Andrew Garfield On TASM: "We Haven't Gone For Gritty"

Well, not every story has to be grim and gritty. It can still be good without those.

He's absolutely right. I think the Batman movies are forgetting that they're allowed to be dark, gritty, AND fun. But the aim to be both fun and grounded seems to be a perfect fit for Spidey.

Every interview Andrew Garfield has just cements my belief that he is the right person to be playing Spider-man. He totally understands these characters. And what he just said up there, THAT was awesome.

Yes Gusto, He means Drinking....

a Nolanised Spider-man....Its too dark and gritty from the trailers

@just1superguy

All you've proven to me is that Maguire was far to fat to be Spiderman.

looking at Just1Superguy's picture above, I just realized how much I don't like Tobey as Spiderman.

Spiderman is not "realistic": he crawls walls,has spider-sense and incredible agility,not to mention the hi-tech web-shooters.
but I think "grounded" means that the world around him reacts in a realistic way to his presence. for example,the police is going on a man-hunt for this guy,as you would expect,because the police sees him as a threat.
same with Batman in BB,the police was trying to capture him.
and same with the upcoming Man of Steel,with the military behind Superman's a** because he's a freakin' alien.

@Just1Superguy I agree with ya man. Raimi SPidey minus spiderman 3 was just flat out awesome. Im still skeptical about this new one, its more dark and...emo lol

"I don't give a [frick] about making money and all that: I care about the character being served, being treated with respect"
OK. Now I'm 100% confident that he'll be to Spidey what RDJ was to Iron Man, Hemsworth to Thor, Bale to Batman, etc.

@MisterNiceGuy I personally prefer Bale (especially as Bruce Wayne), but Keaton did have a better Batvoice.

Whatever the actual tone of the film, the trailer could hardly have been more dark and gritty. It was a somber, joyless, depressing thing to me. I know some fans absolutely love that kind of thing, but it gave me serious doubts about this flick.

I guess ignoring a lead actor's comments in order to continue with spewing stupid, predictable BS is the norm now. Should I be surprised?

I don't mind them taking a different route than other movies as long as we don't get more of the campy out of place scenes like that "no bag, no gwen" rubbish.

Lmao why do fans hate there comics becoming grounded as possible in a LIVE action movie??? It's a LIVE action movie that's suppose to fit our world, SUPPOSE. Hence why it's grounded as possible, x1, x2, xmen first class, batman begins and the dark knight are all grounded as possible. Even blade 1&2. Why are they successful? Because it attract more audience to see it, not just the comic fans. Get that in your heads, if you want the why it is in the comics, stick with cartoons and when you say the story has to be great, guess what the story that your asking for is aiming at older audience, mature.

I passed on the new spiderman but when they said it's going to be grounded, I'm up for it. Sure it has some fantasy elements to it but can't you say that to any sci fi action movies??? Take lord of the rings, was it campy??? Could they have made it like that? Yes they can but man that would suck. All you need to make a grounded comic boom live action movie is a talented director and writer that can think out side the box. Also on top I forgot to add iron man part 1, it was grounded as possible as well.

Without x1 and x2 on how it was made, grounded as possible there wouldn't have been a green light on spiderman, did you know that??? That means no comic book movie in Hollywood. Think of that, and if you still can't process that go back to your little Saturday cartoons, your not mature enough.

@paulrom, yea I'm just messin with ya. Bale was ok. I just feel he can be a bit of an overactor sometimes.

The only bad spot for Raimi's Spider-Man movies was elements of 3. And though it seems popular as hell to diss it, the movie was not as bad as fans and even some reviewers make it out to be. The worst thing about the movie was the inclusion of Venom, which the sorry corporate bastards at SONY/Columbia Demanded. This reboot, is very much a corporate film. Spider-Man 3 made over 890 million worldwide. The film has a 63% at Rotten Tomatoes and it has a B- among critics. The movie was in no way a bad movie like Pirates 3 At Worlds End or Phantom Menace or Attack of The Clones, or Indy 4. That's not just my opinion-you can Google the facts, and finding one reviewer who give it a bad review as if it was a truly horrible movie doesn't erase the facts. And no Super-hero is so loved that a horrible movie based on them makes over 300 mil domestic and 890 worldwide.

@Scorpion8125 Wow, you really are grif's son.

It's not gonna be "dark and gritty" like Batman, it's just not full of goofy crap like Raimi's movies were. I saw more classic Peter Parker banter in one two minute trailer than in all of Raimi's movies. It's ridiculous how some people try to make Raimi's movies out to be some kind of masterpieces. Speaking as a life long Spider-Man fan those movies left much to be desired just as Burton's highly flawed Batman movies did.

@Misterniceguy

Keaton was shit

Bale is awesome. Best Wayne AND Batman. The voice is fine, you anal tards looking to find something wrong with the film will point out the one original thing Nolan trys to do with the character.

First of all, grounded doesn't mean "realistic". It means grounded. As in, yes, Spiderman is a completely sci-fi type character, but lets set that fictional character in as a real of a surrounding as we can. Get it? Its not tough. Its pretty simple.

And like I've said before, having crooks and criminals running around in the day time for all to see is unrealistic. Spiderman may need to suit up occasionally during the day, but not for 3 movies worth.

@just1superguy - All you proved is how much better his costume looks, how much more like Parker Garfield looks, and how much better these movies are shaping up to be. All the promotional material looks way more convincing for this movie. He doesn't look whiney, he looks conflicted. Like, oh, I don't know, a kid who has these incredible powers to deal with while also finishing high school, kissing the girl, and SAVING THE DAMN CITY!!! What do you want? Parker has ALWAYS been a conflicted character. He's not Cap who was a born hero and wants nothing more than to fight injustice. He's a teenager with powers. How would you, as a teenager, deal with these powers AND your life?

And the trailer had HELLA jokes and quips. He doesn't look TOO whiney.

@Misterniceguy Keaton was a cool Beetlejuice but he was like 5'5" or so, and he obviously couldn't have made it through basic training, or even ran a 10 mile marathon but he was supposed to be Batman. And the Batman he played was doing one liner jokes like Roger Moores James Bond. In reality a couple of 15 year olds could have kicked his ass. This was one of the all time great miscasts.

I guess this explains why this movie feels so amazingly natural.

Making something gritty doesn't necessarily make it better. Spider-Man's rogues gallery consists of a few villains that would make the movies much darker, but most of them wouldn't.

Batman's rogue galleries consists of psychotic criminals so making the Batman movies darker works for the character and his villains. It wouldn't it work as well for Spider-Man. He's not a dark character.

@Banekill, Exactly. I've been a Spidey fan since I was a kid, before I was old enough to read more than Dick and Jane books, I watched Spiderman and his Amazing friends (this would have been 1979-1980), so I'm not a kid, or "new" to Spiderman, and I thoought the Raimi movies were pretty great. I was just stoked that the movie was made, and made so well, I didn't care about things like the webshooters or the Goblin's costume. All of that said, my fingers are crossed for the reboot. We'll see.