I dunno, it worked better in making him a proper evil version of Peter. I was never terribly fond of Venom being the bodybuilder type anyways.
Sam Rami to direct Dr Strange 2
- Thread starter StCoop
- Start date
I dunno, it worked better in making him a proper evil version of Peter. I was never terribly fond of Venom being the bodybuilder type anyways.
But those moments are cheesy on a relatively real world level. And they're just individual lines. They're not spending a whole 2 minutes rubbing it in your face like this:
I don't know that I would put Peyton Reed on quite the same level as Waititi or Gunn. I would say, in terms of making the movies their own and very much permeating them with their own style, Raimi will end up being on the same level as Waititi & Gunn. (The Russos are in yet another category, being masterful storytellers but lacking the kind of flamboyant personal flourishes that some other directors added. Joss Whedon is much the same way.)
Last edited:
You want a cheesy scene? Oh, does Spider-Man (2002) have you covered! Just get a load of the heart-to-heart between Peter and Osborne, wearing his mask, but with his eyes visible, in which he offers to co-rule the city with him:
"How's it hanging, fellow normal costumed person? See, I'm leaning against this grate,
which indicates a casual conversation among human characters with depth."
Say what you like about the cheesiness of Connors trying to lizard-ify Manhattan in ASM1, at least said lizard didn't offer Spidey co-rule of the city, Darth Vader style!
No, my friend, SM1 is every bit as cheesy as its sequels. As "Weird" Al once sang: "yes, he's wearing that dumb Power Rangers mask... but he's scarier without it on." 
I would never claim that the first Spider-Man movie has Nolan levels of gritty realism or anything like that. There's a certain level of cheese in all 3 of Raimi's films. But, IMHO, the first one hits just the right sweet spot of treating the costumed characters seriously within the context of being costumed characters in a superhero movie while still being somewhat visually faithful to the comic book source material. Where the sequels went wrong is treating a lot of the non-costumed stuff with even more goofiness than the costumed stuff.
It's especially important when you consider where the first Spider-Man movie fits in the history of comic book movies. It was a mere 5 years after the campy, dismal low of Batman & Robin. Blade and X-Men brought some respectability back to the genre but largely did that by downplaying the more comic book-y elements. I doubt that most people were even aware that Blade was based on a comic book at all back then. And while they might have known that X-Men was based on a superhero comic, it very much approached the story as a serious sci-fi film, with a muted color palette and black leather uniforms for all the team members. When Spider-Man came on the scene, it was a blend-- taking itself far more seriously than the last couple Batman movies but not totally scrubbing the bright visuals that made the comics so iconic. And that balance of serious-but-not-too-serious was, with a little refinement, the template that created Marvel Studios and made superheroes the bankable box office property that they are today.
As for the Amazing Spider-Man movies, I'd need to rewatch them. I haven't seen them since they were first in theaters. But I certainly never complained about cheesiness in either film. My primary complaint with The Amazing Spider-Man was that it needlessly rehashed the origin story a mere 10 years after the first Spider-Man movie. I also wasn't crazy about some of the costume changes. As for The Amazing Spider-Man 2, I've actually never understood what people so disliked about that film. I enjoyed it just fine.
It's especially important when you consider where the first Spider-Man movie fits in the history of comic book movies. It was a mere 5 years after the campy, dismal low of Batman & Robin. Blade and X-Men brought some respectability back to the genre but largely did that by downplaying the more comic book-y elements. I doubt that most people were even aware that Blade was based on a comic book at all back then. And while they might have known that X-Men was based on a superhero comic, it very much approached the story as a serious sci-fi film, with a muted color palette and black leather uniforms for all the team members. When Spider-Man came on the scene, it was a blend-- taking itself far more seriously than the last couple Batman movies but not totally scrubbing the bright visuals that made the comics so iconic. And that balance of serious-but-not-too-serious was, with a little refinement, the template that created Marvel Studios and made superheroes the bankable box office property that they are today.
As for the Amazing Spider-Man movies, I'd need to rewatch them. I haven't seen them since they were first in theaters. But I certainly never complained about cheesiness in either film. My primary complaint with The Amazing Spider-Man was that it needlessly rehashed the origin story a mere 10 years after the first Spider-Man movie. I also wasn't crazy about some of the costume changes. As for The Amazing Spider-Man 2, I've actually never understood what people so disliked about that film. I enjoyed it just fine.
Nonsense.
No sale. Holland's Spidey-Lad has few to none of the traits and motivations of his comic source; he's spent most of his screentime chasing after "M-mister Stark!", trying to be an Avenger, hero worshipping, etc., instead of the character having any sort of depth that justifies why Parker continues to risk his life.
..and Garfield? Egad. From start to finish, he portrayed Parker as a stammering rubber-room case, completely overdoing any of the character's insecurity from the Ditko era (which ended in that period as well), and coming off as bizarre.
Yes-sense.
You don't even realize how little Tobey had in common with Peter's original Misanthrope characterization. Holland is more akin to the Ultimate version.
Again, Ultimate Spidey. And we've seen enough about him moping over Ben. Now we see him dealing with how he's entered a bigger world where he can't just be an independent hero.
They also brought up the "Great Responsibility" thing with his "When you can do what I can, and bad things happen, they happen because of you" bit in Civil War.
Quite in line with how Peter acted in Amazing Fantasy.
I have a feeling it's going to get pushed. Apparently when Derrickson and his co-writer left the project, they hadn't even completed a first draft, and it's currently scheduled to begin shooting in May.
Honestly I think they're more likely to rush production than push it. It's supposed to tie into 'WandaVision', and presumably hand off to other projects they they don't want delayed too, so right now it looks like Phase 4 is going to be like laying the train tracks while the engine is coming up behind.
Oh please - if there's ANY incarnation that been the truest to - "He's a very intelligent TEENAGER, who got bitten and attained powers from a radioactive spider" - it's been the last two MCU based Spider Man films. There he ACTS like a teenager.
Tobey McGuire was your average "hey lets get a bunch of near 30 somethings and say their teenagers.." trope (he was 27 at te time of Sam Rami's Spiderman). Tom Holland was 22 - and yes, still, not a teenager, but between the script and his acting, that was the closest I've seen to what the real original "Spiderman" comic was - and I found (and still find it) quite refreshing. YMMV of course , and I'm sure it does.
No, Holland's version acted like someone at SDCC frantically trying to get the attention of his favorite superhero actors on a panel, hoping they call his name out. That was never Spider-Man, and he had zero motivation for doing anything, other than fan-crushing Stark, wanting to be a Avenger, etc.
The right casting and performance, as he captured the isolation, being out of his element, even after he gained his powers, and more than anything else, he actually displayed the burden of that ..wait for it...responsibility and how it is (as he says in the cemetery scene of the first Raimi Spider-Man) a curse. That is classic Peter Parker / Spider-Man, and it was carried over / built on in the second film. Holland's Parker has no weight--several appearances (and two "solo" films in), while Garfield? A mess in too many ways to list.
Ultimate Spidey, only with Tony Stark and not Nick Fury.
For a sadsack wannabe who hardly grew over 3 movies.
No, not really. A lot of his problem in SM1 and SM2 were caused not by Spider-Man but merely by Peter continuously underestimating his loved ones and his inability to come up with proper excuses.
Garfield and Holland at the least aren't willing to let life walk all over them. Which puts them both leagues about Maguire.
And this constant torturing himself thing about "Great Responsibility" in no ways means he has to let life walk all over him.
In fairness, I felt that Far from Home did a decent job of correcting for this. They overdid his enthusiasm for wanting to join the Avengers in the previous movies, so Far from Home features a Peter Parker that doesn't want the headaches of being Spider-Man anymore, leading to him passing on the responsibility to Mysterio. Once he realizes his mistake, he immediately takes responsibility for fixing it. I think it did the best job in the MCU so far of capturing that inner conflict.
Overall, I'd say that Tom Holland is my favorite big-screen depiction of the character but the best Spider-Man movies were the Sam Raimi/Tobey Maguire ones. They just felt like they had a bigger scale, partly because they weren't dwarfed by all of the crazy cosmic-scale stuff that the Avengers have to deal with.
Honestly, delaying the movie wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. We're already getting 3 other MCU movies in 2021-- Shang-Chi, Thor: Love & Thunder, and the new Spider-Man movie. Apart from Black Panther II, I don't think they've officially announced any release dates post 2021, so they've got a lot of flexibility. The only argument against that is that Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness is supposed to kick off the summer movie season in 2021 and I don't think that Disney/Marvel Studios will allow themselves to abandon that prime release date. Although they could push back Shang-Chi from February to May or else move Thor forward from November to May. (I'm guessing that they wouldn't give such a plum release date to Spider-Man because that would just be shoveling money into the hands of Sony and we know Disney can't abide that.)
Scott Derrickson tweeted two days ago saying that he met with Orange is the New Black and Russian Doll star Natasha Lyonne about Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness. Considering he's not the director anymore, it's anyone's guess if she's actually in it, but I certainly hope so. I've loved everything she's done.
Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness
I feel there's no way this movie will be able to do justice to that title.
I feel there's no way this movie will be able to do justice to that title.
Yeah...but the awesomeness of the title is still marvelous and I'm happy just to have it.
They've been looking for actresses to play Clea, rumors including even Emma Watson (I hope not, she's too young).
This one and The Birds of Prey and the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn are my of my favorite movie titles of the last few years.
Ah, yeah, that's right. I would love to see Lyonne in that role. But I'm flexible, I would just be happy to have Lyonne in the film in whatever role.
Yup, same here. I don't care if the title is long because it shows some creativity behind the title itself. But what do I know? One of my favorite films is Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.
Similar threads
