‘Amazing Spider-Man’ Co-Writer Talks Realistic Tone & 3D Action

Published 4 years ago by

first image of andrew garfield as spider man Amazing Spider Man Co Writer Talks Realistic Tone & 3D Action

Onlookers had a party, snapping up pictures left and right during The Amazing Spider-Man shoot in Los Angeles and New York earlier this year. However, things have been relatively quiet since then, with respect to the iconic web-slinger’s cinematic reboot.

A teaser trailer for Spidey’s new movie is the next big must-see item on the agenda, but in the meantime, an interview between Collider and Amazing Spider-Man co-screenwriter Steve Kloves offers some tasty nuggets of information about the film’s more grounded tone and creative 3D action.

Kloves is best known for his work on the Harry Potter series, having scripted all but the fifth film in that literature-turned-movie franchise. With Spider-Man, though, he had both the original comic books and a “bible” of elements that Marvel encouraged him to incorporate into the script (including the artificial web shooters).

While the screenwriter voices his admiration for Sam Raimi having struck an effectively cartoony tone with his Spider-Man trilogy, Kloves also admitted to Collider that was never his plan with Amazing Spider-Man:

“I said [to Marvel], ‘I can’t do ‘shazam!’ dialogue, that’s not what I do. If you wanna do the Peter Parker I knew as a kid reading the comic book, I can do that, because it was grounded in exactly what you said, reality.’ So they said ‘Yes that’s what we want, we want you to come in and write Peter Parker as a real character’… So I don’t know how this is gonna turn out, but I wrote this very, very naturalistically. A lot of humor, but naturalistic humor, not jokes.”

Emo Peter Parker in Spider Man 3 Amazing Spider Man Co Writer Talks Realistic Tone & 3D Action

Emo Peter: One of least-liked attempts at humor in Raimi's Spider-Man movies.

Just about every upcoming comic book movie on the horizon is playing up its merits as a “gritty and grounded” take on its respective source material, but early signs indicate that could actually be the case with The Amazing Spider-Man. Going off amateur set photos of Andrew Garfield as Peter Parker and Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy, in their casual wear, the two look much more like authentic teens living in contemporary New York than Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst as Peter and Mary Jane ever did in Raimi’s Spider-Man trilogy.

That’s not to mention, the Spidey reboot will also integrate live-action wire-work with CGI-enhanced footage of the hero swinging around the metropolitan landscape, in the hopes of making it seem all the more convincing and realistic.

On that note: Kloves had the following to offer, in terms of how director Marc Webb is attempting to make the action in Amazing Spider-Man more involving – with the assistance of 3D elements:

“… What impressed me about Mark Webb’s pre-vises was that they were really coherent, you could follow the action. There’s sometimes guys who do that stuff and it’s like eye-candy, but you have no idea what you’re watching. With this, what I saw in the pre-vises, Mark had designed it in such a way that you were really following Spider-Man as he was engaging in these action sequences, and it made it much more thrilling because you felt you were with him… Mark was really, really schooling himself in the 3D of it all. He wanted to really shoot the movie in sort of pure 3D. I think he wanted to try and do it in a very sophisticated way.”

spider man 3d Amazing Spider Man Co Writer Talks Realistic Tone & 3D Action

Since Kloves says he worked primarily on character development and dialogue for The Amazing Spider-Man, it’s all the more assuring to hear him talk about striking a more naturalistic tone with his script work. While a lot of fans certainly like Raimi’s Spider-Man for its occasionally cheesy dialogue and conversations, there are also definitely a lot of people who could do without the groan-inducing one-liners (“I think I have a superhero stalker”, anyone?). So the reboot at least has that – and the promise of cool 3D Spidey action – going for it.


The Amazing Spider-Man will swing into theaters on July 3rd, 2012.

For more from Kloves, check out the full interview over at Collider.

Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:


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. Keep in mind that we do not allow external links in the comments.

  1. My gut tells me that this will NOT top Raimi’s first Spidey film.

    • None of Raimi’s spidemen had a villain. therefore this one will have to be better unless they make the lizard have redeeming qualities or something.

      • So I just imagined Doctor Octopus and Green Goblin in Spider-Man 1&2?

        • Haha, they were there, but in my honest opinion Doc Ock wasn’t a villain. Neither was the Norman.
          Doc just has a power craze from the machine and he ended up redeeming himself.
          Norman was a spilt personality so you cannot really say that he was a villain. Thats like saying Ali Larter’s character on Heroes was a villain. Just because you do bad things while under control of one of your personalities doesn’t make you a “bad guy”

          That was the main flaw with the spiderman series to me. That and all of the villains killed themselves. (excluding Sandman)

          • Jake, your logic is severely flawed. There is ALWAYS a reason for someone to do bad things. The random is much less believeable.

            Norman had evil in him long before he ever took the serum. Did you not catch the allusion to it when he drops Harry at the school? He used the serum and his natural, somewhat evil tendencies were magnified.

            Doctor Octopus was driven to evil acts by the loss of his wife and the prodding of some semi-sentient tentacles. Why does he slaughter an operating room full of people immediately after his wife is killed? Because his emotional state is now affecting the tentacles…So you could say he was always in control whether he knew it or not.

            Both villains, just not as black & white as you seem to think villains ought to be.

            • In regards to Jake’s “No super Villains” argument…

              I agree that these characters were responsible for their actions, but I can see where Jake is coming from. I would definitely call them villains, but the “origin” of each of them (except Venom) really started to wear on me.

              Scientist that is not a bad person to begin with. The science he was working on made him crazy. But hey there is still a good guy in there somewhere so Spider-man can’t kill him! He was just a scientist obsessed with his work. He dies in some sort of accident and before the end comes around and has a sad Wolfman-like repentant statement. Spidey is basically just a witness to all of this after dodging, ducking, diving, dipping and dodging.

              The above applies to both Norman and Octavius. Then they bring in Sandman who by all rights should have just been a thug with powers, but they turn him into some sort of misunderstood Robin Hood. Then Harry of course we know is just bitter about his Dad’s death but will come around to help his buddy ol’ pal.

              Venom was the closest I felt they got to a real Villain, but still was too rushed and not handled well at all. But even then you can argue that Topher was just being a little b**** and it’s all the Symbiote’s fault. They were all portrayed as normal, good (if flawed) people that were twisted by some outside force.

              Raimi’s Spiderman never had to deal with a REAL bad guy. Some Evil bastard who enhanced his nastiness with science or mutation or some device. A person that was unapologeticaly bad BEFORE their transformation into a super villain and I think it is something the franchise desperately needed. Naive little Peter Parker having to go up against a TRUE Evil Villain. It turned into 3 movies of Peter doing his best Luke Skywalker’s “I know there is good in you.” I know that these origins are mostly true to the comics, and it’s frankly a problem there too. He has a weak rogues gallery that is much better suited to saturday morning cartoons than a movie franchise.

              And Dr. Connors is the new villain? Another m-fing good scientist turned bad? That’s how they are rebooting? I realize scientists are a large part of the comics, but my God if you are wanting to reboot and continue the franchise give us something new! Not too excited about this. I would much rather see a powerless Kingpin going after Spidey than some misunderstood super powered villain robbing banks and armored cars to try and save his (insert female relation here).

              • JB the problem with the way you are thinking, especially in your last statement, is that the villains in the films were only slightly tampered with, with the exception of sandman, and yes doc ock to a degree.

                lets start with the green goblin, Rami nailed him as far as im concerned, he was a psycho in the comics and if having multiple personalities doesnt make you crazy then they need to get my cousin out of looney bin

                Yes dock ock was made sympathetic, as well as sandman, but in Ramis films that aproach worked, and it really came in stages for octavious, you feel bad for him after his accident, then you kinda loose alot of the sympathy built up on him when he goes after mary jane and even aunt may at the bank, then at the end peter brings him back and he redeems himself, people love redemption stories and if there were more of those in the comics i think they would sell better, especially today.

                im not even gonna talk about spiderman 3 because you r right, there wasnt a real bad guy except venom. With the reboot, it doesnt matter if the formula is still relatively the same because thats how it is done in the comics and thats what works. The lizard was one of spidermans first villans, so its fitting that they have him as the villain in the first film. its not like they can change the character to being a bad man before his transformation then have him turn completely evil after, his character was made in the comics with the belief that readers would feel sorry for him and be happy when he finally changed back to normal.

                thats my 2 cents, sooo yah. comments? amyone?

          • Thats also what made Marvel Comics so popular was that the characters were relatable. Villains arent like the joker where they are just evil for the sake of being evil. They are normal people similar to the heros that rebuke them in many ways. The difference between the Heroes and the Villains is that the heroes choose to do good, no matter what bad things happen to them, whereas the villains retaliate with anger, hatred, and revenge. Norman Osborn is a man who cared more about his work and his image more than anything else in his life (Including his wife and son). Otto Octavious is a man whose whole life has been dedicated to finding a big way to help alot of people. His experiment went wrong and the event destroyed his mind and rationality. In the comics, once Dr. Octavious went bad, he stayed bad. The Lizard is one of the villains where he himself isnt the villain, its the monster he turns into that is evil. Its like the incredible hulk scenario where Bruce and Hulk are two seperate beings fighting for control of one body. Dr. Conners is a good man, soldier, teacher, husband, and father. But the Lizard is a monster obsessed with turning humanity into reptiles like himself to create a reptile world over which he could rule (Similar to Marvel villain – The Leader, and DC villain – Gorilla Grodd). If villains were simple, they would be cartoonish – plain and flat/without depth.

            • If you do bad, you’re the Villain. No matter what your motives are, you’re the bad guy. You throw a car at me.. villain.

              • now you’re getting into Kantian and Utilitarian philosophies. What makes bad actions bad, is it the motive? or the outcome? Is a person that causes harm but means not harm worse than a person than means harm but takes no action? I don’t think Octavius thought of himself as a villain, his whole goal was to create sustainable energy for mankind. To him robbing a bank, as well as many of his other misdeeds, were just means to a greater good.

                • “The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.”

            • I actually agree with JB. I think the Spider-Man series needs unsympathetic villain. Don’t get me wrong, I love redemption stories, and especially stories that have both dynamic heroes and villains. But Raimi’s Spider-Mans has never really had any VILLAIN villains. The ones that are just evil and they love it with a passion. You know, like the The Dark Knights Joker. Theres only one scene in TDK that gives only a hint of sympathy towards the Joker, and thats when he tells how he got the scars the first time. But then he tells a different similar story later, which totally destroys any intentions in the audience sympathizing with the character. Which is what the Joker is supposed to be; a psycho that has a passion for evil. Peter didn’t really grow much as a character when fighting Norman and Dr. Ock. In Spider-Man 1, I guess the only real problem was that he had to fight his best friends psycho Dad. But he killed hislef on accident, so it doesn’t really matter. In Spider-Man 2, Peter had internal conflict by not believing in himself, but that didn’t have much to do Dr Ock changing as a character, that was pretty much on his own time. Villains that are just evil, don’t grow too much. But its more of an internal struggle for the hero, that he is in fact good.

    • I Agree.

    • I Agree. It wont top Raimi’s 1st

  2. My gut tells me this will be much better than Raimi’s first Spidey film.

    • LOL, good one

  3. Except for the costume (which would look great without the changes), everything I´ve heard or seen about this film looks really good. Director, actors, the look in general… Since I´m a fan of Bendis´ Ultimate Spider-Man, I´m really excited about this movie.

    • As long as the costume isnt CG then I’ll be happy.

      • You know I heard a rumor that said they might reshoot without the costume and do it Green Lantern style.

        • Yes. And in a couple of hours, Axl Rose rings my door bell and asks me if I´d like to join Guns N’ Roses.

  4. When they say “Pure 3D” do they mean 10 minutes out of an hour and 30 minute movie? Either way the praise given to Mark Webb in this article makes me really excited for the release.

  5. The trailer will have to blow me away in order to get me to go see this I don’t like the actors chosen for uncle Ben aunt may and peter parker

    • How can you not like Martin Sheen?! He´s perfect for Ben.

  6. The more I learn about this the more excited I get. At 1st I could not believe that we were already seeing a Spidey reboot but with each piece of news and tidbits about the production we get I have become less concerned.

  7. Spider-Man, the single most awesome comic book hero ever is being reduced cinematically to the “prebooquel”?

    Never thought I’d see the day…

    • Prebooquel? It´s a reboot (yes, I said the no-no R word). Reboot. Reboot, reboot, reboot. Muahahahahahaha! (<- reboot laugh)

  8. They better not have Imageworks do the visual effects. They’re horrible. They screwed up Green Lantern along with the previs artists that worked on it. I hold them responsible.

  9. I rate Raimis Spiderman movies right up there with the best comic book movies (especially 1 and 2 ). This will be different, certainly. Will it be good? or great? I hope so. Will it be better? I hope so even more.

  10. I was never a big fan of Rami Spiderman. Peter was always crying and Spiderman was boring IMHO. I did like the MTV spin-off Spiderman series and Spectacular Spiderman. I hope they bring back the witty banter during fights (Peter way of coping because in reality he was scared sh**less) and running out of web fluids mid fight.

    As for the upcoming Amazing Spiderman I am curious to see how it turns out. I did wish they had chosen a younger actor as to keep him in HS & a costume that reflected it was home made creation.

  11. Have they said whether his webbing will be created biologically or through gadgetry/science?

    • You’re kidding right? They’re trying to make Peter Parker like the one in the comics. The one in the comics was a genius unlike the rami-spidey. It has been well known for a while now that he is creating and using webshooters. Don’t mean to bag on ya, its just that you can even see them on his wrists in the pictures man.

    • Crow,

      It says in the article that they’re bringing back the web shooters.

  12. I think when this reboot comes out, the Raimi films will be looked at similar to how some view Burton’s Batman films. They were great when they came out and I was younger, but now I notie so many ridiculously corny scenes in both of Raimi’s films (yes both, SM3 never happened) when I watch them.

    • Amen to that. In Batman Forever, whenever the bat punched somebody or nocked a goon to the floor, it would make a stupid “Boing!” sound. In the rami-spideys you have those random, long, and incredibly awkward conversations with Peter and MJ. Or how in spidey 2, almost every scene of peter was a closeup of his eyes-to-chin and every other scene was a closeup of somebody screaming over-exaggeratedly

      • shuemacher’s (excuse horrid name spelling) batman forever sucked, but to be fair, it was his love letter to the adam west 60′s show (only thing missing was the splash sound effect text SMACK! BOOM! POW!). not an excuse, but it was. burton’s were kinda unimpressive as well, saw both in the theater, jack nicholson is the only redeeming thing about the first one (of course i worshipped it as an 11 year old). knew returns sucked @ 13 yrs old and 13 yr olds don’t know d*ck about film (PHEIFER WAS CRAZY HOT IN LATEX THOUGH, only good hting there). as for long awkward conversations in raimi’s flicks, i thought that is what spiderman and marvel fans want, massive amounts of melodrama.

    • As much as I love Nolan’s self contained universe, i still like Burtons’s 2 Batman film. Burton basically made a darker version of the 1960′s TV show. Burton’s film even laid down soms inspiration for that great animated batman show we all love and he gave us the grappling hook!! Burton’s Batman is awesome and iconic. It had some humor but I wouldnt go so far to call Burton’s film “campy”. There were no cheesy one liners, Batman was killing criminals and Bruce was so crazy/obsessed he slept upside down. Now Schumaer (sp) films on the other hand are a whole different beast haha.

      Batman and Batman Returns are in heavy rotation on AMC this month. I ask you to re-watch the films with an open mind, ignoring Nolan’s film.

  13. I think the author is being alil too hard on the original Spiderman trilogy. Truly Spiderman 3 sickened me fore the emo-peter and they “Venomed” Venom… But all in all- part 1 and 2 was really good. Especially part 2. I don’t think the dialogues were that cheesy. Even the “i think I have a super-hero stalker.’ is not cliche, she’s saying a joke, she’s a normal person, every joke is not going to sound like it was written by an award winning comedian, as long as the joke is not reference or some stupid inside joke etc. Sam Raimis Spiderman was all in all a great attempt and mostly very sucessful attempt at the Wall Crawler. I really appreciate the trilogy, I really dont like part 3 that much, but part 1 and 2- many people liked it, especially part 2 which was considered one of the great comic book movies to come out till the Dark Knight.

  14. That was low of Mr. Webb to diss the original spidey trilogy like that. I mean honestly if you want to hype your movie fine ,but don’t hate on (in my opinion) one of the best superhero trilogies out there. If Sony hadn’t been so whiny about the villain choice and payment to the stars, Webb wouldn’t have the chance to direct a spiderman film. I don’t know part of me wants to completely to boycott this film cus it’s a reboot of a franchise that didn’t need it ,and the other part is kind of interested. I guess I’ll make up my mind when a trailer comes out.

  15. I recall Doc Ock being unconsious as his mechanical arms murdered the surgeons who were trying to separate them from the doctor.

    I also remember a line that mentions an inhibiter chip that prevents the arms from controlling the user. Once this was fried, they were able to bend the doctor to their will.

    So I would agree that Doc Ock himself was not a villain, had the inhibiter chip not been destroyed the AI in the arms would not have been able to control him, he wouldn’t have committed the robberies and he wouldn’t have rebuilt his experiment or put the city at risk.

  16. Yeah. That’s what Spiderman should be. Realistic.

    • I am 90 % sure you are being sarcastic. But Spiderman has no harm in being more realistic. I mean what do you think the director and writer mean by that word? They aren’t changing the character in any way. Nor are they changing the villains. The realism that they are talking about in every comic book movie is such a small change it really doesn’t matter. What they are changing is perhaps the characters way of coping, the environment, the events that lead up to certain other important events. They are just making what they can more natural. And there is no harm in that as long as they follow the source.

  17. All this s##t talkin’ about the Raimi Spider-Man series, let’s see what the f##k Kloves and Webb put on the screen. Talkin’ all that ‘Raimi’s series was cartoony and cheesy’ Come next Summer when the flick opens, we’ll see if they can back up that s##t talkin’ (Raimi’s Spider-Man 2 – a Masterpiece… No 3-D gimmick)

  18. I hope this reboot does for Spider-man what Batman begins did for the Batman franchise.