And she was handled so well in DKR. Weird.

Bats had no idea who she was.

Because, as I said, Nolan shits all over the source material.

And yet you claim that its not a big deal to disregard it.

Strange.

Yeah it's not a big deal apparently because The Dark Knight is the highest grossing film ever. Nolan's films were the complete character and source assassination and yet you're discreditting the Spiderman franchise due to such a small and pointless source material change like web-wrists versus web-shooters. That's like me saying Nolan's films are shit because he makes Batman expose his eyes and wear makeup instead of wearing high tech lenses like he's supposed to ROFL. Virtually everything about Nolan's films goes against source material down to how the character flat out responds and you hardly hear a peep about it.

Pretty sure that when I stopped buying them they were no more than 25 cents.

ASM isn't anywhere near closer to the comics than the first movies. It has Gwen instead of Mary Jane, and his web-shooters are mechanical; otherwise, it's miles off. Read what I wrote up above for why, and there's more besides.

This. Him getting web shooting powers is much more believable than him making a gadget that shoots out webs.

.

Dark Knight Rises WAS a letdown, Tom Hardy aside.

It was too much of a departure from the characters.

This Nolanverse Batman started off strong, but the idea that Bruce would just stop being Batman for eight years is way out of left field, and then the whole "Peace, Im out" at the end when he fakes his own death and retires with the bitch that set him up to be killed was another WTF moment.

Batman fans know that Bruce IS Batman. He is that guy. The billionaire playboy is the façade. No way he just stops being that pissed off rage fuelled vigilante.

If Nolan didn't want to do CGI, he shouldn't have done Bane. No venom present whatsoever. The mask he wears is supposed to be a painkiller?

Odd that the "World's Greatest Detective" never once targeted that mask in their first fight. It should've been flashing like the vulnerable area of a boss in an arcade game.

In the books Batman broke Bane because he was utterly exhausted when they finally clashed. Bane released everyone and his brother from Arkham and after Bats wore himself down for weeks on end bringing them all back, then Bane attacked and wiped the floor with him.

In Nolan's film, Bats is apparently not smart enough to target the mask, and too old and washed up to fight him one on one. But hey, get thrown in a hole with a displaced vertebrae, get a nice crunches and pullups montage, and Bats is able to come back and own Bane in a beautiful homage to Rocky 3.

You know what bothered me about The Dark Knight Rises? That magic knee brace band thing that changes him from limping cripple to superhero? Billion dollar market completely ignored...

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/JU9Uwhjlog8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I was always a fan of Spider-man having web shooters due to biological changes. I was never a fan of the "oh shit I just ran out of webbing mid-fight" plot device.

DKR just stretched my suspension of disbelief too far... Catwoman was completely unnecessary and unbelievable, the entire police force trapped underground, that goofy ass prison with everyone dressed in the same overly clean rags, Scarecrow running some silly, stupid court, Batman being nearly crippled but coming back in few short weeks, months?

It wasnt even about them not sticking with canon on Bane, just too much other unbelievable stuff... what made the other two so great was, atleast within the world Nolan created, everything was pretty believable... this one just took it all too far, it was a farce.

In retrospect, nothing you say I can really not agree with, except I didn't think Catwoman was an unnecessary character anymore than any other supporting role you find in tons of movies. That's just the part of movies. But, let's be real, the possibility of and fervored expectations simply meant TDK wasn't ever going to realistically be matched- let alone topped.

Not to discredit Nolan, but I think if you're setting out to do a trilogy, unless you have the entire story committed to script or from source material, it's just not going to hold up when you approach it by writing them individually and then shooting them. No different than the Matrix movies.

It's just really tough to switch gears from an episodic film and then create a story arc that's quality while making sure you have cohesion throughout, yet also having a film stand On its own.

Would it have changed things for the worse if the three Nolan Batman films were all one story spread out over 3 movies? i.e. The Hobbit. Would it have made it better?

I simply have to disagree about Selena Kyle, it was just too much... in this world, not only is there a badass richest man in the world who goes around doing nearly impossible things, but now theres a female criminal who's just as capable?... it was COMPLETELY unnecessary IMO, it added nothing and subtracted everything.

It was nothing more than a cheap attempt at garnering/appeasing more female viewers IMO, all it did was divert attention from the fact that Nolan apparently wasnt sure how to fill two and a half hours with what Bruce Wayne is doing, and even with her needless character he still cheats us of any real Batman action by belaboring the totally ridiculous prison sequence.

Nolan had a nearly limitless amount of source material to draw a better story from, I'll tell you exactly how this movie felt... Blade III... dry, stale and paint by numbers, NOTHING that was cool about the first two was included in the last one.

If Nolan has ever made a bad movie, THIS was it.

They made Peter Parker less nerdy. It was definately an "emo ish" type of makeover.

I think it stayed true to Nolan's vision of his character and his story arc. Does an artist always have to stick closely to his original source material? Shouldn't he be allowed some flexibility? Every medium is different.

THIS... they tried too hard to make him like Batman, instead of nerdy/snarky he just came off like a hipster dick, Spiderman isnt supposed to be "dark", thats where Raimi REALLY failed in #III (what an awful movie, a typical #3) that was never his thing no matter how hard the director/writers wanted it to be so.

Incidentally, that seems to be a thing. They tried to angsty-darken up Superman and - in that terrible pilot - Wonder Woman as well. All three characters wear bright red and blue, and their character's increased darkness was reflected in their costumes, which all became maroon and navy.

The one flag-colored character that has not gotten that treatment as of late? Captain America, and his movies are critical and popular home runs. Coincidence?

Guess it says to not be jaded and dark you've literally got to be a throwback to someone that was a contemporary of the early to midcentury time period from the last century - 20s, 30s, 40s.

Basically, most of the people he first meets in the present find him hokey, and you see that country versus city folk interaction to start with.

So, now that Cap's suit is a much darker red and blue for this next movie, does that mean we should expect his character will fall more in line with the updated versions of the other superheroes?

Not trying to answer for Aries, but if my reading of the new plot is close, no... CA wont be darker, but the world around him WILL be.

The black and white, good and evil world of the 40's-50's is gone... now it'll be a million shades of grey in this murky new world, with Cap as the moral holdout making the tough, but clearcut decisions.

Nothing about Nolan's films was Batman to me. They're largely good movies but not good Batman movies. Nothing about Nolan's Batman had any of the beats that fundamentally makes the character who he is. The first two minutes of Sherlock Holmes 2 was more like Batman than all three of Nolan's films combined.

What's disturbing is that this is the direction DC wants to go with its live action depictions: completely shit on the character for the sake of being darker and grittier because it's more "realistic". Superheroes aren't ****ing realistic.. that's the whole point. They did the same exact thing to Superman in Man of Steel and Ollie in Arrow.

You can argue around it I'm sure, but THEE most comic book worthy Batman scene EVER put on film was Batman in the parking garage, I will swear on it to my dying day.

Crashing the deal in the Batmobile amongst all of the fakes, whipping ass, cutting into the side of the van with his equipment, slamming off it then jumping onto and crushing the hood?... man, jumping down onto then crushing the hood? THAT was Batman straight from your favorite childhood comic.

And I also think you're missing the best part about Batman... within that world he ISNT so unbelieveable, in fact, you can almost imagine this guy as an American 20-30 years down the road... the technology for so much of it alone makes it almost believable.

Beating up bad guys and punching them in the face is actually the last thing I would think about when I think of Batman. His prowess as a fighter is the least important aspect of the character. Also the whole "well let's make it 'realistic' because it's more believable" is asinine. As if every story needs to be "believable" in order to be a good story. Shitting all over it for the sake of "realism" TAKES AWAY from it more than it adds.. if it adds anything at all.

Jeeez, such a snotty ass, no fun at all reply for a subject so multi-interpretable... take your views and have fun with them within your own mind.

For me, when Batman kicks criminal ass in the parking garage, uses the Bat tools to try and break in, grimaces desperately while doing so, gets shook... but then ultimately crashes onto the hood just as they thought they had gotten away was as good as it will EVER get... it was EXACTLY like the darker interpretations come to life.

THAT was a comic book come to life, save the personal BS for someone who's still in their 20's - early 30's.

It's actually incredible ironic that for the sake of "realism," Nolan focuses on the most childish aspect and appeal of the character (cool toys, beating down bad guys, ninjas, etc).

There's really only two ways Batman can be written in order to do it any justice. That's either the gritty/noir/detective/crime aspect of him ala The Long Halloween/Hush or the super cool superhero/badass James Bond version ala Batman RIP/Batman INC. Neither of which has any of the live action stuff have shown.

Batman is the World's Greatest Detective. He is nothing if not that. The focus should be on his deductive skills and intellect. Batman's gimmick is that he is prepared for every single eventuality and situation. Next would be his interpersonal relationships as it relates to him being a recluse for the sake of the greater good as he sees it. Next would be Batman and his allies as legacy characters. The whole 10-year old sidekick makes complete sense. The whole "well having a 10 year old going up against guys with guns is not realistic" is reeruned because that's not the point. Having a grown man dressed up as a giant bat and punching people with guns and without killing is not realistic either. This is the boy who died in him the night his parents got murdered. This is the childhood Bruce always wanted to have but was denied. The idea of Robin is to remind Bruce of his humanity and purpose so that he doesn't go over the edge. Robin should be portrayed as an apprentice, not entirely a field-combatant/partner. In the comics the first Robin grows up to to become Nightwing and later takes over as Batman with Bruce's son being his Robin -- IMO the BEST period of Batman to date, reversing the roles with a fun, laid back Batman countered with an uptight, violent and stuck up Robin.

The legacy aspect is what they should capitalize. Audiences love continuity, it's as simple as that. That's how I'd do it -- a couple movies with Ben as Batman and build up Robin/Nightwing. Then have Batman ****ing DIE in grand fashion in a Justice League movie. Then continue the franchise/continuity with Nightwing taking over (learning to become Batman without becoming Bruce, thus showing us what really makes Batman who he is -- goldmine of a concept needed to be mined here). Then perhaps end with Bruce coming back with two mother****ing Batmen on the screen to blow everyone's minds wide open (ala Rock of Ages/Final Crisis, Darkseid seemingly kills Bruce but really sends him lost across all of space and time -- how's THAT for scifi?).

Eat your damn cereal and come home from the snow sled hill when it gets dark, for a warm dinner, kiddo.

Jeeezzz... my interpretation and no other you assholes!

Pssst, its a COMIC BOOK MOVIE.

Beats me, but we can meet back here after April 4 to discuss it.

If this measures up to the Spider-Man 2 game of the Raimi era, Ill be pretty happy.

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/DlM2CWNTQ84" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Can't wait.

I feel like I've seen the entire movie already....

I like this Spiderman/Parker better but I'm skeptical about the movie itself.

Reminds me of S3 where they just tried to do too much...

Supposedly Electro is the only big part villain in the movie while the rest are smaller parts setting them up for future movies.

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/uLvQMxZmNPY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Early reviews are out. Seems to be mostly positive. Nothing amazing, but not bad either. Sort of like the first film.


http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_.../?nopopup=true

Kinda surprised at this trailer, thought they'd been trying to hide this part of it. Potentially hugely spoilery:

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/ABNDaHKVn9o?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/XDurTxrVs7I" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Not watching this, but Sony is really giving this movie a huge push. Almost trying too hard. I feel like I've seen the whole movie already.
Posted via Mobile Device

Eh.

There's almost a sense of desperation to it.

I still have zero interest in seeing it, I was just a little surprised with the trailer.

I wish all the movie companies with Marvel character would just let the licenses go back to Marvel. I want competent filmmakers doing Spiderman and Fantastic Four films. The XMen franchise is looking better with the reboot but it would be even better with the rest of the Marvel universe under one umbrella.

Yea, im wondering if it was tracking low or something? I mean, im sure it will make alot of money, but its not like people are clamoring to see it or anything. Not that i can tell.

Almost a perfunctory action to go see it.

I might see spiderman, it's almost as if it's the same old burned out bs.

This can't be quoted enough.

I enjoyed this one quite a bit. We all know it's just a money grab and likely nowhere near as good as it could be if it were in Marvel's hands, but... What can ya do?

Anyway, the cast did a great job, specifically Garfield, who I thought really settled into the Spidey role, the chick that plays Gwen, the dude that played Harry Osborn, and Jamie Foxx.

The action scenes were ****ing AMAZING. They've really nailed the way Spider-Man moves and also his little quips in battle in this new franchise.



I still think Spider-Man 2 is one of the best superhero movies ever, while the Raimi trilogy as a whole was pretty good but there are certain elements of this new franchise that I enjoy. Don't expect anything revolutionary from this one; just turn your brain off and enjoy.

Oh, yeah. I'm pretty easy to please but a couple negatives for me:

I don't think there's any chance of that, re: "If this ends up being one of the better blockbusters this summer, I'll be pretty disappointed."

Spider Man 2
 

I hope you're right. I watched Captain America 2 recently and enjoyed that one about the same as Spider-Man 2.

I think X Men will probably be around the same level as Cap and Spidey so I'm putting all my summer eggs in the Godzilla basket. That movie looks awesome.

Winter Soldier was great. If Spider Man 2 is on that level I'll be greatly shocked. Not that I ever plan to see it.

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is my dark horse this summer. I think Guardians of the Galaxy could be really cool, too, but I'm not convinced they're going to be able to convince people to actually go to the theater to see something that looks that crazy. It's pretty far outside the safe, cookie-cutter Hollywood blockbuster formula, at least in appearance. I hope it does well.

The biggest movie of the year will probably be the next Transformers sequel. :(

Some big movies later in the year. Gone Girl will probably be huge. I would say Interstellar is the one I'm looking forward to the most, but it's not here until November 7th.

Winter Soldier was slightly better than I expected, and I enjoyed it even though I've felt it's yet to hit it's stride with getting the character established. I'm not explaining it well, but I'm eager to see where they go with it in 3.

As for Spidey 2- I guess I'm in the minority that liked the 1st, and Toby just never jived with me as an actor for that role, and I completely prefer Garfield regardless of one liking the Raimi trilogy.

I'm crossing my fingers that Dawn of the PotA can match the 1st, but that's a heavy order. Even though Franco isn't back - except maybe in a small cameo that's been rumored, I like the cast they brought in for the 2nd part of the series.

I had zero opinion about GotG since I wasn't familiar with it prior to the movie going into production. From the clips, trailers, and bits and pieces trickling out, I'm actually eagerly awaiting to see this once it opens. Pratt and Del Toro look great so far in the limited stuff they've put out. I hope I'm not disappointed given my recent interest.

I'm sure Transformers will rake in it's tons of cash. I'm cool with bringing in the new cast. Wahlberg doesn't bother me like he does for some.
The plot line based on the trailers doesn't seem nearly as interesting as #3, but this is totally the type of movie meant to be seen on the bigscreen. I'm holding out hope that the rumors are true and they decided to cut the campy stuff and this one will be grittier / skewed more towards an adult audience?

Sony is actually expecting it to do well. It's faired better than Captain America 2 in it's limited international release 1st weekend. I believe $46 million in very limited release of 15 countries. Estimates for the US is at about $100 million for the 1st weekend.

The studio head at Sony said they're very please and aiming for a billion at the box office. Seems a bit high- unless they have a huge number of IMAX / 3D theaters where they can really rake in the $$$ due to ticket cost. They'll virtually unchallenged for 2 weeks before Godzilla drops, and then X Men comes out and that will likely be it's 1st competition for entertainment dollars.

As for X Men- it just looks too awesome! I'm probably only setting myself up for disappointment only because my desire to see it so it will fall prey to unreasonable expectations. I'm trying to be reasonable but damn it looks awesome.
Part of my worry stems from pressure being put on Singer to trim down his theatrical cut because the studio obviously wanted to squeeze as many showing in per day as possible. I know for example an entire action sequence of roughly 20-25 minutes was cut where they have to rescue one of the mutants, I won't name, held captive in the mansion that has been taken over and turned into a sentinel base.

Also curious as to who the 4 secret Mutant cameos being kept under wraps will be?

Yeah, I thought Winter Soldier was a legitimately good movie. Probably much better than Spider-Man in technical terms, but the enjoyment I got from both movies was about on the same level. That could be due to the fact that Spider-Man is my favorite superhero. Who knows..

But yeah, you're right. I had totally forgot about Dawn of the Apes and Transformers! I know everyone here hates the Transformers flicks but I LOVE them and this one looks to be pretty good. I also LOVED Rise of the Apes so my hopes are up big time for this next installment. I can deal with no Franco if they give Oldman the chance to carry the movie.

Usually my wife will see a preview for a comicbook movie and agree to go to it with me. She saw the preview for "Guardians of the Galaxy" and responded with....what the hell was that shit? Looks like I'll be going by myself.

Oldman is Oldman- can't think of a flick he's in I dislike.
Don't sleep on Jason Clarke, as I believe he's got a fairly large role in the movie too. He's by far the best actor in the business that literally NO ONE talks about! Also a favorite of mine who just so happens to be in a ton of stuff that qualify as some of my favorite shows, movies, and series.

Figured I Bump this since it opened tonight. Anyone going to see it this weekend?

Just saw it. It was decent I guess. Sort of just going through the motions though.

It's too bad because I really like this cast. Garfield and Stone especially. Even though Electro is advertised as the main villain, you could remove him from the film and it wouldn't have any effect on the plot as a whole. He was mainly just there to have a couple of action set pieces and extend the runtime by 30 minutes.

If anything this film felt a lot like Raimi's Spider Man 3. It was a little too overstuffed with plot and trying to set things n motion for the next film.

Not bad, not good, not great. Just OK.

Some stuff I didn't really buy into. Didn't like the whole ending sequence. But I thought Garfield was fine as Spidey and Jamie Foxx as Electro should've gotten way much more film time.

Also, I could have been wrong, but:

I thought it was real good. But the people I went with brought a water bottle of vodka and I drank a lot of that during the movie. Don't know if that played a role or not... But I wasn't really a fan of the first one.

Also, a compliant........the entire Spidey universe feels awfully small. Everything begins and ends with Oscorp. Everyone either works for them or is connected somehow. Then, it all hinges on the coincidence of Peter getting bit by his fathers spiders? Doesn't make a whole lot of sense?

This movie is getting 1 to 1 and 1/2 stars. Already figured it for a DVD film-should be there soon. Maybe spidey 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 will be better?

55% on Rotten Tomatoes, 37% among 'Top Critics'. From what I've been hearing, Garfield, Dehaan, and Stone give great performances in a mediocre movie.

It wasn't a good sign when Jimmy Fallon said to Jamie Foxx that they should talk about the movie, and Foxx replied, "Aww, do we have to? I was having fun here."

I really have little interest in seeing this, but a buddy took his kids to see it in the new AMC Prime theater, and he said it made the whole thing worth it.

He's probably pissed because his screen time got major trim?

I actually thought he was decent. Didn't care much for his dorky persona as Maxx, but Electro was pretty sweet.
Posted via Mobile Device

You could make the same case with Superman and Lexcorp for the most part.

I'd like to see them be adventurous enough at some point to take a stab at coming up with an original villain.
Not everything has to rehash as if the comics are the requisite source for any good story.

The comics are spun off in 1000 directions and free to introduce and create as they please.

Fans are giving it a 70+ on there though.

I liked it, about as much as the first Amazing Spiderman. Yeah it has its flaws, but I got my money's worth.

Other movies that rated higher on Rotten Tomatoes: Spider-Man 3, X-Men 3, Superman Returns.

One critic called Amazing Spider-Man 2 "the Batman and Robin of the Spidey series."

Ouch.

So in other words, it blows... just like the first one.

Moreso, apparently.

I read a funny article on Cracked.com (god bless that site, LOVE 'em) that basically said you know a superhero franchise has jumped the shark when they try to pack too many villains into one movie.

It means they didn't have a strong enough story for one villain, so they just try to dazzle everyone with multiple bullshiters... I hated the last one anyway, Spiderman was never supposed to be "dark and gritty".

I'd disagree with any of those being better movies. Seriously, even with it's flaws, this is a better movie by far. I'm sure that there are some that don't or won't care for it, but it's still not the disaster those other 4 mentioned above are.