The Amazing Spider-Man

[CrimsonLine]

It's a cool picture, though he has no feet. And I like "The Amazing Spider-Man" as a title.

Edited February 15, 2011 by CrimsonLine

[Overstreet]

It's a cool picture, though he has no feet.

They're setting us up for the big reveal: He has webbed feet.

Edited February 15, 2011 by Overstreet

[John Drew]

And another thread joins the ranks of 125+ posts before release.

[Guest Pax]

His head looks like a basketball -- but he does have mechanical web shooters!

Edited February 15, 2011 by Pax

[SDG]

I can deal. It's cool with me. Now we just have to wait and see if they get Peter Parker right.

[Scholar's Parrot]

His head looks like a basketball -- but he does have mechanical web shooters!

This is about all I really care about.

[Persona]

It's a cool picture, though he has no feet.

They're setting us up for the big reveal: He has webbed feet.

It's actually cropped to hide the silly Barbie doll looking shoes he's wearing in the shot above.

And another thread joins the ranks of 125+ posts before release.

I'm petitioning LvT to put a superhero in Melancholia. I'm thinking we can actually get a lot more films hyped if we just suit 'em up.

[Thom Wade]

And another thread joins the ranks of 125+ posts before release.

I'm petitioning LvT to put a superhero in Melancholia. I'm thinking we can actually get a lot more films hyped if we just suit 'em up.

Not erally. Only 3 Super-Heros accomplished this feat. Superman, Captain America and now Spider-Man. All the others were fantasy films or about Jesus. LvT needs to add either Jesus (preferebly being born or beaten to death) or magical talking animals...did that work for Anti-Christ?

[NBooth]

LvT needs to add either Jesus (preferebly being born or beaten to death)

Hmm. If LvT does it, he'll no doubt cast a woman as Jesus. Guaranteed controversy=guaranteed 125 posts within a month. And for chutzpah:

Edited February 15, 2011 by NBooth

[Peter T Chattaway]

TheWrap.com is reporting that Ifans will play the Lizard.

The studio has never officially confirmed this, but now, as of Friday, co-star C. Thomas Howell (unintentionally?) confirmed it for them.

[MrZoom]

Spider-Man franchise producer Laura Ziskin has died. I would imagine there's a very good chance that the new film will be dedicated to her memory. Edited June 15, 2011 by MrZoom

[Overstreet]

Lots of new pics.

[NBooth]

The teaser's been leaked and pulled but I managed to get a glimpse of it all the same. It certainly looks different from the previous incarnation. I'm not sure that's a good thing; there's a darker vibe here and little of the sense of fun that made the first two so watchable (then again, if the dialogue's better--and there's no indication here that it will be--that alone would be a trade-up). On a positive note, now that I've seen Garfield in action as Parker--even for a few seconds--I think he'll easily eclipse Maguire's performance. Edited July 19, 2011 by NBooth

[NBooth]

The trailer (which, for some reason, won't embed for me).

Question for People Who Know: is there any sort of mystery about Peter's parents in the comics?

Edited July 20, 2011 by NBooth

[Thom Wade]

I believe at some point there was some mystery.

[Mr. Arkadin]

The trailer (which, for some reason, won't embed for me).

Looks pretty good, even if all the trailer shows is bits that retread the original (you think they'd emphasize the new stuff rather than the origin stuff). The darker tone is bound to remind folks of BATMAN BEGINS, but it's not so extreme that it's un-Spider-Man, and I'm betting this film has more humor than the trailer lets on.

Edited July 21, 2011 by Ryan H.

[Tyler]

Embedded. Same trailer, different source.

[winter shaker]

I'm pretty excited about the new Spiderman. The Lizard was always my favourite villain and I was disappointed Dylan Baker was never allowed to portray him.

I'm also pleasantly surprised with the darker feel that the Amazing Spiderman has; I had been worried that, due to Peter Parker still being in high school, the new films would be more, not less, juvenile.

[morgan1098]

I liked the sequence in that trailer where you're swinging between buildings from Spidey's POV. It looked pretty good. The skyscraper swinging in the Raimi films seemed to get more cartoonish and fake looking as the series went along.

[NBooth]

I liked the sequence in that trailer where you're swinging between buildings from Spidey's POV. It looked pretty good. The skyscraper swinging in the Raimi films seemed to get more cartoonish and fake looking as the series went along.

I'm not so positive, myself; that sequence looks like something out of a Spider-Man version of Half-Life 2. Of course, since we know that much of the webslinging action occurs as physical stuntwork(see all the footage of Spider-Man suspended from a crane) we can assume that the swinging action won't be Raimi-level in their cartoonishness, but what we see here doesn't strike me as much more realistic than, say, the stuff we saw in the teaser for the first Spider-Man.

EDIT: No, it's not Half-Life 2 it reminds me of; Topless Robot identifies the video game in question.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=653OdfJXOWA&feature=player_embedded

Edited July 21, 2011 by NBooth

[NBooth]

[Lauren Wilford]

Aw, that's cool. What a sweetie.

So I guess I'm just kind of with everyone who is going "Why is this happening?" I loved the first two Raimi films, probably because they came out during formative times in my life. I might not love them as much now because I can see the seams, but I think they were good moments in cinema. Obviously a better Spiderman is possible, but the idea of trying again so soon is just strange to me. I sort of don't even want to support it because it just feels lame to me not to invest in a different idea. I'm totally open to the idea of it being a quality film. But the "why" is just too loud for me.

[CrimsonLine]

Yesterday, Mrs. CrimsonLine commented on all of this, and I found her insights penetrating. She said she likes ongoing story lines with characters that we grow to care about and that grow. By constantly rebooting and restarting and retelling origin stories, it winds up undercutting the emotional attachment to these characters.

[Peter T Chattaway]

Lauren Wilford wrote:

: But the "why" is just too loud for me.

Well, the answer to the "why" is fairly obvious, I think: if Sony doesn't make another Spider-Man movie soon, the rights will revert to Marvel -- which means they will revert to Disney, which bought Marvel a few years ago; and the people who worked on the original trilogy would have been too expensive to re-sign for a fourth film. Those aren't terribly good marketing hooks, but they do explain why Sony is rebooting this series (and the bit about rights reverting to Marvel/Disney is also presumably why Fox just prebooted the X-Men and is talking about rebooting Daredevil and the Fantastic Four, etc., etc.; meanwhile, jumping to another universe, Warner Brothers is rushing another Superman movie into production because the rights to THAT character -- or aspects of him, at any rate -- are about to revert to the families of the men who invented the character).

CrimsonLine wrote:

: She said she likes ongoing story lines with characters that we grow to care about and that grow. By constantly rebooting and restarting and retelling origin stories, it winds up undercutting the emotional attachment to these characters.

Yeah, there's a huge difference between getting 12 comic books or 24 TV episodes devoted to a character every year, on the one hand, and getting just one movie every three years, on the other hand. It's one of the reasons I'm kind of sad to see Chris Nolan wrapping up his Batman "trilogy" right now. No matter how good his next film is, no matter how awesome it is, it feels like kind of a waste of potential to have that character given such a tight story "arc"; we just barely got to know him, and now he's going to be gone soon?

[Lauren Wilford]

Well, the answer to the "why" is fairly obvious, I think: if Sony doesn't make another Spider-Man movie soon, the rights will revert to Marvel -- which means they will revert to Disney, which bought Marvel a few years ago; and the people who worked on the original trilogy would have been too expensive to re-sign for a fourth film. Those aren't terribly good marketing hooks, but they do explain why Sony is rebooting this series (and the bit about rights reverting to Marvel/Disney is also presumably why Fox just prebooted the X-Men and is talking about rebooting Daredevil and the Fantastic Four, etc., etc.; meanwhile, jumping to another universe, Warner Brothers is rushing another Superman movie into production because the rights to THAT character -- or aspects of him, at any rate -- are about to revert to the families of the men who invented the character).

CrimsonLine wrote:

: She said she likes ongoing story lines with characters that we grow to care about and that grow. By constantly rebooting and restarting and retelling origin stories, it winds up undercutting the emotional attachment to these characters.

Yeah, there's a huge difference between getting 12 comic books or 24 TV episodes devoted to a character every year, on the one hand, and getting just one movie every three years, on the other hand. It's one of the reasons I'm kind of sad to see Chris Nolan wrapping up his Batman "trilogy" right now. No matter how good his next film is, no matter how awesome it is, it feels like kind of a waste of potential to have that character given such a tight story "arc"; we just barely got to know him, and now he's going to be gone soon?

Ah, informative! Thanks. A bit lame, I guess, but, you know... Hollywood.

That's an interesting point you make about movies vs. TV. What if it just started being okay to make 6 feature films about the same group of characters? I guess there's Harry Potter, which is an adaptation of a multi-part work, but comic books are more like TV. Episodes. I've grown up with this sort of untraceable feeling that films should really be one-off things, and sequels were in general cash grabs. But the television analogy is interesting. Is there something inherently better or worse about getting to know characters over 2 hours as opposed to 20? Or just different? Are comic book films just attempting to squish one medium into another? Hm.