The Amazing Spider-Man What can Spider-Man 4 learn from Iron Man?

[DACMAN]

How do you know it isn't happeneing just because it hasn't happened yet? That's really narrow minded.

 

[LightningFlash]

In short, fans will turn on Downey and IM by the third film. Spidey went through that cycle, time to grow.

Fans won't if Iron Man 3 is spectacular, and not a crapfest, such as S-M3.

 

[david icke]

If you couldn't determine from my spelling that it was a pun...then If you couldn't make the connection between this thread and every thread about how TDK was amazing and how everything should be like TDK then Do you require all puns and sarcasm to be explained in depth to you? I will be happy to oblige this request for you in the future.

No, I got it, it just wasn't very original, funny or relevant. You didn't understand the intent of the thread and came in for a bash from the wrong angle.
edit: not to mention repeating something you'd already posted, which is what i was pointing out.

You say there are too many 'It should be like TDK' threads/posts, I say there are too many 'I'm tired of seeing 'It should be like TDK threads/posts' when the thread/post doesn't mean that at all.

I think the OP was trying to make another thread about how much he dislikes Raimi and how much he thinks SM4 will suck no matter what happens.

Seems your mind reading powers where somewhat off Prof.

Iron Man is not Spider-Man. Batman is not Spider-Man. Spider-Man is Spider-Man.

Irelevant is not relevant.

The man who brought Spider-Man to life, Raimi, has made a good film, and excellent film, and a mediocre film. He has realized and admitted his mistakes. So, if he goes back to the way he did SM1 and SM2, then he doesn't need to learn a lesson from the writing staff of Iron Man or take a page from Chiristopher Nolan's direction. They are all good movies in their own right.

The way he did SM2 was to ask the writers from Smallville to come in and have a bash after having a different writer for SM1.
How is that so different from asking a comicbook writer to come in given their superhero experience?

 

[david icke]

What can Spider-Man 4 learn from Iron Man?


Everything.

What , you mean Spidey should be more like the Iron-Man Mk1 armour ?

I don't know about that but I think if they ever do the 'Demon in a bottle' plot for an Iron-Man movie it should have an armour mask like this
at least for the first half of the movie.



Sorry couldn't resist.

 

[chaseter]

No, I got it, it just wasn't very original, funny or relevant. You didn't understand the intent of the thread and came in for a bash from the wrong angle.
edit: not to mention repeating something you'd already posted, which is what i was pointing out.

Did I say it was a joke Did I say you didn't get the joke?

Is the rest of this post repeating something you already stated? Lets read on and find out!!!

You say there are too many 'It should be like TDK' threads/posts, I say there are too many 'I'm tired of seeing 'It should be like TDK threads/posts' when the thread/post doesn't mean that at all.

I am tired of seeing 'I'm tired of seeing 'It should be like TDK threads/posts''.

Seems your mind reading powers where somewhat off Prof.

You are the one with the mind reading powers! What are the lottery numbers going to be?

Irelevant is not relevant.

Old is not young. Evil is not good. Sad is not happy. Do you have a thesaurus?

It is relevant because calling for a future film to be more like a film you enjoyed is wrong. Hence why after TDK came out, everyone called for the next Spider-Man film to be more dark. TDK popularized the movie descriptive term of 'being dark.' A movie had to be dark to be good after TDK.

The way he did SM2 was to ask the writers from Smallville to come in and have a bash after having a different writer for SM1.
How is that so different from asking a comicbook writer to come in given their superhero experience?

So why didn't he say go back to what you did with SM2 Why isn't that the thread title

 

[DACMAN]

Fans won't if Iron Man 3 is spectacular, and not a crapfest, such as S-M3.

Agreed. We're so used to the third films sucking people are already writing off Iron Man 3!

 

[Spider-Fan]

This thread is just like NinjaCarm's antics...you have an individual thought about what YOU think Raimi needs to do from watching other films, and feel the need to complain. This is a useless thread, just like all of NinjaCarm's threads. Raimi made 2 excellent Spider-Man films, and one that was just okay. 2 is greater than 1. What are you gonna say if IM2 sucks? Are you still gonna suggest Raimi, whom made one of the 2 best comic films ever (and my personal favorite) should follow what Favs did?

Raimi is an accomplished filmmaker, and succeeded in translating Spider-Man to the screen more than he has screwed up, and many of the missteps are the fault of Arad and co.

Your thoughts don't warrant a thread. POST IN THREADS ON THE TOPIC IF ONE IS MADE! DON'T MAKE USELESS THREADS!!!

 

[chaseter]

Agreed. We're so used to the third films sucking people are already writing off Iron Man 3!

And you are writing off Spider-Man 4.

Case closed. Close thread. Cat lawyer says double standards are bad.

 

[BrollySupersj]

It can learn to give us awesome fight scenes where Spider-Man is thrown through a tractor trailer.

 

[david icke]

Did I say it was a joke Did I say you didn't get the joke?

Yes you did. you said 'If you can't determine from my spelling that my post was a pun...'
'should i spell it out for you in future' etc

Is the rest of this post repeating something you already stated? Lets read on and find out!!!

Em, no it really wasn't.

You don't seem to be able to read your pown posts, so I'm not surprised you can't read mine.
If you don't know that the word 'pun' that you used eqates the word 'joke' I suggest you buy a dictionary or thesaurus sometime.

I am tired of seeing 'I'm tired of seeing 'It should be like TDK threads/posts''.

Y'know when I typed up, "How is this different from your "How is this different..' post. I was making the subtle joke that you were repeating yourself in your 2nd post.
Here, I made the same kind of subtle reapeating reference. Now I know what level of humour and perception you're on I'll stick to using smilies to express myself when joking around with you or trying to explain something, or , y'know, maybe I won't as I'd actually like to excercise my brain with actual thought and imagination.

You are the one with the mind reading powers! What are the lottery numbers going to be?

I wouldn't want you to win all that money, you'd spend it all on smileys.

Old is not young. Evil is not good. Sad is not happy. Do you have a thesaurus?

I know you don't, or at least know you haven't looked up the word 'joke' or 'pun' in it.
I can imagine you looking up the word 'thesaurus' in a thesaurus and being surprised it's not a dinosaur.

It is relevant because calling for a future film to be more like a film you enjoyed is wrong. Hence why after TDK came out, everyone called for the next Spider-Man film to be more dark. TDK popularized the movie descriptive term of 'being dark.' A movie had to be dark to be good after TDK.

When you read the OP, what he is saying is that they could maybe benfit from 'the approach' Iron-Man took, that of bringing in some comicbook writers for their say on the script.
Not, that it should be like that movie.

So why didn't he say go back to what you did with SM2 Why isn't that the thread title

Well, maybe from now on people should make thread titles explicitly clear on what their intentions are, as some folk can't read past the thread title and read the OP to see what it's really about.

edit: Look, i understand what you are saying, but just because you feel someone or other people have made these type of threads in the past, doesn't mean this was is. I understand the thread title would lead you to believe that, but i also think that once you've read the OP there is a different meaning to the intention. I don't want to get into some kind of gag/thesaurus war, this is all I'm trying to say.

 

[spider-neil]

what is a little disappointing is SM1 and SM2 are being tainted by SM3 the same why the matrix is being tainted by matrix 2 and 3.
I saw SM3 and then saw IM the difference quality was stark (see what I did there? ) I was even thinking that IM may be better than SM2 (my favorite superhero movie ever until TDK came along) but I recently saw both movies again (SM2/IM) I'm sorry but its not even close, SM2 is MUCH better, both the hero and villian are fully developed, the action scenes are the best superhero action commited to film (including TDK) and the peformances especially pete's confession to aunt may is moving and heart felt.

what can SM4 learn from IM? SM4 just needs to look at what made SM1 and 2 so great and just go back to basics, it doesn't need outside influences to improve.

 

[chaseter]

what can SM4 learn from IM? SM4 just needs to look at what made SM1 and 2 so great and just go back to basics, it doesn't need outside influences to improve.

Eggsactly

 

[snakeinthegear]

Mark Miller maybe cause he had a good 12 issue run on Spidey.Bendis not really.I don't like his approach to 616 spidey.

Bendis' 616 approach on film would be a lot better than what Raimi's cooked up in the last 3 movies.

On another note, the Thor movie looks set to be epic. Hopkins as Odin? Wow!

Raimi needs to do something special and so far with all the tidbits I'm hearing about SM4, it looks set to be more of the same old tired stuff. I hope I'm wrong.

 

[spider-neil]

Bendis' 616 approach on film would be a lot better than what Raimi's cooked up in the last 3 movies.

On another note, the Thor movie looks set to be epic. Hopkins as Odin? Wow!

Raimi needs to do something special and so far with all the tidbits I'm hearing about SM4, it looks set to be more of the same old tired stuff. I hope I'm wrong.

way too early to be drawing any conclusions, we don't even know who the villians are.

 

[david icke]

what can SM4 learn from IM? SM4 just needs to look at what made SM1 and 2 so great and just go back to basics, it doesn't need outside influences to improve.

Well, part of Spider-man 2's approach was to get in the creator/writers of Smallville due to their experience in writing superhero stories.
By this same token they could get in some comicbook writers sitting in with the script and giving some pointers, like they did with Iron-Man.
I didn't know Iron-Man had this approach until this thread was started, and it sounds like not a bad approach to superhero filmaking.
Also, we don't want the same old formula to be repeated, getting in a group of comicbook writers to have a look see over the script wouldn't do any harm, their comments could be ignored. But on the other hand, using this approach that Iron-Man had in the script process could have beneficial results.

I'm surprised more comicbook fans wouldn't be more gung ho about this idea.

edit: The fact that Iron-Man was made under the Marvels Studios suggests this kind of thing was easier to organise with writers already working for Marvel. Given that Spider-man is with sony, they may be hesitant to use this approach as the cb writers could ask for a lot of money for their expertise.

 

[spider-neil]

have to say this again, how did sam get SM2 sooo right and then get SM3 sooo wrong? when I saw SM2 I cannot put into words how much I loved it. you got to see peter's life unravel as he spends more and time time as spidey, his love is moving on and his studies are going to ****, at the same time they are developing the villian, you then have what has GOT to be one of the best fights commited to film. I loved it, loved it. I think I saw SM2 (at LEAST) 5 times at the cinema.

then SM3 came out, and whilst I didn't 'hate' it I was bitterly disappointed. I think now its a case of 'once bitten twice shy', sam is capable of producing a spidey that knocks the ball out of the park but then again he is capable of producing a spidey movie that bitterly disappoints.

my hope is sam takes the moie to the heights that he himself has reached, I don't care how he does it or what influences he draws from as long as he makes a movie that entertains and elates.

 

[snakeinthegear]

way too early to be drawing any conclusions, we don't even know who the villians are.

I'm not cementing any conclusions as of yet. What I am doing is piecing together the official bits of info we've been told. That is, Raimi saying the same old tired stuff he's been saying since the first movie about peter and growth. The burglar returning, Dr Connors having another minor background role. At this point, knowing who the villains are makes no difference. The general gist of things right now to me seems like it's the same old covered ground that wasn't particularly engaging to begin with anyway.

I was excited and pumped when there was all that hoopla about hiring writers to take the series in a new direction but by the sound of things of what we've been told, there's nothing particularly new at all. However, I could be wrong and sm4 may be the ultimate comicbook film but with the way things are shaping up, I'm highly doubtful.

 

[Oscorp]

I'm not cementing any conclusions as of yet. What I am doing is piecing together the official bits of info we've been told. That is, Raimi saying the same old tired stuff he's been saying since the first movie about peter and growth. The burglar returning, Dr Connors having another minor background role. At this point, knowing who the villains are makes no difference. The general gist of things right now to me seems like it's the same old covered ground that wasn't particularly engaging to begin with anyway.

I was excited and pumped when there was all that hoopla about hiring writers to take the series in a new direction but by the sound of things of what we've been told, there's nothing particularly new at all. However, I could be wrong and sm4 may be the ultimate comicbook film but with the way things are shaping up, I'm highly doubtful.

1) He said that before Spider-Man 1 and 2 too...and they turned out good. Actually, he admits the fact that Spider-Man 3 is a disappointment and that he wants to redeem himself from it. I'd say he seems more thrilled about making this movie than he's been in a while. The break with Drag Me To Hell also seems to have made him more excited about going back to Spidey again.

2) The burglar returning was a joke by Papajohn to get some attention.

3) Baker could have a background role because Lizard is getting most of the screentime. Also, even if Connors wouldn't become Lizard in this one, in what way would the film be "the same formula" with another villain?

 

[Spider-Kid]

What , you mean Spidey should be more like the Iron-Man Mk1 armour ?

I don't know about that but I think if they ever do the 'Demon in a bottle' plot for an Iron-Man movie it should have an armour mask like this
at least for the first half of the movie.



Sorry couldn't resist.

I meant that it could be a success like Iron Man. You know...good villain...nice story line...all those things Spider-Man 3 should've had. Oh yeah, and more Screen time for Venom, which, tbh, Iron Monger didn't get enough of either.


And Spidey with the MK1 armor...haha...not a bad idea. t:

 

[david icke]

I meant that it could be a success like Iron Man. You know...good villain...nice story line...all those things Spider-Man 3 should've had. Oh yeah, and more Screen time for Venom, which, tbh, Iron Monger didn't get enough of either.


And Spidey with the MK1 armor...haha...not a bad idea. t:

Yeah, I just thought that little grey faced smiley you used in that post looked just like Iron-Man's Mk1 armour:

Whereas this one looks like the armour Iron-Man would be using when he's having a good time on the booze:

The human torch with constipation:

Cyclops with a baldy cut:

The hulk leaving the dentists with a clean bill of teeth health:t:

Ice-man dumped by Rogue:

Ice-man forgetting about Rogue and spotting new addition to the school Psylocke:

 

[Spider-Vader]

Heh. I liked Iron Man, but amazing? It was pretty much beat-for-beat Spider-Man 1 (or Superman: the Movie) with a middle aged hero--and it wasn't as good.

Iron Man was good, but it was cookie-cutter formula. Personally, I'd like to see Spidey break formula as it has been beholden to it for three pictures. TDK is the first mainstream superhero movie to completely disregard formula and I'd like Spidey to learn by that example (though not copy TDK, if that makes sense). To thine ownself be true.

Don't ape an origin movie that is an inferior riff or variation on your first film. Trust me when we reach IM3 fans will be *****ing about Downey. Right now because he is in Sherlock Holmes and talks of Lestat they are already saying he is "spread too thin" and there are murmors of discontent. As entertaining and original as his performance was in IM1 (it made the picture), people are starting to realize that he played Downey more than Stark. Which I am completely fine with, but Tropic Thunder was his better performance last year, but he isn't quite where he was when he did Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, Good Night Goodluck, Wonder Boys or Chaplin.

In short, fans will turn on Downey and IM by the third film. Spidey went through that cycle, time to grow.

Wrong Iron Man 3 will be good because Marvel knows that good movies make money. The reasons X3, Superman 3, Blade Trinity & Batman Forveer (&why Spidey 3 is only 'okay') is because the studios got greedy & tried to either market the movie only to kids, make it shorter or add a bunch of characters to sell toys/try to please fanboys.

 

[Dragon]

What can Spidey 4 learn from Ironman? Don't let this happen to you.

Ironman was a fun film, but not a great film. It took no chances. Everything was far too easy for Stark. He gets his chest blown open yet never seems to be in pain. He builds next level technology in a cave as though its nothing. He builds next century level armor apparently for free. The suit performs perfectly out of the gate with only minor malfunctions created for comic effect, not dramatic tension.

And the story made no sense. Why did Stane want to kill Stark exactly? Tony clearly was the reason Stark Industries was thriving, and Stane couldn't even get the power unit to work. He'd be bankrupt in a year without Stark.

Why did the warlord figure Stark could build a Jericho missile himself, when it's obviously something built within a munitions plant by dozens of technicians. And what would he do with ONE MISSILE? He couldn't even know if it would work. And I'd at least figure that Stark's construction of the Mark I suit would have to appear like a missile since he was being watched. Then it could be re-assembled into the armor.

No challenges in Tony's life. No romantic struggle. Pepper should have been the one woman he has to win over, not her being ready to spread eagle for him at the drop of a hat. No tough battles. He takes out an F-22 without trying. Even Stane's more powerful suit wasn't much of a challenge, and Tony's was at a fraction of maximum power. And I really hated the way the term "superhero" was being tossed around in light of the film opening with the deaths of those soldiers. A superhero isn't merely someone who has superior power. It's someone who faces impossible odds and prevails. That didn't happen in Ironman.

Again- the movie was fun and not very challenging. It was smoothly directed. But Spidey should be going for something alot stronger.

 

[bullets]

^ I agree mostly with what you said even though I'm a big fan of the Iron man movie. Stark did have to design the suit and escape back to the US, also had to refine and adapt to it , and Stane almost killed him . He could of came back and went back to his usual business but he was trying to turn his life around to be the Hero.

 

[Kargo Warrior]

What can Spidey 4 learn from Ironman? Don't let this happen to you.

Ironman was a fun film, but not a great film. It took no chances. Everything was far too easy for Stark. He gets his chest blown open yet never seems to be in pain. He builds next level technology in a cave as though its nothing. He builds next century level armor apparently for free. The suit performs perfectly out of the gate with only minor malfunctions created for comic effect, not dramatic tension.

And the story made no sense. Why did Stane want to kill Stark exactly? Tony clearly was the reason Stark Industries was thriving, and Stane couldn't even get the power unit to work. He'd be bankrupt in a year without Stark.

Why did the warlord figure Stark could build a Jericho missile himself, when it's obviously something built within a munitions plant by dozens of technicians. And what would he do with ONE MISSILE? He couldn't even know if it would work. And I'd at least figure that Stark's construction of the Mark I suit would have to appear like a missile since he was being watched. Then it could be re-assembled into the armor.

No challenges in Tony's life. No romantic struggle. Pepper should have been the one woman he has to win over, not her being ready to spread eagle for him at the drop of a hat. No tough battles. He takes out an F-22 without trying. Even Stane's more powerful suit wasn't much of a challenge, and Tony's was at a fraction of maximum power. And I really hated the way the term "superhero" was being tossed around in light of the film opening with the deaths of those soldiers. A superhero isn't merely someone who has superior power. It's someone who faces impossible odds and prevails. That didn't happen in Ironman.

Again- the movie was fun and not very challenging. It was smoothly directed. But Spidey should be going for something alot stronger.

I can't agree more with you...i can understand the praise for Batman Begins,TDK,X1,X2,Spider-Man 1 and 2,The Crow,V For Vendetta,etc...but i never understood the praise for Iron Man.

The film was the sum of all the cliches in the superhero genre...i guess being ''cool'' and treating women like garbage is what impresses people these days.It's a mediocre movie,fun yes,but as a script or an idea it's forgettable and average.

 

[chaseter]

Lets not turn this into an Iron Man bashing thread.