*Steel Posted February 19, 2011 Posted February 19, 2011 It's almost like you are trying to ruin the movie for yourself before you even get there by pick apart stuff that really isn't going to be important in Hollywood where really they aren't making a movie for you, a fan of spiderman, they are making a movie for the masses, who frankly have more money to spend. They care about what looks good, not what is cannonly correct. Not really, at least I'm not trying to. I just said I dont like the size of teh web shooters of the silver shoe things. I dont know enough about the movie to judge that. We are all perfectly entitald to not like the look of something. I argued the cannon of X-men but I dont know enough about this to give my opinion... and thats all it is, an opinion. Your right in that it may not matter to hollywood but that dosn't mean I should shut up and take it does it? And maybe your right and and the silver feet bits are to help them with their CGI refrencing. I personaly dont think so. They look a little elaboratly designed for that... plus why only his feet if that is the case. I think they are part of his suit and we will see him wearing them in the film. And whats wrong with wanting accuracy to the sourse subject? Yes something has to apeal to the masses, but why does that mean what a fan like and what the regular public like have to be diffrent? They dont. Selling tickets and making money IS the idea behind blockbuster movies. Yes its rarly for the art of it. But if you are true to the fans then you have a following that will loyaly buy your product. Not every joe public will on the other hand. I dont know a single friend who has buyght a superhero type movie. Not even the good ones, and these are people who actualy liked the films. I on the other hand have bought the ones I like, and happy back them. So I dont really get the Regular Public vs Fans thing. Box office wise, yes the public may spend more, but fans are long term and that adds up. Quote
Guest DekaRed Posted February 19, 2011 Posted February 19, 2011 Also, the point about sticking to walls may be valid but it is not valid to spiderman who DOES stick to walls through his shoes and originally just 'stuck' with no explanation as to how. doesn't really matter though, as he now usually takes his shoes off for wall-crawling. perhaps the earlier versions didn't have all the details worked out properly. Quote
*Steel Posted February 19, 2011 Posted February 19, 2011 Yeah they try to stick with atleast a slightly sciency explanation for the powers of most non magical heroes these day. Heck there are books on the Science of the marvel universe. Quote
Oberon Posted February 19, 2011 Posted February 19, 2011 Also, the point about sticking to walls may be valid but it is not valid to spiderman who DOES stick to walls through his shoes and originally just 'stuck' with no explanation as to how. doesn't really matter though, as he now usually takes his shoes off for wall-crawling. perhaps the earlier versions didn't have all the details worked out properly. He takes his shoes off if he has time. In the middle of a battle, he usually conveniently runs up a wall so any quasi science explanation would usually go out the window at that point. It's all well and good to want the science explanations but they don't stick with them when it's convenient. Not usually anyway and let's face it, Marvel science is shot anyway as it's got too many people defining it. Steel, there is of course nothing wrong with wanting unity between cannon and movie. infact I'd go so far as to say that such a thing makes continuity easier to pursue, movie to movie, when you don't have to remember what you changed and didn't change and can just 'slot' a story into the existing cannon as it were. Unfortunately though some things that can be drawn are more easily drawn than made into a movie and with the removing of all the 'magic' to make it all scientifically plausible you take a step away from the comic itself. While the sales from fans add up and comic sales are still strong, they should perhaps go for more cannon but the general feeling in Hollywood about if it looks good it goes, is also VERY strong. That's what people who want cannon continuity are up against. As for that silver thing on the shoes. You don't know what it is. I don't know what it is but you appear to be making a set in stone judgment that it will look bad without knowing for sure. For all we know the silver comes from the trainers that the stunt man wears for luck! Quote
*Steel Posted February 19, 2011 Posted February 19, 2011 Yeah I can agree with you on that. Comic wise contenuity can suffer even unintentionaly. You have multiple writers and artists all working on the same charcter. Flaws are always going to pop up. In just nice to have a base idea of how things work and gloss over the indiscrepancys that don't make much sence. No real reason we should accept bad righting just because its published. Sort of how I like to pretend Hudlin Black Panther run is in some wacky alternate universe. Back to the movie though and Boots aside. I do actualy like the look. I was always a fan of the Ben Reilly costume and this looks half way between that and the classic look. Although my favorates are the black suit and 2099. Story wise I just hope that its dosn't tred too much of the same origin water that the first Sam Raimi film. Its like superman... is there anyone who really dosn't know their origin? Looking forward to the Lizard though Quote
Bobby Posted February 19, 2011 Posted February 19, 2011 Yeah they try to stick with atleast a slightly sciency explanation for the powers of most non magical heroes these day. Heck there are books on the Science of the marvel universe. I read an article a few years ago that showed how certain powers could be applied to the military. Like the web-slinging or becoming invisible. Quote
Oberon Posted February 20, 2011 Posted February 20, 2011 Pretty much every super power could be useful to the military. Quote
Bobby Posted February 20, 2011 Posted February 20, 2011 Not all. Teleportation is a LOOOOOOOONG ways away. Likewise manipulation of elements & telekinesis. Quote
Oberon Posted February 20, 2011 Posted February 20, 2011 LOL Bobby, I suggest you re-read. I never mentioned if the super powers were possible, just that they would be useful to the military. Quote
Guest DekaRed Posted February 20, 2011 Posted February 20, 2011 Not all. Teleportation is a LOOOOOOOONG ways away. Likewise manipulation of elements & telekinesis. oh, and webslinging and invisibility are just around the corner? aaaahhhh... hahahahahahahahahahahaha Quote
odin Posted February 22, 2011 Author Posted February 22, 2011 nice new picture, looking at it from that angle it does not look that bad ahh, the magic of good photography, Thanks again for the update Deka, I have not gotten the chance to do it myself with all the stuff i got to do, I am really glad there are people here that still like spidey despite to what Quesada almost did to the series. Quote
durendal Posted February 23, 2011 Posted February 23, 2011 Looks like Spiderman is still under licensed to Sony, so odds that this be linked to the marvel cinematic universe is highly unlikely. Quote
odin Posted March 13, 2011 Author Posted March 13, 2011 Martin Sheen will play the role of Uncle Ben in the next Spider-Man film from Columbia Pictures and Marvel Studios, set to swing onto the bigscreen in 3D on July 3, 2012.The famed actor, known for his roles in "Apocalypse Now," "The American President" and "The Departed" as well as a seven-year turn as President Josiah Bartlet in "The West Wing," will join Andrew Garfield as Peter Parker/Spider-Man, Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy, and Rhys Ifans as the film's villain under the direction of Marc Webb. Stay tuned to Marvel.com for more info in the coming days, and we'll keep you up to date on all the latest Spidey news as it breaks! More on Marvel.com: http://marvel.com/news/story/14600/martin_sheen_to_play_uncle_ben#ixzz1GUu8QbfE Quote
Bobby Posted March 13, 2011 Posted March 13, 2011 This is the second comic book movie he's been in. He was one of the villains in "Spawn". Quote
odin Posted March 13, 2011 Author Posted March 13, 2011 This is the second comic book movie he's been in. He was one of the villains in "Spawn". indeed he was, I think he may actually do a better job here than he did in spawn. Quote
Bobby Posted March 14, 2011 Posted March 14, 2011 I thought he was badass in "Spawn". Though I haven't read any Spawn comics. You know that his grandson will flip out like he did when Martin told him he was gonna be in "Spawn". Quote
Larz Zahn Posted April 2, 2011 Posted April 2, 2011 ok great. a spidey thread. im so there. just so ya know, spiderman first defeated sandman by vaccuming him with a vaccum. its in the 1963 or 64. the first appearance of sandman. and so ya know, the stickum powers was first explain in the 60's by him having actual suction cups on his fingers, and yes, they actually drew suction cups for fingers, it was awful. im really glad they redefined that ability. even if they redefined it like, 100 times now. im fine with the suit. even if he does have silver toes and heels. anybody remember seeing the goblin outfit for the first time for the first movie? how many people screamed {Powerrangers}?? and yet, it worked superbly. so even if it seems an eyesore now, im still psyched to see this movie. yeah, i a big spidey fan... i have all the amazing spiderman comics on dvd. off ebay. great deal. runs from the first issue up to the road to civil war. only down side is, it only has the amazing spiderman run!!! around the 80's they started dividing the storylines around the 4 or 5 existing spiderman comic lines. so for late 80's to early 2000's, i only have portions of stories. Quote
odin Posted April 3, 2011 Author Posted April 3, 2011 (edited) sure, no prob i welcome all the help for all spidey fans. Edited April 3, 2011 by odin Quote
Larz Zahn Posted April 3, 2011 Posted April 3, 2011 ooohh maybe i should of been more clear with that.. i'll clarify. i got the amazing spiderman comics and i can post images of peoples first appearances. like the examples i mentioned in my last post. i didnt actally mean new photos of this movie coming up, cause i have no idea where you people find those! lol. o i just realized something... that post a few pages back describing the movie. it really sounded official, and they kept referring to the comics as teh orginial comic books. does that mean that its going to be based on amazing spiderman instead of the ultimate, which is what everybody is saying its based off of? Quote
odin Posted April 3, 2011 Author Posted April 3, 2011 (edited) I guess is a mix of both, the love interest is gwen instead of MJ like in the mainstream spider-man comics (amazing, spectacular, web of etc..) but it will be focused more when peter is at school ( like in Ultimate or the spectacular spider-man tv series) if you want to post the pictures that are not realted to the movie you can go ahead and post it on the american comics thread that durendal made, if he does not mind of course. Edited April 3, 2011 by odin Quote
durendal Posted April 3, 2011 Posted April 3, 2011 Or the male character designs thread, since most probably some of the earlier designs of the villains were partly funny. Your choice. To continue on, I think the portryal of Gwen as Spidey's love interest is parallel to Joe Q's dislike of MJ. And since they are portraying the early years of Spidey, of course Gwen would be part of it. As we all know, Gwen, Spidey, the Green Goblin and the thing they were involved in was a major Marvel Milestone that every spidey fans know about. Do you think we will see a tragic sequel to this? Quote
Bobby Posted April 4, 2011 Posted April 4, 2011 Perhaps. When Scarlet Witch altered reality so that she could have the children she was to have with her android husband, fellow Avenger the Vision, Spidey ended up married to Gwen Stacy. Quote
odin Posted April 4, 2011 Author Posted April 4, 2011 Or the male character designs thread, since most probably some of the earlier designs of the villains were partly funny. Your choice. To continue on, I think the portryal of Gwen as Spidey's love interest is parallel to Joe Q's dislike of MJ. And since they are portraying the early years of Spidey, of course Gwen would be part of it. As we all know, Gwen, Spidey, the Green Goblin and the thing they were involved in was a major Marvel Milestone that every spidey fans know about. Do you think we will see a tragic sequel to this? maybe as a third movie we will see the death of Gwen, just to give MJ room to develop if she appears on the sequel although is too early to talk about that. I am curious if in this adaptation peter will confess his identity to gwen or just keep it a secret like in the comics. Quote
Larz Zahn Posted April 4, 2011 Posted April 4, 2011 i sorta hope they do that like in the amazing comics. keep having aunt may trying to hook up mj with peter but he keeps blowing her off. though if you want to be technical, his love interest was liz allen, the blond, not hte hispanic(spectacular cartoon), even tho he keeps saying betty was the first girl he ever loved. then he says that about gwen later. he has girl issues. about the picture posting, it was a semi joke about posting pic's to prove im not talkig out my ear on spidey facts. hehe. sorry again. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.