"Spider-Man" reboot is bound to fail!!!

As one of those who wasen't supportive about a "Spider-Man" reboot I knew somewhere around the line that Sony was going to screw this up! First they have Marc Webb the director of a romantic-comedy film titled "500 Days of Summer" to direct the film and now we hear that the Lizard and Proto-Goblin are the villains in the reboot!

I mean really??! Do I even need to say more?

I think its far to early to say film will fail. Wd don't know what the story is. And filming is just starting up. I would wait to judge the film once we got details, footage and photos. Heck the whole proto goblin thing could be signs oscorp/osborn could be in the film and lead to set up for goblin in a future sequel.

Comicbookfan-V2 wrote:As one of those who wasen't supportive about a "Spider-Man" reboot I knew somewhere around the line that Sony was going to screw this up!
First they have Marc Webb the director of a romantic-comedy film titled "500 Days of Summer" to direct the film and now we here that the Lizard and Proto-Goblin are the villains in the reboot!

I mean really??! Do I even need to say more?

I've been anything but supportive of the reboot myself but I've yet to hear anything that really turns me off. If a director can't change up his style to suit the material at hand, he's not a director. Before STM, Richard Donner directed the Omen. Before Spider-Man, Raimi did the Evil Dead movies. Before Batman, Tim Burton did Pee Wee's Big Adventure.

I'm not letting anybody off the hook for anything. I don't care what anybody says, this is a wholly unnecessary reboot. Period, end of story. That said, I think it's way too early to freak out.

And just for contrast, I'm nowhere near as upbeat about the Superman reboot.

webhead2006 wrote:Heck the whole proto goblin thing could be signs oscorp/osborn could be in the film and lead to set up for goblin in a future sequel.

But why use villains that anybody barely heard of rather than using villains that most people DO heard of or better yet... Why not use A-list villains like most comic based films do?

thecolorsblend wrote:I've been anything but supportive of the reboot myself but I've yet to hear anything that really turns me off. If a director can't change up his style to suit the material at hand, he's not a director. Before STM, Richard Donner directed the Omen. Before Spider-Man, Raimi did the Evil Dead movies. Before Batman, Tim Burton did Pee Wee's Big Adventure.

Well, in Raimi's defense, The Evil Dead movies, and especially Army of Darkness, were action-heavy films with a lot of humor. Two things needed for Spider-Man.

On the opposite end, Fox tapped Tim Story to direct the Fantastic Four films after his laugh-deficient crapfest Taxi.

We all know how THOSE turned out....

I'm not letting anybody off the hook for anything. I don't care what anybody says, this is a wholly unnecessary reboot. Period, end of story. That said, I think it's way too early to freak out.

And just for contrast, I'm nowhere near as upbeat about the Superman reboot.

The super-skinny lead is my biggest concern. From the way he is talking, he didn't do ANY type of weight training for the role.

And that's not good.

Well we still have lizarrd who is a pretty known/popular villain. Going with the van adder guy they probably want to have some smaller minor guys thrown in too. Plus heck we don't even know how said character is being used. For all we know he could just be van adder and working scienist and not turn into a villain. So to just be there for the comic fans. Or to help build up to future story like green goblin and the goblin legacy.

As for andrew I am sure he probably did some weight training and all that. Plus if he is indeed playing teenage peter he doesn't need to be so jacked up. Since teen spidey was much smaller in size then his adult self. More so if they are taking some ques from ultimate.

Comicbookfan-V2 wrote:But why use villains that anybody barely heard of rather than using villains that most people DO heard of or better yet... Why not use A-list villains like most comic based films do?

Um, were Ra's al-Ghul and Scarecrow A-listers before BB came along? Well-known and well-regarded, to be sure, but I suspect most people heard the news about them headlining BB and thought "hum... interesting choices, those".

On top of that, the Raimiverse tackled a lot of popular villains. I can't fault Webb for not wanting to directly compete against those films any more than he has to. In his shoes, I can't say I'd make different choices.

Apologist Puncher wrote:Well, in Raimi's defense,

Pause. I wasn't criticizing the dude. Just so we're clear.

The Evil Dead movies, and especially Army of Darkness, were action-heavy films with a lot of humor. Two things needed for Spider-Man.

No argument from me.

On the opposite end, Fox tapped Tim Story to direct the Fantastic Four films after his laugh-deficient crapfest Taxi.

We all know how THOSE turned out....

I'm not a huge FF expert or anything but I didn't see anything in either FF flick that really jumped out at me as being a major departure from what we saw in the comics. If someone more knowledgeable about the FF (probably not hard to find such a person) has a different reference point, I'll be more than happy to listen though.

Apologist Puncher wrote:The super-skinny lead is my biggest concern. From the way he is talking, he didn't do ANY type of weight training for the role.

And that's not good.

Definitely not good if it is true. But I mostly come from the McFarlane/Larsen/Bagley school of Spider-Man where he's lean but powerful. To your point though, Spidey ought to be cut like Bruce Lee... but still passive more than massive.

webhead2006 wrote:As for andrew I am sure he probably did some weight training and all that.

What EXACTLY do you base this "sure" comment on? Anything at all, or just you talking out of your ass again?

Let me quote the actor himself:

“I heard some people are saying I’m lacking the muscles to be Spider-Man. But the thing Spidey is as skinny as me. He’s not Arnold Schwarzenegger!”

webhead2006 wrote:Plus if he is indeed playing teenage peter he doesn't need to be so jacked up. Since teen spidey was much smaller in size then his adult self. More so if they are taking some ques from ultimate.

Who said ANYTHING about him being "jacked up"?? I fucking HATE when people read a comment and go from zero to stupid with their replies.

Tobey Maguire was NOT "jacked up", but even HE has more muscle than the current guy. Here's a tip, since you obviously don't lift weights:

Just because you weight lift doesn't mean you are going to get "jacked up".

thecolorsblend wrote:Pause. I wasn't criticizing the dude. Just so we're clear.

I understand that, but I was pointing out that the situation isn't quite the same with the director for the reboot and Sam Raimi.

No argument from me.

Smart man.

I'm not a huge FF expert or anything but I didn't see anything in either FF flick that really jumped out at me as being a major departure from what we saw in the comics. If someone more knowledgeable about the FF (probably not hard to find such a person) has a different reference point, I'll be more than happy to listen though.

No FF expert here, I was referring to the films themselves.

They sucked.

Definitely not good if it is true. But I mostly come from the McFarlane/Larsen/Bagley school of Spider-Man where he's lean but powerful. To your point though, Spidey ought to be cut like Bruce Lee... but still passive more than massive.

Exactly. Not some super-skinny kid with fake muscles in the suit.

Ap i was just trying to say that he probably did some training/weight work to put on a little muscle. I didnt mean to say that he did. I was just saying he might have if he wanted to or the studio wanted him to. I didnt mean to sound like i 100% sure he did.

Though speaking of garfield size i decided to do some image searching to see if i could find any real recent photos of him compared to when he was first signed on back in july. I did find a photo from sept and oct, but given both are still a few months old he could be slighty different. Though i dont think anything is wrong with his look.

webhead2006 wrote:Ap i was just trying to say that he probably did some training/weight work to put on a little muscle. I didnt mean to say that he did. I was just saying he might have if he wanted to or the studio wanted him to. I didnt mean to sound like i 100% sure he did.

And I asked what could POSSIBLY infer that he did weight-training of ANY KIND?

Still waiting.

Though speaking of garfield size i decided to do some image searching to see if i could find any real recent photos of him compared to when he was first signed on back in july. I did find a photo from sept and oct, but given both are still a few months old he could be slighty different.

Looks exactly the same in both.

Though i dont think anything is wrong with his look.

And as I said, I DO.

Your opinion holds no more weight than anyone else's here. Try countering with some facts for once, instead of pissing people off with your assumptions and "think so"'s.

Ok ap