The Flickering Myth writing team give their views on the trailer for The Amazing Spider-Man 2...
![]()
What a couple of days it's been for comic book movie fans. Aside from the news that Gal Gadot has been cast as Wonder Woman in Batman vs. Superman (read our reaction here), we also had Bryan Singer announceX-Men: Apocalypse for 2016 and we've also been given the first official trailer for Marc Webb's The Amazing Spider-Man 2. The Week in Spandex is going to be a busy one this week!
With all this excitement, what did the Flickering Myth writing team think of the trailer..?
Oliver Davis: I like to think I'm a rational human being. One who's seen enough superhero movie trailers to know that you can't judge these films on the promotional material alone. Some have a boring build, but I end up enjoying them (Captain America: The First Avenger). Others have fantastic, piano-led teasers, but I feel the finished product feels short (Man of Steel, sorry Martin). I'm sensible. I make up my mind once I've seen the final cut. I don't base opinions on trailers, Internet rumours or casting decisions.
That said, I fucking hate this movie already. I hate the trailer. I hate the way it stinks of corporate studio money. I hate the way Electro looks like a fish. I hate the interpretation of Peter Parker's character. I hate the CGI effects. I hate the tone. I hate that [spoiler?] Gwen Stacey is alive.
Sam Raimi forever.
Martin Deer: That's quite brilliant, Oli. Truly something special there son.
Trailers don't mean anything anymore (yes, I'm agreeing with you about Man of Steel), that said I quite liked that trailer. I honestly don't expect anything great from this film, but I'll try and enjoy the ride. Before it details and slaughters millions of people. Figuratively speaking.
J-P Wooding: Looks good, just as long as the CGI doesn't look "too CGI", if you know what I mean. It has to nail them as I doubt the story will be good enough to distract you from possible weak effects. I enjoyed the first though and look forward to Parker's latest web-slinging action.
![]()
Chris Cooper: Darn it, I'm excited! Overall I enjoyed the first film and this is really ramping it up. Spider-Man 3 burnt me and those close to me so I am wary of there being villain overload, but I do like the idea of Oscorp being the bane of Peter's life. Should seeing creases in the suit excite me as much as it does? Probably not. From what I've seen, I like the action, I like the cast and I want to know more. DeHann looks suitably odd to be Harry - bit of an outcast next to the good looking and witty Peter.
Like Oli says, we should know better than to judge on just a trailer or images. But so far that's all I have. And I like it.
Scott J Davis: Another "lets stick as many characters and villains in a movie as we can so we can make billions like The Avengers". Everyone used to moan about Joel Schumacher's over-stuffed movies with too many characters, but now it seems to be popular, particularly with heroes. The first Amazing Spider-Man wasn't much cop, so I have zero expectations for this. And judging by the trailer, it looks like a over-stuffed, over-produced and quite frankly over-anticipated film. Agree with Oli on this.
Luke Owen: I wasn't big on the first movie, but I've been really excited for its sequel since the announcement of the Sinister Six. As a life long Spider-Man fan, that is something that would be awesome to see on the big screen. People can hate all they want, but I think The Amazing Spider-Man 2 could be, well, amazing. As for the trailer? I like it. It looks like it could be a lot of fun. Messy and convoluted fun, but fun none the less.
It was also nice for them to splice in some of the video game cut scenes to promote the tie-in. That was some smart marketing.
Chris Cooper: Everyone has their opinion. But screw the negativity. As Luke says, looks like good fun at least.
Oh...and Emma Stone.
Luke Owen: Just like the 1998 American Godzilla movie, I can see us looking back on this film in 10 years and say, "I can't believe we used to watch films with this kind of garbage CGI!"
![]()
Anghus Houvouras: You know, I was as concerned as anyone else after hearing all the characters being crammed into the film. And unlike a lot of people, I enjoyed the first Amazing Spider-Man and staunchly defended some of the choices Marc Webb made.
This trailer proves two things to me: First, no matter how bad set photos look or how uninspiring promotional stills may be, a good trailer can clean the slate. That was a damn fine trailer. If for no other reason than Dane DeHaan as Harry Osborn, who seems spot on perfect as the character. James Franco was always too pretty for the part. Based on what I've seen, Webb has doubled down on the vast conspiracy of Peter Parker's parents and is going a different way with the character. Once again, that is something to celebrate, not something to criticise. While the story of Richard Parker isn't exactly comic book legend, it could make for an interesting cinematic experience.
On the other hand, the second lesson we've learned with trailers is that any movie can look good in three minutes. The Amazing Spider-Man 2 has done its job of selling the size and scope of the film. "His greatest battle begins..." is a fantastic call to action and the opening monologue about fighting more powerful villains to me sets up the possibility of a character in need of some augmentation to ultimately win. Perhaps a certain alien symbiotie? Great trailer. Lots of fun. It did what a good blockbuster trailer needs to do: it ramped up the excitement for a film that was looking underwhelming compared to Captain America: The Winter Soldier and X-Men: Days of Future Past.
Matthew Spencer-Skeen: I like the look of the trailer, but like everyone says it doesn't mean too much. I mean, how many of those scenes actually make it to the end product? Also the Emma Stone factor will definitely mean I go see it anyway.
Anthony Donovan Stokes: It looks like a cartoon and if they can pull off this many characters and this much set-up, I'll give it five stars off principle. I remember in The Amazing Spider-Man, they had a fight with Lizard in a school that was completely CGI and it was really convincing - even though it's weird that they needed to do that. So now I guess they did that with a few more scenes in The Amazing Spiderman 2.
Rob Spake: I saw a rough cut of this trailer last week and I liked it, although Electro looks like a sparkly Mr. Freeze. Spider-Man is my favourite superhero so I'm going to see it no matter what and I'm sure I'll enjoy it. I like exploring the history of Peter's parents and I like that they're being ambitious with using so many villains. I didn't think the first one got everything right but hopefully they can build on it and I'll be in line for the first showing.
![]()
Thomas Harris: By the beard of Zeus - it's Batman and Robin! I will see it, I will enjoy it. I will be disappointed in myself.
Villordsutch: Already this nonsense is bringing on a migraine! The first rehash was so empty of life and enjoyment, I was left bored and angry. They seem to have combated this by getting things to move really really fast along with an Emo Harry Osborne and a Robot Rhino. I disliked The Avengers when they did all this gibberish at the end of their movie and by this trailer alone, I believe I'll despise The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (even with Emma Stone in it).
Tom Jolliffe: I was quite happy with the first two of Raimi's Spider-Mans and I had no desire to watch another, not after his third film jumped the shark whilst inside a fridge during a nuclear explosion. I had no inclination to watch the first remake and I don't think I ever will. The sequel just screens "meh" to me. As much as the trailers for the first film did. I was a Spidey fan when I was younger and like I say, I've seen two films which more than satisfied me, particularly the second one. But if I thought there was too much CGI in those films, the new Spidey incarnations seem even more so. That trailer looks like a video game through most of it. I'm getting weary of the same old stuff over and over again. I've also never quite got the fuss with Emma Stone.
Rohan Morbey: Total shite.
Anghus Houvouras: The interesting thing is that The Amazing Spider-Man made around $100 million less in the U.S. than Raimi's Spider-Man movies. Spidey lost a step. I wonder if throwing everything and the kitchen sink into the next one will interest people or just reek of desperation.
Anthony Donovan Stokes: And you have to add in inflation, so it's significantly less seats sold.
Tom Jolliffe: I would say there's more than a hint of desperation about this one Anghus. The trouble is we're inundated with comic book adaptations for starters, not to mention this is a rebooted series a mere 10 years after the last incarnation of Spidey kicked off. So the studios seem to want to throw everything they can at it. I'm imagining a final act that will try to be every bit is epic-ally, CGI laden and huge as The Avengers or Man Of Steel.
Because the possibilities are limitless with what you can show on screen thanks to CGI, I think some imagination and creativity is lost. Relentless visceral CGI set pieces, largely bore me now. I'd honestly much rather see some good old fashioned stunt work. That said in some cases it's more bearable than others, such as The Avengers, but that's only because the film was more enjoyable than say Man Of Steel, which was unnecessarily dreary in my opinion.
I also felt this watching the trailers for the first film, and likewise in this one (another reason I've avoided) but Andrew Garfield annoys me. He annoys me even in a 2 minute trailer. That's never a good sign before watching a film, and very rarely will your opinion change when watching the final piece during cases of "annoying in the trailer-itus"
Helen Murdoch: I think the trailer looks pretty good and did I spy Doc Ock's arms at Oscorp? It does look CGI heavy but in this day and age it's a given. I think Dane DeHaan is going to be really interesting and a new take on Harry so I'm excited about that and although it's following the "darker is better" theme, I'll definitely be giving it a watch.
---
A very mixed reaction from our writers. Some think it could be a lot of fun, while others think it could be "total shite" to quote Rohan Morbey.
What did you make of the trailer for The Amazing Spider-Man 2?
With all this excitement, what did the Flickering Myth writing team think of the trailer..?
Oliver Davis: I like to think I'm a rational human being. One who's seen enough superhero movie trailers to know that you can't judge these films on the promotional material alone. Some have a boring build, but I end up enjoying them (Captain America: The First Avenger). Others have fantastic, piano-led teasers, but I feel the finished product feels short (Man of Steel, sorry Martin). I'm sensible. I make up my mind once I've seen the final cut. I don't base opinions on trailers, Internet rumours or casting decisions.
That said, I fucking hate this movie already. I hate the trailer. I hate the way it stinks of corporate studio money. I hate the way Electro looks like a fish. I hate the interpretation of Peter Parker's character. I hate the CGI effects. I hate the tone. I hate that [spoiler?] Gwen Stacey is alive.
Sam Raimi forever.
Martin Deer: That's quite brilliant, Oli. Truly something special there son.
Trailers don't mean anything anymore (yes, I'm agreeing with you about Man of Steel), that said I quite liked that trailer. I honestly don't expect anything great from this film, but I'll try and enjoy the ride. Before it details and slaughters millions of people. Figuratively speaking.
J-P Wooding: Looks good, just as long as the CGI doesn't look "too CGI", if you know what I mean. It has to nail them as I doubt the story will be good enough to distract you from possible weak effects. I enjoyed the first though and look forward to Parker's latest web-slinging action.
Like Oli says, we should know better than to judge on just a trailer or images. But so far that's all I have. And I like it.
Scott J Davis: Another "lets stick as many characters and villains in a movie as we can so we can make billions like The Avengers". Everyone used to moan about Joel Schumacher's over-stuffed movies with too many characters, but now it seems to be popular, particularly with heroes. The first Amazing Spider-Man wasn't much cop, so I have zero expectations for this. And judging by the trailer, it looks like a over-stuffed, over-produced and quite frankly over-anticipated film. Agree with Oli on this.
Luke Owen: I wasn't big on the first movie, but I've been really excited for its sequel since the announcement of the Sinister Six. As a life long Spider-Man fan, that is something that would be awesome to see on the big screen. People can hate all they want, but I think The Amazing Spider-Man 2 could be, well, amazing. As for the trailer? I like it. It looks like it could be a lot of fun. Messy and convoluted fun, but fun none the less.
It was also nice for them to splice in some of the video game cut scenes to promote the tie-in. That was some smart marketing.
Chris Cooper: Everyone has their opinion. But screw the negativity. As Luke says, looks like good fun at least.
Oh...and Emma Stone.
Luke Owen: Just like the 1998 American Godzilla movie, I can see us looking back on this film in 10 years and say, "I can't believe we used to watch films with this kind of garbage CGI!"
This trailer proves two things to me: First, no matter how bad set photos look or how uninspiring promotional stills may be, a good trailer can clean the slate. That was a damn fine trailer. If for no other reason than Dane DeHaan as Harry Osborn, who seems spot on perfect as the character. James Franco was always too pretty for the part. Based on what I've seen, Webb has doubled down on the vast conspiracy of Peter Parker's parents and is going a different way with the character. Once again, that is something to celebrate, not something to criticise. While the story of Richard Parker isn't exactly comic book legend, it could make for an interesting cinematic experience.
On the other hand, the second lesson we've learned with trailers is that any movie can look good in three minutes. The Amazing Spider-Man 2 has done its job of selling the size and scope of the film. "His greatest battle begins..." is a fantastic call to action and the opening monologue about fighting more powerful villains to me sets up the possibility of a character in need of some augmentation to ultimately win. Perhaps a certain alien symbiotie? Great trailer. Lots of fun. It did what a good blockbuster trailer needs to do: it ramped up the excitement for a film that was looking underwhelming compared to Captain America: The Winter Soldier and X-Men: Days of Future Past.
Matthew Spencer-Skeen: I like the look of the trailer, but like everyone says it doesn't mean too much. I mean, how many of those scenes actually make it to the end product? Also the Emma Stone factor will definitely mean I go see it anyway.
Anthony Donovan Stokes: It looks like a cartoon and if they can pull off this many characters and this much set-up, I'll give it five stars off principle. I remember in The Amazing Spider-Man, they had a fight with Lizard in a school that was completely CGI and it was really convincing - even though it's weird that they needed to do that. So now I guess they did that with a few more scenes in The Amazing Spiderman 2.
Rob Spake: I saw a rough cut of this trailer last week and I liked it, although Electro looks like a sparkly Mr. Freeze. Spider-Man is my favourite superhero so I'm going to see it no matter what and I'm sure I'll enjoy it. I like exploring the history of Peter's parents and I like that they're being ambitious with using so many villains. I didn't think the first one got everything right but hopefully they can build on it and I'll be in line for the first showing.
Villordsutch: Already this nonsense is bringing on a migraine! The first rehash was so empty of life and enjoyment, I was left bored and angry. They seem to have combated this by getting things to move really really fast along with an Emo Harry Osborne and a Robot Rhino. I disliked The Avengers when they did all this gibberish at the end of their movie and by this trailer alone, I believe I'll despise The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (even with Emma Stone in it).
Tom Jolliffe: I was quite happy with the first two of Raimi's Spider-Mans and I had no desire to watch another, not after his third film jumped the shark whilst inside a fridge during a nuclear explosion. I had no inclination to watch the first remake and I don't think I ever will. The sequel just screens "meh" to me. As much as the trailers for the first film did. I was a Spidey fan when I was younger and like I say, I've seen two films which more than satisfied me, particularly the second one. But if I thought there was too much CGI in those films, the new Spidey incarnations seem even more so. That trailer looks like a video game through most of it. I'm getting weary of the same old stuff over and over again. I've also never quite got the fuss with Emma Stone.
Rohan Morbey: Total shite.
Anghus Houvouras: The interesting thing is that The Amazing Spider-Man made around $100 million less in the U.S. than Raimi's Spider-Man movies. Spidey lost a step. I wonder if throwing everything and the kitchen sink into the next one will interest people or just reek of desperation.
Anthony Donovan Stokes: And you have to add in inflation, so it's significantly less seats sold.
Tom Jolliffe: I would say there's more than a hint of desperation about this one Anghus. The trouble is we're inundated with comic book adaptations for starters, not to mention this is a rebooted series a mere 10 years after the last incarnation of Spidey kicked off. So the studios seem to want to throw everything they can at it. I'm imagining a final act that will try to be every bit is epic-ally, CGI laden and huge as The Avengers or Man Of Steel.
Because the possibilities are limitless with what you can show on screen thanks to CGI, I think some imagination and creativity is lost. Relentless visceral CGI set pieces, largely bore me now. I'd honestly much rather see some good old fashioned stunt work. That said in some cases it's more bearable than others, such as The Avengers, but that's only because the film was more enjoyable than say Man Of Steel, which was unnecessarily dreary in my opinion.
I also felt this watching the trailers for the first film, and likewise in this one (another reason I've avoided) but Andrew Garfield annoys me. He annoys me even in a 2 minute trailer. That's never a good sign before watching a film, and very rarely will your opinion change when watching the final piece during cases of "annoying in the trailer-itus"
Helen Murdoch: I think the trailer looks pretty good and did I spy Doc Ock's arms at Oscorp? It does look CGI heavy but in this day and age it's a given. I think Dane DeHaan is going to be really interesting and a new take on Harry so I'm excited about that and although it's following the "darker is better" theme, I'll definitely be giving it a watch.
---
A very mixed reaction from our writers. Some think it could be a lot of fun, while others think it could be "total shite" to quote Rohan Morbey.
What did you make of the trailer for The Amazing Spider-Man 2?