The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Trailer Is Way Too Busy

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Trailer Is Way Too Busy

Let's see, we've got emo Harry Osborne, mecha-Rhino, Jamie Foxx as blue raspberry Electro, and Andrew Garfield's hair. That's far too many villains for one movie.

Did we learn nothing from the lesson of Spider-Man 3? There is far too much going on in this trailer -- I can only imagine the chaos that will be the actual film. At least we've still got the charmingly-awkward Peter and Gwen dynamic going on. Maybe we'll get lucky and they'll kill her in this one!

Can we just give the property back to Marvel already?


Comments

    This is a great article! I'm so glad I keep coming here!

    After seeing that leaked trailer a couple weeks back, I really don't get Electro's motive - didn't Sipiderman save his life and give him something to aspire to? How come he wants him to "know what it feels like to live in a world without power"? And isn't that ironic, considering the power Electro has? Spiderman wasn't born with superpowers either

    Last edited 06/12/13 9:00 am

    Is there any way we can get a toggle switch on our account that turns gifs off or something?

    Eugh.

    I dream of the day Marvel gets the licence back for Spiderman and the X-Men.

      Unless, both Spider-Man and the X-Men movies have a very bad run for their next few films, or Disney buys both Columbia and Fox, it won't be happening for a long time, might never happen.

        Awe. But I want Spiderman and Wolverine to join the Avengers.

          Would be great, but I don't think Fox and Columbia will ever let them go, unless they lose them a lot of money (unlikely).

        I know :( A friend of mine is massive comic fan (like, cliche nerd levels) and he hasn't seen any of the movies because he wants to do his part :P

    This looks seriously sick. Its clearly b the Sinister Six. You prefer the standard 1 vs 1? Way to prejudge.

    Edit:

    Let's also consider something. Raimis movies.

    The third movie was busy because originally, Sandman was the villain for the third. After the script was finished, Avi Arad approached Raimi and suggested he put Venom into the movie. This is why Sandmans arc feels complete but Venoms is a joke. Raimi dislikes the Venom character, and disliked having it forced on him even more. Not sure who was responsible for 'The Night Surfer' but they should be shot and hung. Venom was shoehorned into an existing script, badly, and none of the villains 'worked' together. In this case, you look to have an overarching enemy controlling two minor enemies, this is exactly how it should work to keep things from getting too busy (Batman Begins did this well with Scarecrow/Ras Al Ghul).

    Personally, I think it's a case of 'Oooh something new, we just can't have that without complaining about nothing!'

    Oh and sorry but Garfield was a better Spiderman AND a better Peter Parker than Maguire was. I'm a life long Spiderman fan, Maguire was a good 70s/80s Parker, but Garfield has knocked it out of the park as Parker from the early 90s onwards.

    Last edited 06/12/13 9:25 am

      I must be the only person who actually liked Spiderman 3.

        I actually liked the Sandman stuff. The venom stuff was so forced though. And when he danced... emo parker was just ugh!

          Yeah it was cringe-worthy. That's why I liked it.

            Haha the so bad its good angle. Very good sir :) fair enough. The worst spiderman is still a million times better than xmen 3...

        Nope, I liked it too. I agree with the Nostalgia Critic.

      I'm not a Spider-man fan at all. I love super heroes, read plenty of X-Men growing up and all that jazz, but the Spider-man movies are the most exposure to Spider-man that I've ever gotten. So, I can't judge how accurate Maguire/Garfield are to the comic Spider-man but from a movie critiquing point of view I think Maguire's depiction of Parker is more enjoyable and technically better. I can totally relate to Maguire but Garfield doesn't feel like a real human to me. I feel like I've felt a lot of the things Maguire's Parker has been through, being picked on, having childhood crushes, not fitting in etc etc. Garfield's Parker is some kind of attractive guy from the beginning, he's a skateboarding, photographer, genius prodigy, inventor. Who can relate to that? It was all over the place for me and I felt distant from him. I could never empathize with him and put myself in his shoes.

      And I can't get into the Gwen/Parker romance as much as I did Mary Jane in Raimi's movies. From the moment you're introduced to Parker and MJ in Raimi's films there was an immediate connection. Every man alive knows the feeling of longing for that impossible catch and their romance feels way more relatable and tangible. In The Amazing Spider-Man, Emma Stone is like "hi Peter Parker, I ignored you in the last scene, creating some tension but from now on I've fallen in love with you and I'll be your love interest for the duration of the movie". It didn't feel real, there didn't feel like any real chemistry (though I love Emma Stone WAY more than Kirsten Dunst). It just felt like the obligatory love interest that had next to no set up. They're literally in love for no reason apart from them both being attractive.

      Things I did like.

      The mechanical web shooters. I hated the idea of them at first (though they're obviously more accurate to the comics) but in the film they were badass. They were the best part of Spider-man. They're like dual wielding a pair of guns, like James Bond's pistols mixed with Batman's grappling hooks. The way they sound like silenced pistols and and the little infrared flare when they shoot was icing on the cake.

      I also liked the action scenes a lot more in TAS. I feel like Raimi's strength is the character and story stuff, the action in his movies (apart from the Doc Oc train fight) always feels kinda awkward and not real. TAS action scenes have that nice comic twang to them, not realistic, but consistent in the super powered tone.

      The Stan Lee cameo, my kids burst into laughter ever. single. time

      The movie trope reversals. Y'know, the parts where the film maker leads you into a scenario where you're a certain thing is going to happen and then they change it. The scene with the kid in the burning car that you're sure is going to die (and become what Ben Parker is supposed to be, the reason he'll use his powers for good) but he saves him. The part where the lizard nabs the plot device of Gwen while she's hiding in the cupboard (I forget what it is and what it does) and you're just expecting him to grab Gwen as well so she can be the damsel in distress and he simply strolls off. I love that stuff. Great movie making.

      So yeah, this is a rant, I'll stop now. But not before I point out the most stupid park of the movie "PROPERTY OF PETER PARKER".

        Upvoting to even this out. I think @shadow makes some very good points and some extremely, EXTREMELY good points about problems in ASM. The PROPERTY OF PETER PARKER bit had me shaking my head too lol. Though him riding a skateboard didn't, I see heaps of kids riding them, that doesn't make them 'cool' it just gives them a hobby. Peter was clearly presented as an outside, a geek, in the film.

        *EDIT*
        Rewatched the first 30 minutes. The movie does get schizophrenic in how it represents Parker. One moment he's a geek, next he's a well known ok guy, then he's unpopular, then he's a hottie, then he's a nerd... get an angle and stick with it guys!!!!!!!!! Raimi wins on that front.

        *End Edit*

        Gwen and Peter is leading to a certain storyline I'm thinking pays off in the end of this one, which will lead into Mary Jane coming into the next movie... read into that what you will. I'm being vague for a reason, you haven't read the comics so it might not be what you think... or it might. Or it might not ;)

        The webshooters were a great idea indeed. Raimis were good too. It's great to see both can work on screen equally well but the mechanical ones can now lead into the drama of 'oh crap Ive run out of webfluid' rather than 'Im not able to make web because Im stressing!'

        Also, remember Maguire had 3 movies to convey who Peter Parker was. His Highschool moments amounted to 30 minutes in Spiderman 1, a scene in a classroom, a scene with Flash Thompson, a scene in the cafeteria, that's about it. There was more implied than there was actually shown. ASM showed a *lot* more succesfully than Raimis Spiderman did.

        The WORST thing ASM did, was ruin Uncle Bens death. Raimis Spiderman did it perfectly. The wrestling, the lack of care leading to it, then ultimately his grief over it. ASM had a shonky, half hearted death of Uncle Ben which really was rushed and ham fisted. You just did not *care* about Uncle Ben like you did in Raimis, you didn't CARE that he died. It was like 'Eh... big deal.' Because when 3 came around and it turned out Sandman was the driver? That was a huge deal! Now? He was mugged in an alley. Whoop de doo. That to me, was the movies cardinal sin. It took away from Peters original motivation in a massive way.

        Personally I do think Emma Stone is fantastic, leagues ahead of Dunst, who annoyed me to hell and back, but that's because I just don't like Dunst as an actress. I think Maguire is awesome, loved him in Cider House Rules for example. I think he did fine as Parker, I think though as a more modern take on Peter Parker, Garfield is presenting a better take on who he is while the giant glassed, goofy looking, accident prone Peter Parker is an old character design best left in the 70s/80s.

        Last edited 06/12/13 6:15 pm

          Cheers bro. Nice reply. I'll give you a decent reply later. I always love our chats.

          Before I explain my biggest problem with TAS I wanna state that I do like the film, I think it's a good film, I own it on blu-ray, I watch it every now and then. I think it's good, but I felt like it could have a great film.

          And the problem for me is tone. There's been a trend over the last decade or so of making things 'gritty' and 'dark' that really bothers me. Especially when it comes to things that are supposed to be fun. I think it represents a shame in nerdy things. It's like, comic books and video games still have a stigma of immaturity and a grown man reading Superman comics means he has never grown up. So I feel like this trend of darkening up franchises and making them more grounded and gritty is kinda lame because it often sells out the source material and feels like a desperate teenager dressing in black trying to prove how mature and grown up and adulty they are. There's no end of examples in super hero movies where a meta joke is made about how lame a character's outfit in the comics is. It comes off as being ashamed. It feels like an attempt to be able to say to your friends and family 'see, I told you super heroes aren't lame, they can be mature and engaging'. And that's SO sad, when you go and see a super hero movie it should be like being a kid again, like when I sit on the floor building Lego with my kids. There should be no shame in childish fun and power fantasies. You shouldn't need to scrub away at the colour and life of these things in order to make them socially acceptable or cool.

          That's why I give a lot of props to the Avengers movies because they've decided to just say: fuck it, Thor and Loki are gods from another dimension, Captain America wears red white and blue etc etc. It's a celebration of the zaniness of the comics and it works the best because it feels happy in its own skin. I would hate it if Loki was a brooding emo type all in black leather. They took so much of the shine off Superman ... oops, sorry, we can't even call him that anymore because it sounds so lame so we'll instead make jokes about it in the movie.

          Now that that's out of the way, I will say I can like a dark and gritty reimagining as long as the film makers are commited to it from the beginning. I think the Dark Knight is kinda to blame becuase it has literally cast a dark shadow over the newest comic book movies. It was such a successful franchise so I don't blame studios for trying to get in on the action and evoke some of that gothic charm. But when it's half done, it conflicts SO damn hard with the fun, joyous super hero fantasy. This is SO apparent in TAS when you go from really heavy themes like Peter coming to terms with his parents seemingly abandoning him to a GC lizard in a labcoat shooting green mist at people.

          It worked in the Nolan's Batman films because every inch of those films is serious, they never break character for a minute, it's all plausible and consistent. Scarecrow, Joker and Bane all work because none of them look like they're out of a comic book. Every character feels real and plausible. And Batman is about dark themes, revenge, corruption, Bruce's parents gunned down in front of him. It's consitent tone throughout.

          On the other side of the coin you have Raimi's Spiderman films. From the opening scene the message is 'this is fun'. Every character is zany, from J Jonah down to Mary Jane's fat boss, complete with grubby apron yelling at her from across the street that her till is short. The land-lord, the pizza shop owner, Aunt May, they're all framed in a comical way. There's no attempt at getting to deep and looking into the darkness of the human soul. When Spidey loses his powers he awkwardly rides an elevator to the ground floor and Rain Drops Keep Falling on My Head plays when he finally throws in the towel. It's good clean fun and it never tries to be gritty. It's never quite realistic, it feels like it's a whimsical exageration of reality, it has such a deliberate tone that is ever consistent. It's a celebration of the joy and fun of Spiderman.

          So naturally, I feel like TAS has an identity crisis. People called it the Dark Knight of the Spiderman films. But it doesn't achieve that. It swings from heavy, dark themes, to slapstick and the zany and fantastic, then back again. It stumbles along the entire film trying, stop starting like a person with multiple personalities. It almost makes me motion sick, I keep trying to go along with the film's tone but u-turns and heads in the other direction. You've got Emma Stone's great acting, putting up walls becasue of the fear of not knowing if her father is going to be home every day (and her moving scene right after her father's funeral), then you've got the wonderfully slapstick school fight scene between Spidey and the Lizard where this giant reptile is mixing up home made explosives in the science block that doesn't feel like it's from the same movie, it's such a giant leap in tone. Then you've got the scene straight out of a Twilight movie that ends with Parker bending the football goal post (seriously, that felt straight out of Twilight). It's all over the shop. I can never get lost in the movie.

          For the next film I hope they can bring it all together in a cohesive manner. It doesn't have to pick a side, it doesn't have to be super dark or super light hearted. It can straddle the two as long is there's a thread holding it together and a deliberate commitment to a tone that is stuck to. I wouldn't know how the film makers could achieve that, it must be a helluva task to spin thousands of plates and make a movie that doesn't suck. I have so much respect for directors, it's such a massively creative and technical feat. I'm really hoping the first film is a rocky start and the next one is a home run. The preview looks SCHWEET!

          And yeah, I am SO looking forward to Mary Jane being in it. Or just anyone else being in it. It needs a love triangle, or at least some conflict. Gwen and Peter's romance was so predictable and uninteresting. It was like: two people meet, they like each other, they fall in love. There needs to be conflict, something keeping them apart, an obstacle to overcome for the audience to feel like it's valuable. Only at the end did it get interesting because Peter promises to stay away from her then BAM, it's now juicy. But then in the next scene it's thrown out my Peter saying that breaking promises is fun. I'm really keen to see MJ throw a wrench into the works. Raimi's romance plot had my wife and every female friend I know (even those who had never opened a comic) wanting to see the next film. Their romance is one that you REALLY want to see work.

          That is my novel. If you've read this far, well done. It's all just my dumb opinions. Sometimes I think I'm getting too old and grumpy.

          Last edited 07/12/13 10:09 pm

            Yep I agree with all of that especially that the tone is all over the place. Though that did work against Raimi in 3. His trying to be darker didnt work at all. Fault of a poor script abd last minute rewrites though.

              It had last minute rewrites? It all makes sense now. That plot was meeeeessy as hell. Some of the transitions are so jarring. I appreciate the intent behind how the darker side of Parker was approached, I like how it was jazz themed and not brooding metal/goth themes, and I liked how even the cool Parker that says and does what he wants still ended up being a massive dork, but some of it, namely the jazz club scene, was just odd and out of place ... or flat out bad.

              It could have been good ...

              Also, the biggest thing that bothers me is Sandman, that guy's deadpan acting aside, he has the dumbest leap of logic. He has this redemption theme, he's made mistakes, he's trying to come good, his key moment is when he says "I'm not a bad person". it's such a simple and fitting declaration and he delivers it really well, and it would have been a touching moment HAD HE NOT JUST AGREED TO KIDNAP AN INNOCENT GIRL TO LURE SPIDER-MAN INTO AN AMBUSH AND KILL HIM!!! FOR REVENGE!!!

              How on earth does that make any sense? When he says "I'm not a bad person" Parker should have been like "the fuck you aren't. You just tried to murder me and you nearly got Mary Jane killed, all because I stopped you from stealing. You're a fucking psycho and you belong in jail". I'm not a bad person makes sense when you're stealing money to save a sick girl, but not when you're trying to kill people out of spite.

              That feels like it happens too much in movies nowadays, shit just happens 'just because'. There's a scene in TAS where the cop points a gun at Spidey and says FREEZE then immediately shoots 3 rounds at him. For what? Wearing a red and blue suit? Why say freeze then shoot someone. Eh, maybe he's the worst cop in the world or something.

              And in The Wolverine (which I enjoyed a lot) Logan defends Mariko's honour by lecturing her husband to be for having strippers over. BUT LOGAN SHAGGED THE GUY'S FIANCE!

              Shit like that pisses me off so much.

              Last edited 07/12/13 11:23 pm

        I think I agree with everything you've said here. As a avid reader of the comics, I guess I fall on the other side of the spectrum, but while Garfield's portrayal of Spidey is (for the most part) more accurate to the comics (and comes from a real place of adoration for the character), it happens to be much less relatable than Maguire's. Maybe this comes from a place of disliking Ultimate Spider-Man (which the newer films take a lot of their cues from), but Garfield's Spidey really doesn't have a lot of things working against him at all, and to me its always been that struggle to maintain his normal life (which is a shambles at the best of times) and his life as a superhero that somehow makes him relatable.

        I also think Raimi Spider-man had much better casting for the majority of the major to semi-major characters (Willem Dafoe as Green Goblin and J.K. Simmons as J. Jonah Jameson, for example), although it's obviously early days for new Spidey, and this is strictly personal opinion.

          Garfield's Spidey really doesn't have a lot of things working against him at all, and to me its always been that struggle to maintain his normal life (which is a shambles at the best of times)

          An extremely valid and very important point. Garfields Parker hasn't had that yet has he? It didn't feel like he had a lot working against him and really to be honest I do agree with Shadow that he wasn't presented as as much of a 'nerd' as he could've been. A more isolated, outsider Parker would've been a nicer thing to see but I think they did well with what they have. Indeed they've gone with Ultimate, hence Rhinos design, Electros design and well, given that's actually not Green Goblin (It's Harry so it's some sort of Proto-Goblin re-envisioning), they're obviously taking cues as you said from that moreso.

          But to be honest, I think Rhino might work better that way. I dunno if I could handle seeing a twelve foot tall rubber rhino suit on screen and keep that suspension of disbelief while watching an electric man jump through light sockets, a mutant spiderman sling webs and a goblin boy throw pumpkin bombs...

          Because yeah... the rubber suit would sure do it. lol.

      I should point out that I was really hot and cold on Spiderman 3. It was the weakest of the trilogy, it had some great stuff in it but also some real flimsy stuff too, ugh.

        I really wish that they'd stuck with the Black Cat angle for the secondary that they were originally going to go with. Having Black Cat there as a temptation towards Spidey using his powers for his own benefit while having Mary Jane as the argument towards a normal life would've added this nice duality while Spidey takes on Sandman (a man who was himself using his powers to do bad things for good reasons). For all the issues the game had, Spider-Man: Web of Shadows did a pretty decent job of using this plot device. It would've been much better than the "Heeeerrrreee's Venom!" 'arc' they went with.

      I don't remember reading "um" and "ah" with every second word in the comics. Garfield is actually closer, granted but I just didn't like how Peter wasn't introverted in any way, shape or form. I found Maguire to have a much more relatable screen presence and made all his words matter, Garfield spits them out too quickly. (i'm a bit of an acting nerd if there's such a thing) I had problems with the first "Amazing" because of how unimportant everything felt. I definitely didn't feel a careful hand like Raimi's guiding the film, for better or worse. The Lizard's motivations were flimsy, the scene where they first interact after his first rampage is laughable, scientists learnt how to create a mortar, characters are killed off for cheap emotional baggage and let's not forget the overused "Property of Peter Parker" silliness.

      Despite that, I still enjoyed the film, just not wholeheartedly. I felt like they made the right choices in terms of actors, crew etc. just the writers bring the film down for me, and now the second is scripted by the guys behind the Transformers franchise? I didn't hate the trailer but I just can't have high hopes.

        All very fair points. I have huge issues myself with the Lizard. From the human head, to his motivations, to his sudden appearance in key moments where he sort of 'materialises' ala Jason Voorhees. His rampage was pretty.....rubbish. The first movie was definitely not all it could be. But I'm also reminded of sitting in the cinema for Raimis first movie thinking 'Thank christ for Willem Dafoe, because that Goblin armour is retarded...' then there's Macey Gray singing in a terrible bit of advertising... then there's the god awful product placement in BOTH films (admittedly *far* worse in ASM).

        But you know what? JK Simmons as someone said before, knocked it so far out of the park as J Jonah Jameson that noone will ever come close to it again...

          Agreed, JK was absolutely amazing as JJ. He's gone on record as saying that he'd love to come back from the new films, but seeing as their current casting has had completely new faces for returning characters and they've distanced themselves from Raimi Spidey as much as possible, I sadly don't have high hopes.

          Willem Dafoe did exactly what you said, he kinda saved a villain that looked like an action figure. The way he goes insane and talks to himself and cackles like a madman would sound terrible on paper but Willem sells it perfectly. I love that guy.

          Denis Leary was my favorite part of the movie. The guys from Red Letter Media remarked that they want an entire spinoff movie about him and Gwen Stacey called Cop Dad. I wholeheartedly agree. I like the scene where he totally puts Peter Parker in his place during dinner, that was a nice weighty piece of film making.

          Last edited 06/12/13 5:56 pm

            Yep Leary was indeed fantastic in his role. I could actually dig a movie about Captain Stacey, I'd watch the shit out of that :D

            Dafoe and Leary both sit in that pantheon of actors where they both elevate whatever movie they're in, due to their amazing efforts, beyond where it currently sits. Without Dafoes acting, without his maniacal expression and his spirit, Raimis original SM movie would've flopped I feel. He *was* the Goblin. Want to see something that will depress the shit out of you? This is the green goblin mask they chose NOT to go with... that they said no to in the original movie... *sigh*

            Imagine Dafoe acting behind THIS...

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fXAGC_B2Ys&feature=player_detailpage

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEZBhL5lpqg&feature=player_detailpage

            Enjoy

            Last edited 06/12/13 6:13 pm

              Woah. That's terrifying. In a good way. It doesn't take much to scare me, I can't even watch horror movies.

                I still can't believe they went with the Power Ranger armour over that...

        I just didn't like how Peter wasn't introverted in any way, shape or form.

        Yeah. I'm not saying Maguire was great, even in the first he was way too old, but Garfield's Peter Parker is for my money the biggest flaw in the first movie. He's just not Peter Parker. Even before he gets bit he's just Spider-man without a costume (to be fair it was a great Spider-man). That part near the start in the first movie where he stands up for the kid really should have been more of a Kick Ass moment where he wants to do something but doesn't.
        I like it when that character trait continues for a while even after he gets his powers. Like even though he has super powers he'll still get bullied and beaten up because without the mask he sees the world as Peter Parker and loses his confidence. Almost like an on/off switch for his powers. Then as time goes by he grows up, figures out where he's going in life, etc and the lines between Spider-man and Peter Parker blur and dissolve. So the grand arc of the entire Spider-man story isn't Green Goblin's master plan or anything instead Peter Parker's origin.
        I understand that it's a bit harder to get the message across in the span of a movie, it's not easy to explain that Spider-man (as Peter Parker) can still get beaten up for his lunch money because of his emotional state, but in Amazing Spider-man they went way, way, way in the opposite direction. To the point where there's like five scenes where he's publicly flaunting that he's Spider-man in front of crowds of people.

        All that said it's a good movie. All my problems with it are slight flaws that could be tweaked out of it, fixed with a deleted scene or minor change in attitude.

      see i hated garfield as spiderman, he reminded me of the super awkward 60s spiderman, i kept expecting him ti say "gee willickers and jinkies" it was a physical pain to watch the movie with him playing spidey...
      i've said it before my missus got so uncomfortable at how awkward he was as an actor she left.

      when he was spiderman i'll admit he was better than Maguire, but when he was PP he was horrible, even more horrible than emo PP from the 3rd movie.

        In essence, if you could have Maguires Parker and Garfields Spiderman you'd have the perfect combo. Maguire was never the smartass Spiderman he should've been yet Garfields was from the getgo, in one single scene, a better Spiderman all up.

        "Oh... you've found my one true weakness! Small knives!" lol

          Yeah, Garfield's smartass Spider-Man was awesome. Maguire's version is a dork and a loser both in and out of the suit "I'm the sherif in these parts".

          It would have made sense for maguire's Spider-Man to be sassy as well because it would be a nice tonal counterpart to his dorky side. He's a loser in real life but the mask gives him confidence and power.

            Yeah but I'll fully admit TASM's Spiderman suit was *TERRIBLE*. Those silver shoes? UGH.

            Thank god they've fixed everything about the suit for part 2.

              I kinda liked it. It looked dirty and plausible. Like it was made by a teenager

                I like the eyes for 2, finally doesn't have a giant pair of raybans on to get smashed into his eyes lol

                  Oh yeah, I never like those eyes. The new ones look WAY better.

                  In fact, the whole concept of him making a suit doesn't make any sense to me. He gets the idea because some bozo yells out "I know what you look like, I'll remember your face". So he decides to hide his identity while he hunts for Ben's killer. So what's the best way to avoid being recognised? Well, for one thing, you don't create a logo. If you don't want to be identified or recognised, a bright blue and red suit with a logo does the opposite. I mean, all he's doing is hunting a single person, why not just wear all black and a balaclava? Why do you need a logo to hunt a killer?

                  It makes sense if you're trying to fight crime in general and be an example or create fear in criminals in general, but at the point where he's making a costume and web shooters, he's presumably trying to get revenge. It feels like he should have made the suit after he rescues the kid from the burning car and realizes he can use his powers and do good, the same point he realizes it's his responsibility to stop the lizard and put his selfish quest for revenge on the back burner. That's the point he names himself 'Spider Man'. That's the point when the suit makes sense.

                  Last edited 07/12/13 12:35 pm

                  @Shadow pretty much. I think Raimis got it better with Uncle Bens death, having him go after the guy straight away and fail at it, realising he could be better, use his powers better. ASM's failing in that regard is there's no clear cut reason for him being a hero? No real drive for it. As you said, the makeshift suit would be better, then graduate to a proper one.

                  There's even a really cool scene right after he saves that kid where he's sitting on the floor contemplating the mask. That's the turning point of the film where he decides to become a hero and the perfect part for him to bust out the real suit.

    Looks pretty cool to me

    Is this going to be a CGI-fest? I know trailers like to give off 'exciting' clips to grab your attention, but does anyone remember the days before computer effects?

      ... it's Spiderman. How do you do a Spiderman movie WITHOUT cgi?

      Oh, that's right - like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkI0nJLnZ7k ...

      Yeah lets do that again. *facepalm*

        What are you talking about? Spiderman without CGI is the best thing ever:
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhHhXukovMU

    Im a massive Spiderman fan, but I just don't like this reboot ... I prefer the previous ones (except Spiderman 3). I will still see it cause its Spiderman but properly wont expect much ...

      Really? You preferred Power Ranger Goblin? Btw, this isn't the actual Green Goblin, this ones played by Dane Dehaan, this is the Proto/Hob Hobgoblin hybrid. Green Goblin will be in 3.

      I haven't seen The Amazing Spider-Man yet, but I've heard it's pretty good, wouldn't be hard for it to be better than Spider-Man 3. In my opinion J.K. Simmons was the best thing about the first three movies, he did an awesome job of playing J. Jonah Jameson.

    I've never been a fan of the "negative by default" mindset a lot of geeks tend to have. Listen, Mike, I know you're just saying it looks bad as a defense mechanism, because you got your hopes up for films in the past and they let you down (and the multiple villains definitely brings echoes of Spiderman 3 *shudders*), but let's try to not assume everything is crap just by the first glance? We can be better than that, can't we? What's wrong with a little optimism?

    Vulture wings and Doc Ock arms. Oscorp responsible for the Sinister Six. I'm already more excited for the third movie.

    Amazing spiderman 2 will be great, just like the first one was. Anything to get that bad taste out of mouth known as the Sam rami spiderman movies

      You don't even need to see it at this point by the sounds of it. You give it 5 stars?

        Your comment makes no sense, so I think something will be great so I don't need to see it? So by your logic, if anyone looks forward to watch or play something they won't have to play or watch that thing because they are looking forward to it. Your logic is weird and confusing.

    No wonder they cut Mary Jane out of this movie. There just would have been too much going on.

    I thought it was pretty cool, it's a trailer anyway its going to be busy regardless of the movie because you're trying to squeeze in a lot of exciting actiony stuff into 1.30.

    I like the fact that there is a trilogy (quadrilogy?) and they are planning it like that FROM THE START, as the other spiderman movies (and a lot of other superhero movies) try and say they're a trilogy but don't really link together, or just shoehorn in shit to try and convince you that they were planning it all along.

    I also like that they're are going the sinister 6 route, with 1 hero and many strong, fleshed out villains, as opposed to the usual 1 on 1 or the avengers opposite with a strong team vs 1 bad guy (and heaps faceless alien drones).

    I personally enjoy the new Spiderman far more than the Maguire. The first 3 movies didn't seem to flow story wise as mentioned above, the constant damsel-in-distress thing pissed me right off (and the constant bloody women screaming scene).

    The fact that Garfield has played this role and they've managed to give Peter Parker / Spiderman's personality a bit more life and stray away from the full geek / dork stereotype makes me happy.

    Yep, as someone said above, it's the Sinister Six. B Grade villains by themselves = boring (see Spiderman 3). As a team, way more interesting. Also, Gwen is way more interesting than MJ - see 'The Night Gwen Stacy Died' for why, and how it affected Peter emotionally.

    Personally, I'd love to see Spiderman 2099 or Superior Spider-man become a movie at some point. It's awesome.

Join the discussion!