SHP Forums

I am skeptical right off the bat...

Ever since word of a "Spider-Man" reboot was announced, fans have been hungry for any scrap of info about the movie. How will this version differ from Sam Raimi’s hugely successful franchise? How will Andrew Garfield's Peter Parker stack up against Toby Maguire's? Today, we get an early look at the upcoming flick. Check out the pic below.

The photo, the first released from the movie, shows Parker in Spider-Man's iconic red and blue suit sans mask. His face has been scuffed up and his suit, which is more textured and less sculpted than in Spidey's previous incarnation, looks a bit worse for wear.

Garfield, who was nominated for a Golden Globe for his turn in “The Social Network,” admits to being daunted playing the legendary web-slinger.

"I see it as a massive challenge in many ways," he told Details magazine. "To make it authentic. To make the character live and breathe in a new way. The audience already has a relationship with many different incarnations of the character. I do, as well. I'm probably going to be the guy in the movie theater shouting abuse at myself. But I have to let that go. No turning back. And I wouldn't want to."

We'll have to wait until 2012 to see if Garfield manages to deliver the goods.

Saw that pic. Hate the costume. They should've stayed with the original. Unchanged. Why do they keep thinking they have to keep changing a good thing? It doesn't need modernization and doesn't need to be more 'edgy'. Not looking forward to the movie.

"Reboot" to me says epic failure. Just uncreative idiots who are incapable of an original idea of their own.

A "reboot" of the Spider-Man series seems premature, especially since first movie was released in 2002! Usually movie reboots wait a lot longer than this.

It looks like they brought back Emo Peter from "Spider-man 3."

Datadog wrote:It looks like they brought back Emo Peter from "Spider-man 3."

From my understanding they wanted a "young Peter Parker" to captivate the younger audience. I am sure a lot of this has to do with the fact that DISNEY acquired Marvel.

I haven't seen Social Network so I have no clue how Andrew Garfield's American accent is.

therogue wrote:I haven't seen Social Network

Spare yourself. Trust me.

Tawmis wrote:

therogue wrote:I haven't seen Social Network

Spare yourself. Trust me.

I really liked the movie.

JasefWisener wrote:

Tawmis wrote:

therogue wrote:I haven't seen Social Network

Spare yourself. Trust me.

I really liked the movie.

To me, it was one of the worse movies I've seen in years. Many, many years. For me to enjoy a movie - there has to be at least ONE character I liked. ONE. That's all I asked. All I wanted was for someone to come in with a AK47 and start shooting all the characters and end their stupid bitching and back stabbing. At least guns and explosions would have made it more exciting! It was - to me, anyway - a huge waste of time. Waste of money.

But that's me. The movie - for reasons that escape me - won a ton of Golden Globes, for whatever that's worth. So someone out there thinks it was good.

Tawmis wrote: The movie - for reasons that escape me - won a ton of Golden Globes, for whatever that's worth. So someone out there thinks it was good.

A lot of someone's seem to have loved the movie. Every review I've seen for it has been favourable. Until now

therogue wrote:

Tawmis wrote: The movie - for reasons that escape me - won a ton of Golden Globes, for whatever that's worth. So someone out there thinks it was good.

A lot of someone's seem to have loved the movie. Every review I've seen for it has been favourable. Until now

Like I said, it won awards. So lots of people apparently liked it. To me, every character was pretty much the same - money hungry whores. Not a single redeeming value in any of them. It was like watching a movie about the same people, talking to themselves. I could be more entertained watching two ants fight over a piece of lettuce than watch that movie again.

Tawmis wrote:

Datadog wrote:It looks like they brought back Emo Peter from "Spider-man 3."

From my understanding they wanted a "young Peter Parker" to captivate the younger audience. I am sure a lot of this has to do with the fact that DISNEY acquired Marvel.

Younger? In 2002's Spider-Man, Peter Parker was a high school student! What do they want to see, "baby Spider-Man" swinging from his crib to Aunt May's dresser?

Tawmis wrote:But that's me. The movie - for reasons that escape me - won a ton of Golden Globes, for whatever that's worth. So someone out there thinks it was good.

Ever since the cinematic travesty known as Shakespeare in Love somehow won out over Saving Private Ryan at the Oscars for "Best Picture," I've no longer given any credence to movie awards. Not that I should have before, since film awards base everything off popularity instead of what might actually be a good movie.

DeadPoolX wrote:

Tawmis wrote:

Datadog wrote:It looks like they brought back Emo Peter from "Spider-man 3."

From my understanding they wanted a "young Peter Parker" to captivate the younger audience. I am sure a lot of this has to do with the fact that DISNEY acquired Marvel.

Younger? In 2002's Spider-Man, Peter Parker was a high school student! What do they want to see, "baby Spider-Man" swinging from his crib to Aunt May's dresser?

If I am not mistaken, they're bringing Spider-Man to High School. So as Datadog said, we will probably be seeing Emo-Spidey.

I don't think this has anything to do with the Disney purchase. In fact, I think this decision to recast was made before Disney got involved.

Sony is rebooting Spider-man just because "reboot" became a buzz word a few years back. That's all there is to it. Sequels, prequels, remakes, reboots - once one thing becomes successful, every other studio will follow suit and destroy their existing franchise just to weasel a little money off the bandwagon. And given all the negative criticisms surrounding "Spider-man 3," I guess the producers were a little desperate when they made the decision to restart the whole thing.

Personally, I don't mind them changing actors. I grew up with so many Batmans and so many variations on Clark Griswold's children that I'm used to it. I'm more against how they decided to reboot the series instead of just make a better sequel. I'm more in favor of the old school "James Bond" approach where when the franchise becomes stale, you just swap out actors and throw the hero into a new adventure. No need to recycle the origin story over and over again. Otherwise, we'd never see James Bond get out of basic training.