"The Amazing Spiderman" (2012)

[Draconian Guppy]

this picture is slowly coming true!

Gold!

Jokes aside, it makes me very sad... When I first heard they were making a movie out of my favorite comic book hero couple of years ago I was amazed... 2 & 3 weren't so bad, except for the gayish venom... (topher grace was alright, they just neutered venom)... and now this... The Dark knight made so much money because it was good... Twilight series on the other hand is just blah... ( no offense for die hard fans to each their own...)

Although marvel & sony haven't announced anything yet, I'm betting my dime on what all of we are saying here is accurate :no:

[bolix]

Going with the whole Twilight fad it would probably be about Morbius

[draklin]

Going with the whole Twilight fad it would probably be about Morbius

Yes! Robert Patterson as Morbius! And all his scenes will take 20 minutes to complete, even if he only says 3 words. But he'll have his shirt off so all the girls will love it.

[draklin]

From a studio executive's perspective it makes some sense - the costs can be considerably cut back for the next one, while they'll essentially have full control of the property again and will likely hire a more complicit director. The return to teenage years rather than exploring the life of a 30-something married man holds more appeal to both a younger audience and the studio's merchandising partners. Recasting Parker as more of a 'hottie' and a bigger emphasis on the romance will also likely pull in more of a female audience base and get the character more spoken about in the cultural ether in the way its biggest rival Batman is in the wake of Christopher Nolan's two films.

Those trade-offs however come at a price - the potential alienation of the core fanbase. The first two films are critical darlings, all three are box-office behemoths, and a lot of people have loyalty to Raimi far more than they do the studio and in some cases the character itself. In less than a day a generally supportive in-built audience has suddenly become far more negative and cynical, damaging the brand's value overnight. The move puts the pressure on Sony to deliver the goods - a fan-approved director and new star is a good start, but right now they face a very tough road ahead that won't end until Summer 2012.

Hear that? that was my interest in the movie dying. I'm always able to get re-interested in it when I can see some footage, but for now... meh.

[Rappy Veteran]

Easily the biggest news to hit in recent weeks was the word that Sony has scrapped production on Spider-Man 4 and will reboot the character with a new film (and, presumably, an ensuing series) featuring a new cast and creative team. A general 2012 date has been mentioned, but no specific date has yet been set; expect the studio to stake a claim in May, and for any other films in that region to shift accordingly. Will Sony battle Marvel, which has The Avengers penned in for early May? You bet.

With such big news hitting early in the week, outlets are already crawling around looking for tidbits of info, and there are a few useful things to know about Spider-Man v2.0 that we didn?t cover in our first report.

First up, while I thought the facts were implicit in Sony?s press release, let?s be explicit: the new script by James Vanderbilt has already been written.

Variety notes that Sony ?has long had? Vanderbilt?s script ready as a contingency plan. In other words, when he was hired to write Spider-Man 5 and 6, which were mentioned as possible reboot fodder, what he was really doing was writing this fresh start on the character. Given that Sony doesn?t want to do anything that will potentially see Spider-Man go back to Marvel, the studio was smart. (See a note about being ?smart? at the end of this piece.)

According to EW, the idea was to have the reboot ready to go as soon as Spidey 4 was done. But when discussions about that film went nowhere, Vanderbilt?s new take was given priority. Now they?re ready to go with a script.

We don?t know much about what that script entails, other than it will feature a younger teenage Peter Parker. EW calls the script ?gritty, contemporary? and references Batman Begins, seemingly not only in the sense that Christopher Nolan reinvented Batman on film, but in the sense of tone. Which would be a shame. Let?s have anything but a gritty Spider-Man, please. Anyone with a shred of understanding of the character knows that, while the stories can be heavy, ?gritty? isn?t what makes Spider-Man universally appealing.

There?s speculation already (as by Devin at CHUD) that this is a grab for some of the Twilight tween energy and fanbase. But I just see this as a cheaper, easier move. Sam Raimi directed three films, so is it easier to bring a new director into his world, or create a new world altogether? The latter, as Anne Thompson suggests, and I think she?s right. This will definitely be cheaper, as Sony has just shed a couple of names with big dollar signs attached. Spider-Man 3 cost almost $300m, and the fourth film could easily have gone that high. Now can the studio make this reboot for $200m or less? One would hope so.

Who directs this leaner, cheaper beast? More important, who has the right touch to follow Raimi, who is a director with both a real soul and a deep, practical background in making comic book-style movies? EW mentions a couple of names, saying that Marc Webb, director of (500) Days of Summer, has cropped up, but doesn?t say in what context. The mag also mentions Gary Ross, hired to write one of the last Spider-Man 4 drafts, and Michael Bay, who has expressed interest in the character. Those latter two seem unreasonable; I?d consider any of the three a surprise hire. (And, to echo Anne Thompson again, let?s hope it?s not McG.)

(Edited to add: One point I forgot is that Sam Raimi has indicated that he knows Spider-Man 3 wasn?t up to snuff. The primary reason I?ve seen to be interested in the scuttled fourth movie is that Raimi had a real creative incentive to make it a killer. Everyone wants to go out on a high note. If he?d been allowed to let that impluse free, we could have come out of this with two great films ? 2 and 4. That Sony wasn?t interested implies ? implies, mind you ? volumes to me. No way of knowing; maybe Raimi?s ideas really weren?t good. But if they were, and Sony would rather go this route? Ouch.)

So: about being smart. From a couple of business perspectives, this is arguably a smart move. The film will be cheaper, and Sony can exert more control. Key talent will know that major names like Raimi and Tobey Maguire were let go, fostering the understanding that Sony?s take on the character is more valuable than anything else. That?s the bottom line. For Sony, that gets the movie made the way the studio wants.

But what made the first two films so much fun? What created the franchise momentum that allowed the relatively lousy third film to earn hundreds of millions? Not Sony?s keen business sense (OK, marketing the hell out of the series didn?t hurt) but Sam Raimi?s interest in and passion for the character. He knew what he wanted, and had good ideas about how to get it. He almost always kept the tone right. Raimi created scenes that will stand as indelible examples of the character. The subway sequence in Spider-Man 2 is a stone-cold classic. Spider-Man can thrive without Raimi and/or Maguire, but not if the approach is a calculating one. The character has always been about heart and impetuous, impulsive energy. Those are the things that Sony is poised to kill by making this into pure business.

Slash Film

[Growled Member]

I may pass on the reboot unless the movie is pure genius. I'm really tired of reboots. And the way Sony was went about this just sticks. My expectations are very low.

[Massiveterra]

if a reboot means no more musical segments then I'm in (Y)

[apollos84]

I enjoyed all three recent Spider-Man films. I think some new movies are in order! As long as they don't rush it and develop a good plot with good acting, these new movies should be good.

[ViperAFK]

Fail. Sony were the ones that f'd up Spiderman 3 too with all the execs pushing their stupid ideas on raimi.

[Rappy Veteran]

if a reboot means no more musical segments then I'm in (Y)

:p

[ViperAFK]

:p

lol.

But all that crap was the producers who added in the whole other love interest thing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiderman_3

The producers also suggested adding rival love interest Gwen Stacy, filling in an "other girl" type that Raimi already created.[22] With so many additions, Sargent soon found his script so complex that he considered splitting it into two films, but abandoned the idea when he could not create a successful intermediate climax.[3]

[Xero]

Raimi has Spidey for the last decade. They gave him 3 films. I'm glad they are starting the next decade fresh. His were entertaining but they could be better, eager to see another take on Spiderman. I seriously hope they take a more serious route and not something Disney-inspired. The originals were bad enough, give me something a little more mature please. I know the character likes making wise cracks and thats still fine, original 3 just felt like the Fantastic Four's. I'd prefer something more like Iron Man/Batman Begins. It'll be interesting to see how they change the suit, if they do.

[Frylock86]

Let's not forget that Marvel plays a part in this also. It's not all Sony.

Actually this fits perfectly in Disney's plan. They bought Marvel, so make Spiderman a teen hero played by their very own Zac Efron...with Miley Cyrus and her wigs as M-J, and the Jonas brothers as the bad guys! One for every movie.

YOu totally stole my idea! Hahaha.

https://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?show...#entry592105682

[Massiveterra]

?Did you read the script man?", he asks, "I mean, it was ****ing terrible ? it was pretty much Spider-Man 3 all over again. I kid you not, it was just a mess. Seriously. You say people are ?sobbing? now, but had this film been made, fans would?ve been jumping off roof-tops!".

OOF

http://www.moviehole.net/201022855-caffein...y-spider-senses

[Mathachew Veteran]

So does this mean in 2020, when they're discussing Spider-Man 4 v2, they'll decide to have another reboot so that they can keep their grubby hands on the movie rights even longer? It doesn't seem that far fetched....

[fix-this!]

this is a joke, im sick of reboots. my god hollywood is screwed up. this reboot will fail. they had a good thing going and a good story now it's all flushed down the drain.

[Rappy Veteran]

So does this mean in 2020, when they're discussing Spider-Man 4 v2, they'll decide to have another reboot so that they can keep their grubby hands on the movie rights even longer? It doesn't seem that far fetched....

I am not sure I will care at 2020 :rofl:

[Massiveterra]

this is a joke, im sick of reboots. my god hollywood is screwed up. this reboot will fail. they had a good thing going and a good story now it's all flushed down the drain.

?Did you read the script man?", he asks, "I mean, it was ****ing terrible ? it was pretty much Spider-Man 3 all over again. I kid you not, it was just a mess. Seriously. You say people are ?sobbing? now, but had this film been made, fans would?ve been jumping off roof-tops!".

http://www.moviehole.net/201022855-caffein...y-spider-senses

:p

[Tech Star]

YOu totally stole my idea! Hahaha.

https://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?show...#entry592105682

Wow. :p Great minds think alike. :D

Also, I liked Spiderman 3...wtf you guys on? It just was not as good as the first two.

Also...I read on MSNBC that Spiderman 4 was put on hold...not canceled. We might have some hope.

[Rappy Veteran]

Wow. :p Great minds think alike. :D

Also, I liked Spiderman 3...wtf you guys on? It just was not as good as the first two.

Also...I read on MSNBC that Spiderman 4 was put on hold...not canceled. We might have some hope.

doubt they would have 2 different stories going on in 2 different universes :unsure:

[Xero]

MSNBC as the news source is bad enough :)

They took it as far as they could. I don't want to see Spiderman battling a wife and family. That'd be so boring.

[Ayepecks]

I love reading all the justification for hating the reboot, since every single bit of "justification" I've seen is pure and utter speculation -- nothing more. I mean, writers around the Internet are comparing it to Twilight, when they have absolutely nothing to back it up. Maybe people should give it a chance before slamming it.

As a massive Spider-Man fan growing up, I was letdown with the movies. I thought they were far too goofy feeling, personally, and I felt Mcguire was a horrible cast for Spider-Man.

[Andrew Lyle Global Moderator]

They should just do a full 3D animation instead of a live action film... Spiderman, reboot or not, will flop.

[Pc_Madness]

Maybe people should give it a chance before slamming it.

Err, no? It doesn't matter if its the greatest movie in the world, you can't just reboot a series every time you get stuck or the original cast doesn't want to do it anymore. If you encourage this kind of crap the studios will just remake the same shows every 10 years.

Movies are supposed to be about telling amazing stories, not money.

[Rappy Veteran]

sums it up