Spider-Man Movies

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Spider-Man Movies

Post  laddical on Tue Feb 07, 2012 11:59 am

Full trailer is up!

This movie finally begins to look "amazing". And I finally begin to get excited.

I like that Garfield seems to have a bit of New York wiseguy in his Spidey voice that's not there at all in his Peter voice. And while I still would prefer Emma Stone to be a redhead and playing Mary Jane, I like what we see of her and *really* like that we're going to get into the Peter/Gwen/Captain Stacy dynamic.
avatar
laddical

Posts : 1607
Join date : 2011-10-22

Back to top Go down

Re: Spider-Man Movies

Post  RiverThames on Tue Feb 07, 2012 12:36 pm

You beat me to it!

But, yeah, pretty damn awesome. I'm all in now.
avatar
RiverThames

Posts : 857
Join date : 2011-10-21
Age : 44
Location : Austin, TX

http://www.mrmaresca.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Spider-Man Movies

Post  swsa on Tue Feb 07, 2012 1:18 pm

I thought it looked like Smallville. I don't know. I'm still meh on this.
avatar
swsa

Posts : 858
Join date : 2011-10-21

Back to top Go down

Re: Spider-Man Movies

Post  bbridges on Tue Feb 07, 2012 11:40 pm

I'm still kind of meh but I really appreciate that this trailer actually had Spiderman making jokes. Because that was needed in the movies and the first trailer made it look a little bit like Twilight.
avatar
bbridges

Posts : 282
Join date : 2011-10-21

Back to top Go down

Re: Spider-Man Movies

Post  RiverThames on Tue Feb 07, 2012 11:51 pm

My son was totally meh on the first trailer, and when I was about to show him this he was all, "I don't think it's going to be worth seeing." Then he watched it and YELLED, "THAT WAS AWESOME." So this trailer did it's job, and by "it's job" I mean making it easier for me to go see it opening weekend.
avatar
RiverThames

Posts : 857
Join date : 2011-10-21
Age : 44
Location : Austin, TX

http://www.mrmaresca.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Spider-Man Movies

Post  ActonBell on Wed Feb 08, 2012 12:38 pm

I am so not into the idea of Peter spending the movie angsting over his parents, so this trailer garnered a "meh" from me.
avatar
ActonBell

Posts : 682
Join date : 2011-11-03

Back to top Go down

Re: Spider-Man Movies

Post  tothemax on Wed Feb 08, 2012 12:43 pm

I've only seen the first of the original Spider Man movies since I thought Toby Maguire was awful in the role, so this trailer showing Peter has a personality has caught my attention.

tothemax

Posts : 276
Join date : 2011-10-21

Back to top Go down

Re: Spider-Man Movies

Post  blixie on Wed Feb 08, 2012 12:50 pm

I know it's a stupid thing to get hung up on, but only in Hollywood would they cast a blonde as a red head and widely perceived redhead as a blonde. I so don't get why I'm supposed to be invested in Gwen Stacy.

I do think the general look of the film is good, but Garfield is underwhelming me.

blixie
Mod Squad

Posts : 1840
Join date : 2011-10-21

http://thesnarkening.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Spider-Man Movies

Post  Poubelle on Wed Feb 08, 2012 3:49 pm

swsa wrote:I thought it looked like Smallville. I don't know. I'm still meh on this.
A lot of Andrew Garfield's line readings reminded me of Tom Welling's.

It just felt kinda flat. Like, they had a few of Spidey's wisecracks in there, but he didn't sound like he was having any fun saying them. What's the point of snarking on the bad guys you're about to beat up if you're not having fun? If it was supposed to be deadpan, that went too far.

But hey, looks like he got an actual webshooter this time around!


Last edited by Poubelle on Wed Feb 08, 2012 5:05 pm; edited 1 time in total
avatar
Poubelle

Posts : 691
Join date : 2011-10-22

Back to top Go down

Re: Spider-Man Movies

Post  Kiran on Wed Feb 08, 2012 4:53 pm

I thought it looked good, but I like Garfield a lot.

I thought Emma Stone looked good too though. I think its probably good for her to play more the Gwen Stacy role. Its more out of her wheelhouse then Mary Jane and I like her acting enough that I don't really care about her hair.

I'm invested in Gwen just because I always found her story interesting. I prefer Mary Jane but I am very interested to see if these movies actually follow through with that character.
avatar
Kiran

Posts : 2583
Join date : 2011-10-21

Back to top Go down

Re: Spider-Man Movies

Post  queenofdenile on Wed Feb 08, 2012 10:45 pm

I have no idea what's true to the comics or not, I just know Garfield is already more appealing to me than Tobey Maguire was, so I'm mildly interested.
avatar
queenofdenile

Posts : 830
Join date : 2011-10-21
Location : Pigfarts. (On Mars.)

Back to top Go down

Re: Spider-Man Movies

Post  laddical on Wed Feb 08, 2012 10:47 pm

widely perceived redhead as a blonde

TWICE. For the same character!

Though I imagine Bryce Howard actually is a redhead, given her parentage.
avatar
laddical

Posts : 1607
Join date : 2011-10-22

Back to top Go down

Re: Spider-Man Movies

Post  blixie on Wed Feb 08, 2012 11:16 pm

Ha I forgot they did the same thing for Bryce. And there aren't even that many young redheads in Hollywood, though to be fair there were even fewer when Kiki got cast. I don't actually care about the hair, I think you should cast who you want and hair dye is sufficient, but it's weirdly ironic that it happened three times.

blixie
Mod Squad

Posts : 1840
Join date : 2011-10-21

http://thesnarkening.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Spider-Man Movies

Post  laddical on Sun May 06, 2012 1:39 am

New trailer!

It ran in front of the 3D Avengers today when I went to see it with my wife (her first time), but not in front of the 2D version when I saw it alone at the midnight showing.

Not much to say. Apparently Gwen knows that Peter is Spider-Man? Okay, I guess. It's not like any of the Spidey movies have stuck much to canon where Peter's love life is concerned, but Gwen knowing about Peter's secret in advance of her father's death is going to really suck out some of the drama (assuming they plan to kill Captain Stacy... who knows anymore).

And the more I see about Richard and Mary Parker in this movie, the more fervently I hope that their sudden disappearance is because Nick Fury was trying to get them into some kind of witness/resource protection program. C'mon, Sony! I just want Spidey to play around with Cap and Tony a little!
avatar
laddical

Posts : 1607
Join date : 2011-10-22

Back to top Go down

Re: Spider-Man Movies

Post  swsa on Mon May 21, 2012 12:21 pm

As much 2nd hand embarrassment as an Office marathon.

Peter and Gwen singing
avatar
swsa

Posts : 858
Join date : 2011-10-21

Back to top Go down

Re: Spider-Man Movies

Post  laddical on Mon May 21, 2012 12:45 pm

Well... I lasted four seconds... and only because it took that long for my mouse hand to find the back button on my browser.
avatar
laddical

Posts : 1607
Join date : 2011-10-22

Back to top Go down

Re: Spider-Man Movies

Post  The Dude on Tue May 22, 2012 7:27 am

Turn off the dark!
avatar
The Dude

Posts : 1141
Join date : 2011-10-25
Age : 43
Location : Peoples Republic of Boulder, South Rectangle

Back to top Go down

Re: Spider-Man Movies

Post  laddical on Tue Jul 03, 2012 7:23 am

When I came out of them, I thought that Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2 were good and great, respectively. Maybe it's the aftertaste of 3 and maybe it's just a function of time and some truly superior comic book movies in the interim but I absolutely hate all three of Raimi's movies now. I think Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst are truly dreadful in the roles. So much mopiness and monotone, pregnant pause studded dialogue delivery.

So right off the bat, I'm inclined to judge Amazing a lot less stridently than I've seen from some critics who still think good thoughts about Raimi's first two efforts. Hands down, across the board, I think this movie is just a better movie than any of Raimi's. And that is in large part because of Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone.

And also because Aunt May never has to scream "FROM EEEEEEEEEEEEEEVIIIIIIIILLLLL!!!!!!!" in this one. Spoiler alert?

Which isn't to say I think this is a great movie. It has a number of structural problems, it makes some really wonky dramatic choices, and the whole "Peter Parker is a child of DESTINY!" motif is just unmitigated bullshit. But ignoring the whole "The Joker created Batman and Batman created the Joker" school of narrative shorthand that's going on here, the relationships between Peter and his aunt and uncle and Peter and Gwen and Captain Stacy are pitch perfect. There's some really excellent stuff happening in terms of how Spider-Man moves - you could call him "Peter Parkour" (okay... don't call him that) and there's a moment in one of the fights where Spidey is literally crawling all over the Lizard with truly amazing speed and fluidity that kind of took my breath away.

But then, after nailing things like that in terms of Spidey's movement, Webb breaks the visual style and gives us a number of POV shots of Spidey swinging through New York that are just... wrong. They're the only time we enter a first-person perspective in the movie and they just don't mesh at all with the rest of the movie.

There's one mid-credits scene, though why they tried to make it an Easter egg I'll never fathom because the only important line in the scene was in the trailers.

Spoiler:
We see Dr. Connors in a cell and suddenly this man appears in the shadows and asks, "Did you tell the boy about his parents?" That's right out of the trailer. There's a couple of lines that follow it, with Connors warning the man in the shadows to leave Peter alone, but really, the big crux of the scene is already out there in the advertising, so why play coy with it by hiding it in the middle of the credits?

The man is credited only as "the man in shadows" but speculation is that it's Norman Osborn. I'm hoping that turns out to be a red herring - the sequel is going to be written by Kurtzman and Orci with no apparent input from any of the writers that worked on this one, so hopefully they'll just jettison the whole thing. For one thing... how does Osborn get in and out of the cell without the door opening? For another... why are they shrouding Norman Osborn in so much shadow? Earlier in the movie, we get a shot of a multi-story poster of Norman at the Oscorp building in which Norman's features are completely obscured in shadows. None of this makes any kind of sense from what is generally known about Norman Osborn - though I guess it plays in to the fact that in this movie Norman is apparently dying and he's funding Connors' research to stave off death. Norman Osborn is Voldemort, maybe? I don't know. All I know is that it's sloppy and hamfisted and not nearly as much of an interest-builder as that first glimpse of Sam Jackson as Nick Fury was.

Overall, my reaction to this movie is in line with my initial reaction to Iron Man - good, not great, with a whole lot of potential that seems ready to just break loose and never does. Here's hoping that The Spectacular Spider-Man is more The Avengers and less Iron Man 2. We'll take it as a given that everyone involved wants to make it better than Spider-Man 3.
avatar
laddical

Posts : 1607
Join date : 2011-10-22

Back to top Go down

Re: Spider-Man Movies

Post  ActonBell on Tue Jul 03, 2012 10:51 am

the whole "Peter Parker is a child of DESTINY!" motif is just unmitigated bullshit.

This is why I will not be seeing this movie. Quite frankly, it's ridiculous and would ruin any potential enjoyment of this movie.

Sony really should have cast Donald Glover as Spiderman.
avatar
ActonBell

Posts : 682
Join date : 2011-11-03

Back to top Go down

Re: Spider-Man Movies

Post  PrincessCleo on Tue Jul 03, 2012 5:29 pm

Realistically, I'm guessing [spoiler] is a "man in the shadows" because they haven't actually cast a name actor yet. Kind of the way they didn't show Moriarty in the RDJ Sherlock Holmes movies until they settled on Jared Harris for the second one.
avatar
PrincessCleo
Admin

Posts : 452
Join date : 2011-10-21
Age : 38

http://http;//cleolinda.livejournal.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Spider-Man Movies

Post  Guest on Wed Jul 04, 2012 2:50 pm

ActonBell wrote:Sony really should have cast Donald Glover as Spiderman.
I would have watched any color-blind casting of Spider-man, but an actor with wit and timing would have been great.

Andrew Garfield seemed like a very nice young man on The Daily Show, but there's nothing about him (or anything else) to make me excited for this movie.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Spider-Man Movies

Post  bbridges on Fri Jul 06, 2012 10:36 pm

For me this was the worst kind of bad movie. Because it wasn't terrible. There was a pretty good movie in there but it wasn't this movie. I liked all the performances. Emma Stone and Andrew Garfield are great together. I loved Martin Sheen and Sally Field.

All of my problems were structural. It was impossible to tell how much time passed and it felt sometimes like we took a giant time jump but nothing had changed. Also Connors went from
Spoiler:
genuinely trying to prevent innocent people from being exposed and causing carnage as a side effect to LIZARDSMASH off screen. Throwing in a scene where he was hearing voices didn't really cut it for me. I knew why Peter thought Connors was a super villain and would blame himself but I don't know why Connors was a super villain.
avatar
bbridges

Posts : 282
Join date : 2011-10-21

Back to top Go down

Re: Spider-Man Movies

Post  PrincessCleo on Fri Jul 06, 2012 11:30 pm

It was impossible to tell how much time passed and it felt sometimes like we took a giant time jump but nothing had changed.
Yeah, there was a moment when it looked like
Spoiler:
the "Pick up your Aunt May from work tonight!" thing had just been thrown in to... I don't know, maybe set up some later needing-to-pick-up-Aunt-May, and then Peter does stuff for like several weeks, some science and maybe some skateboarding too, I think that montage was also in there, and then it's like, OH! It's still the same day! Damn, no wonder he forgot to get her, he fell into a wormhole.

There was a pretty good movie in there but it wasn't this movie.
Based on what I've read, it looks like there was literally another movie in there that got cut out:

Now it makes sense that the studio freaked when they saw Mark Webb’s - GASP! - original take on their valuable property, so they had someone re-cut the film to the tune of Raimi’s Spider-Man which meant, in the end, the movie was about nothing.
I don't know how the hell Sony woke up one day and went, OH CRAP THIS ISN'T THE MOVIE WE WANTED! I mean--it cost $200 million or something, right? And... no one had any idea what was happening in it? What? Even without knowing about this, I was sitting there going, "Where'd That Guy go? Wait, why'd we get a big significant shot of Connors' wedding ring? How did he get to this point where he was like,
Spoiler:
-'I know! EVERYONE BE LIZARDS.'" But then everyone is lizards yet we never see anyone be lizards. What?

I don't know. I know making the origin story a little different, and the "child of destiny"/"He's the ONLY one who could have been Spider-Man" thing may piss some people off, yeah. I never read the comics, I'm not invested in the idea of Peter as an Everyman (although I understand why someone would be), so I would have been perfectly happy with wherever Webb was going with it, at least so it wouldn't seem like a total retread. Except they didn't let him actually go there with it.
avatar
PrincessCleo
Admin

Posts : 452
Join date : 2011-10-21
Age : 38

http://http;//cleolinda.livejournal.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Spider-Man Movies

Post  RiverThames on Sat Jul 07, 2012 7:07 pm

I saw it, and generally enjoyed it, though it had a serious pacing problem.

However, I do think one's enjoyment of it is linked to one's feelings about the Raimi movies. For me, my affection for them has definitely soured, if not outright curdled. So I was looking forward to something with a very different approach. However, if one is still fond of the Raimi, I can easily see this whole thing not working for you.
avatar
RiverThames

Posts : 857
Join date : 2011-10-21
Age : 44
Location : Austin, TX

http://www.mrmaresca.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Spider-Man Movies

Post  Skyblade on Sat Jul 07, 2012 10:31 pm

I think Emma Stone's Gwen Stacy was an infinitely superior love interest to Kirstin Dunst's Mary Jane. Like, she actually contributed to the plot, and not via kidnapping, fickleness or passive aggression. Really, a lot of the female leads in Marvel's movies have been an improvement since Iron Man. I also liked how Flash Thompson was given a bit of depth.

It was weird how derivative the climax was
Spoiler:
(I mean almost directly spliced between X-Men's and Batman Begins). I don't think Connors' about-face was too out there...I mean, we never even knew what Gobby's issue was with Spidey was in the 2002 movie. I'm wondering like hell what his court case is going to look like. I mean, "cop-killer" is the kind of thing that can get the book thrown at you, but can you plead insanity if you had a temporary reptile brain? Is that a completely different entity subject to its own charges? I wonder if "trying to mutate humanity" is a crime? I guess releasing a weaponized agent is a terrorist act, which might put him under federal jurisdiction.

Edit: Oh wait, I think it's also a federal crime to combine human and animal DNA.

Skyblade

Posts : 89
Join date : 2012-05-06

Back to top Go down

Re: Spider-Man Movies

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum