SPIDEY 4 becomes AMAZING becomes Marvel's SPIDER-MAN

[Ben]

Isn't he also going to be in the next "Harry Potter" movie? Like as Luna Lovegood's father?

Oh, I didn't know that. Hopefully it's just a small role...

[Dacey]

Well, if memory serves from the book, it's just one scene.

[Ben]

That's what I vaguely remember too...but I'm just hoping they don't expand it!

[Daniel]

According to The Wrap, the new villain is The Lizard.

[Randall]

Geez, and I too thought immediately of the Vulture when I saw him.

Of course, the Lizard's been overdue now for a while.

[estefan]

Poor Dylan Baker, though. They set him up to become the Lizard in the last two films and now he won't get the chance to complete Connor's transformation.

That said, I'm pleased with the casting of Stone and Garfield. What I'm most worried about is who they will get to play Jonah Jameson. As much as I greatly enjoyed Kirsten Dunst and Tobey Maguire's performances, I can easily buy other actors in their roles. But, J.K. Simmons was 100% perfect casting, it will be difficult to not be thinking of him when reboot-Jameson walks on-screen.

[Ben]

Is it me, or now that it has been announced, is this news a bit...boring?

I mean, personal feeling for Ifans aside, we knew it was coming that it'd probably be Vulture or Lizard, but now it's been said, I can't say I'm excited at all. Though it's odd, because if this had been Raimi Part 4, with Baker as Parker's prof, I think I'd be thinking it was really cool.

Watched Spidey 2 again last week on TV, and Simmons is perfect. I wonder if they'd consider keeping him on? Though there must be others that can capture the character that we don't know about.

Unlike Frank Langella, who was a softly-spoken, non-existent Perry White in the pile of crud Superman Returns movie (hate it! Hate it!) and just didn't bring any of the personality to the character. Singer's first choice was Hugh (House) Laurie, which I could see working much better with his gruffness.

Jackie Cooper, in the original Reeve films, was perfect too, but the original choice there was for Keenan Wynn - yes, THAT Keenan Wynn. I actually think, had he not had a heart attack the week before coming to London to shoot the movies, that he'd have been a perfect newspaper editor type too. Sure, the ghost of Alonzo hawk may have overshadowed his performance in the spots where he needed to get a little mad, but he would have been just as good as Cooper, in an ultimately very similar comic-book way.

If they're replacing Simmons, and they probably will to avoid continuity/comparisons, they'll need to find someone like Cooper, who can basically play the same characteristics, but bring something new and improved to it.

Personally, unless this movie really comes out of left field to surprise and wow us, I think it's going to be a mammoth opening weekend, and a tail off that suggests Sony's reign over Spidey comes to an end. The movie is ONLY being made for money reasons - to keep the rights from reverting to Marvel - though I hope that some creative and artistic ambition can shine through as, I am keeping my fingers crossed for, will hopefully happen with the Nolan/Snyder Superman reboot, as long as they cast that right too (PLEASE...no superplank Brandon "Why do so many people think I look like Christopher Reeve when I have an entirely differently shaped face" Routh stinking up the set).

[eddievalient]

The new movie is supposed to be inspired by Ultimate Spidey, right? Well, I hope they don't forget the Ultimate book's strength, which is that the story is really about Peter Parker with Spider-Man being almost a secondary character. Maybe that approach doesn't appeal to everyone, but that's the reason why Ultimate Spidey is my favorite version of the story (much like Smallville is my favorite version of Superman).

[Ben]

A Spidey movie without the Spidey?

Yeah, I know that's a stretch, but I don't think that "inspiration" is going to come through. Studio heads and widespread audiences don't know, or want to know, the first thing about the multiple incarnations and split universes of comic book characters.

This movie is about two things: Sony keeping Spidey movie rights, and the audience not turning away from what is not going to be Spidey 4. The way they do that is to find the right balance, but I bet you a Sony exec is saying "but there's not enough Spidey in it", and the audience will go "it was okay, but it's a Spidey film, not a Peter Parker film".

If anything, Raimi got that balance quite well, considering that his leading actor wanted to be more than covered up by a mask, hence the many times it got ripped/pulled off so we could see his face. But reduce Spidey down any more than that and I think the audience would feel cheated, since those films already packed in a lot of Parker and his everyday problems.

This one is going to have to be a heck of a webslinger if it's not going to knock the franchise dead. And the bottom line will be: "where's Spidey?"

[EricJ]

A Spidey movie without the Spidey?

...Oh, so, sort of like Spiderman 2, then?

[GeorgeC]

A Spidey movie without the Spidey?
....

This movie is about two things: Sony keeping Spidey movie rights, and the audience not turning away from what is not going to be Spidey 4. The way they do that is to find the right balance, but I bet you a Sony exec is saying "but there's not enough Spidey in it", and the audience will go "it was okay, but it's a Spidey film, not a Peter Parker film".
......

I thought more or less that the decision to cancel Spidey 4 was more about getting a cheaper cast and director than story considerations.

There's no loyalty to casts any more. Especially if they cost too much and complain a bit much. There's still a profit line to be considered.

I also think Raimi probably lost some "friends" if behind-the-scenes rumblings are to be half-believed. I wish he HAD gotten to make the Spidey 3 he wanted to but obviously somebody felt their ideas were better... maybe him being "let go" is less a measure of his status rather than someone high up believing they could get along without him.

We'll see.

As for CAST loyalty.
Think about this.... When Star Trek transitioned from TV series to motion picture, the actors were still young enough to be viable as the characters even if that whole 18-months (or more realistically, AT LEAST 3 years) since the end of the 5-year mission was hokum.

Trekkie loyalty to Trek was so great that people just wouldn't buy any actors BUT the originals as Kirk, Spock, McCoy, and the rest. It was a much different world back then. Perhaps less cut-throat than today.

Sony is thinking it can just change Spidey at the flick of a wrist.

As miscast as I thought the previous films were in some regards, Sony is taking a huge risk on a new cast. This decision may end up biting them in the end.

Then again, WB did manage to convince a large number of people that you didn't need the same guy for more than 2 Batman films in a row. Lots of die-hards hated that but the thing about these films is that they have to appeal to more than the diehards.

General audiences bought other people as James Bond even though most critics and die-hards still acknowledge Sean Connery as the definitive Bond. (I sure do now even though I grew up with Roger Moore.)

I satisfy myself by knowing there's over 70 years of Batman stories and close to a dozen animated Batman series (or team series featuring Batman) to look at if I hate what's going on in live-action or animation at the moment. Batman's one of the few characters you can honestly say probably was done the "right way" for different individuals. This probably goes for Superman and Spider-Man as well.

[Ben]

A Spidey movie without the Spidey?

...Oh, so, sort of like Spiderman 2, then?

Yes:

If anything, Raimi got that balance quite well, considering that his leading actor wanted to be more than covered up by a mask, hence the many times it got ripped/pulled off so we could see his face.

I thought more or less that the decision to cancel Spidey 4 was more about getting a cheaper cast and director than story considerations...maybe him being "let go" is less a measure of his status rather than someone high up believing they could get along without him.

No-one is bigger than a studio boss. I don't think it was to get cheaper cast/crew, but for Sony to retain more control. They were ready to bankroll a sure-fire hit, but Raimi wanted more/total say, and Tobey was hanging out for as much money as he could get. Throw in that they were looking to make two or three films back to back or at least contracted, and that's a lot to get involved in.

As miscast as I thought the previous films were in some regards, Sony is taking a huge risk on a new cast. This decision may end up biting them in the end.

Well, yes, hence why I keep saying I'd be surprised if there was less Spidey in this film. They're going to play it pretty safe.

(I grew up with Roger Moore.)

That must have been fun and exciting!


Ultimately, no-one can honestly totally "own" a role. They may be associated to it (Indiana Jones) and they may have created it, but Lugosi was Dracula before Christopher Lee, and someone may yet remake Indy in 20-30 years. The issue with THIS Spidey is that its recasting a reboot before the first film is even ten years old!

Yep, they swapped Batman, but those were sequels. They changed him again for the Bale reboot, but there had been some time past between the old and new films, and the selling point was that it was a prequel. But this is just the first Spider-Man movie all over again, which is pretty pointless. Even the second Hulk worked more as a sequel than a reboot.

Recasting is a Hollywood game old as Hollywood itself (by the time of the fourth Frankenstein, Lugosi was the Monster, not Karloff), but the new craze for reboots is just ridiculous.

[Dacey]

Apart from the casting of Emma Stone, there is nothing here that has me excited.

Really, i know I'll go, and I possibly might even like it, because any Spidey is better than no Spidey at all for me. But for now, I'm just content remaining furious about the project.

[GeorgeC]

Doesn't hurt to let things lay fallow for a while until a new creative team and management get together agree on a direction with NEW stories.

The periods of rest for both James Bond and Star Trek don't seem to have hurt those film series.

I'm not so much a fan of these franchises that I'd have to see every new film in a theater every 2-3 years. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen a Bond film in a theater. After I watched both Dalton and Brosnan on TV, I really don't think I missed much. I was really expecting Brosnan's Bond to knock me out of my socks but it just didn't happen. I'm more of Roger Moore/Sean Connery Bond fan and I STILL don't own a single Bond film!

*************

As for Spidey, Marvel's screwed up the character enough in the past 23 years with really dumb storylines in the comics.

(Erase the word "clone" from your vocabulary -- single biggest mistake they ever made! Marriage and magic are two other things that really don't belong in the comic, either, but it was stupid to pretend he DIDN'T marry MJ after 20+ years of marriage. Dumb, dumb, dumb!).

Poor Spidey has the worst case of retconning for a single character in superhero culture. DC's done the same thing on a multiuniversal scale with its entire comic line --- every 5-7 years! Still doesn't work for an entire comic line let alone a flagship character.

I'd like to be more positive about Marvel film developments, but I think they got lucky with both the first Iron Man movie and the first two Spider-Man movies. There's no brilliance involved at any part of Marvel that I see right now. There was an alignment of the stars in the sky and they just happened to get the right creative people in place but even that doesn't guarantee the sequels are good (see Spidey 3 and Iron Man 2).

[Dacey]

*ahem* Pierce was Bond. Just sayin'.