Topher Grace is gonna be Venom. It kinda stinks. I could see him maybe as Carnage, but I doubt it. I also find it kinda ridiculous that Raimi said that he's not bringing in the symbiotes, but to be honest, the movies would get redundant if he didn't, because there aren't many villains out there that are as interesting as Spidey.
Originally posted by Drache53
Amen. Now Logan, I understand what you're getting at, more superhero screen time instead of the 'man behind the mask' as you say. Are you implying that you don't want that in SM3 or in any comic book movie. Because, on a certain level, it's REQUIRED that the man behind the mask get a chunk of screen time. Now Superman, what's there to do? If they focus more on Clark Kent than Superman kicking someone's ass, then people are going to get board. However, there are such instances where getting to know the man behind the mask; the break in action, if you will; was very intriguing. Episode II is an example of that. Even when there was the mushy gushy Anakin/Padme stuff, it was still intriguing and appealing. I'm not saying EVERY comic book movie should focus more on the normal guy instead of the superhero, but sometimes it's good to have things like that. You just have to know how to pull something like that off.BTW I'm am now a year older. My birthday was Monday. I was hoping for some info on this accursed movie when I came back, but alas!
I'm saying that there should definitely be a hell of a lot more time where the hero is wearing the mask than has previously been given. As far as Raimi's shameful displays of inadequate respect for the source material and good writing in general, there is no reason to focus on the man behind the mask. He's not a man; he's an idiot man-child who doesn't know what he wants and can't put a coherent, much less interesting, sentence together. Now, that last bit applies far more to 'Spider-Man 2' than to 'Spider-Man,' but there were a couple of horrifically bad scenes in the first one as well when it came to the unmasked Peter Parker and his completely uninteresting love life. If they can't make the character interesting, they may as well give us a costumed mute (i.e. Movie!Spider-Man) the whole time. I like looking at superhero costumes (if they're good costumes, that is), so at least that would be something worthwhile in between fight scenes. If they did Peter Parker correctly in those movies, then every moment with him would be interesting and entertaining. Even so, the costumed identity is the one that warrants a big-budget film, not the civilian. Spider-Man in the comics has thought balloons that allow him to be both identities at once. This could easily be done with properly edited voice-overs in a film, and since they already insulted 40+ years of character development with a disgustingly trite and obnoxious voice-over in both movies, there's no valid argument against going that route and actually doing it correctly.
There are some characters that don't warrant much time at all in their civilian identity, and as you said, Superman is one of them. Clark Kent is less interesting and far less sufficient in and of himself than Peter Parker, or even the civilian Bruce Wayne persona. The Batman is a character who should spend very little time out of costume once he decides to put it on the first time. The Batman is the dominant persona, period. While I can't say the same for Spider-Man and Peter Parker, I find it a lot more entertaining to watch a man perform even slightly acrobatic actions in a brightly colored and professionally made hero costume than to watch painful, lingering close-ups of a stammering, noncommittal scenery-chewer played by a pretty-boy.
Happy Birthday, by the way.
You need to be able to identify with the man behind the mask, but they shouldn't be the main character. The way I look at it, there's 3 things. There's "Hero beforehand", "Hero beforehand in the hero mindset", and "Superhero". For example, take Batman
Hero beforehand is Bruce when he's just the playboy billionaire
Hero beforehand in the hero mindset is when he is dead serious and you can tell that there is something else with this dude going on
Superhero is Bruce inside the costume, full Batman in view
First film in Spider-Man should've been mostly #1 Peter who was slowly becoming #2 Peter, and when he puts on the costume, and especially at the end, he fully accepts his role as #3. The second film should have had, if they wanted Peter to think about giving it up, the opposite. He should be completely into #3 and #2, and think maybe #1 was the way to go. Spider-Man 3 should be totally 2 and 3, seeing as he should be CONFIDENT in his SUPERHUMAN ABILITIES by now for God's sake. #1 we don't care about anymore, he should know by now that he can't be Peter Parker pre-spider bite anymore, he has to take responsibility and become Peter Parker, Spider-Man.
Originally posted by Drache53
Amen. Now Logan, I understand what you're getting at, more superhero screen time instead of the 'man behind the mask' as you say. Are you implying that you don't want that in SM3 or in any comic book movie. Because, on a certain level, it's REQUIRED that the man behind the mask get a chunk of screen time. Now Superman, what's there to do? If they focus more on Clark Kent than Superman kicking someone's ass, then people are going to get board. However, there are such instances where getting to know the man behind the mask; the break in action, if you will; was very intriguing. Episode II is an example of that. Even when there was the mushy gushy Anakin/Padme stuff, it was still intriguing and appealing. I'm not saying EVERY comic book movie should focus more on the normal guy instead of the superhero, but sometimes it's good to have things like that. You just have to know how to pull something like that off.BTW I'm am now a year older. My birthday was Monday. I was hoping for some info on this accursed movie when I came back, but alas!
Whoa! Drache my friend, its also my birthday in two days!
Lets just hope our birthdays can combine a little good luck in the announcement of villains!
Anyway, happy belated birthday!
Originally posted by Silverstein
what about burton's Joker, and the other dudes Two-face and Riddler, they weren't funny but they tried...really hard...LOL Venom that cracks better one liners than spider-man
First you need a Spider-Man that cracks one liners. Right now we only have the one that whines.
Originally posted by Silverstein
what about burton's Joker, and the other dudes Two-face and Riddler, they weren't funny but they tried...really hard...LOL Venom that cracks better one liners than spider-man
They're Batman villains dude.
Spider-Man's villains are not funny.Especially Venom.
Joker is humorous in a sick way.But Riddler and Two-Face are not supposed to be funny.Schumacher screwed them up.Heck he screwed the whole franchise up.