£10 says it will be even shitter than spiderman 3
-end-
Spider-Man 4 washed down plughole
Columbia Pictures has cancelled Spider-Man 4 and will now develop "a younger, cheaper installment of the superhero franchise", without the assistance of Tobey Maguire or director Sam Raimi. The movie was scheduled for a 2011 release, but the studio last week put it on indefinite hold due to "script problems", Variety explains …
-
Tuesday 12th January 2010 14:52 GMT Anonymous Coward
hold on
How can you go back to his roots? In the first film we saw his super powered roots and a younger Toby Maguire would be Toby Maguire as he hasn't aged and half the thing is with a mask on anyway.
Do we really want to see him AGAIN in the ring with the guy who is the "macho man randy savage"? Sadly it means a younger kirsten dunst as well, or will she be in it?
Hollywood PR really isn't cutting it much in 2010.
-
Tuesday 12th January 2010 14:52 GMT MinionZero
@"a younger, cheaper installment of the superhero franchise"
I was very sorry to hear this news this morning, but I can't help thinking that Disney's takeover of Marvel has something to do with it. Now Spider-Man-Boy 4 sounds like some kind of bloody school drama!
I guess Spider Boy's battle this time will be to fight to be in the final of his school's version of x-factor. :(
-
Tuesday 12th January 2010 15:32 GMT Inachu
Here we go again.
Not only with Batman but now with Spiderman.
I am sick of Hollywood.
There is no growth to the story line. It never goes farther than part 3.
"OH! We can make it better and start off at part 1 again every 5 to 10 years!"
I am sick of the retelling of the story. Please continue at part 4.
The only movie that deserves a nice retelling of the story is Peter Pan.
-
-
Tuesday 12th January 2010 15:35 GMT Anonymous Coward
Wasn't Peter Parker bitten ...
, or perhaps strung, by the spider that gave him his super powers while in university? He could still certainly have been a teenager, but he wouldn't have grow up with super powers.
The studio appears to be moving away from the tv carton and comic book plots that made Spiderman successful. That has got to be a great idea.
-
Tuesday 12th January 2010 15:35 GMT rhdunn
The Reboot Craze
Very little original content has come out of Hollywood in recent years (adaptation, sequel or reboot). Sometimes, a reboot of a series works out well (like Batman Begins/The Dark Knight and Star Trek), but is more often likely to result in failure. At least with the Batman films, there was some time between the last outing and Begins.
At least with avatar (while similar in structure to Pocahontas and Dances With Wolves) there were interesting ideas and attention to detail that made it enjoyable.
The more interesting and original films are coming from indie film makers.
It seems like Hollywood is backing 3D technology to make up for its lack of originality. Come up with something that is original, has good characters that evolve throughout the film and have an interesting story.
-
Tuesday 12th January 2010 15:36 GMT Torben Mogensen
Reboot?
DC rebooted the Batman movies with Batman Begins -- i.e., ignored that there were previous films so they could start from scratch without all the accumulated baggage.
Marvel/Disney can do the same with Spiderman, but given the relatively short time since Spiderman 3, it will seem a bit odd to do so. Odder things have happened in the film industry, though.
I don't really think that there are that much undesired baggage from the three previous films to warrant a reboot -- what made SM3 a bad move was primarily that it had too many stories running at the same time (Venon, Sandman, Harry Osborne as the new Green Goblin), which made it rather a mess. Several of these stories could also have been told a lot better, but I can't see that as reason enough for a reboot.
It would be a minor issue to change actors even if the new film starts where the previous left off -- after all, the previous Batman series had three different actors playing Batman, and Superman Returns is supposedly a sequel to the Christopher Reeve films, even though all actors have changed. So I, personally, think this would be the best solution. A smaller budget is no problem -- SM3 was way OTT in special effects, and special effects do not a good story make.
-
Tuesday 12th January 2010 15:38 GMT Anonymous Coward
"script problems"
"script problems" probably means they can't come up with anything better than the one for Spidey 3.
A good thing for us if they've canned it - we won't have to sit through another couple of hours of total dross (my gf refused to leave the cinema and it was too noisy for a decent nap)
Mine's the one with a copy of "drag me to hell" in the pocket
-
-
Tuesday 12th January 2010 16:06 GMT Eduard Coli
It's not the hero but the villains that make a superhero movie
There really was no reason other than $$$ of course to make a 3rd movie, the 1st included Spiderman's best villain the the 2nd movie was mainly to resolve some loose ends from the first.
If the studios make a cheaper Spiderman will they say they made money on it this time?
Whoever is handling this project at the studio must be a real crook as this is the same movie where the studios tried to rook Stan Lee by saying that they made no money despite record breaking box office takes.
-
Wednesday 13th January 2010 10:31 GMT Youngdog
Superhero movie you say?
Forget all this Marvel crap - give us LUTHER ARKWRIGHT: THE MOVIE!
It's got everything - nefarious baddies with a mind-bending plot to destroy the universe, lashings of dashing deeds and daring do PLUS oodles of tantric nookie for good measure.
And he's British!
LUTHER FTW!
-
Wednesday 13th January 2010 14:54 GMT Anonymous Coward
Spiderman 4: the birth of baby spiderman
Hi, it used to be that a series might be revised after 10 or 20 years. Gone are the days of Gunsmoke, a TV series lasted 20 years with the same actors. Spiderman without the original actor and his beautiful wife? Over and out, won't even go see it. Pay the actors what they deserve. I suppose Avatar 2 will already be assigned new actors who they can hire cheaper...
-
Wednesday 20th January 2010 19:07 GMT Anonymous Coward
I don't get it....
....please, someone, anyone help me understand. In the first Spiderman movie of this era Peter Parker gets bitten whence upon we're introduced to Spider Man and follow as Peter Parker deals and "grows up" with his "super power crises". If the *fourth* film is meant to be a *slow gag reflex* prequel isn't it just gonna be about a geeky kid growing up fantasizing about the girl next door? To make it cheaper is it just gonna end with a copy/paste of the first 20 minutes of the first movie before just cutting to black?
W...T...F?
-
Tuesday 26th January 2010 14:28 GMT Inachu
I am happy and sad about this!
I am happy they stopped the script because I bet they did not develop the characters any.
Hollywood has this love affair with movies that stop at part 3.... Then they somehow forget everything and start the movie over from part 1 thinking they can reinvent the wheel over and over and over again.
I am pretty sick of seeing this and not seeing any growth of a storyline that ties in with part 1,2, and 3. Oh wait lets stop! new actor star is hot so lets start at ground zero!!!=fail....
Hollywood how I hate thee.
This topic is closed for new posts.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
