SPIDER-MAN, VENOM, NON MARVEL SPIDEY DOES WHAT A SPIDER CAN IF SONY LETS HIM

[Abraham Smashington]

I'm with Billy. what I am against is the constant re-telling of the origins.

[Martin]

I'm starting to look at this as a James Bond franchise. Roger Moore just took over for Sean Connery and they're doing their usual slight continuity changes. I'm indifferent.

That's a good comparison. The only thing weird is the new origin story. That's just weird. Changes a lot.

[FilmNerdJamie]

Batman was the first franchise to take the Bond approach... and people forget it worked at the time (Kilmer was accepted and Batman Forever was actually liked. At the time.)

Better comparison to Garfield is Lazenby. Not in terms of films he did (There will be a sequel to this, unless it pulls Taylor Kitsch business. Which it won't) but being the first actor to step into the role after the defining actor leaves.

[Matt]

What I would give to have seen an internet reaction when Godfather II was announced.

Probably FUCK YEAH AWESOME BRING IT ON.

[Martin]

Who cares if they make a new Batman, or Spidey or X-Men every two years? Some will be great, some will suck. To actively hope it fails is fucking stupid.

Why is it stupid? I just think re-telling AGAIN the origin story is retarded. Just continue doing more adventures for Spiderman. Don't reboot every 5 years with slight differences to the origin story.

[Matt]

You're a right...Lazenby is a better comparison...except Garfield looks to at least be bringing the goods. Lazenby was a dud

[Martin]

Andrew Garfield sure did bring his nose to the party as well.

[Abraham Smashington]

Why is it stupid? I just think re-telling AGAIN the origin story is retarded. Just continue doing more adventures for Spiderman. Don't reboot every 5 years with slight differences to the origin story.

To hope a movie fails while at the same time wanting something different is why it's stupid. If it fails then there wouldn't be another one.

[Matt]

Why is it stupid? I just think re-telling AGAIN the origin story is retarded. Just continue doing more adventures for Spiderman. Don't reboot every 5 years with slight differences to the origin story.

I agree with this. Just move on and tell more stories...don't reinvent the wheel.

[Martin]

To hope a movie fails while at the same time wanting something different is why it's stupid. If it fails then there wouldn't be another one.

There will be another ones, years later, when the palate is cleansed.

See: Superman (fail for Return, ??? for Man of Steel). Batman (win).

[FilmNerdJamie]

They're begging for comparisons by saying, "Hey we're going to do the origin. Again. And then we're gonna tell you its 'the Untold Story' like you're a fucking moron!"

So yeah... can't say its stupid for some to want that cynicism on Sony's part to blow up in their face.

[Martin]

They're begging for comparisons by saying, "Hey we're going to do the origin. Again. And then we're gonna tell you its 'the Untold Story' like you're a fucking moron!"

So yeah... can't say its stupid for some to want that cynicism on Sony's part to blow up in their face.

That's pretty much how I feel. Sony deserves a slap in the face for thinking we're idiots.

In fact, I secretly hope they re-reboot Spiderman in 10 years by making Spiderman a shemale. CUZ THAT WOULD BE EDGIER!

[Matt]

Gotta admit, i laughed at the idea of a shemale Spiderman. THE UNTOLD STORY indeed.

[BillyG]

I'm with Billy. what I am against is the constant re-telling of the origins.

Yup origin stories for HUGE pop culture icons are fucking dumb. We don't need them. Otherwise, I'm all in.

[Bobby Bear]

Because the internet likes to overreact and be indignant.

I know, man. But even by Their standards, the (over)reaction to this feels excessive.

Personally, I'd have thought the voice would be more gutteral, deeper, with more of a sibilant hiss to it - "Sssssscrew you, Sssspider-Man!"

Shouldn't he have a Welsh accent like Ryhs Ifans does?

How perfect would a slurring Ifans, in full Notting Hill mode, be? With the tattered lab-coat, of course. Always with the lab-coat.

"Mr. Ifans -- can I call you Rhys?"
"Well, uh..."
"Rhys, what I'm saying to you is you must never -- and I truly mean never -- take that lab-coat off. You get me? You feel me? I don't care if you're en route to the Act 3 final showdown or nipping out to the shops for milk and a loaf of bread. COAT-LIZARD. Comprendo?"
...
"'To me, my lab-coat.' Say it. SAY IT!"

I don't see it copying Nolan's approach at all.

I think people are seeing what they want to see because this has been rebooted so soon. But if you look purely at what's been released, the only thing I'm not loving is the Lizard design so far. Garfield and Stone are better casting than Maguire and Dunst, the tone and dialogue seem spot on to me and the effects work (Lizard aside) has taken a leap since the last film.

Spot-on doesn't begin to cover it. Well said, sir.

Batman was the first franchise to take the Bond approach... and people forget it worked at the time (Kilmer was accepted and Batman Forever was actually liked. At the time.)

Better comparison to Garfield is Lazenby. Not in terms of films he did (There will be a sequel to this, unless it pulls Taylor Kitsch business. Which it won't) but being the first actor to step into the role after the defining actor leaves.

It's still entirely too soon to be contextualizing the film or Garfield's role in the grand scheme of things. It hasn't been released yet. However much we might feel like we know about it, we don't know enough to make sweeping statements about how it will perform on its opening weekend or how this or that actor will be the Martin Lawrence to Someone Else's Eddie Murphy. Or whatever the case may be. Superficial connections are all academic until we can see what the lay of the land is.

If the last 10-15 years of movie history have shown us anything it's that, no matter how sure the next Sure Thing may look, you never know until it hits.

*mosies back to the Prometheus thread*