Discussion in 'Spider-Man 1, 2 & 3' started by Thread Manager, Jan 10, 2013.
I wonder how different things would have been had SM3 actually been a success.
Well, I wouldn't say it was a failure, persay. It wasn't loved, but it didn't flop and got average reviews.
Well that's what I mean. What would have happened everyone loved SM3? Would we have seen some of the same issues ultimately leading to the decision to reboot it, or would they have given Raimi more creative freedom to make his movie his way.
But my question is that in the same article confirming Malkovich to be Vulture, it states Hathaway to be the "Vulturess", so why would someone be right with one and not with the other?
We would have had a Spider-Man 4. But I would rather think of this: if Spider-Man 3 had Vulture instead of Venom, who would have been the villain in a fourth installment if S-M 3 was as big of a hit with critics as Raimi's first two Spidey films?
The box office didn't mean a thing apparently as that didn't keep a fourth film from being made and Sony still had eyes on rebooting it, and as average as anyone wants to call it, it's a 63% on RT compared to a 89% for Spider-Man and a 93% for Spider-Man 2. That RT score right there shows me that yes, S-M 3 was a failure.
And for all the comparisons some try to make with S-M 3 and TDKR, at least TDKR can be viewed to be right in the middle of the TDK trilogy with BB being 85%, TDK being 94% and TDKR being 87%.
Going back to my original question, I think it depended on how much studio involvement was in that film. I mean if they did do Vulture (which I think now would have much more sense in terms of teaming up villains) instead of Venom, then Sam would have had his way and would have gain the trusted of TPTB had that film been a success.
But then again, you have to wonder if they would have tried to force Venom into SM4 and if the results would have been the same. But I think Lizard was definitely next on the list. I really can't seem Sam promoting a movie with someone like Shocker or Rhino before doing someone with a more personal attachment with Peter.
What my recollection is of the events was that Raimi wanted the film to feature the Lizard. The studio nixed the Lizard because they felt it was too bizarre. Then as plan B Raimi wanted the Vulture. In either case, he apparently wanted Black Cat.
But the studio wanted a connection between the Cat and Vulture (One of the scripts that Raimi was unhappy with) and wanted Felicia to be the Vulture's daughter. Thus, Black Cat would be Vultress.
Again, Raimi was the one who didn't like any of the scripts Sony was tossing at him, didn't think he could make the deadline, so he opted out.
I'm sure they would have. Look at the Carte Blanche that Nolan got for TDKR.
The studio started second guessing Raimi again, so rather than have another SM3 fiasco, he pulled out. As he's been saying, his love for the character is too deep to do two films he was unhappy with.
So what Raimi is saying is if he had it his way, he would have used Black Cat even though Hathaway would probably have been The Vulturess if Sony had it their way? What Sam is trying to say is he would've used Black Cat if Sony didn't force their hand, correct?
It really does seem Sony and FOX like to push their opinions and ideas into a film while Warner Brothers seem to be very open, especially with Nolan's trilogy.
Not really lol. A fourth film was being made, however what stopped it wasn't the lack of box office success, nor mixed critical reaction. It was sony, and sony butting on on who Raimi could use again, and Sam, feeling he couldn't make a fourth movie that was both pleasing to the fans and himself, bowed out. Now, they could have continued, but then Maguire and Dunst bowed out after Raimi left, hence the reboot. Also, a critical failure is a panning, which this movie wasn't. Yeah, I know you hate it cause it butchered a crap character and yadayadayada, but it's not really as hated as you'd like (or want) to believe. It's more than likely not gonna make anyone's top ten anytime soon, yes, but it's not the absolute failure others make it out to be.
Yes really. If Spider-Man 3 had great critical success, you're crazy if you think Sony was still going to go ahead and reboot a very critically acclaimed franchise. One bomber and that's the reason Sony split hairs and decided for a reboot. They're not going to try and pull a Batman Forever or Superman III and spit out an even more embarrassing sequel. Sadly, I'm a realist...I know Sony blames Raimi because of S-M 3 being a stinker to the critics and they're absolutely wrong for thinking that.
Uh-huh. Now, why was Spider-Man 4 in production if they had no plans to make it, exactly?
They had a set release date, actors confirmed for parts, and scripts (that were being re-written, naturally.)
Sony didn't cancel SM4 because SM3. Sony ended SM4 because Raimi left, Tobey left, and Dunst left.
Anno, Spider-Man 4 was a go. Raimi was even happy that Sony had given him full creative control: http://blogs.coventrytelegraph.net/thegeekfiles/2009/03/raimi-i-will-have-total-creati.html
i don´t think so ,we were going to get SM4 but aside the fact that Sam couldn´t make it for 2011 and the cast left, imho , Tobey was not in shape to be Spider-man , maybe he could´ve get in shape for SM4 but imagine maybe the possibility of SM4 beeing as good as SM2 , Spiderman 5 would´ve released arround this year and the next but Tobey would´ve been too old for the role , don´t you think?
Andrew may be in his 30´s but he seems young and if they are still playing it as a trilogy he can leave without looking too old...idk
I remember seeing a set photo of tobey filming something else around 2009, and he looked really slim and much younger than he did in SM3. I'll see if I can find it.
i think it was Brothers isn´t it?
imagine in a parallel universe were Spider-man 4 released with Sam directing but with the bad script that they proposed?
also wasn´t James Vanderbilt working on SM 4 before TASM?
Nah, he had a red collared shirt, and I think a tan overcoat. Couldn't have been brothers. Though he looked good in that too.
Raimi knew Sony was already planning on making the reboot, he even mentioned it on an article posted earlier in this thread. There HAD to be a reason Sony was working on a reboot in the backburner just waiting for Raimi to leave.
Going out of topic, but I have to ask this now.
So what does that mean now? Did Raimi plan on using "The Vulturess"?
The original plan was to make SM4+SM5 back to back, then reboot.
So yeah, they renewed contracts, brought in new actors, set a release date...all so they could reboot. Right.
I thought this Vulturess stuff was debunked when he said he wanted Anne Hathaway for Black Cat.
I thought the original original plan was to make 6 films in total. The shooting of SM4 and SM5 together was something that came later on to fight the fact that Tobey was aging and wouldn't be the same in three years for another sequel.
So was Raimi just being paranoid saying he knew Sony had plans to make a reboot anyways?
Dragon made a mention of how Raimi wanted to use Black Cat but Sony was forcing their hand again and that could be something that went wrong, BUT...if Raimi said he has full control in that article in '09, then Hathaway being chimed in as Vulturess in 2010 raises more questions, don't you think?
I know there was a lot of talk from both Raimi and Arad about six films.
What questions though? The Vulturess stuff was obviously false rumors. It happens.
Remember JGL was being touted as Alberto Falcone for TDKR: http://www.slashfilm.com/joseph-gordonlevitt-alberto-falcone-the-dark-knight-rises/
Unless you've seen someone credible associated with these movies say Vulturess was going to be done at one point, it's all unconfirmed rumor.
The article that states who's going to be Vulture and Vulturess and the former ends up being right...know of any article that gets one thing right and the other wrong?
I sure do: http://collider.com/the-dark-knight-rises-marion-cotillard-joseph-gordon-levitt/