Spider-Man 4

disneyboy20022 · Post by **disneyboy20022** » Mon Jun 29, 2009 12:34 am

what's with all this Star Trek talk.....I don't get it....my post didn't say Spider-man Joins Starfleet: Spock Revolts

milojthatch · Post by **milojthatch** » Mon Jun 29, 2009 11:46 am

Did anyone hear the news how apparently the guy who played Uncle Ben's killer in the first one is coming back in the next movie? I'm really interested in what he could possibly be playing? I wonder if they plain on turning him into one of Spidey's super villains?

Escapay · Post by **Escapay** » Mon Jun 29, 2009 12:53 pm

milojthatch wrote:For saying you don't care what I think, you sure are fast to respond and fight it!

I never said "I don't care what you think". I said you're entitled to your opinion, just as I'm entitled to mine. If that includes criticising portions of your post, so be it. When you use "as a REAL Star Trek fan" as a portion of your opinion, it's practically inviting a reply as you're subtly implying that anyone who likes Abrams' Star Trek is not a real Star Trek fan.

disneyboy200022 wrote:what's with all this Star Trek talk.....I don't get it....my post didn't say Spider-man Joins Starfleet: Spock Revolts

I wouldn't mind seeing that, just for the sheer novelty of it. Though I don't think Spock would revolt if Spidey joined Starfleet.

Villains-wise, perhaps they'll finally put Dylan Baker (Dr. Connors) to use and turn him into Lizard.

albert

2099net · Post by **2099net** » Mon Jun 29, 2009 1:39 pm

milojthatch wrote:I think you are missing the point, but that is ok. I don't care as much about JUST the "spirit" of the story, but also the continuity of the story itself. Not much sure how much more I can make this understood. I'm happy you like the new movie, good for you. I'm sad that Star Trek has ended, but at least I have ten films and five shows to enjoy for the rest of my life, I'm good.

Well, as I said in either this thread or another thread about Star Trek, at the end of the day, story comes above continuity. Going back to Spider-Man, I used to read a lot of comics. A lot. But at the end of the day, stuff was ret-conned away often. Sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse.

It seemed to me, the film went to great pains to explain that this was an alternative timeline and as such "original" Trek is still valid, and to some extent all that did harm the story to a small extent because each time it was mentioned, it took you out of the natural flow of the narrative.

But I feel time-travel has become an overused gimmick in Star Trek anyway. I think this story could have been stronger without any time travel - but then it would be a complete reboot.

Paramount could easily have created a story that was a complete reboot, but didn't.

"Re-boots," "re-makes," or "re-imaginations" are more times then not never necessary but rather a sign of a lack of imagination. They are rather cheep ways for Hollywood to make an extra buck without having to come up with an original story and keep that one going. This is one reason why I'm a fan of Pixar, becuase thus far, they have yet to do any "re-imaginings."

Just let me put on my whiney, "Pixar are overrated voice".

[whiney, Pixar are overrated voice]
Yeah, because A Bug's Life wasn't a re-imagination of Seven Samurai, and Cars wasn't a re-imagining of Doc Hollywood? As for original stories, I'll sum most of Pixar's films up in four sentances: Two characters hate each other. Become buddies by circumstance. Fallout and split up. Join together at the end and become bigger buddies then ever before.
[/whiney, Pixar are overrated voice]

As people keep pointing out, there's only so many stories that can be told. Re-imaginings aren't lazy in themselves. But done without talent they can be lazy. It's just like cover versions of old songs - for every two or three which are poor, there's a cover version which blow's you away as the artist takes an established song and makes it their own...

...ever heard Reel Big Fish's cover of Oingo Boingo's We Close Our Eyes? No way can anyone say that is lazy, has no imagination or is just made with no artistry for a quick buck.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neMXUgXPyj8

Anyway, we are getting of topic and I'm just as big of a Spidey fan as I am Star Trek! So, back to Spidey 4...

...I'm really looking forward to this new film! I really hope in time we get the Sinister Six! That would be so cool! I hope for this film though that we get Kraven the Hunter and the Lizard!

Yes, back to Spider-Man. In my opinion, the absolute worse thing they could do is the Sinister Six. If Spider-Man 3 should have shown anything, its that too many cooks spoil the broth. Spider-Man three was just too busy, not only with Sandman, Venom and the new Goblin, but supporting cast too. Why exactly was Gwen Stacy even introduced? And why drag her down with Captain Stacy?

The Spider-Man films already had a strong supporting cast - Mary Jane was criminally underused in Spider-Man 3. There's so much more they could have done with her character. They've even hinted at her unhappy upbringing... why bother if its just going to remain unsaid? The same is also true for the Sandman - they took so much time building him up as a "human" villain, but of course, all that was all but ignored in order to fit in Venom and the "big finish".

I can see no reason for bringing back the original burgler/killer - that story is over. (Although they had to mess about with it in Spider-Man 3 [sigh]). Spider-Man is not about revenge. Uncle Ben's death was the inspiration for Peter to become Spider-Man, but that's it. It always there, as a moral of responsibility, but it shouldn't define Spider-Man.

I suspect given that there's been Lizard hints in all of the films to date, we won't see the Lizard in Spider-Man 4, but in 5 which I still assume is filming back to back. I think Rami is enjoying all these Curt Conners references in a sort of "in-jokey" way.

Going back to "re-imagining" I'd love to see Mysterio in a Spider-Man movie. I don't care how - ditch his origin and give him a totally new one if need be, but I really think Mysterio done right and aimed at a 21st Century audience would not only be sensational (think of what fun they could have with the special effects) but also be an ideal opportunity to write a story which truly explores Spider-Man/Peter Parker's personality.

I'd make Mysterio a combination of fake spiritualist/drugs specialist. I say spiritualist, because I see him as somebody who could "read" a person's body language as he sets out verbal feelers, and then zero in on them. Combine that with hallucinogenic drugs, and he could really not only get under somebody's skin but influence and dictate their hallucinations. Like the Scarecrow in Batman Begins, perhaps he could team up with an established, more normal Spider-Man villain - not the Kingpin as he's been in Daredevil, but how about Chameleon reimagined as a Russian gangster rather than a Russian spy? Again, I don't mind "re-imagining" if its done for a reason.

milojthatch · Post by **milojthatch** » Tue Jun 30, 2009 1:23 am

I have heard some say that the Kingpin could be in the next film. The only thing with that is, doesn't Fox have the rights to that character? It could be cool to have him in Spider-Man, especially if they added the Enforcers too, but I doubt it. I'd be disappointed a little bit if Lizard wasn't in it at some point!

I really want to see the Sinister Six though!

disneyboy20022 · Post by **disneyboy20022** » Tue Jun 30, 2009 7:31 pm

milojthatch wrote:I have heard some say that the Kingpin could be in the next film. The only thing with that is, doesn't Fox have the rights to that character? It could be cool to have him in Spider-Man, especially if they added the Enforcers too, but I doubt it. I'd be disappointed a little bit if Lizard wasn't in it at some point!

I really want to see the Sinister Six though!

Pardon my stupidity about rights and stuff...however....I thought Marvel ultimatley has the rights on Kingpin being Marvel created the character...not Fox....I mean did Marvel Sell Mr.Fisk(kingpin) to a Fox rep???

Or here's an idea....forget the Daredevil movie and pretend Kingpin has never been in film before...kinda like we totally ignore and for good reason 2003 Hulk the train wreck.....

Besides they are also re-booting the Fantastic Four Series which I see no reason for....though....I guess if you wanted it more for the fan at heart I could see why..

and also...perhaps wait for Sinister 6 in the 6th film.....If they do involve the Kingpin in the next two movies

milojthatch · Post by **milojthatch** » Wed Jul 01, 2009 1:19 am

disneyboy20022 wrote:
milojthatch wrote:I have heard some say that the Kingpin could be in the next film. The only thing with that is, doesn't Fox have the rights to that character? It could be cool to have him in Spider-Man, especially if they added the Enforcers too, but I doubt it. I'd be disappointed a little bit if Lizard wasn't in it at some point!

I really want to see the Sinister Six though!
Pardon my stupidity about rights and stuff...however....I thought Marvel ultimatley has the rights on Kingpin being Marvel created the character...not Fox....I mean did Marvel Sell Mr.Fisk(kingpin) to a Fox rep???

Or here's an idea....forget the Daredevil movie and pretend Kingpin has never been in film before...kinda like we totally ignore and for good reason 2003 Hulk the train wreck.....

Besides they are also re-booting the Fantastic Four Series which I see no reason for....though....I guess if you wanted it more for the fan at heart I could see why..

and also...perhaps wait for Sinister 6 in the 6th film.....If they do involve the Kingpin in the next two movies

I don't know all the legal mubo jumbo, but basically right now, Marvel is fact does not have full rights to Daredevil, Spider-Man, The Fantastic Four or the X-Men in movie form anyway. Stupid, I know, but it is what it is. Meaning, basically from what I understand, Fox and Sony can do what ever they want and Marvel has very little say at the end of the day.

This is why Iron Man, Capt. America and Thor are such big deals, because Marvel has full movie rights to all of them. Marvel would have to wait for the contracts to expire before they have full creative control over those characters again.

I personally would love to see movies 4 and 5 introduce the rest of the Sinister Six with the end even seeing the early formation of the gang and then movie 6 is Spidey going at it with them, and possibly even bring the Green Goblin back like he was in the comics and have something to the effect of he had a had in the creation of ever super villain Spidey has gone up against and it has all led to this moment of the Six coming together to take Spidey out! And then we see a super hero fight like none we have ever seen on screen thus far!

I don't expect it to happen, but a guy can dream!

2099net · Post by **2099net** » Wed Jul 01, 2009 4:59 am

I say, why use the Kingpin when there's loads of other characters like the Kingpin in the comics who could be used...?

Such as Tombstone, The Rose, Hammerhead, Silvermane and Big Man... I'm sure that there's at least another half-dozen gangster/organised crime based villains I can't even think of.

Using Kingpin again just smacks of not-using their imagination. As does the rumours I hear that Carnage is to be in Spider-man 4. Good grief, its as if the Venom fiasco in Spider-Man 3 never happened! They're going with a villain with even less personality and motivation than Venom, who's a serial killer too boot, so will undoubtedly have to be toned down, meaning he won't even be like the comics character! So what is the point?

It makes me so frustrated when they have such a rich history of genuine characters to choose from, they just seem to want to go with the "fad" of the day.

Oh, I expect a fight with the sinister six would be one of the most boring things to be seen on screen since... the endless and pointless fights and destruction in the first Transformers movie. No matter how good the effects, no matter how much money they spend on it, a prolonged fight is tedious. (See also the yawn inducing King Kong/T-Rex 20+ minute fight in Jackson's Kong remake... ).

Don't you see, Spider-Man 1 and 2 (especially 2) were successful because they dealt more with the characters (even the villains - Doctor Octopus' portrayal was superb in 2) than the effects or fights.

KubrickFan · Post by **KubrickFan** » Sat Jul 11, 2009 11:58 am

disneyboy20022 wrote:
Pardon my stupidity about rights and stuff...however....I thought Marvel ultimatley has the rights on Kingpin being Marvel created the character...not Fox....I mean did Marvel Sell Mr.Fisk(kingpin) to a Fox rep???
Or here's an idea....forget the Daredevil movie and pretend Kingpin has never been in film before...kinda like we totally ignore and for good reason 2003 Hulk the train wreck.....
Besides they are also re-booting the Fantastic Four Series which I see no reason for....though....I guess if you wanted it more for the fan at heart I could see why..
and also...perhaps wait for Sinister 6 in the 6th film.....If they do involve the Kingpin in the next two movies

No, Marvel sold the rights to the film studios then, and the studios are still making movies with those rights. That's why there are rumors going on about Daredevil and Fantasic Four reboots, otherwise the rights go back to Marvel.

Mooky · Post by **Mooky** » Tue Aug 18, 2009 2:50 am

Spider-Man 5 and Spider-Man 6 scripts are being written:
http://www.variety.com/article/VR111800 ... id=10&cs=1

SpringHeelJack · Post by **SpringHeelJack** » Tue Aug 18, 2009 1:50 pm

OH SIRRAH!

PeterPanfan · Post by **PeterPanfan** » Tue Aug 18, 2009 2:11 pm

Is Kirsten Dunst even in this one?

2099net · Post by **2099net** » Tue Aug 18, 2009 2:54 pm

Mooky wrote:Spider-Man 5 and Spider-Man 6 scripts are being written:
http://www.variety.com/article/VR111800 ... id=10&cs=1

They're picking the action figures and variants already! Story comes second.

SpringHeelJack · Post by **SpringHeelJack** » Tue Aug 18, 2009 3:58 pm

PeterPanfan wrote:Is Kirsten Dunst even in this one?

One can only hope not. It might be the only improvement over the previous movies.

Do you think Joel Schumacher could fit these into his undoubtedly busy schedule? I'd love to see his take on a young buff man gadding about in spandex who shoots sticky white goo from his wrist. Just imagine all the giant buff naked statues he could scale!

Flanger-Hanger · Post by **Flanger-Hanger** » Tue Aug 18, 2009 5:03 pm

SpringHeelJack wrote:Do you think Joel Schumacher could fit these into his undoubtedly busy schedule? I'd love to see his take on a young buff man gadding about in spandex who shoots sticky white goo from his wrist. Just imagine all the giant buff naked statues he could scale!

Sounds smexy, just don't put any clips from Rankin/Bass Christmas specials in it Joel.

SpringHeelJack · Post by **SpringHeelJack** » Tue Aug 18, 2009 5:28 pm

How sad it was that "The Year Without a Santa Claus" ended up being a better film than the movie utilizing its footage.

Flanger-Hanger · Post by **Flanger-Hanger** » Tue Aug 18, 2009 5:52 pm

SpringHeelJack wrote:How sad it was that "The Year Without a Santa Claus" ended up being a better film than the movie utilizing its footage.

Ya it's usually a really good movie like Lady and the Tramp begin in crap like 102 Dalmatians.

Then again, I've always felt Jingle and Jangle were far more fascinating than Bruce Wayne in terms of character and symbolism.

PeterPanfan · Post by **PeterPanfan** » Tue Aug 18, 2009 5:55 pm

Flanger-Hanger wrote:
SpringHeelJack wrote:How sad it was that "The Year Without a Santa Claus" ended up being a better film than the movie utilizing its footage.
Ya it's usually a really good movie like Lady and the Tramp begin in crap like 102 Dalmatians.

Then again, I've always felt Jingle and Jangle were far more fascinating than Bruce Wayne in terms of character and symbolism.

Lol, Batman is my favorite superhero, but Bruce Wayne is probably my least favorite alter ego.

DVDizzy Forum

Latest Movie Reviews

🎬 DVDizzy Top Stories️️

Spider-Man 4