moviegeek's Photo Gallery: spidey

Photo 0 of 1
Photo #0

Comments (11)

  1. moviegeek

    @corey thank you. Exactly.

    3 years agoby @moviegeekFlag

  2. Corey W.

    @moviegeek I hate when people say its too similar to the first two films also. Webb was developing story from the comics, not Raimi.

    3 years agoby @coreyFlag

  3. moviegeek

    @ejk1 I agree about lizard. It didn't work at all here. There shoul have been a relationship there between Connors and Parker. All of the villains in the spiderman films aside from venom have come from scientific blunders. GG, doc ock, lizard, and to some extent sandman. It just happens that they happen to be the most popular.

    3 years agoby @moviegeekFlag

  4. Dan

    @ejk1 Lizard's inclusion sounds like it reeks of corporatism. What I mean by that is the Raimi films had Conners in them, but never went to Lizard level, so they pushed that villain for the reboot. And Lizard being a hybrid of GG and Doc Ock brings my enthusiasm down further. Bring on TDKR!

    3 years agoby @dan1Flag

  5. ejk1

    @moviegeek@narrator I was prepared for the origin to be the similar (although it took a lot of time to set up), but where they dropped the ball was the villain. Unlike @moviegeek, I found the villain to be very similar to his predecessors. Like I said in my review, the take on Lizard took may cues from GG and Doc Ock, taking traits from both and melding them together. Some may say that is the only way Lizard can be displayed, and they may be right. However, if that is the case, I say use another villain to start off, a villain that is just plain evil. They could have used Connors for the first film or two, and then work in the Lizard, making the teacher/pupil relationship between Connors and Parker deeper and the severance of it that much more impactful.

    3 years agoby @ejk1Flag

  6. moviegeek

    @narrator *pulls hair out* I hate that people are calling it too similar to Raimi's film. They need to realize that the similar elements were born in the comics, not in his films. I went in with an open mind, a clean slate, and loved it. Those who want to go in to prove to everyone how it was "too similar" to justify a re-imagining only ruined it for themselves. I think getting rid of Harry Osborn and Mary Jane was enough to change it all up for me. Peter's relationship with Gwen is so much fresher than Mary Jane. It's not a bunch of whining about wanting to tell her. Peter Parker is a much better character in this adaption. The web shooters are mechanical, the villain is different (though, unfortunately not the best), etc. etc.

    I could go on about how it's different as much as people could say it's similar. Rant over.

    3 years agoby @moviegeekFlag

  7. the Narrator

    @moviegeek, I gotcha.

    It sucks that the reception of the film seems split down the middle. For some reason, people were expecting a lot of "new" from this film, despite it still being an origin story, and they seem to be holding the fact that it's a reboot AND similar to Raimi's Spider-Man 1 against it. How do you feel about that?

    3 years agoby @narratorFlag

  8. moviegeek

    @narrator nah, I don't think I'd have too much to say on the movie beyond what others have said.

    3 years agoby @moviegeekFlag

  9. the Narrator

    Awesome, @moviegeek! My plans for watching it fell through, so I'll have to wait until Saturday. It's an alien feeling for me - waiting to watch a film like this. Haha.

    And no review from you for the film?

    3 years agoby @narratorFlag

  10. moviegeek

    @narrator loved it :D

    3 years agoby @moviegeekFlag

  11. the Narrator

    Nice @moviegeek! I take it you liked the film?

    3 years agoby @narratorFlag

  • 0 of 1
    photos Slideshow
  • You are at the first photo.
  • You are at the last photo.