Spider-Man's reboot isn't about appealing to people, it's about them unable to agree with Raimi over the script, having to recast the role anyways with Tobey and Dunst moving on, and Sony's contractual need to make a Spidey film to hold onto the rights. If they still had Tobey or Raimi, I guarantee the film this year would be Spider-Man 4, not a reboot. What it will really do is just confuse general audiences into thinking this reboot is an Avengers tie-in.
Everyone who knows enough to know Spider-Man even exists in the same world as the Avengers knows enough to know that the movie isn't an Avengers tie-in. "General audiences" do not qualify.
The main question the general public has is "Is it a good movie or not?" I get the sense from the most recent trailer than ASM is a cut above its predecessors. They've "Dark Kinghted" Spidey, and it's going to be huge. The film will open big because of sheer name/franchise recognition, and will have legs because it is indeed something special.
My biggest complaint with the Spider-Man reboot is the retelling of his origin again. We saw it in the first Spider-Man. We saw it recapped in the opening credits of Spider-Man 2. And we already saw them retcon it in Spider-Man 3. Now they are giving it too us again. At least they are changing it slightly and involving his biological parents but I worry about how that will affect Peter as a character. If they think a reboot is required due to the directing and casting changes, fine. But gloss over the origin in the opening credits like TIH did. Don't make me sit through 45 minutes of nerdy Peter Parker getting bit by the spider and slowly figuring out his powers again.
The last two trailers have barely mentioned the origin story. I wouldn't be surprised in the least if they relegated the origin to an opening montage, or a series of quick flashbacks.
By "origin" I include everything up to and including Uncle Ben dying because that's really when Peter Parker defined who he was. I don't think they hired Martin Sheen to be in an opening montage.
Yeah, good point. I think Webb can still streamline it into the first ten minutes if he's judicious with the cutting.
The new trailer sucked. The new movie looks like it's going to suck. The only redeeming thing about the movie is President Bartlett as Uncle Ben who didn't even make the last trailer.
I respectfully disagree. (I'm getting a lot of mileage out of that one today!) As a lifelong Spider-Fan since 1975, my opinion of the new trailer is that it feels like Spider-Man more than any other film or animation product yet released. And the film itself looks superb. So nyaaaaah.
From the perspective of a non lifelong Spider-Fan, which I believe will most likely include the vast majority of the audience for this movie, it looks like an unnecessary rehash of the same story as the 2002 version, a mere ten years later. The love interest has a different name this time. And Dr. Osborn grows a tail and actual scales this time around (yes, I know it's not supposed to be the Green Goblin). The trailer makes it look like Spider-Man vs. Osborn all over again, which makes it basically the third time we've seen the same movie, since Spider-Man 2 was just Dr. Osborn with tentacles. I don't see any effort to sell the appeal of the movie. It feels like we're just expected to see it and not ask any questions about why we should care.
Don't get me wrong; I'll see it before I pass final judgment -- but that was my take on the trailers and movie info ("emo Spider-Man!!!1!one!") thus far.
Dude...the heavy is not Osborn; it's Dr. Curt Connors, who becomes The Lizard. Although this version of Connors seems to be an employee of Osborn. It seems this new franchise will follow TDK by showing us their new version of Spidey's archfoe on the second movie.
Although, to be fair, it appears as if Osborn is the bad power behind the scenes (potentially as far back as the Parkers and Peter), at least inferred from the latest trailer (admittedly that's speculatory on a lot of peoples' parts).
Venom? Bit early in the series for that. I'm not sure most of the viewing public really know what constitutes a good movie, given so many of them seem keen to keep seeing all the Transformers & Twilight movies. Names attract people, Spider-Man is a big name brand in Marvel so that will attract people. Whether it's good or not doesn't make a huge amount of difference, if it is though it should mean the revenue for it will be higher because more people will come when they hear how good it is and others will see it again.
I think he was using the term "good" to mean "entertaining". Even if you hate Bayformers (and I do, on a very visceral level), surely you can understand why large numbers of people were entertained by the series. I can't explain Twilight. At. All.
I don't think he meant it was literally Osborn. He meant the basic plot of the movie in terms of Spidey vs Mad Scientist is a repeat. (Note the Spider-Man 2 example which didn't involve Osborn at all.)
I'm looking forward to seeing Denis Leary in The Amazing Spider Man... the first time I saw the trailer, I thought "Holy ****! Denis Leary is going to be in this!".
Yeah, it seems to be a complaint about the reuse of "Spiderman vs. Vaguely Paternal Scientist Turned Supervillain." I think that's the movie's biggest problem at the moment -- it's got a different visual palette, for sure, but the story doesn't seem meaningfully different from the first Spider-Man origin movie we got ten years ago. It looks very, very much like a repackaged Spider-Man 1, and for a movie that came out of the gate with the "Horribly unnecessary reboot of a recent franchise" tag attached, that's not doing it any favors. It may still be a good movie, but I don't think the trailers and the information being released to the public have been nearly enough to set it apart in the general audience's mind and take that "Why are they rebooting this?" tag off.
Not Venom. I meant The Goblin. I've never considered Venom to be Spidey's archfoe. Superman has Luthor. Batman has the Joker. Spidey has the Green Goblin. EDIT: I get the point regarding the oh so familiar plot and it's very valid, but I think Jabbadabadoo was actually confusing Connors with Osborn.
