PDA

View Full Version : The Amazing Spider-Man (2012)



DigiFluid
July 1st, 2012, 11:20 AM
Had a search and was a little surprised there's no existing thread for this.... There's a generic one, but generally fresh film franchises tend to get their own threads :confused: Lazy GWers... :p


Anyway, I found it odd that they were 'rebooting' the film franchise so soon after the last set of movies (even though 3 was so horrendous). At least, I was surprised until I found out that Sony pretty much has to or else they'll lose the film franchise rights to make more movies. Kind of a lame reason to keep putting out movies, isn't it?

Still though, I'm kind of surprised that the trailers for this don't look too bad. Plus, you know, Emma Stone. Drool.


Trailer:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tnxzJ0SSOw

DigiFluid
July 1st, 2012, 11:22 AM
Another trailer, because apparently we can only post one video per post:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpKPiHYJc54

DigiFluid
July 1st, 2012, 11:23 AM
And in news I found most surprising of all so far, the movie's international opening weekend took in more money than The Avengers' international opening weekend (http://www.deadline.com/2012/07/spider-man-opens-bigger-than-avengers-in-early-foreign-markets-exclusive/) :eek:

I'm a little stunned by this actually. I wasn't expecting there to be a huge market for a reboot so soon.

SaberBlade
July 1st, 2012, 12:18 PM
I wasn't too fond of the idea of reboot so soon either, but again, not surprised that a licensing issue was the reason why (just like the new Superman).

I am interested in the new movie, mainly because of Gwen Stacy. I'm interested to see just how close to the original origin they'll keep it, as they've introduced her first than Mary Jane. I have found the newer (not sure if it's the newest) trailers interesting but sadly I'll be at work that day, so no first day release for me since no early previews.

TheRandomOne
July 1st, 2012, 12:36 PM
I wasn't too fond of the idea of reboot so soon either, but again, not surprised that a licensing issue was the reason why (just like the new Superman).

I am interested in the new movie, mainly because of Gwen Stacy. I'm interested to see just how close to the original origin they'll keep it, as they've introduced her first than Mary Jane. I have found the newer (not sure if it's the newest) trailers interesting but sadly I'll be at work that day, so no first day release for me since no early previews.

Gwen Stacy came first before Mary Jane. So they got that part right

DigiFluid
July 1st, 2012, 12:42 PM
I believe that's what SB said, yes :p

tomstone
July 1st, 2012, 02:09 PM
I wasn't too fond of the idea of reboot so soon either, but again, not surprised that a licensing issue was the reason why (just like the new Superman).

Is there some common clause that I dont know of? Sounds quite stupid that someone is forced to put out a Reboot just to be able to continue the Story. Not that Spidey wasnt in need of a proper Reboot, but it still seems to be a stupid rule.

DigiFluid
July 1st, 2012, 02:17 PM
Is there some common clause that I dont know of? Sounds quite stupid that someone is forced to put out a Reboot just to be able to continue the Story. Not that Spidey wasnt in need of a proper Reboot, but it still seems to be a stupid rule.

It's not a rule, it's the terms of them having the rights to make it. Sony currently has the rights to make Spider-Man films and use Spider-Man characters in their films, even though he's a Marvel character. But if Sony doesn't continue to make films to keep their rights claim alive, the rights to Spider-Man films revert back to Marvel.

So whether it's endless sequels or endless reboots, it's in Sony's financial interest to just keep making Spider-Man movies.

Goose
July 1st, 2012, 02:26 PM
I don't particularly like super hero movies, and I really didn't like the "new" Spider Man movies, but I'm actually quite excited about this one!

LtColCarter
July 1st, 2012, 02:51 PM
I'm looking forward to seeing this one.

RJLCyberPunk
July 1st, 2012, 08:51 PM
I wasn't too fond of the idea of reboot so soon either, but again, not surprised that a licensing issue was the reason why (just like the new Superman).

Was that really the reason? I thought Marvel just wanted to have a Spiderman that could appear eventually in the Avengers, i'm shocked that this reboot has raked in more than the Avengers though.

jelgate
July 1st, 2012, 09:16 PM
I'm not really that surprised. Spider-man is Marvel most well known comic book hero. It doesn't surprise me their is a lot of interest. Before Avengers broke the record the previous Spider-man was the Marvel franchise highest ranker

LtColCarter
July 1st, 2012, 09:54 PM
Was that really the reason? I thought Marvel just wanted to have a Spiderman that could appear eventually in the Avengers, i'm shocked that this reboot has raked in more than the Avengers though.

I'd read that the either the original director or producer walked...and when he walked so did the big stars from the cast.

I did find this article that says Tobey Maguire quit Spiderman 4 (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1242820/Tobey-Maguire-quits-Spider-Man-4--new-script-sends-Peter-Parker-high-school.html) because of scripting. Nothing is mentioned about licensing.

blueray
July 2nd, 2012, 05:06 AM
i was shocked when i saw they were remaking these. i really enjoyed the 3 ones, that aren't that old. i personally have no intention of watching this movie. and i can't help but think couldn't they come up with another idea?

or rewrite the fourth movie to get Maguire back.

knowles2
July 2nd, 2012, 07:59 AM
To be honest I am surprise Sony waited so long, Spiderman movie franchise has made hundreds on millions dollars in profits for Sony.

The thing about the licensing been mention in a few places. I suspect the fact Sony needs some big, gurenteed profits for their film division played as part.

Most of the crew on the previous films said they no longer wanted to make new spiderman movies have been part of the reason as well.

I see nothing wrong with them relaunching the series.

Snowman37
July 2nd, 2012, 01:53 PM
I don't mind a relaunch, especially if the reason is to do it very differently from Sam Raimi's trilogy. However, is it me, or do the previews completely lack humor? It's a kid in a red and blue spandex costume fighting crime, and swinging from giant spider web-strings, or whatever they're called. How can this possibly be taken so seriously? I liked Raimi's half-serious, half-humorous take on the concept.

SaberBlade
July 2nd, 2012, 02:04 PM
As I understand it, a studio needs to release a film every 5 years (could vary) or else Marvel gets the rights back. This is of course very important to Marvel since they've started doing movies themselves so a Spidey reboot would be a massive boost to them and hopefully increase the odds of Spidey joining The Avengers (although personally, I'd not object if they decided to use the Raimi version).

Since Spidey 3 was released in 2007 and this is 2012, Columbia (Sony) would have had to start production on something Spider-Man related or lose out and if they were planning on sending Raimi's version of Spiderman back to school and had to make something, rebooting and keeping the original Spidey 4 premise works best.

It doesn't mean that licensing was the reason for taking the reboot option, but if Superman and Batman have taught us anything, it's that continuing on the same franchise with new people (or in the case of Superman, new director and old people who hated/refused taking part) just leads to bad, bad things. So if you're releasing a movie for the sake of keeping a licence, rebooting is the more cost effective option and you can at least hold up whatever integrity the original films had.

Cairistiona
July 3rd, 2012, 07:38 AM
Going to watch it today. :)

LtColCarter
July 3rd, 2012, 10:27 AM
Going to watch it today. :)

I got tickets to see it on Friday. I don't wanna go anywhere near a theater today or tomorrow.

TheRandomOne
July 3rd, 2012, 12:02 PM
Got tickets for tomorrow morning at 11

SaberBlade
July 3rd, 2012, 12:08 PM
Going to see it Friday, Saturday at the latest unless something bad comes up. Would have been nice to see it first day, but will for Friday as I'm out early and need to run into town anyway.

Cairistiona
July 3rd, 2012, 01:02 PM
Am I the first one here who has watched it?

I saw the 2D version, the cinema in my hometown has only one 3D theatre, and they have to take turns between this one and Ice Age 4 this week. But I didn't miss the 3D effects.
I enjoyed it very much, more than I thought I would. But not so much as 'The Avengers'. Sometimes I felt a bit old, the story is a bit of the teenage-kind. But there is enough action and humour. Although the movie runs more than 2 hours I was never bored. Spiderman is not the superhero, he's still human. And I really liked Gwen, she's not the nice-looking and screaming girl, she's brave and tough, and nice-looking of course.
And that's it for today, I'm too tired to tell more.
Oh, and don't leave before the end credits are finished ;)

Snowman37
July 3rd, 2012, 01:58 PM
I won't be seeing this for a long while, but to those who like the Raimi trilogy, did you like this new movie? Why or why not? Try and keep it spoiler-free, please. Thanks! :)

Morbo
July 3rd, 2012, 03:59 PM
definitely excited to see this.
while i'm no comic purist, the Raimi movies were pretty goofy. 3 was perhaps one of the worst movies ever made, when it should have easily been the best because of Venom.

Looking forward to this more serious version of the franchise.

Snowman37
July 4th, 2012, 08:48 AM
I like goofy. What was so bad about Spider-man 3? It wasn't as good as SM2, but it was still pretty entertaining.

DigiFluid
July 4th, 2012, 09:08 AM
Perhaps that conversation ought to move over to the other Spider-Man thread, since this one is about the new film.

LtColCarter
July 4th, 2012, 09:58 AM
Perhaps that conversation ought to move over to the other Spider-Man thread, since this one is about the new film.

:indeed:

TheRandomOne
July 4th, 2012, 05:02 PM
Saw it

Liked it

The End

Snowman37
July 4th, 2012, 07:46 PM
Perhaps that conversation ought to move over to the other Spider-Man thread, since this one is about the new film.
Why does a thread on the new movie preclude comparisons to the prior film?


Saw it

Liked it

The End
Care to elaborate?

Jonas
July 4th, 2012, 08:11 PM
I saw the movie today and I'm conflicted. I liked the movie, but I didn't love it. There were some things/changes I like, but then somethings I liked better in the Tobey Maguire film. Its hard to separate it from the three previous films. One of the reasons I think Batman Begins worked, was because Batman's origins were never properly done in the Burton/Schumacher films. In Batman, Bruce is already Batman and the flashback to his parents murder is the only glimpse we see of his origins.

Where as with Spider-Man, you already had a film that covered his origins successfully. This movie does do a good job of changing it up a bit, but at the same time it feels unnecessary. I don't know perhaps on multiple viewings my views might change, but as of now this how I'm feeling.

Teddybrown
July 5th, 2012, 02:01 AM
Well, looks like this is going to turn into a trilogy of films...

Morbo
July 5th, 2012, 06:34 AM
I like goofy. What was so bad about Spider-man 3? It wasn't as good as SM2, but it was still pretty entertaining.

uhhhh...

sandman was a stupid villain. they turned venom, which was possibly one of the most badass villains, into tobey mcguire acting like an emo-tard. terrible dialogue. awful acting. there was nothing redeemable about the movie at all.
i mean, Con-Air was a terrible movie, but it's the kind of awful you love to watch (much like Waterworld, or Snakes on a Plane). spiderman 3 was just unacceptably terrible.

Smegger56
July 5th, 2012, 07:24 AM
Before this was announced, I was fed up of the Raimi films and was not looking forward to spidey 4. So when the announced S4 was canned and they where rebooting, I was SOOOOO happy.

And this is the best spidey film hands down IMO. For me, the top 4 CB films where:

TDK
Supes 78
BB
B89

All DC films. Now, it's:

TDK
Supes 78
TASM
BB

A Marvel film has broken in, at last lol. This is the spidey film I've been waiting for. Not perfect, but it is amazing :-)

Snowman37
July 5th, 2012, 08:55 AM
Well, looks like this is going to turn into a trilogy of films...
What are your sources?


sandman was a stupid villain. they turned venom, which was possibly one of the most badass villains, into tobey mcguire acting like an emo-tard. terrible dialogue. awful acting. there was nothing redeemable about the movie at all.
Why was Sandman a stupid villain? He was the best part of the movie. For once, a villain whom we can actually feel for instead of a cartoony mustache-twirling villain like all the others. He was comparable to my favorite villain from the trilogy, Doc Oc. I found dark Peter being an emo-tard was hilarious! Besides, we did get some dark moments from Peter. Look at what he did to Harry and Marry Jane. As for Venom, I thought Venom didn't exist until the goop merged with the other guy? Why was the dialogue terrible? Why was the acting awful? It's easy to call something terrible, awful, stupid, or whatever; but that's not much to build on discussion on. :S



For me, the top 4 CB films where:

TDK
Supes 78
BB
B89

All DC films. Now, it's:

TDK
Supes 78
TASM
BB
English?

Smegger56
July 5th, 2012, 09:09 AM
English?

Why yes I am. Well done :)

If I didn't type my last post properly, you could always ask me to state it again. You know, by being polite :)

--

My top 4 CB films (CB = Comic Book) have always been DC dominated:

TDK (The Dark Knight)
Supes 78 (Superman 1978)
BB (Batman Begins)
B89 (Batman 89)

And now, a Marvel film has broken in to the top 4:

TDK
Supes 78
TASM (The Amazing Spider-Man)
BB

I rate TASM the best Spider-Man film and also the best Marvel film. Here's hoping that the next two films (It's planned. They even have Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman re-writing the script by James Vanderbilt for the sequel, due for release in summer 2014) are of the calibre of The Dark Knight.

Teddybrown
July 5th, 2012, 09:32 AM
Corr, couldnt find the article, but here it is.
http://www.nme.com/filmandtv/news/two-sequels-to-the-amazing-spider-man-confirmed/273732
Next ones out 2014.

Wyrminarrd
July 5th, 2012, 09:47 AM
I saw it yesterday and found it to be an ok film.

I massively preferred the Sam Raimi version as there were elements in the new movie that just didn't work for me. I found Peter to be a bit annoying at times (they made him to awkward imo when talking to Gwen) and secondly I really didn't need to go through the origin story again. The movie didn't really pick up and start getting good until the second half when all off the rehaz of the Raimi movie was done and things started to focus on Spider-man.

Over all I'd give this movie a 7/10 rating, good but not great.

the fifth man
July 5th, 2012, 06:36 PM
I will wait until this movie comes out OnDemand to see it. I have no interest in seeing it in the theater. I am just not sure if I am ready to accept another version of Spiderman so soon after the last trilogy.

Snowman37
July 5th, 2012, 07:28 PM
Why yes I am. Well done :)

If I didn't type my last post properly, you could always ask me to state it again. You know, by being polite :)
First off, cool that you're English. Second, that is me being polite. ;) It's not that you didn't type properly, it's just that I had no idea what all of the acronyms stood for. "English?" was just short hand for "spell it out, please." It's an American expression, meaning, "I don't understand, translate, please."


My top 4 CB films (CB = Comic Book) have always been DC dominated:

TDK (The Dark Knight)
Supes 78 (Superman 1978)
BB (Batman Begins)
B89 (Batman 89)

And now, a Marvel film has broken in to the top 4:

TDK
Supes 78
TASM (The Amazing Spider-Man)
BB
Thanks for the translation. What about Batman Returns? I thought it was an improvement over the '89 film. I wish the studio would have left Burton in charge of the films. If the films were too dark for the studio, all they had to do was sit down with him and express their concerns. Ask him to brighten up the film a little bit by simply not being so dark, go back to the tone of the '89 film. To keep "A Tim Burton Film" from scaring people off, cut previews and posters to show the new tone of the movie and that it won't be so dark as Returns. Instead, we got neon gay Batman directed by Shoemaker. :rolleyes: Forgive the rant. I can deal with bad sequels, but Shoemaker crossed the neon line.


I rate TASM the best Spider-Man film and also the best Marvel film. Here's hoping that the next two films (It's planned. They even have Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman re-writing the script by James Vanderbilt for the sequel, due for release in summer 2014) are of the calibre of The Dark Knight.
Better than Spider-man 2, really? As for Orci & Kurtzman, I'm not sure about this. They write some very good movies, but they don't seem to care about portraying realistic science. The Transformer films were atrocious "summer high schooler" special-effect movies. Star Trek (2009) was very good, but the science and Kirk's promotion at the end were atrocious. Super novas don't threaten the entire galaxy. Why would Nero seek revenge when he's in the past? Kill old Spock, then warn his people about what's going to happen in over a century. How does a cadet get command of a ship after one mission? All of the previous TV shows and movies depicted command as being extremely difficult to achieve.

Easter Lily
July 5th, 2012, 08:27 PM
I can't say I was very enthused about reboot so soon after Raimi's trilogy but I kept an open mind after seeing a couple of trailers.

What can I say? I loved this new Spidey flick. It's by no means a perfect film and The Avengers was probably a better made film all round. But oddly enough, it's become my favourite film of the year so far.
There's something about Andrew Garfield's performance that really resonated with me. He was sweet, charismatic, funny and even had an anti-authoritarian streak which reminds me of a couple of panels from Amazing Fantasy.
More than anything I think the personality of Spidey has been done right this time. More snark and banter. That's the part I've reallly missed.

Snowman37
July 5th, 2012, 08:34 PM
I don't mind the reboot, because as I understand it... it was that or nothing. I'd rather have a different take than no fourth movie at all. :)

Easter Lily
July 6th, 2012, 12:09 AM
^Sure, yeah, I understand that but when the news of the reboot started trickling in my first thought was "why?"
However, as you say, better a reboot than no Spidey movie at all.

Now, of course, having seen the film, I'm glad we've got the reboot and having rewatched Spidey 2 recently, I'm more convinced that we needed it.
While I loved Spidey 2 at the time and rewatched it several times, I don't think it has aged well even if the basic storyline is probably still unmatched.
Furthermore if the reboot hadn't been done, we wouldn't have gotten the amazing performance from Andrew Garfield that we did. I know a lot of people on IMDB didn't like his performance but I don't say this lightly when I say that he was probably the best thing about this new film.

Frankly I didn't expect much seeing how polarized opinion was on IMDB but I went away with the warm fuzzies and a big grin on my face. Emotionally I found this film very satisfying, more so than The Avengers.

My biggest criticism of it would be the editing and the pacing. It did feel like bits were chopped and scene changes sometimes felt abrupt. This, I think, did affect the pacing of the film to a large extent.
The villain was okay but I'm one of those people who don't really care about villains in superhero films. Odd, I know but when I watch a film that has Spider-man in its title, I want it to be about Spider-man's story. I wouldn't say the Lizard's role was purely perfunctory but I didn't mind what they did in this instance. Admittedly Molina as Doc Ock is probably still, IMO, the one to top.

With all its flaws, there's something about the tone and the performances that adds to its likeability factor.

Smegger56
July 6th, 2012, 01:01 AM
First off, cool that you're English. Second, that is me being polite. ;) It's not that you didn't type properly, it's just that I had no idea what all of the acronyms stood for. "English?" was just short hand for "spell it out, please." It's an American expression, meaning, "I don't understand, translate, please."

I'm sorry for taking it the wrong way then. All cool :)



Thanks for the translation. What about Batman Returns? I thought it was an improvement over the '89 film. I wish the studio would have left Burton in charge of the films. If the films were too dark for the studio, all they had to do was sit down with him and express their concerns. Ask him to brighten up the film a little bit by simply not being so dark, go back to the tone of the '89 film. To keep "A Tim Burton Film" from scaring people off, cut previews and posters to show the new tone of the movie and that it won't be so dark as Returns. Instead, we got neon gay Batman directed by Shoemaker. :rolleyes: Forgive the rant. I can deal with bad sequels, but Shoemaker crossed the neon line.

BR (Batman Returns) was number 5. Which now is number 6 lol. I can't believe they got rid of Burton from those films. Sometimes you don't know you have a good thing till it's gone. I a way, if they didn't get rid of Burton, we may never have seen the Nolan Bat flicks. And I do consider TDK to be the best comic film of the lot.



Better than Spider-man 2, really? As for Orci & Kurtzman, I'm not sure about this. They write some very good movies, but they don't seem to care about portraying realistic science. The Transformer films were atrocious "summer high schooler" special-effect movies. Star Trek (2009) was very good, but the science and Kirk's promotion at the end were atrocious. Super novas don't threaten the entire galaxy. Why would Nero seek revenge when he's in the past? Kill old Spock, then warn his people about what's going to happen in over a century. How does a cadet get command of a ship after one mission? All of the previous TV shows and movies depicted command as being extremely difficult to achieve.

Way better that SM-2. I think the first spidey film is better overall then SM-2. The train sequence, the bank sequence, JJ and Doc Ock (when he was bad) where the best parts in the film. What really dragged it down was a very very poor romance story (this dragged all 3 Raimi films down IMO), poorly written characters in Pete and MJ and a batman like Spiderman.

Orci and Kurtzman do acknowledge that it all happened quite fast. But they wanted to get Kirk in the captains chair. I do agree with you complaints over Trek 09, but I found it such a good and entertaining flick where Trek was FUN again, I could happily look over the plot holes and quickness of plot points.

Though Orci and Kurtzman are only doing re-writes of a script already by James Vanderbilt (TASM writer), so hopefully it will just include maybe a bit of witty dialogue and maybe just sharpen and focus of the story already mapped out by Webb and Vanderbilt :).

I do get the revenge thing though. He ended up in the past, so the next best thing is to get old spock and young spock to suffer by watching the destruction of their planet. He blames spock and the federation for not making more of an effort. Maybe a bit weak, but I can let it slide.

But yeah, the supernova destroys a galaxy thing... no. That was just weak lol.

Morbo
July 6th, 2012, 05:54 AM
I will wait until this movie comes out OnDemand to see it. I have no interest in seeing it in the theater. I am just not sure if I am ready to accept another version of Spiderman so soon after the last trilogy.

Think of the Raimi movies as the equivalent of the Tim Burton Batman movies from the late 80's/early 90's.
They were silly, fun versions of the source material. Personally I think Batman Returns is a horrific fil, but thoroughly enjoy Burton's first movie.

This version of Spiderman, is more in line with Nolan's Batman movies.
Done the right way.

Also keep in mind the Raimi movies had Kirsten Dunst - which basically discounts them on a whole new level.

bailey1ak
July 6th, 2012, 06:25 PM
We went to the Spiderman movie tonight. :)

I did not expect to like this movie. I saw all three of the Raimi Spiderman movies and wasn't greatly impressed. But... my children have both been on this superhero high since seeing the Avenger movie. We have rented so many superhero movies, even tonight we rented (local store has a 5 for 5 special) Bana's Hulk movie, all three Raimi Spiderman movies and one of the Batman movies.

So this new Spiderman was of course something they HAD to see. I'm really glad we indulged them though. It was very well done, I was caught up in the story pretty quickly and Garfield did an awesome job as Peter Parker. Loved Emma Stone as well and the two together had great chemistry. I'm glad to hear that this will be a trilogy.

This movie also marks my favorite cameo for Stan Lee! I still grin when I think about it.

LtColCarter
July 6th, 2012, 09:54 PM
I saw the movie, and I really enjoyed it. I didn't know if I would, but I really did. I quickly got caught up in the story, and I actually felt drawn in more by this rendition of Spiderman than I was by the previous 3. Excellent job!

the fifth man
July 7th, 2012, 06:22 PM
Think of the Raimi movies as the equivalent of the Tim Burton Batman movies from the late 80's/early 90's.
They were silly, fun versions of the source material. Personally I think Batman Returns is a horrific fil, but thoroughly enjoy Burton's first movie.

This version of Spiderman, is more in line with Nolan's Batman movies.
Done the right way.

Also keep in mind the Raimi movies had Kirsten Dunst - which basically discounts them on a whole new level.

Definitely something for me to think about.

DigiFluid
July 8th, 2012, 05:20 AM
http://www.deadline.com/2012/07/spider-man-debuts-amazing-7-5m-midnights/

Sony/Columbia’s The Amazing Spider-Man is an easy #1 and looking like a $66M first weekend. That should give the 3D reboot a 6-day total of $141M through Sunday.

LtColCarter
July 8th, 2012, 08:13 AM
Definitely something for me to think about.

You should go see it! It really is a good movie. I had my doubts in the beginning, but I'm glad that I saw it! I actually want to go see it again! :D

myhelix
July 8th, 2012, 12:03 PM
uhhhh...

sandman was a stupid villain. they turned venom, which was possibly one of the most badass villains, into tobey mcguire acting like an emo-tard. terrible dialogue. awful acting. there was nothing redeemable about the movie at all.
i mean, Con-Air was a terrible movie, but it's the kind of awful you love to watch (much like Waterworld, or Snakes on a Plane). spiderman 3 was just unacceptably terrible.

Fully agree with this comment, I thought the first movie was okay, the second really enjoying, but the third was just awful. The whole story was stupid, Sandman was the most uninteresting bad guy every and venom was laughable.

I will watch the "new" movie soon, interested if the reboot is worth the money. But I find the overall trend to reboot movies very annoying. Most of the time itīs the same story with different actors and just unnecessary.

LtColCarter
July 10th, 2012, 08:10 AM
Fully agree with this comment, I thought the first movie was okay, the second really enjoying, but the third was just awful. The whole story was stupid, Sandman was the most uninteresting bad guy every and venom was laughable.

I will watch the "new" movie soon, interested if the reboot is worth the money. But I find the overall trend to reboot movies very annoying. Most of the time itīs the same story with different actors and and just unnecessary.

Well, like I said...I totally enjoyed the movie. And I'm going to go see it again if I can. :)

Snowman37
July 10th, 2012, 12:18 PM
I'll be waiting for the dollar theater...

maneth
July 11th, 2012, 04:13 AM
I might rent or borrow it on blu-ray sometime. I liked the first two Tobey movies. If they do another reboot, do it with young enough actors next time. My suspension of disbelief is in trouble when the actors are ten years older than the characters they're supposed to play. A boyish 22 year old might be able to pull off a high-school senior, but 28 is pushing it. That said, TM was about 27 when the first of his Spidey movies came out, but he looked a lot more boyish than his age.

LtColCarter
July 11th, 2012, 08:10 AM
I might rent or borrow it on blu-ray sometime. I liked the first two Tobey movies. If they do another reboot, do it with young enough actors next time. My suspension of disbelief is in trouble when the actors are ten years older than the characters they're supposed to play. A boyish 22 year old might be able to pull off a high-school senior, but 28 is pushing it. That said, TM was about 27 when the first of his Spidey movies came out, but he looked a lot more boyish than his age.

As someone who has been a high school teacher for 17 years...Garfield is a passable high school student. There are some students I've had over the years that look much older than their age.

Just sad that people aren't open minded enough to go to the movie for the experience. But oh well...

SaberBlade
July 11th, 2012, 09:11 AM
I might rent or borrow it on blu-ray sometime. I liked the first two Tobey movies. If they do another reboot, do it with young enough actors next time. My suspension of disbelief is in trouble when the actors are ten years older than the characters they're supposed to play. A boyish 22 year old might be able to pull off a high-school senior, but 28 is pushing it. That said, TM was about 27 when the first of his Spidey movies came out, but he looked a lot more boyish than his age.

So you have a problem with an actor who is about 10 years older than the character he plays, but your suspension of disbelief has no trouble with the character being being bitten by a genetically engineered spider, gaining super powers and becoming a crime fighter?

--

I'm thinking of going to see the film again this weekend. I'm currently on a four day (well four and a half, got out early today) weekend so considering taking in a double feature, Spidey and Avengers. Tricky catching them both one same day, as I won't see Spidey in 3D so means it would be a late night out.

magictrick
July 11th, 2012, 09:19 AM
I saw this last weekend. Similar to most, I had my reservations of a reboot being done so quickly even though I understand why they had to do it.

Without going into too much detail, all I will say is that I really enjoyed the flick. I thought it was much better than the previous Spiderman movies. Now I wouldn't mind at all if this turned into a trilogy, which is what it looks like right now.
One of the best parts was the casting of Gwen Stacy. No comparison between Emma as Gwen and Kirsten as MJ.

After having to endure sitting through Spiderman 3, this movie was most definitely a pleasant surprise.

LtColCarter
July 11th, 2012, 10:43 AM
So you have a problem with an actor who is about 10 years older than the character he plays, but your suspension of disbelief has no trouble with the character being being bitten by a genetically engineered spider, gaining super powers and becoming a crime fighter?

--

I'm thinking of going to see the film again this weekend. I'm currently on a four day (well four and a half, got out early today) weekend so considering taking in a double feature, Spidey and Avengers. Tricky catching them both one same day, as I won't see Spidey in 3D so means it would be a late night out.

Amen...not to mention...that he is youthful enough to be a passable HS student.


I saw this last weekend. Similar to most, I had my reservations of a reboot being done so quickly even though I understand why they had to do it.

Without going into too much detail, all I will say is that I really enjoyed the flick. I thought it was much better than the previous Spiderman movies. Now I wouldn't mind at all if this turned into a trilogy, which is what it looks like right now.
One of the best parts was the casting of Gwen Stacy. No comparison between Emma as Gwen and Kirsten as MJ.

After having to endure sitting through Spiderman 3, this movie was most definitely a pleasant surprise.

:indeed:

Infinite-Possibilities
July 11th, 2012, 11:49 AM
I saw it yesterday and really enjoyed it. I'm really glad it was made because I didn't much care for the first Trilogy. I thought Toby Maguire's Spiderman was awful. This portrayal was vastly superior, they finally got his wisecracking right.

LtColCarter
July 11th, 2012, 02:15 PM
I saw it yesterday and really enjoyed it. I'm really glad it was made because I didn't much care for the first Trilogy. I thought Toby Maguire's Spiderman was awful. This portrayal was vastly superior, they finally got his wisecracking right.

:indeed:

the fifth man
July 11th, 2012, 07:03 PM
Wow, so much hate for the first trilogy. Overall, I really enjoyed those movies.

Easter Lily
July 11th, 2012, 11:42 PM
I saw it yesterday and really enjoyed it. I'm really glad it was made because I didn't much care for the first Trilogy. I thought Toby Maguire's Spiderman was awful. This portrayal was vastly superior, they finally got his wisecracking right.

I think so too. Not because there wasn't any in the Raimi trilogy but Maguire's comic delivery of them didn't always hit the spot. Maguire, I thought, did capture certain aspects of the Ditko Spidey probably to the point of caricature.

I liked the Raimi films for bringing Spidey to the big screen. Two was good. But there was a tongue-in-cheek undercurrent that never felt right to me. Raimi wanted to play with the genre and play in it which made the tone uneven.
This new film, I think, embraces the superhero world lovingly but with a more contemporary sensibility.

Another thing I really like about TASM is how science fictiony it feels compared to the previous three films.

myhelix
July 12th, 2012, 04:50 AM
Wow, so much hate for the first trilogy. Overall, I really enjoyed those movies.

Like I said, I think most people hate the 3rd movie, it was just a waste of time. But Peter and Mary Jane's relationship got on my nerves very early on.

magictrick
July 12th, 2012, 06:28 AM
I don't think its hate for the previous trilogy (except maybe for the 3rd movie), its just that this most recent depiction of Spiderman was superior in many ways.

Infinite-Possibilities
July 12th, 2012, 08:50 AM
Wow, so much hate for the first trilogy. Overall, I really enjoyed those movies.

I don't know that I'd say I hated them. I thought they were all quite mediocre and sub-par from what I was hoping for. I've also never subscribed, personally, to the idea that Spiderman 2 is one of the best films and Spiderman 3 is one of the worst.

LtColCarter
July 12th, 2012, 11:07 AM
I don't know that I'd say I hated them. I thought they were all quite mediocre and sub-par from what I was hoping for. I've also never subscribed, personally, to the idea that Spiderman 2 is one of the best films and Spiderman 3 is one of the worst.

Yes...I agree...I wouldn't say hate...but they could've been better.

I'm gonna go see Spiderman again tomorrow! :-)

myhelix
July 14th, 2012, 05:11 AM
I say I hate the third Spiderman movie! :p It was bad in so many ways.

LtColCarter
July 14th, 2012, 07:22 AM
Well, after seeing Spiderman the 2nd time...I love it even more! :D

the fifth man
July 14th, 2012, 07:30 PM
I say I hate the third Spiderman movie! :p It was bad in so many ways.

For me, the third Spiderman had a lot of good moments mixed with quite a few bad ones. Definitely a mixed bag there.