Homecoming Was the 2012 reboot pointless?

[Spider2099]

The reboot was definitely pointless. The Spider-Man brand has never been worse in reputation critically or financially, and they didn't have to reboot period. So, yes.

Honestly I don't see why they didn't just move forward with Spider-Man 4. If I recall correctly, they wanted Sam Raimi to release the film by 2011, and he said he needed a later release date, possibly in 2012, to make a good movie. The studio refused and the movie was cancelled. Then they ended up going with the reboot and released it in 2012, which is a later date than 2011 anyway. Does that even make any sense?

 

[HarryOsborn]

Honestly I don't see why they didn't just move forward with Spider-Man 4. If I recall correctly, they wanted Sam Raimi to release the film by 2011, and he said he needed a later release date, possibly in 2012, to make a good movie. The studio refused and the movie was cancelled. Then they ended up going with the reboot and released it in 2012, which is a later date than 2011 anyway. Does that even make any sense?

Sony was on top at that time. Thor actually moved to late May to avoid risking competition with Spider-Man 4. The reason Sony didn't continue with Spider-Man 4 was because Raimi was getting to be too difficult to work with, the budget was inflating, and Maguire/Dunst were too expensive. When SM4 was getting pushed back Sony was losing money, so they decided if they'd have to wait until 2012 anyway they might as well start over with a new crew to avoid these problems recurring in the future.

Maguire made a good deal of money when he agreed to return for SM2, Garfield only made about a million dollars from Amazing 1. Sam Raimi has experience, an already established franchise, and pull in the industry. Marc Webb had one major release under an indy banner of the 20th Century Fox production company. It was purely based on greed and not on the reception to SM3, as many fans have come to believe.

 

[HarryOsborn]

On that note, I'm very concerned for Dehann and Garfield. Emma Stone, Jamie Foxx, Sally Field, and Paul Giamatti have established careers and won't be too hurt by TAMS2 (well Giamatti probably won't be invited back to any comic book roles in the foreseeable future), but this is not the case for Peter and Harry. The thing is I felt both Garfield and Dehann gave very good performances with the material they had to work with, especially Dane. The guy honestly would have been a better Peter Parker than Garfield imo, he's small guy that's not overly cool but can play confident and has the charisma needed for the Spidey scenes. I really hope this doesn't damage either of their careers like the prequels did to Hayden Christensen's.

 

[HarryOsborn]

Even with the Harry Osborn cliffhanger, I don't think SM2 was ruined by SM3 at all. If the second film ended with Harry drinking the Goblin formula and we had to wait for the third to see what happened to him, it might be a little more drastic. He discovers his father's lab and all of his Goblin equipment (after finding out Peter's secret identity), and that's really it. SM2 stands on its own quite well, and that's something the filmmakers need to consider for future movies. Raimi made sure to focus on the current film being made, but left just enough "open" for future movies to thread overarching storylines, particularly with Harry.

Yes. Harry's character arc was always left open but it always had a satisfying conclusion.

At the end of SM1 when he says Spider-Man will pay, he follows by telling Peter he's the only family he has left. This is to highlight that while Peter won, one of his loved ones still had to pay.

At the end of SM2 Harry was just cemented in his insanity and it's hinted he will be the green goblin. I don't get goosebumps the way I used to now knowing what will happen, but as you said it doesn't take away from SM2 as a stand alone property.

TASM series did not consider how their films worked on their own at all which is why many people reported leaving the theater feeling a bit empty/saying they were good but forgettable. They didn't work on a deeper level, there wasn't the same emotional pay off, the only real moment of pay off in TASM was when Captain Stacy discovers Spider-Man's secret identity. Other than that there wasn't anything resolutions to character arcs that really hit you.

 

[HarryOsborn]

dkr was 2012, and we will be treated with a new batman just 4 years after that.

Spoiler

instead of just having christian bale in the dccu

We saw Christian Bale retire and fake his death. Also Ben Affleck will be coming out of retirement as it's reported so the reboot won't be pulling a TASM and rehashing Batman Begins, it's going to be taking elements from The Dark Knight Returns (As Rises did admittedly), but focusing more on the Superman Elements which has not yet been done. See that's the main difference, DC gives us something new. The only retreaded ground we've seen is Superman's origin, which was last done 35 years ago/ compared to Spider-Man's origin which has been done twice in a decade.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

We saw Christian Bale retire and fake his death. Also Ben Affleck will be coming out of retirement as it's reported so the reboot won't be pulling a TASM and rehashing Batman Begins, it's going to be taking elements from The Dark Knight Returns (As Rises did admittedly), but focusing more on the Superman Elements which has not yet been done. See that's the main difference, DC gives us something new. The only retreaded ground we've seen is Superman's origin, which was last done 35 years ago/ compared to Spider-Man's origin which has been done twice in a decade.

it's still a reboot because it's a new batman. and if they really wanted to they could've easily just wrote in christian bale's retirement and fake death, as him later changing his mind and coming back to gotham.

 

[Frodo]

On that note, I'm very concerned for Dehann and Garfield. Emma Stone, Jamie Foxx, Sally Field, and Paul Giamatti have established careers and won't be too hurt by TAMS2 (well Giamatti probably won't be invited back to any comic book roles in the foreseeable future), but this is not the case for Peter and Harry. The thing is I felt both Garfield and Dehann gave very good performances with the material they had to work with, especially Dane. The guy honestly would have been a better Peter Parker than Garfield imo, he's small guy that's not overly cool but can play confident and has the charisma needed for the Spidey scenes. I really hope this doesn't damage either of their careers like the prequels did to Hayden Christensen's.

I actually felt Garfield's best Peter Parker performance was in The Social Network . After I saw him in that I could buy him as Parker, then when I saw ASM and this CW broody skater boy stuff , I was scratching my head. At least in ASM 2, with some exceptions, he was alot closer to what Peter Parker is imo. That said though, the guy just didn't connect with audiences and came off less sympathetic than Maguire did with GA I think.

Fans liked him because they felt he was closer to the comics visually and characterization wise , but the GA doesn't get hung on that stuff. They have to connect with the actor and not just the character they way the have with Downey, Evans, Bale, Pratt, and Craig just to give examples. Its the actor that has a certain quality which brings the character to life , and its something that's intangible that goes beyond being accurate to the comics.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Honestly I don't see why they didn't just move forward with Spider-Man 4. If I recall correctly, they wanted Sam Raimi to release the film by 2011, and he said he needed a later release date, possibly in 2012, to make a good movie. The studio refused and the movie was cancelled. Then they ended up going with the reboot and released it in 2012, which is a later date than 2011 anyway. Does that even make any sense?

I think the wisest move would have just been moving forward with the series in a loose sequel. Rebooting so soon lost interest from more casual Spider-Man fans, divided the hardcore ones, and ultimately it has given us a product that was critically and financially less successful. Granted, there is no guarantee that a recasted series of sequels would have made better movies, but I do think they would have done better financially. Honestly, how much buzz did the reboot have as it was coming out? Little to none. It disappeared in Avengers and TDKR hype almost completely. I wish SM4 personally had happened, but on Sony's schedule, it wouldn't have turned out good. Kudos to Raimi for leaving as opposed to making a rushed SM4.

 

[Spider-man95]

The reboot was definitely pointless. The Spider-Man brand has never been worse in reputation critically or financially, and they didn't have to reboot period. So, yes.

I could not agree more.

 

[GoldGoblin]

I think the Garfield is a great Spider-Man,and I loved all the scenes he was in.But I started hating the scenes about his parents,and even the scenes with the villains.Your suppose to like seeing the villains,but in this series they have horrible character development for the villains,and the villains look awful.
A five year old could if designed something much more appealing.

That's what Sony screwed up on:
-Design of the villains.
-Villains character development.
-Killing of Gwen so early,should of waited for the third or fourth movie.
-They had no J Jonah Jameson.

 

[schereZada]

I think the wisest move would have just been moving forward with the series in a loose sequel. Rebooting so soon lost interest from more casual Spider-Man fans, divided the hardcore ones, and ultimately it has given us a product that was critically and financially less successful. Granted, there is no guarantee that a recasted series of sequels would have made better movies, but I do think they would have done better financially. Honestly, how much buzz did the reboot have as it was coming out? Little to none. It disappeared in Avengers and TDKR hype almost completely. I wish SM4 personally had happened, but on Sony's schedule, it wouldn't have turned out good. Kudos to Raimi for leaving as opposed to making a rushed SM4.

I agree, a loose sequel where - maybe - the origin was remembered through short flashbacks - would have been a good idea. I personally loved the first TASM, but changing the origin so much for the sake of it was a problem I had with it.

 

[Frodo]

I think the wisest move would have just been moving forward with the series in a loose sequel. Rebooting so soon lost interest from more casual Spider-Man fans, divided the hardcore ones, and ultimately it has given us a product that was critically and financially less successful. Granted, there is no guarantee that a recasted series of sequels would have made better movies, but I do think they would have done better financially. Honestly, how much buzz did the reboot have as it was coming out? Little to none. It disappeared in Avengers and TDKR hype almost completely. I wish SM4 personally had happened, but on Sony's schedule, it wouldn't have turned out good. Kudos to Raimi for leaving as opposed to making a rushed SM4.

Ironically, I think the fact that Raimi, Maguire, and Dunst got out when then did ensures that the three films will probably be look better as time as goes on as opposed to looking worse had then done a 4th bad entry. The 3rd one will always be tarred to an extent, but the series had a successful trilogy, and I think the quality and reception of the last two films has caused alot of people to give the Raimi films a second look and perhaps view the series in a less harsh light.

 

[HarryOsborn]

it's still a reboot because it's a new batman. and if they really wanted to they could've easily just wrote in christian bale's retirement and fake death, as him later changing his mind and coming back to gotham.

No they couldn't have, it was the end of his character's story and his hyper realism just would not have fit. Also no one was expecting TDK 4, it was a clear cut ending. Spider-Man 4 was a movie in development, that just halted in production and was replaced with a reboot. It would be like if WB announced Bale's return then said "nvm here's Batfleck". Besides we haven't seen the movie yet, for all we know it could be a huge mistake, however it's got a lot less working against it than TASM had.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

No they couldn't have, it was the end of his character's story and his hyper realism just would not have fit. Also no one was expecting TDK 4, it was a clear cut ending. Spider-Man 4 was a movie in development, that just halted in production and was replaced with a reboot. It would be like if WB announced Bale's return then said "nvm here's Batfleck". Besides we haven't seen the movie yet, for all we know it could be a huge mistake, however it's got a lot less working against it than TASM had.

yes they could have. a lot of people (myself included) weren't even satisfied with that ending. but I suppose there will always be complaining about everything, no matter how critically acclaimed a product may be. with that being said, a lot of people (myself included) weren't willing to accept a new face to batman, after the favorable and massively successful 2005-2012 batman trilogy. but some of the hardcore fans who will see mostly the good in everything and set aside the bad have accepted affleck from the getgo, and now that we are over a year since the announcement, it seems most of the internet have accepted him as well.

the difference with spiderman is that the internet has been very divided with the asm series. i really cannot tell if the majority of people want andrew to stay on (in the mcu or not) or a new face to spiderman.

 

[Spider2099]

Ironically, I think the fact that Raimi, Maguire, and Dunst got out when then did ensures that the three films will probably be look better as time as goes on as opposed to looking worse had then done a 4th bad entry. The 3rd one will always be tarred to an extent, but the series had a successful trilogy, and I think the quality and reception of the last two films has caused alot of people to give the Raimi films a second look and perhaps view the series in a less harsh light.

If SM4 had been a success then it could have certainly revived the franchise after the third film. But if it failed then it could have done a lot more harm I suppose. I'd rather have 2/3 good movies that only 2/4.

 

[degraves93]

If SM4 had been a success then it could have certainly revived the franchise after the third film. But if it failed then it could have done a lot more harm I suppose. I'd rather have 2/3 good movies that only 2/4.

It looked like they wanted to simplify things with SM4, with Vulture as the sole villain. But after the Vulturess news, that hope went down the drain for me.

 

[Spider2099]

It looked like they wanted to simplify things with SM4, with Vulture as the sole villain. But after the Vulturess news, that hope went down the drain for me.

And I guess that's exactly why Raimi left. He knew there was no point in having a repeat of SM3, so... "Goodbye, Sony! Have fun failing with the reboot!"

 

[degraves93]

And I guess that's exactly why Raimi left. He knew there was no point in having a repeat of SM3, so... "Goodbye, Sony! Have fun failing with the reboot!"

It's funny that the best of the Spider-Man films, SM2, was the one with the lowest BO until TASM2. They simply didn't care about the reviews, they just got their knickers in a twist about the slightly disappointing box office.

 

[Spider2099]

It's funny that the best of the Spider-Man films, SM2, was the one with the lowest BO until TASM2. They simply didn't care about the reviews, they just got their knickers in a twist about the slightly disappointing box office.

All they can see is money I guess. SM3 made the most money so I suppose that is their "best" movie.

 

[Frodo]

If SM4 had been a success then it could have certainly revived the franchise after the third film. But if it failed then it could have done a lot more harm I suppose. I'd rather have 2/3 good movies that only 2/4.

Yeah. It could have gone the way of the Reeve Superman and The Burton/Schumacer Batman franchises which had mediocre to bad 3rd and 4th films. With the trilogy at least they can claim they basically wrapped things up and set the bar for the character even if the 3rd film left little to be desired. In the long run Raimi was right to walk away , and if anything I think history shows that the fans underestimated how much the GA were connected to the Raimi films. Even seen all kinds of rationalizations such as "They liked it because that was the first version they saw" and "They would have liked Garfield more if Maguire hadn't played the role first" etc from fans, but I think you got to give credit where credit is due to Raimi and Co for the films they did make which were embraced by the public even if they weren't as accurate to the comics as alot of fans wanted.

 

[degraves93]

All they can see is money I guess. SM3 made the most money so I suppose that is their "best" movie.

SM3 made the most money, but (IMO, don't ban me) it's the weakest of the franchise. Funny how things work out. But I don't see how Arad and co. see their weird creative decisions as leading to bigger box office. Harry becoming Green Goblin before Norman? Sandman being Ben's actual killer? Anne Hathaway in a green bird suit?

 

[Spider2099]

I don't think any comic book movie is totally accurate to the comic books. Liberties should be taken when necessary as long as the films capture the spirit of the source material, which I think SM1 and SM2 did very well. The changes put in the reboot films feel like they exist just to differentiate these movies from the Raimi films.

 

[Spider2099]

SM3 made the most money, but (IMO, don't ban me) it's the weakest of the franchise. Funny how things work out. But I don't see how Arad and co. see their weird creative decisions as leading to bigger box office. Harry becoming Green Goblin before Norman? Sandman being Ben's actual killer? Anne Hathaway in a green bird suit?

This is why Sony needed a Kevin Feige.

 

[degraves93]

I don't think any comic book movie is totally accurate to the comic books. Liberties should be taken when necessary as long as the films capture the spirit of the source material, which I think SM1 and SM2 did very well. The changes put in the reboot films feel like they exist just to differentiate these movies from the Raimi films.

It's weird how desperately they wanted to separate Webb's films from Raimi's while having the origin story told again. By cramming that in along with the parents sub plot, they just wanted to have their cake and eat it too.

 

[Spider2099]

It's weird how desperately they wanted to separate Webb's films from Raimi's while having the origin story told again. By cramming that in along with the parents sub plot, they just wanted to have their cake and eat it too.

The thing is that I actually was intrigued by the parents storyline. What they should have done is skipped the origin and start off with Peter as Spider-Man. He could have still went to Oscorp to investigate and find out more about his parents. Maybe there would have been more time to resolve the parents storyline so it wouldn't have been crammed into the sequel.