Well he said collecting, not reading.

I'm a Spider-Man fan and don't read the comics, but that's because they've sucked for about 15 years.

Well, I'm a big fan of the character, but there are SO many comics and SO many figures, that if I tried to collect them all I'd have no room for DVDs!

I do have a few comics, but I rarely read them. My favorite Spidey comic is the one where Green Goblin has Peter tied up and swinging from his glider, and Pete's clothes have ripped, revealing his Spidey suit underneath. I saw the action figures based on this cover recently, and while it was a cool idea, I don't think they did the cover justice. Anyway, I guess I'm more into the image of the character rather than being a collector of the books, etc. I'm just not a reader, but watching the cartoons, TV show, and movies is always great fun.

The movies have set up his super-strength, between pulling down a brick wall in the first film to catching the wall in the second and stopping the train. Not to mention the "super leaps" while web swinging.

That said, the movies do seem to downplay his strength compared to the comics (which I like.) It would seem weird if the "movie Spider Man" picked up a car and threw it, though that would be easy for the comic book version. It's more like augmented strength wih extra toughness in the movies.

I assume he was trying to subdue Ock, not turn his face into a crater.

Wasn't a Spider-Man fan, myself, until I saw the first movie. Wasn't particularly excited about that until I actually saw it, though. The teaser-- with the web between the Twin Towers-- looked cool, but I still didn't really care. Big fan of Spider-Man now, but only in the form of the Sam Raimi movies. Would have very little interest in the comics. Just had a passing interest in comics in general growing up. Was never a fanatic.

--THX

You know, I finally saw that fabled trailer recently, and it really didn't thrill me all that much. Coming out of nowhere I'm sure it would have seemed awesome, but having already seen much better trailers, it seemed weird to me. I think a lot of it was the music, but again that's something that probably only stood out because I've already seen the finished film. It was neat to finally see it, though.

The "extended" version which was shown on FX was very disappointing. There was only about 5 minutes of added material, most of which was a recap of movie 1, and the actual new footage like an extended Mary Jane and Peter conversation had noticably lower video and audio quality compared to the rest of the movie, like they didn't even process it to give that completed look and sound like the rest of the film. The DVD release had better have alot more new footage (that's actually processed to match the rest of the film), or I won't but it.

I find it funny ...how people use director's cut vs extended edition.

I thought director's cut is: film is submitted for final edits, and editors/director agree on what should be removed. ALL of the film is completed already, so a director's cut is just the original version PRIOR to editing. Extended, I think only Peter Jackson does properly (and the Abyss special version for a few examples) where they go back and refilm parts of the movie or redo effects, etc to change the film after.

From this, SpiderMan 2 sounds like a mere director's cut
(Note, I haven't bought 2 yet since I was waiting for a director's cut so that is fine but if they release a new version of part 1 I have to sell my regular version for it :P )

Sanjay

I'm no filmmaker, nor am I an expert in such matters, but my understanding of a true DC of a film is that film edited together the way the director prefers it. The director doesn't necessarily want all existing content in the finished product. But the film as submitted is sometimes not the director's full vision for it.

One example can be found in James Mangold's Kate & Leopold. The DVD features both theatrical and director's cuts, and while the two are essentially the same, the DC features different content that adds a sizable twist to the story.

The director agrees to certain cuts, and the studio may insist on certain changes-- or it may put out a whole other extended version of which the director does not approve-- but the true DC is what the director actually intends. That's my understanding, anyway.

--THX

And how do you know that they've sucked if you haven't read them? I haven't read for a couple years because of time and money, but the Amazing Spider-man stuff J Michael Straysinsky (yes I know that's spelled wrong) was really good in particular, but the other monthly titles were pretty good as well.

I pick up a title sometimes, and for awhile kept up on what the plots are. Dr. Doom crying about 9/11, Spider-totems and other stuff drove me away, reading what's still going on have kept me there.

filmick.blogspot posted all the changes:

Peter's Birthday Party is slightly extended.

Peter and Mary Jane's backyard conversation is slightly extended.

Spider-Man's awkward converation in the elevator is now made up from completely different takes.

Mary Jane and Louise's conversation in the shoe store is a new addition.

Peter's visit to the campus doctor is slightly extended.

Jameson is seen trying on the Spider-Man suit.

The Battle between Doc Ock and Spider-Man after the bank robbery has a new scene added - a fight in an office.

The train sequence has a small addition during Doc Ock and Spider-Man battle on top of the train.

All of this adds up to around 8 minutes of additional footage.

What you're saying doesn't really make sense to me, but no, what you're saying is inaccurate.

The thing is, "director's cut" can be something of a marketing term; the first rule is, don't pay attention to the box, because marketing is going to attempt to sell you on whatever cut that box sports.

But, in common usage, a "director's cut" is a cut which is in some way different than the released theatrical cut, and which the director of the film feels is a better representation of his/her vision. There seem to be three reasons for doing this: (1) the studio took the film away from the director and re-cut it ['Bad Santa', 'The Abyss']; (2) the studio forced the director to make additional cuts to the film prior to theatrical release ['Aliens', 'Almost Famous']; (3) the director returns to the film years later to change it in some way ['Apocalypse Now', 'Modern Times']. Applying the name "director's cut" to this third sort of thing is debatable, as it is somewhat different from the first two... a lot of people will say "special edition" for something like that, because Lucas popularized that term to mean that sort of thing.

You might be thinking of an assembly edit, I guess; I really don't understand what you think a director's cut is.

'The Abyss' was recut by the studio, though. With 'Lord of the Rings', Jackson was contractually bound to keep the films short, and (like Cameron) has said that you cut a film differently for theatrical versus home viewing experiences.

Not cover art yet? Booooo

It's not that exciting...

Bumping this thread in light of the news yesterday from DavisDVD that Spider-Man 2.1 (a cooler number than 2.5, in my opinion) will street on April 17.

Features:

• eight additional minutes, including extended fight scenes
• an introduction by producers Grant Curtis and Avi Arad
• commentary by producer Laura Ziskin and screenwriter Alvin Sargent (assuming this will be new, tailored to the extended cut)
• "Inside 2.1": a featurette about the new cut of the film
• a sneak peek at Spider-Man 3 (probably just that reworked trailer from the broadcast on FX)

Great name, great cover, definitely dig a longer cut, if only a little here and there. Will definitely be at Best Buy.



--THX

And from DVDActive. Also mentions remastered video and audio, and the existence of a trivia track with new video segments. Sounding better all the time.

--THX

Does anyone know if by "Remastered Video and Audio" they mean a DTS 6.1 track??? Fingers crossed!

Don't hold your breath. "Remastered Video and Audio" means they had to re-edit the picture and sound to account for the new footage. It will be a simple DD 5.1. The only way you'll get a DTS track is if you buy the blu-ray version.

The only way I'm investing is if the video quality is improved. The current DVD is atrocious.

The superbit version of Spidey 2 looks fan-fucking-tastic.

I remember reading that when the original 2-disc was released, and I was expecting a sub par transfer. But after watching it recently with that in mind, I don't see it. Only problem I notice is in the opening credits: lot of mosquito noise around the names and the spider webs. Beyond that, it seems to look great. Can you point to something specific?

--THX

I found the non-SB transfer to be quite soft.

I hope there's more extras to warrant 2 discs.

I'll wait and see what the 8 additional minutes consists of, seeing as how it sounds like I'll be hanging onto my original DVD for the theatrical cut and bonus features.