The Amazing Spider-Man: News, Trailers, Reactions

I've warmed up to this more than I had before. Garfield does fit the role quite well and it is good to hear Spidey making jokes. And yes Emma Stone is great. Kirsten Dunst, eh. Not great actress to me and not all that attractive as people make her out to be. Not that attractiveness is the end all be all lol.

The light up stuff does seem quite unecessary. I'll pass on the 3-D cause I'm just so tired of 3-D. 3-5 or more extra dollars for a few scenes and annoying ass glasses you have to buy new every time. No thanks. Hell paid for Toy Story 3 in 3-D and I didn't need the glasses for most of it cause only a portion got 3-D fuzzy without glasses. Rip-off.

Wish there was some J.Jonah Jameson in here, since they are seemingly giving Captain Stacy that spot in the movie of being anti-Spidey.

Lizard, eh, yeah not all that impressed with the visual.

Wish they would stop calling it the "Untold Story" though. Doing a new variation on the origin is nothing untold. Ultimate did it. The first trilogy did it. Cartoons did it when showing it at times. Altering the origin in slight ways to fit the story is not new and certainly not untold.

Kirsten Dunst was a good actress when she was little, but apparently never progressed.


Spidey is tagging buildings? Maybe I will watch this...

Still holding out for this Spidy to actually be Ben Reilly! The Clone saga begins! Lol

Actually I have completely warmed to the reboot coming from a place of fan outrage with Sony rebooting instead of continuing with a number 4.

I think what sold me was Garfield's honesty and excitement at comic-con last summer and the trailer looks great. and of course Emma Stone... So awesome, so while I do love the original series, this has some great potential dispite the fact that Garfield is like 29 playing a high schoolers, but if Smallville can do it so can you!!

And just love the lizard. I just hope for the next 2 movies they keep the villians that have not been used coming. There are just so many, they do not need to do Green Goblin, or Dr. Oc, until the next set of reboots

So The question becomes who will be the next villian for the new number two?

Edited by kanderson - 16-Feb-2012 at 5:54am

I'm placing my bets on the end of the 2nd movie, with MJ being introduced in the 2nd and becoming the love interest in the 3rd.

Originally posted by marhawkman Hmm... in http://marvel.wikia.com/Spider-Man:_The_Animated_Series Gwen was alluded to but never seen.  In one episode Aunt may talked about the daughter of one of her neighbors.

Okay...off topic but okay...

And Gwen was seen in the final episode and Auny May was talking about MJ(the granddaughter of a neighbor), and not Gwen. But yeah...okay..haha

Originally posted by marhawkman see: Gwen Parker   In the normal version of SM: TAS, Peter never really got to know Gwen because she was (apparently) dead.  That^ Gwen was from an alternate reality where Peter never kept his spider powers secret and eventually became a multibillionaire.  Another key divergence was that in this universe Gwen stayed alive and was his fiance/business advisor.  Also Ben was alive in this reality.

Okay...again....

So about the actually movie, haha....I'm excited for this because of the cast. Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Martins Sheen, Sally Field, Dennis Leary, are all great actors. I don't really think acting was a strong suit for the first three movies...Sorry James "Squinty Eyes" Franco.

Edited by XtremeOne1 - 16-Feb-2012 at 8:04pm

That's be lame. Bridging is the original fridging.

Why wouldn't they show Gwen die on screen? That would make zero sense from a storytelling prospective. Gwen needs to die on the bridge. It's basically what her character is about. It's as large of a part of who Spidey is as Uncle Ben's death.

Originally posted by marhawkman Why not show it?  Story compression.  They'd probably have to allot almost a third of the movie to it if they show it.  But if they don't show it.... 5 minutes alloted to explain what happened.

So for story compression they should
1) Kill off a likable actress off screen(and most likely a likable character)
2) Get rid of one of the biggest moments in Peter Parker's history.

That makes no sense, so what so ever.

All they need do is have Green Goblin as the second film's baddie and then in the last act Gwen get's killed. Why is allotting time to that a bad thing? .That way the movie goers have two film to actually care about this character's death, and then they spend the last act as emotional devastated and angry as Peter is.

Plus introduce MJ in the 2nd movie and by the 3rd she's set up as Peter's love interest. They can even have MJ know Peter is Spider-Man(as she did in the comics...and I'm talking about pre-marriage). It sets things up nicely for the third film(though they can always save the MJ knows who Spidey is for the 3rd too).

There is ZERO reason why they show kill Gwen off screen. That's not bad storytelling, that's HORRIBLE storytelling.

I'm not saying they SHOULD, I'm saying they MIGHT.  It's been done before.  Why?  The writers decided they wanted to introduce that emotional aspect of Gwen's end without devoting a story arc to it. 

Originally posted by Blackcyclops I say don't let the Green Goblin kill Gwen, use a different villain. Just because I'm scared we are going to get an even worse GG costume LOL

The only way that could happen is if they go out and buy a Green Goblin costume from a Party City. Though I guess if it's the comic version of the character, it would be a slight improvement on what we saw in Spider-Man :-p.

Given that the Lizard looks cool, I have hope in a cool Green Goblin costume.

@Mark: Again, that makes no sense....You're talking about a cartoon which was giving a wink and a nod to fans, versus a movie which is getting you to emotional invest and care about characters. They're totally different beasts and in no way would they do that sort of terrible storytelling, unless Emma Stone decides not to come back for Spider-Man, which I doubt since I'm sure they've signed her for a sequel. So no, I firmly believe that they will NEVER do that.

Edited by XtremeOne1 - 17-Feb-2012 at 8:53pm

Well, part of why they did it that way in the cartoon was that there was a mandate from the network that they couldn't have any characters die on screen.  But the way they wrote the scenes you ended up with approximately the same impact anyways.  It's all about good writing.  Having a well written scene always carries more emotional impact than a poorly written scene.  To a certain extent having the characters die on screen is kinda tacky if you're throwing it in just to have it seen on screen.  Seeing Pete mope and muse about how his life would have been better if he had saved his uncle Ben can carry more impact than actually seeing Ben die.