The Amazing Spider Man trailer

[Deberg_1990]

[Reaper16]

Originally Posted by JD10367

Did you see the fim? He sounds just like Defoe.

It struck me as more southern than that when I saw it.

Still, so? Let's use that same logic: Andrew Garfield doesn't sound just like Toby Maguire, therefore Andrew Garfield does not play Peter Parker.

[JD10367]

Originally Posted by Reaper16

It struck me as more southern than that when I saw it.

Still, so? Let's use that same logic: Andrew Garfield doesn't sound just like Toby Maguire, therefore Andrew Garfield does not play Peter Parker.

Your an idiot.

[Wallcrawler]

Originally Posted by JD10367

That actually would make more sense to me within the context of this story. If Peter's father was supposed to be this brainiac scientist, it would make sense that either a.) Peter accidentally was exposed to something while younger, or b.) his father purposefully exposed him (maybe as a way to cure Peter of some childhood ailment). It always seemed odd to me that "a" radioactive spider could do this to just one person. In this film version, the room was chock full of spiders. One bit Peter. So you mean to tell me that none of the other spiders, either accidentally or purposefully (human experimentation), bit any of the scientists or workers? If there was something within Peter waiting to be triggered, then it would explain why he alone developed such spiderpowers.

I also thought that there was some connection with the fact that it worked so well for Peter, and that his father was the one who developed the spiders in the first place. Perhaps he tested his experiments with his own blood to further his work, Peter being his son stands to reason that it would work with him also.

On the subject of a changed story I did notice the lines missing from the previews where someone is asking

'Do you have any idea.......what you really are?"

and Connors saying

"If you want the truth Peter, come and get it."

[Wallcrawler]

Originally Posted by JD10367

Your an idiot.

Why?

Simply because a guy sounds (in your opinion) like Willem Dafoe did in his portrayal of Norman Osborn, that doesnt mean that's who it is. It isnt written anywhere that Dafoe's performance is the benchmark for playing Norman Osborn.

By that line of thinking, their characters should have been cast for actors that could act in the same manner and sound like they did in the Raimi films. This is clearly not the case, because Andrew Garfield's portrayal of Peter Parker was nothing like Tobey Maguire's.

I didnt think Michael Massee (funboy) sounded like Dafoe at all, and there's no way in my opinion that funboy has the chops to play an iconic villain the likes of Norman Osborn/Green Goblin.


Ive narrowed it down to what I believe could be the man in shadows.

1. The Lizard Brain.

This would explain the appearance out of thin air for this character, and his similar vanishing. He is a manifestation of the Lizard Brain. The camera zooms in on scales that are still present on Connors' neck, basicly showing us that the antidote did not destroy the Lizard completely. Why this probably isnt it, is why would the Lizard ask if Curt told Peter the truth about his father? Since the two are basicly one, he probably wouldve known.


2. Michael Morbius.

Morbius is mentioned in the game that follows the film, but the story had to be approved by the film studio first. Morbius becomes the Living Vampire, and vampires do that appear/disappear crap quite a bit. His employ at Oscorp and participation in the cross species program would have given him knowledge of Richard Parker, and given reason to ask the question. Also, Morbius is more suited to the type of villain that I could actually see funboy cast as.


3. Its a total throwaway scene that probably shouldnt have even been there given the fact that they never delve into what actually happened to Richard and Mary save what Rajit says to Curt about it when he refuses to test the serum on humans. Had they done what they originally wanted and done the full "untold story" thing, this scene would probably make a lot more sense.

[Buehler445]

I liked it quite a bit. I'm not a comic book nut, so I don't have that basis to go off of. But I really enjoyed it.

Visually, it was outstanding (I saw the 2D version). It was really well done. They did a really nice job with the production.

The acting I thought was a strong point of the movie. Garfield and Stone both did a pretty great job IMO. It was pretty neat to see some (believable) emotion injected into the story. I guess I didn't realize how bad McGuire and Dunst did. Maybe it was Raimi's direction, but in hindsight, the 2000's movies were just pretty damn lifeless. Garfield and Stone were very good. I was skeptical, but they did a nice job.

Sally Field has really lost a step acting wise. She had a couple scenes where she did a nice job, and then she lays a dud. I also didn't realize Sheen was that damn old. Son of a bitch I'm getting old. Either way, he did a nice job.

The story, I thought, was pretty solid. Lizard was a good villain. I didn't have a problem with the story save two.

The minor one.

Spoiler!

The football thing was epic dumb. Shouldn't have made it out of the editing. If they thought they had to show off, they should have had it hit a freshman and knock him down or something. Under no circumstances is a football ever bending a goalpost. If he threw it against a wall and it popped or something OK. Stupid.

The major one...

Spoiler!

The whole Stacy dying/promise thing. Really? Wow. My wife liked it. I hated it. Stacy was a major part of the plot and they just killed him off to hold off the lizard for another 4 seconds. Really? There is no other plot function that could do that? Un-huh.

Then there was promise thing. That's the part that my wife liked. It tugged on her bleeding heart strings about the father protecting his daughter crap. That part I can believe. Fathers want to protect their daughters, but that doesn't mean it is a good plot tool.

And besides that, the promise is impossible. At least for me. Love, particularly young love abandons logic and tries to make it work. Invariably. I told my wife that if her dad told me to stay away, I wouldn't do it. Nobody would. Especially in an emotional state after her father died. And the hell of it is that Parker even admits it at the end. He's going to go ahead and break the promise.

So the bottom line is Stacy, a major plot figure, died to make Parker stay away from Gwen for a whole 10 minutes.

It seems to me it would have been better to forge a relationship and use that to show the city embracing him, and show him developing.

But the bottom line, is it left me wanting more, and I felt it was really well done. Which ultimately makes it a success.

But interestingly, the original Raimi Spiderman is now 10 years old. It will be interesting to see where this movie lies in 10 years. I think realistically, the Avengers plotline and Nolan's Batman changed the landscape tremendously. Without that progression, we probably wouldn't be nearly as critical of the Raimi Spiderman's. They don't hold up nearly as well given the context of the other movies. It will be interesting to see what comes in the future and how this movie compares.

[bowener]

Originally Posted by Brock

Who does this look like?

Gary Busey?

[beach tribe]

Originally Posted by Wallcrawler

Why?

Simply because a guy sounds (in your opinion) like Willem Dafoe did in his portrayal of Norman Osborn, that doesnt mean that's who it is. It isnt written anywhere that Dafoe's performance is the benchmark for playing Norman Osborn.

By that line of thinking, their characters should have been cast for actors that could act in the same manner and sound like they did in the Raimi films. This is clearly not the case, because Andrew Garfield's portrayal of Peter Parker was nothing like Tobey Maguire's.

I didnt think Michael Massee (funboy) sounded like Dafoe at all, and there's no way in my opinion that funboy has the chops to play an iconic villain the likes of Norman Osborn/Green Goblin.


Ive narrowed it down to what I believe could be the man in shadows.

1. The Lizard Brain.

This would explain the appearance out of thin air for this character, and his similar vanishing. He is a manifestation of the Lizard Brain. The camera zooms in on scales that are still present on Connors' neck, basicly showing us that the antidote did not destroy the Lizard completely. Why this probably isnt it, is why would the Lizard ask if Curt told Peter the truth about his father? Since the two are basicly one, he probably wouldve known.


2. Michael Morbius.

Morbius is mentioned in the game that follows the film, but the story had to be approved by the film studio first. Morbius becomes the Living Vampire, and vampires do that appear/disappear crap quite a bit. His employ at Oscorp and participation in the cross species program would have given him knowledge of Richard Parker, and given reason to ask the question. Also, Morbius is more suited to the type of villain that I could actually see funboy cast as.


3. Its a total throwaway scene that probably shouldnt have even been there given the fact that they never delve into what actually happened to Richard and Mary save what Rajit says to Curt about it when he refuses to test the serum on humans. Had they done what they originally wanted and done the full "untold story" thing, this scene would probably make a lot more sense.

I'm almost certain it's going to be Morbius.
The Morbius/Lizard story line is one of Marvel's favorite. Considering their re-release of it back in the 90's.
Another story line of comics that I read as a child and still own to this day that is going to be brought to the big screen.
I doubt they're going to do the whole 6 arms thing though.

[Wallcrawler]

One thing Im surprised nobody else has mentioned about this movie that sets it apart from the Raimi trilogy is that Spider-Man is saving the city in this one, not the damsel in distress.

I swear, the Raimi films all had the same endgame. Spider-Man needs to save Mary Jane. It got old. The first movie, okay, fine. Then she gets kidnapped by Doc Ock. Aaaaand then Venom grabs her in the third. You would think by those three films that Spider-Man didnt do a whole lot besides just saving Mary Jane Watson from the threat of the week.


It was very refreshing to see something other than damsel in distress for this movie's climax.

[Buehler445]

Originally Posted by Wallcrawler

One thing Im surprised nobody else has mentioned about this movie that sets it apart from the Raimi trilogy is that Spider-Man is saving the city in this one, not the damsel in distress.

I swear, the Raimi films all had the same endgame. Spider-Man needs to save Mary Jane. It got old. The first movie, okay, fine. Then she gets kidnapped by Doc Ock. Aaaaand then Venom grabs her in the third. You would think by those three films that Spider-Man didnt do a whole lot besides just saving Mary Jane Watson from the threat of the week.


It was very refreshing to see something other than damsel in distress for this movie's climax.

I agree. That was refreshing.

[SAUTO]

Quick fun fact.
Movies aren't real, and usually aren't that realistic.

Why bitch when we all know what to expect?
Posted via Mobile Device

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

Originally Posted by Wallcrawler

God. Didnt know that was Funboy. There's no way that Funboy is playing Norman Osborn. No way in hell.

Don't underestimate the power of Funboy. When you work side by side with Michael Wincott in ANY capacity, nuclear amounts of Kick-Assness are transmitted via osmosis to your mojo.

[Wallcrawler]

No to funboy. He killed Brandon Lee and he's a shitty actor to boot.

Marc Webb basicly confirmed that he just pulled a dick move by keeping the scene in there because he "loves to hear speculation".

He says the intent of the scene was simply to show that there were forces at work in the background that we didnt know about. He wouldnt say who the character was, and when asked if the character would have a role in the next film as the villain, he said no. When asked if the character would reappear again, he said that they would pursue it in some way.

He goes on to say that he likes the speculation and likes to hear people talk about who they think it is.

I dont think he even knows who it is. Its total bullshit that it was even left in the film.


His movie is completely different from what his trailers advertise. In the trailers, Peter seems to be on a singular mission, to find the truth about his parents. We hear Rajit Ratha (the indian dude that shut down Connors) say "Do you think what happened to you Peter, was an accident? Do you have any idea, what you really are?"

Connors says "If you want the truth about your parents Peter, come and get it."

Peter is heard saying something about being determined to find out what happened to his parents.

Mention is made by one of the characters that Peter is "part of a greater plan"

None of these scenes or lines are even in the film. Peter starts out trying to find out more about his father, and then that just gets sidetracked completely when Peter works out the decay rate algorithm. He never asks another question about his father, or anything regarding his parents.

This end sequence was likely tied in with what was supposed to be that "untold story" that the trailers are still advertising but since it all got cut out, it now makes absolutely no sense.

The fact that Marc Webb confirmed that the man in shadows isnt the main villain in the next film makes this scene pretty worthless. Thats usually what those little teaser spots are for, to show some pivotal thing about the next film. Instead, we get a throwaway actor who isnt named, and Rhys Ifans who isnt signed for another film. Its likely a scene with actors that wont even be in the next movie.

He's a character we probably wouldve given a shit about had the story been told right, but since it wasnt, nobody should really give a flyin feck about who this guy is.

[Reaper16]

Originally Posted by Wallcrawler

No to funboy. He killed Brandon Lee and he's a shitty actor to boot.

Marc Webb basicly confirmed that he just pulled a dick move by keeping the scene in there because he "loves to hear speculation".

He says the intent of the scene was simply to show that there were forces at work in the background that we didnt know about. He wouldnt say who the character was, and when asked if the character would have a role in the next film as the villain, he said no. When asked if the character would reappear again, he said that they would pursue it in some way.

He goes on to say that he likes the speculation and likes to hear people talk about who they think it is.

I dont think he even knows who it is. Its total bullshit that it was even left in the film.


His movie is completely different from what his trailers advertise. In the trailers, Peter seems to be on a singular mission, to find the truth about his parents. We hear Rajit Ratha (the indian dude that shut down Connors) say "Do you think what happened to you Peter, was an accident? Do you have any idea, what you really are?"

Connors says "If you want the truth about your parents Peter, come and get it."

Peter is heard saying something about being determined to find out what happened to his parents.

Mention is made by one of the characters that Peter is "part of a greater plan"

None of these scenes or lines are even in the film. Peter starts out trying to find out more about his father, and then that just gets sidetracked completely when Peter works out the decay rate algorithm. He never asks another question about his father, or anything regarding his parents.

This end sequence was likely tied in with what was supposed to be that "untold story" that the trailers are still advertising but since it all got cut out, it now makes absolutely no sense.

The fact that Marc Webb confirmed that the man in shadows isnt the main villain in the next film makes this scene pretty worthless. Thats usually what those little teaser spots are for, to show some pivotal thing about the next film. Instead, we get a throwaway actor who isnt named, and Rhys Ifans who isnt signed for another film. Its likely a scene with actors that wont even be in the next movie.

He's a character we probably wouldve given a shit about had the story been told right, but since it wasnt, nobody should really give a flyin feck about who this guy is.

As the rumors in Hollywood are going right now: the movie studio decided very late in the game to cut out all the stuff in the film that related to Peter Parker's "genetic destiny" (which was a big focus of early trailers). Apparently, the film was going to tweak the Spiderman origin story by having Peter's dad do something to Peter's DNA to make it possible for him to get spider powers.

There's a scene in the sewers where Lizard kills that Oscorp boss of his, who he was trying to find on the bridge. In that scene, Peter comes along and his genetic past was alluded to.

Also, there was a scene cut from the film where Spidey fought those SWAT team members that got turned into lizards, and he hurt his leg in that fight. There was even a LEGO product based around that scene (that didn't make it to release, obvs).

[Wallcrawler]

Originally Posted by Reaper16

As the rumors in Hollywood are going right now: the movie studio decided very late in the game to cut out all the stuff in the film that related to Peter Parker's "genetic destiny" (which was a big focus of early trailers). Apparently, the film was going to tweak the Spiderman origin story by having Peter's dad do something to Peter's DNA to make it possible for him to get spider powers.

Yeesh.

Reminds me of that HULK bomb than Ang Lee made. Where Banner becomes the Hulk because of his father's experimentation on himself and passed it on.

Dumb. Solid cutting if that's really what was going on.

There's a scene in the sewers where Lizard kills that Oscorp boss of his, who he was trying to find on the bridge. In that scene, Peter comes along and his genetic past was alluded to.

Also, there was a scene cut from the film where Spidey fought those SWAT team members that got turned into lizards, and he hurt his leg in that fight. There was even a LEGO product based around that scene (that didn't make it to release, obvs).

That wouldve been cool to see. I thought it couldve used a bit more Spider-Man over Peter Parker anyway, and him getting hurt in that fight wouldve been way cooler than having him get shot by that cop. Maybe they'll include in on the Blu Ray, or eventually when they show it on TV you see a completely different version than the one on the blu ray you own. Kinda like they did with The Punisher, and the latest Rambo film.

.

[Reaper16]

Yeah, Marc Webb (the film's director) did a superb job of making a coherent movie, considering he had to entirely cut out the film's biggest plotline.