Page 1 of 1
(not so) Amazing Spider-Man
Posted: 17 Sep 2011, 19:14
by Abzu
There's a trailer for this on Hulu
http://www.hulu.com/watch/261306/movie- ... spider-man
This looks like complete shit.

Re: (not so) Amazing Spider-Man
Posted: 17 Sep 2011, 21:29
by agony bagony
tell me again why they needed to make this?
Re: (not so) Amazing Spider-Man
Posted: 17 Sep 2011, 21:32
by Abzu
Sony are cunts.
They were going to do pt4 but something with Raimi fell through hard and Sony made the idiotic decision to start fresh.
Re: (not so) Amazing Spider-Man
Posted: 17 Sep 2011, 21:35
by Abzu
There were also parts 5 and 6 planned, which would be a two part story arc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spider-Man ... led_sequel
Re: (not so) Amazing Spider-Man
Posted: 17 Sep 2011, 22:33
by jawn galliano
[quote name=";,,;"]Sony are cunts.
They were going to do pt4 but something with Raimi fell through hard and Sony made the idiotic decision to start fresh.[/quote]
can you really blame them after 3
Re: (not so) Amazing Spider-Man
Posted: 17 Sep 2011, 23:10
by agony bagony
thats a lot of money down the pooper
Re: (not so) Amazing Spider-Man
Posted: 17 Sep 2011, 23:11
by Mesarthim
I guess they figure they spent enough of on pre production they might as well get their money worth.
Re: (not so) Amazing Spider-Man
Posted: 17 Sep 2011, 23:13
by agony bagony
i wonder how much money it cost to make all the shit movies that major american studios put out this year
Re: (not so) Amazing Spider-Man
Posted: 17 Sep 2011, 23:13
by Ninny
Spiderman

A true superhero (who doesn't annoy me). But where's Tobey Maguire

Re: (not so) Amazing Spider-Man
Posted: 17 Sep 2011, 23:19
by Mesarthim
he killed himself.
Re: (not so) Amazing Spider-Man
Posted: 18 Sep 2011, 00:01
by M.Bison
Re: (not so) Amazing Spider-Man
Posted: 18 Sep 2011, 06:05
by Abzu
3 made the most money of the franchise, so, considering that's all the studios and publishers give a squirt over...
Raimi left the project because he didn't feel he could meet Sony/Columbia's deadline and still produce a movie he was creatively happy with. He hated each rewrite of the script. They should have just replaced him (which I hate saying because it's Sam fucking Raimi) and kept the continuity rather than this reboot horsecock.
Re: (not so) Amazing Spider-Man
Posted: 18 Sep 2011, 06:27
by baron von blondle
[quote name="herr vagina <!-- s]i wonder how much money it cost to make all the shit movies that major american studios put out this year[/quote]
Not as much as they pocketed from the hordes of morons who pay to watch them
Re: (not so) Amazing Spider-Man
Posted: 18 Sep 2011, 06:28
by Verbal
about as much as the superiority you condaesent upon them
Re: (not so) Amazing Spider-Man
Posted: 18 Sep 2011, 06:35
by baron von blondle
[quote name="Verbal"]about as much as the superiority you condaesent upon them[/quote]

Re: (not so) Amazing Spider-Man
Posted: 18 Sep 2011, 06:37
by Verbal
thats right
Re: (not so) Amazing Spider-Man
Posted: 18 Sep 2011, 07:16
by agony bagony
that doesnt make any sense and you spelled a word incorrectly. but the important thing is that your sense of superiority was clear and it was!

Re: (not so) Amazing Spider-Man
Posted: 18 Sep 2011, 08:47
by Abzu
:doubleoldcondaesent:
Re: (not so) Amazing Spider-Man
Posted: 18 Sep 2011, 09:22
by Haunty
I don't know... it's pretty hard to out-fail Toby Macguire. Fuck that hard-on bearer, fuck his acting, fuck the retard who cast him, fuck everyone involved in all three of those atrocities. Will this one be any good? Probably not. But at least it's a different actor.
Re: (not so) Amazing Spider-Man
Posted: 18 Sep 2011, 09:32
by Abzu
At least Toby nailed the socially awkward Peter Parker. This version isn't even the slightest nerdy (by the trailer)
Re: (not so) Amazing Spider-Man
Posted: 18 Sep 2011, 10:24
by Mesarthim
if they really wanted to reboot spiderman they should have gotten Christopher Nolan to do it.
Re: (not so) Amazing Spider-Man
Posted: 18 Sep 2011, 10:54
by Abzu
[quote name="lǝp + uɯH + lɹʇƆ"]if they really wanted to reboot spiderman they should have gotten Christopher Nolan to do it.[/quote]
I think it is funny that Anne Hathaway was slated to play Felicia Hardy and now she is playing Selena Kyle.
Re: (not so) Amazing Spider-Man
Posted: 18 Sep 2011, 17:20
by deckard
spider man is gay but i like the hard-on bearer who is playing him in this. he has been in some good films
Re: (not so) Amazing Spider-Man
Posted: 19 Sep 2011, 06:45
by Hugo.
Spiderman 2 was definitely one of the best marvel movies. 3 Was definitely one of worst.
Besides Thor or daredevil I can't think of anything worse.
Re: (not so) Amazing Spider-Man
Posted: 19 Sep 2011, 07:16
by Abzu
[quote name="Hugo"]Spiderman 2 was definitely one of the best marvel movies. 3 Was definitely one of worst.
Besides Thor or daredevil I can't think of anything worse.[/quote]
gloryhole era Marvel movies
Re: (not so) Amazing Spider-Man
Posted: 19 Sep 2011, 08:03
by Hugo.
gloryhole era marvel movies were better in the era of the gloryhole

Re: (not so) Amazing Spider-Man
Posted: 19 Sep 2011, 08:11
by Abzu
I think they were better in the 50s
Re: (not so) Amazing Spider-Man
Posted: 19 Sep 2011, 10:09
by Hugo.
When they didn't exist?
I get it.

Re: (not so) Amazing Spider-Man
Posted: 19 Sep 2011, 10:18
by Abzu
Re: (not so) Amazing Spider-Man
Posted: 20 Sep 2011, 05:05
by Haunty
Let's all agree that they should've gotten the hard-on bearer who played Sandman to play Eddie Brock/Venom, Topher Grace to play Peter Parker/Spider Man, and left the Sandman character out completely.
Re: (not so) Amazing Spider-Man
Posted: 20 Sep 2011, 05:54
by Abzu
[quote name="HbW"]Let's all agree that they should've gotten the hard-on bearer who played Sandman to play Eddie Brock/Venom, Topher Grace to play Peter Parker/Spider Man, and left the Sandman character out completely.[/quote]
I can agree with that.
Re: (not so) Amazing Spider-Man
Posted: 20 Sep 2011, 23:49
by Hugo.
Yep.
Re: (not so) Amazing Spider-Man
Posted: 21 Sep 2011, 18:09
by Haunty
see, how hard was that? casting directors
