The Amazing Spider-Man The Official ASM THEATRICAL TRAILER Thread! - Part 6

[Mysterioman]

(Getting tired of the font thing lol)

HERE'S WHAT I THINK:

Once Peter gets his powers, he fools around.

He makes fun of Flash.

This leads to Uncle Ben giving him the speech.

He "kind of" gets it.

Once Uncle Ben dies he makes the real Spidey suit and kicks @$$.

 

[Anita18]

With all the comments about how this Spider-Man film shows Peter with mechanical webshooters, engages in witty banter and has Gwen Stacy as a love interest--thus implying this film will be more faithful to the comics than Sam Raimi's--there's something the trailer I think reveals should be a concern for die-hard Spider-Man fans.

Notice that the second trailer shows the scene with Peter having dinner with Gwen and her family just like the first trailer does? The dialogue shown in the first trailer that's repeated in the second trailer is as follows:

CAPTAIN STACY: So, tell us a little about yourself, Mr. Parker.
PETER PARKER: Not much to tell, really.
GWEN STACY: Peter lives with his aunt and uncle.

But notice how the dialogue in the second trailer presumably continues in the same scene:

GWEN'S LITTLE BROTHER: Did you catch that spider-guy yet?
CAPTAIN STACY: No, but we will...this guy wears a mask like an outlaw.
PETER PARKER: I think he's trying to do something that maybe the police can't.
CAPTAIN STACY: Can't?!

If what this trailer is presumably revealing, it's that Peter as Spider-Man is already a costumed vigilante before Uncle Ben gets killed. If that's the case, doesn't this essentially undermine Spider-Man's primary moral of "With great power comes greater responsibility?" After all, as every Spidey fan knows, Peter used his powers originally not to become a superhero but to become an entertainer, to use them for his own personal fame, fortune and glory, and in a moment of arrogance, allowed a criminal he could have easily stopped to escape who ended up killing his Uncle Ben. But if Peter is already using his powers to fight crime, to do what the police can't, and thus is already using his powers responsibly while his Uncle Ben is still alive, then it actually takes away one of the the most fundamental aspects of his own origin story and even his primary motivation for becoming a superhero in the first place.

That's a great catch! And definitely has very interesting story implications.

Or could be some very clever sound editing in the trailer. You can never tell with these things.

 

[stillanerd]

Not really. He could be doing it for ****s and giggles before Ben dies and after his death, he starts to take it seriously and takes Ben's message and learns from it.

But I don't think that that's what'll happen.

We don't know how the context of any of this is yet. He could just beat up thugs for fun, and then when his uncle dies he becomes more serious and uses his powers responsibly.

Oh, I'm sure if the film does indeed have Peter be a vigilante/superhero prior to his Uncle Ben being murdered that's the rationale the film will use. But if that is indeed the route this film will be taking--that Peter is already beating up crooks before his Uncle is killed--then it misses the point Stan Lee's original origin story was making. First, it was to show that if someone actually did get super powers in real life, their immediate reaction would not be to go out and fight crime but to find a way they could personally use them for their own benefit. And second, it was to show that the tragedy of his uncle's death came about not just because his uncle was murdered but because if he had used his powers to stop crime and help other people (i.e. using them responsibly) instead of trying to use them to get rich and famous (i.e. using them selfishly) then his uncle's death could have been avoided. What this film appears to be suggesting is Peter still loses his Uncle because he wasn't there for his Uncle because he was too busy trying to do the responsible thing.

One thing:

Yep.

 

[Thebumwhowalks]

That was a smart observation there stillanerd.
They must obviously be wanting to differentiate the film from the Raimi series, so they have changed the origin a bit.

This seems to be, unfortunately, a side-effect of a studio having to keep the rights to the character, and doing a reboot of the same story just a couple of years later. They know the first series is still fresh in people's minds, so change the origin story, but in doing so , have changed one of the all time best superhero origins. This 'Spider-man' could unfortunately feel a lot like a bunch of other superheroes.

edit: also, they will have lost the element of Pete being a bit of a shy wallflower, who then has power thrust upon him, which was also a big draw of the original origin, to go from one extreme to the other, his feeling out of the game in terms of women and being involved in his peer's social life, is what makes him seek out fame and fortune in the first place.
so, here he will be more of a regular kid who gets the superpowers, a bit less interesting.

 

[Troy_Parker]

I don't remember Bruce Wayne running around in a crappy costume beating criminals to a pulp before his parents got shot...

 

[Mysterioman]

Guys don't start judging this aspect of the film. We don't know anything really.

 

[Thebumwhowalks]

Not really. He could be doing it for ****s and giggles before Ben dies and after his death, he starts to take it seriously and takes Ben's message and learns from it.

But I don't think that that's what'll happen.

That's still not the same at all, as i outlined in my previous post.
I know you were saying to me a few weeks ago that you would finally be getting the 'Spider-man we all know and love' in this movie, because he made a wisecrack, but it's looking like the Spider-man who was created by Lee and Ditko was represented in the Raimi series.

seems like this is more of an alternative Spider-man, along the lines of a 'what if? 'story.

 

[Ultra Nolanite]

I'm thinking it's all out of context.

 

[Mysterioman]

I'm thinking it's all out of context.

This.

 

[SpideyFan866]

Plain and Simple, The Spider-Man we are getting in the TASM series is Ultimate Spider-Man (as seen by his quips and the overall more modern and edgy tone) and The Spider-Man we got in the Raimi series was 616 Spider-Man (As sen by the more happy go lucky/upbeat, timeless tone).

 

[SpideyFan866]

I'm thinking it's all out of context.

Agreed however I think the theory that Peter will correct Gwen is more accurate considering Peter wouldn't be called Spider-Man yet if he hadn't started wearing the costume and going by that persona yet and was just beating up thugs in his protosuit and Gwen's brother clearly says "Spider-guy".

 

[Thebumwhowalks]

Something I think it would be quite interesting to see...

it was always a great angle in the original books that the bullies who hated Peter Parker, worshipped Spider-man. So, y'know, you always wanted to know how they would react if they found out he was the real Spider-man all along.
Like, I remember in the Civil Wars ASM tie-in, Flash Thompson immediately went into denial about the fact that Peter Parker was revealed to be Spider-man.

@Troy Parker, one thing I do agree with you on Troy, is that the real Spider-man should be v funny, in fact he should be one of the funniest, if not the funniest superhero, that is a pre-requisite of the character.
I haven't really read any Deadpool, but I heard he is quite a funny character, and it's interesting how his mask is essentially the same as Spider-man's.

 

[KRIM]

This seems to be, unfortunately, a side-effect of a studio having to keep the rights to the character, and doing a reboot of the same story just a couple of years later. They know the first series is still fresh in people's minds, so change the origin story, but in doing so , have changed one of the all time best superhero origins. This 'Spider-man' could unfortunately feel a lot like a bunch of other superheroes.

That's a rather odd way of looking at it. Wouldn't we all want a new series to be different from the previous? Otherwise, what precisely would be the point?

I do find it ironic that the "untold story" tagline got such flack for being a lie since it was "clearly" going to tread old ground, but a significant amount of the criticisms against this movie are for their deviations from the source and Raimi films.

Alterations are a natural part of the adaptation process. I don't think it has much to do with studios, rather a creative team wanting to put their own stamp on the lore. If it works, fantastic. But I wouldn't attribute any failure due to their incapability or insistence in straying from the comic book blueprint.

 

[Troy_Parker]

That's still not the same at all, as i outlined in my previous post.
I know you were saying to me a few weeks ago that you would finally be getting the 'Spider-man we all know and love' in this movie, because he made a wisecrack, but it's looking like the Spider-man who was created by Lee and Ditko was represented in the Raimi series.

seems like this is more of an alternative Spider-man, along the lines of a 'what if? 'story.

Disagreed.

 

[Thebumwhowalks]

That's a rather odd way of looking at it. Wouldn't we all want a new series to be different from the previous? Otherwise, what precisely would be the point?

I do find it ironic that the "untold story" tagline got such flack for being a lie since it was "clearly" going to tread old ground, but a significant amount of the criticisms against this movie are for their deviations from the source and Raimi films.

Alterations are a natural part of the adaptation process. I don't think it has much to do with studios, rather a creative team wanting to put their own stamp on the lore. If it works, fantastic. But I wouldn't attribute any failure due to their incapability or insistence in straying from the comic book blueprint.

Of course it's good for a reboot to be fresh.

But, as any true fan of Spider-man knows, it's an inherant part of the origin and character's journey that they have done away with, as I explained in the rest of my post you did not quote, and the succeeding one.

 

[Web face]

I was gonna say what if Gwen says, "Peter lives with his aunt and uncle," before the dinner scene, but then I went back and saw the first trailer and she clearly says it at the dinner table. Tbh I haven't heard or read the quote, "With great power comes great responsibility," anywhere for the movie.

 

[Thebumwhowalks]

Disagreed.

Yeah, I know, as I was saying earlier, it's like Flash Thompson going into denial after Spider-man's true identity was revealed.

 

[Spidey_62]

I was gonna say what if Gwen says, "Peter lives with his aunt and uncle," before the dinner scene, but then I went back and saw the first trailer and she clearly says it at the dinner table. Tbh I haven't heard or read the quote, "With great power comes great responsibility," anywhere for the movie.

Uncle Ben said it in the SDCC footage, but not "with great power comes great responsibility" word for word.

 

[Troy_Parker]

Similar to how Raimi felt MJ should come before Gwen, they're tweaking the origin. Peter will still become Spider-Man. Uncle Ben will still die. What if Peter's out messing around with his powers... and that's when Ben dies? Or what if Peter just abuses his powers in general until Ben dies, which is when Ben's message really impacts Peter...?

There's nothing wrong with a little creativity.

 

[Web face]

Good. was it when he talks to Peter about beating up Flash?

 

[Spidey_62]

Good. was it when he talks to Peter about beating up Flash?

No, it was a voiceover towards the end of the reel before things start to ramp up.

 

[KRIM]

Of course it's good for a reboot to be fresh.

But, as any true fan of Spider-man knows, it's an inherant part of the origin and character's journey that they have done away with, as I explained in the rest of my post you did not quote, and the succeeding one.

I didn't quote it because I've learnt over the years that these discussions were never about being faithful to the source. It was being used as a crutch to defend personal dislike about any particular change. I'll quote myself from a few months ago. It was in regards to Batman, but the general concept applies:

Furthermore, taking liberties with the property is nothing new. Every director has taken part in it, good and bad. Practically every comic book film to date are deemed as adaptations because of how much they deviate from the source. Comic book films have always been "elseworlds". Fans just tend to over-emphasize the importance of faithfulness because they feel threatened by change. Which is futile, as said defenders of the material have demonstrated for decades they're actually favorable towards change, given that it's one they personally don't mind.

The last few sentences being key. If fans were genuinely serious about "staying true" to the source, they'd be up in arms over EVERY. SINGLE. MOVIE. done on comic books thus far. There isn't a single movie out there that didn't take liberties with the mythos. Absolutely none. Yet many of them are fan favorites. Notice how no persons advocating a new alteration ever bring up "faithfulness"? It's because they don't care. It's a change they approve of. And that's ultimately what every facet of these movies boils down to: do you like it? It's a fairly simple premise, but it gets bogged down in extended discussions.

I assume most people here are reasonable people. I'm positive there are no common instances in which something is deviating from the books, but is a rather impressive and likable change -- so the individual experiences inner conflict because he doesn't want to like something that's not in the source. Would you agree?

 

[Troy_Parker]

I didn't quote it because I've learnt over the years that these discussions were never about being faithful to the source. It was being used as a crutch to defend personal dislike about any particular change. I'll quote myself from a few months ago. It was in regards to Batman, but the general concept applies:



The last few sentences being key. If fans were genuinely serious about "staying true" to the source, they'd be up in arms over EVERY. SINGLE. MOVIE. done on comic books thus far. There isn't a single movie out there that didn't take liberties with the mythos. Absolutely none. Yet many of them are fan favorites. Notice how no persons advocating a new alteration ever bring up "faithfulness"? It's because they don't care. It's a change they approve of. And that's ultimately what every facet of these movies boils down to: do you like it? It's a fairly simple premise, but it gets bogged down in extended discussions.

I assume most people here are reasonable people. I'm positive there are no common instances in which something is deviating from the books, but is a rather impressive and likable change -- so the individual experiences inner conflict because he doesn't want to like something that's not in the source. Would you agree?

 

[dark_b]

how come the official picture thread doesnt have HD screencaps?

 

[Thebumwhowalks]

I go by a case by case criteria when it comes to adapting characters and stories, you don't change the origin of Spider-man like that, and then get to tell me it's the same character with any conviction.
If you don't understand why, then you don't understand the origin, or the journey of Spider-man's character.

edit: the haters are just gonna have to suck it up. =)