Plot Synopsis for SPIDERMAN!

[Brazoo]

That synopsis sounds like they're playing up the angle where Peter Parker's parents were some sort of spies....I never really liked that storyline...

I absolutely hate it.

[samurainoir]

That synopsis sounds like they're playing up the angle where Peter Parker's parents were some sort of spies....I never really liked that storyline...

I actually think it might be closer to the Ultimate Spider-man origin... which involved his father and mother being tied into the big government/corporate conspiracy that seems to drive everything within the Ultimate Universe.

From a story perspective, it did really bring to the foreground Peter's too often ignored scientific aptitude.

In the Ultimate Comics, it revolved around the creation of Venom, and it's usage as a humanitarian cure-all vs military applications. In the movie, I would assume that they have turned that into bio-science and gene splicing that creates Spider-man and The Lizard, then it would seem to be a pretty logical story arc.

As long as the essence of the Lizard and Spider-man relationship is there, changing the details might not be as important. Conners, like all the great Spider-man villains (Doc Ock and Green Goblin) is a father figure whom Peter struggles against on his journey to adulthood. If making him his father's best friend accomplishes this better, and makes it that much more personal than making him just a college professor/mentor.

From a structural writing perspective, it seems pretty solidly connected rather than the more random happenstance. I guess we'll have to wait and see if they have veered too far off coarse.

If Batman can as wildly differing interpretations as Adam West and Christian Bale, which both work, I don't think this is as far off the beaten path outside of the superficial differences we've seen so far. 100 plus issues of Ultimate Spider-man has been pretty solid material for them to draw upon for the most part (the Hulk Green Goblin and Geldof notwithstanding) and Bendis has really been much more precious with the material Lee/Ditko/Romita et al originally created in Spider-man than he's given credit for.

Lest we forget that it was Stan Lee who introduced the spy element and Red Skull to the Spider-man mythos... Bendis just turned it into something much more contemporary and relevant, while jettisoning the outdated Cold War and Red Skull stuff.

[MIB41]

If Batman can as wildly differing interpretations as Adam West and Christian Bale, which both work, I don't think this is as far off the beaten path outside of the superficial differences we've seen so far. 100 plus issues of Ultimate Spider-man has been pretty solid material for them to draw upon for the most part (Geldof notwithstanding).

West and Bale are apples and oranges. Those concepts worked, but for entirely different reasons and for a different audience. This new film has to serve the same interests AND expectations from the last franchise. When they made Keaton's Batman, they wouldn't even let West have a cameo. That's how far away they wanted him from their project. The other problem with this story is that most people are completely unfamiliar with the Ultimate universe storyline. If I read what you said correctly, your suggesting they could be blending the two realities since there is such a vast array of material to pull from the comics. My problem with that is the studio is reexamining the origin from an entirely new perspective. And for the general populace, who doesn't read comics, that is going to the well one time too many. Plus it con volutes who the public knows him to be. "Parker had parents that were spies?" People aren't interested in an aimless narrative about his parents, which he shouldn't have anyway, because of his strong connection to Ben and his subsequent transformation to Spider-man as a result.

[samurainoir]

The casting of Sally Field has been oddly silent, other than flying nun jokes. I think she's perfect for the much more fiercer and tenacious Aunt May in the Ultimate books. THAT attitude puts into perspective moments when Peter is stuck under wreckage and won't give up.

[samurainoir]

West and Bale are apples and oranges. Those concepts worked, but for entirely different reasons and for a different audience. This new film has to serve the same interests AND expectations from the last franchise. When they made Keaton's Batman, they wouldn't even let West have a cameo. That's how far away they wanted him from their project.

I'd say the Keaton/Bale comparison might be more appropriate for this comparison then. Basically ALL are Batman. I'm saying Spider-man is just as resilient enough to survive this new movie, whether it's a success or not. If this is the franchise's Batman and Robin, then the next reboot will be here within five years.

Lest we forget that there was a great deal of disappointment as well in the final Raimi film. And given the ten year shift, it's really not the same interests and expectations necessarily. We've got an entirely new batch of teens and twentysomethings that SHOULD be the primary audience for a Spider-man film. He's first and foremost a character that at his best, should resonate with young people... not married old guys (which is where it seemed to go off the rails for Spider-man as a character in the comics).

There really wasn't anywhere else for the Raimi films to go IMHO. Dillon Baker as The Lizard probably would have been a great deal of fun, but even that they already had TWO films around the father-figure villain, it would have seemed a bit redundant to put Maguire's Spiderman through that yet again... particularly since they grew the character from teens to adulthood.

And again... if you are looking for threads between the Raimi pictures and this new one, look no further than the screenwriter! There is ample evidence that this actually is a much more fluid transition than the superficial elements like costuming might have you believe. Particularly with Gwen Stacy, Captain Stacy and Conners having been established previously. This could very well be a revised script originally meant for the Raimi era "continuity".

[MIB41]

Well there may be elements from an original treatment in this one. Of course that is nothing new for any film. There are scores of films that have been touched by many a writer before the final concept blossoms. Surely you wouldn't suggest continuity with these characters and the events of Spiderman-3? I wouldn't think so. And as far as that film being panned worldwide? Well... revelation for you. It made more money than the first two. Look at my numbers posted earlier in this thread. Now you'll get no debate with me over the merits of that last script. I agree completely with you. But people were still entertained by what they saw. And they liked these actors playing the parts. And perhaps we as fans expected too much after Spider-man 2. Which, for me, is one of the best hero films ever. Just love it. That's a hard act to follow. But even without that expectation this script had too many characters to introduce, a muddied interpretation of the Symbiote and it's affect on Peter. And a horrid script decision to go back and tie the Sandman to Ben's death. Plenty there to pick on. So...my point is with a story this weak, why did so many people go back to see it anyway? Because devoid of a great story it had a great cast and people liked it for that reason. It was entertaining, but lacking in the depth of story and character development we were getting accustom to seeing after chapter two.
You've got alot of people out there that still like these actors. This is not Keaton over coming the camp of West. This is not Bale reviving the character after Clooney tanked the franchise. This is someone crashing a party for a star and cast everyone STILL LIKES. EVEN if the story was good. EVEN if we could agree on the plot points. EVEN if we could wow ourselves over the cosmetics of the production. There would STILL be the void of not having this cast. Now people like you and me could accept it, if the artistry of the script and production connected. But for general audiences this cast is something out of left field. Now COMBINE that with the fact the script IS questionable. The cosmetics are ENTIRELY foreign and bland. What appeal is there for the audience? What appeal is there for us? See my point? They've taken everything we know about the character (from the actors to his appearance) off the table. Now we have all of these new people, new look, new story direction, and no one knows WHY they needed to get rid of what DID work. The studio is saying, "It's Spider-man!". The consumer is saying, "That's not any Spider-man I've ever seen."
So the studio has gambled mightily with one heck of a mountain to climb. And the ticket buying public have built in expectations from those Raimi films. Like it or not, that is the truth. That is why I am not optimistic.

[samurainoir]

^^^
I'm Straight up telling you the screenwriter on amazing Spiderman also wrote the last two Spiderman films. Not a treatment, screenplay credit.
Alvin Sargent - IMDb

But what is the point if you've already judged this film based on a blurb, a trailer and some stills? Hardly a real basis for an opinion on the film if it's entirely based on speculation only.

I haven't seen the film, so I can't say either way. If you've read the screenplay, then by all means I'm interested in hearing what you've got to say about the story.

[The Bat]

But what is the point if you've already judged this film based on a blurb, a trailer and some stills? Hardly a real basis for an opinion on the film if it's entirely based on speculation only.

I haven't seen the film, so I can't say either way. If you've read the screenplay, then by all means I'm interested in hearing what you've got to say about the story.

Well said!

[MIB41]

^^^
I'm Straight up telling you the screenwriter on amazing Spiderman also wrote the last two Spiderman films. Not a treatment, screenplay credit.
Alvin Sargent - IMDb

But what is the point if you've already judged this film based on a blurb, a trailer and some stills? Hardly a real basis for an opinion on the film if it's entirely based on speculation only.

I haven't seen the film, so I can't say either way. If you've read the screenplay, then by all means I'm interested in hearing what you've got to say about the story.

I'm offering an industry perspective based on the consumer. I don't have to judge the film for anything. And without you seeing the film, why do you need to defend it? That pendulum swings both ways. All I said is Sony took a successful franchise with an endearing cast (plus director) and erased it. That is not opinion. It's fact. And this wasn't done as planned. This was the final nail in the coffin for Sony once again barging into Raimi's project and telling him to start shooting Spider-man 4 with a lower budget and unfinished script. I'm sure your well read on the script changes ordered by the studio in Spider-man 3, yes? You saw the result. Amazing Spider-man is now the final byproduct of the studio saying they can do it themselves. Sony is the 'Jerry Jones' of the Spider-man franchise. Their saying, "Anyone can do this. It's Spider-man!" And because of that, there will be a price to pay. Right or wrong, Amazing Spider-man will be compared. It will be scrutinized. And it will have to overcome the disappointment people will have in losing familiarity with a cast and director that made this a $2.5 billion empire. How you can discount all that because they have a similar writer is not reasoning I can agree with. Spider-man is not the Hulk. This is not a tiny franchise that is limping along trying to make a modest return on it's investment. Spider-man has been so important for Sony that the returns from Spider-man 2 turned out to be the MAIN FACTOR in the studio's quarterly swing from an operating loss to a profit. Did the writer do that? No. This was Raimi's vision. And the franchise was doing well until the studio got in the way and compromised Spider-man 3.

Now this is all on the studio. Everyone is gone that made this franchise the empire it WAS...except a writer. All I can say is it's a good thing Disney bought the Marvel license. Because someone will have to save the Spider-man franchise after Sony finishes running it into the ground. I don't anticipate returns much better than what Thor or Captain America made. No one, but NO ONE can reboot a thriving franchise on the level of Spider-man and reasonably expect that film to find similar returns. I don't need to read the script. I didn't need, quite frankly, to see a single picture. In retrospect I wish I hadn't . This is Business 101 my friend. That $800 + million tally from Spider-man 3 was no aberration. And as you yourself have pointed out, the story garnered little merit for that success. So I wouldn't anticipate that writer saving this reboot with everyone else missing. Just a perspective worth considering.

[The Bat]

Having not seen the movie, I will also not make a snap judgement. But I will say this...I never thought Tobey was a great Peter Parker, he was way to winey and he cried ALL the time. I think Andrew Garfield is a MUCH better choice for the part.

[Figuremod73]

The only thing I can really add to it was after Spiderman 3 SOMETHING needed to be changed, its just to bad it wasnt whoever was pushing Rami to do stuff he didnt want.
Lets give this film a chance. It might be a pleasant suprised. Im interested in what they plain to do and where they are going with it.

[MIB41]

Having not seen the movie, I will also not make a snap judgement. But I will say this...I never thought Tobey was a great Peter Parker, he was way to winey and he cried ALL the time. I think Andrew Garfield is a MUCH better choice for the part.

How can you tell Garfield is better than Maguire? You haven't seen the movie...Now THAT is snap judgement.

[The Bat]

How can you tell Garfield is better than Maguire? You haven't seen the movie...Now THAT is snap judgement.

Look...I'm not trying to start an argument with you...I just think Garfield "looks" the part more than Tobey. Plus, I counted Tobey crying 3 times in Spiderman 3...some Superhero.

[Figuremod73]

Garfield looks younger I guess that helps, IMO.

[MIB41]

Look...I'm not trying to start an argument with you...I just think Garfield "looks" the part more than Tobey. Plus, I counted Tobey crying 3 times in Spiderman 3...some Superhero.

Perhaps we'll all cry with this one. Well, I hope you enjoy the film if you go to see it.