Main Menu

Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 28, 2024, 09:54:40 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Spider-Man (2012)

Started by El Unicornio, mang, January 14, 2011, 03:18:32 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Jemble Fred

Wow it's all blue and red with webbing features on it! I reckon in that he'll be able to do whatever a spider can.

AsparagusTrevor

Shame there's no pics of his Spider-bobsleigh.

Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth

That costume looks kinda crummy. Possibly even lamer than Willem Dafoe's goblin costume.

El Unicornio, mang

#63
Another costume pic

http://perezhilton.com/2011-01-21-first-look-at-the-new-spider-man-suit

I think it looks ace, bit simpler than the Raimi one, so closer to the comic book version

And some more:













Looks like they might be ditching the CGI swinging that looked so bad in the last three films

Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth

Quote from: El Unicornio, mang on January 26, 2011, 05:02:39 AM
I think it looks ace, bit simpler than the Raimi one, so closer to the comic book version
Eh? The other way around, shirley? Aside from the webbing being raised and silvery, and the honeycomb texture on the fabric, the Raimi suit was utterly faithful to the comics. The designers of this new one seem to be trying too hard to put their own stamp on it.

El Unicornio, mang

The pattern is a bit weird in places on this one (not sure why they did those stripes down the sides), but the colours seem better (not as dark), it doesn't have that thick silver webbing, and also I think Garfield is a better build. Maguire was a bit too short and stocky. I don't know, I just look at these pics and think "comic book Spidey" more than when I look at the Raimi version. Regardless, I don't think the design is radical enough to worry too much about.

NoSleep

Is he wearing ballet shoes?

Tiny Poster


chocky909

I'm surprised no one has even mentioned the director yet. Apart from the fact that he is almost as suitably named as Arsene Wenger, his very brief filmography must be a concern to some no?

El Unicornio, mang

Well, he's only made one film but he has directed about 60 music videos so I guess he has quite a bit of experience, albeit slightly different than feature film making

vrailaine

...and the one feature film he has directed is 500 Days of Summer, which you can't really blame him for. That, along with what must be every music video for My Chemical Romance and Good Charlotte seem to be his big things.

Tiny Poster

Edgar Wright had plenty of direction experience under his belt, yet his comic book adaptation was just a load of music videos strung together. The irony.

Isn't 500 Days Of Summer an 'unconventional' romantic comedy?

El Unicornio, mang

Tony Kaye had only made music videos before he made American History X, which was brilliant. Ditto for Jonathan Glazer, Spike Jonze and Michel Gondry. Although to be fair the latter three made some fantastic inventive vids but fell short a bit when it came to making full length films.

I actually liked 500 Days of Summer also.

vrailaine

Quote from: El Unicornio, mang on January 26, 2011, 09:03:02 PM
Tony Kaye had only made music videos before he made American History X, which was brilliant.
Wasn't it removed from his control and completely changed by the time it reached cinema though? I'm only saying this on the basis of a vague memory of Tony Kaye ranting about it somewhere though.

I get what you're saying though, I guess it's possible some of Webb's videos are as good as Glazer, Jonze and Gondry's ones, but I can't be bothered actually watching them.
I'd say the three of them done a solid job with films, Jonze deserves a lot of credit for Being John Malkovich, Adaptation is great but I doubt he was as important. Gondry got Eternal Sunshine down perfectly, the Science of Sleep looked lovely but was one of the worst films I ever watched, unfortunately.

phantom_power

i think that music video to motion picture is such a well-trodden path now that it doesn't really signify anything. for every fincher, romanek or jennings there is a jonas akerlund or mcg.

as for american history x kaye complained that the studio took the film off him and allowed ed norton to do his own cut of the film (to beef up his part, kaye claims) but this was after he spent a year pissing about with the edit and never coming up with a final version. you could say that as kaye shot all the footage then he should take most of the praise for the film, with norton just finishing it off wken kaye seemed unwilling. i suppose it is all conjecture as kaye never submitted a final cut for comparison

An tSaoi

As phantom_power outlined, the traditional story is that the notoriously power-mad and egotistical Norton edited the film to give himself more screentime, and that Kaye is the innocent victim who was jerked about by the big bad studio for not letting him take his name off the credits (he wanted to be credited as Humpty Dumpty). Considering the problems other directors have had with Norton, that's the explanation most people go for.

However, in more recent years people are coming round to the idea that Kaye may simply have made a complete pig's ear of the film, that Norton stepped in to salvage it, saved the day by fixing what Kaye couldn't, and may have ended up doing him a favour.

Of course we'll probably never know which side of the story is true.

Desi Rascal

 Kaye doesnt seem very interested in the possibility of a directors cut which is a shame, although i wonder how much of the 200 hrs of footage allegedly shot still remains to work with.

phantom_power

i don't think it is so much norton saving a pig's ear of a film as norton finishing it off when kaye wouldn't or couldn't. apparently he missed several deadlines for submitting his cut of the film and massively over-ran on the editing process. my suspicion is that he just couldn't commit to a final cut and was trapped in a cycle of minor tweaks. he got kicked off, norton came in and polished the whole thing off.

certainly the structure of the film seems to be deliberate as the flashbacks are all in black and white, unless this was a post-production effect.


either way i am not sure kaye is a signifier for what music video directors are like in feature films as he is a pretty odd character in all respects


El Unicornio, mang

As I expected, the title for the film will be The Amazing Spider-Man, and here's the uber-cool poster for it


MojoJojo

Quote from: CaledonianGonzo on January 18, 2011, 04:33:14 PM
More likely - cynic alert - that by doing the origin story again and setting the movie around the high school Peter and his romantic travails, they can save cash (both in terms of casting and on the need for elaborate CGI/stunt/action sequences) and tap into some of the money from swoony teens now that the Twilight series is drawing to a close.  I suspect that the people who thought the Raimi Spidey was 'too emo' ain't seen nothing yet.

Having just seen a trailer for "I AM NUMBER 4", this seems depressingly likely.

Jemble Fred

Is Garfield playign a teen in this then? He honestly looks like he's in his late 30s to me.

El Unicornio, mang

Really?? I think he looks about 16

Feralkid

Quote from: VegaLA on January 14, 2011, 04:12:06 PM
Anyone recall when the Raimi team tried to take credit as bringing Spidey to the big screen for the first time? Dismissing the 70s efforts as TV movies? No Sam, I saw the first Spidey film at the cinema (showing my age) and even then I couldn't stop laughing at the weird movements he made as his head popped up above the wall of some tall building.

Raimi's claim to have brought Spidy to the big screen is entirely valid.

Those "movies" were re-edited compendiums of bits from a short-lived TV series and they felt like it.   They were never intended as theatrical ventures.   There was a lot of such shenanigans way back when, I've a poster for in my collection for what I long assumed was some long lost Sam Fuller spaghettis western - turned out to be some episodes of TV's The Virginian re-edited for theatrical release in Italy.  There was, at roughly the same time as that original Spidy series, a Hulk movie released only in Europe made from stitched together bits of the Bill Bixby TV show.  Such recycling was rife  then but I don't think opportunistic dumping of TV product in European cinemas counts.    If I had the Yosser episode of Boys From the Blackstuff released theatrically in South America would we suddenly have to consider it a movie?

   

Jemble Fred

Quote from: El Unicornio, mang on February 18, 2011, 07:14:51 PM
Really?? I think he looks about 16

Did you see him in Red Riding? Admittedly it's the only thing I have seen him in, but he's surely meant to be mid-twenties in that, and looks a lot older by the end of his story... Certainly, I'd never buy that he was even 20, let alone less.

Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth

Quote from: El Unicornio, mang on February 17, 2011, 09:23:56 PM
As I expected, the title for the film will be The Amazing Spider-Man, and here's the uber-cool poster for it


Basketball head.

El Unicornio, mang

Quote from: Jemble Fred on February 19, 2011, 12:41:03 AM
Did you see him in Red Riding? Admittedly it's the only thing I have seen him in, but he's surely meant to be mid-twenties in that, and looks a lot older by the end of his story... Certainly, I'd never buy that he was even 20, let alone less.

He did look older in Red Riding, bu otherwise he looks pretty young. In Boy A he looks early 20s max, although he also acts a lot younger



I dunno, he's one of those people who could be one of those kids at school that looks older than everyone else, but can make himself look a lot older by altering his hair and growing some beardage also

SavageHedgehog

Quote from: Feralkid on February 18, 2011, 10:08:01 PM
Those "movies" were re-edited compendiums of bits from a short-lived TV series and they felt like it.   They were never intended as theatrical ventures. 

I always found those "movies" extremely boring. I remember them being aired on Sky the summer of 96 when I was actually really into Spider-Man comics, and they were a big let-down, even at the age of 9. There's a hilarious bit in one of them (The Dragon's Challenge) where they show the same scene twice in the space of about three minutes! They were surprisingly successful in UK cinemas though; at least one of them was in the Top 20 Grossers of its year.