After obvious interest and a few back-and-forth comments in my post regarding the scrapping of Spider-Man 4 and the emergence of an Untitled Spider-Man Reboot I figured it wouldn't hurt to sort through the details making the rounds from various sources.
First, if you hadn't heard, Sam Raimi and his Spider-Man 4 cast have left the production and the film is no more. Tobey Maguire is no longer Peter Parker and no more Kirsten Dunst as Mary Jane. The three films the group made, starting in 2002 with Spider-Man, grossed over $1.1 billion domestically (almost $2.5 billion worldwide). The final installment, Spider-Man 3, was released in 2007 to woeful reviews, but still managed to haul in $151 million its opening weekend, which nearly made for half of its overall domestic take as word-of-mouth wasn't exactly complimentary. The franchise had hit a wall and Sony needed to deliver a fourth film that would reinforce fan confidence.
It's been long believed Raimi was not entirely pleased with the story or villains in the third installment and his perceived disappointment is something many assumed would spur him to create a killer fourth film, but on January 6 news came out the project was stalled with second-hand sources saying Raimi "hated" the script from writers Jamie Vanderbilt, David Lindsay-Abaire and Gary Ross. As such, production stalled and yesterday it came to a screeching halt.
First reported at Deadline.com, Columbia abandoned production on the fourth film as Raimi and his cast will no longer be involved in the franchise.
Word from the Los Angeles Times is Sony wanted to make Spider-Man 4 for about $230 million, which Raimi thought was not enough given his ambitions.
In a prepared statement, Sony Chairman Michael Lynton said, "Spider-Man will always be an important franchise for Sony Pictures and a fresh start like this is a responsibility that we all take very seriously. We have always believed that story comes first and story guides the direction of these films."
The decision is now to move forward with a reboot as previous Spider-Man 4 scripter Jamie Vanderbilt has already prepared a script, which Sony is rumored to be ready to sign a director and cast with hopes of getting production underway before year's end.
Earlier I assumed this meant they were taking Vanderbilt's script for Spider-Man 4, which had already been rewritten by the likes of David Lindsay-Abaire and Gary Ross, but am now reminded of news from August 16, 2009 when it came out Vanderbilt had been hired to pen Spider-Man 5 and 6. At that time Variety worded the news by saying "the studio has quietly engaged screenwriter James Vanderbilt to pen Spider-Man 5 and Spider-Man 6," two films said to have an interconnected storyline.
At that time it was said if the original crew didn't want to return for a fourth and fifth film "Vanderbilt's script would be the blueprint for a franchise reboot." It seems that day has come and they are just moving ahead a bit earlier than planned.
EW and THR report the franchise reboot will place a high school-aged Peter Parker in a more contemporary setting, as a teenager grappling with normal teen problems while also dealing with his superpowers. EW's Nicole Sperling is also the first to go to the well and bring up Batman Begins (a move I speculated on Twitter) saying the studio is "interested in a more gritty, contemporary redo of the series, they are certainly focused on younger directors making waves in Hollywood." They even toss a few directorial candidates around such as (500) Day of Summer helmer Marc Webb, Seabiscuit director and one of the Spidey 4 co-writers Gary Ross and even Michael Bay. Of course, the recent news saying Transformers 3 will likely go into production in May of this year for a July 1, 2011 release makes the possibility of Bay directing an impossibility.
While director possibilities are being tossed around, Movieline took advantage of the news by posting a list of nine possible actors to take over the role of Peter Parker less than two hours after reporting on the fourth film's demise. Among the names mentioned I think Logan Lerman is a great suggestion, but I'm not interested in the obvious suggestion of Zac Efron.
Originally Spider-Man 4 was set to be released on May 6, 2011, but once the delay hit the wire Paramount's Thor, which just began principal photography, moved into the abandoned spot and even Disney's Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides to be directed by Rob Marshall took advantage moving into the May 20 slot.
The plan now is to release the new film in the summer of 2012, which will actually mean there will be a five year gap between Spider-Man films, which is only three years fewer than when Nolan and Warner Bros. delivered Batman Begins in 2005 after Batman and Robin in 1997, but the same window Universal used when rebooting The Incredible Hulk.
For those of you wondering if the Marvel and Disney merger affects these films in any way, stop wondering. As long as Columbia continues to keep Spider-Man films in production they maintain the rights, a similar deal to what Fox has working with the X-Men franchise. And I don't expect Columbia to ever let go of this cash cow. And don't worry, while Marvel can pull the plug on Sony's rights to the webslinger should they view the studios plans to be a detriment to the character, the fact this reboot will be produced by Avi Arad, Laura Ziskin and Marvel Studios makes me believe that won't be a problem.
So, for now, we wait, but I don't think we'll be waiting long as the stopwatch to get this thing going seems to already be ticking.
Michael Bay would be the worst choice! Incredibly I'm looking forward to the next Transformers movie, if that's what it takes to keep him busy.
Michael Bay would be the worst choice for anything. Even for a Transformers adaptation or a movie about Pearl Harbor.
a reboot?
the others are still to fresh in my mind, that's the same problem I had with the Hulk reboot.
I'd much rather see a next 'episode' with original cast but that seems an impossibility now. Shame.
Michael Bay would be a great choice! But why not Cameron, he was always red-hot about Spider-Man! I think he would stop Avatar sequel for Spider-Man…
I really see no need to go back to high school in this "reboot", its disappointing that Sony have gone down this route, perhaps i should reserve judgement but i really have no interest in this gritty and contemporary approach
@Brad Brevet: Since you brought up the idea of Marc Webb as a potential director, what do you think about Joseph Gordon-Levitt for the role of Peter Parker? Yes, I know the actor is way past high-school age; however, he still looks like he could pass for a Senior.
I do hope Sony goes the more gritty route. While the tone of Spider-Man will always be more upbeat, I'd like to see a more realistic look at the life of a super-hero. Show Spider-Man getting hurt, maybe even getting arrested. Have him running from the law, show the problems in his relationship with Mary-Jane more (and not that whiny shit we got from Kirsten Dunst)
I'm just glad to see that Pirates of the Caribbean On Stranger Tides, finally got its full official theatrical release date!.
If they get Marc Webb that could open up for Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Peter Parker. And any chance for him to get more recognition is great as the guy is a fantastic actor and I believe he can either go the blockbuster route and end up as the next Tom Cruise/Will Smith etc. or if he keeps his head down and keep doing quirky great work he can step up as the next Johnny Depp/Leonardo DiCaprio/Matt Damon. But a chance to do maybe a trilogy of Spidey films will cement him as a A-lister and that is great. I'm rooting for the combo of Webb and Gordon-Levitt as Raimi/Maguire combo is ended and that is good. 1 and 2 was good but the third sucked ass. If they hadn't used Topher Grace in the third film he would be a great Peter Parker. But if Zac Efron is cast as Spider-Man, I'm done with the franchise. Not that I hate they guy, from what I have heard he did a good job in Me and Orson Welles, but casting him will make the Spidey franchise to tween for my taste.
To me, it seems that the concept of having a grittier approach to Spiderman, coupled with a teenaged Spidey, played by the likes of Lerman or Efron, is a complete and utter contradiction. I cannot see how juxtaposing these elements would yield any sort of credible film. I just keep imagining choreographed High School Musical-esque dance routines with backup dancers in spidey outfits…
Do you think Sam Raimi will ever get the chance for a franchise again? The difficult to work with / not a teem player tag can be tough to overcome, even when people know you are talented.
John McTeigue as director (V for Venedetta, nice correography in Ninja Assassin) and Joseph Gordon-Levitt's as Parker.
The reboot WILL happen so lets just get it done well. Personally it could be a good thing, the other ones always seemed just to ridiculous and the Kirstin Dunst is a bitch.
@mfan: How is Raimi not a team player? Yes, he wanted a larger budget, but only so that his grandiose ideas for Spidey 4 could be realized. He didn't want another critical failure like Spidey 3. The fact that he did Spidey 3 demonstrates he is a team player. He hated the Venom character and when Sony forced the character on him, he rolled with it and made the best movie he possibly could. It sucked, but that wasn't his fault.
I'm so glad people are taking the Joseph Gordon Levitt thing seriously LOL I thought I was going to be the only one to mention him on here.
@HavaJava: actually if the studio goes the "high-school" route, they would be taking the series back to it's original roots, wherein Peter Parker was a high-school student. The first Spider-Man flick began with Peter as a highschool senior remember? This enable the studio to keep making flicks: first he's in highschool, then college, etc.
@Colin:
to be honest levitt is a very intriguing young actor, and i hope he doesnt play parker, i want him to play much more dynamic roles in a lot more interesting movies, getting tied to a huge franchise would mean he'd have to allocate majority of his time to spidey, and look what it did to maguire's career, besides making him rich, it didnt really do him any favors as to getting any real critical acclaim.
@ddurden33: That's good stuff, J.G.L. is an intriguing young actor. But I don't think Christian Bales roles have become any less dynamic after playing The Dark Knight. It's all on the actor. Nobody made Tobey Maguire make two films since he signed on to play Spidey. He wanted to sit on his butt and get paid, not that I fault him for that, live it up. I like Maguire so not a big deal, but it would've been nice to see him do more roles like "Brothers" and whatnot.
I think Bay and Cameron are pretty cool choices, but it think that Zack Snyder would be perfect for this. I mean come on, he gave us both 300 and Watchmen, which were jaw-dropping, so i say, if Snyder is available, let him do it.
Spider Man a high school student again? No make him an adult; no more of that teen BS already. But I do wonder if these new scripts will involve the hob-goblin.
Thank god for the Incredible Hulk reboot because 2003's Hulk was horrid.
Regarding the gritty feel they want to give the new Spidey films I think that is a bad idea. Gritty works, no doubt. I love that, but while it works perfectly with a character like Batman, which is a dark character, Spidey suits a more "fun" feel. Now I don't read comics so I have no idea if Spidey is supposed to be gritty and all, but from a cinematic point of view Batman suits the darkness, the violence and the madness Nolan has brought to the films. Spider-Man isn't that kind of character for me.
And to the whole Gordon-Levitt discussion. While I would love to see him as Peter Parker I would much more prefer him as a villain in a new Batman film. They guy can be intense as hell like in Manic and while he can also do comedy and romantic I prefer him when he is at his most intense and gritty (Brick). And just to add, I can't wait to see Inception.
@eli p: Snyder is the anti-spider-man there is a difference between gritty and gore, spider-man is not about gore, i agree about the idea of him being percieved more as a public menace and that it really is a serious matter with cops after him and shooting at him not just J Jonah Jameson screaming in his office in a campy fashion, spider-man is first and foremost a vigilante the public does not embrace him and this would be a good route for the first film especially how a teengager who can't find his way as peter parker has so much trouble finding acceptance as spider-man
I'm surprised more bloggers/journos or whatever aren't wondering _why_ Sony was disappointed in a film that earned over 100 million (might be more, I didn't check all the worldwide numbers) after accounting for the cost of the film. And when you factor in how much it no doubt made on DVD — because of loyal comic book fans _AND_ because of Raimi's cult following — the decision to take away creative control from Raimi and "start over" seems monumentally dumb (it's not as if the third film directed by Raimi — in which he'd lost even more creative control — was as big a miststep as the fourth, 1990s Batman flick). And there is no guarantee a "reboot" will always be financial (or critical) success. "Superman Returns" proved that.
Raimi seemed to "get" the quirkiness of the character — and Tobey McGuire was pitch perfect as Peter Parker. I won't be suprised if either the "reboot" flops, or never quite gets out of development.
Another good — recent — example of a "reboot" that didn't do as well, financially, as the original: "The Incredible Hulk." That made much less than Ang Lee's version (and wasn't necessarily a better film, either).
Very weird decision to reboot an already successful and established franchise in such a short period of time. But basically, they are going to make another 2+ billion dollars re-telling the same story differently.
I think the main reason is because they fumbled and screwed up with the entire Venom character and story in the third movie, something many fans were looking forward to.
And once they saw how they could have taken that direction into the Batman Begins and The Dark Knight route, they want a do-over.
Unfortunately I called it in the previous post. The only way to take the Spider-man franchise into a profitable direction is to make it darker and more mature. In the spirit of The Dark Knight or Watchmen. Which is not what Spider-man is. But I'm for them taking it in that direction if it means Michael Bay and Zach Efron aren't a part of it. Because yes a dark and gritty spider-man movie would be bad but a spider-man movie directed by Michael Bay staring Zach Efron would be the worst comic book movie ever made. Especially if they still decide to make it a dark movie. Joseph Gordon-Levitt is one of my favorite actors since Brick but I don't see him as Peter Parker. Though it certainly wouldn't be a bad choice. But I personally would like to see Jamie Bell as Peter.
P.S. Though I'll probably catch flak for it. I quite liked Ang Lee's Hulk. Definitely more than The Incredible Hulk. Though The Incredible Hulk had an amazing cast. (Minus Liv Tyler)
Please, please, please don't let what I've seen floating around be true. Oh god, please…
…Rob Pattinson…
Kill me now.
This whole rebooting of Spidey is just garbage.
I don't know. It could turn out okay. I don't think Columbia is stupid enough to actually cast Zac Efron. I actually kind of like the Logan Lerman suggestion, but he's doing Percy Jackson and probably won't have the time for it. An unknown might be the best bet.
@rattler76: sorry but the incredible hulk was not a reboot. Another stab at the franchise perhaps incorporating new talent, but the story did reference the events of the previous film with eric bana. I actually dig the way they were able to pull that off without alienating the viewers from what's already been introduced to us, like what they're surely going to do with this spiderman bologna
In my PERSONAL opinion, restarting Spiderman is the stupidest idea ever. Sure, 3 wasn't all too great, but that's cause it wasn't ONLY Raimi doing it. They should have let him take the reigns! To hell with it becoming a high school flick! damn it Sony lol.
It need to be Batman was kicking Spider-Man's Butt !Do it right this time or don't do it at
all.The frist spiderman was ok ,the 2nd one was great the 3rd one was a joke!
Why the hell are they sending him back to high school? Why not just do it how it was always meant to be and have peter obtain his powers in college like the original comics? They should just stick to the original storyline of the comics because when they try to be all creative and shit, they just make it lame!!