This site will work and look better in a browser that supports web standards, but it is accessible to any browser or Internet device.

Whedonesque - a community weblog about Joss Whedon
"I could squeeze you until you popped like warm champagne."
11973 members | you are not logged in | 14 July 2020


May 21 2012

Andrew Garfield talks about The Avengers. "Joss Whedon is a genius, and it's an incredible cast. I was very, very jealous, and I wanted to jump on the screen and play with them. It killed me that I wasn't in it, but I understand why, and I'm not insulted."

It sucks because I love the actor, but Andrew Garfield is no Spider-Man. not his fault, but there was no need to re-boot that series that was commercially and critically successful (excluding Spider-Man 3, even though it was a box office hit.) He looks more like a Harry Osborn, anyway.

But LOVE him in The Social Network and the videos I've seen of Death of a Salesman.
Hmmm. I'm still really nervous about this Spidey film. (Spider-Man is my all-time favorite hero) It seems like they are making it too GrimDark and it will take itself too seriously. I wish it had been made after The Avengers so maybe it could have taken a "fun" cue from that movie. I also think that if they are going to reboot Spider-Man in film it would have been nice to see it done by Marvel Studios. Especially after The Avengers, it would have been cool to get Spidey in on the shared universe too. I also trust Marvel more with their own characters.

I do really like Andrew Garfield though. We shall see.

[ edited by Giles_314 on 2012-05-21 14:37 ]
I think the trailers are making the film look a lot darker than it will be. Webb and Garfield have talked a lot about making Spidey funny again.

"You've found my weakness... small knives!"
Well, when your lead and your writer/director quit that series, anything else you do might as well be a reboot. And since they wanted to keep the movie rights so they could keep riding that wave of success from the previous movies, they had to make one quick.

It'd be nice to see Marvel get a chance to do it, but so long as Sony wants to make money it won't happen.

If Garfield was a few years younger and a few inches shorter I think he'd make a pretty perfect peter parker/spider man. So I'm happy with the casting.
He was incredibly good in the Red Riding Trilogy so that makes me want too what he is like as Spider-Man
Cool guy i think, seems to enjoy things and is not an ego-maniac or pretentious douche.
He was also brilliant in 'Boy A'. Really hoping this turns out well for him.
I managed to see some preview footage of The Amazing Spider-Man yesterday, and I got super excited after seeing it. He just seems to suit Peter Parker a lot more and nails the whole quipping thing. Seriously; less dark than you think and more of the wise-cracking, awkward teenager in terms of approach. Also, Donald Glover shout-out sounds awesome.
I am so tired of all the "Garfield is a bad Spider-Man and this series needs no reboot" whining. If you were actually happy with the first trilogy then you are no Spider-Man comics fan. The first trilogy was extremely flawed and not a good adaptation of the characters. Green Goblin was utterly ruined, Kirsten Dunst was a terrible,terrible unworthy Mary Jane and Tobey Maguire was a complete fail as Peter Parker and even more so as Spider-Man. I mean you should check the comics. Peter Parker is not that whiny crybaby that Maguire was. And Spider-Man is supposed to be extremely smart and witty and making jokes. Spider-Man in the first trilogy wasnt anything like that. then things like making MJ his first love while Gwen Stacy is his legendary first love in the comics or making every villain into a victim....And then so many people actually think this series needs no reboot? A reboot was already needed after the 2nd film.

The only things that were cool about Raimis films were the costume design, the action and FX scenes (especially in the last two films that was some truly awesome work) and J. Jonah Jameson who was a perfect adaptation. Oh and Harry Osborn was also very well done. Alfred Molina was fantastic as Dr.Octopus but they ruined his character in the end by making him a good guy again which was so wrong.

And now lets look at the reboot:

a Peter Parker who is much like in the comics -CHECK

Emma Stone as the perfect Gwen Stacy as his first love - CHECK

Peter being very intelligent and a wisecracking Spider-Man - CHECK

A villain who is finally faithful to the comics version - CHECK

A lead actor who is a total fan of Spider-Man who knows the comics - CHECK

Okay I do admit that the new costume doesnt look as good as the old one but it still looks totally like Spider-Man. I can not understand how a TRUE Spider-Man fan (I have been reading Spidey comics for over 15 years) can not be excited about this reboot since it looks like the Spider-Man movie that should always have been made. To me this is FINALLY Spider-Man as I love him from the comics judging from images, clips and trailers. Screw the mediocre Raimi films who failed to deliver a truly faithful live-action Spider-Man. And Garfield who seems to be so passionate about this character and such a fan himself is perfect for that role. And Emma Stone looks like the PERFECT Gwen Stacy.

I also wish that Sony would make some kinda deal with Marvel Studios so that Garfields Spidey could join the Avengers in the future. The only two major Marvel heroes that I was missing in the Avengers film were Spider-Man and Wolverine. If you say "Earths mightiest heroes" they must be in there. they are like Batman and Superman for DC. they are probably Marvels two biggest flagship characters (even more than Cap, Iron Man and Thor). Of course there are lots of great Avengers characters that I would wish to be in future films like Ms Marvel, Scarlet Witch, Spider-Woman or Vision but the two characters I would want in the next films more than any other Marvel characters are Wolverine and Spider-Man. If you add them to the roster then you truly have Marvels elite assembled.
My view on the Spidey reboot is this:

1. Sam Raimi's trilogy jumped the shark. It started promising but shaky, got a lot better in the sequel, then completely turned to irreparable garbage in the third installment. It cannot, and should not continue. Retconning Ben's death in that way, and messing up the symbiote to that extent, can only be fixed by a reboot.

2. Marvel Studios would get the option to buy back the movie rights if Sony didn't make another Spider-Man movie. As such, from Sony's perspective, a reboot had to be made. I would personally have liked to see Marvel Studios get the rights back, but Sony would have to be pretty impossibly altruistic to let that happen, so I see why they chose to reboot it.

3. I personally really hope it'll be a good movie, and from what I've seen, it looks promising. The child rescue in the 4 minute preview is wonderfully human, and Andrew seems to me like a much better choice than Tobey. I really want this reboot to be worth sacrificing Spidey's potential return to Marvel, and so far I haven't been getting the vibe that it won't be good. There hasn't been a lot of humor in the trailers, but what little there's been seems to suggest higher quality than "It's you who are out, Gobby! Out of your MIND!", so I'm not complaining. Furthermore, I think it's good that they're not jumping straight to Mary Jane Watson (although, strangely, Emma Stone, who plays Gwen Stacy, looks almost exactly like Steve Ditko's Mary Jane drawings, so that's some slightly confusing casting, but that's hardly important).

4. If the movie is bad, I hope they don't make another one, because I want Marvel to get the rights back. If the movie is good, I hope Sony can sort out some kind of deal with Marvel to do crossovers with shared profits in the future, because I'd love to see Spider-Man turn up in the next big Marvel event. Not sure how likely it is that that would be sorted out, but it would be really nice.
Marc Webb did such a fantastic job with 500 Days of Summer and the trailers look so funny, I think this might be much better than the other Spider-man movies.
I'm definitely keeping an open mind and I WANT to like it, I'm just apprehensive about the tone. However, it is sounding like that might be an example of Never Trust the Trailer.

I didn't dislike the Raimi movies at all. I still think Spider-Man 2 is one of the best superhero movies ever. The third one tried to do too much but wasn't TERRIBLE. The tone of those movies was very cheesey but in a fun way that I didn't mind at all, with the exception of a few moments. One of the things that it looks like the new one will do better is capturing how Spider-Man moves. Spidey is ridiculously fast and agile, and that is something that is difficult to show in comics but relatively easy in film. I feel like it was a missed opportunity in the Raimi films and, judging from the trailers, it seems like this movie is really going to capture the acrobatics of Spider-Man much better.

Really though, my dream is for a Joss written/directed Spider-Man film. Sigh. Somewhere there is an alternate universe where this has happened. It's probably the one with no shrimp.
Actually, when I read the Buffy movie script years ago, that was my thought - "This guy should have written the Spider-Man movie".
But I'm pretty sure the world without shrimp is where rebooted Buffy lives, so you've gotta focus on the positive.
I don't think it will be Garfield's fault, and certainly not Stone's, but Spider-Man is gonna be a relative bomb, IMO. Of course, "bomb" is a relative thing, the way "Superman Returns" is a bomb because it carried the production cost of like 15 years of failed attempts to make like three different movies. But I don't think this "Spider-Man" is gonna beat the Raimi numbers, and certainly not with 2-3 weeks before "Dark Knight Rises" comes out.
Yeah, The Amazing Spider-Man probably won't have a big opening weekend, and it won't matter how good the movie is. But if the movie is amazing, it might climb.
gotta side with spike the first spider-man trilogy was shit and half the time toby looked constipated so really im glad that a reboot is being made
Yes Spider-Man 2 was actually a good movie but it had still tremendous flaws in the characterization of the characters (Peter, MJ, Ock) and it really wasnt the kind of Spider-Man I love from the comics (where was the wisecracking, smart and wit?) and I also hated how the humor didnt come from Peter himself but from making fun of him and ridiculing him all the time. Jonah was awesome though and Ock (apart from the whole "its the tentacles fault" thing) was almost perfect. and the action and effects was very amazing (Though I heavily dislike the scene of Peter stopping the train. Thats eemed so out of place). But why did Peter take his mask off ALL THE TIME in this film? man that annoyed the hell out of me. If he is in costume being Spider-Man then he should wear that mask. If you do Spider-Man then do Spider-Man.
I've got no issue with Garfield or any of the casting actually. My problem is I don't want to see Spider-man's origin story AGAIN. I've seen it told and retold so many times in my 31 years on this Earth, that I have no desire to see it again. I wish they would've followed the lead of THE INCREDIBLE HULK which, while a flawed film, spared us from an origin story we just saw a few years earlier by just quickly recapping it in the opening credits.

ETA: SPIDER-MAN 2 is amazing. I think a lot of people don't remember it being as excellent as it actually is (maybe because SPIDER-MAN 3 is such a mess). I know when I re-watched it a year or two ago, it really blew me away. Michael Chabon did a great job with that script.

[ edited by WindTheFrog on 2012-05-21 15:42 ]
It maybe was a great script but not a great Spider-Man script. Read the comics and youŽll know what I mean.
Spidey's origin story is one of the greatest superhero stories of all time. I don't see how you could launch a film series without it. (Although having said that, oddly, none of the cartoon series ever did.)

From what I can tell they're changing things up enough that it might actually be worth it. Obviously they don't want it to be a complete retread of the first film...

And I totally wish Spider-Man and the Avengers could share the same cinematic universe, but I guess you can't have everything. (I don't doubt that one day in the far future they will be able to do that.)

[ edited by daylight on 2012-05-21 15:55 ]
WindTheFrog, Michael Chabon did a draft of "Spider-Man 2" and only a few aspects of his draft was included in that film. If you want to credit the writer for "Spider-Man 2", Alvin Sargent is the one. And you're right, "Spider-Man 2" is an amazing film (it's in my top 5 superhero films). People like to trash Raimi's trilogy because the first film is okay and the third film is a mess, script-wise... but Raimi nailed "Spider-Man 2".

I don't mind a Raimi/Maguire-free "Spider-Man" film, it just bugs me they're retelling the origin story. It's unneeded, and changing the origin just doesn't make a lick of sense. I wish Garfield well if the reboot franchise is a success, but I think Sony should've let the rights go back and Garfield could've played the character with the right suit and right director. Say what you want about Marvel Studios and their unorthodox director picks, but they at least make tonally consistent films.
Well, Andrew Garfield seem like a nice, thoughtful chap. His enjoyment of The Avengers sounds very genuine and he seemed to experience a similar childlike joy to that which I felt when I watched it the first time.

I haven't read Spider-Man comics since I was about seven or eight, so I can't claim to know what would be true to the comics. I did love Tobey Maguire's version even if there were significant diversions from what I remembered. I also really liked the train scene. I found it moving and shed a tear or two. Having said that, I'm rooting for Garfield and I hope he and the rest of the team pull it off.
What a year... Death of a Salesman on B-Way and the Spiderman reboot in film. I think David Fincher is owed a major debt in Garfield's career - "The Social Network" is, in my mind, what made him a presence.
@SPIKE I've been reading Marvel comics since I was 11, I've read plenty of issues of Spider-man. We'll just have to agree to disagree on what makes a great Spidey story.

@MCJW Thanks for pointing that out, I was unaware Chabon had so little to do with the final script. I'm a big fan of his novels, so I naturally remembered his name in the credits. I didn't realize anyone else worked on the script.
What gives me pause is the city-in-danger angle this new one seems to have. We hear audio of a reporter saying, "There has been a biological attack on New York." Through no fault of Spidey's, summer 2012 is simply the worst point in history to release a city-in-danger film. Sandwiched directly between The Avengers and The Dark Knight Rises, two movies that also have that as their main theme, and will be impossible to beat at their own game. People who have seen The Avengers (that's everyone, right?), and who are planning to see TDKR (again... everyone) may skip it just because they don't feel like a third comic book movie with that angle this summer.

Also, Spidey is traditionally a little more personal. It's one of his main strengths as a character, IMHO. The people working on the film seem to be aware of that, so here's hoping they stress that angle, for the good of the movie's quality and its box office success.
No 500 Days of Summer fans here?
Spike the Avenger, I think you may be putting a little too much stock in a movie you have not seen yet. Especially if you're flat out calling it a better adaptation than the Raimi films which are some of the most popular, live action super hero movies of all time. I think Spider-Man 2 is almost as good as any super hero movie ever made--rightly placed with the likes of the original Christopher Reeve Superman movie, The Dark Knight and Sin City.

As for Spider-Man in the comics, there have been some pretty awful Spidey comics over the years. For example, its really not fair to compare a Lee/Ditko Spidey arc with some of the schlock storylines that have followed. Including the massive retcon cop-out in the recent Brand New Day re-boot storyline.

And using the unoriginal, "Spidey talks like a smart-alec, sarcasticly quipping with a robber" bit is over used IMO. (Maybe I'm just over-thinking it because I've seen that trailer a few times already on tv and in the theater) However, I will say that I think they made a very gutsy decision to include the "inorganic" web shooters. Its a gamble that could pay huge dividends or it could be a major storytelling stumbling block for the kids that grew-up watching Raimi's built-in shooters. Personally, I am in favor of web shooters, fluid cartridges and the rest! That might be the thing I am most excited to see in the new film.

I have no doubt I'll be seeing the new Amazing on the first release weekend.
There is nothing unoriginal in "Spidey talks like a smart-alec, sarcasticly quipping with a robber". Thats who the character is. Raimis movies were like Superman being an arrogant a***hole or Batman cracking unfunny jokes to the joker. That doesnt mean the movies were bad, but faithfull they aint.
@ dispatch, I don't think the "city in danger" angle is what's turning people off "Amazing Spider-Man." The advertising is all over the place, and it's not consistent. It wants to emulate "The Dark Knight" but it wants Spider-Man more of a wisecracking hero. And there are a few scenes which are direct from the Raimi films, especially the constant unmasking and Spider-Man swinging through the city. And the movie overall doesn't look that promising. I could be wrong if the movie ends up being good, but I'm not keeping my hopes up.

@ shannonMS81, just because Marc Webb directed a good indie film doesn't mean he'll weave that same magic for the Peter/Gwen romance, or make it fun.
Shannon - I am! And I can't believe that's his only other feature film directing credit. It was a very clear, intelligently constructed, entertaining movie, and I hope that he can bring the same qualities to an action film. But if you look at his entire works, it's evident that he has those skills. It just goes to show, people who make a lot of shorts and music videos (or in Joss' case, tv shows) may be more qualified to make an excellent film than the usual film directors.
alexreager of xourse you are right. there are tons of bad comic stories about Spider-Man which is only natural considering that the character has been around for 50 years. So of course there are masterpieces, good stories, mediocre stories and downright garbage. I too HATED that One more day/brand new day stuff and I actually STOPPED reading Spider-Man after that but before that I had read Spider-Man for over 15 years. Like you raimi was very fond of the Ditko/Lee era and it showed especially in the 2nd film. The 3rd film was considerably weaker (though I still like it more than the 1st) because they forced Raimi to do stuff that he wasnt passionate about - stuff from the Micheline/McFarlane era like the Symbiote/Venom stuff. For me thats actually my favorite Spider-Man era. David Micheline and Todd McFarlane are comic book gods in my eyes who created the best Spider-Man stuff out there. especially the Venom and Carnage stuff. But I also loved the 70s stuff with the Death of the Stacys and all that. So when I meant that a great Spider-Man film should be faithful to the comics and to the characters of them I of course meant the great and legendary stories, not the bad comics. That should go without saying. I would also love for the Black Cat to finally show up since she is my most favorite female Marvel character along with Jean Grey. I LOVE Spidey and Black Cat together. She was in a draft of Spider-Man 2 but they cut it out.

And if I consider what Raimi had in mind for Spider-Man 4, I am even MORE happy that this didnt happen. he planned to bring in felicia hardy (Black Cat!) but instead of being Black Cat she would have become a female version of the Vulture. WTF?????? Thank god this atrocity was stopped dead in its tracks.

And I dont think Raimi nailed Spider-Man with the 2nd film. The 2nd film is a lot of fun and is a very very good film, yes. But it does not nail the character in any way. Spider-Man or Peter Parker in the comics (also not in the Ditko-era) is not like Maguires portrayal in the film. And Dock Ock is a scientist gone evil, not a poor man who has been victimized by his tentacles. Kirsten Dunst as Mary Jane is a TERRIBLE adaptation of the character. So how can you say that raimi "nailed" it ? He didnt. the film is great but Raimi definitely does NOT nail the characters in his films like for instance Whedon or Nolan do in theirs. Thats a fact. And if you are a comic reader and can not see that then something is going very wrong here.

And if someone now tries to tell me that Raimi nailed Norman Osborn in the first film I might pop the claws :P
@Spike-I have to respectfully disagree about Spidey and Wolverine. There were a lot of people who were outraged when they joined the Avengers, and they are not classic Avengers members but have only recently joined the teams since Bendis has been writing it.
Oh and smart-a** .wisecracking,sarcastic Spider-Man as well as webshooters is a MUST to me. Thats who Spider-Man is to me. Thats what he should have been like in Raimis films. Thats what you call faithful. If thats "unoriginal" to some people so be it. I prefer unoriginal above unfaithful then.
Jelly yes they were not Avengers members in the past but does it matter? I dont know anyone who was outraged by that. I think it was something that was long overdue. The Avengers were created to counter DCs success with the Justice League. And what exactly is the Justice League? Its a team consisting of the biggest DC heroes. All the flagship heroes of DC are members: Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, Flash, Aquaman.

The Avengers is supposed to be Marvels version of that. Yet two of the biggest Marvel heroes of all time (Spidey and Wolverine) were not in it. So to me them joining the Avengers was something that should have happened decades ago. The Avengers is supposed to be the Marvel elite. The kind of characters that immediately come to mind if you think Marvel. So Wolverine and Spider-Man are a must. simple as that.
I think Andrew Garfield is great, not only for "Social Network" and "The Red Riding Trilogy," but also for "Never Let Me Go." And everybody here knows that Fran Kranz is in "Death of a Salesman" with Garfield, right? (And Kranz says wonderful, wonderful things about Garfield as an actor and as a human being in interviews.)
Mcjw_serenity it may have been an independent movie, but it certainly didn't feel like one. It had huge production values. (That is one of my favorite scenes in any movie ever. And it's not even my favorite scene from that movie, that one is too spoilery.)

WhatsAStevedore I agree, I was so pleased when they announced he was doing the reboot.

Now that I'm not posting from my phone I'll type up my expanded thoughts.

The original Spider-man trilogy was good in a safe way. It felt lobotomized to me though. It felt like someone said "These are things that make it a comic book, lets do our best to write them out or rework them for a more reality based movie."

And they did, they were afraid to let a high school boy be a genius capable of making web shooters. They were afraid to let the movie be dark one moment, and extremely light the next.

Spider-man is my favorite hero, because at any given time he has so much piled upon his back. People hate his superhero identity, they assume the worse about him, they openly mock him, he gets beat to crap more often than not. As Peter Park everyone dumps on him, he constantly disappoints people by not being around, or taking off and being unreliable in general, and he can't tell them why. He has this enormous burden all to himself, and most people would snap, go rogue, or just quit altogether, and he doesn't. He lets some of that seep out with his biting, sarcastic one liners.

The original trilogy was good, well the first two were. But they didn't capture the comic book character I loved at all.

If Sony was going to reboot it, of course they had to start with the origin. It would have been too confusing for people if they didn't. They would think it had to do with the other movies. I thought the second Hulk movie was related to the first for the longest time.

The only thing I will say, as far Spider-man taking his mask off. He does that all the time in the comics. That isn't an actor wanting his face on the screen thing. That's them being true to the comics. He loses his mask, or takes it off because it smells all the time.
Shannon THIS. You absolutely nailed it with that post. Finally someone who gets it. Thats exactly what I am talking about.
I completely agree with ShannonMS81 on the point of Raimi's Spidey trilogy being too safe. Very well said. It didn't take the risk of being a full-on comic book movie.

[ edited by GreatMuppetyOdin on 2012-05-21 18:24 ]
Shannon, well said for the most part, but I don't think what you say about the mask is true. Particularly given I've read nearly every Spider-Man comic out there and I cannot think of a single instance where he took off his mask "because it smells".

Actually the reason they do it in the movie is not so much the lead but because it's hard for an audience to connect with a character that has no facial expressions.
As far as the mask coming off -- it's the same reason Iron Man keeps flipping his helmet up in his films and we get the inside-the-helmet shot. It's important to be able to see an actors face view so that we can see them actually emote. If we couldn't see their face - their eyes - it wouldn't be as powerful.
Maybe the smell thing is just Ultimate Spider-man. Oh god it is, when he and Wolverine switched bodies, it was Wolverine in his body complaining about the smell lol. But I mean, he does lose his mask quite often, or decides to fight unmasked numerous times that I can remember.
I never liked Ultimate Spider-Man. I was too much invested with the 616 Spider-Man for so long that all those changes and different interpretations and portrayals (Like Goblin being a hulklike being or Carnage being a vampire-like creature) in USM felt too weird to me. I am sure its great for a new audience but for an old school reader like me its just irritating.

Oddly though I LOVED Ultimate X-Men (at least until Ultimatum ruined the series forever) event though I have been reading 616 X-Men even longer than Spider-Man (Claremonts and Jim Lees X-Men series in the early 90s got me into comics) But for some reason I loved UXM as much as the 616 X-Men titles while I tried USM for about 20 issues but just didnt like it because it felt so "wrong"

But in the 616 universe I have read hundreds of Spider-Man comics and he doesnt take his mask off very often. There are only very few instances where he is fighting with his mask off. The more usual case is him wearing it because thats his iconic look. When he takes off the mask (and thats the problems in the films as well) its not as cool and powerful and iconic anymore. Then he is just Peter but not Spider-Man anymore. That look of Spider-Man with that mask is just so cool and iconic so when he takes it off I can actually connect less with the character. Because I dont wanna see Peters face or his eyes when he is being in Spidey mode. It kind of ruins the imagery for me.
I guess he does a bit in USM. Yeah, it's not always the most authentic Spidey experience (although there was a time when it was a lot closer than the then current issues of Amazing), but it's a really great series all the same.
Raimi definitely does NOT nail the characters in his films like for instance Whedon or Nolan do in theirs. Thats a fact. And if you are a comic reader and can not see that then something is going very wrong here.

No it's an opinion. And I've warned you about this sort of behaviour before so you may cool your jets for a while.
Not really on topic, Shannon- I love 500 Days of Summer too, and that scene... man I get all smiley-laughing just thinking about it :oD
I'm not hot on seeing the origin story again,no matter the changes made and focus on the parents, since it was just done ten years ago.I can understand why Batman Begins did the origin story since the previous series never did a origin film(Batman 89 gave a brief flashback late in the film)and I can understand why Man of Steel will be a origin story since Superman's origin was last told on the big screen(Smallville was a origin story series but T.V is a different medium) over 30 years ago in 1978's Superman The Movie.But I think Spider-Man being rebooted with a origin story movie just five years after Spider-Man 3 and ten years after the first film is way too soon.

I think the cast and creative team is good and I like that they are using The Lizard(I think Kraven would be a great villain in a future film as well as Electro)and I will certainly see it since Spidey is my favorite Marvel hero(Superman,Batman,Spider-Man and Green Lantern are my favorite comic book superheroes)but the origin story again is just not that exciting to me.If they had to reboot,I wish they took the Hulk approach where The Incredible Hulk briefly retold the origin over the opening credits.

I think reboots are being done too often now when they are not necessary.In the old days,they would not ditch continuity.They would just recast and bring a new director or creative team but keep continuity.They would try to create a superior sequel.Now they just ditch everything and reboot as a quick easy fix.

I mean there are rumors that Batman is going to be rebooted again after The Dark Knight Rises.

Recently Kevin Feige in The Avengers promotion said that this is not plan with the Marvel Cinmatic movies.There is some question on how much longer RDJ will continue to play Iron Man.He's no longer under contract after Iron Man 3 and they'll have re-nogotiate a new one for more MCU films.

Feige said they hope RDJ sticks with the role for years to come but when the day comes that he's ready to call it quits,they'll take the James Bond approach and just re-cast but maintain continuity with the previous MCU films(just like was done with the Hulk from The Incredible Hulk and the Avengers).
I think the previews for this look ok, but I was a lot more excited about before I found out that the same team who wrote transformers 1-2 and cowboys & aliens would be writing the sequel. I kind of don't want to get invested at this point.
@SpikeTheAvenger The creation and success of Avengers led to the creation of JLA, not the other way around.
Continuation is all well and good as long as it is kept in tone. I don't want to have a continuation of Nolan's Dark Knight series by anyone else. I refuse to consider the Schumacher Batman films to be a continuation of Tim Burton's, even though technically they are. I think reboots can happen without it meaning 'having to go all the way back to the beginning'. Which I guess means, in this case, yeah it seems like it would have made more sense to make a Spidey reboot without going back and redoing the origin, though with how much Raimi's origin got wrong...

I dunno, it doesn't look that good to me, but I hope it will prove me wrong.
As for Nolan getting Batman right...I'm not entirely sure I agree. I think he cast exactly the wrong person for the part. Christian Bale yells far too much to be Batman. It might look better on the page, but Bale's growling and screaming kind of takes away from the character. The movies are great, but they would have been much better with a different (less raging, more subtle) actor in the Batman role.
I agree GreatMuppetyOdin. I would actually go a bit further and say Batman needs to be rebooted if DC want's to parallel what Marvel is doing with the Avengers. Nolan, while he did create two fantastic movies. He made them in such a way that they don't allow for the rest of the DC universe. It even rejected a lot of the batman mythos.
fray-adjacent, I'm surprised they've announced the writing team for the sequel! Isn't that kind of presumptuous of them? What if it bombs?

Also, I did not agree with much of what Spike the Avenger said but the Justice League definitely came first. First appearance was in Brave and the Bold #28 (march 1960) and their solo book came out about 7 months later in October 1960. Both of those books came out before any of the Marvel super heroes existed.
Captain America is a Marvel superhero that existed quite a while before the Justice League, nearly two decades, in fact (1941). But the Avengers debuted in '63.
I'm with GreatMuppetyOdin on Nolan's Batman flicks. How can anyone claim Nolan really gets Batman when he changed one of the most crucial points of Batman's origin? His parents' killer is caught?!? What?!? And it pains me that DC changed the comics origin to match the movie origin through one of their "Crisis" event books.

As for Bale, I think he makes a great Bruce Wayne but his Batman is definitely lacking. His weird Batman-voice kills it.
QingTing,yes, Cap's been around for a while! :)

My thought process was this, in 1960 Captain America would have been considered a Timely Comics character (or possibly an Atlas character, the company imprint in the mid to late 1950s). Cap had not been used in a team or solo book for several years before they thawed him out in The Avengers #4. This was the first time Captain America appeared as a Marvel character per se, over a year after the Justice League came into existence.
I'm with GreatMuppetyOdin on Nolan's Batman flicks. How can anyone claim Nolan really gets Batman when he changed one of the most crucial points of Batman's origin? His parents' killer is caught?!? What?!? And it pains me that DC changed the comics origin to match the movie origin through one of their "Crisis" event books.

As for Bale, I think he makes a great Bruce Wayne but his Batman is definitely lacking. His weird Batman-voice kills it.

WindTheFrog | May 21, 22:52 CET

Actually, if I recall rightly, the earlier Batman comics from the 60s or 70s actually have the same thing happen that Nolan did in Batman Begins: Joe Chill, the robber who kills the Waynes, is caught and jailed for his crime. There was even some soap opera thrown in by having Mrs. Chilton (apparently the forgotten housekeeper that works at Wayne Manor almost no one but the staunchest Bat-fan remembers) be Joe Chill's mother. Though the idea of Batman not discovering THAT little tidbit is kinda laughable....

[ edited by BlueEyedBrigadier on 2012-05-22 07:27 ]

[ edited by BlueEyedBrigadier on 2012-05-22 07:28 ]
I understand the trepidation, particularly concerning the tone. The trailers do make it seem pretty dark. However, I'm also glad to see they're finally giving Spidey his wit back and have high hopes for the flick. As far as Garfield goes he's always so charming in interviews and if a fraction of that comes across in the movie he'll be great. Also he definitely looks the part much more than Tobey.
Nolan's Batman is entirely faithful, IMO, to my favorite era of Batman, from the KnightFall era on through, oh, Contagion -- the tone, the ambience. Nolan and David Goyer also, in three movies, look like they will have picked and executed the three most awesome of Batman's villains in Ra's, Joker, and Bane.

As for how faithful Raimi's or Webb's Spider-Man is... I can't really say because I grew up reading more DC stuff and while I loved the Spidey cartoon it wasn't a big comic buy for me. The most distinct Spider-Man comic memory I have was from "What if... the Punisher killed Daredevil?" But Raimi's, at least the first two, were pretty fun. I just don't feel the public enthusiasm for this flick the way I do for other movies this summer -- particularly "The Avengers" and "The Dark Knight Rises". I think ASM will be doing well to equal the 2008 "Hulk"/2011 "Thor" or "Cap" numbers.

What would be really great to see would actually be some great team up that has Sony and Marvel/Disney make a new Spider-Man movie (a re-reboot!) together, with Sony getting the lion's share but with Marvel getting the rights back, so it can be a flick that gives Spider-Man 'origin' into the Avengersverse. That way it wouldn't take altruism for Sony to let go of the rights, it would be something they could make money on.
I'm not sure why I was so sure Avengers was first. Serves me right for not checking before I posted.
Probably the largest missing characteristic missing from Nolan's version of Batman would be the whole "world's greatest detective" angle. Batman is one of the most intelligent characters in comics, and that really doesn't come through in the movies.

That being said, just like there have been many versions of Batman in the comics, I think it's totally fine to have a movie version that doesn't encapsulate everything that it means to be that character. That applies to Spider-Man, too. Raimi's Spider-Man was a valid and enjoyable version of that character, but a different approach could be at least as enjoyable.
I agree on the "World's Greatest Detective" thing. Batman should have a sort of Sherlock thing going on (traditionally, he's a cross between Sherlock Holmes and Zorro, transported into a more modern and americanized context), and that seems largely absent from Nolan's Batman movies. Actually, watching Steven Moffat's "Sherlock" miniseries, I kept thinking "why aren't the Batman movies more like this?". If anyone seems like a perfect fit to be handed Batman next, it's Steven Moffat, even though that would be a bit of a retread for him at this point.
See, I remember watching "The Dark Knight" the first time and being pleased that they remembered he's the world's greatest detective by showing the process of fingerprinting the bullet and so on; stuff you'd typically see in a police procedural.
I think reboots are being done too often now when they are not necessary.In the old days,they would not ditch continuity.They would just recast and bring a new director or creative team but keep continuity.They would try to create a superior sequel.Now they just ditch everything and reboot as a quick easy fix.

Here here! I'd rather Sony went that route, kept the same cast for "Amazing Spider-Man" (and kept a few returning faces like Rosemary Harris and Dylan Baker) and just did "Spider-Man 4" out of it. And at least Garfield wouldn't have been stuck in that hideously redesigned Spider-Man outfit.
There's nothing wrong with rebooting, but I have to admit, I'm not looking forward to this very much. I didn't really like Marc Webb's only other directing effort (500 Days of Summer, in which a grating romcom is barely saved by Joseph Gordon-Levitt's wonderful performance). I just wish that Sony had been really daring and taken the leap and let David Fincher reboot the franchise for real.

Fincher was planning a radically different Spider-Man movie -- he would have skipped the origin story (compressed it in a 10 minute opera-like prologue) and then focused on adult Spidey.

But then, I often argue that Buffy really is the best and more resonant televisual interpretation of Spider-Man ever made.
I was with you until you said Adult Spidey. Spidey can be familiar and used to the ropes, but not adult.
First love? Shouldn't that be Betty Brant?

I'm very happy to see a Doctor Who actor make Spiderman. Hoping one will win Dancing With the Stars tonight :)
The newest TV spot goes even farther in the wrong direction: it includes the line "This city needs you." Reminding people of Batman is just a bad idea this summer, marketers, especially when yours comes out only weeks before it. They should play up the humor and Gwen Stacy storyline, IMHO. It's one of the reasons I think Men in Black 3 will do better.

This thread has been closed for new comments.

You need to log in to be able to post comments.
About membership.

joss speaks back home back home back home back home back home