The trailer for The Amazing Spider-Man has once again rung the bell and the internet is debating whether or not we truly, truly need another Spider-Man movie:
Now, ASM will come out a mere five years after Spider-Man 3came out. This has been deemed a short stretch of time, but it’s only four years shorter than the stretch between Batman and Robin and Batman Begins, and nobody seemed to mind then. Is the timeframe really the difference? Is it the fact that Spider-Man 3 only sort of sucked, while Batman and Robin is really, really terrible (despite Chris Sims and David Uzimeri’s noble efforts to reclaim it as the spiritual heir of the Adam West Batman)? Is it the stark difference in tone between the Nolan Batman and the Schumacher Batman, whereas Andrew Garfield seems to be working the same Peter Parker mold that Tobey Maguire did, right down to being somebody trying to play a teenager while actually being in their late twenties?
I actually think that last one has some merit to it, because the Raimi Spider-Man trilogy has its strong points, but its overriding failure is that Spider-Man doesn’t wisecrack, mostly because Tobey Maguire is not the sort of person you imagine quipping in battle. Like, at all. He’s so achingly sincere. If Spider-Man spent the trailer making fun of baddies while beating them up, I’m sure comic fans would be jizzing in their pants over the new Spider-franchise. That having been said, I’m not entirely convinced that what works on the page for Spider-Man will work in a film: in a comic you can see Spidey’s thoughts and in a movie you have to rely on the actor portraying him to give you a sense of Peter’s inner self behind the lines. Also see Brian Michael Bendis’ probably correct assertion that Spider-Man’s constant running commentary drives everybody else around him insane and I can see where it might actually turn off audiences. But who knows?
But I digress, because what I really wanted to say is that a filmic reboot isn’t the same thing as a comic book reboot. James Bond was effectively rebooted every time a new actor played Bond, regardless of Desmond Llewellyn always being present as Q (or, nowadays, Judi Dench always being M) because there is no greater continuity to Bond films beyond “Bond is a badass, repeat” when it comes time for a new Bond. And this is sensible, because Connery’s Bond isn’t Moore’s Bond isn’t Brosnan’s Bond isn’t Craig’s Bond – they each have their own distinct style of playing the character and each man’s Bond has his own quirks and works in his own filmic universe. Moore is Bond in a wackier world than Connery is Bond, who is Bond in a far more romantic world than the one where Craig is Bond.
Indeed, if we go back to Batman again, one of the failures of the first franchise was the belief that Batman, like Bond, could be played by different actors while maintaining essentially the same narrative strands for the character, which is one of the reasons Batman Forever is so achingly bad: Kilmer isn’t Keaton. (But only one of them.) For the same reason I think that the current Batman producers made the right call by not finding a new actor to play the Joker in the Batman films but are staying away from it. An actor in a role is not unlike a new writer on a comic book: he uses his tools to tell the story of the character in the way he sees fit, with the help of his artistic collaborators (other actors/director/writer vs. artist/editor/letterer). Just as Grant Morrison’s Doom Patrol isn’t anything like Arnold Drake’s Doom Patrol (or, if you like, Dan Slott and Roger Stern’s respective runs on Amazing Spider-Man, which have tonal similarities but are often wildly different), so, even with the obvious similarities, will Andrew Garfield’s Spider-Man be nothing like Tobey Maguire’s Spider-Man. And that’s why the reboot is a good idea.
EDIT TO ADD: In comments, Entertained Organizer writes:
It’s safe to assume that most actor/director pairings aren’t making it past three movies, so does that mean until the end of time every fourth movie in a superhero franchise needs to be the origin again?
Not necessarily, but complaining that the same story gets told over and over again doesn’t seem to be a criticism of, say, productions of Hamlet. Why, then, should it apply to the origin story of Spider-Man?
YES I JUST COMPARED STAN LEE TO SHAKESPEARE! AND DID SO NON-IRONICALLY!
Related Articles
59 users responded in this post
I think you may have gotten Batman and Robin mixed up with Batman Forever…
Only partially. Fixed.
Anyone delivering a running commentary written by Bendis would drive bystanders insane, which may be one of the reasons why none of the actions of anyone in his comics make any sense.
Peter Parker-The Spectacular Emo Man.
I just wish that these reboots would tie into the Marvel U. Sadly, the studio conflicts mean that probably won’t be the case.
I just wish they didn’t feel compelled to redo the origin story. Raimi’s first film came out less than a decade ago, who is the person who really needs to sit through an hour of Puny Parker getting picked on, bitten by a radioactive spider, and then learns about responsibility when his uncle gets murdered?
It’s safe to assume that most actor/director pairings aren’t making it past three movies, so does that mean until the end of time every fourth movie in a superhero franchise needs to be the origin again?
All I’m seeing in this trailer is dark dark dark, gloom gloom gloom.
We had enough of that already in Spider-Man 3. Hell, we had enough of that (to a much lesser extent) in the first two.
Can we please have a Spidey that’s more goofy, throwing out lame jokes, etc?
Just because Dark Knight made money being dark, it doesn’t mean every superhero movie needs to follow suit. Thor didn’t and it made a buttload of money.
Comment on the Bond “reboot with every new actor”. My personal take is that ‘James Bond’ is the name/cover assigned to whichever agent of the agent holding the ‘007’ slot in the SIS TOE. When this agent retires, or takes extended medical leave, a new agent is assigned that slot, and that cover. Whoever that is, the demands of the position demand he must be competent, hence “Bodn is a badass, Repeat”.
There’s even evidence for it in the movie canon – George Lazenby, in the pre-credit sequence of “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service”, comments “This never happened to the other fellow”
Procchi, there’s ANOTHER piece of evidence that Lazenby is a different character- Bond and Blofeld don’t recognise each other, despite having met previously.(There’s an in-continuity explanation, though- Blofeld is acknowledged to have had plastic surgery, and Bond was heavily made up for their last encounter).
(Of course, the REAL reason is that they filmed the books out of order!)
Y’know… I honestly can’t remember the last time I saw someone give an honest-to-god compliment to Raimi and his Spider-Movies and all involved. At best they’ll give sort of sideways remarks, which can be interpreted as positive but which are probably just generic observations. Does anyone feel even remotely fond of them anymore? Even vaguely dissatisfied that the series was cut short before it could reach a proper resolution? Yes, the third film was sub-par, but the other two were some of the most critically successful superhero films of all time. I’ve always thought a fourth film would very likely have been a return to form. But I get the distinct impression I’m in a very quiet minority. And that bugs me sometimes.
As for the trailer, well… I’m not seeing much that appeals to me.
But, hey, you never know.
Actually, Joe, while I thought the third film was a bloated mess, it did still have some high points and resolved Harry’s narrative arc in way that, while contrived, still felt credible. The first two Spider-Man films, though, are among my all-time favorite movies.
I think in this context the main difference between Shakespeare and Stan Lee is that at the end of Hamlet the story is meant to be over while at the end of a superhero origin, the story is supposed to be just beginning. Comic books are by their nature a serial medium and I like seeing what happens next.
I’m not opposed to, and often enjoy, seeing different interpretations of the same story as long as it’s interesting and the creators involved feel they have something new to say. My concern is that the studios are going to reboot to the origin story every 10-15 years not because actors and directors are drawn to it, but simply as an attempt to appeal to the widest possible audience. I think that underestimates the audiences ability to remember and fill in the gaps, and more selfishly as a comic book fan I’m more interested in seeing new characters and stories adapted to the big screen.
The issue is, as several others have pointed out, the inherent problem with Spider-Man being so utterly gloomy.
An origin story isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Those 10 year olds (future comic fans) that never saw Spider-Man in theaters will get a whole new experience. Tobey Maguire won’t be their Spider-Man. Andrew Garfield will. For us, it’s another film starring a character we all love.
But, I don’t want those 10-year-olds to become emotionally invested in a whiny, dispirited Spider-Man.
While we’re on the subject of comic book movies, and if it’s not too late to put in a request for posts, I would not mind hearing any thoughts that you (and/or Flapjacks) have about the new ‘Tintin’ trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLUis9pzrT8&feature=related).
I’m a little disappointed in the darkly dramatic nature of this trailer as I was expecting something tonally different with this set of Spider-Man movies – something more in the spirit of Ultimate Spider-Man where we focus on the teenage exploits of the character. If the movie were to stay true to that vision, then, IMO, the movie should get to the origin stuff quickly/efficiently/effectively (if it were only that easy) and emerge from the darkness of Uncle Ben’s death into the wonder/excitment/adventure of the teenage Spider-Man. All of the dirty details of the origin and initial development of the character has already been dealt with (and very effectively I thought) in the Raimi trilogy. We don’t need to see that all again in great detail with a different cast and director.
I’m not suggesting that ASM needs to be shallow or superficial – every good story needs conflict and development/growth from it’s main characters – I was just hoping this movie would show us different conflict & growth than what the Raimi movies already accomplished. This trailer is making me nervous that we’re just going to get the same thing but in a different package.
And if that’s what we’re going to get, I would have rather just had a Raimi Spider-Man 4 – at least there we would have reasonable hope of a progression and not just a rehash of what went before (damn you Spider-Man 3 for being just bad enough to trigger a reboot but still quality enough to discourage the chickenshit execs from trying anything significantly different!!!)
While we’re on the subject of comic book movies, and if it’s not too late to put in a request for posts, I would not mind hearing any thoughts that you (and/or Flapjacks) have about the new ‘Tintin’ trailer.
I considered writing about it but then realized I didn’t really have anything to say. It looks good, but I’m still a little wary of motion-capture animation even though this seems more acceptably cartoony than most other mo-caps. That’s what I think.
Flapjacks, on the other hand, wants to know if Tintin is the dog or what.
I’m not going to watch variations on a Hamlet movie every ten years, either.
Hold on — did you just tell us that James Bond is a time lord?
@Joe England: I loved and still love Spiderman & Spiderman 2 (never saw 3, but from what I hear- eh, whatever).
Is it the stark difference in tone between the Nolan Batman and the Schumacher Batman, whereas Andrew Garfield seems to be working the same Peter Parker mold that Tobey Maguire did[…]?
To me, yes. Except that (from what I can tell from this trailer) Tobey Maguire made a much more convincing geek than this guy does, which made Maguire’s transformation into Spiderman more interesting to watch. Here I see a brooding matinee idol wearing giant glasses and trying to act awkward around girls. There’s a reason James Franco wasn’t given the Peter Parker role in the Raimi movies.
Also, the web-slinging sequences still (again?) freaking look like videogame cut-scenes.
@SmR… I know! I’m just waiting for Spidey to pick up a chainsaw and fight the mutant Doom-beast-thing.
I think it’s worth pointing out, too, that when Batman Begins happened we hadn’t had a Batman ORIGIN movie in 16 years, but it’s only been 9 years since the last Spiderman origin movie.
I see where you’re going with the Stan/Willy S. comparison, but I think it fails on a certain level.
With Hamlet, no matter how you dress it up, it’s still the same story about the Prince of Denmark (for the most part). There isn’t Hamlet II: Electric Boogaloo or Son of Hamlet or Hamlet: The Hamletting. That IS the story to tell. Hamlet’s not serialized.
Spider-Man is. Batman is. Even James Bond is (but as you point out, the Bond franchise has found what works for them and goes with it). Why do we need another origin story when alternatively we can see spider-man fight the Lizard, or Electro, or whoever the internet has decided is teh awesome new villain to bandwagon. There are a hundred directions you can go with Spider-Man that aren’t the same story.
Hamlet has the one story, which is why so many Shakespeare productions do things like Baz Lerman’s Romeo & Juliet and whatnot.
Entertained Organizer and I are on the same page here I think.
I think there are some good points here, but also some handwaving away of concerns. Yes, different Bonds are effective ‘reboots’ of the franchise, but typically you aren’t releasing the same story every time. (I mean, yes, there is a sort of formula to Bond films, but I don’t think it is quite equivalent.)
Similarly… yeah, I think a decade gap is a much easier timeframe than five years. The Spiderman films still feel relatively recent – that wasn’t the case for the Batman franchise when Batman Begins came out. And 16 years between origin stories, as opposed to 10 years, feels even more significant.
Now, with all of that, does that mean ASM will automatically be bad? Of course not. But I certainly don’t feel the need for it, and it does come across a bit too much like them trying to milk the audience (and/or retain control of the license) more than anything else.
Still, if they end up producing a solid movie, than it is their money to earn. After Spider-man 3 and X-men 3, I’ve gotten much more in the habit of waiting to hear reviews first, rather than just seeing comic book movies for the sake of having done so. That will remain true here – but it would probably also remain true if they were coming out with Spider-man 4, instead.
So the different direction, in the end, will only make so much difference overall.
And really, I mean… I can understand them re-telling the origin. Sort of. If they’re making a fresh start, that’s almost (but only almost) unavoidable. So I can forgive that.
But it only goes so far! Even if Raimi’s films hadn’t already covered it, it’s not like it’s a really complicated origin. For all of Peter’s complexity, his origins aren’t all that complex. The dude’s not Bruce Wayne. We don’t need to dig too deep into his backround. I mean, hands up, everyone who wanted to know more about Peter’s parents, and what happened to them, and how the way he was raised shaped him into becoming the young man he was when he was bitten by that spider.
Any hands?
No, there are no hands, because no one freaking cares. We care about Spider-Man, flying over rooftops and fighting crime and being awesome!
Maybe I’ve been spoiled by Raimi’s playful camera direction and Maguire’s earnestness and Danny Elfman’s kickass epic-as-Hell Spider-Man theme. But after all that, this is profoundly underwhelming.
Not too fond of that costume, either. Stripes down the legs? What the Hell?
It’s one of the most popular pop culture characters for the last 60 odd years, I’m pretty sure we know the origin story. AND it’s an origin story that can be covered in a three minute montage. I don’t want to, yet again, see “Peter Parker, brooding loser goes to Spider-Man, brooding hero” Just skip to slightly beyond the damn origin and turn the damn lights on. No one loves Nolan’s Batman movies because the lights are dimmed.
Also changing the costume just because? “Change for change sake” is NEVER a good sign in a superhero movie (bat nipples anyone)
As for the Shakespeare comparison: when’s the last time you bought Shakespeare on DVD? I bought “Scotland PA” because it’s a 70’s take on MacBeth that tells the same story, but in a new and creative way. Not the same damn thing over, and over, and over again.
This one seemed to be the gritty reboot of the series. The dark lighting, night-time scenes, lack of light-hearted Spidey wisecracking we all know and love… I dunno, it just kind of looks like McGuire’s Spiderman v2.0.
So I guess the reboot is going with the ‘Parkers as secret agents’ that seemed like a really bad idea even at the time.
And I agree that the POV shots look just like sequences in the last Spiderman game.
As for the costume. I don’t really care, but I do home they have some in-movie way to explain how a working class high school kid has a costume like that. That always bugged me about the Raimi movies.
(as for Bond, I don’t buy the ‘every new actor is a new guy with the ‘James Bond’ code name’ theory. For every ‘this wouldn’t have happened to the other guy’ there is a Moore reference to being married previously. Every new movie is just a soft reboot.)
So I guess the reboot is going with the ‘Parkers as secret agents’ that seemed like a really bad idea even at the time.
Well, on the other hand, maybe this one will explain why there’s a fifty year age gap between Peter’s dad and his uncle
On the Raimi trilogy: They were good at the time, but that was back then, at the very start of the superhero movie wave. Since then, we’ve had Nolan Batman, the first Iron Man, and probably loads more excellent superhero films that I’m forgetting or never saw.
We’ve also had better Spider-man in the years since. The Spectacular Spider-man cartoon, all the really good bits of Ultimate, the Brand New Day era of Amazing (shutupshutupshutup).
They weren’t bad films (I even like the third one, though bits of it are a mess), but they’re not as good as what they paved the way for.
On it being too dark (visually): The first person swinging sequence looks pretty well lit to me!
So, based on this post, who will play Harry Potter in the 2021 remake? And how will fans react to the new version of Snape?
James Bond was effectively rebooted every time a new actor played Bond
Yeah, I remember the way they exhaustively belabored the origin of James Bond in the first movie of every single actor who played him.
Seriously practically everything in this post is a strawman or a dreadfully inept analogy.
@dangermouse: Yeah, at this point I think it’s a fair assumption that new movies shouldn’t feel the need to redo the origin stories for Batman, Superman, and Spider-Man, at the very least. The vast majority of your audience already knows the origin story, or can find out the origin story easily.
If you feel you absolutely have to do something for those few ten-year-olds who inexplicably have lost the ability to Google or absorb any pop-culture knowledge whatsoever, then do the origin story as the teaser trailer, and maybe back it up with a quick recap during the opening credits.
Because sure, lesser-known characters like Green Lantern or Thor or Howard the Duck still need to have their origin story told to the audience, but Spider-Man or Batman? There is just no way for that to be a good use of your hundred-million-dollar budget; other people have already spent several hundred million dollars doing that for you, successfully.
From this trailer, I’ve gathered that the movie’s basic plot is Peter Parker moping around for a while and then playing Mirror’s Edge.
It’s fine for Peter Parker to be all emo. It’s that putting on the mask gives him a completely new, high-hearted, even silly, prankster personality.
I’d think directors would be lining up out the door to do things with that kind of “I’m a different person when I wear the mask” theme.
Pfff… kid Spidey? AGAIN! screw that, MY Peter is married & with kids.. that seals the deal for me
On the idea of rehashing origins:
In the case of Batman, and Batman Begins … one thing to note, is that in the first movie, the origin is short, and we cut ahead to what is presumably a while into Batman’s career. We don’t see any of the ‘training’, just the parent’s shot and cut to ‘end result’. So, Batman Begins treads entirely different ground, as it actually shows us Batman, well, beginning. And, in both cases, the were able to weave the origin into the story.
There are ways to make the retelling of the origin interesting, if necessary. With the Doner Superman, the whole movie is realy building up to the second film, as the first movie is an extensive origin, and then a coflict with Lex which is a bit of let down as far as Superheroics are concerned, but the origin and Lex’s plan dovetail to create the scenario that causes the second film, etc.
So, if they were to do a new Superman origin story they should:
(A) Focus on Krypton, but make sure it’s relevant. Make the villain Braniac, and have him be partially responsible for Krypton’s destruction. The cartoon’s origin story, which sort of gave Braniac the Eradicator’s origin instead of bring Colu into it, was a good way to tie Brainiac more directly into a purely Superman based story.
(B) Focus on Smallville. This would probably go with the Lex lived in Smallville type approach, in order to make the focus on that part of Clark’s life relevant to the ‘present’ stuff by again, establishing the villain.
(C) Just get on with it. If the villain isn’t going to spring from the origin, gloss over it. Basically, the origin story is sort of an excuse to plant a Chekov’s gun of a villain in the characters backstory to make the villain more important or relevant. [See also, Hector Hammond’s crush on Carol Ferris, or slipping in the backstory of the Red and Black lanterns into GL: Secret Origin, etc]
With the Spidey reboot, they can easily tie other villains to his origin. (I heard mention of the Lizard being in this movie … it can be easy to tie his research into something that would lead to Pete’s origin). They likely still need to do the Uncle Ben thing, but it probably doesn’t have to follow the wrestling promoter stiff’s Peter so he doesn’t stop the crook … a similar kind of scenario can happen to. But, it does cause a bit of a problem as it’s still a pretty ‘long’ origin story. It’s not just “he was born this way” or “he decided to become a hero”, unless the origin is in flashback, you need the spider-bite, figure out the powers, decide to use it for personal gain, decide not to stop a criminal, have Ben die, decide power = responsibility. That’s going to be a lot of screen time going over similar ground. And unless they go all “it was the Sandman that actally killed Uncle Ben” on the movie, most of the origin is just about establishing Peter, a character most of us already know. If the origin establishes the villain as well, at least it has a better chance of letting us know about someone new, or establish a relationship between hero and vilain beforehand.
One of the things I liked about the MANTIS TV movie (so much better than the series) is that they didn’t start with the origin. MANTIS is already in action at the start, but we learn the bits and pieces of his history without ever sitting down for a conventional origin sequence.
I think you could do that with Batman (his first appearance was not, after all, the origin) but it’s harder with Spiderman–the turning point is more complicated than “I swore revenge on criminals because they shot my parents.”
I was watching the Spectacular Spider-man animated series the other day and was pleased by the mid-fight quippage which didn’t over burden proceedings or stray into irritation, but struck the right amount of banter. Spideys stream of quips and insults is a definite feature of the character and serves to distinguish him from other similar superheros, its also a nice way to pace his fights where he gradually enrages a physically superior opponent into near mindless rage because he just won’t shut up and a great tool for demonstrating this fight just became personal/important by having him shut up and become a remorseless silent opponent. That’s doubly important as you have no speech bubble where he can let people know that he needs to do this for Aunt May, Uncle Ben, Gwen Stacy, Mary Jane, Black Cat, his Postman etc.
I’d prefer it start with “Got bit. Uncle died. Fight crime.”
I agree with Bill Reed. Another origin movie is just a waste of a movie regardless of how much Spider-Man may need a makeover. On the other hand, this film isn’t going to be the wise-cracking Spider-Man either. Its obvious the studio is coming out with this now to strike at the Twilight fans, whose precious series is going to end this December.
And who the fuck is proto-goblin? I’m asking this rhetorically. I’ve seen the wiki page, but that still doesn’t answer why I should even consider being excited to see this Twi-lite shite.
oh.. one more thing. At some point they need to bring back J.K. Simmons as J. Jonah Jameson.
The other thing everyone seems to be forgetting about the Batman reboot is that unlike Batman Begins, the original Batman movie *wasn’t* an origin story. Bruce Wayne was already operating as Batman from the opening scenes, and how he became Batman was covered only in flashback, and even then only very briefly. Would be nice to see a few more superhero movies following that formula these days, if only for the variety.
I subscribe to the James Bond is a codename theory, it’s the only way to reconcile it’s continuity, which as I giant geek I loving doing.
I do like that Andrew Garfield from initial impressions seems less pathetic and weird than Tobey Maguire, Peter Parker has a hard life no doubt about it and he is kind of a geek, but he’s is also meant to be attractive and nice enough to interest girls like Gwen Stacey, Mary Jane and Felica Hardy.
The ‘James Bond as Code-Name’ idea was introduced in the old comedy version of Casino Royale (at a time when they didn’t even need it yet).
Flapjacks wants to know if Tintin is the dog? Tell him the dog is Rin-Tintin.
Of course a reboot of the Spider-Man films is unnecessary at this juncture. The only reason Sony is doing it is because Raimi and Magiure walked out during pre-production of Spider-Man 4 (the former because he felt the studio was being too heavy-handed, and the latter in solidarity).
I still think it was pretty douchey that Sony announced the reboot the same day Raimi announced he was stepping down as director.
Donald Glover would have been the perfect new Spider-Man.
For me, it’s going to depend on the character. You’d be hard put to find someone that doesn’t know the origin of Batman, Spider-Man etc. but as you get to lesser known characters, more origin is necessary. For the stars though, look to Morrison’s All-Star Superman. Four pictures, eight words, conveys everthing essential.
It’s not like a new production of Hamlet, it’s like constantly repeating the first act of Hamlet in preference to, oh, I don’t know, the second act.
@David D: High school loser. Radioactive Spider. Great power. Great responsibility.
I bet you all have the four images in your mind already.
@Darren: maybe they could set it to a music montage.
was a high school loser, livin’ with my Aunt named May,
till a spider gave me something I missed,
With a dead Uncle, power and responsibility,
so I fight a little crime, like this!
(sorry, that second cup of coffee hasn’t kicked in yet)
If James Bond is just a code name, then why is Roger Moore reacting as if slapped when Agent Amasova mentions that he was once married in The Spy Who Loved Me, and why is he laying flowers on Tracy Bond’s grave at the beginning of For Your Eyes Only? And why does Timothy Dalton show little enthusiasm for catching Mrs. Leiter’s garter after the wedding in Licence to Kill, after which Felix tells his bride, “He was married once, a long time ago.” Neither of those guys would be mourning the dead wife of the George Lazenby incarnation of Bond.
As for new versions of Hamlet, there’s only one story about Hamlet to tell. The whole point of creating a superhero is to tell lots of cool stories involving that super hero, so why back up to the beginning every few films? And it’s not just origin stories — when they reboot Batman in a couple of years, there will almost certainly be yet another Joker. Superhero movies are rapidly becoming “same old, same old.”
I’ve been reading comics for going on 40 years. I’m happy to watch as many people’s interpretations of an origin story as the world is willing to give me.
Things I’m happy about that I saw in the video: I like Garfield. He looks the part much more than Whassissname did. He seems vulnerable and dorky without been shlubbish and late twenties or not he looks young enough to be a senior in high school. I like that it looks like they’re going to focus on Peter’s parents. That’s new. I like that Doctor Connors is in the movie. I haven’t been paying enough attention to know if the Lizard appears but I have high hopes. I adore the actress who plays Gwen and have since Zombieland and Easy A so I’m looking forward to seeing her. She and Garfield seems to have chemistry. I loved the video game appearance of the end of the trailer and hope it’s in the movie because I want to see it on a big screen.
I was kind of indifferent to the movie until I saw this and now I’m looking forward to it.
New Theory:
James Bond is a British super-soldier made from a combination of DNA obtained from The Third Doctor when he was banished to earth and the original Sean Connery James Bond. It explains his longevity, changes to appearance and personality. Also his general tenacity to improvise and survive
Previously they kept their memories but the British government after Dalton went AWOL decided to wipe it with Bosnan. That’s why he’s relatively unburdened with the history with the wives. More recently he has been regenerated and memory wiped into Daniel Craig.
It’s the only theory that works.
@David Fullam
Peter Parker (especially Lee/Ditko Pete) was always pretty emo.
I don’t think they’re going with the “Peter’s parents were spies” idea, I think they’re going with the Ultimate Universe idea that Peter’s dad was already working on something along these lines, and that he got into bed with bad people and was killed as a result. I think Peter’s going to find out there was a conspiracy to give someone else the powers he wound up having, and he has to fight that person.
At least, I’m kind of hoping for that, because at least it’d be a valid reason for a reboot. 🙂
The only thing that interested me in the trailer was the idea of filling in some backstory on Parker’s parents. Even if I don’t end up liking what they do with it, it’s something not touched on in the Raimi trilogy.
And pencil me in for the “oh man, that first-person action stuff looks terrible” category. I hope it’s infrequent in the film.
@Darren K Exactly.The beauty of this approach is it’s simplicity. Batman: Senseless murder,young survivor, solumn oath, Dark Knight.
The problem I have with origin movies is that they spend freaking forever on the origin part and a whole lot of those movies ends up being ‘nothing happens’. The may be taking that page from the original Superman, but I don’t think it’s necessarily a good model to follow. You can tell a lot of superhero origins in ten minutes and then get on with them being a hero–they’ve been given these awesome powers, so waiting around and around and around for anything to happen with those is often achingly dull.
This is especially, doubly true with heroes whose origins we are perfectly well aware of, like Spider-Man. And the ‘we’ in this case is absolutely everyone. Green Lantern was obscure to non-comics fans and even the numerous fans of the JLU cartoon knew a different lantern; Spider-Man is not obscure.