©KAW;22055903 said:
Oh, they plan on doing that in its entirety, like it's suppose to done.
Yeah, and you keep ignoring the fact that Spider-Man doesn't let people fall to their death and wouldn't let Uncle Ben's killer go scott free without a goddamn fight.
I don't know where you've got the idea from that I worship the Raimi films and ignore it's missteps. I don't. They were flawed and overall I'd give the trilogy about a C in terms of portraying what I want from a Spider-man movie. They had a lot of good things in them, a good bit of bad, and a handful of things they absolutely butchered - what I like to refer to as the good, the bad, and the venom.
But that's not the point. The point is that no matter what the topic is or where the discussion is going, with you it always comes back to the same. Damn. Thing.
No, no cheat sheet movie making, I've seen enough horrible comic book films afraid of some good character development. I don't want scenes swinging by like a recap of a sitcom's two-part episode. I actually want to see some good performances for once in a Spider-Man film, starting from the origin story.
It's not cheat sheet movie making. It's breezing through the part of the story that's already been told and that everyone has seen.
Everyone knows the origin. EVERYONE. If it wasn't for the fact that this movie appears to be (smartly, may I add) retelling his origin and reintegrating new elements from the comics to weave into a larger overarching story, I'd be furious that they didn't go this route because as I've said:
Spider-man's origins have already been portrayed on screen. If you're not going to do anything new with it, there's no sense in showing it again.
Discussing this is pretty much a moot point because they appear to be doing something drastically different than before, but I take issue with you saying what I've suggested is a cop out because it's NOT.
It's smart to not show the audience the exact same story from ten years ago. Get the origin out of the way, and tell the story you want to tell.
Simple as that.
Not a "cop out" in the slightest
I don't mind being in the minority, and don't care about how much they make at the box office, nor how many people are easily pleased by their mediocrity. Transformers 3 made over a billion bucks, that doesn't stop it from being a piece of crap. Marvel Studio films are mediocre, and I sure as hell don't want another Spider-Man film following behind anyone of them.
Hmm, and yet all three transformers movies have been critically panned and are
known to be mindless, turn-your-brain-in-at-the-door action flicks.
The Marvel Studios films, however, aren't, and have been well received by critics, fans, and the general audience alike despite your accusations of them being mediocre.
So, comparison fail.
Thanks for the welcome JJ.
I understand your point in the possibility of quickly establishing the main essential origin points, but it seems that the difference in this films origins are all "in the details". Judging from the descriptions of several scenes I'm not sure if that would work at least in 4-5 minutes (maybe if they went the Goodfellas route and made a 10 minute opening, but at that point, why even bother?)
You've got Peter breaking into Oscorp where he is bitten (have to establish why he's there/answers to parents death), Peter waking up the next morning and discovering new powers, Peter beating up some guys on the train, Peter beating up Flash at school..then uncle ben coming to speak w/him and then from there you get Peter exploiting his powers and the whole thing with uncle ben. Bear in mind though, from what has been shown, Peter actually probably makes his suit before catching uncle ben's killer and giving him a wedgie. Are all of these little scenes and details something one wants to be quickly establish or completely omit within 4-5 minutes?
Anytime, hope to see you stick around.
You appear to be under the impression that I feel like them telling the origin in this movie is a waste of time - it's not, because as I said, they appear to be doing something bigger with it than, "Pete gets his powers and learns responsibility, and then fights the bad guy". In my original post I expressed that, although admittedly not to clearly.
Since they appear to be using it to aid the overall story of the film, I'm interested in seeing how it is portrayed.
And yet if they didn't take this route, as I said to Kaw earlier, it almost demands that you breeze through the origin if you're going to do nothing more interesting with it than what was already done ten years ago. As I said, no one is going to respond well to sitting through the same story they saw 11 years ago only with different actors.
