Since the 3 movies suck i imagine they want to start anew.
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="scorch-62"][QUOTE="Dylan_11"]No, Spiderman 3 was THAT bad.Dylan_11Hell, just look at how they butchered the villains.Butchered the villains, the protagonist ect. Mary Jane was always miscast in my mind as well. Kirsten Dunst is not attractive. Hahaha such a messed up world. For actors you only need talent and an average face. For actresses you need the whole package (body/face/skills).
Spider-man 3 was dead awful. If we were allowed to get a refund for that movie,I'msure a lot of uswould. That aside, I was looking forward to Spidey 4, but I'll just have to settle for the reboot now. I wonder what girl is going to play Mary Jane now.
So many people just can't see the brilliance that is Spider-Man 3, and as such it gets far too much undeserved hate. It's amazing just how underrated the film is. I personally feel it's on par with the previous movies, and it only gets better with each viewing.
[QUOTE="Zerocrossings"]
Since the 3 movies suck i imagine they want to start anew.
MrGeezer
Incorrect.
Raimi didn't get fired, he quit because he didn't like the direction that Sony was forcing him to take.
Ha, probablyrealised that what he was making was garbage.
Spiderman 3 was good, but I think that Eddie Brock was too small and too wimpy, when he lost his job in the comics, he started going wieght lifting and imagined he was strangeling spiderman everytime he lifted the pole up, he was driven somewhat insane, his wife left him, no newspaper would hire him everything was just hell for him.
In the movie however, he just went to church and asked god to kill peter parker. Thats it pretty much. And every single time venom talked to spiderman, he peeled his face back, every.single.time. And there was just too little of him, he just came in for 20 minutes in the end and got killed. Venom should also be pretty huge. And he should've licked Spiderman with his long tongue, he usually does that. Come to think of it, they didn't show much of his tongue at all.
[QUOTE="bobaban"] lol those were my thoughts in the theater. Also too much crying. If they had removed all that and Venom. The movie would have been good.AvistannNah, better venom. Remove Harry and Sandman If Sandman and Harry would be out and Venom would be improved, I wouldn't mind seeing Carnage as well. =P
They did mess up venom. He was way too camp. It should have been venom + sandman, no green goblin necessary. It was still a good movie though. Its supposed awfulness is exaggerated. Ninja-Hippo
Are you kidding me... Harry as the green goblin was put off a while and if anything venom or the sandman would go first.
I mean they should probably have done Venom and Carnage together with Topher as Carnage if they really wanted a double villian... Venom just felt rushed in that movie... Harry vs Topher was a good fight sequence imo.
Do not get me wrong though they could have made Topher a good venom if they followed up on how Eddie Brock bulked up and worked out alot after getting fired (which would have been amazing seeing Topher pump Iron) and I mean they could artificially give him some sort of muscle suit considering the "fat suits" they build some actors.
Atleast the Lizard is the rumored villian for the Reboot but I would like to have seen Raimi's Lizard later on as Conners was a reoccuring character.
I mean they should probably have done Venom and Carnage together with Topher as Carnage if they really wanted a double villian... Venom just felt rushed in that movie... Harry vs Topher was a good fight sequence imo.
Do not get me wrong though they could have made Topher a good venom if they followed up on how Eddie Brock bulked up and worked out alot after getting fired (which would have been amazing seeing Topher pump Iron) and I mean they could artificially give him some sort of muscle suit considering the "fat suits" they build some actors.
Banjo_Kongfooie
They should have introduced Eddie Brock in the first film, instead of throwing him into the third film and completely rushing his arc.
I am looking forward to this reboot. Tobey Maguire was good, but I think Andrew Garfield is a much better actor who could give the Peter Parker character more depth. I also like the new director. It may be a bit soon for a reboot, but I think this has potential.
This new guy is way too old to be playing High School Peter Parker...I am looking forward to this reboot. Tobey Maguire was good, but I think Andrew Garfield is a much better actor who could give the Peter Parker character more depth. I also like the new director. It may be a bit soon for a reboot, but I think this has potential.
Film-Guy
This new guy is way too old to be playing High School Peter Parker... Tobey McGuire was also 27 in the first Spider-Man film. This guy looks like he can be in high school.[QUOTE="Film-Guy"]
I am looking forward to this reboot. Tobey Maguire was good, but I think Andrew Garfield is a much better actor who could give the Peter Parker character more depth. I also like the new director. It may be a bit soon for a reboot, but I think this has potential.
blazinpuertoroc
[QUOTE="blazinpuertoroc"]This new guy is way too old to be playing High School Peter Parker... Tobey McGuire was also 27 in the first Spider-Man film. This guy looks like he can be in high school.[QUOTE="Film-Guy"]
I am looking forward to this reboot. Tobey Maguire was good, but I think Andrew Garfield is a much better actor who could give the Peter Parker character more depth. I also like the new director. It may be a bit soon for a reboot, but I think this has potential.
sammyjenkis898
Exactly. Most of the time they get older actors to play younger parts. Andrew Garfield has shown in Boy A, Imaginarium of doctor parnassus, and Red Riding trilogy that he is a very good actor. I still think Emile Hirsch would have been good though.
They did mess up venom. He was way too camp. It should have been venom + sandman, no green goblin necessary. It was still a good movie though. Its supposed awfulness is exaggerated. Ninja-Hippodisagree with the ending of spiderman 2. should have kept harry/green goblin and flint marko/sandman in spiderman 3 have the ending of [spoiler] eddie brock's transformation to venom at the church [/spoiler] and bring in carnage/ kassady for the 4th. only problem is sam doesnt like venom and I am assuming he doesnt like carnage either
The last spiderman movie came out in '02... sounds about time for a reboot.Baconbits2004
no the last spiderman movie came out in 2007.
disagree with the ending of spiderman 2. should have kept harry/green goblin and flint marko/sandman in spiderman 3 have the ending of [spoiler] eddie brock's transformation to venom at the church [/spoiler] and bring in carnage/ kassady for the 4th. only problem is sam doesnt like venom and I am assuming he doesnt like carnage eitherProbably because the only way to do Carnage justice would be to make Spiderman 4 an R rated movie. Carnage would not work in a PG-13 movie.[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]They did mess up venom. He was way too camp. It should have been venom + sandman, no green goblin necessary. It was still a good movie though. Its supposed awfulness is exaggerated. TheShadowLord07
[QUOTE="Paladin_King"]I agree that Spider-Man doesn't really need a reboot....at least, it certainly doesn't need one as badly as the X-Men franchise. That said, the last Spider-Man movie was pretty bad, especially compared to the first two movies. Not X-Men 3 bad, but bad. The dance/evil Peter musical sequence still haunts my dreams.Dylan_11
What is this? I don't even....
I don't think people understand that that was supposed to be funny. I thought it was pretty funny.
[QUOTE="Paladin_King"]I agree that Spider-Man doesn't really need a reboot....at least, it certainly doesn't need one as badly as the X-Men franchise. That said, the last Spider-Man movie was pretty bad, especially compared to the first two movies. Not X-Men 3 bad, but bad. The dance/evil Peter musical sequence still haunts my dreams.Dylan_11
What is this? I don't even....
my god, it is that bad. :|
I remember how awesome I thought that trailer was when it was released. It's still awesome. :(At least Spider Man 3 had an awesome trailer.:P
mitu123
[QUOTE="mitu123"]I remember how awesome I thought that trailer was when it was released. It's still awesome. :( I still watch it from time to time sometimes.:P It had me pumped back then. Also, nice sig.At least Spider Man 3 had an awesome trailer.:P
sammyjenkis898
Also, nice sig.mitu123
Thanks.
Also, that trailer reminded me of the god awful decision to make the Sandman the killer of Peter's uncle. Man, that was awful.
[QUOTE="Baconbits2004"]The last spiderman movie came out in '02... sounds about time for a reboot.MrBubbles59
no the last spiderman movie came out in 2007.
those don't count. =/Yes, it really was this bad. It was awful. A crime. A disgrace. An unpleasant violation of my innocence.nocoolnamejim
It really wasn't that bad. Y'know, sometimes I think that the hate for this movie started with a very small crowd. Then it just grew and grew until it became the hulking beast it is today. Like it suddenly became cool to hate on Spiderman 3. Everyone jumped on the bandwagon so to speak. I'm not saying that's you in particular nocoolnamejim, but I do think it is the case with many people.
I watched it in the cinema when it was out - I quite liked it - the first film is the best, though, without a doubt. :)
[QUOTE="Dylan_11"]
[QUOTE="Paladin_King"]I agree that Spider-Man doesn't really need a reboot....at least, it certainly doesn't need one as badly as the X-Men franchise. That said, the last Spider-Man movie was pretty bad, especially compared to the first two movies. Not X-Men 3 bad, but bad. The dance/evil Peter musical sequence still haunts my dreams.T_REX305
What is this? I don't even....
my god, it is that bad. :|
someone needs to go to jail for this.............give them life in the hole for this[QUOTE="T_REX305"]
[QUOTE="Dylan_11"]
What is this? I don't even....
x8VXU6
my god, it is that bad. :|
someone needs to go to jail for this.............give them life in the hole for thisSam Raimi was being cheesy on purpose when he did this.. he wasn't being serious..
someone needs to go to jail for this.............give them life in the hole for this[QUOTE="x8VXU6"]
[QUOTE="T_REX305"]
my god, it is that bad. :|
Afrojitsu
Sam Raimi was being cheesy on purpose when he did this.. he wasn't being serious..
Care to provide a link confirming that he intended to be cheesy and that he wanted this part in the film?[QUOTE="Afrojitsu"][QUOTE="x8VXU6"]someone needs to go to jail for this.............give them life in the hole for this
Dylan_11
Sam Raimi was being cheesy on purpose when he did this.. he wasn't being serious..
Care to provide a link confirming that he intended to be cheesy and that he wanted this part in the film?It's just who Sam Raimi is. I've seen several of his movies and read a book by Bruce Campbell which talked a lot about him. You can see elements of it in all the Spider-Man movies, like in the second when when Doctor Octopus is under surgery and his mechanical arms go whack-o.
Care to provide a link confirming that he intended to be cheesy and that he wanted this part in the film?[QUOTE="Dylan_11"][QUOTE="Afrojitsu"]
Sam Raimi was being cheesy on purpose when he did this.. he wasn't being serious..
Afrojitsu
It's just who Sam Raimi is. I've seen several of his movies and read a book by Bruce Campbell which talked a lot about him. You can see elements of it in all the Spider-Man movies, like in the second when when Doctor Octopus is under surgery and his mechanical arms go whack-o.
So in other words you are just assuming he meant it to be cheesy. So don't make it seem like you know ;) At least the arms going whacko in the second movie made sense within the realm of the character. Peter Parker dancing up and down the streets like a crazy person is just simply out of character.Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment