The Amazing Spider-Man "The Amazing Spider-Man" In The Marvel Cinematic Universe Discussion

[DACrowe]

Unfortunately there has been a whole generation of people who grew up being weaned on Raimi's creme cheese and think that is what Spider-Man should be (or only want him to be). Over the top, cardboard cut-out charicatures, sappy sentimentalism, cheap gags, etc.

And fundamental aspects of the character's history have been lost on people as well. Google Marc Webb and there are headlines that read "Webb defends mechanical web-shooters...." From who exactly? The people who were ten when the movie came out? Anyway, back to reality......

The films were nothing more then fast food IMO. If people want to dine on that, then by all means have at it, but I know I expected the character to be given better treatment on screen. Nolan elevated the comic art form to the higher art form of cinema, painting something that will be remembered for years to come. Raimi gave us cheap graffiti art on the side of a wall. It's just begging for someone to come along and paint over it. I'm hoping that someone is Marc Webb.

Most summer movies are fast food. Most comic books are fast food. I can think of few Spidey stories that I would call pure art. I'm not sure the character works for such lofty ambitions. What Spidey should be is smart, well written, endearing and extremely entertaining. You don't have to do it as "goofy" as Raimi did, but humorous gags and "cheap sentimentalism" go hand in hand with what Stan Lee and John Romita both described as "a soap opera where occasionally a fight breaks out between men in their underwear."

You can do it more seriously than Raimi, but he honestly did deliver a smart, intelligent crowd pleasing entertainment. One so well done that if it was as frivolous as you say we wouldn't be talking about them today. Ten years out they're still held as a standard bearer after most of the superhero movies from that time (Hulk, Daredevil, Fantastic Four, Superman Returns even Singer's X-Men movies, have faded away) and whenever a new superhero movie comes out after TDK, it is next compared to SM2. They have a longevity you ignore because they are for all ages. Oh well.

 

[DACrowe]

Why would you think that I would want a Spider-Man or Iron Man film to be restricted? I'm all for the fantastical events within these films to take place. But I would like to believe that JJJ actually owns the Daily Bugle (which I don't), that he's an adult (which I don't), that he's capable of holding a conversation without seeming clownish (which I don't), that he has a good reason to hate Spider-Man (which I don't) and not feel like a cartoon character (which he does). Not everything in JJJ's life should be a setup for the next joke.

But I don't see why JJJ has to be a serious news editor. He's much more interesting and iconic as how Simmons played him. I just don't see how you can dislike his interpretation unless you just don't want comic relief in the story, so I'm not going to argue that one.

I feel that characters outside of Spider-Man and his villains shouldn't be as fantastical (in dialogue/acting/presence) than two people fighting on the side of a building. If everyone is over-the-top, New Yorkers included, it makes the story involving characters such as Spidey/Ock Ock seem almost normal.
Marvel handles its subject pretty much like Raimi does for Spider-Man, poorly. This give off the effect that you're not watching something of quality. Example: When a car is tossed at you, and you're saved from within an inch of certain death and your response is--Go Spidey Go!

This I agree with to an extent. You can do it in a more realistic New York. By the same token there is nothing against doing it in a fantastical New York which in many ways also captures some of Spidey's charms. In his world supervillains are a daily occurence, so jaded New Yorkers' response can be entertaining (though I wish it was more like the Village on the Green scene in Ghosbusters or when they went into the hotel lobby in that movie). To put it another way, there's a lot of charm in Spidey saying, "Where do these guys come from?"

But as a whole, I see where you're coming from and agree that it would be nice to see a different, more realistic take on that. With that said, Raimi's films aren't bad because they went a different--and more Stan Lee--way with that.

Let's save the Amazing for Spidey, Silver Surfer is more Celestial Greatness! I'll debate that with any die-hard Sci-Fi enthusiast. Although you wouldn't know that based on the crap that the world had to witness in Fantastic Four: ROTSS movie.

I'm not a die hard sci-fi fan, but rest assured we can agree that ROTSS sucked.

From Marvel, I haven't seen greatness in any capacity, I'm still waiting for it--and Robert Downey Jr. in Iron Man certainly wasn't it.

In terms of an ambitious script and story? I agree Marvel hasn't attempted to go outside the box yet. However, RDJ's performance of Tony Stark was greatness and I'd say probably among the three best superhero performances to date (ignoring faithfulness), alongside Bale and Jackman. Though that doesn't make IM2 (or X3 and Wolverine for that matter) a good movie.

Oh, so Marvel Studios makes screwball comedies, well now, that puts a different light on everything...

Yes, Favreau was influenced by this genre. Just as much as you can point to The Dark Knight and see countless crime thrillers like Heat in it or the western, Shane, you can just as easily point to the relationship between Tony and Pepper in the IM films and say Howard Hawks, Frank Capra, George Cukor, His Girl Friday, etc. It shows a sophisticated taste on Favreau's part to pull from such a classic and rarely used (for today) comedy style that is just as valid an influence as Dog Day Afternoon.

But because it's comedy--good, biting comedy--it makes the movie "hokey" and the performances bad to you. I'll say it makes Tony and Pepper far more likable and memorable than any iteration of Bruce and Rachel that Nolan ever came up with.

 

[©KAW]

But I don't see why JJJ has to be a serious news editor. He's much more interesting and iconic as how Simmons played him. I just don't see how you can dislike his interpretation unless you just don't want comic relief in the story, so I'm not going to argue that one.

Yeah, but having a cheesy comic relief JJJ, introducing Spider-Man's villains is a bit too much. The character needs to have some seriousness behind him, this isn't Willie Wonka. Where live action actors perform and feel like cartoon characters.

This I agree with to an extent. You can do it in a more realistic New York. By the same token there is nothing against doing it in a fantastical New York which in many ways also captures some of Spidey's charms. In his world supervillains are a daily occurence, so jaded New Yorkers' response can be entertaining (though I wish it was more like the Village on the Green scene in Ghosbusters or when they went into the hotel lobby in that movie). To put it another way, there's a lot of charm in Spidey saying, "Where do these guys come from?"

You do realize that what you're proposing is exactly how we ended up with Batman & Robin, don't you? Where the director doesn't know where to draw the line between what should/shouldn't be done and drawing mostly from the cheese of the 1940s/1960s style comic books. How about keeping New Yorkers, I don't know, like New Yorkers. Not a bunch of happy-go-lucky adults with a juvenile brain. And the idea is not to have everything fantastical--neon cities, Bat-nipples, dancing Peter Parker...am I getting through to you? Where do you draw the line in one's exception of camp?

But as a whole, I see where you're coming from and agree that it would be nice to see a different, more realistic take on that. With that said, Raimi's films aren't bad because they went a different--and more Stan Lee--way with that.

Trust me, all comic book films could benefit from a more realistic approach. Meaning, treating their subject matters with some seriousness, better written dialogue, complex/deadly villains, given actors something to sink their teeth into when it comes to the script, story and characters.

I'm not a die hard sci-fi fan, but rest assured we can agree that ROTSS sucked.

Yet it need not be so.

In terms of an ambitious script and story? I agree Marvel hasn't attempted to go outside the box yet. However, RDJ's performance of Tony Stark was greatness and I'd say probably among the three best superhero performances to date (ignoring faithfulness), alongside Bale and Jackman. Though that doesn't make IM2 (or X3 and Wolverine for that matter) a good movie.

Look, I understand why you're saying this, mostly because you've only seen one version of Tony Stark/Iron Man on screen. RDJ's version can easily be surpassed.

Yes, Favreau was influenced by this genre. Just as much as you can point to The Dark Knight and see countless crime thrillers like Heat in it or the western, Shane, you can just as easily point to the relationship between Tony and Pepper in the IM films and say Howard Hawks, Frank Capra, George Cukor, His Girl Friday, etc. It shows a sophisticated taste on Favreau's part to pull from such a classic and rarely used (for today) comedy style that is just as valid an influence as Dog Day Afternoon.

Well, let's put it this way, if you're going to use elements from another genre to place in a comic book film, I'd take Heat over His Girl Friday 10 to 1.

But because it's comedy--good, biting comedy--it makes the movie "hokey" and the performances bad to you. I'll say it makes Tony and Pepper far more likable and memorable than any iteration of Bruce and Rachel that Nolan ever came up with.

That's because Bruce usually bangs them and leaves them, you can't put Bruce in some kind of relationship--he's an ass chaser. But nothing excuses Gwyneth Paltrow for loosing her ability to act just because she's in a comic book film. Sometimes, at least for me, there's too much comedy and not enough substance in these comic book films.

 

[Spiderman6592]

I thought Doc Ock's one liners--which were "Butterfingers," "Hello Harry" with a sip of whiskey, "Peter Parker...and the girlfriend," and "I'd like to see you scurry out of this--were few and far between. You make it sound like he was a Schumaucher-styled gag-machine.

What they did, was show that he was an arrogant, contemptuous and smug *****ebag who only cared about his precious science experiment. And they were amusing. Nothing of the "itsy bitsy spider" caliber to make someone feel embarrassed or taken out of the movie. In fact, this is the first time I've heard anyone complain about those lines. They were just Ock being Ock. No more than Joker being Joker. It's the character through and through and this is one of the smallest nitpicks of that movie that I've ever heard.

It's not a small nit pick. Those lines are a small sample of the amount of corniness in the Raimi films. I mean, I love them, I really do, but now whenever I watch them, I get distracted by the awful jokes and forced cliches.

 

[Web-Shooter]

Most summer movies are fast food. Most comic books are fast food. I can think of few Spidey stories that I would call pure art. I'm not sure the character works for such lofty ambitions. What Spidey should be is smart, well written, endearing and extremely entertaining. You don't have to do it as "goofy" as Raimi did, but humorous gags and "cheap sentimentalism" go hand in hand with what Stan Lee and John Romita both described as "a soap opera where occasionally a fight breaks out between men in their underwear."

Smart, well written, endearing and extremely entertaining would be just fine with me.

I understand your point. But the sixties were the sixties. What Stan and John said about a comic book in that time has little bearing on what I expect from a major motion picture in the 21st century. It's all about degrees. Everything was campy/cheesy back then when you look at it through today's lens. Just look at the Batman TV series. Endearing today, like the classic Spidey comics, because we view them in the context of the era from which they came. But if they were made and written today, they would be viewed in a completely different light. I know this era is what Raimi was trying to evoke when making his pop-art extravaganzas. Combined with a mishmash of genre's and styles, it made me feel like I was in a pinball machine. And I realize many people love the fim. About 2.5 billion worldwide proves it to SOME degree. Although I contend a more grounded Spider-Man (from James Cameron say) would have made just as much, if not more, but I have no proof of that so..

Comics have evolved, films have evolved. I don't want the 60's tone and dialogue of Spider-Man on the screen today, I want something modern and contemporary. I love the screwballs from the 40's, I understand and appreciate the artform of melodrama, but they also feel dated when they are replicated or evoked to the degree that Raimi did. At the end of the day I just feel that if you can create real moments on film (or moments that feel real in a fantasy), then why would you not go for that over a stylized artifice. Just my opinion anyway.

 

[DACrowe]

Yeah, but having a cheesy comic relief JJJ, introducing Spider-Man's villains is a bit too much. The character needs to have some seriousness behind him, this isn't Willie Wonka. Where live action actors perform and feel like cartoon characters.
You do realize that what you're proposing is exactly how we ended up with Batman & Robin, don't you? Where the director doesn't know where to draw the line between what should/shouldn't be done and drawing mostly from the cheese of the 1940s/1960s style comic books. How about keeping New Yorkers, I don't know, like New Yorkers. Not a bunch of happy-go-lucky adults with a juvenile brain. And the idea is not to have everything fantastical--neon cities, Bat-nipples, dancing Peter Parker...am I getting through to you? Where do you draw the line in one's exception of camp?

I think him naming Peter's villains over them saying "You can call me the Green Goblin/Doctor Octopus/Venom!" is far less cheesy and more believable as he runs a borderline tabloid.

As for the B&R comparison...I think it can lead to SM3. B&R was a soulless toy commercial for children. I didn't you should dumb down or phone in your story for corporate reasons. But acknowledging that supervillains are common day problems in Spidey's world is not on the same level. Him dancing in the street is and there we agree.

Well, let's put it this way, if you're going to use elements from another genre to place in a comic book film, I'd take Heat over His Girl Friday 10 to 1.

But for the characters of Tony Stark and Pepper Potts, Howard Hawks fits better than Michael Mann. Just because you prefer Michael Mann doesn't mean his style will work in Iron Man. That's been my whole point.

 

[DACrowe]

Smart, well written, endearing and extremely entertaining would be just fine with me.

I understand your point. But the sixties were the sixties. What Stan and John said about a comic book in that time has little bearing on what I expect from a major motion picture in the 21st century. It's all about degrees. Everything was campy/cheesy back then when you look at it through today's lens. Just look at the Batman TV series. Endearing today, like the classic Spidey comics, because we view them in the context of the era from which they came. But if they were made and written today, they would be viewed in a completely different light. I know this era is what Raimi was trying to evoke when making his pop-art extravaganzas. Combined with a mishmash of genre's and styles, it made me feel like I was in a pinball machine. And I realize many people love the fim. About 2.5 billion worldwide proves it to SOME degree. Although I contend a more grounded Spider-Man (from James Cameron say) would have made just as much, if not more, but I have no proof of that so..

Comics have evolved, films have evolved. I don't want the 60's tone and dialogue of Spider-Man on the screen today, I want something modern and contemporary. I love the screwballs from the 40's, I understand and appreciate the artform of melodrama, but they also feel dated when they are replicated or evoked to the degree that Raimi did. At the end of the day I just feel that if you can create real moments on film (or moments that feel real in a fantasy), then why would you not go for that over a stylized artifice. Just my opinion anyway.

I wouldn't lump in the Stan Lee comics with the childish self-satirical Batman TV show. Stan Lee made good, light stories that despite being dated still work. That show was crap and is only remembered fondly because some fans grew up watching it.

I see your point, I just don't think Spidey is a dark character.

 

[BobbyCorwin88]

I'm wondering...

Would it be too much of a stretch to say that most people remember and praise SM2 because the action scenes were gorgeous? Because that's always the first thing my mind travels to when I think about Raimi's Spider-Man films. Spidey vs Doc Ock was epic and worked great. In fact, the monorail fight was the only part of his trilogy where I felt I was actually watching Spider-Man come to life.

When someone says SM2, I don't think about the weak character that Tobey Maguire portrayed, or the weak love triangle, or Harry's obsessive behavior to get back at Spidey despite his having more money than God, and certainly not the terrible interpretation of Doc Ock. Like I've said before, Ocatvius was a better Venom than Venom. Venom didn't even say "we."

I also see a lot of people quoting that Spidey isn't a "dark" (bleh) character. I'm guessing "more serious" is the term we're shooting for. The easiest way I can explain how Spidey should feel on screen would be this:

Spidey/Peter Parker is a lighthearted individual up against a harsh and cruel world. His origins and tale are more serious and tonally "dark" than people give him credit for. But because Spidey has such a positive attitude on his otherwise grim circumstances, we the audience, are attracted to that side of him, and the shadowy parts of his world lighten up a bit, so to speak. Instead of wallowing around in grief, Spidey picks himself up, cracks a joke and keeps fighting the good fight. If Spidey lacked this important piece of his personality, then he would more than likely blend in with the world around him and become much more like a Batman character and cease to be himself.

Iron Man said it well in a recent Fear Itself comic regarding he and Spidey's personalities. While fighting Grey Gargoyle in Paris: "You want to know why we talk crap like this in the middle of fights? Why guys like me--or Spider-Man even more than me, that guy's the worst--It's because we're terrified. Some folks can sublimate it--tamp it down--keep it together--But every time I open my mouth to get some other stupid thing out--I have to shout so I don't choke on my own heartbeat."

I think that sums it up perfectly. Spidey's humor and lightheartedness has always been a battle strategy of his, but it's also a huge coping mechanism. To say Spidey is a "dark" character would not be completely accurate, true. But to say his world is exactly like him? It's the whole reason he exists in the first place.

 

[Web-Shooter]

I wouldn't lump in the Stan Lee comics with the childish self-satirical Batman TV show. Stan Lee made good, light stories that despite being dated still work. That show was crap and is only remembered fondly because some fans grew up watching it.

I see your point, I just don't think Spidey is a dark character.

He's just a real and relatable character more then anything. More then anyone else in the genre IMO. He can be dark at times, just as he can be told off by a hot dog vendor on the streets. I just want all that in a realistic context.

No doubt about Stan, the stories are timeless. And I actually like that Batman show for the strange, bizzare and hilarious museum piece that it is. And how can you not love Frank Gorshin.

 

[Web-Shooter]

I'm wondering...

Would it be too much of a stretch to say that most people remember and praise SM2 because the action scenes were gorgeous? Because that's always the first thing my mind travels to when I think about Raimi's Spider-Man films. Spidey vs Doc Ock was epic and worked great. In fact, the monorail fight was the only part of his trilogy where I felt I was actually watching Spider-Man come to life.

When someone says SM2, I don't think about the weak character that Tobey Maguire portrayed, or the weak love triangle, or Harry's obsessive behavior to get back at Spidey despite his having more money than God, and certainly not the terrible interpretation of Doc Ock. Like I've said before, Ocatvius was a better Venom than Venom. Venom didn't even say "we."

I also see a lot of people quoting that Spidey isn't a "dark" (bleh) character. I'm guessing "more serious" is the term we're shooting for. The easiest way I can explain how Spidey should feel on screen would be this:

Spidey/Peter Parker is a lighthearted individual up against a harsh and cruel world. His origins and tale are more serious and tonally "dark" than people give him credit for. But because Spidey has such a positive attitude on his otherwise grim circumstances, we the audience, are attracted to that side of him, and the shadowy parts of his world lighten up a bit, so to speak. Instead of wallowing around in grief, Spidey picks himself up, cracks a joke and keeps fighting the good fight. If Spidey lacked this important piece of his personality, then he would more than likely blend in with the world around him and become much more like a Batman character and cease to be himself.

Iron Man said it well in a recent Fear Itself comic regarding he and Spidey's personalities. While fighting Grey Gargoyle in Paris: "You want to know why we talk crap like this in the middle of fights? Why guys like me--or Spider-Man even more than me, that guy's the worst--It's because we're terrified. Some folks can sublimate it--tamp it down--keep it together--But every time I open my mouth to get some other stupid thing out--I have to shout so I don't choke on my own heartbeat."

I think that sums it up perfectly. Spidey's humor and lightheartedness has always been a battle strategy of his, but it's also a huge coping mechanism. To say Spidey is a "dark" character would not be completely accurate, true. But to say his world is exactly like him? It's the whole reason he exists in the first place.

Yes. Well said. I have a good feeling that Webb and Garfield are going to knock these aspects of the character out of the park.

 

[Spiderman6592]

I don't get why people can't figure out that this is a MOVIE. It's supposed to be more realistic. People don't seem to understand that CBMs are "fast food" because someone decided that the cheese seen in the comic books themselves needed to be included in the film. That isn't true. At all. Aside from Spidey's quips (which were noticeably lacking in Raimi's films) I could have done without all of that goofy **** thrown in there. "Y'know, get some rest, eat your green vegetables."-"That's what my mom is always sayin'! I just never actually believed her!"

Like honestly, what does that exchange of dialogue do for the film besides make anyone over the age of 15 feel embarrassed for the character and give all the toddlers and elderly people in the audience a cheap laugh. It's just not needed at all. Throw all the cheese you want in Spider-Man's quips during fights, but just leave it out elsewhere unless it's similar to JJJ's "If we can get a picture of Julia Roberts in a thong, we can certainly get a picture of this weirdo."

Like that, is genuinely funny. But there is so much painfully embarrassing dialogue that could have been left out without consequence.

 

[©KAW]

I think him naming Peter's villains over them saying "You can call me the Green Goblin/Doctor Octopus/Venom!" is far less cheesy and more believable as he runs a borderline tabloid.

I agree with this. I actually like the idea of the Daily Bugle naming most (not all) of Spider-Man's villains, instead of them naming themselves. The reason I like it is because it lends itself to the real world. Think serial killers, the newspapers usually name them based on how they kill their victims.

With that said, the execution was horrible. The Daily Bugle being a cheesy, juvenile, comic relief infested, non-serious, happy-go-lucky, silly, friendly, unrealistic and down right corny environment--is the last place I want naming the villains or the villains being acknowledge there, period. In fact, I'd rather they just name the villains on the front of the paper as the newspapers roll off the press and not show inside the Daily Bugle at all. Why, because with the first introduction the world has to Spider-Man's villains, you don't want to start out with that environment being:

Cheesy
Juvenile
Comic relief
Non-serious
Happy-Go-Lucky
Silly
Friendly
Unrealistic

It makes it that much harder to sell the villain as a dangerous threat, especially, right after Green Goblin just finished killing several people.

As for the B&R comparison...I think it can lead to SM3. B&R was a soulless toy commercial for children. I didn't you should dumb down or phone in your story for corporate reasons. But acknowledging that supervillains are common day problems in Spidey's world is not on the same level. Him dancing in the street is and there we agree.

I wouldn't mind people acknowledging villains as common day problems, as long as it's not written on a second grade level. The Lizard, Green Goblin, Electro are dangerous villains. You can't have New Yorkers taking these villains lightly in your movie, it makes for poor story-telling and makes your villain seem less threatening and deadly.

That's my point, after seeing Spider-Man 3, I thought there's no where else to go but down. They're willing to do anything for a cheap laugh. Even at the expense of Spider-Man, his villains, his supporting characters and the overall story. Spider-Man 3 said to me, no one gives a damn about this character, they all want to get paid (admitted by J K Simmons that he'll miss getting a check from Spider-Man films) and leave.

But for the characters of Tony Stark and Pepper Potts, Howard Hawks fits better than Michael Mann. Just because you prefer Michael Mann doesn't mean his style will work in Iron Man. That's been my whole point.

Yes, I'd rather see Michael Mann direct Iron Man. Thank you for naming a great replacement over that Cowboys and Aliens guy. And if it's okay with you, I'd like for him to bash me over the head with a demon in a bottle, giving me Tony Stark as a belligerent alcoholic.

Go deep or go home!

 

[DACrowe]

Michael Mann's Iron Man would be be horrible IMO. Personally I think Mann's last few films have been disappointments (Miami Vice, Public Enemies) and even when his style is great (Last of the Mochians, Heat, Collateral), it does not lend itself to IM. Someone other than Favreau can do IM and do it better (I think Black is potentially a great choice), but we already did Stark as an alcoholic in IM2 and it honestly was one of the worst parts of the movie. Granted it was a terrible screenplay, but still.

You want realism, but for some characters realism wouldn't work. Mann doing IM would be like Ang Lee doing Hulk, in my opinion.

 

[©KAW]

Ang Lee's Hulk was boring and the two leads were horribly miscast. As a character, the Hulk was soulless just as I deem Raimi's Spider-Man (CGI or not).

It's not about realism for me, I want characters and stories that are not hokey, with actors delivering something believable on screen. I don't see any of that with Favreau or Raimi.

Yeah, its best we not mention Iron Man 2, it needs to be blocked from everyone's mind. I'd take Mann over Favreau or Raimi any day. Every director has their slips up movies (even Spielberg), but there is nothing under Favreau or Raimi's belt that comes close to Mann's Heat or Collateral as filmmakers, not one of their films to date.

 

[Anno_Domini]

Eric Bana did a marvelous job for what he had. I will never say he was the reason Hulk was a terrible movie.

 

[TheSlag]

Ang Lee's Hulk was boring and the two leads were horribly miscast. As a character, the Hulk was soulless just as I deem Raimi's Spider-Man (CGI or not).

It's not about realism for me, I want characters and stories that are not hokey, with actors delivering something believable on screen. I don't see any of that with Favreau or Raimi.

1) The leads were terrible in the Lee's Hulk
2) the ending battle/villain was a joke
3) the concept of making it like a comic on the movie was TERRIBLE.. the panels, the still action explosion *SHEEESH* :
4) Hulk Dogs (one being a poodle.. A FRICKIN Poodle???? REALLY???
5) Not enough Banner.. Lost Soul story.. and not enough touching of the Beast with the innocence inside.. that the comics always touched on.. big CHANCE missed IMO

But, the Hulk and his battles with the army was impressive and still make it enjoyable.

 

[TheSlag]

Eric Bana did a marvelous job for what he had. I will never say he was the reason Hulk was a terrible movie.

I like Bana in most every role he plays, but I think the problem with him in that role was the way it was written and the approach.

 

[DeanJ2009]

I've been telling anyone who would listen i had a sneaking suspicion that we might get a Andrew Garfield cameo in The Avengers, didn't expect it vice versa

 

[socool]

There won't be either. Trust me.

 

[Anno_Domini]

I like Bana in most every role he plays, but I think the problem with him in that role was the way it was written and the approach.

See, I have no problem with the leads in the film; my problems with the film are:

- The length of the movie. As the same with Superman Returns, it was half a hour too long and Banner's father/The Absorbing Man wasn't needed. Ang Lee said from the beginning that this film was mostly about an anti-hero Hulk, so he didn't need to face a formidable villain. I would've been totally fine with Hulk vs the army, as that aspect gave us enough action and the scenes were phenomenal. Plus, the ending of the film showed that Hulk was trying to, from then on, make a difference and a sequel would have showed that. I'm very positive that we would've received a sequel if the first film was more condensed.

- The gamma-radiated dogs came out over-the-top, cheesy and unnecessary.

- General Ross. To me, the Ross we got in TIH seemed more like the General we knew from the animated series. Lee's version of the General didn't seem like a "powerful figure", imo.

I've been telling anyone who would listen i had a sneaking suspicion that we might get a Andrew Garfield cameo in The Avengers, didn't expect it vice versa

I hope you know that it ISN'T true, lol.

 

[DeanJ2009]

There won't be either. Trust me.

meh, i'm not ruling it out but i'm not going to argue with anyone about it.

I think a cameo would be awesome for the fans if they could find some way to work togeather and do it!



imagine how awesome it would be if Peter Parker was even just in a crowd scene in The Avengers

 

[Anno_Domini]

You should definitely rule it out already

 

[DACrowe]

Ang Lee's Hulk was boring and the two leads were horribly miscast. As a character, the Hulk was soulless just as I deem Raimi's Spider-Man (CGI or not).

It's not about realism for me, I want characters and stories that are not hokey, with actors delivering something believable on screen. I don't see any of that with Favreau or Raimi.

Yeah, its best we not mention Iron Man 2, it needs to be blocked from everyone's mind. I'd take Mann over Favreau or Raimi any day. Every director has their slips up movies (even Spielberg), but there is nothing under Favreau or Raimi's belt that comes close to Mann's Heat or Collateral as filmmakers, not one of their films to date.

But Mann has a specific style that I think he'd agree does not lend itself well to this genre. Nolan can pull from it, but marry it with fantastic elements. Mann does not like doing fantastical stories as he has never done one. He likes doing stories on real people or real lifestyles and trying to find as much truth and essence as he can in it. There is no professional superhero (at least who isn't nuts) and his style does not mix with the genre. It's why he's never done anything remotely close to it.

To say he'd automatically be better because he does great gritty crime dramas (even if his last two were less than special) is based solely on a desire to have things done "gritty and realistic." Some characters don't work in that style. Iron Man is certainly one of them, as is Spidey.

You know who could do an awesome IM film? Tarantino. Spidey? I could see Spielberg crushing it. Those are auteurs who know the value of a good story trumps realism or naturalism. There is nothing remotely realistic about Indiana Jones. Spielberg would admit the characters aren't deep or complex. But their story is much more interesting on this grand scale.

Wanting a Nolan-ized Spidey or Michael Mann Iron Man is so far removed from the characters one wonders why bother in the first place.

P.S. Ang Lee's Hulk's flaws came from a director who tried to mesh art house with pop art and couldn't figure out how to make the pieces fit. The acting in that movie was actually great. Especially from Jennifer Connolly and Sam Elliot who I prefer to the MCU counterparts. The style of Freudian psychodrama and brightly colored CGI moving through moving comic panels just did not come together. Not at all. But Ang Lee has made Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, Ride with the Devil, Brokeback Mountain, and Sense and Sense and Sensibility. Ergo, by your logic it is by default better than SM1/SM2 and IM1 because Lee is a better director.

Sorry, it doesn't work like that.

 

[DeanJ2009]

You should definitely rule it out already

but that's nowhere near as fun

 

[socool]

meh, i'm not ruling it out but i'm not going to argue with anyone about it.

I think a cameo would be awesome for the fans if they could find some way to work togeather and do it!



imagine how awesome it would be if Peter Parker was even just in a crowd scene in The Avengers

It would be awesome! It would be SO awesome!! But there are legal problems and it's too late for them to fit it into The Amazing Spider-Man since filming is done.

Don't count on it.