138 réponses à ce sujet

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

Anyone seen this yet, it just came out today, I'm not going to see it till next week but I was wondering if it was any good.

[CybAnt1]

Looks very interesting, I haven't seen it, but the new and different Peter Parker-Harry Osborne relationship looks ... interestingly different. Plus their decision to dump Mary Jane as LI and make Gwen Stacy the series LI ... make Spidey once again need artificial web shooters ... etc, etc. 

 

BTW, I really loved the first Spider-Man 2, because in it Aunt Mae discusses what is so valuable about Spider-Man, which in a way is a metacommentary on the way hero stories matter in general. 

 

 

MHO, that is some kick ass writing, and really reminded me of Joseph Campbell, even if it was coming from the lips of Aunt Mae. 

 

The real point of hero stories, whether we just watch them, or take part in them, is to remember we can be heroes, too (even without spider powers or enchanted swords) in our own ways, and make differences in other peoples' lives, too. Heroes bring out the best in all of us. 

 

"They are a good people, Kal-El. They wish to be! They merely lack the light to show them the way." Or as was most recently put:

"In time, they will race behind you. Some will stumble, some will fall. But in time, they will join you in the light". 

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

She wasn't dumped, she's going to be in Spider-man 3,

Spoiler

you do know what happens to Gwen Stacy?

[CybAnt1]

She wasn't dumped, she's going to be in Spider-man 3,

Spoiler

you do know what happens to Gwen Stacy?

 

Know? I've probably been reading comic books (or was in the past, anyway) for a lot longer than most people here. 

 

Oh yes, it's practically a milestone of comic book history. 

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

I just wonder though will Shailene Woodley still have the part.

[EarthboundNess]

As a big fan of the reboot, I'm looking forward to it, I'll see it in maybe about a week or so.

 

Honestly though, it'll have a tough time impressing me after recently watching Winter Soldier. 

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

While I enjoyed the Winter Soldier I don't think it was as good as everyone is making it out to be, Iron Man 3 was better tbh.

[Zanallen]

I haven't seen it yet, but I have a feeling that it is going to be overly cluttered. There is absolutely no need for three villains.

[AventuroLegendary]

I have fond memories of watching the original series as a kid and becoming a fan. Video games, T-shirts, posters, I had lots of Spidey things. The movie captured the spirit of "the superhero" well, in my opinion.

 

I might get around to watching this reboot.

 

Spoiler

And I know about Gwen's "Doomed by Canon" status :|

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Sorry. I prefer good old loser Spiderman!

[CybAnt1]

Gwen Stacy ... spoilers follow. 

 

Spoiler

Yes, it is interesting that in the first movie of the first series with Tobey Maguire, the "Mary Jane on the bridge with the Green Goblin" scene is almost exactly like the one where Gwen dies in the comics. Except that Spidey saves MJ. 

 

I also think it's interesting that Gwen appears in the 3rd movie of that series (which apparently also ended it), but mostly so Tobey has somebody to make MJ jealous of.

 

If they are setting up MJ to reappear in the reboot, I wonder if it will be after they 'canonically' kill off Gwen, or allow it to become a love triangle.

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

I can answer that if you want, someone let a spoiler slip to me last night, it it was pretty much what I thought. As long as there is no Emo Spider-man in Spider-man 3

[TheChris92]

To me, Raimi's first two films stands above most comic-book-based movies, alongside his own original feature film Darkman -- Conveying a very human story with pretty special effects, and emotionally powerful acting from Tobey Macquire as an intriguing iteration of Spider-Man/Peter Parker. Not to mention the unforgettable performance from J. K. Simmons, the complexity of Doc Ock & Willem Dafoe carrying that awesome charisma of his as Osborn. I honestly don't care whether Spider-Man can't shoot web out of his hands like an actual Spider or not. It's superficial to the overarching story. Heck the first two films at least took the liberty of shortening the number of villains to a minimum, instead of getting distracted with too many subplots that ultimately don't lead anywhere. Andrew Garfield's eccentric disposition and repeated stuttering like a broken MP3 becomes annoying in the long run, but Emma Stone was great in the first film. To me, she was one of the good things about that one film telling the same story again with different actors.

[2Pac]

Am i the only one who misses tobey maguire as spiderman? probably. Anyways Can't wait for this movie I loved the first one i just hope the second doesn't flop.

[TheClonesLegacy]

@Chris

Well yeah dude, because Emma was playing Gwen. Whereas Dunst was playing a composite of Peters various love interests, with none of the personality MJ has.

That and it's Emma Stone.

Spoiler

*Wolf Whistle*

 

@Luna

Sorry dude, but Maguire can't act.

Say what you will about Garfields Stuttering, at least he doesn't Mumble his lines 24/7

[2Pac]

@Luna

Sorry dude, but Maguire can't act.

Say what you will about Garfields Stuttering, at least he doesn't Mumble his lines 24/7

I thought he was good in brothers and the great gatsby.

[TheChris92]

I'm aware that people aren't exactly welcome to Macguire's take on Spider-Man but saying he can't act is just ludicrous. The scene between a dying Uncle Ben and a heart-broken Parker was nailed by Macquire & Cliff Robertson. He has a sense of dramatic effect not easily captured by most. Both Kirsten Dunst & Emma Stone are excellent actresses -- The main difference here being that Stone's character oozes with more confidence, and TAS takes time enough to build upon that relationship -- Her flippant, energetic nature she places in most of her characters is quite charming. I do think, however, that the first two films did a decent job of combining a human story with pretty special effects, and then one can argue about how much it is nothing like the 500 different interations of Spider-Man written in comic books and it would mean precisely as much. As a film, they were well-made, well-directed, well-acted. I was immensely impressed, mostly by Raimi's Spider-Man 2 which is rare with sequels for me. I don't always care too much about them in relations to film.

[TheClonesLegacy]

He just read the lines flat, Andrew had a lot more personality in his delivery.

And in Mary Janes case, her character was neutered and flat in the Raimi films, Why else do you think she's one of the biggest complaints from the whole trilogy?

This has nothing to do with how the movies don't compare to my interpretation of Spider-man and his supporting cast, that's better saved until Marvel gives me a job.

But when you break it down, MJ is meant to be fun and flirty, a party girl, a successful supermodel. In the films she's just boring.

And considering Raimi had a more Silver-age mentality going into the films, that's inexcusable.

[TheChris92]

He just read the lines flat, Andrew had a lot more personality in his delivery.

If that's the case he put some damn fine decadent effort into his 'reading' then. Perhaps Garfield's eccentric frat-boy personality appeals to most people in 2014 but I find him as obnoxious as Shia Le-Beef.
 
 
 

This has nothing to do with how the movies don't compare to my interpretation of Spider-man and his supporting cast, that's better saved until Marvel gives me a job.
But when you break it down, MJ is meant to be fun and flirty, a party girl, a successful supermodel. In the films she's just boring.

Could have sworn you just contradicted yourself there. Sure, let's agree she wasn't interesting in the first film, given how little effort was spent on why Parker is seeing or even attracted to this character. Beyond that I found nothing was wrong. The major complaints against the films are due to how unfaithful they were to the source material, but I didn't really give that much thought since the only thing I know of Spider-Man is the Animated Series. So judging it as a movie-nut, who works with films, they were good, right up until the 3rd one.

[TheClonesLegacy]

I contradicted myself by stating how Stan Lee wrote the character? Not to mention MJ acted exactly as I described in the 90s animated series too.

Granted Gwen has never been the snobby Tsundere she was originally in the comics, but The Webb movies seem to be more based on the Ultimate Spider-man Comics and the Spectacular Spider-man TV series then Stans original works.

 

It's hard for me to argue this, seeing as I like both movies. It's not like Iron Man 3 where I can just trash it until it cries momma. I like the Raimi Trilogy, hell, I don't even hate 3 as much as other people do, in fact I may love all 3 of them at some level, and I like The Amazing Spiderman, and I look forward to the new one.

Both films' do alot right, and quite a few things wrong.

But in the end, it's what fits your mold of Spidey the best. Amazing is just more in line with how I see the character.

[Raizo]

I just wonder though will Shailene Woodley still have the part.

The last I heard she had begun filming scenes for Amazing Spider-Man 2 to but they decided to not feature Mary Jane in AS2 because there is already a lot going on in that film without her. I vaguely remember them saying her scenes will be moved to Amazing Spider-Man 3.

[TheChris92]

I contradicted myself by stating how Stan Lee wrote the character?

"This has nothing to do with how my interpretation of Spider Man and his supporting cast etc. etc." "MJ is meant to be fun and flirty, a party girl, a successful supermodel. In the films she's just boring." -- First you're saying that your problem isn't with the film being unfaithful to the source material, next you mention how Dunst's character is nothing like Jane in the hundreds of different iterations in the comic books. It's usually the same argument I hear against Raimi's movies, and while that's all well and fine I'd argue the same case for most other comic book movies. I'm not gonna say Mary Jane's 'arc' in Spider-Man from 2002 was sensational, but I think her part worked well enough with the story, but it severely lacked proper integration. It progressed in the sequel at the very least. This is obviously all coming from someone who did not read those comic-books and only had the 90s cartoon to go from.

[Mr.House]

Seeing as the first one was horrible and the fact they outright changed a characters race because reasons, yup not going to see it and have no intention of seeing it. They should have just let Spidey RIP after that disaster called 3.

[Milan92]

I heard its getting **** reviews. Go Spider-Man.

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

The last I heard she had begun filming scenes for Amazing Spider-Man 2 to but they decided to not feature Mary Jane in AS2 because there is already a lot going on in that film without her. I vaguely remember them saying her scenes will be moved to Amazing Spider-Man 3.

Yeah but there were also a few rumours a few months after they decided to cut her that she was being replaced, plus now she as her own franchise to worry about.