Amazing Spider-Man (July 3rd) - Out Now! May contain Spoilers (use spoiler tags)
- Thread starter Jcaugustine
- Start date
elessar123
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 196 (100%)
[quote name='kodave']He did.
[/QUOTE]
Omg that's too damn funny.
Someone needs to shop in Ghost Rider.
Omg that's too damn funny.
Someone needs to shop in Ghost Rider.
snakemaster2389
CAG Newbie
so in the next spiderman movie, can we finally get Carnage, maybe even Mysterio? would love to see that
wow IGN and Comingsoon are ripping it big time.
http://www.comingsoon.net/news/reviewsnews.php?id=91844
I guess with Batman around the corner and Avengers being a mega success, everyone had high hopes for spiderman.
http://www.comingsoon.net/news/reviewsnews.php?id=91844
I guess with Batman around the corner and Avengers being a mega success, everyone had high hopes for spiderman.
[quote name='Clak']Yeah I don't know how anyone thought that was a good idea. "Lets take the dorky kid from That 70s Show and make him the most badass villain Spider-Man has."[/QUOTE]
Sort of agreed, but that was one of the more minor problems with the movie.
Really, aside from casting Brock Lesnar as Eddie Brock, there was no way it was going to live up to the comic book guy as far as initial impresson. And I agree with whoever said Eric Foreman would have made a better Carnage than Venom.
I love Spider-Man villains, easily as much or more than any other "major" character from any company.
the "too cartoony" thing. The Sandman is corny as (outfit, powers, origin) and he was probably the best part of Spider-Man 3. Anything can be adapted if it's done by someone creative.
Sort of agreed, but that was one of the more minor problems with the movie.
Really, aside from casting Brock Lesnar as Eddie Brock, there was no way it was going to live up to the comic book guy as far as initial impresson. And I agree with whoever said Eric Foreman would have made a better Carnage than Venom.
I love Spider-Man villains, easily as much or more than any other "major" character from any company.
the "too cartoony" thing. The Sandman is corny as (outfit, powers, origin) and he was probably the best part of Spider-Man 3. Anything can be adapted if it's done by someone creative.
DestroVega
CAGiversary!
[quote name='ITDEFX']wow IGN and Comingsoon are ripping it big time.
http://www.comingsoon.net/news/reviewsnews.php?id=91844
I guess with Batman around the corner and Avengers being a mega success, everyone had high hopes for spiderman.[/QUOTE]
That coming soon review gave it 7/10 and was fairly positive.. That's "ripping"?
IGN is a little harsher but gave it 6/10 and said it's "ok". Again, not what I would call a rip.
Both reviews love Garfield in the role, love Dennis Leary, think the quips and dialog are better than the other films. Both think the origin story is rehashed and too drawn out and that there isn't enough action.
Seems to be a good set-up movie but I don't know if that's what they needed.
http://www.comingsoon.net/news/reviewsnews.php?id=91844
I guess with Batman around the corner and Avengers being a mega success, everyone had high hopes for spiderman.[/QUOTE]
That coming soon review gave it 7/10 and was fairly positive.. That's "ripping"?
IGN is a little harsher but gave it 6/10 and said it's "ok". Again, not what I would call a rip.
Both reviews love Garfield in the role, love Dennis Leary, think the quips and dialog are better than the other films. Both think the origin story is rehashed and too drawn out and that there isn't enough action.
Seems to be a good set-up movie but I don't know if that's what they needed.
[quote name='whoknows']If he didn't have much screen time I don't see why the actor is such a big deal? If they got someone who fit better then that actor would have gotten the same screen time and people would be complaining about (mostly) the same things.
Maybe they should have swapped around the Sandman and Eddie actors
[/QUOTE]
Actually, Church does look the part more. I'd say cutting Sandman and making him Eddie would have been better.
Maybe they should have swapped around the Sandman and Eddie actors
[/QUOTE]Actually, Church does look the part more. I'd say cutting Sandman and making him Eddie would have been better.
[quote name='DestroVega']I blame Raimi for the Venom debacle. He was opposed to him from the beginning of taking on the franchise, and you can't just dismiss such a fan favorite. Maybe had he been open to him being a main villain in a movie, the studio wouldn't have rammed Venom down his throat.[/QUOTE]
The studio should've just trusted Raimi's vision. By that point, he had already made two extremely successful Spider-Man movies. They should've just given him free reign at that point to do whatever the hell he wanted, rather than tying his hands. Had they let him make the movie he wanted to make, maybe he would've been more open to a fourth movie.
Though, at the same time, if Raimi was going to have to have Venom in the movie no matter what, he really should've just abandoned the Sandman idea and focused on Venom. My biggest problem with that movie was the fact that there was just way too much going on. Had there been some build-up to either Venom or Sandman in the previous movies, maybe it would've worked, but Spider-Man 3 had two villains that required two origin stories, which was just way too much for one movie, especially when you add the Harry Osborn/Goblin and Emo Spider-Man stuff.
The studio should've just trusted Raimi's vision. By that point, he had already made two extremely successful Spider-Man movies. They should've just given him free reign at that point to do whatever the hell he wanted, rather than tying his hands. Had they let him make the movie he wanted to make, maybe he would've been more open to a fourth movie.
Though, at the same time, if Raimi was going to have to have Venom in the movie no matter what, he really should've just abandoned the Sandman idea and focused on Venom. My biggest problem with that movie was the fact that there was just way too much going on. Had there been some build-up to either Venom or Sandman in the previous movies, maybe it would've worked, but Spider-Man 3 had two villains that required two origin stories, which was just way too much for one movie, especially when you add the Harry Osborn/Goblin and Emo Spider-Man stuff.
[quote name='KaneRobot']Sort of agreed, but that was one of the more minor problems with the movie.
Really, aside from casting Brock Lesnar as Eddie Brock, there was no way it was going to live up to the comic book guy as far as initial impresson. And I agree with whoever said Eric Foreman would have made a better Carnage than Venom.
I love Spider-Man villains, easily as much or more than any other "major" character from any company. the "too cartoony" thing. The Sandman is corny as (outfit, powers, origin) and he was probably the best part of Spider-Man 3. Anything can be adapted if it's done by someone creative.[/QUOTE]
Sandman was good not because of the comic character or CG though, but because they actually did a good job with the character in the film, they could have just as easilyed it up like Venom. Church was a good match for the role, that made a big difference. Grace really would have done better as Carnage, since Cassidy is basically just nucking futs, not really physically intimidating. They could have found someone that better fit the Eddie Brock character, didn't have to go with a body builder, just somebody with visible muscle mass for crying out loud.
Really, aside from casting Brock Lesnar as Eddie Brock, there was no way it was going to live up to the comic book guy as far as initial impresson. And I agree with whoever said Eric Foreman would have made a better Carnage than Venom.
I love Spider-Man villains, easily as much or more than any other "major" character from any company.
the "too cartoony" thing. The Sandman is corny as (outfit, powers, origin) and he was probably the best part of Spider-Man 3. Anything can be adapted if it's done by someone creative.[/QUOTE]Sandman was good not because of the comic character or CG though, but because they actually did a good job with the character in the film, they could have just as easily
ed it up like Venom. Church was a good match for the role, that made a big difference. Grace really would have done better as Carnage, since Cassidy is basically just nucking futs, not really physically intimidating. They could have found someone that better fit the Eddie Brock character, didn't have to go with a body builder, just somebody with visible muscle mass for crying out loud.
elessar123
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 196 (100%)
I agree. Spiderman should have at least had the black suit in the last half of the second movie. Then the post movie scene would be the suit with the Venom face. Then the third movie would have worked with Sandman + Venom.
Thekrakrabbit
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
[quote name='Clak']Sandman was good not because of the comic character or CG though, but because they actually did a good job with the character in the film, they could have just as easily ed it up like Venom. Church was a good match for the role, that made a big difference. Grace really would have done better as Carnage, since Cassidy is basically just nucking futs, not really physically intimidating. They could have found someone that better fit the Eddie Brock character, didn't have to go with a body builder, just somebody with visible muscle mass for crying out loud.[/QUOTE]
But Eddie Brock WAS a bodybuilder. Lesnar makes perfect sense IMO. He's tall, big and just an overall huge guy compared to everyone else. When he turns into Venom, he is still huge and dwarfs everyone else just like it is supposed to be.
You want the Venom from Spiderman 3? I think he is a decent actor but fit horribly into that role. Too small.
ed it up like Venom. Church was a good match for the role, that made a big difference. Grace really would have done better as Carnage, since Cassidy is basically just nucking futs, not really physically intimidating. They could have found someone that better fit the Eddie Brock character, didn't have to go with a body builder, just somebody with visible muscle mass for crying out loud.[/QUOTE]But Eddie Brock WAS a bodybuilder. Lesnar makes perfect sense IMO. He's tall, big and just an overall huge guy compared to everyone else. When he turns into Venom, he is still huge and dwarfs everyone else just like it is supposed to be.
You want the Venom from Spiderman 3? I think he is a decent actor but fit horribly into that role. Too small.
SpiderKnight
CAGiversary!
going to get my imax tickets tonight!
Thekrakrabbit
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
[quote name='Clak']Eddie Brock was a journalist. Maybe he worked out a lot, but he wasn't a body builder. There are plenty of muscular actors they could have used, don't need to go trolling the WWE for talent.[/QUOTE]
If I recall, he was actually a bodybuilder AND a reporter.
If I recall, he was actually a bodybuilder AND a reporter.
Rock_Dash3X
CAGiversary!
Late to this Eddie Brock convo. I felt Topher did well to play Eddie Brock. Yeah I know, he isn't huge like what Eddie is. Thing is for me with all these Marvel films I see them take a good amount of inspiration from Ultimate series compared to 616. Ultimate Eddie was as weak looking and nerdy as Peter so I thought it was great casting when they got him to go up against Toby. And yeah if they did go for 616 style Eddie, Brock Lesler probably would of got the look down.
[quote name='whoknows']Anyone in the WWE would have been worse than Topher Grace. Some may look the part, but I can't imagine any of them being decent actors outside of fake wrestling.[/QUOTE]
Wrestling fan here. To be honest, I do think some can do acting outside of wreslting. I do think Topher is a pretty good actor, but there are people in the WWE that can act. WWE wrestling is one part athletics and one part soap opera. Some can do both while some can only do one of them. The bad actors are the ones you usually see most on camera though. This is what i feel.
[quote name='Thekrakrabbit']If I recall, he was actually a bodybuilder AND a reporter.[/QUOTE]
If I recall, Eddie Brock was never a bodybuilder. Maybe in the animated show, but I don't go by the show. He did lift weights and try to play sports. I know he tried to wrestle, but never made it (not sure if he made other sports). He was a journalist who was fit. Never did he actual bodybuild.
[quote name='whoknows']Anyone in the WWE would have been worse than Topher Grace. Some may look the part, but I can't imagine any of them being decent actors outside of fake wrestling.[/QUOTE]
Wrestling fan here. To be honest, I do think some can do acting outside of wreslting. I do think Topher is a pretty good actor, but there are people in the WWE that can act. WWE wrestling is one part athletics and one part soap opera. Some can do both while some can only do one of them. The bad actors are the ones you usually see most on camera though. This is what i feel.
[quote name='Thekrakrabbit']If I recall, he was actually a bodybuilder AND a reporter.[/QUOTE]
If I recall, Eddie Brock was never a bodybuilder. Maybe in the animated show, but I don't go by the show. He did lift weights and try to play sports. I know he tried to wrestle, but never made it (not sure if he made other sports). He was a journalist who was fit. Never did he actual bodybuild.
Thekrakrabbit
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
In any case, I wouldn't call casting Lesnar to be a horrible decision. He fits the image that a lot of people should have of Eddie Brock, which is a big guy that dwarfs most people; particularly the Spider himself.
[quote name='Thekrakrabbit']If I recall, he was actually a bodybuilder AND a reporter.[/QUOTE]
So what, he was Arnold Schwarzenegger with a press pass? No, again, Eddi Brock was a journalist. Just because somebody works out doesn't mean they're a body builder.
And getting Lesnar or any of the other thick necked WWE talent would have been horrible. Most of those guys have trouble making wrestling look real, let alone serious acting.
So what, he was Arnold Schwarzenegger with a press pass? No, again, Eddi Brock was a journalist. Just because somebody works out doesn't mean they're a body builder.
And getting Lesnar or any of the other thick necked WWE talent would have been horrible. Most of those guys have trouble making wrestling look real, let alone serious acting.
wow 7:30 for these lucky bastards
http://www.oscorpindustries.com/hybrid
the theater I thought was going to be on the list wasn't on it! (AMC Tysons)
http://www.oscorpindustries.com/hybrid
the theater I thought was going to be on the list wasn't on it! (AMC Tysons)
[quote name='Clak']So what, he was Arnold Schwarzenegger with a press pass? No, again, Eddi Brock was a journalist. Just because somebody works out doesn't mean they're a body builder.
And getting Lesnar or any of the other thick necked WWE talent would have been horrible. Most of those guys have trouble making wrestling look real, let alone serious acting.[/QUOTE]
Appearance wise? Yes, he basically was "Arnold with a press pass." Eddie Brock wasn't like a competitive bodybuilder as in a career, but he most definitetly had the weightlifting thing as a central part of his character. Scenes like this popped up multiple times during the early years of the character:
Lesnar looks as close to the guy depicted in the comics as anyone I can think of. Obviously his acting would have been questionable, but then again it's not like theing 70's Show kid put on a tour-de-force performance either.
Speaking of which, I just rewatched all three films over the last two days. If you cut out about 10/15 notoriously awful minutes of the middle of 3 it's passable. Still definitely the worst of the three but it's not as offensive as I remembered.
Will probably go in the morning and cross my fingers it isn't jam packed.
And getting Lesnar or any of the other thick necked WWE talent would have been horrible. Most of those guys have trouble making wrestling look real, let alone serious acting.[/QUOTE]
Appearance wise? Yes, he basically was "Arnold with a press pass." Eddie Brock wasn't like a competitive bodybuilder as in a career, but he most definitetly had the weightlifting thing as a central part of his character. Scenes like this popped up multiple times during the early years of the character:
Lesnar looks as close to the guy depicted in the comics as anyone I can think of. Obviously his acting would have been questionable, but then again it's not like the
ing 70's Show kid put on a tour-de-force performance either.Speaking of which, I just rewatched all three films over the last two days. If you cut out about 10/15 notoriously awful minutes of the middle of 3 it's passable. Still definitely the worst of the three but it's not as offensive as I remembered.
Will probably go in the morning and cross my fingers it isn't jam packed.
I'm sure that if they ever need to film a scene with Eddie Brock hitting someone over the head with a folding chair, they'll get Lesner, or one of the many other passable no-necks they could use.
But no, they needed someone who could passably act, and who looked fit, but not necessarily like a roided up mass of muscle, because that just doesn't look natural, something they don't worry about in comics.
But no, they needed someone who could passably act, and who looked fit, but not necessarily like a roided up mass of muscle, because that just doesn't look natural, something they don't worry about in comics.
AshesofWake
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 18 (100%)
I always thought the other three spiderman movies were boring as hell. I hope this new one is entertaining. Maybe I just was super annoyed at Toby McGuire. Hmmmm
[quote name='Clak']But no, they needed someone who could passably act, and who looked fit, but not necessarily like a roided up mass of muscle, because that just doesn't look natural, something they don't worry about in comics.[/QUOTE]
Yeah. Looked fit. Not "looked like someone who would blow away with a stiff wind passing through." There had to have been a happy medium between freak of nature and skinny shrimp.
----------
Went to the new one this morning, first showing. Weather is shitty here so thankfully the theater was not even 1/4th full.
I was annoyed to the point of hating it for the first 1/3rd...essentially the origin stuff. Really disliked how some of the characters were portrayed. Inaccurate either in appearance or behavior or both. The former is at least somewhat forgivable but the latter was just too jarring. Peter being this skateboarding "outcast" who stands up to bulliesing sucked. Dude is a geek who gets harassed. That doesn't need to be changed. They did a great job of it in the 2002 movie.
Thankfully they pulled it together for the remainder, and made something I found quite enjoyable by the end. Probably the best action sequences out of any of the Spider-Man films. It could have and should have been a recasted sequel rather than a reboot (which would have eliminated my complaints since all the origin stuff wouldn't have been necessary), but I liked it.
Not as good as 1 or 2, but certainly better than 3. Not saying much there, I know.
Yeah. Looked fit. Not "looked like someone who would blow away with a stiff wind passing through." There had to have been a happy medium between freak of nature and skinny shrimp.
----------
Went to the new one this morning, first showing. Weather is shitty here so thankfully the theater was not even 1/4th full.
I was annoyed to the point of hating it for the first 1/3rd...essentially the origin stuff. Really disliked how some of the characters were portrayed. Inaccurate either in appearance or behavior or both. The former is at least somewhat forgivable but the latter was just too jarring. Peter being this skateboarding "outcast" who stands up to bullies
ing sucked. Dude is a geek who gets harassed. That doesn't need to be changed. They did a great job of it in the 2002 movie.Thankfully they pulled it together for the remainder, and made something I found quite enjoyable by the end. Probably the best action sequences out of any of the Spider-Man films. It could have and should have been a recasted sequel rather than a reboot (which would have eliminated my complaints since all the origin stuff wouldn't have been necessary), but I liked it.
Not as good as 1 or 2, but certainly better than 3. Not saying much there, I know.
Thekrakrabbit
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
[quote name='KaneRobot'] Proof of Brock being a big mofo[/QUOTE]
So perhaps I was wrong about him being an actual bodybuilder, but I was always right in saying that Eddie was purposely a huge guy. Lesnar fits the bill perfectly. Not Steve Austin tall or anything, just a bulky guy that fits that image of Venom.
Would like to see Lesnar stay around and star as Venom in one of the movies, assuming his acting is passable.
P.S. How much of Lesnar is featured in this movie? I haven't seen it so I wonder.
So perhaps I was wrong about him being an actual bodybuilder, but I was always right in saying that Eddie was purposely a huge guy. Lesnar fits the bill perfectly. Not Steve Austin tall or anything, just a bulky guy that fits that image of Venom.
Would like to see Lesnar stay around and star as Venom in one of the movies, assuming his acting is passable.
P.S. How much of Lesnar is featured in this movie? I haven't seen it so I wonder.
[quote name='KaneRobot']Yeah. Looked fit. Not "looked like someone who would blow away with a stiff wind passing through." There had to have been a happy medium between freak of nature and skinny shrimp.
----------
Went to the new one this morning, first showing. Weather is shitty here so thankfully the theater was not even 1/4th full.
I was annoyed to the point of hating it for the first 1/3rd...essentially the origin stuff. Really disliked how some of the characters were portrayed. Inaccurate either in appearance or behavior or both. The former is at least somewhat forgivable but the latter was just too jarring. Peter being this skateboarding "outcast" who stands up to bulliesing sucked. Dude is a geek who gets harassed. That doesn't need to be changed. They did a great job of it in the 2002 movie.
Thankfully they pulled it together for the remainder, and made something I found quite enjoyable by the end. Probably the best action sequences out of any of the Spider-Man films. It could have and should have been a recasted sequel rather than a reboot (which would have eliminated my complaints since all the origin stuff wouldn't have been necessary), but I liked it.
Not as good as 1 or 2, but certainly better than 3. Not saying much there, I know.[/QUOTE]
I was fine with how they made Peter. He was still a geek, but they didn't go overboard with it, which I liked.
The thing I didn't like about the first part of the movie is that it was the origin part. They did it well and kept it entertaining, but it's just something that really didn't need to happen.
Other than that I really liked it. I want to say it's better than the other three, but I haven't seen those in a couple of years. From what I remember though, the original did some things better, but overall the new one was a better movie. Tobey Maguire always looked like he was too old to be in high school to me.
----------
Went to the new one this morning, first showing. Weather is shitty here so thankfully the theater was not even 1/4th full.
I was annoyed to the point of hating it for the first 1/3rd...essentially the origin stuff. Really disliked how some of the characters were portrayed. Inaccurate either in appearance or behavior or both. The former is at least somewhat forgivable but the latter was just too jarring. Peter being this skateboarding "outcast" who stands up to bullies
ing sucked. Dude is a geek who gets harassed. That doesn't need to be changed. They did a great job of it in the 2002 movie.Thankfully they pulled it together for the remainder, and made something I found quite enjoyable by the end. Probably the best action sequences out of any of the Spider-Man films. It could have and should have been a recasted sequel rather than a reboot (which would have eliminated my complaints since all the origin stuff wouldn't have been necessary), but I liked it.
Not as good as 1 or 2, but certainly better than 3. Not saying much there, I know.[/QUOTE]
I was fine with how they made Peter. He was still a geek, but they didn't go overboard with it, which I liked.
The thing I didn't like about the first part of the movie is that it was the origin part. They did it well and kept it entertaining, but it's just something that really didn't need to happen.
Other than that I really liked it. I want to say it's better than the other three, but I haven't seen those in a couple of years. From what I remember though, the original did some things better, but overall the new one was a better movie. Tobey Maguire always looked like he was too old to be in high school to me.
Ok..
Saw it this morning.
was so so.
Saw it this morning.
was so so.
Between Spiderman 1 and this one, I say Spiderman 1 was better. Gwen was ok... Guess they are trying to stretch out Peter's life for the other movies as in having him work for the DB in part 2 instead of this one.
He should not have told Gwen he is spiderman.
The 3-d did nothing for me.
BTW-did anyone catch what was said in the post credit scene? For some reason I couldn't hear it that well in my theater. Something about Norman asking Connors if he told Peter about his father?
He should not have told Gwen he is spiderman.
The 3-d did nothing for me.
BTW-did anyone catch what was said in the post credit scene? For some reason I couldn't hear it that well in my theater. Something about Norman asking Connors if he told Peter about his father?
namispep
Banned
[quote name='whoknows']
The thing I didn't like about the first part of the movie is that it was the origin part. They did it well and kept it entertaining, but it's just something that really didn't need to happen.
.[/QUOTE]
uh yes it did happen it provided backstory to those of us havent sen the first 3 spider-mans or read the comics. i agree with u that this was better than those, though. tbh i really dont like tobey mcguire so that ruined it for me.
The thing I didn't like about the first part of the movie is that it was the origin part. They did it well and kept it entertaining, but it's just something that really didn't need to happen.
.[/QUOTE]
uh yes it did happen it provided backstory to those of us havent sen the first 3 spider-mans or read the comics. i agree with u that this was better than those, though. tbh i really dont like tobey mcguire so that ruined it for me.
[quote name='namispep']uh yes it did happen it provided backstory to those of us havent sen the first 3 spider-mans or read the comics. i agree with u that this was better than those, though. tbh i really dont like tobey mcguire so that ruined it for me.[/QUOTE]
I think it's pretty well known he gets bit by a spider. If you're one of the two people in the world who doesn't know that then sure, I'm sure you appreciated it, but I really didn't need to see it again.
I think it's pretty well known he gets bit by a spider. If you're one of the two people in the world who doesn't know that then sure, I'm sure you appreciated it, but I really didn't need to see it again.
Dark Rider
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 24 (100%)
Thinking about going and seeing this sometime for the $5 afternoon price. I was a big fan of Spiderman 1&2 (Toby McGuire). Not sure how I feel about another so soon. I also think it's a bit strange that he has a different backstory. Regardless, it looks like it could be fun enough to make it through.
Also, WTF to blond Mary Jane?
Also, WTF to blond Mary Jane?
[quote name='Dark Rider']Thinking about going and seeing this sometime for the $5 afternoon price. I was a big fan of Spiderman 1&2 (Toby McGuire). Not sure how I feel about another so soon. I also think it's a bit strange that he has a different backstory. Regardless, it looks like it could be fun enough to make it through.
Also, WTF to blond Mary Jane?[/QUOTE]
that's not MJ!! it's GS!!
no...WTF to James Horner's score! I am tired of him using parts from his other music!! Nothing was memorable... They need to boot him for the next spiderman or just say it, do it like the hulk and pretend it didn't happen.
Also, WTF to blond Mary Jane?[/QUOTE]
that's not MJ!! it's GS!!
no...WTF to James Horner's score! I am tired of him using parts from his other music!! Nothing was memorable... They need to boot him for the next spiderman or just say
it, do it like the hulk and pretend it didn't happen.[quote name='ITDEFX']that's not MJ!! it's GS!!
no...WTF to James Horner's score! I am tired of him using parts from his other music!! Nothing was memorable... They need to boot him for the next spiderman or just say it, do it like the hulk and pretend it didn't happen.[/QUOTE]
That Hulk reboot was the most pointless thing ever :lol:
no...WTF to James Horner's score! I am tired of him using parts from his other music!! Nothing was memorable... They need to boot him for the next spiderman or just say
it, do it like the hulk and pretend it didn't happen.[/QUOTE]That Hulk reboot was the most pointless thing ever :lol:
[quote name='whoknows']That Hulk reboot was the most pointless thing ever :lol:[/QUOTE]
nah... Ang Lee confused the hell out of people with his directing. TIC was good......still god damn you Horner!!! Danny Elfman COME BACK!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUADYVeogIY
nah... Ang Lee confused the hell out of people with his directing. TIC was good......still god damn you Horner!!! Danny Elfman COME BACK!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUADYVeogIY
cheapbrokegamer
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 43 (100%)
Of the previous Spiderman movies, which is the best one?
Spiderman 1,2, or 3
Spiderman 1,2, or 3
[quote name='ITDEFX']nah... Ang Lee confused the hell out of people with his directing. TIC was good......still god damn you Horner!!! Danny Elfman COME BACK!!![/QUOTE]
It was okay, but completely unnecessary. Should have tried for a better sequel over rebooting to see his origin again IMO.
It was okay, but completely unnecessary. Should have tried for a better sequel over rebooting to see his origin again IMO.
Rock_Dash3X
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Thekrakrabbit']So perhaps I was wrong about him being an actual bodybuilder, but I was always right in saying that Eddie was purposely a huge guy.[/QUOTE]
What about Cancer Eddie or Ultimate Eddie? Wasn't huge there.
[quote name='whoknows']That Hulk reboot was the most pointless thing ever :lol:[/QUOTE]
Thank you. I agree to this. I felt it wasn't needed. I also hated TIC. I enjoyed Bana version much more minus the endless ending.
What about Cancer Eddie or Ultimate Eddie? Wasn't huge there.
[quote name='whoknows']That Hulk reboot was the most pointless thing ever :lol:[/QUOTE]
Thank you. I agree to this. I felt it wasn't needed. I also hated TIC. I enjoyed Bana version much more minus the endless ending.
[quote name='Rock_Dash3X']
Thank you. I agree to this. I felt it wasn't needed. I also hated TIC. I enjoyed Bana version much more minus the endless ending.[/QUOTE]
Seriously?
you enjoyed HULK better than TIC? The ending of HULK was stupid. At least in TIC he tried to stop the abomination/blonski (sp?)
Thank you. I agree to this. I felt it wasn't needed. I also hated TIC. I enjoyed Bana version much more minus the endless ending.[/QUOTE]
Seriously?
you enjoyed HULK better than TIC? The ending of HULK was stupid. At least in TIC he tried to stop the abomination/blonski (sp?)
Thekrakrabbit
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
[quote name='Rock_Dash3X']What about Cancer Eddie or Ultimate Eddie? Wasn't huge there.
[/QUOTE]
I'm talking about the general image that people have when you mention Venom. When you say Spiderman villian and Venom people aren't going to think of of freakin' Topher from That 70s Show.
[/QUOTE]
I'm talking about the general image that people have when you mention Venom. When you say Spiderman villian and Venom people aren't going to think of of freakin' Topher from That 70s Show.
Rock_Dash3X
CAGiversary!
[quote name='ITDEFX']Seriously?
you enjoyed HULK better than TIC? The ending of HULK was stupid. At least in TIC he tried to stop the abomination/blonski (sp?)[/QUOTE]
I'm serious! Out of all my friends, I only have 1 friend who believes me. Everybody else liked TIC more even though they didn't really like TIC much to begin with. I just felt Hulk was more enjoyable besides the ending cause it felt like it had 20 different endings that didn't really end or make sense.
[quote name='Thekrakrabbit']I'm talking about the general image that people have when you mention Venom. When you say Spiderman villian and Venom people aren't going to think of of freakin' Topher from That 70s Show.[/QUOTE]
Actually, I do know some people who would think of freakin' Topher from That 70s Show. Like I mentioned, Ultimate Eddie wasn't like 616 Eddie. A good amount of people I know aren't really comic book fans or people who watch Marvel animated shows so they don't know about the more original Eddie. They got into the books later in life like the introduction of Ultimate series and The New 52. Both to help bring in a new audience.
Also since you're talking about Vemon, if I were to tell my more comic fan friends about Spider-Man villians and Vemon, they are probably gonna be thinking about Flash Thompson Vemon. Also as Vemon, he's not a huge guy either and very slender like Topher. None of them are gonna think "oh, Eddie Vemon?" since he's not relevent to being Vemon anymore. This is not counting Anti-Vemon.
you enjoyed HULK better than TIC? The ending of HULK was stupid. At least in TIC he tried to stop the abomination/blonski (sp?)[/QUOTE]
I'm serious! Out of all my friends, I only have 1 friend who believes me. Everybody else liked TIC more even though they didn't really like TIC much to begin with. I just felt Hulk was more enjoyable besides the ending cause it felt like it had 20 different endings that didn't really end or make sense.
[quote name='Thekrakrabbit']I'm talking about the general image that people have when you mention Venom. When you say Spiderman villian and Venom people aren't going to think of of freakin' Topher from That 70s Show.
[/QUOTE]Actually, I do know some people who would think of freakin' Topher from That 70s Show. Like I mentioned, Ultimate Eddie wasn't like 616 Eddie. A good amount of people I know aren't really comic book fans or people who watch Marvel animated shows so they don't know about the more original Eddie. They got into the books later in life like the introduction of Ultimate series and The New 52. Both to help bring in a new audience.
Also since you're talking about Vemon, if I were to tell my more comic fan friends about Spider-Man villians and Vemon, they are probably gonna be thinking about Flash Thompson Vemon. Also as Vemon, he's not a huge guy either and very slender like Topher. None of them are gonna think "oh, Eddie Vemon?" since he's not relevent to being Vemon anymore. This is not counting Anti-Vemon.
Forgot this earlier...for anyone who hasn't seen it, there's nothing after the credits are done. You get a quick thing after the first minute of main credits, but if you sit around for them to be complete you don't get anything.
Gwen did nothing for me. Just wasn't that interesting of a character and making her a science whiz was an unnecessary and uninteresting change. Hopefully she's bumped off in the sequel and they can give MJ another shot.
Gwen did nothing for me. Just wasn't that interesting of a character and making her a science whiz was an unnecessary and uninteresting change. Hopefully she's bumped off in the sequel and they can give MJ another shot.
3
Jcaugustine
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
Finally saw it on ETX 3D (AMC's version of IMAX).
I was pleasantly surprised!
Felt like 500 Days of Spider-Man but I enjoyed this more than I did Raimi's 1st Spider-Man too. Almost had a Batman Begins element to it, but wished it was a bit longer to flesh it out more.
The 3D in ETX (IMAX) was amazing! This movie was shot using James Cameron's Avatar 3D production and it shows. There were a lot of scenes in 1st person perspective that had everything coming at you! The last 20 minutes including the last minute of the film was 3D heaven! Favorite was when he slingshot himself inside a crane and you felt like you were in a ride falling in open space, then he jumps right at you in slow motion zipping a web line in your face!
My friend really enjoyed the movie that we stopped by Hot Topic to pick up some Spidey shirts which they had on sale Buy 1 Get 1.
All in all, I give this on par with the 1st Spider-Man, and also recommend it in ETX (IMAX) 3D.
I was pleasantly surprised!
Felt like 500 Days of Spider-Man but I enjoyed this more than I did Raimi's 1st Spider-Man too. Almost had a Batman Begins element to it, but wished it was a bit longer to flesh it out more.
The 3D in ETX (IMAX) was amazing! This movie was shot using James Cameron's Avatar 3D production and it shows. There were a lot of scenes in 1st person perspective that had everything coming at you! The last 20 minutes including the last minute of the film was 3D heaven! Favorite was when he slingshot himself inside a crane and you felt like you were in a ride falling in open space, then he jumps right at you in slow motion zipping a web line in your face!
My friend really enjoyed the movie that we stopped by Hot Topic to pick up some Spidey shirts which they had on sale Buy 1 Get 1.
All in all, I give this on par with the 1st Spider-Man, and also recommend it in ETX (IMAX) 3D.
-Never4ever-
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 107 (100%)
Even with low expectations, i still walked out of ASM disappointed.
While I liked the soundtrack and dug some of the action bits, and a bit of the humor, I found the film sometimes insulting, but mostly just boring.
Better than SM3, but I cant help but feel jaded towards the producers over at Sony. If not for them, SM3 wouldn't have sucked so hard and we would most likely been on SM5, rather than MORE retreading. Now we have to wait 2 more years until they rehash the Goblin plot-line, rather than take the series into a new direction.
While I liked the soundtrack and dug some of the action bits, and a bit of the humor, I found the film sometimes insulting, but mostly just boring.
Better than SM3, but I cant help but feel jaded towards the producers over at Sony. If not for them, SM3 wouldn't have sucked so hard and we would most likely been on SM5, rather than MORE retreading. Now we have to wait 2 more years until they rehash the Goblin plot-line, rather than take the series into a new direction.
Ratchet & CAG
CAGiversary!
Solid 7/10 for me.
Better than I expected.
Lots of cheesy moments but I like Garfield and Emma's acting over Tobey/Dunst.
Action scenes were a drastic improvement to the previous.
Ended up seeing it in 3D since the earliest 2D showing was sold out. Really good for 3D with the action and outdoorsey scenes.
Better than I expected.
Lots of cheesy moments but I like Garfield and Emma's acting over Tobey/Dunst.
Action scenes were a drastic improvement to the previous.
Ended up seeing it in 3D since the earliest 2D showing was sold out. Really good for 3D with the action and outdoorsey scenes.
CaptainJoel
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 100 (100%)
Saw it last night and loved it.
8/10 and one of the best superhero films I've seen to date. Still need to see Avengers, though.
8/10 and one of the best superhero films I've seen to date. Still need to see Avengers, though.
KingBroly
CAGiversary!
I think this was a 7/10 for me. I got a bit hyped over the last 2 weeks since I heard it wasn't a complete disaster. Wasn't disappointed, especially after 3.
The film felt awkwardly cut in a lot of places, with a lot of things unanswered or mismanaged, maybe hoping for a better answer the next time around. For an Origin Story, it wasn't really much of one, considering how the trailers had pegged it.
- Acting was far superior to previous films, particularly with Parker and Stacy
- The 3D was really good and non-intrusive (and for me, it was great since I hate going to see 3D films and actively try to avoid them) which made it work well in a lot of areas, mostly particle effects and depth of field.
- Action was good, although it was a bit rushed at times, making it feel like the budget was smaller than you'd think
- Soundtrack was nice in the few places where it had to be noticeable, otherwise pretty non-existant
- The editing seemed bad, and some scenes needed to be placed differently, and other things just made no sense
Overall, definitely worth a watch. It's a nice cooler between Avengers and Batman. Hopefully a sequel comes to give them better time to cook things. I think 2 is still the best Spider-Man movie, with this being in league with the first one. I think I'll put 1 over this since the editing and focus were better in that one.
The film felt awkwardly cut in a lot of places, with a lot of things unanswered or mismanaged, maybe hoping for a better answer the next time around. For an Origin Story, it wasn't really much of one, considering how the trailers had pegged it.
- Acting was far superior to previous films, particularly with Parker and Stacy
- The 3D was really good and non-intrusive (and for me, it was great since I hate going to see 3D films and actively try to avoid them) which made it work well in a lot of areas, mostly particle effects and depth of field.
- Action was good, although it was a bit rushed at times, making it feel like the budget was smaller than you'd think
- Soundtrack was nice in the few places where it had to be noticeable, otherwise pretty non-existant
- The editing seemed bad, and some scenes needed to be placed differently, and other things just made no sense
Overall, definitely worth a watch. It's a nice cooler between Avengers and Batman. Hopefully a sequel comes to give them better time to cook things. I think 2 is still the best Spider-Man movie, with this being in league with the first one. I think I'll put 1 over this since the editing and focus were better in that one.
bread's done