5 Rules for a Spider-Man Reboot Comments - Mania.com


Showing items 31 - 38 of 38
<<  <  1 2 3 4 
timesobserver 11/4/2009 2:46:40 PM

And the act, Heth Ledger, died in real life? Yeah, TKay42one I know what you mean.

But, it was great that he did lived and I wish they did the same with Two-Face. He was much better than Tommy Lee's.

TKay42one 11/4/2009 2:51:48 PM

Yeah, I thought they should have kept Two Face alive also...kind of burned through two of the best Batman villains ever there.

shadowprime 11/5/2009 5:48:46 AM


TO - Not disagreeing. Just saying I suspect the reason that has become such a cliche has more to do with casting and such than it does with creative motivations. I like the idea of the villain  - GASP - going to JAIL at the end of a superhero movie, instead of always beign bound for the morgue.


TKay - Yeah, interesting that at the end of one of the darkest superhero movies ever, the primary villain LIVES. Of course, it fit the overall theme of the story, the contrasts between Batman and the Joker, etc, but... interesting. And I do wish Two Face had also survived, although I suppose they felt it would have made it harder to wrap things up as they desired (they had pushed, hard, on the idea that Harvey Dent's "fall" would have devastated Gotham).


Tonebone 11/5/2009 10:11:44 AM

Jesus Christ!

A series makes one misstep and we are calling for a reboot?

Is this serious?

Why not do the challenging, more fulfilling thing and just learn from mistakes and try to make the next entry better?

whiteandnerdy75 11/7/2009 9:06:06 PM

Ah, isn't it a little early to talk of a reboot for a successful series.  Sam Raimi did just fine, and while there's a lot of critics (on here especially) concerning 3, it wasn't that bad.  When Raimi's finished for sure with the series, then maybe (after five or six years) talk of a sequel with an older Peter Parker should be made.  For now, there's no need.

Oh, and the Hulk reboot kicked ass!  Man, people on here are SO over critical.  Let's see you guys try to fit 40-50 years of continuity into a two hour movie without tweaking a few things...

axia777 11/9/2009 4:53:12 PM

No reboot at all is needed. A reboot is counter productive at this point. They just need to follow most the the rules laid out in the list for any new sequels. That way they will not suck.

keithdaniel 11/11/2009 11:41:55 AM

Wow,I never thought I'd write this but I actually agree with nearly every point made by Chad Derdowski! I know I've been hard on him in the past on some of the conclusions that he made from other articles he's authored,but he's raised some interesting points. Especially,the issue of Peter Parker finding some reason to take off his mask at the end of each film of the last Spiderman trilogy,although I understand the reasons why from an acting standpoint. Still,if that keeps happening then after a while it'll be seen as a gimmick and will lose it's appeal,if it hasn't already. Concerning the idea of skipping the origin story,I think they should only do so if they were going to start over,later in some distant future. Starting over so quickly when the film franchise started just 7 and a half years ago seems perposterous! I think there have been too many people who fussed-out over Spiderman 3 and exaggerated by stating that it was a bad movie. Spiderman 3,wasn't as good as parts 1 and 2,however,it still had some terrific action,great performances,some good emotional scenes(especially when Peter forgave Sandman)and fx. In my opinion,that's far from being a bad movie,but I digress! Another possibility if they were going to take Chad  D's advice would be to start a new Spiderman tv series! 

nickzambuto 8/14/2010 1:37:38 AM

 YES EXACTLY, SPIDER MAN NEEDS TO BE FUNNY!!!!! thats probably mu biggest (and only) problem with the trilogy, HES NOT FUNNY!!!! spider man is supposed to be a wisecracking smart ass. i hope they put more jokes in the reboot.

<<  <  1 2 3 4 


You must be logged in to leave a comment. Please click here to login.