• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

CBM: X-Men '97; Deadpool and Wolverine trailer

Disappointed that the relationship with Dylan Baker's Connors that built up over the first 3 Raimi movies never culminated with him turning into the Lizard. I thought that was set up pretty well through the first three to where Connors/Parker wouldn't have needed a whole lot of backstory for Spider-Man 4.

I'll be seeing Amazing Spider-Man in IMAX 3D Saturday. Still looking forward to it.
 
Deacfreak07 said:
The 3-D is pretty good. It was just well shot all around.
Click to expand...

Yeah that was the best part of the movie. Visually it took advantage of New York very well. Andrew Garfield was also very good. The movie itself is kinda ehh, entertaining, but too close to Raimi's origin story to really set itself apart.
 
WakeFanatic said:
Yeah that was the best part of the movie. Visually it took advantage of New York very well. Andrew Garfield was also very good. The movie itself is kinda ehh, entertaining, but too close to Raimi's origin story to really set itself apart.
Click to expand...

It's Lee, Kirby, and Ditko's origin story? Don't see that changing too much. Everything about this new film was better than the Raimi version. Cast, cinematography, cohesiveness, etc. I may be just not remembering Raimi's version as well, but it's not like it was an original story then.
 
The dad angle is new from the Ditko era. Upthread I mentioned I tend to hate the origin part of movies, but I actually found it tolerable in Amazing.

The 3d worked for me. I have to say, that very last shot gave me a pretty intense fanboygasm. What a fantastic, iconic image to end with.

Like Rollwave mentioned, I expected the shoe to drop in the first series of movies since Connors was a real part of them all. After the first 2 I assumed he was going to Lizard out in #3. Too bad, maybe it would have sucked a little less.

I think my main gripe was that Martin Sheen and Sally Field brought too much starpower to their roles. I could never see Aunt May without thinking "hey there's Sally Field doing her Sally Field thing like in Steel Magnolias and Forrest Gump". Garfield won me over, I was extremely skeptical the first time I heard of his casting but he brought the combo of humor and angst that is Peter Parker.
 
DeacHead said:
The dad angle is new from the Ditko era. Upthread I mentioned I tend to hate the origin part of movies, but I actually found it tolerable in Amazing.

The 3d worked for me. I have to say, that very last shot gave me a pretty intense fanboygasm. What a fantastic, iconic image to end with.

Like Rollwave mentioned, I expected the shoe to drop in the first series of movies since Connors was a real part of them all. After the first 2 I assumed he was going to Lizard out in #3. Too bad, maybe it would have sucked a little less.

I think my main gripe was that Martin Sheen and Sally Field brought too much starpower to their roles. I could never see Aunt May without thinking "hey there's Sally Field doing her Sally Field thing like in Steel Magnolias and Forrest Gump". Garfield won me over, I was extremely skeptical the first time I heard of his casting but he brought the combo of humor and angst that is Peter Parker.
Click to expand...

I can agree a little with your assessment of Sheen and Field, but they were both fantastic.
 
I thought it was awesome. But then again, I know next to nothing about the comic book canon.

I guess i'm lucky I never saw Spiderman 3.
 
Deacfreak07 said:
It's Lee, Kirby, and Ditko's origin story? Don't see that changing too much. Everything about this new film was better than the Raimi version. Cast, cinematography, cohesiveness, etc. I may be just not remembering Raimi's version as well, but it's not like it was an original story then.
Click to expand...

I thought they adapted the original story just fine with a nice nod to it. Like I said before, I think the origin story was the best part of the movie.
 
Saw it and thought it was pretty damn good. Thought Emma was great and that Garfield was good. One quick question I had that I must have missed or maybe they just didn't explain it. Was Parker actually producing the web he was shooting or was he buying the cable from Ooscorp that the genetic spiders were making and putting canisters of it into the wrist things he made?
 
Pretty sure it was the latter. That was one of my favorite things about the origin. That and the spandex. An interesting topic would be to learn more about the historical interplay between elements of sci-fi and actual innovations. Spandex and superhero uniforms is one of them. I'll put up a spoiler tag tomorrow so we can talk in more depth.
 
It was implied that Parker was purchasing the stuff retail. As he was putting together his web shooters, there was an advertisement playing in his computer about the newly available web-wire technology that was strong enough to pull a jumbo jet.
 
Loved amazing spiderman so much more than the last trilogy. Better acting, better storylines, better technology IMO!
 
Caught Spiderman 2 on FX yesterday afternoon during my hangover haze. Still a high quality film (and my favorite of the Raimi films).
 
Deacfreak07 said:
Spiderman 3 may have been the worst movie I have ever seen.
Click to expand...

I rewatched the trilogy a couple weeks ago and thought they were all bad, with the 1st just being passable. Tobey McGuire was such a whiny little bitch that I couldn't relate to him or root for him and James Franco was way, way over the top and annoying. Kirsten Dunst was also an annoying cock tease throughout. The only decent acting jobs in the trilogy were J. Jonah Jameson and Aunt May.
 
J.K. Simmons is incredibly perfect as Jameson. It's hard for me to imagine anyone else doing that role better. Webb should just re-sign him for this set of movies once Jameson gets involved in the storylines.

 
Last edited:
Added the spoiler tag so we can discuss specifics of the movie.
 
Easily my biggest complaint was the character design and awful cgi of the Lizard. That, to me, was the weakest part of the whole film. I thought Garfield over-acted at times, but he and Stone had good chemistry on screen. I was disappointed that Captain Stacy's character was sent packing so soon. I would have liked to have seen Leary come back. Other than those complaints, it felt like a solid Act 1.

I love the shift in tone away from what Raimi did, and I felt this film did a much better job capturing who the Spiderman character is (especially in his early years). Peter Parker practically invented angst. The character is driven by guilt to live up to an impossible standard, and I think Webb understands that better than Raimi did. Plus, I'm glad he made Gwen a strong character rather than a damsel in distress.

Overall, I think people will be bored because of the similarities to the first Raimi film, even though this one is superior in most aspects. I hope people support it enough that Sony is willing to invest in letting Webb tell a complete story. I think it will be worth it.
 
You were right. We pretty much agree. The Lizard CGI was awful. They were stuck between making him look like a lizard or at least how the character looks in the comics and what was done in making The Hulk look like Bana, Norton, and Ruffalo in the face. They went toward the latter instead of going with the former. As a result, The Lizard looked more like a sleestak than 2012 CGI.

sleestak1.jpg
the_lizard_1332768406_460x460.jpg


Stone was the strongest part of the movie. Strong characterization, likeable, good motivation in that you could understand why she would be attracted to Peter given what we know of her. Smart, but not virginal or like Deadbolt said a damsel in distress. And she looked great in some killer outfits. I thought Leary was strong as well and was hoping he'd stick around. Of course, it would have been in a Batman/Gordon type capacity which maybe they thought was too derivative.

Some of the same things that annoyed me in the first movie annoyed me in this one. I just think a kid getting superpowers using them overtly in public is ridiculous. The bit with Flash and the basketball was fine until the broken backboard. Anybody would assume Parker is Spider-man after that especially since it would be on YouTube within a few minutes. It would be silly for Bruce Wayne to kick somebody's ass in public or for Clark Kent to heat vision his coffee in the break room in front of Lois. For some reason, we think it's cool with Spiderman.

The shift in tone was very good, especially the decision to go with the Stacys and stay away from MJ, Harry, and Norman Osborn. That said, if the mysterious voice in the credits was Osborn, I was not amused and I'm not particularly excited about the next movies. I don't think they need to introduce MJ and I don't think they should. If they do, they should do right by the comic book story and use Gwen, MJ, Harry, and Norman well. If done over two movies with Gwen's death as the climax of the 3rd movie, that would be great.
 
If I recall, didn't something at the beginning while in OSCORP point to Osborn being dead? Maybe it's just me but I think I saw/heard something during that part.

Overall, I loved this movie way more than the triologies of the 2000s
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top