Slashdot Mirror
Spider-Man 4 Scrapped, Franchise Reboot Planned
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.
How would they reboot it? I mean the first movie kinda takes care of the back story.
Another franchise killed..
At this rate they'll have almost nothing left soon.
Hollywood will end up so crap they'll make one film a year, it'll cost $88 billion to make and they'll re-do it the next year.
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.
I'm a firm believer in the philosophy of a ruling class, especially since I rule.
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 slight crush on Spider-man. Give us some emotional investment into some returning characters like her, then introduce the Sin-Eater plot.
"Forgive me father, for you have sinned." BOOOM! (headshot...)
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 ...
My work here is dung.
They can't wait years, or the rights revert to Marvel (Disney). They'd rather crank out anything to keep them.
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.
"Chinese Amazons, power armor, laser swords.... things just meant to be." - Shampoo, A Very Scary Bet
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.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
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!
do you not understand?
Perhaps Raimi is too busy working on other projects.
He's too busy working on CodePlex.
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.
'Nuff Said.
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!
"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." --Senator Carl Schurz (1872)
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.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
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.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
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.
CC.
TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
they repackage the same shit over and over and over and over again. I think hollywood needs a reboot.
I feel a great disturbance in the force. As if a million voices cried out in joy, then were suddenly silent as they realized the World of Warcraft movie will come next.
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.
The Kai's Semi-Updated Website Thingy
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
http://www.google.com/dictionary?aq=f&langpair=en|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 comment. And the Spider-Man franchise was booted a few years ago. See how fucktarded that sounds? Well "reboot" in this context sounds just as dumb.
No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
Will blame this on piracy in 5, 4, 3, 2...
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
I'm more worried about JK Simmons! Who else could be as perfect a J Jonah Jameson?
Never underestimate the potential of Human stupidity. -Heinlein
Spiderman sucked anyway
Reboot means a chance to make all new merchandise for the masses! Forget anything you already have - this new stuff is going to be SO cool!
Um, yeah. Kinda in a cynical mood today.
This means that Raimi and the cast including star Tobey Maguire are out.
So shouting "Show me the money!" over the phone didn't quite work this time?
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!
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
!ramji
If you have something that you dont want anyone to know, maybe you shouldnt be doing it in the first place -Eric Schmidt
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.
The themes to the Spider-Man movies were so depressing that the whole cast and director were up to 9 prozac a day. Spider-Man dark? No... it was a standard gay college kids experience back in the 1980s. Why? Because what dumbass would not go after the ass that keeps floating in front of their face, he was poor, and he wears tights. IMO, Spiderman sucks, and I hate Stan Lee for injecting his dumb ass in all the movies. Reboot something better... reboot Punisher and Spawn.
Lol. The Spider Man trilogy, as a whole, stands as one of the worst of the decade. Spider Man 4, if you can use Spider Man 3 as any gauge, would've been the biggest turd Hollywood's put out in a long while and I'm not so sure even Toby's star-power could recover.
I am Jack's smirking revenge.
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
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Sounds great to me, that's the best part, right? Of course that second Hulk movie totally missed the point by cramming the original story into the opening credits. Let's reboot every comic book movie each and every time!
I can think of two reasons why it would be more succesful, and at least it is an existing comic-book character.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
(This space left intentionally blank)
Just mine the sci-fi canon for unfilmed authors?
There are hosts of good ones out there. Why don't we see a film of RUR, or something based on Olaf Stapleton's work?
Where are the stories of Blish and Zelazny? There's still a lot to be mined out of Clarke....
the golden rule of i.t. applies here too : if it aint broke, dont fix it.
they couldnt have waited till fall or winter to put the movie forth. despite they had an assuredly successful franchise. the greed is SO big that they HAVE to make profit this summer. or else.
and they think the audience is just going to accept whatever put in front of them like pussies, which will probably be a huge deviation from what defined the franchise in the first place.
in the end they will just fuck up a great entertainment title for hasty profits. profits, fast profits before quality, even at the cost of totally destroying a profit making franchise.
another detrimental result of unbridled capitalism ....
Read radical news here
Where Peter Parker aka Spider-Man and his wife Mary Jane make a deal with Mephisto to save Aunt May from dying and make the world forget that Peter Parker was Spider-Man in exchange for changing history so Peter Parket and Mary Jane Watson never got married.
If I would reboot the film, I would base it on the Ultimate Spider-Man or Spider-Man Unlimited versions and then make a Spider-Man 2099 with a different actor just for the heck of it later as a joke.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
sony's hearts are not *truly* klingon.
Off the cuff, the only series that had sufficient success with alternate actors playing key roles, I think is the Batman series. However, I propose a solution to this exception in the amazing match-ups each movie had regarding the villian, Danny Devito as the Pengiun, Jim Carrey as the Riddler etc. Also, it sorta helps when the blunder becomes the norm, Michael Keaton played the first and second, then Val Kilmer, then George Clooney, Christian Bale....
They did it with the Incredible Hulk, while the second release had good actors... Ed Norten, Tim Roth, Jennifer Connelly is hotter than the both of them, plus 'Hulk' also had Sam Elliott and Nick Nolte... ultimately, 'Hulk' came first and was of sufficient quality.
They can't go and muck with super heros, and I don't know why they try. If you attach a personality to a super hero, then in most cases that needs to stick (the exception most likely to refute this claim would be pointing out Jack Nicolson vs Heath Ledger, but you'll find that these people are not aware that Heath Ledger was technically playing a different character, Joker from the Dark Knight series rather than the classic Joker from the original Batman that Jack did so well doing.)
Spiderman has had too many movies to start swapping around actors. If Tobey Maguire isn't spiderman, if Kirsten Dunst isn't his squeeze, no matter how much money Sony throws at the problem, a new release is likely to receive more criticism than praise; things like this need a huge time buffer, a revision or remake 20 years later sort of thing. Sony needs to keep the key actors in a Spiderman 4, otherwise it's going to go straight to DVD and be forgotten... but maybe it'll become a cult film?
Real time seemed to work in the 1960s. I think rushing to print, removing all funding, zero initial demand, uninspired stories and massive office politics may have had more to do with it. Removing the real time element a year later did not help sales one bit.
Yeah, but we agreed on "no reboots".
Sorry if I'm trolling, but Spider-man 3 was already kind of sucky... The idea of cramming as much villans and action in a comic book's movie, believe it or not, is not a great idea. At least to the fans, who are expecting a little bit more than a 2 minute appearence of Venon....
Not quite sure if I made my point...
What is best in life? To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you and to hear the lamentations of their women.
Both the 4th Superman and 4th Batman movies where so soul destroyingly bad that both franchises where shut down for years before rebooting. I wasn't too impressed with Spider-man 3 and I expected the 4th movie might really bad.
Perhaps they learned from history and are trying to avoid that fate.
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.
Dude, if they did Spiderman 2099, that would be stellar.
The thing about Spiderman is that the comics have been around for so long that it would not be difficult at all to "reboot" the series since there are so many different directions it could go in.
The world is how you make it
for another one of Uwe Boll's movie master pieces. lets see how he does with spiderman 4
lol detest was the capcha for this post
How many times have they done what comes off as his first mission? If the actor does more than one there always seems to be a movie where Bond and "Q" or "M" have to get to know each other
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
1. Take a well loved superhero, a good cast and great director
2. Let them make a couple of awesome movies
3. Throw away the makers of the multi-billion dollar franchise
4. ?
5. Profit!
from the Variety article:
Star Tobey Maguire and helmer Sam Raimi, who were both set for big paydays for "Spider Man 4," will no longer be involved in the franchise as Col moves forward with a high school-aged Peter Parker pic, which will bow theatrically in summer 2012.
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 is no sign of superiority at all, simply rigidity and ossification of mind
populism rules. in fact, it is the most difficult of entertainment efforts to make that which appeals to many, rather than a small narrow group of interests
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Why was 3 so awful? I've seen a few comments here that talk about it but are there any movie geeks that can expound on why it was so bad? (Not just that the screenplay was bad but why was it so bad?)
I'm not a huge Spiderman fan but I thought that at the very least the first one was a nice setup. The second one was nothing great but did it's job. Good popcorn movie. The thrid, ugh, I turned it off before it was half way over. And I've sat though all of Battlefield Earth, non-Rifftrax version!
Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
"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 and of themselves; the good or evil of their use is determined by the wielder. But we have a cultural perception of such things as tending towards evil. As science is perceived increasingly as a source of power, it will inevitably be seen as having an increased potential for evil.
Given that power is the ability to impose one's will on others, I think that this tendency is a good thing. It is somewhat ironic, though, that Hollywood is telling such a story.
Floating face-down in a river of regret...and thoughts of you...
I repeat:
Star Trek the reboot was as if billions of Vulcans suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. And that terrible thing happened!
They removed science fiction from star trek, they'll have to find a way to remove the comic from spiderman. How about get that vampire kid and this time make it a COMPLETELY shallow teen flick this time. Spiderman at Twilight.
Stop giving these people your money.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Why were the last ones so popular? Tobey Maquire's only expression was to stand and stare blankly. He's a block of wood as an actor and sucked as Spiderman. The whole character was yes he was unsure of himself as Peter Parker but he was confident and wise cracking when he was in the suit as Spiderman. The scripts were just plain goofy. The only redeeming thing were the villians. They tended to be solid to excellent. Rami did his best to cast himself as Spiderman and it just never worked. He kept trying to be funny and it didn't work. When he tried to be serious and strike emotional cords it got even worse and ironically even sillier. Is there any hope the reboot will be better? Probably not. Look at it this way, you want to see what Disney does with the character?
intelligence is a bell curve. there is too stupid, and there is too smart. populism is about appealing to the vast middle, the bell curve. there is no "race to the bottom". nor is there is a "lead them to greater things". you are injecting all sorts of red herrings and unrelated agendas to the issue at hand: entertainment
"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."
name ten of your favorite movies. i will wager a majority of them are products of hollywood. so you are obviously intellectually dishonest and venal in your opinions
hollywood is where artists of great talent toil. and also some stinkers. its a mixed bag. not at all onesided as you portray. to see the bad that comes from hollywood only, and ignore the good, is simply a sign of weak perception and character on your part
sometimes artists are constrained by the money, sometimes the money frees them to do their art. hollywood is simply a pact between artistic endeavour and financial resources, and plenty of what you admire about the art of cinema is impossible without that money. and the people with the money, out of good or bad instincts, have to place their bets on what is worth pursuing and what is not in their mind. sometimes they fail spectacularly, because of the intrusions of the moneymen. sometimes that fail spectacularly because of the artist himself and a failed artistic vision. sometimes they muddle through and produce mediocre fare. but sometimes, and you are liar if you don't admit this, they hit it out of the ballpark with an amazing movie, that you admire
that's the truth. meanwhile, for someone with pretenses to intelligence, you seem to have some straightforwardly unintelligent understandings of the concepts in play here
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I knew someone would bring that up, but the thing is, it's not a Holyywood reboot. It's just a rip off of Frank Miller's Batman.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Does this mean he was a clone / robot all along !?!?!
Or wait... he dies will be split into 4 different characters? I don't even know how the rest of that whole Superman's dead plot line played out.
Or better. 'Gasp' what a nightmare!
Then we will call it Spiderman Rebooty.
Damn it Mary Jane! we're all out of toilet paper!
"No fear. No envy. No meanness." Liam Clancy
Right-wing american concepts made their way into many films; much more subtle than FOX... Its like they feel the need to appeal to those people; but more likely they hire more like-minded people because of the perceived left wing bias caused by many of the left wing actors.
300 was a blatant pro bush war film.
Batman 2 clearly got its hooks into the tea bag nuts; plus making batman the fall guy for doing the "right thing" etc; invasion of privacy when needed. It resonated really strongly with that demographic much more than the 1st film (I know some of these people.) Science and detective abilities of batman are minimized as well for more of a warrior thing. etc.
Spiderman 2 had a bunch of post 911 stuff put in there; not likely with any bad motives I think, but were pulling on feelings that people remembered having had not to long before. Yeah, and science wasn't a force for good either; spiderman is not a big science guy other than a couple prods to the comics backstory it wasn't a factor. I thought it had an anti-physics thing too with the whole fusion alt power thing; if it was done a bit later they would have worked in the LHC and blackholes instead.
Spiderman 3 was too shallow for me to study it much. overkill and lost in its own hype; was an attempt to make a good superman 3... did better but still... Spiderman 1 made him almost as shallow as the remake of The Time Machine; a lot of teen fantasy elements. The original story for that one wasn't good to begin with so I was happy with the result.
Star trek removed science. Star wars 1-2 removed the mythology for hamburger helper; the 3rd one was an echo of the 1st ones with political connections it was trying to avoid when historically it was based on past events which just happened to be similar to the times. My wingnut friends were livid with that 3rd film... forget trying to explain the source of history to them on that... brownshirts can't think clearly. period.
i'm getting the impression that hollywood runs on microsoft windows
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
And replace these thousand-times-reused-themes, effect and nonsense filled movies with something novel with more substance.
I haven't read One More Day myself, but it made a huge uproar in the comics community as well as causing a huge shift in the Spider-man universe.
While I don't think it should be adapted faithfully (like it would be, anyway), it could serve as a good kick-off for a reboot without completely throwing away or disregarding the previous entries. Something bad happens, Parker makes a literal deal with the devil, boom, everything resets.
The main problem with approaching the film in this manner, though, is that the reset would have to be done within the first half hour, which would likely leave a lot of people confused who aren't familiar with the comics.
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 about as nepotistically hollywood as you can possibly get
why are you such an angry little man with such a huge chip on your shoulder, yet coupled with such a poor understanding of the subject matter you inject your uneducated superiority into? you do understand the idea of production and distribution, don't you?
by your list of movies, your taste is solidly mainstream. it has that obvious stink of "i'm a suburban wannabe who buys what hollywood has marketed as 'upscale'", but this is a personality issue, not an aesthetic mark of exception. you know, for suburban douches who imagine themselves alternative, but are just another marketing segment that the hollywood dvd aftermarket panders to. sorry kid, but your tastes solidly describe you as middle of the road. it sounds like you hit the goddamn netflix "suggest other movies like this one" to make your list. you forgot "american beauty" lol
i would be worried if you responded to my challenge with a bunch of japanese or korean or indian fare, you know, clearly not hollywood, clearly intelligent, vibrant, and utterly alien to hollywood mass-produced stuff
start in japan kid. judging by your style of taste in hollywood fare, i suggest something like "love exposure" from the genius sion sono, or "fine, totally fine", which you will love if you liked sideways
then get on over to korea. see something like the sublime "M", which rivals kubrick at his best in terms of being transcendent, or then anything by mark chanwook (probably outside your tastes though). and there's always plenty in europe
there are people who are genuinely counterculture. then there are people who have pretensions and a false sense of superiority. this is a character weakness, not a mark of aesthetic exception. you're a strange little suburban angry douche. i hear the voice of squidward in spongebob squarepants when i read your comment
oops! sorry if that's too "idiocracy" a reference for you! thinking of a children cartoon character? obviously i am not a intelligent culture vulture like yourself!
lol! cute little angry man
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
That doesn't count the Spiderman & Amazing Friends, Spiderman cartoon, Spiderman Live action TV, Old Spiderman movies, etc. Technically, these were all supposed to be the same spiderman as Earth 616 and the 1990s Spiderman cartoon. Marvel's starting to dilute a main figure of their mythos. It's like they're writing an Arthurian legend and making King Arthur an evil usurper. Nice for a "What If?" comic, but not so much for a retelling of a well-known story. Given how often the first Toby movie is still played on TV, I don't think a lot of people are going to pay money to go see Uncle Ben get shot again unless it's in a flashback in Spiderman 4.
don't even try. i have you beat 100x different ways
and you are venal: you are claiming some sort of superiority of product in your personal preferences. this is intellectually dishonest and corrupt of you. you have a false sense of superiority. you are full of false pride about supposed better tastes than some other group of people for arbitrary reasons, when the truth is, you're just another marketing segment. you look down on mass produced comic book fare when you like what? mass produced hollywood fare of a different flavor! and then you try to come across as superior in some way to the "common man" when you ARE the common man... with a chip on his shoulder. which in my mind makes you INFERIOR to the common man
i really, really am bothered by people who have the need to feel superior to other people. and your need for that is obviously huge. when you look at the common man on the street, you are looking at your equal. when i look at the common man on the street, i am looking at my equal. show some fucking humility, then i will give you my respect. i think that's a pretty basic social contract that we are all bound to, no?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Do something new for films, like Metal Men (we have the CGI to do this now) or Doom Patrol
Or go completely nuts and do Mark Waid's "Irredeemable"
Or go even more completely nuts: The Umbrella Academy
I actually like the newest Trek movie. Some of them I just can't sit through but the latest one was Trek for non-trekkies. I actually went to the theater to see it after reading reviews. It wasn't the same dreck rehashed for the eighteen thousandth time.
No, the dreck was all-new for that one.
As for not being able to sit through a lot of the old Trek movies... That's because a lot of them are pretty bad as movies go. I think all the old and Next-Gen Trek movies had at least one really serious flaw.
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 your own arbitrary likes. this is a pure definition of being self-centered, superior minded
charlie kaufman is awesome, and i loved eternal sunshine and have it on dvd and have enthused about it and suggested college aged visitors watch it with me and they loved it. not because i was improving them, condescendingly, as you portray your noble one man crusade, but just because i wanted to share with my equals. i don't think my love for that movie is the basis upon which to judge what other people like and i don't have a need to "show them the light". you do. you do because you have a false sense of superiority based on nothing but your arbitrary proclivities for hollywood mass marketed alternative movies. you're a fucking poster boy for self important small minded suburban rec room elitism
i realize that the complete aboutface and backtracking on your own statements in your comment immediately above is about as close as i am going to get with you admitting you are wrong, and that i have made my point, so whatever
adios! sorry i can't say well met, self-centered, patronizing little man
xoxoxoxoxox
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Red hair dye companies' stock shares plummeted yesterday due to loss of demand from the Kirsten Dunst market.
I don't care what you comic book reading morons say. It is not science fiction. Not by a long shot.
Go pick up a real book and learn to read words with more than 5 letters.
I think all the old and Next-Gen Trek movies had at least one really serious flaw.
Yeah, not enough Tribbles.
I agree.... But in some ways, I consider Kevin Smith to be a "one trick pony", too. As good a filmmaker as he is, almost all of his movies are really just a continuation of the same theme he started out with. (I'm not enough of a movie buff to argue if he's done one or two films that totally broke that mold. Quite possibly he did.) This isn't a "bad" thing either. It's better to know what you're good at and practice/hone it, than to experiment all over the place, doing things poorly and disappointing audiences.
(I'm thinking "Woody Allen" here, as another example of a guy doing a lot of movies in a similar vein, over and over again - but doing very well with them.)
If anything though, the lesson he probably brings to the table is, we're spending FAR too much on movies. If you stick to a low budget, you can still make a great movie if the script is there, and the acting is decent. If you spend loads, however, you exponentially increase your risk that it won't be profitable -- and all the money does little to nothing for the quality of the script. That part is either there, or it's not .... and they usually seem to just substitute expensive CGI and cool explosions when it's lacking. A filmmaker on a tight budget doesn't even have that *option*.
You should see his next movie that's coming out:
http://www.apple.com/trailers/wb/copout/
The trailer is terrible, but apparently the dialogue is such a hard R, that they had a hard time cutting a trailer around it. That looks like a Lethal Weapon to me. It looks absolutely nothing like he has done before.
His next movie after that will either by "Hit Somebody", a sports flick about hockey, or "Red State", which he describes as a very dark psychological horror film.
I think that while Smith has been making the same type of films for some time, he seems to have come to the same conclusion, and now he is trying something else.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Spidey would be better done as a TV Series than a movie. They should do it in a similar style to Smallville. I don't mean the prequel aspect, I just mean it should be a lot more character based, exploring how Pete deals with his new powers and how he deals with integrating his activities as Spidey into his ordinary life. In other words it should be a lot more like the comic books dammit!
Don't you wish you hadn't wasted 3 seconds of your life reading this sig?
So instead of listening to your experienced expert who has built up a following for the last 2 decades, you said "fuck that guy." Brilliant, Sony. I'm sure your new movie will be excellent.
It doesn't come across as a field of pansies in the comics. I comes across as whiny pansy crap when Sam Raimi does it. I really disliked #3 and a reboot to something enjoyable will be welcome.
I like a lot of Sam Raimi's work and the Spiderman franchise started out well but he failed in #3.
I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
Oh God, not high school again. Sorry, Sony, I've lost interest. I wonder if they'll call it Spider Man IV: The Quest for Peace?
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
The studio's figured out, the majority of folks will see it (it's branding folks!), then complain about it on places like Rotten Tomatoes and forget about it as Transformers 3 comes to the screen the following month. Since critics are now the advertising system (bought out like technology or political "journalists" aka. bloggers), there's no stopping the studios. So:
Reboots in the production pipeline are now the norm folks.... And yaw'll will still go and see it. Even if the fanboys boycott.... Lucas was right, create new fans with the same "stuff", the old fans will always be fans. That means the same characters, stories, etc...
The ultimate Spider-Man reboot would be to change the whole location to India. Base it on the four issue Spidey spin-off Pavitr Prabhakar, and do it Bollywood style!
There was nothing worse then to hear another actor was taking over batman's role...now we got christian bale, who did awesome for the last 2...and gave it the dark feel...more so then anything done before...however it took a full first batman rewrite to do this.... ...if the director is not aligned with the one paying your salary, I would think about job security...
Just because the director could not do what he wanted (immature little boy issues I guess) he does not need to take the whole team with him! As for the rest of the actors,
(that means you Tobey...you haven't done anything worthwhile except the Spider man movies!)
I would recommend John Stavereau, who surprisingly is the director for Iron Man, I did not know this crazy actor was such a good director. Hats off to him, and I would like to see him on this project!
I think all the old and Next-Gen Trek movies had at least one really serious flaw.
Yeah, not enough Tribbles.
Tribbles didn't save "The Search for Spock"...
Bow-ties are cool.
Since when does Hollywood run Windows?