PDA

View Full Version : New 'Spider-Man' in costume



Pages : [1] 2

all_empty
01-13-2011, 10:20 PM
'The Social Network' star Andrew Garfield in spandex:

http://blog.movies.yahoo.com/blog/406-first-photo-of-andrew-garfield-as-spider-man-revealed

walei
01-14-2011, 01:14 AM
I kind of like it!

Still don't know why they would reboot the franchise so soon though...

hydro
01-14-2011, 01:20 AM
I think it works, I love the new chest logo.

mpal2
01-14-2011, 02:25 AM
Still don't know why they would reboot the franchise so soon though...

:shuffle: because the last two people they chose for spider-man and his love interest sucked so bad? :slinkaway

CantALoop
01-14-2011, 02:27 AM
Still don't know why they would reboot the franchise so soon though...

I take it you haven't watched Spiderman 3 :scream:

walei
01-14-2011, 02:51 AM
I take it you haven't watched Spiderman 3 :scream:

LOL I actually enjoyed Spiderman 3 because of the hotness that was James Francos :shuffle:

I know the reception is craptastic for how the franchise was going, so why not give it a rest for a while like Batman?

I'd bet the new ones will have more of a gritty and realistic atmosphere like the new Dark Knight franchise, and less campy like what we had in the 90s and early 2000s from superhero movies.

PS. People are making fun of the new Spidy already, mostly on his head size in the photo.

musicgurl
01-14-2011, 03:48 AM
I'm looking forward to this. I've been a fan of Andrew Garfields for ages. And I fully support anything that can erase any recollection of the wretchedness that was Spider-Man 3. I also like that they are staying closer to the comics for this reboot.

Holley Calmes
01-14-2011, 04:42 AM
This young man may be God's gift to sexy, but he looks like a fetus to me. I guess I like my superheroes at least 30 or 35, well muscled if they hope to wear a spandex outfit, and have some kind of fire in the eye. This boy is lovely, but fierce he ain't. He looks more like a victim than the retribution that must come with battling evil. Not that he wouldn't be adorable in a rom com or a new TV series. Nothing against him. Just doesn't look from this particular photo like he was in the mood to kick any a**.

Which led me to "Thor" and Chris Hemsworth. Now that boy has the eye! Or maybe I just have a thing for Vikings.

Matryeshka
01-14-2011, 04:55 AM
It depends on the superhero. ITA on Superman and Batman being 30-35ish, but I'm OK with fetuses playing Spiderman. Wasn't Spiderman kind of emo before emo was a word? I think Spiderman's always been played by kind of skinny, slightly anti-hero types.

Andrew Garfield is kinda hawt in his suit. Come into my web, said Spidey to the Matry...:grope:

Anita18
01-14-2011, 06:25 AM
This young man may be God's gift to sexy, but he looks like a fetus to me. I guess I like my superheroes at least 30 or 35, well muscled if they hope to wear a spandex outfit, and have some kind of fire in the eye. This boy is lovely, but fierce he ain't. He looks more like a victim than the retribution that must come with battling evil. Not that he wouldn't be adorable in a rom com or a new TV series. Nothing against him. Just doesn't look from this particular photo like he was in the mood to kick any a**.

Which led me to "Thor" and Chris Hemsworth. Now that boy has the eye! Or maybe I just have a thing for Vikings.
I'm not a fan of Spiderman comics, but folks over at the comic book forum keep reminding everybody that Peter Parker is a skinny dweeb. Being Spiderman makes him somewhat less of a dweeb, but in the Marvel Universe he's still a pipsqueak compared to the other heroes.

So I'll take their word for it that adorkable Andrew Garfield is better for the role physically than Tobey MacGuire ever was. :lol: What they're freaking out over is that the suit is too complicated BUT at least there looks to be mechanical webshooters!!!!1111!!! Yeah, I have no idea why mechanical webshooters are so important compared to organic ones, but fanboys....

I like the texture of the suit, and think that they have something interesting going on. (And yeah, I still want to give adorkable Garfield a hair mussing and a hug!) And hope that Sony doesn't squash director Marc Webb too much the way they did Sam Raimi...

manhn
01-14-2011, 06:27 AM
I friggin love Tobey Maguire. I refuse to accept this Garfield the Cat person.

Holley Calmes
01-14-2011, 01:48 PM
Well, that just shows how clued in I am to super hero lore. My son-in-law would be so ashamed of me! He's a huge comix guy. Maybe I'll ask him what he thinks....

Beefcake
01-14-2011, 05:24 PM
wimpy wimpy wimpy

VIETgrlTerifa
01-14-2011, 05:57 PM
As a big Peter Parker/Spiderman fan, I find Garfield to be the closest one to fitting the bill of Peter Parker. Toby Maguire was ok as Spiderman/Peter Parker but he just wasn't it, IMO. Kristin Dunst was more of a Gwen Stacy type than a Mary Jane Watson, and I hated the way they handled the first three movies from the cop-out ending of the first movie.

I hope this version of Spiderman is closer to the comics and doesn't take away any emotional punches the way Raimi did. This is coming from someone who was meh on Spiderman 1, immensely enjoyed Spiderman 2, and loathed (absolutely loathed) Spiderman 3.

I think a lot of people complaining that Spiderman looks wimpy or weak doesn't really understand the character. Spiderman has always been more about agility, swiftness, and outsmarting his villains as opposed to just beating the crap out of them.

I wonder if this many people complain when Christian Bale took over the role of Batman in the rebooted series from Clooney/Kilmer in that horrid Joel Schumauker version of Batman who took it over from Micheal Keaton in the vastly overrated goth-chic Tim Burton version of Batman.


at least there looks to be mechanical webshooters!!!!1111!!! Yeah, I have no idea why mechanical webshooters are so important compared to organic ones, but fanboys..

Because in the actual comics, Peter Parker developed mechanical webshooters and didn't develop any sort of organic web making capabilities. It showed off Peter Parker's creative ingenuity and more scientific approach to crime fighting but also served as a limitation to him when he ran out of material and had to improvise.

I really have high hopes for this reboot because in the first three movies, all I saw was missed potential and too many lame references to other films and media that was funny at first but got staler than a Gilmore Girls episode (sorry to my friends who are GG fans, you know who you are, ;) ).

Anita18
01-14-2011, 08:09 PM
As a big Peter Parker/Spiderman fan, I find Garfield to be the closest one to fitting the bill of Peter Parker. Toby Maguire was ok as Spiderman/Peter Parker but he just wasn't it, IMO. Kristin Dunst was more of a Gwen Stacy type than a Mary Jane Watson, and I hated the way they handled the first three movies from the cop-out ending of the first movie.

I hope this version of Spiderman is closer to the comics and doesn't take away any emotional punches the way Raimi did. This is coming from someone who was meh on Spiderman 1, immensely enjoyed Spiderman 2, and loathed (absolutely loathed) Spiderman 3.

I think a lot of people complaining that Spiderman looks wimpy or weak doesn't really understand the character. Spiderman has always been more about agility, swiftness, and outsmarting his villains as opposed to just beating the crap out of them.

I wonder if this many people complain when Christian Bale took over the role of Batman in the rebooted series from Clooney/Kilmer in that horrid Joel Schumauker version of Batman who took it over from Micheal Keaton in the vastly overrated goth-chic Tim Burton version of Batman.
Well coming from the fanboy side, Christian Bale had actually been on many people's wishlists for Batman so it was a dream come true. :lol: And that Michael Keaton was no way physically proper for a Batman role but he played the character quite well for Burton's interpretation so not being huge and muscular wasn't his fault. :P


Because in the actual comics, Peter Parker developed mechanical webshooters and didn't develop any sort of organic web making capabilities. It showed off Peter Parker's creative ingenuity and more scientific approach to crime fighting but also served as a limitation to him when he ran out of material and had to improvise.
Yes, I understood that part, but I also understood why it was easier to just go with organic webshooters so they wouldn't have to show him developing mechanical ones in the movies. :lol: Just like The Dark Knight eschewed a bleached Joker for one that used make-up - I think the look fit the interpretation perfectly, but there was also the limitation of time. Having to explain why he was bleached would have taken away from the story they wanted to tell. (Yes, many MANY fans still complain about it not being accurate, but their numbers dwindled significantly once they saw what they accomplished with the Joker story-wise.)

That they're going to take the time to explain mechanical web shooters shows that they might be emphasizing the intelligence and ingenuity of Peter Parker that the previous movies glossed over. So this should be interesting...

VIETgrlTerifa, what do you think about Emma Stone being Gwen Stacy? I'm not too familiar with the comics OR with the actress, but my idea of her fits Mary Jane a lot better. I mean, we already know she can pull off the redhead look spectacularly. :lol: