web
counter

serial podcast / the walking dead / snl / mindhole blowers / netflix / celebrity facts / marvel


Watch the Brand-Spankin' New Trailer for 'The Amazing Spider-Man 2'

By TK | Trailers | December 5, 2013 | Comments ()


1386076949_spid.jpg

Here’s our first extended look at The Amazing-Spider-Man 2, directed by Marc Webb and starring Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, and the new villainous threats in this installment: Electro (Jamie Foxx), The Rhino (Paul Giamatti) and, of course, Norman Osborn (Chris Cooper).

Here’s the bland plot description that an intern at Sony wrote.

We’ve always known that Spider-Man’s most important battle has been within himself: the struggle between the ordinary obligations of Peter Parker and the extraordinary responsibilities of Spider-Man. But in The Amazing Spider-Man 2, Peter Parker finds that a greater conflict lies ahead. It’s great to be Spider-Man. For Peter Parker, there’s no feeling quite like swinging between skyscrapers, embracing being the hero, and spending time with Gwen. But being Spider-Man comes at a price: only Spider-Man can protect his fellow New Yorkers from the formidable villains that threaten the city. With the emergence of Electro, Peter must confront a foe far more powerful than he. And as his old friend, Harry Osborn, returns, Peter comes to realize that all of his enemies have one thing in common: OsCorp.

There’s some fun stuff in here, including what looks to be a more mechanized, hardware-oriented Rhino, and Electro actually looks pretty good. There are only a couple of glimpses of the Green Goblin, and I’m a little worried about villain overcrowding becoming an issue again. That said, there’s also a couple of geeky money shots of the Vulture’s wings and Doctor Octopus’s tentacles, which will inevitably lead to the only kind of villain overcrowding that I can get behind — the appearance of the Sinister Six in a later film, which would be just… awesome. Even if Mysterio is kind of a weaksauce dickbag (though there are plenty of potential replacements).

The chemistry between Garfield and Stone is still solid, and the addition of Chris Cooper and the very talented, kind of creepy-looking Dane DeHaan as Harry Osborn makes for another interesting family dynamic. Let’s just hope that we don’t end up with too much spectacle and not enough story.


Benedict Cumberbatch Performs a Panty-Exploding Dramatic Reading of R. Kelly's 'Genius' | SyFy Officially Gives Up: 'Legion' Gets Series Order


Are you following Pajiba on Facebook or Twitter? Every time you do, Bill Murray crashes a wedding.


Comments Are Welcome, Bigots and Trolls Are Not


  • hapl0

    You had me at the opening shot of the trailer. And how the hell did this happen again?

  • Barry

    Looks just like a videogame cutscene. Apparently CGI hasn't advanced one iota since the Raimi films, and there's a shit-ton of very mediocre work on display here. But those colors sure POP, don't they? It's also nice to see that they just finally said "fuck it" in blatantly ripping off the exact Raimi costume details. It does look better than Basketball-Man, I'll grant you that.

    I'm not an apologist for Tobey's mopey PP...certainly not for Dunst...but calling the interaction between Garfield and Stone "chemistry" is reaaaaaally stretching it.

    And that's what absolutely sucks about all this, because if the current performers were in the MARVEL film universe instead of a Sony placeholder project they'd knock it out of the damn park with ease.

  • ellie

    I loved the first one, but the only thing that's really making me want to see this is the chance to see Dane DeHaan and Andrew Garfield on the screen at the same time...

  • Dennis Albert Ramirez

    a sinister six movie would be amaaaaazing.

    i've always wanted to see comic movies be interconnected instead of standalone stories like in the books.

    that said, i never thought that would be possible and actually thought it was a terrible idea until the Avengers blew me the fuck away with all the heroes together.

    Now it's likely we will get an all-villain team up in future Spider-Man movies, which makes me want to do backflips with joy

  • BlackRabbit

    I'd agree except for the almost certain idea that they will f*ck it up. Too many baddies spoils the soup.

  • foolsage

    Good point. I'm trying to think of a movie with one hero and six or more villains, all with strong and unique personalities (as opposed to henchmen or stock villains). I can't think of any.

    I dunno though; surely it's possible to do this well, in theory.

  • rocboltin rocbolt

    Ugh, that is already too much 300 style slow motion

  • foolsage

    I disagree. Spider-man has reflexes that are far faster than our eyes can follow. So either the movies have to slow him down (thus disempowering him, literally), or they have to use slow-motion to show us how damned fast he is. I prefer the latter. Well, I suppose there's always the option of just having a red and blue blur all over the screen, but I couldn't say with any certainty that people would enjoy that. ;)

  • stryker1121

    Looks pretty cool although I too would be concerned about lots of characters, not enough characterization as we saw in Raimi's last Spidey flick. Also that last bit with Electro looked very video-gamey.

  • Ryan Ambrose

    Peter Parker will face his greatest foe to date.

    The "BRAAAAAAAAAHM!"

  • BlackRabbit

    I'm amazed no one's yet done evil musical villains with that idea. "Braaaahm, and his Wolfgang!"

  • TenaciousJP

    Dane DeHaan was great in Chronicle. The dude can do dark.

  • Guest

    Meh... I don't get the glimpse of the Vulture's and Doc Oct's gear. Does this mean their already in prison? Employees of Oscorp? Or is this just fancy super villain storage place?

    And I'm sorry I still hate the way they Master Control'ed Electro's look.

    I'll probably just stick with my Spider-Man 67 DVDs.

  • manting

    I hear that. More people die on those cartoons than in all the Spider man movies combined.

  • Guest

    I can't recall, it's still the best version of Spidey I.M.O.

    Paul Soles will always be Peter Parker to me.

    And the music:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

  • BlackRabbit

    I suppose it means they're still in the recruiting stage. Crazy flying bald seniors don't grow on trees, y'know.

  • bastich

    Wilford Brimley or GTFO:

  • Wilford Brimley's going to need about six wings to lift him off the ground.

  • Al Borland's Beard

    I thought he was playing Black Cat. They're going a new route by making her a temperamental Persian.

  • Guest

    True there, but since Ben Kingsley is the obvious choice to play the Vulture (and he's not getting any younger) they better get to him quick.

  • BlackRabbit

    If I had a time machine....Yul Brynner, bitches.

  • Guest

    F*CK NO. Brynner is in a level of AWESOME that I would never want associated with crap like this.

  • Some Guy

    I get the love for Brynner, and I'll give you that, but I've also seen Westworld, so...

  • Guest

    Yeah but was Brynner really the problem or the terrible script? Totally worth watching though.

  • BlackRabbit

    Hey, if Sam Jackson can show up in a comic book movie.....

  • Guest

    Still NO.

  • Al Borland's Beard

    What about John Malkovich?

  • Guest

    I know that was a thing, I'd just be surprised he want to do it. Guess he needs a new boat or something.

  • TK

    Oh please. Did you see Red 2? Transformers: Dark Of The Seriously, What The Fuck?

    Malkovich is only one or two films away from being the next Nic Cage.

  • Some Guy

    Or Con Air, for that matter...

  • manting

    Nick Cage and Malkovich together!

  • Guest

    I haven't seen either so can't comment on Malkovich's performance.

  • Al Borland's Beard

    I thought that's why he did 'Zombie Twilight'. This is probably for another ivory backscratcher.

  • manting

    Rob Cordry was the only good thing about Zombie Twilight

  • John W

    That header pic looks like a Nike ad.

  • bastich

    ...or the start of some disturbing Spider-Clone slash fiction.

  • This film just isn't believable. There's no way Spiderman could beat the Rhino. Giamatti goes through scenery like a knife through butter; Spiderman web wouldn't stand a chance; he'd gnash right through it.

  • NateMan

    I'd kinda love for them to kill off Peter Parker for the 3rd one - because you know for sure there will be - and for them to introduce Miles Morales. His storyline's been pretty great, they handled Parker's death in that universe so much better than they did in the main one, and it'd be great to get a black Spider-Man on film.

  • BlackRabbit

    A black, gay Spider-Man? I'd endorse it just to see the mass head explosions.

  • Al Borland's Beard

    Donald Glover! If he's unavailable, they can get his uncle Danny.

  • Forget the intern; I bet the office pot plant wrote that plot description.

  • bastich

    "Peter Parker struggles against titanic odds as Spider-Man to fight for the things he truly needs: water, sunshine, and Miracle-Gro."

  • BlackRabbit

    And his archnemesis/evil love interest, Brawndo.

  • foolsage

    Brawndo, the Thirst Mutilator: It's got what plants crave!

  • "An all-new, villain-packed adventure! All of his dastardly foes feature:
    The vicious Rhododendron!
    The elusive Ficus!
    And the Charming Potato!"

  • Strand

    It's almost like they skipped the juicy middle portion and jumped straight to the bloated 3rd act. Why do all Spider-Man villains feel the same? You have your well-meaning but corrupted scientist, the escaped convict and.. Harry Osbourne.

  • foolsage

    I think your argument is more true about comic-book villains in general than about Spider-man villains in specific. When speaking specifically about Spider-man, I think it's hard to argue that e.g. Black Cat, Venom, Kraven, and the Hobgoblin are all essentially the same. You have your thrill-seeking cat burglar, your insane alien symbiote seeking to reunite with the spider DNA, your sociopathic hunter seeking the greatest prey alive, and your mercenary soldier. Nope, not really seeing them as all alike, anymore than, say, all of Batman's villains are essentially cut from only a couple of molds. There's the lunatic with a (generally seriously overplayed) theme (and generally little in the way of comprehensible motivation), the crook with a heart of gold, and the insane cult member/ninja (or often the leader of said cult or ninja clan).

    I'm a Batman fan, just to be clear. My point wasn't that Bat-villains are poor; generally fans agree that Batman has some of the best villains out there. My point was that comic books in general rely heavily on tropes and archetypes, especially with villains. It's hard to create a wholly-new personality every week for years, I suppose, so the writers tend to rely on patterns that become easily recognized over time.

  • Strand

    I'm not a comic book guy, I've just noticed that in all these movies, the villains are all interchangeable. Is there more variety in the Spider-Man fiction? I'm sure there is, but from the Raimi and Webb movies we have Norman Osbourne, The Lizard, Doc Ock and now Electro who are all some kind of idealistic scientist who gets pushed to the brink and undergoes some Mr Hyde transformation. It's a bizarrely specific archetype they keep repeating.

  • foolsage

    I think my point above still stands. Yes, there's a certain common pool from which comic book villains tend to be chosen, and with enough experience in the genre, you can find patterns all over the place. That's not about Spider-man, so much as it's about comic books in general. You're also ignoring Harry Osborne, the Sandman, and Venom; for every example of this pattern you can find, you can also find examples that don't fit this pattern. Having said that, again, you're right: this is common. Very much so.

    Well-meaning Scientist Undergoes Monstrous Transformation! Yeah, that's a really, really common one, you're quite correct. From the Hulk to the Green Goblin to the Lizard, or on the DC side, from Swamp Thing to Poison Ivy to the Floronic Man (or even Doctor Manhattan, technically), there are a lot of these guys. They're even more common than Essentially Normal Guy Has Life Ruined By Major Corporation and Vows Revenge (the Vulture is a great example), and about as common as Minor Henchman Accidentally Gains Powers and Becomes Villain (e.g. the Sandman, Scorpion, Rhino).

  • BlackRabbit

    Well, it ain't broke.....though Kraven was a little different, hunting Spider-Man for kicks.

  • I dunno this seems way too comic-booky for my tastes. Awful lot going on. I thought the first movie was fine in a vacuum (Garfield is really good in the role) but unbelievably unnecessary. Unfortunately, this trailer reinforces the idea that the franchise is nothing more than a cash grab for Sony, IMO.

  • It seems odd to criticize a comic book movie for being 'too comic-booky.' It's like saying 'this musical has too much music in it.'

  • manting

    ok. So the Rhino is now a Dinobot and Electro is now the bad guy from the movie Shocker?

  • NateMan

    The Rhino's always been bio-mechanical in the Ultimate series, and that's been Electro's look for a while too, ever since they realized how ridiculous the green & yellow outfit looked.

  • Guest

    I've always preferred this look:

    *Which I thought totally would have worked for Giamatti. F*CK CGI. Just put him a gray leotard and a rhino helmet and let him act.

  • manting

    I honestly thought that is why they cast him. A portly stocky guy.

  • manting

    The Rhino in this is a robot with a guy in it. Thats as bio-mechanical as driving a car. Its not Electro's look, which is really good, it's that he can travel through wires like electricity, which is just like the villain from Shocker.

  • foolsage

    Electro's been able to ride on power lines for quite a while in the comics, both in the Ultimate version and the Earth-616 version.

  • manting

    yes, but not turn into electricity, disappear into power lines, and then reappear, LIKE THE VILLAIN IN SHOCKER.

  • foolsage

    Heh, no, I run a small corporation that creates devices used in cancer surgery. I just love comics and geeky stuff in general, and know far more than is good for me about all of this.

    And yes, Electro could turn into pure electricity and move along power lines in the comics at one point in the Earth-616 (i.e. mainstream) reality. Honest! Check out Amazing Spider-man #612 through 633 or so. The storyline is called "The Gauntlet".

  • manting

    wow - touche. Now comes that rarest of internet chat board phrases - you are right, I am wrong. My nerd cap is doffed to you sir.

  • Open admission: I loved the first Amazing Spider-man FAR more than I liked the Sam Raimi films. Like a lot more. I thought Andrew Garfield and the scriptwriters nailed the sarcastic teen thing that Peter Parker has going on a lot better than Tobey Maguire (theirs was TOO focused on him being a "geek" or whatever, and lost a whole lot of the humor of the comics).

    Also: mechanical web shooters, you guys.

    Also also: Sinister Six would be a CRAZY movie.

  • I saw Spiderman 2 on telly about a month ago and I must say it hasn't aged well, in my opinion. Both Peter and Mary Jo seemed way to flat, and it could just be our fatigue with the actors, but they lack the charisma of this pair. Plus, chemistry!

    Also, the bad guys are the make/break of these sorts of endeavors. I know nothing about Electro or Rhino. Electro guy shooting lightning could be exciting, but it looks a bit dull on this trailer.

  • foolsage

    I strongly agree. Garfield is a much better choice overall, and the snark and wit of Peter Parker was almost nonexistent in the Raimi films.

    Also, hell yes, Peter's a freaking genius. He's a teenage Reed Richards wannabe, dammit, not just some asshole who's strong and can climb walls. The inventor/scientist side of the character is essential; Peter's always been a nerd, not just an outsider.

    Also also, fuck yes, Sinister Six!

  • BlackRabbit

    I'm against mechanical web shooters, but I would like to see an SS movie. Be hell to do properly with so many baddies, though.

  • See I think the mechanical web shooters are kind of (somewhat) key to the character - he's not JUST some guy with powers, but a smart person on his own. He can outwit enemies, not just jizz on them and swing away.

  • BlackRabbit

    But the old argument goes: if you make something like that, why not sell it? You get to save lives, make some money, and with your powers it's not like it's gonna work on you.

  • foolsage

    Peter's deeply concerned with how power is used; it's the legacy of his Uncle Ben. Giving away the tech to make webshooters would mean arming criminals.

  • BlackRabbit

    I'd rather have a crook hold me up with a nonlethal weapon that will dissolve in an hour than a gun, personally. Besides, in theory he could sell the patent to, I dunno, SHIELD, with a promise of anonymity. He gets a fat check every week and the good(ish) guys get a new toy.

  • foolsage

    Fair point. Were this most heroes, I'd agree that your plan makes sense. This is Spidey though, and you just KNOW something would go terribly wrong if he ever gave away the webshooters' secrets, because Spidey is the living embodiment of Murphy's Law. Oscorp would manufacture vast quantities of Web-B-Gone (patent pending), and some new villain would show up using Spidey's webs as a gimmick, and, I dunno, kill Betty Brant or something, and frame Spidey for it. Cause that's how life treats Ol' Webhead.

  • Long_Pig_Tailor

    But at least within the context of these movies, he didn't invent the webbing, he simply designed the shooters. Oscorp itself (thanks to Richard Parker and Curt Connors' work) makes the webbing, so they're free to formulate some kind of neutralizing agent whenever they want (and in fact, it would make sense that they designed one before they ever began selling it in the first place). That problem is actually present here anyway.

    But, actually, it's that distinction that makes me okay with the mechanical webshooters in this series-- in terms of a "believable" movie, I think viewers could have a hang up on Peter being a ridiculously talented chemist and engineer and so on who could whip up the webbing and a device for using it from scratch, but just a really good engineer? More acceptable, and it sidesteps begging the question of why he bothers to be Spider-Man when, if he invented the webbing, he could arguably do more good by sidestepping the vigilantism route and instead manufacturing and selling the webbing in the context of an absolutely vital element of all sorts of emergency, law enforcement and search and rescue operations. The Peter Parker of the comics who invented something so amazingly, broadly useful and then kept it to himself is actually problematic, not because he's resisting becoming a mega-billionaire or something else shallow, but because, by keeping it to himself and using it to work out his guilt issues, he is, yes, saving the occasional building collapsing or falling person or nonlethally stopping a criminal, but throughout the rest of New York and the entire world, buildings are collapsing that could've been briefly stabilized (on a much larger than Spider-Man scale) to aid evacuation, falling people are simply dying (for one, consider automated webshooters mounted at suicide hotspots-- your death becomes a bungee jump), and cops are pumping people full of bullets when they could just be making them look like porn money shots and taking them to jail. It is bizarrely selfish when you apply any real logic to the problem.

    For these movies, though, he's just a guy who saw something that could be useful if he could make it work for him, and he was smart enough to build something to make that happen. The webbing can be useful in all those other contexts (even though Oscorp evidently doesn't give a shit), and Peter can be Spider-Man without being quite so huge an accidental douchebag.

  • BlackRabbit

    Also true dat. I had not considered that before.

  • BlackRabbit

    True dat.

  • foolsage

    The more I think about it, the more this sounds like a classic Spider-man plotline. Oscorp would find a way to mix Web-B-Gone into all the most common forms of paint, and one day Spidey would discover that his webs no longer stick to any buildings in New York. He'd probably fall and injure himself seriously at this point, and with any luck he'd cause a lot of property damage as he fell (for which he'd then be responsible; this would suck up all the profits from selling the web formula). Then Oscorp would make new uniforms for all the Spidey villains, and make them all web-proof as well. A horde of web-proof villains would beat the crap out of Spidey one after another, and he'd barely defeat them, growing weaker and more desperate as time passed.

    Then it'd be time for the villainous web-using Spider-mimic, the murder, and the frame-up. Good intentions lead to injury, which leads to collusion among foes, which leads to a devastating outcome for Peter: yup, that's your basic Spidey story, right there.

    In the end, Spidey would come up with a new web formula so everything could be reset to the starting conditions, naturally.

    Seriously, Spider-man has to be one of the last superheroes I'd want to switch places with.

  • BlackRabbit

    Powers-wise, yes. Life-wise, no. Not to mention selling it to the government would raise a lot of interesting questions for them and him. "Is SHIELD endorsing vigilantes?" J.K. Simmons v.s Sam Jackson shout-off!

  • Fabius_Maximus

    I wholeheartedly agree. Garfield's character is better established than Maguire's ever was.

  • Maguita NYC

    Maguire's character was one of angst and not fitting in but he seemed way too much like a grown-up instead of a self-centered highschool kid. While Garfield's was just a brat with a smart mouth to deflect being teased by others, which is more likely for he was raised by an aunt and uncle who doted on him, and were patient with his dark moods.

  • Al Borland's Beard

    Plus, Maguire has that dead-eyed stare that makes me think he could snap and murder me at any second. Him and Elijah Wood would make a great serial killer tandem.

  • Maguita NYC

    Elijah Wood would make me shit my pants in a staring contest.

    But then again, in one of the 148 hours of LOTR behind the scenes commentary (shut-up), they discussed at length how Elijah apparently is known for his unblinking wide-eyed stare and is able to keep a void look for minutes on end!

  • foolsage

    I dunno what you're talking about. There's nothing remotely unsettling about that nice young man.

    http://hdwallpapers4iphone.com...

  • Maguita NYC

    His stare is the kind that hunts nightmares.

  • Parsnip

    Haven't seen it myself, but MANIAC with Elijah Wood is supposed to be scary creepy.

  • TK

    [shudder]

  • AND Maguire's voice was so annoying.

  • TK

    I had this weird moment when I watched this trailer for the first time and Garfield started the narration, and I was like, "what the fuck? Oh shit, that's right, that whiny fucking nag Maguire is gone!"

    The more I think about it, the more I think that in time, this series may be the better-remembered Spider-Man (in no small part due to Garfield being so much better, and the horrendous memory of Raimi's third film).

  • "We’ve always known that Spider-Man’s most important battle has been within himself: the struggle between the ordinary obligations of Peter Parker and the extraordinary responsibilities of Spider-Man."

    NO ONE DENIES THIS!!

  • Can we get this printed on every poster for this film? Please?

  • Sara_Tonin00

    I...liked the music. (until the bwahms kicked in, anyway)

    I'm not a Spider-man geek - I liked Raimi's first two well enough, minus the bad cgi, but I just can't feel anything for this. Spidey stills sounds emo in his voiceover, too.

  • NateMan

    Agreed, but it kinda works because the 'Ultimate Spider-Man', the series this seems most taken from, he's definitely got a shit ton in his life that can make him pretty depressed. That said, they pulled off the wisecracking in the first ASM movie much better than Raimi did. So hopefully they continue that trend.

  • foolsage

    Spider-man, in all his incarnations, is plagued by shitty luck. Peter's life sucks, almost all of the time. He rarely gets a break. He's a nerd, he's an outsider, he struggles to put food on the table and take care of his elderly aunt, and oh yes, the media generally portray him as a criminal. That's central to the concept of Peter Parker: he's an everyman whose toast always lands butter-side down. He's the guy who always tries to do the right thing but generally doesn't get rewarded for it. Well, ok, he does have some extremely attractive girlfriends, but there are probably downsides there, too, wouldn't you expect?

    Doesn't Gwen look great in this outfit? It's memorable... iconic, you might almost say.

    http://i1.wp.com/nerdbastards....

  • Guest

    Love the stockings... But it's pretty much impossible for Emma to look bad in anything.

  • foolsage

    I can't disagree with you on that.

  • NateMan

    Aw man, if they pull him out of the Ultimate storyline to bump off Gwen I'm going to be so disappointed.

  • foolsage

    * points at outfit and says nothing *

  • NateMan

    LALALALA I'm living in denial!

  • foolsage

    I'm sure it's just a coincidence that this outfit looks so familiar to me. Yeah, that's it. Coincidence.

    :D

  • Joe Grunenwald

    Is it just me or is the kid who plays Harry Osborn kind of terrible? Maybe he's doing that on purpose.

    Also, Andrew Garfield is such a perfect Peter Parker.

  • NateMan

    He was so good in Chronicle that I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt until I actually get to see the movie. But I agree; the bit they showed didn't exactly show it off.

  • Joe Grunenwald

    Oh, was he the 'villain' in Chronicle? That makes me a bit less nervous.

  • stella

    He was amazing in Chronucle. He actually held his own against Michael B Jordan.

blog comments powered by Disqus