Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Batman Forever's Bane was right out of the comics—but he was little more than wallpaper. TDKR Bane was Nolan-ized and a major character.
The Bane I knew from the comic was very intelligent which made him even more dangerous. Of course this as always depends on who is doing the writing.
I was say that Batman worst enemy on a global scale would be Ra's Al Ghul. On a more local level you have The Joker of course. To me the rest of Batman's adversaries were lame.
I thought Garfield was a terrific Spider Man. Wonder what happened. Ask for too much money?
The Amazing Spider-man 2 tanked. Sony looked to do a female led Spider-verse movie and a Sinister Six movie even after but then they realized there's was far too much brand damage to reverse in the sequel. Garfield was an alright Parker but he was upstaged by Emma Stone IMO.
This is a reboot, not a recasting. The Amazing Spider-Man movies were amazing bombs and now Marvel is showing Sony how it's done.
A 250 million budget film bringing in 750 million is a bomb? Only Batman V. Superman is in that territory but that is because of marketing. I don't remember The Amazing Spider-Man having that much of a marketing blitz that it's sequel nor an Avengers film or Batman V. Superman had. FYI The Amazing Spider-Man 2 had a slightly higher budget with a slightly lower box office but their marketing is what killed them when it came to profitability.
A 250 million budget film bringing in 750 million is a bomb? Only Batman V. Superman is in that territory but that is because of marketing. I don't remember The Amazing Spider-Man having that much of a marketing blitz that it's sequel nor an Avengers film or Batman V. Superman had. FYI The Amazing Spider-Man 2 had a slightly higher budget with a slightly lower box office but their marketing is what killed them when it came to profitability.
Correct.
Neither of the two recent Spidey films were bombs at all. The second was certainly a disappointment, both in terms of box office and quality. Its biggest fault was that it was a bad movie.
Garfield is a great actor. No doubt. But I am tired of seeing 30-year old actors playing high school kids.
A 250 million budget film bringing in 750 million is a bomb? Only Batman V. Superman is in that territory but that is because of marketing. I don't remember The Amazing Spider-Man having that much of a marketing blitz that it's sequel nor an Avengers film or Batman V. Superman had. FYI The Amazing Spider-Man 2 had a slightly higher budget with a slightly lower box office but their marketing is what killed them when it came to profitability.
On ASM2, the studio spent a lot more than 250 million, and they made only 70 million profit. Hence the second reboot.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
