Stephen Totilo — The new Spider-Man movie trailer is cool. It's also a bit familiar to those of us who played and enjoyed the 2008 video game Mirror's Edge. How similar? Watch. You might notice some amazing, spectacular coincidences.
People will find anything to bitch about. I'm sure Spider-Man was running along rooftops and jumping over shit before the guy's who created Mirror's Edge were even born.
When did you see him do it in FP until now?
In the Spider-Man movie video-game there was a cheat that would let you play as Spider-man in first-person. That game was released in 2002, six years before Mirrors Edge.
I remember that ^^^^
Mirror's Edge 2! And a Spiderman outfit option! Though, I didn't think Faith was that flat chested...
She's close, tho. But that's okay, I think women of all sizes are beautiful. Never understood the mockery and hate Faith got for not having a huge chest.
More than a handful is a waste. Capital!
mirror edge team up with a spiderman game .. so out of reach but that would be a great game.
Pretty blatantly. I was looking at the text thinking "Where the hell is the video" for about a minute before I realised that I was scrolled down the page.
Not really. Can't see any similarities. I am assuming the first person view is more to distinguishing its self from the previous films. I assume the author doesn't now free running/parkour is popular and appeared in films even before Mirrors edge was released slightly off topic: the most blatant use of same footage can be seen in the gif pointed out by someone in the comment section http://cache.gawker.com/ass...
I saw that last week, pretty hilarious but you've got to wonder about the sort of people who discover that stuff.
Personally I think that that is a huge complement for Mirrors edge
Even if it was a complete rip off ( a ludicrous idea when you realise what spiderman is usually about lol ) ... why the fuss ? A vastly underrated and ignored game get ripped off instead of just copying overused other gameplay emchanics ? Somebody should sue
I was thinking the same thing. And isn't it a bit too soon for a Spiderman re-boot?
Did you not watch Spider-Man 3 ? It sucked !
So...it dosen't need a reboot already, especialy one that tells us how he became Spiderman.....again.
@ WhiteLightning Did you read what Sam Raimi was planning for Spider-Man 4? It actually sounded worse than Spider-Man 3. I'm actually glad that they decided to go with the reboot instead.
it needed a reboot . For starters not everyone was happy with Raimi's changes , even if the movies are pretty good overall . IF someone is just taking overand changing everything again , it's just confusing to have a sequel that doesnt even truly tie properly intot he previous movie . There a gazillion of ways you can tell spidey's origins . Just ask most comics about any hero . Raimi had his version , another could have an actually witty and funny spidey , and expand on his school days , as an example
@LarVanian Its a completely different origin story from the 'tobey macguire' spiderman. This spidey doesn't have some genetic mutation that makes his body create webs. He just uses these web shooter things that he creates.
@Focker Ok, but what does that have to do with my post? You should know that in the comics Peter uses web-shooters rather than organic webbing. So technically this new Spider-Man is more true to the original source material in that aspect.
@LarVanian and Focker420 You're both actually somewhat correct.In comics, Peter has a mutation that allows him to shoot organic webs. He creates a gadget to assist him though because it physically drains him to use the organic method. So in the comic, he's both.
How much you want to bet they reboot Batman less than 5 years after the next one?
Why are people moaning about it !! The film looks excellent.
Speak for yourself. I don't like the casting, I don't like the cgi, I don't like Peter Parker, I don't like the music and I'm deeply repulsed by the idea of rebooting a franchise that's barely four years old. Scratch that, I'm deeply offended by reboots full stop. The guy they've cast as Peter Parker is genuinely one of the most punchable human beings I've ever seen. He rivals Justin Bieber and Robert Patterson and to me this whole reboot stinks of the fowl repugnant odour that is "twilight generation". Peter Parker is supposed to be a nerd. Part of the joy is that he's an everyday guy and casting a fucking tweeny male model who's spent his life behind cameras having his picture taking, and then slapping a pair of glasses on him makes me so angry I want to sweat blood all over the guy who thought it was a great idea. Also I hated the fucking suit. And I hate that it's an origin story. Does any one here not know spider man's origin? Really? I'm seriously asking, does anyone, anywhere, NOT know spiderman's origin? There are tribes in the amazon who have never seen so much as a wire and even they make jokes about how being bitten by a radioactive spider is a stupid idea. Why? Why make a movie about something that's already been made and that EVERYONE knows about. Like what, no one knows who this spider man fellow is? If they had the first scene and there stood that air head prick with his punchable face and stupid hair gripping the spider man mask and wearing the suit everyone in the cinema would be like, "Who the fuck is this guy? Wait, what!? Slow down! Who is he? What's he doing? Why can he crawl on walls? I don't understand any of this. Clearly I need a two hour long fucking prologue so that the sequels can STILL fuck it up anyway." Edit: I could write a novel about how angry this film makes me. When I die I'm going to see this movie every day in hell as punishment for all the awful things I've done (such as ranting on comment pages). I don't think anyone quite grasps how annoying I find this movie. For me, this movie sums up just about everything I find absolutely loathsome about hollywood and the stupid fucking tween generation that followed my not-quite-as-stupid-but-still- pretty-fucking-stupid Harry Potter generation.
You think Andrew Garfield is comparable with Pattinson? No offense but you just lost all credibility with that comment. The difference between the two actors is that Garfield is a BAFTA award winner and a Golden Globe nominee who also starred in an Academy Award nominated movie. Pattinson has done nothing but play sparkly vampires. Garfield is also a great choice for Spidey. He looks an awful lot like many of the depictions of Peter Parker in the comics. And what if he is in his twenties? Judging from the trailer he looks quite convincing as a high school student. I should mention that Tobey Maguire was also in his twenties when he was cast as Spider-man, but for some reason that didn't bother people.
@LarVanian Tweeny not twenty. I don't care about their age. Nobody protested against Tobey Maguire because he at least has a defined look. Sure that look was 'annoying' but I'm not even sure I could tell you what Garfield looks like even though I watched that God awful soft sci-fi nightmare called 'never let me go'. It was an award fishing piece of crap and trust me, no amount of Baftas or Academy awards are going to warm my heart to a guy who looks like a priest's wet dream. This whole movie just lacks any sort of soul what so ever. The CGI, the cast, the dialogue... everything. It looks like it's been produced, not directed. It's literally a perfect example of "lowest common denominator". Also my comparison between Garfield and Patterson was a superficial one. I made no mention of acting ability but simply pointed out they have fantastically "punchable" faces and they do. If Garfield was bullied as a child I'd actually understand why. He just looks like someone who's face desperately needs dunking in an unflushed toilet. Do you know who's a great choice for spidey? NO ONE BECAUSE THE FILM DOESN'T FUCKING NEED TO BE MADE. Take the director, the special effects company, the writers, actresses, actors, producers and budget and go find a NEW GOD DAMNED IDEA TO MAKE. Go film a donut going mouldy, make a movie about a killer tire (wink wink), film a tumble weed going across a woman's bare chest. I don't care how stupid or inane it is ANYTHING would be better than watching the same God damned fucking movie I have watched a thousand times before. AND SO HELP ME GOD HOLLYWOOD, IF YOU STICK 3D ON THE END OF ITS TITLE I'M GOING ON A KILLING SPREE.
""""I watched that God awful soft sci-fi nightmare called 'never let me go'. It was an award fishing piece of crap and trust me, no amount of Baftas or Academy awards are going to warm my heart to a guy who looks like a priest's wet dream."""" I don't know if you have seen Garfield in any other films but he put on a great performance in The Social Network. Many people would even say he stole the show. But it seems that you have a problem with his appearance more than anything else....that I cannot do anything about. """"This whole movie just lacks any sort of soul what so ever. The CGI, the cast, the dialogue... everything. It looks like it's been produced, not directed. It's literally a perfect example of "lowest common denominator"."" "" Dude I understand why you are pissed, but seriously the film isn't even out yet, and you are talking as if you have seen the whole thing. We still have exactly a year before it releases. You should at least give it a chance before bashing everything about it. Marc Webb who is directing it made '500 days of Summer'. A really good film that had great chemistry among all the actors. I actually have faith in The Amazing Spider-Man because '500 days..' turned out so well. """"Take the director, the special effects company, the writers, actresses, actors, producers and budget and go find a NEW GOD DAMNED IDEA TO MAKE. Go film a donut going mouldy, make a movie about a killer tire (wink wink), film a tumble weed going across a woman's bare chest. I don't care how stupid or inane it is ANYTHING would be better than watching the same God damned fucking movie I have watched a thousand times before."""& quot ; The film may be about Peter Parker becoming Spider-Man but it doesn't mean it'll be the exact same film we saw almost ten years ago. This reboot will focus on many aspects that where left blank in the original Spider-Man trilogy such as Peter's parents. Peter will also be dating Gwen Stacey first rather than Mary Jane (just like he did in the comics). And let's not forget that the Lizard will finally be the villain. There should be some interesting fight scenes between him and Spidey.
LOL I agree, btw.
Three things: 1.) They're starting over with a series that's still very fresh in a lot of people's minds. 2.) The tone of the trailer is so wrong. Spider-Man is not dark and gritty. 3.) The suit looks pretty bad. Why mess with such a classic design? His head looks like a dirty basketball.
i like the suit
This post I am making is about the new movie. It's pointless. I'd understand if this had been a reboot of Superman, the first movie came out in the 70s for pete's sake(yet I promise you if they did remake it, they still couldn't top it). In Batman's case, his movies started in the 80s, and got worse after the second film, then after the last horrid film they took a nice break and then came Batman Begins. However, the Spiderman movies are not that old. Granted the sequels were not that great but it's still too soon for another origin movie. I personally think it is laziness, instead of trying to think of a new original story they just rehash something that is known the world over even by people who aren't comic fans and throw their own personal "flair" into it, which typically makes a movie awful. Short examples being the terrible costumes from the bad batman movies(you know what they were), and one that everyone should know...spidey dancing on the damn sidewalk and looking emo. AND to say, these days how a movie LOOKS means nothing. It's not hard to throw CGI in a movie these days. Look at Transformers for example. Looks really well done, but in my opinion it is complete rubbish. I was ok with the first film, even though it did not remind me at all of the toys or cartoon I grew up with.
Don't really care about the movie, but... yeah, that is really damn similar. Sure, Spidey's been running and climbing on rooftops for decades, but to see such an extended first-person clip, not to mention ending with the reflection in the window and cutting to the title? Yeah, I'd suspect there was a bit of "inspiration."
Not digging the new spidey or movie so far. I mean was a reboot already necessary?
its a reboot because columbia pictures bought the rights the last three movies were made by sony pictures so they want to make their own rendition of it.
doesnt sony own columbia?
ye they do own it haha i actually didnt know that oh well this movie is still closer to the original comic book compared to the other movie.
POINTLESS! Why make an article for such a thing.. Spiderman = Great Mirrors Edge = Not so great
Looks like I will not see this movie, just like I never saw spider man 3. Whats next, completely new reboot of batman and Ironman too. Maybe if the third batman movie and third Ironman movie suck they will do this too. I really dont think anyone needs or wants a new spiderman movie to start from the beginning and is full of HORRIBLE looking CGI. I really thought that FP spiderman CGI from the trailer looked like something from a cheaply made videogame, maybe it will look better on a giant screen in 3D......HAHahHA garbage movie it looks like. I actually think the only reason they are redoing the beginning is so they can put it in 3d.
Couldn't agree more. I too thought it looked like a really chinzy video game. Hollywood is out of ideas, and they're insulting our intelligence when they release crap like this.
Really... its Spider-Man, Mirrors Edge been doin that for 2 and a half years and Spider-Man's been doin it only for a good 50 sumthin years now. So its first person free running, hes a huge icon (my no. 1 fave Marvel hero of all time) I'm sure hes earn the right by now to do what he wants.
it's a copy !
This site should have people pass a simple IQ test before they're allowed to post stupid articles like this.
Harsh. I simply linked this from Kotaku. No need to attack me, surely attacking the person who threw up the comparison should receive such harsh words? No?
Meh, Kotaku, that explains it. Excuse, me. They are the ones I should have directed that too, Sry, it was early when I posted that. Must have been grumpy. lol
Mirror's Edge looks better than that poorly edited CGI scene from the trailer, to be honest.
I hope mirror's edge 2 will have graphics comparable to the trailer.
Im not a picky SOB by any means, but that spidey trailer really let me down.
the real question is why the hell does it matter?
The only way you could say they blatantly ripped off Mirror's Edge is if the building were white and Spiderman was hanging on to red stuff.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.