The Amazing new spiderman ,really ?

[T soprano]

Sorry but I just don't get it after the excellent Toby mcquire spiderman trilogy
What's the point of rebooting the whole story all over again I'm not saying the new version is bad but it's virtually the same story if the last lot of films were really bad and on the cinema about 30 years ago I'd have said yeah let's update it because the old version is so dated but it's not it was only a few years ago
Have they really run out of ideas in the good ol USA to keep remaking films
It's just the same as the BBC saying right let's do Only fools & horses all over again and use different actors and new locations what would be the point
Who would play Del Boy in the new version Danny Dyer
And James cordon as Rodney

And to think I'm missing Boardwalk empire so the kids can watch this rubbish

 

[Ali_rrr]

Didn't even bother going to watch it. Never really been bothered with the whole Spiderman thing anyway.

 

[T soprano]

Didn't even bother going to watch it. Never really been bothered with the whole Spiderman thing anyway.

To be honest it's a whole web of lies

 

[Ali_rrr]

To be honest it's a whole web of lies

I see what you did there. Very good. But this sort of superhero shit never really has bothered me. Nor with Sci-Fi. The recent Batman was the only film I've actually enjoyed. Not really enjoyed Star Wars either, some of it is good, others are alright.

 

[shaolinpunk]

The third in the original trilogy was shockingly awful.

The thing with superheroes is that there are so many different versions of the same character that they can reboot and change things so that it's still the same character but things are different (ie Gwen Stacy not MJ, webshooters that have been built by Peter Parker not organic)

 

[Acker79]

It's partly to do with retaining the rights. If they don't make a spider-man movie for a set period of time, the rights revert back to Marvel. Now that Marvel have their own studio, it would be too expensive to buy the rights again (especially with a lot of marvel film fans clamouring for spider-man to join the avengers - which can only currently happen if Marvel get the rights back or they come to an agreement with Sony).

It's also partly to do with Sam Raimi and Toby maguire not wanting to return to continue their story, and bringing in a new director who wanted to treat the story in his own way (which brings it tonally in line with the hugely successful Nolan Batman movies.

It's not bad, but part of Spider-man is his bright, colourful character, so turning him dark and moody is a little out of step. The film was good in its own right, but was trying too hard to be a spider-man version of batman.

 

[T soprano]

I agree with the above posters it's not a bad film but I can't get my head around that the story is still fresh in my mind so why am I watching another version so soon

And I'm missing Kirsten dunst
(and yes the 3rd film was a bit lame )

 

[The_Viper]

Emma Stone makes Dunst look average to poor.

 

[albion534]

The 3rd was an embarrassment to films

I didn't mind the reboot and actually thought the new 1 was second best behind Spider-Man 2

 

[TheBlueAndWhiteStrips]

[yt]Db2Ctlvw1FY[/yt]

The third was a massive pile of turd, the new one was decent enough but its summed up brilliantly in this parody.

 

[Nibble]

They do it because it is virtually guaranteed to make money because comic book geeks will watch any crap they spew out and also comic book geeks tend to have a fair amount of disposable income as they don't tend to have relationships/kids etc. This is actually all factored into potential audience figures. I watched the first of th ones that came out a few years back, thought it was dogshit and won't be bothering with them. I don't rate Superhero films anyway, only decent one in recent years has been The Dark Knight, only the first one though, 2nd two were gash gash mcgash.

 

[Tony Meolas Loan Spell]

Batman is NOT a superhero he has NO powers. Costumed vigilante is more appropriate.

 

[Tony Meolas Loan Spell]

What that film did not need was another origin story as lets face it we all know how he got his powers.

 

[Meade's Ball]

Any good hero superhero film needs a good supervillain. To have the Lizard so shitly graphicked in that last Spiderman was an embarrassment. And in all honestly was never an interesting villain anyhow. Scraping the barrel really to find a nemesis worthy of even mentioning. If a film's to make a buck though, they'll get the camera's rolling and churn out more drabbery.

 

[Nibble]

Batman is NOT a superhero he has NO powers. Costumed vigilante is more appropriate.

Comic book hero then.

 

[Meade's Ball]

Comic book hero then.

He has a super amount of money to waste and spend though. Maybe his power is to brainwash bank managers and finance ministers to fund the building of his next nuclear crab suit to beat the underwater Iranians he's to trounce in the name of guilty justice.

 

[T soprano]

Batman is NOT a superhero he has NO powers. Costumed vigilante is more appropriate.

He did have some shark spray repellent though in the 70s tv Batman that's pretty super by any stretch of the imagination

 

[Chris_Highwind]

Excellent? Spiderman 3 was terrible and the way they portrayed Venom was an insult to a brilliant comic book villain

 

[Tony Meolas Loan Spell]

He has a super amount of money to waste and spend though. Maybe his power is to brainwash bank managers and finance ministers to fund the building of his next nuclear crab suit to beat the underwater Iranians he's to trounce in the name of guilty justice.

No it was left to him by his parents

 

[Tony Meolas Loan Spell]

Comic book hero then.

Yes!