Monday, June 25, 2012

The Abridged Spider-Man

Via Screencrush

"The Amazing Spider-Man" (which I still haven't seen) isn't a movie, it's a contract-law manuever - the purpose of its existance is to help Sony hold on to a lucrative brand in the short-term while they figure out how to hold on to it for the long-term. Its sole task next week is to open as big as possible (preferably hitting one of those meaningless "highest-grossing unadjusted whatever" boxoffice records) and get as far into the black as possible before "The Dark Knight Rises" comes out and wipes everything else off the map.

Sony's strategy for making that happen has been to BURY the internet and television with advertising - not just trailers and commercials, but a staggering number of extended promo-clips. And because of that, we have this: An enterprising fan has cut ALL of the publically-available footage of the film together in chronological order; effectively presenting (unless there's some HUGE twists being hidden) what seems to be a shortened version of the entire damn movie.

Sony has pulled this down a few times and probably will again (I'm not sure why, this is ALL just stuff they've already blanketed the planet with) so check it out while you can:

20 comments:

Angry Man said...

Sweet jesus, Sony actually put clips that long and un-broken online? Are they retarded? These are the same people freaking out about piracy, right?

Also I suddenly have the desire to watch Teen Wolf.

Popcorn Dave said...

This is fucking hilarious. What an absolutely brilliant way to send up Sony's marketing. It's pretty interesting how it's all in "trailer-ese" yet you can still make sense of everything.

I watched the first five or ten minutes, then stopped, because it really does give the whole game away. Don't want to ruin it for myself.

Ralphael said...

If it was a good movie, I would still pay money to go see this in theaters.
But its not.... the scene with Parker asking out Stacy made me smile though...



Also, Denis Leary sucks at being William Dafoe.

Thanks for posting this Bob.

Sanunes said...

Hmm... I guess this confirms my opinion of Sony, they released almost 25min of footage from a movie that is probably going to be between a hour and half to two hours long and didn't think something like this would happen. It reminds me of the Wolverine movie being leaked, you know its not the finished product, but it probably will attract and detract people from seeing the movie.

Gordy said...

Doesn't look fantastic but doesn't look like an unwatchable piece of shit either. I think I might give it a chance and go see it in the cinema.

motyr said...

Watched it. I had probably seen a third of the material shown. There's significantly more cohesion in the first 15-20 minutes than the last 5-10 minutes, but even still, there are only a few significant gaps between clips that would have to be filled in. There isn't anything to suggest that those gaps have any material that would amount to anything close to a "twist", though. It's extremely formulaic and generally boring.

This compilation is totally hilarious. And that Sony is trying to scramble to remove it from the internet is even more indicative of how much these 25 minutes do cover. After watching it, I honestly don't feel like I have to see the movie.

This whole project was such a shame. I really wish that Marvel got back the rights to Spider-Man. Could the rights to a character or franchise be bought? Maybe the ton of money THE AVENGERS has pulled in could be put to some use. I don't know the details, so I don't know how possible that would be.

When news came out of this "reboot", I initially defended it and thought that a lot of it looked promising. But the more I see, the more I regret ever rooting for this project. It saddens me that I could have such a high seeing THE AVENGERS, which I had never really invested in in terms of the comics or interest in the characters in general, but one of my favourites, Spider-Man, has been given the shaft. There are very few movies I consciously decide to avoid, and this is one of them.

Fallen Angel said...

Aaaaannnnd it's all out in the open. Good lord, this looks awful. This whole thing is fucking priceless.

Thanks for posting this, Bob.

Dave from canada said...

Nope bob it is a movie. One that has been getting pretty damn good reviews so far and that's killing you.



Anyone else wondering if bob isn't holding into some hope that this abridged version hurts the numbers?

cathal said...

It looks like a decent enough movie, but I have no intention of spending money on it. If we had got this INSTEAD of the Sam Raimi version I probably wouldn't have minded, that film is riddled with little problems. This looks like Batman: Year One, except starring Spider-Man. Formulaic, fun, occasionally quite atmospheric, some decent character work. Actually I think the best touchstone might be the Norton version of The Incredible Hulk. I look forward to seeing it on tv.

KevinCV said...

Thanks for sharing, Bob. Sony already wasn't getting my money for this, but this makes my feelings somewhat validated. Maybe now people will stop ragging on you about what you've been saying about the movie. At least I hope so. I'm sick of people ragging on someone simply because they have an opinion, even if they disagree with it. That's why it's called an "opinion", morons! :P

Anonymous said...

Bob, you should do an analysis of Rotten Tomatoes some time. Having been a regular visit of it since ~2006, I've noticed that movie critics seem to be getting way to lenient lately and I think I know why: every movie critic is approaching everything as if it's the very first of its genre the audience is likely to see. With this viewpoint, competently made but completely derivative and unimaginative films such as Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol get a pass by default. While it is a valuable viewpoint to offer, I think it's more important to steer people to the timeless classics first if the recent iteration does literally nothing new.

Roger Ebert also talked about how studios manipulated the opening weekend Rotten Tomatoes score for the first G.I. Joe by only showing it to confirmed fanboys. The marketing hardly stops there since nearly all the studios hire firms that specialize in "word of mouth" by posing as fake fans. You can see this in the user reviews and the comments section of negative reviews (although usually, those are regular old in-denial fanboys, but it's so hard to tell the difference).

It's as someone I know used to say: if an important magazine keeps giving your products bad reviews, buy the publisher.

BJCHESTER said...

If Uncle Ben's death plays out, like some sites are saying it will; Peter causing him to switch shifts and get mugged as a result, completely misses the entire focal point of the character. Peter's motivation for taking up the mantle of Spider-man, was his inaction, not an unforeseen chain of events.

bobbzman said...

Wow. I feel like I just watched the entire movie.

Oddly enough, the part that stuck out to me the most was Parker's speech on regenerative medicine. It was strangely authentic, especially for a movie/franchise based on ridiculous pseudo-science.

Anonymous said...

I'm sold. The characters are SO much more engaging than literally any of Raimi's films.

Jackass Mask said...

Wow... Spiderman is a dick in this to an almost silly degree. The whole stick with the bully, then the car jacker followed closly by the responding police and then is self-righteous assertions to the police chief that he's doing the better job. Dick.

J_Tracey said...

Some bits I'm liking, other things I'm still not enjoying, the acting seems good at least, but it doesn't feel like anything new is being added to the film.

The one thing that is surprisingly annoying (to me at least) is the score. This score just sounds AWFUL. I can't believe James Horner is responsible for this garbage. It just sounds so generic and bland.

Popcorn Dave said...

From the small section that I watched, it seems distinctly average to me. I'm interested to see how the "Spider-Man being a dick" thing plays out in the final cut, but most of it was very run of the mill. Not the complete disaster Bob and Devin have been predicting, but not that great either.

Garfield's version of Spider-Man is still better than Toby Macguire's George McFly impersonation ever was, though (I like the Raimi films, but looking back at the first one I'm honestly amazed Raimi didn't just say "fuck it" and give Peter pocket protectors, braces and a bowtie). I suspect his performance will turn out very good once his scenes are edited properly and he's got room to breathe - Garfield has more than proven himself in Red Riding and The Social Network to be one of the best young actors around.

I predict the Tomatometer will level out in the low 70s range.

Browncoat Eric said...

You're right. And the last three movies weren't movie ether. They were mass multimillion dollar marketing that they had been trying to make for 20 years. It wasn't like Rami came to them and said "I love Spider-man and I want to make a movie about it." They made it because they thought it would make money. And hey just saying the Spider-man comics were meant to make money too. All pop art is meant to make money. You have no impartiality to this movie. It's really kind of pathetic how you're trying so so hard to make people hate this movie (that by all accounts will be a very good movie). And if it does suck then we'll have 4 bad Spider-man movies and 1 good movie.

Aiddon said...

that is hilarious and kind of sad. First Marvel itself bungles the series and now this

Popcorn Dave said...

J Tracey - for what it's worth, Drew McWeeney was very positive about the score. This video is made of trailers and promotional clips, which very rarely have a finished music score.

Come on, if this video reflected the finished music score, we'd have heard Horner's standard "daddla-daddla-daaaa" bit about 200 times by now.