Sequels No Sam Raimi for Spider-Man 4?

Batman Begins wasn't faithful to the comics, but it was still awesome

BB was more closesly to the comics than the past live-action Batman movies...Gordon looked like what he does in the comics, we had Lucius Fox, and we had him being trainied before becoming Batman...pretty close than what was shown in Batman '89 except for Joker's real name is Jack Napier in it.
 
The fact is, it wasn't faithful, yet he still enjoyed it. Unless you think Ra's helped Bruce become Batman in the comics.
 
Raimi was everyones choice for the spidey director - i think - and we would have wanted him to stay on. But after 3..........not so sure now.
 
The point is we all want Raimi to return, but my concern is that Raimi says Peter is much more vulnerable when he is not married. If the series continues how can we not have Peter marrying MJ after what they have been through in 3 movies? What's the point of being so desperate to want MJ if he doesn't want to marry her after all that crying?

Another thing, making villains personal to Peter. How can one be so lucky to have every villain related to him/ her. Connors turns out to be naturally related, he's his teacher. But what about others? Can you go on making them personal? Sure we like it, but come on it gets unrealistic after a while, and Raimi tries to root his movies into reality to some extent.
 
Uh, no WE don't.

Well majority. He only made one mistake though with 3. So, it's not justifiable to throw him off because of one mistake, he did prove worthy of directing Spidey franchise, and I must say he did a well done job, look how bad FF4 and other Marvel movies are in comparison to Spider-Man.

I know how you feel about 3, and I was saddened by such limited use of Venom, but I got over it by thinking that Venom made it to big screen.
 


My statement was based on number of Raimi lovers who have stated they want him back, and I saw more "yes" than "no"s. Okay, enlighten me. Why wouldn't you guys want him back?
 
BB was more closesly to the comics than the past live-action Batman movies...Gordon looked like what he does in the comics, we had Lucius Fox, and we had him being trainied before becoming Batman...pretty close than what was shown in Batman '89 except for Joker's real name is Jack Napier in it.

Yes, the characters did look more like the real characters, but the story wasn't close to the comic's atall

now, let's stay on-topic
 
Music to my ears.... invigorate the LOTR franchise... while continuing a proven franchise with a new vision... hope this turns out to be the case
 
The fact is, it wasn't faithful, yet he still enjoyed it. Unless you think Ra's helped Bruce become Batman in the comics.

I like how I said HE TRAINIED BEFORE BECOMING BATMAN mixed with RA'S HELPED HIM BECOME BATMAN.

Just clarified that in Batman '89, it didn't show or tell how he became skilled in the martial arts, at least BB did.

Read.
 
Nope, you didn't mention Ra's helping him become Bats (which wasn't in the comics), you left that part out, so I helped you out in the not faithful department.
 
Well majority. He only made one mistake though with 3. So, it's not justifiable to throw him off because of one mistake, he did prove worthy of directing Spidey franchise, and I must say he did a well done job, look how bad FF4 and other Marvel movies are in comparison to Spider-Man.

I know how you feel about 3, and I was saddened by such limited use of Venom, but I got over it by thinking that Venom made it to big screen.

You don't know how I feel about sm3. You my friend are just generalising.
 
Nope, you didn't mention Ra's helping him become Bats (which wasn't in the comics), you left that part out, so I helped you out in the not faithful department.

I said, and I quote:
BB was more closesly to the comics than the past live-action Batman movies...Gordon looked like what he does in the comics, we had Lucius Fox, and we had him being trainied before becoming Batman...pretty close than what was shown in Batman '89 except for Joker's real name is Jack Napier in it.

Nothing about Ra's.

All I said was he was being trained before becoming Batman. Didn't say WHO trained him, only that he WAS being trainied.

Batman: TAS, we find out he trainied before becoming Batman...and those flashbacks were shown when he was fighting Ra's Al Ghul because that's where he was trainied, but not by Ra's himself.
 
Oh yeah, Ra's had nothing to do with it, what movie were you watching, and who's talking about the B:TAS?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"