Sequels Would a reboot damage box office numbers?

[spider-neil]

opinion please

 

[TheComicbookKid]

I think people are going to be a little more hestitant if you believe there was a widespread dissatisfaction with the last installment. On one hand, Tobey's spotlight as the definitive Spidey was diminished but he's still Spidey to most people.

 

[spider-neil]

I feel a reboot my be too soon.
but if there is a fresh approach to spidey it may help rather than hinder than franchise if the last movie was poorly recieved (critically rather financially)

 

[Leenie]

That's a tricky question to answer, but I'm going to say that a reboot would damage the box office numbers if the film were to be released too soon (say, before 2011).

 

[The Agent]

I don't think it will. As long as sony continue to market the hell out of the movie as they've done before, don't be surprised if this new movie makes more money than the last. Remember, spider-man is the brand name that is putting bums in seats.

 

[craigaat]

I don't think it will. Just wait to see what happens with the incredible hulk...

 

[MattBearPig]

Reboot as in start with an origin or reboot as in get new actors (I.E.-James Bond franchise)?

 

[Visionary]

If SM4 doesn't make a single penny, this franchise would still be a head of any comic book franchise in the pass decade (at the box office) by at least a billion dollars. Sony can afford to lose a bit, I say take the risk to dare to do something different and better. But I personally think that they can acheive this without a reboot. It's a mistake to not try and better your franchise, and that usually takes a few risks.

The focus shouldn't be on toys, the box office, product placements, bastard children, etc. It should be on making a great non-generic film, everything else will fall into place. Not even a reboot can hurt if it's above and beyond the previous comic books films in the pass decade, which by the way, isn't hard to do, regardless of what these geeks have overrated and over-hyped.

As long as sony continue to market the hell out of the movie as they've done before, don't be surprised if this new movie makes more money than the last. Remember, spider-man is the brand name that is putting bums in seats.

Marketing means nothing after the first week, sometimes, not even during the first week. Superman Returns had great marketing, regardless of what Singer said, and still didn't acheive Spidey's numbers. Icon names/brands mean very little, Iron Man is running through Batman Begins and Superman Returns like diarrhea, as did 300. If you think Spider-Man can't fail at the box office, you're wrong, but I hope not. I like the approach to something new, not too sure about a reboot. Especially with younger actors, I'd prefer an older and mature actor, for a much more mature Spider-Man 4.

 

[weezerspider]

I really doubt we are getting a reboot. Nothings been confirmed and it is way too soon. New actors and new director, sure, but reboot? not happening in the next 5-7 years.

 

[Visionary]

^I was thinking the same thing.

 

[X-Maniac]

A reboot would be a good thing now, I think this franchise can survive it easily. It would freshen things up nicely.

 

[FaT_tONle]

WHat are people's definition of reboot? Just because people mention reboot doesn't mean they are asking for a redo for Ock, GG, and even Venom for that matter. Reboot just means not in direct continuity IMO. Frankly I think they can do that but I wouldn't personally. You can still use Lizard as the villain though and it could be considered a reboot. It doesn't matter who the villains are as long as they have not been used previously. But if they pick up with the botched marriage proposal (or would be proposal) and Harry's death then it's different. But you can still reboot simply by ignoring those events and picking up with new characters. I think everyone has their own definition of what a reboot is that the term becomes misleading.

 

[X-Maniac]

WHat are people's definition of reboot? Just because people mention reboot doesn't mean they are asking for a redo for Ock, GG, and even Venom for that matter. Reboot just means not in direct continuity IMO. Frankly I think they can do that but I wouldn't personally. You can still use Lizard as the villain though and it could be considered a reboot. It doesn't matter who the villains are as long as they have not been used previously. But if they pick up with the botched marriage proposal (or would be proposal) and Harry's death then it's different. But you can still reboot simply by ignoring those events and picking up with new characters. I think everyone has their own definition of what a reboot is that the term becomes misleading.

You're right. I would want a contination of the storylines but with different director and cast, so that's not a reboot. Apologies.

 

[matthooper]

No one in the world thought a Superman Reboot (Returns) could fail, but it did, so anything is possible. Anything can fail if it either stinks or people just don't care. Take your choice of those for SR.

If you asked me before Spider-Man 3 came out I would have said no reboot ever. Now I'm not so sure, I might be game.

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

This series doesn't need a reboot. If there really has to be one, it should a long time from now.

 

[StylishHokie21]

I think so. There's no point in rebooting. Get Maguire in there for three more movies or at least one more.

 

[MaJiN]

As much as we all have luv and respect for McGuire as Parker (some probably more than necessary), he's getting old. At least that's what I noticed in SM3. He obviously didn't look like he was in the same shape as in the 1st film.

 

[Jick]

no it won't.
it's a huge character. the most popular of all, along with Superman. the trailers and the marketing will attract people's attention.
but it doesn't need a reboot.

 

[FaT_tONle]

What about for SM4... everyone is replaced so it's not in continuity with SM3 (I guess you could bring back Simmons and some Bugle but its better to replace them if they are ditching continuity)... you go with a new Parker... write out the Stacy's since they were getting hapass treatment in the first place plus the fact that you are staying out of DIRECT continuity. Go with Lizard/Kraven... but reboot the Brock/John Jameson/symbiate saga for SM5. If you look at it, SM4 is seen as the loose sequel but later regarded as its own separate thing... then we get Venom done right with a rebooted Brock. Plus the fact they'd they would have waited a good five years since the last time we saw the hapass Venom for ten minutes in SM3. That's one way to ditch continuity and get Venom right... for SM6 they could go Hopgoblin/Vulture and Electro/Carnage or whatever. Basically its two trilogies viewed separately for the most part. MJ/Peter can start off on good terms but gradually get separated and you can continue to make that relationship interesting. Throw in Felicia and others. For the people that hate recasts (myself included) that's a way to make your own continuity. It would be more seemless in the long run than if they just recasted MJ/Pete and stick with what they have now. But the fact that whoever director they bring in is STILL going to have to work in context with what Raimi did (hence not giving him complete flexibility)... plus the major distraction you created by replacing your leads... Sony needs to look into every option before they just throw something at us.

If Sony wants the short term solution then they'll find pinch hitters for Tobey/Dunst... and bring in a new manager and stick with what they got... but if they are comitted to the long term solution (considering they have planned for six films)... if they do what I just said they'd pretty much be making Star Wars from Ep. 1-6, but it is hard to maintain a high level of quality that way with all the recasts and changes that will be made along the way. Why not go the James Bond route and secure yourself long term so we never get attached to one actor behind the mask? I guess Simmons could be your Q or whatever that dude's name was... I think that actually works better.

 

[DACrowe]

Depends.

Do you mean ANOTHER origin movie which features Norman Osborn (either as GG or not) with only major differences being adding Gwen and making it more of a love square (like how well it worked in SM3) and gave Peter mechs?

No, I don't think anyone wants to see an origin film again, because frankly, outside of organics SM1 nailed it.

If you mean a change in tone and direction without keeping to continuity of the previous three films...no, I don't think it would hurt the franchise. It may even be healthy for it, albeit I want it to stay in continuity.

 

[X-Maniac]

Depends.

Do you mean ANOTHER origin movie which features Norman Osborn (either as GG or not) with only major differences being adding Gwen and making it more of a love square (like how well it worked in SM3) and gave Peter mechs?

No, I don't think anyone wants to see an origin film again, because frankly, outside of organics SM1 nailed it.

If you mean a change in tone and direction without keeping to continuity of the previous three films...no, I don't think it would hurt the franchise. It may even be healthy for it, albeit I want it to stay in continuity.

I want it to stay in continuity too. The origin and Goblin, Ock etc don't need re-doing. Let's move the story forward, with perhaps new cast and director, but the same kind of look/feel/tone.

http://blogs.coventrytelegraph.net/thegeekfiles/2008/05/spiderman-4-reports-of-a-new-a.html#more

 

[Hobgoblin-demon]

It really depends on when it's released. Had BB been released 3 years after BandR then it probably would have failed miserably, instead they waited until the movies had been mostly forgoten by the current viewers, released BB, and they've got one of the most successful reboots ever. So, I would have to say that if Sony or Marvel want to do a reboot, they would have to wait for atleast 8 more years after the movie that flops (possibly SM4). So, prolly awhile.

 

[FaT_tONle]

Here is something to keep in mind... what's to stop them from recasting Parker again? What if SM4 bombs and your new Parker moves on to another role? What if it's another deal ala Kilmer/Clooney? If they did it before they'll do it again... just because you are replacing two guys doesn't mean the next three films are going to be set in stone with the new nucleus. Plus the fact that most of you are assuming the supporting cast will be fair game for another three as well. No one is saying replace these guys. As I said I think Simmons should play the role as long as he is fit for it as should Rosemarry Harris (Don't kill her off cheaply with cancer or something)... there is a plethera of material out there... enough for three separate trilogies all about Peter Parker alone. I am not even talking about the possibilities with Ben Reily/Clone saga or whatever. You can even redo the origin again like they did with Casino Royale... start off with Gwen... but that would probably be the third trilogy WAY down the line. If you are going to recast... why not just give a new interpretation of the character every time? Just something to think about.

 

[Mutagen]

It's a strong possibility that a reboot won't hurt the box office. That being said; it really depends on how it's going to look to audiences, fans and critics for that matter. If it gets a good buzz rolling, it'll be successful, if not then it will cause damage. However, regardless if it's a stinker, I will see it because it's Spider-man, and I love Spider-man, and I think others will agree with me.

 

[Dr. Fate]

It may be too early for a reboot, but whether or not a reboot would hurt the box office is hard to say. That would depend on how the reboot was handled and how well marketed it is.