Posted February 7, 2012 Im still wondering whats going to happen with Uncle Ben in this movie. So far we havent seen anything that hints to his usual fate and thats one thing I wouldnt want to see changed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 7, 2012 While it looks great, I'm just not a fan of a lot of small details, but that's probably because I liked many of the stylistic choices in the existing trilogy (despite its flaws). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 7, 2012 While it looks great, I'm just not a fan of a lot of small details, but that's probably because I liked many of the stylistic choices in the existing trilogy (despite its flaws). One of its major flaws was lack of Emma Stone. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 7, 2012 I dont think Emma Stone looks particularly great in this movie anyway. I dont wanna judge her too much on just a trailer but she feels miss cast to me. She seems a bit bland and going on her previous movie characters I just cant help but feel she would have made a much better Mary Jane. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 7, 2012 Well, at least it looks like they're doing things differently. I'm not too sure about the cast, though -I agree with Happenstance about Emma Stone (in this trailer, she's great in other things. Like Drive). I'm also still disappointed that we never saw Dylan Baker turn into The Lizard. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 7, 2012 Well, at least it looks like they're doing things differently. I'm not too sure about the cast, though -I agree with Happenstance about Emma Stone (in this trailer, she's great in other things. Like Drive). I'm also still disappointed that we never saw Dylan Baker turn into The Lizard. Ah Drive, I miss that show. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 7, 2012 Ah Drive, I miss that show. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 7, 2012 Im still wondering whats going to happen with Uncle Ben in this movie. So far we havent seen anything that hints to his usual fate and thats one thing I wouldnt want to see changed. If they changed that it would be a serious frak up for me. That is an integral part to what makes Spider-Man... well Spider-Man. He can't just get his powers and instantly decide to become a hero and Uncle Ben is left alive and well. Spider-Man needs that guilt of having let his Uncle down or else it's not really Spider-Man (You've actually made me worry now after mentioning that) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 8, 2012 I would like to think they are not focusing on that in the trailer because we know how he gets his powers and that Ben dies already but that it will be shown in the film. Well thats what I am hoping for anyway... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 8, 2012 Im still wondering whats going to happen with Uncle Ben in this movie. So far we havent seen anything that hints to his usual fate and thats one thing I wouldnt want to see changed. http://www.movieweb.com/news/the-amazing-spider-man-uncle-bens-death-set-photos Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 8, 2012 They couldn't not kill Ben. It's like not blowing up Krypton or killing Batman's parents. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 8, 2012 (edited) I'm still not keen on the idea of web shooters it works in a comic as a plot point to install suspense or fill the story, but in a movie such filler pieces should t be needed, Rami did organic webbing and mentioned it once, then concentrated on story. I think it's a safe bet they will use them to "fill" the story; time on building it, forced suspense as he reloads or runs out and I expect a scene where he runs out then notices one he dropped and has to leap for it to save the day at the last min But other than the main villain being a goomba and web shooters this looks quite good:hmm: Edit damn iPhone autocorrect Edited February 8, 2012 by Agent Gibbs Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 8, 2012 Doesn't the web shooter link in with the backstory of his parents (which they just ignored in the previous films)? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 8, 2012 Doesn't the web shooter link in with the backstory of his parents (which they just ignored in the previous films)? Weren't his parents also parents for SHEILD? Which short of one hell of a contractual miracle and swallowing of pride and ego in favour of doing whats right for the fans... will not get mentioned at all? (sorry couldn't resist) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 8, 2012 Doesn't the web shooter link in with the backstory of his parents (which they just ignored in the previous films)? If memory serves, in the Ultimates story, Parker's Dad was trying to invent some new kind of adhesive, but never quite finished the formula. Peter often went back to it and tried to finish the last piece of the puzzle, but couldn't do it. Once he got his Spider-Man powers, it suddenly fell into place. I think this is actually something I heard Stan Lee come up with, in an interview about the plausibility of synthetic web-shooters in the Raimi movie. It makes sense in a way. Humans, IRL, have never been able to recreate the tensile strength of spider web to scale. In the trailer for this film, you see Parker filling in an empty space in a formula, to Conners' amazement. So, I guess that's how it all fits together And with that in mind, I don't think it will hurt the film to spend a little time focussing on the web shooters as a plot device. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 8, 2012 It makes sense in a way. Humans, IRL, have never been able to recreate the tensile strength of spider web to scale. Isn't that what carbon nanotubes are? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 8, 2012 Well I jumped the gun with the tensile strength comment if I'm not totally mistaken though (I could be) the combination of various aspects of spider silk have not been replicated, like elasticity, and the way it's spun. I'm sure it can be looked up easily :p Either way, carbon nanotubes cannot be continuously generated the way a spider weaves a web - and that's what the web shooters would do. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 8, 2012 So they are mixing ultimate spider-man and normal marvel story lines perhaps? I can live with that as long as we don't get a ultimate version of venom or Eddie brock Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 8, 2012 If memory serves, in the Ultimates story, Parker's Dad was trying to invent some new kind of adhesive, but never quite finished the formula. Peter often went back to it and tried to finish the last piece of the puzzle, but couldn't do it. Once he got his Spider-Man powers, it suddenly fell into place. I think this is actually something I heard Stan Lee come up with, in an interview about the plausibility of synthetic web-shooters in the Raimi movie. It makes sense in a way. Humans, IRL, have never been able to recreate the tensile strength of spider web to scale. In the trailer for this film, you see Parker filling in an empty space in a formula, to Conners' amazement. So, I guess that's how it all fits together And with that in mind, I don't think it will hurt the film to spend a little time focussing on the web shooters as a plot device. I believe this is right. And while it's a great explanation, I've always found it a bit too convenient. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 8, 2012 It all becomes a little contrived to me when anything happens to do with Parker's parents. Unless he is intentionally given his powers, it's so unlikely that they would be tied to SHIELD, and then years later through completely unrelated means, so would Peter. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 8, 2012 So they are mixing ultimate spider-man and normal marvel story lines perhaps?I can live with that as long as we don't get a ultimate version of venom or Eddie brock The Ultimate Venom would have been a FAR better way of doing Venom in Spider-Man 3. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 8, 2012 Thing is, although it's ignoring the previous 3 films its not pretending they don't exists. A lot of the changes, to me, look like changes for change sake in order to make the films different. The Raimi trilogy is great. It has flaws, but I think a Spider-man film always will. Everyone has their own era, their own idea on what the character should be, how "cartoony" the universe is. I love Emma Stone but yeah, she seems to be a bit stock girlfriendy character in this where as Mary Jane was a great character in the trilogy. And I love Andrew Garfield, he's a flawless actor, but he's almost too good looking and cool for Peter Parker. Tobey Maguire had a natural dorkiness that made him relatable to. Mary Jane was so out of his league it made their relationship more fun. It's weird. This film looks fine (fantastic in some places) but it seems like the only people on the planet that actually wanted to see it made were Sony. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 8, 2012 I love Emma Stone but yeah, she seems to be a bit stock girlfriendy character in this where as Mary Jane was a great character in the trilogy. Buh? Sure you haven't gotten this the wrong way round? MJ had none of the character's token sass or confidence, and had little more to do in each movie than be kidnapped and scream a lot. She was Spider-Man's Princess Peach. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 9, 2012 The Ultimate Venom would have been a FAR better way of doing Venom in Spider-Man 3. Really? strange artificially created suit using peters dna, vs alien symbiote its always been the alien for me, but in Rami's spider-man 3? they'd never even mentioned parkers parents in that trilogy, bringing in a suit his father and brock's created to cure cancer would have been a film on its own, can you imagine how crammed full the film would have been going down that route? Buh? Sure you haven't gotten this the wrong way round? MJ had none of the character's token sass or confidence, and had little more to do in each movie than be kidnapped and scream a lot. She was Spider-Man's Princess Peach. gotta agree, they spoiled MJ in the Rami films she was lifeless Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
