CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › CHUD.COM Main › BRUSH OFF YOUR SPIDER-MAN BEGINS JOKES FOR THE FULL HD TRAILER
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

BRUSH OFF YOUR SPIDER-MAN BEGINS JOKES FOR THE FULL HD TRAILER

post #1 of 93
Thread Starter 
by Renn Brown: link

Now you can watch THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN Teaser in Full Boring Quality.
post #2 of 93

I'm really overwhelmed by how bad this looks. I don't know if I can say anything more damning than that. "Unnecessarily serious" and "painfully dour" come to mind.

 

Yawn.

post #3 of 93

Hate hate hate HATE it. HATE it.

 

The ONE thing I gather that's a little different is making a big deal out of his parents. Ok, sure, that might be good. But with the parents (Campbell Scott and Julianne Nicholson, excellent casting), you get Lil Peter Parker. And I could not give a flying FUCK about Parker as a child. I am so stunned that, with Spider-Man 3 suggesting marriage for Spider-Man, they've taken him as far back as GRADE SCHOOL. So desperate and pathetic and symptomatic of a larger corporate groupthink that people want these stories told in the same regurgitated bubble.

 

HATE.

post #4 of 93

Spiderman Begins isn't looking so good.  Wonder if they will give more if an avalanch of bad press comes.

post #5 of 93

What's weird is I might be interested in this if it WASN'T Spider-Man.  In general it's a well-cut, rather effective trailer (though I do seem to be the lone holdout who thinks the POV stuff at the end looks forced and contrived).  But it just doesn't mesh with the spirit of what feels like a Spider-Man film is supposed to be.  That rainy, dark, dour stuff works on Batman because he's BATMAN.  That's the character.  Granted, Raimi injected a lot of that into 3 but he worked his way up to that by putting Peter in the situations over the course of two and a half films that earned it thematically.  I just don't get it - what's the fun of making a Spider-Man movie if you're going to suck all of the fun out of a Spider-Man movie?

post #6 of 93

I actually am quite the opposite of everyone's negative reaction. I'm not excited by what I saw, but I'm already more invested than I was with Raimi's films which, over time, lost my interest (be it the cast, the story, the cookie-cutter approach of it all). And, no, it has nothing to do with it apparently looking like TDK (which I find to be obnoxious, as far as everyone thinking that's the approach they need to take in order to be commercially and critically successful).

post #7 of 93

The trailer to me brings home just how unnecessary a reboot is right now. The Raimi series as a whole isn't even ten-years-old and while the third film left a bad taste in quite a few folks' mouths, the films are still somewhat fresh in people's minds. I could be all wrong in my thinking but it seems like the studios are all just in a rush to churn out get-rich comic book movies that follow Nolan's formula. Good casting aside, I don't feel very optimistic about this one.

post #8 of 93

I remember the Superman Returns trailer having more action, and that movie could've served as a primer on pacifism. The big "whoa" moment is web-swinging, which we've seen three movies of.

 

Counting down to the announcement of reshoots to "punch up the action."

post #9 of 93

I don't even know about good casting.  Seeing Garfield at work as Peter didn't ring true either.  Dude's WAY too pretty to be the nerdy pre-Spidey Parker.  It almost looks like he was cast based on how well he sold the Spider-Man role, as opposed to the way Maguire backed into it and brought Peter's sensibilities with him into the costume.

post #10 of 93

Not awful looking, just... awkward.  That first-person thing, especially.

 

I like the Raimi movies.  3 is a mess, the narrative is shot to hell, but I still like it for those few scenes it gets right.  This trailer (and I know it's just that- an early trailer) seems more intent on showing off how different it is than Raimi's trilogy than actually giving us any real style of its own.  And that's really the biggest issue here for me- will it have any kind of stylistic approach, or will it just try and be "the one Raimi didn't direct"?  Dunno.  Can't tell from this.

 

I'm seeing comparisons to Nolan's Batman stuff, and yeah, I see it too.  Also, though- I'm getting a real "Marvel Movie Universe" vibe, ˙a la Iron Man(s), Thor, and Hulk from those lab set pieces, which only feeds my fears that this movie won't have its own personality (which no one can claim about Raimi's movies).

 

All in all, though, I'm feeling it's still too soon to judge.  It didn't blow me away, it didn't piss me off.  It just... existed.

post #11 of 93
It was ok. Not amazing. And I have to agree with Renn about the CGI. In interviews for his book Vic Armstrong, the stunt co-ordinator, says they're going all practical, not all CGI like the other ones. Well this looked VERY CG. Maybe most of the other stuff is practical though, who knows.
post #12 of 93

I thought they said they went practical for the non-first person POV webslinging.  Well as much as possible I guess.

post #13 of 93

So they're going all-practical when they don't use CGI.... that's.... those are the two options, yes. Very notable.

post #14 of 93

I mean I think they said they consciously tried to do practical as much as possible as opposed to just making it all CG.  Yeah, those are the two options, but there are varying degrees of how much you use one versus the other.  It'd look like crap if they went all physical anyway.

post #15 of 93
That trailer s'ed a f'ing d.
post #16 of 93

I guarantee you they're looking at all those practical swinging shots they did right now and deciding to redo them with CG because they look awkward.

post #17 of 93

If this film has Peter's parents be SHIELD agents and have Nick Fury recruit him for the Avengers, it will have all my love.


Ah well.

post #18 of 93

I guess I'm in the minority here:

 

 - I liked the 1st person stuff - seemed cool to me, and there was more wall crawling, which I never got enough of in Raimi's films.

 

 - I like origin stories, and I don't mind someone else taking a crack at it, but - fan nitpick - the spider bites Peter on the hand, not the neck! Everyone knows that.

 

I am worried about the tone. In the comics and cartoons, Spider-Man was always a bit of a goofball. Raimi's Spider-Man didn't crack wise nearly enough, and I worry this new one would be all dour all the time. 

 

I wonder what sort of S-M film we'd get if Marvel studios had the rights? 

post #19 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by JGButler View Post

I don't even know about good casting.  Seeing Garfield at work as Peter didn't ring true either.  Dude's WAY too pretty to be the nerdy pre-Spidey Parker.  It almost looks like he was cast based on how well he sold the Spider-Man role, as opposed to the way Maguire backed into it and brought Peter's sensibilities with him into the costume.



Yeah, he's definitely a much better looking Spider-Man than Tobey Maguire ever was. But I think that has to do with approaching his character as an outsider rather than a nerd.

 

post #20 of 93

Liked it.  Excited for POV stuff.  Mildly concerned about the parental stuff.

 

Will reserve judgement till after the credits have rolled as trailers are the most misleading things ever.

post #21 of 93

I liked the POV part, but I also agree that aspect was very video gamey. The rest....meh. I can understand the comparisons to BEGINS, based on the trailer, but some of that may be to justify starting it all over again, to make it distinct from Raimi's trilogy.

 

What gets me down the most is the rehashing of the origin story, especially when the original films are so recent. Again, though, I suppose it's a necessary evil to distinguish it from the Raimi films.

 

Shrug. Not excited, but not outraged either.

post #22 of 93

instead of this unnecessary remake, how about a film where we meet a mid-30's Peter Parker after all his friends have been killed off by super villians... 

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTe1xiBzAws

post #23 of 93

And with that trailer, you lost me.  Well done Sony.

post #24 of 93

Heehee

Spider-man-Emo-Llama.jpg

post #25 of 93

That POV bit reminded me of the commercials for the Mirror's Edge video game a few years back.....but not in a good way.

post #26 of 93

Man, I was really meh on this.  It's the first trailer, and God knows I've seen shitty trailers for awesome films, but that did nada for me.  The tone of the trailer was wrong.  If I had zero clue what this trailer was for before I hit play, I would have thought it was for a horror movie. 

post #27 of 93

It looks more interesting than Spider-Man III.  I'm still ambivalent to the whole thing, but I don't think it looks like a trainwreck either.  I also refuse to hate on the project just because Sony made this instead of Spider-Man IV............................which didn't sound like it was going to be all that great to begin with.  The Vulturess?  Really, Sam?!?!?

post #28 of 93

As I said in the other thread, it looks dour and humorless, which is a real problem. Hopefully it doesn't reflect the content of the movie - even if it is Twilight-Man, there are the building blocks to make an entertaining film.

 

In it's favour, nothing of the set-design and shot composition looks as bland, cheap and uninspired as the earth based Green Lantern stuff (the offworld stuff only gets a pass for being different).

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by JGButler View Post

I don't even know about good casting.  Seeing Garfield at work as Peter didn't ring true either.  Dude's WAY too pretty to be the nerdy pre-Spidey Parker.  It almost looks like he was cast based on how well he sold the Spider-Man role, as opposed to the way Maguire backed into it and brought Peter's sensibilities with him into the costume.



I've always thought of Peter, because he has always been drawn that way, as good looking.

 

He's nerdy due to social awkwardness and being smart, he was supposed to be kind of scrawny, but no interpretation has ever had him looking like DJ Qualls. The kind of short and squat 'quirky' looking Maguire was less of a fit to what was in my head.

post #29 of 93

.


Edited by Agentsands77 - 6/4/16 at 3:01pm
post #30 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agentsands77 View Post

I'm a little surprised by the intense negativity. It doesn't look great, but it doesn't look bad, either.

 

And yeah, I've always thought of Peter as relatively handsome guy, too. Dorky, but nevertheless good-looking.


Exactly.

 

post #31 of 93

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.D. Bob Plissken View Post

It looks more interesting than Spider-Man III.  I'm still ambivalent to the whole thing, but I don't think it looks like a trainwreck either.  I also refuse to hate on the project just because Sony made this instead of Spider-Man IV............................which didn't sound like it was going to be all that great to begin with.  The Vulturess?  Really, Sam?!?!?

People keep bringing up the Vulturess thing when Spider-Man IV is mentioned. Do we even know for sure if it was Raimi's idea? I mean, he was kinda forced into using Venom in part 3. Couldn't the Vulturess have been another "suggestion" from the studio?

 

As for this trailer, I'm not feeling it. The grim, dour stuff works on certain comic characters. Spider-Man....not so much.
 

 

post #32 of 93

I find the extreme negativity a bit out of proportion, too, but I also really didn't see anything to get excited about.

 

Eh, it's a first trailer/teaser. I'm open to being surprised by this, as I was by X-Men First Class.

post #33 of 93

It very well could have been another studio force, but if so then why not opt for Black Cat?  The fact that Sony was supposedly 100% against the use of The Vulture makes me think it was a Raimi idea.

 

Whoever had the idea doesn't change the fact that we likely would have been given a Spider-Man IV that was just as much of a mess as Spider-Man III.......................and likely even more expensive considering no one was under contract anymore.  I love Raimi and consider his first two Spidey films to be superhero classics.  That said, nothing I ever read about Spider-Man IV had me excited to see it.

post #34 of 93

Great, I get to watch how Peter Parker becomes Spider-Man... AGAIN. I'm not surprised it's in the film but to base the whole teaser trailer on it? Talk about underwhelming. The Incredible Hulk (and it's opening credits recap) gets better and better with every double (or triple, Superman!) dip into origin territory I have to endure.

 

... and that first person stuff? Looked pretty cool... for a Playstation 2 cut scene.  

post #35 of 93

They really should have called this Spider-Man: Turn On The Dark.

post #36 of 93

So it's a trailer to Mirror's Edge, the film?

 

You know it's bad, when you see something from a film and say "Doom the movie, did it better"
 


Never been a fan of Spiderman, and this is not changing my mind.

post #37 of 93

For those who are complaining about the apparent tone, I have a question: Do you really want a potentially new trilogy to aspire to the same tone as the Raimi movies? We already agree that this movie is unnecessary, as is the need to re-explain his origins... Do we really need to have the same tone all over again?

 

I'm not exactly for everyone Batman-izing everything but if that means a diversion from what we already got (and VERY recently), then I welcome the change.

post #38 of 93
Hey, so what are the chances that the sequel is going to bring in the Green Goblin?

500

Edit: All Internet snark aside, I'm not all that down on the movie. It's got a good cast, and I'm not so beholden to the Raimi trilogy that I don't think this can be good, darker tone or not. It could be fun.
post #39 of 93

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun H View Post

For those who are complaining about the apparent tone, I have a question: Do you really want a potentially new trilogy to aspire to the same tone as the Raimi movies? We already agree that this movie is unnecessary, as is the need to re-explain his origins... Do we really need to have the same tone all over again?

 

I'm not exactly for everyone Batman-izing everything but if that means a diversion from what we already got (and VERY recently), then I welcome the change.


No, I don't want a beat-for-beat recreation of the Raimi-verse. However, it's ridiculous to assume that one has to go morose, dark and humourless in order to differentiate from the earlier films. Why are comic-book movies approached in purely black or white terms? Both Burton and Nolan made darker-edged Bat-films that felt completely different from one another while still managing to remain true to the character's world*. This version of Spidey fails to do that. It looks like The Fly crossed with the Social Network, with an ungodly videogame commercial grafted onto the end.

 

Mark Webb made 500 Days of Summer. Inexplicably, that film had a better grasp on Spider-Man's appropriate tone than this film does.
 

*Obviously, on the flip side, Schumacher's movies were brighter and more colourful, but Batman comics have undergone far more drastic changes in creative approach than Spidey ever has. Batman Forever and Batman & Robin may have sucked, but they were intended as representations of the 50s/60s Bat-comics. There are serious Spidey stories, but the feel of the character's universe doesn't really change.

post #40 of 93

They didn't have to replicate the tone of the Raimi movies to be good. However, if they insist on doing something different, going 'darker' isn't necessarily the best possible alternate approach. How about 'lighter'? The Raimi movies were fun a lot of the time, but they weren't as light as they could have been, and making something less serious doesn't necessarily mean going the "Batman Forever" or "Batman & Robin" route. It's possible to inject some humour and joy into the movie without making it impossible to take seriously at any point. "Superman" and "Iron Man" are examples of that.

 

Maybe a little more wisecracking from Spider-Man could be thrown in, for example, without taking it overboard. I remember one part in the first Spider-Man movie where he's fighting Green Goblin at the Daily Bugle. Jameson gets mad watching them tear the place up, so Spider-Man remarks, "Hey, kiddo. Let Mom and Dad talk for a minute, will ya?". I'm surprised there wasn't more stuff like that in the subsequent movies, as I'm told Spider-Man said things like that fairly often in the comics (and I remember him having that smartass attitude sometimes in the cartoons). It could be cheesy if handled wrong, but it's not automatically lame like Mr. Freeze's ice puns.

post #41 of 93

While there weren't oneliners per se, to say that there wasn't any humor in Raimi's films is something that gets repeated and makes me wonder if I've been watching different films than everyone else. Or maybe I'm just an easy sell, and am fine with Spidey cracking two or three jokes while the rest of the time is filled out with humor at Peter Parker's expense. Especially in Spider-Man 2; the guy just can't win, even when he's tying his shoes. It's heightened, it's tongue-in-cheek, and it totally WORKS. I sometimes feel that fans want him to be Deadpool sans guns, but then, they're probably the same fans who think Carnage was a good idea.

post #42 of 93

I am not understanding this unnecessary reboot. Besides the casting change this movie looks extremely silly. It looks as if a scene is ripped straight out a video game. It's early but things have to improve.

post #43 of 93

 I don't think it was a bad trailer, but it didn't make me want to see it.  I just saw Spidey's origin story, I don't need to see it again. I did like the POV shot. I might be reading into it, but I wonder if that was a dig at Raimi. I know he didn't invent the POV shot in Evil Dead, but it is something he is known for. I'm still open minded about the movie, however its not something I'm psyched for at the moment.

post #44 of 93

Saw the trailer a few minutes ago. Piece of crap. The Twilight vibe with Garfield's hair, and him being a loner, scribbling on a notebook put me off, and that happens about 45 seconds in. Then that videogame cutscene looking POV. I'll still see it, but I am so underwhelmed by this trailer. They need to release an action filled one stat, otherwise this trailer is going to ruin the film.

 

 

They really should just flash forward and have him in his 30's. My pick for Peter Parker would be Mark Wahlberg. I know it sounds insane, but it makes perfect sense to me.

post #45 of 93

The CGI at the end may not have been the best, but they've got some time.  Remember that scene from the Iron Man trailer?  They could still clean it up, if it even makes it into the movie in the first place.

post #46 of 93

I wonder if the 1st person stuff was just for the trailer, or if it's going to be in the movie.  Given that it's going to be in 3D..who knows..

post #47 of 93

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.D. Bob Plissken View Post

It looks more interesting than Spider-Man III.  I'm still ambivalent to the whole thing, but I don't think it looks like a trainwreck either.  I also refuse to hate on the project just because Sony made this instead of Spider-Man IV............................which didn't sound like it was going to be all that great to begin with.  The Vulturess?  Really, Sam?!?!?


Quote:
 

Originally Posted by grubstreeter View Post

I guess I'm in the minority here:

 

 - I liked the 1st person stuff - seemed cool to me, and there was more wall crawling, which I never got enough of in Raimi's films.

 

 - I like origin stories, and I don't mind someone else taking a crack at it, but - fan nitpick - the spider bites Peter on the hand, not the neck! Everyone knows that.

 

I am worried about the tone. In the comics and cartoons, Spider-Man was always a bit of a goofball. Raimi's Spider-Man didn't crack wise nearly enough, and I worry this new one would be all dour all the time. 

 

I wonder what sort of S-M film we'd get if Marvel studios had the rights? 



I agree with both posters here. Only two troubling things I saw in this trailer as was mentioned the tone seems a tad dour and thats ok for bits however I hope thats not something that permeates the experience.

 

The POV was at first terrific but went on too long and looked fakey.

 

Outside of that I liked Garfield and Emma Stone. Color me curious.

post #48 of 93

"Looks more interesting than Spider-Man 3" is possibly the silliest statement I've heard this week.

post #49 of 93
Count me amoungst the haters. I'm sceptical that we need any more superhero films at all, let alone boring looking remakes/reboots to films less than a decade old.

The POV stuff is a gimmick. My kids love watching the live action Spiderman films cause they, you know, get to see Spiderman.

I can't imagine I'll see this.
post #50 of 93

I don't really care about whether it's too dark or whatever, what bothers me is that they seem to be shilling the exact same story that wasn't that interesting the first time they did it 9 years ago.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: CHUD.COM Main
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › CHUD.COM Main › BRUSH OFF YOUR SPIDER-MAN BEGINS JOKES FOR THE FULL HD TRAILER