Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2014 8:19:38 GMT
I wanted to give it a fair shot so I tried the second one to see if it was any better. I was wrong. Oh, I never said the live action Spider-man was GOOD! LOL In fact the only redeemable part of it was one episode where there showed Joanna Cameron (from the live action children's show on Saturday morning called "Isis" in a white bikini! Beside that it was crap and had nothing to do with the comic at all! This is true, he never faced any really super powered guys but could you see it being better today. Can you do a faithfully spiderman on a tv budget.
|
|
|
Post by spiderman62 on Jul 15, 2014 13:47:21 GMT
Oh, I never said the live action Spider-man was GOOD! LOL In fact the only redeemable part of it was one episode where there showed Joanna Cameron (from the live action children's show on Saturday morning called "Isis" in a white bikini! Beside that it was crap and had nothing to do with the comic at all! This is true, he never faced any really super powered guys but could you see it being better today. Can you do a faithfully spiderman on a tv budget.
I think it'd depend on the budget, mainly for the web-swinging aspect, but yes I think it's possible to do a decent if not great Spider-Man live action series.
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Jul 16, 2014 6:02:00 GMT
Can you do a faithfully spiderman on a tv budget.
I think it'd depend on the budget, mainly for the web-swinging aspect, but yes I think it's possible to do a decent if not great Spider-Man live action series.
The question here is, what should be considered a "TV budget"? Even on GoT, a series with millions of viewers, CGI is kept to a minimum when it involves living things. A way out could be to basically skip the web-slinging, then. But, what would Spider-Man fans think of that? And what about the rest of his movements, in action sequences? It can be done, but it would either be very expensive, or risk presenting a quite different image of the character.
|
|
|
Post by spiderman62 on Jul 22, 2014 14:07:17 GMT
As far as TV budgets are concerned Ozy I have no idea. Skipping the web-slinging for the most part could be a way to keep the show in budget CGI wise I suppose though you'd have to have SOME web-slinging every now and then otherwise it's just not Spidey! lol.
Maybe the answer lies in waiting until CGI is cheaper to use?.
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Jul 22, 2014 14:15:31 GMT
As far as TV budgets are concerned Ozy I have no idea. Skipping the web-slinging for the most part could be a way to keep the show in budget CGI wise I suppose though you'd have to have SOME web-slinging every now and then otherwise it's just not Spidey! lol. Maybe the answer lies in waiting until CGI is cheaper to use?. The problem, with waiting for technology to drop in price before buying, is that the wait never ends. There's always newer and better just around the corner. If the wanted to do it, they could do it right now, but maybe audience projections aren't good enough, for the current cost.
|
|
|
Post by spiderman62 on Jul 22, 2014 14:42:27 GMT
Yeah, maybe, or maybe they just rather do films than tv shows lol.
I'd personally rather have a Spider-Man television series than a film any day as I very rarely enjoy films whereas I enjoy television series more personally speaking lol.
Especially if the girls are hot.
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Jul 22, 2014 14:44:22 GMT
Yeah, maybe, or maybe they just rather do films than tv shows lol. I'd personally rather have a Spider-Man television series than a film any day as I very rarely enjoy films whereas I enjoy television series more personally speaking lol. Especially if the girls are hot. This could get off-topic real fast.
|
|
|
Post by spiderman62 on Jul 22, 2014 14:52:19 GMT
Yeah, maybe, or maybe they just rather do films than tv shows lol. I'd personally rather have a Spider-Man television series than a film any day as I very rarely enjoy films whereas I enjoy television series more personally speaking lol. Especially if the girls are hot. This could get off-topic real fast. Yeah I constantly have hot girls on the brain. I blame the heat That's my excuse for the day.
Still my main point is that I much prefer a television series over a film personally speaking.
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Jul 22, 2014 14:55:42 GMT
When it comes to a character like Spider-Man, I must concur. The cast is (or was) fundamental to the comics, and it doesn't get enough time to develop in the films.
|
|
|
Post by spiderman62 on Jul 22, 2014 14:59:31 GMT
When it comes to a character like Spider-Man, I must concur. The cast is (or was) fundamental to the comics, and it doesn't get enough time to develop in the films. This post right here is why I prefer television over films.
Back-up characters - like Betty Brant for example would get more character development than they would in films.
I also think you'd get more chance to feature more villains or at least give them enough developmental time on-screen in a television show than you would in films.
That's my opinion anyways.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2014 8:35:44 GMT
When it comes to a character like Spider-Man, I must concur. The cast is (or was) fundamental to the comics, and it doesn't get enough time to develop in the films. This post right here is why I prefer television over films.
Back-up characters - like Betty Brant for example would get more character development than they would in films.
I also think you'd get more chance to feature more villains or at least give them enough developmental time on-screen in a television show than you would in films.
That's my opinion anyways.
This is true but that would be the same for any character, take CATWS as an explain, the dynamic between cap and widow was great but only lasted a certain amount of time, you could have had at least 3/4 episodes if it were a tv series better yet the Peter/Gwen dynamic in the Amazing series was one of the things people enjoy but it had to take a back seat because of univerise building and other parts of story but if it were a tv series then you could do the same 3/4 episodes. As for websling if i were doing it i would cut it down but still have him do it maybe not show the journey but show him coming in for a landing.
|
|
|
Post by spiderman62 on Jul 23, 2014 12:08:29 GMT
This post right here is why I prefer television over films.
Back-up characters - like Betty Brant for example would get more character development than they would in films.
I also think you'd get more chance to feature more villains or at least give them enough developmental time on-screen in a television show than you would in films.
That's my opinion anyways.
This is true but that would be the same for any character, take CATWS as an explain, the dynamic between cap and widow was great but only lasted a certain amount of time, you could have had at least 3/4 episodes if it were a tv series better yet the Peter/Gwen dynamic in the Amazing series was one of the things people enjoy but it had to take a back seat because of univerise building and other parts of story but if it were a tv series then you could do the same 3/4 episodes. As for websling if i were doing it i would cut it down but still have him do it maybe not show the journey but show him coming in for a landing. Yeah showing him coming in for a landing could be a way round it.
And I agree about the dynamic thing, not just between Peter and Gwen, but say Harry and Norman or May and Peter or JJ and Robbie just to name a few dynamics you couldn't really delve into in the films well except for May and Peter maybe.
Whereas in my opinion at least if you had a series that ran for say 20 episodes for an hour a week as well as the main plot points like say Peter trying to stop Doc Ock or whatever you could have more character moments in it than you seem to get in films.
|
|
|
Post by spiderman62 on Jul 28, 2014 18:54:16 GMT
Also, if it was solely down to me I'd have the series run for 10 years, not that I'm greedy or anything haha, but I feel like a Spider-Man series could run for 10 years and have plenty of material for it.
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Jul 28, 2014 20:05:29 GMT
Also, if it was solely down to me I'd have the series run for 10 years, not that I'm greedy or anything haha, but I feel like a Spider-Man series could run for 10 years and have plenty of material for it. If Green Arrow can have 3 seasons (at least), 10 for Spidey doesn't seem too greedy.
|
|
|
Post by spiderman62 on Jul 29, 2014 12:11:17 GMT
Also, if it was solely down to me I'd have the series run for 10 years, not that I'm greedy or anything haha, but I feel like a Spider-Man series could run for 10 years and have plenty of material for it. If Green Arrow can have 3 seasons (at least), 10 for Spidey doesn't seem too greedy. Exactly
Speaking of Arrow I enjoy that series personally.
|
|