Spiderman 4 scrapped, Toby and Raimi no more
http://www.imdb.com/news/ni1399369/
Kinda of a suprize to me... although Spider-man 3 sucked, I was sort of looking forward to see what the 4th one might bring... oh well..
Kinda of a suprize to me... although Spider-man 3 sucked, I was sort of looking forward to see what the 4th one might bring... oh well..
Replies
QFT
damn that's stupid. take winning combination of actor's, director, story and characters, reboot coz the director won't hit an arbitrary date(and expect that movie goers will go see it anyways).
I mean spiderman 1 and 2 were alright and 3 was bearable but what do i know or care about a new reboot of spiderman. newer is not always better(superman returns anyone).
getting really fed up with hollywood recycling all sorts of stuff instead of trying something new.
/END RANT
thank god games are so new that this bs isn't quite so rampant (yes i know there are exceptions but still)
3 was one of the worst movies i've ever seen. Not only did it have retardedly stupid i'm bad emo spiderman scenes, but they cast 250 pound body builder eddie brock with 90 pound that seventies show kid, THE ONLY THING i liked about the movie was ron howards daughter, EVERYTHING ELSE is vetoed.
this is good news.
first one was the best one though
i genuinely forgot what had happened before when i was only two thirds of the way through. Utterly chronic, stunk to high heaven of contractual obligation and zero interest from the director. If there's going to be another one, a whole new crew can only be a good thing
"Reboot" doesn't necessarily mean another origin story though - it could just as easily be a rethink of style, tone, target audience, whatever.
Hell, just ditching that simpering cast (especially that tranquilised ginger one who played his sleepy girlfriend) and getting some actors who don't make you deeply hate the characters would be enough of a reboot for me. Yay, a hero i actually want to triumph.
2 was good except for rehashing getting his powers back, Dunst and the unfortunate 'We won't tell' scene.
3 was crappy, Dunst, emo douche Parker, Eddie Brock JR (I refuse to believe that was the real Venom) and his photoshooping, JJJ was made into a comedic fool, the dance scene that stretched beyond the limits of decency and funny.
Sandman was glorious in it though.
The way MJ was written in these movies was TERRIBLE. I never did understand why Parker liked her enough to risk his life, other than she was the girl next door. She treated him like utter shite and had no redeeming qualities.
Maybe they will do an Ultimate take on Spidey this time.
WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
i'm glad spidey 4 is out the window, but REBOOT!?! SERIOUSLY!?!
where's my gosh damn crowbar... the shit's going to turn into smallville... you just watch and bow your head in shame and embarrassment.
oh snap I forgot about that.
when she finally got to go to sleep (rather than just floating around in that half-awake insomniac state), spidey was going to sneak in and have his way with her. They were saving it up for 4.
It killed Spiderman 3 too. Sony wanted to pack so many things into that movie, supposedly because that was to be the final Spiderman movie. Raimi hated the decision, but had to do it anyway. You can see how much the movie suffered, and I can't blame Raimi for calling it quits with this one
I think this might be true. Though Sony owns the Some of the Contract of spiderman, Marvel is now owned by Disney so there is some major Barganing power, So with a new reboot there is also a rewrite of contracts. I would bet that in those contracts is something about allowing all characters within this spiderman reboot to have appearances in the Connected Filmverse that marvel is trying to make with Hulk and Ironman. Pure speculation though.
but he's still an important part of the world they inhabit.
After the mistake that the 3rd film was, I'm not really upset by this. The Spiderman franchise did well through the second installment, but then it started getting hit bad by Batman-itis. This is an affliction where too many characters are crow-barred into a story, preventing any one of them from being developed properly. As should be obvious by now, the real star of any comic-book movie is the villain, not the hero. Spiderman 1 wasn't good because of Toby McGuire, it was good because Willem Dafoe seriously delivered on the Green Goblin. (despite the piss-poor costume they put him in) Spiderman 2 wasn't good because of the crappy romantic relationship Peter Parker struggled with, or the emotional hang-ups that caused him to lose his powers. No, it was good because Alfred Molina's take on Doctor Octopus was so solid. (and because of the interesting direction that the writing took his character in)
If Spiderman 3 had dropped Venom entirely, and just focused on Sandman instead, 80% of the film's problems would have been solved. Squeezing in Venom's backstory, as well as the introduction of the black suit, and Spiderman's relationship to it, hamstrung the film. Since Spiderman was the common link for all of the various sub-plots, he became the focus of the film by necessity. No matter how much they tried to explore the villains, they always had to come back to Spiderman to tie everything together.
finally!
If ultimately a reboot is made, here's hoping it's actually half decent to watch.
Fixed that for ya. Also, Eric Foreman as Venom was a megafail.
In the third film, they had plenty of opportunity to use Sandman as a relevant character. They found a good actor to play him, and that REALLY looked the part. They gave the character a decent set-up, with a family he was trying to support through illicit means. And then they screwed the whole thing over by ret-conning Sandman into Ben Parker's murder. They couldn't have picked a worse direction to take it in. And the whole reason they did it was because they needed to rush Spiderman's plunge into emo-ville. They could have used Sandman's back story to build sympathy for the character, and to explore Spiderman's conflict over trying to stop a criminal who was committing crime in order to help someone in need.
Frankly, I think they tapped Harry Osbourne out in the second film. Unless they were willing to commit to his villainy in the third film, they should have toned down his role considerably. A better way to portray him in the third film would have been to show him only as a side-story, focusing on his rise to power in the corporation his father had founded. (helped along by his use of the drug his father developed)
Venom needed to be the sole villain. he is spidermans arch nemesis and far and away one of the most important stories to tell, you can't dredge that up in the middle of a harry osborn/sandman/gwen stacy story.. each one of those were their own arcs in the comics for a reason. I was so excited when I heard that he was going to be in the 3rd movie.... never have I been let down more in my entire life - and unfortunately it made more than both 1 and 2. I'm glad they killed the fourth one instead of ruining something that could be great.
On the side of a potential avenger tie in - he wasn't an original avenger, but then again they are planning on having the avengers released in 2012.. Possibility of some web swinging antics in the sequal? I could see that... and please please PLEASE make him a wise cracking sarcastic spiderman.
funny read.
She looks like a wide faced troll to me
Runs away...:)
Eh, she's not to bad looking, but she doesn't fit the Mary Jane character at all. She always came off as a bad impersonation or a generic version, Wal-mart brand Mary Jane.
I just puked a little bit.
Hated 3, glad a 4th one isn't coming anytime soon. Although I was really looking toward carrot top playing as Cletus Kasady/Carnage...:poly142:
That would be bizarre, but in an awesome way
I wanted to see the lizard finally appear.