one thing that i forgot to mention..and this doesn't matter for the film but to me it kinda does. Don't like that Connors is proactively a bad guy. Liked him when he wasn't.


It isn't that people don't like conspiracy. It's just that it hits cliche fast. Not just a conspiracy...but a conspiracy w/ his parents. oh...and somehow he becomes Spidey from OsCorp where your parents worked? yeah..it gets jumbled up fast. Hopefully that's not a shit element in the film.


minor note: I do enjoy the color palette they got going on there. The shots w/ Spidey webbing along look tons better than Raimi's.

I commented about that as well. Is Connors being actively a bad guy something from Ultimate Spider-Man, a retconn in the current Spidey comics, or just something totally made up for the movie? I prefer Connors as a tragic figure.

I don't see anything that indicates Connors is a bad guy. Its a Jekyll and Hyde situation. When he turns into the Lizard, the Lizard persona takes over completely and he doesn't remember anything of Connors. Lizard is evil. Connors is not.

Its like that in the comics too. Peter discovered a conspiracy with his parents when he was cleaning the attic and found some stuff in a box. He discovered that they were actually CIA spies.

Even in Ultimate Marvel, it was a conspiracy. His parents worked with Eddie Brock's parents of all people and created the Venom suit. They also worked with Nick Fury and Bruce Banner to create a supersoldier formula that backfired and turned Banner into the Hulk.

Conspiracy is nothing new with the Parkers.

Yeah but being part of SHIELD was totally uninvolved w/ his creation. that was fine, I guess I dunno..never read the story.

And in the Ultimate universe it just seemed to click better w/ everything. It seemed like a progression that made since w/ it's interconnectivity

w/ Connors saying if Parker wants truth. And that he has come to get it? Yeah. that sounds like Connors is bad. As the Lizard or simply Conners. Plus I'd prefer my baddies to be of clear mind even when they're crazy as shit. Hated that supposedly the tentacles for Doc Ock influenced him. Otherwise..loved Molina as doc Ock.

In the trailer Connors gives off a "I'm bad even before I started taking the formula" vibe. Perhaps it's the performance and how the trailer was cut more than the writing. However, he doesn't seem like a guy who was tragically turned into a monster.

yeah he kinda looks pedophilysh in the trailer...

...it doesn't make sense does it?

I'll pm you.

Can you uh..pm me too?

Add me to that PM list?

What's all this pm'ing about?

Dating.

Oh that figures.

It needlessly complicates a story that's complicated enough. I'd rather the parents just be normal people.




Looks pretty muscular there. I never regularly read Spider-Man but he's pretty ripped in a lot of incarnations.

he basically has Bruce Lee frame, thin but with a lot of mussels

Where are we getting "Peter is thin" as the end-all-be-all? Sure, there are versions of Peter that are thin. There are versions (like the original) that are quite muscular. I don't know why this movie had to go with a stick-thin waif version.

Except that his parents have never been normal people. Never. I explained in another post, how they were originally CIA spies and even in the Ultimate universe they were working for SHIELD and Nick Fury to recreate the supersoldier formula.

Its not like the story is all that complicated. In the movie, they were working for OsCorp and something bad happens and they get killed.

In the comics, he was a little guy. Flash called him Puny Parker. Liz touched his arm and was surprised that his arm was actually solidly muscular.

Muscles don't mean you have to be a big Arnold Schwarzenegger type of guy. Like a previous poster said, look at Bruce Lee. He was a very small guy. Wearing a lot of clothes, it would be hard to tell that Bruce Lee was actually very muscular under it all. Peter Parker is like Bruce Lee, not like Arnold.

He's muscular on that cover because Jack Kirby drew it and pretty much all his characters look muscular. The drawings inside by Steve Ditko feature a much thinner Spider-Man.

http://www.ign.com/videos/2012/02/08...ater-trailer-2

good little analysis of the trailer

....It unneedlessly clutters a simple but effective origin that's been well. The add on and what not to his parents late on in the 616 was fine. Needless to overrall nature...but fine. Ultimates didn't mess w/ the origin by connecting it to the parents.

Yeah but Ultimate did have his parents involved with Eddie Brock's parents, which was also pretty strange at the time.

Edit: Forgot to add that Peter's dad was also working on a formula that Peter completed, which just happened to be the webbing. Now that was a pretty out there coincidence.

I don't like that they are merging Captain Stacy and JJJ's characters. They were nothing alike in the comics. Plus, JK Simmons was the best part of the Raimi trilogy and I was really hoping they would get him back for the new movie.



1968 was late in 616? Amazing Spider-Man Annual #5 in 1968 was when the backstory of Peter's parents was given.

Ultimates messed with the origin bigtime. Did you ever read the Ultimate origins miniseries? Basically all the superheroes were interconnected. Peter's parents were working at SHIELD with Bruce Banner and Hank Pym to recreate the supersoldier formula and it backfired and resulted in the "birth of the superhero" era. Everything came from that. Even the mutant DNA strain was a result of that failure. Mutants weren't a naturally evolving DNA like in 616, but rather they were man-made. Peter being bitten by a spider came from that as well. Norman Osborn and Otto Octavius (Doctor Octopus) were also working to recreate the supersoldier formula by using spider test subjects and one of them bit Peter.