When the first teaser for The Man of Steel trailer hit, it caused many a fan to squeal in delight, and almost as many, if not more, to sneer in disgust over what the film appears to have gotten wrong. Are the squealers cheering before they have a right too? Are the sneerers jumping the gun with their negativity before getting a full picture? The answer to both is yes.

But now we have the first full trailer for the film to give fans more to squeal and sneer about. We have a clearer picture of what the movie entails. Which side do we fall into? Let’s dissect the trailer and find out.

It appears that if Krypton is to be destroyed, it won’t be due to its core exploding, but rather through a global conflict on an epic scale. Of course, due to the sheer amount of Kryptonians that we know are going to be in the film,  I get the feeling that Krypton does not get destroyed.

This hearkens back to a controversial J.J. Abrams script that was making the rounds before Superman Returns where Kal-El was sent to Earth by Jor-El to keep him safe from Kryptonian warlords so he could come back to save Krypton( brought to mind by the “our hopes and dreams travel with you ” line from the trailer). Not only did Superman have to face off against a number of Kryptonian enemies, even Lex Luthor was revealed to be a Kryptonian.

Now, having a living, breathing Krypton does have some advantages. It gives Supes a load of villains just as powerful as he is to go up against. But it also strips away the “Last Son of Krypton” part of the character’s mythos. And since there appears to be a lot of the mythos stripped away, you wonder at what point this will stop being a Superman film and become just a generic superhero story.

Not saying this is true, just speculation on this part of the trailer. But having the studio hand down the maxim to use the elements of a script from the guy who successfully rebooted the Star Trek franchise and was tapped to reboot the Star Wars franchise is all too plausible.

I call this screen cap, “what hath Avatar wrought.”

So this is how the exile from Krypton will be portrayed in this version. I hope there is a reason other than “it looks cool” why baby Kal-El had to be levitated into the rocket ship. Because if it isn’t, then it might come down to a matter of style over substance in the filmmaking. And that seldom ever results in a good movie.

The “He’ll be an outcast. They’ll kill him. /No he’ll be a god to them” reminds me of the John Byrne reboot of the origin in the comics. Byrne’s Krypton was a highly advanced, yet cold and sterile world. When the comic book Lara is showed a representation of Earth (in the form of a shirtless farmhand toiling in the soil) she is repulsed. Jor-El comforts her by saying Kal-El will be strong enough to rule them. Not a word for word copy, but close enough for my first sqee moment of the trailer.

We’ve seen these images before. But the two scenes now are used to establish what will be Superman’s internal conflict. Will he try to hide what he is to pass off as normal, or will he live up to his potential to save people?

Another big part of the Superman mythos is the reveal of his true origins to him by his adoptive parents, the Kents. This is how it is portrayed in this film.

And for as wrong as Jonathan Kent suggesting that Clark let the bus full of school kids die was in the teaser, this scene here is a 180 in the opposite direction. “Can I go back to pretending to be your son?/ You are my son.” Absolutely perfect. Great delivery by Costner too. I can’t begin to tell you how much I love this scene.

Superman in what appears to be the Fortress of Solitude. Glad to see that the voice over shows that the Kents will still play a positive role in turning Clark into the man he is.

And here is our first introduction to Lois Lane, who appears to be following a trail of super deeds done by Clark. It’s an interesting take on the Lois and Clark/Superman dynamic, but raises two red flags with me. One, is the urban legend of an indestructible strongman the story a major metropolitan newspaper like the Daily Planet should be pursuing? Isn’t that more the milieu of the National Enquirer and the Weekly World News? And two, if this film is supposed to be open to the idea that other super humans exist, would this be a news story at all? “Oh, there’s a guy in Alaska who saved some fishermen from a fire with out getting burned? Well, there’s a guy in California who has a ring that allows him to make green race cars with his mind. Big deal.”

I don’t know what context this scene is in, but I think it could quite possibly be the most inventive use of Superman’s powers on screen to date.

The Christ metaphor from the Donner films is still in effect, I see. The narration in scene the above screen caps are taken is almost word for word from the original films.

And we have some action. I’ve seen online where some people think this is a version of DC Comics’ Starro. I say no for a variety of reasons, most notably, it would take a lot of screen time to introduce the character into the narrative in a way that matches up with the tone of the film. Probably just a producer who has a Octopus fixation to match Jon Peters spider fixation.

More action!

Another clue that Krypton hasn’t been destroyed, Zod and a battalion of Kryptonians arrive in a big honkin’ spaceship. First order of business: threaten Jonathan Kent (Which also leads us to believe that they were tracking Kal-El/Clark’s ship to where it landed on Earth).

The Kryptonian invasion does explain why Superman is at odds with the military.

Gee, Zod certainly likes to threaten Superman’s father figures, doesn’t he (assuming he is speaking to Jor-El in the screencap above)? And Michael Shannon does like to chew scenery, doesn’t he?

Another of Superman’s powers on display?

Are these meteors hitting the Earth, or Kryptonians engaging in an orgy of destruction?

Also note the LexCorp building in the background. It seems, like in The Amazing Spider-Man, the hero’s main nemesis will make his presence felt only through corporate signage.

Again, I have to say that I am impressed by the way the Kryptonian power set is portrayed in the film. As above, where a missile hits a Kryptonian soldier and he barely flinches. And also…

…Superman’s super-speed! It is only a brief snippet, but it one of Supes’ powers that hasn’t really been portrayed well on screen.

I might have said this on the site before, but Superman willingly handing himself over to the military is great characterization. It establishes that while Superman could establish his will over the human race, but chooses not to. Love it.

Well, that certainly looks ominous.

Some Kryptonian armor.

This scene is both good and bad to me. I love “It stands for hope.” But the “How about Super— SQWARK!/Excuse me” just comes off as a clumsy attempt at humor. I’m glad to see that the film will not be as relentlessly bleak as its color palette makes it out to be, but still…

The trailer does end on a high note, however. Punch, fly after the punchee, and punch them again? That’s just cool. Again, the way they portray Superman’s powers in the trailer give me hope that at least part of the film will rock.

It stands for hope. Which is what the trailer stands for too. It’s stands for the hope that things Nolan, Snyder and company got right make up for what appears to obvious missteps that appear in the movie.

Back in May, I couldn’t wait to write this column. I started this yearly recap of comic book films mainly as a counterpoint to the number of articles in the mainstream media bemoaning the fact that comic book films exist at all and the journalists who are trying to speed up them going out of favor.

So, when The Avengers broke big, setting all sorts of box office records and becoming not only the highest grossing film of the year, but also the third highest grossing film of all time, I thought 2012 was going to turn out to be one of the best years for comic book films in their entire history.

And it was. But it was also one of the worst years as well.

In the early morning hours of Friday, July 20, James Eagan Holmes entered the crowded Theater 9 of the Century 16 multiplex in Aurora, Colorado. The theater was full of fans eager to be the first to see The Dark Knight Rises, the last film in Christopher Nolan’s Batman trilogy. They would become victims of one of the most violent crimes in recorded history. Holmes, dressed in armored clothing and carry numerous firearms with him, opened fire in that crowded theater. By the time shooting had stopped, 58 people would be injured, and 12 people would be killed.

It is impossible to talk about the year in film in any context without talking about the Aurora shootings. The joy of seeing a film in a crowded theaters full of your fellow fans is forever tainted. This type of exuberant film fan became prey that night.

Now, four months on, it is still easy to look back on that night and see only the darkest part of human nature. An evil man methodically came up with a way to kill as many people as he could. It doesn’t get more sinister than that.

But I found that when great darkness shows its face to the world, there is always a bright and shining light that rises up to greet it. It’s natural to focus on Holmes and his despicable acts. But I also look towards the example of Matt McQuinn, who shielded the bodies of his girlfriend and brother with his own, sacrificing his life to save theirs. I look to Jarell Brooks, a young man who was wounded getting a woman and her two small children, people he didn’t know, to safety. I look to Emma Goos, who stayed in the theater to tend to the wounds of an injured victim while the shooting was going on. I look to All C’s Comics Collectibles, the Aurora comic shop that started the Aurora Rises charity to help benefit the victim’s and their families and I look to the numerous comic artists and writers that helped make that charity an ongoing endeavor  I also look to Christian Bale, who, on his own with no fanfare and publicists in tow, visited the Aurora area after to shootings to give his fans whatever comfort he could.

Yes, the Aurora shooting gave us a glimpse of the worst that humanity had to offer, but it also gave us a glimpse of the best that humanity has to offer as well. And while we filmgoers will never be free of the paranoia that night in July caused (especially when just two weeks ago a plot to do a similar shooting in Missouri during a showing of The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn, Part 2 was, thankfully, stopped before it could be put into fruition), we should never let that fear stop us from doing the things we enjoy. We might never be able to stop bad things from happening, but we can always be there to help each other out when they do.

Now that I’ve said what I needed to say on that, let’s go back to the frivolous world of comic book films.

List taken from BoxOfficeMojo.com (http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2012&p=.htm)

As of last night, comic book adaptations hold three of the top five spots on the yearly highest grossing films list. I’m sure Skyfall and the aforementioned Breaking Dawn, Part 2 might have some say if The Amazing Spider-Man stays in the Top 5, but even if it does fall out, we will have three comic book adaptations in the Top 10. And that has never happened. The closest we came to that was in 2008 when The Dark Knight and Iron Man were one and two and the original superhero comedy Hancock was number four. Add to that the fact that a sequel to another comic book adaptation, Men in Black 3, was #11 this year and you have a very good year for the comic book film.

Even Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance, a film with a well-deserved 18% fresh over at Rotten Tomatoes and which debuted an underwhelming third in its opening weekend was able to make over $132 million worldwide against a $57 million dollar budget. Yes, I am a fan of comic book movies and even I am stunned by that fact. That’s why Nicolas Cage keeps on getting to make movies.

The only true flop of this year’s six comic book adaptations was Dredd, whose $30,931,946 worldwide take was considerably less than its $50 million budget. I can only assume that the Sylvester Stallone version killed just about any interest anybody might have had in the character, which was a shame. I found the film a faithful adaptation of the original source material which held up well as a film on its own.

As lucrative as this year was for the comic book film, it is a year in flux. The Avengers marked the end of the first phase of Marvel’s film slate, and Phase 2 begins next year with Iron Man 3 in May and Thor: The Dark World in November. It will be interesting if they can carry any Avengers momentum over into those releases, or will fans force the studio to prove itself all over again.

And The Dark Knight Rises closes the Nolan era on DC/Warners’ Batman property. They start anew with their Superman franchise with The Man of Steel in June. There’s a lot riding on this new take on the character, as Warners is looking to not only get a franchise to replace Nolan’s Batman films on their docket, but also potentially use the film as a springboard into their planned Justice League film and to bring other DC comic heroes to the big screen.

In addition to those three films, there are at least nine other comic book adaptations scheduled for next year, including Hugh Jackman returning as Logan in The Wolverine, sequels to Red, Kick-Ass,300 and Sin City, and properties from publishers such as Dark Horse, Boom! and other smaller companies. 2012 proved that people still are willing to go to see comic book films. However, odds are that not all of the films released next year will be great successes, so we can expect the mainstream doubters to start the chorus of the comic book films doom next year. But for now, let’s bask in the highs the comic book film rose to, and take a moment to contemplate the lowest lows they experienced this year.

In this day and age, if you are a form of media that covers another form of media, eventually you will come up with a list. Rolling Stone has put out special, oversized volumes about what songs, albums and guitarists are the best in their eyes. Entertainment Weekly can be counted on at least one issue a year feature a list of some kind, most recently it was the “50 Best Films You’ve Never Seen” and “25 Best Cult TV Shows From the Past 25 years.” And VH1 and E! have made it a staple of their programming.

The reason why they turn to list making is simple–because it’s popular. In a world full of opinionated people, any collated list  that represents the authoritative ranking of anything will get attention. People want their tastes validated. Or, they want to see how wrong these media outlets are. These lists sell copies.  They garner high ratings. They get shared on Facebook. They get linked to. And the more controversial the better, For example, take Sight and Sound‘s yearly poll’s swapping of Citizen Kane with Vertigo and the furor that kicked up.

But sometimes, it appears that there’s more that goes into constructing these lists than just picking the best or worst of a particular medium. Some lists seem to be compiled just to garner controversy. Yes, there will be “no brainer” items on the list, but there will also be notable omissions as well. There will be items included that seems to serve no other purpose than to make people angry. And even if you agree with every item put on and left off, you have the rankings themselves to quarrel over.

A sterling example of this are two lists that have appeared on Newsarama.com, one of the oldest comic book news sites on the Internet, over the last week. One was the “10 Best Comic Book-Based Movie PERFORMANCES Of All Time” and the “10 Worst Comic Book-Based Movie PERFORMANCES of All Time.” Both lists were compiled by the “Newsarama Staff,” and both are controversial in their own right. At best, the lists were sloppily compiled with mind-numbing gaps of logic, at worst, the list were compiled deliberately to anger comic book movie fans and generate controversy.

Here is Newsarama’s 10 Best List:

1. Heath Ledger, The Joker, The Dark Knight
2. Robert Downey, Jr, Tony Stark/Iron Man, Iron Man, Iron Man 2, & The Avengers
3. Gary Oldman, Commissioner Gordon, Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, The Dark Knight Rises
4. Hugh Jackman, Wolverine, X-Men, X2: X-Men United, X-Men: The Last Stand, X-Men Origins: Wolverine, X-Men First Class
5. J.K. Simmons, J. Jonah Jameson, Spider-Man, Spider-Man 2, Spider-Man 3
6. Tom Hiddleston, Loki, Thor & The Avengers
7. Chloe Grace Moretz, Hit-Girl, Kick-Ass
8. Andrew Garfield, Peter Parker/Spider-Man, The Amazing Spider-Man
9. Anne Hathaway, Selina Kyle, The Dark Knight Rises
10. Chris Evans, Jensen, The Losers

The lists are “best comic book-based performances” not “Best SUPERHERO comic book-based performances”: Granted, Newsarama focuses mostly on the mainstream superhero genre, and adding another word to the already gangly title would have made it even ganglier, but we have to take the titles of these articles to heart. That means, this should be the definitive list of ALL performances from ALL movies based an ALL kinds of comic books. Yet, there is no Paul Giamatti from American Splendor on this list. Nor is there Thora Birch or Steve Buscemi from Ghost World or Tom Hanks, Paul Newman or anyone else from Road to Perdition. 

I could go on. But what these titles are doing is advertising one thing and selling us another. And that is a recipe that is custom made to generate the kind of “you left XXX of the list” controversy that builds up links.

The Green Hornet? The Phantom? Comic Book-Based?: You’d think a news website with 10 years of independent coverage of the world of comic books would be able to tell what films were made from comic books and which ones weren’t. Baring that, you’d think they’d be able hire writers with an active connection to the Internet and the ability to access Google from it. Newsarama apparently is able to do neither.

The Green Hornet was based on a radio program that began in January1936. The Phantom was based on a comic strip that began in newspapers a few weeks after the Hornet made his first broadcast. . While both were adapted into comic books, neither originated there nor were their comics their most remembered incarnations. Calling The Green Hornet and The Phantom “comic book-based” would be like calling Star Wars and Star Trek comic book-based. And you can find far worse actors than Seth Rogen and Billy Zane in those franchises.

This might seem to be just a matter of semantics. But I believe it is indicative of the hap-hazard way these lists were constructed. Because you don’t have to look too hard to find two more bad performances in a film that was actually based on a comic book.

To Newsarama, “all time” means “within the last 12 years”: With the exception of The Phantom, the Schumacher Batman films, and the early Superman movies, all the films on the list were made after 2000. That means out of over 70 years of comic books being made into films, only a little over a decade of films were being seriously considered.

Yes, there have been a whole lot more comic book films to chose from in the last 12 years. But, as I realized doing my History of the Comic Book Film feature, the comic book film did not begin with X-Men. What? Newsarama couldn’t find a top ten worthy bad performance in Sheena, Red Sonja, Howard the Duck or in Dolph Lundgren’s Punisher? And on the good side, what about Brandon Lee’s Crow, Jack Nicholson’s Joker or Wesley Snipes’ Blade? The fact that there wasn’t one performance from the above that made either list is a disservice to what Newsarama was trying to create. It shows tunnel vision, something that handicaps any attempt at creating a comprehensive list.

Their selection process is dubious and abitrary at best:  They pay lip service to the quality work Chris Evans has done in a number of comic book films, yet make a point of telling us that they can pick only one performance of his for the list (and the pick his least well-known role at that). Yet, Hallie Berry gets slammed for playing both Storm and Catwoman. They lump the combined casts of two films as one entry, and two actors who had played the same role almost 20 years apart as another selection.

You get the feeling they were making up the rules as they went along. Or, rather, constructing the rules of selection so that it suited them best.

Take, for instance, this “ground rule” from the introduction to the worst list.

…it would be way too easy and frankly not all that much fun to pick-on a lower class of Hollywood actor in barely feature-quality train wrecks like Roger Corman’s Fantastic Four or the 1980s Captain America. So yes, Shaquille O’Neal, you get immunity this day.

Okay, I’m no fan of Shaquille O’Neal, and I’m sure he would want his being left off a list of bad actors argued, but the reason Newsarama left him of the list just doesn’t make sense. When Shaq made Steel, he had already made two feature films (Blue Chips and Kazaam). And Steel was a $16 million dollar film made by Warner Brothers, not some film made for $200 and a bag of potato chips in someone’s basement. Could Shaq be considered a “lower class of actor”? Probably. But so could Billy Zane, king of the B-movie. Maybe if Shaq had a small part in Titanic, then Newsarama would have considered him worthy of inclusion.

This is how they defend their position:

Well, Tobey’s Peter Parker was naive and earnest enough, but he just didn’t have Parker’s inner beauty.

Yes. Really.

Putting Christopher Reeve on the list of worst actors might have been done just to anger people: I’m trying not to believe that they’d do something so wrong just to generate site hits, but Newsarama is not making it easy by how they open their defense of their opinion:

Yes, we’re going there, and in advance, we’re genuinely sorry you’re upset.

Yes, they went there, but did they go there thinking their opinion would be controversial, or knowing it would be controversial and get a lot of reaction?

Listen, whenever you have a list like this, there will be items on it that butt up against conventional wisdom. But seldom has there ever been a case where something flew in the face of overwhelming public opinion like Newsarama is is doing here.

If you are going to “go there,” then you’d better have an incredibly strong argument to back up your position. Unfortunately, Newsarama doesn’t.

…Reeve just wasn’t that accomplished a film actor.

In defense of this position we could point to his lack of much of a post-Superman resume, but the truth is now 30-plus years later with a more critical eye we simply don’t find his portrayal of Superman and Clark Kent very much like any Superman or Clark Kent we know… or like, for that matter.

His Clark wasn’t mild-mannered, he was a cartoonish buffoon. His Superman far too earnest and eager-to-please for someone with the power of a god. In short, he was a mild-mannered Superman, frankly lacking in the charisma you’d expect from an actor playing a cultural icon. A more theatrical rather than natural actor, Reeve’s Superman was a caricature of a comic book Boy Scout superhero and not a fully developed character.

Where to begin. Hmmm.

I wonder who this editorial “we” is? Perhaps it is someone who  is 12 and has only known the John Byrne interpretation of Superman. But, the character was around for 50 years before Byrne revamped him. Back when the film was made, the comic book Superman was a more staid version of the one found in the film. The mental image the editorial “we” has of Superman is so contrary to what the character’s image really is that it makes it seem that this entry came from a website that wouldn’t know a comic book if it fell in their lap, not a “respected” comic book news site.

I’m so glad they didn’t use Reeve’s lack of a post-Superman career as their only defense for their position, because is a defense that could be swatted away with one word–typecasting. Typecasting is the reason why Mark Hamill and Carrie Fisher had less than stellar careers after Star Wars, and why Harrison Ford’s post-Star Wars career is so extraordinary. It is what the cast of the Harry Potter films are struggling with now, and what the cast of Twilight is working hard to avoid. Once you become so associated with such an iconic character, it’s hard for Hollywood to see you in any other role. This was the reason for Reeve’s lackluster post-Superman career, not lack of talent.

But Reeve’s performance was pitch perfect as Superman. I don’t know what the editorial “we” was thinking, but Superman doesn’t stand “Sarcasm, Bullying and Badassery”, he stands for “Truth, Justice and the American Way.” Yes, Reeve’s Superman was earnest–and honest and forthright–but that IS Superman. And Reeve played him in such a way that he never was hokey or corny.

As for Clark Kent, Reeve played Kent as a role Superman was himself playing. Superman portrayed Kent as an awkward and bumbling fool so no one would see through the flimsy disguise and put two and two together. It’s a brilliant piece of acting, and if you aren’t able to pick that up, then you have no business talking about acting performances whatsoever.

I have to laugh at the  ”30-plus years later with a more critical eye” part. Like that is supposed to win us over, that they’re looking at the performance in a serious manner as an adult, and therefore, he is right. That might have held more water if Chris Sims and David Uzumeri didn’t take a similar look back on the first Superman back in March for rival comic book news site Comics Alliance.  They ripped the film to shreds, but still called Reeve’s performance, and these are direct quotes, “amazing” and “darn near perfect.” So much for that argument.

Taking this into consideration, it’s hard to not believe the trashing of Reeve was done purely to garner controversy. If so, at least it worked. Not only am I talking about it, but also many comic book professionals, the people Newsarama make a living covering, took umbrage with the list as well.

Creators like Amazing Spider-Man writer Dan Slott:

Marvel Comics editor Steve Wacker:

And legendary comic writer Mark Waid:

That tweet set off a Twitter war between Waid and Newsarama editor Lucas Siegel,which is not the behavior you expect from an editor who should be keeping a journalistic distance from one of people he would be covering, but it is the kind of behavior you’d expect if you want add more controversy to the already controversial matter.

Another sign that this whole thing might be hit bait is that they spun of the controversy to another article on the site, an OP/ED piece by frequent Newsarama contributor Vaneta Rogers , glorifying Reeve’s performance and giving yet another page full of ads for Newsarama from the controversial list.

I hope this isn’t the case, that Newsarama is manipulating the popularity of lists to gain hits for itself. Presenting honest, well-formed and well-thought out opinions is always something that should be striven for. But putting out incendiary opinions in a clumsy and hap hazard manner isn’t. And it looks like Newsarama did the latter and is trying to pass it off as the former.

FBOL Editor-in-Chief Rich Drees posted his review of this film yesterday, and he’s already been taken to task in the comments over it. Well, as much as I hate to take him to task again, I will, albeit, hopefully, in a more professional manner. Because I liked the movie far more than he did.

I agree with Rich that it’s nigh impossible to look at this film without comparing it to 2000′s Spider-Man, because like Sam Raimi’s film, it is an origin story that takes several beats from the comic book origin. Yes, you’ll have the scene where Peter Parker get bitten by a spider. You’ll get the killing of Uncle Ben, you’ll get the costume creating montage. And after each of these moments, you’ll be taken back to the original Raimi film. Some moments may compare favorably, some may not, your mileage may vary.

But once you get past the origin part of the story, where the similarities seem the strongest, this film begins to go its own way. This version of Spider-Man is more grounded in reality, or as close to reality any movie featuring a mutated seven-foot lizard man can get. And it is also a modernized version of Spider-Man as well. Raimi’s Spider-Man had an ageless quality to him, that with a small change of set dressing Tobey Maguire’s version of the character could have been from the 1950s or 1960s as much as he was from the 2000s. Andrew Garfield’s Spider-Man is set in the now, a world of cell phones and You Tube and skateboards. Neither version of better than the other, in my opinion, but both are valid takes on the iconic character.

I think that Rich missed a lot of the subtlety of the characterization of Peter Parker, because if he didn’t, I’m sure that a lot of his complaints about the film would have been answered. Peter Parker, as brilliantly played by Andrew Garfield, is a young man who never knows the right thing to do. This causes him to hem and haw while asking out a girl who is throwing herself at him. It also causes him to believe that humiliating the bully who humiliated him is the best course of action. With this as a prologue, his desire to hunt down the man who killed his uncle seems completely believable. It’s what Peter, blinded by grief and anger, thinks would be the best way to make amends for, and to relieve his guilt over, inadvertently causing his uncle’s death.

While it is true that the death of Uncle Ben was used as the instigator of Spider-Man’s using his powers for unselfish means in both the comics and the Raimi films, it wouldn’t work here with the characterization up to that point and, trying to avoid spoilers, the way this movie changes the death of Uncle Ben. The scene where Peter finally realizes the effect of his uncle’s words about taking responsibility for his actions comes later during what I will call the “bridge scene,” the point of which Rich obviously either missed or  didn’t give proper emphasis to.

Once again, to avoid spoilers, I’ll simply say it’s where the Lizard makes his first appearance and Spidey saves a bunch of lives (facts which the trailer spoiled). It’s here where Peter learns that with great power comes with great responsibility. It’s here where he learns that he is the only person qualified to take on this menace (and barely qualified at that) and that if he doesn’t take action, many, many people will die. Uncle Ben’s words finally sink in. It’s is here where Peter’s story arc curves and he, as a character, changes and grows. And this new sense of responsibility carries through to the end of the film.

The film is full of deep emotional resonance, inspired directing by Marc Webb, finely crafted scenes (the dinner scene where Peter meets Gwen Stacy’s family is especially sharp and proves that Denis Leary is one of the most underrated actors in Hollywood), and subtle moments that make for an enjoyable film. The way they treat Gwen Stacy is especially refreshing. With a stunning acting performance from Emma Stone, who is quickly becoming the greatest actress of her generation, Gwen is not the superhero film stereotype of “The Girlfriend In Peril.” She is an equal, if not a superior, to Peter in many ways. And while the film places her in jeopardy at times, it’s not for a stupid reasons, but for heroic acts and always with her knowing the dangers of her actions.

Comic fans should appreciate the film’s interpretations of George Stacy and Flash Thompson, which, while not carbon copies of their comic book inspirations, captured the spirit of them well enough to please a long time Spidey fan like me. And the film’s obligatory Stan Lee cameo is one of his funniest yet.

This is not to say the film is a perfect film. It’s not. There are a number of bad plot contrivances such as mind-numbing coincidences (Who is the guide for the tour of Connor’s lab? Why Gwen Stacy of course! And naturally the secret formula Peter’s dad left behind in an old briefcase would be the formula Connors needed to finish his work!) and glaring gaps of logic (in addition to the Internet search thing Rich mentioned, Peter has his secret identity spoiled by leaving behind his camera, complete with a “Property of Peter Parker” placard at a battle scene. Why didn’t he also leave a class schedule and a list of his fears along with it?).  But these are but blips on the radar for an otherwise enjoyable film.

If you liked the part in Spider-Man 3 when Toby Maguire’s Peter Parker got all moody and emo, then you’re going to love James Garfield’s interpretation of the character in the franchise reboot The Amazing Spider-Man.

Here we have a high school Peter Parker who has abandonment issues over the deaths of his parents and oft times takes them out on his loving Uncle Ben (Martin Sheen) and Aunt May (Sally Field). And while his time spent underneath a mask as Manhattan’s swinging superhero is often seen as a chance for Peter to let his hair down so to speak and have some fun, this version of Spider-Man has more of a single-minded mission. And best (or worst) of all, we can count on this portrayal continuing into at least the next installment of the franchise as none of these character issues are really resolved. It is as if director Marx Webb doesn’t realize that we already have a grim and gritty comic book film this month in the form of Christopher Nolan’s upcoming The Dark Knight Rises.

Peter Parker is not your typical teen. While extraordinarily smart, he is having trouble fitting in at school, which is surprising considering that he goes to Midtown Science High School which sounds like it would be an environment rich with like-minded teens. But Peter keeps himself isolated, still hurting from the death of his parents a decade earlier. When his Uncle Ben finds an old briefcase of his father’s, Peter starts to investigate the events surrounding his parents’ deaths. The trail leads him to OsCorp and Dr. Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans), a former colleague of Peter’s father. Connors is researching how animal genetics could help improve humans. While snooping around Connor’s lab, Peter is bitten by a spider and soon finds himself with enhanced strength and the ability to crawl up walls. But when Connors turns his research on himself, he finds himself transformed into a seven-foot-tall half-human, half-lizard monster. Following the death of his uncle at the hands and gun of a petty thief, Peter starts using his powers to try and catch the killer only to become a target of the New York City police.

That description makes the film seem much more densely plotted than it actually is. Some storylines are introduced only to be abandoned. The mystery of Peter’s parents is only there to lead him to Connors after which it is conveniently forgotten until the mid-credits button scene in which the filmmakers suddenly remember that this particular thread is still unresolved and make a quick promise to possibly return to the issue in a sequel. Likewise, a plotline involving an OsCorp executive demanding that Connors escalate his work to human trials exists only to force the character to test the serum on himself so he would turn into the villain of the piece.

While I will get to some of the film’s flaws, I did want to address a few of the things that it got right. First off, the teenage awkwardness between Peter and his high school crush Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone) feels spot on. The portrayal of Connors/The Lizard as an ersatz Jekyll and Hyde works well enough to make you wish that the movie spent more time on it. A sequence at the beginning of the film’s climax where New Yorkers rally to help Spider-Man delivers perhaps the film’s most emotional moment.

I will admit that it is hard not to compare this new iteration of the Spider-Man story to the director Sam Raimi’s trilogy that has come before. Not just because Raimi’s films are still in the relatively recent past but because their popularity have cemented a certain version of the character in the public’s imagination. Webb’s new reinvention of the Spider-Man mythos almost seems to court such comparisons though and when examining them we can find some to be problematic.

Among comic book fans, one of the most controversial aspects of Raimi’s films was the change of Spider-Man’s webshooters being an invention of Peter’s to yet another change in his body brought about by that radioactive spider bite. Amazing Spider-Man wants to emphasize Peter’s boy genius side by returning to the idea that he built his webshooters, but then proceeds to undercut it by having the actual web fluid be something he stole from OsCorp.

I also found it hard to believe that while Peter has often wondered about his parents, it was not until the discovery of his father’s attaché case that he decided to start actively trying to find out about them. Credulity is further strained when we see how much information was obtained by a relatively simple internet search. If Peter’s so smart how is it he never thought to do a simple search engine query?

But the biggest wrong note that the film hits is how it treats Peter’s reaction to his Uncle Ben’s death. This is the moment where Peter embraces the Spider-Man story’s well-known theme of great power bringing great responsibility. Instead, this film uses that moment to turn Peter into a vigilante, only stopping crimes being committed by men who match the description of his uncle’s killer.

And even by the end of this new film, Peter has not embraced the responsibility of his powers. This is a point that is firmly driven home in the film’s very last line of dialogue before the credits begin rolling. Peter may have changed physically over the course of the film, thanks to him receiving his powers, but he still seems to be the same self-absorbed kid he was at the start of the film with no emotional growth or maturity. This leaves us with the true meat of Peter’s origin to be stretched out over a succession of sequel films and that feels like a decision made more in a boardroom than anywhere else in the creative process.

Is Sony looking to replicate the success Marvel Studios has had with The Avengers with their own Marvel Comics characters films? Possibly according to The Amazing Spider-Man producer Matt Tolmach.

While doing the PR rounds for the upcoming reboot of the studio’s comic book film franchise Tolmach hinted that future installments of the newly relaunched series could possibly crossover with another Marvel Comics character film that they are currently developing - Venom.

What I’m trying to say to you without giving anything away is hopefully all these worlds will live together in peace someday… look for the worlds to make sense with one another.

Well, I can’t say that I really blame Sony for wanting to do try something like this in light of the box office monster that The Avengers has become. The studio currently holds the film rights to all the Spider-Man characters of which Venom, and his alter-ego Eddie Brock, is one.

Sony is currently developing a Venom film with Chronicle director Josh Trank overseeing the project. And while Venom’s origin in the comics is highly dependent on Spider-Man’s presence, Tolmach’s producing partner on Amazing Spider-Man, Avi Arad was quick to point out that that film will stand on its own.

It’s an Eddie Brock story… We want to be as close to the comics as possible. Especially in Eddie Brock’s story. But again, pseudo-sceince is becoming science. All these tidbits about webs, artificial webs, is a huge industry now. Spiderwebs have unique qualities that will be huge for communications, fibers, and so forth. So we have taken the approach that we want to make the huge amazing movie about Eddie.

So how close will the two films get? I can’t wait to see.

Via Hollywood.

Emma Stone appeared on last night’s The Tonight Show with Hacky McChinychin and as usual on these promotional stops disguised as a casual conversation, a clip was screened of her work in the upcoming The Amazing Spider-Man. It is a minute long but feels like it may have been edited down from a longer sequence. It features Stone’s character of Gwen Stacy inside the lab of the recently mutated Dr Curt Connors. Judging from what is shown, I am guessing that this is a sequence from fairly late in the film, so there are potential spoilers.

The Amazing Spider-Man also stars Andrew Garfield, Rhys Ifans, Denis Leary, Campbell Scott, Irrfan Khan, Martin Sheen and Sally Field and opens July 3.

Sony unveiled a new four minute preview of their upcoming Amazing Spider-Man. Although the second half plays out like a trailer, the first half offers what appears to be an edited down sequence of Spider-Man saving a boy whose life is threatened by the Lizard’s rampage.

The second half features some more Spidey action as well as bit more of a look at poor Dr. Connors’s transformation into the Lizard. I’m not sure that I am thrilled that this continues to hint that there is a connection between Peter Parker and Dr. Connors and how each gained their powers. Connecting a hero’s and villain’s origins has become more than just a bit of a cliche. Hopefully director Marc Webb is bringing something new and fresh to that particular trope.

Sony’s The Amazing Spider-Man is set to open in a couple of months and surprisingly they have been fairly secretive with the look of the film’s villain, The Lizard. That changes today, though, as the studio has offered up two views of the tragic transformed scientist who will bedevil Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield). They’re not super clear shots, I expect we may see a bit better in the trailer that is scheduled to be released tomorrow, but they are the first that we’ve officially seen of the character. Click on each photo for a much larger view.

Sony Pictures has hired Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci to take a pass at the screenplay they have in development for a sequel this summer’s as-yet-unreleased superhero film The Amazing Spider-Man. The pair will be working from Amazing Spider-Man writer James Vanderbilt’s first draft for the currently untitled follow up.

Kurtman and Orci are no strangers to big-budget, tentpole franchise pictures. They are the writers behind Disney’s Pirates Of The Caribbean series, have scripted two of Transformer films and with co-screenwriter Damon Lindelof relaunched the Star Trek franchise with director J J Abrams for Paramount. Overall, they have a pretty strong track record and I can see why the studio brought them onto the project.

Sony is rebooting the Spider-Man franchise with Andrew Garfield in the role of the teen superhero who learns that with great power comes great responsibility on July 3. The studio is so confident in the film’s potential reception that they have already scheduled the sequel to go into production in the first quarter of 2013 for a May 2, 2014 release.

Via Deadline.