Matt Freeman seems to think that there really is a new Spiderman, the way that the New York Times seems to think there is. The way he puts it:
If the painting that you are intending to review was previously painted by a different painter, you should still give the new painter the same amount of time that you gave the painter of the original painting. Even if you already paid to see the incomplete painting of a different painter with the same title hung in the same gallery, using largely the same imagery, you shouldn't think twice about paying for another ticket to see the new painting based on the old one, painted by a different painter, using largely the same imagery, with the same title.Me? I'm skeptical that the new Spiderman is going to be a new painting, or if it's simply going to be a hasty photoshopping of the original painting. Think about how long the first Spiderman was in production before it actually started previews... they're not giving nearly the amount of time as "the first painter" before they share it with the audience, at which point it will be mostly done... until they shut it down for another weekend to create "Spiderman 3.0," thus driving people to "see Spiderman 2.0 before it's gone!" and forcing reviewers back into the theater to write another cruel and angry review like this one:
[A]lthough it is in previews, the problems with it are fundamental to its conception and largely unfixable.