[movie] Amazing Spider-Man

[farley2k]

I wonder if Raimi sees this reboot as a slap in the face in any way.  I know they weren't going to get Raimi or McGuire back into the franchise after the third film, but you'd think they'd avoid another origin story for the same character.  What can they possibly add to it? 

They can add that Peter was desined to be spiderman, that his parents were secret agents, etc.  Layers of crap because being a normal kid who got gifted with superpowers isn't cool enough anymore.

[Isgrimnur]

I wonder if Raimi sees this reboot as a slap in the face in any way.  I know they weren't going to get Raimi or McGuire back into the franchise after the third film, but you'd think they'd avoid another origin story for the same character.  What can they possibly add to it? 

They can add that Peter was desined to be spiderman, that his parents were secret agents, etc.  Layers of crap because being a normal kid who got gifted with superpowers isn't cool enough anymore.

Yeah, because Richard and Mary Parker being agents is a recent change ... geologically speaking.  Their backstory was published in 1968. 

[hepcat]

Question is, how many times have they changed/deleted that backstory since?

[Blackjack]

The sad thing is that as late as 2010, Raimi was saying in interviews he would be producer on Spider-Man 4 and he still hoped to get a chance to direct it. To wit... (this interview with him was supposedly at Comic-Con around Nov. 2010)
http://www.reelz.com/trailer-clips/35495/spider-man-4-interview/

So I don't think it's a case of "oh after Spider-Man 3, he wouldn't have wanted to do another one." Raimi did want to do SM4, and fully hoped to direct it, and Sony chose to go in another direction. But there's no more point in my whining about it than AMC removing Frank Darabont from the Walking Dead. What's done is done. We'll know in a few months if it was a wise decision or another Sony bonehead move. 

As to what's different, from what I read about Webb's take:
-Gwen Stacy instead of Mary Jane
-The Lizard/Professor Connors instead of the Green Goblin/Norman Osbourne
-Gizmo/gadget web shooters instead of "mutant organic" shooters
-Some insights into Peter Parker's father instead of just avoiding the whole subject of his parents altogether

And the other things mentioned here. Now does any of that mean the new movie's gonna be any fun at all? No idea. Marc Webb has so little track record (see: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1989536/), I hardly know what to expect. With Raimi you at least knew he was going to bring incredible energy. I liked 500 Days of Summer, but all that told me was Webb will probably be comfortable with the romance/relationships stuff. Doesn't tell us if he knows how to make an action scene exciting or memorable or fun.

I want it to be good. I hope it will be. Just can't shake the feeling of back when Jonathan Mostow was tossed the Terminator franchise keys (T3) and that didn't quite work out.

[Blackjack]

EW had a pic-by-pic dissection of the latest trailer, which is helpful in understanding the differences in Spidery 2.0 (including Gwen Stacey's cop father)
http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20568068,00.html#21116651
*There does seem to be an Osbourne connection afterall, just hinted at in the trailer.

[Blackjack]

Some peeks at The Lizard action figure:
http://www.superherohype.com/news/articles/169583-diamond-gives-us-better-look-at-the-lizard
*While there's some carping about him not having a 'snout' like the more Alligator-like character usually did in the comic, I assume this is to give the actor more opportunity to give an actual performance in terms of his face still being sort of visible.

I think that's interestingly the opposite of the thinking for the Green Goblin's rigid face piece in the first Raimi Spider-Man, which reduced Willem Dafoe to a voice actor whenever he was wearing the costume. I woulda just painted Dafoe's face or used some sort of "outline mask" on the edges of his face, as he's got a very distinctive, expressive, even scary visage.

[CeeKay]

Some peeks at The Lizard action figure:
http://www.superherohype.com/news/articles/169583-diamond-gives-us-better-look-at-the-lizard
*While there's some carping about him not having a 'snout' like the more Alligator-like character usually did in the comic, I assume this is to give the actor more opportunity to give an actual performance in terms of his face still being sort of visible.

not a big fan of the look, seems like they were going for a more realistic look of what such a change might do.  still, the Lizard has changed looks so many times it's hard to keep track.









maybe they're pulling from one of the cartoons:

[rickfc]

Don't forget Todd McFarlane's version

[CeeKay]

clip from the film:

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

heh, Lou.

[leo8877]

Don't forget Todd McFarlane's version

 

[hepcat]

New spiderman theme song released.

[CeeKay]

latest trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpKPiHYJc54

[metallicorphan]

Meh,looks okay..preferred the Batman trailer

[PeteRock]

I think it looks better than I had originally anticipated, but it has also left me confused.

Given the differing origin stories, and that I haven't read the comics, what is Spiderman's origin?  Is this film making it up completely, using canon from the comics, or something else entirely?  I recall watching Spiderman cartoons as a kid and recall his webslingers being engineered, not biological, but I have no recollection of secret agent parents or a manipulated conspiracy.  

This at least looks less "cartoony" than the Toby Maguire series.  I recall loving Spiderman 2 in the theater, but having watched it recently on TV, some scenes are just caricature bad.  I understand some intent to pay homage to classic "creature features", but Doc Octopus's hospital visit was beyond ridiculous, and when he throws a car through the coffee shop window where Parker and Mary Jane are talking, the incremental zooming in made the film borderline campy. 

[leo8877]

That looks awful.

[rickfc]

That looks awful.

Did we just watch the same trailer? That looks awesome. The scene with the car thief nailed the Spider-Man humor from the comics.

Given the differing origin stories, and that I haven't read the comics, what is Spiderman's origin?  Is this film making it up completely, using canon from the comics, or something else entirely?  I recall watching Spiderman cartoons as a kid and recall his webslingers being engineered, not biological, but I have no recollection of secret agent parents or a manipulated conspiracy.   

The origin story I read was the one that they followed on the first Tobey McGuire film, except it's Gwen Stacy that gets taken to the bridge. Green Goblin attacks Spidey, and when he moves out of the way, the goblin hits Gwen knocking her over. Spidey catches her with the web, but her neck snaps from the force of being stopped in the middle of a dead fall.

If I remember correctly, they introduced Peter's parents in the 90s where they were CIA agents or something like that. This is the storyline that the latest movie seems to be following.

[CeeKay]

Given the differing origin stories, and that I haven't read the comics, what is Spiderman's origin?  Is this film making it up completely, using canon from the comics, or something else entirely?  I recall watching Spiderman cartoons as a kid and recall his webslingers being engineered, not biological, but I have no recollection of secret agent parents or a manipulated conspiracy.   

they're kind of mixing in several storylines that cropped up over time.  wiki has an entry on his parents, and the manipulated storyline may have been pulled from Ultimate Spider-Man.

still, I'm very lukewarm on the trailers so far.  I'm more looking forward to the tie-in video game than the actual movie.

[Blackadar]

That looks awful.

+1

Maybe it'll be good, but right now...meh.

[Teggy]

but Doc Octopus's hospital visit was beyond ridiculous

I loved that part (if you are referring to the operationg room scene) because it was pure Sam Raimi.

[PR_GMR]

It looks better than expected. The action looks hopeful. Looks like the Lizard will give Spidey a run for his money. But, I just don't know about rebooting this. I just don't want to sit thru another origin story.

[msteelers]

Given the differing origin stories, and that I haven't read the comics, what is Spiderman's origin?  Is this film making it up completely, using canon from the comics, or something else entirely?  I recall watching Spiderman cartoons as a kid and recall his webslingers being engineered, not biological, but I have no recollection of secret agent parents or a manipulated conspiracy.   

In the comics, he was bitten by a radioactive spider and gained the super strength, ability to climb walls, and spider sense. He then built his own web slingers. Running out of fluid at the worst moment was a staple in most of his stories.

From what I've seen of the trailers, this new movie will follow the original comics storyline much more closely than the first trilogy did. I'm not sure if that will be enough to save the film though.

[leo8877]

Given the differing origin stories, and that I haven't read the comics, what is Spiderman's origin?  Is this film making it up completely, using canon from the comics, or something else entirely?  I recall watching Spiderman cartoons as a kid and recall his webslingers being engineered, not biological, but I have no recollection of secret agent parents or a manipulated conspiracy.   

In the comics, he was bitten by a radioactive spider and gained the super strength, ability to climb walls, and spider sense. He then built his own web slingers. Running out of fluid at the worst moment was a staple in most of his stories.

From what I've seen of the trailers, this new movie will follow the original comics storyline much more closely than the first trilogy did. I'm not sure if that will be enough to save the film though.

From the trailers it looks like he was a genetically manufactured spider person due to his parents experiments.  The only thing that matched the comics is the self-built web spinners.

[msteelers]

Wasn't there a trailer that showed him getting bitten by a spider? I admit I haven't been following the film all that closely, but I swear I have seen a shot in one of the trailers with Peter in the lab with a spider coming down and biting him.

[McNutt]

That was not a good trailer.  Could they have thrown in any more shots of him swinging around?

[CeeKay]

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

[cheapsmells]

it is money which makes a great movie.

and he promises the next won't be overblown, but makes no mentions on anymore dance scenes.   back to the basics?  sounds like it'd be a good time to bring out the Kingpin or Electro.

From the article..."and is regarded as the weakest instalment even though it brought in $891million at the global box office."

   I think the only lesson learned is that people like shit.

[rickfc]

New clip

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdxHat8dXp0&feature=player_embedded

Seems like this would be early after he makes his costume and is still learning how to swing...

[Blackjack]

it is money which makes a great movie.

and he promises the next won't be overblown, but makes no mentions on anymore dance scenes.   back to the basics?  sounds like it'd be a good time to bring out the Kingpin or Electro.

From the article..."and is regarded as the weakest instalment even though it brought in $891million at the global box office."

   I think the only lesson learned is that people like shit.

It is pretty funny that a movie that made $336M+ domestically and $554M+ internationally was seen as a failure or bringing the Raimi-franchise-vision to a dead end. I think it mainly was seen as guilty on "trading" on the love people had for the first two movies (Spider-Man 2 remains one of my all time favorite comic book films). It seemed more like people dutifully went to see it, rather than truly loved to see it (which I remember the 2nd Spidey film, and this summer's Avengers inspiring that emotion a lot).

For my part, I had no interest in seeing SM3 a second time, maybe that's the biggest non-compliment I can pay it. And when it shows up on cable, I don't bother watching it. It's like it squished my love for all things Spidey by trying too hard and not giving the characters enough room to breathe, imho. That happens all the time in big summer movie sequels.

Iron Man 2 was maybe a bit like it. Still a B.O. hit by any means but it had less "legs" than the first Iron Man and most people didn't have the same affection for it as IM. Probably not an accident the same director and writer aren't returning for IM3, even if IM2's box office numbers were fine.

As for this film, I think it'll be good. I just think every movie trailer I've seen in the last decade was awesome. You just don't know what you really have until you see the whole movie. 

[Blackjack]

Collider recaps the many overseas reviews, mostly positive so far (many 4/5 stars type reviews):

THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN Early Overseas Reviews Mostly Positive
http://collider.com/amazing-spider-man-reviews/174622/#more-174622
Garfield seems to get lots of kudos. A little nervous about the comment that "it's the Spider-Man for the Twilight Generation." Ewwww....

*As seems all but required now, it has a post-credits sequence that people seem to get a kick out of.

[metallicorphan]

eugh the Twilight comment makes me a little nervous as well

thanks for the tip on the post credit sequence

[Eel Snave]

There's talk that because of the success of The Avengers, Sony might allow Spider-Man to be in The Avengers 2.

[CeeKay]

anyone want to watch a 25 minute preview?

[Blackjack]

Not that anyone holds their breath waiting for IGN's opinion, but their reviewer proclaims thumbs down (6/10), with kindest words for the supporting cast (Stone, Leary):

The Amazing Spider-Man stands as a lesson for all reboots. Audiences don't need to go back to Origin Story 101 with these characters, no matter how much spit and polish filmmakers put on such a tale.

And simply copying the success of other pictures -- let's go dark like Chris Nolan! -- isn't the key to super-success either. Undiscerning audiences might be mildly diverted by Webb's film, but alas it won't have the lasting impact of many of its superhero peers.

[hepcat]

anyone want to watch a 25 minute preview?

I stared at the "Video Not Found" message for 25 minutes and I'm beginning to think they took it down...

...i'll give it another 25 minutes though.

[metallicorphan]

I went to see The Avengers today,and before the film came on the trailer for Spidey showed,it wasn't a new trailer or anything but i was at quite near the front and in 3D as well and that 'Mirrors Edge' First Person free running was really cool seeing it on the big screen


just a few days to go!!

[CeeKay]

AICN video review:

The Amazing Spider-Man is a mixed bag with the perfect lead in Andrew Garfield, great emotional hero sequences, way too much exposition to setup future sequels and a bad guy that doesn't really connect.

[CeeKay]

$50.2 million so far overseas.  I'm really enjoying the video game, but I'm debating whether the actual film will be worth $4 plus 2 hours and 18 minutes of my time.

[metallicorphan]

$50.2 million so far overseas.  I'm really enjoying the video game, but I'm debating whether the actual film will be worth $4 plus 2 hours and 18 minutes of my time.

I thought the Video Game was set after the Movie,i was going to maybe give it a try after seeing this at the Cinema


and wasn't even aware it was out in some countries,we have a Tuesday release(Tomorrow),which is usually unheard off for Movie releases,I'm going to go and see it on Wednesday Morning.............and then its just The Dark Knight Rises and The Hobbit part 1 for the rest of the year(as far as i can tell)

[farley2k]

I'm really enjoying the video game, but I'm debating whether the actual film will be worth $4 plus 2 hours and 18 minutes of my time.

Where the heck can you see first runs for $4?  Even the matinee around here is $7 - and Iowa is usually cheaper than the rest of the country.

[Ironrod]

Really bad review in today's Globe. I wasn't very interested in this movie to begin with.

Is there a reason we need a new “Spider-Man” movie 10 years after Sam Raimi and Tobey Maguire got it done properly? Only if you’re Sony Pictures and the lawyers say you have to keep the movies coming or the rights will revert to Marvel Comics. That’s correct, “The Amazing Spider-Man” is a contract extension, which is exactly how it plays on the screen. Dumbed down, tarted up, and almost shockingly uninspired, it’s the worst superhero movie since “Green Lantern.”

...

The producers obviously think they only have to make a new “Spider-Man” and we’ll show up, and, sadly, they’re probably right. That’s still no excuse for this cash grab. “The Amazing Spider-Man” isn’t a movie, it’s a mugging.

Ouch. Probably won't even make the Netflix list.