"The Amazing Spiderman" (2012)


Recommended Posts

And after three of these. Hollywood will reboot it again lol. :(

I hope not, 3 and out and then reboot is stupid. There really is no reason why comic book characters like spiderman or batman etc have to be limited to a trilogy (though the original batman films did go up to 5 or w/e). I have hopes that by going back to Gwen and so on that the studio can then go past 3 films. Spiderman is still spiderman even when he's an adult, no need to really stick to the early years all the time.

Well, reboots will always be there. No matter what. Its how the companies make profits, but I guess there will be a time, when no one will demand a reboot. Even the hardcore fans

^This, if reboots **** people off then you're in a butt load of moaning cause that's pretty much what we can expect from now on. Reboots will become common place, specially with comic stories and it's prob the one place the reboots will work out the best. There will always be some studio or direct/producer that will always pitch a new idea. Just wait till they reboot Batman again thinking they can do better then Nolan.

I saw the trailer and couldn't believe how annoying they've made Peter Parker. With the previous films they did a lot to make the character likeable and appear vulnerable, whereas here we see him delivering moronic one-liners and acting whiny. This looks like it will further tarnish the Spider-Man brand, just like Superman Returns did for Superman. More worrying is that The Amazing Spider-Man is meant to have a runtime of 90mins, which is considerably shorter than the original Spider-Man (121mins) and much less than Batman Begins (140mins) or The Dark Knight (152mins) - for a reboot that seems very short.

You only have to look at the way the Batman franchise has been turned around to see what's possible by sticking to the source material and actually developing characters (especially when rebounding from something as bad as Batman & Robin). And I'd say that the videogames - Arkham Asylum and Arkham City - did an even better job, as the way the villains interact with each other is simply exceptional and they all fit into the narrative without seeming forced. It's the same with Star Trek - they were incredibly faithful to the franchise (I was impressed and I've watched every episode of every series in order, plus all 11 movies) and yet still managed to take a bold direction with the canon. I just wish Marvel would stop going for the cheesy approach all the time - they largely avoided that for Iron Man and it was considered a huge success. And, most importantly, they need to stop trying to make the majority of the movie using CGI. One of the reasons I liked the Batman films so much was because the CGI was much more subtle, unlike Marvel films (Spider-Man, Thor, The Hulk, X-Men) which are incredibly cartoony (and not in a good way) - George Lucas made the same mistake with the prequel films.

I like the fact they're going back to the original version of him creating his webbing chemically and using shooters as appose to it coming out of his body in the last set of films.

  • Like 1

The Amazing Spiderman has changed some Spiderman Origins:

Three sources have told me this, but I held it. I didn't see the point in running it now, when the movie has been shot and edited and is ready to go. Nothing can be changed. But then the new trailer hits today and all but spells this out, so what the hell, here we go:

Spider-Man's origin has been changed in The Amazing Spider-Man. The spider bite no longer gives Peter powers, it rather activates something already in his genetic structure. Something placed there by his father. Peter Parker is no longer super-powered by chance, but rather by design.

The Amazing Spiderman has changed some Spiderman Origins:

Three sources have told me this, but I held it. I didn't see the point in running it now, when the movie has been shot and edited and is ready to go. Nothing can be changed. But then the new trailer hits today and all but spells this out, so what the hell, here we go:

Spider-Man's origin has been changed in The Amazing Spider-Man. The spider bite no longer gives Peter powers, it rather activates something already in his genetic structure. Something placed there by his father. Peter Parker is no longer super-powered by chance, but rather by design.

This sounds like a possible plot point that could lead into the sequel.

The Amazing Spiderman has changed some Spiderman Origins:

Three sources have told me this, but I held it. I didn't see the point in running it now, when the movie has been shot and edited and is ready to go. Nothing can be changed. But then the new trailer hits today and all but spells this out, so what the hell, here we go:

Spider-Man's origin has been changed in The Amazing Spider-Man. The spider bite no longer gives Peter powers, it rather activates something already in his genetic structure. Something placed there by his father. Peter Parker is no longer super-powered by chance, but rather by design.

Well, from what I remember his parents weren't normal in the comic books either. Maybe I'm remembering it wrong or something but I think they were spies? It's how it tied Spiderman into SHIELD and the whole Avengers stuff which, for some odd reason, they don't seem to want to do, or not yet anyways.

The Amazing Spiderman has changed some Spiderman Origins:

Three sources have told me this, but I held it. I didn't see the point in running it now, when the movie has been shot and edited and is ready to go. Nothing can be changed. But then the new trailer hits today and all but spells this out, so what the hell, here we go:

Spider-Man's origin has been changed in The Amazing Spider-Man. The spider bite no longer gives Peter powers, it rather activates something already in his genetic structure. Something placed there by his father. Peter Parker is no longer super-powered by chance, but rather by design.

Hm... Not sure what I think of that. I don't understand why they would need to change something around like that honestly. Some things should just be left be.

Yikes, not liking that humanoid head. :\ The only thing about this movie I'm not going to like.

Yeah, I'm not crazy about that either.

Well, from what I remember his parents weren't normal in the comic books either. Maybe I'm remembering it wrong or something but I think they were spies? It's how it tied Spiderman into SHIELD and the whole Avengers stuff which, for some odd reason, they don't seem to want to do, or not yet anyways.

I seem to remember something like that as well. It wasn't the original intent I'm sure, but I think it was changed later on... I don't think they can tie this in to Avengers or anything so long as Sony has the rights to the property unfortunately though.

I seem to remember something like that as well. It wasn't the original intent I'm sure, but I think it was changed later on... I don't think they can tie this in to Avengers or anything so long as Sony has the rights to the property unfortunately though.

I wonder if we will be able to see Wolverine in the Avengers too.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • >defenders of AI-generated artworks often claim that AI is just a tool It is not. It is the inhuman artist replacement. The human writing the prompt is the employer/manager requesting the work product of the artist -- a supervisory/descriptive job that doesn't carry with it any rights to the copyright of that work product at all. And since AI is not human itself, it can't gain copyright for anything it is asked to regurgitate or hallucinate, so it can't transfer that copyright to the employer/manager/human who asked for the output. This was all legally reaffirmed last year. So, no, while there are AI tools, AI slopware generation is NOT a "tool" in the legal definition of that word.
    • As long as i get to play GTA 6 before it ends 😂😂
    • Google is opening the world's first AI museum in Los Angeles by Ivan Jenic Image via: Google Ever since AI image generators went mainstream, the debate over whether AI-generated art is real art hasn't let up. Those who don’t consider AI to be art say that if a machine does the creating and anyone can prompt it, there’s no skill involved, and therefore no art is produced. The counter-argument is equally persistent, as defenders of AI-generated artworks often claim that AI is just a tool, and that every major technological breakthrough, like the camera or the computer, was met with the same skepticism before eventually being accepted as a legitimate creative medium. Google’s position in this debate is clear. Which is no surprise, as the company is investing billions in AI infrastructure. And now, in efforts to encourage people to use its AI even more, Google is opening Dataland on June 20, which it's calling the world's first AI arts museum. Located inside The Grand LA, a Frank Gehry-designed building in Los Angeles, the museum spans 25,000 square feet. The museum is built around a collaboration with media artist Refik Anadol, who has worked with Google since 2016. The inaugural exhibition is called Machine Dreams: Rainforest, and is powered by an AI model trained on “an extensive dataset of the natural world.” It generates 1.2 billion pixels of visuals in real time and reacts to visitors dynamically. The space also generates soundscapes, real-time emotion sensing, and algorithmically produced scents. Image via: Refik Anadol Studio / Google Google says that the museum is powered by its Gemini models, which run on Google Cloud. So, everything is generated inside one of Google’s AI data centers and is streamed to the museum. Alongside the museum opening, Google Arts & Culture is funding an AI Artist Residency, giving four artists $25,000 grants each, along with mentorship from Refik Anadol Studio and access to Google's machine learning tools. Their work will be shown at Dataland and on the Google Arts & Culture website later this year. Google’s AI museum will undoubtedly initiate a fired-up debate on social media, and we can’t wait to see the first reactions. Via: Smithsonian Magazine
    • Calling GTA 6 overhyped crap doesn’t make you edgy, it just makes you sound like someone who hasn’t enjoyed anything since the PS2 era.
    • I’m not arguing whether Rockstar likes money. Obviously, they do, they’re a business. I’m saying this isn’t new. They’ve always launched console first. This is just how Rockstar operates.
  • Recent Achievements

    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      With What earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      570
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      178
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      74
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      68
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!