Spider-Man No More?
by James HudnallIn that classic issue of Spider-Man #50, the cover blazed that question as the reader stared at an image of Peter Parker, head down, walking away from the enlarged ghostly image of Spider-Man. Inside, a panel showing his suit in a garbage can was lovingly recreated by Director Sam Raimi in the film Spider-Man 2.
Director Sam Raimi
What made the Spider-Man movies some of the best superhero adaptations ever was that Sam Raimi was a fan who knew the comics, translated them faithfully. But more importantly, had the style and panache to breathe life into those stories on the canvas of celluloid.
Rumor has it, in their “infinite wisdom,” the execs at Sony decided that John Malkovich was too old to play the villain the Vulture in the new movie that was planned. They wanted all kinds of changes to the script and they wanted the film to come out in 2011. Raimi, having had a third villain forced on him in the last film, decided he couldn’t maintain the quality under that schedule and left the project. Taking the cast with him.
A decade ago we set out on this journey with Sam Raimi and Tobey Maguire and together we made three ‘Spider-Man’ films that set a new bar for the genre. When we began, no one ever imagined that we would make history at the box-office and now we have a rare opportunity to make history once again with this franchise. Peter Parker as an ordinary young adult grappling with extraordinary powers has always been the foundation that has made this character so timeless and compelling for generations of fans. We’re very excited about the creative possibilities that come from returning to Peter’s roots and we look forward to working once again with Marvel Studios, Avi Arad and Laura Ziskin on this new beginning,” said Amy Pascal, co-chairman of Sony Pictures Entertainment.
So they’re going with an a new, younger cast. And a new director. Good luck with that.
Lightning in a bottle is a hard thing to catch. If they had kept it to two villains in Spider-Man 3 it might have been a great film. As it is, truth be told, it was decent. I know hardcore fans didn’t like it, but it made major bank. Without Raimi’s expert handling, they are now forced to find a director in a short amount of time, get a decent script together and a cast who will have to step into the well-established shoes of the Raimi cast.
“Returning to its roots,” aka High School, could come off like a direct-to-video sequel. Of course, it all depends on the cast and the director. A high profile franchise is sure to attract the A-list, but it takes a special talent to do a character like Spider-Man right. Someone who has an excellent grasp of the mythology and an understanding of the “feel” of that world.
One of the things people forget now, is how revolutionary Spider-Man was when it came out. The character had been tried unsuccessfully before in both the US and Japan on television. It seemed lame. But Raimi made it magical and alive.
They could, of course, imitate what he brought to the screen. But will it have the same spark?
Marvel’s had a hit or miss track record. Where their films excel, it’s with directors who get the material and show a real love for it. Who also stay true to form. It’s not as easy as you’d think to find the right talent. The video store shelves are littered with the failures of those who tried.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
78 Comments
I grew up reading Spider Man as he eked out a living with photos for the Bugle while on and off again trying to complete his higher education, and fight villains at the same time. This was great. High school Spidey, I don't need. I know the comic started that way, but that was a long time ago, and going backwards in the story seems….backwards.
The Raimi movies were pretty good, although Tobey Maguire really never did it for me, and some of the writing made me cringe. If they continued the time line, there could have been promise. Too bad they'll never take advantage of that Lizard storyline they were setting up.
the spider man movies were long dull abortions.
the plots aren't even coherent enough to criticize. raimi has made some excellent movies with 1/20th the budget. time to walk away.
I'm a 40-something fanboy, and have always been more of a DC fan than a Marvel fan, so when I say that the Spider-Man movies (well, the first two, anyway) are probably the best superhero movies ever, I'd like to think that my opinion is pretty unbiased.
By the third movie, it felt as if things were just getting too stale. I cringed at the thought of having the franchise diluted any further. Tobey is starting to get too old to play the character, anyway. I'm actually sort of happy that there will be no Spider-Man IV (I'm not betting that the reboot/retool is going to make it into theaters any time soon). Let it go. There are a zillion other characters from Marvel, DC, and all of the smaller comics publishers that I'd love to see on the big screen, if they were done right.
Who's up for a Flash movie? Doctor Strange? Captain Marvel (either the Marvel version or the Fawcett/DC version)? There's so many other characters yet to be explored. Let's just say that Spidey had a great two-and-one-half movies and call it a day.
The Spider Man franchise was mediocre from the start. Sam Raimi is a talented director but he should have walked after the first installment. A new cast can only improve the effort.
I suggest J. J. Abrams helm the next Spider Man episode and take the same creative jump with this one as he did with Star Trek.
I liked all 3 films, all in their own way, but the one problem I did have with them is Raimi's timeline of events had Spidey growing up way too quickly. If Sony does do a complete reboot, I for one hope they almost go the Ultimate Spider-Man route and keep him in highschool for the first 2 new movies or so. Early Spider-Man comics, whether the original or the re-vamped ultimate universe, were always more interesting when he wasn't in the costume…and it'd be cool to see if they can recapture that. It'd also help them define when things went from 'Peter Parker, who also happened to be Spider-Man…to Spider-Man who also happened to be Peter Parker'.
Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. The *greatest* superhero movie franchise (sorry, Spidey fans) is a reboot: the Christopher Nolan Batman dyptich, which was a new team, back-to-the-beginning re-envisioning after the old franchise which began with Burton's worthy 1989 version decayed into the lamest of lame sequels.
"There are a zillion other characters from Marvel, DC, and all of the smaller comics publishers that I'd love to see on the big screen, if they were done right.
Who's up for a Flash movie? Doctor Strange? Captain Marvel (either the Marvel version or the Fawcett/DC version)? There's so many other characters yet to be explored."
The one I'd like to see is Captain America unashamedly kicking jihadist butt. But I'm not holding my breath.
Captain America is in the works as is Thor and Ant-Man, all leading up to an Avengers movie.
I actually considered mentioning Steve Rogers in my original comment–but I didn't even bother. We all know that Hollywood would ruin a Captain America movie–and if by some miracle they "got it right" and we BH people liked it, the libs would dismiss it as "right-wing, jingoistic propaganda" or some such. Besides, the whole "frozen in suspended animation since WWII and still mourning for the loss of his kid sidekick, Bucky" thing would just never be accepted by a modern audience.
I've been a fan of Sam Raimi since his Evil Dead days and I consider his first two Spider-Man movies to be some of the best comic book movies to have been made in recent years. The third movie definitely suffered from the studio pushing him to include Venom, a character he wasn't familiar with and didn't like. Replacing Raimi with someone the studio execs find to be more pliable doesn't strike me as boding well for the franchise. I won't be looking forward to the next Spider-Man movie. I will be looking forward to Raimi's next project.
I definitely liked Ironman more than the Spidey movies, but they were still very good. I might seem weird, but the first Punisher with Tom Jane was awesome, too. Also, the new Batman franchise with Christian Bale is very good.
I'm sorry, but Spider-Man 3 was not in any way decent. I say that as someone who has never read the comic books, only the movies, and thus had no real expectations going in, and as someone who loved the first two movies and couldn't wait for #3 to come out. While I agree it had the potential to be a great movie, they totally screwed it up along the way. After leaving that movie, the more I thought about it, the more I hated it. Honestly, I think the breaking point was when Tobey Maguire did the whole pelvic thrust thing. That's a dealbreaker.
ok, this post probably won't be too popular…
'Spiderman' was a good comic, a pretty good animated series and a so-so film franchise. Maguire and Raimi weren't the problems- nightmarish third reels- convoluted plot twists, impossible to follow action sequences, too much CGI- all hurt darn good first acts. Delivering pizza as Spidey is a great gag. The showdowns with the villains caused our eyes to glaze over as we looked at our watches waiting for the ending that never seem to come…
As a matter of reference the preferred Marvel comics to film are Jonathan Hensleigh's impressive 'The Punisher',
and Tim Story's nice (short!!) cartoony Fantastic Four films, which at 93 minutes- instead of a self indulgent I got millions to spend 130 minute epics work- for us.
'Superman Returns' will stand as the bloated epic. No contest there. And we do understand the appeal of Peter Parker and Spiderman. But a lower cost, edgier reboot is absolutely the way to go…
James Cameron + Aquaman = box office gold!
John Malkovic too old for the Vulture? From my memories of reading Spidey as a young boy, I remember the Vultrue being an old buzzard.
Also looking forward to the Luke Cage movie (whenever that comes out), and Ironman 2 this summer.
The studio is playing into the same problems that plagued Spider-Man 3. Three villains was bad, it ate up too much time on the screen, but the major proble was refusing to let Spider-Man grow up. Maguire's Parker showed immense growth from the first movie to the second, than was turned into to a whiney, crying, sniveling mess in the third. Here was a guy who could take on the world and battle for life and death, but couldn't take rejection from his girlfriend.
I'm on both sides of this. I would really enjoy seeing Raimi delve out Spidey movies for years, taking on that lovable rogue's gallery and letting us watch Peter Parker become a full-on adult. But I'm not sure the character can survive after Maguire's portrayal in the third. But Malkovich? Raimi? A re-focus? I'll take my chances with that.
Just like Marvel, Sony is stuck in this "Spidey has to be 16" argument, which goes against the comics completely – the best Spider-Man work came when he was in college or in his mid-20s. Arguably, his mid-80s run with Roger Stern was the high point of the book.
If Hollywood wants to survive, it needs to end this obsession that life somehow ends when one becomes old enough to vote.
And good lord, keep Cameron and his jizzy symbolism as far from the director's chair as possible.
Honestly, what broke 3 was not the inclusion of Venom but how making Sandman responsible for Uncle Ben's death wrecks the originally established theme that random bad people sometimes do random bad things to good folks; it could happen anywhere and to anyone. Peter turns his life around because of chance encounter that forced him to re-evaluate his world-view. Making Uncle Ben's murder an "Oh, well he did it cuz he needed the bread" thing throws that out the window.
Those Fantastic Four movies were terrible if you read the original Stan Lee/Jack Kirby stories. Even if you hadn't. the writing of the characters, esp Reed Richards and Dr Doom was so far off base it's appalling
Does Chris Nolan have anything on his plate for the, next say, next 10 years?
Tobey Maguire will be the new Indiana Jones …. really : )
Michael Cera will be the new Spiderkid
The first Punisher was with Dolph Lungdren and Louis Gosset Jr.
Having said that, I agree that the reboot with Jane was very good. Travolta was the albatross in that movie.
maybe so…
But liked Story's eye- better looking for their lower budgets than Raimi's excesses. And funnier, too. Plus, just having the Silver Surfer' (rmember your 'Breathless'!) on screen with the Destroyer of Worlds worked nicely. Plus, as said they are shorter. That helps as well…
Forgive my pathetic movie ignorance, but does the term "reboot" mean they start from the beginning with the story of Spider-Man–like Peter (not Tobey this time) getting bitten and figuring out all his abilities? What I mean is: could Superman Returns be considered a "reboot of the franchise" since all they did was continue the storyline in the last flick with Reeves playing the character? Just curious…
I agree entirely, except about the acting. Spiderman had alot of potential before but at a lower budget with a leading actor who actually can act and some effort in the scripting, the chance for success would certainly go up. When a single animated tv show's plot from the 90's shows up a supposedly cutting edge movie franchise, you know there's something wrong. I wish the best to Raimi, but I'm kind of glad Maquire is gone. I've seriously lost interest in Spiderman at this point.
Here was my problem with all three Spidey movies…I never bought in to Maguire as Spiderman, I didn't really care if 1) he hooked up with MJ or 2) she just disappeared completely. Which is another way of saying: I didn't care for Kirsten Dunst either. All of the movies (even 3) were driven by the villains (and the actors that played them) who were all about a hundred times more enjoyable and interesting than anything Maguire/Dunst brought to the screen. As far as actors as "action heroes"….here's an analogy that you may have to look up…but trust me, it fits. Robert Downey is Mike Tyson to Tobey Maguire's Michael Spinks. And that's all I've got to say about that…
I dont even count the Dolph Lungren version. Travolta was less than good, it would have been better to cast a Kingpin character instead.
We have an Entourage fan on the house.
Hopefully this means the Warcraft movie will come out sooner. As much as I liked the Spiderman movies, I rather see a Warcraft movie than Spidey 4.
Ya I can see it now, a cruse ship get hit by a rogue wave, Aquaman is called in, he calls on the dolphins to rescue the people then he decides that the evil landlubbers where deliberately trying to destroy King Neptune's realm through some evil Navy experiment so he calls in the (land) sharks & eco-terrorists to force the governments to stop all water travel…….It would take Cameron 20yrs to make because he couldn't find the perfect teet for Aquamans love interest & cost billions to make.
No kidding. The FF films were pathetic.
Simply pathetic.
As a huge Spidey fan, I am much less interested in this sequel than I would have been if it had been a continuation of what worked in 1-3. I doubt I will see this in the theater even if it makes it to a theatrical release.
The term "Reboot" is the new way of marketing a "remake". Spiderman 4 is actually going to be a remake of Spiderman 1.
Superman Returns = Sequel
Spiderman 4 = Reboot
Batman Begins = Neither!
I hear Joel Shumacher is available.
I wonder if I'm taking crazy pills, but I thought Spiderman 3 was the best of the bunch (1 and 2 were pretty ok, I liked them more than I thought I would but certainly not outstanding for me). I'm a sucker for the repentance/redemption storylines, and I really got into 3 because of the sympathetic Sandman. Not saying it was outstanding, but I did think it was the best of the bunch.
However I'm not a hardcore Spiderman comic fan, so maybe the root for the hatred for 3 lies in it not being true to the comic, in which case I can't comment. But of course I will anyway
not a fan per se, although it can be entertaining, but i've seen enough episodes to know that storyline and the background story behind it… Cameron was willing to be depicted as the director, but only if that fictional movie in that fictional universe was protrayed as setting box office records. his megalomania knows no bounds. it's become by standard put down of Cameron films… e.g., "Titanic was good, but not as good as Aquaman!".
Ugh! Remember 8mm?
Such an awesome post deserves a thumbs-up rating.
You got mine.
Unfortunately. But I was thinking of those post Tim Burton Batman abominations.
I liked three OK. I understand some of the complains about Parker being a wuss and so on, but then, he was going through some psychological stuff with the suit. I do think the movie would have been better if they kept it to two villains.
RobertB is off. Reboot means restart. They start from scratch, like Batman Begins.
I just read on Deadline Hollywood they are talking to the director of (500) Days of Summer, the aptly named Mark Webb, which was an excellent film. He has never done action, but he does characters really well. So I am hopeful if he does it.
http://www.deadline.com/hollywood/will-sony-spin-...
bad move Hollywood!
The new Spiderman will probably blow.
Maybe now Raimi will have time to make an Evil Dead 4
Yay! Nipples on the Spidey suit!
Why, thank you very much, Chiquita! Seriously, seeing that in the middle of the movie makes one want to either laugh contemptuously or else throw up. I did the former.
For once, CgntvDssdnt, I must agree with you. I'm never very impressed when they change directors and cast in the middle of a franchise. See, the country's coming together after all!
hmmm…. spidey in high school… Spiderboy???
Lets be honest about what Sony wants: Twilight Spider-Man. With a "hunky" Spider-Man basically retooled into "Twilight-lite" stuff to get tweener girls (and their moms screaming).
THAT is what this is all about. PERIOD.
Now, that's as stupid as it gets in Hollywood. Not only will no guy with a Y chromosone get within ten feet of the movie, made that way, but the material just isn't a sparkly-gay Vampire hunk fighting over other supernatural creatures for some chick (who is "special"). Spider-Man is all about the guy. That's who he is.
The key to Comic-book movies is approaching first through character. Remember, the original format was very limited in presentation, text, length, so character not plot had to be emphasized first. This is why the plots were often ridiculous as the villains (Electro? The Rhino?) It was the character of the hero that mattered to 12 year old boys. Which is what the comics were aimed at. Peter Parker is a nerdy, shy guy who gets powers accidentally to express his confident inner smart mouth, but there is a CATCH: maturity. He's forced to grow up (metaphor for all those guys 18-20 in combat in WWII that Stan Lee knew) and take on awesome responsibility while still remaining an ordinary guy at heart. THAT is what Spider-Man is (and why he's still loved 40 years later). It's not powers: who the hell knows "Nova" or "Captain Britain" or "Terror" to pick some Marvel characters at random. It has always been and always will be, character.
Webb is not a bad choice. The movie 500 Days of Summer was all about the guy realizing (growing up) that the girl he loved did not love him, never did, merely liked him and exploited him in a disposable romance. And that for him to be "loved" by a woman, he had to become a lot more successful, powerful, and not care very much about the next woman. Some of that was downplayed a bit in the screenplay and movie, or soft-soaped (but the screenwriter in numerous interviews copped to it explicitly). The similarities are of course strong, but the question is casting.
Sony obviously wants a "hunk" but that will not do. Parker has to be both inner-nerd shy guy, and a huge reservoir of masculine toughness that does not scream out like a "body-builder tough" conception but again, hearkens to the guys in WWII, 18-20 fighting for their lives in Normandy, Anzio, or Okinawa. I can't think of a single young actor who can convincingly play tough.
Actually, that guy in (500) days of Summer (Joseph Gordon-Levit) could do it. He looks like a young Eddie Van Halen and seems to be able to play the shy guy, but I'm sure he copuld play a confident character too.
Dyptich? I googled. It's a painting or sculpture style, is it? Two plates hinged at the centre or something? How does this word apply to movies?
Agree with JH. Casino Royale was a Bond reboot, with the rookie spy earning his "00" rating; it was *not* a remake of the 60's David Niven spoof with the same title. Similarly the new Star Trek was a reboot, and not a remake. (OK, they shamelessly ripped off the plot of Wrath of Khan, but they won't admit it).
I think you have it right there–two pictures, connected. Compare "triptych."
I have one Spiderman and Spiderman II on DVD, but not Spiderman III. That says it all for me.
Don´t worry, it will all be fine. Studios are run by experts. Intelligent people with degrees and all that. Just like this country. What could go wrong?
I'm hoping a good Plastic Man movie sees the light of day.
No, I don't. There was almost a decade between "Batman Begins" and the pitiful George Clooney movie, so I don't think that does count as being in the middle of anything, and besides, the Batman character had changed hands so much by then it hardly mattered. But for better or worse, I will always think of Tobey Maguire as Spider-Man. Darn it, I'm trying to strike a conciliatory tone here!
The might Kree warrior! NOT the DC version, please!
Spiderman I and II were made for the fans. Spiderman III was made for teeny boppers.
In order of my fave Marvel movies: Spiderman II, Spiderman I, Blade I, Punisher (2004)… I have yet to see Ironman but that will change soon. Those are really the only Marvel movies that seeemed to be any good, and in each instance you get to know the protagonist as a person as well as a hero.
The rest:
Raimi proved was the best man for the job. I will fondly watch 1-3 on DVD over and over again, constantly think about what 4 could have been.
What Sony is doing is a travesty. Going back to high school. Redoing his origins. Why? The first movie did an excellent job with his origins why mess that up with an unessesary reboot. Rami if left alone would probably have don't a good job with the 4th movie as it was originally planned. This is a damn shame.
never? I hope you don't count the re-spin of Batman Begins as a "in the middle of a franchise" type change!
We're in trouble, CD.. cause we're in agreement too
Personally i thought Raimi's 1 and 2 were nearly perfectly done (although I never liked KD as Mary Jane), Spidey 3 was just 'off' for various reasons, but an acceptable continuation of the series.. and I still think Maguire was the perfect parker/spidey character.
I'm not a fan of the idea of rebooting this series of movies..
Sorry, Sam
In the words of Elmer Bernstein (regarding success in Hollywood adding up to squat): "They don't trust you. Nobody ever trusts you."
While I thought that the new Star Trek was great (few liberties, but …) and as a fan, I thought I would be disappointed. It was the effects that made the movie and Abrams was the perfect choice.
The comic book movies are different. We have seen theones that have done well and those that haven't. The ones that have were made by FANS. Raimi with Spiderman (well all except 3) and Favreaux with Ironman. They were good because they were driven by the story and were TRUE to it. Now let's look at the ones that were bad…… Hulk, Batman (well the first couple, not the Miller ones), DD (and that bomb Electra), just to name a few. They were all about the FX or the fight scenes and they suffered.
(sorry had to split it…..)
Here is what is going to happen, Sony is going to do what they want to do and it will bomb. This will give Disney/Marvel the ability to take back the franchise and they will bring back Maguire (not that I really like him, but…. ) and most importantly, Raimi and they will make it the way it ws supposed to be. We just may have to wait a few years. Hope JM can still do Vulture then, as I can't think of anyone smart enough, or evil enough to give the character justice.
I believe you are correct. I think he was an "aging" Professor, or something. I may be wrong, it has been a while.
What Luke Cage Film??????
But it will likely be a soft reboot, where they don't retell the origin but rather set it in an earlier time period with no regard for the continuity established by the other films.
Get Bendis involved in writing it, and it's probably not the disaster some think it will be. It will be if Sony forces Carnage or the Vulturess into it (though I think the later nightmare was Raimi's idea).
Agree with JH. Casino Royale was a Bond reboot, with the rookie spy earning his "00" rating; it was *not* a remake of the 60's David Niven spoof with the same title. Similarly the new Star Trek was a reboot, and not a remake. (OK, they shamelessly ripped off the plot of Wrath of Khan, but they won't admit it).
Sweet Christmas!
[...] Spidey. [...]
Making "major bank" didn't mean it was decent. I'm not a major fan, I just enjoy a good action flick and have an affinity for Spiderman from my youth. Spiderman 3 was a mess. The whole "bad" Peter with the goofy hair thing was agonizing to watch. They totally messed up with how they used Venom. Just awful.
Umm…As the FIRST "Spiderman" dealt with Peter Parker aquiring his powers after being bitten by a radioactive spider, how do the geniuses at Sony hope to explore the "roots" of the Spiderman saga? Focus intently on his potty training?
Typical Hollywood. Raimi MADE the franchise successful and no they are just going to trash the whole thing! Without him the franchise is gonna suck b igtime. But I guess we have to say we are lucky enough to have the 3 films he did make, which are excellent! Guess nothing good does last forever does it?
Perphaps the movies will be like the comics now, just souless garbage put out three times a month. Marvel puts out the worst Spider-man comics ever, no story has a conclusion and nothing will ever happen again. The lead character is a amnesicac magical Spider-man who doesn't have a decent thought in his head and cares more about his undead Aunt May than saving the world. Man, it is really awful Being an old fan I just had to say that… oh, and he's not married anymore. They could of just unmarried him, but no they lied promised readers the biggest things in the unviverse for two years just so he could make a pact with Mephisto and not be married. Worst story ever.
It's fitting the movies are gone.
For me – a Spidey fan since his introduction in 1962 – Maguire was painfully miscast and blew chunks in the role (Parker was a nerd, not a whiney geek), but aside from that I think you're on the right wavelength here, James. Dumping Malkovich, who can easily play a villain's villain, and pushing for more characters was, in a word, stupid. Not a surprise. Creativity-by-committee doesn't often work on its own, let alone from within the bureaucracy of a corporation like Sony. The downward spiral in quality and following that we've seen in once-popular FPS games like Medal of Honor, Call of Duty and Halo is thanks in large part to this same, buck-maximizing-but-ultimately-self-defeating phenomenon.
IMHO, the 'reboot' thing is way past its use-or-freeze-by date. We've seen Batman and Superman rebooted (thrice), Star Trek rebooted, Iron Man (sorta) rebooted, Sherlock Holmes rebooted (again)… it's just a long-running fad now, not even a novelty, let alone a compelling literary element. Abrams managed to pull it off one more time with Star Trek because, except for the abysmally written Nero, he made the characters – not the reboot gimmick – the centerpiece of the film. Even that didn't come off without a couple of "oh, come on" moments (er… getting randomly dumped on 'Hoth' where Spock Prime AND Scotty just *happen* to be marooned? Please.). Sony looked at that success and simply wants to copy it. How 'creative'.
Frank Miller directed Batman movies??
That's news to me!
I didnt say he directed it, though I see where you could get the idea from my discussing the others. The current group of Batman movies were taken from his graphic novels. They were done much more to the spirit of the GN's and the original story. Batman was a lot "darker" at the beginning. Full of rage and vengence. I think having to take care of Grayson, calmed him down.
Well Tim Burton's Batman movies had a lot of influences from Dark Knight returns, I think he even says so himself. Joel Schumacher on the other hand….
You must be logged in to post a comment.