[Coco with marshmallows]

just a thought - this reboot - is this being done by Marvel films?

which leads to the obvious follow up - if so, can we expect to see this version of spiderman in the Avengers movie?

[Aptorian]

Spiderman is not tradionally connected to the Avengers all though I believe he has held a tittle of Free-lance member for a long time. How ever since he (at least up until the Civil War) has always been very protective of his secret Identity and you can not be a member of the Avengers, which is financed by the American Government, unless you reveal your identity and sign a lot of clauses and stuff. To attempt to tie him in with the Avengers would be silly. Might as well throw in Daredevil, Moon Knight and Iron Fist while you are at it...

Come to think of it, what ever happened to that Iron Fist film in the making?

[QuickTidal]

Cocoreturns, on 20 January 2011 - 09:07 PM, said:

just a thought - this reboot - is this being done by Marvel films?

which leads to the obvious follow up - if so, can we expect to see this version of spiderman in the Avengers movie?

Sony and Fox I believe...but I could be wrong.

...and no, having the huge cast for Joss Whedon's AVENGERS flick already makes for a few too many heroes in one movie, I doubt they'd add another.

Plus, this Spidey flick is apparently not going to progress out of the teen years.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 20 January 2011 - 09:29 PM

[Traveller]

QuickTidal, on 18 January 2011 - 02:37 PM, said:

First Tiger, on 18 January 2011 - 10:46 AM, said:

QuickTidal, on 14 January 2011 - 06:02 PM, said:

Indeed some fair points. Except it would seem you haven't seen THE DARK KNIGHT...but that can't be right ( )...

You got me there, I haven't seen it. Bad comic movie overload at the time, so I couldn't be bothered.

This will now be remedied, however.. I just got 'The Dark Knight' on Blu Ray. I'll get back when i've watched it..

It a really awesome crime drama. I DO hope you like it. It actually registers to me as a crime drama far before it does as a superhero flick, and I think that is the appeal.

Hmm. It was a really good film, and it looked awesome on blu ray, but it wasn't quite as good as I'd hoped. Bits of it were great.. don't get me wrong, I love the gadgets, the cast, and the detour to kidnap that guy, using all the bat-gear to good effect, was awesome. The first half, basically. Batman taking out regular security/bad guys, infiltrating the building, and ending with a cool escape plan. The second half.. not as good. For one thing, I just can't take Batman seriously when he's putting on that gruff voice to be Batman. It just made me laugh, from the first scene where he's talking to Gordon. Also, the way Batman likes to 'disappear' when anyone turns their back is a bit comical as I always wonder what would happen if they turned back too quickly.. would you see Batman running for the door, or trying to sneak out?!

As I said before, I think that like other comic hero films, it was again let down by having to include the 'costumed' bad guys. The Joker was good, yes, but the whole Harvey/Two Face thing just felt crammed in - because it was a Batman film, he had to be in it. I just don't think that whole 'i've been burned/dipped in toxic waste/ and I like riddles/jokes/spinning coins is a good set up for a villain. 'I like cats, I get pushed out of a window, and now I'm going to..dress..like.. a cat.' The film makers have to include these villains as they're in the comics, and they try their hardest to provide a reasonable explanation for their origin and motives, but it just doesn't work in a film. The setting, the plausability of Batman, Wayne Enterprises, the whole film really of works... but gets spoiled for me by the inclusion of cartoon character villains.

I did groan a little when Batman, on his cool new bike, gets taken down by the Joker (reminded me of the Batwing vs Joker scene from the other movie) - I just didn't buy the whole 'sparing him' business.. why the hell would you go after a cop-killing nutjob, chase him across half a city, blow his truck up, only to let him go when he's right there in front of you? He doesn't mind being known as a bad guy/dark knight at the end, as the 'people need him to be,' so why not bring down the real bad guy when you get the chance?

Anyhoo. Looked really good on blu ray, good movie, just felt could have been better.

This post has been edited by First Tiger: 23 January 2011 - 11:39 AM

[Aptorian]

First Tiger, on 22 January 2011 - 10:52 PM, said:

As I said before, I think that like other comic hero films, it was again let down by having to include the 'costumed' bad guys. The Joker was good, yes, but the whole Harvey/Two Face thing just felt crammed in - because it was a Batman film, he had to be in it. I just don't think that whole 'i've been burned/dipped in toxic waste/ and I like riddles/jokes/spinning coins is a good set up for a villain. 'I like cats, I get pushed out of a window, and now I'm going to..dress..like.. a cat.' The film makers have to include these villains as they're in the comics, and they try their hardest to provide a reasonable explanation for their origin and motives, but it just doesn't work in a film. The setting, the plausability of Batman, Wayne Enterprises, the whole film really of works... but gets spoiled for me by the inclusion of cartoon character villains.

Harvey Dent was not a Villain. He was the victim. An ordinary guy who dared to dream of a better Gotham City, who was destroyed by the people he wanted to stop. That was the tragedy.

This film was not about Batman at all, he was just a character in the bigger story, the story of Gotham City. The Dark Knight is not a Super Hero film. It's a crime story with psychopaths in the lead roles.

Are the characters of the Joker, Batman and Two Face unbelievable in the context of an ordinary crime drama, perhaps, but they are just ideas taken to the extreme. Idealism and Anarchy.

First Tiger, on 22 January 2011 - 10:52 PM, said:

I did groan a little when Batman, on his cool new bike, gets taken down by the Joker (reminded me of the Batwing vs Joker scene from the other movie) - I just didn't buy the whole 'sparing him' business.. why the hell would you go after a cop-killing nutjob, chase him across half a city, blow his truck up, only to let him go when he's right there in front of you? He doesn't mind being known as a bad guy/dark knight at the end, as the 'people need him to be,' so why not run down the real bad guy when you get the chance?

This was explained in the first movie. Batman believes you have to fight fire with with, which is why he goes around kicking ass and taking names. But he also believes that you have to be more than an animal, that is what his parents taught him. To kill would be to become what he is trying to stop. Again it is idealism. If he really did go around killing people you might as well call the film the Punisher... which would be an awesome film by the way, but Hollywood does not understand the appeal of the Punisher.

First Tiger, on 22 January 2011 - 10:52 PM, said:

(Also watched Kick Ass... brilliant stuff! 'With no power, comes no responsibility...')

I thought Kick Ass was terrible. Yeah, it was entertaining but it's execution was terrible. It could not decide if it was a drama, a comedy or an action flick. Subsequently it didn't do any of the three very well. Also I hated the Kick Ass character. I would have liked him if they'd demonstrated that he actually got better at fighting and more hardened after a dozen fights, but he doesn't evolve. Meanwhile his character doesn't click with the ultra violence happening in the other part of the film. The bad guys were two dimensional and you couldn't take them serious at all.

I think I would have prefered a 90 minute story of Hit Girl and Big Daddy instead. They were the only parts where the movie really shined in my opinion.

This post has been edited by Roger Ramjet: 23 January 2011 - 09:41 AM

[Traveller]

I haven't read the Batman comics; so I have no idea of who Two-Face is really based on, a victim or villain. All I know of him is that in a previous Batman film, he was a villian. So during the Dark Knight, Harvey's story seemed to me be leading to a point where he would become a villain. A lot of people who watched the 'Half Blood Prince' had no idea at the end what horcruxes were; whereas those that had read the books just knew, and didn't notice that it was not explained (that) well in the film. So for me, watching TDK for the first time, I was assuming that Harvey was going to become Two-Face at some point, and become a villain, like I'd seen him elsewhere.

Even as part of the Jokers chaotic plan to reduce the 'best of them' to a tragic wreck, I still don't think the actual Two-Face aspect was needed - it takes the film right back into it's cartoony origins imo, which many aspects of the film seems to be trying to get a away from. For example, 'Batman Begins' goes to great lengths to make Batman a plausable, possible character - his wealth, his training, his ideals. It does a really good job of showing how a real person, albeit a rich one, could actually become a masked crimefighter. Which is why after the Nolan films, I like Batman over the other 'heros' - because he's a real person, not a mutant of some sort. But then, after making this world seem real, they go and stick in a man who, with half of his face burned off, with no eyelids, is just walking around like he's just wearing a special effect. I just think they could have made it more in tune with the rest of the film - Harvey could have been equally well brought down after being tormented and having his GF blown up.

I know all about Batmans ideals; what I don't like is why an unarmoured mad guy wearing a suit is suddenly the hardest person for Batman to take down, just because he has make-up on. Batman takes out a buildings worth of security guards, takes out swat teams etc WITHOUT killing them, but for some reason can't flip a bit of wire round the Joker when he's stood right in front of him.

Fair point, the only really good bits of Kick-Ass were the BD and Hitgirl scenes. Still, quite an entertaining take on the hero thing. Bit weird to mix the funny stuff with the brutal though.. it sort of worked with the Hit Girl and BD scenes, but not with Kick Ass himself.

(Damn you Apt, I now have the Roger Ramjet theme in my head...)

This post has been edited by First Tiger: 23 January 2011 - 11:51 AM

[Yellow]

First official promo shot? Looks snazzy.

Attached File(s)

•  Select_091.jpg (238.49K)
  Number of downloads: 0

[Abyss]

Clockwork Apt, on 14 January 2011 - 04:11 PM, said:

...Now, a Ben Reilly story... that would be interesting. Tell a story of a roaming spiderman, detached from all his loved ones, no annoying Mary Jane or Aunt May. That I would watch.

A flic based off the most maligned Spidey storyline in the history of the universe... that's right up there with your 'Superman should be weaker' idea, Apt.

Quote

EDIT: Ooohh, I would a movie version of the Kraven story. But lets face it, you can't sell that story to the kids, they'll be scarred for life.

I dunno. I actually think this could be made to work very well. Except for the buried alive part. And Kraven shoving handfuls of spiders into his face. And the whole suicide thing.

QuickTidal, on 14 January 2011 - 06:04 PM, said:

cerveza_fiesta, on 14 January 2011 - 05:43 PM, said:

I hope they manage to leave out the general pussiness and crying with Peter Parker this time.

Absolutely 100% agreed.

NO CRYING IN COMIC MOVIES DAMMIT.

Spidey 3 was an insult to the human brain. Actually, it was an insult to spider brains too.

Clockwork Apt, on 20 January 2011 - 05:45 AM, said:

MWKarsa, on 20 January 2011 - 04:52 AM, said:

I can't even mention Fantastic Four ... because I try and pretend those movies don't exist.

The first Fantastic Four was actually not half bad in my opinion. The only problem was that Doctor Doom was not disfigured enough and there was far too little action over all in the film. Far too much story and too little clobbering time.

Agreed on this - the first one was ok. At the very least, the final fight was vintage FF.
Plus...

DOOM: Susan, let's not fight.
SUE: No Victor. Let's. *kicks his ass*

.... was pure gold.

The second one... not so much.

[Bauchelain the Evil]

The second wouldn't have been that bad if you know, they had made Silver Surfer look like the extremely powerful being that would totally not be rendered unconscious simply by one hit of Dr. Doom's blasts he is. Oh, and if they had actually have shown Galactus as the giant planet-eater he is and not a vague form in space.

[QuickTidal]

Bauchelain the Evil, on 23 February 2011 - 05:13 PM, said:

Oh, and if they had actually have shown Galactus as the giant planet-eater he is and not a vague cloud of lame insect robots in space.

Fixed.

[Aptorian]

Abyss, on 23 February 2011 - 04:30 PM, said:

Clockwork Apt, on 14 January 2011 - 04:11 PM, said:

...Now, a Ben Reilly story... that would be interesting. Tell a story of a roaming spiderman, detached from all his loved ones, no annoying Mary Jane or Aunt May. That I would watch.

A flic based off the most maligned Spidey storyline in the history of the universe... that's right up there with your 'Superman should be weaker' idea, Apt.

I didn't mind the early stages of the clone saga. It was only when it became silly and a whole army of various clones showed up and that "Mark of Cain" guy kept appearing that it got annoying.

I liked the uncertainty of whether or not Peter Parker or Ben Reilly was the real spiderman. It was an interesting personality crisis for Parker.

I think it might also be because I tired of Perter Parkers marriage about 10 issues after he married Mary Jane. (I am still angry that they retconned the whole Spider-resurrection/One more day bullshit)

QuickTidal, on 23 February 2011 - 08:31 PM, said:

Bauchelain the Evil, on 23 February 2011 - 05:13 PM, said:

Oh, and if they had actually have shown Galactus as the giant planet-eater he is and not a vague cloud of lame insect robots in space.

Fixed.

Sure you're not mistaking the Ultimate comics with the film there? I don't seem to recall movie Galactus as having any real shape other than a big indistinct cloud with the form of his helmet appearing as a shadow inside it. Did we see school bus sized insects?

This post has been edited by Clockwork Apt: 23 February 2011 - 09:10 PM

[QuickTidal]

Clockwork Apt, on 23 February 2011 - 09:06 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 23 February 2011 - 08:31 PM, said:

Bauchelain the Evil, on 23 February 2011 - 05:13 PM, said:

Oh, and if they had actually have shown Galactus as the giant planet-eater he is and not a vague cloud of lame insect robots in space.

Fixed.

Sure you're not mistaking the Ultimate comics with the film there? I don't seem to recall movie Galactus as having any real shape other than a big indistinct cloud with the form of his helmet appearing as a shadow inside it. Did we see school bus sized insects?

I think if you look closely the clouds have moderately indistinct robotic tentacles or segmented arms and to me resembled a re imagining of the Ultimates Comics version and kinda insecty....but it could be wish fulfillment on my part. LOL

[QuickTidal]

Some Hi-Res stills.

Looks okay. At least Garfield can act. Cautiously optimistic.

[Aptorian]

Awh the images died.

[Use Of Weapons]

They're back now -- and I was able to open them in a new tab and see them before. Suit looks good. Actor is better looking than T-Mag, but still has that preppy look that Peter Parker should have. Really not a fan of going back to the old-school web-shooters though. I that that was one change that the original trilogy made that was totally, emphatically right.

The Lizard is a bit one-note for a villain, though.

[QuickTidal]

UseOfWeapons, on 15 July 2011 - 12:23 PM, said:

Really not a fan of going back to the old-school web-shooters though. I that that was one change that the original trilogy made that was totally, emphatically right.

HERESY!

Burn him!

[Use Of Weapons]

It's not entirely the movies, either -- the same change happened in canon in the comics.

[QuickTidal]

UseOfWeapons, on 15 July 2011 - 02:37 PM, said:

It's not entirely the movies, either -- the same change happened in canon in the comics.

Only for a short period after the disassembled storyline a few years back. They are mechanical again now as far as I know.

[shikkaka]

Quote

I liked Iron Man, the first half anyway, as he was taking on human enemies in a present day setting - I have never read any Iron man comics, so I don't care if they missed out stuff; what I notice is that the film eventually had a weak story because it felt the need to stick to the old Marvel formula (it is Marvel, right?) like Hulk did. It's all well and good to feature 'Stanleys' bar in Hulk, with Stan Lee in it, but it doesn't make it a better film. That was my point; imo, the film conversions of comics won't ever be any good, because they are restricted by their own material and feel they have to include it. Even if it's crap.

I am hoping for an extremis storyline at some point. Can you imagine the first scene showing the armor coming out of his bones! I think that would be unbelievably cool.

As far as Spidey goes, mechanical > organic and Gwen > Mary Jane

This post has been edited by shikkaka: 15 July 2011 - 05:15 PM

[Aptorian]

Actually No girlfriend/Unhappy lonely spiderman > Gwen or Mary Jane.

Spiderman needs to be miserable to be good. I hate the "married to a supermodel" angle so fucking much.