The Amazing Spider-man

[The Dark Knight]

The pair made one more film, but the result is still the same. We have an actor who embodies the title character perfectly, and he will never likely reprise the role again. He's still fit to do it, but from now on he's going to do nothing but age. The fans of these two are not going to care if the series continuity carries over or not. They are still gone. Their era is over, and it shouldn't be. It's been freeze framed. That's my point.  

[phantom stranger]

My hope was that Spider-Man 4 would be the "real" Spider-Man 3: A continuation of the saga without ridiculous studio interference.

But if Sony's going to be a pain in the ass either way, it doesn't really matter what they release.

[thecolorsblend]

The difference is that Raimi essentially made a trilogy.  Even though it was his intention to continue with the franchise beyond three films, at least Sony is rebooting the franchise as opposed to what happened with Batman, where Warners tried to pretend that Schumacher's travesties had anything to do with Burton's classics.

The only way I could agree more is if I wrote that myself.  I wanted to see more from Raimi, Maguire, et al, but we've got a complete story as it is.

Mind you, that doesn't make this any less a fu.cking idiotic move by Sony, I'm just trying to see the bright side here.

And the more I think about it, the more I kinda feel like a reboot that does the origin sorta has to go in a more Ultimate type of direction to differentiate itself from the Raimi trilogy.  I'd kinda like that, actually.  A Mark Bagley or Todd McFarlane'ish kinda Spider-Man set in the Ultimateverse could be pretty interesting.

Still.  Nobody needs me to point out that the Raimiverse was riding a gravy train with biscuit wheels.  Rebooting a multi-billion dollar franchise is stupid beyond belief.

[Paul (ral)]

Part of me is interested to see the direction of a new series but most of me feels cheated.

As was said - no pay off with Dr Connors. He has become the "Burton's Harvey Dent" of the series - in a sense.

One thing I found strange though - Spider-man 4 has been promoted as having a May 2011 - yet there didn't seem to be a script?

Sony needed a big payoff next year by the sounds of it and Raimi wasn't going to deliver another Spider-man 3 for the sake of money - fair play to him.

Personally, I don't see the reason for a reboot. A reboot will only be compared more intensely to the original series.  A continuation of the series would have been better - unless they felt it didn't fit into the whole crossover thing that they have planned.

Rebooting is too easy. Fans invest in characters and actors. When studios start being too blas? about movie making I feel it is to their deprement.

[johnnygobbs]

If Sony are going to reboot Spiderman's origins then I hope Gwen Stacy, or even better, Liz Allen will be Parker's first love interest, and Stacy will be killed off by the Green Goblin, preferably wearing the original mask (not a Power Rangers rip-off).

Don't get me wrong.  I love Raimi's Spiderman films, but if there is going to be a reboot these are the sorts of changes I'd like to see.

[Grissom]

I was very surprised to hear this news browsing the web this morning and I was a little disappointed because I wanted to see a Spiderman 4 , I think they would have solved the problems of part 3 in that one. Who knows if they get the right creative team it can be worthwile, but I don't think they should do an origin story again. They should continue it just after Parker got his powers, maybe what happened in between before he faced the Green Goblin? 

[Gotham Knight]

The thing that grinds my gears about this whole thing is that there isn't enough of an excuse for this action. It's not as though Spider-Man 3 went all 'Batman Returns' on everybody. Kids weren't running out of the theaters screaming, mothers weren't splattering their viscous ink on newspapers crying 'perverted nostalgia.' It didn?t ruin anyone?s childhood. It performed well at the box-office and the worst thing anyone can say about it was ?eh?could have been better here and there.? And you?ve even got the man behind the big pay off working at a fourth go round of greenbacks literally web swinging into a studio bank near you. So, why I ask you, is a completely copasetic, copasetic hell, why is a money making machine that kids like and parents don?t feel violated by getting the ?oh my god, abort this before it gets loose and eats the other children? treatment?  By all rights, something this profitable and popular with mainstream audiences should be allowed to flourish for at least one more hurrah. And all of this is because of some backstage harrumphing from the guy who put the money in your pocket?  It?s like getting a hangnail and deciding to slice off the finger.

I mean, does anyone else see disaster here? As much as I LOVE Batman Returns, I accept it was unpopular and the redirection of the franchise boosted morale if only in the short run. Conversely, taking a hugely popular and recognizable universe and trashing it in favor of something that?ll be shelled out in less than four years time as though Spider-Man 1-3 were nearly thirty years ago is going to be catastrophic. It doesn?t matter if the product is good, it will be compared to death?think Burton Batman V Nolan Batman on steroids?or Bane?s Venom. I?m defending the new product here, too. It won?t ever be judged by merit, and mainstream audience confusion will sink ticket sales faster than Brittany Spears? neckline.

It?s like their shooting themselves in both feet. The first bullet has already sunk in. The second is in the chamber, and now its Russian Roulette to see if the guy needs a cane or crutches. Neither bodes well.

The lamenting continues?

DAILY BUGLE FLASH.

BEHIND THE SCENES TIZZY CAUSES EXCES TO TRADE IN SURE HIT FOR?.?I DUN KNOW?MAYBE??

[The Joker]

Just the other day I was watching Jimmy Kimmel where Tobey Maguire was a guest, and actually spoke about filming Spider-Man 4 sometime in 2010.


Well apparently that's out the window now.  


With the reboot, I was surprised to see that Sony is actually going with this option when I read about it yesterday, but in this day and age where damn near everything is either getting rebooted, or remade, it's actually not so surprising in that sense.

It's a big gamble, so we'll see how this turns out. Personally, I would have preferred a Spider-Man 4 over yet another reboot. Sure, I did not like the Vultress idea AT ALL, but Malkovich as the Vulture seemed promising. Unfortunately, from what I read, Sony did not agree on this and apparently it eventually got to the point where a reboot was the only viable option in Sony's eyes.

Which is just as well. If Sony was going to mandate such and such much like in the case of Spider-Man 3, then it's really for the best that Sam Raimi, Tobey Maguire, and Kirsten Dunst departed from the franchise. We've already experienced a particular unfocused Spidey movie in 2007. We don't need a repeat.

Should be interesting to see how fans, and general audiences accept this new approach.

Especially the new casting.

[phantom stranger]

To my understanding, Sony gets to keep making Spider-Man movies as long as they...keep making Spider-Man movies.

So basically, if they went 4-5 years without having a Spider-Man movie in active development, the rights would go back to Marvel/Disney. They'd rather put out a crappy film then let that happen. 

[Kamdan]

WHOO-HOO! BRING IT ON, BABY! I just wish that Marvel Studios was handling it, like Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk. Hopefully they'll get someone that is fairly young so he can stick around for more than 2 sequels. Tobey got old with the part... VERY FAST. I also like how they are shooting for a 2012 release. Just in time for Spidey's 50th anniversary!