THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN Pre-Release Thread - Page 8

Quote:

Originally Posted by Draco Senior 

According to a listing by AMC, the movie is only going to be 91 minutes.

More showings, more money!! That's so gonna work right?!

I know you kid, but in the age of the super duper multiplex do studios still care about that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freeman 

I know you kid, but in the age of the super duper multiplex do studios still care about that?

Oh I'm very serious. Shorter run times, equal more showings per day. It's all about money and as we can see from Sony, money is the driving force behind this film. It's why they wanted a cheaper reboot then spend $200million plus for a Spider-Man 4.   It would not surprise me that when Webb was brought on to direct, he was told the film had to be an hour and a half...give or take.

Don't know what else they have in their hat to "wow" people this weekend with The Avengers and Dark Knight Rises trailer already out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrBananaGrabber 

At least it will be a short origin story, right guys? Guys?

Nope. Not if they stretch it out over a trilogy...

Quote:

Originally Posted by FilmNerdJamie 

Don't know what else they have in their hat to "wow" people this weekend with The Avengers and Dark Knight Rises trailer already out.

Cue the Emma Stone sex tape.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin Blank 

 

Cue the Emma Stone sex tape.

Jesus don't DO that to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin Blank 

Cue the Emma Stone sex tape.

I'd rather Anne Hathaway.

Warner doesn't need it. Sony does.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin Blank 

Warner doesn't need it. Sony does.

I NEED IT!

Its not just The Dark Knight Rises taking away all the attention/buzz but also G.I. Joe: Retaliation and Ice Age 4. Honestly...even Ted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FilmNerdJamie 

 

 

I NEED IT!

That post + your avatar = coffee on my monitor.

This movie may be a cynical move from Sony and yes, fuck Sony, but the people involved with creating this thing don't exactly shout "naked cash grab" to me. Now the writers they're hiring for the next one on the other hand...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Draco Senior 

According to a listing by AMC, the movie is only going to be 91 minutes.

Yeah, Sony knows it's shit.  Get 'em in, get 'em out asap.

An update to that:  the supposed listing also has Kirsten Dunst and Tobey Maguire listed in the cast, so it might contain some inaccurate info (people confuse a reboot with the original trilogy, it happens) and still be on the money about the runtime or it might be a false listing altogether.

When i saw Avengers, the trailers for Battleship, Prometheus and this one were played.

Prometheus was meet with wild whispers and several whoa/gasps moments from the audience.

Battleship and Amazing Spiderman were meet with stunned silence; I swear a saw a couple kids actually making a face of disgust at a Spider-man trailer; those same kids went ballistic with glee and delight during Avengers.

So, yeah, the future for this one just doesnt look good...at all.

Also, in fanboy outburst come on, Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy? She's could play "face it tiger!" Mary Jane and have a blast with it, looking at her perfomance in "Easy A"; as Gwen, she looks stiff and lifeless as hell....which fits the film, it seems.

Also, i have no doubt the finale of the movie ends up with the Lizard trying to turn everyone in NYC into lizard using the antenna in that building shown in the trailers...seriously, it looks that predictable and dumb.

This film blew it when they didn't cast Josh Hutcherson, who is infinitely more likable and better suited to this role. BOO-URNS!

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrSaxon 

Does anyone know if Mark Webb has actually read the comic? Or has seen any of the cartoon shows? Because I'm really starting to doubt that he did any of this. Having heard about the mockery they're making of the origin story, I'm starting to believe that everything he knows about Spider-Man came from someone else whilst he was slouching over a bar with a can of lager in his hand.

 

Sorry but, after watching The Avengers, I now believe that there's no reason why a superhero movie can't stick to the god damned source material and still be utterly fantastic. No reason whatsoever. I want Marvel to reclaim the rights to Spider-Man and treat him with the same respect that they've given their other characters. More than that, though; I want Spider-Man to show up in The Avengers 2 (as written by Joss Whedon) to exchange witty banter with Iron Man. Not Mark Webb's brooding Spider-Man though. The REAL Spider-Man.

 

Basically, The Amazing Spider-Man really is going to have to live up to its name and be amazing, on the same level as a certain incredible superhero movie I watched over the weekend, to combat the negativity I currently feel about it. And this is coming from a guy who grew up reading Spider-Man and loves the character to pieces.

I actually think this as well; Hell, you have Bendis starting run of Ultimate Spider-man right there as a textbook to make a good, fun yet modern Spider-man movie; and dark and brooding is what they come up with?

Hollywood Mathematics 101

This 

Plus this

Equals this

"Two words: Synergy"

He's so high up, what is his web holding onto?

Flying saucers!!!

There's still this strange, undefinable thing I don't like about that costume. Maybe it's because Raimi's films *nailed* that.

Those blue fingers just scream "Yeah, we didn't know when to stop when we were designing this thing".

That mismatching of color tones might be it. One thing I've always liked about Spidey's costume is the *balance* of the colors.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Spider 

There's still this strange, undefinable thing I don't like about that costume. Maybe it's because Raimi's films *nailed* that.

It is indeed strange, but it's not undefinable. The suit texture makes his head look very much like a used basketball. The silver sneakers (seriously, what kind of dumbassery is that?). The overall design of the suit is too "designed" and too busy.

If I could fix only one thing on the costume it would be the texture, which might fix the color issues as well.

Why would they keep the same costume from a different Spider-Man series?

From what I've read, the "silver sneakers" are just that. Sneakers he had and used for his costume. Even the eyes come from a pair of sunglasses he had.

Favorite part about SpiderMan 2? Its first action scene is Peter Parker delivering pizza

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeanCE 

This film blew it when they didn't cast Josh Hutcherson, who is infinitely more likable and better suited to this role. BOO-URNS!

What terrible world do you live in?

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin Blank 

Cue the Emma Stone sex tape.

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by FilmNerdJamie 

I'd rather Anne Hathaway.

 

I'd rather together.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Merriweather 

 

Webb and Garfield, the two big pieces of the puzzle, were/are indy darlings looking for a breakthrough franchise. Unless these guys have the personal work ethic of a Woody Allen they were taking this gig, regardless of quality.

Come on, the same could've been said for Sam Raimi and Tobey Maguire who both didn't exactly have blockbusters to their names.

Quote:

Originally Posted by User_32 

Come on, the same could've been said for Sam Raimi and Tobey Maguire who both didn't exactly have blockbusters to their names.

Exactly. Webb and Garfield will hold some responsibility for the quality...or lack thereof...of the finished product and will be ripped appropriately. However, nobody should be blaming them for taking a paying franchise gig. The lion's share of the derision should be directed at Sony for forcing a needless reboot, vice simply continuing the series Bond-style with new personnel.

I dunno, Raimi at least had a ton of experience doing action and effects-heavy films. It wasn't a completely WTF choice like "The guy who did 500 Days of Summer? Really?"

Yeah, Raimi was not an indie romantic comedy guy, c'mon. He even had a superhero movie under his belt. Did Marc Webb direct a DARKMAN analog that I am unaware of?

I agree that for a reboot, they had to change the suit, and I am warming up to the new one even though I totally agree that it reeks of overdesign, especially in the gloves and boots. But I dunno, it's pretty cool. Too bad for Webb and co that Raimi nailed the suit the first time around though.

I was so bummed when this

didn't happen.

Now I am so glad it didn't.

I have zero issues with the suit. Different from the Raimi films but similar enough you can instantly recognize it as Spider-Man. It's the whole "Fucking with canon" thing that bugs me about The Amazing Spider-Man. And, well, everything else about it too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FilmNerdJamie 


Tobey had a few hits pre-and-post Spider-Man dropping in 2002 where he was the lead; Pleasantville, The Cider House Rules and Seabiscuit.

Maguire was part of an ensemble cast for both Pleasantville and Cider House Rules. Basically what Garfield is to The Social Network. I would say they are both in the same realm of popularity and critical acclaim at the same juncture of their respective careers before taking on Spider-Man. I doubt Andrew Garfield is the problem with this film.

As for Raimi, he never had a movie gross more than 35 M before Spider-Man. I'd say he was more in need of a Spider-Man blockbuster than Webb does in this point of his career. 

Tobey also had Wonder Boys, where Spider-Man has onscreen sex with Iron Man.

Yes, it happened, slashfic fans!

Quote:

Originally Posted by User_32 

Maguire was part of an ensemble cast for both Pleasantville and Cider House Rules. Basically what Garfield is to The Social Network. I would say they are both in the same realm of popularity and critical acclaim at the same juncture of their respective careers before taking on Spider-Man. I doubt Andrew Garfield is the problem with this film.

Tobey was more known beforehand. He was, front and center, the lead of those pictures and both were hits long before Sam Raimi came calling. I remember a lot of "Oh TOBEY MAGUIRE is Spider-Man!?!" reactions from people. Reaction to Garfield has been "Who the Hell is this guy?!?" and Social Network came out after he was cast.

Quote:

Originally Posted by User_32 

As for Raimi, he never had a movie gross more than 35 M before Spider-Man.

Jesus, really?  How the fuck did he keep working?

I want to know how the hell he got the job.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gabe T 

Tobey also had Wonder Boys, where Spider-Man has onscreen sex with Iron Man.

Yes, it happened, slashfic fans!

Onscreen? Unless I'm mistaken, it's more implied/acknowledged sex then straight up boneing down in RDJ's bedroom.

Man, Wonder Boys is a hell of a movie.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ambler 

 

Jesus, really?  How the fuck did he keep working?

I can only imagine some of his movies were super cheap and long tail. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by MoonBaseNick 

I want to know how the hell he got the job.

Garfield?

Because Hutcherson got contractually cock-blocked outta the job.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MoonBaseNick 

I want to know how the hell he got the job.

Well, it's not a surprise to know someone watched a Raimi movie and realized he would be a great choice for a comic book movie. I mean, Dead Alive couldn't possibly have gotten past New Line Cinema when they were looking at Lord of the Rings as a possibility.

Also, Raimi was apparently not nearly the first choice. Not sure who else was up for it, but I do know David Fincher has said his pitch, telling the origin in the first five minutes, was completely rejected.

Yeah, the first choice rarely gets the gig. Hell Snyder was like the...4th or 5th choice for The Man of Steel.

Garfield is to me a near-perfect choice to play Spider-man. Then again, I'm the guy who'd rather have had Gyllenhaal than Maguire back when that was a thing. Ropey and lean, that's the best interpretation of Peter Parker. Raimi and Hutcherson are short guys, stockier built. Spider-man should have limbs everywhere and move like a gymnast.