Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The studio is parting ways with director Sam Raimi and “Spider-Man” stars Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst and is taking the web slinger’s alter ego, Peter Parker, back to high school.

The new movie, which will have a new director and cast but still be produced by Avi Arad and Laura Ziskin and Marvel Studios, is eyeing a summer 2012 release. It will use a script by James Vanderbilt and put the focus back on a teenager grappling with normal teen problems while also dealing with his superpowers.


More @ http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3iddf4077045b31afc6088f148eaee3ac2?imw=Y

The first two were good, the third was complete donkey gak and a wasteful use of the Marvel franchise particularly Venom's subplot.

Without the previous director and star they might be paddling up crappy-movie creek. They're going to have to go for a new and bad ass villain early to make audiences want to watch this film imo - I don't think moviegoers will pay to see Spidey take on the Green Goblin for the first time again. Can't say I'm excited about the idea of rebooting a relatively fresh franchise but then again that seems like a better option than churning out cash cow sequels especially after the craptastic situation the third film left the franchise. I think the director is also working on the World of Warcraft movie just to throw out extra info.

It'll be strange seeing another lead playing Spidey but a 36 year old Tobey Maguire is far from irreplaceable. Who is irreplaceable though is this guy who did the best portrayal of a Spidey character:

I'm glad Maguire is gone, he was fine at playing No-Confidence-Pre-Spiderbite Parker, but he didn't change at all when he got his powers and he can't quip to save his life. I'm hoping they get a new, better actor and a new, better director. And they should do the Lizard as the villain.

I want Craven! Not Wes Craven, the deep-in-the-closet big game hunter who was Spiderman's primary pain in the ass for so long. AND a Spiderman vs Hulk movie. I know, never happen. (Hulk smash bug-man!)

If Sony ever loses the rights to Spider-Man and they revert back to their owner you might see one. Sony will bend over backwards to not lose those rights, but still.

They tried to push in 3d late in the development cycle and no one on Raimis staff was experienced with 3d filming. He then pulled out. Sony killed the project itself.

ShumaGorath wrote:They tried to push in 3d late in the development cycle and no one on Raimis staff was experienced with 3d filming. He then pulled out. Sony killed the project itself.

Hmm..got a link for that? Sounds interesting but from what I've read it was about script issues particularly Raimi wanting a winged villain as opposed to a love interest one:

Raimi wants to have a criminal known as the Vulture act as the primary antagonist in the film while the studio, which dislikes the idea of the winged wrongdoer, is pushing for a romantic sub-plot involving a burglar named the Black Cat in addition to another villain.

A succession of writers has tried to marry the two parties' differing visions to no effect.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i015c08bd6f66cc49d4a743e40dcd9a2e

Bummer for JK Simmons all he had going was Spider-man and Jason Reitman films. He's almost as underrated as Dolph Lundgren.

I'm tired of reboots, "requels" (see The Incredible Hulk), and whatever the heck Superman Returns was.

Hmm..got a link for that? Sounds interesting but from what I've read it was about script issues particularly Raimi wanting a winged villain as opposed to a love interest one:

http://www.deadline.com/hollywood/urgent-spider-man-4-scrapped-as-is-raimi-and-cast-out-franchise-reboot-planned/

Raimi caved in on 3, so it's unlikely he would hold strong on editing the script for 4.

At this point I'll be more interested in seeing the warcraft movie.

for what it's worth, I like all 3 spidies. 3 is the weakest, but I still enjoyed it for the most part.

I agree that the only thing they can't lose is the current actor for J Jonah Jameson.

Yeah..... they should just let it rest for a few years. Right now Maguire IS peter Parker.

It didn't work for me when they were "shuttling" in new batmen during the 90's either.

GG

Vulture and the Black Cat in the same movie would probably make a good Spidey 4. Both are crooks, so you could develop a good plot line. Besides, girls in black, skin-tight leather sell movies.

generalgrog wrote: Right now Maguire IS peter Parker.

For you, maybe.

He was NEVER Peter Parker to me. Horrendous casting there, IMO.

Could have been worse. Could have been Seth Green or Jamie Kennedy.

Platuan4th wrote:

generalgrog wrote: Right now Maguire IS peter Parker.

For you, maybe.

He was NEVER Peter Parker to me. Horrendous casting there, IMO.

OK so who would have made a better Parker?

GG

generalgrog wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:

generalgrog wrote: Right now Maguire IS peter Parker.

For you, maybe.

He was NEVER Peter Parker to me. Horrendous casting there, IMO.

OK so who would have made a better Parker?

GG

Someone cast specifically for the role not known in Hollywood.

Spider-man as a franchise can carry itself and doesn't need known names slapped on to attempt to sell it.

That's not really a criticism of Maguire, so much as it is a statement of idealism.

"The actor who is perfect to play Peter Parker should have been cast as Peter Parker."

dogma wrote:That's not really a criticism of Maguire, so much as it is a statement of idealism.

"The actor who is perfect to play Peter Parker should have been cast as Peter Parker."

Not exactly what I said.

I said I would have preferred them to search out and hire a no name actor for the role instead of just casting a famous person closest to being a "nerd" in Hollywood.

Macquire may be somewhat nerdy, but he's not the genius level nerd with a sense of responsibility that Parker is.

He's more the socially awkward nerd who tries hard to fit in and be "cool", not caring about anything else, like academics.

So you're objecting to Maguire due to an aversion to famous people? That's spurious as well.

dogma wrote:So you're objecting to Maguire due to an aversion to famous people? That's spurious as well.

Nice try. Now you're just trolling.


Or you completely missed my second part of my post.

Platuan4th wrote:
He's more the socially awkward nerd who tries hard to fit in and be "cool", not caring about anything else, like academics.

Did you miss all those discussions of theoretical physics, and engineering? Or the repeated internal conflicts with respect to Parker's purpose, and responsibility?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Platuan4th wrote:
Or you completely missed my second part of my post.

Or I posted that before you edited, but think what you want.

That said, nothing in the second part of your post contravenes my comment.

dogma wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:
He's more the socially awkward nerd who tries hard to fit in and be "cool", not caring about anything else, like academics.

Did you miss all those discussions of theoretical physics, and engineering? Or the repeated internal conflicts with respect to Parker's purpose, and responsibility?

No, but the way he delivers the lines seems to me that he doesn't seem to really know what he's talking about, but just reciting something he's memorized from books.

But, that's my opinion. It seems different to the way Damon did it with conviction and in a way that he actually knew and cared about what he was studying in "Good Will Hunting".

Platuan4th wrote:
No, but the way he delivers the lines seems to me that he doesn't seem to really know what he's talking about, but just reciting something he's memorized from books.

I don't know what you think knowledge is, but recitation from memory is usually indicative of it. Its not like one experiences string theory.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Platuan4th wrote:It seems different to the way Damon did it with conviction and in a way that he actually knew and cared about what he was studying in "Good Will Hunting".

To be fair, Good Will Hunting is a movie about an incredibly talented, and knowledgeable kid from South Boston. His unique intelligence is essentially what pushes the plot forward, whereas Parker's brains are largely an ancillary bit of characterization (in the context of the movie).

dogma wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:
No, but the way he delivers the lines seems to me that he doesn't seem to really know what he's talking about, but just reciting something he's memorized from books.

I don't know what you think knowledge is, but recitation from memory is usually indicative of it. Its not like one experiences string theory.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Platuan4th wrote:It seems different to the way Damon did it with conviction and in a way that he actually knew and cared about what he was studying in "Good Will Hunting".

To be fair, Good Will Hunting is a movie about an incredibly talented, and knowledgeable kid from South Boston. His unique intelligence is essentially what pushes the plot forward, whereas Parker's brains are largely an ancillary bit of characterization (in the context of the movie).

As I said, it's opinion. But there is a difference between simple recitation and an actual understanding of the subject. The first is how it always seems to me with Macguire.

But that could be a problem with Raimi as much as Macguire, because they DO seem to downplay his intelligence through most of the movie while attempting to exaggerate it in certain scenes.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Hmm..got a link for that? Sounds interesting but from what I've read it was about script issues particularly Raimi wanting a winged villain as opposed to a love interest one:

http://www.deadline.com/hollywood/urgent-spider-man-4-scrapped-as-is-raimi-and-cast-out-franchise-reboot-planned/

Raimi caved in on 3, so it's unlikely he would hold strong on editing the script for 4.

Actually I would think the opposite. He caved on 3 and really didn't like the way it turned out so this time he either gets to do it the way he would like to (with some compromise of course) or just call it quits and move on. Why make another movie the way you don't want to when you could make movies that you do? It isn't as if Raimi will have trouble getting another gig.

Platuan4th wrote:
But that could be a problem with Raimi as much as Macguire, because they DO seem to downplay his intelligence through most of the movie while attempting to exaggerate it in certain scenes.

I think that was done to emphasize his humility. Its difficult for a protagonist to possess a genius level intellect, without appearing arrogant, or at least confident; neither of which define Parker.

dogma wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:
But that could be a problem with Raimi as much as Macguire, because they DO seem to downplay his intelligence through most of the movie while attempting to exaggerate it in certain scenes.

I think that was done to emphasize his humility. Its difficult for a protagonist to possess a genius level intellect, without appearing arrogant, or at least confident; neither of which define Parker.

Y hallo thar.

Reed rather proves the point. Ioan Gruffudd makes him come across as rather unlike-ably arrogant, which is generally not a good thing for 1/4 of your protagonist group

RICHARDS!!!

Platuan4th wrote:Someone cast specifically for the role not known in Hollywood.

I.E. you have nothing.

That's like saying.."I hated Ian Mcellen as Magneto because I remember him as Gandalf"

Maguire didn't even play that many memorable characters before Spider Man. I only really remember him from cider house rules and the horse movie.

GG