|
TOOT BOOT posted:I tend to prefer comic book movies with a single well-developed villain. It's hard to fit 2-3 villains in a film and have them feel like anything more than human setpieces. Agreed. Also I like the IDEA of the wall crawling but the example in the trailer looks pretty atrocious.
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2011 23:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 14:56 |
|
|
Hanks Lust Cafe posted:How? I imagine this origin story is going to play out much the same as Raimi's Spider-Man. He gets powers, is a jerk, learns responsibility, defeats villain, gets girl and saves the day.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2011 23:12
|
|
|
Quantum of Phallus posted:I imagine this origin story is going to play out much the same as Raimi's Spider-Man. He gets powers, is a jerk, learns responsibility, defeats villain, gets girl and saves the day. Man dude you got a lot more out of that teaser than I did.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2011 23:14
|
|
|
Hanks Lust Cafe posted:Man dude you got a lot more out of that teaser than I did. Unless they radically change his origin, which I doubt, that's just my educated guess 
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2011 23:20
|
|
|
spiderman 3 was the best one.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2011 00:20
|
|
|
Quantum of Phallus posted:I imagine this origin story is going to play out much the same as Raimi's Spider-Man. He gets powers, is a jerk, learns responsibility, defeats villain, gets girl and saves the day. So its going to be the same as the extremely vague summary you've given?
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2011 00:45
|
|
|
Quantum of Phallus posted:I imagine this origin story is going to play out much the same as Raimi's Spider-Man. He gets powers, is a jerk, learns responsibility, defeats villain, gets girl and saves the day. So basically like the origin story in the book and the source material the movie is based off of, right?
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2011 00:53
|
|
|
Colonel Whitey posted:Yes, 3 was bad, it's well known that that's due to story issues brought about by studio meddling and I didn't really think I needed to explicitly spell out that I wasn't talking about that one. What about the first two? The second line I wrote. SageSepth posted:The first 2 films are fine, organic web shooters aside, but that third one is a train wreck in the worst way. As for the X-men movies, the first 2 are pretty good the last 2 are atrocious piles of crap. The only reason no one is talking about Singer in this thread is because it's not a general comic movie thread it's a specific Spiderman one, unless Singer had some input I don't know about on the franchise he's blameless for SM3.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2011 01:02
|
|
|
TOOT BOOT posted:I feel sorry for whoever has to try to be Tony Stark after Robert Downey Jr. I really don't think you can. Peter Parker is a character that can be played by different actors (possibly; we'll see how the new Parker works out) but Robert Downey Jr is irreplaceable as Tony Stark. I really can't ever see a better choice for it. He's kind of like Hugh Jackman as Wolverine - they both nailed that characters so well that I don't ever see myself enjoying a different actor playing them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2011 01:37
|
|
|
Hugh Jackman is a pretty crappy Wolverine and I'd love for someone else to take over that character. Less brood, more berserk. If Garfield's performance in Red Riding is any indication, any scene where Peter Parker gets viciously beaten will be very convincingly portrayed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2011 01:53
|
|
|
Wolverine is a terrible character. The only reason the movie Wolverine works is because Hugh Jackman owns, his charisma shines through, and he takes what he's given beyond the meager givings of the script and actually adds personality and character. He MADE Wolverine. Not the other way around.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2011 02:03
|
|
|
SamuraiFoochs posted:This seems like it could be decent and I'll probably see it because comic movies are mindless and fun, but seriously, what is it with people making GBS threads themselves in joy over the web shooters being mechanical now (just judging by the top rated YouTube comment and some of the discussion here)? I'm with Stan Lee on this one, the organic webbing made perfect sense. Given the limited information we have about the film, returning the web-shooters to their original form is a good talking point. Origin wise: Parker created the Spider-Man persona from the ground up and the web shooters were the finishing touches on his masterpiece. If you're showing a lengthy origin story like Raimi did, why change that one part? Raimi got the costume right so why stop with the finishing touch that shines light on how brilliant Parker is and is a crowning touch on his new persona? Ultimately, it really was just Raimi's choice. Of course Lee backs it now. Wasn't Spider-Man 1 the first Marvel based film Stan Lee actually got a real pay day for?
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2011 02:08
|
|
|
ZombieParts posted:Given the limited information we have about the film, returning the web-shooters to their original form is a good talking point. Origin wise: Parker created the Spider-Man persona from the ground up and the web shooters were the finishing touches on his masterpiece. If you're showing a lengthy origin story like Raimi did, why change that one part? Raimi got the costume right so why stop with the finishing touch that shines light on how brilliant Parker is and is a crowning touch on his new persona? Or more importantly, does it REALLY matter? I'm sorry, maybe I don't "get" it because I'm not a bigtime comic fan, it just seems like an odd detail to get frustrated about.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2011 02:13
|
|
|
Yeah I'm going to white knight the gently caress out of this movie but the Raimi organic webshooters were cool and I don't think it's going to matter too much.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2011 02:15
|
|
|
SamuraiFoochs posted:Or more importantly, does it REALLY matter? I'm sorry, maybe I don't "get" it because I'm not a bigtime comic fan, it just seems like an odd detail to get frustrated about. It doesn't. By having it organic they didn't have to attempt to techno-babble the poo poo out of the web shooters. Just made that one aspect easier to deal with on film.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2011 02:15
|
|
|
TheBigBudgetSequel posted:It doesn't. By having it organic they didn't have to attempt to techno-babble the poo poo out of the web shooters. Just made that one aspect easier to deal with on film. They didn't waste a lot of time explaining how Iron Man's armor worked and it didn't hurt the film (the answer is TRANSISTORS, by the way)
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2011 02:19
|
|
|
I think the complaint is, and I side with it, that the webshooters demonstrate a practical example of Peter's genius. He already has the powers of a spider but supplements it by creating the adhesive web fluid and creates something no one else did. It ties into his life and how Spider-man interfered with his potential. But then again I wouldn't mind him in various movies coming up with Spider-Armor or whatnot. Captain Universe Spider-man! Six Arm Spider-man! In actually it may be a small deal for most if his character is made up elsewhere, but I prefer the mechanical webshooters. TOOT BOOT posted:They didn't waste a lot of time explaining how Iron Man's armor worked and it didn't hurt the film (the answer is TRANSISTORS, by the way) Just imagine for a second if they used Star Trek technology. No fuses. Every time he gets hit, sparks and wires explode! Gatts fucked around with this message at 02:23 on Jul 22, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2011 02:19
|
|
|
Having the mechanical webshooters portrays Peter as a scientific prodigy and not just some random guy that got everything handed to him by getting bit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2011 02:26
|
|
|
SamuraiFoochs posted:Or more importantly, does it REALLY matter? I'm sorry, maybe I don't "get" it because I'm not a bigtime comic fan, it just seems like an odd detail to get frustrated about. Aesthetically it matters. A comic fan knows Spider-Man has mechanical shooters he invented himself. Did it matter in the context of Raimi's films. Not really. Will it matter in the context of the new film? Apparently! Because they're going there. Now the non-comic fans will be confused as gently caress because they won't get why he has mechanical shooters. I like them mechanical because I like gadgets.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2011 02:38
|
|
|
SamuraiFoochs posted:Also I like the IDEA of the wall crawling but the example in the trailer looks pretty atrocious. I think the problem is that it's established that Spider-Man can leap long distances and swing on web, the Peter Parkour in the trailer is utterly pointless aside from looking cool. It would be like Superman driving a car in a high-speed chase instead of just flying or using his super speed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2011 02:42
|
|
|
Wasn't there a Spider-Mobile at some point in the comics?
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2011 02:58
|
|
|
TheBigBudgetSequel posted:Wasn't there a Spider-Mobile at some point in the comics?  It also had the power to drive up walls and buildings.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2011 03:04
|
|
|
Gatts posted:So basically like the origin story in the book and the source material the movie is based off of, right? Gets the girl and saves the day? You must have read a different Gwen Stacy story than the one I read.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2011 03:04
|
|
|
Donde Esta posted:Gets the girl and saves the day? You must have read a different Gwen Stacy story than the one I read. More like Gwen Stacy dies and he marries a beautiful supermodel in Mary Jane Watson until the hand of Editor in Chief decides to make the Devil take it away in terrible loving stories for nonsensical reasons leading up to some good stories where, lo and behold, we discover that all that really mattered was putting good writers on the books to write good stories until they put a terrible writer on the book and it sucks again. I think you have a point.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2011 03:07
|
|
|
that trailer was pretty bad and what the hell was with the weird half-arsed mirror's edge sequence at the end?
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2011 03:36
|
|
|
Gatts posted:
You know, it's nice to see Speed Buggy getting work.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2011 03:52
|
|
|
le chat posted:that trailer was pretty bad and what the hell was with the weird half-arsed mirror's edge sequence at the end? It's to represent the contrast between Peter Parker, and Spiderman. Or rather, the contrast that Peter feels when he's being Peter, and when he's being Spiderman. Peter Parker is dark and emo and poo poo. He's a teen with problems. The trailer is all "dark" and "gritty" when it shows Peter Parker, because he's always been hosed up. Then it shows him as Spiderman. It's bright out, daytime, he's totally free. When he puts the mask on, he can let all of his real life problems go for a bit. He's wisecracking and goofy to cover up the fact that he's so drat depressed. It's also pretty clear his dad is going to be involved in his development in some way. The fact that he found his father's old case that his uncle forgot about, and the last line... "secrets that we keep... and secrets that are kept from us". Probably going to be the web fluid, as somebody earlier said.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2011 03:54
|
|
|
stratdax posted:Then it shows him as Spiderman. It's bright out, daytime, he's totally free. When he puts the mask on, he can let all of his real life problems go for a bit. He's wisecracking and goofy to cover up the fact that he's so drat depressed. that doesn't explain how 'cheap' that footage looked though, unless as spiderman he is far more thrifty and put the money saved hiring a cheaper visual effects studio in the bank?
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2011 04:07
|
|
|
Or perhaps like most things it's an unfinished and quickly put together trailer to start discussion and give a look rather than a final product.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2011 04:11
|
|
|
SageSepth posted:The second line I wrote. Way to miss my point completely. I would try to clarify but something tells me it would be like talking to a tree stump.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2011 04:11
|
|
|
Gatts posted:Or perhaps like most things it's an unfinished and quickly put together trailer to start discussion and give a look rather than a final product. Putting out advertising that gives a negative first impression is a bad idea. Who knows though, X-men First Class looked like a movie that was gonna get a 10% on RottenTomatoes and it ended up getting a 90% when it actually came out.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2011 04:16
|
|
|
Don't listen to anybody that thinks spider man 3 was anything but bad, or that Toby Maguire wasn't a horrible spider man (He was an ok Peter), or seriously thinks the first person view in the trailer means anything.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2011 04:31
|
|
|
The way you guys talk, you'd think not a single one of you enjoy a good pensive, solemn stare into the distance. You guys should read some ol' Ditko Amazing Spider-Man comics, in tone they really don't clash with the trailer at all, which again isn't really a dark and gritty look at Spider-Man anyway, where the gently caress are you getting this from
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2011 04:43
|
|
|
RBX posted:Don't listen to anybody that thinks spider man 3 was anything but bad, or that Toby Maguire wasn't a horrible spider man (He was an ok Peter), or seriously thinks the first person view in the trailer means anything. We're doing it MJ! We're living our dreamsssss
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2011 04:45
|
|
|
stratdax posted:We're doing it MJ! We're living our dreamsssss I guess one person can make a difference!
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2011 04:52
|
|
|
The first-person shot served to show off some webslinging/wallcrawling, while still keeping a shot of the full costume for the end of the trailer. Would've been more interesting if this was the first real Spider-Man movie so fanboys would cheer at the reveal.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2011 05:45
|
|
|
People complaining about the dancing and emo-Peter in Spiderman 3 being silly were missing the fact that Peter Parker is supposed to be a massive nerd. The symbiote makes him arrogant and overconfident but doesn't change the fact that he is a awkward nerd and because of his awkwardness he is very silly when he tries acting like he thinks cool people act. At least that's how I saw it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2011 06:41
|
|
|
FreudianSlippers posted:People complaining about the dancing and emo-Peter in Spiderman 3 being silly were missing the fact that Peter Parker is supposed to be a massive nerd. The symbiote makes him arrogant and overconfident but doesn't change the fact that he is a awkward nerd and because of his awkwardness he is very silly when he tries acting like he thinks cool people act. Regardless of what the intent was it went over about as well as a tampon in a salad bowl.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2011 06:47
|
|
|
TOOT BOOT posted:Regardless of what the intent was it went over about as well as a tampon in a salad bowl. I actually laughed when I read "tampon in a salad bowl" but the dancing scene in SM3 just made me feel embarrassed that it was in the movie.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2011 06:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 14:56 |
|
|
I'm glad to see a reboot. I don't think anyone out there is crying that there will be no more Kristen Dunst to literally push around. When that happened in the third movie the audience actually cheered, the audience also cringed at what appeared to be a cancer ridden Venom. I sat through it and thought "You know Uwe Boll is not such a bad guy." That's when I realized how far down the third movie had dragged me. I hope this movie just sets up a way for an eventual Spider Man, Venom and Carnage fight. That particular story line if I remember correctly doesn't lend itself to the emo feel the first set of abortions ultimately created.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2011 07:27
|
|