The Amazing Spider-Man "SPIDER-MAN 4 Production on Indefinite Hold "....NOT!...or Maybe?

[TheFuture]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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.

 

[LEGO Spidey]

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

 

[Nathan]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Sony would go with a bang.

 

[Nathan]

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]

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]

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]

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!!!!!

 

[TheScarecrow]

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]

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]

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

Crap.

 

[Nathan]

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]

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

 

[venom892]

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