Spider Man 2

[whoman69]

Jamie Foxx reportedly up for the villain in ‘The Amazing Spider-Man 2′

Your friendly neighborhood Spider-Man will face off against a "shocking" new adversary in "The Amazing Spider-Man 2." According to Variety, Oscar-winner Jamie Foxx is in early talks to play the villain Electro in Sony's superhero sequel to this summer's reboot of the Marvel Comics' franchise.

While the studio hasn't officially commented on casting, Foxx all but confirmed the role Thursday with a post-Halloween tweet:
Dressed up as Electro for Halloween last night. Costume fits well.
— Jamie Foxx (@iamjamiefoxx) November 1, 2012

The classic Spidey villain Electro, aka Maxwell "Max" Dillon, gained the ability to control electricity after being struck by lightning. Created by Stan Lee and Steve Ditko, he first appeared in "The Amazing Spider-Man #9" in February 1964. Foxx would be a departure from the comic-book character, who has traditionally been depicted as being Caucasian.

There was a hint that Electro would be the villain of the next movie at the end of "The Amazing Spider-Man." In a short scene during the credits, Dr. Curt Conners, aka the Lizard (played by Rhys Ifans), was visited in his jail cell by a mysterious figure obscured in the shadows. The man (played by actor Micheal Masse) asked Connors if he told Peter Parker the truth about his father, and when Connors says no, he disappears with a flash of lightning. This lead some people to assume that figure was supposed to be Electro, but others believe it to be Norman Osborn, who was mentioned throughout the film (and later becomes the villain, Green Goblin).

This would be the first time Electro would appear in a movie, but back in 1991, director James Cameron developed his own "Spider-Man" project that would have featured the character as one of the villains. Cameron's version got caught up in a web of legal issues surrounding the rights, and he eventually left the project, going on to direct "True Lies" and "Titanic." "Spider-Man" wouldn't hit the big screen until the next decade.

Stars Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone are set to reprise their roles as Peter Parker and Gwen Stacy, respectively, with Shailene Woodley ("The Descendants") reportedly in talks to join the cast as a young Mary Jane Watson. "The Amazing Spider-Man 2" is scheduled to swing into theaters on May 2, 2014. Jamie Foxx will next be seen playing the title role in Quentin Tarantino's "Django Unchained," opening this Christmas.

UPDATE: In an interview with Collider.com, director Marc Webb confirmed that the villain of the sequel will be Electro. He said, "I think Electro is an incredibly visual, exciting, dangerous villain. So, there's a lot of appealing stuff that's going to happen."

http://movies.yahoo.com/blogs/movie-...221012641.html

[Wallcrawler]

Originally Posted by scott free

Its bad enough that neither series bothers to explain where this kid got his fancy suit

Try again.

[Ragged Robin]

Originally Posted by Wallcrawler

His issue was suspension of disbelief.

It goes both ways.. He gets all his spider powers so why is it so hard to accept he gets the web shit too? Why not?

[Easy 6]

Originally Posted by Wallcrawler

He creates the web shooters in the comics.

This is a film based on the comic.

What part of this are you having difficulty with?

You can believe that a guy can get the proportional strength, speed, agility, and borderline precognition of a spider, but you cant believe that he might be able to build web shooters?

Heh. Stick to non fiction, and your head will hurt less pal.

whoa, yeah maybe I'm just out of my depth with all of the heavy mental lifting in comic books.

[Wallcrawler]

Originally Posted by Ragged Robin

It goes both ways.. He gets all his spider powers so why is it so hard to accept he gets the web shit too? Why not?

Are you dense?

I never said it wasn't believable. I simply pointed out how ridiculous it is to say something is "hard to believe" or "easier to believe" in a movie based on a comic book that is based on completely unbelievable shit.

As for why not, I would simply say if youre going to make a movie based on a book, you should remain true to the source material.

I guess its not that big of a deal when you think about it. Its not like any shitty comic book movies were made that completely disregarded the source material.

Its not like anything completely stupid has ever happened like Sandman being Uncle Ben's killer, Sabretooth being Wolverine's brother, or Deadpool having katanas up his arms shooting optic blasts with his mouth sewn shut. I guess with the way Im acting you would think that Batman's love interest in the books turned out to be some halfassed villain that tried to kill him, destroy Gotham, and got herself killed in the process, all after an eight year stint where Bruce inexplicably just stopped being The Batman.

Screw it. We don't need source material. Im sure the Hollywood screenwriters can do a much better job than the folks that have been actually writing the stories for decades.

[Wallcrawler]

Originally Posted by scott free

whoa, yeah maybe I'm just out of my depth with all of the heavy mental lifting in comic books.

Maybe not so much that as youre just not paying attention. You took issue with not knowing where he got the suit, and I provided the clips from both films that explain your issue.

Maybe you never read the comic books. Its just funny to me that in a movie filled with totally unbelievable shit, someone would call bullshit and be like "brah, that would TOTALLY never happen."

Its hilarious.

[Easy 6]

Originally Posted by Wallcrawler

Maybe not so much that as youre just not paying attention. You took issue with not knowing where he got the suit, and I provided the clips from both films that explain your issue.

Maybe you never read the comic books. Its just funny to me that in a movie filled with totally unbelievable shit, someone would call bullshit and be like "brah, that would TOTALLY never happen."

Its hilarious.

Yes, I forgot the movies talking about the suits.

But in the instance of the webs, I dont care about the official lore, gaining that power like he gained every other makes a lot more sense to me... and oh yes, I read the hell out of Spidey comics as a kid, but that was the 70's so its been a while.

[Wallcrawler]

Originally Posted by scott free

Yes, I forgot the movies talking about the suits.

But in the instance of the webs, I dont care about the official lore, gaining that power like he gained every other makes a lot more sense to me... and oh yes, I read the hell out of Spidey comics as a kid, but that was the 70's so its been a while.

They were better then.

Cheaper too.

[Ragged Robin]

Originally Posted by Wallcrawler

As for why not, I would simply say if youre going to make a movie based on a book, you should remain true to the source material.

Please. Even the most successful superhero film ever completely and utterly shits on the source material. The entire Nolan franchise shits on the Bat mythos. Taking the liberty of such a minor detail that you spend less than two seconds thinking about while watching is not a big deal.

[Wallcrawler]

Originally Posted by Ragged Robin

Please. Even the most successful superhero film ever completely and utterly shits on the source material.

And what film is that, exactly?

[Ragged Robin]

Also from that "love interest" comment it sounds like you don't actually know what you're talking about. Talia has been the greatest batman villian in the last decade in the comics. NOT just a 'love interest.'

[Wallcrawler]

Originally Posted by Ragged Robin

Also from that "love interest" comment it sounds like you don't actually know what you're talking about. Talia has been the greatest batman villian in the last decade in the comics. NOT just a 'love interest.'

And she was handled so well in DKR. Weird.

Bats had no idea who she was.

[Ragged Robin]

Originally Posted by Wallcrawler

And she was handled so well in DKR. Weird.

Bats had no idea who she was.

Because, as I said, Nolan shits all over the source material.

[Wallcrawler]

Originally Posted by Ragged Robin

Because, as I said, Nolan shits all over the source material.

And yet you claim that its not a big deal to disregard it.

Strange.

[Ragged Robin]

Originally Posted by Wallcrawler

And yet you claim that its not a big deal to disregard it.

Strange.

Yeah it's not a big deal apparently because The Dark Knight is the highest grossing film ever. Nolan's films were the complete character and source assassination and yet you're discreditting the Spiderman franchise due to such a small and pointless source material change like web-wrists versus web-shooters. That's like me saying Nolan's films are shit because he makes Batman expose his eyes and wear makeup instead of wearing high tech lenses like he's supposed to . Virtually everything about Nolan's films goes against source material down to how the character flat out responds and you hardly hear a peep about it.

[Easy 6]

Originally Posted by Wallcrawler

They were better then.

Cheaper too.

Pretty sure that when I stopped buying them they were no more than 25 cents.