The Amazing Spider-Man.

[something_wicked]

I really LOL'd hard at the First-person part, almost as much as when I saw Doom.

All in all, it looks pretty awful.

[SnakeEyes]

Um, I already saw this film.  It was made back in 2001 and it was called "SPIDER MAN" and it was directed by Sam Raimi.  This looks EXACTLY like that film, but without any of the style.  Not that Raimi's version was perfect, but this doesn't appear to be anything different.  Sorry, I'll pass, unless the next trailer is absolutely stunning. 

[Ħ]

It does look a lot different.  It's darker and less cartoony.  And Peter looks less "innocent"...which is an unfortunate change, even though the rest looks great.

[Zantera]

Um, I already saw this film.  It was made back in 2001 and it was called "SPIDER MAN" and it was directed by Sam Raimi.  This looks EXACTLY like that film, but without any of the style.  Not that Raimi's version was perfect, but this doesn't appear to be anything different.  Sorry, I'll pass, unless the next trailer is absolutely stunning.

You're kidding?
This is a totally different movie, just by looking at the story makes it another movie.
Spider-Man uses webshooters again! That's totally one of the biggest misses in the original movies, so they finally decided to do it like it was intended from the beginning, and how it is in the comics.
Gwen Stacy is in the movie! which for me (somewhat big Spidey-fan) is a great thing. Don't get me wrong, I do like Mary Jane, but Gwen Stacy was a love interest for Peter before Mary Jane, so this makes more sense.

I'm also very excited to see what they can make of The Lizard, a classic villain that I know a lot of fans wanted to see in the earlier films.
I do enjoy the earlier movies, but I'm just way more excited for this, I feel that it's a great way to sorta "go back, do right", I think it can be compared to the Batman movies and what Nolan did to them, hopefully the new Spider-Man will be able to hold up quality-wise. (high expectations for me at least)

[Dark Castle]

Because no one involved from the first 3 films were going to be involved. And clearly the tone and direction are completely different. I for one am all for it. As much of a Raimi fan I am, his wacky slapstick sense of humor bugged me at times. I tend to prefer comic movies that are straight, as I see them as heightened drama. Granted, the previous Spider-Man film had a fair balance of humor with the serious stuff, but I'm curious to see what another filmmaker does with it. We shall see.

This.

[TheMadgician]

The thing I'm not digging about the trailers, and what I've seen so far. It looks like they're going much more of the "angsty, dark, and brooding" approach. Peter Parker looks much more like "average generic teen" than "geeky clever outcast."

It's a minor thing, but when Mcguire did it, they at least had him dressed in a way that was recognizable as nerdy. Now he's in tight jeans and a dark shirt, still a popular trendy style. It just doesn't seem believable. They're taking that normal, even slightly cool kid and just saying he's a geek because that's how the story has to be. Rather than actually portraying him as such.

And, as I said. It seems they've made him much more brooding. I'll admit, I haven't read as much classic stuff. Farthest back I've gone is Kravens Last Hunt. Which is pretty dark, but he still has his wit about him. Based on the protrayal of the trailer, it seems like he's going to spend most of his time moping and being sad that his parents weren't there and he's just so unpopular and hes in love but he doesn't know what to do. Boy it sure is hard being a teen

Which brings me to my next point. They got a director who specializes in super sad super indy hipster drama romances. A leading male who specializes in the same thing. And Emma Stone was in Easy A and as such is dead to me. It really seems like the superheroing is going to take a back seat to all the super sad drama and generic teen romance.

TL;DR - I'm not looking forward to the new Spidy. Speaking of which, I really should get caught up on Spider Island soon.

[Zantera]

I might agree a bit on Peter Parker, or at least how he is shown in the trailer.
It's too early to tell, because obviously we haven't seen the result yet, but in the trailer I get the feeling that he's more of the quiet/slacker-kind of guy, which isn't very like how he is in the comics, where school means a lot to him etc.

[Zook]

Killer Croc.. er, I mean The Lizard:



https://www.superherohype.com/news/articles/169117-first-real-look-at-the-lizard-in-the-amazing-spider-man?cpage=10#written_comments_title

It's ok I guess. It just means less CGI that's all.

[MetalJunkie]

It's ok I guess. It just means less CGI that's all.

Did you watch the same trailer I watched?

[TheMadgician]

It looks like Goombas from the Super Mario Bros movie.

And the Spidey costume design is wat. I remember seeing a rumor that Spidey might have foot attachments to help him climb. Some people waited to see if it was just a prop to help the actor doing stunts. Looks like they're on the toys, too.

oboi

[Zook]

It's ok I guess. It just means less CGI that's all.

Did you watch the same trailer I watched?

Is there a trailer with The Lizard out?

[MetalJunkie]

It's ok I guess. It just means less CGI that's all.

Did you watch the same trailer I watched?

Is there a trailer with The Lizard out?

No, but judging by the trailer, the movie's going to be a CGI-fest regardless.

[Dark Castle]

It bugs me that Emma Stone continues to play a Highschooler when she's been an adult for years.  I don't know why, but that always bugs me.

[Zook]

It's ok I guess. It just means less CGI that's all.

Did you watch the same trailer I watched?

Is there a trailer with The Lizard out?

No, but judging by the trailer, the movie's going to be a CGI-fest regardless.

You're probably right, but if they went with comics/cartoon Lizard look, the CGI would probably ruin it as apposed to what they went with in heavy make up effects, which still might look bad in the end, as one of the low points with the other Spider-man's was the crappy CGI.

[MykeHavoc]

It bugs me that Emma Stone continues to play a Highschooler when she's been an adult for years.  I don't know why, but that always bugs me.

So? Andrew Garfield is almost 30 and he's playing a high-schooler. Get over it. Its Hollywood.

[Dark Castle]

It bugs me that Emma Stone continues to play a Highschooler when she's been an adult for years.  I don't know why, but that always bugs me.

So? Andrew Garfield is almost 30 and he's playing a high-schooler. Get over it. Its Hollywood.

... And that's what I'm saying, it's weird.  Get fucking people that are  actual age playing highschoolers.  It's an opinion, get over it.

[MykeHavoc]

So long as they look young, why does it matter?

[Dark Castle]

So long as they look young, why does it matter?

In my opinion, I find it weird that people in their 20's and 30's are trying to be teenagers.  I don't get why you care so much that I personally don't like older people playing teenagers..

[Jamesman42]

Teaching some HS seniors, I gotta say that a good amount of them could pass for being in the early to mid twenties, so I don't see a problem.

[Elaitch]

I just wish they hadn't pissed all over Raimi's Spiderman legacy by starting a new parallell series under the same company. It's lame in itself and makes it too obvious it's mostly done because of the money it will make than anything else. Especially considering Raimi did a pretty good job with his franchise, even though the third one was somewhat of a stretch (i.e. not as good as the first two). This also shows that movie companies today have no sense of continuity. I mean, it would've been okay if the movie was being made by another movie company, but this actually being produced by the ones who produced Raimi's series? Imo, quite lame.

HOWEVER, I watched the trailer, and I see that new Parker is complete with the hipster glasses and everything. Might go along well with the younger crowd, so I'll give them that. The POV shots seems to be surprisingly well pulled off, at least compared to films like Doom, in which it was crap. I just hope they don't overuse them, otherwise I'm sure it will render nausea complaints.

But if they release this film in 3D, I might actually go see it just for those shots. Seems like a cool feature.

[Dimitrius]

>Somewhat of a stretch

That's putting it nicely!

[Zantera]

I can't speak for others, but when they have to replace the core-characters (such as Peter Parker/Spider-Man himself), I just have a very hard time to watch it, if it would take part in the same "universe".
Therefor I think a reboot is a good thing, because I would rather see a brand new story with new actors, then to watch Spider-Man 4 (continuing Sam Raimi's movies) but with some actors switched out.
There are cases where the directors/producers have replaced a main-character with someone else, and tried to continue like nothing happened, and it is very rarely a good thing.

I enjoyed Raimi's movies when I first saw them, but when I look back at them I feel so-so about them.
As movies they are pretty good, but being a huge Spidey-geek when I was younger (reading and collecting over 300 magazines), there were plenty of things in the movies that bothered me, minor details mostly, but things I thought they could improve.
A good example is the webshooters, for people who know the comics, they're a huge part of it, but Raimi decided to go another path with the built-in web, and while that might have been better, it was still a big thing in the comics that they screwed over in the movies.
So with that detail, I am glad that they will fix it in the new movie, at least judging by different pictures.

As for Spider-Man 3, I really want to like it, because it has my favorite Spidey enemy in it. (Venom)
However, apart from the obvious crapfest that was Peter going emo, I thought they really killed the character Venom, he didn't get much time in the movie, and the little time he got wasn't really that good.
It has obvious reasons since Raimi didn't want Venom at all, it was something they "had" to implement due to fans wanting it, but I'm still very disappointed about how it turned out.

If I could wish for anything, I would love the sequel to the new movie (it's not exactly confirmed but there will most likely be one or two more in this installment) to have Venom in it, as the main villain.
I just think the character could be so epic on screen if they made in a good way, gave him the proper amount of screentime and have his character develop during the movie.
Oh well, wishful thinking. 

[TheMadgician]

From what I understand, if Spider-Man 4 had a been a Rami movie, it would have had the same cast. He wanted to keep going. He wanted to use classic legacy villians. But everything he suggested, was shot down. So he finally said to hell with it and quit. Then a couple leads left with him, and then everyone else was fired. If I remember correctly, he wanted to use Lizard, but they said no. And now they're using Lizard.

[hefdaddy42]

Venom is an awful villain.  His inclusion ruined the last film, and if he is used in a future film I won't see it.

We need Kraven and Electro.

[Dimitrius]

His inclusion didn't ruined the film, casting Topher Grace as him did!

[Zantera]

I agree that Electro would be a very good villain for a movie, or Shocker. (though I'm not sure if the latter would be big enough as the main-villain)

Carnage would be epic, but I think the problem is that it would be hard to have Carnage and keep it at PG13, seeing how mental he is.

[Volk9]

Carnage would be epic, but I think the problem is that it would be hard to have Carnage and keep it at PG13, seeing how mental he is.

Yeah, unfortunately they'd have to limit his...violence.

I always thought Mysterio would be cool

[Dark Castle]

Venom is an awful villain.  His inclusion ruined the last film, and if he is used in a future film I won't see it.

We need Kraven and Electro.

What are you talking about?!  Venom is an awesome villain.  All the changes he goes through throughout the series is just incredible.

[TheMadgician]

Mac Gargan Venon was terrible. Tried way too hard to be grimdark and edgy. HURR I KILL ERRY 1 AN I WAN 2 EET DEM I KIL A H00KUR LOOK HOW BR00TAL I AM

And carnage was kinda worse.

The character of Eddie Brock was interesting though. Especially upon becoming Anti-Venom.

[toro]

I just want Kraven on a goddamn Spidermanz film.

[Zantera]

I'm not sure how well Kraven would work.
But I mean, if you compare Spider-Man to Batman (and Nolan's more realistic movies), Spider-Man does have more unrealistic enemies, but if he would be chased through Manhattan by a hunter, I think many people would find that a bit silly.

I'm interested in seeing Lizard, but I'm really hoping for Electro in the next one. (Or Venom) 

[hefdaddy42]

Venom is an awful villain.  His inclusion ruined the last film, and if he is used in a future film I won't see it.

We need Kraven and Electro.

What are you talking about?!  Venom is an awesome villain.  All the changes he goes through throughout the series is just incredible.

I remember a time before Venom.  And once he hit, everything changed.  Awful.

[TheMadgician]

They have Anti-Venom now. He's the same person as the original Venom, too. He heals people. To the point that if he gets to close to Spidey, he begins to heal Spideys irradiated blood/genes/etc. So Spidey is powerless around him. But he's a good guy. Sorta. I think he might have gone crazy again or something.

[Snow_Dog]

I haven't read the comic books, but I thought Venom was pretty awesome in the 90s cartoon / Spiderman 64. Spidey 3 on the other hand.........

[Dark Castle]

They have Anti-Venom now. He's the same person as the original Venom, too. He heals people. To the point that if he gets to close to Spidey, he begins to heal Spideys irradiated blood/genes/etc. So Spidey is powerless around him. But he's a good guy. Sorta. I think he might have gone crazy again or something.

He's technically a good guy as anti-venom, but he's an anti-hero.  He kills the villains he encounters.