John Malkovich is The Vulture in Spiderman 4 (NOT!)
Posted: Mon, 11th Jan 2010, 8:03am
Post 1 of 89
God, I honestly can't wait. The title with '4' makes it feel like a tired franchise, yes, but after a recent viewing of Spiderman 2 it was cemented for me why it's so highly-acclaimed; it's a damn near perfect and endearing heck of a film. 3 wasn't without its faults, no, but a back-to-basics approach and the return of Maguire and Raimi with fewer villains just feels right. I can't wait.
Perhaps it's because when I heard Alfred Molina was going to be Doc Ock I felt the exact
same as I do now about Malkovich- a little odd casting, but incredibly intriguing and exciting- that I just feel ecstatic about this movie.
(Let's not rehash the faults of Spiderman 3 here, though, preferably. We all have labored that one to death.
Posted: Mon, 11th Jan 2010, 10:50am
Post 2 of 89
Yeah, Malkovich is pretty much perfect for The Vulture. Wonder if they're going to bring in a storyline between him and Aunt May as in the comics? I imagine the respective age differences between the actors would prevent that, alas.
Hopefully they'll present Peter Parker as an adult this time rather than a bizarre teenage-man-creature. Going down the route of some of the early-2000s Straczynski comics wouldn't hurt - shaking things up a bit with a focus on character and re-examining the mythos.
Posted: Mon, 11th Jan 2010, 12:03pm
Post 3 of 89
Ahhhh, but in all honesty it is the very somehow-still-coming-of-age 'man-boy' personality and portrayal that has made Tobey Maguire's Peter Parker so successful/accessible, is it not?
I would've never picked the outright vulnerable and wimpy Pleasantville actor to play him initially (never!
), but the way Raimi and Maguire tackled Parker and have developed him has been the best part of the entire series and all the movies- and he's certainly the most engaging character/lead as an alter ego in a comic book movie I'd say.
Not that he should be some emo kid- absolutely not. But it is, almost entirely, Maguire's style of vulnerability- that achy man-boy musing - that makes Peter Parker Peter Parker
. At least nowadays. I wouldn't want to do away with it. I love Spiderman 2 and the nostalgia and character of Parker in Spiderman 1 far too much, and TM's far too good at it to do away.
People can say whatever they want of Tobey and Hugh Jackman crying as superheroes consistently each film- they're so damn great at their roles they've both almost single-handedly elevated bad movies (Spiderman 3, X3) to decency. Let's see a straight-faced no-name actor do that.
Posted: Mon, 11th Jan 2010, 12:07pm
Post 4 of 89
Yeah, I agree. I'm not saying to abandon the vulnerability of PP, and I don't want him to suddenly become Bruce Wayne, not at all.
I want the same personality we saw in Spidey 1 and 2 to now be properly in the adult world. What happens to Maguire's Peter Parker as he moves beyond university and school? How does he make a living while being Spider-Man?
Spidey 1 & 2 did what they did perfectly: let's move on and develop the Parker character even further.
Posted: Mon, 11th Jan 2010, 7:35pm
Post 5 of 89
Exactly... I just want to see Parker grow up a little and stop being so damned timid... emotionally he's portrayed like a bipolar child or a child that has Tourettes syndrome who just dropped his snow cone. He's seriously screwed up emotionally and it's hard to believe that he's a crime fighter. It's like he was bitten by a radioactive EMO.
Wolverine isn't much far behind either... he's almost 300 years old, killed his father as a child and many more people in many wars and even more people in however many black ops outings... the least he could do is act his age but no... he almost breaks into song and dance along with his tears when someone dies. Really!?
After watching all of these movies, I think that they are poorly lacking in the character department. It's fine if you want to watch a teenage sob story or the tale of an emasculated killer but these are not the characters which I grew up with and they just don't work for me on any level whatsoever. I think Disney got their hooks into Marvel a long time ago...
Maybe the next movies with the whiney Emo kid that doesn't want to grow up and Wolver-weenie will be better, I say that with my fingers crossed.
Posted: Mon, 11th Jan 2010, 10:38pm
Post 6 of 89
I don't really get why the trilogy has died. I would have preferred a new superhero movie over another Spiderman, but hey, I guess now I get both. Part 3 was lame, and had way too much going on, and way too little Bryce Dallas Howard. Hopefully they will correct these errors in a new installment, though I remain skeptical that such a thing will be any good.
Posted: Mon, 11th Jan 2010, 11:39pm
Post 7 of 89
I want to see something super-tragic happen to Spidey. I mean, Uncle Ben died, but the films pretty much skimmed over that in favor of other stuff. I mean, I can see people like Batman paying peripheral attention to it, but Spiderman isn't stoic like Bruce, so it doesn't make that much sense he would recover so quickly. On the other hand, we barely grew to know Ben Parker, so any dwelling on the matter would seem wishy-washy and over-sentimental.
Either way, I think something bad should happen: a.k.a. MJ die. Not only would that seem appropriately shocking, but it would jar the audience from the complacent cycle of "Peter has emotional problems, MJ gets captured, he saves her at the last minute". It would add a new spin of "what's going to happen?" I was pleasantly surprised when Rachel was killed in TDK, because it helps a lot more to sympathize with the character (or it would, if he were a normal squishy human instead of a granite block of awesomeness). But on a more mid-teens, less thoughtful scale, MJ kind of ticks me off. She's stale as a month-old sandwich and constantly needs rescuing.
Also, I'd like to see Spidey punching to kill. Obviously he doesn't go full throttle on his enemies, or their guts would be caving in. Or at least doing what Batman does: going to the very edge, breaking legs, breaking arms, intimidation. Because honestly, he's not very awe-inspiring or intimidating, and I think this would change him to more of a powerful figure.
That's not to say I don't like Spidey, but he's a bit too much of "confused adolescent with great power" rather than "focused, determined hero".
Posted: Tue, 12th Jan 2010, 12:00am
Post 8 of 89
Whoa! Hold everything! Reboot planned for 2012, Raimi, Maguire, Dunst, Malkovich are out.http://www.slashfilm.com/2010/01/11/spider-man-4-scrapped-raimi-and-maguire-gone-sony-plans-franchise-reboot-for-2012/
I don't like this move at all. I mean, they have the perfect foundation for the franchise, with Raimi, Maguire, and Dunst. The problems seem to be coming from the lack of a decent script that would please both Raimi and the studio. Why take the easy way out and reboot the franchise so soon? Especially for such a popular franchise.
EDIT: I guess it stems from Raimi quitting. The Press Release
Posted: Tue, 12th Jan 2010, 12:32am
Post 9 of 89
Haha, what the hell? Malkovich confirms his part, and one day later, it's cancelled? Oh well, I guess this means it stays a trilogy! I'm totally fine with this news.
But a reboot? Hopefully this doesn't mean we'll be getting the exact same story with different actors...
Posted: Tue, 12th Jan 2010, 1:00am
Post 10 of 89
I would have liked to have seen John but getting rid of Toby and Dunst is not going to cause me to lose any sleep whatsoever.
I see an Ultimate Spider-Man type of reboot since their trying to have all the Marvel movies concide with the Avengers flick which is going to be based on The Ultimates and that's just going by the Hulk and Iron man flicks.
But all I can really think is HA! but in a sad way.
Posted: Tue, 12th Jan 2010, 1:06am
Post 11 of 89
F*ck the reboots.
Star Trek, Casino Royale, Batman Begins. Sure, yeah, those work. They make sense and are excellent films. But Spiderman was started
8 years ago (really 7 since it's just now the new year!) and is a strong
film series by itself. There's been no Die Another Day, no Batman & Robin, no....what was the name of the last Pickard Star Trek movie? See, exactly.
There's been no killstroke to the series to justify a reboot. The last film, despite being lossy in-comparison to the other two, still made a sh*t-ton of money.
It's not as if Spiderman wasn't an excellent series that would even need to be restarted, or that it had been 20 years and they were bringing it back. It's been 3 years
since the last one, and S1 and 2 are so damn great they'd be complete idiots to do this and disingenuine the originals.
While I'm rather so-so on the closing chapter, trilogies do just feel better. I would've loved to see Malkovich as the Vulture, but Spidey remaining uncheapened by having a gizillion sequels makes me just as happy like Aculag.
The reboot will never happen or work out, and Sony will lose rights in 2011 anyway. No biggie. Thank god.
This is honestly exactly the plot to an episode of Entourage...
Posted: Tue, 12th Jan 2010, 2:43am
Post 12 of 89
Well, The Incredible Hulk had a "reboot" like four years after the Ang Lee version. All it really means is "new cast and crew, not tied to the plotline of the original franchise." I can see it working if they take it in a totally different direction, but I agree that a "reboot" of Spiderman is a pretty stupid idea. It's not as if the last movie flopped. It was fine, just convoluted.
Posted: Tue, 12th Jan 2010, 5:03am
Post 13 of 89
Since 3 was absolute utter shite, and they WASTED Willem Dafoe's natural Green Goblin face by hiding him in a power ranger suit. I probably won't bother with Spiderman 4. Thomas Hayden Church was PERFECT for the Sandman as well....but somewhere in Hollywood they think they have to add an increasing number of bad guys to every sequel in order to make it work...see previous Batman franchise for what you end up with.
Posted: Tue, 12th Jan 2010, 6:43am
Post 14 of 89
Did you read the posts in this thread, Bryan? It's all been cancelled and shut down entirely.
You didn't like Dafoe's Goblin suit? Well you may just get your non-Power Rangers version- the whole series is being rebooted. No Maguire, No Raimi. Probably no excellent Elfman score either.
Posted: Tue, 12th Jan 2010, 8:35am
Post 15 of 89
Bryan M Block wrote:they WASTED Willem Dafoe's natural Green Goblin face by hiding him in a power ranger suit.
Bryan M Block speaks the truth
Posted: Tue, 12th Jan 2010, 9:20am
Post 16 of 89
As long as the Spidey movie rights are held by Sony it's not going to end up being a proper Marvel film, integrated into The Avengers.
The problem is that Sony will probably now rush something out so as not to lose the rights before making some more cashola.
Posted: Tue, 12th Jan 2010, 10:59am
Post 17 of 89
It doesn't matter how dumb a reboot sounds. Sony will make millions based on the franchise.
Posted: Tue, 12th Jan 2010, 11:04am
Post 18 of 89
Get Michael Bay to direct, turn Mary Jane from an actress into a porn star (as with all of Bay's female characters), and then do the Spider-Man/Transformers cross-over from the early days of the Marvel comic:http://www.seibertron.com/images/comic/01/003.jpg
Posted: Tue, 12th Jan 2010, 8:26pm
Post 19 of 89
Oh man, I'd pay a large sum of money to see that Tarn.
Posted: Tue, 12th Jan 2010, 9:36pm
Post 20 of 89
Apparently the reboot's already been written
, and it's "gritty" and "contemporary". Sony was planning a reboot for 2012 the whole time, but they wanted to get Spiderman 4 from Raimi and Maguire in 2011. Since they quit, they'll just move forward with the reboot. But I still don't understand why they want to reboot? I mean, the current franchise has been extremely profitable... why take the financial risk of starting over?
Posted: Tue, 12th Jan 2010, 11:57pm
Post 21 of 89
The Batman reboots were gritty and contemporary, so execs seem to have jumped to the conclusion that gritty and contemporary versions of superheroes makes a billion at the Box Office. It appears to have completely eluded them that Batman comics were originally
gritty and contemporary.
Posted: Thu, 14th Jan 2010, 8:17pm
Post 22 of 89
Here's a summary of Spidey's troubles.Link
Biggest mistake: Let an opportunity to have Cameron helm your franchise pass you by (even though it was admittedly also based on legal issues as well as creative ones.)
Posted: Thu, 14th Jan 2010, 9:16pm
Post 23 of 89
So Cameron didn't make Spiderman. Big deal
. Raimi is just as acclaimed and successful of a director as Cameron, with comparable cult classics, and made three hugely successful Spidey films; the second (if not also the first) finding pretty universal critical acclaim that catapulted them to the top rungs of the Superhero movie and set the benchmark for quality.
Not to mention they're three of the highest-grossing films of all time, Spiderman 3 still being the biggest domestic opening
of all time. (Avatar and The Dark Knight hold the title worldwide
The way I see it Cameron not getting picked up for Spiderman (a film where he likely would've been asked to do sequels) gave us the opportunity to see him make T2, True Lies, and Titanic and
Sam Raimi make an excellent (if not also arguably one of the best possible) Spidey film adaptations ever. If you had told me 10 years ago that the guy who made the Evil Dead films or the guy who made The Terminator was making Spiderman, I would've probably laughed at either and told you neither fit. But I was wrong, and 'what-would've-been' is only a game for the depressed.
Now that this deal's gone all sour I've noticed a lot of bashing on the Raimi/Maguire Spiderman films, and it just upsets me. Hello
, those movies were awesome! The same people that wanted to laud the films 4 days ago feel just as at-home condemning them today. (See AICN disgusting-just-to-be-around Harry Knowles)
Come on, get over yourselves. They weren't lost opportunities
, they were talented and well-made translations of an iconic character. Sam Raimi isn't a kiddy-style directing pussy
, he's one of the best damn directors out there. And he's obviously still 'got it
, if not also
at the top-of-his-game. (I mean, did anyone see
Drag Me To Hell?)
I hope the reboots bomb and they choose some hack to direct poor actors. 'Dark and gritty' is the biggest crock of bullshit to pass through Hollywood (the same Hollywood I usually have unfounded and sometimes undeserving faith in when others don't). Spiderman isn't dark, dark movies aren't the end-all. The Dark Knight wasn't the greatest movie ever made and Spiderman is not Batman. Neither are the Fantastic Four. Neither is Superman. Batman
is Batman. He
is dark and gritty. Jesus.
This isn't to say anyone here
thinks that, I'm just saying it to the overall train-of-thought that seems to be brimming around everyone's head these days.
Not to be a purist or anything Tim-Burton's-Batman-fanboy-style during the production of Batman Begins, but because people don't seem to remember or appreciate just how great the Spiderman films have been
, they must soon forget how much devastatingly worse they could've been
Posted: Fri, 15th Jan 2010, 12:12am
Post 24 of 89
Yeah, I'd agree, Raimi's Spidey films were great... I don't see any reason why they'd reboot. Funny thing is, James Cameron is actually on Sony's wishlist, although Marc Webb is rumored to be the favorite.http://www.deadline.com/hollywood/will-sony-spin-spidey-reboot-with-webb/
Posted: Fri, 15th Jan 2010, 9:36am
Post 25 of 89
That's a tough one, but I still think a bad move on Sony's part. Marc Webb is a great director for the small amount of film work he's done- and admittedly the film (500) Days of Summer, his only feature project so far, ranks #1 on my forthcoming 'Best Movies of 2009' list, but if they're to do this series they need to go with a low-profile but well-established director.
Choosing an A-lister or a completely new kid are two extremes with bad results: 1, they would never get any of the A-listers. That list is laughable. As if Fincher, Anderson, or Cameron in his mighty ego want to work on a hack project they hashed together because of how big of a catastrophuck Sony brought on Raimi to make him leave. And 2, new directors yield so-so results in their transition to action projects.
Look at Gavin Hood, who directed Wolverine. Horrible movie (although with some admittedly great parts), but you'd never expect that from the guy; as before the film he was acclaimed for being a talented character director of the quaint African film 'Tosti'. (An excellent film, too.)
Whilst I loved and adored (500) Days of Summer and understand the motivation behind his picking, I'd hate to see a good director move into material ill-suited. Sure, he might understand 'young emotions', but even if that's the crux of making a good Peter Parker movie, you ultimately also have to think about making an appropriate and satisfying Spiderman movie.
Like I said, I hope no good or promising director gets pinned to this and has the misfortune of dealing with Sony's mess; because I have my money and hopes on this whole thing bombing badly. Maguire was Peter Parker, Raimi was the director. The movies were already made.
End-of-story, find different material to make a hit. (Something I never say, too. I love adaptations and sequels- my favorite kinds of movies........usually.)
My mom watched the maddeningly-ill-informed-and-ridiculous show 'The Insider' this evening and they gave the 'inside scoop' that Robert Pattinson was to play Peter Parker; followed by 10 minutes of the D-list celeb 'hosts' talking amongst themselves about how well he'd play the role- only to cut back to a 'reporter' who tells them it's still just 'a rumor........but we can hope!'
God, kill me. Pattinson's a fine actor in all honesty, and he'd probably make a good Peter Parker if Sam Raimi were making the first original Spiderman film right now- but I can't stand hearing idiotic, blind and baselessly-informed people giving 'important' information.
This mess is bigger than the late night debacle, which is angering to watch on all sides. None of them are 'victims'. What's happened to Hollywood? Get over yourselves, pussies.
Posted: Fri, 15th Jan 2010, 10:46am
Post 26 of 89
People have short memories: they remember the most recent Spidey film being a bit arse and completely forget the fantastic first two installments.
It's a shame Spidey 3 was ever made, really. Leaving it as Spidey 1 and 2 would have been perfect.
Posted: Fri, 15th Jan 2010, 1:36pm
Post 27 of 89
Tarn wrote:It's a shame Spidey 3 was ever made, really. Leaving it as Spidey 1 and 2 would have been perfect.
That's blasphemy. For me 3 made up what spiderman 1 &2 lacked. Both one and two were disappointing because of the acting quality and the selection of villains (though some may disagree)...
Posted: Fri, 15th Jan 2010, 1:43pm
Post 28 of 89
You like Spidey 3 more than 1 & 2?
Posted: Fri, 15th Jan 2010, 1:49pm
Post 29 of 89
Individual opinions will differ, of course.
Posted: Fri, 15th Jan 2010, 2:08pm
Post 30 of 89
Heck yea. For starter the villains. Venom vs. Doc Oc for coolness? The symbiote was very well done where doc wasn't that imposing of a character. I felt "spidey's" acting was much better in 3 as well. He wasn't so cracked up over MJ and kept a strait face most of the time. I loved the final battle in 3 where as the ending in two was short and wasn't all that climatic. Those are my reasons.
Posted: Fri, 15th Jan 2010, 3:33pm
Post 31 of 89
Well, you are the final authority, so I guess we should just listen to you.
Bryce Dallas Howard was in 3. That is the only positive mention I can give it. It would have been so much better if Sandman was the only villain, and if they spent more than five minutes on his story.
Posted: Fri, 15th Jan 2010, 7:42pm
Post 32 of 89
Agent 702 wrote:That's blasphemy. For me 3 made up what spiderman 1 &2 lacked. Both one and two were disappointing because of the acting quality and the selection of villains (though some may disagree)...
Posted: Fri, 15th Jan 2010, 10:27pm
Post 33 of 89
Agent 702 wrote:That's blasphemy. For me 3 made up what spiderman 1 &2 lacked. Both one and two were disappointing because of the acting quality and the selection of villains (though some may disagree)...
Posted: Sat, 16th Jan 2010, 2:21am
Post 34 of 89
Acting: Okay, I don't think any of them had exceptional acting, but Spiderman 3 was definitely not the best of them in that area. For my part, I loooved Alfred Molina as Doc Ock and William Dafoe was good as well. Tobey Maguire was good all the way through.
Villains: Goblin was the perfect choice for Spiderman 1, since he is to Spidey what Joker is to Batman. Doc Ock...well, I don't know, but I liked the way it turned out. So I have no complaints on that score and I'm perplexed as to why you do. Spiderman 3, on the other hand, had a Venom who managed to keep missing Spidey with his fatal blows, and a Sandman who wasn't very villainous or deadly as it turned out and somehow failed to kill Spidey after about six punches with giant fists. Both were surprisingly eloquent for a mud giant and a blob of crap. Overall, they weren't very intimidating.
If anything was lacking, it was 3. It seemed all hollow and missing in substance.
Posted: Sat, 16th Jan 2010, 3:02am
Post 35 of 89
Looking at it retrospect I don't think many are going to agree with me... But say what you like that's my opinion.
Posted: Sat, 16th Jan 2010, 4:40am
Post 36 of 89
Heh. Richard dissecting the lack of realism of 'fatal punches' in Spiderman from a man made entirely of sand.
Posted: Sat, 16th Jan 2010, 5:28am
Post 37 of 89
Agent 702 wrote:Looking at it retrospect I don't think many are going to agree with me... But say what you like that's my opinion.
Well I just rewatched Spiderman 3 on fx, and I'm pretty sure I like it over the first one, not the second one though since it is close to perfect. All the spiderman movies have so much heart and story. Aunt May's 'lectures' are always good to hear, and all 3 movies had some very good life lessons. I also like how the movies do the alter ego part so well. In all three movies you're literally watching 2 movies. One about Peter, and one about spiderman.
In the 3rd one I loved Harry's storyline line. He had some great scenes. The scene with him and MJ cooking is pretty touching. I like when a movie slows down to show humanity. I also liked his scene with Bernard when he finds out Peter didn't kill his dad. He didn't say much, but the look said it all. Him and Peter fighting side by side at the end is still one of the coolest scenes I've seen in any movie. Not only because 2 heroes are fighting side by side, but because it's 2 reuniting friends (that the audience actually cares about).
Peter's last narration at the end was short but great. A lot of times people think they have the right to be jerks just cause of life's tough situations. But Peter learned that no matter what life throws at you, you can always choose to be the best you can be.
His friend Harry thought him that.
Very beautiful and entertaining movie. I literally don't see why people say SM3 is so bad. Oh well, I love it and it makes me happy
Posted: Sat, 16th Jan 2010, 6:06am
Post 38 of 89
Atom wrote:Heh. Richard dissecting the lack of realism of 'fatal punches' in Spiderman from a man made entirely of sand.
Well, you have a point. Or you would, had I be referring to realism. I was referring to what one would call "bada**ery". And Sandman obviously can't pack much of a wallop.
Posted: Sat, 16th Jan 2010, 9:25am
Post 39 of 89
If you like the portrayal of these characters so far... well then there is nothing wrong with that but the reason it doesn't work for someone like me is because of the way the story really happened...
Peter gets his powers, he goes looking for fame and money which he makes a lot of in a short while... "not to impress a girl" as he did in the movie... he tries to avenge his uncle's death and learns a valuable lesson "with great power comes great responsibility"... he learns this lesson on his own by the way... it wasn't something that Ben said to him... he later goes on to date some of the hottest fictional women... Gwen Stacey, Betty Brant, Felicia Hardy and finally Maryjane Watson. Doesn't that tell you that he wasn't the little whiny and insecure retarded red headed step child that Raimi and Tobey made him out to be!?
Oh and neither Aunt May nor all of New York liked, much less applauded Spider-Man. They all hated and loathed him. Call me a liar! Go ahead... all you have to do is read a damned comic book.
Then they go and kill every major villain in all three films... Green Goblin, Doc Ock and then Venom... really dude!? You can't tell me that isn't poor writing on their part! Like they couldn't think of anything better to do. Don't even get me started on all the crybaby crap!
Oh well... but it's cool if you liked those flicks though, but don't even dare belittle someone that didn't like them because they are indeed a load of crap just like the Wolverine origins movie was a load of crap on so many levels and the messed up part is that they have the balls to say that they're keeping the films "true" to the books and to the fans that read those books. What a load of Bull Donkey.
Posted: Sat, 16th Jan 2010, 10:21am
Post 40 of 89
You're eliminating the major villains because not
ridding of them would be like saying 'Oh, well we'll keep him around for now- we'll use him in the sequel. What's the point of this movie you ask, then? Why just to make you wait for the sequel, of course!' and by not using the generally major villains themselves (Doc Ock, Green Goblin) it's a very similar message of 'Oh, why'd we use Mysterio? Because we figure you can waste your time on this and will still wait around for us to have Green Goblin in a sequel!'.
If that makes any sense. Venom was killed off because, as I understand it, Raimi felt that Sony was bastardizing his closing chapter to the Spiderman series by forcing Venom into the script; so he purposefully made it- knowing the movie would come out so-so and another might be made despite it being an obviously closing installment- impossible to include Venom in the future. Kind of like a one-two 'f*ck you!' to them.
Although I also tend to think none of this conjecture matters to you because we disagree fundamentally on what the Spiderman films were and how we each responded to them/wanted them portrayed, and you're not going to change your mind on that one bit.
I won't belittle you on it, I can completely understand not buying into a movie that seems to be universally-acclaimed (errm, The Dark Knight, errrmm
) but don't call it outright crappy.
There's a matter of taste and consensus. Even as a labeled 'hater' of TDK I still cannot deny it is well-crafted and has some excellent exposition, direction, and adaptation of the character Batman; and that it's great as a Batman movie. I feel like the same could easily be said by haters of the Spidey series, like yourself, towards it
. Would you deny it's a well-made movie, spydurhank? You know, regardless of whether it attempted what you wanted it to or displayed Spiderman exactly as it could've? Is it truthfully
'a load of crap'?
I pictured a similar Spiderman to what you're talking about actually, but I also realized there are a million lost opportunities and creative divisions in every
adaptations of any kind I'm going to see, and I have to learn and try to give whatever comes at me a chance. Tobey Maguire seemed to me like a terrible choice for Peter Parker before the first Spiderman picture ran across theaters; but now I absolutely can't picture any other face or voice (in reading the comics or thinking of future films) more suited and iconic than him. Maybe that's just me; I'm sorry you didn't get such a positive enjoyment as I did. I know that must suck, in all honesty. But I think you might enjoy the X-Men and Spiderman films more if you'd see how perhaps the 'crybaby' moments added some emotional depth to each of the films, or how leaving out some fan favorites/moments and characters and exact comic panels and scenarios is likely a concession being made for overall focus in the film- and how all of these things ultimately result in the movie being of a particular quality
that we all can enjoyed. Out, I'd say, of a cheapness
that many movies have. And it's at the sacrifice of a few things, yeah, but I'm ultimately willing to make that for an overall better movie. Regardless of it being a Batman or Spiderman or X-Men movie. You know what I'm saying?
Like X3 for example: a well-enough made movie, in all honesty. Aptly-directed, well shot and generally pretty enjoyable. But, alas, it's all cheapened
because they didn't
show restraint. Because they wouldn't
make any comic-canon concessions. So here we've got Kelsey Grammer as Beast (oh god
that was some excellent casting, too!) but none of that matters because it simply. Doesn't. Fit. And the movie is unbalanced, confused, hurredly-created, etc.
Does that make any sense?
Either way, I don't think we'll agree on this one. It's Spiderman's vulnerability in his social interaction- not Kryptonite or emotions of fear- that make him intriguing to me; and for the first three Raimi films (mostly the first two) Maguire embodied, developed, and matured this quality near perfectly
Posted: Sat, 16th Jan 2010, 6:01pm
Post 41 of 89
Well, I understand why you and anyone that liked the films, liked them, just like I understand that they're just someone else's adaptation of what they think the characters should be portrayed as... it's just not for me though and I'm simply stating why I didn't really care for "some" of the actors and the direction that the films took.
As I said before, Peter is the least liked hero in the Marvel universe but in the films they make him out like he's some sort of saint and everyone loves him and they throw parades for him... would an entire city really do that for a vigilante? I think not. That's why I think the movies are a big fat joke and I just cannot relate to Parker at all.
The only thing that was solid "to me" in all three films was the on again off again friendship between Peter and Harry. The Goblin was okay but not all there, Dock Ock was the best part in the sequel and I just don't have the heart to describe how horrible part three was. Man... what were they thinking!? Trust me when I say that Peter strutting and parading around the city while wearing the alien suit was not funny at all even though I think that's what they were going for. He's supposed to be going through a very dark period in his life while wearing that suit right? He accidentally hits M.J. while throwing a child like tantrum after he first goes into a dance number. Really!? Wow man. Yeah he's really going through some trials and tribulations right there.
So you like aaaaall that stuff... it's cool with me man. I don't have an issue with you liking those films so please don't have an issue with me for not liking them. By reading your post you seem to think that you know why they made the decisions that they made while I on the other hand have no clue as to why they turned Peter into a crying little girl with a skinned knee. And they did it three times... wow.
Posted: Sat, 16th Jan 2010, 7:25pm
Post 42 of 89
TOO MANY WORDS!
Posted: Sat, 16th Jan 2010, 8:01pm
Post 43 of 89
Well I certainly don't want you to think I'm telling you 'you're wrong, you just don't understand!', as that surely was not my intention and if you got that vibe I apologize. Likewise I'm sure you didn't mean to say that I universally liked EVERY bit of all of the Spidey films, even the obviously cringe-worthy parts in 3. I was just trying to say that maybe by underrstanding or thinking about the motivations
behind making the characters and films the way they are you'd enjoy them more; and that'd be good for everybody.
Not that you're wrong or anything, I clearly see your points and hold some of them myself, I was just throwin some defense out there, as I have what some people might call 'crybaby' protagonists in my films as well and I sometimes feel like they're worth standing up for as doing characters that 'way' is sometimes for, you know, dramatic effect.
Posted: Wed, 20th Jan 2010, 3:19am
Post 44 of 89
Posted: Wed, 20th Jan 2010, 3:39am
Post 45 of 89
Well that is a very surprising choice, I have to say. Could provide very interesting results. Sure he did a great job with 500 Days of Summer (except for the ending
), but a superhero action movie? A BOLD MOVE, SONY!
Posted: Wed, 20th Jan 2010, 4:05am
Post 46 of 89
Hmm, I think I'm actually looking forward to the reboots now! Looking forward to hearing the casting.
Posted: Wed, 20th Jan 2010, 9:27am
Post 47 of 89
Hm, I'm going to have to watch 500 Days of Summer now, aren't I? I've kinda been putting it off, as I've rather assumed that it's something I would only have enjoyed if I was under 25 still...
Posted: Wed, 20th Jan 2010, 9:39am
Post 48 of 89
Fun, I never even heard of "500 Days of Summer" or Marc Webb.
Posted: Wed, 20th Jan 2010, 2:57pm
Post 49 of 89
It's at the top of my list of best films for 2009, Tarn and Sollthar, it's really rather great.
Posted: Wed, 20th Jan 2010, 3:52pm
Post 50 of 89
I'd venture that it's the best romance ever made, actually, if you take release context out of the equation.
Last edited Wed, 20th Jan 2010, 3:55pm; edited 1 times in total.
Posted: Wed, 20th Jan 2010, 3:53pm
Post 51 of 89
What, better than Fight Club?
Posted: Wed, 20th Jan 2010, 3:54pm
Post 52 of 89
The best romance not made under the influence of multiple drugs, then.
Posted: Wed, 20th Jan 2010, 8:13pm
Post 53 of 89
500 Days of Summer really was a great movie. Hardly better than Fight Club, but it ranks up there for sure
Posted: Wed, 20th Jan 2010, 11:31pm
Post 54 of 89
Pooky wrote:The best romance not made under the influence of multiple drugs, then.
Oh snap! But seriously, you have a point.
I feel 500 Days of Summer did exactly what Juno completley and utterly failed to do: make us invest and care and have fun while watching a lot of completley regular events. Well done.
Posted: Wed, 20th Jan 2010, 11:50pm
Post 55 of 89
Pooky wrote:I'd venture that it's the best romance ever made, actually, if you take release context out of the equation.
Best of the decade, definitely. Best ever? Not likely.
Posted: Thu, 21st Jan 2010, 12:29am
Post 56 of 89
Best of the decade, definitely. Best ever? Not likely.
Pooky wrote:I'd venture that it's the best romance ever made, actually, if you take release context out of the equation.
Maybe it's just because I can relate to it so much, but it really struck me as being the only romance I've ever seen that tells it like it is, without sugarcoating it, while somehow remaining cute and somewhat lighthearted.
All the other stuff like the artistic sequences, the titles, the writing, Zooey Deschanel and so on are fantastic but wouldn't be enough to declare it the best romance ever... but when you layer that on the thematic brilliance, I can't really think of anything better.
Posted: Thu, 21st Jan 2010, 12:42am
Post 57 of 89
Yeah, it's easy to relate to, and it is a great movie, but I'd say Annie Hall does it better. Maybe it's just because I've loved Annie Hall for much longer.
Posted: Thu, 21st Jan 2010, 12:47am
Post 58 of 89
See it's funny you should mention that because I've always pretty much hated Annie Hall myself and found 500 Days of Summer to be everything people say
Annie Hall is to me with it.
I could never stomach Woody Allen for more than 15 minutes, though, so I suppose that's part of it too.
Posted: Thu, 21st Jan 2010, 12:49am
Post 59 of 89
That's probably all
Posted: Thu, 21st Jan 2010, 7:44am
Post 60 of 89
Actually I've never seen Annie Hall, guess I'll have to to be able to keep saying (500) Days of Summer is better.
Posted: Tue, 2nd Feb 2010, 12:27am
Post 61 of 89
Zac Efron is the new Spiderman! http://hollywooddame.com/2010/02/01/zac-efron-the-new-spiderman/
Wow, can't say I didn't see that one coming. I'm just glad that I got no problem with it whatsoever. I mean, I can see Zac Efron as Spiderman. Maybe not Tobey's Spiderman, but Spiderman nonetheless.
What do you all think? Excited?
Posted: Tue, 2nd Feb 2010, 12:46am
Post 62 of 89
Well, fcuk. I liked Zac Efron a lot in 17 Again (no bullsh*t, it was a good movie) but yeah. Like Robert Pattinson he's actually a really decent-bordering-good actor, but this fact is sadly and irrevocably eclipsed by his pretty-boy stardom and following.
Last edited Tue, 2nd Feb 2010, 12:53am; edited 1 times in total.
Posted: Tue, 2nd Feb 2010, 12:50am
Post 63 of 89
This is going to be awful.
Posted: Tue, 2nd Feb 2010, 12:54am
Post 64 of 89
Pattinson and Efron were the two main picks? Seriously?
I think they're trying to turn Spiderman into Twilight
Posted: Tue, 2nd Feb 2010, 12:54am
Post 65 of 89
They want Vanessa Hudgens as Mary Jane.
Let's see that happen. They don't have the balls. If they do, well, wow. And again, really don't forget: Pattinson and Efron aren't bad actors- they've both got a lotta promise in acting that's just completely overshadowed by their real-life personas.
Posted: Tue, 2nd Feb 2010, 12:56am
Post 66 of 89
High School Musical: Spiderman!
Guys, don't forget, Atom thinks Robert Pattinson and Zac Efron are good actors.
Posted: Tue, 2nd Feb 2010, 1:11am
Post 67 of 89
Posted: Tue, 2nd Feb 2010, 1:31am
Post 68 of 89
Just helping you spread the word, bro.
Posted: Tue, 2nd Feb 2010, 1:49am
Post 69 of 89
This isn't confirmed yet is it?
Posted: Tue, 2nd Feb 2010, 4:44am
Post 70 of 89
Well, if you think about it, even if it is almost assuredly going to be a gigantic pile of crap that is an insult to the source material, it'll probably be hilarious. I mean, it already is hilarious and they haven't even announced the full cast yet
Posted: Tue, 2nd Feb 2010, 9:36am
Post 71 of 89
I can't wait for the 40+ page Spider-Man topic, which will be kinda like an inverse Avatar topic with Atom going on about how awesome it's going to be and everyone else saying he's crazy.
I imagine that'll be much more entertaining (and probably better written) than the film itself.
Marvel desperately need to get the full rights back to Spidey so they can bring him into the Avengers universe.
Edit: The original, awesome casting news that this topic was created for, which remains in its subject, compared to this latest casting news is truly tragic.
Posted: Sat, 6th Feb 2010, 3:14am
Post 72 of 89
Off the specific topic;
I hope the next Spiderman film doesn't continue with the turn of conflicts the series was taking. The trilogy grew gradually more focused on Spidey's internal and emotional problems (especially the third), which in my mind made the plot more complex than it necessarily had to be. To me, a good basic plot for a superhero movie is:
Here is a superhero.
Here is a supervillain.
They are going to battle with brain and brawn until somebody dies.
In my mind, superhero movies don't usually have the depth necessary for a really complicated storyline. Nor do they need any. Obviously the above-described bones of a plot need some fleshing-out, but it seems to me that's all you need. The Dark Knight was mainly that. There were side plots, but they didn't intrude too deeply into the main plotline of Batman vs Joker. Spiderman 3, on the other hand, had a heavy focus on Peter's own battle with his dark side, his feelings for Harry and MJ, and his usual teenage issues, not to mention everyone else's issues. They really distracted from the battle between superbeings, not to mention eating up most of the screen time.
That was why I liked the first one; it was the simplest of the trilogy. (Plus, the fight at the end was visceral and had beautiful sound effects.)
I dunno if everyone else will agree. Maybe I'm just an average 14-year-old action freak.
Posted: Sat, 6th Feb 2010, 3:52am
Post 73 of 89
Don't worry. From what we've heard so far, this movie will be as shallow as they come.
Posted: Sat, 6th Feb 2010, 4:08am
Post 74 of 89
Aculag wrote:Don't worry. From what we've heard so far, this movie will be as shallow as they come.
Ho yayz. I are shallow teenager what luvs pwning dudes.
But seriously. I like deep plots, but not when the subject matter isn't strong enough to support them. In superhero movies, there are typically only a few characters, one or two villains, and a city in peril. Hardly room for an epic story of LOTR proportions.
Posted: Sat, 6th Feb 2010, 4:56am
Post 75 of 89
That wasn't a crack at you, dude, it was a crack at this movie. I simply don't expect the darker, more contemporary, Zac Efron-starring version of Spiderman to be anything deeper than a paper plate. I think a superhero movie should be complex and interesting, and not just "hero, villain, they fight".
Watchmen is probably my favorite superhero movie now because it's so intricate and has such depth, and there aren't completely insane CG battles with multiple supervillains (Like Spiderman 3 suffered from). Simple is good, but depth is also good, if it works. Also think X-Men 2. That movie has a ton of characters, heroes and villains, and also has a ton of character development and a rich plot. It's depth done well. Spiderman 3 is depth done poorly.
Let's just say that I still think Spiderman 2 is the apex of Spiderman movies, don't really think it can get better than that (and 3 was proof), and if this new one is even close to that level, I will be VERY... VERY surprised. Of course, I can't entirely discount Marc Webb...
Posted: Sat, 6th Feb 2010, 5:07am
Post 76 of 89
Reboots are a bad idea, period. Especially a reboot for a highly successful (both financially and critically) movie franchise.
However, since they are doing a reboot, I'm happy they cast Zac Efron, for a few reasons.
1. He looks like a teenager, even more Peter Parker-ish than Tobey MacGuire did. Tobey made Peter Parker his own, and evolved past simple stereotypes in appearance that the comic set, which made his performance even more enjoyable. Still, visually, Zac Efron is a pretty good choice.
2. Efron is a good actor. Yes, he's done musicals and is a Disney teensploitation star. This doesn't make him a bad actor, though, because I've seen him rise to the occasion, to my own surprise, in his guest spots on ER a few years ago and in Seventeen Again; which he was great in.
Reboot = bad, but Efron is a step in the right direction. Ignorant studio heads may just be thinking Efron = money, therefore he's cast before 'good' actors, but the surprise is that he'll be able to hold his own, I think. It was a lucky coincidence.
Posted: Sat, 6th Feb 2010, 5:45am
Post 77 of 89
Ugh... You and Atom are going to make me watch 17 Again, aren't you?
Totally agree on the "teenager" thing, though. He does look a lot more like a teenager than Tobey Maguire ever did. Honestly, after the first movie, it never even occurred to me that he was meant to be just out of high school, and by 3, even with all the angst, he comes across as more of an inexperienced 25-year-old than a teenager. MJ and Harry were the same way. Irrelevant: [That is one aspect that I'm happy about, but I have not seen any evidence that Efron can actually act, like you and Atom are claiming.]
I just need to have enough faith that they wouldn't give a huge franchise like this to people who don't know what to do with it.
.....*sigh* FINE. I'll watch 17 Again. This had better not end up another Drillbit Taylor...
Relevant Edit: Okay, watching it now, and you guys were right. I'm converted. Zac Efron is a great choice for Spiderman. I still think this is going to suck, but at least now I know it's viable. I just hope Peter Parker doesn't have the Zac Efron Signature Hairstyle (Patent Pending).
Also, Landspeeder Bed had me in stitches, and you can't really go wrong with Leslie Mann. She's super. Super hot! HISS!
Posted: Sat, 6th Feb 2010, 5:15pm
Post 78 of 89
One thing I've always wondered about Spider-man; if he has superpowers, why do domestic problems bother him? If I had superpowers, I'd be running around enjoying myself instead of worrying about my potential girlfriend.
Pattinson doesn't seem like a good actor for Peter Parker. He's not nerdy-looking enough. Parker's supposed to be a nerd, not a heartthrob.
Posted: Sat, 6th Feb 2010, 11:09pm
Post 79 of 89
Somehow, Rick, I feel like you're entirely missing what comic books
themselves are about...
Aculag wrote:High School Musical: Spiderman!
Guys, don't forget, Atom thinks Robert Pattinson and Zac Efron are good actors.
Does someone, perhaps, wanna retread some of their comments now?
And yeah, pretty much any movie the Reno911 guy is in turns to gold. Efron and his comedic chemistry held that movie together- made is a very close omission from my 'best of the year' list, simply because of how surprisingly pleasant of a movie 17 Again was. The quips are the best part. 'Peacocking'.
-"I dunno, Ned. Don't you think I would've told you if I was a VAMPIRE OR A CYBORG!?!"
-"Vampire wouldn't tell, Cyborg wouldn't know
Posted: Sat, 6th Feb 2010, 11:39pm
Post 80 of 89
I have never really been one to retread posts. It has a timestamp on it, so people can see how my opinion changed. No need for retroactive continuity here! You're not going to go erase all evidence that you ever claimed Avatar would fail because of poor marketing, are you? I didn't think so.
And yeah, that character was genius. Socially inept asperger's syndrome millionaire. Any time he went to the high school, his outfit was hilarious. I did think the ending suffered from a good amount of cheese, but I saw it coming from the very beginning, so it wasn't too bad. And it got a little OTT whenever he would talk to his kids about "the issues". Overall good, and to be quite honest, this is the first time I've been really happy with one of your recommendations, so thanks! Maybe next time I won't wait as long.
Posted: Sun, 7th Feb 2010, 12:06am
Post 81 of 89
I thought even with the cheese, stuff like reading the love letter and it ending up being googlemaps directions was predictable but exceedingly well-done and shot in a way that elevated it from the typical teen movie faire. Same with the parallelism between 'the big game' in the beginning of the movie and 'the big game' sequence in the end- but I'm also just a sucker for those kind of narrative draws.
I might actually go rent it, now. I just remember I saw Duplicity, 17 Again, I Love You Man, and Observe and Report all the same week in theaters (I know, sad) and recalling how massively entertaining and satisfying they all were: very surprisingly-so.
Matter of fact, all of them ended up in my Top 20 of 2009 list (which I'm sparing the community for now, given I just put out my retrospective
) besides 17 Again- but even that I'm reconsidering adding back in as number 20. In a year of generally weak and lackluster movies that weren't blockbusters, March was a fantastic month for pleasant surprises.
Maybe you'll now see how Zac Efron was one of those
Posted: Sun, 7th Feb 2010, 1:48am
Post 82 of 89
Indeed I do!
But, have to disagree about I Love You Man. That movie was average as hell, and I didn't even finish watching it. I'm a big fan of both of the leads, but it was just sadly unfunny, and unremarkable. Observe & Report was quality though, very Taxi Driver. Did not see Duplicity, but it's been on my list. I just hate Julia Roberts.
Ps. Let's hope that the new Spiderman is more like this (AKA Best Spiderman Movie of all time)
Posted: Sun, 7th Feb 2010, 3:17am
Post 83 of 89
Oh My God. Ben and I saw this a year or two ago and watched it like literally a week ago again and thought it was totally something you would've done. Especially the part with the wigged-man that is pulled off to reveal a luchador-masked villain that immediately turns into snakes.
Posted: Sun, 7th Feb 2010, 3:20am
Post 84 of 89
It's at least something that I would have posted on the forums. Which I did, but I remember it being largely ignored. The whole thing is absolutely hysterical.
Edit: Yeah, Here it is
Last edited Sun, 7th Feb 2010, 3:27am; edited 1 times in total.
Posted: Sun, 7th Feb 2010, 3:27am
Post 85 of 89
On the note of I Love You, Man: It's indeed a tried-and-tired plot, but the way it blossoms through on and into the conclusion is what makes the movie remarkable- maybe give it another try.
And Duplicity was hard as hell to stick through- really dense and boring and unappealing on the surface and certainly for the first third of the film, too- but it's a slow-burn type of movie that gets really
good-bordering-great as it twists and turns and gets more and more purposefully convoluted. Really, excellent film. Forget Julia Roberts or Clive Owen, the corporate rivalry of Paul Giamatti and Tom Wilkinson in the movie alone makes it worth watching.
And totally agree on Observe and Report. Massively underrated and cringingly like Taxi Driver in the best of ways. Really
like the realism contrasted with the complete lack-thereof in that movie.
Again, just saying: March was a fantastic month for movies in 2009. (With the exception of Miss March, which I saw drunk in the theater and still completely hated and regretted paying for.)
Posted: Sun, 7th Feb 2010, 3:32am
Post 86 of 89
Speaking of Paul Giamatti, I just watched Cold Souls
the other night. A pretty good movie. Giamatti plays himself as he's struggling with performing Chekov's Uncle Vanya, and decides to have his soul removed, and stored. This leads to it being sold on the black market in Russia, to a woman who wants to have the soul of a famous American actor, in order to help her get a role in a soap opera.
It's very much like Being John Malkovich meets Eternal Sunshine, but with a level of neurosis that only someone like Giamatti can provide. It's pretty funny, and I was surprised that I hadn't heard of it until seeing it on iTunes for rent.
I only saw like five or six movies in the theater last year. I'm slackin. Missed out on a WHOLE lot.
Posted: Sun, 7th Feb 2010, 6:28am
Post 87 of 89
Atom wrote:Somehow, Rick, I feel like you're entirely missing what comic books themselves are about...
You're closer to the mark than even you think. I have absolutely no idea
what comic books are about and am talking mainly to "appease the octopus that lives in my brain". -Zero Punctuation
, "'Wet' Review", 10/14/2009
Feel free to enlighten me on the true purpose of comic books.
But we are all entitled to our own opinion, however retarded it may be. I bang my head against walls because it's my head and I can do what I want with it.
Posted: Sun, 7th Feb 2010, 10:20am
Post 88 of 89
Aculag wrote: Let's hope that the new Spiderman is more like this (AKA Best Spiderman Movie of all time).
Naw, I think it'll be more like this
Posted: Sun, 7th Feb 2010, 10:38am
Post 89 of 89
That is amazing. A Wes Anderson superhero movie would most likely be really cool, actually.