|
|
Post by tygerarmy on Jan 16, 2010 6:00:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Jan 16, 2010 6:07:26 GMT -5
Yay!
|
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Jan 16, 2010 6:11:21 GMT -5
Honestly one of the worst things Rami ever did was keep killing off his villians. GG I could see but when they killed off Doc Ock....
Ironbite-I just gave up.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Jan 16, 2010 9:31:47 GMT -5
How was Spider-Man 3 a disaster? Aside from 1 corny scene & a somewhat glaring plot hole, I liked it.
The concept of a reboot also annoys me, because I wanted to see Carnage in the new movie.
Actually, on second thought, I like the corny scene. It's so bad it's funny.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mantorok on Jan 16, 2010 9:44:06 GMT -5
Every scene with Peter Parker and/or Mary Jane was as painful as Twilight. Sandman was the only thing remotely good about the movie.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Jan 16, 2010 9:50:49 GMT -5
You're overexaggerating. Immensely. And what about Venom?
|
|
|
|
Post by Mantorok on Jan 16, 2010 10:10:09 GMT -5
No, I'm simply not pulling any punches. I honestly felt like bashing in Peter Parker's skull with a hammer, and he's supposed to be the hero.
As for Venom, he was barely in the movie.
|
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Jan 16, 2010 10:31:22 GMT -5
Honestly one of the worst things Rami ever did was keep killing off his villians. GG I could see but when they killed off Doc Ock.... Ironbite-I just gave up. The worst thing Raimi did was turn one of the most relatable heroes in Comic Bookdom into an emo bitch who made Superman look like a deep character. I couldn't decide which was more cardboard--the romance or the drama. Spider-Man 3 was probably the most fun, but it was rushed with a clusterfuck of a plot, tempered with the George Lucas school of "If you can't write a good plot or interesting characters, at least distract the audience with something shiny." *spoilers?*"Killing" the characters wasn't even that bad. Odds are Norman would return, Doc Ock didn't die onscreen, and I'd be surprised to find Brock was dead, using whatever technique one might consider comic booky enough. The Symbiote Sacrificed itself, evil twin from the future, Brock's nipples are made of Adamantium, whatever. Least, I hope that's why they kept the sample around...Because the idea of introducing Carnage would only have the benefit of artificially making the other characters look deeper. *end spoilers?* Guy should have stuck with shitty cult flicks. Hey, maybe we can get Rob Zombie to do the next Spider-Man movie. Seems like a lateral move. |
|
|
|
Post by HarleyThomas1002 on Jan 16, 2010 15:29:03 GMT -5
At least Venom's getting his own spin-off movie. He's an anti-hero instead of a villain, but it could have been worse. Not sure how they'd make him an anti-hero especially if they still use the same Venom from the third movie who was a dripping monster. Also, I say this script should be used for the fourth film. |
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Jan 16, 2010 18:06:36 GMT -5
What's with this "artificial character depth" stuff? Parker turned into an "emo bitch" because that's roughly in-line with what the symbiote does to a person. And I don't even get the comment about Carnage. It's the logical progression of the villains.
Personally, I don't like the idea of Venom being an anti-hero at all. Comic books go on for years, so those sort of changes do happen, but in the grand scheme of things, they rarely really make sense, so it's good to avoid them when you can, as in a movie series.
As I recall, this was going to be in the same continuity. In other words, this would be with the same Eddie Brock whose response to losing his job was to pray for Peter Parker to die, then try to make it happen when he obtained the means, and ultimately chose to be a villain. And they planned to make him an anti-hero? Sorry, but I'm not seein' it.
Sure, Peter did act like kind of a dick, but it was eventually resolved. It didn't end with some "true love" dribble, which makes me wonder how the comparison to Twilight is in any way valid.
|
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Jan 16, 2010 18:20:13 GMT -5
At least Venom's getting his own spin-off movie. He's an anti-hero instead of a villain, but it could have been worse. Not sure how they'd make him an anti-hero especially if they still use the same Venom from the third movie who was a dripping monster. Also, I say this script should be used for the fourth film. Yeah, I've never been a fan of the newer versions of Venom where the Symbiote turns everyone into goatee-sporting villains. The original symbiote deal was way cooler. Especially once it became a "lover scorned," which is what led to Venom in the first place. Brock was ruined by him, the symbiote was rejected by him. That Venom was easy to make an anti-hero. He protected those he viewed as "innocents," like he once considered himself to be. Now, if you'll pardon me, I've got to go yell at some kids to get off my lawn with their punk rock music. |
|
|
|
Post by Mira on Jan 16, 2010 18:20:18 GMT -5
As someone who just saw Twilight a few days ago...
the romance in Spider-Man 3 was indeed terrible, but nothing compares to the pure emotionlessness of Edward and Bella.
|
|
|
|
Post by HarleyThomas1002 on Jan 16, 2010 18:42:21 GMT -5
As someone who just saw Twilight a few days ago... You poor bastard. |
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Jan 16, 2010 18:55:00 GMT -5
What's with this "artificial character depth" stuff? It's the same stuff as Cloud and Sepiroth. You didn't get it then, you won't get it now. Two points: 1. Not if you take the movie as internally consistent it isn't. 2. Did the symbiote radiate the emo through time, then? Because I wasn't just talking post-symbiote. Sorry. Except I was referencing the character being shite that should be left in the 90s along with the other vapid bullshit that was cranked out to appeal to the kiddies. Venom had substance and depth, Carnage did not. The "logical progression" would seem to be "continue with the Sinister Six," as Spider-Man had faced three of them, and Sandman was still the focus of the third movie. But in either case, that doesn't make Carnage less terrible. With Venom, it made 100% sense, and wasn't even so much a progression as it was a character trait. This would be confusing to fans of the movies, as there were no character traits in the movies. The only reason they would need to make any sort of progression, and the only reason it would not make sense, is that they changed what Venom was. This was a bad move, simply because the news of a Venom spin-off dropping before Spider-Man 3 was in post. What you're describing is roughly the same as the comics, though. It's still internally consistent. The only part missing is that Venom is a parasite that turns you into Snidely Whiplash in the movies. Which also sucked for Parker. Because comparisons between two things do not need to be completely literal. For example, if one were to compare Star Wars to the mythology of Christ, it doesn't match up literally. I mean, Jesus didn't have laser swords or spaceships. But there are parallels before you even consider the ham handed comparisons from the prequels. Similarly, the Matrix featured a Jesus who flew and kicked serious AI ass, but he was clearly Jesus, as was pounded into our skulls by the movie, the fandom, and the creators who were so caught up in their own ego trip they didn't think subtlety was worthy of their time. Similarly, one does not need to make a movie about true love to be like Twilight. Raimi already turned a deep character into a brooding twit dealing with contemporary issues like lack of character development and non-wooden relationships. Might I add, the Mary Jane character may not have been written with Twilight in mind, but they certainly did Bella-fy the character from the original Mary Jane Watson, the one from the comics of like three decades. Maybe they've changed her now, but as Raimi described Venom as being "after his time," it's pretty clear he had no grasp of the character from the time he was actually reading the comics. Though the same could be said for Spider-Man, as well. |
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Jan 16, 2010 18:57:36 GMT -5
As someone who just saw Twilight a few days ago... the romance in Spider-Man 3 was indeed terrible, but nothing compares to the pure emotionlessness of Edward and Bella. Well, see, this is where that plot hole comes in. Mary Jane is threatened by the Green Goblin. This leads to her breaking up with Peter over a seemingly unrelated issue. This raises a few questions: Is she breaking up because she feels threatened? If so, why doesn't she ask for Peter's help? If not, why include that scene at all? It makes no sense either way you look at it. Then there was the main issue with the romantic subplot. The focus was on Peter's fame going to his head, which was true, but Mary Jane's behavior wasn't really much better. For all the more she criticized Peter, she seemed to believe the world revolved around her & her problems. At least Peter DID try to help her before he ended up talking about himself. Basically, there's a reason I don't care much for including romance in a story. |
|
