Coming Soon!, Whats Hip and Happenin' in Movieland Options

[widowspider]

I'm sorry but my God does that look boring, aside from the fact that it just didn't need to be made and brings nothing to the table whatsoever, it just looks so run-of-the-mill.

EDIT: In other news, a movie they've been trying to make for 80 years, released its trailer today. This one I am excited about as I've always loved the story, John Carter of Mars. The cast is pretty impressive too, and so far, things are looking good. Also, I think this is Pixar's first foray into live action.

Oooh, that looks interesting. Also has Hottie McScotty tortured soul Taylor Kitsch.

[Jessopjessopjess...]

If you're anything like me, these shots from "The Amazing Spider-Man" serve to remind you how pointless and too-soon this reboot is:

http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20483133_2...0.html#20988715

It's like all the bits which were cut from Raimi's origin story because he'd done it fairly succinctly already.

[Raven]

^ Martin Sheen looks like Harold Bishop in one of those shots . . .

[Hobbes]

If you're anything like me, these shots from "The Amazing Spider-Man" serve to remind you how pointless and too-soon this reboot is:

http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20483133_2...0.html#20988715

It's like all the bits which were cut from Raimi's origin story because he'd done it fairly succinctly already.

True say, although I hadn't realised how good the cast was. Mega bonus points for Martin Sheen as Ben, that's a brilliant piece of casting in my estimation: I'm sure anyone who remembers his quasi-paternal moments of brilliance to the staff in West Wing will agree.

Still looks more than a little unnecessary, but the cast alone is piquing my interest. I will probably see it. Not sure if it can be much worse than the overlong, insanely convoluted, character-overloaded, cliché-ridden mess that was Spidey 3. Not even my undying love of Bryce Dallas Howard could rescue that for me. And that is saying a great deal.

[Sir_Robin_the_br...]

Apparently J.Jonah Jameson won't be in this one. Although this may be for the best as I can't imagine anyone but JK Simmons in that role now.

Definitely agree with Hobbes about the Martin Sheen casting being a wise move.

[Raven]

Apparently J.Jonah Jameson won't be in this one. Although this may be for the best as I can't imagine anyone but JK Simmons in that role now.

Same here.

[Hobbes]

Same here.

Me three. I think he puts in the best performance in at least two of the films (Alfred Molina probably edges him in 2 for me though, he's just marvellous).

[logger]

I wasn't keen on Emma Stone with blond hair but she looks good there.

Unless I hear it's brilliant I'm not going to see it.

[Everlong]

It'll be good, but I do agree that it is quite pointless. When is it out, 2012? That's only 10 years after the last trilogy started!

I'd rather this be a continuation with Garfield just taking over from Maguire (though that would mean no Martin Sheen as Ben, agh).

[Sostie]

Batman rebooted 8 years after the earlier series ended. When is a decent length of time to re-boot? I personally don't care. If they made a different Spider-man evry year it wouldn't bother me. It'd be silly, but I wouldn't be bothered. If the film looks good I'll see it, if it doesn't I won't. The comics themselves have been re-booted or had new versions of the origin so many times why not films.

[maian]

I don't have a massive problem with them rebooting Spidey because, as Sostie says, they do it all the time in the comics, and films aren't really immune to that idea. (What is the Bond franchise if not a series of reboots?) I've doubts that it can match the first two of Raimi's trilogy, but I don't think we can put them on a pedestal and say that no one else should ever be able to make Spider-Man films, ever.

[Jon 79]

I've doubts that it can match the first two of Raimi's trilogy, but I don't think we can put them on a pedestal and say that no one else should ever be able to make Spider-Man films, ever.

Indeed. It's like if you asked me a few years ago if I thought it would be possible to top Tim Burton's Batman films, I would have said it's unlikely.
... and then Batman and Robin came out.

[GundamGuy_UK]

Batman rebooted 8 years after the earlier series ended. When is a decent length of time to re-boot? I personally don't care. If they made a different Spider-man evry year it wouldn't bother me. It'd be silly, but I wouldn't be bothered. If the film looks good I'll see it, if it doesn't I won't. The comics themselves have been re-booted or had new versions of the origin so many times why not films.

I think the key difference between the Batman and Spider-Man movies is that even in Batman, Bruce Wayne was already Batman. It was 16 years between Batman and Batman Begins, but it wasn't 16 years between the origin stories. It's true that Batman featured a couple of flashbacks to his parents death, but it was hardly an origin story. Everyone knows who Batman is, so they didn't bother.

In Spider-Man's case, we're getting two origin stories a decade apart. Batman hasn't had an origin story on film since... I don't even know. Did the Adam West show feature an origin?



If Spider-Man just had new adventures with a new cast every so often, that's fine. But there's a huge difference between that, and seeing him get bitten and become Spider-Man again and again.

[logger]

If Spider-Man just had new adventures with a new cast every so often, that's fine. But there's a huge difference between that, and seeing him get bitten and become Spider-Man again and again.

I'm even more sick of origin stories than I am superhero movies.

[GundamGuy_UK]

Me too. I get that the movies form their own continuity, but is there really anyone who doesn't know who Spider-Man or Batman are?

If you're paying money to see a Spider-Man movie at the cinema, I think it's pretty likely that you're aware of who the character is. And even if you're not, it's pretty self-explanatory. My first exposure to most superheroes wasn't their origin, but I still knew what was going on. You don't need an entire movie to say "Peter Parker got bit by a spider, and now he's Spider-Man". The intro credits, a little throwback scene, or just being alive at any point since the mid-60s should be enough for you to know that already.

I actually think Batman did the 'origin' really well. The film begins with Wayne as Batman, albeit still early in his career. The movie then has a couple of brief flashback scenes showing his parents getting killed and so on, but the vast majority of the movie doesn't cover it - once you know Bruce Wayne is Batman and he's rich and his parents were murdered, what more needs to be said? Those aren't even things that require exposition, because he lives in a colossal house and you see him get into costume. You don't need to know. Did people in the 60s say "Oh, Batman? Sure, I'd love to read that, but I didn't read the first issue in the 1930s - how will I know what's going on?"

Superhero franchises aren't exactly complex.