Movies Spider Man 4 Canned for "High School Peter Parker"

Discussion in 'Movies and Television' started by BakaMattSu, Jan 12, 2010.

  1. BakaMattSu

    BakaMattSu ^__^ Staff Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2001
    Messages:
    4,871
    Likes Received:
    122
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Occupation:
    Application Developer
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    After Sam Raimi couldn't get Columbia to settle on a script, they've decided to plunge ahead with one last cash grab contingency plan before the movie rights revert to Disney: Peter Parker in High School.

    A reported reboot with a new, lower budget cast, be prepared to be underwhelmed!

    http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118013607.html?categoryid=13&
    cs=1&ref=vertfilm

    Myself, I'll pass.
     
  2. Kaiyon

    Kaiyon Grim Reaper

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2004
    Messages:
    920
    Likes Received:
    79
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    ??????
    Location:
    ??????
    In retrospect, I welcome this news. Raimi ruined Spiderman 3.....
    And gritty reboots is where its at nowadays.
     
  3. artemis836

    artemis836 Vampire Slayer

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2002
    Messages:
    490
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Vampire Slayer
    Location:
    Sunnydale, CA
    Home Page:
    I found Spiderman 3 very similar to X-Men 3, at least in the way I felt when I left the theater. Before I went to see the both of these movies I rewatched the other 2 parts of the trilogy. I got all worked up for nothing and felt really really let down.
     
  4. BakaMattSu

    BakaMattSu ^__^ Staff Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2001
    Messages:
    4,871
    Likes Received:
    122
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Occupation:
    Application Developer
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    As a fan of ongoing continuity and development it simply innerves me these days how disposable the superhero movie has become. People can be critical and point out how a single movie of a trilogy can ruin things and the franchises need fresh perspectives (and the big execs seem to be sold on them only lasting for a trilogy before throwing around the magical reboot solution liberally), but I'm a bit sick of retreading old ground over and over again. My worst offender is how each time seems to require revisiting the origin story in order to introduce the hero to new audiences.

    Why would we need to go back to square one to introduce a grim or gritty or dark story? There is precedent of a darker chapter being fit into existing movie series (check the middle of the original Indiana Jones or Star Wars trilogy). Hell, I'd be fine if each new director wanted to introduce stylistic changes or different cast to each self-contained movie (there have been five James Bonds and numerous Felix Liters) as long as we didn't have to continuously go back to the beginning.

    The problem is that we're stuck with the hero's origin and maybe about 3 major villains each that have market penetration. Most average joes will immediately recognize the Riddler, the Joker and Catwoman, but will furrow their brow at the mention of Hugo Strange, Killer Croc or victor Zsasz - and probably still have little idea who the heck Ras al ghul from Batman Begins was.

    Admittedly, Spider-man 3 was not well received. I, for one, didn't think it was overly bad, just a bit overcrowded. But who's to say number 4 wouldn't have been as great or better than the critical success 2 was? Is nobody else just a little bit disappointed that Dr. Connors (aka the Lizard) was faithfully carried through the three movies but never given his limelight as the villain? You can bet he was up for consideration and would have fit the established movie continuity nicely.

    Ah well, back to school. And not just Parker, either. X-Men: First Class now, too.

    Maybe I personally set the bar too low for both, but neither were huge disappointments for me. My only beef with X3 was how Juggernaut was envisioned. For SM3, it was squeezing one too many villains in - Venom was under-utilized. Would have been fine to keep the Goblin and Sandman portions and the black suit, but save Venom for a teaser reveal at the end as set up for the next one.
     
  5. Kaiyon

    Kaiyon Grim Reaper

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2004
    Messages:
    920
    Likes Received:
    79
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    ??????
    Location:
    ??????
    Weeellll, I do agree with you on keeping the continuity. Especially the way Marvel studios has been working on the marvel cinematic universe, but I'm just not sure if raimi, mcguire and dunst were the best calls.

    Typically, I found dunst and mcguire underwelming as mary jane and peter. They had little to no chemistry to begin with.

    James franco was a killer harry.
    Alfred was a *****in doc ock.
    Lets not start on JK simmons' jameson.
    And who can forget the true green goblin, willem dafoe.

    All of them were really what made the first two movies amazing, and if dafoe, simmons and molina could come back, Id be 100% on board with the amazing spiderman movie.

    My bar is set low, but unfortunately I would rather them start fresh. The older movies didn't have too much of the marvel movie universe in mind and it would have been weird to just stick it in at number 4.
     
  6. wertitis

    wertitis Proud Mary keep on burnin'

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2004
    Messages:
    1,792
    Likes Received:
    79
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Occupation:
    Tech
    Location:
    Arizona
    BMS, remember man, Empire was the darkest part of the SW trilogy, but it was also the best movie out of the three. Frankly, a realistic, gritty tone adds more depth to the characters and the events. So many of the early superhero movies were feel-good flicks without any real drama aside from the canned tension force fed to us. Chris Nolan's BB and DK were fantastic in that they used the gritty tone to redefine what we envisioned Batman to be. Batman and Batman Returns were also dark, interpretations set on placing Batman apart from the Adam West days of the T.V. series.

    That said, Spiderman 1 was good the first time you saw it and got progressively worse with each subsequent watch. 2 and 3 weren't worth watching more than once. Venom, the one villain everyone wanted to see, got a minor role that lasted half the movie and then he was dead. Weak. A reboot to Peter Parker's high school years is simply a means for them to cash in on the series. I also do not expect very much out of this movie.

    Superheroes have been brightly colored, feel good adaptations of the 1950's hero stereotype where everything is not as bad as it seems, always over the top, and stunningly patronizing. One cannot seem to connect with the drama when it's so vibrantly stupefying. The darker tones of the modern interpretations helped to reinvigorate the series by making them more realistic, while keeping the spirit of the series true. Take Batman Begins and Dark Knight, for example- Scarecrow was supposed to be scary, a thing of nightmares, but the animated versions and old school comic versions were always cartoony, painting him to be nothing more than a guy with a funny mask. BB gave his character a frightening edge, which was the original intent. The Joker is the same thing. He's always been mental, but DK painted him to be simply terrifying, a juxtaposition of evil and clowns elegantly executed.

    What scared kids in the 1950s won't scare kids now. To get the same thrill, the look and tone has to be updated. Falling back on the old, colorful style detracts from the sinister villainy, makes current audiences laugh at the absurdity. If you're going to have a guy in spandex running around fighting crime, it needs to spark the interest of the current generation. Indy 4 was a failure because it wanted to be a family friendly, George Lucas braindead cash cow. It didn't have the realistic charm that we crave. Traps? We can buy that. God, the Ark, and the holy grail? We can buy that. Ancient treasure and puzzles? We can buy that. Space aliens with magnetic bones? GTFO.

    ~W
     
  7. BakaMattSu

    BakaMattSu ^__^ Staff Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2001
    Messages:
    4,871
    Likes Received:
    122
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Occupation:
    Application Developer
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    Excellent points, but they still don't address my real gripe, which is the need to roll back to the beginning all the time. In fact, I was pointing at Empire Strikes Back as a darker chapter that didn't involve a reboot - we have everything that came before in Star Wars, but we've moved into a grittier, less forgiving perspective of the galaxy under an oppressive empire.

    If I came across as arguing against darker themes and more vibrant silver-age comic movies that isn't what I intended. Rather, I'm tired of having to constantly retread old ground because we have to "restart" every time a chapter in a series happens to be over-hyped and under-received.
     
  8. wertitis

    wertitis Proud Mary keep on burnin'

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2004
    Messages:
    1,792
    Likes Received:
    79
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Occupation:
    Tech
    Location:
    Arizona
    The vision of the characters and atmosphere changes with the director. To avoid continuity errors, and prior interpretations that don't fit with the director's idea of what the world would be like, many of them start from scratch and build up the world the way they see fit.

    As an example, Adam West's Batman would be incompatible with Tim Burton's, so they had to push the reset button and start from scratch.

    The same could be said for Rebb Brown's Captain America and the new Captain America. (TBH, I'm not looking forward to the new C.A. at all. I think he's a dumb character whose only purpose is to get idiot American Kids stoked about our flag. I don't see Captain America selling very well outside of America because he's too damn ethnocentric).

    Frankly, I find this to be refreshing because it allows the directors to put a new spin on old concepts by re imagining them, all the while tailoring the storytelling with a new generation of viewers. It also allows them to scrap bad ideas brought about in previous incarnations of the same series (Ang Lee's Hulk vs The Incredible Hulk with Edward Norton, which is one of your examples).

    That said, often times it's completely unnecessary. The new X-Men and Spiderman does not bring up much hope for me. I was amped to hear about a Magneto Origins film, because Magneto is a very three dimensional character who is as much a hero in his own eyes as he is a villain, which makes for some heavy storytelling potential, but I haven't heard a damn thing about that for years.

    I see restarting things as a chance to wipe the slate clean and try again, but only when the previous incarnation was so awful it made the baby jesus cry. (Batman and Robin, anyone? Batnipples? Batcard?) I don't mind retreading old ground in a new light as long as it's compelling. It's sad to say many times, it is not, which is why for certain franchises, I understand your beef and am inclined to agree with you.

    ~W
     
  9. Basher

    Basher Mad Writing Skillz

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2003
    Messages:
    4,413
    Likes Received:
    114
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Occupation:
    Is just a break from what I really want to do.
    Location:
    I am a NoDak.
    Why do they have to do prequels when we already know the story?

    This movie I will wait for it out on DVD unless someone tells me that it was beyond awesome. Make a cartoon of his earlier days I'll watch it. Pretty sure the last one was in college.

    I will go see X-men: First Class because I love X-men. But it makes me so angry. The characters are all out of place.
     

Share This Page