RANT - Spiderman the movie (possible spoilers)

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
S

StinkyMeat

Platinum Member
Sep 7, 2001
2,079
0
0
Let's end this shall we?

The 90's FOX cartoon, (which I am sure you are thinking of, because it had Hobgoblin, which you mistook as the same character as the Green Goblin), was a FLAWED adaptation of the comics.

The movie was almost spot-on. Aside from the web shooting.

You see the movie, compare it to the flawed cartoon, and call these discrepincies "flaws". Since all you know is the cartoon.

Read the comics. You will then appreciate the movie much more.
 
N

Nefrodite

Banned
Feb 15, 2001
7,931
0
0
<< Where was he half naked? If you mean the scene where he looks in the mirror when he first wakes up after being bit, that was him. There was lots of info buzzing around about how much he worked out for the role. >>


wrong again... >>



If you say so... I know for a fact that he did "bulk up" a lot for the movie, so IMO, that could just as easily be him. The muscles weren't that big.



they were his muscles, i've read from numerous sources how much he had to work out to get that body.
 
A

Alienwho

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2001
6,766
0
76
I loved the spiderman cartoon and the movie. I remember in the spider mancartoon when he was talking about how he figured out how to make web. When he got bit by the spider, in addition to getting all his stick to the wall and super strength powers, he suddenly knew how to make web. He just followed his spider instincts and boom he's got web cartidges.
 
B

BenAfk

Junior Member
Jan 18, 2002
22
0
0


<< arrrggghhhhhhh!!!!! whoever directed and produced this movie should be SHOT. whoever did the casting and whoever wrote the script whould have the balls cut off.

frigging eh. tobey maguire as spiderman? he is sooooo fvcking boring. anyone that grew up watching spiderman the cartoon will know exactly what i'm talking about. it sounds like he can't even remember the lines. he was probably smoking out between scenes in his trailer. i wonder how many people he had to blow to get the part. ugh. james franco as harry? c'mon... harry was a dork in the cartoon. he's suave in the movie. the hobgoblin? different costume and a different end to him. peter and mary jane? since when did things end THAT way between them? and since when does spiderman shoot the webs out of his wrists?!?!?!

and when did spiderman's mask ever rip in the cartoon? the scene between him and the goblin at the end. that was just RETARDED.

i feel sooooo cheated. whoever was in on the making of this movie probably never watched the cartoon and never read the comic. they should be shot. repeatedly.

oh yeah, and for the girls... that's not really tobey half-naked. it's a stunt double with tobey's head overlayed on it. :p >>




I enjoyed the movie but agree with most of what is said above. Why couldn't they stick with the original story? - I would have been better in my estimation. The web from his wrists was really lame. The way the Goblin was killed was also very weak. Real fans of Spiderman, will have plenty to find fault with, but I went in with a more lighthearted attitude. This movie was not going to upset me if it didn't fit the mold. I paid $7 and saw a pretty entertaining, movie with the typical hollywood
BS romance scenes (which they focused on way too much) and a few cool action sequences. This doesn't replace the Spiderman comics or cartoon for me. It was just a hollywood interpretation of a pretty cool comic character.

 
T

TuffGuy

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2000
6,478
0
76


<< << Where was he half naked? If you mean the scene where he looks in the mirror when he first wakes up after being bit, that was him. There was lots of info buzzing around about how much he worked out for the role. >>


wrong again... >>



If you say so... I know for a fact that he did "bulk up" a lot for the movie, so IMO, that could just as easily be him. The muscles weren't that big.



they were his muscles, i've read from numerous sources how much he had to work out to get that body. >>


NO... tobay maguire HIMSELF said that it was a stunt double during an interview. and that the hardest part was matching the body movements to the double's for the editing. he might's bulked up, but you can't get a body like that in a few months.
 
isildur

isildur

Golden Member
Jan 3, 2001
1,509
0
76


<< NO... tobay maguire HIMSELF said that it was a stunt double during an interview. and that the hardest part was matching the body movements to the double's for the editing. he might's bulked up, but you can't get a body like that in a few months. >>



Um...yes, yes you can.
:-\

Besides, Tobey wasn't very big at all, he was just ripped. I can link you to numerous articles/interviews with Tobey and/or about the movie where they devote time to the workout regimine/diet that he instituted prior to this movie and I can assure you that, if he worked and ate like he says he did, he could easily have obtained that look in the span of months that he dedicated to it.

I have NEVER seen ANYTHING about this editing you are talking about, nor have I every heard anything to indicate that any editing was done in that shot. Please understand that, while this is possible, you seem to be the ONE person who has ever heard of this. Please provide substantiation.
 
J

Jzero

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
18,834
1
0


<< I enjoyed the movie but agree with most of what is said above. Why couldn't they stick with the original story? >>


We have Skoorb effect, ladies and gentlemen. We have Skoorb effect.
 
N

Nefrodite

Banned
Feb 15, 2001
7,931
0
0
. The way the Goblin was killed was also very weak. Real fans of Spiderman,


why? according to how the blades went into his crotch he probably lost all reason for living anyways;)
 
N

Nefrodite

Banned
Feb 15, 2001
7,931
0
0
NO... tobay maguire HIMSELF said that it was a stunt double during an interview. and that the hardest part was matching the body movements to the double's for the editing. he might's bulked up, but you can't get a body like that in a few months.






i think your thinking of the stuntman that did some of spideys actual stunts in a suit:p his back was buffed up when he wasn't in front of the mirror flexing either. more editing? .. ithink not.
 
T

TuffGuy

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2000
6,478
0
76


<< i think your thinking of the stuntman that did some of spideys actual stunts in a suit:p his back was buffed up when he wasn't in front of the mirror flexing either. more editing? .. ithink not. >>


tobey said it during and interview on extra or access hollywood, one of those shows on nbc or cbs.
 
M

MustPost

Golden Member
May 30, 2001
1,923
0
0
The only thing that really bothered me was the webs from his wrists. I liked everything else.
 
D

Danman

Lifer
Nov 9, 1999
13,134
0
0


<< The only thing that really bothered me was the webs from his wrists. I liked everything else. >>



Me too, I was like WTF?! :confused:
 
L

LAUST

Diamond Member
Sep 13, 2000
8,957
1
81
WTF does the cartoon have to do with it Tuffguy? It's based on a comic book before any cartoon, yes there was some flaws in it but it's the best comic book superhero movie thats ever come out so far.
 
T

ttn1

Senior member
Oct 24, 2000
680
0
0
I don't particularly care about inaccuracies, but I did see things I didn't like. The scenes with Peter and MJ were just plain painful. Whether they were holding true to the comic or not, they just plain sucked. They could have removed that 20 minutes from the film and added him making web shooters. If we can believe that a kid can get powers by being bit by a spider, is it so hard to believe he would have some connection to spiders that would allow him to determine a formula for web. I think this was a major screw up by the directors and producers.

Other than that, I really liked the special effects and I thought all the actors did a pretty good job with the movie. I thought the Green Goblins costume was much more fitting for a futuristic military weapon.
 
T

TuffGuy

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2000
6,478
0
76


<< WTF does the cartoon have to do with it Tuffguy? It's based on a comic book before any cartoon, yes there was some flaws in it but it's the best comic book superhero movie thats ever come out so far. >>


because the movie is very different from the cartoon. ESPECIALLY the portrayal of peter parker and spiderman.

also, i disagree. batman was much better. heck, even x-men was better.
 
M

m2kewl

Diamond Member
Oct 7, 2001
8,263
0
0
Just saw it during my lunch break, forget the hype - it was BAD! Tobey and Kristen can not act!!!

/lucky I just lost out $7 :D
 
L

lllJRlll

Senior member
Mar 12, 2002
288
0
0


<< Just saw it during my lunch break, forget the hype - it was BAD! Tobey and Kristen can not act!!!

/lucky I just lost out $7 :D >>






You get a 2 hour lunch break?
 
Platypus

Platypus

Lifer
Apr 26, 2001
31,046
321
136


<<

<< WTF does the cartoon have to do with it Tuffguy? It's based on a comic book before any cartoon, yes there was some flaws in it but it's the best comic book superhero movie thats ever come out so far. >>


because the movie is very different from the cartoon. ESPECIALLY the portrayal of peter parker and spiderman.

also, i disagree. batman was much better. heck, even x-men was better. >>



You're still missing the point. The movie was based off of the comics, not the goddamn tv show, get it?
 
M

m2kewl

Diamond Member
Oct 7, 2001
8,263
0
0


<<

<< Just saw it during my lunch break, forget the hype - it was BAD! Tobey and Kristen can not act!!! /lucky I just lost out $7 :D >>

You get a 2 hour lunch break? >>



Today, yeah - finished all my chores, outstanding projects, network up, my boss said "WTH, go." I wasn't going to resist :D:D
 
S

StinkyMeat

Platinum Member
Sep 7, 2001
2,079
0
0


<<

<< WTF does the cartoon have to do with it Tuffguy? It's based on a comic book before any cartoon, yes there was some flaws in it but it's the best comic book superhero movie thats ever come out so far. >>


because the movie is very different from the cartoon. ESPECIALLY the portrayal of peter parker and spiderman.

also, i disagree. batman was much better. heck, even x-men was better. >>



NO. THE CARTOON WAS VERY DIFFERENT FROM THE COMIC, HENCE DIFFERENT FROM THE MOVIE. The movie was quite true to the comic. WHICH HAS BEEN IN EXISTENCE FOR OVER 30 YEARS. The cartoon is not true to the comic much at all. It is very flawed in its continuity with the comic. THE MOVIE WAS BASED ON THE COMIC BOOK. NOT THE CARTOON. END OF STORY.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom