• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sony Spider-Verse discussion thread

theenglish said:
Iron Man was even praised by Salman Rushdie. Not only was it good, but it was written in a way that it was accessible to people who didn't have any idea about the character.
Click to expand...

It's barely written at all. The bulk of the dialogue and character business was ad-libbed by the cast. Look at the overall plot of Iron Man, and it's a routine, uninspired, by-the-numbers superhero origin story. What makes it work is that the very basic plot is just a framework for a bunch of brilliant actors to do improv theater.
 
Christopher said:
The bulk of the dialogue and character business was ad-libbed by the cast.
Click to expand...
That's not true at all. The shooting script is very close to the final film for the most part (although it does skew towards the deleted scenes and alternate climax, which is to be expected).

The final film is by all accounts hugely influenced by the rehearsals. Much of that work obviously ended up in the script, which is kinda the point. And there's probably a bunch of bits and pieces in the final film which were either improv or altered too late to make it into the script. There are definitely quips in the script that are different in the film.

But there is also a huge amount of the finished film in the script.

But the bulk of it ad-libbed? No way.

[Edited to remove redundancy. I accidentally repeated myself]
 
Last edited:
Tosk said:
The final film is by all accounts hugely influenced by the rehearsals. Much of that work obviously ended up in the script, which is kinda the point.
Click to expand...

That's what I meant, though I concede I could've made it clearer. Obviously "ad-libbing" in a feature film does not mean they just pointed the camera and printed the first take of whatever was made up on the spot, because that's not how filmmaking works. It means the actors and director worked out the business among themselves in rehearsals and then wrote it down and filmed it. The script followed what the cast and director came up with collaboratively, rather than the cast faithfully following what was written in a pre-existing script.
 
Gaith said:
Like it or not, critics are movie experts, and, quite frankly, the last thing society needs these days is more rich-ass executives trashing on experts.
Click to expand...
john-jonah-jameson-lol.gif
 
Watched Kraven today. Not great. Better than Morbius and Madame Web, but that's putting it very politely. The Venom movies are the best of this bad bunch.
Russell Crowe would have made an excellent Kraven 20 years ago.
 
Last edited:
Christopher said:
Obviously "ad-libbing" in a feature film does not mean they just pointed the camera and printed the first take of whatever was made up on the spot, because that's not how filmmaking works.
Click to expand...

Ghostbusters.jpg

"Whaddya mean? That's exactly how we made our movie!"

:p


Meanwhile, professional film critic Dan Murrell goes there on Vinciquerra's comments: "I think this is a microcosm of why so many people are turning against CEOs across all industries, not just the entertainment industry, and it boils down to a lack of accountability [...] I'm not just talking Luigi situations."

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
Christopher said:
That's what I meant, though I concede I could've made it clearer. Obviously "ad-libbing" in a feature film does not mean they just pointed the camera and printed the first take of whatever was made up on the spot, because that's not how filmmaking works. It means the actors and director worked out the business among themselves in rehearsals and then wrote it down and filmed it. The script followed what the cast and director came up with collaboratively, rather than the cast faithfully following what was written in a pre-existing script.
Click to expand...
That's not how ad-libbing works, if it's scripted then it's not ad-libbed. If something is ad-libbed that means they made it up right there and it was not in the script.
 
JD said:
That's not how ad-libbing works, if it's scripted then it's not ad-libbed. If something is ad-libbed that means they made it up right there and it was not in the script.
Click to expand...

Filmmaking is not a one-step process. Most of the dialogue and character banter were developed by the actors and director in rehearsals, which was essentially an improvisational process at that point, but they wrote down the best improvs and kept them for the final film. Which is very different from the way it usually works, where the screenwriters come up with the dialogue and the actors just memorize and deliver what's in the script, at most making subtler adjustments in dialogue along the way.

And all this petty nitpicking over word choice is missing the actual point, which is that what made Iron Man succeed was not its cliched, by-the-numbers origin-story plot, but the highly entertaining character interplay and dialogue for which the plot was just a framework. Insofar as the plot works, it does so by staying out of the way of the actors doing their work brilliantly. So it wasn't the concept that made the movie a hit, but the execution.
 
I do agree about the cast and performances being the things that made Iron Man so great, and I think it's a big part of why so many other origin story movies have failed. So many of the origin stories are similar, that you really need to find a way to tell it that feels different, and a lot of movies have struggled to do that.
 
Christopher said:
So it wasn't the concept that made the movie a hit, but the execution.
Click to expand...

It would be a mistake to count out the key factor of the movie as a patriotic, feel-good actioner inspired by 9/11 and the Afghanistan/Iraq wars that a wide swath of Americans could get behind. We Yanks love to reflect our history and struggles on the big screen, but the 9/11 attacks were a painful memory, the overthrow of the Taliban was bogged down by intractable opposition and the fact that Bin Laden had disappeared, and Iraq was big old mess almost from the start. (Heck, it wasn't until 2011's Transformers 3 and 2012's The Avengers that blockbusters even started to feel comfortable demolishing American skyscrapers in purely fiction stories again.)

Iron Man gained contemporary relevance from Tony's capture in Afghanistan, and the Ten Rings, while obviously heavily modeled on the Taliban, didn't shout religious slogans or even anti-American rhetoric at all, IIRC, thus effectively muting any potential "problematic" political concerns. And then the main villain turned out to be an American CEO, an apolitical target no one objects to. Moreover, at a time when America had overwhelming technological superiority and firepower in its conflicts overseas, but to no apparent tactical advantage, Marvel provided a fantasy of a high-tech weapon (sorry, "highly advanced prosthesis") that did effectively and quickly neutralize enemy combatants, while thoughtfully sparing civilians.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Compare the movie to Green Lantern, in which the hero is a military test/fighter pilot, but aerial dogfights hadn't been a thing since the Korean War, and he never ventured outside the US except for jaunts to space (I think - I never saw it). That movie, in short, also had a "cliched, by-the-numbers origin-story plot," but none of Iron Man's contemporary relevance. (Nor, for that matter, did any other superhero movie, or even action movie in general, really, until 2013's Lone Survivor and 2014's American Sniper.)

In short, I agree that IM1's cast chemistry and rehearsed zingers was that movie's biggest draw, but one shouldn't count out the appeal of its core concept.
 
Tosk said:
That's not true at all. The shooting script is very close to the final film for the most part (although it does skew towards the deleted scenes and alternate climax, which is to be expected).

The final film is by all accounts hugely influenced by the rehearsals. Much of that work obviously ended up in the script, which is kinda the point. And there's probably a bunch of bits and pieces in the final film which were either improv or altered too late to make it into the script. There are definitely quips in the script that are different in the film.

But there is also a huge amount of the finished film in the script.

But the bulk of it ad-libbed? No way.

[Edited to remove redundancy. I accidentally repeated myself]
Click to expand...

Thanks for that response to Christopher. I'd like to add that what he calls " a routine, uninspired, by-the-numbers superhero origin story" is also pretty true to the classic hero's journey from Joseph Campbell's work. Yes, it is a story that is thousands of years old, which is why people relate to it. It is the acting, the snappy dialogue, and action scenes that make it engaging in a way that the Fantastic Four movie released around the same time was not. It's key factor though is that the plot was so simple and straight forward that the casual viewer didn't even have to have heard about Iron Man prior to seeing the film in order to enjoy it. The First Avenger and Thor also approached their scripts with a "no previous knowledge needed" approach and that really worked for the MCU all the way up through Endgame. Then, many projects that came afterward required a previous knowledge of the characters--and I can understand why they casual viewer felt fatigued by that.

As Stan Lee said, every comic book is someone's first comic book and needs to be scripted with that in mind. The same goes for the MCU.
 
From Gaith: Iron Man gained contemporary relevance from Tony's capture in Afghanistan, and the Ten Rings, while obviously heavily modeled on the Taliban, didn't shout religious slogans or even anti-American rhetoric at all, IIRC, thus effectively muting any potential "problematic" political concerns. And then the main villain turned out to be an American CEO, an apolitical target no one objects to. Moreover, at a time when America had overwhelming technological superiority and firepower in its conflicts overseas, but to no apparent tactical advantage, Marvel provided a fantasy of a high-tech weapon (sorry, "highly advanced prosthesis") that did effectively and quickly neutralize enemy combatants, while thoughtfully sparing civilians.
Click to expand...

I think you've got a strong point here. This is what makes the Marvel Comics sliding timeline so successful. Tony has gone from having origins in the cold war era to Vietnam and beyond. (I don't really know the details as I haven't read the comics) and there are many Marvel characters whose origins update over the decades to reflect the current moment. With that strategy, the characters are able to maintain relevance with respect to current events, while still remaining true to the spirit of their origins.
 
Captaindemotion said:
Andrew Garfield denies that he’s going to be in Spider-Man 4 but also acknowledges that after his vehement denials that he’d be in NWH nobody is likely to believe him.
variety.com

Andrew Garfield Says ‘Spider-Man 4’ Casting Reports Are Not True: ‘But I Know No One’s Gonna Trust Anything I Say From Now on’

Andrew Garfield says he is not signed on to star in Marvel's "Spider-Man 4," although he knows no one is going to believe him.
variety.com variety.com
Click to expand...
Well, we'll see.

I definitely welcome him back....i thought his movies were SOny's lame attmept to keep a cash cow...but feel he really redeemed his character in No Way Home, and would be happy to see him back in any capacity.

But if he doesn't show up, I will be OK.
 
Let Tom Holland's Spider-man stand on his own. He's never been able to stand on his own

Homecoming- Stark
Far From Home- S.H.I.E.L.D
No way home- Cameo city

If Spider-man 4 is another cameo filled outing then that's just going to fall into the hands of Cinema Sins

"Watch Spider-man spend on his own for two minutes before Sony and Marvel dump 10 cameos into the new movie"
 
Samurai8472 said:
Let Tom Holland's Spider-man stand on his own. He's never been able to stand on his own

Homecoming- Stark
Far From Home- S.H.I.E.L.D
No way home- Cameo city

If Spider-man 4 is another cameo filled outing then that's just going to fall into the hands of Cinema Sins

"Watch Spider-man spend on his own for two minutes before Sony and Marvel dump 10 cameos into the new movie"
Click to expand...

As someone who considers Homecoming and Far from Home to be two of the worst MCU movies, I completely disagree. Bring in every Spider-Man they can, including surviving voice actors. Neil Patrick Harris could literally only make things better, for example. Anything to make sure I never have to see a two hour film only featuring MCU Spider-Man by himself ever again.

To be clear I like Tom Holland's Spider-man well enough, but I HATE his supporting cast and teenager BS so NWH was absolutely amazing compared to the first two movies, and a very solid film on its own. We have reached the point where they can't keep pretending that Holland is a High Schooler, but I know they're going to un-mindwipe the terrible supporting cast, so having the better Spider-Men there would keep the supporting casts screentime to a minimum, just like in NWH.
 
kirk55555 said:
As someone who considers Homecoming and Far from Home to be two of the worst MCU movies, I completely disagree. Bring in every Spider-Man they can, including surviving voice actors. Neil Patrick Harris could literally only make things better, for example. Anything to make sure I never have to see a two hour film only featuring MCU Spider-Man by himself ever again.

To be clear I like Tom Holland's Spider-man well enough, but I HATE his supporting cast and teenager BS so NWH was absolutely amazing compared to the first two movies, and a very solid film on its own. We have reached the point where they can't keep pretending that Holland is a High Schooler, but I know they're going to un-mindwipe the terrible supporting cast, so having the better Spider-Men there would keep the supporting casts screentime to a minimum, just like in NWH.
Click to expand...
My daughters, who are actual teenagers, really like the Holand movies, including supporting cast.

As a dad, i definitley see those films as really vibing with the next generation and a good representation of them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top