THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN Pre-Release Thread - Page 13

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcnooj82 

 

 

Also, I just can't stop laughing at the images in this Facebook page...

https://www.facebook.com/media/albums/?id=119847111367497

Taxi Spider

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeI 

 

That scene forever gets a pass from me. I was a New Yorker at the time Spider-man was released and watched the movie in a theater 1/2 a block away from the place where I was working on 9/11 and handed out water and juice to people that had escaped the buildings. That scene was added for New Yorkers and, for all its hokeyness, it went over like gangbusters where I was. I always appreciated it.

That went over huge everywhere (at least in the US). The "I have a father... His name was Ben Parker..." line too. Whole audience cheered when Peter said that.

Tobey NAILS that line. I also particularly love his "Hi.... this is really heavy" in 2. And God bless him for committing to looking like a total dumbass in 3 at certain points.

A lot of good it did him and Raimi. Most of the audience missed the point of these scenes. Geeks especially. Because they think that when they act cool and dark they look like Brando in The Wild Ones. Not like Urkel immitating The Fonz.

True, true. I still find it commendable. And Tobey's not even my favorite Spidey; that honor goes to Josh Keaton, who voiced him in the terrific Spectacular Spider-Man cartoon, and Keaton's a large reason why I still love that show so much.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=16AwVWvjQhY

Four minute preview is now online.  A lot of it is simply recycled footage, but the bit at the beginning shows off a very solid sequence where Peter saves a kid from a burning car off the side of a bridge.  I liked the touch of him sharing the mask.

Wait,

Is that C. Thomas Howell?  My interest in this movie just went up by about 75%.

I'm going to go ahead and say I actually really like that little piece of Spidey and the car thief. That's a sense of playfulness and joy we've all wanted, yes?

Honestly, nothing's really turned me off from this movie as of yet.  Maybe it's worse than the Raimi ones, maybe it does play in familiar territory, but until it's out, we won't know if it's good or not.  It's not like it's being made by people with no skills (to pay the bills).

Yeah, there's nothing really bad about the extended trailer. Well, maybe some cgi flames, but that's nitpicking. I get the feeling that I've seen nearly the whole movie though without much of a sense of drama. We'll see though.

Is it's simply cheap, lazy, mercenary existence enough to dislike the film for? Cause that's kinda where I'm coming from overe here.

That and Peter Potter anyway.

I guess I'm just a lost cause interest-wise as far as this movie is concerned. That extended clip just looked like more the same, albeit caked up in terrible CG. I was actually reminded more of the bridge sequence in FANTASTIC FOUR than any of Raimi's films. Only darker.

Am I alone in groaning when Spider-man pulled off his mask during that rescue? Sony sure loves to show off the actor's face in action sequences...

And, boy, the Lizard still has a few passes to go before he stops looking like a video game. That claw in the car window looked awful.

True, but it's still a preview, so I'm not too worried about all the CG.  Video Gamey Iron Man vs. the tank comes to mind.

No, I think that the use of the mask during the rescue was pretty neat.  CGI fire aside, I found the entire sequence to be quite well-done.

Ugh, and now we're gonna get the backlash to the backlash aren't we.

Fucking internet.

More of the same save for the opening (albeit finally a good piece of something from this movie with him and the kid) and the very end. Meh.

Sony still hasn't found a hook to get people interested and frankly on the eve of The Avengers, and The Dark Knight Rises coming, this just pales in comparison.

Quote:

Originally Posted by neoolong 

Wait,

 

Is that C. Thomas Howell?  My interest in this movie just went up by about .075%.

Fixed that for me.

Hey, don't disrespect Mark Watson like that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by neoolong 

True, but it's still a preview, so I'm not too worried about all the CG.  Video Gamey Iron Man vs. the tank comes to mind.

For sure, and I imagine that they'll be working on it feverishly right up to release.

But, to be fair, that was one shot. This trailer has at least a half dozen terrible-looking moments.

Quote:

Originally Posted by neoolong 

Hey, don't disrespect Mark Watson like that.

He'll always be Ponyboy to me.

I'm liking what I'm seeing of the Spider-Man stuff, but the rest of it doesn't look interesting at all. I can't help but feel that they're showing all of their best bits.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Rain Dog 

Is it's simply cheap, lazy, mercenary existence enough to dislike the film for? Cause that's kinda where I'm coming from overe here.

Thisy this this this.

I have a feeling that, realistically, I may be eating some humble pie come July. It isn't going to be a bad film. The problem is that every discision that put this film in motion is a corporate one.

In every trailer or piece of marketing you can just feel Sony's hand. The film will need to justify it's existence to me (beyond "moar moniez") which I know sounds unforgivably egotistical but I'm just being honest. Unless this film grabs me by the balls I'll be thinking "WHY?" the entire time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loki Odinson 

I could really, REALLY do without the whole "destiny" bullshit but I do like the idea of doing something with Peter's parents as they were always a black hole of information.

Eh...

Gotta admit that I think it looks excellent, judging from this extended trailer alone! But as someone who is pretty hostile towards the Raimi trilogy, It will take a lot to make me fall for a new Spider-man movie. We'll see. Let's all just hope that we get a good movie.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bitches Leave 

Gotta admit that I think it looks excellent, judging from this extended trailer alone! But as someone who is pretty hostile towards the Raimi trilogy, It will take a lot to make me fall for a new Spider-man movie. We'll see. Let's all just hope that we get a good movie.

I really liked it.  I like how he saved the kid with the mask.  Nice touch and it looks like the movie has a soul.  I liked that sequence quite a bit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Draco Senior 
 I liked the touch of him sharing the mask.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Episode29 
Am I alone in groaning when Spider-man pulled off his mask during that rescue? Sony sure loves to show off the actor's face in action sequences...

Quote:

Originally Posted by cccc 

I really liked it.  I like how he saved the kid with the mask.  Nice touch and it looks like the movie has a soul.  I liked that sequence quite a bit.

I can see both sides of this. Irked me at first, but he seemed to have a good reason. Unfortunately, CT Howell Jr. becomes Spider-man's black-mailing sidekick...

Yep, he saves falling vehicles on a bridge and removes his mask at every opportunity. That's some damn fresh material right there; never saw that before. What was I thinking?

"...the summer's most anticipated film..."

Holy shit, the hubris.

Quote:

Originally Posted by theslik1 

"...the summer's most anticipated film..."

 

Holy shit, the hubris.

That struck me more like desperation

I guess they hopped on the anti-Batman backlash train too.

I'll admit that trailer did look interesting. Except I hate that "Lead must remove mask for 50% of the movie" clause that seems to be in every Spiderman move actor's contract.

Also the Lizard should have been the bad in Raimi's first Spiderman.

Quote:

Originally Posted by theslik1 

Yep, he saves falling vehicles on a bridge and removes his mask at every opportunity. That's some damn fresh material right there; never saw that before. What was I thinking?

Exactly what I was thinking. Another Spidey movie with the actor not wearing the mask most of the movie. Fuck you, Sony. Give the goddamn rights back to Marvel PLEASE.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cylon Baby 

I'll admit that trailer did look interesting. Except I hate that "Lead must remove mask for 50% of the movie" clause that seems to be in every Spiderman move actor's contract.

 

Also the Lizard should have been the bad in Raimi's first Spiderman.

Isn't that kinda the problem with most superhero films?  Though it seems more apparent with the Spiderman films--probably because of the lack of eye sockets.

Well, I loved the Raimi films, I loved them a lot. So, when I heard about this reboot, I was annoyed, more than annoyed, livid! And mostly I still am, but still, I think it's important to enter every film with an open mind, this is hard, but otherwise preconceived notions could cause one to colour the film in certain shades unfairly, so it's also important. I have read a consensus here largely towards to general dislike and dissatisfaction with the project, I think for two reasons...

1. The fact that it was rebooted at all. Raimi, and the rest of the major players were in place, and they threw them away in favour of something rebooted. This was probably due to the fact if Raimi made a Part 4, then it would certainly be their last, and would need rebooting anyway, so Sony made the cynical business decision of re-starting earlier so they could make a new franchise earlier. Also, the relative speed of the reboot ties in as well, the Raimi films weren't given any time sufficient enough to settle into pop-culture, instead there is a new version a scant ten years after the first film. Whether casual audiences are ready to accept such a swift turn-around remains to be seen.

2. The reboot simueltaneously being overtly similar yet also changing intrinsic parts of the mythology. A lot of this film looks to be business as usal (bridge-based fight scenes, origin story), yet there seems to be strange changes to the core mythology. A discussion over Peter's parents could be interesting, but the film seems to cast this as a defining cause for his becoming Spider-man, thus removing the eveyman freak-accident angle which I think may be responsible in some part for the character's enduring popularity. Any previous attempt to make Spider-man being spider-man the result of some pre-ordained destiny doesn't work, it was an accident, it could have happened to anyone, but it happened to Peter Parker, and he chose to use the gifts he recieved for good, ONLY after he'd already paid the price for using them for personal gain. It's a wondefully human story about the choices we make, by making it pre-ordained, you're taking out that element of personal choice, diluting the character and making him like any other Neo, Anakin, or Harry who were always meant to be the chosen one.  

In truth this film can be anything, maybe it's a bold, new direction for the series that will be embraced and remembered for generations to come, maybe it will be one of those interesting films that heavily divide people and will be argued about endlessly, probably on these boards. Or maybe it will be an unmitigated disaster, the likes of what hasn't been seen since Batman & Robin. Only time will tell, whatever the result, I'm excited and curious to find out.

I seriously doubt this will be a Batman and Robin-level disaster. At worst, it's going to a well-acted, competently shot action film that completely borks the Spider-Man mythos.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Spider 

I seriously doubt this will be a Batman and Robin-level disaster. At worst, it's going to a well-acted, competently shot action film that completely borks the Spider-Man mythos.

This.

I think a lot of people are making this seem to be a lot worse than it will be.

Yeah, I'm kind of with you on that, Andrew. I saw all three previous Spider-Man films in theaters (yes, even 3), but I seriously doubt I'm going to plunk down actual money when there are so many other options available this summer, even charmingly goofy action trash like G.I. Joe Retaliation. When I'm more excited to see something like that than a new Spidey movie, there's a problem.

Quote:

Originally Posted by felix 

 

This.

 

I think a lot of people are making this seem to be a lot worse than it will be.

Okay, perhaps my statement was a touch hyperbolic, I was just trying to show two extremes of both good and bad results.

I wonder if Sony is scrambling to cut some of the excruciating filler scenes (doorman? twitchy peter had a concussion?).  It's those that really got me turning on the movie.

Quote:

Originally Posted by felix 

This.

 

I think a lot of people are making this seem to be a lot worse than it will be.

I'm not sure I ever said that the product would be "bad" as in poorly acted or shot. My arguments are that the product is annoyingly derivative of modern superhero tropes that do not mesh well with the character and his world. Not only that, but the story/character beats that best define Classic Spider-Man have either been shitcanned or pointlessly meddled with.

The product is clearly aimed at the Twilight crowd and I'm sure it will do gangbusters in that regard. 

Surprised this is such an active discussion, with about five or six FULL threads dedicated to Amazing Spider-Man.

SONY: Let's make another Spider-Man. Less like the last Spider-Mans, but pretty much exactly like every other superhero and/or fantasy movie ever.

Would people be more accepting of the reboot if they had just adapted Spider-man: Reign instead?

Directed by Joe Carnahan!

I was explaining to a friend of mine that Spider-Man couldn't be in "The Avengers" because he's owned by Sony, while Marvel Studios put out "The Avengers", even though the Spider-Man character was actually created by Marvel.

He laughed at the idea of Spider-Man being "owned" "like a slave", but when you really think about it, there's some truth to that. It's like this movie is getting made not because the people behind it care about what's best for the character, but rather because they just want to exploit it as a property to potentially make money from.

Hey, moviemaking is mercenary. There has to have been some spite on Sony's side because they announced a Spider-Man IV release date for their shareholders, only to see Sam Raimi give them nothing at the proposed deadline. Not the right way to make movies, but it makes sense from a business perspective. Sony needs product, and if you lose a major summer release tentpole, you can't just replace those lost revenues overnight.

The flip side is if they said, "Sam, you've made billions for us, we'll wait," then they risk announcing a release date late, when everyone has claimed a spot, and they have to counterprogram some other blockbuster, hurting both studios. Given that this is Spider-Man, however, they probably should have done exactly that, and watched another studio blink.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Naisu Baddi 

He laughed at the idea of Spider-Man being "owned" "like a slave", but when you really think about it, there's some truth to that. It's like this movie is getting made not because the people behind it care about what's best for the character, but rather because they just want to exploit it as a property to potentially make money from.

To their credit, the general public appears to be getting that vibe too. Hence the disinterest.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Naisu Baddi 
It's like this movie is getting made not because the people behind it care about what's best for the character, but rather because they just want to exploit it as a property to potentially make money from.

And this is different from every other superhero movie how?

Ouch, that's a little cynical, don't you think? I dare say there's a few filmmakers and studios out there who have made superhero movies with more than just financial ambition motivating them. Folks who were inspired by some genuine affection for the character and a sincere desire to honour the hard work and imagination of the writers and artists behind the character and its comics.

Well, folks greenlit the movies because they want tentpole dollars flowing into the company.  But directors and other creatives, say a Nolan, are probably more focused on the artistic side of things.  But, the start is financial ambition, because these things costs bucketloads of bucks.  That doesn't mean that there's not honest affection or a desire to do something creative with the property at work also.

I'm bummed that the Lizard won't be in a better flick. *shrugs* Can't work up anymore Nerd Rage about this one at this point. I've gone from facepalm to apathy.