The Amazing Spider-Man Clive Owen audtioning for Kraven The Hunter?

[DACMAN]

I love Spider-Man.

 

[©KAW]

^That's probably the best post in this thread.

 

[Spider-Fan]

I love Spider-Man.

I think we all do. I never said anyone here doesn't love Spider-Man.

 

[©KAW]

Walking doesn't mean fired. Walking means resigning. By your logic, Nixon was fired from being President. Which, he wasn't.

No, by my logic he was fired, like Eddie Brock fired.

Once again, your opinion. The Spider-Man series obviously had somewhere to go since Sam signed on to make another film. But, the film that was going to continue the story somehow got muddled. We don't know how or who was mostly responsible.

Come on, this series was dead creatively. Sam was going to give us The Vulture with more love triangles. He was basically going to give us the exact same movie with a different villain. Same formula, you know, like he always does.

While Lee is my favorite Spider-Man era, I recognize other great Spider-Man eras. You don't have to follow Lee's formula to adapt Spider-Man.

But it's always better when you do. I don't mind including bits and pieces of other eras and other takes, but the foundation should always be Stan Lee's.

You know, a great filmmaker named James Cameron also thought organics were a good idea. Peter did evolve as a character in Raimi's films, you just choose not to recognize it out of your bias against the films and Raimi as a filmmaker. You call all of his films cheese, but when I throw you a non-cheesy Raimi film, you ignore me. Because you're biased.

I love James Cameron, but I hate the concept of organic webshooters and his Spider-Man script. Peter did not evolve, he was the same droll goofball from the first film. You mean Raimi has action movies that isn't cheesy, like what? And it better not be Darkman.

I don't defend Sandman being Uncle Ben's killer. I have said countless times that was a bad idea.

From a long line of bad ideas.

This is what seperates you from people like DACMAN or Slag. DACMAN and Slag make good points when debating the series and don't condescend people whom like the Raimi films. You show nothing but a bias against Raimi, make illogical points, and have an elitist view of "your Spider-Man." If you want me to take anything you say seriously, learn to look at issues from both sides and take yourself of that pedistal

Maybe TheSlag and DACMAN like Raimi as a director, maybe they like elements of his Spider-Man films. That's fine, I don't on both accounts. I'm on no pedestal, you like him as a director, I don't, why is that so hard for you to swallow?

 

[Spider-Fan]

No, by my logic he was fired, like Eddie Brock fired.

Every article says he walked. Show me 1 where he was fired. Just 1.

Come on, this series was dead creatively. Sam was going to give us The Vulture with more love triangles. He was basically going to give us the exact same movie with a different villain. Same formula, you know, like he always does.

I didn't read the script.

But it's always better when you do. I don't mind including bits and pieces of other eras and other takes, but the foundation should always be Stan Lee's.

Lee is my favorite run, but a director should have freedom to do what he wants.

I love James Cameron, but I hate the concept of organic webshooters and his Spider-Man script. Peter did not evolve, he was the same droll goofball from the first film. You mean Raimi has action movies that isn't cheesy, like what? And it better not be Darkman.

Peter did evolve in SM2. He went from questioning his responsibilities as Spider-Man and learned what sacfrice meant. That is called evolution. As for Raimi films, I said watch For the Love of the Game. Raimi directed. Not cheesy. Quite serious film. Quite good film.

Maybe TheSlag and DACMAN like Raimi as a director, maybe they like elements of his Spider-Man films. That's fine, I don't on both accounts. I'm on no pedestal, you like him as a director, I don't, why is that so hard for you to swallow?

I don't care if you like the movies. I'm not saying you have to. I'm saying you argue the films in a condescending manner and completely direspect anyone who likes the Raimi films. THAT is where I take issue with you. I couldn't care less if you like the movies or not. Or any movie for that matter. If you think I am trying to make you love the movies, you're not reading my posts.

 

[zeptron]

Every article says he walked. Show me 1 where he was fired. Just 1.

He's talking out of his ass. He said the same thing about Raimi being fired over at the Spider-man Sony boards. And when the people there asked for proof he ignored him. So don't expect any proof because there is none.

 

[Deaths Head II]

His proof is that Raimi sucks so therefore ergo Sony fired him because Sony is great while Raimi is a worse version of Hitler.

 

[Venom'sDad]

I love Spider-Man.

I agree.

 

[Spider-Fan]

He's talking out of his ass. He said the same thing about Raimi being fired over at the Spider-man Sony boards. And when the people there asked for proof he ignored him. So don't expect any proof because there is none.

I don't expect proof...which is why I'm asking for it.

Even Sony said he walked.

His proof is that Raimi sucks so therefore ergo Sony fired him because Sony is great while Raimi is a worse version of Hitler.

Raimi was part of the Third Reich!!!

 

[SpideyTheBest]

Hahaha! A thread about Kraven turned into another "Sam Raimi sucks" thread!

 

[Doctor Jones]

KAW spreads it. He makes damn sure to remind us in every thread.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Which is why I had to destroy him in our debate

I've owned him pretty bad.

 

[david icke]

Once again, you're only seeing what you want to see. Where did I say that spidey's success was only down to the novelty of it being his first cinematic outing? Fact is, I didn't. I highlighted and emphasised the point as a focal factor but I didn't say anything about it being the only reason. Spider-Man is by and large the most popular superhero, surpassing superman and batman. I've said it in my posts, there are many people who enjoyed Raimi's movies and the ending to spider-man 1 was just screaming sequel. Couple that with the goodwill of the spider-man brand name and of course these films are going to make money. As long as you don't hire a renowned crappy director and actors, it doesn't matter who's involved, the movies will make money. I even talked about the marketing campaign for these movies, I said they've been fantastic and of course it's going to put butts in seats. However, the gargantuan mess that was spider-man 3 was the fastest and highest grossing of the 3 movies which only proves my point.

Your own personal displeasure with the Raimi take is somewhat leading your assumptions as to what people felt about the movie, and what would happen with 'What If?' scenarios.
Spider-man could so easily have been on the same level as Fantastic Four in terms of creative quality.
after the ads have run and the film opens , it's down to word of mouth and reviews. There is a reason why Fantastic Four did extremely well on it's opening weekend and then had one of the biggest percentage drops the next. Same with X-Men3.

Spider-man was a stayer in teh charts, all of them were. Batman Begins had an ok weekend opening but considring the name recog of teh character, it was expected to do better, but i think it's opening was only about 50mil due to the average quality of previous BM movies(and i mean all 89-97).
But, it stayed strong in the charts due to word of mouth of it's quality.
Once the movie is out it's wom that keeps it in the charts like SM1, BB etc, and why X-Men 3, Ff1 and 2, did not do so well after opening big.
Some people did in fact enjoy teh Raimi movies and told others, unlike yourself,

Yeah and what's your point? I'm not disputing that. It sure wasn't the batman brand name that gave TDK its numbers and that's where the difference is between batman and spider-man is in this instance. TDK made a killing because the film as you've said was down to the quality of the movie. Batman was tired by batman forever and B and R was the final nail in the coffin. Begins comes along, does modestly well at the BO but simultaneously injects new life, new vision and proves batman can be a whole lot more. Then TDK comes along and launches a viral marketing crusade, Ledger dies and his death ADDS to the hype of what is already looking to be a great movie, the movie comes out and delivers. The movie doesn't rely on the brand name like spider-man does because the batman brand name isn't as viable as spider-man's.

Sorry, but Batman is as viable a brand name, all it took was a good movie(BB) to finally be released to get it back movie wise. Same as you said about spidey, there was anovelty back in 89 of seeing a serious live action BM, after that , folk were kind of 'was that it?' considering the hype. Whereas with BB, folk were like'why didn't they make them like that before?'
I would not underestimate BB's impact, it played on dvd and tv after the BO closed remember. Far more people saw it in those formats than did at the movies I would guess, in fact it would probably be true to say so.
this was a far greater impact than virals etc.
The Batman *and* the Joker sold the movie, the fact that Ledger died *and* he was the guy playing the joker sold it too, that and word of mouth had been spreading that it was a performance not to be missed, *before* he died.

That was part of it but not entirely. There are many people who didn't even see the first 2 movies but went to see the third simply because the way the movie was marketed, it was set to be dark and epic. If it was just down to wanting to see what happens next, sm3 would have done similar numbers to sm2 but that's not how it worked out. SM3 made close to a $billion in no time.

*sigh* just because it does not fit your argument that folk enjoyed the Raimi movies, you dismiss the nature of folk wanting to see th esequel to the first two they enjoyed?
again , you are going by fans genrated by BO alone, and neglecting to think of those who caught them both on tv and dvd afterwards.

Do you even know what you're talking about? I mean, I must come off as confusing to you because, jim, you confuse self. Fact. Who said anything about no other superhero can compete with superman? Try to keep up. I mentioned supes, bats and spidey and compared their respective on screen visual exposure. I also added that With superman, people knew what to expect, at the very least he's had over 35 years of onscreen viewership, spider-man to date has had...8 and not only that, SR wasn't so well recieved because it was the same old same old. I guarantee you, with What Nolan and Goyer will do with this new MOS film, it's going to be a very different outcome to what SR recieved.

'try to keep up', again *sigh*, dude, you said that Superman had an unfair advantage over other heroes because of his live action tv/film exposure, it's in that paragraph you typed up with no punctuation. I was just saying back to you what you said to me.

lol of course the chances are that the Nolan/Goyer flick will have a greater cultural impact than SR, that's no kind of bet to make.

Actually for someone who claims to read every post in all the theads on this particular board, I'm surprised or maybe I shouln't be that you havn't picked up on such comments. Quite a few people on these boards have said such and your buddy, spideyhero12 would be guilty of this more than most.

I understood we were talking about each others opinions in this discussion, so I took it that you meant mine only.

See, that's the difference between you and I. You need a gang to affiliate yourself with and feel comfortable on an internet forum. To me, I couldn't care less. I regard every poster here the same, faceless usernames with either something interesting or stupid to say. Of course, you fall into the latter.

lol, dude it was a joke, and the whole 'you are stupid!' thing is getting repetitive and revealing.
I say, if you can't have a discussion without calling the other person stupid, you're not that bright yourself. Constantly calling someone stupid could mean you do not understand their points, or are being unaware of any hypocracy in your own arguments.
I've never started off a reply by telling the person they are stupid, but I do point out mistakes they have made if they are calling others or myself stupid, in order to show how they lack self-awareness, and are perhaps insecure about their own abilities, so they will perhaps learn something about themselves. but, they never do, still, it's a laugh pointing them out, so i don't mind if they flunk school.

btw, any typos etc that are in this post will have to stay, my computer has been slowing down etc and I'm not going back over this multi-quote crap again, or this not-very-interesting discussion. I'm quite sure no-one else cares what we say to each other on this subject either.

 

[DACMAN]

Which is why I had to destroy him in our debate

I've owned him pretty bad.

Dude, you can't call your own owned. That just makes you look sad.

And I've only seen one guy as Kraven.

Owen looks like to much of a ***** IMO.

 

[DACMAN]

I think we all do. I never said anyone here doesn't love Spider-Man.

HAHAHAHA!!!!

I just saw this! Are you kidding? I make a little joke and he immediately thinks someone must be picking on him. All I said was "I love Spider-Man." How non threatening do I have to be for you not to freak out? I'm glad I didn't say something like "Spider-Man Rocks!" He might have killed himself or something.

 

[david icke]

And I've only seen one guy as Kraven.

Owen looks like to much of a ***** IMO.

I never thought much of Owen as a performer until I saw him in Children of Men and Shoot 'Em Up. On the basis of those movies I wouldn't mind if he turned up as Kraven, but, the guy does not look like a ***** like some other actors do.

Russel Crowe, yeah he would be better probably, but I don't think i'd like to see him get the role, I can already imagine it, and I think his Kraven would be a ***** in comparison to other roles he's had like Romper Stomper. His bag of tricks for playing the nutter would be curtailed with it being a PG13 movie, and Gladiator was a bit boring tbh.

the guy from 'no country for Old Men.', he would be great, there's a type of menace he can generate just from a look that Crowe would struggle to generate with all his tricks in tow

 

[Spider-Fan]

Dude, you can't call your own owned. That just makes you look sad.

And I've only seen one guy as Kraven.

Owen looks like to much of a ***** IMO.

Crowe would make a great Kraven, but that would come down to whether or not Crowe thinks he is too good for these kinds of movies. He seems like the type that might.

HAHAHAHA!!!!

I just saw this! Are you kidding? I make a little joke and he immediately thinks someone must be picking on him. All I said was "I love Spider-Man." How non threatening do I have to be for you not to freak out? I'm glad I didn't say something like "Spider-Man Rocks!" He might have killed himself or something.

 

[Matt]

Kraven as the villain would be horrible, he's fine for a sequel, but not an origin. An adaptation of Kraven's Last Hunt would also be horrible. Its just not cinematic in the least. You'd have to change it so much that its not even Kraven's Last Hunt. I know fanboys love the thought but it as a film is just not realistic.

Furthermore, if Sony fired Raimi over Vulture only to have Kraven, it will look pretty foolish. Yes, Kraven is a far better villain than Vulture, but the fact is Raimi is a far better director who has netted this franchise 2.5 billion dollars. He has earned his chance to use any B-grade villain he wants. To use Kraven is just silly after firing Raimi over his choice of villain is just silly.

 

[zeptron]

The problem Sony had wasn't simply Vulture being in the movie. It was that he was gonna be the only villain. If he was in SM3 like he should have been or if another villain was included no one would have gave a damn.

 

[Spider-Fan]

I think him being the only villain would have been a good change from SM3. Too many villains ruined SM3, while 1 villain worked perfectly for SM1 and SM2. Even if that 1 villain was Vulture.

 

[zeptron]

I think him being the only villain would have been a good change from SM3. Too many villains ruined SM3, while 1 villain worked perfectly for SM1 and SM2. Even if that 1 villain was Vulture.

I don't know. Compared to the other two villains that had their own movies Vulture seems a bit of a downgrade.

And the problem with SM3 wasn't just simply having multiple villains. It was that they all had storylines that had nothing to do with each other. Sony shouldn't have forced a villain like Venom into a movie with two other villains. Especially if he hasn't had any foreshadowing.

The GG2, Sandman/Vulture can worked because they would have been connected from the start. They would have shared scenes together. Vulture would have already been a pure evil villain. Plus since Harry already had focus in the previous movies they wouldn't have to focus on him so much since we already knew about him. That's two villain story arcs going on instead of three completely unrelated ones. It was that they pushed Raimi to put Venom, so, we couldn't see good potential for a multiple villain movie. Sandman and Venom do not go together at all. If SM3 was like that we'd probably wouldn't have this silly "too many villains" complaint

We were gonna have more than one villain in SM3 regardless. The second movie ended with Harry to become GG2 and it wouldn't have been a good idea having him as the only villain as we had just already gotten a movie with a goblin as the sole villain.

The thing is not every villain can carry a movie, GG and Doc Ock are easily able to since they're Spidey's top foes and most developed ones, but not once you start getting into c-level villains. You really think Rhino, Shocker, or Carnage can hold their own movie?

I'm okay with a first movie having just one villain if it's the origin story. Because we're being introduced to the characters and they also need development. But it'll get a little bit boring if they continued to do just one villain trying to carry a feature length story and some villains might not even get a chance to be in a movie because of this. It worked for SM2 because it had the subplot of Harry becoming GG2. I think it gives the hero more of a challenge if he's faced with two villains.

 

[Venom'sDad]

There is a nice picture of Stephen Lang on the SHH homepage, linked from Latino Review of him playing the villain in "Conan". I prompted him as my pick for Rodderick Kingsley in the rebooted Spidey franchise.

Pierfrancesco Favino would make a great Kraven the Hunter.

Stephen Lang would make a great Roderrick Kingsley/HG.

I think he could do the character justice if Kingsley/Hobby ever grace the silver screen. Here's hoping.

 

[Ajendo]

I dont want to see any goblins for at least another 5 years.

 

[MrSpyder]

Kraven is a guy with survival killer instincts, anyone playing him has to keep in mind of those qualities with a Russian dialect