Thursday, May 03, 2012

New Spidey Trailer Has New Lizard Look, Same Issues

The new "Amazing Spider-Man" trailer, which is supposed to be in front of most "Avengers" prints, is now online; confirming that The Lizard (the CGI on the whole still looks shockingly bad) will be wearing his labcoat for at least a little while and that the standup-comedy Spidey and missing-parents stuff aren't looking any better with more polish, and that omniously-stupid "do you know what you really are?" business crops up again:

For all the "Avengers vs. Batman" talk that will surely dominate the summer movie coverage, this honestly strikes me as the genre movie that could be negatively impacted the most by "Avengers" sucking all the air out of the room: Nolan's Batman is very much it's own thing, but ASM looks to be playing the same game as "Avengers" (scifi-heavy superheroics in New York) but not nearly as well.

Who's the guy asking Connors if he said anything about The Parkers at one point? Has the trailer revealed it's previously-unannounced Norman Osborn?

UPDATE: Devin Faraci claims to have some inside sources on the project, and says that they've confirmed what the trailers (this one moreso than the others) have hinted at about the reboot making a major, fundamental change to Spider-Man's origin. If true, it's sort-of a spoiler (though the trailers are pretty-much saying it right out at this point) so read it only if you wish to HERE.


MerelyAFan said...

Honestly the fact that Spider-Man looks to be funny, the fight scenes seem like they're cool (and are of a different style than previous films), and Garfield appears to be pulling off a likable Peter Parker is keeping my interest. If the origin story isn't too eyeroll worthy, that's just an added bonus.

Tim Burton's Batman wasn't deeply evocative of the character's history, but its still fun. I think the same will apply here.

Arturo said...

At the very least, at least the action looks decent

David (The Pants) said...

I'm even more pumped. I know this isn't going to have Avengers or TDK caliber, but it'll be fun. The "my weakness" joke was funny, and Andy plays Peter well.

Daniel R said...

Alright, I like this trailer a little bit more than the last ones.

Action seems fun, or at least decent.

I liked how certain parts were shot, like for example holding up the flaming car from the bridge (Although I wonder, why is he doing that? The entire front of the car is on fire, so presumable no one's alive and needing of rescue)

And they seem to be handling Spidey's swinging scenes in a nifty way.


Yeah if the change turns out to be true, this film just dropped about half a star for me. I think one of the fundamental aspects of Spidey is the fact that he's just a school nerd who got lucky on a field trip.

I just hope they're not stupid enough to change Uncle Ben's death, that would such a shame.


NpPro93 said...

I like how they call it "The Untold Story." Like, if you're going to re-write the origin, of course the story will be untold. You're making it up.

That said, I'm not entirely against them revising the origin, nor do I believe this movie has to suck. However, I think it is probably a bad a move to change the origin and that, unfortunately, it will probably suck. But I'll still be seeing it.

Aiddon said...

The spoiler does indeed make me feel like the guys writing this just don't GET Spider-Man.

Anonymous said...

I'm going to preemptively agree with James and say that this is all Obama's fault.

Anonymous said...

With all the other movies this summer, I think Amazing Spider-Man has moved to the list of movies that I will wait until I can see it on my home theater. I don't have a lot of time to go and see every movie in theaters anymore and watching the trailers for this movie I just keep getting the "meh" vibe.

Teej Turtle said...

Not that fussed about the slight change to Pete's origin just don't like all this "destiny" crap. I've always found that a lazy writing tool.
"You're the chosen one."
"But I just wanted a sandwich"
"It was foretold that you would, one day, want a sandwich."

Anonymous said...

Bob, you might want to fix your embed. It's stretched all the way into the sidebar at 1280x720 resolution.

Lord Slithor said...

Having just seen it, once again I reiterate that the more I see of this movie, the more I'm liking it. I still don't understand the hate that you and others have for this movie. For my money, this feels more like Spider-Man than the Raimi movies ever did.

So what if they add a new wrinkle to the origin? Spider-Man's origin story is one I've seen played-out countless times in various media. More so I'd say than even Superman's! I practically know it by rote. So why not come along and do something interesting with it? Why not have it NOT be a random occurrence for once? It would certainly make for a more interesting story as opposed to yet another rehash of the same tired origin everyone's seen for the umpteenth time.

Still can't quite believe the rumor Sony's not happy with this. Looks perfectly fine to me. And no articles I've read have pointed out specifics as to WHY. My guess? They're just nervous because they probably just see this movie as a contractual obligation to keep the rights, and are just scared shitless they'll lose it if it tanks. Considering Sony might sell-off its movie division in light of their financial problems, that would seem plausible.

Anonymous said...

Reiterating from my comment on the last Spider-Man related blog post (contains implications of spoilers, read at your own risk):

If you ask me, Spider-Man's origin is crucial to his character, because the two most significant events - the radioactive spider bite and Uncle Ben's murder - were events that happened by pure chance. We can easily conceive of a scenario in which the spider nearly misses being blasted with radiation or Uncle Ben's murderer finds another victim. It is Peter Parker's good will and legitimate repentance for his Uncle's death that cause him to want to use his powers selflessly. This establishes Peter Parker/Spider-Man as a good person and sympathetic/relatable character right off the bat.

I think that throwing something "predetermined" into the mix completely changes that dynamic. If Peter doesn't make a heartfelt, personal choice to become Spider-Man and fight evil, his character loses that much depth. Stan Lee created Spider-Man with the idea that he would be a "relatable" superhero, and Spider-Man's origin, as it reads in the comics, is completely crucial to that.

Anonymous said...

All I can say at this comments is "What is Ultimate Spider-Man?"

An answer?

One of the best takes on Spider-Man ever done.

There's a lot more to the Spider-Man mythos than just an accident at a lab.

Daemon said...

Didn't they already do this whole 'superpower derived from genetics unlocked by chance accident as designed by father' plot in Ang Lee's Hulk? And didn't it suck then, too?

CJ said...

Do please stop Bob.

Eze said...

For the Avengers vs. TDK talk, it should stop, really. In general aesthetics, they are very different in their approach to a comic book movie. To say one is better than the other, means to downplay the other's approach. That's like saying, "Every comic movie needs to be gritty and real" on one side, and the opposite for the other. Don't. They work for two separate reasons. So, leave it at that.

As for the issues with Spider Man, and if this is true about the change in origin, I wonder just how many people will say this movie sucks because it doesn't stay true to form, yet, on a coin flip, will say X-men: First Class was amazing, when essentially, it did the exact same thing.

That said, I won't watch either, because I care too much about the origins. Heck, I grew up with it and enjoyed it. Don't really feel like switching things up for the heck of it. Just my opinion.

But, to be fair, this makes awesome trailer #2 for ASM.

Yes, I'm still counting.

Sam Robards, Comic Fan said...

If this is true, which it seems like it might, I guess the screenwriters for this movie really liked Ang Lee's Hulk, eh? Because it sounds like the exact same twist.

All the big genre movies this summer aside from The Avengers seem rather "meh" to me, including The Dark Knight Rises.

I'll still go see this, but I'm not expecting to be blown away. Maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised. Stranger things have happened.

Dave said...

Bob, the CGI on the lizard is indeed up to date and looks fine. Maybe it's because you're looking at it on your computer monitor at a small size but I've seen it on the big screen and it's perfectly alright. If you don't like the Lizard's design that's one thing, but as for the CGI, please quit your bitching about that.

And no, it's not an "opinion". If you pause the trailer and look at the video, the CGI used for Spidey web-slinging and in action scenes is of the same quality as the CGI used for the lizard. If you took the time to do that as I did, you would be fairly objective. You didn't and aren't. You're just bitching for the sake of bitching and trying to make it seem like an honest opinion when you are just participating in a culture of complaint.

While I do have my gripes about the lizard not having a snout, I'm surprised no one is bringing up how he does wear the lab coat in the trailer, and as a consequence, fits the description of the Steve Ditko version of the Lizard from older comics pretty nicely when wearing it.

Having seen the newest TDKR trailer and this one on the big screen, I have to say, regardless of how I may feel about Spidey's redesign, it's looking much better than TDKR. Listen to the new TDKR trailer closely whenever Bane talks, and the audio quality haphazardly changes to compensate for not being able to hear him at all. It's bad when you watch it on Youtube; WORSE when you see it in the theaters, prompting much laughter and scorn from movie-goers when I was in the theaters last night.

So please, Bob, do shut up. Your ranting for the sake of ranting has gotten really old.

KevinCV said...


"So please, Bob, do shut up. Your ranting for the sake of ranting has gotten really old."

Judging by the length of your post to culminate in that little snippet, I think there's a case of the pot calling the kettle black here. Just saying...

Dave said...

Kevin, there's a clear difference between ranting for the sake of ranting and one person calling another out on pontificating (i.e. talking out of one's ass). If all you're doing is judging length instead of substance and content, then you miss the overall point.

Therefore, this is not an issue of the pot calling the kettle black.