Spider-Man 4 Scrapped, Franchise Reboot Planned 536
derGoldstein writes "Yesterday we discussed which sci-fi should get the reboot treatment next. If you consider Spider-Man as 'proper sci-fi,' then it would appear that's the answer. 'Sony Pictures decided today to reboot the Spider-Man franchise after Sam Raimi pulled out of Spider-Man 4 because he felt he couldn't make its summer release date and keep the film's creative integrity. This means that Raimi and the cast including star Tobey Maguire are out. There will be no Spider-Man 4. Instead, the studio will focus on a reboot script by Jamie Vanderbilt with a new director and a new cast.'"
Perhaps Raimi is too busy working on other projects.
Too soon. (Score:2, Interesting)
You Have No Idea (Score:5, Interesting)
Perhaps Raimi is too busy working on other projects.
Now, keep in mind that directors often have multiple projects that are in some form of production -- either stalled or pending development or in full swing -- but Raimi's up there with the busiest. If you consider him as both a producer and director (from IMDB [imdb.com]):
In Development: 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, The Shadow, The Familiars, Anguish, Untitled Sam Raimi Project, The Substitute, Sleeper, Evil Dead IV, Panic Attack, ArchEnemies, No Man's Land, The Transplants, Just Another Love Story, Burst 3D, Refuge, Monkey's Paw, The Given Day, The Dorm, Monster Zoo, The Wee Free Men and "The Taking"
And for what he's actually got in production includes The Evil Dead (2010), Dibbuk Box (2010), Warcraft (2011) and Priest (2010) where he's directing Warcraft and The Evil Dead -- two movies in sequential years. Yeah, I'd say he's staring down a rather full plate. I wish he would tackle some more original movies though like he did with Drag Me to Hell last year even though it wasn't the greatest, I'd rather see some originality and am happy he's washing his hands of a series that's run its course. But of course Sony wants to milk that cash cow ...
Re:Too soon. (Score:4, Interesting)
It's sad, but you're mostly right. It's like TV shows have transferred to the big screen. Movies are now pretty much episodic content.
Re:Too soon. (Score:5, Interesting)
If you went in with low expectations, there some sequences where you could have fun. However, I can't imagine wanting to watch it a second time.
What bothered me more than the way Venom was handled, and the odd jazz sequences was how Harry knew and wanted to kill Peter, but waited for no good reason. Then he picks a random moment to try and kill Peter. They fight, and Harry develops amensia. Then at the end of the film, with no reasoning at all, the amnesia disappears and Harry wants to fight Peter again. Then, at the end the family butler comes out and says "I happen to know your father died by his own hands, but I've waited all this years and allowed you to foster notions of revenge that tore apart your friendship. I hope you don't mind that I waited several years to speak up."
Kevin Smith talks about how Hollywood demands big fights and action sequences in certain portions of the script, whether they make sense or not. I'm pretty sure they screwed the entire Harry storyline just to try and keep the standard formula of action pacing.
Note, this is the same terrible writer that Sony is keeping instead of keeping Raimi, Macguire, etc.
Re:Reboot how? (Score:3, Interesting)
The comic reboots all the time with ret-con. It is part of the reason I don't collect comics. Color me crazy, but I want a story that I can read from beginning to end, that will form a coherent arc. Both TV and comics are mediums where you are intersted in getting to the next issue. Usually, people aren't intersted in telling a complete story.
Re:Thank you... (Score:2, Interesting)
Look, the owners want the billions in toy sales and McDonald's cups. The people in charge of the almost incidental film creation couldn't make it. The money lost delaying those toy sales a year is worth more than the profits of a hit.
Re:Reboot how? (Score:4, Interesting)
Easily explained by the spider bite giving him some kind of insight that the scientists don't have.
Hey, if he can sense the immediate future and climb on walls why not?
Re:Reboot how? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm one of the few that rather liked the last Superman film. The major problem was a lack of action, and a ridiculous plot hole at the end (landing on the kryptonite land mass nearly killed him, but later he can lift a giant kryptonite continent with no problems).
I think Singer absolutely loves Superman, and did the character justice. He is a giant boy scout who feels ultimately alone. Superman's weaknesses extend past Kryptonite. Superman's powers can't help with Louis leaving him. But in having a kid, he suddenly doesn't feel as alone.
The Donner Superman films dealt with Marlon Brando saying goodbye to his son, who he sends to Earth. I thought Singer's Superman did a good job of integrating Brando's father/son arc.
People forget but Singer's first X-Men film didn't have good action. The second was CONSIDERABLY better. I would have liked to see Singer get a second shot at Superman.
Re:...why? (Score:3, Interesting)
Hulk was never really about mass destruction,as awesome as it is to watch, but his inner conflict.
Strangely that's why I much prefer the recent Ed Norton film. I didn't see any inner conflict in the first one. For a guy who is supposed to be full of barely suppressed rage and constantly wrestling with inner demons, Eric Bana's Bruce Banner sure looked placid. It was like his solution to the whole Hulking-out problem was lots and lots of Valium. Even when being provoked into becoming the Hulk, he didn't look like he was actually upset until he was big and green. Norton's Bruce Banner on the other hand was shown to actually have the emotion of anger, and to have to fight to suppress it and keep himself calm.
Here's why Raimi walked... (Score:5, Interesting)
The studio told Raimi he didn't need an expensive star like Hathaway in that role, and they didn't want Malkovich and they didn't like the Vulture as the bad guy at all.
Now consider how Raimi has approached bad guys so far. Doc Ock? He was a good scientist, distraught over his wife's death, and the tenatcles took over his mind. Harry Osborn? Tormented by his father, instead of becoming the Hobgoblin he turns back to good. The Sandman? Just a father trying to redeem himself to his family.
Even Dafoe as the Green Goblin was obviously mentally ill. He was mad/evil, yes, but almost sympathetic. He really did get his company taken away by the corporate board, it really was all his genius, and the military was choosing an inferior technology due to politics. In some respects, he was kind of justified to get that pissed off.
Now imagine how Malkovich's Vulture would have come off? Probably just a sex freak with Anne Hathaway as the Vultress. Maybe he's bad because he was abused as a child. Maybe his mind was taken over by a Hippie played by John Cusack. So many possibilities.
In any case, it would have probably been the most way out there movie, really for the hardcore comic crowd and probably would have totally lost the under 21 crowd.
Re:Reboot how? (Score:3, Interesting)
The best take I've seen on Kryptonite is the early Byrne take.
Superman is really a world class telekinetic (and general psionic*) and his problems with Kryptonite are mostly mental. Thus when he really has to, he can react differently to Kryptonite.
Alternatively, the continent was synthetic Kryptonite and differed in some crucial way from real Kryptonite.
If you think about lifting a continent without it breaking apart, the telekinetic angle looks better and better.
*
Superstrength, flight, invulnerability- TK.
Heat/Cold breath, pyrokinesis.
X-Ray Vision: Clairvoyance.
Superhearing: Clairaudience.
Why I hate reboots. . . (Score:5, Interesting)
While it's true that, sometimes, a character idea needs a reboot, there is a *reason* I hate reboots. . .
I hate having to slog through essentially the same story again. I want *new* stories. Not the same basic Spiderman, Superman, or Batman story 'remixed'.
The recent Star Trek 'reboot' was nice in that, at least, they basically presented a brand new story. If companies insist on rebooting things, I hope they realize they don't have to take us back through the same 2 or 3 *tired* stories all over again. I really don't care if I never see another Batman movie which has The Catwoman, The Joker, or The Penguin, ever again. I want *other* Batman stories.
Re:Amazing how bond could go 30+ years (Score:4, Interesting)
Don't forget that it threw in 300% more "edgy", and made Bond into a cheap action hero. They completely ditched the feel and spirit of the series. The only thing that made it a Bond film was the character names (and the fact it was loosely based on an Ian Flemming Bond novel).
The original Bond movies were fun, and fun is something that modern Hollywood cannot abide by. Same with Batman, they sucked all the fun out of them, and made them into straight action movies, and added around 500% more edgy.
I'm sick to death of edgy. I hate angst, I cannot stand dark brooding morons. I thought we moved beyond that since it was the trend du jour of the 90's. Also Hollywood forgot that you can make a violent action movie, and keep it fun.
Re:Reboot how? (Score:3, Interesting)
I found the last Superman incredibly dull. It wasn't the actors, who did a reasonably good job (Kevin Spacey did a good turn as Lex), it was just a dull film.
I recently rewatched Superman I and watched the Donner cut of Superman II, and I have to say they were infinitely better paced films than the last one (I won't even discuss III or IV, talk about milking a franchise into the dirt).
The first one is still one of the best superhero films ever made, and the villains in Superman II still kick serious ass. General Zod is one scary f***ing dude. The Donner cut is a lot better because the scenes with Brando are far more poignant than the Lester version.
Re:you are only announcing your irrelevancy (Score:3, Interesting)
Populism is a race to the bottom, Idiocracy style. If you as an artist don't rise, even slightly, above what your audience expects, then your audience will never learn to appreciate greater things. As an artist, neither pander to your audience nor talk over them, but lead them to greater things.
But we aren't talking about artists, are we? We're talking about corporate products produced by blank faced clones with all creativity squashed out of them.
Re:Reboot how? (Score:3, Interesting)
According to this article [wikipedia.org], the Zebra tarantula has spinnerets on their feet, so maybe the spider that bit Peter was derived from one of those.
Re:Too soon. (Score:4, Interesting)
I vaguely remember reading that Sam Raimi did not want to include Venom in the movie at all, because he was more interested in the other aspects of Spiderman 3. However, the executives thought that Venom would make the movie more profitable, so they forced Raimi to include that plot.
Apparently, Spiderman 3 makes a lot more sense if you just cut out the parts with Venom. Not that that makes me want to watch it again.
Re:Amazing how bond could go 30+ years (Score:2, Interesting)
As someone else pointed out above, Casino Royale was closer to the Ian Flemming novel than nearly any other Bond movie.
As a big fan of the original books, I've been thinking for years that they should reboot the Bond movie franchise, and start making them faithful to the original books - including the setting. I'd love to see a series of Bond films set in the 1950's cold war.
For those that haven't read it, Moonraker deals with the early development of the ICBM.