Doctor Who Discussion Forum for Who North America customers
 
HomeFAQSearchRegisterMemberlistUsergroupsLog inThe Who North America Online Store
Share | 
 

 The Not so Amazing Spider....garbage

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
AuthorMessage
Evil Monkey Pope
RANK: Time Lord Council Guard


Number of posts : 1828
Registration date : 2007-07-16

PostSubject: Re: The Not so Amazing Spider....garbage   Thu Sep 20, 2012 6:18 pm

Raimi's MJ actually felt more like classic Gwen to me in the sense that she's just kind of there. Gwen Stacey is highly romanticized because of her tragic fate, but she was often aloof & definitely not a match for Peter in the sciencey brains department. MJ is supposed to be a firecracker like Amy Pond.
Back to top Go down
View user profile https://mattthecatania.wordpress.com/
stetsons_are_cool7
RANK: UNIT Sergeant


Number of posts : 161
Age : 35
Registration date : 2012-02-20

PostSubject: Re: The Not so Amazing Spider....garbage   Sat Sep 22, 2012 7:47 am

I've seen the first three Spidey movies in the theater, but I never got around to seeing this one. I guess it's because it looks exactly like the Hollywood version of Spider-Man that I've always feared would get released where everyone is much younger including Stacy's dad and Aunt May, Spider-Man's costume is designed by Nike, and the Lizard looks more human than lizard.

Despite any flaws it might have, I think Raimi's first movie captures the essence of the original Stan Lee comics.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://creativecritic.blogspot.com/
Rust
RANK: Time Lord Commoner


Number of posts : 1557
Age : 33
Registration date : 2010-06-26

PostSubject: Re: The Not so Amazing Spider....garbage   Sat Sep 22, 2012 9:21 am

For whatever reason, I feel Spidey just doesn't translate well in other media because nobody wants to do Peter Parker correctly.

He's either a very emotional young man or a bratty teenager. Nobody registered the reason he's been so successful from inception to now is because Peter Parker is a socially awkward geek and that resonates with the majority of the comics community because they also (myself included) are socially awkward geeks.

But when we sit down to watch movies, we don't want to watch two and a half hours of social awkwardness, so instead we get two and a half hours of watching what socially awkward folks think is "being cool" or "being smooth".

I liked the first Spider-Man movie when it came out. Spider-Man 2 was rather long and boring to me, and the less said about 3 the better or else we'll be here awhile. Going back to those films - they haven't aged well. In the Post-Marvel Movie (Iron Man through Avengers), these movies are awkward, plodding affairs terrified of their own source material for fear of alienating mainstream movie audiences.

But that's hardly Spider-Man's fault and it's not like he's unique for the movies that came out during this time. X-Men suffer the same fate. Fantastic Four get the dysfunctional family aspect down brilliantly, but the comic book-y action suffers for it.

Really, the only comic movie to come out during the "early years" that holds up to this day is Tom Jane's The Punisher.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
bret_owen99
RANK: Time Lord Council Guard


Number of posts : 2106
Age : 40
Registration date : 2008-04-04

PostSubject: Re: The Not so Amazing Spider....garbage   Sat Sep 22, 2012 12:55 pm

Rust wrote:
For whatever reason, I feel Spidey just doesn't translate well in other media because nobody wants to do Peter Parker correctly.

He's either a very emotional young man or a bratty teenager. Nobody registered the reason he's been so successful from inception to now is because Peter Parker is a socially awkward geek and that resonates with the majority of the comics community because they also (myself included) are socially awkward geeks.

But when we sit down to watch movies, we don't want to watch two and a half hours of social awkwardness, so instead we get two and a half hours of watching what socially awkward folks think is "being cool" or "being smooth".

I liked the first Spider-Man movie when it came out. Spider-Man 2 was rather long and boring to me, and the less said about 3 the better or else we'll be here awhile. Going back to those films - they haven't aged well. In the Post-Marvel Movie (Iron Man through Avengers), these movies are awkward, plodding affairs terrified of their own source material for fear of alienating mainstream movie audiences.

But that's hardly Spider-Man's fault and it's not like he's unique for the movies that came out during this time. X-Men suffer the same fate. Fantastic Four get the dysfunctional family aspect down brilliantly, but the comic book-y action suffers for it.

Really, the only comic movie to come out during the "early years" that holds up to this day is Tom Jane's The Punisher.

While I would agree with you to a point on Punisher (I would also include Dolph Lundgren's version as well), as a Comic Book geek myself, I would personally say that Raimi's Spider-Man movies were much more faithful to the source material than other Comic Book Movies. I'll even give examples:

X-men, 2: What should have been an action filled hit, turned into a speech filled snoozer under Bryan Singer (what has he done lately?). 3 got it right, but it was already too late for a series filled with BMX wearing models that fought all the 'ugly' mutants (which taught kids, it's ok to be a mutant, as long as you are good looking).

Thor: I don't have very many Thor comics, but I would like to know which one the movie is based on? Loki being a Frost giant? Aliens? Donald Blake? Talk about writing a movie to try to appeal to the mainstream audience.

Captain America: While I did enjoy the movie, Turning Cap into a showgirl, the Red Skull into something other than a Nazi (I'm guessing so they wouldn't get in trouble with merchandise, figures, etc, featuring Nazi symbols for kids), the way Bucky died, the way they had him frozen (plane seemed only partly buried in snow, not quick frozen in ice), the movie was not exactly faithful to the comics. I'd even say the straight to VHS version from the 80's tried to be more like the comic, and less mainstream.

Iron Man 2: I won't diss the first one, it was a pretty good adaptation. The second, however, had it's flaws. Replacing Terrence Howard, Gary Shandling, It just seemed to be more funny than serious. Mickey Rourke did his best, but he wasn't given much to begin with.

I haven't seen the Edward Norton Hulk, or the Avengers, so I won't comment on those.

Back to top Go down
View user profile
Rust
RANK: Time Lord Commoner


Number of posts : 1557
Age : 33
Registration date : 2010-06-26

PostSubject: Re: The Not so Amazing Spider....garbage   Sat Sep 22, 2012 2:23 pm

bret_owen99 wrote:

X-men, 2: What should have been an action filled hit, turned into a speech filled snoozer under Bryan Singer (what has he done lately?). 3 got it right, but it was already too late for a series filled with BMX wearing models that fought all the 'ugly' mutants (which taught kids, it's ok to be a mutant, as long as you are good looking)

The X-Men franchise in general just suffers as time goes on. The first movie wasn't that good even back when it was made, and now it's just embarrassing to try and sit through.

Thankfully, First Class' "Soft Reboot" is trying to fix that. I avoided that movie for the longest time because X-2 and 3 were utter dreck, but it really is a fantastic film.

Quote :

Thor: I don't have very many Thor comics, but I would like to know which one the movie is based on? Loki being a Frost giant? Aliens? Donald Blake? Talk about writing a movie to try to appeal to the mainstream audience.

Actually - Loki is a Frost Giant, that's in keeping with both the comics and the original Norse mythology. The Aliens aspect is ripped straight from the original Jack Kirby days. Thor and the Asgardians were never played up as legitimate gods and goddesses, only fantastically powered individuals from another dimension who have appeared on Earth as gods in our past.

Donald Blake is a wink and a nod to the fact Thor's initial run (and when he resurfaced in '07 and '08) he had the Human identity of Donald Blake. Amusingly, the off the cuff line about Blake being a surgeon - he is in the comics too.

Thor is very faithful to the source material, it just doesn't directly lift any story from the comics. Also, Thor serves as the gateway movie into The Avengers. It introduces the concept of advanced alternate societies, introduces Loki (Who is the main villain of The Avengers), and the post-credit scene gives us our first look at the Cosmic Cube (Which is the main plot macguffin of the Avengers).


Quote :
Captain America: While I did enjoy the movie, Turning Cap into a showgirl, the Red Skull into something other than a Nazi (I'm guessing so they wouldn't get in trouble with merchandise, figures, etc, featuring Nazi symbols for kids), the way Bucky died, the way they had him frozen (plane seemed only partly buried in snow, not quick frozen in ice), the movie was not exactly faithful to the comics. I'd even say the straight to VHS version from the 80's tried to be more like the comic, and less mainstream.

I thought Captain America was a brilliant period piece superhero movie. Cap being a showgirl served three points in the film:

First, that just because he'd taken the serum and it seemed to work, this was a scrawny wimp and not a battle decorated Marine. When men's lives are on the line, you don't want to trust that kind of unknown.

Secondly, it established his costumed identity. In the throes of World War II, there honestly would not be a need to don the kind of outfit he did unless there was a reason for doing it. Cap was a propaganda film star and when he finally proved his worth (Incidentally piece mealing his initial outfit together from his stage show), they decided to use his established image to sell this "new" Cap. Heck, even his rank is initially just a honorary one.

Thirdly, and most importantly if you're a comic fan, it allowed for a scene of Captain America punching Hitler. I recall my own reaction to the announcement of a Captain America film set in World War II being: "He better punch Hilter." in the vein of his debut comic cover. This scene did not disappoint that expectation.

As for Bucky dying - I thought it was done well enough. I liked that they had him falling towards the river though - sets up for the Winter Soldier brilliantly.

Quote :
Iron Man 2: I won't diss the first one, it was a pretty good adaptation. The second, however, had it's flaws. Replacing Terrence Howard, Gary Shandling, It just seemed to be more funny than serious. Mickey Rourke did his best, but he wasn't given much to begin with.

Iron Man 2 was a pointless sequel. I honestly did not like it, and this is coming from a big Iron Man fan. Mashing together Crimson Dynamo and Whiplash into one character was baffling, and he lacked any sort of dedicated motivation. I also am upset they keep skirting around one of the biggest parts of Stark's character - his drinking. Every time it seems like they're about to bring it up, the scene changes.

Nothing happened of any merit in Iron Man 2.


Quote :

I haven't seen the Edward Norton Hulk, or the Avengers, so I won't comment on those.

Haven't seen Norton's Hulk either despite owning the DVD.

Avengers is the greatest Super Hero movie to grace the silver screen. Everything in the movie works brilliantly, and I feel it has changed the Super Hero movie landscape for the better.

However, I don't think the sequels are going to be half as good. Avengers is magic that can be bottled only once.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
 
The Not so Amazing Spider....garbage
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 4 of 4Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Who North America Forum :: Life, the Universe and Everything :: Sci Fi Discussion-
Jump to: