MovieChat Forums > xhonzi > Replies
xhonzi's Replies
I know this post is forever old...
But just wanted to let you know that in the extended cut, it's revealed the witch is his mother.
If I had only seen TASM1, I would say he was the worst.
I wasn't even going to go see TASM2. But friends made me go.
To my surprise, everything I hated about TASM1, including Garfield's interpretation of the character, was magically much better in TASM2.
Now, the movie has problems- but I do think TASM2 is the closest we've gotten to a comic accurate Peter, Spider-Man, and universe. I liked the chemistry between the leads, and that it wasn't overly soapy.
Holland is good- but Garfield is my favorite.
And he just cements that in No Way Home.
There was always a faint green tint to the scenes in the matrix in the original movie.
You are right that they intensified the green tint when it was rereleased, to match the greeness of the sequels.
However, at the end of Revolutions, a full color sky, complete with rainbow colored clouds appeared above The City, to signify that the matrix was better after the deal Neo struck. I think the little girl says she did the rainbow.
However, I'm not confident that is the reason the matrix appears to be full color in the new movie
Favreau played Foggy in the last Daredevil movie.
Yes, but that's not the trait that we're talking about:
"how impulsive he gets when someone calls him a chicken".
But not because Biff called him chicken.
No! I'm not sure- I didn't do any specific math. There will definitely be exceptions to the rule- whichever rule it might be... but it's my guess that the original poster was correct to say that they usually make less. But for sure I don't know.
In any case- it's far from a guarantee that the next one will make more (or that it can't).
Not always true, but it's very common.
MCU movies are an exception, and Fast/Furious too.
But Star Wars- the first movie of each trilogy made the most- Jurassic Park- each "trilogy" member made less as it went on. In both of those cases- inflation may make it look like later trilogies made more money than earlier trilogies- and maybe they did, 'cuz nostalgia sells more than quality- but within a timeframe- I think it's fair to say "sequels usually make less".
(Harry Potter is all over the place, but the top 2 are #8, and then #1- proving that the first one made more money for 6 sequels, until the 7th sequel topped it)
I also really like the mini series. Though I'm not sure it's aged well. And I think it looked better on my SD TV.
But I think it's a lot better than the Lynch version.
I ask- because I know several people who plan to see it who don't know the whole story. I'm wondering if they'll know they're missing anything.
Well... it occurred to Plato.
Oops, too late.
Thanks, I'll let her know.
Clearly the problem with the 3D was the cinema's fault, no?
No.
My straight wife also not a fan.
Worst of all- it's just not funny.
Well, there are a few solid jokes.
But too much pandering when they should have been making with the funny.
Interesting. I don't know much about behind the scenes on Green Lantern. Where can I read more?
My favorite take on this from the comics was the resurrected Mar'Vell (original guy a Captain Marvel).
At first he seems to be the original, and not dead because it was his skrull clone what died in that famous graphic novel. So he's back and fighting the skrull invasion with all his might. Then it turns out he is a skrull, and was just brainwashed into thinking he was the dead kree hero.
He accepts this, but didn't really care. The brainwashing is so complete, he just keeps fighting the skrulls, as if he really was Mar'Vell.
He would have been perfect!
I'm a fan as well. Mostly, at least.
I'm crossing my fingers but not holding my breath for pt 4.