The Dark Knight

[Twisted Intestine 0]

People need to learn how to bootleg videos better.

 

Thats pretty awesome though. I thought I read Joker wasn't going to be revealed in it.

[Kurt Angle Mark 0]

Here is the trailer in high quality

 

http://atasteforthetheatrical.com/deathtrap/default.htm

[Brett Favre 0]

I just saw the first six minutes of the movie in IMAX, and it's insane. The Joker plans a robbery with like 5 other guys, and the instructions were to kill one guy off everytime they got further in completing the bank robbery. It ends with the Joker getting all the money. Good stuff.

[AmericanDragon 0]

[Frosty 0]

Nothing new on this in a while?

 

Strange, They really put the push on before Christmas.

[AntiLeaf33 0]

I guess they realized that they have to pace themselves. Don't want to burn the audience out before the movie even comes out.

[CBright7831 0]

I guess they realized that they have to pace themselves. Don't want to burn the audience out before the movie even comes out.

Which was a mistake that Sony made w/ Spider-man 3.

 

So much hype, so much disappointment.

[The Ghost of bps21 0]

Well I hope to God Dark Knight isn't like Spiderman 3.

 

I wasn't even hyped for Spiderman 3 and it just sucked a total ass.

 

...seriously...what was that movie?

[Ravenbomb 0]

It was Spiderman going "dark" by reinacting his favorite Chips Ahoy! commercial.

[cameron chaos 0]

 

 

Dark Knight trailers with a Mark Hamill impersonator doing an overdub. I actually really like them.

[Lil' Bitch 0]

Which was a mistake that Sony made w/ Spider-man 3.

 

So much hype, so much disappointment.

 

Exactly. You don't debut Spider-Man's greatest nemesis and then kill him off in the span of 15 fucking minutes out of the whole movie. Venom was a complete waste. Had Sandman remained the main movie villain, the film would've been so much better and Venom would have had all of Spider-Man 4 to be used in. Fuck Sam Raimi for his rushed conclusion bullshit!

[luke-o 0]

I always thought Spider-Mans biggest nemisis would have been The Green Goblin. He did kill his girlfriend after all.

[AntiLeaf33 0]

Which was a mistake that Sony made w/ Spider-man 3.

 

So much hype, so much disappointment.

 

Exactly. You don't debut Spider-Man's greatest nemesis and then kill him off in the span of 15 fucking minutes out of the whole movie. Venom was a complete waste. Had Sandman remained the main movie villain, the film would've been so much better and Venom would have had all of Spider-Man 4 to be used in. Fuck Sam Raimi for his rushed conclusion bullshit!

 

After hearing about how Raimi really doesn't like the Venom character, I was surprised he lasted as long as he did. But seriously, just cut Venom and the lame ass dancing scene out and you might have a more watchable movie.

[Corey_Lazarus 0]

It shouldn't matter at all if Raimi himself doesn't care for Venom. The FANS do. The people that give you their money to see a semi-truthful adaptation of something they love in a different medium wanted Venom. They didn't get him as he should have been. That's whipping out your cock and pissing in your oatmeal because you didn't like the kind of spoon you had to eat it with.

[AntiLeaf33 0]

Oh, I agree with you on that one. It shouldn't matter how HE feels about the character, but what the people who pay to see his movies think of Venom.Venom to me has always been THE Spider-man villian. All of the other villian's just don't measure up to this character who is everything an evil enemy should be. And all he gets is 15 minutes and lame "death" on the big screen.

[Cheech Tremendous 0]

Maybe I misinterpreted the ending of Spiderman 3, but I never got the impression that Venom was "dead." I don't think the final 15 minutes were the end of the character as a villain. I thought it was an introduction to Venom for an eventual 4th film.

[Brett Favre 0]

It looked like he was dead. Which sucked and makes no sense.

[Nightwing 0]

It shouldn't matter at all if Raimi himself doesn't care for Venom. The FANS do. The people that give you their money to see a semi-truthful adaptation of something they love in a different medium wanted Venom. They didn't get him as he should have been. That's whipping out your cock and pissing in your oatmeal because you didn't like the kind of spoon you had to eat it with.

 

Sometimes you have to ignore the fans and do the movie right rather than just cater to the loudest group out there. I can understand where Raimi comes from when he doesn't want Venom in there: Spidey is best when you steep the character in some level of reality and . The whole Symbiote thing is cool... but it's hard to do in a quick, movie format. Each time you explain it, it always sounds a bit more ridiculous than it did before, and it takes you away from "New York City" level reality of Spidey. It's hard to bring it into the movie in a non-contrived way, which is something that the Spidey movies had been really good at so far (Doc's arms, Osbourne's madness, etc etc...). A moon rock in the park? Ugh. Plus, I have problems with the 1-Dimensional character that he is as a Spider-Man villain. On his own, he's better, but as a Spidey Villain he really doesn't interest me.

 

But you can't just DEMAND Venom in the middle of the process when the script is already written (And frankly, it seemed to be a good script already). You're trusting them to make a good movie, and they can't do that when a bunch of people who are removed from the project are demanding things from them (Similar to, say, Batman fans demanding the Joker play a part in Batman Begins). They should have said "No, we'll get to it" and done the movie. This is especially true with Venom, for the purposes of his odd origin alone, needs to be set up and then have a movie to himself. He shouldn't have been in this movie no matter what the fans said, because his own background demands him have

 

1) A relationship to Parker previous his transformation

2) Parker to have the Symbiote, and

3) Parker give up the Symbiote after he learns what it does to him.

 

The fact of the matter is this lies just as much on the fans who demanded Venom in the middle of the process as much as it does Raimi himself. He did the best with what the fans were asking from him, and I can't fault him much for the muddled picture that came out. It just goes to show that people making these films should stick to honoring the character their own way, and not let the fans mess up the process.

[Brett Favre 0]

The fans have been demanding it since the first movie though. When people think of Spiderman they think of Venom. If he wasn't a dickhead from the start, he could've written the whole third movie about Venom.

[luke-o 0]

When I first saw the Venom spoliers (the shot were the camera zooms into Venoms mouth) I predicted that would be the last shot of the film.

 

If anything, Sandman was criminally underused in Spider-Man 3, and his ending was pretty bullshit too. As was Green Goblin IIs.

[Nightwing 0]

The fans have been demanding it since the first movie though.

 

But that doesn't mean they are right, either. Would the second movie have been better with the Symbiote and/or Venom? Frankly, no.

 

The third movie was the movie to start the setup in. Doc Ock, judging by how absolutely fantastic it was, deserved a movie of his own. Adding the Symbiote would have messed the whole "doubting his powers and place in the world" subplot, as well as the whole Mary Jane part of the movie. I can't see how adding the setup for Venom in that movie would have done any good.

 

The third movie needs a secondary villain so Peter can deal with Harry, who really needed more screen-time. Sandman was a great choice: A somewhat sympathetic villain that could be easily fit into the movie. Playing the Symbiote with Peter's legitimate anger at the villain, to me, was a great way to go. It's also a great time to introduce Brock (Who I thought was a perfectly fine character in the movie) and have Peter ruin him and be a complete dick while he's with the Symbiote.

 

When people think of Spiderman they think of Venom.

 

Actually, I think of Green Goblin and Doc Ock before him. Both are, arguably, better villains than Venom ever was and more integral to who Parker is as a character. Especially when it comes to both Goblins.

 

If he wasn't a dickhead from the start, he could've written the whole third movie about Venom.

 

At the cost of a better second movie, and I'm really not convinced that Venom is the "End All, Be All" Spider-Man villain. I'm not sure that he'd translate nearly as well as most fans think: He really doesn't have depth when he's playing the villain, and there isn't much to go from there. Green Goblin (Both of them), Doc Ock, and even Sandman have more depth and more freedom to actually tell a story than Venom does. From the small part he played in the third movie, Sandman was a lot more interesting than Venom normally is when he's up against Spidey.

 

When I first saw the Venom spoliers (the shot were the camera zooms into Venoms mouth) I predicted that would be the last shot of the film.

 

If anything, Sandman was criminally underused in Spider-Man 3, and his ending was pretty bullshit too. As was Green Goblin IIs.

 

Yeah, I agree on both points here. Had it ended there after a good Sandman fight along with more Harry, the movie would have been a lot better.

[Brett Favre 0]

If you're going to go halfway to please the fans, I don't see why you couldn't have a whole Venom movie. That makes little sense.

[Angle-plex 0]

Venom is far from a 1 demensional character....at least when he first debuted. Sure good guy Venom is lame but when Venom first showed he was interesting. Never had the level of depth Goblin did, but much more than guys like Shocker, Electro and Sandman.

 

And all the Spidey movies were awful, and I think most people realize that they don't hold up now.

[Nightwing 0]

I'm not sure how much of the character you're describing (The cancer victim) translates to the big screen. Sandman worked well because he had some depth, but didn't need to support an entire movie on his back like Venom would have to. He had Harry and the Symbiote to occupy some of the time.

 

And don't stand up? The first one was good (Not great), but I still think the second movie was one of the best superhero movies ever. A great blend of action, storyline, and character development. Sure, it had a goofy and unrealistic moments, but it worked well enough for the entire thing.

[RonL21 0]

I'm not sure how much of the character you're describing (The cancer victim) translates to the big screen. Sandman worked well because he had some depth, but didn't need to support an entire movie on his back like Venom would have to. He had Harry and the Symbiote to occupy some of the time.

 

And don't stand up? The first one was good (Not great), but I still think the second movie was one of the best superhero movies ever. A great blend of action, storyline, and character development. Sure, it had a goofy and unrealistic moments, but it worked well enough for the entire thing.

As Far as the Marvel movies go...

 

I say X2: X-Men United is the best...

 

I'd say the most underrated Marvel movie would be DareDevil...The Director's Cut, not the Theatrical Version..

[Nighthawk 0]

Oh, you guys are talking about Spider-man now...

 

I agree that the second one was pretty damn good.

 

Now Venom, I'm going to agree that he's too complex to convey properly without a whole movie (or even two), but to me, Venom's purpose is to lead to Carnage. Now there's a one dimensional character who isn't hurt by it. Of course, as has been said, that'd really require an R rating. After seeing what they did to Venom, I hope they don't touch Carnage. Based on how Venom looked, he'd look shitty too.

[luke-o 0]

I'd say the most underrated Marvel movie would be DareDevil...The Director's Cut, not the Theatrical Version..

 

Granted, it was better than the theatrical, but that's like saying a kick in the head is better than a kick in the balls. It still sucks.

 

The acting is awful, the dialogue is horrific, the soundtrack was god awful and I swear to christ that Mark Steven Johnson has never read a Daredevil comic.

[Scroby 0]

One thing I like to bring up about Spiderman 3 is the marketing. The marketing is what really pist me off about Spiderman 3 and Venom being in it. When the movie was being promoted, Venom and the black suit was showed heavily, and it seemed both would be a big part of the movie, espically Venom because Venom was very teased. Then when it finally came to Venom...his storyline was so small and cut off it was horrible. Venom was really built up and nothing happen with him except his creation and his death. That's it. Venom was pretty much in the movie for show. I mainly blame that on so many storylines happeing at once though.

 

When it comes to Spiderman, Venom is a huge main villian. I agree with the person who said when it comes to Spiderman, Venom is the most reconized villian from those comics and he is also a big enough villian to be a only villian for Spiderman. I also agree with the poster who said that when Venom was created, that could have been the final scene or almost final scene of Spiderman 3 that would lead up to the 4th movie.

 

Spiderman defeats the Sandman, goes to the bell tower to get the black suit off, the symbiote falls down onto Eddie Brock, Venom is showed. We go to a scene where MJ and Pete talk things out and we see them swing away. The camera pans way the fuck back and we see a figure watching them, it turns around and Venom does the roar thing he did in the chruch. BAM! That leads to Spiderman 4! And people would flock to that movie.

 

 

and those Batman trailers with the re-done Joker voice are awesome!

[Corey_Lazarus 0]

I'll never get the love for Spider-Man 2. Everything about it annoyed me. Raimi hasn't been the same since he started making real money off of his movies. His best shit was the Evil Dead trilogy and Darkman. Wow...that sounds like generic fanboy talk...but it's oh too true.

 

I really can't wait for Dark Knight. I wanna watch Batman Begins a ton before going to see it, just so I can get into how Nolan views Batman.

[Epic Reine 0]

The Punisher is more underrated than Daredevil. I don't think DD is as terrible as everyone thought but I'll always defend Punisher over it as Tom Jane made a damn good Frank Castle.