View Single Post
Old 07-13-2012, 12:29 AM
samwiseb samwiseb is offline
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,208

Interesting point about the Avengers. I had not heard any of the chanting myself, however I suppose it isn't exactly surprising.

I don't even know my Avengers, as far as which Marvel superheroes are 'traditionally' part of that lineup (or 'assemble', whatever), and frankly I never get a solid answer any time I ask. My impression is that nobody really knows, likely because the franchise has seen too many permutations over the decades (going back to my point about interpreting Spider-Man). Like maybe most of the lineup had already been swallowed up in various Hollywood studio contracts, and the current film franchise merely represents "whoever was left."

I guess God forbid that Sony might be looking after their own interests instead of the greater good, or that studios in general should be in this mostly for the money.

It's possible I might have different feelings about the new Spider-Man next time I see it, as I fully intend to.

My experience with the first movie was that I just didn't get enough motivation from Peter Parker to follow along with him (through all those montages of his) as he was gradually inventing Spider-Man. It was like that whole discovery part of the movie was stuck in fast-forward mode (I really like that the new movie takes its time here). Rented the movie a year later; still thought it was 'okay', but still didn't see what all the buzz had been about. Didn't even plan on seeing the second movie when I started catching trailers for it. Just wasn't my thing.

Spider-Man 2 I caught by accident at one of those tiny budget theaters when I finally made good on my promise to see The Village that year -- as it happened both movies were playing in the same auditorium and no one came along to pull me out. And I just thought it was brilliantly and intelligently conceived. Taken literally it made no sense that Peter would turn nearsighted again once he realized he had the option of NOT being Spider-Man, yet thematically it made perfect sense. To this day the trilogy is 'all about' the 2nd movie for me, the thematic 'core' of the franchise (Does it not often seem that way with trilogies? Here's hoping it will be the same with ST).

Spider-Man 3 was the first SM movie I strongly anticipated after number 2 had pulled me in. And it certainly looked 'darker' in the trailers; what was not to like? Saw the mixed reviews and adjusted my expectations, but still felt like I had committed myself to seeing the movie. Came out feeling like I had just seen two-and-a-half movies in one. I don't think I was 'disappointed' like other people (again, having read the reviews), and anyway MY GOD do people react strongly, quickly and loudly in these internet times! Mostly I just thought it was 'probably' over, and that the trilogy had run it's course. And besides, SM2 will always be around.

Maybe 'next time' we could get a different director, less cartoony villains, less exaggerated characters in general, a better spidey suit, and even let Peter design his web-slingers instead of growing them. We could even get a new composer, if only so we can finally ditch Danny Elfman's bloody 'God Bless America' leitmotif.

And now here we are.

Reply With Quote