The Amazing Spider-Man 1 & 2

Discuss.

I'd blow my webbing over her.

Honest question: what is the point of a Spiderman reboot this early after Raimi's little trilogy? :evil:

Salomé wrote:

Honest question: what is the point of a Spiderman reboot this early after Raimi's little trilogy? :evil:

To bring it back to its roots. The Raimi films took a lot of liberties with the Spider-Man mythology. I was skeptical of a reboot when I first heard of it but in the old MI6 thread Fairbairn-Sykes elaborated on a lot of stuff on how different the comics portrayed Spider-Man compared to the film. For example in Raimi's films every New Yorker loves Spider-Man, but that's more of a Superman thing (and Raimi admits Donner's film was highly influential, which explains a lot of the gaffes in the films). Spider-Man is supposed to be seen as a menace which is why Jameson's papers thrive on branding him as a criminal at every chance.

Fairbairn-Sykes can elaborate more on the potential of a reboot but I can assure you if they're going to stick closer to the source material then it's not just going to be a pointless reboot.

Salomé wrote:

Honest question: what is the point of a Spiderman reboot this early after Raimi's little trilogy? :evil:

More importantly: why the hell would you want to continue that trainwreck any longer?

Makeshift Python wrote:

Salomé wrote:

Honest question: what is the point of a Spiderman reboot this early after Raimi's little trilogy? :evil:

To bring it back to its roots. The Raimi films took a lot of liberties with the Spider-Man mythology. I was skeptical of a reboot when I first heard of it but in the old MI6 thread Fairbairn-Sykes elaborated on a lot of stuff on how different the comics portrayed Spider-Man compared to the film. For example in Raimi's films every New Yorker loves Spider-Man, but that's more of a Superman thing (and Raimi admits Donner's film was highly influential, which explains a lot of the gaffes in the films). Spider-Man is supposed to be seen as a menace which is why Jameson's papers thrive on branding him as a criminal at every chance.

Fairbairn-Sykes can elaborate more on the potential of a reboot but I can assure you if they're going to stick closer to the source material then it's not just going to be a pointless reboot.

Yeah, Spider-Man is supposed to be a misunderstood outcast who does good in his own eyes at every turn and even though everyone benefits he's still seen as a menace or evil by the people around him, whether that be in his Spidey or Peter Parker identities. What makes him different from a more brooding, angsty hero like Batman is that he's got a sense of humour and a can-do-anything personality that keeps him going.

Salomé wrote:

Honest question: what is the point of a Spiderman reboot this early after Raimi's little trilogy? :evil:

Wondered this myself. 10 years is too soon.

If the film is decent I don't care at all. I really don't think it's that big an issue. It'll be five years from SPIDER-MAN 3 to THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN. It was seven from BATMAN & ROBIN to BATMAN BEGINS.

I loved the first Spider-Man.

The second one was good too!

The third one....was...well... :x

But to be honest, I don't see how "The Amazing Spider-Man" can be bad...perhaps I place too much trust in Hollywood (yes), but I think the new filmmakers realize how much people disliked Spider-Man 3...they can't be stupid enough to try it again, can they?

CAN THEY? :twisted:

I can only assume my post of treatments ended up a case of tl;dr. Or perhaps it was ts;dr*.

*Too shit, didn't read.

Redhead Emma Stone > Blonde Emma Stone.

I mean, seriously. Holy shit.

Agreed Tux. I almost had a desire to see "Crazy, Stupid, Love" just because of the presence of redhead Emma Stone.

But my redhead preference is well known. At least I hope it is.

Last Spidey movie earned me over $5000 in Spidey merchandise sales...I'll be pushing for $10k next time.

By the way, that Death of Spidey in Ultimate Spider-Man bought a tear to my eye. A must read for comic fans (issues 153-160). I have 2 of the rare variant covers with Uncle Ben and Parker walking into the afterlife....

Gay.

Still looks more promising than Tobey.

Why are all the posts tagged on July 3rd?

Oh dear.

Attn filmmakers: Peter Parker is a dweeb. He shouldn't have perfectly styled hair, especially perfectly styled hair designed to appeal to tween girls.

I've always had a good feeling about this flick for some reason. The Raimi series wasn't worth continuing, and I don't think it was worth lamenting. I didn't think it was too soon to reboot Spidey so long as it was done well.

So there are some new images, and I have to say that I like what I see: http://screenrant.com/amazing-spiderman-movie-images-kofi-123632/

Two things I will say is that Garfield's build is far more appropriate for Spider-Man (ie -- lanky, not bulky) and that Emma Stone is a pretty spot-on Romita-style Gwen Stacy (it's the bangs that do it).

My only problem is Garfield's Twilight-style pretty boy looks. But I suppose we have to make some concessions.

Funny, I don't find him pretty. Not that I take much notice, but I don't see him as pretty.

Emma Stone looks frakking amazing.

Based on that picture, it's going to be Spiderman for the Twilight generation.

I'll pass.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

My only problem is Garfield's Twilight-style pretty boy looks.

Unfortunately, that style's going nowhere fast, it seems.

The hairstyle has been around since James Dean, let's not give Twilight that much credit.

Strange, in most photos Spider-Man's eyes look reflective. Not in this one:



If they are translucent, I think that'd be a great change. Lack of expression on the Raimi-mask was a big problem and always forced them to rip the mask to show Peter's eyes.

The news I'm anticipating the most now is the announcement of a composer.

I'm betting on a no-name or a B-lister like Giacchino