"SPIDER-MAN 4 Production on Indefinite Hold "....NOT!...or Maybe? [Archive]

bapi

12-17-2009, 07:19 AM

IESB Exclusive: SPIDER-MAN 4 Production on Indefinite Hold

Looks like everyone's friendly neighborhood web slinger has been been placed on indefinite hold said an inside source exclusively to the IESB today. Apparently, several department heads working on the SPIDER-M4N production were notified of the halt last Thursday. Spidey and friends have some issues that need to be dealt with before production can move forward once again. Oh, and the film is known as SPIDER-M4N within the production offices so take note! Who wants to be the first to start the trending topic on Twitter #SPIDER-M4N?
An inside source working on the project tells IESB that there are some major issues director Sam Raimi is dealing with that include an incomplete script. And why is the script incomplete? Looks like Raimi and the studio heads at Sony Pictures can't agree upon a villain for the film.
Raimi is pushing hard for the Vulture to be the big baddie, something he also pushed for in the third film to star alongside the Sandman but didn't get and we all know how that one turned out. Vulture was to do his evil deeds alongside the new Goblin and Sandman. A single concept art sketch can be seen in "The Art of Spider-Man 3" book. Vulture and Flint Marko would have been cellmates who escaped together, with Vulture pressuring the more passive Marko into committing crimes.
On the flip side, who does the studio want to be the villain? Our source says they seem to only be interested in featuring which ever character is selling books right now but basically they have no idea, just not the Vulture.
So, production on SPIDER-M4N grinded to a halt this past Thursday and isn't budging until some compromises are made. Sony is in a bit of a dilemna though because they are insistent upon getting a film shooting as soon as possible. Our source also said these issues aren't being handled in the most friendliest of fashions. There is apparently some definite anger within the production with several people very "pissed off".
Perhaps they will use the time over the holidays to calm down in order to make some compromises to decide which way the film will be headed as the new year begins in January.
We will have to wait and see!

source (http://www.iesb.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7951:spider-man-4-production-on-indefinite-hold&catid=43:exclusive-features&Itemid=73)

This is bad... :csad:

spider-neil

12-17-2009, 07:23 AM

go sony!! I hope they force sam to drop the vulture

Eggyman

12-17-2009, 07:44 AM

This is a weird one....

The last film was utter sh**, most claiming the problems were caused by studio interference. I, however, don't buy that. I've not been very happy with recent news, so this is actually a positive thing from my standpoint.

spider_man_2

12-17-2009, 07:47 AM

As Ronald Reagan used to say:

"The bullfight critics ranked in rows
Fill the enormous plaza full
But only one is there who really knows
And he's the one that fights the bull"

Let Raimi do his thing. It worked the first two times, and didn't so much the third because of studio execs interfering. There are two kinds of people in this world: those who value art and those who value profit, and they never mesh well. I, for one, am plenty excited about the Vulture. Go Raimi!

spider-neil

12-17-2009, 07:57 AM

someone make a poll

sony to come out on top - vulture is dropped new villian introduced
sam to come out on top - vulture as main villian (possibly vultress)

zeptron

12-17-2009, 08:02 AM

This may or may not be a good thing. What if Sony tries to force Carnage in the movie?

Blackman

12-17-2009, 08:05 AM

I dont like Vulture that much, but I dont like it if there trying to force another villain down his throat

Adrian89

12-17-2009, 08:06 AM

This may or may not be a good thing. What if Sony tries to force Carnage in the movie?
:awesome:

They won't. Cause Raimi will screw up, he can't handle symbiotes.

spider-neil

12-17-2009, 08:07 AM

okay SM3 was a mess because they dipped their toes where it didn't belong but if dipping their toes results in vulture being dropped in favour of a another villian (I don't care which one, they are pretty much ALL better than vulture) then that's a chance I'm willing to take.

[A]

12-17-2009, 08:09 AM

SPIDER-MAN 4 Production on Indefinite Hold Whaaaaa..? http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/2602/prankster28967330.gif (http://img46.imageshack.us/i/prankster28967330.gif/)

Blackman

12-17-2009, 08:13 AM

Whats up with the Lizard? I mean they set up the character so much already, the actor wants to play Lizard, the fans want Lizard, and Lizard definitely fits Raimi's horror roots.

I mean Vulture? He's alright but I cant picture him holding his own in a film

Nathan

12-17-2009, 08:15 AM

Let Raimi do his thing. It worked the first two times, and didn't so much the third because of studio execs interfering. There are two kinds of people in this world: those who value art and those who value profit, and they never mesh well. I, for one, am plenty excited about the Vulture. Go Raimi!

I don't think the Studio is entirely to blame for this. So they wanted Venom in the 3rd Movie, it was Raimi's job to make it work. But he didn't. And it's not like it was the Studios idea to make Peter an evil dork, to turn Harry into some sort of futuristic snowboarder or to turn Sandman into Uncle Ben's murderer, who just had nothing but bad luck.

spider-neil

12-17-2009, 08:16 AM

spider-neil

12-17-2009, 08:19 AM

I don't think the Studio is entirely to blame for this. So they wanted Venom in the 3rd Movie, it was Raimi's job to make it work. But he didn't. And it's not like it was the Studios idea to make Peter an evil dork, to turn Harry into some sort of futuristic snowboarder or to turn Sandman into Uncle Ben's murderer, who just had nothing but bad luck.

sam could have pushed venom into the final scene before credits.
sandman gets more screen time
GG2 gets more screen time
sam fulfills sony's desire for venom (albeit briefly)

[A]

12-17-2009, 08:21 AM

sam could have pushed venom into the final scene before credits..but then Venom would've been SM4's main villain..

Blackman

12-17-2009, 08:23 AM

I know Raimi wanted Sandman for SM3

but honestly if I was a studio exec I wouldve been pushing for a different villain too.

spider-neil

12-17-2009, 08:25 AM

;17846035']..but then Venom would've been SM4's main villain..

UGH! but at least we would have had a decent SM3 movie (maybe).

Nathan

12-17-2009, 08:28 AM

spider-neil

12-17-2009, 08:28 AM

I think sony have checked out the messageboards and looked at fan reaction to the leaked romour of vulture. what happened to the morbious/lizard romour? now THERE'S a romour I wish was true, unfortuantely sony couldn't shoot down that romour fast enough :csad:

Adrian89

12-17-2009, 08:29 AM

;17846035']..but then Venom would've been SM4's main villain..
It should've been that way.

BTW, let's hope the studio wants a new MJ! :awesome:

spider-neil

12-17-2009, 08:31 AM

It's a shame that they missed the opportunity to show Venom as a really frightening villain. Having him stalk Spider-Man, visiting his Aunt, terrorizing Mary Jane, really letting Peter know that he could get any of his loved ones and that he knows all of his little secrets. It would also have been great to see Venom trying to expose Spider-Man as Peter Parker.

a real missed oppertunity will be dylan baker showing up in ANOTHER spidey movie and not seeing the lizard. that's like edward nigma showing up in three batman movies with no riddler making an appearance.

MessiahDecoy123

12-17-2009, 08:35 AM

There are plenty of talented directors who would happily take a fat pay check to do a Lizard/Kraven movie. Let them do it and give Raimi the boot.

Nathan

12-17-2009, 08:36 AM

a real missed oppertunity will be dylan baker showing up in ANOTHER spidey movie and not seeing the lizard. that's like edward nigma showing up in three batman movies with no riddler making an appearance.

I definitely want to see the Lizard. I don't know what his freaking fascination is with the Vulture. It's an old guy with wings. It's a surprise that Spider-Man ever had trouble with such a villain.

Rodrigo90

12-17-2009, 08:36 AM

Spider-Man 3 was just as camp as 60s Batman TV show.

spider-neil

12-17-2009, 08:39 AM

I definitely want to see the Lizard. I don't know what his freaking fascination is with the Vulture. It's an old guy with wings. It's a surprise that Spider-Man ever had trouble with such a villain.

human torch said as much when he took down vulture in 5 seconds flat.
Human torch (to vulture) - 'YOU gave spidey problems all these years?'

spider-neil

12-17-2009, 08:42 AM

There are plenty of talented directors who would happily take a fat pay check to do a Lizard/Kraven movie. Let them do it and give Raimi the boot.

I hate myself for saying this but I'd rather see a lizard movie directed by someone else than a vulture movie directed by raimi.

Blackman

12-17-2009, 08:42 AM

Me (as Sony exec): Alright Sam, we screwed the pooch with Spiderman 3 but we're gonna bounce back with four
Raimi: Yep.
Me: What ideas do you have
Raimi: I'm thinking of having Vulture-
Me: Get out

I hate myself for saying this but I'd rather see a lizard movie directed by someone else than a vulture movie directed by raimi.
I agree too. Its not that I dont like Raimi at all or that I though SM3 was so bad that there needs to be a reboot. But Vulture just seems really lame to me.

spider-neil

12-17-2009, 08:47 AM

Me (as Sony exec): Alright Sam, we screwed the pooch with Spiderman 3 but we're gonna bounce back with four
Raimi: Yep.
Me: What ideas do you have
Raimi: I'm thinking of having Vulture-
Me: Get out

:woot:

I agree too. Its not that I dont like Raimi at all or that I though SM3 was so bad that there needs to be a reboot. But Vulture just seems really lame to me.

totally lame, especially when the seeds of a great movie have already been sown with dylan as conners.
it's not fair that as a spidey fan I have to gaze enviously at TDK, the thor cast and the iron man trailer especially when the same director delivered the excellent SM2.

Blackman

12-17-2009, 08:50 AM

Man, I was looking at the IM2 trailer and was thinking why cant this happen to a Wally West Flash, Wonder Woman, Black Panther, or even Superman movie

zeptron

12-17-2009, 08:54 AM

Me (as Sony exec): Alright Sam, we screwed the pooch with Spiderman 3 but we're gonna bounce back with four
Raimi: Yep.
Me: What ideas do you have
Raimi: I'm thinking of having Vulture-
Me: Get out

Even though I don't mind Vulture I did find this funny.:woot:

The worst case scenario would be this.

Raimi: "This what I want to do for SM4. I want to.."

Sony exec: "Screw that! Put in Lizard, Carnage, and Black Cat or else!"

Blackman

12-17-2009, 08:57 AM

TheFuture

12-17-2009, 09:00 AM

I don't buy the story, for Raimi to sign up for another film knowing that the studio could dictate to him again, sorry I don't buy it.

Reikowolf

12-17-2009, 09:01 AM

zeptron

12-17-2009, 09:03 AM

I mean it would be bad if they forced any of them. But at least with Lizard the ground work has been laid down for him to appear

Also even though I dont like vampire Moribus wouldnt be bad either to pair with Lizard. 2 monster villains would be cool. But they need to make one of them straight evil (preferably Moribus). I dont want another sympathetic villain

Ehh..I prefer they don't use two monster type villains. It would be like "Oh no Lizard is on the run! And oh no Morbius is on the run too!" I want a more complex story than that.

Besides how many vampire movies and tv shows are floating around these days anyway? Morbius should be one of the last villains used. Especially when more unique villains can be done.

One of the reasons why I want Lizard and Electro is because the blackout idea someone came up with. It can make Lizard more scary and because of the blackout Peter could have a hard time finding a cure for Connors.

Reikowolf

12-17-2009, 09:10 AM

Hmm, that being said, it would be interesting to see Raimi's Spider-Man take on a villain he can't reason with. See the extent he'd go to in order to stop him.

Might have made a great arc with Norman Osborn.

Nathan

12-17-2009, 09:10 AM

really sony?

You're paying Sam Raimi to direct a movie, why would you not trust in his decisions? Even if you got your way, he will be less than enthusiastic to bring it to life during principle. Look at what happened in SM3. Take your hands out of the pot and let the Director direct the movie!

You know, this is pretty sad, either he gets what he wants, or he'll do an half assed job. If that's his attitude, they should get a new director. We might even get a Spider-Man that's actually fun.

Raimi had full control over SM1-SM2, and they were good movies.

They also didn't have lame villains. So far we had Green Goblin 1 & 2, Doc Ock, Sandman, Venom. Now with the 4th franchise in the Movie, he wants to introduce the Vulture as the main villain? Secondary, ok. But main? A old fragile man that flies?

It looks like the reigns of the franchise are being pulled away from Raimi; if I were him, I would put it on the table that he either gets his way, or walks.

Either he gets to do his SM4, or they reboot/retool the franchise.

Then I hope he walks. I never liked his Peter Parker or Mary Jane anyway.

Reikowolf

12-17-2009, 09:11 AM

FaT_tONle

12-17-2009, 09:14 AM

The movie is going to flop. Any time you have directors and studios butting heads that is pretty much the end result. If they don't think Vulture will carry the film... why not just add Electro or someone else? I say kill the project entirely, ditch Raimi and start a new trilogy.

I_am_iron_man

12-17-2009, 09:16 AM

I think that they will put Black Cat/Vulturess and Raimi doesn't want.

TheFuture

12-17-2009, 09:18 AM

I'd say they want Morbius for obvious (and misguided) reasons.

FaT_tONle

12-17-2009, 09:22 AM

I think that they will put Black Cat/Vulturess and Raimi doesn't want.

This is all Sony's fault from SM3 on... I don't hold any grudges on Raimi other than his shortcomings in SM3, which was due to studio/fan pressure. The rogue gallery is so deep yet they outdo themselves in SM3 and have nothing to follow that up. It's sad it had to come to this. Hopefully for the better. Obviously the cast will probably walk along with Raimi unless Sony just opens up the pay check, but I can't imagine they won't get something worked out here. Lizard, Kraven and be done with it.

zeptron

12-17-2009, 09:24 AM

I'd say they want Morbius for obvious (and misguided) reasons.

It wouldn't surprise of they wanted to use him just to hop on the vampire bandwagon. The vampire thing has been done to death recently. You don't jump on something at the end of a fad. You start a new fad.

Symbiotic

12-17-2009, 09:26 AM

FaT_tONle

12-17-2009, 09:29 AM

bullets

12-17-2009, 09:30 AM

This could be a tragic day for the people of New York. It could be the end of Spider-Man.

Eggyman

12-17-2009, 09:32 AM

SpideyZERO

12-17-2009, 09:34 AM

Is it possible that this is because of Sony trying to stop Raimi from using the Vulture AND the Vulturess?

Chewy

12-17-2009, 09:34 AM

Sony needs to get this movie out though, since they may be forced to renegotiate with Disney if they don't hit that date. They have to work something out. Raimi needs to be reasonable though. You can't have a movie with just Vulture and Vultress.
I think Sony's deal is different than Fox's; I recall that Sony had to pay Marvel some sum of cash a a year or two ago to keep the rights.

spider_man_2

12-17-2009, 09:37 AM

Vulture isn't "a fragile old man with wings", his strength is nearly on par with Spidey's, he flies faster than Spidey can swing and easily outmaneuvers him in the air, and has razor-sharp wings that have been shown to cut through Spidey's webbing in nearly every incarnation I can remember. The first Spidey comic I ever read was the Clifton Shallot Vulture issue(s), and so the character has a special spot in my heart. Raimi can make a great movie out of him. Just step back and let the man work his mojo.

david icke

12-17-2009, 09:37 AM

I think this is good news, better they get it right, this Vulture/Vulturess thing did not sound like a good idea. I always wanted Lizard, with Vulture as back up/not much backstory villan.
Hopefully it will not be held up for long and a decision can be made, but something tells me we will no longer be getting this Vulturess idea anyway, which is very good news.

TheFuture

12-17-2009, 09:38 AM

In truth I'd be happy if Sony were trying to veto Vulture on Raimi, however it's the principle of Sony interfering is the thing that annoys me. They should have learned their lesson from last time. They were lucky that the previous two films gave them such a secure situation which guaranteed huge box office numbers, this time around however if another dud is produced then I can see them getting their lowest box office numbers to date.

Batspider77

12-17-2009, 09:38 AM

There are plenty of talented directors who would happily take a fat pay check to do a Lizard/Kraven movie. Let them do it and give Raimi the boot.

Well said.
The best thing that could happen is that Sony Kicks out Raimi and all of his horrible Cast and give the Franchise a frech start with some Guys that know what they doing.

A Raimi Spidey 4 would be like this...
Vulture born in an accident that is Spideys fault....Vulture wants revange....Peter goes out with Vultures Daughter....Vulture robbs a Bank,spidey stops him but he escapes.....Aunt May teaches Peter something....Vulture kills his self while battle Spidey...Vultures Daughter wants Revange and becomes Female vulture.......while fighting Spidey the Female Vulture finds out Pete is Spidey and learns her Fathers dead was not his Fault......Peter learned his lesson and walks away.

FaT_tONle

12-17-2009, 09:39 AM

Is it possible that this is because of Sony trying to stop Raimi from using the Vulture AND the Vulturess?

Vultress is not a Raimi idea IMO. He made Sandman Ben's killer so I wouldn't put it past him, but my thinking is the studio wanted BC in there, and they sort of came up with this other character to come into some kind of accord. I still think the studio is terribly unsatisfied with Raimi's pick, but who else are they thinking of then? From reports, they don't want Lizard. Carnage? Give me a break. Morbius? Vampires in a Spidey movie? Lizard was the logical choice but I don't think either party wants it.

Nathan

12-17-2009, 09:40 AM

This REALLY pisses me off. They wouldn't let Raimi do 3 the way he wanted, then they agree to free reign for 4, and go back on it. Why do they have to be the new 20th Century Fox? All about the money, never about the movie. If I was Raimi, I would seriously try to find a way out of whatever contract I've signed.

Why can't it be about the money and still be a good Movie? Nevermind that every movie is about the money, people don't make them for free and out of the goodness of their hearts.

The studio says what villain they want and the director should still try his best to make a good movie, regardless of whether he likes the character or not. Instead of acting like a spoiled child that didn't get his way.

And come on, he doesn't like Venom because he thinks he's lame or whatever, but then he wants to go ahead and make a movie with the Vulture as the main villain?

The Joker

12-17-2009, 09:43 AM

Hang on a second, I thought Raimi said he had FULL creative control. So why the hell is there disputes over what villain he wants to use?

go sony!! I hope they force sam to drop the vulture

Do you want Raimi to be lumbered with another villain he doesn't want to use? I've got no major fan love for the Vulture. But I don't want Raimi using a villain he doesn't want to use.

Still trying to wash the bad taste of SM-3 out of my mouth.

FaT_tONle

12-17-2009, 09:44 AM

spider_man_2

12-17-2009, 09:45 AM

If Sony get their way, they'll probably turn MJ into Carnage.

Nathan

12-17-2009, 09:48 AM

Don't insult Raimi like that... he was told he would have 100% control. This is on Sony. We saw this story play out during SM3's production, and now it's the same bull **** again.

What do mean insult? I'm just asking of the guy to be a professional and not work totally half assed on the movie, simply because he doesn't get his villain. He doesn't just make movies for himself, but also for the fans.

If Sony get their way, they'll probably turn MJ into Carnage.

If that means less screentime for Dunst because she's a blood thirsty monster the majority of the film, I wouldn't object.

Chewy

12-17-2009, 09:51 AM

Hang on a second, I thought Raimi said he had FULL creative control. So why the hell is there disputes over what villain he wants to use?
Directors very rarely have FULL creative control over movies with $100 Million+ budgets. Unless they're James Cameron coming off of Titanic, Peter Jackson coming off of Lord of the Rings, or Chris Nolan coming off of The Dark Knight

Reikowolf

12-17-2009, 09:51 AM

Why can't it be about the money and still be a good Movie? Nevermind that every movie is about the money, people don't make them for free and out of the goodness of their hearts.

The studio says what villain they want and the director should still try his best to make a good movie, regardless of whether he likes the character or not. Instead of acting like a spoiled child that didn't get his way.

And come on, he doesn't like Venom because he thinks he's lame or whatever, but then he wants to go ahead and make a movie with the Vulture as the main villain?

Your opinion for the vulture aside, Sony could care less about the characterization or plot of the movie. Their interest is strictly financial. I'm sure there's a formula somewhere that tells them what elements will allow for the most profit gain in a movie.

They initially took a risk with Raimi as he was not a well known director (for high budget films)

but on the same note, so did WB with Batman Begins and Newline with LOTR.

In the end, the passion of each director for each respective franchise is what made the movie a success and financially viable.

Raj Al Ghul was a very outlandish choice for a Batman reboot villain, as he was very unknown outside the comic continuity and Batman TAS; yet Nolan made it work.

LOTR was a huge risk in general as the Fantasy genre was all but dead.

Sony's job is to give Raimi the financial backing to bring his vision to life. Nothing else.

FaT_tONle

12-17-2009, 09:52 AM

What do mean insult? I'm just asking of the guy to be a professional and not work totally half assed on the movie, simply because he doesn't get his villain. He doesn't just make movies for himself, but also for the fans.

That's not the point... he signed on knowing that he'd be given FULL CONTROL. Sony can't just come in there and say, "We don't like this, so **** off," once Raimi nailed down his script. Vulture may be a weak villain but it wasn't like it was Hammerhead or Rhino as the main villain. And we don't know if Vultress was a studio decision or a Raimi decision.

Reikowolf

12-17-2009, 09:55 AM

That's not the point... he signed on knowing that he'd be given FULL CONTROL. Sony can't just come in there and say, "We don't like this, so **** off," once Raimi nailed down his script. Vulture may be a weak villain but it wasn't like it was Hammerhead or Rhino as the main villain. And we don't know if Vultress was a studio decision or a Raimi decision.

You're right. Sony shouldn't be doing that; and I hope Raimi is fighting them on this, tooth and nail.

If he continues with production and bends to Sony's will, I think this is going to be SM3 all over again, but worse... much worse.

zeptron

12-17-2009, 09:55 AM

Vultress is not a Raimi idea IMO. He made Sandman Ben's killer so I wouldn't put it past him, but my thinking is the studio wanted BC in there, and they sort of came up with this other character to come into some kind of accord. I still think the studio is terribly unsatisfied with Raimi's pick, but who else are they thinking of then? From reports, they don't want Lizard. Carnage? Give me a break. Morbius? Vampires in a Spidey movie? Lizard was the logical choice but I don't think either party wants it.

I think Raimi actually wants to use Lizard. Him and Baker even talked about turning Connors into him. But now they're saying Sony doesn't want him because he doesn't have a human face.

Uhh, Sony, ever hear of a guy called Voldemort? Or Darth Vader?

The Joker

12-17-2009, 09:57 AM

Directors very rarely have FULL creative control over movies with $100 Million+ budgets. Unless they're James Cameron coming off of Titanic, Peter Jackson coming off of Lord of the Rings, or Chris Nolan coming off of The Dark Knight

I don't buy that. The three Spider-Man movies made a fortune. Raimi's ability to make them a huge financial success should not be in question.

bullets

12-17-2009, 09:59 AM

If Sony get their way, they'll probably turn MJ into Carnage.

Sony would go with a bang.

Nathan

12-17-2009, 10:06 AM

Sony's job is to give Raimi the financial backing to bring his vision to life. Nothing else.

LOTR was grand in scope, Ra's Al Guhl, though rather unknown to the general public, is one of Batman's greatest villains, who tries to accomplish his goals on a global scale. Now we're talking about Raimi wanting to bring an old man to the screen, over better villain choices and obvious fan favorites like the Lizard.

Reikowolf

12-17-2009, 10:07 AM

Sony would go with a bang.

Interesting arguments on both sides

Raimi holds the card that he has made the franchise as financially viable as it is, while Sony simply has the money; without the money, the movie doesn't get made.

venom892

12-17-2009, 10:13 AM

I really don't know how to take this.To me Vulturess sounds like something Rami would do.Perhaps Sony saw the reactions and told Sam "No way can we go for this vulture idea"Anyways Remember How Sony loved Vanderbilt's(I think it was him) script and Sam basically threw it away.So yea we really don't know for how long this two have been butting heads.Also the Idea for Vulture in SM3 was great but because he was teamed up with Sandman.By himself he wouldn't be awe inspiring.

NinjaCarm

12-17-2009, 10:15 AM

This is some of the best news I've heard in months. Although I'm disgusted w/ Sam Raimi's vision of Spider-Man, he did Doc Ock and Sandman well, visually speaking, and would have liked to see Vulture (and someone else). How dumb is the studio to interfere?? Let him get Spider-Man 4 out of his brain and they get some new blood!

But now, with people "pissed off", Maguire maybe heading to do the Hobbit, Raimi doing World of Warcraft, we may be getting new blood or a reboot sooner than we think!!!!

WOOOO HOOOO!!!!!:awesome:

TheScarecrow

12-17-2009, 10:19 AM

People, think logically. How long has this script been in development? The amount of writers it's had?

Do you honestly think a villain has not been chosen? It would have been the first thing decided upon when the script was started. Raimi saying he hasn't decided on a villain yet is just so he doesn't feel compelled to say who it is. Do you think Spider-man 2 could have been written without knowing who the villain is? Or Spider-man 1? Have three writers been working on a script for over a year now that's only like a quarter of a script, missing any reference to any villains, their plots and the subsequent themes which will be in Peter's story?

Or, do you think that Sony has allowed that many writers to come on board (PAYING them) to do drafts of the script only to say "no, we don't want that villain". Raimi would have made a pitch to the studio about what he wanted to do with SM4 whenever he signed on - included would have been a very basic plot outline (at the very least) and certainly the villain he intended on using and what he wanted to do with them and Sony would have OK'd it.

SM4 might be on hold (I very highly doubt it is) but it will certainly not be because of a dispute over who the villain will be. If any such thing were to occur, it would have occured before Raimi signed on and no script would have been written for Raimi's project.

Logic defies hysteria.

LOTR was grand in scope, Ra's Al Guhl, though rather unknown to the general public, is one of Batman's greatest villains, who tries to accomplish his goals on a global scale. Now we're talking about Raimi wanting to bring an old man to the screen, over better villain choices and obvious fan favorites like the Lizard.

Malkovich is the same age as Alfred Molina and two years older than Willem Dafoe. He is like a year younger than Liam Neeson and two years younger than Geoffrey Rush and four years younger than Bill Nighy. Not that any of those actors have played major villains in highly succesful (financially and critically) films. For reference, Malkovich is also younger than Mickey Rourke and Jeff Bridges. So if these Vulture rumours we've been hearing are true, your argument holds no weight.

venom892

12-17-2009, 10:27 AM

Yea but weren't at least one of the scripts written before sam was officially on board?And didn't Sam not like the villains chosen so they started a new draft?

Rodrigo90

12-17-2009, 10:29 AM

You think Sam is bad? Ive just read Camerons script from 93

Crap.

Nathan

12-17-2009, 10:33 AM

Malkovich is the same age as Alfred Molina and two years older than Willem Dafoe. He is like a year younger than Liam Neeson and two years younger than Geoffrey Rush and four years younger than Bill Nighy. Not that any of those actors have played major villains in highly succesful (financially and critically) films. For reference, Malkovich is also younger than Mickey Rourke and Jeff Bridges. So if these Vulture rumours we've been hearing are true, your argument holds no weight.

Ok, an really old geezer who flies. It's not just about the age of the character. He's a lame villain if you compare him with the other characters we've gotten so far.

zeptron

12-17-2009, 10:33 AM

The biggest offender from Cameron's script is Sandman and Electro not being Flint Marko and Max Dillion.

venom892

12-17-2009, 10:34 AM

Yea cam's ideas weren't all the great but what does that have to do with this?:huh:

Carlo Comicus

12-17-2009, 10:35 AM

Yawn...Yawn...

TheScarecrow

12-17-2009, 10:38 AM

Yea but weren't at least one of the scripts written before sam was officially on board?And didn't Sam not like the villains chosen so they started a new draft?

Perhaps, but again the studio does not just let the director decide to write a new script and not tell them what will be in it until 3 or 4 months before the film is to shoot and while the casting process has also been started. If there is an issue, it won't be because of the villain. The villain would have been decided a long time ago and the general feeling of rumours is that the inclusion of the Vulture is seen as a positive thing for Sony because of the perceived fascination with technology-orientated action films these days.

Ok, an really old geezer who flies. It's not just about the age of the character. He's a lame villain if you compare him with the other characters we've gotten so far.

And the Green Goblin is a guy in a goblin-themed suit. Doc Ock is a fat guy with metal arms strapped onto his back. The Joker is a guy who dresses like a clown. Two-Face is a guy who has half a burnt face. Spider-man is a nerdy guy dressed in red and blue spider-themed tights. All these character's sound pathetic when reduced to their gimmicks. What you should be saying is that it's a villain, potentially played by John Malkovich and being scripted by a Pullitzer prize winning writer, as well as other very talented, notable screenwriters. Doesn't sound too bad to me.

Really, this is Venom all over again. You can't hate on the film simply because the villain people want isn't getting up on screen. If it were a character like that 'Morlun' guy (as was once rumoured briefly), I could understand. But this is a classic Spider-man villain of which all CERTAIN facts point towards getting good treatment on screen, and most rumours point to getting a great villain as well.

A character is only as good as the imagination behind them.

zeptron

12-17-2009, 10:38 AM

Yea cam's ideas weren't all the great but what does that have to do with this?:huh:

That was directed at Rodrig90 who mentioned Cameron's script.

Carlo Comicus

12-17-2009, 10:39 AM

Urrah for the crazy rumors. :D

Carlo Comicus

12-17-2009, 10:44 AM

Only yesterday imdb added two name on the crew. One added from myself only two days ago. That's impossible.

Rodrigo90

12-17-2009, 10:45 AM

Yea cam's ideas weren't all the great but what does that have to do with this?:huh:

Its just that we criticise Raimi. If Cameron had made that years ago,he would be dead by now,lol. Raimi isnt all that bad when you compare him to Camerons ideas and he is one of the greatest directors and writers,a Spider-Man fan and even he sucked much worse than Sam. Im going to lay of Sam until I know for sure whats going on.

(I still cant forgive him for making Spider-Man 3 as camp as Christopher Biggins though)

Carlo Comicus

12-17-2009, 11:00 AM

I don't think this rumors are true.
You have an incomplete script and the casting start?

It's so stupid.

BATS N' HORNETS

12-17-2009, 11:01 AM

oh well

Octoberist

12-17-2009, 11:06 AM

Is it me, or is iesb.net a weird site? Usually nothing happens over there besides some good rumors once in a while.

Carlo Comicus

12-17-2009, 11:09 AM

Is it me, or is iesb.net a weird site? Usually nothing happens over there besides some good rumors once in a while.

The last good rumors from iesb I remember was about the JLA movie.

Juggernaut33

12-17-2009, 11:09 AM

Carlo might be right. I mean it seems to me that the studio and Raimi would have clashed upon the new villains' identity might earlier during pre-production (they did rewrite the script like 3 times! I can't believe that each draft had a different villain) and IESB have not been the most reliable source of information lately. Remember their exclusive story about the new Superman movie being fast tracked and the Wachowski Bros producing with James McTiegue. I mean we all know that WB have no plan to start production on another Superman film for the moment.

spider-neil

12-17-2009, 11:12 AM

Perhaps, but again the studio does not just let the director decide to write a new script and not tell them what will be in it until 3 or 4 months before the film is to shoot and while the casting process has also been started. If there is an issue, it won't be because of the villain. The villain would have been decided a long time ago and the general feeling of rumours is that the inclusion of the Vulture is seen as a positive thing for Sony because of the perceived fascination with technology-orientated action films these days.

And the Green Goblin is a guy in a goblin-themed suit. Doc Ock is a fat guy with metal arms strapped onto his back. The Joker is a guy who dresses like a clown. Two-Face is a guy who has half a burnt face. Spider-man is a nerdy guy dressed in red and blue spider-themed tights. All these character's sound pathetic when reduced to their gimmicks. What you should be saying is that it's a villain, potentially played by John Malkovich and being scripted by a Pullitzer prize winning writer, as well as other very talented, notable screenwriters. Doesn't sound too bad to me.

Really, this is Venom all over again. You can't hate on the film simply because the villain people want isn't getting up on screen. If it were a character like that 'Morlun' guy (as was once rumoured briefly), I could understand. But this is a classic Spider-man villain of which all CERTAIN facts point towards getting good treatment on screen, and most rumours point to getting a great villain as well.

A character is only as good as the imagination behind them.

that's all well and good but should the director choose a villian that gets the fans excited?

that's like nolan going with c list baddie for TDK2 rather than riddler or penguin (or another a lister)

maybe sam can do great things with a rubbish villian but here's an idea, why not do great things with a GREAT villian, especially he HIMSELF has developed.

VenomVsSpidey

12-17-2009, 11:12 AM

(I still cant forgive him for making Spider-Man 3 as camp as Christopher Biggins though)

you say that in every single post....can you please drop it? we got it, spider-man 3 was cheesy.

Mister J

12-17-2009, 11:18 AM

I don't know what to make of all the swirling rumors on villains, but this conflict ain't good at all. This is what leads to rushed and/or unsatisfying crap on the screen.
Oh, and the film is known as SPIDER-M4N within the production offices
Please don't let this stick. :dry:

darthhalen

12-17-2009, 11:29 AM

Rodrigo90

12-17-2009, 11:29 AM

you say that in every single post....can you please drop it? we got it, spider-man 3 was cheesy.

OK. Its kind of warped into my mind,so you know. Ill take some valium to calm down.:awesome:

Nathan

12-17-2009, 11:33 AM

And the Green Goblin is a guy in a goblin-themed suit. Doc Ock is a fat guy with metal arms strapped onto his back. The Joker is a guy who dresses like a clown. Two-Face is a guy who has half a burnt face. Spider-man is a nerdy guy dressed in red and blue spider-themed tights. All these character's sound pathetic when reduced to their gimmicks. What you should be saying is that it's a villain, potentially played by John Malkovich and being scripted by a Pullitzer prize winning writer, as well as other very talented, notable screenwriters. Doesn't sound too bad to me.

Really, this is Venom all over again. You can't hate on the film simply because the villain people want isn't getting up on screen. If it were a character like that 'Morlun' guy (as was once rumoured briefly), I could understand. But this is a classic Spider-man villain of which all CERTAIN facts point towards getting good treatment on screen, and most rumours point to getting a great villain as well.

A character is only as good as the imagination behind them.

But what does Vulture really offer? Come on, tell me. What else is he other than being a super thug? The Green Goblin was power hungry, and as Norman Osborn treated Peter like a son. Ock's mad quest to complete his invention, threatened to destroy the city. Joker, was slowly plunging the city into a state of Anarchy, Two-Face was one of Bruce's friends and a symbol for Gotham, but he went mad.

Vulture is no main villain material. He works as a secondary villain.

Octoberist

12-17-2009, 11:34 AM

This could be BS. I have noticed that IESB has taken a nosedive lately with their news. They never have scoops any more or any real news. I really wonder why they bother with the site, as I think the guys that run are trying to make movies now. In fact they have two in process, I Frankenstein and some Luchidor thing. They have not been reliable for some time, or at least since the whole JLA fiasco.
I just hope Raimi does not use the Vultress, that would be horrible. I'm okay with a Malchovich played Vulture, but would much prefer the Lizard and Kraven.

Yeah, I hear.

Like what someone said before, they had rumors about Superman being fasttracked and nothing came from it. In fact, WB and DC said that the project isn't going anywhere.

You're right though. Robert Sanchez is busy with filmmaking now that the site has gone down a notch in quality. I'm not going to attack iesb.net because I don't want to see it fail but I think they need to step it up. Maybe hire some new writers over there with personality. As much as I don't like some of the writers at latinoreview, at least they have a voice.

Mister J

12-17-2009, 11:36 AM

Veracity of this news aside, I can probably hang up my Lizard/Kraven hopes for S-M 4. ****.

Octoberist

12-17-2009, 11:37 AM

But what does Vulture really offer? Come on, tell me. What else is he other than being a super thug? The Green Goblin was power hungry, and as Norman Osborn treated Peter like a son. Ock's mad quest to complete his invention, threatened to destroy the city. Joker, was slowly plunging the city into a state of Anarchy, Two-Face was one of Bruce's friends and a symbol for Gotham, but he went mad.

Vulture is no main villain material. He works as a secondary villain.

Regardless what you think of Vulture (personally, I don't think too much of him), I do think that maybe Sony should lay off the micro-managment. The article is making it as if (key word...if)Sony is pulling a Fox. Besides, it didn't help them with Spidey 3.

darthhalen

12-17-2009, 11:37 AM

Yeah, I still check the site a lot but not like I used to. They just flat out do not have any real news anymore. Don't mean to rip them, it's just a fact. I hope they can step it up. Although I'm also hoping they are wrong about this rumor. I really want to see SM4 in 2011, just not with some made up villian like the Vultress.

Octoberist

12-17-2009, 11:38 AM

Veracity of this news aside, I can probably hang up my Lizard/Kraven hopes for S-M 4. ****.

That's what I don't understand if the rumor is true.

Sony doesn't want Vulture but they don't know who they want. So they have no clue what to do, and they want Raimi to abide to their command. That makes no sense!

Darthkush

12-17-2009, 11:40 AM

Several things we need to all think about:

-EVERYBODY involved wrote themselves into a hole villainwise. I believe part of the reasons Venom was crammed into the third film by Sony, Avi Arad etc. is because they probably believed this would be the final spidey film with Maguire, Raimi, etc, and wanted to go out with a bang. I don't think they really thought we'd get another spidey film WITH the same cast/crew intact figuring we'd be going the relaunch root in a few years. The smarter move would've been to use Vulture instead of Venom in part 3 and just have Peter have the black suit in the third film and Venom would appear now. I also think they could've used Lizard instead of Vulture in the third film and he would've worked just as well. All of this is reflective of a bigger problem with Spider-man and his world though...

-After Green Goblin, Doc Ock, and Venom, there are NO spider-man villains POPULAR enough to carry a film alone. None. Many of us here are comic fans. WE like Mysterio, Kraven, Lizard, etc. but regular folks...don't. Heck even those that like them don't think they can carry their own flick. Sandman got in because he was flanked by another Goblin and Venom. If he was alone, the same debate would've erupted about him. Compared to Batman or even the X-men, Spidey has a weak villains gallery.

-The script is probably a loose mishmash right now. I'm sure there are some very detailed scenes completed where Peter and MJ have a conversation, Aunt May gives advice, Slapstick with James and the Bugle staff, etc. The rest of it is all fill in the blank stuff probably like "Peter/MJ argue in a mall and are interuptted by new villain. Villain and Spidey fight in the mall during an big setpiece". In fact, although they knew they were going with Doc Ock for part 2, didn't they have the train fight all mapped out before the script was even done? Some of you think the script can't possbily be incomplete but I think it's more likely that it's not a final draft they're working with and if things are this heated there may not BE a final draft and some things maybe changed on the fly more than usual.

FilmNerdJamie

12-17-2009, 11:42 AM

Aint It Cool News (http://www.aintitcool.com/node/43405) said they heard the same thing.

AnorexicBatman

12-17-2009, 11:43 AM

:lmao:

Keep Vulture, drop Vultur-ess and introduce The Lizard.

Spider-Man 4: Deadly Creatures. Has a nice ring to it...

Nathan

12-17-2009, 11:49 AM

Regardless what you think of Vulture (personally, I don't think too much of him), I do think that maybe Sony should lay off the micro-managment. The article is making it as if (key word...if)Sony is pulling a Fox. Besides, it didn't help them with Spidey 3.

But how much is Sony to blame for SM3? Yes, we know they wanted Venom in, but was it their fault that SM3 ended up as cheesy as it did? Or that Sandman just had bad luck, wanted to save his daughter and was the actual murderer of uncle Ben?

Carlo Comicus

12-17-2009, 11:55 AM

Aint It Cool News (http://www.aintitcool.com/node/43405) said they heard the same thing.

We first heard murmurs about this a few days ago, but didn't have enough specifics to post anything worthwhile.

:huh:

Jick09

12-17-2009, 12:09 PM

This may or may not be a good thing. What if Sony tries to force Carnage in the movie?
But didn't the source say that they're looking for which ever character is selling the books right now?
Carnage is long gone, unless he returned and I'm unaware, which is unlikely;

Nathan

12-17-2009, 12:10 PM

After Green Goblin, Doc Ock, and Venom, there are NO spider-man villains POPULAR enough to carry a film alone. None. Many of us here are comic fans. WE like Mysterio, Kraven, Lizard, etc. but regular folks...don't. Heck even those that like them don't think they can carry their own flick. Sandman got in because he was flanked by another Goblin and Venom. If he was alone, the same debate would've erupted about him. Compared to Batman or even the X-men, Spidey has a weak villains gallery.

Yeah, after the first 3 Movies, it's difficult to find some A-material for the 4th one. I actually wouldn't mind if they introduce someone like Tombstone, Kingpin or who else we've got, and have Spider-Man face several superpowered thugs or mercenaries. Similar to Spectacular Spider-Man. I'd actually like to see Shocker in a movie.

spider-neil

12-17-2009, 12:13 PM

Symbiotic

12-17-2009, 12:18 PM

If Sony really has some rule of "villains with human faces only", they should have no problem with Vulture.

spider-neil

12-17-2009, 12:18 PM

first act

curt gains his hand in an experiement
family are introduced
peter becomes full time lab assistant

2nd act
lizard is born
attacks people of new york
police called in to stop menace
spidey blamed for attacks

3rd act
lizard has plan to change new yorkers into lizards like himself
3 way battle with the police/spidey and the lizard

that's even without any subplot of peter and mj and jjj and the bugle

SpideyTheBest

12-17-2009, 12:23 PM

First they wouldn't let him do Vulture in the 3rd one(which would have been great considering what they were planning to do with him but I really need to give it a rest now) and now they wouldn't want him do it for the 4th one? I agree, having the Vulture as the only villain will NOT work, but, if there was another villain with him(NOT THE VULTURESS!!!!) like Lizard or Electro, it will be great! Remember that Raimi said he would like to do Vulture and Electro in SM4?

Superhero Hype!

12-17-2009, 12:26 PM

Not true;
http://www.superherohype.com/news/spider-mannews.php?id=8930

Carlo Comicus

12-17-2009, 12:27 PM

Yeah!!!!

I was right!!! :D

VenomVsSpidey

12-17-2009, 12:28 PM

oh man I KNEW IT! :awesome:

zeptron

12-17-2009, 12:31 PM

who says lizard can't carry a movie by himself? of course he can.

there is the conflict of spidey and lizard
there is the conflict of curt and his family
there is the conflict of peter and curt
there is the conflict of spidey and the police (as spidey wants to save his friend but the police want to take lizard out)

the thing practically writes itself

It would probably end up being a bit similar to SM2. Most of Lizard's story was already given to Doc Ock(His family, accident gone bad etc) Octavius was Peter's friend in a way, for a brief moment, he inspired him, he taught Peter a moral lesson in the begging and then an accident turned him a monster. Not carrying for other people's lives, only doing the thing he believes is right. In the end he was 'cured' and he redeemed himself. Lizard's story is quite the same as this one. In short: a good doctor, who is Peter's friend and mentor turns into a monster and Spider-Man must stop him.

That story would not work. Maybe it will in the fan community, but the general public would not accept it. It would feel as the same story told with only different characters.

And plus a lot people are tired of sympathetic villains. It's inevitable with the Lizard. That's why a lot of us prefer another villain who's really evil to go along with him.

Sam Fisher

12-17-2009, 12:31 PM

Thank god.

Carlo Comicus

12-17-2009, 12:33 PM

The last bad AICN impression :D

Oscorp

12-17-2009, 12:35 PM

Glad to hear these rumours were false. However...I'm still seriously concerned about The Vulturess. I hope those rumours are false too!

Sam Fisher

12-17-2009, 12:35 PM

And let's hope that little thing about it being called "SPIDER-M4N" is also false.

SpideyTheBest

12-17-2009, 12:37 PM

Huh, well good thing it was false.

zeptron

12-17-2009, 12:37 PM

Glad to hear these rumours were false. However...I'm still seriously concerned about The Vulturess. I hope those rumours are false too!

Ditto. One flying bird is enough.

Carlo Comicus

12-17-2009, 12:39 PM

I love SHH.

spider-neil

12-17-2009, 12:47 PM

It would probably end up being a bit similar to SM2. Most of Lizard's story was already given to Doc Ock(His family, accident gone bad etc) Octavius was Peter's friend in a way, for a brief moment, he inspired him, he taught Peter a moral lesson in the begging and then an accident turned him a monster. Not carrying for other people's lives, only doing the thing he believes is right. In the end he was 'cured' and he redeemed himself. Lizard's story is quite the same as this one. In short: a good doctor, who is Peter's friend and mentor turns into a monster and Spider-Man must stop him.

That story would not work. Maybe it will in the fan community, but the general public would not accept it. It would feel as the same story told with only different characters.

And plus a lot people are tired of sympathetic villains. It's inevitable with the Lizard. That's why a lot of us prefer another villain who's really evil to go along with him.

of course there are similarities but its how the movie is actually played out. for instance doc ock didn't have a duel personality, once the inhibitor chip was destroyed that is pretty much how he remained until the final scene. curt on the other hand would be a good guy whilst human and a total mosnter whilst a lizard.

also the film makers could make lspidey take the blame for all of lizard's crimes, doing away with the city's adulation of spidey which I personally HATE.

then there is the dynamic of conner's family. doc ock's wife was only briefly shown and harry relationship would be completely different to the very young billy and curt's wife. could actually focus on the family and show things from their point of view making a welcome change from peter and mj absolutely HOGGING the spotlight as usual.

there is so much potential with the lizard I have no idea why sam isn't grabbing it with both hands espeically seeing as the storyline lends itself to horror sensibilities.

Carlo Comicus

12-17-2009, 12:52 PM

I know a guy in Italy it's ******** like aicn and iesb together when we have this rumors.

Reikowolf

12-17-2009, 12:59 PM

haha,

well it's good to know that the hype on SM4 is still very strong. This news was announced this morning and look how many posts this thread has

:awesome:

TheVileOne

12-17-2009, 01:01 PM

So basically they need Deadpool except Fox has Deadpool.

All the really popular villains Spider-man has already used in the movies.

Who are these villains that sell books?

Sam Fisher

12-17-2009, 01:03 PM

So basically they need Deadpool except Fox has Deadpool.

All the really popular villains Spider-man has already used in the movies.

Who are these villains that sell books?
Maybe they want to adpat One More Day:awesome::oldrazz:

DarthDaveBanner

12-17-2009, 01:08 PM

An internet rumour that turns out to be utter bs.

Why am I not suprised?

spider-neil

12-17-2009, 01:10 PM

An internet rumour that turns out to be utter bs.

Why am I not suprised?

the vultress romour has yet to be debunked

Immortalfire

12-17-2009, 01:11 PM

I am going to track down the starter of this rumor, and "correct" him.

DarthDaveBanner

12-17-2009, 01:13 PM

the vultress romour has yet to be debunked

Fingers crossed.

Nathan

12-17-2009, 01:15 PM

The Vulturess idea just sounds so silly. No one could honestly be that dumb. Hopefully there'll be another serious villain in the Movie, Vulture wouldn't work all by himself.

Immortalfire

12-17-2009, 01:17 PM

I'm still all about Shocker making an appearance. I address that on one of the newest Hype Cast episodes.

venom892

12-17-2009, 01:19 PM

As I've said before I wouldn't mind Vulture as long as he's paired with another villain.Vulture could work with Electro or Scorpion best I think.

DarthDaveBanner

12-17-2009, 01:20 PM

The Vulturess idea just sounds so silly. No one could honestly be that dumb. Hopefully there'll be another serious villain in the Movie, Vulture wouldn't work all by himself.

Exactly, Raimi has been given carte blanche to use any villain he wants. Being a fan of the classic stories why on earth would he NEED to make up such a ludicrous villain??

Immortalfire

12-17-2009, 01:20 PM

Exactly, Raimi has been given carte blanche to use any villain he wants. Being a fan of the classic stories why on earth would he NEED to make up such a ludicrous villain??

Seriously.

Spider-ManHero12

12-17-2009, 01:20 PM

Damn. Well, let's hope things are set soon! I really hope they don't put it off for long. :csad:

Spider-ManHero12

12-17-2009, 01:26 PM

Woops, just saw that it was only for the holidays. Thank god this isn't true.

Showtime

12-17-2009, 01:31 PM

What is the studio going to say anyway if this were true. "Yeah we suck and the movie is delayed because we can't get our act together?" A studio denial doesn't mean it isn't true.

itsleroy

12-17-2009, 01:33 PM

I'm still all about Shocker making an appearance. I address that on one of the newest Hype Cast episodes.

Alongside Venom, Shocker is one of my favorite villians. I really do hope this is a rumor, I was hoping we could get some official news soon..

Batspider77

12-17-2009, 01:36 PM

Its just that we criticise Raimi. If Cameron had made that years ago,he would be dead by now,lol. Raimi isnt all that bad when you compare him to Camerons ideas and he is one of the greatest directors and writers,a Spider-Man fan and even he sucked much worse than Sam. Im going to lay of Sam until I know for sure whats going on.

(I still cant forgive him for making Spider-Man 3 as camp as Christopher Biggins though)

That was just an early script of Camerons Spiderman.He had 4-5 different Scripts and no final scriptment at all.
You could be sure that a Cameron Spiderman Movie would have kicked out the **** not only off Raimis Version,but also of every single Superhero Movie out there.

VenomVsSpidey

12-17-2009, 01:42 PM

goh78

12-17-2009, 01:49 PM

Chalk this up to the lack of liability these so called news sites have. In the race for an "exclusive" story, any kind of integrity or even correct journalistic merit goes out the window just so traffic comes to their crappy ass site. F--king annoying.

Reikowolf

12-17-2009, 01:51 PM

Still, rumors are always founded on something

Superhero Hype!

12-17-2009, 01:51 PM

What is the studio going to say anyway if this were true. "Yeah we suck and the movie is delayed because we can't get our act together?" A studio denial doesn't mean it isn't true.

I've known about the holiday hiatus for a while now from independent sources (not the studio).

spider-neil

12-17-2009, 01:52 PM

That was just an early script of Camerons Spiderman.He had 4-5 different Scripts and no final scriptment at all.
You could be sure that a Cameron Spiderman Movie would have kicked out the **** not only off Raimis Version,but also of every single Superhero Movie out there.

I don't know which cameron script I read for spider-man but it sucked and sucked HARD. there was a classic scene where spidey (in costume) gives it to mj on the top of the empire state building. ha ha classic!

spider-neil

12-17-2009, 01:53 PM

I've known about the holiday hiatus for a while now from independent sources (not the studio).

do you know if the vultress romour is true?

DarthDaveBanner

12-17-2009, 01:55 PM

Cameron also had Peter dropping the f-bomb. He really didn't get the character.

I'd much rather have seen his take on X-Men.

spider-neil

12-17-2009, 02:00 PM

Cameron also had Peter dropping the f-bomb. He really didn't get the character.

I'd much rather have seen his take on X-Men.

the only thing I liked about cameron's script actually survived

'this is my gift, my curse, who am I? I'm spider-man'

Superhero Hype!

12-17-2009, 02:03 PM

do you know if the vultress romour is true?

No, I don't know yet.

Showtime

12-17-2009, 02:11 PM

I've known about the holiday hiatus for a while now from independent sources (not the studio).

If that is indeed the case, and it isn't an indefinite hold, I'm not sure why IESB is running with it. That isn't news.

You know what I mean though, if a project was indeed on indefinite hold, the studio wouldn't say anything. Its not as if there would be a press conference or anything.

I can understand the suspicion considering the way the production has played out so far.

Showtime

12-17-2009, 02:12 PM

No, I don't know yet.

That Vulturess story screamed fake to me, I can see the Vulture part of the story being true though, ie John Malkovich.

Rodrigo90

12-17-2009, 02:17 PM

I admire Cameron a great deal,but that script was poor. I would love it if he directed The Avengers,but didnt write it.

Immortalfire

12-17-2009, 02:18 PM

That Vulturess story screamed fake to me, I can see the Vulture part of the story being true though, ie John Malkovich.

Agreed

DarthDaveBanner

12-17-2009, 02:40 PM

My theory on "the Vultress" is that Valeria Toomes may well be in the script....but without any super-villain alter ego or anything. Just a supporting character. However, several over-eager reporters automatically assumed that any major new character HAS to be a villain.

VenomVsSpidey

12-17-2009, 03:09 PM

so like...can mods close this thread? it's kinda pointless now...

Anita18

12-17-2009, 03:18 PM

Directors very rarely have FULL creative control over movies with $100 Million+ budgets. Unless they're James Cameron coming off of Titanic, Peter Jackson coming off of Lord of the Rings, or Chris Nolan coming off of The Dark Knight
Eh, not really. Re: TDK:

ME: So. You tell me. You make this kind of movie. You tell me. How?
PRODUCER: How what?
ME: How does a movie like that get made? In this environment, where anything complicated or challenging or pessimistic or visionary get ironed out to appeal to the broadest possible market, how does a movie like that get made? That's an expensive movie with a lot of moving parts -- the producers, the cast, the special effects, the location shooting -- how does a picture like that get made, and end up that good?
PRODUCER: Because Christopher Nolan gets no notes.
(pause)
ME: What do you mean?
PRODUCER: I mean, the studio gives him no notes. None. Zero.
ME: The director gets no notes?
PRODUCER: None.
ME: So, you're telling me, Christopher Nolan and his brother write the script --
PRODUCER: And then they shoot it. And the studio gives them no notes. They've given them the project, they trust their vision, and they let them shoot it the way they want. And that's how a movie like that gets made.
http://toddalcott.livejournal.com/246698.html

Although, WB recently has had a habit of letting directors have their creative freedom, aside from runtime. Sometimes it results in a Dark Knight, sometimes it results in a Superman Returns. I think it's a risk that studios should have to take if they want to have some integrity.

If the rumors are true, it's sad to see Sony go down the way of Fox. It seems that only James Cameron has this kind of freedom over at Fox, but I think he's got a strong enough personality (to say the least :oldrazz: ) to wrangle what he wants from any studio. :funny:

People, think logically. How long has this script been in development? The amount of writers it's had?

Do you honestly think a villain has not been chosen? It would have been the first thing decided upon when the script was started. Raimi saying he hasn't decided on a villain yet is just so he doesn't feel compelled to say who it is. Do you think Spider-man 2 could have been written without knowing who the villain is? Or Spider-man 1? Have three writers been working on a script for over a year now that's only like a quarter of a script, missing any reference to any villains, their plots and the subsequent themes which will be in Peter's story?

Or, do you think that Sony has allowed that many writers to come on board (PAYING them) to do drafts of the script only to say "no, we don't want that villain". Raimi would have made a pitch to the studio about what he wanted to do with SM4 whenever he signed on - included would have been a very basic plot outline (at the very least) and certainly the villain he intended on using and what he wanted to do with them and Sony would have OK'd it.

SM4 might be on hold (I very highly doubt it is) but it will certainly not be because of a dispute over who the villain will be. If any such thing were to occur, it would have occured before Raimi signed on and no script would have been written for Raimi's project.

Logic defies hysteria.
I agree that it's very strange - I haven't been keeping up, but SM4 seems to be far enough into development that scrapping it seems like an immensely stupid idea. It would make more sense for Sony to dump Raimi than to dump the project altogether.

I've known about the holiday hiatus for a while now from independent sources (not the studio).
Holiday hiatus? Doesn't everyone have a holiday hiatus? :funny:

Spider-ManHero12

12-17-2009, 03:49 PM

....no:dry: I have to agree with you completely. It's quite ignorant for people to say that any director that's considered great can direct any type of film.

webhead731

12-17-2009, 04:08 PM

Good news this isn't real.
Bad news that alot of you guys will eat up any rumor no matter how good or bad and make it out to be the worst possible thing.

Stop whining about Vulture. Wait and see what's happening with him first, then you can whine. We know NOTHING about what Raimi is planning. He made Doc Ock and Sandman deeper characters than their comic counterparts, so give the main a chance. Good Lord.

Sam Fisher

12-17-2009, 04:22 PM

Who's "whining about Vulture"?

webhead731

12-17-2009, 04:28 PM

spider-neil

12-17-2009, 04:30 PM

Who's "whining about Vulture"?

I know I am. lamearse villian.

The Joker

12-17-2009, 04:31 PM

He made Doc Ock and Sandman deeper characters than their comic counterparts

No, he really didn't. And I can back that up if you want to get into it :cwink:

webhead731

12-17-2009, 04:36 PM

Hey now, that's just you. :)

I know you loved Doc Ock, and he wasn't like the comic books at all.

spider-neil

12-17-2009, 04:39 PM

No, he really didn't. And I can back that up if you want to get into it :cwink:

I always thought doc ock was one note in the comics (even though he is my favorite spider-man villian). the story that I thought had most depth to doc ock is the fantastic four issue where reed richards tries to recruit doc ock to save his wife and unborn child.

green goblin obviously had lots of depth in the comics before the movie and even more depth after the movie in the comics behind the head of sheild.

The Joker

12-17-2009, 04:41 PM

Hey now, that's just you. :)

I'm not sure what you mean by that's just me? Raimi didn't make Ock or Sandman deeper characters. Ock has had women he loved in the comics. He has always strived to complete his scientific destiny.

Raimi just watered him down to having him do that because his mind was warped by A.I. tentacles, instead of making it entirely his own hubris, which would have made the character alot stronger.

Now don't get me wrong, I love Molina's Doc Ock, and think he's the best villain we've had so far in the movies. But make no mistake, Raimi added nothing to the character that wasn't already there in the comic books.

And as for Sandman, he's been a good guy for years in the comics. He even fought with Silver Sable and the Avengers. He lived with this family, and really cared about them.

Again, Raimi didn't add anything to Sandman that wasn't there in the comics. He just linked him to Ben's death.

I know you loved Doc Ock, and he wasn't like the comic books at all.

He was in more ways than you realize. I can list those, too, if you like :cwink:

Rodrigo90

12-17-2009, 04:45 PM

If Vulture takes Ocks place of marrying Aunt May,Im out the door.

I can honestly see that happening.

webhead731

12-17-2009, 04:49 PM

Doc Ock wasn't happily married and starring a new fusion based energy to help mankind, featuring the tentacles. He was arrogant and psychotic due to an accident with screwing with radiation, and that helped him go insane. His tentacles did not talk to him. I myself never gave a damn what his problems were. Only times I felt bad for him is when Spider-Man would blind his eyes. :(

Sandman did become a good guy but wasn't always like that. Originally he just wanted his diploma. :dry:

So they gave him a story with his wife and daughter, which made him more sympathetic and then linked him to Ben's death to give him and Peter a personal connection. I totally prefer movie Sandman over the comic one.

Yes, they obviously all have simularites but the character for the most part is quite different. Ock and Sandman weren't really bad, they were like Magneto. They thought they were doing the right thing. Only Ock had tentacle peer pressure. :up:

I don't care what the comics started to do as the movies came out. I know they like tying in certain new things that are taken from the movie, in a type of promotion I guess.

The Joker

12-17-2009, 05:00 PM

Doc Ock wasn't happily married and starring a new fusion based energy to help mankind, featuring the tentacles. He was arrogant and psychotic. His tentacles did not talk to him. I myself never gave a damn what his problems were. Only times I felt bad for him is when Spider-Man would blind his eyes.

Doc Ock was happily engaged to a girl named, Mary Alice, until his mother sabotaged it with emotional blackmail. He also entered a loving relationship with Stunner in the 90's. As for being arrogant and psychotic, Raimi incorporated that into the movie, too. When the reactor went haywire, Otto refused to shut it down, despite all the dangers it was causing. And when Spidey tried to unplug it, he viciously smashed him into a wall. Raimi established here that Otto was violent and irrational when it came to his dream. And that was something the tentacles played on and fleshed out.

Octavius in the movie was working on "My dream". It was his wish to complete his fusion project that he'd been working on his entire life. That was the parallel they drew between him and Peter. Peter was being irresponsible by giving up his responsibility of being Spider-Man so he could live his dream of a normal life. Octavius was being irresponsible by doing evil things in order to make his dream succeed.

That's why Peter was able to apply Aunt May's words to Ock at the end. They were applicable to Otto as well as Peter.

All this is in the comics. Marvel refers to Ock as "The Peter Parker gone bad". Raimi just did it by having Ock be sympathetic by making him lose a wife, and having his mind manipulated by the A.I.

That doesn't make a character deeper. Just sympathetic.

Sandman did become a good guy but wasn't always like that. Originally he just wanted his diploma. :dry:

Oh I see. So you only judge a character based on their first appearance only? You ignore any subsequent stories of character development?

Yes, they obviously all have simularites but the character for the most part is quite different. Ock and Sandman weren't really bad, they were like Magneto. They thought they were doing the right thing. Only Ock had tentacle peer pressure.

Ummm Sandman is not really bad in the comics either, or did you ignore any stories past his first appearance?

I've already covered Doc ock above.

Sam Fisher

12-17-2009, 05:01 PM

Read through the forum, hell even this thread. Not directed at anyone certain. I just see "Vulture is such a lame villain and can't hold a movie blah blah". It's just ridiculous to make assumptions without knowledge of anything.
People are just overracting. I know I don't like Vulture and do not want to see him in a film, HOWEVER at least I'm keeping an open mind.

webhead731

12-17-2009, 05:33 PM

[QUOTE=Joker;17847911]Doc Ock was happily engaged to a girl named, Mary Alice, until his mother sabotaged it with emotional blackmail. He also entered a loving relationship with Stunner in the 90's. As for being arrogant and psychotic, Raimi incorporated that into the movie, too. When the reactor went haywire, Otto refused to shut it down, despite all the dangers it was causing. And when Spidey tried to unplug it, he viciously smashed him into a wall. Raimi established here that Otto was violent and irrational when it came to his dream. And that was something the tentacles played on and fleshed out.

Ock's "arrogance" in the movie was really cute and sweet compared to the comics. He got flustered during his reactor dream screw up yeah.
But Mary Alice is not Rosie.
There was no trying to make a mini sun, no crappy mother, or anything. It was simply mild mannered, with a bit of an ego, Octavius being happily married and trying to make a new energy for the world. It goes wrong, his tentacles start talking to him, he tries to fix it the wrong way.

Octavius in the movie was working on "My dream". It was his wish to complete his fusion project that he'd been working on his entire life. That was the parallel they drew between him and Peter. Peter was being irresponsible by giving up his responsibility of being Spider-Man so he could live his dream of a normal life. Octavius was being irresponsible by doing evil things in order to make his dream succeed.

Yep.

Oh I see. So you only judge a character based on their first appearance only? You ignore any subsequent stories of character development?

I never said that. I just said that's how he came to in the comics. He wasn't a bad guy after awhile yeah. In the movie he's tied in to Uncle Ben, has a sick daughter and a wife that motivate him to try to turn his life around and help his daughter. Only reason why I liked him before Spider-Man 3 was his power. He wasn't very interesting other than that.

All I'm saying is, they have simularities to their comic counterparts but there are some drastic new changes they made for the better. Sandman from the comics would make a fail movie villain. There's just no way to make him worth it. Ock, yes. But I like what they did better anyway. :up:

The Joker

12-17-2009, 05:48 PM

Ock's "arrogance" in the movie was really cute and sweet compared to the comics. He got flustered during his reactor dream screw up yeah.

Right, but he had arrogance and violence towards his work. Raimi watered him down, that's my point, but it was there. Raimi was not adding anything to the character. Just watering it down.

But Mary Alice is not Rosie.

There's no difference in terms of what it did for the character. They're both women Otto loved, and wanted to spend his life with.

Again, Raimi added nothing new to the character.

There was no trying to make a mini sun, no crappy mother, or anything. It was simply mild mannered, with a bit of an ego, Octavius being happily married and trying to make a new energy for the world. It goes wrong, his tentacles start talking to him, he tries to fix it the wrong way.

You're splitting hairs. The mini sun, or mother, or being happily married etc are all devices that serve the EXACT SAME purpose to the character.

Raimi didn't add anything to Ock that wasn't done in the comics. That's the point. Your claim that he made him and Sandman deeper is simply untrue.

You may prefer one version over another, but the only difference is that Raimi made them more sympathetic. Not deeper.

I never said that. I just said that's how he came to in the comics. He wasn't a bad guy after awhile yeah. In the movie he's tied in to Uncle Ben, has a sick daughter and a wife that motivate him to try to turn his life around and help his daughter. Only reason why I liked him before Spider-Man 3 was his power. He wasn't very interesting other than that.

Again, that's fair enough if you like the movie version over the comics. Wasn't disputing that. Just your claim that Raimi made them deeper characters.

I think the only character Raimi made deeper was Venom. He gave him some real reasons to hate Peter.

echostation

12-17-2009, 06:44 PM

I have a strong feeling that James Vanderbilt's original back to back Spidey 4 and 5 storyline must have been DRASTICALLY changed to fit into this emerging **** storm of Vulture and Vulturess... Go Raimi IF TRUE...

X-Maniac

12-17-2009, 06:47 PM

Just to add, in case it hasn't been said, that the site that originated this rumour, IESB, has updated their page to say:

UPDATE: Sony has contacted us this morning and they are denying the story. The production is on their expected holiday hiatus, but will ramp up again early next year.

Yes, the filmmakers are working on the script, but there is nothing unusual about that at all, productions always are working and tweaking scripts right up until principal photography begins and that is still a few months away.

I was suspicious about this story from the start, but some sites want to believe the film is on hold.

I've been arguing the case over at Screenrant (which ran the story). Screenrant's site owner Vic replied to me in the comments section: "This is NOT staff going on vacation being confused with troubled production. I was on the phone with someone today who got it first hand from TWO different sources directly involved with the production."

I messaged my own Sony contact with the story and they'd heard nothing about any indefinite hold.

In my view, they probably are trying to nail down script details on who will be the villain but this does not mean production troubles.

As for Vulturess, the second Vulture did have a daughter called Raptor, as I debated on my own site. (see here (http://blogs.coventrytelegraph.net/thegeekfiles/2009/12/why-john-malkovich-and-anne-ha.html)). A female sidekick to a villain, or just a female associate of some kind, is possible even if she doesn't end up flying about on wings.

Morbius would be good if we didn't already have a glut of vampires in film and TV. A big no to Electro, we have seen electrical zapping powers so often.

I can see how Lizard could be a part of the story, but somehow i can't see him as the main part of the story. He's easy to work in though - Dr Connors figures that if Spidey got his powers from a genetically-altered spider, then he could get reptilian regeneration (to regrow his arm) from a lizard. But it goes too far and mutates him. It doesn't immediately seem a big, thematic story though. Seems like a secondary villain.

spider-neil

12-17-2009, 07:29 PM

I see sony debunked the romour spidey was on indefinate hold but NOT the romour the studio and sam are at odds with the main villian.

TheScarecrow

12-17-2009, 08:45 PM

that's all well and good but should the director choose a villian that gets the fans excited?

that's like nolan going with c list baddie for TDK2 rather than riddler or penguin (or another a lister)

maybe sam can do great things with a rubbish villian but here's an idea, why not do great things with a GREAT villian, especially he HIMSELF has developed.

This is the thinking that got us Venom in the third film, and we all know how that ended. Honestly, we don't know what Raimi's plans here are. Yes, he really likes the Lizard - but he also really likes Vulture...and Black Cat and as far as I know, those two came the closest to making it into a Spider-man movie so far. You also need to remember that, like Two-Face, The Lizards best story might potentially be his transformation therefore it does not make much sense to have him be The Lizard at the start of a movie and act as a 'main villain', unless there is something interesting happening in his plot - like the Kraven idea.

It's entirely possible Raimi might pull a Nolan with the Lizard and make his movie about his transformation, with half an hour of screentime at the end. I wouldn't be too upset with that, to be honest. Also, it's entirely possible (even likely) that a non A-list villain will be the villain of Batman 3. Goyer and Jonathon Nolan said as far back in 2008 that they had a villain in mind for the third movie (should it happen) and to not just expect them to go with the obvious or popular choices. At the time, Goyer had been sifting through C-list DC villains for Supermax and they also said that in those sorts of villains, there were ones more fitting for their vision of the character.

Whiplash is a COMPLETE non-villain, but how many people are whining about him being in Iron Man 2?

I see sony debunked the romour spidey was on indefinate hold but NOT the romour the studio and sam are at odds with the main villian.

The project is far too close to shooting for anything like this to occur! If there were a dispute about the villain, the movie WOULD be on hold. At this point, the script would be DONE, less a few minor rewrites/adjustments which would occur in that period, casting would be underway, costume design and set design would certainly be underway, etc. There is no dispute about the villain, it's not feasible. I'm 99.999999% positive that the villain would have been decided when Raimi was hired.

mclay18

12-17-2009, 09:23 PM

At this point, the script would be DONE, less a few minor rewrites/adjustments which would occur in that period, casting would be underway, costume design and set design would certainly be underway, etc.

Well, I'm positive that for a film like SM-4, there will almost certainly be last minute rewrites before, during and after principal photography. At most the basic story, action setpieces and previz sequences would be set -- but that doesn't mean there can't be rewrites during shooting.

It's not uncommon for the writer to be on set or on location to do necessary rewrites for movies for thedirector and/or producers. Remember that set designer's blog about them constantly rewriting and adding/taking out scenes from SM-3 during filming? And for a longer-established franchise like HP, the screenwriter is constantly shifting and rewriting some scenes to fit the director's liking for the final two movies... even during shooting.

I would not be surprised once set pics of SM-4 start coming in next year, that Gary Ross would be on set with Raimi and the cast.

Showtime

12-17-2009, 09:32 PM

The project is far too close to shooting for anything like this to occur! If there were a dispute about the villain, the movie WOULD be on hold. At this point, the script would be DONE, less a few minor rewrites/adjustments which would occur in that period, casting would be underway, costume design and set design would certainly be underway, etc. There is no dispute about the villain, it's not feasible. I'm 99.999999% positive that the villain would have been decided when Raimi was hired.

Movies have fallen apart that were much further along then this. See Justice League: Mortal if you want a very relative case. Moneyball is another recent example.

bullets

12-17-2009, 10:00 PM

Sending people home for xmas makese sense . I wouldnt be suprised if they were still trying to decide the main villian though. That seems kind of odd to me though , I figured it would take months to develop costumes and such.

Also I guess this means we wont get any news for the next two weeks.

TheScarecrow

12-17-2009, 10:28 PM

Movies have fallen apart that were much further along then this. See Justice League: Mortal if you want a very relative case. Moneyball is another recent example.

And Burton's Superman fell apart even later - but did these movies fall apart because they didn't like the villain choice? Absolutely not. The villain choice would be one of the first decisions made. I'm not saying that Spider-man 4 is certainly not on rocky ground (though I doubt it is), I'm saying it's ludicrous that a company would allow a director to come in and develop one of these movies and let it get this close to production (when MUCH more would be happening than we realise) and then pull the plug because they don't like a choice which was almost certainly made when the project first started.

It's silly.

Showtime

12-17-2009, 10:33 PM

And Burton's Superman fell apart even later - but did these movies fall apart because they didn't like the villain choice? Absolutely not. The villain choice would be one of the first decisions made. I'm not saying that Spider-man 4 is certainly not on rocky ground (though I doubt it is), I'm saying it's ludicrous that a company would allow a director to come in and develop one of these movies and let it get this close to production (when MUCH more would be happening than we realise) and then pull the plug because they don't like a choice which was almost certainly made when the project first started.

It's silly.

I believe the villian choice is just a tip of the iceberg with what is happening with Raimi. It is silly to think the villian choice would break up production, it is even more silly to think more isn't going on behind the scenes in addition to that.

It's silly to have a writer who worked on one of the drafts of Spiderman 4 dismissed because Raimi didn't approve of him and then the studio rehires said writer to write 5 & 6. That's also silly.

Moneyball was halted 3 days before production because a studio exec didn't like the rewrite on the script. Done.

Hollywood is silly.

mclay18

12-17-2009, 11:20 PM

It's silly to have a writer who worked on one of the drafts of Spiderman 4 dismissed because Raimi didn't approve of him and then the studio rehires said writer to write 5 & 6. That's also silly.

Well, I think Sam Raimi liked some of Vanderbilt's ideas in SM-4, but didn't like all of them. Sony was okay with Raimi hiring David Lindsay-Abaire and Gary Ross to do rewrites... after all, same thing happened during SM-2's development with writers coming in left and right.

Maybe there's a good sequel idea presented in Vanderbilt's drafts that Raimi's keeping in #4. Sony sees dollar signs and snaps Vanderbilt up to write two more films (more cost-effective). And by the time Raimi wraps up SM-4, Sony will have two more scripts to try and lure Raimi back for two more tries.

Spider-ManHero12

12-17-2009, 11:51 PM

That seems kind of odd to me though , I figured it would take months to develop costumes and such. Well, I think they already chose the VIllian (VUtlure), but something tells that may not be the case. Tbh, as I said, i think Vultue's an awesome Villian and I'm all for having him in this film. I don't see wh ythe studio would hve a problem with him being the Villian.

American_Hobo

12-17-2009, 11:53 PM

Spider-ManHero12

12-18-2009, 12:02 AM

^^ I think the reason for choosing Vulture is because he seems like can fit into the story of the film universe greatly and also makes for some great battles. That's one of the reasons I think Sam knows what he's doing. Heck, I always found VUlture to be a very underrated character. I mean just picture VUlture and Spidey battleing aroudn the Empire State building in mid-air.

matrix_ghost

12-18-2009, 05:32 AM

I believe the villian choice is just a tip of the iceberg with what is happening with Raimi. It is silly to think the villian choice would break up production, it is even more silly to think more isn't going on behind the scenes in addition to that.

It's silly to have a writer who worked on one of the drafts of Spiderman 4 dismissed because Raimi didn't approve of him and then the studio rehires said writer to write 5 & 6. That's also silly.

Moneyball was halted 3 days before production because a studio exec didn't like the rewrite on the script. Done.

Hollywood is silly.

Your talking about Moneyball , the steven soderbergh movie right ?
But IMO it wasn't just a case of a studio exec. not liking a rewrite. It was the head of Sony ( Amy Pascal) seeing that Soderbergh rewrote ( or better yet Steve Zallian rewriting the script as per Soderbergh's wishes) the script and that the movie was different from the one she greenlit.

Showtime

12-18-2009, 09:05 AM

Well, I think Sam Raimi liked some of Vanderbilt's ideas in SM-4, but didn't like all of them. Sony was okay with Raimi hiring David Lindsay-Abaire and Gary Ross to do rewrites... after all, same thing happened during SM-2's development with writers coming in left and right.

Maybe there's a good sequel idea presented in Vanderbilt's drafts that Raimi's keeping in #4. Sony sees dollar signs and snaps Vanderbilt up to write two more films (more cost-effective). And by the time Raimi wraps up SM-4, Sony will have two more scripts to try and lure Raimi back for two more tries.

Lure Raimi back? This is his swan song. Vanderbilt is writing a different Spiderman, a different take. He was brought back by the studio.

Your talking about Moneyball , the steven soderbergh movie right ?
But IMO it wasn't just a case of a studio exec. not liking a rewrite. It was the head of Sony ( Amy Pascal) seeing that Soderbergh rewrote ( or better yet Steve Zallian rewriting the script as per Soderbergh's wishes) the script and that the movie was different from the one she greenlit.

Right exactly, but the point is nothing is an automatic, not even Spider Man, even if people want it to be. I'm not saying this story is definitely true, I'm merely pointing out that it wouldn't be shocking for something like this to happen in Hollywood.

Frodo

12-18-2009, 09:06 AM

I still dont see a point for using Vulture.
Vulture clearly isn't the fan favorite villain.
Out of all thoses villain,s why Vulture?
However, I can live with Vulture as the secondary villain.
Still hoping for Electro though.

I agree with this. The Vulture is pretty lame and might look better on paper then in live action. I can see why the studio wouldn't want to use him . I like the idea of a villan who's actually evil as opposed to misundertood , but Vulture is too silly imo.

VenomVsSpidey

12-18-2009, 11:00 AM

I still dont see a point for using Vulture.
Vulture clearly isn't the fan favorite villain.
Out of all thoses villain,s why Vulture?
However, I can live with Vulture as the secondary villain.
Still hoping for Electro though.

remember what happened the last time raimi listened to what the fans wanted?

most of the fans hated what they got, myself excluded..

Oscorp

12-18-2009, 01:20 PM

I agree with this. The Vulture is pretty lame and might look better on paper then in live action. I can see why the studio wouldn't want to use him . I like the idea of a villan who's actually evil as opposed to misundertood , but Vulture is too silly imo.

Imo, he's one of those villains that could look BETTER in live action. Just look at this and tell me it wouldn't be awesome!
http://www.britishcinemagreats.com/Actors_page/ben_kingsley/images_full/Ben_Kingsley_2.jpg

Vulture could be a really creepy, scary and evil old man. At least I like it.

Not that long ago I also despised the idea of having Vulture as a main villain in any movie, but the more I've thought about it, the more I like the idea. He's definitely underrated. I really liked the idea that was originally supposed to be in Spider-Man 3: Vulture is the really evil and coldhearted mastermind who uses another more powerful villain (Sandman) as his toy and puppet. Also, he is a great technician and creates his own powered up suit with razorsharp wings that he can control (wouldn't be fused to his arms).

He would make for epic battles in the air. And yes, if I'd see that guy in a powersuit and razorsharp wings, I'd seriously piss my pants.

I can definitely see the ideas from Raimi's original Spider-Man 3 draft be used in Spider-Man 4 instead. However, this time, Electro is the powerhouse who doesn't understand his own powers fully until the third act and then becomes the real threat to the whole New York.

Deaths Head II

12-18-2009, 02:14 PM

Yeah, Vulture could easily be made creepy in live action. You have a great choice of fantastic older actors that would just ooze charisma. Ben Kingsley being the perfect choice, he would easily make the Vulture an appealing villain.

As for the spectacle, an aerial battle would be amazing to see.

Spidey_62

12-18-2009, 02:51 PM

Imo, he's one of those villains that could look BETTER in live action. Just look at this and tell me it wouldn't be awesome!
http://www.britishcinemagreats.com/Actors_page/ben_kingsley/images_full/Ben_Kingsley_2.jpg

Vulture could be a really creepy, scary and evil old man. At least I like it.

Not that long ago I also despised the idea of having Vulture as a main villain in any movie, but the more I've thought about it, the more I like the idea. He's definitely underrated. I really liked the idea that was originally supposed to be in Spider-Man 3: Vulture is the really evil and coldhearted mastermind who uses another more powerful villain (Sandman) as his toy and puppet. Also, he is a great technician and creates his own powered up suit with razorsharp wings that he can control (wouldn't be fused to his arms).

He would make for epic battles in the air. And yes, if I'd see that guy in a powersuit and razorsharp wings, I'd seriously piss my pants.

I can definitely see the ideas from Raimi's original Spider-Man 3 draft be used in Spider-Man 4 instead. However, this time, Electro is the powerhouse who doesn't understand his own powers fully until the third act and then becomes the real threat to the whole New York.
I'm not against Vulture being in the movies if they went that direction with him like they were originally going to. In fact, I think SM3 would have been a better movie without the cramming of the symbiote into an already pretty crowded film. Ben Kingsley was in talks to play him, he would have been perfect. The rumors of how he might tie into the story for SM4 just sound terrible, though. And I would not want to see that Vulture in the movie.

SpeterMan3

12-18-2009, 03:32 PM

spider-neil

12-18-2009, 05:46 PM

no doubt with the right look and acton the vulture can be great, the frustrating thing is the sam as been teasing us with the lizard (imho a better villian) for two movies, that's like the prom queen stripping down to her undies and then when you think you are gong to hit it she kisses you on the cheek.

VenomVsSpidey

12-18-2009, 06:15 PM

bullets

12-18-2009, 09:25 PM

Why is everyone assuming it would just be Vulture . I think we will get more than one villian .

Spidey_62

12-18-2009, 09:41 PM

Why is everyone assuming it would just be Vulture . I think we will get more than one villian .
I think we should be expecting that, too. I just hope it's not the Vulturess.

Deaths Head II

12-18-2009, 09:50 PM

Yeah, it's likely we'll get another villain but if it's a made up female spin off of the Vulture that would be so laaaaaame. Not only does no one wants it but it would not offer anything to the table that the Vulture couldn't. A villain and his sidekick does not count as two villains to me.

JackMercy

12-19-2009, 01:42 AM

I believe the villain choice is just a tip of the iceberg with what is happening with Raimi. It is silly to think the villain choice would break up production, it is even more silly to think more isn't going on behind the scenes in addition to that.

It's silly to have a writer who worked on one of the drafts of Spiderman 4 dismissed because Raimi didn't approve of him and then the studio rehires said writer to write 5 & 6. That's also silly.

Moneyball was halted 3 days before production because a studio exec didn't like the rewrite on the script. Done.

Hollywood is silly.

Showy, Showy, Showy...this has got to be one of the most clear, concise, on-the-button statements I have ever read from you.

Oh, Show...if you only knew... :facepalm:

If people would pause and think a second, they'd realize many, many silly Hollywood productions go through tough periods of confusion, mis-communication, disagreements and uncertainty. In fact, that is part of the working process itself between filmmakers/artists and studios, as one is concerned with delivering an artistic statement (and perhaps entertaining), while the other is mainly concerned with delivering a profitable, continuously "rewarding" product.

Why do we hear more about troubles on franchises such as Spider-Man? Well, a lot of that is because these babies are simply much, much bigger films ("tentpoles" for summer or otherwise), and there are simply many more people both working on the films, and concerned with making sure that they become successful.

Concerning Spidey directly, people might also want to consider that all of the Spider-Man films have had their behind-the-scenes wrangles, if you do a little digging -- all the way back to the first one (which took two decades to make, natch).

A lot of you know about how Mr. Maguire was almost replaced on Film 2, and you have poured over the details of "what went wrong" with Film 3. What is different about the "alleged" struggles we're hearing about on this picture?

Well, let's role a scenario together, shall we? You've got one very confident studio, who, despite facilitating heavy arguments about and asserting influence over the last picture, still came out on top, grossing mucho moolah worldwide -- so they see themselves in the right (thus their decision to keep on Vanderbilt and prepare to use his scenario for Films 5 and 6 -- if not sooner). Then, on the other end, you've got a confident, successful filmmaker who, while delivering very successful pictures for the studio, still operates at a bit of a "distance" in terms of establishing his "artistic space" and his "storylines." He was very hesitant to return after the production of Film 3, but he loves the character so much, and the studio offered such an olive branch, that he couldn't turn down one more opportunity to "set things right."

Meanwhile, you've got increasing fan (yeah, you guys) and blockbuster expectations. Whether the choices made for the last film were "right" or not, the way the narrative played out created a pretty huge set of expectations for where the next film might take Spidey, and whom he might face off against.

Couple all this in with a witches' brew of multiple scriptwriters (with various shifting loyalties), bottom-line producers who want to trust the filmmaker, but can't or won't spend another ten million in development costs just to visualize a villain or a stunt that may not be used at all, and an aging lead cast who might have very particular demands of their own regarding characterization and narrative -- and you're in the depths of sticky, sticky situation, with a lot of money at play, a lot of egos to satisfy, and a lot of people at generally high, high levels of stress.

So what is really going on here is...Hollywood 101.

Are things leaking to gauge a reaction? Possibly.

Are some statements you hear not the whole truth? Very likely.

Will Spider-Man 4 get made in its current incarnation? What is its current incarnation?

Prediction cloudy -- check back in 2010. ;)

:ikyn

spider-neil

12-19-2009, 03:11 AM

I hope it is one villian if there is another villian then I hope it is for cannon fodder. we all know peter and mj are going to hog the movie (groan) so I want as much time to develope the villian as possible.

look at SM2, look at peter's plotline now imagine if 'spidey no more' part of the stroy remained the same but instead of just doc ock there was (for example) shocker, the movie would have been a mess.

Oscorp

12-19-2009, 05:45 AM

I think, if they go the route they were supposed to originally do in Spider-Man 3 with Vulture being the master of puppets for a more powerful villain for selfish reasons, I think Electro should be that other villain. Vulture and Electro could be really cool and I actually think that's what Raimi wants too, because he said before that if he would direct 4, he would want those two villains.

bullets

12-19-2009, 06:12 PM

Sounds good to me . Also Spider-man two worked out really well with just one villian but i don't think they could carry a film with just the Vulture. There would have to be more story involved.

American_Hobo

12-19-2009, 06:26 PM

Vulture as only villain won't work. No way.
Storywise, maybe..but marketing-wise, it's a failure.
They better add another villain if they want to use Vulture.

Leenie

12-19-2009, 11:04 PM

The Vulture isn't one of my favorite villains, but I'm not opposed to seeing him in a movie. With the flying and whatnot, having the Vulture would promise some pretty cool fight scenes.

(Though I'm ticked that the Lizard isn't the obvious choice for this movie. LAME.)

Doctor Jones

12-20-2009, 08:35 AM

I think people are underestimating him and what they can do. For a film, you can expand upon a character and only make him better. For me, film Doc Ock worked better in the comics. Even though he is more well known and liked than Vulture, people are only looking at it in a simple way. An old man who has wings. I would have preferred Lizard, but I'll be open minded about it.

Showtime

12-21-2009, 09:23 AM

Showy, Showy, Showy...this has got to be one of the most clear, concise, on-the-button statements I have ever read from you.

Oh, Show...if you only knew... :facepalm:

If people would pause and think a second, they'd realize many, many silly Hollywood productions go through tough periods of confusion, mis-communication, disagreements and uncertainty. In fact, that is part of the working process itself between filmmakers/artists and studios, as one is concerned with delivering an artistic statement (and perhaps entertaining), while the other is mainly concerned with delivering a profitable, continuously "rewarding" product.

Why do we hear more about troubles on franchises such as Spider-Man? Well, a lot of that is because these babies are simply much, much bigger films ("tentpoles" for summer or otherwise), and there are simply many more people both working on the films, and concerned with making sure that they become successful.

Concerning Spidey directly, people might also want to consider that all of the Spider-Man films have had their behind-the-scenes wrangles, if you do a little digging -- all the way back to the first one (which took two decades to make, natch).

A lot of you know about how Mr. Maguire was almost replaced on Film 2, and you have poured over the details of "what went wrong" with Film 3. What is different about the "alleged" struggles we're hearing about on this picture?

Well, let's role a scenario together, shall we? You've got one very confident studio, who, despite facilitating heavy arguments about and asserting influence over the last picture, still came out on top, grossing mucho moolah worldwide -- so they see themselves in the right (thus their decision to keep on Vanderbilt and prepare to use his scenario for Films 5 and 6 -- if not sooner). Then, on the other end, you've got a confident, successful filmmaker who, while delivering very successful pictures for the studio, still operates at a bit of a "distance" in terms of establishing his "artistic space" and his "storylines." He was very hesitant to return after the production of Film 3, but he loves the character so much, and the studio offered such an olive branch, that he couldn't turn down one more opportunity to "set things right."

Meanwhile, you've got increasing fan (yeah, you guys) and blockbuster expectations. Whether the choices made for the last film were "right" or not, the way the narrative played out created a pretty huge set of expectations for where the next film might take Spidey, and whom he might face off against.

Couple all this in with a witches' brew of multiple scriptwriters (with various shifting loyalties), bottom-line producers who want to trust the filmmaker, but can't or won't spend another ten million in development costs just to visualize a villain or a stunt that may not be used at all, and an aging lead cast who might have very particular demands of their own regarding characterization and narrative -- and you're in the depths of sticky, sticky situation, with a lot of money at play, a lot of egos to satisfy, and a lot of people at generally high, high levels of stress.

So what is really going on here is...Hollywood 101.

Are things leaking to gauge a reaction? Possibly.

Are some statements you hear not the whole truth? Very likely.

Will Spider-Man 4 get made in its current incarnation? What is its current incarnation?

Prediction cloudy -- check back in 2010. ;)

:ikyn

Very interesting and very informative as always JM.

Dragon

12-21-2009, 11:34 AM

Vulture as only villain won't work. No way.
Storywise, maybe..but marketing-wise, it's a failure.
They better add another villain if they want to use Vulture.

Of course he can work. A simple upgrading of his powers is all that's needed. Make him a bit stronger, and give him some weaponry.

RustyCage

12-21-2009, 01:05 PM

Very interesting and very informative as always JM.

I thought it was all common sense by now - it should be to SHH addicts anyway. But I guess some people don't get it despite it being so obvious and so constantly expressed, and I guess calling it 'Hollywood 101' is appropriate for that reason. :o

TheSlag

12-21-2009, 01:31 PM

I still dont see a point for using Vulture.
Vulture clearly isn't the fan favorite villain.
Out of all thoses villain,s why Vulture?
However, I can live with Vulture as the secondary villain.
Still hoping for Electro though.

I agree. Vulture does not scream "Must See Villain" to me either. And I struggle to see how the Vulture can carry a movie on his own.

Kind of reminds me of how I thought Sandman could not carry a movie on his own. Thankfully we had the Harry story in SM3.

With SM4, what do we have to supplement at this point? Nothing, other than the terrible Vulturess rumor (God I hope it's ONLY a rumor), and not like the rumored 60 ft T-Rex Roaring Sandman we had before SM3's release. Which we all know turned out to be true unfortunately.

Reikowolf

12-21-2009, 01:35 PM

"We need to put in a fan favorite, the fans want Venom" - Avi Arad

Most villains may serve the movie well, so long as the time and care for writing them goes in.

To this day, I still don't know why Sandman helped Venom at the end. Didn't he just want to steal money and be left alone? When did he become bent on killing Spidey?

zeptron

12-21-2009, 01:37 PM

Vulture can make a good villain, but I agree with others are saying. He shouldn't be the only villain. He's just not that dynamic a character, so there'd have to be another villain if Raimi is indeed set on using Vulture, and again, the Vultress would be an absolutely awful choice.

All of the really major Spider-Man villains are already gone, so why even bother trying to turn any of the other villains into a more complex character than they are in the comics? I really don't see how they could make Vulture, Mysterio, Electro, or any of the others a truly captivating character who can carry a whole movie.

I hope the two villain idea is still up. There's good combinations. Vulture and Electro, Vulture and Scorpion, Lizard and Electro, Mysterio and Scorpion....

"We need to put in a fan favorite, the fans want Venom" - Avi Arad

Most villains may serve the movie well, so long as the time and care for writing them goes in.

To this day, I still don't know why Sandman helped Venom at the end. Didn't he just want to steal money and be left alone? When did he become bent on killing Spidey?

In the game Venom had Sandman's daughter and blackmailed him into helping him.

It's sad that horrid mess of a game handled that plot point better than the movie...

pjspider1C

12-21-2009, 01:40 PM

^^ It was better developed in the book for Spider-Man 3...

Sandman was stealing money to help his daughter, and Spider-Man kept preventing him from doing that. Plus, in the book (and video game, I believe) Venom actually kidnapped Sandman's daughter and forced him to help destroy Spider-Man...

The development worked better for Sandman than it did for Venom.... as Venom in just about every other adaptation wanted to the glory of killing Spider-Man all to himself...

TheSlag

12-21-2009, 01:44 PM

I disagree with all the major Spidey Villains are gone (but for the Love of Pete Raimi.. QUIT KILLIN THE DAMN VILLAINS OFF).

I think the Lizard is a "major" villain. Or to be more concise, a dynamic enough character in his alter-ego (Connors) to easily carry a film. Especially if you throw in the Connors Clan and the storylines that can come from that (i.e. Peter being adopted by the Connors Clan as part of the family).

Also, the Lizard should be in Raimi's "wheel house" with his roots in Horror. Assuming (BIG ASSUMPTION) that Raimi goes for it, and does not water it down for the kiddies.

And I am NOT saying that it has to be R-rated or blood soaked. There are many more subtle and better ways to bring horror and suspense without that.

zeptron

12-21-2009, 01:51 PM

TheSlag

12-21-2009, 01:58 PM

Well I wouldn't have a problem with Lizard being the only villain if we didn't have sympathetic villains in previous movies. It's inevitable with him. All the fanboys know that he'll get cured and redeemed at the end. I don't want another movie where the only villain isn't really a villain at all.

I agree with you that Raimi has kinda f'd the pooch by making so many villains sympathetic, and thus, taking away from the Lizard/Dr. Connors storyline. And obviously (it appears), we will NOT be getting the Lizard in SM4.

Pity.

I also would not be so sure that Connors will be cured/redeemed at the end. At least not cured, I will leave it at that. One can "hope" at least.

If Connors is not cured (i.e. dies), perhaps Raimi could make up for missing the Gwen Stacy death arc, and show us Peter/Spider-Man, with all his powers, STILL not being able to save the one he loves.

It (Gwen's death arc) always left me with that impression, where he ignored his powers and Uncle Ben paid the price, and even WITH his powers.. Gwen (now possibly Connors?) paid the price.

Quet poetic and dramatic to me. But, it is ONLY a Pipe Dream obviously.

Reikowolf

12-21-2009, 02:00 PM

My opinion of the Vulture for the movies.

Adrian Toomes is an innovator. His colleagues and business enemies call him 'The Vulture' by the way he does business. He ensures that companies he wishes to take over or run are put in positions of financial starvation and then picks them apart once they have collapsed.

After the Events of Spider-Man 3, Oscorp is placed in an interesting position. Harry owned 40% of the company and those shares are now in open to the public as Norman had made it so that if the Osborn name did not control the company, none of the remaining board members could. A lesson he made the old board members pay for in the first movie. Toomes quickly takes advantage of this and buys his interest in the company. Due to Harry being head of special projects at the time, Toomes is able to take over this dept. easily. We quickly find out that the way Toomes puts his enemies in a weak position is through illegal activity and influence. (introduce secondary villain as an enforcer). His enforcer fails to kill off the remaining board members, due partly to Spider-man saving them. Through Harry and Norman's old notes, he not only finds out about the goblin tech, but about Peter Parker. He modifies the tech to create a flight suit. He keeps it great (Oscorp colors after all). He decides to finish the job himself. True to form, he decides to put Parker in a position where he is starving, ruining Parker's life with his financial influence and ensuring that the final battle takes place on a plane (carrying the remaining board members) where Toomes has the greatest advantage. The battle would be spider-man vs the vulture on a plane which loses control and begins to crash land.

Reikowolf

12-21-2009, 02:00 PM

TheSlag

12-21-2009, 02:14 PM

Nothing personal, but I do not like that scenerio.

I hate having Spider-Man and Vulture fight in a confined area of a plane.

I do not like having the Vulture (along with every other villain) know who Spider-Man is.

And if you mean fight outside a flying plane? No way. Way to unrealistic.

IF we get the vulture, the best battles would be aerial battles between the sky canyons of NYC. But even that does not impress me that much.

pjspider1C

12-21-2009, 02:22 PM

^ I find it amusing that you think a fight scene on a plane between a man with spider powers and old guy in a winged flight suit is unrealistic. :)

TheSlag

12-21-2009, 02:29 PM

^ I find it amusing that you think a fight scene on a plane between a man with spider powers and old guy in a winged flight suit is unrealistic. :)

Well, IMO, there should still be limits to believability even in a SuperHero movie. And those limits should include the laws of Physics, even with the assumption of belief of Super Powers by the characters.

For example, Even IF Spider-man could cling to the outside of the plane in flight, with the wind force he would be exposed to, how coudl he a) punch b) shoot webbing?

How could Vulture do the same? Punch? How could vulture have the speed where he could keep up with a flying plane?

And where would Spider-Man swing from and to with his webbing, even if we suspend belief and assume he could? Swing from the plane to what? From one wing to another wing? THAT would really defy physics (with the wind force and the speed of the plane).

Reikowolf

12-21-2009, 02:29 PM

I did mean outside of the plane.

I wish I could draw so I could do up some story boards but as unrealistic as it sounds. I really feel it would make for an amazing! action sequence. Spider-Man literally trying to both hang on and breathe while the Vulture is able to carefully calculate each attack. His spider-sense would have to be a big influence in how he is able to fight off the vulture. Of course, the vulture, seeing that he cannot just drop spidey to his doom, decides to blow the plane engines. which leave spider-man to save the falling plane.

Sounds a lot like the train sequence, no? BUT IN THE SKY! :D lol

Alternatively, there was a fan poster that showed a cloudy day in NY and I pictured an aerial battle with Spider-Man falling from a great highest, completely relying on his spider-sense to ensure he doesn't hit a building and avoids the vulture. while being tossed around in the NY sky.

Venom 1988

12-21-2009, 02:34 PM

If the plane is 20,000 feet in the air.....yeah it would be unrealistic even for them.

TheSlag

12-21-2009, 02:49 PM

Funny, but when I think of the Vulture (old man in strange outfit)and SM4 (especially IF the Vulturess is true), I think of an old ugly buzzard flying over "Dead Meat". LOL..

I hope not symbolic of SM4.

Dragon

12-21-2009, 03:04 PM

If the plane is 20,000 feet in the air.....yeah it would be unrealistic even for them.

It isn't even a question of the altitude. The plane is flying at hundreds of miles per hour. Once the Vulture exited the plane he couldn't keep up with it.

pjspider1C

12-21-2009, 03:18 PM

wow... i'm surprised this conversation is still going...

TheFuture

12-21-2009, 03:48 PM

Anyone else find the idea of the Vulture unappealing and not very interesting from a marketing and promotion point of view?

TheSlag

12-21-2009, 03:50 PM

Aye Captain!!! :cwink: Ummmm.. I mean.. "yes"

TheFuture

12-21-2009, 03:55 PM

Aye Captain!!! :cwink: Ummmm.. I mean.. "yes"

Ha. :p Don't get me wrong they couldn't get more perfect by casting Ben Kingsley for the Vulture but as far as I'm concerned they only have two more "aces in the hole" with this franchise and they are Kraven and Lizard. Hell, I'd even take Morbius over the Vulture. :cwink:

TheSlag

12-21-2009, 03:58 PM

/\... hate to say it, but I agree. I even find Morbius more interesting than the Vulture.

Dragon

12-21-2009, 04:01 PM

Ha. :p Don't get me wrong they couldn't get more perfect by casting Ben Kingsley for the Vulture but as far as I'm concerned they only have two more "aces in the hole" with this franchise and they are Kraven and Lizard. Hell, I'd even take Morbius over the Vulture. :cwink:

Okay.. So a guy with the ability of flight isn't appealing.. But Kraven, who can't do anything in particular is?

TheFuture

12-21-2009, 04:06 PM

Okay.. So a guy with the ability of flight isn't appealing.. But Kraven, who can't do anything in particular is?

It's what Kraven offers to the story, put him in with Lizard and not only have you've got a ready made compelling story, but for Sony, if marketed correctly, it can be a dream for them. Hell, you could even make two films out of Kraven with him hunting both villains and Spidey and it would be compelling.

TheSlag

12-21-2009, 04:16 PM

TheFuture

12-21-2009, 04:23 PM

I agree that adding Kraven as a secondary villain with the Lizard as the primary story could prove to be a very compelling story. The only thing I worry about is how Kraven the character would come off on the big screen.

Just keep Gerard Butler away from the role, the man can't do accents. I think if a character is written and designed well enough then they can appeal to all aspects of the audience, Doc Ock proved that.

TheSlag

12-21-2009, 04:26 PM

Agreed on Gerard Butler. Have not been impressed with his work. I just wonder, regardless of who plays the character, how a Big Game hunter in NYC would come off. Not saying it could not, but wondering.

I almost think something along the lines of the Punisher (not saying that character, just something more along that line) hunting the Lizard and/or Spidey, might work (or come off) better.

But, I love Kraven's Last Hunt story from the comics. So, I have mixed feelings.

Dragon

12-21-2009, 04:29 PM

It's what Kraven offers to the story, put him in with Lizard and not only have you've got a ready made compelling story, but for Sony, if marketed correctly, it can be a dream for them. Hell, you could even make two films out of Kraven with him hunting both villains and Spidey and it would be compelling.

First, this fan-fantasy thing about Kraven and Lizard ain't gonna happen. Kraven would be slaughtered by the Lizard. He can'r even handle Spidey in actual combat. And having Kraven chasing the Lizard takes away from the fear-factor of the Lizard. The Lizard would have to be toned down to make Kraven seem dangerous. That or Kraven would be shown to be an arrogant kook who get his ass handed to him. Either way it does neither character any good.

Second, I'm still trying to understand what it is that Kraven (Who I like, BTW) brings that's more than the Vulture. The Vulture would promise far more spectacular battles than Kraven. And the Vulture can be portrayed as the most ruthless of Spidey's movie villains.

Oscorp

12-21-2009, 04:30 PM

Okay.. So a guy with the ability of flight isn't appealing.. But Kraven, who can't do anything in particular is?

He can do alot. And what he brings to the story is more important, than what powers he's got if you ask me. Lizard would bring the more visually stunning battles, while Kraven would work more as the always lurking threat.

Dragon

12-21-2009, 04:37 PM

He can do alot.

So can the Vulture. In fact he can do anything Kraven could, plus he can fly.

And what he brings to the story is more important, than what powers he's got if you ask me. Lizard would bring the more visually stunning battles, while Kraven would work more as the always lurking threat.

This isn't saying much. You can write a compelling story with ANY character. But the powers are most certainly important. Kraven could ONLY work as a secondary villain. Vulture could be a leading villain.

Deaths Head II

12-21-2009, 04:44 PM

First, this fan-fantasy thing about Kraven and Lizard ain't gonna happen. Kraven would be slaughtered by the Lizard. He can'r even handle Spidey in actual combat.

Kraven's effectiveness always came from his skills as a hunter and his use of traps and potions, not from his strength in a one on one fight.

Neither character would need to be downscaled. The Lizard could easily get the upperhand on Kraven in their first encounter and Kraven could inject him with a serum to weaken him just like he did to Spider-Man in his first fight with Spider-Man. Then the remainder of the film would be Kraven trying to kill the weakened Lizard for sport while Spider-Man wants to reach the Lizard first and save Dr. Connors.

Oscorp

12-21-2009, 04:44 PM

So can the Vulture. In fact he can do anything Kraven could, plus he can fly.

I'm not saying Vulture can't. I'm just saying that Kraven could bring as much as Vulture to the film as far as story goes.

This isn't saying much. You can write a compelling story with ANY character. But the powers are most certainly important. Kraven could ONLY work as a secondary villain. Vulture could be a leading villain.

Again, I'm not disagreeing with you! Actually, I've posted several times that I'd love to see Vulture (with Ben Kingsley) on screen if they use him somewhat like how Raimi originally wanted in Spider-Man 3, with Electro as the secendary villain instead of Sandman. But Kraven could be really cool too!

Dragon

12-21-2009, 04:52 PM

Kraven's effectiveness always came from his skills as a hunter and his use of traps and potions, not from his strength in a one on one fight.

Neither character would need to be downscaled. The Lizard could easily get the upperhand on Kraven in their first encounter and Kraven could inject him with a serum to weaken him just like he did to Spider-Man in his first fight with Spider-Man. Then the remainder of the film would be Kraven trying to kill the weakened Lizard for sport while Spider-Man wants to reach the Lizard first and save Dr. Connors.

But your problem is laid out right there. Because once the Lizard got the upperhand, he'd kill Kraven. Secondly, the Lizard's skin is like armor. Kraven woudn't be injecting him with anything. Thirdly, your scenario IS watering the Lizard down if he's weakend by Kraven. A character like the Lizard should be the terrifying one in the film. It should damn-near kill Spidey to cure Connors.

The only way I could see Kraven working in a Lizard scenario is if Kraven attempted to control the Lizard as he has with creatures like Gog or the Gibbon.

Deaths Head II

12-21-2009, 04:58 PM

But your problem is laid out right there. Because once the Lizard got the upperhand, he'd kill Kraven. Secondly, the Lizard's skin is like armor. Kraven woudn't be injecting him with anything. Thirdly, your scenario IS watering the Lizard down if he's weakend by Kraven. A character like the Lizard should be the terrifying one in the film. It should damn-near kill Spidey to cure Connors.

Kraven could easily use a spray or gas on the Lizard, and both the Lizard and Kraven have played the role of "the stalker" of Spider-Man in the comics. Saying the Lizard should be the only terrifying character is kind of silly to me. Kraven was pretty damn creepy in a lot of his stories (especially in Kraven's Last Hunt) and if you got a good enough actor he could be that way in the film. Besides, Kraven could be taken out by Spidey before he has a rematch with the Lizard so the film could never clearly establish which one would win the rematch either way. Or perhaps Spidey interrupts their first fight and Kraven decides to devote his attention to Spidey to make sure he doesn't interrupt his hunt again.

Dragon

12-21-2009, 05:14 PM

Kraven could easily use a spray or gas on the Lizard, and both the Lizard and Kraven have played the role of "the stalker" of Spider-Man in the comics. Saying the Lizard should be the only terrifying character is kind of silly to me.

Kraven is a normal human. The Lizard is a monster. Which is the scarier of the two? Trying to make the normal human scarier than the monster would be laughable at best.

Kraven was pretty damn creepy in a lot of his stories (especially in Kraven's Last Hunt) and if you got a good enough actor he could be that way in the film. ['quote]

Creepy isn't terrifying. For a film with the scope of Spider-Man terrifying (As in he can rend you limb-from-limb) is the way to go.

[quote]Besides, Kraven could be taken out by Spidey before he has a rematch with the Lizard so the film could never clearly establish which one would win the rematch either way. Or perhaps Spidey interrupts their first fight and Kraven decides to devote his attention to Spidey to make sure he doesn't interrupt his hunt again.

But either way, weakening the Lizard would be a mistake. Spidey should have to go against a full-powered savage Lizard. Not a sad, pathetic shell of a creature.

The strength of the story is Peter having to fight for his life to SAVE Connors' life, while the Lizard has no qualms about killing Pete.

Deaths Head II

12-21-2009, 05:34 PM

Creepy isn't terrifying. For a film with the scope of Spider-Man terrifying (As in he can rend you limb-from-limb) is the way to go.The Lizard is terrifying in his actual capabilities, Kraven is creepy in his mindset and actions. They both provide a different element. Obviously the human terror isn't going to supply the same feelings as the monster terror, but that doesn't mean the human terror adds nothing to the story.

And unless they have the Lizard talking in a lisp about his master plans to have lizards rule the world (which would make him less scary imo), they need some charismatic actor on the villains side. Having Spidey versus monster would not be as interesting.

But either way, weakening the Lizard would be a mistake. Spidey should have to go against a full-powered savage Lizard. Not a sad, pathetic shell of a creature.The Lizard could find the time to recover while Spidey is busy trying to take down Kraven.

Spider-ManHero12

12-21-2009, 06:53 PM

Anyone else find the idea of the Vulture unappealing and not very interesting I have to completely disagree. He can be a very interesting character. Just look what they did with some of the characters in these films os far. They've expanded them. Who's to say they can't do the same for VUlture? SO, I have to say, I'm happy Vulture may be in this film.

RustyCage

12-21-2009, 07:20 PM

Spider-ManHero12

12-21-2009, 07:39 PM

Edit-nvm

Spider-ManHero12

12-21-2009, 07:39 PM

Edit

NinjaCarm

12-21-2009, 09:28 PM

I'm going to post the following to every response on every board I go on because I'm reading useless debates on here like "No Lizard is stronger than this guy, and Kraven uses his skills, and Carnage is not that insane" you are all basically saying yeah go ahead Raimi make another Dawson's Creek episode with Spider-Man eye candy:

I could really care less who the villains will be in the next movie. All I want, for the love of GOD, is a true Spider-Man movie, a true representation of the feel good semi-confident Peter Parker that when he gets into the costume he's a charmingly funny makes you feel safe Spider-Man, not catering to the damn kiddies, with genuine and ENGAGING acting, a complex plot not made for morons, with awe inspiring Spider-Man action scenes... not recycled music shoddy swinging scenes, and extremely threatening villains that don't cry.

Oh, and f you Sony.

sauronthegreat

12-22-2009, 04:20 AM

Just look what they did with some of the characters in these films os far. They've expanded them.

And you are referring to which exactly?
I don't see how turning Green Goblin into a plastic power ranger and stripping him of every aspect that made him a goblin was expanding his character; or Venom which is in every way superior to Spider-Man asking Sandman for help in his only battle with Spidey; not to mention Jameson and his totally hollow personality; and the worst thing of all turning MJ into Gwen and Gwen to MJ we all know from the source material. Playing out the most significant and memorable scene from the comics, the bridge scene with Goblin and not killing the character that was supposed to be Gwen, but was called MJ, while still possesed all the Gwen's character traits, and then even worse they added Gwen later on, but it was a model and a sex symbol we all know as MJ in comics.
I don't see how this is expanding the characters.
The only characters that were expanded for the better was Aunt May. And maybe Octopus, but his character was concieved by combining traits of two other Spidey villains: Lizard and Scorpion.
The new animated show really expanded almost every single chaarcter of Spider-Man universe, but the films... I don't think so.

Oscorp

12-22-2009, 04:50 AM

Great posts, both NinjaCarm and sauronthegreat! :up:

EDIT: And RustyCage too, of course! I agree with everything you just said!

Dragon

12-22-2009, 06:02 AM

The Lizard is terrifying in his actual capabilities, Kraven is creepy in his mindset and actions. They both provide a different element. Obviously the human terror isn't going to supply the same feelings as the monster terror, but that doesn't mean the human terror adds nothing to the story.

It isn't really needed. You already have with the Lizard all the elements you need.

1. Spidey trying to stop the Lizard from killing anyone.
2.Spidey trying to stop the police from killing the Lizard.
3. Spidey trying to find a way of curing the Lizard before it's too late (There can be a time limit afterwhich the effects become permanent.)

And unless they have the Lizard talking in a lisp about his master plans to have lizards rule the world (which would make him less scary imo), they need some charismatic actor on the villains side. Having Spidey versus monster would not be as interesting.

Well, first they should make him speak. And they can even have points where he's only partially the Lizard, to both give Dylan Baker some face-time and to show that he's struggling to regain control of his body.

But second, the authorities and for that matter Jonah, screaming for the Lizard's head cover that. And Spidey trying to save the Lizard from the cops will add fuel to Jonah's accusations against him.

The Lizard could find the time to recover while Spidey is busy trying to take down Kraven.

But again- the porblem is twofold- If you weaken the Lizard at all, you're weakening him as a character. And- if you show Kraven use a potion or the like to weaken him, then you're already spoiling the ending, where Spidey uses a chemical to restore Connors. Until the very end, the Lizard should be unstoppable. We should be wondering if Spidey will ever be able to get close enough to save him before the Lizard kills him. If Kraven gets that close, then the problem is already solved.

Dragon

12-22-2009, 06:22 AM

I have to side with the latest Kraven supporters on here, as far as storytelling goes. I find him far more compelling - especially when paired with (or technically, against) Lizard in the villain slots. Death's Head's last post was great. I mean, what are you on about Dragon? Who says there wouldn't be times when Spidey fights Lizard at full strength? C'mon. Of course there would be. Don't start with the whole dishonest twisty crap.

The Lizard should appear unstoppable until the end. That's where the excitement comes from. Having Kraven, a character who isn't as powerful as Spider-Man slow him down breaks the central focus of how unbelievably powerful the Lizard is. The Guy can lift a train car.

Vulture could be great for the next film (as in, after 4) if the storyline deems it appropriate, but for Spidey 4 I want to see Doc Connors finally develop some more (it's been waiting to happen for 2 films now), and that means I want Kraven in on the action.

I too would love to see the Lizard. I'd also like to see Kraven in a Spidey story. But the idea of Kraven vs. the Lizard vs. Spidey would put all three characters in a poor light.

Further, approaching Dragon again, since when was Kraven not able to rip Spidey limb from limb? Kraven is pretty bada**, if I recall correctly.

You don't remember correctly. Kraven could NEVER handle Spidey in straight combat. Only his traps, weapons and cunning gave Spidey problems. And Spidey would always wind up defeating him somewhat easily when it came down to a slugfest.

But yeah, ultimately, I wanna see Vulture, but it seems a bit illogical to expect him in 4 considering the most sensible story direction they would take after 3. But really, who knows what they'll do. It's not like they were very logical when they shoehorned Venom in and mishandled him like that. :o

Well, if the recent rumors are true, then regardless of how logical the Lizard seems, Sony doesn't want to use him apparently. So It appears that in light of that Sam is going with his desire to use the Vulture. Which is fine. The Vulture could make for a spectacular villain, even if on some levels reminiscent of the Goblin.

And the rumor regarding Sony wanting to use a villain who's "selling comics right now" is silly, since there is no villain that's selling comics right now. Hell, it's been ten years since even Venom was a big deal as far as sales go.

Deaths Head II

12-22-2009, 08:10 AM

It isn't really needed. You already have with the Lizard all the elements you need.

1. Spidey trying to stop the Lizard from killing anyone.
2.Spidey trying to stop the police from killing the Lizard.
3. Spidey trying to find a way of curing the Lizard before it's too late (There can be a time limit afterwhich the effects become permanent.)

If the police are a threat against the Lizard, that makes him even less of a threat then Kraven facing off against the Lizard. The reason why Spidey is needed is because his villains run circles around the cops most of the time. Peter would be more afraid of the cops getting killed. He would of course try to save civilians, but then the only real threat is the time limit. Peter needs an obstacle to prevent him from reaching that time limit. With Kraven in play, it becomes more then just a matter of just reaching the Lizard and trying to change him back to Connors. Kraven would really raise the stakes.

Well, first they should make him speak. And they can even have points where he's only partially the Lizard, to both give Dylan Baker some face-time and to show that he's struggling to regain control of his body.

But second, the authorities and for that matter Jonah, screaming for the Lizard's head cover that. And Spidey trying to save the Lizard from the cops will add fuel to Jonah's accusations against him.

Jonah and the authorities really would not cover that. You need a William Dafoe or someone like that to ooze menace. Baker would play the sympathetic villain, but an evil threat creates a better balance. And I personally always felt a more raging Lizard is more scary then a talkative and planning Lizard. The Lizard is interesting to me mostly because it's Connors underneath. Kraven is interesting just in his dynamic as a villain and character.

But again- the porblem is twofold- If you weaken the Lizard at all, you're weakening him as a character. And- if you show Kraven use a potion or the like to weaken him, then you're already spoiling the ending, where Spidey uses a chemical to restore Connors. Until the very end, the Lizard should be unstoppable. We should be wondering if Spidey will ever be able to get close enough to save him before the Lizard kills him. If Kraven gets that close, then the problem is already solved.

But you just said that they should have points where he's only partially the Lizard to show Connor is struggling. If Connor is able to fight the beast within that alone makes the Lizzard not unstoppable. These feel like very contradictory positions.

And like it was mentioned, Kraven isn't a pushover. Just because Kraven can get close doesn't mean Spider-Man automatically can. Especially since Kraven is more likely to use his traps and skills to get close, not anything Spider-Man has available. Not to mention Spider-Man will probably have been injured or worn out after a fight with Kraven. They always milk worn out Peter in these movies anyway, and it would be even more intense if Spider-Man is half dead after fighting against Kraven and has to go against a fully transformed and recovered Lizard.