|
Post by TylerDurden389 on Mar 15, 2011 11:00:33 GMT -5
Those movies haven't aged well for me either. In fact, I'm so bored by them that I find Spidey 1 and 2 no different than Spidey 3 now. Raimi went for a semi-serious tone, but unfortunately, there was a lot of goofy crap that drags the movies down. The villains were way too hokey, especially Willem Dafoe. Really terrible, and I mean TERRIBLE, extras. Plus, Kirsten Dunst stunk up every scene she was in. In 2, some random lady starts freaking out and runs at the camera screaming? Leave that poop back in Evil Dead, Sam. Glad I'm not the only one who thinks this. With the exception of a few of my friends, I don't what it is, but everywhere I look, people say Spider-man 2 is the best comic book movie every made. In-sane. I'm from NY, and even I cringe at the scene where the NY-ers are throwing their garbage at Goblin and saying "You mess with one of us, you mess with all of us". Same goes for the scene in 2 when the train riders say "You'll have to get through us". Ny-ers may be tough, but I can assure you that if that situation happened in real life, us "tough Ny-ers" would do what we always do when an unwelcome presence boards the train (like a homeless person asking for money, or a fight breaks out), just ignore them and pretend nothing's happening. As for 3 being the worst, you know what? I enjoyed 3 the most. Everyone hated "Disco-Pete", I loved it. Lot's of laughs. Franco makes the film of course. We still quote "So good" to this day. The nostalgia critic did a video where he states how all 3 films are on the same level as far as cheesiness, writing, and so on. Way I see it, there's the good comic book films (Superman, Batman, X-men 2, etc...) and the bad ones (Daredevil, Catwoman, Electra, etc...). The Spider-man films, to me, go on the very bottom of the good comic book movies.
|
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,769
|
Post by atp on Mar 15, 2011 12:45:57 GMT -5
If STM were released today (with Christopher Reeve), would it have the same impact?
Or has the currency been devalued by all the other superhero films that have been made?
Was STM inherently something special, or was it just in the right place at the right time?
Please?
|
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Mar 15, 2011 12:53:12 GMT -5
Impossible to answer
It would never be the same movie today IMO
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Mar 15, 2011 12:58:48 GMT -5
For my two cents, "Spiderman 2" is one of the best comic book films (1) I love how (with the first two films anyways) the human problems that were introduced in the comic didn't magically 'go away' (money problems, taking care/keeping an eye out for elderly parents), (2) because the director's balance of drama, humor, and quirkiness I thought fit the tone of the Stan Lee-written comics early on. There is tragedy (which was taken seriously with the first two), but there's also humor and romance (which has somewhat realistic issues), and the characters are likeable and not stupid. (Well, actually the lead character is portrayed as more than a little naive, young and a little weird- which I LOVED!) It's not perfect, but so many elements fit right to me for the style of the Spiderman comic books I grew up with, that the flaws (in my eyes) are pretty small and forgiveable. I could see where the 'you mess with one of us, you mess with us ALL!' was a bit cringe-worthy. In the first one, it felt too over-the-top for me. For the second one, it didn't bother me as much, because right after the citizens try to defend the unmasked Spiderman, ( the reveal was actually a much more moving moment for me than I would have expected), since it's followed by the villain laughing and smacking most all of them painfully against glass windows- it made it a bit less hokey for me. Why did we have to have the moment of the gal running towards the camera screaming as if it came from a Godzilla movie? I don't know, it wasn't essential, but it was part of the whole parcel of the quirkiness as well, imo. Spiderman 3 - after reading the making of- and various interviews on the net- wasn't entirely Raimi's fault, since it's three movies mashed into one, I wasn't bothered as much by Peter Parker's disco dancing, as much as the ruining of what was supposed to be the emotional payoff for the Harry Osbourne/Peter Parker storyline, that was built up in two movies. Spiderman 3 did have bits of drama, cheeziness, humor & whatnot as much as the first two- but imo, (because of the script & other unfortunate things that affected the film), it was WAY off balance and trying to resolve storylines for three different movies (Venom was a movie in and of itself, the Harry Osbourne/Peter Parker conflict was a movie in itself, and the 'Sandman really killed your uncle' was a movie in itself)--- was just a mess imo. In any case, I'm just glad that there are ENOUGH good superhero films at this point that the 'superhero film' is a genre in and of itself.
|
|
|
Post by Jimbo on Mar 15, 2011 13:19:31 GMT -5
One thing Spider-Man and SR taught us is that if leading lady is unsatisfactory, the film will suck. I'm on the fence about Bosworth, but Dunst rendered the Spider-Man films unwatchable for me. Snyder needs to cast a good Lois. More of an Erica Durance, less of a Kate Bosworth. Mary Elizabeth Winstead, pleasepleaseplease.
Snyder does have one thing going for him. In 300, all the stuff with the wife back in Sparta was created for the film, and Snyder worked on the screenplay. Queen Gorgo was well written, I thought. As much as he gets blasted for just copy/pasting scenes and visuals from the comics, at least he shows he's capable of bringing in good ideas.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Mar 15, 2011 13:25:34 GMT -5
That's a great question, worthy of its own thread, I would think. I forget which movie review book had it, but there was a movie review book that had TWO reviews of older films- one, for how it holds up 'today', another one, for the context for the time it came out. I'm glad that dvds/blurays pretty much all come with 'historical retrospectives' of sorts for significant older films, so that any viewer unfamiliar with it can sort of see it 'properly' (or closer) to the context in which it was viewed. The one thing I really miss about STM is that I didn't own a videocamera of sorts to record all the anticipation and excitement of audiences chatting with one another in line/making new 'movie friends' (remember, no cell phones or ipods at the time) like it was a concert. All ages, races, and shapes and sizes were all willing to wait two hours in line uncomfortably to see one thing: the first ever (of this scale) big budget superhero epic. Nowadays? One thing greatly missed and sad was NOT having a problem with a giant line for "Superman Returns" on the FIRST day. Regardless of how one felt about the movie (the public hadn't seen it yet, so there was no 'buzz' about the ending or the film, really)--- there wasn't NEARLY the same excitement as the original waiting in line for STM. Playing devil's advocate, though, if STM came out intact, without a single frame changed: I can't say how audiences would react, but in trying to imagine and assume how I'd react: Well, certain things I think would STILL be special. Because it was treated that way by Donner & his perfectionism. Personally- #1: The epic scope of the movie taking its time with Supes as a baby, to teen, to going to Metropolis- THAT part of the film, would still feel special. The closest thing that anyone has done to that has been probably "Batman Begins", but it's (of course) a different story. #2: Lex Luthor and his cohorts? I never was crazy about it then, I doubt it would age better now to me, probably less so. SII made Luthor more acceptable to me, once I saw how it fit into the fabric of things. #3: The music doesn't age. God bless John Williams! #4: The chemistry and the casting was special then, and is to today. With Singer's casts on Xmen and SR, there are supporting players that I say 'ok' to, but don't feel like it's pitch perfect. Not so with STM. with STM, EVERY piece of casting (to me) feels like a perfect fit. #5: Compositions and editing for the action sequences still kick arse above much of what I still see today. The effects might be better, there might be more money in superhero films today, but the helicopter rescue still hasn't been matched, let alone topped imo. (*And it always makes me sad, because had we gotten Donner to stay on for SII, we might have seen a superhero battle just as iconic as the helicopter rescue). Even though the effects are more advanced, the Singer airplane rescue wasn't nearly as magical as the helicopter rescue, and I LOVED the Singer film, too! Essentially, Donner was right to put 'A Richard Donner' film on it- it has his fingerprints all over it, with many special touches on it that time I don't think can touch. Like Yesman mentioned, I realize that I could well be fooling myself, but I think that would still think of Superman as being something special, even if it were released today. Would audiences like it or hate it? The experience of it being AN EVENT would not be there, and lacking. I grew up with man on the moon not being a big phenomenon, and can only try to 'imagine' what it must have felt like to live in a time where it was first experienced on television.... but it's not the same thing.* But you get my gist. (*Wow- I just compared the Donner film to moon exploration. Ok, in looking back, maybe it's a BIT much.... can I pull back from that comparison?)
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Mar 15, 2011 13:36:16 GMT -5
At first, I thought Denise Richards (at the time) was more appropriate for Mary Jane (at least in appearance), and hated Dunst's casting. But over time, I realized that Raimi could have either gone with a couple that was either more attractive or look more 'human-looking' like the rest of us mortals. So, given the two choices, for Spiderman, I didn't mind him going in that direction of having leads that didnt' look super-good looking. Having Peter Parker fall for a human looking gal that lived next door to him all his life- that HE thought was an angel - actually was more appealing to me, if they were both underestimated losers on the surface. Having a less-than-perfect looking actress playing someone who wanted to be a star made her seem more like an underdog like Peter, than a 'wow' Mary Jane who wants to be a star because she's so good-looking. So, Raimi's choice in the end actually won me over for what it suggested about Peter and his choice in women. (Though I do miss the original plan to send Mary Jane out of the series in #3 for Gwen Stacey instead as the love interest.) For Superman, though, to fit the material, Superman has to look like a Greek God, not Nicholas Cage, and Lois has to be a smart tough- as -nails goddess. (And Jimmy should look slightly clueless, in any incarnation)
|
|
|
Post by Jimbo on Mar 15, 2011 13:44:24 GMT -5
I'm not talking about looks. I'm talking about performance (and scripting).
Mary Jane was written as a selfish bitch. It also didn't help that Dunst is a monotonous actress. Innocuous in Spider-Man, a fiance-dumping she-harpy who never seems happy in Spidey 2, and a complete egotistical monster bitch in Spidey 3. That whole "THIS ISN'T ABOUT YOU!" bit at the restaurant was the nail in the coffin. Who thought it was a bright idea to make her so unlikable? When her character got canned from the stage show, I was happy. Comeupance, hooray! Wait, we're supposed to feel sorry for her? Pshh, no. HAW HAW.
Basically: NO MOPING!
|
|
|
Post by Valentine Smith on Mar 15, 2011 13:47:48 GMT -5
Dunst is pretty cunty in Spider-Man 3, but I like her well enough in 1 and 2. Especially 1.
Bosworth, on the other hand, is not only unlikeable as Lois, but delivers every line like she's reading it off a napkin to boot.
|
|
|
Post by Jor-L5150 on Mar 15, 2011 14:12:50 GMT -5
March 14, 2011: Jessica Biel Lois Lane Rumor
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- When fans put together a wish list of casting choices for the next Superman movie the name "Jessica Biel" tends to pop up on many a fan's Lois Lane list. LaineyGossip.com claim the actress is indeed near the top of the list of candidates for the role...
I've been hearing from multiple sources lately that Biel is in consideration for at least two MAJOR profile projects working with MAJOR profile, very influential Hollywood players. The parts don't require much skill, if any, but they're looking for an attractive girl who can stand there and be the "girlfriend". And a lot of girls want this job. I'm told Jessica's very near the top of the list, if not at the top, specifically for a movie involving a dude who might, once in a while, fly around saving the world in a cape.
|
|
|
Post by Jimbo on Mar 15, 2011 14:17:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Jor-L5150 on Mar 15, 2011 14:31:36 GMT -5
might catch heck for this, do not care.
1) i do not want lois to be "important"
there, said it. lois should be more important than jimmy, but not the center of the narrative. let's face it, it's been done. the whole clark-loves-lois/lois-is-a-b*tch-to-clark/lois-loves-superman/superman-is-disappointed-so-he-plays-games-with-lois- is stale. it was the core of STM,SII and SR. which is fine- but let's move on. it was the foundation of lois and clark and the latter seasons of smallville.
interestingly, in S:TAS, the love triangle is almost entirely absent, untill the end, and it was clearly superman + lois.
2) the lois character is not a demanding role
cynical, self-absorbed...? check. mean to those who care about her...? check. sexually attracted to the most powerful man alive...? check. a distraction untill wonder woman comes along...? check. nowhere near as sweet as lana...? check. don't think we need an oscar candidate for this.
frankly, lois was created so jerry siegal could vicariously indulge his adolescent fantasy for a teen sweetheart. she should not supercede the villains, or the plot structure.
it's bad enough we're getting ANOTHER $%^&ing origin. it's bad enough we're getting recycled movie villains instead of introducing new ones. it's bad enough snyder needs a leash.
as val, kev and myself have been saying it's amazing the GOOD news we've had. a good superman, good supporting cast so far... and now lois will not be more the center of the story?
GOOD.
|
|
|
Post by Valentine Smith on Mar 15, 2011 14:38:23 GMT -5
Totally OK with Jessica Biel as Lois.
|
|
|
Post by Jimbo on Mar 15, 2011 15:15:27 GMT -5
I'd rather see a good actress that's also pretty rather than a pretty face that can act.
|
|
EvilSupes
New Member
LOOK! Superman's drunk!
Posts: 3,037
|
Post by EvilSupes on Mar 15, 2011 15:53:04 GMT -5
I don't want a big name actress to be Lois, but that's just me. I'd have trouble seeing Lois Lane if it were a big name involved.
|
|
|
Post by Jimbo on Mar 15, 2011 16:58:55 GMT -5
I also read that they aren't screening SUCKER PUNCH until 10PM the day before it comes out. WB is trying to prevent reviews as much as they can. Can that film be that bad? Will they still keep Snyder in this project? Interesting. Ruh roh. ;D Care to make estimates? 17M opening, I'd wager.
|
|
|
Post by Valentine Smith on Mar 15, 2011 17:12:30 GMT -5
(Emperor voice)
Good. Goooooooooodddddd....
|
|
|
Post by EnriqueH on Mar 15, 2011 19:11:54 GMT -5
Hey, Val, do you want to see a long arm?
|
|
EvilSupes
New Member
LOOK! Superman's drunk!
Posts: 3,037
|
Post by EvilSupes on Mar 16, 2011 4:19:46 GMT -5
Hey, Val, do you want to see a long arm? But it's actually long "harm", well that's what it sounds like when Hackman says it, or is that just me? ;D
|
|
|
Post by EnriqueH on Mar 16, 2011 6:46:59 GMT -5
Hey, Val, do you want to see a long arm? But it's actually long "harm", well that's what it sounds like when Hackman says it, or is that just me? ;D Listen, bitch, is that the newspaper I asked you to get me? Why am I not reading it?
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Mar 16, 2011 14:15:31 GMT -5
On one hand, not making the relationship important AT ALL is a mistake, I would think. On the other hand, the whole relationship is an element that's something that always leads to being paralyzed at a certain point.
It's good to remember that SII's plot revolved 1/2 around creating a dimension of the relationship- that, at the end, got put to 'reset' as if it never happened. (Either through time-reversal or a memory kiss)
SR doesn't (imo) get enough credit for moving that relationship forward, so that we could have seen Supes get put through different challenges emotionally by having Supes be a father.
(Something that I would NOT have minded the comics' exploring and going as far as it could, given that they reboot everything from scratch every five years, anyways.)
With a character like Spiderman, where they finally discovered marrying off Spiderman was a dead end, they 'undid' it. Mary Jane no longer HAS to be the love of his life.
But given that the idea of Lois being the love of Supes' life seems to be one of the things that can't ever really change, (1) I guess it always has to sort of be there, (2) it's always going to have a creative dead end, unless you try something daring like Singer tried to. (though unfortunately couldn't follow through on)
The hard part of casting Lois I think is to make the character still charming to audiences despite a lot of the negative qualities.
I thought Bosworth was ok, but I'll agree that when you had Margot Kidder, Teri Hatcher, and Erica Durance in that role- there was something definitely missing, a certain amount of 'spice' that she lacked, despite (imo) giving a good performance.
I agree, don't need to cast an Academy Award winner, just something who has so much personality, she should have enough for two people, and make up for Supes' mild mannered 'low-key' nice guy one.
|
|
belloq
New Member
www.amazon.com/rosetta_stone/%hovitos "5 Stars"
Posts: 1,695
|
Post by belloq on Mar 16, 2011 22:23:56 GMT -5
still like rachel mccadams for lois, but i'd be fine with biel. i'm with jor, lois don't need to be that important this go around. kinda like the rachel character in batman begins; side character, not a costar.
a few words from snyder:
“Literally, the one thing that everyone can start to think about is that we’re making a movie that finally goes with the approach that there’s been no other Superman movies,” Snyder said. “If you look at ‘Batman Begins,’ there’s that structure, there’s the canon that we know about and respect but on other hand there’s this approach that pre-supposes that there haven’t been any other movies. In every aspect of design and of story, the whole is very much from that perspective of respect the canon but don’t be a slave to the movies.”
On the approach to Superman's past: "Respect the canon but don't be a slave to the movies." When suggested that the 2006 film was looking too into the past, “Yeah, and we’re not afraid of that at all,” Snyder said. “Our Superman, he’s got things to figure out but he’s a physical cat.” On further casting Snyder would say only: “There’s more to come and I think it’s consistent in its … awesomeness.”
“It’s been really great,” Snyder said of the collaboration so far. “Chris is awesome. He’s super-respectful but super-helpful, too. You can’t imagine a more generous [collaborator]…once he sort of got what I want to do with it, he was like, ‘OK,’ and once he said, ‘You know what, that’s awesome,’ now he’s 100%. If I say, ‘What do you think of this?’ he’s like, ‘That’s awesome,’ and then there’s a great give-and-take about it, a great conversation that we can have about it and making it better everyday. And by the way he’s hilarious, too.”
i guess he thinks it's..........awesome?
|
|
|
Post by SupermanUF on Mar 16, 2011 23:08:00 GMT -5
They obviously hate each other.
|
|
|
Post by Jimbo on Mar 17, 2011 1:45:10 GMT -5
Is Snyder sure it's really not Michael Bay masquerading as Nolan?
I can't really imagine Nolan saying the word "awesome", especially twice. He's a Brit with a stiff upper lip. Wouldn't he say "smashing"? ;D
|
|
|
Post by Valentine Smith on Mar 17, 2011 3:15:18 GMT -5
"awesomeness".
I can't wait until he's off this movie. That will be truly "awesome".
|
|