[TRAILER] Spider-Man reboot

[MarkB]

Yeah, I don't think I'm ready yet to sit through yet another Spider-man origin story. And the way the trailer's structured, it feels like that's all this is - that we'll just barely get to the point of having a glimpse of the red-and-blue tights before the credits roll.

If they can get the 'origin' part out of the way in the first half hour and leave the rest as a Spider-man movie, it might have a chance, but I don't get the impression we're going to see that.

 

[Agamon]

Is this new Spider-Man movie franchise starting over so it can be made by the same production company that has the rights to the various Avengers superheroes? If they're "rebooting" this early just so that Spider-Man can interact with other members of the Marvel Universe (either in his movies or theirs), then I'm okay with it.

Nope, the opposite. The rights holders need to keep making movies, or they lose the rights. They're rebooting because it's a new acting/production team (and probably because of the SM3 fiasco).

 

[Richards]

Iron Man, for example, is constantly lifting up his face plate. And there is a big visual difference between a voice coming out of an inexpressive mask or helmet, and one coming out of a human face.

But Iron Man - at the end of the first movie, anyway - has a publicly known identity. Also, even before the point in the first movie where he admitted he was Iron Man, Tony didn't go around lifting his faceplate up in public. (True, he had his helmet ripped off in the final rooftop fight with Stane, but there wasn't anybody watching, and the decision to go helmetless wasn't his in any case.)

Spider-Man on the other hand has a secret identity, so when he's out on a rooftop, or saving a train full of people, or fighting Doc Ock, he should keep his blasted mask on his face. Seriously, he took his mask off - in public - so many times over the course of the three movies I was seriously starting to wonder whether Tobey had it written into his contract or something. Whether the decision was his or not, the end result is that it makes him look like he wants everyone to remember that it's Tobey Maguire under the Spider-Man mask. And comic book Spider-Man knows better than to take chances with his secret identity like that, so I expect movie Spider-man to act accordingly.

And then on the opposite end of the spectrum, you've got actors like Hugo Weaving, who portrayed V in "V for Vendetta" and did an AWESOME job in a role where you never get to see the face under the mask at all. That, to me, is an actor who comes across as being more concerned about the needs of the role than ensuring he gets enough "audience recognition face time."

Johnathan

 

[Spatula]

But Iron Man - at the end of the first movie, anyway - has a publicly known identity. Also, even before the point in the first movie where he admitted he was Iron Man, Tony didn't go around lifting his faceplate up in public. (True, he had his helmet ripped off in the final rooftop fight with Stane, but there wasn't anybody watching, and the decision to go helmetless wasn't his in any case.)

Why was his helmet ripped off and not, say, one of his sleeves? Or why did any part of the suit have to completely removed? Why, when Robert Downey Jr. is in the suit and can't expose his face (because he's flying, for example), do they often switch to an inside-helmet view that shows nothing but his face when he's talking?

I mean, when Tobey Maguire takes off the mask in SM 2 after Doc Ock puts the train into overdrive, it's because one of the eyes on the mask was damaged. And that wasn't his decision, right?

Anyway, it's been a while, but my recollection of the commentary tracks on SM 1 or 2 (or both), Sam Raimi talks about how he was constantly trying to get the mask off. Because he didn't want to present a blank, expressionless image to the audience for important scenes.

And comic book Spider-Man knows better than to take chances with his secret identity like that, so I expect movie Spider-man to act accordingly.

Adaptations between mediums have to make changes at times. Movies are visual in a way that even comics are not - one obvious difference is that there are no thought balloons in movies.

 

[Ahnehnois]

They're rebooting because it's a new acting/production team (and probably because of the SM3 fiasco).

Sadly, I don't think they're rebooting because of SM3; I think it boils down to they're rebooting because Raimi got sick of dealing with them. If I understand correctly, it was not Raimi's choice to stuff so many characters into SM3, which is a large part of what caused it to be such a mess, and I don't think the studio learned from their mistake when they were planning SM4. It's a shame that we'll never see a worthy continuation of the first two movies.

Anyway, it's been a while, but my recollection of the commentary tracks on SM 1 or 2 (or both), Sam Raimi talks about how he was constantly trying to get the mask off. Because he didn't want to present a blank, expressionless image to the audience for important scenes.

Like others, I find this incredibly annoying. The mask is there for a reason. It's supposed to define the superhero's persona. If it came off one time to punctuate a dramatic moment it would be okay, but repeatedly it's really grating. It was even worse when Venom retracted the black goo covering his face to talk.

When does the movie Batman take his mask off? When he's in the batcave. To be fair, his mouth is visible but his eyes (very important for nonvisual communication) are mostly concealed. Spider-Man is meant to wear that mask, not just to protect his identity but to create an intimidatingly faceless foe, while at the same time lending a universality to his heroism in the eyes of the masses (it could be a biracial hispanic/black kid under there, and no one would know the difference). So...

But maybe I can hold on to the hopes that THIS actor playing Peter Parker will keep his @#$%^&! mask on his face when he's Spider-Man

...agreed.

 

[megamania]

I..... am not sure yet. Dealing more with his parents which may not be good. The POV scenes are neat but could get boring very quickly.



Not enough there to judge but it is early. 11 months for stuff to be leaked.

 

[Welverin]

Sadly, I don't think they're rebooting because of SM3; I think it boils down to they're rebooting because Raimi got sick of dealing with them. If I understand correctly, it was not Raimi's choice to stuff so many characters into SM3, which is a large part of what caused it to be such a mess, and I don't think the studio learned from their mistake when they were planning SM4. It's a shame that we'll never see a worthy continuation of the first two movies.

I have a friend who follows these things rather closely, and he told me that Raimi and Maguire were looking forward to making SM4 and that Sony decided to go this route instead, which implies to me it is about SM3.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I have a friend who follows these things rather closely, and he told me that Raimi and Maguire were looking forward to making SM4 and that Sony decided to go this route instead, which implies to me it is about SM3.

Fair enough. It sucks either way.

The new one may be good, but it's too soon.

 

[smallworld]

True and moreover i am not getting the positive vibes while watching the trailer.

 

[liza2010]

Amazing trailer of Spider man....










_________________
Online movies