I dunno, the carjacker is so bad he'd probably need to be entirely redubbed or recast. Same with the doorman scene. A lot of the dialogue snippets we've seen so far have played like really bad improv, and I wonder if maybe Webb wasn't trying out some improv in the movie. I will grant that Garfield feels as natural as he always does, because he's a fine actor. I'm just not sure I totally like all the choices he's made as the character.
The audio from this scene makes me think that its the raw tracks, not the cleaned up or even dubbed version. The sloppy edits and the rushed timing. I wouldn't be surprised if this was a really early cut or even excised footage. It lacks the polish of a finished scene. I feel like the colour palette has been rather indicative of the tone of the series in the last few years. Its gone to some rather dark places between The Gauntlet, Shed, the Grim Hunt, One Moment in Time, Origin of the Species, Revenge of the Spider-Slayers, Spider-Island and now Ends of the Earth. Its been a pretty dark two years worth of stories.
Plus hasn't Carnage come back to the comics after years away? That always takes Spidey into dark places, Cassidy is a dark character. Bullies do what they do in part because they have the power over others. They pick on people weaker than themselves in order to feel better, because how are any of those people going to stop them? This seems to be Parker's mentality in this scene (as stated, probably before Unlce Ben's death changed him and made him see he had a moral responsibility to use his powers the right way), having gone from a socially awkward noboody who is probably bullied himself to a super-powered guy who can now do what was done to him by others because it makes him feel better. It's not right, but he's a teenager who has suddenly had extraordinary powers thrust upon him we can't just expect him to do things the right way that isn't realistic.
No Kassidy and Carnage have only been involved in their own couple of mini-series recently, and while Spider-Man guest starred, neither host nor symbiote has been involved in the main Spider-Man story in a number of years. But the story has been delving further into some bleak areas and darker themes all on its own.
Not sure if this will temper anyone's concerns but it seems that despite all appearances, they are indeed doing something different with the origin: http://www.superherohype.com/news/articles/170157-the-origin-of-the-amazing-spider-man-will-span-multiple-films Simply put they seem to be exploring the story of his parents, Uncle Ben and the spider-bite over a series of films, not keeping it contained to one, and they won't be wrapping things up in this one. I am encouraged that not only are they bringing up seldom explored material they seem to want to explore the origin in a different than usual, taking their time with it, perhaps interspersing it with the main plot of the film. I really like the idea of the story being told over a series of instalments, not single one-offs that are vaguely referenced or called back to (or even ret-conned) later, and it sounds like they have a long term plan (though who knows how detailed that plan may be).
I know nothing about the comics but in the Raimi films it was singular and random that Peter Parker ended up with super powers. Based on the trailers for this one I've seen it seems as if there's some type of plot angle whereby Peter already had some kind of destiny or was the carrier or some kind of treasured legacy even before he got bit.
So they're going to take the least interesting/necessary part of the story and make it last forever? If I ever see JJ Abrams I might have to slap him across the face for creating the contemporary cult of mystery in storytelling.
I don't get how you would even do a slow reveal of this sort. What would explain the slow trickle of flashbacks? Does Peter not know how he became Spiderman, and has to figure it out? Is this series going to be like Memento? Though, to be fair, they do seem to be going for a tone that dark already.
It seems he's somehow important independent of being Spider-Man. His parents were apparently involved in some secretive CIA project or something.
I'll put money down (like five cents) that Peter's father genetically modified Peter with some kind of spider dna that is dormant until he gets bit by a special spider, for some dubious reason.
It depends on the author of the series at the time and the story they are telling. Some interpret the bite as a random event, others, like J Michael Strazynski (Ezekiel, The Other etc) chose a destiny angle linking Peter's bite to a much larger story. I am baffled that you believe his origin is the least interesting or necessary part of the story but to each their own. Or are you talking about his parents story, a story that's always been shrouded in mystery, long before Abrams or Webb or anyone else came along? Sounds awfully similar in nature to Ultimate Spider-Man's backstory to the Venom suit, something designed by his scientist father for a greater good, tailor-made for their DNA, but results in unintended consquences, irrevocably pulling Peter into a mystery he's not fully aware of immediately, and quickly can't escape (and comes back time and time again to haunt him). Well he doesn't always understand the nature of the bite ie the origin of the Spider that bit him or the implications. In Ultimate Spider-Man he later discovers that the spider was genetically altered by Norman Osborn in an experiment to test out a new Supersoldier serum the SHIELD had hoped to use to create more Captain Americas. In the 90s Animated series the nature of Neogenics, the techno-babble that irradiated the spider, wasn't fully played out until a few seasons into the series. In both instances the origin of the spider and the science used to alter it ties Peter directly into a whole series of other plot-lines and characters. These aren't things immediately apparent in either case and are slowly revealed and explored over time. And in this instance there seems to be some connection to the parents though we aren't clear on what their involvement is. There also seems to be some implied connection to Doctor Curt Connors and perhaps even Norman Osborn (the company that Peter visits, where he meets Connors, where the bite seemingly occurs). I wouldn't call that destiny per se though, but its not unfounded or out of left field for the story to have broader connections to other characters and events, beyond Peter Parker/Spider-Man and part of his role in the story is unravelling that mystery. IMO none of this is as wildly new or ridiculous as people seem to feel it is, I can see parallels and connections to the comics all over the place. What makes it interesting is the way its tied in, or the use of seldom explored material (the Parents' history).
This plotline is not going to be anywhere near the fun of Annual #5 without the awesome Red Skull reveal. ... Oh god, and what if they drag out the Chameleon and rehash that terrible life model decoy arc from the 1990s for one of the sequels?
I would guess from the connections they make between Richard Parker and Curt Connors in the trailer, that they are leaning less on the spy background of the parents from the regular universe comics, and more on the Ultimate comics storyline where Peter's father is a scientist and his disappearance has to do with whatever he is working on.
I really liked the Ultimate Spider-Man backstory and when I saw the trailer, I was immediately reminded of it. This is especially true of how they seem to want to have Peter feel connected to his parents in this movie--something I never felt the regular universe comics did a good job of.
That's already taken by the cartoon series, though. I'm cautiously optimistic for this film. I admit that I would have enjoyed the third Raimi Spider-Man film, had it not been for the inclusion of Sandman and the rubbish casting of Eddie Brock. Tobey Maguire gave us a Spider-Man that was honourable to the last breath, and I can respect that interpretation. However, Andrew Garfield and Marc Webb have the chance now to give us the Spider-Man that fans have waited for, and I am inclined to think that they will deliver that, at least to some extent. In regards to the wisecracking Spidey scene: some people have been saying around the web, and possibley on here, I can't remember, that it seems dark in theme. I am somewhat inclined to agree. I think it reperesents a scene pretty early on, where he has designed his suit and developed his webbing, but he doesn't realise how a hero is supposed to act, maybe doesn't even think of himself as a hero then. To him, perhaps this is his chance, having been bullied most of his life, to fight back, to show people like them how it feels. Then again, Spider-Man has never exactly been the most respectful superhero, has he? Eh, that's my six cents.
Cuz that's not been a disaster. Its even remotely similar to the comic from which it borrows its name. The film so far seems like the spitting image of the Bagley/Bendis work that brought me back to comics a decade ago.
It's because amazing is a more marketable adjective than ultimate. Ultimate implies there are many Spider-Men, and this is the ultimate one. It's a relative word. It only has meaning in a context. It fits for the comics, as there are various different Spider-Man comics with separate continuities. For a movie title, it's a bit weird. The word amazing doesn't need context. And the Amazing line has been going since the start and is thus more well-known with casual audiences. Again, more marketable.
