'The Amazing Spider-Man' - (2012)

[Pringles]

Lol we really don't need another introductory piece and the Lizard looks more like Killer Croc from Batman. Not sure if I'll see this. I haven't been impressed at all so far.

[Kakashi]

New trailer is out. Could be interesting.

Certainly makes me feel more optimistic with my expectations.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

I am trying to figure this out... So in order to prevent the Spiderman film rights returning to Marvel, they have to make a new movie pretty much constantly?

I wonder how they are going to keep it up. 20, 30 years?

[Ithekro]

Same issues with Superman.

[Obelisk ze Tormentor]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Same issues with Superman.

Really? Wow, I have no idea. Still, WB doesn't look as desperate as Fox & Sony in maintaining the rights for their superheroes. From what I heard, WB even consider to drop their rights for Superman after the disaster that is Returns. Also, I think DC and WB are pretty much cooperating as partners. Am I wrong?

[james0246]

Originally Posted by Kakashi

New trailer is out. Could be interesting.

Certainly makes me feel more optimistic with my expectations.

The new trailer is certainly leagues better than the initial trailer. But, I'm still confused as to what exactly makes this a "darker" series (compared to Raimi's version). Is it the simple fact that there is rain? Because many of the themes shown in the new trailer are recycled from Raimi's trilogy...

[Ithekro]

Well for Superman is is more if they don't make a movie the rights goes back to the family...not DC Comics.

[wingdarkness]

The trailer was actually better than I thought it would be, and I'm a big Dennis Leary fan...Seems like this is in the mold of Chris Nolan Batman movies in the sense that it appears to be on a smaller scope focusing on a lesser villain...I also got the impression that unlike Toby McGuire's "goober" personality for Spidey, we might actually get the wisecracking ball of sarcasm spidey that I grew up with...The only thing that made me flinch was him having his mask off too much(WHY DO THEY NOT KEEP HIS MASK ON?!?)...To me that's really annoying...it was good in Spiderman2, but other than that, keep the damn mask on....All in all, I guess my low-expectations bloomed a good impression though...

[Felliko]

The new trailers looks amazing. I can't wait to watch this with my girlfriend.

[Obelisk ze Tormentor]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Well for Superman is is more if they don't make a movie the rights goes back to the family...not DC Comics.

Oh yeah. Totally forgot about the family thing. Still, WB seems not as desperate as Sony & Fox.

About the trailer: better than the previous one but I kinda disappointed that the Lizard doesn't have a long snout and he doesn't wear the lab-coat. I kinda like the lab-coat on the Lizard . He looks like a scaly Arnie with a tail on that trailer.

[Samari]

The thing that might be bothersome to people might be the fact that this movie is looking like yet another origin story. And we've all seen that kind of routine before. I know it's a reboot, but this was a good opportunity to go in a different direction with the character instead of just making the same kind of film with potentially the same kind of problems that the first one had. I'll still see it because while I'm not that big a fan of Spiderman, I generally like Superhero films regardless.

[DonQuigleone]

Not only that, but it's a bit absurd to reboot a series whose last entry was 4 years ago, and whose first entry was only 9 years ago, and all of those films were succesful on top of that.

The "reboot" concept is really only meant for properties that are old, or whose previous iterations were flops. So the batman reboot made sense, so did the Star trek reboot.

[Samari]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

Not only that, but it's a bit absurd to reboot a series whose last entry was 4 years ago, and whose first entry was only 9 years ago, and all of those films were succesful on top of that.

The "reboot" concept is really only meant for properties that are old, or whose previous iterations were flops. So the batman reboot made sense, so did the Star trek reboot.

It was a good business decision by Fox though. They don't want the rights to revert back to Marvel, because then they wouldn't be able to make anymore movies with Spider Man, who is still a cash cow.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Samari

It was a good business decision by Fox though. They don't want the rights to revert back to Marvel, because then they wouldn't be able to make anymore movies with Spider Man, who is still a cash cow.

I understand the argument. My question is, how long do you think they can keep it up? They aren't actually committed to make good movies, or the travesty of Spiderman 3 or Wolverine origins wouldn't have happened. They are just making the films on auto-pilot. Some of the films turn out quite good, but it just seems the higher ups aren't passionate at all about the properties they have.

In short, how many times could they reboot Spiderman?

[Obelisk ze Tormentor]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

I understand the argument. My question is, how long do you think they can keep it up? They aren't actually committed to make good movies, or the travesty of Spiderman 3 or Wolverine origins wouldn't have happened. They are just making the films on auto-pilot. Some of the films turn out quite good, but it just seems the higher ups aren't passionate at all about the properties they have.

In short, how many times could they reboot Spiderman?

Well, technically, as long as they have the rights, they can reboot their franchises as many time as they want. Also, I think they actually try to make good movies (tampering with the directors’ creativity aside). No studios in this world wanted to make abysmal and flop movies imo.

[HasuMasu]

Great trailer, finally a wise-cracking Spidey for the big-screen.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Obelisk ze Tormentor

Well, technically, as long as they have the rights, they can reboot their franchises as many time as they want. Also, I think they actually try to make good movies (tampering with the directors’ creativity aside). No studios in this world wanted to make abysmal and flop movies imo.

We have a confirmed case with the unreleased Fantastic 4 film. Having the film rights is more important than making good movies.

I still cringed in Woverine Origins when Logan got his claws out in the bathroom. His CGI claws were not even finished as it didn't have any reflections.

The main problem is that strict release schedules just don't work. You can't force movies to come out at a certain time, and do it repeatedly without suffering quality loss.

EDIT: But that doesn't mean this new film can't work; it certainly can, if only to wipe clean Spiderman 3. I am just worried about the franchise's future. About how far they are willing to go to keep the rights.

[Bri]

Originally Posted by james0246

The new trailer is certainly leagues better than the initial trailer. But, I'm still confused as to what exactly makes this a "darker" series (compared to Raimi's version). Is it the simple fact that there is rain? Because many of the themes shown in the new trailer are recycled from Raimi's trilogy...

Based on the trailer they show Spidey more as vigilante in trouble, plus they are likely to use some form of Gwen Stacey's story for the overall series.

[Obelisk ze Tormentor]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

We have a confirmed case with the unreleased Fantastic 4 film. Having the film rights is more important than making good movies.

I still cringed in Woverine Origins when Logan got his claws out in the bathroom. His CGI claws were not even finished as it didn't have any reflections.

The main problem is that strict release schedules just don't work. You can't force movies to come out at a certain time, and do it repeatedly without suffering quality loss.

I agree.

Preserving the rights is indeed their priority. Still, when they do make movies out of it, I doubt that they don’t really care and make it only for preserving rights. Despite some unfriendly situations (limited budget, limited time, execs meddling, etc) I think the studios still want to make good movies. The problem here is: how far those studio execs will go to make their movies good.

As for crap SFX in Wolverine...yeah. That actually has become one of the great mysteries of the world. Just what and where did they spent those hundreds of millions of dollars for if the SFX we get in Wolverine was B-movie-level at best?

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

About how far they are willing to go to keep the rights.

As long as they can milk millions of dollars from it they'll keep on holding it.

[james0246]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

My question is, how long do you think they can keep it up?

...

In short, how many times could they reboot Spiderman?

As so long as an audience will go and see the same movie over and over again, the companies will continue to make them.

I'm kind of sick and tired of people (as a general statement) blaming the studios for schlock pictures. If movies are bad, they are only bad because the audience at large refuses to ask for something better. Do you really think studios will continue to make hugely over-budgeted mind-numbing films if the audience doesn't go to the theatres to see said film (that is not to say that the newest "Spiderman" is necessarily "hugely over-budgeted" or "mind-numbing")?

The real question isn't "how many times could they reboot Spiderman", but rather If the audience doesn't care, then why should the studios?

As an aside, and to offer some hope, one of the best trends of the previous year was the amount of "mature" films being made on a reasonable budget ("Limitless", "Bridesmaids", "Battle: L.A.", "Rise of the Planet of the Apes", etc), and that trend is continuing in such films as "The Woman in Black" and "Chronicle" (which, the later, has already set the tone for superhero films for this year that, quite frankly, I am not sure many will live up to), both budgeted under 15 million dollars (yet looking like they were made for 40+ million dollars), and both already earning back their budgets in their first week (it certainly helps that both films were good as well).