WorstPreviews.com Logo Join the community [Login / Register]
Follow WorstPreviews.com on Twitter
What\ News Coming Soon In Theaters On DVD Trailer,Posters,Pictures,Wallpapers, Screensavers PeliBlog.com Trivia/Quizzes
News/Headlines
Trailer for "Midnight Special" Sci-Fi Film, with Michael Shannon and Joel Edgerton
Nov 23rd, 2015
Trailer for "Central Intelligence" Comedy, with Dwayne Johnson and Kevin Hart
Nov 23rd, 2015
Trailer for Melissa McCarthy's "The Boss" Comedy
Nov 23rd, 2015
Trailer for Juan Antonio Bayona's "A Monster Calls"
Nov 23rd, 2015
First Look at "Central Intelligence" Comedy, with Dwayne Johnson and Kevin Hart
Nov 19th, 2015
Trailer for "Zoolander 2" Arrives Online
Nov 19th, 2015
Official Trailer for "Now You See Me" Sequel
Nov 19th, 2015
Trailer for Chris Hemsworth's "The Huntsman: Winter's War"
Nov 19th, 2015
Trailer for Keanu Reeves' "Exposed" Thriller
Nov 19th, 2015
First Look at Chris Pine on "Wonder Woman" Set
Nov 16th, 2015
Ridley Scott Reveals Another Title for "Prometheus" Sequel
Nov 16th, 2015
Gerard Butler is a God in "Gods of Egypt" Posters
Nov 16th, 2015
First Look at Liam Neeson in Martin Scorsese's "Silence"
Nov 16th, 2015
New Trailer for "The Divergent Series: Allegiant"
Nov 16th, 2015
Trailer for "Moonwalkers" Comedy, with Ron Perlman and Rupert Grint
Nov 16th, 2015
Trailer for Charlie Kaufman's "Anomalisa" Stop-Motion Film
Nov 3rd, 2015
Poster for "Warcraft" Arrives Online, Trailer Coming on Friday
Nov 3rd, 2015
There's a Good Reason Why Luke Skywalker Isn't on "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" Poster
Nov 2nd, 2015
First Trailer for Sacha Baron Cohen's "The Brothers Grimsby" Comedy
Nov 2nd, 2015
"Spectre" Breaks Box Office Records Overseas
Nov 2nd, 2015
Final Trailer for Ron Howard's "In the Heart of the Sea," with Chris Hemsworth
Nov 2nd, 2015
New Photos From "Warcraft" Video Game Movie
Nov 2nd, 2015
Lots of New Photos From "Suicide Squad"
Oct 30th, 2015
Trailer for "Dirty Grandpa" Comedy, with Robert De Niro and Zac Efron
Oct 30th, 2015
Sandra Bullock to Star in Female Version of "Ocean's Eleven"
Oct 30th, 2015
Trailer for Jared Hess' "Don Verdean" Comedy, with Sam Rockwell
Oct 30th, 2015
"Indiana Jones" Producer Says Harrison Ford Will Not Be Recast
Oct 28th, 2015
Trailer for Adam Sandler's "The Ridiculous 6" Comedy
Oct 28th, 2015
"The Walking Dead" Fan Kills Friend Who Turned Into a Zombie
Oct 28th, 2015
Another "Monopoly" Movie in the Works
Oct 28th, 2015
"Jumanji" Remake Hires "Con Air" Writer
Oct 26th, 2015
Disney's "Tower of Terror" Park Ride Movie Moving Forward
Oct 26th, 2015
Johnny Depp and Edgar Wright Team for "Fortunately, the Milk"
Oct 26th, 2015
Previous News Stories Next News Stories

First Look: Andrew Garfield Wearing Spider-Man Suit

Posted: January 13th, 2011 by WorstPreviews.com Staff
First Look: Andrew Garfield Wearing Spider-Man SuitSubmit Comment
We've already seen plenty of pictures of Andrew Garfield (Social Network) on the set of the new "Spider-Man" reboot. Now that director Marc Webb is planning to shoot scenes of Garfield wearing his Spidey outfit, Columbia Pictures is afraid low-quality shots of the suit will begin appearing online.

As a result, the studio has decided to unveil the first official look at Garfield as Spider-Man. He's got scratches on his face, holding a book-bag and is wearing a new version of the suit.

If you look closer at Garfield's wrists, you can see small metal discs, which means that Spidey will be using mechanical web-shooters (like in the comics). So expect for the shooters to run out at some crucial times. In Sam Raimi's films, Spider-Man's webs were a product of the radioactive bite.

Question: What do you think of the new Spider-Man suit?

Photo: (click to enlarge)


Click here to read more about "Spider-Man."

Source: Columbia Pictures


Bookmark and Share
You must be registered to post comments. Login or Register.
Displaying 112 comment(s) Profanity: Turn On
Bunny X writes:
on January 13th, 2011 at 8:31:13 PM

Is it me or does he just look too tall?
minkowski writes:
on January 13th, 2011 at 8:31:39 PM

Is it me or does he look too queer?
minkowski writes:
on January 13th, 2011 at 8:34:03 PM

What is he looking for? His d*ck, or the foreskin of integrity he forfeited when he decided to star in this piece of sh*t remake/retool/reboot/returd?
photobuckets4 writes:
on January 13th, 2011 at 8:45:07 PM

horrible piece of sh*t, faggit above knows
minkowski writes:
on January 13th, 2011 at 8:45:20 PM

lol.

That put him in the top AIDS bracket then, right up there with Liberace, Rock Hudson and John Travolta.
LeeMaca writes:
on January 13th, 2011 at 8:48:56 PM

no no no no what you doing? why cant someone please get this franchise away from sony and whats with the gloves
minkowski writes:
on January 13th, 2011 at 8:51:29 PM

Thinking the same thing about the gloves.

Looks like they ripped them off some crossdresser playing Devil Wears Prada at a transvestite Halloween party.
Ari Gold writes:
on January 13th, 2011 at 8:59:57 PM

Is he suppose to be that skinny?
koul writes:
on January 13th, 2011 at 9:01:43 PM

the new costume f*cking sucks so much. i knew this movie is gonna blow. the suit is f*cking ugly.
velocityknown writes:
on January 13th, 2011 at 9:01:53 PM

Just rewatched The Social Network today. I'm officially confident in this reboot. They need a little more work to make me excited for it. But with Garfield in front of the camera and Webb behind it. I think it could work alright.
minkowski writes:
on January 13th, 2011 at 9:02:11 PM

Yes. That's what an AIDS c*cktail does to your muscle mass. So I hear anyway.
minkowski writes:
on January 13th, 2011 at 9:03:32 PM

Garfield was the only aspect about TSN that sucked, and your glad he got his own damned film, which just happens to be a unnecessary gay reboot to a beloved comic book character?
RickPeters writes:
on January 13th, 2011 at 9:05:12 PM

This guy's a good actor, so there's some hope. The suit looks okay, but nothing groundbreaking. Why do the legs of the spider emblem go all the way down to his crotch?
Max Rockatansky Junior writes:
on January 13th, 2011 at 9:11:14 PM

Gayer than the gayest superhero in the last couple of decades, the Rawhide Kid.

Gay, gayer, gayest, SPIDERFAG.
Cd_Smith0 writes:
on January 13th, 2011 at 9:12:03 PM

looks pretty cool and fits well with the ultimate universe. I actually hope they combine this spiderman with the other marvel heroes. That being said my only problem with the suit is it looks to 'organic'.
Max Rockatansky Junior writes:
on January 13th, 2011 at 9:12:10 PM

He's got scratches on his face, holding a book-bag and is wearing a new version of the suit ... not to mention the itching of his sweaty balls.


kirklazerusreturns writes:
on January 13th, 2011 at 9:13:34 PM

are these photos from the Spiderman Musical?
Cd_Smith0 writes:
on January 13th, 2011 at 9:14:18 PM

and before i get ripped for liking the suit...i do agree they f*cked sam raimi and that this reboot is retarded. However, I prefer the ultimate spiderman universe better and if they are basing this one off of it then I am ok with that.
Max Rockatansky Junior writes:
on January 13th, 2011 at 9:15:11 PM

Cd_Smith0 writes:
on January 13th, 2011 at 9:12:03 PM
looks pretty cool and fits well with the ultimate universe. I actually hope they combine this spiderman with the other marvel heroes. That being said my only problem with the suit is it looks to 'organic'.

@CD Smith

If I may ....

"That being said my only problem with the suit is it looks to much like Matt Stone and Trey Parker's 'Orgazmo'. He should be Choto Boy and wear that spriny dildo on his forehead. "
Cd_Smith0 writes:
on January 13th, 2011 at 9:18:24 PM

lol!

@max...what i ment is it looks to shiny and wet to be made by a highschooler. It looks like the old Spawn movie suit
bandolero999 writes:
on January 13th, 2011 at 9:25:50 PM

this is one of the movies i want to fail miserably,I cant wait for the green hornet to fail as well I think it starts this friday
Frank4969 writes:
on January 13th, 2011 at 9:28:24 PM

This kid looks like a fag. Now as to the movie will it be Nolan dark knight or Schumacher batman and robin? My guess is it will suck. Here's hoping it fails!
BadChadB33 writes:
on January 13th, 2011 at 9:29:34 PM

Bandolero-Yes f*ck The Green Hornet and Seth Rogen, f*ck him in his fat ass with a blow torch. I want Bruce to come back from the grave and kill em all.
Big_Daddy writes:
on January 13th, 2011 at 9:30:46 PM

I guess its true.........once you go black you never go back
Ranger writes:
on January 13th, 2011 at 9:35:16 PM

As long as he doesn't glitter or twinkle or whatever the Twilight Vamps do... I'm ok with this. Not happy Sony is rebooting such a young franchise... but WTF... it's Hollyweird.
Big_Daddy writes:
on January 13th, 2011 at 9:53:45 PM

^oh he glitters and twinkles

after a few c*cktails
telur writes:
on January 13th, 2011 at 10:14:40 PM

i like it.... two thumbs up !!!
Ranger writes:
on January 13th, 2011 at 10:50:24 PM

@Big - lol.
Mudders writes:
on January 13th, 2011 at 10:59:12 PM

dont mind it...the suit looks ok but kinda thick in places esp around the neck and hands...looks like a batman type material.
not interested in the reboot side of things...but then again i think spiderman 3 sucked so who knows what raimi's 4 go wouldve come out?
Mudders writes:
on January 13th, 2011 at 11:02:06 PM

^^ 4th go wouldve come out like
Che 4 Prez writes:
on January 13th, 2011 at 11:26:11 PM

he does lok queer as querr az minkowskis faggotdik
Che 4 Prez writes:
on January 13th, 2011 at 11:26:55 PM

You askd 4 me bitch well here i am so suck it
Sleuth1989 writes:
on January 13th, 2011 at 11:28:00 PM

Okay this is just ridiculous. The Spider-Man outfit has always had a universal look and now you try to retrofit it for the 21st by making it look all sleek. And that is something you shouldn't do. This isn't a Spider-Man movie...it's a piece of junk filler until Sony realizes they need Raimi, the guy who knows how to respect this character.
rabid writes:
on January 13th, 2011 at 11:45:52 PM

They're not trying to retrofit it. They're just writing it realistically. This is his very first suit. There are no other heroes in NYC yet. Where is a 16yr old with no money going to find himself a costume?
It looks like he scavenged from a scuba company and spray-painted it himself. Not bad for a prototype, and it actually looks protective and functional.
snoop writes:
on January 13th, 2011 at 11:53:12 PM

I don't mind the gloves. The suit could have been much worse. But where is the faux belt?
BobMcBob writes:
on January 14th, 2011 at 12:01:10 AM

andrew garfield is 10 times the actor tobey maguire ever was, and the same goes for Emma Stone in contrast to Kirsten Dunst, but the guy needs to hit the gym. once you put on the suit, you should have the superpowers already (i.e. superstrength)
dorkus1226 writes:
on January 14th, 2011 at 12:01:10 AM

not awful. i did like the old outfit better. This one feels more modern, the other one actually felt like a costume a superhero would wear.
Big_Daddy writes:
on January 14th, 2011 at 12:04:49 AM

@dorkus

agree I think they are forgetting that with some of these new costumes. Although the cap America costume is somewhat realistic.
WonDerBanGeR writes:
on January 14th, 2011 at 12:21:02 AM

logged in to say.... that suit and that person look sooooo queer haha hope this movie bombs srsly sony should had left it to raimi!
kudanrt writes:
on January 14th, 2011 at 12:36:53 AM

Oooooo nelly I think I just got a stiffy!! Lol I was talkin sh*t about the movie earlier but the original web shooters and the lizard... hmm.. makes me all warm inside! Lol I hope the continue to be more original than Raimi was. I'm a big Spidey fan... so details count with me! Ima cross my fingers!
Aingx writes:
on January 14th, 2011 at 1:07:27 AM

He looks absolutely perfect. Just think of the Amazing Spider-Man comics that the movies's based on....
Man in Black writes:
on January 14th, 2011 at 1:25:18 AM

What the f*ck is that on his chest ... it's supposed to be a spider , right ? looks like a dragon fly ? Give us a trailer , just a peek .
jdl107 writes:
on January 14th, 2011 at 1:36:00 AM

I must admit, I watched The Social Network the other day, while I won't say he was one the superior aspects of the movie I will say I was impressed. This kid is a good actor, and I could see why they chose him as Spidey.

But this whole thing seems wrong, first he looked like some indie douchebag in those last pics, and now... Well. I think he's got the look down pretty good, I've seen alot of people bitching, guess they never realized that Spidey was skinny when he first came about. He never really bulked up. Funny thing is, I'm gonna get some sh*t for this, I think he's got the look just about as good if not better than McGuire.

One thing thats bothering me, besides this weird indie Peter Parker they seem to be going for, is this suit. I mean, sh*t, it looks like something that came straight from an anime. I doesn't even look realistic, I'm sure if it was suppose to be it wouldn't look overly stylish. I do admire the black lining though, that silver sh*t from the Raimi movie just... didn't sit well with me.
rocketman writes:
on January 14th, 2011 at 1:37:27 AM

Thought Spidey made his own suit in his bedroom? I was expecting something a little more Kick Assish.
jdl107 writes:
on January 14th, 2011 at 1:44:47 AM

I don't give a sh*t if it was a good movie, I don't give a sh*t of McGuire surprisingly tore that role up, that silver lining was kind've queer.
jdl107 writes:
on January 14th, 2011 at 1:49:22 AM

See their you go, he was suppose to make HIS OWN costume. It's supposed to look... not cheap but, something hand-made. Something with made-from-scratch materials.

But no, we got him over here looking like some fucin' fashion icon.

Yeah, I get who this movie is being targeted to now. I take back every little bit of hope and confidence I had in this tweeny-bopper piece of f*ckin' crap.
Devil writes:
on January 14th, 2011 at 2:24:04 AM

Now I'm starting to miss Raimi. That thing is the gayest sh*t in this universe. FAIL!
tantrum4 writes:
on January 14th, 2011 at 2:29:42 AM

You guys are f*cking nerds
trailertrash writes:
on January 14th, 2011 at 2:34:23 AM

And we f*ck nerds sisters, do you have a sister...
Ranger writes:
on January 14th, 2011 at 3:50:30 AM

... or what's your slutty, whoring, nerdy mom up to this weekend?
trailertrash writes:
on January 14th, 2011 at 3:56:08 AM

She's already c*mming to our f*ck a slutty, whoring, nerdy mom party this weekend....
kudanrt writes:
on January 14th, 2011 at 3:57:33 AM

I have a sis and a mom.... but I f*cked them already so there taken how about yours? :-D
Ranger writes:
on January 14th, 2011 at 3:57:51 AM

Sweet!

I'm behind the door with the 2x4 as usual?
Ranger writes:
on January 14th, 2011 at 3:58:28 AM

@kudanrt - show off!
kudanrt writes:
on January 14th, 2011 at 4:00:34 AM

Ha!
trailertrash writes:
on January 14th, 2011 at 4:03:18 AM

Ranger - yep the usual my friend ....

kudanrt- i wish i HAD a sister show off
Ranger writes:
on January 14th, 2011 at 4:04:29 AM

Any person that pokes his mom and sister is aces in my book!

ALL aces if he poked them at the same time!
kudanrt writes:
on January 14th, 2011 at 4:07:26 AM

@trailertrash: yea my sisters dead but I'm still f*ckin her... that counts right?
Ranger writes:
on January 14th, 2011 at 4:08:49 AM

At least they don't hog the sheets when they're dead. That's a bonus.
kudanrt writes:
on January 14th, 2011 at 4:11:42 AM

@ranger: no sh*t... you got that right. Those alive bitches... ughh... they give me the willies!
Ranger writes:
on January 14th, 2011 at 4:18:08 AM

And maggots make great anal lube... right Che?
trailertrash writes:
on January 14th, 2011 at 4:19:20 AM

kudanrt - hell yeah that still counts bro, No small talk afterwards sweet !!
trailertrash writes:
on January 14th, 2011 at 4:21:47 AM

Has to be maggots hate all that gobbing on your c*ck, it's so uncouth
trailertrash writes:
on January 14th, 2011 at 4:25:09 AM

or tears but thats a whole other ball game ..
LeetAmerico writes:
on January 14th, 2011 at 4:25:40 AM

I honestly can't believe that he's 27. He'll be able to play high school Spidey for a few more years.
Ranger writes:
on January 14th, 2011 at 4:29:10 AM

WTF?

Someone's on topic?!?!?!
trailertrash writes:
on January 14th, 2011 at 4:29:55 AM

I know, i wanted know his views on anal lube ..

trailertrash writes:
on January 14th, 2011 at 4:30:18 AM

wait we could still be on topic
kudanrt writes:
on January 14th, 2011 at 4:35:35 AM

Ha! I'm 28 and I'm not allowed anywhere near 100 feet of a high school.... uh.. what's the topic?
Ranger writes:
on January 14th, 2011 at 4:37:19 AM

Restraining Orders... apparently.
trailertrash writes:
on January 14th, 2011 at 4:37:46 AM

Restraining order, hate those things ..
trailertrash writes:
on January 14th, 2011 at 4:38:18 AM

haha beat me to it ....
Sleuth1989 writes:
on January 14th, 2011 at 5:20:43 AM

@BobMcBob
What is with you and everyone?! Andrew Garfield has been in one decent movie as basically the whiny bitch you all describe Tobey McGuire to be. He has no experience and Tobey McGuire earned his stripes continuously with various roles from Seabiscuit to Brothers. He brought a very emotional, nice guy attitude to Peter Parker. How any decent fan of Spider-Man can agree with this film is ridiculous. The suit is not how it should be and to mess with it at all destroys the image of the character. In every incarnation of Spider-Man that suit has never changed as a form of tradition. This movie is a sham with a no-talent director whose only hit is a frikkin' chick flick! And Tobey McGuire acted ten years before getting the role of Spider-Man. Garfield hasn't earned this role. he only got it because he was the talk of the town for, again, one frikkin' movie!!! What happened to earning your way to the top?! This is bullsh*t and any decent movie fan can see that unlike you sell-outs who are just trying to bash on Raimi and McGuire's films which even critics thought were great and, unlike Nolan, they didn't have a film series before as a road map of what not to do for their film series. We all know this movie will be caught in the shadow of its superior, non-high school predecessor. I mean seriously?! High school again?! If I see another series or movie taking place in high school I'm going to find the studios that make this crap and burn all the original negatives so they can never be made again and save film before it is completely destroyed. Problem is it has been bashed in to the point where I don't know if it can be resuscitated. Can film be saved from this?!
Tozic writes:
on January 14th, 2011 at 5:44:17 AM

@Sleuth1989
You and your stupid avatar: shut the f*ck up
Rambo writes:
on January 14th, 2011 at 6:09:12 AM

he makes tobey maguire looks masculine
Trentsteel writes:
on January 14th, 2011 at 6:56:28 AM

I like it.
atn5022 writes:
on January 14th, 2011 at 7:16:36 AM

mmmm, the amount of class here is overwhelming
SACdaddy writes:
on January 14th, 2011 at 7:36:27 AM

This "kid" just doesn't look like a good fit for the part. I'm not a fan Raimi's films but I will say Tobey was the perfect fit for the character. This guy is too tall, skinny, and OLD (for high school) for the part. And the suit looks pretty gay IMO (Glee is destroying this nation). I'm just not feeling this at all.

I think I'd rather go see the terrible (and somewhat dangerous) Spider-Man Broadway musical than see this crappy, misguided reboot.
gunfighterii writes:
on January 14th, 2011 at 8:10:20 AM

I think the suit looks awsome, they are only doing what they did with Batman making a realistic suit, im sure it would get cold during the night wearing tights :P. I think the re-boot will be better then the orginal series..but nothing can top Spiderman 2
TRUEMAN writes:
on January 14th, 2011 at 8:22:58 AM

i smell crap sh*t and it isnt on my pants, poor spiderman looks like a f*cking chick, f*ck this movie i won't go to theater to see this crap never in the life!
hoohoo3000 writes:
on January 14th, 2011 at 8:32:13 AM

Can Spidey keep his mask on for once?
velocityknown writes:
on January 14th, 2011 at 9:22:10 AM

@Mink

Yeah I hate to break it to you, but you're in the minority in disliking his role in The Social Network. True awards don't define everything, but him getting nominated by almost every critics association is an indicator that his performance was universally loved and appreciated.
velocityknown writes:
on January 14th, 2011 at 9:22:33 AM

And c'mon people, Tobey Maguire wasn't a body builder either.
velocityknown writes:
on January 14th, 2011 at 9:27:02 AM

@Sleuth

Garfield has also been in "Never Let Me Go" and "The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus", both for which he's received considerable acclaim.

When Maguire was cast in Spider-Man, he'd had two solid movies under his belt as well (The Cider House Rules and Wonder Boys).

@Sac

To be fair, Tobey was 27 and he played a high schooler in the first film. Garfield's the same age and I think he looks younger than Maguire did at that age.
velocityknown writes:
on January 14th, 2011 at 9:34:15 AM

Also (apologies for so many comments in a row):

No one WANTS this reboot. If we all had our way, they'd be gearing up for Spider-Man 4 right now. Let's just get that out of the way.

But guess, what? Studios run on making money. Sony has a f*cking gold mine with Spider-Man, did you really expect them to let that die for the sake of "art"? So as fans of the character we're going to have to take this for what it is. I think right now, it could be a lot worse. It could be Robert Pattinson playing Spider-Man with a Justin Bieber sidekick. Directed by Michael Bay or Brett Ratner.

No this isn't what any of us wanted, but guess what? It's not the worst thing in the world so can we all take a break from being so pessimistic about it? Yeah Garfield, may look too skinny, but give the guy more of a chance before you start judging the whole film based on his hair style and physical appearance.

Oh and, I hate to break it to you, but this film is getting a sequel. Turns out Spider-Man is pretty easy to market and fanboys and girls alike will flock to this film.
velocityknown writes:
on January 14th, 2011 at 9:36:56 AM

And does it get any gayer than the dance number in Spider-Man 3?
bspence writes:
on January 14th, 2011 at 12:27:35 PM

still not caring. i think this both looks and sounds amazing.

i dont know one detail about how they arent sticking to the comics. unless they put him in college instead of high school. and if so who really gives a sh*t?

yeah the costume is obviously going to be different but this one still looks good. i think this is going to be darker then the raimi ones. i think itll start off with the same vibe but in kind of a more gritty environment instead of all light and sunny like the first spidey. and after he becomes spidey i think there will be a lot more darkness to the story. which could work with spidey especially given the talent behind it.

im excited to see what the lizard looks like as well. and the fanboys here admit or not cannot convince me that the cuts on his face and suit didnt make them think, 'damn. i wana pic of lizard soon'. i dont care if you admit it, and im not saying everyone here said that, but some of you fanboys will be j*zzing in your pants over this even if you say it looks like sh*t.

and raimi had his chance. move on. he f*cked it up. first was ok. good for the time. but ok. second one was good but cgi was pretty horrible at times. and i wont get into the third. basically he had an average spidey series that went downhill fast and only followed the comics on half the story and otherwise changed sh*t. which is what everyone always gets pissed about. now with the exception of graphic novel movies, name one superhero film that has followed the comics more precisely then this is. name one. and then we'll argue about it.
Sleuth1989 writes:
on January 14th, 2011 at 12:33:34 PM

@Tozic
Unless you have any reason for being a douche you might want to back off.

@velocityknown
I hate to break this to you, but money was never the problem. The fourth one would have made money just as much as this reboot if not more because it's built a solid fan base. By rebooting you take a chance of losing a really big frikkin' fan base of paid customers. Sony did this because they're a bunch of executives who want to make movies the way they think THEY think they be should. And Andrew Garfield was in, like Marc Webb, two small pictures. Great he has critical acclaim, but the weight and respect of this character needs someone who can carry it. It's one thing to play original characters but to pay respect to a character already existing is a lot harder. You have to cater to a pre-existing audience of people who like that character and Garfield hasn't had enough. I didn't even know he was in either of those movies you mentioned. And McGuire had a string of movies besides Cider House Rules and Wonder Boys. He also had a wide variety of other films such as Pleasantville and smaller pictures. Again, Garfield has been around for a few years. I mean Christian Bale didn't get Batman until 2005 and he was around since Empire of the Sun in 1987. Point is for a liked character you better have years of experience on you. And good for Garfield and his two movies, but neither were leading roles or roles where he had to carry the movie on his own. Never Let Me Go had two other lead actors to hold the movie with and IODP had Heath ledger and a whole other bunch of actors leading the charge. Until he does a movie where he has to hold it on his own. I'm sorry but Sony did this just to spit on Raimi as their form of a tissy fit like little babies. This whole reboot business is in no way good business. The only reason it worked for Batman was because Nolan saw the worst it could do and had a road map to avoid it. Problem is here, Raimi already had a good road map. Say what you want but a movie won't make money unless it is actually good and this is not working for a lot of people, not just me.
velocityknown writes:
on January 14th, 2011 at 12:46:59 PM

@ Sleuth

Combined gross of the first three Spider-Man films: $2,496,346,518

They did not do this JUST to spit on Raimi. They are running a business, not a revenge factory. Every decision they make is business-minded. Not, "what's going to piss off Raimi?" if they really wanted to piss him off, they would've hired a sh*tty director and actor.

The budget of the first movie was 139 million. The budget of this one will be at least $100million. No one, I mean NO ONE, pisses away 100 million dollars to piss someone off. They put in 100 million dollars to make continue making money off a franchise that has made money for them.

"Say what you want but a movie won't make money unless it is actually good and this is not working for a lot of people, not just me."

Really? How about every Twilight movie? Clash of the Titans? Alice in Wonderland? Sex and the City movie? How about Vampires Suck? Grown Ups (other Sandler crap comedies)? Seriously, could you have made a worse statement?

How can you even get a feeling about this movie when we've seen TWO promo pics and no footage? Just because an actor hasn't been in a lot of movies doesn't mean he hasn't earned an opportunity for a big part. Films run best on talent not seniority.
jdl107 writes:
on January 14th, 2011 at 12:49:50 PM

I forgot, I said this "kid". Lol, he's far from a kid.
markoz writes:
on January 14th, 2011 at 1:22:35 PM

@Sleuth

Well,Brandon Routh was pretty unknown and yet he handled Superman role very well.The movie wasn't that good(mildly speaking) but it wasn't Routh's fault.While on the other hand look at Sean Connery and all the others in The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.

I don't know what to think of the photo.If it's true and they are basing new movie mostly around Ultimate Spider-Man then this guy looks and is built perfect.But I'm not sure about costume.It was supposed to be home-made and yet this is quite...advanced for someone like him.Not sure I like it.Nice touch with web-shooters
codeman_1216 writes:
on January 14th, 2011 at 1:46:29 PM

To tell the truth, I was hoping they would go in a new direction with the suit. Looks a little more homemade. And the web cartridges should prove interesting. And I've noticed some debate on WP about reboots and unnecessary sequels (Ghost Rider 2, lol). velocityknown knows what he's talking about, and another reason they make these reboots is because they don't wanna lose the franchise. All production companies lose franchises after not doing anything with them for a long time.
Ranger writes:
on January 14th, 2011 at 1:59:09 PM

@atn - class on here is my using a fresh condom when I nail your mom in the keyster.
minkowski writes:
on January 14th, 2011 at 2:40:13 PM

"Yeah I hate to break it to you, but you're in the minority in disliking his role in The Social Network. True awards don't define everything, but him getting nominated by almost every critics association is an indicator that his performance was universally loved and appreciated. "

I don't give a rats ass what every one else believes. Almost everyone on the planet believes in a 'creator' or some spiritual bullsh*t, or Scientology, but do I? Nope.
Sleuth1989 writes:
on January 14th, 2011 at 2:54:54 PM

@velocityunknown
Yeah but those crappy movies had followings in their own right. Alice in Wonderland was Tim Burton who has a fan following and at the time we thought, "A crazy world + Tim Burton = success". Sex in the City Movie, same story had a following. Clash of the Titans, half fans of the original and people were caught up in the Sam Worthington hype of last year. Grown-Ups, well when you have five huge comedians I think anyone will see that. And, what was that last one, Vampires Suck. PLease, that movie was $20 million so it didn't take much for it to be a success. Plus since Twilight and every other Vampire flick around is so huge right now you have every teenagers going to see this to see how their favorite crap fest was parodied. And Twilight for that matter was only a success because of the books and two shirtless guys the whole time. Keep trying velocityknown, I got the facts. And again with the budget, what's wrong with you?! Did you even read what was going on with Raimi and Sony with Spider-Man?! They kept making boundaries for him until he was in a corner and couldn't take it anymore. And you and me both know this is a crapfest because once again high school angst is put into the equation which is so drained by now that like 2 decent movies have been made in the last 5 years. Granted Easy A was one of them with Emma Stone who is in this as well, but that still isn't very reassuring. And trust me production companies hold grudges. Why do you think Margot Kidder wasn't in Superman III that much? She defended Donner after he got kicked out of Superman II so they knocked her role down to a minor character and they leeched off it again with the fourth one which Reeves only agreed to do so he could get "Street Smart" done. And Reeves even admitted how Donner would have done a better job. So yes production companies hold grudges and movies have suffered for it because of that arrogance. Keep going I'll keep giving you the facts.
trailertrash writes:
on January 14th, 2011 at 4:36:28 PM

Ranger-

You used a Condom ........ That is Class

I just creampied the bitch ...
minkowski writes:
on January 14th, 2011 at 5:31:54 PM

Sleuth:

Love to see some longer posts here, so thanks, but do you mind breaking them up into smaller paragraphs?

It's difficult to read thirty sentences with no paragraph structure.

Just passing along posting advice I received years and years ago.
minkowski writes:
on January 14th, 2011 at 5:33:14 PM

"Yeah but those crappy movies had followings in their own right. Alice in Wonderland was Tim Burton who has a fan following and at the time we thought, "A crazy world + Tim Burton = success"."

AIW made over a billion at the BO. I'd call that a success.
dorkus1226 writes:
on January 14th, 2011 at 5:43:28 PM

@atn5022
nah man, right here is pretty much the epitome of classy. It's a white tie affair errryday!
popcorn writes:
on January 14th, 2011 at 6:19:13 PM

I am a Spider-Man fan no more
Doomzdae writes:
on January 14th, 2011 at 8:32:44 PM

1. spider-man is skinny, because spider-man
is a kid.

2. kirsten dunst way too ugly to be mary jane



Sleuth1989 writes:
on January 15th, 2011 at 1:34:49 AM

@minkowski
Sorry man. I know I can sometimes go on and on. I'll try to break it up more from now on.
velocityknown writes:
on January 15th, 2011 at 3:02:22 AM

@Sleuth

First of all, you're proving my point by acknowledging those films have a dedicated fan base just like Spider-Man has a fan base that will go see this film, despite what you think. Trust me they're not going to ignore it in protest.

Also, I'm not saying that studios don't hold grudges. Obviously Hollywood is a small town and if you piss someone off they're going to minimize your role, but they won't tank a movie or do something that they KNOW is stupid to intentionally piss someone off. You were saying that they were making this reboot sh*t to piss off Raimi ("I'm sorry but Sony did this just to spit on Raimi as their form of a tissy fit like little babies.")

When they kicked Donner off of Superman II, they didn't bring in someone to tank it, they brought in Richard f*cking Lester. Yes, we now look back and say, Donner was the best choice, but the studio didn't sit around and say, "Hmm, who's a sh*t director that's going to f*ck this thing up and piss off Donner?" They said, "Hmmm, who's a good director, who we think can do a good job and still make us a good movie?"

Do I think this reboot is bad idea? I don't think it's the worst, would I have preferred a Raimi directed Spider-Man 4. Hell yes! But that doesn't mean that a) This reboot is going to suck or b) The studios drive behind this is to piss off Raimi. Raimi has work, Raimi won't give a sh*t, he's got WoW, Oz, among many other projects lined up. They are doing this project because it has the great potential to make money.

And what are you talking about "again with the budget"? The budget is proving my point that Sony is not doing this reboot for the sole purpose of making Raimi mad. No one says, I will sacrifice a 100 million dollars to piss off a director who probably doesn't really even care about the franchise anymore (by the way, did we mention HE stepped down, they did not fire him).

What facts are you throwing at me exactly? You've proven my point (thanks for that by the way) by confirming the following of those crap films that made money. You cited a film that's a perfect example of how fiscally minded a studio is (they brought in a respectable director after one was let go from the project). And you're apparently forgetting what you initially said in that Sony is just doing this to spit on Raimi.

Facts shown. Just not via you.
Wallace writes:
on January 15th, 2011 at 9:29:02 AM

Reminds me of the Punisher outfit
Sleuth1989 writes:
on January 15th, 2011 at 1:50:29 PM

@velocityknown
You know you really are bugging me now. I'm not saying they do things to tick people genius. It's personal anger as a fan that says that part and if you were here long enough you'd know that everyone here states what they feel based on their observations. Cut the crap and trying to diss on my observations, which hold their ground by the way against your bull. And trust me it happens everyday where money is tanked into stuff studios know is going to be a disaster but do it anyway to make a quick buck. It's about quality and respect for the films. $100 million for a Spider-Man film?! For a film that visual effects-driven that's chump change. This series was not respected and Sony is trying to save as much as possible to make money off of the character. You, by the way, proved my point, by mentioning the budget of the first film which was I believe $139 million. And at that time they didn't know for sure how audiences would react to Spider-Man on the big screen. Now when they do they cut the budget because they know this is risky beyond hell doing a reboot less that 5 years after Spider-Man 3, the last of Raimi's trilogy. And I know you'll probably argue again like a little one-upping douche but you're very narrow on how you think. You're looking at the numbers but not the message behind those numbers. Please respond so I can tell you why why you are wrong. And trust I'm well aware studios don't intentionally try to make movies bad. But this time they know this is bull. They hired Marc Webb. Has he done any big movies before? Oh yeah he just did 500 DAYS OF SUMMER!!! Yeah I'd really hire a director who did one movie, a chick flick by the way. They got hooked on a schedule and panicked and pull a director out of the hat. Seriously, ask yourself this, if you had to hire a director would that have been your choice?

Facts given. By me.
velocityknown writes:
on January 15th, 2011 at 3:03:17 PM

@Sleuth

You said:

"I'm sorry but Sony did this just to spit on Raimi as their form of a tissy fit like little babies. This whole reboot business is in no way good business."

And now:

"I'm not saying they do things to tick people"

Then you said:

"Say what you want but a movie won't make money unless it is actually good"

Then you supported the crappy movies I listed that did well at the box office:

"Alice in Wonderland was Tim Burton who has a fan following". Unlike Spider-Man right?

"And trust me it happens everyday where money is tanked into stuff studios know is going to be a disaster but do it anyway to make a quick buck."

Do you realize how f*cking paradoxical that is?

If Hollywood wasn't investing in movies they didn't think were going to make money, no one would ever NOT get a movie made.

By the way, notice how I never said that this film was going to for sure cost 100 million. That's a generous low estimate. And 100 million is never chump change, a movie that the studio invests a 100 million in is only invested in with the hope that it well break even.

Let me give you some statistics to show you why a studio does not piss away that much money.

The average MPAA film costs 106.6 million dollars to produce (71 million for production, 35 million for marketing).
The AVERAGE MPAA film. Spider-Man will probably be above average with it's numerous effects and above the line costs. Let's be generous and say 150$ million since costs have risen since 2002. We're probably looking at 200 million though.

40% of those average MPAA films will NEVER make their budget back.

Only 10-20% make it back in domestic release.

Studios like Sony that release huge numbers of films a year, need big hits like Spider-Man to cover the losses they experience with the average film that isn't going to break even.

The message behind these numbers is that studios don't piss away money for fun. Hollywood is a business. Like every other business, sh*tty decisions are made. But they're made with the idea that a film will make money.

"And trust I'm well aware studios don't intentionally try to make movies bad. But this time they know this is bull."

Read above statements (including your own) to gather my response to that.

I don't CARE if you think the movie is going to be sh*t, obviously you are not the only one that thinks that. My problem is not with your assessment of the film based on two promo pictures. My problem is that you think that Sony is f*cking the project up on purpose, so they can piss someone off.

And you're right, Marc Webb has one film under his belt. He spent numerous years directing music videos. That kind of reminds of this one time that a studio gave a big time, franchise related job to a director who'd never directed a feature film, who'd only directed music videos. Hmmm, who was that guy...oh yeah! It was David f*cking Fincher!

Don't talk about the industry when you CLEARLY do not understand how it works. Hollywood is not run on investing in multi-million dollar projects for the sole purpose of pissing off a director who LEFT/QUIT/WALKED AWAY from the project.

Oh, and break up your paragraphs. I don't want to read you bull sh*t to begin with, much less in stream of consciousness form. God damn.
Sleuth1989 writes:
on January 15th, 2011 at 5:07:13 PM

@velocityknown
I'll break up mine if you break up yours. And you mention directors like David Fincher. Yeah I heard of that film...ALIEN 3!!! Considered the worst of the series. And you again keep throwing numbers at me. And I'm not paradoxical about anything. Everything from certain movies making money even though they're bad to studios sometimes holding grudges and not holding grudges i all true. It's a case by case basis. Sometimes the studios have no choice, other times they'll really screw up a picture. In THIS case, they really screwed up. Nobody wants a frikkin' high school Spider-Man. Half the people here still think McGuire is better. They have an inexperienced director. In what way is confidence inspired into this picture exactly?! Read between the lines, calm the frik down, and move on. I respect your opinion but I don't agree with it. You spent the whole time finding reasons to continue this now you're just sounding like a lunatic who has to prove a point. You believe this so much fine then don't respond back but if you're not willing to respect my opinion get the frik' of this site. I only keep responding because you keep insulting me.
rabid writes:
on January 15th, 2011 at 6:02:12 PM

Well, since Spider-man spent the first 4 years of his comic book in high school, I really don't see what the big deal is. It didn't make a lot of sense to me to reboot this series, but there's nothing so far to suggest the film will suck. I didn't like 30 Days of Summer, but teen drama is not too far away from the main plot of the Spider-books. He's always been the mopey emo kid of the Marvel U.
And regarding Alien 3... yes, it was the worst of the Alien films, but it wasn't a bad movie. Only the least of great series. (i'm not countin AvP, and neither should anyone else)
encoreyourface writes:
on January 15th, 2011 at 8:28:47 PM

the suit looks cool, he looks like one of them queermosexuals ...
Sleuth1989 writes:
on January 15th, 2011 at 9:09:20 PM

@rapid
It's funny you should say that because Stan Lee and a couple other writers said if they had known the comic book series was going to last so long they would have had him out of high school a lot sooner.
DeathProof88 writes:
on January 16th, 2011 at 1:09:52 AM

is it me or are all you people stupid?
Do some research before you get on here and write your sh*t, Spiderman was never meant to be big and bulky especially when they are basing it off the Ultimate Spiderman series. Get a clue, if you don't like it, go watch something else. How do any of you enjoy a movie? nothing you say is positive. It's also hilarious how when "Spiderman 3" came out everyone complained about how they need to just reboot the series and now they are and you are tearing it to shreds before you even watch it... you people crack me up.
Doomzdae writes:
on January 19th, 2011 at 5:44:20 AM

@deathproof88:

I agree and thank u for not beeing a
dumba§§ like the rest of these fags!

There's a Good Reason Why Luke Skywalker Isn't on "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" Poster

"The Walking Dead" Fan Kills Friend Who Turned Into a Zombie

"Indiana Jones" Producer Says Harrison Ford Will Not Be Recast

Ridley Scott Reveals Another Title for "Prometheus" Sequel

Johnny Depp and Edgar Wright Team for "Fortunately, the Milk"

"Spectre" Breaks Box Office Records Overseas

"Star Wars: The Force Awakens" Demolishes Pre-Sale Records

Paul Bettany Responds to Jason Statham's "Avengers" Insult

Daniel Craig Would Rather Commit Suicide Than Return as James Bond

Marvel Has Contingency Plans In Case It Regains Rights to Superheroes
Lace Wedding Dresses from ViViDress UK online shop, buy with confidence and cheap price.
WorstPreviews.com hosted by pair Networks WorstPreviews.com
Hosted by pair Networks
News Feeds | Box Office | Movie Reviews | Buzz: Top 100 | Popularity: Top 100
Poster Store | About Us | Advertising | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Web Tools | Site Map
Copyright © 2009 WorstPreviews.com. All rights reserved