Sequels Director David Fincher on his Spider-Man take

[Anno_Domini]

Before Marc Webb was signed on to direct the Spider-Man reboot, there were talks of David Fincher taking the helm, but he made many remarks on it on how he couldn't direct something about a boy being bitten by a radioactive spider. Well, now we're in less than a year of seeing the Spidey reboot, The Amazing Spider-Man, and Fincher has finally mentioned his take on his reboot, although in only little detail:

http://io9.com/5869055/david-fincher-reveals-the-title-sequence-for-his-spider+man-movie-that-never-was/

My impression what Spider-Man could be is very different from what Sam [Raimi] did or what Sam wanted to do. I think the reason he directed that movie was because he wanted to do the Marvel comic superhero. I was never interested in the genesis story. I couldn't get past a guy getting bit by a red and blue spider. It was just a problem… It was not something that I felt I could do straight-faced. I wanted to start with Gwen Stacy and the Green Goblin, and I wanted to kill Gwen Stacy.

The title sequence of the movie that I was going to do was going to be a ten minute — basically a music video, an opera, which was going to be the one shot that took you through the entire Peter Parker [backstory]. Bit by a radio active spider, the death of Uncle Ben, the loss of Mary Jane, and [then the movie] was going to begin with Peter meeting Gwen Stacy. It was a very different thing, it wasn't the teenager story. It was much more of the guy who's settled into being a freak.

So...thoughts, questions? I myself wouldn't mind this take. I had mentioned once or twice before on how Webb should've made a montage of Peter being bitten, the death of Uncle Ben and so on. I mean, seeing as how we've gone through that before with Sam Raimi, that route would've been better to get things out of the way. The Incredible Hulk did it, and the outcome was fine by me.

 

[socool]

...I like that. That's how the reboot probably should have been!

 

[socool]

EDIT: Delete.

 

[socool]

EDIT: Delete.

 

[Scarlet Spider]

This isn's Fincher's take on the reboot, but what he would have done when he was up for the job back in 1999, before Sam Raimi was hired.

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

I REALLY REALLY happy that we got Sam Raimi's version instead, tbh.

 

[Anno_Domini]

This isn's Fincher's take on the reboot, but what he would have done when he was up for the job back in 1999, before Sam Raimi was hired.

Fincher had the same idea back in '99, yes, but the question that was asked was his take on the reboot. Either way, Fincher seemed to have been heavily pushing the idea for the 'Night Gwen Stacy Died' aspect. To be honest, the reboot would've worked out in his favor anyways since Gwen Stacy was going to be a part of it, but I assume Sony wants to keep Gwen alive in the reboot for longer than one film.

I REALLY REALLY happy that we got Sam Raimi's version, tbh. I'm much happier we got what we got. Now, if this was coming out this summer isntead of the reboot we are having now, I think I'd be okay with it.

Tough one honestly. If Fincher had his way back in 1999, then who knows what kind of reboot we would have gotten now, if we even did get one. Perhaps Raimi would've been tapped for the reboot.

All I know that, is if Fincher did direct The Amazing Spider-Man, I'm sure we would be still getting a more dark reboot as Webb is giving us, so I don't think that would change. It'll just be darker because, well...Gwen would have died, haha. One sad thing is...if Fincher was signed on to direct...who would have made Girl with the Dragon Tattoo?

 

[Scarlet Spider]

Fincher had the same idea back in '99, yes, but the question that was asked was his take on the reboot. Either way, Fincher seemed to have been heavily pushing the idea for the 'Night Gwen Stacy Died' aspect. To be honest, the reboot would've worked out in his favor anyways since Gwen Stacy was going to a part of it, but I assume Sony wants to keep Gwen alive in the reboot for longer than one film.

Fincher was specifically referring to his original pitch, pre-Raimi. He had no interest, nor did he ever make a pitch or take a meeting for the reboot. Webb was hired about a week after Raimi left the franchise. Trust me, if Fincher was interested in helming the reboot, Sony would have gladly let him do what ever he wanted.

 

[Anno_Domini]

Fincher was specifically referring to his original pitch, pre-Raimi. He had no interest, nor did he ever make a pitch or take a meeting for the reboot. Webb was hired about a week after Raimi left the franchise. Trust me, if Fincher was interested in helming the reboot, Sony would have gladly let him do what ever he wanted.

With how the interview was read, I'll believe it otherwise unless it becomes updated. The short interview was said about a reboot.

 

[Scarlet Spider]

With how the interview was read, I'll believe it otherwise unless it becomes updated. The short interview was said about a reboot.

Fincher never specifically mentions anything about the reboot. What he's referring to in this interview, he's mentioned before they decided to reboot the series. (Hence his comments on Raimi and what he ended up doing with the film)

 

[Anno_Domini]

Fincher never specifically mentions anything about the reboot. What he's referring to in this interview, he's mentioned before they decided to reboot the series. (Hence his comments on Raimi and what he ended up doing with the film)

Agree to disagree, lol. Fincher knew what the question was about, so I can only assume he stayed on topic.

 

[Troy_Parker]

I REALLY REALLY happy that we got Sam Raimi's version, tbh. I'm much happier we got what we got. Now, if this was coming out this summer isntead of the reboot we are having now, I think I'd be okay with it.

So, you're not happy with the reboot, finally, you said it! t:

This sounds a lot like Webb's reboot anyways (the darker take bit... and hopefully, the death of Gwen Stacy... Webb's mentioned the Gwen Stacy saga, so I think we'll be seeing it in a sequel), so I'm not sure what the whole "THIS IS WHAT WE SHOULD HAVE GOTTEN!11" thing is about. I'm fine with them building up to the Green Goblin, rather than just being a darker version of Spider-Man 1.

 

[GoldGoblin]

Seems like Raimi's version was just a quick 10 minute preview and Webb's version is gonna give us more of the story.

 

[Anno_Domini]

So, you're not happy with the reboot, finally, you said it! t:

This sounds a lot like Webb's reboot anyways (the darker take bit... and hopefully, the death of Gwen Stacy... Webb's mentioned the Gwen Stacy saga, so I think we'll be seeing it in a sequel), so I'm not sure what the whole "THIS IS WHAT WE SHOULD HAVE GOTTEN!11" thing is about. I'm fine with them building up to the Green Goblin, rather than just being a darker version of Spider-Man 1.

S-MH12 is not happy about a reboot, we've all known that as he definitely prefers a Spider-Man 4. It's his opinion though and he really enjoyed Sam Raimi's trilogy.

And...it's not like I am complaining about Webb going through Peter being bitten again and what not, but I have always preferred to just go through a montage of it all since we're only ten years off from seeing that storyline go through on screen.

Seems like Raimi's version was just a quick 10 minute preview and Webb's version is gonna give us more of the story.

Raimi's version is definitely not a quick ten minute preview, but I do think Fincher has it correct on wanting to do the quick montage when it's only been ten years, lol. NOW, if Fincher had that idea back in '99, then I would riot, because we should be seeing the death of Uncle Ben in the film as not in a quick ten minute opening.

 

[GoldGoblin]

I see Raimi's spider-man and Webb's spider-man like Burton's Joker and Nolan's Joker.Before Nolan's Joker,no one thought anyone would ever do just as good as Burton's Joker,and Nolan's Joker did 100 times better.

Now Webb's spider-man is gonna do the same thing.

 

[Scarlet Spider]

NOW, if Fincher had that idea back in '99, then I would riot, because we should be seeing the death of Uncle Ben in the film as not in a quick ten minute opening.

That is the idea he had back in '99. LOL. I know we went in circles a couples posts back, but I'm telling you, this is what he had in mind for the first film in 2002.

Here's a quote from Fincher from early 2009. This was before Sony rebooted the franchise and Raimi was still involved and was developing Spider-Man 4:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/feb/03/david-fincher-interview-transcript

Q4: You've made films where improbable things look realistic. Did you ever consider making a superhero movie or fantasy, where things are bit more difficult to make believable?

DF: I was asked if I might be interested in the first Spider-Man, and I went in and told them what I might be interested in doing, and they hated it. No, I'm not interested in doing "A Superhero". The thing I liked about Spider-Man was I liked the idea of a teenager, the notion of this moment in time when you're so vulnerable yet completely invulnerable. But I wasn't interested in the genesis, I just couldn't shoot somebody being bitten by a radioactive spider – just couldn't sleep knowing I'd done that. [audience laughs]


Fincher hated the idea of doing an origin story.

For the record as much as I think the origin was needed (especially back then for his live action debut) I would have given anything to have seen Fincher's take on Spider-Man. The man's a genius and him tackling a genre film like this could have easily been a gamechanger.

Even thought we wouldn't have gotten a fully fleshed out origin, I do really dig his idea of an origin recap, done in the style of a music video, through the opening credits.

 

[Marvel Spider]

So, you're not happy with the reboot, finally, you said it! t:

This sounds a lot like Webb's reboot anyways (the darker take bit... and hopefully, the death of Gwen Stacy... Webb's mentioned the Gwen Stacy saga, so I think we'll be seeing it in a sequel), so I'm not sure what the whole "THIS IS WHAT WE SHOULD HAVE GOTTEN!11" thing is about. I'm fine with them building up to the Green Goblin, rather than just being a darker version of Spider-Man 1.

Yeah. I love the way they're building up to the death of Gwen, instead of it happening right away. It would lessen the emotional impact.

 

[Hurm...]

Before Marc Webb was signed on to direct the Spider-Man reboot, there were talks of David Fincher taking the helm, but he made many remarks on it on how he couldn't direct something about a boy being bitten by a radioactive spider. Well, now we're in less than a year of seeing the Spidey reboot, The Amazing Spider-Man, and Fincher has finally mentioned his take on his reboot, although in only little detail:

http://io9.com/5869055/david-finche...ence-for-his-spider+man-movie-that-never-was/



So...thoughts, questions? I myself wouldn't mind this take. I had mentioned once or twice before on how Webb should've made a montage of Peter being bitten, the death of Uncle Ben and so on. I mean, seeing as how we've gone through that before with Sam Raimi, that route would've been better to get things out of the way. The Incredible Hulk did it, and the outcome was fine by me.

Sounds excellent. Conceptually much more interesting than Raimi's take to be honest.

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

edit

 

[Anno_Domini]

That is the idea he had back in '99. LOL. I know we went in circles a couples posts back, but I'm telling you, this is what he had in mind for the first film in 2002.

Here's a quote from Fincher from early 2009. This was before Sony rebooted the franchise and Raimi was still involved and was developing Spider-Man 4:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/feb/03/david-fincher-interview-transcript

Q4: You've made films where improbable things look realistic. Did you ever consider making a superhero movie or fantasy, where things are bit more difficult to make believable?

DF: I was asked if I might be interested in the first Spider-Man, and I went in and told them what I might be interested in doing, and they hated it. No, I'm not interested in doing "A Superhero". The thing I liked about Spider-Man was I liked the idea of a teenager, the notion of this moment in time when you're so vulnerable yet completely invulnerable. But I wasn't interested in the genesis, I just couldn't shoot somebody being bitten by a radioactive spider – just couldn't sleep knowing I'd done that. [audience laughs]


Fincher hated the idea of doing an origin story.

For the record as much as I think the origin was needed (especially back then for his live action debut) I would have given anything to have seen Fincher's take on Spider-Man. The man's a genius and him tackling a genre film like this could have easily been a gamechanger.

Even thought we wouldn't have gotten a fully fleshed out origin, I do really dig his idea of an origin recap, done in the style of a music video, through the opening credits.

Again, agree to disagree. The wording from the io9 article seems to lean towards Fincher mentioning the reboot only. I understand that Fincher may have said the same thing beforehand, but even with its similarities, Fincher could have very well mentioned his take from both back in '99 and then the reboot.

Fincher is truly a genius, and I wonder who would've had the better trilogy or series of films if Fincher helmed Spider-Man and Nolan had Batman. I'm obviously not a huge Raimi fan, but no one can say Sam Raimi > David Fincher, imo.

 

[GoldGoblin]

Who is David Fincher's favorite spidey villain?

 

[Spider-Aziz]

I like his view of the origin and directing it, but the radioactive thing needn't be ignored

Interesting take

 

[Troy_Parker]

It's not ignored, it would have been in the 10 minute opening.

I'm guessing the next reboot will have something like this. I just hope it's not a music video or... an opera.

 

[Godzilla2014]

Before Marc Webb was signed on to direct the Spider-Man reboot, there were talks of David Fincher taking the helm, but he made many remarks on it on how he couldn't direct something about a boy being bitten by a radioactive spider. Well, now we're in less than a year of seeing the Spidey reboot, The Amazing Spider-Man, and Fincher has finally mentioned his take on his reboot, although in only little detail:

http://io9.com/5869055/david-fincher-reveals-the-title-sequence-for-his-spider+man-movie-that-never-was/



So...thoughts, questions? I myself wouldn't mind this take. I had mentioned once or twice before on how Webb should've made a montage of Peter being bitten, the death of Uncle Ben and so on. I mean, seeing as how we've gone through that before with Sam Raimi, that route would've been better to get things out of the way. The Incredible Hulk did it, and the outcome was fine by me.

It actually sounds interesting. Part of me would have much rather had that as the reboot in lieu of another origin story.

 

[Anno_Domini]

I'm guessing the next reboot will have something like this. I just hope it's not a music video or... an opera.

Fincher is talking about a montage, not an actual music video. He's talking about how a music video speeds up events when it tries to make itself look like a movie at times, such as the Eminem videos as of late. I doubt Fincher would ACTUALLY do a music video with some lame music in the background. He's smarter than that.