Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
 

^^I looked at the post above mine because I was curious as to the response, and it's funny because it's the very reason I put him on my ignore list, because I was so tired of having to see a bunch of shitting on and bitching about movies he hadn't seen.

Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
 

Yeah, that's a lie. I've never repeatedly gone into a movie's thread just to bitch about it. The real reason you probably put me on ignore because I owned you in a thread and you just couldn't deal with it. :lol:

Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
 

Whoever posted that doesn't seem to grasp the realities of film business. The trajectory for the series was heading down, and costs heading up. According to rumors their was already drama over the story/script. So Sony made a decision, and it's immature to continue throwing a hissy fit over it, especially when they're not coming from someone in any way connected to the actual cast/crew, whose jobs were effected by it.

It's not some special circumstance for Spidey 4, it was a victim of the economy just like a dozen other high profile projects that have been reworked or canceled altogether. Everyone associated with that film has continued to work and start new projects...how about we do the same?

Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
 

I think you mean Dragon Tattoo but if not I don't think I've ever done that before.

And if the movie ends up being great...great. I've been wrong before and I'm sure I'll be wrong again.

But the entire point of pre-release marketing is to get people to talk about the film. I still don't understand the difference between coming into a thread about a movie that's not out to say it looks awesome and here's why and coming into that same thread to say it looks bad (and that continues with every new thing they put out).

Dragon Tattoo only allows positive comments for movies he's interested in. I just have to remember that before posting.

Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
 

Oh, you must have forgotten about your Battleship comments in this thread. Looks like you are bitching about a movie you didn't see in multiple posts, but I'm sure you'll justify why you can do it and others can't.

Here's some gems:

Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
 

I didn't. I simply know how to read and write.

As I said, I've never repeatedly gone into a movie's thread just to bitch about it.

That is not the Battleship thread. That is a the Box Office discussion thread.

I didn't make one post in the Battleship thread, because that movie is a piece of shit, and I had no interest in "discussing" it. This is because I don't go into a movie's thread if I have no interest in, or worse, just want to bitch about it. Because I am not a child.

Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
 

And there is the justification. You can rip on a movie you haven't seen in one thread but not another. Got it - thanks for clearing it up!

So only multiple positive comments are allowed. No negative ones, even if everything they are putting out looks worse than what came before. And only children think things look bad...adults are the ones who praise everything unconditionally.

Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
 

Indeed I did. Wasn't referring you or anyone else.

As for what his reply was (only because I saw your quote of it), he's dead wrong. It's really as simple as not wanting to waste time reading threadcrapping shit and wanting to easily skip over it. The last time I did that was some French Canadian guy who was banned called "Baracine", who wouldn't shut up about comparing "The Dark Knight" to 'Torture Porn' and an obsession with Petula Clark. Why waste time with that, right? That's why I use ignore lists, to thin out the herd of nonsense on message boards.

Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
 

You should probably ignore yourself or get on topic, then.

Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
 

Nothing, it's Skittles and hoodies you have to be worried about.

Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
 

The Spider-Man 4 script was horrible. Raimi was going to introduce Felicia Hardy, a.k.a. Black Cat in the comics. However, he wasn't going to make her Black Cat in the movie. He was going to make her into a female Vulture called the Vulturess. Sony wisely dumped that script.

Also keep in mind that Sony has to produce a Spider-Man movie every so many years or else the rights automatically revert back to Marvel. With Spider-Man 4 stuck in limbo, they had to get the ball rolling on something else. Did it require them to reboot and make a new origin? No, but it was the easiest and quickest path, especially with time running out on the rights.

I really don't get what the big deal is about a new origin anyway. As long as the story is good, who freaking cares if its an origin or not. Good story is all that matters. Batman Begins was a new origin, and nobody complained because it was a freaking good story. The Man of Steel is going to be a new origin, and it doesn't seem like many people are complaining about that either. Why is Spider-Man any different?

Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
 

And now he's dead...so you can un-ignore Baracine!

Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
 

Emma Stone looks mediocre with blonde hair.

Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
 

Why the anger? Everything you bring to a topic is negative and disrespectful to other people. If I'm a mod, I ban you just for being dick to everyone... and trust me, nobody would miss you.

Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
 

Jesus. I'm assuming you meant to say "If I were a mod" (yay, Grammar) and you'd be a terrible mod, then, since you wouldn't even be able to follow this forum's very rules.

Since we're going over dreams, though, If I were a mod, I'd ban those of you who repeatedly come into movie threads just to shit all over movies that you haven't seen yet. Because threadcrapping is actually against forum rules, no matter how much you try to justify it and say "Hey, if people can say good things about a movie they haven't seen, I should be able to shit all over it, too!".

It will be interesting to see just how many of you actually begin your public backtracking now that all the positive reviews are coming out, and just how many of you (I'm predicting Tom Creo at the very least) start to scream even louder that this movie sucks and all the reviewers must be studio-paid plants. Because that's clearly the only reason someone would like a Raimi-less movie about a man who gains spider powers.

Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
 

It's a threadcrap to say a new trailer looks bad? It's a threadcrap to say you don't understand why a studio is rebooting a franchise that hasn't even really "gone away" yet? It's a threadcrap to say effects don't look good? Can you point us to the rule that says you can't react negatively to new pieces of marketing?

I said from day 1 that I hoped the movie would be good. It's not my fault that NONE of the pre-release stuff looked interesting at all to me. I'll see it, and if the reviewers can be believed it'll probably be fine, and that's great. Still doesn't mean it was necessary to do.

99% of the movies I see in theaters I enjoy. Even ones that are poorly reviewed. If I like the actors or the director, or the trailer looks cool or fun, I'm willing to give a lot of things a pass. I understand how hard it is to make a movie and just getting it on screen is an accomplishment.

In this case, I think the studio dropped the ball in a number of ways. Bad trailers, dumb looking visuals, a script that seems to rehash a movie no one has forgotten. If they succeeded in making a good movie in spite of all of that...I think that's damn amazing. And I'd be the first to applaud them. But until I see the actual movie I have to just go off what I have seen, and what I have seen looks pretty bad.

As I've said before, we'll all find out soon enough.

Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
 

Another positive review from Kotaku:

http://kotaku.com/5920959/the-amazin...s-well-amazing

Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
 

A positive review? Obviously the guy has no idea what he is talking about because this movie sucks! :)

Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
 

Do people really not understand the difference between saying a movie LOOKS bad and saying the movie IS bad?

Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
 

I was making fun of the guy a couple pages back who said the critics on rottentomatoes don't know what they are talking about simply because 10 out of 11 of them gave the movie a positive review.

Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
 

We all heard rumors, but the point is we'll never know how Spider-Man 4 was going to turn out. At least with TASM we have trailers and a ton of clips to judge the film by. Sony didn't reboot because of the script, they did it because Raimi asked for more time and money.

I know, the best thing to happen, for the fans at least, would have been to let the rights revert back to Marvel. This is the biggest reason for the reboot, not issues with Raimi's script. The point is, between shoehorning Venom into SM3 and the yet-another-origin-reboot I'm fed up with the way Sony is handling the franchise. It's more of a knock on Sony, than Marc Webb, but I'm going to be extremely reluctant to put any more of my money into this franchise. I think Spider-Man is a character that deserves a company that gives a fuck about the quality of the movies instead of a paycheck every 3 years.

Batman's origin had never been explored on film. It gave us a movie that presented Bruce Wayne as a three dimensional character and it was a significant step-up in quality compared to the films of the previous franchise. Man of Steel promises a new take on Superman with an origin that takes place not just in Kansas, but in a war torn Krypton. Not only was the last Superman origin done 35 years ago, this reboot promises to be vastly different in setting and tone. We've already seen Peter Parker discover his powers in high school, and not that long ago.

Origin stories aren't themselves inherently bad, Iron Man is one of the better comic book movies out there, it's just that in ten years we'll have seen 4 Spider-Man films, and half of them are origin stories. It's too much.

Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
 

People really can't see the difference between rebooting to an origin story 10 years after the original and 35 years after the original?

Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
 

I'm really wondering what the lower limit is for people like you. Can they make a movie based on a ketchup packet and, hey, as long as it looks good, you'll go see it?

Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
 

That really doesn't work at all in this case. Spider-man is based on a graphic novel. You know, something with words and an actual story, and a history that goes back 50 years this August. Not a children's board game.

Did you really miss the entire point of that comment or are you feigning ignorance in an attempt to appear clever? In the former's case, you've apparently reached that mystical lower limit. In the latter, well, there were a number of other clever put downs I had that would've been more appropriate (or appropriate whatsoever) for this particular situation.

In short, you've gotta do better if you're gonna try to bait the master with his own quotes.

Comics should pretty much be the lower limit for movie adaptations. But in Hollywood, they've apparently run out of ideas to such a degree that we're now regularly subject to shitty boardgames, children's toys and hell, fucking words that they felt like shoving together (Cowboys and Aliens? Lincoln the fucking Vampire Slayer). No surprise that all this shit turns out to be terrible. But as long as people like you defend them and go and see it, there's no stopping our slow march towards the Idiocracy and the eventual adaptation of "Ass: The Movie".

Edit: Wow, I must've really upset the Battleship fandom, though. Who knew it had such ardent fans? :lol:

Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
 

So should we all check with you before we go to the movies?