SPIDER-MAN 4 breaking news

[comicwiz]

I don't understand why they can't treat the superhero movies the same way they treat the James Bond films.

 

Yeah why not?

 

Isn't that exactly what they're doing? Bond rebooted and started over with Daniel Craig.

Yes and no. With the Bond movies, each one is independent and stands on its on. It isn't part of a trilogy or a set of movies. Yes, you see some of the same characters pop up in other movies, but they don't really build on one another. Plus, when the lead actor and/or support cast get bland, they get the boot. Judi Dench is the best M they've ever had.

 

Perhaps what Spider-Man needs is a Galore or a Holly Goodhead.

 

I'm not sure if its because Hollywood wants to stay true to the complex continuity and plot structure of the comic book genre. But what would make it difficult with a Spider-Man movie would be the character development of the villains. I think that's why the blew it with Spider-Man 3 - there was just too much going on. The only way to make each movie standalone would be to introduce one villain, because there are too many colourful and supporting characters that just shouldn't be absent from the plot.

 

Why I think a standalone structure isn't used with super-hero flicks is partly due to the fact that its more attractive to Hollywood to build on a number of characters in one movie with the off-shoot potential of bankrolling a new soloist if audience demand calls for it.

[homerwannabee]

Bruce Campbell is so overrated.

 

x 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

 

He is a clown.

 

Wow, looks like some people are truly facetious impaired.

I wasn't being facetious.

 

I know that, but people who say Bruce Campbell is epic are being facetious. It is the fact that you are taking people's hyperbole on him seriously. When people talk about Bruce Campbell, it is in the same vein as when people talk about how much a bad*spoon* Chuck Norris is. I wonder if you also think Chuck Norris is also overrated? This whole Bruce Campbell thing is a joke. Almost everybody who says Bruce Campbell is awesome is being tongue and cheek about it. But you seem to be too block headed to actually realize this.

No, I actually spent two hours listening to and watching Bruce Campbell at the Toronto Fan Expo. He's overrated. You're just too big of a dumbass to realize that someone besides yourself knows what they're talking about, Mr. Thinks-He's-Clever. Isn't it time for you start a new thread about minuscule minutia that no one gives a damn about?

 

OK, since you seem to be getting emotional about this, I'll end this conversation/argument on my side.

[homerwannabee]

Look at the bright side everyone, KIRSTEN DUNST IS GONE!

 

WOO HOO!

 

+1 (thumbs u

 

Let's get a real actress (hot one too) to play Mary Jane.

 

I hated Tobey + Kirsten in those movies... and don't get me started on the mess they made of Venom.

 

 

You know it is guys like you who thought it a wise idea to put Jessica Alba in the Fantastic Four movie. In fact since it is just about looks with you, just have Jessica Alba be casted for this role as well.

 

"Guys like you"?

 

Not so my friend... She was miscast in my opinion.

 

An I'm the guy who had to sit behind Dunst at a wedding and listen to her idiotic banter for three hours... There's nothing going on up there if you ask me. (I'm being harsh I know, you had to be there and listen to her whine)

 

"Hot" to me is someone who could fit the role as always portrayed in the comic books. "Hello Tiger" isn't something Dunst could ever pull off. Too mousy and annoying if you ask me.

 

Cast someone who could portray Mary Jane.

 

And by the way Alba was a horrible choice in the FF movies.

 

Your experiences are different then mine so I'll leave it at you're word that you know what you're talking about in regards to Kirsten Dunst in her personal life. Personally I am a huge Spider-man fan, and a huge fan of the movies as well. Especially the first two. If you felt that Kirsten Dunst was a bad casting choice, than so be it. We have a difference of opinion.

[DrWatson]

I don't understand why they can't treat the superhero movies the same way they treat the James Bond films.

 

Yeah why not?

 

Isn't that exactly what they're doing? Bond rebooted and started over with Daniel Craig.

Yes and no. With the Bond movies, each one is independent and stands on its on. It isn't part of a trilogy or a set of movies. Yes, you see some of the same characters pop up in other movies, but they don't really build on one another. Plus, when the lead actor and/or support cast get bland, they get the boot. Judi Dench is the best M they've ever had.

 

Perhaps what Spider-Man needs is a Galore or a Holly Goodhead.

 

I'm not sure if its because Hollywood wants to stay true to the complex continuity and plot structure of the comic book genre. But what would make it difficult with a Spider-Man movie would be the character development of the villains. I think that's why the blew it with Spider-Man 3 - there was just too much going on. The only way to make each movie standalone would be to introduce one villain, because there are too many colourful and supporting characters that just shouldn't be absent from the plot.

 

Why I think a standalone structure isn't used with super-hero flicks is partly due to the fact that its more attractive to Hollywood to build on a number of characters in one movie with the off-shoot potential of bankrolling a new soloist if audience demand calls for it.

I can certainly understand the point of wanting to develop a potential spin-off character, but sometimes simplicity is better. Do we really need a whole host of characters?

 

I would love to see a movie written with an original -script and not a story that has been adapted (read fiddled with) out of the comic book.

[capt_comics]

Look at the bright side everyone, KIRSTEN DUNST IS GONE!

 

WOO HOO!

 

+1 (thumbs u

 

Let's get a real actress (hot one too) to play Mary Jane.

 

I hated Tobey + Kirsten in those movies... and don't get me started on the mess they made of Venom.

 

 

You know it is guys like you who thought it a wise idea to put Jessica Alba in the Fantastic Four movie. In fact since it is just about looks with you, just have Jessica Alba be casted for this role as well.

 

"Guys like you"?

 

Not so my friend... She was miscast in my opinion.

 

An I'm the guy who had to sit behind Dunst at a wedding and listen to her idiotic banter for three hours... There's nothing going on up there if you ask me. (I'm being harsh I know, you had to be there and listen to her whine)

 

"Hot" to me is someone who could fit the role as always portrayed in the comic books. "Hello Tiger" isn't something Dunst could ever pull off. Too mousy and annoying if you ask me.

 

Cast someone who could portray Mary Jane.

 

And by the way Alba was a horrible choice in the FF movies.

 

Your experiences are different then mine so I'll leave it at you're word that you know what you're talking about in regards to Kirsten Dunst in her personal life. Personally I am a huge Spider-man fan, and a huge fan of the movies as well. Especially the first two. If you felt that Kirsten Dunst was a bad casting choice, than so be it. We have a difference of opinion.

 

Kirsten Dunst and Jessica Alba were PERFECT choices for Spidey and FF

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[comicwiz]

I don't understand why they can't treat the superhero movies the same way they treat the James Bond films.

 

Yeah why not?

 

Isn't that exactly what they're doing? Bond rebooted and started over with Daniel Craig.

Yes and no. With the Bond movies, each one is independent and stands on its on. It isn't part of a trilogy or a set of movies. Yes, you see some of the same characters pop up in other movies, but they don't really build on one another. Plus, when the lead actor and/or support cast get bland, they get the boot. Judi Dench is the best M they've ever had.

 

Perhaps what Spider-Man needs is a Galore or a Holly Goodhead.

 

I'm not sure if its because Hollywood wants to stay true to the complex continuity and plot structure of the comic book genre. But what would make it difficult with a Spider-Man movie would be the character development of the villains. I think that's why the blew it with Spider-Man 3 - there was just too much going on. The only way to make each movie standalone would be to introduce one villain, because there are too many colourful and supporting characters that just shouldn't be absent from the plot.

 

Why I think a standalone structure isn't used with super-hero flicks is partly due to the fact that its more attractive to Hollywood to build on a number of characters in one movie with the off-shoot potential of bankrolling a new soloist if audience demand calls for it.

I can certainly understand the point of wanting to develop a potential spin-off character, but sometimes simplicity is better. Do we really need a whole host of characters?

 

I would love to see a movie written with an original -script and not a story that has been adapted (read fiddled with) out of the comic book.

 

I agree. I might be alone, but I think Spider-Man 3 would have been better off introducing the black costume without the need to drag in Venom (would rather have seen him bidding for time in the shadows or in the movies backdrop with a cameo appearance at the end). IMHO, it was a rushed character introduction that was very likely motivated by spin-off potential.

 

If I had a choice in how this would all play out, it would have been cool if they prolonged the reboot (say until 2015) and in between they decided to build on the black costume plot and did the first cross-over super-hero flick based on Secret Wars.

[Drakeprimeone]

The Batman franchise reboot worked because it was about 8 years between Batman and Robin (1997) and Batman Begins (2005). Basically, this allowed a whole cycle of school kids to grow up into adulthood.

 

Spider-man 3 came out in 2007. I guess they're feeling 5 years is enough.

 

If it HAD come out in summer 2011, it would have competed directly with Thor and Captain America. With 2012, it may compete with the Avengers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

You would have to count the amount of time between the first movie and the reboot because it should be the same opening plot (origins story).

2002 for Spiderman and 2012 for its reboot

 

1989 for Batman and 2005 for Batman Begins

 

Its way too soon to just do a reboot of Spiderman imho

[MutantKeys]

Honestly, I have 0 interest in watching another origin movie

[sckao]

The 1989 Batman was more of a Joker origin versus the Batman origin. (Whereas Batman Begins dealt with his training to be Batman which wasn't really covered in any prior movie.)

 

So while it was a reboot, it was a clever reboot concentrating on different aspects. Note that Batman: The Dark Knight doesn't really delve into the Joker's origins that much versus exploring his psychosis.

 

This Spider-man reboot makes the protagonist YOUNGER and still in high school. If they start cycling through the same villains, that could be a problem. People have also seen him in a relationship in the movies. If they go back to a young Gwen Stacy and Mary Jane, I think people will be confused.

 

The Hulk reboot alludes to some experiment that turns him into the Hulk but continues from there basically ignoring the rest of the first movie.

 

 

 

 

[Point Five]

The 1989 Batman was more of a Joker origin versus the Batman origin. (Whereas Batman Begins dealt with his training to be Batman which wasn't really covered in any prior movie.)

 

So while it was a reboot, it was a clever reboot concentrating on different aspects. Note that Batman: The Dark Knight doesn't really delve into the Joker's origins that much versus exploring his psychosis.

 

This Spider-man reboot makes the protagonist YOUNGER and still in high school. If they start cycling through the same villains, that could be a problem. People have also seen him in a relationship in the movies. If they go back to a young Gwen Stacy and Mary Jane, I think people will be confused.

Agree with all. It seems like a really strange decision.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Bruce Campbell is so overrated.

 

x 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

 

He is a clown.

 

1 Nonillion, huh?

[RockMyAmadeus]

This thread almost had legs for a while there.....

 

[TheWatcher]

This from Daily Variety (italics are mine for the part I found interesting):

 

Star Tobey Maguire and helmer Sam Raimi, who were both set for big paydays for "Spider Man 4," will no longer be involved in the franchise as Col moves forward with a high school-aged Peter Parker pic, which will bow theatrically in summer 2012.

 

Last week, Columbia confirmed that "Spider Man 4," which was scheduled to begin lensing in February and be released in 2011, was on hold indefinitely due to -script problems. Columbia needs to continue actively developing "Spider Man" films or else the property will revert back to Disney/Marvel.

 

The studio has long prepared for the contingency of "Spider Man 4" falling apart and already has a James Vanderbilt-penned -script about a teenage Peter Parker ready to shoot. That film, which has no director or star attached, is now in preproduction. The new version will likely cost far less than a "Spider Man 4" given that Columbia, which has a mandate not to give away more than 25% of the gross, won't be paying the high salaries or gross points to returning talent.

 

The new untitled Spider Man film will center on the webslinging teen as he grapples with both contemporary human problems and amazing super-human crises. Avi Arad and Laura Ziskin are producing.

 

Studio co-chairman Amy Pascal said Col has "a rare opportunity to make history once again with this franchise." She added, "We're very excited about the creative possibilities that come from returning to Peter's roots."

 

Raimi, who disagreed with the studio about the direction "Spider Man 4" should move, has expressed no hard feelings. "While we were looking forward to doing a fourth one together, the studio and Marvel have a unique opportunity to take the franchise in a new direction, and I know they will do a terrific job," he said.

 

The studio plans to hire a new helmer and a star in the coming weeks.

[mackenzie999]

I welcome this whatever comes of it. There were a few fun moments in each of the movies, but overall they weren't very good at all IMHO. McGuire & Dunst were awful, heck, even Willem Dafoe was over-the-top terrible, and he's usually at least somewhat compelling.

[howardhallis]

I think Pixar and Disney are going to do Spider-Man as a 3D cgi animated film. How cool would that be? We already know Pixar could do a Fantastic Four movie way better than the live action ones with The Incredibles. Imagine what they could do for Spider-Man.

 

Animation will be much more forgiving in making the stories closer to the comics while also creating renewed interest in the character for a generation of 5 year olds who like Iron Man and Wolverine better.

[awe4one]

And so the Marvel movie plan starts to unravel....can't say I'm surprised considering how ambitious it was. Just too many fickle pieces involved...

 

Mark my words, the eventual Avengers movie will not be the all-star affair everyone wishes. I know this is a Sony deal but Marvel has already shown a reluctance to pay the big money involved with keeping all the main charcaters from their planned movies together (look at the Sam Jackson/Nick Fury affair for a refresher). And I doubt it'll happen. The movie will get made but with substitutes...

 

Jim

[kimik]

Wow, looks like Marvel is executing its plan to tie the movies into the comic books is working like a charm. Spidey 4 = BND!

 

Too bad, as I would have loved to see a movie deal with the Sins of the Past storyline.

[The Silver-Age]

And so the Marvel movie plan starts to unravel....can't say I'm surprised considering how ambitious it was. Just too many fickle pieces involved...

 

Mark my words, the eventual Avengers movie will not be the all-star affair everyone wishes. I know this is a Sony deal but Marvel has already shown a reluctance to pay the big money involved with keeping all the main charcaters from their planned movies together (look at the Sam Jackson/Nick Fury affair for a refresher). And I doubt it'll happen. The movie will get made but with substitutes...

 

Jim

 

I believe all the main, and I mean MAIN characters are already signed for the avengers film. Other than Cap, who is supposedly an up and comer. So he should be fairly cheap for at least 2 films.

 

Only time will tell.

 

I don't really care how ths Spidey thing turns out. Never been a huge Spidey fan.

 

But I hope it doesnt affect the other Marvel entities.....

[ComicConnoisseur]

So if its Spider-man teen years then we get to see Gwen?

[Boozad]

Oh, yes. I saw him in Toronto. Not impressed. He was just a tad snotty.

 

Well, that's good enough for me. I always form a permanent opinion of someone after a single and fleeting meeting.

 

 

So does Roy