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 - Page 5

post #201 of 243
1/13/10 at 11:17am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merriweather View Post
But ALL you seem to care about is the economics of the situation.
It's pretty damn hard for me to not be cynical about a fourth Spiderman movie when no one in the world liked the third. At this point, it's all a cash grab. I just think that the reboot has a much better chance at being a fresher cash grab than Spiderman 4, which I'm convinced had almost no chance of being good with an old Tobey Maguire and his boring relationship with Kirsten Dunst that stopped being interesting by the end of the second movie.
Reply
post #202 of 243
1/13/10 at 11:19am
I'm dismayed that we live in the world that Spiderman 3 leads into a full reboot while the X-men universe chugs on with silly Wolverine pre-sequels (though I have faith in a good script from McQuarrie) and some kind of lame First Class prequel.
I don't think the Spiderman trilogy was as much of a slam dunk for capturing why I love Peter Parker (and do think that Venom could have been done better justice onscreen). I also have to say watching SM1 and 2 recently they haven't aged as well as I would have hoped (the middle of SM2 is kind of annoying tbh, though it's still in my top five best superhero movies) but 3 wasn't a terrible movie like X3 and Batman And Robin; they could have sequelbooted like The Incredible Hulk and keep him a young twentysomething.
Reply
post #203 of 243
1/13/10 at 11:24am
Quote:
Originally Posted by therewillbezodiac View Post
It's pretty damn hard for me to not be cynical about a fourth Spiderman movie when no one in the world liked the third.
So you've asked everybody? Because I know there are people on this very board who like it.
Reply
post #204 of 243
1/13/10 at 11:27am
Quote:
Originally Posted by devincf View Post
At the end of three films you have actors who are too old to be in high school.
Harry Potter, anyone?
Reply
post #205 of 243
1/13/10 at 11:29am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post
So you've asked everybody? Because I know there are people on this very board who like it.
They are an extreme minority, and even if they did like it, I would wager it's their least favorite of the trilogy by a substantial margin. I would really like to speak with someone who says it's their favorite. I don't think they exist.

Spiderman 3 is certainly a better movie then X3, but that's like saying that getting punched in the face is better than being kicked in it. I'd like to have a bit higher standards than that.
Reply
post #206 of 243
1/13/10 at 11:30am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merriweather View Post
Why does everyone hate the Vulture? A man dressed as a goblin is fine and dandy but a guy donning weaponised wings is lame?
Guy dressed in advanced, scary-looking* armor dealing out death and devastation = cool.

Bald guy flapping wings and dropping exploding vulture poop = lame.

I speak as someone who doesn't read comics, and who hasn't cracked a Spider-man comic since high school -which makes me a fairly good read for the studio. Vulture, from all pix I've seen, is just lame looking and evokes no dread, awe, or cool. If you think Molina's moobs elicited a lot of jokes, what do you think Malkovich's shiny dome would have done?


*In theory. Yeah, the film version wasn't too great.
Reply
post #207 of 243
1/13/10 at 11:34am
The only way I'd be excited for a Vulture movie is if he was played by Larry David. Because, let's be honest, by the time the Vulture is in a movie, it's all a joke anyway. They might as well embrace it. Have Bruce Campbell play Mysterio. Him and Larry David will team up to take over the world and have awkward situations with each other. It'd be the best comic book movie yet!
Reply
post #208 of 243
1/13/10 at 11:38am
Quote:
Originally Posted by therewillbezodiac View Post
At least this reboot has the curiosity factor, and that's gonna sell some tickets.
I'd agree with you if this reboot were happening 10 years from now. I don't know how curious people are going to be. I think you'll have a lot of people going to see it, simply because of the brand name. But there is an element to rebooting something that popular so quickly that will most likely result in confusion and rejection.

Quote:
Originally Posted by therewillbezodiac View Post
I would really like to speak with someone who says it's their favorite. I don't think they exist.
duke fleed would like to have...a word with you.
Reply
post #209 of 243
1/13/10 at 11:38am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackson View Post
Harry Potter, anyone?
I think that´s apples and oranges and all that.

These two are hardly comparable. Harry Potter might be a once in a lifetime franchise, especially in terms of production. It is a testament to the producers that they kept the whole cast together for all seven (or eight) movies. And HP 1 came out 2001 (?), not even a decade ago (Damn, I am gettting old). And the window is closing rapidly for the actors to play their roles since they are on the verge of adulthood now.

But that is a completely different beast compared to casting Tobey in his late twenties to play a Highschool boy. Biology prevails too many sequels.
Reply
post #210 of 243
1/13/10 at 11:39am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelM View Post
Bald guy flapping wings and dropping exploding vulture poop = lame.
Yeah, 'cause that's what the Vulture does.

To me, any opponent that can take on Spidey up in the air is more interesting than him leaping around someone standing on the ground.
Reply
post #211 of 243
1/13/10 at 11:45am
Yeah Harry Potter is not a good example... They were child actors when they started the thing and they have aged naturally before our eyes, just like their characters.

The series will end with them in their late teens/early twenties. It makes perfect sense.

I even hope JK Rowling does revisit the characters as adults in a future book, so they can reunite the cast for a movie in like 10 years.

It can be the genre equivalent of Michael Apted's Up series.

Anyway... To not derail this thread, there is no real way to spin this positively. What Sony did here is beneath contempt... They showed no respect to a great filmmaker that did right by them, and showed zero consideration for an audience that had embraced their product. Fuck these soulless wanks. Right in the ass.
Reply
post #212 of 243
1/13/10 at 11:47am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erix View Post
I'd agree with you if this reboot were happening 10 years from now. I don't know how curious people are going to be. I think you'll have a lot of people going to see it, simply because of the brand name. But there is an element to rebooting something that popular so quickly that will most likely result in confusion and rejection.



duke fleed would like to have...a word with you.
People are curious about ANYTHING involving superheroes in America. A new take on Spidey will be one of the most talked about movies of the year. It doesn't matter if they do it tommorrow or in ten years, when it involves cinematic takes on superheroes there's an army of people there ready to buy a ticket so they can have an opinion. It's why crap like Ghost Rider can still make money. And no real person liked that movie either. Well, I have one friend who loved it....but he loves Nic Cage. I find the whole thing disturbing.
Reply
post #213 of 243
1/13/10 at 11:49am
Jan I mention Potter specifically because those kids look too old, and have for three films now. Devin has a point. this is a lousy way to go with Parker. Whoever they cast as a "high School" age Peter Parker is already going to be in his twenties, and is only going to get more and more obvious as the sequals rack up. And if they are only keeping him in high school for one film, what's the point? Raimi already did this and got away with it ok, but why do it again?
Reply
post #214 of 243
1/13/10 at 11:50am
Quote:
Originally Posted by therewillbezodiac View Post
People are curious about ANYTHING involving superheroes in America. A new take on Spidey will be one of the most talked about movies of the year. It doesn't matter if they do it tommorrow or in ten years, when it involves cinematic takes on superheroes there's an army of people there ready to buy a ticket so they can have an opinion. It's why crap like Ghost Rider can still make money. And no real person liked that movie either. Well, I have one friend who loved it....but he loves Nic Cage. I find the whole thing disturbing.
Yay, that´s the ultimate sad moral of the whole hubbuk here. I all but guarantee that the threads on these boards for the new movie will be as filled and on-going as every other superhero related thread. Hell, most of us will be there first day regardless. And that is why Sony wins.
Reply
post #215 of 243
1/13/10 at 11:50am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erix View Post
I was responding to Phil's claim that the Spidey 3 situation was similar to Batman Returns with Tim Burton Vs. Warner Brothers.
That wasn't my claim. You said "1. Warners HATED Batman Returns. And audiences, in general, perceived the film as a disappointment because it didn't hit on the zeitgeist in the same way the first one had. So there was the general consensus that the franchise needed to shift gears in order to survive." Which, honestly, is what a LARGE chunk of posters here were saying about SM3 as recently as a week ago.

Quote:
My point is, I don't think it is the same situation. I think Sony was perfectly pleased and thrilled with Spider-Man 3 and it was Raimi who was dissatisfied. Since the studio wanted more of the same from Raimi, while he wanted to actually fix his mistake, they forced him out.
There's some conjecture in there, but I'm curious to know more about what just happened. Is it possible that Raimi rigged it to get himself off the project, rather than another Spidey 3 compromise? When John Avildsen wanted off Saturday Night Fever, he suggested changing Tony Manero from a dancer to a painter, and ditching the Bee Gees songs. He was fired the next day. And when Badham wanted off The Wiz, he suggested that instead of casting Diana Ross, they film the entire movie from Dorothy's POV. I wonder if The Vulture was Raimi's ticket off the franchise (assuming he was signed to some sort of contract). Also just conjecture, but fun to consider.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post
Yeah, 'cause that's what the Vulture does.

To me, any opponent that can take on Spidey up in the air is more interesting than him leaping around someone standing on the ground.
But all three films have had opponents taking on Spidey in the air. Not always with great results.
Reply
post #216 of 243
1/13/10 at 11:51am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackson View Post
Jan I mention Potter specifically because those kids look too old, and have for three films now. Devin has a point. this is a lousy way to go with Parker. Whoever they cast as a "high School" age Peter Parker is already going to be in his twenties, and is only going to get more and more obvious as the sequals rack up. And if they are only keeping him in high school for one film, what's the point? Raimi already did this and got away with it ok, but why do it again?
I see, but I was never under the impression that they are too old looking already in the last movies. They look pretty much perfect to me (and I am not referencing Hermione specifically here. At least not in words...). But I guess we are on the same page here.
Reply
post #217 of 243
1/13/10 at 11:58am
S'cool. Probably a bad analogy anyway. Anyway, how is this different than what Fox is doing with the next X-men movie? Sure, they make a pretense that it fit in with the Continuity, but doesn't setting the X-men back during their high school years accomplish the same thing? Effectively a reboot?
Reply
post #218 of 243
1/13/10 at 12:00pm
The disproportionate anger is because this was the "good" franchise, the one that got it right. X-Men is a mix of tainted goods plus an initial film that's not aging all that well. There's just not as much devotion to that franchise, quite understandably.
Reply
post #219 of 243
1/13/10 at 12:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by therewillbezodiac View Post
It doesn't matter if they do it tommorrow or in ten years
Of course it matters if the previous take was already accepted and embraced. It's like the example I posted about shifting gears in a popular TV series and completely rebooting it for the next season.

Raimi devised a good look and feel for the series and they could have kept going with it. With or without Raimi in the director's chair. It's stupid to relaunch the whole thing so quickly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by therewillbezodiac View Post
when it involves cinematic takes on superheroes there's an army of people there ready to buy a ticket so they can have an opinion.
This is true... The Incredible Hulk opened.

But there probably won't be an Incredible Hulk II.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil View Post
Is it possible that Raimi rigged it to get himself off the project, rather than another Spidey 3 compromise? ... I wonder if The Vulture was Raimi's ticket off the franchise (assuming he was signed to some sort of contract). Also just conjecture, but fun to consider.
Sorry I misunderstood you earlier Phil...

This is an interesting idea of yours and certainly possible. In which case, Sony could just do the smart thing and bring a new creative team on board without having to reboot. Whether Raimi wanted off or not doesn't change the fact that Sony's idea is ultimately ridiculous and potentially a brilliant way to shoot themselves in the foot.
Reply
post #220 of 243
1/13/10 at 12:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil View Post
There's some conjecture in there, but I'm curious to know more about what just happened. Is it possible that Raimi rigged it to get himself off the project, rather than another Spidey 3 compromise?
Why would he get involved in the first place then? After what he went through with SM3 he must have known he would be in for more of the same treatment.
Reply
post #221 of 243
1/13/10 at 12:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erix View Post
Of course it matters if the previous take was already accepted and embraced. It's like the example I posted about shifting gears in a popular TV series and completely rebooting it for the next season.

Raimi devised a good look and feel for the series and they could have kept going with it. With or without Raimi in the director's chair. It's stupid to relaunch the whole thing so quickly.



This is true... The Incredible Hulk opened.

But there probably won't be an Incredible Hulk II.



Sorry I misunderstood you earlier Phil...

This is an interesting idea of yours and certainly possible. In which case, Sony could just do the smart thing and bring a new creative team on board without having to reboot. Whether Raimi wanted off or not doesn't change the fact that Sony's idea is ultimately ridiculous and potentially a brilliant way to shoot themselves in the foot.
Dude, I think you're gonna be shocked by how much this Spiderman reboot makes. The Incredible Hulk opened because the audience interested in a Hulk movie went opening weekend and no one else gave a crap about it. The audience interested in a Spiderman movie will also go opening weekend, but that audience is much bigger. The new look and feel to the movie will put more asses in the seat, not less. The average person doesn't care if Spiderman Begins fits into a larger series. They want to go to a movie, eat some popcorn, and watch some cool superhero shit. You can say that that's stupid, but I don't think the goals of the original Spiderman were anymore noble.
Reply
post #222 of 243
1/13/10 at 12:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackson View Post
S'cool. Probably a bad analogy anyway. Anyway, how is this different than what Fox is doing with the next X-men movie? Sure, they make a pretense that it fit in with the Continuity, but doesn't setting the X-men back during their high school years accomplish the same thing? Effectively a reboot?
Not really. All things considered, they're actually being kind of smart about it so far. It's more like the SW prequels in that they're trying to appeal to a younger audience... But the idea will probably be that you can watch these "Origin" movies chronologically with the existing X-Men films. It will be a mess of continuity gaffes and quality roller-coasters, but it will be - for all intents and purposes - what they want it to be.

Here it's: Remember that world and those characters you've grown into and gotten comfortable with over the last 8 years? Well fuck them! Take a look at these guys now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil View Post
The disproportionate anger is because this was the "good" franchise, the one that got it right. X-Men is a mix of tainted goods plus an initial film that's not aging all that well. There's just not as much devotion to that franchise, quite understandably.
That's basically it. I really couldn't have said it better myself.

And Sony is telling audiences just how much they value their "devotion." That's the part that effectively just pisses me off.
Reply
post #223 of 243
1/13/10 at 12:13pm
But if Raimi's gone, I'd rather they reboot. This opinion will make a lot of sense once you guys see some director-for-hire half-assing Nolan's "vision" in a Batman sequel.

All things considered, I'd rather see someone excited to start with a clean slate than to see a hired gun try to navigate the narrative cul-de-sac Raimi's movies left him in.
Reply
post #224 of 243
1/13/10 at 12:14pm
Raimi didn't need to come back for a fourth film in the first place, though. It could be the other way around. Sony insisted on forcing creative decisions upon Raimi knowing he would drop out eventually because the reboot began to look more and more like a better business decision. The reboot is going to be far cheaper to produce with the leading actors of the first three films and Raimi gone. And now they can find a director that isn't so closed off to what the studio wants to do with the franchise.

ETA-Bob beat me to it.
Reply
post #225 of 243
1/13/10 at 12:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobClark View Post
Why would he get involved in the first place then? After what he went through with SM3 he must have known he would be in for more of the same treatment.
Yeah, not sure. I think there's a lot more to the story than we know right now; I'm curious for the details on this whole drama.
Reply
post #226 of 243
1/13/10 at 12:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by therewillbezodiac View Post
The average person doesn't care if Spiderman Begins fits into a larger series. They want to go to a movie, eat some popcorn, and watch some cool superhero shit. You can say that that's stupid, but I don't think the goals of the original Spiderman were anymore noble.
Who said anything about nobility? Obviously goal #1 of Spider-Man was to make mountains of cash. But there was also the intent there, by the filmmakers at least, to do this with a film of quality that pleased people while honoring a certain tradition.

And if you're going to reboot something, have a valid reason for doing it. They gave us a Batman reboot because that series had ultimately failed, yes, but - more importantly - because Batman's origin had never been done on film before.

The Hulk reboot played more like a sequel to a film that didn't exist and, again, was done because the previous take on the character had been rejected.

There's just no reason to do this now.
Reply
post #227 of 243
1/13/10 at 12:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil View Post
But if Raimi's gone, I'd rather they reboot. This opinion will make a lot of sense once you guys see some director-for-hire half-assing Nolan's "vision" in a Batman sequel.

All things considered, I'd rather see someone excited to start with a clean slate than to see a hired gun try to navigate the narrative cul-de-sac Raimi's movies left him in.
I kinda agree with that assessment. Though, as a consumer, I do think that the retelling of the Origin might be a big bump in the road for audiences. Giving the reigns to someone else exept Raimi could have let open the possibility of going in different directions in an already established sandbox.

But then again no one knows how they are gonna tackle the reboot exactly and that they have written themselves into a corner with part 3 is not exactly top secret.

But then again, all this reads to me like a fan-wank "What-if" story.
Reply
post #228 of 243
1/13/10 at 12:21pm
Also, I revisited part 3 last night. It feels like it is done. The arcs were completed. Harry's story is finished. Peter and MJ weathered the stormy relationship that was forecast at the end of the second film and yet they wound up back into each others arms in the end. How many director's actually get to finish their trilogy and with the entire cast in place? If Raimi was only coming back because of the dissatisfaction with 3, well, it wasn't that bad. A bit of a mess, too many plotlines and characters, but thematically it feels complete.
Reply
post #229 of 243
1/13/10 at 12:25pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erix View Post
Who said anything about nobility? Obviously goal #1 of Spider-Man was to make mountains of cash. But there was also the intent there, by the filmmakers at least, to do this with a film of quality that pleased people while honoring a certain tradition.

And if you're going to reboot something, have a valid reason for doing it. They gave us a Batman reboot because that series had ultimately failed, yes, but - more importantly - because Batman's origin had never been done on film before.

The Hulk reboot played more like a sequel to a film that didn't exist and, again, was done because the previous take on the character had been rejected.

There's just no reason to do this now.
$ $ $

I understand what you're saying, but money talks and Sony's gonna win big on this one. Their shareholders will praise them and it'll be a high selling blu ray (you just HAVE to see the Spiderman Begins movie in Hi Def on a 3D TV! Buy more crap!).

If they hire a talented filmmaker, he'll want to make a quality movie just as much as Raimi did. Even if he's young and up and coming. A young up and comer might even do a better job cuz I imagine he'll have more fire for it then Raimi does now. They haven't even hired a director yet, you don't know what the script is about. The studio wants a quality movie that honors certain traditions too. Those kind sell a lot of DVDs.
Reply
post #230 of 243
1/13/10 at 12:43pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil View Post
Yeah, not sure. I think there's a lot more to the story than we know right now; I'm curious for the details on this whole drama.
Yeah I still don't know why he signed on in the first place. They must have promised him carte blanche and big box of blow-jobs.
Reply
post #231 of 243
1/13/10 at 12:47pm
Maybe he just really, really wanted to see Malkovich in a bird suit. This was his last chance. Can't blame him.
Reply
post #232 of 243
1/13/10 at 4:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobClark View Post
Yeah I still don't know why he signed on in the first place. They must have promised him carte blanche and big box of blow-jobs.
Raimi probably thought that agreeing to do more Spideys at Sony would increse the chances of their funding his other projects.
IMHO, when all is said and done, the doom of the Raimi Spidey series was sounded when Sony forced Venom down Raimi's throat in the third film.
Reply
post #233 of 243
1/13/10 at 4:23pm
Raimi felt bad about how 3 was received and wanted to redeem himself and the series with the fans. This is 100% true, I heard it from people in his production house.
Reply
post #234 of 243
1/13/10 at 7:02pm
Wow, it is kind of amazing that Sam Raimi is getting such a free pass.

I don't know about you guys but I was DREADING the "vultress", Felicia Hardy as a winged sidekick to the Vulture? That sounded horrible to me and I'm glad we will never see that on screen.

To everyone that thinks a high school Spider Man will be a retread I recommend catching the Spectacular Spider-Man TV show... I thought it was silly kids crap and not worthy to stand in the animated Spider Booties of the past but it details a high school Spider Man with a great amount of originality. So if we get a mix of Spectacular Spider-Man and Ultimate Spider-Man we can be in for an interesting new direction for the cinematic Spider franchise.
Reply
post #235 of 243
1/13/10 at 7:15pm
Two brief comments. I'll keep them brief because I, much like Devin, find this topic depressing

Rami must take his share of the blame. Is a S4 without a Vulture really worth putting the whole franchise on the pyre over? I say no. I say, grow up, Rami. Take Sony's lemons and make lemonade*

And, while I had actually hoped for this result (Rami and his films being abandoned), the reason I desired this outcome was to see SPIDERMAN rebooted as a more serious, Batman Begins kind of franchise. "Peter Parker: Man of Spiders", essentially. Since it seems that is not the direction they are going, I now feel sheepish for wishing for Rami to be cast out. At least what he was turning out was better than this Spidy-High nonsense. Didn't everyone on earth have enough of highschool when they themselves went through it? Why do we want to now suffer through Peter Parker doing the same at our local cinemas?

Spiderman 2: Sophmore Year? UGH....


*Though it's way to late for that now. Good work, Rami. Hope you're happy.
Reply
post #236 of 243
1/13/10 at 7:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Princess Kate View Post
Two brief comments. I'll keep them brief because I, much like Devin, find this topic depressing

Rami must take his share of the blame. Is a S4 without a Vulture really worth putting the whole franchise on the pyre over? I say no. I say, grow up, Rami. Take Sony's lemons and make lemonade*

And, while I had actually hoped for this result (Rami and his films being abandoned), the reason I desired this outcome was to see SPIDERMAN rebooted as a more serious, Batman Begins kind of franchise. "Peter Parker: Man of Spiders", essentially. Since it seems that is not the direction they are going, I now feel sheepish for wishing for Rami to be cast out. At least what he was turning out was better than this Spidy-High nonsense. Didn't everyone on earth have enough of highschool when they themselves went through it? Why do we want to now suffer through Peter Parker doing the same at our local cinemas?

Spiderman 2: Sophmore Year? UGH....


*Though it's way to late for that now. Good work, Rami. Hope you're happy.
"Gritty" has been one of the buzzwords for this reboot, Kate. It could still be Batman Beginish in tone but take place in high school. That seems like a really stupid mix though.

I, personally, think that Spidey going super serious and real is a bad idea. Spiderman has always been lighthearted, but with elements of tragedy. Just like Batman going lighthearted doesn't fit with the character, I don't think Spidey going serious will serve the character.

It's hard to go for a logical, real world tone like Nolan did with the Bat when your main character is a teenage kid who got bit by a radioactive spider and got super powers. The whole notion is silly and acknowledging that silliness (Not making fun of it), is the only way for it to work on screen. I thought that Raimi came dangerously close to camp a few times, but he had the basic tone right.
Reply
post #237 of 243
1/13/10 at 8:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by therewillbezodiac View Post
"Gritty" has been one of the buzzwords for this reboot, Kate. It could still be Batman Beginish in tone but take place in high school. That seems like a really stupid mix though.

I, personally, think that Spidey going super serious and real is a bad idea. Spiderman has always been lighthearted, but with elements of tragedy. Just like Batman going lighthearted doesn't fit with the character, I don't think Spidey going serious will serve the character.

It's hard to go for a logical, real world tone like Nolan did with the Bat when your main character is a teenage kid who got bit by a radioactive spider and got super powers. The whole notion is silly and acknowledging that silliness (Not making fun of it), is the only way for it to work on screen. I thought that Raimi came dangerously close to camp a few times, but he had the basic tone right.


I think what I take issue with is the jokey cuts and silly reaction shots Rami peppered in. I guess, more than anything, that's what bothered me. Like you say, how his films dipped dangerously close to camp at times. When I say a "grittier" Spiderman, I basically mean a Spiderman free of camp. You don't have to have a brooding and depressed Spidy. He can be sarcastic and fun. It's just some of Rami's goofy style really doesn't suit my own personal tastes.

Like, I liked DRAG ME TO HELL, but often found it sillier than it was scary. And that's fine. Some people enjoy their horror that way. I can speak only for myself here.

And maybe they could achieve a grim and gritty feel for a Spidy-High film if they teamed with Ed Burns and had Pete attend Edward J. Tilghman Middle School? Haha
Reply
post #238 of 243
1/13/10 at 11:14pm
You know its sad when people start defending The Vulture like he's Dr Octopus or Green Goblin. They could have come up with a more interesting villain (Lizard would have been) but imagine Malkovich in the role what a bore.

Here is his last few years in film.

Afterwards (2008)
Disgrace (2008)
Burn After Reading (2008)
Mutant Chronicles (2008)
Changeling (2008)
Gardens of the Night (2008)
The Great Buck Howard (2008)
In Tranzit (2008)
Beowulf (2007)
Drunkboat (2007)
Eragon (2006)

Raimi's insistance on The Vulture and Malkovich based purely on this move alone I understand why Sony balked. I'm not trying to hate on Malkovich but this isn't 1993 and In The Line of Fire hasn't just burned up cinema (wonderful performance btw).
Reply
post #239 of 243
1/14/10 at 1:10pm
I felt, at the end of Spider-Man 3, Rami and company had taken a bow.

While the reboot is sad news, it's not really a suprise.
Reply
post #240 of 243
1/14/10 at 1:29pm
Spidey had quite a few better villians than that, no? The Vulture was always firmly C-list lame, with nary a memorable story to claim in his favour. Plus, y'know, bald. Baldies should never be seen or encouraged.
Reply
post #241 of 243
1/14/10 at 1:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sentinel Red View Post
Baldies should never be seen or encouraged.
Unless they wear a bathrobe and yield a hammer you wanted to say?
Reply
post #242 of 243
1/14/10 at 1:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sentinel Red View Post
Baldies should never be seen or encouraged.
Hey!

I guess it's true, actually.
Reply
post #243 of 243
1/14/10 at 4:04pm
So, the studio will basically Schumacher the Spidey movies? Although it will no doubt make money based on the title alone, it'll likely not be a very good movie. How do I know this? Because they're rushing this into production to meet a date, and that never ends well, see: Wolverine.

BTW, the decision to shoot the fourth movie in 3D is not a surprise. A few days ago, I read an article in the Wall Street Journal about Sony CEO Howard Stringer making a 'bet-the-company' move to shift nearly all of their tent-pole productions to a 3D format. The Sony brass views this as perfect synergy to go with their shiny new line of 3D HDTV sets that they're rolling out by the end of the year, along with 3D compatible Blu-Ray players.

Since Sony now owns the Bond franchise, I wouldn't doubt that the next Bond flick is 3D as well. I hate this; it's a stupid ass gimmick.

I will laugh though, if the consumer (in the midst of a recession/depression) doesn't bite on these new 3D TV sets. It's asking for a whole new upgrade cycle, just when people have bought pricey HDTVs and Blu Ray players.
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