Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

azazel the cat wrote:

Ouze wrote:So, would you guys say even if you saw all 3 of the previous movies and think there was absolutely no reason to have rebooted this franchise (especially so soon); that its still worth seeing? Was it good even if you're highly dubious of it?

The problem with this, is that the franchise desperately needed a reboot.


And anyway, even without being charged with replacing the above atrocity, was really good. Better than the first one; not quite as good as the second one. I definitely like Andrew Garfield much more than Tobey Maguire (who I thought was miscast right from the beginning. He acted to derpy to be Parker, and wasn't enough of a smartass).

+1
I despise Tobey Maguire.

Scarlet Spider as a villain maybe? Could be interesting.

Spider-Man didn't need a reboot, it needed a good script, which seems really hard to come across in blockbuster movie-making (especially when producers screw with everything.)

I haven't see the new one and it interests me because A) it makes me laugh that the kid from Sugar Rush (UK show about a teenage lesbian) landed this role and B) I think Spider-man is the best comic book hero to make a film about. He's vulnerable, has a guilty conscience, secret love etc.

But I'm not going to break my back to see it. I'll never watch anything in 3D, which means my local money-grabbing cinema is a no-no and I'll have to go a town over.

I think the Raimi films (except 3) were perfectly cast. It's my belief that with these films you need to cast the alter-ego first, that's why Keaton is (for me) the best Batman. His films aren't the best ones, maybe, but he rocks that shizz.

Are you serious!?

Mate, Tobey Maguire, is definately one of my most loathed actors, he has no emotion. He delivers the line "I am bored" with the same monotone panache as he would say something like "you raped my baby"

They could cast a black woman in a wheelchair as Peter Parker, I would rather watch her than Tobey.

I am serious. He played Parker well and looks the part, which is important.

And the new guy plays parker better.

I hope that's true. Going to be hard for me not to see the guy from Sugar Rush when I look at him though!

And from what I've seen he does a good job.

As an off-shoot:- I totally get why Raimi et. al. had SpiderMan's web be an organic thing. It used to puzzle me but when I see him holding up cars with an invention I just think "Why not take that invention to any of the 1000 super-rich bodies that would want it, and make infinite money?"

Davylove21 wrote:I hope that's true. Going to be hard for me not to see the guy from Sugar Rush when I look at him though!

And from what I've seen he does a good job.

As an off-shoot:- I totally get why Raimi et. al. had SpiderMan's web be an organic thing. It used to puzzle me but when I see him holding up cars with an invention I just think "Why not take that invention to any of the 1000 super-rich bodies that would want it, and make infinite money?"

The more I like a character, the higher my expectations go for the movie. This I why I hated the Xmen movies, and abhorred the original spider man movies - some of my favorites growing up. I mean, I get having to change things to make it 'fit' for a movie format, but that is not an excuse for sloppy and/or lazy film making.

Compare this with say Iron Man, who I always kind of disliked, and so when the movie was good (and from a completely arbitrary standpoint that film blew all of the spider man and xmen movies out the f'ing water) I was able to really enjoy it.

Somehow Thor managed to not piss me off the way the others did - not fully sure why.

But all this leads to the fact that I will probably pass on this one. Should have let the license expire and pass it back to Marvel/Disney and let him join in the Avengers awesomeness.

I saw it on Saturday, I actually really enjoyed it. I liked the previous trilogy. (Or at least the first two, never saw the third) I've never been much into the comic books, but I went with friends who were, and they said that this was how Spiderman should have been from the beginning. It was funnier than the previous ones, and well cast I think.

Definitely recommended.

I want to see carnage! That would be aesome, either in the same film as venom or not.
Or a gang war between Tombstone and the sinister six and Oscorp.
Or tony stark creates the scarlet spider suits and there becomes a team of spider men (never going to happen )

Carnage and Venom are pretty sweet, but only if they were in the same movie, with Venom being the Big bad for the first half, and him teaming up with Spidey to bring down Carnage in the second half. Minimum 3 hour movie. I'd pay to see it twice.

I just realized something. Reptile looks startlingly alike to the goombas from the old live action movie.

I hope it's not just me.

Iur_tae_mont wrote:Carnage and Venom are pretty sweet, but only if they were in the same movie, with Venom being the Big bad for the first half, and him teaming up with Spidey to bring down Carnage in the second half. Minimum 3 hour movie. I'd pay to see it twice.

This would really be an awesome movie to see, but it would really need to be rated R to be appropriately made, thus it never will. Carnage murders people, rips them to pieces, and eats them. In certain comics, VENOM eats people. He isn't as disgusting as carnage about it, he doesn't really deconstruct them first, but two alien (or science experiment) super-monsters eating people on the big screen will require buckets of blood, severed limbs, and half eaten heads. I'd love to see it, but frankly I'd put money on it either bombing or not happening at all. The war between Silvermane, Tombstone and Kingpin would be pretty good though, but it would largely be for the true comic book fans, not for typical movie-goers. We'll see what happens

One problem with the previous trilogy of Spiderman movies that the characters were not fleshed out enough. There are multiple examples throughout it.

rockerbikie wrote:One problem with the previous trilogy of Spiderman movies ....

Was Tobey fething- no emotions- Maguire.

Rosie O Donnell could do a more convincing Peter Parker.

timetowaste85 wrote:

Iur_tae_mont wrote:Carnage and Venom are pretty sweet, but only if they were in the same movie, with Venom being the Big bad for the first half, and him teaming up with Spidey to bring down Carnage in the second half. Minimum 3 hour movie. I'd pay to see it twice.

This would really be an awesome movie to see, but it would really need to be rated R to be appropriately made, thus it never will. Carnage murders people, rips them to pieces, and eats them. In certain comics, VENOM eats people. He isn't as disgusting as carnage about it, he doesn't really deconstruct them first, but two alien (or science experiment) super-monsters eating people on the big screen will require buckets of blood, severed limbs, and half eaten heads. I'd love to see it, but frankly I'd put money on it either bombing or not happening at all. The war between Silvermane, Tombstone and Kingpin would be pretty good though, but it would largely be for the true comic book fans, not for typical movie-goers. We'll see what happens

I still think they can pull it off. While a different Medium (and I may be wrong on this) but I think Venom ate some people in Web of Shadows and I also believe Carnage was onscreen tearing some people apart on his level in Shattered Dimensions. Both games were rated T.

Now you brought up a good Idea too, with Kingpin/Silvermane/Tombstone. Most people that go to see Superhero movies (i like to believe) have a basic knowledge of the Heroes and Villains of that movie( or they will in a few minutes if they go to the movie with me.) With that in mind, I think if it was long enough a movie (Among other things about Spiderman 3, I feel it wasn't long enough for all the villains and stories. Since the new film was the just as long as Spiderman 3, I would expect about a 3 hour flick for those three)

Finally saw it

It had a few big problems:

1. Webshooter fluid. He's not going to find those on ebay for sure

2. Weak villain (to be fair it seems like he's going to have a bigger part in the sequel for some reason)

3. This Spiderman isnt keen on keeping secrets

4. With Great Power Comes Great responsibility was paraphrased

But overall it was LOADS better than the first Spiderman movie...and just about nudging out part 2 for me. Better actors, better score, I thought I was going to HATE the suit but its a lot more believable this time, better chemistry between spidey and love interest...

I liked it

Just saw it today, and I was impressed, definately better than the original. I agree that the villain seemed a little weak though, but it was still a good character I think.

He was fething useless at keeping his secret identity secret though.. I think pretty much the entire city would know who spiderman was by the end of the bloody film!

"I know, I'll leave my camera, with my name on it, in the middle of the villain's lair!"

I completely agree.

Bakerofish wrote:Finally saw it

It had a few big problems:

1. Webshooter fluid. He's not going to find those on ebay for sure

It was shown in the film it wasn't a fluid, it was actual web from Oscorp, which seemed to be what the spiders were doing in the scene before he got bitten. There was also an advert that showed it to be commercially available, so no problem there.

Agreed on all other points though