Looks decent.

Meh. I preferred the Tobey Maguire/Kirsten Dunst movies. Maybe not the third one, but definitely the first two.

These reboots are getting ridiculous.

Me too, dumbass decision to reboot them.

Nice trailer. It still looks like it will stink.

Also, Jamie Foxx looks ridiculous in the makeup.

Audience didn't seem too impressed. usually you would hear a bunch of cheering during a comic con trailer.

Doesn't look very good at all.

I honestly think its because we are reaching a point of diminishing returns with Spider-Man. It's become so commonplace, it's become rather boring and blah.

They'll make a new one starring Justin Bieber in 2017.

How are these new Spider Man movies more realistic or darker?

I couldn't even finish the Amazing Spiderman. It's a horrible movie. It's nowhere near as good as the first movie in the Tobey Maguire trilogy.

By the way, is there a spiderman villain that isn't basically a science experiment gone wrong?

I think Rhino is going to be in a robot suit or something. If they are going the sinister six route with movies 3 and 4 they better get Alfred Molina as Doc Rock again. He was so ****ing perfect.

To be fair, most of Spider-Man's major villains were created in the 60's, when comic book characters weren't exactly nuanced. On the other hand, that same decade gave us Loki, Galactus, Kingpin, Magneto, Juggernaut, Mandarin, Ultron, and Dr. Doom. So, yeah, for being the story of a science wunderkind, Spider-Man is unusually anti-science in this regard.

I really don't like this half Ultimates/ half traditional approach marvel has taken with their movies lately.

They are contractually obligated to do a movie in x amount of time otherwise the rights to Spidey revert back to Marvel. Sony had to really fast track the last movie because the deadline was quickly approaching. I'm not sure of the language, because obviously they can't expect to constantly churn out flicks and not expect it to get tired and diminish expected box office numbers- my guess is its like 7- 10 years max between movies or they lose the rights- which many fanboys would love if Marvel got them back so the character could be used without restriction in the Marvel movies

Here's the problem, though: he's not a dark character. He's a trickster, a fast-talking and flag-waving good guy saving the world while taking care of his elderly aunt. He tries to be a good role model, wears bright colors, and is a teacher by day. He struggles with guilt and sacrifice and doing the right thing, but he's not a gloomy or shadowy guy, like Batman, Daredevil, or Punisher. By trying to make him (and Superman, because they did this same thing in Man of Steel) into a dark, gritty, Batman-ish character, they're losing who he is.

The ones who are doing it right are (no surprise here) the makers of Captain America, and to a lesser extent the rest of the Avengers movies. They kept the characters, and in some cases even made them more interesting, but didn't go all tortured and Chris Nolan.

And by the way, the rest of the world preferred Spider-Man and especially Spider-Man 2 than Amazing Spider-Man. We'll see if Amazing Spider-Man 2 can beat their 89 and 93 percent scores on Rotten Tomatoes, for example.

They could have done Spider-Man 4, though, but they knew they'd have to back the money truck up to just about every actor there, and eventually they'd start losing them.