Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
BRUSH OFF YOUR SPIDER-MAN BEGINS JOKES FOR THE FULL HD TRAILER
#1
by Renn Brown: link

Now you can watch THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN Teaser in Full Boring Quality.
Reply
#2

I'm really overwhelmed by how bad this looks. I don't know if I can say anything more damning than that. "Unnecessarily serious" and "painfully dour" come to mind.

Yawn.

Reply
#3

Hate hate hate HATE it. HATE it.

The ONE thing I gather that's a little different is making a big deal out of his parents. Ok, sure, that might be good. But with the parents (Campbell Scott and Julianne Nicholson, excellent casting), you get Lil Peter Parker. And I could not give a flying FUCK about Parker as a child. I am so stunned that, with Spider-Man 3 suggesting marriage for Spider-Man, they've taken him as far back as GRADE SCHOOL. So desperate and pathetic and symptomatic of a larger corporate groupthink that people want these stories told in the same regurgitated bubble.

HATE.

Reply
#4

Spiderman Begins isn't looking so good.  Wonder if they will give more if an avalanch of bad press comes.

Reply
#5

What's weird is I might be interested in this if it WASN'T Spider-Man.  In general it's a well-cut, rather effective trailer (though I do seem to be the lone holdout who thinks the POV stuff at the end looks forced and contrived).  But it just doesn't mesh with the spirit of what feels like a Spider-Man film is supposed to be.  That rainy, dark, dour stuff works on Batman because he's BATMAN.  That's the character.  Granted, Raimi injected a lot of that into 3 but he worked his way up to that by putting Peter in the situations over the course of two and a half films that earned it thematically.  I just don't get it - what's the fun of making a Spider-Man movie if you're going to suck all of the fun out of a Spider-Man movie?

Reply
#6

I actually am quite the opposite of everyone's negative reaction. I'm not excited by what I saw, but I'm already more invested than I was with Raimi's films which, over time, lost my interest (be it the cast, the story, the cookie-cutter approach of it all). And, no, it has nothing to do with it apparently looking like TDK (which I find to be obnoxious, as far as everyone thinking that's the approach they need to take in order to be commercially and critically successful).

Reply
#7

The trailer to me brings home just how unnecessary a reboot is right now. The Raimi series as a whole isn't even ten-years-old and while the third film left a bad taste in quite a few folks' mouths, the films are still somewhat fresh in people's minds. I could be all wrong in my thinking but it seems like the studios are all just in a rush to churn out get-rich comic book movies that follow Nolan's formula. Good casting aside, I don't feel very optimistic about this one.

Reply
#8

I remember the Superman Returns trailer having more action, and that movie could've served as a primer on pacifism. The big "whoa" moment is web-swinging, which we've seen three movies of.

Counting down to the announcement of reshoots to "punch up the action."

Reply
#9

I don't even know about good casting.  Seeing Garfield at work as Peter didn't ring true either.  Dude's WAY too pretty to be the nerdy pre-Spidey Parker.  It almost looks like he was cast based on how well he sold the Spider-Man role, as opposed to the way Maguire backed into it and brought Peter's sensibilities with him into the costume.

Reply
#10

Not awful looking, just... awkward.  That first-person thing, especially.

I like the Raimi movies.  3 is a mess, the narrative is shot to hell, but I still like it for those few scenes it gets right.  This trailer (and I know it's just that- an early trailer) seems more intent on showing off how different it is than Raimi's trilogy than actually giving us any real style of its own.  And that's really the biggest issue here for me- will it have any kind of stylistic approach, or will it just try and be "the one Raimi didn't direct"?  Dunno.  Can't tell from this.

I'm seeing comparisons to Nolan's Batman stuff, and yeah, I see it too.  Also, though- I'm getting a real "Marvel Movie Universe" vibe, ˙a la Iron Man(s), Thor, and Hulk from those lab set pieces, which only feeds my fears that this movie won't have its own personality (which no one can claim about Raimi's movies).

All in all, though, I'm feeling it's still too soon to judge.  It didn't blow me away, it didn't piss me off.  It just... existed.

"FUCK Hollywood."
-Ice Cube (Burn, Hollywood, Burn (Public Enemy), 1990)

"God bless America."
-Ice Cube (xXx: State Of The Union, 2005)
Reply
#11
AIt was ok. Not amazing. And I have to agree with Renn about the CGI. In interviews for his book Vic Armstrong, the stunt co-ordinator, says they're going all practical, not all CGI like the other ones. Well this looked VERY CG. Maybe most of the other stuff is practical though, who knows.
Reply
#12

I thought they said they went practical for the non-first person POV webslinging.  Well as much as possible I guess.

Reply
#13

So they're going all-practical when they don't use CGI.... that's.... those are the two options, yes. Very notable.

Reply
#14

I mean I think they said they consciously tried to do practical as much as possible as opposed to just making it all CG.  Yeah, those are the two options, but there are varying degrees of how much you use one versus the other.  It'd look like crap if they went all physical anyway.

Reply
#15
That trailer s'ed a f'ing d.
Reply
#16

I guarantee you they're looking at all those practical swinging shots they did right now and deciding to redo them with CG because they look awkward.

Reply
#17

If this film has Peter's parents be SHIELD agents and have Nick Fury recruit him for the Avengers, it will have all my love.


Ah well.

Reply
#18

I guess I'm in the minority here:

 - I liked the 1st person stuff - seemed cool to me, and there was more wall crawling, which I never got enough of in Raimi's films.

 - I like origin stories, and I don't mind someone else taking a crack at it, but - fan nitpick - the spider bites Peter on the hand, not the neck! Everyone knows that.

I am worried about the tone. In the comics and cartoons, Spider-Man was always a bit of a goofball. Raimi's Spider-Man didn't crack wise nearly enough, and I worry this new one would be all dour all the time.

I wonder what sort of S-M film we'd get if Marvel studios had the rights?

Reply
#19


Quote:
Originally Posted by JGButler View Post

I don't even know about good casting.  Seeing Garfield at work as Peter didn't ring true either.  Dude's WAY too pretty to be the nerdy pre-Spidey Parker.  It almost looks like he was cast based on how well he sold the Spider-Man role, as opposed to the way Maguire backed into it and brought Peter's sensibilities with him into the costume.



Yeah, he's definitely a much better looking Spider-Man than Tobey Maguire ever was. But I think that has to do with approaching his character as an outsider rather than a nerd.

Reply
#20

Liked it.  Excited for POV stuff.  Mildly concerned about the parental stuff.

Will reserve judgement till after the credits have rolled as trailers are the most misleading things ever.

Reply
#21

I liked the POV part, but I also agree that aspect was very video gamey. The rest....meh. I can understand the comparisons to BEGINS, based on the trailer, but some of that may be to justify starting it all over again, to make it distinct from Raimi's trilogy.

What gets me down the most is the rehashing of the origin story, especially when the original films are so recent. Again, though, I suppose it's a necessary evil to distinguish it from the Raimi films.

Shrug. Not excited, but not outraged either.

Reply
#22

instead of this unnecessary remake, how about a film where we meet a mid-30's Peter Parker after all his friends have been killed off by super villians...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTe1xiBzAws

Reply
#23

And with that trailer, you lost me.  Well done Sony.

Reply
#24

Heehee

Spider-man-Emo-Llama.jpg

Reply
#25

That POV bit reminded me of the commercials for the Mirror's Edge video game a few years back.....but not in a good way.

Reply
#26

Man, I was really meh on this.  It's the first trailer, and God knows I've seen shitty trailers for awesome films, but that did nada for me.  The tone of the trailer was wrong.  If I had zero clue what this trailer was for before I hit play, I would have thought it was for a horror movie.

Reply
#27

It looks more interesting than Spider-Man III.  I'm still ambivalent to the whole thing, but I don't think it looks like a trainwreck either.  I also refuse to hate on the project just because Sony made this instead of Spider-Man IV............................which didn't sound like it was going to be all that great to begin with.  The Vulturess?  Really, Sam?!?!?

Reply
#28

As I said in the other thread, it looks dour and humorless, which is a real problem. Hopefully it doesn't reflect the content of the movie - even if it is Twilight-Man, there are the building blocks to make an entertaining film.

In it's favour, nothing of the set-design and shot composition looks as bland, cheap and uninspired as the earth based Green Lantern stuff (the offworld stuff only gets a pass for being different).

Quote:

Originally Posted by JGButler View Post

I don't even know about good casting.  Seeing Garfield at work as Peter didn't ring true either.  Dude's WAY too pretty to be the nerdy pre-Spidey Parker.  It almost looks like he was cast based on how well he sold the Spider-Man role, as opposed to the way Maguire backed into it and brought Peter's sensibilities with him into the costume.



I've always thought of Peter, because he has always been drawn that way, as good looking.

He's nerdy due to social awkwardness and being smart, he was supposed to be kind of scrawny, but no interpretation has ever had him looking like DJ Qualls. The kind of short and squat 'quirky' looking Maguire was less of a fit to what was in my head.

Reply
#29

.

Reply
#30


Quote:
Originally Posted by Agentsands77 View Post

I'm a little surprised by the intense negativity. It doesn't look great, but it doesn't look bad, either.

And yeah, I've always thought of Peter as relatively handsome guy, too. Dorky, but nevertheless good-looking.


Exactly.

Reply
#31

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.D. Bob Plissken View Post

It looks more interesting than Spider-Man III.  I'm still ambivalent to the whole thing, but I don't think it looks like a trainwreck either.  I also refuse to hate on the project just because Sony made this instead of Spider-Man IV............................which didn't sound like it was going to be all that great to begin with.  The Vulturess?  Really, Sam?!?!?

People keep bringing up the Vulturess thing when Spider-Man IV is mentioned. Do we even know for sure if it was Raimi's idea? I mean, he was kinda forced into using Venom in part 3. Couldn't the Vulturess have been another "suggestion" from the studio?

As for this trailer, I'm not feeling it. The grim, dour stuff works on certain comic characters. Spider-Man....not so much.

Reply
#32

I find the extreme negativity a bit out of proportion, too, but I also really didn't see anything to get excited about.

Eh, it's a first trailer/teaser. I'm open to being surprised by this, as I was by X-Men First Class.

Reply
#33

It very well could have been another studio force, but if so then why not opt for Black Cat?  The fact that Sony was supposedly 100% against the use of The Vulture makes me think it was a Raimi idea.

Whoever had the idea doesn't change the fact that we likely would have been given a Spider-Man IV that was just as much of a mess as Spider-Man III.......................and likely even more expensive considering no one was under contract anymore.  I love Raimi and consider his first two Spidey films to be superhero classics.  That said, nothing I ever read about Spider-Man IV had me excited to see it.

Reply
#34

Great, I get to watch how Peter Parker becomes Spider-Man... AGAIN. I'm not surprised it's in the film but to base the whole teaser trailer on it? Talk about underwhelming. The Incredible Hulk (and it's opening credits recap) gets better and better with every double (or triple, Superman!) dip into origin territory I have to endure.

... and that first person stuff? Looked pretty cool... for a Playstation 2 cut scene.

Reply
#35

They really should have called this Spider-Man: Turn On The Dark.

Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)