kierthos | what

Spider Man 4 has been canceled, and the series is going to be rebooted, featuring a new cast and director.

Apparently, Sam Raimi making 2.5 billion dollars for Sony Pictures wasn't enough of an incentive to continue having him direct.

Seriously, though... rebooted? The motherfucking series is eight years old. Not 18. Not 28. Eight.

Edit: You know, though, that if they go through with this, that there's things that they should not do in the reboot.

1) Don't use the villains you've already used. Yes, the Green Goblin, Doctor Octopus, Sandman and Venom are well known members of Spider-Man's 'rogues gallery'. But give us someone we haven't seen in the movies. Give us the Lizard, the Vulture, Mysterio....

2) Don't show the origin again. As noted, the first movie in the Sam Raimi directed series came out in 2002. We do not need to waste 30-40 minutes of the movie showing Peter Parker becoming Spider-Man. We know the fucking story already.

3) For fuck's sake, don't get put super-star actors in roles just because they're super-star actors. Tobey Maguire was a relative unknown when he got the role of Peter Parker. In other words, no Tom Cruise, no Russell Crowe, no no, a thousand times no.

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

So, we're going to watch them shoot Uncle Owen...again?

Uncle Ben. And yeah, probably.

Uncle Owen dying is when they reboot Star Wars.

It boils down to two things:

1) Hollywood execs are greedy.
2) Hollywood execs are stupid.

Sure, the first three movies made a lot of money (probably far more than 2.5 billion, given the "creativity" of Hollywood accounting), but they look at series that have rebooted recently (Hulk - reboot successful, James Bond - reboot successful, Batman - reboot successful, etc) and think that there's more money in rebooting than there is in continuing.

Also, with rebooting, they can potentially get out of some contractual issues that may exist (more greed), get actors who are cheaper (more greed), and use different screen writers (cheap / more greed).

Also, it -potentially- gives them the opportunity to stop the stupidity of killing a villain in every movie. But that isn't likely; "finality" requires them to do something like that.

The thing is, it also works against them. Yeah, they could hire cheaper actors, but the actors are going to know that they're working on what has been a very successful brand name.

And it's going to piss off a lot of fans. I mean, sure, most of them will still flock to the theaters like lemmings, but I fully expect to see this movie tank. (Even moreso now that I've read that the initial script for it is supposed to be based around Peter Parker still being in high school.)

This is the second 'reboot' Ive heard. The other is F.Four.

Jesus, how many reboots do you think they'll do???

"Hulk" wasn't so much "rebooted" as the first movie was entirely ignored so that Marvel could make the movie they wanted that would fit into their larger continuity.

Bond was an ancient property with nowhere to go, so they made *different movies* based on the same source material - going with the original darker, more violent, semicompetent Bond from the books. It's a very different series, not a remake.

Same thing with Batman, with the added bonus that no Batman movie had ever been even remotely good before Batman Begins, and even Batman Begins was.... pretty bad, in spots.

In all three cases, they had detritus that needed to be cleared away before they could make movies that were *different* from the originals in tone and style and story.

Until they stop having bad movies that they'd have to keep continuity with?

(It helps, a little, that Marvel now has their own movie studio, with a track record of making good movies. Which has a side effect of them *remaking* every one of their properties that got a lousy movie when they sold the rights previously, whenever they can)

On the Batman movies:

Batman (Michael Keaton): Blech. It could have been worse. It could have been a musical. Frankly, I would rather have seen Keaton cast as the Joker.

Batman Returns (Michael Keaton): Bleeeech. About the only good thing in this movie was that DeVito made a wonderful Penguin.

Batman Forever (Val Kilmer): Bleeeeeeeeech. Don't get me wrong, Tommy Lee Jones made an interesting Two Face (although I would rather have seen Billy Dee Williams reprise his role from the first movie), but the Riddler? Damn. No, just damn. (But he's fabulous!) No, hush. Damn. Also, was there a worse actor to portray Robin then Chris O'Donnell?

Batman and Robin (George Clooney): Jesus H. Tap-dancing Christ, I always wondered what a train wreck of a film would look like when you're seeing it fresh.

You forgot Batman (Adam West).

Although your idea of Keaton as the Joker, and thus by extension Nicholson as Batman, makes me giggle as I die a little inside thinking about watching that movie.

Well, the Batman TV series with Adam West was deliberately campy, so it really falls under a different standard.

And honestly, I didn't mean to infer that if Keaton was playing the Joker, then Nicholson would be Batman.... but the idea is giggle-worthy.

I meant the Batman *movie* with Adam West. But yes, it was a correct and accurate reflection of Pre-Frank-Miller Batman.

But in the eyes of Hollywood execs, those are all reboots.

Yes, they got rid of kruft that had to be dumped... but they made money. Lots of it. So in the simple minds of Hollywood execs, "reboots make money".

Two thoughts on this matter:

1. They're doing a reboot because of Star Trek. The new one made jillions, and as I've posted about before, nearly every big movie goes from script to director to a studio exec saying "great now change it so it's just like $Other_big_selling_flick." Execs in hollywood get changed out more often than socks, and one failed flick (financially) is all it takes for them to be fired.

2. I'm glad they're going with a new director because the last two Spidey movies, in my opinion, sucked fat rhinoceros dick. I liked the first one though.

As I said down below, it's Star Trek's fault. Look for a lot of these, all year long.

Most, if not all, super hero movies have the same problem - killing off the villains.

Regardless of how good (or bad) the plot might otherwise be, killing off the Joker, the Penguin, Ra's al-Ghul (ok, his death is debatable), etc is a bad idea.

Unless it's something like vampires (Blade 1; 2 & 3 went from bad to awful) where supernatural things -could- bring them back.

what

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

....what...?

no subject

Re: ....what...?

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Re: ....what...?

no subject