Well, we've been having a lot of superheroes, zombies, and vampires in the last few years. I think it's time to get back to movies about space...or possibly dinosaurs.
Spider-Man movie (casting, rumors, pix till release)
- Thread starter Turtletrekker
- Start date
Well, we've been having a lot of superheroes, zombies, and vampires in the last few years. I think it's time to get back to movies about space...or possibly dinosaurs.
I disagree to a certain extent. I think films like "First Class" and "Captain America" show that there's always room for a well done superhero movie. The problem is going to the well too often and, in some cases (including this Spiderman movie), rebooting the same characters over and over.
"Getting back" isn't I think what Dennis was meaning though...at least I think that isn't what he meant. I'm assuming he was talking about the next big fad in hollywood. I'm not really sure what that is right now though. Superhero films are going to be like any other film IMO hit or miss depending on your own views of it and how it was made.
I'd agree if I thought "First Class" was a well done superhero movie.
Unfortunately, I thought it was a steaming pile of shit.
Well, I'm not going to speak for him but here are some reasons.
1 It's a mistake making Erik's adversary a mutant. The whole point of his arc is that he against human movements that judge mutants, which is why his first few scenes in the Nazi camps as a victim of that experiment worked. But he is not anti-mutant so why make his adversary a mutant, let alone an uber-powerful mutant.
2. You don't need to connect the dots and tell us how Charles was paralyzed in this film. It was tacked on for the benefit of a "stupid audience's benefit.'
3. Mystique was better as a mysterious assassin type in the original films. Showing her as a child looked silly and took the mystery out of the character.
4. The girl that flies (forgot her name) looked damn silly.
5 The film's structure was wrong. The training montage came in the LAST REEL of the film. I think that the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Mutants revealing themselves to stop a war should have been the climax of act one or act two, not the climax of the film.
thats for starters.
1 It's a mistake making Erik's adversary a mutant. The whole point of his arc is that he against human movements that judge mutants, which is why his first few scenes in the Nazi camps as a victim of that experiment worked. But he is not anti-mutant so why make his adversary a mutant, let alone an uber-powerful mutant.
2. You don't need to connect the dots and tell us how Charles was paralyzed in this film. It was tacked on for the benefit of a "stupid audience's benefit.'
3. Mystique was better as a mysterious assassin type in the original films. Showing her as a child looked silly and took the mystery out of the character.
4. The girl that flies (forgot her name) looked damn silly.
5 The film's structure was wrong. The training montage came in the LAST REEL of the film. I think that the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Mutants revealing themselves to stop a war should have been the climax of act one or act two, not the climax of the film.
thats for starters.
Last edited:
All of those points made (except for #4) I can easily say why they worked for me.
The problem here isn't the aggregate saying "superhero movies are done, move on", it's the individuals saying "I personally hate what they're giving us, who cares if others are enjoying them, let's move on."
Instead of "I've personally grown past this, I'll be moving on, hope you keep enjoying what's out there, we'll touch base later!"
Exactly like what I'm doing with the next Spidey movie. I'm not interested, so I probably won't see it (unless the reviews are outstanding). But it's pretty selfish of me to say to stop making all superhero movies in general because I'm not interested in some of them.
Generally speaking, when someone starts a trend, the market then gets flooded with things that fit that trend. The more that happens, the more quality tends to suffer.
I would rather somebody make a superhero movie because they think they can make a really awesome superhero movie, not because superhero movies happen to be popular right now and they think they can cash in.
I would rather somebody make a superhero movie because they think they can make a really awesome superhero movie, not because superhero movies happen to be popular right now and they think they can cash in.
^Honestly, I think alot of the people involved think they can make an awesome superhero movie, it's just that they don't have the talent to pull it off. The studios on the other hand..... yeah, I won't deny alot of them are probably just trying to cash in. Then again that's probably the studio people's motivation for pretty much every action they take.
I have no interest in persuading anybody. Believe it or not, I am perfectly content to let people have their own opinions, even if they're different from mine.
Crazy concept, huh?
For me, what they're doing with this one seems to be different enough that I'm willing to give it a chance. If they had gone back to Green Goblin and MJ for the love interest and villain I probably wouldn't plan on seeing it, but since they have a different villain and love interest, and seem to be going for a very different tone I'm pretty sure I'm gonna end up seeing it, unless it gets a horrible reaction from the critics and here.
