|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Apr 5, 2014 18:04:05 GMT -5
GL was one of he biggest CBM diss appointments of the decade. It could have been so good. Corporate thinking and too many cooks in the kitchen killed that movie. I don't anticipate the gritty Nolanesque reboot though. It's a pity that the director didn't do a commentary--- would love to know who was responsible for what over there. Oddly, Geoff Johns was promoting it greatly (and genuinely seemed to love it) at the Wondercon prior to its release. He didn't need the cash, I'm guessin he genuinely thought it was good.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Apr 5, 2014 18:04:23 GMT -5
GL was one of he biggest CBM diss appointments of the decade. It could have been so good. Corporate thinking and too many cooks in the kitchen killed that movie. I don't anticipate the gritty Nolanesque reboot though. It's a pity that the director didn't do a commentary--- would love to know who was responsible for what over there. Oddly, Geoff Johns was promoting it greatly (and genuinely seemed to love it) at the Wondercon prior to its release. He didn't need the cash, I'm guessin he genuinely thought it was good.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Apr 5, 2014 18:04:56 GMT -5
GL was one of he biggest CBM diss appointments of the decade. It could have been so good. Corporate thinking and too many cooks in the kitchen killed that movie. I don't anticipate the gritty Nolanesque reboot though. It's a pity that the director didn't do a commentary--- would love to know who was responsible for what over there. Oddly, Geoff Johns was promoting it greatly (and genuinely seemed to love it) at the Wondercon prior to its release. He didn't need the cash, I'm guessin he genuinely thought it was good.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,847
|
Post by Metallo on Apr 6, 2014 8:54:47 GMT -5
A reply so nice you did it thrice. I agree.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Apr 6, 2014 11:06:14 GMT -5
A reply so nice you did it thrice. I agree. Yeah..... I don't know WHAT the heck happened in posting. I didn't feel THAT strong about it. An aside--- are you planning to go see MOS 2 anyhow? Personally, growing up with the horrible superhero adaptations on tv way back when, I make an effort to see almost every superhero/comic adaptation on the bigscreen.... regardless. No matter what, nothing could be as horrible as some of those past tv adaptations....
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,847
|
Post by Metallo on Apr 6, 2014 12:52:27 GMT -5
Honestly I'd take some of those horrible tv adaptations over MOS right now. At least there could be some imagination and ingenuity in there somewhere. I still say the Corman produced 1994 FF caught the FF spirit more than the 2005 film and in a lot of ways Nic Hammond is still the best Peter Parker.
I'll probably see MOS 2 by "some" means *cough* but I'm not overly enthused to go out and spend money on a ticket ASAP. My enthusiasm for DC based properties is pretty much dead and that's a sad thing. They've done what even the likes of Schumacher couldn't. Even most of the tv cartoons have no appeal to me. WB/DC just seems to be too obsessed with reinventing the wheel to make sure the product is good.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Apr 9, 2014 10:38:44 GMT -5
Honestly I'd take some of those horrible tv adaptations over MOS right now. At least there could be some imagination and ingenuity in there somewhere. I still say the Corman produced 1994 FF caught the FF spirit more than the 2005 film and in a lot of ways Nic Hammond is still the best Peter Parker. I'll probably see MOS 2 by "some" means *cough* but I'm not overly enthused to go out and spend money on a ticket ASAP. My enthusiasm for DC based properties is pretty much dead and that's a sad thing. They've done what even the likes of Schumacher couldn't. Even most of the tv cartoons have no appeal to me. WB/DC just seems to be too obsessed with reinventing the wheel to make sure the product is good. I agree with what you're saying with the cheap FF film vs. the mostly horrible big budget FF film. I have to admit, though, that it's getting harder and harder for me to watch the older tv show/movies with the lowered production values. Interesting comment on Nicholas Hammond. He had a kind of a young 'Mark Hamill'-ish appeal as Peter Parker I think- But in an ideal world, I'd have loved Raimi directing Garfield as Spiderman and having free rein over the movies. Cameron said he envisioned a young John Cusack back in the day, but I think Garfield looks closer to the comics.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,847
|
Post by Metallo on Apr 9, 2014 12:42:25 GMT -5
Cusack would have been a pretty good choice. To me--Garfield is a decent Spidey but an awful Peter. MaGuire was a so so Spidey but a good Peter. I think we've yet to see that definitive Parker/Spidey in live action.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Apr 9, 2014 23:12:29 GMT -5
Cusack would have been a pretty good choice. To me--Garfield is a decent Spidey but an awful Peter. MaGuire was a so so Spidey but a good Peter. I think we've yet to see that definitive Parker/Spidey in live action. After reading Cameron's 'scriptment' of Spiderman, as much as I enjoyed Sam Raimi's first two Spiderman movies- I would still would have killed to have seen James Cameron's version of Spiderman. Garfield's performance under Raimi I think would be a little bit different than what we saw in the reboot- I like what Tobey did, but physically I thought Garfield fits much closer to what I remember from the Ditko/Romita days. Still..... I wish the studios listened to us and continued forward with recasting not rebooting. *sigh*
|
|
|
Post by doomsday1 on Aug 16, 2015 14:17:56 GMT -5
All you've done is quote one of Enrique's posts, what does that prove? He's a vagina, acted like a vagina, and will get no apology from anyone. That's why everyone's over there and there's a small few over here. That will be why you glossed over most of what I said in my previous posts.
You must realise that everyone on the Facebook group is in agreement with regards to Enrique. The only reason you're glossing over his behaviour and licking his hole is because his opinion haven't to match your and your agenda.
But honestly, you need to let it go and find something better to do with your time, it's absolutely tragic.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,847
|
Post by Metallo on Aug 23, 2015 14:30:24 GMT -5
Cusack would have been a pretty good choice. To me--Garfield is a decent Spidey but an awful Peter. MaGuire was a so so Spidey but a good Peter. I think we've yet to see that definitive Parker/Spidey in live action. After reading Cameron's 'scriptment' of Spiderman, as much as I enjoyed Sam Raimi's first two Spiderman movies- I would still would have killed to have seen James Cameron's version of Spiderman. Garfield's performance under Raimi I think would be a little bit different than what we saw in the reboot- I like what Tobey did, but physically I thought Garfield fits much closer to what I remember from the Ditko/Romita days. Still..... I wish the studios listened to us and continued forward with recasting not rebooting. *sigh* He is. He's taller and lankier. Physically he's a good fit for Parker. It's just a shame he's not heading to the MCU and Civil War. His run ends just as he was coming into his own as Spiderman. To me he'd fit better than a new guy but Sony poop the bed so bad it's necessary to replace him so Marvel can do it their way. I've got high hopes for Holland though. The kids got potential.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Aug 23, 2015 17:01:55 GMT -5
After reading Cameron's 'scriptment' of Spiderman, as much as I enjoyed Sam Raimi's first two Spiderman movies- I would still would have killed to have seen James Cameron's version of Spiderman. Garfield's performance under Raimi I think would be a little bit different than what we saw in the reboot- I like what Tobey did, but physically I thought Garfield fits much closer to what I remember from the Ditko/Romita days. Still..... I wish the studios listened to us and continued forward with recasting not rebooting. *sigh* He is. He's taller and lankier. Physically he's a good fit for Parker. It's just a shame he's not heading to the MCU and Civil War. His run ends just as he was coming into his own as Spiderman. To me he'd fit better than a new guy but Sony poop the bed so bad it's necessary to replace him so Marvel can do it their way. I've got high hopes for Holland though. The kids got potential. I agree.... most people weren't complaining about Garfield- so, much like tossing Routh out with SR, it's a similar scenario imo. If Marvel's not doing 'origin' movies anymore- then why not just ignore the second film and keep Garfield? But then again.... if Marvel/Sony are thinking long-term franchise, it does make sense for a younger actor and full reboot of sorts. Pity on Asia Butterfield, I could have seen him as Peter. Jury is out on Holland.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,847
|
Post by Metallo on Aug 23, 2015 17:17:29 GMT -5
Yeah he really did get Routh'd. Good pick for the role just in a lousy movie. Not god awful but it wasn't very good. And I wasn't even big on Garfield at first. He really won me over in the second film. I sort of feel that way about Miles Teller in FF. good actor in a poor movie. More Ultimate Reed than traditional Reed but I found myself liking what he was doing despite the character not being fleshed out quite enough on the page. I read on some site that they may have offered the role back to Garfield but he declined. Plus ins recent interview he sounded relieved to not have to be under all that pressure. Much like Routh did for Cavill I think Garfield will be a buffer as far as criticisms on recasting. People are used to it this time out so it won't be as bad on Holland trying to follow someone like Maguire. I think Marvel had to recast to have the freedom to do what they want and like you said a young actor could have a lot of longevity. Holland could easily play Peter Parker for ten years as we watch the character go through life and mature.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Aug 23, 2015 23:20:15 GMT -5
Yeah he really did get Routh'd. Good pick for the role just in a lousy movie. Not god awful but it wasn't very good. And I wasn't even big on Garfield at first. He really won me over in the second film. I sort of feel that way about Miles Teller in FF. good actor in a poor movie. More Ultimate Reed than traditional Reed but I found myself liking what he was doing despite the character not being fleshed out quite enough on the page. I read on some site that they may have offered the role back to Garfield but he declined. Plus ins recent interview he sounded relieved to not have to be under all that pressure. Much like Routh did for Cavill I think Garfield will be a buffer as far as criticisms on recasting. People are used to it this time out so it won't be as bad on Holland trying to follow someone like Maguire. I think Marvel had to recast to have the freedom to do what they want and like you said a young actor could have a lot of longevity. Holland could easily play Peter Parker for ten years as we watch the character go through life and mature. There's been a couple of incidents where I've read Garfield was accused of upsetting this or that exec by his behavior. (Supposedly he was set to give "Batkid" an award on the Oscars, but it got nixed due to something Garfield didn't agree to do. What could be that bad?) Still--- I agree that Garfield physically was more 'right' for the classic Spiderman than Tobey. Having said that- I did see two of the Raimi Spiderman movies recently- and felt that they didn't just hold up, but that they're actually superior to a couple of the Marvel films that have come out, too. (Looking at you, Iron Man and Thor 2)
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,847
|
Post by Metallo on Aug 24, 2015 21:12:34 GMT -5
I agree they're good movies but those two really don't hold up as well. Well the first Spiderman doesn't. I think Iron Man outdoes the first Spiderman in most ways but I think Spidey 2 edges out Iron Man 1. Spidey 1 has dated more than 2 and it's got some script/dialogue problems. It falls into a lot of comic book movie cliches too. The Goblin suit is good in concept but the execution looks rather silly.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Aug 24, 2015 23:49:45 GMT -5
I agree they're good movies but those two really don't hold up as well. Well the first Spiderman doesn't. I think Iron Man outdoes the first Spiderman in most ways but I think Spidey 2 edges out Iron Man 1. Spidey 1 has dated more than 2 and it's got some script/dialogue problems. It falls into a lot of comic book movie cliches too. The Goblin suit is good in concept but the execution looks rather silly. Spiderman 2 definitely is a grand improvement over Spiderman 1, but if you took out all the superhero stuff, I think there's still a solid drama there and it felt to me like Raimi treated the original Lee/Ditko comics as gospel (at least in spirit).
|
|
crown
New Member
Posts: 1,134
|
Post by crown on Sept 10, 2015 20:25:49 GMT -5
Gandy had huge expectations for both MoS and the Donner cut. He was let down and let down HARD.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Sept 12, 2015 14:44:43 GMT -5
MOS was a big disappointment- but not nearly as big a disappointment as the RDC. With Snyder directing and Goyer writing, both were a question mark. While there are big sections and some ideas I like, I was otherwise letdown, too. A fan cut would be interesting, though.
In regards to RDC's disappointment- If I never saw the ABC/IRC cut of SII, I think I might not have been as disappointed as I was. Just too many bad choices all the way around. I might have rather they cleaned up the deleted scenes and let fans fix it, given how many bad choices editorially there were.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,847
|
Post by Metallo on Sept 12, 2015 23:34:47 GMT -5
And now Goyers nowhere to be found with the DCEU promotion and films. Looks like somebody had to take the fall.
|
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,768
|
Post by atp on Sept 14, 2015 10:18:08 GMT -5
Gandy had huge expectations for both MoS and the Donner cut. He was let down and let down HARD. Was the Donner cut responsible for altering him?
|
|
crown
New Member
Posts: 1,134
|
Post by crown on Sept 14, 2015 16:19:35 GMT -5
I think he was never quite the same after the Donner Cut broke his heart. I remember how excited he used to be truly believing that a 80-90% completed Donner take was out there. When he found out the truth he went into self-imposed exile leaving lesser men to take his place
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Sept 14, 2015 18:48:36 GMT -5
I think he was never quite the same after the Donner Cut broke his heart. I remember how excited he used to be truly believing that a 80-90% completed Donner take was out there. When he found out the truth he went into self-imposed exile leaving lesser men to take his place I never expected that 80-90% was out there.... but I was horrified that down the line, choices were made by Thau that made the International cut a far better version of the Donner cut.
|
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,768
|
Post by atp on Sept 15, 2015 2:35:49 GMT -5
Who was responsible for starting the lie about there being an almost complete cut? Was it Donner himself?
|
|
crown
New Member
Posts: 1,134
|
Post by crown on Sept 15, 2015 4:00:33 GMT -5
Who was responsible for starting the lie about there being an almost complete cut? Was it Donner himself? Gandy convinced himself that a 90% cut was out there... Donner didn't help by implying that he had finished the blank bullets scene. Gandy kept trumpeting that ALL fortress scenes had been shot as well which was unfortunately the result of wishful thinking and flawed conjecture.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Sept 16, 2015 14:15:39 GMT -5
Who was responsible for starting the lie about there being an almost complete cut? Was it Donner himself? I never heard 90%. I knew the Brando stuff was the holy grail, because of the rights issue- plus the DP jump (because there was a magazine that had the pics to that sequence)... but I had a hunch that all the big action beats Donner directed got onscreen- it wasn't until the entertainment tonight clip with the statue of liberty and Supes punching Non, did I imagine maybe more got shot- Sadly, I was right. What I didn't expect was for Lois' closeups NOT to be shot with the depowering scene. Was a giant bummer for the bookend Honeymoon haven scenes not to have been shot after all (the one without a screentest is funnier)- anyhow, the RDC to me was a disappointment because of the lack of Donner footage- but secondly was the editing which made it inferior in ways to the Lester theatrical/ ABC version.
|
|