Don't plan to. I read all spidey titles in early '90s, took a break until right before "the Other" story arc and have been Amazing only, unless the story span other titles.
Nope. Someone enhanced the picture and it's Michael Massee's character called David Lowell who, in the comics, works for Oscorp and finds a way to give people super powers through photosynthesis. He eventually becomes a minor villain called Sundown after using himself as a test subject after Osborn fired him.
Well, there's still a small chance he's playing Osborn. It could be that they gave him a different yet still in-universe name (to avoid angry fans) to conceal that Norman Osborn is in the movie.
It was good at first, but it turned downhill very fast. I enjoyed the depth of the story, and how it highlights how his childhood and adolescence shape the man he would become, but it seems they rely too heavily on the permanant deaths and plot twists to get readers from shock value.
The thing it had going for it was that it could tell the story from the beginnning. Amazing has been around for so long, they have to continue the timeline.
If you all really wanna what the change in this Peter Parker's origin story is it's as simple as this. Which is confirmed and will link the one of the many source that have this.
Basically Peter parent's experimented on him at birth to give him the spider abilities, but they weren't awaken until he was bit by a spider, so basically he's an experiment that his parents did to him, which explains a lot from what we see in the trailers.
It kind of ruins the movie for me slightly, but meh I'll still give it a shot, even though I would rather not Sony still own the rights to Spider-Man so he can turn up in the Avengers movie.
Also Ultimate Spider-Man is one of the best retelling of Spider-Man out there and made me love the character more after they establish the whole "He only see's everything in black and white and not shades of grey" Which is well explained seeing he's only a kid. (I'm talking about Peter of course)
You mean the one extra minute of footage and the extended 3 trailer, meh it was ok I guess. Just felt like it was wrong to say "Most Anticipated film of the summer." I think that award goes to the Avengers or The Dark Knight, hell even Prometheus seems like it should be in general.
I read some of the "rotten" reviews and some of the "fresh" and I have to say I'm looking forward to the movie, but I'm disappointed by how it's going to be received. While some of the criticisms are well founded (like the tone feeling like a Dark Knight copy), some are simply ignorant (for instance, the reviewer who claimed Garfield was the first British hero). I especially hated the comment about how it was a "Spider-man film for the Twilight crowd" simply because there was a larger focus on the Peter/Gwen relationship. All of the reviewers, even the ones who disliked the movie, thought Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone's chemistry was fantastic. I'm not too surprised though, since they are dating in real life.
Also realized something interesting about the Sam Raimi movies. The quality of the movies was parallel to the Tim Burton/Joel Schumacher Batman movies (at least as far as critic reception). The first was good, the second was an improvement since the director was given more indulgence, but the third started to falter due to conflicts between the director and the studio. Since Returns was "too dark," Warner Bros took Burton out of the helm and let Joel direct the movie (who was not going to do the weird campy "Adam West inspired" bullshit, but an adaption of Year One, and was denied because it was "too dark"). In a similar fashion, Sony did not want the Sandman in the third movie, but wanted Venom instead, especially since there was a higher demand from the audience, but the result: Venom, Sandman, and Green Goblin II. While the directors had a lot to do with the flaws (bat-nipples and euro-trash styled dance scenes), the infighting caused the movie to tank. Now we don't have a fourth Spider-man movie to compare to the fourth Batman, but the reboots look similar at least in the sense that the director gets along with the studio, and they can make a collective effort to produce the best possible movies, rather than indulging their own wants.
Personally I really don't care what people are saying about the movie already, when I go see a movie I have personal expectations for the film, and I hope that it lives up to it based on the trailers that I see. And for a film like this, it really has to capture the feel of Young Peter Parker, mainly the Ultimate universe version, seeing he's still in high school and he has his powers and fights crime early on while Uncle Ben is still around. (noted that yes in the UU Peter was still a wrestler when uncle Ben was still alive, but that's not the point, it's the point of him using his powers and him still dressed up as Spider-man while he uses it.) I also would love the movie to make Spider-man funny, like super funny, or so not funny that you face palm just because it was meant to be a joke. That's the Spider-man I grew up reading and fell in love with, now even if they just capture a little tiny bit of that in the film, then in a heart beat I'll love that movie for the smallest reason of, it reminded me of the comics and that's all that matters to me. I don't think any high paid movie critic is going to walk into a movie with my same mind set, so everything people say is pointless. Also Peter should and always, always, always be with Gwen, just because well for starters in the comic book story arc "House of M" Peter got everything he would ever want in his life and he was married to Gwen and they had a kid, but that's just how I feel, oh and the first Spider-Man comic I ever read was the collection of "The Death of Gwen Stacy." So I just always grew up with that in mind.
I agree completely, except about the Ultimate version. I really don't like where that story line eventually went, especially with regards to Gwen Stacy. Also, "House of M" seemed to be the start of the recent "fuck off Mary Jane" trend in modern Marvel.
My highest, highest hope for this movie is to see Dafoe drop Gwen Stacy off a bridge. It probably won't happen, but God I can hope.
They really didn't handle Gwen Stacy well in the Ultimate universe. I had no problem with her attitude, but how they killed her off with Carnage and brought her back as some hybrid... it was weird to say the least.
Btw, Emma Stone has signed on for a sequel or two.
Not looking forward to this movie, the proof shall be in the proverbial pudding I suppose. There are a few things I saw that I like and a few I didn't. I like the banter and the smart-alec attitude Spidey has, I don't like the costume, the actor playing Peter Parker, and the storyline. But I'm going to fully reserve judgement until I watch it.
Oh, sorry, I read your comment wrong, I read that you DIDN'T like that. But seriously, you can't hate a storyline you haven't seen, and the costume looks pretty good.
Costume looks too much like the Ben Reily costume. And the story line focuses around Peter's Parents, why? This is SPIDER-MAN not some teen coming of age drama. It just doesn't resonate properly with me, but like I said I'm reserving judgement until i actually see it.
This guy looks more Parker than Tobey did, and hes got the quirky smart-alecy attitude that is Peter Parker, so i'm not sure what you don't like about him.
I don't understand the implication in this statement. You don't think Spider-man can have dramatic overtones and deeper meaning, or you don't think the aspect of Peter Parker adapting to the world in the same way that other teenagers do using Spider-man as a vehicle resembles the canon very well, but in either case I disagree with you.
