GameInformer

Hey, Nub, JBros are the best bros.  Everyone knows that.

As for the Spidey remake... eh, let it be.  Although the series is fine as it is, I'm curious to see how this reboot turns out.

actually zac efron's starting to earn his chops as a more serious actor, sure he was in high school musical, but he openly mocked it in a skit when he guest hosted SNL and while I've yet to see it, 17 again looks to be considerably better than his previous work, maybe he needs to play an iconic character to show us he's more than a one trick pony, just be sure to dork up his look pre-spider bite (big glasses, dorky clothes, the whole shebang)

Nub:

Smackey:

The rumors that that High School Musical guy, Efron or whatever his name is, is going to be Spiderman makes me want to suck lemons.

You know his full name is Zack Efron, stop pretending to be too cool to know the names of tweener stars.

 

And stop trying to cover up your Jonas Brothers posters, you're not fooling anyone.

None of this never would have happened if you didn't make that mix tape for me. Noddin my head like yeah? Yeah, I freaking know what you were suggesting with that one.

And besides, I've moved on from the teeny boppers. To really get the good stuff, you have to start even younger. Feast your ears on EYEBALL SKELETON.

http://www.myspace.com/eyeballskeleton

YOU GOT A POINTY HEAD

hey! no hijacking! no! I said no! this will not become the barney sing along thread!

I'll tell you what I said on Comicvine.

YES! Maybe now we'll get a Spidey that wisecracks and an MJ who's actually sexy!

@Meatbag

Kirsten Dunst not sexy?  Not only is she sexy IMO, but she also made a good Mary J Watson.

I question the point of a wise cracking peter parker on film, the actor chosen would need excellent comedic timing, considering most of spidey's wise cracking is while he's in a fight, unlike the iron man thing where he had a seemingly endless amount of time to spout off one-liners

Spider-Man reboot...Spider-Man period...RAGE!

dbull620:

Considering the first of the recent Spiderman movies came out just 8 years ago, isn't a complete reboot unnecessary?  I mean, are moviegoers really going to want to see another "how Peter Parker became Spiderman" movie when they just saw one a few years ago?

They really should just continue the story without Rami and crew.

 You have a very good point. Rather than start all over, why don't they just continue? I'd rather have that than a remake. For those that think continuing on would suck, think of the new Star Trek. They could have used all of their newer, younger actors and remade the whole series, but instead, they decided to keep going and what did we get: a movie that was worthy of the Star Trek name. I'm by no means a Star Trek fan, but if they could do a miracle continuation like that with Star Trek, they can do it with Spider-Man. Thank you dbull620 and peace.

I welcome the reboot. Spiderman 3 was just horrible enough to constitute it. Also, I think it was entirely Raimi's fault. People were raging for Venom before Spiderman 2, and I think Raimi chose a much less-interesting character (Sandman) just to be a spiteful little girl about it, much like most comic-book fans that watch these movies only to piss and moan every time they alter a little subject matter.

Something that I didn't think deserved a reboot was the original Hulk movie. The only reasons ever presented for the movies bad general view is because there was around 45 minutes of actual character development, because god forbid there is actually any real suspense in superhero movies. Also, as much as I love Norton, Bana killed as Bruce Banner. Same for Tom Jane as the original Punisher. But of course, any movie that isn't 3/4 action is automatic fail, these days.

star trek wasn't a continuation, it did the exact opposite of what a reboot should do, which is erase everything that came before it. I'd rather it've been a true reboot, leaving the original series alone rather than using time traveling and alternate realities to completely wipe the slate clean. The film didn't alter the canon, it destroyed it, making it's version of star trek the only version. Thanks JJ Abrams, for making it so the next generation series I love so much never existed, ***

Phalanx541:

I welcome the reboot. Spiderman 3 was just horrible enough to constitute it. Also, I think it was entirely Raimi's fault. People were raging for Venom before Spiderman 2, and I think Raimi chose a much less-interesting character (Sandman) just to be a spiteful little girl about it, much like most comic-book fans that watch these movies only to piss and moan every time they alter a little subject matter.

Something that I didn't think deserved a reboot was the original Hulk movie. The only reasons ever presented for the movies bad general view is because there was around 45 minutes of actual character development, because god forbid there is actually any real suspense in superhero movies. Also, as much as I love Norton, Bana killed as Bruce Banner. Same for Tom Jane as the original Punisher. But of course, any movie that isn't 3/4 action is automatic fail, these days.

The new Hulk movie was a sequel though, why the hell is everyone calling it a reboot? Edward Norton was also a great choice for Bruce Banner, believe it or not Bruce Banner isn't a hunk, he's a weakling, he's vulnerable, that's what makes his becoming the hulk such an empowering experience, it's everyone who's ever been picked on or pushed around striking back, Eric Bana is a walking set of muscles so you don't get the same feeling. Also, who says Sandman isn't an interesting character? I'm not saying the movie was good, in fact it sucked, and I honestly don't know what happened after they made Spider-Man 2, which is still the best comic book movie ever made by definition (see what I did there? I said by definition, so you guys won't say "but what about The Dark Knight?" because by definition I believe a comic book movie is technically an "adaptation" which again, by definition means that it is essentially an embodiment of the work it is derived from, The Dark Knight wasn't an adaptation as it was made for people who have never picked up a batman comic book). So, I guess I really just don't agree with you on any level, and you've pretty much annoyed me every time you've posted on a thread I've been frequenting... I forgot where I was going with this, I'm tired. 

Chaos is Beauty:

Also, who says Sandman isn't an interesting character?

I just did.

Chaos is Beauty:

see what I did there? I said by definition, so you guys won't say "but what about The Dark Knight?" because by definition I believe a comic book movie is technically an "adaptation" which again, by definition means that it is essentially an embodiment of the work it is derived from, The Dark Knight wasn't an adaptation as it was made for people who have never picked up a batman comic book

A movie that stars a character originally developed for a comic book is a comic book movie. Nobody cares about your definition of anything.

Chaos is Beauty:

So, I guess I really just don't agree with you on any level, and you've pretty much annoyed me every time you've posted on a thread I've been frequenting

I'd rather annoy one person than annoy them all. ;] Seriously, though. Have you seen anyone on this site monitor threads for people with differing opinions just to have another reason to post as much as you, ever? I'm guessing the answer is no. If it continues, I will be happy to continually annoy you. ;]

Back to the topic at hand, I had no idea they were also rebooting X-Men. I read the movie ideas for Wolverine and Magneto adaptations long before they were in the works, but it's upsetting to know they are restarting the original series. X-Men 3 was appalling, but it was the writing / directing at fault, not who played the characters.

Chaos is Beauty:

 

 I'm not saying the movie was good, in fact it sucked, and I honestly don't know what happened after they made Spider-Man 2, which is still the best comic book movie ever made by definition (see what I did there? I said by definition, so you guys won't say "but what about The Dark Knight?" because by definition I believe a comic book movie is technically an "adaptation" which again, by definition means that it is essentially an embodiment of the work it is derived from, The Dark Knight wasn't an adaptation as it was made for people who have never picked up a batman comic book).

None of that made any sense whatsoever. By definition, a definition means defining something. Making it clear and definite. It is not your opinion. Just like you can't say what it is or isn't an adaptation when you don't know what that word means either.

I don't like it how if you have a different opinion than yourself, Chaos, then that person is "wrong."  I've said this time and time again, you're a movie snob and you need to get off your high horse.