SPIDER-MAN, VENOM, NON MARVEL SPIDEY DOES WHAT A SPIDER CAN IF SONY LETS HIM

[Timothy225]

Re: Maguire, I do see Rob's point. Maguire OWNED as Parker - the look, the mannerisms, the nerdiness and loser stuff is right from the comics. As Spider-Man, he definitely needed some more wise-ass moments, though (I did like his smacktalking of Bonesaw in the first film quite a bit).

Dunst as Mary Jane? I liked her well enough, though she probably wouldn't have been my first choice for the role. Emma Stone would've made a perfect MJ (red hair, sass, the hotness) which still has me scratching my head as to why the hell they made her Gwen or even brought in Gwen to begin with.

Y'know what? Fuck everything. Keep it real old school, have Pete hook up with Betty Brant instead. Played by Elizabeth Banks. As a brunette. Because...

[BillyG]

Y'know what? Fuck everything. Keep it real old school, have Pete hook up with Betty Brant instead. Played by Elizabeth Banks. As a brunette. Because...

I wish.

[BMichaelKrol]

Banks rules as a brunette. I'm biased though, loving brunettes as I do. Which explains why almost all my girlfriends are blond. FML.

[Timothy225]

I always had a thing for redheads. Dated at least one of every hair color, including a girl with red and blue punk hair. Married a blonde.

Banks rules regardless of hair color, though.

[Bobby Bear]

I never said they were "untouchable", Rob. I think they're probably the best comic book movies (based on superheroes) released so far, partly because the characters they depict are more than action figures to be tossed around.

Jamie, I think that may be how devoted movie folks remember them, but I remember plenty of animosity from casual fans toward the Raimi era long before Tobey's run ended. Now that this type of movie is nearly ubiquitous, it's almost easy to forget that the average moviegoer wasn't automatically accepting of dudes in costumes ten+ years ago.

X-Men isn't perfect, Anderson, but generic? That feels to me like the reaction of someone looking back on the film with too much onus on everything it helped create. In 2000, it was fresh and exciting to see a blockbuster adaptation of those characters. Whatever its flaws may be, it explored allegorical themes of isolation, disease, and paranoia in a clear and engaging fashion. That it and Spider-Man are so thematically-oriented puts them far beyond the truly generic stuff in that genre.

Also, Garfield was too sarcastic! A little quipping is all you need, guys (look at the first trilogy). Having him spit endless insults like a desperate stand-up comic just made his take on Spidey seem obnoxious rather than charming in a nerdy sort of way.

[Abraham Smashington]

Have you read a Spider-Man comic lately? The dude quips all the time. Garfield was perfect (thanks to the script) in that aspect.

And X-Men was amazing in 2000 because it was the first type of comic movie since Burton's Batman to try a "serious" take, but that movie is ASS. And ruined some characters right out of the gate.

[Bobby Bear]

I have, Rob. Did nobody else find Garfield's Peter irritating at times because of all his very broad joking around? I know flippant humour is part of the character - it's something I've complimented Maguire on in the past. Highlighting that trait with many inferior jibes in Amazing only served to highlight the superiority of Raimi's films.

X-Men certainly has major flaws. But I doubt it was all that damaging to its characters, at least not any worth caring too much about. They've practically become a sub-genre all of their own. Green Lantern was damaging.

What about Blade? That was pretty serious, even if he's not that popular.

[Anderson]

X-Men: Generic as fuck with the underserved pretense of a cartoon that wandered into prime-time.

Spider-Man: Decent grasp, but failed execution

Blade: Only as strong as the director handling the material.

Amazing Spider-Man revamp: Noble effort, but missed the fucking point so hard. I have slightly elevated hopes for ASM 2, but I'm not going to lose sleep over it.

[Abraham Smashington]

The first Blade was horrendous in my opinion.

[Anderson]

The first Blade was horrendous in my opinion.

Trinity was so terrible that it became laughable.

2 had a grasp of what it wanted to do and mainly stuck it.

1 was just the same shit as Spider-Man, X-Men, Green Lantern and so much shit that came after it. Junky shit action scripts dressed up with supernatural or superhero bullshit and then given mass release.

[Abraham Smashington]

I almost didn't give Blade II a chance because of how shitty the first was. I'm glad I did as it's one of my favorite horror movies.

[BillyG]

The first Blade was horrendous in my opinion.

Mothafucka, tryin to ice skate uphill.

[Abraham Smashington]

BLOOD RAVE! OOTZ OOTZ OOTZ

[Abraham Smashington]

Oh shit, a Drew Goddard Sinister Six flick?

That could be something awesome.

[Matt]

I 'liked' the first BLADE film, but yeah...BLADE II is the goods.