@Stiler I agree. It's wild that Untold came off less like an attempted universe launch considering they legit did reshoots to make it fit that bill more, whereas The Mummy pretty much went according to schedule and came off way worse (apparently, still haven't seen it). But yah, I also found the irony in them talking about how in order to build a universe, one shouldn't set out to build a universe. He suggests that it's better to focus on one primary story and let the world building suggest more of a universe that you can then visit at a later time. Both DC and the Monster Universe have fallen prey to this issue in my opinion, trying so hard to ensure a lasting franchise but paying almost no respect to the source material in the process.
Fortunately for both studios, and unfortunately for us viewers, these movies make money regardless to how good they are - especially over seas. So while DC has thankfully changed-up their approach accordingly with Wonder Woman, the Universal universe really has no reason to change anything up at all. With the actors they have signed and the fact that these crapty movies make money to spite themselves, they could legitimately just crap out the biggest turd and make billions without trying at all. Example: The Mummy.
I don't know what I was expecting from this, but I can tell you what I wasn't expecting...to see Bruce Willis' living corpse skateboarding around naked for 15 minutes after banging some young chick...which is the first 15 minutes of this movie. What this movie is is something that feels like an attempt to make a Shane Black comedy filled with cameos of stars and ex-stars dialing in their performances...with the exception of one unexpected brief cameo I won't mention just in case you decide to sit through this because it was mildly amusing. It's brought to you by essentially the exact same crew who made Cop Out (2010), and just about as entertaining; I thought it was very dry and rather boring. It's not offensively bad, but it feels super empty the whole time it's trying to be funny and failing to be. The sad thing is I think this movie could have worked with better editing and tighter direction by someone more skilled who can ensure the funny stuff landed properly, and if said director got the damn cast to put in a better effort...or got a better cast to do it right. Most of the parts are here, but they just don't work.
@ENIX agreed with that assessment for sure. it is unclassy. They're going the Transformers route - taking classic source material, using only the very basics as a premise and then building a loud, not genre-appropriate action movie around them.
I'd die for some modern atmospheric horror films starring these characters - the types of movies and stories that they were literally created for. Hell, there's even plenty of room for Indiana Jones-style action/adventure in certain cases, especially The Mummy. While I'm not huge on the Brendan Frasier series, throwing that style "adventure" into a more moodily-toned film would work fine. But you absolutely need the atmospheric horror element to take center stage first - you can't just sign an action star, shoot a bunch of low-gravity action sequences and have the "big bad" be a "mummy" and assume you're doing the film any real justice.
Note that I'm usually pretty easy on movies. For me to rate something below a 5 or 6 means that it has to be pretty sucky...
Note also that I enjoyed most of the other Transformers movies. Like, I get that they have horrible plots and such -- but I can still enjoy the Michael Bay 'splosions-fest usually.
But, this one, well, it just sucked. Bay ignores previous canon (which he often does in these movies) -- but this time to the point of it affecting the plot.
The movie is 2.5 hours long -- which is about an hour too much. I think this must be what happened: "Holy crap! We actually got Anthony Hopkins to be in this movie?? Really?? Ok, well, then let's take the 10 minutes of history that we planned for that part and turn it into an hour or more of backstory!" Seriously -- I LIKE Hopkins. I think he's great for this part even -- but I think it was just way too much and too long. I literally did the dozing-off-so-your-head-jerks-up-because-you-were-asleep-for-a-few-seconds thing watching this movie. And my wife was asleep for a good 5-10 minutes.
What I usually enjoy about these movies regardless of the plot is the robot-fighting aspect. And, in this one, I feel like a lot of that was just missing or too short. Much of the fighting is as big ships flying around shooting each other in the air. Seems that every Transformer that used to be a car or truck or whatever -- now has a full Iron Man suit for air and space flight. So, we've simply lost that feeling of going from a car to a robot in the middle of a good fight scene. *shrug*
And, finally, just way too many plot holes/mistakes/ignoring-canon moments, including:
* How does this little girl keep magically getting into places? She somehow hides aboard a fully-loaded military Osprey without anyone noticing? And, not only that, but there were THREE of them and she picked the one that the main characters would also later be on? Um, no.
* There is no reasoning given as to why the Witwicky-decended girl has to be the one to pull the staff out once it has been activated and is being used by Quintessa. I'll buy that, somehow, only a "Witwickian" can touch the staff to activate it -- but, after that, why does she need to be involved? Other transformers touch it and carry it after that. Megatron has no problem taking it to Quintessa to use. So, why can't Prime or anyone else pull the staff out so that Quintessa can't use it any more? There is no plot reason why it has to be her.
* Speaking of her being the "only" Witwickian left -- are we to just assuming that not only has Sam been killed -- but also his father too? Bull.
* Also, at the point of pulling the staff, they are weightless because that part of Cybertron is literally in free-fall toward earth. It's falling and will crash into the earth in a matter of seconds anyhow. So, why the big need to pull the staff out? If they had all just left it there with Quintessa, wouldn't that part have smashed into the ground soon anyhow and stopped everything?
* How the heck does Bumblebee get his voice back suddenly? They get him a replace voicebox and he tries it earlier -- and it is the wrong voice. So they make a point of showing us him ripping it back out. Then, suddenly, when it really matters to the plot, he can speak?? (The ONLY thing I can come up with here is that somehow Quintessa's magic to "fix" Cybertron somehow fixes nearby Transformers too -- but that seems like a stretch since the movie didn't give this impression at all.) Also (and this is a major plot point), Bumblebee speaking is what pulls Prime out of his funk -- because he hasn't heard it "since the fall of Cybertron" he says. But that isn't accurate either. In the first movie -- which isn't that long ago in their timeline -- Bumblebee DOES get his voice back temporarily at the very end of the movie. He speaks in his real voice -- and Prime is right there! Between the 1st and 2nd movies, he breaks his voicebox again and loses his voice -- and the 2nd movie touches on that in the beginning to explain why he can't speak as himself again. But the point is that Prime is just WRONG about not hearing him speak "since the fall of Cybertron." He heard it a couple years ago or so, at best.
As a fan of the games (2 being my favorite) I absolutely love this movie, and I don't get why it got some of the hate it got. it nails the atmosphere of the games so well imo and the slight story changes aren't that huge of a deal that game fans can't enjoy it.
To me it's up there with Hellraiser, Nightmare on Elm Street, etc.
I just wish that they actually would have made Silent Hill 2 into the Silent Hill 2 movie, instead of skipping it and going into SH3.
Spider-man 3: No Sandman Edition - 7.5/10 (Edit itself: 10/10) Really awesome fan-edit that lifts a movie whose theatrical edit I'd give maybe a 5/10 up quite a bit. It at the very least makes me feel the film is worthy of being in the same trilogy as Spider-man 1 & 2 whereas I wasn't quite so sure with the original. While this movie gets a 7.5, the actual edit is 10/10 and in my opinion, one of the better fan-edits out there for the sheer scope of the editors goal and how seamlessly he made it work.
I loved this edit the first time I saw it but the hard drive I had it on shat the bed and it hadn't been re-uploaded in years. Happened to chance upon it on fanedit.info last night finally. Along with toning Peter's "dark" turn more toward a broody mood as opposed to silly, this edit also pulls off the remarkable and edits out the Sandman completely. And considering this shot from the original movie's ending, where a good portion featured a fight with a giant pile of sand, you can imagine it was pretty difficult: image
I enjoyed the movie's take on Sandman - his backstory/motive, the actor, the look, etc. That first fight with Spider-man was excellent. But aside from that fight, his entire storyline ran adjacent to Peter's until they use his character to make one of the weakest retcons in movie history involving Uncle Ben's death. So either he was of no consequence to the story at all, or he was acting as the catalyst for an awful twist that hampered the events of the first movie. So while some of his stuff was good, the movie suffered overall from him being included.
Venom is still a rough take on the Ultimate version of Eddie Brock and never quite lives up to his comic book counterpart, but the Peter/Harry story has a much stronger impact with a less crowded movie overall. And honestly, trimming Sandman out and making the film a brisker pace does manage to make the Venom stuff seem a little less awful by the end.
note: I may have reviewed this at some point in here before but I don't think so (know I posted one somewhere). But I just rewatched it, so here's one to be sure.
> Do you have to download these edits of movies or can you stream from kodi..ect
Usually you have to scour the internet but fanedit.org works as the IMDB of fan edits, and then their sister site fanedit.info has a bunch on there (though not all). You can find the popular ones (mostly Star Wars stuff) on some torrent sites, or you could try messaging the editors on the fanedit.org forums. There are some I'd like to see but just haven't tracked down yet.
I don't have kodi so I don't know if anyone ever uploaded them there, but I doubt it.
The easiest way to obtain a fanedit is to go here: https://ifdb.fanedit.org/latest-fanedits/ find something you like, click on it, then go to "Join the Forum Discussion" and send a PM to the maker asking for a link. That or try to hunt them down the manual way. I've found in 99% of cases, the editor will share it with you.
Didn't realize how easy this must be until I asked someone who edited the Clone Wars into films for his links. This was reaffirmed last night when I messaged the editor of No Sandman Edition for the password to his files, to which he promptly replied.
Also, just while we're here, I can't take the "Sandman being the best part of Spider-man 3" thing seriously due to him ruining the movie haha. Like I said, the actor was fine, the fights were cool - but they didn't add anything to the actual story of the overall film until the awful retcon twist that soured the entire thing (and almost destroyed the impact of that storyline in the first film, with Peter tracking down the sole killer in the abandoned building and all that). I personally really enjoyed the Peter/Harry stuff throughout the entire trilogy and thought the fan-edit did a good job of bringing that to the forefront while Venom filled that secondary-villain role. The edit made me realize the obvious: Sandman was just tacked on for spectacle and effects scenes. Felt kinda embarrassed not acknowledging that the first time around and just focusing on the awful emo-Peter thing as my main criticism.
Spider-man 3 just tried to stuff too many characters into it and it didn't take the time to set any of them up.
Venom + Sandman + Goblin + Lizard in a single movie when two of them are new characters (to the movie series) is just way too much, they shoulda stuck to one and introduced another to come in a later film instead.
You really can't count the Lizard as being a villain in Spider-man 3. His pre-villainous persona popped up for a scene, the Lizard in Amazing Spider-man with Andrew Garfield is a different take (technically).
But I agree Spider-man 3 tried to stuff too much into the movie, which is why I enjoy the edit I reviewed earlier. It removes the unnecessary aspects of the movie. 90% of that just so happens to be from one character's side plot haha
That edit brings it closer to what I ideally would have liked from Spider-man 3: the core story being about two best friends who have been brought to bitter enemies, with Peter being seduced by his inner-darkness thanks to the Venom symbiote. In that ideal version of Spider-man 3, Eddie Brock would be a lot more like the comics and the big hulking Venom would have been the baddie Spidey and Goblin eventually use to bury the hatchet and team against. This has always been my opinion since seeing the theatrical version of the movie, and given what the film gave the fan-editor to work with, the No Sandman Edition does a superb job bringing the finished product closer to the vision I had for it. Obviously Topher Grace is still Venom so that's a bit lame, but the ending is edited in a way that makes Peter and Harry's team up seem natural against Venom.
Might not be for everyone. If you really can't live without the trilogy-breaking Uncle Ben twist, then the Sandman is all you. I just prefer this cut way more haha
OMG, I just found out something fudging awesome that happened last week...someone scanned a 35mm LPP of Jurassic Park in super-wide open matte and put it online. It's so wide on the open matte that you get to see the fudging boom mics and crap! lol
So I'll admit, my earlier review of No Sandman Edition was preemptive as I had only got about 3/4 through my most recent watch and rated the rest off memory. I just rewatched the whole thing front to back finally - the lady was interested in seeing it.
I need to drop the score down to an even 6/10 (that's a point and a half knocked off) because I must have been remembering a different edit toning down the jazz-jerk Peter - this one featured the whole cring-worthy sequence. I imagine this is due to there being only like 3 scenes of Peter being seduced by the symbiote - so they're needed to establish that "this thing makes you a douche." I would have been fine with the "Peter gets Eddie Brock fired" scene and the "Peter almost kills Harry" scene alone - but to fill the "feature length," I suppose the editor felt it necessary to keep it in. Cannot explain it otherwise.
Aside from that, rewatching it again I found that I again appreciated the Peter/Harry stuff being in the center. The lack of Sandman does make it a much more streamlined experience and makes Venom (if not Eddie Brock) a lot more bearable. Still just barely worthy of the trilogy with the 6, just worse considering the jazz scene. And the fact that it seems like Raimi just phoned this movie in so hard - which becomes more apparent the more I see it.
The whole emo Peter Parker thing was so cringe, and that dancing scene! My God! One of the worst scenes in any super hero movie to date.
it's hard to believe it's from Sam Raimi, who gave us two great spider-man films before that crap.
He either never read any of the Venom comics/storylines, or even watched the animated series (which imo would have been the best way to do the storyline for a movie).
The way they made Peter change with the symbiote was ugh, there were other ways to show him changing, having him catch a criminal and instead of turning him in or calling the cops he just beats the utter crape out of them into a bloody pulp and then having him have an internal conflict over this, having him have a short fuse with Aunt May/Mary Jane and other things that show what the symbiote is doing to him an dhow it's changing him. No need for the emo hair style or the dancing crap at all.
The skinniness didn't really bother me as much as Topher Grace just being fudging awful. When Venom was actually Venom, he looked pretty spot-on to the comics. Not as hulking as the OG Venom by any means, but he only stayed that stature for a few years anyways. If you scaled that look down to a dude Topher Grace's size, it really wasn't that bad. image
It's just that Topher Grace fudging suuuucked in the part. Dude can't act like anything except Eric Foreman. There was the part where he was fudging with Spider-man by holding him up in a symbiote web while talking to him. The symbiote peeled back from his face to let Topher get his screen time and it literally felt like he had no context as to how the scene was playing out. He was just talking like normal, no panting, no problems - again, while hanging upside down after having just fought Spider-man. He tried to emote a little bit but it was useless - it was literally just Eric Foreman talking while being strung up a hundred feet in a Venom symbiote.
Tobey was fine in Spider-man 1 and 2. The material he had to work with, and the director giving a crap, allowed him to have a perfectly acceptable performance both times. Even verging on great in SM2. But I agree 110% about Spider-man 3 Tobey. He was straight bad in that movie. I have to pin it on Raimi again though - if the director phones it in, everyone phones it in. It was just a schlock fest and Tobey spent the whole thing half-grinning, even in the scenes where he gets dumped.
Also worth note that Peter Parker was horribly written in that movie. Even before the symbiote ever meets Peter, he's is acting like a dickhead celebrity to his girlfriend to the point that he makes out with Gwen Stacey for the media right in front of her.
Make that the cringey Gwen Stacey moment after Peter gets the symbiote and remove the garbage jazz dance and presto - movie is automatically 10x better and you still establish the symbiote's effect. Eddie Brock could have just been a co-worker of Peter's instead of forcing the creepy stalker aspect, and Gwen could have just been that one cameo. What we got was just way too convoluted, especially with all the villain side plots.
They only mention Eddie in the first one. He was cast because the character was written to have a meeting with Peter in a scene, but it was cut during production. I think his name is seen in print in the second somewhere.
All leading to... Topher Grace.
I'm not sure that first appearance even got filmed, did it ever show up on a home release?
I havent seen the films in years, but I seem to recall the guy that played Radio Raheem from "Do The Right Thing" is eddie and says something to Jameson, and Jameson calls him Eddie and asks him to do something.
I remember getting excited cause the dude was a big guy ... like Venom-size.
I'm just glad they got Tom Hardy for the Venom movie, he certainly fits the part acting wise.
Just have to wonder, how are they really going to pull off Venom's storyline without Spider-man (supposedly). Kind of seems wrong to me to not have Spider-Man in a Venom movie since Spider-Man is a huge part of his Origin story.
It's like making a Magneto movie and not having Xavier in it.
The lack of Spider-man in that movie automatically lower my desire to see it. But you know i will haha. I honestly feel like they could use the actual Venom symbiote's comic book origin story but instead of Peter Parker, just use Eddie Brock. The unsuspecting hero heads into space for one reason or another, the alien symbiote leeches onto him, and he returns to Earth to use it as a suit.
I wouldn't be surprised to see them incorporate some aspects of "Agent Venom" into the movie. Agent Venom was one of the more recent comic runs where the symbiote attaches to Flash Thompson and they're a straight-hero, working as a James Bond-style agent but with the Venom powers. I can't imagine Tom Hardy will be playing a straight up villain as this movie's protagonist, so I could imagine them going with the "conflicted & angry Eddie Brock Venom who eventually learns to harness his new powers and use them in an action movie agent role" route.
I'd rather see them go the classic Venom "is a villain" route and try to make a superhero movie where we legitimately follow the exploits of the super-villain, but I just feel like Tom Hardy's Venom is going to be the Sony Spiderverse's answer to RDJ's Iron Man. Almost like "well, if we're not directly tied to the MCU like Spider-man is, we're still just gonna do our own thing with all these other characters."
> Late to the party on this one, but saw John Wick on USA last night, best retired/troubled
> assassin movie I've seen. The Continental Hotel was a great concept, and Keanu Reeves
> was very good.
> Have John Wick 2 ready to view, hope it doesn't disappoint.
LOL I watched it last night too.. USA didn't do it justice with all it's commericals and language clean up.. you'll appreciate it a bit more if you watch it on DVD or on HBO/SHO/Starz... The interviews with Reeves in between were pretty cool though.
> The lack of Spider-man in that movie automatically lower my desire to see it. But
> you know i will haha. I honestly feel like they could use the actual Venom symbiote's
> comic book origin story but instead of Peter Parker, just use Eddie Brock. The unsuspecting
> hero heads into space for one reason or another, the alien symbiote leeches onto
> him, and he returns to Earth to use it as a suit.
> I wouldn't be surprised to see them incorporate some aspects of "Agent Venom" into
> the movie. Agent Venom was one of the more recent comic runs where the symbiote attaches
> to Flash Thompson and they're a straight-hero, working as a James Bond-style agent
> but with the Venom powers. I can't imagine Tom Hardy will be playing a straight up
> villain as this movie's protagonist, so I could imagine them going with the "conflicted
> & angry Eddie Brock Venom who eventually learns to harness his new powers and use
> them in an action movie agent role" route.
> I'd rather see them go the classic Venom "is a villain" route and try to make a superhero
> movie where we legitimately follow the exploits of the super-villain, but I just
> feel like Tom Hardy's Venom is going to be the Sony Spiderverse's answer to RDJ's
> Iron Man. Almost like "well, if we're not directly tied to the MCU like Spider-man
> is, we're still just gonna do our own thing with all these other characters."
Maybe it's the era I grew up in, but I liked 90's era Venom where he wasn't a straight up villain per se but more of an anti hero at times, even setting aside his differences and teaming up with Spider-man.
They actually did this a few times with Venom, swinging him from Villain to anti hero and back depending on the host, etc.
I can definitely see the movie having him start off with a hate for Spider-man and making him struggle against the symbiote and the movie having a redeeming arc to his character where he becomes oan anti hero in a way, like Snake Plissken/Dirty Harry.
As long as they don't make him a straight up goody two shoes knock off of Spider-Man, that would suck imo.
Carnage is the one that they should make into a villain, venom is the one who seemed to fight agains the symbiote and try to, at least attempt to do good things with the powers it gave.
Easily the best Spider-man since Spider-man 2. Is it better? I think it's too early to tell for me. I've regarded Spider-man 2 to be one of the very best of the genre for so long.
Though, this movie fits that bill too.
Tom Holland was the best Peter Parker hands down, and really made me realize how old Tobey Maguire seems playing a graduating high school student in Spider-man 1. This dude had the quips and the confidence down and oozed the comic book character. It's wild for me to think we had the stuttering Andrew Garfeild approach just a few years ago, and already Holland shows up and just exudes this different, refreshing air for Peter Parker. Less angsty, more embracing of his heroic fate - just like the best incarnations of the character from the comics.
The suit and all the various powers, adapted from numerous eras of the comic, were badass. I really enjoyed seeing Happy Hogan return, and the way they integrated the different aspects of past MCU movies was at its peak here. The characters were memorable. Ned was the fun relief sidekick. Flash Thompson was a whole new take on the character and I dug it. Incorporating both versions of Shocker from various Spider-man stories was neat, let alone having the Shocker at all. Michael Keaton stole the show with his memorable and unpredictable villain. Even The Prowler was here in some form. Marvel has perfected the art of featuring a large cast of recognizable comic characters without muddying the film down into garbage (coughTHELASTSTANDcough)
A couple spoilery things including what I didn't like about the movie:
One thing that disappointed me a bit was the reveal for Michelle's character. "My friends call me MJ." But her name is Michelle, and she's a literal polar opposite of the comics' Mary Jane Watson. So they went for a "Robin/Dark Knight Rises" moment here, but it came off wholly unnecessary. I dug the character and I'll dig seeing her going forward, she was a riot, it's just too bad that now she'll constantly be compared to Mary Jane, which will definitely ignite ire from some of the fanbase. I wouldn't have cared if they just wrote her as the MJ character - but this just came off as misguided fan service and misdirection for a popcorn fart of a payoff.
I also kind of felt like some of the action was a little TOO over-the-top for a film that ended up being a pretty grounded approach to an MCU Spider-man movie. That ship sequence was a spectacle to watch and the imagery of Spider-man being torn in two was great symbolism for what Peter Parker was facing in this movie, but the physics of the ship splitting in half then being webbed, pushed and then welded back together had me scratching my head a bit. On a similar note, the fight with Vulture on top of the seizure-plane looked a bit too "Transformers" for me, with shaky action featuring a bunch of giant mechanical moving parts. That, and Spidey using his webbing to steer the plane seemed a little too schlocky. I don't know why these got to me when I've seen all the other outlandish stuff the MCU has put out there - but for some reason they seemed a bit "much" in this instance.
That's not to say I didn't enjoy that final fight either. I thought it was pretty good, and I loved the focus Vulture got as a serious threat. It was just a little too "third act things flying all over the place" when most of what came before it was pretty steeped in reality.
Those are really my only qualms. This movie pretty much won me over completely with its callback to the iconic man vs. self struggle Peter faces while being crushed under a pile of heavy debris. This scene was lifted directly from one of Spider-man's most legendary comic book moments and Holland's acting as he was getting buried was fantastic. I honestly felt the breath leave me for a moment because of the dire situation, even though I knew what was coming.
And I never in a million years saw the Vulture-being-Liz's father twist coming, even though in hindsight it was sort of telegraphed. The fact that Keaton constantly mentioned having a family he was looking out for raised some red flags but having never met them, I was wondering if this was some aspect to his character that he was simply making up to justify his villainous ways. But when he opened the door to Peter looking to pick up Liz, I was floored. Great villain turn in this movie, and miles above most of the MCU villains that came prior. Good stuff.
This was a solid Spider-man movie that ranks there with the best of the genre. Deserving of the praise and the Spider-man legacy. Wild how flawlessly and effortlessly the MCU introduced various spin-off/shared universe possibilities in this movie when Sony failed so hard by focusing on that a little too much with Amazing Spider-man 2.
Many characters were changed from their comic book counterparts. May isn't an older person, Flash is a rich spoiled brat, Vulture isn't an old scientist / businessman, Shocker isn't Shocker, Mac Gargan isn't a loser... don't think of the girl being MJ as a bad thing, they're putting their own spin on the story, and that's cool.
Suicide Squad (Theatrical Cut) - 2.5 Hot Topic Hair Dye Cans outta 5 Jared Leto's BS artiste act didn't help this movie one bit. It's a mess of editing and writing and a lot of things just don't feel right. I rant about that over here.
Well, it goes far past just a story change - she isn't the same character whatsoever. Story changes are fine, the Vulture/Liz's Dad twist was a total deviation from the source material, but it was arguably the best story point of the movie. Changing up certain aspects of the characters work with May and Flash because at their core, they're still the characters they are in the comics. Flash is the pseudo-superior high schooler who bullies Peter and May is the loving, supportive figure Peter would do anything for.
Michelle in Homecoming shares literally no similar character attributes as Mary Jane. This goes past her race/hair color too obviously (like I said I'd be fine if she was cast as Mary Jane and the character was written appropriately), but she's not an outgoing, popular, supermodel/actress who outwardly shows interest in Peter early on. Whereas Flash and May, regardless of aesthetic choices, are the same characters - Michelle just isn't, all the way down to her name not even being Mary Jane. The initials MJ were literally just slapped on her character for fan service despite the fact that fans of that character will want to see that character, not a completely different one, personality-wise, who happens to go by the same initials.
Essentially it'd be like expecting Robert Downey Jr. but getting some dude named Ronnie David Jenkins and passing it off because the initials are the same haha
Like I said, nothing movie-killing and I actually really enjoy the Michelle character, that little bit just doesn't add up.
If Spider-Man Homecoming is an example of how honoring the source material and still changing it up can have a net result of a POSITIVE, Marvel can take back every IP they whored out, far as I'm concerned. That was a great Spider-Man flick.
Ok, I have to say this was easily the best Spider-Man next to Spider-Man 2.
The movie was just a fun ride from start to end and Tom Holland just nailed the role of a younger Peter Parker. Michael Keaton was great as well as most of the other supporting cast. They also mixed in the humor quite well with the overall storyline, definitely a more lighthearted take then the more recent Spider-Man's we got.
My only complaint is the same one theJAwwww has about a character, it just felt tacked on for no real reason.
There was nothing wrong with simply letting her be Michelle, no reason at all to try and shoehorn her into being "MJ." She was a likable character and it just felt like a thing slapped onto the character for no real reason. MJ they could have brought in later on or something, at least have her act like MJ, if you want to change her race or hair color that's fine, but she just didn't really come off like the "MJ" that we know from the comics.
> Marvel can take back every IP they whored out, far as I'm concerned.
They'd like nothing more than to have all those rights back. Unfortunately, it's not up to them. The deal basically is that as long as Sony and Fox keep using the characters every 'x' years, they get to keep the license agreement going. So that means you can look forward to another crappy Fantastic Four movie from Fox sooner or later, and plenty more X-Men movies as well.
This is why they could use Ghost Rider on Agents of SHIELD and make the Netflix Daredevil and Punisher shows. The studios that had those rights let them lapse after the movies disappointed. Hulk also reverted when a sequel to the Ang Lee version never got made, though Universal still has a piece of Hulk (distribution), which is why they haven't done an MCU Hulk solo movie.
Some of the other Marvel heroes (Widow, Thor, Iron Man, Black Panther) had been with other studios as well at various points, but never got their movies made and Marvel was able to reclaim those before they ever even got used elsewhere.
Sony seems to have walked the middle ground, essentially cutting a deal to share the Spider-Man corner of the MU. Sony is still making Spider movies that don't connect to the MCU. There is an animated movie coming featuring the Miles Morales Spider-Man, a Venom movie starring Tom Hardy as Eddie Brock, and a Black Cat/Silver Sable movie. Those last two are in their own shared Spiderverse, not connected to the MCU.
>> Sony seems to have walked the middle ground, essentially cutting a deal to share
>> the Spider-Man corner of the MU. Sony is still making Spider movies that don't
>> to the MCU. There is an animated movie coming featuring the Miles Morales Spider-Man,
>> a Venom movie starring Tom Hardy as Eddie Brock, and a Black Cat/Silver Sable
>> Those last two are in their own shared Spiderverse, not connected to the MCU.
> So, are those not going to have Spider-Man in them, or...
No Spider-man in those movies, nope. We were discussing possibilities for the Venom movie up above but the lack of Spidey in those ones automatically make me less interested.
While the Sony movies like Venom won't crossover with the MCU, a Sony exec has come out and said that their Spiderverse will exist "in the same reality" as Spider-man and the MCU. So he's pretty much saying "you can pretend, just don't expect any of these Spider-man characters to meet Spider-man!"
> While the Sony movies like Venom won't crossover with the MCU, a Sony exec has come
> out and said that their Spiderverse will exist "in the same reality" as Spider-man
> and the MCU. So he's pretty much saying "you can pretend, just don't expect any of
> these Spider-man characters to meet Spider-man!"
It sort of sounds like Sony wants an equivalent to Deadpool. Something tied to the main hero, but not really featuring them. In the case of Venom, they may also be looking for an R-rated movie, which would further separate it from the softer-edged Spider-Man, while still being Spider-adjacent.
"In setting up this will be a very different thing, she's not Mary Jane Watson, that's not who the character is. But giving her the initials that remind you of that dynamic certainly is intriguing about what could go forward."
So in other words, because her initials are MJ, she will be Peter's future love interest. Completely down for that, I dug Michelle. The MJ thing is still completely unnecessary.
Broadcast News - Never saw this, and really good stuff. I've never been that much of a Holly Hunter fan, and I really liked her in this, despite her character being a bit of a jerk. She was so small and sweet. Great James L Brooks movie
The Thin Red Line - I've been re-digesting Terrence Malick movies and, jesus, this guy makes fudging phenomenal films. This was an absolutely beautiful film about WWII. The cast was fantastic and all the little appearances by big names in small roles was awesome.
Michael Clayton - I watch this once a year. I never thought I'd gravitate to a film like this, but this movie is close to perfection. I never used to like Clooney, but over the last decade I've come to really like him in certain flicks.
I just finished The Fast and the Furious series. It was the first time I'd seen 4-8 all the way through. I thought 5 and 8 were pretty good, surprisingly. 7 had a great ending but the rest wasn't too mind-blowing. I will say that two Jason Statham scenes (the hospital scene in 7 and the air scene in 8) are some the coolest action scenes I'd ever seen (we're talking John Wick level here). All in all, I'd give the series a 7/10. I will say that I didn't watch 2 or 3 although I don't find it he al that necessary, to be honest. They were much better than I thought even though much of them were as ridiculous as I thought.
The way advsersaries become allies in the films is also really interesting. I don't see it happening with the 8th film's villain only because of what she the character was willing to do, but still, it's pretty interesting.
Kind of pisses you off watching it and goes along with what I've though for years, that there are cures for a lot of illnesses but there is too much money involved in keeping people sick to let those cures get out to the general public.
> Kind of pisses you off watching it and goes along with what I've though for years,
> that there are cures for a lot of illnesses but there is too much money involved
> in keeping people sick to let those cures get out to the general public.
Don't get too pissed off -- since most of it appears to be hokum. Or, at least, be sure to read some of the science-based response to Burzynski's stuff. It appears that he has been cheating with his research data for decades now -- to put it nicely.
He also earns money from other quack science things such as "anti-aging skin cream" and such.
Sorry, but I wouldn't trust much from Burzynski at this point.