Captain America and New Spider-Man: REVEALED! (Update!)

Seen here, via ComingSoon: A Superhero costume-redesign done right.
Chris Evans, in full mask and gear as Captain America. It works. It just effin’ WORKS. The mask/helmet works. The “repainted combat gear” works. The shield really works. Even the wings work.
I’d call it a near-perfect “compromise” between the classic look, the Ultimate look and real life; though I wouldn’t be surprised if they give him something close to the “modern Ultimates” look in “Avengers.” But THIS is going to look fantastic onscreen, versus all the Hydra gear and the (supposedly) note-perfect Red Skull look.
We’ve got four major “question-mark” comic movies this year, and THIS is easily the one that’s looking like the surest-thing at this point – with the awesomeness of this uniform being the biggest assurance of that (to me, anyway) yet. After the jump: How NOT to do one of these…

…Okay, maybe a little hyperbole there, but the overall impact is pretty “meh” at best. Underwhelming, certainly, but not disasterous.

Andrew Garfield, unmasked but otherwise offering our first look at the “new” Spider-Man outfit. They’ve kept the “textured” look from the Raimi films, but with lots of reworked “angularity” on the web-pattern and the insignia. I’d be amused to know if anyone at the design phase mentioned that losing the “belt” of red around the midsection now essentially leaves Spidey wearing either a giant red arrow pointing to his Spider-Junk or a custom version of Borat’s bathing suit.
Of course, he probably won’t dance at all in this one automatically making it The Best Spider-Man Movie EVER!!!! Right? Yes?

UPDATE: Commenters here and elsewhere are taking note of a curious-looking bulge on the interior of the gloves, hugely-suggestive of this new Spider-Man having traditional mechanical webshooters as opposed to the “biological” ones from the previous films.

If so, AWESOME. I’ll say that without any qualification: That would be awesome. I’m actually getting pretty sick of the “you want to hate this!” nonsense that gets thrown around every time I cover this project, to the point that I’ve begun to greet each new item with hope that there’ll be something that excites me about this other than Denis Leary being in it just to alleviate some of that.

FWIW, the biological-shooters thing goes back a long way: It was a surprise-twist in the James Cameron script, and in the script Raimi initially signed on for he had mechanical devices to “control” his built-in webs.

36 thoughts on “Captain America and New Spider-Man: REVEALED! (Update!)

  1. Chris says:

    Doesn't so much look emo as he does hurting after some sort of fight, with the claw marks suggesting the Lizard. Interesting to see a tall and lanky Spider-Man in live action too.

    The bumps on his forearms might suggest mechanical web shooters of sorts.

    Really curious to see what the mask will look like.


  2. Dave says:


    Liek the official marvel branded one but not the one that differs from raimi's version (BPBUH). And yet another predictable dig about how the one scene of dancing is the only reason people hated spiderman 3 and not the massive plot holes, bad scripting and horrid casting decision.

    I'm just shocked.You might want to consider devising a macro your posts, it will save you the effort of writing the same damn thing all over again.

    @ bryce

    Not the build. The face. Dude actually looks like Peter Parker, instead of a 12 year old nerd stereotype from the 60s that wasn't even relevant then.

    The Cap suit is barf. Too many pouches, too bulky. It's like they werent' sure whether or not they were going to go with total comic accuracy or realism and took the worst elements of both. And god the wings are dorky.

    I'm relived upon seeing the spider suit. Early buzz called it futuristic. I wanted it to look homemade. None of this $5000 silver reflective web bullshit.

    The spiderman suit was always a good one, and you don't need to change it much. This one looks even better when you take a look at the details. The back still has the belt bar, ad if you look closely, the emblem appears to be smeared….which implies it might be painted on…indicating a more homemade origin than what we've seen before. has a pretty good breakdown here. Note to bob: notice how they avoid jamming in their own personal baggage into the movie.


  3. Daniel says:

    I myself think that Thor's the “surest thing” so far, then again we have seen a lot more of that and I'm a huge Kenneth Branagh fan.

    Anyway, I also like the new design although what I'm really aching to see is Red Skull. I kinda like the new Spider-Man suit, although I think the Raimi version is a tad better. I want this reboot to be good since I'm a huge fan of Ultimate Spider-Man, but every decision and announcement made just continually brings me down.


  4. Blue Highwind says:

    Honestly the only superhero movie next year that even has the slightest chance to be good is Captain America… and that's only because of Chris Evans. And even that is a stretch.

    Sorry, Superhero movies in general honestly just aren't that good.


  5. Sssonic says:

    Can you please, PLEASE just admit up front that you WANT to dislike this movie, Bob? PLEASE? I mean, I realize it flies well in the face of the “intellectual” image of yourself you try so hard to present, but you have admitted many a time that there are situations you are perfectly OK being unobjective about, like that real-life superhero fellow, so it's not like it would be new ground for you.

    More importantly, it would be a lot more honest than your continued bending over backwards to literally find reasons to dislike this movie. I'm even willing to set aside the absurd strawman notion that the ONLY reason people reacted poorly to “Spider-Man 3” was the dancing sequence (for the record? I honestly LOVED that sequence, and I STILL deem “Spider-Man 3” medicore at best, ESPECIALLY in comparison to the prior two Raimi films) if you'll just cop to it already.

    Because seriously? Bellyaching about this costume? When it looks almost IDENTICAL to the one they used in the Raimi films (which you have noted on more than one occasion as being one of the best transitions of comic-book costume to film costume)? Makes you seem childish. The fact that all you even REALLY manage to say in regards to a complaint is that the lack of a belt means the red portion of the costume is pointing at his junk, the kind of “der her” observation you lambast “jocks” and “douchebags” for pretty much all the time, makes it all the more pathetic. You NEEDED this costume to be underwhelming, ipso facto ANYTHING they showed you would've been “underwhelming”.

    And before the usual “why you gotta troll?” comments roll around, I want to make it clear that I honestly used to like Bob as a writer and critic; I didn't always agree, but I at least felt he came to his conclusions honestly. Over the course of the last few months, though, it's become increasingly apparent to me that this is not the case, and while I certainly don't HATE Bob or anything, I do find his output more annoying than it is enlightening these days. Shame, that.


  6. Display Name says:

    I like the fact that new Spider-Man has black webbing. It's something I hoped for with the reboot.

    I don't like the “Spider-Borat” look that you already pointed out.

    What I just find weird is the fact that the webbing looks as if it's getting smudged, like it got drawn on with marker.

    Also, Slashfilm pointed out that there's a slight raising by on his wrists, like he has web-shooters.


  7. Clayton says:

    Three words: WHY SO SERIOUS???????? Tick-tock on who the villain is gonna be.

    As for the Cap, it's fine. Cap America and Thor could be good, but I'm still shaky on The Avengers (and for good reasons)


  8. milanjeftic1992 says:

    I RELLY, RELLY LIKE IT! I mean the Rami’s costume version looked like it was put together by a firkin army of professional costume designers, it was awesome don’t get me wrong just…haw where we expected to believe that Peter could afford all that fancy material? Peter’s poor. This is just a swim suit spray painted red and blue, with the original web like grooves filed in with black maker pen. This in my opinion is quite realistic, it looks like it was made by some seventeen year old kid that had no money.


  9. Lucas Neumann says:

    The thing is, I find so HARD to care about Captain America, or the Avengers for that matter. And before the Iron Man movie, the only main avenger with some strong personality, most people didn't even know about the Avengers.
    Honestly, when Bob says amused things like “this is really happening” when mentioning the avengers, I just can't share the enthusiasm, so even if it his costume looks cool, to me doesn't say much. But I gotta to give Dave some points when he said it's bulky,seems pretty hard to fight in that thing.

    As for Sipder-Man, I never had a single problem with this reboot so far. I liked the firts movies except of couse by the third one. Andrew Garfield does strike more like Peter Parker than Tobey ever did, and so far, it's looks great.

    Now I just had a laugh here Bob. Did you really needed to “save” Raimi from the organic web-shooters. We get you like the guy, but that was just silly.


  10. Smashmatt202 says:

    The Captain America look, at first I was annoyed, but then decided to just accept it.

    The new Spider-man look, at first I was kind of “eh”, but at the same time, I didn't really like it. 😦


  11. Chris Cesarano says:

    @Popcorn Dave
    Spider Junk, Spider Junk,
    He's got radioactive Spider Spunk


    “ has a pretty good breakdown here. Note to bob: notice how they avoid jamming in their own personal baggage into the movie.”

    Because is a blog rather than a news source. Or are you confusing MovieBob as a news source instead of a blog? This is like criticizing The Daily Show and The Colbert Report for cracking jokes instead of just reporting the news.

    As for the outfits, I really, REALLY like Captain America's. All the original things I heard of this film made me cringing, with the impression that they were going to destroy Captain America somehow. What I'm seeing, though, is…well, it's got me tickled. I've seen no trailers or anything, but damn. I think Captain America has a better shot of gaining the Iron Man popularity/foothold than Thor.

    As for the new Spidey outfit, the only thing I don't like is the weird spider insignia being…malformed? Otherwise, it looks like a Spider-Man outfit.


  12. jameshayes says:


    I've been looking at the new spider suit, and I've noticed a few things re: the dick-arrow/belt conundrum.

    Note, by Garfield's left hip, the small sliver of red material. as far as I remember, there's no red colouring on the back of Spidey's suit except for his spider insignia and his belt.

    There also appears to be a band of darker blue material extending from this red sliver across Garfield's hips, almost exactly where Spider-Man's belt would be positioned.

    This gets me thinking, that, in combination with the cuts across the body and across Garfield's face, could indicate that a belt may have been torn off during combat, or otherwise removed from his body…?


  13. Dave says:

    @Chris. Not confused at all. The MTV site gave more information (after having actually LOOKED at the thing) and then made a fairly neutral description. If bob is going to complain about the mean people on the internet saying he wants to hate the movie, then maybe he should 1) not rely on his readers to point out shit he should have noticed….he does call himself the OVERTHINKER after all. 2) not go out of his way to find things wrong with something. The costume is EXTREMELY close to the comic look, and in some respects is closer than the raimi equivalent was. In any other case Bob would be all over that and you know it. But in this case he ignores that (you can almost feel him wondering if he can get away with bashing it for being TOO similar) to channel some latent homophobia by pointing out “Dude, it’s totally pointing at his Dick. GAYYYYY!!!!!!”


  14. Dave says:

    You know, an easy way to avoid people calling you on being prejudiced is to stop acting like you are. Just a thought. You don’t get to have it both ways. You get to say whatever you want and get hits….and the viewers get to comment. You don’t have any licence to complain when we call you on something you’ve been doing for months. Pick a side and stick with it. The reason we accuse you of wanting to hate this movie….is because you do. We know it, you know it. Hell, just 2 weeks ago you openly admitted to being ‘unkind’ to it (in one of those passive aggressive apologies that serve more as self aggrandizement than anything else). Here’s the thing. We aren’t going after you for not being kind to it. It’s a movie. It doesn’t need your kindness. The band name plus 3d will pretty much assure a decent box office. You don’t have any power to affect that. The only variable now is the quality. If the film is bad, then it doesn’t deserve kindness. If the film is good (though we’ll probably never hear it on this website) it doesn’t need kindness. We’re going after you for TRYING TO MAKE EVERYONE ELSE hate it.

    For all your intellectual pretence and bluster, you should at least have the self awareness to TRY and see things from a more neutral perspective (especially since if it sucks as much as you think it will, you’ll have plenty of time to gloat about it later.)
    I would be astounded if this wasn`t something any person who commented in this thread could do. So either start, or stop complaining when we mention what you are doing.

    Oh and it needed to be said again: the spider junk comment is pretty damn juvenile and more than a little homophobic. Coupled with the twilight comments you are really starting to give off a Patrick bateman vibe with this movie. Such comments would fit right in with the guys that were in the theatre when I saw watchmen who groaned loudly whenever doc manhattan was on screen. Nice company.


  15. Smashmatt202 says:

    Wow, Dave, that was very nicely put. I was kind of thinking th same thing myself. Ever since this was first announced, Bob has said nothing but unknind things about this movie because he somehow “knows” it's going to be bad. I kind of think the same thing, but the thing is, if Bob's supposed to be the open-minded overthinker, then he shouldn't be saying stuff like this.


  16. Daniel says:


    The thing about “biased” is that people only seem to notice it or to a higher degree, be offended by it when they disagree with the statement in general. If I remember correctly you didn't seem to care in the least when Bob ripped Monsters apart.

    Hell isn't calling Bob biased against the reboot calling the kettle black. You seem to have the same bias towards the Raimi films.


  17. Lucas Neumann says:

    @ Chris Cesarano

    The Spider insignia in his chest looks odd because it has claw marks on it if you look closely. It seems the Lizard did a pretty good number on Peter. I don't think it looks emo, looks like he's coming back from a fight from a freaking Lizard man and by the looks of it, he had his ass handed over to him.

    And man, if I were Bob, at this point, hell freaking YES I would pray to this movie to bomb. I mean, not only I would avoid being a wrong whinny douche, I would be able to say those delightful words “told ya, suck my overthinker junk!!”.

    Honestly, I don't know from where comes such hostility against this movie.

    The fact Raimi is not directing? The very guy already said he's over it and wished luck to the new crew. Yeah he got screwed, but he moved on, so should we, right?

    Fox wants to keeping cashing with the most popular superhero around, and not handing over to Marvel? Oh yeah they are evil for doing the… logical thing.

    So yeah, I would undestand if a personis not hyped to this movie, don't like the cast, belives the production will just treat this movie as a cash cow, won't do the other Spider-man movies justice, alright. But to nitpick stuff, like the spider belt and spider junk, just to make your point… whatever the hell was it, it's just lame dude.


  18. Dave says:


    I haven`t seen monsters or his review. Kindof hard to comment on either.

    I`m not suggesting he should be totally unbiased. That`s not possible. But there is a pretty thick line behind between having an opinion, and being dogmatic.

    My issue is that Bob warps and disregards details in order to suit the opinion he already has, and to try and force people into the same conclusions.

    Please don`t try to suggest that ALL opinions are equally valid no matter what the reasoning behind them is. Some are justified based on evidence. Some are not.

    Bob has approached this movie already convinced of how terrible it is. So when the cast is announced, they are too much like their characters. And when the lizard is announced, it is too classic. And when there`s an inkling of a 90s era villain, it is too 90s.


  19. Smashmatt202 says:

    90's villain? You mean Venom? I can understand why he doesn't like him because he's basically just a evil version of Spider-man with not much of a reason for being an enemy of Peter Parker or Spider-man… Or at leas Eddie Brock didn't have much of a reason.


  20. Chris Cesarano says:

    Considering MovieBob has come back to say “Well, I've been wrong…” about things before, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Hell, I only recently reconciled my decade-long hatred against Squenix a week ago (after enjoying Nier and Valkyrie Profile: Covenant of the Plume I realized that they're just too large a studio to hate everything they touch).

    Every critic, no matter how intelligent or rational, has their biases. MovieBob's is founded on the fact that this new Spider-Man film is being pushed by Producers rather than a creative vision. Think Batman Forever or Batman & Robin vs. Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. Or Hell, think X-Men 3 versus the first two. Once Hollywood Big Wigs get involved, it's about what they THINK will make big bucks, not about any genuinely excellent creative output.

    Second, anything that aims towards a more High School level of drama is going to be worrisome. Teenagers are stupid and their concerns are small. What did you care about when you were 16? What did you know? Certainly not what makes a good movie, and neither did I. Specifically saying that they want to go after Twilight's audience with the new Spider-Man creates a very cringe-inducing fear.

    My personal feelings on Spider-Man reboot? I'll give it the benefit of the doubt. It's too soon for a reboot, and I think audiences will be more confounded and possibly even skip out on it BECAUSE it is a reboot, but if it looks like it'll be good then I'll see it. Personally, I loved Raimi's first two Spider-Man films the first time I saw them, but now I go back and they are just dripping with cheese (which makes sense, considering this is Raimi we're talking about).

    But that's my opinion. I read MovieBob's opinion because he doesn't hate things for the sake of hating them, he has reasons. But like any critic (or geek for that matter), he may have trouble reconciling his biases when the time comes around. But if he's willing to say Michael Bay isn't a douchebag after all, well, I imagine he'd be willing to forgive the Spider-Man reboot for existing as long as it were good.


  21. jameshayes says:


    The early comics ARE set in high school, and Peter certainly faces rather high-school-like problems…. I mean, I understand that it seems worrysome and may not equal a good, intelligent, serious film….but the comics weren't intelligent or serious either! At least not early on. If they say theyre targeting the Twilight crowd, it makes perfect sense considering the comics started out appealing to the male equivalent of the Twilight crowd.


  22. The Dude says:

    If they wanted to take spider-man back to high school and make it more of a teenage angst thing (or whatever their going for), why don't they just make it spider-girl? What the movie studio is trying to d0 is pretty much exactly what was acomplished with spider-girl (starting over with little baggage from the previous series). Plus we get the added benefits of not pissing off fans of the Raimi films, but we get a character who (as far as I know) has never been seen outside of comics.



  23. The Dude says:

    @Popcorn Dave
    I'm not an expert on comic books, but I really like Spider-girl. What I liked most is it only required the bare minimum of Spider-Man knowledge to get into it, which is really good for me becasue I was alive in the 60's and didn't get a chance to read every single issue of spider man ever released. Also, she's not just a gender-swap, she's the daughter of Peter Parker and Mary Jane. It's a cool (if not completely original) dynamic of the next generation taking over for the previous one, and the resistance of the old generation to let it happen. Besides, it could work really great as a movie and dosn't have to disregard the previous films. We know who Peter Parker and Mary Jane are, and we know how the spider powers work. Plus, how cool would it be for a final showedown to have both Peter Parker and May (his daughter) fighting some super bad guy together? Even if its' not the most original concept ever, it's still better than just rebooting what we've already seen.



  24. CraftyAndy says:

    I don't understand the obsession of whether he have mechanical web shooters or not. It's better biologicly and avoids a “if you want artificial intensity have him run out of fluid here.” sort of thing. And mechanical web shooters is pretty stupid, why is it sooo damn important. Well anything less then Spiderman 2 quality will be a disappointment.


  25. Dave Kraft says:

    What Dave said.

    For what it's worth, the organic web shooters date back to the Spidey 2099 comics, if not before.

    Also, while Spidey 2 was my favorite of the movies, I didn't like the whole “losing his powers because of self-esteem issues” thing. I liked how they used a biological means of his powers crapping out instead of him simply running low on web cartridge fluid (made from saltines, btw, according to the ORIGINAL Spider-Man comics). I would've preferred if it was because he was continuously mutating, much like in the '90s cartoon and comics. That would've been a great setup for the Lizard in movie 3…….. until Sony screwed with Raimi's vision.


  26. Dave Kraft says:

    Ohhh, I forgot to mention…..

    The suit bothers me. Not just because it's a different design or because it looks like body paint with grid-like stitching instead of a “web” pattern….. not just because it's poorly-designed, either…..

    …. it bothers me from a marketing standpoint.

    Yeah, that's right. A MARKETING STANDPOINT.

    According to a Marvel editor I occasionally have dinner with on an infrequent basis, the reason Marvel keeps slapping Parker in all these new suits to make him all fresh instead of just giving him a break and letting someone else take over is because the wide general audience is familiar with Peter because of the movies. The films do have a way of advertising the very properties they are adapted from. The concern at Marvel is if they pulled another Ben Reilly (nothing to do with the Clone Saga….. just the idea of a totally different dude in a totally different costume….. it's an example…. ), members of the wide general audience would go “Who's this blonde guy? Where's Peter Parker?”

    After three films by Sam Raimi – who managed to make the classic Spidey costume actually WORK in live-action (a feat no one else has been able to successfully pull off, at least not nearly as well) – and on top of merchandising for those films for all these years thus far, you'd think the wide general audience would have a pretty damn good idea what Spider-Man looks like.

    To do a reboot and place him in an entirely new, totally-redesigned costume with only some resemblance to the classic look, after 3 movies, several games and loads of merchandising……

    ….. well, watch how the new costume will be entirely unmarketable, and as members of the wide general audience say “what happened to Spider-Man, and who's that emo kid in the red and blue gimp outfit?” (not necessarily in those words 😛 ).

    Thankfully this isn't an issue on the Marvel end; it's a Sony issue, as they own the film rights to Spidey (much like Fox still owns the film rights to X-Men). If Marvel had control of the film rights, things would be very different, but alas, Fox and Sony keep coming out with shitty movies for one reason and one reason only……

    …. so they can hold onto those film rights, as if they don't keep coming out with low-budget crap, the film rights default back to Marvel and presumably go to someone else, and that's a loss of potential profits for Fox and Sony.

    Can't quite say the same for GL though. DC has been owned by Warner Bros. since the '60s, so they don't have much of an excuse.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s