×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Spider-Man 4 Scrapped, Franchise Reboot Planned

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the things-from-the-past-decade-don't-need-reboots dept.

Sci-Fi 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.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

536 comments

First spider (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30738070)

on teh intarwebs.

Reboot how? (1)

suso (153703) | more than 4 years ago | (#30738092)

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

Re:Reboot how? (5, Insightful)

Rhaban (987410) | more than 4 years ago | (#30738158)

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

Re:Reboot how? (4, Informative)

navygeek (1044768) | more than 4 years ago | (#30738344)

I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened.

Re:Reboot how? (0, Troll)

click2005 (921437) | more than 4 years ago | (#30738196)

But the first movie didn't do the film in an edgy new way... Or just find some actor who is
going to die so they can exploit the crap out of it.
Maybe they could use the 3D they did for the pocahantas/smurf movie recently.

Re:Reboot how? (2, Insightful)

Trent Hawkins (1093109) | more than 4 years ago | (#30738256)

ah, finally. What all fans have been waiting for since the first spider man... MECHANICAL WEBSHOOTERS!

Re:Reboot how? (1)

BlackSnake112 (912158) | more than 4 years ago | (#30738464)

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? (3, Insightful)

nomadic (141991) | more than 4 years ago | (#30738616)

That bugged me a bit as well with the spider-man movies. The web shooters issues are a issue in the comics and should have been left in for the movies. The web shooters failing/not working correctly can be funny/tragic and add to the movie like they do in the comics.

That would be way too implausible, even for the Spider-Man movies; a high school kid develops something that material scientists would take years to create in a high-tech lab if they could at all?

Re:Reboot how? (3, Interesting)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 4 years ago | (#30738728)

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? (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#30738852)

I like how given the current state of scientific knowledge either way is pretty much fantasy, but one is apparently more believable.

Oh, it could happen that the web shooters are located entirely conveniently and don't worry much about metabolism, but it could never be that he gained the knowledge/insight to build them.

Re:Reboot how? (5, Insightful)

happy_place (632005) | more than 4 years ago | (#30738360)

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)...

Re:Reboot how? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30738480)

I think you mean Toby MacGuire is typecast as playing nice guys.

Re:Reboot how? (4, Funny)

Talderas (1212466) | more than 4 years ago | (#30738510)

Mel Gibson?

Re:Reboot how? (1)

happy_place (632005) | more than 4 years ago | (#30738610)

Or Clint Eastwood... as he is now... grizzled and angry, that might enough angst. We slashdotters really ought to write a screenplay! ;)

Re:Reboot how? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30738766)

Or Clint Eastwood... as he is now... grizzled and angry, that might enough angst.

We slashdotters really ought to write a screenplay! ;)

Spider-man with a walker....hmmmmmm.

Re:Reboot how? (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#30738608)

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:Reboot how? (2, Insightful)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 4 years ago | (#30738654)

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:Reboot how? (2, Insightful)

happy_place (632005) | more than 4 years ago | (#30738798)

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

Re:Reboot how? (4, Interesting)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 4 years ago | (#30738906)

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:Reboot how? (5, Insightful)

spun (1352) | more than 4 years ago | (#30738390)

'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:Reboot how? (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#30738592)

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? (5, Funny)

spun (1352) | more than 4 years ago | (#30738692)

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:Reboot how? (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#30738816)

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...

Re:Reboot how? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30738826)

I think I've just made myself sick.

Here.. throw up over this academy award because your writing is easily worthy of winning a few.

Re:Reboot how? (2, Interesting)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 4 years ago | (#30738622)

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:Reboot how? (1)

spun (1352) | more than 4 years ago | (#30738740)

With comics it's different. Reboots happen after a franchise has run its course and there isn't anywhere sensible left to go. Nobody does three comics and then reboots the series. You do get a decent story arc before any reboots in comic-land.

Re:Reboot how? (5, Insightful)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 4 years ago | (#30738760)

God forbid they breach the cannon of Spider-Man.

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

Re:Reboot how? (-1, Flamebait)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 4 years ago | (#30738868)

Wow. I guess it only takes a few comic book movies to send you guys foaming at the mouth, huh?

What exactly do you find so offensive about hollywood? Is it because they produce so many mainstream movies? Or is it because you have some desperate wish for everybody to like what you like?

You know, if indie films (or books, music, video games, etc) are to be taken seriously, they need to promote themselves for their strengths, not just by some vague mud-slinging at Big Media.

Re:Reboot how? (1)

russotto (537200) | more than 4 years ago | (#30738910)

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.

Which, in this case, is Zachary Quinto (Sylar) as the Green Goblin. You heard it here first.

Re:Reboot how? (1)

AmigaMMC (1103025) | more than 4 years ago | (#30738932)

Perhaps Spider Man 2099 ?
It would be in line with today's trend of dark futuristic movies.

The first year of that comic wasn't bad at all, I still have them all.

Thank you... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30738106)

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.

Re:Thank you... (1)

lorenlal (164133) | more than 4 years ago | (#30738178)

At this rate they'll have almost nothing left soon.

Isn't that why they constantly reboot franchises?

Re:Thank you... (2, Insightful)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 4 years ago | (#30738500)

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:Thank you... (2, Interesting)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | more than 4 years ago | (#30738650)

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.

Too soon. (2, Interesting)

potscott (539666) | more than 4 years ago | (#30738122)

They should probably leave well enough alone at this point. I personally don't want to go see *another* Spider Man movie, reboot or sequel, for a while. By while I mean years.

Problem is: (4, Insightful)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | more than 4 years ago | (#30738184)

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

Re:Problem is: (1)

mrdoogee (1179081) | more than 4 years ago | (#30738580)

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:Too soon. (1)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 4 years ago | (#30738218)

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. (3, Interesting)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 4 years ago | (#30738318)

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:Too soon. (2)

kalirion (728907) | more than 4 years ago | (#30738412)

Am I the only one that liked Spiderman 3?

Re:Too soon. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30738558)

Yes.

Now go away, or I shall taunt you again.

Re:Too soon. (4, Interesting)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 4 years ago | (#30738596)

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. (1)

hitmark (640295) | more than 4 years ago | (#30738680)

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

Re:Too soon. (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 4 years ago | (#30738846)

The biggest problem with superhero films is that they've always gotta kill off the bad guys. They even did it in the Dark Knight, killing off Two Face, though they did leave the Joker alive (just to have Heath Ledger die, life imitating art, no?). The thing about the old comics and cartoons was that you had a stockpile of villains that usually ended up in jail or fleeing or whatever, and then returning. In the superhero movies now, you take an incredible villain like Dr. Octopus, make a great movie, but then kill him off. Rinse, repeat, until the franchise bogs down, then they reboot it, and start again. Now admittedly, for the most part, it's worked for the Batman reboot, but I'd say that's the exception rather than the rule.

Re:Too soon. (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#30738730)

I think the fact that your post got modded Flamebait should give you a clue about the answer.

As for myself, I think Spider Man 3 sucked on many levels and for many different reasons (not giving Venom enough screentime and Peter Parker crying like a bitch for half of it certainly didn't help.)

Re:Too soon. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30738734)

dude you have very shitty taste in film. some would say you're doubly stupid for admitting to being so low brow.

Comic Stories (1)

lymond01 (314120) | more than 4 years ago | (#30738130)

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...)

You Have No Idea (4, Interesting)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 4 years ago | (#30738172)

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:You Have No Idea (2, Funny)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 4 years ago | (#30738700)

But of course Sony wants to milk that cash cow ...

I think she's still going by "Kirsten", actually.

...why? (2, Insightful)

Shadowruni (929010) | more than 4 years ago | (#30738204)

I think we could forgive them for the 3rd movie since the 2nd one rocked so hard.

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

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:...why? (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#30738388)

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:...why? (2, Funny)

navygeek (1044768) | more than 4 years ago | (#30738420)

What Nick Cage Hulk movie are you referring to? I think you mean the Ed Norton one.

Re:...why? (1)

VShael (62735) | more than 4 years ago | (#30738662)

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:...why? (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 4 years ago | (#30738878)

Nick Cage would make a cool Hulk. You wouldn't even need CGI. Just paint him green and tell him "Okay, Nick, BE YOU, BABY!"

Re:...why? (1, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 4 years ago | (#30738652)

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 transformed it into something completely different, and in a way, far more in line with the original conception. If the third movie sucks, then they've taken a wondrous thing and turned it to shit.

Re:...why? (2, Interesting)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 4 years ago | (#30738908)

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 look like he was actually upset until he was big and green. Norton's Bruce Banner on the other hand was shown to actually have the emotion of anger, and to have to fight to suppress it and keep himself calm.

Amazing how bond could go 30+ years (3, Insightful)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | more than 4 years ago | (#30738298)

and these days they make it about 9.

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

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

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

Hello! Which part of radioactive spider bite (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30738410)

do you not understand?

Re:Amazing how bond could go 30+ years (1)

btcoal (1693074) | more than 4 years ago | (#30738496)

Or maybe it has something to do with audiences today being more finicky. They had to reboot the Bond franchise a few years ago because audiences didn't click with the old school Bond. And having seen every film, I can tell you that Casino Royale and especially QoS are *very* different from the first 18 or so films.

Re:Amazing how bond could go 30+ years (1)

bloobloo (957543) | more than 4 years ago | (#30738938)

They had to reboot Bond because Die Another Day was pure, unmitigated, drivel. It went beyond even the excesses of Moonraker from being a spy thriller to being a science fantasy.

Casino Royale showed that you could still tell an exciting story with gadgets, without having to resort to invisible cars or surfing down melting icebergs.

Re:Amazing how bond could go 30+ years (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30738606)

Young Bond Actors?

I guess you should look up how old Roger Moore was when he made his last Bond Movie.
Perhaps you light like to rethink your statement then?

Re:Amazing how bond could go 30+ years (2, Insightful)

MMC Monster (602931) | more than 4 years ago | (#30738756)

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.

This is not a reboot (1)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 4 years ago | (#30738396)

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... (1)

mrdoogee (1179081) | more than 4 years ago | (#30738444)

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! (1)

Prototerm (762512) | more than 4 years ago | (#30738470)

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 (4, Insightful)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 4 years ago | (#30738484)

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

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

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

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

Reward failure, punish success (4, Insightful)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 4 years ago | (#30738508)

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 (1)

VShael (62735) | more than 4 years ago | (#30738706)

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

If that were true, surely he'd be running his own studio by now. :)

Re:Reward failure, punish success (4, Insightful)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 4 years ago | (#30738818)

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.

Re:Reward failure, punish success (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 4 years ago | (#30738722)

Hollywood really isn't interested in making good movies, it's interested in tie-ins. Spiderman 3 had more characters to make action figures out of to be sold at McDonalds or Wendys or whatever. That Spiderman 2 was a fantastic movie was rather besides the point. I think even winning Oscars is pretty irrelevant now. I mean, who cares about critics, Oscars are any notions of artistic or narrative value, when you can get a guy like Michael Bay to make an eyesore like Transformers 2 and have that teen and early 20s demographic run to it, despite the fact that it may actually stand as the worst big budget film ever made.

Re:Reward failure, punish success (1)

paiute (550198) | more than 4 years ago | (#30738918)

Hollywood really isn't interested in making good movies, it's interested in tie-ins. Spiderman 3 had more characters to make action figures out of to be sold at McDonalds or Wendys or whatever.

And yet the film still hasn't turned a profit.

Stretching the Imagination ... (1)

foobsr (693224) | more than 4 years ago | (#30738560)

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.

I love it when... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30738612)

they repackage the same shit over and over and over and over again. I think hollywood needs a reboot.

I feel a great... (0, Redundant)

cigawoot (1242378) | more than 4 years ago | (#30738656)

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.

This rocks! I love the spiderman reboots.. (3, Funny)

filesiteguy (695431) | more than 4 years ago | (#30738668)

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

Then we could have Spiderman 5 - The Final Frontier.

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

That could be the final movie.

"Reboot" (1, Funny)

LoudMusic (199347) | more than 4 years ago | (#30738688)

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 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.

Hollywood (4, Funny)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 4 years ago | (#30738704)

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

Re:Hollywood (1)

xTantrum (919048) | more than 4 years ago | (#30738856)

I don't know...."Variety is like a high school newspaper that pays their writers 25 grand a year just to write stories about the popular kids!" I think i gonna wait till i get this from the L.A. times or something ;)

Who cares about Tobey McGuire? (4, Insightful)

ultraexactzz (546422) | more than 4 years ago | (#30738738)

I'm more worried about JK Simmons! Who else could be as perfect a J Jonah Jameson?

Who cares (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30738744)

Spiderman sucked anyway

Reboot really equals .. (1)

Rastl (955935) | more than 4 years ago | (#30738758)

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.

No Maguire, no movie? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30738800)

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?

Sing it with me! (5, Funny)

paiute (550198) | more than 4 years ago | (#30738880)

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

Here's why Raimi walked... (5, Interesting)

GPLDAN (732269) | more than 4 years ago | (#30738940)

If you read into these articles, Raimi walked because the studio wouldn't go along with the Vulture story, and specifically Raimi wanted John Malkovich to play the Vulture. And he wanted Anne Hathaway to be the Vultress. I am not making this up.

The studio told Raimi he didn't need an expensive star like Hathaway in that role, and they didn't want Malkovich and they didn't like the Vulture as the bad guy at all.

Now consider how Raimi has approached bad guys so far. Doc Ock? He was a good scientist, distraught over his wife's death, and the tenatcles took over his mind. Harry Osborn? Tormented by his father, instead of becoming the Hobgoblin he turns back to good. The Sandman? Just a father trying to redeem himself to his family.

Even Dafoe as the Green Goblin was obviously mentally ill. He was mad/evil, yes, but almost sympathetic. He really did get his company taken away by the corporate board, it really was all his genius, and the military was choosing an inferior technology due to politics. In some respects, he was kind of justified to get that pissed off.

Now imagine how Malkovich's Vulture would have come off? Probably just a sex freak with Anne Hathaway as the Vultress. Maybe he's bad because he was abused as a child. Maybe his mind was taken over by a Hippie played by John Cusack. So many possibilities.

In any case, it would have probably been the most way out there movie, really for the hardcore comic crowd and probably would have totally lost the under 21 crowd.

Prozac enduced (0, Troll)

jhoegl (638955) | more than 4 years ago | (#30738942)

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.

Creative Integrity? (0, Troll)

JM78 (1042206) | more than 4 years ago | (#30738946)

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.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...