The Amazing Spider-Man Well this franchise is already Doomed.

Status
Not open for further replies.

LegendAssemble

Civilian
Joined
May 13, 2012
Messages
932
Reaction score
0
Points
11
[YT]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6C3w2wJS7s[/YT]

This has been posted before, but I mean really? We're on the first film and the studio is ALREADY screwing around with the story significantly??

It think it's obvious in the original cut that when Peter goes down the sewers to investigate the Lizards Lab, conners is there, holding doctor Raffa. You can tell by looking at the images which show the Lizard wearing his lab coat (explaining how he randomly gets it between the school and the trip to OsCorp tower.)

Anyway I'll be fair, I really don't want to see a movie where Peter's parents genetically altered him, but I this is the same path that killed the last franchize. I loved this movie, but unfortunately, we're gonna need a Spider-Man equivalent to Batman and Robin for the Studio to back off (hopefully Origins was X-Mens for Fox). Anyway what are your thoughts?
 
I think he's saying that if they go with the whole "Peter was genetically altered by his Dad" storyline, the franchise is doomed, because that is such a drastic change to the story.......
 
You don't think making Peter a mutant is a drastic change? lol K.
 
it is a drastic change..........that's why the franchise would be doomed if they indeed go that route.

and I think that's what the OP was trying to say.......
 
You don't think making Peter a mutant is a drastic change? lol K.

i don´t care , i would care if they change the characters and i think if they go with Richard created the spiders and hidden the key to "the perfect crossed species" (videogame)in Peter well ...people complain is the same thing like 10 years ago
 
Isn't there already a thread for bat-**** theories for this to be posted in?
 
We need a mod to round them up in one crazy thread.
 
I don't get the big deal though, even if they wanted to go with one way of telling the origin story and really didn't do it...you are mad?

The key idea for Spider-Man revolves around a few certain things.

1) he is bitten by spider.
2) He develops spider powers.
3) Uncle Ben dies and he "lets it happen."
4) He lives his life trying to make up for that failure.

As long as those things are in order, whats the big deal if people want to put their own spin (pun intended) on the other stuff.

Its like people only want to see ONE version of the story over and over. Then just keep on remaking Raimi's first film, why bother letting anyone else have an attempt of doing something new with the 50 year old source material.
 
Fixed his video for you guys, anyway.
:up:
I don't get the big deal though, even if they wanted to go with one way of telling the origin story and really didn't do it...you are mad?

The key idea for Spider-Man revolves around a few certain things.

1) he is bitten by spider.
2) He develops spider powers.
3) Uncle Ben dies and he "lets it happen."
4) He lives his life trying to make up for that failure.

thanks, there should be a thread called "How the genetic(Ang Lee´s style) origin could change TASM franchise aside from the origin of the powers itself"
 
It really is a catch-22. If they leave the scenes in, "How dare they change the origin! :cmad:" If they cut the scenes out, "How dare they advertise this as 'The Untold Story!' :cmad:" :whatever:
 
I just think making Peter a mutant is too drastic a change.

you can make changes......but that's pushing it a bit..........
 
It really is a catch-22. If they leave the scenes in, "How dare they change the origin! :cmad:" If they cut the scenes out, "How dare they advertise this as 'The Untold Story!' :cmad:" :whatever:

it actually says "The Untold Story" and then "Begins" in a trailer soo is still kinda sorta The untold Story because it hasn´t ended yet!
 
I hadn't seen the movie, so it was an untold story. :rimshot:
 
Hrmm.. changes to comic book mythology in Comic book movies is not exactly a new thing, let us see....

Batman 1989 - Joker killed Bruce's Parents (in the comics it was Joe Chill.)

Batman Begins - Ras Al Ghul trains Bruce Wayne. (in comics Bruce learns form various masters through out the world.)

Spider-man (2002) organic Web shooters(In comics he invents mechanical web shooters.)

Spider-man 3- Sandman is reveled to be the real killer of Uncle Ben.

Thor - Dr. Donald Blake is absent.

Iron man - Jarvis is A. I. instead of a human being.

So, as long as the essence of the character is intact, some superficial changes do not matter.
 
y'know......it would be interesting to see the reaction of people who love this film, if, say, in the the 3rd, final film, they do reveal the whole "Peter is a mutant" angle.

would those same people, who are calling TASM the best Spider-man film, and the most faithful representation, still be saying the same after that?
 
Hrmm.. changes to comic book mythology in Comic book movies is not exactly a new thing, let us see....

Batman 1989 - Joker killed Bruce's Parents (in the comics it was Joe Chill.)

Batman Begins - Ras Al Ghul trains Bruce Wayne. (in comics Bruce learns form various masters through out the world.)

Spider-man (2002) organic Web shooters(In comics he invents mechanical web shooters.)

Spider-man 3- Sandman is reveled to be the real killer of Uncle Ben.

Thor - Dr. Donald Blake is absent.

Iron man - Jarvis is A. I. instead of a human being.

So, as long as the essence of the character is intact, some superficial changes do not matter.

yeah........but making Peter a mutant IS NOT a superficial change......
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hrmm.. changes to comic book mythology in Comic book movies is not exactly a new thing, let us see....

Batman 1989 - Joker killed Bruce's Parents (in the comics it was Joe Chill.)

Batman Begins - Ras Al Ghul trains Bruce Wayne. (in comics Bruce learns form various masters through out the world.)

Spider-man (2002) organic Web shooters(In comics he invents mechanical web shooters.)

Spider-man 3- Sandman is reveled to be the real killer of Uncle Ben.

Thor - Dr. Donald Blake is absent.

Iron man - Jarvis is A. I. instead of a human being.

So, as long as the essence of the character is intact, some superficial changes do not matter.
:up:THIS
 
y'know......it would be interesting to see the reaction of people who love this film, if, say, in the the 3rd, final film, they do reveal the whole "Peter is a mutant" angle.

would those same people, who are calling TASM the best Spider-man film, and the most faithful representation, still be saying the same after that?

I would still love it, because I love the angle of Peter being genetically altered at birth.

Also, technically Peter is already a mutant, he's part spider.
 
For clarification, why is everyone assuming that's the big thing they decided to cut? Making Peter a mutant I mean. We have no evidence of it other than assumptions, and Webb himself denied that was ever a plot point.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"