HiResCovers.net

wowow wowowowwo amazing first class as always wwowow

These updates look fantastic! They really 'pop' out at you. It's a shame we can't make 3d covers

And I agree with everything you have said about the Spidey actors. I really didn't like Maguire, but Garfield was OK. This new guy seems to fit the role nicely, with his cheeky and quirky attitude.

In my opinion, Garfield was a very good Spider-Man, but an awfull Peter Parker
I don't see Homecoming yet, but as a uge fan of Spider-Man who possesses all the Spider-Man comics since 80's, I can't wait to see it !
But I have to admit I would have preferred an adult Peter Parker that we have in the comics since the 90's as again a young teenager Peter Parker, most of all if Homecoming isn't an origin story.

This Spider-Man Homecoming looks to be good, but there is several things that I fear a little bit : Aunt May is a young terribly sexy milf, Peter Parker seems to exist as a Spider-Man only because of Tony Starks (he done his costume and gave him all of his gadgets, wtf) and most of all, as we can see in the trailer, Peter don't seems to have the strong sens of responsability he always have in the comics since the death of his uncle Ben (we saw him playing like a child with his suit, being caught early by a friend of him etc...).
So I hope the trailer gave me a false impression, and the movie will reconcile me with all those things ^^

By the way, your revised covers of Amazing Spider-Man series are awesome as always, thank you for your hard work !

PS : Sorry for the mistakes, English is not my primary langage but I do my best !

Garfield Spiderman

[attachment=36501:garfieldspidey.png]

Kernie Rant Alert... (and spoiler alert)

I recently rewatched the first 5 Spider-Man movies in preparation for Homecoming. I hadn't watched them in quite a while and it was interesting to see how my reaction to the films has changed (or stayed the same).

Spider-Man (2002): In a time before Cinematic Universes and the "Superhero" formula, Raimi's first Spider-Man was an essential stepping stone to where we are today in the genre. It gets a lot right... and a number of things just a bit off. First, it feels classic and timeless... aside from the odd product placement and Macy Gray cameo, it captures the spirit of the '60's Lee/Ditko comics. The casting is hit (Rosemary Harris, J.K. Simmons, Cliff Robertson, and even Willem Dafoe), miss (Kirsten Dunst), and meh (Tobey Maguire, James Franco). Had the script given Maguire more quips/humor while in the Spidey outfit, I think he would have been spot on (at least in this first film). I still to this day don't know who approved the Green Goblin design. The characterization of Norman Osborn and Dafoe's performance actually work, but the design of the Goblin suit is so wrong and distracting. Dunst is terribly miscast and her actions throughout the film make me wonder why she is the "love of Peter's life." She flirts with Peter, then swoons over Flash Thompson's car, then dates Harry for no reason other than to complicate the plot, then is apparently "so in love" with Peter. Peter could do better than this ditzy tart who can't make up her damn mind.

Spider-Man 2 (2004): I'm going to say this, and even I will argue with myself for saying it, but it's just a bit overrated. Alfred Molina is superbly cast as Doc Ock. The effects work mixing CGI and practical tentacles is outstanding. The train fight sequence (up until the unmasked crowd-surfing part) and the hospital room scene are absolute brilliance. Simmons as Jameson steals the show again. Even James Franco's arc as Harry Osborn is handled well. Maguire has even less humor while in the suit than last time and starts to ramp up the mopey/whiney/crying side of Peter just a bit too much. Remember the comics where Peter actually enjoyed being Spider-Man? Very little of that in this film. Dunst is beginning to look like she doesn't want to be there (and looks somewhat homely as the supposedly-supermodel Mary Jane). Her character apparently still loves Peter but agrees to marry another guy? The film takes the "Spider-Man No More" and "Peter/MJ love story" too seriously and forgets to keep the film entertaining in between some stellar action set-pieces. It's a damn solid film that still spends too much time on Peter/MJ and begins to show cracks that will get worse in the next entry...

Spider-Man 3 (2007): I love seeing a black-suit Spider-Man onscreen. The Sandman transformation/origin sequence is well done. And... that's about it. I don't hate this film as much as I probably should, but it's one bad decision after another. Sandman being Uncle Ben's real killer is lame. The New Goblin is worse than the original Goblin design. Harry's amnesia. MJ's singing voice. Emo Peter dancing. Peter crying all the time. MJ crying all the time. James Franco trying to be evil or whatever. Shoehorned-in Venom. A butler who probably should have provided information months ago. Blonde actress as a redhead... redhead actress as a blonde. I guess the audience is supposed to hate Topher Grace's Eddie Brock, so I guess they succeeded there. It doesn't even end the trilogy with a rousing "Spidey swings through the city" shot... it just ends on a hug in a jazz club. The fumes of the first two films are the only thing saving this film. Even J.K. Simmons is a bit off in this film.

The Amazing Spider-Man (2012): I didn't dislike this movie that much upon release, but after rewatching it, I can see it for the mess that it is. The marketing and production design clearly said, "The Dark Knight was dark... let's do a dark, gritty Spider-Man." For those saying that they liked Garfield as Spider-Man, watch it again... he's an unlikeable jerk who annoyingly stutters and acts like he's on some sort of drug half the time (and quickly breaks a promise to a dying man). Emma Stone is way too good an actress for this film. Subplots never get resolved (Peter's parents, Ben's killer, Irrfan Khan's character vanishes from the story) and the Lizard's master plan was beyond stupid. The Spider-suit design was bizarre. This movie is quite forgettable... it doesn't do anything as embarrassing as the Emo Peter dance in Spidey 3, but it doesn't do anything that great either. Most of it is a retread of the first Raimi film... except worse.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014): Remember when I said the marketing for Amazing 1 was a reaction to The Dark Knight? Well, Amazing 2's marketing is a reaction to The Avengers. That's quite a tonal shift for two films in the same franchise. The script feels like it was written by a 13-year-old fanboy (look up the rest of Kurtzman/Orci's filmography... they certainly have a style). The whole story is one plot contrivance to another. Paul Giamatti's Rhino is awful. Dane DeHaan's Harry Osborn/Green Goblin is awful (how come Harry showed no symptoms of the goblin virus until Norman tells him he has it, then suddenly he's rapidly dying?). Jamie Foxx's Electro is laughable and has zero motivation for being a villain. The Parker parents subplot is ridiculous (how did Richard Parker set up such a high-tech base in a subway station? How did he get a laptop that good in the year 2000? How did he upload a video over 2000's era Internet while onboard a crashing plane? I tried to download the first Spider-Man trailer in 2002 over dial-up and it took 3 hours). Peter and Gwen break up at the beginning of the film for no real good reason, then she learns she got into Oxford, so she plans to leave immediately (literally), so they get back together, then she dies. At least they had the good sense to remove the deleted scene where Richard Parker just randomly shows up alive at the end. The little kid standing up to the Rhino scene at the end demonstrates worse parental supervision than that Harambe incident. But wait... they're setting up a Sinister Six spin-off... or maybe not. Then they end it all with a tonally inappropriate Alicia Keys/Kendrick Lamar song over the credits. This film is such a mess that I kept falling asleep and had to resume it like 4 times over the course of 5 days.

Okay, I'm done ranting... go see Spider-Man: Homecoming. It's not perfect... but it doesn't do some of the stupid crap mentioned above.

lol thank you for your opinion, I'm agree with most of your pich ^^ What do you think about my fears about Homecoming I told before ? Did you think the trailers sends me a wrong picture of the movie ?

SnaKou wrote:

QUOTE (SnaKou @ Jul 11 2017, 07:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

lol thank you for your opinion, I'm agree with most of your pich ^^ What do you think about my fears about Homecoming I told before ? Did you think the trailers sends me a wrong picture of the movie ?

Well, to respond to your fears about Homecoming...

First off... what are you waiting for? As a huge fan of Spider-Man who possesses all the comics since the 1980's, you should have been first in line! (I'm just kidding... I understand how tough it is to get to the movies sometimes).

It certainly seems like Marvel's intent was to avoid doing the same things that were heavily covered in the Tobey Maguire and Andrew Garfield versions. And I'm totally okay with that... it's like saying the Batman in Batman Begins sucks because it's not the exact same as the Batman in Tim Burton's '89 film.

Personally, I'm glad the MCU version of Spider-Man is not an adult. There's enough adults running around the Marvel Universe... seeing an adventure from the POV of a teenager is a new perspective. Some of the stuff I liked the most in the film is a result of Spidey being relegated to smaller, friendlier neighborhood-type situations. I'm also glad it's not another origin story... we've seen that twice before, we know how it goes. There are only small hints at the origin and Uncle Ben in Homecoming, which I think is for the best.

Aunt May being younger actually makes sense. Most peoples' aunts/uncles are typically 20-40 years older than they are. Peter is 15 in Homecoming. Marisa Tomei is 52... so she's not really as young as she looks (but damn... she sure does look good for 52). I'd argue Rosemary Harris was too old to be Tobey Maguire's aunt (more like a great aunt or grandmother). In terms of age and appearance, Sally Field in the Amazing films was actually a good compromise between Rosemary Harris and Marisa Tomei.

Aunt May in Homecoming is actually portrayed slightly different than the way she was played in Civil War. Tomei plays her a bit more quirky and offbeat in Homecoming, like she's a bit stuck in the 70's/80's in terms of fashion sense and mannerisms. She's not as cool as she appeared in Civil War. It's almost like they tried to dial back her hotness in this film. But Marvel has been de-aging Aunt May over the years in both the comics and cartoons. I'm not saying that I love the idea of a hot, young milf (technically an ailf since she's not a mom, she's an aunt) Aunt May... but I do appreciate that Marvel's doing something different. To me, Tony flirting with Aunt May is more of an in-joke to the fact that Robert Downey, Jr. and Marisa Tomei starred in a romantic comedy together called Only You back in the early 90's, as well as a few other films.

I wouldn't be too concerned about young Aunt May... her role is somewhat minor in the overall scheme of things.

As for Peter being Spider-Man solely because of Tony Stark... I tend to agree with you to a point. The "great power/great responsibility" angle is almost completely absent in Homecoming (it was hinted at in Civil War, though)... but it was also such a big part of the Raimi films (and to a lesser extent, the Amazing films) that I think Marvel wanted to avoid being repetitive. There's alot going on in Homecoming, so not spending time on Uncle Ben and his famous mantra is okay with me. As for the Stark suit (and this isn't much of a spoiler since it's in the trailer)... the story is about what makes Spider-Man a hero... is it the suit or the man inside it? Yeah, it's a little weird that Peter relies so heavily on Tony to upgrade him to his full Spidey costume, but whatever... Marvel didn't know they'd be getting Spider-Man back into the MCU when they were making Phase 1 and most of Phase 2. I'm sure things would have been handled differently if Marvel had the use of Spidey in the MCU from the start. Some of the issues that we've been discussing I think are a result of trying to fit Spidey into the well-established Marvel Cinematic Universe somewhat late in the game.

But what are you listening to me ramble for? Go see Homecoming so you can have an opinion on the finished film instead of fearing what you saw in the trailers!

If you go in expecting it to strictly adhere to the comics, the Raimi films, the not-so-Amazing films, or another version of Spidey, then you probably will be disappointed. Homecoming is very different from the Spider-Man films that came before it... it reinterprets and adjusts certain characters, the suit, his powers, and his place in the greater MCU. I don't love everything they changed, but I don't outright hate any of the changes either. It's the most fun, entertaining, and humorous of all the Spider-Man films, and there's nothing that's so bad that it reaches the depths of crap that was Spider-Man 3 and The Amazing Spider-Man 2.

Kernie wrote:

QUOTE (Kernie @ Jul 12 2017, 03:39 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

First off... what are you waiting for? As a huge fan of Spider-Man who possesses all the comics since the 1980's, you should have been first in line! (I'm just kidding... I understand how tough it is to get to the movies sometimes).

I'm waiting for friend's disponibility in order to see it, the more we are, the better is the experience ! But its long ang its killing me !

Kernie wrote:

QUOTE (Kernie @ Jul 12 2017, 03:39 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It certainly seems like Marvel's intent was to avoid doing the same things that were heavily covered in the Tobey Maguire and Andrew Garfield versions. And I'm totally okay with that... it's like saying the Batman in Batman Begins sucks because it's not the exact same as the Batman in Tim Burton's '89 film.

Thank you very much for your opinion, this is an interesting point of view, and I clearely understand it ! I'm also agree with your argumentary about Aunt May and I'm glad to hear that she is actually portrayed slightly different than the way she was played in Civil War.

I'm also agree with the fact there is absolutely no reasons to do an other origin story, everybody knows it now.
But in my opinion, all the Spider-Man movies in the past tooks so much liberty in their adaptations that I'm an eternal seeker of a "true" Spider-Man movie. It isn't impossible, I think, to do a different job, with a more faithfull vision of Spider-Man. Why always wanting to do differently, when they had just to be faithfull from the comics ? Why in Raimi's movies Spiderman shots webs with his skin ? Why in "Amazing"'s films Peter-Parker is such a dick-head ? Why in Homecoming did they avoid Spider Senses or the "great power/great responsibility" mantra ?

You know, I don't want a perfect movie, but I don't understand this obsession of always wanting to do new (and only for doing new), and finally, not fit to the original media.

For exemple, when you said there is no mentions on the "great power/great responsibility" angle, this is a choice terribly hard to understand for me. This is the basics of Spider-Man, the start from where Peter Paker became a true hero in his mind. This event with his uncle Ben forges all his personality, and this early maturity of Peter Parker is one of the most reason why he is the Hero I prefers :/
This is the same with his poor origins. I like Spider-Man because he is always penniless, he always do what he can with what he have for doing his own costumes, his own gadgets etc... So why showing him as a young boy that inherit all of theses stuffs from Tony Stark ? Only for making a bridge with the others MCU movies, and in my opinion it flays a bit more the original personality of Peter Parker

So of course, I'll see this movie, and I'm pretty sure I'll like it because it seems to be better and really different than the others previous movies, but I don't fear to see a bad movie, I fear to see a Spider-Man movie with a Spider-Man character that is too different from the one I loved in the comic books.
If I leave the movie theater with an impression of "Damn the movie was good, but one more time, I didn't see in it the Peter Parker of the comic books", even if the movie is great, I think I'll be again a bit disappointed you know

It is sooooo much hard to explain my mind, mainly because of my difficulties to speak in english xD But I hope you'll see what I'm trying to explain xD
I'm very sorry for all the mistakes, I hope this is not too unpleasant to read me, but I swear I do my best !

So thank you for your opinion, this is always interesting to have this kind of discussion with other fans !

WARNING: Potential (minor) spoilers for Spider-Man: Homecoming.

SnaKou wrote:

QUOTE (SnaKou @ Jul 12 2017, 05:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But in my opinion, all the Spider-Man movies in the past tooks so much liberty in their adaptations that I'm an eternal seeker of a "true" Spider-Man movie. It isn't impossible, I think, to do a different job, with a more faithfull vision of Spider-Man. Why always wanting to do differently, when they had just to be faithfull from the comics ?

So of course, I'll see this movie, and I'm pretty sure I'll like it because it seems to be better and really different than the others previous movies, but I don't fear to see a bad movie, I fear to see a Spider-Man movie with a Spider-Man character that is too different from the one I loved in the comic books.
If I leave the movie theater with an impression of "Damn the movie was good, but one more time, I didn't see in it the Peter Parker of the comic books", even if the movie is great, I think I'll be again a bit disappointed you know

I've got some bad news for you, SnaKou... but your "true" Spider-Man is NEVER going to happen onscreen because your "true" Spider-Man may be different from other peoples version of the perfect Spider-Man. Spider-Man has been around since 1962 and has been interpreted by many different writers and artists in his 55-year comics history. What version of Peter Parker/Spider-Man do you want? The Stan Lee/Steve Ditko era? John Romita Sr. or Romita Jr.? Todd McFarlane? 90's-era Clone Saga Spidey? Bendis' Ultimate Spider-Man? There is no one true, perfect version... and Spidey's history has been far more consistent than someone like Batman (Adam West, Tim Burton, Christopher Nolan, Frank Miller, the Animated Series... all of which are wildly different interpretations of the same character).

The Spider-Man that you grew up reading is different than the Spidey that kids of other generations grew up reading... and each person's favorite version is valid. Every film or TV show needs to adapt its source material for a different medium. Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, The Walking Dead, etc... they all make changes but mostly keep the essence of the source material intact. Raimi's Peter/Spidey was inspired heavily by the original Lee/Ditko comics run in the 60's. The Amazing films take more cues from the Ultimate Spider-Man comics. Homecoming seems to cherry-pick from all the eras... the 60's version, the Ultimate version, and most prominently from New Avengers and The Avenging Spider-Man.

SnaKou wrote:

QUOTE (SnaKou @ Jul 12 2017, 05:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why in Raimi's movies Spiderman shots webs with his skin ?

Raimi felt it was more believable to have Peter simply inherit the ability to create organic webs of incredible tensile strength from the spider-bite as opposed to believing that a poor teenager could create such a supremely adhesive and strong substance in his bedroom, in addition to building the webshooter mechanism. I understand his logic. I also like mechanical webshooters. To be honest, as long as his webbing is coming out of his wrists and not his a$$ (which would be biologically accurate for a real spider)... I don't really care.

SnaKou wrote:

QUOTE (SnaKou @ Jul 12 2017, 05:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why in "Amazing"'s films Peter-Parker is such a dick-head ?

Because the script was written by Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci, who struggle to write characters who aren't pompous, snarky douchebags (see Sam Witwicky in Transformers, Captain Kirk in J.J. Abrams' Star Trek, or Tom Cruise in the recent Mummy reboot). I also think Andrew Garfield brought a little bit of himself to the role as well... and not in a good way.

SnaKou wrote:

QUOTE (SnaKou @ Jul 12 2017, 05:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why in Homecoming did they avoid Spider Senses or the "great power/great responsibility" mantra ?

Because both Spider-Sense and "Great Power/Great Responsibility" were overdone in the previous two versions.

In regards to Spider-Sense, I'm actually glad they didn't include it. For one, how do you visualize it in a fresh, new way from what has been done before? Two... Spidey being able to see/predict/sense what's about to happen is a really vague concept when you think about it. Does Peter magically "feel" everything in the room around him? Does time literally slow down or does he respond at hyper-speed? Does he actually see what's about to happen in his mind? Or is it that he just gets a weird sense of dread and becomes alert to something bad about to happen? How far of a time span into the future can he see? How far of a distance can he detect what's coming at him? I don't recall his Spidey-Sense ever being fully defined in the comics (although I could be wrong). In Homecoming, he does demonstrate very fast reflexes in his fight with ATM robbers, so just because they don't come out and specifically state or depict a "spider sense" doesn't necessarily mean that he doesn't have it.

From a narrative standpoint, Spider-Sense also overpowers Peter a bit too much. There's a few moments in the film when the Vulture gets the drop on Spider-Man and attacks him. It's even meant to surprise the audience. Having Peter sense everything that's about to happen might be great for his character's survival in a fight, but as a viewer, it takes away the element of surprise and tension in the scene.

And I've already addressed the "Power/Responsibility" thing in my last (long) post... they don't want to repeat what was so heavily covered in the previous film versions. I would hope that a future sequel touches upon it in a bit more depth (and I imagine they will). But for this new MCU reboot, I think part of this film was Marvel's way of saying to the audience, "We're giving you a Spider-Man that is fresh and different from what you have seen before." One of the main criticisms of the first Amazing Spider-Man film was that it stuck too closely to the original Raimi film and followed many of the same story beats. Marvel had to avoid certain things in order to avoid comparisons to the two other versions of the origin story. Peter briefly alludes to the power/responsibility mantra in Civil War and mentions "all that Aunt May has been through" in Homecoming, so it's not like Marvel is entirely ignoring Uncle Ben or his famous speech, it's just not focused on too much.

SnaKou wrote:

QUOTE (SnaKou @ Jul 12 2017, 05:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't understand this obsession of always wanting to do new (and only for doing new), and finally, not fit to the original media.

Every creative person in every medium wants to bring their own interpretation to the table. Raimi incorporated his own love of campiness and corny 60's comics into his version of Spider-Man. Tim Burton brought his own vision to Batman and Batman Returns (and Sleepy Hollow, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Alice in Wonderland, etc.). Christopher Nolan had his own more realistic and grounded version of Batman in his trilogy. Bryan Singer's X-Men is not the same as comics X-Men. Zack Snyder's Superman is different than Richard Donner's Superman. Trying new things or providing a fresh take on the source material (whether in the comics, film, TV, or cartoons) is why these characters have evolved and endured for all of these years.

If YOU had the chance to make YOUR version of Spider-Man in a movie, you would (whether intentionally or subconsciously) bring your own sensibilities, interests, and perspectives to the story. Everybody wants to put their own "spin" on the material. Otherwise you're just regurgitating what someone else did... and where's the fun in that?

SnaKou wrote:

QUOTE (SnaKou @ Jul 12 2017, 05:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I like Spider-Man because he is always penniless, he always do what he can with what he have for doing his own costumes, his own gadgets etc... So why showing him as a young boy that inherit all of theses stuffs from Tony Stark ? Only for making a bridge with the others MCU movies, and in my opinion it flays a bit more the original personality of Peter Parker

I will agree with you to a point on this one. I do think Stark simply giving Peter his suit is a little convenient and takes away some of the charm from Peter's homemade materials. BUT... I also thought it was weird how Tobey Maguire's Peter barely had a pot to p155 in but somehow created an incredibly expensive-looking and intricate suit for himself in the first Raimi movie.

But we do see Peter's homemade suit and webshooters in Homecoming. We even see him concocting his own web-fluid. Peter's ingenuity is demonstrated by his own costume and gadgets... Stark merely upgrades them. And imagine you're a penniless kid who suddenly has his cheap tech revised by a billionaire... you're going to geek out just as Peter does in the film. And the moral of the story ends up being that Peter doesn't need expensive suits, fancy tech, or even membership with the Avengers to become a true hero. The theme of "does the suit make the hero?" is central to this film's story and Peter's character arc.

--

In closing, I strongly urge you to get this friend of yours to the theater so you can actually see the movie for yourself (and I apologize for spoiling anything for you... I've tried to keep everything as spoiler-free as possible). You're throwing opinions around based off of what you saw in the trailers and from what I'm telling you. Don't judge it until you see it... and don't judge it based off what YOU want or expect to see but what it actually provides. Marvel did a good job of integrating this new Spider-Man into their cinematic universe at a time when they weren't planning to introduce him. The Sony deal came up and they had to rework their Phase 3 plans to weave him in. There were a lot of ways in which this film could have gone badly, especially with Sony still attached. Luckily, it worked out pretty well. It's not perfect, but it's certainly fun and entertaining.

Unfortunately, if you go into the theater expecting to see your vision of your "true" Spider-Man on screen, well... I'm afraid you'll never be satisfied.

But anyway... stop typing to me and go see it so you can actually have a valid opinion on the film! Then come back and we can discuss it further!

Kernie wrote:

QUOTE (Kernie @ Jul 13 2017, 12:41 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

To be honest, as long as his webbing is coming out of his wrists and not his a$$ (which would be biologically accurate for a real spider)... I don't really care.

I did actually read the entire post Kernie, that little part was just good for a chuckle.

I find your summaries and analyses to be both informative and interesting, having been burned by the Amazing series your assessment here has given me hope for this new offering.