Freedom Reborn

The New Spidey:

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20399129,00.html

Quotewill take the superhero back to his origins and focus on "a teenager grappling with both contemporary human problems and amazing super-human crises"

Is that another name for Reboot?

Still, I like the looks of this guy. He has that, "I just found something funny and I'm thinking up a clever remark right now" look about him.

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1642916/20100702/story.jhtml

So, i'm guessing they've scrapped the "highschool Peter Parker" aspect? I know it says teenager in that article, but he looks late twenties to me. Hmmm...undecided as of now.

If they start filming RIGHT NOW, while this actor still has his boyish looks, it will be okay.  I could see him as Peter Parker.

Quote from: BlueBard on July 02, 2010, 04:59:44 PM
If they start filming RIGHT NOW, while this actor still has his boyish looks, it will be okay.  I could see him as Peter Parker.

He's 26, so if he's got them now, they'll probably stay for a decade or so. He'll only need them for half that before the next reboot. He looks good for it, I never really cared for Toby Maguire. Hopefully he'll be funnier. The director still doesn't seem right, this is totally the most important movie to make good. I haven't seen (500) Days of Summer, but it looks really lame and the parentheses in the title tell me it's gimmicky, why not get someone good... like Sam Raimi?  Then again, I don't know the guy, he may be talented and understand the character and give us a sweet Spidey movie.

Hmm, this guy might be able to pull it off. Also, the director's name is Mark Webb. His last name has to count for something.

After the epic disaster that was Spider-Man 3...I'm not all that bothered by the quick move to relaunch the series. I just hope they fix the "mistakes" made by Raimi and Co (organic webshooters, SM costume was too high end to be home made, Sandman being involved in Uncle Ben's death, Power Ranger Green Goblin, and the complete miscasting of Eddie Brock...Eric Foreman? Really!?).

Actually Webb was the only one I was interested in out of the list of directors (OK, Fincher could direct anything) but (500) Days of summer is a great movie, pretty unique too. And it proves that he can do young love without it being formulaic.

Quote from: Courtnall6 on July 02, 2010, 10:41:23 PM
After the epic disaster that was Spider-Man 3...I'm not all that bothered by the quick move to relaunch the series. I just hope they fix the "mistakes" made by Raimi and Co (organic webshooters, SM costume was too high end to be home made, Sandman being involved in Uncle Ben's death, Power Ranger Green Goblin, and the complete miscasting of Eddie Brock...Eric Foreman? Really!?).

i will give you sandman, but i still think that grace could have played a decent brock, if given the right amount of screen time. yeah it wasn't the hulking mass we knew from the comics but they started the right way of him being a corrupt sleaze ball who never took responsibility, thats one aspect i liked of ultimate eddie, the mass could have come once he got the costume. they just put to much into one film and sadly we have only ourselves to blame the fans demanded venom so we got him shoved in

i just pray they do the goblin right apart from the costume(which i still say could have worked they just stopped short)  defoe was superb as both personality, sadly ult spidey has hulk goblin *shudders*

*shrug* Spider-Man 3 was a flawed film, but it was still pretty good.  Blame the suits for Venom, and yes, as TUE said, the fans.  Raimi didn't want to use him.  Still, I thought the whole thing turned out alright.  I would have been perfectly happy to watch more Raimi Spidey flicks, but I'm definitely not going to go see this rebooted one when it comes out.  The suits are in charge of Spider-Man, and that just won't end well, no matter how this film turns out.

You know, I've mostly did not mind the changes they did in the first two movies, as far as the costume(s) for Spider-man, Doc Ock and Green Goblin.  They made sense when using a more "real world" logic.  Realistically, a guy running around in green and purple pajamas would not have been terrifying.  Or green and yellow pajamas in Doc Ock's case.  I didn't mind too terribly the organic web-shooters either.  It made a little sense.  I didn't mind tobey McGuire.  He was able to play the "geeky kid" role pretty well.  Actually, I think overall, the first two movies were much better than I could have ever hoped or expected.

I won't even talk about that third movie.  It was a disaster for every reason listed.  I wish it never existed.

But I do have to say, I generally don't like the idea of movie reboots within four or five years of the last release.  It makes me wonder why did you waste the money and do the original in the first place?  Just do it right the first time.  Still, if they do a reboot this soon, I hope they at least TRY to avoid area covered by the previous films, like in the case of The Punisher Warzone and The Hulk.  Like them or not, they weren't origin stories, which isn't always necessary.  Re-casting I can deal with.  But in a franchise with three films, it's going to be hard not to tell the same stories audiences saw a few years ago.  Just seems kind of lame.

I think this guy definitely looks the part, but I'm worried he might be too much of a new-comer as far as acting is concerned (you know, the most important part of casting, which I feel like a lot of fans, including ones that post on this site, forget about). I'm glad that it looks like those who cast him want a Peter Parker that can convey both emotion as well as funny, snarky lines. I mean, it's pretty obvious that the only bad part about Tobey McGuire was how he couldn't deliver believable, smart-arse lines. "It's you who's out Gobby...out of your mind!" still makes me cringe, lol.

I'm cautiously optimistic about this, but I'm not too sure the general public is ready for a reboot of this franchise this soon. Spider-Man is Marvel's most popular character (or is it now Iron Man?) and the Raimi movies were huge. It worked for Hulk because the general public didn't care for the 2003 film, but this is different. We'll see.

Raimi's movies weren't perfect. But they were still damn good and still remain some of Marvels best movies. However, do you guys remember the rumor about Raimi's 4th film? That Felicia Hardy would be turned into the Vulturess, a female apprentice to the Vulture and completely new to the series. If you guys hated organic web shooters, I can only imagine heads exploding and pitchforks raised at Raimi if this happened.

speaking of organic webshooters, I always thought this was a fantastic, and necessary change for the movies. Even Stan Lee thinks so and said he wished he would have done it this way originally. I never understood why a lot of fans think the mechanical webshooters were better.

Quote from: TheMarvell on July 04, 2010, 02:22:51 PM
speaking of organic webshooters, I always thought this was a fantastic, and necessary change for the movies. Even Stan Lee thinks so and said he wished he would have done it this way originally. I never understood why a lot of fans think the mechanical webshooters were better.

Because Spider-Man isn't awesome because of his powers. He's awesome because he's a hero no matter what and he really works hard at it no matter how much crap happens. Part of that is that he's also a really good scientist. Some of his best moments are when he does something all sciencey to beat a badguy. With mechanical webshooters, he gets one of his main powers just by working for it, that's way more respectable than getting bit by a spider. Plus having goo shoot out of a wrist hole is really gross, especially to me, I've got weird wrist phobias.

QuoteEven Stan Lee thinks so...

Didn't he also love the idea of Spider-Man unmasking himself during Civil War? Stan Lee has been a "corporate yes man" for Marvel for years now. I don't take too much stock in his opinion on modern day superhero comics and movies.

Also, didn't Sam Raimi state that Spider-Man would have organic webshooters in the film because he(Raimi) as a teenager would not have been able to make mechanical webshooters...so Peter Parker couldn't have either. Where does all this organic web fluid come from anyway? He sure is able to produce large quantities of it without a giant websack attached to him.

Organic webshooters were a pointless and completely unnecessary change...just like Wolverine's claws springing out from between his fingers rather than the back of his hands.

Yea, the organic webshooter was made because "in the real world, how could a teenager make webshooters"  The fact that Peter was pretty darn smart and may be able to create them was thrown out the window.

The problem with inventing webshooters isn't just that most teenagers couldn't invent them, it's that no one can invent them.  Artificial webbing like spidey's has been pursued by scientists for quite some time with little success; having Peter Parker invent them in his bedroom doesn't just make him smart, but a super-duper genius.  Making him a guy with spider-powers and a super-duper genius ala Iron Man has never sat well with me.

That, and shooting webs are about the one actual spider power Spider-man has.  The rest are just generic bug powers (spiders aren't strong for their size, nor do they have particularly fast reflexes).

The 90's cartoon series explained it as Spiderman's powers giving him an instinctive understanding of web chemistry.  That combines with his scientific skills allows him to create the web formula.

Ok...so we believe that no teenage boy could create webshooters, but we can swallow that he's one hell of a seamstress!  I didn't see one sewing machine in his bedroom or apartment for putting together those nice Spidy costumes.  Are we to believe that Petey woke up in the middle of the night an snook down to Aunt May's sewing machine?  How many mediocre Spidey costumes have we seen in "real life"?

I'd love to see the costume thing addressed in the new movie...I mean, it wouldn't even take 20 seconds, and you could probably tie it into a one-liner during battle or something.

Organic Webshooters never bothered me, beyond taking away the "Spidey is actually *smart*, guys" aspect of the character. He's not Iron Man level smart, but he's still worked with Reed Richards on several occasions, and outsmarted many, many a bad guy who ARE Iron Man level smart.

On a more non-geeky note, I mentioned the fact there was a new spidey movie coming out at a family gathering. One of my nephews got into a discussion over it. He's not a HUGE fan, but he's watched all three of the previous movies. He pretty much summed up my opinion of it. Don't get me wrong, I hope it does well, but the whole situation leaves a bad taste in the mouth. It pulls me out of fantasy land and into "realising this is just a business" land

"Spiderman 4! I wonder if they'll bring back the goblin"

"Uhhh...its a reboot"

"What? Why?"

"...I'll put it down to company politics"

"That sucks"

I never understood the backlash from the organic web-shooters either.  I don't feel like it really took anything away from the character, instead, it gave us a few more minutes of screen time to focus on more important things.  Instead of having to spend screen time on his creation of the gadget, we get about 5 seconds of him looking at his wrist, and then on with the movie.

The Vulteress thing is one of the reasons that Raimi walked away from the film.  The suits were trying to force Black Cat on him, and he didn't want to do that.  He wanted to use the Vulture, and they responded in typical Hollywood ignorance, trying to force a female villain down his throat.  After the less than stellar results of their last attempt to force the director to use a character he didn't want to, you'd think that they would have learned.  Oh...wait....that's right, it made money, so they didn't care.

Quote from: BentonGrey on July 05, 2010, 04:26:43 AM
I never understood the backlash from the organic web-shooters either.  I don't feel like it really took anything away from the character, instead, it gave us a few more minutes of screen time to focus on more important things.  Instead of having to spend screen time on his creation of the gadget, we get about 5 seconds of him looking at his wrist, and then on with the movie.

Exactly. I understand Spider-Man being a scientist is part of his character, but web-shooters aren't. It actually detracts from what makes the character so popular, which is how easy it is to relate to him. Augmenting powers with inventions is something right up Iron Man's or Batman's alley, and regardless of it being how it was in the original comics, I always thought this was one of the weakest aspects of Spider-Man. In fact, I think most of the backlash comes from the mere fact of it being different from the comics, without ever taking into consideration that maybe the original comics weren't perfect.

I know this is all nerd-rage bs, but we're talking about superheroes here, and organic web-shooters are being analyzed by questioning where he stores the webs?  :huh:

Quote from: BentonGrey on July 05, 2010, 04:26:43 AMThe Vulteress thing is one of the reasons that Raimi walked away from the film.  The suits were trying to force Black Cat on him, and he didn't want to do that.  He wanted to use the Vulture, and they responded in typical Hollywood ignorance, trying to force a female villain down his throat.  After the less than stellar results of their last attempt to force the director to use a character he didn't want to, you'd think that they would have learned.  Oh...wait....that's right, it made money, so they didn't care.

So did the suits just want Black Cat? Or Vulture and Black Cat? I thought I read somewhere that one of the suits (probably Avi Arad) was really, really against using Vulture in the film at all (probably believing it'd be ridiculous to market an old man villain as a toy to kids. We all know how much Arad likes the toy angle) and that's why Raimi left. I didn't know Black Cat was also the issue. But regardless, if Raimi had his way with the 4th film, we'd be seeing Vulture as the main villain, and "Vulturess" as the secondary villain (at least how I understood it). The nerdrage if that came true would be tremendous, and certainly much more understandable than organic webshooters, the exact angle wolverines claws come out, and the exact inch of how tall Tony Stark should be. >_>

I think the organic web shooter hatred stems from 2 specific things: 1) Nostalgia is playing a factor. Spidey has always used web shooters and that was his first display of being a low level genius. The creation of his wristband shooter + the liquid webbing are important parts of his origin to many people. People wanted to see that emulated on screen. It also wouldn't have taken that much more time than the organic webbing to explain. A quick scene showing him working on it and then another where he's using it were all that were needed at the least.  2) The organic hate grew stronger after JMS tried to implement it into the actual Spidey books along with the spider totem/mysticism stuff.

Spidey has never been completely relatable though despite what editors and Marvel try to push across as fact. :P

The Vultress thing, unless I am very much mistaken, was never an idea of Raimi's.  Raimi is a fan of the classic Spidey comics, and he wanted the Vulture (although there were also rumors of Kraven and others).  The suits were trying to force a love triangle on him, thus the push for Black Cat.  When he stuck to his guns, wanting the Vulture, they (according to what I've read and heard) tried to shove the gender swap idea down his throat.  I don't think you can really blame Raimi for much of this.

Actually, I heard that was his idea and the suits were against it.

Anyhow, not why I was posting.  I was talking to my dad about this last night, and I realized that this wouldn't be so bad, if they forgot the whole high school thing and dropped us in the middle of Spidey's career.  They don't need to redo the origin, everyone already knows about that.  There's no reason to put him back to high school either.  Just drop us right into things with a new cast and a few other changes.  Viewers are intelligent enough to adapt to such changes while still understanding the basics of the character.  If they rebooted without restarting, I think it could turn out fine.  Trying to start all over again this close to the last series, however, is a very bad idea.

I agree!  I don't want to see another origin story.....not even in 3D!   :lol: 

Just do it like he Spectacular Spiderman cartoon...that was cool.

The new Peter Parker actor looks fine.

BTW, I hated the organic web-shooters...They made no sense.  Trying to make it more "realistic" by having webbing come from his wrists did just the opposite, IMHO.  How did he create so much webbing without becoming fatally dehydrated?  How did it get through the costume without getting all gummed up around the exit holes?  If it was meant to be "realisitic" then the webbing should be coming from his butt, not his wrists.

The invention idea is still the best, highly concentrated liquid webbing in cartridges.  I have to disagree with you on this Benton, but no more time needed to be spent on the web-shooters whether they be organic or mechanical....they in fact, used quite a bit of time to cover Peter getting used to using the organic shooters (practicing in his room, practicing on rooftops, etc...).

Dana

To settle the web shooter thing once and for all lets take a spider and expose it to radiation ad let it bite one of us...then we shall see what happens...indeed.  HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA!!!!!!!! 

I'm more freaked out about his sewing abilities.  If webshoorters can be explained by him having a heightened awareness of how spider webbing works then how is the costume explained?  Where is he buying the material for that?

Quote from: cmdrkoenig67 on July 06, 2010, 02:20:53 AM
The new Peter Parker actor looks fine.

BTW, I hated the organic web-shooters...They made no sense.  Trying to make it more "realistic" by having webbing come from his wrists did just the opposite, IMHO.  How did he create so much webbing without becoming fatally dehydrated?  How did it get through the costume without getting all gummed up around the exit holes?  If it was meant to be "realisitic" then the webbing should be coming from his butt, not his wrists.

The invention idea is still the best, highly concentrated liquid webbing in cartridges.  I have to disagree with you on this Benton, but no more time needed to be spent on the web-shooters whether they be organic or mechanical....they in fact, used quite a bit of time to cover Peter getting used to using the organic shooters (practicing in his room, practicing on rooftops, etc...).

Dana

You know what I'm sick of re: the organic webshooter debate?  Saying the webs should have come from his butt.  Webbing doesn't come from spiders' butts.  They come from the spinnerets in their radically different anatomy.   Spiders have two body segments, an abdomen and a cephalothorax; the first is analogous to our entire torso, and the latter to our head.  As long as the webs aren't coming from his head, it's not that wrong.

As to the amount of mass needed for organic webbing, well, where does the mass for the Hulk's transformation come from?  Or Wolverine's regeneration?  Or Hank Pym (et al)'s growth spurts?  If it's a super power, it has to get a bit of a hand wave just to work at all.  If it's a super invention on top of a guy with super powers, well, you've just put a hat on something already slightly ridiculous.

I still think giving Spider-man organic webshooters makes sense; a guy named Spider-man should have at least one actual spider-based power.

Quote from: thalaw2 on July 06, 2010, 03:30:19 AM
To settle the web shooter thing once and for all lets take a spider and expose it to radiation ad let it bite one of us...then we shall see what happens...indeed.  HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA!!!!!!!! 

I'm more freaked out about his sewing abilities.  If webshoorters can be explained by him having a heightened awareness of how spider webbing works then how is the costume explained?  Where is he buying the material for that?

The costume is problematic - but that's true for lots of superheroes, and hardly unique to Spider-man.  I did like that in Ultimate Spider-man, he got the costume from the wrestling company in his origin, rather than making it himself.

I never really liked Toby Maguire as Peter Parker. He always seemed too...wussy is probably the best word. I rarely get that from the comic Peter, but that could just be my interpretation of the writing. My ideal Peter would be similar to the 90's Spider-Man show, I really loved that show. So I'm kinda looking forward to a new actor for Peter.

Actually as much as I did like the first three movies there was a lot of things that didn't work for me. As mentioned before I wasn't huge on Maguire but I didn't like Dunst at all. And I never felt the two had much chemistry. Also the movies felt a little too goofy to me, I'd have preferred something a little more serious.

I can't say I wanted a reboot, but if the result ends up as something I'll like more then I'll be pretty happy, not expecting it though. I've got this sinking feeling they're going to make this version for the tween market, and I don't foresee that working for me.

I hope it ends up being more of a soft reboot like the Hulk movie. No origin story save the opening credits, a new villain (I'm hoping Lizard), and I'd love it if we got a more relaxed relationship between him and MJ rather than the high drama they usually went for. Rather than high school they should just play up the University setting - which would work well if they went the Lizard route and still have Dr. Connors be Peter's teacher. If they do go the high school route they should make their writer watch Spectacular Spider-Man, or just hire Greg Weisman.  :thumbup:

As for the organic webbing, I'd have preferred the mechanical web shooters but it's not a big deal to me. It should only really be an issue in the origin part. In the rest of the films it's just Spidey shooting webs and you can't tell how they are generated under the costume. Of course one advantage of mechanical webbing is that they open more story opportunities. You can have Peter run out of web, he could modify them to help beat the bad guy, and they help play into the ol' Peter needs money plot. I can't really think of much you can do with organic webbing - they're just kinda there. They could stop working if gets sick, or has used up too much web I guess. But anyway it's not a big deal to me.

Let's move on.

I learned to live with the organic webshooters in the movie.  I'm relieved that they eventually stuck with the mechanical webshooters in the comics.

But as long as he's web-slinging and web-swinging, that's what matters.

The movies did not totally ignore the fact that Peter Parker is very, very smart and very scientific.  S-M2 in particular.  So it's not like they turned him into a moron.

I am also in favor of skipping an origin movie this time around.  I wouldn't be too surprised to see the mechanical webshooters return if they do reboot, but I wouldn't be surprised if they kept the organics either.

I will be surprised if they manage to come up with a movie as good as S-M2 was.  (IMO there's no way to improve on that version of Doc Ock, except maybe keeping him alive in the end...).  I will be very surprised if they somehow resist trying to throw Venom at us again.  I will be pleasantly surprised if they decide to use Electro.

Now THERE is where you really show how smart Peter is.  Spider-Man has never defeated Electro by just being Spider-Man.  He's got to bring real smarts to the fight and outwit him.  If they can make that movie and do it justice... they will have successfully brought the franchise back.

Forgot one... I will be utterly astounded if they can resist shredding, burning, or otherwise losing Spidey's mask (so the actor gets his face time).

Bard, I'm astounded as it is that they didn't let YOU write the script.

Quote from: Talavar on July 06, 2010, 04:26:35 AM

Quote from: cmdrkoenig67 on July 06, 2010, 02:20:53 AM
The new Peter Parker actor looks fine.

BTW, I hated the organic web-shooters...They made no sense.  Trying to make it more "realistic" by having webbing come from his wrists did just the opposite, IMHO.  How did he create so much webbing without becoming fatally dehydrated?  How did it get through the costume without getting all gummed up around the exit holes?  If it was meant to be "realisitic" then the webbing should be coming from his butt, not his wrists.

The invention idea is still the best, highly concentrated liquid webbing in cartridges.  I have to disagree with you on this Benton, but no more time needed to be spent on the web-shooters whether they be organic or mechanical....they in fact, used quite a bit of time to cover Peter getting used to using the organic shooters (practicing in his room, practicing on rooftops, etc...).

Dana

You know what I'm sick of re: the organic webshooter debate?  Saying the webs should have come from his butt.  Webbing doesn't come from spiders' butts.  They come from the spinnerets in their radically different anatomy.   Spiders have two body segments, an abdomen and a cephalothorax; the first is analogous to our entire torso, and the latter to our head.  As long as the webs aren't coming from his head, it's not that wrong.

Um, Tal...I know webbing doesn't actually come from the spider's butt, the spinnerets are on the end of the abdomen (near the butt)...I was being over simplistic...Chill.

Quote from: Talavar on July 06, 2010, 04:26:35 AM
As to the amount of mass needed for organic webbing, well, where does the mass for the Hulk's transformation come from?  Or Wolverine's regeneration?  Or Hank Pym (et al)'s growth spurts?  If it's a super power, it has to get a bit of a hand wave just to work at all.  If it's a super invention on top of a guy with super powers, well, you've just put a hat on something already slightly ridiculous.

I still think giving Spider-man organic webshooters makes sense; a guy named Spider-man should have at least one actual spider-based power.

Quote from: thalaw2 on July 06, 2010, 03:30:19 AM
To settle the web shooter thing once and for all lets take a spider and expose it to radiation ad let it bite one of us...then we shall see what happens...indeed.  HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!  

I'm more freaked out about his sewing abilities.  If webshoorters can be explained by him having a heightened awareness of how spider webbing works then how is the costume explained?  Where is he buying the material for that?

The costume is problematic - but that's true for lots of superheroes, and hardly unique to Spider-man.  I did like that in Ultimate Spider-man, he got the costume from the wrestling company in his origin, rather than making it himself.

The original comic Spider-Man costume isn't that big of a leap to make...But yes, the movie costume is.

Dana

Quote from: Reepicheep on July 06, 2010, 01:26:48 PM
Bard, I'm astounded as it is that they didn't let YOU write the script.

They never asked me.  :lol:

I'm not a screenwriter, but I'm one heck of an armchair editor.

I'll settle for being a creative consultant.   ;)

I saw a Spider-Man 4 movie poster online (not sure if it was really official) that had the word CARNAGE on it.

I stand corrected.  There IS something worse than throwing Venom at us again.

Here's hoping that wasn't official...

Quote from: BlueBard on July 06, 2010, 09:07:03 PM
I saw a Spider-Man 4 movie poster online (not sure if it was really official) that had the word CARNAGE on it.

I stand corrected.  There IS something worse than throwing Venom at us again.

Here's hoping that wasn't official...

It's not this one is it?

http://rikzricci.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/spiderman4teaserwo23.jpg

I'm guessing the one above is a fan-made poster...The poster's release date for the film is 2010, which we know is not the case.

Dana

Yeah, that was it.  It wasn't quite big enough to make out clearly.

But I stand by my statement... there IS something worse than another Venom movie.  :P

I am in total agreement with you there, BB...Ha!  I really like the idea of the Lizard, Electro and/or the Vulture (should be an elderly gentleman, not a young woman...Blech) being future film villains.

Dana

I gave up hope on Electro being in a movie a few years back - Only way I can see him making it into a movie is if they have the villainous team Sinister Six - Plus if they did put Electro in a movie they probably would ruin the character by making him some teenager with angst issues & wear a bikers jacket with a lighting bolt on it.


But if I where in charge of the character Electro he would be a combination of silly & scary - His powers would be very loud like a thunder storm which you could use for his scare factor - Probably have to redesign the suit since that mask would probably not work for the screen - Maybe do a design closer to the costume he had in the game MUA 2 - The actor I would use is Robert Knepper - He has the perfect look for Max Dillon & I beleive he could pull off being silly & scary
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v119/hulkgray/prisonbreakl11dc970oy0.jpg)

Mary Jane has apparently been cast if you believe this article at the NY Daily News.

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/movies/2010/10/04/2010-10-04_emma_stone_cast_in_spiderman_reboot_as_mary_jane_watson_taking_over_for_kirsten_.html (http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/movies/2010/10/04/2010-10-04_emma_stone_cast_in_spiderman_reboot_as_mary_jane_watson_taking_over_for_kirsten_.html)

Would bare noting that they are wrong on one point.  Emma is not a natural red head.  However, she has kept her hair red since Superbad as it's apparently been getting her some roles.

Another note about Emma.  A close friend of mine was her body double on Zombieland.  She was said to be pretty easy to work with and generally fun to have on set.

good casting, but if the rumors are true he'll be going with gwen for a movie or 2 at least

i just keep praying for the bridge and the snap

Emma looks more like the sexpot that Mary Jane is supposed to be than Kiki Dunst ever did.  I also prefer Emma's darker, richer red hair color, as opposed to Kirsten's pale red tresses.

Dana

Here's a pic I amped up to see what she might look like...

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v169/cmdrkoenig67/Emma_Stone_maryjane.jpg)

Quote from: the_ultimate_evil on October 04, 2010, 10:14:00 PM
good casting, but if the rumors are true he'll be going with gwen for a movie or 2 at least

i just keep praying for the bridge and the snap

So do i. Gwen was really the only character that was portrayed well in part 3, but her intro was WAY too late. She just wasn't going to fit in anywhere. I know the neck snap would be seriously extreme to see in theatres, but i feel the movies need to step up a tad now that the series is being rebooted.

Blah blah blah new Spider-Man. Blah blah blah Emma Stone is sort of my latest celebrity crush. Blah blah blah why don't they just use Spider-Man Blue as the inspiration for a new movie (or set of movies)? That way we get to see most of the classic villains (at least the animal themed ones) in one swoop. Blah blah blah I'll go out to see it no matter how good or bad it ends up.

Quote from: docdelorean88 on October 05, 2010, 04:44:52 PM

Quote from: the_ultimate_evil on October 04, 2010, 10:14:00 PM
good casting, but if the rumors are true he'll be going with gwen for a movie or 2 at least

i just keep praying for the bridge and the snap

So do i. Gwen was really the only character that was portrayed well in part 3, but her intro was WAY too late. She just wasn't going to fit in anywhere. I know the neck snap would be seriously extreme to see in theatres, but i feel the movies need to step up a tad now that the series is being rebooted.

yeah but i have an utter hate for the character of gwen so i'm kinda sick in wanting to see the snap

CBR (http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=28697) is reporting that Emma Stone has been cast as Gwen, not MJ.

Quote from: Podmark on October 05, 2010, 11:32:29 PM
CBR (http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=28697) is reporting that Emma Stone has been cast as Gwen, not MJ.

Just read the same info from another article. 
http://movies.yahoo.com/news/usmovies.accesshollywood.com/confirmed-emma-stone-play-gwen-stacy-new-spiderman?nc (http://movies.yahoo.com/news/usmovies.accesshollywood.com/confirmed-emma-stone-play-gwen-stacy-new-spiderman?nc)

this doesn't bode well.

Marvel actually confirmed this earlier in the day.

I'm not all that excited about this, however i can picture her in both roles. Look at the housebunny. She played both Gwen and MJ in that movie. I'll probably be happy either way.

Quote from: Podmark on October 05, 2010, 11:32:29 PM
CBR (http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=28697) is reporting that Emma Stone has been cast as Gwen, not MJ.

LOL...Oops!  I'm not re-doing the photo.  :lol:

Dana

Quote from: the_ultimate_evil on October 05, 2010, 09:26:38 PM

Quote from: docdelorean88 on October 05, 2010, 04:44:52 PM

Quote from: the_ultimate_evil on October 04, 2010, 10:14:00 PM
good casting, but if the rumors are true he'll be going with gwen for a movie or 2 at least

i just keep praying for the bridge and the snap

So do i. Gwen was really the only character that was portrayed well in part 3, but her intro was WAY too late. She just wasn't going to fit in anywhere. I know the neck snap would be seriously extreme to see in theatres, but i feel the movies need to step up a tad now that the series is being rebooted.

yeah but i have an utter hate for the character of gwen so i'm kinda sick in wanting to see the snap

LOL...You really want to see that snap, TUE!  :lol:

Dana

I hope after it happens, Green Goblin says "OH SNAP!"

Also he's played by Hugh Laurie.

Because they ended House before it got any more boring.

I like the casting, but I think she'd be a better MJ, personally. She's good at giving a sassy attitude (while not being overdone), which was always a characteristic of MJ. Gwen, on the other hand, was never all that interesting besides being Peters first "true love". In 3 she was strictly fan service, just like Venom. Meh.

If they write Gwen's role well, I'm all for it. I just hope she doesn't become "blonde MJ" which would be all too easy to do.

So, Rhys Ifans  (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/11/AR2010101103652.html)as the lead superbaddie?!

ummm what?

Errrrr.... Shocker?

Thats the only one i could think of...unless he might be playing hobgoblin, but...hmmm. things start getting interesting.

He's Curt Connors / Lizard.

...hmm. I definitely can't see him as the role model Doctor Kurt Connors...Then again, i am not terribly familiar with this particular actor. Ah, well.

I sorta... think they should bring Dylan Baker back. Remember, he cameoed before?
He's got the depth to play a really nice guy and a really awful guy. Plus everyman looks.

Normally, I would not be one to gripe about a bit of casting but...

I just heard that Sally Field was in talks to play Aunt May and Martin Sheen was in talks to play Uncle Ben.

I could deal with Sally Field.  She could be put in a make-up chair and aged.

But Sheen?  NO! NO! NO!

I cannot express my opinion about Martin Sheen here due to certain language and certain topics that would be brought up.  I can say that even listening to him as The Illusive Man made me cringe.  The bottom line is why do you want such a polarizing actor playing such a sympathetic character.  Especially one who is so important to the development of the Spider Man character.  And a lot of people do find Sheen to be a polarizing character, especially give his activities outside of the entertainment industry.

Martin Sheen is polarizing?  Huh.  I didn't know that.  What I do know is that he's a good actor, and the cast for the Spider-man reboot is almost making me interested in it.  Almost.

Quote from: Talavar on November 06, 2010, 02:43:43 PM
Martin Sheen is polarizing?  Huh.  I didn't know that.  What I do know is that he's a good actor, and the cast for the Spider-man reboot is almost making me interested in it.  Almost.

He USE to be a good actor. 

As for the polarizing part, it may just be that he is amongst friends of mine offline and I. 

And he may do fine being that Uncle Ben will only be in the first 15-20 minutes at best. 

My gut response is being horrified at the thought.  I guess it can be compared to how horrified people were that Heath Ledger was playing The Joker.

I have to agree with Talavar. I think Martin Sheen is a good actor too. I also am liking the casting for the reboot. Martin as Uncle Ben sounds pretty good to me.

Actually I agree with Mr. Hamrick on this one. Martin Sheen absoutely not. he always comes across as a pompous self important con man to me at his very best in recent years. The rest of my opinions like Mr. hamrick I will keep to myself to avoid offense but lets just say his inclusion is often enough to make me skip a film.

Wow, no love for Martin? :o

Quote from: steamteck on November 08, 2010, 12:11:54 AM
he always comes across as a pompous self important con man to me at his very best in recent years.

and that's not necessarily him acting!  (which is part of the problem, in my opinion!)

Martin Sheen was the Illusive Man?  Cool!  I thought he did a good job of that, but I haven't played the DLC yet.

Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy (http://www.superherohype.com/gallery/spider-man/untitled-spider-man-film/set-photos)

First pic of Andrew Garfield as Spider-Man. (http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=30337)
New costume looks kinda neat.

Looks pretty good.

I like the gloves.  I wonder if they did the boots the same way.

Ehh.

no sir i don't like it, the design is alright but the changes seem to be for the sake of changes and make little to no sense

Is that a spider on his chest or a rorschach test?

i like how slim/scrawny he is. thats how i always pictured spidey.

Quote from: the_ultimate_evil on January 13, 2011, 11:04:48 PM
no sir i don't like it, the design is alright but the changes seem to be for the sake of changes and make little to no sense

Ahh, you put into words what was little more than a vague distaste.  Thanks TUE.

I want this movie to answer the question as to how Peter Parker became a master tailor who could make incredibly detailed textures and patterns out of spandex. :lol:

Not overly impressed so far...especially by the gloves...but I'll wait until a better full body shot of the complete costume is released.

Quote from: the_ultimate_evil on January 13, 2011, 11:04:48 PM
no sir i don't like it, the design is alright but the changes seem to be for the sake of changes and make little to no sense

That's Hollywood superhero movies in a nut shell right there.

Quote from: BentonGrey on January 13, 2011, 11:46:44 PM

Quote from: the_ultimate_evil on January 13, 2011, 11:04:48 PM
no sir i don't like it, the design is alright but the changes seem to be for the sake of changes and make little to no sense

Ahh, you put into words what was little more than a vague distaste.  Thanks TUE.

In adition to these wise men...I DON'T LIKE IT, I DON'T LIKE IT, I DON'T LIKE IT, I DON'T LIKE IT, I DON'T FREAKIN LIKE IT... ahem... I should say that i feel it is overly complex. Why can't we simplify. Less is more, isn't it? And from someone who enjoyed Toby as "Spider-man", but felt his Peter Parker was just a tad off at all times, i must say, the new guy looks much better. But again, as far as the suit goes...I DON'T FREAKIN LIKE IT. :)

I'm willing to wait to pass judgement, but for now the scales are tipping in the "Don't Like" direction.  I agree its just too much going on.   

HOWEVER, there is a small sliver of silver lining in that red and blue mess.

Spoiler

Anybody else notice the web shooters?! :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Its looks like its patterned like a motorcycle jacket, but textured like a basketball.  -Shrugs- 

Well, Martin Sheen pretty much means I won't see it at the theater with my wife. ( unless he's some sleeze bag and not Uncle ben as previously said. but that would be type casting)

The costume's OK, the  Macguire one was better, But that's most likely not where the problems will lie anyway.

Quote from: steamteck on January 14, 2011, 03:47:26 AM
Well, Martin Sheen pretty much means I won't see it at the theater with my wife. ( unless he's some sleeze bag and not Uncle ben as previously said. but that would be type casting)

The costume's OK, the  Macguire one was better, But that's most likely not where the problems will lie anyway.

I like it. It's not overly different or complicated, but it looks realistic and it has web-shooters. Him, I just love the look of. He is so high school Peter Parker-y!
I know it seems like stupid idea to reboot and I'm sure the studios will have all kinds of meddling to do, but I have a good vibe about this movie so far from the casting and pictures. I don't like Denis Leary, but if he's playing a jerk cop, he fits -  I mean, he's not a bad actor.  Martin Sheen is a good actor, and I definitely like Emma Stone (and the fact that Gwen Stacy is actually Gwen Stacy). Plus, high school Spider-Man is usually great (see Spectacular Spider-Man). Of course it still could go either way, but I'm always excited to see a Spider-Man movie.

Quote from: Courtnall6 on January 14, 2011, 12:27:19 AM


That's Hollywood superhero movies in a nut shell right there.

me and you have disagreed with this in the past, i do not think that every change is stupid. the x-men would not work and wings on cap would look stupid(even in the comics) and grey and blue batman would look like it was made in a basement

this one seems to be that the raimi moves got the costume so close that they had to make a difference to stop the link

though the more i look at it, the suit seems for a lack of a better term  battle damaged and as other on another board have pointed out there seems to be room and shape for a belt of some kind which i think could actually pull the layout of the suit together

Quote from: BWPS on January 14, 2011, 04:40:55 AM
I like it. It's not overly different or complicated, but it looks realistic and it has web-shooters. Him, I just love the look of. He is so high school Peter Parker-y!
I know it seems like stupid idea to reboot and I'm sure the studios will have all kinds of meddling to do, but I have a good vibe about this movie so far from the casting and pictures. I don't like Denis Leary, but if he's playing a jerk cop, he fits -  I mean, he's not a bad actor.  Martin Sheen is a good actor, and I definitely like Emma Stone (and the fact that Gwen Stacy is actually Gwen Stacy). Plus, high school Spider-Man is usually great (see Spectacular Spider-Man). Of course it still could go either way, but I'm always excited to see a Spider-Man movie.

I'm kind of the opposite. I'm not excited about almost any of the actors. Martin Sheen  won't be a believable uncle Ben for me but its a relatively small part at least. Not getting a good vibe at all. Not a big fan of high school Spider-Man either but I'm willling to wait and see.

I think the costume is really awful...They've taken the already complicated Spider-Man outfit from the other movies (one that actually looked more like the comic costume than this one...But both are costumes that no high school kid could really make) and doubled the visual busyness....Ugh!

I will say, if those are actual mechanical web-shooters he's wearing...Bravo!

Dana

BTW:  I find it rather amusing that so many folks (not necessarily here, I've seen plenty of comments in articles around the net), think a nearly 30 yr old man looks like a high school kid.

I still don't understand why we need a reboot of the franchise at all.

Quote from: GogglesPizanno on January 14, 2011, 08:51:02 PM
I still don't understand why we need a reboot of the franchise at all.

Because the 3rd movie sux (but made a lot of money)
The director left

Insert other comments here:

Quote from: steamteck on January 14, 2011, 07:34:35 PM

Quote from: BWPS on January 14, 2011, 04:40:55 AM
I like it. It's not overly different or complicated, but it looks realistic and it has web-shooters. Him, I just love the look of. He is so high school Peter Parker-y!
I know it seems like stupid idea to reboot and I'm sure the studios will have all kinds of meddling to do, but I have a good vibe about this movie so far from the casting and pictures. I don't like Denis Leary, but if he's playing a jerk cop, he fits -  I mean, he's not a bad actor.  Martin Sheen is a good actor, and I definitely like Emma Stone (and the fact that Gwen Stacy is actually Gwen Stacy). Plus, high school Spider-Man is usually great (see Spectacular Spider-Man). Of course it still could go either way, but I'm always excited to see a Spider-Man movie.

I'm kind of the opposite. I'm not excited about almost any of the actors. Martin Sheen  won't be a believable uncle Ben for me but its a relatively small part at least. Not getting a good vibe at all. Not a big fan of high school Spider-Man either but I'm willling to wait and see.

I think we get it - you don't like Martin Sheen.  You've only brought it up twice today and about 5 times in this thread.

Quote from: GogglesPizanno on January 14, 2011, 08:51:02 PM
I still don't understand why we need a reboot of the franchise at all.

We, the viewers, don't need one.  Sony, the producer, needs one for several reasons:

1.  Sony's trying to do an end-run around the Spider-man 3 backlash.  Big, franchise movies tend to make most of their money in the first two weekends - before word of mouth has time to spread - so they tend to perform based on their immediate predecessor.  Spider-man 2 was great, so Spider-man 3 made a ton of money.  Same thing with X-men 2 and 3.  Sony's aware that Spider-man 3 is not regarded kindly, and so their response is to hit the reboot button.

2.  Sony wants to market this to a younger audience.  The actor's are all recast younger, the film's set in high school, etc.

3.  Sony needs to keep making Spider-man films so the license doesn't revert to Marvel/Disney.  

Quote from: the_ultimate_evil on January 14, 2011, 05:37:29 PM
though the more i look at it, the suit seems for a lack of a better term  battle damaged and as other on another board have pointed out there seems to be room and shape for a belt of some kind which i think could actually pull the layout of the suit together

That's what I was thinking.  It does look like a battle damaged costume to me.  I bet the undamaged version looks better (assuming we're right about the damage).

Don't get me wrong, I liked the look of the costumes in S-M and S-M2... but this one looks a lot closer to some of the early Spidey costumes to me.

Quote from: the_ultimate_evil on January 14, 2011, 05:37:29 PM
me and you have disagreed with this in the past, i do not think that every change is stupid. the x-men would not work and wings on cap would look stupid(even in the comics) and grey and blue batman would look like it was made in a basement

This is the kinda thing that always leaves me scratching my head. Am I special? Am I the only one around here who can envision this stuff in my head where "would not work" and "look stupid" and "look like it was made in a basement"  not factor in at all? Have you all been brainwashed by Tim Burton, Bryan Singer, and Sam Raimi to think this way?

How could you possibly say that a $100,000+, studio made, blue and grey Batman costume would look like it was "made in a basement?" I mean...your only reference for this is the Adam West Batman costume....and that was done under a miniscule TV budget. It's the same thing with Captain America. People saying "Look how bad he looked in the Reb Brown TV movies! You want to see that on the big screen?" Ofcourse he looked bad. Low budget was written all over that costume.

Quote from: GogglesPizanno on January 14, 2011, 08:51:02 PM
I still don't understand why we need a reboot of the franchise at all.

Yes, well, that is precisely my thought in general, and I won't support these films because of that.

Quote from: Talavar on January 14, 2011, 09:05:23 PM
We, the viewers, don't need one.  Sony, the producer, needs one for several reasons:

1.  Sony's trying to do an end-run around the Spider-man 3 backlash.  Big, franchise movies tend to make most of their money in the first two weekends - before word of mouth has time to spread - so they tend to perform based on their immediate predecessor.  Spider-man 2 was great, so Spider-man 3 made a ton of money.  Same thing with X-men 2 and 3.  Sony's aware that Spider-man 3 is not regarded kindly, and so their response is to hit the reboot button.

2.  Sony wants to market this to a younger audience.  The actor's are all recast younger, the film's set in high school, etc.

3.  Sony needs to keep making Spider-man films so the license doesn't revert to Marvel/Disney.  

No I understand the reasoning. My point is why do we need ANOTHER retelling of the origin? Nothing the new one does is going to make people forget they hated the third one (I liked it, but hey I liked evil peter  :) ). They can keep making Spiderman films all they want and they can cast whomever they want, but why not do it like James Bond... change the actors, alter the timelines etc... there is no need to bog down half of the new movie with stuff that people already have seen.

Although truthfully, I think I have singled out this film as the target for my general annoyance at the remake obsession Hollywood has right now. It actually made me happy that they announced the new Alien prequel has been morphed into a new standalone Sci Fi film that isn't connected to the Alien franchise at all.

Quote from: Courtnall6 on January 14, 2011, 11:35:41 PM

Quote from: the_ultimate_evil on January 14, 2011, 05:37:29 PM
me and you have disagreed with this in the past, i do not think that every change is stupid. the x-men would not work and wings on cap would look stupid(even in the comics) and grey and blue batman would look like it was made in a basement

This is the kinda thing that always leaves me scratching my head. Am I special? Am I the only one around here who can envision this stuff in my head where "would not work" and "look stupid" and "look like it was made in a basement"  not factor in at all? Have you all been brainwashed by Tim Burton, Bryan Singer, and Sam Raimi to think this way?

How could you possibly say that a $100,000+, studio made, blue and grey Batman costume would look like it was "made in a basement?" I mean...your only reference for this is the Adam West Batman costume....and that was done under a miniscule TV budget. It's the same thing with Captain America. People saying "Look how bad he looked in the Reb Brown TV movies! You want to see that on the big screen?" Ofcourse he looked bad. Low budget was written all over that costume.

I apologise if my opinion seems to have personally offend you, i really do not think just throwing money at this is the solution. I ask you as an artist do you really think a direct page-to-screen costume for the likes of wolverine, no matter how much money is used for a bright yellow outfit with fins mask, wouldn't look right on a real life, flesh and blood person?

yes, i will admit that some work (spider-man, iron man, superman), but even then they have had changes made to better suit another medium. but others really cannot. i'm not defending hollywood, as some of the changes have been down right stupid.

and personally, no, i haven't been brainwashed. i look at the subject matter, and i form my own opinion like i was taught in my design classes. i guess this is one artistic subject we'll have to agree to disagree on

Quotebright yellow outfit with fins mask

There is a problem right here. Who said it had to be bright yellow. Why not use a darker yellow and desaturate it some? Why even use his yellow and blue costume at all when his brown and tan fits the chatacter so much better? As for his mask...how do we know until they try. Hollywood seem instantly resisitant to even try to get the proper look to match the comic these days. That's all I want is for them to just try...and not go changing things just to change it. Just watch Kevin Smith talk about his dealings with Hollywood and Superman. It shows you just how out of touch they can be. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgYhLIThTvk&playnext=1&list=PL8D0E8989E62E0358&index=8 NSFW!!! - Harsh Language!!!


You didn't personally offend me UE...mostly me just venting.

Denis Leary as Captain George Stacy. (http://www.bleedingcool.com/2011/01/14/spider-man-pap-snaps-of-denis-leary-as-captain-george-stacey/)

I guess I'm somewhere in the middle here... My personal opinion is that they should make the effort to make an outfit look like the source material, but above all else one needs to ask whether or not something is practical in a quasi-realistic context. Using the examples you guys gave:

Gray and Blue Batman-Not Practical. Don't get me wrong, I would hate to see comic batman in all black... artistically, it's just really boring. But in reality, if you're trying to hide in the shadows, colors like gold or even dark gray are impractical. Batman is supposed to be this ninja-like character, and it would upset that image to have him running around in gray.

Wingtips- As much as I would have liked to have had the nod to the original comics, I am honest enough to say that the wingtips serve no purpose whatsoever. They aren't radio receivers, like the flash's bolts, they don't add character to Steve the way Thor's wings do... and let's be honest, I don't see how wingtips even add to the spirit of the America the character represents. And while I think it would be a nice nod to the fans, the truth is enough people who aren't comic fans would find the addition ridiculous no matter how it was presented to them.

Wolverine- This one however, I have to give to C6. While I understood the decision to have all leather when the original movies came out, characters like Iron Man have done reasonably faithful renditions of the comic costumes in the last decade that look, if anything, better than the all-leather bodysuits of X-men 1-3. I have no doubt in my mind that if it weren't for the fact that Marvel Studios don't own those rights, you would see an awesome looking Wolverine costume without it looking ridiculous. I could totally see a wolverine mask looking awesome... in my mind, it would look vaguely similar to nite owl's mask in watchmen.

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=73493
Sorry bout that. This link went dead on me. My bad.

Quote from: Courtnall6 on January 15, 2011, 01:34:59 AM

Quotebright yellow outfit with fins mask

There is a problem right here. Who said it had to be bright yellow. Why not use a darker yellow and desaturate it some? Why even use his yellow and blue costume at all when his brown and tan fits the chatacter so much better? As for his mask...how do we know until they try. Hollywood seem instantly resisitant to even try to get the proper look to match the comic these days. That's all I want is for them to just try...and not go changing things just to change it. Just watch Kevin Smith talk about his dealings with Hollywood and Superman. It shows you just how out of touch they can be. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgYhLIThTvk&playnext=1&list=PL8D0E8989E62E0358&index=8 NSFW!!! - Harsh Language!!!

Quote from: Tomato on January 15, 2011, 02:31:01 AM
Wolverine- This one however, I have to give to C6. While I understood the decision to have all leather when the original movies came out, characters like Iron Man have done reasonably faithful renditions of the comic costumes in the last decade that look, if anything, better than the all-leather bodysuits of X-men 1-3. I have no doubt in my mind that if it weren't for the fact that Marvel Studios don't own those rights, you would see an awesome looking Wolverine costume without it looking ridiculous. I could totally see a wolverine mask looking awesome... in my mind, it would look vaguely similar to nite owl's mask in watchmen.

A minor thought here, there have been a few instances over the decades in comics where blue and gray should have been black.   The Batman example is a good one.  Superman's hair is another.  For those not paying attention, Superman use to be portrayed has having blue highlights in his hair (and may still be).  The reason has been to show contrast in certain areas where they were originally limited in doing so. 

My point regards the Wolverine costume and to a lesser extent some of the early Xmen outfit drawings I have seen.  There were some cases where the dark blues always seemed like they should have been black but were done in the same way as Superman's hair due to issues with contrast and shading.  Wolverine got a lighter blue than that dark blue that was used because it was meant to be a dark blue perhaps.

The real point here is there are a lot of instances where not taking into consideration why some costumes were done the way they were, even something as simple as coloring, can create a lot of horrid translations into another medium.  Budget doesn't even become a factor if you misunderstanding the reason for a design to begin with.

And basing the argument around projects from 30-40 years ago  and then blaming budget doesn't hold much water.  Even beyond budget, there was the issues of material available and even a look they were going for in the movie.  With Batman, they went for the look of what we being done in the comic in the late 50s and early 60s and used the materials they had readily available.  They didn't have the kinds of material that Burton or Nolan had for their movies.  As for the awe Reb Brown version of Captain America, Cap was being portrayed in the 1970s as being somewhat disillusioned for a while.  He loved his country but was confused about what it had became.  I seem to recall a series of stories that had him riding his motorcycle across America to see what and how much had changed while he was frozen.  I wager the costume people took one look at that and did what they could to translate that into a viable costume based on what they had.

Quote from: docdelorean88 on January 25, 2011, 06:00:44 PM
http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=73493

... no.

Now, I don't like the outfit:
http://blastr.com/2011/01/new-spider-man-set-pics-g.php

Sorry if my link didn't work for anyone. Big thanks to Jey for posting a new link.

Seems to still be a decent costume to me, though I can't say I'm really excited to see Spidey chase down a pickup truck after those Sandman fights.

ugg....that just looks like a mess.  Unless some things get fixed post-production, I don't have a lot of hope for this one (costume at least.....so far).

a lot of fans are hoping it's the wrestling costume, because of a series from a few years ago called with great power. the costume in that is near identical to this one

I had seen that too UE. Lets hope thats the case...if its not the Wrestling suit...well...ruh roh.

I highly doubt it's the wrestling outfit...And it's still a visual busy mess (IMHO)...Not to mention, fugly.

Dana

Agreed. Stinker of a costume. I don't mind the boots, or spidey not having that belt thing but those little lines of colour all over? Ugh.

*rolls over and goes back to sleep until 6 May 2011*

ow_tiobe_sb
Phantom Bunburyist and Whirled Braker

I have zero interest in a movie mostly about pre uncle Ben death spidey myself. I want to get straight to the superheroing.

More photos of Spidey's new costume. I absolutely hate it.

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=73651&offset=10#commentLstTop

Quote from: captmorgan72 on January 30, 2011, 06:44:23 PM
More photos of Spidey's new costume. I absolutely hate it.

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=73651&offset=10#commentLstTop

:lol:

That is so pathetic. Jeeze, look at the shoes...

I wonder if he got that from... ahem... an alternate lifestyle clothier.

It is similar enough to his classic look as to be instantly recognizable.

Other than that the nitpicky stuff has no interest to me.  It's fine, move on.

It looks fine for the most part. Just looks a little too sleek/expensive for a teenager.

I'm just not all that excited for another Spider-Man movie.

It reminds me of the Spidey outfit Ben Reilly wore.

I, uh... er... well, here are some new spidey pics: http://www.superherohype.com/news/articles/125612-spider-man-set-pictures-galore

Apparently, his crotch is a weapon.  <_<

Yikes....

Those pics are just so wrong.  Beware the Spider-crotch!!!

Its the stupid shoes that ruin the look for me.

Quote from: Previsionary on February 05, 2011, 05:33:17 PM
I, uh... er... well, here are some new spidey pics: http://www.superherohype.com/news/articles/125612-spider-man-set-pictures-galore

Apparently, his crotch is a weapon.  <_<

Oh...My...Ahem...Anyway, the costume is still really ugly (the whole thing "ruins it" for me)...Oh...And it's tearing open in the last picture (and not in the crotch, either...Ya pervs!), LOL!

Dana :P

The basic design of the costume is fine... but the details of it are awful.  All the lines in the blue make it just too damn busy.  Seeing that in high definition is going to make my eyes go bonkers.  The black crotch is an annoying addition and at this point --- is worse than bat nipples.  The running shoe shoe treads I would be alright with, if it was the same colors of the costume be it blue, red or even black... but the silver just looks awful.

It looks like he have on boots or sneakers and he painted it to match his outfit

Quote from: Previsionary on February 05, 2011, 05:33:17 PM
I, uh... er... well, here are some new spidey pics: http://www.superherohype.com/news/articles/125612-spider-man-set-pictures-galore

Apparently, his crotch is a weapon.  <_<

This is why Spider-man's costume should always feature a belt line to draw attention away from his . . . err . . . well, you already know.

You know, maybe Sony's just planning to pull a Fantastic Four (1994) job and justify their rights to the franchise without actually releasing it for the mass public.  At least, I can dream, can't I?

Alright, I'll break it... http://www.slashfilm.com/sony-announces-spiderman-movie-title-amazing-spiderman/
Still not crazy about the suit, but it definitely doesn't look so hideous in this new picture.

It's obviously being colour-corrected to hell for publicity shots and the final movie, so those candid photos of it looking terrible don't bother me that much.  This most recent one actually looks okay, and, for purists, mechanical webshooters are clearly present.

I'm pretty optimistic, although I'm probably the only dude who will miss the organic web shooters. Yeah, I've read spidey since the 80's but I thought the movie taking that route was a real nice shortcut.

the organic webbing does seem more realistic for the character. i'm sure peters smart buuuttt....

I actually can't stand the "organic" stuff. Mainly because that takes away a major weakness. Running out of fluid, getting the shooters crushed.

I always thought it made sense that when Peter received the abilities of a spider, creating webbing wasn't one of them. A spider's physiology is different than a human. Gaining the spider's basic abilities like proportional strength and speed seems about right. However, the webbing creates issues. Where would the spinnerets be on a human?

Quote from: captmorgan72 on February 15, 2011, 12:55:13 AM
I always thought it made sense that when Peter received the abilities of a spider, creating webbing wasn't one of them. A spider's physiology is different than a human. Gaining the spider's basic abilities like proportional strength and speed seems about right. However, the webbing creates issues. Where would the spinnerets be on a human?

The only problem with that is that spiders are neither particularly strong nor fast.  Without webs - the quintessential spider ability - Spider-man really just has generic bug-themed powers.

A red and blue Spider-Man costume...and not a single web in sight....cause when I think Spider-Man I always think "graph paper"! :rolleyes:

I also love how the feet have been covered in shade to hide his ridiculous sneakers. :lol:

Well...at least he's got mechanical webshooters...so there is still some hope. Bring on the trailer! :cool:

Quote from: Talavar on February 14, 2011, 11:02:59 PM
It's obviously being colour-corrected to hell for publicity shots and the final movie, so those candid photos of it looking terrible don't bother me that much.  This most recent one actually looks okay, and, for purists, mechanical webshooters are clearly present.

I hasten to point out that those media pics are darkened and Spiderman will not always be in the dark.  Seeing the on-site pics, I've decided that I don't like the costume at all.  Unless they plan on touching up every single scene in which that thing appears, it's going to look just as awful on film.  I would think that's a lot of money to throw away on post-processing when they could have just designed a better costume.

The action shots do look like Spidey-style fighting... (except that I don't get why he'd be looking down when he's firing his web-shooters.  hopefully that shot ends up on the cutting room floor.)

Quote from: BlueBard on February 15, 2011, 03:47:12 PM

Quote from: Talavar on February 14, 2011, 11:02:59 PM
It's obviously being colour-corrected to hell for publicity shots and the final movie, so those candid photos of it looking terrible don't bother me that much.  This most recent one actually looks okay, and, for purists, mechanical webshooters are clearly present.

I hasten to point out that those media pics are darkened and Spiderman will not always be in the dark.  Seeing the on-site pics, I've decided that I don't like the costume at all.  Unless they plan on touching up every single scene in which that thing appears, it's going to look just as awful on film.  I would think that's a lot of money to throw away on post-processing when they could have just designed a better costume.

The action shots do look like Spidey-style fighting... (except that I don't get why he'd be looking down when he's firing his web-shooters.  hopefully that shot ends up on the cutting room floor.)

only think I could figure out on the looking down when using the web shooters is if it is a case of either the first time he's using them or he is not sure if he still has web fluid left.

As for the costume, there is webbing on the costume.  It is not that visible on the red parts due to the position he is in (least on the pic I saw) but the webbing is there.

My biggest issue with the costume (for the most part) is that the black webbing lines should've been a bit thicker.  I mean that's the only way they lines are properly visible in the comic.  Not much thicker but enough to provide more contrast.  Instead, it looks like they web with the literal concept of "spider webs being thin" for the webbing design on the costume.

And Courtnall, I use to always think of graph paper when I saw the webbing on Spidey's costume rather it was in the comic or the old Electric Company TV show.

i do prefer his web shooters but found it hard to believe how he invented the web fluid. just one of those things i guess. spiderman use to be my favorite superhero. still is way up there but lean more toward THOR nowadays.

Ghastly pictures. Must be a ton of CGI planned for this one. Whole thing just stinks having Spidey outside the Avengers circle. Just ain't right.

anyone know who the villians going to be?

I vaguely remember hearing that it was going to be the Lizard.  I'm definitely not 100% on that though.

It looks like the "web" is actually cut into the rubber of the suit. It's all straight lines, no scalloping. Like... my god... They've turned Spider-Man into Pinhead!

I agree with Court...There aren't any webs on the costume...In every photo I've seen, it's a grid pattern.

Dana

BTW...I just realized something about the darkness of his "Spider-Crotch"...It might be a g-string under the costume (covers the front, but leaves no "underpants line").

Dana

Quote from: Talavar on February 16, 2011, 03:01:03 AM
I vaguely remember hearing that it was going to be the Lizard.  I'm definitely not 100% on that though.

I wonder if he'll eat his son?  Ick!

Dana

From what we were discussing on ToF, it's Lizard and Protogoblin. Like... really?

I really just don't care about this movie.  I was already pretty opposed to it because they're rebooting the previous series, which I really liked, but the more I hear about it, the less interested I am.

Bump!

Trailer's out: http://youtu.be/-tnxzJ0SSOw

Wow. Pretty good trailer! July? I thought it would show earlier than Avengers....oh well.

Spoiler

So Lizard is going to be the villain this time...hmmm..with this new enemy and Gwen Stacy as the new love interest...everything seems....new? (for a Spiderman movie).. :P

That doesn't look too bad. And, to be honest... I think I am okay with the costume now. Movies always got to add sooo much texture to the costumes, because in real life people in spandex just look dumpy. Fine.
I actually dig the sneakers on the soles though. I always wondered what super heroes use for the soles of their shoes? Okay, so Spider-Man technically needs thin material on his feet to still cling to walls, but wouldn't it hurt walking around the streets of New York? What if you step on a used needle?

Anyhow, I'm obviously going to go see it.

Ok, I'll admit that the trailer looks pretty good.  The only thing I don't like is the "Batman" part with his parents and how it looks like they want to keep it dark & grim like.

To be fair, his parents DID die when he was a kid, and apparently the story will have something to do with this.

Quote from: Outcast on February 07, 2012, 03:38:24 PM
Wow. Pretty good trailer! July? I thought it would show earlier than Avengers....oh well.

Nah...

May = Avengers
June = Dark Knight Rises
July = Spiderman

Quote from: Mr. Hamrick on February 08, 2012, 12:22:19 AM
Nah...

May = Avengers
June = Dark Knight Rises
July = Spiderman

And Ghost Rider sometime soon. :unsure:

Quote from: Outcast on February 08, 2012, 01:10:51 AM

Quote from: Mr. Hamrick on February 08, 2012, 12:22:19 AM
Nah...

May = Avengers
June = Dark Knight Rises
July = Spiderman

And Ghost Rider sometime soon. :unsure:

...







You hear that? That's the sound of no one caring.

Quote from: Tomato on February 08, 2012, 01:33:12 AM

Quote from: Outcast on February 08, 2012, 01:10:51 AM

Quote from: Mr. Hamrick on February 08, 2012, 12:22:19 AM
Nah...

May = Avengers
June = Dark Knight Rises
July = Spiderman

And Ghost Rider sometime soon. :unsure:

...







You hear that? That's the sound of no one caring.

:lol:

Quote from: Tomato on February 08, 2012, 01:33:12 AM

Quote from: Outcast on February 08, 2012, 01:10:51 AM

Quote from: Mr. Hamrick on February 08, 2012, 12:22:19 AM
Nah...

May = Avengers
June = Dark Knight Rises
July = Spiderman

And Ghost Rider sometime soon. :unsure:

...







You hear that? That's the sound of no one caring.

:o...I thought it was the sound of...this is the new spider man movie thread...don't you be threadjacking it....or prev will be ticked. :doh:

I thought it was strange that no thread has been mentioned here in the boards...i could understand tho why some if not all may not like it?...Nicholas Cage doesn't exactly look like Johnny Blaze. That's the only thing i can think of. But i did enjoy Ghost Rider 1, despite that...(http://www.twcenter.net/forums/images/smilies/emoticons/scared0012.gif) Couldn't resist borrowing this smiley from Spydermann93. :P

Ok Ok....let's continue on with the New Spider Man Movie... :cool:

Somehow seeing this new Spider-man costume, i can't help thinking it looks a bit like the costume of the old Spider-man TV series? I think it's how the eyes are shaped or something... :wacko:

did you guys notice how they reworked his webshooters?  It makes a much shorter thwip sound now, comes out fast as a bullet, and it looks like a little red diod goes off whenever he shoots as well.I really like the tech angle they're running with on this. looks to be more sci-fi than horror (like raimi's version)

This looks excellent, I am truly impressed with what I've seen so far. Costume looks great too! :cool:

I can't say that ANYTHING I've seen so far has me "really excited" about this movie.  I'm somewhat looking forward to The Avengers but not this one. 

And I don't know why.  I became more apathetic after seeing the trailer which kinda surprised me. 

I like the kid well enough but the costume and the guy they got for Doc Connors kind of bugs me. I did like the Oscop badge so this will be interesting on where that leads.

I saw the super-bowl trailer and I wasn't impressed at all...in fact I thought it was pretty bad.  The acting seemed bleh...and I wasn't too cool with the conspiracy angle.  Anyway, it's just a trailer and mostly likely I will go see this....regardless of reviews.

Hadn't seen the trailer yet.  Still not really sold on the new Peter Parker, but this was better than the teaser would have led me to think.  And the lead actress just doesn't 'feel' like Gwen Stacy.  I'm not sure on the casting for this one.

So, in the new trailer for the video game, he has a utility belt, where the normal "belt" portion of the web pattern continues. I remember reading that the costume was supposed to have a belt, but the videogame trailer is the only place ive seen one so far. Anyone else hear anything about this?

Don't know how well this translates to your question, but way back in the day, he did have a "belt" that he wore, but it was under the costume, and just completely consisted of replacement web fluid cartridges, with the exception of the flashlight belt buckle (can't remember where the camera went, it may have attached to the buckle.....or the spider tracers, for that matter).  Any chance that's what they are actually referring to?

That is indeed the belt i am referring to, thank goodness someone else knows it even exists! However more specifically, i meant that the trailer for the game, shows the belt on the outside, replacing where the fabric web pattern would have continued. Heres a screen shot from the new video game trailer:

Spoiler

(http://a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/409453_196580377108331_154937027939333_268958_1940453564_n.jpg)

You know what?
I actually kind of love that. I mean, in the context of that game, I think it looks great.
Also, that screenshot looks great. Where is this trailer?

Also, again, I don't think he wears that in the movie. At least not in the trailer or any of the stills I've seen. They probably had it on an early concept art that the game used. It happens.

Did they seriously make another Spider-Man game where you fight Rhino in a room surrounded by electric fences?

Is there truly any other way? :P

Quote from: spydermann93 on March 02, 2012, 02:45:57 AM
Is there truly any other way? :P

:banghead:
Come on, even HE must be catching on by now!

Well ok, maybe not him.

BUMP!

4 minute trailer: http://youtu.be/16AwVWvjQhY

Still not exactly excited, but there's some good stuff in there.

I had no idea it was the summer's most anticipated film until I watched that.  :rolleyes:

I thought it was an awesome preview. Better than Dark Knight Rises in my opinion. :mellow:

Not interested in that either. I refuse to watch any Batman films after Returns.

... Um, I may not be the biggest fan of TDKR either, but Begins and TDK were both good films and I expect no less from TDKR. Y u hatin on Batman YL?

Quote from: Previsionary on May 16, 2012, 03:33:50 AM
BUMP!

4 minute trailer: http://youtu.be/16AwVWvjQhY

I was not officially excited about this movie until I saw this trailer.  Well... maybe the trailer + not knowing what else I'm gonna go see in between July 3 and July 20!

Thanks for the link.  Thanks for sharing, Prev!

Quote from: yell0w_lantern on May 16, 2012, 05:44:10 PM
Not interested in that either. I refuse to watch any Batman films after Returns.

Wait, Batman Returns was your end-all-be-all of live-action Batman films?   :huh:

Now you made me curious.  Could you explain why you think Burton's 2nd entry was the definitive Bat-xperience?

*Shudder*  Ughh....ohh man, Returns?  Danny Devito as the Penguin?  Undead Catwoman?  Yikes.

I like the fact that their going with web shooters this time (as it should be).

What kind of bothers me a bit, is Spiderman taking off his mask too often. I probably should understand, it must be pretty darn hard to breathe with it on.

It would also be interesting to see how this relationship with Gwen Stacy develops and plays out.

What's also intriguing is how they're going to make Peter's father fit in in all of this. Have they ever touched on Peter's father in Spider-man comics? :huh:

Quote from: Outcast on May 17, 2012, 04:06:50 AM
I like the fact that their going with web shooters this time (as it should be).

What kind of bothers me a bit, is Spiderman taking off his mask too often. I probably should understand, it must be pretty darn hard to breathe with it on.

It would also be interesting to see how this relationship with Gwen Stacy develops and plays out.

What's also intriguing is how they're going to make Peter's father fit in in all of this. Have they ever touched on Peter's father in Spider-man comics? :huh:

Yes. A few times. In several universes.

Quote from: Previsionary on May 17, 2012, 05:46:21 AM

Quote from: Outcast on May 17, 2012, 04:06:50 AM


What's also intriguing is how they're going to make Peter's father fit in in all of this. Have they ever touched on Peter's father in Spider-man comics? :huh:

Yes. A few times. In several universes.

I just hope nobody associated with the movie decided to read the infamous "Trouble" comics.
*shudder*

I take them both together, Batman and Batman Returns. In fact, the only thing I dislike about Batman is Prince music.

Who would be crazy enough to dress up like a bat so he could fight crime in a major metropolitan area?
Just watch the scene where Michael Keaton's Bruce Wayne recognizes Joker in front of City Hall.  Mostly, he looks like a normal guy, not exceptionally handsome, and who would be afraid of him unless he dressed up like a giant bat? Probably no one. As skeptical as I was in 1989 of casting Mr. Mom, I think the choice was brilliant.

Who would be crazy enough to dress up like a cat and wander around with a whip? I believed Michelle Pfeiffer's Selina Kyle would.

I love the symmetry of their tortured characters.

I've never watched any of the films after Returns and I am not interested. Granted, I recognize the newer franchise is much more serious than Forever and Batman & Robin but I just don't care to see them.

Quote from: yell0w_lantern on May 17, 2012, 01:06:45 PM
I take them both together, Batman and Batman Returns. In fact, the only thing I dislike about Batman is Prince music.

Who would be crazy enough to dress up like a bat so he could fight crime in a major metropolitan area?
Just watch the scene where Michael Keaton's Bruce Wayne recognizes Joker in front of City Hall.  Mostly, he looks like a normal guy, not exceptionally handsome, and who would be afraid of him unless he dressed up like a giant bat? Probably no one. As skeptical as I was in 1989 of casting Mr. Mom, I think the choice was brilliant.

Who would be crazy enough to dress up like a cat and wander around with a whip? I believed Michelle Pfeiffer's Selina Kyle would.

I love the symmetry of their tortured characters.

I've never watched any of the films after Returns and I am not interested. Granted, I recognize the newer franchise is much more serious than Forever and Batman & Robin but I just don't care to see them.

Thanks for sharing, Y.L.

I have my fanboy-peeves at the Burton movies (mostly at how willing Bruce Wayne is to give away his secret identity to whatever woman he's smitten for), but I do respect the movies for their unique Burton-esque atmosphere.  And I'm a sucker for Danny Elfman musical scores.

I watched the latest trailer and I still don't care.  I appreciate that they are breaking out a new villain, but I loved the previous series to death and don't really like this very much.  I may change my mind after I see it though.

I can't help think that Amazing Spider-man might suffer a similar fate as Incredible Hulk did in 2008 getting sandwiched between Robert Downy's Iron Man (and friends this time around) and Nolan's Batman.  Much like Incredible Hulk of '08, Amazing Spidey alienated a lot of fans from the get-go by A) following a previous entry in the franchise that disappointed a large amount of fans and B) went the "re-boot" route and still hoped the fans would care.  The one thing in AS's favor is... well, it's Spider-man! 

You are talking like Incredible Hulk failed in that regard.  Actually, it was  considered an amazing success that proved that a reboot could be successful much closer to a previous version then had been previously thought.  It wasn't that it was unsuccessful, it was that the other Marvel movies were so much more successful.

Indeed. Incredible Hulk, which lightly followed up on Ang's version, btw, so it wasn't a true reboot, led the way to X-men: First Class, which was definitely a hit. Spider-man's biggest issue outside of perception will be timing and word-of-mouth.

It's a Replacement Scrappy (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ReplacementScrappy), which I think it its main problem.

Don't get me wrong, folks. I really liked Incredible Hulk and still believe Ed Norton is the definitive Bruce Banner (modern day, anyway).  I actually get defensive of the 2008 movie everytime someone comes out and says "Mark Ruffalo played that part SO much better than the previous two guys; we finally got a guy who can carry a good Hulk movie."  As much as I liked Ruffalo in Avengers, I still think Norton has a better track record thus far.

But if you do the whole "ask the guy next to you or the guy in the coffee shop what he thought of it" route, Incredible Hulk just one of those films that has largely flown under the mainstream radar.  Sadly, a film franchise entry that doesn't generate enough revenue to greenlight a sequel almost immediately just isn't considered a sufficient success in the eyes of Hollywood and the general movie-watching public.  I think it suffered this fate in large part due to marketing confusion ("is it a sequel, reboot, or a re-quel?") and people prematurely declaring it "guilty by association" with the Ang Lee version.

I don't know if the 2008 Universal Studios film contributed in any way to FOX's production of X-Men: First Class.

It is my hope that Amazing Spidey gets more respect from the the fickle movie-watching public.

EDIT: lol @ "Replacement Scrappy."  That's a good term!

I don't think it impacted X-men, but Incredible Hulk DID impact the Spiderman and Superman franchises... now that studios knew they COULD get away with a reboot if they felt the last film bombed (or because they weren't satisfied with the direction it was going) they could hit the giant reset button and still make some money.

Quote from: Tomato on May 18, 2012, 02:17:46 PM
now that studios knew they COULD get away with a reboot if they felt the last film bombed (or because they weren't satisfied with the direction it was going) they could hit the giant reset button and still make some money.

And we'll still be lining up to buy tickets!   :thumbup:

2008's Incredible Hulk, which did not make back it's budget domestically, and is the lowest grossing of the Avengers-related films worldwide, is not really an "amazing success."  I'm not speaking to the quality of the film here (I enjoyed it quite a bit) but compared to all the other Marvel Studios films, it's the low man on the pole.

Also, I'm not sure what the Hulk's 2008 reboot showed movie studios that Batman Begins didn't already show them.  Got an underperforming or critically lambasted superhero franchise?  Reboot!

That you can reboot a series a few years later instead of waiting a decade for people to hopefully forget the last movie.

25min Super Preview:

http://www.aceshowbiz.com/news/view/00051704.html

I have to admit, I really like what I see so far.

All I got to say about this movie is...the Lizard they using sucks...I've seen him in the trailers and he looks so poorly rendered!

His face looks too human, needs to have more off a snout.

So...

Apparently, "Webb has created the first superhero movie aimed primarily at women."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog/2012/jun/22/amazing-spider-man-film-for-women

Huh?!?

Quote from: oldmanwinters on June 29, 2012, 02:16:08 AM
So...

Apparently, "Webb has created the first superhero movie aimed primarily at women."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog/2012/jun/22/amazing-spider-man-film-for-women

Huh?!?

But I love quirky teenage romance movies* and I'm no lady!

I'm glad this is getting good reviews. I wasn't able to tell much from the trailer, but now I'm getting really excited.

*It's incredible how creepy that starts sounding when you pass the 16-20 age range.

It was a pretty good movie!
Garfield's and Stone's performances were easily the best part of the film. I fell in love with Emma Stones great sense of humor and andrew Garfield played a Peter Parker that was nerdy in a different way. He really reminded me of the kid from Breaking Bad with the awkward pauses and gestures.
spoilers ahoy!

Spoiler

The Good:
Spidey's web shooters, his use of webs and his lack of instantaneous spider-prowess

The Bad: Peter's ability to keep his identity secret and his mask on.

The Ugly: The lack of motive for the Lizard.

The first reviews are in.  I wasn't expecting it to be as good as the first one, but man, this guy was harsh:

warning: minor spoilers
http://india.nydailynews.com/entertainmentarticle/0f7766e400f0a8de30100c2bfc8c69ce/the-amazing-spider-man-poorly-executed-reboot-ians-movie-review

Harsh he may be, but it's generally getting guardedly positive reviews - 80% on Rotten Tomatoes, 73 on Metacritic.

Quote from: Talavar on June 30, 2012, 02:37:36 PM
Harsh he may be, but it's generally getting guardedly positive reviews - 80% on Rotten Tomatoes, 73 on Metacritic.

Sadly, I expect today's "guardedly positive review" to be next year's "OMG Amazing Spider-man sux'd so hard!"  Seems like that's just the way the internet and most people's memories work. :wacko:

That critique seemed uninformed and silly, honestly. It doesn't talk about the tone of the film, it doesn't talk about how everything relates to the source material, it doesn't talk about the acting ability of the different actors, it doesn't even really discuss the changes from the original movies to this one. The person complains that Gwen is just a pretty face, but A. Gwen was just a pretty face in the comics, and B. Mary Jane was no more then that in the last set of films (and it's not even a fair criticism based upon what I've seen from trailers and the like) so it's not like that's a substantial difference.

In all honesty, the one scene we see in the trailers where he fake cowers from the goon with the knife... THAT ALONE sells me this movie. I'm sorry, Toby Maguire was a great nerdy Peter Parker, but at no time during the last set of films did I EVER believe that he was the joke-a-minute Spiderman I loved even as a kid watching the old 90s toon.

Just got back from watching the movie... I'm probably gonna give a more complete "review" (or whatever you choose to call my mindless rambling) on my tumblr later on, but for those who are worried that this film is a step backwards for the series, or that it's just a cheap remake of the Raimi films: Don't. "Amazing" is a solid film in its own right, and IMHO creates a world that is far superior to all three of its predecessors.

Quote from: Tomato on July 03, 2012, 07:49:07 PM
Just got back from watching the movie... I'm probably gonna give a more complete "review" (or whatever you choose to call my mindless rambling) on my tumblr later on, but for those who are worried that this film is a step backwards for the series, or that it's just a cheap remake of the Raimi films: Don't. "Amazing" is a solid film in its own right, and IMHO creates a world that is far superior to all three of its predecessors.

Aw, all you lucky peeps and your preemptive screenings!   :P

EDIT: My bad, Mato, I actually thought today was only July 2nd!  I guess the movie is already out!

I'm prepared to like the film.  And I hope Gwen Stacy can be reimagined into something more than just a "pretty face."  I really liked what the Spectacular Spider-man series did with her character.

I'm prepared to wait until it's on Netflix or at Blockbuster or on sale at Wal-Mart.

I like Spidey, at least I like pre-BND Spidey, but it's too soon for me to sit through yet another reboot of Spidey's origins.  In this case, yes I do need more time to forget the last set of movies.  There have been too many different "versions" of Spider-Man in various media over the last 10 years, some of them directly contradicting each other and most of them rehashing what I already know.

In comparison, the Hulk has not been done to death and they really, really needed a reboot to get Ang Lee's version out of people's minds and reset him for "Avengers".  (I didn't see Lee's Hulk, but I read the novelization and the whole plot was terrible.)

I might even want to wait until the sequel comes out, so I can tell whether Sony's going to trash the franchise.  I've always been in favor of the movie rights reverting back to Marvel, and seeing this in the theaters undermines that.

In short, boredom could drive me to see this in the theatres.  Otherwise, I'll figure out how to wait patiently.

Heh, I usually wait until a week after a movie comes out to see it (just to avoid craziness of finding seats and beating people out of my way with a stick) but... my dad (who got me into comics and who I attend most of these films with) and I both happened to be off work at about the same time, the stars aligned in the heavens, etc. so I saw it first day.

Quote from: oldmanwinters on July 03, 2012, 07:59:19 PM
I'm prepared to like the film.  And I hope Gwen Stacy can be reimagined into something more than just a "pretty face."  I really liked what the Spectacular Spider-man series did with her character.

Honestly, I feel like Gwen is more closely adapted from Spectacular then anything else. She's a nerd, she works in Conner's lab, she and Peter argue about who is actually the top in their class, that sort of thing.

Quote from: BlueBard on July 03, 2012, 08:40:50 PM
I'm prepared to wait until it's on Netflix or at Blockbuster or on sale at Wal-Mart.

I like Spidey, at least I like pre-BND Spidey, but it's too soon for me to sit through yet another reboot of Spidey's origins.  In this case, yes I do need more time to forget the last set of movies.  There have been too many different "versions" of Spider-Man in various media over the last 10 years, some of them directly contradicting each other and most of them rehashing what I already know.

In comparison, the Hulk has not been done to death and they really, really needed a reboot to get Ang Lee's version out of people's minds and reset him for "Avengers".  (I didn't see Lee's Hulk, but I read the novelization and the whole plot was terrible.)

I might even want to wait until the sequel comes out, so I can tell whether Sony's going to trash the franchise.  I've always been in favor of the movie rights reverting back to Marvel, and seeing this in the theaters undermines that.

In short, boredom could drive me to see this in the theaters.  Otherwise, I'll figure out how to wait patiently.

While I respect that viewpoint, I think you're missing out. It's a wonderful movie, and a great adaptation of the comics.

Oh, and anyone interested in reading my "review" is welcome to do so, it's up here (http://tomatoisjp.tumblr.com/post/26443920968/amazing-spider-man#idc-container)

Tom, your review sums it all up entirely!

Just want to tack on a few things here that I didn't want to go into during my review, either due to spoilers or just because that thing was long enough without me adding more junk to it.

Spoiler

Firstly, I want to state for the record that, as an artistically minded person, the designs for Spiderman's costume and the CGI Lizard were very weak IMHO. Granted, the Lizard looks a LOT better on screen then he does in a lot of the trailers and merchandise, but his head still reminded me of the Goombas from the god-awful Super Mario Bros movie (it also reminded my dad of Voldemort). Spiderman's costume is kind of a shame too, because Garfield has such a great build and the fabric textures are so perfect that if they'd just kept it classic instead of trying to be stylistic it would have been even better than the Maguire suit.

Now, the thing I really want to touch on is this: We've already seen George Stacy die in this film (this is in spoiler tags for a reason people) but I don't see Gwen lasting past the trilogy either. The whole build up to Norman Osborn, the hints about Gwen's life being put in danger because of Peter's actions... I smell a death sequence coming, just saying.

Saw it. Liked it.

Wife liked this one better than the first one.

Quote from: MJB on July 05, 2012, 03:43:55 AM

Wife liked this one better than the first one.

Man, I hated the CGI on the bit where Toby MaGuire first jumps into action in his "Man-Spider" costume to leap around the city after Uncle Ben's killer.  It's just so cheesy looking and the transition point is so blatantly obvious.

I have not seen the movie, but I saw this clip and the young man in the clip is not the Peter Parker of the comics..

http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/the-amazing-spiderman/trailers/the-amazing-spider-man-clip-take-it-29631598.html

This is what I posted about the clip there...

"Awful...Peter Parker of the comics doesn't ever do this stuff, because hes TOO SMART! This is something an idiot Peter Parker would do."

I'm not a fan of Spider-Man, but I know enough about the character to know that Peter uses his brain.  The Peter Parker in the clip reveals waaaaaaaay too much.

Dana

Yeah... that clip is kind of out of context.

Spoiler

First of all, Flash Thompson (the guy Peter's messing with) beat him up like the day before. And not like kinda nicely messed with, no, I mean punched in the face and kicked in the stomach a few times BEATEN UP. Also, the reason Peter HAS the basketball in the first place is because he caught it in midair to prevent Flash from throwing it at a freshman girl who was just trying to work on something in the gym.

On top of that, Peter had JUST gotten his powers at this point. In the comics, this led to him going on television and showing off in a wrestling ring to make himself money, so him just messing with Flash is kind of mild by comparison.

TL/DR: Don't complain about things without knowing the full context behind them.

I disagree, this was still a huge and careless display of his powers.

Dana

Quote from: cmdrkoenig67 on July 05, 2012, 10:12:46 PM
I disagree, this was still a huge and careless display of his powers.

Dana

He wasn't trying to hide them at this point though. He'd JUST found out he had them that day, it wasn't like he'd had a weekend to absorb the fact that he woke up one morning and had superpowers, and miraculously he's supposed to leap to the conclusion that maybe he should hide them JIC he wants to someday run around in spandex and fight crime?

Again, this is a guy who, in the comics, turned around and immediately decided to use his powers to make money. Smart he may be, but he's still a teenager, and prone to every selfish and stupid action that statement implies. It isn't until Uncle Ben's death that he really starts to grow up and become the hero we all know him as.

Even genius adolescent boys do stupid things. I don't see how this is out of character for a teenage male. Making mistakes, and learning from them is very "Peter Parker." In the film, after that basketball court scene, Pete realizes his behavior was a poor choice. Don't base your opinions on a clip, watch the whole thing yo.

The movie was good, far better than the previous three. Is it a home run like Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, and Avengers? No. But I'd place it right there with Iron Man, which I thought was very good.

I liked it much more than i thought I would.
It works better then the previous trilogy in some ways, and in some ways it doesn't.

My biggest fault is some of the blatant dangling plot elements that get introduced and then just kinda disappear or weird incosistencies in story from scene to scene.
Ive read this potentially had to do with the last minute cuts/edits to downplay and remove some of the changed origin story that it was originally pushing (that lots of people were not too thrilled with)

Definitely entertaining and worth seeing though.
And Emma Stone is great as Gwen Stacy -- way better love interest than Mary Jane from the previous films.

Quote from: GogglesPizanno on July 06, 2012, 04:26:07 AM

My biggest fault is some of the blatant dangling plot elements that get introduced and then just kinda disappear or weird incosistencies in story from scene to scene.
Ive read this potentially had to do with the last minute cuts/edits to downplay and remove some of the changed origin story that it was originally pushing

What changes?

I really enjoyed sitting through this movie in the threatre (I was fortunate enough to get a non-3D showing).

However, there were a few scenes that made me do the face-palm.  And I had a sense that I would probably be able to pick this movie's flaws apart if my "it's a new movie!" rush of adrenaline were lower and  I were paying more attention to detail.  Overall, however, jolly good show for a first installment.  I'm sure we'll be seeing much more of Garfield and Stone in the coming years.

Also... Michael Masse.  Remember that name.  Just sayin.

Quote from: XStream on July 06, 2012, 06:54:28 PM

Quote from: GogglesPizanno on July 06, 2012, 04:26:07 AM

My biggest fault is some of the blatant dangling plot elements that get introduced and then just kinda disappear or weird incosistencies in story from scene to scene.
Ive read this potentially had to do with the last minute cuts/edits to downplay and remove some of the changed origin story that it was originally pushing

What changes?

Spoiler

The story goes that they originally had his father alter his DNA as part of the experiments, so that when combined with the serum, he would survive and be basically patient 0. This in effect changed his origin from an accidental bite to a planned genetic experiment.  That along with some of the other stuff that was cut, but that was hinted at in trailers and such is gone over in this link: http://badassdigest.com/2012/07/05/was-the-untold-story-cut-from-the-amazing-spider-man/

Also for those that are looking for a real in depth analysis of the movie and how it doesn't work should check out Film Crit Hulk's take. I fell into the "give it a pass" camp he talks about, but it does a good job of illustrating its problems from a story and character standpoint. :
http://badassdigest.com/2012/07/06/film-crit-hulk-smash-the-amazing-spider-man-has-99-problems-but-an-uncle-be/

Also, anyone who has any interest in film criticism and analysis should check out all of Hulk's stuff. Its long, and its in all caps, but they are amazingly detailed and insightful bits of film writing.

Mehhhhh... I don't want to burst your bubble Goggles, but I didn't really feel the same way you do about that article. I only go through part of it (the whole all-caps "Hulk am hulk" playacting BS got annoying fast) but I personally felt like 80% of the "flaws" he was pointing out were either nitpicky and utterly pointless to the film, or were personal dislikes rather then legitimate cinimatic flaws.

Case in point: The relationship between Gwen and Peter. In the article, "Hulk" goes on and on about how everyone else is stupid for liking it because it's not a real love story and blah blah blah. However, the only criticism he seems to have is that the relationship has no overt conflict... they don't have a major fight, Peter doesn't have to woo her away from another guy, that sort of thing. And because there's no forced, made up, nonsensical ZOMG drama, obviously we're all dumb for accepting it as a good love story.

Despite what most movies would have you believe, not all relationships are ZOMG ANGST. Some people legitimately do just click... there might be little fights here and there, but most of the time it's over stupid stuff like putting the seat down.

Now, I'm not saying this film isn't flawed... it is, and some of those flaws "Hulk" does legitimately point out. But it's not even half as flawed as he'd have you believe, and that's doing a disservice to a movie that might well be the best spiderman film to date.

I saw it today and I liked it.

It was an odd movie to me. A lot of it felt more like a teen drama than a Spider-Man film. I was really impressed with Andrew Garfield. He's still not the perfect Peter Parker but I liked him more than Maguire. Ben, May, and Flash were all superior compared to the Raimi movies for me.
It felt Spider-Man the Smallville-esque TV show to me.

I liked elements of it better than the first trilogy, but the first trilogy seemed more like a tradional Spider-Man film. Not sure which one I liked better.

Quote from: Tomato on July 08, 2012, 02:26:05 AM
But it's not even half as flawed as he'd have you believe, and that's doing a disservice to a movie that might well be the best spiderman film to date.

Where Hulk and the relationship thing lost you.... this is where you lost me.
It was the epitome of harmlessly entertaining "meh" -- it unfortunately will never be on my best (or worst) of anything list.

But hey, to each their own.

Except that I'm comparing it to the Sam Raimi films. Between the horrible cgi and somewhat goofy acting in Spiderman 1 (and the random time skips), and the plethora of bad decisions in Spiderman 3, about the only competition it really has is from Spiderman 2... and I have issues with that movie due to SPIDER-MAN UNMASKING IN THE MIDDLE OF A TRAIN CAR AND NO ONE TAKING A PHOTO. Also, Mary Jane in those movies automatically knocks it two notches below ASM, because Emma Stone is SOOOOO much better as Gwen.

Basically what I'm saying is: This wasn't "Avengers" or even "The Dark Knight," but the previous films were just as flawed. And as far as introductions go, I like this one SO much better... Oscorp is a constant part of the movie without forcing Norman Osborn on us right out of the gate. The Lizard makes a far more believable first villain then Green Goblin because his origin is actually similar to Peter's, rather then being tacked on and forced. And the tone at least ATTEMPTS to take itself seriously, something the previous films never really did.

I haven't seen the new Spider-man movie yet, so I'm not going to judge, but I am wondering........

Could it be that when the first Spider-man movie came out that we were so happy to see a good, decent Spidey movie, that we just skip, accepted, ignored the flaws of the film?  Now that it has been rebooted, we have something to  compared it to and now we notice all the flaws of the first Spidey movie.  Just a theory because I don't remember anybody talking bad about the first Spidey movie and that this one is out, it seems that all I'm hearing is how flawed the first one was.

Quote from: JeyNyce on July 08, 2012, 12:28:36 PM
I haven't seen the new Spider-man movie yet, so I'm not going to judge, but I am wondering........

Could it be that when the first Spider-man movie came out that we were so happy to see a good, decent Spidey movie, that we just skip, accepted, ignored the flaws of the film?  Now that it has been rebooted, we have something to  compared it to and now we notice all the flaws of the first Spidey movie.  Just a theory because I don't remember anybody talking bad about the first Spidey movie and that this one is out, it seems that all I'm hearing is how flawed the first one was.

I don't know how much I've said it on here but I've always had issues with the Raimi movies. I like them but they're not my favorite movies. I've had non-comics friends who weren't impressed with them at all.

I wasn't saying that the Raimi films didn't have their issues (though I like the part 3 a lot better than most did -- even the dancing). I just mean for all their flaws, they feel complete in their own way. There was some goofy decisions made, but they were universally goofy in the world the they created. They were consistent. You can argue that Garfield is a better actor, or that the plot is more exciting, or that the CGI is better,  but the new one for me was just some good individual moments that never gel into anything more than just a series of scenes strung together. As whole, I just didn't get invested.

It reminded me most of the Ed Norton Hulk movie. It got some of the stuff right, and looked pretty good doing it, but leaving the theater it wasn't like I was pumped or excited about it. It was just sorta there.

Quote from: Tomato on July 08, 2012, 10:44:49 AM
Except that I'm comparing it to the Sam Raimi films. Between the horrible cgi and somewhat goofy acting in Spiderman 1 (and the random time skips), and the plethora of bad decisions in Spiderman 3, about the only competition it really has is from Spiderman 2... and I have issues with that movie due to SPIDER-MAN UNMASKING IN THE MIDDLE OF A TRAIN CAR AND NO ONE TAKING A PHOTO. Also, Mary Jane in those movies automatically knocks it two notches below ASM, because Emma Stone is SOOOOO much better as Gwen.

I know there was an agreement among the train care people that "we won't tell anyone" but yeah, some peeps would have totally snapped that pic!  I guess SM2 came out a little while before Facebook hit it big.  And Twitter hadn't even established themselves as the dominant social media yet. 

I always thought it was odd that Doc Ock didn't get a peak of Parker's face at that point.  After all, he was apparently watching the whole thing unfold from a near proximity.

All that said, I still think SM2 is an awesome cinematic accomplishment, despite the fact that I didn't like MaGuire's acting that much.

My wife and I saw the film today. Let me begin by saying, I had low expectations for this movie. I really hadn't been that excited about it, and had rarely taken the time to read anything on the inter-webs. It wasn't like Avengers where five movies had built up my anticipation to the point that I was giddy like a school girl. We just went to the movies to see a summer action flick. And I loved every minute of it. Yeah, there was some teen angst in there, but it didn't feel pushed like so many movies do. It was an acceptable amount for the point of the story. For those on the fence, go see it. It is a great movie with only minor problems. I loved the first two Spider-Man movies (although they are showing their age now, movies are just different today than they were in... what? 2001-2002?), but I felt this to be a genuine Spider-Man movie. It felt less like someone's interpretation (I had issues with Raimi's stuff). This movie is full of what makes Spider-Man so much fun in the comics. I loved how the story had lots of stuff for us comic fanboys, but felt accessible to those who were there based on having seen the previous films. I thought it was great!

Spoiler

I totally think they should have messed with his origin! I know some of you hate that idea, but I think it would be intriguing to find out that Peter's powers came from the combination of the spider bite and genetic manipulation by his father. Even if it were an accident that led to the discovery of the formula. They so should have done this years ago instead of that whole Animal Totem thing.

I thought the story was very emotional from the beginning. I believe this Peter Parker went through enough loss in two hours for the audience to believe he will continue his cruesade to keep New York safe.

I know there has been a lot of discussion on the search for Uncle Ben's killer's abrupt stop, but I felt like it was somewhat resolved. When Peter has dinner with the Stacey's, Captain Stacey points out that this masked vigilante was not out to save the people but was on a personal vendetta. Then Peter saves the people on the bridge, and realizes what Uncle Ben was trying to teach him the night he was killed. Don't waste your gifts on yourself, use them to help others. Oh, and then the whole I created a giant lizard man who is now trying to turn the whole city into lizard hybrids happens and he becomes kind of busy. I don't feel that it took away from the movie. Do we honestly need to see the guy trip and fall out a window?

Great movie, considering how little I expected of it. Go see it.

Oh, and my wife enjoyed it too.

Good synapses, XStream! In my opinion people should jump off the fence & see this in 3D. I'm not a fan of 3D at all but I feel for this movie it really adds to the experience.

You know, I have only seen one movie in 3D and I found it distracting. It was Transformers: Dark of the Moon, and the characters are extremely detailed and maybe that was the problem?

I haven't been willing to shell out the extra cash to experience it again. (And my wife hated it).

Quote from: Tomato on July 05, 2012, 10:24:51 PM

Quote from: cmdrkoenig67 on July 05, 2012, 10:12:46 PM
I disagree, this was still a huge and careless display of his powers.

Dana

He wasn't trying to hide them at this point though. He'd JUST found out he had them that day, it wasn't like he'd had a weekend to absorb the fact that he woke up one morning and had superpowers, and miraculously he's supposed to leap to the conclusion that maybe he should hide them JIC he wants to someday run around in spandex and fight crime?

Again, this is a guy who, in the comics, turned around and immediately decided to use his powers to make money. Smart he may be, but he's still a teenager, and prone to every selfish and stupid action that statement implies. It isn't until Uncle Ben's death that he really starts to grow up and become the hero we all know him as.

I dunno...Making money with his powers is kind of a smart thing to do, really...It was also a good way to test his powers, but he went to the wrestling match with a mask on!

As for the dropped plot point...

Spoiler

Genetic manipulation by his father?  Are they ripping off Spider-Woman's origin now?

Dana

Dana,

This scene fits perfectly into the movie. The context of Peter Parker has changed. This Peter Parker grew up in the late 90s early 00s. He is an equal blend of skater / science nerd. He comes across as a real kid who has been dealt a big loss early in life and has issues. He feels that his parents abandoned him, and he is struggling with that. It has created a complex for young Mr. Parker.

Spoiler

What you don't see in this scene is Uncle Ben's reaction to Peter's abuse of his power. This outburst is actually part of the build up to the fight that leads to Uncle Ben's death (only further making Peter feel responsible). Uncle Ben points out that Peter just wanted to humiliate the guy who punched him, and it is a really nice scene that helps add to the emotion of Ben's death. I can't tell you enough Dana how well all of this was done.

You really want Uncle Ben to make it in this movie. You understand how important he was to Peter. Peter really matures in this movie. Instead of a quick retelling of his original origin we get a very dramatic telling of the events that create Spider-Man.

I will say that this is not The Avengers, but this movie also doesn't have five prequels to set up the movie. I think it is my favorite comic movie. Planning on taking some middle and high schoolers to see it this weekend.

So, I saw it yesterday and though, I liked it, I am still heavily partial to Raimi films(meaning Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2).  I can't say this was a bad movie, I just thing Raimi/McGuire did a much better job of capturing Spiderman than this one.  With the exception of the banter with the car thief, this one was rather devoid of Spiderman's typical wisecracks.  McGuire was full of cracks from the beginning.  In this one, his powers seemed much more intuitive as if he's had them and know how to use them immediately.  In the Raimi Spider-Man, his powers and identity developed.  I even think McGuire got Peter Parker a lot better in SM and SM2.  He seemed really hard luck, couldn't get a single thing to go his way, even after he had powers.  This one just seemed too clean.  It seems they tried to MAKE him into an underdog sort of guy, but it really didnt play right to me.  Garfield's Parker seemed rather unassuming and actually pretty trendy.  McGuire's Parker was a COMPLETE nerd, buttoned up, goofy looking and uncool.  Thats what I'd think if I saw Peter Parker.  I think they also did a better job capturing the origin as well in Raimi's film.  But someone said it right, it seemed more like a teen angst drama wrapped in a superhero movie.  Raimi's Spider-Man was a full, fun Spiderman movie.

In retrospect, Raimi may have had some problems, but I really thought it was an overall better movie, better experience and much more entertaining.  Like I said, ASM was a good movie, I just think Raimi did it better.

I finally got around to seeing Amazing Spider-man, and thought I'd add my two cents:

It's definitely better than Spider-man 3; let's get that out of the way.  It's also definitely worse than Spider-man 2. 

The only fair comparison is with the original Spider-man, and I'm waffling back and forth there as to which I prefer.  'Amazing's' Gwen Stacy as played by Emma Stone was definitely superior to Kirsten Dunst's Mary Jane.  'Amazing' had better FX, but that's what 10 years will get you.  I liked 'Amazing's' handling of the Lizard in this film, and his ties to Peter, better than the original's handling of Norman Osborn.  The original's J. Jonah Jameson was phenomenal, and not nearly equalled by Amazing's Captain Stacy. 

As to Peter himself, I think the new actor was fine, but he's playing a very different version of the character than Tobey Maguire did.  Maguire's Peter Parker was a classic, old-school dork, while the new version of Peter is actually kind of cool, with his contacts and skateboard.  Sure, he's not one of the popular athletic kids, but he's also not the kid Flash tries to force-feed his vegetables.  If he was on the show 'Freaks & Geeks,' he seems more likely to be out in the smoking section with James Franco than in the AV club with the geeky kids.

In the end, though I enjoyed the film, I'm left with the feeling that it just seemed unnecessary.  A reboot of the origin story - and to spend so much time on it - seems weird when the original Spider-man wasn't so long ago.  And while the original Spider-man had flaws, so did this one - just different flaws.  If you could somehow combine the two maybe you could create an awesome Spider-man origin movie, but instead we've got two middling quality ones that seem to mirror each other far too much.

Talavar pointed out the better FX of Amazing. I was really impressed with the FX. I remember how blown away I was when I first saw Spider-Man, and even more so when Spider-Man 2 came out (except for what felt like excessive unmasking). It made you believe that a man could swing. But there was always one thing lacking, that I believe the third installment was successful at (just one thing, we can give it one thing), the fighting. Maybe I should rewatch, but I don't remember a good fight scene in the first Spider-Man. Even the final fight is fairly disappointing (looking back, at the time it seemed fine). Spider-Man 2 I remember the fight on the side of the building and the train (which led to the unmasking....) being pretty epic. Spider-Man 3 failed on so many fronts, but I remember the action being pretty good. The sewer scene with "Black Suit" Spider-Man and Sandman, Peter and Green Goblin 2 (is that what we called Harry?), and the final fight was epic. But there was something missing in all of these fights.

In Amazing Spider-Man it felt like the fights came right out of a comic. Spider-Man was all over the place hoping around, crouching, and clinging to his enemies. I believe Amazing has much more fanboy action (of course it is almost as long as 1 and 2 together...)

Two things that I missed in Amazing Spiderman.

I missed Bruce Campbell.

And I missed the rest of the Marvel Universe. The Marvel Studio movies have ruined it for me on an "out of continuity" movie... I want to see Peter giddy around Tony Stark, I want to see Captain America giving him lessons on how to be a hero, I want to hear Hulk say; "Crush puny Peter Parker!", I want to see Peter blush around the Black Widow, and I want to see Hawkeye and Spider-Man quip back and forth in the heat of battle. I found myself wishing for tie-ins that would connect the movies, but I knew it wasn't possible.

Saw this a couple days ago and have kind of been wondering if my opinion would change much with some reflection. It hasn't, really. I enjoyed the movie as did the people I went with, but it kind of felt... unnecessary? I mean, it was like I had seen this movie before and I didn't get all that much out of seeing it again. The acting was generally fine, the principals turned in performances that were equal or superior to those of their Spider-Man (1) counterparts. The technical parts of the movie were better, though that is something we have come to expect - newer movies will have better camera work, CGI, etc. than their predecessors. But, it just never really impressed.

BTW, I agree with Tomato's comment regarding the romance. In fact, one of the things I hate most about action movies is the need to tack on needlessly complicated romantic entanglements, love triangles, etc., largely predicated on the notion that people will never come out and actually explain why they did the seemingly hurtful thing they did, even when it's obvious they should and they have no reason not to. Anyway, this movie had some of that but less than others, IMO, which is a good thing.

I also liked the less emo, more wisecracking Peter we see in this film. That was one of my favorite aspects of Spidey, back when I read some of the books as a kid.

So, what was missing from this movie? Just some interesting part of the story or insight into the character that I hadn't seen in the other movies. I know that there is going to be some repetition whenever an origin story is re-told, but I didn't really get anything new out of this re-telling. Sure, there is some throwaway backstory about Peter's father being a geneticist, but ultimately it's the same basic story of Peter and the radioactive spider and Uncle Ben and so on that we saw last time. And, it's a good story and it is well told and it doesn't need to be changed. But, I have heard it before. And, that's really the issue to me: It's not that this wasn't a good re-telling of the Spider-Man origin story; it may well be the best that's been put on film. It's that there's no need for a re-telling of the origin story. Ultimately, I would have gotten more out of a movie that didn't re-tell Spider-Man's origin, but instead picked some other compelling story arc from his decades of comic stories and turned that into a good movie.

Do the movie folks think any three-party superhero arc must start with a re-telling of the origin story? Even when a perfectly watchable version is already sitting on everyone's shelf? There are times when that is justified. For example, I would be pleased with a reboot of the Superman franchise. As much as I enjoyed the campy 70s/80s movies, they aren't up to today's technical standards for movies, and the 2006 continuation of that line was so flawed that there's no need to try and salvage it. That's not the case with the Spider-Man franchise. Put it in this context: The next Iron Man movie is due out next year; should Marvel studios plan on rebooting the series with a new origin story to be released five years later (ten years after the first in the series)?

You know, I don't get it.  I don't see how people see this Spiderman/Peter Parker completely opposite of how I do.  I saw this Parker, and to a greater extent, the movie being MUCH more serious, MUCH more emotion and drama and less of the wisecracking Spiderman I'd expect. 

I mean outside of his cracks with the car thief I really didn't find Garfield funny at all.  McGuire's Spiderman had jokes throughout the movie, jokes on Bone Saw, Jamison, MJ, Goblin.  It just seem like Garfield was trying to play a part and his different and seemingly cooler Parker's commentary came off not a fresh.  It was like his Peter and Spidey were the same and acted the same.  McGuire's Spidey clearly was a different, more bolder person with the mask than not.  That showed more in McGuire than Garfield.

Quote from: Shogunn2517 on July 19, 2012, 03:29:05 AM
You know, I don't get it.  I don't see how people see this Spiderman/Peter Parker completely opposite of how I do.  I saw this Parker, and to a greater extent, the movie being MUCH more serious, MUCH more emotion and drama and less of the wisecracking Spiderman I'd expect. 

I mean outside of his cracks with the car thief I really didn't find Garfield funny at all.  McGuire's Spiderman had jokes throughout the movie, jokes on Bone Saw, Jamison, MJ, Goblin.  It just seem like Garfield was trying to play a part and his different and seemingly cooler Parker's commentary came off not a fresh.  It was like his Peter and Spidey were the same and acted the same.  McGuire's Spidey clearly was a different, more bolder person with the mask than not.  That showed more in McGuire than Garfield.

The difference is that Garfield can actually deliver them effectively. Maguire might have SAID more funny lines, but his delivery was always a bit off... I can't really describe it that well, but he almost sounds... tired? Listless maybe? I mean, compare his lines with those delivered by pretty much ANY of the voice actors to have played the role (Josh Keaton in particular). There's just a lack of energy in how Tobey delivered them that always made those lines feel forced rather then natural (and it's even worse in the VGs he did voice work for). Garfield might be almost TOO a-hole-ish with his delivery, but at least him quipping in the middle of a fight feels natural.

I just saw it last night and I think it'll have to jell and i'll have pop in the rami spider-man to compare but as I feel now.

I must have gotter the good cgi version of theolder movie because somethings in thenew one were much nicer but all in all except for obviously the Lizard, theonly difference I could see is the could make himseem more agile in some scenes. Definately not the webswing scenes. He never seem to get thehang od it through the whole movie compated to Rami's he ssemed quite clumsy.

I did not care for Martin Sheen as uncle ben. In fact the  whole pre  Spider-man  family stuff seemed inferior with the exception of Sally Field who had some life. I really missed the Great power comes great responsibilty " line. I prefer the wrestler to the convience store.

Garfield did what he did very effectively but Peter needed alittle more range IMO.

Emma Stone was a thousand times better than Kirstin Dunst IMO.

The fight scenes were well done but strangely unsatisfying. I guess it seemed that  Spider-man never had a chance to do any more than delay the Lizard and his first outing with thugs pre mask was before he really got used to his powers.

I thought they tied Dr connors and Peter together very well. Captain stacy was nicely done.

I enjoyed it but wasn't blown away. I will go see any sequels but would have prefered not another origin story.

Er... Steamteck? Please remember to add your spoiler tags when posting info like major characters dying in a movie. It's really bad form just to leave it out like that dude.

Fair enough

If there's any justice in the universe, I will be able to simply ignore this movie.  I will happily retcon the first Spider-Man 3 out of existence (which I haven't seen either) and mentally tack any sequels onto the end of the first two movies.

But I'd be even more satisfied if the rights reverted back to Marvel Studios sooner than later, so we can see Spidey how he REALLY ought to be done.  From what I am hearing, Sony changed too much of the original story trying to make this one seem fresh.  Granted, Spider-Man continuity in this modern era is a total mess... but surely those elements could have been blended together instead of surgically removed.

They should have had Donald Glover play him like God intended.

I thought it was pretty bad.  I will definately skip the second movie.

My only question is if this was, or was more like, the Ultimate Spider-Man origin?

Quote from: Xenolith on July 27, 2012, 09:09:36 PM
I thought it was pretty bad.  I will definately skip the second movie.

My only question is if this was, or was more like, the Ultimate Spider-Man origin?

Not really.

Finally saw this movie and i have to agree with those who liked it.  IMO it's a very successful reboot only hampered by the fact that what it reboots was good work (except for Spiderman 3).  Acting is solid, script is good, action is solid. 

If this rumor is true, I'll be looking forward to the sequel even more.

Jamie Foxx casted as Electro. (http://www.comicsalliance.com/2012/11/02/jamie-foxx-rumored-to-play-electro-in-amazing-spider-man-sequel/)

That is cool!  Does race really matter with a character like Electro though?  How important is it to 'his story' or the story of Spiderman?

I think he'd be fantastic as Norman Osborne, but I'm eager to see how they do Electro. And I'm still eager to see who plays him.

I hope they go with the spectacular spider man Electro.  His costume looks like it could work on the big screen

http://www.superheroes-r-us.com/2008/the-spectacular-spider-man-animated-series-airing-this-weeend-on-wb/ 

Bought the Blu-ray and watched it with my daughter.  She liked it I thought it was ho- hum.  I didn't like Andrew Garfield as Peter Parker.  There were so many thing wrong with his character it just made me sick watching him trying to be Peter Parker.  The story was good and the action/ fighting scenes were decent, but RAMI's Spider-man & Spider-man 2 were way better. 

Quote from: JeyNyce on November 11, 2012, 01:40:50 AM
Bought the Blu-ray and watched it with my daughter.  She liked it I thought it was ho- hum.  I didn't like Andrew Garfield as Peter Parker.  There were so many thing wrong with his character it just made me sick watching him trying to be Peter Parker.  The story was good and the action/ fighting scenes were decent, but Nolan's Spider-man & Spider-man 2 were way better.

... Really?

(http://i.imgur.com/5iuZ3.jpg)

EPIC FAIL!!! :banghead:  I DESERVE THAT. LOL

Official new pic of Amazing Spiderman 2 costume:
http://www.comingsoon.net/imageGallery/The_Amazing_Spider_Man_2/large/hr_The_Amazing_Spider-Man_2_1.jpg
And while they're not showing much more than the mask, THIS is what i picture when i see Spiderman's mask. These are my personal PERFECT movie eyes. I really couldn't really ask for anything more in this area. In general i think the costume as a whole looks improved, they kept an element that worked well(the updated spider, with torso length legs), and got rid of what didnt work(eyes, and gridline webbing).

This is looking to be the best Spiderman costume in a movie yet. Love the eyes!

I'm with you guys. Those eyes look perfect!  :thumbup:

Yeah, I think this is the perfect blend of the new movie costume and the costume from the original trilogy.

Truthfully though, the Amazing costume grew on me, and I think it worked as a "prototype" spider-man costume. It felt like something he nabbed off ebay for cheap, added some spider symbols to, and ran out the door. Now that he's more established, it makes sense that he'd update it... make his own costumes from scratch rather then having to constantly buy the same gear every time it got shredded by a bad guy.

I agree that it really is a great costume.   I didn't have any real probably with the earlier costume, but this one does look far better, and really has more of a classic spider man look to it while still looking like a slick big budget movie costume.  Whatever they paid the costume designers, it isn't enough.

Not sure I get why the red and blue of the costume needs all that brick patterning texture (yuck!).  They made the same costume errors in Raimi's trilogy, IMHO.

Dana

It's a subtle way of adding some additional texture to the costume so it doesn't look too flat or uninteresting when viewed from up close. It's a decent method they've come up with to make the costume look legitimate on screen rather than some dude cosplaying as spiderman.

TBH though, you're the first person I've ever heard complain about it. When they added it to Maguires costume for spiderman, I remember a trend of artists (over)using the pattern, but I don't feel like any of the films overused it.

http://screenrant.com/amazing-spider-man-2-photos-jamie-foxx-electro-ultimate/ (http://screenrant.com/amazing-spider-man-2-photos-jamie-foxx-electro-ultimate/)

-So, I'm sure there's gonna be some hate (WAAAAH, he's not wearing the goofy yellow lightning mask! Our lives have no meaning!) but... I'm ok with it. I'm not thrilled with the fact that they're supposedly gearing more toward the USM cartoon (Mostly because I'm still boycotting it) but I never had any issue with the direction the USM comic took with making Electro more of an elemental character.

I think Electro's look was always going to be tricky to nail ... I don't mind this so far.

All in all, its really a good route to go with the costume. I HAD been hoping they do something similar to the Spectacular Spiderman's version. But... this really isnt that horrible looking. Its a solid design.

Speaking of solid designs, behold our Spiderman one more time:
http://collider.com/wp-content/uploads/the-amazing-spider-man-2-andrew-garfield-set-photo-1.jpg
Now, I post this link, not only to show off the most accurate costume to date, but because you can see the new webshooters in the shot... sort of...

That just looks great! I think I have a new favorite movie Spidey costume.

Hey look at that, it actually looks like Spider-Man.

Quote from: BentonGrey on May 02, 2013, 02:02:59 PM
Hey look at that, it actually looks like Spider-Man.

Indeed.  Although I'm surprised to admit it but I really miss those yellow sunglasses-style eyes.  It was quite the distinctive look for the new series.

Maybe this film will finally give us an explanation as to how Peter Parker is able to acquire such professional looking suits for himself.  I just can't buy the fact that he makes and repairs them all himself, especially in the Raimi trilogy where the fabric textures were about as super-detailed as possible.

Quote from: oldmanwinters on May 02, 2013, 11:57:32 PM

Quote from: BentonGrey on May 02, 2013, 02:02:59 PM
Hey look at that, it actually looks like Spider-Man.

Indeed.  Although I'm surprised to admit it but I really miss those yellow sunglasses-style eyes.  It was quite the distinctive look for the new series.

Maybe this film will finally give us an explanation as to how Peter Parker is able to acquire such professional looking suits for himself.  I just can't buy the fact that he makes and repairs them all himself, especially in the Raimi trilogy where the fabric textures were about as super-detailed as possible.

He was bitten by a radioactive spider so he gets spider abilities because as we all know spiders are like vampires, they bite their prey and then it turns into a spider. This gives him the super-power of weaving fine fabric textures which spiders are able to do. They kind of gloss over this detail in the movie's origin stories but it makes sense if you think about it scientifically.

That's why I hate getting bitten by radioactive spiders...sometimes I'm just not in the mood to sew all night. 

In the ultimate spider-man comics, the original was made by the wrestling company he was doing gigs for, and all the costumes after that were made by MJ (which he still apparently made her do even during the periods where they'd broken up). Because making costumes is apparently women's work in the Ultimate universe  :rolleyes:

But in all seriousness, they actually went out of their way to make the original ASM costume look like something a teenager could put together. Most of the suit is sports gear he could get on ebay, the soles of the boots are cut-up tennis shoes, and the lenses are from a pair of sunglasses. It makes sense that he'd go from there and start putting more of an effort into making his own suits. And I'll be honest... Even though I think it looks better, I could still believe a teenager made it (as opposed to the allways super-professionally made Raimi costumes)

So apparently some photos of Emma Stone have recently come out with her wearing an outfit that's taken almost directly from the comics. Or rather, a very specific moment from the comics.

Some more good photos of the new Spidey suit. Definitely the best Spiderman costume in all of the Spidey movies. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2331917/Andrew-Garfield-bonds-young-Spidey-star-buddy-Jorge-Vegas-set-The-Amazing-Spider-Man-2.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

Couldn't agree more, love it! Andrew seems like a really cool guy too.
Really curious how Rhino will end up looking btw.

In the future, if Andrew gets his way, MJ will be a man. Gay Spiderman (http://movies.yahoo.com/blogs/movie-talk/andrew-garfield-suggests-wire-star-michael-b-jordan-174552185.html?cache=clear) in Spiderman 3?

Quote from: thalaw2 on July 12, 2013, 06:34:24 AM
In the future, if Andrew gets his way, MJ will be a man. Gay Spiderman (http://movies.yahoo.com/blogs/movie-talk/andrew-garfield-suggests-wire-star-michael-b-jordan-174552185.html?cache=clear) in Spiderman 3?

Heard about that. Nothing against gay people, but why on Stan Lee's green earth would Spider-Man be gay?

Who is he, Alan Scott?  It's not fitting to the character at all, and it only seems like change for change's sake.

Err... I read that article, and it wasn't "spiderman should be gay, for serious" it was more andrew spouting things off the top of his head. He even admitted he was half joking about the whole thing, and Webb shot the whole thing down pretty quick.

Trust me, this isn't nearly as bad as when a certain airheaded actress suggested that Peter Parker should be a deadbeat dad to mutant spider babies.

Quote from: Tomato on July 12, 2013, 11:21:46 AMTrust me, this isn't nearly as bad as when a certain airheaded actress suggested that Peter Parker should be a deadbeat dad to mutant spider babies.

:lol:

What!? That's news to me, and pretty hilarious! :lol:

Quote from: spydermann93 on July 12, 2013, 05:22:09 PM

Quote from: Tomato on July 12, 2013, 11:21:46 AMTrust me, this isn't nearly as bad as when a certain airheaded actress suggested that Peter Parker should be a deadbeat dad to mutant spider babies.

:lol:

What!? That's news to me, and pretty hilarious! :lol:

LOL. That was a pretty silly comment by Kirsten Dunst. Though, I think that the question she actually proposed was along the lines of "Why doesn't the superhero ever die?" She thought that it would be interesting if Spider-Man died and the focus shifted to a pregnant Mary Jane dealing with the birth of a spider baby and moving on with her life. I don't really expect there is that much of a market for superhero movies with no superhero in them. Superman Returns was criticized for having a very similar plot, and there at least the hero had actually come back and was in the movie.

Maybe the more relevant question for Ms Dunst might be "What happens when an actress falls of the edge of the Earth?" ;-) 

(Yes, yes, she's been very successful in lesser-known independent films, blah, blah, blah...)

Oh, Garfield...

:doh:
:banghead:
:thumbdown:

Yeah, a joke or not, that is an incredibly stupid thing to say with the internet being what it is. :P

Er... guys, I'm not trying to justify his statement in any way (because it's a pointless change and it goes against a core tennant of the character) but I think the reason he said what he said was specifically BECAUSE people still react this way to this sort of statement. Be honest, if he said MJ should be a black chick or Asian, there would not have been NEARLY the outcry against this that there has been.

I mean, really, read the reactions just in this thread. Several of you might as well be saying "Spiderman gay? Ewwwww gross"

Ha, as far as I'm concerned, you don't have much of a point, 'Mato. 

But really, I'd think any of those changes along the lines of those you mention would be unacceptable.  It isn't who the characters are.

Change for the sake of change is usually just an excuse for a stale creative mind.

I think not killing off Gwen Stacey would be a sufficiently surprising change to the mythos that might actually lead to some interesting story potential.

Seriously, the girl's legacy is defined by the fact that she died infamously back in the 70s (and Spider-man already had Uncle Ben's death as a foundaiton, so he relaly didn't need another "martyr").  Greg Wiesman worked hard to develop her character into something that rose above that legacy in the Spectacular Spider-Man show.  Maybe the Amazing film series can challenge the mainstream's public mind that Spider-Man's one-true love has to be Mary Jane Watson.

Except we're not talking about Mark Webb, the screenwriter, or one of the studio execs, we're talking about Andrew Garfield making a joke that everyone's upset about. The only reason he's repeating it and has talked about it in interviews was because there was such a negative reaction to the statement. This isn't the same as Dunst talking about making a movie with her and mutant spider babies in one interview and never speaking about it again, because Garfield has gone out of his way to talk about it since there is a certain amount of blatant homophobia mixed into the criticism.

Yes, it's a stupid change and it will never ever happen. But it's one actor spouting his mouth off, there should not be this type of reaction.

The internet being what it is, I have little doubt that there HAS been homophobia mixed in with the more general rejections of such a stupid idea, but 'Mato, objecting to turning a character into what it is not is pretty valid.  What's more, objecting to a character you like going from hetero to homosexual is also pretty valid, homophobia aside.  There's more to such a situation than 'eww gay.'  But, considering that such a conversation would trespass into territory that really isn't the domain of these forums, I think that I'll just say I disagree, in part, with your approach to the issue in question (reactions to a stupid statement) and leave it at that.

Well...

I'm all for keeping Gwen Stacey in the picture as long as possible. 
:thumbup:

Quote from: Tomato on July 13, 2013, 01:54:29 PMI mean, really, read the reactions just in this thread. Several of you might as well be saying "Spiderman gay? Ewwwww gross"

Where? Was this earlier on in this thread? I didn't re-read the whole ten-page thread, but I did re-read every post from reply #273 to reply #280 and I didn't see any comment for which that was an fair characterization.

I don't see what the problem is with it.   It's not like there aren't already 50 years of comic book history, over ten years of cartoons, 3 other movies, multiple video games and ongoing comics and cartoons where he isn't gay. 
When there's a new interpretation of a fictional character I don't enjoy, I just ignore it.  Simple as that.  Any poor reactions do tend to look homophobic as a result, in my opinion.

You know what I like, DM?  I like superhero movies.  I like going to see them.  I like collecting them.  I like following news about them.  There are a finite number of films and a finite number of chances for any given character to get a movie, so I like to see those movies be as good as possible, because I want to go watch and enjoy them.  Taking a character I care about, and turning him into a different character (which is what altering any foundational aspect of their personality/makeup would do) that I DON'T care about, and then wasting one of those finite chances at film on said new creation would bother me quite a bit.  It isn't a matter of just ignoring interpretations you don't like.  I do that with comics, because there are lots of other comics that I like which I can read.  I still resent it, because I'd rather be reading good stories than seeing opportunities wasted *looks at Justice League*.  Movies are a somewhat rarer resource, so wasted opportunities gall me all the more.  I hardly think that's unreasonable.  It goes back to the old idea.  If you want to tell your own story, make your own character.  If you want to tell a story about a gay superhero, some exist, go use one of them.  Don't radically alter something that already exists, because what's the point?

As for it seeming homophobic to you, that seems close minded of you. :P  After all, close mindedness means not considering or being open to others' points of view, right?

OK, I want to apologize for reacting negatively here about thia whole thing... I'm not going to try and excuse my actions, but I've been up the last two nights with some kind of bug(just finished vomiting in the bathroom... fun times.) So my judgement is not the best ATM.

That said, I did feel very uncomfortable about the direction this discussion was going. Everyone here was acting as if this were the worst thing that could ever possibly happen to the character and I get that's mostly nerd rage about changing a character in general (Hawkeye's mask, ugh) but at the same time, there was a lot more derisiveness toward this one half-joking remark than was warrented. It's never gonna happen, so everyone need to chill out and stop letting the sick forum member rile you up because he can't keep his thoughts straight.

Benton, I like you man, and I completely respect your opinions. I understand how you feel. I just take issue with a few things.

To be fair, I never said I wasn't close-minded, in fact, I'm quite close-minded.  I regularly make judgement calls on things like this that do tend to fall on the lefty side of things.
Frankly, I find it ridiculous that there are people on that side of the political spectrum that such have a superiority complex and call themselves open-minded.
As a student of semantics and semiotics I find the idea of "unbiased objectivity" hilariously appalling. That being said, it is literally homophobic to be against the representation of a fictional character when that character becomes gay.
Of course though, this was all started and propagated by an actor as a joke. It's escalated way too quickly.... which leads me into my next point.

This 'ownership' that fandoms concoct over fictional characters is also ridiculous and stinks to high-heaven of entitlement issues. The only ownership is that of the copyright holder, which in the case of characters like Spider-Man, Batman, and Superman is that of a corporate entity. Not even the original creators have ownership of the characters anymore.  We could start another discussion about these characters as cultural icons though.... and I think it would be fascinating to discuss concepts of ownership and representation in that context. Especially considering recent trends of recent editorial and corporate decisions to distance their characters from the traditional representations of the characters.

When it comes to the cultural value of movies, I see your point that they are rarer. However, the studios are not obligated to create the movies that fans want to see. Ultimately, they are obligated to make money, and if by some focus testing voodoo they find their changes to the characters justifiable, well, thats their choice.
There is definitely room for conversations on obligations, marketability, entitlement, and so on. I tend to not become so emotionally involved in these things... I'm not sure if it's because of optimism or apathy.

Sorry for the lengthy post everyone.

TL;DR - We don't own the characters, if companies make bad decisions it's their prerogative, and it's a prickly issue that does deserve to be talked about. 

PS - Get well soon Tomato.... although I would love to see you ranting hopped up on NyQuil!

Quote from: oldmanwinters on July 13, 2013, 03:54:37 PM

I think not killing off Gwen Stacey would be a sufficiently surprising change to the mythos that might actually lead to some interesting story potential.

nope nope nope nope no no no no

blonde needs to take a dive, end of


this views brought to you by a person who has never ever cared for the gwen character and always found her boring and over played within the muthos

Thanks 'Mato, I appreciate your apology.  I hope you get some rest and feel better soon, man!

:EDIT: Okay, DM and I talked, and we're cool.

DM, you brought up some really interesting points about the "rights" of fans and non-creators to works of fiction and their creators, and there are some fascinating ideas here.  I disagree with you to a degree, but I think, as you said, there is a good conversation somewhere in here:

Quote from: detourne_me on July 14, 2013, 07:31:46 AM
This 'ownership' that fandoms concoct over fictional characters is also ridiculous and stinks to high-heaven of entitlement issues. The only ownership is that of the copyright holder, which in the case of characters like Spider-Man, Batman, and Superman is that of a corporate entity. Not even the original creators have ownership of the characters anymore.  We could start another discussion about these characters as cultural icons though.... and I think it would be fascinating to discuss concepts of ownership and representation in that context. Especially considering recent trends of recent editorial and corporate decisions to distance their characters from the traditional representations of the characters.

Legally, you're entirely correct, but I would certainly argue that, philosophically, you're off the mark.  There's a lot of theory and entirely too many pretentious publications behind this, but the rights/responsibilities of the author have been discussed quite a bit in literary circles.  The same is true, in the more modern period, of the rights and responsibilities of the readers.  Now, I think there are a few important points to make here.  First, the rights of the author to their work are pretty obviously sacrosanct.  In fact, the creative product and ownership of ideas is so important to our culture that we've enshrined the protection of such in our laws.  An author has the right, even the responsibility, to tell the types of stories they want to tell. 

However, I would argue that this situation is a bit different when you're dealing with serialized fictional characters that outlive their creators.  There are occasionally direct lines of authorial descent, i.e., Edgar Rice Burroughs hands the reins to John Carter of Mars to his son, but this is far from the case with entities like Superman and Batman.  These characters took on a life of their own relatively quickly, entirely independent of their creator's intent and vision.  In fact, issues of ownership and rights to such creations were so murky that we're still dealing with the aftermath of struggles over their rights today, struggles that began over sixty years ago.    Yes, DC owns Batman.  It owns Superman.  Yet, these characters are much more than the sum of their copyrights. 

They are the product of innumerable authors, but also generations of fans.  They have, quite literally, been shaped by their readers.  Superman originally leaped tall buildings in a single bound.  He was quite unable to fly, but he was really good a jumping.  The Fleischers, when they created their seminal cartoon, found that animating super leaping was ridiculously difficult, so they just asked DC if they could make Superman fly.  DC answered, 'yes.'  Soon an entire generation of fans had been introduced to Superman through the Fleischer cartoons, and they started reading the comics.  Letters poured into the DC offices, demanding to know why their favorite hero didn't fly, like he was supposed to.  DC quickly had the Man of Steel flying high in the comic pages.

That's just one example, but I imagine that all of us at all familiar with comic history, even recent history, can likely think of others.  These characters have, quite literally, become the mythic inheritance of our culture, if not the world at large.  They have been shaped by the fans, they have been sustained by the fans, and they have been driven by the fans.  It's fine to say that the fans have no right to be outraged at the treatment of characters that they don't own, but the truth is, they do own them, and they have for a very long time held sway over the creative destinies of heroes and villains.  I would argue that this phenomenon extends beyond fact and into the realm of collaborative creative ownership on a cultural level, conscious or unconscious.  I wouldn't be surprised if there were scenes around campfires in Greece during the Heroic Age where young men berated the bard because they felt he wasn't treating Achilles "right."  I know that this type of thing happened with the Arthur myths in the 19th Century.

In addition to the fact that the voice of fandom has shaped the careers of fictional characters, I will add that I am an archetypalist and a bit of a neoplatonist, so I believe that there are certain concepts, characters, and interpretations that are closer to "Truth" in an objective sense.  I don't believe that the existence of characters like Batman and Superman are accidents, nor entirely attributable to cultural whims and fashions.  There are ideas that all fiction strives towards, some efforts getting closer than others, and superheros are a remarkably pure strain of this, tapping into concepts of heroism, which invariably reflect that which we most value as a culture.  That, however, is a separate conversation.

On a more conventional note, I would push my point about collaborative ownership of fictional characters even further.  I would say that, not only is this true for serialized characters that outlast their creators, it is true of single-author creations as well, though to a much lesser extent.  When we create something and garner an audience, there is, I would argue, at least a slight responsibility on the part of the author to honor the core of their creation in regards to works for that existing audience.  This also exists in fact, even if you don't accept the philosophical imperative.  Look at Arthur Conan Doyle.  He grew weary of his masterpiece, the great detective Sherlock Holmes.  Doyle killed his hero off, having him plunge over the precipice of Riechenbach Falls, locked in bitter struggle with his nemesis, Professor Moriarty.  The response, back in the 1800s, was so strong that nothing else Doyle did meet with any success, and finally he bowed to the pressure of his fans, bringing the great detective back from the dead for another series of adventures. 

Our creations are more than simply the products of our imaginations.  They are inheritors of all the majesty of humanity's creative efforts.  The weight of the stories that came before bear down on our fictional constructions, if only with the lightest of touches.  Writing is important, storytelling is important, and the stories we tell are incredibly important.  They are what define us, they are the clay from which we create culture, and in turn from which they themselves are created.  Yes, individual stories or characters may be of minimal value or importance, but to paraphrase Browning, 'our literature means, and means good.'

DM, for all of your intentional detachment from interpretations and fictional works, I am sure that if we thought about it long enough and hard enough, we could find some artifact of pop culture or literature, a re-imagining of which would propel you into epileptic fits.  All of us have things we hold precious, some of them may be worth more than others, but just because you don't feel the connections to these particular cultural artifacts does not mean that such connections do not exist or have no value or justification.

So, as much as I'd love to throw fuel on this fire, I'll just say I really like Gwen Stacy ever since Spectacular, and I'm going to cry in the theater when they have Electro kill her instead of Green Goblin.

I hope they don't follow the comics in the case of Gwen Stacey.  Emma Stone was one of the best parts of the reboot.

Quote from: Talavar on July 15, 2013, 01:24:46 AM
I hope they don't follow the comics in the case of Gwen Stacey.  Emma Stone was one of the best parts of the reboot.

as great as stone is (she's the only one to make me like the character) she has to die. the whole point of gwen now is to simply bite the big one and become the ultimate martyr in the spider-man universe

as much as i feel the whole thing has been run into the ground the character now in no matter what medium will have this hanging over her head. its only a matter of time.

if they bring in the goblin and dont kill her off then its a huge missed opportunity.

News Flash: FR Argumentations take on whole new level over Spiderman and DJ had nothing to do with it!  More at 11! 

(Sorry guys, couldn't help it but somebody needed to break the ice and get some laughter going here.)

Quote from: the_ultimate_evil on July 15, 2013, 01:45:08 AM

Quote from: Talavar on July 15, 2013, 01:24:46 AM
I hope they don't follow the comics in the case of Gwen Stacey.  Emma Stone was one of the best parts of the reboot.

as great as stone is (she's the only one to make me like the character) she has to die. the whole point of gwen now is to simply bite the big one and become the ultimate martyr in the spider-man universe

as much as i feel the whole thing has been run into the ground the character now in no matter what medium will have this hanging over her head. its only a matter of time.

if they bring in the goblin and dont kill her off then its a huge missed opportunity.

But that's why I think the bolder choice is to resist the urge to kill her off.  Uncle Ben will always be the ultimate martyr in Spider-man's backstory.  Killing off Gwen is gratuitous unless it has some meaning to it.  In the original comics, the creative minds used Gwen's death as a metaphor for the supposed loss of innocence that comic books were undergoing in the 1970s.  There's really no point in trying to recapture that same effect in the 2010s when it seems like everybody likes their super hero movies to be dark, moody, and epic.

I suppose it could be used to cement the Goblin's status as Spider-man's ultimate foe, and maybe they'll develop that over a series of movies.  But if it only happens to either clear the way for Mary Jane to score the rebound or to remind Peter Parker that his loved ones suffer because of who he is, then I think that's not enough of a reason to follow the trope of Gwen Stacey as the "Women-in-Refrigerators" prototype.

how about its simply to get rid of the boring blonde bimbo and bring back the one true partner for peter MARY JANE WATSON. who should be now in the comics and married for a while

NO I'M NOT STILL PO'ED ABOUT ONE MORE DAY WHY DO YOU ASK THAT, CARLY COOPER CAN SUCK IT

*sneaks in, looks around.*

You guys are still going at it even after I told you to calm down some?!?!?  Jeez...

*sneaks back out because nobody ever sees him here anyways.*

Quote from: the_ultimate_evil on July 16, 2013, 10:30:04 PM
how about its simply to get rid of the boring blonde bimbo and bring back the one true partner for peter MARY JANE WATSON. who should be now in the comics and married for a while

NO I'M NOT STILL PO'ED ABOUT ONE MORE DAY WHY DO YOU ASK THAT, CARLY COOPER CAN SUCK IT

Ha!  This made me smile, TUE.  I feel more or less the same.  I sort of missed the Gwen Stacey stage of Spider-Man, and I rather agree with Stan Lee that her untimely demise was a point where comics took a turn for the worse.  Of course, there was a lot of that going around. *Looks at Aquaman's son*

Garfield invokes Shakespeare when philosophizing about axing the Mary Jane role from ASM2:

QuoteThere's a reason why when Shakespeare wrote 'Romeo and Juliet,' after Romeo met Juliet, he didn't introduce another attractive female character that could be a shoulder to lean on. You know what I mean? After wherever he gets banished to, you know? [Laughs] Dramatically it just unfortunately didn't really match up with what our story needed to be.

http://movies.yahoo.com/blogs/movie-talk/andrew-garfield-calls-shailene-woodley-spider-man-departure-005114007.html

The kid has... a way with words. 

MJ started out as Harry's GF and a friend to Gwen. they could have still introduced her as Harry's GF without making her a shoulder to lean on for Peter.

http://www.dailysuperhero.com/2013/07/the-amazing-spider-man-2-sdcc-panel.html

Most hilarious thing ever.

I'll say this for the kid, he looks good in costume.

Quote from: Tomato on July 20, 2013, 06:52:13 AM
http://www.dailysuperhero.com/2013/07/the-amazing-spider-man-2-sdcc-panel.html

Most hilarious thing ever.

It is nice to see he's not afraid of being typecast for future roles.   :P

http://marvelousnews.com/ig.php?mode=view&album=2013_NYCC/Hasbro/SPIDER-MAN&pic=SPIDERMAN-LEGENDS-6inch-INFINITE-SERIES-MOVIE-SPIDERMAN-A6656.jpg -Have I mentioned how much I love that costume?

so umm the new traliers out and they have shown leaked images of rhino, elecrto and the new "green goblin"  excuse me a moment

(http://media3.giphy.com/media/12lV980pEpWM9i/giphy.gif)


umm what really
kinda big spoilers

Spoiler

harry becomes the goblin first, kills gwen and flys around in a green/black batman suit, no mask but mutated skin and white spiked hair

For those out of the loop, TUE is referring to this (http://cdn.screenrant.com/wp-content/uploads/Amazing-Spider-Man-2-Official-High-Res-Banner.jpg)

Spoiler

Admittedly, I'm a bit concerned about the Rhino thing (though the actual trailer has it standing upright and pulling back, which I'm far happier with) but the fact that it IS Harry and not Norman in the Goblin suit actually makes me a bit more comfortable. For those who haven't seen the comic con trailer, one of the biggest themes for the film is consequences: Electro's motivation is to be noticed like Spiderman is, and Rhino's is revenge for Spiderman bullying him. The fact that it IS Harry, not Norman, under the goblin outfit fits better with the narrative and is, overall, better for the story. Plus, it gives more buildup for Norman, who I was terrified they were going to shoehorn into this one without there being enough space for it. Yes, the design for him is just silly (I would have rather gotten a more USM type look then a cross between Bale's Batman and a dark elf) but we had Green Ranger Goblin so I'll wait until we see it in action.

That said... anyone else see the Vulture wings and Octopus arms in the official trailer? (http://screenrant.com/amazing-spider-man-2-trailer/) Sweet.

Quote from: Tomato on December 05, 2013, 02:32:10 PM
For those out of the loop, TUE is referring to this (http://cdn.screenrant.com/wp-content/uploads/Amazing-Spider-Man-2-Official-High-Res-Banner.jpg)

Spoiler

Admittedly, I'm a bit concerned about the Rhino thing (though the actual trailer has it standing upright and pulling back, which I'm far happier with) but the fact that it IS Harry and not Norman in the Goblin suit actually makes me a bit more comfortable. For those who haven't seen the comic con trailer, one of the biggest themes for the film is consequences: Electro's motivation is to be noticed like Spiderman is, and Rhino's is revenge for Spiderman bullying him. The fact that it IS Harry, not Norman, under the goblin outfit fits better with the narrative and is, overall, better for the story. Plus, it gives more buildup for Norman, who I was terrified they were going to shoehorn into this one without there being enough space for it. Yes, the design for him is just silly (I would have rather gotten a more USM type look then a cross between Bale's Batman and a dark elf) but we had Green Ranger Goblin so I'll wait until we see it in action.

That said... anyone else see the Vulture wings and Octopus arms in the official trailer? (http://screenrant.com/amazing-spider-man-2-trailer/) Sweet.

ahh see tom

Spoiler

i disagree the fact that harry is meant to be the own the offs gwen completely ruins the whole norman/peter dynamic. it removes normans biggest influence on peters life and reduces him down to simply i wan revenge for my son you big nasty hero, it also ruins any chance of harry's redemption as no matter what he does he's still gonna be the guy who killed peters first ( and if you agree with marvels ham fisted agree with us we're right only true love)

but if you believe the rumor of the reported after credits scene

Spoiler

norman dies from his illness and the scene of the shot of ocks arms etc is after the credits the shadow from the lizard jail scene is the man walking the corridor who reveal norman is in cryo status tells him to wake up teasing the third movie the sinister 6

now to be fair this has been discredited and claimed to be fan trolling, but its been done so by the same people who said harry wouldn't be goblin or have a billy idol haircut


(http://i.imgflip.com/58kh9.gif)

Quote from: the_ultimate_evil on December 05, 2013, 02:45:24 PM

Spoiler

i disagree the fact that harry is meant to be the own the offs gwen completely ruins the whole norman/peter dynamic. it removes normans biggest influence on peters life and reduces him down to simply i wan revenge for my son you big nasty hero, it also ruins any chance of harry's redemption as no matter what he does he's still gonna be the guy who killed peters first ( and if you agree with marvels ham fisted agree with us we're right only true love)

Spoiler

Um, Are you sure he's going to be the one to kill her? All I can find is that Harry is the one wearing the Goblin suit in this movie. All signs point to Gwen actually dying in the third film, and if anything, Harry being the Goblin and suffering a tragic fate gives Norman MORE motivation in ASM3 to kill Gwen Stacy. One thing Emma Stone and others involved have made clear is that Gwen's death in the ASM series is going to be Peter's fault in some way: Part of that could be vengeance for the death of Harry.

Spoiler

the majority of leaks and set reports say harry kills gwen at the power plant finale leading to spider-man beating him within an inch of his life. the film ends with harry in a coma at ravencroft.

these are coming from the same reports that described harrys suit, which was claimed to be false but have now been proven right.

as for the other elements such as the motivation i disagree, the dynamic was always between peter and norman. peter was what he wanted harry to be. i dont know how this one is going to play out, it may just be simple revenge or it may turn out norman sacrificed his son to test the formula before he took it.  either way i think harry killing gwen or the other prominent rumor of electro having a hand in it really is a big mistake 

Spoiler

If that IS the case... then yes, that would be silly. But I'm not going to freak myself out on a rumor that doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

I'm rather glad I never bothered to get invested in these movies.

Lot of weight being put on entirely unsubstantiated rumours here.  I'd take them with a healthy pinch - maybe a bowl or two - of salt.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpF5M-xkI4w

Well I'm mixed on the trailer. On the positive side the new Spidey suit still looks Amazing and there looks to be some great Spider-Man action coming. On the negative side I don't care for Rhino or Electro's designs, and since the first one there's something about these movies, and really can't put my finger on it, that doesn't feel right. As for the Goblin, I'm not sure yet but I could see the design growing on me.

I really don't have a problem with changing story elements from the comics into a movie...as long as I think they work. I'll just have to wait and see.


I actually just rewatched the first one a second time earlier this week. There were parts that I liked, and then other parts that just drag on. A very mixed movie. Also Andrew Garfield's inability to say words drives me crazy.

The trailer just looks really ... busy. Like there is a lot of plot and characters crammed in. Harry and Norman Osborn, Rhino, Electro, the suits for The Sinister Six, Peter's parents, etc.

Also, it's probably just me, but the clips of the actions scenes seem very videogame-like and disengaging.

I don't really have a problem with the new story direction, as long as its a story told well.

The CG  on the first trailer looked wack but it was passable in the actual movie.  Really have to agree with the movie looking  too busy,  it could be handled well but it killed the last franchise so why even tempt fate?  Electro looks cool,  it should be a fine motion picture assuming all the rumors you guys found aren't true.

I saw the trailer in IMAX 3D when I went to see The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug last Friday.

Eh... I had to constantly remind myself this was going to be a live-action movie and not a PS4 video game.  Com'on Sony, Give me the human element!

I've seen 2 trailers for this now and I like it.  However, I do have to admit it looks a bit too busy.

I'm really interested in where this film goes. They seem to be doing a pretty significant re-imagining of the character's world, especially his relationship to Oscorp, which started in the first film and looks like it's going to be more expanded upon here. It's kind of like a pretty significantly altered What If? universe, and so far I'm digging it. Honestly, I don't mind at all when new stories just disregard old dynamics if they find new, better ones (remember how Mr. Freeze went from a two-bit mad scientist with a fondness for diamonds to a tragic figure living in total isolation?). I'm not saying these dynamics ARE better, because I haven't seen them in action yet, but they might be, and I found the first Amazing Spider-Man fun enough to give the creative team the benefit of the doubt.

That being said, I'm really liking turning Oscorp into a huge, shadowy organization that exists to menace the world in its own right rather than just being Norman Osborn's plot-appropriate arms dealer and bank. And the way they're setting up Electro to be more of a malevolent elemental force (he looks like he's made of storm clouds holy crap) looks rad as h*ck. I have no idea where else they're gonna take this, but I wanna find out.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 International Trailer - Rise of Electro (2014) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDu7eCtx8WA)

Looks good but I think they are giving away way too much in these trailers. Should have kept some things a secret.

seen it today and honestly its wasnt great it had some decent moments but over all it was just there and kinda forgettable, thinking about it seems if webb was told he could make a romantic movie about peter and gwen and leave out all spidey and villains it would prefer it, it seemed a lot more effort went into these scenes than others

major spoilers
pros

Spoiler

emma stone, she actually made me care about gwen and thats saying something because i have never cared for the character. and her death was superb. its a kinda a shame she was gwen though she played her superbly i would have loved to see how she would have worked with a more complex character like mj

gwens death, i'm so glad they actually had the jimmies to do the web line aspect i really thought the would chicken out

the cinematography was superb, with some of the webswing right down to small romantic being beautifully photographed

electro was better than i expected

cons

Spoiler

villain origins, seriously does everything have to come from genetic animals and the fact the goblin "forumla" came from spiders venom. thats just lazy writing(and before someone says it yes it was lazy back when it was oz in the ultimate line)

electro though better than expected still came across very annoying and very bloody stupid with a paper thin motorization and used basiclly as a thug 

the goblin, ok it was no secret i wasnt a fan of the goblin design but the in film he was wasted, no build up apart from a passing mention of the battle suit, nothing on the glider or the pumpkin bombs and honestly his transformation and first appearance were met with laughter at the screening.

yeah you could say harry had build up and he did to a degree but if the goblin is spideys arch nemesis the fact he just shows up has a big shaky cam fight and then just gets knocked out roughly 10 -15 minutes after his first appearance is kinda poor

norman wasn't even needed for all the build up and others on here saying he was a master manipulator in this film he just gets introduced, complains about harry and the dies thats it.and with the removal of the head scene and the fact that harry is in ravencroft putting the sinister 6 together it seems old norm has been thrown on the unneeded character pile, add to the fact its now harry who kills gwen it just takes the need for norman out even more

i dont know what it was but the film seemed to drag, i found myself looking at my watch more than once

i had my reservations about this film during production but i went in with an open mind and wanting to enjoy it and hope it surprised me like the first did but sadly it was just meh and so far the low end of the summer blockbusters


this is just my opinion and i know some really wont like it but it comes from a real die hard spidey fan the film was just ok i'd say a 6.5/10

ps what the hell was an x-men scene doing after the credits

Interesting. Those of us in across the pond still have a couple weeks before the general release. Too bad to hear it isn't all that great. I was kind of hoping I might be more psyched to see it than the first one in the reboot. (The first one was fine, but it felt unnecessary to see another origin story so soon after the Maguire series.)

Quote from: the_ultimate_evil on April 18, 2014, 12:33:02 PM
ps what the hell was an x-men scene doing after the credits

From what I'm reading Marc Webb is under a contract with FOX for another film under his original deal with that studio. Webb got Amazing Spider-Man as a one shot deal to see if a reboot was possible so once the first film was a hit Sony and FOX had to work out a deal so that both sides were happy with him leaving to jump on immediately with the sequels. For MARVEL it's a win win because it's promoting another of their upcoming Summer films within a MARVEL franchise movie and Sony isn't really in a position for doing those mid-credit teasers for future projects since they are not working on multiple films at one time like Marvel Studios at Disney already does.

In short, It was a contract thing for promotion and the use of Webb between 2 studios who already have Marvel film franchises. Of course the Interweb is nearly blowing up because they think FOX and Sony made some kind of crossover deal and Spider-Man might show up in X-Men Apocalypse or X-Men will show up in Amazing Spider-Man 3. Nope, not the case. Sorry.

- CQ

Although at one point, the Oscorp building from Amazing Spiderman was going to show up in the Avengers.  The building's design was not completed in time to be added to the render for Avengers, but the deal has been made.

Even so, I'm not expecting any crossovers between studios any time too soon.

I cannot accurately put in words how boring this movie was.

Though I agree with TUE on much of what he said, I'll give a "Judgement Day" rating.

On the POSITIVES:

Spoiler

i don't know why they tried to update the suit in the first only to go to be back to the original in AS2, but I'm glad they did.  The suit did look good... For what it's worth.

While we're at it, compared to AS1, THIS Spider-Man was MUCH, MUCH, MUCH better, better being the Spider-Man I know.  N the first he(and Peter) just seemed like d!&%.  Spiderman is wise-cracking.  He's EXTREMELY likeable and goes out his way to be YOUR FRIENDLY NEIGHBORHOOD SPIDERMAN.  I got none of that in the first.  I got ALL of that in this one.  From knocking on Rhino's window, to walking a bullied kid home to joining the fire department.  I truly enjoyed THIS characterization.  Peter was still a jerk though.

I'm glad Gwen Stacy died the way she did.  Thank you for killing her.

Now the NEGATIVES(which are considerable):

Spoiler

I'll try to keep them to a minimum, but the movie was largely BORING.  It dragged on and on and on.  Admittedly, the movie was fun when Spiderman was on screen because it's fun to be spiderman.  But when he wasn't, he was that same douchey jerk I hated from the first one.  And that as like 80% of the movie!  Too much douchey Peter and WAY too little amazing Spiderman.  Unfortunately, what really made the movie drag was the angsty love story.  It wasn't even simply angsty, but just... I'm like why am I looking at this in a freaking superhero movie?  The Harry Osborn storyline wasn't terribly exciting either.  The entire storyline with his parents could have been and should have been dropped COMPLETELY.  Seriously, why was it there?  Sorry, the movie was just boring.  Spiderman wasn't.  Spiderman was pretty cool and exciting.  But the Amazing Spide-Man 2 was unfortunately much more than just Spiderman.

I hated Harry Osborn.  I hated that funky green fungi skin disease.  I generally hate Dane DeHaan.  I don't hate him.  He just plays the same guy he was in Chronicle.  Just with a billion dollars.  Same dude.  That's it.  Hell, I actually liked James Franco's Goblin better than this Green Goblin.(did they even confirm that name at all in the movie???). That goblin actually seemed properly motivated.  This dude, he wanted Spiderman's blood?  When the venom would due just as well?  And when he found out the venom didn't work, what is he still mad at Spiderman for?

I still have plenty of problems with the writing, characterization of this movie, much like I had with the first.  They seemed to want to write suspenseful scenes and tried to make them dramatic and suspenseful, but gave no real build up or urgency or reason to care.  So I got two minutes of planes about to run into each other.  Okay, so?  Who's on it?  Why can't they just look out the window and see a airplane coming your way?  Wait?  Aunt May doesn't just moonlight at a diner, but she's the head resident at a wing at a hospital to?  After two nursing classes?  And why(how really) is Gwen Stacy able to steal a police car and drive it to the middle of a power plant?  And hit a homicidal maniac with the ability to electrocute her by looking at her?  What human being would think that is a rational thing to do EVER!?  I don't even go get my mail when the streetlight bulb goes out and she wants to play superhero sidekick all of sudden?

Oh did I mention that this movie was incredibly boring?

And don't throw a random Xmen DoFP scene at the end.  Idiots leave the theater EXPECTING the Brotherhood of Evil Mutants to be the Sinister Six now in the next movie.  Come on.

Personally I don't agree with you guys that the movie was boring. I enjoyed watching it. Not comic book accurate at all. This is a total Sony movie. They have twisted & altered so much that it's practically removed from the comics completely. 

Electro was MUCH more interesting to watch than the trailers showed. Spidey was fun & energetic. Great action scenes & the emotion between Gwen & Peter felt almost genuine.

Amazing Spider-Man 2 doesn't hold a candle to Cap 2 but it was a fun distraction & wildly superior to the first Amazing.

I saw it yesterday, I enjoyed it but wasn't amazing or anything.
All the Spidey action was great, and the new suit is about 95% perfect - LOVE the mask.
Electro looked pretty cool. I enjoyed the Rhino's appearances.

My biggest problems were with the Osborns:

Spoiler

Norman was just wasted. One scene and then dead. But honestly I'm suspicious.

Harry just seemed like his story moved too quickly in too little screen time. He didn't really need to be Peter's friend in this story, they don't spend that much time together in the film.

The movie seemed like it had too much going on to properly develop all the elements.

I saw it. i thought it was entertaining. it dragged just a little bit but I didn't really think it was boring. Spidey suit looked good. I saw it in 3D (which I usually don't see movies in, haven't really been impressed with the 3D in any of the ones I've seen) and it was kind of worth seeing in 3D since a lot of the action scenes have slow-down sequences and shots where is flying at the foreground. I didn't particularly like Electro as a character but his powers were well implemented in the movie, and I kinda dug his techno-style theme music.

Spoiler

Rhino's appearances were in line with what I was expecting. I didn't really like the way the Rhino suit looked, but I liked the way it moved, and I was amused by the rhino charge he did. I thought that was neat. Paul Giamatti didn't much to do as the character, but he was entertaining with the small amount of material he had. I was a little surprised that Martin Sheen didn't make a cameo as Uncle Ben. I'm not sure where you would have added one but I kinda expected to see one. I'm also a little surprised there wasn't a post or mid credits scene (other than that X-Men clip), since people have pretty much come to expect them from these super hero movies (even the X-Men and Spider-Man ones nowadays) and the last one had one.

I haven't seen it yet, but I have a friend who filled me in on it (and gave me some major spoilers, but nothing I didn't already get from accidentally reading TUE's post ages ago) and I'm excited. Yeah, it's not going to be another Captain America or Avengers, but I enjoyed the first film and the only aspect I was worried about with regards to this one sounds like it was done very well.

Quote from: Podmark on May 04, 2014, 10:03:14 PMI saw it yesterday, I enjoyed it but wasn't amazing or anything.

Not a great sign.  :huh:

It was a hot mess of moving parts, characters and effects but at the same time ... not particularly exciting? I also found the Richard Parker subplot disinteresting and unneeded.

Plus, it's hard not to notice the attempted "universe" building where the film sets up a sequel, sets up potential film spin-offs, etc.

It's kind of a big jumble of characters and plot threads, not unlike the '90s Spider-Man comics, I guess.

I saw this movie today and I thought it was great!  The only gripe I would have are some soundtrack choices.  I'm glad i didn't read any spoilers and didn't pay attention to the negative hype.  I didn't see where there were too many things forced into the movie to the point where they looked out of place.  I like the origin stories and I think this sticks more to source in some ways than the SpiderMan franchise of films.  I was thinking this movie wouldn't be as good as Spiderman 2, but IMO it was better.  Perhaps, it can be argued that the movie was more Peter Parker is Spiderman rather than Amazing Spiderman since it did seem to be a movie about Peter Parker who just happened to also be spiderman at some points, but I didn't mind these diversions.  They were much better scripted than previous SpiderMan movies. 

I agree with MJB in that this film was awesome.  I can't say it was not as good as Cap 2...for me the stories are too different to compare.  ASM 2 actually explores Peter Parker more whereas Cap2 still leaves the Cap as a mystery man. 

anyway...go see it if you haven't.

I finally got to see this film yesterday (spent my weekend off going to sister's graduation, which is when I normally see these movies.) And... yeah, the negative hype is just wasted. There's a lot going on, certainly, but the elements aren't handled badly like they are in other films we've seen before. It's a fun ride, easily my favorite Spiderman film to date.

I thought it was enjoyable " but m not amazing". Gwen was great and their chemistry was solid. Spydy was really Spydy  but the story didn't send me. Electro was interesting but not so the Goblin. Still it certainly doesn't deserve to be rotten on Rotten tomatoes nor have a lower score  than Spider-man 3.

Quote from: steamteck on May 21, 2014, 09:29:20 PMStill it certainly doesn't deserve to be rotten on Rotten tomatoes nor have a lower score  than Spider-man 3.

If it means anything, Amazing Spider-Man 2 has a better rating than Spider-Man 3 on IMDB :P

Spoiler

I liked this movie, actually.  Never saw the first one (it didn't interest me enough to go see it), but I was convinced by my friends to see this one.  While not the perfect film nor is it my favorite "Marvel" movie, I'd definitely watch it again.  I actually found it surprising with the amount of negative reception for the film, and while I understand why they didn't like certain aspects (Peter is too cool to be Peter; Harry Goblin rather than Norman Goblin; two minutes of Rhino), a lot of the more extreme reactions, I feel, are undeserved.

I finally got to go see Captain America: The Winter Soldier two weeks ago! I know, I know... I am not in the wrong thread. They canceled our showing to make room for a second showing of "Million Dollar Arm" and we ended up seeing Amazing Spider-Man 2. To be honest, I didn't want to see the movie. I wanted to see Cap first, and even let my wife choose the movie (thinking she would pick Mom's Night Out or something... But she picked ASM2.

I enjoyed it, but it felt long. I honestly had a difficult time enjoying this movie because I had been so excited to finally see Cap... I knew this movie would not surpass those expectations. I think what I enjoyed so much about the first one was that I had low expectations.

If it sounds like I didn't enjoy the movie... well I did. I thought it was great, and I look forward to purchasing it on Bluray so that I can see it again without the feeling of disappointment before the movie actually began.

As I said before I love Garfield in this role. I didn't get that his character was jerkish (except maybe at graduation), and I like his Peter Parker. I don't think this story (including ASM) deserve a dork, it needs a nerd. And although this Peter comes off as kind of cool for us, he is still very nerdy. Let's be honest, nerdy is becoming a trend and thanks to public nerds like Zachary Levi the face of nerddom is changing. (Yeah, big Chuck fan!). Emma is perfect as Gwen and although I knew it was going to happen

Spoiler

I was a little bit sad knowing her character would no longer be in this series of movies (except the necessary flashbacks)

.

Did anyone else feel the Richard Parker storyline was a little unnecessary? I know that for the whole arc it is very necessary, but this movie would be no different without it. It only added a little conflict that lead to Peter realizing that he needed Gwen to help him sort through things.

Spoiler

And it provided the largest plot hole. If you have created genetic spiders and used your DNA, and you must flee your life in order to keep your son safe... why in the name of Stan Lee would you record a video revealing that information? Doesn't that paint a target on your only offspring as the sole source of unlocking the mystery...!? I mean, come on Richard, what were you thinking!? Good thing Peter found it and not Norman Osborn! Speaking of which...

I thought the whole illness creating the goblin was a good twist. Norman wasn't just some nutso that wanted revenge. Although,

Spoiler

killing him off (I know there are rumors that he was actually preserved) seemed like a bad choice. And I was not too fond of Harry's storyline. That was one thing the original trilogy did pretty well... You cared about Harry, even when he became a ridiculous goblin knock-off.

Anyway, I like the movie overall. I know some people were disappointed with how the Rhino was treated, but I for one am glad we saw very little of that exo suit... And I thought the ending was fun... I liked the movie... honestly.... What? I did!

So I know I'm doing some MAJOR thread necromancy here, but I just saw the alternate ending for ASM2... and I am just dumbfounded as to why it wasn't the real ending, since it is SO MUCH BETTER than the nonsense Rhino ending we got in the theatrical release.

For those who haven't seen it, I actually came across it more or less on accident while searching for videos featuring ASM2 skin mods (to be fair, I'm pretty sure I have the movie on Blu Ray somewhere in my boxes, but I never bothered to pull it out) so it's not really that hard to find if you're looking for it. Here's a quick summary (In Spoilers for those who haven't seen the film.)

Spoiler

So after Gwen's funeral, we see a few silent shots of Peter visiting Gwen's grave, the implication that he's been visiting the grave a great deal. Eventually, the camera pans across Peter's shoulder, revealing Richard Parker, alive. He tells Peter why he left, why he never came back for him... and then the two have a very emotional discussion about loss, and about how Richard was wrong in thinking that him leaving would somehow keep the research locked away, that it was never his destiny to take on the responsibility for it, but Peter's. And in his closing remarks to his son, what would have practically been the last line of the movie, he tells Peter

"With great power, comes great responsibility."

Now, for those reading this and being a bit put off by it, I would encourage you to actually watch the scene before leaping to any conclusions. The scene is beautifully shot, beautifully acted, and manages to end things on a slightly somber note, but still a hopeful one. I'm gonna go back into spoilers in a second for something more in depth, but had THIS been the real ending, there might have been some fans upset over the change, but it would have made it a much better FILM.

Spoiler

One of the biggest issues I, and many others I've talked to, had with the Rhino ending is that it basically destroys the emotional impact of Gwen's death. We go from Peter mourning her loss, to being back in the Spider-Man suit stopping bad guys again in a very short time. This alternate ending, while a bit problematic from the "omg they are focusing too much on the dad in this series" perspective (which I admittedly agree with), doesn't diminish that loss. It also ties together the loose ends related to the Richard Parker plotline, and gives them a reason to be in this movie to begin with. Overall, it's SUCH a better ending, and having seen it, I have literally been fuming about it for over and hour and a half.