Jump to content

The Amazing Spider-Man (2012 Reboot film)


Trent B

Recommended Posts

I kind of hated Raimi's films, but then I realized his camp approach was exactly the point. He wasn't making a "take me seriosuly" superhero film. They are supposed to feel a bit tacky. Just like Independence Day.

Karol

Emmerich? He takes it very seriously. His mission is to beat Spielberg at his own game: Spectacle, SFX extravaganzas, big summer movie, sympathetic characters, excitement and a little humor ... but deliberately tacky? I don't think he even knows what that means. Of course, later he forgot about his own rules and only made bloodless SFX extravaganzas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I don't think so. Maybe his latter films, but there is nothing serious about ID4. And certainly not with its score.

Anyway, I just don't take Spider-Man films seriously, that's all. And when I do that I find them much more enjoyable.

Karol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, later he forgot about his own rules and only made bloodless SFX extravaganzas.

He did? I don't see how 2012 deviates from the basic ingredients of ID4. It even feels as inflated and overlong as ID4.

These days, standing in front of a cinema marquee is like a bad parody. SPIDERMAN RESOLVED, BATMAN REFLECTED, HULK REMOVED, SUPERMAN REVOLTED...who pays for watching those suckers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... but there is nothing serious about ID4.

I didn't say that but it is based on the rules I mentioned. You make it sound as if Emmerich is like Paul Verhoeven. He isn't. Haven't you seen his other movies? The same tone, recipe and intent, only even more worse. ID4 is no exception (well, yeah, a little bit).

Alex

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I sort of agree with a bit of Alex and a bit of Carol.

I disagree with the notion that the cheese factor wasn't part of the movie's design.

I think the corny tone is very deliberate in ID4, whilst Emmerich's main mission was to capture the blockbuster spirit of Spielberg et al.

By contrast, the playful essence of ID4 isn't present in his later movie, Day After Tomorrow - because there the director was going for serious - but he couldn't pull it off. It's cheesy for mainly the wrong reasons, like Deep Impact.

Emmerich returned to ID4 form though for 2012, where he felt more comfortable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not like what I see. The last part of the trailer, especially, looks pretty lame (even though it probably won't be in the film).

It looks like a videogame. Awful.

It's probably supposed to get us all riled up to see this movie in 3D. But the whole thing looks like just another goddamn superhero origin story. With daddy-issues no less. Huzzah!

:sleepy:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can someone, ANYONE, explain to me why this new Spiderman reboot thingy isn't the most redundant movie ever made?

For the first time ever, I actually hope a movie flops. Hard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not very pleased with the Spider-Man trailer. I do like the cast and the director, and this could potentially be a great way to explore the character in a way Sam Raimi didn't, but I felt like it was just too soon watching it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still don't understand why they couldn't have a new cast without showing the origin again. I understand Webb wanting to put his own spin on things, but does anybody need to waste 20 minutes on Peter learning he's got powers again. It could have been handled just like in The Incredible Hulk, shown in the title sequence. It worked quite well in that instance I think and I really don't see why it couldn't again.

I'll watch it eventually because I'm a sucker for superhero films, but I'll definitely wait for it to hit DVD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well they obviously want to do something slightly different with the character this time. The key difference seems to be that Parker will be younger in high school than what Raimi's first movie established, where Peter and his friends were off to college.

They want Gwen Stacy as his love interest, instead of Mary Jane Watson, who's not even in this movie.

They want to show Spider-Man using artificial web-shooters instead of the organic ones, to be truer to the original comic books, where he can run out of web fluid, instead of having the male anatomy jokes we had in Raimi's first film. So yes, Wycket, they'd need to show him getting the powers again because they want to do them differently.

They're really distancing themselves from Raimi's films, because J. Jonah Jameson and the Osbornes don't seem to be in this one.

Granted, the Wikipedia page is subject to change, and the villains they have selected for this film appear to be characters that haven't been seen in Raimi's films (or used as villains yet, like with Dr. Connors). It's not like we could say, "oh, well a third Raimi sequel could also use those villains because they're not dead like the first Green Goblin and Doc Ock and Venom," but they would be shoehorned trying to bring on a new creative team to follow the continuity established by Raimi.

Solution? Start over. It's the fact that it's so soon that it's so jarring.

I mean, we had two (recent) Batman movies that centered on Joker as the villain, but 1989 and 2008 were almost 20 years apart. The gap between the two films with Two-Face is even closer. If they had decided to reboot 2002's Spider-Man movie with another origin film with any color of Goblin as the bad guy, only ten years later? Oh wait, Van Adder. Rats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly I've never wanted to see a movie completely fail until this new Spider-Man reboot. The only damn reason why Sony rebooted the series is because Toby McGuire and Sam Raimi both said they couldn't meet the deadline that Sony wanted Spider-Man 4 released.

The first person effect looks really crappy, very horrible computer animation. The suit itself...ugh don't get me started on that.

I would like to have the execs at Sony fired for not giving Sam and Toby more time to make Spider-Man 4, which I think was going to make up for the almost dismal failure of Spider-Man 3.

Who's supposed to score this ?

I don't think anyone knows at this point. IMDB surprisingly does not list a composer for the film but perhaps one hasn't been chosen yet. I would suspect it would be an RC/MV person with a very much dull score.

Edit: Also you can't tell me that someone like Peter Parker would build mechanical web shooters, especially if he is either in high school or a broke college student.

Either way I hope this film tanks at the box office...but it may not. Those who will accept anything like this will go see it no matter how shitty it will turn out. Personally I agree with those who've said it's way too damn soon for a reboot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's only a pity if you cared anything at all about the movie in the first place. I guess you did.

Nope. It's just didn't meet even my no-expectations.

Karol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry.

Spider-Man_webshooters.jpg

This is a scan of Amazing Spider-Man #259, art by Ron Frenz, copyright Marvel Comics, which dates from December 1984. That's old enough to be considered classic comic book lore to be put into movies almost 30 years later. And the concept predates that particular issue by almost 20 years, being as old as the character from the 60's.

The idea is to present Spider-Man as a creative and intelligent inventor, which is a character trait the Raimi team totally missed. We know Batman is creative and intelligent, because we see his inventions in use all the time -- Wayne was an inventor in the comics, while in the movies, Michael Keaton and the other two just had them, while Christian Bale paid Morgan Freeman to make them for him. But Raimi's Spider-Man used exactly zero gadgets during his fights, unless you want to consider however he got the cameras to take his photos on cue. Kudos to the Spider-Man rebooters for fixing this part of Peter Parker.

However, and this part is interesting.

Spider-Man did not develop organic webbing at first as quickly as his other spider senses. He created the web-shooters to compensate for his lack of natural ability, which required him to squeeze the palm triggers to shoot the webbing, and the triggers are designed for someone with super-human strength to apply the needed pressure. This creates the weakness of having to replenish his supply of cartridges, which he carries in a utility belt under his costume (like Batman!). Later on, he develops a carousel to replace spent cartridges with new ones. If he runs out of liquid, he runs out of web. That gives using his webbing a big risk.

Eventually, Spider-Man does develop the ability to shoot webbing organically -- from his arms -- in the comic books, and he gives the old shooters to his wife Mary Jane as a present after weakening the pressure. Wonderful! Maybe the filmmakers intend to show Spider-Man naturally progressing from artificial shooters to natural shooters. If so, that's another kudos to the reboot team, because the Raimi team seemed to think that Spider-Man could blow his load all day long. Spider stamina?

Now, if we want to consider the web shooters to be hokey 60s technology, that's fine. Scientists from the History Channel did debunk the concept saying that in the real world, Spider-Man would not be able to store both the webbing fluid and the propellant in such a small wrist-bound cartridge, and that organic webbing would make more sense. I can't really argue that, but that was not your point.

But this is a guy who got bitten by a radioactive spider, and instead of dying from poison or getting a weird glow-in-the-dark cancer, he keeps his human shape and develops spider-like powers. There are not many degrees of separation between this idea in the comic book world and something like The Fly where we'd use this for horror. You seriously accept that as plausible, but can't rationalize that he's also an inventor and can make some gadgets? Get real.

I for one am glad that the comic book developers didn't totally embrace the "natural spider" idea, and force Spider-Man to shoot webbing from spinnerets located at the rear of his abdomen. That would be strange.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you'll be going to see it then I take it.

Not in the slightest. The overwhelming animosity towards it naturally gravitates me to take up the position of devil's advocate.

I still wish the movie the same success as the Spider-Man Broadway musical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can someone, ANYONE, explain to me why this new Spiderman reboot thingy isn't the most redundant movie ever made?

For the first time ever, I actually hope a movie flops. Hard.

It never works, the more you wish for a film to flop and go away the more money it makes. The films you want to make a lot of money end up doing the opposite.

Besides it's obvious flops never affect Hollywood, they'll keep churning out crap regardless of box office.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys are trashing this like Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes. You've got a good director, a good cast, hopefully a good composer. What's the problem? The Mirror's Edge thing? Yeah it looked stupid, but like someone else said, I'm sure it won't be in the final film. They're still filming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't set out to trash the film. I don't care either way if its good or bad, if it flops or soars. All I know is the pictures that came out all looked bad to me, and this trailer looked bad to me too. Maybe the final film will be great - who knows! I just haven't seen anything yet that impressed me. That's all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's strange that they already are rebooting a recent and very successful franchise. I mean, Superman I get, but Spider-Man? Isn't Tobey's Spider-Man loved by today's generation? If not, then maybe the reboot might not do so bad money wise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.