WTF!!! although looked spot-on). Dancing was the worst. Special effects were the best. Action scenes were the best. Venom and Eddie Brock were almost spot-on. Eddie was a whiny opportunist who blames others for his self-inflicted misfortunes, Venom was "born" in a church. Venom had a few one-liners, and Spidey couldn't beat him in a fair fight, requiring help and sonics to truly defeat him. James Franco stole the show.

and my final observation, certain actors were born for certain roles. Robert Downey Jr was Tony Stark to me back when he was the egotistical FBI agent in the HORRIBLE movie, "US Marshals" opposite Tommy Lee Jones. Patrick Stewart was Xavier the first time he stood on the bridge in Next Generation. Christopher Reeve embodied Superman... and JK Simmons was the 100% PERFECT as J. Jonah Jameson.

Anyway... that's my thoughts... Some may agree, many will disagree, but after being so pleasantly spoiled with the recent offerings from Marvel/Paramount and DC/Warner Bros, it was a interesting trip down nostalgia lane.

My Top 10 comics-to-films in my lifetime (Nov 1978 to June 2012)....
1) Captain America
2) Avengers
3) Dark Knight
4) Ironman
5) Superman
6) Batman Begins
7) X-Men
8) Spider-Man 2
9) Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles
10) Blade


Last edited by Webzpinner; 06-06-2012 at 10:01 AM.
Webzpinner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2012, 10:35 AM   #2
Picard Sisko
Prepare to be Assimilated
 
Picard Sisko's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 17,948
Default Re: How have the Spider-Man films stood the test of time? OPINION

Quote:
Originally Posted by Webzpinner View Post

Back in the 60's, Marvel reinvented the Super Hero by making the alter ego just as interesting as the costume. Tony Stark was an alcoholic. Parker was an angst-ridden nerd, Hulk was a pacifist who turned into the ultimate weapon. All that is lost in the SM films. Peter is full of angst, but not in a way the audience cares. Raimi took the character away from "Great power comes great responsibility" and changed it to "With great power, I'll whine until I get the girl" The focus on Mary Jane warped the franchise, and made everything that happened seem small and insignificant. Always rescuing MJ from the villain made Spider-Man less a protector of the city and more of her personal bodyguard. MJ almost never was kidnapped in the comics, and yet the comics continue for over 40 years....
Spider-Man saved Mary Jane twice in the first movie, once in the second, and once in the third. That is four times within the 2 year timeframe that these movies took place in. I don't see how MJ's focus warped the franchise.

But I'm not even gong to count the third film.
My Non-professional observations, in a free flow of thought....


Quote:
Tobey sucked, Venom was the best handled of all the villains, SM2 was the closest to FEELING like a Spider-Man film should feel, but Doc Ock was brutally abused into a depressed "Arms controlled" wuss rather than a maniacal evil genius. The games and merchandise are a million times better than the films.
Tobey sucking is really just your opinion. I don't understand how you think Venom was the best handled of the villains, when he was handled the worst. My opinion, but still. To me, Spider-Man 1 and 2 both have a very similar feel. Doc Ock was handled so well in Spider-Man 2, and the tentacles really come to life in that movie.

How can you compare the video games with the movies? The games were actually very poor in terms of story, and tried to reenact everything that happened in the films. That's why I'm glad the new game is an epilogue to the film.

Quote:
Best scene in Spider-Man 1 is the very end, leading to the "sticking to the flagpole" iconic shot. The rest of the movie was junk. Aunt May was an annoying Heffer, William Dafoe looked more like Goblin WITHOUT the mask on... and Kirsten Dunst is the UGLIEST thing in Hollywood. I'd rather kiss Steve Buscemi in the rain than Snaggletooth Dunst. Harry looked stoned.
There are many great scenes in Spider-Man 1. The wrestling scene, Peter chasing the burglar to the warehouse, Spider-Man first swinging and everyone gives their opinion on him, the fight inside the building on fire, the final battle where Goblin gets killed, the final swing, etc. I don't know why Aunt May was annoying to you, and Kirsten Dunst actually looked good in the first movie. You would rather his Buscemi? Go right ahead.

Harry did have a drug problem in the comics at one point, so who knows?

Quote:
Spider-Man 2 managed to make Dunst look even uglier, Doc Ock was even MORE watered down than Goblin, and the "losing my powers because I'm a doubter" is just stupid. I'd have much preferred they have his powers wane due to a cold (happens in the comics frequently) rather than doubt. James Franco shows he can act!
Dunst was not ugly in this movie. She wasn't "stunning," but to call her ugly is kind of mean, though its just an opinion. Doc Ock was very well developed, and used very well in this film. Don't see how he was watered down. I liked the story with Peter losing his powers. He had too much on his mind, and he was still transforming himself into Spider-Man, even after 2 years.

Quote:
Spider-Man 3 was the best of times, and the worst of times. Maguire was the worst. Sandman character was the worst (misguided father? WTF!!! although looked spot-on). Dancing was the worst. Special effects were the best. Action scenes were the best. Venom and Eddie Brock were almost spot-on. Eddie was a whiny opportunist who blames others for his self-inflicted misfortunes, Venom was "born" in a church. Venom had a few one-liners, and Spidey couldn't beat him in a fair fight, requiring help and sonics to truly defeat him. James Franco stole the show.
Spider-Man 3 was indeed a huge disappointment. It seems like you are being less harsh with the third film, and have more complaints with Spider-Man 1 and 2... lol. Sandman had some of the best scenes, but it didn't fit in the movie. He was kind of pointless. I don't understand how you think Venom was "spot-on."

James Franco had some good moments, and I think he was the best villain out of the three. At least he had character development from the previous films.

Quote:
and my final observation, certain actors were born for certain roles. Robert Downey Jr was Tony Stark to me back when he was the egotistical FBI agent in the HORRIBLE movie, "US Marshals" opposite Tommy Lee Jones. Patrick Stewart was Xavier the first time he stood on the bridge in Next Generation. Christopher Reeve embodied Superman... and JK Simmons was the 100% PERFECT as J. Jonah Jameson.
I agree with that. JK Simmons was absolutely perfect. My only concern for the reboot is who will reprise the role. Who knows, maybe JK Simmons will return.

Quote:
My Top 10 comics-to-films in my lifetime (Nov 1978 to June 2012)....
1) Captain America
2) Avengers
3) Dark Knight
4) Ironman
5) Superman
6) Batman Begins
7) X-Men
8) Spider-Man 2
9) Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles
10) Blade
1. Spider-Man 2
2. Spider-Man
3. The Dark Knight
4. Iron Man
5. The Avengers
6. X-Men: First Class
7. Batman Begins
8. Superman II
9. X2: X-Men United
10. Captain America: The First Avenger

Picard Sisko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2012, 10:40 AM   #3
Thundercrack85
Side-Kick
 
Thundercrack85's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 12,832
Default Re: How have the Spider-Man films stood the test of time? OPINION

I thought the first two were "okay" films. But never anything amazing. Or even really good. They played it safe for the most part. I also felt that it got a bit repetitive. Both Green Goblin and Doctor octopus were good guys who were driven insane by a scientific experiment. And then there was the hokey dialogue.

I didn't care for the casting much. Though that could be chalked up to writing as well. They really failed to capture a large part of Spider-man's character. You know something is wrong when Batman has more zingers than Spider-man.

They did have some redeeming features though. A few characters were well cast, and better written.

Thundercrack85 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2012, 10:44 AM   #4
Picard Sisko
Prepare to be Assimilated
 
Picard Sisko's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 17,948
Default Re: How have the Spider-Man films stood the test of time? OPINION

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thundercrack85 View Post
I thought the first two were "okay" films. But never anything amazing. Or even really good. They played it safe for the most part. I also felt that it got a bit repetitive. Both Green Goblin and Doctor octopus were good guys who were driven insane by a scientific experiment. And then there was the hokey dialogue.

I didn't care for the casting much. Though that could be chalked up to writing as well. They really failed to capture a large part of Spider-man's character. You know something is wrong when Batman has more zingers than Spider-man.

They did have some redeeming features though. A few characters were well cast, and better written.
I thought the first two were Amazing and the third was okay. I thought the third movie was were it got repetitive, since they had Mary Jane get captured for the final battle once more.

Green Goblin was a "good guy," but he was also a great big jerk. After getting the Goblin powers, then it really took those mean qualities to the extreme. Doc Ock was really a good guy driven man.

The character of Peter Parker was resembling more of the early days of Spider-Man, which influenced Raimi.

Picard Sisko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2012, 11:05 AM   #5
The Joker
Clown Prince of Crime
 
The Joker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Jollity Farm
Posts: 36,626
Default Re: How have the Spider-Man films stood the test of time? OPINION

My two cents;

I think Tobey Maguire did a great job. Yes his Spider-Man could have quipped more but that's a fault of the script, not Tobey. He can only read the lines he was given. I didn't like that MJ was the center of Peter's universe. The "all about a girl" stuff was too much. His Spider-Man was a great conflicted character. I loved how they handled his guilt over Uncle Ben's death. The power loss storyline was great. Tobey always delivered when he had to. He had good chemistry with his main supporting cast, and Dafoe and Molina.

Kirsten Dunst was a poor MJ. Her performances were not as energetic and enthusiastic as they could have been, especially in SM-3. MJ was a badly written character. Selfish, whiny, and used men left right and center to satisfy her own insecurities. She was by far at her worst in Spider-Man 3. I could write a laundry list of reasons why. Her jealousy of Peter's fame as Spidey, giving into Harry's pathetic threat to break Peter's heart, kissing Harry etc. Awful character.

James Franco as Harry was the strongest supporting character along with Aunt May. His jealousy of Norman's fondness of peter. His craving for his father's approval. Coming into his own as the head of Oscorp. The drunken scenes where he obsesses over Spider-Man, slaps peter, makes a deal with Doc Ock etc. There's not much I can fault them with. With Harry my only complaint would be how he was handled as the Goblin. His master revenge plan to just break Peter and MJ up was rather weak. MJ's part in it was even more ridiculous.

Aunt May: Rosemary Harris was virtually flawless. Sweet, endearing Aunt May, always there for emotional support and guidance to Peter. Harris gave Aunt May a warmth that you always got from May in the comics. Her two best scenes for me are when she gave Peter the $20 on his birthday and then broke down crying over Uncle Ben. The second was Peter's confession to her about his part in Ben's death. Powerful scenes.

J.K. Simmons was perfect as Jonah Jameson. My only nit pick is I wish he had been used for something more than just comic relief.



The villains:

Green Goblin: Dafoe was solid as a rock as Norman. His best scenes are the Norman ones, notably the mirror scene. But Goblin was too corny ("We'll meet again, Spider-Maaaaaaaaaaaan!!!!"), and the costume was awful. His plan of just to make Spidey join him was a bit underwhelming. Goblin is capable of greater things than just that. None of his fight scenes were overly impressive like the other villains ones were. Even the final fight which was just Spidey reduced to a punching bag. No good display of both opponents powers there. No balance.

Doctor Octopus: By far the best handled villain of the trilogy. Alfred Molina gave a terrific performance as Ock. He gave a performance that was villainous, menacing, warm hearted, and even sympathetic. Granted Doc Ock was changed in certain aspects of his character, but he was nonetheless a compelling villain IMO. Some of my fav scenes with him include:

-The demonstration scene. When he strapped on the tentacles and willed them to life I got goose bumps. Loved the bit where he viciously smashed Spider-Man into a wall when he tried to unplug the reactor. A little foreshadowing of the violence and irrationality Octavius was capable of when it came to his life's work

-The scene in his warehouse lair where he turns evil. The creepy music, the way the tentacles wavered around his head menacingly, how he slowly comes around to their influence with that lunatic smile "Yesssssss"

-The cafe scene:
Ock: "I want you to find your friend Spider-Man. Tell him to meet me at the West side tower at 3 O'Clock"
Peter: "But I don't know where he is"
Ock: *Removes his shades with a tentacle* "Find him. Or I'll peel the flesh off her bones"
Peter: "If you lay one finger on her...."
Ock: "You'll do what???"

-The scene where the train passengers stood up to him to protect Spidey, and he just grinned and swiped them all aside.

-All the fight scenes with him rocked. Every single one.

I love how Doc Ock's story was a parallel to Peter's. Peter was being irresponsible by giving up being Spider-Man in order to live his dream of a normal life. Octavius was being irresponsible by doing evil things in order to make his dream happen. The fact their connection was more on a conceptual level added strength to the story.

When Ock wasn't on screen I was eagerly anticipating his return. He was visually stunning, and Molina looked like he was having a ball playing the villain.

Raimi took a lot of Doc Ock's traits and stories form the comics: http://molinaock.blogspot.ie/

New Goblin: I mentioned this briefly under Harry's segment, but his Goblin was not impressive. His first attack on Peter was let down by Peter spending half the fight spending more time saving a ring rather than trying to stop a crazed villain. Then Harry is neutered for a while by getting amnesia so other plots can be done. Then Harry comes back again with a half assed plan to break up Peter and MJ, whereby he is once again slapped down by getting half his face blown away. Disappointing. However his mansion fight with Peter was amazing. The dialogue between them was top notch. His death scene was very touching.

Sandman: Oh dear. He wants to steal money to help his sick daughter. That's fine. The problem is it's barely touched upon. Sandman spends most of his scenes as a giant CGI sand monster or a flying sand storm. Thomas Haden Church, who is a fine actor, is so under used and that made Sandman lose his humanity as a character. With Goblin and Ock, Dafoe and Molina were there on screen as much as was humanly possible. Then there was the needlessly contrived connection to Uncle Ben's death. He was well cast, visually perfect, and had some good fight scenes. The subway fight was my favorite. But overall Sandman was a big mis fire for me.

Venom: Raimi did what the comics never did. He gave Eddie Brock a good reason to want to kill Spider-Man. Raimi established an actual connection between Peter and Eddie. Granted Eddie brought all of his misfortune on himself by being a liar and a cheat, but we are dealing with a delusional mind who equates having a coffee with a girl to an "amazing amazing night". Venom was under used, and basically thrown in at the last moment to team with Sandman for a big final fight. His death was meaningless and I doubt anyone except die hard Venom fanboys cared when he snuffed it. When Goblin, Ock, and Harry died there was an emotional resonance to their deaths. Venom's was a quick explosion and he was gone. Bye bye. He left almost as quickly as he appeared. But then it's no secret Raimi didn't want Venom in his movie at all. He had no love for the character. Topher Grace performs gamely, but he was limited by the script.


The movies themselves I rank like this:

Spider-Man 2
Spider-Man
Spider-Man 3

I think Spider-Man 2 holds up the best and will age very well. It is easily in the top 5 superhero movies ever, sitting proudly beside greats like TDK, X-Men 2, Iron Man and the Avengers.

Spider-Man 3 has been a mess from day one. I don't ever see that movie getting better with time. Spider-Man is still good and very entertaining. The lack of impressive fights and a less than impressive visual villain are probably the weakest parts.

__________________
"Sometimes I remember it one way. Sometimes another. If I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice!"

- The Joker

Last edited by The Joker; 06-06-2012 at 11:24 AM.
The Joker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2012, 11:12 AM   #6
Picard Sisko
Prepare to be Assimilated
 
Picard Sisko's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 17,948
Default Re: How have the Spider-Man films stood the test of time? OPINION

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Joker View Post
The movies themselves I rank like this:

Spider-Man 2
Spider-Man
Spider-Man 3

I think Spider-Man 2 holds up the best and will age very well. It is easily in the top 5 superhero movies ever, sitting proudly beside greats like TDK, X-Men 2, Iron Man and the Avengers.

Spider-Man 3 has been a mess from day one. I don't ever see that movie getting better with time. Spider-Man is still good and very entertaining. The lack of impressive fights and a less than impressive visual villain are probably the weakest parts.
I forgive it because it was made in 2002. For its time, and with a budget of about $150,000,000... they did a pretty good job. In some ways, I almost like the first Spider-Man most due to the great origin story and a great setup for sequels. I love the fight at the end with Goblin and Spider-Man, where he does get brutally beaten.

But Spider-Man 2 is definitely the best of the trilogy overall, and is a well balanced movie.

Picard Sisko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2012, 11:23 AM   #7
Thundercrack85
Side-Kick
 
Thundercrack85's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 12,832
Default Re: How have the Spider-Man films stood the test of time? OPINION

You make it sound like a 150 million dollars is a limited budget.

Thundercrack85 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2012, 11:26 AM   #8
Picard Sisko
Prepare to be Assimilated
 
Picard Sisko's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 17,948
Default Re: How have the Spider-Man films stood the test of time? OPINION

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thundercrack85 View Post
You make it sound like a 150 million dollars is a limited budget.
Well compared to Spider-Man 2 which had a $200 million budget, and Spider-Man 3 which had a budget of $258 million, it is a bit limited. Even the reboot costs about $220 million.

Picard Sisko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2012, 11:33 AM   #9
Thundercrack85
Side-Kick
 
Thundercrack85's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 12,832
Default Re: How have the Spider-Man films stood the test of time? OPINION

Quote:
Originally Posted by Picard Sisko View Post
Well compared to Spider-Man 2 which had a $200 million budget, and Spider-Man 3 which had a budget of $258 million, it is a bit limited. Even the reboot costs about $220 million.
I still can't comprehend how they spend that much money. Catering and shutting down NYC? All those budgets are high, insanely high for the last three.

Thundercrack85 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2012, 11:38 AM   #10
Anno_Domini
Banned User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 17,997
Default Re: How have the Spider-Man films stood the test of time? OPINION

Spider-Man 2 is still a GREAT film. The only thing I felt was wrong with the film was the usage of John Jameson which was horrible. Everything else about the film felt just perfect; the villain choice of Doc Ock, Harry slowly becoming a villain, MJ and Peter finally realizing they BOTH need eachother(MJ had to push and push because Peter just couldn't because he's the hero of the story; he didn't want to be the reason his loved ones keep getting killed).

Spider-Man has aged, imo. The CGI just looks off now and while Willem Dafoe was absolutely amazing as Norman Osborn/Green Goblin, it's just the suit looked awful and I wasn't a fan of it. If there's one villain I want to be in the new reboot that was in Raimi's trilogy, it's Green Goblin.

Spider-Man 3....was just a disgrace to even be apart of Sam Raimi's series. Venom felt lackluster, Sandman's story was all over the place and never made any sense and while Harry's story as "New Goblin" was the best throughout the film and it had some great closure, even that felt like it needed more to it. The finale battle felt too forced to just get all the characters in one place and Harry's death felt forced just to give Venom a rank in the death poll. Misuage of Gwen and her father, Eddie, hell...even Aunt May didn't even fit and her speech to Peter in the beginning felt unnecessary.

My FAVORITE actors of the trilogy were J.K. Simmons and James Franco. They really pulled out some phenomenal acting even when they were both given some stale dialogue at times. Was Tobey alright as Spider-Man/Peter Parker? At times, yes...and at times, no. The WORST job of the bunch was Kirsten Dunst as Mary Jane Watson though. It could have been just the character, but it didn't seem like she felt "real" to me.

Anno_Domini is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2012, 11:51 AM   #11
Picard Sisko
Prepare to be Assimilated
 
Picard Sisko's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 17,948
Default Re: How have the Spider-Man films stood the test of time? OPINION

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anno_Domini View Post
Spider-Man 2 is still a GREAT film. The only thing I felt was wrong with the film was the usage of John Jameson which was horrible. Everything else about the film felt just perfect; the villain choice of Doc Ock, Harry slowly becoming a villain, MJ and Peter finally realizing they BOTH need eachother(MJ had to push and push because Peter just couldn't because he's the hero of the story; he didn't want to be the reason his loved ones keep getting killed).
Well actually at first I loved that they introduced John Jameson in SM2. I thought of it as a foreshadowing of his involvement in the Venom storyline (perhaps he would bring the symbiote back with him on a shuttle like TAS). They actually filmed a scene involving him in central park which was cut out for Spider-Man 3.

Picard Sisko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2012, 11:58 AM   #12
Webzpinner
Symbiote-enhanced
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Utah
Posts: 355
Default Re: How have the Spider-Man films stood the test of time? OPINION

Quote:
Originally Posted by Picard Sisko View Post
Spider-Man saved Mary Jane twice in the first movie, once in the second, and once in the third. That is four times within the 2 year timeframe that these movies took place in. I don't see how MJ's focus warped the franchise.
Because MJ was never... NEVER ... the center of Spider-Man's universe. Yes, she was his wife, but how many times did Spider-Man put aside his responsibilities as a husband to be Spider-Man? HUNDREDS of times. MJ was a support character. The movies put MJ above everyone else, and put WAY too much focus on Parker's love life, rather than his development as a hero.
Not only that, but MJ in the movies is a selfish, horrible beast. SM1 she's a shallow twit; SM2 she is engaged to a man she doesn't care about, then leaves him at the altar; SM3 she's again all about "me-me-me"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Picard Sisko View Post
Tobey sucking is really just your opinion. I don't understand how you think Venom was the best handled of the villains, when he was handled the worst. My opinion, but still. To me, Spider-Man 1 and 2 both have a very similar feel. Doc Ock was handled so well in Spider-Man 2, and the tentacles really come to life in that movie.
That's the problem. Doc Ock's tentacles shouldn't be influencing his mind. Doc Ock is a criminal genius, not slave to his arms' programming. His plans are grandiose, but not some stupid green energy scheme. It's almost as insulting as Lex Luthor's real estate schemes in the Superman films.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Picard Sisko View Post
Spider-Man 3 was indeed a huge disappointment. It seems like you are being less harsh with the third film, and have more complaints with Spider-Man 1 and 2... lol. Sandman had some of the best scenes, but it didn't fit in the movie. He was kind of pointless. I don't understand how you think Venom was "spot-on."
Sandman was wasted. His killing of Uncle Ben was beyond stupid. His daughter issue was dumb. His moral ambiguity was unneeded. Raimi should have kept Sandman simple. Keep the scene with the armor car and Sandman whupping Spidey. Spidey gets the black suit. Instead of the dance number, there should have been a montage of Spidey brutally beating several "lesser villains" such as Shocker, Kraven, Riccochet, etc... and THEN realizing the monster he is becoming after seeing the pictures taken by Eddie Brock and the headlines of JJ saying "Black Spider-Man's heart full of venom!". Change the scene with Spider-Man killing Sandman, but use it to realize the influence of the suit, finally persuading him to get rid of the suit and its bonding to Brock... continue to the construction scene without the killer litter box monster. It wasn't needed. Venom would be more than a match for SWAT teams and Goblin Jr.

And since we are now on the topic of Venom, he WAS near perfect: In the comics, 90's cartoon, and the movie, Eddie Brock is a whiny, sleasy opportunist, hellbent on doing whatever it takes to get to the top. He doctors information (a news story in the comics, photos in the movie & cartoon) to garner accolades and prestige. When he's fired for his lack of ethics, Brock blames Spider-Man.

In the comics, 90's cartoon, and movie, all have Brock bonding with the symbiote in a church. With his new found power, Eddie Brock harasses MJ (scares her in the apartment in the comics, stalks her in the 90's cartoon, and kidnaps her in the movie). Of all the villains besides Sandman, Venom looks closest to his comic book persona... no power ranger outfit, no trenchcoat. Sure, they have the webbing, but that's to make the costume stand out on screen, as solid black looks very boring (they textured Spawn's costume back in the 90's for the same reason).

Venom in all media frequently has a twisted sense of humor (including the "How's that sound, Tiger?" taken straight from the 90's cartoon and placed in the SM3 movie). His powers are the same without any alterations (no talking waldos, no pumpkin-razorbats).

The ONLY real divergence from the comicbook version of Venom was Venom seeking out Sandman as a partner. Venom never teamed up with another villain, even scoffing at Carnage when Carnage suggested it. It polluted the sanctity of Venom's mission... I understand it, however, since Sandman was Raimi's villain of choice, even though I honestly think Sandman should have stayed "dead" at the sewer plant. That should have weighed on Spider-Man's conscience that he killed a man, far more than pushing MJ after the worst dance scene in cinematic history.

Like in the comics, Venom easily overpowers and outmatches Spider-Man in battle, and it's only thru third-party interference (Goblin Jr or the Fantastic Four) or environmental traps (bells, sound speakers, metal vibrating pipes) that Spidey can get the upper hand in a battle.

My guess is that Amazing Spider-Man will have some teaser scene of black ooze, which will feed into the upcoming Venom movie, which will then feed back into Amazing Spider-Man 2 (Carnage will potentially be the villain in the 3rd act, forcing a team up between Venom and Spider-Nike... a move I won't approve... Carnage is worse than Venom, in terms of character, but 11 year olds love him.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Picard Sisko View Post
1. Spider-Man 2
2. Spider-Man
3. The Dark Knight
4. Iron Man
5. The Avengers
6. X-Men: First Class
7. Batman Begins
8. Superman II
9. X2: X-Men United
10. Captain America: The First Avenger
X-Men: First Class, X2, and Superman II better than Captain America? 1978 Superman not even listed???? OMG! Out of a sense of maturity and politeness, I won't even post what I am thinking.

Webzpinner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2012, 12:03 PM   #13
Picard Sisko
Prepare to be Assimilated
 
Picard Sisko's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 17,948
Default Re: How have the Spider-Man films stood the test of time? OPINION

Sense of maturity? To be mature you have to respect my opinion. I am not trying to "challenge" you, I am just giving my own thoughts.

And yes, I think that First Class, X2, and Superman II are better than Captain America. The 1978 Superman movie comes at 14th place on my list, after the Incredible Hulk, Hellboy, and Batman Returns.

Picard Sisko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2012, 12:09 PM   #14
Anno_Domini
Banned User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 17,997
Default Re: How have the Spider-Man films stood the test of time? OPINION

Quote:
Originally Posted by Picard Sisko View Post
Well actually at first I loved that they introduced John Jameson in SM2. I thought of it as a foreshadowing of his involvement in the Venom storyline (perhaps he would bring the symbiote back with him on a shuttle like TAS). They actually filmed a scene involving him in central park which was cut out for Spider-Man 3.
I was hoping they'd go the TAS route as well, but it didn't and now John Jameson felt just pointless for S-M 2.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Webzpinner View Post
X-Men: First Class, X2, and Superman II better than Captain America? 1978 Superman not even listed???? OMG! Out of a sense of maturity and politeness, I won't even post what I am thinking.
Having a "sense of maturity" would be to really respect what he said without giving a "facepalm". His choices are at least realistic and imo, are true. I myself would place Captain America a bit higher, BUT...First Class, X2 and Superman II are phenomenal films. Also, Superman II is superior to the first Superman film. Superman: The Movie is created with really being the first major CBM, but Superman II surpasses the first film definitely.

Just my two cents.

Anno_Domini is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2012, 12:13 PM   #15
Picard Sisko
Prepare to be Assimilated
 
Picard Sisko's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 17,948
Default Re: How have the Spider-Man films stood the test of time? OPINION

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anno_Domini View Post
I was hoping they'd go the TAS route as well, but it didn't and now John Jameson felt just pointless for S-M 2.
Yeah, I do agree on that. He didn't even make an appearance in SM3, despite the fact that it took place right after the second film. I wonder why they didn't go TAS route, but it is what it is I guess.

Quote:
Having a "sense of maturity" would be to really respect what he said without giving a "facepalm". His choices are at least realistic and imo, are true. I myself would place Captain America a bit higher, BUT...First Class, X2 and Superman II are phenomenal films. Also, Superman II is superior to the first Superman film. Superman: The Movie is created with really being the first major CBM, but Superman II surpasses the first film definitely.

Just my two cents.
Well said. I mean, you can't "prove" that any movie is better than another, so I don't know why he had to do a "face palm" for my list.

I give the first Superman film a lot of credit, since it was the first big CBM ever made. Superman II is superb, and the whole story was really done well. I can watch the movie like it was made yesterday.

Picard Sisko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2012, 12:18 PM   #16
Webzpinner
Symbiote-enhanced
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Utah
Posts: 355
Default Re: How have the Spider-Man films stood the test of time? OPINION

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anno_Domini View Post
Spider-Man has aged, imo. The CGI just looks off now and while Willem Dafoe was absolutely amazing as Norman Osborn/Green Goblin, it's just the suit looked awful and I wasn't a fan of it. If there's one villain I want to be in the new reboot that was in Raimi's trilogy, it's Green Goblin.
Dafoe was great. Green Goblin was not. Green Goblin didn't want to be the top arms dealer, he wanted to be king of the criminal underworld. Spectacular Spider-Man did the best job with Norman Osborn/Green Goblin, but that's the sort of thing a serialized tv show can do that a movie cannot, unless it's planned out the way Marvel/Paramount planned Avengers.

After killing the board of directors, Green Goblin had no reason for existing. Norman had everything he wanted, had control of his company AND the government contracts. Goblin could have vanished without a trace.

The costume was pathetic, and it really ruined Dafoe's crazy look. As The Dark Knight proved with Heath Ledger, you don't need much to do an outstanding job. Should have had a green nanobot suit under a purple cloak, and prosthetic mask, enhancing Dafoe's manic face.

Dafoe should have been "Tony Stark-level" scientist/ philanthropist to the general public, and taking over the criminal underworld in his spare time.

Webzpinner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2012, 12:23 PM   #17
Picard Sisko
Prepare to be Assimilated
 
Picard Sisko's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 17,948
Default Re: How have the Spider-Man films stood the test of time? OPINION

Quote:
Originally Posted by Webzpinner View Post
Dafoe was great. Green Goblin was not. Green Goblin didn't want to be the top arms dealer, he wanted to be king of the criminal underworld. Spectacular Spider-Man did the best job with Norman Osborn/Green Goblin, but that's the sort of thing a serialized tv show can do that a movie cannot, unless it's planned out the way Marvel/Paramount planned Avengers.
I think this is something they might be able to accomplish with the reboot series. Chances are the character will survive over three films and they can have more character development.

Quote:
After killing the board of directors, Green Goblin had no reason for existing. Norman had everything he wanted, had control of his company AND the government contracts. Goblin could have vanished without a trace.
While he did kill the board of directors, and accomplish what he wanted, he was still insane. He wasn't going to just disappear like nothing happened.

Quote:
The costume was pathetic, and it really ruined Dafoe's crazy look. As The Dark Knight proved with Heath Ledger, you don't need much to do an outstanding job. Should have had a green nanobot suit under a purple cloak, and prosthetic mask, enhancing Dafoe's manic face.
I do agree that the costume was a little corny and cheap. However, in the context of the film, I think it worked. I liked their interpretation of the Goblin. I am really excited with what they do with the character in the next film though. A prosthetic mask may not have worked for the movie. He was building a suit for the army, so why would it have a rubber texture and purple cloak? Its funny but if this was a Marvel Studios film, then they could have made it that Norman was trying to remake the super soldier Captain American formula just like Bruce Banner in the Incredible Hulk.
Quote:
Dafoe should have been "Tony Stark-level" scientist/ philanthropist to the general public, and taking over the criminal underworld in his spare time.
Once again, I think this is something that can be done in the reboot.

Picard Sisko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2012, 12:38 PM   #18
Webzpinner
Symbiote-enhanced
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Utah
Posts: 355
Default Re: How have the Spider-Man films stood the test of time? OPINION

Quote:
Originally Posted by Picard Sisko View Post
Sense of maturity? To be mature you have to respect my opinion. I am not trying to "challenge" you, I am just giving my own thoughts.

And yes, I think that First Class, X2, and Superman II are better than Captain America. The 1978 Superman movie comes at 14th place on my list, after the Incredible Hulk, Hellboy, and Batman Returns.
I AM respecting your opinion. Believe me... I could say sooooo much, but I'm not... especially after seeing Superman being listed as below Batman Returns.

Superman II is a mess, in my opinion... mostly because of all the politics behind the film. The Donner version is far better than the campy mess released in theaters. The only X-Men film that I like was the first one, but the insane focus on Wolverine (yes, I realize he sells birthday plates and action figures) really throws the films a bit. X3 feels most like the comics - from the soap opera-like cure story to the over-the-top battle, but the handling of the Phoenix, killing Xavier and Cyclops, totally ruined that film.

First Class had a chance to put the X-men on track, but they AGAIN ruin it, by having it NOT be the first class. It should have been a total reboot. Beast, Cyclops, Marvel Girl, Angel, and Iceman... not Banshee, bug-stripper, Anything-goes-blackman, Mystique, and Havok. Beast looked better here than in X3, but his powers were totally altered and looked stupid (running fast? WTF!?!?). First Class's villains were even worse...

My biggest complaint with First Class was the atrocity that was the Xavier/Magneto relationship. The is no love between the men. There is no sense of brotherhood. Of a bond that is broken. Nothing in First Class would convince me that those same two men would be playing Chess together in a plastic prison 35 years later. Also, the CIA built Cerebro? WTH?!?!? Also, the "attempt" at humor with Wolverine's cameo pissed off more people than anything, since the movie was rated PG-13, and to have Wolverine dropping an F-bomb... Again, shows Fox has zero class, and Marvel really needs to tighten the reins on what it allows studios to do with it's characters.

Webzpinner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2012, 12:46 PM   #19
Webzpinner
Symbiote-enhanced
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Utah
Posts: 355
Default Re: How have the Spider-Man films stood the test of time? OPINION

Quote:
Originally Posted by Picard Sisko View Post
I do agree that the costume was a little corny and cheap. However, in the context of the film, I think it worked. I liked their interpretation of the Goblin. I am really excited with what they do with the character in the next film though. A prosthetic mask may not have worked for the movie. He was building a suit for the army, so why would it have a rubber texture and purple cloak? Its funny but if this was a Marvel Studios film, then they could have made it that Norman was trying to remake the super soldier Captain American formula just like Bruce Banner in the Incredible Hulk.


Once again, I think this is something that can be done in the reboot.
Ever see the production book for Spider-Man? they have some sketches for the Goblin armor that are far superior to the final product.... And again, I have no problem with the armor, but a tattered purple cloak and a rubber prosthetic would A) give a nod to "purists" and B) give more of Dafoe in the performance. Unless you have SM1 on Bluray and a huge TV, you can BARELY see his face under the mask. I don't want a full rubber mask that hides Dafoe's face, I want just enough to heighten features. If you ever see the makeup job on the creatures on the tv show "Grimm" you'll understand. Dafoe's face is creepy enough (especially his natural teeth!)... spray him green, toss on a cloak, enhance the ears, brow, and nose, and there ya go!

Webzpinner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2012, 12:49 PM   #20
Anno_Domini
Banned User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 17,997
Default Re: How have the Spider-Man films stood the test of time? OPINION

Quote:
Originally Posted by Webzpinner View Post
Dafoe was great. Green Goblin was not. Green Goblin didn't want to be the top arms dealer, he wanted to be king of the criminal underworld. Spectacular Spider-Man did the best job with Norman Osborn/Green Goblin, but that's the sort of thing a serialized tv show can do that a movie cannot, unless it's planned out the way Marvel/Paramount planned Avengers.

After killing the board of directors, Green Goblin had no reason for existing. Norman had everything he wanted, had control of his company AND the government contracts. Goblin could have vanished without a trace.

The costume was pathetic, and it really ruined Dafoe's crazy look. As The Dark Knight proved with Heath Ledger, you don't need much to do an outstanding job. Should have had a green nanobot suit under a purple cloak, and prosthetic mask, enhancing Dafoe's manic face.

Dafoe should have been "Tony Stark-level" scientist/ philanthropist to the general public, and taking over the criminal underworld in his spare time.
Green Goblin had a place to keep going on when he met Spider-Man, someone "worthy" to him that he could exploit and perhaps team up with. That was his reasoning after killing the board members, so of course that's why he didn't decide to just vanish...and then when Spidey refused to team with him, GG's goal was to just destroy Spider-Man and when finding out he's Peter Parker, GG's goal was to kill Peter's loved ones.

And the costume was pointless indeed, but so would a nanobot suit, imo. I feel that it should be a very close to comics suit without it being a robotic green suit or even nanobots. That just seems like GG is still looking more robotic as he looked in Spider-Man.

And trying to control the underworld would be wise, but unless Webb brings in that element, I don't see that being used again in Webb's series(that's if GG does show up).

Anno_Domini is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2012, 12:56 PM   #21
henzINNIT
Side-Kick
 
henzINNIT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,841
Default Re: How have the Spider-Man films stood the test of time? OPINION

They've held up well for me. I really enjoy Raimi's quirky style, so I even like SM3 more than most.

The original has dated a bit. There's some ropey CG and some cheesy lines but overall I still like it a lot. There's a fair amount of Spidey banter in this film which I feel goes unnoticed, like when he's insulting Bonesaw or when he web-gags Jameson so "mom and dad can talk".

Goblin is a decent villain with a bad costume and not enough motivation. If Spider-Man wasn't around to annoy him, I don't know what Osborne would have done next.


SM2 is a great film. Peter and Otto are well intertwined and the action is fantastic. The film presents a great story with a satisfying outcome. Lessons are learned, relationships develop. It's a perfect stand alone film and a great set-up for the next chapter.

My one issue: MJ unfortunately becomes a bit one-note and miserable. Dunst is a beautiful woman (watch Melancholia) and a good actress (again watch Melancholia) and it's sad she gets such stick for her role here. MJ just isn't given much life and it's all in the script.


SM3 is a flawed but fun film. The intentions were solid, casting and performances were fine, but the whole plot bit off more than it could chew. There's a lot of excesses and Raimi-quirk which throws a lot of people off, but to me it suits the story of someone becoming ego-centric.

I want to take a moment to say how much I liked Tobey Maguire in the central role. He played every mad thing Raimi asked for with gusto. He was funny, goofy, sweet, strong, weak, smart, dim brave etc etc and everything done with sincerity. I really beieved and rooted for the character throughout.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Webzpinner View Post
The costume was pathetic, and it really ruined Dafoe's crazy look. As The Dark Knight proved with Heath Ledger, you don't need much to do an outstanding job. Should have had a green nanobot suit under a purple cloak, and prosthetic mask, enhancing Dafoe's manic face.
I assume a cloak/cape wouldn't have been feesible because it would have been horrid to render digitally. I think everyone can agree the suit sucked though.

Personally, I would have kept the flight armour vibe for reasons of logic, with a smaller, ski mask style helmet that shows the actor's mouth. I would have made it dark purple (because who would engineer a bright green suit for the military?), and have Osborn attack it with green spray paint so it looks crazy as hell.

henzINNIT is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2012, 01:34 PM   #22
Anno_Domini
Banned User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 17,997
Default Re: How have the Spider-Man films stood the test of time? OPINION

Quote:
Superman II is a mess, in my opinion... mostly because of all the politics behind the film. The Donner version is far better than the campy mess released in theaters. The only X-Men film that I like was the first one, but the insane focus on Wolverine (yes, I realize he sells birthday plates and action figures) really throws the films a bit. X3 feels most like the comics - from the soap opera-like cure story to the over-the-top battle, but the handling of the Phoenix, killing Xavier and Cyclops, totally ruined that film.
X3 is pure garbage. Doesn't feel like the comics at all. An over-the-top battle doesn't make it anymore "comicy".

And between the first and second Superman films, I would say the first felt way more campy than the second. I mean....the kryptonite chain around Superman's neck? Yah, that was a silly idea, imo.

Quote:
First Class had a chance to put the X-men on track, but they AGAIN ruin it, by having it NOT be the first class. It should have been a total reboot. Beast, Cyclops, Marvel Girl, Angel, and Iceman... not Banshee, bug-stripper, Anything-goes-blackman, Mystique, and Havok. Beast looked better here than in X3, but his powers were totally altered and looked stupid (running fast? WTF!?!?). First Class's villains were even worse...
It didn't need to be the accurate First Class with the original mutants. Things can be changed and what we got worked out, imo. We already saw those mutants in Singer's films, did we have to see them again or could we get something fresh? I choose the latter.

Quote:
Henry "Hank" Philip McCoy was born in Dundee, Illinois, in the United States, to Norton and Edna McCoy. His father, Norton McCoy, is employed at a local nuclear power plant before Henry's birth and was once exposed to intense nuclear radiation, which appears to have caused his son's mutation. Hank is born with a vast intellect, unusually long arms and legs, and unusually large hands and feet for a human; in fact, his body's proportions are comparable to those of a gorilla and later stories reveal his nickname in school was "Magilla Gorilla".

Henry's mutation more fully manifests during adolescence, providing greater strength and agility, and although his powers allow him to briefly excel in athletics during his remaining time at school, he soon attracts the animosity of his fellow students and other non-mutant humans. As he seeks refuge, he is approached by Professor Charles Xavier, who invites him to study at "Xavier's School for Gifted Youngsters".
Him being fast isn't too off from how he was originally created before he had the blue fur.

Quote:
My biggest complaint with First Class was the atrocity that was the Xavier/Magneto relationship. The is no love between the men. There is no sense of brotherhood. Of a bond that is broken. Nothing in First Class would convince me that those same two men would be playing Chess together in a plastic prison 35 years later. Also, the CIA built Cerebro? WTH?!?!? Also, the "attempt" at humor with Wolverine's cameo pissed off more people than anything, since the movie was rated PG-13, and to have Wolverine dropping an F-bomb... Again, shows Fox has zero class, and Marvel really needs to tighten the reins on what it allows studios to do with it's characters.
I found the relationship between Charles and Erik find, but I hope it's developed more in the sequel(s) even if Erik has become Magneto. I just think we need to get it build upon more to believe they really cared for eachother like brothers.

And Wolverine's cameo was hilarious...screw the people who got butthurt because he said the F-word. That's nonsense to get upset over.

Anno_Domini is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2012, 01:37 PM   #23
Webzpinner
Symbiote-enhanced
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Utah
Posts: 355
Default Re: How have the Spider-Man films stood the test of time? OPINION

Quote:
Originally Posted by henzINNIT View Post

Goblin is a decent villain with a bad costume and not enough motivation. If Spider-Man wasn't around to annoy him, I don't know what Osborne would have done next.
Exactly my thoughts... Most villains, you can "imagine the world if they won"... Doctor Doom, Red Skull, Magneto, Joker, etc... But SM1 Green Goblin... all I see is the world as it is, except Norman talking to a conference room full of mirrors sitting on chairs. hehe He really achieved everything he set out to do, so killing Spider-Man was more of an afterthought, rather than a means to an end (as his attempts in the comics were).


Quote:
Originally Posted by henzINNIT View Post
I assume a cloak/cape wouldn't have been feesible because it would have been horrid to render digitally. I think everyone can agree the suit sucked though.

Personally, I would have kept the flight armour vibe for reasons of logic, with a smaller, ski mask style helmet that shows the actor's mouth. I would have made it dark purple (because who would engineer a bright green suit for the military?), and have Osborn attack it with green spray paint so it looks crazy as hell.
They had digital cloaks in Batman & Robin and Spawn... seemed to work. Again, I want the armor (it interfaces with the glider better than just "steering with your toes"), but a cloak, or some means of making it look more "fantasy" so you would look at it and say, "Oh, Green Goblin" rather than "Green Meanie". I just really think Dafoe was wasted in the mask. Even if it was a cowl like Batman, where you see Dafoe's eyes and mouth/chin, with a crazy pointed nose and enhanced brow, would have been good. I want to see crazy, not just some frozen face.

That irked me a little with SM3's Venom. they kept showing Topher Grace's face as Venom (little pointy teeth!), but he is no where NEAR the actor that Dafoe is. Venom's face is what many fans sat through 2 hours of Sandman crap and dancing just to see... and we only got three real good shots of "toothy face" Venom: Once when Sandman first grabs him in the alley, when MJ throws the brick at him, and when he lunges at Spider-Man for the killing strike before the tonal assault.

Seeing Topher's face just made me giggle, coz he looks silly with strings of licorice glued to his face. If he had been talking as Venom, with the toothy grin, and the drooling tongue flicking around, the menace would have been far more palpable, especially since the symbiote would be doing the talking, as it should be. I think even if they changed NOTHING else, but had Venom talk more masked instead of "Raptor growl" and little pointy teeth, there would be far less animosity towards the character.

yes, I realize animating the talking Venom costs a pretty penny, but two less minutes of "Giant Catbox Man" would have scraped up more than enough cash.

Webzpinner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2012, 02:14 PM   #24
Webzpinner
Symbiote-enhanced
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Utah
Posts: 355
Default Re: How have the Spider-Man films stood the test of time? OPINION

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anno_Domini View Post
X3 is pure garbage. Doesn't feel like the comics at all. An over-the-top battle doesn't make it anymore "comicy".

And between the first and second Superman films, I would say the first felt way more campy than the second. I mean....the kryptonite chain around Superman's neck? Yah, that was a silly idea, imo.
Have you ever read ANY classic X-Men comic? (not the crap published today as an X-Men book, but the classics from the 60's -80's) X3's cure story and the characters were great, but they pissed on it by combining it with a pathetic "Dark Phoenix" crap story that didn't need to be there. The cure story would have been enough. With the "death" of Xavier and Cyclops, and the swirling vortex of Wolverine-stripping fire at the end, just made it really stupid. Take out the Phoenix bits, and the film isn't that bad.

I thought MAYBE you were right... MAYBE Superman II was less campy... but I just watched the Richard Lester (original) version on Netflix... The thing is more campy than the 1960's Batman. Terrance Stamp is hilariously melodramatic in his BeeGee's disco suit. Ursa and Nod are just played for laughs. The fight in Metropolis with the ice breath, flying toupees, etc, are way too silly for my tastes. Watch the Richard Donner version, you'll see a MUCH better film.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anno_Domini View Post
It didn't need to be the accurate First Class with the original mutants. Things can be changed and what we got worked out, imo. We already saw those mutants in Singer's films, did we have to see them again or could we get something fresh? I choose the latter.
Did we? All I saw in Singer's films was Wolverine. They cut the scene of Cyclops as a boy in an orphanage, to make more room for Wolverine in the fight club. They cut Storm as a teenage "weather goddess" in Kenya. All we got was Wolverine, Wolverine, and more Wolverine. I would LOVE to see an X-Men movie with the REAL first class.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anno_Domini View Post
Him being fast isn't too off from how he was originally created before he had the blue fur.
He looked great, and I have no problem with the hands and feet, since that WAS his original mutation, but Beast was super athletic and acrobatic, NOT Quicksilver or The Flash. Ever see a Gorilla outrun a cheetah? No... their feet aren't designed for that, and neither are Beast's. They should have had him leaping about and spinning, destroying targets in the danger room (similar to Hulk's leaping in Avengers, but with grace and flourish), not running in circles.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anno_Domini View Post
I found the relationship between Charles and Erik find, but I hope it's developed more in the sequel(s) even if Erik has become Magneto. I just think we need to get it build upon more to believe they really cared for eachother like brothers.
I don't see them building on it much. The split is already formed. The trust was broken before they even decently forged it. There is no way the scene in X3 of younger Xavier and Erik recruiting Jean would ever happen.
Instead of rushing to get Magneto, they should have let that arc play out for another movie or two. Build the relationship. SHOW Erik and Charles building Cerebro. Show Erik teaching at Xavier's institute. Show him as a caring individual, not just some lost Nazi attack dog. Magneto's terrorism isn't purely based on hatred and retribution, but also compassion for his people. I don't get that from First Class's Magneto.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Anno_Domini View Post
And Wolverine's cameo was hilarious...screw the people who got butthurt because he said the F-word. That's nonsense to get upset over.
You obviously aren't a parent, and never had children begging to go see a movie. It wasn't hilarious. The only ones who laughed were braindead teenagers who still find fart jokes to be the end-all of humor. Some of us don't need swear words to enjoy a movie. Captain America, Avengers, Superman, Spider-Man, Batman, Harry Potter, etc all manage to entertain without F-bombs, and still make good money. And if Marvel/Fox HAD to have the F-bomb, because it was so pivotal to the plot of the movie, at least rate the movie appropriately. The MPAA is being far too lax in it's ratings, and making it very hard for parents to properly gauge a film's content. Luckily, I watched First Class before letting my kids see it (was planning to take the family opening weekend, but heard about the "scene-stealing humor" and cancelled last minute). Because of Fox's choice, instead of getting $50 from me (two adults and two kids tickets, plus refreshments), they got zero.

I'm just surprised Marvel allowed it in a flagship franchise. I expect that in Punisher, Ghostrider, or Blade... they are quirky "Marvel Knights" characters. I lost respect for Marvel because of that, and let them know.

Webzpinner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2012, 02:31 PM   #25
Dragon
No Way as Way
 
Dragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: New York, NY USA
Posts: 9,989
Default Re: How have the Spider-Man films stood the test of time? OPINION

The films have held up. A good movie is a good movie regardless of age.

__________________
Kwai Cheng: Old man, how is it that you hear these things?
Master Po: Young man, how is it that you do not?

Kung-Fu, 1972
Dragon is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:08 PM.

monitoring_string = "dee460792f24517621e3ca080805de7e"
Contact Us - Mobile - SuperHeroHype - ComingSoon.net - Shock Till You Drop - Lost Password - Clear Cookies - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Top - AdChoices


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SuperHeroHype.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.