MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Amazing Spiderman Trailer/Preview

In this era of short exclusives, it may have been a little bit silly to do a trailer launch in 13 cities around the globe. Did Emma Stone really need to fly to Rio to answer one question and be cute in front of a few hundred Brazilian fans? I know the intention. And it was a good and smart one. But a touch of overkill… the day after the Superbowl.

On the other hand… the trailer, shown in 3D, is an earth shaker.

“Emo Spider-Man” complainers can shut up now… which is not to say there isn’t a touch of emo to be found. In the additional clip package, which looks like it will be a Sony publicity release pretty soon, there is a “meet-cute” scene with Peter and Gwen… and it could have been on a New Girl episode. But the meat of this thing is Peter Parker is a genius… the spider-bite seems tied to the genetic experiments done by his late father, who was partnered with the man who would become The Lizard… Parker is a man of honor, though is subject to the whims of teen angst… he is smart enough to create the web shooters (we get the “What’s happening to me” gag in a different way than Raimi’s shooting webs)… and in the process of things, he finishes the work his father left undone, creating The Lizard in the process. His nemesis/partner is Gwen’s police father, not JJJ. Aunt May has brown hair and is not doddering.

But the look of the material is what really wows. It’s dark… literally dark. The city looks like a city, not a great recreated city set. And Marc Webb isn’t moving Spider-Man around to convince you can do the spider stuff. He seems to have an innate feel for shooting a guy who moves like a spider and just getting the shots. It is reminiscent, though in specific ways very different from Nolan’s transition to Dark Knight. (in the added clips, there is even a beat where Spidey doesn’t say, “I’m Spider-Man,” in what is a clear reference to Burton’s first Batman, down to the stubble on the thief’s face.)

What can I tell you… it completely got me. It feels like a real movie and not a superhero movie. I love how Raimi captured the feel of the comics I grew up with in his first film. This is the next generation. Garfield is cute… but not cutesy.

It looks, from this, that Sony and Marvel achieved what they wanted to achieve… a true reboot. The excitement around the first Spider-Man is likely to be duplicated around this one. It feels fresh and interesting and surprising and fun and scary and all that stuff that you want around a giant soda and tub of popcorn.

If anyone should be the most excited about this trailer, it’s Disney… who will be crying tears of joy that they have the “first weekend of summer” slot once they get a load of this trailer. Avengers looks like it was made for television in a comparison of the trailers… and the Dark Knight Rises materials. A whole different – lower – class. They want to be the first one out… not the 2nd or third. And for that matter, Par should be a little nervous about the date on their GI Joe sequel, because as it is, TAS launches on Day 5 of their release… but it could creep back to Monday. This is going to be a big event movie this summer.

So… I know it’s only a trailer and a couple of extra minutes of footage… but I am seriously getting that “reboot that rises above” feel from these materials. It’s kinda a great feeling in early February, no?

Last but not least… I LOVE this image, which seems top be the new key art…

122 Responses to “Amazing Spiderman Trailer/Preview”

  1. Krillian says:

    Is the trailer online anywhere yet?

  2. deja says:

    its on twitter when they’er going to show the preview…The #AmazingSpiderMan trailer will be launching online TONIGHT at 12 AM PST / 3 AM EST! RETWEET & spread the word!

  3. I’ve been ragging on the project since the beginning, both because the idea of studios just rebooting the same dozen properties over-and-over again is terrifying, and because much of what they claim is ‘different’ from Raimi’s first film (the practical stunt work, Peter immediately meeting ‘THE GIRL’, the mentorship he shares with the villain, etc.) is basically stuff from Raimi’s first film. I like the first Raimi picture more than most ten years later, and I don’t look forward to five months of Sony and company basically trashing the previous trilogy in order to promote the reboot. But as a film fan, a genre fan, and what-have-you, I will happily eat crow if I’m wrong and they artistically justify what seems/feels like a cravenly cynical cash-grab.

    And yes, I am shocked SHOCKED by how mediocre The Avengers materials look thus far. It doesn’t even look as epic or cinematic as any random Marvel production (Iron Man, Captain America, etc) that it was a prelude to, let alone ‘the mother of all super hero movies’. I was hopeful after how great Captain America was, and I’m a Whedon fan, but it looks like a mediocre TV pilot.

  4. GexL says:

    Hulk jumping up in the air to knock aircraft out of the sky isn’t spectacular enough? Where are the TV shows that look like that?

  5. JS Partisan says:

    In what world are you and David living in, Scott? The Avengers looks EPIC in EVERY SINGLE CONCEIVABLE WAY. Seriously, you two are out to lunch, but David is the one whose more out to lunch. David, Disney is doing the marketing on this film. Sony still has to give them a cut because they own Marvel. You folks throwing the Avengers under the bus is absolutely mind-blowing because that film can easily give Marvel their biggest opening… EVER.

  6. Bennett says:

    Well maybe Spider-Man will save Sony’s summer after they look at the losses that MIB III will rack up. MIB III looks like a steaming pile of crap. Spider-Man would be successful (maybe not to the orginal Trilogy) no matter what, but Sony really needs to show off 10-15 minutes of MIB III if they are not going to get wasted by Avengers/Battleship/Snow White.

    If they don’t get a new trailer out soon(as well as a trailer for Dark Shadows) I will be wondering if they will be pushed back.

    I was not looking forward to Battleship at all till the Super Bowl Trailer.

    I wonder if The Avengers materials look mediocre because the CGI is not completed yet. It sure seems like we would get a more story driven trailer soon rather than just cool shots.

  7. Don R. Lewis says:

    BATTLESHIP looked like TRANSFORMERS 4 to me

  8. JS Partisan says:

    Don, exfuckingactly. It’s another Transformers movie, no matter what Farci believes.

  9. waterbucket says:

    I won’t be seeing this unless it has great reviews like Spiderman 2. I just feel no excitement for it whatsoever. And I’m a nerd.

  10. anghus says:

    And you guys don’t think Universal would be fucking thrilled if people perceive Battleship as Transformers 4? I think that’s the drum they’re beating.

    Can’t wait for Amazing Spiderman. I think Webb was an inspired choice.

    I’m psyched for Avengers. No matter how bad it is, it’s the Avengers. I’ll probably see it twice. I agree with the general consensus that there’s a small screen sensibility to it. FX aren’t done. That could easily change. Whedon wasn’t the inspired choice Marc Webb was for Spiderman. Whedon will deliver an Avengers film that appeases the geek crowd and generates enough marketable moments for regular film fans. But when i watched that minute long spot i heard a lot of stuff pulled right from the comics (We have a Hulk) And some of the lines just confused me.

    Nick Fury: “I still believe in heroes”

    What does that even mean? It sounds like something a ten year old kid says to Spiderman. Not the musings of a hardened Government agent.

    I’m more excited about Webb because Amazing Spiderman seems more like a film that takes risks with the material and takes the character to cinematically uncharted territory. I’m still very interested in Avengers but it seems more like a movie whose course is already charted. Whether that comes from having seen two Iron Mans, Thor, Captain America, and Hulk. I feel like i know what i’m getting.

    That doesn’t mean it won’t be any good. But i think at this point we all know what the Avengers will be. I have no idea where The Amazing Spiderman is going and i’m ready to find out.

  11. leahnz says:

    who’s ‘the amazing spiderman’, some hollywood agent extraordinaire? let’s do lunch.

    spider-man man

    sing it with me:
    (i can’t decide if it’s awesome or sad-as that i know these lyrics by heart)

    spider-man, spider-man
    does whatever a spider can
    spins a web any size
    catches thieves just like flies
    look out, here comes the spider-man

    is he strong? listen bud
    he’s got radioactive blood
    can he swing from a thread
    take a look overhead
    hey there, there goes the spider-man

    in the chill of night
    at the scene of a crime
    like a streak of light
    he arrives just in time…

    spider-man, spider-man
    friendly neighbourhood spider-man
    wealth and fame is ignored
    action is his reward

    to him, life is a great big bang-up
    whenever there’s a hang-up
    you’ll find the spider-man.

    (hopefully i’m not remembering it wrong, that would be embarrassing)

  12. bulldog68 says:

    I was just wondering why they didn’t debut this in the Superbowl?

  13. JS Partisan says:

    Of course KGOMGDY wouldn’t get what Fury means by; “I still believe in heroes.” What he’s stating is that they are fucked but he believes in the Avengers to pull them out of it. Why you think Webb is an inspired choice over someone like Whedon is just objective, but Serenity and 500 Days of Summer exist. I’d personally take the guy who made Serenity to make an Avengers film or a Spidey film, but Webb will hopefully give the world the Spidey movie they always wanted. While they didn’t even know they needed it.

  14. anghus says:

    “Why you think Webb is an inspired choice over someone like Whedon is just objective”

    brilliant.

  15. Don R. Lewis says:

    I’ve always liked THE AVENGERS comic but I’ve never understood how the movie is supposed to “work.” For as great as the various incarnations of the group is, there’s never been a really amazing storyline to push the series into true greatness rather than pure iconic status. The X-Men had some remarkable storylines like the whole Dark Phoenix thing and the Wolverine backstories (which may not technically be X-Men stories, but still). I’m sure you guys will say I’m wrong but THE AVENGERS always seemed cool on the surface with no real depth.

    I’m still looking forward to seeing the film though.

  16. JS Partisan says:

    Don, these Avengers are based more off of the Ultimates, and those books have some very awesome stories to go with them.

    Seriously old man, excuse me for believing you have some objectivity, but you can use subjective all you day. Yeah, it is brilliant, but you know… THEY NEED TO GET OFF YOUR DAMN LAWN!

  17. Drew McWeeny says:

    JS…

    Disney is not in charge of advertising “The Amazing Spider-Man.” They have 100% no hand in how Sony markets or sells the movie. You have that completely wrong.

  18. JS Partisan says:

    Yeah Drew, merchandising not marketing: “”To that end, we recently completed a transaction with Sony Pictures to simplify our relationship. And then in the deal, we purchased Sony Pictures’ participation in Spiderman merchandising, while at the same time, Sony Pictures purchased from us our participation in Spiderman films. This transaction will allow us to control and fully benefit from all Spiderman merchandising activity, while Sony will continue to produce and distribute Spiderman films. We won’t be specific about the economics of this 2-way transaction, but we expect it will drive attractive returns for Disney.”

    I will not get in a semantic argument about how one has to market the merchandise (which is probably why I mixed them up to begin with) for a film, but Disney still makes money from this film. They have Spidey’s rights back so if this movie takes off, and sells a lot of merch. Disney gets paid along with Avengers money.

  19. yancyskancy says:

    The great advantage THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN has over THE AVENGERS is that it follows a single protagonist. A team-oriented film has to split its focus among multiple characters and still deliver all the action beats and a nefarious super-villain plot. Even when it’s well done, it may not be as emotionally involving for the audience.

  20. LexG says:

    BATTLESHIP looks better than any superhero bullshit. IT IS BLUE, DO YOU SEE? COLOR BLUE is the GREATEST THING EVER, WATER MOVIES RULE, it is CLEAR and BLUE and AQUA and will have the Universal GRAIN to it and look like a hard action movie.

    AVENGERS is in the 1.85:1 HACKSPECT RATIO.

  21. cadavra says:

    Speaking as an old person, I’d love it if Patrick Macnee and Diana Rigg popped up in THE AVENGERS, even if it’s a three-second reaction shot.

  22. LexG says:

    Some of you guys make movies, work on movies, interview showfolk:

    Don’t the ACTORS get tired of having to fly around to promote movies, or promote their Oscar campaign? If I’m EMMA STONE, fuuuuuck flying to some City of God FAVELA on my goddamn WEEKEND. Thinking the same thing about Clooney and Viola having to go to AWARDS SOIREES every night; Like, “I’M RICH BITCH, I’m going to the Arclight to see SAFE HOUSE this weekend, FUCK promoting shit.” Don’t they wanna go see all the movies or spend time with their kids or go play golf or race cars or bang porn people on the HALLOWED WEEKEND? This shit TERRIFIES ME, this idea of ENDLESS PRESS TOURS, because the whole point of BEING RICH AND FAMOUS is living in your HOLLYWOOD HILLS HOME and living the life of Vincent Chase. Going to BRAZIL or JAPAN to do JUNKETS? HELL THAT. HELL THAT. How does Clooney go to the Grove or the Arclight to see 100 movies a year at the 11am matinee if he’s always on the ROAD? How does he play GOLF or go to Santa Antia? FASSBENDER’S ALWAYS at some screening or press event or PREMIERE or Q&A, and it’s usually OUT OF TOWN.

    If I were an actor, I’d make the movie for six weeks or whatever, then fly back to LA and NEVER leave the house. Do they HAVE to promote their stuff? FUCK ever ever ever leaving Los Angeles, and definitely fuck working WEEKENDS.

  23. Drew McWeeny says:

    It’s not a semantic argument.

    Disney does not have any say at all in how Sony markets their film. They don’t approve ads. They don’t have any input. It’s just not happening.

  24. sanj says:

    awesome rant LexG – but your favorite K-Stew does the same thing with promoting the Twilight movies – if she took your advice there would be less K-Stew…do you really want that ? also going around the world costs money – actors probably don’t have to pay for airline tickets themselves which would cost thousands of dollars for a few days of press tours ..

    those endless press tours actually stop after a year – i don’t see Lee Daniels going around promoting “Precious: Based on the Novel “Push” by Sapphire” ..

    as for spiderman movie – lets see if DP can get a dp/30 out of the actors….all the comic con geeks also want
    interviews. Emma Stone will be more popular than K-Stew for a couple of weeks.

    also Drew McWeeny – i liked your sundance videos you made .

  25. LexG says:

    I want K-Stew to stay home and get her sleep sometime. I always feel especially sorry for her, having to TOUR THE GLOBE for some property she’s kind of ambivalent about; Wouldn’t you just wanna stay home?

    I always quote THE MAN, because he is my god, but John Carpenter in interviews always says how he just loves LA and doesn’t like leaving it and hates shooting on the road, he just wants to go home at the end of the night.

    In a lot of ways, being an LA-based TV actor would be the best deal ever… Fame without having to be stuck filming overseas or in VANCOUVER or Texas or wherever.

    You work your WHOLE LIFE for the honor of living in LOS ANGELES… Why would anyone ever want to leave it?

    Like how does CRUISE go to the AMC Century City to watch THE VOW if he’s filming in India? Sounds HORRIBLE.

  26. JS Partisan says:

    Drew, they market the MERCH. They have a say in how the toys, shirts, and posters are sold. That’s the say they have and thus, they do have some what of a say as to how this film is MARKETED in terms of MERCH, and thus my point, but please fill free to ignore it. Please, go right ahead.

    Now, David, you are so out to lunch that you are in the middle of the LA river eating some Subway. This trailer is as bad as that Hunger Games IMAX trailer from last week. It may play better on a big screen but on my HD monitor, it comes across as a really expensive SYFY movie.

    How do you go from that last trailer that’s all subtle and moody (which grew on me every time I saw it), to this trailer that’s over the top, and looks cheap? Seriously David, you’re not going to see a backdrop in the Avengers look as bad as that one in the beginning of this trailer.

    It’s such a bad trailer that does a terrible job of selling this movie, and it also has too much of a RAIMI feel to it. The entire production design seems way too much like Raimi and thus makes me wonder WHY THEY REBOOTED THE DAMN FRANCHISE IF THEY WERE ONLY GOING TO KEEP IT LOOKING THE SAME?

    I am still looking forward to this film as I am Hunger Games, but both of those films have trailers out there that make their films look cheap and disposable like a plastic razor. Luckily both of those films have better trailers out there, but Sony needs to abandon this sucker as soon as possible. They also need to pitch down Garfield’s voice because I had no idea Spidey got all squeaky when wise-cracking.

    ETA: If you like that sort of thing Lex, India is supposed to be incredible. Now, it’s nice to be home all the time, but these movies don’t sell themselves. Sure, I have no idea why Emma Stone had to go to Rio to answer a question about a trailer, but this event probably has it’s roots under Sir Howard. I doubt Kazou Hirai would be down with such silliness.

  27. sanj says:

    touring the globe with spiderman right now is a 1 time thing for the actors .

    Emma Stone hasn’t had a huge movie like this – so hard to tell if she likes touring or not.

    i want to see DP take Kristen Dunst to spiderman and let them do a dp/30 out of it ., world exclusive.
    can she be objective about this movie or not .

    why leave LA ? i dunno – i have never been there – or Vancouver or Texas – i don’t go out anywhere .

    Doesn’t Tom Cruise worry about if he can get into the oscars as a presentor rather then worry about him watching the vow ?
    it be cool if he married McAdams in real life rather
    than Holmes. somebody make that happen.

    new spiderman trailer …

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tnxzJ0SSOw&feature=youtu.be

  28. Jeffrey Boam's Doctor says:

    JS “Disney is doing the marketing on this film.”

    Screech. Handbrake.

    JS “they do have some what of a say as to how this film is MARKETED in terms of MERCH

    The insanity above is why people think you have trollish qualities JS.

    It’s like saying BURGER KING has a say in how the film is MARKETED.
    In terms of burgers.

    Just admit you’re a person who makes mistakes now and then. You know, like the rest of the world.
    Drew right. You wrong.
    See how easy that was.

  29. JS Partisan says:

    The gal who acts like a guy who gave herself a nick that goofs on a dude who died, thinks I am a troll? Really honey, you got some weird ideas about trolling, but I did state I mixed things up above and thus was incorrect.

    That does not change the reality that Disney has control of the merch of this movie, and thus is indirectly/directly marketing items associated with this movie as they stated right here, “This transaction will allow us to control and fully benefit from all Spiderman merchandising activity, while Sony will continue to produce and distribute Spiderman films.” Notice the use of the word, CONTROL. They control and benefit from the MERCHANDISING of this movie and thus anything from SLURPEE CUPS to ACTION FIGURES goes through them. If that point is really a stretch for you, then I apologize Mrs. Armstrong.

  30. Joe Straatmann says:

    Uh, while similarities are pretty much given seeing as it’s the same property, this looks MUCH different than Raimi and if it looks the same, you probably needs your eyes checked. Raimi’s Spider-Man maintained a brighter color palette and a style that leaned more towards cartoonish. That’s not a knock on Raimi’s movies. There’s plenty in it that worked with that style (And stuff that didn’t work as well). J. Jonah Jameson was pretty much a walking cartoon and his scenes were consistency some of the better parts of each of the movies. This one seems to be going with darker blues, less exaggerated locales (Parker’s high school felt like a sitcom high school in the first Spider-Man. From the brief glimpses in the new one, it feels more like high school high school), less bright orange jumping in the front of the American flag stuff. Whether it works or not will remain to be seen because, hey, I kind of think the reboot’s kind of pointless, too, and while I general like the trailer in general, Parker’s smart-assness did feel a little forced.

    And they’re locking down Avengers tight, so it’s hard to get much of of an impression besides Heroes posing together, Heroes talking brief smack to each other, and things attacking things. They’re keeping much of it secret which is fine by me. I don’t like seeing movies before I’ve actually seen the movies.

  31. Mike says:

    My complaints with the first trailer weren’t that the color palettes looked the same, it was more that so much of the story looked the same. What I like about this new trailer is that it just looks like a new Spiderman movie that I haven’t seen before – successfully hiding much of the origin story they were selling in the first trailer. I’ll wait for reviews to see if the origin story is really just a small bit of this new movie, or if the movie is just another version of the origin story.

    So, this is an improvement, but I’m still in a wait and see frame of mind.

  32. Oddly enough, the biggest problem is what appears to be a pretty terrible performance from Dennis Leary. Other than that, it looks decent and loses marks mainly for being surprisingly similar to Raimi’s first Spider-Man. Yes, it looks more realistic and it rains more, but the actual Spidey in action stuff… well, maybe there is only so many ways to do that kind of thing. Anyway, the first 2 Spidey films did the whole student/mentor stuff with the villain, and Spider-Man had a mix of CGI and practical as well as a pretty dark tone (the 2002 film is bright and colorful, but every character is seriously depressed for 90% of the film). Still, issues about its creation aside, it looks like a fun mix of Ultimate Spider-Man and the underrated 2008 cartoon Spectacular Spider-Man. And yes, it certainly looks better than The Avengers…

  33. bulldog68 says:

    I actually got confused and thought that Lawrence Fishburne was J Jonah Jameson, only to realize that he’s Perry White in Superman. So will there be no Daily Bugle arc in this Spiderman as I don’t see a JJ Jameson character in the imdb listing? If not, isn’t The Bugle a whole other character in Spiderman lore and central to being a part of how Spiderman is perceived by the public?

  34. Paul D/Stella says:

    I’m not crazy about Raimi’s trilogy, and this looks very different and more my speed. Looks much darker, in tone and color palette. I liked the trailer. Lizard looks very cool. I’m in.

  35. Martin S says:

    Which studio designs the promotional material? Design meaning fonts, color aesthetics, etc…that’s who controls marketing.

    And that would be Marvel. Sony no longer has carte blanche on design as they did the first time. The two ended up in a lawsuit over this around the time of the first film.

    But it’s not Disney’s call by proxy. They’re leveraging their distribution streams – i.e McDonald’s and whatnot – for their revenue.

    And then in the deal, we purchased Sony Pictures’ participation in Spiderman merchandising, while at the same time, Sony Pictures purchased from us our participation in Spiderman films.

    What that means, is Disney and Sony agreed to trade merchandise income & theatrical dollars. Disney’s ancillary pipeline is what sets it apart from the other studios, so they have no interest in cutting Sony in on it. Sony’s investment is wrapped up in the standard movie revenue streams Dave writes about, so cutting Disney out is beneficial for them. Marvel is the go-between that approves the A&M from Sony and is trusted by Disney to make the right call.

    As for Avengers, it looks cheap because for a project this scale, they’ve never had the necessary cash to pull it off. Hence, Whedon as director out of the hope his witty banter can distract from the image of glorified cosplayers standing around shooting the shit.

    For Avengers to have been done right, they needed to follow the LOTR model from the very start. They retroactively tried, but it always comes across forced. panicked decisions made by lack of confidence in the second tier characters and the utter dependency on box office returns to keep the company afloat, (pre-Disney).

  36. Yeah, the color palette is darker, but the CGI of SPIDERMAN swinging through NYC’s high rise canyons looks the same as Raimi’s did: bad. Like the burly brawl or the endless skeleton armies of PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN. So sick of computer effects. No matter how fluid of three-dimensional they are, if we/the audience/the observers are also transported through the tiny keyhole or through the unshattering window or JUST miss getting plowed by some flying bit of flaming alien attack shrapnel, it loses whatever realism it might have achieved.

  37. jesse says:

    This looks a lot better than it did after the first trailer, which was shockingly underwhelming.

    It does seem like it’s going to be a case of a movie that’s probably going to be 30, 40% different from the Raimi movies, which will then cause the Raimi movies to be considered old hat, lame, we-never-liked-them-that-much, blah blah blah, even though (a.) this movie probably won’t on the whole be BETTER than Spider-Man 2 and (b.) it will probably have plenty in common with Raimi’s movies, because yeah, they’re adapting similar material (the Ultimate Spider-Man books that this movie supposedly leans on were also pretty clearly an unofficial source for the first movie, at least in parts). Even some of the action stuff in this trailer looks a bit like the Raimi version, even if the color palette is darker (ooh, a darker superhero! NEVER BEFORE has that been attmepted!).

    I would love to see a Parker/Gwen Stacy romance that feels a little more personal and a little less unrequited; that’s a nicely different angle, and I like the “falling in love with Parker, not Spider-Man” idea… but again, everyone will feel the need to dump on the Parker/MJ relationship in the first three, even though it’s pretty charming.

  38. Krazy Eyes says:

    After that AVENGERS Super Bowl spot I don’t know that you could pay me to go see that. It looked like the worst aspects of the latest batch of superhero films strung together with lame dialogue and dodgy CGI. I was burnt by Green Lantern. Not again.

    And, yes, it looks like TV. Should anyone have expected anything else from Whedon.

    Speaking of Whedon … considering his penchant for killing off characters as a cheap and easy means to achieve an emotional payoff, who’s he going to kill off? I vote for Renner.

  39. Foamy Squirrel says:

    JS – it sounds as if you’re rationalizing a bad statement. And Disney isn’t controlling the action figures for Spiderman, Hasbro is.

  40. My theory on the big Avengers death (SPOILER if I’m right)…
    .
    .
    .

    My money is on The Hulk dying at the end of The Avengers. Yes, it’s half-expected that Whedon will kill off a major character in the third act. And Marvel has tried twice to turn Hulk into an ongoing franchise, relatively failing both times. He has no real future as a stand-alone character and he’s expensive as hell to animate (I imagine part of why Avengers looks cheap is that much of the CGI budget went towards Hulk stuff), making him the likely candidate for the ‘heartbreaking’ big death (knowing Whedon, he’ll probably let Bruce Banner get cured and *then* kill him off). Of course, since none of these Avengers really know each other on any real emotional level, it will have an effect closer to Kirk dying next to Picard, rather than Spock dying next to Kirk.

  41. Tim DeGroot says:

    “isn’t The Bugle a whole other character in Spiderman lore and central to being a part of how Spiderman is perceived by the public?”
    It has been, bulldog, but I suppose they could adapt that aspect to a TMZ-style website/TV show. Both Spider-Man and Superman will have to ditch the “works at a newspaper” element before long anyway.

  42. Paul D/Stella says:

    Whedon might like killing off characters in his stuff, but is he really going to be able to do that with a major properly such as this?

  43. Krillian says:

    Arguing over marketing merchandise? What is this, a DeadlineHollywood board?

    Avengers left the best part out of their Super Bowl ad.

    Loki: “I have an army.”
    Stark: ‘We have a Hulk.”

    When discussing SuperBowl movie ads, the teens/tweens at our place all brought up Battleship first. I said the same thing when I saw it, “It looks like Transformers 4.” To which the marketing teams probably clinked champagne glasses and said “Our work is done.”

  44. Don R. Lewis says:

    That Spidey trailer rocked. I’m o.k. with the Raimi ones but this indeed looks darker and not just the color palette. The stuff with Peter’s father and this “secret” seems like it can go more directions than him never getting over the fact he let his Uncle Ben get killed by not stopping a criminal. Yes, I know that’s from the comic, but it seemed like someone getting drunk and crying about how their dad never loved him, especially after 3 films worth.

    I also don’t agree that the CGI looked the same as Raimi’s; this feels more first person POV and more exciting. Granted, that could be a residual effect from the teaser which was all that first person stuff.

    If Whedon kills someone in AVENGERS, I hope it’s Tony Stark. That would be the boldest move ever in a major franchise.

  45. Paul D/Stella says:

    If he does kill someone, you can just reboot the character in 5-10 years.

  46. JoJo says:

    Martin S.:

    You said: “Which studio designs the promotional material? Design meaning fonts, color aesthetics, etc…that’s who controls marketing.

    And that would be Marvel.”

    I can assure you that that is not the case on this movie.

  47. brack says:

    The Avengers doesn’t look any more TV than the other recent Marvel films that preceded this one. I’m looking forward to it more than Spiderman and agree that it doesn’t look vastly better than Raimi’s film, unlikes Nolan’s Batman when compared to Batman of the Burton/Schumacher films.

    There’s something epic about Batman in
    Nolan’s films. Here we have Spiderman as a boy again. Is that the image of Spiderman that we have to see time and time again? Where is grown up Spidey?

  48. bulldog68 says:

    Kind of weird conversation to have before the movie comes out, but if one has to die, my vote would be for Black Widow. I think she’s the weakest link, and they hardly ever kill off the chick.

  49. hcat says:

    Adult Spidey might be coming in a few years if this version sticks. The Bugle might show up in the next film or the one after that. I am actually glad they seem to be showing a bit of restraint compared to the third spiderman that felt it had to resolve the Goblin conflict, add Venom and Sandman, and introduced Captain Stacey and Betty Brant in essentially cameo parts. Spiderman has a half centuary worth of narrative to pull from there’s no need to rush it.

    I had major misgivings about Webb which were erased with this trailer. It not only makes me look forward to this one, but for the six after that (which is entirely possible given that Spiderman has the best rogues gallery on all of comics).

    As for the Avengers and Battleship, each new peek moves the needle a little bit but they still both have a long way to go to grab my interest. Is there any action in Avengers that does not take place on that same city block? The trailer for Popeye looked more epic in scope and that whole movie took place on a quarter mile of rock in the Atlantic.

    And there is no way they are killing Hawkeye or Widow. One of those Untitled Marvel slots in 2014 is likely being saved for pairing them in a solo adventure. Overall I am much more excited about the return of the Avengers Cartoon than I am about this film.

  50. Krazy Eyes says:

    Nah . . . Whedon loves to kill off the chick. Black Widow is definitely on the likely list — especially if she has some sort of sappy redemption/love storyline.

    Has Whedon ever directed/written ANYTHING that didn’t kill off a main character in the final act? I can’t think of any examples in his main works. The biggest surprise would be for him to not kill someone off.

  51. storymark says:

    While Im most certainly in the “this is unnessesary” camp in regards to this new Spidey – it was a good trailer, and has my interest piqued. Im still not wild about the costume, the texture looks goofy and too shiny – but I have a feeling the shininess is going to help blend the live action and CG, so Im willing to reserve judgement.

    And those insisting Whedon will kill someone are just falling back on simplistic arguments.

    He has only directed 1 feature, in which yes, he kills a main character. However, he has directed many, many, many epsides of various shows in which he… ya know…. didn’t.

  52. hcat says:

    And I’m sure Whedon didn’t get a lot of leeway in terms of charecterization or plot. Marvel is going to want to keep all franchise possibilities open so I’m sure no ones getting offed

    “Nick Fury: “I still believe in heroes”

    What does that even mean? It sounds like something a ten year old kid says to Spiderman. Not the musings of a hardened Government agent.”

    Mad Max’s boss was a bigger hardass than Fury and his “I still believe in heroes” bit is one of the best parts of that movie.

  53. christian says:

    Dennis Leary. Gads. Worst actor/personality ever. Maybe he can do one of his awful old MTV rants about comic book nerds.

    And SPIDER-MAN needn’t be “dark” — desperate geek code for “This is soooo adult!” Parker is perfectly ridden with apropos teen angst and guilt (hardly pining over his dad’s lost love, Don – he inadvertently killed his father figure due to selfishness – hence the line about “great responsibility.”). Tying in Ben’s death to some big mystery is making way more of it than need be.

    Raimi GOT Spider-Man in a way few comic book directors have and his action scenes in SP2 are still masterpieces of kinetic choreography and the best done in the genre.

  54. ThriceDamned says:

    I’m looking forward to both…I’m always excited about superhero movies, my inner geek is too strong (even if none of them ever ends up on my top 10 for the year).

  55. The Big Perm says:

    I don’t get the complaints that The Avengers looks like tv…I can get if you want to say it looks sort of flat or cheap, but how exactly is that any different than the apparently amazing cinematic looks of Iron Man or Thor or Captain America? They ALL sort of look like shit.

  56. The Big Perm says:

    And besides, saying something looks like tv makes no sense anyway, as most tv looks like movies.

  57. [From an early draft of Joss Whedon's THE AVENGERS script]

    Agent Phil Coulson: What do you believe in, huh? What do you believe in?

    Tony Stark: I believe whatever doesn’t kill you simply makes you… stranger. No, wait. I believe I can fly.

    Steve Rogers: I still believe in fairies [claps hands]. Oh, I do. I do.

    Bruce Banner: I still believe in Santa Claus.

    Nick Fury: I still believe in heroes.

    [beat]

    Tony Stark: [continuing] I believe I can touch the sky.

    [Hulk crushes Stark's windpipe.]

  58. storymark says:

    “Raimi GOT Spider-Man in a way few comic book directors have ”

    He got aspects, yes. But he never nailed the whole picture.

  59. christian says:

    Respectfully disagree. I think SP2 is a pop masterpiece. Best comic book film alongside SUPERMAN.

  60. JS Partisan says:

    If you look at the aesthetic of this The Amazing Spider-man, it still has a lot of the Raimi sheen to it. Sure, everything is darker, but it still appears to have Raimi production design. Turning the lights down a bit, doesn’t change that the sets are straight out of Raimi’s films, and that’s disappointing. If you are going to reboot: REBOOT! Make it an entirely new world, but don’t think making it darker changes that aesthetic. The point about Nolan’s Bats films to Burton’s/Schumacher’s is apt because this could have been an EPIC SPIDER-MAN film but now, it’s just darker.

    That aside, Kevin, the computers won. How people like you still exist is beyond me. Seriously, optical FX and practical FX do the same thing to a lot of people. Why people like you get so bitchy about CGI compared to the FX we had in the past, is still mystifying.

    Krazy Eyes, he’s not killing anyone off, Whedon is awesome, and it does not look like TV show. Seriously, you guys have more agendas than the Catholic Church on a Thursday!

  61. christian says:

    What I particularly liked about Dykstra’s work on SP2 is that the CG action looked rightfully colorful as a comic book panel. It wasn’t striving for realism.

  62. Don’t misunderstand, JS. Bad effects are bad effects whether practical or optical. But when we/the camera/the audience are tracking along with the hero swinging on his web (or whatever) and we/the camera/the audience glide through an unbelievably small space, doesn’t that take you out of the moment? I can’t fit through a key hole. And it bugs me that somebody thought that was a good idea just because they thought of it AND because it was virtually possible.

    CGI has gotten tiresome. Inane slugfests that go on interminably just because it’s cheaper to produce these days is the wrong reason to include them. JURASSIC PARK’s and YOUNG SHERLOCK HOLMES’ effects were awesome because they were costly and therefore used sparingly. Don’t your eyes ever get physically tired watching TRANSFORMERS or PotC or every other wall-to-wall computer generated abortion thrown at you?

    And it’s not so much that the computers won; we just gave up.

  63. leahnz says:

    well speak for yourself kevin schoon, i can so fit thru a keyhole after a 7-day lemon cleanse…(but seriously, i don’t remember a shot in the trailer of swinging thru a keyhole or some horribly small space, did i watch the right trailer?)

    i like the look of it ok – garfield is a stone talent, as is stone for that matter and ifans looks the goods – but i can’t escape the notion that instead of the usual ‘coming soon’ notice the trailers should say ‘coming too soon’…but i might get over it

  64. LexG says:

    I have a WEB SHOOTER for Emma Stone.

    MAN MADE WEB.

  65. JS Partisan says:

    Christian, right the fuck on. Seriously, that’s why Spidey 2 goes beyond what Spidey and Spidey 3 are as films. It’s the closest Raimi ever got to what Spidey is all about, and that’s why that movie rules.

    Kevin, no, the computers won because they create things that are plausible. Plausibility is all you need. You are stretching for credulity from all of this, while as long as it’s plausible. I am fine.

    Does that work for everyone? No, but I do less wincing with CGI then I ever did with practical or optical FX. It does come down to personal taste, but you freaking out over it when the other types of FX never ever reach that same level, is a bit silly to me.

  66. storymark says:

    “I think SP2 is a pop masterpiece. Best comic book film alongside SUPERMAN.”

    I agree. It’s still my favorite superhero flick.

    But he still didn’t totally nail Spidey. He never got the wise-cracking side of the character right.

    Being the best yet does not mean best *possible*.

  67. JS Partisan says:

    Indeed, SM. Indeed.

  68. Mr. Peel says:

    As Lex has already pointed out, the 1.85 thing about THE AVENGERS is flat-out inexcusable and has basically caused me to write off the entire film. Polasnki’s CARNAGE, set in an apartment, is framed at a full 2.35:1 while THE AVENGERS aka THE BIGGEST MOVIE EVER is 1.85. Makes no sense. If Whedon wanted to make a movie, something actually cinematic and visual, he’s not doing a good job of convincing me.

  69. Leah — the keyhole was a random CGI example (PANIC ROOM, perhaps?). SPIDERMAN is all about the endless swinging through NYC shots.

    Good to know about you and the lemon cleanse. I usually need a bottle marked “drink me” before I get small.

  70. leahnz says:

    i must admit it helps that TOOMS is a distant cousin on my mother’s side, the lemon cleanse just gets me svelte and psyched

    re CG and spider-man, the weirdest thing:
    the web-flying CGI spidey in raimi’s orig ‘spider-man’ is really rather naff and daggy by today’s standards but DAMN seeing it on the big, big screen at the embassy for the first time, there were these thrilling moments when i physically FELT it, the speed and the falling and gliding out over the cityscape, rather inexplicable how well it worked for me in that ‘for brief moments i felt like i was flying’ sense (a bit like the ‘plummeting into the depths of isengard’ POV shot in FOTR, a rush) given that the rendering/compositing itself was not particularly well done….it’s an enigma of the nexus of science/art/the physics space-time continuum for me that i will likely never understand, given that the superior rendering in ‘spider-man II’ didn’t achieve nearly that same flying feeling for me, in spite of much cleaner-looking and more realistic imagery.

    (please don’t make fun of me)

    eta i’ve always had a theory that the discrepancy must have something to do with difficult-to-pinpoint subtleties relating to superior camerawork (both real and virtual) in ‘spider-man’ as compared to the sequel, but i’ve never gotten around to trying to test/prove my theory with an actual shot-by-shot examination/comparison of the two movies, basically because i don’t care enough and can’t be bothered.

  71. anghus says:

    The Avengers trailer was fun. The Dark Knight Rises looks epic. The Amazing Spiderman looks like it has the best of both.

    A+ on that trailer.

  72. arisp says:

    This version of Spiderman will be the lowest opening Spiderman yet. Fact.

  73. Jeffrey Boam's Doctor says:

    People flying in films 90s/00s/10s
    They still all look like outtakes from Greatest American Hero to me.

  74. bulldog68 says:

    May has shaped up to be quite a clusterfuck, 4th is Avengers, 11th is Dark Shadows, 18th is Battleship, 25th is Men in Black 3.

    By Comparison June has no big tentpoles, save animation, and the hopeful promise of big things with Prometheus, Snow White, and Lincoln. And the hopes that The Rock can do for GI Joe what he did for Fast Five. Considering however that the top grossing of the Aliens series is $85M, I wonder what is the studio hoping for?

    I also notice that in August, the new Bourne and new Recall both drop on the 3rd. Lets hope someone learns a lesson from the family film debacle of November 2011.

  75. movieman says:

    Wow. 74 responses to this thread already.
    Am I the only one who doesn’t give a shit about a Spidey reboot?
    No “Spiderman” could ever match Raimi’s “Spiderman 2,” so why bother?

  76. JS Partisan says:

    Why bother? While Spidey 2 is a very good film. It’s still not as Spidey as it could be. There’s a version of Spider-man that a lot of people want to see on screen, and we’ve yet to see him. Hopefully this movie will bring him to the masses.

    That aside, Kevin, you don’t like Fincher shots? Really? What the h?

    Oh yeah, you guys are really pissed that he’s using 1:85? Really? Of all the things to get bitchy about, you get bitchy about aspect ratio? Again, really?

  77. Lex and Mr. Peel — I understand the 1.85 complaint, but I think shooting an action tent-pole in 1.85 these days is excusable for the following reasons…

    1) Almost every new theater has top-masking as opposed to side-masking, so the previous grandness of 2.35 is totally lost. It sucks, but it’s the way it is.

    2) Very few digital theaters actually bought anamorphic lenses–the projectors just zoom in–so you’re actually losing precious resolution on most 2.35 projections.

    3) Now, with HDTV, a 1.85 film on cable won’t be cropped, whereas a 2.35 film still will be… as opposed to 10 years ago, when both were cropped for 4:3… So if a filmmaker wants to control exactly how their film looks across all media, 1.85 is a better option.

    That said, I agree in principle that Scope is a way better way to shoot an action film. It’s just not as clear-cut a decision as it once was.

  78. anghus says:

    “This version of Spiderman will be the lowest opening Spiderman yet. Fact.”

    I don’t think you’re wrong. But since box office is rarely a good barometer of quality i don’t think it matters much.

    My theory is that Amazing Spiderman ends up like Batman Begins. It makes enough to warrant it’s existence. It’s enjoyed by audiences, features a villain who isn’t the cornerstone of the rouges gallery, and does well enough for Webb to get another crack at the character. Then the second one does gangbusters.

    That’s the only reference i have for this: relaunching a franchise within a few years of the previous incarnation. I guess First Class falls into that category as well. Critically appreciated, audiences seem to like what they saw. Doesn’t exactly make a mint but gets a sequel greenlit and then you cash in on the goodwill of the first film.

  79. movieman says:

    “Spiderman 2:”
    The best comics/super hero movie to date.
    (And likely to remain so throughout 2012.)
    Sorry if I can’t get overly excited about a “Why so soon-really, why so soon??–reboot by the director of (the overrated) ’500 Days of Summer’ and starring a British Peter Parker?”

  80. LexG says:

    They made a new James Bond every 2 years for like 27 years…

    Why is the concept of a new Spiderman movie after a FIVE YEAR HIATUS some WHOA IT’S TOO SOON TOO SOON concept? It’s like a new Bond with a new Bond. What’s the big deal?

  81. Mike says:

    Lex, I don’t think anyone would care if they just stuck someone new in the spidey suit and called it a new sequel like a Bond sequel. Instead, it’s like they’re remaking Casino Royale (again) and keeping 20%-50% the same exact story but with new actors and a darker palette.

    I have no problem with rebooting, as long as they don’t keep doing the same origin story over and over again. There are so many other stories to tell.

    The genius of Burton’s Batman is that it wasn’t an origin story. He assumed everyone already knew the origin and started the story with Batman fully formed. But now that Nolan did the Batman origin in Begins, I’m praying the next person to take on Batman doesn’t start with the origin, yet again.

  82. Martin S says:

    JoJo – I’ll take your word.

    Christian – Tying in Ben’s death to some big mystery is making way more of it than need be.

    Exactly. Comic writers mistake clever twists for story depth and it’s gotten worse with each decade. This is the shit that killed Ang’s Hulk. If Norton’s film was the first out of the gate, you would have had a franchise because, like Raimi, the idea at the core held to the roots of the original character. In Hulk’s case,the idea was Bixby’s Banner, but it works for a very fast launch into the action. Instead, we got psycho-blather manifesting as a physical confrontation.

    On a different note, the 1:85 for Avengers really sums up the contrast between Avengers and TDKR.

    Avengers is the hopeful start of a franchise, has too many characters to explore relationships in depth, will come in under two hours, a small aspect ratio, glib dialogue, bright color palette, CGI heavy, restrained locations, etc… while TDKR is the exact opposite on every point.

  83. torpid bunny says:

    Hulk is flawed no doubt, but a lot of it holds up for me quite well. I appreciate that Ang Lee is going for a weight of performance that men-in-tights movies almost never attempt. I love seeing Sam Elliot do some dramatic serious work, even if it doesn’t all come off.

    The production design of Hulk is a little bland in spots but totally top shelf. Hulk’s rampages are coherent and impressive. Eric Banna is compelling as a man uncovering the pain he’s always carried. And Nick Nolte is pretty terrifying. Nolte’s work isn’t quite Daniel Plainview but it’s in the ballpark. Ang Lee’s attempt at a sci-fi family tragedy almost works, and gets big respect from me.

  84. hcat says:

    Just last year that many of us were complaining about the Apes reboot being so soon after Burton’s attempt. Yet I am now very glad they did it. Sequels, Reboots, Comics, TV show adaptations, Theme Park and Toy based films, As long as the end product is quality who the fuck cares about where it came from and or how long it was gone.

    Given the bloat of the last Raimi film I’m glad their starting over. If they had just hired Gyllenhall and kept going spidey 4 would have had to be even more of a spectical action wise and they had painted themselves into a corner with the Peter/Mary Jane relationship. There was really no strong direction for that franchise to go.

  85. Don R. Lewis says:

    Martin-
    I agree with you in principal (and Mike as well who alluded to this) about HULK and Burton’s BATMAN successfully tagging up on already known origin stories of iconic superhero characters BUT…the exact same argument could be made for Bryan Singer’s SUPERMAN RETURNS which I felt really successfully tied into the Reeve Superman movies. Yet with that film, people turned on Singer and claimed he was being a copy-cat or ripping off the original when I always felt he did a brilliant thing attaching the new version to the old.

    As a fan of those movies, I felt a little closer to Superman and there are scenes (particularly the one where he’s getting his ass beat) that really “got me” in a weird, nostalgic way. It felt like the Superman I had grown up with in movies was getting beat up.

    I guess I’m just saying, it’s definitely not a “fact” that using a pre-established character type helps your franchise.

  86. yancyskancy says:

    I see no point in railing too much against a movie I haven’t seen. It’s quite possible that many of the kneejerk problems we have with a “too-soon” reboot will be addressed satisfactorily by the writers and director. I know, it’s Hollywood. But, hey, it could happen. The origin seems to have been tweaked, and unless some of you have seen a script, how do you know what percentage of the film it will represent?

    As for a “British Peter Parker” — seriously? Movieman, I’m pretty sure you don’t really believe actors should be restricted to roles based on their nationality. Is Peter Parker an exception for some reason? To keep it in the comic book area, did you have a problem with this when Australian Hugh Jackman played the Canadian Wolverine? Scottish James McAvoy as native New Yorker Professor X? Etc., etc, ad infinitum…

  87. David Poland says:

    I`m not sure what you’re trying to say arisp. There’s never been a $100m 4th of july opening.

  88. JS Partisan says:

    Garfield is also an American, so Spidey at least has some American in him. While casting a Brit to play an American Icon like Superman is still weird, Cavill looks damn Clark Kent like in the suit, so as long as it works. It overcomes the weirdness.

    That aside, let’s get on to this:

    “On a different note, the 1:85 for Avengers really sums up the contrast between Avengers and TDKR.”

    You mean one’s a team film and the other is a movie where Bats quits due to PTSD suffered from the Joker? Yeah, that’s the difference and it’s not the aspect ratio because TONY STARK’S COLORS DON’T RUN XD!

    “Avengers is the hopeful start of a franchise, has too many characters to explore relationships in depth,”

    You have absolutely ZERO PROOF of this other then your dislike of the idea. Whedon has an uncanny ability to give even the briefest character moments incredible depth, so please stop counting the chickens before they are hatched.

    “will come in under two hours, a small aspect ratio, glib dialogue, bright color palette, CGI heavy, restrained locations, etc…”

    So it’s a MARVEL COMIC BOOK MOVIE! Wow, nice of you to finally catch onto how they make movies. Why that’s a bad thing to you, is on you, but there are more then a few locations in that film. Assuming that it’s going to have one fight in one part of the city ignores Clint Burton falling out of a window.

    “while TDKR is the exact opposite on every point.”

    Yeah, it’s a DC movie, and DC is the opposite of Marvel is just about every single way. You also are ignoring that it’s a movie where Batman quits. I am glad you folks will let Nolan slide on this, but it’s enough for me to look past to this film onto the next man/woman to direct the franchise. Hopefully then, Bats will get more of the family that makes him a unique character, and he won’t be a quitter.

  89. JKill says:

    Glad to see all of the love for Rami’s SPIDEY 2, which, for me, is also the best super hero movie ever made.

  90. David Poland says:

    Garfield is a good guy and a great actor… but not an American.

  91. JS Partisan says:

    David, just admit you are wrong now: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1940449/ . Born here and thus he’s an AMERICAN! Jeez, you think that I would post that without knowing about it? You folks really are some condescending…

  92. anghus says:

    He’s such a good actor he thought he was American. Get that man an oscar.

  93. movieman says:

    Yancy- The casting of Cavil pisses me off even more than the idea of yet another damn “Superman” movie.
    At least Garfield is a good actor and not a mannequin.
    But seriously: couldn’t Webb find an “as-American-as-Tobey-Maguire” American actor to play Parker/Spidey?
    For me it’s simply an unnecessary distraction that gets in the way of the film.
    I’ll probably spend the entire movie concentrating on Garfield’s accent–whether he was able to pull off that Achilles Heel of virtually every Brit, Aussie, etc. actor: the “neutral” American accent. (For the record, I don’t think he did in “The Social Network.”)

  94. Triple Option says:

    Martin S wrote: Avengers is the hopeful start of a franchise, has too many characters to explore relationships in depth, will come in under two hours, a small aspect ratio, glib dialogue, bright color palette, CGI heavy, restrained locations, etc… while TDKR is the exact opposite on every point.

    That’s probably right, but the problem is that the promise of The Avengers has been sold as the end all, be all. If there was ever the case for the 3-hour sprawling superhero epic, this would be it. Feasibly, I understand, it doesn’t make sense. But I think the perception among fans would be “you’ve yanked us around for so many years now?? Making us literally buy into everything along the way, don’t just give us some 112 min traveling carney and say ‘Oh, wait for Version 2.0 Six Flags over Jupiter to be built!’ cuz we ain’t gonna have it!”

    Whether or not that’s reasonable of the fans to assume can be debated, but it’s setting itself up to be a money grab of just a buncha glorified cameos when this itself was supposed to be the promise not the promise of the promise. Yes, I realize it doesn’t have to be the same type of movie as Dark Knight Rises or as compelling emotionally as Spidey2. I thought Iron Man was entertaining, but it was only just that. What I wonder is if The Avengers doesn’t deliver on all the hoped for beats, emotional, story, FX, stunts, graphics, etc, what kind of broader reaching backlash could that create? My anecdotal theory that I still whole heartedly believe is that if X-Men 3 had been better Wolvie Origins and X-Men:FC rake in a lot more money than they did.

    As far as the new Spidey coming out, I like the actor. A lot. I’ve purposefully avoided watching any clips or trailers. I was completely satisfied after the 2nd one but then saw the 3rd which turned out to be a greater disappointment to me that mere diminished marginal utility. The whole re-boot thing seems gimmicky, almost to the point of being insulting that they wouldn’t try to be more original. But, you know, I already know I’m going to go see it. Just like Sony knows I (and 19 million other schlubs) am going to see it and don’t care how much I complain along the way. Now, should they be concerned that it may be 19M and not 22M, who knows? Or, a better question would be how is Sony investing their resources to hit above their b.o. goal? Such as in marketing strat or into the product itself? I do know it’s gonna take a lot to get me to see the next Supes movie. Just like I took a pass on Star Wars II & III. I realize neither Fox nor Lucas missed me but there have been plenty of disappoint comic book movies boxoffice wise to suggest butts in theater seats can’t be taken for granted.

  95. Mr. Peel says:

    HERO AT LARGE with John Ritter was released on this day in 1980. Now THAT’S a superhero movie.

  96. hcat says:

    Never thought I would write the following: I think Paltrow’s abscence will leave a gaping hole in the movie.

    I know I don’t speak for everyone, but the flirty banter between Downey and Paltrow was the most enjoyable part of the first Iron Man, the only saving grace of the second, and a strong possibility to why the Iron Man films massivily outgrossed the rest of the properties.

  97. hcat says:

    Ha, when I was a kid Hero At Large was my favorite movie for about 4 months. I think replacing the Frisco Kid and losing the slot to Flash Gordon.

  98. Krillian says:

    I thought Gwyneth Paltrow was the best love-interest role in a superhero movie since Margot Kidder’s Lois Lane.

    Had no idea Garfield was born in the USA (moved to UK when he was 3), but a lot of people will be leaning forward to see if he nails the accent or not. I actually right now can’t remember what I though of his accent in Social Network.

  99. Don R. Lewis says:

    Looks like Captain America will be filling in for Gwyneth in the flirty scenes…and setting the right wing media afire!

    Also- best superhero movie= UNBREAKABLE

  100. anghus says:

    I would agree on unbreakable with one caveat:

    I wish the movie would have ended with one more brief scene of bruce willis in a crowd of people hinting that he was embracing the role of a hero.

    I love Sam Jackson screaming at the end, but it felt like we needed one more moment with Bruce.

    I have a mantra for js.

    Etiam contritum horologium est ius bis a die

  101. cadavra says:

    I’m certainly no fan of 1.85, but I must concede that it does have an advantage when the film is in 3-D, which does not lend itself as well to ‘Scope. HUGO is Marty’s first flat (no pun intended) film in I don’t know how long, and you may recall that AVATAR was 1.85 in 3-D and 2.35 in 2-D. Since AVENGERS is in 3-D, Whedon obviously opted for the extra headroom.

  102. LexG says:

    Movies should be in 3.35:1.

  103. leahnz says:

    what cadavra said (3D needs the headroom). ‘amazing spider-man’ is 2.35, a bit surprising — i’m keen to see what the first (i believe) flick shot entirely with those TS-5 handheld rigs w/epics looks like, i think DP mentioned something a while back about hearing they were a bit of a bitch during production but hopefully it looks snazzy at any rate.

    (i like gwynnie in ‘iron man’ as well, plus she is and always will be nothing short of perfection in ‘se7en’, so there)

  104. Martin S says:

    Don – Re: Returns, I agree with your point. IMO, it all came down to a person’s staring point with Superman. For those of us who grew up with Reeves, we got Singer’s ode-to-Donner. But for anyone younger, it was either the 90′s Animated or Smallville and their scope made Donner’s look simplistic. I guess it came down to the fact that Singer openly admitted to having no personal connection to the character before taking the gig, so he went for nostalgia.

    Triple – Couldn’t agree more. This should have been an LOTR-type production from the outset. Instead, they tried to reverse engineer a building plot with inserts and one-offs.

    JayAss – You have absolutely ZERO PROOF of this other then your dislike of the idea. Whedon has an uncanny ability to give even the briefest character moments incredible depth, so please stop counting the chickens before they are hatched.

    Of all the bullshit you’ve ever said, this is the biggest lie yet. Whedon is not known for depth. He’s known for Buffy, a show he didn’t write alone with a story that went on for years. His trademark is pop culture glib dialogue feigning as hip.

    Whedon as a movie writer, is a bum. Has been, always will be. Speed, Waterworld, Alien Ressurection – all shitty. He had the audacity to blame the director for Resurrection when anyone who’s read the script knows everything on screen came straight off the page.

    I still don’t know how he conned his way into this gig, but I will always give him credit for being the poster boy for ambition-over-talent.

    …and DC is the opposite of Marvel is just about every single way…

    Green Lantern. Jonah Hex. Or should I discount those to make your fantasy analogy work?

    There is no DC/WB template. They’ve got nary a clue as to wtf they’re doing and WB would be better off selling the property for 4 billion.

    Marvel does have a formula, but it only works because the characters have built-in audiences. Replace Cap or Thor with some unknown quantity and its bombs away.

  105. storymark says:

    Martin, so wrong on so many points. Once you say Smallville has scope, it all goes downhill from there.

  106. bulldog68 says:

    “Never thought I would write the following: I think Paltrow’s abscence will leave a gaping hole in the movie.”

    Hcat, have they released some statement indicating that Potts will not be in Avengers? She is listed in cast of characters on IMDB.

  107. Hallick says:

    “Of all the bullshit you’ve ever said, this is the biggest lie yet. Whedon is not known for depth. He’s known for Buffy, a show he didn’t write alone with a story that went on for years. His trademark is pop culture glib dialogue feigning as hip.”

    Now that last sentence is the bullshit of all bullshit. Pop culture hardly if ever factors into Whedon’s dialogues. There surely isn’t an ounce of it in something like “Serenity”. If you can’t appreciate the simple beauty of a well-placed line like “I can’t know that!”, or the giddly glee elicited in an exchange like “Do you wanna run this ship!”/”YES”/”Well, mmm…you can’t!”, then fine, that’s your taste, but don’t give me this crap about his stuff being nothing but glib pop culture babble.

    Whedon’s trademark for me has been creating fictional universes with a knack for matching what must be at this point dozens of great actors with strikingly original characters (like James Marsters as Spike, or Harry Groener as Mayor Wilkins, or Clare Kramer as Glory, or Andy Hallett as Lorne, or Chiwetel Ejiofor as The Operative etc.) No, he doesn’t deserve ALL the credit for this because producing a great television series is a team effort.

    I give Whedon high props just for the fact that Nathan Fillion’s role in “Serenity” was the closest I’ve ever seen anybody get to re-creating Indiana Jones since 1981.

    Still, all that being said, I don’t know about this Avengers movie right now at all.

  108. anghus says:

    I mean come on. Can the trajectory for Avengers be any worse than Iron Man 2, a movie that was generally rebuffed by everybody and it still made 620 million worldwide.

    Thor made 450 million worldwide. Captain America made 360 million.

    I think the low estimate is 600 million worldwide. That would be my Price if Right showcase showdown pick, i.e making a pick but not wanting to go over.

    Speaking of 600 million, MI Ghost Protocol passed 600 million worldwide.

  109. hcat says:

    Bulldog – I don’t actually know that she is not in it. Simply judging by the trailer. If she is indeed in it would it be more than a slight cameo since they have all the heroes to interact with? It just seemed to me that (and I know this is odd since it is only seconds of the performance in the trailer and Bowl ad) Downey has lost a little of the POP from the earlier Iron Man. Of course this could simply be the fact that he’s hanging out in t-shirts instead of suits but IMO he just seems a little less dynamic. A yin without the yang.

    But this could also be the trailer and ads themselves, I rewatched them to see if I might be too hard on them and noticed that almost all the shots of charecters are pretty directly centered on the screen. If the screen is a football field no one strays past the forty yard lines. Forget it looking like a tv show. With the exception of the ten seconds of effects shots this could be a play.

    Martin, I thought Speed (which is excellent in its own way) was all Yost (who is excellent in a number of ways). Had no idea Whedon was involved at all.

  110. anghus says:

    if you watch the first trailer for Avengers where there’s an exchange between Cap and Stark, where Cap says “What are you without the suit” or something to that effect. And Stark replies something like “genius billionaire”.

    If you watch those shots, when the Camera is on Cap he looks like he’s 6 inches higher than Stark. When they cut back to Stark he looks like he’s 6 inches above Cap. I can’t quite figure out how that works.

  111. ` says:

    A crazed republican wrote:

    “‘JayAss – You have absolutely ZERO PROOF of this other then your dislike of the idea. Whedon has an uncanny ability to give even the briefest character moments incredible depth, so please stop counting the chickens before they are hatched.’

    Of all the bullshit you’ve ever wrote on this blog. This is the biggest lie yet. Whedon is not known for depth. He’s known for Buffy, a show he didn’t write alone with a story that went on for years. His trademark is pop culture glib dialogue feigning as hip.”

    Yeah, you have no idea what the FUCK you are writing about, and if you think you do. GET A FUCKING CLUE. Whedon’s writing is so dense and subtle at the same time, that someone like you most certainly missed the subtlety.

    Seriously, Whedon is the perfect man for a team picture because he knows how to make key moments for each team member, because that’s his thing. If you do not agree, well, you’re WRONG. YOU… ARE… WRONG.

    “Whedon as a movie writer, is a bum. Has been, always will be. Speed, Waterworld, Alien Ressurection – all shitty. He had the audacity to blame the director for Resurrection when anyone who’s read the script knows everything on screen came straight off the page.”

    He took the best part of Resurrection, turned it into a TV show, and then turned it into a movie. Your point? Oh there is no point because Whedon spent years as a script doctor and probably helped out on movies that you like/love. If you like/love any movies.

    You are also ignoring all of his work on Toy Story. Yeah, Toy Story, the movie that got a script nom. You’re point? Oh again, YOU DON’T HAVE A POINT!

    “I still don’t know how he conned his way into this gig, but I will always give him credit for being the poster boy for ambition-over-talent.”

    Yeah you don’t like him because he’s a democrat, right?

    “‘…and DC is the opposite of Marvel is just about every single way…’

    Green Lantern. Jonah Hex. Or should I discount those to make your fantasy analogy work?

    There is no DC/WB template. They’ve got nary a clue as to wtf they’re doing and WB would be better off selling the property for 4 billion.”

    My fantasy? My fantasy? You fucking brought up TDK-R and I responded to you about TDK-R. Good lord, what the hell is wrong with you?

    “Marvel does have a formula, but it only works because the characters have built-in audiences. Replace Cap or Thor with some unknown quantity and its bombs away.”

    They are still going to make a Doctor Strange movie. Again, keep trying, because it’s at least fun to read… not really. I am being facetious right there.

    ETA: Ang, Stark is on the ground and Cap is above him on a platform.

  112. anghus says:

    Right. So if Cap is above him on a platform, when you reverse the shot Stark shouldn’t be higher than Cap.

    And yet, he is.

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

    There’s the link. i watched it again. Go to 1:09. He’s not on a platform. They’re eye to eye. On Cap’s angle, towering over Stark. Stark’s angle, higher than Cap. It looks weird. Which one is bigger?

  113. leahnz says:

    i’ll second all that stuff hallick just said about ‘serenity’

    (eta also, are you pulling a ‘prince’ j f sebastian, changing your moniker to just a symbol? what is that, an apostrophe? an accent grave? can i call you accent grave, or just ‘dot’?)

  114. JS Partisan says:

    Ang, I confused that with another scene (where Cap is up higher than Tony), but you are right. That’s a weird fucking camera angle.

    Leah: no, but that would be funny.

  115. yancyskancy says:

    anghus: Looks to me like those shots may be from a moving, possibly hand-held take that circles the characters.

    At any rate, I haven’t seen SERENITY, but since Whedon directed several of the best episodes of BUFFY (which often seemed quite cinematic on a TV budget), I’m not too worried that THE AVENGERS is going to be some sort of amateur hour.

    But I admit I suck at reading a trailer like it’s tea leaves. Pretty much by definition, a trailer is a bunch of shots pulled out of context and put together to create a new context intended to spark enough interest to get butts in seats. Sometime that created context has little to do with the actual film, even to the point of including footage that doesn’t make the final cut. A trailer can make a lame film look great, a great film look lame. The director is rarely directly involved. We all know this…and yet!

  116. Martin S says:

    Storymark – Martin, so wrong on so many points. Once you say Smallville has scope, it all goes downhill from there.

    A show that ran for ten years and covered every facet of Superman versus two movies built around one theme, “Clark’s love for Lois is challenged”.

    Hallick – I didn’t mention Serenity. It’s the only property I actually give him credit for, fwiw. But any dude who ghost writes a gag line about the Exxon Valdez in a sci-fi film – and gets credit for stellar dialogue – is one the greatest cons of the past twenty years.

    Hcat – Yeah, Speed was his ticket to the big leagues. All the snappy lines are his. Twister apart of that wonderful mix, too.

    JaySonn -He took the best part of Resurrection, turned it into a TV show, and then turned it into a movie. Your point? Oh there is no point because Whedon spent years as a script doctor and probably helped out on movies that you like/love. If you like/love any movies.

    I’m assuming that’s Wincott’s pirate crew becoming Firefly. That’s funny. Every see Accione Mutante?

    Yeah you don’t like him because he’s a democrat, right?

    Holy fuck…no IO, I’m not you. I don’t hold disdain for people based on generalities. Like I said, I give him all the props for maxing out his ability into a career where he ends up directng the Avengers over say, I dunno, a hundred other smarter choices.

    Writing for ensembles is partly why he got the gig, just like Singer with the first X-Men. That is a talent. His main attribute as a fix-it man, combine with his Marvel comic work parlayed him into the directing gig. Huzzah.

    But the credit he gets for Buffy is insane if you know how a series is written and when you see the talent the show carried over the years. So when I look at his work, I go by what I know he wrote for film and outside Serenity/Firefly, it smells. And no, I don’t give him total credit for Toy Story when after he handed in his first rewrite, the production was shut down and layoffs were about to commence, forcing another round of group rewrites.

    You fucking brought up TDK-R and I responded to you about TDK-R.

    No, you didn’t.

    So it’s a MARVEL COMIC BOOK MOVIE! Wow, nice of you to finally catch onto how they make movies.

    Yeah, it’s a DC movie, and DC is the opposite of Marvel is just about every single way.

    You were comparing companies, and GL and Hex make it a bullshit analogy. GL was a wannabe Marvel production and Hex was a poor man’s Hellboy.

    Case in point, the Green Arrow TV show. A few years back, the big to-do was over a script called Supermax, which became an Arrow vehicle. WB was all hot-n-bothered over it, then…nada. Now, he’s TV bound. So the character went from being a possible alternate-year Batman production to the new Smallville. That shows a fundamental lack of understanding the properties they own. Hell, the failure of Superman and Wonder Woman alone shows they’re WB is adrift.

    They are still going to make a Doctor Strange movie.

    How is Strange an unknown quantity compared to Thor? Both have been around for decades and stood the longevity test.

    It’s the Punisher dilemma. Why did Runaways, Cloak & Dagger, Iron Fist, Deathlok, Black Panther, etc…get thrown into turnaround? Because they’re no longer playing for Blade-level returns.

  117. JS Partisan says:

    The republican stating he doesn’t like people because of generalities is HI-LARIOUS!

    Again, Arrow could be a show that last years and that sort of revenue WB can’t turn down.

  118. anghus says:

    it’s hard to argue that Warner Brothers doesn’t really have a handle on the Superhero franchise on anything other than Batman. Out of 7 Batman films, you have one real dud. That it assuming TDKR is another success.

    They had success with Superman a million years ago. And they drove that franchise into the ground hard.

    I had a great discussion the other day about Green Lantern. Someone was talking about how Warner Brothers was looking for franchises to replace Harry Potter and that Green Lantern was one of those properties.

    And it hit me. Why didn’t they give Green Lantern the Harry Potter treatment? Cast the main character younger. Make OA like hogwarts. Give him a bunch of young Green Lantern in training friends. Ditch the earth stuff. Instead of a school for wizards you got a planet training intergalactic defenders. You wouldn’t even have to change much.

    It seems almost idiotic in it’s simplicity. Instead of trying to make Green Lantern like Iron Man, they should have made it like Harry Potter.

  119. JS Partisan says:

    Odd enough Ang, the DC Direct animated movie Green Lantern: First Flight has a similar set-up to what you’ve brought up. It’s a bit farther ahead in the story of course, but it’s basically about GL Arisia figuring out her place in the corps along side Hal, Kilowog, and Sinestro.

    Why they did what they did with GL movie is beyond me. I get they wanted their own Iron Man franchise but the best GL stories of late, do not even feature Hal Jordan. They usually feature Kyle Rayner, Guy Gardener, and Jon Stewart.

    Seeing as team movies scare the crap out of DC, I doubt they will ever make a truly good Lantern film. However, a Sinestro Corps movie could be freaking bad ass. They could even go a bit into the horror angle given some of the Sinestro Corps members. Members that don’t need a lot of dialogue, but look bad ass in the background. Thus making it sort of a team movie but mostly a Sinestro terrorizing the galaxy movie. Which probably will sell better to the, “WE LIKE IT DARK” types.

  120. storymark says:

    If DC’s live action films were anywhere near the consistent quality of their animated films, they’d really have something.

    Conversely, Marvel should just shutter their animated division, it’s been mostly crap.

  121. Martin S says:

    JackAss – Again, Arrow could be a show that last years and that sort of revenue WB can’t turn down.

    No, it’s not “Again”, because you never fucking cited it or WB in the first place.

    Take your meds and actually try to think this through. Your “reasoning” applies to any show brought to WB. Why? Because that’s their fucking goal for every property. No one at WB is looking for short-term, weak revenue programming.

    The republican stating he doesn’t like people because of generalities is HI-LARIOUS!

    Aw, are we already at the point where you start misdirecting? If you weren’t aware, it’s your tell sign that you’ve given up.

    Thanks for tapping out early, jayjay.

  122. storymark says:

    Well, that right there might be the ickiest screen-name ever to be used on the Hot Blog.

Leave a Reply

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

“I wondered how different it would be to write a novel and it’s totally different. It’s very internal. The weird thing about it is that I found that novel-writing was much more like directing than it is like screenwriting. You’re casting it, you’re lighting it, you’re doing the costumes, you’re doing the locations, you’re doing it all yourself as a director would. In screenwriting, you don’t do that stuff. You don’t describe the face of the actor or the character when you’re writing a screenplay because Tom Cruise is going to do it and he doesn’t look like that, whereas in the novel to describe what he is is what he is. The actual act of writing, just like shooting on a set, is a slow slog. It’s going to work every day.”
~ David Cronenberg On Screenplay vs. Novel

“I was fortunate to be in the two big film epics of the last part of the 20th century: Godfather and “Lonesome Dove” on television, which was my favorite part. That’s my “Hamlet.” The English have Shakespeare; the French, Molière. In Argentina, they have Borges, but the western is ours. I like that.”
~ Robert Duvall