| Original message ([an error occurred while processing this directive] Views )[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
Replies:
|
| Undead Fred 1754th Post
 
Silver Carpet V.I.P- Platinum Executive
  
    
    
    
    
|  "Re(6):Spider-Man 2"
, posted Thu 1 Jul 14:27
I liked it a lot. I thought the CG was way way better than the first movie, and the story was interesting, and Sam Raimi got to be himself more in this one than the first. The great thing about this movie was that even during speeches and lines that really bordered on being corny, they never made me groan. I was dreading that line in the elevator about wedgies, but I was very pleasantly surprised.
I do agree with Baghead about villains in comic book movies. Without too much detail, I'll say this: it works, and I like the idea of what's happening, but it would be sort of nice for what you were saying to happen sometimes....
Spoiler (Highlight to view) -
I really loved how they brought up the practical side of being a superhero in this one... I remember watching the Justice League recently and wondering how the hell Bruce Wayne has time to do ANYTHING... I mean, he's Batman, which I'm sure takes up way too much time, he's got social stuff to deal with, his company, AND he's a member of the Justice League. There's no way he sleeps... he must be a robot or something.
Random comments:
- I LOVED the hospital scene. I knew it was all over when I saw that Evil Dead zoom-in to the chainsaw and the octopus arm cameras... I had Bruce Campbell's voice in my head, "Chainsaw...?"
- The Raindrops Keep Falling on My Head part got me. Especially the 80's-style freeze frame on Peter Parker's face. I almost expected credits to pop up. Heh heh.
- Good to see the Bruce Campbell and Classic rules are still in effect.
- I loved the little re-cap of the first movie through watercolor paintings during the opening credits. I'm pretty sure I recognize the artist, but I can't remember the name. I'm almost 100% sure he's done a bunch of comic book work.
End of Spoiler
|
| Sano 760th Post
Red Carpet Regular Member+
| "Re(8):Spider-Man 2" , posted Thu 1 Jul 16:03:
Spoiler (Highlight to view) -
Batman's Company pretty much runs itself. He doesn't have to attend the Office everyday. As for his Justice League involvement, that's another story all together. DC just does whatever it takes to get Bats in JL because he's Bats. At least in the Cartoon he's a part time member.
Wolverine has the same problem. Recently, X-Men poked fun at the whole situation with Wolverine saying something to Cyclops along the lines of: "I know you're confident in my abilities, but why am I on every single X-Men Team?" LOL! Popular characters, especially those that can double as team members (Spider-Man's never been quite a Team Player) are just gonna get used a lot to sell books. That's just the ills of the comic book world.
Oh, in the Early Silver Age Justice League Issues, Batman and Superman were both part time members and not full fledged. Of course, this was mostly done so people could get to learn all the other heroes - New Flash, New Green Lantern, Wonder Woman, etc. - while Batman and Superman could sell the comic being on covers and such.
End of Spoiler
[this message was edited by Sano on Thu 1 Jul 16:04] |
| Sano 772th Post
Red Carpet Regular Member+
| "Re(4):Re(10):Spider-Man 2" , posted Fri 2 Jul 15:19:
Some of this stuff I'm saying is continued from stuff said in Spoilers, but none of it is Spoiler.
What you have to understand about Superman's description in Kill Bill 2 is that it was made by a villain, and villains in Fictions tend to see everything in a Negative light, so while I loved the Kill Bill Movies, I don't necesarily agree with the description of Superman, and I'm not sure you're supposed to.
Anyway, Bill got it backwards. Superman is really Clark Kent. Even though he's an Alien, he was raised by humans to be Clark Kent - Good standing citizen, shy, quiet, soft spoken to keep who he really is as a secret but at some point he actually became what he was pretending to me. All though DC Comics have gotten rid of a lot of his 'Nerdiness,' for lack of a better word 'clumsy' acts (he still lives his life rather clumsily) are made by people who are shy/modest so not all of it is an act. Now when he puts on the suit he becomes proud, brave, daring, confident because he is no longer Clark Kent and gets to hide behind the suit. But Superman is really Clark Kent and Superman is his Secret Identity IMHO.
Batman on the other hand is completly different. Bruce Wayne, the Millionare Playboy is his Secret Identity. He really is Batman. Bruce Wayne died the same night his parents died. Since then he has been Batman wearing the disguise of Bruce Wayne.
Funny Note - In the Batman Beyond Cartoon, they revealed that Bruce calls himself Batman when he thinks to himself.
[this message was edited by Sano on Fri 2 Jul 15:20] |
| DarkZero 842th Post
Red Carpet Regular Member+
| "Re(5):Re(10):Spider-Man 2" , posted Fri 2 Jul 21:03
quote:
LOL Then why did you go see it? Even if it was free, there was no way you could enjoy it, the movie is heavily story based.
I was hoping with all the praise lavished all over it that it would be good enought to make me care.
And BTW what was with all the closeups of women screaming? The first time was mildly funny but after the 5th time I was ready to toss things at the screen.
Because innocent people, especially women, screaming in overdramatic terror is an old comic book cliche, perhaps even moreso than it is an old horror movie cliche. In order to make the hero look more heroic and cool, virtually every normal human being (besides guys like Batman and Nick Fury) are reduced to terrified morons who can't even think straight when they lay eyes on something like Doc Ock's tentacles. On the one hand, it's really corny, but on the other hand, it gives the story a bit more atmosphere by creating the feeling that there is absolutely, positively no way that anyone other than The Hero has even the slightest chance of beating The Villain.
In fact, I think that the only reason why we don't really see that any more is because of the comic book "universes". Nowadays, if the villain beats Spidey, then the Fantastic Four can fill in, and if the Fantastic Four can't do the job, then the Avengers are just a phone call away, and if the Avengers can't be reached, then the Infinitely Large Intercontinental Army of X-Men probably has fifty or sixty guys waiting for a job to do.
|
| Dr Baghead 3096th Post
Platinum Carpet V.I.P- Board Master
 
| "Re(5):Re(10):Spider-Man 2" , posted Fri 2 Jul 21:09
quote:
What you have to understand about Superman's description in Kill Bill 2 is that it was made by a villain, and villains in Fictions tend to see everything in a Negative light, so while I loved the Kill Bill Movies, I don't necesarily agree with the description of Superman, and I'm not sure you're supposed to.
Anyway, Bill got it backwards. Superman is really Clark Kent. Even though he's an Alien, he was raised by humans to be Clark Kent - Good standing citizen, shy, quiet, soft spoken to keep who he really is as a secret but at some point he actually became what he was pretending to me. All though DC Comics have gotten rid of a lot of his 'Nerdiness,' for lack of a better word 'clumsy' acts (he still lives his life rather clumsily) are made by people who are shy/modest so not all of it is an act. Now when he puts on the suit he becomes proud, brave, daring, confident because he is no longer Clark Kent and gets to hide behind the suit. But Superman is really Clark Kent and Superman is his Secret Identity IMHO.
Batman on the other hand is completly different. Bruce Wayne, the Millionare Playboy is his Secret Identity. He really is Batman. Bruce Wayne died the same night his parents died. Since then he has been Batman wearing the disguise of Bruce Wayne.
Funny Note - In the Batman Beyond Cartoon, they revealed that Bruce calls himself Batman when he thinks to himself.
Actually Bill didn't get it wrong about Superman in comparasion to the Bride...
Superman WANTS to be Clark Kent, he wants to be son of John and Martha Kent, he wants to be a simple country boy living in the big city, he wants to be some mild mannered doof, he wants to be human like his parents, his wife, and his friends not a super-human alien with no 'real' family... but he can never be anything of those because he is Superman, he was born Kal-El, son of Jor-El on a planet far, far away his 'real' family is dead and he's all along and he can never EVER change that, he can change his name, get married, create a life for himself as "Clark Kent" but he will always be Kal-El, when his friends, parents, and even Lois have all died he will still be 'young' because of his powers and still be Kal-El.... this is what Bill was trying to say when talking to the Bride, no matter what she did she would NEVER be able to not be Betrix Kiddo, she could creat a new life for herself, get married, raise her daughter under these falsehoods but she'd still be Beatrix under all that, that's who she was born and that's who she'll die.(and it seems a lot of people like to use this aspect of Supes now days... since the Micheal Turner run of Super/Bats has him saying how alone he is, despite Clark's family and friends and there is the very good "Five For Fighting" Song about Superman's troubles, which is loosely quoted in Jim Lee's upcoming run on Superman)
Looking at it that way he was right about Batman too... one can argue Bruce Wayne's survives remorce caused him to 'die' with his parents and Batman to born, and in this "new life" Bruce is just a cover for Batman... but that's defending his mental illness rather then admitting it, He was born Bruce Wayne and when he sleeps I'm sure he dreams of when Bruce's parents died... he'll wake up and hide behind his cape and cowl pretending to be Batman, but he's not Batman he's a scared little boy enamored with Zorro who thinks by becoming him he can escape his past.
But of course Bill is completely wrong when looking at the characters as they are in the comics... remember Superman's first 13 years of life he had no powers, he was "Clark Kent" when 'born' onto this world and suddenly found his true self, and as I've said before Bruce Wayne has been long dead... but in comparason to the Bride he's right.
yeah it's not funny but the naked chick tag was getting annoying.
|
| Gojira 1475th Post
Red Carpet Executive Member
| "Re(6):Re(10):Spider-Man 2" , posted Sat 3 Jul 01:44
quote:
Because innocent people, especially women, screaming in overdramatic terror is an old comic book cliche, perhaps even moreso than it is an old horror movie cliche. In order to make the hero look more heroic and cool, virtually every normal human being (besides guys like Batman and Nick Fury) are reduced to terrified morons who can't even think straight when they lay eyes on something like Doc Ock's tentacles. On the one hand, it's really corny, but on the other hand, it gives the story a bit more atmosphere by creating the feeling that there is absolutely, positively no way that anyone other than The Hero has even the slightest chance of beating The Villain.
So much for "there's a hero in all of us".
Seriously though, I understand the cliche, but after a while the screaming just seemed more like some kind of strange pedestrian ritual than genuine terror.
|
| CrazyMax 346th Post
Bronze Customer
| "Re(6):Re(10):Spider-Man 2" , posted Sat 3 Jul 14:05
quote:
What you have to understand about Superman's description in Kill Bill 2 is that it was made by a villain, and villains in Fictions tend to see everything in a Negative light, so while I loved the Kill Bill Movies, I don't necesarily agree with the description of Superman, and I'm not sure you're supposed to.
Anyway, Bill got it backwards. Superman is really Clark Kent. Even though he's an Alien, he was raised by humans to be Clark Kent - Good standing citizen, shy, quiet, soft spoken to keep who he really is as a secret but at some point he actually became what he was pretending to me. All though DC Comics have gotten rid of a lot of his 'Nerdiness,' for lack of a better word 'clumsy' acts (he still lives his life rather clumsily) are made by people who are shy/modest so not all of it is an act. Now when he puts on the suit he becomes proud, brave, daring, confident because he is no longer Clark Kent and gets to hide behind the suit. But Superman is really Clark Kent and Superman is his Secret Identity IMHO.
Batman on the other hand is completly different. Bruce Wayne, the Millionare Playboy is his Secret Identity. He really is Batman. Bruce Wayne died the same night his parents died. Since then he has been Batman wearing the disguise of Bruce Wayne.
Funny Note - In the Batman Beyond Cartoon, they revealed that Bruce calls himself Batman when he thinks to himself.
Actually Bill didn't get it wrong about Superman in comparasion to the Bride...
Superman WANTS to be Clark Kent, he wants to be son of John and Martha Kent, he wants to be a simple country boy living in the big city, he wants to be some mild mannered doof, he wants to be human like his parents, his wife, and his friends not a super-human alien with no 'real' family... but he can never be anything of those because he is Superman, he was born Kal-El, son of Jor-El on a planet far, far away his 'real' family is dead and he's all along and he can never EVER change that, he can change his name, get married, create a life for himself as "Clark Kent" but he will always be Kal-El, when his friends, parents, and even Lois have all died he will still be 'young' because of his powers and still be Kal-El.... this is what Bill was trying to say when talking to the Bride, no matter what she did she would NEVER be able to not be Betrix Kiddo, she could creat a new life for herself, get married, raise her daughter under these falsehoods but she'd still be Beatrix under all that, that's who she was born and that's who she'll die.(and it seems a lot of people like to use this aspect of Supes now days... since the Micheal Turner run of Super/Bats has him saying how alone he is, despite Clark's family and friends and there is the very good "Five For Fighting" Song about Superman's troubles, which is loosely quoted in Jim Lee's upcoming run on Superman)
Looking at it that way he was right about Batman too... one can argue Bruce Wayne's survives remorce caused him to 'die' with his parents and Batman to born, and in this "new life" Bruce is just a cover for Batman... but that's defending his mental illness rather then admitting it, He was born Bruce Wayne and when he sleeps I'm sure he dreams of when Bruce's parents died... he'll wake up and hide behind his cape and cowl pretending to be Batman, but he's not Batman he's a scared little boy enamored with Zorro who thinks by becoming him he can escape his past.
But of course Bill is completely wrong when looking at the characters as they are in the comics... remember Superman's first 13 years of life he had no powers, he was "Clark Kent" when 'born' onto this world and suddenly found his true self, and as I've said before Bruce Wayne has been long dead... but in comparason to the Bride he's right.
Thank you Dr. Baghead, beautifully put.
|
| CrazyMax 347th Post
Bronze Customer
| "Re(8):Re(10):Spider-Man 2" , posted Sat 3 Jul 18:04
quote:
I stand behind what I said, but I'm not really interested in arguing people's personal descriptions of characters especially with Superman because it brings up the whole Nurture vs. Nature argument. Are you who you are raised to be or are you who you are born? Even DBZ's Goku calls himself an Earthling as opposed to a Saiyajin. And as for Kill Bill 2 you can excuse me if I refuse to believe that Superman is mocking human beings, LOL!
You can be right if you want. I SERIOUSLY don't want to continue this discussion.
We can end it here since it really has diverged from what the original conversation was, but I really do believe that Batman is someone that does NOT want to be that helpless child again, or basically one of us the common man. While Superman has every desire to be a common man, cannot, so he does what he can to protect the common man so THEY can enjoy their lives. Somewhat, this is similiar to what Aunt May was telling Peter.
SpiderMan has become bigger, a hero, something that means a lot to many people. The person who is Spiderman now finds himself in a position where he must sacrifice to maintain that hero for others. It isn't just the fact that he saves people, he did that as Peter Parker, it's the way he lifts people, binds them together, and allows them to be better, that makes Spiderman important to NY. This has been vaguely attributed to in the comics that Spidey is a NY icon, as opposed to say someone like Captain America who holds that same status but for the whole of the U.S.
Spiderman is a vital part of Peter Parker, but unlike the DC heroes, Peter Parker is also a vital part of Spiderman. The two can't be seperated.
Spoiler (Highlight to view) -
As Doc Ock pointed out, bottling all that love for MJ made him sick, and caused his problems. Taking care of Peter, takes care Spiderman. Accepting the need for Spiderman, helped Peter, referring to the scene where Pete's glasses hinder his vision.
End of Spoiler
It's that part of the story where Pete's sacrifices to be Spidey, and the importance of his Aunt that I really enjoyed about the movie.
|
| DarkZero 848th Post
Red Carpet Regular Member+
| "Re(7):Re(10):Re(10):Spider-Man 2" , posted Wed 7 Jul 20:56
quote:
TO stimulate conversation, I will say this:
Doctor Octopus made a far more interesting supervillian than Green Goblin. I'm not sure if it was the fact that he didn't hide behind a mask or whether he was a 'good man' before the accident, but to me, Ock seemed a lot more charismatic and interesting than Goblin. But I still think Goblin/Norm Osborn was more of a badass than Ock.
Discuss!
I have a theory about Spider-Man villains that I've developed after talking to lots of different comic book fans over the years. Basically, if you were actually into Spider-Man during the Green Goblin era, or at least some time near it, then you like the Green Goblin. And if you were into Spider-Man during the Venom era (or some time near it), then you like Venom. However, if you weren't into Spider-Man during one of those eras, then you absolutely hate those villains. Lots of people that are a bit older than me really like the Green Goblin and really can't understand the appeal of Venom at all, whereas just about everyone that I know that's my age has zero interest in the Green Goblin. I haven't spoken to anyone that was reading Spider-Man during both of those time periods, but I would assume that, rather than picking one, they would actually enjoy both. I wonder if this is just in my area or if it's a more widespread phenomenon.
Anyway, being part of the group that was reading Spider-Man when Venom was pretty much the star villain, I really can't see the appeal of the Green Goblin, which made the first Spider-Man a less-than-perfect movie for me. This movie, however, stars a more neutral, or even timeless, Spider-Man villain, so it struck me as being much more interesting. I never really cared for Doctor Octopus as much as some of the other villains, like The Lizard or Venom, but I didn't go into the movie disliking him, either.
The whole "the voices are talking to me" thing got a little old, but the AI tentacles were a lot more interesting and realistic than the original Doc Ock's tentacles.
How's that for discussion?
|
| Dr Baghead 3109th Post
Platinum Carpet V.I.P- Board Master
| "Re(8):Re(10):Re(10):Spider-Man 2" , posted Wed 7 Jul 21:27
quote:
I have a theory about Spider-Man villains that I've developed after talking to lots of different comic book fans over the years. Basically, if you were actually into Spider-Man during the Green Goblin era, or at least some time near it, then you like the Green Goblin. And if you were into Spider-Man during the Venom era (or some time near it), then you like Venom. However, if you weren't into Spider-Man during one of those eras, then you absolutely hate those villains. Lots of people that are a bit older than me really like the Green Goblin and really can't understand the appeal of Venom at all, whereas just about everyone that I know that's my age has zero interest in the Green Goblin. I haven't spoken to anyone that was reading Spider-Man during both of those time periods, but I would assume that, rather than picking one, they would actually enjoy both. I wonder if this is just in my area or if it's a more widespread phenomenon.
Anyway, being part of the group that was reading Spider-Man when Venom was pretty much the star villain, I really can't see the appeal of the Green Goblin, which made the first Spider-Man a less-than-perfect movie for me. This movie, however, stars a more neutral, or even timeless, Spider-Man villain, so it struck me as being much more interesting. I never really cared for Doctor Octopus as much as some of the other villains, like The Lizard or Venom, but I didn't go into the movie disliking him, either.
How old are are you? In theory as old as the people from the Venom generation but rather dislike him (I see Wolverines need for a Sabretooth like character, but why does Spidey need one?) but I do like the Green Goblin. (I like the concept behind Peter and Norman being friendly towards each other in one 'life' but mortal foes in another.)
I really dislike Venom, but I wouldn't mind seeing him a future movie... since both villians so far, and the two foreshadowed in SM2 have a 'Peter is our friend/we hate Spider-man!' attitude, Venom is going to be completely different having a 'Peter Parker sucks/I wanna eat brains!' attitude, which would be a refreshing change of pace after we've seen Spider-man unmasked and dealing with the "we're enemies... yet friends..." thing for the 3rd/4th time.
yeah it's not funny but the naked chick tag was getting annoying.
|
| DarkZero 849th Post
Red Carpet Regular Member+
| "Re(9):Re(10):Re(10):Spider-Man 2" , posted Wed 7 Jul 22:17
quote:
How old are are you? In theory as old as the people from the Venom generation but rather dislike him (I see Wolverines need for a Sabretooth like character, but why does Spidey need one?) but I do like the Green Goblin. (I like the concept behind Peter and Norman being friendly towards each other in one 'life' but mortal foes in another.)
I really dislike Venom, but I wouldn't mind seeing him a future movie... since both villians so far, and the two foreshadowed in SM2 have a 'Peter is our friend/we hate Spider-man!' attitude, Venom is going to be completely different having a 'Peter Parker sucks/I wanna eat brains!' attitude, which would be a refreshing change of pace after we've seen Spider-man unmasked and dealing with the "we're enemies... yet friends..." thing for the 3rd/4th time.
I'm 20 right now, so I was mostly reading Spider-Man when I was growing up around the late '80s to mid '90s.
And personally, I think that one of the factors with Venom, much like the Green Goblin, is what parts of the character you focus on. Both have been very poorly written at times, with Venom being reduced to a Sabretooth clone and "The Green Goblin is back!" becoming the undisputed champion of lame-ass, generic Spider-Man plot twists.
I always found the most interesting thing about Venom to be the guilt aspect. Spider-Man didn't really do anything wrong in the lead-up to Venom's creation, but his little mistakes and oversights pieced Venom together bit by bit. He never really questioned the amazing benefits of the black costume, he never even noticed the way his exploits repeatedly crapped all over Eddie Brock's life, he acted too rashly when he realized what the black costume was, and he wasn't able to stop it from finding Eddie when it needed a host. Rather than being just some whackjob who gained superpowers and decided to abuse them (Carnage, Mysterio) or an innocent victim of their own ambition (The Lizard, Doc Ock), Venom was a direct result of Spider-Man. Eddie and the black costume were as much a victim of Spider-Man's ambitions as The Lizard and Doc Ock were of their own.
It also helped that their fights were very unique. The fights between Venom and Spider-Man involved no spider-sense, hardly any webbing, and usually some very bizarre circumstances, because Venom had a habit of spontaneously appearing and attacking Spider-Man (this is especially true in the '90s cartoon, where Venom would literally just appear and start wailing on Spidey). It's true that their fights were very low on the usual "But he's my friend!" or "But if I hurt this thing, what happens to the man inside?" angst, but that's because their relationship really revolved around Spidey's mistakes during Venom's creation, rather than a constant series of new events. Venom was Spider-Man's fault, Venom wants to punish him for that, and the rest of the character development occurs in Peter Parker's angst-ridden mind.
I'd like to see Venom in the movies too, but unfortunately, I doubt that it's going to happen. Marvel once said that they would like to make seven Spider-Man movies, which would probably cover most of the important Spider-Man stories, but Sam Raimi, Kirsten Dunst, and others have indicated that they would like to stop at three.
|
| Dr Baghead 3110th Post
Platinum Carpet V.I.P- Board Master
| "Re(10):Re(10):Re(10):Spider-Man 2" , posted Wed 7 Jul 22:32
quote:
I'm 20 right now, so I was mostly reading Spider-Man when I was growing up around the late '80s to mid '90s.
And personally, I think that one of the factors with Venom, much like the Green Goblin, is what parts of the character you focus on. Both have been very poorly written at times, with Venom being reduced to a Sabretooth clone and "The Green Goblin is back!" becoming the undisputed champion of lame-ass, generic Spider-Man plot twists.
I always found the most interesting thing about Venom to be the guilt aspect. Spider-Man didn't really do anything wrong in the lead-up to Venom's creation, but his little mistakes and oversights pieced Venom together bit by bit. He never really questioned the amazing benefits of the black costume, he never even noticed the way his exploits repeatedly crapped all over Eddie Brock's life, he acted too rashly when he realized what the black costume was, and he wasn't able to stop it from finding Eddie when it needed a host. Rather than being just some whackjob who gained superpowers and decided to abuse them (Carnage, Mysterio) or an innocent victim of their own ambition (The Lizard, Doc Ock), Venom was a direct result of Spider-Man. Eddie and the black costume were as much a victim of Spider-Man's ambitions as The Lizard and Doc Ock were of their own.
It also helped that their fights were very unique. The fights between Venom and Spider-Man involved no spider-sense, hardly any webbing, and usually some very bizarre circumstances, because Venom had a habit of spontaneously appearing and attacking Spider-Man (this is especially true in the '90s cartoon, where Venom would literally just appear and start wailing on Spidey). It's true that their fights were very low on the usual "But he's my friend!" or "But if I hurt this thing, what happens to the man inside?" angst, but that's because their relationship really revolved around Spidey's mistakes during Venom's creation, rather than a constant series of new events. Venom was Spider-Man's fault, Venom wants to punish him for that, and the rest of the character development occurs in Peter Parker's angst-ridden mind.
I'd like to see Venom in the movies too, but unfortunately, I doubt that it's going to happen. Marvel once said that they would like to make seven Spider-Man movies, which would probably cover most of the important Spider-Man stories, but Sam Raimi, Kirsten Dunst, and others have indicated that they would like to stop at three.
hmmm, okay hearing you discribe Venom I don't hate him so much, sounds more interesting.
Only 7 movies, eh? I doubt that, I'm sure the cast and crew of this movie will depart before 4 or 5, but they're replacable in theory (Tobey was almost out for SM2 to keep production moving) but if the movies keep making massive money I doubt they'll say "NO! that's enough thanks, our word that we'd stop at 7 movies is more important then the millions of dollars coming in!"... I just want to know if they only play 7 with maybe more if the moneys good or if they've set 7 as a 'reset' point similar to Batman Begins.
Off topic:
If Carnage ever shows up in the movies he should be played by Anthony Hopkins... I don't know shit about Carnage other then he's a more murderous Venom and a serial killer, so making him a super powered Hannibal Lektor seems cool to me.
yeah it's not funny but the naked chick tag was getting annoying.
|
| Hungrywolf 2872th Post
Platinum Carpet V.I.P- Board Master
| "Re(2):Re(10):Re(10):Re(10):Spider-Man 2" , posted Wed 7 Jul 22:41
quote:
I'm 20 right now, so I was mostly reading Spider-Man when I was growing up around the late '80s to mid '90s.
And personally, I think that one of the factors with Venom, much like the Green Goblin, is what parts of the character you focus on. Both have been very poorly written at times, with Venom being reduced to a Sabretooth clone and "The Green Goblin is back!" becoming the undisputed champion of lame-ass, generic Spider-Man plot twists.
I always found the most interesting thing about Venom to be the guilt aspect. Spider-Man didn't really do anything wrong in the lead-up to Venom's creation, but his little mistakes and oversights pieced Venom together bit by bit. He never really questioned the amazing benefits of the black costume, he never even noticed the way his exploits repeatedly crapped all over Eddie Brock's life, he acted too rashly when he realized what the black costume was, and he wasn't able to stop it from finding Eddie when it needed a host. Rather than being just some whackjob who gained superpowers and decided to abuse them (Carnage, Mysterio) or an innocent victim of their own ambition (The Lizard, Doc Ock), Venom was a direct result of Spider-Man. Eddie and the black costume were as much a victim of Spider-Man's ambitions as The Lizard and Doc Ock were of their own.
It also helped that their fights were very unique. The fights between Venom and Spider-Man involved no spider-sense, hardly any webbing, and usually some very bizarre circumstances, because Venom had a habit of spontaneously appearing and attacking Spider-Man (this is especially true in the '90s cartoon, where Venom would literally just appear and start wailing on Spidey). It's true that their fights were very low on the usual "But he's my friend!" or "But if I hurt this thing, what happens to the man inside?" angst, but that's because their relationship really revolved around Spidey's mistakes during Venom's creation, rather than a constant series of new events. Venom was Spider-Man's fault, Venom wants to punish him for that, and the rest of the character development occurs in Peter Parker's angst-ridden mind.
I'd like to see Venom in the movies too, but unfortunately, I doubt that it's going to happen. Marvel once said that they would like to make seven Spider-Man movies, which would probably cover most of the important Spider-Man stories, but Sam Raimi, Kirsten Dunst, and others have indicated that they would like to stop at three.
hmmm, okay hearing you discribe Venom I don't hate him so much, sounds more interesting.
Only 7 movies, eh? I doubt that, I'm sure the cast and crew of this movie will depart before 4 or 5, but they're replacable in theory (Tobey was almost out for SM2 to keep production moving) but if the movies keep making massive money I doubt they'll say "NO! that's enough thanks, our word that we'd stop at 7 movies is more important then the millions of dollars coming in!"... I just want to know if they only play 7 with maybe more if the moneys good or if they've set 7 as a 'reset' point similar to Batman Begins.
Off topic:
If Carnage ever shows up in the movies he should be played by Anthony Hopkins... I don't know shit about Carnage other then he's a more murderous Venom and a serial killer, so making him a super powered Hannibal Lektor seems cool to me.
If Venom is in any of the movies Spidey HAS to have the black symbiote costume first, or else I'd rather not have venom in the movies at all. Sam Raimi said he'd make Spider-man movies as long as the character and story still interests him as far as the movies go, the last time I heard of him commenting when he was asked about a Spider-man 4. I've read that Kirsten has said she wouldn't do any past 3 but I bet if the money is good enough she would. I haven't heard Tobey's commentary on it at all, except that he loves having little kids as his fans because of Spider-man. I think if they kept the same crew they could make 7 good Spider-man movies with the material that's available.
Hungry Like the Wolf
|
| CrazyMax 351th Post
Silver Customer
| "Re(3):Re(10):Re(10):Re(10):Spider-Man 2" , posted Thu 8 Jul 06:12
quote:
If Venom is in any of the movies Spidey HAS to have the black symbiote costume first, or else I'd rather not have venom in the movies at all.
I'm going to have to assume you haven't read the Ultimate line of Spiderman. That's the great thing about the ever changing nature of getting US comics to appeal to US fans. Where a theory was mentioned that those who grew up with Green Goblin, prefer the Green Goblin over Venom, & vice versa, that has all been sort of replaced. In an effort to appeal to younger fans that may not care for all the continuity established in years of Spiderman comics, and to capitalize on the youth market, Marvel retro'd their popular titles or 'Ultimate'd them.
In the Ultimate 'universe', that was partially inspired the success of Spiderman & XMen, Venom isn't an alien symbiote. Instead Venom is a symbiotic super suit developed by Eddie Brock Sr. & Richard Parker. Eddie Brock still gets possessed by the suit, but in the Ultimate universe things are more closely tied together. The super soldier program that made Capt. America is an important part of the universe, with many attempts being made to duplicate it. Which leads to the creation of the chemical 'OZ' that spawns Green Goblin, that inadvertently leads to the creation of the Hulk, and work on a symbiotic super suit. The person in charge of the project after both SRs Brock & Parker are killed is one Dr. Curt Connors. Who in the latest issues inadvertently causes Carnage to be born.
All that aside, the point is in the Ultimate universe Venom is no longer an alien, but a project that Peter Parker's mystery father and Eddie Brock's fater worked on. It would no longer be much of stretch to use Venom in the movie without the alien tie, and it allow the movie to once again go down the "Sins of the Father" road.
|
| Sano 797th Post
Red Carpet Regular Member+
| "Re(8):Re(10):Re(10):Spider-Man 2" , posted Thu 8 Jul 06:53
I started reading Spider-Man during the Hobgoblin era, before Venom. But, if you know your comics history well, Hobgoblin was a straight up rehash of Green Goblin. The big story with Green Goblin back in the day was, "Who was the Green Goblin?" and they kept people guessing for Months upon Months, and then the same thing was repeated with "Who is the Hobgoblin?" only on a grander scale, so I have love for GG, but it was hella stooopid for Marvel to bring him back to life after 25 years.
And Doc Ock, like I said, he was in Secret Wars 1. Hobgoblin didn't even make it because at the time the writers wanted you to think he was dead. Any Villain that was in Secret Wars 1 gets instant props from me!
I like GG and DO 'cuz I've gone back to read LOTS of Back Issues.
Venom is still my favorite villain, (he was in a Capcom Game! MAD PROPS!) but I feel they need to wait a few more movies to bring out Venom because once he comes out, you can top him with Carnage, and then what? Volture? Morlun? Nah, they should hold off on Venom.
|
| Mokona
35th Post
Rare Customer
| "Re(9):Re(10):Re(10):Spider-Man 2" , posted Thu 8 Jul 08:56
Isn't there a licence/rights issue with the Venom character anyway?
Also, maybe a spinoff movie would be an idea? I heard rumors about a Wolverine spinoff with Jackman, which, if it featured important cameos and had a cool stroy, could be a pretty good idea IMO!
Well, I haven't read any of the comics in the first place, so I'm not really in a place to make suggestions anyway! (I enjoy the movies though, and even though I haven't seen the Hellboy movie, it got my interest and I read the comics, which are really excellent. I love that "european" style that the drawings have, it really looks like a French or Belgian comic book. And how could you not love a comic that has H.P. Lovecraft as a major influence!?)
Damn you Microsoft because of you I can calculate faster than my computer!
|
| Hungrywolf 2874th Post
Platinum Carpet V.I.P- Board Master
| "Re(4):Re(10):Re(10):Re(10):Spider-Man 2" , posted Thu 8 Jul 09:35
quote:
If Venom is in any of the movies Spidey HAS to have the black symbiote costume first, or else I'd rather not have venom in the movies at all.
I'm going to have to assume you haven't read the Ultimate line of Spiderman. That's the great thing about the ever changing nature of getting US comics to appeal to US fans. Where a theory was mentioned that those who grew up with Green Goblin, prefer the Green Goblin over Venom, & vice versa, that has all been sort of replaced. In an effort to appeal to younger fans that may not care for all the continuity established in years of Spiderman comics, and to capitalize on the youth market, Marvel retro'd their popular titles or 'Ultimate'd them.
In the Ultimate 'universe', that was partially inspired the success of Spiderman & XMen, Venom isn't an alien symbiote. Instead Venom is a symbiotic super suit developed by Eddie Brock Sr. & Richard Parker. Eddie Brock still gets possessed by the suit, but in the Ultimate universe things are more closely tied together. The super soldier program that made Capt. America is an important part of the universe, with many attempts being made to duplicate it. Which leads to the creation of the chemical 'OZ' that spawns Green Goblin, that inadvertently leads to the creation of the Hulk, and work on a symbiotic super suit. The person in charge of the project after both SRs Brock & Parker are killed is one Dr. Curt Connors. Who in the latest issues inadvertently causes Carnage to be born.
All that aside, the point is in the Ultimate universe Venom is no longer an alien, but a project that Peter Parker's mystery father and Eddie Brock's fater worked on. It would no longer be much of stretch to use Venom in the movie without the alien tie, and it allow the movie to once again go down the "Sins of the Father" road.
You assume wrong. I've read all of Ultimate Spider-man so far actually. And Ultimate X-men, and most of Ultimates, and all of Ultimate FF (However, I much prefer the regular universe). I didn't need your explanation. I never said anything about "alien" in the sentence you quoted either, I said I wanted Spidey to have the black symbiote costume before there was a Venom in the movie is all. I'd rather the movie be closer tied to the regular universe anyway, which it appears to be thusfar.
I'm an avid DC and Marvel reader, so I pretty much know what's going on in the universes.
Hungry Like the Wolf
|
| CrazyMax 352th Post
Silver Customer
| "Re(5):Re(10):Re(10):Re(10):Spider-Man 2" , posted Thu 8 Jul 10:40
quote:
You assume wrong. I've read all of Ultimate Spider-man so far actually. And Ultimate X-men, and most of Ultimates, and all of Ultimate FF (However, I much prefer the regular universe). I didn't need your explanation. I never said anything about "alien" in the sentence you quoted either, I said I wanted Spidey to have the black symbiote costume before there was a Venom in the movie is all. I'd rather the movie be closer tied to the regular universe anyway, which it appears to be thusfar.
I'm an avid DC and Marvel reader, so I pretty much know what's going on in the universes.
OUCH!! Step back! Relax! I didn't mean to insult your comic book knowledge. It's often been the case when talking to others they often want to see Venom, but hope the alien symbiote background is thrown out. I incorrectly assumed you meant the same thing. I apologize for assuming wrong. I didn't mean to ruffle any hairs.
I often go thru the history since Venom storyline is relatively recent in the Ultimate universe. Also since the entire Ultimate universe is somewhat inspired by the success of the first X-Men movie, the intent of Ultimate universe is basically to be the 'movie' version of Marvel. But, you already know that by reading the Ultimates.
Once again, I humbly apologize, and hope that any without the same depth of comic book knowledge found anything we referred to helpful.
|
| Hungrywolf 2876th Post
Platinum Carpet V.I.P- Board Master
| "Re(6):Re(10):Re(10):Re(10):Spider-Man 2" , posted Thu 8 Jul 18:01
quote:
You assume wrong. I've read all of Ultimate Spider-man so far actually. And Ultimate X-men, and most of Ultimates, and all of Ultimate FF (However, I much prefer the regular universe). I didn't need your explanation. I never said anything about "alien" in the sentence you quoted either, I said I wanted Spidey to have the black symbiote costume before there was a Venom in the movie is all. I'd rather the movie be closer tied to the regular universe anyway, which it appears to be thusfar.
I'm an avid DC and Marvel reader, so I pretty much know what's going on in the universes.
OUCH!! Step back! Relax! I didn't mean to insult your comic book knowledge. It's often been the case when talking to others they often want to see Venom, but hope the alien symbiote background is thrown out. I incorrectly assumed you meant the same thing. I apologize for assuming wrong. I didn't mean to ruffle any hairs.
I often go thru the history since Venom storyline is relatively recent in the Ultimate universe. Also since the entire Ultimate universe is somewhat inspired by the success of the first X-Men movie, the intent of Ultimate universe is basically to be the 'movie' version of Marvel. But, you already know that by reading the Ultimates.
Once again, I humbly apologize, and hope that any without the same depth of comic book knowledge found anything we referred to helpful.
If anything I want the alien symbiote background to remain intact. And I accept your apology. I could never stay mad at you. 
Hungry Like the Wolf
|
|
|
"Re(3):Re(10):Re(10):Re(10):Spider-Man 2" 
