The Amazing Spiderman (2012)

Love it!

 

This is probably my most anticipated super hero movie of 2012. Looks so awesome.

 

This movie's gonna suck big time. Lousy director, and it's gonna be ANOTHER origin story. Fuck that shit.

Plus, Spider-man's neck is HUGE.

 

please tell me no one involved with the original was involved with this. the first one wasnt bad, but the second and third got progressively worse from there.

I am getting tired of super hero movies, honestly. it feels like we are being oversaturated with superhero movies, musical stage productions, graphic novels, comic books, tv cartoons, merchendise...etc... etc... etc.

 

No, we're over-saturated with bad Marvel films (Thor, Captain America, Green Lantern, etc). The Sam Raimi Spider-man films were good. The third was alright but the first two were great. They were quirky but also contained enough drama and action and that's what Spider-man should be like.

The recent Marvel films suck because they have no inspiration behind it and no good director backing it. Just typical summer blockbuster bullshit that'll be forgotten.

 

ANYTHING would be better then part 3

 

is the most recent Hulk reboot any good. I watched the first one, and it was attrocious.

I like x-men, but havent bothered with the new ones. I felt the third x-men tried a little to hard, and was weaker because of it.

 

the new Hulk is great!

 

Green lantern isn't marvel, it's DC. And I don't think that this is a strictly comic book movie problem. I mean, nowadays, they're making a movie out of anything that already has a name for itself. Just mostly in the form or reboots or sequels. We notice the comic book movies more because they can be grouped together more easily. But it's not JUST cause comic book movies have been successful. It's because the name is known.

They're doing it with comic book movies just like they've done it with Star Trek, Predator, Die hard, Halloween, Scream, Terminator, Indiana Jones, A Nightmare on Elm Street, Harry Potter, Narnia, Toy Story, and Cars, and plan to do with Lethal Weapon, Child's Play, Die Hard again, Terminator again, Tremors, and Mission Impossible. etc. (and this is just based on what I see in my DVD collection) My point is, this bombardment of crappy comic book movies is the sub-header of a broader group that is new movies with an already famous name.

That being said: this trailer isn't exactly getting me pumped for the movie. But I'm gonna see it anyway. I liked Raimi's first two. But I hope they do something quite different with this one. Just because otherwise, it would be pointless to reboot it. From the trailer, I can't tell if it's just gonna be more of the same or not. But what I read on the internet, they're trying to avoid that. fingers crossed.

 

Anyone else finding it interesting that 2011 apparently is Year of the Superhero?

 

I don't think harry potter really belongs on a list of films being dragged out into sequels mainly because unlike most adaptations, the harry potter films achieve a high level of quality in story telling, structure, character development, and staying true to the spirit of the books than most films you see even come close to. it was a quality literary series that was translated into a quality film series, even with the limitations aparent in any film adaptation from a book.

maybe I am just cynical about superhero films. I always felt the superhero complex/culture thing was silly, because a ordinary hero has more meaning and impact. having super powers no one else has always seemed to lessen any impact of the heroics they take part in because they have a edge.

 

Harry Potter and the rest of the lot can be described as having "super powers". It's no different. And though, the series does require all those sequels, not all the films are very good. I recall the fourth one to be pretty damn lame compared to the third one for example. That's mainly because of the change of directors but HP has its faults such as any other series. (Note: I also should say that I don't care about the books; I haven't read them and I don't plan to. When I see a book-to-film adaptation, I don't care how accurate it is to the book, it's about how good the film is. This goes for comic book adaptations as well.)

Except Nolan's Batman trilogy. The first and second films were amazing and the next one will be amazing because Nolan never disappoints.

And if you really wanted to get technical, Batman doesn't have super-powers. He's just an amazing combatant with a shit-ton of money.

Basically what I'm saying is, when it comes to film, when you have a great director, cast, and crew, you'll have a good movie. There are exceptions to this, yes, but this is how it is for almost any movie.

 

I wasn't listing Harry Potter as a sequel. I was listing it as a movie made that already had a famous name. And that name was made famous by the book. And I don't think that a change in director for the fourth one is what made it more dull than the third one because the third one had a change in director from the first two as well.

 

Well, at least in my perspective, the first two were very light-hearted and that's mainly due to Chris Columbus directing it (Home Alone, etc). I do not know of the names of the directors of the 3rd and 4th and I knew they both had different directors. But whoever directed the 3rd made it a more clever and darker film whilst the fourth, while still trying to keep a mature tone, made it more dull. That's at least what I thought of it.

 

Alfonso Cuaron directed 3rd. And David Yates is the one who's directed from Goblet to Hallows.

BUT WHY DID THEY (Columbus, Cuaron AND Yates) GET RID OF PEEVES!?

Though this should probably be moved to the Potter thread guys. This is Spidey.

 

Being a huge (Marvel) comic book nerd (and proud) I’m not sure how I feel about this...

 

Goblet wasn't Yates. It was Mike Newell. And the third one was darker than Goblet because Hogwarts was housing dementors at the time. But I can see what you mean about it being a bit more dull. That's what I thought of the book. But not so much of the movie.
And they got rid of Peeves because he served no purpose to the story. And I don't think his character would have transfered to the screen very well.

 

I think he would. He was a good comic relief but I suppose same time it's why they don't show every freaking Charms class or CoMC, or Transfiguration. I mean in the entirety of the films we saw Charms and Transfiguration once in Philosopher's/Sorcerer's Stone. Care of Magical Creatures once in Prisoner, Herbology once in Chamber (ok and the greenhouse in Half-Blood too but that's not the class), and Potions got a bit more with I believe P/S Stone, and Half-Blood (was it in Chamber too? :S). The ONLY class ever shown more than one film is Defense Against the Dark Arts and that was briefly shown in the Stone when McGonagall got Wood (HAHA MCGONAGALL GOT WOOD LOL), and then shown more in full in 2-5, the only one surprisingly not really shown was in Half-Blood when Snape was Professor of it...oddly didn't show him teaching DADA then :S.

Oh and like I care if I made the mistake about Newell, he made the worst movie aside from Chamber, so frankly I'm not going to give him much consideration as a HP director.


ANYWAY

Last I checked this topic is about Spidey not Harry.