Spider-Man 4 Gone - Franchise Reboot
Jan. 11th, 2010 08:21 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sindra posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
scans_dailyhttp://powet.tv/powetblog/2010/01/11/spider-man-4-cancelled-reboot-already-scheduled/
Looks like the franchise is being dumped, and subsequently will be rebooted. Raimi and Toby have both jumped ship it seems.
And for legality.
Always fun stuff.
Looks like the franchise is being dumped, and subsequently will be rebooted. Raimi and Toby have both jumped ship it seems.
And for legality.
Always fun stuff.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-12 01:46 am (UTC)(I will hold out faint hope for Joss Whedon writing/directing, I thought his Spidey in AXM was fantastic.)
no subject
Date: 2010-01-12 01:56 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-12 02:27 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-12 02:32 am (UTC)THAT'S WHAT THIS IS!!!
THE BEST HOPE FOR STETCONNING BND WAS THE CONTINUATION OF THE MOVIE RELATIONSHIP WITH PETE AND MJ, BUT NOT NOW, NOW IT'S GONE, HOW MUCH YOU WANNA BET MJ'S ROLE IS GONE OR MINIMIZED NOW ARGH!!!
(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2010-01-12 02:35 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-12 02:48 am (UTC)(no subject)
From:Thanks..
From:no subject
Date: 2010-01-12 02:00 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-12 02:05 am (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2010-01-12 02:02 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-12 02:07 am (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2010-01-12 02:04 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-12 02:34 am (UTC). . .
Have you SEEN any Spider-Man movies?
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:I've yet to see one..
From:no subject
Date: 2010-01-12 02:11 am (UTC)The Incredible Hulk reboot got it right, montoge the origin in the credits then let it be assumed the audience knows of the character.
Most of these characters had their origins told in a handful of panels in their first appearance, deconstruction and decompression is one thing but how many movies can we make retelling the same origin that can be summed up in a paragraph?
These characters have been used to tell decades worth of stories, some of which are absolute masterpieces that will never be adapted because every damn time someone options a movie they decide to start from the begining.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-12 02:19 am (UTC)I much prefer the "Master and Commander" version of storytelling. Drop the audience somewhere in the middle and let them figure it out. Heck, even Iron Man did a little forwards-backwards timeline jiggle to keep things interesting.
I agree with you about the stories - it boggles the mind that instead of easily snagging an acclaimed storyline and just running with it, so much time and effort is invested in mediocrity.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2010-01-12 02:15 am (UTC)It very obviously used to mean "back up, let's try again. That sure sucked the first time. Maybe if we actually hired writers."
So a reboot of, say, League of Extrordinary Gentlemen makes sense. But the first two Spider-Man movies were just fine. So we don't need to undo those. Instead it would just be, for example, "an adaptation of Spider-Man from the 'Ultimates' line" (oh please. please?).
Reboot. Remake. Adaptation. I demand that words have meanings, dammit, and you can't just make crap like Spaceballs 2: The Search for More Money and then be like, oops, lol, reboot. No.
LOEG re-make? O.o
Date: 2010-01-12 02:22 am (UTC)Re: LOEG re-make? O.o
From:Re: LOEG re-make? O.o
From:Re: LOEG re-make? O.o
From:Re: LOEG re-make? O.o
From:Re: LOEG re-make? O.o
From:Re: LOEG re-make? O.o
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2010-01-12 02:22 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-12 02:39 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-12 02:57 am (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:I have a lot of respect for William Dafoe but..
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:X-posted from NoScans:
Date: 2010-01-12 02:43 am (UTC)So...yeah.
Re: X-posted from NoScans:
Date: 2010-01-12 06:50 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-12 02:46 am (UTC)GO REBOOT! GO!
no subject
Date: 2010-01-12 03:57 am (UTC)(no subject)
From:Damn Right..
From:no subject
Date: 2010-01-12 03:29 am (UTC)Just saying.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-12 05:02 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-12 04:01 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-13 03:32 am (UTC)ooh.
By citizenrob at 2010-01-12
no subject
Date: 2010-01-12 05:37 am (UTC)If a movie is not at least 25 years old, IT DOES NOT NEED A FUCKING REBOOT.*
The first three movies are still widely available on current playable media. They're still in the public consciousness. And recently! These things need time to fade. On top of that, I firmly believe that remakes don't even need to exist, but if they must, at least make them out of movies that have faded away with time, you know?
*Yes, I am aware this still makes Nightmare On Elm Street eligible SHUT UP SOME THINGS ARE SACRED OKAY
no subject
Date: 2010-01-12 06:48 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-12 05:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-12 08:46 am (UTC)Here's a thought - if all this rebooting and starting over is going to happen anyway, why not have a series of movies that basically consist of multiple different takes on the same mythos, by a different director and cast each time? Picture, for example, a series of Batman movies with one done all Silver-Age like the old TV show, one emulating the Neal Adams feel of the late '60's, one an homage to the old Tim Burton films, one done in the style of the old serials, etc. Or an X-Men series, with one featuring them in the old yellow and blue outfits and spouting Stan Lee quips, one in the Chris Claremont era, one done all fantastical with the Shi'ar and the Spacejammers and all the wild corners of the MU, one very serious and down to earth and addressing the parallels between racism and homophobia, one featuring Storm in a mohawk with Mojo as the villain, etc. If one of them was successful enough, a sequel could be made, and if it wasn't? Well, no harm done, another one's in the works already. Effectively, the studios could keep spinning out a franchise years past when the public would normally start losing interest, because it'd be a new thing every time, which would keep interest piqued. They'd make loads of money, and we'd eventually get just about everything we wanted, in one form or another. Wouldn't that be cool?
...
*sigh* Oh, yeah - reality. Well, I can dream, can't I?
no subject
Date: 2010-01-12 04:13 pm (UTC)This is quite simply THE best comic book-film news I've ever heard!
Date: 2010-01-12 06:46 pm (UTC)Maybe now we'll get a Spiderman that y'know actually wisecracks? Which has pretty much been the defining characteristic that set him apart from Batman, Superman etc from day one. Perhaps we'll even get a Goblin that doesn't look like a Power Rangers rip off?
And for those who worship at the altar of Spiderman 2, maybe we'll get a Peter who isn't such a coward that he, upon losing his powers, sheepishly skulks away when witnessing an old man being beaten up in an alley? I mean let me get this straight, the guy who never forgives himself for not trying to stop a criminal who later murders his father figure is suddenly willing to turn his back on potential murder..again?!? No Pete would have at least tried to do something. Even if all it accomplished was to get him a beating..I mean, how many times in the comic books did Spidey lose his powers and yet nonetheless go up against the bad guys? Heck, in the cartoon he did this against the entire Sinister Six! FUNDAMENTAL MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE CHARACTER!
Raimi has never got Spiderman. He coasted along on his reputation from a couple of horror comedies whose success were largely down to Bruce Campbell's charisma, lucked into landing a film of THE MOST BANKIBLE comic book character in the world, and managed to take all the credit for it's nigh inevitable success, and has been leaching off that well ever since.
It's like a critic said of the 1989 Batman when confronted with it's box office grosses.."yeah, but just imagine how much more money it would have made if the film had been any good?" I believe that was answered with a little film called The Dark Knight last year. (Though I thought the critic was being overly harsh, as Michael Keaton did make a sincere attempt to capture the intensity of the character. And certainly understood Bats more than Tobey MacGuire ever did Spiderman, if Tobey's ever dull and slow witted, potrayal was anything to go by..)
No Raimi, miscast the lead role, (and arguably MJ too) and then proceeded to mangle the film interpretations, laughing all the way to the bank.
As for Spiderman 3, I am so sick of Raimi getting a pass for that citing studio interference. Oh, lets see, what was that again? The studio actually listening to the fans and putting what was the most requested villain into the series in place of Raimi's choice of the vulture? Yes, Raimi had Spiderman 3 having 3 villains long before Avi stepped in there..(Something that's so often conveniently forgotton by Raimi apologists) Whereupon Raimi, used his position to sideline the character, (Empire film magazine had a VERY revealing interview with the special effects guys who couldn't understand why Raimi kept trying to minimize Venom in the film..)
Heck even that stupid, emo dancing routine? Pure Raimi. Just look at the slow motion 'raindrops keep falling on my head' sequence from Spiderman 2 to see the director's complete lack of understanding of what an audience will tolerate.
No, he got lucky because the effects, production values, and poularity of the character covered up a multitude of sins that only started becoming apparant to most folks, when the 'Emperor's new clothes' sheen started to wear off the franchise by it's third outing.
This is the best thing thing that could have happened to the series. Maybe now we'll get a director who understands the character, and actually casts an actor that is capable of playing the role, and brings a sense of fun, and excitement back to Marvel's flagship Superhero..
no subject
Date: 2010-01-12 11:26 pm (UTC)Also add to the fact that MJ appeared as nothing more than a shallow, love interest/damsel in distress who abandoned Jameson Jr at the altar. WTH happened to the hyper active, happy-go-lucky, understanding and sweet MJ of the comics?
MJ..
From:no subject
Date: 2010-01-13 02:36 am (UTC)Not that I want that proposed Spider Man 4 either.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-13 03:30 am (UTC)