It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Actually that sounds like a story I'd like to see...
HEY! I DID!!
I like the reboot better too! The first and third Spider-Man movies were just awful but I thought the second was actually good.
I feel that the next two will be good as well. Even if they stick to the comics I don't think they'll be overly predictable. The next villian will be Electrode which we haven't seen yet.
http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=98636
I think you're safe to watch it. The question was asked and it wasn't answered. I have a feeling she will be gone by the end of the film.
The most interesting part of that article was the cast it lists. Some of them I didn't even know were confirmed. I also checked on IMDb.com.
Andrew Garfield(Peter Parker/Spider-Man)
Emma Stone (Gwen Stacy)
Shailene Woodley (Mary Jane Watson)
Jamie Foxx (Max Dillion/Electro)
Dane DeHaan (Harry Osborn)
Sally Field (Aunt May)
Martian Sheen (Uncle Ben)
I have yet to see it and nobody has really given me a proper shove to get at it either. Time will tell.
Sam Raimi did Spidey as well as it could have been done IMO. The Twilight teen-angsty thing bores the felgercarb out of me, no matter the better CGI.
Unfortunate you feel this way. Anyone who's read the comics would understand the reboot is far more authentic and faithful. I'm a fan of the Raimi films but they rode on the crest of a wave, being the first comic book adaptations to hit the spot with cinema audiences. The new film never stood a chance as it was written off before they'd shot a frame. If you're interested in comics and haven't seen it then you're not interested in comics. If you're interested in comic book films and haven't seen it then you're not interested in comic book films.
And you reckon the Raimi version is more faithful?
LOL, no, just BETTER. :-c
Not really, I have just been busy with films more worth my time.
The reboot was necessary for me. It was a bit early, I know, but I think Spider-man needed to freshen up. And when I think about that, if we waited a few more years, we probably wouldn't have Andrew Garfield and now I'm too in love with him to think about him not being Spider-man.
Well directed, great actings, a good love story, well constructed drama. Stan's cameo is the best he ever did. The vilain is weak (unfortunately), the costume is pretty weird and I miss the good old Spider-man theme, the but I still love the movie with a passion. One of the best comic movies I have ever seen. Still not as good as SM2, but I see the potential for the future movies. Don't get me wrong... I will always praise Raimi for SM1 and SM2.
Now bring me MJ, Harry and Electro. Can't wait for 2014.
My biggest issue with Raimi's movies, and most older super hero movies, is that we don't get to know any of the characters before they get their powers/suit. They just show us our protagonist, where he works or goes to school, his best friend, and the girl he's interested in, and then he gets powers.
This is why I love Batman Begins, Iron-Man, and The Amazing Spider-Man. They have great character developement before we get to them becoming super heros.
How you define something as being unworthy of your time, having not seen it, I don't really understand. It's hardly a niche, art-house adaptation of Blue Beetle. It's Spider-Man. If you're interested in comic book films and haven't seen it then you can't really be that interested. You can pick it up on DVD for about $/£5.
I have my sources, and know how most of it plays out anyway. I was watching Nolan's Batman films all the time, and I don't need to see this Spiderman film to know it won't come within a trillion arm reaches of those films.
I'm a little chilly over here, could you please hand me a blanket statement?
:-\"
I think it's a fair assessment. As I said, you can pick it up dirt cheap, or rent it, or maybe even torrent it if you're that broke. If you have more than a passing interest in comics I think it's reasonable to assume you would seek out one of the genre's marquee names.
I'm a big fan of vampire stuff, Lee's Dracula, Blacula, Near Dark, Daybreakers, Buffy, etc. But no interest in Twilight.
Some individual projects just don't click for some people is all.
At least we agree on something.
As foy the movies, Raimi's movies were epic but his characterisations were off. Maguire's Peter was too much of a pussy and the villains were poorly executed save for Doc Ock and even then they messed a few things up with him. With Webb's movie, he seemed to get the character of spidey right and the way he moves perfectly BUT he made Peter too much of an a-hole. Webb's inspiration mainly draws from the ultimate comics, which were perfect for the first few volumes until Bendis lost lost his mind but most importantly, it retold spidey's character in a more recognisable and identifiable way, which is far easier to execute as opposed to Raimi's adaptation of Lee/Ditko and Romia's work. Anyway, Marvel are a bunch of punks who constantly short change the integrity of their flagship character and the only decent thing spidey-related out of the last few years was the spectacular spider-man cartoon which stupidly only ran fir 2 seasons and was canned for the POS cartoon, ultimate spider-man.