Weekly Ketchup: Good News for Green Lantern, Bad News for Spider-Man

Summary

This week's Ketchup covers big developments in the world of comic book movies (Spider-Man, Green Lantern and The Savage Dragon), as well as new roles for Daniel Craig, Leonardo DiCaprio, Zach Galifianakis, Tom Hanks and Mark Wahlberg. Back to Article

Comments

dethburger

dethburger hates Flixster

I want to see them cast Seth Green as Peter Parker.

Jan 15 - 05:29 PM

JRM

Raul M

Michael Cera's gonna be Spider-Man if Sony doesn't get their hands on Zach Effron. lol.

Jan 15 - 05:39 PM

Eric K.

Eric Knight

"Green Lantern starts filming in Louisiana in March, aiming for a release on June 17, 2010."

What, no way they can do it that fast!

Jan 15 - 05:40 PM

greg_dean_schmitz

Greg Dean Schmitz

Hey gang, thanks for noticing the typo on the Green Lantern release date, but I don't have the ability to edit the article to fix it. Hopefully the rest of the comments won't be 10 people all pointing it out. :)

And now I'll point out the other typo that no one has noticed yet... Sony is actually planning on releasing their Spider-Man reboot in 2012, not 2011. Which makes the reason for Raimi leaving (that he couldn't get the movie done in time for 2011)... sort of funny.

Jan 15 - 05:42 PM

rac-shade

Andrew Mullen

"rather than the (intentionally) nerdy Tobey Maguire."

And that right there is why Sam Raimi was the wrong director for Spiderman. He never got the character and 3 movies later was still making the character a nerdy goofball klutz.

Peter Parker has (historically) been one of the few well adjusted and stable superheros BECAUSE his powers gave him the self esteem and confidence he lacked. Once he gets his powers he is no longer a dweeb. He was married to a supermodel for 20 years for goodness sake.

And I refuse to side with Raimi over the studio about Spiderman 3. He should have figured out how to make a GOOD Venom based movie like the studio wanted him to do all along instead of fighting them tooth and nail because he didn't like the character.

They wanted Venom, they owned Spiderman, make the movie they want or quit. Instead he made a half-assed Sandman movie and a quarter-assed Venom movie that just recycled the vast majority of the same scenes and themes from #1 and #2 while spitting on the others (making Peter a full out murderer because WHOOPS he killed the wrong guy, was a baffling decision).

Jan 15 - 06:32 PM

ColinTheCimmerian

Colin Hay

Good post rac-shade. Agreed that Raimi and Maguire never did get the Parker character right, and big agreement on the Venom/Sandman issue. Venom was a much better choice for a villain; I think some people just have it in their heads that the studio is always the bad guy and the director is always right. Maybe it has to do with this being a movie site and people watching too many movies with evil corporations and underdog protagonists. The fact of the matter is, when a producer or studio exec pushes for something, it's not to antagonize the director; there's nothing malicious about it and they aren't trying to ruin the movie. They push for something because they think it's a good idea. They aren't always right, not by a long shot, but they aren't always wrong either. The director can make mistakes too. In this case, I think Avi Arad and Sony were right to want Venom in the movie, and I think Raimi was wrong to insist on putting Sandman in it too. Green Goblin and Doc Ock followed a similar model in that they were both men transformed by accidents involving experimental technology. Neither were evil men prior to the accident but after their respective accidents they turn to a life of crime. Neither has any particular beef with Spider-man, until he gets in their way. Both at times appear to have more sheer offensive power than Spidey, but his own varied abilities act as a good counter and he manages to beat them. Sandman ended up following the same basic model; despite being a convict, he's actually not a bad person, but then he gets caught in an experiment, gets some super powers, lets them go to his head a bit and turns back to crime. He's got nothing against Spider-man, but Spidey picks a fight with him and they duke it out. I think even if Raimi hadn't been forced to include Venom and just went with Sandman, the movie would have felt underwhelming and would have been the weakest entry; a Sandman vs Spidey movie would just be Spider-man 1 and 2 all over again with a villain with more ridiculous and unbelievable powers and less personality.
Venom, on the other hand, should/would/could have been a nice change if he'd actually been done properly; I think a Venom-focused movie would have been a refreshing departure from the first two movies. A villain whose abilities are alien in origin rather than the result of yet another experimental mishap. A villain who has a grudge against Spider-man from the get-go, who's more interested in hurting Spidey than he is in robbing banks or committing acts of terrorism. In the first two movies the bad guys (either common crooks or the main villains) were always going about their business, whatever nefarious act it might be, and Spider-man would show up and intercede, he was the hunter. With Venom around, Spider-man would become the hunted. Having a scary-looking creature jumping out of the shadows would introduce a bit of a suspense/horror element, something that wasn't really possible with a guy dressed as a goblin riding around on a rocket-powered sled or a fat guy in a trenchcoat and glasses and four robotic arms; the villains were too over-the-top to be frightening. The fact that Venom has all of Spidey's powers, and doesn't trigger his spider-sense would present a new kind of challenge to Spider-man; his abilities become less of an asset when facing an equal, so he'd be forced to rely on his intelligence and resourcefulness to win. Raimi ever so briefly touched on the horror and power-equality concepts in the brief scene where Spider-man first faces Venom alone. You see the fear in Parker's eyes when he realizes Venom can do everything he can, and that he can't sense the danger coming like he's used to. He knows he doesn't have the advantages he's become accustomed to. It was probably my favourite part of the movie and I would have liked to see more of that, but unfortunately the next time they face each other it's in the stupid 4-way free-for-all.

I guess I just feel like a third movie that focused on Venom could have actually been really good and I think it's a shame that Raimi couldn't see that and instead seemed to want to take the same-old-same-old approach with Sandman. This is why I tend to side against Raimi on the Spider-man 3 issue; the producers may have overstepped their bounds in insisting on Venom's inclusion, but dammit, they were right to do so, it was the right way to go. If Raimi had really tried, I think he could have made a spectacular Venom-as-main-villain movie (especially considering his proficiency with horror films), but it doesn't seem like he *wanted* to try. I think if more people looked at the issue in terms of which villain was actually the better choice, there'd be more people supporting the producers; but too many folks are hung up on the concept of the 'Big Bad Studio' and can't see past it.

Jan 15 - 08:22 PM

King Thor

Chris Kalmin

@ColintheCimmerian

amazing post, I could not have said it better myself.

Idk how ppl don't see how ridiculously similar the spiderman movies were. I'm pretty sure raimi in complete control is not a good thing either. The more he got his way, the more ridiculous scenes there were.

Jan 16 - 11:35 AM

King Thor

Chris Kalmin

@ColintheCimmerian

amazing post, I could not have said it better myself.

Idk how ppl don't see how ridiculously milar the spiderman movies were. I'm pretty sure raimi in complete control is not a good thing either. The more he got his way, the more ridiculous scenes there were.

Jan 16 - 11:36 AM

Quorwyf

Elliott Watson

I'm not having luck w/ the reply feature so i'll do this manually.

"Peter Parker has (historically) been one of the few well adjusted and stable superheros BECAUSE his powers gave him the self esteem and confidence he lacked. Once he gets his powers he is no longer a dweeb. He was married to a supermodel for 20 years for goodness sake."

Yes and no. His confidence and self esteem were things he grew into but he never stopped being a nerd, even after marrying a supermodel. His nerdiness was fairly clamped down about halfway through his college years tho, even if hes prone to thinking like a chemistry nerd..on a side note, some writer really needs to get around to writing Flash Thompson as something beyond Petey's constant tormentor. The main failing in the portrayal this far has been Pete never advancing beyond socially inept. And having organic webshooters..can't resist picking at that even now.

"And I refuse to side with Raimi over the studio about Spiderman 3. He should have figured out how to make a GOOD Venom based movie like the studio wanted him to do all along instead of fighting them tooth and nail because he didn't like the character. "

Again, half agreement. If they had written Venom closer to the comic, as a fusion of a guy who hated Spidey so badly that he wanted him dead yet felt so depressed over the humiliations Spidey dealt him that he was on the brink of killing himself that night in the chapel and an alien spawn that wanted to destroy Peter for rejecting him, then he would have been a great villain. Instead we got a whiney bastard wrapped in black goo.

"You can buy a teenager who's too stupid to even get the marketing rights for his own Superhero merchandise, but it's kind of hard to swallow a 30-year-old Spiderman who lets his Aunt lose her house because he hasn't figured out yet that kids want to buy his t-shirts and action figures."

This would be my biggest issue, the movies have Peter continually stuck at a random age between 19-23, he's given the maturity to deal w/ major issues surrounding Aunt May but never mature enough to figure out the whole steady work idea. Marvel not aging their chars is no excuse for this. Another side note - it would be nice if the ppl behind the films remembered that their audience does indeed age between movies.

Other thoughts- I hope that they won't cast Efron for this. He makes sense for the few years of adjustment "cool" Spidey but just won't work for the beginning. Same reason but reversed for Cera.

funny thing, I had coherent thoughts before I started typing

Jan 17 - 09:29 PM

Ken G.

Ken Goach

Green Lantern just keeps looking better and better. If the script plays out as well as the speculation, it should be great.

Savage Dragon was an awesome comic back in the day. Very creative, edgy, funny (some dark humor too), and a bit racy at times. If done like Hellboy, it could be good.

Jan 15 - 07:01 PM

ColinTheCimmerian

Colin Hay

Good post rac-shade. Agreed that Raimi and Maguire never did get the Parker character right, and big agreement on the Venom/Sandman issue. Venom was a much better choice for a villain; I think some people just have it in their heads that the studio is always the bad guy and the director is always right. Maybe it has to do with this being a movie site and people watching too many movies with evil corporations and underdog protagonists. The fact of the matter is, when a producer or studio exec pushes for something, it's not to antagonize the director; there's nothing malicious about it and they aren't trying to ruin the movie. They push for something because they think it's a good idea. They aren't always right, not by a long shot, but they aren't always wrong either. The director can make mistakes too. In this case, I think Avi Arad and Sony were right to want Venom in the movie, and I think Raimi was wrong to insist on putting Sandman in it too. Green Goblin and Doc Ock followed a similar model in that they were both men transformed by accidents involving experimental technology. Neither were evil men prior to the accident but after their respective accidents they turn to a life of crime. Neither has any particular beef with Spider-man, until he gets in their way. Both at times appear to have more sheer offensive power than Spidey, but his own varied abilities act as a good counter and he manages to beat them. Sandman ended up following the same basic model; despite being a convict, he's actually not a bad person, but then he gets caught in an experiment, gets some super powers, lets them go to his head a bit and turns back to crime. He's got nothing against Spider-man, but Spidey picks a fight with him and they duke it out. I think even if Raimi hadn't been forced to include Venom and just went with Sandman, the movie would have felt underwhelming and would have been the weakest entry; a Sandman vs Spidey movie would just be Spider-man 1 and 2 all over again with a villain with more ridiculous and unbelievable powers and less personality.
Venom, on the other hand, should/would/could have been a nice change if he'd actually been done properly; I think a Venom-focused movie would have been a refreshing departure from the first two movies. A villain whose abilities are alien in origin rather than the result of yet another experimental mishap. A villain who has a grudge against Spider-man from the get-go, who's more interested in hurting Spidey than he is in robbing banks or committing acts of terrorism. In the first two movies the bad guys (either common crooks or the main villains) were always going about their business, whatever nefarious act it might be, and Spider-man would show up and intercede, he was the hunter. With Venom around, Spider-man would become the hunted. Having a scary-looking creature jumping out of the shadows would introduce a bit of a suspense/horror element, something that wasn't really possible with a guy dressed as a goblin riding around on a rocket-powered sled or a fat guy in a trenchcoat and glasses and four robotic arms; the villains were too over-the-top to be frightening. The fact that Venom has all of Spidey's powers, and doesn't trigger his spider-sense would present a new kind of challenge to Spider-man; his abilities become less of an asset when facing an equal, so he'd be forced to rely on his intelligence and resourcefulness to win. Raimi ever so briefly touched on the horror and power-equality concepts in the brief scene where Spider-man first faces Venom alone. You see the fear in Parker's eyes when he realizes Venom can do everything he can, and that he can't sense the danger coming like he's used to. He knows he doesn't have the advantages he's become accustomed to. It was probably my favourite part of the movie and I would have liked to see more of that, but unfortunately the next time they face each other it's in the stupid 4-way free-for-all.

I guess I just feel like a third movie that focused on Venom could have actually been really good and I think it's a shame that Raimi couldn't see that and instead seemed to want to take the same-old-same-old approach with Sandman. This is why I tend to side against Raimi on the Spider-man 3 issue; the producers may have overstepped their bounds in insisting on Venom's inclusion, but dammit, they were right to do so, it was the right way to go. If Raimi had really tried, I think he could have made a spectacular Venom-as-main-villain movie (especially considering his proficiency with horror films), but it doesn't seem like he *wanted* to try. I think if more people looked at the issue in terms of which villain was actually the better choice, there'd be more people supporting the producers; but too many folks are hung up on the concept of the 'Big Bad Studio' and can't see past it.

Jan 15 - 08:22 PM

King Thor

Chris Kalmin

@ColintheCimmerian

amazing post, I could not have said it better myself.

Idk how ppl don't see how ridiculously similar the spiderman movies were. I'm pretty sure raimi in complete control is not a good thing either. The more he got his way, the more ridiculous scenes there were.

Jan 16 - 11:35 AM

King Thor

Chris Kalmin

@ColintheCimmerian

amazing post, I could not have said it better myself.

Idk how ppl don't see how ridiculously milar the spiderman movies were. I'm pretty sure raimi in complete control is not a good thing either. The more he got his way, the more ridiculous scenes there were.

Jan 16 - 11:36 AM

Quorwyf

Elliott Watson

I'm not having luck w/ the reply feature so i'll do this manually.

"Peter Parker has (historically) been one of the few well adjusted and stable superheros BECAUSE his powers gave him the self esteem and confidence he lacked. Once he gets his powers he is no longer a dweeb. He was married to a supermodel for 20 years for goodness sake."

Yes and no. His confidence and self esteem were things he grew into but he never stopped being a nerd, even after marrying a supermodel. His nerdiness was fairly clamped down about halfway through his college years tho, even if hes prone to thinking like a chemistry nerd..on a side note, some writer really needs to get around to writing Flash Thompson as something beyond Petey's constant tormentor. The main failing in the portrayal this far has been Pete never advancing beyond socially inept. And having organic webshooters..can't resist picking at that even now.

"And I refuse to side with Raimi over the studio about Spiderman 3. He should have figured out how to make a GOOD Venom based movie like the studio wanted him to do all along instead of fighting them tooth and nail because he didn't like the character. "

Again, half agreement. If they had written Venom closer to the comic, as a fusion of a guy who hated Spidey so badly that he wanted him dead yet felt so depressed over the humiliations Spidey dealt him that he was on the brink of killing himself that night in the chapel and an alien spawn that wanted to destroy Peter for rejecting him, then he would have been a great villain. Instead we got a whiney bastard wrapped in black goo.

"You can buy a teenager who's too stupid to even get the marketing rights for his own Superhero merchandise, but it's kind of hard to swallow a 30-year-old Spiderman who lets his Aunt lose her house because he hasn't figured out yet that kids want to buy his t-shirts and action figures."

This would be my biggest issue, the movies have Peter continually stuck at a random age between 19-23, he's given the maturity to deal w/ major issues surrounding Aunt May but never mature enough to figure out the whole steady work idea. Marvel not aging their chars is no excuse for this. Another side note - it would be nice if the ppl behind the films remembered that their audience does indeed age between movies.

Other thoughts- I hope that they won't cast Efron for this. He makes sense for the few years of adjustment "cool" Spidey but just won't work for the beginning. Same reason but reversed for Cera.

funny thing, I had coherent thoughts before I started typing

Jan 17 - 09:29 PM

Park M.

Park Mohler

HAHAHA @ attempting to get Wes Anderson to "re-boot" Spiderman. He wouldn't go anywhere near a Spiderman film.

Jan 15 - 08:57 PM

PixarfortheWin

Derrick Ford

Colin i agree with you 100 percent. Remember it was Raimi that insisted on the whole, Sandman killed your uncle, and he was the one that wanted the jazz scene, etc.

Jan 15 - 09:02 PM

Kasey S.

Kasey Sheffler

Much love to Sam Raimi and all he did on the first two Spiderman movies, but with the studio pressure he receives, I think I'm glad to see him go. Sam would have made a great 4th movie IF he were allowed complete creative control. Not having that is just holding him back from making other great movies. I for one am hoping reports are right and that he'll start up Warcraft next.

I have to say though, Green Lantern starts filming in March this year and releases in June this year... How the heck is that going to happen? 4 months for filming/editing/advertising, either it's going to be a crap movie or the date is wrong.

Jan 16 - 06:22 AM

Michael W.

Michael Wilson

If they can't get Zac Efron or Michael Cera, they'll use Taylor Lautner. ugh

Jan 16 - 06:22 AM

King Thor

Chris Kalmin

@ColintheCimmerian

amazing post, I could not have said it better myself.

Idk how ppl don't see how ridiculously similar the spiderman movies were. I'm pretty sure raimi in complete control is not a good thing either. The more he got his way, the more ridiculous scenes there were.

Jan 16 - 11:35 AM

King Thor

Chris Kalmin

@ColintheCimmerian

amazing post, I could not have said it better myself.

Idk how ppl don't see how ridiculously milar the spiderman movies were. I'm pretty sure raimi in complete control is not a good thing either. The more he got his way, the more ridiculous scenes there were.

Jan 16 - 11:36 AM

King Thor

Chris Kalmin

*similar

Jan 16 - 03:52 PM

JS

j s

green lantern release date june 2010? must mean june 2011.

Jan 17 - 10:05 AM

Mavent

Juan Valdez

It's amazing to me how Fanboys will completely ignore the fact that Raimi was directly responsible for EVERY CRAPPY THING that ever happened in the Spiderman movies. He's the guy that insisted on the cheesy "Freeze Frame" gimmicks, he's the one that decided Emo Peter would be a good idea, he's the guy that came up with Dallas Bryce Howard as Gwen Stacey, and he's the guy that injected every scene with almost "Batman and Robin" levels of Camp. Him leaving the series is the best thing that ever could have happened for the Spiderman movies. As for Toby McGuire: sorry, but he's just gotten too old. Marvel doesn't age their heroes, and for a good reason. You can buy a teenager who's too stupid to even get the marketing rights for his own Superhero merchandise, but it's kind of hard to swallow a 30-year-old Spiderman who lets his Aunt lose her house because he hasn't figured out yet that kids want to buy his t-shirts and action figures.

Jan 17 - 10:56 AM

Fantasyfan23

Rebecca Hill

I don't really care that they're not making a Spider-Man 4--I'm one of those rare people who actually liked the third one, but I thought it did a decent job of wrapping everything up. But a remake, at least this early, is a HORRIBLE idea. What is Sony thinking? It's not like with Batman where the series was starting to flop critically and commercially and they needed a new direction with the franchise. Heck, at least there were 8 years between Batman and Robin and Batman Begins. But only 4 years between Spider-Man 3 and the reboot just isn't right. And how can you do Spider-Man without Tobey Maguire? Maguire is Peter Parker; I don't see how anyone will be able to replace him. I'll eat my words if it turns out differently, but right now I'm hoping that Sony either pulls the plug on this, or that it's an epic flop.

Jan 17 - 12:15 PM

ColinTheCimmerian

Colin Hay

"And how can you do Spider-Man without Tobey Maguire? Maguire is Peter Parker; I don't see how anyone will be able to replace him."

I actually didn't think Maguire was all that good in the role. I'd like to see someone else get a shot at it; they may manage to present the character in a form truer to the comic version.

Since Maguire is the only person we've seen in the role (unless you count Nicholas Hammond back in the 70's show, but I doubt many people here have seen that), I don't think anyone should be saying that he IS Peter Parker or that he's the perfect man for the job. Since we have no alternatives to compare him to, it's tough to say how good he really is. Just because he's the only one we're familiar with does not by default make him the ideal actor to play the character. He didn't create the character, he's just giving his own interpretation, and I for one don't particularly like his interpretation.

Jan 17 - 03:08 PM

inactive user

Jared King

I think people are missing the point. The problem with the "Spider-Man" reboot is it's existense, not the fact that Raimi is gone. There are way too many reboots going on. We have two good "Spider-Man" films, let's just stop the series and go back when when people actually hunger for more Spider-Man. How about somebody makes a good "Daredevil" or "Fantastic Four" movie before they worry about more Spidey.

Jan 17 - 01:20 PM

ColinTheCimmerian

Colin Hay

ledawg:

I too would like to see another attempt at Daredevil. Fantastic Four, not so much, as I never particularly liked them in the first place, and don't really see them as being good movie material, but that's just me.

I think reboots only get made in two cases:

1) The existing franchise was very popular (at least at some point) but either the quality has gone down and the audience has reacted negatively, or the formula for the franchise has gotten old and there's nowhere left to go with it. Essentially, this requires a reboot because the franchise has lost its former glory, and a restart seems in order to get back on top. I think Batman Begins, Star Trek, and Casino Royale fall into this category; all three are reboots of franchises that were intensely popular at some point in their past, but reaction to the last entry or entries showed that audiences had had enough.

2) A licensed property with franchise potential failed right from the first attempt to really gain a following, and so a reboot is required to try to make better use of the licensed material and hopefully start a successful franchise on the second try. I think The Incredible Hulk and Punisher Warzone fall into this category, since each is essentially a 'second try' to kick off a franchise based on a licensed property. The thing is, neither really succeeded. Punisher Warzone flopped hard, and though The Incredible Hulk was just barely successful (maybe), it was by no means a big hit and there has been no indication that a sequel is in the works. I think the reason we have yet to see a reboot of either Daredevil or Fantastic Four is that they would fall into this category too, being second attempts at kickstarting a franchise that wasn't all that well received in the first attempt. I think the studios see that rebooting DD or FF may be a lost cause, which is why they haven't done it yet.

Spider-man, on the other hand, would fall into the first category. It was an insanely popular series on par with Batman or James Bond, so it's only natural that Sony wants to keep the franchise going in some capacity. I understand the argument that it's too soon for a reboot (and I agree; I'd rather see a Raimi-less, Maguire-less, Dunst-less sequel), but if they're going to do a complete overhaul of the talent involved, I understand the reasoning behind choosing to reboot, rather than recast every actor and continue in the same continuity. That could be confusing to the audience, because they'd be wondering whether or not it *is* a reboot.

I think people still do hunger for more Spider-man, more so than they hunger for more Daredevil or Fantastic Four. In today's world, 4 years is more than enough time for a reboot. Casino Royale came out four years after Die Another Day, and there didn't seem to be any issues there.

Jan 17 - 03:50 PM

inactive user

Jared King

I hear ya.

Although, I noticed a pattern. Two bad movies in a row, time for a reboot. (Spider-Man dosen't have two bad ones in a row.) James Bond had two mediocre entries, then reboot, Batman had Schumacher entries, then "Batman Begins", and "Trek" had "Insurrection" and "Nemesis".

Just an observation.

Jan 17 - 04:48 PM

ColinTheCimmerian

Colin Hay

ledawg: Interesting observation. I might question whether it applies for Batman; in retrospect Batman Forever is lumped together with Batman & Robin, and though I think both are pretty weak, at the time of its release Batman Forever was a pretty big hit commercially, and although its RT and IMDB ratings are lower than those of Burton's films, they aren't nearly as bad as Batman & Robin's. Nontheless, I certainly see your point. Perhaps B & R was SO bad it counted as two bad movies :)

So yeah, it could well be that Hollywood is quicker to the draw than it used to be in this matter, maybe we'll start seeing more studios pull the trigger on the reboot after only one poorly received movie. I think that would be unfortunate, as there's gotta be some leeway; can't hit a home run every time.

Jan 18 - 07:24 AM

Matanuki

Matanuki .

I wouldn't be surprised if these money grubbing idiots start working on reboots before the first film is even finished shooting. lol.

Jan 18 - 06:27 PM

woundedmakers

Steven Bada

"I think people are missing the point. The problem with the "Spider-Man" reboot is it's existense, not the fact that Raimi is gone. There are way too many reboots going on."

Oh, and how many "reboots" are we allowed per year, Great King Ledawg?? Why do people insist on keeping such a dense mindset? Are there any REAL Spidey fans on these boards besides Colin, Rac, and myself?

Jan 17 - 06:22 PM

inactive user

Jared King

Not this many reboots, you Marvel anal fudge.

Jan 19 - 02:42 PM

woundedmakers

Steven Bada

"I think people are missing the point. The problem with the "Spider-Man" reboot is it's existense, not the fact that Raimi is gone. There are way too many reboots going on."

Oh, and how many "reboots" are we allowed per year, Great King Ledawg?? Why do people insist on keeping such a dense mindset? Are there any REAL Spidey fans on these boards besides Colin, Rac, and myself?

Jan 17 - 06:23 PM

woundedmakers

Steven Bada

sorry for the double post. It could be worse, the space could be taken up by another "Sign my Spider-Man 4 Petition" post. :P

Jan 17 - 06:27 PM

Mavent

Juan Valdez

I think the fact that there are people like "Fantasyfan23" who are hoping that the next movie is "an epic flop" tells you all you need to know about the mindset of Fanboys. Instead of just ignoring a potential sequel, or (heaven forbid) hoping it'll be good, they actively hope for it's failure.

Jan 17 - 02:37 PM

Rockslide

Rocky Davies

I'm glad there are other Spider-Man fans who realize how incorrectly Raimi and crew portrayed the character. Great posts Rac and Colin, I totally agree.

All these people who are so ticked and signing petitions and what not must have missed Spider-Man 3. And I know all the "its the studio's fault" and other comments. I'm sorry I don't buy that. I realize they had a hand in it, but to clear Raimi of all fault is ridiculous. He had a bigger hand in the debacle than the studio. He's the one who got Maguire and Dunst who in no way fit the characters.

Rac said it perfectly how in the comics the super powers turned Parker into a strong, confident, and charming guy from the nerd he was. The movies never show that because Maguire can never come across that way. Anytime he tries to talk scientific or get wise-cracking (as Spider-Man should do) its unbelievable. I'm all for a new cast.

We don't need to go over the origin again but I would love to see the movies follow the Ultimate Spider-Man storyline. If you haven't followed that series go pick up a couple volumes. It has Spidey as a highschool student and captures the spirit of the character perfectly for a more modern-teen telling of the mythos.

Jan 17 - 02:44 PM

What's Hot On RT

Total Recall
Total Recall

Ethan Hawke's 10 Best Movies

The Hunger Games
The Hunger Games

New Mockingjay teaser trailer

Emmys
Emmys

Full 2014 nominations list

Planet of the Apes
Planet of the Apes

Watch interviews with the cast

Find us on:                     
Help | About | Jobs | Critics Submission | Press | API | Licensing | Mobile