Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 171

Thread: The Amazing Spider-Man (2012)

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    1,477
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)

    The Amazing Spider-Man (2012)

    Surprisied to not see a spider-man thread yet...

    Anyway, the new trailer hit the 'net tonight.
    I don't think it looks half bad. This whole trailer looks better then the whole Sam Raimi Trilogy already.

    Last edited by ManBurning; 02-08-2012 at 02:42 AM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    501
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    There was a lot to like in that trailer. I'm legitimately excited. The spidey costumer looks bad ass.

    I worry however that the Lizard is going to be this bland cgi monster rather than the unique and cool villain he could be. There were points where it looked like they got it down pat, and others where it looked so generic and boring.

    I also am disapointed by the lack of JJJ, but I guess the character hasn't come into this timeline yet.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Venezuela
    Posts
    59
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    The trailer is amazing, but I'm afraid on how the Lizard will turn out.

    Spoiler: Lizard concept

    Reminds me of this: http://moviebuzzers.com/wp-content/u...vie-goomba.jpg

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,253
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    that resemblance came to my mind too. but those two leaked trailer screenshots of the Lizard that have been going around the internet for some time now make him look very cool. Maybe he will change throughout the film and become even more reptilian as the movie progresses. the trailer looks anyway!

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    chilltown
    Posts
    519
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    meh. wont support this. should have just made a 4th movie in the series with a new cast, not yet another reboot.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    1,477
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by bobbie solo View Post
    meh. wont support this. should have just made a 4th movie in the series with a new cast, not yet another reboot.
    I wouldn't even completly consider it a direct reboot though. It's more of a "new tale" in Spider-man's legacy. The story doesn't resemble anything at all like the original Sam Rami flick. Sure, they are re-telling his orgin, but you can tell it's more mature and sophisticated. Not all colourful and goofy and cartoony like the first one. And it's not like they are doing a carbon copy of the same story, we have the introduction to the Lizard and all.

    This has potential to kick all kinds of ass.
    My only grief is what's already been pointed out, the look of the Lizard. But, they've never been one to get the villians down-pat in the franchaise. With the exception of Doctor Octopus, I think they did a good job with him.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Smyrna, GA
    Posts
    2,352
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    OK, this might actually be better than that last one. Sam Raimi owes me $7 for that shit.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Everett, WA
    Posts
    214
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by bobbie solo View Post
    should have just made a 4th movie in the series with a new cast, not yet another reboot.
    Why would you want the movies continued with a new cast? Did you see what happened when Schumacher took over Burton's Batman series (not to say that Burton's films were amazing, or anything)?

    Quote Originally Posted by thevoid99 View Post
    OK, this might actually be better than that last one. Sam Raimi owes me $7 for that shit.
    Blame Sony for that one. Raimi wanted to make up for how terrible 3 was by spending more time on 4, but they wanted a product sooner than he wanted.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Monterey Bay, Ca
    Posts
    1,289
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    I think it looks a little bit better. Not as hoakey and we get some more of that spiderman snark that I like from the comics. It would be difficult to do them as badly as Raimi.

    also a litt OT but I've always figured the schumacher Batmans for practically a different series than the burton batmans...

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    miami
    Posts
    224
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    the new trailer is EPIC WIN! Being a huge spider-man nerd, I am more excited for this film now that the trailer came out. They seem to be doing a really good job with all characters and Andrew Garfield looks to be a convincing Peter Parker, which was my biggest worry. July 3rd seems so far away.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Vancouver BC
    Posts
    3,577
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Looks like it'll have some viral stuff too, via the URL near the end of the trailer: http://markofthespider-man.com/

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    841
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ManBurning View Post
    I wouldn't even completly consider it a direct reboot though. It's more of a "new tale" in Spider-man's legacy. The story doesn't resemble anything at all like the original Sam Rami flick. Sure, they are re-telling his orgin, but you can tell it's more mature and sophisticated. Not all colourful and goofy and cartoony like the first one. And it's not like they are doing a carbon copy of the same story, we have the introduction to the Lizard and all.

    This has potential to kick all kinds of ass.
    My only grief is what's already been pointed out, the look of the Lizard. But, they've never been one to get the villians down-pat in the franchaise. With the exception of Doctor Octopus, I think they did a good job with him.
    I agree with all of this. Seems like Spidey has a new swag in this movie, and a more accurate one. I think Andrew Garfield fits the role a lot better than Toby Maguire from what I am seeing so far. Don't get me wrong, I loved the first two Spider-Man films. But this seems a lot more promising.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Monterey Bay, Ca
    Posts
    1,289
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    The onbe thing this trailer has me skeptical about I guess is the relationship between connors and parker. it seems like they just paint him as an asshole from the get go, but iirc in the comics he's more of a reluctant villain... a jekyll/hyde type? which is far more interesting. Of course, not expecting much, but do hope they get the action done in some entertaining way.

    OVerall it looks surprisingly similar plotwise to the original.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    239
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Extremely meh.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    London
    Posts
    527
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    That X Men reboot last year, it was a good film, good cast, but it kind of felt pointless at the same time. Had seen it all done before, the new ideas were too late, its noble to try and succeed in improving a decaying series but i just got a case of serious deja vu and im sitting there thinking this is good and has everything going for it, but why dont i care about this very much anymore?
    Why does this not excite me anymore? It did not seem fresh, original or new, im thinking this is better but i dont really care??? it was not different enough to warrant a reboot, I cant put my finger on it, i expect to be getting the same vibe with this...... the first X Men by Bryan Singer was far better than Spiderman ever was but still.....
    Does this really need reboot, im sure its probably better than the Spiderman 3 and more serious and subtle, but like the X Men reboot from last year it does not seem radically different enough to get overly excited about. Batman Begins on the other hand felt very, very different from Batman and Robin and it felt like there had been a sufficient gap between the two.

    Apart from the groundbreaking special effects , I never really liked the Spiderman series, infact the first one from 2002 is really, really bad, the second one had a brilliant villan but I never liked Tobey Maguire, the whole series felt very safe and boring, so it may be interesting to get a darker, less commercial, uncompromising, more experimental approach to the series too.
    Last edited by Highly Psychological; 02-08-2012 at 02:22 AM.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    573
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Sony was due to lose the license and let it revert back to Marvel if they didn't do SOMETHING soon, and they waited a good, long while after the third film, as far as I'm concerned.

    They only get to do a few more before Marvel gets Spidey back anyway, so whatever...let 'em have their fun and make their money, it certainly looks like a different enough and kick-ass approach, so it's a WIN/WIN, really.

    And Connors looks like a quiet old guy who takes his missing lab partner's son under his wing, as it were, after he gets tracked down. How is that "an asshole from the beginning," exactly?

    Likewise, just like any other trailer, the effects work is rushed and incomplete. Give 'em some time for the Lizard, he seems to be coming along fine. At the worst, he appears to be almost identical to the classic design...so no real problems there, ultimately.

    :)

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Pottstown, PA
    Posts
    808
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    The trailer's cool I guess, not cool enough to get me to spend 15 bucks at the theater to see this. I like Spider-Man well enough but I'm just failing to get excited for this at all.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Danville, Virginia
    Posts
    67
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    How can you not be excited? This looks sooo much better than Sam Raimi's cheesy ass movies. I'm looking forward to it and I never really cared for Spider Man in the first place.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    66
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    it's spider-man, it's supposed to be campy. raimi's first movie hit the tone perfectly. this is not a franchise meant to be remotely gritty and dark. this isn't batman.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Vancouver BC
    Posts
    3,577
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by emptydesk View Post
    it's spider-man, it's supposed to be campy. raimi's first movie hit the tone perfectly. this is not a franchise meant to be remotely gritty and dark. this isn't batman.
    So true, but you can tell that's definitely what they're trying to mimic.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    573
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Ah, yes, the story of an awkward kid orphaned by his parents who gets raised by his constantly imperiled and at-death's-door Aunt and the Uncle he accidentally got killed who has to fight the nice old amputee he doesn't want to hurt while chasing after his doomed-to-die first love whose father gets killed partially because of him, too.

    Nope, no room for a dark approach there, straight camp ALL-THE-WAY.

    -_-

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Monterey Bay, Ca
    Posts
    1,289
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by emptydesk View Post
    it's spider-man, it's supposed to be campy. raimi's first movie hit the tone perfectly. this is not a franchise meant to be remotely gritty and dark. this isn't batman.
    While i agree that spiderman isnt necessarily the darkest material, batman started out and was campy for decades before batman year one came along and there was something that a reader could take seriously. And that batman movies didnt stop with the campy til nolan took over...
    and when you think about it... grim and gritty is kind of the new camp...

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    66
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Hazekiah View Post
    Ah, yes, the story of an awkward kid orphaned by his parents who gets raised by his constantly imperiled and at-death's-door Aunt and the Uncle he accidentally got killed who has to fight the nice old amputee he doesn't want to hurt while chasing after his doomed-to-die first love whose father gets killed partially because of him, too.

    Nope, no room for a dark approach there, straight camp ALL-THE-WAY.

    -_-
    you're saying this as if elements of drama and peril can't exist along with camp in a story about a teenage boy in red and blue tights, like it wasn't the point to begin with

    this is how a spider-man movie should feel:


  24. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    573
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    No, the point of Spider-Man was always putting the focus of the story on a KID who's constantly bogged down with SERIOUS PROBLEMS and TOUGH DECISIONS while he learns about RESPONSIBILITY. The "camp" was just the sugar to help the medicine go down.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    66
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    believe i covered that in the "exist along with" part

    fincher was on sony's shortlist to direct this and he smartly turned it down

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    573
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    That balance is in all versions generally, sure. I'm just saying the first three movies leaned towards the camp a bit more and now this is leaning towards the serious a bit more. Both are valid and getting in digs at this for going too "dark" while it's clearly still pretty comical is just silly. Especially given the parts of the story it's been set-up to deal with.

    And, hell, yes...just caught that edit. Erik Larsen is THE SHIT and that was a great run.

    :)
    Last edited by Hazekiah; 02-08-2012 at 05:03 PM.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Monterey Bay, Ca
    Posts
    1,289
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by emptydesk View Post
    you're saying this as if elements of drama and peril can't exist along with camp in a story about a teenage boy in red and blue tights, like it wasn't the point to begin with

    this is how a spider-man movie should feel:

    Like a n indistinguishable clusterfuck of sweaty manly muscle, spandex and gunpowder?

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    127
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    This movie doesn't really interest me, but a question for those familiar w/ the story.... (I'm not at all trying to troll here...) -

    Was there something lacking from the actual story in the first movie that needed to be retold? I'm not familiar with the story apart from what was presented in the films, so I'm wondering, what was missing? (Again, honest question, not trolling.)

    I know the rights changed hands and maybe there was a desire to reset the style for further sequels, but I'm wondering more about the story aspect of this vs. the 2002 film. Was something "wrong" in the first one?

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    66
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Wretchedest View Post
    Like a n indistinguishable clusterfuck of sweaty manly muscle, spandex and gunpowder?
    like a superhero comic book, so yes

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    2,495
    Mentioned
    74 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Triggermine View Post
    Why would you want the movies continued with a new cast? Did you see what happened when Schumacher took over Burton's Batman series (not to say that Burton's films were amazing, or anything)?
    Tim Burton's Batman movies were amazing, especially Returns.

Posting Permissions