The Official "I Loved Raimi's Spider-Man' Thread - Part 1 of 99 Luft - Part 8

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

I can't believe this is even a debate.

Of course Sony wanted to make Spider-man 4. They set a release date, got the principal actors back and had Raimi working rigourously on a script.

I don't care what the critical reaction to Spider-man 3 was (which was never as bad a fanboys like to make out), the movie made just over $890 dollars at the box office. It was a huge success where it counts.

The reboot notion only started drifting into Sony's head when the production became troubled... thus Raimi feeling the divide and pressure left.

 

[The Joker]

Well to be fair there's only one person arguing this

 

[Anno_Domini]

And to be fair, I only say this because Sam Raimi himself even said he knew Sony was working on a reboot anyways

"I don't want to make a movie that is less than great, so I think we shouldn't make this picture. Go ahead with your reboot, which you've been planning anyway."

 

[Anno_Domini]

I sure do: http://collider.com/the-dark-knight-rises-marion-cotillard-joseph-gordon-levitt/

You mean an article that got debunked because they were trying to keep Marion being Talia a secret? That's very different than the Vulture/Vulturess article.

 

[Dragon]

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?

Yeah, that's pretty much it. Sam saw the writing on the wall and that he wasn't going to have the full creative control that Sony promised. So he figured it was best to walk.

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.

I guess Warners might be a little more flexible since they own DC Comics and are connected to the source material. But let's also face it, money talks. TDK was a Godzilla-monster success, so they knew not to screw with Nolan.

 

[Dragon]

And to be fair, I only say this because Sam Raimi himself even said he knew Sony was working on a reboot anyways

Sony had to have a reboot planned. Even if Spidey 4 had happened, it was highly unlikely any of the principals would've been back for another.

Spider-Man had made Sony a cool 3 billion dollars. They weren't going to let the character go.

 

[The Joker]

You mean an article that got debunked because they were trying to keep Marion being Talia a secret? That's very different than the Vulture/Vulturess article.

Oh Christ, you are impossible! Can't stand to be proven wrong can you. You asked for an article that got one casting right and one wrong. You got it. It doesn't matter if it eventually got debunked. It got debunked because the movie went ahead and they had a secret to keep. Spider-Man 4 never got to the stage of officially casting Hathaway.

End of story.

 

[Anno_Domini]

Yeah, that's pretty much it. Sam saw the writing on the wall and that he wasn't going to have the full creative control that Sony promised. So he figured it was best to walk.

Ahh, okay. So that makes sense than. Raimi wanted to use Vulture and Black Cat, but Sony forced their hand and what Sam said recently was just what character he would've used if Sony didn't stick their noses into the creative process and all. Okay, so that is very enlightening then. Thanks

I guess Warners might be a little more flexible since they own DC Comics and are connected to the source material. But let's also face it, money talks. TDK was a Godzilla-monster success, so they knew not to screw with Nolan.

They learned not to really "screw" with Nolan for Batman Begins either, though. Warner Brothers could have tried to put in their two scents since that's what they pretty much had done with the previous two Batman flicks before BB, but WB seems to be letting the directors and writers do what they do best, but sometimes it can bite(Green Lantern, Jonah Hex).

Sony had to have a reboot planned. Even if Spidey 4 had happened, it was highly unlikely any of the principals would've been back for another.

Spider-Man had made Sony a cool 3 billion dollars. They weren't going to let the character go.

I thought so, but I just have this feeling that the reboot was planned since the criticism of S-M 3 was heard as it didn't rival Raimi's first two films, but that could just be me. Either way, Sony was definitely thinking of a reboot even while Raimi thought he could get a S-M 4 on track.

Oh Christ, you are impossible! Can't stand to be proven wrong can you. You asked for an article that got one casting right and one wrong. You got it. It doesn't matter if it eventually got debunked. It got debunked because the movie went ahead and they had a secret to keep. Spider-Man 4 never got to the stage of officially casting Hathaway.

End of story.

If you wanna say so.

 

[henzINNIT]

And to be fair, I only say this because Sam Raimi himself even said he knew Sony was working on a reboot anyways

We all knew this.

The reboot was being planned as a cheaper, more sustainable way to retain the rights and sell tickets. Sony knew they were gonna have to do this eventually, but don't misconstrue their eagerness to reboot as some kind of slight on SM4. Companies don't start expensive development on projects to kill time, they do it to make a movie. SM4 fell through because Raimi felt the thing wasn't coming together quick enough to make a great film and bailed.

It'd be nice to see Raimi directly address the Vultress story to end this debate, but right now I'd say we can assume that if true, it wasn't his idea. Raimi left because the script wasn't working afterall.

 

[webhead731]

Does anyone have a bigger, more high res version of this? Or even other high res versions of the promo art?

 

[ThePhantasm]

The way Spidey's right arm is bent backwards there looks a little painful...

 

[SpideyVille]

The way Spidey's right arm is bent backwards there looks a little painful...

I think Rob Liefeld was behind this one.

 

[A Necessary Evil]

Nah, he doesn't have massive thunder thighs and huge pectoral man ****.

 

[SpideyVille]

True, although the more I look at it, the more I see that the hands are either backwards or they just blend in too much to give a weird illusion.

 

[A Necessary Evil]

I think they just screwed up, like the mirror spider-man image from SM1.

 

[Anno_Domini]

Anyone else believe the publicity of Spider-Man even went down compared to the '02 film and the '12 film? I remember Spidey was just all over the place with Raimi's film and not so much with Webb's, as you would think that wouldn't be the case with Sony trying to promote a reboot.

But, I guess you could chalk it up as the same with Batman '89 and Batman Begins...Batman didn't seem like he was promoted quite enough for Nolan's reboot either.

Thoughts?

 

[ThePhantasm]

Yeah, I don't know what it is. Marketing for superhero films used to be a huge event (Batman '89 started that with the whole "bat craze"). Now films like TASM and MOS seem like a little blip on the radar. They are being marketed, but not with the size and scope to make them a sensation creating worldwide hype. Maybe that kind of marketing is too risky, I dunno. It worked for Batman '89, it worked for Spider-Man, and it worked for The Dark Knight....

 

[Anno_Domini]

I had no idea what the marketing was like for Superman: The Movie, so I couldn't dare to make that kind of comparison between the two Superman films, but the S-M/TAS-M and Batman '89/BB comparisons seem completely fair...it's just a bothersome to think all the hype the '02 film received and now these days you only feel hype from websites and not all over the place as was the case back in the day.

 

[Dragon]

In the case of Batman '89 though, it was also fan response. It was the first film after the Star Wars trilogy that had folks going to the movies only to see the trailer. I remember at the time seeing on the news how folks were buying tickets to see the trailer and then walking out on the films they ran with. WB knew that had a monster on their hands after that and they kicked the promotions into high gear.

Same with Spidey '02. I think there's simply a newness factor involved. I was at a bar a few weeks back and started talking movies with a guy there. When we got to TASM he made the standard response. He didn't see it because there was no point in retreading old material.

 

[SpideyVille]

I think its also important to note that back then, superhero movies were a novelty. The fandom was there for comic book readers, but the general public needed to be sold on the idea of costumed characters delivering an enjoyable film experience. I'd argue that as great as SM2 was, it wasn't until the huge success of TDK that superhero movies really got on the map.

Not to mention, with Marvel doing all of their prep stuff for the Avengers and basically releasing a movie or two every year, the market started to fluctuate and social media really took off so there hasn't been much need to over-hype movies, since people do it themselves now. Like all my friends who are the casual movie-goers now there's a Superman movie coming out. they may not know who's in it or what's it about, but they know it exists, and once the commercials start playing on TV and the trailers fill up the theaters, they'll definitely talk about going to see it.

 

[Dragon]

Actually, it was Superman '78 that put comic films on the map. After Superman's success there was a wave of comic characters being brought to the screen in big budget films. Buck Rogers, Flash Gordon, Popeye. As well as TV movies. Batman '89 extended reinvigorated the comic book genre, but Hollywood began figuring that the films needed to be darker. Thus subjects like Judge Dredd, Blade and The Crow. Spidey 1 was really the next watershed in the evolution of comic movies due to its record performance. Since Spidey there hasn't been any slow down in production of comic-based movies as there was after Superman and the first Batman series began burning out. Even though there have certainly been comic based flops, there's no end in sight since Spidey.

 

[henzINNIT]

Watched Spider-Man again last night. Love that film.

 

[Vid Electricz]

Yeah, that's pretty much it. Sam saw the writing on the wall and that he wasn't going to have the full creative control that Sony promised. So he figured it was best to walk.


I guess Warners might be a little more flexible since they own DC Comics and are connected to the source material. But let's also face it, money talks. TDK was a Godzilla-monster success, so they knew not to screw with Nolan.

WB did have ideas they tried to push on Nolan though. They had really wanted to cast Leonardo Dicaprio as the Riddler and Nolan had to fight against this. The studio execs are a bunch of meddlesome "yes men" who have NO idea what makes a good film. They come up with these bull**** ideas and try to push them to validate their existence.


I feel that Raimi was more or less backed into a corner as far as using the symbiote/Venom goes. He really wouldn't have if he'd had the choice. Just think how great SM3 would have been with Sandman and Harry as the villains WITH Raimi having the same amount of control that he did in SM1 & SM2. Would have been a CLASSIC trilogy of amazing films. Thanks Arad.

Watched Spider-Man again last night. Love that film.

Damn straight!

 

[Anno_Domini]

WB did have ideas they tried to push on Nolan though. They had really wanted to cast Leonardo Dicaprio as the Riddler and Nolan had to fight against this. The studio execs are a bunch of meddlesome "yes men" who have NO idea what makes a good film. They come up with these bull**** ideas and try to push them to validate their existence.

No one is saying WB didn't have any of their own ideas, but Nolan has been someone to actually say 'No.' to them and the studio listened.

 

[Human Torch]

If I remember right,WB wanted a love interest in BB,so they did make some demands of Nolan in the beginning.