Spider-Man Film Discussion Thread

[BentonGrey]

This reboot crap really needs to slow the hell down. They're practically rebooting every franchise at this point. It started with Batman (which is the only franchise right now that really needed it), then Hulk, now the Fantastic Four and Spider-Man. These are all movies being rebooted in less than 10 years. And high school Spider-Man? With people gossiping about the Twilight guy (forgot his name) in the role? It's really clear what demographic they're aiming for with this reboot. The Raimi movies weren't perfect, but already this reboot is starting out on a bad note.

At this rate, they might as well start over with X-Men, Daredevil, and Ghost Rider while they're at it. Hell, why not another Hulk reboot? (are they even making a sequel to the Norton one?)

Emphasis mine.  

HA!  Yeah, Batman needed a reboot, but Hulk was pretty desperately in need too.  In my opinion, you could add Superman to that list, but instead they are going to do their best to ruin it further.  Fantastic Four...well...while I think they should take the Hulk angle, and simply gloss over the origin story, the second movie really was really weak, especially in their treatment of one of the greatest comic stories of all time.  A lot of these franchises could do with a soft reboot, putting them solidly in Marvel's hands and simply moving on and ignoring stupid choices made in the past.  I agree though, rebooting Spider-Man is a TERRIBLE idea.  Especially if they go the teen flick direction they seem to be thinking about....urg....

You know, Norton's Hulk was so awesome, they REALLY do need to follow it up.  Why in the world wouldn't they?  That isn't rhetorical, by the way, I'm really curious why we haven't already heard about Hulk 2.

[Tomato]

At this rate, they might as well start over with X-Men, Daredevil, and Ghost Rider while they're at it. Hell, why not another Hulk reboot? (are they even making a sequel to the Norton one?)

They already are rebooting X-men, sort of. They're doing prequels right now.

[catwhowalksbyhimself]

I did some checking on Hulk. It looks like they are planning a sequel, possibly several, but not until after the Avengers movie.  2012 or later. The guy who played the Leader was signed on for a sequal, but has since signed on for an additional 3 films.

[BentonGrey]

I did some checking on Hulk. It looks like they are planning a sequel, possibly several, but not until after the Avengers movie.  2012 or later. The guy who played the Leader was signed on for a sequal, but has since signed on for an additional 3 films.

That's the best news I've heard all day.

[catwhowalksbyhimself]

I'm thinking that the execs were kind of dissappointed with its takings, although it still did well, and are hoping to feature the character in the Avengers movie, which is sure to make a killing, then be able to spin off the character kind of in the next movies.  Sounds like a potentially smart move, actually.

[Cybertronian]

I don't know where to begin.
Yes, "Hulk" needed it (despite the fact that I liked both Hulk movies).
Batman? Only where rubbing out the 4th (and possibly 3rd) film(s) were concerned. On the other hand, Jim Carrey made a s-s-smokin' Riddler.
X-Men? I accepted the 3rd movie, but most of the mutant extras seemed as crammed in as they were in the Saban cartoon series. Using the Juggernaut without a single reference to the Professor? The Phoenix killing off Cyclops in spite of the fact that Scott kept her more grounded than Charles (and most definitely Logan)? Bad form! The cure (from Astonishing X-Men) was a good plot point, as was having Rogue look into it.
Spider-Man? Absolutely not. Even if you overlook "New Goblin" (aka the Rocket Racer), the use of both Sandman and Venom were wonderful. (They even solved the "how to introduce the black costume symbiote without bringing up Secret Wars" problem.)
Daredevil (and Elektra)? No. Both were handled nicely (although like with Dukes of Hazzard, it took me a while to get over the thinner Kingpin).
Ghost Rider? I like it the way it is. Leave GR alone or give it a sequel (which could possibly set up an intro for the 1990s GR).
Punisher? (The original wasn't bad; but War Zone was better.)
Fantastic Four... well, from what I've heard, it wasn't the Roger Corman screen test, but yes, I'd give the second movie a huge re-do. The first wasn't... superbad...
I hope the Avengers set up does its job. (and most importantly, give us the Big 3. Cap, Thor and IM. After that, they can go in several different directions... Cap's misfits (Wanda, Pietro, and Hawkeye), the other founders (Ant Man and Wasp, Hulk) Vision, Beast, Falcon or Tigra, or some of the "new" Avengers (Luke Cage/Power Man in particular).

[BentonGrey]

I would personally be bitterly disappointed if they wasted film time on the New "Avengers."  A sequel with the Quirky Quartet, though...that could be fun, as long as you threw Herc and some other guest stars in to liven it up.  Basically, give me anyone from the 1970's rosters back, and I'm sold.

[Podmark]

I expect they'll follow Ultimates in terms of general roster and costumes/looks. Plot will probably be a mix of the first Avengers story and a less edgy version of the Ultimates first volume. Which is exactly what I'm hoping for.

Benton I wouldn't worry about the New Avengers roster being in the movies anytime soon. Spider-Man and Wolverine are the big ones that they'd want and those properties aren't owned by Marvel Studios and I'm sure Sony and Fox will hold onto them as long as possible. And guys like Luke Cage, Spider-Woman, Sentry, Ronin etc are virtual unknowns to general audiences and probably won't be first priorities for the movie guys. I'd expect they'll target characters like Hank, Jan, Clint, Natasha, Rhodey, Pietro and Wanda - classic characters, characters from the movies and characters used during Miller's Ultimates.

[Talavar]

Batman desperately needed a reboot (the fact that they made 4 Batman films and none of them were good is a triumph of the human spirit).

Superman needed a reboot, and sadly only got half of one.

X-men could use a reboot now, but only if the rights could be gotten away from Fox and back to Marvel.

Spider-man didn't need a reboot, the problems in 3 were potentially recoverable.  I guess we'll never see that play out now.  Too bad.

[BWPS]

They even solved the "how to introduce the black costume symbiote without bringing up Secret Wars" problem.

"It just landed right next to him" wasn't what I'd call solved. I was expecting them to go the animated series route and have young Jameson bring it back on the shuttle.

[TheMarvell]

I don't want this to go into an argument about what movies needed a reboot and what didn't, but I have to really emphasize that Ang Lee's Hulk really doesn't get enough credit it deserves. It doesn't deserve nearly half the criticisms it gets. But despite all that, there was only one movie, and it could have easily "redeemed" itself in naysayers eyes fairly easily with an actual sequel. It was "salvageable," if you will, but because it didn't smash box office records like Spider-Man, they just had to reboot it. I love both movie versions, but still feel the Norton one wasn't necessary. But I digress...

I just think if studio execs think they have to reboot a franchise they think failed, then they should at least wait a while so they don't confuse audiences. God, before The Dark Knight came out, I knew several people (casual fans, nothing more) who thought Batman Begins was a prequel to the Burton movies. And that movie came out, what, 6 or 7 years later?

Spider-Man was a huge success, so I really don't get why they wouldn't want the guys who made it successful back. They didn't like the Vulture, but why wouldn't they give Raimi a chance? What villains did they wish to use?

and X-Men isn't getting rebooted...not yet anyways. Prequels don't count, especially when several of the same actors return. They aren't completely recasting the X-Men like they are Spider-Man, Hulk, Punisher, Fantastic Four, etc etc...

[catwhowalksbyhimself]

Hulk is actually the reason for this reboot trend we're seeing here.  When the movie was coming out, they thought it would be doomed because it was too close behind the previous versions and audiences wouldn't accept it,  but the movie proved that they could. That opened the floodgates to reboot just about anything.

[BentonGrey]

I expect they'll follow Ultimates in terms of general roster and costumes/looks. Plot will probably be a mix of the first Avengers story and a less edgy version of the Ultimates first volume. Which is exactly what I'm hoping for.

Lord, I hope not!  I hope they go with a more classic look.  Obviously spandex doesn't work so well in real life, but they can at least do more than put them all in leather.  I hope we can avoid the taint of the Ultimates on this one.  You're right about sticking to classic characters though, Pod, as everything we've heard so far is about a classic Avengers lineup.

[BlueBard]

I read the novelization for the Ang Lee Hulk and I'd have to say that even if the action scenes and acting were great the plot itself stunk on ice, IMO.  Just like with Spider-Man 3, the plot is what kept me out of the movie theater.

Norton's Hulk was totally right on the money in every way I can think of and a reboot was really needed to bring him in line with the rest of the movies Marvel intends to develop.

The chaos going on right now with X-Men, Spider-Man, and Fantastic Four is precisely due to the fact that these movie rights are held by corporations who aren't really tied to Marvel.  They can do exactly what they want and I'd imagine there's very little creative control that Marvel can exercise if they wanted to.  So we're possibly going to get a teeny-bopper Spidey because A) they can, B) they want to hold on to those movie rights for as long as they can.

The consolation is that if things get bad enough, I can see Disney possibly working to buy some of those movie rights back.

You'd think that DC projects would have an advantage in Warner, wouldn't you?  Maybe that will play out eventually.

[JeyNyce]

Are they serious:Possible Spidey

[BentonGrey]

I read the novelization for the Ang Lee Hulk and I'd have to say that even if the action scenes and acting were great the plot itself stunk on ice, IMO.  Just like with Spider-Man 3, the plot is what kept me out of the movie theater.
[...]
You'd think that DC projects would have an advantage in Warner, wouldn't you?  Maybe that will play out eventually.

Emphasis mine.  Ha!

Also, Warner has, in many ways, been even more crippling for DC than these other studios have been for Marvel.  Sony actually managed to make some really fantastic films, while the suits at WB have been just as ridiculous in general as the current climate at Sony.  Yeah, Batman: Begins was incredible, and people loved Dark Knight, but I've got three words for you.  Giant.  Mechanical.  Spider.  They see things in dollar signs much the same as these other execs, and DC has zero control over their properties.  They're in pretty much the same boat.  Thus, we got Superman the mopey, voyeur father of an illegitmate kid, and we'll eventually get Superman "the angry god," because "dark characters are so big right now." 

I really do wish that Disney would buy back the rights to Spidey and X-Men, because Marvel's own studios have done a really fantastic job with Iron Man and Hulk.

[BlueBard]

Are they serious:Possible Spidey

Yeah, I imagine whoever wrote that was serious.  But remember this is basically the equivalent of a hollywood gossip columnist's speculation on who might take the role of Spider-Man -- In other words, I wouldn't put a whole lot of stock in it.

Even the teen-age Spidey commentary is essentially just talk.  There's no screenplay, no cast, and no director.  It isn't so until they start shooting.  Anything is possible at this point.

About the only things I am reasonably sure of are that the movie Peter Parker will not undergo a sex-change operation, is not going to be revealed as a homosexual, is not going to turn into a horrifying giant spider, will not become a zombie and eat Aunt May, and is not secretly Galactus.  He will not team up with any other Marvel hero because they won't have the movie rights to pull it off.  They will not cast Adam West or Barack Obama in the title role.

[Podmark]

I expect they'll follow Ultimates in terms of general roster and costumes/looks. Plot will probably be a mix of the first Avengers story and a less edgy version of the Ultimates first volume. Which is exactly what I'm hoping for.

Lord, I hope not!  I hope they go with a more classic look.  Obviously spandex doesn't work so well in real life, but they can at least do more than put them all in leather.  I hope we can avoid the taint of the Ultimates on this one.  You're right about sticking to classic characters though, Pod, as everything we've heard so far is about a classic Avengers lineup.

Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if they keep extremely close to Miller's Ultimates. I liked Ultimates so I wouldn't have a problem with that. But I can see them going with more classic-esque costumes, but it all depends if they can make them look good, and if they can't they can easily fall back on the Ultimates costumes.

But the cast, I'd bet money that the majority of it will be from these characters: Captain America, Iron Man, Hulk, Thor, Nick Fury, Hank Pym, Wasp, Hawkeye, Black Widow, War Machine, Scarlett Witch, and Quicksilver. Maybe Vision.


What I don't understand is why we need to reboot whenever they want to change actors. I can understand wanting to keep consistency, but it seems right now that it's an automatic necessity to reboot. I wouldn't mind if they always make 'sequels' per se, and rather just came out with a new, for example, Spider-Man movie that tells a story that isn't directedly connected with the previous movies. I hope you guys understand what I'm saying here. I might have to explain it better later.

[catwhowalksbyhimself]

Forget Quicksilver or Scarlett Witch.  I'm pretty sure those two were included with the X-Men deals, so we aren't likely to see either of them.

[TheMarvell]

like I said before, Ang Lee's Hulk really wasn't nearly as bad as people claim. I'll admit, I didn't know what to think at first, but it really grew on me, and I think a sequel could have fixed any problems it might have had. That's the problem I see with all these new reboots. If the first movie, or any entry in a given franchise of movies, doesn't meet the execs expectations, instead of learning from their mistakes and try to make an improved sequel, they are just "starting over" with this reboot crap and hoping it does better.

[Tomato]

Prem, why do you insist on complicating the line-up? We know they are, or at least were planning on, movies for Iron Man, Captain America, Thor, Ant-man(Which also includes Wasp) and Hulk. In other words, the founders. That's a hard bunch to juggle on it's own for one movie, I seriously doubt we'll see anyone else until Avengers 2.

And Benton, don't worry about the ultimate looks... if Iron Man is any indication, we'll be getting modernized version of classic looks... The only true "Ultimate" look I expect is the WW2 look for the Captain America movie.

[Previsionary]

Prem, why do you insist on complicating the line-up? We know they are, or at least were planning on, movies for Iron Man, Captain America, Thor, Ant-man(Which also includes Wasp) and Hulk. In other words, the founders. That's a hard bunch to juggle on it's own for one movie, I seriously doubt we'll see anyone else until Avengers 2.

And Benton, don't worry about the ultimate looks... if Iron Man is any indication, we'll be getting modernized version of classic looks... The only true "Ultimate" look I expect is the WW2 look for the Captain America movie.

Whuh? I didn't even know I, nor my clone, was involved in this discussion. I needsa keep up.

[BentonGrey]

Prem, why do you insist on complicating the line-up? We know they are, or at least were planning on, movies for Iron Man, Captain America, Thor, Ant-man(Which also includes Wasp) and Hulk. In other words, the founders. That's a hard bunch to juggle on it's own for one movie, I seriously doubt we'll see anyone else until Avengers 2.

And Benton, don't worry about the ultimate looks... if Iron Man is any indication, we'll be getting modernized version of classic looks... The only true "Ultimate" look I expect is the WW2 look for the Captain America movie.

Whuh? I didn't even know I, nor my clone, was involved in this discussion. I needsa keep up.

Liar, you know what you did....and you should be ashamed.

Yeah 'Mato, I imagine that's true...although, I wouldn't mind seeing Hawkeye added to the list, as unlikely as that would be.

[catwhowalksbyhimself]

I don't see any reason why they couldn't throw in one or two more heroes in there. As long as the others are introduced in previous movies, it's not that hard to introduce some minor heroes as well.

[Previsionary]

Hawkeye shouldn't be much of a problem since it was last reported that he had a cameo role in the Thor movie. I guess it depends on how they use him. Will he show up in his villain form, his heroic form, or just a fan-service role. *shrugs*

[Tomato]

See that's the problem with posting before work: you mix up pod and prem.

If I was in charge of Marvel, I would keep to already established characters the first movie, focusing more on establishing the team and relying on your existing fanbase from the other movies. Then after it's established, bring in characters like Hawkeye and phase out some of the more expensive actors and just use them for their respective films. It's a perfect plan, and the best part is, it's completely original. It's not at all like what Lee and Kirby did back when they made the team.

[Podmark]

Meh all I was doing was predicting who they would pull from for the cast, and those are the characters I think they'll pull from. But I expect it will be a small cast (which I think it the best way to go). You can pretty much lock Cap, Iron Man, Thor, Hulk and Nick Fury in (though I think I heard Hulk will be a villain) and they'll probably throw in Hank and Jan.

Where is the Ant-Man movie at anyway? Wasn't it supposed to have Scott Lang as the active Ant-Man and Hank his mentor?

[catwhowalksbyhimself]

The ending of Hulk was purposely set up to go two different ways, depending on if they came out with a sequal before Avengers or not. In that case, Tony would be showing up to recruit Hulk and Banner's ending means he had learned to control the Hulk.  IF not, which would likely be the case now, Tony came to offer to use his new team to take down the Hulk and Banner's ending means he lost control completely to the Hulk. In the former case, Hulk would be a member of the Avengers, in the later, the first foe they fight.

[TheMarvell]

well, Marc Webb is officially the new director signed on to the project. He directed (500) Days of Summer...and that's about it. I've never seen his one and only movie, but the fact that they're picking such a newcomer to the chair only further confirms that the studio will be in the most control of this project. Sam Raimi has plenty of success under his belt and therefore had more room push the studio aside.

I can see it now: "What's that Mr. Webb? You wanted to use Scorpion or Electro in the movie? Too bad. You're using Venom, Carnage, and Jackal. And that's that."

[detourne_me]

well (500) days of summer was pretty good actually.  so i don't have too much of a problem... but there was no action in the movie...hmmm
Anyway,  using Marc Webb may be an in to get Joseph Gordon Levitt as Peter Parker, and that wouldn't be bad at all!