Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Re-hashing the origin and green goblin story told in the recent Sam Raimi series
Why oh why?
it was the Lizard?
but from the trailer it looks like it's telling that story in an identical way to haw Raimi did the GG story
this might have looked decent. But it just looks like a case of "why bother" (why bother watching it I mean, I know there's at least 500 million reasons why they bothered making it)
No doubt it will make millions, and you can argue that hollywood needs to make these kinds of films to get the money and funding in order to make more worthwhile projects. But surely a semblance of an original idea wouldn't have hurt.
Take X Men First class as an example
why are people so obsessed with the fact that this is a remake/reboot/re-imagining? The last good Spider-Man film came out 8 years ago. The same amount of time that elapsed between the releases of Batman & Robin and Batman Begins.
and Spider-man was actually pretty good?
but that still leaves 5 years since Spider-Man 3 which was AWFUL (but also made a fuck-tonne of money), and 5 years is an age in Hollywood
But Butman Begins was a dramatically different re-imagining of how a Batman story could be told on screen.
I'm not getting that point of differentation between the last Spiderman series and this at the moment
that a reboot was entirely necessary to set the record straight.
The teaser looked gash but I thought this new one made the film look good and interesting.
Yeah it's a annoying we have to have the origin bit again but I'm hoping that'll be out the way in the first 40 mins and we get down to some decent superhero action. The villain is different so that's a start.
Also, it's Spider-Man, surely? :D
but am at work.
I absolutely love Spiderman, and thought that Spiderman 2 is one of the best superhero films made. I will cry if this one is bad.
Will probably see it anyway...
Rhys fucking Ifans
The CGI in the 2002 ones was a) terrible and b) overused. Seemed like even for fight scenes then you had to watch a crappy animated Spiderman bouncing around. I hate CGI, always prefer puppets and/or stuntmen.
(who now own Marvel). The original idea was to prevent movie studios letting the optioned Marvel characters to languish in development hell. So if a movie was not made within a agreed deadline, the rights would revert back to Marvel Comics who could sell the rights to a new studio. But the flipside is that if a studio continues making movies, they can hold the rights in perpituity. That's what I've read.
In this case, the rights to make Spider-Man movies are tied to the rights to make Ghost Rider films. So for every three Spider-Man films, we will have to suffer Nicholas Cage and his flaming skull.
As for the trailer - I'm concerned that it's so dark that you can't aee anything. Why do they do that?
It's why there was an entire Fantastic Four movie made that was never even going to be released, some years before the one they did release.
Seeing as both that I have seen were pretty wank? Is there a 3rd even worse film?
Emma Stone's sweater puppies.
Glad I'm not the only one who noticed.
But a pretty apt wise cracking Spiderman.
1) Parker is a dick
Empire gave it 3/5 but the review read very positively. The Guardian gave it 4/5.
Slightly more tempted after seeing that full, most recent trailer.
Funny too how all the film critics say that Raimi's flicks are pretty crap whereas about 4 years back I'm sure they all said they were the best superhero flicks ever?!
I'd rather watch a film about a spider bitten by a radioactive human, that slowly starts to pick up more and more human-habits (e.g reading the paper, crossing the road etc), but like most other humans has no obligation or desire to help anyone around him
Eurrrgh, what's that you're eating?
It's called a kebab, it's wonderful with 1000 island dressing-
Disgusting slob! ...eat your flies....