Spider man without....spider man

Am I the only one who sees this as a good sign? The proposed new direction sounds an awful lot like Marvel's Ultimate Spider-Man retcon series which started about a decade ago. Granted, I've not followed it since it was first released, but what I did read what a good adaptation of the original story.

I think this provides a pretty solid opportunity to do some very good things with the series. There's a lot of potential, and I'm not willing to shoot it down quite yet. As far as I'm concerned, ditching MacGuire and Dunst is a good thing for the series as a whole. It might be a bit soon for a new film adaptation, but I think if it's different enough, it won't matter.

I find it depressing that there seems to be more enthusiasm for Avatar here than there is for the first two Spiderman films. They're two of the best comic book adaptations out there, not perfect but still very good. Comparing it to The Dark Knight? Spiderman isn't Batman, it's not going to be dark and tortured. And without it I doubt we'd have got Iron Man to start with (as good as Iron Man is).

But given how awesome Iron Man was, I'm excited to see Spider-Man being retconned with Marvel involvement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ouch!

But given how awesome Iron Man was, I'm excited to see Spider-Man being retconned with Marvel involvement.

---

This I will agree with. The more involved Marvel is, the more likely the result won't suck.

down there with Ishtar, Heaven's Gate, Wing Commander, and a number of other lesser lights.

Who cares what happened to Peter Parker when he was in high school ? If they say he got bit in HS they contradict the previous films and look entirely stupid in the process.

So the producers of this movie and Sony are just burying themselves and I will laugh when I see the finished product.

:tongue:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cyric

Han Solo...is a bitch.

---

There's a special place in Hell reserved for you. :colbert:

'Spider-Man' Star Tobey Maguire's Next Move: Indie Or Hobbit? - Movie News Story | MTV Movie News

Nothing wrong with Hans Solo.

Maybe the next Star Wars movie..and I am firmly convinced we'll see one someday will be about Hans and Leia's kids.

;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ANGRYWOLF

Nothing wrong with Hans Solo.

---

It hurts...

Hahaha

Actually I heard that if Lucas ever decided to make another SW that he would make it about a young Yoda during... the Sith War I think. Something like that.

Wars to someone else and let them reinvigorate the franchise...

Meanwhile who should be the next spider man ?

'Spider-Man' reboot: Who should play Peter Parker? | EW.com

Zach Efron, Daniel Radcliff, or whomever ?:p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ANGRYWOLF

Meanwhile who should be the next spider man ?

'Spider-Man' reboot: Who should play Peter Parker? | EW.com

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the article

Robert Pattinson...

---

I would shoot someone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raistlin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the article

Robert Pattinson...

---

I would shoot someone.

---

Like him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by charliepanayi

I find it depressing that there seems to be more enthusiasm for Avatar here than there is for the first two Spiderman films. They're two of the best comic book adaptations out there, not perfect but still very good. Comparing it to The Dark Knight? Spiderman isn't Batman, it's not going to be dark and tortured. And without it I doubt we'd have got Iron Man to start with (as good as Iron Man is).

---

Spiderman does have his share of problems though. He fights mobsters and drug dealers too. For another comic adaptation that I liked better than Spidey would be V for Vendetta also. When I try to watch it now I get bored and a lot of parts feel cheesy.

Avatar definitely deserves more attention. Movie so good almost mad me cry.

I'm kind of sad, I enjoyed the Spider-Man movies quite a bit.

All I know, is they better put some mothersmurfing Carnage somewhere in there soon or I will cut someone.

The only person on that list who even comes close to being capable of handling an action star role is Shia Labeouf (and the success of that is very minimal). Pattison, Radcliffe and Efron are all absolutely terrible choices if you are trying to be serious about the revitalization a serious franchise. The article is absolutely terrible (surprise surprise, coming from that source) since it focuses specifically on the act of making money through placing big named "teenage" actors into further spotlight. A movie's ability to make money is important so far as not being a complete bust but completely hurts any chance of successfully revitalizing something like Spider-Man. It'd piss off the core audience which is who Sony should be appealing too, not teenage girls who have never picked up a comic book in their lives.

I don't really care about the films (or the character itself) but this sort of Hollywood thing angers me and is the reason most of the films out now are absolute drivel. I know that list isn't official but it's ignorant nonetheless.