THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN Pre-Release Thread - Page 2

Does anyone else get the whole "Peter's Dad Planned This From the Beginning" vibe ala Ang Lee's Hulk?

 

Is Peter's full name Peter Krenzler? Will he fight Spider-dogs? Have awkward lines of dialogue? "Boom... ... ... booooooom... ... booooooooooom."

 

In conclusion: Peter's father is The Absorbing Man.

Ugh. 'The sins of the father' cliche. Didn't like it in HULK, didn't like it in THE WOLFMAN and I won't like it here.

This trailer makes me miss Raimi's Spiderman's more than I thought I would. There was something pure and fun about his movies...Webb's version looks kind of miserable. And a bit second rate.

What feels false about this, admittedly based only on what we've seen so far, is that they're not trying to make a Spider-man movie that's true to the character. They're trying to make a Spider-man movie that's different enough from the Raimi films to bait the public into another origin take. 

 

I can't stomach another god damn origin story. I just can't. I could do a new Spider-man film with different actors, a new director. But not this, it didn't have to be from the top again. No one wants this film except Sony.

I would be shocked if Peter doesn't find a cassette or recording of some sort from his parents that'll explain everything and let him know that they loved him.

 

So look forward to that in the third act.

I know Spidey's been made out to be a bad guy before, both in comics and in the Raimi films, but the feeling here is a little TOO Batman. The focus on his parents is yet another tone-deaf angle: as long as Uncle Ben is alive, Parker has no reason to become Spider-Man. If he dies in the manner that Devin's preview of footage left the impression of, then the guilt isn't as palpable. Ugh.

 

Anyone else notice that they're completely hiding that this is another origin story? Guess marketing noticed the unfavored reaction the first trailer got. Of course, we're still going to get "Spider-Man was always Peter Parker's destiny" horseshit.

 

With all the youth pandering, it'll probably be a youtube link.

 

I did too.

The Lizard is the physical-manifestation-parallel to Pete's angst. Instead of battling the anger from within (like the Hulk), he actually battles uncontrollable rage. In a lizard. Just grab his tail, Pete. It'll break off easily!

 

"You want this, don't you? The hate is swelling in you now. Take my dismembered tail. Use it. I am unarmed. Strike me down with it. Give in to your anger... It is unavoidable. It is your destiny. You, like your father, will lose you temper over a piece of tail!"

Nolte's hobo-scientist dad just annoyed me, but I liked the shit-eating comfort well enough in Hopkins' character. Different scenery-chewin strokes for different folks.
 

 

     Quote:

You're seeing the same things I am. There's one fleeting shot in the trailer of Spider-Man in costume during actual daylight; the rest are set at night. Raimi had no problem with filming a daytime superhero and Spidey was never envisioned as a nighttime ninja a la Batman in the first place. Speaking of Batman, that whole "do I look like a cop" interaction with the carjacker smells distinctly like Batman Begins, although slightly more light-hearted. Slightly.
 

 

 

 

 

I concur, this Spidey seems like a jerk, and Garfield isn't working for me at all, he seems so smarmy.

 

Pass.

Quote:

The first Raimi Spider-man had its share of nightime Spidey scenes as well.  And he's still in high school, during the day he should be in class!
 

 

I posted it in the trailer thread and I'm a postin' it here.

 

No J.K. Simmons makes me wanna cry

 

So essentially what we're gonna get here is probably a film that is to Raimis franchise what The Batman is to Batman:The Animated Series?

 

Ummm... "yaaaay".

Quote:

We're not gonna hit "yay" until this becomes a reality:

    Quote:

I'm not disputing that, but Raimi did not ignore the daylight antics of Spider-Man, which mirrored the comics. There's a balance. The trailer we're seeing now seems to indicate that everything interesting happens exclusively at night...which probably isn't the case...nonetheless it sets a tone.
 

I'm also calling out the "you seriously think I'm a cop" quip as a direct rip-off of Batman Begins, toned down just a hair. Tone it down further and it might have worked, but the implied menace present in Garfield's reading of that line is *not* the Spider-Man I grew up with.

 

"yaaaay" indeed.

Just watched the new trailer someone posted on the first page of the thread.

 

The more I think about this film, the more I keep coming back to the same thing: This doesn't need to exist. There's no reason whatsoever to re-tell the origin of Spider-Man. There's no reason they couldn't have carried on without Raimi and Maguire. There was never any reason to reboot this franchise.

 

This film has no reason to exist.

 

The trailer makes it look... crappy. And I'm not just saying that because I love Raimi's flicks so much, or because this film has no reason to exist. It really does look awful. Why? Andrew Garfield. I see no difference between his Peter Parker and his Eduwardo Saverin in The Social Network. Even if the previous Spidey films didn't exist, The Social Network would, and I would still look at Garfield being the same damn person in both of them. I can't watch a Spider-Man flick where the guy playing Spider-Man sucks at playing Spider-Man. And Andrew Garfield sucks at playing Spider-Man.

 

Fuck this movie.

I agree with the sentiments of most on these boards. It looks fun enough, but I can't get excited. I've actually gotten into heated debates the last few days, both on Facebook and on the phone, with old friends who are accusing me of elitism and a growing cynicism. I keep pointing out to them that I'm excited for The Avengers with childhood glee, and that The Dark Knight Rises will be an incredible conclusion to Nolan's trilogy, but this particular topic is becoming a sticking point in geek culture.

 

Their argument? He's got webshooters and wisecracks, so it's Spider-Man. My argument? Hood, spray painting, so much night time- that's not the Peter I grew up with, which is what I guess it boils down to in the end.

 

I'll give Garfield this: I never for a second bought that Tobey Maguire could throw a punch. More so than organic webshooters or how a teenage boy could make a costume like that, I wanted to see a learning curve of how this effeminate, glassy eyed introvert who is prone to cry at the drop of a hat could ever make a fist and punch someone.

 

Which boils down to why I'm open to a new interpretation, even if I love the Raimi movies: the disconnect between Peter and Spider-Man. Raimi and Maguire's Peter and Spider-Man barely played off each other-not only does he not wisecrack, but there's never lip service to how being Spider-Man is an escape for Peter.

 

As well, although Peter is traditionally down on his luck, the sheer lunacy of the portrayal of the character's academia and employment always bothered me. Here's a genius kid that should be getting scholarships up the yin yang, a full ride at NYU, but he's struggling with photography and delivering pizzas. I know the first movie mentions he gets fired from Dr. Connors lab, but I never felt Raimi handled the concept of college very well. It appears that Peter only has one class (for years, depending on how long there is between the first and third movie), somewhere between physics (because Peter has to do a paper on Doc Ock's energy machine) and biology (not only do we know the future of Dr. Connors, but he examines the symbiote).

 

Further more, I'd like any version of Spider-Man to delve into the fact that Peter is a photographer in the first place. In Raimi's first movie, it's just something he does. Is it a hobby? Did Uncle Ben get him into it? Who knows? At least Spider-Man 2 has two seconds of him showing arty photos to Jameson, but then never again.

 

At least this movie not only acknowledges Peter's smarts but appears to have him, what, interning with Dr. Connors?

 

What I'm getting at is Raimi's Peter, when taken as a whole and independently of anything we know from the comics, is a bit of a walking contradiction. He's a logical, science obsessed nerd that can't get a handle on poetry but has an artistic eye with a camera; that has never heard of the FAFSA or gotten the LIFE scholarship for a high GPA; that loves his aunt who just lost a husband but moves into the heart of Manhattan just a few months later even though he could've commuted from home; and who is empowered enough to make quips and inflict violence while wearing a mask but appears to lack even a bit of wit, not even a hint, when out of the mask.  

 

It's not that these things can't work together, they could even make for a multifaceted character, but the script never gels. 

 

Long story short, The Amazing Spider-Man appears to get right what (few things) Raimi got wrong, but then bungled a whole lot of other things.

Surprised by some of the comments, especially with regards to Garfield.  I think the interpretation they're going with here is more interesting than Raimi's, and I'm not just talking about the quips or the fact that his intelligence seems to tie into Spiderman more smoothly (constructing the web shooters, interning at Oscorp, etc).  I think his version is more well-rounded, geeky without it seeming old-fashioned or exaggerated.  Most of the guys you see kept at arm's length in high school because of their smarts look more like Garfield than Tobey Maguire.

 

Another great thing here is that they're taking the "public menace" aspect of Spiderman's relationship with the public seriously.  It was more or less a joke in Raimi's films, because all we see is Cartoon New Yorkers giving one-liners.  I'm thrilled that Webb is giving Captain Stacey an actual role in the story to tie into that specific relationship.  Right off the bat, it even makes Gwen more interesting than MJ ever was.

I don't even want to compare the work of Raimi against that of Webb. I hate this movie's existence that much. I don't care if it gets anything right or wrong, it's irrelevant to me. We should be looking forward to Spider-Man 5 this year, not a reboot.

 

If they absolutely HAD to reboot the franchise, they could have at least gone all-out with distancing the new film from Raimi's trilogy and base it on the new comic line which has a black kid as Spider-Man. THAT would've caught my interest.

 

I get the feeling that the opportunity to use Venom again had something to do with the decision to reboot rather than trudge on.

Again, I like the idea of the quippy Spidey, and I like that they're doing it in the movie, so that pleases me.

 

Though, while I'm willing to chalk up the menacing Spidey joking to bad trailer editing, fact is, there's more of that in the footage they showed yesterday. He ends up openly taunting the car thief, mocking him as he pulls out a knife, and zapping him repeatedly with different types of webbing. Given the look of the costume, he came across as less Spidey and more like, dare I say it... Deadpool. But again, the quipping is something I'll show some faith in, even though Spidey looks like a pretty menacing dude in this.

 

The footage and trailer opened my mind a little, but the movie's still got an uphill climb.

I've never been a particular fan of Raimi's films, aside from parts of Spiderman 2.  I even don't mind that this has aspects of the origin story, because I like how more interesting Peter's connection to the high school experience is -- in Raimi's films, it was sort of an afterthought, just "there" for a little while and then tossed aside.  That's the primary area where I think Webb will be an improvement by default.  The Peter/Gwen relationship looks immediately more interesting than the three films of Peter/MJ taken as a whole.

 

Call it even further comic book/film sacrilege, but the Spidey/Peter/George Stacey dynamic also looks better than the jokey Jamesson scenes in Raimi's trilogy.  Simmons was great, just not the storylines.

So is Spidey really beating the living tar out of a bunch of cops, or are those supposed to be Lizard cops?

Blasphemy.

They were arresting him.  So he beat the shit out of them. 

He's gritty and hardcore that way. Oh and bad-ass of course.

He's a loner, Dottie.  A rebel.

Really not something I'd expect Spider-Man to do, not unless he had valid reason to think they were about to go Rodney King on his ass or something. Of course, in the trailer one of the officers removed his mask while he was handcuffed, so I suppose his options were rather limited, but how does Spidey manage to get himself handcuffed in the first place? What sense does that make? The Spidey I know would have to get fucking shot in the stomach or something to get nabbed by a cop.

There are things about Peter Parker that you wouldn't understand. Things that you couldn't understand. Things that you shouldn't understand.

Only thing I liked in the trailer was the casting and Spider-Man actually having a snark attitude for a change. That was sorely missing in the Raimi films.

As for the rest, such as this so called "untold story", give me a break.

Well, my 11 year old really wants to see it. He thought the trailer looked "awesome" when I showed it to him this morning and he grew up on Raimi's films. I'll see it (I see everything), but this trailer doesn't exactly set my imagination ablaze. I liked Raimi's films a great deal, due, i'm sure, in no small part to sharing Sam Raimi films with my son. They were fun. This doesn't look fun. I'm just going to see how the effects look in 3D and to take my kid cause he wants to. Not what I would call highly anticipated. More something to dutifully check off the summer viewing list than anything else.

Certainly not "Spidey Sense".

 

 

 

I am actually looking forward to this after having seen the trailer.  I guess I was never a fan of Raimi's films and while I understand that many enjoy them, I never did.  I did not like the Peter Parker/Mary Jane dynamic because I just could not get into Maguire or Dunst and their potrayals of the character.  Parker was supposed to be awkward and nerdy but not an effeminate pansy as Maguire portrayed.  From the squeaky voice to the crying all the time his Parker/Spiderman was not in the least the interesting, genius, wiseass the comic book character was.  And Dunst is not what I would have envisioned for Mary Jane Watson, an aspiring model and actress and drop dead gorgeous, something Dunst is clearly not.  Mary Jane should have looked like a young Angie Everhart from the early 90's.  Mary Jane should not have been a plain jane which is what Dunst clearly is.

 

The only really good casting calls Raimi made were Simmons as J.J. Jonah Jameson, actually was the best, most consistent parts of all three movies and Willem Defoe as the Green Goblin.  Unfortunately the Goblin wearing a Power Ranger suit was not ideal for the character.  Check out this link if anyone wants to see what could have been with the Green Goblin.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waYxuyM4vi0 Unfortunately, I believe either Raimi thought it was too complicated to use, and/or Defoe complained about it or the studio thought it was too scary for young children. I don't know who ultimately nixed it, but it could have been a really great Green Goblin, instead of a mixed bag which is what the effect turned out to be.

 

I was 21 when the first one came out and could not believe I was finally going to see a big screen adaption of SpiderMan after all of the false starts ove the years including James Cameron attempting at one point to make the movie.  But after the first one lost my interest, I could not be won back for the sequels.  I think part 2 is overrated by many and 3 is a mess.  I'm glad Raimi is gone. I think the quips are important, as is showing SpiderMan to be a superior athlete and fighter as well as showing how intelligent he really is, especially for his age.  Andrew Garfield will be a better Peter Parker/Spiderman then Maguire, I am confident in that.  His SpiderMan seems to have an edge which to me works better then making him a complete dork as Raimi did which made him seem incapable of holding his own even as SpiderMan.

 

The only thing I may have an issue with is the look of the Lizard, but I understand why they would want him to look differently then the comic book character who was basically a lizard who walked upright.  The Lizard in the movie is a more of a Lizard Man which is actually what he is technically.  The Incredible Hulk movie did the same thing with the Abomination, so that you could clearly see he started off as a man.  I think it makes sense and comes off as more plausible by doing this.

 

I think this movie will be better then the Raimi movies.

 

Xamot, First of all...Cool Avatar!  Are you a fan of...G.I. Joe?  Ok...The Amazing Spider-Man, looks...Far better than the Raimi Spider-Man.  I agree with you about Kirsten Dunst as a fairly weak choice for MJ, but to me it is more about how she was written.  I also prefer...Mechanical Webshooters to separate this potential new trilogy from Raimi's, and to finally show Peter as the scientific genius he is.  Denis Leary is...Perfectly Cast as Captain George Stacey!  Emma Stone looks like the comic version of Gwen Stacey, as if she...Leaped, from the pages of the...60's Era Spider-Man Comics!  The trailer is...Spectacularly Awesome!  I cannot wait to see it in...3D!  To me, MJ should be added if there is a sequel to The Amazing Spider-Man!

I am glad Duke that you share my feeling on this new Spider-Man movie, I think it will be very good and I think that much of the love for the Raimi films is because it was finally a big screen version of Spider-Man, something that many thought would never happen, especially after all the false starts.  If you watch Raimi's version today, they do not hold up as well.  Even the 2nd movie which many people love, I don't, but I understand the idea of why many people like it, does not hold up all that well.

 

And I do think you are correct in your assesment that Mary Jane was poorly written, but I don't think Dunst was the bombshell the character really should be.  Dunst isn't a bad actress but not a headturner looks wise which is what MJ is. 

 

And yes I am a big GI Joe Fan.

Duke Fleed, my friend, you're Spectacularly Awesome! 

roboTimKelly, Thank You!

Sometimes, I really I wish I was Spider-Man...

Christ this thread got weird quick.

So you can fuck a cartoon drawn by a 40-year-old man?

 

Man, this looks so stunningly mediocre. I can't believe we might have missed out on another Raimi film for this.

JMulder, I do not dislike Raimi's Spider-Man films, but Marc Webb's looks absolutely...Amazing!  Also, a...Snarky Spider-Man, that designs his own tech in addition to his...Mechanical Web Shooters, Denis Leary as...Captain George Stacey, with the most...Perfectly Rounded Stone, Emma looking...Lovely as Gwen Stacey!  Also, I prefer seeing...The Lizard, instead of poorly adapting...Doc Ock, and Sandman.  Both Doc Ock and Sandman are actually...EEEEEEEvil in the comics!  The only really sympathetic Spider-Man Villain is...Curt Conners aka The Lizard!

 

I hope they introduce her as this at the Oscars, or whatever her next public appearance is.

 

Ehh I dunno it just looks like it kinda falls flat. The 1 person POV in the trailer looks like it was ripped straight out of Mirrors Edge. I recently saw some models of lizardman and I was kinda underwhelmed. Not sharp teeth, no flailing tongue and NO LAB COAT in sight. It's like they are trying to give it a C. Nolan feel but totally fail. I'll see how the reviews go then I might see it in theaters.

This new version looks so much better than the Raimi films. Hated all 3 with a passion so I guess it wont take much to surpass those.

This is what you meant right? Surely?

 

 

I must admit i have a hard time seperating them in my mind. I have seen them all once and I was bored out of my mind equally. I have since tried to revisit all of them, but never got more than 15 minutes in before Igave up. But yeah, part 3 was probably the worst .

First clip:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxCl_vUOHoA&feature=player_embedded

Looks thrilling!

Who the hell is running the marketing departments of modern blockbusters? I assume they thought this was one of the "Funny" scenes involving Peter? 

 

I'll just say this: If The Amazing Spiderman was Raimi, we'd have just seen a Bruce Campbell cameo, and it would have been hilarious.

 

BOO-UURNNS!