|
Post by DSR on May 4, 2007 22:08:39 GMT -5
I actually feel sorry for Kirsten Dunst. She doesn't have much to do in these films except get kidnapped for the big action finale. Then again, there's nothing worse than when Hollywood turns a damsel in distress into an ass-kicking badass in the sequel. (See Keira Knightley in the awful POTC2) What about Sarah Conner in Terminator 2?
|
|
|
Post by DiBiase is Good on May 4, 2007 22:09:54 GMT -5
I actually feel sorry for Kirsten Dunst. She doesn't have much to do in these films except get kidnapped for the big action finale. Then again, there's nothing worse than when Hollywood turns a damsel in distress into an ass-kicking badass in the sequel. (See Keira Knightley in the awful POTC2) What about Sarah Conner in Terminator 2? I prefer the first one. And I just thought it seemed a bit forced with her being tough now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2007 22:14:59 GMT -5
I pretty well enjoyed the movie...I thought Topher did awesome as the anti-peter character and the guy that played the Sandman was the stand out star of this movie, outside of the scene Bruce Cambell steals. I swear that picture of DeFoe reminded me of the one from the Ghostbusters movie...So sinister...The movie however seemed way too long...The crowd I watched it with sighed during the last 10 minutes due to the fact that there were like 10 fade to black scenes strung together all leading into the next one.
|
|
|
Post by DSR on May 4, 2007 22:26:05 GMT -5
They should just let us say the b-word on these boards. "Complain and/or rude female" is too cumbersome. Uh...stop swearing?
|
|
|
Post by Rorschach on May 4, 2007 23:12:41 GMT -5
I disagree about the comics following the movies. They should to a certain extent follow the source material. I mean, my biggest gripe with X3 was just the sort of rampant retooling that all of you here seem to think is ok. Ratner didn't even come CLOSE to following the Dark Phoenix saga, save for having "Evil Jean" in there. The whole Dark Phoenix story was botched in favor of cramming more Wolvie and Storm in there.
But apparently, most of you could give a f*** less if directors stick to the source material. They don't have to cater to the comic geeks, you say. Well, IMO, if it weren't for comic geeks, would there honestly even be a demand for COMIC BOOK movies?
So in short, yeah, directors should stick to the source as closely as reliasticly possible. Haven't seen SPIDEY 3 yet, but if they majorly screw up Venom, I won't be too happy.
|
|
|
Post by DSR on May 4, 2007 23:28:14 GMT -5
I disagree about the comics following the movies. They should to a certain extent follow the source material. I mean, my biggest gripe with X3 was just the sort of rampant retooling that all of you here seem to think is ok. Ratner didn't even come CLOSE to following the Dark Phoenix saga, save for having "Evil Jean" in there. The whole Dark Phoenix story was botched in favor of cramming more Wolvie and Storm in there. But apparently, most of you could give a wax less if directors stick to the source material. They don't have to cater to the comic geeks, you say. Well, IMO, if it weren't for comic geeks, would there honestly even be a demand for COMIC BOOK movies? So in short, yeah, directors should stick to the source as closely as reliasticly possible. Haven't seen SPIDEY 3 yet, but if they majorly screw up Venom, I won't be too happy. Evidently you missed everything I've ever said about X3 and comic book movies. On X3: Yeah, I hated it. I hated the fact that they crammed two stories into a movie, used neither story effectively, and just made excuses for "cool special effects." And as for comic book geeks...hello, I AM ONE! I've been collecting since I was 5, I've got more long boxes than I know what to do with! When it comes to comic book based movies, I want them to change things, simply because I ALREADY KNOW THE COMICS. I'm not saying "hey let's put Wolverine in the place of Cyclops in the story that's all about Cyclops and Jean's love for each other." What I'm saying is this: CAPTURE THE HEART OF THE STORY. If they've got a good story to tell, and they change or leave out a little bit here or there, I'm fine with it. Say, for instance, that Spider-Man 4 is based on the Maximum Carnage storyline. The story took way too long to say way too little. I don't want Spidey 4 to be four or five hours of that. Cut the crap, tell me a good story, and make the action meaningful to the story you're telling. Also, watch the movie "Adaptation." It's about a screenwriter trying to adapt a book into a movie script, and the book turns out to be damn near unfilmable. It's a really good movie.
|
|
|
Post by DSR on May 4, 2007 23:46:35 GMT -5
By the way, I didn't mean for that last post to sound so confrontational. Sorry.
|
|
|
Post by southside on May 4, 2007 23:55:28 GMT -5
Just came back from screening it.......GREAT MOVIE!!!!!
I can see how some people didn't like it, because the
"drama" scenes were kinda draaaaging. Comparing it to
"Batman and Robin" is too harsh. I mean if you wanna compare
a comicbook movie to "Batman and Robin", go with "Blade Trinity".
|
|
Phosphor Glow
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Is a real girl!
Posts: 19,874
|
Post by Phosphor Glow on May 5, 2007 0:49:36 GMT -5
Just got back myself.
I found it to be a great movie. Not quite as good as 2, but still very good.
I also have no real idea why people are complaining. I've stated it before, but I look at comic book movies as an alternate universe of sorts. They don't have to go exactly like the stories in the comics because they're NOT the stories in the comics, but something else entirely. So yeah. I'm not saying they can take such liberties with the characters that it's insane, but y'know...still AU stuff.
In any case, this is all spoiler free, but I thought the movie was awesome.
|
|
EvilMasterBetty, Esq.
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Bird...Birdie...birdie......Tiger...Tiger Tiger.....
R2C2 Reporting for duty
Posts: 17,355
|
Post by EvilMasterBetty, Esq. on May 5, 2007 1:19:44 GMT -5
This movie was really good. I'm not going to say it was great. But it's highly enjoyable. It's no where near as bad as people are saying though. Since i can't put spoilers, I'll say the fight scenes were pretty freaking sweet, Topher was actually really good, Toby really did a good job with a very very awkward scene, and Bruce Campbell was HILARIOUS!
|
|
Phosphor Glow
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Is a real girl!
Posts: 19,874
|
Post by Phosphor Glow on May 5, 2007 1:20:55 GMT -5
This movie was really good. I'm not going to say it was great. But it's highly enjoyable. It's no where near as bad as people are saying though. Since i can't put spoilers, I'll say the fight scenes were pretty freaking sweet, Topher was actually really good, Toby really did a good job with a very very awkward scene, and Bruce Campbell was HILARIOUS! ...PECKER? ...only spoiler
|
|
EvilMasterBetty, Esq.
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Bird...Birdie...birdie......Tiger...Tiger Tiger.....
R2C2 Reporting for duty
Posts: 17,355
|
Post by EvilMasterBetty, Esq. on May 5, 2007 1:23:04 GMT -5
This movie was really good. I'm not going to say it was great. But it's highly enjoyable. It's no where near as bad as people are saying though. Since i can't put spoilers, I'll say the fight scenes were pretty freaking sweet, Topher was actually really good, Toby really did a good job with a very very awkward scene, and Bruce Campbell was HILARIOUS! ...PECKER? ...only spoiler *shoos waiters away!* And I think it's such a minor spoiler that people shouldn't get offended. Plus...c'mon...it's Bruce freakin Campbell
|
|
Phosphor Glow
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Is a real girl!
Posts: 19,874
|
Post by Phosphor Glow on May 5, 2007 1:38:55 GMT -5
...PECKER? ...only spoiler *shoos waiters away!* And I think it's such a minor spoiler that people shouldn't get offended. Plus...c'mon...it's Bruce freakin Campbell I AM FRENCH!
|
|
|
Post by Rorschach on May 5, 2007 2:09:17 GMT -5
I disagree about the comics following the movies. They should to a certain extent follow the source material. I mean, my biggest gripe with X3 was just the sort of rampant retooling that all of you here seem to think is ok. Ratner didn't even come CLOSE to following the Dark Phoenix saga, save for having "Evil Jean" in there. The whole Dark Phoenix story was botched in favor of cramming more Wolvie and Storm in there. But apparently, most of you could give a wax less if directors stick to the source material. They don't have to cater to the comic geeks, you say. Well, IMO, if it weren't for comic geeks, would there honestly even be a demand for COMIC BOOK movies? So in short, yeah, directors should stick to the source as closely as reliasticly possible. Haven't seen SPIDEY 3 yet, but if they majorly screw up Venom, I won't be too happy. Evidently you missed everything I've ever said about X3 and comic book movies. On X3: Yeah, I hated it. I hated the fact that they crammed two stories into a movie, used neither story effectively, and just made excuses for "cool special effects." And as for comic book geeks...hello, I AM ONE! I've been collecting since I was 5, I've got more long boxes than I know what to do with! When it comes to comic book based movies, I want them to change things, simply because I ALREADY KNOW THE COMICS. I'm not saying "hey let's put Wolverine in the place of Cyclops in the story that's all about Cyclops and Jean's love for each other." What I'm saying is this: CAPTURE THE HEART OF THE STORY. If they've got a good story to tell, and they change or leave out a little bit here or there, I'm fine with it. Say, for instance, that Spider-Man 4 is based on the Maximum Carnage storyline. The story took way too long to say way too little. I don't want Spidey 4 to be four or five hours of that. Cut the crap, tell me a good story, and make the action meaningful to the story you're telling. Also, watch the movie "Adaptation." It's about a screenwriter trying to adapt a book into a movie script, and the book turns out to be damn near unfilmable. It's a really good movie. Didn't seem confrontational in the least. No, I get what you're saying. You're ok with changes, as long as the heart of the story doesn't change. And really, I wasn't calling you out in my earlier post. I was merely calling out those who had stated earlier in the thread that comic movies should NEVER follow the original material. HELLO....let's think about what that COULD mean. It COULD mean that since we don't have to worry about pleasing comic book fans, lets go ahead and set Batman in Tempe, Arizona. Gotham is too dark and rainy, anyway. The hell with the source material. f*** the comic geeks....they don't bring in the bucks. Or let's just make Wonder Woman a Mexican firebrand, who takes no crap from any one, chico. The old Amazon story is outdated, anyway. And besides, changing things is a good way to go, since the core audience who will turn out for this doesn't f***ing matter anyway. On the other hand, you have stories like WATCHMEN. WATCHMEN, as it stands in comic form, in my humble opinion, is unfilmable. Not that I wouldn't mind someone with talent trying to make a faithful WATCHMEN movie.....but it'd have to be damn near five hours long to get every last bit of Alan Moore's detail in there. To capture every plotline and subplotline in one movie would be impossible. And to set it up as a series of movies would be suicide, since the material doesn't lend itself to such. So in this instance, to have anything watchable, you have to sacrifice, but without changing the core story. You'd HAVE to condense certain things, and therefore change certain elements. And, that being said, as long as it is NOT a vital element, a little trim here and there isn't a bad thing. Long story short, radical changes=bad, but condensing and trimming=-good.
|
|
|
Post by chibidiablo on May 5, 2007 2:22:01 GMT -5
Didn't we all hate X3?
|
|
|
Post by Smokey McTrees on May 5, 2007 2:26:26 GMT -5
SORTA SPOILERY, BUT NOT TOO MUCH...
Wow. It was unbelievable. What a terrible film. I found it hard to believe Sam Raimi directed it. It seemed more like it was directed by Paul Anderson or Jan Debont. And its funny, 'cause most of the negative reviews focus on the "Too crowded plot" syndrome but I disagree. The story just meaders in parts, with the silliest, most frustrating exposition I have seen. Thanks, Harry's Butler, for the plot device-spewing info you could have given me THREE YEARS AGO. Wow, did Ruby-Spears write the story? Let's have a main character get amnesia. Nobody thought was contrived 30 years when it was used in every episode of Scooby Doo. Even better, let's have the character get all scarred and menacing, like the Phantom of the Opera! Scary!
And for the icing on the Spider-Cake, let's have an overall denouement of the whole story arc that defeats the whole purpose of Stan Lee's original work. And give it away in the trailers. And involve the Sandman, a solid but truly second-rate villian that was nothing but an ordinary thug in the original stories. I mean Sandman's character arc negates the whole concept of Spidey and his guilt. "Great Power Comes Great Responsibilty" anyone? And its ok to be a sociopath if your daughter is dying? Thanks, Sam. It is SO CLEAR TO ME NOW.
Venom was rushed and under-developed, and not because of too much Sandman, but because the movie spent twenty minutes on goofy montages, bar skits, and Kirsten Dunst's awful singing. Did she take a voluntary pay cut so she could sing not once, but twice? Ok, Kirsten, I can chalk up my disdain for your flat rack and crooked teeth due to my sexism and immaturity, but I cannot excuse the singing. Topher Grace is not a bad actor, but he was a wise-ass cliche who looked like the least scariest Venom you could find, because he is simply so skinny. Venom is supposed to be pumped-up, insane obsessive, not a wise-cracking second-rate horror villian. I kept waiting for Red to come in full Clarence Boddicker mode and put his foot in Topher's skinny little ass.
I understood the need for the relationship building, but why do it so poorly? Why have potential relationship develop between a villian and the girl, then destroy it with a quick act of violence? One that makes no sense because a true crafty villian would have naturally devloped the relationship to make the other jealous. Why bother putting Gwen Stacey in the movie? She is so far-removed from the concept of what she was in Peter's life that it was a waste of time to put her in except to make MJ jealous. Great. Why were there so many extreme closeups on Tobey McGuire's face? I kept counting his moles from boredom because his quivery face swallowed the big screen. Can't you ever wear the damn mask? Spider-Man the hero was very weak this time around. Did he even have spider-sense? It just didn't feel like Spider-Man.
Yeah, there were things I liked. JK Simmons is the most literal, believable and amazing representation of JJJ I could ever hope for. He is amazing. And Franco has a great style about him despite his poorly written character. He looks so much like William Dafoe in parts its great. A testament to his acting. And Bruce Campbell steals everything he's in. And Stan the Man. 'Nuff said about that one!
TO sum it all up, The movie really pissed me off, because it was a ripoff, a lazy piece of poor writing that was directed by-the-numbers by an obviously bored Sami Raimi. It's like he was sick of Spider-Man and wanted to crap this piece of trash out so he could forget about the whole thing. Well, dude, if you wanted to move on, ya shoulda made something the fans won't nag you about for the rest of your life.
|
|
|
Post by lildude8218 on May 5, 2007 2:50:10 GMT -5
Thought the film was great. Hated the people in the theater that laughed when Harry's butler said that he loved Harry's father (spoiler yes but hardly a spoiler, nothing to do with the plot or anything.) It was middle school type giggling and it just pissed me off that people would think of that as a gay comment.
I can't believe the people who say the films are horrible but have never even read the comics. I don't mean anyone here, I'm talking about a friend of mine mostly. She was on her way to see it tonight and said how horrible the other two were and that she was only going because a friend bought her ticket. Then I asked "Do you read comics?" and she said "Yeah but not lameo Marvel ones" yes, exact quote.
I'm gonna go on an off topic rant for a second. Loved the people sitting right next to me, even though there were plenty of seats further down, who didn't say a word through the whole length of the coming attractions but once the "Please be quiet" thing ran THEN they decided to start talking to each other.
Also, you know how there's an Adult Price and a Kids price for tickets? I think there should be a Baby Price as well. The cost of one Baby ticket should be roughly $75. That way people will have to decide if they really want to invest that much in taking their baby to a movie and having to leave the theater with a crying baby every 20 minutes.
|
|
|
Post by Rorschach on May 5, 2007 3:01:17 GMT -5
Thought the film was great. Hated the people in the theater that laughed when Harry's butler said that he loved Harry's father (spoiler yes but hardly a spoiler, nothing to do with the plot or anything.) It was middle school type giggling and it just pissed me off that people would think of that as a gay comment. I can't believe the people who say the films are horrible but have never even read the comics. I don't mean anyone here, I'm talking about a friend of mine mostly. She was on her way to see it tonight and said how horrible the other two were and that she was only going because a friend bought her ticket. Then I asked "Do you read comics?" and she said "Yeah but not lameo Marvel ones" yes, exact quote. I'm gonna go on an off topic rant for a second. Loved the people sitting right next to me, even though there were plenty of seats further down, who didn't say a word through the whole length of the coming attractions but once the "Please be quiet" thing ran THEN they decided to start talking to each other. Also, you know how there's an Adult Price and a Kids price for tickets? I think there should be a Baby Price as well. The cost of one Baby ticket should be roughly $75. That way people will have to decide if they really want to invest that much in taking their baby to a movie and having to leave the theater with a crying baby every 20 minutes. Agreed about the baby thing. But at least they LEFT. I've been in places where the parents just sit there oblivious to their screechling, until some other patron *COUGHme*COUGH* kicks the hell outta the parents seat back and mutters something about a "damned screaming kid". People in theaters these days just don't give a rat's ass about the comfort of others.
|
|
Phosphor Glow
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Is a real girl!
Posts: 19,874
|
Post by Phosphor Glow on May 5, 2007 12:53:02 GMT -5
Thought the film was great. Hated the people in the theater that laughed when Harry's butler said that he loved Harry's father (spoiler yes but hardly a spoiler, nothing to do with the plot or anything.) It was middle school type giggling and it just pissed me off that people would think of that as a gay comment. I can't believe the people who say the films are horrible but have never even read the comics. I don't mean anyone here, I'm talking about a friend of mine mostly. She was on her way to see it tonight and said how horrible the other two were and that she was only going because a friend bought her ticket. Then I asked "Do you read comics?" and she said "Yeah but not lameo Marvel ones" yes, exact quote. I'm gonna go on an off topic rant for a second. Loved the people sitting right next to me, even though there were plenty of seats further down, who didn't say a word through the whole length of the coming attractions but once the "Please be quiet" thing ran THEN they decided to start talking to each other. Also, you know how there's an Adult Price and a Kids price for tickets? I think there should be a Baby Price as well. The cost of one Baby ticket should be roughly $75. That way people will have to decide if they really want to invest that much in taking their baby to a movie and having to leave the theater with a crying baby every 20 minutes. Agreed about the baby thing. But at least they LEFT. I've been in places where the parents just sit there oblivious to their screechling, until some other patron *COUGHme*COUGH* kicks the hell outta the parents seat back and mutters something about a "damned screaming kid". People in theaters these days just don't give a rat's ass about the comfort of others. Nope, sure don't...there was a lot of immature giggling at my showing too. Bunch of kids who were pretty early in high school when I was leaving it...reminded me of exactly why I don't miss high school. But in any case, the film was great. And swamp, dude...calm down. Wow.
|
|
|
Post by heffer111 on May 5, 2007 12:59:06 GMT -5
swamp hit it on the head on one thing, which really pissed me off as well, i don't read the comics so i could care less if a secondary villian looks stronger in the movie, but what upset me was the basic story. they build up this whole mj-harry-spidey love triangle thing, than they just completely get rid of it by harry winking at peter and they don't really make anything of it past then.
|
|