The Amazing Spider-Man(2012)

[ImmerGeil]

Just saw the new Spider-Man movie and I must say that it was a huge disappointment.

The script was acceptable.Nobody's excepting a brilliant scripture from a superhero movie.

Where's the action in this Movie?I thought it was an action superhero movie?

Haven't seen much of it i bored myself to death.


All the actors were exchangeable even Martin Sheen.(one of my favourite actors)

It was also not very funny,laughed exactly three times.

As i saw the Lizard the first time i laughed most which says a lot about the whole movie,but hey better than nothing.



Conclusion:
Wasted a lot of money and time

[rockabilly]

It was ok , Andrew Garfield makes a decent Peter Parker.
I hope they don't fuck up Venom like Raimi did if they choose to bring him in.

And the buildup for the reemergence of Norman Osborn could be cool , I'm hoping they cast Gillian Anderson as Captain Jean De'Wolfe .

[maxpower]

And the buildup for the reemergence of Norman Osborn could be cool

Is that who the shadowy guy talking to Dr. Connor in the post-credit scene is supposed to be?

[rockabilly]

Is that who the shadowy guy talking to Dr. Connor in the post-credit scene is supposed to be?

Yes.
Sounds like Kevin Bacon to me.

I'm guessing Norman took the original formula and has been in seclusion following his mutation.

[Quiet Reflections]

I have yet to see one good spiderman movie including this one.

[rockabilly]

Not even Turkish Spiderman?

[BellaBellucci]

I have yet to see one good spiderman movie including this one.

^ This. Raimi is certainly no Nolan.

~BB~

[Dino Velvet]

Not even Turkish Spiderman?

Ever see the Hindu Freddy Krueger?
http://www.freddyinspace.com/2009/07/mahakaal-bollywoods-mullet-haired.html

Mahakaal: The Monster - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsH8_bsA6Ec)

[rockabilly]

^ This. Raimi is certainly no Nolan.

~BB~

However Raimi is better than Ratner.

The Evil Dead films are great though.

[rockabilly]

Hindu Freddy?

smh

[Dino Velvet]

Hindu Freddy?

smh

150 minutes of chasing and slashing with plenty of song & dance numbers thrown in. Keep shaking that head, Rock. Take a handful of pills and give it a shot.

[rockabilly]

If need to down some Southern Comfort and take some Lortabs..

[Dino Velvet]

If need to down some Southern Comfort and take some Lortabs..

Atta boy...

[rockabilly]

And much weed.

[Chase_Mcthirsty]

It was ok , Andrew Garfield makes a decent Peter Parker.
I hope they don't fuck up Venom like Raimi did if they choose to bring him in.

And the buildup for the reemergence of Norman Osborn could be cool , I'm hoping they cast Gillian Anderson as Captain Jean De'Wolfe .

That really wasn't Raimi's fault it was Sony's. They pressured him into shoehorning in a poorly developed Venom at the last minute when it should've only been Sandman and Harry in part 3. So keep in mind that the first 3rd of Spider-man 3 was cool but once they introduced that suit into the film it all went down hill. Sony was trying to do the same thing while in preparations for Spidey 4 and Raimi rightfully just said "Enough!"

Sony and Fox don't understand what it takes to make an excellent comic book movie. They only care about the money. Yet ironically Spider-man has enough back story to do Harry Potter numbers if done right.

Same with Xmen, that should've been doing Avenger numbers and Wolverine should've been par with Dark Knight. But the people at Fox are retarded. Thus the reason the last 2 X-men films barely made it's money back domestically.

That being said I'll just wait for the red box release. I'm done with Fox and Sony and wont watch another Xmen, F4 or Spidey movie in theaters until Marvel Studio/Disney get's the rights back.

[ImmerGeil]

^ This. Raimi is certainly no Nolan.

~BB~

But Spiderman is not Batman.

Spiderman can't be as serious and dark like Batman.Plus he isn't an antihero.

Raimi was the best for Spiderman and Nolan the best for Batman.

[BellaBellucci]

But Spiderman is not Batman.

Spiderman can't be as serious and dark like Batman.Plus he isn't an antihero.

Why not? The origins are Spider Man are pretty dark, according to the new movie, so it's not like there's anything wrong with that take. Personally, I don't like the light, fluffy Spider Man whose most pressing concern outside of battling bad guys is bedding Mary Jane. He may not be an anti-hero, but he's supposed to be conflicted.

~BB~

[ImmerGeil]

That really wasn't Raimi's fault it was Sony's. They pressured him into shoehorning in a poorly developed Venom at the last minute when it should've only been Sandman and Harry in part 3. So keep in mind that the first 3rd of Spider-man 3 was cool but once they introduced that suit into the film it all went down hill. Sony was trying to do the same thing while in preparations for Spidey 4 and Raimi rightfully just said "Enough!"

Sony and Fox don't understand what it takes to make an excellent comic book movie. They only care about the money. Yet ironically Spider-man has enough back story to do Harry Potter numbers if done right.

Same with Xmen, that should've been doing Avenger numbers and Wolverine should've been par with Dark Knight. But the people at Fox are retarded. Thus the reason the last 2 X-men films barely made it's money back domestically.

That being said I'll just wait for the red box release. I'm done with Fox and Sony and wont watch another Xmen, F4 or Spidey movie in theaters until Marvel Studio/Disney get's the rights back.



:iagree:
There's enough stuff from almost every Superhero from Marvel to make 10 and more good sequels.

One thing is not correct Xmen : The Last Stand has an Box Office of almost 460million dollar which makes it the most sucessful of the series.

The worst one made the most money:(




But the new Spiderman was with the Fantastic four the worst Marvel film I've seen(Haven't watched Ghost Rider).

In the Raimi movies all actors played their roles with so much passion.

Ben and May were played so realistic,that you must believe they were the most lovely people on earth.

Dafoe played Osborn/Goblin with unbelievable madness.He fitted perfectly.

Maguire was a very good nerdy Peter Parker,in the new one he isn't a nerd(to get the chicks in the cinema who are attracted to the actor...)

And best one who misses is Jonathan Kimble Simmons who's not just played J.Jonah Jameson.This guy is Jameson and deserved an Oscar

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgL8h_u2PHw

[LibertyHarkness]

haah ghost rider is one of the worst movies of all time ..

i have no desire to see this spiderman movie at all it looks very dull and uninspiring from the trailers ...... i find it a shame when they just erboot things .. this is the sort of movie i would watch if i was flicking the the telly channels at night and it was on ...

wait for the reboot of batman in a few years haha

[HbgDon]

I actually enjoyed the Amazing Spider-Man. I think Garfield fits the Ultimate universer version of Peter Parker. He was shy out of the mask and had trouble talking to Gwen and others, but felt confident when in the mask. He wasn't Tobey Macguires "golly gee, gosh" Peter Parker. I'm curious on where Marc Webb takes the series now.

[maxpower]

When the director credit came on screen in the theater, I laughed out loud. Spider Man was directed by a guy named Webb. Seriously??

[Quinn]

I just can't believed someone greenlit this stupid movie. Attempting to reboot the franchise this soon is silly. Can't say I'm particularly excited about the reboot of "Superman" in 2013. Come on, Hollywood, is this really the best you can do?

-Quinn

[ImmerGeil]

It's also funny that this movie with that little action had a budget of 230 million dollar.

How is it possible to spend so much money?

Are 100 million dollar for an action movie not enough?The First x men movie had an budget of 75 million dollar and the action was great.

Directors of asian action movies would be glad if they get one third of the money which Hollywood spend for their action movies.

But they don't have so much money however they're able to make great movies and show the world that you don't need hundred millions of dollar for an action movie.

It's also a risk for the producers to spent that much money for a movie.

[Chase_Mcthirsty]

One thing is not correct Xmen : The Last Stand has an Box Office of almost 460million dollar which makes it the most sucessful of the series.

The worst one made the most money:(



The 2 X films I was referring to was the Xmen First Class Domestic Total Gross: $146,408,305/ Production Budget: $160 million

and Xmen Presents Wolverine, Domestic Total Gross: $179,883,157/ Production Budget: $150 million

So in the last 4 years Fox has only made a $26,291,462 profit domestically off of the Xmen franchise. Which once you tax it and split it with movie theaters and other investors likely puts them in the hole.

Note: Hollywood doesn't get much of the profits from overseas

[Merkurie]

i just can't believed someone greenlit this stupid movie. Attempting to reboot the franchise this soon is silly. Can't say i'm particularly excited about the reboot of "superman" in 2013. Come on, hollywood, is this really the best you can do?

-quinn

qft!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[EvonRose]

I actually like the new spider man!

I cried...

[BluegrassCat]

The 2 X films I was referring to was the Xmen First Class Domestic Total Gross: $146,408,305/ Production Budget: $160 million

and Xmen Presents Wolverine, Domestic Total Gross: $179,883,157/ Production Budget: $150 million

So in the last 4 years Fox has only made a $26,291,462 profit domestically off of the Xmen franchise. Which once you tax it and split it with movie theaters and other investors likely puts them in the hole.

Note: Hollywood doesn't get much of the profits from overseas


Actually the opposite appears to be true:
"Hollywood movie studios are pulling in a majority of their profits from foreign shores."
http://wallstcheatsheet.com/stocks/should-hollywood-studios-focus-on-the-foreign-audience.html/

And X-Men 1st class grossed 350 million worldwide, so a pretty good return on investment.

[Chase_Mcthirsty]

Actually the opposite appears to be true:
"Hollywood movie studios are pulling in a majority of their profits from foreign shores."
http://wallstcheatsheet.com/stocks/should-hollywood-studios-focus-on-the-foreign-audience.html/

And X-Men 1st class grossed 350 million worldwide, so a pretty good return on investment.

Fine, slightly more than half but not as much as if it were domestic. Which is what Hollywood depends on first and foremost.

There's a lot of films that bomb here but do really well over seas yet you never see a sequel because of it.

[ImmerGeil]

Fine, slightly more than half but not as much as if it were domestic. Which is what Hollywood depends on first and foremost.

There's a lot of films that bomb here but do really well over seas yet you never see a sequel because of it.




So why they spend always more money for their films?

There are just 12 movies that made about 1 billion dollar worldwide and 47 movies that made about 700 million dollar including the first three spiderman movies and Dark Knight as superhero movies.



I couldn't think of an hollywood action movie sequel which hasn't cost more than the forerunner.

[rockabilly]

It's a game of one up manship.

The studios have to outdo each other in terms of fx.
Special effects don't always make a movie good.

[ImmerGeil]

It's a game of one up manship.

The studios have to outdo each other in terms of fx.
Special effects don't always make a movie good.



I think it was George Clooney who said that there aren't good scripts anymore only CGI.

And I thought we germans are the biggest cultural pessimists.

[Faith_CD]

I actually enjoyed Spider-Man although I wasn't expecting much. I'm totally in love with Emma Stone and I thought this Peter Parker was better, less of a nerdy dork and more of a really smart outcast.