Such a shame.

[trinityvixen]

So, there's a new trailer for The Amazing Spider-Man Reboot (I'm sure that's the official title).

Perhaps the greatest sin of this trailer--of the movie itself whenever it manifests--is not that it will be bad but that it could be good. That's a pity because it could be really good, but if it's covering the same territory as the Raimi Spider-Man movies, it won't blow up anybody's skirts. Raimi's movies only really fell apart at the end (and let us now promise never to speak of Spider-Man 3 ever again). He told the story of Peter Parker becoming Spider-Man, of Uncle Ben's death, quite well. Whatever you say about Tobey Maguire's rubbery-faced ham of a Peter Parker, about Kirsten Dunsts' completely lifeless Mary Jane, or Willem Dafoe's quite astonishingly campy Green Goblin, the movie did cover the-hero-gets-his-start part with a deft hand. (Sure, it was a light hand, but we weren't ready for The Dark Knight then. Hell, we weren't ready for Batman Begins then.) This new Spider-Man movie looks like it could cover the same ground with heart-wrenching seriousness that is both compelling and believable for all that it's about a kid being bitten by a spider and getting superpowers. The problem remains that it is covering the same ground.

Sony wants to keep Spider-Man. I get it. Depending on what happens with Captain America this weekend, Marvel could be on an unstoppable rampage through the multiplex. Thor's a hit, a surprise one, like Iron Man before it, and The Avengers is coming, and even the unevenness of Iron Man 2 or possible failure outright of Captain America (oh please don't be true, oh please oh please) won't stop that. If Sony were to lose the Spider-Man franchise and Marvel got that back? Fuck, man. The Avengers would fucking KICK OUR COLLECTIVE ASSES. I assume not wanting to lose Wolverine to the Avengers is another reason to make something like X-Men: First Class (the main reason being money, duh). But Sony needed to do something different. I like Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone both, and Rhys Ifans could be really fun as Dr. Connors. There's just no way they'll get to make the real go of having their own thing or making Spider-Man their own. It's just too soon. I liked The Incredible Hulk (what is it about reboots and modifiers?), but no one but me paid much attention because it came less than five years The Hulk, no one cared. And The Hulk was a shit shit shit movie. Imagine the difficulty you have convincing people to see a reboot that retreads a movie they liked. Why pay $13 a ticket for something you can watch on Blu-Ray at home?

Comments

[equustel.livejournal.com]

My thoughts exactly. I like the cast and even the tone of this trailer, but I can see the general public going "WTF? I watched this movie already." If they want people to embrace this brand-new Spidey so soon after the hugely popular franchise that came before it (seriously! it's not the same as rebooting a movie that failed, a la Hulk and Daredevil - Raimi's films were HUUUGE), they need to market all the differences, not the similarities.

If I recall correctly, The Incredible Hulk did not re-tell Hulk's origins, which helped it a bit. And the new DD film isn't going that route either. I'm really not sure why Sony went with another origin film...

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

The Incredible Hulk didn't tell the origin story, which was smart because a) that's really something that's not all that interesting or original (a scientist experiments on himself and it goes totally wrong? GET OUT!) and b) it had been done. But the general story of the government trying to catch Banner and some megalomaniac doping himself into being the Hulk's uglier twin? Yeah, it was a little stale.

Whatever its faults, it still tried to do something different, and I worry that this is what's wrong with the Spider-Man reboot. I don't love the trailer, I don't love the tone, but I could probably like either in the finished product if it wasn't been there, done that territory.

[xannoside.livejournal.com]

I actually really don't like this trailer. Who knows what the movie actually is, but this trailer makes it seem all "faux" dark.

Why is he walking slo-mo through his school halls with emo-hair? Why is he that hoodied-up silent broody guy sitting in the back scribbling on his desk? Are we going to hear about how "HIS PARENTS ARE DEEEAAAAADDDDDD!"? Will the New York he lives in ever experience weather sunnier than slightly taupe?

I like serious and dark Spidey stories, but my confidence in Hollywood pulling one off is not that high.

Also, the Peter "Parkour" bit at the end was really...not good.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

I think I know the answer to the hair question (I think Andrew Garfield's hair just does that), but as for the rest of it, you've got me. Honestly, the be-hoodied rebel card was better played by Nick Stahl in Disturbing Behavior. I don't know why they need to make this so dark either. There are some dead serious Spider-Man stories that are good, but I don't really want a dead serious Spidey. I like him because he's sarcastic (and not psychotic--if I want both, I'll read a Deadpool comic). I think you can have that without it being a carbon-copy of the light-hearted Raimi movies.

[xannoside.livejournal.com]

As long as he remains brilliant-but-socially-awkward super-nerd, I will at least give it a chance. Promise. :P

[moonlightalice.livejournal.com]

I agree. It looks like a cross between Twilight and Mirror's Edge.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

I see potential, but I'm actually with you on the trailer being bad. It just doesn't seem like a Spider-Man movie. I know all the people involved are good, but the trailer makes it look like they're not trying. I certainly am not as excited by this trailer as I was for, say, Captain America or Cowboys & Aliens. I don't think it's as bad as the ones for X-Men: First Class, but that's because it looks like a totally different, non-superhero movie, not just a badly done superhero movie.

[chuckro.livejournal.com]

I agree, I'm getting a little tired of the spectacular spider-origin. (Especially having just seen the musical which just officially opened.) There are decades worth of comics with great stories. How about they do the Ultimate version of the Clone Saga as a movie? That even made vague sense!

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

I mean, there are other things you can do, even with a reboot, that does not require retelling the story. I think The Incredible Hulk did a great job summarizing what you already knew--gamma radiation, Hulking out--in the opening credits and ran with a different agenda. Even where it and The Hulk overlapped, it went about things differently. There's room for that, even with Spider-Man. There are always sufficiently more stories that we don't need to kill Uncle Ben over and over again.

[moonlightalice.livejournal.com]

"...we don't need to kill Uncle Ben over and over again."

But he was such a bastard!

[neo-leviathan.livejournal.com]

And here I was hoping for a Spider Man a bit more like the comics. You know, the one prone to one-liners and smack-talk in the middle of a fight rather than the whole "Oh gods why are you doing this!" "Same answer as the last three times, it's fun!" thing.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

I like playful Spidey. The point of his character is that he soldiers through the awfulness and assumptions about his character with a smile. I miss seeing that.

[neo-leviathan.livejournal.com]

Just had a chance to watch the trailer. I see what you mean by "We've seen that before" >

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

Right? I mean, I generally don't like the trailer, but I still see potential there. The sad thing is that it's a blah trailer for stuff we've already seen despite that potential, so I don't have high hopes.