Tuesday, January 12, 2010

Rebooting Spider-Man

Hey Hollywood-- if you're looking for a superhero movie to reboot, why not make something about Daisy California battling Nuketard?

Sam Raimi, who directed the first three "Spider-Man" films to varying degrees of success, has left the fourth film, along with all the actors. The studio, Sony, is now "rebooting" the franchise:

Mike Fleming and Nikki Finke have just confirmed that Sony Pictures decided today to reboot the Spider-Man franchise after franchise director Sam Raimi pulled out of Spider-Man 4 because he felt he couldn't make its summer release date and keep the film's creative integrity. This means that Raimi and the cast including star Tobey Maguire are out. There will be no Spider-Man 4. Instead, Mike Fleming is told, the studio will focus on a Summer 2012 reboot from a script by Jamie Vanderbilt with a new director and a new cast. All this took place today at meeting on the lot today

The first Spider-Man film was released in 2002, which means that it's reboot will appear 10 years after the original. The studio is to be commended for showing so much patience in waiting to remake the film. They could have released the reboot in 2007 to coincide with "Spider-Man 3," which is generally considered the least effective of the first three films.

Way back in 1977 there was a series of TV movies featuring Spider-Man. (It was awesome, as you can see from this representative photo-- Spidey would walk on ledges that were SEVERAL INCHES OFF THE GROUND, and thrust his hand out toward the camera.) So I suppose that technically you could say that Raimi's 2002 film was a reboot of those. That's a 24 year gap!

Then again, Warner Bros waited 16 years between their first Batman movie and the Batman Begins reboot. There were 28 years between the first Superman film and Superman Returns.

That much time is an eternity in comic book time, but it's not much in film. I suppose it's significant that both Superman and Batman are DC properties, while Spider-Man is Marvel. Marvel is the younger, "hipper" company. They're the ones who came up with whole "illusion of change" concept. Their sales dominate all other companies'. Why on earth would a studio wait more than ten years to reboot one of their franchises? In comics they reboot their series at least once a year.

Oh, and the new Spider-Man will of course be "grittier":

The next Spider-Man film will be a reboot of the franchise, not a continuation of series Sam Raimi created back in 2002 ...
This time around, the series will place Peter Parker in a more contemporary setting, as a teenager battling today’s issues.

More contemporary than... 2007, when they last "Spider-Man" film was released?

Anyway, is there any doubt that Ryan Reynolds will be cast as the new Spider-Man?

Hey Hollywood-- if you're looking for a superhero movie to reboot, why not make something about The Exaggerator?

Spider-Man TV movie pic source.


shampoo said...

if you were a freshman nerd in 2007, you'd be a senior nerd in 2010. see? totally grittier. haha

besides, spiderman is just not edgy. he's a well-meaning guy who gets good grades because he's smart.

i'm not sure, but I think they made sam rami use venom, if so they're to blame that the film was less successful. also, if he can't finish the movie fast enough how does a new director and cast get it done faster? without it being totally awful?

shampoo said...

I just checked my comic book source who said, yes, the studio made sam use venom. also he says, remember who just bought marvel? (hint: the mouse)
and that they want it to be a team. I don't understand how that can be, but get ready for team prostitot spiderman and princess friends!

Ricky Sprague said...

Yeah the story is that Venom was forced on Raimi, and it showed-- the Venom bits were the least inspired. I think I might be in the minority in thinking that the third film was at least as good as the second. But I am eccentric, so I'm told.

I'm not sure how Disney buying Marvel affects Fox's Spider-Man films. As long as Fox is actively developing the property, I think they maintain the rights. The same is true of Fox's use of The X-Men and Fantastic Four properties (so I thought). But that is all legal stuff and I understand little of how that works.

But perhaps we'll see Spider-Man webslinging his way through the "It's a Small World" ride.

shampoo said...

ricky sprague, that would be an awesome ride.

I forgot all about fox. hehe I don't know what he meant, I guess.

I liked spiderman 3. It was good. :)