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

[©KAW]

Not just changes...horrible changes that water down characters or/and stories. Lord of the Rings had changes, so did The Dark Knight...yet both are still excellent films.

 

[Spider-Fan]

So is Spider-Man 2. Most critics and people thought it was great. It was the best reviewed film of 2004 until I think it was The Incredibles came out. You didn't like it, and that is fine. But, you're masking your reasons for not liking it under the banner of poor filmmaking when your real complaint is that SM2 didn't gel with your personal vision for Spider-Man.

 

[©KAW]

Masking my reasons, what, do you just not know how to comprehend words? I didn't like the way Peter Parker, Spider-Man, Mary Jane or Doctor Octopus was portrayed. And the story itself was weak and predictable, with Spidey losing and gaining back his powers over a girl, Mary Jane...a la Superman 2. And it's not my personal vision of Spider-Man I was looking for (I didn't create Spider-Man) but I did want to see him on the big screen, and he wasn't there in my eyes, nor was Doctor Octopus.

I do think that SM1 is a better movie than SM2, but that's not really saying much.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Masking my reasons, what, do you just not know how to comprehend words? I didn't like the way Peter Parker, Spider-Man, Mary Jane or Doctor Octopus was portrayed. And the story itself was weak and predictable, with Spidey losing and gaining back his powers over a girl, Mary Jane...a la Superman 2. And it's not my personal vision of Spider-Man I was looking for (I didn't create Spider-Man) but I did want to see him on the big screen, and he wasn't there in my eyes, nor was Doctor Octopus.

I do think that SM1 is a better movie than SM2, but that's not really saying much.

You do know losing his powers and quitting being Spider-Man happened in the comics, right? Not just Superman 2. Yes, he did make it in large part due to MJ, but MJ was not his only underlying reason for quitting in SM2. It was the biggest part, but not all of it.

I obviously know how to comprehend words since I can piece together the story and reasons SM2 work as a piece of writing, while you seem to be unable to put 2 and 2 together and see what the film was attempting to accomplish. However, you keep putting your opinion out there as a fact, and keep mixing up the words for what you're actually arguing.

 

[DACMAN]

I won't put any stock into this rumor right now. However, if Kraven is the villain choice, and he is alone...that would be seriously weak. I like Kraven, but as the villain to set the tone for your new series? Meh.

But, I don't think this report implies any truth, really.

You say that now, but I take it you haven't read Kraven's Last Hunt? He is a really deep character they could make a great movie with. At first the Joker sounds like a terrible villain as well. A guy who dresses up like a clown and puts on makeup? But that's not why he's such a good villain, it's the other stuff behind the scenes and behind the character that makes him so good. Same with Kraven.

And besides if they're doing Kraven, my money is on the fact they're doing the Lizard as well.

 

[chaseter]

Masking my reasons, what, do you just not know how to comprehend words? I didn't like the way Peter Parker, Spider-Man, Mary Jane or Doctor Octopus was portrayed. And the story itself was weak and predictable, with Spidey losing and gaining back his powers over a girl, Mary Jane...a la Superman 2. And it's not my personal vision of Spider-Man I was looking for (I didn't create Spider-Man) but I did want to see him on the big screen, and he wasn't there in my eyes, nor was Doctor Octopus.

I do think that SM1 is a better movie than SM2, but that's not really saying much.

I can bet you that some people didn't like the way Harvey Dent, Gordon, and the Joker were potrayed in TDK. How their origins were changed. TDK was very predictable. You knew Batman would stop Joker and Two Face, you knew Bruce Wayne would choose to remain Batman instead of giving up after everyone wanted him to turn himself in and with Bruce gaining back his will and resolve to remain Batman over a girl, Rachel, a la Superman 2. Does that make TDK less of a great movie? No.

You hide behind reasons to think SM2 is not any good and those reasons have been picked apart one by one each time you post them. You only dislike SM2 because it didn't have exactly what you wanted. Does that make SM2 less of a great movie? No. If you want a movie to have everything you think is great from the comics, then you should stop going to the movies because it will never happen.

 

[Spider-Fan]

You say that now, but I take it you haven't read Kraven's Last Hunt? He is a really deep character they could make a great movie with. At first the Joker sounds like a terrible villain as well. A guy who dresses up like a clown and puts on makeup? But that's not why he's such a good villain, it's the other stuff behind the scenes and behind the character that makes him so good. Same with Kraven.

And besides if they're doing Kraven, my money is on the fact they're doing the Lizard as well.

I have read KLH. However, KLH doesn't work as an introductory film to a series. Why? Because Kraven needs a pre-existing history with Spider-Man, and you're writing Spider-Man out of the film for a good portion. In a film that has to reintroduce Spider-Man, that doesn't work. Can KLH work on film? Most definitely. But, not as a first film. In all likelihood, a Kraven film would be him just coming to NY to hunt Spider-Man. KLH would be of little influence. So, I think he is a lame choice.

And if the budget does end up being 80ish mil, Lizard can't be in it with him. Too expensive. We have to see what kind of budget the film gets before you can make a prediction like that. Also, reports suggested Sony didn't want to use Lizard up to this point (since he has no human face). Why would they now?

 

[chaseter]

Raimi didn't want to use Lizard because he wanted him to have a human face. Get your facts straight. Sony is great and Raimi sucks.

 

[Doc Ock]

IMO Clive Owen could be a fantastic Kraven...in fact I can't picture anyone else...yet.

 

[TheFuture]

I can bet you that some people didn't like the way Harvey Dent, Gordon, and the Joker were potrayed in TDK. How their origins were changed. TDK was very predictable. You knew Batman would stop Joker and Two Face, you knew Bruce Wayne would choose to remain Batman instead of giving up after everyone wanted him to turn himself in and with Bruce gaining back his will and resolve to remain Batman over a girl, Rachel, a la Superman 2. Does that make TDK less of a great movie? No.

Yeah, if that's what made TDK predictable, then that is what made every superhero film predictable. I could apply what you're saying to any superhero film.

 

[©KAW]

You do know losing his powers and quitting being Spider-Man happened in the comics, right? Not just Superman 2. Yes, he did make it in large part due to MJ, but MJ was not his only underlying reason for quitting in SM2. It was the biggest part, but not all of it.

Losing his powers happened in the comics, yes, MJ being the driving force behind it, NO. And that's just one of the many problems with Raimi's movies, everything centers around or comes back to Mary Jane. I take it that you share this small scope vision of Spider-Man with Raimi? I sure as hell don't. And I don't use the excuse "it's an adaptation" as reason not to make better characterizations.

And you all wonder why Spider-Man is being rebooted.

I obviously know how to comprehend words since I can piece together the story and reasons SM2 work as a piece of writing, while you seem to be unable to put 2 and 2 together and see what the film was attempting to accomplish. However, you keep putting your opinion out there as a fact, and keep mixing up the words for what you're actually arguing.

That's just it, you're piecing together why Raimi's bizarro world versions of the characters worked as a piece of writing. How the hell you managed to get through the horrid dialogue in SM2 is beyond me. I care nothing for it, not his Peter Parker, Spider-Man, Mary Jane or Doc Ock (cool looking, like the action, but that's about it). For once, I'd like to see something closer to the comic book characters, I'd like to see someone dig a little deeper into the mythos. If not, they'll be rebooting this thing all over again.

 

[SpeterMan3]

Yeah, if that's what made TDK predictable, then that is what made every superhero film predictable. I could apply what you're saying to any superhero film.

I think kinda that's the point. Or at least the point's cousin.

 

[SpeterMan3]

For once, I'd like to see something closer to the comic book characters, I'd like to see someone dig a little deeper into the mythos. If not, they'll be rebooting this thing all over again.

Because Sony cares that much...

 

[©KAW]

I can bet you that some people didn't like the way Harvey Dent, Gordon, and the Joker were potrayed in TDK. How their origins were changed. TDK was very predictable. You knew Batman would stop Joker and Two Face, you knew Bruce Wayne would choose to remain Batman instead of giving up after everyone wanted him to turn himself in and with Bruce gaining back his will and resolve to remain Batman over a girl, Rachel, a la Superman 2. Does that make TDK less of a great movie? No.

You hide behind reasons to think SM2 is not any good and those reasons have been picked apart one by one each time you post them. You only dislike SM2 because it didn't have exactly what you wanted. Does that make SM2 less of a great movie? No. If you want a movie to have everything you think is great from the comics, then you should stop going to the movies because it will never happen.

LMAO, yeah, picked apart by people who have SAM RAIMI as their GOD in their sigs. I don't care how much you pray to him at night. I still dislike like SM2 because it's not a good Spider-Man film.

 

[©KAW]

Because Sony cares that much...

Maybe not, but at least they fired The Three Stooges (Sam, Tobey and Dunst).

 

[TheFuture]

I think kinda that's the point. Or at least the point's cousin.

Ah right. Forgive me, I'm slightly drunk.

 

[david icke]

LMAO, yeah, picked apart by people who have SAM RAIMI as their GOD in their sigs. I don't care how much you pray to him at night. I still dislike like SM2 because it's not a good Spider-Man film.

This goes back to what a poster(Spider-fan) said about you constantly attempting to twist the fact that you did not personally get your ideal Spider-man movie that you imagine in your head, into an attack on Raimi's filmaking abilities.
Here, you have quite clearly said, 'not a good Spider-man film', instead of 'not a good film.'

I mean, I agree with Spider-fan, it's like when you described the train scene in Spider-man 2 as 'piss poor directing', I pointed out how all your points of contention with the scene actually were *good* points of film directing, and what it boiled down to was that you wanted McGuire's face covered, or at least half covered by a Spider-man mask during it.

and as for getting rid of 'the three stooges', isn't this a little premature in creative victory since you have no idea what quality of 'stooges' they will be replaced with? Sometimes you come to realise it's better the devil you know when you leap out of that frying pan.

 

[DACMAN]

They said less comedy, more grit. Which makes it pretty clear they want to get away from the cheesy crap Raimi loved.

 

[©KAW]

This goes back to what a poster(Spider-fan) said about you constantly attempting to twist the fact that you did not personally get your ideal Spider-man movie that you imagine in your head, into an attack on Raimi's filmaking abilities.
Here, you have quite clearly said, 'not a good Spider-man film', instead of 'not a good film.'

I mean, I agree with Spider-fan, it's like when you described the train scene in Spider-man 2 as 'piss poor directing', I pointed out how all your points of contention with the scene actually were *good* points of film directing, and what it boiled down to was that you wanted McGuire's face covered, or at least half covered by a Spider-man mask during it.

and as for getting rid of 'the three stooges', isn't this a little premature in creative victory since you have no idea what quality of 'stooges' they will be replaced with? Sometimes you come to realise it's better the devil you know when you leap out of that frying pan.

Raimi has always been a cheesy director starting with Evil Dead. Are you going to deny the man can't control his cheese with action films?

No, I like the train scene, it was a good action scene. But one good action scene doesn't make a great film.

What is with you all and your Devil talk? No, just like with the Batman franchise, I'm patient, look how long it took to get to Nolan's Dark Knight. If I can wait for Batman, I sure as hell can wait for Spider-Man.

 

[david icke]

They said less comedy, more grit. Which makes it pretty clear they want to get away from the cheesy crap Raimi loved.

Yeah, I can imagine why given the reactions to SM3. Hey, i'd love to see a super serious tone throughout a Spider-man film, like a great thriller that does not stop to take a break with comedy montages, but it remains to be seen whether the actual drama will match the drama of the Raimi movies, and whether they nail as much of the iconic Spider-man imagery and action that Raimi did. The fact Raimi got that right will put them in good stead, because if Webb and co were starting from scratch I doubt they would have as much of a clue as how to get that down, as a kinetic director as Raimi did.

Hell, back when Cameron was considering doing Spidey, Raimi knew it was not possible yet to get his physics right onscreen, he said he couldn't imagine how Cameron was going to do it, because the tech did not exist then to do it right.

 

[david icke]

Raimi has always been a cheesy director starting with Evil Dead. Are you going to deny the man can't control his cheese with action films?

See my reply to Dacman concerning that above this post.

edit: also, yes, he can go over board with it, no-one said these movies were ithout their flaws. I could lose the dance in the jazz club in SM3 for instance.

No, I like the train scene, it was a good action scene. But one good action scene doesn't make a great film.

Ok, before you said it had 'piss poor directing', you appear to have changed your opinion on that. If I was any help on that one, it was my pleasure.

What is with you all and your Devil talk? No, just like with the Batman franchise, I'm patient, look how long it took to get to Nolan's Dark Knight. If I can wait for Batman, I sure as hell can wait for Spider-Man.

'Better the devil you know'

'Out of the frying pan into the fire'

I was combining two well known analogies back there that applied to your premature gloating, thought you would have got that.

That's fine, but you keep going around telling folk that they are biased and blind in their opinion on the Raimi movies.
I didn't think the Burton/shumacher movies caught Batman well either, or were great movies, but had a few good scenes. But when discussing them with folk who prefer them to the Nolans, i don't accuse them of being blind devotees of Burton or insist they are terribly made movies.
I will point out any point of character depoarture I was not happy with when it's relevant to the discussion, sure, but I won't bang on about it ad nauseum whenever I'm over there.

 

[©KAW]

Yes, I think he's a cheesy director, who makes mediocre Spider-Man films. You see the cheese, as well, good for you. I like an action scene or two in Transformers too, but the movies as a whole are horrid and I can't stand Micheal Bay as a director. I look at movies as a whole, not for just one action scene.

 

[chaseter]

LMAO, yeah, picked apart by people who have SAM RAIMI as their GOD in their sigs. I don't care how much you pray to him at night. I still dislike like SM2 because it's not a good Spider-Man film.

That is perfectly fine and that is your opinion. We all are entitled to one. However, the reasons you post in here are idiotic.

I hate TDK because Nolan changed everything It is a terrible movie

 

[Spider-Fan]

Losing his powers happened in the comics, yes, MJ being the driving force behind it, NO. And that's just one of the many problems with Raimi's movies, everything centers around or comes back to Mary Jane. I take it that you share this small scope vision of Spider-Man with Raimi? I sure as hell don't. And I don't use the excuse "it's an adaptation" as reason not to make better characterizations.

Raimi made a choice in how to approach his narrative. He wanted to emphasize Spider-Man's sacrifices. How does he do it? By focusing his films on his love for MJ. Why? Because he wants the audience to have something tangible that they can grab onto and recognize. This is not bad writing. It's a narrative choice. All films have to decide on a narrative approach. That is basic film 101.

And you all wonder why Spider-Man is being rebooted.
That's just it, you're piecing together why Raimi's bizarro world versions of the characters worked as a piece of writing. How the hell you managed to get through the horrid dialogue in SM2 is beyond me. I care nothing for it, not his Peter Parker, Spider-Man, Mary Jane or Doc Ock (cool looking, like the action, but that's about it). For once, I'd like to see something closer to the comic book characters, I'd like to see someone dig a little deeper into the mythos. If not, they'll be rebooting this thing all over again.

And again, comic book writers all have their own takes on characters. There is no definitive Spider-Man. Some people are Lee era fans. Others like Benids's USM. Others love McFarlene's run, etc. To Stan Lee, Gwen Stacy was the one for Peter. But, another writer had an idea to kill her off. Is this an injustice to the vision of Spider-Man? Why should filmmakers not be allowed to view the character in their own way when comic writers have been doing this for years?

This goes back to what a poster(Spider-fan) said about you constantly attempting to twist the fact that you did not personally get your ideal Spider-man movie that you imagine in your head, into an attack on Raimi's filmaking abilities.
Here, you have quite clearly said, 'not a good Spider-man film', instead of 'not a good film.'

I mean, I agree with Spider-fan, it's like when you described the train scene in Spider-man 2 as 'piss poor directing', I pointed out how all your points of contention with the scene actually were *good* points of film directing, and what it boiled down to was that you wanted McGuire's face covered, or at least half covered by a Spider-man mask during it.

and as for getting rid of 'the three stooges', isn't this a little premature in creative victory since you have no idea what quality of 'stooges' they will be replaced with? Sometimes you come to realise it's better the devil you know when you leap out of that frying pan.

Glad to see someone is reading my posts :heart:

The reboot is not out yet. The new direction for Spider-Man might be worse. It might be better. There is a difference between being optimistic for it, and being in blind love with it. I have no problem with guys looking forward to the film, but saying this film is already TDK like some I have seen doing I think is premature.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Yes, I think he's a cheesy director, who makes mediocre Spider-Man films. You see the cheese, as well, good for you. I like an action scene or two in Transformers too, but the movies as a whole are horrid and I can't stand Micheal Bay as a director. I look at movies as a whole, not for just one action scene.

You look at the movies as a whole, yet complain cause Peter took his mask off for 5 seconds? This seems like a contradiction.

Raimi has made a lot of cheesy films, but he doesn't just do cheese. Watch For the Love of the Game. That film is not cheesy in the least, and is very well approached by Raimi. Plus, you act like cheese for Spider-Man is a bad thing. Read Stan Lee's Spider-Man comics. They are cheesy. Spider-Man's puns are cheesy. His stories in the comics have been many times cheesy (the Kingpin tried using a machine to put his son's brain in a new body...that is cheesy). Raimi's Spider-Man films are not Bay's TF films. Bay's TF films don't try making larger points. Raimi's Spider-Man films do. Even SM3 had a theme and overall purpose, despite being extremely flawed.