‘The Amazing Spider-Man’ trailer

Posted by · 10:09 am · July 20th, 2011

One more treat before I head down the coast: the trailer for Marc Webb’s “The Amazing Spider-Man.” I’d like to be excited for this, but even with the tonal shift to the incredibly sincere, the whole enterprise just feels so painfully redundant. That’s what happens when you leach on to a proven property so you don’t lose the rights, I guess. I do dig the POV stuff at the end, though. Sony’s fourth stab at the character hits next summer. The panel is Friday (I’ll miss it — no big loss). So I imagine you’ll all be hearing more about this one in the coming days. Check out the full trailer via Yahoo! Movies after the jump.




→ 47 Comments Tags: , , | Filed in: Daily

47 responses so far

  • 1 7-20-2011 at 10:16 am

    Robert said...

    I admit I don’t have the clearest recollection of the first Spider-Man movie, but is it possible this is a shot-for-shot remake?

  • 2 7-20-2011 at 10:19 am

    Duncan Houst said...

    I have to say, aside from the trailer music feeling like… trailer music, I think this looks like a modest improvement on the material. Yes, there’s a bit of a redundant feeling about it, but if they do it better than the previous iteration, I think we’ll get over the slight feeling of deja vu.

  • 3 7-20-2011 at 10:21 am

    /3rtfu11 said...

    Too soon!

  • 4 7-20-2011 at 10:21 am

    Bryan said...

    I like a lot of these people, but man this feels pointless.

  • 5 7-20-2011 at 10:23 am

    mrmcfall said...

    Robert,

    It can’t be. His parents were never in Raimi’s first movie, nor were POV shots, a girlfriend Gwen Stacey who works in a lab, etc.

  • 6 7-20-2011 at 10:25 am

    Andrej said...

    That first person view shot is very reminiscent of the parkour videogame Mirror’s Edge. I hope they’ll show this gimmick as briefly as possible, since it’s like asking for projectile vomiting induced by motion sickness, especially if they’re screening it in 3D.

    Aside from that, I think it looks nice enough, but yeah, it’s a bit soon-ish to reboot the whole series – especially in such a gritty manner.

  • 7 7-20-2011 at 10:36 am

    Kristopher Tapley said...

    “Too soon” doesn’t compute. Sony had to get another project off the ground or they would have lost the rights.

  • 8 7-20-2011 at 10:37 am

    James said...

    Thankfully it looks like their doing a couple of new things, but this franchise isn’t in need of a reboot to the big screen just yet. It will only be 10 years since the original when this is released, and that origin is still pretty fresh in the minds of audiences. Couldn’t they already have him be Spider-Man?

    That’s one thing I’ll give to The Incredible Hulk. Wasn’t an origin story.

  • 9 7-20-2011 at 11:11 am

    /3rtfu11 said...

    Kris, it’s my lame stab at humor. I’ve read why they had to rush into reboot mode.

    It doesn’t look bad honestly — I just don’t care about any of the superheros, because Batman is the best in terms of adaptations (60s TV series, the Burton directorial efforts, the 90s TV animated series, and the Nolan pictures (my least favorite of this group).

  • 10 7-20-2011 at 11:13 am

    Fei said...

    Robert, why would you even think it could possibly be a shot-for-shot remake?

  • 11 7-20-2011 at 11:14 am

    Parrill said...

    Great cast aside…I don’t think this looks good at all…not cause it’s a reboot…but so far not so good.

  • 12 7-20-2011 at 12:09 pm

    JJ1 said...

    I was never wild about Maguire/Dunst (even though I thought the first two films were fine).

    So Garfield/Stone ‘feels’ like a step up for me.

    But yeah, it all feels a bit redundant right now.

  • 13 7-20-2011 at 12:19 pm

    Andrew M said...

    Looks alright, could see it being good or really bad. I like the cast, which is what is keeping my hopes alive.

    Is it possible they are making Peter’s parents SHIELD agents, because if they are:Ugh.

  • 14 7-20-2011 at 12:20 pm

    Andrew M said...

    Never mind, Marvel probably wont allow Sony to use SHIELD.

  • 15 7-20-2011 at 12:27 pm

    Ibad said...

    It probably does seem unnecessary but considering most of the big names involved, sans Webb, seem superior to who they’re replacing (and I still really like the choice of Webb to take over for Raimi), I can’t help but to BE excited for it. And I don’t think there’s really anything in the trailer to damper that excitement (I think people are finding really easy and oftentimes contradictory reasons to criticize it).

  • 16 7-20-2011 at 12:32 pm

    SC said...

    Interesting that they’re using some variation on the comics’ stories about Peter’s parents. That doesn’t normally make it into adaptations.

  • 17 7-20-2011 at 12:42 pm

    The Dude said...

    I’m hoping this turns out great (as I’m a huge fan of Webb’s work in “500 Days of Summer” and the short-lived “Lone Star”), but I dunno…I’m hoping the screenplay really takes some unique approaches to the origin, because the trailer seemed like it was WAY too similar to the original.

  • 18 7-20-2011 at 12:55 pm

    James said...

    On the plus side as well it features Emma Stone’s smile.

  • 19 7-20-2011 at 1:38 pm

    THE Diego Ortiz said...

    Is there a rule over at Columbia that redheads have to be blonde and blondes have to be redheads?

  • 20 7-20-2011 at 1:39 pm

    Rashad said...

    It looks better than Raimi’s. No doubt about it.

  • 21 7-20-2011 at 1:50 pm

    Graysmith said...

    Making a movie simply because otherwise you risk losing the rights to it might actually be the single worst reason ever for making a movie. This makes me look forward to this even less than I was.

    It doesn’t look bad per se, but I’m still full and satisfied on Spider-Man.. No cravings at all for this.

  • 22 7-20-2011 at 2:22 pm

    Peteagassi said...

    The POV stuff at the end was awful. Looks like a video game. This movie looks like total crap right now.

  • 23 7-20-2011 at 3:17 pm

    Kristopher Tapley said...

    “Making a movie simply because otherwise you risk losing the rights to it might actually be the single worst reason ever for making a movie.”

    Welcome to Hollywood.

  • 24 7-20-2011 at 3:20 pm

    Soxfan84 said...

    I’m not feeling this trailer at all, especially the awful cg stuff at the end. Also, I was hoping to not see another origin story since the first movie is still fresh in my mind. From the looks of it, they’re going to dedicate a lot time to retelling the origin, which does feel redundant like Kris said.

  • 25 7-20-2011 at 3:53 pm

    Andrej said...

    http://goo.gl/Ypyed The guys at Kotaku made a moment-by-moment comparison of Amazing Spiderman’s POV scene and the TV commercial for Mirror’s Edge.

    First the Playstation 3 steals the Spiderman movie font, and now this movie clones the whole commercial. Fair trade, I guess?

  • 26 7-20-2011 at 3:58 pm

    Erik815 said...

    I like the tone of this; less cartoony, although I doubt it’s going to be as serious as this trailer seems to imply. First priority here is to distance it from the first three. I would imagine future trailers will show a lighter side as well.

    It was definitely time for a reboot, based on the very simple fact that Tobey Maguire is 37, and Peter Parker is a teenager. Dunst is closing in on 30 too (and I never quite liked her in the Spidey films, but that’s a personal issue).

    J.K. Simmons will be sorely missed, though.

  • 27 7-20-2011 at 4:42 pm

    Maxim said...

    “It looks better than Raimi’s. No doubt about it.”

    There is absolutely nothing here that would make me think that, or even approach the beauty of Spiderman 2 (unfair comparison, erhaps but you did say Raimi).

    I like the talent a lot but if their way of making it look different was to do a bunch of first person shots then color me sceptical.

  • 28 7-20-2011 at 6:46 pm

    Mathatter said...

    Even I have to admit that this dark palette/cinematography faze in the fantasy and sci fi world is getting old quick.

  • 29 7-20-2011 at 7:07 pm

    Peteagassi said...

    The only reason why everything is now dark is because of The Dark Knight. After the success of that the studios mandate was make everything dark because dark = success. They are so wrong. Being true to the essence of character = success. Nolan’s batman films are a success because they are true to what Batman is: a dark, tortured hero. Spider-man is the exact opposite in many ways; and that’s what makes spiderman enjoyable. These filmmakers need to examine what characters they are dealing with, and portray them in the appropriate way, instead of just making it dark for the fuckk of it.

  • 30 7-20-2011 at 7:46 pm

    RichardA said...

    As much as I liked Andrew Garfield in this other movies, this may not be the role for him.
    We shall see when the whole movi3 comes out; for now, not feeling it.

  • 31 7-20-2011 at 7:52 pm

    Dana Jones said...

    @RichardA- my sentiments exactly. I loved him in TSN but he seems miscast in this role.

    Isn’t Peter Parker suppose to be a nerdy wallflower? I really don’t see Andrew Garfield as any such thing. Tobey McGuire was believable in the role, but Garfield is just way too… pretty? Maybe?

  • 32 7-20-2011 at 8:07 pm

    DylanS said...

    I think you hit the nail on the head with your blurb above the link, Kris. I watched the trailer before reading that, but I had the same exact reaction. I like Andrew Garfield a lot, and I think he carries an “everyman” kind of quality that makes him a perfect fit for the Peter Parker role, but do we really need to go through the motions of this origin story again.

    Also, I don’t get the vibe that there’s a lot of variations on this character that can be done, unlike with Batman, where Nolan managed to create a Gothan City atmosphere and an Iconography of the character completely seperate from Burton’s version. This looks like a well-executed carbon copy.

  • 33 7-20-2011 at 8:21 pm

    Duncan Houst said...

    I’m okay with rebooting the origin story if I don’t have to watch any of Raimi’s films again. Apologies to those who enjoyed them, but I’d hardly call any of the film in Raimi’s trilogy “beautiful”. They were all quite hokey, obvious, and extremely irritating. On top of that, there’s absolutely nothing appealing in Tobey Maguire’s depiction of the character. The reboot seems to at least be more devoted to what the character was, and what he would be realistically. There’s nothing truly spectacular here, but nothing really bad either.

  • 34 7-20-2011 at 8:37 pm

    Fitz said...

    I’m hoping this series ages better than Raimi’s “THIS IS 9/11 AMERICA!!!” trilogy. Too much flag wrapping.

  • 35 7-21-2011 at 5:38 am

    JJ1 said...

    Duncan, I seriously feel like you, me, and a very small group of people found those 3 Raimi movies to be completely underwhelming; while not “bad”.

    I’ve never understood it. Never. Spider-Man 2 has an 83 on metacritic? Really? Maguire, Dunst, those effects, that story … 83!

    I’ll never get it. When I initially saw those movies in the theater, I never found them more than adequate at best.

    And if I catch them on tv, I feel similarly; trying to see what I may have missed the first times around (because if anyone is a “I finally love a movie after a few viewings” person, it’s me).

  • 36 7-21-2011 at 8:04 am

    Chris G. said...

    I get why they want to reboot, and this looks well made and will probably be better than Raimi’s.

    What I don’t get is why they felt the need to do another movie about his origin just 10 years after the first one arrived. We’ve already seen Teen Peter Parker. What about adult Peter Parker, or even old Peter Parker?

    Nothing in this trailer made me go “I haven’t seen this before!”. I think they’ll have to sell this one on the villain; the major difference from the first one.

  • 37 7-21-2011 at 8:23 am

    Fei said...

    Peteagassi , to be fair, Spider-Man has plenty of dark elements as well. If you take a look at the classic animated series, which was reputed for its overall faithfulness to the comics, many episodes (especially the later ones) were surprisingly dark and serious for a kids’ show. The whole “dark” trend actually began in superhero comics two or three decades ago.

    Yes, Spider-Man does tend to be lighter and more “fun” than Batman, and perhaps the reboot is grittier than what Marvel had always intended for the character. But the new take isn’t that inappropriate, and we’ll have to see the whole movie to judge how well it works.

  • 38 7-21-2011 at 9:59 am

    TomasBuenosAires said...

    Garfield/Stone are definitely a a step up.
    And the POV shots look cool and it adds something to the franchise.
    But seriously? The whole story again from the begining?
    I´m bored already.

  • 39 7-21-2011 at 11:55 am

    Speaking English said...

    ***Really? Maguire, Dunst, those effects, that story … 83!***

    What? Those effects? You mean those Academy Award winning effects? Confused.

  • 40 7-21-2011 at 11:56 am

    Tony Ruggio said...

    Spider-man 2 has an 83 on MetaCritic because of a tour de force by Maguire, in-depth character development rarely seen in summer blockbusters, and some of the most thrilling comic-book set pieces put to film. The effects may be aging now, but at the time they were fantastic. To say otherwise is to be ignorant.

  • 41 7-21-2011 at 12:02 pm

    Speaking English said...

    Not to mention it hits all the right emotional and dramatic beats and is spectacularly well paced. It’s everything a superhero movie should be, and looks like a beacon of bright light next to the lumbering narrative of “The Dark Knight” or the steely detachment of the first “X-Men.”

  • 42 7-21-2011 at 1:19 pm

    JJ1 said...

    To each his own, I guess. But I wouldn’t say I’m ignorant, either. I thought some of the effects were highly cheesy AT the time. And I saw the movie with 4 other people (2 loved, 1 hated, me and someone else thought it was ok). It is just my opinion. But I still find the 83 a bit puzzling.

  • 43 7-21-2011 at 2:42 pm

    Maxim said...

    Spiderman 2 is a GREAT comic book movie. A vast improvement on the original in almost every way and totally fun.

    What, I find puzzling is all the love for Iron Man, which I find to be vastly inferior.

  • 44 7-21-2011 at 3:54 pm

    Rashad said...

    because of a tour de force by Maguire, in-depth character development rarely seen in summer blockbusters

    What in tarnation.

    My Raimi dislike aside, how can anyone let it slide he put an elevated train right in the middle of Manhattan? You wanna make a Chicago set-piece, put it in Chicago!

  • 45 7-21-2011 at 4:19 pm

    Afrika said...

    Two words : A Mess

  • 46 7-23-2011 at 8:53 pm

    Maxim said...

    Watch this:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=G_nHhlBFs2k

    The best thing this movie has going for it is this guy.