Yes, No, Maybe So: "The Amazing Spider-Man"
Tuesday, February 7, 2012 at 7:16PM Well, look what we have here. A new Spider-Man suit (and trailer). It's very shiny so that our friendly neighborhood do-gooder doesn't get run over at night. With 147 days until web-slinging commences its time to break this down with our patented Yes, No, Maybe So™ system.
When I put you on, no one will know I'm not Tobey Maguire
YES
There are various moments within the trailer that get at Peter Parker's intelligence and especially his sense of humor that, let's be honest, the Sam Raimi films kind of skimped on despite their excellence. "You seriously think I'm a cop in a skin tight red and blue suit?"
Love the idea of Spider-Man using his web as a floor to infiltrate a building. You have to keep these things clever since we've seen them so many times.
"I'm in trouble." Casting Emma Stone as Gwen Stacey is a smart move. She's always relatable even in crazy circumstances like "my boyfriend is a webslinging superhero battling a mutated amphibian-man."
Only one villain? And one we haven't yet seen in the Spider-Man films? Such a surprise blessing from Overkill Friendly Hollywood.
MAYBE SO
Apart from Spidey's acrobatic flipping about the trailer doesn't give much of a real sense of exciting action sequences -- and certainly contains nothing as surprisingly fun as the POV shot in the first trailer. Though I do like the shot of the Lizard's tail about to grab Spider-Man. Isn't his Spider Sense tingling? Or doesn't he have that in this movie?
NO
From The Social Network to the World's Greatest Web Designer
I preferred webbing being part of his mutation. It made the whole adolescent 'what is happening to my body?' thing more hilariously metaphoric.
The Lizard looks kind of CGI weightless. Not that far removed from The Sandman in the last film, right?
As much as Spider-Man, Emma and Andrew are separately great things... it will have to be "A" level execution to justify its existence given that Sam Raimi's first two absolutely terrific Spider-Man films are hardly distant memories. (Let's just pretend #3 didn't exist? Please and thanks)
That big action bit at the end, I think is meant to get you excited about the 3D? I'm never excited about 3D. Especially since the chunks of buildings falling at you from above 3D thing is already excessively familiar from the latest Transformers movie and Transformers Jr, Battleship.
The Trailer... Not in 3D unless you do some fancy darting about on your own to and from your screen while you watch it.
Are you a yes, no, or maybe so? And for which parts?
Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Spider-Man, Yes No Maybe So, remakes, superheroes
Reader Comments (19)
Maybe so. Probably a yes, if only for Emma Stone.
Yes! For Emma Stone and Andrew Garfield. With any other young duo in the leads, I would be a No to Maybe So.
It would have to be Twilight-levels of suckitude for me not to see it... in theaters. And even if it IS that bad, which I highly doubt, I'll still see it on DVD. Basically, I'm part of the problem. Damn you, Hollywood!
Definitely Yes. Wasn't too keen on this reboot beforehand but I had a chance to see this trailer in 3D - looks great - as well as little bit of footage at the Untold Story Event at Union Square yesterday and it definitely changed my perspective. It may not top Spider-Man 2 but I think it has the potential to be a worthy chapter in the franchise.
The Sam Raimi movies never touched upon Peter's parents, so that's interesting, and the trailer didn't really give me the impression that this was an origin story. The only thing that tells me this might be an origin story is that Uncle Ben is still alive, but otherwise this looks promising, something different to the Sam Raimi films. I've been excited for this ever since Andrew Garfield blew me away in The Social Network, and I've loved Emma Stone since Superbad, so I'm definitely interested in this.
I skipped the latest X-Men and that had Fassy and James McAvoy in homoerotic tension, so it's going to take a lot, lot, lot for me to support this and not just wait for Netflix. We've gotta have a stand at some point when it comes to remake after remake, even when the latest edition is as appetizing as Emma Stone and Andy Garfield (in spandex).
I'm tired of super-hero movies. My shame compels me to admit that if I do see it, it will be because there are lots of shots of Andrew Garfield's ass in the suit.
I have to say "No." There is absolutely no justifiable reason for a reboot so soon after the original movies. And I don't get Garfield at all. Yuck.
It looks fine, but I'm not even the slightest bit interested in seeing another Spider Man movie. I'd honestly would have rather seen Raimi come back and try to right the ship, Spider Man 3 wasn't good but it wasn't a Batman and Robin type disaster. The franchise was salvageable. After Batman Begins it seems like studios now think if something doesn't work out they need to just toss out everything and start over again.
I LOOOOVVVEEE Andrew Garfield so much, and in general I'm all for anything that helps his career viability. He's my favorite actor near my age, and he needs to play me in The Ole Marsha Story.
That said, I think this may be the Titanic of these overpriced superhero movies. And not the movie Titanic! The ship that sinks TItanic! It's not just too much Spider-man; it's too much of these superhero origin with misunderstanding parents and ungrateful public stories, and at some point even the public's going to tire of them. I think this is the time; I just hope Andrew gets off w/ his career intact.
I'm actually not a big fan of the Raimi Spider Man movies and hopefully this new reboot will take the comic franchise more seriously.
I love Sam Raimi, but the surreal humor of Evil Dead/Army of Darkness is not what I personally want in an iconic comic book movie like Spider Man. I feel the same way about both Tim Burton (yes I said it!) and Joel Schumacher who made comic book movies that felt like fantasy land.
Growing up reading comics, I much prefer movies that take comic stories more seriously and make them feel more realistic. I think X-Men (Not #3 of course) and the new Batman movie franchises do a much better job at this and I hope the new Spider-Man movie will do the same.
Oh I am so sick of these pricy comic book "reboots" - the Sam Raimi films were just a few years ago! Is there really that much demand?
And Garfield seems a little too cool and too handsome for Parker even in this trailer - Parker was a nerd, a nebbish, remember? This Peter Parker would have girls hanging all over his arm in hig school. And this is just too too "operatic" - "Spiderman Begins" instead of Batman begins. The comic was intended as being about an ordinary guy in ordinary circumstances - has trouble paying the rent, etc- in the real world, but in a super-hero setting (rather than the heroes who come from another planet or have tons of money to finance what they do, etc.)
You didn't mention Nat the reappearance of the father. Granted, I like Bill Nighy, but weren't Peter's parents dead in the story? This is looking an awful lot like Ang Lee's reinterpretation of The Hulk in some ways, with the father story - and remember how well that one went down?
Enh. If the reviews are stellar and there's nothing else out at that time, I'll see it. Otherwise, I'm just superheroed out. I like the cast, but I didn't even see the Raimi Spiderman films in theaters. Just not my thing, I guess.
Yes:
- They're getting at the sense of humour.
- The costume looks like the materials are cheaper. More plausible a working class guy could maintain it as opposed to the glossily Hollywood contraption from the first film.
- Interesting use of abilities.
- Going back to mechanical web shooters. As much as the organic web shooters are great as a hilarious metaphor, they also sucked out almost all of the tension from the action scenes due to him having an infinite amount of webs.
- New villain.
- Emma Stone and Andrew Garfield. Well played casting.
- Possibly setting up the "his parents were spies" story for the sequel.
Maybe so:
- Denis Leary as Captain George Stacy. On the one hand, he could be develop a great comedic rapport with Spider-Man, but it also, unfortunately, means Doctor Octopus might repeat in the second or third film of this franchise.
- No J Jonah Jameson. On the one hand, he''s a kind of annoying 40s newsman type who doesn't belong in a modern film, but on the other it raises the question of how Peter earns money if Uncle Ben dies in the film.
- The amount of character descriptions and details in the reports lead me to believe this might be pushing 2 1/2 hours. Will this be good enough to hold audiences that long?
No:
- Nothing I'm unequivocally against that I see in the trailer or read in the news reports.
Timothy, ditto.
Marsha -- i think you need to check your biological clock. You were rackingg up Oscar nominations before Andrew was even born! ;)
Movie Raiders: I'm with you on not liking them. Spidey was mostly a humourless stick in the mud and, though you can imagine the costume looks like whatever you want in animation, in live action the end result was, for me, a little too glossy and Hollywood in the first films. And the fact that having, theoretically, infinite webs left the action scenes as boring acrobatics showcases with no source of genuine tension. Some complain about how much "cheaper" the costume looks, and I agree with them on it looking cheap, but I've already mentioned that I think it looks much more plausible for Spider-Man and is, thus, a GOOD THING.
Looks like another fun action blockbuster. Getting cautiously optimistic that this might be a fun summer at the movies for a change.
Nathaniel -- Busted! And I thought I looked so good for my age! Maybe only applying for Amanda Seyfried roles is holding me back!