CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › CHUD.COM Main › Twilight For Spider-Man And Hollywood
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Twilight For Spider-Man And Hollywood

post #1 of 243
1/11/10 at 10:01pm
Thread Starter 
http://chud.com/articles/articles/22...OOD/Page1.html
Reply
post #2 of 243
1/11/10 at 10:06pm
Angry Devin is good Devin.
Reply
post #3 of 243
1/11/10 at 10:12pm
Yeah, and man do you write fast.

Great pic in the article, I wonder who found it :-)

Quote:
Oh, who am I kidding? Enjoy seeing the same movies getting remade every ten years for the rest of your life.
Depressing.
Reply
post #4 of 243
1/11/10 at 10:12pm
AH only 7 years to Iron Man the reboot staring Robert Patterson.
Reply
post #5 of 243
1/11/10 at 10:12pm
Today is the day the Movie Geek Revolution died. Born in 1999 with The Matrix, when the world saw the incredible difference between that film's care and craft compared to the boring excess of Episode I, exploded with the success of X-Men, Spider-Man, and The Lord Of The Rings, withered and weakened in the years following X3, dumbed down and commodified with Avatar and Transformers, and finally put down like a broken-legged horse with the remaking of Spider-Man... 8 years after its original release. What a horrible, nauseating shame.
Reply
post #6 of 243
1/11/10 at 10:17pm
It's understandable that the people with the investment want to tap into that Twilight audience. It makes sense for the books.

But every other point you made about this decision making process was correct, and that stinks.
Reply
post #7 of 243
1/11/10 at 10:19pm
At least that Commando remake was just a rumour.
Reply
post #8 of 243
1/11/10 at 10:20pm
I'm sure it will be fine. We don't even know who is directing it yet or who is in it.
Reply
post #9 of 243
1/11/10 at 10:22pm
I love how the article started with hate, then some blind hope and finally ended in despair and cynic acceptance; Devin really nails it down in few words.

EDIT: I wanted to make a comment about Spider-man also getting retconned back to his old status quo (OMD/BND) in the comics, but bohoo, who cares anymore.
Reply
post #10 of 243
1/11/10 at 10:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by devincf View Post
Maybe the Spider-Man reboot is the opening sentence of the last chapter of current Hollywood history. Maybe we're getting closer to our Cleopatra. Maybe a radical shift in what people want will put Hollywood off-kilter and will change the very concept of what is a mainstream movie.
Amen

Awesome rant Dev, I agree with every single word. Have done for a long time now.

Am I to get the feeling tho that you've just experience a certain straw breaking a certain camels back for you personally sir?
Reply
post #11 of 243
1/11/10 at 10:25pm
One thing is trying to attract a more teenage audience (or "a new generation", if you will), another is attracting a "Twilight" audience. I really don't think they'll Edward-up Peter, neither by casting nor in the script.
Reply
post #12 of 243
1/11/10 at 10:26pm
Great piece Devin. You are so completely right... The Raimi Spider-Man series was great. He set a tone and established a great template from which they could have spun more great stories and taken things into interesting directions. There was tremendous room for improvement after 3 (which is flawed but not bad).

Backtracking makes absolutely no sense. This is not Batman Begins. It isn't even Ed Norton's Hulk. There's no need for that. It's actually really depressing when you see how little they care even about their champions.
Reply
post #13 of 243
1/11/10 at 10:26pm
I've been migrating to TV more and more every year, and stories like this are a big part of the reason why. This is the equivalent of Dexter premiering next year with a reboot featuring teen Dexter learning how to kill people. TV has a lot of noise of you have to filter out to find the great stuff, but the idea of rebooting an ongoing series would get you laughed out of the building.

Is there an english word that properly describes this level of addle-mindedness? I mean, even a mouth-breathing idiot could see that this is a bad idea. 'Braindead' is as close as I can think of, but it's an exaggeration (albeit a slight one).
Reply
post #14 of 243
1/11/10 at 10:28pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by felix View Post
At least that Commando remake was just a rumour.
For now...

I was one of those guys that was saying "Eh, Twilight made a lot of money. I don't really care, what's the worst that could happen?"

Well, I guess this is pretty much as bad as it gets until Chris Weitz remakes Boogie Nights with the whole Twilight cast.

I'd like to say it was a great article Devin but it's a little too sad it had to be written.
Reply
post #15 of 243
1/11/10 at 10:28pm
It's almost like a new creative team coming aboard a comic book for a new storyline! Bastards!
Reply
post #16 of 243
1/11/10 at 10:29pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cornelius Cardew View Post
It's almost like a new creative team coming aboard a comic book for a new storyline! Bastards!
Except they're starting over from scratch. Maybe you missed that point when you were adding nothing to the conversation.
Reply
post #17 of 243
1/11/10 at 10:29pm
If you want the twilight demographic, why not go ahead and adapt this:



EVERYONE know the story, characters and origin; shift the focus towards MJ and make a smart, relatable teen romance/comedy that involves a superhero, and you have that demographic while not fucking over your franchise at all; hell, it could even be done as a TV series.
Reply
post #18 of 243
1/11/10 at 10:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by devincf View Post
Except they're starting over from scratch. Maybe you missed that point when you were adding nothing to the conversation.
Like Ultimate Spider-Man, the best version of Spider-Man in years.

And often conversations have differing view points.
Reply
post #19 of 243
1/11/10 at 10:36pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cornelius Cardew View Post
Like Ultimate Spider-Man, the best version of Spider-Man in years.

And often conversations have differing view points.
Folks are pretty annoyed with what this news means to both Spider-Man and film in general, dude. Not the best time to start picking fights... Just saying.
Reply
post #20 of 243
1/11/10 at 10:39pm
Thread Starter 
Pick a fight, by all means. But comparing it to a change in creative teams is stupid, since it is nothing like that at all. This isn't getting a new director, this is starting the whole thing over from scratch.
Reply
post #21 of 243
1/11/10 at 10:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timothy Q View Post
Folks are pretty annoyed with what this news means to both Spider-Man and film in general, dude. Not the best time to start picking fights... Just saying.
Yeah my post on the new storyline was a bit snarkily worded. I'll say that this is a cool idea in my opinion. If Raimi wasn't happy with the direction the studio wanted to take it, I'm glad he walked away to work on other projects.

The world of Spider-Man is rich and interesting and I'd love to see another perspective on it.

I also think a lot of the "twilighting" talk is a bit overblown.
Reply
post #22 of 243
1/11/10 at 10:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by devincf View Post
Pick a fight, by all means. But comparing it to a change in creative teams is stupid, since it is nothing like that at all. This isn't getting a new director, this is starting the whole thing over from scratch.
I think the Ultimate Spider-Man comparison is fair. I will say that the timing is way different since 35+ years of comics isn't the same as 7 years of a film franchise.
Reply
post #23 of 243
1/11/10 at 10:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timothy Q View Post
Folks are pretty annoyed with what this news means to both Spider-Man and film in general, dude. Not the best time to start picking fights... Just saying.
What does it mean for film? It's the same thing that's already happened (see: Casino Royale, Batman Begins, The Incredible Hulk, Star Trek) but only on a slightly bigger scale. Imagine if it turns out to be a good movie! Who's gonna lose there? Filmmaking? Even if it turns out to be an honest-to-goodness great, fun movie, does it still hurt film? Yeah, you could piss and moan about how these reboots all coming out the woodwork aren't the best thing to ever happen, but at least give the fucking movie (and the facts) more than 24 hours before declaring it the first Horseman of the Film Apocalypse.

And for Spider-Man it means even less. I don't think Marvel is gonna cancel the 616 Spidey anytime soon, or bring young Pete from Ultimate Comics into the normal MU to replace him.

And, for the record, Ultimate Spider-Man was totally not as bad as people make it out to be.
Reply
post #24 of 243
1/11/10 at 10:44pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by devincf View Post
Pick a fight, by all means. But comparing it to a change in creative teams is stupid, since it is nothing like that at all. This isn't getting a new director, this is starting the whole thing over from scratch.
I agree with Devin here; a new creative team in a comic has a established continuity to work with and live up to, while this is suppsoed to remake everything again; its not going to be an alternate tale or a prequel, this a new continuity all together.
A better example would be Marvel retconning the character completely, starting from scratch and never reprinting his "former" continuity ever again.
Reply
post #25 of 243
1/11/10 at 10:46pm
The one thing I don't get is this is something that happens to Spider-Man ALL THE TIME, in comics, on tv and now in movies... Spider-Man started as a teen age character, he was made popular as a teenage character and he will always return as a teenage character in some for or fashion.

I think its being very cynical and premature to start saying things like, the only reason they are doing this is to capture the Twilght crowd. Honestly it sounds more like creative differences that lead the Studio to say "fuck it, lets reboot it" because lets be honest, no other character has been rebooted as often as Spider-Man and most of the time it has been widely successful.

Look for the new Spidy film to be molded after the Ultimate Spider-Man run( the best Spidy has been in the comics in decades) or something like the Spectacular Spider-Man TV show which is yet anther TV show reboot, that is awesome.
Reply
post #26 of 243
1/11/10 at 10:46pm
Yeah, this is great for Raimi and it could be good. You never know, but I think the real issue is that the studios are getting so big and bold they're willing to throw out a billion dollar franchise that fans love at the drop of a hat. Quite possibly because of a trend. This is insane. If this goes well it bodes very poorly for ANY franchise you have any love for. That's the real disheartening thing here... at least from a fan point of view.
Reply
post #27 of 243
1/11/10 at 10:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BTSMGL View Post
And, for the record, Ultimate Spider-Man was totally not as bad as people make it out to be.
No one can call himself a spider-man fan and consider Ultimate Spider-man to be bad in any way; it took everything great about the character and took it into a familiar yet still refreshing direction; hell, the "Aunt may in therapy" issue is one of the best Spidey moments in the history of the character.
Reply
post #28 of 243
1/11/10 at 10:47pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BTSMGL View Post
What does it mean for film? It's the same thing that's already happened (see: Casino Royale, Batman Begins, The Incredible Hulk, Star Trek) but only on a slightly bigger scale. Imagine if it turns out to be a good movie! Who's gonna lose there? Filmmaking? Even if it turns out to be an honest-to-goodness great, fun movie, does it still hurt film? Yeah, you could piss and moan about how these reboots all coming out the woodwork aren't the best thing to ever happen, but at least give the fucking movie (and the facts) more than 24 hours before declaring it the first Horseman of the Film Apocalypse.

And for Spider-Man it means even less. I don't think Marvel is gonna cancel the 616 Spidey anytime soon, or bring young Pete from Ultimate Comics into the normal MU to replace him.

And, for the record, Ultimate Spider-Man was totally not as bad as people make it out to be.
STAR TREK rebooted something that began 40 years before.

INCREDIBLE HULK rebooted a movie that was seen as unsuccessful

CASINO ROYALE rebooted a Bond that was seen as having gone too far in one direction.

BATMAN BEGINS rebooted a series that had not had a new entry in years and that had also gone too far in one direction.

Even if you don't like SPIDER-MAN 3, it didn't take the franchise into some sort of insane direction, and it wasn't a box office failure. And the SPIDER-MAN film franchise is not 40 years old. None of your examples fit.
Reply
post #29 of 243
1/11/10 at 10:52pm
Great article and pic Years ago you suggested bringing Gaspar Noe to direct some comic book film. Now I would be worry if some young director wastes his time with this property. Leave it to Ratner.
This route is a terrible idea.
Reply
post #30 of 243
1/11/10 at 10:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by devincf View Post
STAR TREK rebooted something that began 40 years before.

INCREDIBLE HULK rebooted a movie that was seen as unsuccessful

CASINO ROYALE rebooted a Bond that was seen as having gone too far in one direction.

BATMAN BEGINS rebooted a series that had not had a new entry in years and that had also gone too far in one direction.

Even if you don't like SPIDER-MAN 3, it didn't take the franchise into some sort of insane direction, and it wasn't a box office failure. And the SPIDER-MAN film franchise is not 40 years old. None of your examples fit.
They were reboots of movies, more specifically reboots that had been greenlit, gone into production, made, and released in the past decade. That's all I was going for. "Reboots aren't a new phenomenon", that's it.

Hence this part of my paragraph (now with new, shiny bold): "It's the same thing that's already happened, but only on a slightly bigger scale."

I guess you could define "bigger" in my sentence as "more striking" (to borrow a term I used in another, way different, thread).
Reply
post #31 of 243
1/11/10 at 10:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnalanoWally View Post
Look for the new Spidy film to be molded after the Ultimate Spider-Man run( the best Spidy has been in the comics in decades)
Oh God, no.

Reply
post #32 of 243
1/11/10 at 10:59pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BTSMGL View Post
They were reboots of movies, more specifically reboots that had been greenlit, gone into production, made, and released in the past decade. That's all I was going for. "Reboots aren't a new phenomenon", that's it.

Hence this part of my paragraph (now with new, shiny bold): "It's the same thing that's already happened, but only on a slightly bigger scale."

I guess you could define "bigger" in my sentence as "more striking" (to borrow a term I used in another, way different, thread).
You're missing the point. Yes, reboots happen. Yes, they can be successful.

This is a reboot of a series that is currently working. That makes money. That is new. That had a very good director who wanted to do another one. That had a fanbase.

The problem here is the idea that now film series get rebooted every ten years. It's not bad enough that Hollywood just wants to make sequels, now they just want to immediately remake the original film, regardless of the health of the franchise. It's creative bankruptcy at its worst yet. Redo after redo after redo.
Reply
post #33 of 243
1/11/10 at 11:03pm
It's useless, Devin. "Bigger picture" isn't entering this dude's thought process. You're right BTSML, this reboot could be awesome.
Reply
post #34 of 243
1/11/10 at 11:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cornelius Cardew View Post
I think the Ultimate Spider-Man comparison is fair. I will say that the timing is way different since 35+ years of comics isn't the same as 7 years of a film franchise.
And that's the point. Ultimate Spider-Man worked because it was a separate thing and it didn't intrude on an already established continuity.

If you wanted to make a comic book comparison, you could say it's like when they brought in JMS and Buscema to Amazing Spider-Man. It was a shot in the arm for that book. But keep in mind that they just throw out what had already been established. So that's not really the case here either.

Bringing in a new creative team for Spider-Man 4 would be fine... (And wasn't that the idea behind hiring the writer of Zodiac?) put things on the right track after the slight stumble of 3.

But this is just a fucked up idea.

Now... If you told me there would be no Spider-Man 4 and we're going to get a reboot in another 10 years or something, fine. But this is something they want to do right away. And it's ridiculous.
Reply
post #35 of 243
1/11/10 at 11:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erix View Post
And that's the point. Ultimate Spider-Man worked because it was a separate thing and it didn't intrude on an already established continuity.

If you wanted to make a comic book comparison, you could say it's like when they brought in JMS and Buscema to Amazing Spider-Man. It was a shot in the arm for that book. But keep in mind that they just throw out what had already been established.

Bringing in a new creative team for Spider-Man 4 would be fine... (And wasn't that the idea behind hiring the writer of Zodiac?) put things on the right track after the slight stumble of 3.

But this is just a fucked up idea.

Now... If you told me there would be no Spider-Man 4 and we're going to get a reboot in another 10 years or something, fine. But this is something they want to do right away. And it's ridiculous.
Buscema? dont you mean Romita jr?

*recieves wedgie*
Reply
post #36 of 243
1/11/10 at 11:05pm
I'd just like to remind everyone that Moon AND Hurt Locker are coming out to video on Tuesday. Buy them and enjoy them and share them with your friends...and let everyone know that not all films are emotionally bankrupt ATM machines for the studios and that there IS creativity out there somewhere...

thats my response to this bullshit.
Reply
post #37 of 243
1/11/10 at 11:08pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by devincf View Post
You're missing the point. Yes, reboots happen. Yes, they can be successful.

This is a reboot of a series that is currently working. That makes money. That is new. That had a very good director who wanted to do another one. That had a fanbase.

The problem here is the idea that now film series get rebooted every ten years. It's not bad enough that Hollywood just wants to make sequels, now they just want to immediately remake the original film, regardless of the health of the franchise. It's creative bankruptcy at its worst yet. Redo after redo after redo.
I think arguing a reboot is lazier than a sequel is debatable. The Incredible Hulk was reboot done right. It used the cultural knowledge of the basics of the origin set up in the first try and told a brand new tale with none of the other baggage. I feel that's what they will be trying here. If they spend an hour on the origin again then you are definitely right.
Reply
post #38 of 243
1/11/10 at 11:08pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryoken View Post
Buscema? dont you mean Romita jr?

*recieves wedgie*
Actually... I should get the wedgie for mixing them up. I turned my head and glanced at an issue of Conan Magazine from 1982. And I wrote Buscema instead of Romita Jr.

Quote:
Originally Posted by E.T.C. View Post
I'd just like to remind everyone that Moon AND Hurt Locker are coming out to video on Tuesday. Buy them and enjoy them and share them with your friends...and let everyone know that not all films are emotionally bankrupt ATM machines for the studios and that there IS creativity out there somewhere...

thats my response to this bullshit.
Well said, but let us have our moment.
Reply
post #39 of 243
1/11/10 at 11:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by devincf View Post
You're missing the point. Yes, reboots happen. Yes, they can be successful.

This is a reboot of a series that is currently working. That makes money. That is new. That had a very good director who wanted to do another one. That had a fanbase.

The problem here is the idea that now film series get rebooted every ten years. It's not bad enough that Hollywood just wants to make sequels, now they just want to immediately remake the original film, regardless of the health of the franchise. It's creative bankruptcy at its worst yet. Redo after redo after redo.
Like I said in the other thread, I'm thinking they're just trying to go back and tap into an aspect of this gigantic franchise that they feel they missed out on. And a pretty fruitful aspect, if we're being perfectly honest.

Reply
post #40 of 243
1/11/10 at 11:10pm
Dumb, non-comic fan question: how does Venom "coarsen" Peter Parker and Spidey? How does this villain wreak so much havoc with him?

I'm asking, because my only comics-based knowledge of Venom comes from sitting next to a Marvel fan in high school, when Spidey came back with the symbiote suit. As someone not beholden to then-20 years of "tradition", I thought the new suit looked pretty damn cool.

I also don't find the idea of fighting against your darker/baser impulses to be "coarse" or cheap. But I'm asking sincerely - I don't have a dog in this fight, and would appreciate some non-bile-spewing answers. (Hating Carnage I get without explanation; I worked in a bookstore in the mid-90s, and perused the comics enough to get why that character is so reviled.)
Reply
post #41 of 243
1/11/10 at 11:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cornelius Cardew View Post
I think arguing a reboot is lazier than a sequel is debatable. The Incredible Hulk was reboot done right. It used the cultural knowledge of the basics of the origin set up in the first try and told a brand new tale with none of the other baggage. I feel that's what they will be trying here. If they spend an hour on the origin again then you are definitely right.
Taking a sequel into a new and fresh direction while sticking to and expanding upon the continuity of the previous film seems a lot tougher than telling the same story again with different characters and a fresh coat of paint. They're both hard to make "fresh" but isn't telling a new story tougher than telling the same story again?
Reply
post #42 of 243
1/11/10 at 11:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by E.T.C. View Post
I'd just like to remind everyone that Moon AND Hurt Locker are coming out to video on Tuesday. Buy them and enjoy them and share them with your friends...and let everyone know that not all films are emotionally bankrupt ATM machines for the studios and that there IS creativity out there somewhere...

thats my response to this bullshit.
A-fucking-men brother.

Testify.
Reply
post #43 of 243
1/11/10 at 11:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelM View Post
Dumb, non-comic fan question: how does Venom "coarsen" Peter Parker and Spidey? How does this villain wreak so much havoc with him?

I'm asking, because my only comics-based knowledge of Venom comes from sitting next to a Marvel fan in high school, when Spidey came back with the symbiote suit. As someone not beholden to then-20 years of "tradition", I thought the new suit looked pretty damn cool.

I also don't find the idea of fighting against your darker/baser impulses to be "coarse" or cheap. But I'm asking sincerely - I don't have a dog in this fight, and would appreciate some non-bile-spewing answers. (Hating Carnage I get without explanation; I worked in a bookstore in the mid-90s, and perused the comics enough to get why that character is so reviled.)
***CAVEAT HERE::: If I'm wrong here, please correct me...it's been about 10 years since I've read a Spidey comic (or any comic for that matter) so my memory may be a little fuzzy***

Venom was created around the time when EVERY comic book character felt the need to be grim and gritty. The company wanted a "dark" character to sorta be the ying to Spidey's yang...so Venom was created. In my mind Venom was a sorta sledge-hammer to the head personification of what we already knew about Spider-Man's psyche to begin with and what was already handled pretty well in the comics before Venom came about.
Reply
post #44 of 243
1/11/10 at 11:24pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BTSMGL View Post
Like I said in the other thread, I'm thinking they're just trying to go back and tap into an aspect of this gigantic franchise that they feel they missed out on. And a pretty fruitful aspect, if we're being perfectly honest.
What is this aspect that cannot be brought in with a fourth film? Spidey isn't making enough jokes? Just write more fucking jokes in the fourth film.
Reply
post #45 of 243
1/11/10 at 11:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by E.T.C. View Post
***CAVEAT HERE::: If I'm wrong here, please correct me...it's been about 10 years since I've read a Spidey comic (or any comic for that matter) so my memory may be a little fuzzy***

Venom was created around the time when EVERY comic book character felt the need to be grim and gritty. The company wanted a "dark" character to sorta be the ying to Spidey's yang...so Venom was created. In my mind Venom was a sorta sledge-hammer to the head personification of what we already knew about Spider-Man to begin with and what was already handled pretty well in the comics befofre Venom came about.
Plus, he exists BECAUSE of Spider-Man. Spidey shook the black suit off and it fell on Eddie Brock, who became Venom.

On the scale of villains, he's firmly in the "ehn". There's a shitload of better villains, but I'd be lying if there weren't a few worse.

Michael Shannon for Electro!
Reply
post #46 of 243
1/11/10 at 11:25pm
I don't disagree that this is a bizarrely hairbrained move on Sony's part, but I'm frankly glad Raimi will be moving onto other things. To me that's a silver lining. It sounded like Raimi was just going to have more of the same problems from Sony that f'd up 3. I don't need another mediocre Spider Man movie. I do need more films with the verve of DRAG ME THE HELL.
Reply
post #47 of 243
1/11/10 at 11:25pm
Was there this much anger when they rebooted Hulk?

And they're doing a terrible job of chasing the Twilight demo by making it about teenage Spider-man.

Women and tween girls love Twilight because it's told from the perspective of an insecure girl. A young secretly hip guy vying for a girl's affection has been done repeatedly and has never really fired up the fairer half of viewers.

I'm with the guy above who suggested adapting Spider-man loves Mary Jane. That's got a much better chance of picking up teenage girls then a Zac Efron Spider-man (which it seems is what they want).

All said, I want my X-Men reboot first. Complete with forty bajillion more hours of Cyclops.
Reply
post #48 of 243
1/11/10 at 11:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by devincf View Post
What is this aspect that cannot be brought in with a fourth film? Spidey isn't making enough jokes? Just write more fucking jokes in the fourth film.
"Spider-Man: High School Years", Devin. That aspect. Not the funny.
Reply
post #49 of 243
1/11/10 at 11:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by devincf View Post
What is this aspect that cannot be brought in with a fourth film? Spidey isn't making enough jokes? Just write more fucking jokes in the fourth film.
Young, single spidey. Angst of teen drama. Not tied down to one woman. Being late to class because you stopped a bank robbery. Tons of material that wouldn't fit in Raimi world. Nor should it be forced in there.
Reply
post #50 of 243
1/11/10 at 11:27pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BTSMGL View Post
"Spider-Man: High School Years", Devin. That aspect. Not the funny.
How long can that be done without rebooting again? These films come out at most three years apart, and that's really pushing it. At the end of three films you have actors who are too old to be in high school.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: CHUD.COM Main
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › CHUD.COM Main › Twilight For Spider-Man And Hollywood