I believe the villain choice is just a tip of the iceberg with what is happening with Raimi. It is silly to think the villain choice would break up production, it is even more silly to think more isn't going on behind the scenes in addition to that.
It's silly to have a writer who worked on one of the drafts of Spiderman 4 dismissed because Raimi didn't approve of him and then the studio rehires said writer to write 5 & 6. That's also silly.
Moneyball was halted 3 days before production because a studio exec didn't like the rewrite on the script. Done.
Hollywood is silly.
Showy, Showy, Showy...this has got to be one of the most clear, concise, on-the-button statements I have ever read from you.
Oh, Show...if you
only knew...
If people would pause and think a second, they'd realize many,
many silly Hollywood productions go through tough periods of confusion, mis-communication, disagreements and uncertainty. In fact, that is part of the working process itself between filmmakers/artists and studios, as one is concerned with delivering an artistic statement (and perhaps entertaining), while the other is mainly concerned with delivering a profitable, continuously "rewarding"
product.
Why do we hear more about troubles on franchises such as
Spider-Man? Well, a lot of that is because these babies are simply much, much bigger films ("tentpoles" for summer or otherwise), and there are simply many more people both working on the films, and concerned with making sure that they become successful.
Concerning Spidey directly, people might also want to consider that
all of the
Spider-Man films have had their behind-the-scenes wrangles, if you do a little digging -- all the way back to the first one (
which took two decades to make, natch).
A lot of you know about how Mr. Maguire was almost replaced on Film 2, and you have poured over the details of "what went wrong" with Film 3. What is different about the "alleged" struggles we're hearing about on this picture?
Well, let's role a scenario together, shall we? You've got one very confident studio, who, despite facilitating heavy arguments about and asserting influence over the last picture, still came out on top, grossing mucho moolah worldwide -- so they see themselves in the right (thus their decision to keep on Vanderbilt and prepare to use his scenario for Films 5 and 6 --
if not sooner). Then, on the other end, you've got a confident, successful filmmaker who, while delivering very successful pictures for the studio, still operates at a bit of a "distance" in terms of establishing his "artistic space" and his "storylines." He was very hesitant to return after the production of Film 3, but he loves the character so much, and the studio offered such an olive branch, that he couldn't turn down one more opportunity to "set things right."
Meanwhile, you've got increasing fan (yeah, you guys) and blockbuster expectations. Whether the choices made for the last film were "right" or not, the way the narrative played out created a pretty
huge set of expectations for where the next film might take Spidey, and whom he might face off against.
Couple all this in with a witches' brew of multiple scriptwriters (
with various shifting loyalties), bottom-line producers who want to trust the filmmaker, but can't or won't spend another ten million in development costs just to visualize a villain or a stunt that may not be used
at all, and an aging lead cast who might have
very particular demands of their own regarding characterization and narrative -- and you're in the depths of sticky,
sticky situation, with a
lot of money at play, a
lot of egos to satisfy, and a
lot of people at generally high,
high levels of stress.
So what is really going on here is...
Hollywood 101.
Are things leaking to gauge a reaction?
Possibly.
Are some statements you hear not the whole truth?
Very likely.
Will
Spider-Man 4 get made in its current incarnation? What
is its current incarnation?
Prediction cloudy -- check back in 2010. 
