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

[Aries Walker]

Originally Posted by KC native

ASM is much closer to the comic books than the first set of movies.

ASM isn't anywhere near closer to the comics than the first movies. It has Gwen instead of Mary Jane, and his web-shooters are mechanical; otherwise, it's miles off. Read what I wrote up above for why, and there's more besides.

[-King-]

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?

This. Him getting web shooting powers is much more believable than him making a gadget that shoots out webs.

[Wallcrawler]

Originally Posted by Ragged Robin

Yeah it's not a big deal apparently because The Dark Knight is the highest grossing film ever.

Talia wasn't in The Dark Knight. She was in The Dark Knight Rises.

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.

If I discredited the Spiderman films, it certainly wasn't over the webbing. I wish that were the problem I had. You could start with the Mighty Morphin Power Ranger dumpster dive that produced the Green Goblin costume in movie one, on to the challenge of how many times will Peter remove his mask and reveal his identity, to Otto Octavius being a genuinely good dude that was corrupted by "evil smart arms that control him" and then killed by sacrificing himself at the end of the second film (after Peter once again inexplicably takes his mask off for no reason in front of the most dangerous man he's ever faced to this point), to the humorous side note of Harry's butler waiting until he's taken a grenade to the face and become horribly disfigured to go ahead and tell him that his father died by his own hand, on to the biggest goat **** of them all being the destruction of the idea of With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility by making the thief that Peter chose not to stop turn out not to be Ben's killer after all. Sorry Pete, even if you had stopped him, Uncle Ben would still be dead. You've become Spider-Man and destroyed your social life for nothing.


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.

Not quite.

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.

It isn't for me to say that its impossible to make a good movie using comic book characters without staying true to the source material. Nolan's take, while not in line with the books, sat well with fans in Batman Begins, and The Dark Knight.

Dark Knight Rises however, in my opinion, was complete garbage.


You can argue it to the end of time. Some like Kubrick's "The Shining", and others hate it because its nothing like the book its based off of.

Changing the source material is a lie. Youre making a film directed at the fans of this material. Its their money you want. Instead of making the film true to the source material, you take their money and say "Look at all this shit I changed! You like it?"

In some instances it works out. In other cases you get Ben Kingsley as the Mandarin, and doing an awesome job for a few minutes and then a giant middle finger in the middle of the film as he's revealed to be nothing more than a patsy., and the Mandarin you read about in the comics isn't going to be represented in the film at all.

.

[Easy 6]

Dark Knight Rises WAS a letdown, Tom Hardy aside.

[Wallcrawler]

Originally Posted by scott free

Dark Knight Rises WAS a letdown, Tom Hardy aside.

It was too much of a departure from the characters.

This Nolanverse Batman started off strong, but the idea that Bruce would just stop being Batman for eight years is way out of left field, and then the whole "Peace, Im out" at the end when he fakes his own death and retires with the bitch that set him up to be killed was another WTF moment.

Batman fans know that Bruce IS Batman. He is that guy. The billionaire playboy is the façade. No way he just stops being that pissed off rage fuelled vigilante.

If Nolan didn't want to do CGI, he shouldn't have done Bane. No venom present whatsoever. The mask he wears is supposed to be a painkiller?

Odd that the "World's Greatest Detective" never once targeted that mask in their first fight. It should've been flashing like the vulnerable area of a boss in an arcade game.

In the books Batman broke Bane because he was utterly exhausted when they finally clashed. Bane released everyone and his brother from Arkham and after Bats wore himself down for weeks on end bringing them all back, then Bane attacked and wiped the floor with him.

In Nolan's film, Bats is apparently not smart enough to target the mask, and too old and washed up to fight him one on one. But hey, get thrown in a hole with a displaced vertebrae, get a nice crunches and pullups montage, and Bats is able to come back and own Bane in a beautiful homage to Rocky 3.

[Fish]

You know what bothered me about The Dark Knight Rises? That magic knee brace band thing that changes him from limping cripple to superhero? Billion dollar market completely ignored...

[Anyong Bluth]

Originally Posted by Wallcrawler

It was too much of a departure from the characters.

This Nolanverse Batman started off strong, but the idea that Bruce would just stop being Batman for eight years is way out of left field, and then the whole "Peace, Im out" at the end when he fakes his own death and retires with the bitch that set him up to be killed was another WTF moment.

Batman fans know that Bruce IS Batman. He is that guy. The billionaire playboy is the façade. No way he just stops being that pissed off rage fuelled vigilante.

If Nolan didn't want to do CGI, he shouldn't have done Bane. No venom present whatsoever. The mask he wears is supposed to be a painkiller?

Odd that the "World's Greatest Detective" never once targeted that mask in their first fight. It should've been flashing like the vulnerable area of a boss in an arcade game.

In the books Batman broke Bane because he was utterly exhausted when they finally clashed. Bane released everyone and his brother from Arkham and after Bats wore himself down for weeks on end bringing them all back, then Bane attacked and wiped the floor with him.

In Nolan's film, Bats is apparently not smart enough to target the mask, and too old and washed up to fight him one on one. But hey, get thrown in a hole with a displaced vertebrae, get a nice crunches and pullups montage, and Bats is able to come back and own Bane in a beautiful homage to Rocky 3.

[ThaVirus]

I was always a fan of Spider-man having web shooters due to biological changes. I was never a fan of the "oh shit I just ran out of webbing mid-fight" plot device.

[Easy 6]

DKR just stretched my suspension of disbelief too far... Catwoman was completely unnecessary and unbelievable, the entire police force trapped underground, that goofy ass prison with everyone dressed in the same overly clean rags, Scarecrow running some silly, stupid court, Batman being nearly crippled but coming back in few short weeks, months?

It wasnt even about them not sticking with canon on Bane, just too much other unbelievable stuff... what made the other two so great was, atleast within the world Nolan created, everything was pretty believable... this one just took it all too far, it was a farce.

[Anyong Bluth]

Originally Posted by scott free

DKR just stretched my suspension of disbelief too far... Catwoman was completely unnecessary and unbelievable, the entire police force trapped underground, that goofy ass prison with everyone dressed in the same overly clean rags, Scarecrow running some silly, stupid court, Batman being nearly crippled but coming back in few short weeks, months?

It wasnt even about them not sticking with canon on Bane, just too much other unbelievable stuff... what made the other two so great was, atleast within the world Nolan created, everything was pretty believable... this one just took it all too far, it was a farce.

In retrospect, nothing you say I can really not agree with, except I didn't think Catwoman was an unnecessary character anymore than any other supporting role you find in tons of movies. That's just the part of movies. But, let's be real, the possibility of and fervored expectations simply meant TDK wasn't ever going to realistically be matched- let alone topped.

Not to discredit Nolan, but I think if you're setting out to do a trilogy, unless you have the entire story committed to script or from source material, it's just not going to hold up when you approach it by writing them individually and then shooting them. No different than the Matrix movies.

It's just really tough to switch gears from an episodic film and then create a story arc that's quality while making sure you have cohesion throughout, yet also having a film stand On its own.

[The Franchise]

Would it have changed things for the worse if the three Nolan Batman films were all one story spread out over 3 movies? i.e. The Hobbit. Would it have made it better?

[Easy 6]

Originally Posted by Anyong Bluth

In retrospect, nothing you say I can really not agree with, except I didn't think Catwoman was an unnecessary character anymore than any other supporting role you find in tons of movies. That's just the part of movies. But, let's be real, the possibility of and fervored expectations simply meant TDK wasn't ever going to realistically be matched- let alone topped.

Not to discredit Nolan, but I think if you're setting out to do a trilogy, unless you have the entire story committed to script or from source material, it's just not going to hold up when you approach it by writing them individually and then shooting them. No different than the Matrix movies.

It's just really tough to switch gears from an episodic film and then create a story arc that's quality while making sure you have cohesion throughout, yet also having a film stand On its own.

I simply have to disagree about Selena Kyle, it was just too much... in this world, not only is there a badass richest man in the world who goes around doing nearly impossible things, but now theres a female criminal who's just as capable?... it was COMPLETELY unnecessary IMO, it added nothing and subtracted everything.

It was nothing more than a cheap attempt at garnering/appeasing more female viewers IMO, all it did was divert attention from the fact that Nolan apparently wasnt sure how to fill two and a half hours with what Bruce Wayne is doing, and even with her needless character he still cheats us of any real Batman action by belaboring the totally ridiculous prison sequence.

Nolan had a nearly limitless amount of source material to draw a better story from, I'll tell you exactly how this movie felt... Blade III... dry, stale and paint by numbers, NOTHING that was cool about the first two was included in the last one.

If Nolan has ever made a bad movie, THIS was it.

[Deberg_1990]

Originally Posted by KC native

Negative. Tobey McGuire was a bitch. Peter Parker is a nerd, but he's not a bitch. Tobey was terrible at the smart ass quips that Spidey is known for. He just came across as a whiney ****. The British kid has nailed Spidey's smart assness.

Plus the fight scenes in the Amazing Spiderman felt like they were right out of the comic. The rapid fire use of Spidey's webs to move around the lizard gave me flash backs to when I used to read the comic.

They made Peter Parker less nerdy. It was definately an "emo ish" type of makeover.

[Deberg_1990]

Originally Posted by Wallcrawler

It was too much of a departure from the characters.

This Nolanverse Batman started off strong, but the idea that Bruce would just stop being Batman for eight years is way out of left field, and then the whole "Peace, Im out" at the end when he fakes his own death and retires with the bitch that set him up to be killed was another WTF moment.

Batman fans know that Bruce IS Batman. He is that guy. The billionaire playboy is the façade. No way he just stops being that pissed off rage fuelled vigilante.

If Nolan didn't want to do CGI, he shouldn't have done Bane. No venom present whatsoever. The mask he wears is supposed to be a painkiller?

Odd that the "World's Greatest Detective" never once targeted that mask in their first fight. It should've been flashing like the vulnerable area of a boss in an arcade game.

In the books Batman broke Bane because he was utterly exhausted when they finally clashed. Bane released everyone and his brother from Arkham and after Bats wore himself down for weeks on end bringing them all back, then Bane attacked and wiped the floor with him.

In Nolan's film, Bats is apparently not smart enough to target the mask, and too old and washed up to fight him one on one. But hey, get thrown in a hole with a displaced vertebrae, get a nice crunches and pullups montage, and Bats is able to come back and own Bane in a beautiful homage to Rocky 3.

I think it stayed true to Nolan's vision of his character and his story arc. Does an artist always have to stick closely to his original source material? Shouldn't he be allowed some flexibility? Every medium is different.

[Easy 6]

Originally Posted by Aries Walker

The Raimi Spider-Man was better than The Amazing Spider-Man, mostly because The Amazing Spider-Man was awful. Maguire-Spidey may have come across as whiney, but Garfield-Spidey was a showoff, and a bully, and went beyond being a wiseass to being a loudmouthed dick. The storyline was screwed around; they made Peter into a darker character, didn't develop the reasons why he fought crime and kept his identity secret, and he had some sort of Daddy-issue corporate intrigue storyline that he really didn't need hamfistedly crammed in there. Contrarily, there was no wrestling match, no J. Jonah Jameson, and Spidey never learned or mentioned his signature line of dialogue. It was a bad movie.

I will give it this: Even with the ten-year technology difference, the special effects in the first one were weak, and the second one did do some inventive bits of fight choreography, especially during the fight in the halls of Midtown High. Those aside, though, it didn't have much going for it that Raimi's didn't do better.

And I guarantee the sequel won't be as good as Spider-Man 2.

THIS... they tried too hard to make him like Batman, instead of nerdy/snarky he just came off like a hipster dick, Spiderman isnt supposed to be "dark", thats where Raimi REALLY failed in #III (what an awful movie, a typical #3) that was never his thing no matter how hard the director/writers wanted it to be so.