Sequels Spider-Man 4 Writer Hired

[Mr Jide]

Why do people always attribute this to Raimi? Taking Peter's mask off is a studio decision.

How is Peter taking his mask off a studio decision? Raimi for the past 3 movies has had influence in telling the story overall. They are his stories. SM3 was the only movie where the studio super imposed on him with the whole venom thing. Why do you think he's made a big deal about other writers telling the story (and I'm not talking about the actual screen play btw)?

Get a new director and it's even less likely that you'll get a constantly masked Spider-Man.

Huh? How did you come to this conclusion??

 

[Leenie]

After listening to the cast and director commentary on the Spider-Man 3 DVD, I'm convinced that all of the unmasked Spider-Man stuff is Raimi's doing.

In the commentary while Raimi was talking about Venom, he emphasized about how he kept wanting to show Eddie's face so that the audience can stay aware that he's human (or something like that). And since Raimi says that the heart of Spider-Man is Peter Parker, then I can imagine that he wanted Peter's face to be shown as much as possible.

All of the unmasking stuff has not really bothered me that much. The only time it REALLY bothered me was in one of the extra scenes in Spider-Man 2.1, when Spidey takes his mask off while driving a car (which did NOT have a hood/top/whatever). I kept thinking, "Put the mask back on, stupid!" The other times when he was without his mask were reasonable enough for me to not complain.

 

[L0ngsh0t]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

2009 is too early! 2010 will be a perfect year since spidey three just came out...

I don't know how anything can be too soon, I like 09...I mean 2 came out 2 years after 1 did, two years is plenty of time if they keep the same cast

I like the writer

hopefully they can keep everyone back, or make good decisions about replacing them

 

[Dark Spidey]

And what if the fourth movie with a new director and new cast turns out even worse???

That's a possibility, true enough. But at this point i'd rather that chance be taken than Spider-Man 4 doing a Batman & Robin.

 

[Dark Spidey]

Why do people always attribute this to Raimi? Taking Peter's mask off is a studio decision. Get a new director and it's even less likely that you'll get a constantly masked Spider-Man.

Oh it's definitely Raimi alright. I've even heard him saying somewhere (probably the commentary for Spider-Man 2) that he doesn't like having Spidey keep the mask on for too long at any given time because he feels the audience will lose their connection to Peter.

 

[Dark Spidey]

Thats an obvious risk when making any movie. According to the majority of most of Raimi's fans sm1 and 2 were awesome yet with the same cast and crew behind 3, they thought 3 sucked.

I personally don't think that Spider-Man 3 sucked. It rounded out the trilogy quite nicely. But I do think that Raimi and his stars are getting abit too comfortable in their positions and that it's time for a fresh approach as to avoid the same mistakes of the Batman franchise.

 

[NinjaCarm]

Are you girls finished about your disappointments, damn saps?

Man you have a lot of posts which I'm sure were mostly whiny girl-sk type of complaining rants.

Shaddup.

 

[L0ngsh0t]

That's a possibility, true enough. But at this point i'd rather that chance be taken than Spider-Man 4 doing a Batman & Robin.

Spiderman 3 however is a far cry from Batman Forever, as a matter of fact its a far cry from the level of cry from any of the aimless meandering any of the original Batman's where

not up to par with the first two but still head and shoulders about about 85 percent of the comic bo0k adaptations we get

 

[Dark Spidey]

Spiderman 3 however is a far cry from Batman Forever, as a matter of fact its a far cry from the level of cry from any of the aimless meandering any of the original Batman's where

not up to par with the first two but still head and shoulders about about 85 percent of the comic bo0k adaptations we get

I like Batman Forever.

And Spider-Man 3 better than Batman and Batman Returns...!? I strongly disagree. It's better than the Schumacher films, i'll give you that. But no where near as classic as the first two.

Aimless meandering? Please elaborate.

 

[L0ngsh0t]

I like Batman Forever.

And Spider-Man 3 better than Batman and Batman Returns...!? I strongly disagree. It's better than the Schumacher films, i'll give you that. But no where near as classic as the first two.

Aimless meandering? Please elaborate.

essentially with Returns there seems to be no point in sight especially for Batman, it just kind of seems like pacing along one Burtonesque set after another until the very lackluster finale...the first Batman is okay but such an inaccurate portrayal of the Joker makes me want to vomit, however the depiction, and story of Batman is fine...while Joker is a clown he is by no means goofy, he's about one of the most saddistic men in all of literature, and they pretty much (big thanks to TB here) made him a goof off with one lame gag after another...i like SM3 better

 

[Visionary]

Look at them geeks go, my comic book movie is better than your comic book movie. Settle yourselves, you damn fools, settle.

 

[Gotham]

Hurm...

Sam Raimi is still good in my book, though. I don't care what the man did to the franchise; his work on the first sequel was superb.

 

[JerseyJoker]

You people forget that it only took 2 years from Spidey 1 to Spidey 2, and Spidey 2 is considered the absolute best of the trilogy thus far?

So with the right writer, it can be done well.

Specially, since he was the writer behind, the best movie of 2007, Zodiac. :-D

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

I always loved that panel. It truly is hilarious, lol. t:

 

[Mr Jide]

spideyhero is paraphrasing my quotes once again...

 

[Gamma Warrior]

You people forget that it only took 2 years from Spidey 1 to Spidey 2, and Spidey 2 is considered the absolute best of the trilogy thus far?

So with the right writer, it can be done well.

Specially, since he was the writer behind, the best movie of 2007, Zodiac. :-D

Yeah, 2 years is plenty of time for a sequel. Lizard is a must!

 

[Boom]

I'm keeping reservations on this decision. On one hand, he wrote Zodiac, which was great. On the other hand, he wrote Darkness Falls, which was god awful.

I'm really hoping this one lives up to what Spider-Man 3 should have been (my opinion).

 

[ThatDamnNinja]

I'm keeping reservations on this decision. On one hand, he wrote Zodiac, which was great. On the other hand, he wrote Darkness Falls, which was god awful.

I'm really hoping this one lives up to what Spider-Man 3 should have been (my opinion).

Think of writers in terms of people. Writer's grow. Go with their more recent work as a better indicator of their abilities.

 

[Visionary]

Well, he's not going to be able to grow as a writer, if Marvel and Sony keeps babying Spider-Man, and not let the movie have any balls, by catering to plush toy buyers. I would love it if this writer could inject elements like that of Zodiac into Spider-Man. My guess is, Marvel and Sony will be looking over his shoulders and saying..."we can't do that, we have Spider-Twinkies to sell, with red and blue filling."

 

[ThatDamnNinja]

Well, he's not going to be able to grow as a writer, if Marvel and Sony keeps babying Spider-Man, and not let the movie have any balls, by catering to plush toy buyers. I would love it if this writer could inject elements like that of Zodiac into Spider-Man. My guess is, Marvel and Sony will be looking over his shoulders and saying..."we can't do that, we have Spider-Twinkies to sell, with red and blue filling."

WB is merchandising the hell out The Dark Knight, but don't seem to be interfering with it too much in terms of content. Obviously, Spider-Man is a different animal altogether, but I think Spider-Man could be appropriately dark for Lizard and Kraven, within the constraints of PG-13, and what will sell. It'll push it, but it could stay within the constraints.

And making it really dark and good writing are not necessarily correlated. I was referring to the fact that, Zodiac, at the simplest level, simply has a better script than Darkness Falls, indicating that the guy has developed a better sense of what makes for good dialogue and what doesn't, and how best to frame a story effectively.

 

[Visionary]

For Spider-Man, this writer's focus should be on his Zodiac work (but in Spidey's world of course) in terms of character dialogue and drama. I have no idea what the hell Darkness Falls is, nor do I care. What I don't want is, him coming up with something much more adult-oriented and risky, and Marvel/Sony rejecting it. In fact, that should be their goal. There should be elements within SM4 that we've never seen in SM1-SM3.

WB is merchandising the hell out The Dark Knight, but don't seem to be interfering with it too much in terms of content.

I'll let you know how much they interfere when I see the movie...I'm still waitng for a dark and gritty Batman 5 movies in.

 

[ThatDamnNinja]

For Spider-Man, this writer's focus should be on his Zodiac work (but in Spidey's world of course) in terms of character dialogue and drama. I have no idea what the hell Darkness Falls is, nor do I care. What I don't want is, him coming up with something much more adult-oriented and risky, and Marvel/Sony rejecting it. In fact, that should be their goal. They're should be elements within SM4 that we've never seen in SM1-SM3.I'll let you know how much they interfer when I see the movie...I'm still waitng for a dark and gritty batman 5 movies in.

Your assessment of the Batman movies is fair... but Spider-Man is not Batman. For Batman, Begins may not have been dark and gritty enough. For Spider-Man, Begins would have been TOO gritty.

Keep in mind, it's still Spider-Man... but with this writer, I don't think we're in that much danger of it being too kid-friendly. History shows that the most financially successful comic book movies are the ones that treat the source material with respect, so the studios should know this by now. With the Schumacher Batmans, there wasn't really enough history for them to go off of, so they were kind of fumbling around aimlessly in regards to creative direction of the movies.

 

[Visionary]

I disagree, just imagine if Marvel and Sony had the balls to do Kraven's Last Hunt on film. The audience would love it and be floored at the same time. That's what I mean by adult-oriented and risky, and no one can say that this wouldn't happen in Spidey's comics, because it did.

And my point is not to make Spider-Man dark and gritty, however, you can make the elements that surrounds some of his villains a hell of lot more intense...and ballsy. And you can actually do this with a PG-13 rating, the latest BOURNE movie proved that.

Personally, I didn't find anything in BB dark enough, not even for Spider-Man, namely, because studios are too fucused on selling toys to kids, so the movies loses quite a bit of flair. At least for me it does.

 

[(S)laughter 99]

They should follow the 3 year pattern - 2004, 2007, 2010

Actually Spidey 1 came out in May 2002. Spidey 2 in June 2004. That's only two years.

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

spideyhero is paraphrasing my quotes once again...

No I'm not, I'm just posting how I felt about that panel. I did realise that it sounded quite similar to what you said, but I never meant it to.