http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/812 ... spider-manQuote:
So is it churlish to point out that this Spider-Man, which Sony reportedly relaunched to keep the rights to the character from reverting back to Marvel, and which tells a nearly identical origin story to Sam Raimi's 2002 Spider-Man, is basically the same movie they put out 10 years ago? That there is an extraordinary, exceptional, undisguised cynicism in the marketing calculations here, which basically boil down to "younger kids really like Spider-Man and were barely alive a decade ago anyway"?
Quote:
It's almost enough to distract you from the fact that we've seen all this before. Very recently, in fact. The initially unrequited crush. The suddenly bulging pectoral muscles. The portentous shame of humiliating the bully who humiliated you. The fact that Parker is initially a bit careless with his powers, that his saintly uncle dies because of his carelessness, that this will be the bitter moral lesson that allows him to become a hero. That with great power comes great responsibility. The Amazing Spider-Man would be a good, maybe even great movie, if they hadn't just made it.
Really that's the shame of it all. It was a reboot that just didn't need to be made...at least not a mere
10 years after the first one came out. And it's not the kind of reboot like Christopher Nolan's
Batman films which takes a completely different approach.
It was done because of corporate greed, and everyone is just eating it up. And yes, there will be a sequel. Think of the 3rd Spiderman, you know why that movie blew such ass? Because Sam Raimi was sick of the suits. That was his "fuck you" to Sony. They wanted to control everything. They wanted all those super villains in the film to get more $$$
But that's Hollywood these days. The masses will buy, so Hollywood delivers.
