General Discussion

All-purpose section for discussions that donít clearly belong in any of the other categories.


Movies of 2012

   
Actually, Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch are an exception to Fox having exclusive rights to the X-Men film franchise. Marvel argued that those two are more recognized as Avengers than as X-Men, and part of the agreement is that Marvel can use both characters in the Avengers, so long as they make no other references to the X-Men franchise. (Personally, I don't think Quicksilver is really unique enough to justify a spot in the films, though I could see Scarlet Witch making for a pretty awesome dark magical woman. Supposedly the 'second cycle' of Avengers movies will be more magic-oriented.)

I'll give my opinion on other matters being discussed later, though I was pretty strongly in favor of Amazing Spider-Man earlier in this thread.

EDIT: Aha, source! At the two minute mark he explains that both Fox and Marvel can use Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch in their respective films. During discussions I read that they have to refrain from referring to the other studios' property while doing so, but that may just be speculation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wippit Guud View Post
Gwen Stacy was his first GF in the comics.

Unfortunately, knowing that, I can pretty much tell you scene for scene what movie 2 is going to be.
Super fail prediction time! Both Stacy and Mary Jane (who sucks) will be played by Emma Stone with different hair.

But really, if they go back to MJ, I'm going to kill somebody. Gwen was the best part of that movie.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zelkon View Post
But really, if they go back to MJ, I'm going to kill somebody. Gwen was the best part of that movie.
They have to eventually.

I didn't mind Mary Jane! She's an actress, not a nerd. I thought she was fine; she is the hottest girl in high school you always wished you could date. (Hammie did that for only one dance, but WHAT an unforgettable dance!) I would scream like a ten year old girl if I was targeted by super villains, too.

That being said, I agree that Gwen Stacy was great, and yes, I really enjoyed her. Emma Stone was a good casting move. I just don't think Mary Jane was bad. You don't kiss Gwen upside down in the rain. You do little geeky happy fun science stuff and realize you're kindred spirits; that fits her better.

Having just watched the trailer for Iron Sky (because someone posted a pic of the Tardis in an easter egg in it), has anyone seen it? I mean, it's campy to the extreme, but it look like it'd be fun to watch.

Agreed, MJ Is not god awful by comic book love intrest standards.
But she is a sore spot for allot of comic fans.

Gwen is a grey area for allot of us as well.

On the one hand MJ is a constant reminder that Gwen is not there, that we could have a Better love intrest. (Not that MJ is bad) So you kind of want Gwen back.

but at the same time Is one of if not the most important moment' the development of spiderman's character. Maybe even = with Uncle Bens death.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammerfist View Post
I didn't mind Mary Jane! She's an actress, not a nerd. I thought she was fine; she is the hottest girl in high school you always wished you could date. (Hammie did that for only one dance, but WHAT an unforgettable dance!) I would scream like a ten year old girl if I was targeted by super villains, too.

That being said, I agree that Gwen Stacy was great, and yes, I really enjoyed her. Emma Stone was a good casting move. I just don't think Mary Jane was bad. You don't kiss Gwen upside down in the rain. You do little geeky happy fun science stuff and realize you're kindred spirits; that fits her better.
The big problem is that she never really did anything in the movies. She was a goal; she was defined pretty much entirely by who she was and was not dating at a given time. In the first movie, Peter pines for her while she dates Harry. In the second movie, Peter pines for her while she dates an astronaut. In the third movie, she and Peter happily date for the first half, then a really trite love triangle forms to bring tension into their relationship. The closest she came to feeling like a real character and not a goal for Peter to achieve was the beginning of the third movie, when their roles were swapped and Spider-Man was beloved by the people while MJ's acting career was on the rocks, and Peter wasn't there emotionally for her. Theeen... well, there's a reason Spider-Man 3 isn't particularly well-liked even by fans of the Raimi films.

(In Dunst's defense, this was pretty much entirely the fault of the writers. While I wasn't ecstatic over Kirsten Dunst, she did the part well for what was given to her. Apparently she actually demanded she not be reduced to 'being kidnapped and screaming for Peter to save her during the climax of the movie' in the third film, but when
Gwen Stacy... mostly in name only
Bryce Howard wasn't available to play that part, she filled her role in the third act. Point being, the writers really weren't good at writing female characters.)

In comparison, Gwen Stacy feels like an actual character who is also a love interest, instead of a character who is only a love interest. While I would've liked a little more development between her and Dr. Connors, I think it would've amped up the tragedy, we actually get to see her relationship with her father, her largely implied relationship with Connors, and unlike MJ, she actually does try to help. I'm not just referring to using the flamethrower on Lizard (though that was fantastic), but making the antidote... I haven't seen the movie in awhile so specifics are fuzzy, but basically, unlike Mary Jane in Raimi's films, Gwen Stacy was a character and not (just) a plot device. And that's great. I hope they continue the trend with Mary Jane in the second movie.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Wippit Guud View Post
They have to eventually.
Bleh. Maybe they'll change it, just like the entire rest of the story for the reboot. They didn't even have Gwen in the first Spidy trilogy.

Quote:
The big problem is that she never really did anything in the movies. She was a goal; she was defined pretty much entirely by who she was and was not dating at a given time. In the first movie, Peter pines for her while she dates Harry. In the second movie, Peter pines for her while she dates an astronaut. In the third movie, she and Peter happily date for the first half, then a really trite love triangle forms to bring tension into their relationship. The closest she came to feeling like a real character and not a goal for Peter to achieve was the beginning of the third movie, when their roles were swapped and Spider-Man was beloved by the people while MJ's acting career was on the rocks, and Peter wasn't there emotionally for her. Theeen... well, there's a reason Spider-Man 3 isn't particularly well-liked even by fans of the Raimi films.
And I guess I just don't agree with that. Ok, she's a goal, but she's the person Peter loves, and always has from a distance. He used to be too nerdy for her, and she had a pretty screwed up life (the film shows that). Plus, she was a little self obsessed early on. But then, the hero gains confidence, she matures a little, and they can finally fall in love. The point was that the Raimi films were about Spider Man, and seen entirely from his perspective. It's not really 'supposed' to be about Mary Jane. I don't think the fact that the film doesn't cover her means she's some 'object' of sorts. I mean, the Batman films really took the character study to a new level; the Dark Knight was Joker vs Batman and action scenes thrown around that. I just don't see what you're saying as a bad thing because the movie chose to pick its focus and went with it.

Let's go back to 2002...comic book movies generally aren't major blockbusters. The Batman films got incredibly corny and embarrassingly campy. X Men in 2000 was pretty good, but not great, as it should have been called 'Wolverine and Pals', but it at least makes people realize you can make money with superheroes. Then Spiderman comes along...the film series that injects life into the genre and makes superheroes cool again, all over the world! Filmmakers aren't looking for a 'character study' here; they're looking for a BAM! POW! THWAP! blockbuster film, and Spiderman delivered on that. His success paved the way for later films to go much deeper using superheroes as a backdrop. And better yet, it came along as the Millennial generation was growing into their teens/college/adult years. Timing is everything

Now let's move ahead to Spiderman 2 in 2004...which I personally thought belonged on the Mt. Rushmore of Superhero films. You have to see it for what it was in film history at the time; they actually delved into the hero's life, showed his struggles to be heroic and STILL 'normal', gave him obstacles to overcome, moral decisions, a bad guy who had some depth, and a woman who finally loved him for who he was. Sure, other films since then have gone deeper, but Spiderman 2 did what other films of the genre really hadn't done in a long time (I'd argue Superman 2, another great movie, came closest); it paved the way for films to actually take superheroes seriously. Remember, unlike people on the Weave, most moviegoers aren't geeks/nerds, and they come to the theater thinking comic book heroes belong in Saturday morning cartoons. Spiderman 2 actually made the casual fan and filmmaker see you could Call me crazy, but I don't think you get the Dark Knight without Spiderman 2 coming out before it. People weren't willing to take superheroes seriously before that, at least not in film form.

I guess what I'm saying is that I think you're using 2012 logic to a film that paved the way for other ones. It's like complaining that special effects from today are better than those in 'A New Hope'. While true, it isn't a fair point to make; history has to be honored as part of the decision. Spidey essentially made the world realize superheroes JUST might be mainstream again

The Amazing Spiderman had plenty more time to develop Aunt May, Uncle Ben, Peter Parker, and Gwen Stacy. Why? Because they knew the audience didn't really need a refresher course. Why do we reboot things? To get a fresh, new take. The Star Trek movie is another good example; they didn't need to tell you what Klingons were, that transporters existed, that Spock was half human/half Vulcan, and since the audience came with the knowledge, they were free to use their time doing other things.

That film built off the first ones. All these modern superhero films owe Sam Raimi and Spiderman a great deal of credit because that's what paved the way for the rest of them. And that's why, while I understand what you're saying, I don't think it applies to this. There IS no Gwen Stacy if Kirsten isn't MJ first. The way has to be paved before it can be perfected; no shame in being the trailblazer

And yes, Spiderman 3 wasn't that good. Wasn't horrible, but did not live up to the lofty standards of its predecessor. And, honestly, post 'Batman Begins' in 2005, the Sam Raimi style of superhero films was getting dated. In 2007, people went to the theater expecting more from the genre now, and they didn't get it.

I suppose I'm just saying that history plays a big role. Whether we know it or not, our expectations have gotten a LOT bigger now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammerfist View Post
And I guess I just don't agree with that. Ok, she's a goal, but she's the person Peter loves, and always has from a distance. He used to be too nerdy for her, and she had a pretty screwed up life (the film shows that). Plus, she was a little self obsessed early on. But then, the hero gains confidence, she matures a little, and they can finally fall in love. The point was that the Raimi films were about Spider Man, and seen entirely from his perspective. It's not really 'supposed' to be about Mary Jane. I don't think the fact that the film doesn't cover her means she's some 'object' of sorts. I mean, the Batman films really took the character study to a new level; the Dark Knight was Joker vs Batman and action scenes thrown around that. I just don't see what you're saying as a bad thing because the movie chose to pick its focus and went with it.

Let's go back to 2002...comic book movies generally aren't major blockbusters. The Batman films got incredibly corny and embarrassingly campy. X Men in 2000 was pretty good, but not great, as it should have been called 'Wolverine and Pals', but it at least makes people realize you can make money with superheroes. Then Spiderman comes along...the film series that injects life into the genre and makes superheroes cool again, all over the world! Filmmakers aren't looking for a 'character study' here; they're looking for a BAM! POW! THWAP! blockbuster film, and Spiderman delivered on that. His success paved the way for later films to go much deeper using superheroes as a backdrop. And better yet, it came along as the Millennial generation was growing into their teens/college/adult years. Timing is everything

Now let's move ahead to Spiderman 2 in 2004...which I personally thought belonged on the Mt. Rushmore of Superhero films. You have to see it for what it was in film history at the time; they actually delved into the hero's life, showed his struggles to be heroic and STILL 'normal', gave him obstacles to overcome, moral decisions, a bad guy who had some depth, and a woman who finally loved him for who he was. Sure, other films since then have gone deeper, but Spiderman 2 did what other films of the genre really hadn't done in a long time (I'd argue Superman 2, another great movie, came closest); it paved the way for films to actually take superheroes seriously. Remember, unlike people on the Weave, most moviegoers aren't geeks/nerds, and they come to the theater thinking comic book heroes belong in Saturday morning cartoons. Spiderman 2 actually made the casual fan and filmmaker see you could Call me crazy, but I don't think you get the Dark Knight without Spiderman 2 coming out before it. People weren't willing to take superheroes seriously before that, at least not in film form.

I guess what I'm saying is that I think you're using 2012 logic to a film that paved the way for other ones. It's like complaining that special effects from today are better than those in 'A New Hope'. While true, it isn't a fair point to make; history has to be honored as part of the decision. Spidey essentially made the world realize superheroes JUST might be mainstream again

The Amazing Spiderman had plenty more time to develop Aunt May, Uncle Ben, Peter Parker, and Gwen Stacy. Why? Because they knew the audience didn't really need a refresher course. Why do we reboot things? To get a fresh, new take. The Star Trek movie is another good example; they didn't need to tell you what Klingons were, that transporters existed, that Spock was half human/half Vulcan, and since the audience came with the knowledge, they were free to use their time doing other things.

That film built off the first ones. All these modern superhero films owe Sam Raimi and Spiderman a great deal of credit because that's what paved the way for the rest of them. And that's why, while I understand what you're saying, I don't think it applies to this. There IS no Gwen Stacy if Kirsten isn't MJ first. The way has to be paved before it can be perfected; no shame in being the trailblazer

And yes, Spiderman 3 wasn't that good. Wasn't horrible, but did not live up to the lofty standards of its predecessor. And, honestly, post 'Batman Begins' in 2005, the Sam Raimi style of superhero films was getting dated. In 2007, people went to the theater expecting more from the genre now, and they didn't get it.

I suppose I'm just saying that history plays a big role. Whether we know it or not, our expectations have gotten a LOT bigger now.
I did not read your whole post to be honest but let me say that most of the Characters you spoke of have been in development since the 60's The Spider-Man I II and III all had flaws. MJ Should never have been his first love and that Black Suit common I really wanted to see the jet black deal from the comics not a black version of his red and blue suit. and Harry they killed him off and did not get to become the green goblin just some nut on a board. Don't Get me wrong Seeing Spidey web slinging across new york had me kiddy as a school boy and for its time It was good. and the 1989 Version of Batman was good I dont care what you say. I know I am going to get flamed for this post but oh well thats my two coppers.





Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Myth-Weavers Status       Advertise with us