Actually the new Spider-Man movies are supposed to be similar to how Nolan did the new Batman movies.

 

Darker and closer to the comic book from now, not 1964.

Actually the new Spider-Man movies are supposed to be similar to how Nolan did the new Batman movies.

 

Darker and closer to the comic book from now, not 1964.

It's hard to get anything like that from this trailer.

I think the difference here, really, is that the original Batman is a generation ago and told a very disimilar origin story, and that franchise derailed completely (see nipples and ice hockey vs Arnold Schwarzenegger), while Spider-Man still seems recent, and despite the fact that the third one sucked, people liked Tobey McGwire.

 

Whereas Batman Begins was a true, needed reboot, the new Spiderman seems to be preparing to tell a nearly identical story, save rightfully using a web-tool vs having Spider-Man randomly able to sling goo from his wrists. Other than that, we've still got Uncle Ben, Mary Jane, etc, and what seems to be a very similar storyline, but with a different actor.

 

It seems rushed, but I guess when you plan to make a gazillion Avenger movies you need a younger Spiderman.

Thank you. That is EXACTLY what I was thinking, i just wasnt able to put it into words as well as you just did.

It's hard to get anything like that from this trailer.

 

Well it's still Spider-Man in the end. That character is never going to be as dark as Batman.

 

 

Well it's still Spider-Man in the end. That character is never going to be as dark as Batman.

Then it's hard to see why this movie is necessary.

Then it's hard to see why this movie is necessary.

 

No it$ not.

It's hard to get anything like that from this trailer.

 

Especially with that really 2002ish CGI cut scene that made it look more cartoony than anything else.

The "reboot" is the new sequel.

 

 

the movie isnt needed, per say, but the studio wanted another spiderman movie and raimi/mcguire backed out due to studio interference. so you get a new director, do you really want him to follow the previous disaster of sm3 and keep the same continuity, or do you want him to make his own movie?

 

and ALL spiderman movies have uncle ben/aunt may in them some how. thats a lame criticism.

 

the cgi was corny, so was the teaser for the original ironman, so was the original spiderman, as well as thor. those movies seemed to work

thats a lame criticism.

Gee, thanks. Do all Spiderman movies need to have Spider-Man being bitten by a radioactive spider and gaining his powers again? It's the same f***ing movie that was already done incredibly well 9 years ago.

 

Was a young, clueless Bruce Wayne featured in 1989's Batman? Did he deal with any training whatsoever, or have any real developed relationship with Commissioner Gordon?

 

Guess what? I'm going to end up seeing this stupid Spiderman movie if the reviews are good, because he (and Peter Parker) was my favorite comic book character growing up save Batman. However, that doesn't make me less offended that this movie exists, or that in the s***ty teaser trailer it's quite apparent that they are going to exploit another hated gimick, 3-d, with first person "Spidey-rides" throughout the film.

 

It's cheap, exploitative Hollywood utlizing 3-D which is ruining a vast majority of films and box office rankings.

 

However, for you to say my comparison between the need for a reboot of the Batman franchise vs. the non-need of a reboot for the Spidey franchise is "lame", all the while picking a very small portion of my argument while refusing to acknowledge nipples pisses me off!

 

There is no comparison between the Batman and Spider-Man franchises other than movies were made about comic book characters. I saw enough in that "LAME" teaser trailer to know this origin story isn't going to venture too far from the one that was so expertly told and produced such a short time ago. 1989 is a lot longer ago than 2002.

Thank you. That is EXACTLY what I was thinking, i just wasnt able to put it into words as well as you just did.

You are welcome.

the movie isnt needed, per say, but the studio wanted another spiderman movie and raimi/mcguire backed out due to studio interference. so you get a new director, do you really want him to follow the previous disaster of sm3 and keep the same continuity, or do you want him to make his own movie?

I'd probably keep the same continuity unless the actor has gotten too expensive.

 

The fact that SM3 was a debacle isn't because that plot line has nothing going for it, it was because whoever thought up the dancing/down the street scene needs to be removed from the Gene Pool

I'd probably keep the same continuity unless the actor has gotten too expensive.

 

The fact that SM3 was a debacle isn't because that plot line has nothing going for it, it was because whoever thought up the dancing/down the street scene needs to be removed from the Gene Pool

 

Tobey McGuire got 26 million dollars for SM3. Do you think he would ask for less this time?

 

 

And after Raimi deliberately torpedoed Venom because he didnt care for the character, I wasnt too sad to see him walk away.

 

 

 

Anyhow, with all comics, there are infinite storylines with many different writers and perspectives. This one is a slight different take on the character, with a different love interest that doesnt require a write-out of MJ, and gives the director and main characters a chance to do their own thing.

 

This reboot is getting the same reaction some of the same people gave when the X Men First Class trailer came out, and a lot of people that trashed the trailer(OMGZ CGI SO BAD JUST CANT STANDS IT) ended up liking the movie

Gee, thanks. Do all Spiderman movies need to have Spider-Man being bitten by a radioactive spider and gaining his powers again? It's the same f***ing movie that was already done incredibly well 9 years ago.

 

Was a young, clueless Bruce Wayne featured in 1989's Batman? Did he deal with any training whatsoever, or have any real developed relationship with Commissioner Gordon?

 

Guess what? I'm going to end up seeing this stupid Spiderman movie if the reviews are good, because he (and Peter Parker) was my favorite comic book character growing up save Batman. However, that doesn't make me less offended that this movie exists, or that in the s***ty teaser trailer it's quite apparent that they are going to exploit another hated gimick, 3-d, with first person "Spidey-rides" throughout the film.

 

It's cheap, exploitative Hollywood utlizing 3-D which is ruining a vast majority of films and box office rankings.

 

However, for you to say my comparison between the need for a reboot of the Batman franchise vs. the non-need of a reboot for the Spidey franchise is "lame", all the while picking a very small portion of my argument while refusing to acknowledge nipples pisses me off!

 

There is no comparison between the Batman and Spider-Man franchises other than movies were made about comic book characters. I saw enough in that "LAME" teaser trailer to know this origin story isn't going to venture too far from the one that was so expertly told and produced such a short time ago. 1989 is a lot longer ago than 2002.

 

 

Backerdown steve. I like nipples. of the female variety.

 

 

And you are right, the Batman movie didnt venture into the territory of Bruce Wayne finding himself. And as this trailer shows, THIS spiderman movie explores something a little different about the Spiderman character, ie. why did his parents leave him with Aunt May and Uncle Ben? IIRC, Raimi just stuck with "he lives with them" and left it at that.

 

If you love this character so much, you should want to see a new take on it.

I agree with SS2K5. People should boycott s*** movies like this so that Hollywood will stop making them.

Edited July 20, 201114 yr by Jenksismybitch

I agree with SS2K5. People should boycott s*** movies like this so that Hollywood will stop making them.

 

ha, that will be the day

I agree with SS2K5. People should boycott s*** movies like this so that Hollywood will stop making them.

 

What would they make instead?

 

People act like movies aren't getting made because of Spider-Man.

That trailer looked just fine to me.

That trailer looked just fine to me.

Why don't you just go marry Kyle then.

They could have made the Dark Tower series, which was recently canceled.

If they're ever going to make another Stephen King movie, the simplest and possibly greatest would be Running Man. The movie that they did make was an abomination and had only the slightest resemblance to the book. That book was the first one I honestly did not want to stop reading. A movie that follows it pretty strictly would be both amazing and doable.

 

I imagine that they would have to change the very ending, though.

What would they make instead?

 

People act like movies aren't getting made because of Spider-Man.

 

Good movies?

Why don't you just go marry Kyle then.

 

Only if you are maid of honor

Good movies?

 

Those still get made.

The Trip was ok. Had it's moments.