The Amazing Spider-Man TDK is the REAL reason for the reboot

[Doc Samson]

Am I missing something here? Wasn't Spiderman the launch pad for the current state of comic book movies everywhere? Yes X-men, and to a lesser extent Blade, reopened some doors, but Raimi's tale was the one that kicked it off the hinges, and everybody loved it, what the hell happened?

I'll tell you exactly what happened, TDK came out, and since then, EVERY comic film needs to be taken more serious with a darker tone. They want to do it to Superman, they want to do it with Spiderman, and to even suggest it goes against everything these characters stand for.

There's really no other explanation, because from a financial standpoint, Spiderman 3 was the most successful of the whole trilogy (at least in terms of worldwide revenue, domestically was a different case). Every single other reboot was a result of poor box office performance. The Hulk underperformed, Batman & Robin certainly did, even the last couple Bond films were poorly received. You can't tell me from a studio standpoint, that they really care that much about critical response versus monetary gain. If that were the case, we wouldn't have had a Transformers 2 with a third on the horizon.

Not only that, but the argument itself for this reboot doesn't even make sense. Half of you seem to want an even sillier, funny, one-liner spewing Spiderman, while the other half, and presumably Sony as well, thought Spiderman 3 was too goofy and childish already

This isn't really about liking Raimi's portrayal or not, I think we can all agree he did some good and some bad, but to reboot and try to make this character something he's not, is a direct result of the perceived competition between two properties that couldn't be any more different. More "gritty" or "contemporary" Sony? Really? Just be careful what you wish for...

 

[VenomVsSpidey]

actually it was batman begins that did this

but yes, since tdk, having cheese in superhero films = FAIL.

ppppsssyyyccchhhheeee

 

[Crook]

Funny, I have yet to see a comic book film being affected by TDK. And if this were true, SM4 would've never been given the go-ahead.

Things fell through between Raimi and Sony. Period. Let's hop off Batman's nuts.

 

[Doc Samson]

actually it was batman begins that did this

but yes, since tdk, having cheese in superhero films = FAIL.

ppppsssyyyccchhhheeee

So true, but what happens when you have a character with inherent cheesiness in them, like a Superman or Spiderman? It's who they are, Peter Parker isn't Bruce Wayne or Tony Starks. I just think they're heading in a treacherous direction...

 

[The Joker]

Things fell through between Raimi and Sony. Period. Let's hop off Batman's nuts.

But it's easier to use a scapegoat, rather than accept Spider-Man 4's shortcomings are what killed it.

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

Let's hop off Batman's nuts.

Why should we? It's true. I mean ,the simple fact that Sony wants the reboot to be more like a TDk style story. It's as I said, S-M4 DID NOT need to be rebooted.

 

[Doc Samson]

Funny, I have yet to see a comic book film being affected by TDK. And if this were true, SM4 would've never been given the go-ahead.

Things fell through between Raimi and Sony. Period. Let's hop off Batman's nuts.

Your seeing it right now, things fell through with Raimi and Sony and they still had a pretty profitable film on their hands with SM3. Can you show me anywhere else in film history that a tentpole movie made that much money and there wasn't a direct sequel?

 

[kguillou]

It is kinda weird that sony didnt just leave sam alone with this movie. Even though all the fans mock SM3, it made a buttload of money, so for Sony it made no difference. For all they know SM3 was a classic film. So with that said, it does make you wonder, what exactly made Sam and Sony split ways?

 

[amazingfantasy15]

It was going to take Raimi too long to get the movie in front of cameras and released, so the film rights would have reverted back to Marvel, Sony obviously doesn't want to let go of the Spidey cashcow, that's what's happening here.

 

[StarkTheProdigy]

I saw this thread and literally

The Dark Knight was great, i'll give you that, but honestly, i don't consider it a comic book/superhero movie. It was a gangster movie. Why did everyone love it? I can tell you its not because of batman, it was because of the performance of Heath Ledger as the joker, at least thats why a majority of the people loved it. The Dark Knight had a wonderful and intelligent story, but for movies like Spider-Man, and other lighter comic book movies, if they went darker, it would not work. Plus, if all the comic book movies tried to by like the Dark Knight, the movie itself would no longer be original. Im sorry, and i'll probably get bashed by all the TDK fans, i loved TDK, but i honestly think it shouldn't be considered a comicbook movie, they went down a path of making it super realistic and dark, and when i go to see a comic book movie, i'm expecting to see a movie that is both realistic, but also has that comicbook feeling to it.

 

[Doc Samson]

It was going to take Raimi too long to get the movie in front of cameras and released, so the film rights would have reverted back to Marvel, Sony obviously doesn't want to let go of the Spidey cashcow, that's what's happening here.

While that's true, it still doesn't explain why a full reboot is necessary? Why couldn't they have just recast with a new director and continued? Why is it so necessary to redo what we've already seen, and do it in a darker fashion? The only real answer is that they feel that's what moviegoers want now

 

[Man of Tomorrow]

Good.


TDK is better than anything Raimi has done with Spidey.


There are a lot worse things that TDK being the new standard to top for superhero Hollywood filmmaking.

 

[Doc Samson]

I saw this thread and literally

The Dark Knight was great, i'll give you that, but honestly, i don't consider it a comic book/superhero movie. It was a gangster movie. Why did everyone love it? I can tell you its not because of batman, it was because of the performance of Heath Ledger as the joker, at least thats why a majority of the people loved it. The Dark Knight had a wonderful and intelligent story, but for movies like Spider-Man, and other lighter comic book movies, if they went darker, it would not work. Plus, if all the comic book movies tried to by like the Dark Knight, the movie itself would no longer be original. Im sorry, and i'll probably get bashed by all the TDK fans, i loved TDK, but i honestly think it shouldn't be considered a comicbook movie, they went down a path of making it super realistic and dark, and when i go to see a comic book movie, i'm expecting to see a movie that is both realistic, but also has that comicbook feeling to it.

I totally agree, that's what I'm trying to say in this post, Spiderman and Superman are not those type of characters. But the studio proclaims the next film as more "serious" and the script is described in tone with TDK, what other explanation is there for this reboot?

 

[Dark_Lord]

Spider-Man 4 would be the last Spider-Man movie for Raimi and the cast. After that Sony would, obviously (they made a lot of money), want to keep making more Spider-Man movies. Since neither Raimi or the cast would be back after 4, they thought they should do a reboot instead. Which, imo, is better than making sequels if the cast and director will change.

Now since they (Sony and Raimi) were having problems with Spider-Man 4 and since it looked like it was going to turn into another Spider-Man 3, they decided to part ways (Raimi got fired, Raimi left, it was mutual, we don't know, I don't care).

After that, Sony decided to go forward with the reboot they were planning to do after Spider-Man 4 and it's, imo, better that way. What would be the point of making Spider-Man 4 without Raimi and especially since the cast wouldn't return for a 5th? Why not do the reboot now? It's not like they'd wait 10 years after Spider-Man 4 to do it.

TDK isn't to blame for the reboot. Not at all. If you want to blame TDK for something, blame it for everyone saying they want to make a comic book movie in a similar tone, which still isn't it's fault, but whatever.

 

[StarkTheProdigy]

true, i just think sony needs to be original, i mean in 2007 every super hero movie that came out had the same thing, "choice" they just need to come up with something fresh, and if it takes them another 10 years to do it, its worth it

 

[Crook]

Your seeing it right now, things fell through with Raimi and Sony and they still had a pretty profitable film on their hands with SM3. Can you show me anywhere else in film history that a tentpole movie made that much money and there wasn't a direct sequel?

Raimi WALKED. What you're seeing is Sony handling the situation after the fact. The cast was not likely to go ahead with a fourth without Raimi. And even so, the 4th would most likely be the last film, paving the way for a new series anyway. It was the better move to go in a new direction now, than to try and salvage a broken up crew.

Using TDK as a scapegoat is scraping the bottom of the barrel here. I understand the film was referenced in regards to the next film's tone, but SM4 was well ahead in talks by the time TDK was a huge hit. It's your right to cry over absolutely nothing right now, but I think I'll hold my thoughts on Spidey-turned-Bat when I actually see it.

 

[Doc Samson]

Spider-Man 4 would be the last Spider-Man movie for Raimi and the cast. After that Sony would, obviously (they made a lot of money), want to keep making more Spider-Man movies. Since neither Raimi or the cast would be back after 4, they thought they should do a reboot instead. Which, imo, is better than making sequels if the cast and director will change.

Now since they (Sony and Raimi) were having problems with Spider-Man 4 and since it looked like it was going to turn into another Spider-Man 3, they decided to part ways (Raimi got fired, Raimi left, it was mutual, we don't know, I don't care).

After that, Sony decided to go forward with the reboot they were planning to do after Spider-Man 4 and it's, imo, better that way. What would be the point of making Spider-Man 4 without Raimi and especially since the cast wouldn't return for a 5th? Why not do the reboot now? It's not like they'd wait 10 years after Spider-Man 4 to do it.

TDK isn't to blame for the reboot. Not at all. If you want to blame TDK for something, blame it for everyone saying the want to make a comic book movie in a similar tone, which still isn't it's fault, but whatever.

A reboot isn't the problem, a reboot with a serious dark tone is the problem. Furthermore, a new cast and director doesn't mean they even had to address the previous 3 films, they could have hit the ground running and did whatever they wanted to, but once you start talking about eliminating the "laughs" or making Spiderman anything other than a one-liner spewing wisecrack, well, your not really talking about Spiderman at all anymore

 

[Doc Samson]

Raimi WALKED. What you're seeing is Sony handling the situation after the fact. The cast was not likely to go ahead with a fourth without Raimi. And even so, the 4th would most likely be the last film, paving the way for a new series anyway. It was the better move to go in a new direction now, than to try and salvage a broken up crew.

Using TDK as a scapegoat is scraping the bottom of the barrel here. I understand the film was referenced in regards to the next film's tone, but SM4 was well ahead in talks by the time TDK was a huge hit. It's your right to cry over absolutely nothing right now, but I think I'll hold my thoughts on Spidey-turned-Bat when I actually see it.

And I guess it's your right to have that condescending attitude, but the fact remains that whether Raimi walked or not, whether it's a new cast or not, and whether they reboot it to high school or beyond, when they say they want a Spiderman that's more serious, gritty, contemporary & dark, that doesn't describe any Spiderman I've ever read in my life

 

[Doctor Jones]

I hate this "gritty" word they used in the description. Ugh, do they even know what this word means? Much less reboot?

Spider-Man isn't and shouldn't be gritty. Once againk studios doesn't know what the hell makes a good movie.

 

[Crook]

And I guess it's your right to have that condescending attitude, but the fact remains that whether Raimi walked or not, whether it's a new cast or not, and whether they reboot it to high school or beyond, when they say they want a Spiderman that's more serious, gritty, contemporary & dark, that doesn't describe any Spiderman I've ever read in my life

They want a serious and gritty contemporary film. All that tells me is they want to go in a different direction in terms of tone. Whereas Raimi's was a cheery and bright live-action cartoon, they want to handle it with a more dramatic flair ala TDK. Which if you've read any semi-dark Spidey story, fits the mythos just fine.

This says nothing at all about the handling of the character, who is inherently optimistic, witty, and funny. When I hear those words, THEN it's within good reason to worry.

 

[Dark_Lord]

They want a serious and gritty contemporary film. All that tells me is they want to go in a different direction in terms of tone. Whereas Raimi's was a cheery and bright live-action cartoon, they want to handle it with a more dramatic flair ala TDK. Which if you've read any semi-dark Spidey story, fits the mythos just fine.

This says nothing at all about the handling of the character, who is inherently optimistic, witty, and funny. When I hear those words, THEN it's within good reason to worry.

 

[Catman]

But it's easier to use a scapegoat, rather than accept Spider-Man 4's shortcomings are what killed it.

Just cause the script for Spider-Man 4 had shortcomings doesn't mean they had to restart the franchise. If Sony and Raimi couldn't agree on things then just replace him. Simple as that. It wouldn't be the first time a sequel had a new director. If Maguire left, then who cared? It wouldn't be the first time a sequel had a new actor in the lead role.

 

[Doc Samson]

They want a serious and gritty contemporary film. All that tells me is they want to go in a different direction in terms of tone. Whereas Raimi's was a cheery and bright live-action cartoon, they want to handle it with a more dramatic flair ala TDK. Which if you've read any semi-dark Spidey story, fits the mythos just fine.

This says nothing at all about the handling of the character, who is inherently optimistic, witty, and funny. When I hear those words, THEN it's within good reason to worry.

Now this is true, although I find it hard to contemplate how an inherently witty funny wisecracking character can fit in a darker, more gritty film. And let's be clear, TDK is my favorite comic film to date, but IMO, the same effect Watchmen & TDKR had on comics, can be the same effect that starts to undermine comic films. It's a copycat industry, and you can't reasonably assume that studios won't turn Spiderman into something else entirely if it meant ticket sales, they destroy characters all the time

 

[Doc Samson]

just cause the script for spider-man 4 had shortcomings doesn't mean they had to restart the franchise. If sony and raimi couldn't agree on things then just replace him. Simple as that. It wouldn't be the first time a sequel had a new director. If maguire left, then who cared? It wouldn't be the first time a sequel had a new actor in the lead role.

qft

 

[Dark_Lord]

Just cause the script for Spider-Man 4 had shortcomings doesn't mean they had to restart the franchise. If Sony and Raimi couldn't agree on things then just replace him. Simple as that. It wouldn't be the first time a sequel had a new director. If Maguire left, then who cared? It wouldn't be the first time a sequel had a new actor in the lead role.

If the director and cast of the previous movies will leave, then why make a sequel?