[chator]

Originally Posted by Roysten

What I don't understand is why 'reboot' a film franchise after so little time? Did it work for the Hulk film? And why recast?

Sam Raimi was set to direct a Spiderman 4 with Tobey McQuire, but he pulled out due to not being able to meet their deadline for the film's release, and so Sony decided to go forward with a reboot of the franchise. Its been a decade since the original Spiderman film was released in theatres.

[samwiseb]

I believe Tobey McQuire declined to do Spider-Man 4 once Sam Raimi was no longer involved. For Sam's part, he wanted a higher film budget than Sony was willing to offer. And then Sony wanted a picture finished by a date that he didn't believe he could meet.

And for Sony's part, their license to produce movies based on the Spider-Man property was probably about to expire if they didn't produce something to keep it active.

I think rebooting Spider-Man is a healthy thing, personally. How many different versions/interpretations of him have appeared in the comics? Probably several, right?

I don't read superhero comics, however I have a very dim recollection of one of the cartoon shows from probably the late '70s. And the theme song I remember from it is NOT the same one everybody else remembers. I also don't recall Peter Parker being anywhere near as dorky as Tobey McQuire makes him out to be (though he definitely wasn't popular by any stretch).

My point is, Sam Raimi's movies represent just one possible interpretation of the Spider-Man world. James Cameron's pitch might have represented another. For whatever reason, Raimi's interpretation is the one he decided moviegoing audiences should see and become familiar with. Because it's what he saw when he looked at the comics, cartoons, or whatever else he drew inspiration from. Good for him.

Except he's not directing anymore. He's not even executive-producing.

Do we pick a director-for-hire to take his place, write a script for him, and tell him to just copy the style of Sam Raimi's movies just so 'most people' won't even suspect Raimi's absence? What kind of director would take on such a thankless task, knowing he's just going to receive flak for it afterwards? Maybe Brett Ratner would agree to it. People love giving him flak.

How many movies can most franchises sustain anyway before needing to be refreshed? I'm thinking it's usually three at the most. Something always seems to happen by the fourth film if not sooner. Either the director leaves, or the actor, or the studio starts asserting more control and demanding tighter budgets... and somehow everyone just 'seems to know' that it's run out of steam. Audiences stop taking you seriously once the number in your movie's title rolls up that high. With Star Trek it happened at the number 'V'.

Meanwhile, there still remain at least dozens of other possible interpretations of the property not yet explored. And if Sony is going to produce more movies anyway...

So, to the question "why reboot a franchise"? Why can't "Why the hell not?" be a more-than-justifiable answer?

[chator]

Indeed. Up until recently, Spiderman got a different cartoon incarnation on the small screen about every ten years. Why not get a different movie incarnation after a decade? Isn't visual effects technology improving every few years anyway?

[kevin]

Visual effects tech is supposed to be - not that one could tell from some of the effects shots in Webb's film though. Some of the work on the bridge sequence was terribly done.

I think the most commonly associated issue with the reboot was two fold.

The main one seemes to centre around the notion it had only been ten years since the first Raimi film and also only 5 since it ended. From what I picked up the general feeling was that it was too soon for a reboot (especially since the reboot's first half just goes over the same territory anyway) on that basis alone. But as films cycle ever faster maybe that's just an effect of how everything speeds up these days.

The second one was the fact that Spidey 4 became a totally botched project that essentially had the feel of Sony aiming for an easy cash grab and the cast a fat payday (I seem to remember Maguire was in line for something like $40 or $50 million) before it supposedly went south out of creative issues and arose like a phoenix into a new origin tale.

Essentially becoming a film that got made for the sake of it to keep the rights (the online chanting for Sony to lose the rights so they can revert to Marvel so that per their ideas Spidey can suddenly join The Avengers makes the heart sink at fandom sometimes but that's another fanwank mess that with luck will never happen) with them.

But that's why a lot of films get made. That is one reason Star Trek was made, but at least Paramount went about it less messily and got a decent team in to make it. Webb's film comes across as being much more slapped together to my reception of it.

[samwiseb]

Interesting point about the Avengers. I had not heard any of the chanting myself, however I suppose it isn't exactly surprising.

I don't even know my Avengers, as far as which Marvel superheroes are 'traditionally' part of that lineup (or 'assemble', whatever), and frankly I never get a solid answer any time I ask. My impression is that nobody really knows, likely because the franchise has seen too many permutations over the decades (going back to my point about interpreting Spider-Man). Like maybe most of the lineup had already been swallowed up in various Hollywood studio contracts, and the current film franchise merely represents "whoever was left."

I guess God forbid that Sony might be looking after their own interests instead of the greater good, or that studios in general should be in this mostly for the money.

It's possible I might have different feelings about the new Spider-Man next time I see it, as I fully intend to.

My experience with the first movie was that I just didn't get enough motivation from Peter Parker to follow along with him (through all those montages of his) as he was gradually inventing Spider-Man. It was like that whole discovery part of the movie was stuck in fast-forward mode (I really like that the new movie takes its time here). Rented the movie a year later; still thought it was 'okay', but still didn't see what all the buzz had been about. Didn't even plan on seeing the second movie when I started catching trailers for it. Just wasn't my thing.

Spider-Man 2 I caught by accident at one of those tiny budget theaters when I finally made good on my promise to see The Village that year -- as it happened both movies were playing in the same auditorium and no one came along to pull me out. And I just thought it was brilliantly and intelligently conceived. Taken literally it made no sense that Peter would turn nearsighted again once he realized he had the option of NOT being Spider-Man, yet thematically it made perfect sense. To this day the trilogy is 'all about' the 2nd movie for me, the thematic 'core' of the franchise (Does it not often seem that way with trilogies? Here's hoping it will be the same with ST).

Spider-Man 3 was the first SM movie I strongly anticipated after number 2 had pulled me in. And it certainly looked 'darker' in the trailers; what was not to like? Saw the mixed reviews and adjusted my expectations, but still felt like I had committed myself to seeing the movie. Came out feeling like I had just seen two-and-a-half movies in one. I don't think I was 'disappointed' like other people (again, having read the reviews), and anyway MY GOD do people react strongly, quickly and loudly in these internet times! Mostly I just thought it was 'probably' over, and that the trilogy had run it's course. And besides, SM2 will always be around.

Maybe 'next time' we could get a different director, less cartoony villains, less exaggerated characters in general, a better spidey suit, and even let Peter design his web-slingers instead of growing them. We could even get a new composer, if only so we can finally ditch Danny Elfman's bloody 'God Bless America' leitmotif.

And now here we are.

[samwiseb]

Roger Ebert proves he is still my (usually)-most-agreed-with movie critic:

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/...IEWS/120629969

[Roysten]

Thanks for those angles, actually quite intriguing.

[Quark]

Originally Posted by Captain Tom Coughlin

I thought that the first two McGuire Spidermans were OK, but that third one was awful. I'm probably going to let this movie pass until DVD time. I'm more looking forward to Batman

I couldn't agree with you more. Well, I did enjoy the first two films a great deal, especially the second one. However, I agree with you 100% about the third film being awful. I made the horrible mistake of seeing this new one however...Not a fan of it in the least.

And as for The Dark Knight Rises...I'm STOKED!!!

[horatio]

I think Hollywood overdoes it a bit with superhero movies. It was a nice thing during the last decade but now they are gonna suck it totally dry until this type of movies will rest again for a few decades.

[samwiseb]

I have to say, I think the new Spider-Man movie was more solid than the new Batman movie.