|
Post by sdrew13163 on Apr 4, 2017 0:15:14 GMT
I just now found this and I've gotta say it's really well thought out. I like most of these ideas, especially the integration of Spidey into The Avengers. Maguire's Spider-Man is still my favorite and that ending you added when he met MJ back in his old home was nice. I still am not a Lizard fan at all, but to each his own.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2017 0:31:33 GMT
I just now found this and I've gotta say it's really well thought out. I like most of these ideas, especially the integration of Spidey into The Avengers. Maguire's Spider-Man is still my favorite and that ending you added when he met MJ back in his old home was nice. I still am not a Lizard fan at all, but to each his own. The main thing I was trying to do with this outline was work within the confines of the films that have come out since Spider-Man 3, hence why I went with The Amazing Spider-Man stuff. I'll have to see Homecoming before I really have the full context of work within to come up with a proper description of Spider-Man 6. "that ending you added when he met MJ back in his old home was nice." Yeah, I figured after three films of Parker being life's punching bag, the MCU would have been a great place to give him a turnaround of luck. Never did like that aspect of the Raimi films, come to think of it.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Apr 11, 2017 13:55:37 GMT
To specifically state why I never liked Maguire's Spider-man: he never felt like Peter Parker to me. These films were like watching Charlie Brown with superpowers. Even when he wins, he loses. He also lacked the wit of the original character. I'll grant you, Tobey's Peter is nowhere near as witty/quipped as the comics version, but your "Charlie Brown with superpowers" line was a(n accidentally) perfect description of basically Spider-Man. If you've read a lot of the old comics, you know that "even when he wins, he loses." That's in fact what makes the character so accessible and relatable to lots of people, I always thought. He is not someone for whom life goes smoothly, or well, very often or for very long.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2017 19:17:19 GMT
To specifically state why I never liked Maguire's Spider-man: he never felt like Peter Parker to me. These films were like watching Charlie Brown with superpowers. Even when he wins, he loses. He also lacked the wit of the original character. I'll grant you, Tobey's Peter is nowhere near as witty/quipped as the comics version, but your "Charlie Brown with superpowers" line was a(n accidentally) perfect description of basically Spider-Man. If you've read a lot of the old comics, you know that "even when he wins, he loses." That's in fact what makes the character so accessible and relatable to lots of people, I always thought. He is not someone for whom life goes smoothly, or well, very often or for very long. I own compilations of the classic Stan Lee Era Spider-Man, first of all, and the wit, or lack thereof, is not the only glaring difference. Parker may have had his share of bad luck in the comics, but he never suffered through it with the sheer amount of pathetic mopeyness Maguire's Spider-Man was infamous for. The Rifftrax guys likened him to Christiansen's Anakin Skywalker on more than one occasion. I never felt like classic Spidey was just one step away from committing suicide like I did with Maguire's.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Apr 11, 2017 21:46:03 GMT
I'll grant you, Tobey's Peter is nowhere near as witty/quipped as the comics version, but your "Charlie Brown with superpowers" line was a(n accidentally) perfect description of basically Spider-Man. If you've read a lot of the old comics, you know that "even when he wins, he loses." That's in fact what makes the character so accessible and relatable to lots of people, I always thought. He is not someone for whom life goes smoothly, or well, very often or for very long. I own compilations of the classic Stan Lee Era Spider-Man, first of all, and the wit, or lack thereof, is not the only glaring difference. Parker may have had his share of bad luck in the comics, but he never suffered through it with the sheer amount of pathetic mopeyness Maguire's Spider-Man was infamous for. The Rifftrax guys likened him to Christiansen's Anakin Skywalker on more than one occasion. I never felt like classic Spidey was just one step away from committing suicide like I did with Maguire's. Interesting. I've read some of the Stan Lee stuff and lots of Amazing Spider-Man from the 80s and 90s and didn't get that impression. I was also a HUGE fan of Ultimate Spider-Man, with which the Raimi movies are most consistent in tone. Different strokes, I guess.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2017 23:47:43 GMT
I own compilations of the classic Stan Lee Era Spider-Man, first of all, and the wit, or lack thereof, is not the only glaring difference. Parker may have had his share of bad luck in the comics, but he never suffered through it with the sheer amount of pathetic mopeyness Maguire's Spider-Man was infamous for. The Rifftrax guys likened him to Christiansen's Anakin Skywalker on more than one occasion. I never felt like classic Spidey was just one step away from committing suicide like I did with Maguire's. Interesting. I've read some of the Stan Lee stuff and lots of Amazing Spider-Man from the 80s and 90s and didn't get that impression. I was also a HUGE fan of Ultimate Spider-Man, with which the Raimi movies are most consistent in tone. Different strokes, I guess. I read the 60s and 70s stuff, so that right there might make all the difference. I know Spider-Man entered a Dark Age later down the line, but I'm staring at the Year One collection right now and I'm not seeing a trace of clinical depression.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Apr 12, 2017 20:01:17 GMT
Interesting. I've read some of the Stan Lee stuff and lots of Amazing Spider-Man from the 80s and 90s and didn't get that impression. I was also a HUGE fan of Ultimate Spider-Man, with which the Raimi movies are most consistent in tone. Different strokes, I guess. I read the 60s and 70s stuff, so that right there might make all the difference. I know Spider-Man entered a Dark Age later down the line, but I'm staring at the Year One collection right now and I'm not seeing a trace of clinical depression. I think that's the difference, because I tend to like the McFarlane stuff and later, and in those poor Peter's life is fucking WOESOME. I've long meant to snag those essential collections of the Lee/Ditko stuff, though. It's on my (long) list of must-reads.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2017 20:44:40 GMT
I read the 60s and 70s stuff, so that right there might make all the difference. I know Spider-Man entered a Dark Age later down the line, but I'm staring at the Year One collection right now and I'm not seeing a trace of clinical depression. I think that's the difference, because I tend to like the McFarlane stuff and later, and in those poor Peter's life is fucking WOESOME. I've long meant to snag those essential collections of the Lee/Ditko stuff, though. It's on my (long) list of must-reads. I've heard about what went on in that period. I don't mind Parker's lot in life in the first film that much. I just felt like they were overblowing it the second and third films. There's only so much "Woe Is Me" I can watch before it starts to wear thin, REAL THIN. That's why my fondness for the 2000-07 Era of Superhero Film has waned considerably over time. Pretty much every superhero film from that period could be renamed "Woe is Me: The Movie" and no one would notice the difference. I'm looking at you, Daredevil (2003)!
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Apr 12, 2017 20:58:35 GMT
I think that's the difference, because I tend to like the McFarlane stuff and later, and in those poor Peter's life is fucking WOESOME. I've long meant to snag those essential collections of the Lee/Ditko stuff, though. It's on my (long) list of must-reads. I've heard about what went on in that period. I don't mind Parker's lot in life in the first film that much. I just felt like they were overblowing it the second and third films. There's only so much "Woe Is Me" I can watch before it starts to wear thin, REAL THIN. That's why my fondness for the 2000-07 Era of Superhero Film has waned considerably over time. Pretty much every superhero film from that period could be renamed "Woe is Me: The Movie" and no one would notice the difference. I'm looking at you, Daredevil (2003)! Poor DD. It gets shit on so hard, and it's a guilty pleasure of mine while fully acknowledging its many (many, MANY) flaws. Really dug Kingpin in that though. Anyways, yeah: the "Spider-Man no more" arc from the second film definitely hasn't aged as well as the first movie, like you said.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2017 22:22:17 GMT
I've heard about what went on in that period. I don't mind Parker's lot in life in the first film that much. I just felt like they were overblowing it the second and third films. There's only so much "Woe Is Me" I can watch before it starts to wear thin, REAL THIN. That's why my fondness for the 2000-07 Era of Superhero Film has waned considerably over time. Pretty much every superhero film from that period could be renamed "Woe is Me: The Movie" and no one would notice the difference. I'm looking at you, Daredevil (2003)! Poor DD. It gets shit on so hard, and it's a guilty pleasure of mine while fully acknowledging its many (many, MANY) flaws. Really dug Kingpin in that though. Anyways, yeah: the "Spider-Man no more" arc from the second film definitely hasn't aged as well as the first movie, like you said. RIP Michael Duncan Clark. He really was a great Kingpin, though. The casting, except for Garner, certainly wasn't the problem with that film. I felt like each of the actors, except Garner, did their jobs well enough for the material they had to work with.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Apr 13, 2017 1:26:24 GMT
Poor DD. It gets shit on so hard, and it's a guilty pleasure of mine while fully acknowledging its many (many, MANY) flaws. Really dug Kingpin in that though. Anyways, yeah: the "Spider-Man no more" arc from the second film definitely hasn't aged as well as the first movie, like you said. RIP Michael Duncan Clark. He really was a great Kingpin, though. The casting, except for Garner, certainly wasn't the problem with that film. I felt like each of the actors, except Garner, did their jobs well enough for the material they had to work with. Yeah, I even thought Affleck was solid and that the director's cut (yes, there is one, and yes, I have it) is a good 10% better than the theatrical cut. But Clark REALLY shines through for me and steals every scene he's in. Would honestly love to see his Kingpin in the MCU were it a possibility. A real shame we'll never see him there.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2017 3:14:13 GMT
RIP Michael Duncan Clark. He really was a great Kingpin, though. The casting, except for Garner, certainly wasn't the problem with that film. I felt like each of the actors, except Garner, did their jobs well enough for the material they had to work with. Yeah, I even thought Affleck was solid and that the director's cut (yes, there is one, and yes, I have it) is a good 10% better than the theatrical cut. But Clark REALLY shines through for me and steals every scene he's in. Would honestly love to see his Kingpin in the MCU were it a possibility. A real shame we'll never see him there. Agreed on Affleck. This was one of a small handful from his early work that I thought he was good in. Shakespeare in Love being the other primary example despite his inability to do a proper British accent. There was honest potential for a decent sequel before Elektra killed it. If memory serves, The Kingpin was Clark's favorite Marvel villain, and so he was putting 110% effort into the role. And it shows. Sadly, I don't think Marvel Studios would have brought Clark back even if he was still alive. They also took a pass on bringing back Sam Elliot to play General Ross despite the fact he was open to it, for... reasons unfathomable. Of course, on the other hand, Ross IS supposed to be an utterly loathsome bastard, and I walked out of The Hulk NOT hating Elliot's Ross despite his actions.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Apr 14, 2017 3:24:25 GMT
Yeah, I even thought Affleck was solid and that the director's cut (yes, there is one, and yes, I have it) is a good 10% better than the theatrical cut. But Clark REALLY shines through for me and steals every scene he's in. Would honestly love to see his Kingpin in the MCU were it a possibility. A real shame we'll never see him there. Agreed on Affleck. This was one of a small handful from his early work that I thought he was good in. Shakespeare in Love being the other primary example despite his inability to do a proper British accent. There was honest potential for a decent sequel before Elektra killed it. If memory serves, The Kingpin was Clark's favorite Marvel villain, and so he was putting 110% effort into the role. And it shows. Sadly, I don't think Marvel Studios would have brought Clark back even if he was still alive. They also took a pass on bringing back Sam Elliot to play General Ross despite the fact he was open to it, for... reasons unfathomable. Of course, on the other hand, Ross IS supposed to be an utterly loathsome bastard, and I walked out of The Hulk NOT hating Elliot's Ross despite his actions. I think Affleck was also pretty solid in Chasing Amy. The movie hasn't aged particularly well for me, but his performance in it has. You think we'll ever see Kingpin on the big screen again? I have to believe we will. He's too important to leave on the table forever, especially with both Peter and Matt available in the current MCU.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2017 4:31:31 GMT
Agreed on Affleck. This was one of a small handful from his early work that I thought he was good in. Shakespeare in Love being the other primary example despite his inability to do a proper British accent. There was honest potential for a decent sequel before Elektra killed it. If memory serves, The Kingpin was Clark's favorite Marvel villain, and so he was putting 110% effort into the role. And it shows. Sadly, I don't think Marvel Studios would have brought Clark back even if he was still alive. They also took a pass on bringing back Sam Elliot to play General Ross despite the fact he was open to it, for... reasons unfathomable. Of course, on the other hand, Ross IS supposed to be an utterly loathsome bastard, and I walked out of The Hulk NOT hating Elliot's Ross despite his actions. I think Affleck was also pretty solid in Chasing Amy. The movie hasn't aged particularly well for me, but his performance in it has. You think we'll ever see Kingpin on the big screen again? I have to believe we will. He's too important to leave on the table forever, especially with both Peter and Matt available in the current MCU. I know Marvel TV's current Vice Executive Producer, Jeph Loab, has wanted the TV and film branches of the company to get together for something for a while. No idea if he can get that done, though, since I think he still answers to Ike Perlmutter, who was the guy who put a wall between Marvel's films and TV/Nexflix shows to begin with back when he was still in charge.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Apr 14, 2017 5:36:25 GMT
I think Affleck was also pretty solid in Chasing Amy. The movie hasn't aged particularly well for me, but his performance in it has. You think we'll ever see Kingpin on the big screen again? I have to believe we will. He's too important to leave on the table forever, especially with both Peter and Matt available in the current MCU. I know Marvel TV's current Vice Executive Producer, Jeph Loab, has wanted the TV and film branches of the company to get together for something for a while. No idea if he can get that done, though, since I think he still answers to Ike Perlmutter, who was the guy who put a wall between Marvel's films and TV/Nexflix shows to begin with back when he was still in charge.Yeah, why did that ever get approved? Disney seems way too disciplined in their approach not to realize that the connectivity/continuity of the various projects is a significant part of their success and appeal. I frankly assumed we'd see the Defenders running around somewhere by the Thanos duology.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2017 2:00:20 GMT
I know Marvel TV's current Vice Executive Producer, Jeph Loab, has wanted the TV and film branches of the company to get together for something for a while. No idea if he can get that done, though, since I think he still answers to Ike Perlmutter, who was the guy who put a wall between Marvel's films and TV/Nexflix shows to begin with back when he was still in charge.Yeah, why did that ever get approved? Disney seems way too disciplined in their approach not to realize that the connectivity/continuity of the various projects is a significant part of their success and appeal. I frankly assumed we'd see the Defenders running around somewhere by the Thanos duology. To be fair, it probably was a good idea at the time to just make the TV/Netflix branch just focus on getting itself established. The wall has outlived its usefulness since then, though. Disney did demote him and put Feige fully in charge of their film branch in 2015 after Perlmutter finally caused Marvel Studios one too many problems with his... eccentricities. No idea why the TV/Netflix branch still answers to Perlmutter outside of the guy being freaking rich and well-connected. The impression I've gotten is that a lot of people in both Marvel Studios AND in their parent company, Disney, do want to get of him. That must be some quality blackmail material if Disney isn't able to fire his sorry ass.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Apr 15, 2017 2:07:17 GMT
It's probably because they can't find any real grounds to dismiss him as of yet. And in order to buy Marvel they had to give him stock in Disney.
Plus he'd buddies with Donald Trump, which complicates matters.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2017 18:22:37 GMT
I love how these users try to act like MCU fans are the enemy when I remember the scenario being the MCU and its fans always been harassed back on the original IMDb. No, it's not truth that Raimi is a better director than most of the other filmmakers to make comic book movies. In fact, I'd put him on the lower end. I never liked his Spider-Man and felt Spider-man 2 was a total bore. To specifically state why I never liked Maguire's Spider-man: he never felt like Peter Parker to me. These films were like watching Charlie Brown with superpowers. Even when he wins, he loses. He also lacked the wit of the original character. Don't feed this troll, people...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2017 21:15:41 GMT
I love how these users try to act like MCU fans are the enemy when I remember the scenario being the MCU and its fans always been harassed back on the original IMDb. No, it's not truth that Raimi is a better director than most of the other filmmakers to make comic book movies. In fact, I'd put him on the lower end. I never liked his Spider-Man and felt Spider-man 2 was a total bore. To specifically state why I never liked Maguire's Spider-man: he never felt like Peter Parker to me. These films were like watching Charlie Brown with superpowers. Even when he wins, he loses. He also lacked the wit of the original character. Don't feed this troll, people... Yeah, you have no place talking about trolling.
|
|
|
Post by lukelovesfilm34 on May 1, 2017 7:54:10 GMT
Jesus. For someone who didn't like Raimi's Spider-Man, you sure did put a lot of time into that post.
|
|