|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Oct 27, 2018 15:02:18 GMT
And free to be in great Sony movies with Venom, Carnage, et. al., where he belongs?
Anybody know? Holland is hot garbage, and the MCU will never get Peter right, so here's hoping we get a return to form once Sony rightly yanks him away from Disney. Innit?
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Oct 27, 2018 15:04:04 GMT
When Spider-Pigs fly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Oct 27, 2018 15:20:16 GMT
it looks like he might break free; seems like Sony are only bound to Disney-Marvel for the next Spidermovie "Far From Home"
The commercial success of Venom has opened the gateways to reclaim Spiderman again. That is the big tragedy for MCU fanpersons and why they cry us those salty rivers. It's much worse than shows being cancelled or a MCU movie underperforming or an DC movie overperforming.
Hope Sony call the MCU-free movie "Home Run". But who rescues the X-Men from getting the Inhumans treatment in the MCU?
|
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Oct 27, 2018 15:22:36 GMT
it looks like he might break free; seems like Sony are only bound to Disney-Marvel for the next Spidermovie "Far From Home" The commercial success of Venom has opened the gateways to reclaim Spiderman again. That is the big tragedy for MCU fanpersons and why they cry us those salty rivers. It's much worse than shows being cancelled or a MCU movie underperforming or an DC movie overperforming. Hope Sony call the MCU-free movie "Home Run". But who rescues the X-Men to be treated like Inhumans in the MCU? Let's hope Peter goes back where he belongs after "Far From Home," a title so unbelievably fucking cloying I want to literally fly to Los Angeles and slap whoever came up with it as hard across the face as I can. As for Disney's lame, terrible MCU X-Men: I hate them already. |
|
|
|
Post by justanaveragejoe on Oct 27, 2018 17:47:03 GMT
Uhh... 30% rotten
92% fresh
Sure, let's bring him back to the studio that brought you Spider-Man 3 and The Amazing Spider-Man 2. |
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Oct 27, 2018 18:18:45 GMT
Uhh... 30% rotten
92% fresh
Sure, let's bring him back to the studio that brought you Spider-Man 3 and The Amazing Spider-Man 2. Uhh... Everyone knows those RT scores are meaningless. You're embarrassing yourself. Everyone also knows that the Raimi Spider-Man trilogy, taken as a whole, is better than every single MCU movie individually or all twenty of them. So, let's get him back where he belongs. |
|
|
|
Post by justanaveragejoe on Oct 27, 2018 18:22:24 GMT
Uhh... 30% rotten
92% fresh
Sure, let's bring him back to the studio that brought you Spider-Man 3 and The Amazing Spider-Man 2. Uhh... Everyone knows those RT scores are meaningless. You're embarrassing yourself. Everyone also knows that the Raimi Spider-Man trilogy, taken as a whole, is better than every single MCU movie individually or all twenty of them. So, let's get him back where he belongs. But...I just mentioned 1 film in the Sam Raimi trilogy. Sony hasn't made a great Spider-Man movie until Marvel Studios came into the picture. And I guess scores are meaningless unless they fit into your agenda? Innit? |
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Oct 27, 2018 18:25:46 GMT
Uhh... Everyone knows those RT scores are meaningless. You're embarrassing yourself. Everyone also knows that the Raimi Spider-Man trilogy, taken as a whole, is better than every single MCU movie individually or all twenty of them. So, let's get him back where he belongs. But...I just mentioned 1 film in the Sam Raimi trilogy. Sony hasn't made a great Spider-Man movie until Marvel Studios came into the picture. And I guess scores are meaningless unless they fit into your agenda? Innit? lol No, they're meaningless when the critics are paid. |
|
|
|
Post by justanaveragejoe on Oct 27, 2018 18:35:08 GMT
But...I just mentioned 1 film in the Sam Raimi trilogy. Sony hasn't made a great Spider-Man movie until Marvel Studios came into the picture. And I guess scores are meaningless unless they fit into your agenda? Innit? lol No, they're meaningless when the critics are paid. You have no proof they're being paid mi amigo. |
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Oct 27, 2018 18:36:08 GMT
lol No, they're meaningless when the critics are paid. You have no proof they're being paid mi amigo. You have no proof that they're not. But I guess it suits YOUR narrative to just call everything Fake News. Innit? |
|
|
|
Post by Hauntedknight87 on Oct 27, 2018 18:37:28 GMT
As soon as DC is free from Warner Brothers.
Let's free Marvel and DC from the corporations that are strangling the industry.
|
|
|
|
Post by justanaveragejoe on Oct 27, 2018 18:37:42 GMT
You have no proof they're being paid mi amigo. You have no proof that they're not. But I guess it suits YOUR narrative to just call everything Fake News. Innit?  |
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Oct 27, 2018 18:39:03 GMT
You have no proof that they're not. But I guess it suits YOUR narrative to just call everything Fake News. Innit? That's what I thought. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2018 19:08:52 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Oct 27, 2018 19:20:42 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by No Morpho, Only Bánh mì on Oct 27, 2018 19:34:12 GMT
Whorecrutches!!!!!D  |
|
|
|
Post by Vassaggo on Oct 29, 2018 14:23:53 GMT
coldenhaulfield I can never tell when you are being subversive, genuine, or both.  Seems like the vast majority of the viewing public likes MCU Spider-Man. I trust Cinema Score more than IMDB to gauge the general population's view of a movie. They have been polling movie goers for 40 years. Instead of relying on people to have an IMDB account, log in, and rate it Cinema Score goes to the movie goers. This causes IMDB to be more of a specific demographic than Cinema Score. We also could go off of Grosses to gauge popularity, but that can be ambiguous. Also using that metric Spider-man 3 would be more popular than Spider-man 1 or 2. Cinema Score Venom B+ Homecoming A Amazing Spider-man 2 B+ Amazing Spider-man A- Spider-man 3 B+ Spider-man 2 A- Spider-man 1 A- IMDB Venom: 7.0 Homecoming 7.5 Amazing Spider-man 2 6.6 Amazing Spider-man 7.0 Spider-man 3 6.2 Spider-man 2 7.3 Spider-man 1 7.3 This is no reason for you to like them, just a metric on how popular each movie is with the public. Sony pulling Spider-man out of the MCU would be bad business. The vocal minority on here and on the internet as a whole isn't strong enough for them to cut-their own throat from the backlash from pulling Spidey from the MCU. "You have no proof that they're not. But I guess it suits YOUR narrative to just call everything Fake News. Innit?" The one making the accusation has to provide the proof or their accusation is hollow and baseless. Why doesn't Disney spend money to get all of their movies good reviews I wonder. Why just pay to get the MCU movies a good score? Why risk the government intervention? The FTC is pretty tough on non-disclosure for paid endorsement. Which this would be a form of. The closest I've ever seen to a studio paying for reviews was in the early 00's. That was when Sony, 20th Century Fox, Artisan Entertainment and Universal Pictures used employees to review movies in commercials, and not disclosing it. One company used a fake film critic. That was Sony. They made up a film critic for Connecticut's Ridgefield Press named David Manning. He gave positive "reviews" for A Knight's Tale and The Animal. Sony used his "reviews" in advertisements and Newsweek found them out. Wouldn't you think other studios would dig for information if Disney was buying reviews? I mean At&t owns Warner Brothers and CNN. If they thought that Disney was buying reviews their journalistic wing in CNN would jump all over that. One it would be a huge story to break. Two it would stop a rival Studio from buying reviews. Three it would lower another huge media conglomerate down while raising yours up. I'd rather Disney/Marvel Studios have Spider-man why would you want him to be controlled by the Company/Studio who has been proven (and had to pay fines) for using paid reviews and a fake critic?
|
|
|
|
Post by Agent of Chaos on Oct 29, 2018 15:25:55 GMT
Uhh... 30% rotten
92% fresh
Sure, let's bring him back to the studio that brought you Spider-Man 3 and The Amazing Spider-Man 2. Spider-Man 3 has a fresh rating, dude. |
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Oct 29, 2018 15:27:11 GMT
coldenhaulfield I can never tell when you are being subversive, genuine, or both. Seems like the vast majority of the viewing public likes MCU Spider-Man. I trust Cinema Score more than IMDB to gauge the general population's view of a movie. They have been polling movie goers for 40 years. Instead of relying on people to have an IMDB account, log in, and rate it Cinema Score goes to the movie goers. This causes IMDB to be more of a specific demographic than Cinema Score. We also could go off of Grosses to gauge popularity, but that can be ambiguous. Also using that metric Spider-man 3 would be more popular than Spider-man 1 or 2. Cinema Score Venom B+ Homecoming A Amazing Spider-man 2 B+ Amazing Spider-man A- Spider-man 3 B+ Spider-man 2 A- Spider-man 1 A- IMDB Venom: 7.0 Homecoming 7.5 Amazing Spider-man 2 6.6 Amazing Spider-man 7.0 Spider-man 3 6.2 Spider-man 2 7.3 Spider-man 1 7.3 This is no reason for you to like them, just a metric on how popular each movie is with the public. Sony pulling Spider-man out of the MCU would be bad business. The vocal minority on here and on the internet as a whole isn't strong enough for them to cut-their own throat from the backlash from pulling Spidey from the MCU. "You have no proof that they're not. But I guess it suits YOUR narrative to just call everything Fake News. Innit?" The one making the accusation has to provide the proof or their accusation is hollow and baseless. Why doesn't Disney spend money to get all of their movies good reviews I wonder. Why just pay to get the MCU movies a good score? Why risk the government intervention? The FTC is pretty tough on non-disclosure for paid endorsement. Which this would be a form of. The closest I've ever seen to a studio paying for reviews was in the early 00's. That was when Sony, 20th Century Fox, Artisan Entertainment and Universal Pictures used employees to review movies in commercials, and not disclosing it. One company used a fake film critic. That was Sony. They made up a film critic for Connecticut's Ridgefield Press named David Manning. He gave positive "reviews" for A Knight's Tale and The Animal. Sony used his "reviews" in advertisements and Newsweek found them out. Wouldn't you think other studios would dig for information if Disney was buying reviews? I mean At&t owns Warner Brothers and CNN. If they thought that Disney was buying reviews their journalistic wing in CNN would jump all over that. One it would be a huge story to break. Two it would stop a rival Studio from buying reviews. Three it would lower another huge media conglomerate down while raising yours up. I'd rather Disney/Marvel Studios have Spider-man why would you want him to be controlled by the Company/Studio who has been proven (and had to pay fines) for using paid reviews and a fake critic? Popularity online doesn't mean anything, and if it's popularity you want, merely compare the adjusted box office; the Raimi movies were far more impressive in the context of their own time both creatively and commercially. Saying, "well, in the context of 2018... people think it's a 7.3/10." Okay, well in 2002 people thought it was 11/10; there is no comparison between the cultural phenomenon of 2002/04 and Tom Holland. And let's get to Holland: he's not Peter, no matter how many people like the movie. It's important to note that MCU movies are DESIGNED as part of their formula to be inoffensive. They never make bold choices, only safe ones (see: splitting IW into two parts, inevitably bringing everyone back to life, never killing off anyone of consequence, etc. etc.), so it's going to high scores from moms and morons for just being inoffensive "Disney fare." But the character presented in Infinity War isn't Peter Parker; it's Miles Morales. He has almost nothing in common with Peter, and evidently they didn't even bother to do Peter's origin story, the fire in which his character is initially forged. He's Miles. And they can have him. Just bring Peter back to Sony and get Disney the hell away from him. That's what's best for creative; that's what best for consumers. I couldn't care less what's best for Disney's bottom line -- and I own Disney stock! So you can't really compare them. |
|
|
|
Post by Vassaggo on Oct 29, 2018 16:18:19 GMT
coldenhaulfield I can never tell when you are being subversive, genuine, or both. Seems like the vast majority of the viewing public likes MCU Spider-Man. I trust Cinema Score more than IMDB to gauge the general population's view of a movie. They have been polling movie goers for 40 years. Instead of relying on people to have an IMDB account, log in, and rate it Cinema Score goes to the movie goers. This causes IMDB to be more of a specific demographic than Cinema Score. We also could go off of Grosses to gauge popularity, but that can be ambiguous. Also using that metric Spider-man 3 would be more popular than Spider-man 1 or 2. Cinema Score Venom B+ Homecoming A Amazing Spider-man 2 B+ Amazing Spider-man A- Spider-man 3 B+ Spider-man 2 A- Spider-man 1 A- IMDB Venom: 7.0 Homecoming 7.5 Amazing Spider-man 2 6.6 Amazing Spider-man 7.0 Spider-man 3 6.2 Spider-man 2 7.3 Spider-man 1 7.3 This is no reason for you to like them, just a metric on how popular each movie is with the public. Sony pulling Spider-man out of the MCU would be bad business. The vocal minority on here and on the internet as a whole isn't strong enough for them to cut-their own throat from the backlash from pulling Spidey from the MCU. "You have no proof that they're not. But I guess it suits YOUR narrative to just call everything Fake News. Innit?" The one making the accusation has to provide the proof or their accusation is hollow and baseless. Why doesn't Disney spend money to get all of their movies good reviews I wonder. Why just pay to get the MCU movies a good score? Why risk the government intervention? The FTC is pretty tough on non-disclosure for paid endorsement. Which this would be a form of. The closest I've ever seen to a studio paying for reviews was in the early 00's. That was when Sony, 20th Century Fox, Artisan Entertainment and Universal Pictures used employees to review movies in commercials, and not disclosing it. One company used a fake film critic. That was Sony. They made up a film critic for Connecticut's Ridgefield Press named David Manning. He gave positive "reviews" for A Knight's Tale and The Animal. Sony used his "reviews" in advertisements and Newsweek found them out. Wouldn't you think other studios would dig for information if Disney was buying reviews? I mean At&t owns Warner Brothers and CNN. If they thought that Disney was buying reviews their journalistic wing in CNN would jump all over that. One it would be a huge story to break. Two it would stop a rival Studio from buying reviews. Three it would lower another huge media conglomerate down while raising yours up. I'd rather Disney/Marvel Studios have Spider-man why would you want him to be controlled by the Company/Studio who has been proven (and had to pay fines) for using paid reviews and a fake critic? Popularity online doesn't mean anything, and if it's popularity you want, merely compare the adjusted box office; the Raimi movies were far more impressive in the context of their own time both creatively and commercially. Saying, "well, in the context of 2018... people think it's a 7.3/10." Okay, well in 2002 people thought it was 11/10; there is no comparison between the cultural phenomenon of 2002/04 and Tom Holland. And let's get to Holland: he's not Peter, no matter how many people like the movie. It's important to note that MCU movies are DESIGNED as part of their formula to be inoffensive. They never make bold choices, only safe ones (see: splitting IW into two parts, inevitably bringing everyone back to life, never killing off anyone of consequence, etc. etc.), so it's going to high scores from moms and morons for just being inoffensive "Disney fare." But the character presented in Infinity War isn't Peter Parker; it's Miles Morales. He has almost nothing in common with Peter, and evidently they didn't even bother to do Peter's origin story, the fire in which his character is initially forged. He's Miles. And they can have him. Just bring Peter back to Sony and get Disney the hell away from him. That's what's best for creative; that's what best for consumers. I couldn't care less what's best for Disney's bottom line -- and I own Disney stock! So you can't really compare them. Fair enough, I don't agree, but your opinion is well stated. One correction I know IMDB was active in the early 00's I first used in the 90's when it was actually Cardiff Internet Movie Database in 94 I think. The ratings though are always open so most certainly there are ratings from way after the Raimi Movies came out. The Cinema Score though is from movie goers from when the movies came out opening weekend . And that's it so those scores are from 2002/2004 not hindsight looking back. I think you have that right universe but I thought Tom was more like Ultimate Spider-man Peter. Tom generally used Ultimate Peter for his research and Ultimate Spider-man's reworked Clone Saga specifically. MCU uses the Ultimate versions of characters quite a bit as inspiration, but I think i read Jonathan Goldstein one of the writers used Ultimate Peter as inspiration for the character. I could be wrong on that. And no they haven't done his origin or mentioned Ben. I do think that weakens his mythos. He still has the lesson of great power = great responsibility. "When you can do the things that I can, but you don't, and then the bad things happen, they happen because of you." That's it though. |
|
