I don't hate the new look for Spidey but I'm still not huge on Andrew Garfield playing him. I still wish they would've just made a sequel to Spider-Man 3 instead of doing a reboot. It wasn't a good movie by any means but I think the series was salvageable with a new director and possibly new actors. I'm sure I'll go see it but I'm just not very excited about the franchise starting over again when they had a pretty good start with 1 and 2.

I really, really liked 1 & 2 so take what I'm about to say with a grain of salt, but there was lots of stuff I HATED about Raimi's Spiderman - chief among them the fact he felt the ridiculous need to have Peter take his mask off as often as possible. I could not stand that.

This of course will happen in the new Spider-Man too, just as Iron Man is always taking his helmet off in the movies -- because a mask can't "act," and what works on comics doesn't always work well on screen. Every time I see a hero with a fully masked face trying to talk in movies it looks like a cartoon.

Raimi's rumored idea for part 4 with the "Vulturess" or whatever was pretty crummy sounding too.

The new Spiderman looks like he was cast and designed to look as much like Edward from Twilight as they could without actually casting that actor and changing Peter Parker's name to Edward and making Spiderman a vampire.

But that only works if Morbius is the villain and they can brood and sparkle together.

Yeah, and ten years ago when Ultimate Spiderman-man started people complained that he looked like Harry Potter. It's not like they're aren't tons of teenage boys trying for the Edward look.

In my day it was Kurt Cobain and The Crow. Now it's Twilight. Teens follow trends, even super powered ones. But i'm not sure Peter Parker having bedhead counts as the movie being "Twilighted."

By itself, no, but I have a very strong feeling that's what they're going for... And if so, I bet it proves to be a box-office disappointment and they go scrambling for yet another new actor and another reboot. Just a prediction.

Which probably means it would have been great.
Vulture is not my favorite, but I think Raimi would have done good with it. The third film wasn't all his fault, at least from what I read. Once upon a time, I could only dream of seeing a Spider-Man movie, so I can't complain...much

why wasn't it his fault? He was the director and had complete creative control no?


Spider-Man 3 is horrible. People think Raimi is a god because of the Evil Dead films, and they automatically give him a free pass over any crap he does.

I don't see why that means it would have been great at all.

Bootleg trailer leaked... most of the links have been taken down already. I watched a small crappy version here -

http://www.wwtdd.com/2011/07/the-spi...ind-of-badass/

Trying to find others.

much better than I expected... but I still question the need for another origin movie so close after Raimi's trilogy

Uh, yeah... that teaser totally confirms my "Twilight: Spidey" suspicions. We'll see. I'll chill until more is known.

This won't last long:

<iframe width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/qCI6egxM8Bc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

***********************************************

That really did nothing for me.

I really hope that first person parkour thing isn't in the movie

That trailer made me cringe a bit.

made for the FPS generation

I agree with 1000X on the mask thing. Man did that piss me off. He barely even wore it in part 3.

And about the reboots: just about every major horror movie has been rebooted recently as well. It has to end.

I don't think Raimi wanted Venom in the movie and was forced to put him in by the Sony execs. I thought that was the chatter during production. I thought Raimi just wanted Sandman.

It was also the Marvel movie people who pushed for Venom. In the end however, Raimi could have walked away instread of directing this pile of crap. The man has free will after all.

Pretty sure there's no such thing as complete creative control over a $258m budgeted movie. Especially when there are potential toy sales.

I think I would have probably stuck around to ensure I made millions off the film. His legacy isn't tarnished because of Spider-man 3.

Spielberg and Cameron are probably about the only 2 directors I can think of that could even have complete creative control. You could add Nolan to the list for any film that he makes for WB.

As huge as SP 1 & 2 were, it's hard to believe that he couldn't have put his foot down. Collectively, those movies made $1.6 BILLION dollars worldwide. I don't buy that he HAD to go along with Sony.