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

[Immortalfire]

That Vulturess story screamed fake to me, I can see the Vulture part of the story being true though, ie John Malkovich.

Agreed

 

[DarthDaveBanner]

My theory on "the Vultress" is that Valeria Toomes may well be in the script....but without any super-villain alter ego or anything. Just a supporting character. However, several over-eager reporters automatically assumed that any major new character HAS to be a villain.

 

[VenomVsSpidey]

so like...can mods close this thread? it's kinda pointless now...

 

[Anita18]

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

Eh, not really. Re: TDK:

ME: So. You tell me. You make this kind of movie. You tell me. How?
PRODUCER: How what?
ME: How does a movie like that get made? In this environment, where anything complicated or challenging or pessimistic or visionary get ironed out to appeal to the broadest possible market, how does a movie like that get made? That's an expensive movie with a lot of moving parts -- the producers, the cast, the special effects, the location shooting -- how does a picture like that get made, and end up that good?
PRODUCER: Because Christopher Nolan gets no notes.
(pause)
ME: What do you mean?
PRODUCER: I mean, the studio gives him no notes. None. Zero.
ME: The director gets no notes?
PRODUCER: None.
ME: So, you're telling me, Christopher Nolan and his brother write the script --
PRODUCER: And then they shoot it. And the studio gives them no notes. They've given them the project, they trust their vision, and they let them shoot it the way they want. And that's how a movie like that gets made.

http://toddalcott.livejournal.com/246698.html

Although, WB recently has had a habit of letting directors have their creative freedom, aside from runtime. Sometimes it results in a Dark Knight, sometimes it results in a Superman Returns. I think it's a risk that studios should have to take if they want to have some integrity.

If the rumors are true, it's sad to see Sony go down the way of Fox. It seems that only James Cameron has this kind of freedom over at Fox, but I think he's got a strong enough personality (to say the least ) to wrangle what he wants from any studio.

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.

I agree that it's very strange - I haven't been keeping up, but SM4 seems to be far enough into development that scrapping it seems like an immensely stupid idea. It would make more sense for Sony to dump Raimi than to dump the project altogether.

I've known about the holiday hiatus for a while now from independent sources (not the studio).

Holiday hiatus? Doesn't everyone have a holiday hiatus?

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

....no

I have to agree with you completely. It's quite ignorant for people to say that any director that's considered great can direct any type of film.

 

[webhead731]

Good news this isn't real.
Bad news that alot of you guys will eat up any rumor no matter how good or bad and make it out to be the worst possible thing.

Stop whining about Vulture. Wait and see what's happening with him first, then you can whine. We know NOTHING about what Raimi is planning. He made Doc Ock and Sandman deeper characters than their comic counterparts, so give the main a chance. Good Lord.

 

[Sam Fisher]

Who's "whining about Vulture"?

 

[webhead731]

Read through the forum, hell even this thread. Not directed at anyone certain. I just see "Vulture is such a lame villain and can't hold a movie blah blah". It's just ridiculous to make assumptions without knowledge of anything.

 

[spider-neil]

Who's "whining about Vulture"?

I know I am. lamearse villian.

 

[The Joker]

He made Doc Ock and Sandman deeper characters than their comic counterparts

No, he really didn't. And I can back that up if you want to get into it

 

[webhead731]

Hey now, that's just you.

I know you loved Doc Ock, and he wasn't like the comic books at all.

 

[spider-neil]

No, he really didn't. And I can back that up if you want to get into it

I always thought doc ock was one note in the comics (even though he is my favorite spider-man villian). the story that I thought had most depth to doc ock is the fantastic four issue where reed richards tries to recruit doc ock to save his wife and unborn child.

green goblin obviously had lots of depth in the comics before the movie and even more depth after the movie in the comics behind the head of sheild.

 

[The Joker]

Hey now, that's just you.

I'm not sure what you mean by that's just me? Raimi didn't make Ock or Sandman deeper characters. Ock has had women he loved in the comics. He has always strived to complete his scientific destiny.

Raimi just watered him down to having him do that because his mind was warped by A.I. tentacles, instead of making it entirely his own hubris, which would have made the character alot stronger.

Now don't get me wrong, I love Molina's Doc Ock, and think he's the best villain we've had so far in the movies. But make no mistake, Raimi added nothing to the character that wasn't already there in the comic books.

And as for Sandman, he's been a good guy for years in the comics. He even fought with Silver Sable and the Avengers. He lived with this family, and really cared about them.

Again, Raimi didn't add anything to Sandman that wasn't there in the comics. He just linked him to Ben's death.

I know you loved Doc Ock, and he wasn't like the comic books at all.

He was in more ways than you realize. I can list those, too, if you like

 

[Rodrigo90]

If Vulture takes Ocks place of marrying Aunt May,Im out the door.

I can honestly see that happening.

 

[webhead731]

Doc Ock wasn't happily married and starring a new fusion based energy to help mankind, featuring the tentacles. He was arrogant and psychotic due to an accident with screwing with radiation, and that helped him go insane. His tentacles did not talk to him. I myself never gave a damn what his problems were. Only times I felt bad for him is when Spider-Man would blind his eyes.

Sandman did become a good guy but wasn't always like that. Originally he just wanted his diploma.

So they gave him a story with his wife and daughter, which made him more sympathetic and then linked him to Ben's death to give him and Peter a personal connection. I totally prefer movie Sandman over the comic one.

Yes, they obviously all have simularites but the character for the most part is quite different. Ock and Sandman weren't really bad, they were like Magneto. They thought they were doing the right thing. Only Ock had tentacle peer pressure.

I don't care what the comics started to do as the movies came out. I know they like tying in certain new things that are taken from the movie, in a type of promotion I guess.

 

[The Joker]

Doc Ock wasn't happily married and starring a new fusion based energy to help mankind, featuring the tentacles. He was arrogant and psychotic. His tentacles did not talk to him. I myself never gave a damn what his problems were. Only times I felt bad for him is when Spider-Man would blind his eyes.

Doc Ock was happily engaged to a girl named, Mary Alice, until his mother sabotaged it with emotional blackmail. He also entered a loving relationship with Stunner in the 90's. As for being arrogant and psychotic, Raimi incorporated that into the movie, too. When the reactor went haywire, Otto refused to shut it down, despite all the dangers it was causing. And when Spidey tried to unplug it, he viciously smashed him into a wall. Raimi established here that Otto was violent and irrational when it came to his dream. And that was something the tentacles played on and fleshed out.

Octavius in the movie was working on "My dream". It was his wish to complete his fusion project that he'd been working on his entire life. That was the parallel they drew between him and Peter. Peter was being irresponsible by giving up his responsibility of being Spider-Man so he could live his dream of a normal life. Octavius was being irresponsible by doing evil things in order to make his dream succeed.

That's why Peter was able to apply Aunt May's words to Ock at the end. They were applicable to Otto as well as Peter.

All this is in the comics. Marvel refers to Ock as "The Peter Parker gone bad". Raimi just did it by having Ock be sympathetic by making him lose a wife, and having his mind manipulated by the A.I.

That doesn't make a character deeper. Just sympathetic.

Sandman did become a good guy but wasn't always like that. Originally he just wanted his diploma.

Oh I see. So you only judge a character based on their first appearance only? You ignore any subsequent stories of character development?

Yes, they obviously all have simularites but the character for the most part is quite different. Ock and Sandman weren't really bad, they were like Magneto. They thought they were doing the right thing. Only Ock had tentacle peer pressure.

Ummm Sandman is not really bad in the comics either, or did you ignore any stories past his first appearance?

I've already covered Doc ock above.

 

[Sam Fisher]

Read through the forum, hell even this thread. Not directed at anyone certain. I just see "Vulture is such a lame villain and can't hold a movie blah blah". It's just ridiculous to make assumptions without knowledge of anything.

People are just overracting. I know I don't like Vulture and do not want to see him in a film, HOWEVER at least I'm keeping an open mind.

 

[webhead731]

Doc Ock was happily engaged to a girl named, Mary Alice, until his mother sabotaged it with emotional blackmail. He also entered a loving relationship with Stunner in the 90's. As for being arrogant and psychotic, Raimi incorporated that into the movie, too. When the reactor went haywire, Otto refused to shut it down, despite all the dangers it was causing. And when Spidey tried to unplug it, he viciously smashed him into a wall. Raimi established here that Otto was violent and irrational when it came to his dream. And that was something the tentacles played on and fleshed out.

Ock's "arrogance" in the movie was really cute and sweet compared to the comics. He got flustered during his reactor dream screw up yeah.
But Mary Alice is not Rosie.
There was no trying to make a mini sun, no crappy mother, or anything. It was simply mild mannered, with a bit of an ego, Octavius being happily married and trying to make a new energy for the world. It goes wrong, his tentacles start talking to him, he tries to fix it the wrong way.

Octavius in the movie was working on "My dream". It was his wish to complete his fusion project that he'd been working on his entire life. That was the parallel they drew between him and Peter. Peter was being irresponsible by giving up his responsibility of being Spider-Man so he could live his dream of a normal life. Octavius was being irresponsible by doing evil things in order to make his dream succeed.

Yep.

Oh I see. So you only judge a character based on their first appearance only? You ignore any subsequent stories of character development?

I never said that. I just said that's how he came to in the comics. He wasn't a bad guy after awhile yeah. In the movie he's tied in to Uncle Ben, has a sick daughter and a wife that motivate him to try to turn his life around and help his daughter. Only reason why I liked him before Spider-Man 3 was his power. He wasn't very interesting other than that.

All I'm saying is, they have simularities to their comic counterparts but there are some drastic new changes they made for the better. Sandman from the comics would make a fail movie villain. There's just no way to make him worth it. Ock, yes. But I like what they did better anyway.

 

[The Joker]

Ock's "arrogance" in the movie was really cute and sweet compared to the comics. He got flustered during his reactor dream screw up yeah.

Right, but he had arrogance and violence towards his work. Raimi watered him down, that's my point, but it was there. Raimi was not adding anything to the character. Just watering it down.

But Mary Alice is not Rosie.

There's no difference in terms of what it did for the character. They're both women Otto loved, and wanted to spend his life with.

Again, Raimi added nothing new to the character.

There was no trying to make a mini sun, no crappy mother, or anything. It was simply mild mannered, with a bit of an ego, Octavius being happily married and trying to make a new energy for the world. It goes wrong, his tentacles start talking to him, he tries to fix it the wrong way.

You're splitting hairs. The mini sun, or mother, or being happily married etc are all devices that serve the EXACT SAME purpose to the character.

Raimi didn't add anything to Ock that wasn't done in the comics. That's the point. Your claim that he made him and Sandman deeper is simply untrue.

You may prefer one version over another, but the only difference is that Raimi made them more sympathetic. Not deeper.

I never said that. I just said that's how he came to in the comics. He wasn't a bad guy after awhile yeah. In the movie he's tied in to Uncle Ben, has a sick daughter and a wife that motivate him to try to turn his life around and help his daughter. Only reason why I liked him before Spider-Man 3 was his power. He wasn't very interesting other than that.

Again, that's fair enough if you like the movie version over the comics. Wasn't disputing that. Just your claim that Raimi made them deeper characters.

I think the only character Raimi made deeper was Venom. He gave him some real reasons to hate Peter.

 

[echostation]

I have a strong feeling that James Vanderbilt's original back to back Spidey 4 and 5 storyline must have been DRASTICALLY changed to fit into this emerging **** storm of Vulture and Vulturess... Go Raimi IF TRUE...

 

[X-Maniac]

Just to add, in case it hasn't been said, that the site that originated this rumour, IESB, has updated their page to say:

UPDATE: Sony has contacted us this morning and they are denying the story. The production is on their expected holiday hiatus, but will ramp up again early next year.

Yes, the filmmakers are working on the script, but there is nothing unusual about that at all, productions always are working and tweaking scripts right up until principal photography begins and that is still a few months away.

I was suspicious about this story from the start, but some sites want to believe the film is on hold.

I've been arguing the case over at Screenrant (which ran the story). Screenrant's site owner Vic replied to me in the comments section: "This is NOT staff going on vacation being confused with troubled production. I was on the phone with someone today who got it first hand from TWO different sources directly involved with the production."

I messaged my own Sony contact with the story and they'd heard nothing about any indefinite hold.

In my view, they probably are trying to nail down script details on who will be the villain but this does not mean production troubles.

As for Vulturess, the second Vulture did have a daughter called Raptor, as I debated on my own site. (see here). A female sidekick to a villain, or just a female associate of some kind, is possible even if she doesn't end up flying about on wings.

Morbius would be good if we didn't already have a glut of vampires in film and TV. A big no to Electro, we have seen electrical zapping powers so often.

I can see how Lizard could be a part of the story, but somehow i can't see him as the main part of the story. He's easy to work in though - Dr Connors figures that if Spidey got his powers from a genetically-altered spider, then he could get reptilian regeneration (to regrow his arm) from a lizard. But it goes too far and mutates him. It doesn't immediately seem a big, thematic story though. Seems like a secondary villain.

 

[spider-neil]

I see sony debunked the romour spidey was on indefinate hold but NOT the romour the studio and sam are at odds with the main villian.

 

[TheScarecrow]

that's all well and good but should the director choose a villian that gets the fans excited?

that's like nolan going with c list baddie for TDK2 rather than riddler or penguin (or another a lister)

maybe sam can do great things with a rubbish villian but here's an idea, why not do great things with a GREAT villian, especially he HIMSELF has developed.

This is the thinking that got us Venom in the third film, and we all know how that ended. Honestly, we don't know what Raimi's plans here are. Yes, he really likes the Lizard - but he also really likes Vulture...and Black Cat and as far as I know, those two came the closest to making it into a Spider-man movie so far. You also need to remember that, like Two-Face, The Lizards best story might potentially be his transformation therefore it does not make much sense to have him be The Lizard at the start of a movie and act as a 'main villain', unless there is something interesting happening in his plot - like the Kraven idea.

It's entirely possible Raimi might pull a Nolan with the Lizard and make his movie about his transformation, with half an hour of screentime at the end. I wouldn't be too upset with that, to be honest. Also, it's entirely possible (even likely) that a non A-list villain will be the villain of Batman 3. Goyer and Jonathon Nolan said as far back in 2008 that they had a villain in mind for the third movie (should it happen) and to not just expect them to go with the obvious or popular choices. At the time, Goyer had been sifting through C-list DC villains for Supermax and they also said that in those sorts of villains, there were ones more fitting for their vision of the character.

Whiplash is a COMPLETE non-villain, but how many people are whining about him being in Iron Man 2?

I see sony debunked the romour spidey was on indefinate hold but NOT the romour the studio and sam are at odds with the main villian.

The project is far too close to shooting for anything like this to occur! If there were a dispute about the villain, the movie WOULD be on hold. At this point, the script would be DONE, less a few minor rewrites/adjustments which would occur in that period, casting would be underway, costume design and set design would certainly be underway, etc. There is no dispute about the villain, it's not feasible. I'm 99.999999% positive that the villain would have been decided when Raimi was hired.

 

[mclay18]

At this point, the script would be DONE, less a few minor rewrites/adjustments which would occur in that period, casting would be underway, costume design and set design would certainly be underway, etc.

Well, I'm positive that for a film like SM-4, there will almost certainly be last minute rewrites before, during and after principal photography. At most the basic story, action setpieces and previz sequences would be set -- but that doesn't mean there can't be rewrites during shooting.

It's not uncommon for the writer to be on set or on location to do necessary rewrites for movies for thedirector and/or producers. Remember that set designer's blog about them constantly rewriting and adding/taking out scenes from SM-3 during filming? And for a longer-established franchise like HP, the screenwriter is constantly shifting and rewriting some scenes to fit the director's liking for the final two movies... even during shooting.

I would not be surprised once set pics of SM-4 start coming in next year, that Gary Ross would be on set with Raimi and the cast.

 

[Showtime]

The project is far too close to shooting for anything like this to occur! If there were a dispute about the villain, the movie WOULD be on hold. At this point, the script would be DONE, less a few minor rewrites/adjustments which would occur in that period, casting would be underway, costume design and set design would certainly be underway, etc. There is no dispute about the villain, it's not feasible. I'm 99.999999% positive that the villain would have been decided when Raimi was hired.

Movies have fallen apart that were much further along then this. See Justice League: Mortal if you want a very relative case. Moneyball is another recent example.