got their hands on the first poster for The Amazing Spider-Man sequel, and it might have fans more excited about the costume than ever before.

Gone is the basketball rubber mesh that we’ve seen before, replaced by something that is a lot smoother, and looks more like Spandex. There is texture to the costume, which will stand out when lit for the movie, and I really dig on the old-school eyes.


In The Amazing Spider-Man 2, Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) finds, life is busy – between taking out the bad guys as Spider-Man and spending time with the person he loves, Gwen (Emma Stone), high school graduation can’t come quickly enough. Peter hasn’t forgotten about the promise he made to Gwen’s father to protect her by staying away – but that’s a promise he just can’t keep. Things will change for Peter when a new villain, Electro (Jamie Foxx), emerges, an old friend, Harry Osborn (Dane DeHaan), returns, and Peter uncovers new clues about his past.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is in production now, and is scheduled to arrive in theaters on May 02, 2014.



About Author

Stephen Schleicher began his career writing for the Digital Media Online community of sites, including Digital Producer and Creative Mac covering all aspects of the digital content creation industry. He then moved on to consumer technology, and began the Coolness Roundup podcast. A writing fool, Stephen has freelanced for Sci-Fi Channel's Technology Blog, and Gizmodo. Still longing for the good ol' days, Stephen launched Major Spoilers in July 2006, because he is a glutton for punishment. You can follow him on Twitter @MajorSpoilers and tell him your darkest secrets...


  1. yup, that’s spider-man alright.

    i wonder if they’ll ever work the “adjustable width eyeholes” into the movie suit, to allow for more expressions when spidey’s got the mask on. i know some folks aren’t fans of that, but if they explain it away by saying the eyes can squint in order to focus/act as binoculars, or react in conjunction to the spider sense or something, that’d be fun to have spidey giving quizzical looks and whatnot.

    • The only way I could see that working is with CGI, and any scenario I envision it in, comes of as to comical. In a, breaking of the suspension of disbelief kind of way.

      • If they can get it to work without the use of CGI (maybe have the frame of the eyes stick to his brow and cheek or something and make sure the lenses are flexible), it would be fun to see. But yeah, not in CGI

          • I will fight you on this, Peterson!

            This point is one of the things that I must disagree with you on. Every time I hear you complain about this on the podcast I want to stand up and say “No, sir! It is the mark of an artist with an appreciation for expression and an understanding of the comic book medium! Wa-BAM!”

            Well, maybe not the ‘wa-bam’ part. Anyways, my point is that Spider-Man’s occasional ability to change the shape of his mask’s eyes for the purpose of expression is one of my favorite things about him. As an animation student, I love expressions. I’ve developed a strong appreciation for the usage of creative ways to have characters show their expression, even if it is through ways that aren’t physically possible and require the application of artistic license to pull off.

            I can respect that people have opinions either way, but once in a great while I must stand up for what I believe in! Even if it is against the great and powerful Peterson.

            TL;DR – Yo, don’t go dissin’ on the eye holes!

            • If there were, even ONCE, an explanation for it? I’d agree with you. But, since there are many artists who provide expression without cheating the eye holes, I maintain the right to be wrong in your eyes.. :)

          • Agreeing with Paderic there, its useful for making him more expressive, and is definitely an artistic choice more than anything.

          • The right to be wrong is indeed a beautiful thing. Not to worry, though. I still agree with you on more things than I do with Steven. Love you guys!

  2. I like the look but doesn’t this come dangerously close to the Raimi Spider-Man? Granted we can’t see the whole thing but from this picture they look mighty similar except for the eyes. For a movie that is trying to distance itself from the original three, this seems like a strange choice.

  3. Would that be such a bad thing if it were more like Rami? Aside from the action scenes, Spiderman 1-3 trumps the reboot. I can’t even stand to watch the first 40 minutes of the newest movie.

    Here’s a bombshell question, who would fit better in the Avengers team for a spiderman cameo? Andrew Garfield or Tobey Maguire?

    • Andrew, Definitely. I like Tobey Maguire, but as a lifelong fan of the character, Andrew Garfield hit the mark much closer than he did. He was far more sarcastic, made far more jokes, and was far more emotive and actually felt like a real person you could relate to.

      On the matter of OldVNew, I’d say I proffer the new one, for a few reasons. As well as the character being closer, I proffer the depiction of Flash, and the fact that the women actually do something besides being saved. Though, I must admit, I do proffer Willem Defoe’s Green Goblin.

      But, to each his own.

      • I might have to disagree with you here Liam. While Garfield might hit the mark as Spidey, I though Toby made for a better Peter. At least for me, the essence of the character has always been that Charlie Brown feel of the lovable and responsible loser who can’t catch a break, but struggles on anyway. And Maguire captured that better for me. And for superhero movies, the long standing rule for success is you cast for the secret identity, not the voice in the mask.

        • No worries though I personally thought Garfield did a better Peter though. Honestly, Maguire’s Peter was too held back and too timid. While Peter was shy in the earlier comics, painfully so in fact, Peter, for most of his publication is more along the lines of how Garfield portrayed him; while very socially awkward, he’s not a stereotypical geek and is more along the lines of the average teenager. I dunno, have to agree to disagree there.

          • I did not like Garfield’s Peter Parker, but I can’t say it was his fault. The dialogue was terrible. I think having to work with that script, he did the best he could and maybe the best he could to what the director wanted. I don’t know, I wasn’t there, but in the movie, he just came across as some kind of stuttering, fidgety punk.

            I think the McGuire Peter Parker in the Avengers would be a little more fish out of water kind of addition to a group of huge egos.

            I’m hoping the second is less of a teen-angst coming of age John Hughes movie. Cautiously optimistic.

Leave A Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.