I'll take the reigns of a review and do this the right proper way...
We start Spider-Man 3 with a recap (through the credits) of the first two flicks... although, honestly, if you haven't seen the first two, the credits might leave you with more questions than answer. Be that as it may, there isn't a lot of information presented in the third flick you can't glean from the story and the characters themselves.
Peter Parker is lookin to move forward with his life. Spider-Man is popular. Everyone in the city loves him.... well, except for Mary Jane, who is having a little jealousy, sharing him with the world. She also feels like he's not connected to her as much as she'd like.
Compounding that are other problems. A new girl, Gwen Stacy, makes herself apparent in Peter's life. Harry Osborn keeps screwing things up in Peter's life. Eddie Brock, the new photographer at the Daily Bugle, keeps trying to steal a job out from under Peter... Everyone wants a part of Peter, and, as the movie builds, everyone wants a part of Spider-Man.
Oh, and let's not forget that there's this pesky symbiote making things interesting for Peter...
It's a lot of plotlines running at once, but as the movie goes, you see them all tie together... and yes, everything ties together eventually. In all honest, I went into the movie with trepidation. How were they going to be able to balance three villains simultaneously and not have the movie feel too cluttered or hectic? They do it marvelously, although, sadly, I can't say too much without ruining the movie's twists and turns.
Writing wise, I was pleased with the flick. The dialogue is solid, with few bad lines or stupid moments. It's a more lighthearted affair throughout than the previous flick. That was an issue I had with Spider-Man 2... it was much more of a downer in the Peter parts. Here there's a good bit of humor, and the movie doesn't take itself too seriously. You can tell the people making it had fun.
That said, not everything is great. While all the side characters were well performed (props to Bruce Campbell for his great cameo), the two leads were often flat, especially when they were expected to act with strong, sad emotion. The only time I bought them when their acting was tested was near the end, when an important character dies. They both performed that sequence well... makes me wish they could have been that good throughout.
Hoever, the direction helps to balance out any bad acting. To say that Sam Raimi has gotten comfortable with directing Spider-Man to the point that he is willing to just fly right off the handle of self-control is an under statement. The moves and stunts he plots out for Spider-Man are stunning. There were more than a few sequences that had me on the edge of my seat, which, as a jaded movie watcher, doesn't happen very often.
On the whole, I think it was a much better flick than the second one, which I wasn't as big a fan of. Even if you end up prefering the previous two flicks over this one, you won't be able to quibble much with this solid production.
8.2 out of 10
He is no longer just Spiderman...oh no...he is now known as ....THE EMO SPIDER! Next thing i would wonder if he was gonna cut himself next...Rember..Down the lane! Not across the street!
Eh, watched it last night: not enough character development; too many characters; MJ was a jealous attention whore; I always thought Brock was beefier than that; Emo-Fringe-Peter only needed eyeliner and the crowd would have died laughing; Sandman can cry?; how the hell did Harry survive a bomb to the face?; not enough Venom; too much humour in comparison to the last two.
I liked Sandman, but that's about all I liked. :dface
If only they could work some Ian McKellan in there. Anyway, I enjoyed it heartily. Sure, it was all over the place and sure, it veered off the comics (which, by the way, I always consider a good thing, cause it give you something new to watch) and sure, the fact that Venom induced soul-searching maudlin psuedo-Hamletness rather than enjoyment of being super-awesome was were all a bit mind bending, but at the end of the day, it entertained fantastically.
The fight scenes were superbly put together again, and that's what you really want out of a super-hero movie.
I think ctrl-alt-del summed it up neatly:
Like so. (http://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com/comic.php?d=20070505)
*grin*
Hm, do de do, going steady with Mary Jane, my awesome girlfriend whom I love - think I'll just swing on over, peel half my mask off, in doing so revealing the bottom half of my face to a huge crowd of people, and give an open-mouthed kiss to my lab partner for no particularly good reason.
Isn't Peter supposed to be, um, smart?
Quote from: RJ on May 06, 2007, 05:04:50 AMhow the hell did Harry survive a bomb to the face?
That, too.
Other than that, liked it.
Don't forget just why they decided to place that open-hole testing facility in the middle of nowhere behind a single barbed wire fence.
Well, Harry flopped away while the bomb was coming. :B So he just got Phantom of the Opera'd.
Hey, there were a few nicks here in there in the script, but I liked it. Of course, since movies generally only go up to trilogies before going into hibernation for forever (sans Land Before time...), they probably were actually going for one less stunning than the other two. Just for that "get the audience to beg for a better, shinier sequel" thing.
I just wish Venom did the tongue thing. Or at least the talking in 3rd person. :3
Quote from: Kenji on May 06, 2007, 12:30:52 PM
Well, Harry flopped away while the bomb was coming. :B So he just got Phantom of the Opera'd.
Hey, there were a few nicks here in there in the script, but I liked it. Of course, since movies generally only go up to trilogies before going into hibernation for forever (sans Land Before time...), they probably were actually going for one less stunning than the other two. Just for that "get the audience to beg for a better, shinier sequel" thing.
I just wish Venom did the tongue thing. Or at least the talking in 3rd person. :3
We arent eddy brock...We are VENOM!!
We aren't Venom! We are Legion!
Uhm... wasn't the symbiote supposed to come in on a spaceship with Jameson's son?
It just kinda coincidently dropped onto the web there. Hmm... it could have been a conspiracy! *looks at secret photos... and discovers a hazy figure that looks like Stan Lee tipping over a jar labeled "Major Plot Device" from a tree top!* :U
Man, lose the emo look. Sheesh.
QuoteHey wait. Aren't you going to do something more than just save Gwen Stacy? Where are you going?
I totally agree with this. I said something to this effect during the movie. I mean, really.
There's a couple odd things I was left with as I left the theater:
What about that little symbiote specimen left with his Physics teacher? That's still there - didn't get destroyed with the rest of it...
Also, now that a certain someone has passed away, who will inherit the mansion, money, etc? I guess they should have some relatives somewhere... but it would certainly be interesting if his fortune was willed to someone plot convenient.
Lastly, if Sandman just wanted money, he doesn't need to rob banks. Just turn himself for research at Harvard or Stanford. They'd happily pay him millions to run tests on him and whatnot. But that wouldn't make for a very good movie, now would it?
I once read an article online about a phenomenon known as "plot stupidity," in which characters make grossly unintelligent or out-of-character decisions for the sake of developing the plot. This movie had a lot of 'em. [Multiple pseudo-spoiler alert!]
The Spider-Kiss, as previously explained.
Mary Jane: "Nope, no reason at all to tell my boyfriend I got canned. Forget the fact that he'll be talking about my Broadway show non-stop every time I see him. Everything will be fine if I just get bitter and jealous of his popularity while expecting him to pick up on what's wrong. No problem here, no reason to tell him."
Harry really didn't need much convincing at all to inflict bodily harm upon MJ and lie to both her and Peter.
When something drips on your jacket and starts moving around, after you discard the jacket you MOVE!!!
The entire club dance scene. I know the dude thought he was being cheated on, but seriously, what the heck?
Brock blaming Parker for his downfall. Responsibility is at a premium these days.
With that out of the way, good things. Venom looked awesome, Sandman's motives seemed to make more sense than I've heard, and of course the fights were awesome.
I really dont mind they wanted make the bang of a buck on the webhead but sheesh...I dont care if he saved her...Gwen Stacy should been left fall to her demize...Like the comic book my red fanny
Huh... my brother has been playing the Wii game (which has some serious issues), and I had completely forgotten that the scientist in the movie was the same guy who became that Lizard-man. The game has it though.
I'm locking this thread because it was not an actual review. You may make a new thread when you actually take the time to write a proper review. I felt cheated because this thread was made by the "Official DMFA Movie Reviewer." t had that mark as being an actual review, and it wasn't. It was just... lame.
Future failure to do this will result in similar repercussions.
Topic reopened for further discussion.
Huzzah, now back to complaining.
I personally really liked the movie. I thought it was extremely well done. Yeah, it doesn't follow the comic book perfectly, but for the love of shiny things, it's a movie, not a comic. Sometimes things don't translate.
I would have loved the "We will eat your brains," thought. I feel that was a bit of an oversight, but whatever. It's not like they made Venom into a sweet teddy bear fluff or anything.
Teddy bear made of massave tar and teeth
Quote from: Toric on May 07, 2007, 06:17:53 PMBrock blaming Parker for his downfall. Responsibility is at a premium these days.
Well, you can hardly say it's
unrealistically stupid...
Huh. First time I had a topic stolen from me. Wonder where mine went. Generally speaking? I thought some people rather not have the movie experience ruined. If people want a full review instead of a spoiler listing I would like to know before the next movie review.
Quote from: Gryphon on May 09, 2007, 08:53:38 PM
Huh. First time I had a topic stolen from me. Wonder where mine went. Generally speaking? I thought some people rather not have the movie experience ruined. If people want a full review instead of a spoiler listing I would like to know before the next movie review.
Giving a review of the movie with a basic, spoiler free outline is not ruining the movie. Very little of what was said in the above review was outside of the footage in the trailers.
As it stands, if you're going to call it a "review" it has to actually contain some type of paragraph, preferably several. With opinions, and a bit of analyzation. A list of items is not a review. It's lazy. Not to mention the fact that I waited until after I saw the movie to read your bullet points, and I still didn't know what you were getting at 75% of the time.
I know Darkmoon wants a real review next time, and as far as he (and his ego) are concerned, he's the only one that matters. If you want to continue your bulleted list, fine, but don't insult the people who actually take the time to make well thought out analyzations, comparisions, and reviews by using that "official reviewer" button. That should be reserved for someone who... makes an effort.
And to answer your question- it's in the Mine.
Along with all the other useless posts.
.. and some of Darkmoons ones.... *hides*
I'm not exactly sure if anyone has a problem with 2 The Gryphon being our official movie reviewer. You can hold a vote, if you'd like, but I am pretty sure someone made him that button and you've butted heads with him regarding this topic before... With the exception of the whopping five non-furs that frequent this forum, I doubt any member would be object to him making said posts.
He's not tagging himself as the "official DMFA Forum movie reviewer" - if he was, we might get some say.
He's tagging himself as the "Official DMFA movie reviewer", and there's only one person who can tag someone as Official DMFA anything, and that's Amber.
Now, that might be not quite what he meant, and it might not be what he wanted the image to say, but it's what it -is- saying. On those grounds, Amber has full rights to complain. Hell, she has full rights to stand him up against a wall and sarcastic him in his figgins*, and I'll happily hold her coat while she does so.
Assuming she wants me to, of course.
* See Terry Pratchett. Or (c), even.
On the whole "Official DMFA movie reviewer"-tag thing, there was no vote or ceremony involved in Gryphon getting that tag.
In one thread on the old forum some people said something about electing Gryphon as official movie reviewer since he was often the one making topics about new movies. I got that picture in my head and didn't really think it would be used.
Unfortunately, I'm not one of the ones who saved the old forum so I'm not sure.
You're welcome to look it up - http://nice.llearch.net/
There's a reason I provide that service :-)
*Charles becomes the official movie reviewer* It stinks! It stinks! It stinks!
*psychiatrist* Yes, Mr. de Charleroy, everything stinks.
:mowwink
I Amber wanted to make him said official reviewer, she is more than welcome o. That would giv him the title of "Official DMFA Movie Reviewer".
If he wanted to title of "Official CMF Movie Reviewer" there would have to be two votes, and he would have to win both. He'd first have to win a vote among the admins to see if they, being the ones in control of CMF, want him as the reviewer, then he'd have to win a vote among "the peoples."
Darkmoon must be a horse, though.
He always votes neigh.
*grin, duck, and run very very fast*
Asshole.
*snicker*
Huh. He just wanted to respond to the movie. Don't you think it's a bit rude to snatch the thread from him and banish his review to the Mine? At least keep in in the thread or something.
Nope, I don't think it's rude, and no. If he wants to be a movie reviewer, he should review movies.
In other words, that's my way of saying "suck it".
Works for me
Alright. Alrightalrightalright, I've totally got it. Spider-Man 4. They introduce Quentin Beck, because he's Mysterio, and you've gotta have Mysterio. And, of course, he's making a movie, because that's what he does when he's not being nefarious.
Maybe it's an in-movie Spider-Man movie, maybe it's Fin Fang Foom, Nick Fury, whatever. Something cool and in-jokey. And who's that guy playing the actor playing the hero?
Nicholas Hammond.
C'mon. You know you want to see it.
In of itself, it was an awesome picture. For a fan who wanted venom done right, it was a significant disappointment. They put in venom for the sake of the fans. But, with that in mind, they should have put more emphasis on the costume and not have the share the film with two other villains, or make Venom the consistent villain in spiderman 4. Raimi should have simply not given into the pressure, and done the movie the way he originally wanted, and gone with just Sandman and Harry as the protagonists. The film was flowing extremely well until the black costume came into the picture.
If you want to see Venom done correct, you might check out the original venom mini-arc that took place in the spiderman cartoon from the 90s. (you can currently find it on youtube) I have to say, it's rather sad that a 10 year old Saturday morning cartoon made venom far creepier and more intimidating than an accomplished Hollywood director.
Some people are pointing the finger at Topher Grace, who was considered a very inappropriate choice as Eddie Brock. The truth is, he played his part just fine. He played the role given to him with flying colors, but the role he played itself was badly written and squeezed into a movie was hardly any room for a third villain.
Too true. It's 'Batman Movie Syndrome'. When you start throwing in villains, the movie will generally not hold cohesion. The first Batman was the best. Villains? Only one: Joker, played by Jack Nicholson (Who else is just naturally that insane?).
It takes a very clever writer to tie in even two main villains in one film. But three? Each with a complex background and different motive? Forget it. Even if each part is very well portrayed, there's just too much jumping around to cover it all.
Venom should have been saved for the primary villain in Spiderman 4, though he could have been introduced at the end of 3 as the goo sneaking off the space shuttle or whatnot in the traditional comic 'To Be Continued!' style. Just that little hint of Venom would have worked up a fervor for Spiderman 4.
back to the subject of spiderman 4, who else wants to see a hero's brawl?
I'm thinking:
Spiderman vs The human Torch
Emo-spiderman vs. wolverine
classic Spiderman vs. other random X-man Character
and my current favorite
Spiderman vs evil corporate dictator Tony Stark (IRON MAN)
or they could do the Identity crisis series from the late '90s that way no one will see spidy's face and notice it isn't Toby, and they would only need to hire someone with the same voice as Mary Jane.
Maybe my knowledge is a little rusty, but didn't Spiderman dump MJ and started dating Kitty Pride (Shadowcat) from X-Men? I think that could be an interesting movie idea.
In the Ultimate Spider-Man series, he did.
Unfortuneatly, there won't be any crossovers bewteen Spider-Man and the X-Men, since Fox has the rights to the X-Men and Sony has the rights to Spider-Man.
Quote from: Goatmon on May 17, 2007, 08:50:07 AMIf you want to see Venom done correct, you might check out the original venom mini-arc that took place in the spiderman cartoon from the 90s. (you can currently find it on youtube)
...or you can find it, legally, wherever disappointingly tiny DVD releases are sold.
I understand turning to piracy when it's literally the only way (as is the case for most of the
Spider-Man series, among other things), but in this case, well, it's not.
(shrugs) If they don't want to buy the series, then going to YouTube is a viable option. It's either that or just not watching it at all. In either scenario, it's not like the TV people are making any money off of it.
Quote from: Darkmoon on May 17, 2007, 06:34:00 PMIt's either that or just not watching it at all. In either scenario, it's not like the TV people are making any money off of it.
Not in this case.
The Venom Saga got officially released on DVD a year or so ago and isn't hard to find.
Beware when Emo spiderman fights the deadly...BOOTMAN!
Quote from: Caswin on May 17, 2007, 06:50:10 PM
Quote from: Darkmoon on May 17, 2007, 06:34:00 PMIt's either that or just not watching it at all. In either scenario, it's not like the TV people are making any money off of it.
Not in this case. The Venom Saga got officially released on DVD a year or so ago and isn't hard to find.
Yes, completely ignoring the point I made above that your average person likely isn't looking to BUY the series on DVD anyway.
Quote from: Darkmoon on May 17, 2007, 08:44:27 PM
Quote from: Caswin on May 17, 2007, 06:50:10 PM
Quote from: Darkmoon on May 17, 2007, 06:34:00 PMIt's either that or just not watching it at all. In either scenario, it's not like the TV people are making any money off of it.
Not in this case. The Venom Saga got officially released on DVD a year or so ago and isn't hard to find.
Yes, completely ignoring the point I made above that your average person likely isn't looking to BUY the series on DVD anyway.
You said the alternatives were piracy or not watching it at all. Ducking, ignoring, not quite the same thing.
No, I said if they don't want to buy it, then those are the two options. Sure, they could rent it, but , while legal, it still doesn't put any money into the content owners hands. Additionally, they'd have to be able to get a hold of a rental of it. Those stores that are carrying it probably don't have all that many copies in, and the children are the ones most likely to have it out...
And kids suck for returning flicks.
Quote from: Darkmoon on May 17, 2007, 09:04:56 PM
No, I said if they don't want to buy it, then those are the two options.
Syntax! :O
(Don't ask. I do the same thing while watching cartoons, except it's "PHYSICS! :O".)
Quote from: Darkmoon on May 17, 2007, 09:04:56 PMSure, they could rent it, but , while legal, it still doesn't put any money into the content owners hands.
You're sure? That doesn't seem right, and I've got a SmartFlix FAQ that seems to say otherwise...
seriously!
Darkmoon, make me a "nitpick and die" emote.
Quote from: Caswin on May 17, 2007, 09:14:33 PM
Quote from: Darkmoon on May 17, 2007, 09:04:56 PM
No, I said if they don't want to buy it, then those are the two options.
Syntax! :O
(Don't ask. I do the same thing while watching cartoons, except it's "PHYSICS! :O".)
Quote from: Darkmoon on May 17, 2007, 09:04:56 PMSure, they could rent it, but , while legal, it still doesn't put any money into the content owners hands.
You're sure? That doesn't seem right, and I've got a SmartFlix FAQ that seems to say otherwise...
Here's how it works in the rental industry:
A store buys the DVD. Wow, yes, voila, money goes to the content owners... once. That's a whole 20 bucks they've made. From there, they rent it out to the consumer. The consumer watches it (likely makes an illegal copy of it, because consumers do that), returns it. The rental company keeps ALL the money they make off that rental.
Down the line, after they've made back their 20 bucks, they are in no way obligated to share any of that revenue with the content owners. They keep renting, and the content owners get nothing. And that doesn't even take into account how much the rental company makes off of late fees, rental bonus accounts (which people pay for), consumable goods, back end used-movie sales, all of which the content owners see no profit from.
So, for your logic, long run, the content owners get almost nothing from a rental scenario.
YouTube is pretty well the same scenario, by that logic. Someone goes to YouTube, pays by seeing ads while they watch things, and YouTube makes money off those ads. What's the difference?
Quote from: Damaris on May 17, 2007, 09:16:04 PM
seriously!
Darkmoon, make me a "nitpick and die" emote.
No need! I can do it! *waves wand over Damaris and speaks the magic words and POOF!* There! You are now a "nitpick and die" emote. :3
*shakes fist at Alondro* Daaammmn joooo! D:
Quote from: Darkmoon on May 17, 2007, 09:21:25 PMYouTube is pretty well the same scenario, by that logic. Someone goes to YouTube, pays by seeing ads while they watch things, and YouTube makes money off those ads. What's the difference?
Apart from legality in and of itself? Admittedly, not much comes to mind - apart from the initial $20-or-so-per-video fee. It's another few videos sold, and not quite so negligible, I don't think, as you make it out to be.
Surprisingly on-topic question: What separates them from those Chinese pirates that got a copy of
Spider-Man 3 and started showing it before the movie was even released?
*Quietly brushes own FAQ point under the rug...*
I think what separates them is the ten years that the Venom storyline has been in existance from the 90s television show, the fact that it already aired on network television, and the fact that the DVD has already been out for a while. As opposed to the never-been-released Spiderman 3.
And I think that is the end of this particular point of discussion.
------------
The thing I think people keep forgetting about this particular movie while they complain about the villians is that as far as EVERYONE knew, there was not going to be a forth movie. It wasn't until after production was over, and the movie was nearly out that everything came together.
If a Spiderman series of movies had been made without Venom, I know I would have been mad about it. Venom has always been one of my favorites, and I was glad to have him get the nod at all. I'd much rather have him get some screen time at least rather than be completely ignored in the blind hope that a new trilogy would be greenlit. Yes, hindsight says that they should have held off- but how were they supposed to know that when all three major players (McGuire, Dunst, and Raimi) were saying they wouldn't be coming back.
Quote from: Damaris on May 17, 2007, 09:45:45 PMIf a Spiderman series of movies had been made without Venom, I know I would have been mad about it. Venom has always been one of my favorites, and I was glad to have him get the nod at all. I'd much rather have him get some screen time at least rather than be completely ignored in the blind hope that a new trilogy would be greenlit. Yes, hindsight says that they should have held off- but how were they supposed to know that when all three major players (McGuire, Dunst, and Raimi) were saying they wouldn't be coming back.
Frankly, I'd rather they not include venom at all, than squeeze him in and given a hastily written role. Venom isn't something you half-ass. Do him right, or don't do it at all, if you ask me.
They still have carnage, the lizard, scorpion, mysterio, the vulture, Kingpin, Iron man, as potential villans in the series.
and personally I don't really care that venom was killed in the end... oh the horror, I spoiled it, oh darn.
They could easily bring Venom back. Even if they don't bring back Eddie Brock, that doesn't mean that some of the symbiote couldn't have survived the blast, plus there's the sample Dr. Connors has at his lab. There's ways to bring it back, one way or another.
who do you think they'll hire to play Spidey in the fourth one? I doubt anyone from the original cast is going to return, outside of the guy that plays Dr. Conners, and even that one is questionable.
Well, if Sony insists on hiring all cast members on for three pictures, then yeah, I doubt any of the original cast will be back.
I know they keep batting around the idea of having Jake Gyllenhall play Spidey. I don't think he'd be a bad choice, although I dunno that he can do nerdy nearly as well as Toby McGuire.
Quote from: GabrielsThoughts on May 20, 2007, 11:00:49 PM
They still have carnage, the lizard, scorpion, mysterio, the vulture, Kingpin, Iron man, as potential villans in the series.
Well, Kingpin got used in
Daredevil - like it or not - and I think it'd be pretty iffy at this stage to say that they take place in the same New York.
And, er, Iron Man? Without a Civil War to drive him to villainy? How do you figure?
As to who should play Spider-Man... like I said, Nicholas Hammond! Well, okay, but the guy deserves a cameo at the very least. If Lou Ferrigno can be a security guard in the
Hulk movie, Nick should get a shot somewhere in
Spider-Man.
It doesn't matter if its the same New York- a different movie company owns the rights to Kingpin.
Its rights to anything really..Im shocked the fantastic four wherent even spoted in this one, It always happens in the comics
Again, a different company owns the rights to those characters being on the big screen. The guys at Sony LITERALLY cannot use the FF characters without approval from the other company.
Which would cost more money.
Seriously makes how much they spent on all that sand
Eh? What you say?
I could swear it was english, but the words make no sense when put together...
Gah...I nedd my glasses! On a diffrent note...Who you think their casting for big G on the new FF movie?
Tha' Big G gonna F U up, homie.
Quote from: Zedd on May 22, 2007, 08:09:34 PM
Gah...I nedd my glasses! On a diffrent note...Who you think their casting for big G on the new FF movie?
Well, now that Tony Jay's dead ( :mowsad)...
I'm trying to think of serious suggestions, but I just keep coming back to Samuel L. Jackson and Christopher Lloyd. In their usual character roles. I'd pay to watch it.
Hugh Laurie, maybe?
ok just so everyone is clear, which company owns which marvel characters, and was there an 80's movie with Capitan America, because I'm getting vague memories of my childhood and I'm certain they already made one.
There was a 80's Cap movie. I thought it was decent, but last I saw it, I was very young, so I doubt it was actually any good at all.
The Galaktus in the new flick is supposed to be more along the lines of the Ulitmate Galaktus... Hope that helps...
Quote from: Darkmoon on May 22, 2007, 09:16:30 PMThe Galaktus in the new flick is supposed to be more along the lines of the Ulitmate Galaktus...
Is that how the kids are spelling it these days?
Quote from: Caswin on May 22, 2007, 09:37:40 PM
Quote from: Darkmoon on May 22, 2007, 09:16:30 PMThe Galaktus in the new flick is supposed to be more along the lines of the Ulitmate Galaktus...
Is that how the kids are spelling it these days?
Ironicly thats what happenes when times change for a rewrite wouldnt you say?
I liked the 80s Cap movie as well. I'm pretty sure my family still has a copy on VHS somewhere.
Quote from: Zedd on May 22, 2007, 09:48:04 PM
Quote from: Caswin on May 22, 2007, 09:37:40 PM
Quote from: Darkmoon on May 22, 2007, 09:16:30 PMThe Galaktus in the new flick is supposed to be more along the lines of the Ulitmate Galaktus...
Is that how the kids are spelling it these days?
Ironicly thats what happenes when times change for a rewrite wouldnt you say?
I was mixing the 616 universe and Ultimate universe's spellings, apparently. My bad.
Ultimate universe: Gah Lak Tus