Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > Entertainment Discussions > Movie Talk
Reload this Page >

Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)

Movie Talk A Discussion area for everything movie related including films In The Theaters

Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)

Old 04-04-12, 11:52 PM
  #1251  
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Indiana
Posts: 5,426
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)

Originally Posted by bluetoast
Wait a minute....aren't you forgetting Tangled Web?
Yeah, I did. I was just going by comics I could remember off the top of my head. Tangled Web was only about another 25 or so issues. I also forgot Sensational Spider-man which was another short-term book.

And on that note, this is odd but Sins Past is the arc that got me back into comics. In retrospect the arc sucked, but the artwork was great, and 2004 was when I started getting into a lot of titles. Funny that it was thanks to that arc. Civil War is what turned me off of Marvel completely, and barely read comics these days except for a few select titles.
Sins Past probably wouldn't have been bad to a new reader who knew nothing about Gwen, but if you had a lot of history with her then you would know how badly that story shit all over her. Sins Past was widely regarded as the worst Spider-man story ever written... until One More Day at least.
Old 04-04-12, 11:54 PM
  #1252  
DVD Talk Legend
 
bluetoast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 11,720
Received 280 Likes on 211 Posts
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)

I only had one or two of them, but I liked the one story that had Uncle Ben pulling pranks on Peter as a kid, and that was the reason he was a wiseass later on. It seemed like a retcon, but made sense in terms of Peters' connection to the characters.

Other one shots I really liked: The Kid Who Collects Spider-Man. I ended up getting the individual issue of that after reading it in a trade.
Old 04-04-12, 11:55 PM
  #1253  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Hazel Motes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 7,520
Received 402 Likes on 269 Posts
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)

Anyone who's a true Spiderman fan has probably wasted a good portion of their life.
Old 04-04-12, 11:59 PM
  #1254  
DVD Talk Legend
 
bluetoast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 11,720
Received 280 Likes on 211 Posts
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)

Originally Posted by Chadm
Anyone who's a true Spiderman fan has probably wasted a good portion of their life.
Haha, that reminds me of a comic I read once as a kid:

Two people were on a boat, traveling. One guy would ask the other "Have you read this book?" The other guy would say "No, I haven't." The first guy would reply "Then you've missed out on 3 years of your life." He would ask the same thing for a few books, and still say that the other guy was wasting his life. Then the boat springs a leak and starts to sink.

The second guy then asks "Do you know how to swim?" The first guy says no. The second guy says "Then your whole life is wasted" and swims away.

But now that I think about it, the second guy was kind of a dick.
Old 04-05-12, 12:19 AM
  #1255  
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Indiana
Posts: 5,426
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)

Originally Posted by Chadm
Anyone who's a true Spiderman fan has probably wasted a good portion of their life.
Oh look another "comics are for nerds" post. How original.

Big hint here:

If you like comic book movies, you are a nerd. If you think comic book movies aren't as nerdy as comic books themselves, you are a nerd in denial.

And anyway, if you enjoy what you are doing, then why is it a waste of a life? I would rather do something I enjoy (like reading comics) than be an Ebeneezer Scrooge who works hard and has tons of money but doesn't enjoy anything. Hard work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
Old 04-05-12, 12:36 AM
  #1256  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
JTH182's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 5,806
Received 121 Likes on 81 Posts
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)

Originally Posted by kgrogers1979
Its not elitist so much as its just impossible to be a true fan without being a fan of the source material.

You aren't truly a fan of LOTR if you have only ever seen Peter Jackson's movies and never read the books. You aren't truly a fan of Harry Potter if you only ever saw the movies and never read the books. You aren't truly a Star Trek fan if you only ever saw the movie and never watched the TV series. And so on.

Its casual fans that think Robin is a crappy character because they are only familiar with Robin from the Adam West TV series or Schumacher's Robin. Its casual fans that thinking changing the TMNT into aliens is okay. Fans of the source material know better.

Any true Spider-man fan will react with extreme disgust whenever you mention "Sins Past" and/or "One More Day." To a casual movie watcher, these terms are meaningless and indicates they aren't truly a fan of the character.

The source material is what separates a true fan from the casuals. Its okay to be a casual, but don't ever call yourself a fan because any fan of Spider-man knows what a giant shitstorm One More Day was.

And that Tim Burton Willy Wonka was da bomb, yo!
Old 04-05-12, 12:45 AM
  #1257  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
fumanstan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Irvine, CA
Posts: 55,349
Received 26 Likes on 14 Posts
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)

Originally Posted by kgrogers1979
Well that was certainly a long-winded response, longer than I thought it would be. But you asked for it.... be careful what you ask for.
I love how after all that, you didn't really answer if any of those are enough to make you a "true fan."
Old 04-05-12, 12:53 AM
  #1258  
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Indiana
Posts: 5,426
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)

Originally Posted by fumanstan
I love how after all that, you didn't really answer if any of those are enough to make you a "true fan."
I thought I answered that at the beginning when I said it was badly phrased on my part, and what I really don't like is when a person claims to be a huuuuuge Batman fan but has only seen Nolan's movies, so it really just means that person is a fan of Nolan's Batman in particular but not Batman in general.
Old 04-05-12, 01:03 AM
  #1259  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
fumanstan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Irvine, CA
Posts: 55,349
Received 26 Likes on 14 Posts
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)

Originally Posted by kgrogers1979
I thought I answered that at the beginning when I said it was badly phrased on my part, and what I really don't like is when a person claims to be a huuuuuge Batman fan but has only seen Nolan's movies, so it really just means that person is a fan of Nolan's Batman in particular but not Batman in general.
It's the same thing, you're just saying "huuuuuuge fan" instead of "true fan."

Can you be a huge fan if you've watched the Burton and 60's Batman movies too? What about if you added the animated series? Or all of the animated series but none of the comics? How many comics do you have to have read to be a huge fan of Batman?

It never ends!
Old 04-05-12, 01:24 AM
  #1260  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Hazel Motes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 7,520
Received 402 Likes on 269 Posts
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)

Originally Posted by kgrogers1979
Oh look another "comics are for nerds" post. How original.

Big hint here:

If you like comic book movies, you are a nerd. If you think comic book movies aren't as nerdy as comic books themselves, you are a nerd in denial.

And anyway, if you enjoy what you are doing, then why is it a waste of a life? I would rather do something I enjoy (like reading comics) than be an Ebeneezer Scrooge who works hard and has tons of money but doesn't enjoy anything. Hard work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
I don't hate comic book movies. I was just riffing on the whole "you're not a true fan if..." tangent from the last page.

There are at least 6 or 7 comic book movies that are really pretty good. However, none of them happen to be Spiderman.
Old 04-05-12, 01:34 AM
  #1261  
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Indiana
Posts: 5,426
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)

Originally Posted by fumanstan
It's the same thing, you're just saying "huuuuuuge fan" instead of "true fan."

Can you be a huge fan if you've watched the Burton and 60's Batman movies too? What about if you added the animated series? Or all of the animated series but none of the comics? How many comics do you have to have read to be a huge fan of Batman?

It never ends!

See this is why I hate debating. I am no good at it. I always blew math subjects away, they were easy A's for me, but everything else I struggled just to get a B. On the high school SATs I got a 760 in math and only a 520 in English/reading/communication whatever the heck it was.

Anyway, yes you can be a huge fan if you do everything Batman-related except comics. You are just a huger fan if you do comics as well. I can't imagine a person loving everything Batman-related except comics though. That would be odd. Almost like a nerd in denial (see earlier post) with the person thinking comics are for nerds but everything else Batman related isn't. It seems to me that a person watching Batman Rises, who has never seen Bane in anything but Schumacher's bastardization, would be curious and want to track down the Knightfall story to see how it was in comics and see the "breaking of the bat" as it happened there.

How many comics do you have to read to be a "true" Batman fan? Do you really want me to do what I did with Spider-man and list all the Batman comics throughout the years? (There's actually probably three times as many Batman comics since he started in 1939 compared to 1963 for Spider-man, and at a couple times in Batman's comic history there was no less than eight Batman related books at one time.)

Anyway, how many would you have to read? I don't know. A lot? But that's pretty ambiguous since "a lot" means different things to different people. Some people think 100 comics is a lot. To me that's just beginning. My personal Batman collection is about 1,400 comics... basically everything from 1986 to present day. Nothing before 1986 (that was when DC rebooted their comics with the Crisis on Infinite Earths storyarc) because I started reading in 1988 as a kid and never cared to go back before the COIE reboot. So I guess by my own logic, I'm not a "true" fan since my collection isn't complete all the way back to 1939. But really is there anyone in the world that has an entirely complete collection of Batman comics? You would need to be as rich as Bruce Wayne to afford all the really old Golden and Silver Age comics and need a home as big as Wayne Manor to store them all...

Edited to add:

Now that I think about it, comic collecting is a lot like DVD collecting. As I said before, some people think 100 comics is a lot, but to me that's just a beginning. I have a little less than 300 DVDs and that's enough for me. My back-collection is complete and I only buy three or four new movie releases per year now. Some people have several thousand DVDs, and that is just a mind-boggling WTF to me. I am sure a lot of people look at my comic collection and get the same mind-boggling WTF reaction.

Last edited by kgrogers1979; 04-05-12 at 01:44 AM.
Old 04-05-12, 08:23 AM
  #1262  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Sitting on a beach, earning 20%
Posts: 9,917
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)

Originally Posted by Solid Snake PAC
Are you guys going to start sucking each other's dicks now?
Well, let's not start sucking each other's dicks quite yet.

Old 04-05-12, 08:49 AM
  #1263  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Daytona Beach, FL
Posts: 23,524
Received 210 Likes on 162 Posts
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)

Originally Posted by kgrogers1979
Hard work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
But a rich dull boy who most likely gets more women than the other version.

I admire your comic expertise and devotion , being a fellow comic reader myself (mostly through Graphic Novels, no longer into the individual issue stuff, hope that doesn't make me a an "untrue fan" ) . However, having been in your shoes about ten years ago on boards like these, I can honestly attest that espousing all of your comic knowledge and fan boy philosophies isn't going to help your case or convince anyone in these parts. I say enjoy the movie for what it is, and enjoy the self satisfaction.
Old 04-05-12, 10:09 AM
  #1264  
Banned by request
 
Supermallet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Termite Terrace
Posts: 54,150
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes on 8 Posts
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)

Originally Posted by DonnachaOne
Well, let's not start sucking each other's dicks quite yet.

Old 04-05-12, 10:14 AM
  #1265  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Rosemount, MN
Posts: 43,621
Received 1,721 Likes on 1,073 Posts
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)

Originally Posted by kgrogers1979
I have only seen the Raimi films once each, and I am the kind of person that needs multiple viewings for a film to stick in my mind long-term, so I don't really remember them that well.

What I do remember wasn't a "great sense of fun." Maguire seemed to me to be more of a whiny mopey guy than a fun-loving guy like in the comics. Especially in Spider-man 3.
Spider-Man 3 (Remember to capitalize Man...as a true fan would know ) is definitely the worst as far as "whiny Peter" goes, but there are a lot of fun moments in the Raimi movies. Moments like discovering his powers, the wrestling fight and the Bugle scenes. That continues in 2, with his pizza delivery job, his struggles with schoolwork and a fair amount of banter with Doc Ock.

I also don't remember his scientific genius being played up in the Raimi movies at all. What did he do to display his science knowledge? He obviously didn't make any webshooters... Was he even still in school because I don't remember any scenes at school other than the very beginning when he was bitten by the spider at the college science exhibit?
Norman praised him for his science abilities, Connors knew he wasn't living up to his potential in school and Octavius liked him because he knew all about his research. He was a realistic science genius...well-read and respected by his instructors. Not able to create "web-shooters" that surpass any technology we currently possess. I'm a fan of the organic shooters in the movies. The idea that a kid could invent something like that only works in the comics, and only because that story was made up in the 1960s.

As for the new movie, I don't see any real darkness in the trailer, well other than every scene seems to take place at night time. Even though Spider-man was fun-loving in the comics, there were also many dark times as well. JJJ hates his guts and is always bashing him in Daily Bugle articles. Spidey has been wanted by the police many times in the comics for various reasons, so being wanted in the new movie isn't any different.
There are like five brooding poses in the dark in that trailer alone, ominous music and slow-motion black and white shots of past events. Looks pretty dark to me.

Conspiracies? Other than the OsCorp conspiracy, what else is there? And OsCorp has always been a conspiracy even in the comics. They have always secretly researched weapons technology and the founder even turned himself into a weapon. Peter's parents have always been a conspiracy in the comics as well. In the comics they were secretly CIA agents killed by the Red Skull. That was one of the dumbest Stan Lee stories, and the movie turning his parents into OsCorp scientists who discovered OsCorp's secret and were killed for it is a huge step up from that CIA agent crap. Heck, it even explains why Peter loves science since his parents were scientists.
They were CIA agents from day one? Didn't that information come up later in the run?

Really the only things I don't like about the new movie from what I have seen is that they are basically turning Captain George Stacy into JJJ whereas in the comics he always supported Spider-man, and also I don't like how they are seemingly making Curt Connors a villain right from the beginning. Connors is supposed to be a Jekyll and Hyde kind of person who was a good man who unleashed an evil monster inside him. In the movie he seems to always be evil.
I don't like that Parker is played by a waifish big-haired actor, the one humorous moment in the trailer is not actually funny, and they appear to be mucking with a fairly straightforward origin story (high school student visiting a science lab is stung by a radioactive spider). To Raimi's credit, that's what happened in his movie. OsCorp wasn't secretly behind it or other ridiculous contrivances this movie seems to be establishing.
Old 04-05-12, 10:30 AM
  #1266  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Daytona Beach, FL
Posts: 23,524
Received 210 Likes on 162 Posts
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)

Originally Posted by Draven



I don't like that Parker is played by a waifish big-haired actor, the one humorous moment in the trailer is not actually funny, and they appear to be mucking with a fairly straightforward origin story (high school student visiting a science lab is stung by a radioactive spider). To Raimi's credit, that's what happened in his movie. OsCorp wasn't secretly behind it or other ridiculous contrivances this movie seems to be establishing.

Not to mention that Doc Connors was an individual just trying to heal his broken arm while teaching at Parker's university. This time around he is working for Oscorp and seems to develop the lizard formula with dastardly things in mind. Connors' was never power-hungry, and the lizard simply hated warm-bloods and wished them extinct, he was never out for the "total domination by reptilifying everyone" stuff. Add this to all that Draven mentioned above and I really don't see how this version is going to appeal to the "true fan," aside from mechanical shooters.

EDIT: adding to the "hired-gun/hack" approach to making this one, notice they have made sure to cast recognizable stars in several roles that don't require them (Stone, Sheen, Field, and Leary). What matters is that the characters are around, not who plays them. In the first movies one was actually seeing Ben Parker and Aunt May, this time we will be seeing Martin Sheen and Sally Field dressed up like those characters. Add to that "it-girl" Emma Stone and it's going to prove very difficult to believe what we are seeing on screen.

Last edited by Dr. DVD; 04-05-12 at 10:39 AM.
Old 04-05-12, 12:52 PM
  #1267  
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Indiana
Posts: 5,426
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)

Originally Posted by Dr. DVD
(mostly through Graphic Novels, no longer into the individual issue stuff, hope that doesn't make me a an "untrue fan" )
Nah, its cool. I don't personally trade wait myself simply because I don't like waiting so long for the trade to come out. I need my monthly fix. Comics are my drugs.

I can understand why a lot of people trade wait though. Single issues are just too expensive nowadays with most titles being $4 for what is essentially a 20 page book. If you buy a lot of comics, its pretty easy to spend $100 or more a month just on comics. Waiting for the trade is a heck of a lot cheaper, especially if you buy it from Amazon.

I will nitpick and say that the terms "trade paperbacks" and "graphic novels" are often used interchangeably like you used it, but they should not be. A trade paperback is a collection of single issues while a graphic novel is an original piece of work. Batman Year One was originally told in single issue format in Batman #404-407 and later collected in a trade paperback. The Killing Joke was never told in single issues and was an original graphic novel.


Originally Posted by Draven
Spider-Man 3 (Remember to capitalize Man...as a true fan would know ) is definitely the worst as far as "whiny Peter" goes, but there are a lot of fun moments in the Raimi movies. Moments like discovering his powers, the wrestling fight and the Bugle scenes. That continues in 2, with his pizza delivery job, his struggles with schoolwork and a fair amount of banter with Doc Ock.
Yeah, I know Spider-Man is supposed to be capitalized Man as well. I am often just too lazy. The real offenders are the people that don't even hyphenate the name.

I completely forgot about the wrestling. The Bugle scenes with JJJ were always great. JK Simmons as JJJ was the perfect casting choice and my favorite part of the movies. (Although the first time he was on screen I wondered why Vern Schillinger was running the Bugle. It took me a minute or two to get used to him in another role since I was so used to seeing him on Oz for so many years.)


Not able to create "web-shooters" that surpass any technology we currently possess. I'm a fan of the organic shooters in the movies. The idea that a kid could invent something like that only works in the comics, and only because that story was made up in the 1960s.
Well in the Ultimate Spider-Man universe, Peter's dad was a scientist as well and was actually working on a new type of adhesive before his death. Peter found the notes and was able to complete it and turn it into his web formula. I agree it is really stretching logic to believe a 15 year old kid could develop it all on his own regardless of how smart he is, but Ultimate handled it pretty well with help from his dad.


They were CIA agents from day one? Didn't that information come up later in the run?

It was revealed in Amazing Spider-Man Annual #5 which was written in 1968.

http://marvel.wikia.com/Amazing_Spid...Annual_Vol_1_5

That was the first time Peter's parents backstory was ever given, other than them "dying a tragic death." Other than that particular annual, the whole CIA agent angle was largely ignored until the 1990s when Peter's parents apparently came back to life and brought the CIA agent angle back into continuity. (Although in the end they were revealed to be robots. Yes, the 90s were dumb.)


I don't like that Parker is played by a waifish big-haired actor, the one humorous moment in the trailer is not actually funny, and they appear to be mucking with a fairly straightforward origin story (high school student visiting a science lab is stung by a radioactive spider). To Raimi's credit, that's what happened in his movie. OsCorp wasn't secretly behind it or other ridiculous contrivances this movie seems to be establishing.
It seems like they are mixing a bit of the Ultimate universe origin into the movie. In the Ultimate universe, it was at OsCorp where Peter was bitten. OsCorp was using spiders as test subjects. Peter's high school class was visiting on a field trip, and a spider got loose and bit him.
Old 04-05-12, 09:13 PM
  #1268  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Daytona Beach, FL
Posts: 23,524
Received 210 Likes on 162 Posts
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)

^ Okay, I like the trade versions. I'm into comics strictly for story, and budget wise, this is the best route to take. When I had more disposable income I did do the single issue approach, but times have changed, and I like my story in large doses.
Old 04-10-12, 06:52 PM
  #1269  
DVD Talk Legend
 
islandclaws's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Behind the Orange Curtain
Posts: 20,084
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes on 7 Posts
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)

Quote from Webb speaking to MTV:

“I wanted to give the audience something new, so that started off with getting underneath the parents’ story, which will unfold over probably a few movies,” Webb told MTV News during a recent interview. “We don’t totally wrap up that story in this first movie. It’s sort of an ongoing mystery. That was something that was interesting to me.”
Old 04-10-12, 07:14 PM
  #1270  
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Formerly known as "Solid Snake PAC"/Denton, Tx
Posts: 39,239
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)

...I'm still saying it's just pointless filler to give a damn about his parents. A neat little bit of info..but rather pointless in the grand scheme in the storytelling sense.
Old 04-10-12, 07:29 PM
  #1271  
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Indiana
Posts: 5,426
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)

The "mystery" of Peter's parents is going to be spread out over the entire trilogy? So what, do they come back to life in the second movie only to be revealed as robots in the third movie? So new and original!!
Old 04-10-12, 10:43 PM
  #1272  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,400
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)

This is a trilogy?!?!?!.............damn
Old 04-10-12, 10:50 PM
  #1273  
DVD Talk Legend
 
bluetoast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 11,720
Received 280 Likes on 211 Posts
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)

So...this is going to be the Monk's Wife storyline of the Spider-Man movies.
Old 04-10-12, 11:24 PM
  #1274  
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Indiana
Posts: 5,426
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)

Originally Posted by Tom Creo
This is a trilogy?!?!?!.............damn
Its been planned as a series from the start. The second movie already has a release date of May 2014.
Old 04-11-12, 09:18 AM
  #1275  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,400
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)

Wonder if Peter will grow into his neck by then.

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.