Spider Man 2

[Frazod]

Meh. I preferred the Tobey Maguire/Kirsten Dunst movies. Maybe not the third one, but definitely the first two.

These reboots are getting ridiculous.

[Imon Yourside]

Originally Posted by frazod

Meh. I preferred the Tobey Maguire/Kirsten Dunst movies. Maybe not the third one, but definitely the first two.

These reboots are getting ridiculous.

Me too, dumbass decision to reboot them.

[Aries Walker]

Nice trailer. It still looks like it will stink.

Also, Jamie Foxx looks ridiculous in the makeup.

[007]

Audience didn't seem too impressed. usually you would hear a bunch of cheering during a comic con trailer.

Doesn't look very good at all.

[Deberg_1990]

Originally Posted by Guru

Audience didn't seem too impressed. usually you would hear a bunch of cheering during a comic con trailer.

I honestly think its because we are reaching a point of diminishing returns with Spider-Man. It's become so commonplace, it's become rather boring and blah.

[Frazod]

They'll make a new one starring Justin Bieber in 2017.

[-King-]

By the way, is there a spiderman villain that isn't basically a science experiment gone wrong?

[Sassy Squatch]

Originally Posted by -King-

By the way, is there a spiderman villain that isn't basically a science experiment gone wrong?

I think Rhino is going to be in a robot suit or something. If they are going the sinister six route with movies 3 and 4 they better get Alfred Molina as Doc Rock again. He was so ****ing perfect.

[Mr. Laz]

Originally Posted by -King-

By the way, is there a spiderman villain that isn't basically a science experiment gone wrong?

not really

I think the Rhino is an experiment too


venom is more of an alien than an experiment though

[Aries Walker]

To be fair, most of Spider-Man's major villains were created in the 60's, when comic book characters weren't exactly nuanced. On the other hand, that same decade gave us Loki, Galactus, Kingpin, Magneto, Juggernaut, Mandarin, Ultron, and Dr. Doom. So, yeah, for being the story of a science wunderkind, Spider-Man is unusually anti-science in this regard.

[Anyong Bluth]

Originally Posted by KILLER_CLOWN

Me too, dumbass decision to reboot them.

They are contractually obligated to do a movie in x amount of time otherwise the rights to Spidey revert back to Marvel. Sony had to really fast track the last movie because the deadline was quickly approaching. I'm not sure of the language, because obviously they can't expect to constantly churn out flicks and not expect it to get tired and diminish expected box office numbers- my guess is its like 7- 10 years max between movies or they lose the rights- which many fanboys would love if Marvel got them back so the character could be used without restriction in the Marvel movies

[Aries Walker]

Originally Posted by Anyong Bluth

They are contractually obligated to do a movie in x amount of time otherwise the rights to Spidey revert back to Marvel. Sony had to really fast track the last movie because the deadline was quickly approaching. I'm not sure of the language, because obviously they can't expect to constantly churn out flicks and not expect it to get tired and diminish expected box office numbers- my guess is its like 7- 10 years max between movies or they lose the rights- which many fanboys would love if Marvel got them back so the character could be used without restriction in the Marvel movies

They could have done Spider-Man 4, though, but they knew they'd have to back the money truck up to just about every actor there, and eventually they'd start losing them.

[ThaVirus]

I think Spider-Man 2 was the best superhero film ever prior to 2008.

[Javabean]

Originally Posted by ThaVirus

I think Spider-Man 2 was the best superhero film ever prior to 2008.

Agreed.

Some have said that the first X-Men movie ushered in the current superhero movie generation, but that first X-Men movie took a lot of liberties with its characters. The first two Spider-Man movies were the first movies to stay true to the character and setting and perform exceptionally well at the box office since the original Superman movies.

I don't know if people really appreciate how groundbreaking that was for the genre -- they were coming off an era of bat nipples and black leather and cheesy villains, and then Raimi gave us the actual Spider-Man from the comic books, and it became the first movie ever to gross over $100 million on its opening weekend. I doubt Marvel would have given us a string of decent to great comic book movies without that. I even question whether Nolan would've been allowed to give us a serious interpretation of Batman.

Yeah, the new movie obviously had better CGI and overall it was decent, but it departed from the actual comics -- even from the Ultimate version -- for no apparent reason. If the second continues down the same path and deviates further, they might as well bring in Joel Schumacher for the third one.

[Anyong Bluth]

Originally Posted by Aries Walker

Here's the problem, though: he's not a dark character. He's a trickster, a fast-talking and flag-waving good guy saving the world while taking care of his elderly aunt. He tries to be a good role model, wears bright colors, and is a teacher by day. He struggles with guilt and sacrifice and doing the right thing, but he's not a gloomy or shadowy guy, like Batman, Daredevil, or Punisher. By trying to make him (and Superman, because they did this same thing in Man of Steel) into a dark, gritty, Batman-ish character, they're losing who he is.

The ones who are doing it right are (no surprise here) the makers of Captain America, and to a lesser extent the rest of the Avengers movies. They kept the characters, and in some cases even made them more interesting, but didn't go all tortured and Chris Nolan.

And by the way, the rest of the world preferred Spider-Man and especially Spider-Man 2 than Amazing Spider-Man. We'll see if Amazing Spider-Man 2 can beat their 89 and 93 percent scores on Rotten Tomatoes, for example.

I don't think the last one was "darker" per se at least not like Nolan's Batman, just a bit more gritty and I know I'm biased because I never much cared for Tobey as Spiderman, and do like Garfield as Parker so far.

The last one wasn't tremendous, but I enjoyed it. I think I also just liked the film's pacing a lot more than early 2000's trilogy. Those seemed to plod along and had some extended boring segments for my liking.

Everyone will have their own opinion, so its not like there isn't justifiable criticism for any of the last 4 Spidey films.