The Amazing Spider-Man

Yeah, just read that....I shed a tear.

More Spidey

__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews

Where will the reboot take Peter Parker? Sony tweeted<&callback=load_tweet">

/a> this little nugget of info:

Spider-Man: Summer 2012: Peter Parker is going back to high school when the next Spider-Man hits theaters in the summer of 2012.

I just don't think there should be a reboot. Sony could just be smart and wait till 2012 to just release Spiderman 4. Tobey Maquire said himself the delay of Spidey 4 was just part of the process, so why ruin Raimi's vision and give us crap. Sure Spiderman 3 wasn't as great as the previous two films were, but come on.

I liked the 70s show of spiderman,
but i dont like the movies much
maybe it uses too much cgi,
i hope that in Spiderman 4 they
make a radical change in the way
the previous movies have been done,
just like Batman movies changed.

[quote=jrs;594136]I'm really trying not to laugh at the above. Spider-Man 3 had more Raimi in it than the other two combined, and it's unbearably awful and completely overblown. I don't think Sam Raimi and 250 million dollars mix very well. I, for one, welcome a re-boot. The series has gotten beyond stale.

They can bring back Bryce Dallas Howard, though. I definitely welcome that.

More on that Spider-Man reboot…

There was talk of Sony rebooting the franchise before Spider-Man 4 was announced. This was before Sam Raimi signed on to direct and Tobey came onboard, but their return put those plans on the back burner. James Vanderbilt was the first writer to start work on the script, however David Lindsay-Abaire was then hired to do re-writes (or possibly start from scratch). In July Gary Ross was brought in to do further re-writes, which didn’t look very good at all. Something was obviously not working if three writers were needed to do revisions of the script.

With hindsight the news in August that James Vanderbilt had been hired by Sony to write Spider-Man 5 & 6 should have got a bit more attention, however as Spider-Man 4 was developing nobody though much of it. According to the report Vanderbilt’s script would be the blueprint for a franchise reboot should Maguire, Raimi and Dunst choose not to return. Looking back it seems Sony were developing a ‘Plan B’ in case Spider-Man 4 didn’t work out. With the continued re-writes and Raimi signing on to direct World of Warcraft things weren’t certain.

Source: Filmonic

Spider-Man Reboot to Offer a More Gritty Take on the Franchise

Some new details are emerging from the fallout of yesterday's bombshell news that Spider-Man 4 is being dropped in favor of a reboot of the whole franchise. Entertainment Weekly is reporting that it seems Sony was planning on rebooting the franchise all along, although earlier than it had anticipated. Here's an excerpt from the article.

Vanderbilt's remake script was also said to be a grittier take on Peter Parker's world.

Source: Movieweb

Re-boots don't always work. Remember Superman? But that was a long dormant series. I've never hear of a studio planning to reboot a series that was still enormously popular.

A reboot, for a film series that began in 2002? Definition of jump the shark. Let the body cool for God sake.

__________________


...uh the post is up there...

I wouldn't be so quick to say the Spider-Man franchise is still "enormously popular." As I recall, there have been a lot of sour grapes across the board about Spider-Man 3, which was quite obviously a studio-saturated, overblown mess. All that competent filmmaking of the first two was lost because that's what gobs and gobs of money do to a film. Too many hands stirring the pot. I think it's time for a full stop and a re-assess.

Again, I think the franchise has already jumped the shark. (Daddio-Peter anyone? Green Goblin in a paintball mask?) Regardless, Variety is saying that Columbia Pictures and Sony face a "do-or-die" situation of releasing the film before the rights revert back to Marvel/Disney. So I'm guessing they're in quite a hurry to turn out a film (and hopefully, a profit).

I think we can say it's enormously popular; even Spider-Man 3, the worst film both commercially and critically, got a 62% on the Tomatometer and made over $330 million domestically. It was certainly a letdown, but I think part of that had to do with the first two being incredibly good.

That said, I absolutely agree that it's a bit stale and that they probably didn't have anywhere to go from there. I'm not sure a really long-running series of Spider-Man films can work all that well. After a few, Peter Parker's gotta grow up a little, and then you're just parading one villain in after another and sort of treading water.

Frankly, I think this is true of lots of franchises. Widespread success needs real developments with real weight; anything long-running is going to feel like a soap opera. Heck, just look at any comic book series; how many times do the characters die, come back, save the world, save an alternate dimension, etc? It's bound to get goofy. I don't know if these things can go on very long without become increasingly niche.

Anyway, a grittier reboot sounds intriguing, though I'm still bummed that Raimi's done with them. He made two incredibly good superhero films and one sub-par one; I like those odds, and kinda wish he'd take another crack at it.

Eh, I think the 62% is incredibly generous, and not entirely honest, I fear (the conspiracy theorist in me can't get over so many rave reviews of the film at its release... payoff anyone?).

As far as its commercial take, I can't see how an established franchise film isn't going to rake in that kind of coin when the studio pours $250 million alone in marketing the damn thing. When that film came out, it was Spider-Man 3 everywhere.

Also, let's not forget that after opening weekend, the film saw a 61% drop in viewing. The next week? 50% drop. Methinks word got around.

I think Spiderman had more potential for a long run than either Batman or Superman because he had more memorable villains and growing up and getting older works for that character (up to a point). The problems with the third one didn't require completely abandoning the series. And gritty doesn't work for Spiderman.

Okay, the one point of contention I draw is the whole "bad Peter" complaint. Honestly, the scene where Tobey Maguire struts down the street, was the one part me and my sister enjoyed. I think the filmmakers knew that the sight of Maguire acting like a bad ass was preposterous, and decided to milk it for comedic sake. It's camp. "dig on this" :LMFAO: Classic.

My problems with 3, are as follows; introducing Gwen Stacy only as a plot device to add an annoyance for M.J., then having the character just leave with no resolution or point to the character beyond that.

Then there's M.J. herself, they attempt to make her more relatable by giving her her own problems to deal with, but instead they portray her as a borderline narcissist, who spends most of the film whining because she's not a movie star, and that her overly sensitive boyfriend doesn't cater enough to her pity party, so she is almost willing to cheat on him with his best friend. They managed to make her more whiny and annoying than Peter was in the first two movies, BTW, Peter Parker isn't supposed to be a whiner, just a guy with problems. M.J. is not supposed to be a whiny, neurotic, wannabe actress, with Daddy issues either.

The shoe-horning of Venom into the script was obviously hindering, but given that the Sandman story arc was weak at best, perhaps it saved us from more weeping pleas for forgiveness, and oh yeah having a sick daughter so justifies a chartacter's actions.

Finally, repeating the same climax three films over; M.J. gets kidnapped, big battle, villain has realization, the end, is really tired.

I'm not saying they shouldn't try a new direction, but I don't think re-telling the origin is necessary, and I think they should wait a while to do so.

Well, I think 62% is generous, too, but as a gauge of the general critical consensus I think it works. Anyway, the initial 61% drop is a good point. 50% is more par for the course, though. But nevertheless, the film was still a pretty big success; the original context, of course, was about how odd it seemed to reboot an "enormously successful" franchise, and in that context I'd probably still have to agree. Whatever the hype, Spider-Man 3 made plenty of cash; I'm surprised the studio didn't insist on hanging on for dear life for another film or two, or until they started seeing some significantly diminishing returns, before starting over.

Superman Returns was not a reboot, but a direct sequel to the Richard Donner version of Superman II. One of the reasons they resurrected Donner's original cut around the time they wanted to release Superman Returns was to solidify the Father/Son mythos as well as explaining the plot twist at the end of Superman Returns in a believable way in the framework of the original movie series. Remember, Donner's version was the original intent with Superman II, and Lester's version is a sight-gag filled attempt to cash in on the character, IMO.

Superman III and IV have been disowned as part of the mythos, with Superman:The Move, Superman II (Donner Cut), and Superman Returns being the definitive story with a time line that proceeds like so:

The events of Superman:The Movie and Superman II are one inextricably connected series of events, set in motion by the nefarious plan of Lex Luthor to sink California into the ocean. In efforts to subvert Lex's plans, Superman diverts a nuke into space, which frees the Triumvirate of Kryptonian villains, immediately setting in motion the events of Superman II, after which Kal-el learns of the possible existence of the remnants of Krypton and its people, causing him to leave Earth for 5 years in search of the answers to his lost heritage. Superman Returns documents his subsequent return to Earth, and the events that unfold when he arrives, mnostly centered around yet another nefarious real-estate based plan concocted by Lex.

Not a reboot.

Superman Returns - Sequel

Batman Begins - Reboot

Oh - this thread is about Spiderman...

Sorry!

__________________

Eh, I guess I can see that. The scene just feels terribly out of place to me, and a little unnecessary given that there's a lot of heavy emphasis placed on Peter's growing hatred. I liked the idea of him becoming increasingly unstable to the point of being truly dangerous, but the club scene completely undercut that.

Agreed. But damned if she isn't a looker, no?

Agreed, although I feel like Peter's timidness out-of-costume versus his bravado in-costume has worked pretty well. It keeps him close to his fanbase, I think.

She's not supposed to look like a 12-year old boy, either.

Eh, I don't think Sandman's actions could ever be justified, anyway. He was a pretty shallow character, but his story created more tension, I think, than either of the first two villains we've seen.

Regarding Venom, it seems pretty clear that he was the product of a money-hungry studio, which is proof-positive that studios should never have creative input. I'm not even a Venom acolyte, and I was upset. You can't take a perennial villain like that and weasel him into an already cramped plot. And you definitely can't make him such a laughable, B-grade sideshow villain.

I don't think telling the origin is necessary either, but if it has to happen, I'm not really bothered that it's happening so soon. I think there are plenty of ways to tell Spider-Man's story, and while the character is still somewhat of a hot commodity, might as well take a stab. (Maybe they'll do Venom right this time!)

My husband, Tobey, is getting old -- he will be 35 this year. NOW, I think he could still be Spiderman -- afterall, in the Spiderman comics that I'm always reading in the paper, Spiderman appears to be an older gentleman in his 30's (I'm not sure what his actual character age is, but he's been around forever and never ages a bit.)

I would hate to see Tobey Maguire replaced -- I fear it'll be by someone I do not approve physically. I have invested so much emotional property in the Spiderman series of the 2000's, but I can see them starting over from scratch.

They did a great trilogy and I am worried about the series getting redundant. If it was up to me, I'd greenlight Spiderman movies with Tobey Maguire until he drops dead on his own web at the age of 140. But that is not gonna happen. Spiderman will live longer and age better than Tobey Maguire (I think...)

A reboot has the possibilities of working.

But I worry about an endless cycle of reboot after reboot. At least, if it happens every decade (or hell, every 5 years!)

A Spiderman reboot in 2022 doesn't sound so bad, followed by another one in 2062 and 2102.

But Spiderman (2002), Spiderman (2012), Spiderman (2022), Spiderman (2027) worries me.... (just predicting here).

I think they are trying to be cheap and save money. Are they just going to repeat the same villians over and over? Batman there wasn't much choice, but Spiderman still had a few rounds left. They never got around to my favorite, Kraven the Hunter, and Green Goblin isn't returning as you-know-who?

I hope they don't try to bring back Goblin anyway, the character just can't be done well in real life.

I thought that the reboot of The Incredible Hulk from Ang Lee's Hulk was pretty good. Of course, that franchise never got off the ground in the first place.

__________________
Popcorn A web comic about movies.