By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN (Reboot Movie Title) & New Poster Shown!

 

THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN (Reboot Movie Title) & New Poster Shown!

Total:0
darthdevidem01 on 15 February 2011

The Amazing Spider-Man is official title for next webslinger film, new pic

The Amazing Spider-Man has been revealed as the title for Sony’s reboot of the comic book franchise along with a new picture of Andrew Garfield as the wall-climbing hero.

It's all in the wrist: The new shot of Andrew Garfield as Spider-Man (Picture: Getty)

Garfield, who was born in the United States but raised in Britain, replaces previous Spider-Man actor Tobey Maguire, who starred in The 2002 Spider-Man, sequel Spider-Man 2 and the last release Spider-Man 3 from 2007, which earned over £700million combined at box offices in the US and Canada, according to industry tracker boxofficemojo.com.

The decision by Columbia Pictures, the film unit of Sony Corp, to cast Garfield in the leading role has caused some minor consternation among ardent Spidey fans, who don’t think he’ll be able to fill Maguire’s boots.

But maybe this latest picture will convince them otherwise. It shows Garfield’s Spider-Man looking decidedly powerful and ominous.

The Amazing Spider-Man will hit cinemas in July 2012.

The question is, will it surpass the true excellence of the 1970s TV Spider-Man?

We doubt it.


Read more: http://www.metro.co.uk/film/855580-the-amazing-spider-man-is-official-title-for-next-webslinger-film-new-pic#ixzz1E2b2MNmL

______________________________

Ok title.



All hail the KING, Andrespetmonkey

Around the Network
Boutros on 15 February 2011

I'm scared of what they'll do but I have faith!

I just hope they won't go the Batman way.



rocketpig on 15 February 2011
Boutros said:

I'm scared of what they'll do but I have faith!

I just hope they won't go the Batman way.

What was wrong with the Batman way?

Not that I'm saying it's a good choice for Spidey because of the HUGE character differences between them, but Nolan's Batman is pretty true to the character.




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/

darthdevidem01 on 15 February 2011
Boutros said:

I'm scared of what they'll do but I have faith!

I just hope they won't go the Batman way.

What is the batman way?



All hail the KING, Andrespetmonkey

Boutros on 15 February 2011

I mean taking away everything that can't be explained.



Around the Network
darthdevidem01 on 15 February 2011
Boutros said:

I mean taking away everything that can't be explained.





All hail the KING, Andrespetmonkey

Boutros on 15 February 2011
darthdevidem01 said:
Boutros said:

I mean taking away everything that can't be explained.



Well I mean in Raimi's Spider-Man you have stuff like the Green Goblin's glider, Doctor Octopus, Venom and Sandman (which are all things that can hardly be explained by modern science right).

In Nolan's Batman you have...well nothing.

It worked for Batman but I don't want Spider-Man to be that way!



Boutros on 15 February 2011
axumblade said:
Boutros said:

I mean taking away everything that can't be explained.

I'm more concerned they are going to do things the old batman way, where they kill off all the villians. Granted, Spider-Man has a lot of villians he can go through (and lets face it, you could be cut into pieces and somehow you'll magically come back to life in the Marvel Universe), it just sucks how quickly he managed to go through villians throughout the movies. That's why the 3rd movie was so annoying to me.

I haven't seen the old Batmans but I agree that Spider-Man 3 should have just focused on one villain (Venom).



darthdevidem01 on 15 February 2011
Boutros said:
darthdevidem01 said:
Boutros said:

I mean taking away everything that can't be explained.



Well I mean in Raimi's Spider-Man you have stuff like the Green Goblin's glider, Doctor Octopus, Venom and Sandman (which are all things that can hardly be explained by modern science right).

In Nolan's Batman you have...well nothing.

It worked for Batman but I don't want Spider-Man to be that way!

Oh I see what you mean and I agree!



All hail the KING, Andrespetmonkey

Boutros on 15 February 2011
axumblade said:
Boutros said:
axumblade said:
Boutros said:

I mean taking away everything that can't be explained.

I'm more concerned they are going to do things the old batman way, where they kill off all the villians. Granted, Spider-Man has a lot of villians he can go through (and lets face it, you could be cut into pieces and somehow you'll magically come back to life in the Marvel Universe), it just sucks how quickly he managed to go through villians throughout the movies. That's why the 3rd movie was so annoying to me.

I haven't seen the old Batmans but I agree that Spider-Man 3 should have just focused on one villain (Venom).

You know....I don't think Topher Grace made a bad villain (had to point that out because a lot of people hated on him playing as a stronger person. But it really pissed me off how Venom was in the movie for literally about 3-5 minutes out of the whole 2 hour movie...maybe 10 minutes if you combine both Eddie Brock and Venom time on screen.

I also think Topher Grace was a good choice.

I liked Sandman but he lacked depth in the movie. He was too much of a random encounter in Peter's life and they gave him a bit too much importance versus Venom.

Venom is one thing that I'm pretty sure they'll do right in the reboot.