So here’s the news part: Supehero Hype is reporting that The Amazing Spider-Man trailer will hit on select prints of Captain America: The First Avenger. The trailer will be a full 2 minutes and 30 seconds long. The article also shows a new Entertainment Weekly pic of a maskless Spidey. The suit still looks dopey, and Andrew Garfield’s giraffe-like neck and poofy hair do little to remedy the effect.
But that’s cool, I’ll roll with it. Garfield is a great actor despite his bouffant hair. And we all know that in the end, the superhero suit is really the last thing you should care about. As predicted, this reboot sounds like it’s going to more closely resemble Nolan’s Batman films that Raimi’s Spider-films, a theory further supported by this quote:
Four years after Spider-Man 3, starring Tobey Maguire, The Amazing Spider-Man promises to be a “more contemporary,” “more gritty,” and “more character-driven” look at the comic book hero. He’s a hero the 27-year-old Garfield knows well. Growing up, “I related to Peter Parker [Spidey’s alter ego] so much because I felt like someone else inside,” he says. “I loved the comic books and the animated TV series and I even dressed up as Spider-Man as a kid.”
So here’s where my anger begins. “More character driven?!” Are we just going to pretend now that Raimi’s original trilogy wasn’t character driven? Raimi always had his eye on character first; even the action sequences were character driven. Take the elevated train sequence in Spider-Man 2 for example; arguably the most character driven action set piece in the last decade. I’m fine with rebooting the series, but let’s not start revising history and labeling the Raimi films as big, stupid pieces of shit. Sure there were some missteps, but on the whole the films were enormously successful in balancing action and heart. More successful than the Nolan Batfilms in that regard, that’s for shit-sure. I guess you think you can do better Marc Webb, but you better damn well prove it first. Which leads me to this angering quote from the director:
Adds Webb: “Ultimately what this movie is about is a kid who grows up looking for his father and finds himself. And that’s a Spider-Man story we haven’t seen before.”
Except for in a film commonly known as Spider-Man. Or Spider-Man 2 for that matter. Peter’s search for a surrogate father figure was subtext in both of those films, but I guess Marc Webb didn’t see them. True, they were background themes, but they were there. I get the need on the part of the filmmakers and the studio to make this seem like something fresh and new, but I don’t like it being done at the expense of the franchise that proceeded it. These aren’t the Burton/Schumacher Batfilms. The Raimi Spider-films respected the character, respected the comics, and by and large were done well. They don’t deserve to be thrown under the bus just to sell your movie.
Best of luck with The Amazing Spider-Man, Marc Webb. I like the character and Andrew Garfield (and Emma Stone and Rhys Ifans) too much to resist seeing it, so you have my money. But quit it with the passive aggressive digs at Raimi’s films. Have some respect for the shoulders you stand on.
20 comments
CHURCH.
Ugh. I’d reached ambivalence towards this movie but that leaves a really bad taste in my mouth. Almost makes me want to give SM3 another shot and see if I like it any better.
I can’t find the energy to be offended because I am so vastly “un” about this unnecessary film: uninterested, unexcited, underwhelmed. I love the first two and still think that the train sequence is one of the best scenes ever – action scene, comic book movie or otherwise. I didn’t enjoy the 3rd one at all, but have no interest beyond rental curiosity about this too-soon reboot despite the talented actors involved. It just smells like suck.
I see nearly every superhero movie at the theaters, but I can’t seem to garner any interest in this at all. Maybe I’ll rent it.
So true. Well done, S OB.
And how!
OB knocked it out of the park. Raimi’s Spidey/Peter Parker was completely character driven. He made three solid films, 2 being the stand out. And I’m with just about everybody else on this string – I have little/no interest to see this Twilight/Bullshit “reboot” whatsoever – especially after the way Sony shit on Raimi while they showed him the door.
Garfield looks like they pulled him straight out of the animated series. He barely looks human on that cover.
That magazine cover is another “Fuck This Face” article waiting to happen.
Yeah, that’s some bullshit.
“Something we haven’t seen before”? ‘Superman’, ‘Hulk,’ ‘Batman Begins’, ‘Spiderman 1’ & ‘2,’ ‘Iron Man’ – practically every superhero movie made is about an orphaned hero who must battle his father figure to become his own man. It’s kinda a tired formula by now.
Either Webb doesn’t watch a lot of superhero movies or he’s an f’ing moron.
I have little faith in this. The Raimi films were gold. Even the subpar third film is watchable. Webb sounds like an ass!
Looks like someone skinned the model of the final boss from House of the Dead 3.
Yep, Webb seems like the weak link in this one. Head totally up his ass. Pity he’s the fucking DIRECTOR.
You guys hear that? That was the sound of Marc Webb being ripped a new one.
Great. Another Twilight. Pass.
I was already uninterested in this, as reboots = origin stories, and I really don’t need to see spider-man’s origin again. Why can’t they just do like Bond, and realize that we already know who SPIDER MAN is?
Quotes like these just make it an easier film to ignore. Other brave souls can tell me if it was any good.
Webb said this is the first time Peter is depicted looking for his father in the films. Not his “surrogate father figure.” His father, period. When has that been shown in any of the films? Considering that Campbell Scott is listed in the cast as Richard Parker, it seems the origin story is going to be a bit different this time.
Some people should really take a stress pill and think things over. Or just stay angry about films they know nothing about if that really brings them joy, I guess.
Hey man, there is no place for logic and reasoning here. Haven’t you seen the comments above?
I wouldn’t say they’re necessarily throwing the Raimi films under the bus, but in some overenthusiastic effort to draw a distinction they’ve managed to reveal ignorance. Because, you’re right– those films were absolutely character-driven. And not acknowledging that makes it almost sound as if hasn’t seen them. (Or reading from a studio-approved script.) Which would be CRAZY.
Comments are shown as archived from the original site; new comments are closed.