Emma Stone to Play Gwen Stacy in Spider-Man!
Posted: Wed, 6th Oct 2010, 3:22am
Post 1 of 58
Emma Stone(ZOMBIELAND, SUPERBAD)has been cast as the female lead in the upcoming Spider-Man film film from Columbia Pictures and Marvel Studios, it was announced today by Amy Pascal, co-chairman of Sony Pictures Entertainment and Matt Tolmach, president of Columbia Pictures. Stone has been tapped for the role of Gwen Stacy opposite Andrew Garfield as Peter Parker. The film, to be directed by Marc Webb from a screenplay by James Vanderbilt and produced by Avi Arad and Laura Ziskin, will begin production in December and will be released in theaters nationwide in 3D on July 3, 2012.
FULL ARTICLE HERE:http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=70384
Posted: Wed, 6th Oct 2010, 4:42am
Post 2 of 58
ALL OF THAT SOUNDS AWESOME. Emma Stone rules, loved Garfield in Social Network, adored 500 Days of Summer, and Vanderbilt did good on Zodiac and proved he can do fun movies with Losers. Going to watch this a lot more closely now.
Posted: Wed, 6th Oct 2010, 3:46pm
Post 3 of 58
So from what I've been gathering online it seems that Emma Stone is considered as 'Hot' by the general population, but I'm just not feeling it. So when you guys think of Hot chicks, does she come to mind?
BTW isn't the new Spiderman movies supposed to be in high school? If so why are they casting her? She already looked too old in Easy A, and will only look older as time goes by.
Posted: Wed, 6th Oct 2010, 4:11pm
Post 4 of 58
Looked too old in Easy A? She's one of the only popular actresses left who is actually very close in age to high school still.
And I agree, she's not very attractive/has some harsh features- but she's also got a really likable personality and essence to her, and that'll make her good for the film.
As for Andrew Garfield, as much disdain as I have for this reboot, I absolutely can't get enough of him. He was clearly the standout of The Social Network with a pathetic naivety accompanying his otherwise quick wit, and I think this will be important to Peter Parker. He's 26 or so himself, and the film is taking place in college. Which sucks, as that sort of (well, no, completely) destroys the guise of a point that rebooting the franchise was to 'take it back to it's roots'. In this case, in highschool. Point is, once Marc Webb picked Andrew Garfield over the likes of Josh Hutcherson (Zathura) or Logan Lerman (3:10 to Yuma) who were the two top contenders, he made the decision to essentially create a different version of what we've already seen instead of an insight into a different time. And yeah, that's lame as hell.
But Garfield seems to be a fantastic actor, and Emma Stone (despite her unattractiveness to me- probably even more with blonde hair) has a very attractive personality, and the two in a Spiderman film is at least remotely exciting.
Emma Stone playing off of him will be really good, I think. Both are college age more-or-less. Although both could've easily been in a highschool setting.
For all his age in his late 20s, I couldn't help but feel in The Social Network (and this worked great, don't get me wrong) that he came off very young, very 'struggling-to-be-treated-like-an-adult' in his gaunt and frail frame. Sort of like an early Adrien Brody. He could've worked for a highschool Spiderman. But who knows, we'll see where this goes.
'College' Spiderman is essentially what we've already seen in the cream of the crop, Spiderman 2. The trials of becoming independent, becoming an adult, and just living life- that's what resonates so strongly with Spiderman and is the reason the second movie was/is so successful and powerful, IMO.
It's a steep bet they've directly put themselves in by setting it in the early-20s generation of Peter Parker. I'll roll my eyes some, but still give it the benefit of a doubt for now.
Posted: Wed, 6th Oct 2010, 4:12pm
Post 5 of 58
RodyPolis wrote:BTW isn't the new Spiderman movies supposed to be in high school? If so why are they casting her? She already looked too old in Easy A, and will only look older as time goes by.
Toby Maguire was 27 when the first spider man came out.
I originally had zero interest in seeing this film. But now I can't help getting excited about it considering the people backing the project.
Posted: Wed, 6th Oct 2010, 4:39pm
Post 6 of 58
Emma Stone is one of those girls that is unbelievably hot to those of us that don't dig the classic blonde bombshell look. She's one of the people I find most attractive in Hollywood right now, and that probably also has something to do with her general personality in the movies I've seen her in.
Posted: Wed, 6th Oct 2010, 6:16pm
Post 7 of 58
Emma Stone is so fine it's not even funny. Ridiculously hot.
Posted: Wed, 6th Oct 2010, 7:21pm
Post 8 of 58
Seconded on both Pooky and CX3's comments. I sat through Superbad (and I mean 'sat through' because I have zero
interest in raunchy comedy though Superbad was a pleasant surprise) only because Emma Stone is so pretty/hot that I could watch her all day.
I love Spiderman 2 as much as the next guy, but the more I see Spiderman and Spiderman 3 I get the feeling that SP2 was a happy accident and Raimi was never really the guy for the job (no existing love for Raimi from me, a friend of mine who loves Evil Dead was really pissed when I referred to Bruce Campbell a few years ago as 'the guy who cameos in all the spiderman films'). All of the movies have good ideas in them, but between 'Power Ranger' Goblin in Spiderman 1, and the silliness in Spiderman 3
it's like an epic superhero-film isn't where Raimi's tallents are best suited. Again Spiderman 2 is brilliant.
Depending on the trailer I'll see if this looks like an Incredible Hulk/Superman Returns underwhelming reboot, or leaning more to Batman Begins thing. My point is; Raimi didn't set the bar as high as people seem to think. He made one great film and two lame ones. It wont be that hard to make a more solid film (or at the very least one that has less corny lines/moments/characters).
Posted: Wed, 6th Oct 2010, 9:06pm
Post 9 of 58
I agree with Staff Only, while I loved Spiderman 2 and quite enjoyed Spiderman 1, I don't think Raimi used the Spiderman mythos to its full potential. There are brilliant stories to be done with the Goblin and Venom, and I don't think Raimi came even close, although Doc Ock was pretty perfect.
Posted: Thu, 7th Oct 2010, 5:46am
Post 10 of 58
If you don't melt when Emma Stone says "come quick" in Zombieland, you are not a man.
This is shaping up to be a very interesting Spiderman movie.
Posted: Thu, 7th Oct 2010, 6:46am
Post 11 of 58
For anyone who likes Emma Stone, "Easy A" is basically "the Emma Stone movie", and it's actually quite a lot of fun.
Posted: Thu, 14th Oct 2010, 10:00pm
Post 12 of 58
Looks like the villain is confirmed as The Lizard, to be played by Rhys Ifans
Posted: Fri, 15th Oct 2010, 12:56am
Post 13 of 58
YESSSSSSS. Oh snap that's awesome. That's the only villain I *really* wanted to be done.
Posted: Fri, 15th Oct 2010, 3:15am
Post 14 of 58
I agree with Serpent. I love that villain every since I watched him on the animated series. I'm definitely looking forward to this movie.
Posted: Thu, 13th Jan 2011, 10:52pm
Post 15 of 58
Andrew Garfield as Spiderman (Perfection IMO)
Note the silver rings in his wrists (they're going with the more logical comic book explanation for the web shooters!). I like how he looks more scrawny, which fits much better with the fact that Spiderman is supposed to be some nerd that happens to become a superhero.
Plus, I think Garfield is gonna be a way better Spiderman than Maguire ever was, so I'm pumped Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy (OK I guess)
Posted: Thu, 13th Jan 2011, 11:25pm
Post 16 of 58
Yeah, this is going to be awesome.
Posted: Thu, 13th Jan 2011, 11:42pm
Post 17 of 58
Just because something is new and different doesn't mean we should jump-the-gun and call it better just yet. Tobey Maguire was a far cry from hunky teenage heartthrob- and I'm sure you all sung his praises of representing the 'nerdy' Peter Parker when he was cast, too.
And while I love Andrew Garfield's work in The Social Network and think he is an excellent choice, that should not at all diminish the fact that Tobey Maguire did a phenomenal job in the role, especially at it's peak (Spiderman 2, anyone?) and it'd be a travesty to write him off as something that will be blown into the past immediately. Tobey Maguire is
Peter Parker for many people- and it's a testament to his impeccable casting and fantastic acting bringing humanity to and embodying the role that he is considered as such.
So, despite the fact that I find the reboot of this deplorable, I do like the moves they're making, yes.
But make no mistake when I caution once more: Different
doesn't necessarily equal better. This costume looks cool, but a little too 'Spawn Movie 1996' for me. I'd bet if we'd seen this and then Spidey's 2002 outfit now in 2010 it'd be the same reaction.
Only time will tell what happens. But yeah, I still hope this tanks in some colossal fashion. It'd be a shame for all that has gone right in casting and director, but it'd be justice to the fact that this should've never been rebooted. Especially
this early. And I'll stand by that til kingdom come.
Posted: Thu, 13th Jan 2011, 11:54pm
Post 18 of 58
Atom wrote:But make no mistake when I caution once more: Different doesn't necessarily equal better.
So what? I for one am trying to look at this as a new franchise, and not use the Raimi movies as a basis for comparison. The whole point of a reboot is that it's going to be different. I didn't like Spiderman 3 at all, but the other two were awesome. However, I think three movies is enough, and there was no reason to keep doing it with the same talent. It would have gotten continuously more stale, as was already evident in the third one. I also don't think a reboot was necessary so early, and would have preferred them to just let it rest for a while, but from the looks of it, it's shaping up to have been a good idea.
My excitement about this movie does not come from the fact that it's different actors and costumes and director, but that those actors and costumes and director are awesome. Of course the movie could end up not being as good as the Raimi movies, but being that this is a completely different franchise now, it is unfair to compare them. If it sucks, it doesn't diminish the Raimi movies in the slightest. (That's Spiderman 3's job.)
But I don't think it's going to suck.
Try not to think of this reboot as an attempt to one-up, or replace, the Raimi films, because that's not the point.
Posted: Fri, 14th Jan 2011, 12:19am
Post 19 of 58
Yeah, although this does look like it could be good..... the fact remains that it's just so darn unnecessary at this point in time. There's absolutely no reason (except for $$$, of course) for Spiderman to be rebooted this soon. Not only is it stupid.... but it's not going to work. You can't have two, completely different Spidey origin movies come out within a decade of each other. I for one, am confused.... and I'll bet a lot of the audience will be as well. We'll be hearing a lot of "What happened to Tobey Maguire?"
That said, Andrew Garfield is a good choice, and the image looks cool, despite the fact that it screams "Twilight" to me for some reason. I love the casting of Emma Stone.... but when I see her I think of Mary Jane rather than Gwen Stacy. With red hair, she's the perfect Mary Jane.
Posted: Fri, 14th Jan 2011, 12:29am
Post 20 of 58
@Jawa - I read somewhere that Sony has to release a Spiderman movie every few years or the rights go back to Marvel. Hence this movie.
@Atom - I've actually always felt Tobey was wrong for the role, even back in 2000 when I first heard about it (and I was, what, 10?) - to me he's always been too much of a crybaby, with a small range of facial emotions. One thing that he's always been missing but that is supposedly PIVOTAL to the comic version of the character is his witty banter. It's quite literally one of the main reasons people even like him. This has been almost completely absent from the Raimi movies, and Tobey couldn't pull it off anyway when he tried - all he does is look sad or indifferent. I much prefer Garfield as an actor - plus, he can pass off as a high schooler, whereas Tobey looked about 10 years too old for the role.
Also, small technicality - this isn't so much different as it is a return to the roots. A thin, nerdy, younger spiderman is the original one, not some new attempt at the Twilight market. I also really like that they're going to have Osbourne's transformation into the Green Goblin be a backstory that takes place through all three movies.
Posted: Fri, 14th Jan 2011, 12:34am
Post 21 of 58
Not sure if I like the rebooted Spidey look. The new guy seems really skinny, which is fine for a nerdy kid, but wasn't he genetically altered, which would increase his muscle size/density? So after he becomes Spidey, his sudden incredible physical abilities just won't gel with his bookish appearance, unless they decide to place less emphasis on super-strength, which I'd say is a good idea. Plus, it looks way too dark and gothic in general: more like Spiderman 3 than 1 or 2, which coincidentally was the worst movie. Could be just me.
Posted: Fri, 14th Jan 2011, 10:08am
Post 22 of 58
As far as I remember reading Spidey 3's downfall was due to the studio getting involved and throwing orders around. Venom wasn't even supposed to be in the film but it was forced upon Raimi. Spiderman 2 is my fav comic book film to date though.
As for the new film, I'm not feeling it. It feels unecessary and I'm worried that it's being created around todays kids. Did you see the photo of his hair styled like edward cullen in Twilight? Not really the look I remember spidey having.
The costume doesn't look too bad but I much prefer the costume in the previous films.
I think Raimi and the gang should've had one more shot with MJ excluded but whatever. At least this way Raimi gets another step closer to getting that World of warcraft movie done.
Posted: Fri, 14th Jan 2011, 6:06pm
Post 23 of 58
I'm with Terminal Velocity on this one, not really digging the dark, almost gothic look of the new suit. Just isn't my thing. I'm not sure if I like what I've seen so far. It will probably be a good movie, but I never thought of spiderman as the character that would be sscary to see walking down the street at night, ya know? (That's Batman's job.)
Also like Terminal Velocity said, he was literally "genetically altered" and spiderman does (technically) have super strength... Which is a reason I won't like them going with the home-made web shooters, rather than having it come straight from his hand, as he was actually genetically altered, why wouldn't it come from his hands?
Not really liking the feel I get from that picture of the *new* Spidey
Posted: Fri, 14th Jan 2011, 8:28pm
Post 24 of 58
Biblmac wrote:I won't like them going with the home-made web shooters, rather than having it come straight from his hand, as he was actually genetically altered, why wouldn't it come from his hands?
Now I admittedly don't know my comic-book lore (so I'm not sure if this is accurate or not).... but I've heard that in the original comic, he wasn't
genetically altered, so he actually had to use the web-shooters. The genetically-altered storyline that Raimi went with actually came much later in the comics, I think. It looks to me like the web-shooters are a clear move to distinguish the new movie from the old.
Posted: Fri, 14th Jan 2011, 8:39pm
Post 25 of 58
But then how did he develop super-strength and the ability to climb walls? Biblmac carried the genetic alterations over to web-shooters, but I'm mainly referring to his really skinny figure. Did his strength come from magic? Brute force requires a certain amount of bulk and this just doesn't have it. Although I would like it if the movie displayed a more spider-like combat strategy, such as hit-and-run tactics, then a flurry of quick blows.
Posted: Fri, 14th Jan 2011, 8:40pm
Post 26 of 58
No, I'm pretty sure the original comic had the radioactive spider bite him too, he just didn't get the oddly convenient double web shooters on his wrists because, logically, if it had been natural it would've come out of his a$$. The metal devices in the comics is why he makes the characteristic hand gesture when he shoots his webs: he's using his two fingers to press the shoot switch. It also ties in with him being a science nerd, which itself ties in with the Lizard character.
Regarding the skinny figure, he's got a medium build in the original comics, but other more notable versions since then have gone for the thinner frame, notably the Ultimates series. If you think about it, spiders are thin amd wiry generally as well, and super strength isn't really characteristic of them either, so SM is more agile than he is beefy, hence him getting beat up half the time. Plus, as I mentioned, he's supposed to be a random nerdy guy that happens to get powers, which is an element that wasn't delved very far into in the original (replacing it with the MJ romance). The nerdyness coupled with the fact that they went for Gwen Stacy instead of MJ makes me optimistic that this'll be less of a romcom.
And no, I haven't read a single comic, so I dunno how I know this stuff.
Posted: Sun, 16th Jan 2011, 9:01am
Post 27 of 58
He's supposed to be a socially-awkward/mild-mannered guy that 'conveniently' knew about science. Not a science nerd.
And who said the term nerd aligns with anorexic? Because that's what Garfield looks like, there's no denying it. It's not a 'thin frame/build' or whatever- the dude is stick-figur-ish.
Which isn't to say it makes me think any less of him as an actor- and certainly he's done a terrific job in everything I've seen him in thus far. But I did expect him to gain some weight. Muscle or otherwise.
The organic webshooters was a clever and more logical move on the part of the filmmakers of the first movie- and something I liked because it left out the obvious questions that would've slowed the first movie and made it more preposterous (where's all the limitless web coming from? how does he keep packs of it? how did he come up with a super-polymer and conveniently something that shoots it, that can hang onto walls and hold thousands of pounds worth of tension? etc.)
Seeing homemade webshooters will indeed be really, really cool- but it's definitely not the less-convenient or more-logical choice.
And I've read the comics- notably the Ultimates version ones as well- and his frame was never that thin. In promo pics and covers of some issues it was, sure- but never in the consistency of the panels within the issues. Spiderman has more of the frame, at his skinniest, of say- Shia Labeouf. But not Garfield. At least not for how tall he is.
I'm still excited by the casting- and think he'll fit (even if this movie is an abomination)- but it's absolutely silly to treat it like the comics dictate that he's that skinny, or that Garfield is just 'that type of build' or whatever.
Andrew Garfield is underweight in-general, and underweight and build for the role. It's fine- but it isn't something that is a non-issue or backed by some source material. That Ultimate Spiderman was a teenager, he was skinnier- but he was skinnier in terms of not bulky- not in terms of thin.
This is sort of like several years ago when people were complaining Adrien Brody being malnourished or something- and all these people were defending him, only for himself to say in an interview, jokingly something along the lines of 'Yeah I'm underweight, duh. That's my movie 'look'".
That may very well be Garfield's 'look'- and it works in what he's been in thus far. But it is very much a 'look'.
Posted: Sun, 16th Jan 2011, 11:41am
Post 28 of 58
Well I certainly liked the organic web shooter MUCH more than the mechanical ones (and not because the organic ones were James Cameron's idea).
The reason I've always hated the mechanical ones is because they were always Spider-man's Kryptonite in every cartoon I watched as a child. Spider-man would be doing just fine, then to "up the tension" Spider-man will go: "Damn out of web.". I hate having built in weaknesses for your hero that you can pull out of your arse in the climax of the film. As I've stated before I like final confrontations where both parts are in their prime (unless it's Die Hard).
Dual of Fates ("Jedi in their prime") over Ben Kenobi vs. Vader in A New Hope (An old man vs. a cripple) to give an example.
If Spider-man is out of web in the final scene of this Spider-man it will indeed be an abomination.
Posted: Sun, 16th Jan 2011, 2:16pm
Post 29 of 58
I just thought I'd give an example of the build I wish he had, which even in this comic makes him look "semi-muscular" His arms are toned, and so are his legs and he doesn't look like Garfield.... Much bigger build here.
Posted: Sun, 16th Jan 2011, 8:16pm
Post 30 of 58
Yeah, I like Biblmac's example. Spidey doesn't need to be a bodybuilder--that's Superman's job--or a wrestler type guy (that's for Batman). He should be built like a gymnast or swimmer, cause these are the guys who can jump around and climb on stuff and swing. It just makes more sense with the character and his actions. And of course his attacks could easily mirror this too.
Posted: Sun, 16th Jan 2011, 9:16pm
Post 31 of 58
I love how this thread is titled "Emma Stone to play Gwen Stacy..." and all you guys can talk about is Andrew Garfield's physique.
Also, Staff Only, don't you remember the times in the Raimi Spiderman movies when he ran out of web, or wasn't able to shoot it for some unknown reason? At least now he'll have a reason
for not having infinite web supply...
Posted: Sun, 16th Jan 2011, 10:53pm
Post 32 of 58
Okay, well starting when I was about 11 years old I read/collected the new serial for 'Ultimate Spiderman' and he most definitely was scrawny and teenager-esque in build/appearance/demeanor. And I have acid-free archive boxes of every single issue of these comics up until number 144 or something to prove it.
Posted: Sun, 16th Jan 2011, 11:16pm
Post 33 of 58
I actually don't have a problem with his build. I think that, although he doesn't look very strong, it can work in the context of a spiderman film, because a spider has thin limbs yet if you were to scale it up to cat size, it would be insanely strong and fast. So, although in human terms he's thin, it doesn't really matter because his superpower is derived from an actual spider. I imagine it being like a strengthening of his muscle and tendons and bones through the changing of their atomic structure, like replacing his muscles with steel cable.
Also, it definitely adds to the sense of the character being socially awkward, a bit nerdy, and basically a young man. To have him look like an athlete implies a confidence in his own body and physical ability, which somewhat undermines his vulnerability and the idea of him growing into spiderman.
Anyway, I think it's a good move. Still not particularly interested in the film though.
Posted: Mon, 17th Jan 2011, 2:02pm
Post 34 of 58
Aculag wrote:Also, Staff Only, don't you remember the times in the Raimi Spiderman movies when he ran out of web, or wasn't able to shoot it for some unknown reason? At least now he'll have a reason for not having infinite web supply...
Yeah, my heart sunk when that happened the first time I saw it in the theater. Fortunately he sorted it out before the final boss battle. I will be furious if they go for the Gladiator/Iron Man 1 way of having the hero be at a disadvantage in the final scene. That is the worst thing they can do in a Spider-man film. Spider-man needs to be at his most acrobatic for the climax. I disliked the first Spider-man almost exclusively because the final fight was so boring. A fist fight? Really? I also hope they're not going to make this "gritty and realistic". If the film takes itself seriously that would be a big improvement from Raimi's camp, but NOT "realistic".
When I ask people what they love about the Spider-man films it's the Train Fight first, and then everything else. The Train Fight proved how exiting and fresh a well made Spider-man fight-scene can look. Unfortunately Raimi completley forgot what he did right, and made a bunch of boring scenes in Spider-man 3 that had awful visual effects. (How did they do that by the way? Even though Dykstra left the project: Spider-man 3 still has one the largest production budgets in history. What gives?)
When a summer blockbuster has found its own "original" niche of action scene, that is half the battle. A good action-film with generic action scenes dosen't turn heads (Chronicles of Riddick, Shooter). But films that do their own thing like Tron, Inception, Star Wars or Bourne instantly get credit for their exciting action scenes (and as Joss Whedon said: "Musical scenes in a musical are like action scenes in an action move: you write your film around them.)
In this Spider-man they don't have to invent the wheel and work out the kinks. They can just learn from everything Raimi did and upstage him halfway to hell. If they know what's good for them, they are planning a cross Manhattan fight-scene that has Spider-man zipping in-between buildings, trains, cars, trucks, people, helicopters and skyscrapers. They have the means to give us an experience that is akin to watching free-running, while watching the Train Fight from Spider-man 2, while watching the corridor fight from Inception.
Then they just have to make a decent film. (And honestly, how hard is it these days to just hire some good writers?)
EDIT: What I meant by that last line was: they don't need to come with their own "outlandish pitch" to prove that this is a re-boot either. Just re-tell The Hero's Journey again like Raimi did in Spider-man 1 and 2. Just do it better this time.
Posted: Mon, 17th Jan 2011, 3:25pm
Post 35 of 58
I really liked the Raimi trilogy, including 3, because on the whole they avoided silliness. The antagonist in the reboot, a humanoid lizard, embodies what I hoped the franchise would avoid.
Posted: Mon, 17th Jan 2011, 3:37pm
Post 36 of 58
Mellifluous wrote:I really liked the Raimi trilogy, including 3, because on the whole they avoided silliness. The antagonist in the reboot, a humanoid lizard, embodies what I hoped the franchise would avoid.
But...it's about a humanoid spider. It's inherently 'silly' by your definition.
Pretty much all of Spidey's villains are scientists that are somehow changed into animalistic creatures (Doc Ock, Scorpion, Vulture, Lizard etc). Lizard is the closest to Spidey in a lot of ways, because he is changed on a genetic level. The Lizard story works because it gives Peter a reason to try to save him: he can see himself in what's happened to Connors.
Also, Raimi's films might have had generally grounded villains, but they are wall-to-wall silliness. I love that, because that's why I like Raimi's films in general, from Evil Dead to Drag Me To Hell. The Spidey films are no exception.
Posted: Mon, 17th Jan 2011, 3:45pm
Post 37 of 58
Mellifluous wrote:I really liked the Raimi trilogy, including 3, because on the whole they avoided silliness. The antagonist in the reboot, a humanoid lizard, embodies what I hoped the franchise would avoid.
In Spiderman 3, the antagonists were an evil amorphous blob from outer space, and an ex-con who can turn into infinite quantities of sand.
Posted: Mon, 17th Jan 2011, 4:09pm
Post 38 of 58
I mean silliness within the universe they establish. What we've seen so far has been fairly realistic (as far as they can be in this fictional universe): a spider's bite generating powers; scientist's technology taking them over and making them descend into madness (Doc Ock, Goblin); a symbiote taking over people and making them act out their subconscious desires.
I'm just sayin', a mini Godzilla would be a departure from that. Genetic engineering would be an interesting topic to cover, but hopefully they'll do it sans Rhys Ifans transforming into a lizard.
Posted: Mon, 17th Jan 2011, 4:16pm
Post 39 of 58
I dunno, a lizard-man hybrid creature caused by a dodgy experiment seems to fit into the Raimi universe far more comfortably than an alien from outer space, for which there was absolutely no precedent.
Posted: Mon, 24th Jan 2011, 3:15am
Post 40 of 58
New image has come out and....Yikes
Make-a-homemade-costume-for-my-spiderman-parody-and/or-fanfilm me would love
this. 'Discerning Audience Me'
, not so much.
Someone on the article from the other picture wrote in the comments something I thought was really funny, saying 'I can't wait to see Spiderman: Jansport Edition' in reference to the costume having streamlined stripes and colors/finishes like the sporty backpack brand. This kinda just bolsters that.
Posted: Mon, 24th Jan 2011, 4:23am
Post 41 of 58
That picture makes my day! Is that CG? I can't help but laugh at it
Posted: Mon, 24th Jan 2011, 4:38am
Post 42 of 58
It looks like an action figure.
Posted: Mon, 24th Jan 2011, 5:13am
Post 43 of 58
Guys... it's just a stuntman in a stunt-suit
. In fact, here's some set footage of the stuntman in action
. I'm sure that suit will look much
better with the proper cinematography, editing, and potential CG work.
EDIT: Yeah, Spidey's shoes here kind of remind me of Chris Evans' fake feet
Last edited Mon, 24th Jan 2011, 5:20am; edited 2 times in total.
Posted: Mon, 24th Jan 2011, 5:17am
Post 44 of 58
[...] this is most likely a suit specifically made for stunt work, and not the final, detailed ‘hero’ suit. Just compare and contrast with the first official still from Sony and you can see that there are notable differences. [...] Compare this with the official still below, and even taking the darker lighting of the official still into account you can see that the colors of the suit here are brighter than the ‘hero’ suit — after post-production, the suit probably won’t look that bright. You’ve got some sort of visible soles on his feet (makes me think of the fake feet Chris Evans wore for running shots in Captain America) and a general reduction of detail compared to the final suit.
I don't think it looks that bad, although obviously if that was exactly how it would appear in the movie it'd be disappointing.
Posted: Mon, 24th Jan 2011, 5:53am
Post 45 of 58
I actually totally dig it. I bet it will look great when it's all lit and shot right. Love the texture/shine, shoes, color, and eye shape/size. It feels very 90's, in a good way. Looking forward to more stills, hopefully good official ones, that show the front and whatnot so we can really see the mask.
Posted: Mon, 24th Jan 2011, 9:59am
Post 46 of 58
Yeeeeah, but even for a 'stunt suit', you'd have the detailing and coloration of the suit to a pretty exact science. Maybe not the eyepieces or shoes, but everything else?
I tend to think Spiderman: Jansport Edition is coming to fruition.
Posted: Mon, 24th Jan 2011, 10:18am
Post 47 of 58
Atom wrote:Yeeeeah, but even for a 'stunt suit', you'd have the detailing and coloration of the suit to a pretty exact science. Maybe not the eyepieces or shoes, but everything else?
Welcome to the world of movie magic, my friend!
You know, sometimes they even film without being in the real locations - and alter the look completely in 'post-production', with a revolutionary new technique known as "bluescreen" which is changing the way Hollywood thinks about special effects.
Posted: Mon, 24th Jan 2011, 10:33am
Post 48 of 58
What I mean to say is- grading, lighting, and extra frills can't change what is there- which is the bright two-tone, cheesy 90s spandex with sport stripes look integral in the actual design of the suit.
Posted: Mon, 24th Jan 2011, 10:41am
Post 49 of 58
Not really - if he's only going to be seen as a red and blue blur, then the suit only needs to be a rough approximation of what the hero suit looks like.
And anyway, I like the go faster stripes.
Posted: Mon, 24th Jan 2011, 8:40pm
Post 50 of 58
Maybe its an early version of the suit, kinda like what happened in Spiderman 1.
Posted: Mon, 14th Feb 2011, 9:55pm
Post 51 of 58
Looks more and more like an early 90s overly-texture-muscle-mold-covered-water-suit ala Spawn, but the mask at least looks pretty cool.
Not feelin' the bug-yellow eyes really, and I hear that they're CG'd on to look like that. But whatever, I'll have to wait and see.
Posted: Tue, 15th Feb 2011, 1:04am
Post 52 of 58
I like it. I do think it looks somewhat over-produced, but hopefully they'll explain it so that he doesn't just stitch that together in his room like last time.
Posted: Tue, 15th Feb 2011, 1:47am
Post 53 of 58
Yeah, it never made sense how he somehow made that whole costume in his bedroom.
But I think the costume illustrates a problem with the reboot coming so soon after the last series; it's barely changing anything. There's yellow eyes, which is cool, and the mechanical web launchers (which we all know are going to fail at a critical plot point), but it's like they took the old one, stuck on a few things, and gave it back. Which would be fine after about 10 or 20 years. But they should come up with something new. If I recall, in some of the comics Spidey had a little gliding-web-thing in his armpits. Maybe they could add something like that?
Fortunately though, it looks like Spidey will be the focus of this series...not Peter Parker. I really hope this is true, cause no nerdy teen is interesting when juxtaposed to a web-swinging, spandex-clad superhero, awkwardly-written love story or otherwise. I would like to see him finally laying someone out.
Posted: Tue, 15th Feb 2011, 1:53am
Post 54 of 58
Atom wrote:New image. Looks more and more like an early 90s overly-texture-muscle-mold-covered-water-suit ala Spawn, but the mask at least looks pretty cool.
His head kinda looks a little bit exactly like a basketball.
Edit: Actually, upon closer inspection, it reminds me of those skin-tight work gloves that have a rubber webbing on them to help with grip. So I dig the texture of the suit, because it looks "grippy". His head still looks like a basketball, though.
Last edited Tue, 15th Feb 2011, 1:56am; edited 1 times in total.
Posted: Tue, 15th Feb 2011, 1:53am
Post 55 of 58
Terminal Velocity wrote:it looks like Spidey will be the focus of this series...not Peter Parker. I really hope this is true, cause no nerdy teen is interesting when juxtaposed to a web-swinging, spandex-clad superhero, awkwardly-written love story or otherwise. I would like to see him finally laying someone out.
Without Peter Parker, you've got no Spiderman. Without Peter Parker you've got no depth. Without Peter Parker, you've got no story
. This is the reason Spiderman is (arguably) the most notable, popular, iconic, and profitable superhero in the entire world. Peter Parker
Sorry, but (to me at least) that just sounded completely and utterly idiotic, Triple Dick. Who wants to watch a swinging-from-buildings-CG-fest for two hours? Nobody
. You can't do that, you've got to instill some levels of complexity and facets of character. That's why G.I. Joe was so terrible.
Last edited Tue, 15th Feb 2011, 2:33am; edited 1 times in total.
Posted: Tue, 15th Feb 2011, 2:28am
Post 56 of 58
I didn't say I wanted Peter Parker to be completely absent. What I said was, I want the movie to be about Spider-man. There should be some Peter, sure. There should be enough for us to care about the character or introduce his emotional conflicts. But the Raimi series was like 90% Peter, which would be fine, if he had actually been characterized beyond "lovestruck teen". He doesn't have much personality beyond his affection for Mary Jane. But if you look at the series, that's what they try to fill up most of the screen time with. How much of the movie was spent on his little romance? Way too much. The second movie should have been called "Peter Parker 2: Return of the Angst". If they had made Peter an interesting person in and of himself, it would have been fun to watch. As it is, I was just waiting for them to go back to Doc Ock or Green Goblin, because even their uber-hammy performances were more interesting than Peter. Then when Spidey actually came into the film, it's like Raimi was sticking him in because he just remembered that this is a superhero movie, and even those scenes didn't always have a point. Remember the scene in the bank and on the train in Spiderman 2? As fun as they were to watch, neither of them ultimately amounted to much for the characters or plot. It's like the opposite problem of the Star Wars prequels; in those movies, there was absolutely no character. In the Spidey films, there was so much that it crossed the line and became kind of boring.
You know the 1989 Batman? How much time was actually spent dwelling on Bruce Wayne? Just enough to make us care. In fact, when Bruce was around, there was more focus on Vicki Vale and her feelings for him, rather than Bruce and his feelings. He had the suit on most of the time. The minimal explanation of Batman gave him an air of mystery, making him a much more interesting person overall. Plus, there were very few teary-eyed monologues or conversations. Most of Bruce's emotions were conveyed through a few quiet seconds or just the expression on his face. We didn't need them to spend 1 1/2 hours telling us about Bruce, because a few simple seconds told us everything we needed to know. Thus, we were able to spend more time watching the people we really wanted to see--Batman and the Joker--and were all the better for those few minutes of development.
My ultimate point is, I want this series to make us care about the characters. But I don't want it to be all about the internal battles. I want them to introduce a better balance so that we can see the extermanl battles too, and care about what's happening. I don't want a 2-hour-CG-fest, but neither do I want a teen drama with some guy in a suit who pops in occasionally to do something or other.
EDIT: Also, the Spiderman scenes don't have to be fights. What about a scene of him just enjoying his newfound power? Or interacting with the people? Maybe he could be scaring some thugs out of their minds with taunts, instead of just giving them a straight-up pounding. You can do stuff with the suit on that isn't smashing stuff.
Posted: Tue, 15th Feb 2011, 2:36am
Post 57 of 58
Terminal Velocity wrote:The second movie should have been called "Peter Parker 2: Return of the Angst". If they had made Peter an interesting person in and of himself, it would have been fun to watch.
uber-hammy performances were more interesting than Peter. Then when Spidey actually came into the film, it's like Raimi was sticking him in because he just remembered that this is a superhero movie, and even those scenes didn't always have a point.
[quote]Remember the scene in the bank and on the train in Spiderman 2? As fun as they were to watch, neither of them ultimately amounted to much for the characters or plot.
My ultimate point is, I want this series to make us care about the characters.
Just........no. Sorry bud, can't at all agree.
Posted: Tue, 15th Feb 2011, 2:55am
Post 58 of 58
Well I guess that's why it's ultimately an opinion-based thing.