Andrew Garfield in "The Amazing Spider-Man", First trailer released Options

[Mister R]

I don't get why people keep mentioning that...

Because he's a real person and real people have weight and density.

Nice to see you only read parts of my comments, I explained what I meant. Weak Mr R, weak.

You complained that a film called The Amazing Spiderman was written around the title character and the actor playing him. I'd agree that the supporting cast could have been better utilised but to moan that the film is focused on the hero its named for is ridiculous.

Where is the point then?

To make entertaining and enjoyable films. The point of films isn't to break the mould but to entertain.

Then again films like X-Men First Class, Thor, Iron Men and Avengers (if you wish so), show that it's still very much possible to make an interesting and enjoyable super hero flick. Maybe not bringing something new to the table entirely but at least mix things up a bit.

And The Amazing Spiderman does that. To argue that its the same as the previous Spiderman entries is unfair. They have (inevitable) crossovers but new elements are in the mix.

Disagree on your last point Mister R. While of course it would be hard to produce a Superhero film that is revolutionary and fresh, it's not impossible. Marvel Studios, having created four separate successful franchises. Managed to bring them together for a team film, which was both critically and financially a massive hit. What they achieved was pretty ground breaking when it comes to Superheroes films and unprecedented for the medium. Definitely something new. It has certainly forced it's rival, DC and Warner Bros to reconsider their Superhero franchise and notched up the expectations from the audience hereafter. Least we forget the success of the Dark Knight, I'd argue that was a pretty much redesigning the wheel moment, if not a massive innovation.

The Dark Knight (or more accurately Batman Begins) is not a revolutionary moment in cinema.

The Marvel Studios stuff isn't particularly revolutionary ever. The individual films haven't redesigned the wheel and whilst The Avengers combines characters from different films (which isn't exactly the world's most ground breaking moment) its hardly a ground breaking film.

[Astron]

Because he's a real person

He's not.

You complained that a film called The Amazing Spiderman was written around the title character and the actor playing him. I'd agree that the supporting cast could have been better utilised but to moan that the film is focused on the hero its named for is ridiculous.

No, not if as you just said, the main character is all you see and side characters are underused. Also I specifically said it was written around Andrew not Spiderman, as I explained later on I have the strong feeling the main point was to create a new heartthrob.
Maybe they thought Girls are the untapped audience for Superhero flicks.

[atticus]

Re-watched the Raimi movies over the last week.

The Doc Oc / Spidey fight on the subway imo looks better than anything in the new one so I'm still going to go with fairly poor cgi and action sequences.

Spider-Man 3 is still terrible though

And even though I love me some comic books and the plot of Amazing Spider-Man is very comic book and has actually been in the comic books. Lizard's plan to turn everyone into lizards is just ... kinda crappy.

As for Spider-Man's movements. There is certainly weight to them now but it looks slow and sluggish in parts. After hearing Andrew Garfield describe how he tried to mimic the body language of a Spider, I just don't see it. It looks well but he just looks like a fairly nifty gymnast The light and speedy movements of Raimi' Spidey seem more "Amazing" to me.

[Jonnycondom]

This whole discussion of films being groundbreaking or revolutionary is silly, since when does a film do either of those things in our time?

Apart from Katy Perry 3d.

[Astron]

The first Spiderman was groundbreaking in the way that (together with X-Men) they started the Super Hero Flick boom that still holds to this day.

[Mister R]

The first Spiderman was groundbreaking in the way that (together with X-Men) they started the Super Hero Flick boom that still holds to this day.

No it/they didn't.

This post has been edited by Mister R: Jul 15 2012, 21:43

[Nexus]

The Dark Knight (or more accurately Batman Begins) is not a revolutionary moment in cinema.

The Marvel Studios stuff isn't particularly revolutionary ever. The individual films haven't redesigned the wheel and whilst The Avengers combines characters from different films (which isn't exactly the world's most ground breaking moment) its hardly a ground breaking film.

I agree on the new Batman films.
Nolan's reboot got a lot of extra credit simply for 'undoing' the damage from whatshisname that did those last two.
And Dark Knight got even more quality-unrelated credit due to dead star appeal.
Neither movie was all that special.

And while I can agree that the Marvel films individually aren't that special (though I still like Cap Am and Thor quite a bit), I have to disagree on the Avengers. It wasn't a flawless movie or anything, but it was indeed ground breaking for managing to bring together all those seperate franchises. When has a movie ever done that before?

This post has been edited by Nexus: Jul 15 2012, 21:50

[Astron]

No it/they didn't.

Yeah whatever.

This post has been edited by Astron: Jul 15 2012, 21:52

[Mister R]

I have to disagree on the Avengers. It wasn't a flawless movie or anything, but it was indeed ground breaking for managing to bring together all those seperate franchises. When has a movie ever done that before?

And when is any other film going to repeat it? Maybe a Justice League film. Its not created a new model that anyone else is really going to follow. Plus I'm not convinced that just a mash-up of different characters is that ground breaking in and of itself. Doing it well might be but that's another issue...

Yeah whatever.

Yes lets ignore Superman that was released in 1978 and Batman released in 1989. Not to mention the likes of Darkman, Spawn, The Mask, Ninja Turtles, Judge Dredd, The Shadow, Mystery Men and Blade all of which were released before X-Men and Spiderman. And that's only counting super heroes based on comic books.

For what its worth Blade was much more important in kick starting the current boom than X-Men or Spiderman.

[Nexus]

I have to disagree on the Avengers. It wasn't a flawless movie or anything, but it was indeed ground breaking for managing to bring together all those seperate franchises. When has a movie ever done that before?

And when is any other film going to repeat it? Maybe a Justice League film. Its not created a new model that anyone else is really going to follow. Plus I'm not convinced that just a mash-up of different characters is that ground breaking in and of itself. Doing it well might be but that's another issue...

Nowhere in the definition of ground breaking does it say that others have to emulate/copy what has been done.
Nor that it should be done well. Though that is purely your opinion on the matter.

[Astron]

I never said it was the first Super Hero movie and most of the films you mentioned where total flops or are decades old.
Blade isn't really a Super Hero flick and also hardly anyone even knows it's based on a comic. You can't compare him to Superman or Batman at all.

I knew you were gonna come with something like that hence I rewrote my inital comment (Yes it did) and went with whatever.
Lets leave it at that.

I have to disagree on the Avengers. It wasn't a flawless movie or anything, but it was indeed ground breaking for managing to bring together all those seperate franchises. When has a movie ever done that before?

And when is any other film going to repeat it? Maybe a Justice League film. Its not created a new model that anyone else is really going to follow. Plus I'm not convinced that just a mash-up of different characters is that ground breaking in and of itself. Doing it well might be but that's another issue...

Nowhere in the definition of ground breaking does it say that others have to emulate/copy what has been done.
Nor that it should be done well. Though that is purely your opinion on the matter.

Isn't Marvel itself already working on another Super Hero Team flick? I'm pretty sure someone somebody in this thread opened a topic about that just the other day. Who was that again?

This post has been edited by Astron: Jul 15 2012, 22:12

[Mister R]

Nowhere in the definition of ground breaking does it say that others have to emulate/copy what has been done.
Nor that it should be done well. Though that is purely your opinion on the matter.

Words like revolutionary etc. have been thrown around as well.

Additionally character mash-ups aren't ground breaking. Hollywood (amongst others) have been doing it for years. My point was that arguably The Avengers is the first one that's done it well (also on a major scale) so maybe that's a little bit ground breaking.

I never said it was the first Super Hero movie and most of the films you mentioned where total flops or are decades old.

No you said that two films made decades after Hollywood started making super hero films were responsible for Hollywood making super hero films.

Blade isn't really a Super Hero flick and also hardly anyone even knows it's based on a comic. You can't compare him to Superman or Batman at all.

That people don't know its based on a comic book really doesn't matter. And Blade saves the world using what are effectively super powers that's pretty super hero.

Isn't Marvel itself already working on another Super Hero Team flick? I'm pretty sure someone somebody in this thread opened a topic about that just the other day. Who was that again?

We've also had X-Men and Fantastic Four amongst others. The problem is that we weren't talking about The Avengers being a super hero team flick but the way it combined different franchises/established characters.

[Nexus]

Isn't Marvel itself already working on another Super Hero Team flick? I'm pretty sure someone somebody in this thread opened a topic about that just the other day. Who was that again?

Do you mean Guardians of the Galaxy?
That's a bit diferent.
The groundbreaking thing about Avengers isn't that it's a team film (there's been plenty of those), but that it took several movie franchises and combined them together.
An equivalent (but for television) would be if they made a new Star Trek TV series that combined characters from TNG, DS9 and Voyager (and possibly a time displaced TOSer).

[Astron]

No you said that two films made decades after Hollywood started making super hero films were responsible for Hollywood making super hero films.

Is that what I said. I don't think so.

I still think Avengers will open the door for more super hero team flicks, mark my words.

[Nexus]

No you said that two films made decades after Hollywood started making super hero films were responsible for Hollywood making super hero films.

Is that what I said. I don't think so.

I still think Avengers will open the door for more super hero team flicks, mark my words.

Well that much speaks for itself. Studios are automatically going to want to replicate that formula.
It just wasn't what we were talking about.

[Unilad]

To the people have seen the film, you know the right sequences in between Spider-Man and Lizard in the high school? EVERYTHING was completely CGI, chairs, walls, lightning and etc.