| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With new director Jon Watts to direct the first MCU Spiderman movie
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Like I told a friend, he looks a little young for the role but that's probably because I'm used to movies casting 26 year olds as 18 year olds instead of actual 18 year olds.
He's a bit of an unknown though, so I have no clue if he's a good actor.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
yeah...I think all the actors they have considered were actual teenagers (And I think he will be playing a 15-16 year old?)
More concerned for the director. He's not done anything of this scale before, and it seems of late I have seen several directors with more indy backgrounds blow up under pressure (Colin Trevorrow, Josh Trank, etc).
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
yeah...I think all the actors they have considered were actual teenagers (And I think he will be playing a 15-16 year old?)
More concerned for the director. He's not done anything of this scale before, and it seems of late I have seen several directors with more indy backgrounds blow up under pressure (Colin Trevorrow, Josh Trank, etc).
Those guys blew up under pressure? Trevorrow's movie is doing gangbusters right now, and Trank's film hasn't even come out yet. Maybe you've got some behind the scenes dirt I haven't heard?
James Gunn and the Russo brothers also came from directing smaller films/TV, and their movies kicked ass.
well...I personally thought the plot of Jurassic World was...not good. And the dinosaurs actually seemed less realistic than in the original. Yeah I know it made ALL THE MONEY but so did the transformer movies, and I don't think you could call any of them good.
The Trank stuff is based on gossip behind the production. Admittably, it might be exaggerated and could still turn out good. But on set reports said that Trank was often distant and not actively involved as he should have been in the production, causing other staff to leap in. Supposably this led to Disney deciding to pass on him for directing one of the Star Wars standalones.
I'll give you the Russo Brothers...although James Gunn, like Whedon have been kicking around Hollywood for a really long time, So experience is not something he lacks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Trank stuff is based on gossip behind the production. Admittably, it might be exaggerated and could still turn out good. But on set reports said that Trank was often distant and not actively involved as he should have been in the production, causing other staff to leap in. Supposably this led to Disney deciding to pass on him for directing one of the Star Wars standalones.
You really, REALLY cant trust the gossip you hear about the behind the scenes stuff and especially how and if it impacts the finished product. There are some pretty damn good movies out there that had very difficult shoots because of the directors / stars whatever.
MAD MAX: FURY ROAD is a recent example of a film whose budget was spiraling out of control and the two leads (Tom Hardy and Charlize Theron) who did not exactly get along.
We can go back to the rumors about James Cameron shooting the Abyss with Ed Harris and Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio who pretty much said that they never wanted to work with Cameron again after that.
TITANIC won all the awardz and praise but almost no one remembers that movie's budget spiraling out of control and cast and crew members saying that Cameron was out of control and that is was going to be a disaster. All of the Entertainment rags picked that up and ran with it until the day of it's release: and then?
CRICKETS.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What the !#$#!#$@%$%@$%^%#^%&@$!!!
Why do people keep casting brits as Spidey?!
You mention casting a Yank as James Bond and people start throwing things at you. Being a New Yorker is essential to the character.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What the !#$#!#$@%$%@$%^%#^%&@$!!!
Why do people keep casting brits as Spidey?!
You mention casting a Yank as James Bond and people start throwing things at you. Being a New Yorker is essential to the character.
We have a British Superman. We've had a British Batman. I don't think anyone minded very much where the actors were from, so long as they were GOOD.
You really, REALLY cant trust the gossip you hear about the behind the scenes stuff and especially how and if it impacts the finished product. There are some pretty damn good movies out there that had very difficult shoots because of the directors / stars whatever.
MAD MAX: FURY ROAD is a recent example of a film whose budget was spiraling out of control and the two leads (Tom Hardy and Charlize Theron) who did not exactly get along.
We can go back to the rumors about James Cameron shooting the Abyss with Ed Harris and Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio who pretty much said that they never wanted to work with Cameron again after that.
TITANIC won all the awardz and praise but almost no one remembers that movie's budget spiraling out of control and cast and crew members saying that Cameron was out of control and that is was going to be a disaster. All of the Entertainment rags picked that up and ran with it until the day of it's release: and then?
CRICKETS.
Eh...I already was sort of meh on the movie at best based on trailers and interviews with the director (Blogger Doom, dark tone, constant references to Cronenberg, etc). Fox has been...maybe 50/50 at best with superhero flicks IMHO. So I have a greater degree of skepticism about this movie than about practically any other superhero movie coming out in the near future.
Anyway we only have a little more than a month before we know if it going to suck or not.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
well...I personally thought the plot of Jurassic World was...not good. And the dinosaurs actually seemed less realistic than in the original. Yeah I know it made ALL THE MONEY but so did the transformer movies, and I don't think you could call any of them good.
The Trank stuff is based on gossip behind the production. Admittably, it might be exaggerated and could still turn out good. But on set reports said that Trank was often distant and not actively involved as he should have been in the production, causing other staff to leap in. Supposably this led to Disney deciding to pass on him for directing one of the Star Wars standalones.
I'll give you the Russo Brothers...although James Gunn, like Whedon have been kicking around Hollywood for a really long time, So experience is not something he lacks.
Ah, see, I loved JW (seen it three times!). I wouldn't put it anywhere near the level of the transformer films, which I agree sucked pretty hard.
And yeah, Gunn had experience, but not with anything the size of a summer blockbuster, was my point.
|
Please forgive me for saying this, but the first Spider-Man, Toby, seemed like the worst casting ever, even after seeing the movies.
Movies are good, but the sourpuss look and rolling of the eyes was a bit over the top. I liked the actor in the Amazing movies, but the whole "Peter's Parents" thing was a big head scratcher.
I hope they don't go through yet another "origin" recounting in the next film.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Please forgive me for saying this, but the first Spider-Man, Toby, seemed like the worst casting ever, even after seeing the movies.
Movies are good, but the sourpuss look and rolling of the eyes was a bit over the top. I liked the actor in the Amazing movies, but the whole "Peter's Parents" thing was a big head scratcher.
I hope they don't go through yet another "origin" recounting in the next film.
IIRC, They have already stated that the movie starts with Spiderman being powered and fighting crime.
And yeah I think Garfield was actually a better Spiderman than Maguire. Although one and two had far better plots and villains.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm indifferent to both the actor and the director they named. Marvel had a hand in the choice, and they've done some pretty decent moves to date. So I have faith they won't screw this up too bad.
I did see an article that stated he had really good readings with Robert Downey Jr. and Chris Evans. So I think that's a good sign.
Choice of director is less a big deal in Marvel anyway because Fiege and co heavily manage every movie anyway, and have pretty much complete control of the script.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps a little too handsome, but ... acceptable. It'll be nice to see a character approximately the proper age when portrayed on screen.
I thought Garfield too pretty and self-assured to be a young Spider-Man—a bit of a smirk jerk. Maguire was, to me, far more convincing. Spider-Man is a hero. He's not really "cool," per se, in particular early on in his career. He shouldn't be extremely good-looking, or suave with the ladies; that's a concession to movie-goers who can't abide the idea of good not being perfectly sexy. In those first years, he should be picked on, lose girls to hotter guys, sneeze snot into his mask, have Twitter and Facebook mocking him (as well as supporting him), and live on the edge of poverty because he won't use his powers for profit. If not, the character's essence is lost.
Spider-Man, along with Cap and Iron Man, are the most important heroes in Civil War. The tug-of-war between the latter two for him should be utterly compelling, if this film is to work.
Well, remember that MCU Civil War is not going to be the same as comics Civil War. Spiderman may not have a very large role in it seeing as how it's the first movie he appears in while Ironman and Captain America are two of the biggest in the franchise.
Indeed...Spiderman may very well be a glorified cameo in this movie. The fact that the casting announcement was made well after filming started suggests that he won't play a pivotal role in the movie.
|
|
Indeed...Spiderman may very well be a glorified cameo in this movie. The fact that the casting announcement was made well after filming started suggests that he won't play a pivotal role in the movie.
I wonder if he'll even be a costumed super hero or just be shown briefly in a couple of scenes as pre-superpower peter parker who is inspired by events or whatever.
Which I'll actually be fine with. I think if you put Ironman and a host of other established characters into a Captain America movie, giving the spotlight to a new character is a bad move. Civil War needs to be about how characters we already know are divided by some serious disagreements about stuff. You know, like a high budget version of a forum debate about alignment in D&D and paladins.
Yeah...Tons of characters caused a rather noticeable strain I think on Avengers 2 (45 minutes were cut from the movie), which makes me worry a bit about Civil War. I just hope that if the movie is overstuffed...they will just let it be a longer movie.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah...Tons of characters caused a rather noticeable strain I think on Avengers 2 (45 minutes were cut from the movie), which makes me worry a bit about Civil War. I just hope that if the movie is overstuffed...they will just let it be a longer movie.
Not a sustainable strategy. As time goes on there will just be more characters and more ongoing plot threads and individual movies cannot be lengthened indefinitely.
Marvel needs to find a way to keep individual stories lean and coherent. I though the Winter Soldier did a great job of that - even for someone who knows very little except for the events of the first CA movie the plot is self contained. SHIELD, Fury, Black Widow and that dude with the robotic wings all get introduced properly and can be understood within the scope of the movie. The number of characters never gets out of hand and things never become confusing.
I really hope Civil War can stand up to the standard, because Winter Soldier is my second favorite of all the Marvel movies (and is very close to the first, which is the first Avengers).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Huh. That's going to be a rather busy movie (and kind of ballsy to cast Antman in it, while he's still untested.)
Though the directors are the guys who handled The Winter Soldier (which is my favorite of the MCU movies).
Weird to look at what should be a bloated trainwreck and think "it'll probably be just fine, actually."
Too true. I guess I'd like to see it. There is of course no guarantee.Well, remember that MCU Civil War is not going to be the same as comics Civil War. Spiderman may not have a very large role in it seeing as how it's the first movie he appears in while Ironman and Captain America are two of the biggest in the franchise.Perhaps a little too handsome, but ... acceptable. It'll be nice to see a character approximately the proper age when portrayed on screen.
I thought Garfield too pretty and self-assured to be a young Spider-Man—a bit of a smirk jerk. Maguire was, to me, far more convincing. Spider-Man is a hero. He's not really "cool," per se, in particular early on in his career. He shouldn't be extremely good-looking, or suave with the ladies; that's a concession to movie-goers who can't abide the idea of good not being perfectly sexy. In those first years, he should be picked on, lose girls to hotter guys, sneeze snot into his mask, have Twitter and Facebook mocking him (as well as supporting him), and live on the edge of poverty because he won't use his powers for profit. If not, the character's essence is lost.
Spider-Man, along with Cap and Iron Man, are the most important heroes in Civil War. The tug-of-war between the latter two for him should be utterly compelling, if this film is to work.
I would have to go and find it again, but I saw it said that another character in the movie will be in the role that Spiderman was in for the comics storyline. No names given, just that another superhero would be the one caught in the middle. I have been wondering which one it might be.
|
|
I would have to go and find it again, but I saw it said that another character in the movie will be in the role that Spiderman was in for the comics storyline. No names given, just that another superhero would be the one caught in the middle. I have been wondering which one it might be.
THing is, to really step into the Spidey role for Civil War, it would need to be a hero with a secret identity...something that the MCU has a distinct shortage of. Almost all the heroes either have their identities known (Cap, Iron Man), they don't really have superhero identities (Black Widow, Hawkeye), or they don't actually have civilian identities (Thor, Vision). There's only one MCU character shown to date that has a secret identity: Daredevil. He has yet to be connected to the film, plus there's the fact that he really hasn't even registered with the public as a "super" hero.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe they will use Antman for the role. He will be in it and until the Antman movie comes out, we do not know if his identity is secret or not.
I don't think the civil war movie will have a the same sort of superhero registration act as the comics, but will be more about the Avengers coming under the authority/administration of the government. THe superhero registration act doesn't much make sense without secret identities.
|
|
Who cares. It'll still more than likely be awesome and entertaining.
Yes, but only because Marvel has been pretty smart about the structure of the movies and the connections between them so far, leaning on the audiences' suspension of disbelief exactly the right amount in deciding who should be in which movie (like, you'd think some of the other Avengers would have probably been trying to get involved in the climactic events of Thor 2, but whatever, they were busy elsewhere or something). We've gotten used to it, which is fantastic. I very much doubt that the league of justice will be handled with the same intelligence.
Besides... the Avengers movies are awesome. I think that when people say Cap 3 will be Avengers 3 in disguise they mean it in a good way.