I look at this and think to myself, "Where's the fun?"
Another kid left with relatives riddled with parent issues. Harry Potter much?
Campbell Scott made up to be a fatherly Tobey MacGuire. Just a tad transparent.
The rooftop scenes reek of pandering to the video game crowd. Ugh.

This the best they could put together for SDCC? Ouch.
Thoughts?

E.D.

I honestly don't understand what was wrong with the old Sam Raimi / Tobey Maguire / Kirsten Dunst series...SM3 was bad, but so what? You make a stinker, you learn and move on. I really, really didn't buy into the need to reboot this.

Nolan's Batman films are good, but he has a bit to answer for. Hollywood execs act like greedy kids - they see someone else enjoying a new toy and they want exactly the same one. BB might have been lauded and TDK might have done $1bn+ worldwide, but that doesn't mean it has to be the same for every superhero. 'Dark' reboots are not a cut-and-paste recipe for success.

This was the wrong way to go with Spidey. And in 3D, too? Joy of joys.

i love spiderman. always have. probably my favorite superhero out of em all. i thought spiderman 1 was fairly good, spiderman 2 was fan-fucking-tastic, and spiderman 3 licked itsy bitsy spider balls.

therefore im kind of torn on this trailer. i like the idea of giving spidey a reboot, but is it really necessary? furthermore, the trailer didnt look like that much of a reboot. sure everythings super serious, but im not sure if that's how spiderman should be portrayed. the cast looks pretty good (emma stone is hot as ever) and the cinematography looks alright. i absolutely hate that mirror's edge shit they did at the end there however. the cgi looks just as bad as SM3 (actually i take that back) and the whole effect is simply nauseating. on the plus side, it seems more true to the comics.

who knows. maybe spiderman will throw mark zuckerberg off the empire state building. i hate to say it, but ill see it out of curiosity and fandom.

I'm not a huge Spiderman fan so I honestly can't share the same indignation as everyone else. And damned if I don't think Andrew Garfield could make a decent Peter Parker.

But overall, I think this is a mistake. Spiderman has never had a dark mythos. Maybe some dark characters but tone-wise, it's miles away from something like Batman. A "dark" reboot isn't true to the spirit of the comic.

And indeed... Thanks, Nolan. Now a movie doesn't have to be foreign for it to get remade 5-10 years after it came out. >:(

I really can't see why this is Christopher Nolans's fault or what the hell it has to do with him in any way.  

Maybe it's Marvel's fault??

Weren't the Punisher and Hulk re-booted after five minutes?

P.S. Raimi should re-boot 'Darkman'. I enjoyed that character more than most superhero's.

Nolan's Batman series is the first official reboot. Batman Begins is when they first started tossing the term around and The Dark Knight, being as successful as it was, grounded it as a bankable concept. Nolan didn't cultivate it but he planted the seed and the studios ran with it.

Honestly, I think Nolan's success, namely with Dark Knight and Inception, has had multiple effects on the industry, both good and bad.

What bad, James?

I'm not what could be considered a Nolan fanboy (however, he hasn't done a movie I haven't liked yet) but between TDK (I liked BB better, to be honest however I liked The Prestige better than both of them) and Inception, no particular bad that comes about is his fault.

Maybe it's the fault of producers who aren't willing to think outside the box. You know like how Inception had trouble getting made because they weren't willing to spend that kind of money on an idea that's not part of some pre-existing franchise.

Personally, I can name a dozen ways those two movies improved things and none that hurt things.

Just me, though.

nolan was the first to turn a comic book hero into a serious mainstream movie. batman begins wasnt a good comic book movie, it was a good action movie that was derived from a comic book. furthermore TDK really communicated the impact that a highly developed character like batman could have on mainstream audiences. it wasnt just a popcorn flick. it was a movie that really spoke to people and made them fear a villain for the first time in comic book history. but mainly, movie execs saw dollar signs. suddenly, college douchebags were sporting joker t-shirts and running around saying, "why so serious?" (even though they had no idea what the joker stood for nor his politcal implications). quite frankly, it was embarrassing for comic book geeks as their worst fears came to life. their beloved heroes were no longer theirs. so on one hand, i hate nolan. but on the other, you have to recognize his achievements.

anyways, i bring it up, because now other movie execs are replicating the formula. if they can reintroduce a series, then they can reintroduce new merchandise. new toys, new tshirts, etc etc. if TDK is what the people want (and what theyre buying), then that's what they'll give them...again and again and again.

personally, i wish comic book movies evolved into films which felt more like a comic books. fuck this real life bullshit. as shitty as it was, i was impressed by ang lee's the hulk because it looked and felt like a comic book. i think that's why i love sin city so much...because it's literally taken right from the graphic novel frame for frame. you can stick with the comic book formula and still make it unique and awesome (ie spiderman 2). then again, you can also make some turds (ie green latern)

so we can't blame nolan for what he did. he did something no one else did in the past. he raised comic book films to a whole new level. but its unfortunate because now it will be copied and pasted until we no longer buy their movie tickets and lunchboxes.

The "reboot" thing is the bad. Only time will tell but so far, we can essentially assume we'll see any given franchise played out twice. It's a disconcerting thought; not every director is Nolan. I can't see the same amount of quality coming from a stable of directors-for-hire.

What I do think Nolan has ushered in is a tolerance for intelligence. Not so much a resurgence but it's progress. Source Code is a good example. Not a great film. It still had a lot of Hollywood shenanigans at play, at least to me. But it wasn't a stupid movie and it was original.

But in the case of Batman, a reboot was a good thing, James. Did we really want that series to end on the Akiva Goldsman double suckfest known as Batman Forever and Batman & Robin. Granted, ending it on Batman Returns wouldn't have been such a high note either because of how (almost unlikeably) dark and unpleasant it was. And, yes, we'll sees endless amounts of reboots now and yes, overall, it'll be a bad thing. But, sometimes, things need to be re-done and if it was done awful the first time, odds are it has a shot at being done less bad the second time. And, I can't, either. Very few people are Christopher Nolan (or Jonathan Nolan, in that case) and it's a damned shame.

Tolerance was an amazing choice of words, James. We tolerate intelligence. We don't go to see it intentionally but if it's there, we will accept it. It's funny you mention Source Code. I wasn't the least bit interested in it, from the trailers but I saw it and thought it wasn't too shabby (although I can't understand why Jeffrey Wright was overacting the way he was) but the third act went, if you'll pardon the pun, off the rails and almost ruined it. It did sort of feel like Deja Vu, though, throughout and I was a little bothered by that, but there's certain things you can let go when watching a movie. =)

i think time should be taken in consideration, batman begins was made 8 years after batman and robin. this new spiderman reboot is being made 4 years after spiderman 3. it might indicative of the way movie execs are rushing reboots...

Quoted from Mr. Blonde But in the case of Batman, a reboot was a good thing, James. Did we really want that series to end on the Akiva Goldsman double suckfest known as Batman Forever and Batman & Robin. Granted, ending it on Batman Returns wouldn't have been such a high note either because of how (almost unlikeably) dark and unpleasant it was. And, yes, we'll sees endless amounts of reboots now and yes, overall, it'll be a bad thing. But, sometimes, things need to be re-done and if it was done awful the first time, odds are it has a shot at being done less bad the second time. And, I can't, either. Very few people are Christopher Nolan (or Jonathan Nolan, in that case) and it's a damned shame.

Agreed.

As trendy as it sounds, I think The Dark Knight is the definitive Batman film and it was without question the right thing to reboot the series. Batman & Robin was an abomination and a milestone in bad filmmaking.

The only problem with what you're saying is something it seems you already realize; it's true in theory, not in practice. Same goes for remakes. Some things are worth salvaging. But how often does Hollywood pick the ones that are and more importantly, how often do they get it right?

Quoted from albinopenguin i think time should be taken in consideration, batman begins was made 8 years after batman and robin. this new spiderman reboot is being made 4 years after spiderman 3. it might indicative of the way movie execs are rushing reboots...

Good call. Studios don't waste any time. But since when has finesse ever been their style?

Quoted from JonnyBoy I honestly don't understand what was wrong with the old Sam Raimi / Tobey Maguire / Kirsten Dunst series...SM3 was bad, but so what? You make a stinker, you learn and move on. I really, really didn't buy into the need to reboot this.

The scuttlebutt was that contract negotiations became too cost prohibitive.
Salaries had to be renegotiated after the "trilogy" deal expired.
Everyone wanted A++ salaries down the line of cast and Raimi.

Keep in mind that Marvel franchise rights revert back to the family next year.
If a studio did not rush into production, they would lose the rights they paid for.

So bye bye costly franchise.
Hello cost friendly reboot.

E.D.

Quoted from Electric Dreamer The scuttlebutt was that contract negotiations became too cost prohibitive. Salaries had to be renegotiated after the "trilogy" deal expired. Everyone wanted A++ salaries down the line of cast and Raimi. Keep in mind that Marvel franchise rights revert back to the family next year. If a studio did not rush into production, they would lose the rights they paid for. So bye bye costly franchise. Hello cost friendly reboot. E.D.

Hmph. :)

Quoted from James McClung The only problem with what you're saying is something it seems you already realize; it's true in theory, not in practice. Same goes for remakes. Some things are worth salvaging. But how often does Hollywood pick the ones that are and more importantly, how often do they get it right?

Yes, it is true in theory and no, it's not usually done right in practice. The best example of those types of clusterfucks are video game movies. You look at a couple of them and you think, "How did they fuck that up?"

As for your second half, I'll guesstimate about 1 out of 10, give or take. Of course, if it weren't for Platinum Dunes, that number would be a little more friendly, like 1 out of 7... =)

Quoted from JonnyBoy Hmph. :)

Granted, that's all piecemeal conjecture and hearsay.
I'm spitballing as to how it all played out.
Though I recall rumors that Raimi wanted $25 million to sit in the director's chair again.
Not to mention eight figure price tags for Peter and Mary Jane.
Then that pesky James Franco went and got all popular too. ;D

E.D.

Quoted from Mr. Blonde What bad, James? I'm not what could be considered a Nolan fanboy (however, he hasn't done a movie I haven't liked yet) but between TDK (I liked BB better, to be honest however I liked The Prestige better than both of them) and Inception, no particular bad that comes about is his fault.

"Dark and gritty."

The above trailer makes it pretty clear that this is an attempt to pull off another "dark and gritty reboot" in the vein of Batman Begins.  Obviously, Nolan is not the only person pushing the "dark and gritty" style, and obviously in the case of Batman, it fits fine.

But it doesn't fit Spiderman.  In my opinion, it doesn't fit most movies.  I don't think it's Nolan's "fault," per se, but he did define a standard for blockbuster entertainment that Hollywood's trying to push, and that generally affects movies negatively.

Not a massive fan of the Spiderman trilogy movies, never could buy into the lead actor and was constantly stunned by how acclaimed the two film were at the time. I watched them a few times and just failed to get what eveyone was raving about.

Mind you, I'm set on SpiderMan Vs The Dragon's Lair or some straight to VHS crap like that so thats my childhood ( and stuck) mindset on Spides. My taste is not exactly worth much. :)

It just looks like a Batman Begins clone in tone of the trailer.  Batman works with "dark" - that's it's whole thing. Superman and Spiderman - different works of art which these movie companys seem oblivious to.

I'll give it the benefit of the doubt though. "Dark Spiderman" might be better than "Emo Spiderman".

I never quite liked the Spider-Man films. They could never grab my interest to its fullest, really. I think this has the potential to become a better franchise than the last, even though I don't like some of the casting (still not sold on the new Peter/Emma Stone would be a better Mary Jane than Gwen.)

But I like the decision to introduce Gwen as Parker's original love interest -- the way it should be.

And complain about the "video-game camera" all you want (I don't think it'll be used in the actual film, anyway) but it still looks ten times better than any special effect in the original trilogy, which was usually a blur of obvious half-assed computer effects (particularly the opening fight in Spidey 3 -- painful). Hell, Spider-Man himself looked terrible and fake in every moment in the original trilogy.

I don't know -- my feelings are mixed, but I think this one's shaping up decently; then again, I never quite cared for the original trilogy.

--Julio

Quoted from Heretic "Dark and gritty." The above trailer makes it pretty clear that this is an attempt to pull off another "dark and gritty reboot" in the vein of Batman Begins.  Obviously, Nolan is not the only person pushing the "dark and gritty" style, and obviously in the case of Batman, it fits fine. But it doesn't fit Spiderman.  In my opinion, it doesn't fit most movies.  I don't think it's Nolan's "fault," per se, but he did define a standard for blockbuster entertainment that Hollywood's trying to push, and that generally affects movies negatively.

I understand that, Heretic, but what I was saying was, it's not his fault that they're trying to make a "dark and gritty" Spiderman. I mean, should they (C. Nolan/J. Nolan/Goyer) have written poorly done, comical Batman movies, in the vein of Batman & Robin so that the Hollywood execs wouldn't do the same style for the Spiderman reboot?

That's why I keep saying, yes, he did that style, but it's not his fault that everyone else is doing it now. That falls on the producers who are wanting drafts of comic book scripts that are all like that, now, not on the writers of one particular series.

Once the reboot had been commissioned, it had to go in some other direction or it's just a rehash. I'm not sure that this theory that 'dark and gritty' is in vogue for comic book movies is true - it's certainly not prevailing in this year's offerings.

While the trailer isn't perfect, I do think it's promising, and I agree that Garfield is a great choice for the part. Marc Webb did some good work bringing a relatively fresh angle with 500 Days, so he's shown he can subvert the natural fit - I see no reason why he cannot do the same here.