This topic is locked from further discussion.
Haven't seen the new one yet. Definitely liked the old one, though. But Spiderman 3 ruined it for me. Topher Grace as Eddie Brock/Venom has to be one of the most baffling, and idiotic casting choices in the history of hollywood.
I thought he did a good job... I mean it is an adaptation and not supposed to be entirely accurate to the source material. I think the problem was that venom was forced in by the executives and should not have been in, in the first place. Topher Grace actually did a good job imo.Haven't seen the new one yet. Definitely liked the old one, though. But Spiderman 3 ruined it for me. Topher Grace as Eddie Brock/Venom has to be one of the most baffling, and idiotic casting choices in the history of hollywood.
the_bi99man
[QUOTE="the_bi99man"]I thought he did a good job... I mean it is an adaptation and not supposed to be entirely accurate to the source material. I think the problem was that venom was forced in by the executives and should not have been in, in the first place. Topher Grace actually did a good job imo.Haven't seen the new one yet. Definitely liked the old one, though. But Spiderman 3 ruined it for me. Topher Grace as Eddie Brock/Venom has to be one of the most baffling, and idiotic casting choices in the history of hollywood.
OyVay
That's what bugged me so much about it. He did a good job. ...Playing the character they gave him. But they completely rewrote the character, to make him into someone Topher Grace could play. I felt like they weren't so much forcing in Venom, but rather, they were forcing in Topher Grace. So they rewrote Eddie Brock as a kind of snide, sarcastic douchebag (which Grace did play very well), rather than the body building football playing jock-type a$$hole he was. I just don't get why they did that, when (in my opinion) the movie would have been better with an accurate adaptation of Brock/Venom, played by just about any random hunk/tough guy.
I don't really like either.Spider man (2002) was a decent 7-8/10 movie, while the Amazing Spiderman (2012) was a mediocre super hero movie 5/10..
While the 2002 rendition of Spiderman will always hold a special place in my heart for being one of my favorite moves as a kid and getting me into Marvel/DC stories, it doesn't hold up as well as I'd like. The newer Spiderman is definately a more solid movie overall, with better leads, a better plot and generally less goofyness (ie. no green suited goblin flying around on Marty McFly's hoverboard). That being said, Spiderman 2 is still one of my favorite super hero films and is the pinical of the series (I don't even like to aknowledge 3).
I thought he did a good job... I mean it is an adaptation and not supposed to be entirely accurate to the source material. I think the problem was that venom was forced in by the executives and should not have been in, in the first place. Topher Grace actually did a good job imo.[QUOTE="OyVay"][QUOTE="the_bi99man"]
Haven't seen the new one yet. Definitely liked the old one, though. But Spiderman 3 ruined it for me. Topher Grace as Eddie Brock/Venom has to be one of the most baffling, and idiotic casting choices in the history of hollywood.
the_bi99man
That's what bugged me so much about it. He did a good job. ...Playing the character they gave him. But they completely rewrote the character, to make him into someone Topher Grace could play. I felt like they weren't so much forcing in Venom, but rather, they were forcing in Topher Grace. So they rewrote Eddie Brock as a kind of snide, sarcastic douchebag (which Grace did play very well), rather than the body building football playing jock-type a$$hole he was. I just don't get why they did that, when (in my opinion) the movie would have been better with an accurate adaptation of Brock/Venom, played by just about any random hunk/tough guy.
Wait wut? bodybuilding jacked up A-hole?? Topher Grace???????????? The guy from that 70's show ? He's like the biggest p*ssy in town, and smaller than a scrawn.. unless he's been on dem juices lately.[QUOTE="the_bi99man"][QUOTE="OyVay"] I thought he did a good job... I mean it is an adaptation and not supposed to be entirely accurate to the source material. I think the problem was that venom was forced in by the executives and should not have been in, in the first place. Topher Grace actually did a good job imo.Mozelleple112
That's what bugged me so much about it. He did a good job. ...Playing the character they gave him. But they completely rewrote the character, to make him into someone Topher Grace could play. I felt like they weren't so much forcing in Venom, but rather, they were forcing in Topher Grace. So they rewrote Eddie Brock as a kind of snide, sarcastic douchebag (which Grace did play very well), rather than the body building football playing jock-type a$$hole he was. I just don't get why they did that, when (in my opinion) the movie would have been better with an accurate adaptation of Brock/Venom, played by just about any random hunk/tough guy.
Wait wut? bodybuilding jacked up A-hole?? Topher Grace???????????? The guy from that 70's show ? He's like the biggest p*ssy in town, and smaller than a scrawn.. unless he's been on dem juices lately.that's what I was saying. Eddie Brock was originally a body building jock type guy, but Topher Grace obviously couldn't play that character, so, rather than casting someone else for Brock/Venom in spiderman 3, they rewrote the character into a snide, sarcastic dbag type, which Topher Grace could play.
Wait wut? bodybuilding jacked up A-hole?? Topher Grace???????????? The guy from that 70's show ? He's like the biggest p*ssy in town, and smaller than a scrawn.. unless he's been on dem juices lately.[QUOTE="Mozelleple112"][QUOTE="the_bi99man"]
That's what bugged me so much about it. He did a good job. ...Playing the character they gave him. But they completely rewrote the character, to make him into someone Topher Grace could play. I felt like they weren't so much forcing in Venom, but rather, they were forcing in Topher Grace. So they rewrote Eddie Brock as a kind of snide, sarcastic douchebag (which Grace did play very well), rather than the body building football playing jock-type a$$hole he was. I just don't get why they did that, when (in my opinion) the movie would have been better with an accurate adaptation of Brock/Venom, played by just about any random hunk/tough guy.
the_bi99man
that's what I was saying. Eddie Brock was originally a body building jock type guy, but Topher Grace obviously couldn't play that character, so, rather than casting someone else for Brock/Venom in spiderman 3, they rewrote the character into a snide, sarcastic dbag type, which Topher Grace could play.
Oh I see. I didn't see the "rather" part. I was about to die of lols if some one though that Topher Grace was a jacked up bodybuilder. Makes sense now :lol:I liked both....and it could be that since I haven't seen the 2002 one in some time....I'm going with 2012.
Oh I see. I didn't see the "rather" part. I was about to die of lols if some one though that Topher Grace was a jacked up bodybuilder. Makes sense now :lol: Mozelleple112
haha. die of lols indeed. I thought for sure I was being trolled when I first read that Topher Grace had been cast as Venom. Then I saw the movie...
I think they're both pretty much the same. I may give the edge to 2002 though,if only because it had a bigger impact back then
I saw The Amazing Spider-Man and I thought it was pretty good but I like Tobey Maguire's Spider-Man alot more, the universe just feels more alive and fleshed put than Garfield's version. The cast was better also, J.K. Simmons FTW. Fun fact, the reason why they didn't have The Daily Bugle in The Amazing Spider-Man was because they could not find a worthy replacement for J.K. Simmons.
I know Spider-Man 3 left a bad impression in people's mind but I doubt any Spider-Man movie could top Spider-Man 2. Which was almost perfect. Blazerdt47
Dude, sh!t yeah. J.K. Simmons is a freakin boss. No one could have been a better J. Jonah Jameson. Pefect casting. Also, I about sh!t myself when first heard his voice in Portal 2. Made me so happy. And that whole section is so funny.
Not to mention the fact that Tobey's movies were just larger in scope and destroyed box office records. The Amazing Spider-Man did no where near the amounts of the first trilogy. Blazerdt47What records did the Spiderman moives "destroy" ? I don't think it surpassed Titanic (1997) in any number, nor Lord of the Rings: ROTK (2003) I do know that Spider 3 (2006) had the world's highest budget, surpassing Titanic, but not with inflation adjusted.
I saw The Amazing Spider-Man and I thought it was pretty good but I like Tobey Maguire's Spider-Man alot more, the universe just feels more alive and fleshed put than Garfield's version. The cast was better also, J.K. Simmons FTW. Fun fact, the reason why they didn't have The Daily Bugle in The Amazing Spider-Man was because they could not find a worthy replacement for J.K. Simmons.
I know Spider-Man 3 left a bad impression in people's mind but I doubt any Spider-Man movie could top Spider-Man 2. Which was almost perfect. Blazerdt47
[QUOTE="Blazerdt47"] I saw The Amazing Spider-Man and I thought it was pretty good but I like Tobey Maguire's Spider-Man alot more, the universe just feels more alive and fleshed put than Garfield's version. The cast was better also, J.K. Simmons FTW. Fun fact, the reason why they didn't have The Daily Bugle in The Amazing Spider-Man was because they could not find a worthy replacement for J.K. Simmons.
I know Spider-Man 3 left a bad impression in people's mind but I doubt any Spider-Man movie could top Spider-Man 2. Which was almost perfect. the_bi99man
Dude, sh!t yeah. J.K. Simmons is a freakin boss. No one could have been a better J. Jonah Jameson. Pefect casting. Also, I about sh!t myself when first heard his voice in Portal 2. Made me so happy. And that whole section is so funny.
I honestly didn't know who J.K. Simmons was, but the way you guys talked about him I knew INSTANTLY that it would be the guy who was Peter Parkers boss in the office. I googled and it WAS HIM. He truly was an AMAZING character. Best guy in the Spiderman franchise, IMO.2002. I felt the new one was trying way too hard to show the chemistry between Peter and Stacy. There was more lovey dovey moments than action imo.
and the gwen stefani in the 2002 movie is 1000x hotter than the gwen stefani in this 2012 version (BY A LANDSLIDE!!!!)JustSignedUp
I'm not sure if you're trolling or not...
Not to mention the fact that Tobey's movies were just larger in scope and destroyed box office records. The Amazing Spider-Man did no where near the amounts of the first trilogy. Blazerdt47
Well, TASM released between Avengers and TDKR. All the hype were surrounding those. Sony chose a bad time to screen it imo. It still made good numbers though
Is it lame that I think the 2002 version is better because of the Bruce Campbell cameo? Screw it, I don't care, I'm saying it.
[QUOTE="Mozelleple112"]Oh I see. I didn't see the "rather" part. I was about to die of lols if some one though that Topher Grace was a jacked up bodybuilder. Makes sense now :lol: the_bi99man
haha. die of lols indeed. I thought for sure I was being trolled when I first read that Topher Grace had been cast as Venom. Then I saw the movie...
I don't see why the casting choice really mattered when Venom was a completely wasted character entirely. Main problem with Spiderman 3 it felt like it was the end and so Sam Raimi just thought I try to please all audiences and bring in everyone. It was just a pot of mashed up ideas that didn't really succeed. I liked Spider man 1 and 2 but I haven't seen the new one yet but I want to.Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment