Audiences...

[webhead731]

Did Sony think about the audiences?

I mean, they've seen the origin, they've seen Green Goblin, Ock, Sandman, Goblin Jr., Venom etc. Now what? Do it again? It's hardly been A decade. I suppose they could start with other villains like Batman did...but damn. :o

[Spider-ManHero12]

Agreed, webhead731.

[bryanss3]

Agreed thats a point I brought up in my pros and cons thread. and I feel the same way. They could always go big and start with Electro or something. Spidey's world is so drastically different from Batman's though in the villain department.

[BrollySupersj]

That problem will be solved with a tagline such as this "A new retelling of Marvel's greatest superhero!"

[chaseter]

What sucks is that they aren't going to make Doc Ock cooler than he was in SM2. Sure his motivations may have been a bit different but damn, they did a great job with Ock in SM2. He looked great and Molina delivered a great performance.

[Blackman]

:whatever: reboot doesnt mean they need to do the origins
and as you said they can start with other villians

[bryanss3]

That problem will be solved with a tagline such as this "A new retelling of Marvel's greatest superhero!"

And General audiences will say "wait what? again? I was waiting for the next one"

[TheComicbookKid]

That's what I don't get. Dude was still in college. There's not any story you can't tell in high school that wouldn't apply to college. Spidey 3 left MJ and Peter as just friends so Spdidey was free to just swing around on an independent adventure.

How are people going to get around the idea that they've already watched him progress pass high school and get(at least temporarily) the girl of his dream? They've seen Gwen and Betty Brant, too.

[Spider-ManHero12]

What sucks is that they aren't going to make Doc Ock cooler than he was in SM2. Sure his motivations may have been a bit different but damn, they did a great job with Ock in SM2. He looked great and Molina delivered a great performance. This! :up::up::up:

Molina did such a great job of being a nice husband and a sympathetic cahracter to this unstoppable madman, pretty much. Molina was pure greatness. Not to mention the way Ock looked and the action scenes. :up:

[VenomVsSpidey]

Seriously may avoid seeing it in theater. It's beyond stupid. I can't wait to see how Peter Parker gets his power cause we've all forgot...

[Blackman]

Seriously may avoid seeing it in theater. It's beyond stupid. I can't wait to see how Peter Parker gets his power cause we've all forgot...
did they say its an origin tale? no then assuming so right now is beyond stupid

[JustABill]

And General audiences will say "wait what? again? I was waiting for the next one"
They won't care. They'll just be glad there's another Spider-Man film.

[webhead731]

:wall::wall::wall:

God this is just so...ugh. It has to be a joke. A dream. Freddy got me. =(

[NinjaCarm]

I could give a rats a ss about the the general audience who doesn't know a single thing about how Spider-Man should have been done. They were probably waiting for Batman and Robin and Batgirl starring George Clooney after Joel Schumachers opus.

[Figs]

What sucks is that they aren't going to make Doc Ock cooler than he was in SM2. Sure his motivations may have been a bit different but damn, they did a great job with Ock in SM2. He looked great and Molina delivered a great performance.

:up:

In one of the other threads I said it's always possible for an actor to do a better job but in Doc Ock's case, it's going to be incredibly hard beating Molina. Especially the fights, that first fight where Spidey and Doc Ock are falling and the music stops and all you hear is the sound effects of them punching each other and their grunts, that to me was like seeing the comic come right off the page.

Reading a comic you don't hear background music in the story(unless you really have your imagination going at full steam), to me that one scene is my favorite from all 3 films.

[The Joker]

What sucks is that they aren't going to make Doc Ock cooler than he was in SM2.

Oh they so easily can. Alfred Molina was fantastic, and looked awesome. But they can make Ock more true to his comic book character, and be even more ruthless and badass, with no redemption at the end, no mind being screwed by A.I., or telling Peter to read love poetry etc.

None of the villains, save for Venom, came close to their true potential. The best way to do it is to start off with villains who we haven't seen yet, similar to what Batman Begins did.

Then bring in the A-list villains like Doc Ock and Green Goblin in the sequels.

[bryanss3]

They won't care. They'll just be glad there's another Spider-Man film. They were already glad... now they're just going to have to wait longer for a new one. That's starting over.

[Blackman]

They were already glad... now they're just going to have to wait longer for a new one. That's starting over.
they werent glad after SM3

[Mister J]

Spidey has plenty of villains to go around that can make for a compelling story. I think they can get away with not touching Green Goblin or Doc Ock until a third film (although I believe Norman Osbourne should be introduced prior to such). Between The Lizard, Kraven, Electro, Mysterio, Rhino, Shocker, Vulture, Tombstone, Silvermane and Morbius, I think there's enough to tide moviegoers over until having/needing/wanting to replay the big guns that were trotted out already. There are also improvements that can be made with Norman and Otto that would serve to vary things up from the Dafoe and Molina versions, when the decision is made to go in that direction.

A total origin story isn't really necessary. The GA is familiar enough with who/what Spider-Man is to not need it spoonfed to them. Batman '89 and The Incredible Hulk are two movies from this genre that come to mind that managed to convey the hero's beginning without being overly bogged down in detail.

Besides, audiences are going to connect this to the previous 3 films, regardless of what efforts are made to distinguish. Joe Moviegoer isn't following this stuff that closely and doesn't really care. He just wants to be entertained.

[JustABill]

They were already glad... now they're just going to have to wait longer for a new one. That's starting over.
Eh. That will just make them more anxious for more Spider-Man fun. It was time for some freshness in the franchise.

And sure this could suck, but it could easily top Raimi's films easily.

[chaseter]

Oh they so easily can. Alfred Molina was fantastic, and looked awesome. But they can make Ock more true to his comic book character, and be even more ruthless and badass, with no redemption at the end, no mind being screwed by A.I., or telling Peter to read love poetry etc.

None of the villains, save for Venom, came close to their true potential. The best way to do it is to start off with villains who we haven't seen yet, similar to what Batman Begins did.

Then bring in the A-list villains like Doc Ock and Green Goblin in the sequels.

Except Doc Ock the way Ditko and Romita drew him looked stupid...as well was his incarnation in the animated series. Ultimate Doc Ock looks better but in SM2, it was just perfect imo the way he looked. It was realistic as you could get and it didn't look cheesy or stupid...it looked amazing.

[BrollySupersj]

And General audiences will say "wait what? again? I was waiting for the next one"

Indeed, that's what they'll say. I'm just saying, that Sony will just pull a simple tagline and it'll be all over, in terms of confusion.

[Blackman]

Spidey has plenty of villains to go around that can make for a compelling story. I think they can get away with not touching Green Goblin or Doc Ock until a third film (although I believe Norman Osbourne should be introduced prior to such). Between The Lizard, Kraven, Electro, Mysterio, Rhino, Shocker, Vulture, Tombstone, Silvermane and Morbius, I think there's enough to tide moviegoers over until having/needing/wanting to replay the big guns that were trotted out already. There are also improvements that can be made with Norman and Otto that would serve to vary things up from the Dafoe and Molina versions, when the decision is made to go in that direction.

A total origin story isn't really necessary. The GA is familiar enough with who/what Spider-Man is to not need it spoonfed to them. Batman '89 and The Incredible Hulk are two movies from this genre that come to mind that managed to convey the hero's beginning without being overly bogged down in detail.

http://i632.photobucket.com/albums/uu50/Fannboi/b692yq.gif

[The Joker]

Except Doc Ock the way Ditko and Romita drew him looked stupid

I'm talking about characterization, not design. I don't want Ock wearing the green spandex any more than I want to see Green Goblin in a purple night cap with elf boots and a handbag.

[chaseter]

Spidey has plenty of villains to go around that can make for a compelling story. I think they can get away with not touching Green Goblin or Doc Ock until a third film (although I believe Norman Osbourne should be introduced prior to such). Between The Lizard, Kraven, Electro, Mysterio, Rhino, Shocker, Vulture, Tombstone, Silvermane and Morbius, I think there's enough to tide moviegoers over until having/needing/wanting to replay the big guns that were trotted out already. There are also improvements that can be made with Norman and Otto that would serve to vary things up from the Dafoe and Molina versions, when the decision is made to go in that direction.

A total origin story isn't really necessary. The GA is familiar enough with who/what Spider-Man is to not need it spoonfed to them. Batman '89 and The Incredible Hulk are two movies from this genre that come to mind that managed to convey the hero's beginning without being overly bogged down in detail.

Besides, audiences are going to connect this to the previous 3 films, regardless of what efforts are made to distinguish. Joe Moviegoer isn't following this stuff that closely and doesn't really care. He just wants to be entertained.

You list Vulture but apparently he wasn't good enough for Sony. They will go for big villains so Morbius and Silvermane are out...thank god. Tombstone is also pretty stupid. Nobody wants to see a mobster with a metal plated head ramming crap.

[chaseter]

I'm talking about characterization, not design. I don't want Ock wearing the green spandex any more than I want to see Green Goblin in a purple night cap with elf boots and a handbag.
Well as you can read above, I said that his motivations were different. But, the look of him cannot be topped imo and Molina did a great job period so his predecessor has large boots to fill which I doubt get filled. I just loved Molina as Doc Ock.

[bryanss3]

they werent glad after SM3

$890,871,626 says otherwise I guess bad movie make that much money..... let's ask the Spirit oh what's that? $39,031,337 lets try Superman Returns 391,081,192. I'm not saying money is all that matters to decide if something is good cause Transformers 2 made $834,969,807, but thats bad and it's not getting rebooted?

[Blackman]

but how many people actually liked it. Everyone saw it because its Spiderman, but there are a smaller number of ppl who REALLY enjoyed it.

Either way GA will just be happy with another Spidey film Raimi or not

[Mister J]

You list Vulture but apparently he wasn't good enough for Sony. They will go for big villains so Morbius and Silvermane are out...thank god. Tombstone is also pretty stupid. Nobody wants to see a mobster with a metal plated head ramming crap.
Even taking into account the names you take issue with, the point is that there's plenty in the villain game to use, as opposed to automatically having to turn to Osborne and Octavious. I didn't even mention Scorpion.

Sony originally had plans go all the way to six films, so either they planned to retread villains all along or they're comfortable with pulling from the remainder of Spidey's rogues. Either way, I'm not seeing a cause for worry here.

[chaseter]

I saw a cause to worry when big wigs got in between the creative team and did what they wanted with SM3 so now...they are going to do the same with this movie. We will see a big villain in the first movie or the second movie. They need a selling point to these movies and to try and keep the fanbase that are weary but go see this movie. They aren't going to keep fans with Tombstone and Shocker being main villains.

[BrollySupersj]

I'm not taking sides with this whole reboot business, I'm just saying, general audiences aren't retards. It's not like they don't know what a reboot is with superhero movies. They'll know what's going on.

[bryanss3]

I wish they could use the Kingpin then we could see some non main-event Spidey rouges like Shocker

[bryanss3]

I'm not taking sides with this whole reboot business, I'm just saying, general audiences aren't retards. It's not like they don't know what a reboot is with superhero movies. They'll know what's going on.

Agreed what I'm saying is people aren't necessarily be excited for a reboot or get why they're doing it, cause successful franchises don't usually reboot. Thats usually left to failures. 2/3 isn't a failure no matter how you cut it.

[TheComicbookKid]

Even with introducing Norman Osbourne and Harry again is troublesome. People have seen those chracter's story play out in all three films. It's not like it ended in Spidey 1.

[Sawyer]

And General audiences will say "wait what? again? I was waiting for the next one"

General audiences arent bright enough to know what they want. Throw some good action in there and they'll be eating out of the palm of your hand.

[Crook]

These concerns will be irrelevant by the one true factor of any blockbuster film; good storytelling and enticing reason(s) to make people go out and pay for the movie. That's ALL that matters.

Avatar had worst concerns and more troubling hurdles to get through, and it laughed it's way to the #2 Box-office spot of all time with the greatest legs Hollywood hasn't seen since Titanic. You make a film that hits the right spots, and the audience couldn't care less about trivial flaws. If they enjoy it, the film will reap from benefits.

[TheComicbookKid]

General audiences arent bright enough to know what they want. Throw some good action in there and they'll be eating out of the palm of your hand.


Cause that worked so well for the Incredible Hulk.

[JustABill]

Even with introducing Norman Osbourne and Harry again is troublesome. People have seen those chracter's story play out in all three films. It's not like it ended in Spidey 1.
Yes, but their story was changed drastically. We didn't get the true Goblin legacy at all. The only thing that was accurate about it, was that in the end Harry redeemed himself by saving his friends.

[Sawyer]

Cause that worked so well for the Incredible Hulk.

What didnt work for The Incredible Hulk was that it had the name "Hulk" on it after that monstrous turd in 2003.

[Blackman]

why are people bringing up TIH like it was a bomb

[TheComicbookKid]

Yes, but their story was changed drastically. We didn't get the true Goblin legacy at all. The only thing that was accurate about it, was that in the end Harry redeemed himself by saving his friends.

It doesn't matter how accurate it was. The fact is, people saw over three films, Norman die and Peter and Harry fight.

Norman Osbourne walks back into a room will be a giant WTF. It would be like watching Marvel rebooting Iron Man by just having Stane walk into a room talking down to Tony Stark.

[TheComicbookKid]

why are people bringing up TIH like it was a bomb

Who said it was a bomb? It didn't successfully bring the franchise back just by putting awesome action sequences into it which was the assertion being made.

Stop being so sensitive.

[Sawyer]

why are people bringing up TIH like it was a bomb

People here consider anything below Iron Man numbers to be a failure, apparently.

[chaseter]

why are people bringing up TIH like it was a bomb
Why do people bring up SM3 like it was a bomb:o

SM3 sucked but it made tons of money so I don't see your point.

[Crook]

It doesn't matter how accurate it was. The fact is, people saw over three films, Norman die and Peter and Harry fight.

Norman Osbourne walks back into a room will be a giant WTF. It would be like watching Marvel rebooting Iron Man by just having Stane walk into a room talking down to Tony Stark.
You'd have to be an idiot not to realize what was going on by that point. An entirely new cast, an earlier chronological setting, is all you need to tell you "ok, this isn't related to the other ones".

BB and TDK had morons watching who still thought there were connections to Burton. Do you really care about such a small number of people?

[JustABill]

It doesn't matter how accurate it was. The fact is, people saw over three films, Norman die and Peter and Harry fight.

Norman Osbourne walks back into a room will be a giant WTF. It would be like watching Marvel rebooting Iron Man by just having Stane walk into a room talking down to Tony Stark.
Nope. Because Norman's part of the legacy was told completely wrong and he was made into a sympathetic character.

Norman would be a ruthless cold-hearted basatard who chucks girls off bridges in the reboot. THAT's how he should've been done in Raimi's films ANYWAYS.

[Blackman]

Who said it was a bomb? It didn't successfully bring the franchise back just by putting awesome action sequences into it which was the assertion being made.

Stop being so sensitive.
:whatever:oh boy
sounds like someone else is being sensitive honestly

I'm just saying Ive heard TIH come up a bunch of time in the past few hours all with negative connotations
Chill out
Why do people bring up SM3 like it was a bomb:o

SM3 sucked but it made tons of money so I don't see your point.
I havent heard anyone act like SM3 was a financial bomb

[TheComicbookKid]

Nope. Because Norman's part of the legacy was told completely wrong and he was made into a sympathetic character.

Norman would be a ruthless cold-hearted basatard who chucks girls off bridges in the reboot. THAT's how he should've been done in Raimi's films ANYWAYS.

Are you reading what I'm saying? I'm saying how the story played out doesn't matter to people that have no reference point other than the movies. The point is they've seen Norman's story play to a conclusion.

[TheComicbookKid]

:whatever:oh boy
sounds like someone else is being sensitive honestly

I'm just saying Ive heard TIH come up a bunch of time in the past few hours all with negative connotations
Chill out

I havent heard anyone act like SM3 was a financial bomb

I'm not being sensitive. I want a reboot.

You can jump into the conversation, just don't assert anything into cause it messes stuff up. I was arguing that putting massive fights into a reboot doesn't matter as proven by the Hulk.

I just got online a few hours ago. I haven't read any of the Hulk bashing going on.

[JustABill]

Are you reading what I'm saying? I'm saying how the story played out doesn't matter to people that have no reference point other than the movies. The point is they've seen Norman's story play to a conclusion.
Honestly if someone can't tell the difference between two different actors playing the same character in a different way, then they don't deserve to be watching films anyways. Esspecially when this is most certainly gonna be marketed as a retelling/reboot.

[chaseter]

I havent heard anyone act like SM3 was a financial bomb
You didn't say financial either:huh: So TIH to you was a good movie. SM3 was a good movie to some people too. See how your point is moot.:o

[Blackman]

You didn't say financial either:huh: So TIH to you was a good movie. SM3 was a good movie to some people too. See how your point is moot.:o
What are you talking about. I didnt deny the fact that people like SM3

[TheComicbookKid]

Honestly if someone can't tell the difference between two different actors playing the same character in a different way, then they don't deserve to be watching films anyways. Esspecially when this is most certainly gonna be marketed as a retelling/reboot.


I agree with that.

But you forget the other option that I'm pointing to. Why do I want to see a variation on something I've already seen? The General audience doesn't know just how different the stories can be. All they know is that they've been there and done that. I'd hate for a reboot to fail just because people are excited by some other franchise (insert name here) because they get the idea that Spidey is just redoing something they've seen. Peter in high school.

It would be like POTC starting off with The Black Pearl again except this time without Keira Knightley and Orlando Bloom. Yeah, it's different, but I"ve already seen Jack chasing the Black Pearl.

[zeptron]

I havent heard anyone act like SM3 was a financial bomb


There are people who consider movies they didn't like a bomb. No matter how much money they made.

[Spider-ManHero12]

$890,871,626 says otherwise I guess bad movie make that much money..... let's ask the Spirit oh what's that? $39,031,337 lets try Superman Returns 391,081,192. I'm not saying money is all that matters to decide if something is good cause Transformers 2 made $834,969,807, but thats bad and it's not getting rebooted? Very true! Trust me, ALOOT of people whent and saw S-M3 more than once. I know I did, and I'm proud of it.

[Leenie]

If Sony decides to do a retelling of the origin, then I'll officially write off the company as moronic.

Seriously.

[VenomVsSpidey]

Very true! Trust me, ALOOT of people whent and saw S-M3 more than once. I know I did, and I'm proud of it.

4 times for me :awesome::awesome:

[Timstuff]

Most kids are still watching the Spider-Man movies religiously. They're not going to care about a reboot, because Raimi's movies are still fresh in people's minds and are very much a part of pop culture. It's been 8 years since the first Spider-Man came out.

When Batman Begins came out, it was 16 years after the original, and it was following an absolutely abysmal fourth installment. There was NO GOING BACK from Batman and Robin. The franchise's dignity had been permanently damaged, and the only way to escape Joel's Schumuckery was to reboot.

Spider-Man, for all the fans' whining was a well recieved movie and they could have easily released Spider-Man 4 with a solid reception. What did fanboys hate about Spider-Man 3? They screwed up Venom and they had Peter dancing. Boo hoo, let it go and and move on.

Batman rebooted out of necessity. There were no market trends to indicate that reboots would make lots of money, so Warner Bros. was doing it because they wanted to restore the franchise's dignity and a reboot was their only chance. Now, people reboot because it's more fashionable than fixing a franchise with a good sequel. Now if a franchise misses a note, they just hit the reboot button.

The sad part of all this is that we're STILL waiting for a proper Superman reboot, and yet there are tons of movies that SHOULDN'T be rebooted that get rebooted anyway. Reboot-itis is probably the worst thing to happen to movies in the 21st century. It really is a shame, because rebooting CAN be a good way to save a franchise, but like all good tools it inevitably gets abused and used for the wrong job constantly. Franchises that actually need reboots get overlooked, and popular franchises get reboots just because it's easier than coming up with new ways to grow characters.

[Crook]

Most kids are still watching the Spider-Man movies religiously. They're not going to care about a reboot, because Raimi's movies are still fresh in people's minds and are very much a part of pop culture. It's been 8 years since the first Spider-Man came out.
Dude. C'mon.

KIDS are your examples, here? So if the new reboot looks kickass and exciting, you're telling me they're not going to care because they have the Raimi films? Does that sound remotely feasible?

I'll be as blunt as I can; no one gives a damn about what came before. At least not if what's here 'now' doesn't make you long for the past.

[Frodo]

The audiences will except it if it's good. The ones who may have trouble excepting it are those who grew up with the Raimi films and have an emotional attachment to that version of the story . But that's no different then people who grew up with Keaton's Batman being resistant to Bale's Batman or those who didn't like Craig taking over from Brosnan because Brosnan was their generations Bond.

They'll be fine with a reboot if the story is fresh and engaging . Plus you'll have a new generation of children who will embrace this new Spiderman as their Spiderman.

Spiderman, like Batman, Superman, and Bond is bigger then one actor and the role is going to be passed down to different actors and versions through the years. That doesn't take anything away from the Raimi films, but it shows that the character indures.

Maguire wasn't the first actor to play Peter Parker , it was Nicholas Hammond in the 1970's or even the guy who played him on the Electric Company.

[Project862006]

Did Sony think about the audiences?

I mean, they've seen the origin, they've seen Green Goblin, Ock, Sandman, Goblin Jr., Venom etc. Now what? Do it again? It's hardly been A decade. I suppose they could start with other villains like Batman did...but damn. :o

exactly no one wants to see him in hs again we were over this it was covered well not to mention we have had the majority of his best villains

[Spider-ManHero12]

Edit - woops!

[Leenie]

Most kids are still watching the Spider-Man movies religiously. They're not going to care about a reboot, because Raimi's movies are still fresh in people's minds and are very much a part of pop culture. It's been 8 years since the first Spider-Man came out.

When Batman Begins came out, it was 16 years after the original, and it was following an absolutely abysmal fourth installment. There was NO GOING BACK from Batman and Robin. The franchise's dignity had been permanently damaged, and the only way to escape Joel's Schumuckery was to reboot.

Spider-Man, for all the fans' whining was a well recieved movie and they could have easily released Spider-Man 4 with a solid reception. What did fanboys hate about Spider-Man 3? They screwed up Venom and they had Peter dancing. Boo hoo, let it go and and move on.

Batman rebooted out of necessity. There were no market trends to indicate that reboots would make lots of money, so Warner Bros. was doing it because they wanted to restore the franchise's dignity and a reboot was their only chance. Now, people reboot because it's more fashionable than fixing a franchise with a good sequel. Now if a franchise misses a note, they just hit the reboot button.

The sad part of all this is that we're STILL waiting for a proper Superman reboot, and yet there are tons of movies that SHOULDN'T be rebooted that get rebooted anyway. Reboot-itis is probably the worst thing to happen to movies in the 21st century. It really is a shame, because rebooting CAN be a good way to save a franchise, but like all good tools it inevitably gets abused and used for the wrong job constantly. Franchises that actually need reboots get overlooked, and popular franchises get reboots just because it's easier than coming up with new ways to grow characters.

Thank you!

I wouldn't have minded a Spider-Man reboot at all if it weren't coming this soon. The original cast and director are still very fresh in people's minds. I'm not going to guarantee that the reboot is going to be a bomb (who knows, it's possible for the opposite to happen), but I think it has some big shoes to fill, especially since it's filling them this soon.

Whether fanboys want to admit it or not, the Raimi's Spider-Man trilogy was very successful. The general audience overall loved these movies. This reboot has big shoes to fill regardless of what the "hardcore fans" or "comic book purists" think.

I also agree that I'd rather see Superman get a decent reboot first. The poor guy needs one more than all of these other franchises!