Tuesday, February 07, 2012

(UPDATED!) So When Did Albert Pyun Change His Name To "Marc Webb?"

(UPDATED after restoration of Internet service!)

Well, on the plus side, now we no longer need to wonder what the aborted early-90s Canon Films version of "Spider-Man" would've looked like - save that, in the early 90s, this CGI would only look one or two years out of date...



I'm sure I'll have more to say about this in some other capacity soon enough, but for now let me hit the stuff jumping out at me right off the bat:

#1: I really like that one bit of Spidey fighting the cops - the Raimi movies had a paucity of hand-to-hand group fights since the villains didn't generally have henchmen and it's nice to see it here.

#2: Really kinda hoping SOME of this takes place in daylight. I know this is the darker/edgier/grittier/hardcore Spider-Man; but like I keep saying: NOT EVERY SUPERHERO NEEDS TO BE BATMAN.

#3: Dennis Leary appears well cast. I like the idea of Captain Stacy as a middle-aged working-dad type instead of the wizened elder-statesman from the comics.

#4: Well, there ya go, kids - snarky/jokey Spider-Man leaps into live-action... aaaaand in live-action it comes off as "douchey" instead of charming - like Dane Cook in a Power Rangers outfit. Who could've possibly predicted that??

#5: The dark eyepieces make him look like a villain. Sorry, they do. If I saw this version as a kid, my first assumption would be that this is an "evil" duplicate and that "good" white-eyes Spidey was going to fight him.

#6: The Lizard, as currently glimpsed here, would not pass muster in one of the "Resident Evil" movies - bad CGI rendering of a poorly-designed creature, a real shame.
#7: Well, there we have it: Peter's missing/dead biological father was a super-scientist partner of Curt Conners at (Gasp! No way! NEVER saw it coming!) OsCorp, and they were working on whatever mad-science stuff turns Peter into Spider-Man and Conners into The Lizard. Ah, "Ultimate Marvel" - the gift that keeps on giving... even though you beg it not to.

#8 Y'know what? I'm not done with #7 yet. That's awful. That's what you'd put into a pitch making fun of unnecessary, convoluted, bullshit Hollywood revisionism to origin-stories. I've tried my best to find the good in this utterly pointless cash-grab of an endeavor, but then this trailer comes along and tells me with ONE SHOT pretty-much all I need to know. At the 1:53 mark - directly following the asinine "The Untold Story" title-card - we get another black-and-white flashback of Young Peter staring at...


...A spider under glass, also black-and-white and thus implied to be either directly or indirectly part of the same flashback. In other words: It's NOT totally an accident anymore. It's - symbolically, anyway - pre-ordained: The Spider (or, at least, the manner by which it'll give him powers) and at least TWO of his major enemies (one in the film, one obviously being set-up) are all part of a path that's been awaiting him... the laziest possible screenwriting crutch: DESTINY. Instead of being a story about Great Power being thrust onto someone accidentally, Spider-Man becomes yet another ersatz-Skywalker "Chosen One."

Fuck. That.

64 comments:

Anonymous said...

Wonder how much Bob gets from Marvel each month?

9jack9 said...

Well nothing has changed my opinion about the suit, which still looks way to over designed. and the Visual effects look pretty sub par, but I'll admit this looks a lot better then what we've seen so far.

biomechanical923 said...

I still don't understand why they're doing this.

My fiancee doesn't even like superhero movies, and even she was like why the hell are they rebooting the series?

CoolAde said...

In all honesty, I really want this film to be good... I would this film to be good...

But it does look like re-processed shit :/
and i'm not loving the spidey suit, it looks out of place especially when the films direction seems to be towards "the dark knight" gritty realism with a pinch of twilight emo angst...

Sony need to give up the rights back to marvel, /sigh

CoolAde said...

@biomechanical

I'll let you in on a secret that will blow your freaking mind. (they are doing it for money) reboot = BIG money when it's marketed to the idiotic general public.

...zuh? said...

Spider-Man...created the Lizard? That's a little weird.

I still don't like the suit. Snoutless-Lizard reminds me of one of those Goombas from the Mario Bros movie.

Regardless, I really enjoy that Spider-Man seems to be getting his classic banter. Also, the incorporation of the web-shooters.

Mads said...

@Bio

It's licensing issues. Toby Mcquire doesn't want to make another movie in the original series, but Sony can't just sit on the license if they want to use it again.

And lets be honest, if they keep the budget low and the story interesting, the movie will make money simply by virtue of its brand, all the technical effects aside.

Which leads me to
@ Bobs post

I like the trailer just fine. It's clearly targeted as a young-adult movie; teenagers, boys, girls, highschool/college? Mix in a little bit of superhero, it'll make plenty of cash. Just like Transformers, if you select a young dude, a hot love interest, and couple it with brand people enjoy? Boom. Instant success.

It's incredibly safe. But will I watch it simply because it has spiderman in it? You betcha.

Anonymous said...

I don't think Canon ever had the budget for the kinda shots in this movie. :P

Hate on this film for all the stupid, bullshit, superficial reasons you like Bob, it won't change the irrefutable FACT that in that ONE scene with the car thief, this movie was more faithful to the character of Spiderman than anything Toby did in the first three films.

Teej Turtle said...

I agree with the destiny thing. That always bugs me.

That being said this trailer made me lose most of my doubt.
Spidey makes jokes. Peter is smart (something the Raimi films never showcased too much). Practical effects looks better than all CG.
Maybe if you were a kid who attends college and you had just become a Superhero your first en devours might be during the night (then hopefully it shows how it conflicts with his personal life and college later in the film or in sequels. Can't cram it all in at once.). I also hope there are more scenes during the day. Still not keen on the suit but I can get past that like we all have with every Batman film (except B&R because THAT'S when we notice the nipples and not in Forever ¬_¬).
Every film has its flaws but there have been worst CBMs and so far this doesn't fall in that category.
Sorry for the essay lol.

JD said...

1) You can see Spidey swinging in the daylight around 2:12 in the trailer.

2) I didn't think quipping Spidey seemed too douchey to me.

3)Yeah I admit I don't like the dark eyepieces either.

4) Personally I liked the Ultimate origin and I'm fine with the rejiggering the origin here because... well we already got the definitive origin with Raimi. One thing Nolan could do with Batman is go back and draw from the comics in a way that Burton never bothered with. Webb can't do that here because Raimi beat him to the punch. So this is a way to clearly mark that this is a new interpretation.

Will it be good? I dunno. But I'm willing to give it a shot.

Anonymous said...

No no no no no no no. If there was ONE superhero who was meant to go for the "Iron Man" as opposed to "Batman" angle, it was Spider-Man. Peter Parker is basically Tony Stark in high school.

Lord Slithor said...

Sorry, Bob. I REALLY have to disagree with you on this one. Everything I saw in that trailer, I liked. It's everything I wanted in a Spider-Man movie that I didn't get in Sam Raimi's mope-fests. I was especially happy to finally see Spidey quipping and wisecracking like he's supposed to. Didn't strike me as douchey at all. It was pitch perfect. And the destiny thing didn't bother me at all, especially when the Raimi movies were equally or not more pretentious. I'll take this over the Raimi movies ANY day!

Oh, and Dennis Leary as Capt. Stacy? That was a revelation. I have a feeling he's going to steal every scene he's in like J.K. Simmons did when he played JJJ.

Dave from canada said...

@ Lord Slithor


You aren't alone.

In fact as a whole the internet has been abuzz over this trailer and the sizzle reel. The movie is getting some really positive reactions.

IGN even suggested it could be bigger than the avengers.


Bob on the other hand has been bitching about this movie for what, 2 years now? So naturally he hates it and is going to continue acting like the movie is absolute garbage even if it turns out to be awesome, as is becoming a frightening possibility.

Axle said...

I liked two parts of this trailer.

That scene with the car thief in the car. I didn't think it was that douchey.

And that brief moment between the "Oh man the Lizard" feeling and the reveal of how bad it looks.

Silens said...

Okay Bob, I've been on your side for the most part when it has come to this movie, because there are things that really piss me off about it. I don't like they seem to be going through the Ultimate universe in regards to some of the things regarding Connors and Parker's dad. I'm not the biggest fan of the darker eye-pieces for Spider-Man's costume. I really dislike the redesign for the Lizard from what I've seen, namely because I'm a huge fan of the character.

That being said, this looks a lot better than the teaser, which is saying a lot, because the teaser looked fucking WRETCHED. The wise-cracking didn't come off as douche-like to me, and I really didn't get the same 'destiny' vibe you were picking up on. I still think the spider bite will turn out to be an accident, and the more I see it, the more I think Andrew Garfield will be a far better Spider-Man than Tobey McGuire ever was.

And yeah, while the CGI isn't fantastic, this could still be a decent movie. I don't have any high hopes for it, but it could be a lot of fun.

Ezenwa said...

And in the awesome trailer race, Avengers - 3, DKR - 2, and now Spider Man, which was given a -1 in certain instances, has bumped himself to a 1.

It seems like this movie will take the X-men: First Class route and keep it low on the expectations list, only to blow everyone's minds when the film comes, which is a good idea, in my book.

That said, it's going to be an interesting summer to say the least.

Long story short, good trailer. And yes, he's funny. That's how Spidey should be: funny! I don't see the "Dane Cook" aspect. Maybe it's his hair....

Let the trailer race continue.

Oh, btw, as for Spidey creating the Lizard, how do you know it's not just him working on the serum while not really knowing about it? It could be figurative.

Although, I will say this: if Spidey ends up revealing himself to Gwen this early in the game, I will be very, VERY, disappointed.

And, finished. Enjoy!

Sam Robards, Comic Fan said...

I'm still on the fence about this one, but I'm leaning toward the negative. Yeah, this trailer was better than the previous one, but I still have reservations about it.

I'm not crazy about the whole "destiny" angle, either. I hated it when JMS tried to put it in the comics with his totemic origin, and I hate it here.

However, I did like the quipping in the car with the thief: the character's sense of humor was sorely missing from the Raimi films, and it's nice to see it here.

I do agree that I'm not crazy with all the major scenes being shown in this trailer being in the dark/at night. Maybe they'll tie it in to the fact that since he isn't established yet, it's safer for him to go out at night since the cops clearly don't like him. Or, like you said, Bob, they could just be trying to ape Batman, which isn't cool.

Which leads me to the costume: it's entirely too dark, especially considering the large number of overly dark scenes (based on this trailer). I could easily see fight scenes getting muddy and confusing because everything blends together.

Mechanical web shooters are always good: I don't hate the bio-shooters of the Raimi films. It's just nice to see the mechanical ones in here, even if they do flash annoyingly whenever they shoot webbing. Seriously, watch his wrists when he shoots it: they flash every time. Annoying.

I can't complain too much about the casting: I like Dennis Leary as Captain Stacy, Emma Stone as Gwen and Andrew Garfield seems to work as Spider-Man.

I especially like that Garfield's Spidey is a little on the skinnier/thinner side, like the original Ditko Spidey was. When Spider-Man started looking like a bodybuilder, something didn't feel right.

How pissed do you bet Raimi is that the new guy gets to use the Lizard, a classic Spidey-villain, while he was forced to cram Venom in to his last movie? Don't get me wrong: I like the Eddie Brock Venom (from the comics: Topher Grace was awful), but Raimi said many a time that he hated the modern Spidey-villains, and then he gets forced to cram one in to his final Spidey flick. Tough luck.

I don't often comment on CGI unless it's really, really bad, like the bathroom scene in X-Men Origins: Wolverine, but I didn't see anything too objectionable here. The movie's still a ways off, so maybe they haven't finished all the effects yet? I'm not an industry guy, so I don't know when they do all these things.

However, I will agree that, based off some of the concept work I've seen, the Lizard looks awful. Kinda like a scaly pug. Look at Ditko for a good Lizard: Hell, you can even look at a McFarlane Lizard to get a better showing than this (and I don't give praise to McFarlane...ever).

Overall, I'm hoping for a good movie but expecting a bad one.

Anonymous said...

A Spider-Man movie without Bonesaw is not a movie I care about.

Sam Robards, Comic Fan said...

One other thing. I don't like how the movies give Pete this "one true love" thing.

Yeah, we all know that he belongs with Mary Jane in the comics, but we got to that point because he went out with a lot of women (Betty Brant, Felicia Hardy, Gwen Stacy, Mary Jane, etc.), not because they clumsily said, "Oh yeah, he's totally in love with this girl."

The Raimi movies fell into this trap, and it looks like this one (these?) will, too.

I mean, he only met Mary Jane in the comics after avoiding her for a while because Aunt May was trying to hook them up.

But I digress.

Judge Dredd said...

It doesn't look that bad!!

Judge Dredd said...

I can understand tradition and sticking to story, and I remember Raimi getting stick for his alterations and interpretation of the Spiderman legacy, but don't you want to watch a kick-ass summer movie? And that is exactly what this looks like! Fair play, I am really looking forward to this now! It looks very modern and relevant; this movie is going to surprise people!

David (The Pants) said...

I'll read the rest of these comments after class because that's important, but I totally agree with JD. I don't think the "destiny" thing is too bad, and we already HAVE the original-origin-story from Raimi's films. I kind of like how what we've seen suggests that JJJ doesn't play a big (if any) role in this franchise yet...but I stand by my notion made when this was announced: Toby played a good Parker, but J.K. Simmons was the best JJJ ever and if any cast member could reprise a role in this universe I'd pick him for sure!

I don't think the "destiny" thing's a destiny laid out by a deity; it's one laid out by Mr. Parker. If he meant for his son to gain the powers he's made then I understand that and him wanting that. Peter Parker still has to deal with them!

David (The Pants) said...

I was unsure and even partly-agreeing with Bob, but now that I've seen this trailer I'm loving it! And the part where he's unmasked by the cops and then goes apeshit was never-before-seen-cool!

Judge Dredd said...

Simmons was excellent in the series and role of JJJ, but I always thought that Gunnery Sergeant Hartman (R. Lee Ermey) would have been perfect!!!

Sam said...

Not understanding Bob's bile for this film, to be honest. I'm just an average film viewer, not a critic, but I liked what I saw fairly well. I agree that leaning too heavily on a "destined hero" trope would be going overboard, but it looked to me like more of the minor cheese of "my dad knew this guy and together THEY CHANGED THE WORLD" stuff that appeared in Iron Man 2 with Howard Stark's convenient "Tony, you shall complete my mighty work"...it's a chintzy bit of plotting because for a modern audience it looks too convenient, but on the other hand it didn't seem like a big problem for Bob there.

I also didn't get the Dane Cook vibe off of the wisecracking scene at all. Maybe the timing could've been better, but Spider-man cracks wise. If you want to differentiate yourself from Raimi's Spider-Mope, this seems like a decent way to go as far as I'm concerned.

Granted, the trailer wasn't phenomenal, and I don't think the film will be making superhero flick history...but I just don't understand the vitriol. Bob obviously did his best to sound balanced, but let's face it, this was a rant. I...don't get it. Why this film? It looks a bit cheesy, sure, but in all fairness so does The Avengers....

Dave from canada said...

@ Sam

It stems back to when Raimi was going to do a spiderman 4 where felicia hardy would become the vulture for some reason. It fell through. Sony wanted the new film out for 2011, Raimi couldn't cobble together a script in time, so he left and they announced a reboot.

Because Raimi is apparently the second coming of jesus and if you don't love him you deserve hellfire in bob's mind, this makes all future spiderman properties inherently evil.

Also, as he keeps mentioning, this means spiderman can't be in the avengers...even though spiderman was never a part of the classic avengers lineup until the utterly terrible new avengers that also included wolverine because marvel doesn't know how to sell comics without either of those characters anymore.


Pretty much every single point he made in this review is a repetition of a previous post he made about why the movie would be terrible sight unseen.

David said...

OK, what am I missing here?

I don't see where do you take the "Destiny" angle though?

How the hell you go from "My father was a scientist with an evil corp" to "I was destined to become a human spider all along"?

I don't get it!

Are you sure you're not seeing things?

And about the snarkiness, yeah, it comes across a little bit douchy... but not because it's live action! Seriously, that's a very cheap argument.

It feels more like poorly written lines ("If you're gonna steal a car, dress like a car thief"? Really?) and Garfield's over the top, bro-like body language.

And yeah, the lizard looks pretty bland, at least in this trailer. Let's hope it improves before the release.


Still, I don't think it looks that bad. We'll have to wait and see.

MerelyAFan said...

Bob doesn't like the looks of something related to the Spider-Man reboot.

And in other shocking news, the sun rose today.

Steven said...

Bob wants the Avengers to be the most successful comic book film of this year and so has been slagging off every rival nonstop.

Now that, what was once the least threatening rival has just boosted it's credentials he is PISSED because he now no's that the Avengers will probably be the least successful comic based film of the year.

MovieBob said...

Ah, The Internet; where "someone's opinion is different from mine" can ONLY possibly be explained by elaborate ulterior motives.

There are days when I wish I'd gone with something more specific for the new masthead...

"MOVIEBOB: Come For The Second-Rate Film Blogging; STAY For The Dime-Store Psychoanalysis From The Peanut Gallery."

biomechanical923 said...

I understand they're doing it for money. That's a no-brainer. I also understand that a Spiderman IP on a less-than-AAA budget is bound to profit. But honestly I haven't seen a ton of hype or excitement around this movie from anybody.

Studios going for easy money and safe money is sadly no surprise.

Studios going for small money, however, kind of reeks of a little bit of desperation.

Dave from canada said...

@ Bob

And right on cue we have the passiev aggressive reply as though you don't know exactly what we are talking about and as though you haven't been called on it a couple dozen times before.

As I said the last few times you pulled this poor me schtick: if you don't want people to criticize your comments, don't post them.

I won't insult your intelligence by assuming you simply don't know the reception to the new trailer has been very positive, with many a commenter talking about how it turned them around on the movie.

You know what the reaction to this has been, you know it isn't what you wanted.

I find it funny that of all the topics that people disagree with you on, including the multitude of political statements, THIS is the one topic to get such a snippy reaction from you.

Aiddon said...

looks pretty lame. Now I understand why Raimi actually downplayed Spidey's snark in his movies: because it would make Peter come off as a twat instead of humorous. (Also, I wish people would stop thinking that ripping off Whedon's writing style is somehow the end-all be-all of writing good dialogue.) And it's going to be doubly jarring considering this movie thinks that it's capable of copying Chris Nolan.

Steven said...

@ MovieBob

Really a comment like that from a guy who came across as nearly orgasming at the trailor for God Bless America a film basically about killing all those who like something you don't?

Anonymous said...

"Ah, The Internet; where "someone's opinion is different from mine" can ONLY possibly be explained by elaborate ulterior motives."

Except it's not elaborate. It barely qualifies as ulterior. You've done everything short of admitting your hate for this movie has nothing to do with the movie itself. Oh wait, my bad. You did that too. So no Bob, this isn't "Dime-Store Psychoanalysis", this is you being called out on bullshit you didn't even bother hiding. Deal with it.

biomechanical923 said...

He must really believe in what he's saying to post without an identity.

Anonymous said...

@Bob

Wow, after that snap, you just lost what little amount of respect I had left for you. Bye now.

Nathan said...

Two things I've taken from this blog post.

1) Mr. Anon(#1), I don't think Bob gets anything from Marvel.

2) I actually like the suit. It reminds me of the Scarlet Spider. His second costume, when he took over for Spider-man for awhile and ditched the sleeveless hoodie. I also like Denis Leary and it's nice to see he acts like he could actually be Capt. Stacey. That said, thus far, these are the only two things I like about this movie so far.

Jonny Pratt said...

I'm not sure if it's the trailer miss-representing the film or not, but there really is a lot of batman-ism going on here. It's nothing to do with "darkness" or "grittiness", both of which are missing other than a literal lack of light (while I'm on the subject, it looks like the trailer can't decide if it's "gritty" or "cool" or "camp" or anything - no persistant theme may make for a rather messy presentation)

No, nothing to do with that:

"I think he's maybe trying to do something the police can't"

The trailer says to me, "destiny-driven superhero becomes masked vigilante and angers police force in doing so". There are other "reveals" such as the love interest and hints of the supervilain, but the main focus is the above.

The Nolan Batman movies haven't privatised that theme, but the fact of the matter is this is ground that's already been covered, and that's certainly a turn-off for me.

I have no frame of reference having never read the comics, so perhaps this is a theme that works for the character - I don't know. But as a film, the similarity between Bat-Nolan and Spider-Boot could be taken as a lack of imagination, and I have no interest in seeing a film about a lycra-clad spider-person battling a human lizard which lacks imagination.

Maybe that's just the trailer though. In which case, that's some bloody terrible advertising.

(PS. Can we start some sort of initiative so that everybody can refer to "Nolan's Batman" as just "Batman"? It been long enough.)

Anonymous said...

While I don't know how this movie will turn out, and I'm not sure whether or not I like the look of it, I mean it could be great, or it could be utter shit, I'm not going to make any pre-conceived notions about it, that way when I do see it, I can judge it fairly.

Bob, I know it's kind of your job, but maybe you shouldn't watch any more media for this movie until you see it, because right now it does seem like you just want to hate it. Don't make any pre-conceived notions, and give it a chance. I don't want to be watching the review on Escape to the Movies for this and you hating it because you went in thinking "This is going to suck" and finding things in the film that will match that opinion, rather than judging it fairly. You might still end up hating it sure, and that's fine, but you never know, it could surprise you.

Scott C. said...

Bob, I really think you're very insightful about a lot of things movie/video game related and you make a lot of valid points when it comes to over-hyped and/or under-appreciated IPs, but I'm really not sure why you're making such a big deal out of this (while making comments about how angry you AREN'T about the Phantom Menace re-release). It seems that from the get go you've had it out for this movie. I know you've thrown in the occasional, "I'm trying to like this movie," but I feel like that's just a front so you can hopefully appease some of your fans who want to support you and this movie at the same time.
The Sam Raimi movies were always lackluster. Spider-Man 2 was the closest thing we got to a recognizable adaptation of the comic books/1994 cartoon show (my favorite adaptation to date), and even that ended horribly, not to mention having a very erratic story that felt as if it were going nowhere.
Spider-Man 3 had some of the worst dialogue and special effects for a superhero movie, and we're talking about a movie that would have felt campy if it had been doing its job properly. I'm not mad at emo Peter. I'm not mad about squandering the fantastic potential of Sandman by including 2 other throw away villains. I'm not even mad about Topher Grace's horrendous portrayal of Eddie Brock. No, the only thing I'm mad about at this point is that you are defending a mediocre trilogy of movies with cheap laughs, poor directing, forgettable characters, painful acting, confusing plots, and cheesy special effects, while claiming the reboot is doing all the same things.

Anonymous said...

I kinda like this new direction. It hasn't even been 10 years since the first Raimi movie and I'm glad to see it mixed up a bit.
Why would you want to watch the same stuff we've watched not too long ago?
I'm glad spider-man quips a bit in this movie, I feared it was going to be too gloomy.
Also.. the eyes? really?

Christopher Delvo said...

I have to agree with you, Bob. This trailer just couldn't grab me. From the opening "intimidating doorman" line to the final falling-thing-3D-Money-shot (which, really, was a lame way to end the trailer..."A thing is falling on top of a building without context! Exciting! Not so much...), it just felt bland to me.

Regarding your bullet-points:

1) The cop bit is pretty cool, and I think the action, at least, looks pretty well choreographed.

2) I'm pretty sure that the dark is to 1: ape batman, and 2: cover up some of the shittier effects work. I'd like to see some daylight stuff, but I'm pretty sure most daylight is going to be school stuff and pre-transformation.

3) Dennis Leary fits the bill perfectly (though I do keep expecting him to go off on a random tangent a la Demolition Man). Totally agreed there. However, another quick note regarding the casting: from the beginning, when I heard that Emma Stone was playing Gwen, I just couldn't get on-board with it. And as I watch her now, my feelings are confirmed. She just seems off in this role.

4) The joke falls flat to me. It doesn't really come off as Snarky so much as "trying to be cool". The delivery lacks confidence. I do disagree, though, that the problem with the dialogue is that it's in live-action. It's just bad writing and bad delivery.

5) The whole costume looks like ass. I really can't get over the eye-pieces and the crotch-arrow design. It really looks like they brought in some pretentious art student and asked them to design a spider-man suit.

6) The lizard does look awful. Really, he looks like a really poorly designed hulk villain. The lack of anything "lizard-y" about him other than his eyes and his tail doesn't help the matter. Bad move there.

7)Now, here's where we conflict a bit. While I don't like the idea of adding in the "destiny" aspect, I don't mind the fact that his dad used to work with Connors at OsCorp. I think that could have worked, allowing a doorway for Connors and Peter to bond. The fact that his father is going to end up being the ones that make the super-spider formula? That definitely goes against the whole point of Spider-Man. And the spider-in-a-jar bit does feel like kind of a slap in the face.

And I don't mind a lot of Ultimate Spider-Man. I thought their version of Venom (a cure for cancer gone wrong), in fact, was actually pretty intuitive. And don't forget that it was Ultimate Marvel who had the balls to kill off Peter Parker and replace him with a new Spider-Man.

-Chris

DBones said...

You know, after all the hubbub about making Spider-Man funny, this trailer seemed incredibly serious and lacking in "fun."

Raimi's movies may not have had the wisecracks during the fight scenes, but they were still very fun. This just looks super serious super action movie, and the wisecracks seem out of place.

Uncle Tim said...

I'm still not exactly sure where you're getting this whole "chosen one"/"destiny" angle. Ok, so let's look at it:

-His father now worked for Oscorp, apparently in experiments that involved a spider.

-Peter discovers a clue about this and goes to Oscorp to discover more details about it.

-From the earlier teaser, I'm getting the sense that the spider-bite thing is still an accident, possibly when Peter is examining some of his father's experiments at Oscorp.

That doesn't exactly spell out that Peter's father meant for him to become a super-powered arachnid do-gooder or that he was destined to become it. It simply means that because his father was working on this, Peter put himself into a situation where an accident could occur since there are greater odds of super-powered spiders being around at Oscorp, rather than the randomness of a spider dropping into a radioactive experiment. It's not a question of predestination, just higher probabilities.

However, if you insist on seeing the dreaded theme of 'destiny' in your Spider-man cinematic experiences, here ya go:

http://impawards.com/2004/spider_man_two_ver6.html

On other points, I like having Captain Stacy involved as it gives Peter a human antagonist who has much more ability that Jameson to mess up his life.

So far I like that in the web-swinging shots the virtual camerawork is way less ridiculous than it was in the Raimi series.

Connectin Peter's father with Oscorp and making him a science makes it natural to have Peter be a whiz-kid and the connection to his father's work may also make his invention of the web fluid a bit more plausible.

My once concern is that I hope they don't make Curt Connors villainous even in his human form. Connors is best as a true Jekyll & Hyde villain who can't control his other reptilian half.

And is that a Spider-tracer I see in there?

MovieBob said...

@Uncle Tim,

I'll concede that a lot of my worry hear comes from "reading" the way the various scenes are arranged in the trailer and what story they're meant to tell; but from where I sit it's pretty damn close the "pre-ordained hero" schtick, just with coincidence subbing for "The Force" or whatnot.

His (missing/dead) father was not only working with The Lizard on the stuff that will turn him INTO The Lizard; but it ALSO seems to be what turns him into Spider-Man AND they did all this while under the employment of the guy who will become The Green Goblin (Gee. I. Wonder. Who. Dissapeared. The Parkers.)

That this is more of the same streamlining/compression crap that's almost always a clear giveaway that the filmmakers don't really "get" the genre (see: Joker kills Batman's parents) the implication - at least in terms of the "trailer's narrative" - that he's able to step into his dad's shoes and solve Conners' incomplete formula gives off a strong "these events were already in motion" vibe, whether this is "inherited genius" or he got the answer from Dad's Magical Backstory Bag.

And even WITHOUT all that, the decorative spider in the flashback is a giant red flag in and of itself - ESPECIALLY if it actually is part of Richard Parker's effects (and that's definitely the implication of the trailer-editing.) I swear, if he has some speech relating to it about positive attributes of spiders as metaphor for positive behaviors in people, I will not be held responsible for my actions at the theater.

Xenos said...

I dunno. The whole bit of Peter's dad being a scientist and being involved with the webbing was one of the things I actually dug about the Ultimate books. It's a nice update and doesn't dig into the whole spy thing, but still keeps something similar. Plus mixing it into Oscorp makes sense too since SHIELD ain't showing up in Sony films.

My only gripe would be that Connors might be less sympathetic and more of a villain before becoming Lizard. Also a bad feelings they might lead to Ultimate Goblin instead of a traditional Goblin which we didn't quite get with that metal suit.

I think after the third Rami film, we needed a fresh start. Plus we finally have a proper Gwen Stacy!!! Too bad it wasn't Marvel proper doing it, but this might work.

Xenos said...

Oh and it could be worse. At least they're not saying some Spider-god was manipulating Peter into becoming Spider-man... or doing that but with song and dance with spider women shopping for shoes.

I'm looking at you, J. Michael Straczynski and Julie Taymor.

So, really, having some stuff already set in motion ain't bad to me. I don't really get a whole "destiny" vibe just yet. Just that there's a back story of shady experiments at Oscorp. And I see that making a ton of sense.

Uncle Tim said...

@Bob

"I'll concede that a lot of my worry hear comes from "reading" the way the various scenes are arranged in the trailer and what story they're meant to tell; but from where I sit it's pretty damn close the "pre-ordained hero" schtick, just with coincidence subbing for "The Force" or whatnot.

His (missing/dead) father was not only working with The Lizard on the stuff that will turn him INTO The Lizard; but it ALSO seems to be what turns him into Spider-Man AND they did all this while under the employment of the guy who will become The Green Goblin (Gee. I. Wonder. Who. Dissapeared. The Parkers.)"

You seem to be missing my point slightly. My point is that because Peter's father is involved in this serum/experiment/whatever, it's LESS of a coincidence. It's what instead a circumstance of cause and effect. Peter discovers his father's work, becomes interested and involved in it and the accident happens as a result. It only seems pre-ordained because we know he's going to turn into Spider-man. Instead, it's a matter of character choice since Peter decided to work on the formula. Plus, if he feels responsible for what happened to Connors, does that not play into the "great power/great responsibility" theme?

And this doesn't really compare to the Batman "Joker killed his parents thing." That seems plot convenient. This is more in the matter of plot efficiency. We've got a guy with spider-derived attributes and a guy with lizard-derived attributes. Does it not make dramatic sense to connect them? Otherwise I think it would seem much more coincidental that everyone in New York seems to have some kind of animal genetics issues going on. And even if Osborne is involved in their disappearance, since his powers came from a similar experiment, wouldn't that tie in and again be less a matter of coincidence than consequence?

I also think it'd be funny if we see that Oscorp was working on other animal experiments along these lines, say ones involving rhino and cat abilities?

I'd also say it's a bit condescending and foolish to say that because they're changing it a bit that they don't "get" the genre. That's about as presumptuous as someone assigning ulterior motives to explain another's opinion *wink wink*.

As for things already being in motion, how is that any different from Batman Begins, where we see that things were already in motion there (the League of Shadows trying to destroy Gotham economically, Thomas Wayne fighting back, etc.)? Same result: because of past events and accidents along the way (one encounters bats, one encounters a spider), the sons choose to pursue a life of crime-fighting. No coincidence or need of destiny at all... personal choice, the key theme of Spider-man.

Sam Robards, Comic Fan said...

Bob, after viewing the ongoing conversation, I do have to respond to this quote, "That this is more of the same streamlining/compression crap that's almost always a clear giveaway that the filmmakers don't really "get" the genre (see: Joker kills Batman's parents)..."

I feel obligated to remind you that Raimi had the F-ING SANDMAN KILL UNCLE BEN in Spider-Man 3.

If that doesn't wreak of filmmakers not "getting" the genre, then I don't know what does.

Oh, and the whole, "But the guy Peter could have stopped bumped into Sandman, making the gun go off" is the worst (not to mention weakest) line of defense for that horrifically awful plot thread.

I'm not saying you made that rationale, but some people have.

Just thought I'd just put in my two cents!

Chris Cesarano said...

I'm not going to argue whether Bob is biased or not (he is, but technically so is everyone who dislikes the Raimi versions). However, I got to watch the trailer last night, and I got mixed feelings.

Those eyes for the costume don't work. I have no problem with the rest of it, but those eyes look terrible.

I definitely like Denis Leary as Captain Stacy. Too early to tell if any of the other actors are cast well.

Andrew Garfield feels like he's doing a good job with the role he's been given, but my thoughts on the whole are that this doesn't feel like THE Spider-Man movie. Iron Man, Hulk, Thor, Captain America, they all felt like their respective property. Maybe it helps that I'm not so familiar with any of those films as I am with Spider-Man, but in that sense, X-Men: First Class felt like X-Men still.

This feels like someone took a bunch of Spider-Man-esque elements and clung them together into a movie. Something about the tone is just off, though. While I appreciate Peter Parker having balls in this version, his snark is off. It doesn't sound like the Peter Parker I know (albeit from the Fox cartoons and from the Ultimate universe).

I think what really hit it for me was watching that tower topple in the trailer. It feels like they're trying to set themselves apart from Raimi's version, but at the same time, they may be shifting a bit too far from the actual spirit of the creation.

That said, I might go see it. Not completely certain yet. This could be a case like Rise of the Planet of the Apes, where the first trailer was terrible, the second trailer was intriguing, and it turned out to be one of my favorite films of last year.

I don't think the general audience will be a fan, though. I still remember the first time I sat in a theater when the first trailer appeared, and from all over the peanut gallery I heard "They're making another one?" "Why are they starting it over?" "Isn't it too soon?"

In other words, casual movie goers that hadn't already heard of this had pretty much the same reaction as a bunch of nerds. So I expect this to be a flop, with the only people really interested being the nerds, and half of those are going to make fun of it after already having their minds made up.

So anyone saying this has a chance of doing better than The Avengers, I'm sorry, but that's just laughable. At the very least, everyone will see the movie just for more Iron Man and Captain America, seeing how those films were loved by movie going audiences. Even if they go to see it as "Iron Man and those other dudes", they're going to see it.

Avengers will probably be the biggest Blockbuster this year, Battleship will probably flop, and The Dark Knight Returns will be a decent second place to Avengers in regards to geeky films (I don't know enough about the industry to predict all-around performances).

Spider-Man is the only one I'm not sure about performance. It might be a total flop, and easily risks it. It might have a bad opening weekend and then word of mouth gives it a strong second and third. Who knows? It really is too early to tell.

Either way, I think I'll enjoy it more if I view it as A Spider-Man movie, rather than THE Spider-Man movie.

MovieBob said...

@Uncle Tim,

"I also think it'd be funny if we see that Oscorp was working on other animal experiments along these lines, say ones involving rhino and cat abilities?"

Ugh. "OsCorp: Your One-Stop Shop For Lazy Supervillain Origins." Don't give them any ideas. One of the things the Raimi movies got most right was to establish right off the bat that this sort of thing isn't wholly uncommon in this world, which gives it so much more expanse and scope - there's a terrarium full of super-spiders in a museum on one side of town, there's a guy with gliders and goblin-gas on the other side, and there's ZERO need to tie them together because it's a big world and "these things happen here."

Reworking the whole setup from "Spider-Man: Protector of New York" to "Spider-Man: Guy With a Personal Vendetta Against This ONE Villain-Generating Company" would be A.) a terrible idea and B.) something I'd wholly expect out of this new (maybe) series.

Uncle Tim said...

@Bob

"One of the things the Raimi movies got most right was to establish right off the bat that this sort of thing isn't wholly uncommon in this world, which gives it so much more expanse and scope - there's a terrarium full of super-spiders in a museum on one side of town, there's a guy with gliders and goblin-gas on the other side, and there's ZERO need to tie them together because it's a big world and "these things happen here."

But that's not entirely true until the third Raimi film considering Otto Octavius was also funded and supplied by Oscorp. Despite this, they managed to avoid being portrayed as an "evil corporation" in those movies. All we have so far in this new one is (probably) a scientist whose experiment goes out of control and (probably) the company founder going insane due to similar circumstances. That doesn't mean we can expect the Umbrella Corp. And that "big world" thing worked find in the other films but it doesn't mean it's the only way to go. I don't think tying things together in a logical way is necessarily a dramatic evil.

Besides, this type of set-up would be great to provide origins for villains like the Rhino would probably couldn't support a full story on their own but would make good henchmen.

Chris Cesarano said...

Was The Rhino ever a truly fleshed out villain? I don't even really remember him being made use of in the Fox cartoon. He seems like a pretty generic villain to me, and not the sort you'd really build a movie off of or use as a henchman.

The best villains in comics tend to be the ones whose psychology you can understand. The ones that you can comprehend the reasoning behind their actions. Rhino always came off to me as a generic asshole "I got power so you get crushed".

I think that's one of the things Raimi really did right, at least in terms of goals. He wanted the villains to be more than generic bad guys. He wanted them to actually be characters.

Except for Venom, who he COULD have done something good with, but screwed it up due to a stubborn attitude.

Either way, there's certainly more sorts of villains in the world than just mutations for Spider-Man to combat against.

Uncle Tim said...

@Chris Cesarano

That's exactly why I think this approach would work for villains like that. If say you had a villain like Green Goblin or better yet, a more cerebral villain like Mysterio or the Chameleon, but needed another element to give the film more action; the Rhino and villains like him could serve as muscle, providing some thrilling action scenes and an opponent for Spider-man to fight against physically while the main villain offers the more interesting psychological depth and dramatic value.

I do agree there are plenty of other villains, such as Kraven or those previously mentioned, that could be made use of that wouldn't involve Oscorp and wouldn't be surprised if we see that. Hell, I had hoped the abandoned Spider-man 4 would have been Kraven and Lizard, as in Spider-man has to simultaneously stop Connors while protecting him from Kraven, who's out to bag him as a trophy.

By the way, regarding your previous post, I'm curious if you consider any of the Raimi Spider-man films as being THE Spider-man film as you mentioned, or if you feel no one has reached that level yet.

BJCHESTER said...

I agree that making Peter's powers a result of destiny undermines his whole struggle to choose to be a hero. What's more, I dislike how so may fans claim this to be closer to the comics, because of "oh my God mechanical web-shoters," and ignore the fact that Marc Webb is projecting personality traits that are antithetical to Peter Parker onto him. Claiming Peter is more "punk," and turning him from a shy science-lover, to a wannabe Eric Harris, skater-rat. I had problems with the Raimi movies, and even complained about them before it was popular to do so, but everything I've seen of this makes me less and less interested.

Chris Cesarano said...

@Uncle Tim:

That reaches the potential to having too many villains in one film. Handled well, it can work, but one really needs to be the primary focus. I was all on board with The Dark Knight's execution of Two-Face, expecting him to have been set up for a cliffhanger villain into the next movie.

Then they made him way too dark, way too fast, and killed him off. It felt cheap, as if they only had Two-Face for the sake of having Two-Face. It devalued most of his character's actions as Harvey Dent, and they tacked on some bull crap about "The hero this city deserves, but not what it needs" (I swear, that ending monologue STILL makes me scratch my head).

Unless the comic is about ensemble casts where the characters are based more on gimmicks than personalities, such as the X-Men universe (well, superficially: everyone gets a chance to be fleshed out in years-long-running comics after all), then having more than one villain is just a bad idea.

Plus, even in a universe where a man is turning into a reptile, I just...I can't get behind The Rhino. He's not even the Bane of Spider-Man villains. I'd go so far as to compare him to Aqua Man.

As for Raimi's films, I think the first two were what super hero films needed at the time. You saw the trailer, and you're like "Holy crap! It LOOKS like a Spider-man movie should look!" And they got the whole relationship between Peter Parker and Uncle Ben right. That whole "great power great responsibility" theme was pitch perfectly executed (until the third film which fucked it all up).

But upon repeat viewings, the first and second movies don't hold up. It's hard to like Peter Parker because he keeps doing and saying stupid things. It's easy to like Spider-man, sure! But Pete's personal life is full of him doing stupid stuff. Yeah, Pete in the comics was a geek, but he wasn't a pussy, so to speak.

Raimi's execution of Mary Jane is also beyond bland. MJ from the comics never came off to me as "Oh look, it's that pretty popular girl that Pete has a thing for!" She was different by having a fiery personality. Raimi basically recycled the old "Geek loves popular girl, out-of-the-ordinary circumstance gets him the girl". Like Transformers. The plot line is old hat and played out, especially after having grown up a geek and resenting the popular girl. If I became a super hero as a teenager and dared to reveal my abilities and identity, I'd have been all "Look at me NOW, bitch!"

Not that such an attitude is admirable, but seriously.

In a lot of ways, though, I get sick of Raimi's B-movie sense of cheese. The man loves the woman with the shrill scream way too much. The inappropriate close-ups just asking for someone to say "groovy". The over-the-top nature of some of the set pieces. The guy indulges in himself, pretty much, shoving a little bit of Evil Dead into Spider-man just because he can. It is tonally inappropriate, and the only way you'll enjoy it is if you happen to be absolutely in love with that old fashioned 70's scream queen grindhouse movie culture.

I feel like, between the Raimi films and this new one, there's a really good Spider-Man film out there. But both of them missed the bullseye and instead got the outer-edges of the target (as opposed to X-Men or Fantastic Four, which missed the target completely).

Popcorn Dave said...

I agree with Bob on the destiny/unified origins thing, and I prefer the classic story. Obviously they were just trying to avoid it because Raimi did the classic origin story already, but I don't get the obsession with origin stories anyway.

Superhero sequels nearly always turn out better than the originals, so why not just start the film with the character already super?

Oh, that's right, they're rebooting because they ALSO want to use Doc Ock, Green Goblin and Venom again and they have to make sure the dumbass audience realises it's not a sequel to the Raimi films.

Lame. It really isn't a bad trailer apart from that, though. I agree that the Lizard looks rubbish, and I hope some of the film takes place in daylight, but Spider-Man himself looks pretty damn good.

This film won't light the world on fire like the Dark Knight or even like the original Raimi films did, but I think it's got a shot at being a decent Spider-Man movie.

I find it funny that you keep praising the Marvel movies for embracing comic book style writing (crossovers, shared universes etc.) but surely one of the main characteristics of comic books is the revolving door of writers and artists that keep tweaking continuity, retconning this or that, and putting their own spin on the established characters. Seems like this kind of "reinvention" is exactly the kind of thing comic books like to do, and between this movie, Superman, Hulk, and Batman, it's fast becoming standard practice for superhero movies. Be careful what you wish for, Bob.

Anonymous said...

He didn't come off as that douchey to me, from that one exchange it seems like Garfield might be able to pull it off, he might not. Not entirely convinced either way.

At least we can all agree that George Stacy is a step up from Cromwell :V

in any case
/goes to sit in the corner for liking Ult. Marvel

CraftyAndy said...

I don't need to add another paragraph to this comment section. I'll just second your last statement.

Fuck That!

Linda said...

That was really nice :) Free Computer Games ~ Freeware Softwares

DOWNLOAD FULL VERSION OF ACTION PC GAMES HERE said...

.

DOWNLOAD COMPUTER SOFTWARES WITH SERIAL KEYS HERE said...

.

Anonymous said...

It has been brought to my attention that article purporting to be about me exists on your site. Beyond the fact that it has erroneous and libelous information that is unverified and slanted by those who have hijacked the page. The page is controlled by those from Guam or live in Guam in an attempt to smear me because they are trying to discredit my upcoming testimony on Guam that will lead to criminal charges of these individuals . I will be asking my attorney to look into your site to seek damages incurring to my reputation by the posting of libel and slander.

best, Albert Pyun apyunfilm@aol.com