The Energon Pub

http://www.newsarama.com/film/Spider-Man-4-Cancelled-100111.html

Reboot time...

We're all f*****

edit -

New Director - Marc Webb

edit x2 -

Zac Effron as Spiderman

Wow, that's a shame. Despite my dislike for Spidey 3, I did like the Raimi/Maguire team up with Spidey 2 being the pinnacle. Deep down I hope Spidey 4 would be Raimi making up for Spidey 3.

That being said, I can keep an open mind about a reboot for now. I really hope they find a passionate director/writer to take on the franchise.

Blurrz wrote:Reboot time...

They need to tie it in with New Avengers!

Sony has a death grip on Spidey still. Doubt they'll have Spidey appear in Avengers any time soon.

Topper Grace (I think that's the guy who played Eddy in SM3) needs to play Peter Parker, he is perfect for that role!

And damn you if the new Venom isn't played by the Rock.

But I did like the first 2 movies they where really good, which makes SM3 even more of a disappointment.

As long as VENOM still gets his own spinn off movie, Im good! And as long as Venom is in one of the SM movies. Every one hates how he is in SM 3, I was just happy to see venom at all

WHAT THE?? Sorry for my reactions, but I was really shocked and upset. Since Spiderman 3, I have been waiting for Spiderman 4, which is about 3 years of wait! And now they cancel! Really very disappointed. Wish they will change their decision. sigh..

Spiderman 1 and 2 were my favourites, the third was possibly the biggest letdown in movie history (since Home Alone 3). I think there wouldn't have been need for a complete reboot: Just erase Spider-man 3 from the canon, and make a better movie in its place.

Still... it can't hurt, the Incredible Hulk was lightyears better than the first try.

The simple answer to this sad question is:

"Sony's greed knows no bounds, and has lead them astray into the land of stupid."

It's a total waste to throw away a well crafted universe that had the chance to redeem itself and find new ways to thrill us.

I mean...John Malkovich? John Friggin' Malkovich, and they turned away from that idea? Are you kidding me?!

Willem Dafoe, Alfred Molina, Thomas Haden Church, and Topher Grace... all incredibly talented actors. And they were going to add Malkovich to that list... and Sony threw it all away.

How stupid can they be?!

Stupid move.. Just plain stupid..
Absolutely no reason to reboot this series..

You know, the reboot idea doesn't sound bad, but not as a replacement for the current franchise.

If it was to show up on ABC as a Smallville type show, i would be more interested, than being asked to forget at least 2/3 of the Raimi films. (because a good chuck of 3 is already forgotten.

This is bad. Not like One More Day/Brand New Day bad, but still pretty disappointing.

Cyber Bishop wrote:Stupid move.. Just plain stupid..
Absolutely no reason to reboot this series..

QFT

A REBOOT ALREADY!!!

Seriouslly, why are they remaking the series so soon.

Its not even a decade old yet, the technology won't be much better and I don't see how they could make the story anything else except Worse!

DUMB!

What a stupid move. Just because Raimi couldn't make that deadline? Get another director! It worked for countless other movies!

And they're going to let #3 be the last? Even though #3 was hated (I didn't mind it as much as long as they weren't the social parts), just go ahead with a #4. Hollywood has no guts anymore!

Because of this, I will not see the movie.

Hopefully if the fanbase yells loud enough, they'll renege on this stupid plan.

As long as they take out all the emo teen angst and make Spider-Man the wise cracking superhero he's supposed to be I'll see it. And Keep J.K. Simmons as Jameson, best casting ever.

Mkall wrote:Because of this, I will not see the movie.

You don't say?

Personally I didn't think Spider-Man 3 was that bad. Yeah they did WAY to much(Venom should have been saved for a whole movie, and not just an additional villian), but they did actually advance the storyline and characters.

Of course none of that matters if I have to sit through another stupid origin story. Seriously, the origin in the first movie was well done, and took nearly half the movie, so I don't want to see it again. Yes they could play it like Spider-Man's been around for awhile or is just starting up, but that begs the question of why reboot the series.

I mean sure, Hulk was rebooted, but they didn't really lose anything with that move, because there wasn't as much baggage to address, and a lot of it was well skimmed over and summed up. With Spider-Man though you have to go through all these steps: Peter gets bitten by a spider, becomes Spider-man, lets a robber get away that kills his Uncle Ben, chases the robber, and declares "with great power comes great responsibility". They also have to introduce the love interst of Gwen Stacy or Mary Jane, show Peter the nerd in high school, etc. Bascially, this kind of stuff can't be glossed over as easily, and will eat up screentime.

Then we run the risk of having Spider-Man fight the Green Goblin again, or Doctor Octopus, Spider-man's two biggest enemies. Really, who else could he even fight to "start off with a bang"? Rhino? Shocker? Mysterio? Electro? Kraven? Vulture? Don't get me wrong, all of those guys are great villians, and two of them in a film would fill the action quotient, but they really are generally just thugs that can't fill the suspense and intrigue of a two hour premeire film. However, they could cast Tombstone in a role similar to his from the Spectacular Spider-Man animated series, and have him command the villians.

All in all, I agree with the consensus of why reboot it now. It could be a good film, but also kind of a wasted one too because no doubt the first movie will tread ground that has been covered to death, making at least part of it a waste.

*Edit*

Brain fart!! I forgot about the Scorpian, he'd make for an excellent villian, and they could spin an entire film around him. Alas though, that kind of idea would work for a sequal, as there's no way you could develop enough hatred between Spider-Man and JJJ in same film he's created. Same deal with Venom.

Of course, in truth the Lizard(who I didn't mention earlier) could work, but I'm sick to death of his origin story, as he's in nearly every Spider-Man cartoon, and always has the same origin. The only ones he isn't in is Spider-Man and his Amazing Friends, and Spider-Man Unlimted, where a Counter Earth Curt Conners Lizardman would actually make sense.

Autobot032 wrote:The simple answer to this sad question is:

"Sony's greed knows no bounds, and has lead them astray into the land of stupid."

It's a total waste to throw away a well crafted universe that had the chance to redeem itself and find new ways to thrill us.

I mean...John Malkovich? John Friggin' Malkovich, and they turned away from that idea? Are you kidding me?!

Willem Dafoe, Alfred Molina, Thomas Haden Church, and Topher Grace... all incredibly talented actors. And they were going to add Malkovich to that list... and Sony threw it all away.

How stupid can they be?!

I hadn't heard about that. Who was he going to play?

Me, Grimlock! wrote:What a stupid move. Just because Raimi couldn't make that deadline? Get another director! It worked for countless other movies!

It didn't work so great for X-Men.

EDIT: Now that I think about it, it didn't work so great replacing Tim Burton with Joel Schumacher for Batman Forever, or replacing Richard Donner with Richard Lester for Superman III.

Shadowman wrote:

Me, Grimlock! wrote:What a stupid move. Just because Raimi couldn't make that deadline? Get another director! It worked for countless other movies!

It didn't work so great for X-Men.

EDIT: Now that I think about it, it didn't work so great replacing Tim Burton with Joel Schumacher for Batman Forever, or replacing Richard Donner with Richard Lester for Superman III.

...or Punisher.... And yet you neglect to mention the movies it *did* work for: Star Trek II, Aliens, Empire Strikes Back... I'm not saying it's a formula for success, but I *am* saying in Spider-Man's case it would be better than a reboot. Reboots worked for Batman and Star Trek, but doubtfully for Spider-Man.

Having said that, maybe saying "it worked for countless other movies" wasn't accurate. It's probably better for me to say that "it worked better for countless other movies than what they want to do with Spider-Man." Spider-Man 4 will probably not be better than the others (even #3), but it would be better than what they're planning; if they're committed to making another movie, they should be committed to making the best follow-up they can with what they've got.

Shadowman wrote:

Autobot032 wrote:The simple answer to this sad question is:

"Sony's greed knows no bounds, and has lead them astray into the land of stupid."

It's a total waste to throw away a well crafted universe that had the chance to redeem itself and find new ways to thrill us.

I mean...John Malkovich? John Friggin' Malkovich, and they turned away from that idea? Are you kidding me?!

Willem Dafoe, Alfred Molina, Thomas Haden Church, and Topher Grace... all incredibly talented actors. And they were going to add Malkovich to that list... and Sony threw it all away.

How stupid can they be?!

I hadn't heard about that. Who was he going to play?

Me, Grimlock! wrote:What a stupid move. Just because Raimi couldn't make that deadline? Get another director! It worked for countless other movies!

It didn't work so great for X-Men.

EDIT: Now that I think about it, it didn't work so great replacing Tim Burton with Joel Schumacher for Batman Forever, or replacing Richard Donner with Richard Lester for Superman III.

Malkovich was going to play The Vulture.

On the issue of changing directors, it's true. Changing them usually leads down a terrible path. Burton leaving Batman as director was a real kick in the nuts to the franchise, but in a way it ended up being a positive thing.

We probably would've never seen Batman Begins or The Dark Knight if it wasn't for Schumacher dropping the ball.

And Richard Donner was replaced during Superman II, actually. For those who don't know the history of the Superman films, the producers (The Salkinds) had originally wanted to spoof Superman to some degree, but Richard Donner turned it around and made the movie into a respectable story, and one of the best Superhero films ever made. Superman The Movie is actually considered the first Superhero movie.

Donner was tasked with film 1 and 2 back to back, and when the first film went over the deadline and over budget, they had to recut the film and get it finished.

Superman II was 75% completed by Donner when they told him to take a hike, and Richard Lester was called in to finish the film, but he had a different vision of how it should be, so they scrapped all but a few small pieces of Donner's film, and had Lester redo the entire film. (Which is why portions of the original Superman II are terribly cheesy and are so silly it hurts.)

In 2006, Warner Bros. went into their archives, and with the help of one of Donner's associates, they were able to reconstruct and salvage Donner's original Superman II (with only a slight reliance on Lester's material to fill in missing scenes).

Donner's version (which is on DVD, but is now out of print and extremely difficult to find) is supremely better than the original, and the difference between the two versions is so great, that the Lester version is unwatchable.

It should be noted that Superman The Movie and Donner's cut of Superman II share the same ending pretty much, but that was due to the Salkinds stepping in and meddling.

And this is further proof that directors shouldn't be changed. It's bad enough when you do it mid franchise, but mid film? Yeeouch.

Me, Grimlock! wrote:...or Punisher.... And yet you neglect to mention the movies it *did* work for: Star Trek II, Aliens, Empire Strikes Back...

Also Terminator, Mortal Kombat, and several other series.

Me, Grimlock! wrote:I'm not saying it's a formula for success, but I *am* saying in Spider-Man's case it would be better than a reboot. Reboots worked for Batman and Star Trek, but doubtfully for Spider-Man.

It doesn't always work, I mean, look at Street Fighter. But then the reboot of Hulk was awesome, so it can easily go both ways. But then what they're suggesting here sounds just like Punisher: War Zone, and I lost all hope for that as soon as the main actor and director announced they were leaving.

Autobot032 wrote:Malkovich was going to play The Vulture.

If they did him up like they did Doc Ock, that would have been really cool.

Autobot032 wrote:And this is further proof that directors shouldn't be changed. It's bad enough when you do it mid franchise, but mid film? Yeeouch.

There's something of a rule: Every time the director is replaced, the movie sucks that much more.

Shadowman wrote:Also Terminator, Mortal Kombat, and several other series.

I left Terminator out because the director was the same for the first two (unless you're talking about T3--as an aside, hey, I liked #3, just not as much as T2, which doesn't exactly help my case). I was trying to say sometimes the director does a better job in a sequel than the original director. Not usually, not often, but it's been done. I don't think it'll be done with Spider-Man, but it'll be better than a reboot.

You have a point, though: changing directors is usually a bad thing, but not 100% of the time. And then it's hard to say in some cases if the sequel is worse for the director or jsut because it's a sequel. (Then again, we have examples like the first Batman series that clearly tell us.)

Shadowman wrote:It doesn't always work, I mean, look at Street Fighter. But then the reboot of Hulk was awesome, so it can easily go both ways. But then what they're suggesting here sounds just like Punisher: War Zone, and I lost all hope for that as soon as the main actor and director announced they were leaving.

My original point, although I muddled it a few times, was that I'd rather they stick with this Spidey series and just change the director. I'm just not betting Spider-Man will be better with a reboot like Hulk, Batman, or Star Trek were. I think it'll go over like the Punisher. Someone else said we'll probably have to retread the bad guys we've already seen (Doc Ock, Goblin, etc.). Meh. I don't want to do that myself. I'd rather see new bad guys, but at the same time, I'd rather see a Spider-Man who's met these villains too. A reboot can't help us here. And now that I know even the cast has changed, I don't think there's much hope at all.

Shadowman wrote:There's something of a rule: Every time the director is replaced, the movie sucks that much more.

Again, you can't argue with Aliens. I wouldn't say *every* time. Just most times.

I'm still holding out on a press release saying that Raimi and Sony kissed and made up. Probably won't happen, but I can hope.

Me, Grimlock! wrote:

Shadowman wrote:There's something of a rule: Every time the director is replaced, the movie sucks that much more.

Again, you can't argue with Aliens. I wouldn't say *every* time. Just most times.

I'm still holding out on a press release saying that Raimi and Sony kissed and made up. Probably won't happen, but I can hope.

That's not what I meant. I meant movies where the director is replaced during production. I can't exactly name anything off the top of my head, but it's usually much worse. What Fanboys almost became is a good example.

Shadowman wrote:That's not what I meant. I meant movies where the director is replaced during production. I can't exactly name anything off the top of my head, but it's usually much worse.

I can't argue with that. I hate making always/never blanket statements, but I can't honestly think of a movie that turned out fine when the director was replaced midway through.

I don't know about you but I think Raimi is overrated, sure he's good and the first two where pretty good films but i don't think he's the best or only director that can make Spider-Man movies, especially after SM3, I spoke to women stating that SM 3 was far to emotional and girly and most ended their statement with something like "When I want a movie to make me cry and feel sad I watch Titanic and not an action movie".
I love how Raimi kept stating how much he loves Spider-Man and he knows all about him and the characters and the world he lives in, yet the movies are what like 20% comic accurate and are only "pretty good (SM2)" and then horrible (SM3)? Tim Burton f**king hates everything about Batman and still made two of the best Superhero movies of all time which I still think are better than The Dark knight. You know maybe they should have Burton direct the reboot.

The best about the SM movies is Dock Ock and TrippleJ who I think should be used for this new reboot the rest I can gladly forget about.

And as for villains they could use for the reboot: Chameleon, Moebius (he could attract the Twilight fans "Vampire! Where, oh he looks hot! Oh hell he eats people!"), Carrion, Vermin, Vulture, Shocker, Hammerhead, Hydroman, Electro (he would be awesome on the big screen), Lizard (it's supposed to be set in High-school he could be Peter's teacher and we've been teased with him since SM2 so I'd say it's about freaking time), Green Goblin could attack him at the end of the first movie and he might make minor appearances in the sequel till he finally becomes big bad in the 3rd insallment so that we can finally have a real Venom in the 4th instalment.