Pajiba

Enough words have been ejaculated all over how ludicrously quickly this reboot has been made. I just hope I live long enough to see Hollywood rupture a hole in space time by remaking a film that hasn’t even been released yet.

‘You laughed and you cried the first time you didn’t see it yet! Now, from the soon-to-be conceived son of that director who hasn’t made that film you probably loved comes the long-awaited reimagining of ‘Danger Struck’!

Starring Mark Wahlberg’s grandfather, and the Remnants Of A Supernova That’ll Soon Make Up A Planet That’ll Eventually Harbour Life Forms That’ll Create The Concept Of ‘Actors’ And Then Call One Of Them Jude Law, it’s the must see event of the summer!

Coming after all cinemas have become shelters to a cinema near you!
Danger Struck!’

I agree, it does look interesting. Not what I was expecting...

Hopefully when I see it I won't feel like 'haven't I already seen this movie?'

Part of the reason why the Spider-Man movie series is getting the unnecessary re-boot is simply due to one reason and one reason alone.

Ten years ago Marvel was content simply selling off the movie rights to each individual character to different movie studios and let them have their own takes on them. The only rule was that other characters couldn't be featured or mentioned in the other productions. So for example even though Spider-Man, Daredevil and Fantastic Four are all based in NYC and share supporting characters, in each movie they are the lone hero in their movie universe.

This changed a few years ago with Marvel now going into co-ownership with Disney and having their characters produced under the new Marvel Entertainment movie tent in much the same way Warner Bros. and DC exclusively make productions on DC characters. The results being movies that interact and making a project like The Mighty Avengers possible. It would also mean that Marvel would not have to share profits with middle-man studios so they would have a much larger share of the money generated. As for characters that they previous sold the rights off to, the studios that had the rights could still hold onto them, provided that they still used them on a regular basis. If they stopped making movies based on the characters they had, the rights reverted back to Marvel for them to use exclusively as they saw fit.

So basically this Spider-Man movie is being done by Sony perhaps solely to retain the lucrative rights on the character they already have. If they didn't relase a movie by 2012, the rights would revert back to Marvel. Even if it turns out to be a half-assed effort, the money invested will still give them a return. And if it bombs, they'll simply reboot it again.

It's not the first time such a maneuver has been done. Some of you might remember a the low-budgeted and craptacular Fantastic Four movie that was produced in 1994 by Roger Corman for Constantin Film that was never released. It was never intended to be released either. It's main purpose was simply to retain the rights on the characters the studio already had. It worked. They were able to retain the rights on the characters and were responsible for the the two FF movies made in the decade following which netting them more than $100 million.

In a related note, WB/DC Comics main motivation for making the Superman: Man of Steel movie isn't so much to make profits but because of a court ruling where if they didn't at least start making a movie about Superman by the end of 2011 much of the rights and profits of the character would revert back to the families of the creators of Superman.

So while yes, a profitable movie would always be welcome, it's just as much about holding onto the rights of the characters for future investments. So if you fanboys/girls ever feel like you're being screwed over, just to let you know, often you are.

Dang it. I know the studios were mercenary moneygrubbers, but to find out they're über mercenary moneygrubbers is oddly disgruntling. Just when I thought I couldn't get more cycicyl, bleujayone leaves a comment.

Looks, sounds and feels better than Spider-Man 3. I'm in.

It’s helped, of course, by a cast that’s as strong as Raimi’s original, if not stronger in some parts.

For real though:
Andrew Garfield>Tobey
Emma Stone>Kirsten Dunst
Martin Sheen>Cliff Robertson (in that role)
Dafoe sliiiiiiight edge over Rhys Ifans
Plus Dennis Leary.

I'm in.

Okay, I was leery of a Spider-Man reboot, but this trailer has me sold even if Peter Parker has STOOPID HAIR.

Seriously, I thought nothing could look worse than the emo bangs from the third movie. I was wrong. At least there's no dancing.

Yeah. I'm down.

Not to burst your bubble Robert but the Spidey of the comics has been listed (1990 Impel Trading card series) as being 5'11". So Garfield might have the look.

ok, I'm sold. I didn't like Tobey Maguire's version anyway. Am I the only one unimpressed with his acting "skills"?

The Incredible Hulk lacked a talented director and a decent writer so I'm going to say that The Amazing Spider-Man is going to be a whole lot better than that BS.

The average height of a US male is 5'10" so he's not exactly a towering behemoth. I think they're depending on the lankiness Barry mentioned to make him look younger than he actually is. (28)

I am not a rabid spidey fan of old, but it bothers me how easily and often he seems to get unmasked in the movies. It's like Peter really wants everyone to know it is him under the mask, and he gets it torn off as early as he can in any fight he ends up in. Spidey, maybe use some of that webbing to hold your damn mask in place. I know that supposedly we movie goers won't watch a movie where the character's face isn't seen or some such BS, but it really messes things up when everyone knows who Spidey is. You end up having to make a deal with the devil and having everyone in the worlds mind erased. On the plus side....you do end up ditching the ball and chain and start hooking up with other women again, so I guess there is that....

I'll open with a disclaimer. I'm a mild spider man geek. Mild enough that I thought the "One More Day" story arc ranks up there with some of the worst war crimes in history and I will not rest until Quesada is brought in front of a firing squad to pay for his crimes against humanity. And yes, we'll be starting with shots to the groin.

That said, I'll go see this movie. I saw Spider Man 3 (I blame Quesada for that too.)for gods sake. I'll see this one. I think it looks good. New Spidey looks like a bit of a dork, and Peter Parker was a bit of a dork. It works. I like Dennis Leary. I like seeing the spider sense just helping him dodge bullets with out the slow motion "oooooh the spider sense is working" crap.

That said, I will be rather cross if anyone but J.K. Simmons plays J. Jonah Jameson. Very cross. Possibly irate. I will also be horribly surprised if "I'm all out of web fluid!!" doesn't play a pivotal part in a scene. Possible the scene where he is unmasked.

I really want to be interested, but I just don't see it. Seems like a slightly duller take on the same material. Garfield doesn't do much for me, and the police-hunt-for-Spidey idea is yoinked straight from The Dark Knight. "Too soon", on so many fronts.

Oh, and Raimi's organic web shooters were a damn smart move - giving Spider-Man an ability some spiders actually have!

"That said, I will be rather cross if anyone but J.K. Simmons plays J. Jonah Jameson."

Prepare to be irked, as all reports suggest this flick is 100% Jameson-free.

"That said, I will be rather cross if anyone but J.K. Simmons plays J. Jonah Jameson."

"Prepare to be irked, as all reports suggest this flick is 100% Jameson-free."

actually, that would meet the criteria - no one else would be playing JJ.

as for the fanboy reaction, they are all pissed that the Lizard doesn't have a snout (thus looking more like Croc from Batman).

a big problem with Spiderman as a film concept is the story line (high school kid as hero, smartass comments creating a humorous tone) doesn't mesh with the archetype Hollywood assumes for superhero movies (brooding tall & handsome struggles with what it means to be extraordinary). thus, we get inconsistent depictions (Tobey's nerd/emo schizoid issues). Batman is dark. Spiderman is meant to be funny.

on a final note, Incredible Hulk smash Hulk: the CGI was superior and Norton acted rings around Bana in terms of the role they were playing.

This is no fucking way looks good.