Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
 

Yeah, no shit. You've told us that on a daily basis. Unfortunately, I don't think it's going to have an effect on any of us that are planning to see the movie.

Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
 

I have an intense, burning indifference.

I like the first three, my beef still remains with the fact that it's another origin story. *yawn* Outside of the original Superman and maybe Batman Begins, origin stories are boring, even more so after multiple viewings. I think the first Spider-man is the worst of the 3.

Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
 

This is naive. The producers don't care about realistic, what they care about is the billion dollars that The Dark Knight made.

Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
 

Does Uncle Ben die in this film?

Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
 

I'm not against this movie. Some bits look pretty good..but like that scene I put up? It's stuff like that that pushes me to annoyance. It's a cheap scene. There's no uniqueness to it. We've seen stuff like that before..and unfortunately...this one puts all the cliches in there and it fails w/ it.

Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
 

I agree with this 100%. I don't hold the originals in super high-regard beyond "they're pretty good except for 3". But this still looks just...boring and pointless.

I guess we'll find out soon.

Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
 

Same here. The new clip is better than the pouty shit we've been shown previously, but it's not enough to spur my interest.

Yup. One of (Disney's Marvel's) The Avengers' great strengths was that it was able to skip all that and focus on the story and action. There's no reason at all why the fourth film in a franchise has to remake the first film when there's barely a decade between the two.

(Yeah, yeah, reboot. We get it. The studio alienated the talent that made the first three films so successful and are quickly churning out a fourth film just to retain screen rights. These are not arguments in the films favor.)

Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
 

I've been giving that exact argument the entire time, yet the fanboys in this thread don't care.

The Incredible Hulk is both a continuation of Lee's abortion and a reboot, as it only took five-minutes to explain the origin story by applying an entirely new cast and crew to the matters at hand. However, both still suck, so who cares?

Spider-man and Spider-man 2 are generally considered to be some of the best comic-book adaptations to grace the silver screen. Even if Raimi had a bad outing with the third (ironically due to studio interference) despite grossing $900 million worldwide, is that enough to go back to the drawing table? I still believe they should've allowed Raimi and Maguire to have one more attempt, but what do I know? I'm not bleeding money like Sony is right now.

Sony could've just fired Raimi's cast and crew and just continued the story with a new cast and crew at the helm. Raimi put everything in place to have The Lizard as the next villain, so why not? To go back and tell another origin story is fucking retarded when the first film came out eleven years ago and spawned two additional films since then. If the origin story was condensed to five minutes like The Incredible Hulk, that's fantastic. However, it's not.

I've seen the IMAX 3D sizzle reel with sold-out audiences twice. I didn't see a positive reaction to it either time. People started shouting back to the screen and making snide remarks both times it played prior to Men in Black III and Prometheus. The action sequences look decent, but the scene they chose with Peter and Gwen in the school hallway is fucking awful.

That clip that got posted yesterday with Peter in the gym? Fucking awful.

I want this film to flop so Sony stops producing these films and Marvel can gain the rights and do this property right. For the second time?

Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
 

The Avengers wasn't an origin film, nor the first film in a series. In fact, it had four origin films specifically made to lead up to it. It has literally nothing to do with Spider-man.

Are you just throwing words together and hoping they make a sentence?

By simpletons, perhaps.

Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
 

SM1 and SM2 are good films w/ bits of greatness in there but I'd never call the whole film of either to be some of the best.

Let's focus on the bad:

SM1- Macy Gray (way to ham it up and age it), Goblin suit, weird wire work, cheesy sequence of kids, MJ is an idiot, goblin attacking Parker home..again...hammy, NYC citizens helping spidey and NYC pride (which comes off cheesy), Parker vs. Flash fight, organic webshooters.

SM2- MJ is a bigger idiot thinking she can knock Doc Ock w/ that piece of wood, Aunt May cheesiness, tentacles have their own mind, Spidey's face being revealed to a whole train car, Citizen cheesiness again, some badly written humor.

2 and 3 are cluprit for never letting go that Uncle Ben died and is a big moment for Peter. We know. Get over it, guys.

Easily though SM2 is the better of the two and has some GREAT moments. It's not perfect. There are for sure great elements from this series, some great action, Dafoe, Simmons, etc.

Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
 

Dude, this looks like a Spider-Man movie made in the spirit of Bring It On and Back to the Future. I'm not knocking those movies, they're good in their own right, and BTTF is a classic. However, that style is not what you want for something like this, unless you want Spider-Man to feel like an apple-pie family film.

FWIW, and this might sound surprising, it seems a lot of girls are interested in this movie due to Emma Stone. Go figure.

Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
 

This scene is actually good till Leary comes in. Really approve of the minimal amount cgi in here.
<object width="600" height="387"><param name="movie" value="http://www.traileraddict.com/emd/57948"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.traileraddict.com/emd/57948" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" wmode="transparent" width="600" height="387" allowFullScreen="true"></embed></object>

Somewhat of a mixed bag but great design and LOVE LOVE the strings coming in. Very nice.
<object width="600" height="387"><param name="movie" value="http://www.traileraddict.com/emd/57922"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.traileraddict.com/emd/57922" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" wmode="transparent" width="600" height="387" allowFullScreen="true"></embed></object>

And this one well...is just...weak.
<object width="600" height="387"><param name="movie" value="http://www.traileraddict.com/emd/57921"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.traileraddict.com/emd/57921" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" wmode="transparent" width="600" height="387" allowFullScreen="true"></embed></object>

Again...I've nothing against this movie. It's like a mixed bag for me. I see some really solid stuff and then I don't.

Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
 

But you know the scene will work well at this point. Because of all the bully stories you hear/see in the media. So kids, youngsters are going to embrace that scene.

Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
 

The end of that clip is corny, but anything...anything that is shown in this film is automatically better than Kirsten Dunst's singing in Spider-man 3, which was easily the worst parts about that movie. Emo Parker #2 of course.

Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
 

That's like justifying Batman Forever because Batman and Robin was so much worse, when really, the audience deserves a movie like The Dark Knight(not in tone, but quality).

Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
 

I thought dancing emo Parker was the worst part of 3

Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
 

Interesting how you conveniently picked this worst of the previous pack. Not saying I disagree, but like someone else said, it's not a valid argument on the whole.

Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
 

What the hell is up with them revealing so many scenes? Probably a way of trying to reassure the public.

Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
 

I don't expect to see/hear anything worse in TASM than Dunst's horrible singing sequences.

Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
 

This may be true, but this movie as a whole will probably blow worse if you were to compare the better scenes from the previous movies with what are supposed to be the best scenes from this one.

Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
 

It's fairly common for some big films and hell...other regular films as well.. Avengers had like 4 or 5, I think. The Nolan Batman films are mostly tight lipped...aside from the prologue for TDK and TDKR.

Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
 

Second clip is quite good IMO. First and third, not so much. I know Parker is supposed to be funny, but they don't need to push it.

Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
 

We won't know until we see the film. Spider-man 1 is flawed. Part 2 was terrific, and part 3 was extremely underwhelming. I don't think Raimi's trilogy is anything special outside of part 2. And for me, the Lizard looks like a better villain than the Goblin from the original.

Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
 

Spider-Man 2 has flaws but it's still a very well-done film. Out of the original SM trilogy, it's the only one I regularly re-watch.

The new movie just isn't doing anything. Has a studio ever released this many clips for a movie before release?

Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
 

Spider-man: 89% fresh (192 positive reviews out of 215)
Spider-man 2: 93% fresh (226 positive reviews out of 242)
Spider-man 3: 63% fresh (154 positive reviews out of 244)

Batman Begins: 85% fresh (222 positive reviews out of 261)
The Dark Knight: 94% fresh (265 positive reviews out of 285)

Iron Man: 94% fresh (222 positive reviews out of 237)
The Incredible Hulk: 67% fresh (144 positive reviews out of 216)
Iron Man 2: 74% fresh (197 positive reviews out of 266)
Thor: 77% fresh (196 positive reviews out of 255)
Captain America: 79% fresh (171 positive reviews out of 216)
The Avengers: 93% fresh (253 positive reviews out of 272)

X-Men: 82% fresh (126 positive reviews out of 154)
X2: 88% fresh (195 positive reviews out of 222)
X-Men: The Last Stand: 57% fresh (129 positive reviews out of 228)
X-Men Origins: Wolverine: 37% fresh (92 positive reviews out of 252)
X-Men: First Class: 87% fresh (208 positive reviews out of 239)

Simpletons? I don't think so. Would you like me to go through more comic book adaptations that have been released the past fifteen years?

I could also argue box office gross that the original franchise also has the best average box office take per entry at $832 million worldwide gross per film. Hell, it even has the best average box office take per entry in the domestic market at $319 million per film. However, you'd argue back that simpletons control the box office which most of us would agree with.

Either way, this film still looks like shit and to even make it was a shit idea from an economic standpoint by firing the entire cast and crew who made the franchise so lucrative to filmgoers in the first place.