Originally Posted by Obi-Wan Jabroni (Post 11189187)

Even if they paid no acknowldgement to the first 3 films, they didn't have to start from the beginning again. Spider-Man could be like James Bond.

Originally Posted by devilshalo (Post 11189366)

But isn't Craig's James Bond technically a restart with something of an origin in CR and QoS. Isn't that a restart with a new set of actors forging a longer, different story arc and making it its own apart from the Connery, Moore, Dalton, Lazenby, & Brosnan films?

Originally Posted by Mike86 (Post 11189386)

I agree with the last page or so of posts. The idea of rebooting Spider-Man just seems dumb at this point and I don't really understand why they went with this route. I'm also wondering how telling it is that we haven't seen much footage or pictures at this point when the movie really isn't that far off for release. You'd think by now they'd be hyping it a bit more.

Spider-Man 3 wasn't perfect by any means but I didn't think it was so bad they had to start over. The trilogy was overall still a success and if they wanted to move on without Raimi, Maguire, Dunst, and so on they could have easily done so without rebooting the franchise. I really get the feeling that this movie will most likely not be a total flop but I really don't see it doing as well as the other three.

It was different rebooting Hulk or Batman as Ang Lee's Hulk really didn't go over very well and Schumacher's Batman movies (more Batman & Robin) were pretty much universally hated. They had decent reasons for wanting to go back and start again. Spider-Man 3 was more a case where fanboys got upset but generally I think most other people didn't hate it.

Originally Posted by Obi-Wan Jabroni (Post 11189691)

Spider-Man has only been 10 years and 3 films.

Originally Posted by Tom Creo (Post 11190002)

You forgot another important date:
April 2012 - Tom Creo don't give a shit.

Originally Posted by Tom Creo (Post 11190002)

You forgot another important date:
April 2012 - Tom Creo don't give a shit.

Originally Posted by devilshalo (Post 11189884)

So looking back at my old Spider-m4n thread at the timeline:

Jan 2007 - Sony hires David Koepp to write the 4th film after a screening of SM3. Looking at a 2009 or 2010 release date.
Apr 2007 - Raimi not sure about directing. Ziskin says if anything, the next movie will take 3 years to get made.
May 2007 - SM3 opens. $800+M worldwide.
Jul 2007 - Raimi buys in, wants Sony to ask him to direct and wants Electro & Vulture. Oct 2007 - James Vanderbilt hired to write.
Oct 2008 - David Lindsay-Abaire hired to write. Raimi and Maguire set to return.
Mar 2009 - Release date given for May 6, 2011.
Jun 2009 - Dunst on board.
Sep 2009 - Gary Ross hired to write.
Dec 2009 - Pre-production halted. Studio and Raimi have creative differences.
Jan 2010 - Maguire still hopeful to continue production and meet the release date. Then Raimi quits. Sony lets Maguire, Dunst go and plans a reboot instead from a story by James Vanderbilt, whom they hired July 2007. :shrug:

So 3 years of development down the drain. And they can't hit 2011 with a release and must hit 2012 to retain the rights. (I believe they have to start filming by a certain number of years of the last film in order to retain the rights. Not sure how FOX's deal is with FF, X-Men and Daredevil.) Now had they gone thru the whole process again of hiring more writers to come up with a story at the time they got rid of Raimi and crew, it would probably have taken more pre-production time, and they would have lost their window of opportunity. Maybe Vanderbilt knew this going in and had his own script on stand by? Who knows. Whatever the case, they needed to start shooting something. They started around late Nov of 2010 and finished principle photography back in May of last year.

They did what they did to keep it... good or bad. :shrug:

Originally Posted by DaveyJoe (Post 11195697)

Gawd even the Lizard is doing the three point stance.

Originally Posted by Some parts from MTV

MTV: Was there anything from the Sam Raimi and Tobey Maguire era that you looked to when approaching your version of "Spider-Man," or did you want to stay away from those films and start completely fresh?

Webb: We wanted to do our own thing. We wanted a different villain and a different tone. There wasn't anything I wanted to recapture from those movies, beyond their respect for the character. I thought that was a really wonderful thing. We're doing something different and new and risky, and I understand that. But it's something that I've found very appealing. I couldn't let the opportunity go. I have deep and abiding respect for Sam and Tobey and all those movies that were made, but we are trying to achieve something different. It's a unique set of circumstances when you talk about Spider-Man, because he's been around for 50 years. People talk about rebooting characters. It's different than, say, Harry Potter, who has just a handful of books for his entire canon. There's so much material in Spider-Man that there are so many stories to tell and so many characters. It's more like James Bond or something like that.

MTV: Judging from trailers and the few scenes that have been released online, the takeaway for me is that this is a grittier "Spider-Man" movie, a bit more dangerous than some of the more cartoony takes we've seen previously. But the prankster side is still in place too. There's a clip online of Peter really toying with a guy as he's webbing him up, so the comedy is definitely there. How did you find the right mix of comedy and darkness in this movie?

Webb: I wouldn't say we were ever after pursuing darkness. We just wanted to keep things real. I think it comes down to everything having to emerge from a real place. The reason why Spider-Man is being so playful in that moment is that as a character, he's feeling drunk on his power. He's having a really good time. He's becoming a bit of a bully there. He's not being deeply altruistic, and that's something you'll learn more about when you see the movie. It's a reflection of his attitude: He puts that mask on and the shy kid is gone. He's now this really empowered superhero. That means having fun, sometimes at other people's expense.

MTV: In addition to Andrew's interest, you got the chance to play around with the physicality of the character through 3-D, I'm sure. Can you talk a little about the way 3-D is used in your film?

Webb: We started making the movie around the time "Avatar" came out. Every studio in the world wanted 3-D. I hadn't worked with it before. I didn't want it forced upon the movie because I've seen bad conversions and it scared me that people weren't using it properly. It had been used so incredibly effectively in "Avatar," and that was really appealing. I wanted to figure out how to give the audience an experience that's worthy of a "Spider-Man" film, and it was one of those things that just felt completely organic after a while. What can 3-D do? When I looked at all the movies that were out there and the tests, I found what I call the three V's of 3-D: volume, vertigo and velocity. These things create a specific sensation that made a lot of sense for a Spider-Man movie: flying through the air, a sense of vertigo. In the trailer, there's a shot of a tower falling. When you see that in 3-D or in an IMAX environment, it's spectacular. It's a feeling you don't get very often. I think that 3-D is an extra tool that can tickle parts of the brain that you can't in any other way. With Spider-Man, particularly the second half of our movie, there are moments and feelings you just can't get in any other way.

Originally Posted by mcfly (Post 11195821)

Only screen in 3D? So there's no 2D version being released as well? WTF?

Guess I won't be seeing it in theaters after all.

Originally Posted by DaveyJoe (Post 11195697)

Gawd even the Lizard is doing the three point stance.