No, he needs to get married to MJ and then sell his marriage and and unborn child to the devil in order to save Aunt May. =P
And run around in the Iron-spider suit.
|
As much of a fan of Topher Grace that I am, he was crap as Venom. Eddie Brock was built, and he was a CRIMINAL.It was pretty dark. It was a good flick though.Don't know, I've not seen all of it. Still can't handle Eric Foreman as Venom.My concern is that we're going to get a dark gothic spiderman reboot.That was Spider-Man 3 wasn't it?
He was photographer before he was a criminal, sorry not trying to start anything, I too love Venom.... the original NOT the new one who used to be Scorpion. Bring back the Brock! :)
But Spider-Man 3 is an American Movie Classic! Just ask the people at AMC, they show it all the time.
They also show Catwoman all the time, so that kills your theory. ;)
No, he needs to get married to MJ and then sell his marriage and and unborn child to the devil in order to save Aunt May. =P
Whoa, that was the reason?? I didn't get a chance to read that story line (but I hear about it all the time); I thought the reason had something to do with protecting MJ and his kid?? Was Aunt May in a hell dimension or something or was she just dead?
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
I rather enjoyed Ultimate Spider-Man, actually. It was a bit talk-heavy in parts, but it never really bothered me, since Bendis tends to write pretty decent dialog. I really enjoyed the way it provided some pretty fresh and interesting takes on the old classic villains.
|
No, he needs to get married to MJ and then sell his marriage and and unborn child to the devil in order to save Aunt May. =PWhoa, that was the reason?? I didn't get a chance to read that story line (but I hear about it all the time); I thought the reason had something to do with protecting MJ and his kid?? Was Aunt May in a hell dimension or something or was she just dead?
She had been shot by a sniper gunning or Peter and was dying.
|
|
What I said was Marvel should regain creative control over their stories. That does not make it necessary to go back and change all that has already been done.So...what? Who do you want working on the movies? What do you want them to do? Marvel as a whole hasn't shown any particular aptitude for managing Spider-Man creatively, so I'm curious what insights you think they'll have.
Currently I would say that Marvel has shown a lack of aptitude for handling any of their characters for at least the past few years. :/
She had been shot by a sniper gunning or Peter and was dying.No, he needs to get married to MJ and then sell his marriage and and unborn child to the devil in order to save Aunt May. =PWhoa, that was the reason?? I didn't get a chance to read that story line (but I hear about it all the time); I thought the reason had something to do with protecting MJ and his kid?? Was Aunt May in a hell dimension or something or was she just dead?
So he gave up his wife and child for an old woman??? Who should have already died from old age anyway?? That is messed up!
Concerning the 'origin' topic:
Why do superhero flicks seem to have special rules assigned that other action movies don't? Most action films simply jump into the story and maybe do a flash back or two if it's important to the current predicament. Heck, even in the comics they don't usually get into the character's origins until issues or years into the story.
And why not have more than one villain in a movie? Most mainstream action movies have several villains plying to be the one that takes out the good guy; besides most comic book super villains are pretty much just thugs with super powers and that's how they should be treated on the big screen--not everyone needs a deep and compelling back story--sometimes they're just there to get their butts kicked by the good guys; which is ok by me because that's what happens in the comics and every other action movie I've ever seen.
Just to throw an example out there: Dare Devil would have been a waayyy better movie if they hadn't of slowed things down with an origin story. I would have been ok with a flash back or having Matt Murdock simply explaining what happened through dialogue.
One superhero movie that didn't explain origin first: Hancock.
Jumped right into the story (gods, what a story...).
Concerning the 'origin' topic:
Why do superhero flicks seem to have special rules assigned that other action movies don't? Most action films simply jump into the story and maybe do a flash back or two if it's important to the current predicament. Heck, even in the comics they don't usually get into the character's origins until issues or years into the story.
And why not have more than one villain in a movie? Most mainstream action movies have several villains plying to be the one that takes out the good guy; besides most comic book super villains are pretty much just thugs with super powers and that's how they should be treated on the big screen--not everyone needs a deep and compelling back story--sometimes they're just there to get their butts kicked by the good guys; which is ok by me because that's what happens in the comics and every other action movie I've ever seen.
Just to throw an example out there: Dare Devil would have been a waayyy better movie if they hadn't of slowed things down with an origin story. I would have been ok with a flash back or having Matt Murdock simply explaining what happened through dialogue.
One superhero movie that didn't explain origin first: Hancock.
Jumped right into the story (gods, what a story...).
I liked Hancock up until they revealed the back story...then not so much.
|
|
She had been shot by a sniper gunning for Peter and was dying.No, he needs to get married to MJ and then sell his marriage and and unborn child to the devil in order to save Aunt May. =PWhoa, that was the reason?? I didn't get a chance to read that story line (but I hear about it all the time); I thought the reason had something to do with protecting MJ and his kid?? Was Aunt May in a hell dimension or something or was she just dead?So he gave up his wife and child for an old woman??? Who should have already died from old age anyway?? That is messed up!
Of course. However, MJ made a seperate deal with Mephisto that seem to have allowed her to remember her life with Peter. One has to wonder what it was.
Just to throw an example out there: Dare Devil would have been a waayyy better movie if they hadn't of slowed things down with an origin story. I would have been ok with a flash back or having Matt Murdock simply explaining what happened through dialogue.
Daredevil would have been a waayyy better movie if it had been made, exactly the same way, in the 70s, when superhero movies really didn't really pay much attention to ANY established mythos of the hero. You'd be so happy that the hero actually wore a costume similar to the one in the comics that you wouldn't even notice that nobody else did.
Of course. However, MJ made a seperate deal with Mephisto that seem to have allowed her to remember her life with Peter. One has to wonder what it was.She had been shot by a sniper gunning for Peter and was dying.No, he needs to get married to MJ and then sell his marriage and and unborn child to the devil in order to save Aunt May. =PWhoa, that was the reason?? I didn't get a chance to read that story line (but I hear about it all the time); I thought the reason had something to do with protecting MJ and his kid?? Was Aunt May in a hell dimension or something or was she just dead?So he gave up his wife and child for an old woman??? Who should have already died from old age anyway?? That is messed up!
Well, if they're turning to the MU version of the Devil to fix their problems, they deserve whatever comes.
What I said was Marvel should regain creative control over their stories. That does not make it necessary to go back and change all that has already been done.So...what? Who do you want working on the movies? What do you want them to do? Marvel as a whole hasn't shown any particular aptitude for managing Spider-Man creatively, so I'm curious what insights you think they'll have.
I don't really care who works on the movies. Yes, I would 'prefer' they be more under Marvels control but that's really just an aside comment that you seem to have latched onto for whatever reason. My frustration is that I think a reboot is unnecessary. If you're dealing with 30 years of story (Star Trek) and want to shake things up, ok. Reboot can work well. If you have a series of films that have really blown for the most part (Batman), sure scrap everything and start over.
But when you're dealing with the most successful comic book movies ever. Change your crew, who cares, I mean comic book characters go through look changes every time a new writer/artist team takes on the job, getting a new star & director doesn't mean you NEED to start over from the beginning.
That reminds me ... are they really going to do an Antman movie? He's one of the more obscurely known superheroes compared to the others that are being featured, but I wonder if it is only as a precursor to ultimately tying all of 'em together in the murmured Avengers movie. Having Tony Stark show up in the end of the last Hulk movie slightly hints at it...
|
|
The problem is that to the movie going audience Toby is Peter Parker. The problem with the Batman movies in the 90's were aggrivated by the fact that, after the first two, there was not a consistant actor playing Batman/Bruce Wayne. While changing the actors every so often has worked for the James Bond franchise, I doubt it would work with Spider-Man any better than it did for Batman. I would love to be proved wrong but that is not what the powers that be want to do. However, as was pointed out prior, enough fans were disappointed with Spider-Man 3 that a reboot may just be the way to go.
The problem is that to the movie going audience Toby is Peter Parker. The problem with the Bama movies in the 90's were agrivated by the act that, after the first two, there was not a consistant actor playing Batman/Bruce Wayne. While chaning the actors every so often has worked for the James Bond fanchise, I doubt it would work with Spider-Man any better than it did for Batman. I would love to be proved wrong but that is not wha the powers that be want to do. Howevr, as was pointed out prior, enough fans were disappointed with Spider-Man 3 that a reboot may just be the way to go.
Yeah, to me, Michael Keaton was the only good Batman.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
The problem is that to the movie going audience Toby is Peter Parker. The problem with the Bama movies in the 90's were agrivated by the act that, after the first two, there was not a consistant actor playing Batman/Bruce Wayne. While chaning the actors every so often has worked for the James Bond fanchise, I doubt it would work with Spider-Man any better than it did for Batman. I would love to be proved wrong but that is not wha the powers that be want to do. Howevr, as was pointed out prior, enough fans were disappointed with Spider-Man 3 that a reboot may just be the way to go.Yeah, to me, Michael Keaton was the only good Batman.
Nah.
Michael Keaton was a good Bruce Wayne/Batman.
Val Kilmer was a good Batman, but a bad Bruce Wayne.
George Cloony was an OK Bruce Wayne, but a bad Batman.
Christian Bale works because he's not playing an established Bruce Wayne who is becoming Batman, Batman is inexperienced in both roles.
Hands down though, Michael Cane is the best Alfred.
I just hope that Nolan resists the temptation to bring in the sidekick boy-wonder.
AMC = American Movie Crap.But Spider-Man 3 is an American Movie Classic! Just ask the people at AMC, they show it all the time.They also show Catwoman all the time, so that kills your theory. ;)
About the only time I pay attention is when they're doing Godfather re-runs and their Halloween (season, not necessarily the movie) horror movie classic runs.
..and speaking of Catwoman, I want to see a Michelle Pfieffer vs. Halle Berry face-off. Mrrrrowwwwrrr!
Funny because Bob Kane said that Clooney was thebest of the Batmans he had seen.
George Cloony was an OK Bruce Wayne, but a bad Batman.
Clooney was a better Batman, Keaton was a better Bruce Wayne. (Or is that the other way around? It's been a long time since I watched either, but I think that's right.)
|
|
Clooney was a better Batman, Keaton was a better Bruce Wayne. (Or is that the other way around? It's been a long time since I watched either, but I think that's right.)Funny because Bob Kane said that Clooney was thebest of the Batmans he had seen.
George Cloony was an OK Bruce Wayne, but a bad Batman.
Of course Kane died before he could see Christian Bale perform.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
... Likewise, Deathstroke and the Riddler should know Bruce = Batman. Depending on who's writing either of them, they'd not brodcast that info.The Riddler does know Bruce's secret, yes? (But letting other people in on the secret would be like telling riddles everybody's already heard.)
Then again, I had been under the impression that the Stephanie Brown was dead and Leslie Thompkins, who had let her die, was exiled to Africa.
The fluid nature of what's considered canon, is the main cause of my disillusionment with Legion of Superheroes continuity.
I thought he'd forgotten Bruce = Batman due to his coma. but he does know Nightwing = Dick Grayson. Well if you know Robin = Nightwing (as Deathstroke does, and I think the Riddler does too) it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that Batman = Bruce Wayne. Though the Hush-pretending-to-be-Bruce story does help muddy the issue there. He also knows the Dick Grayson Batman isn't the original.
The Leslie/Stephanie retcon came about from reader outrage, I believe.
|
That reminds me ... are they really going to do an Antman movie? He's one of the more obscurely known superheroes compared to the others that are being featured, but I wonder if it is only as a precursor to ultimately tying all of 'em together in the murmured Avengers movie. Having Tony Stark show up in the end of the last Hulk movie slightly hints at it...
Yeah, Edgar Wright (Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz) is signed to direct it. He probably will get started on it after he finishes filming Scott Pilgrim.
Marvel Rules.
Spidey Rules.
Who cares about a hypothetical movie when the comics are so much better than they've ever been?
Yeah, Edgar Wright (Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz) is signed to direct it. He probably will get started on it after he finishes filming Scott Pilgrim.
Haven't heard of Scott Pilgrim. What's that about?
Anyone slated to take on the role of Antman, yet?
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
Nah.
Michael Keaton was a good Bruce Wayne/Batman.
Val Kilmer was a good Batman, but a bad Bruce Wayne.
George Cloony was an OK Bruce Wayne, but a bad Batman.
Christian Bale works because he's not playing an established Bruce Wayne who is becoming Batman, Batman is inexperienced in both roles.
In my heart, there is only one true Batman.
Of course Kane died before he could see Christian Bale perform.Clooney was a better Batman, Keaton was a better Bruce Wayne. (Or is that the other way around? It's been a long time since I watched either, but I think that's right.)Funny because Bob Kane said that Clooney was thebest of the Batmans he had seen.
George Cloony was an OK Bruce Wayne, but a bad Batman.
No, that's my opinion, IDK what Kane thought. And for the record I think Bale is a lousey batman and a worse Bruce Wayne, but I know I am a minority there.
From what I saw on the G4 treatment of this news, the script they'll be using for the "reboot" had already been written. This was apparently a planned move, but not until after Spiderman 4 had been filmed and released. So they're just bumping it up the timeline a bit. That, at least, lends comfort to the thought that this might be a script that had some thought put into it, rather than a shoddy quick fix.
As for Spiderman villains that should be brought into movies: Kingpin. Hello? Biggest Spiderman villain of all time, literally.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Shadowborn, I would only want to see Kingpin if the role were reprised by Michael Clarke Duncan. I imagine that's unlikely, though.
From what I saw on the G4 treatment of this news, the script they'll be using for the "reboot" had already been written. This was apparently a planned move, but not until after Spiderman 4 had been filmed and released. So they're just bumping it up the timeline a bit. That, at least, lends comfort to the thought that this might be a script that had some thought put into it, rather than a shoddy quick fix.
As for Spiderman villains that should be brought into movies: Kingpin. Hello? Biggest Spiderman villain of all time, literally.
I think the rights to the Kingpin owned by Fox and I can't see Fox letting Sony use the Kingpin without a lot of compensation.
|
|
As for Spiderman villains that should be brought into movies: Kingpin. Hello? Biggest Spiderman villain of all time, literally.
Here's the thing about Kingpin in a Spider-Man movie. Sure, it'd be nice. Kingpin is just as much a Spidey villain as a Daredevil villain, but Fox still owns the film rights to Daredevil and Marvel Studios is working on reacquiring DD for their movies. I don't know if the Daredevil package included the rights to Kingpin, but it did include Elektra (Fox can keep her) so I'd wager they've got Kingin too. That means Sony Columbia can't touch him. I'm okay with it. Spider-Man has one of the largest and, arguably, the best rogues gallery in the business. If they want to use a crime boss-type villain, they've got Chameleon, Don Fortunato, Tombstone, Silvermane, Hammerhead or The Rose (though the first Rose turned out to be Kingpin's son.) I hesitate to mention Slug because he's pretty lame (however, he is "bigger" than Kingpin.)
Shadowborn, I would only want to see Kingpin if the role were reprised by Michael Clarke Duncan. I imagine that's unlikely, though.
Unlikely is right. In every single representation of the Kingpin I've seen the guy is white, and producers often (not always, but often) focus more on details like that than the actor's ability to represent the role.
I'll admit based on his filmography, and what I remember of his performances the guy could probably pull it off pretty dang well, but that barricade I mentioned has a tendency to rear it's ugly head. (Again not always, but too often in my experience)
I take it you haven't seen Daredevil? MCD was cast for the role and was absolutly perfect. Yes, there was a bit of an outcry when it was announced, but I don't know anybody who has seen the film that thinks it was a bad call. Even people who dislike the movie usually have good things to say about MCDs Kingpen.
Edit: Ninja'd by the guy i'm replying to. That just ain't right.
|
|
The slug as a 'huge' crimeboss?
In terms of girth and water displacement, yes, The Slug is a huge crimeboss, maybe the biggest one there is.
I still want to see a cameo by Man Mountain Marko. That reminds me, with Raimi gone, we will no longer see "The" Bruce Campbell popping up in the Spider-Man films.
|
|
Yeah, Edgar Wright (Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz) is signed to direct it. He probably will get started on it after he finishes filming Scott Pilgrim.Haven't heard of Scott Pilgrim. What's that about?
Anyone slated to take on the role of Antman, yet?
Scott Pilgrim vs The World is an indie comic by Bryan Lee O'Malley. I haven't read it, but from what I gather it is about a guy who finds the love of his life and realizes that to be with her he'll have to fight her seven evil ex-boyfriends. In the comics, each of the boyfriends is the "big bad" of a story arc. Based on images and style, it falls into the terribly ironic category of entertainment that is popular with the kids these days.
No one cast for Antman yet. Script is still being revised.
Rumormill has it Antman may be the comedy relief character for the eventual Avengers movie. The Wasp may also feature in the film which lends to the idea of a sort of superhero buddy comedy. I'm guessing Janet will play Abbott to Hank's Costello.
Oh, they'll be taking the Honeymooners approach to comedy then?
|
|
Hank: One of these days, Janet! Pow! Right in the kisser!
I'm not sure. Like I said, it's all rumors at this point. Edgar Wright says he wrote a draft and will likely write another draft after he's done with Scott Pilgrim. There's also the possibility Ant-Man won't get a solo movie until after Avengers comes out. Whether that means he won't be in Avengers at all, I don't know. I would be a little disappointed if Janet and Hank aren't part of the team in the first Avengers movie.
God I love being a nerd at times. :D
..and speaking of Catwoman, I want to see a Michelle Pfieffer vs. Halle Berry face-off. Mrrrrowwwwrrr!
Pfeiffer gets my vote. :3
No, that's my opinion, IDK what Kane thought. And for the record I think Bale is a lousey batman and a worse Bruce Wayne, but I know I am a minority there.Of course Kane died before he could see Christian Bale perform.Clooney was a better Batman, Keaton was a better Bruce Wayne. (Or is that the other way around? It's been a long time since I watched either, but I think that's right.)Funny because Bob Kane said that Clooney was thebest of the Batmans he had seen.
George Cloony was an OK Bruce Wayne, but a bad Batman.
No you guys are definitely noticable.
I find it funny not understanding what Bale's Batman is saying during his scenes.
But I know ALOT of people that beg to differ.
Rumormill has it Antman may be the comedy relief character for the eventual Avengers movie. The Wasp may also feature in the film which lends to the idea of a sort of superhero buddy comedy. I'm guessing Janet will play Abbott to Hank's Costello.
When has Hank Pym ever been comic relief? The guy is a walking soap opera and is responsible for some of the biggest foul ups in MU history--Ultron being the biggest.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Well, that's how Pym can be comic relief. He keeps creating machines with Ultron AIs that go rogue and try to destroy all humanity, which is why he restricts himself to building dishwashers and VCRs. This leads to the hilarious "Thor versus the Vacuum Cleaner" scene: Thor whips up a hailstorm and lightning to fry the thing, which Pym decided to make out of adamantium.
She had been shot by a sniper gunning or Peter and was dying.No, he needs to get married to MJ and then sell his marriage and and unborn child to the devil in order to save Aunt May. =PWhoa, that was the reason?? I didn't get a chance to read that story line (but I hear about it all the time); I thought the reason had something to do with protecting MJ and his kid?? Was Aunt May in a hell dimension or something or was she just dead?So he gave up his wife and child for an old woman??? Who should have already died from old age anyway?? That is messed up!
Actually, it was more that MJ made the deal...or rather Marvel had MJ make the deal because they could not stand her and Peter being married (despite what a lot of fans thought).
|
|
They've made some pretty bizare changes to Spider-Man over the past few years, starting with his Avengers: Disassembled tie-in. First off, they've gone nuts adding powers, then wiping most of them out with Brand New Day:
Spider-Man: Disassembled
Arthropod Telepathy - Absent post-Brand New Day
Organic Webbing - Absent post-Brand New Day
Enhanced Strength: 15 tons - Status Questionable post-Brand New Day
Enhanced Agility: Never Adaquately Defined - Status Questionable post-Brand New Day
Spider-Man: The Other
Night Vision - Absent post-Brand New Day
Fangs & Stingers - Absent post-Brand New Day
Enhanced Spider-Sense: Never Adaquately Defined - Status Questionable post-Brand New Day
Enhanced Adhesive Properties - Status Redundant (He's had these powers since Amazing Fantasy #15)
Enhanced Sensory Perceptions: Being Able to Sense Vibrations thru Webline - Status Pointless
Spider-Man: Brand New Day
Psychic Blind Spot
Retcon of Disassembled / The Other Powers
They also had him get remarkably lax with his identity as soon as he joined the New Avengers. He started unmasking in front of every weirdo in tights who dropped by the Avengers Tower. I don't mean just the New Avengers team he was on, that would have been acceptable. But any former members or former reserve members that dropped by is a bit silly. Then of course he outs himself to the world, supporting the Superhero Registration Act.
All of this revealing himself and being lax with his identity is very out-of-character for Peter. The number of people that he's purposely revealed his identity to before becoming one of the New Avengers is pretty damn small...you can count them all on one hand. And he also knows the trouble that having someone find out your identity can cause...just look at all the hell Norman Osborne has put him through over the years. For that reason, I think that having him support SHA was ridiculous, and outing himself was possibly the worst decision they've ever made with the character, and I'm including the Clone Saga BS.
Unfortunately, they decided to deal with this fallout in the worst possible way, by having the Parkers make a deal with the devil (literally) that effectively re-writes much of Spider-Man's (and thus Marvel's) history. Suddenly nobody knows who he is anymore. Even people who have known for years before he unmasked don't know. His closest ally in the superhero community, the Black Cat, didn't even remember having met him as Spider-Man, for god's sake. Even people who legitimately figure it out magically forget. The only way someone can know his identity is if he purposefully tells them.
This also couldn't have been more poorly timed when you consider what they've done with his greatest villain. Norman Osborne is now one of the most powerful men in the Marvel Universe. Sounds like the setup for some Amazing Spider-Man stories, right? Not really. Osborne doesn't know his identity anymore...which absolutely destroys the best storyline they could have made with the Osborne Ascendant arc. Not to mention it destroys one of the best hero/villain relationships in comic books.
Spider-Man has much bigger problems these days than if a reboot of the movie franchise will suck or not. They've dragged the comics down to the point where it will be extremely difficult to salvage them.