Sam Raimi Discussion

Originally posted by vvvrulz
Parker> You have to accept that when comic books are brought to the screen, there have to be some changes made for the audiences sake, they only have 2 hours or so to get the story across, all bases can't be covered.

Sure they changed things around, especially the Dock Ock background, but I was willing to let it go because in the movie, they pulled it off.

I hear your points, but they could have done so much worse with the Spiderman franchise, whatever was put on screen was well done.

yeah but the thing the man-spider movies are not like Batman begins where the changes they made from the comics to the big screen were reasonable and actually improved the movie.The changes in the man-spider movies were totally unreasonable and moronic.Making doc ock a good guy was so stupid.and thats just it though,other than the special effects and some of the casting choices like william defoe as osborn,alfred molino as doc ock and jk simmons as jj jameson,the movies were not done well at all.they looked like they were written by a 5 year old. and you cant tell me the alex ross goblin costume wouldnt have worked well on screen.

Originally posted by bakerboy
Lets see. To start with, clearly, the x men movies are more difficult to be adapted to cinema than spider man, because in x men there a lot of main characters, but in spider man there are only one main character. The x-men movies scripts are much better and are more faithful witht the characters than the man spider movies. Wolverine is cinic, cyclops is whynny, magneto is impossing, etc.

I dont know what x-men comics are you reading, because in the ones that im reading, magneto is as Ian Mackelle portrays him, impossing and intimidating. His work was excellent. As Stewart was. As Jackman was, he is wolverine, his portrayal of the character was fantastic. And im not saying that because they looked the characters. Jackman is clearly taller than wolverine is in the comics, but his portrayal was amazing. he talks as wolverine and he behaves as wolverine.

Again, in a movie with many and many characters like x men, all the characters couldnt be developed in the right way. The mistique/nightcrawller thing doesnt add anything to the story. Also, mistique is a supporting character and nightcrawller only was in a movie, and in a suporting role. ¿ Whats is the importance of that?

Off course , they have so many characters because they are the x-men, a lot of heroes fighting a lot of villains. But they condensed it very well in the movie story, specially in the first two movies.

And , for you, whats is so great about the man spider movies? The story was shit, the peformances werent anything special, beasides Dafoe's , Molina's, Simmons and Harris. Many changes were dumb( why spidey isnt funny? So, for Sam Raimi, the web shooters would be incredible in a superheroe movie with many and many bizarre things, great logic, mary jane acts as gwen, green goblin costume was pathetic, etc).

Tell me, im curious on know what is so good about those movies in your opinion.

And please, dont be a liar. Nobody is saying that those movies sucked only for the organics, nobody is saying that. Its a lot of factors.

Thats a fact for sure that the xmen movies are clearly more difficult to adapt to the cinema than spiderman is because of all the characters in the comics.That is so true.When I look past the costumes,the scripts for the xmen movies are much better and I know thats the reason you like the xmen movies is because a good story is the most important thing to you in a movie and the xmen has that for the most part.the storys for the man-spider movies were definetly shit,yeah I mean with xmen since there are so many characters its excusbale for them to make a few mistakes like rogue being a teenage girl instead of an adult,but spiderman is ONE character so changes like organics and him not being funny are inexcusable and stupid.yeah I hate it when people lie and make that false statement that we think they suck only because of organics when it is many things,as we already said,storys are shit,and that more than anything,is why the man-spider movies suck so bad.

word

i hope they have a new director and a new cast. they could go way of Singer and Favreau and cast unknown(s)

Maybe if you didn't have "Organics are the biggest sin" in your sig, then people wouldn't assume that it's a major reason for you disliking it, or the only reason.

Just a thought. Look at you; years past and you still have a sig, avatar and status dedicated to expressing hatred for the movie. It's pathetic.

Originally posted by bakerboy
Lets see. To start with, clearly, the x men movies are more difficult to be adapted to cinema than spider man, because in x men there a lot of main characters, but in spider man there are only one main character. The x-men movies scripts are much better and are more faithful witht the characters than the man spider movies. Wolverine is cinic, cyclops is whynny, magneto is impossing, etc.

First off, those aren't storylines, they are dispositions. They included a lot more characters in those movies than they needed and that was the problem. They had too many backstories to catch up on as well as the main one.

Originally posted by bakerboy
I dont know what x-men comics are you reading, because in the ones that im reading, magneto is as Ian Mackelle portrays him, impossing and intimidating. His work was excellent. As Stewart was. As Jackman was, he is wolverine, his portrayal of the character was fantastic. And im not saying that because they looked the characters. Jackman is clearly taller than wolverine is in the comics, but his portrayal was amazing. he talks as wolverine and he behaves as wolverine.

He behaves nothing like Wolverine. I'm sorry, but walking around with pointy hair and a cigar in your mouth doesn't make you Wolverine. I could count the amount of times he actually went berserk in those movies with one hand...one finger. Once.

Wolverine is a viciously unbalanced person. Sure he has extreme emotions on the side of good, but he's also very violent and dangerous, all the movie did was portray him as some off-kilter drifter that secretly loves his friends. If you liked McKellen, fine, I didn't. I don't think he had any of the power or mysticism of Magneto. It's not exactly hard to be Professor X either is it?

Originally posted by bakerboy
Again, in a movie with many and many characters like x men, all the characters couldnt be developed in the right way. The mistique/nightcrawller thing doesnt add anything to the story. Also, mistique is a supporting character and nightcrawller only was in a movie, and in a suporting role. ¿ Whats is the importance of that?

What do you mean "What importance is that?"? They're brother, sister and mother, of course it's important. If you can't portray them accurately, don't put them in. Simple as.

If you can't make a character realistic, don't think "But we want him, so let's just make him change to fit in.". They couldn't put Juggernaut in the movie realistically, so what did they do? They slapped Vinnie Jones in a muscle suit. If you can't put them in and do them 100% justice, don't put them in at all.

Originally posted by bakerboy
Off course , they have so many characters because they are the x-men, a lot of heroes fighting a lot of villains. But they condensed it very well in the movie story, specially in the first two movies.

The first movie was shit, I've seen made for TV movies that are better than that. Every element was poor, in my opinion. The script was shit, the action was anti-climatic, the characters neither looked nor acted right.

Originally posted by bakerboy
And , for you, whats is so great about the man spider movies? The story was shit, the peformances werent anything special, beasides Dafoe's , Molina's, Simmons and Harris. Many changes were dumb( why spidey isnt funny? So, for Sam Raimi, the web shooters would be incredible in a superheroe movie with many and many bizarre things, great logic, mary jane acts as gwen, green goblin costume was pathetic, etc).

Tell me, im curious on know what is so good about those movies in your opinion.

And please, dont be a liar. Nobody is saying that those movies sucked only for the organics, nobody is saying that. Its a lot of factors.

Well for one, I don't think the genetic webbing sucked anyway. Second, the only performance I thought was lacking is Dunst's. I also agree that Spider-Man should be the funniest character in his own movies, and a lot of the times he'd actually have me laughing when I read the comics. However, besides that, the first film was incredible. It showed the genesis of Spider-Man really well, as a friend pointed out when we left the cinema.

I don't particularly care about the costumes, I care about the acting. I'd rather not have had Green Goblin in it at all, but for what he was, he was good. There's nothing else you can say about it, is there?

There are no plot holes, really. You've said, essentially, that you just hated the acting and the organics...oh and the costume. Hardly credible.

-AC

well, they couldnt portray Eddie Brock properly, they might as well not put him in right?? since Topher looks nothing like Eddie Brock, phyiscally.

to AC: just a question, tell me your opinion; tell me what you thought of Xmen3

Originally posted by Silverstein
well, they couldnt portray Eddie Brock properly, they might as well not put him in right?? since Topher looks nothing like Eddie Brock, phyiscally.

His face isn't actually massively dissimilar to Brock, it's the build. However, if he plays a stunning role and his backstory is done enough justice, then it'll be fine. This wasn't the case with X-Men.

Originally posted by Silverstein
to AC: just a question, tell me your opinion; tell me what you thought of Xmen3

Look in the toilet after you've been; that's what I thought of it.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

Just a thought. Look at you; years past and you still have a sig, avatar and status dedicated to expressing hatred for the movie. It's pathetic.

-AC

Haha yeah, I was off KMC for a year, and nothing at all changed with regards to Mr. Parker. Your endless rants provide good entertainment though.

Ill give you this though, the Green Goblin costume was pretty bad, but again it could have been worse. Its not like his original costume was paticularly great.

It REALLY could be worse!!!!
ttp://www.thatvideosite.com/view/2910.html

sorry
http://www.thatvideosite.com/view/2910.html

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Maybe if you didn't have "Organics are the biggest sin" in your sig, then people wouldn't assume that it's a major reason for you disliking it, or the only reason.

Just a thought. Look at you; years past and you still have a sig, avatar and status dedicated to expressing hatred for the movie. It's pathetic.

First off, those aren't storylines, they are dispositions. They included a lot more characters in those movies than they needed and that was the problem. They had too many backstories to catch up on as well as the main one.

He behaves nothing like Wolverine. I'm sorry, but walking around with pointy hair and a cigar in your mouth doesn't make you Wolverine. I could count the amount of times he actually went berserk in those movies with one hand...one finger. Once.

Wolverine is a viciously unbalanced person. Sure he has extreme emotions on the side of good, but he's also very violent and dangerous, all the movie did was portray him as some off-kilter drifter that secretly loves his friends. If you liked McKellen, fine, I didn't. I don't think he had any of the power or mysticism of Magneto. It's not exactly hard to be Professor X either is it?

What do you mean "What importance is that?"? They're brother, sister and mother, of course it's important. If you can't portray them accurately, don't put them in. Simple as.

If you can't make a character realistic, don't think "But we want him, so let's just make him change to fit in.". They couldn't put Juggernaut in the movie realistically, so what did they do? They slapped Vinnie Jones in a muscle suit. If you can't put them in and do them 100% justice, don't put them in at all.

The first movie was shit, I've seen made for TV movies that are better than that. Every element was poor, in my opinion. The script was shit, the action was anti-climatic, the characters neither looked nor acted right.

Well for one, I don't think the genetic webbing sucked anyway. Second, the only performance I thought was lacking is Dunst's. I also agree that Spider-Man should be the funniest character in his own movies, and a lot of the times he'd actually have me laughing when I read the comics. However, besides that, the first film was incredible. It showed the genesis of Spider-Man really well, as a friend pointed out when we left the cinema.

I don't particularly care about the costumes, I care about the acting. I'd rather not have had Green Goblin in it at all, but for what he was, he was good. There's nothing else you can say about it, is there?

There are no plot holes, really. You've said, essentially, that you just hated the acting and the organics...oh and the costume. Hardly credible.

-AC

Lets see, at first, you arent the more appropiate person to say what the people should post in their avatars or sig or status. The could post what they want. if you dont like it, fine, but dont try to be a moderator.

In the x men movies and stories, its necessary to include many people,because in the original source, there are many main characters. If you are making a x-men movie, you need to include wolverine, professor x, magneto, cyclops, storm, jean grey, mistique, rogue, beast, nightcrawler, sabretooh, iceman, angel, juggernautt, etc. There are a lot of stories and characters. The movies and scripts condensed it very well. Surely, some characters have more focus than others, but its inevitable to do it.

He behaves like wolverine. cinical, arrogant, bad boy, etc. The bersek thing was in the movies one or two times. But it doesnt need to be more, the stories doesnt need that. It would be stupid to have wolverine all the time bersek. Only when he needs it. He needs to have a background, relationships with the others characters. And it was fifted very well. Could you say that tobey maguire acts like peter parker or spider man? or kirsten dusnt as mary jane? or james franco as harry? or molina as otto octavius before the accident?

About the proffessor x thing, if you put a wrong or a bad actor in the role, it doesnt be that easy. If you put someone like Patrick Stewart, it looks easy. Great actor, resembled the character very well. Its aunt may easy to do? Its the same thing.

Man, mistique and nightcrawler are very supporting characters in the movie. Rogue was a little more important, and she has her background. To put that relationship in the movie will be more difficult to mix with all the storylines. I mean, i dont understand you. You are claiming that the x men movies have too storylines and now you are asking for more storylines with supporting characters like mistique and nightcrawler? You look a little confused here. Same with the juggernautt thing. Now, go with the man spider movies. People like robbie robertson and curt connors and betty brant are cameos in those movies. Mistique and nightcrawler are much more well developed in the x men movies than those characters in the man spider movies. In x men movies we have a lot of main characters. In spider man, only one main character. What scripter did it better? I think that the anwser is very clear.

It was better acted and scripted that those crap man spider movies.

Lets see, Organics are there because Sammy said the web shooters would be to unrealistc in those movies. And we have a kid with spider powers, a guy with superstrenght and a ridiculous costume flying in a glider, a good mand of science controlled by metal tentacles, a sand man, a symbionte, etc. Great logic.

The story of the first man spider was crap. I mean, peter with web in his arms, fighting agaisnt flash like a super atlethe and send him flying away and nobody can put two and two together and think that peter is spider man. Why mary jane is like gwen? why gwen is mary jane? why doc ock is good? why sandman is uncle ben's killer? why they put the green goblin in a power ranger costume after saying that the costume from the comics would be ridiculous in a movie? why put him a mask with no mouth movement? Dialogue was garbage ( who am i, im spider man. Its she an angel? )etc. etc. And that is a great work and a great script? Man , you must be joking.

your last line is a lie. Show me when i posted that the movie sucked only for the organics, the costume and the acting.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
His face isn't actually massively dissimilar to Brock, it's the build. However, if he plays a stunning role and his backstory is done enough justice, then it'll be fine. This wasn't the case with X-Men.

Look in the toilet after you've been; that's what I thought of it.

-AC

Hahaha. Good one. Show me a comic with Eddie Brock's face looking like Topher Grace. Only one.

Well, now they are together with the man spider movies.

I thought toby said he would do more, but Dunnst wanted out? I figured they will kill her in 3 and then start up Peter with Gwen.

Originally posted by bakerboy
In the x men movies and stories, its necessary to include many people,because in the original source, there are many main characters. If you are making a x-men movie, you need to include wolverine, professor x, magneto, cyclops, storm, jean grey, mistique, rogue, beast, nightcrawler, sabretooh, iceman, angel, juggernautt, etc. There are a lot of stories and characters. The movies and scripts condensed it very well. Surely, some characters have more focus than others, but its inevitable to do it.

Wrong. There are a few main characters and then there are characters who support, unless they are playing out a particular arc that involves a supporting character.

Most X-Men characters HAVE had their day in the limelight, but that's not constant, it's only because of a storyline or whatever. Where as Wolverine has more or less always been there. You don't NEED Juggernaut in the movie, he has never been anything more than a henchman, at all. He's just a big man that's known for popping up now and then working with others, or causing a bit of trouble. He hasn't got a massive enough backstory to be in a movie. Either way, they put him in and look what happened.

Originally posted by bakerboy
He behaves like wolverine. cinical, arrogant, bad boy, etc. The bersek thing was in the movies one or two times. But it doesnt need to be more, the stories doesnt need that. It would be stupid to have wolverine all the time bersek. Only when he needs it. He needs to have a background, relationships with the others characters. And it was fifted very well. Could you say that tobey maguire acts like peter parker or spider man? or kirsten dusnt as mary jane? or james franco as harry? or molina as otto octavius before the accident?

Tobey Maguire is a very believable Parker. On edge, very stressed a lot of the time, radiating the idea that Parker is essentially one of us, a regular guy. You can't criticise him for not being funny because he's only overly funny when he's out doing the Spidey thing.

To be honest, Harry simply isn't important enough to worry me. He's one of those characters who is easy to act. Dunst, as I said, doesn't play the role effectively enough in my opinion. That's my only qualm.

Originally posted by bakerboy
About the proffessor x thing, if you put a wrong or a bad actor in the role, it doesnt be that easy. If you put someone like Patrick Stewart, it looks easy. Great actor, resembled the character very well. Its aunt may easy to do? Its the same thing.

Oh come on, man. Any old lady could play Aunt May, let's not be silly. With Prof X all you have to do is resemble the guy (Bald, average man) and be able to speak with a bit of gravity.

Originally posted by bakerboy
Man, mistique and nightcrawler are very supporting characters in the movie. Rogue was a little more important, and she has her background. To put that relationship in the movie will be more difficult to mix with all the storylines. I mean, i dont understand you. You are claiming that the x men movies have too storylines and now you are asking for more storylines with supporting characters like mistique and nightcrawler? You look a little confused here. Same with the juggernautt thing. Now, go with the man spider movies. People like robbie robertson and curt connors and betty brant are cameos in those movies. Mistique and nightcrawler are much more well developed in the x men movies than those characters in the man spider movies. In x men movies we have a lot of main characters. In spider man, only one main character. What scripter did it better? I think that the anwser is very clear.

Most people in X-Men are supporting characters, dude. Just because Marvel sees fit to milk the cash cow and give them all their own comic, doesn't mean they're main characters. How can you say Rogue has her background? She clearly doesn't, as I've proven. If they couldn't pull off her persona properly via story, they shouldn't have put her in. Or they should have AT LEAST made her more enjoyable from a viewing stance, because at least if she was flying around like a badass it'd be a tad more enjoyable.

I'm not asking for MORE storylines, I'm saying that if you can't put the storylines of a character together accurately, don't put them in the movie, especially if they're not needed. If they wanted Rogue, fine, that could have worked if they just had her working at the school as a member of the X-Men, but they attempted this pathetic backstory.

Originally posted by bakerboy
It was better acted and scripted that those crap man spider movies.

"You know what happens to a Toad when it's struck by lightning? The same thing that happens to everything else.".

Yes.

I'll take Jameson's banter over any of that shit, thank you very much. X-Men scripts are so poor that they have to steal lines from the internet to make it more popular.

Originally posted by bakerboy
Lets see, Organics are there because Sammy said the web shooters would be to unrealistc in those movies. And we have a kid with spider powers, a guy with superstrenght and a ridiculous costume flying in a glider, a good mand of science controlled by metal tentacles, a sand man, a symbionte, etc. Great logic.

I do see what you are saying here, actually, but I also see what Sam Raimi means.

Your point is that it's a bit odd to call it unrealistic when you've got a guy with spider powers. Sam Raimi is just saying that it's unrealistic because...well, what regular young man knows how to make webshooters? What regular young man has that kind of advanced scientific knowledge AND technology? He did it to capture the idea of him having to deal with those powers first, THEN embracing them by using them. If he got bit and immediately thought "Oh man, I'm gonna go make some webshooters! This'll be great!", how realistic would that be? He's meant to be a regular guy. The first thing you'd do if you discovered you could climb walls is think "This is f*cking odd, man", and be a little weirded out. Not: "Oh man! I'm gonna go be a hero!".

Originally posted by bakerboy
The story of the first man spider was crap. I mean, peter with web in his arms, fighting agaisnt flash like a super atlethe and send him flying away and nobody can put two and two together and think that peter is spider man. Why mary jane is like gwen? why gwen is mary jane? why doc ock is good? why sandman is uncle ben's killer? why they put the green goblin in a power ranger costume after saying that the costume from the comics would be ridiculous in a movie? why put him a mask with no mouth movement? Dialogue was garbage ( who am i, im spider man. Its she an angel? )etc. etc. And that is a great work and a great script? Man , you must be joking.

First, the dialogue is crap? Yeah, because the aforementioned Storm line and "I'm the Juggernaut, b*tch!" are so much better.

Now you're just being too realistic. You're moaning that people didn't say "Oh, I got it. You're Spider-Man, yep. Everybody! He's Spider-Man!"? Why would you want that? By that time he didn't even come up with the idea yet.

If anything it's worse when Clark Kent does it, but that's what we call suspense of reality. If you aren't willing to suspend reality to ALL comic movies, don't go see them.

Originally posted by bakerboy
your last line is a lie. Show me when i posted that the movie sucked only for the organics, the costume and the acting.

Well...what else is there? You hated the locations? How much more pathetic are we going to get? Oh, I know.

We both know that you will go to see Spider-Man 3, you will pay your money and then you will moan. You hated one with a rabid passion, so you saw two. I see no logic there. I personally try to stay away from things I hate.

-AC

Originally posted by bakerboy
Hahaha. Good one. Show me a comic with Eddie Brock's face looking like Topher Grace. Only one.

Well, now they are together with the man spider movies.

I said they don't look as massively dissimilar as people claim. Not that they were twins.

Someone actually went as far as to claim Danny DeVito was as bad. Possibly the most certifiable comment anyone has made on a casting choice.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I said they don't look as massively dissimilar as people claim. Not that they were twins.

Someone actually went as far as to claim Danny DeVito was as bad. Possibly the most certifiable comment anyone has made on a casting choice.

-AC

Well, you are something right here. They arent so massively dissimilar as people claim. But he doestn look Eddie Brock, not in the body, not in the face, not in the hair.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Wrong. There are a few main characters and then there are characters who support, unless they are playing out a particular arc that involves a supporting character.

Most X-Men characters HAVE had their day in the limelight, but that's not constant, it's only because of a storyline or whatever. Where as Wolverine has more or less always been there. You don't NEED Juggernaut in the movie, he has never been anything more than a henchman, at all. He's just a big man that's known for popping up now and then working with others, or causing a bit of trouble. He hasn't got a massive enough backstory to be in a movie. Either way, they put him in and look what happened.

Tobey Maguire is a very believable Parker. On edge, very stressed a lot of the time, radiating the idea that Parker is essentially one of us, a regular guy. You can't criticise him for not being funny because he's only overly funny when he's out doing the Spidey thing.

To be honest, Harry simply isn't important enough to worry me. He's one of those characters who is easy to act. Dunst, as I said, doesn't play the role effectively enough in my opinion. That's my only qualm.

Oh come on, man. Any old lady could play Aunt May, let's not be silly. With Prof X all you have to do is resemble the guy (Bald, average man) and be able to speak with a bit of gravity.

Most people in X-Men are supporting characters, dude. Just because Marvel sees fit to milk the cash cow and give them all their own comic, doesn't mean they're main characters. How can you say Rogue has her background? She clearly doesn't, as I've proven. If they couldn't pull off her persona properly via story, they shouldn't have put her in. Or they should have AT LEAST made her more enjoyable from a viewing stance, because at least if she was flying around like a badass it'd be a tad more enjoyable.

I'm not asking for MORE storylines, I'm saying that if you can't put the storylines of a character together accurately, don't put them in the movie, especially if they're not needed. If they wanted Rogue, fine, that could have worked if they just had her working at the school as a member of the X-Men, but they attempted this pathetic backstory.

"You know what happens to a Toad when it's struck by lightning? The same thing that happens to everything else.".

Yes.

I'll take Jameson's banter over any of that shit, thank you very much. X-Men scripts are so poor that they have to steal lines from the internet to make it more popular.

I do see what you are saying here, actually, but I also see what Sam Raimi means.

Your point is that it's a bit odd to call it unrealistic when you've got a guy with spider powers. Sam Raimi is just saying that it's unrealistic because...well, what regular young man knows how to make webshooters? What regular young man has that kind of advanced scientific knowledge AND technology? He did it to capture the idea of him having to deal with those powers first, THEN embracing them by using them. If he got bit and immediately thought "Oh man, I'm gonna go make some webshooters! This'll be great!", how realistic would that be? He's meant to be a regular guy. The first thing you'd do if you discovered you could climb walls is think "This is f*cking odd, man", and be a little weirded out. Not: "Oh man! I'm gonna go be a hero!".

First, the dialogue is crap? Yeah, because the aforementioned Storm line and "I'm the Juggernaut, b*tch!" are so much better.

Now you're just being too realistic. You're moaning that people didn't say "Oh, I got it. You're Spider-Man, yep. Everybody! He's Spider-Man!"? Why would you want that? By that time he didn't even come up with the idea yet.

If anything it's worse when Clark Kent does it, but that's what we call suspense of reality. If you aren't willing to suspend reality to ALL comic movies, don't go see them.

Well...what else is there? You hated the locations? How much more pathetic are we going to get? Oh, I know.

We both know that you will go to see Spider-Man 3, you will pay your money and then you will moan. You hated one with a rabid passion, so you saw two. I see no logic there. I personally try to stay away from things I hate.

-AC

Well, could you say in your opinion who are the main characters in x men and who are the supporting ones? Surely, you would say your favourite characters as the main ones. Same with me, but i would say my particular favourites. Same another people. Its very difficult to say what x men characters are the main ones and what are the supporting ones after almost 50 years of story and different formations and x-men groups. Maybe wolverine is a fan favourite. He was the main character the movies. Professor x should be one of the main characters in the movie, here is . But the rest is difficult. I think that the scripters did the the best job that they could developing those characters and storylines.

The juggernaut thing, you said that he is only a henchman , a big man who destroys all, he doesnt need more background. Well, that is exactly what he is in the movie.

Maguire was too geeky in my opinion as Peter Parker. And not funny as spider man. But i think its more script fault than maguire fault. Dunst, agree. Franco, agreed. But not, aunt may needs to be an old woman and a good actress. Professor x needs to be old and bald but a good actor also. Try only to imagine Bruce Willis as professor x. And not because he is bad actor, he would be wrong. Stewart is perfect for professor x.

About rogue, well , i didnt like her tenagee background story , but she was in the movie with that story. To be nightcrawler related to her and mistique in the second movie would be pretty confussing and wont add anything to the story. I mean, hello, im nightcrawler, im your brother or something like that, it woudnt work in any way.

Yeah, x-men has some cheesy lines. But in general terms, the script and the dialogue is much better than those man spider movies.

About sam raimi thing. Im agree with you and with sam, if it would be a realistic movie. a kid making web shooters in a tenagee movie, what stupid. But a kid making web shooters in a fantasy movie with superheroes , villains, sandmans, living tentacles, symbiontes, etc. I mean, living tentacles controlling a guy, a man turning sand, and a living symbionte who steal powers from spidey? Man , that reasoning isnt logical.

Also , did you see a movie called back to the future? An old scientist a little crazy and a young boy doing a time machine in a fuking delorian? Keeping sam raimi's logic, it couldnt be made . Thanks to god that Sam Raimi didnt direct that movie.

You are avoiding arguments here. Those guys in the school saw what peter did, they saw peter with web in his arms, they saw peter send flash flying away, they saw peter doing incredible jumps. And a little time after that, a spider man is in the city. And that is a great storyline? Come on. Also, much from the dialogue of peter and mary jane was crap, aunt may dialogue in the second one was crap, goblin lines were cheesy, etc.

Wrong, i hated the sonny logo at the first of the movie. Now seriously, i hated almost all the acting except from dafoe, molina, simmons and harris. The dialogue , the story, some unnesessary changes, the developing of the characters, and the green goblin costume. Thats all. Its enough for you?

Wrong again. I only watched the first one on cinema. I watched the second one on dvd. And i wont to pay my money to see the third one. Maybe i will see on dvd or on cable .

Also, only for curiosity. Whats is your opinion about the rest of the comic books adaptations? I mean movies like daredevil, fantastic four, the hulk, the punisher, blade ones, superman ones, batman ones, etc.

Hulk is my favourite Marvel movie, because despite the changes in HOW things happened, the consequence and events were perfectly depicted right down to locations and demeanour. I say this as a long term Hulk fan, everything was perfect. Hulk was only in it a few times, that gave it impact.

The director's cut of Daredevil is better. Blade one is good, very good, two was alright, three was shit. I love the first Batman and I love Batman Begins. Fantastic Four was simply the worst ever.

Originally posted by bakerboy
Well, you are something right here. They arent so massively dissimilar as people claim. But he doestn look Eddie Brock, not in the body, not in the face, not in the hair.

If hair matters, I suggest a acquiring some kind of hobby.

-AC

Originally posted by bakerboy
Well, could you say in your opinion who are the main characters in x men and who are the supporting ones? Surely, you would say your favourite characters as the main ones. Same with me, but i would say my particular favourites. Same another people. Its very difficult to say what x men characters are the main ones and what are the supporting ones after almost 50 years of story and different formations and x-men groups. Maybe wolverine is a fan favourite. He was the main character the movies. Professor x should be one of the main characters in the movie, here is . But the rest is difficult. I think that the scripters did the the best job that they could developing those characters and storylines.

No, not at all. If your favourite character is Jubilee, it doesn't mean she's a main character. The "main" X-Men are clearly Wolverine, Cyclops, Jean Grey, Professor X and Magneto.

People became too concerned with seeing their favourite character in it than seeing a credible story that made sense and wasn't filled with a million MISTAKES. Not even changes, mistakes.

Originally posted by bakerboy
The juggernaut thing, you said that he is only a henchman , a big man who destroys all, he doesnt need more background. Well, that is exactly what he is in the movie.

Look at him, though. Juggernaut is IMPOSSIBLY sized in the comics, he is bigger than any human being would ever become, that's why he's called Juggernaut, he's a human juggernaut. When you see him you are supposed to know that it's Juggernaut, when I saw X3's trailer I had to look three times, I thought it was Avalanche.

There are wrestlers bigger than the Juggernaut in that movie.

Originally posted by bakerboy
Maguire was too geeky in my opinion as Peter Parker. And not funny as spider man. But i think its more script fault than maguire fault. Dunst, agree. Franco, agreed. But not, aunt may needs to be an old woman and a good actress. Professor x needs to be old and bald but a good actor also. Try only to imagine Bruce Willis as professor x. And not because he is bad actor, he would be wrong. Stewart is perfect for professor x.

You are missing the point. Professor X has to only be a good vocal actor, he's not running around is he? If you can speak with gravity and importance, you could realistically be Professor X.

Originally posted by bakerboy
About rogue, well , i didnt like her tenagee background story , but she was in the movie with that story. To be nightcrawler related to her and mistique in the second movie would be pretty confussing and wont add anything to the story. I mean, hello, im nightcrawler, im your brother or something like that, it woudnt work in any way.

What are you talking about? Of course it wouldn't work if he walked up to her and just said that, that's why it was stupid adding him as a one-time role in the second movie and acting like nothing happened and they had no history. They simply shouldn't have put them in if they weren't going to explain things a bit.

They got too carried away with just trying to have everyone.

Originally posted by bakerboy
Yeah, x-men has some cheesy lines. But in general terms, the script and the dialogue is much better than those man spider movies.

They're not, but I guess it's entirely difference of preference.

Originally posted by bakerboy
About sam raimi thing. Im agree with you and with sam, if it would be a realistic movie. a kid making web shooters in a tenagee movie, what stupid. But a kid making web shooters in a fantasy movie with superheroes , villains, sandmans, living tentacles, symbiontes, etc. I mean, living tentacles controlling a guy, a man turning sand, and a living symbionte who steal powers from spidey? Man , that reasoning isnt logical.

The WEBSHOOTERS aren't what's unrealistic, a regular guy making them just after he's discovered that he has powers is unrealistic. He didn't even do that in the comics. That was Raimi's point, Baker. He wasn't saying that webshooters are unrealistic. He was saying that for some regular guy having his life turned around...webshooters would be the last thing on your mind.

Originally posted by bakerboy
Also , did you see a movie called back to the future? An old scientist a little crazy and a young boy doing a time machine in a fuking delorian? Keeping sam raimi's logic, it couldnt be made . Thanks to god that Sam Raimi didnt direct that movie.

That's not Raimi's logic, though. You are misunderstanding him. His point wasn't that the webshooters themselves were unrealistic, just that they'd be unrealistic to the movie in the timeframe they have.

Originally posted by bakerboy
You are avoiding arguments here. Those guys in the school saw what peter did, they saw peter with web in his arms, they saw peter send flash flying away, they saw peter doing incredible jumps. And a little time after that, a spider man is in the city. And that is a great storyline? Come on. Also, much from the dialogue of peter and mary jane was crap, aunt may dialogue in the second one was crap, goblin lines were cheesy, etc.

I'm not avoiding anything. You're just trying to find fault with everything, man.

You have to simply suspend your belief, that's the way it works. You could sit there all day saying "Oh that would never happen!", but you don't, because that's not the point of Marvel.

The irony is, you're doing what you accuse Sam Raimi of doing. You're begging for ultimate realism in an unrealistic movie.

Originally posted by bakerboy
Wrong, i hated the sonny logo at the first of the movie. Now seriously, i hated almost all the acting except from dafoe, molina, simmons and harris. The dialogue , the story, some unnesessary changes, the developing of the characters, and the green goblin costume. Thats all. Its enough for you?

The changes weren't unnecessary, though. Whether you liked them or not is up to you, but they were necessary. They had thought and reason behind them which I have explained in this post.

It's incredibly hypocritical for you to have a go at the Spider-Man story, character development and dialogue, but like X-Men, which is the shittest of them all above Fantastic Four.

Originally posted by bakerboy
Wrong again. I only watched the first one on cinema. I watched the second one on dvd. And i wont to pay my money to see the third one. Maybe i will see on dvd or on cable .

You will pay money to see it then, either way. Buying/renting the DVD.

If you hate them so much, why did you keep watching them? You have NO right to complain if you keep watching them. If you hate them so much, don't watch them, but don't watch them and then come on the net and b*tch.

-AC