Discussion in 'Members' Lounge' started by BrutalB83, Jul 3, 2012.
...sucked. True story!
i mean, what did you expect?
spiderman has already been done this century, they should get more imagination and stop remaking the remakes that have already been remade.
That's exactly what I expected honestly. But my friends were like "No! They're going to get it right this time! This will be the true Spidey from the comics!"...
I had zero expectations and I was still let down. lol I was going to go to another theatre and see Ted and then slip into Abraham Lincoln Vampire Slayer, but a friend works at a theatre and wanted me to go out there and see it with her.
Right. And you can tell that they were trying to "Dark Knight it up" a bit and make it darker and more serious. Ok, fine, but if you're going to do that, then maybe try to not have every line be so cheesy that it's cringe-worthy.
I thought some of the CGI sucked too honestly. I mean, really? Right after The Avengers you're going to put out a superhero movie with crappy CGI?
Was it actually a remake of the movie they just remade like 8 years ago or whatever it was??
I just assumed it was a "new" Spiderman.
It wasn't a remake. Supposed to be a new take on the story. Had some interesting plot parts but failed on execution.
It's funny how CGI is like any other billion dollar industry, they just keepmaking it as cheap as the market demands.
if youre commenting on how shitty it looks, i agree. i havent seen it or will watch it, but by the previews, it looks gross. super glossy, unlife like movements and just shitty.
wait, so what you are saying is that this movie has the same basis, core characters (or similar with just a different name), and similar plots.
but, it puts a different spin on the whole thing?
so... its a remake?
when you have a movie, called spiderman, regardless of what comes before or after, and its based on a guy that gets bitten by a spider, and follows him from first infection to wearing spandex and spraying white shit everywhere. then you make another movie that follows the same guide lines, then its a remake.
I agree with what you are saying, but "remakes" have always felt different with comic book movies. Just like how comic books themselves are remakes of the same characters from different generations of artist and writers. Remakes are so common in comic books that they don't feel like remakes. Comic book movies feel more like alternate dimensions than remakes.
It's a new take on an old character with a different story. I don't consider that a remake. A remake imo sticks to the exact same story and plots just re-shoots it. In your definition even a sequel would be a remake. And that just isn't right
Obviously you're going to get some overlap with some plot points because they're based on the same core character. It just has to be included. But Hell, there wasn't even a Mary Jane in this one.
Oh and a "new" villain as well.
This is what you'd call a "reboot". A remake is when you take an older movie, and then remake it telling the exact same story, maybe just updated for the times. It's typically done as homage to the original film. Sometimes remakes are even done shot-for-shot to resemble the original film.
A reboot isn't necessarily that. Yes, you're taking the character of Spiderman and starting his story over, but it's not a remake of what happened in the 2002 movie. Both cover Spiderman's origin, but different villain, different situations, etc. It's not an updated version of the 2002 movie, it's saying forget the 2002 movie, it never happened; this is the story.
Think of Tim Burton's Batman and Batman Begins. Both are movies covering the start of Batman's career, but you wouldn't call Batman Begins a remake, would you?
That's actually more true to the comics. In the comics he meets Gwen Stacy and that's his first girlfriend. MJ comes later.
Stilly a shitty movie though...
Right. And this one was supposed to be more true to the comics than the other trilogy so that makes sense. And further backs my argument. Thanks for taking my take on remakes and making it sound more intelligent. lol So was that a remake, or reboot of my argument?
actually, i did, and still do.
maybe its something i'll never understand about the comic book world (seeing that ive never been a comic fan)
but, to me, remakes.
The concept of a reboot isn't necessarily rooted in comics though; it's just a general term that you can apply to any piece of fiction with established canon. It was highly popularized with Batman Begins, but it's definitely not a "comic book thing". Think about Casino Royale. It's not a remake of any particular old Bond movie, but rather them saying, "You know what, fuck all this old shit. It never happened. This is the story of James Bond."
And that's how Batman Begins is as well. If it were to be a remake of Batman 89, it would then need to feature The Joker trying to poison Gotham City with "Chemical X" (Love that Joker!). And it would need to end with Batman throwing Joker off the clock tower to his death, but, ya know, it would probably star Bradley Cooper as Batman and would have lots of CGI and and shaky cam and shit because it's 2012 now.
That's the difference. Remakes don't try to innovate on the subject. They just attempt to honor and modernize some other specific previous version. Reboots however, wipe the slate clean; they give the writers, director, and actors license to tell a new story about the character in question, a story that has no obligation to adhere to any pre-existing version of the tale.
Ha, I'm not quite sure what that would fall under...
Separate names with a comma.