f13.net

Peter Parker is going back to high school when the next Spider-Man hits theaters in the summer of 2012.

Columbia Pictures and Marvel Studios announced today they are moving forward with a film based on a script by James Vanderbilt that focuses on a teenager grappling with both contemporary human problems and amazing super-human crises.

The new chapter in the "Spider-Man" franchise produced by Columbia, Marvel Studios and Avi Arad and Laura Ziskin, will have a new cast and filmmaking team. Spider-Man 4 was to have been released in 2011, but had not yet gone into production.

"A decade ago we set out on this journey with Sam Raimi and Tobey Maguire and together we made three 'Spider-Man' films that set a new bar for the genre. When we began, no one ever imagined that we would make history at the box-office and now we have a rare opportunity to make history once again with this franchise. Peter Parker as an ordinary young adult grappling with extraordinary powers has always been the foundation that has made this character so timeless and compelling for generations of fans. We're very excited about the creative possibilities that come from returning to Peter's roots and we look forward to working once again with Marvel Studios, Avi Arad and Laura Ziskin on this new beginning," said Amy Pascal, co-chairman of Sony Pictures Entertainment.

"Working on the 'Spider-Man' movies was the experience of a lifetime for me. While we were looking forward to doing a fourth one together, the studio and Marvel have a unique opportunity to take the franchise in a new direction, and I know they will do a terrific job," said Sam Raimi.

"We have had a once-in-a-lifetime collaboration and friendship with Sam and Tobey and they have given us their best for the better part of the last decade. This is a bittersweet moment for us because while it is hard to imagine Spider-Man in anyone else's hands, I know that this was a day that was inevitable," said Matt Tolmach, president of Columbia Pictures, who has served as the studio's chief production executive since the beginning of the franchise. "Now everything begins anew, and that's got us all tremendously excited about what comes next. Under the continuing supervision of Avi and Laura, we have a clear vision for the future of Spider-Man and can't wait to share this exciting new direction with audiences in 2012."

"'Spider-Man' will always be an important franchise for Sony Pictures and a fresh start like this is a responsibility that we all take very seriously," said Michael Lynton, Chairman and CEO of Sony Pictures. "We have always believed that story comes first and story guides the direction of these films and as we move onto the next chapter, we will stay true to that principle and will do so with the highest respect for the source material and the fans and moviegoers who deserve nothing but the best when it comes to bringing these stories and characters to life on the big screen."

The studio will have more news about Spider-Man in 2012 in the coming weeks as it prepares for production of the film.
___________________________


Ok so first off, this is complete fail.  Spiderman 3 sucked for the most part, but that was mainly because shit was forced on Raimi.  I hate to see Raimi go, but do we need another reboot of Spiderman, and so soon?   I really don't want to see another damned origin story and another retelling of the Green Goblin.  I'm just glad Raimi left the project if they were going to force crap on him that didn't go along with his vision of the movie.  He's better off when he has control over all his stuff. 

It's too far away for me to care right now.  Especially without a director attached.

Jesus christ....

Un-fucking-believable.

Marvel: doing to movies what they've done to comics.

You know, I didn't care so much about this until I just found that John Malkovich was cast to play Vulture in Spider-Man 4 before this  :heartbreak:

Honestly, thank God imo. I would rather have them start over and re-tell the spiderman franchise in a way that doesn't start Toby with no web shooters and Topher Grace playing Venom.
If the re-boot turns out terrible, (which chances are it will) then the franchise is no worse off, at least this is an opportunity to give some type of credibility to Marvel's Spider-Man movie franchise.

Good move.  I couldn't stand Toby as Spider Man and whats-her-name.

Great, now it'll be like Batman. Every other movie is the origin story over again and the lame sequel.

This sounds better suited for a TV series.

It seems that the rumor mill is going strong that since Raimi is out of Spiderman, his next movie is going to be Warcraft.

 :pedobear:

http://www.chud.com/articles/articles/21963/1/EXCLUSIVE-IS-THIS-SONY039S-CHOICE-FOR-SPIDER-MAN-4039S-VILLAIN/Page1.html

 :pedobear:



edit: well, that's not gonna happen, but jus' sayin'

The world didn't really need a 4th movie in the series.

Now bring on Sin Eater!

I agree, but it seems like he really likes Vulture. Heh. This is the 2nd time he tried. Ben Kingsley was going to be Vulture in the 3rd movie.. They got Raimi to rewrite it and he put Venom in.

Huh?  Raimi didn't want Venom, that was Sony.  Raimi hates Venom. 

It looks like the same thing was going to happen again where too many people were trying to force things into the movie.

Retarded.



As to Venom, I'm sick of hearing it.  Raimi hates venom, Bendis hates venom, everyone hates venom.

And yet Venom just keeps fucking appearing.

Its an old bee of mine but if they were going to do Venom in the third movie they should have dropped Eddie Brock. They should have made Osborne into Venom. That would have completed the thread that went though three films and would have created the situation that the horribly obsessed Osborne was finally in a position to have his final fight with spiderman as an equal. In short it would have made it INTERESTING. But we had a situation where they were afraid the nerds would have freaked so we got a new character introduced that (a) was annoying (b) those unfamiliar with the comics could not have given two shits about and (c) even more annoyed those who were familiar with the comics.

Hell they changed doc Octavius in the second one and that was great.

I like the concept of Venom. I loved the way it was done in the comics. But they should have done it totally differently for the third movie.

You're right that Sony wanted it, but either way, he conceded and included Venom in the end.

I think the whole "Raimi" hating Venom shit is a bit overstated. He might have said he didn't want Venom in future movies in some random interview circa Spiderman-2, but he isn't anti-Venom Spidey fan #1 since he clearly wrote the Venom shit himself.. and not only that, he filmed a movie with said script. And to my knowledge, never apologized later. He must have had some passing interest, unless he just wanted to waste his time on purpose or something.

[edit] Actually, if you ask me, all Spidey villains after Gob and Ock are stupid -- as movie villains. Let me reiterate - as movie villains. They work on some level, but there's either not enough of the drama with the lot of them like you get with those two, or they're just corny as hell. There's something about Vulture, Shocker, and Mysterio that screams "episodic" to me. Sidenotes. While the Goblin is like his Lex Luthor. Ock works because he's almost another father figure.

Consider this. A LOT of people would gladly 'waste their time' for the kind of money he got for the movie.    Even more would compromise on a stance about a fictional character.

The whole reboot is so incredibly stupid I can't fathom why.  The original movie isn't even 10 years old yet, it will barely be so if this one comes out in 2012.   What next, a Harry Potter "reboot"?

OOooooo, I'd LOVE THAT !!!!

 :oh_i_see:

This. Most movie goers aren't like comic fans and aren't really expecting to go see Spiderman 4 to have it be total reboot. It worked with the Batman films partly because the last couple stunk so badly and partly because there had been a fair few years between them. This sounds more like a good premise for a TV show like someone said, plenty of scope for drama and also a large potential cast of characters. Fuck Smallville showed that superhero series can work and farnkly Spiderman the early years is far more ripe for this sort of thing than Superman was.

Nothing will beat the way that the "Howard the Duck" movie ruined my childhood memory of the comic.  NOTHING!. 

The public wants to be entertained for 90 minutes.  I'm not so sure they even care what causes the shiny explosions.  If the special effects are good, people will  go see it. 

To all of you in Hollywood, try this for inspiration (http://www.amazon.com/Origins-Marvel-Comics-Stan-Lee/dp/0785105514/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1263304789&sr=8-1). 

Clearly they want to roll his character into Iron Man 3 right?

I'm not sure about Iron Man 3 but I'm sure they are looking to stick him into the Avengers movie.

I'd be excited about a good Avengers movie that had a silver age Avengers lineup.  Spiderman must not pollute my childhood memories. 

I'm sure they'll find some way to fit Wolverine into it.

Bad idea. They are treating the movie like a comic - we'll just reboot every few years so we don't have to think up interesting stuff for a new movie. Fuck that. Comic fans will buy it because we like our monthly dramas. Movie fans will tell Sony to go fuck itself.

Spider-Man is totally Sony, so won't can't show up in Avengers.

Sony will screw this up. Yes, Spider-Man 3 was... not great. I didn't hate it as much as some, but Raimi has been upfront with his feelings on the film, and has as much, apologized. Part of the issue was Sony sticking their fingers into the middle of things with the third film, though Raimi is not innocent in the issues. He was very much looking forward to doing a better film with this one, and I fear that Sony will sign a director that they can control more and find some horrible way to Twilight-It-Up or some stupid crap.

I would like to register my displeasure as a Spider-Man fan.


Except the Dark Knight was/is better than the previous series.  No, my inner nerd didn't agree with the revisions to the story in Spiderman, but I can't see this being better.

They are going to make it the High School version of Spiderman (like the Ultimate Version).  You know already its going to be emo bullshit and suck.

Well there is precedent in the two hulk movies. I have still yet to see the norton one but by all accounts it's the better of the two, plus they only spent the first five minutes on backstory.

TRying to decide which Hulk movie was better is like deciding which Look Who's Talking movie is better.

The second Hulk movie was better, but it was done in such a way that it neither completely ignored the Ang Lee version or acknowledged it. You could watch the 2nd without seeing the first, but the 2nd didn't go out of its way to make the 1st invalid. It was a mild reboot, but after the mediocre success of the first, no one was really that upset by a reboot.

This will be a major reboot of a hugely successful series, final installment not withstanding. The movie-going pubic will by and large not understand why it needs to be rebooted in the first place, not so soon on the heels of the successful series.

It should be omg dark, with spiderman webbing crooks mouths shut until they suffocate and then shoving a pumpkin bomb up osborne's ass.  :why_so_serious: 

In all seriousness though I agree in that I can't see how this movie can be different enough from the first three and also be good.

What more could be said about this that we all don't already understand? If Spider-man was made in Japan or some other country (_{Maybe I'm horribly, horribly wrong, but for fuck's sake, I must be right somehow)} -- a country with a culture of media producers that didn't give a shit about status quo and wanted to create a compelling story with a finite length instead of a franchise with gob-smackingly stupid restarts and making every effort to keep the money machine running -- they'd have something legendary that would stand the test of time and could be looked back fondly upon. Nowadays they're making movie decisions that if they don't keep this going tomorrow then *gasp* they might actually have to come up with something original instead of leveraging something people already know and that has been retread for nearly FIFTY YEARS.

Shit, look at Berserk. Kentaro Miura's 20 years in and he's still telling the same damn epic story that blows most other media out of the water. The sad thing is this guy may not finish it in his lifetime because of the long production cycle. But what we get will be worth it.

If whatever the third chapter of the Batman saga (Batman Begins -> Dark Knight -> ???) doesn't feature some sort of ENDING that wraps-up the themes and story that was built up in the first two chapters, then we're going to have another Spider-Man. I know that's not going to happen. I know the Batman License needs to have something major produced for it every 2-3 years. But it's because Batman along with all the other comics is a franchise that must be continually redone or used to tell stories instead of something more normal and capable of being considered "a complete work."

I actually thought the second Hulk movie was pretty good.  I don't understand the hate I've been seeing from some people.

It wasn't big enough. That's why there is hate. It is like an MMO that earns a profit but isn't WoW successful.

I thought the CG fight scene with Abomination was stupid. It really ruined the whole thing for me, sadly. Much like the end of the Ang Lee version.

I will say, that it probably doesn't help that I've never really liked the Hulk character.

Hulk, like any character in comics, is one with an excellent premise / origin that suffers from not having proper execution / no "wrap it up, B!" to make it consistently good. All they do is EXIST; they don't have any interesting goals or changes that reevaluate those goals. Banner always out for a cure, Spidey always trying to unfuck a life that is purposely fucked up, Batman always trying to stop crime.

You mean the country that gave us the 500 episode fighting genre with cascading power levels?  Or has been plagairizing itself with mech series over and over and over?


You're complaining about serial fiction being serial.  Comic stories are about an archetypal hero that strikes some chord confronting a set theme.  Conan and civilization versus savagery, Batman and the individual's sense of powerlessness in the face of wider society, Spider-man and responsibility, the X-men and teen estrangement from adult society (or minority estrangement from a hetero white society).

You can't have a real resolution. Spider-man doesn't work if he isn't constantly conflicted between doing what's right and doing what's best for himself.  If the police force and society was good and efficacious, there would be no need for a masked vigilante. 

Manga > Anime. If you're referring to Gundam, that's like complaining Final Fantasy always has Chocobos. They are still mixing up the worlds, characters, and basic overall storyline between each series. They also have way more parody and fan-service works that get on television.


Curious. Does Conan have a set continuity, or is it extremely ambiguous, not really featuring any continuity between stories? I have a much higher opinion of Conan than the others you mentioned.

Every mech series I've seen a part of is some combination of poorly adjusted super- teens with angst, big robots fighting (cue WUA tanks vs mechs), and pseudo-deep philosophy.  The Gundam nonsense was the worst, outside of big robots fighting. 

My favorite anime, noting the fact I don't particularly enjoy or watch many of them, is Bebop...  which was largely episodic outside of a couple story episodes and the ending.  They could still go back and make a couple of series by shuffling in seasons before the big death (like the movie), or by having a remarkable survival after the final episode.


The original Howard stuff is all I've really read.  There isn't a whole lot of continuity, besides the fact that Conan goes from wandering barbarian on to king in later life.  Conan was largely whatever he needed to be to fit the story.  Thief, mercenary, barbarian, king, caravan guard, palace guard, warlord, Pirate!, whatever.

The point is that Conan is the reformed barbarian, and he sees how fragile civilization and society actually is, even if he can never really belong.  Howard sets up a background cyclical theme of savagery to civilization to decadence to apocalypse.  Rinse and repeat.

It's funny howi I've never cared about continuity in Conan stories but I do for comics. Maybe because fucking with continuity is such a big deal for comics.

Comics are told with linear continuity, so every now and then they have to reset.  I mean, what if Gotham is finally a shiny happy utopia?  Or mutants are finally accepted? Or Peter Parker is happily married and successful?

That's when you get time bullets, or deals with Mephisto, or whatever that Scarlet Witch nonsense was.  Most of the time, they suck.  But they get the storyline back to where it needs to be to work on the theme that everyone reads the books for.

Short stories reset, generally, before every story.  Or the continuity doesn't matter until the final arc, like in Elric and Conan stories.  For instance Watson's marital status in Sherlock Holmes stories.  He's married in some, divorced sometimes, married again.

Re: Watson,

Both films had the same level of flaws, just in different areas. Personally "Hulk" was more memorable and enjoyable than "Incredible Hulk".

I liked the first Hulk more. Bana and Norton were both good for the part, I think, but..  Well the second was more about having one's back against the wall, or some shit, while the first was all about RAGE. And Banner's (not just the Hulk's) own dormant rage. Also, Nick Nolte hasn't been nuttier. Actually, he was never nutty before. That was always Busey's schtick. So it was funny to see him look worse than even Busey.

[edit] Eh, I think both takes are cool, but the Norton one was probably more in line with the comics.

That depends on whether you hold to the two marriage or three marriage Watson theory, of course! 

Hahaha.  This calls for a GIS link.
http://images.google.com/images?q=supaidaman

You then:

a) Show how broken and mindfucked your hero is.
b) Kill him.  Or trail off in a fight with hopeless odds.
c) Have him live happily for a while, until his past catches up with him.
d) End the fucking story.  No, really.  Just end it.  Like so: "The End."

hahaahah you really think so? Movie "buffs", or People Who Like Serious Film may or may not see it, but they'll look down their nose at it. Comic fans will watch it anyway. The General Movie-Going Pubic will go along and watch it regardless because it's a big summer blockbuster and they've heard of Spider-Man. Besides, those other movies with Toby McWhatsisname probably came out when they were little kids.

You're making a story argument when it isn't about story, it's about theme.  It's like complaining that a story based series/film has weak or cardboard characters.  Or a character based series has repetitive stories/plots.

If you focus in on one aspect, you can cover it with greater depth.  If you try to do all of them in a limited time frame you end up covering them all only in a broad manner or poorly, and some subjects are just impossible to address.

It'll have a big opening but no legs. People will ask how it was and they'll say "a lot like the first movie"

...And when you've exhausted a theme, you end the story.  Funny how that works.

Marc Webb, whose only notable release is 500 days of Summer, has been signed on to direct.

But he did music videos too!  :awesome_for_real:

Trainwreck of epic proportions incoming. I'm expecting old captain america bad here.

Music vid directors aren't necessarily bad. Some have turned out to be awesome. Spike Jonze, David Fincher... Mark Romanek (did the NIN Closer vid among other things) is doing that new Wolfman flick. Not music vids, but Zack Snyder (300, Watchmen) was heavy into commercials before. If anything, these type of directors have cultivated a lot of style like those who do shorts, and at the same time, aren't exactly artfaggy either.

The very fact they are gambling this franchise on a nearly unknown director speaks volumes as to what kind of quality and support the movie will be given.

That's very true.. I think all of those other guys didn't get that kind of break.

Looks like he's done a fuckton of videos though from different genres. Sounds like the "trusty journeyman" type. heh

There have been rumors going around in the last day or so that they're trying to do this on a budget of $80 million.  For reference, the first Spider-man had a budget of $139 mil, the second was around $200 mil, and the third was $259 mil.  I've also heard rumors that Raimi was trying to get a budget of around $300 mil for #4.

like i said, this is going to be old style captain america. some movies you can do on the cheap and it wont affect quality, super hero movies arent ones you can do this on.

Just thinking here, but they should really like.. "consolidate" resources and set pieces for all of these Marvel films. Considering that almost all of Marvel's shit is based in NYC, you could probably re-use a lot of things to save money. Err, not sure what exactly, but..

As for this movie, it's based in highschool again, so a lot of story can probably afford to be a little cheaper.

I won't say that it can't be done on that budget.  After all, look at District 9 which only had a $30 million budget.  From the sounds of it, they're gong to focus more on the high school drama than they are the super-hero stuff (some are saying that they're using Ultimate Spider-man as the model here), which would limit how many special effects scenes they need.

I just don't have a lot of faith in Marc Webb to deliver, but maybe he'll surprise me.  I thought it was pretty funny though that James Cameron said in an interview recently that he would have never done the Spider-man reboot if they had asked him since it feels like sloppy seconds.

Save James Cameron for a badass Atlantean/Sub-Mariner movie. :)

I heard he's thinking of doing a Fantastic Voyage remake, which would be similar, I guess.

Battle Angel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_Angel_Alita) is what has been bandied about as Cameron's next project. Also there has been talk of him helming the Avatar sequels, but I am not so interested in that. On the other hand, he may just wait another decade for his next film and do a lot of documentaries in the meantime.

Ultimate Spider-man the movie? Like everyone else said above - just too soon.

"(500) Days of Summer" was well handled. Getting Webber as a director suggests they want to do more of the romance between Parker and Watson. Some of the commercial success of the first film was attributed to it being accessible to guys and girls. After all, I think "Spider-Man" starts off with "This is about a girl".

It's perfectly clear they want to turn spider-man into twilight but that's a very bad idea.

Spider-Man 11101.

I'm not sure what's worse, making it Twilight, or the geeks who wig out about the first one for "organic web shooters".


That said! Lot of chicks already like Spider-Man as it is.. making it more appealing on that level isn't necessarily a bad idea. It need not be Twilight to do so.

Exactly how is making it appealing on the level of Twilight not a bad thing? Would you really want that fanbase associated with Spiderman, or actually anything you enjoy?

I bet Marvel and Sony would, cause, ya know, the money.

I really think this direction could work with Spiderman but it's really more suited to a series than a movie. That said I'm not sure what sort of effects budget they'd have, how that would work but something along the lines of Smallville with Spiderman would seem a perfect fit. I'm not sure if it'll work as well in movie form simply because the soap operaey stuff they seem to want to throw in won't have the space to develop well.

You're taking my last sentence out. I mean it's not necessarily bad to appeal to chicks more -- but my last sentence was "It need not be Twilight to do so." In other words, they could just delve more into the romantic parts that were already there. It wouldn't really have to be that much. I mean, those parts were already in the other Spider-Man movies, and they were broadly appealing as is.

Face it. Spider-Man is going to sparkle every time his spidey-sense goes off.

Are we really going to wave Spider-Man fans around as some kind of cultural elite in comparison to Twilight fans? Or pretend that the retarded that exists within Spider-Man lore is in some way less than exists in the retarded of Twilight?

(SFW, but not at first glance)
(http://www.geekologie.com/2009/03/25/spiderman.jpg)

Regardless, Spider-Man the reboot isn't going to turn into Twilight. It will probably make Watson more than the wallflower Parker pines after though (because if you do want to make the Spider-Man / Twilight comparison, Parker isn't on the Cullen side of things - he's the chick).

It's as simple as this. You can't expect sipder-man to be popular as a teen drama.

Compared to Twilight fans even furries are normal.

Hows this for a reboot twist.

Instead of MJ as the main squeeze, lets have Gwen Stacy.

Yeah, I know it'll never fly but really its not like MJ is like Lois Lane in the comics cannon.

That's pretty warped.

Yet accurate

Maybe spiderman will actually be spidergirl, sturggling to come to terms with the transformation in her life AND the tribulations of being a high school glee club member while all along developing a non-relationship with an enigmatic and handsome young fellow with a dark past and four metallic arms.

With the recent reboot the comics themselves did (Mephisto magiced away Peter's entire marriage to MJ), I don't see any reason the movie can't go back to Gwen Stacy with MJ Watson as a source of romantic tension. Teens love unrequited love triangles by prissy effeminate men who can't decide which unbelievably hot chick to date because of his dark emo secret.

Goddamnit, this reboot is starting to sound like everything I hated about the Spider-Man character in the first place. Whiny, emo douche Peter in high school love triangles.

I'd watch a Spider Girl movie under the assumption they create a compelling character arc and narrative that definitely ends after at most three movies.

Seriously. I want them to explore that.

That is exactly what I was thinking. Seems like they are going for the Teen Angst angle, and hence, market.

Something with Spider-Slayers please.


I remember the short round one from the original cartoon series. God DAMN that shit was creepy.

Figured I'd bump this thread with some new pictures that came out the other day from Entertainment Weekly. Also, looks like the thread title could use updating.

(http://dl.dropbox.com/u/111434/spider.jpg)
(http://dl.dropbox.com/u/111434/spider2.jpg)
(http://dl.dropbox.com/u/111434/spider3.jpg)
(http://dl.dropbox.com/u/111434/spider4.jpg)
(http://dl.dropbox.com/u/111434/spider5.jpg)

500 Days of Summer was aimed more at men than women. I don't get the Twilight comparisons at all.


Hulk is really bad example to use here given the incredible changes he's undergone over the years. He's been a man who transformed into a dumb green guy, a man who transformed into a smart grey guy, a permanent smart green guy with no human form at all, ran around on an alien planet, etc etc. His character today is not really the same as the original Hulk and there have been plenty of jumping on and jumping off points in his series.

True, the character will always exist, but you can look at something like the end of Hulk: Ground Zero as the end of one tale and the start of another. In that arc he had very specific goals (beyond "find a cure") and there was a definite beginning, middle and end.

Can't wait to see Uncle Ben dying again! And a Spider biting pete's finger!

This is going to be SOOOO good.  :awesome_for_real:

I'm looking forward to the scenes where he invents web fluid! Finally, I won't have to accept how completely impossible it would be for someone to shoot "spider web" out of their wrists naturally.  :grin:

Spiderman is very pretty. 

I know I'm getting older, but I can't stand how everything has to be pretty these days.  Keep the women pretty and the men... normal. 

This is retarded.

Teaser trailer is out (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/20/the-amazing-spider-man-teaser-trailer_n_904492.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003)

Gah! Emo Peter in a black hoodie. He's probably writing poetry instead of studying chemistry. :uhrr:

Oooh! Let's add to the angst by including his parents walking out on him.

Spider-Twilight indeed.

God damn it. There's a part of me that wants to see it.

It is interesting to see Spider-man as a FPS Mirror's Edge type thing.

It's certainly very Grimdark.

I have no clue why they are making this. Also, they used the voice over from the other movies in the trailer, WTF?

Soundtrack to feature My Chemical Assbags, Linkolrnhole Park and Miley Cyrus.  Playing together. 

Don't be a douche and at least spell the names right when you mock people, we aren't ten years old here. 

Yeah, what was up with the whole "something mysterious happened to my parents" angle they were working in that?  I honestly cant remember what happened to peter's parents, I always remember him as having lived with Ben / May.

They were CIA agents that died in a foreign land somewhere.

*checks Wiki*

Yeah pretty much. They were Shield agents that were sent to investigate the Red Skull in Algeria, were discovered as spies and killed.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/9d/Richard_and_Mary_Parker_UToSM-1.jpg/250px-Richard_and_Mary_Parker_UToSM-1.jpg)

Because if they don't do another Spiderman movie within a certain time frame Marvel get the movie rights back.

I really don't like the mechanical shooters, I was glad they did away with them in the first Spiderman movie. Oh well.

/nitpick



Looks neat enough I guess, but yea, very grimdark, not sure on that at all.

Yeah, I was honestly disappointed when I first saw the pics that showed they were going back to webshooters.  I'm guessing the formula for the fluid is what Peter finds in his dad's old briefcase. 

I grew up with mechanical webshooters, I prefer it that way. 

I did too, at least until they did that Spiderman 2099 thing, but even then, I was never a fan of the whole web cartridge/ammo thing.  It always struck me as pretty lame that Spiderman had to worry about running out of webs. 

The formula for the webs is probably the stuff he yanks out of the back of his neck in the trailer.

The mechanical web shooters to me, seem like artificial suspense. "Oh noes, I've run out of web fluid at the worst possible moment... again..."

Also just feel kinda lame in general, superman doesn't have to wear X-Ray goggles. I get that spiderman isn't Bruce Wayne, and logistics are a 'real-world' problem for him, but I feel like his costume/identity/job/life are enough to represent that.



But whatever, its not like this is make or break. "Mechanical Shooter, fuck you NEVER WATCHING MOVIE  :mob: " They'll hand wave over how he makes/supplies the stuff and we'll get back to the awesome swinging from buildings and shit.

I find it hilarious that a decade later the argument has reversed itself.

Its gotta be better than "Oh noes my twilight wannabe girlfriend dosen't love me...  darn I can't squirt grey liquid anymore."

You mean how like every one of superman's enemies have kryptonite tucked away somewhere? Just standard superhero trope here.  I like the organic ones, I like the mechanical ones which do add a bit of tension that wasn't there. In the last movies spiderman seemed pretty bad ass by the end but it did miss a lot of the "shit, what am I gonna do now?" moments I remember from the comics.

Nothing about this looks interesting.  Even Emma Stone isn't going to save it.

She doesn't have to save it, she just has to hang out and be hot.

I was very underwhelmed by that trailer. Hopefully the movie is better than that trailer lets on. But right now it looks like a piece of shit.

The only thing you posted that didn't make me retch was the mechanical web-shooters.

Trailer was dull.  No way it will equal Rami's first two movies.  Going to skip this one.

New Trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-tnxzJ0SSOw)

I'm still not sure why we need this.

We don't, but we're getting it for the same reason we're getting reboots and sequels of games from big publishers.  The stakes are too large.

Hollywood has grown deathly afraid of taking risks and would rather crank-out reboots, re-releases and franchise sequels with proven audiences.  How well have the risk-takers done over the last 10 years vs. the churned-out franchises like Harry Potter, Twilight, Final Destination, Scary Movie, etc.?

Depends how you look at it. The risk takers can make much more return on their budget than the bigger sequels, reboots etc but for less of a profit. Eg. The Hangover cost $35m and took $465m worldwide (13 times its budget, $430m profit). Transformers 3 cost $200m and took $1.1bn worldwide (5.5 times its budget, $900m profit). So The Hangover gives a better return but Transformers is more profitable.

There are lots of original films like The Hangover which have a relatively small budget and still have a very good ROI. But the numbers are altogether different from the top end of the Box Office.  You're right though, you won't find many people taking risks with $150-$200m budgets. Who can blame them?

I'm actually thrilled that we're getting the Peter Parker we deserve.  You know, the nerdy physics/chem geek, not just he plain geek-for-the-sake-of-being-geek geek.

Would be interesting to see the sequels that come from this relaunch.  Wonder if they'll bring back any of the villains we've already seen or introduce some of the other fan favorites like Mysterio, Shocker, or Rhino.

Venom in the 3rd film.  Guaranteed.

FUCKING BE THERE.

 :ye_gods: :uhrr: :oh_i_see:

Bah, if they stick to a "no villain we already did in the first three movies" thing, they'll obviously do Carnage  :oh_i_see: :why_so_serious:

I would kill for Mysterio to make a major villian appearance, but more then likely we would end up with Vulture, just so they could cast one of Hollywoods stable of ancient actors in the role.

Spidey is probably my favorite superhero but it's too got damn soon for another Spiderman movie.  I feel violated! (not really)

At least do a Superman Returns type so we don't have to sit through the origin.  Again.  Maybe he can fight Morbius the vampire who is all sparkly.  I'm just spitballing here.

I have to go, I think Hollywood is calling.

Look of the trailer is that we're skipping the origin.

First: mechanical web shooters are superior.  Not because they add a limitation, but because they make the fact that Peter is a science whiz relevant to his superhero identity.  If some other schmuck had gotten bitten by that spider, he'd still be strong and able to climb walls and shit, but he wouldn't be Spiderman.

Second: I now very much want a Spiderman Mirror's Edge game, but in the context of a movie the FPS video game view looks fucking retarded.  Stop it.

The reason that this got made is they would have lost the rights to it and the license would have reverted back to Marvel/Disney.  Same reason we have another Ghost Rider movie.

Oh Dear God, we have another Ghost Rider movie ??

Did we not LEARN ?

 :heartbreak:

You think? I got the distinct impression that it would not only be an origin, but a different origin story to the usual.

Impression I was given, which would make sense.

No-one is going to give a fuck about watching his origin story again.  The best thing they could do is start the film with a cool fight scene and a 'oh yeah, I got bit by a spider'.

You can't just skip it totally in the first film, it could be a tiny flashback though and I hope that's the way it goes.

At least this Ghost Rider movie is being directed by the guys that did the Crank movies, from a story co-written by Goyer and a couple of TV writers who have done some ok stuff.  I'm not saying it's going to be a good movie, but at least that's more promising than the first movie's "from the guy that brought you Daredevil and wrote Jack Frost".

It could be written by god himself, It still stars Nick Cage.  Nothing can redeem it from that.

Rewatch the teaser trailer.

Be prepared for an entire film about origin and parental secrets.

I was talking about the weak nerd getting pushed around in school, being made fun of for spending ages in the bathroom while his skin falls off.  I'm happy to skip most of that.

It really doesn't need anything beyond five minutes.

Which is why it ought to be flashback.  Every cunt is going to be flashing back to Tobey anyway, so what the fuck ?

People will still make this new Spiderman a success because they enjoyed all the previous films and think it's more of the same.  They'll enjoy the action and effects, but they'll be confused as fuck as to why we're starting over again and why Peter is using machines to shoot webs now instead of making it naturally.  Even with that though, it'll be another money-hat grossing film.

You thought emo-pete was bad? Watch out for the amazing angst!

 :uhrr:

What? I can't even grasp that... So what makes it spiderman rather than <generic insect>man?

Not sure if serious...

I too am perplexed.

There are in fact people in the world whose only exposure to Spiderman is the movies.

Yeah, kinda gives me the willies too.

Seriously?  I am in no way a hardcore comic book fan, but I know this truth.  It's how it was portrayed and done in the 90s animated series Fox put out.

Arise! Just got back from a midnight showing; I was pleasantly surprised. It was actually pretty funny, in addition to being a good origin story for Spidey.

The problem I always had with synthetic webs is where in the suit does the gear fit?

Also if Parker can invent nano tech web material and slingers, why doesn't he sell them and become as rich as Bruce Wayne.

Oh for fucks sake.  We're really going to do this reverse argument here ?  In this den of geeks ??

 :why_so_serious:

Because if he did that he would be revealing he was spider-man and that could mean Aunt May could get hurt in her Beverly Hills Mansion guarded by 6 battalions of Blackwater guards that Petey paid for with his pocket change.

One of the things that made Spidey popular as a comic character was his Humanity. People could relate to him. But he really was a fucking idiot when it came to his personal life.

Because wealth wasn't what he was about.

Great Power.  Great Responsibility.  That kind of shit.

Keep up.

I was actually farily underwhelmed with the new movie.  The cast was good, the story was ok, but the movie in general just didn't gel with me the way Avengers did.  It was also had some very over the top comic book cliche stuff that was not nearly as well done as the avengers equivilent:
Also, I hate to say it, but any credit they gained with me from things like the Mechanical Web Shooters, and realistic city swinging (parker is occasionally shown having trouble swinging in areas with low buildings, instead of just swinging with ease everywhere he goes), they completely lost with
All in all, a fairly decent re-boot of the Spidey franchise, but sadly, not even in the same League, let alone ballpark as Avengers.

I agree completely that this doesn't stack up against the Avengers; compared to the trash that was Spiderman 3, however, this was pretty good.

Well that doesn't help someone coming to the thread to decide if they are going to see it tonight.

"It's not as good as one of the best superhero movies in years, but it is better than stabbing yourself in the face with a fork for two hours."

Just one question? Is there an obligatory dancing scene in the movie?

Damning with faintest praise.   :awesome_for_real:

I want to kow how it holds up to spiderman 1 and 2.

You are safe.  There is no dancing.

As to how it stacks up against Spiderman 1 or 2, I unfortunately dont think I could really say.  It has been way too long since I saw either of those to feel qualified to compare.  If I had to give it a generic rating, I would probably throw it in at around 3.5 / 5.  With Avengers / Ironman 1 rating a 5, and Spiderman 3 / any Ghost Rider movie rating a 1.5 for comparison.

Honest to God, Spiderman 1 doesn't really age well.  I know it's not been that long, but the Goblin in particular looks really bad stacked up against the other Marvel offerings we've had.

They could have gone with the original mask, I guess:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEZBhL5lpqg

Willem Dafoe already looks like a goblin, just add the ears and it would have been complete.

I'm debating on seeing this today but I feel bad that I never saw The Avengers.

You should feel bad.

Saw this with Molly today.

It turns out that if you go to a movie at 10:20 AM, you pay as if it was nighttime in the 90s ($5.75/ea).

It was pretty damn good, and quite better than SM3 or SM2, IMO.

This Spidey has to contend with varying building heights. His travel is a combo of web-swinging and parkour. Mechanical shooters give him a nice vulnerability.

The chick they picked to play Gwen Stacy is hot. At least two short skirt-long socks outfits.  :awesome_for_real:

There are scenes where it seems obvious that they're shot for 3D, but only about two.

Really, aside from the liberties it takes with the ASM origin story, there's very little that is nerd rage worthy. It's a solid movie.

Actually, regarding the Mechanical Web Shooters, I was somewhat dissapointed that they never did a "whoops, ran out of web fluid mid swing" moment anywhere in the movie. 

I'll see it when it's on FX, but Salon ran an article that pretty much sums up my opinions on most superhero movies: Enough with the Origins (http://www.salon.com/2012/07/03/enough_spider_man_no_more_origin_stories/).

Well, I did say it on this very thread, but I really don't believe they did an origin story again.

Such a fucking waste of time.

Except that the Origin Story is almost obligatory every time you "re-boot" a franchise with a new actor in the lead role.  Otherwise, it wouldnt really be a re-boot.  And the re-boot is sort of needed when you are trying to make your new franchise movie stand out as distinct from the previous movies in the franchise, otherwise stupid people become confused as to why this new movie is not acting like a sequel / followup to the old franchise.   They sort of needed to do it that way to make it clear that this is not just "New Spider Man Movie X with Newguy replacing Toby as Spidey."

They should have. As much as I liked Spider-Man 1, that mask looks so much better than the plastic shit they put onscreen.

origin story is fine only because it's a comic book movie. Literally the same as making a different line of spiderman stories, they each need a beginning.

Part of the reason that Avengers was so good was that we didn't have to wade through any origins stories.

We still had to get the team together, which ate up a chunk of the movie.  It still wasn't as drawn out as most origin stories.

Penny Arcade Report had some nice things to say. (http://penny-arcade.com/report/editorial-article/spiderman)

Bond has managed to last 50 years and use 6 actors with only one origin story movie.

"The Incredibles" had no origin story - more like a 'then and now'.

The reality is we don't really need to see characters get their powers, we just want to see them use them in impressive ways. The vast majority of origin stories eat up time in a superhero movie and slow it down.

for lesser known dude like daredevil and ghost rider - i think it's a given we should learn how these guys came to be.
Spidey and batman, superman, doesn't need to be.

Except that for all intents and purposes, all Bonds before the Craig bond were assumed to be the same Bond, regardless of the actor playing Bond.   It has always been "same Bond, new actor". Craig is really the first time they have actually re-booted the Bond franchise.

Batman.

Did you miss Batman Begins or something?  If that wasnt an Origin Story Movie, I really dont know what is.

Keaton, Kilmer, Clooney.  No reboot.

Sure, Batman Begins was, but it needed to be.  Spiderman didn't.

Your argument that 'It needed a reboot because of a different actor' is bollocks.  You're argument that 'Reboots need to be done when the stories fucked' doesn't really work in this case either because, bad as Spiderman 3 was, it was perfectly salvageable.  They just didn't want to.  They wanted to foist tired old crap off on us because, frankly, it's easier.

There are so many Superhero stories that haven't done an origin that are good that it just smacks of laziness.  I'm still annoyed they did one, but I haven't seen the movie yet and probably won't manage it, so who cares.

"SUPERMAN, LAST SURVIVOR OF KRYPTON" Job Done.
"BATMAN, CAPED AVENGER OF THE KNIGHT" Job Done.
"SPIDER MAN, NEUROTIC TEENAGE FUCKUP" Job Done.
"SEMEN PUDDING MAN, HERE; HAVE AN ORIGIN STORY" Fair enough.

Yes, that's the point. You can do a long series with different actors and not just recycle the same origin plot.

Which is funny, because Daredevil and Ghost Rider both were not origin stories at all. They told the origin in flashbacks, but for the most part, they started with the characters as established in their roles. The Daredevil movie was decent (if you watch the director's cut) and Ghost Rider sucked monkey ass.

But neither's flaws had anything to do with not being an origin story. Really, most of the super-hero origins could be encapsulated with a 3 minute flashback and some exposition.

You expound on this like it's something other than a collassal cash grab each summer.

Comic books have become the new easy fleece method for movie studios when the weather gets hot. They haven't done The Flash in a while. That's probably next.

I want a Superman movie about the story of Zod, Ursa, and Non.

Not sure that'd be as exciting as you'd think.

But I'd be up for it.

Origin stories are only "obligatory" if by "obligatory" you mean "tired, expected and pointless."

People know Spider-Man's origin. If you need to cover it cover it in 5 minutes. You can lean on the cultural knowledge that every living being possesses. Or is this movie for newborn babies?

You can establish that something is a reboot without spending half the film telling a tale everyone knows and that is largely irrelevant in the details.

My nephew was demanding Spiderman underwear just after he began speaking, so even then  :why_so_serious:

The only thing that carried over between Spiderman films was the relationships with dunst and Franco, and they kind of sucked anyway.

Just saw.  Best SM of them all.

Been kind of avoiding putting my thoughts down on the movie as this thread is showing all the characteristic signs of a typical 'f13ers spout shite about something they haven't even seen yet' thread, but fuck it.

I enjoyed the first two Raimi films; I've avoided the third insofar as I've never seen it all the way through, but everything I've seen of it has made my blood boil and frankly after witnessing the death of Singer's X-men run at the hands of Ratner I can happily do without seeing yet another 3rd parter wholesale ruined by the interferance of outside influences.

The Amazing Spider-man is a totally different beast to Raimi's filmverse, though. Yes, it rehashes the Origin story and no, overall it's not significantly different to the previous iteration; on the other hand, it's several times more relatable, emotionally charged and Ben's death shockingly pointless, and Garfield's reaction as Peter so much more believable, especially when foreshadowed so perfectly. It's a crying shame for more reason than narrative as Martin Sheen is an incredible Uncle Ben - you feel denied as he dies; you simply want much more of him. It's a wonderful bit of casting in a movie with plenty of it - it shouldn't be left unsaid that Garfield is fucking astounding as both Parker and Spidey - his ability to convey the complexity of that dual life overshadows Maguire's performance like a fucking solar eclipse. And he's not even the best part of the whole set-up - that honour goes to Emma Stone who makes Gwen Stacy everything that MJ could never be. I'm hoping that they're going to deviate from the original comics because frankly, if they end up killing her off, I will seriously lose my shit.

My main level of criticism is that after The Avengers nailing Hulk, Lizard just doesn't have the same ability to suspend your disbelief, he's a big CG monster (although thank Christ, he can still talk, as he damn well should), lacking that final physical polish of the considerably bigger budgetted Avengers hero. It's a small, mealy mouthed complaint though.
Webb has managed to revitalise my interest in a hero that has over the last 10 years or so become so ludicrously ubiquitous (I can't even work out how many Spidey comics were running concurrently at one point) I actively started avoiding him and stories he was in.

Outside of that, avoid seeing it in 3D. It's a poor post-process job that breaks the standard fundamentals for 3D conversion - too many fast action cuts that are rendered nearly impossible to understand before the eye can adjust. Some of the fight scenes are wrecked by it.

ASM was shot in 3D. It's not post-process. I thought it worked pretty well... still not the best execution, where they shove the depth of field backwards, but decent.

If it was filmed in 3D then someone needs to give the editor a kick up the arse and Webb should have known better. Too many jump cuts. Prometheus was stunning in 3D; Amazing Spider-man was not. Incidentally I saw both at the same I-Max theatre.

I don't have any problem with reprising an origin when it's part of an overall reconceptualization of a character. Let's face, it the Daniel Craig Bond was an origin story tied to a soft reboot of that franchise, for example. I'm curious about this ASM--been travelling, so I haven't seen it yet. I have an open mind.

I don't know how Webb should ahve known better... it's not like the guy has shot in 3D before. I must have missed the run of 500 Days of Summer in IMAX 3D.

Anyway, Prometheus was good indeed, and better than Spider-man, but the 3D never once bothered me in ASM. The only thing that came close was some of the silly stuff through the city towards the end, but that was more stylistic differences than any pure technological issue. And, indeed, it was filmed in/for 3D. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Amazing_Spider-Man_(2012_film)#Effects)

I just saw it as well.  I think we saw different movies.  I was bored and irritated by the fact that the story was so weak and far from the original. 

Saw it.. I thought it was ok.  I really didn't like the look of the Lizard though.

I went in not really caring about the "original." (note: original in heavy quotes... this is spidey/comic we're talkin about here)  If you do that, you'll see the movie is just better than Maguire's first 3...  stylistically, emotionally, and creatively (with use of props, fight-scenes, imagery/metaphor, etc.)  And let's be real... the cast?  Um yah, Martin Sheen, Emma Stone, Sally Field, Denis Leary, Rhys Ifans?  Perfect casting for the thematic differences they went for and yes Garfield did a better job than Maguire I think.  Though Maguire's SM was a bit more classically writ, so I give him a pass somewhat.  Garfield pulled off the modernesque Spidey perfectly... even via subtle body mannerisms. 
As for the 3D/Imax debate.  /shrug  This movie was made and directed for 3D and I thought it really helped frame a few scenes.  Not many 3D movies can say that.  Didnt see how it took away from anything really and I didnt feel like I wasted the xtra money.  Granted, I saw on a smaller format IMAX screen - not a 10-story museum IMAX.

As a movie on its own it's just better.

The lizard was indeed weak though, but the reality is he's a minor character unfortunately (would've liked to have seen more of him).  I felt they really needed a more visceral (and slower; he's just too quick) feel for him, as they did with Avengers Hulk (as some have said).  Kind of frames the whole movie though, as it's shot VERY clean even with this Spidey being a lot more gritty of a super.

Just saw it last night and I enjoyed it although I watched it in 2d .   Honestly the only parts I did not like was the obvious setup at the end and the weird head twitches that Andrew Garfield was doing. They were distracting...