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.
Reboot how? (Score:2)
How would they reboot it? I mean the first movie kinda takes care of the back story.
Re:Reboot how? (Score:5, Insightful)
reboot to match todays youth preferences: think twilight in 3d.
Re:Reboot how? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Reboot how? (Score:5, Funny)
We're here at the premiere of the new Spider-Man movie, where we've secretly replaced Toby Maguire and Sam Raimi with Folger's Crystals. Let's see what the audience's reaction is....
Re:Star Blech (Score:4, Informative)
I think all the old and Next-Gen Trek movies had at least one really serious flaw.
Yeah, not enough Tribbles.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Dang, I have mod points, but I just can seem to find the +1 Scary mod.....
Re:Reboot how? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not only that, but it was probably the first Superhero live action movie since the first Superman: The Movie to be pretty good...
After all the sucky superhero movies, Spiderman showed us you can actually do these things "right," leading to the newer Batman, Superman, and even a MUCH better Hulk movie, and Iron Man.
I'm not a huge comic fan, so I know those hardcore fans whine about things not being exactly right (and hey, keep whining, I've got no problem with that), so I pretty much enjoyed them.
But Spiderm
Re:Reboot how? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Are you kidding me? The Spiderman movies are about a freak who dresses up in a spider suit, shoots webs out of his wrists, and saves the world! If you didn't have to suspend disbelief to watch even a minute of any of the 3 Spiderman movies then you need to see a head doctor.
Re:Reboot how? (Score:5, Insightful)
At least twilight didn't take an existing character and castrate him like spiderman 3 did.
Ahem...
Emo sparkly vampires
Vampires don't sparkle in sun light, they burn. Taking away one of the most defining characteristics of vampires is sort of like castrating them.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Vampires don't sparkle in sun light, they burn.
Dracula didn't.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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)
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)
Re:Reboot how? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Reboot how? (Score:5, Funny)
I sincerely hope that any "reboot" of the series will bring back the tone of the comics.
Don’t let James Cameron direct it.
Classic plot (Score:3)
"Power corrupts... [phrases.org.uk]". 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)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
If he really got that particular trait from his spider bite, rather than develop it, he'd be slinging web from his butt.
From his butt, you say? (Score:4, Funny)
Then we will call it Spiderman Rebooty.
Damn it Mary Jane! we're all out of toilet paper!
Re: (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:Reboot how? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Reboot how? (Score:5, Funny)
Mel Gibson?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Reboot how? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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)
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: (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- T
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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, Informative)
According to the plot of that film, Lois Lane lied to her husband, telling him that the kid was his when it wasn't, married him almost immediately after Superman departed and kept the fact from him that he had a child when he did come back. What a fucking cow. Meanwhile Superman abandoned her almost immediately after getting her knocked up for approximately five or six years without actually telling her where he was going or that he'd be away for some time. When he returns to Earth, his first act is to pick up his dogs favourite ball pretending to be about to throw it for him, then hurls the ball off into the stratosphere, leaving the dog looking mournfully after it. Pretty shortly after that, Superman starts trying to pick up where he left off with Lois (and lets also keep in mind that this is a woman he's willing to get pregnant but never tells her he's been stalking her in his day life for years). Lois obliges him, ditching her husband (a loving, supportive, father and husband who not only is rich, successful, but played by fucking James Marsden - I mean what a fucking ungrateful, unappreciative bitch she is). Meanwhile Superman uses his super powers to variously spy on them through their walls, listen to their private conversations and, by the end of the movie, let himself into their house to spend quality time with their kid without the parents knowing. Piece of shit! The only decent person in the film is Lois's husband who despite having no special powers at all, gets in a plane and fucking flies out to sea to rescue her from Lex Luthor whilst Superman know's she's there but is busy flying around the city being a hero. Yeah, points for ethical mathematics, Superman, but shouldn't Lois be more appreciative of the guy who put her first?
None of this would bother me if it weren't for the fact the film is utterly fucking oblivious to the reprehensibility of its main characters. The film takes the attitude of "Superman does it so it must be good" and presumes the audience goes along with them.
Man, I'd prefer my children to watch any amount of Heath Ledger murdering people with pencils but with the film's background message of "people can be good and you don't have to be corrupted by fighting evil", than half an hour of Superman smugly sneaking into people's houses and undermining marriages because he's "the good guy".
Re:Reboot how? (Score:4, Informative)
You're a bit mistaken.
Lois is genuinely shocked that her son displays super powers. The real key is understanding this is a direct sequel to Superman 2. In that film, Superman becomes a normal mortal, sleeps with Lois, but then wipes her memory at the end.
Lois has no memory of sleeping with Supes. Why would she assume it is his kid? She is a single gal with no memory of a romance with Supes, hooks up with a guy, gets pregnant, and has no reason to assume the kid is someone else's.
The fucked up part is that Supes screwed Lois and then wiped her memory in part 2. Shouldn't there be a scene in Returns where she goes to the hospital and says "I have no memory of us having sex? Did you rape me?"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Okay. So Lois had her memory wiped by Superman after sleeping with him. That lets her off the hook a bit, but makes Superman even more of a nasty piece of work. But like you say, there's no reference to this in the film so people like me who don't know the previous films (and I'd imagine the kids that are a primary audience for this film mostly get included in that) have no way to know this. Still, even allowing this, she hooked up with James Marsden quickly enough that she thought it was his child. So the
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think Luthor suspects the kid, but it has been a while since I seen Returns.
Singer said publicly that he was making his film as a direct sequel to Superman 1 and 2, but not really considering 3 and 4. Those movies are fairly old, and if you didn't see them, I guess it wouldn't be pretty clear where the kid came from, or why Lois didn't know.
Superman 2 is a great film, and held up (even today, though it is a little slow by modern standards) by some as the best superhero film of all time. I'll take Dark Kni
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's well known that Superman is a dick. [superdickery.com]
Okay. So Lois had her memory wiped by Superman after sleeping with him.
Yeah, the events of Superman 2 were really messed up. Lois finds out Clark is superman, he gets rid of his powers to stay with her, they sleep together, other Kryptonian survivors appear and they're all evil ("Kneel before Zod"), so Superman has to go regain his powers and fight them.
All the while, Lois gets kidnapped because Luthor knows Superman has a thing for her, but she still tries to protect Superman (and his secret, she knows his secret identity at this poin
Re:Reboot how? (Score:5, Insightful)
'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.
Re: (Score:2)
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...
Re:Reboot how? (Score:5, Funny)
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, Funny)
I don't recognise most of that, but what I didn't recognise smells an awful lot like Twilight, which I wouldn't recognise because I haven't seen...
You recognize a concept you aren't even familiar with by its smell?!
My God! That is a power only the Wolf Spider clan has! You must be the ChubbyHaidude, the Chosen Spider Shaman.
Re: (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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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'm getting tired of this narrative (Score:5, Insightful)
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
you are only announcing your irrelevancy (Score:3, Informative)
entertainment FOR YOU must be multi-layered. good for you. but the population in general has no such prerequisites. therefore, it makes perfect business sense for hollywood to pander to the the population in general, and ignore you, the much smaller marketplace
hollywood exists to make money, not to meet your narrow criteria
and please don't conclude that your tastes are somehow superior to the general population. you just have rigid needs. it could just as easily be said that you are harder to please, which
Re: (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.
you're cute ;-) (Score:3, Insightful)
blade runner was produced through the ladd company (warner bros)
2001 was MGM
sideways was michael london, straightup hollywood producer
all of your charlie kaufman fanboy stuff: synechdoche, adaptation, being john malkovich, eternal sunshine, adaptation... hollywood produced/ distributed. charlie kaufman is straightup hollywood, he lives in pasadena and has toiled in hollywood long before his fame
brazil is the brits and terry gilliam, so i'll give you that
lost in translation is goddamn sofia coppola, which is
that's a lot of deflection (Score:3, Insightful)
and a complete 180 from your comments above like the one where you cite 'idiocracy'
"I, on the other hand, respect people, and feel they can handle art that isn't pre-digested for them"
no, you, on the other hand, are so condescending and patronizing you can't even see it in your own words, where you prejudge what they like as something that you see a need to be improved upon, based on nothing but your own self-certain sense of knowing what is "better" for them. what is "better" for them, apparently being you
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Too soon. (Score:2, Interesting)
Problem is: (Score:5, Insightful)
They can't wait years, or the rights revert to Marvel (Disney). They'd rather crank out anything to keep them.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
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: (Score:3)
Am I the only one that liked Spiderman 3?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes.
Re: (Score:2)
I understand there are two teenage boys in Kazakhstan who loved it.
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:Too soon. (Score:4, Funny)
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)
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: (Score:2)
"new goblin" had some level of appeal, but beyond that, meh...
Comic Stories (Score:2)
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)
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: (Score:3, Funny)
I think she's still going by "Kirsten", actually.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Dibbuk Box (2010)
Ha, you're kidding me, a film based on an ebay auction [dailygrail.com]?
...why? (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Oh,wait....
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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
Amazing how bond could go 30+ years (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
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)
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
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.
This is not a reboot (Score:2)
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!
A bit dissapointing... (Score:2)
I was somewhat interested in the direction that Rami was going in for #4. I'd heard talk of The Vulture [wikipedia.org] played by perhaps John Malkovitch, and the Movie appearance of Black Cat [wikipedia.org]. 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.
Stick a fork in it, it's Dunst! (Score:2)
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)
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.
Reward failure, punish success (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Reward failure, punish success (Score:5, Insightful)
Kevin Smith's problem isn't failure. All of his films turn a profit, and then sell like mad on DVD. He doesn't make 200 million in the box office, but he almost always shoots with a very low budget.
There is something to be said for a director who always turns a profit. Kevin Smith will never make a billion dollar picture like The Dark Knight, be he also won't lose you 200 million on a failed tent-pole.
Stretching the Imagination ... (Score:2)
IMHO, it is hard to imagine this as 'Fantasy', but 'Sci-Fi"? Perhaps it is the best they scrap #4 altogether.
CC.
This rocks! I love the spiderman reboots.. (Score:4, Funny)
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)
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.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reboot [reference.com]
http://www.google.com/dictionary?aq=f&langpair=en [google.com]|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)
Will blame this on piracy in 5, 4, 3, 2...
Who cares about Tobey McGuire? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sing it with me! (Score:5, Funny)
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!
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:Here's why Raimi walked... (Score:4, Informative)
Let it Die (Score:3, Funny)
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: (Score:2)
At this rate they'll have almost nothing left soon.
Isn't that why they constantly reboot franchises?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's just getting ridiculuous now though. We're getting into 2nd and 3rd gen reboots where we're rebooting series that have already been rebooted. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if a Hulk reboot was announced next year.
How many times do we want to see the same freaking origin story?
Who wants to place bets that we'll see a Lord of the Rings "reboot" within 10 years?
Re: (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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Who wants to place bets that we'll see a Lord of the Rings "reboot" within 10 years?
Another LoTR adaptation in 10 years is a remake, not a reboot. Unless if you're thinking to redo the storyline or characters...