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.
reboot to match todays youth preferences: think twilight in 3d.
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.
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.
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.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
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.
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)...
http://www.beanleafpress.com
'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.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
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.
Mel Gibson?
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
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.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
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?
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
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.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Will blame this on piracy in 5, 4, 3, 2...
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
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?
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
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
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.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Chuck Norris. grizzled, angry and full of kick ass.
Seriously, it's only got an uptime of 8 years, it doesn't need to be rebooted yet!
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
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.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
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.
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
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.
I sincerely hope that any "reboot" of the series will bring back the tone of the comics.
Don’t let James Cameron direct it.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
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.
Jonathanjk.com
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.
If he really got that particular trait from his spider bite, rather than develop it, he'd be slinging web from his butt.
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!
The enemies of Democracy are
I agree with your general point, but I'd like to point out that X-Men was 2 years ahead of Spiderman, and is more or less what started the superhero revival.
--Obyron
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....
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.
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
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.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
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.
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".
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
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?"
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
I think all the old and Next-Gen Trek movies had at least one really serious flaw.
Yeah, not enough Tribbles.