SPIDEY 4 becomes AMAZING becomes Marvel's SPIDER-MAN

[Dacey]

The new actress? Why can't we just call her by name, George?

As much as I'm against the reboot, I do enjoy Emma Stone.

[Daniel]

Me too. She's cute and funny!

I laughed out loud when she hosted SNL and made a joke about the reboot. Something along the lines of, "I'm going to be playing the leading lady Gwen Stacy in the upcoming Spider-Man film, which is a reboot of the classic 2002 film". (horrible paraphrasing, I'm sure!) What she said and the way she delivered it was priceless.

Edit: found it on Youtube! (man I butchered it. )

[Ben]

Actually, ironically, she looks like an au natural Kirsten Dunst - before they got her to go redhead and redhead Bryce Howard to go bottle blonde! D'oh!

[Randall]

I just wish they could have cast an actress that looked this good as Gwen...!

More real-life women should look like Adam Hughes drawings, I agree.

Actually, ironically, she looks like an au natural Kirsten Dunst - before they got her to go redhead and redhead Bryce Howard to go bottle blonde! D'oh!

No, she's WAY cuter than Kirsten!

[GeorgeC]

No kidding on the Dunst comments!

Frankly, I thought she was a bit cuter in her teen days...

Bryce Howard is simply gorgeous when she's made up. One of the few actresses that can go red or blonde. She was one of the few new elements I cared for in Spider-Man 3.

I almost wish they brought back Gwen Stacy in the mainstream comics. IF they're gonna undo the Parker marriage and resurrect both Osbornes why couldn't Marvel undo the most heartbreaking moment in Spidey's life after Uncle Ben's murder? THAT would have injected badly needed drama into Spidey's love life. No clones accepted!

Sorry, but the current storylines in the Spidey books stink... Marvel really has ruined their flagship character. The best thing would be to get rid of the current EIC and bring in a new guy more concerned with the comics and characters than a fellow who's cruising on hype and trying to shmooze his way into Hollywood. I dislike Quesada more than even the head editorial guys at DC.

[Dacey]

Behold, ANGST-MAN!!!

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=73242

[Randall]

Wow. I wasn't expecting a photo so soon. Not sure what to say.

I guess I should have known they'd change the costume, but I kinda wish they'd have kept it closer to the original (though it's fairly close already). It's not bad, though.

Now how about a new Captain America photo from the same site?
http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=73240
Nice to see the head-wings made the cut!

[GeorgeC]

Didn't mind the deletion of the 'red belt' on the costume. Don't see why it was done but at least Spidey doesn't look like a ninja.

Frankly, without that awful 'silver webbing' in the previous 3 Spider-Man films it actually looks closer to the comic book look! I felt that the silver webbing detracted from what was otherwise a fairly faithful adaptation of the classic Spidey look.

Could care less about the spider symbol on the outfit. That changes depend on who's drawing the comic book a the time. 8 legs, spider head and body -- it's Spider-Man...

It's not at all like Captain America's uniform and shield which are supposed to have certain details be consistent. It's one of the most perfectly designed costumes to begin with. It's had relatively few tweaks through the lifetime of the character.

I won't be rushing to either of these films... There are things that I've read from the moviemakers that are a bit unsettling and do not sound like words that would come out of people who are familiar with the subject matter...

[Ben]

Um...underwhelming? But then everything else about this film, a remake of something still less than ten years old, has been too.

George...the belt still looks there to me. You can see a teeny bit of it on the right of his hip. I think he's covered in some blacky goo, obviously coming out of a tough battle? He has scratches on his face too.

While I like the classic pose, the costume is trying too hard. What's with all the cut strips on the gloves? And he looks a little weedy to me, not that Parker was ever a hulk, but it seems they're taking the human/Parker angle on this a little too far. We do want our superheroes and our superhero movies to be super, right!?

Like Rand, not sure what to think right now. Maybe this is Parker Spidey costume 1.0? Or maybe this really is it (my guess) and they want to lower our expectations!? Worse, if you take the image and brighten it up, you can see these black wavy lines on it (like the Tron suits), which don't look like the black goo. They look like intentional black wavy lines on the costume, marking out the belt and some funky side panels on his upper thighs. Looks like an update, alright, but too edgy maybe.

Nevertheless, underwhelming as it is, they have ultimately kept the basic design and not changed things for the sake of them. They've basically put their stamp on the established costume, not changed it entirely. And most importantly the colors are still there - they haven't made him burgundy and dark blue!

As always, we'll have to wait and see this properly, moving in bright light, but it's not so far removed from what we've had before. Maybe that's why it's just so-so? What's new?

[Ben]

Just came across this image on another site (obviously it's doing the rounds!) and had a thought...

Maybe we're wrong about this take on the webbed-wonder. Not that I'm switching to condone a retelling of a story told in a film less than ten years ago, but...

What if this is the Christopher Nolan take on Spidey?

As in, what if this mirrors the Burton Bats in that we had two great, very theatrical first movies, followed by a mostly misfiring third one (which Burton produced, I'm cutting the fourth out of this equation for multiple reasons), before a reboot got back to basics and started again?

Surely that's crossed Sony's mind in their direction they're going with this, and as such my interest just grew a bit more. I'm waiting to see more...

[Randall]

I always thought that, as much as Ramai got right, he pigeon-holed himself too much by introducing MJ too fast. He gave her the Gwen Stacey role, and Gwen herself only came into being once Peter was at College. Bringing in MJ right away really limited them in the sequels. Going back to high school is where Spidey works best anyhow. I only wish I could figure out why they cast the role so old again. Garfield's physique is good for the role, but he'll be pushing 30 soon enough too when they start doing sequels.

[GeorgeC]

A) They don't think about the aging during those 2-3 year gaps Rand;
B) This is not like the Harry Potter series where they figure they've got a guaranteed hit series and can keep films in production year after year;
C) There are child labor laws and all kinds of safety issues that make it impractical to cast legitimate 15-17 year olds in these roles; and
D) Most 15-17 year olds aren't mature enough to be believable actors at any rate...

There are already concerns with the Spider-Man musical on Broadway right now. At least two cast members have been seriously hurt in accidents and it's very likely at least one other person will be hurt badly if that show ever goes into a regular run... The injuries have happened during previews while the show is still having its kinks worked out.

Imagine the scandal if somebody gets killed...! That will probably kill that Broadwayshow for good.

That's something that's taken into consideration with films now. Especially where kids are involved.

This came to the forefront of production concerns after Vic Morrow and two child actors were killed during production of Twilight Zone: The Movie. A highly dangerous stunt was performed under bad conditions with the kids in situations they shouldn't have been placed in the first place -- and all three actors died when the helicopter involved in the stunt crashed down and (according to most reports) decapitated them. The stunt was illegal to do with those kids and they were on-set during hours when they should have been home sleeping in their beds.
Not only were three human beings killed but a unit director lost the ability to ever work in motion pictures again in a direct supervisory capacity. He got scapegoated because he was directly on scene (and I don't say that he DOESN'T bear some responsibility) but his higher-ups kept their careers in spite of lawsuits that followed them for years.

[GeorgeC]

To be fair, there were also stunts performed with child actors during the production of the 'Our Gang' (aka 'Little Rascals') shorts that wouldn't be done with kids today, either.

It was also not long ago that kids were also cast in parts where characters smoked onscreen. There were no reasons for them to smoke other than it looked 'cute' or somebody had a sponsor that wanted smoking in the picture. (There's an infamous story where Sylvester Stallone was paid to smoke a brand of cigarettes during the production of the movie 'Cobra.') This began lifelong smoking habits for many actors. That's generally not done today, either... even though it seems that well over half of all actors and creative people still smoke!

I've heard more than a few stories of people in acting/modeling being told to quit smoking by their doctors because they were warned that they were entering the zone of Stage 1 emphysema if they otherwise didn't. It happened that one former model quit in her 20's but still has early stage emphysema in her mid-late 30's. Heavy smoking has definitely led to the premature deaths of many show business icons with Walt Disney being a prime example. Michael Douglas just recently underwent treatment for throat cancer due to years of abusing alcohol and smoking. The tumor that he had is gone and his cancer is in remission; however, it's nasty stuff that's liable to come back within the next 5-7 years.

[Randall]

Not to go all "Eric" on ya, but... you're tangent-ing again, Georgie.

But going back to your points on casting an older actor for Spidey: I have to disagree. Stunts aren't a concern when you have stuntmen wearing the mask, or having CGI do all the heavy lifting. And I didn't expect a 15 year old to be cast. A young adult would do. Garfield's 28 this year! Not old, perhaps, but surely a 21 year old would make a more believable high schooler for this and at least one sequel?

[Ben]

I don't think Rand's saying an actual Parker-aged teen should be cast, George. But surely someone in their early twenties, so they'd just about get to their early thirties before three or four films were done is more logical than a late 20s actor, who'll be nearer 40 when they get done with another trilogy.


OOPS: just seen Rand's post above.