Member AlbertV Posted February 9, 2012 Author Member Share Posted February 9, 2012 I will say this really does look better than I thought as well and yes I do agree that Tobey owned the role of Spider-man as well. I wish they would've given him another chance at it. But still I cannot wait to see this one! What happened was that when they were coming up with ideas for a 4th Spider-Man movie that would have brought Tobey back, Sam Raimi left the project because of creative differences with the producers. Feeling he couldn't do the film without Raimi, Tobey decided to leave. According to sources, had they done SPIDER-MAN 4, the villain would have been the Vulture and John Malkovich was going to play that character. What is interesting is that the new Spider-Man movie's story was the original story that had been planned for Tobey's 1st outing as Spider-Man. While I agree that Tobey defined Peter Parker, after seeing this trailer, I have some curiosity as to see how Garfield depicts Peter Parker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member ShaOW!linDude Posted February 9, 2012 Member Share Posted February 9, 2012 Personally, I never thought Maguire defined Parker/Spiderman. Don't get me wrong. I enjoyed his portrayal in the role (though he was not my first choice). But he just didn't come across as the character for me. While the trailer for TAS looks great, my fear with this one is that the studio may be trying to give Spidey the Dark Knight treatment by making him more of a brooding, forlorn character (and that's not Spidey). That's the impression I'm getting. Hope I'm wrong. Garfield (whose performance in The Social Network I enjoyed) has more of a physical resemblance to the comic character than Maguire. All I know is I've had enough of the sappy Spiderman; I want the snappy Spiderman who is always ripping one-liners off the top of his head as he triple-somersaults through the air to kick villains in the face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member daisho2004 Posted May 4, 2012 Member Share Posted May 4, 2012 The New Extended trailer it does look better than I actually thought I'm kinda psyched now to see it! http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=89863 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member vengeanceofhumanlanterns Posted May 4, 2012 Member Share Posted May 4, 2012 Nice! Looking forward to it. Great to see a new villian introduced to the series as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member inframan Posted July 5, 2012 Member Share Posted July 5, 2012 Just bumping this thread to see if anyone's seen it. I watched Raimi's 2 and 3 over the holiday, interested to see the reboot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member froffeecoffee Posted July 5, 2012 Member Share Posted July 5, 2012 I'd give it a B-. Not bad like the Fantastic Four or Elektra movies, but not as good as The Avengers, X2, Iron Man, Spider-Man 2. Definitely an improvement over Spider-Man 3! Its big problem is it's weighed down by another origin story and uninteresting, unnecessary sub-plots that hinder to best part of the film, Peter Parker and Gwen Stacy's relationship. Emma Stone is perfect! Andrew Garfield is great as Peter Parker/Spider-Man! Their relationship was believable and had a lot of depth that makes you care what happens to both of them. It's said the hero is only as good as his villian and The Lizard was definitely not as good as he could've been. He was adequate and should've been developed more. His character felt rushed and shoehorned into the story just so they could have a villian. Still don't like the design at all. So a solid movie, but not as great as a Spider-Man movie should be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member KyFi Posted July 5, 2012 Member Share Posted July 5, 2012 I thought it was okay. Some great action set-pieces, and the supporting cast was pretty good. I just never warmed up to Garfield to really be rooting for him either with the romance or the fights. His performance reminded me of Hayden Christensen from the Star Wars prequels, and I didn't really identify with the character. And yes the first half dragged for me because I didn't really care to see the origin story and "learning the powers" sequence again. Still, it delivered on a lot of the things you'd want in a summer blockbuster. I prefer the Raimi/Maguire combo, but this one certainly wasn't a bad film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member daisho2004 Posted July 8, 2012 Member Share Posted July 8, 2012 OK I just got back from seeing Spider-Man and I thought it was excellent. I mean yes we had to start from the beginning and they changed it up and it was a little slow in the beginning but then it really started to pick up it pace and just kept up from there. And I will say I think Garfield really nailed this role, don't get me wrong I was a total Maguire fan, but Garfield right now is the new Spider-Man. The casting was great, I did like that they went a little darker with this Spider-Man. Looking forward to a sequel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member QueMuchita Posted July 9, 2012 Member Share Posted July 9, 2012 I was meant to watch this last night but I ended up watching Ted, I'll probably still go check this out though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member OpiumKungFuCracker Posted July 9, 2012 Member Share Posted July 9, 2012 I'll stick to the comic books, thank you very much.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member Drunken Monk Posted July 9, 2012 Member Share Posted July 9, 2012 I went in already hating it and came out genuinely liking it quite a lot. All the worst bits (aha cheesiest parts) were in the trailer. Everything else was solid, comic book fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member TibetanWhiteCrane Posted July 9, 2012 Member Share Posted July 9, 2012 I'll admit, it looks better than the Sam Raimi clusterfucks! But come on.... why can't they find some halfway actractive women for these films??!! Kirsten Dunst is so plain, she makes the color beige sparkle, and Emma Stone.... really?? I can walk outside my door and spit, and hit ten women that looks better than her. I mean, are they GOING for ugly?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member Drunken Monk Posted July 9, 2012 Member Share Posted July 9, 2012 Because a lot of pretty girls can't act for shit. Emma Stone is actually very good in the film...and I think she's pretty lovely to look out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member TibetanWhiteCrane Posted July 9, 2012 Member Share Posted July 9, 2012 Im not expecting models, but come on. I know beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and even if a girl is not necessarily my type, but still good looking, I can admit as much. But Dunst and Stone are straight up unattractive in my eyes. Oh well, to each his own.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member masterofoneinchpunch Posted July 24, 2012 Member Share Posted July 24, 2012 random blather and comments on the film and theater experience: Do you ever get into the movie line with a few minutes to go for the trailers to start (you have ten to fifteen minutes before the actual film starts) and one person is holding up the line? I already have my gift certificate at hand, only third person in line and yet an older male seems to be asking question after question. This seems to happen more than I would like. Finally I get in and after a detour to the restroom (best advice you can give to a novice filmgoer is that you should always start the movie on an empty bladder) and low and behold I get a good seat in the back towards the middle. I made the first trailer, but unfortunately I avoided the anthropomorphic bags spawned by Satan and the liquid crank commercial. So I was in a good mood. However, all good moods will eventually be extinguished. The theater was somewhat full (it is the largest screen and has the most chairs in the complex), but plenty of space for newcomers. There was a couple further down in the back row, so there was enough space. However, a group of four noisy twenty-somethings had to sit in-between that space. Looking down at several empty rows, I was reminded of an analogy that no matter where you are using the urinal, someone has to use the one closest to you. Good and horrific trailers stick with you. The mediocre ones do not and certainly do not get you excited about seeing the film even if you can remember them. I do wonder if the funniest part of the upcoming The Watch will be when they shoot the alien over and over again as shown in the trailer. Now what the heck were the other trailers I saw or was I just upset at the overly talkative caffeine-stimulated young "adults" near me? While I enjoyed this film, I am still not convinced that a reboot was really necessary. Of course the box office take has already made this point moot as it has passed the US 200 million dollar mark. But was there really as much difference between this and the 2002 version? I do not care that he created his web shooters in the new version versus the organic nature of the earlier film (which technically as in the later comics). Can you believe there are debates on this? I also do not care if one or another is more faithful to the comic book. I judge it as a film, not as a faithful adaptation of a different medium. But rambling rant aside; you can compare the particulars of both films quite easily because both are origin stories and both use very similar plot structures. The CGI is definitely better in the newer one, but I am not sure I would state that anything else is. Compare the transformation from nerd to superhero. It seems too easy in this one compared to the first. I liked the nerdish Tobey Maguire's performance more than the brooding Andrew Garfield who while being too old for the part (28 years old looking like he belongs in 21 Jump Street), his acting was quite good as Peter Parker, but a little underwhelming as his alter ego (stop taking off your damn mask everywhere). I am definitely interested in rewatching the Raimi directed film to draft a better comparison between the two as my current memories might just be a combination of nostalgia and old age. Instead of the Green Goblin we get Dr. Curt Conners (Rhys Ifans) as the villain of the film. A scientist who has ties to the death of Parker's parents as well as an imminent scientist whose loss of one arm has led him to a lifetime of monomania on cross-species genetics so he can grow his arm back first and then later solve many conditions and diseases. With inadvertent help from Parker, he creates a formula which turns him into The Lizard which is almost impossible to kill and looks like a combination of Randy Couture and Kurt Angle. Luckily Parker accidently got bit by a radioactive spider which gave him spider like powers. But I think we all knew this. Where Marc Webb is strongest in the film is when he is dealing with relationships and multifaceted characters such as Dr. Curt Conners and the bully Flash Thompson (Chris Zylka). Though I was somewhat underwhelmed with the main relationship between Parker and Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone). I did not think he was particularly sublime with the action, sometimes teetering on goodness like with the basketball scene though he completely destroys it with that dunk (as often in films in which the dunk is completely overdone and appears ridiculous.) I felt underwhelmed with the ending as well. Ultimately I found this a fun enough film to recommend, especially to comic book movie fans. There is enough action and storyline that kept me interested throughout. I liked it more than Spider-man 3, but not as much as the first two in that series. Random notes: yes there is a Stan Lee cameo and there is an additional scene after the first set of credits which leads to the answer of a sequel, but nothing after the end of the credits. http://geekout.blogs...shooter-debate/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member massa_yoda Posted July 24, 2012 Member Share Posted July 24, 2012 (best advice you can give to a novice filmgoer is that you should always start the movie on an empty bladder) Yeah...since I'm a big coffee drinker, I really needed to plan accordingly for my morning showing of TDKR. All these two-and-a-half hour epics; I feel like I can't even get a drink at the theater anymore Not sure why I felt like talking about that all the sudden, but there ya go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member masterofoneinchpunch Posted July 24, 2012 Member Share Posted July 24, 2012 Yeah...since I'm a big coffee drinker, I really needed to plan accordingly for my morning showing of TDKR. All these two-and-a-half hour epics; I feel like I can't even get a drink at the theater anymore Not sure why I felt like talking about that all the sudden, but there ya go. It's just something I end up thinking about (I think a lot of people do) whenever I have to watch a more than two hour film. I drink a lot of tea, so I try to plan my lunch (or eating time or coffee shop time) accordingly with when the movie starts. If I fail on that aspect I try to make sure I have a nice convenient seat . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member inframan Posted August 13, 2012 Member Share Posted August 13, 2012 Best Stan Lee cameo ever! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.