Sequels Spider-Man franchise re-boot? Possibly according to...

[Buford The Sly]

^Batman Forever?
I say complete wipe of the cast (including Simmons, and Harris) and go with what a new visionary director wants to do. You don't have to dismiss the first three but just do a different approach.

 

[Frodo]

^Batman Forever?
I say complete wipe of the cast (including Simmons, and Harris) and go with what a new visionary director wants to do. You don't have to dismiss the first three but just do a different approach.

That was my point . BF did the same thing in response to Batman Returns. In that case they kept Michael Gough and Pat Hingle but everything else pretty much changed . New approach, New lead, New Director and a new look. I wouldn't want it to be campy but the same idea of giving a fresh look.

 

[Batspider77]

My Problem with Raimi is that he sticks only to one Formula when it comes to Spidey Movies.......Peter learns a lesson has a Connection with the Villan and he has to safe MJ in the Finale Battle,and it goes like this since three Movies,thats why i getting tired of Raimi i want a new Director someone who really Knows what it means to make a Spidey Picture someone with a Vision and not the Nonsense that Raimi gave us so far.The Source Material of the Spiderman Comics has so much potantial and the most of it was wasted in the Raimi Spidey Movies.

 

[FaT_tONle]

The whole reboot/revamp is tricky. I mean if they go with new leads but the supporting actors return and it takes place several months after SM4 then its a sequel... but if they end up replacing everyone but Simmons... who may very well not be back either... then a direct sequel isn't a good idea to me. They should just pick up with new characters from the start and not really acknowledge that much in the past. Hence, no Gwen Stacey (if Byrce is gone)... No return of Goblins... no Doc Ock coming back... no symbiates returning for SM4. If they want to use Venom again they should write in Eddie Brock appearing for the first time and ignore SM3's version. Sort of like what Batman Forever was to Batman Returns.

 

[UltimateJustin]

I want the movie to be like Highlander: The Source in tone.

Also, the new movies shouldn't have any trouble not referencing the first trilogy, so you could take them as sequels or not. They should probably start out with a Peter Parker who is Spiderman, doesn't ride a bike thing, and is dating MJ and just have him fight the remaining villians like Menace, Mr. Negative and maybe borrow Kurrgan from Highlander.

 

[TomPiltoff]

Some *****e from comics2film.com doesn't know anything.

 

[FNSpidey]

People, in more than a century of film making, we've had what? Two-three franchise reboots? Just because the Batman reboot was relatively successful, we now have people pondering about a reboot of the MOST SUCCESSFUL super-hero franchise in history!

I mean, doesn't anyone use their heads anymore? I know its' the internet and all, but let's get serious here.

Anyway, I'd advise people to re-watch Batman&Robin (if they have the courage). It took THAT (plus Batman Forever) and a decade to reboot the franchise.

I liked all three Spidey films, as did most people, and like the direction they followed. That said, since the trilogy is relatively complete, I could see a new direction for the franchise. But a reboot? That's just stupid.

 

[FaT_tONle]

Yeah but some people are considering revamp the same thing as reboot... see TIH (in that it won't be an origin movie)... unless you are a person that strictly agrees that reboot means redoing the origin... which obviously won't happen. I don't consider BF a reboot to BR though.

 

[FNSpidey]

Yeah but some people are considering revamp the same thing as reboot... see TIH (in that it won't be an origin movie)... unless you are a person that strictly agrees that reboot means redoing the origin... which obviously won't happen. I don't consider BF a reboot to BR though.

Neither do I. Sadly, BF and B&R are indeed sequels to (the great) B89 and BR. Nevertheless, those films show that a franchise CAN take a drastically different approach to its subject WITHOUT rebooting.

I don't think that a new Spidey film necessarily needs a drastically different approach, although some freshness could be nice if done right. That is, NOT like the "freshness" of BF and B&R.

 

[FaT_tONle]

Well if the whole debate is whether this film will be another origin movie or not... seriously... just close the thread... and they won't repeat villains either... not until later on at least.

 

[BMM]

I agree. There's no need to--not yet.

 

[dancing_on_fire]

They should wait a little longer before making a new film, and it should definitely be a reboot. And i agree with some of you, the first should never be the heroes greatest villain. I always thought they should of used lower in the chain villains like chameleon or vulture. Sam Raimi was never a good choice, the films are only good to watch once or twice, i use to love the first film when i was younger but now i find it unbearable to watch it.

 

[Visionary]

They're NOT waiting, will you people stop saying that, they're writing the damn script now. And Batman's greatest villain(s) was used in his first movie, and now in his sequel re-boot movie. Superman's greatest villain or well-known villain was used in all 5 of his movies.

You don't reboot a mega-successful franchise, you get different/better writer(s) (and maybe director/actors) to handle pumping new blood into the next few films, while still keeping most of the continuity.

 

[Arcturus]

^

Exactly, Vis.

 

[dancing_on_fire]

They're NOT waiting, will you people stop saying that, they're writing the damn script now. And Batman's greatest villain(s) was used in his first movie, and now in his sequel re-boot movie. Superman's greatest villain or well-known villain was used in all 5 of his movies.

You don't reboot a mega-successful franchise, you get different/better writer(s) (and maybe director/actors) to handle pumping new blood into the next few films, while still keeping most of the continuity.

No offense, but a script written by a professional writer shouldn't take over 10 months to write. Do you honestly believe its taking this long to write a script. I'm pretty sure, since they've all said it now, their all taking a break, and taking spider-man 4 slowly. Their in no rush to produce it since they tied off the three films so this one will technically be fresh start and they have no deadlines. Also their not doing any negotiations as far as we've heard of director or actors. Superherohype even posted the interview with J. K simmons a month or two ago in which he hasnt been contacted yet about the fourth film.

Don't critize me or anyone else on the forums for believing that they're taking their time with the fourth. And if you think about the superman franchise, Superman returns got critisized for luthur being the villain again for the 5th time.

p.s sorry for the spelling mistakes

 

[Catman]

No offense, but a script written by a professional writer shouldn't take over 10 months to write.

Have you been living under a rock? There was a writer's strike that lasted like 3 or 4 months. Not to mention that a writer will complete several drafts.

 

[dancing_on_fire]

Have you been living under a rock? There was a writer's strike that lasted like 3 or 4 months. Not to mention that a writer will complete several drafts.

Omg, ur absolutely right lol. I just got that, Ok, i was obiviously wrong rofl. i admit defeat. It makes sense now, i seriously thought they were taking time off.

 

[Visionary]

And if you think about the superman franchise, Superman returns got critisized for luthur being the villain again for the 5th time.

I was responding to when you said these idiotic words...

the first should never be the heroes greatest villain. I always thought they should of used lower in the chain villains like chameleon or vulture.

Yeah, like they're going to put out Spider-Man's first movie with the Chameleon or Vulture, instead of Green Goblin or Doc Ock, riiight.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

There is no more popular word with fanboys than 'reboot'.

I'm sick of hearing it.

 

[UltimateJustin]

There is no more popular word with fanboys than 'reboot'.

I'm sick of hearing it.

I agree, however..

Who should play Cyrus "The Virus" Grissum in the inevitable Con Air remake?

 

[Blader5489]

No offense, but a script written by a professional writer shouldn't take over 10 months to write.

10 months? Vanderbilt was only hired 5 months ago.

 

[dancing_on_fire]

I was responding to when you said these idiotic words...Yeah, like they're going to put out Spider-Man's first movie with the Chameleon or Vulture, instead of Green Goblin or Doc Ock, riiight.

From your perspective, sure, using lesser villians like chameleon or vulture would be an idiotic thing to do if they don't plan on making sequels. But why would you start with the best and finish with whats left over if sequels are in demand? I mean take Batman begins as the perfect example of how they chose to save the Joker for the sequel and two face for a future film and since they've built batman's character up in the first film they will have plenty of time time to work on the villain as well as other main characters such as dent in this sequel. btw i didnt literally mean those two villians i simply was using them as examples, Anyone could be the candidate except green goblin, venom and Doc Ock In My opinion. Its not idiotic, but whats going to be so tempting the second time that you didn't get already in the first if they use the best villian in that? I found spider-man 2, is not nearly as good as the first as a result, but thats my opinion, not fact

 

[dancing_on_fire]

10 months? Vanderbilt was only hired 5 months ago.

Oh was it 5 months lol, fair enough, to be honest don't bother argueing with me on that, i know little about the development of the fourth film, i'd only be mostly wrong.

 

[Visionary]

From your perspective, sure, using lesser villians like chameleon or vulture would be an idiotic thing to do if they don't plan on making sequels. But why would you start with the best and finish with whats left over if sequels are in demand? I mean take Batman begins as the perfect example of how they chose to save the Joker for the sequel and two face for a future film and since they've built batman's character up in the first film they will have plenty of time time to work on the villain as well as other main characters such as dent in this sequel. btw i didnt literally mean those two villians i simply was using them as examples, Anyone could be the candidate except green goblin, venom and Doc Ock In My opinion. Its not idiotic, but whats going to be so tempting the second time that you didn't get already in the first if they use the best villian in that? I found spider-man 2, is not nearly as good as the first as a result, but thats my opinion, not fact

Why is it that I cringe everytime someone puts VENOM alongside Doc Ock and Green Goblin as Spider-Man's greatest villains--when it should be THE LIZARD? Whom I want to see 20 times more than Venom on screen! So it certainly is your opinion.

Anyway, movie goers are not sitting around with their comic books in hand and a list of which villains (lesser to greater) should or shouldn't be shown in what order on film. I know you like to think they are, but they're not. That's preserved for us, the geekish fanboys, the ones that don't really matter.

Most people couldn't even tell you the origin of Spidey's best villains, or name their story arcs, they couldn't even tell you their real names, or what issue they first appeared in, etc. It doesn't really matter as long as they know Spider-Man, and the movie entertains, and puts asses in seats. In fact, some people are more intrigued when they don't know all about a certain villain. Like Ras Al Ghul, as apposed to seeing multiple versions of Lex Luther and The Joker in every freakin' medium known to man.

 

[DACrowe]

I take this all with a grain of salt. I mean it is mentioned in a COMMENT SECTION (i.e. a section maintained for whining or gushing fans) on an obscure niche website. Tell me something when Variety or the Hollywood Reporter reports it, eh?

Anyway, right now Vanderbilt is held up somewhere on a Sony commission probably hammering out multiple versions of an outline they gave him. Will Raimi return, I honestly think it is possible as they would have begun hiring someone else by now and casting relatively soon if they're still shooting for summer 2010 (all though, I think it could be pushed later or maybe they're just being very secretive). Either way we don't know what's going on and this is all speculation.

I agree with Kev. the word reboot is used way too much amongst fanboys.

My guess is that if they do recast and get a new vision (which I'm not against), they'll just reuse Simmons, Harris, etc. to give it a sense of continuity and not flashback to the previous movies much. Why retell Spidey's origin when Raimi nailed it in SM1 (other than to get rid of those pesky organics that bother no one but the geek community)?

I mean fans are just feverish for a reboot ever since BB. Sony has the most successful film franchise of the decade (even though I'd say LOTR is better) and they should reboot it? They'll retool it and fine tune it, but it will still be a studio execuse to use a formula to print money. They aren't going to **** with it that much. And in terms of creativity the goal is to make the best movie you can. Raimi originally did not intend to make SM3 when he made SM1 and wasn't sure they would keep him around. Why assume you're going five movies (which is usually the point when a franchise goes way too long) instead of making sure you adapt the best material while you can (GG, Doc Ock and what should've been the Lizard)? Rhino over Harry? Please. General audiences don't care (except about Joker and Venom). And BB didn't reuse Joker so as to separate itself from the previous franchise, but behold, within its first sequel the clown prince has appeared and if you ar a bat-fan you should know Ra's Al Ghul is top five material.

This thread is silly.