Sequels If this isn't Mary Jane Watson then I'm blind

[spideyboy_1111]

I have to agree with Spidey again, the photos posted below of Lohan are very attractive. She is much more prettier than Dunst and although I've had worse than Lohan I've also had better. She's not "Oh my gosh! She's soooooo hot!". But, here's my current position (Spidey you have influenced me greatly on this) - Had, Lohan been a few years older and then been cast for the first Spiderman, she would have turned out to be a good MJ. Now, I don't like cast changes during a movie series. So, I would get rid of MJ before replacing Dunst.

Am I not, fair??? LOL

Wetgorilla

well i do agree... but the whole main cast will probably be recasted forspidey 4 anyway.. because tobey to will be to old i would think in 2010

 

[wetgorilla]

well i do agree... but the whole main cast will probably be recasted forspidey 4 anyway.. because tobey to will be to old i would think in 2010

How sure are we that there will be a Spidey 4? They might just decide to pack it all up. hmmmmm???

Wetgorilla

 

[spideyboy_1111]

How sure are we that there will be a Spidey 4? They might just decide to pack it all up. hmmmmm???

Wetgorilla

well Kirsten wants out after 3... and one im glad for not only her acting.. but the cast may be getting to old for 4... so.. i wouldnt mind a "face lift" to the cast... i dont want them replacing one character in 4.. then 5 replacing tobey.. id rather them replace both at once

 

[TheFly32]

how can people say this looks anything like young mj?

mj is suppose to be a model.
lindsey is not hot, at all. and never will be.
^^^
dude you gay?
not that theres anything wrong with that.... o

no
i just dont find her attractive at all

oh ya i fixed the link.

 

[zanos]

O.k. o.k.

If, by some hideous plot, they do replace Kirsten. The only actress in the lime-light I would say should be given the role is Milla Jovovich. She exhibits an air of strength, sophistication, ADULThood, and beauty. She was a REAL model (like MJ) a REAL actress (like MJ aspired to be) and is of legal drinking age (unlike another hopeful) LOL

But, once again, I don't like changes in a cast when dealing with major characters. Bad news all around.

P.S. .....and she's not ORANGE! LOL

Wetgorilla

Dude you're out of your mind. I will admit she looked good in the first resident evil albeit even without **** but she makes herself look hideous every other time she's out to some event, in some mens mag or doing some other movie. Milla wouldn't have been right for the role 10 years ago when she was hot and didn't have that stupid euro accent she's picked up. She's certainly not right to play MJ now.

 

[terry78]

If they're doing the version of Spider-Man where they're all in their 30's, then she'd be a lock.

 

[wetgorilla]

Dude you're out of your mind. I will admit she looked good in the first resident evil albeit even without **** but she makes herself look hideous every other time she's out to some event, in some mens mag or doing some other movie. Milla wouldn't have been right for the role 10 years ago when she was hot and didn't have that stupid euro accent she's picked up. She's certainly not right to play MJ now.

She's an actress and would adapt to the character. She's attractive and does have a strong presence.

But, like I said before - I don't want a cast change ever. If this film series can't keep Kirsten onboard (although I've agreed she wouldn't have been my pick) then get rid of the MJ character entirely. If this series can't keep Tobey. End the series. Period.

Making major character changes to a film series is bad for business and bad for the audience appeal!

Wetgorilla

 

[spideyboy_1111]

She's an actress and would adapt to the character. She's attractive and does have a strong presence.

But, like I said before - I don't want a cast change ever. If this film series can't keep Kirsten onboard (although I've agreed she wouldn't have been my pick) then get rid of the MJ character entirely. If this series can't keep Tobey. End the series. Period.

Making major character changes to a film series is bad for business and bad for the audience appeal!

Wetgorilla

well sony is planning on 6 movies... tobey wont be in all 6... we would be lucky if he stayed for 4... wich i dont think will happen.. id rather him and kirsten get recasted... but keep aunt may and jameson etc...

 

[zanos]

She's an actress and would adapt to the character. She's attractive and does have a strong presence.

But, like I said before - I don't want a cast change ever. If this film series can't keep Kirsten onboard (although I've agreed she wouldn't have been my pick) then get rid of the MJ character entirely. If this series can't keep Tobey. End the series. Period.

Making major character changes to a film series is bad for business and bad for the audience appeal!

Wetgorilla

I think making changes is fine if the changes are sound and make sense. Unfortunately there's not much innovating going on in hollywood. The studios just want to continue the same story and that's where films series run into a roadblock. At the moment I'm neither for nor against a SM4 but if they were making it and had to recast I speed up the timeline 10 years into the future. The story of Spider-man is so much more than what Raimi represents on screen, which if I had to calculate is probably a fraction of who Peter is if at that.

 

[TheSlag]

I think making changes is fine if the changes are sound and make sense. Unfortunately there's not much innovating going on in hollywood. The studios just want to continue the same story and that's where films series run into a roadblock. At the moment I'm neither for nor against a SM4 but if they were making it and had to recast I speed up the timeline 10 years into the future. The story of Spider-man is so much more than what Raimi represents on screen, which if I had to calculate is probably a fraction of who Peter is if at that.

True about the fraction of Peter Parker, but how will progressing 10+ years into the future solve this problem?

Regardless of when the movie takes place, changes are required to bring us a more complete package, called Peter Parker. I wonder if the powers that be, Raimi, Sony and company, have the desire, and/or the balls to make it so.

SM3 should go a long way to telling us the tale, as I see it. If we get more of the same formula, IT IS definitely time for Sam to step down and turn the reins over to another... IMO.

 

[zanos]

I never said it would fix the problems with the current batch of spider-man films but it should fix the recasting issue which is what I was responding to.

I agree that Raimi should step down. For someone who claims to be a real fan of the Spider-man comic books he really doesn't have a clue who PP is. Movie PP is far and away from the character from the comic books and cartoons.

 

[TheSlag]

I never said it would fix the problems with the current batch of spider-man films but it should fix the recasting issue which is what I was responding to.

I agree that Raimi should step down. For someone who claims to be a real fan of the Spider-man comic books he really doesn't have a clue who PP is. Movie PP is far and away from the character from the comic books and cartoons.

I doubt that will happen, jumping so far into the future, and I'm not sure it would be a good idea either. I think, and expect a recasting of the leads for SM4, along with probably a new director to take us through the next trilogy.

I hope they take the approach of LOTR for shooting SM4 thru SM6, shooting back to back, but I doubt that part of the equation.

 

[zanos]

Peter is still in college. Jumping 10 years isn't too far and is the only solution if they want to even attempt to address why the characters look so different. It also opens up doors to better transition Peters' uber nerd personality to confident wallcrawler. In addition the extra time (10 years) gives the new director and writer enough room that they can also seperate themselves from the previous trilogy of films and not have to follow the same stories and timeline. In essence they can restart their own franchise with whole new stories and characters. There I'm a genius, I just thought of this right now.

 

[TheSlag]

I agree that the 10 years or so would make it a little easier to transition from the current storylines and the first 3 movies... IF... that is what you want to do. Personally, it's not what I want. I want the first 3 movies to mean something to the later movies, to transition to them, along with any luggage our hero carries with them. Otherwise, the Goblin Legacy is even more so for naught IMO.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

I agree that the 10 years or so would make it a little easier to transition from the current storylines and the first 3 movies... IF... that is what you want to do. Personally, it's not what I want. I want the first 3 movies to mean something to the later movies, to transition to them, along with any luggage our hero carries with them. Otherwise, the Goblin Legacy is even more so for naught IMO.

10 years is way way way to long... you gotta remember its only been what? 15 years since he was bitten by the spider in the comics today?

 

[zanos]

I agree that the 10 years or so would make it a little easier to transition from the current storylines and the first 3 movies... IF... that is what you want to do. Personally, it's not what I want. I want the first 3 movies to mean something to the later movies, to transition to them, along with any luggage our hero carries with them. Otherwise, the Goblin Legacy is even more so for naught IMO.

Well then you'll also get the enormous baggage that comes with going that route. Plus what talented director wants to follow a trio of other films that may be the opposite of his own vision for Spider-man? You can't have it both ways. Do you want to keep the bastardized version but with different actors and the same timeline or would you rather start fresh with new stories and ideas in a not so distant future? I think I will survive without the green goblin/harry subplot which could probably work better in Spider-man 5 anyway.

 

[TheSlag]

Well then you'll also own vision for Spider-man? You can't have it both ways. Do you want to keep the bastardized version but with different actors and the same timeline or would you rather start fresh with new stories and ideas in a not so distant future? I think I will survive without the green goblin/harry subplot which could probably work better in Spider-man 5 anyway.

I think a director can still tell his own version of Spider-Man, with some of the baggage left over from SM1-SM3.

Are you saying you want a retelling of Spider-Man's origin in the next trilogy? Not sure I followed with the goblin/harry subplot working better in SM5.

I'm just saying, a new director can take steps in the next trilogy to give us more of the Parker from the comics, while not completely throwing out the storylines or consequences from SM1-SM3.

Can he correct all the wrongs with the characters? No. But he can go a long way towards righting the wrong. SM3 will tell us a lot, about how much needs correcting.

I'm afraid it will be a lot, considering I expect SM2 to be very similar to the formula from SM2. MJ/Pete having relationship troubles. Pete pining for MJ. MJ pining for Pete but struggling with her fears, her needs.... all at the cost of the rest of the supporting cast and storylines, and ultimately the villain's story.

I'm afraid we'll again get a Goblin-Lite.

 

[TheSlag]

I'm not saying 10 years won't work, and I agree it would help with the recasting or whatever, but it would seem to me that I'm missing something, missing seeing Peter cope with the Goblin Legacy. Missing seeing Peter cope with the loss of the woman he loves the most, be it moving away or death.
Missing dealing with the loss of a brother (Harry)... etc.

And yes, they could tell these tales via flashbacks or whatever, but I just don't think it's the way to go. I would feel cheated from growing up with Peter like we did in the comics. Just my opinion.

 

[Mike]

Whoa whoa whoa! I kind of like Raimi's unconfident Pete,it's the unconfident Spidey I dont like. The movies are real great, except for Mary Jane and no Spidey quips. Raimi has already said, the comics and movies are different. But I think Raim's spider-man movies need to focus on Pete's struggle with becoming a man and being spider-man, not his love for MJ mush. SM2 was the best movie I've seen in 2004. So what's with all the Raimi hating? To be honest, SM2 should of won an Oscar for best movie.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

Whoa whoa whoa! I kind of like Raimi's unconfident Pete,it's the unconfident Spidey I dont like. The movies are real great, except for Mary Jane and no Spidey quips. Raimi has already said, the comics and movies are different. But I think Raim's spider-man movies need to focus on Pete's struggle with becoming a man and being spider-man, not his love for MJ mush. SM2 was the best movie I've seen in 2004. So what's with all the Raimi hating? To be honest, SM2 should of won an Oscar for best movie.

dude... im sry... but no spidey isnt oscar worthy for best picture... not yet .. it could be someday.. but not yet

 

[zanos]

I think a director can still tell his own version of Spider-Man, with some of the baggage left over from SM1-SM3.

Are you saying you want a retelling of Spider-Man's origin in the next trilogy? Not sure I followed with the goblin/harry subplot working better in SM5.

I'm just saying, a new director can take steps in the next trilogy to give us more of the Parker from the comics, while not completely throwing out the storylines or consequences from SM1-SM3.

Can he correct all the wrongs with the characters? No. But he can go a long way towards righting the wrong. SM3 will tell us a lot, about how much needs correcting.

I'm afraid it will be a lot, considering I expect SM2 to be very similar to the formula from SM2. MJ/Pete having relationship troubles. Pete pining for MJ. MJ pining for Pete but struggling with her fears, her needs.... all at the cost of the rest of the supporting cast and storylines, and ultimately the villain's story.

I'm afraid we'll again get a Goblin-Lite.

That's a pipe dream. The studio would never allow it. The real Peter Parker is confident, witty and charming. Movie PP as it currently stands is basically an uber nerd who gets stepped on everywhere he goes. Considering the films have made countless dollars based on this model it's not going to change from one film to another unless there's a drastic change in the story. They're not going to give some director 200 million dollars just he can come in with his own ideas and trash their biggest franchise because he wants to do his own Spider-man movie. That's crazy. Try to imagine if it were the other way around. If Raimi had made PP the way he was in the comics do you honestly think Sony would allow a new director to come in and suddenly make PP some geek who gets pushed around everywhere he goes because that's his vision of what the character should be like? The only way the studio can be tricked into allowing a new director to make any changes is under the pretense that they're not following the same timeline.

 

[zanos]

I'm not saying 10 years won't work, and I agree it would help with the recasting or whatever, but it would seem to me that I'm missing something, missing seeing Peter cope with the Goblin Legacy. Missing seeing Peter cope with the loss of the woman he loves the most, be it moving away or death.
Missing dealing with the loss of a brother (Harry)... etc.

And yes, they could tell these tales via flashbacks or whatever, but I just don't think it's the way to go. I would feel cheated from growing up with Peter like we did in the comics. Just my opinion.

As it currently stands we aren't growing up with Pete now. As a matter of fact Pete has done very little growing. He's still basically the same person he was before and after Uncle Ben died. Plus how are we really going to to experience all these things when the entire cast has been replaced? This is the inherit problem with recasting and also attempting to continue the same story. The audience simply won't accept someone else playing Peter Parker especially within the same timeline. The new director will be forced not to make any changes at all just so he can better transition the audience into accepting the new actor in the role. The changes you want to the character would never happen.

 

[fallenAngel]

You realize of course that the character of Peter Parker evolves and doesn't just change over night. I would rather have what Slag suggested, seeing how these things in his life affect him and change him. A drastic jump in the future would either show us that Peter hasn't changed or that he has and we missed it, thus alienating a lot of the fans who felt they were just getting to know the character.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

Dunst is fine...not my first choice but she is fine

 

[spideyboy_1111]

You realize of course that the character of Peter Parker evolves and doesn't just change over night. I would rather have what Slag suggested, seeing how these things in his life affect him and change him. A drastic jump in the future would either show us that Peter hasn't changed or that he has and we missed it, thus alienating a lot of the fans who felt they were just getting to know the character.

exactly