Spider-Man movie (casting, rumors, pix till release)

[Captain Craig]

Hey, if Judi Dench can be 'M' to Brosnan and a prequel Bond in Daniel Craig then I see no reason J.K.Simmons can't be JJJ yet again. If any casting in the first trilogy was spot on it was him.

 

[davejames]

I don't know, the eyes almost look like they could be like Ditko's:

I've always preferred the smaller eyes on Spidey myself. It gave him a slightly creepier, more serious look than the big giant round ones did.

 

[Trekker4747]

Wasn't Hugh Laurie supposed to be JJJ in Spider-man?

Why not use him?

 

[Admiral_Young]

^ Hugh Laurie was supposed to be Perry White in "Superman Returns".

 

[Praetor]

I still vote for Hugh Laurie, regardless.

And mechanical webshooters and narrow eyes for the win.

 

[Jack Bauer]

Hey, if Judi Dench can be 'M' to Brosnan and a prequel Bond in Daniel Craig then I see no reason J.K.Simmons can't be JJJ yet again. If any casting in the first trilogy was spot on it was him.

I agree. There's no reason to recast when they had the perfect actor. And holding one actor over from the previous films isn't that big of a deal especially after Bond did it with Judi Dench.

 

[Aragorn]

This is still TrekBBS, right? Therefore Nathan Fillion is the only possible choice for Jameson!

 

[Admiral_Young]

^ If they gave Nathan grey streaks I could see that working actually.

 

[Captaindemotion]

The footage is now up via video

http://www.superherohype.com/news/articles/114073-more-footage-from-the-spider-man-set

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

Pretty badass stunt guy, there.

 

[Shazam!]

I just saw the story about JJJ not appearing. That's too bad. Perhaps he'll be cast for the second film...perhaps my theory of an ongoing arc through the trilogy is true.

Trilogy should be a banned word.

 

[C_Miller]

^^^

Why? I'd rather have some type of planned direction rather than the third one being done blind and sucking like is always the case.

 

[Admiral_Young]

Trilogies are mentioned because the studios frankly see the potential to make mega dollars. Sometimes that doesn't happen if the trilogies in question aren't executed as well. But if you have one like the Batman trilogy that has made monster money then there is reason to consider them in the first place. They're simply a reality of modern action cinema right now.

 

[Shazam!]

Why? I'd rather have some type of planned direction rather than the third one being done blind and sucking like is always the case.

Exactly.

 

[JacksonArcher]

A closer look at the new Spider-Man suit.

Source: SuperHeroHype

 

[Captaindemotion]

^ Shiny! (Literally)

 

[C_Miller]

Why? I'd rather have some type of planned direction rather than the third one being done blind and sucking like is always the case.

Exactly.

I think you missed my point. A third movie is almost always guaranteed if the first two do well (They will), so I'd rather they planned for a third movie rather than just fly by the seat of their pants.

 

[Trekker4747]

I can't say any of these pictures are inspiring me with a lot of hope, drive, or want to see this movie.

 

[Shazam!]

A third movie is almost always guaranteed if the first two do well

And if they don't, you have all these dangling plot threads and/or an unresolved cliffhanger. The goal should always be make a decent stand alone movie and worry about your sequel later.

I just don't understand why every franchise is automatically the beginning of a trilogy despite the fact that there hasn't been a decent one for 20+ years, LOTR aside.

 

[davejames]

At first glance it certainly seems a bit... overly-stylish. Especially with all those wavy lines. But I still love that they're doing something different , and I'm sure it'll grow on me over time.