So a spider bites Peter and that's how he gets these powers that are spider like? Interesting. I would rather see a bollywood remake.
I liked Ang Lee's Hulk. The Hulk is a dramatic story. Even if you go back to the Bill Bixby/Lou Ferriguno(sp) TV series, it's more of a medical drama than comic book/super hero story. IMO the only good "comic book" movies are Sin City, Watchmen, and Nolan's Dark Knight series. the rest seem like glitzed out overbudgeted kids' movies.
Sam Raimi version was all freaking wrong. You don't replaced an ICONIC Gwen Stacy storyline with Mary Jane. Spoiler The death of Gwen Stacy was a major part of Spiderman/Peter Parker storyline. Hopefully they have the ball to kill her off in this series. Even though the first time Spiderman movie came out I love it but start to hate it really fast because he messed up the history of Spiderman. J.J Jameson was a freaking joke. Stupid organic web shooter. Time to do this movie justice and wipe that terrible Peter Parker and Mary Jane combo out of my head. Seems to me they are doing the right thing and following the success formula of Nolan's reinvent of The Batman.
I find Ang Lee's take far superior than B-graded director Louis Leterrier. Don't really understand why people complain it's slow. I find the first 20 mins was one of the best thing about the movie. The Hulk vs Hulk Dogs was superior to any action in the cartoony version of Incredible Hulk. It might be a little artsy but at least it rewatchable yrs after while the Incredible Hulk is damn forgettable after the first watch.
Making another origin story so soon after Raimi's version is idiotic. Origin stories already or so hampered because you have to labor through a bunch of backstory before you can get to the meat of everything. Plus every super hero movie coming out these days is just another origin story. They could just as well have explained his origin in the opening credits or short flashbacks and then focused on new material instead. Maybe that's what happens here, but it doesn't look promising. I'm not into comics, so the whole Gwen Stacy/Mary Jane thing is of no consequence to me. Honestly the only things that bothered me about the movie were Kirsten Dunst (always though they should have gone with Rachel McAdams) and the Goblin suit. And I'm pretty sure I remembered most people loving J.K. Simmon's take on Jameson's character as a good extension from the comics. With all the new superhero movies to come out in recent years, Spiderman 2 still ranks among the best imo, Dark Knight definitely being the high water mark.
I liked both, but for different reasons. Ang Lee brought some good dramatic-ism and creativity to his film, while Norton's version was just a fun action romp. And I think I was just a little more emotionally invested in Liv Tyler and Ed Norton.
There's nothing idiotic about it if they want to do it right. If Sam Raimi didn't **** it up this wouldn't happen so early.
i agree with the whole take on the mary jane and peter parker thing. You don't have to read the comics but a lot of us watched the cartoon religously as kids. <iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/--cT_78o1i0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> this intro ist just badass. I think I'll go watch some of this instead of studying for ochem you ****ers
This thing might bomb and bomb badly because most of the general populace (non film connoisseur and fanboys) still thinks of Tobey Maguire as Spiderman. Plus, that series did well monetarily and to an extent critically. It wasn't the abortion that was Joel Schumachers final Batman. Lets also not forget it took a nearly a decade for Warner Bros to revive that franchise. Looks like they ripped off Mirrors Edge with that POV sequence. <iframe width="560" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/2N1TJP1cxmo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
But the actual origin story...boy gets bit by spider, boy gets super powers, boy's uncle dies, boy uses powers for good...that was fine and doesn't need to be rehashed. Give us something we haven't seen before.
as a person who is a huge spiderman fan (over 150 comics owned...early editions, mostly of Amazing) I had no problem with the organic web shooting. 1) the mechanical type would be near impossible to pull off in terms of reality in a film and 2) god bless stan lee but I always felt the web should have been from him like a natural spider. agreed. Kirsten casting bothered me much more than being true to the story line. A film has to break free from the comic at some point. Jameson was a great. ANd yes. Spiderman 2 should have been more along the target for this movie.
So you're saying it's possible for him to gain super human power from a radioactive spider bite but not possible to create a web shooter? Organic web coming out of his wrists is stupid.
A web shooter that can stick to buildings and objects as well it does portrayed in this movie is stupid and impossible. At least the organic ones were more believable because they were mutated webs.
Not the origin again. I hate seeing flash back. Should have continue where it was left off but this time a lot darker. One of spidey most fear sinister villain shhould be the follow up. A guy who kills and rapes for thrills. Spoiler
The first Raimi film was spectacular, this latest version doesn't look as good. In fact, it looks bad in very predictable ways.
Agreed. Part of the problem is that most people are no longer willing to spend $10 to watch a movie in the theaters unless the movie is a "spectacle" (big stars, big special effects, big noises). The problem is that spectacles cost big money, so most studios/producers are going to be very cautious and conservative when it comes to the movie's subject matter. In order to avoid a box-office bomb that could potentially end their careers, the producers are going to gravitate toward subjects that are "proven." Spider-Man and comic books in general are proven money-moneymakers - hence the remake. This remake could be great or terrible, but I have no desire to see it either way because from an artistic/creative standpoint, it's pointless. The last version of Spider Man told the story well enough and isn't dated yet in terms of special effects.
Who is the villain? Will watch this... most probably downloaded. Not going to the movies to see the same story again.
interesting. SO you are against a man made drug that knocked out a man in a couple of seconds (in Thor) but you are for a high school kid developing a very small cartridge on his wrist that spits a "web" like substance long distances. Not to mention, you are ok with with a kid who develops spider-like qualities from a radio active spider except for the very thing that makes a spider unique (spitting web). I only reply to your dribble because it's hilarious to try to rationalize your troll posts.
