Spiderman reboot is go... [Archive]

bassman

10-Dec-2010, 03:13 PM

They just made the Spider-Man films less than a decade ago. What's next, are they going to re-re-boot "Batman" yet again?

Most likely. After the next film, The Dark Knight Rises(I think that's such a silly title), Nolan, Bale, and likely everyone else will be leaving. So they'll either have to hang up the cape and cowl for a while, hire a new team and continue as if there was no change, or reboot. I'm hoping they just give it a rest. Which looks like a real possibility now that DC is finally giving their other characters some big screen lovin'.

This Spiderman reboot is continuing the strange trend of hiring red heads to play blondes, and blondes to play red heads.:rockbrow:
http://static.muveez.com/media/spl231996_002_324.jpg

That's Zombieland's Emma Stone playing Gwen Stacy. Last protrayed by Bryce Dallas Howard in Spiderman 3. WTF?

JDFP

10-Dec-2010, 03:29 PM

The "Spider Man" films are generally pretty good, so I'll probably Netflix this when it comes out -- it just seems awfully sudden to be doing a re-boot so early. This could lead to alot of people shaking their head in confusion as in: "Huh? That's not Spider-Man!" -- just seems like it's a little early to be doing a re-boot already.

Of course, "Spider Man" is a cash cow -- that's all the studios, obviously, have cared about for some time. Quality and content is secondary (like say, oh, telling an original story as opposed to do another remake/re-boot of a pre-existing franchise).

j.p.

ProfessorChaos

10-Dec-2010, 03:43 PM

as a lifelong fan of spider-man, i am totally against another series of films coming out so soon. the first two were "amazing", but the third was quite a let down, but even with it's minor flaws, we just had a whole fucking trilogy of spidey-films in the last nine years or so. goddamn hollywood greed beating another property into the dirt....

regardless, they just did these films a few years back, this is just a cash-grab by sony and i'm having no part in it, other than to bitch about how unnecessary the whole thing is.

and even if i did give a shit, i'm pretty let down by them hiring emma stone as gwen stacy. while she's supposedly a natural blonde, that's not the point. i think she's way overrated and not that attractive at all...while i wouldn't kick her out of the sack, she's got a big old round moon face and her voice is gross-sounding....seems like all sony is doing with this one is hiring big, recognizable actors to bring in more money. fuck sony, fuck this reboot, fuck marvel, fuck superhero films. i really hope this thing is a big let-down at the box-office and they decide to let spider-man just chill for a while.

EDIT: judging by that pic bass posted, looks like ms. stone is doing the hollywood thing and skipping meals to be thin. doesn't matter, her voice still sounds like shit and i think she's overrated beyond belief.

bassman

10-Dec-2010, 04:23 PM

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:qGyP4oQl-pZYPM:http://i809.photobucket.com/albums/zz20/GDM426/Captions/IdHitIt-02.jpg&t=1

As for the Spiderman films - While I enjoyed all three on various levels, I don't mind a new series. They were good, especially the second, but they didn't really leave a lasting impression with me. And on top of that, I didn't like whats-his-name that played Peter. Something about his baby face and voice just always pissed me off. And that was BEFORE the whole Spiderman 3 face gifs all over the net.

Hopefully Garfield can pull off a better Parker/Spidey. And I really liked 500 Days of Summer, so hopefully the director can pull it off.

EvilNed

11-Dec-2010, 11:21 AM

I think this seems dumb. We had three awesome films in the last year. This is just like Sony saying "Sam, you're films were crap, and now we´re gonna re-do them".

bassman

13-Jan-2011, 07:23 PM

ProfessorChaos

13-Jan-2011, 10:22 PM

see, this is why you're my fave ZFE, jason. always helping keep us up-to-date on these sort of things.

as for the pic, i understand that they can't get spidey's mask to show emotions, but seriously, the main draw of this film is spider-man, not peter parker and his feelings. still sayin "fuck this movie with a rusty screwdriver".

Ghost Of War

14-Jan-2011, 07:07 AM

Emma Stone...? I'm in.

Danny

14-Jan-2011, 07:59 AM

HERE (http://www.joblo.com/newsimages1/0113spidey-big.jpg) is the first look at the new Spidey.

http://www.joblo.com/newsimages1/0113spidey.jpg

Looks like spiderman to me. Not too different but at the same time not too similar.

gloves kinda make me worry, somehow they seem to signify a more drastic core change than rouths costume in superman returns. I know there trying to give this an ultimate spiderman vibe but sill, the costume seems off.

bassman

14-Jan-2011, 11:40 AM

gloves kinda make me worry, somehow they seem to signify a more drastic core change than rouths costume in superman returns.

Speaking of the gloves, did you notice the bumps on his wrists? Maybe they're ditching the organic web shooters?

rongravy

15-Jan-2011, 01:23 PM

I will see this. Sure, I'm sad that the original cast is gone, but what the hey?
He looks good. I'm fucking game as hell. Bring it and I will critique the fuck out of it...
Methinks I will like it, though...

Neil

16-Jan-2011, 07:42 AM

Going to be very interesting to see how they can make it 'fresh' while still reaching the high standards the previous ones reached!

Danny

23-Jan-2011, 01:47 PM

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y91/khazrak/500x_picture_48_01.jpg

First the fanboys came for sam raimi, and we said nothing....

SymphonicX

23-Jan-2011, 06:48 PM

Personally love the first two - the third I could rant about for a year...

but the reboot is still too damn soon even with the missed trick that was 3 - its just too soon.

It's like a band making an album and another band coming out with a cover album, based on the first album. How boring.

One thing I do agree with is organic web shooters - Raimi was right to do that, as he said he couldn't "have peter parker using an adhesive that even 3M couldn't make"...and t'is true!

blind2d

23-Jan-2011, 07:13 PM

Hey Hells... what the...?

Publius

24-Jan-2011, 09:21 AM

but the reboot is still too damn soon even with the missed trick that was 3 - its just too soon.

The way things are going, pretty soon they're going to start remaking and/or rebooting movies before the original is even released.

bassman

19-Feb-2011, 07:32 PM

Turns out....it's not techinically a reboot. Here are some quotes from Producer Avi Arad:

"it won't erase what came before but will try to weave a narrative that could take place within the framework of the earlier films. It's not a comeback. You have to look at it this way. Do you want to know more about Spider-Man? This movie is going to tell stories that you didn't see in movies 1, 2 and 3."

So it's a prequel?

BTW...it's now officially titled The Amazing Spider-Man.

blind2d

19-Feb-2011, 09:00 PM

I'm still sad about this. I mean, really? What are they thinking?!

ProfessorChaos

19-Feb-2011, 10:33 PM

it's pretty simple, blind:

spider-man fans:
http://blog.seattletimes.nwsource.com/brierdudley/i_has_a_money-12606.jpg

+

hollywood:
http://www.iwearcoolshirts.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/5e06319eda06f020e43594a9c230972d/s/h/showmethemoney-2.jpg

=

http://blog.lib.umn.edu/bgleason/pt/money_wheelbarrow2.jpg

then "the spectacular spider-man" in theaters july 2015. rinse, repeat, reboot, etc.

kortick

20-Feb-2011, 05:17 PM

I dont know who mentioned it here but I heard similar
that the re-boot thing was due to the fact that Toby and
Durnst were real problems as far as continuing the series.

If u are a Spiderman fan, u would see that Raimi put in
some charecters that really mattered and would have places in
future movies like Dr Connor who became the Lizard, and John
Jameson who became the Man-Wolf just to name two.

Raimi had it set where he was really laying a solid foundation
based on the comics themselves. It was obvious he lost control
of things cuz the charecters of Venom, Harry Osborne and Sandman
were nothing like the comic versions of them. That was Hollywood
bullshit interfering with things.

This reboot I think was needed due to many factors.

I hope it follows along what Raimi was working towards cuz
he really WAS following the true comic book.

Doc

20-Feb-2011, 05:33 PM

^^^^^^^^

Err....didn't the original script of Spiderman 3 had the exact same problems like the finished product? Only it was Vulture instead, of Venom.

No, hollywood producers involved with the exception, of the inclusion of Venom.

Mitchified

20-Feb-2011, 07:17 PM

It was obvious he lost control
of things cuz the charecters of Venom, Harry Osborne and Sandman
were nothing like the comic versions of them. That was Hollywood
bullshit interfering with things.

To be fair, the Sandman was a lot like his incarnation in The Gauntlet, where he had begun caring for a little girl. Minus the random self-thinking copies he made, of course. Eddie Brock also seemed to be a mixture of his original self and his more emotional (read that as "emo") self from The Hunger. I'm not defending the movie or the characters, mind you, just pointing out that the character traits were present in the source material depending on the writer.

Harry Osborne almost seemed to be patterned more after various incarnations of Norman Osborne than the character he was named for. The manipulation and extreme psychosis reminded me a lot of Norman right when he returned at the end of the Clone Saga and focused on ruining Peter Parker's life.

Assuming that the plot still remained roughly the same, the Vulture would have been a much better fit for the movie than Venom. He tends to pick his spots more, wait for his opponent to be vulnerable and swoop in to pick at the remains like his namesake. It would have been a lot like his role in Down Among the Dead Men.

kortick

21-Feb-2011, 02:24 PM

Mitchified

21-Feb-2011, 06:31 PM

Well as as far as Venom/Brock go, they really bear little resemblance to
originals done when McFarlane was the artist and Michelinie was writing.
As creators of that charecter I look at the way they created him, not how
others have changed him, same as with the character Thanos. Thanos is
only, to me, done properly when penned by Jim Starlin.
Also Harry Osbourne as the Green Goblin joining forces to fight along side
Spiderman? That bears ZERO in relation to the comic. Go read issue
#137 and see what Harry as the Goblin was like.
Sandman is a difficult charecter, but was portrayed poorly, for his
odd and yes silly power he is shown to be more complex in the comics
as time goes on.
And as far as Vulture being better, it really dont matter cuz they would
have messed that up. There was no need to have all 3 of those vilians in
the film. Why not just toss in the Sinister Six if we are going for pure
body count.
The great job they did with Dr Octopus, which really was a difficult charecter
to put on screen left me and many others with the hope that the series
was gonna be different from the usual garbage.

The original Spider-Man material isn't what the movies were scripted after, though. It was a combination of the standard Earth-616 Spider-Man and Ultimate Spider-Man. Sadly, Eddie Brock was basically, well, whiny in the Ultimate universe.

I wasn't suggesting that the Vulture should have been in the movie in addition to Venom. I was saying that he should have been in the film INSTEAD of Venom, as the original script called for. To be honest, I don't think Venom should appear in any of the Spider-Man movies period, as the cosmic origin of the symbiote just seems out of place with the style they are going for.

Incidentally, Harry Osborn did indeed team up with Spider-Man. Twice, actually; once as the Green Goblin (to fight Jason Macendale, the Hobgoblin, soon after the birth of his son) and once as American Son (to fight his father during Dark Reign). So there's been team-ups in both the older storylines and the newer ones.

I thought that the Sandman's portrayal was one of the few bright spots for Spider-Man 3, as they managed to give depth to a character that traditionally doesn't have much. Where they completely screwed up with him was the ending, where they made him look like the offspring of Clayface and the Jolly Green Giant while making him completely mindless.

With the new movie, I'm just hoping that they get back to emphasizing that it's really a story about Peter Parker and not some superhero. That's always been what set Spider-Man apart. Batman, Superman, the X-Men, Iron Man, etc., they're all about superheros that also happen to be someone else. Spider-Man works in reverse, and it's why you can connect with Peter Parker more than any other comic book character.

kortick

22-Feb-2011, 11:24 AM

Well I will admit that I did not read the original script
with the Vulture. Maybe it would have been better.
I will say your info on the Spiderman comics is quite strong
you obviously have more knowlege than just the average reader
or movie goer. I would not have known this about you.

I recently purchased
http://www.amazon.com/Amazing-Spider-Man-Complete-Comic-Collection/dp/B000HKIM7Q/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1298376261&sr=8-2
which is a dvd rom of every Amazing Spiderman from 1963-2006. (There is an
update that will collect, Spectacular, Web of, Spider-Man and the other issues
of Amazing due out) and I have been reading from issue #1 on for a while so
I am more in the know about the comic series than I was before due to
having the entire run in my possesion.

I agree with you on just about everything u said, and yes the
true thing about spiderman is how peter parker is a regular teen
and therefore meant to be related to. I also think tho that the
villains he fights need to be done right because a hero without
a good villain makes for a boring story.

But to the main point.
Why do you think the re-boot was done?
I mean they had a HUGE franchise on thier hands
and to stop it and re launch it is not standard practise.
Is it true that the main actors involved became too much
to deal with or was there some other factor I am not aware of?

bassman

20-Jul-2011, 06:30 PM

FWP8TdXdFZg

Andy

20-Jul-2011, 06:42 PM

Ive seen more that i like in a 2:30 trailer than i liked in 3 tobey maquire movies to be honest.

I'll definatly give this a watch.

MinionZombie

20-Jul-2011, 06:44 PM

FWP8TdXdFZg

I still don't know about this mechanical web shooter thing - it made much more sense, to me, for it to be a biological mutation. For one thing, where is a high schooler going to get that mechanism from? How are they going to engineer that contraption, and the wrist-jizz to boot? In Raimi's flicks, that was fine - because it was a biological mutation (that also suited the coming-of-age aspect of Spidey 1 quite well).

Not mad-keen on the costume either ... I can't help but wonder if it's too soon to be rebooting it all, especially when this project really started out as Spider-Man 4.

On the plus side though - Emma Stone (albeit not with the red hair she's most known for, which is, curiously enough, not her real hair colour - which actually is blonde ... ... starting to sound like Ralph Garman now, so I'll pipe down. :p)

The first-person running around bit was cool though ... even if the motion still feels a bit unrealistic for how the world looks when you're actually running around, if that makes sense. I'll no doubt see it at some point, but I'm not excited about it either.

slickwilly13

20-Jul-2011, 06:50 PM

I wonder if they will ever make a Spiderman 2099 movie.

This is the Spiderman I remember as a kid.

i3KhWCaywXk

AcesandEights

20-Jul-2011, 07:44 PM

I can't help but wonder if it's too soon to be rebooting it all

Wonder no longer:

http://gosounders.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/it-is-decidedly-so.gif

ProfessorChaos

20-Jul-2011, 10:14 PM

not impressed with this trailer. then again, i've been against this film from jump street, so perhaps that's the problem.

i recently got my little nephew all kinds of hooked on spider-man, so i'm sure i'll have to watch this with him at some point.....just not in theaters.

JDFP

20-Jul-2011, 10:34 PM

I just don't get the point of this. The films are less than a decade old, has me scratching my head.

Was the Martin Sheen in the trailer though? If he's in it, I'll check it out for a rent on Netflix when it's available for rent just because Martin Sheen is in it though. He was recently in a film with his son Emilio Estevez called "The Way" which was one of the best films I've ever seen this last year, so I'll give it a chance just on his being in it.

j.p.

bassman

20-Jul-2011, 10:42 PM

If you forget there were any of the previous three films.....this is actually pretty cool looking. Forget it's a reboot and it looks alright. Well, except for the first person cgi. It was good until that.

Danny

20-Jul-2011, 10:57 PM

i preferred it when it was the trailer for mirrors edge minus the batman begins filter three years ago.

2N1TJP1cxmo

clanglee

21-Jul-2011, 02:31 AM

Hmmm. . .not bad. A little emo. . . .. .but not bad.

Neil

21-Jul-2011, 09:14 AM

I thought the first person sequence felt tacky!

I still think the first two Tobey Maguire flicks were excellent, so this reboot will have to be something fairly special to match them!

AcesandEights

21-Jul-2011, 01:13 PM

I thought the first person sequence felt tacky!
Agreed.

I still think the first two Tobey Maguire flicks were excellent, so this reboot will have to be something fairly special to match them!
Yeah, to me, Spidey 1 & 2 are pretty near to top of the heap for comic book films. They have the perfect fit for the character, stuck closely enough to the character's core and told some classic-feeling Spidey tales with a good mix of action & comedy with just enough heart to make it worthy of such a classic character.

blind2d

21-Jul-2011, 06:26 PM

The only good thing I saw there was the blond chick and two skateboards. Does Peter skate now? Since when? Screw that.

Mitchified

22-Jul-2011, 12:42 PM

I still don't know about this mechanical web shooter thing - it made much more sense, to me, for it to be a biological mutation. For one thing, where is a high schooler going to get that mechanism from? How are they going to engineer that contraption, and the wrist-jizz to boot? In Raimi's flicks, that was fine - because it was a biological mutation (that also suited the coming-of-age aspect of Spidey 1 quite well).

I like the return to how it is in the comics, personally. If we wanted to get technical, biological webbing should never have been shooting out of his wrists in the Raimi movies; if he had a spider-like mutation, he should have been shooting it out of his butt. So, yeah, suspension of belief has to be applied either way.

Besides, odds are that he ISN'T designing at least the web fluid. The movie trailer showed his parents at the beginning, had a younger version of Aunt May, showed Gwen Stacy working with Curt Connors as a sort of intern, and a number of other such details. That tells me that they're sort of hybriding Ultimate Spider-Man and the short-lived (but utterly awesome) Spectacular Spider-Man television show. In Ultimate Spider-Man, Peter is able to make the web fluid because he has a box of his father's research files, and one of those files contains the formula for the adhesive that becomes his web fluid. From there, the web shooter would be easy enough to design, since you're just looking for a trigger to spray the fluid, which is contained in pressurized cartridges. It wouldn't be much more complicated than the trigger on a water gun or a can of silly string.

Basically his dad did the hard part before Peter was ever born.

I'm looking forward to this movie quite a bit. For those saying that it's too soon to reboot, it isn't when you consider that Marvel is trying to make all their movies exist in the same universe and run along the same timeline. Raimi's movies just don't fit into that plan. Besides, as much as I liked Spider-Man 2, by the time the trilogy was over you had Norman Osborne, Harry Osborne, Venom, and Otto Octavius all dead. Yes, Spider-Man has a number of other villains, but villains capable of having a movie revolve around them? Besides the Lizard... not so much.

Plus, I dunno, maybe it was just me but I never really got behind Raimi's Spider-Man all the way. It might have been Tobey Maguire or just the scripting, but I never got that sense of humor that Spider-Man is known for. He didn't quip or crack jokes during fights like he does in the comics, which he does most of the time to distract his enemies and cover up the fact that he's scared out of his mind. Hopefully Amazing Spider-Man can accomplish this better.

AcesandEights

22-Jul-2011, 01:30 PM

He didn't quip or crack jokes during fights like he does in the comics, which he does most of the time to distract his enemies and cover up the fact that he's scared out of his mind. Hopefully Amazing Spider-Man can accomplish this better.

Well, I definitely recall him doing this a bit in the first movie and I thought even the 2nd film. Maybe I have to re-watch those two.

Mitchified

03-Aug-2011, 12:15 PM

Well, I definitely recall him doing this a bit in the first movie and I thought even the 2nd film. Maybe I have to re-watch those two.

Yeah, I probably should have been clearer. He had a few one-liners and whatnot in the Raimi films, but in the comic books Spider-Man almost never stops talking. I just got done reading Amazing Spider-Man 666 and in it he's invited to an Avengers-only poker game for the first time. Most of the Avengers state that he's never been invited before because his spider sense almost worked like a lie detector, but Wolverine comments that they also never invited him because he never shut up.

The clip they showed during Comic-Con with Spider-Man trash talking the robber while he's kicking the crap out of him was perfectly toned. I have high hopes for this movie.

Neil

08-Aug-2011, 02:14 PM

Looks like they're ready to roll on no.2 already!

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/50703

bassman

08-Aug-2011, 04:02 PM

Unless this one fails. Then it will be another reboot in 2014. :p

I'm looking forward to this one, though. It doesn't look quite as campy as Raimi's.

Neil

07-Feb-2012, 07:57 AM

Trailer...

-tnxzJ0SSOw

MinionZombie

07-Feb-2012, 10:08 AM

Mmmmmm ... Emma Stone. :o

As for the trailer ... hmmm ... :rockbrow: ... I don't know about that.

Neil

07-Feb-2012, 12:28 PM

Mmmmmm ... Emma Stone. :o

As for the trailer ... hmmm ... :rockbrow: ... I don't know about that.
Going to be interesting to see if they can offer anything better or more interesting than the last 1st one, which IMHO was a very very good super hero flick :)

Some aspects of this new one just feels off to me. For example, this casting:-
http://www.cinemablend.com/images/news/29277/New_Amazing_Spider_Man_Images_Play_Parent_Angle_Fe ature_Sleek_Logo_1328584309.jpg

That said though, these comments are very +ve - http://www.aintitcool.com/node/53346

Danny

07-Feb-2012, 02:04 PM

looks pretty dull honestly. generic action flick acting with a art direction thats trying to make spiderman like the dark knight.

slickwilly13

07-Feb-2012, 04:17 PM

I will check this one out for sure. I am glad the Lizard is finally going to make an appearance.

bassman

07-Feb-2012, 04:21 PM

As for the trailer ... hmmm ... :rockbrow: ... I don't know about that.

Same here. I'm willing to give it a chance for multiple reasons, but that trailer didn't exactly get me excited....

AcesandEights

07-Feb-2012, 04:28 PM

It's just so damned unnecessary at this point.

bassman

07-Feb-2012, 04:35 PM

It's just so damned unnecessary at this point.

Yeah, a total reboot only a few years from the last series of films is probably the worst part of it all. If anything, they probably should have tried changing directors/actors and continued where Raimi left off. Kinda how they've always done with the Bond series or even when Shumacher took over the Batman films. Continuing the franchise may not work well(Shumacher), but it's at least better than throwing out a reboot within only a few years.

They could have easily put Andrew Garfield in for McGuire and make this story a continuation from the earlier films. Hell...the look isn't all that different. Other than being a bit darker, of course...

Danny

07-Feb-2012, 06:56 PM

It's just so damned unnecessary at this point.

not unnecessary, just bad direction. they are trying to make spiderman as dark and gritty as batman. who was dark and gritty because he was batman in the main role.

this is the amazing goddamn spiderman he is neither dark nor gritty.

Sammich

07-Feb-2012, 07:46 PM

Yup, I agree just another generic action movie. Out of all of the comic book superhero movies, the only ones I found interesting was Dark Knight and Spawn.

Milk and Cheese is the one comic book that deserves to be made into movie. They are true heroes.

bassman

07-Feb-2012, 07:48 PM

not unnecessary, just bad direction. they are trying to make spiderman as dark and gritty as batman. who was dark and gritty because he was batman in the main role.

this is the amazing goddamn spiderman he is neither dark nor gritty.

I admit that I'm not very knowledgable about Spiderman's source material or different incarnations, but what exactly screams dark, gritty, and batman about this trailer? As I mentioned earlier, this actually looks fairly similar in tone to Raimi's films, if i'm honest. It may be a slight bit more on the "serious" side and less campy than Raimi's, but nothing about this seems like an imitation of Batman. If anything could be called "darker" it's probably just the visual aesthetic because this seems to take place more at night while a majority of Raimi's were during the day.

As I said earlier, they could have easily made some alterations and called this Spiderman 4. It's not THAT different from the previous three. But nothing about it brings Batman to mind...

the only ones I found interesting was Dark Knight and Spawn.

The Spawn cartoons or the live action film from the nineties? If it's the latter, that film was a disaster of biblical proportions. Batman & Robin levels of bad...

rongravy

07-Feb-2012, 08:32 PM

As I said earlier, they could have easily made some alterations and called this Spiderman 4. It's not THAT different from the previous three. But nothing about it brings Batman to mind...

The Spawn cartoons or the live action film from the nineties? If it's the latter, that film was a disaster of biblical proportions. Batman & Robin levels of bad...

A la crapfest Superman Returns? No thanks. No Tobie, no dice. I don't mind a reboot now, just don't let me down.

And pffffft, whatever. I thought Spawn was pretty dang sweeet.

bassman

07-Feb-2012, 08:38 PM

A la crapfest Superman Returns? No thanks. No Tobie, no dice. I don't mind a reboot now, just don't let me down.

I enjoyed Superman Returns, actually. But that's really too big of a time frame between films to continue on. That was nearly a 30 year difference. Spiderman was last seen five years ago, so a transition to another team could work fine, imo. Like the Bond films. Just a new story with the same character. We don't need to start from the very beginning every time a director leaves. At least TRY to continue it on.

I think in reality Sony is just trying to find a way to extend the character because it's their only superhero cash cow. They can't buy anymore of Marvel's characters now....

As for McGuire.....i'm really glad he's gone. His acting has always kinda annoyed me. The only thing i've enjoyed him in was 'Brothers'.

Neil

07-Feb-2012, 10:00 PM

As for McGuire.....i'm really glad he's gone. His acting has always kinda annoyed me. The only thing i've enjoyed him in was 'Brothers'.

I found him kind of hit and miss too, but the films were generally just so strong that I found it didn't really bother me overall!

ProfessorChaos

07-Feb-2012, 10:32 PM

meh....as a life-long spidey-fan, i was still holding out hope that this might be better or look more appealing, but the more i see, the less i care.

not a fan of the casting (this is like the worst cast imaginable if you ask me), hate the costume. while i'm mildy excited that they are getting the ball rolling on the gwen stacy story (something they fucked up on the last set of films), i don't like the introduction of peter's parents as big part of his backstory/origin.

i will likely see this in theaters with my nephew who also a big fan of the web-slinger, but i am not really too excited about it.

Andy

07-Feb-2012, 10:46 PM

Always preferred DC to marvel, come to think of it, apart from the old x-men cartoons i cant think of anything marvel have created that ive really followed.

Trailer looks ok, not exactly pant-stretching but looks a hell of alot better than the last 3 spiderman movies..

MoonSylver

07-Feb-2012, 11:49 PM

:barf::annoyed::whatever::deadhorse:

Wasn't looking forward to this. Still not. Rami's wasn't 100% faithful to the source material, but pretty close (though they strayed more as they went along.)

Bass hit it on the head. Reboot=cash in. If they were sincere in continuing the series, cast new actors & move along a la Bond. :(

Andy

08-Feb-2012, 09:04 PM

Oh come on, rami's movies where horrible!! Like i said im not a marvel fan and not overly familar with original spiderman stories but im sure it wasnt intended to be as cheesy, over the top and generally camp as those movies. i can totally see why it needed a reboot and the trailer there looks way better than any of the 3 previous movies.

Rami's movies must kinda be like the 1960's batman TV series of the marvel world..

AcesandEights

08-Feb-2012, 10:56 PM

You've gotten into the scotch again, Andy!

The 1st and 2nd Spiderman movies were wonderful and a great representation of how to do a truly fantastic superhero film with the whole schmeer (crazy bright colored costumes, secret identity, weirdo villains, great origin, high adventure across a cityscape and superpowers).

Just sayin'.

-- -------- Post added at 06:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:55 PM ----------

Rami's movies must kinda be like the 1960's batman TV series of the marvel world..

What?! :eek: Dude, 1 & 2 were comic book movies that delivered a comicbook story and did so very well.

bassman

08-Feb-2012, 11:11 PM

Captain America(1979) would probably be the B&R of Marvel films...

QzE4Hv6Z-yk

The 1990 version wasn't that much of an improvement. Even the new one left a bad taste in my mouth...

MoonSylver

08-Feb-2012, 11:38 PM

Oh come on, rami's movies where horrible!! Like i said im not a marvel fan and not overly familar with original spiderman stories but im sure it wasnt intended to be as cheesy, over the top and generally camp as those movies.

Cheesy? Over the top? Camp? Yeah the 3rd started in that direction, but in general? I don't see it. To each his own & all, but I think you & I saw different movies...:confused:

Captain America(1979) would probably be the B&R of Marvel films...

The 1990 version wasn't that much of an improvement. Even the new one left a bad taste in my mouth...

Really? I was skeptical of the new one, being such a purist, but I actually like it pretty well. I thought they hit it as close as Iron Man in terms of capturing the essence of the character & such. :|

Andy

09-Feb-2012, 09:00 AM

MinionZombie

09-Feb-2012, 10:05 AM

I really dig the first two Spider-Man movies, and the third is a mish-mash ... I really only view it as part of the first two, rather than on its own.

As for Captain America - I really enjoyed it. It was a lot of fun. Not quite Iron Man, but decidedly good fun - I think Joe Johnston & Co. did a spiffing job on the movie. :)

EvilNed

09-Feb-2012, 10:24 AM

I liked all of Raimi's Spiderman films. I have a hard time seeing how anyone can pull it off better. Or at least better enough for it to warrant a reboot so close behind the end of the previous trilogy. I hope it'll bomb. But it won't.

bassman

09-Feb-2012, 12:06 PM

Really? I was skeptical of the new one, being such a purist, but I actually like it pretty well. I thought they hit it as close as Iron Man in terms of capturing the essence of the character & such. :|

To be fair, i've never thought the Iron Man films were as great as some people make them out to be. They were enjoyable summer action flicks, but nothing really remarkable. The same could be said for Thor. With the exception of Natalie Portman being out of place and the constant use of dutch angles, Thor was an enjoyable way to waste two hours.

Then when Captain America came around I was expecting more of the same. Just a simple way to stare at a screen for two hours. Then what I got seemed more like a toy advertisement. The strange cars, planes, and gadgets just seemed too....toyish. Then the bad green screen work also put me off. Luckily Captain appears to be doing more real stunts in The Avengers. Anyway, i'm not saying Captain was horrible but just a step down from the summer popcorn flicks Marvel had put out prior. Placing Captain in more of an area where I wouldn't want to see it again.

I still believe Marvel really needs to step up their game. Do something to rise above the "it's okay" factor and make something truly amazing. Then again, I've always been a DC fan. While DC hasn't put out many films and a few that were clunkers, they've still got the bar set high with Superman and Batman.

AcesandEights

09-Feb-2012, 03:55 PM

To be fair, i've never thought the Iron Man films were as great as some people make them out to be.
I thought they were solid, fun-time superhero adventures and it was probably a good idea for them to take that route, as Tony Stark could easily just have been a bad riff on the Batman series, otherwise.

While DC hasn't put out many films and a few that were clunkers, they've still got the bar set high with Superman and Batman.

I kind of disagree. While I do agree the 1st Superman film stands out due to its approach (both technological and thematic) and landmark treatment of a comicbook hero property & fantastical storytelling, which was so groundbreaking when it was filmed, I just think otherwise it's a great example of how to then run a good series into the ground. The new Superman was...okay, but pretty flat overall. Hardly a good example, to me anyway, of a superb superhero film.

Now the recent series of Batman films is probably one of the best pathos-filled action series to come out of Hollywood in a decade. That said, I don't see Batman as the epitome of a superhero movie. Maybe a comic book or pulp movie, but not precisely a superhero film. The character himself is very removed from superheroes in some respects due to his approach to crime fighting, his means and techniques and that is one of the reasons why it's easy to do a strait action flick with the character. He doesn't fly, shoot laser beams, throw cars, telekinetically topple buildings and his whole mythos is just grounded enough that they can artfully pull it off--admittedly with great vision, topnotch acting and direction.

So to me, it's just a different type of success. DC has nailed doing serious, down to earth, higher concept superhero films (which is SO odd, to me) and Marvel has bombarded the theaters with high action, superhero adventures and done very well in some cases. Marvel's volume is superior, but they need to be pickier about their projects from concept through to execution, which is where I agree with you in that they could stand to up their game.

Honestly, though, for Marvel to take on Captain America and deliver (for a lot of us viewers anyway) was ballsy and well done, in my opinion. Talk about a million ways to possibly go wrong with bringing a boy scout-style, super-patriot character to the screen. I think generally, Marvel films have been trending upward in quality, but they need to slow it all down and stop rushing them out like cashcows, or they risk quickly falling into the over-campyness of where the 1990s Batman series ended up with More Daredevils, Fantastic Fours and Hulks.

bassman

09-Feb-2012, 04:47 PM

I thought they were solid, fun-time superhero adventures and it was probably a good idea for them to take that route, as Tony Stark could easily just have been a bad riff on the Batman series, otherwise.

Fair enough. I'm not bad mouthing the Iron Man films. I think Favreau did a marvelous job with them and as you say, they're a solid fun time. I'm just puzzled when some people say they're the best superhero films on the market. I just personally don't see how one would think that because they're just kinda "there", if that makes any sense. They didn't leave me with any fond, long-lasting memories like Donner's Superman or Burtons/Nolan's Batman films. But hey - everyone is entitled to their opinion.

While on the subject of Iron Man films......I think they could really step up their game if they were to dive into the Demon in a Bottle storyline. They hinted at it in Iron Man 2, but I would love to see that idea really explored on screen. That could make a film with more weight. Whatever they do, I hope Shane Black makes a great third entry. He deserves the recognition.

Andy

09-Feb-2012, 06:07 PM

Im not really talking about movies but more in general, it may come as a suprise to some of you but i was quite a geeky kid and quite big into DC.. i loved batman, superman, the flash, the green latern.. DC has better characters, better stories, better atmosphere.. the best villains ever, i dont think anybody here can name a more varied and colourful set of super villains than the batman universe has.

Marvel, beyond xmen, the hulk and spiderman.. i couldnt name a single character, all the hulk movies where lame. The xmen movies where mediocre and the spiderman movies where just a total cheese fest...

Compare any of the spiderman movies to the dark knight and i dare a single member here to sincerely say they preferred this -:

http://media.comicbookmovie.com/images/users/uploads/39115/TobeyMaguire.jpg

BTW im only using the dark knight as a comparison becuase it came out around the same time, i dont think its the best batman movie in fact i dont rate heath ledger much as the joker at all.. Batman Returns was the best batman movie :D

The only good thing i can say about marvel is the old x-men cartoon was pretty awesome.. it was probably my third favourite after Batman:TAS and TNMT as a child. Other than that 1 cartoon, DC wins every single time.

AcesandEights

09-Feb-2012, 06:23 PM

it may come as a suprise to some of you but i was quite a geeky kid and quite big into DC.

Ah ha! Now we know where this Spidey hate comes from ;)

Yeah, the 3rd Spiderman was pretty bad, but I don't see how that really tarnishes the success of the first two installments in the series.

DC has better characters, better stories, better atmosphere.. the best villains ever

You must have started reading comics in the 90s, Andy. I honestly feel the complete opposite from my experience reading 70s & 80s books. I feel Marvel trailblazed character development & political awareness in the 60s & 70s, had a great run of it in the 80s (also when DC really started to come on again with some stellar material) and tottered in the 90s (mostly due to dilution of quality from over-success with their IPs and the industry in general). Others may disagree with me, but I know I'm far from alone in my feelings on this. DC has the most iconic characters, though--I would not waste time debating that, but it arguably came at the cost of too much camp via 60s lunchbox culture, Adam West Batman tv series and the Super Friends, which sort of helped keep their traditional mindset in place, or at least more so than Marvel through those decades.

krisvds

09-Feb-2012, 06:37 PM

Ah ha! Now we know where this Spidey hate comes from ;)

Yeah, the 3rd Spiderman was pretty bad, but I don't see how that really tarnishes the success of the first two installments in the series.

You must have started reading comics in the 90s, Andy. I honestly feel the complete opposite from my experience reading 70s & 80s books. I feel Marvel trailblazed character development & political awareness in the 60s & 70s, had a great run of it in the 80s (also when DC really started to come on again with some stellar material) and tottered in the 90s (mostly due to dilution of quality from over-success with their IPs and the industry in general). Others may disagree with me, but I know I'm far from alone in my feelings on this. DC has the most iconic characters, though--I would not waste time debating that, but it arguably came at the cost of too much camp via 60s lunchbox culture, Adam West Batman tv series and the Super Friends, which sort of helped keep their traditional mindset in place, or at least more so than Marvel through those decades.

Completely agree with this. John Byrne's run on Fantastic Four, Chris Claremont's X-men, The Secret Wars, Early McFarlane Spidey,... all good stuff.
Really dug the first two Raimi films as well, allthough the design on Green Goblin sucked. Looked a bit too power rangers.

AcesandEights

09-Feb-2012, 06:45 PM

allthough the design on Green Goblin sucked. Looked a bit too power rangers.

I will agree with this. It didn't bother me through most of the movie, but then at the end of the 1st film there's close ups when he and Spiderman duel it out and you can see the face mask a bit too close and the detailing was...not to my taste. I think it looked fine from a distance, but up close not so much--probably my biggest complaint about the first film, though.

ProfessorChaos

09-Feb-2012, 08:06 PM

Dunno, maybe its becuase im not a marvel fan?

Raimi's spiderman films where really lame though..

This video (http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/thatguywiththeglasses/nostalgia-critic/29737-the-top-11-dumbest-spiderman-moments)about sums up alot of my feelings.

i tried watching that video and while i'll concede that the first spidey films were far from perfect and that they pissed all over the classic storyline that i grew up with, i had to shut the video off before the list was even half over due to how annoying that guy's falsetto whining commentary was.

as optimistic as the fan in me can be in regards to properly bringing the story spider-man to the big screen, this iteration is already off on the wrong foot with horrible casting (sally field as aunt may? WTF?) and a costume that is just flat-out wrong. it's hard for me to see past those almost-fatal flaws.

it's kinda similar to my spider-man video-game dilemma. no matter how many spider-man games are released, they never seem to get it quite right. if you could take all the great elements and features of each game and combine them, you'd have one epic spider-man game that fans could really enjoy. instead, they keep rushing out these hasty productions that get a few things right and ignore other key areas entirely.

bassman

09-Feb-2012, 08:07 PM

Batman Returns was the best batman movie :D

Highly, highly disagree with this. Returns is the least "batman" movie out of the history of batman films. Even Batman: The Movie and Batman & Robin were closer to the characters than Burton's "artistic" masturbation of a film. Call it a great Burton film, but it is most certainly not a Batman film.

it's kinda similar to my spider-man video-game dilemma. no matter how many spider-man games are released, they never seem to get it quite right.

Another area where DC pulls ahead. Arkham Asylum and Arkham City are the best superhero games in history. Hands down.

EvilNed

09-Feb-2012, 10:06 PM

I just rewatched Batman Begins the other week and concluded that it wasn't as great as I seemed to remember it being. In fact, it was average at best. Haven't rewatched The Dark Knight, but I wasn't shitting-my-pants impressed with it in the cinema. While I can see how TDK elevates itself above the average superhero flick, I'm not sure I can say the same for Batman Begins.

AcesandEights

09-Feb-2012, 10:14 PM

Another area where DC pulls ahead.

Since you're keeping score, who's ahead in the war against Christmas? :p

SymphonicX

26-Apr-2012, 12:20 PM

Dunno if anyone's seen this - but here is a new trailer for this ridiculous idea.

atCfTRMyjGU

Even goes as far as including hints that this is indeed pretty much a scene for scene remake with a few variations - Lizard dude as the antagonist. Whatever. Oh and it's in 3D. Oh and I couldn't give a flying fffffffuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

Neil

26-Apr-2012, 12:30 PM

^^ Have to say, that looks alright! But then I love the idea of Spiderman :)

SymphonicX

26-Apr-2012, 01:07 PM

^^ Have to say, that looks alright! But then I love the idea of Spiderman :)

Thanks for updating the youtube tag...I couldn't be bothered to give it the effort....haha

It's not for me, wait til it comes on Sky and all that....I might go see Superman but I hate Zack Snyder so much I am debating it.

But as for this, I'm definitely giving it a miss due to lack of interest. Love a bit of Emma Stone though, but even she can't save this one for me.

-- -------- Post added at 02:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:00 PM ----------

I just rewatched Batman Begins the other week and concluded that it wasn't as great as I seemed to remember it being. In fact, it was average at best. Haven't rewatched The Dark Knight, but I wasn't shitting-my-pants impressed with it in the cinema. While I can see how TDK elevates itself above the average superhero flick, I'm not sure I can say the same for Batman Begins.

I completely agree with this re: BB. TDK is better, but even that movie has some serious flaws. People seem unable to see them, I don't know? I think it's because these movies are really the first credible outing into the Batman universe - but ultimately that's just not enough for me. Yeah they're mature but if you boil it down to the films on their actual merits as entertainment, you've got two exceptionally poorly placed movies with a seriously bad Batman and an intensely loose plot line.

TDK went on for about half hour longer than it needed to, and I've said time and time again that the tacked on hospital subplot was neither necessary nor entertaining - but we did get to see the Joker dressed as a Nurse, so that must be worth including. Ugh.

I seriously cannot stand Bale's silly voice either. It's stupid. It devalues the entire movie quite dramatically in my eyes. And BB is nothing short of boring, it ambles along without a point for so long and feels SO indulgent. I just don't care for either of them really - although admittedly there have been a LOT worse movies, especially Batman ones....I could even risk being called a heretic by naming them: Batman, Batman Returns, and everything that followed. I just felt them all to be stagnant, boring and not remotely gripping. Keaton's Batman was the worst for me, he was such a bad choice in my eyes that I couldn't enjoy it whatsoever.

Also the fact that Batman has never really been able to move his neck makes the whole thing look awkward and stupid, and this was only just addressed in TDK but the problem was nowhere near solved.

AcesandEights

26-Apr-2012, 01:37 PM

Yeah, I'm not really interested in this flick either. To me, Spidey 1 and 2 hit all the major marks and a reboot is totally unecessary at this point. They'd have been better served by continuing the story on with a different cast and building out the mythology of that character in film for his fans. It wouldn't have to go the route of the 90s Batman franchise films where eventually the wheels so thoroughly came off, they could have recovered after Spiderman 3/Emo Parker. At least the attempt to do so would have been more worth the time than just a reboot.

Neil

26-Apr-2012, 01:39 PM

I completely agree with this re: BB. TDK is better, but even that movie has some serious flaws. People seem unable to see them, I don't know? I think it's because these movies are really the first credible outing into the Batman universe - but ultimately that's just not enough for me. Yeah they're mature but if you boil it down to the films on their actual merits as entertainment, you've got two exceptionally poorly placed movies with a seriously bad Batman and an intensely loose plot line.

I must be one of the few people who likes BB more than TDK!?

I watch it recently with my other half and still loved it. She really enjoyed it to. Keep meaning to watch TDK again (with my other half) and see what I think of it second time around.

bassman

26-Apr-2012, 01:52 PM

I must be one of the few people who likes BB more than TDK!?

I hear that a lot, actually. In a way....I agree with it. As a complete film, Begins is probably the better film, but in this huge batman fan's opinion - TDK is the best batman film ever. TDK had almost everything I had always wanted out of a batman film. The characters were given the true adaptation that they deserved, we see more of a detective side to batman, he struggles with the idea that the "freaks" are actually his fault, etc.

Begins is a top notch film in it's own self-contained form, but TDK is just THE Batman movie, imo. Both of them have flaws, but they definitely take their places as some of the best comic adaptations of all time...

MinionZombie

26-Apr-2012, 05:44 PM

Big fan of BB and TDK, but out of the two I'd pick TDK ultimately.

Spider-Man reboot? Low-level interest. I'm envisioning waiting until it's on Sky Movies. That trailer was also pretty bland ... didn't raise any hairs ... perhaps I've been spoiled by the incredibly good trailers for Prometheus, but come on, I can't be the only one who hasn't been impressed by either main trailers for this flick?

I had to laugh at "the untold story" when it came up on screen, too. :lol:

Emma Stone is of course a big plus ... but I ain't paying damn near ten-flipping-quid to see it in the cinema. Sod that.

krisvds

26-Apr-2012, 06:22 PM

Trailers are pretty underwhelming. I still like the character enough to probably see it on the silver screen though...
This is probably the first time ever that I think the official free-roaming (hurray!) videogame looks more exciting than the actual film.

Neil

15-May-2012, 08:15 AM

16AwVWvjQhY

Terrified to see The Asylum's C. Thomas Howell in the clip! Hope he had a good shower to ensure none of The Asylum's stink has infected this production!

SymphonicX

15-May-2012, 08:47 AM

Neil

26-Jun-2012, 09:06 AM

Fairly mediocre review - http://twitchfilm.com/reviews/2012/06/review-the-amazing-spider-man-swings-through-the-motions.php

I think I wil actually be skipping this flick!

On one hand, The Amazing Spider-Man certainly delivers the minimum required of its expensive genre, and those who just want another fix of super hero action with a bit of heart will probably have a good time with it. But, it's never at all jaw-dropping, stunning or even particularly exciting. It's the type of film that's not painful to watch and equally easy to shrug off -- probably not worth any serious vehemence or scorn. And yet, after I walked out of the Paris premiere, there was this part of me that just wanted to scream: As if the idea of re-booting a franchise that wrapped five years ago wasn't cynical and unnecessary enough, you then drop $215 million plus on this mediocre waste of time that offers nothing new and fails to measure up to its predecessor in almost every way?? HOW DESPERATE DO YOU THINK WE ALL ARE!?

MinionZombie

26-Jun-2012, 09:50 AM

Fairly mediocre review - http://twitchfilm.com/reviews/2012/06/review-the-amazing-spider-man-swings-through-the-motions.php

I think I wil actually be skipping this flick!

In the parlance of Neil - "oh dear!"

I was starting to warm up to this flick a bit, but I still wasn't going to see it in the cinema - Sky Movies, yes, cinema, no.

wayzim

26-Jun-2012, 11:24 AM

The more I see of it, the less excited I am.

These trailers also feel so action oriented that there almost seems no actual room for any story. It'll run for a maximum of 2 and a half hours, and all that stuff happens? So many different action scenes seem to exist here - and transformers proved that's not a good thing, as it strangles any point of watching it.

Just an assumption I guess, it could still be very good...but no way in hell I'm paying to watch this!

I don't exactly know why this looks like such a deadly film (in terms of watchability ) and it's not that I'm such a Sam Rami loyalist. I liked the first two of his Spidey series - but thought the last was pretty weak. I considered for a minute it's just my age showing, but from your comments it does seem to be more action and less character driven. Then again I've been seriously missing out on movies this past several months - too wrapped up in a few projects of my own probably.

Way Zim

EvilNed

26-Jun-2012, 05:08 PM

The Avengers was such a great film, but other than that (and the new Dark Knight) I feel pretty comic-book-out'd. I'm not gonna see this one at the theather. I'd probably have gone and seen a Spidey 4 with Raimi, tho. But this? Seems too... meh. What's the point.

I'll eventually catch it on TV or blu-ray, but that's it.

I'm also kinda hoping for a real lackluster box office, because I just want the studios to realize that this shit doesn't fly.

MoonSylver

26-Jun-2012, 10:27 PM

I'm also kinda hoping for a real lackluster box office, because I just want the studios to realize that this shit doesn't fly.

I've officially announced to friends that if this movie makes any profit I am turning atheist, as if there is a Supreme Being they will not allow that to happen. The more I smell the odor wafting from this turd the more it stinks. :barf:

Neil

27-Jun-2012, 08:32 AM

I've officially announced to friends that if this movie makes any profit I am turning atheist, as if there is a Supreme Being they will not allow that to happen. The more I smell the odor wafting from this turd the more it stinks. :barf:

Of course it's going to turn a profit!

MoonSylver

27-Jun-2012, 11:00 PM

Of course it's going to turn a profit!

Unfortunatly, in this vapid, idiotic, brain dead world poplated by talking monkeys you're probably right.

clanglee

28-Jun-2012, 09:21 AM

Huh. . we disagree on something Moon. (Queue earth shattering explosion and the lamentation of the women) I'm actually quite looking foward to this one. I loved Raimmi's first 2, but I never really bought Toby as Peter Parker. I agree that a reboot so soon after the last series is daft as all hell, but I'm interested on seeing a new take on the story. And just judging from the previews, I'm already happy that they are actually adding in that core Spidey characteristic that was missing from Raimi's films. . . .Witty Banter. Spidey has the best witty banter of them all. . .aside from maybe Deadpool. . .and the fact that that is actually in there already gives me hope.

It could suck of course. . . .but I hope not.

EvilNed

09-Jul-2012, 01:50 PM

Ok, sue me, I saw it. I could go on and on about this film, but all I'm gonna say is:

Was that is? They do a re-boot, but it's not all that different. I mean, even the special effects aren't that much better than the 2002 one. And the character rooster is such a lackluster. There's nothing in here that can compare to the villainy of Willem Defoe's Green Goblin or the rapid business man comic relief of J.K. Simmons' Jonah Jameson.

Now was Tobey McGuire THE greatest spider man? No, he wasn't. But he was good. Is this new guy, Garfield THE greatest spider-man? No, still no. He's good as well. But we had GOOD already. What's the point in remaking something GOOD that's only 10 years old if you're not gonna slam dunk us with something that makes us shit bricks of awesome diamonds?

This film's most glaring problem is that as far as modern superhero films go, it's hopelessly mediocre. And it's missing much of the charm that made the Sam Raimi spider-man films such a blast to see in the cinemas. Literally. I've seen all the four spider-man films in the cinema, and this one is without a doubt the most mediocre... And in this particular case, mediocre becomes bad. Because the original spider-man is still fresh in everyone's memory.

rongravy

10-Jul-2012, 12:16 AM

Well, I done did seened it.
I did like it. At the moment I'm still semi partial to the last guy, but I might be able to warm up more to this guy in the next movie we all surely know is coming.
I agree that the parts where he's swinging through the city are nothing new. But then again, how much more can you really improve on that?
Btw, Martin Sheen was giving me a seriously creepy vibe with that curly gray 'do and those chompers he was wearing. Was it just me?
I'm giving it a 90%, teetering on the line between an A and a B. It wasn't perfect, but time seemed to go by fast. I probably checked the time maybe twice. I'm definitely looking forward to seeing what comes next. Wasn't exactly sure what I saw in the coda either. Any theories?

clanglee

10-Jul-2012, 09:41 AM

I enjoyed it as well. I think I liked it even more than Raimi's spidey 2, which is one of my favorite superhero movies of all time really. I think Raimi's movies had a much better costume. . .and of course it had J Jonah Jamison, but I think I liked everything else better in this movie. Especially Peter Parker. . .definitely liked this guy better than screwface Macguire.
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m6mbd33MM01rnrv6j.gif

Neil

10-Jul-2012, 10:20 AM

^^ Better than Spiderman 2? Wow!

I still blub at the train stopping scene in that flick :)

shootemindehead

10-Jul-2012, 01:39 PM

MinionZombie

10-Jul-2012, 04:52 PM

Um...so I found out today that Sony made this film, because they were close to losing the rights and it reverting back to Marvel.

That explains why it even exists a couple of years after Raimi's versions.

Also found out that the directors name was Mark webb.....FFS, you couldn't make it up.

Yeah, I would like to see what Marvel themselves would do with it ... as for Mark Webb, have you seen his flick (500) Days of Summer? It's excellent ... not watched this new Spider-Man movie yet. There's a slim chance I'll get it on home video, but I'll probably wait for Sky Movies.

rongravy

10-Jul-2012, 10:00 PM

500 Days of Summer was the bomb diggity.
Thought it would suck so I didn't see it in the theater.
Rented it and became a changed man.

No speculations on the shadowy figure at the end and who he might be? Supposedly the sequel's villain I read...

MoonSylver

11-Jul-2012, 01:20 AM

From EW online:

Sony's $220 million reboot "The Amazing Spider-Man" debuted atop the box office with $65 million over its first weekend and a big $140 million in its first six days. The 3-D blockbuster played in 4,138 theaters and earned a $15,708 per theater average over the Friday-to-Sunday period. Of that $140 million, $14.3 million came from IMAX screens. Worldwide, the tentpole has already earned $341.2 million after two weekends of international release.

"The Amazing Spider-Man" started off softer than any of the previous web-slinging installments; after six days, 2002′s Spider-Man had earned $144.1 million, 2004′s Spider-Man 2 had earned $180.1 million, and 2007′s Spider-Man 3 had earned $176.2 million — and none of those had 3-D or IMAX ticket prices. But its robust debut put to rest any chatter that Sony had made a grave mistake by rebooting the franchise with Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone. Clearly, the Marvel character is a major draw.

Like fellow superhero reboots Batman Begins and X-Men: First Class, which started with $48.7 and $55.1 million, respectively, The Amazing Spider-Man may have garnered somewhat smaller numbers while convincing audiences to check out a whole new Spidey iteration, but its run will open the doors for even more successful sequels in the future. Still, The Amazing Spider-Man looks like it will earn a nice chunk of change in its own right. Audiences enjoyed the film and issued it an "A-" CinemaScore grade, which should lead to strong word-of-mouth in the coming weeks — at least until The Dark Knight Rises arrives July 20.

Whelp, it's official:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-kBmaNxzgr5M/TbGkp2y1QQI/AAAAAAAAAMs/TYEmQNljd7Q/s1600/god+is+dead.jpg

:(

shootemindehead

11-Jul-2012, 02:13 AM

Yeah, I would like to see what Marvel themselves would do with it ... as for Mark Webb, have you seen his flick (500) Days of Summer? It's excellent ... not watched this new Spider-Man movie yet. There's a slim chance I'll get it on home video, but I'll probably wait for Sky Movies.

Never seen '500 days of Summer', so might give it a whirl.

Me and the better half may go and see 'Spiderman' tomorrow. Don't know yet though. She's more of a 'Batman' girl...if that makes sense.

clanglee

11-Jul-2012, 08:26 AM

She's more of a 'Batman' girl...if that makes sense. http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-XvOULtatQDo/TomadK1kHiI/AAAAAAAAAL4/Pq4CPie8RY8/s1600/RU56070+batgirl+thum+1.jpg ??

MinionZombie

11-Jul-2012, 10:46 AM

Never seen '500 days of Summer', so might give it a whirl.

Me and the better half may go and see 'Spiderman' tomorrow. Don't know yet though. She's more of a 'Batman' girl...if that makes sense.

You definitely should. It's got Joseph Gordon-Levitt in it too, so that alone makes it worth seeing.

shootemindehead

11-Jul-2012, 01:53 PM

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-XvOULtatQDo/TomadK1kHiI/AAAAAAAAAL4/Pq4CPie8RY8/s1600/RU56070+batgirl+thum+1.jpg ??

Tsk tsk....I told her that photo would end up on the bleedin web.

SymphonicX

11-Jul-2012, 02:41 PM

Fiance's brother (who's staying with us) saw it the other day. He's a twat, and only likes popular and mainstream stuff...has no idea on politics, religion, just exists in a consumerist bubble ranting on about how great Sony Playstation is. He fuckin' bores me to death - and taking time out from his constant "practising" of his martial arts moves (ie: showing off whilst pretending to listen to his next "you're a fuckin' lazy c**t" bollocking), he managed to give me his opinion on a movie.

Now coming from a guy who probably thinks Michael Bay makes a good movie...his review was basically "You saw everything in the trailer, but they deal with the death of Uncle Ben better than in the first one"....

and that was about it.

I had no problem with how Uncle Ben died in the original - so if that's the only thing it improved upon - definitely not seeing it - and if it garnered an "OK" review from someone with about as much taste as Jady Goodies underwear collection, well it's sealed the deal for me....as MZ said "home video"...or for me, wait til it comes on Sky.

MinionZombie

11-Jul-2012, 04:15 PM

Mmm ... I've heard very mixed things about this flick. Some people really dig it, while others hate it, and many more are decidedly in-between. So yeah - slim chance for a home video purchase, but the odds are on a Sky Movies viewing for me personally too.

shootemindehead

12-Jul-2012, 04:26 PM

MoonSylver

12-Jul-2012, 10:03 PM

Well, I really enjoyed this. And for the first time, actually got a buzz out of the "3D experience". Although, there really are only a few moments where the effect is truly beneficial.

It's certainly better than the Raimi efforts (but then I would say that, wouldn't I). It's darker in tone, played straighter and Andrew Garfield is a better Peter Parker than Tobey McGuire could ever hope to be. Hopefull, it'll do well enough to get a series of films.

Shootem...likes something...and it's THIS?!?!?!?

http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100108063233/uncyclopedia/images/archive/b/b5/20100108063328!Exploding-head.gif

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2011/5/19/1305805262592/End-of-the-world-007.jpg

http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/images/iht_daily/D070902/ny_running110902_ap.jpg

http://www.unitedearthgroup.com/images/exploding_earth.gif

shootemindehead

13-Jul-2012, 03:02 AM

Muhahahahaha........run you fools!!!!!!!!!

Andy

13-Jul-2012, 08:44 PM

I always hated maquires peter parker.. far too whiny and emo.. especially in the third movie, god what the **** did they do to venom?! Raimi's spiderman movies seemed very tacky to me, i never liked them.. poor cast, forced scripting, cheap looking effects and far too much american patriotism which i know you guys are really into but seriously.. tone it down.

I have to admit, from the trailers ive seen i like the look of this one and i will definately give it another shot. Be good to do some justice to the spiderman cartoons i loved as a child :)