• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

The Amazing Spider-Man TRAILER #2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Teh Hamburglar said:
So after Schumacher killed Batman what was keeping the genre alive?
Click to expand...

Marvel Studios didn't release a film until 2008...

If you're trying to say Marvel films saved the genre... well, I'm not sure I'd even consider it a genre until the flood of Marvel characters in the 21st century. There was just the Batman and Superman franchises, plus random one-offs.
 
f0rk said:
There's clearly a scene in a room full of spiders where he's going to get bit.
There doesn't seem to be a lot of Uncle Ben though.
Click to expand...


I don't know why but I can't quote your post. Are we talking about Marvel Studios began producing their own movies or Marvel Studios simply developing films?
 
Zoramon089 said:
Using this reasoning is even DUMBER. Yes, we get it, in SOME runs he has a snout in some he doesn't. Doesn't change the fact that in the most recent ones he has a snout and that it looks better. Going by your logic, you'd even justify a movie batmobile simply being a black car with bat fins because it was in comics at one point in time...
Click to expand...

If you actually bothered to read what I wrote and the post I was adding to, you'd understand I was saying that the people who are complaining for the movie straying from the comic books are simply wrong.
 
JokerOfSpades said:
I honestly don't get the hate, though. I think they're quality movies. Iron Man 2 was mediocre, but Thor wasn't bad, Hulk was excellent, Iron Man 1 was great and Captain America was great.
Click to expand...

A lot of people hate on Incredible Hulk which I really liked. I've enjoyed all the Marvel movies.
 
Salvor.Hardin said:
If you actually bothered to read what I wrote and the post I was adding to, you'd understand I was saying that the people who are complaining for the movie straying from the comic books are simply wrong.
Click to expand...

I got what you were saying, but people are talking about the recent comics not the older ones. Yes, using the broadest definition of "the comics" the movie Lizard DOES look like he did in the comics, at some point in time, but it makes no sense to revert to a super old design, which was the point of my response.

Reverting to a dated design might as well be as bad as the movie staff taking liberties and coming up with a wholly new design and ignoring the ones present in the modern comics. It's harder for fans to relate to and for newbies into the Spiderman world, it'll be jarring if they ever decided to read the comics (assuming they don't start way way back)
 
Salvor.Hardin said:
Let's lay this to rest. As much as it may surprise a lot of you, Lizard didn't really have a snout in the comics until much later.

zxAWrl.jpg


Say what you will about how the movie is filmed or what you think of the story and dialogue, but it's actually quite faithful to the comic books.
Click to expand...

Apart from the gravity-defying labcoat....
 
Teh Hamburglar said:
I don't know why but I can't quote your post. Are we talking about Marvel Studios began producing their own movies or Marvel Studios simply developing films?
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone uses Marvel Studios to refer to anything but what they've produced themselves.
 
re: the snout

They probably used the original design because it's humanoid, that way they can incorporate the actor's motion-capture into the face. It makes even more sense if the Lizard ever talks. Easier to do all of that with a humanoid face rather than trying to figure out how to do all of that with a crocodile head.
 
Dan said:
re: the snout

They probably used the original design because it's humanoid, that way they can incorporate the actor's motion-capture into the face. It makes even more sense if the Lizard ever talks. Easier to do all of that with a humanoid face rather than trying to figure out how to do all of that with a crocodile head.
Click to expand...

Snout or no snout, they could've gone with a design that does not resemble a Goomba with down syndrome.
 
JokerOfSpades said:
I honestly don't get the hate, though. I think they're quality movies. Iron Man 2 was mediocre, but Thor wasn't bad, Hulk was excellent, Iron Man 1 was great and Captain America was great.
Click to expand...

The only good thing about Thor was Natalie Portman being hot. Otherwise it was at best average. Iron Man 2 was awful and Captain America was not very good either, the only good movie that Marvel Studios have made is Iron Man. Granted that is already better than Fox, who have the X-Men, Dare Devil and Fantastic Four franchises, but no Marvel film has hit the heights of Spider-Man 2 (orTDK from the DC side). ASM is the first Marvel superhero film that looks close to getting Marvel back to that level.

Really, Marvel have got two characters/franchises on the same level as Batman/Superman, one is Spider-Man and the other is X-Men/Wolverine. Fox have completely ruined the latter but thankfully after the atrocious third SM movie SPE had a rethink and made the decision to reboot, which is hopefully going to pay off. By the looks of the trailers, AMS looks awesome.
 
My theory about the lizard design: Connors takes his serum, regrows his amputated arm and from there becomes progressively more lizard like as the movie progresses while still retaining some of his humanity all the while becoming more reclusive and going into hiding. By the climax of the film, he will be a full lizard, snout and all, unable to communicate verbally anymore, but able to be distracted from his lizard impulses by the small bit of humanity left in him that is culled out by seeing his wife/daughter. Peter will be responsible for helping develop something that will reverse the effects of the lizard serum and he will become Curt Connors again, once again an amputee.
 
JokerOfSpades said:
I liked every Marvel Studios movie, because they're all quality superhero movies, imo.

Come at me
Click to expand...

I'll only come at you to stand beside you. I'm in the same camp, I've found them all to be very entertaining. I typically have a smile on my face after watching them, like being a kid again.

Plus, I was always more of a Marvel guy than DC (aside from Batman).
 
Teh Hamburglar said:
But Marvel Studios did save the genre with Blade and X-Men. Its the same company than started internally producing films in 2008.
Click to expand...

I find it difficult if not stupid to give Marvel credit for what a half dozen movie studios did with the characters they licensed from Marvel. It's like giving the Saul Zaentz Company and Tolkien Enterprises credit for the Lord of the Rings films.
 
Teh Hamburglar said:
But Marvel Studios did save the genre with Blade and X-Men. Its the same company than started internally producing films in 2008.
Click to expand...

I took it out because we were talking about different things. I'm pretty sure Marvel sold X-Men and Blade because they were out of money at the time. It saved the company but I doubt they cared about the quality.
 
JokerOfSpades said:
I honestly don't get the hate, though. I think they're quality movies. Iron Man 2 was mediocre, but Thor wasn't bad, Hulk was excellent, Iron Man 1 was great and Captain America was great.
Click to expand...
Captain America was the worst film I watched in theaters in 2011. It was nothing but filler until the Avenger movie. The second half of the movie is one big montage. There is never any tension built up...
 
Dan said:
I find it difficult if not stupid to give Marvel credit for what a half dozen movie studios did with the characters they licensed from Marvel. It's like giving the Saul Zaentz Company and Tolkien Enterprises credit for the Lord of the Rings films.
Click to expand...

Marvel Inc. setting up their own movie production studios is a great thing for the health of their IPs.

They are not under any contractual obligations to shit out a movie every 2 to 3 years like Fox and Sony are and all the people on GAF who applaud the licensing rights belonging to Sony and Fox will be singing a different tune when we have reboots after reboots of franchises/ mediocre productions for all the wrong reasons for years to come.

Hell look at Ghost rider this year. Done on the cheap and with a has been just to keep rights and by all accounts seems to be a gigantic turd.
 
Nesotenso said:
Marvel Inc. setting up their own movie production studios is a great thing for the health of their IPs.

They are not under any contractual obligations to shit out a movie every 2 to 3 years like Fox and Sony are and all the people on GAF who applaud the licensing rights belonging to Sony and Fox will be singing a different tune when we have reboots after reboots of franchises/ mediocre productions for all the wrong reasons for years to come.

Hell look at Ghost rider this year. Done on the cheap and with a has been just to keep rights and by all accounts seems to be a gigantic turd.
Click to expand...
It's not as if the first Ghost Rider was anything to write home about.
 
krypt0nian said:
That's the silliest opinion I've read on GAF in years. Bendis ruined the Avengers.

That's wrong on the OMG Rite level.

Kree-Skrull War, Korvac Saga, and on and on shit on anything Bendis has done.
Click to expand...

Have you ever gone back and tried to read that stuff lately? The writing is incredibly dated and the art hohum. Besides, i was mainly refering to the 100 issues prior to Bendis taking over. From what i've looked at that stuff sucked and Bendis took a franchise that was doing poorly and turned it into the biggest franchise this side of X-Men. It's bigger than Justice League now. Give credit where credit is due.
 
a snout debate? for reals?

i think the liz looks good as is personally. a snout would be more difficult cgi wise anyway and then gaf would biyatch about that
 
Nesotenso said:
Marvel Inc. setting up their own movie production studios is a great thing for the health of their IPs.

They are not under any contractual obligations to shit out a movie every 2 to 3 years like Fox and Sony are and all the people on GAF who applaud the licensing rights belonging to Sony and Fox will be singing a different tune when we have reboots after reboots of franchises/ mediocre productions for all the wrong reasons for years to come.

Hell look at Ghost rider this year. Done on the cheap and with a has been just to keep rights and by all accounts seems to be a gigantic turd.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what any of that has to do with what I was talking about. I'm not personally impressed by what Marvel has done on its own either. They make bland, relatively inoffensive blockbusters.
 
Dan said:
I'm not sure what any of that has to do with what I was talking about. I'm not personally impressed by what Marvel has done on its own either. They make bland, relatively inoffensive blockbusters.
Click to expand...

I enjoyed the Iron Man films because of RDJ but I agree that Marvel Studios suck. Captain America was the biggest waste of my time in 2011.
 
Nesotenso said:
Marvel Inc. setting up their own movie production studios is a great thing for the health of their IPs.

They are not under any contractual obligations to shit out a movie every 2 to 3 years like Fox and Sony are and all the people on GAF who applaud the licensing rights belonging to Sony and Fox will be singing a different tune when we have reboots after reboots of franchises/ mediocre productions for all the wrong reasons for years to come.

Hell look at Ghost rider this year. Done on the cheap and with a has been just to keep rights and by all accounts seems to be a gigantic turd.
Click to expand...
And yet it looks like it has more personality than anything Marvel has shit out these past two years.
 
Dan said:
I'm not sure what any of that has to do with what I was talking about. I'm not personally impressed by what Marvel has done on its own either. They make bland, relatively inoffensive blockbusters.
Click to expand...

Well it wasn't aimed at you specifically. Everyone has their opinion on the movies and that's fine. But I don't see how anyone in their right mind can tout that the Sony/ Fox deals are great ideas.
 
Trailer was astronomically better than the 1st. Was going to see this either way, but now I feel much better about it's prospects.

Are people really bailing on this film because of a snout? Wow.
 
Dahellisdat said:
My theory about the lizard design: Connors takes his serum, regrows his amputated arm and from there becomes progressively more lizard like as the movie progresses while still retaining some of his humanity all the while becoming more reclusive and going into hiding. By the climax of the film, he will be a full lizard, snout and all, unable to communicate verbally anymore, but able to be distracted from his lizard impulses by the small bit of humanity left in him that is culled out by seeing his wife/daughter. Peter will be responsible for helping develop something that will reverse the effects of the lizard serum and he will become Curt Connors again, once again an amputee.
Click to expand...

Would make sense if we didn't already have toy designs showing it's pretty much going to stay the way it was in the trailer...
 
It looks like fun and Garfield looks like he'll be a much better Parker/Spiderman than Maguire, but I can't help shake off the feeling of how silly it is that we're rebooting a film series that started only a decade ago. It even looks like the first half of the movie hits the same beats as the first Raimi Spiderman. (I know I know.... origin stories... but I'm getting tired of them.)
 
Nesotenso said:
Well it wasn't aimed at you specifically. Everyone has their opinion on the movies and that's fine. But I don't see how anyone in their right mind can tout that the Sony/ Fox deals are great ideas.
Click to expand...
Anything that keeps my beloved Spider-Man/X-Men away from the dirty hands of Marvel Studios is fine by me.
 
Good Job Bob said:
It's not as if the first Ghost Rider was anything to write home about.
Click to expand...

Exactly, and it didn't make much money either even if it didn't lose any. This second one exists for all the long reasons and so will any future Daredevil or FF movie.

CaptYamato said:
And yet it looks like it has more personality than anything Marvel has shit out these past two years.
Click to expand...

Well you are entitled to your opinion but I disagree.

I am willing to bet that Ghost Rider is going to be a colossal failure critically and commercially. But that won't stop Sony from shitting out another one in 5 years time.
 
Tookay said:
It looks like fun and Garfield looks like he'll be a much better Parker/Spiderman than Maguire, but I can't help shake off the feeling of how silly it is that we're rebooting a film series that started only a decade ago. It even looks like the first half of the movie hits the same beats as the first Raimi Spiderman. (I know I know.... origin stories... but I'm getting tired of them.)
Click to expand...

It was the jazz club scene in Spiderman 3, it disturbed the balance of the Spiderman universe and so we needed to reboot the whole franchise. Now dig on this:

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

emospiderman.gif
 
Good Job Bob said:
Anything that keeps my beloved Spider-Man/X-Men away from the dirty hands of Marvel Studios is fine by me.
Click to expand...

I am a big comic book (especially Marvel )and Spidey/ X-men fan. Endless reboots/ sequels is hardly great for either franchise. The nightmare scenario would be a direct to video type production done on the cheap and given limited release in theaters to meet contractual obligations.

At least the Sony deal is favorable, with Disney having licensing agreements with them for this Spidey movie. The Fox deals are just awful.
 
Nesotenso said:
Hell look at Ghost rider this year. Done on the cheap and with a has been just to keep rights and by all accounts seems to be a gigantic turd.
Click to expand...

Not a fan of Neveldine/Taylor? I agree that the non-Marvel rights holders will devalue the characters and run them into the ground. But on the way down, the characters sometimes end up in the hands of interesting creators that wouldn't have had a chance at them otherwise.
 
creamfarts said:
Not a fan of Neveldine/Taylor? I agree that the non-Marvel rights holders will devalue the characters and run them into the ground. But on the way down, the characters sometimes end up in the hands of interesting creators that wouldn't have had a chance at them otherwise.
Click to expand...

Well early impressions make it sound to be terrible. And the trailers/ footage shown so far are not encouraging.

I will be happy if proven wrong.
 
Dahellisdat said:
My theory about the lizard design: Connors takes his serum, regrows his amputated arm and from there becomes progressively more lizard like as the movie progresses while still retaining some of his humanity all the while becoming more reclusive and going into hiding. By the climax of the film, he will be a full lizard, snout and all, unable to communicate verbally anymore, but able to be distracted from his lizard impulses by the small bit of humanity left in him that is culled out by seeing his wife/daughter. Peter will be responsible for helping develop something that will reverse the effects of the lizard serum and he will become Curt Connors again, once again an amputee.
Click to expand...
Well, I don't think so. We've seen pretty much direct proof that he will be changing back and forth from the Lizard to Doctor Connors, so this progressive evolution kinda makes less and less sense.
 
apana said:
It was the jazz club scene in Spiderman 3, it disturbed the balance of the Spiderman universe and so we needed to reboot the whole franchise. Now dig on this:

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

http://cdn.fd.uproxx.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/emospiderman.gif[IMG][/QUOTE]
Oh god. Only three more fucking posts until the new page, and i'll never have to see this shit again. I'll hate any of you forever if you quote this next page.

Just look into his eyes, I can see Tobey in there saying "what the fuck am I doing".

[quote="Rayven, post: 34928579"]What's the point of the reboot, swap the cast? Doesn't seem all that different.[/QUOTE]
A way to retain the rights. Also, have you not heard yet? THIS IS THE UNTOLD STORY.
Click to expand...
 
creamfarts said:
Not a fan of Neveldine/Taylor? I agree that the non-Marvel rights holders will devalue the characters and run them into the ground. But on the way down, the characters sometimes end up in the hands of interesting creators that wouldn't have had a chance at them otherwise.
Click to expand...

I think X-Men will end up that way, but Sony really only have Spider-Man (and now James Bond) as box office mega blockbusters they can count on so it is in their interest not to shit up the franchise.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

SPIDER-MAN: BRAND NEW DAY – Official Trailer
2 3 4
172
2K
NotMyProblemAnymoreCunt replied
  • Poll
Superman (1978) vs Batman (1989) vs Spider-Man (2002)
2
81
1K
MrCunningham replied
Spider-Noir | Authentic Black & White Teaser Trailer
34
761
IntentionalPun replied
Half Man | Official Trailer | HBO Max
48
724
p_xavier replied
Avatar: The Last Airbender: Season 2 | Official Trailer | Netflix
3
71
Mengy replied
Top Bottom