My Spider-wallet's™ tingling

Film talk.

Moderators: Dex, smash

Will it make a profit?

Of course. Just look at the PS3. Sony know their shit!
0
No votes
Of course not. Look at the PS3. Sony are shit!
0
No votes
Not even Sony's ineptitude can stop the deafening ker-ching of a gazillion comic nerds
10
100%
 
Total votes: 10

efilflah
Posts: 439
Joined: 16 Aug 2006 09:19
Location: Cardiff, Wales

My Spider-wallet's™ tingling

Post by efilflah » 26 Apr 2007 08:52

Image


MAY 4th in the UK


SO CLOSE!!!!

$500,000,000 in production and marketing costs.......that's half a billion on a movie.

.....A Spiderman movie

If they spent that much, it's gotto be good. Just look at Titantic.


I know absolutely nothing about it, other than the obvious certain character is in it - whom I hope they don't fuck up.

Me and Pang talked about this ages ago.....there's just such a long history that needs to be established that I hope they don't rush it and try and cram it all into this one movie, as with all the other characters in it, there just won't be enough to add that believability factor for the motives of the antagonist in question, without changing more than I'd be comfortable with as a guy who used to read the comics and loved this Arc.

..


$1/2 billion..... :eek:



I doubt I'll check this thread again until after I've seen it....cos my hands get sweaty and I get palpitations just thinking about potential spoilers.

*edit of 000*
That's what happens when you spend all day teaching I.T. to a bunch incompetent retards....it tends to rub off. Cheers dude.

User avatar
exelis
Posts: 563
Joined: 04 Aug 2006 21:40
Location: Outside of Boston, MA

Post by exelis » 26 Apr 2007 09:08

Ya left out 3 zeros in your numeric figure above, friend.

As for the movie, I sure as hell won't see it, but I'm not going to bet against all those comic nerds.

I thought the others blew, though, so...

efilflah
Posts: 439
Joined: 16 Aug 2006 09:19
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Post by efilflah » 26 Apr 2007 09:35

I don't like admitting it, but I actually agree that the first 2 movies weren't very good.

I'm a bit blinded by fanboyism though, but I can admit that, and tbh I'm just glad they got around to doing some kind of movie with character (besides those 70s tv movie things - which I also have a soft spot for).

Looking at it objectively though, I thought some of the choices about the light hearted direction the movies took weren't great. I loved the comics because I always felt like Peter Parker was such a believable anti hero, struggling with so many every day things as well as the fantastical selfess acts, whilst also rarely getting any of the praise that other heroes received.

Unlike Batman who got respect from the police and fear from the criminals as well as having financial security, and the fantastic four with no secret identities and an accepting public, and Ironman, and Superman and Captain America all of whom were idols for many - Spiderman was seen as a menace (mostly because of JJJ) and in a sense his age showed in the way he handled things and the way he was treated by the public.

I understand that in a 2 hour movie it's hard to condense those kind of characteristics into a short time frame and make them believable. I feel like Raimi, relied a bit too much on humour (as he does often) to handle parts of the film I felt should've been a lot darker in nature.

And on a more nitpicky superficial level, I really don't think the CG artists of both movies have captured how the webswinging is portrayed in the comics. Spidey's agility is barely seen in the films...he just kinda swings.....there's no acrobatics, its not impressive. There may have been an excuse with the first film, since it was all new.....but even the cartoon creators understood that the audience wanted to see some really cool acrobatics. They've also criminally underused his Spider-Sense. In the comics he relies on it so much, it's why he is so agile, he predicts and reacts and contorts, so that he's practically unhittable unless his opponent has a major advantage (like 8 arms), but in the movies they seem to have forgot about it (especially in number 2 which has like, one incident with it, and the rest, he kind just gets smacked around).

I dunno, being a fan I can be overly critical, but then conversely I can admit that I just like it cos it's Spiderman, even though I know that technically I shouldn't (cos usually I'm hard to please).

gulliver
Posts: 1114
Joined: 04 Aug 2006 22:24
Location: Dublin, Ireland.

Post by gulliver » 26 Apr 2007 17:47

exelis wrote:Ya left out 3 zeros in your numeric figure above, friend.

As for the movie, I sure as hell won't see it, but I'm not going to bet against all those comic nerds.

I thought the others blew, though, so...
And here I was thinking I was the only other person who thought that the spiderman films were fucking cack..

Thank the lord* for exelis! (and halflife backwards man)



*I am not in any way religious

**Justin will probably ban the three of us for this spidey blasphemy.

AngelBaby
little. yellow. feisty.
Posts: 1880
Joined: 07 Aug 2006 07:35
Location: Cloud 9
Contact:

Post by AngelBaby » 26 Apr 2007 23:03

gulliver wrote:**Justin will probably ban the three of us for this spidey blasphemy.
Unless I beat him to it...

:eek:

eamon angelface
Posts: 960
Joined: 04 Aug 2006 22:06

Post by eamon angelface » 27 Apr 2007 02:16

That 500 mill figure is a gross exaggeration that every Sony exec has laughed off.

It's cost a lot, but not that much.

But even if it cost 1 billion even it would still end up making a profit.

That being said people pay WAY too much attention to the financials these days. Tell someone Norbit sucked and they'll come back with "well it was number 1 it's opening weekend!". So? It was still absolute shit. Judge based on quality.

Spiderman 1 and 2 grabbed up the best writers around. Nobody seems to think about that but it's now a proven solid approach. Hire the best writers, stick a few somewhat familiar faces in the roles, and cross your fingers the director is skilled. Sony got very lucky because Sam Raimi is like catnip to projects like these. He evens things out with the right amount of humour. Ben Edlund could be as good as Sami Raimi if given half a shot.

:blink:

Oh ya, Spidey 3 kicks ass. It left me bug eyed. Everything moves so fast sometimes it's hard to follow.
DLT Prom Queen 4 years running.

efilflah
Posts: 439
Joined: 16 Aug 2006 09:19
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Post by efilflah » 27 Apr 2007 02:28

Actually I agree, Raimi is pretty good at pacing, but I guess none of the movies will ever live up to the expectations that I personally have because they're aimed at such a wide target audience.

It's always going to be a family oriented franchise so they're always going to hold back on certain things, especially when tackling the darker themes. Not that being a family movie automatically makes it a bad movie, it's just that I like my themes darker than most people, and I just find that every movie these days seems to be a PG or 12 (dunno the US equivalents), simply to get more bums in seats.

I'm really looking forward to SM3 though, despite my reservations.

User avatar
exelis
Posts: 563
Joined: 04 Aug 2006 21:40
Location: Outside of Boston, MA

Post by exelis » 27 Apr 2007 03:27

The green goblin was overacted and really ghey, and it didn't get any better after that.

At the risk of overdoing the Punisher references, I have to agree with Frank Castle that Spidey is a wuss. This does mean, of course, that they did a great job casting Tobey McGuire, but that doesn't make me enjoy it any more. The only way they could have casted it better is if they got Elijah Wood, but he was being a wuss in a different movie.

On the topic of making back the money, even if the initial theatre release doesn't recoup the costs, the international releases, dvd sales, toy marketing, video game licensing fees, etc. will easily make it up.

efilflah
Posts: 439
Joined: 16 Aug 2006 09:19
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Post by efilflah » 07 May 2007 22:38

I saw it yesterday, and was utterly disappointed :(

User avatar
exelis
Posts: 563
Joined: 04 Aug 2006 21:40
Location: Outside of Boston, MA

Post by exelis » 08 May 2007 00:19

efilflah wrote:I saw it yesterday, and was utterly disappointed :(
Sorry.

Makes ya wonder why it's breaking box-office records, eh?

Seriously
Posts: 618
Joined: 04 Aug 2006 21:00

Post by Seriously » 08 May 2007 01:19

No worries!

I hear the fourth one has Carnage!






Hahahahhahhheeeeehahahhahehfhahfehhhehehhehehhhheeeeeeeee
Image

efilflah
Posts: 439
Joined: 16 Aug 2006 09:19
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Post by efilflah » 08 May 2007 05:59

exelis wrote:
efilflah wrote:I saw it yesterday, and was utterly disappointed :(
Sorry.

Makes ya wonder why it's breaking box-office records, eh?
It's an unstoppable juggernaut .....bitch!

It's one of those movies that even if someone tells you you'll hate it, you still have to watch it anyway.

smash
Posts: 1332
Joined: 06 Aug 2006 03:43
Location: Cloud 6
Contact:

Post by smash » 08 May 2007 07:43

Someone needs to stop this idea of +1 movie number equals +1 (or more) superhero/villian.

That ruins the film. Goblin didn't need to be in this.


Actually venom shouldn't have been in this. It was far too rushed and not explained well. I thought it did a shit job of explaining his descent into the dark side, and filled it with cheesy dance off moves.

I actually give it thumbs up for the corny humor. That's classic spider man, but it didn't really fit with the black costume story.

For example, it did a piss poor job of making the audience understand sonic was the only thing that hurt the creature. It just seemed like Parker somehow randomly ended up at a church bell and then later randomly figured that out.

User avatar
exelis
Posts: 563
Joined: 04 Aug 2006 21:40
Location: Outside of Boston, MA

Post by exelis » 08 May 2007 10:46

efilflah wrote: It's an unstoppable juggernaut .....bitch!

It's one of those movies that even if someone tells you you'll hate it, you still have to watch it anyway.
Too true about it being a juggernaut. I, however, promise I won't see it until somebody else buys or rents it and pops it in in a situation that I can't escape (such as in the break room over lunchtime, etc.)

efilflah
Posts: 439
Joined: 16 Aug 2006 09:19
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Post by efilflah » 09 May 2007 05:39

smash wrote:Someone needs to stop this idea of +1 movie number equals +1 (or more) superhero/villian.

That ruins the film. Goblin didn't need to be in this.

Actually venom shouldn't have been in this
Or better still. Sandman and the Green Goblin didn't need to be in this. "The saga of the alien costume" is the name of the collection of comics that focused on the development of the Symbiote's love and eventual hatred for PP. It's only after 2/3 of it that you even officially find out it's an alien and not just some funky alien material. Granted this wouldn't translate as well in movie form, so some expedition would be needed, but my point is that it's a "Saga", not 20 minutes of tacked on shit for some extra box office clout.

They could've just focused on that one storyline and made a real "Dark" effort, but they didn't want to, because that just wouldn't be appealing to everyone. The liberties they took were stupid, like implying that the suit heightened Peter's emotions...which wasn't the case in the comics. Peter would go to sleep and the suit would encompass him and take his body out for a swing, and feed off the energy. The reason he was irritable and tired was because he hadn't rested at all, and was completely fatigued.

They also completely decided against having the suit mimic clothing or latch on to Peter at will, deciding instead that Peter had to take it off at any time and that he had to wear it under his real clothes....like his normal costume.....so exciting.

And what was the point in making Sandman responsible for Uncle Ben's death? He'd resolved that issue, those immortalised words that Ben spoke to him shaped the man he became in Spiderman 1 and 2, why revisit it? He even aired it all with Aunt May in a lengthy couple of scenes in the last movie?
smash wrote:For example, it did a piss poor job of making the audience understand sonic was the only thing that hurt the creature. It just seemed like Parker somehow randomly ended up at a church bell and then later randomly figured that out.
Exactly. I was sitting there trying not to focus on the fact that they'd rushed every aspect of the movie in order to fit all the content in, but it was just too much, too fast, so they had to resort to blatant in-your-face tactics to get the point across.

"We need to make it look like he's getting darker"

"Eyeshadow and a greasy haircut?"

"Brilliant!"

It was a pathetic effort, as was their idea for getting the symbiote on the planet in the first place.

"Well...it's alien right? How about a random meteor crash right next to the protagonist?"

I've seen better writing in pop-up books. Why didn't they just go with the Cartoon explanation? (since the comics one is kinda outta the question).

Have JJJ's astrounaut son; whom they introduced in the last movie, bring it down on some random space expedition. It's so simple, and yet a gazillion times better than the convenient meteor impact that they went with.
exelis wrote:
efilflah wrote: It's an unstoppable juggernaut .....bitch!

It's one of those movies that even if someone tells you you'll hate it, you still have to watch it anyway.
Too true about it being a juggernaut. I, however, promise I won't see it until somebody else buys or rents it and pops it in in a situation that I can't escape (such as in the break room over lunchtime, etc.)
I wish I had that strength of will (and I do usually), but It's Spiderman. My favourite comic book character as a kid, and whilst I could "vote with my feet" when Spiderman 4 comes around, it shames me to say that I will probably be just as excited about that one as I was about this one.....just cos it's Spiderman.


DAMNIT PANG...WE WERE RIGHT.....DON'T SEE IT!!1!!

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests