SPIDER-MAN. TRAILER. - Page 2

Does anyone else feel like Mark Webb is the John Romita to Raimi's Steve Ditko? Ditko's work has this kind of rough, unpolished quality to it, but you can really feel his enthusiasm for the character coming through on every page. While Romita's Spidey, although technically superior, just lacks that certain charm.

 

It also helps that Maguire resembles the akward Ditko Peter Parker and Garfield is the more heart-throby Romita Parker.

It's a much better trailer than the first, but it left me feeling a bit flat, save for any time that Leary was onscreen.  

Right, so now can we at least all agree that writing this off as an action-free damp squib on the basis of a few months-in-advance promo stills  was silly?

Sure, it lacks the shiver-down-the-spine feeling that came from seeing Raimi give Spidey his long overdue big screen treatment, but there's nothing about this trailer  that should keep any Spidey fan away from a theater this summer - and that final shot is great.

I will once again use this opportunity to recommend The Spectacular Spider-Man cartoon that ran from 2008 to 2009. It was spearheaded by Greg Weisman (co-creator/producer of Gargoyles and the currently-running Young Justice cartoon), and was an excellent modern distillation of classic Spidey. The writing was solid and thought-out, the voice-casting was near-perfect all the way down the line, and the action scenes easily rivaled Raimi's for creativity and excitement. Plus, there were a lot more of them.

 

That aside, this is looking pretty solid. I'm still not big on the Lizard design, but he looks pretty good effects-wise, and the costume looks a lot better in motion. So yeah, count me in.

I always felt that Raimi's first Spiderman was 5% Ditko & 95% Romita Sr. I mean Macy Gray musical guest? That is FULL-ON Romita Sr. With Webb's film, I'm getting a serious 70s John Buscema by way of 80s John Romita Jr vibe.

 

 

I liked the first two films well enough, mainly because of the villains, and the third one I thought was pretty poor, and Topher Grace as Parker was OK but sort of dull and as a whole the trilogy was fine but didn't leave as big an impression on me as, say, The Dark Knight or Hellboy or even the X-Men films. I realize it's the internet and hyperbole is king, but I think I'm entitled to my opinion without A.) Being told I don't understand my own taste in movies and B.) The implication that not liking Topher Grace makes me some sort of misanthropic social outcast.

 

 

If Sony had let Raimi have the Spider-Man 3 he wanted, rather than forcing Venom on him, would we have this flick?

I still long for Sandman/Vulture 3 and Lizard 4

I also think a lot of us are now outside the target demographic for this film though.

But I'm still looking forward to it. But nothing compared to the frenzy of excitement I had for Raimi's first. I remember being terrified that I wouldn't be able to see it for some reason, and not being able to relax until it actually started.

This really is the elephant in the room for a lot of us. We're not Spideys demographic anymore, we're not Star Wars, technically many of us were never Pixars.

 

I wonder when some of the man-children will give up their toys for the little kids to have a turn with?

Hey now, I have no problem with kids enjoying this stuff. But great pop entertainment has always been something that can work on multiple levels, methinks. I resent the idea that I'm a man-child just because I still like well-done cartoons and superhero stories.

At some point we should really launch a thread about the difference between man-child entertainment (Transformers or GI Joe) and stuff that's kid-friendly, but not necessarily for kids only (Pixar, a large chunk of superhero stories). It's the difference between The Goonies and Gene Wilder's Willy Wonka.

 

Despite how everyone's been trying to re-frame it, Star Wars was NEVER "just for kids." Neither was Ghostbusters, or Star Trek, or any of the other enduring properties. It was kid ACCESSIBLE. Spidey, especially the Raimi films, fall squarely in the latter category.

Resent all you want the fact remains that they're first and foremost childrens entertainment, if they can speak to adults as well its a bonus, not their intention.

 

You can hang onto the quality stuff all you want, but you're not the target market for this entertainment any longer, and so it's kind of moot when a bunch of old farts sit around saying that shit was so much better in their day and if only the studios still tailored its output to their particular expectations. 

 

At a certain point we have no more right to expect these films to be tailored to aging geeks than we would Dora The Explorer.

I tend to try and avoid the "everything was better back then!" and "studios should listen to us!" stuff, actually. And how is being 21 an "old fart"?

 

You're taking my broad generalizations personally - stop it.

 

Hell you just finished up watching Hannah Montana for chrissake, I'm talking more about the over thirty geek rage I'm seeing here. You're a long way from putting away childish things young man - enjoy.

But see, it's the difference between having something be "for kids" and something being "kid accessible." Despite how everyone's tried re-framing it after the prequels sucked, Star Wars was never "just for kids". Kids latched onto it, but it's a series of films that works from ages 9 to 90. Broad appeal without compromising the story or the themes. It's one of the trickiest acts to pull off, and with the rise of super-concentrated demographic testing and focus groups, there's fewer and fewer people even willing to try.

 

Great stories and great storytelling aren't restricted by age. That's why I take issue with hiding behind "Well, IT'S NOT FOR YOU CAUSE YOU'RE OLD!" as an excuse.

 

And for the record, yes, I think the Raimi films have some superb storytelling on display, especially Spider-Man 2.

Greg, if we were talking about true art here, art done with love, care and passion with something to say - you know, a real 'great story' - you're point would be completely valid.

 

That's not what we're talking about tho really is it. 

Ah, yes. The resigning to mediocrity because it's all just silly funny pages. So why give a shit about anything then? 

OK, sorry. Actually, I fucking hate Hannah Montana.

 

No no no, that's not what I'm saying at all.

 

I'm talking about a film obviously designed by committee to reinvigorate a franchise that wasn't dead for the sole purpose of reselling it to a younger generation at a cheaper price than what they would have had to spend had they kept the original franchises players in place.

 

This isn't a 'funny book' issue, this is a 'cynical exercise in modern feature films as branded products" issue.

 

This film is not being made for the discerning over thirty fan of comics, superheroes or the titular protagonist himself, anymore than Ben 10s creators make their show for the odd stoner, dad or older brother that may end up catching it. We don't buy the lunch boxes, the trapper keepers the toys or any of the ancilliary shit - we're not important to this equations existence at all.

 

So sure we can bitch and moan, but in doing so it just seems people are deliberately ignoring this massive contextual elephant.

I'm just sad that the kids want this mopey mean Spider-Man. Or that Sony thinks they do.

Little kids don't want to see that shit.  How many little kids did you see in the line for The Dark Knight?  Kids like bright and fun, not dark and broody.

Well hey they loved that sparkly emo vampire shit! These kids'll buy anything I tells ya!!!

I'm not seeing the "mopey", really.  As a disclaimer, I fully understand the cynicism and the probable thought process of the studio, but reading Webb's interviews, I don't get the sense that he's trying to do that.  It's easy to latch onto the mention of the word "dark" and shout to the heavens that he's making a Twilight Spider-Man, but still...I'm not seeing it in Peter and Gwen.  And I'm generally not someone whose overly fond of that particular kind of teen pandering.

I think it was the tone of the first trailer that gave that impression.

It's funny you should mention that, Sebastian. I remember reading the original Lee/Ditko comics and being astounded at how mopey and mean they're Peter Parker was, especially later in the run when Ditko seemed to be more involved in plotting the issues.

 

 

Quote:

There's really no contest. That old trailer puts a smile on my face. I got roused by it just now and I've already seen the flick a few times.

This trailer is an improvement. Some action, some Stone, shots of the Lizard. The suit reminds me of the Alex Ross take on the suit. Which I can totally live with.



Still, nothing beats the original Spider-Man film by Raimi. I'll even place it slightly over 2 just because Tobey fits the role so perfectly initially. Around 3 he started to look a little worse for the wearer. Also something about his voice. It just comes off squeaky, which works great for the initial film, but I hoped his confidence as Spider-Man would allow him to gain some confidence over the trilogy and come of a little more commanding with each film. Maybe to make him more relatable that he's down in the dumps?

I guess that's a major problem even in the comics, is trying to keep Peter relatable over time. If Mary Jane is the dream out of his league goal, then what happens when he gets her? Time travel divorce?

The Lizard looks terrible in the trailer and doesn't fit in this world at all. It's like if the villain in BATMAN BEGINS was Killer Croc. Maybe it'll be awesome in the movie though, who knows. The claw shots look OK.

Lizard scared my girl in the trailer, so it's going to be EvilDeafesque Doc Ock fir her instead.

Wily little shit used "well I'm not taking you to see that if you're scared" into, 'well can I watch Spider-man 2 instead?' (I've not allowed it because of the first Ock scenes)

I will say this... the trailer is WAY better in 3D. If there was any superhero made for that extra visual dimension, it's Spidey.

 

Also, it seems clear that Mary Jane's role was getting more and more reduced in the earlier series. Eventually, Sony knew women would just stop going to Raimi-directed (and Sony-approved) Spider-Man movies. Not only are they placing more of an emphasis on the romance, and the sex appeal of aggressive hipster Spidey, but women LOVE Emma Stone. A lot more than they like Kirsten Dunst. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot more women turned out for this one.

So apparently Gwen knows Peter's real identity? Or did I misread the trailer? MJ was becoming a waste of a character in the movies but I don't want Gwen Stacy basically being MJ in everything but name in this movie. 

 

Considering that my hands down all time favorite superhero films (assuming one counts them as such) growing up as a kid were Darkman and The Crow (and my runner ups being the two Burton Batman films), I must've been one seriously weird kid. And I was certainly very, very far from the only kid who watched and grew up loving those films. Not trying to be an obtuse contrarian or anything and I certainly don't have much of a stake in this debate either way (I was hardly ever any of the Spidey films' target demographic at any point in my life), just pointing out that not ALL kids are into nothing but candy coated colorful happy funtime fluff ALL the time.

 

I mean there was a time when fairly hard edged, R rated, decidedly un-bright and un-cheery squib-filled bloodbaths like the Alien and Predator films, the first two Robocops, the first two Terminators, and even Total fucking Recall had massive, MASSIVE crossover child-demographic audiences (which of course led to the third Robocop getting neutered all to hell, but that's beside the point). Hell pretty much my entire kindergarten class in the late 80's had all seen (and re-seen, and loved the fuck out of) the first Die Hard (and even the second shortly thereafter); not that Die Hard is especially brooding or anything of course, but its hardly anything remotely even in the same galaxy as what's considered "family friendly" these days (don't see too many faux-terrorists getting their kneecaps destroyed by machinegun fire in any Pixar or Iron Man films).

 

I dunno, it always bothers me when people make the assumption that all or even most children tend to be solely of the Transformers/GI Joe/Power Ranger/Disney/Pokemon/Ben10/brightly colored comic book-type persuasion. Like it or not, dark and gritty more than has its place even among the tykes; just like anything else, its more a question of how well its accomplished. I mean, if all of a sudden even a quarter of the chewer population just up and flat out started denying that they grew up (I mean from absurdly young) on a steady diet of gorier than all hell, boob-filled slasher and exploitationy action films, they'd be lying through their teeth. Badly. And I would know, cause I was brought up within that same cesspool of smut as the rest of you, as was virtually every kid I ever hung out with growing up.

 

Christ did I just halfway quasi-defend this (very likely piece of shit if I had to wildly guess) movie and its transparently crass as all hell approach? My apologies for that, was not the intent. Just trying to make a point is all. Some kids when confronted with dark and gritty material will bawl and blubber while running for the comfort of the nearest Cartoon Network show, but for every one of them there's just as many that will grin ear to ear and eat that shit up while asking for seconds. There's a tendency I notice in a lot of people (particularly these days for some reason) to underestimate that, which if I had to guess I think at a certain point may possibly come from a place of subconscious wishful thinking regarding how innocent most children actually are mixed with a rose-tinted idealization of childhood. This sort of thing naturally crops up most in discussions centering around stuff like Spidey and whatnot (Spidey being a character who in the past has had more than his share of flings with darker and edgier, with plenty of kids still excitedly lined up at the wall-crawler trough regardless).

Edited by Jaquio - 2/7/12 at 9:31pm

You know, watching the trailer for the first one that was posted earlier kind of erased whatever impression the last trailer had on me. Say what you will about the first Spider-Man not being that great (the second one is still the best superhero movie ever) but back to back, starting with Peter and ending with MJ's "Go get them, tiger!" is as good as superhero movies are likely to get. In fact I fully intend to do that this weekend.    

I think the reason I'm open to this movie is because I so deeply enjoyed the Ultimate Spiderman comic book take.  Though I didn't read many issues, I did start the series and play the video game, and I absolutely adore the art style and the look and feel and tone of all that stuff.  This is essentially the feature film version of that as far as I can tell so I'm game.

Yeah, that "Go get'em, Tiger" moment is just damn triumphant. That's what I'm getting at when I say no matter what, the superficial (artificial webshooters, wisecracks) additions that are included can't change the basic emotional highs that Raimi's films got to. So celebrating their inclusions despite evidence that that attention to emotional detail will be, at best, lacking feels...I dunno. Wrong, I guess.

Raimi's films, with only a few exceptions, never met anything that I would personally call an "emotional high".  Every moment, with the exception of winners like the upside-down kiss, felt cold and calculated, essentially as cartoon as Raimi's palette in the films.  Nothing, not even the Aunt May conversations, registered.  I like that Raimi was unabashedly embracing certain aspects of the character, but scenes like "unmasked Peter on the train and the solemn, brotherly New Yorkers supporting him" is emotionally at the level of a poor cartoon caricature.

 

I'm not going to write off this film as "lacking" in the potential for emotional depth because, right off the bat, the whole Peter/Gwen/George Stacey dynamic looks a shit ton more interesting than what Raimi did with Peter's relationships in any of the films, including MJ and Harry.  Raimi never seemed comfortable or coherent in those particular moments.

 

I'll even go a step further and say that eliminating Jamesson -- for now -- is sensible.  George Stacey makes the "public menace" back-and-forth more credible.

The Aunt May speech in two doesn't get you?  Every time? 

 

...

 

What ARE you?

I liked the quipping and Leary; the rubbery/plasticky suit, weird parents angle and hackneyed 'choral yelping' score just get a big shrug from me, though.

I'm gonna bow out on this one, I think. I'll just be over here sighing whenever the nerds next start up the "death of filmmaking" screeching, knowing that 90% of them were totally cool with studios' bullshit moneymaking tactics as long as they're being used on a film about a superhero that looks okay.

If "He's just a kid" after the train sequence in 2 didn't register with you, well, God, Jed, I don't even want to know you.

If anything, you could accuse Raimi of being overly sappy. I don't see where the cold and calculated comes from. The Spider-Man movies screamed that they were coming from Raimi's heart. Especially the talk Aunt May has with Peter in SM 2, the one that convinces him to become Spider-Man again. It should be adopted by comic book nerds everywhere as a "Why superhero comics deserve the love we give them" manifesto.

 

Seeing Raimi's movies as cold and calculating seems so wrong to me.

 

"He knows a hero when he sees one. Too few characters out there, flying around like that, saving old girls like me. And Lord knows, kids like Henry need a hero. Courageous, self-sacrificing people. Setting examples for all of us. Everybody loves a hero. People line up for them, cheer them, scream their names. And years later, they'll tell how they stood in the rain for hours just to get a glimpse of the one who taught them how to hold on a second longer. I believe there's a hero in all of us, that keeps us honest, gives us strength, makes us noble, and finally allows us to die with pride, even though sometimes we have to be steady, and give up the thing we want the most. Even our dreams."

 

These were superhero movies made by people with a honest non-cynical love for the genre. People that hate "edgy" bullshit like Venom or four wall breaking "ain't we funny" stuff like Deadpool. Before Sony got their filthy mitts on them and fucked it up for everyone, that is. 

My childhood was a mix of both ends of the spectrum. For every PREDATOR I watched, I watched the FOX & THE HOUND as well. For every Tim Burton BATMAN, there was a MUPPET MOVIE. For every STAR WARS or INDY flick, there was an ALIEN or Paul Verhoeven ultra-violent scifi bloodbath.  I think that balance was partially responsible for turning me into a film geek. I wanted ET and THE THING. Not one or the other.

I think...The Amazing Spider-Man, will be...Closer to the earlier Spider-Man comics.  The key is not that there are...Mechanical Web Shooters, but that Peter Parker is a...Genius!  Raimi has said many times that if Peter was a Genius, he would work for 3M or a similar company.  Peter always designed some Tech, that could aid him against a foe.  So I am glad that Marc Webb is going in a different direction that Raimi did. Also, Kirsten Dunst was wrong as MJ, because of how she was...Written.  MJ is not supposed to be a whiny character, she is the party gal that seemingly knows everyone in the high school.  Gwen Stacy being in this film makes alot of sense as she was Peters first love, not MJ.  MJ dated Harry Osborn before Peter.  Also Emma Stone seems...Perfectly Cast as Gwen.  I...Love, that Spider-Man is...Snarky again.  The quips do not seem that much meaner than the comics either.  It would make sense that with his problems, Peter is not Happy Go Lucky, or full of Bravado unless he is...In Costume!  As for the missing...Daily Bugle and JJ Jameson, they can be in the Sequel.  Also, one other thing about Raimi's Spider-Man films that were a negative, was the actor that played...Joseph "Robbie" Robertson.  I felt he was not as strong a character as the one from the comics.  To me Robertson was taller, skinnier, and much more able to go Toe To Toe with JJJ!

A week after TASM hits, Ice Age 4 hits theaters. It'll claim many children. Another week later has Bane, taking the grown-ups. Webb's movie will have a huge opening, maybe a lucky second weekend, but after that it's toast.

 

There's no way Spider-Man beats Batman this year.

Who said it was going to?  Some dumbass I have on ignore, probably.

Dude. Spider-Man opens against THE SAVAGES.

 

I have Spider-Man UNDERWEAR! I'm absolutely a fan. And yet, SAVAGES is my first choice. That movie's gonna be awesome.

 

TEAM SAVAGES.

Chris Myers, Maybe not at the...Box Office, but The Amazing Spider-Man will be the...Better Film!

 

Gabe T, What are...The Savages?  I am definitely seeing...The Amazing Spider-Man that Tuesday July 3rd!

SAVAGES is being directed by Oliver Stone. It's a great book that I have no doubt will be a shitty movie.

Evi, Thank you for the info.

Well, the trailer did what it was supposed to:  my interest just went from about a 2 to a 7.  But it's really pissing me off how so many people are using this as a reason to shit all over the Raimi films.  I actually saw a guy on facebook say this movie was "going to rape the previous ones".  Did the problems in the 3rd movie really leave people this upset, or are they that blinded by something shiny and new?

Duke, why exactly do you think Spider-Man will be the better film?

TDKR has four Batmobiles, a Batwing, a Batpod, an earthquake machine, two main villains and some more. Doesn't that exactly go for your interests? It also has Chris Nolan and it's the first big superhero trilogy movie that is for once meant to be a true ending, not just 'a next chapter'. And it's in 2D and partly shot in IMAX. Which means you can either have it cheap or in pristine visuals. Spider-Man on the other hand, will be more expensive with a lesser image quality.

 

Maybe you did like 500 Days of Summer so much more than the two Batman movies, Inception, The Prestige and Memento? What is it that breaks Batman's spine for you? Is it Rhys Ifans as the Lizard emerging from a woman's restroom toilet? He's not even wearing his typical outfit.