skyjedi2005 said:They wanted to make him relatable to a teen audience and to ostracized kids, what would you have done as the producer?
Did you hate the organic webs he shot out his hands instead of having that thing he has in the comics?
There is a reason why it is called an adaptation. Books are not movies and neither are comics.
What did the cgi bug you, i thought John Dyktra did a preety good job with the first 2 films.
I thought the first 2 films were good films and the third was a bit dissjointed and needed to be edited better. One two many villains and subplots in the movie.
Sure Spider Man is younger than he was in the comics and is a total dweeb and a geek. I like Tobey's spider man because he brings the character to life and makes him almost believable. This guy is a deeply flawed guy with a chip on his shoulder and has love troubles,lol.
Do you think they should have had Gwen Stacy in the first film and had her killed?
I do agree with one thing though the guy from the seventies show as venom was an absolute joke.
Not a Sam Raimi fan are you? There are a lot of Evil Dead fans out there, if your not a horror fan and i'm not. Hey i still liked Lord of the Rings and Peter Jackson is a b movie horror director.
They wanted to make him relatable to a teen audience and to ostracized kids, what would you have done as the producer?
I don't think being truer to the comics character would have made him any less relatable to teens and ostracized kids. I think the character as he was in the comics was perfectly relatable and would have worked fine for those people. There was no need to warp the character. I think if they were going to change the nature of the character so much they shouldn't have been making a film of the material. They should have got their own original material with their own character instead and not fucked with a character who'd been developed for 4 decades and had lot of fans.
Did you hate the organic webs he shot out his hands instead of having that thing he has in the comics?
I didn't have a problem with that.
There is a reason why it is called an adaptation. Books are not movies and neither are comics.
You don't need to change everything just because it's in a new medium. A new medium does sometimes require some changes, but directors of these kinds of films often take way too many liberties. I figure if they're not going to base it on the material properly then they shouldn't be making a film of the material. They should go get their own original material to make a film of, rather than fucking up somebody else's story. It being an adaption didn't require shallowness, dumbness, bad casting or dropping so much of the feel of the story.
Sure Spider Man is younger than he was in the comics and is a total dweeb and a geek. I like Tobey's spider man because he brings the character to life and makes him almost believable. This guy is a deeply flawed guy with a chip on his shoulder and has love troubles,lol.
The comic book character was a flawed guy with issues and love troubles, but he was a whole hell of a lot more relatable than Tobey's version. They didn't have to get an actor to do him like a self-satisfied creepy little twerp. The comic character was a geek but not since very early on in the comics (in rather weaker stories) was a he a total dweeb, and I don't think it improves the story to make him one. I didn't find Tobey's version especially believable. For one thing, I found him not remotely believable as any sort of hero. Spider Man in the comics was a geek and not a big muscle bound guy, but he had a heroic fighting spirit. I just didn't get that off Tobey's version at all. There was no strength to Tobey's version. Tobey's version was a wimp through and through. And he didn't bring the character to life properly for me at all, he just annoyed the fucking hell out of me.
To me Tobey's Peter Parker is in exactly the same class as turning Anakin into Hayden Christensen.
Do you think they should have had Gwen Stacy in the first film and had her killed?
I didn't have huge issues over the Gwen Stacy thing apart from bad casting for the role.
What did the cgi bug you, i thought John Dyktra did a preety good job with the first 2 films.
I wasn't terribly impressed with the cgi version of Spider Man, but that wasn't one of my biggest issues with the films.
Not a Sam Raimi fan are you? There are a lot of Evil Dead fans out there, if your not a horror fan and i'm not. Hey i still liked Lord of the Rings and Peter Jackson is a b movie horror director.
Nope, I'm not a Raimi fan. I had issues with the casting in LOTR, the rewriting of Faramir and the exclusion of certain Saruman stuff, but the LOTR films were so very well done in many ways. There was much brilliance there, totally unlike the Spider Man films.