MaryJaneOrDie
Civilian
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2011
- Messages
- 48
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 1
Spider-Man (2002) was the word of mouth hit that started the big superhero movie boom of the mid 2000s. Fast forward to 2005 and we have Batman Begins, the movie that began the other big tend of the past decade, the reboot. The success of Batman Begins showed the studios that fans were willing to shell out for re-imaginations of successful franchises that have died out. Since then we've gotten a reboot of just about every classic slasher series, many classic films from the 50s-80s, and even box office disappointments from the same decade (ie. 2003s Hulk and 2008s Incredible Hulk), but when do you draw the line? Whatever your opinions are, at this point to me, I think Sony has crossed said line.
The question many people have is "why reboot Spider-Man?", and the answer is greed. Now lets start by comparing Spider-Man 3 to two other final films in franchises that were ultimately rebooted, Batman and Robin of the Burton/Schumacher Batman series, and Ang Lees Hulk.
Batman & Robin
Budget: $125 million
Box Office Gross: $238,207,122
Critics Rating via Rotten Tomatoes: %13 (rotten)
Reason For Reboot: Disappointing Box Office and poor critical reception.
Hulk
Budget: $137 million
Box Office Gross: $245,360,480
Critics Rating via Rotten Tomatoes: %62 (fresh)
Reason For Reboot: Disappointing Box Office and mixed critical reception.
Spider-Man 3
Budget: $258 million
Box Office Gross: $890,871,626
Critics Rating Via Rotten Tomatoes: %63 (fresh)
Reason For Reboot: Disagreements with director Sam Raimi leading to his departure along with the rest of the cast and mixed Critical Reception.
Now what do these 3 movies have in common? At first glance it might seem like a substantial amount of poor reviews, but take a closer look at why Raimi and Co left and money becomes a second constant. How so? Well let us get into what Raimi had disagreements with the studio about, the villain. The same argument that lead to the late production rewrite of Spider-Man 3.
Sam and Ivan Raimi pen a story utilizing Harry Osborn, the Sandman, and the Vulture as the antagonists for the third installment in the Spider-Man franchise. The studio however has been feeling pressure from the fans to force the inclusion of Venom into the story, believing he is most marketable. Raimi having openly acknowledged his dislike for the character since the release of the first film, was opposed but ultimately caved, removing the vulture and giving his small part to Venom. What was the end result? A huge campaign centering Venom that lead to record breaking opening day/weekend box office numbers, and a disappointed fan base.
In the end what did the studio learn about manipulating the director and his creative vision? That it leads to huge box office yields. So in Spider-Man 4 when Sam Raimi wanted to use the Vulture (an old man they didnt find marketable), the studio knew they had to spice it up. Their solution, the Vultress, a new villainess who happens to be named Felicia Hardy to attract fans. In the end Raimi and James Vanderbilt came up with a convoluted story that Sam just didnt think was up to par. Rather than reasoning with him, the studio said they were going to stand firm and he chose to leave.
What's big deal? The way Sony handled Spider-Man 3 and the canceled 4 show they hold the director and writer's creative vision very low in their priorities. Rather than resistance it seems they prefer to someone who will just act as a figurative marionette puppet as they pull the strings, pandering to the fans. Sony once said they could not see themselves signing off on a villian like the Lizard (because he is so strange looking). After the reboot was announced buz about the Lizard surfaced (because we saw connors in the Raimi series but never his alter ego) and low and behold the "strange looking" antagonist they signed off on.
In conclusion I think the studios need a message that they cant just pull the George Lucas card and expect to make boat loads of money. They need to have a colaborative effort with the cast, writers, and director in order to come up with a quality narrative that has us coming back again and again for more. I'll end by saying this to those who might laugh what I just said off because they disliked the Raimi/MaGuire Spider-Man Trilogy and like where Marc Webb is going. If they did it once and got away with it, whats changed that will stop them from repeating what made them money in the past?
The question many people have is "why reboot Spider-Man?", and the answer is greed. Now lets start by comparing Spider-Man 3 to two other final films in franchises that were ultimately rebooted, Batman and Robin of the Burton/Schumacher Batman series, and Ang Lees Hulk.
Batman & Robin
Budget: $125 million
Box Office Gross: $238,207,122
Critics Rating via Rotten Tomatoes: %13 (rotten)
Reason For Reboot: Disappointing Box Office and poor critical reception.
Hulk
Budget: $137 million
Box Office Gross: $245,360,480
Critics Rating via Rotten Tomatoes: %62 (fresh)
Reason For Reboot: Disappointing Box Office and mixed critical reception.
Spider-Man 3
Budget: $258 million
Box Office Gross: $890,871,626
Critics Rating Via Rotten Tomatoes: %63 (fresh)
Reason For Reboot: Disagreements with director Sam Raimi leading to his departure along with the rest of the cast and mixed Critical Reception.
Now what do these 3 movies have in common? At first glance it might seem like a substantial amount of poor reviews, but take a closer look at why Raimi and Co left and money becomes a second constant. How so? Well let us get into what Raimi had disagreements with the studio about, the villain. The same argument that lead to the late production rewrite of Spider-Man 3.
Sam and Ivan Raimi pen a story utilizing Harry Osborn, the Sandman, and the Vulture as the antagonists for the third installment in the Spider-Man franchise. The studio however has been feeling pressure from the fans to force the inclusion of Venom into the story, believing he is most marketable. Raimi having openly acknowledged his dislike for the character since the release of the first film, was opposed but ultimately caved, removing the vulture and giving his small part to Venom. What was the end result? A huge campaign centering Venom that lead to record breaking opening day/weekend box office numbers, and a disappointed fan base.
In the end what did the studio learn about manipulating the director and his creative vision? That it leads to huge box office yields. So in Spider-Man 4 when Sam Raimi wanted to use the Vulture (an old man they didnt find marketable), the studio knew they had to spice it up. Their solution, the Vultress, a new villainess who happens to be named Felicia Hardy to attract fans. In the end Raimi and James Vanderbilt came up with a convoluted story that Sam just didnt think was up to par. Rather than reasoning with him, the studio said they were going to stand firm and he chose to leave.
What's big deal? The way Sony handled Spider-Man 3 and the canceled 4 show they hold the director and writer's creative vision very low in their priorities. Rather than resistance it seems they prefer to someone who will just act as a figurative marionette puppet as they pull the strings, pandering to the fans. Sony once said they could not see themselves signing off on a villian like the Lizard (because he is so strange looking). After the reboot was announced buz about the Lizard surfaced (because we saw connors in the Raimi series but never his alter ego) and low and behold the "strange looking" antagonist they signed off on.
In conclusion I think the studios need a message that they cant just pull the George Lucas card and expect to make boat loads of money. They need to have a colaborative effort with the cast, writers, and director in order to come up with a quality narrative that has us coming back again and again for more. I'll end by saying this to those who might laugh what I just said off because they disliked the Raimi/MaGuire Spider-Man Trilogy and like where Marc Webb is going. If they did it once and got away with it, whats changed that will stop them from repeating what made them money in the past?
