I agree if you replace Superman 1 with Superman 2.
I still hate the "turn time back by spinning the world backwards" ending of Superman 1.
Spider-Man 4 swinging into theaters May 2011? No, Never. Raimi out, reboot time
- Thread starter Charlie Don't Surf
- Start date
- Status
I still hate the "turn time back by spinning the world backwards" ending of Superman 1.
I agree if you replace Superman 1 with Superman 2.
I still hate the "turn time back by spinning the world backwards" ending of Superman 1.[/QUOTE]
Which version of Superman 2? They have the Richard Donner cut on DVD and I find it superior to the theatrical version.
I think Raimi is way overrated as a director. Sure, the Evil Dead series was good and campy but that was due to Bruce being the genius he is. Scenes like the animal mounts laughing at him were just lame. It works as a low grade B horror flick (which, for the record I do like) but didn't care for it in Spider Man. I hated the Goblin. The suit and facemask horrible. Overall the first two Spider Man movies were good but there were the trademark Raimi scenes that took me right out of the movie. Drag Me To Hell was alright but it also had it's moments (talking goat anyone?). I'm all for the smart ass one liners spun from Spidey's mouth but can loose Peter dancing the jig.
If you think Bruce Campbell is the only reason the Evil Dead movies worked, then I don't know what to tell you. Campbell has been fucking terrible in almost everything he has been in without Sam Raimi.
No, better than those. Superman has the whole "turning back time thing" and Dark Knight may be a close second but loses out because of Bale's ridiculous voice and the fact it doesn't really have a good rewatchability factor... it's an awesome movie, but it's a bit too drawn out for repeated viewings. Spidey 2 I could watch once a week.
I think it's more a matter of Sam being able to bring out the best in Bruce than Bruce being a terrible actor. It also doesn't help that he keeps getting shit parts BECAUSE of those damn movies.
This is true. TV has always been far kinder to Bruce than cinema.
It's nothing to be ashamed of, we all can't have taste in movies.
This is true. TV has always been far kinder to Bruce than cinema.[/QUOTE]
Totally
Ok, you got me... Jack of All Trades was a TERRIBLE show. The premise was awful and it reeked of trying to take a third bite of the Xena/Hercules style apple. It did have a catchy (if kinda lame) theme song though!
I will never apologize for liking Brisco County Jr.
fade
Staff member
Yes! Pretty much the formula for "perfect".
Jack of all Trades was supposed to be funny before it was action-packed, not one of those God awful adventure shows that clogged syndication during the 90's.
I mean, shit, it had Vern Troyer as fucking Napoleon. He flew at people like a fucking rocketman-Raiden from Mortal Kombat combination.
P
Philosopher B.
Campbell was rad as shit in Bubba Hotep.
That was Sam Raimi-directed though. They're talking about how he is without Sam Raimi.
That was Sam Raimi-directed though. They're talking about how he is without Sam Raimi.[/QUOTE]
Uh..what? No it wasn't. It was directed by David Coscarelli. Raimi wasn't even a producer.
That was Sam Raimi-directed though. They're talking about how he is without Sam Raimi.[/QUOTE]
Uh..what? No it wasn't. It was directed by David Coscarelli. Raimi wasn't even a producer.[/QUOTE]
...wow, how did I fuck that up?
fade
Staff member
Yeah, Coscarelli...who directed the only movie to ever really, really scare me. Of course, it's kind of campy when I go back and watch it now. But when I was a kid, that brain sucking ball scared the hell out of me. It was the flight of the ball--still really realistic, because it wasn't on wires. On the DVD commentary, I saw they hired a pro baseball pitcher to throw it. Explains the realism.
It looks like Marc Webb, of (500) Days of Summer fame, has been picked to direct the reboot. 
Nonsense. We still have plenty to debate. What villains will they use, who will play what characters, etc.
The thread speculation lives on!
Now, did they choose him for ability or because of his last name?
I've never seen any of Webb's movies, so I'm not going to judge, but I did read the synopsis for Raimi's intended Spider-man 4 and it sounded bland as hell. Basically, MJ broke up with Peter after the end of the third movie. He falls for a new girl. Turns out her father is a criminal, the Vulture. Spider-man is conflicted between his feelings for the girl and stopping her villainous father. He ends up going with the crimefighter route and ends up killing the Vulture. So then there's a problem with the girl, she becomes the Vulturess. At the end of the movie, Peter decides to quit being Spider-man.
Now I can see why Sony chose to reboot. It's basically a stew of elements from the last three movies, except coming off really mediocre.
Ah well, still got Spider-man 2 to enjoy.
I've never seen any of Webb's movies, so I'm not going to judge, but I did read the synopsis for Raimi's intended Spider-man 4 and it sounded bland as hell. Basically, MJ broke up with Peter after the end of the third movie. He falls for a new girl. Turns out her father is a criminal, the Vulture. Spider-man is conflicted between his feelings for the girl and stopping her villainous father. He ends up going with the crimefighter route and ends up killing the Vulture. So then there's a problem with the girl, she becomes the Vulturess. At the end of the movie, Peter decides to quit being Spider-man.
Now I can see why Sony chose to reboot. It's basically a stew of elements from the last three movies, except coming off really mediocre.
Ah well, still got Spider-man 2 to enjoy.
fade
Staff member
I still don't understand why people rate 2 above 1. I really thought 1 was the superior movie. It captured the essence of spider-man and that geek getting the chance to do something good, be something strong. New York felt real and full of people. 2 went too far down the cheesy route and Doc Ock felt kind of goofy. We narrowed focus on the cast, and lost New York in the process. My opinion, anyway.
Maybe Spider-man 1 was a better Spider-man movie, but I felt Spider-man 2 was a better general movie. It did have a tighter focus, I felt the drama worked more realistically, and Peter's character arc was stronger, even if those aspects weren't totally true to the comic.
I saw Spider Man 1 with my room mate back in university, and during the scene with Peter and MJ in the hospital room, he turned to me and said, "This movie is so boring."
His point, I think, was that the first movie spends so much time telling Spidey's origin story it doesn't show enough of Spidey being Spidey. The second film doesn't have to deal with origin stories so it's more fun.
His point, I think, was that the first movie spends so much time telling Spidey's origin story it doesn't show enough of Spidey being Spidey. The second film doesn't have to deal with origin stories so it's more fun.
J
JCM
Spidey 2 was also more up to date, I mean, Spidey 1 we see his origin story, but in 2 we get to see wat makes Spiderman/Peter Parker, from his strugling to balance love, job and studies with his superhero life.
Sony chose him because he can direct young people in a comedy, and 500 days of summer in high school is where they want to take the franchise.
I watched Spider-Man 1 and 2 back to back this past weekend, and the jump in effects between 1 and 2 is pretty huge. 2 looks just infinitely better. And it also doesn't climax with tough, no-nonsense New Yorkers pelting Doc Ock with trash.
Dave
Staff member
Cool!
Not getting my hopes up yet, but cool.
Not getting my hopes up yet, but cool.
Logan Lerner (Percy Jackson, Gamer) will be Spider-Man
- Status