posted
Last night, about 45 minutes into NBC's reality show, The Apprentice, a new 2 minute trailer for this summer's Spider-Man 2 movie premiered. To those of you who saw it, what did you think of it compared to the short teaser trailer that was released a few months ago?
Posts: 121 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
This proves my theory - to make good comic book movies, pick a director who knows and loves the comic. This story is basically original, not based on any particular storyline in the comic. But it's also very clearly true to the comic.
posted
Well, I wouldn't say that the movies are completely true to the comics.
First of all, in the comics, Peter's very first love interest was Gwen Stacy, not Mary Jane. I think they simply put Mary Jane in because she's the one Peter ends up marrying in the comics.
Now why would they do that?
Because, in the comics, during the Green Goblin bridge battle, Gwen Stacy falls dies.
And if they were going to put Mary Jane in instead of Gwen Stacy, they could have at least made her die instead. But they didn't. So, you see, there is a major part of the Spider-Man timeline changed right there.
The sad thing is, since comics aren't mainstream anymore, nobody really cares.
Posts: 121 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's a difference between being true to the comics and matching every detail. A monthly comic book can develop lots of long-term relationships. A series of 2-hour movies can't.
When I say true to the comic, I mean true to the essential elements of Spider-man as a myth. The guilt-born sense of responsibility. The continuing conflict between Peter the student and Peter the hero. The ability to face far stronger foes based on sheer determination.
Not trying to duplicate 35 years of continuity in 4 hours of film.
posted
These people know how to make comic book movies. You can change the details as long as you keep the concepts rock-solid.
Throwing away the spideysuit is almost iconic, especially since the image of Parker walking away from the can and the words ("Spider-Man, no more!") are straight from the cover of one of the old comics.
This is going to make another pile of money, and Halle Berry's "Catwoman" will bomb, and the moviemakers won't know why...
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's a little disappointing that they only put one villain in per movie. Venom and Carnage deserve their own movie, and hopefully Venom will be the villain the Spider-Man 3.
However, The Lizard would have made a nice side-villain in the second movie. His character Doc Connors was briefly mentioned in the first movie, so we know that his existence isn't being denied. In fact, the Lizard was actually in one of the episodes of the short-lived Spider-Man cartoon series based off the movies on MTV.
Posts: 121 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I missed the trailer! Nyaaaahhh. I was in the shower. But at least the internet is here to help me. WHEE!!!
Posts: 4816 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
I love it when they actually get it right!! It kind of gives me a lot of hope for the EG movie.
tangent BTW, what was up with Amorosa? Did I miss something, or did she just flat out lie about the phone call? I have this sneaking suspicion that "The Donald" told her to screw things up to see if Kwami would manage properly. /tangent
My nephew and I are so excited about this film. Posts: 524 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, they don't really have to set up a Venom storyline over two movies. They can simply change Venom's origin.
In the Ultimate Spider-Man comic series, which was launched in 2000, and is basically a re-telling of the story formatted for the new millennium, many story details changed. In fact, the Spidey movies have a closer resemblence to Ultimate Spider-Man than they do to Amazing Spider-Man.
Anyway, in the Ultimate series, Venom is (thankfully) still Eddie Brock. However, the origin was that the Venom costume was an experiment of Peter and Eddie's fathers used to cure cancer, and that the experiment consisted of a "suit" that has different stages.
So, Peter ends up wearing the suit for an issue and by the end, realizes it was a big mistake. Eddie, seeing Spider-Man wearing the suit on TV, makes the connection that Peter HAS to be Spidey, since they are the only two that know where the liquid that covers you with the suit is located. So Eddie becomes mad, puts on the suit, and thus, Venom is born. It was one of the highest-selling Ultimate Spider-Man story arcs and fans loved it.
So, you see, the origin of Venom and any other villain can be changed so it could all fit into one movie.
Posts: 121 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
I think they could still do venom, though. There is the escaped spider still, no? What has that spider been up to in the interim? Has it mutated further? Possibly had some contact with other chemical agents, or pesticides, or anything else that would have made it even more unnatural?
This spider could bite Eddie Brock. Maybe he could even swat and kill it as it bites, thereby mixing both the blood *and* venom of the spider into his own.
Lots of ways to bring in Venom - different circumstances, but the same essential character.
Edit: Okay, not the same. But I think it could be pulled off. Would the fans go crazy because of the changes? Yeah. But, it might be interesting to see.
posted
As movies try for the biggest, baddest, most bad guys, they just get more and more boring. Trying to stick in more villains or trying to change them so they'd be more powerful would be just missing the point.
But yeah, that's some awesome trailerage.
Posts: 3636 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't like it when they try to shove too many villains into the movie, it doesn't provide enough screen time for the important elements. For proof, I offer the last Batman movie...
Part of the reason is because there are already other conflicts in the movie for Parker to face. MJ getting married, Aut May having money troubles, Harry... just being Harry, trying to keep up with school and work and the pressure, all of that makes for much more interesting developments than seeing if they could cram Rhino in there somewhere.
Follow the lesson of the first movie. Peter's enemies are one costumed bad guy, and Real Life.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, putting a bunch of characters in one comic book movie has turned out very well for the X-men series. X2: X-men United, while it isn't exactly the box-office chart topper Spider-Man was, is still among my favorite comic book movies, and I am highly anticipating the sequel in 2006.
As for Spider-Man, two villains in one movie couldn't hurt that much, could it?
posted
Interesting Venom origin. Is there any sense of the symbiotic relationship remaining, where one half loves Spider-man and one half hates him? That was what I always thought made Venom particularly interesting.
posted
No, I'm afraid that in Ultimate Spider-Man, it apparently seems like Eddie has full control over the suit. He himself sets out to kill Peter, although there was some major discomfort when the suit was devouring Eddie. The suit doesn't really have a mind of its own in the Ultimate series.
In fact, the storyline that was presented was more about Peter finding out about his late father's research and what let to the failure of it than it was about Eddie. Venom himself doesn't really appear until the last two issues, which is really stupid, because all but one of the covers of the issues in the story arc featured him.
The final battle, in which Peter fights Venom, (which was very unique, because Peter didn't even wear the Spider-Man costume) resulted in Venom getting shocked by...I think it was a telephone pole. Venom then disappears.
Peter than consults Agent Nick Fury of S.H.I.E.L.D. about what happened. Nick Fury says that if there's no corpse, you should never assume that anyone's dead. At the end of the issue, Peter feels like someone has been following him, giving you the feeling that Eddie is still out there.
There is upcoming storyline in Ultimate Spider-Man featuring the first appearance of Carnage, and I'm hoping to see Venom return there.
Posts: 121 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are a bunch of characters in the Spider-Man movies. His family, his friends, his workplace. But he's always been a solitary character, where the X-Men was obviously a team book from the get-go.
I'm not saying that a good director couldn't use more than one bad guy and make it entertaining, only that I'd rather see more focus, the way they seem to be doing.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Spider-Man has been known to work as a team with others. Black Cat was once considered his partner/side-kick.
As for the Ultimate series Venom using camoflauge abilities, I'm afraid that they haven't been seen yet, but that is a great explanation for his sudden disappearance.
Posts: 121 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dagonee - don't think so. From what I recall it was intended to heal whomever wore it of cancer and other nastiness, and increase their strength and abilities. The sample that Parker accidentally got on him was made with his own father's DNA so it grafted to Pete without much hassle. He wore it briefly until he realized it was making him more savage, then he destroyed it. Eddie Brock realized who Spider-Man was, confronted Parker, then went and got the half of the sample he hadn't told Pete about. Since his DNA didn't match close enough, the transformation was a bit more extreme and may have helped drive him bonkers. Presumably, since the sample he used had had no contact with Peter, the fact that he had webbing was probably due to Eddie's mind supplying details.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Aeroth - for a whole, what, five issues maybe? He's also been in the Avengers, helped out the FF, and other groups, but always temporarily. He's just not really a team guy.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
(And yes, this sort of thing does bring out my geek side, which can be a huge surprise to anyone who didn't know I could get even geekier...)
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really liked this 2 min trailer but I was afraid it was Movie in a Minute. We basically know the whole plot now.
I much prefered the teaser trailer. It summed up the movie without giving anything away. From the teaser we know "Hey, it's got romance and a cyborg-octopus guy throwing cars!" Plus we get so sucked into Mary Jane's close up and what she's saying that the car stunt comes off as a very intense surprise.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I never read the comic books, so I have no opinion on the film's accuracy, but I loved the first movie. I will most definitely see this opening day, which is unusual for me. Of course, maybe the reason is more because Kirsten Dunst is WAY hot than because I think it's going to be the best movie of the year (though it may end up being that, too.)
Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only thing I can complain about the first movie is the fact that Peter Parker has organic webbing shooting straight from his wrists instead of from his web shooters...they took away his greatest weakness. I mean they can make some pretty suspensful moments where his webbing runs out or something.
Posts: 52 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
Its far easier to suspend your belief in comics than in movies. I think taking away the mechanical webshooters was one of the smartest things they did. Having him be a super genius who created that would have been lame. We accept it in the comics because we have always read them that way, and it was that way before we were even born in most cases.
But while I liked the first movie, I never loved it. It was good, and extremely faithful. Those who think that they weren't, is a nip-picker who has no concept of how to make a good movie. Of course Mary Jane is the love interest. To have them both be meaningful characters we would need about 15 movies. That said, it never really connected with me that deeply.
On the other hand, this trailor is perhaps the best I have ever seen, bar none. Looks incredible I think . Doc Ock was always sort of a lame character I thought, but I do think he looks like a cool one in this movie.
posted
I was looking very forward to this movie until I first saw their adaptation of Doc Oc. It's pathetic, only four arms and he doesn't have any of the other augmentations.
Posts: 369 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
Can't wait to see it........on dvd. June 30th!!!!! Whaaaaaaaaa . I won't be able to see it at a theatre . In fact I will be many many miles away from one . My only hope is that the ship gets a copy and plays it either on site tv or projects it in the hangar bay.
Hope you all like it. I will have to wait and see what happens.
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I was looking very forward to this movie until I first saw their adaptation of Doc Oc. It's pathetic, only four arms and he doesn't have any of the other augmentations.
*sarcasm detector malfunction*
So just in case - Doc Ock only had 4 mechanical arms. Octo = 8 = 2 arms + 2 legs + 4 tentacles.
I've never read the comics, so for once I can get totally caught up in a cool adaptation without the running mental commentary of what they did different.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
But at least the internet is here to help me. WHEE!!!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
. In fact I will be many many miles away from one ![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
. My only hope is that the ship gets a copy and plays it either on site tv or projects it in the hangar bay.
