Sequels What happened to Kirsten?

Not gonna happen, until they get rid of Tobey and Raimi. They just hired them back. So...:o

I know... but ONE can dream of better days to come.

And I agree that they need to lose the "Kiddie" mentality approach to the franchise. The comics did not take that approach, and the movie franchise should not either.


So many great story arcs waiting to be told.. truthfully, faithfully... gloriously. Gloves off... no punches pulled.

Again... Ahhh to Dream.
 
Yeah, that means they can never do Kraven's Last Hunt. I'd kill to write the screenplay to this story-arc. You would think that because of the mega-success of The Dark Knight, they would at least try it. As I told you all, people are starving for raw comic book films, that doesn't cater to kids. TDK proved that I was right, that people would flock to it in record numbers. I remember people saying TDK will never reach Spidey's numbers because it's too dark, too adult-oriented, not meant for children and isn't family oriented like Spider-Man. Now what do they think?

I'm telling you, that there is an audience even bigger than TDK waiting for a raw Spider-Man film.
 
Here's three reasons why:

*First off, Sam Raimi has gone soft as a director, it happens sometimes when you have kids. I can't believe that this is the same man who made a tree rape a chick. I compare it to Eddie Murphy's career after he starting having kids. Remember when he was RAW, now he's talks to cute talking animals and crap? :confused:

*Also, the main reason is Marvel, they just simply don't look out for Spider-Man's best interest, or work with the best people who can elevate their Spider-Man property, they only look out for making what money they can off of him.

*Not to mention, you have to have a director who both understands what makes Spider-Man and his universe tick, along with handling the ramifications of combining fiction with non-fiction in a realistic way. James Cameron (T2/Aliens/Abyss) is absolutely brilliant at this, so is Ridley Scott (Alien) and the guy who directed The (original) Predator, The (original) Matrix is another swell example. I'm not saying these people should or would direct a Spidey film, I'm basing this only on their said movie(s).
 
Last edited:
The original Predator is a great movie...and Arnold wasn't half-bad in it either.

But that is true, Raimi seems to be making the Spidey films only for kids, hence Tobey's nephews and Raimi's kids being in the franchise, which justifies the trilogy as being VERY kids-friendly. That's why I think Spider-Man, as long as Raimi is directing it and as long we still get cheap-thrills, will go downhill...ladies and gentlemen, Spider-Man has become like that early 90's Batman franchise. We might not have a new director for Spidey, but it sure seems like it.

Superman got worse.

Batman got worse.

Spider-Man is getting worse.

So, that only means....

since Batman is going uphill with Nolan, and they're trying to reboot the Superman franchise, whenever Raimi is done for it and hangs up the coat, sooner or later, we will be getting a Spider-Man reboot.

Don't believe me, but it will happen.

And someone could say well Batman will be getting a reboot one of these days as well...and if Earth hasn't blown up by then, we will likely see a new set of Batman films, but that's how Hollywood goes; name me one original movie that we've seen in the last decade besides Matrix.

And also, too bad we'll never hear Eddie say these words ever again: "Excuse me, you dropped your *****."
 
Of course eventually it's gonna get rebooted at some point, no one has that doubt, but it is not this day.
And also, too bad we'll never hear Eddie say these words ever again: "Excuse me, you dropped your *****."
Huh...I like that line, where is it from?
 
Yeah, that means they can never do Kraven's Last Hunt. I'd kill to write the screenplay to this story-arc. You would think that because of the mega-success of The Dark Knight, they would at least try it. As I told you all, people are starving for raw comic book films, that doesn't cater to kids. TDK proved that I was right, that people would flock to it in record numbers. I remember people saying TDK will never reach Spidey's numbers because it's too dark, too adult-oriented, not meant for children and isn't family oriented like Spider-Man. Now what do they think?

I'm telling you, that there is an audience even bigger than TDK waiting for a raw Spider-Man film.

Absolutely. How many of us felt cheated when Peter saved MJ from the Goblin in the first movie? Yes, we knew going in that it was going to happen that way,but deep down, we all wanted to hear Gwen's neck snap. :gg:
 
Kirsten got old before her time. But worse, we got some nasty configuration of a character called GweMJ instead of the true MJ (and a true Gwen), and unfortunately, Kirsten was more of a match for said creature "GweMJ" instead of a true representation of MJ.

Throw in how the character is written, and 2 strikes.

The third strike being Kirsten lack of care about the character... and 3 strikes and she SHOULD be out.
 
All i can say is, if this is "horrible", then give me plenty:

Spiderman3_Mary_Jane_2.jpg

Feel the same.
 
Maybe I'm just the odd ball, but there where a couple scenes in SM2 that I thought Kirsten looked good in, but the grandma looking brown paper bag dress has to go.

SM3 I thought she looked good through out most of the movie...yea there were a couple scenes where I thought "Damn, someone get the X-3 artists in here and touch her up a little bit." I'd still boink. hahaha.

I have to hand it to Kirsten though, she looked good in 1, so so in 2 and great in 3, Tobey looked good in 1 and just got got chunkier in 2 and 3. He looked like like Peter in the first....but this thread isn't about Tobey....
 
It's her hair color.

Her hair was the darkest in film one...she looked the best. In two she had a really orange hair color that just made her look really pale and terrible. Three it was a little darker, so she looked a little better.... she should have darker hair like in Spider-man 1.

-R
 
It's her hair color.

Her hair was the darkest in film one...she looked the best. In two she had a really orange hair color that just made her look really pale and terrible. Three it was a little darker, so she looked a little better.... she should have darker hair like in Spider-man 1.

-R

Or maybe just some drugs.
 
She didn't age so much between 1 and 2. 3 years isn't that long, but it seems she just feel apart completely physically.

She was already 21 during the filming of SM2. Not exactly the young fresh faced 19 year old she once was.
 
And...she'll be in SM4 and SM5, as well. No matter how much hate one holds you still have years before either of them lets this franchise go.
 
She looks terrible, now, and it's not aging, it's whatever she's doing that's caused her to look run down and skinny as a rail.

Kirsten Dundst used to be voluptious, downright gorgeous. Now she looks like a ****ing junky...probably is. :csad:
 
She looks terrible, now, and it's not aging, it's whatever she's doing that's caused her to look run down and skinny as a rail.

Kirsten Dundst used to be voluptious, downright gorgeous. Now she looks like a ****ing junky...probably is. :csad:

It's likely due to all of that drinking, partying and smoking that she does. The same thing has happened to Lindsay Lohan/
 
Virtually every actress in hollywood does all those things. People act as though Kirsten was some great beauty before but the fact is she's just an average looking girl that benefits from having a makeup team around her constantly. I've seen her in person twice. One time with makeup and one time without and in her own clothes. This was after SM1 was done filming. It was a worlds of difference.
 
I thought she was hotter than hell back then. But whatever floats your boat, man...
 
She looked hot in SM1. Damn, that rain scene. Very voluptiuous. Don't women know that we like women with meat on their bones?
 
Here's three reasons why:

*First off, Sam Raimi has gone soft as a director, it happens sometimes when you have kids. I can't believe that this is the same man who made a tree rape a chick. I compare it to Eddie Murphy's career after he starting having kids. Remember when he was RAW, now he's talks to cute talking animals and crap? :confused:

*Also, the main reason is Marvel, they just simply don't look out for Spider-Man's best interest, or work with the best people who can elevate their Spider-Man property, they only look out for making what money they can off of him.

*Not to mention, you have to have a director who both understands what makes Spider-Man and his universe tick, along with handling the ramifications of combining fiction with non-fiction in a realistic way. James Cameron (T2/Aliens/Abyss) is absolutely brilliant at this, so is Ridley Scott (Alien) and the guy who directed The (original) Predator, The (original) Matrix is another swell example. I'm not saying these people should or would direct a Spidey film, I'm basing this only on their said movie(s).
I think he has even admitted as much. He looks back on the Evil Dead series and says it was a movie that he could only have made before he had kids.
 
She looked hot in SM1. Damn, that rain scene. Very voluptiuous. Don't women know that we like women with meat on their bones?

It's nice to have a woman with real breasts as well...not implying Dunst had any enhancements, but she did have "additional enhancements" in that scene.
 
Tell that to their eating disorders :hehe:

Yeah, good God, that's disgusting.

When we say we like women that aren't fat or obese doesn't mean you starve youself to death. Shouldn't they put that together?

We like breasts = women that aren't bone thin that have no breasts
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,304
Messages
22,082,723
Members
45,883
Latest member
Gbiopobing
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"