Sequels and Prequels and Remakes, Oh My! (Upcoming Films)

[Reply #160 on:]

I'm torn. My basic instincts are sharing your excitement but then I'm also very aware that the Farrellys haven't made a good film in over 10 years and that Jim Carrey is only returning because his career recently died on its arse and so this has to be a project born out of complete desperation that has a very good chance of sucking because I don't trust the Farrelly's to make good films any more.

But yeah, I'm excited.

[Reply #161 on:]

With the Farrellys on board, we know it's impossible for it to suck as much as Dumb and Dumberer: When Harry Met Lloyd.

[Reply #162 on:]

Well yeah. It's impossible for it to suck as much as WWII too, but that doesn't mean it's going to be a good film.

[Reply #163 on:]

Dumb and Dumber 2 confirmed!

Jim Carrey, Jeff Daniels and the Farrelly Brothers are on board, BEYOND excited!

That happened because I finally got round to watching it yesterday.

[Reply #164 on:]

Well yeah. It's impossible for it to suck as much as WWII too, but that doesn't mean it's going to be a good film.

WWII didn't suck.  Sure, it was not as great a build up as WWI, but man it was awesome.

[Reply #165 on:]

You only like it because for a while your country was run by Germans.

[Reply #166 on:]

It wasn't.  Learn history.

[Reply #167 on:]

Puppet governments count.

[Reply #168 on:]

Well Nick Clegg is either a hand puppet... or being worn like a hand puppet. 

[Reply #169 on:]

Worst movie idea ever.

[Reply #170 on:]

It's actually based on a book that I've been told is good. Never read it so I can't say but it definitely isn't made to be serious.

[Reply #171 on:]

I saw that trailer a few weeks ago. I knew it wasn't meant to be serious. To be honest, I think it's pretty kickass! But, will I see this? Probably not.

[Reply #172 on:]

Yeah, this movie would pretty much HAVE to poke fun at itself.

On the other hand...

YOUR EVIL SIMULATED VAMPIRE-HUNTING LINCOLN IS BACK!

[Reply #173 on:]

I was somewhat looking forwards to it before the trailer came out. Back when I assumed it was a comedy.

The trailer's just so... boring. It does look kind of crap but I mean... I'll hold judgment for now.

[Reply #174 on:]

The movie Ted looks worse than cancer. I thought it was an April fools joke at first.

[Reply #175 on:]

I'm glad that I'm not the only one who sees no humor in that film whatsoever. It should really be called "Peter Griffin the Bear Mascot Goes on a Stupid Pot Adventure with his Owner" or something ridiculous. I mean, the concept may have some sorta... value? to it but I'm just not digging it. But then I'm biased against Seth's work in general so it certainly doesn't help. I'll just pretend it doesn't exist by thinking about the Spiderman reboot.

[Reply #176 on:]

Not so keen on the new Spider-Man movie. Just not feeling it...

Never understood why people bashed the Raimi trilogy, they were awesome... This new film has nothing on them. I mean, the Lizard looks kind of crappy...

I do like Spidey's new costume though. And how the web comes out of those metal thingies he puts on like in the comics, not out of his wrists like in the Raimi movies...

[Reply #177 on:]

Never understood why people bashed the Raimi trilogy, they were awesome... This new film has nothing on them. I mean, the Lizard looks kind of crappy...

I liked the Raimi trilogy too, a lot. The third wasn't the greatest, but it was still good. All of them were some of the best superhero movies. Fuck the reboot...

[Reply #178 on:]

I found the 3rd to be the best one.

It combined Sandman, Venom, Harry as the "New Goblin", the Symbiote and Peter's dark side coming out, without feeling to messy or hard to follow. Epic.

[Reply #179 on:]

I liked Sandman, and Harry as the New Goblin, but the Venom thing seemed too shoehorned in to me. It was a bit overkill. Still, I liked the movie overall and it was even quite funny in places...

[Reply #180 on:]

One thing I don't think I can forgive though: Peter's walking/smug scene. Oh God...

[Reply #181 on:]

It was bad, but it was funny bad...

[Reply #182 on:]

On a random side-note, I remember watching a funny parody of the movie on YouTube, where the guy who made it basically replaced items in the movie with other stuff, and the scene after Peter tells Aunt May that he's going to marry Mary Jane and she holds up the ring Uncle Ben gave her, the guy replaces it with a condom.

[Reply #183 on:]

I'm glad that I'm not the only one who sees no humor in that film whatsoever. It should really be called "Peter Griffin the Bear Mascot Goes on a Stupid Pot Adventure with his Owner" or something ridiculous. I mean, the concept may have some sorta... value? to it but I'm just not digging it. But then I'm biased against Seth's work in general so it certainly doesn't help. I'll just pretend it doesn't exist by thinking about the Spiderman reboot.

I don't find the trailers hugely funny, but it strikes me as a film with a sense of humour like Superbad where you can't really take bits out of context and expect them to work - plus it's easier to just pander to the people who find a bear doing drugs funny.

I still have high hopes for the film despite the trailer not being great and I suppose it's partly because the concept is great.

Never understood why people bashed the Raimi trilogy, they were awesome... This new film has nothing on them. I mean, the Lizard looks kind of crappy...

I do like Spidey's new costume though. And how the web comes out of those metal thingies he puts on like in the comics, not out of his wrists like in the Raimi movies...

What are you talking about? Making the web an organic part of Spidey is the best thing that Sam Raimi did for the franchise.

Still, I agree that even if this new film does end up being good, it won't be half as good as Raimi's films which were just so energetic and fun. Almost every scene has some cool little bit of "movie magic" in play, be it the camera on its side as Tobey McGuire climbs up the wall or him catching all of those objects on the lunch tray as they fell with the aid of some sticky coatings.

I found the 3rd to be the best one.

It combined Sandman, Venom, Harry as the "New Goblin", the Symbiote and Peter's dark side coming out, without feeling to messy or hard to follow. Epic.

Let's not get crazy. I, too, like the third one, but it's a messy film; self-indulgent at times and pandering to fans at others. Sandman isn't developed enough to really work or care about, Venom is used spectacularly badly and we've already seen the goblin enough in the franchise, surely.

The 2nd film is the best, hands down.

One thing I don't think I can forgive though: Peter's walking/smug scene. Oh God...

See, I love this bit. It's another scene that falls into the self-indulgent category, but it was basically just Raimi taking the piss. Maybe it's just because I "get" his sense of humour, being such a huge fan of The Evil Dead trilogy, but I found it hilarious and I can guarantee you that it was intended to be funny.
It made sense to me, anyway. Peter Parker is a little goody two-shoes. His dark side shouldn't be anything more than an emo prick. He doesn't have it in him to go out and murder people, for instance.
I can understand why people didn't like it - because it was just Sam Raimi doing something because he found it funny rather than it being a good direction for the film... but I mean, I can enjoy it because whatever self-indulgent stuff he does is also indulgent for me because I share his tastes if that makes sense.


Anyway, I took the news of Spider-Man 4 being cancelled than any celebrity death to date. It really, genuinely upset me. Raimi was so adamant that he was going to fix the wrongs with the 3rd film and make a great new chapter and the studio just wouldn't let him do it.

The rumours of Morbius being the villain really got me excited too. Raimi's horror background really shines through in some of the best Spidey-scenes (Doc Ock's surgery, Green Goblin in the burning building) so imagine a horror-themed film! It could have been brilliant. But then it turned out that Raimi was pushing for the Vulture, the worst Spider-Man villain of all time... so... well, maybe this new film won't be so bad after all.

[Reply #184 on:]

I heard they were trying to get the Lizard into the 4th Raimi film too...?

I mean Dr. Connors was in Spider-Man 2 and 3 and there was no sign of the Lizard... Except the fact that his arm was missing... What a waste...

[Reply #185 on:]

There were rumours of pretty much every villain being in Spider-Man 4 at one point or another - all we know for sure is that Raimi wanted the Vulture to be in it.

In fact, they had actually cast John Malkovich in the role by the time that the film was shut down. He's spoken about his disappointment about not being able to do it in a few interviews since.

It's possible that the Lizard would have been in it too, but I think they were saving him for Spider-Man 5 or 6. I'd be so gutted if I was the actor playing Dr. Connors, though. 2 extended cameos setting up an awesome role he never got to play. They were definitely keeping him about to use at some point.

[Reply #186 on:]

Peter wasn't dark when he wore the costume in the comics, why did they feel the need to even make it a weird parody of darkness in the movie?

SM3 sucked, the others didn't, that's why we have a reload - deal with it.

And btw:

Peter Parker is a little goody two-shoes.

Wrong! Parker is a scared little boy caught up in his own neurosis about what his own inaction might or might not do.

[Reply #187 on:]

In the movie did the suit respond to Peters thoughts? I can't remember if it did like in the comics or not..

Peter Parker is a little goody two-shoes.

Wrong! Parker is a scared little boy caught up in his own neurosis about what his own inaction might or might not do.

In the films he's a wuss but he's braver in the comics.

[Reply #188 on:]

Nope. He never made it look like what ever he wanted or anything like that.

As far as I'm concerned the only way to do justice to the Venom storyline is to give an entire movie to the alien costume/Peter storyline first. Then you have a platform.

Peter Parker is a little goody two-shoes.

Wrong! Parker is a scared little boy caught up in his own neurosis about what his own inaction might or might not do.

In the films he's a wuss but in the comics he's more brave.

That's far too simple a statement.

What is bravery? Is it being fearless? Or is it facing dangers in spite of your fears? The constant anxieties of Peter in the comics is what makes his travails as Spider-man so much more human and engaging. Couple that with the fact that despite his efforts he still feels like he's hurting everyone he loves...

[Reply #189 on:]

It was bad, but it was funny bad...

This. I couldn't help but laugh at it. It (along with the jazz scene) was so over-the-top that there's no way Raimi wasn't doing it intentionally. Most likely he did it to fuck with the studio who were being assholes to him about how to make the film.

See, I love this bit. It's another scene that falls into the self-indulgent category, but it was basically just Raimi taking the piss. Maybe it's just because I "get" his sense of humour, being such a huge fan of The Evil Dead trilogy, but I found it hilarious and I can guarantee you that it was intended to be funny.
It made sense to me, anyway. Peter Parker is a little goody two-shoes. His dark side shouldn't be anything more than an emo prick. He doesn't have it in him to go out and murder people, for instance.
I can understand why people didn't like it - because it was just Sam Raimi doing something because he found it funny rather than it being a good direction for the film... but I mean, I can enjoy it because whatever self-indulgent stuff he does is also indulgent for me because I share his tastes if that makes sense.

I read this after I typed the stuff above...I agree with everything you just said.
I also agree with you that the second film is the best, hands down. I do differ with most people though in that I feel the third is the stronger film than the first.

The new Spider-Man reboot looks awful. I expect pure shite.

[Reply #190 on:]

The new Spider-Man reboot looks awful. I expect pure shite.

I'm rather concerned that they seem to have some sort of parent story going on. This is bad, but everything else seems to be fine. And the Lizard looks great because it isn't the McFarlane version.

[Reply #191 on:]

SM3 sucked, the others didn't, that's why we have a reload - deal with it.

Wrong. Taken from Wikipedia:

Sony Pictures announced in January 2010 that plans for Spider-Man 4 had been cancelled due to Raimi's withdrawal from the project. Raimi reportedly ended his participation due to his doubt that he could meet the planned May 6, 2011 release date while at the same time upholding the film creatively. Raimi purportedly went through four iterations of the script with different screenwriters and still "hated it".

Also, some good-ish news, the Venom spin-off that was first mentioned way back in July 2007, but was unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on if you approved of this movie or not...) cancelled seems to be coming back to life, as again, it says on Wikipedia:

In March 2012, Chronicle director Josh Trank is negotiating with Sony about his interest in directing the film. Whether or not it will be a part of the upcoming Marc Webb film is unknown.

And yes, both paragraphs have sources...

[Reply #192 on:]

SM3 sucked, the others didn't, that's why we have a reload - deal with it.

Wrong. Taken from Wikipedia:

Sony Pictures announced in January 2010 that plans for Spider-Man 4 had been cancelled due to Raimi's withdrawal from the project. Raimi reportedly ended his participation due to his doubt that he could meet the planned May 6, 2011 release date while at the same time upholding the film creatively. Raimi purportedly went through four iterations of the script with different screenwriters and still "hated it".

I don't really care about the creative reasons for SM3 sucking. But it did. The rails had come off this little love child of Raimi's for whatever reason. It still sucked. And sucking is bad for directors and studios. I think that's what you were saying.

[Reply #193 on:]

It's not about Spider-Man 3 sucking it's about why there isn't a Spider-Man 4.

 LEARN TO READ!

[Reply #194 on:]

SM3 sucking is the reason there is no SM4!

Lrn to life.

[Reply #195 on:]

This isn't looking to good, SoS... We win!

[Reply #196 on:]

I like how in SM3 you hear the crowd claps at MJ's play, but you see no one clapping.

[Reply #197 on:]

This isn't looking to good, SoS... We win!

If you can't get the difference between "to" and "too" right, you have no business using the word "win".

[Reply #198 on:]

SM3 is the bane of my existence. My problem with it above anything else is the villains. I hate Sandman, biggest pussyass-bitch I've ever seen in a superhero movie. And the fact that it turns out he's the one who shot Uncle Ben completely shits on the first movie, it didn't make me care about Sandman any more it made me hate the writers more. And Venom wasn't handled well at all and was only put it to please the fans and that blew up in our faces (and he blew himself up too so you know it was like a big fuck you anyway). I know Raimi didn't want Venom in the script so honestly he shouldn't have put him in there because I would rather wonder what could have been compared to what did happen.

I honest to god hate Spider-Man 3. It was the film that I was so excited for and I was expecting so much but left so incredibly disappointed. And I can't forgive it. So I'm more excited about the new one because it's not adding on to the crap of SM3 it's starting fresh. But because I don't have any expectations I can't be disappointed I can only like it or not like it.

Also I side with SoS, it doesn't matter what the facts say the movie itself still did not turn out well. The film is what it is and it is a pile of shit.

[Reply #199 on:]

SM3 sucking is the reason there is no SM4!

Lrn to life.

But it's not. Like it or not, Spider-Man 3 made a fuck-load of money and the studio was eager to make another.

Sam Raimi wanted the 4th to be good and it soon became apparent that Sony simply weren't going to let him make a good film so he jumped ship because otherwise Spider-Man 4 would have been a mess like Spider-Man 3 was. Sony were happy to reboot it because it meant that they could snap up some new talent for considerably less money.

So I suppose you could argue that if Spider-Man 3 was better, Raimi would have been less precautious about what he did with the 4th one and it might have just gone ahead without him being completely happy with it... but it's not a simple case of "Spider-Man 3 sucked so they didn't make any more".

Edit: Two in one day.