SuaveStar Posted January 12, 2010 Report Share Posted January 12, 2010 I'll just call it ambitious. It took years for them to requel the Superman franchise after part four. You had to remind me, four years of therapy with Dr Desmond, all down the drain! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grahamvidger Posted January 12, 2010 Report Share Posted January 12, 2010 If they go the Ultimate route, I'm fine with whoever the actors (whether they look like the characters in the comics), but peter has to look like this: I just don't think Tobey could look like that, I want an actual young actor. Like, maybe not even older than 17. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackFetch Posted January 12, 2010 Report Share Posted January 12, 2010 The plan was to make one more, and then reboot the series. According to studio insiders, Sony was working on both Raimis Spider-Man 4 and the new origin story from James Vanderbilt, who wrote Zodiac. The original plan was to keep the Spider-Man gang together for one last film in 2011 before rebooting the series in 2012. When it became clear that Raimi would not be able to make the summer 2011 release date planned for Spider-Man 4, the studio opted to scrap Spider-Man 4 altogether, and focus solely on the series reboot. http://hollywoodinsider.ew.com/2010/01/11/spider-man-reboot/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elnino14 Posted January 12, 2010 Report Share Posted January 12, 2010 The plan was to make one more, and then reboot the series. According to studio insiders, Sony was working on both Raimi’s Spider-Man 4 and the new origin story from James Vanderbilt, who wrote Zodiac. The original plan was to keep the Spider-Man gang together for one last film in 2011 before rebooting the series in 2012. When it became clear that Raimi would not be able to make the summer 2011 release date planned for Spider-Man 4, the studio opted to scrap Spider-Man 4 altogether, and focus solely on the series reboot. http://hollywoodinsider.ew.com/2010/01/11/spider-man-reboot/ What gets me is that if they were going to reboot anyway, why not just let Raimi do whatever the fuck he wants? I mean why put all these restrictions on him or input stupid ideas (like a young female vulture, I have a feeling that's Sony and not Raimi). I mean I don't get it. You get one more Raimi Spidey, make lots of money, and then reboot and make lots of more money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuaveStar Posted January 12, 2010 Report Share Posted January 12, 2010 The plan was to make one more, and then reboot the series. According to studio insiders, Sony was working on both Raimi’s Spider-Man 4 and the new origin story from James Vanderbilt, who wrote Zodiac. The original plan was to keep the Spider-Man gang together for one last film in 2011 before rebooting the series in 2012. When it became clear that Raimi would not be able to make the summer 2011 release date planned for Spider-Man 4, the studio opted to scrap Spider-Man 4 altogether, and focus solely on the series reboot. http://hollywoodinsider.ew.com/2010/01/11/spider-man-reboot/ What gets me is that if they were going to reboot anyway, why not just let Raimi do whatever the fuck he wants? I mean why put all these restrictions on him or input stupid ideas (like a young female vulture, I have a feeling that's Sony and not Raimi). I mean I don't get it. You get one more Raimi Spidey, make lots of money, and then reboot and make lots of more money. Cause the studio knows better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dread Posted January 12, 2010 Report Share Posted January 12, 2010 Because 200 million dollars is about 180 million dollars too much to let someone do whatever they want to do in Hollywood. Personally, this is good news. Anything's better than another SM3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightWing Posted January 12, 2010 Report Share Posted January 12, 2010 am I the only one who thought Tobey was a bad spiderman? Yes, just you. No, it's not just him. I agree. Tobey took all the brilliance out of the character of Peter Parker, replacing it with cow-eyed doofus stares and overly feminine melodrama. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackFetch Posted January 12, 2010 Report Share Posted January 12, 2010 I liked Tobey McGuire. I just didn't think Spider-Man should have a lisp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 12, 2010 Report Share Posted January 12, 2010 I ask this, as a non-comics reader: do Marvel/Sony see Spidey as solely a college-age superhero who has no intrinsic value once he becomes a young adult? Pretty much, yeah. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slothian Posted January 12, 2010 Report Share Posted January 12, 2010 am I the only one who thought Tobey was a bad spiderman? Yes, just you. No, it's not just him. I agree. Tobey took all the brilliance out of the character of Peter Parker, replacing it with cow-eyed doofus stares and overly feminine melodrama. He played a put upon geek racked with guilt and adapting to his powers. Aside from not quipping a lot (which is the fault of the script), I'm not sure how Maguire sucked the Peter Parker character of "brilliance". If you need more of where I'm coming from, I wrote a profile on the guy a few years back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elnino14 Posted January 12, 2010 Report Share Posted January 12, 2010 Because 200 million dollars is about 180 million dollars too much to let someone do whatever they want to do in Hollywood. Personally, this is good news. Anything's better than another SM3 I'm still of the opinion that the reason Spider-man 3 sucked was because Sony forced Raimi's hand to do Venom in the movie and it was something he really didn't want to do. I think Raimi could have done good work, his first 2 movies were pretty focused. Sony just doesn't like the classic characters. The only way this is going to be good if they follow the precedent set up in Ultimate Spider-man, but even so, does anybody REALLY want to see another origin story for Spider-man, I thought the origin Raimi had was quite excellent. I can't sit through another origin, especially when it's not necessary at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stavros Posted January 12, 2010 Report Share Posted January 12, 2010 Maguire was perfect for Peter Parker, as Slothian said the only issue was the punning which wasn't his fault. He's one of those actors who you can't picture being a tough guy or handsome or confidant but when he does it on screen he's completely convincing. I really respect his skills, I'm looking forward to Brotherhood where he plays a battle-shocked marine coming home. I think that's a really neat role for him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slothian Posted January 12, 2010 Report Share Posted January 12, 2010 Maguire was perfect for Peter Parker, as Slothian said the only issue was the punning which wasn't his fault. He's one of those actors who you can't picture being a tough guy or handsome or confidant but when he does it on screen he's completely convincing. I really respect his skills, I'm looking forward to Brotherhood where he plays a battle-shocked marine coming home. I think that's a really neat role for him. In a way, the Spider-Man trilogy hasn't been great for Maguire's career as he was making some BRILLIANT films befor he was cast as Peter Parker (although I like the first entry a lot and Spidey 2 is one of the best CBMs out there). In terms of mainstream recognition, box-office success and a paycheck to be envious of, obviously the franchise was incredibly good to Maguire, but he made only six non-Spidey films during the Noughties, three of which came before the first Spider-Man. I too am looking forward to seeing Brothers and hope that the guy comes into his own as an actor who isn't merely regarded as Spider-Man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stavros Posted January 12, 2010 Report Share Posted January 12, 2010 Yup, I'd highly recommend The Cider House Rules or The Good German to anyone. I'm adding Pleasantville and the Ice Storm to my rental list right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chadzilla Posted January 12, 2010 Report Share Posted January 12, 2010 Because 200 million dollars is about 180 million dollars too much to let someone do whatever they want to do in Hollywood. Personally, this is good news. Anything's better than another SM3 I'm still of the opinion that the reason Spider-man 3 sucked was because Sony forced Raimi's hand to do Venom in the movie and it was something he really didn't want to do. I think Raimi could have done good work, his first 2 movies were pretty focused. Sony just doesn't like the classic characters. My gut (and it’s starting to get a bit big these days, damn middle aged spread) is telling me that Sony just didn’t want to dick around with Raimi, who - if rumors and certain comments are true - was truly and bitterly burned during the making of Spider-Man 3. Raimi himself has stated that he lost control of the production process (unlike the first two, where he claimed to have creative control) and that he would do another only if he had the same amount of control over the final product that he had with 1 and 2. When a director apologizes for the kind of movie he made, although it made $339 million of “Fuck you, Fanboys” money, it makes me think he truly cares about making a good movie, not just a successful one. What ultimately sunk Spider-Man 3 was that Raimi was forced to make a movie about a character he was on record as saying he neither liked nor understood. Sony wanted Venom. No Venom, no movie. Raimi made the error of going with the latter instead of the former (but he might have had to do the movie due to a contractual obligation, he HAD to give the studio a movie). But it was so clear that Raimi’s directing heart was only in the Sandman sequences, while the Venom story line (save for the notorious dance sequence and the Bad Peter montage, where Raimi indulged his love of old school slap stick and blunt force parody) just sat there. Also, I don’t think that Raimi’s heart was really in doing Spider-Man 4. I think he was trying to do it more or less to “fix” the errors in SM3 and Sony was, “Errors? What errors? Look at the bank account for this one!” Whether or not the reboot will actually be a good movie, one that brings the character to a whole new generation of fans (yep, by the time 2012 rolls around there will be plenty of kids seeing their very first Spider-Man movie, ever...hard as that is to believe) depends entirely on the creative team the studio assigns to make it. If the studio hands the project over to a strong director, swell. But if the studio hires someone like the Hill Street Blues chick that directed Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakuel or someone that will simply film the movie they want, not swell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dread Posted January 12, 2010 Report Share Posted January 12, 2010 No one has to make a movie. He could have given Sony another film very easily. If you don't have your heart in it and you still make it then it is still your fault. I'm sick of Raimi apologism. I like the guy. He's a competent director who's made a few great films and a lot of not great films. SM3 was a stinking abortion of a movie; as uneven as it was ham-fisted. About the only thing that worked was the restaurant scene but even that was in the wrong movie. Strike that: Bryce Dallas Howard was stellar. And to say that the black SM persona didn't work except for the dancing and Bad Peter montage is like saying...well, I don't know what it's saying but it isn't good. That was a major contributor to the film's suckage in my opinion. Hayden Church's deadpan Sandman was almost as bad as the extreme sports Goblin. Not to mention the useless retconning of an origin to include a murderous villain? Awful. Why complain about a reboot when they did it already? Venom's the only villain that worked in the film, though Sandman looked good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 12, 2010 Report Share Posted January 12, 2010 I was with you until the "Venom working" part. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dread Posted January 12, 2010 Report Share Posted January 12, 2010 I was with you until the "Venom working" part. Right. A little strong. Worked better than the other two villains. There's another thing. 3 fucking villains! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly Posted January 12, 2010 Report Share Posted January 12, 2010 I just straight up like Sam Raimi too much to hate much of anything he does. I'm part of the problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 12, 2010 Report Share Posted January 12, 2010 Sandman was useless, but filled the "bad guy who's not that bad" quota. Take him out and spend more time developing Brock, it could have been decent. Hated the look of Venom though. His was one of the few cases where a practical costume can never work. He needed to be full-on CGI. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightWing Posted January 12, 2010 Report Share Posted January 12, 2010 He played a put upon geek racked with guilt and adapting to his powers. Aside from not quipping a lot (which is the fault of the script), I'm not sure how Maguire sucked the Peter Parker character of "brilliance". Yeah, he wasn't quippy, but that's not just the script's fault. He quipped a bit in the first film, but it came off forced. Peter in the comics comes off as a very clever and smart individual; the quips are essential (both as Peter and as Spider-Man), as they show how how quick-thinking he is. Tobey is great at the deep, meaningful stuff, but he comes off as dopey. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chadzilla Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 No one has to make a movie. Not entirely true. Certainly that is more true today than it was in the days of the Old Studio system, where producers ruled with an Iron Fist and directors (with the exception of a precious few) were just their glorified gophers, but it is still not outside the realm of possibility. George A. Romero had to make a film titled Day of the Dead, because he signed a three picture deal with United Film Distribution that stated he would do so (and thus granting him the artistic freedom to make Knightriders). Although the stories have changed somewhat and become factually muddled, it was pretty much said outright in 1986 that Tobe Hooper took over the directing chores of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre Part 2 because he wanted to do his third picture for Cannon and finish off his three picture deal. Granted those examples were from 1984 and 1986, and times and the industry has changed since then... But you are rig... NO, I refuse to give up my apologist delusions! Damn your logic, it BURNS!!! I’m melting, oh... But, yes, you are right, sir. Raimi made a bad movie. A very, very bad movie. A movie so bad that it soured me on the character and the series (and do NOT get me started on the “erasing” of Spider-Man’s marriage in the comics; my head exploded with a childish rage of atomic proportions about that, but I digress). I’m also just pissed that Sony has made comments that it does not want non-human villains in its Spider-Man movies. So that means no Lizard... and I love the Lizard... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stavros Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 Spider-man 3 is just about the only major superhero film I don't own, and I haven't been sort of opportunities to pick it up. Thing is, I liked some parts. There was solid characterisation behind Sandman, even if the revisionist version of events ruins Spidey's entire mythos. Pete being a dick was hilarious in places. The way he just completely snubs MJ at that bar, its awesome. Unfortunately they ass-raped Harry (who up until then had the best slow build of any villain in a film series I've seen) and Venom was so rushed that he meant nothing, all because Sony wanted to sell the video games and the merchandise. As a result no-one could come across as strong as Doc Ock, and these films are sold on personalities. Whether its Nicholson or Ledger as the Joker, RDJ as Stark or Jackman as Wolverine, the public need those big characters as either the hero or villain. Doc Ock was a good watchable character, both in who he was and what he could do, and thats because so much time and care was put into him. Divide a burned out director three ways and you'll get three incomplete villains. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delete Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 The too many villains excuse holds no water with me. Batman Begins and The Dark Knight could not possibly cram one more villain in them and those movies work. Not making it work is the fault of the filmmaker and no one else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 Batman movies - 2 villains, one major, one minor. Spider-man 3 - 3 major villains. It does make a difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.