Spider-Man movie (casting, rumors, pix till release)

How do we know this will be a trilogy?

 

Everything's a trilogy nowadays. I'm surprised they didn't try to stretch The Hobbit out into three movies instead of two.

 

Agreed. I recently rewatched the first two Raimi movies, and while they're certainly a lot of fun, the stories and characters were about as thin and simplistic as can be.

From the trailer alone, Webb's movie already looks to be much more interesting and complex.

 

We know it's going to be a trilogy because everyone is locked up for three movies. I believe the original reboot announcement was for a trilogy as well.

 

Tthe tone and look of the film are different enough based on the trailer and pics we've seen so far, that I'm more than willing to give this a chance. Sure it might be covering a similar story in this, but it looks to me like the way their going about this is quite different. Think of it as Amazing Fantasy #15 compared to Ultimate Spider Man's Power and Responsibility arc.

 

I think we've seen enough of Peter Parker's life. The Raimi films were 99% Peter Parker and 1% Spider-Man. His backstory was taken care of in the first film...no reason to rehash it.

 

I disagree. I find the use of his parents in any manner fascinating. I don't believe the Rami films once touched on his parents (while most Spider-Man fans may dismiss this as not being important I would disagree it's important because of how it effects Peter). His back story is what makes him the character and hero we all know he becomes. The loss of his parents and his relationship with his Aunt and Uncle are extremely important character pieces.

@Darth Pipes..."Captain America: First Avenger" changed your mind, perhaps this film will too my friend

 

I have to agree with a general sentiment here. I have practically zero interest in this reboot. The previous three films did a good job with Spidey even if the third film was a disappointment. I can understand switching gears with a new director and new cast, but the vibe I'm getting from this and the "starting from scratch" again mindset is turning me off.

I wonder if I'll feel the same when they reboot the Batman franchise after Nolan is done. Will they retell the origins or just go ahead and do Batman stories?

I know reboots are nothing new in film and are as old as film itself, but it's getting really tiresome and overdone. Presently the only character I see that really needs to get back on track is Superman and I'm hoping that Man Of Steel can do it. It's just a damned shame we have to wait two more years to find out. At least in the interim we have the DCU direct-to-dvd animated films with quite a few of them being enjoyable and entertaining. The animated films seem to be able to get their act together a lot easier than the live-actions and they do go forward with different actors (voice actors anyway).

I really don't care for the new costume---he really does look like a bastketball and the overall design looks dumb. Raimi's films nailed the costume. And is it with Parker having a web coming out of his neck??? Also never cared for the Peter's parents as spies idea.

I only wish they had done the Lizard in S3 instead of Venom and Sandman. I can't help but feel that would have been so much better.

 

I know, right? It's like they are trying to get tease us to build interest in the movie!

 

that's where the spider bit him, so that must have something to do with it.

who says they're spies in this? they could be going off to have a meeting with someone about Richard and Edward Brock Sr. selling their cancer-curing 'suit'...

 

Nah. More likely they are off to a key party.

 

In the 616 universe they're Shield agents, now obviously because of rights issues they can't use Shield they could still be spies for the CIA or something. I believe it's been mentioned that they are indeed spies and that is the "secret being kept" that Peter mentions in the trailer.

 

^
When you say "rights" do you mean because it's a Columbia production?

If so, that seems like WB silliness. Isn't S.H.I.E.L.D. a Marvel property first?

 

Yeah I was talking about Columbia/Sony having the rights to the film. I dunno if we can have two versions of Shield or that Marvel Studios would be okay with that. Knowing how execs think they might think we'd be confused by two Shields lol.

 

Well, I only ask because Norton Hulk was Universal, right? So it would seem like it wasn't a studio related thing.

I mean there's no reason they could have Gregg cameo has their handler. They wouldn't even have it call him by name; it would just be a nice nod.

As I suggested, to not on the grounds it my "confuse" audiences because of canon overlap, just seems like the WB embargo BS.

 

The trailer was solid, and the movie has an interesting 'feel' to it. But anecdotal reaction from people i know at least, every other reaction has been the same "a new Spider-Man already!? It's only been a few years". the "too soon" complain seems to come up a lot.

 

The Incredible Hulk was only distributed by Universal, like how both Iron Man movies, Thor, and Captain America were distributed by Paramount. It was 100% a Marvel Studios production, otherwise. Coulson, for example, can't appear in any of Sony or Fox's Marvel movies because the rights to that character are owned by Disney/Marvel Studios.

 

It's not too soon for the kids in the audience who were born in 2002. This is their Spider-Man movie and frankly I think that's just awesome.

 

Those kids are only going to be 10 years old. And many of them have probably seen Raimi's Spider-Man on DVD.

 

10 year old kids are exactly who movies like this should be targeting.