‘Amazing Spider-Man’ Character Concept Art; Rhys Ifans Talks Playing a CGI Lizard Man

2 years ago by  

One of the biggest hurdles facing the Amazing Spider-Man was the question of how to give movie audiences a new version of Spider-Man, without straying too far away from the comic book source material. While trying to walk the tightrope between the classically familiar and the refreshingly modern, there were a lot of designs tossed around for the characters featured in the film – most notably those of Spider-Man (Andrew Garfield) and his reptilian foe, The Lizard (Rhys Ifans).

If you want to know how the filmmakers did with the hard task handed to them, read our official Amazing Spider-Man review; but if you’re curious about what could’ve been, then check out the gallery of concept art below.

As you can see above, there was a lot of deliberation about which direction to take the hero and villain of the story. If you want to see even more variations (or cool artwork) of Amazing Spider-Man designs, you should check the websites of artists  Aaron Sims, Eddie Yang and George Hull.

-

Rhys Ifans Talks About The Lizard

Amazing Spider Man The Lizard Close Up 570x251 Amazing Spider Man Character Concept Art; Rhys Ifans Talks Playing a CGI Lizard Man

Besides the Spider-Man costume, the design of The Lizard has been one of the more heavily-debated aspects of this film. During The Amazing Spider-Man press junket in NYC, actor Rhys Ifans – who plays scientist Curt Connors and his alter-ego, The Lizard – addressed the topic of the Lizard’s look, and what it was like playing a character who would largely be created through CGI.

On the topic of how early on in production he was able to see The Lizard designs:

Like really early on – way before we started. I was kind of bombarded with visual stimuli throughout, which was really useful.

About the motivation for taking on the role:

Well it’s Spider-Man, right? You don’t say know to that [Laughter]. I was on a little island in the Meditterianian when a bit of the script came. I obviously knew Sony was behind it, and it was kind of a big deal, and then I heard that Marc  Webb was the director. I had seen ‘(500) Days of Summer’ and thought that was a beautiful, beautiful film, and just thought that was a brave, interesting, fantastic choice for a director. So once I knew Marc was onboard – I din’t know him but I knew his work – and I thought ‘maybe there’s a chance here, maybe they can go at this from a different kind of place. And then I flew and met with Marc and [producers Avi Arad and Matt Tolmach], read and kind of lost my mind in the office where I met them, and got the gig.

Amazing Spider Man The Lizard Chemical Attack 570x252 Amazing Spider Man Character Concept Art; Rhys Ifans Talks Playing a CGI Lizard Man

What fascinated me about the character – I was aware of Dr. Curtis Connors before, obviously – was that unlike a villain just brought in to spar with Spider-Man, he has a very real kind of emotional connection with him – particularly Peter’s father. And that he is a very intelligent scientist who wants to genuinely benefit and change and help the lives of millions of humans – limbless humans in this case. We’re living in a world now where on a daily basis you see young men return limbless from warzones and civilians who are land-mine victims – so this science or technology would be of huge benefit to millions of people.

I was interested to see how [Connors'] hunger for the advancement of that science is done, and his moral conflict with the corporation that he works for – a corporation that obviously wants to benefit financially from this technology and also benefit its owner, Norman Osborn – at the expense of unwitting New Yorkers. And Connors, even to the end, is morally repelled by that decision they make, and tries to become his own lab rat – which of course allows him to re-grow his limb – but he doesn’t figure on what that cold-blooded, reptilian, super-powerful, glistening-in-the-sun sense of hubris does to a compassionate human mind.

About Playing a character who is realized through a combination of heavy makeup and CGI:

Well of course the CGI part was taken care of by a lot of very clever men… with laptops and such – but I was always aware of that and was quite participant in that technological journey. Then there was also the transitional moments for Connors where he’s becoming reptilian or becoming human – coming up or coming down as I call it – and those would entail me sitting in a makeup chair for 7-8 hours with four makeup artists – and I emphasize the word artists - working on various parts of my body, applying these silicone pieces and painting each scale individually.

Amazing Spider Man Curt Connors Partial Lizard Transformationjpg 570x252 Amazing Spider Man Character Concept Art; Rhys Ifans Talks Playing a CGI Lizard Man

A half-transformed Curt Connors (Ifans)

On paper it might sound excruciating, but it was actually fascinating… just to see how these people worked – but also really informative for my character, because it basically allowed me to observe what would happen in half an hour of real-time [compared to] film where he changes from human to reptilian; I was able to view over a period of seven hours this very dramatic physical change. And you know, after seven hours in a chair with not enough cigarettes, I was kind of in the right mental state to play a man who was about to transform into a 9-foot Lizard with a dangerous tail.

-

The Amazing Spider-Man is now theaters. Check back for more of our Interviews with the cast.

FIND OUT MORE ABOUT: spider-man, the amazing spider-man

81 Comments

Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.


If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it.

  1. still needed a snout imo.

    • /nods in agreement

    • I agree :(

      • Yup.

    • The first appearance of the lizard, he didn’t have a snout. He had a fairly flatish face. Just sayin.

      • Totally agreed. Original appearance of the lizard by Steve Ditko did not have a snout. I respected that because it showed lizard still in human form it said there is still human in him, I think Marc Webb thought of that too. I can’t see Spidey up against a giant crock. Anyway lizard did clamed that he is a reptilians king in original TASM comic. I would save those lizard concept art with snout for the lizard army!

  2. Aaron Sims concept art for Green Lantern costume is great to bad they did not use that for the movie

  3. Those alternate costumes are just horrible. So I guess they did choose the best of the 4 (or possibly more). What I don’t get though was why they felt it needed such a drastic re-design in the first place.

    • I think all ideas should be presented, but Spider-man’s suit, to me, is the best suit in comics, and perhaps the only suit that has the perfect excuse and explanation of being designed by a teenager.

      I liked the Raimi suit (and movies) much more. They kept it original but added texture and dimension.

      I was not impressed with the designs in this movie. Particularly the Lizard, and it wasn’t just the snout. He looked like Voldermort. I kept expecting him to say “Harry Potter.” And by the way, Voldermort is a pretty uninspired design to begin with.

      • Yeah…at least the Voldemort on film. He looked about normal-sized, not gaunt and emaciated like he should have been – I wish Fiennes had gone at least halfway like Bale’s Machinist was on the role. And the biggest change/letdown was the eyes – should have been concussion-like red and with black slits for pupils…smh. They dropped it all.

        • I loved the books, even if I didn’t care for the movies. So Voldermort’s look wasn’t a deal-breaker. Neither was how the lizard looked in ASM, but it was one “Meh” in a movie full of them IMO.

      • Good to know I’m not alone in the universe.

        And I guess I haven’t seen enough of the lizard to have made the Harry Potter connection, although I can’t disagree with that assessment.

  4. I like the second costume concept but fanboys would be fuming if they used it. The first one looks just like the Sam Rami Spider-suit

    • I like that one too, except maybe keep the spider on the chest centered, otherwise rather cool. My biggest complaints with the new costume are the overly thick feet soles (I guess he doesn’t need to take his shoes off anymore to wallclimb) and the flashing webshooters.

      • Yes, the built in “shoes” are just one of the many issues I had with this movie. It was a completely unnecessary added element and they could have easily just gone with the correct concept but they didn’t (one of many instances of this imho)

        • Personally I think the costume in TASM is fantastic. I can see the reason for the shoes, after all many comic book characters are pretty much drawn with what looks like stockinged feet (No real boot-like details), and are made into boots in the movies. In fact movies seen to be altering the comic artists thinking and often established characters costumes are now often draw in a more detailed and realistic way.

          I’ve always thought of Spider-man as a gymnast and assumed his footwear to be like those gymnasts shoes. I do think however, that they should have had him buy some rock climbing shoes (Maybe red ones that were going cheap because nobody liked the colour), they have perfectly smooth soles and not tread or running spikes.

          • Well I can technically see a “reason” also because in normal circumstances he would be burning through a pair of custom made, stockinged booties every night…….BUT……we aren’t talking about normal or realistic now are we? So the kid can design an outfit that any Hollywood costume designer would be envious of and create super strong webbing but he can’t make his footwear highly resistant to wear and tear? Sounds like a trivial problem for this genius but yet he HAD to have shoes? Give me a break. This is a superhero movie which kind of flys in the face of realism and that’s IS the point of the movie, isn’t it? That right there should stop you from “needing” to interject such unnecessary things. Selective use of realism is never a good explanation for anything.

            Add to that the fact that the “Marvel” Spider-Man can only use his powers through thin material and thus having shoes kind of ruins how his powers should work.

            • The shoes just don’t bother me. It’s just odd having the silver on them though. I’ve mentioned before, they may be using his old style clinging ability that did not involve thousands of little hooks coming out of his hands and feet. It was more of a “power”.

              He can stick to things even with his shoes on, he did it in the Raimi movies and the comic is always moving the goalposts as far as that is concerned anyway. I guess in the bigger picture most people won’t even question it. I’m pretty flexible with changes if I feel it isn’t really making a negative impact on the important bits.

              • Guess it all depends on where your personal preferences are. I dislike the entire costume; from the gold eyes to the shoes, the basketball texture and the over designed look that a high school kid would never be able to make. Just because you are a science wiz doesn’t mean you are a genius clothing designer. I could have been more forgiving of the costume itself had they done the feet and eyes correctly but they didn’t.

                And the spider hooks are a Raimi version and not a real part of the SM canon. What I was referring to WAS part of the official explanation and related to being able to create an attraction on the subatomic level. It’s been described as a sort of super “static cling”. It only extends out to about 1/8″ so it will not work through shoes. I know there have been a few instances where he was drawn with shoes using his cling ability but the simple fact is the artists screwed up. This type of thing happens all the time because the artist either didn’t know or wasn’t thinking about it when he was drawing it.

                • I saw TASM today and really loved it. The suit works really well in the movie. Also, it shows that he bought a spandex sentai suit online ()Which is very common, soccer fans often wear them to games), and screen printed it. This is easily achievable online and I have done screen printing myself. It was way more plausible than the suit that magically appears in the Raimi films.

                  All the characters felt real too. It wasn’t campy and not really dark. Just a little more realistic.

                  The Lizard didn’t have the best cgi, but that didn’t really bother me. I can put up with effects that are a little of as long as the film as a whole holds up.

                  • *off*

                  • About the suit:

                    1) It’s pronounced “zentai”
                    2) The only thing Parker silkscreened onto the costume was the spider logos. I’ve also done a lot of silkscreening and it would be next to impossible to get the red pattern on there after the fact (not to mention most of the latex zentai suits don’t have complex textures). That means he found the outfit virtually “as is” out on the internet, talk about your far fetched BS. I almost wished the suit had just magically appeared so I didn’t have to think about the complete BS solution they came up with (including the integration of the eye covers AND silly shoes no less!)

                    Would have been more feasible if it had been say a bobsled uniform but even that has it’s flaws.

                    • 1:Yeah, I know it’s Zentai, I had “Super sentai” on the brain (AKA the original Japanese power rangers) You’ll have to forgive me that slip up due to there not being an edit button. I was watching the Japanese Spider-man on Youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBtMJ0E_JxI

                      2:The “Complex texture” is just a black silk screened hexagon pattern with the web design too. Screen prints create raised areas and texture, as well as shiny inks used on matt materials. They use it a lot on running/athletic gear. The suit could have been made using one red suit and one blue suit cut up and stitched into the design. Or printed onto a white suit as the Raimi suit was. Or just by using an undercoat print of a lighter colour just as they do on t-shirts. The templates could all have been drawn in Adobe illustrator.

                      of course, the design would normally be printed on the fabric (but not always) before sewing the costume together, but you just have to take it with a pinch of salt that he bought a suit and silk screened the design on using multiple screens and inks.

                      That’s how that suit is made anyway. No stuck on raised webbing or silk screened on muscles like the Raimi version. It actually looks more technical than it is.

                    • Not sure why you are throwing silkscreen techno-babble at me considering I already mentioned I’ve done silkscreen and file prep for it for years using AI, Freehand CorelDraw and PS, so I get it. ;)

                      And while yes, the overlying pattern was painted on, the base material was made of probably latex with a hex pattern built into it. I say painted because there is no way that was silkscreened onto a fully 3D body form. That would be a virtual nightmare to do. It was either painted/airbrushed after the fact or, as you said, screened as flat pieces and then sewn together.

                      Regardless of the process, the fact is he didn’t make it and only added the spider logo after the fact.

                    • Motoko….I did some research and carefully examined a high-rez photo of the suit and damn, that thing is complex. It has layers upon layers of textures. The red areas are definitely molded latex with the black detailing and dusky appearance of the honeycomb surface painted on. The blue however has an underlying texture that is difficult to make out but the black honeycomb pattern on top changes both in size and direction depending on where it is. I’m guessing they silkscreened the individual blue pieces while flat and then the whole thing sewn together. Add in those crazy gloves and the showed feet and it is a bit insane.

                      One thing is for sure, this was a Hollywood construct because that thing would have been expensive to make and too highly specialized for its own good.

  5. Think if The Lizard shows up again in a future installment he will be more mutated to the Lizard we know from the comics and tv shows.

  6. These would be great costumes in an alternate reality story.

    • Like another Shattered Dimensions game

  7. I really enjoyed The Lizard. I was skeptical at first since he lacked both a snout and a lab coat, and I wasn’t really familiar with Ifans, but he actually turned out really well. Ifans did a great job as a troubled yet hopeful scientist, and The Lizard looked pretty awesome. The close-ups on his face looked great.

    Here’s hoping that The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is even better!

    • He did have the lab coat for a brief instance. It did look good on him.

  8. Looking back..lizard was great..esp loved his creepy “pooor peter parker” voice. Wish they killed emma watson tho..the “build” felt like it

    • Stone…Emma Stone. In no way did the build feel like that. You can’t kill off Gwen in the first one. Her father on the other hand you could feel the build towards that since it was a key moment in the comics and it did happen. Kind of wish they would alter this reality and let Gwen live. Love Emma Stone and actually like Gwen more than I do MJ.

    • belize can be forgiven for saying “emma watson.” When Lizard said “Poor Peter Parker. No parents, etc.” it might as well have been Voldermort talking to Harry Potter.

  9. Emma watson for Mary Jane ^.^

    • I can totally see watson playing mj lol

    • Watson would be great in the part, but I just don’t think she looks it. No offense to her acting ability, but she isn’t curvy enough to pull off MJ

  10. In the still frame from the movie with the green smoke, the lizard looks like a goomba from the Super Mario Bros movie.

  11. spam spam spam spam spam spam baked beans and spam

  12. One of the (few) issues I had with the movie was the sometimes-cartoon-looking-Lizard. It wasn’t that well done IMO.
    They should have played around with the budget a bit to be able to use motion capture instead – it’s just the way of the future: to make things look more real.
    I already mentioned this, but when the Lizard talked, he just looked… off. I think a snout would have been the perfect solution to this problem.
    A lab coat, as others have said, would have been awesome as well, but I don’t think an item of clothing is really THAT crucial to a movie (in this instance)
    For the most part he (the CGI lizard) was believable enough, but there was definitely room for some improvement…

    Still an awesome movie though! Can’t wait to see it again.

    • What makes this statement all the more ironic is the studio stated they left the face more “human” to better portray the emotions of the actor and character. Always sounded to me more like them trying to justify a poor decision someone made in a boardroom somewhere.

      and I WILL catch you Skrull! /shakes fist in defiance

      • I was under the impression that if he really was a skrull, he would act all the more normal to avoid suspicion. Anyways, I admit that some of the scenes with the lizard looked cartoonish (aka the bridge scene), but most of the close up stuff looked really good. And I didn’t really mind the snout thing, though honestly it would have definitely helped make his nose look less odd.

        Connor’s newly grown hand looked a little lame but whatever.

        The sequence where the Lizard was talking to Connors in his mind was a little reminiscent of the Osborn/Goblin scene from the first Spidey film minus the creepy schizo feel.

        The Lizard’s voice was cool. I feel that it fit pretty well.

        There were some deleted scenes that I feel would have added to the final fight (scenes of mutated lizard men causing destruction in the streets)

        Not a perfect movie but it was nice to have a director that decided to make a serious Spider-man movie for once. The Raimi films always had a cartoonish child-like feel to them.

        The death of Uncle Ben actually choked me up in this film. WIN

        My thoughts on the suit are that I like the original comic designs better. Though in that picture above, it doesn’t look good on the taller thinner Andrew Garfield model than it did on Tobey, so I kinda dig the new look for the way if fit and still looked spidey-like.

        In my personal opinion, I feel like the direction they are taking the look of Spider-Man is that his look will change over time. Like how he first went to wearing a beanie and hoodie, to wearing a mask with a beanie and jacket, to wearing a suit. I think that his suit will change over time and maybe come to an more original design since in these films, Spider-Man grows as Peter grows.

        The eye lenses, meh, I don’t like ‘em but then again I don’t really care. Since they came from sunglasses, I think that they would be kinda hard to see in the dark, so I hope it becomes a part of the story were Peter upgrades his costume as he goes.

        The shoes, don’t really care. They were kinda distracting, but can you imagine the kinda foot pain he would be in if he didn’t have some kind of soles under his feet?
        Kicking baddies all over the city and landing drops off of skyscrapers?
        Heck no man, I would put freakin’ tennies on my feet if I would be doing that. I know it kinda messes with the Spidey powers and all, but again, he is just starting off and has the flexibility to make changes as he learns to be a better spider.

        My overall opinion of this movie is a 7.5 out of 10. I still consider the first Raimi film to be a 6.8 so its an improvement for the better, but still flawed in certain areas.

        • Oh, and Emma Stone as Gwen Stacey was fantastic! And the chemistry between E.S./G.S. and A.G./P.P. was way better than the chemistry between K.D./M.J.W. and T.M./P.P. I can’t tell you how much I hated those crappy scenes were Tobey’s eyes would glaze over as him and Kirsten were “having a moment”. They would just freakin’ stare at each other muttering small sentences and it completely ruined the flow of the movie.
          The ES and AG scenes were more realistic and flowed very well with the atmosphere of the movie.
          Loved it!

          • @Roguedork19

            I totally agree. I just watched SM2 a few days ago and there are some “love” scenes that are just awful. Specifically the one after Peter’s birthday party at the beginning when they are talking in the backyard staring into each other’s eyes, waiting whole minutes before they respond, MJ saying “you’re such a mystery”. It’s just so sappy and unrealistic and I really wanted to throw up (figuratively, of course).

            I did love SM2 as a whole, and it still remains one of my favorite superhero movies. I just much preferred the romantic scenes of TASM (and most other aspects as well).

  13. “One of the biggest hurdles facing the Amazing Spider-Man was the question of how to give movie audiences a new version of Spider-Man, without straying too far away from the comic book source material. While trying to walk the tightrope between the classically familiar and the refreshingly modern, there were a lot of designs tossed around for the characters featured in the film – most notably those of Spider-Man (Andrew Garfield) and his reptilian foe, The Lizard (Rhys Ifans).”

    Why did they feel they had to change anything about spider-man’s suit to begin with? This is what I have been saying for years…many things in the comics are fine for the big screen, there is nothing that needs to be changed. There is nothing wacky about spider-man’s classic red and blue suit. These 3rd party film companies (sony and fox) need to stop changing what does not need to be changed. I believe they do this just so they can say they had a hand in developing a character(s), even though that same character has templated characteristics.

    The Lizard should have had the snout, and the tattered lab coat as well would have worked fine on screen. These 3rd party film companies probably believe that they can make these characters better than the company that originally created them, and which is way older then them (the film companies). It just seems very arrogant to me.

    “If you want to know how the filmmakers did with the hard task handed to them…”

    Nothing about it had to be “hard” if they just would have had spidey and lizard in their true original form from the comics. I mean look at it this way…because they spent so much time on changing things that did not have to be changed, they probably had to pay more money to these people for the extra time and hours they put in because of it. It’s a waste.

    • I swear I didn’t change my screen name just to write this! (but I do agree with it ;) )

    • Well Marvel isn’t a “third party” and they’ve changed plenty in terms of their movie costumes.

      And plenty of costumes wouldn’t work on screen. Some things have to adapt to fit the medium. What works great on the page can be very campy on screen. Live action is difficult that way. Animation on the other hand get get away with many things that live action can’t.

      • “Well Marvel isn’t a “third party” and they’ve changed plenty in terms of their movie costumes.”

        That’s exactly my point. Marvel is not the third party, fox and sony are. With that said, Marvel has full-right to change whatever they want to change because its their characters. I’d rather marvel doing the changes than some company who seems to think they can do a better job at handling the character(s) than the original creators. Raimi’s spider-man worked fine on the big screen. I did not see anything different with spidey’s suit in that movie as compared to the comics. No one complained about the suit’s originality in raimi’s spider-man, so how is it that the same suit would not have worked in the current spider-man film?

        Lizard’s snout and tattered lab coat would have worked fine, as well. Nothing about any of those things would have been campy at all. It’s not about trying to relate the character to the actor. It’s about relating the actor to the character.

        • I guess at the end of the day they figured they were making Parker a more trendy and emo nerd, they were changing his background, going to high tech web shooters, etc. so to further reflect and differentiate this film from the Raimi version lets also change the costume.

          I don’t of course agree with the logic but I’m sure that was the thought process.

          • @ mongoose…I kind of thought that myself, but I did not want to say it. It’s just annoying and unnecessary imo.

        • I’m really not against changing characters. Raimi’s Dr. Octopus is a prime example. A lot was changed, and enough retained.

          This Lizard just seemed completely uninspired. I would be all for a snout and labcoat, but also just have him closer to human sized. Also Rys Ifans was given nothing. There could have been him with his restored arm, but showing signs of becoming cold blooded. Willem Defoe was way more interesting without the mask. Alfred Molina brought something more with his voice and face. This just went straight to CGI, and it looked like some leftover Ray Harryhausen (not to knock RH, I’m just saying it looked dated). He looked like that creature from 20 Million Miles to Earth.

          Putting him on a human scale and closer to Spider-man in power might have allowed room for some psychological interplay where Peter is trying to “find” Dr. Connors and the Lizard takes advantage of this. I’ve also mentioned that he could have controlled an army of NY alligators like in the comics, and there could have been a Mrs. Connors and a kid. They were always instrumental in the stories. Having him lurk about in hat and trenchcoat would be cool to. Unfortunately this movie is too “realistic” for that. But there is some ground between Raimi and Nolan.

          I’m not saying it had to be this way, or like the comics. I’m countering the idea that Marc Webb and the production had no choice but to go the way they did, that the Lizard simply isn’t that interesting, so they were “stuck.”

          Even a lot of positive reviews people are dissatisfied with the way the story is paced and handled, AND with the villain. I don’t get it. Those are the two MOST important things to a movie.

    • I echo everything you have said. Hollywood has to feel like they invented the wheel also.

    • In the words of our Lord Raiden (AKA Christopher Lambert) EEEXACTlY.

  14. Seeing that crap Spider-Man cartoon that Marvel has been shoveling out to us, I am glad that Sony has the rights for now. As long as they keep bringing us decent spidey films, they can keep it. At least until Marvel get’s their heads on straight.

    • I don’t like the direction their animated division is going either but you do know it has little to nothing to do with the movie division, right? You know, the ones who made a string of successful superhero movies culminating in the Avengers blockbuster. Seems to me Marvel Studios do have their heads on straight ;)

    • Yes, I am agreement. Someone on another blog site said that the spider-man cartoon is geared towards kids. However, marvel just does not seem to understand that a large part of their fan base are adults. Just ask Stan Lee himself, whose idea it was to steer marvel towards the adult demographic back in the 40s or 50s when his uncle was running things. He said they laughed at him for making such a suggestion, yet under stan’s tenure as marvel editor in chief, the company did well.

      Also I support DC animation over marvel’s, because DC’s animation is more serious, and adult oriented. For example, Superman/Batman: Apocalypse, Crisis on Two Earths, Wonder Woman: Birth of a Hero, even Justice League Unlimited. DC’s artistry, pertaining to their animation is better than marvel’s (in my opinion), Their animation is sharper and cleaner, as it pertains to the fight scenes and the character interactions. Also, I think DC games are far better than Marvel’s. Even I admit these things.

  15. I suspect that they wanted the new costume to be easily confused for the Raimi one by casual viewers who may not even know its a reboot. Speaking of which, the frequent use of the four long spider legs as seen on his back and in movie posts etc, looks like an attempt to make casual crowds assume that this is the fourth film in a row rather than a new first film. Maybe there were serious doubts about the general public swallowing the reboot so they worked some strategy into the designs…

    The shoes aren’t like climbing shoes, at least not solely, so to speak. Rock shoes help you smear a flat surface but don’t actually attach you to them. I thought thin material and tiny spider-hair grabbers was a cool enough explanation, and while the new shoes differentiate, they ruin that premise pretty solidly.

    The redesign in all seems to be trying to look un-CGI. Raimi costume looks really CGI to me, and that’s fine, but it doesn’t sell live action as well. Also they had a lithe physique for the reboot as oppossed to Toby”s bulk, so the new color borders work well with that consideration.

  16. new movie. new suit. simple really. Raimi’s suit wasnt SPIDER-MAN’S traditional comic suit, so why would WEBB’S be?

    Who’s better visually, Nolan’s BANE or Schumacher’s Batman & Robin BANE?

    • Actually yes, Raimi’s version was pretty correct. All they did was enhance it with a raised texture to make close-ups look better and changed the spider logo. The general costume design layout matches the comic version almost exactly.

      • Exactly and Thank You.

        • Well the raised silver webbing ruined the sleekness of that suit for me. It didn’t make any close-ups better IMO.

          • I’m not going to pretend I liked the raised webbing either but that was the reason behind it so it didn’t look so flat and 2D on screen.

  17. Well I bit the bullet and, against my better judgment, saw TASM today. I didn’t think I could continue to discuss it w/o having seen it first hand. Unfortunately, there was little that changed my mind about how I felt about the basic elements of the movie/plot.

    Still hated the costume, the Lizard looked very CGI (I wondered if the same people who did Green Lantern did the Lizard….and Nostelg-O, you will be happy to know I kept seeing Voldemort in him! Especially that voice! >< ) and I thought Parker was just a punk, not the witty and thoughtful person from the comics but an emo punk with an attitude. The expected negatives aside though, I thought the story in general was decent except it was NOT the story of Peter Parker. It felt like XMFC all over again (but this time I paid the full admission price). Sony took the material and re-arranged/twisted everything to make it work in their plot. This is exactly why I don't want anyone but Marvel making movies about Marvel characters, because I'm tired of the source material being contorted and screwed with so badly. If Sony wants to make their own superhero, great but please stop playing musical chairs with the SM canon.

    *** spoilers below ***

    Specific sticking points for me:

    - Giving The Lizard a Snout would have made him much more terrifying, with a gaping maw that could take a chunk out of you.
    - Having it ALL be centered around Osporp, right down to the fact that Parker didn't even invent his own webbing, so has to rely on Oscorp to get his "supply"? /sigh While that's again clever to find another way to tie in with Oscorp, it's also lame because Parker didn't design it. He also never ran out which was disappointing.
    - Vilifying Parker in the eyes of the Police. This is Batman's side of the street and the cops ALWAYS thought of him favorably and thought JJJ was unjustly harsh. Which brings us to no JJJ.
    - Parker walking in and in less than 1 min (screen time) figures out the correct formula Conners has been searching for for 10 years in an afternoon? arg.
    - Parker literally revealing his secret identity to just about EVERYONE! unknown kids, girlfriends, police, the BAD GUYS?! Aunt May doesn't stand a chance.
    - Gwen able to just figure out the antidote formula in minutes? If only we "real people" had this amazing level of intellect.
    - No spider sense. I know it looked as if he had it on the train but getting shot? A ludicrous plot device and never should have happened.
    - The list does go on but that will suffice.

    I will say that the few combat scenes there were, were excellent and even better than the Spider-man 2 scenes with Doc Ock. The web slinging perspective was also breath taking. That's about all the good I can think of.

    • “This is exactly why I don’t want anyone but Marvel making movies about Marvel characters, because I’m tired of the source material being contorted and screwed with so badly.”

      EXACTLY.

      “If Sony wants to make their own superhero, great but please stop playing musical chairs with the SM canon.”

      I SECOND THAT.

    • Peter didn’t just come up with the formula that afternoon. It was in the research hidden in his father’s briefcase. That’s why it was hidden and why Oscorp were after Peter’s parents.

      • No, he ordered from Oscorp (or maybe it was given to him or he gave himself a five finger discount while visiting Connors at the lab). As Parker was looking around the Oscorp lab he noticed the webbing canisters behind glass and there was an ad playing which demonstrated the strength and capabilities of this new Oscorp invention.

        • I didn’t mean the webbing. I meant the other research (Cross species genetics) that Conners and his dad were doing. The webbing was shown as a product Oscorp was already producing.

          That was cheeky of Peter to pinch it though. I figured he’d be smart enough to develop his own. And what happens when his stash runs out?

          • ah ok. But the way the sequence was given to us made it look as though they solved the problem in an afternoon. In fact they only showed us I believe 5 failures before success. If it did indeed take much longer they should have showed that in some way.

            And I’m unsure exactly how he acquired the webbing. All I recall is him having a box of it. I do think it was in the marketing stage however which is why I suggested he might have just bought it.

            The worst part about having him dependent on an outside source however is someone at Oscorp will see THEIR webbing being used by Spider-Man, put 2 and 2 together and be able to figure out who he is. Between that and ordering that specialized outfit (that can also be traced), I can’t imagine how everyone wouldn’t know who he is eventually……Someone at the zentai suit factory connects the pieces, sells the info to the National Enquirer and it’s ALL over.

  18. You know what I find funny?
    There are so many people who think this movie was terrible and that they should hand over the rights to Marvel Studios, but they forget that Marvel actually consulted on this movie. And if you look at the credits, you’ll see that KEVIN FEIGE was a producer.
    So in point of fact, this is probably the closest thing to a Marvel Studios-produced Spider-Man movie as we’re ever going to get…

    • Key word is “consulted”…as in, Sony waning to keep certain things from the comics, and needed Marvel’s insight to let them know that what they chose to keep from the comics was right. Howbeit, such things do not prevent a 3rd party company such as sony or fox from changing what they want to change.

    • *wanting

    • That’s not as big of a deal as you make it out to be. Do you know just how many “producers” are attached to a movie? At least 5-10, then there are also executive producers and a veritable army of assistant producers to boot. I bet if we looked through the listings we would find other Marvel names as well (like for instance Stan Lee)

      The point is, he doesn’t have creative control of anything. Feige is brought in to most likely do creative consulting and possibly watch over the terms of the contract (whatever those may be). They present him with a set of circumstances and Feige gives his opinion or he helps them connect the dots with what they have available (or says, “you can’t do that”). Doesn’t mean he has to like what they are doing and on the flip side, Sony isn’t obligated to take any of Feige’s advice (unless it does breach contractual terms).

      Also do you know what other non-Marvel owned films Feige has been attached to?; Hulk, Daredevil, Electra, Blade Trinity, Fantastic Four, FF:RotSS, XM3, SM3. So did Feige decide to paint a bullseye on Bullseye’s forehead? or turn Galactus into a silly ball of gas? or make Dr.Doom a corporate weakling? or anything about that Electra movie….There are a lot of turkeys on that list so if you think just having him be in there is “the closest thing to a Marvel Studios-produced Spider-Man movie”, then what does that say about these movies?

      • LOL, EXACTLY. I second that again. THANK YOU.

      • I never said anything about creative control… ‘Mr. Day’ was right when he said “key word is ‘consulting’”. Marvel and Kevin Feige consulted and helped with the creative elements of this movie – and it shows IMO.
        With the Raimi flicks, Marvel wanted Venom in the third one, so Raimi put him in there (but didn’t pay attention to the character and the source material). The same goes with all those other movies you mentioned. The studios just didn’t pay attention to the source material.
        The DIFFERENCE is, this time round Sony is LISTENING to what Marvel is saying (because of Marvel’s own success with their movies) and now Sony’s paying attention to detail and the source material (it’s not perfect, but it’s a fair share better than Raimi’s movies IMO).

        So my point was that with all the consulting and one of the producers involved, it IS the closet thing to a Marvel Studios movie we’re ever going to get (since the rights won’t be reverting back anytime soon) because this time it seems like the studio (Sony) took note and paid attention to what Marvel told them.
        And again, that doesn’t mean they took orders from marvel, but they definitely took advise and used that advise.

        • I typed something else up but the fact is you are making a bunch leaping assumptions. The fact is we have zero clue what level of influence Feige had over ANY of the films and we don’t know what Sony (or the other studios) did or did not listen to.

          Just because you liked the movie you are assuming Sony was listening this time but I didn’t particularly like it (because I thought they did a LOT wrong and things I don’t think Fegie would have approved of) so does that give me the right to say they were still not listening? Both points of view would be equally incorrect since we do not know.

          Now if you can manage to corner Feige and get him to admit what things he suggested in TASM they used (and also what they didn’t AND what part he played in some of those other flops) THEN I will be inclined to believe you but until that time it’s nothing more than blind speculation.

          • That’s a fair point. Neither of us know how the team work between Feige/Marvel Studios and Sony worked EXACTLY (what Sony used, what they didn’t, what they listened to, what they didn’t, etc.), and I’ll admit, reading back my comment, I did make quite a few wild assumptions.
            But it does seem like Feige is happy with the way TASM turned out, if this quote is anything to go by:
            “Yes. It’s excellent. It’s not finished, but what I saw was very encouraging and very good. And the whole notion of [I hate that they] “reboot this, that” should go away when people actually see the movie.”
            http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/rorschachsrants/news/?a=57857

            I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree about this movie. I doubt we’ll find a common ground on the TASM subject…

            • Look at his producer credits on IMBD. He’s executive producer for Spider-man 2, X2, Hulk (sans “incredible”), Daredevil, Punisher, and many other classics. Does he love all of his “children” equally?

              I’m sure he loves Marvel comics but there’s also some politicking and “water carrying” going on. He’s not going to speak his mind if it’s negative. That said, “It’s not finished,” and “It’s very encouraging” coming on after “It’s excellent” make my Spidey senses tingle.

              Marvel isn’t going to openly root for Sony to fail. For one thing, they don’t want Sony to damage their property. But they also don’t want to piss them off and have them get vindictive. There’s all kinds of things they can do to hang on to that property if they want to. Marvel may want to buy it back too, if the “stock” is low enough (i.e. it’s more trouble than it’s worth to produce a new movie).

              I’m not particularly anxious for Marvel to get Spidey. I actually love the enclosed universe of the Raimi movies. I just didn’t like this one. There are some things I like but they are isolated, and I don’t like the overall movie.

            • Nostelg-O points out what I would have, that Feige isn’t going to openly dis the movie because that’s just not good PR. I guess Marvel could just refuse to work with Sony but again Nostelg-O points out this could come back to bite them in any number of ways so it’s better to play nice, do what you can to help but hope secretly Sony won’t be successful.

              I will also add this from Feige:

              The Marvel Studios president had a lengthy conversation with Wired recently that touches on a lot of subjects, including the Marvel properties owned by other studios. The magazine asked whether it was difficult assembling the Avengers without such big names as Spider-Man, the X-Men and the Fantastic Four in their arsenal, but Feige said it ultimately worked out to Marvel’s advantage.

              “Well, look, clearly we would prefer everything be at home, so to speak. But all the contracts are different. Some of them have very firm reversion dates, and some of them we don’t expect to get back any time soon, let’s put it that way. We’re fine with that,” Feige said. “We have a great relationship with Sony and Fox. Would we like to have them all back? Sure. But we are more than comfortable with the way things stand now, because it worked out pretty well, right?”

              If Sony is fulfilling it’s contract and Marvel isn’t going to be getting the rights back anytime soon then they might as well ride the wave and see where it goes. They ARE making money off of Sony after all for doing next to nothing and they have plenty on their plate so they don’t really need Spider-Man anyway.

              and yes, I guess it was bound to happen. We can’t agree on everything.

              • Sorry to keep nagging on the subject, but if Feige wasn’t impressed with how TASM turned out, he didn’t have to “dis” the movie – he could have said something in the line of “It’s looks good. It’s still a work in progress, but it seems decent so far. It really is Sony’s baby though, not ours.”
                Instead, he used words like “excellent”, “encouraging”, “very good”, “[should put those fears of the reboot to rest]”
                OR, he didn’t have to say anything… did he comment on Ghost Rider 2? No he didn’t (because his mom told him that if you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything at all ;))

                You know that I know that this is a business and that there can’t be bad blood between the studios. I fully understand that there’s a fine line and that these guys have to think carefully about what they say. But at the same time I still believe (and maybe I’m just naive, who knows…) that guys like Feige still try to be truthful with what they say:
                Downey Jr. has outright said that he wasn’t that pleased with how IM2 turned out (and when he was promoting the movie, he never said anything like “this is the best one we’ve made so far” – neither did Favreou. In fact, in one interview, Favreou actually said “we just hope people will like it” lol), and the people involved with ‘Green Lantern’ hardly boasted that they think they’ve made an excellent movie either.
                So yeah, I believe that Feige was truthful (at the very least, to an extent) when he commented on TASM…

                But I’ll re-iterate, this is one subject where I don’t think we’ll be agreeing on much (or anything). Best to leave it be. I liked the movie, you and Nostalg-O didn’t.

                On the bright side: until the rights revert back to Marvel, at least everyone now has a Spidey movie that they like! Some have Raimi’s trilogy to favour, while others who didn’t like those, has now found their favorite with Webb’s version – I think that’s pretty fair.

                • Read into it what you will but I think if Feige actually did have creative control, he would have done a lot of TASM details differently. And he might be satisfied with the overall compromises made (as much as 2 people can be who are haggling over a price) but if Marvel had done this movie, I’m pretty sure it would have been MUCH different.

                • Don’t apologize. Nag away. That’s what we’re here for.

                  I think the problem is that you both are trying to “appeal to authority,” as if his opinion is going to settle whether this is a good movie or not. But you both know that’s not going to work on some level.

                  I don’t like it. Mongoose doesn’t either. I’ve found enough others who share the same issues I had with it (whether they ultimately liked it or not), so I have enough validation that I’m not completely crazy (for the time being). What Kevin Feige thinks isn’t going to change my mind, or anyone telling me what he said doesn’t matter.

                  I’m fine with Sony having the rights. I prefer Spider-man in his own Universe, and I hope Marvel preserves that whether he takes part in the Avengers movies or not.

                  I’m happy for the people who like the movie. I’ll be participating in debates and ideas on what might happen next. I’m sorry to be a “wet blanket” about the movie. I’m not trying to change anyone’s mind, or at least it’s not important to me.

                  I did read all of your replies and I know you alluded to these sentiments, Avenger. And I am genuinely happy you liked the movie.

  19. Side note – Stan Lee’s cameo in TASM was by far the greatest cameo of anybody in any movie ever! He even beat the Wolverine cameo in XMFC.

Be Social, Follow Us!!