Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Film, TV & Theatre >

Spider-Man 2 Trailers

15:45 / 16.12.03

jst thought we might shove all the trailers here as they apear.

http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/sony/spiderman2/

it's the 1st teaser.
everything looks very good [Molina as Doc Oc., the CGI etc] but it surprises me they're still playing the Peter Parker/Mari Juana relationship so badly. we get to think Pete is still the gay kid from the previous movie ending instead of the geek who loves the girl from the distance. it would appeal better to the emo kids in the audience. yeah, who cares about them but the way it's put is just strange.

we're left wishing MJ is the one with special powers and a secret identity. it's amazing [more than Spidey himself] that MJ has to put up with abuse at home and a nerdy fellow who says NO to her face - twice... maybe including Gwen Stacy would help this dynamic a bit.

17:38 / 16.12.03

um, the "gay kid from the previous movie instead of the geek"? In the first movie he was the geek who then becomes the cool geek. I'm not quite understanding your meaning here.

But overall this looks good. Why another Superman tearing the shirt open to reveal superhero chest logo, though? We got that shot in the first movie. Sam, Sam, don't repeat such a cliche bit.

The shot of MJ's lips close-up is also kinda silly. But Molina looks good as Doc Ock, the Ock tentacles & effects look terrific.

Thanks for starting this thread - I have a feeling this thread will see a LOT of action and posts...

many on the web are saying MJ looks stoned (appropriately, snicker snicker) in her scene with Pete. Is he wearing glasses because he's helping her read a scene from a play she's rehearsing? (read this on the Net but I didn't have sound when I played the trailer so I didn't hear the dialogue) But Pete ditches the glasses in the first movie when his sight gets boosted by the spider bite, so hopefully he just puts the glasses on to help her get into character for the scene or something like that. He has no reason to wear glasses to make people think he's ordinary and not super a la Clark Kent.

Mister Six, whom all the girls

19:20 / 16.12.03

I believe Dunst IS stoned.

It's so very sad to see that she has not improved in any way from her performance in the last film. She looks like she is either reading her lines or the biggest chronic I've ever known... so... I'd bag her I guess. Easy lays, stoner girls.

Oh... I guess that supports the 'Peter is gay' jibe, which I didn't want to do... oh well. I bet the film will be great. It gave me willies... damn.

Brigade du jour

21:35 / 16.12.03

Ooh, I disagree man. I don't think Kirsten Dunst was bad in the first film, it's just she was struggling to breathe life into a criminally underwritten part. Blame David Koepp (and William Goldman, and Quentin Tarantino, and Kevin Smith, and every other jobbing screenwriter they probably passed it around in order to spice up the dialogue).

Anyway, saw a bit of the trailer on telly a couple of hours ago and literally gasped. Going to see Return Of The King in the morning and I understand they're carrying the trailer as well, so I'll see it on the rather large screen and drop in a few huge adjectives and happy happy joy joy noises tomorrow.

03:15 / 17.12.03

//um, the "gay kid from the previous movie instead of the geek"? In the first movie he was the geek who then becomes the cool geek. I'm not quite understanding your meaning here.//

Hunter, if they're rehearsing for a play in that scene than maybe everything is fine and I was wrong. I may have to eatch it again.

but if that's an actual conversation between Peter and MJ than he just said he doesn't love her?

in the first movie what he wanted most was the girl, so he went wrestling to get money for the car etc. ok, he discovered that he had 'great responsibility' blahblah. but just when she said she wanted him - in the very last scene - he dismissed her. I swear I heard half the theater go "VIADINHO" our equivalent of "FAGGET".

it's obvious the producers, writers and director want to play all those powers/responsability/individual needs versus collective needs neurosis behind Peter's motivations, but either their mistake was speeding up his relation with MJ or making her some kind of amalgam of Gwen Stacy and MJ... Peter Parker should love her from the distance not knowing the ammount of attention he actually got from that incredibly [in the surface, at least] self-confident girl.

the movie version gave us either a chick running after a guy not certain of what he wants - or a chick after a mentally-challenged guy [which is different from a geek]. if Raimi bothered to have the wrestling and all those stupid 60s stuff from the original comic - which contain a great ammount of awe necessary to the film but also a 'vintage-y' feel, such an important part of the character got mixed up a bit in the wrong way.

I'm not a purist, it just seem that their choice of updating some aspects of the mythology - while keeping others just like they were in the original comic - creates plot holes they can't use web fluid to cover with.

I know I'm being too cranky... that's what I get from wanting to make a living out of writing.

05:35 / 17.12.03

Stupid faggot Spiderman!

Jesus...

05:37 / 17.12.03

Well, bub, career-writer or not... just 'cause Pete didn't tell her he loved her (for all the RIGHT reasons), doesn't make him a "fagget" (or faggot as is correctly spelt). He loves her enough to not want to hurt her, or see her hurt b/c of what his life will mean now. He's the most courageous man she's ever met, for so many reasons, and she doesn't even know it. But we do. So if that makes him some sort of failure in your eyes, or anyone elses.... than buddy, YOU are the "fagget". Cause only a man not interested in finding love with MJ would have been selfish enough to put his own intentions before hers...

(regardless, we all know they'll work things out in the end. But not everyone is so short sighted, champ)

Hence I don't see the "plot holes"... I just think this version of Peter is a little more realistic than the original one.

09:25 / 17.12.03

yep, make sure you spell them slurs properly

did anyone feel a bit let down? all we're going to get, then, is spidey doing punch-ups with another villain. why not have fifty villains?

Suedey! SHOT FOR MEAT!

10:20 / 17.12.03

Ah gawd. And I'd been resisting!

Glad to see that we can get off to a great start, with mature conversation about a comic book movie.

Oh! Really?

Although, I am frankly disgusted that someone saw fit to change the title of the thread. I bet they're homophobic, I mean Peter is totally gay for not being all like "yeah I love you - whatever - lets go baby! I'm gonna web you to my bed!". Oh no, I remember, it's because he is Peter Parker.

Seriously - first trailer? Let's not all go getting our heckles raised yet. It does indeed show punch ups with another villain are imminent. Which is frankly fucking shocking for a Spidey film. If anything, I'm surprised at how much action they do show, but I guess that's because all these swinging shots are ten a penny now, and I have a feeling there's more good stuff in store. Because really, what it doesn't show, is what's actually going to happen. And funnily enough, as a teaser trailer, that works quite well!

10:39 / 17.12.03

just worried the movie'll fail to overcome the narrative problems of s-hero movie transition. it's fine to have a complicated plan involving doc ocs hatred and revenge for spidey, IN COMICS cos we've only a month to wait til another baddie comes along. here, we maybe have to wait three more years to see him face off against electro/venom/scorpion/vulture/shocker/kingpin or whichever 1 of those they pick. i say, chuck them all in the fucking bag, or are they worried that might make the film too interesting? we can handle it. otherwise we just get another villain, a movie spent dealing with the consequences of his tedious origin, and an arse kicked at the end again. and they're going to bring back the fucking goblin in the third film! kick fifty arses! kick them all now! stop wasting all these opportunities!

Suedey! SHOT FOR MEAT!

10:55 / 17.12.03

Uh, have you thought about this at all? That's just like eating five meals at once. You might think it's a good idea, but you're gonna vomit. In essence, if they did what you suggested, they'd bring the character practically full circle and be in a similar situation to the comics (ie, no-one can write it, without rehashing things that have been done before, again and again... and it's pointless to carry on, for the most part).

I'm glad they're taking time to let the character - and story - breathe and develop, rather than just chucking everything in at once and hoping it works. I mean, give them a break man, this is only the second movie. And I want to see a movie where Ock is the baddie. I mean, basically with these movies, they're going to re-hash the best stories from Spidey history, and that's fine really. You know what's gonna happen, but damn if you ain't gonna have some fun! It worked in the cartoons...

Cos to be honest, compared to what you're worried about happening, to what you'd like to happen... I know which one makes more sense. And playing out a whole franchise in one movie to sustain your interest ain't it. It's not just about the villains, dude. More does not = better. And it looks like they're continuing all the little sub plots from the first film... come on! The drama! The best friends = enemies!!! angle, all a that. So don't worry. I'm sure it's gonna be fine.

12:04 / 17.12.03

uh- how is watching a film like eating too much dinner? how long before your skinhead grows out properly?

i'm not expecting a slice of mature or subtle character driven drama, no. i'm expecting some b-buster fun, and doc ock doesn't look like he can supply as much of that as the rhino or sandman, or both, rucking off in the middle of central park.

the best spidey stories, i think, are the ones where there's a lot of colour and fighting and baddies. i think i could probably watch one like that in film form without getting an icky tummy. the last film suffered from not being BIG enough, and i worry this one will too.

knowing perfectly well how the pete/harry story dynamic is going to play out, why do we have to watch it in detail? will it be excting? maybe, sure, but - hhmmmm.....

12:13 / 17.12.03

don't think they're rehearsing... at the end she says "kiss me i wanna (know something? test something? check something? don't remember it verbatim, but that was the intention)". she's trying to match peter's kiss to the spidey kiss she got on the first movie, maybe.

12:13 / 17.12.03

don't think they're rehearsing... at the end she says "kiss me i wanna (know something? test something? check something? don't remember it verbatim, but that was the intention)". she's trying to match peter's kiss to spidey's whom she kissed in the first movie, maybe.

13:18 / 17.12.03

He loves her enough to not want to hurt her, or see her hurt b/c of what his life will mean now.

i thought it was less about that and more about his own guilt. he just killed his best friend's dad, now he's gonna steal his girlfriend, too? nice work, that.

and, in any case, it's fucking brilliant planning for the future of the franchise. why let him get the girl at the end of the first movie, and get stuck either with coming up with problems for the happy couple in the sequels or let them wallow in "love will save you!" crappiness like the Matrix sequels had to?

kick fifty arses! kick them all now! stop wasting all these opportunities!

that's the exact logic that ruined the Batman franchise. they figured they couldn't ask any one person to fill Jack's shoes, so they had two major villains in Batman Returns, and it kinda worked. however, they kept that up in Batman Forever. Two-Face is one of the best villains in Batman's Rogues Gallery, but here he's reduced to being Riddler's hokey sidekick. as a friend of mine put it "if Batman hears that Riddler's on the loose, he's not going to worry much. The Riddler's a two-bit burglar with a gimmick. Two-Face, on the other hand... let's just say that whenever Two-Face gets out of Arkham, Batman starts sweating. in what universe does it make sense that Two-Face is Riddler's sidekick?"

but that's basically what they had to do, because they tried to cram too many characters into one movie, instead of picking their horse and sticking with it. as a result, a great villain like Two-Face got shoddy treatment whereas he could have been a major threat in a movie of his own, and then they did it again in Batman & Robin - i'm not even going to talk about what they did to Bane in that movie.

14:02 / 17.12.03

OK, let's talk about other stuff here. DOC OCK's fucking TENTACLES, man!! The car being thrown through the window!!! The cheesiness of repeating the Superman-tearing-my-shirt-open-as-I-run-to-reveal-chest-emblem shot from the first Spidey flick!! The randomness of the MJ's lips shot!! The rumors that the Lizard/Dr. Curt Connors will be a tiny small secondary villain in the way Two-Face was in BATMAN FOREVER (or a surprise "even spoiler-reading net fans don't know he's in the movie til a week before the movie comes out" like the Absorbing Nick Nolte in the HULK movie)! Enough about stupid 'Peter is gay/lame because he turns down MJ'. She almost got killed as a result of being Spidey. His sacrifice is noble - the whole tortured lonely hero because anyone who gets close to him gets hurt/dies thing - which is long-established in the Spidey comics.

And yes, I've read several reports that they're in the diner rehearsing a scene from MJ's play, thereby enabling them to act out their own drama with dual subtext. (Kirsten Dunst described this scene in a WIZARD interview months ago from the set; that's probably why Peter has the glasses.) In the scene there's a kiss, and Peter & MJ have tension as to whether or not to act out the actual kiss as they read the scene.

How was the music/dialogue/one-liners, since I saw it without sound?

14:06 / 17.12.03

Or maybe you're right, even though there is a scene like the one I describe with MJ reading lines for a play she's in --- I can see the whole 'let's see if you kiss like Spider-Man did' bit as very viable, esp. considering the look on her face after they kiss at Norman Osbourne's funeral (where you can tell she's starting to put two and two together, or at least hazily recognize the kiss).

And BioK9, I bet no one would be calling Pete a wuss if he wore chains on his Spidey costume

14:46 / 17.12.03

I thought it was perfectly clear too, Cameron, for what it's worth. No one I know thought otherwise.

14:52 / 17.12.03

Peter loved her since he was a kid, and it was also made pretty clear that Harry was like the handsome cool scummy guy who just sort of used her, or didn't love her anywhere near as much as Peter did. So yes, there was guilt and weird feelings about wanting MJ while she was dating Harry, but both Peter and the audience knew that Harry was pretty shallow and saw MJ as more of a trophy girlfriend. The guilt when Peter realizes Harry's dad was the GG just adds to the tension/triangle/craziness of the whole thing.

15:12 / 17.12.03

Looks quite good, well what I've seen of it. Did anyone else have problems with the trailer it was very jumpy both here and at home - also it seemed like it might be a dream scence rather than a play the play idea sounds more likely though.

16:56 / 17.12.03

Most people have said the quality of the trailer online isn't so great - i.e. a bad stream, poor quality viewing program. Maybe this is what you're catching? Or just the editing of it?

21:28 / 17.12.03

Hey, what happened to my post? I can't see it any more. I accidentally double-posted and put in a request for ONE to be deleted, which was done - but now BOTH are gone...???

23:26 / 17.12.03

Yeah, you're right Cam, both are gone now...

03:04 / 18.12.03

I'm not assuming the crowd reaction in the theater as my own, though I still think this Peter is not that realistic; if the 'people close to me are in danger' thing would be that much to go by Peter would move to California to prevent Aunt May is attacked by any cientist working for the government turned into madman.

Peter's reactions in the old comics - keeping a distance from MJ because his confidence when not in SM costume [hmm] is still not strong enough for an approach - were more of a geek with sel-image issues [issues I believe are part of what he is as a character].

but, hey, I think this has probably been discussed far away from a rational point now - which can be seen for me arguing they're not being faithful to the comic.

in any case changing the subject line for this discussion was not necesary.

Brigade du jour

20:44 / 23.12.03

Just watched the trailer again ... I really honestly genuinely felt shivers crawling up and down my spine and around my face ... and I'm still grinning like a Cheshire Black Cat ... wow ...

(Although the shot of Peter and MJ standing up in front of the car that's just come through the window actually does look like they're standing in front of a screen, and I don't normally pick up on these things, so doggily willing is my suspension of disbelief, so this is criticism indeed)

Still, though, I say again ... wow ...

Elijah, Freelance Rabbi

04:12 / 27.12.03

and i was hoping they would jump on the wagon and do a clone movie...

17:52 / 21.01.04

SPOOOILERS!!!!

SPOILERS I mean it.

******

news from Comics2Film:

>> SPIDER-MAN 2

Kirsten Dunst told the Chicago Sun-Times "'Spider-Man 2' is much more than a routine action movie. It is a really good movie disguised as an action flick." Meanwhile, an anonymous scooper told Comingsoon.net that the blonde daughter of a certain police captain will be making an appearance in the new Spider-film. Superherohype has a great still photo from the studio, showing an intimate moment between Peter Parker and the good doctor Otto Octavius, and the official site has four new desktops showing more images from the film.

GWEN STACY SHOWS UP?!?!? HOLY FUCKING SHIT!!! The actress had better be hot, that's all I can say. I wonder if they'll use a smaller actress in Spidey 2 and then re-cast it with a bigger-name actress for Gwen in 3. I would imagine Gwen probably has one line, if that, or just shows up standing next to Capt. Stacy.

22:23 / 24.01.04

The posts are all here - so why does it say -1 replies on the main thread for this forum? Ah well. Just curious.

Our Lady Has Left the Building

06:23 / 26.01.04

Can I just say that Alfred Molina is one of those people that improves a movie enormously just by turning up in it? The man is fucking brilliant. He's going to rock the Ock.

I don't much care for Dunst as Mary-Jane, though I think that was due to her standard ballsy-damsel-in-distress thing from the first film. But reading Life of Reilly one of the intentions of the Clone Saga was to try and release Spiderman from being a happily married 20 something because it was thought ver kids couldn't empathise with him as much as if he were still that college student listening to The Cure and thinking thoughts like "no-one understands the darkness of with great power comes great responsibility like I do".

But generally speaking I'm excited, with less bothersome continuity to worry about S2 could be another X2. And Spidey has the advantage of having a decent villains gallery so we shouldn't have that feeling like with the Batman franchise that they've used up all the decent villains and now they're on to the crap ones.