Talkback: The Amazing Spider-Man Trailer -- Yea or Nay?
As previewed earlier today for select audiences around the globe, here's Sony's brand spankin' new theatrical trailer for The Amazing Spider-Man. (Find my full detailed Spider-Man preview Q&A recap, including descriptions of the sizzle reel that has not yet been released, here.) Take a look and weigh in, Spidey fans -- is this the version of the Marvel superhero we both need and deserve?
Personally, I'm digging Garfield's more confident Peter Parker AND his Spidey more than Tobey Maguire's renditions, and I'm impressed with Emma Stone's ability to inject even the barest of one-second scene snippets with personality and zip. We've yet to be given a really good extended look at The Lizard's CG-heavy effects, but yeah, that looks like a lizard-man alright.
Sling your reactions to Garfield's Parker/Spider-Man, Stone's Gwen Stacy, and any of the Spidey spectacle on display here in the comments below.
The Marc Webb-directed reboot swings into theaters July 3.
Subscribe to the new Movieline on YouTube
Comments
It looks good. Very good. Better than the Raimi versions. But why do they insist on unmasking Spider-Man in these movies? It isn't necessary and is a big mistake. Only the audience should know his identity.
I agree, it looks good -- but to be fair, the Raimi Spideys never really did anything for me.
Re: Identity, at least in the scene with the cops it seems like he's battling them in order to stop them from seeing his face with his super quick ninja moves or whatever, fwiw.
But more practically speaking, of course they must unmask him so that we may see pretty Andrew Garfield's face, although he does do a great job conveying personality even through the mask...
Yes, but we see Garfield as Peter Parker. I just don't see the story logic.
really amazing trailer. i felt the untold story aspect of it gives the movie a whole new vibe. plus its great to see a new love interest #TeamStacey
Color me intrigued. It has a good look to it, and I like the new take Garfield brings. And I say this as a fan of the first two flicks who didn't think this film was necessary.
That being said, I'm sort of amazed at the revisionist history of a lot of people regarding the Raimi flicks. Personally, I believe the first the best of the bunch (It was the most Raimi of them all) but people who wildly praised the second flick as the greatest comic book movie of all time suddenly change their tune and want brooding and realism because Heath Ledger played the Joker.
Did the mess of a third installment really leave that sour a taste in everyone's mouth as to erase the goodwill of the first two? Or did Dark Knight really change everything?
(For the record, the greatest comic book movie of all time is Punisher: War Zone)
+1.
I just think Raimi and his brand of comedy was ill suited for a super hero movie in general. But I was one of the few movie goers that didn't love his take. Most people were all over the first and second spidey. But I think looking back they realize just that. His comedy (like having the green goblin laying back and yucking it up towards the end of the first one) was charming to some on a first viewing (and annoying to people like me), but looking back, people realize that iconic comic characters played by good actors are not the same thing as Bruce Campbell hamming it up to a hilarious degree in Army of Darkness. And that stuff continued to erode the series as more serious filmmakers took on the comic book genre. Lastly, the CG was terrible then and looks increasingly dated now. It looks like a cartoon, which sort of defeats the purpose of live action, now doesn't it?
FWIW, I am not looking forward to this Spider Man either. Even though I didn't love the last one (and at least this one looks a little better with real humans doing the fighting), I just think ten or so years is too quick to reboot the series. Give it another ten years or tell a completely different story. Do we need to see another radioactive spider biting Peter Parker?