Diageo Posted August 4, 2010 Posted August 4, 2010 Do you know what Invisible Woman is meant to be like though? Hot and blonde? :p
Frank Posted August 4, 2010 Posted August 4, 2010 Hot and blonde? :p Aren't you supposed to be gay? :p
ReZourceman Posted August 5, 2010 Posted August 5, 2010 The 90's one was just so great though! You should watch Spectacular Spider-Man. I can't remember the exact quote, but; Don't get your goo in my hair.
Munch Posted August 5, 2010 Posted August 5, 2010 They could just go over the origin briefly like they did in the newer Hulk film and then take it wherever they wanna go after that, It would be quite tedious to sit through the origin story again.
Coolness Bears Posted August 6, 2010 Posted August 6, 2010 If they are doing the origin story again they are admitting they got it oh so wrong the first time round which is true, the first Spiderman is comical at best. Spiderman 2 is good though.
Dannyboy-the-Dane Posted August 6, 2010 Posted August 6, 2010 (edited) If they are doing the origin story again they are admitting they got it oh so wrong the first time round which is true, the first Spiderman is comical at best. Spiderman 2 is good though. Are you talking particularly about how he got his powers? Because there I must admit I like the film version better than the original. The original is from the time when people thought radiation would give you all sorts of super powers. The film version makes just that bit more sense scientifically. Also, I always preferred him having organic web shooters. The original version with him suddenly knowing the formula for the webbing and then constructing web shooters ... that's just silly, really. Edited August 6, 2010 by Dannyboy-the-Dane
Paj! Posted August 6, 2010 Posted August 6, 2010 The version where the spider "passes the knowledge of the web-making onto him" is ridiculous. I hate it. It makes more sense that he just invents it without the silly "the spider told me how!". Either way, yes, making it organic just solves everything, film-wise.
Shorty Posted August 6, 2010 Posted August 6, 2010 Dunst never did anything but scream as MJ. Gwen Stacey was ignored until it was far too late then grossly underused in a film nobody wants to remember anyway. Maguire... I don't understand the hate towards him. I thought he was great in the first two films, and only the painfully messy script made a mess of him in the third. I can't really say anything about the new film until something actually exists of it. It's too soon, but it could be a really great thing. Mind you the whole point of the reboot seemed to be to cast someone younger in Spidey's shoes and keep him at school, so he could deal with the issues of being a teenager like Spidey was originally supposed to. Now they've cast someone Maguire's age and put him in college. Madness. If Sony hadn't clamped down the shackles on Raimi in the third film, I think he could've kept it up. Mind you another Bruce Campbell, Stan Lee or GIANT AMERICAN FLAG cameo and I think I would've puked.
Dan_Dare Posted August 6, 2010 Posted August 6, 2010 The ultimate origin is best. It combines the geneticly enhanced spider (no radiation) with mechnaical web shooters. The fluid is based on a half finished formula left behind by his dad that Peter keeps on a blackboard in his basement and he finally cracks it after he gets his powers. It's a great origin because it elevates Peter's status as an orphan in his character and makes his parents, not just his aunt and uncle, strong characters. Later, Venom comes from a similar link- Peter and Ben Riley's parents were working on a 'suit' that enhanced human healing to cure cancer but the unfinished tissue is unstable and becomes Venom when Peter wears it.
Happenstance Posted August 6, 2010 Posted August 6, 2010 Its a pretty safe bet that you will puke then in the reboot because im sure Stan Lee will get another cameo
Paj! Posted August 6, 2010 Posted August 6, 2010 Maguire... I don't understand the hate towards him. I thought he was great in the first two films, and only the painfully messy script made a mess of him in the third. He's so depressing. Spider-Man is meant to be this everywhere-at-once, bouncing around character, constantly making quips and jokes at the enemies expense. Instead we got his long, draaaaawn ouuuut draaaaawl that always sounded like he just woke up. Fair enough the script didn't include enough actual Spidey dialogue, but either way. I know he was meant to be "a Normal Guy!", but it made me want to turn off the film. And how whenever MJ turned and left after an arguement, he just stood there looking like he shit his pants. Ugh. ^ This is an example of how Spider-Man should be, just based on his entire comic history. Just having too much fun.
Retro_Link Posted August 6, 2010 Author Posted August 6, 2010 ^ That was great! And just reminds how much it sucks we'll never see Spider-Man alongside The Avengers, or any Marvel universe crossovers into his films etc... I haven't seen any of the animations, but that's why I loved the 90's cartoon, it was exactly that, Spider-Man was fun and full of quick wit.
Murr Posted August 9, 2010 Posted August 9, 2010 With Andrew Garfield set to lead Sony's Spider-Man reboot, director Marc Webb has moved on to casting supporting characters. And according to Production Weekly via The Playlist, the studio is now considering the Inglorious Bastards star Christoph Waltz, for the villainous role of Curtis Connors, The Lizard. The source says specifically, "Earlier this week we heard that Sony is interested in "Inglourious Basterds" star Christoph Waltz for the villain character in Marc Webb's 3D reboot of "Spider-Man." The same piece of information is now in this week's pages of Production Weekly: Sony interested in Waltz (presumably this is the Lizard if the rumors are correct). If true, the 53 year old Austrian would sure bring much-needed star power to the reboot, recently winning an Oscar for best actor in a supporting role in Quentin Tarantino's Inglorious Basterds. And recently wrapping up on Michel Gondry's Green Hornet unsurprisingly as the film's villain, being in a superhero flick such as this wouldn't be anything too diverse from the actor's resume. And as for the villain for Spidey's return, it's a pretty much guaranteed that Dr. Curtis Connors would be the usual medical doctor and researcher, but unlike Sam Raimi's trilogy, we may actually get to see when Connors' cure turns out to be worse than his disease; The Lizard. Anyhow, Marc Webb will be directing the reboot, with filming expected to begin late this year. And the webslinger swings into theaters July 3, 2012 in the infamous 3D! source - comicbookmovie.com
ReZourceman Posted August 9, 2010 Posted August 9, 2010 I want a 3D battle with Hydroman at the beginning of the film to open it, with water flying out everywhere. Now that would be a good use of 3D tech.
Dan_Dare Posted August 9, 2010 Posted August 9, 2010 Only it would involve Hyrdoman, who's about as threatening as a cheese sandwich.
chairdriver Posted August 9, 2010 Posted August 9, 2010 Only it would involve Hyrdoman, who's about as threatening as a cheese sandwich. Hardly! ..
Paj! Posted August 9, 2010 Posted August 9, 2010 Yeah, water is too great. There's a reason Halle Berry died in the Catwoman movie after being flushed out a sewage tunnel by water at great force. ^ My favourite example of the power of water.
ReZourceman Posted August 9, 2010 Posted August 9, 2010 Hydroman is the tits. He's the centre piece of my (this is a world exclusive) Sinister Six Heroclix Diarama Figure.
Dannyboy-the-Dane Posted August 9, 2010 Posted August 9, 2010 Hydroman is the tits. Totally unrelated, but I dislike expressions like this because I can never figure out if they mean "it's good" or "it's bad".
Fierce_LiNk Posted August 9, 2010 Posted August 9, 2010 Totally unrelated, but I dislike expressions like this because I can never figure out if they mean "it's good" or "it's bad". Tits means that it is good. Because tits are good.
Dannyboy-the-Dane Posted August 9, 2010 Posted August 9, 2010 Tits means that it is good.Because tits are good. Fact. But people also use "Tits!" the same way they use "Shit!", and "it's the shit" is likewise used to mean "it's good". It's madness, I tell you! Madness!
Fierce_LiNk Posted August 9, 2010 Posted August 9, 2010 (edited) Fact. But people also use "Tits!" the same way they use "Shit!", and "it's the shit" is likewise used to mean "it's good". It's madness, I tell you! Madness! Yeah, but I think that's "the shit" as in "that shit is good." Some drugs are refered to as "shit": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shit#Drug_usage So, it's "that shit is good" rather than the stuff that comes out of your arse. There's a difference between "Dannyboy is shit" and "Dannyboy is the shit." Edited August 9, 2010 by Fierce_LiNk
Eenuh Posted August 9, 2010 Posted August 9, 2010 The English language is just shit. Or is it the shit?
Recommended Posts