i know. it's a new movie post. you're saying, 'dude, why all the frakkin' movie posts? are you a nerd? do you wear glasses? do you have a superman t-shirt? do you know that bear mcreary scores battlestar galactica and replaced richard gibbs who did the original score for the mini-series?"yes. yes i do. and yes i am. sigh.
judgie pantses.
so i have issues with movies, and i know that they're not going to be what i want them to be all the time. i get that. i don't even mind all that often that movies are different than their original books. i mean, the bourne trilogy is mad different than the books, and yet in my humble opinion, the best trilogy of films i've ever seen.
so why do i have issues with spider-man?
let me just preface this by saying that spider-man 2 is like one of my all time favorite flicks. it was pretty bad ass on all of the levels. and joel mchale was a bank manager. that's just wonderful. also, i had no issue with the actual changes to spider-man's physiology. the webs out of the wrists, i dug. even though technically it should have been out of the bootocks.
my problem with the trilogy has a lot more to do with their crazy casting and characters. i mean, kirsten dunst i've never really ever been a fan of. and i'm probably less of one now. i mean, mary jane? really? uhm, no. come on guys. if you're gonna use her, use her as gwen stacy. that was peter's actual girlfriend in highschool so i think that would have been a better use of her talent. not to mention, green goblin woulda done kilt her character off at the end of the first flick.
now, you say, who would play mary jane? why, bryce dallas howard, of course. she was so much cooler in every way in the third spider-man as gwen stacy. for reals. like, she wasn't used a lot, and her character was pointless, but i wanted more of her story and i really dug her charisma.and i mean, kirsten dunst's hair is naturally blond, like gwen's, and bryce's is naturally red, like mj's. does this make too much sense? i think so.
as for tobey maguire, i don't really have anything against him, per se, but he's not terribly humorous. now, topher grace, who i know played venom, probably actually should have been peter parker. that cat is funnn-e. he's witty and his comic timing is spectacular. much like the friendly neighborhood web-head.for spider-man 3, why so many of the bad guys? just make it about venom. sandman kind of actually did nothing. i mean
the special effects were cute, but venom is too much of a big deal to make him the third bad guy. he needed to be center stage. as for casting venom, i would have loved to see that one bad actor. he's big and kind of awful, but i think he would have been imposing. ol' what's his name. right. karl urban.that's about it as far as casting goes i think. everyone else was cast pretty flippin' well.
oh, the soundtracks were all pretty awful as well.
the score was hep, thanks to danny elfman, until sam raimi pissed him off and he left. man, the third score was pretty sad comparably.
luckily they're doing a fourth film which should be as exciting as superbabies: baby geniuses 2. mmm-hmm. that's the good stuff.
on a lighter note, i hear they're also doing a sequel for bull durham. yay!
sigh again.
