|
mind the walrus posted:Fair enough, though growing up I was always under the impression that Doc Ock was exceptional because while he was driven more mad by his accident, he was already an insane dickhead--whereas Osborn and Brock and Gargan and the like only went crazy-go-nuts after their powers kicked in. Osborn is a bit diffrent as he was a ruthless bastard before he took the serum.
|
#
?
May 8, 2012 18:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 00:49 |
|
|
True, but ruthless isn't quite the same as mad. When I picture Otto Octavius I picture a Nazi Scientist in all but name, when I picture Norman Osborn I picture a CEO who took too much PCP.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2012 18:38
|
|
|
Lobok posted:Off the top of my head, Octavius, Gargan, and the Osborns were driven insane by their origins/powers. Man I would love to see Gargan as a backup villain in a spiderman film. But you know the villain that was made to be seen on the big screen? Mysterio. Think about it.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2012 19:45
|
|
|
mind the walrus posted:Fair enough, though growing up I was always under the impression that Doc Ock was exceptional because while he was driven more mad by his accident, he was already an insane dickhead--whereas Osborn and Brock and Gargan and the like only went crazy-go-nuts after their powers kicked in. Yeah, it just depends on where you're pulling from. Silver Age Doc was arrogant but not psycho. Fans of the modern Ock probably have read the stories since where he's shown as pretty unbalanced already and the accident just gave him power. Same with Osborn, who over the years was turned into a Luthor type who went loopy after the accident to split his personality and put on a costume but still would have bought and sold your life if he felt like it. There's no wrong way to look at them, but if you were to just pick up the Essentials without any knowledge of what came after you would have different ideas about their characters. Interesting that in the 90s cartoon, Osborn is also presented as largely sympathetic and is driven to desperation by the pressures of his career and the blackmail, and finally goes fully insane with the Goblin serum or gas.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2012 20:13
|
|
|
I liked Ultimate Doc Oc a lot because he's written as an unashamed sociopath.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2012 22:11
|
|
|
The only Spider-Man comics I ever read were Silver Age comics that largely featured Norman Osborn walking around with amnesia like a bumbling alzheimer's patient, Peter constantly shuffling in front of him to obscure his view of a green and purple flag or a jack o' lantern or something else that he thinks might jog his memory. It's funny to compare that with the modern super genius immortal evil Osborn is displayed as today.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2012 23:24
|
|
|
MrFlibble posted:Man I would love to see Gargan as a backup villain in a spiderman film. My fantasy movie would have Man-Wolf and Morbius in the film at first but then reveal for the finale that they're actually fakes of Mysterio. They're both movie monster villains, which ties in with Mysterio's background, the fans get those two villains whereas otherwise they likely never would, and not only does it fake out everybody as a good Mysterio story should, it makes the fans turn from reluctant supporters ("They chose these bad guys?") to ardent supporters once the twist happens.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2012 23:34
|
|
|
In the picture of Peter with his parents he's doing the webshooter hand signal.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2012 04:29
|
|
|
Lobok posted:My fantasy movie would have Man-Wolf and Morbius in the film at first but then reveal for the finale that they're actually fakes of Mysterio. They're both movie monster villains, which ties in with Mysterio's background, the fans get those two villains whereas otherwise they likely never would, and not only does it fake out everybody as a good Mysterio story should, it makes the fans turn from reluctant supporters ("They chose these bad guys?") to ardent supporters once the twist happens. That's a pretty cool idea, yeah that would be pretty awesome. But that's why I am in favour of the reboot and Sony making the films just to hold the licence - soon enough they'll have to use some of the more awesome villains.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2012 07:54
|
|
|
MrFlibble posted:Man I would love to see Gargan as a backup villain in a spiderman film. Scorpion would work all on his own, but he would have to be overhauled. I know that’s crazy talk coming from a fan, to encourage an adaptation to radically redesign a character, but honestly there’s nothing about Scorpion’s power set that isn’t done way better by Dr. Octopus, Lizard, or Venom. As a Spider-Man villain, Scorpion is obsolete, which is maybe partly why he started to fight Cap more often, and probably should have stayed there. But there are several elements of the character that suggest what could be done with him to keep him interesting or compelling. -His relationship with Jameson: However direct you make Jameson’s involvement in Scorpion’s creation, having him connected at all makes for great story potential to cover Jameson’s hypocrisy; having Jameson involved gives Scorpion a great target among Spider-Man’s supporting cast instead of always going after the girl; it’s classic Spider-Man for Spider-Man to have to save the life of the biggest thorn in his side -Scorpion’s imprisonment: Similar to Dr. Octopus but taken even further is how Scorpion is stuck in the “suit”. He’s been transformed, and apparently can’t ever go back. The more gruesome you make the suit or exoskeleton or bio-armour (or whatever) the more crazed and kinda justified he would be. -Scorpion’s reason for existing: Explicitly created to stop Spider-Man. This gets brought up time and again with superheroes, and Scorpion is Spider-Man’s version. Also created in this manner? The Spider-Slayers. I’d say the two should be combined. Scorpion as either the creator or ringleader of Slayers (you don’t have to call them that out loud in the movie if it’s corny) which would do a few things: give fans the Spider-Slayers when otherwise they might not get these villains; give Scorpion something fresh that other villains in the rogues gallery don’t have, as some villains may have some henchman here and there but outside of Mr. Negative these are generally just goons with guns, whereas Scorpion’s can be lesser versions of himself; these Slayers would give Spider-Man some cannon fodder, and depending on what form the Slayers take (actual robots, people infected with a virus or nanobots, cyborg zombies) there’d be an opportunity for Spider-Man to really cut loose in a way he usually can’t and gives the action scenes much more variability if there are multiple bad guys to juggle; if we go with the infection angle, it would give Scorpion additional menace whereas his tail is usually just a club or spike, (poisons could be handled much better by other villains) and means we could actually see him use the tail on lots of people without it being too bloody; and finally if you want to get a bit nuts, you could have the Scorpion absorb these Slayers into himself, like for a final fight where he turns into a massive, twisted scorpion, which isn’t just an homage to the stacked, Megazord Slayer robots of the cartoon but the ultimate progression of the mutation and body horror throughout the film. Now that doesn’t address everything to make Scorpion different but just given that he would stand out from the crowd and not just be a Lizard- or Venom-Lite. scary ghost dog posted:The only Spider-Man comics I ever read were Silver Age comics that largely featured Norman Osborn walking around with amnesia like a bumbling alzheimer's patient, Peter constantly shuffling in front of him to obscure his view of a green and purple flag or a jack o' lantern or something else that he thinks might jog his memory. It's funny to compare that with the modern super genius immortal evil Osborn is displayed as today. Osborn and Venom are perfect case studies in why not to have the villain learn the hero's identity unless you're planning on getting rid of said villain very soon or you erase the knowledge very soon. You either have to come up with very tired excuses as to why the villain isn’t always acting on the knowledge, and/or the villain eventually loses all edge or threat because nothing happens. How long did Venom know, and what did Venom ever do? They eventually dropped the Osborn amnesia, and he did something with the knowledge (Gwen), and then as he should have, he died the very next issue.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2012 15:11
|
|
|
Lobok posted:Scorpion re-design Honestly the way I'd love to see things is to have Doc Ock exist as a WILD CARD that Spidey can never truly lock down, and who invents painful animal-themed exoskeletons like the Beetle, Vulture, Rhino, and Scorpion that he uses for fundraising, merc work, killing Spider-man, etc. It's a bit too serialized a concept for a movie, but it makes sense to me. You could still use the Jameson and Spider-Slayers angle this way too, as well as make a Sinister Six concept. quote:Osborn and Venom are perfect case studies in why not to have the villain learn the hero's identity unless you're planning on getting rid of said villain very soon or you erase the knowledge very soon. You either have to come up with very tired excuses as to why the villain isn’t always acting on the knowledge, and/or the villain eventually loses all edge or threat because nothing happens. See also the Kingpin and Daredevil. The very first thing a writer did on his run was point out how the Kingpin became Daredevil's greatest ally by sitting on the knowledge of his identity for years and doing nothing. quote:How long did Venom know, and what did Venom ever do? "Lethal Protector." Even as a kid I thought that was lame.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2012 15:22
|
|
|
mind the walrus posted:Honestly the way I'd love to see things is to have Doc Ock exist as a WILD CARD that Spidey can never truly lock down, and who invents painful animal-themed exoskeletons like the Beetle, Vulture, Rhino, and Scorpion that he uses for fundraising, merc work, killing Spider-man, etc. It's a bit too serialized a concept for a movie, but it makes sense to me. You could still use the Jameson and Spider-Slayers angle this way too, as well as make a Sinister Six concept. He sat on the knowledge since he wanted to be the one to destroy daredevil
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2012 15:25
|
|
|
He had Murdock professionally ruined and nearly killed him, then let him build his career and reputation back up and..... did nothing.... for a long time. We're talking 10+ years in publishing time, god knows what time in "Marvel" time. That flimsy justification is just that-- a flimsy justification for years of writing that didn't know how to deal with a character that knew the hero's identity and didn't arrange an assassination while the hero was taking a dump or something. mind the walrus fucked around with this message at 15:35 on May 9, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2012 15:30
|
|
|
mind the walrus posted:Honestly the way I'd love to see things is to have Doc Ock exist as a WILD CARD that Spidey can never truly lock down, and who invents painful animal-themed exoskeletons like the Beetle, Vulture, Rhino, and Scorpion that he uses for fundraising, merc work, killing Spider-man, etc. It's a bit too serialized a concept for a movie, but it makes sense to me. You could still use the Jameson and Spider-Slayers angle this way too, as well as make a Sinister Six concept. I've always been against the one, singular villain controlling all (not sure why) but yeah, that would work. And it gives Dr. Octopus more prominence which I am in favour of. quote:"Lethal Protector." Even as a kid I thought that was lame. Exactly, and people I think unfairly blame the writers for turning him into an anti-hero but really, because the moral justification for Venom not killing Spider-Man had to be used so many times, it was only natural for that twisted morality to eventually guide the character overall.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2012 16:20
|
|
|
mind the walrus posted:That flimsy justification is just that-- a flimsy justification for years of writing that didn't know how to deal with a character that knew the hero's identity and didn't arrange an assassination while the hero was taking a dump or something. Who's going to sneak up on DD to assassinate him? Fisk didn't pursue anything that huge because DD is always one slight shove from going over the edge and killing Fisk or ruining him in other ways. A man without hope is a man without fear and all that jazz.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2012 16:34
|
|
|
You know he said "man without hope is a man without fear" after he ruined Murdock's career, socially isolated him, and had someone try to drown him in a car right? A chapter ends when he realizes that there's no corpse and that DD is going to come back at some point. That entire line was derived as a way for Fisk to stick it to Daredevil's arrogant tagline--"I will show you the conditions necessary to be truly fearless." One of the themes of that arc is Daredevil realizing that hopelessness doesn't get better when you're reckless and reactionary. Fisk didn't pursue anything because, in order of importance: 1. Daredevil from the late 80s up to arguably 1998ish was written terribly. 2. Fisk pursuing Daredevil would create an "endgame" conflict that would result in one of them dead, and that hurts long-term merchandise and publicity sales. 3. Daredevil has been pushed to "the brink" and brought back so many times it's safe to reasonably say that his psyche is made out of some really tough elastic material. Dude gets poo poo on a lot by fate. The better reason why Fisk didn't do anything was that doing so would bring the hammer down from Spider-Man, Luke Cage, Iron Fist, and all the other NYC-based Marvel heroes who'd pick up on Fisk being behind a massive assassination.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2012 17:12
|
|
|
Ann Nocenti's stuff on Daredevil is really, really good.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2012 17:14
|
|
|
Oh yeah, I did forget about her stuff. I stand corrected there.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2012 17:17
|
|
|
I used to think that stuff was lame because like a lot of comics fans, you have the Frank Miller phase where everything that isn't that isn't cool, but she took the character in a lot of different directions that rounded him out. It's very cool to see a DD that's both good and not just a riff on what the last guy did - see Brubaker's DD vs. Waid's DD.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2012 17:24
|
|
|
Honestly I just totally forgot that she did Typhoid Mary. I could have sworn up and down that was a Miller creation. Still my point about 90s DD stands.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2012 17:29
|
|
|
Yeah, a lot of the pre-MK stuff is terrible.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2012 17:33
|
|
|
What are people's thoughts on the 3D trailer for this? I saw the trailer a dozen times on my computer when it debuted online and thought everything looked fantastic but then when I saw the trailer in the theatre last week the 3D scenes were seriously disappointing. Some webswinging shots blur the backgrounds to the level of abstract motion lines and colours and Spider-Man himself in some shots looks like I'm seeing him with double-vision with how hard he is to track. Maybe it's because my local theatre is RealD and not the alternative? Or maybe it's just the fact that watching a relatively small image on a monitor is easier to take in than a giant screen?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2012 22:30
|
|
|
ApexAftermath posted:Actually I guess it's this song called "how to be eaten by a woman" by The Glitch Mob. At least according to youtube. I just realised that this is a pretty good title for a song used in a Spider-man trailer. Male spiders are often smaller than the female, so they evolved various methods to avoid from getting mistaken for food when mating. Maybe it's suggesting that the nerdy Parker is not that good with women.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2012 22:40
|
|
|
Lobok posted:What are people's thoughts on the 3D trailer for this? I haven't seen the newest trailer in 3D yet. But I have seen the other two in 3D on the big screen and on my 3DTV at home. And they both looked fantastic. My guess is this newer one is probably not as great because of how much it jumps around. The editing on it is pretty frenetic.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2012 23:31
|
|
|
Deadpool posted:I haven't seen the newest trailer in 3D yet. But I have seen the other two in 3D on the big screen and on my 3DTV at home. And they both looked fantastic. My guess is this newer one is probably not as great because of how much it jumps around. The editing on it is pretty frenetic. Yeah, I'm thinking part of it is that the trailer (as usual) doesn't give you time to settle into any particular shot or scene before cutting away so it seems extra blurry.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2012 00:24
|
|
|
I saw the early trailer in 3D, and the first-person scene made me a little queasy. I may have to go with the 2D screenings for this if that's used a lot.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2012 02:08
|
|
|
Here's 4 minutes of footage from the film: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16AwVWvjQhY&feature=youtu.be Somehow it seems Sony is in desperation mode with this, "summer's most anticipated film", according to who? And let's throw everthing against the wall, hopefully some of it has to stick. I don't know, some parts look kind of cool, but the part with the kid in the burning car was somewhat weird and some of the effects look more bad than good. Oh and the part were they practically show the whole film during those 4 minutes was fun. not trolled not crying fucked around with this message at 08:05 on May 15, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 15, 2012 08:03
|
|
|
Visually this film doesn't look interesting. For all the flack Raimi got with his, they at least had his unique visual brand. Also not a fan of 500 Days of Summer, so I never understood the hype with Marc Webb at least they carried over the tradition of him taking off his mask in certain key scenes.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2012 08:14
|
|
|
So are they going back to the mechanical web shooters with this? It seems like that's what one scene in that preview was. I kind of like the new look. Raimi's was a little too gonzo slap stick and happy..this was especially the case with Spider man 3.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2012 08:35
|
|
|
Modus Operandi posted:So are they going back to the mechanical web shooters with this? It seems like that's what one scene in that preview was. Yes.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2012 10:07
|
|
|
and they light up! How fun. Yeah, Raimi's films were hit & miss in spots, but I think they averaged out pretty well. Doc Ock was something special, Willem Dafoe was either genius or hight & I think the effects in the second film have held up really well. Tobey Maguire's voice just seems so soft coming behind the mask, almost as if he's sleepy or sad.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2012 13:16
|
|
|
Saw the trailer in IMAX again last night, with two very non-comic-book people, after the film they were trashing the hell out of it, saying Garfield looks puny and wimpy compared to Tobey. I tried to explain that Parker is supposed to be wiry and lithe, only to be met with  I think it looks fantastic, for the most part. I don't know how I feel about the storyline with Parker's parents. It reminds me too much of the Straczynski stuff that ruined Spider-Man for me. The thing about the Raimi movies is that they started out popcorn and innocent enough, but in retrospect, they just don't hold up. When you have movies like Iron Man, Thor and the Avengers, doing comic books right, it's really hard to go back and watch the first Spider-Man. It's just ridiculous. I think SM2 is overrated and SM3 is just loving awful. I'll be there opening day for ASM, but count me among the folks who want Marvel to get the film rights back. It'll be 10 or 20 years, but we'll get a proper Spider-Man film eventually.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2012 13:54
|
|
|
Tuxedo Jack posted:I'll be there opening day for ASM, but count me among the folks who want Marvel to get the film rights back. It'll be 10 or 20 years, but we'll get a proper Spider-Man film eventually. Don't count on it. The contracts Marvel signed off on are pretty ironclad and one-sided and Sony and Fox are adamant about retaining the rights.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2012 13:58
|
|
|
Dan Didio posted:Don't count on it. The contracts Marvel signed off on are pretty ironclad and one-sided and Sony and Fox are adamant about retaining the rights. There will be a spider-man film every couple of years so they will not loose the rights.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2012 14:14
|
|
|
Did no one else like the moment at the beginning of the extended preview with the kid in the car? I thought that little moment was quite cool. I shouldn't be so surprised that people are already tearing this apart seeing as the exact same thing happened with Avengers, but I think this is looking quite interesting. I'm a huge Andrew Garfield fan, and I'm liking his look and sound thus far. Can't wait to see his characterization of PP as a whole.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2012 14:34
|
|
|
That looks pretty good honestly. And I guess Gwen definitely knows the secret in this so that might be fun. I wonder how they're incorporating the origin in this.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2012 17:03
|
|
|
Peter giving the kid his mask was adorable. 
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2012 20:11
|
|
|
Yeah, that footage looks great. Still my most anticipated superhero flick of the year. I think I'll enjoy it more than Avengers or Dark Knight Rises.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 00:26
|
|
|
Kush posted:Here's 4 minutes of footage from the film: I liked the use of dubstep. Andrew Garfield is a good actor and at least we don't have an annoying romance.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 01:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 00:49 |
|
|
Movie looks good but I'm already angry at how loving often Spidey unmasks/gets unmaked. Holy poo poo I know you have to show that pretty face but c'mon.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 01:30
|
|
