How do you think so? I cant see your point, beside that godess like statues she has in the comics.And Gwenn is a better character than MJ.
How do you think so? I cant see your point, beside that godess like statues she has in the comics.And Gwenn is a better character than MJ.
You're acting like I ever defended SM3.
It is crazy how much was clearly cut from this movie again. Especially the post credits scene. I wonder if they've just straight up changed their mind about doing something with Norman and he'll stay dead. I expected Harry to die, setting up Norman for Part Three.
Peter found out that his blood WOULDN'T work from the video from his father, where Richard says that he engineered it so it only works for him and "his bloodline"
Peter's reluctance is vindicated by the message from his dad. The venom doesn't work right unless you share enough genes w/ Richard Parker. It's why Harry reacts badly to it (and we can see that Norman clearly got desperate enough to try it as well.
I found the movie to be pretty insulting. The only reason this film exists, is so Sony wouldn't have to return the Spider-Man movie license to Marvel Comics, and I wouldn't have a problem if the film was enjoyable on some level. (Read: It wasn't.)
If given the choice, I wish this film would fail at the Box Office, so that I wouldn't have to see another poorly directed Spider-Man movie to hit theaters.
So anybody questioning why they didn't have Emma Stone the natural redhead be MJ? I mean who is going to play her now?
Why would they move further backward? Tobey's far too busy ruining other characters like Nick Carraway these days.
Sony should just make another Raimi/Tobey film and pretend like these never happened.
How do you think so? I cant see your point, beside that godess like statues she has in the comics.
I have just never cared for MJ. She always just seems like the typical damsel in distress love interest. Whereas Gwenn is a psycho who pulls out knives to deal with high school bullies.
Is this movie doing well? I hope it flops terribly and the comic bubble bursts soon. Mediocre shit after mediocre shit, then you have this fucking TURD. Disgusting. What infuriates me is that people not only tolerate, but ENJOY these movies. Like, how? Do you watch one movie a year or something? I'm not trying to be a smart ass, I genuinely don't understand how.
After all the hyperbole about how terrible Spider-Man 3 was, isn't it sad that I'd rather watch that film a million times over then this piece of shit again?
Everyone involved in the making of this film should be fucking ashamed. ASHAMED.
You know it wont be long until we get another reboot (especially after this flop). Can't wait to see that AMAZING MIND BLOWING origin story again.
You don't have to get so emotional about it. Just don't see the next one.
The "real" MJ in the original timeline is far from beeing a damsel in distress. Actually, she is more than often very strong against villains and stands her ground. But the Ultimate Mary Jane, which you are e talking about is far from this, you are right there.
That's why Ultimate Gwen is best.Yeah, Ultimate Spider-Man is where I come from with Spider-Man. That and the animated series from when I was a kid are pretty much all I know of him (and the movies of course).
They kind of tried to do something with the character with her having PTSD after Norman almost kills her, but that story never did much for me. And her turning into a Goblin was laaaaame.
Gwen was a little over the top with her rebel-bad-assness. But, I found her story arc of thinking Spider-Man killed her father far more interesting than anything they ever did with MJ. And her death was pretty hardcore.
That's why Ultimate Gwen is best.
Do we have numbers yet, how good (or bad) the movie did in the boxoffice?
While it's true I find this point to be dumb. The purpose of any Spider-Man movie after SM3 would be to keep the rights. No matter which filmmakers were chosen. If Sony let Raimi make another one, it would've been to keep the rights.
I guess the problem is not Webb. The scenes between the action are hinting that. The problem is the studio wanted a product.
I think that's true to a point - I think they specifically reboot the product after 3 because Raimi wanted more control again. I definitely think making it a "product," for a younger demographic was the end game. twilight comparisons, batman comparisons, etc.While it's true I find this point to be dumb. The purpose of any Spider-Man movie after SM3 would be to keep the rights. No matter which filmmakers were chosen. If Sony let Raimi make another one, it would've been to keep the rights.
Is this good? I am not so familiar with boxoffice numbers, Captain America 2 did a lot better, didnt it?http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=3835&p=.htm
Opened with 35.5 million dollars. Expected to do 89-95 million for the weekend.
Is this good? I am not so familiar with boxoffice numbers, Captain America 2 did a lot better, didnt it?
Is this movie doing well? I hope it flops terribly and the comic bubble bursts soon. Mediocre shit after mediocre shit, then you have this fucking TURD. Disgusting. What infuriates me is that people not only tolerate, but ENJOY these movies. Like, how? Do you watch one movie a year or something? I'm not trying to be a smart ass, I genuinely don't understand how.
After all the hyperbole about how terrible Spider-Man 3 was, isn't it sad that I'd rather watch that film a million times over then this piece of shit again?
Everyone involved in the making of this film should be fucking ashamed. ASHAMED.
You know it wont be long until we get another reboot (especially after this flop). Can't wait to see that AMAZING MIND BLOWING origin story again.
Also ASM is the only world where 5 months has three seasonal cycles.
Didn't feel like any more of a "product" to me than most other comic films.
I think that's true to a point - I think they specifically reboot the product after 3 because Raimi wanted more control again. I definitely think making it a "product," for a younger demographic was the end game. twilight comparisons, batman comparisons, etc.
Nolans movies, Spiderman 2 and Ang Lees Hulk have been movies. Maybe the cynical cashgrabbing gets just more and more obvious.
Nolans movies, Spiderman 2 and Ang Lees Hulk have been movies. Maybe the cynical cashgrabbing gets just more and more obvious.
Movies are a mutual benefit process. They give us entertainment, we give them money. People get really excited for this stuff. What's wrong with that?
Movies are a mutual benefit process. They give us entertainment, we give them money. People get really excited for this stuff. What's wrong with that?
I love how the people that hate these films and resent their very existence still paid like $13 or more to see it during the opening weekend.
That's why they'll keep on making them. No matter how hard they screw up, you'll still be there on Day One.
Well thats why he used the term cashgrab. There is a difference between making a quality product and exchanging that for money and making a product that meets the most basic requirements for money and in most forms of entertainment, you can usually get away with really good marketing and advertisement and by the time and the general public realizes the product is sub-par, you've probably already gotten their money.
It baffles me to this day that Sony decided to fuck with Raimi and his Spidey films.
What could have been...
It baffles me to this day that Sony decided to fuck with Raimi and his Spidey films.
What could have been...
I love how the people that hate these films and resent their very existence still paid like $13 or more to see it during the opening weekend.
Didn't he watch the video after turning down Harry in the suit?
This would probably be a more interesting discussion if opinions didn't exist.
I love how the people that hate these films and resent their very existence still paid like $13 or more to see it during the opening weekend.
That's why they'll keep on making them. No matter how hard they screw up, you'll still be there on Day One.
I think it's good Raimi left, I don't think he should have done it if they weren't gonna let him bring his own vision to life. Not only that, but he said that he heard they were planning a reboot anyway. That whole situation just seemed messy, and the production on these two films have been all over the place. Sony may have the rights to this franchise, and I'm not gonna get all fanboy about it, but they certainly don't deserve it anymore if they're just going to turn them into giant advertisement for their products and not allow directors to express their voice, and vision. For everything that makes this feel like a Marc Webb movie, there is something else that makes it feel like he has to follow a studio checklist.
I hate this, I could do the same fucking thing with Garfield.More movies of Tobey making stupid faces whenever he tried to show any emotion?
Yes they do, which is why it's such a dumb complaint. Sure I didn't feel uncomfortable when he cried over Gwen, but I smirked and felt uncomfortable when he cried over Uncle Ben ^^.People look stupid when they cry. That being said, I wasn't smirking or felt uncomfortable when he was crying over Gwen.
I hate this, I could do the same fucking thing with Garfield.
People look stupid when they cry. That being said, I wasn't smirking or felt uncomfortable when he was crying over Gwen.
I think he was just being cautious, he even mentions what happens to Dr. Conners. And then Harry answers by saying, "Conners was weak."
I hate this, I could do the same fucking thing with Garfield.
![]()
edit:
Everyone looks dumb when they cry. Everyone. Tobey makes horrible faces for everything. Watch the Great Gatsby and just look at him.
His crying face was genuine, some of his other facial expressions are terrible though but that's just him as a person, he does them in interviews too.