Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Sci-Fi Entertainment

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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Spider-Man 4 Scrapped, Franchise Reboot Planned

Comments Filter:
  • How would they reboot it? I mean the first movie kinda takes care of the back story.

    • Re:Reboot how? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Rhaban ( 987410 ) on Tuesday January 12, 2010 @12:05PM (#30738158)

      reboot to match todays youth preferences: think twilight in 3d.

      • Re:Reboot how? (Score:5, Informative)

        by navygeek ( 1044768 ) on Tuesday January 12, 2010 @12:15PM (#30738344)
        I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened.
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by JWW ( 79176 )

        Dang, I have mod points, but I just can seem to find the +1 Scary mod.....

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      ah, finally. What all fans have been waiting for since the first spider man... MECHANICAL WEBSHOOTERS!
      • That bugged me a bit as well with the spider-man movies. The web shooters issues are a issue in the comics and should have been left in for the movies. The web shooters failing/not working correctly can be funny/tragic and add to the movie like they do in the comics.

        • Re:Reboot how? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by nomadic ( 141991 ) <> on Tuesday January 12, 2010 @12:31PM (#30738616) Homepage
          That bugged me a bit as well with the spider-man movies. The web shooters issues are a issue in the comics and should have been left in for the movies. The web shooters failing/not working correctly can be funny/tragic and add to the movie like they do in the comics.

          That would be way too implausible, even for the Spider-Man movies; a high school kid develops something that material scientists would take years to create in a high-tech lab if they could at all?
          • Re:Reboot how? (Score:4, Interesting)

            by ArsonSmith ( 13997 ) on Tuesday January 12, 2010 @12:37PM (#30738728) Journal

            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:4, Informative)

            by Xeno man ( 1614779 ) on Tuesday January 12, 2010 @02:04PM (#30740210)
            This has been explained many different ways in how Parker gets his web shooters. In some versions Parker is really smart and develops them him self, in others he not as smart but the spider bite leaves something in him that helps him develop them. In another version the shooters were developed by his father just before he died and Parkers new spider senses led him to modify them to shoot webs. Internalizing the web shooters was always explained as time saving sacrifice. It was just easier to spend 2 minuets having Parker discovering this ability and using it opposed to spending 20 minuets showing him designing and building web shooters and explaining why he decided to make them and how he even could. I've personally always enjoyed the physical aspect of the web shooters, either the drama of any empty shooter at the wrong time or watching spidey mixing a new formula to make his webs stronger or more elastic. A favorite is from the original cartoon when Spider-man adds asbestos to his webbing.I can't remember why but it was to either make it fire proof or electrically non conductive. Spider-man, giving the villains cancer one web at a time.
        • Re:Reboot how? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by schon ( 31600 ) on Tuesday January 12, 2010 @12:58PM (#30739122)

          It goes deeper than that.

          Removal of mechanical web shooters (and Peter's bug/trackers that key to his "spider sense") are examples of the shift of Spider Man's portrayal of science as a neutral force used by both good and evil, to an evil corrupting influence that only those of exceptional character can withstand.

          In the comics (and 60's TV show) Peter is a budding scientist that becomes a superhero. His foes that use science/technology are already well on the path to "evil" long before they encounter the circumstances that turn them into supervillains. Science is portrayed as a neutral force that can be harnessed by good and evil alike.

          In the movies, Peter is just a "nerd" who gets corrupted by science, and it's only by indirectly causing the death of his uncle that he gains the moral character to overcome the corrupting influence of science and become a force for good - although it's a battle he has to wage constantly. His foes? They are all good-natured individuals that become evil only because of the corrupting influence of science. Some are able to eventually fight the evil of science and become good again, and prove they are good by sacrificing themselves at the last minute.

          I sincerely hope that any "reboot" of the series will bring back the tone of the comics.

          • by clone53421 ( 1310749 ) on Tuesday January 12, 2010 @01:02PM (#30739198) Journal

            I sincerely hope that any "reboot" of the series will bring back the tone of the comics.

            Don’t let James Cameron direct it.

          • "Power corrupts... []". The sentiment is not new; its consequences have been the subject of stories for literally thousands of years. The notion of someone struggling with the consequences of having gained power is certainly not new.

            It is only in the last hundred years or so that science has been perceived as a source of such power. As far as such stories are concerned, it has no meaningful distinction from political power, religious power, an aristocratic title, or a gun. All are effectively neutral in an

      • Re:Reboot how? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by CrackedButter ( 646746 ) on Tuesday January 12, 2010 @01:11PM (#30739354) Homepage Journal
        What bugged me more was people's reaction to the lack of mechanical webshooters from the new movies. Since he was bitten by a spider what's wrong with acquiring it as a power in the movies. I'm a pedantic person but this detail is so minor that I don't understand why people care so much.
    • Re:Reboot how? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by happy_place ( 632005 ) on Tuesday January 12, 2010 @12:16PM (#30738360) Homepage
      Typically, a hollywood reboot means, "Grittier and darker". Realistic violence and a strong adult theme. Peter Parker can't just be tormented by his parent's death and angst ridden/repressed by Mary Jane's repeated attempts to ignore him, he must be really conflicted--perhaps they'll have him kill Aunt May. Also, Toby MacGuire is just too nice. They need an actor who looks like he kills babies and stomps on puppies to play Peter Parker. (eyes-rolling)...
      • by Talderas ( 1212466 ) on Tuesday January 12, 2010 @12:24PM (#30738510)

        Mel Gibson?

      • by Pojut ( 1027544 )

        Completely off topic.

        Dude, your drawing style is awesome. I'm gonna pick up one or two of your books, my fiance loves stuff like this:-)

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Enderandrew ( 866215 )

        Warner Brothers flat out said the next Superman needed to be dark and mimic The Dark Knight. Apparently they can't grasp that Superman and Batman are different characters.

        Robert Pattison (or whatever that Twilight actor's name) is likely the next, emo, brooding, dark Peter Parker.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by happy_place ( 632005 )
          Heh. Too true. Emo and vampires fits kid fantasies these days... As if they could screw up Superman any worse than they did with the last movie? Well, leave it to the WB to give it a go. Every comic character must have a dark psychoses, just brooding angst upon layer of angry rage. That's the generation we live in, the angry children, victims of their parent's success, because they couldn't pull more than a D in English so mom took the I-pod and cut off their internet connection. I can't wait for Marvel t
          • Re:Reboot how? (Score:5, Interesting)

            by Enderandrew ( 866215 ) <enderandrew AT gmail DOT com> on Tuesday January 12, 2010 @12:45PM (#30738906) Homepage Journal

            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: (Score:3, Interesting)

              by Maxo-Texas ( 864189 )

              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- T

              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                by Enderandrew ( 866215 )

                Not to mention, Supes never lifts anything with TK once that I've seen. And if his powers were purely mental and simply believing in them, then he wouldn't be powered by the sun.

            • Re: (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.

    • Re:Reboot how? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by spun ( 1352 ) <loverevolutionar ... m ['oo.' in gap]> on Tuesday January 12, 2010 @12:18PM (#30738390) Journal

      'Reboot,' in Hollywood-speak, means "Forget cannon. Forget the comics. Forget everything. Get a focus group of our target demographic and ask them what they want. Get a committee of corporate hack writers to write what's going to sell." Hollywood is lazy and incredibly risk-averse. They do not create art, they create vapid, bland, and safe pablum for the masses. They take art, and turn it into raw sewage. The occasional good movie that slips out is an anomaly. They will then take that rare good movie and turn it into raw sewage in sequels. Hollywood wants to create the sure thing, the thing that everyone will pay to see. They don't want to take risks on stories no one's heard of before, so the will continue raping the corpse of any successful franchise until the fans turn away in horror. Then they will 'reboot' its desecrated corpse.

      • In this case, if they can manage to forget whatever it was that induced them to create the awfulness that was Spider-Man 3, they might actually have a chance at producing something halfway decent...

        • by spun ( 1352 ) <loverevolutionar ... m ['oo.' in gap]> on Tuesday January 12, 2010 @12:35PM (#30738692) Journal

          How much do you want to bet that Spiderman is going to be a broody, angsty teen who sparkles. He won't have been bitten by a radioactive spider, he will come from an ancient race of spider-men, and he is the true heir to the spider throne. Mary Jane will be some sort of mystical, prophesied Queen of the Spiders. There will, of course, be two breeds of spider-men, the web-spinners and the wolf-spiders, the first for pre-teen girls who like safe, clean looking guys, the second for pre-teen girls who like their guys scraggly and dangerous looking.

          Oh God, excuse me, I think I've just made myself sick.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Enderandrew ( 866215 )

        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: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by PitaBred ( 632671 )

          It's one of the reasons I enjoy anime TV series and manga. Many times they have a single story, they tell it, and it's over. Just look at things like Cowboy Bebop, Full Metal Alchemist, etc.

      • Re:Reboot how? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Sockatume ( 732728 ) on Tuesday January 12, 2010 @12:38PM (#30738760)

        God forbid they breach the cannon of Spider-Man.

        "Reboot" means what it means, no more, no less. The last comic-book reboot was Batman Begins, a full-hearted plunge into the spirit and fiction of the original that terminated an increasingly lost and bewildered series of films.

      • i agree with every single one of your points, and yet fail to find what the problem is. we're talking about ENTERTAINMENT. empty, pointless, useless, entertainment. of course, with that statement i am precluding the possibility of something transformational. the original star wars, for instance, is a silly space opera, and yet, including for me, its been a source of much love and awe

        however, as it has degraded into a weekly animation on the cartoon network with a IM-speak trash talking teenage padawan, i find i can't hold that against lucas, not even his 3 prequels. why?

        because nothing lasts forever. you fall in love with something, and it changes. there's no way around this. getting frustrated about this fact of life will not change this fact of life

        a lot of fan boys need to come to grips with the fact that nothing lasts forever, that everything degrades in quality over time, and that's just the way it is, and always will be

        and that hollywood, milking the cow, rebooting a desecrated corpse, is business as usual, and always will be. you need to move on and find love for some other scifi franchise when your much loved series jumps the shark. railing against the world when that happens is just pointless sour grapes and wasted effort on your part

        stop hating hollywood. just realize what is inevitable in this world and realize when it is time to move on

  • Too soon. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by potscott ( 539666 )
    They should probably leave well enough alone at this point. I personally don't want to go see *another* Spider Man movie, reboot or sequel, for a while. By while I mean years.
    • Problem is: (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Mongoose Disciple ( 722373 ) on Tuesday January 12, 2010 @12:06PM (#30738184)

      They can't wait years, or the rights revert to Marvel (Disney). They'd rather crank out anything to keep them.

      • Expect to see a lot of this in the coming years. The money from these franchises is just too sweet a pie. As long as the current studios vomit out a new film every few years they keep the property out of the Mouse's hands.

    • It's a franchise, they can't not have a new one. That's how Hollywood works now: yearly installments of something that's proven to be successful, with three-move reboots to relaunch the franchise and introduce it to new customers when the current viewership grows out of it.

    • Am I the only one that liked Spiderman 3?

      • Yes.

      • I understand there are two teenage boys in Kazakhstan who loved it.

      • Re:Too soon. (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Enderandrew ( 866215 ) <enderandrew AT gmail DOT com> on Tuesday January 12, 2010 @12:29PM (#30738596) Homepage Journal

        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.

        • by Chris Burke ( 6130 ) on Tuesday January 12, 2010 @01:40PM (#30739822) Homepage

          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."

          So basically the butler manipulated Harry by withholding that information. And thus the true villain of the Spiderman trilogy is revealed. I bet he was the one who convinced Harry's dad it was a good idea to take his super-soldier serum. Everyone always underestimates... The Butler!

        • Re:Too soon. (Score:4, Interesting)

          by IICV ( 652597 ) on Tuesday January 12, 2010 @03:18PM (#30741366)

          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.

      • by hitmark ( 640295 )

        "new goblin" had some level of appeal, but beyond that, meh...

  • There's something slightly disturbing about have 50 years of source material, most of it better than anything Hollywood has done with their superhero licenses, going unused and instead choosing to "reboot" a perfectly good series. If the Spider-man franchise had planned ahead, they could have inserted the Jean DeWolfe (it's been a looooong time since I read this series and I may have the spelling wrong) character -- a New York detective, pretty and likeable enough but a bit rough and tumble who has a sligh

  • You Have No Idea (Score:5, Interesting)

    by eldavojohn ( 898314 ) * <eldavojohn AT gmail DOT com> on Tuesday January 12, 2010 @12:05PM (#30738172) Journal

    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 []):

    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 ...

  • ...why? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Shadowruni ( 929010 )
    I think we could forgive them for the 3rd movie since the 2nd one rocked so hard.

    It's rather annoying that so many franchises and movies are getting the reboot/rewrite treatment. It's almost like Hollywood is afraid that most multimillon dollar investments won't turn a buck.


    BTW, I thought the Batman reboot was needed but am not ashamed to say I loved the first hulk (Eric Bana not Nick Cage). Hulk was never really about mass destruction,as awesome as it is to watch, but his inner conflict.

    • I think we could forgive them for the 3rd movie ...

      Sadly, no. There is NO forgiving that ridiculous Jazz Sequence.

      I am not surprised that the rest of this movie series was scrapped. I think it really was the best thing for it. As for a reboot, I'll have to see who the new Director and Cast are, but like someone said above, I think its just a little too soon.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by navygeek ( 1044768 )
      What Nick Cage Hulk movie are you referring to? I think you mean the Ed Norton one.
      • by VShael ( 62735 )

        Your brain may be trying to protect itself, by forcing you to forget the Ang Lee movie, where Nick Nolte played the abusive father of Bruce Banner.

        I believe the parent poster just had a brain fart, and typed Nic Cage by mistake.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      The Batman reboot was probably the most successful I've ever seen. Mind you, each time they make a sequel, they risk screwing the pooch. Spiderman 3 was certainly the weakest of the three, but still, I didn't think it was that bad, but who knows, Spiderman 4 might have been a gawdawful mess. I have the same fears for Batman, which took a franchise that had been completely fucked up from the moment they picked Michael Keaton to play Bruce Wayne/Batman, and had only gone down hill from there, and transform

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Chris Burke ( 6130 )

      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

  • by Maxo-Texas ( 864189 ) on Tuesday January 12, 2010 @12:12PM (#30738298)

    and these days they make it about 9.

    I think it is partially the fact that they are using very young actors.

    Of course, part of that is the comic book universe's problem.

    Spider man was 18-26 for 40 years. In "reality", spider man in the comics should be in his late 60's.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by MMC Monster ( 602931 )

      Yeah. The problem is that if they had comic book characters age appropriately, it would destroy the storylines. An arc that takes 2 years would not be possible in a comic involving a teenager. Gaps between arcs are a bit better.

      For more info, see the disaster behind Marvel's New Universe from the mid 80s. Having a month of real time between issues killed the entire line of comic books.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by mbourgon ( 186257 )

      The real problem has nothing to do with the actors. It's everything to do with Raimi wanting one movie, and the studio wanting a different movie. They want to make sure their cash cow is adequately milked, whereas Raimi wants good milk. Spidey 1 & 2 worked well, though apparently the whole Venom arc in 3 was put in at the insistence of the studio. Raimi, not liking that, did a half-assed job anyhow.

      This time around, he said "I want to do X" they said "No, you'll do Y", he said "no" and they started

  • I think the industry is starting to use the term "reboot" in place of "screw-up." There is no reason to reboot something recently made and still successful. Remaking the first Spider Man movie would be dull.

    I know, let's reboot Avatar!

  • I was somewhat interested in the direction that Rami was going in for #4. I'd heard talk of The Vulture [] played by perhaps John Malkovitch, and the Movie appearance of Black Cat []. Might have been good. However the writing was on the wall with #3, the studio had too much of a say in the process and the end result suffered. Rami is a talented guy and I'm sure one of his upcoming projects is going to be a hit. The future of the Spiderman franchise is not so certain.

  • Maybe now they'll replace that lame choice for Mary Jane with some hot babe who can pull off that whole "Face it, Tiger, you just hit the jackpot" scene (Pete's first blind date with MJ) from the early Spiderman comics. Yowza!

  • spiderman (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jollyreaper ( 513215 ) on Tuesday January 12, 2010 @12:23PM (#30738484)

    The first one wasn't bad, it just wasn't great. Worst casting choice was who they got to play Peter Parker. He's not a complicated character! He's a science nerd, yes. He's smart. He's also helplessly introverted. The introduction of the spiderman character to his life creates an alter ego. And this is where he cuts loose, being the irreverent, humorous wall-crawler of page and screen. That Toby McGuire guy could do mumbly and introverted but nothing else. This is not complex storytelling, folks. This is basic heroic mythmaking that goes all the way back to the paleolithic campfire. Hero good. Bad guy bad, but maybe have a beef we could sympathize with. Hero has a girl and he gets her in the end. And given the nature of the character, there should be plenty of laughs.

    And for the sequels, all the stuff that was bad about the first movie was expanded upon. Spiderman 3 approached epic awful comic book movie status. Bad for the franchise but great for rifftrax.

    The recent Iron Man movie was an example of how to do this. Perfectly crafted popcorn fare. Great characters, great lines, good 'splosions. Hope they don't screw the next one up.

    Oh, and one quibble. So the Goblin guy from the first film had a super-serum and so became super-human. He can trade punches with super-human people because he's super-durable. I can buy that. Same goes for Goblin jr. But Doc Oc, he's just a dude with creepy robot arms. Even if those robot arms can kick eight kinds of ass, the guy they're attached to is still a flabby middle-aged science guy. Our friendly neighborhood spiderman is super-strong and a punch from him should cause disfiguring if not immediately fatal injuries. The guy's strong enough to hold up a frickin' cable car. His punch should be like from that freeway accident in Final Destination, where the log truck drops its load and this guy looks up just in time to see a 20 foot log come flying right through his windshield. We're talking a punch from a super-human should cause the head to shatter like a melon dropped from a six story building, a red mist everywhere, the now mostly headless body dropping while blood goes squirting everywhere. Ok, so that would completely screw the PG-13 rating but c'mon, seeing a podgy scientist shrug off those punches makes spiderman look lamer than Toby himself is managing.

  • by Enderandrew ( 866215 ) <enderandrew AT gmail DOT com> on Tuesday January 12, 2010 @12:24PM (#30738508) Homepage Journal

    Each film made near a billion dollars. Raimi fought with the studios over the script for 3, which was terrible. So now the studio is forcing the same writer for 4, and gave him a contract to write future Spider-man movies as well. Let's keep the guy who wrote a TERRIBLE script, and punish a much-loved and successful director.

    As Kevin Smith said, in Hollywood, you fail upwards.

    I'm not suggesting that everything Raimi did was perfect, but when Spider-man 2 was released, many hailed it as the best superhero film of all time.

  • TFS: "If you consider Spider-Man as 'proper sci-fi,'"

    IMHO, it is hard to imagine this as 'Fantasy', but 'Sci-Fi"? Perhaps it is the best they scrap #4 altogether.

  • I'm thinking that we could have Spiderman 4 - The Revenge.

    Then we could have Spiderman 5 - The Final Frontier.

    Of course, Spiderman VI - Jason Lives, will be a little scary.

    That could be the final movie.
  • "Reboot" (Score:2, Funny)

    by LoudMusic ( 199347 )

    I don't know if this is proper use of the term or not, and frankly I don't care. It's really fucking annoying and I wish people would stop using "reboot" in a non-shutdown-a-computer-OS-and-start-it-up-again" sense. This use of the word makes me want to stab someone in the eye. [] []|en&q=reboot&hl=en

    In order to REboot a production it must be booted in the first place, correct? So I've booted my slashdot comm

  • Hollywood (Score:5, Funny)

    by Dunbal ( 464142 ) on Tuesday January 12, 2010 @12:35PM (#30738704)

    Will blame this on piracy in 5, 4, 3, 2...

  • by ultraexactzz ( 546422 ) on Tuesday January 12, 2010 @12:37PM (#30738738) Journal
    I'm more worried about JK Simmons! Who else could be as perfect a J Jonah Jameson?
  • by paiute ( 550198 ) on Tuesday January 12, 2010 @12:44PM (#30738880)

    Spiderman, Spiderman
    Agent told him it was in the can.
    But the suits missed the scoop
    Now his Raimi has flown the coop
    Lookout! There goes your Spiderman!

  • by GPLDAN ( 732269 ) on Tuesday January 12, 2010 @12:47PM (#30738940)
    If you read into these articles, Raimi walked because the studio wouldn't go along with the Vulture story, and specifically Raimi wanted John Malkovich to play the Vulture. And he wanted Anne Hathaway to be the Vultress. I am not making this up.

    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.
    • by canajin56 ( 660655 ) on Tuesday January 12, 2010 @01:52PM (#30740022)
      Almost all of those are the same as they were in the comics, though. It's not like Raimi decided to make them all psychologically damaged. Well, the Sandman in the comics was just a criminal because it's what he was good at. It's very common in comics, really. You have two kinds of villains: Criminals, and crazies. Criminals are just criminals, they want cash, and they use their newfound superpowers to get it. Or they don't even have powers, they just have cunning plans and gadgets. Then you have the crazy ones. Their powers made them nuts, if they weren't already. They're the ones you see with the "blow up the city" evil schemes. They're evil for evil's sake. But nobody is just pure evil, without being nuts. Look at Batman, too. Almost every batman villain is crazy, that's why they get sent to an insane asylum, not prison. And even the criminals, most of them are driven to crime by some sob story or other, in the comics. The Vulture, he got screwed by his business partner. The Penguin, he was picked on for being ugly and looking like a bird (Penguin because he wears a tux). A sympathetic villain is hardly something Raimi invented. It's just because, a person who wants to blow up the city is a shitty villain if his only reason is "I'M EVIL LOL". So pretty much, he's got to be nuts. Or, his evil plot is just Diehard subterfuge, distract the hero(es) with a bogus terror plot so you can pull a heist while they're looking the other way ;)
  • Let it Die (Score:3, Funny)

    by necro81 ( 917438 ) on Tuesday January 12, 2010 @12:53PM (#30739038) Journal
    (This space left intentionally blank)
  • by JSBiff ( 87824 ) on Tuesday January 12, 2010 @01:21PM (#30739536) Journal

    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.

Air is water with holes in it.