Tagged: spider-man

New trailer for “The Amazing Spider-Man”

Desperate to keep up with the deafening hype for “The Avengers” (which opens today) and “The Dark Knight Rises” (which doesn’t open for another — ugh – 11 weeks), Sony has released the latest trailer for “The Amazing Spider-Man” (which comes out in early July, and has very little in the way of any buzz).

“The Avengers” has a Hulk, “The Dark Knight Rises” has an oversized Tom Hardy and “The Amazing Spider-Man” has…the Lizard. Yes, the third trailer (following these previews) finally gives us our first real look at the Lizard, the green reptilian villain played (in human form, anyway) by Rhys Ifans. In the comics, he’s a one-armed scientist who experiments on himself and winds up turning into a giant, y’know, lizard. To non-fans, he probably just looks like a green velociraptor that hit the gym.

Marc Webb’s reboot still seems like what it has looked like all along: An unnecessary rehashing of a story we saw a decade ago. Yes, there are some key changes from Sam Raimi’s first “Spider-Man” in 2002 — the love interest is Gwen Stacy (played by Emma Stone), the villain is the Lizard, the tone seems very different (less comic book-y, actually) — but it’s still the same basic story of how a teenager named Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) gets bitten by a radioactive spider and becomes Spider-Man and fights a scientist-turned-green-supervillain. We’re a decade removed from Raimi’s very successful first movie, but it’s been a mere five years since his mediocre (but still financially gigantic) third “Spider-Man.”

Recent rumors that Sony isn’t happy with this movie don’t actually tell us whether or not this thing will succeed or if it’sany good; whether or not the studio loves it, they still have a movie starring Spider-Man (an incredibly popular big-screen superhero) and we know they can market the hell out of a bad superhero movie (see: “Spider-Man 3″). I still think this movie is going to be a solid performer, but I’m beginning to doubt that it will crack $200 million domestically.

The fact that we’re two months out and there is almost no heat around the movie should be worrisome. And the fact that they’re retelling the same story looks particularly stupid given all of the hype for “The Avengers” (a new type of superhero movie — the all-star team-up) and “The Dark Knight Rises” (which also looks like the series and main character are growing and evolving). The other superhero movies offer something different, and this offers one more of the same. This trailer doesn’t really do anything to change that perception.

[Apple]

Share

New trailer for “The Amazing Spider-Man”

The new “Spider-Man” movie has a trailer! In a novel twist, this installment of the franchise will be about a nerdy high schooler who gains some superpowers and swings through the air on webs and fights green bad guys:

Sony is billing this as the “Untold Story” of Spider-Man, which is one way to view it. Another way is to say it’s telling the same basic story as Sam Raimi’s three “Spider-Man” films, which were released between 2002 and 2007, because it’s giving us another look at the same Spider-Man origin we saw a decade ago. Yet we can’t mock Sony for rebooting this thing and releasing essentially a remake of the first “Spider-Man” a decade later, because (a) those films made insane amounts of money, so we know the audience is there for this character and (b) with Spider-Man, if you want to restart the series, you might as well start at the beginning. Rebooting things with a new cast and changing it enough to make it look different is as good a plan as any; unlike the “Batman” reboot, the original films were so close to the source material that this feels like less of a complete reimagining than simply a familiar-seeming but slightly-different adaptation.  Continue reading

Share

The “Spider-Man” reboot has a sequel and that sequel already has a release date

It’s common for movie sequels to get greenlit before the initial films have even hit theaters. Studios don’t want to let time or audience interest fritter away, so they get the ball rolling well in advance. This might be pushing it: Sony has announced that “The Amazing Spider-Man 2,” the sequel to the reboot that won’t hit theaters for another 11 months, is already scheduled for May 2, 2014.

So, just to spell this out: “The Amazing Spider-Man” is a reboot of the “Spider-Man” series. The middling first trailer dropped recently and the studio revved up the publicity engine for Comic-Con, but the movie isn’t going to be out until next July. We found out in March that James Vanderbilt, who wrote the first film, was already writing the sequel. The studio is apparently so convinced that this thing will be ready — and that “Amazing” director Marc Webb or somebody else will be ready and eager to go — that they aren’t even waiting for the initial box office or anything. Even when studios think they have sure things, it’s not uncommon to at least wait until you see how something performs. And it’s a bit hurried to schedule a sequel just 22 months after the first film comes out.

Sony must be very, very confident in their movie…or, more likely, they’re confident in the brand and eager to snag the weekend before somebody else (like Disney/Marvel) grabs it. Marvel has already snagged key dates in the summer of 2013 for “Iron Man 3″ and “Thor,” and they might be eyeballing 2014 for a sequel to “Captain America” (depending on how the overseas box office shakes out) or another property. Fox might have been hoping “The Wolverine” could fill that slot. The first weekend of the summer is one of the biggest weekends on the box office calendar, so Sony is likely snagging it because they knew it wouldn’t be available for long. They’d better hope “Amazing Spider-Man” doesn’t…nah, this movie’s pretty close to a sure thing. At least Sony really thinks and hopes so.

Share

The Non-White Spider-Man

There was much chatter this week when Marvel rolled out a non-white Spider-Man. The new Spidey will be a half-black, half-Hispanic teenager named Miles Morales. The reactions mostly focused on the news that Spider-Man won’t be white, which is big news, because superheroes are predominantly white (or, in the case of Superman, very white). Spider-Man is one of the premier superheroes in comics, so this is pretty nifty. It’s also not Marvel’s real Spider-Man (“real” being a relative term here), so we shouldn’t get too excited.

I’m not trying to be Captain Killjoy, but the new character is taking over as the lead of “Ultimate Spider-Man,” a Spider-Man series that takes place in an alternate universe. The Ultimate line was launched more than a decade ago to tell stories unencumbered by Marvel’s notoriously convoluted continuity, operating independently from the Marvel Universe proper while unspooling new versions of familiar events and characters from Marvel’s past. The Peter Parker character still stars in the flagship “Amazing Spider-Man” and appears in “New Avengers” in the regular Marvel continuity. The Miles Morales character now stars in what is essentially a lengthy “What If…?” story.

Now, this is still cool and it’s still noteworthy, primarily because parents with non-white or multiracial children (and there are more and more people identifying as multiracial or multiethnic) can buy this comic for their kids and show them a hero that might look a little more like they do. It’s a step forward (in addition to being a big publicity boost for the comic). It’s not a gigantic leap forward, but it’s something.

Bendis says some credit for the new character should go to Donald Glover and “Community.” Glover publicly campaigned for the role of Peter Parker in the reboot (he would have been pretty good, because he is pretty good at everything), and he sported Spidey pajamas during the season premiere of “Community” last fall. So if they ever make an “Ultimate Spider-Man” movie, at least Glover might have a better shot than he had the last time around.

Share

Teaser trailer for “The Amazing Spider-Man”

The first trailer for Marc Webb’s “Spider-Man” reboot is here. I approach this movie with very mixed feelings. Admittedly, they have a great cast here: Andrew Garfield (“The Social Network”) plays Peter Parker, Emma Stone is Gwen Stacey, Martin Sheen and Sally Field are Spidey’s uncle and aunt, Rhys Ifans is the bad guy and Denis Leary plays Gwen Stacey’s stern father. And Marc Webb did good things with “(500) Days of Summer,” an enjoyable and fun movie that is incredibly grating if you watch it multiple times but that’s neither here nor there.

The problem is the same one that has existed since the project was announced: It’s not so much a reboot as it is a remake of the first Sam Raimi movie in 2002. I mean, that’s what this looks like, right? There’s an interesting tone in this teaser — darker, more subdued, less comic book-y and more grounded (hell, you don’t even know this is a Spider-Man trailer for the first minute) — but at a very basic level, it’s telling us the same Peter Parker origin story, only upgrading the cast and tweaking the tone. And this is coming out next summer, a mere 10 years after Raimi’s first film and just five years after the (mediocre but financially successful) “Spider-Man 3.”

I get that you can only tell so many stories, and I understand the desire to tell a Spider-Man origin story if you’re starting your own set of Spidey films (and if you’re starting over for budgetary reasons). But look at the two most respected recent reboots, the ones always cited as examples of the practice: “Batman Begins” and “Casino Royale.” Both of those films brought something different and new to their respective franchises. With “Batman Begins,” it was setting the story in a more realistic world and actually telling the origin story. With “Casino Royale,” it was jettisoning a lot of the camp and cartoonishness and stripping it down to a “Bourne”-like movie. Neither film overly resembled the movies that had preceded them, outside of the general outlines of their plots (the basic plot requirements necessitated by being a superhero movie and a Bond movie, respectively). They worked because they were so unlike what we had just seen.

Again, the cast here is terrific, and Webb is a pretty nifty choice as director. I just hope it winds up being enough of a different and distinct movie to warrant our time. The movie comes out on July 3, 2012.

[Yahoo!]

Share

New Spider-Man movie will be called “The Amazing Spider-Man”

Marc Webb’s untitled 3-D “Spider-Man” reboot has a title and a fancy-schmancy new picture. The movie will be called “The Amazing Spider-Man,” which was originally one of the titles bandied about for Sam Raimi’s second “Spider-Man” film (before it was released in 2004 with the uninspiring moniker “Spider-Man 2″). Sony also released a picture of Andrew Garfield fully decked out in the Spider-Man costume and mask:

Share

Why foreign-born actors are getting the prime American comic book movie roles

Actors born or raised outside of the United States seem to be getting cast in seemingly every iconic American superhero role nowadays. Henry Cavill as Superman just joined Christian Bale’s Batman and Andrew Garfield’s Spider-Man to make it a trifecta: three actors born or raised in the U.K. are suiting up as the three most iconic American superheroes in movies due out next year. And because this happened three times, it is immediately a trend and you will hear about it roughly 12,000 times over the next 22 months.

It’s even happening with lesser superheroes, as non-stateside actors are also netting those roles: Canadian Ryan Reynolds and Aussie Chris Hemsworth will play the Green Lantern and Thor this summer. So Vulture spoke to some agents and casting directors, and they said it’s because American actors aren’t “manly” enough.

While this sounds nice in theory, it’s pretty specious reasoning. For one thing, have you looked at Andrew Garfield? Nobody saw the guy in “The Social Network” and left the theater thing, “Man, that Andrew Garfield could certainly handle himself in a fight.” He looks like 83 percent of his body weight is in his hair. For another thing, the biggest actor in the world right now is Philadelphia native Will Smith. The guy (believably) played Muhammad Ali. I don’t think anyone is questioning his manliness; ditto Brad Pitt and George Clooney and Matt Damon (who I’m pretty sure learned on the “Bourne” set how to beat you to death with a rolled-up magazine, and not one of those special issues of Vanity Fair, I’m talking a Time-sized mag).

The first casting director quoted in the story specifically cites American actors in their 20s and 30s like Jesse Eisenberg. Okay, that’s a fair point. Many from the up-and-coming crop of young actors nowadays look pretty boyish; Eisenberg, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Garrett Hedlund (“Tron: Legacy”) and the amoebic Shia LaBeouf all look young. That’s because they are young. Not all young men look inherently manly, and not all guys look more manly or tough as they age; I speak from experience on this, because no matter how hard I try I’m probably never going to grow a mustache.

The first casting director quoted (who worked on “The Dark Knight” and is doing its sequel) does make an excellent point when he says that it’s not that American actors can’t act manly, it’s that manly-seeming kids in this country are often steered towards athletics and derided if they want to play football and act in the school play. That’s not the case in the U.K., he says. So if it’s a cultural thing that is causing manly young men like Cavill, Hemsworth, the late Heath Ledger and “Avatar” star Sam Worthington from other countries to give acting a go, that makes sense. But the States are still churning out the occasional young man with grit and hustling them into the pictures, like “Star Trek” star Chris Pine, Honolulu-born Jason Momoa (starring in the upcoming “Conan the Barbarian” remake, so he’s an odd addition to this list, but hey, it counts) and Chris Evans (the star of this summer’s “Captain America”). And other countries are still producing male actors who aren’t exactly paragons of manliness, like Garfield, Orlando Bloom, Daniel Radcliffe and Robert Pattinson. (Let me put it to you this way: If some of those four franchise stalwarts were put into a fight against young American would-be franchise anchors like Evans, Garrett Hedlund and Chris Pine, would you immediately take the Brits?)

I’d also note that complaints about this casting seem decidedly one-sided. Hugh Jackman, an Australian, has played the most famous Canadian superhero ever in four movies now. James Bond is currently played by a guy born in Cheshire, while the actor before him was Irish and the iconic first guy was Scottish. (Also, on a related note, you should watch this.) “The Adventures of Tintin” comics are huge in Europe, and less so here; but it’s an American director named Spielberg who is directing the first film. J.R.R. Tolkien was born in South Africa, and his epic Lord of the Rings books were set on Middle-Earth, yet why didn’t casting directors take the time to find Elvish actors to play those roles? Wait, hang on, I’m getting away from my point.

Oh, right: who cares? Did anybody out there think twice about seeing “The Dark Knight” because a Welshman and an Aussie were playing Batman and the Joker? Of course not, because it doesn’t matter where someone was born in order to pretend to fight crime dressed as a giant bat. Ditto Superman. It’s nice that Superman is an American creation, and that he fights/fought for Truth, Justice and the Amurrican Way (it remains to be seen if the line survives into the upcoming reboot). A guy born on the Channel Islands is just as capable of pretending he can fly and shoot laser beams out of his eyes as a guy who literally grew up in Kansas.

It could be that American icons like these have long been international properties, and the casting is just catching up to it. (After all, Christopher Nolan was born in London, “Thor” director Kenneth Branagh is terribly British and Martin Campbell, director of “Green Lantern,” was born in New Zealand.) It could be that audiences are increasingly drawn to representations of a globalized world, or some nonsense like that. Or it could be that the manly American stars like Will Smith and the like are too big and too expensive to make comic book movies, which is why comic book movies often cast young and cheap quantities. There’s also the fact that many comic book movie storylines require people who aren’t physically imposing (like Hulk, Iron Man and Spider-Man).

Or, and this is just a theory: It could just be a combination of factors like right time, right age, right place and right price. That seems the likeliest explanation. It’s not so much that these dang foreigners done took our jebs, nor that they are the dream guys for any of these roles (I mean, look at Jon Hamm’s chin, the guy was born to be Superman). These are the guys available when they were casting the movies. A lot of this is just a weird coincidence of timing, and it becomes even more obvious because all three characters (Spider-Man, Batman and Superman) have movies coming out next year (for the time being; the Superman movie could still get bumped to the following summer, which wouldn’t surprise me). Dressing it up as a trend because these are the three superhero icons of page and screen is interesting, but it’s not really indicative of any actual trend.

Share

Spider-Man’s villain will be the Lizard

The “Spider-Man” reboot has a lead, a love interest and, now, a bad guy. Rhys Ifans, the slouching British actor announced earlier this week as the project’s unnamed baddie, will be playing the Lizard, according to The Wrap.

The Lizard is, as you might imagine from his name and the picture above, a gigantic lizard. He’s actually a scientist named Curt Connors who loses his arm, tries some wacky experiments to regain it and, as often happens in this situations, winds up mutating into a velociraptor. (The Lizard is part of a bigger trend in Spider-Man’s villains, where he faces quasi-anthropomorphic baddies named the Lizard, the Scorpion, the Rhino, et cetera.) If I recall correctly, the character is friendly with Peter Parker, which is why Spidey always winds up protecting his wife and son.

Credit to Marc Webb and Sony: They could have easily gone back to the Green Goblin with this one (or, worse, Venom), but are instead trying something markedly different. The Lizard actually appeared in Sam Raimi’s original trilogy: Dylan Baker played his human alter ego in both sequels, seemingly setting up the Lizard’s appearance at some point in the series.

(It’s worth noting that the villains that worked in the first films — the Green Goblin, Doctor Octopus — were humanistic in nature. The more outlandish the sci-fi (like a giant sand monster or an alien Topher Grace), the less the villains resonated. Of course, an outlandish villain (like just Sandman) wasn’t the third film’s only problem by a long shot.)

Since the film reportedly is working with a much smaller budget, it’ll be interesting to see how they go about tackling the Lizard, who will require some solid CGI to properly pull off.

Share

Emma Stone joins “Spider-Man” reboot (get excited, this post has a twist relating to hair color!)

Emma Stone, the rising star who was charming in “Superbad” and “Zombieland” and now has her very own hit (“Easy A”) in theaters, has been cast in the “Spider-Man” reboot. As has been rumored for days now, she’s been closing in on the female lead in this movie, which everybody assumed was Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst’s role in the original trilogy). You know, because she’s a famous redhead.

But Sony pulled a fast one on us, and cast Stone as Gwen Stacy, the famously doomed (uh, spoiler alert?) blonde first love of Peter Parker. Humorously, the press release notes that Stone is actually a natural blonde (like Sofia Vergara — I guess blonde is on its way out in Hollywood?). So will she return to her natural color for the movie? Or will Mia Wasikowska (or whomever) stay blonde as Mary Jane, completely flip-flopping the mythos and driving comic book fans nuts? Eh, who cares. The point is, a charming and immensely likable actress has been hired!

Share