The Amazing Spider-Man Rules for the Reboot

[NotSoLongAgo]

god damn slow server.

 

[Daisy]

Since I know nothing about the movie business can someone tell why Marvel Studios doesn't have creative control?
Is it just not possible or can it Happen?
Because I just don't see Marvel getting rights back anytime soon.
And as stated before, Garfield is prefect for it and
Webb would be a great story-teller.

It sold (actually more like leased for a certain period of time given certain conditions - such as x number of films released in x amount of time) the film rights to Sony, so Sony controls what happens to Spider-Man on-screen.

The thing is, the whole "when Marvel gets the rights back" thing is a pipedream. Not because Marvel won't ever get the rights back, but because Marvel and Sony are in bed together. Sony's not taking the character anywhere Marvel isn't okay with. While Avi Arad, a consultant and executive producer on all Spider-Man films (actually all the Marvel films, regardless of studio) is technically no longer part of the leadership of Marvel, he's still intimately involved, and would be even if the rights reverted back to Marvel.

So, again, the idea that things would be different if the rights reverted back to marvel is just silly.

 

[WeaponXProject]

- Have Pete figure out how to create his own webbing cartidges.

- Be less nerdy, maybe more like Dave from Kickass. Nerdy but more unnoticed than a full on nerd.

- Add some funny lines for him to say. Maybe push peoples buttons a little more than "Let mommy and daddy talk this one out."

 

[TheSlag]

OK one from the Heart..... The Heart Osborn.. THE HEART!!!

PLEASE at some point do a timeline that involves NYC in the winter with snow. PLEEEEEASSEE. Love that cinematic approach, ESPEICALLY in and around the Night Gwen Stacy Dies storyline.

THAT.. could be epic.

 

[TheSlag]

While JK Simmons was good as JJ in Raimi's verse, his character was not. Rule for the Reboot... DO NOT make JJ's character such a characterization. Add some more seriousness and depth to his character, to go along with the character traits of hating Spider-Man.

JJ can be a buffoon at times, but we should also see more depth to his character than just that.

 

[zeptron]

While JK Simmons was good as JJ in Raimi's verse, his character was not. Rule for the Reboot... DO NOT make JJ's character such a characterization. Add some more seriousness and depth to his character, to go along with the character traits of hating Spider-Man.

JJ can be a buffoon at times, but we should also see more depth to his character than just that.

Well one way they could do that is by putting Scorpion in a movie.

 

[The Joker]

There was a missed opportunity for adding a bit of dimension to Jonah in SM-2, with both his wife and son being in the movie. He never even had a proper scene with John in SM-2.

 

[TheSlag]

I agree. JJ from the Raimi vision was nothing more than comic/gruff/blustering, which JJ should have those characteristics, but IF that is ALL he has, he basically becomes a charicature.

I know it is a difficult line to walk, with both the humor/gruffness/blustering/etc. that JJ is supposed to have, while giving his character some depth/integrity too, BUT it makes the characters that much better when you do.

I hope that Webb hints more about JJ's motivation for hating masked men, and I hope that we get to see the more caring side of JJ for his son in the reboot.

JJ is a great character and deserves better. And we as fans, deserve better too. Not to say that I did not enjoy JJ (Simmons portrayal) in Raimi's verse, but like a lot of things in Raimi's verse... I KNOW it can be done so much better.

 

[DACMAN]

There was a missed opportunity for adding a bit of dimension to Jonah in SM-2, with both his wife and son being in the movie. He never even had a proper scene with John in SM-2.

Huh. I never noticed that.

 

[chaseter]

I could care less about John because I never EVER want to see Man Wolf.

 

[TheSlag]

While I basically agree with the Man Wolf comment, I think John could/should be incorporated into storylines to add depth to JJ's character, and he can be used to bring the symbiote back to earth. A nod to the animated cartoon approach perhaps.

 

[chaseter]

If they redo the symbiote then yes, I would like to see more John. Heck, you could even do a symbiote/Venom and Scorpion movie. That way the entire movie has JJJ in it. John brings back the symbiote which Peter finds, JJJ creates the Scorpion and Peter just absolutely beats him in and then feels bad and then confronts JJJ. Then Venom is created and kidnaps John and forces JJJ to beg for Spider-Man's help.

Badabing badaboom make it happen Sony.

 

[david icke]

If they redo the symbiote then yes, I would like to see more John. Heck, you could even do a symbiote/Venom and Scorpion movie. That way the entire movie has JJJ in it. John brings back the symbiote which Peter finds, JJJ creates the Scorpion and Peter just absolutely beats him in and then feels bad and then confronts JJJ. Then Venom is created and kidnaps John and forces JJJ to beg for Spider-Man's help.

Badabing badaboom make it happen Sony.

I don't know if this is a good idea or not, it could maybe make Jonah into more of a nutter than he should be or something...but, if he got pissed off that Spidey saving the shuttle got more publicity than his son's space mission, he could then get the idea to make his son into a 'real' superhero, to upstage and expose spider-man for the fraud he is, and so he puts John forward for the experiment that turns him into the Scorpion.
and it would be even more poignant that black suited Spider-man almost killed Jameson's son.

 

[chaseter]

I don't want John to become the Scorpion. It is much better story wise that a schizo is hired and all the experiments on him just drives him crazy. Plus Mac has no connection Spider-Man and people complain all the time that all of Raimi's villains were connected to Peter. Plus the simple fact that I don't think JJJ would turn his son into a metal monstrosity and I don't think John would be up for it either.

If people really want JJJ to be expanded upon more then you need the Scorpion to achieve that. If you really want to delve even deeper and show that JJJ is more human than monster, then you need to see him become really angry, create the Scorpion, and then become really sorry and seek forgiveness and the only way to really do that is by having what he caused hit him personally. That is achieved by John being taken hostage by either Scorpion or Venom. If you want John in the story so that we as the audience are invested in his rescue, then you need Venom. It is the classic dichotomy of accidentally creating a monster and purposely creating a monster. JJJ purposely creates a monster, John accidentally brings back the symbiote which creates a monster, and Peter willingly creates a monster within himself. There you have two villains in a movie and massive potential to be an extremely weighted and powerful story.

 

[david icke]

Plus the simple fact that I don't think JJJ would turn his son into a metal monstrosity and I don't think John would be up for it either.

Yeah, that is the one thing that put me off the idea, but, you could change it about a bit. Make it that originally he was supposed to be able to change back and forth from being a super-being(like the super soldier Black-Cat in the 90s animated show), and the outfit, with tail, was supposed to be removable. But, as these things go, the experiment goes wrong and he finds he can't change back or remove the suit.

And as for John's character, well, he was always just a nice guy in the books, a bit bland, keep him as a nice guy, but give him a flawed streak of being fame hungry, he is a little jealous of Spider-man, he can't compete with Spider-man for the headlines, even when he goes to the Moon, so he wants a piece of the superhero action.

edit: and you could even have it that Jonah goes off the idea, but it's John who goes back to the scientist and goes through with the procedure, but Jonah blames himself as he entertained the notion and introduced John to the idea. So, it is kind of like Pete with Uncle Ben's death, he is responsible, but not directly responsible, and has to live with that knowledge.
and when Black suited Spider-man almost kills John Jameson/Scorpion, it fuels Jonah's Spider-hate campaign to all new levels of intensity. and this is when we truly see the whole city turning aginst Spider-man, thanks to his activities in the Black suit, and the fact that Jameson is turning all his own shame and anger at himself onto his campaign against Spider-man, and it only by the end of the movie that he finally blames himself, like you said, he has to go through the repentance stage.
So, you could have Venom take Scorpion Jameson under his wing, and it's then spider-man that saves his life from Venom, who turns against him when the good John won't go through with something he has planned.
It makes it a little different from the usual kidnap plot, and I'm not someone who has something against another movie villan being tied to Spider-man personally somehow.

 

[TheSlag]

Reboot Rule - Addendum to DO NOT KILL EVERY VILLAIN. Do not be afraid to have the A-List Villains storylines cover more than one movie.

For example, GG1 should definitely cover more than one movie. Venom/Symbiote could cover more than one story. Ock, while you may be able to cover him in one movie, do NOT kill him off. Lizard/Dr. Connors, based on character development of him and his family, and their relationship to Peter, should take more than one movie to do.

Think long term for the franchise Mr. Webb.

 

[MrSpyder]

Keep the story interesting with twists that will keep those not into Spidey saying it's money well spent.

 

[TheSlag]

Reboot Rule - Do NOT be afraid to use cliff hanger endings for these movies. Not all perhaps, but some villains and storylines deserve continuations and cliff hanger endings.

 

[Jordacar]

Reboot Rule - Do NOT be afraid to use cliff hanger endings for these movies. Not all perhaps, but some villains and storylines deserve continuations and cliff hanger endings.

I don't know about this. It's a film franchise, not a TV show.

 

[WeaponXProject]

Reboot Rule - Do NOT be afraid to use cliff hanger endings for these movies. Not all perhaps, but some villains and storylines deserve continuations and cliff hanger endings.

I agree, I think most comic book movies need to have a solution to a conflict and allude to another conflict beginning. These characters are eternal in someways. There is so much story for them that it should finish in a way that they never trully hang up the suit.

 

[chaseter]

Spider-Man 2 had a cliff hanger with Harry finding his father's lair.

 

[WeaponXProject]

Spider-Man 2 had a cliff hanger with Harry finding his father's lair.

Not to mention how X-Men: The Last Stand made a big mistake by making it a finale. There was a lot more wrong with it but that was a problem for me.

BB and TDK did it right both were kind of cliff hanger or like I said before a conflict was finished but a new one arose. Like their work is never trully finished.

X-1 did it right with Prof. X meeting Magneto in the plastic prison and X-2 showing Phoenix in the water.

 

[NotSoLongAgo]

This is everything I want to see in a reboot, its an article on CBM
My writings not the best so bear with me.

http://www.**************.com/fansites/SomethingEpic/news/?a=21553

 

[chaseter]

Not to mention how X-Men: The Last Stand made a big mistake by making it a finale. There was a lot more wrong with it but that was a problem for me.

BB and TDK did it right both were kind of cliff hanger or like I said before a conflict was finished but a new one arose. Like their work is never trully finished.

X-1 did it right with Prof. X meeting Magneto in the plastic prison and X-2 showing Phoenix in the water.

Not defending SM3 but Sandman was still on the loose. He asked for forgiveness but that isn't going to stop him from trying to save his daughter.

 

[chaseter]

It sold (actually more like leased for a certain period of time given certain conditions - such as x number of films released in x amount of time) the film rights to Sony, so Sony controls what happens to Spider-Man on-screen.

The thing is, the whole "when Marvel gets the rights back" thing is a pipedream. Not because Marvel won't ever get the rights back, but because Marvel and Sony are in bed together. Sony's not taking the character anywhere Marvel isn't okay with. While Avi Arad, a consultant and executive producer on all Spider-Man films (actually all the Marvel films, regardless of studio) is technically no longer part of the leadership of Marvel, he's still intimately involved, and would be even if the rights reverted back to Marvel.

So, again, the idea that things would be different if the rights reverted back to marvel is just silly.

Marvel approved all the crap in Fantastic Four. Sony can do pretty much anything it wants creative wise as long as they don't completely ruin the character. They can't make Spider-Man a machine gun totting psycho killer. We aren't going to get a more comic accurate reboot until Marvel takes back over because a) they will want to do something different than has already been done and b) they respect the characters more than Fox or Sony do.

But yes, it will be a very, very long time until Marvel gets back Spider-Man because Sony is going to continue to make a profit off of these movies for a very long time.