Dennis Leary is... Captain Stacy?

[Meule]

Strongly disagree - Leary is still one of the funniest comedians and can really act. Guy is all sorts of awesome in my book.

Agreed

[kingdom warrior]

HAW!

If they let him be Dennis Leary I might watch. "Gren Goblin, huh?" *lights a smoke* "I got'cer Goblin right here!" *punch* "LOCK AND LOAD *************!!!!!"

Don C.

[ctc]

HAW!

If they let him be Dennis Leary I might watch. "Gren Goblin, huh?" *lights a smoke* "I got'cer Goblin right here!" *punch* "LOCK AND LOAD *************!!!!!"

Don C.

[jquest]

I actually like Leary, imho, I think he'll do a Great job! Not too happy with the Costume. Hopefully it's as good as the Rami Spiderman movies.

[fallensaviour]

Smart move on Leary's part for taking this role. Shed the Tommy Gavin personna before "Rescue Me" ends. He may end up saving this movie.

I have to agree with you.

[ratchet]

Wow - Leary looks exactly like the Ultimate Captain Stacy!

[MIB41]

I agree totally with you! I think adaptations require adaptation - that's the whole thing!

When "IPs" get used for the branding because the people working on it just see it as Intellectual Property and not a story - then that's a problem to me, and I think that's what really bothers most people. The first Iron Man changed lots about the original concept - but the people who made it found the heart of how the comics worked - and tweaked it to work for today's audiences. I personally could care less about something like Pepper Potts hair colour if they do that really well.

Personally, my feeling on movie adaptations is that very good books can make fantastic movies, but rarely the other way around. It does happen, I'd say "A Clockwork Orange" is one example off-hand, but it's rare.

"The Godfather" and "Jaws" are two great examples I can think of. Very good books - amazing movies. "Iron Man" too actually - I think Spider-Man works on more complex levels than Iron Man. I liked the first two Spider-Man movies, but the comics are a lot better.

I think part of the problem is that at it's heart a movie is more like a short story than a novel - or in this case a serialized graphic novel. So everything has to be simplified to some degree. If you start with something a little simpler there's room to add depth when you're making a film, but when you have something very detailed and well balanced already it often feels like elements of the story are forced too much, and others get lost or go missing.

At least that's my general take.

There's creative license and then there is brand recognition. Rami took creative license by giving Spidey organic web-shooters instead of mechanical. But we still saw the classic Spider-man. We got Mary Jane. We got JJ. We got Gwen Stacy. Creative license was used with them as well, but they looked the part. What is happening here is a makeover of unprecedented proportions. Spiderman3, while a disappointment to some, still grossed more money worldwide than either the first or second films. People had issues with the crowded story lines, but NOT the cast. It wasn't Batman and Robin. It wasn't the Incredible Hulk. You still had a lot more right with it than wrong. So now they have thrown the director and cast away which many people adored. And NOW their changing what Spiderman's costume for the sake of some "ultimate universe" concept? REALLY? An idea decades of fans know nothing about? And they think when this new version comes out, people will simply accept it? Really? People are looking for the Spider-man they KNOW and LOVE. This isn't it.

[The Bat]

I like Dennis Leary. He brings a nice edge to the rolls he plays and his respect for people in uniform is tangible. He'll do the roll proud.

I agree with ya Troy! Good casting!

[LonnieFisher]

I'd just like to see the original Spidey hit the big screen. I like the original story! What I'd like to see in a Spider-man movie will never be made.
I'd like to see a full length movie made from just Amazing Fantasy #15. Just his origin story with the famous, popular, loved by the fans Spider-man. A story that escapes most comic readers and Spider-man fans.

[aquatroy]

I think this movie is gonna suck big time.

It's hard to get past how Sam Raimi has been treated. He brought a ton of money to ... Sony (?). For the beancounters to do what they did to SM III and after was ungreatful and disrespectful.

[aquatroy]

I am.
Ultimate Thor has been very good. 1st issue of Ult Cap was better then average. Once Ultimates gets past this current vampire arc, I'll pick it up, too.

I like Dennis Leary. He brings a nice edge to the rolls he plays and his respect for people in uniform is tangible. He'll do the roll proud.

[The Toyroom]

Just remember that they are basing this on the Ultimate Spider-Man...

The Ultimate Marvel Universe....BAH! Does anyone still read those titles?

[LonnieFisher]

I think this movie is gonna suck big time.

[Brazoo]

I guess I am one of the few of the camp of allowing artistic liberties to occur on film. I did wish that they would have figured out a way to do the three way love triangle between P.P., M.J., and Gwen Stacey right in the first movie and have Gwen Stacey die but then thought it would make most non-comic readers confused and too little time to develop character plot. I don't know if I have seen a movie yet where it was up to the standards of the book and that includes The Harry Potter series which I am also a big fan. Just too much going on in the plot to fit into a 2 hour movie. Keep in mind that Spiderman 1 basically covered about 120 or so issues of the comic but trying to focus on one villain.

I agree totally with you! I think adaptations require adaptation - that's the whole thing!

When "IPs" get used for the branding because the people working on it just see it as Intellectual Property and not a story - then that's a problem to me, and I think that's what really bothers most people. The first Iron Man changed lots about the original concept - but the people who made it found the heart of how the comics worked - and tweaked it to work for today's audiences. I personally could care less about something like Pepper Potts hair colour if they do that really well.

Personally, my feeling on movie adaptations is that very good books can make fantastic movies, but rarely the other way around. It does happen, I'd say "A Clockwork Orange" is one example off-hand, but it's rare.

"The Godfather" and "Jaws" are two great examples I can think of. Very good books - amazing movies. "Iron Man" too actually - I think Spider-Man works on more complex levels than Iron Man. I liked the first two Spider-Man movies, but the comics are a lot better.

I think part of the problem is that at it's heart a movie is more like a short story than a novel - or in this case a serialized graphic novel. So everything has to be simplified to some degree. If you start with something a little simpler there's room to add depth when you're making a film, but when you have something very detailed and well balanced already it often feels like elements of the story are forced too much, and others get lost or go missing.

At least that's my general take.

[Adam West]

I guess I am one of the few of the camp of allowing artistic liberties to occur on film. I did wish that they would have figured out a way to do the three way love triangle between P.P., M.J., and Gwen Stacey right in the first movie and have Gwen Stacey die but then thought it would make most non-comic readers confused and too little time to develop character plot. I don't know if I have seen a movie yet where it was up to the standards of the book and that includes The Harry Potter series which I am also a big fan. Just too much going on in the plot to fit into a 2 hour movie. Keep in mind that Spiderman 1 basically covered about 120 or so issues of the comic but trying to focus on one villain.