Spider-Man 4 Trashed.

[Steve Gal]

And thank god no Christian Bale.

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

Franchise is going to be re-booted from the beginning of the Peter Parker story. New script, new cast.

For the most part I liked the last three films, however, a re-boot could be fun...

Raimi did the right thing by backing out. I have a ton of respect for guys like him.

 

[L. Langer]

After the cornholing Sony gave him on 3, I'm happy as Jarred Land at a gathering of the Orange County Hoochie Mama Association that Rami left with his dignity mostly intact. I think he should go back to the hero that really gave him serious street cred. Darkman!

 

[Raul Gonzo]

Bring back The Tick.

Raul Gonzo likes this.

 

[Shane Nassiri]

If you have to reboot a franchise after 3 films, you seriously f'd up somewhere along the line.

 

[Jason Beckwith]

IMHO:

Spiderman 1 was very well done. I enjoyed that film.

Spiderman 2 was a great example of how to make a sequel. Beginning with the opening titles that recapped the "story so far", the character was taken in a very cool direction by showing how hard it is to balance real life with being a super-hero. I mean, really, how do you make money as a super-hero? Unless you're Tony Stark or Bruce Wayne, you still have to hold down a day job. By half way through the second film film, I was like, "Man, it sucks to be Spiderman!" Then, by the end, I was like, "It would be awesome to be Spiderman!" I thought the process that throws the viewer on that sort of emotional or empathetic trip was very well conceived and executed.

Spiderman 3 suffered from what many sequels devolve into. Too many villians are introduced, and there simply isn't enough time in a feature to deal with having three antagonists, a love interest and deal with the main character's personal growth. I've seen it happen over, and over again. The pressure must be intense from the studio to "up the ante" on the action and the knee jerk reaction is to simply add more villians to be defeated. Look at Bane, Poisin Ivy and Freeze in the Batman catastrophy that killed that franchise before the reboot.


I think that, for the most part, the origin story of any super hero is the most interesting story to tell. It gets much harder to maintain a complete story there-after. I think that's why so many stories end with, "Happily Ever After" and the characters are seldom revisited.

It would be refreshing to see a franchise go backward on a third film and simplify the story instead of taking it to what would normally be perceived as the logical "next level". Instead of adding 3 more villians, just deal with one strong story that can take the protagonist through a strong character building arc.

I can't think of a single large franchise that has done this successfully, or even tried it!

Can You?

 

[Craig Ryan]

Epic fail. Not that I wanted to see a 4th film anyways, but a reboot is completely ridiculous. You reboot a franchise when it's dead ala what happened to Batman in the 90s, and what happened to the Hulk and Ghostrider films. The Rami/Maguire Spiderman films were perfect (1&2) for the character, and the feel of the mythology. I don't see how they're going to make it any better than the first film. And I really hope they're not going "dark and brooding" ala Nolan Batman for Spiderman. Thats simply not true to the mythology. I'm glad Rami stood his ground. More directors need to put their foot down in the face of these morons who want to churn out a huge budget spectacle fest every year and sacrifice a decent story. Enough is enough.

 

[Craig Ryan]

IMHO:

Spiderman 1 was very well done. I enjoyed that film.

Spiderman 2 was a great example of how to make a sequel. Beginning with the opening titles that recapped the "story so far", the character was taken in a very cool direction by showing how hard it is to balance real life with being a super-hero. I mean, really, how do you make money as a super-hero? Unless you're Tony Stark or Bruce Wayne, you still have to hold down a day job. By half way through the second film film, I was like, "Man, it sucks to be Spiderman!" Then, by the end, I was like, "It would be awesome to be Spiderman!" I thought the process that throws the viewer on that sort of emotional or empathetic trip was very well conceived and executed.

Spiderman 3 suffered from what many sequels devolve into. Too many villians are introduced, and there simply isn't enough time in a feature to deal with having three antagonists, a love interest and deal with the main character's personal growth. I've seen it happen over, and over again. The pressure must be intense from the studio to "up the ante" on the action and the knee jerk reaction is to simply add more villians to be defeated. Look at Bane, Poisin Ivy and Freeze in the Batman catastrophy that killed that franchise before the reboot.


I think that, for the most part, the origin story of any super hero is the most interesting story to tell. It gets much harder to maintain a complete story there-after. I think that's why so many stories end with, "Happily Ever After" and the characters are seldom revisited.

It would be refreshing to see a franchise go backward on a third film and simplify the story instead of taking it to what would normally be perceived as the logical "next level". Instead of adding 3 more villians, just deal with one strong story that can take the protagonist through a strong character building arc.

I can't think of a single large franchise that has done this successfully, or even tried it!

Can You?

If I understand what you're saying in the last paragraph, they did that with Batman.

 

[Jason Beckwith]

Well, I guess Nolan's Dark Night did do that, since Ras AND Scarecrow were the antagonists in the first film. Then it was centered on just the Joker in the second.

Can you think of any other examples?

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I think origin stories are always more interesting because you see this introduction of a super hero into the ordinary world, which is exciting. When I saw "Superman: The Movie" as a teenager and Superman first appears in Metropolis and catches Lois and then the falling helicopter in the other hand, the audience went nuts. It's hard to keep recreating that excitement in a story where the super hero is commonplace and well-established.

Anyway, I liked Raimi's Spider-Man movies but the third one clearly was showing signs of staleness and repetition. I also feel that the three movies relied a bit too much on a CGI Spider-Man, which kept me, the viewer, from feeling real danger for the character because he seemed to become an animated cartoon every time he leapt into action. Obviously I understand why a CGI Spider-Man was necessary, I just wish a bit more photorealism could have occurred.

I'm not sure another retelling of the creation of Spider-Man is going to be a good idea just because it's such a well-worn and well-known story, unlike Superman's first appearance in Metropolis, which is less well-established and more open for re-imagining (the main problem with Superman has always giving him an adequate and believable challenge consider his ridiculous level of super powers.)

 

[Craig Ryan]

Well, I guess Nolan's Dark Night did do that, since Ras AND Scarecrow were the antagonists in the first film. Then it was centered on just the Joker in the second.

Can you think of any other examples?

Well, my reference to Batman was that they rebooted the entire franchise with Batman Begins, rather than continue from Batman And Robin. They went back to the origin instead of focusing on a villain. Sounds like they're doing the same with with Spiderman...scrapping the first three and starting over.

 

[Craig Ryan]

I think origin stories are always more interesting because you see this introduction of a super hero into the ordinary world, which is exciting. When I saw "Superman: The Movie" as a teenager and Superman first appears in Metropolis and catches Lois and then the falling helicopter in the other hand, the audience went nuts. It's hard to keep recreating that excitement in a story where the super hero is commonplace and well-established.

Anyway, I liked Raimi's Spider-Man movies but the third one clearly was showing signs of staleness and repetition. I also feel that the three movies relied a bit too much on a CGI Spider-Man, which kept me, the viewer, from feeling real danger for the character because he seemed to become an animated cartoon every time he leapt into action. Obviously I understand why a CGI Spider-Man was necessary, I just wish a bit more photorealism could have occurred.

I'm not sure another retelling of the creation of Spider-Man is going to be a good idea just because it's such a well-worn and well-known story, unlike Superman's first appearance in Metropolis, which is less well-established and more open for re-imagining (the main problem with Superman has always giving him an adequate and believable challenge consider his ridiculous level of super powers.)

Agreed.

The thing about Superman, and it pains me to say it as a lifelong fan of the mythology, but if they do in fact reboot that franchise with "The Man of Steel", they need to completely abandon the Donner/Reeves look and feel. Singer already tried to replicate it with Routh in Superman Returns, and it didn't do well. I honestly don't think any Superman film will outdo the '78 Donner film, simply because it was "pure cinema" IMO. Everything about it was amazing from the acting, cinematography..and it has a plenty good story as well. Reeves, Hackman, Beatty, Brando - these performances defined the characters. So in my book, Superman has been done. The question is, if someone has a new way to look at Superman, and make it just as good.

 

[Rick Presas]

Agreed.

The thing about Superman, and it pains me to say it as a lifelong fan of the mythology, but if they do in fact reboot that franchise with "The Man of Steel", they need to completely abandon the Donner/Reeves look and feel. Singer already tried to replicate it with Routh in Superman Returns, and it didn't do well. I honestly don't think any Superman film will outdo the '78 Donner film, simply because it was "pure cinema" IMO. Everything about it was amazing from the acting, cinematography..and it has a plenty good story as well. Reeves, Hackman, Beatty, Brando - these performances defined the characters. So in my book, Superman has been done. The question is, if someone has a new way to look at Superman, and make it just as good.

The same could have been said about Burtons Batman, and Nolan did very well, equalling on most levels, and surpassing on a couple. I definetly agree. Superman has SO MUCh potential for depth that gets ignored so much. As a character, he's even more tragic than Batman, really. While Batman lost his parents to crime, Superman LOST HIS ENTIRE SPECIES. he is TRULY alone in the universe. And while he, any time he wished, could rule the world, he chooses only to protect it. Why? So he can have somehwere he belongs.

I'd love to see J.J. Abrahms do the next Superman.



As far as people who have said that it's hard to find adequate foes for superman, this is simply not true. DC comics are replete with top-notch superman foes. For some reason though, the films have this need to constantly go with a (very watered down version of) Lex Luthor. we're tired of that.

Give us something meaty.

Darkseid.

Brainiac.

The Eradicator.

Doomsday.


THOSE are bankable villains who ACTUALLY CAN (and have) kick Supermans ass.


As far as Spidey goes...good. there was no saving the franchise.

And i feel that's Raimi's fault more than the studios.

 

[Zack Birlew]

Well, if they had simply thought about it they could have had a really good 4 & 5. I actually came up with an epic story arc for the films when they announced they were desperately looking for a writer, but the only problem was that it required three villains, but in a really terrific way that made complete sense, although one would show up only at the end of the 4th film and that would lead into the 5th which would feature the ending villain and one other with the option to toss in the Lizard if they wanted it that badly. It's too bad that Sam Raimi left because I'm sure if he had listened to my pitch he would have dropped this whole Vulture thing, which I agree with everyone else was a lame villain choice especially coming off of the third film.

 

[Jeff Coatney]

I long for the day when a franchise reboot is allowed to avoid the origin story. How many times... yada, yada, yada... I feel like they make the same two or three films over and over and over again.

 

[Cüneyt Kaya]

Agreed.

The thing about Superman, and it pains me to say it as a lifelong fan of the mythology, but if they do in fact reboot that franchise with "The Man of Steel", they need to completely abandon the Donner/Reeves look and feel. Singer already tried to replicate it with Routh in Superman Returns, and it didn't do well. I honestly don't think any Superman film will outdo the '78 Donner film, simply because it was "pure cinema" IMO. Everything about it was amazing from the acting, cinematography..and it has a plenty good story as well. Reeves, Hackman, Beatty, Brando - these performances defined the characters. So in my book, Superman has been done. The question is, if someone has a new way to look at Superman, and make it just as good.

1st: i love super heroes and comics, i have some No. 1 comic issues in my collection...juhu

2nd: I hate superman!...he is the most boring superhero ever, he has no villain, ah i forgot the rich guy, who has nothing beside money...even jim jannard would be a more dangerous villain.
and he can do everything, no weakness, boring, pretty boring.

3rd: I did read JJ Abrahms Superman script, and it was one of the best comicscripts i did ever read, much darker supi... on top its not superman playing clark kent, its clark kent trying to play superman...i am now a huge fan of the abrahms version of Superman!!!

its available on the net (script-o-rama)

 

[Rick Presas]

he is the most boring superhero ever, he has no villain, ah i forgot the rich guy, who has nothing beside money

Brainiac
The Eradicator
Doomsday
Darkseid
Metallo
Superboy Prime
The Cyborg (Henshaw)
General Zod

Those are all Supervillains besides Lex Luthor who are capable of kick Supermans ass, and have. All of those opponents are as powerful or more.

and he can do everything, no weakness, boring, pretty boring.

he actually has several weaknesses. But his weaknesses are more psychological than physical, which is why Lex Luthor, a person with no superhuman ability, is able to be his most dangerous foe.


I'm wondering if you've ever actually read a full superman storyline? Beyond the movies and cartoons.

 

[Stephen Matthews]

Spiderman should just make another third film and everyone should agree to ignore the last one. Obviously not, but I always thought of the old comic technique of making some of these badly done movies into alternate universes that are corrected in the properly done sequels (crisis on infinite earths esque).

Batman begins series are good movie's, but IMO not very good batman movies (not saying there has been except for maybe burtons). They are more like action movies with a rich guy dressed like a bat, rather than a comic movie. Though that is just my geeky oppinion.

Superman, while having some of the best villians and characters within his universe, is also one of the hardest cahracters to write for. How do you present a challenge to a guy who can for the most part fix any problem in the blink of an eye. But to me that is the beauty in writing for him, and why he has aquired such great and intelligent villians as Lex, Brainiac, Darkseid.

Then superman has perhaps my favorite origin story ever and that is Doomsday's. If you appreciate the comics and have never read the full Doomsday hunter prey saga you should.

Then again one re-boot of a comic series I would love to see is spawn. I grew up on spawn and I can almost see a way of hitting all the major story points and cover all 190 or so issues in a series of movies. Once again if you are a comic fan and have not checked out spawn you should it is fantastic, as well the new comic by Mcfarlane Haunt seems promising.

I love comics, but for the most part I hate the movies made from them. I just get very upset when writers ignore or throw out story lines and characters that have been built up for years even decades in some cases. You know what else I would love, a comic movie with no origin story right up front. How about jumping into the story and through the story slowly revealing the origin, most people know the origins and if they don't it might send them back to the source material to learn and join the two together.

This is the whole adapting a book debate I'm getting into, weather transferring it to another medium means fundamentally the whole story must change. Hopefully things will get better and hey if anything at least I got to see some rendition of my favorite comics in live action.

Sorry for the long ranting post

 

[Cüneyt Kaya]

i love the fact that adults are debating seriously about comics.

i wasnt much impressed by the superman dies storyline, so i dint dig deeper into his universe, i loved batmans halloween saga including joker, but maybe i should read some supi stories, advice please!

and i am definitly more a fan of a burton style batman than the real action guy batman,

would love to see some x-men flick from the age of apocalypse storyline (alternate universe)

btw. spawn is a badass character, they totally fucked up with the movie

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Spiderman 2 was a great example of how to make a sequel. Beginning with the opening titles that recapped the "story so far", the character was taken in a very cool direction by showing how hard it is to balance real life with being a super-hero. I mean, really, how do you make money as a super-hero? Unless you're Tony Stark or Bruce Wayne, you still have to hold down a day job. By half way through the second film film, I was like, "Man, it sucks to be Spiderman!" Then, by the end, I was like, "It would be awesome to be Spiderman!" I thought the process that throws the viewer on that sort of emotional or empathetic trip was very well conceived and executed.

Yeah I always thought Spiderman was terribly uncreative in his efforts. He could have gone to the police chief and been like. "look I'm reducing crime by 80% but I can't do this and hold a full time job, I need some help. If not I'm moving to Chicago where they promised me $xxx,xxx a year" And I guarantee you that the police chief would be able to find the resources.

Or he could have gotten sponsorships. "Nextel official phone of Spiderman's crime-fighting efforts. When we need to get ahold of spiderman, we use Nextel." etc etc. He would be making more than tiger woods.

Or best of all he could have done it the same way Marvel does it. Sell the toy rights! Selling the toy rights to your own likeness and copyrighted suit would make him an overnight millionaire. Have your hot, talented and well connected girlfriend make it happen. I'm sure she could get a meeting with anybody necessary.

The problem with Spiderman is he's obviously an idiot--in pretty much every way. He's the worst kind of nerd. A dumb nerd in the movies. I haven't really read the comics but I'm informed by those in the know that in the comics he designs all his own stuff. And we hear in the movie others say Spiderman is really smart. But the impression I always get from him in the movies is he's a dull and dimwitted fool. Particularly in the third.