Leave a comment

Comments 19

allah_sulu November 10 2006, 17:03:31 UTC
  • They've got Sandman slated as being the actual killer of Ben Parker which is just wrong.
    They're trying too hard to tie things into relation to Peter Parker; similar to the first Michael Keaton Batman movie (and the way every single Lethal Weapon badguy had a different role in the death of Mel Gibson's wife). I agree it's lame - not everybody has to be related; there are already enough personal issues between Spidey and Harry Osborne.
  • There's nothing in the trailer to give any clue as to where the symbiote costume originated
    I forget - where'd the symbiote come from in the Spiderman cartoon? Outer space, and down to Earth on a space shuttle or something? That could tie in with J. Jonah Jameson's son…
  • While the costuming is definitely different, Harry Osborne is definitely a new Goblin. No idea if he's using a name or not, probably too much to hope he's going by Hobgoblin even though the comic character was just another Green Goblin, but I like the improvements in the outfit. Less of that silly armor look in the first movie and more like ( ... )

Reply

evilgrins November 10 2006, 17:37:40 UTC
  • the way every single Lethal Weapon badguy had a different role in the death of Mel Gibson's wife

    OkaY, I know the baddie in the 2nd film did but I don't recall the dead wife being anything of a factor in 3 and only in 4 as he was asking permission at her grave to get married again.

  • That could tie in with J. Jonah Jameson's son

    I've heard the John Jameson theory before and it worked in the animated series but I've heard nothing about it in this as yet. You'd think by now there'd be some hint outside of general fannish theorizing.

  • think it was pretty inevitable, after the second movie, that Harry would be doing this

    Knew he would be, no doubt about that. Costume changes I love aside but I'm still wodnering the little details behind it...like does he still think he communicating with his dead father while in the costumed role.

  • Pretty sure they're passing Gwen in as an alternate to his badside persona...which is really just an insult to the character.

  • Since we don't do nuclear testing anymore...He could've been one of those criminals ( ... )
  • Reply

    allah_sulu November 10 2006, 17:43:47 UTC
    To be fair, I've only seen the first three Lethal Weapon movies, when they were in the theaters, so I may be misspeaking there. I thought there was a connection to the wife in all three.

    Costume changes I love aside but I'm still wodnering the little details behind it...like does he still think he communicating with his dead father while in the costumed role.

    His dad went nuts because he used himself as a guinea pig for experimental treatment. Unless Harry gets his hands on that, rather than just putting on the suit, he should be (a) not as fast/strong as his dad was, and (b) not as freaking loopy. He's grieving for his father and feels betrayed by his best friend, but that's not quite the same as the chemically-induced insanity his father had.

    Reply

    evilgrins November 10 2006, 18:26:12 UTC
    The wife is a reoccuring thing with Riggs but the only time a specific bad guy that had to do with her death was named was in the 2nd film. 1st film he thought she had simply died in a car accident.

    Did I really type wodering? Ouch!

    There were cannisters of the chemical that gave Norman his strength in the arsenal he left Harry...whether or not he uses them is another thing.

    Reply


    scarfman November 10 2006, 17:14:47 UTC

    I can't speak to Sandman and Ben Parker. But I said then and I said now: making Jack Napier the killer of the Waynes was
    • the sort of thing that must be expected in the natural course of a new treatment. Doctor Dolittle taught me in 1968 (and again in 1999) that expecting continuity from tie-ins can only bring you sorrow.
    • not a bad idea at all for no other reason than it made a good movie. Conventions differ in different media; and continuity exists to serve the story, not the other way around.

    Reply

    allah_sulu November 10 2006, 17:29:03 UTC
    I understand the need for changes as you adapt for different media... But that doesn't mean that the changes are necessarily an improvement. Some of the changes made in adapting Lord of the Rings to the big screen were good, even necessary; others were gratuitous at best and ruined characters/events at worst.

    Reply

    evilgrins November 10 2006, 17:39:15 UTC
    it's overdoing connections more than they need to be. Part of the reason I'm so annoyed with the Ult Spidey comic series. There's no need for there to be any connection between Spidey and Sandman other than one is good and one is bad.

    Reply

    zerovenomx November 10 2006, 18:43:35 UTC
    I agree about Ultimate Spidey. I pretty much loathe most of the Ultimate universe (sans Ultimates) and how they seem to have a bigger influence than 616 on movie adaptations.

    Reply


    cleojones November 10 2006, 19:13:02 UTC
    Whenever a geek compares new material based on another source, for which you have extensive knowledge and affection, the the new material will always come up lacking.

    In this case you can choose to nitpick the differences to death, (speculating even before the new material is released) OR you can enjoy it for what is. It's not the source. It's new material based on the original source.

    I'd at least wait until it comes out.

    I understand your frustrations, but again, it's not Ultimate Spidey. It's Spiderman 3.

    Reply

    evilgrins November 10 2006, 19:54:05 UTC
    True but I so love to nitpick!

    only reference to this and Ult is in how they tend to relate everything to Spidey...there has to be a connection to his life or the character cannot exist. That just bites in general.

    Reply

    nviiibrown November 11 2006, 08:18:08 UTC
    At least they aren't going quite so far as Ult Spidey, with it being the very same experiment(if different accidents) that grants both Spidey and GG their powers. I'm just guessing Sandmand needs more gravitas than "I'm a thug wit' powers!" Probably why we might not see a movie Rhino or Shocker.

    Reply


    scarfman November 11 2006, 00:21:33 UTC

    There's a Gwen Stacy in this (you'd know the actor if you've seen Dead Like Me) but she's barely in the trailer at all.
    Dead Like Me? The girl who played the lead, or the first pretty girl, or the replacement pretty girl? Or the meter maid?
    IMDb says it's Bryce Dallas Howard, from The Village and Lady in the Water.

    Reply

    evilgrins November 11 2006, 00:28:39 UTC
    The former actress....Daisy whatever.

    Hmmm, maybe I got it wrong then

    Reply


    Leave a comment

    Up