What's Next for 'Spider-Man' and Sam Raimi?

On Monday, Sony scrapped Spider-Man 4. Unbelievable. With the amount of success Sony and Sam Raimi have found over the years, to reach this much discord on script issues and shooting schedules doesn't really make a lot of sense to the franchise's audience. Still, reaction to the move has ranged - at least on this site - from happy to hopeful. Maybe the series can be salvaged because they won't do the same things again. Entertainment Weekly says Sony will aim for 2012, rebooting the series "in a more contemporary setting," with Peter Parker a teenager again going through his origin story. The word "gritty" is being thrown around, and some of our readers debated the merits of that kind of thing when we reported on the end of the Raimi years. I'm not for it, because there are plenty of comic book characters already trying to be Batman. This one needs to try to be Spider-Man. EW places three names in the director's chair, although it's way too early to have a handle on that. Marc Webb of (500) Days of Summer has been mentioned, and he's the cheapest. Gary Ross was brought in to write a draft of the doomed fourth film, and then there's Michael Bay. Yep. I'm sure you remember when Spidey fought all those hot chicks throwing firebombs. As for Raimi, Ain't It Cool News reports that part of the breakdown of Spidey 4 stemmed from Sam's contract to direct Warcraft, and if the webslinger went long, that film would get off track, too. So now, Raimi has more time (and has already been contacted by the studio) to work on Warcraft, which is good news for gamers, I guess. So all's well that ends well for Raimi, and let's not forget he wasn't that excited about returning to Spider-Man after the third film, anyway. The only thing worse than a movie written in the boardroom is one that's also directed by a guy whose heart isn't in it. As for Spider-Man, which won't be Spidey 4 now, the process starts over. New cast, new director, new vision, same meddling studio.

Comments

[Vince]

I'm interested in a reboot, mostly because the films might have needed a shake-up, something fresh to make the experience worthwhile.

"Spider-Man 2" is fantastic of course, but mostly because Alfred Molina was an amazing villain. The film hinged on the rivalry between him and Spider-Man, and the movie ended up working more or less because of it. Also the action was great, as was the pacing, but that's a different story.

The third movie...exists, but the first movie is something that we can focus our attention on. AT the time, it was a ton of fun to watch, but it does not hold up well at all today. It's way too silly and cheesy, and the Green Goblin was a pretty stupid villain (not to mention Willem Dafoe ate the scenery with that role). I would love to see what a new star, a new screenwriter and a new director could do with that same basic story.

Also, this totally means that we'll get a REAL Venom, not that Topher Grace who did a disservice to every Spider-Man fan ever. A real Venom, coupled with a "gritty" new theme for the series could open up a ton of possiblities...Carnage, perhaps??

[nick soapdish]

I agree with Vince. The first movie was great because i don't think we were expecting much from comic book movies at that point (if we even are now), I don't think that being grittier is trying to be Batman. Comic books these days are a lot more adult oriented and have a bit more grit to them than the spiderman movies had.

[Peter Glass]

Don't reboot the series at all ever.

[Jason]

I am sorry, but Spiderman WASN't gritty! Does everybody have to remake great characters into their own new ones? I admit, that while I am not a purist (after all when every comic book character has at least 3 origin stories, and all kinds of continuity problems, I don't even know what a purist means!) I am a traditionalist. Spidey has a certain feel. Batman has a certain feel. Why does every fan boy and his dog think he can do it better??? Better FX, story lines, modernizing, all of that is good. But keep the spirit of the character.

The other thing, isn't a bit freakin early to reboot this franchise?? I could accept The Fantastic Four, because it really wasn't that great, especially 2. But Spidey 1 and 2 were quite good. And are we really going to find a better Peter Parker? Tobey Maguire did a great job!
I am all for reboots, reimaginings (hey I am the biggest Trekker I know, and I LOVED JJ Abrams take!) etc. But give it some time for crying out loud!

[Orinn]

Did not want Spidey 4, do want some progress on Warcraft movie.
win win for me.

[ramsay]

So, lemme get this straight...every superhero that is "dark" or "gritty" is trying to be like Batman? Come to think of it, there are lots of different takes on Batman: The 60's TV series was ultra campy, and some of the animated series weren't too dark. Granted, I grew up with Burton's Batman (I was 6 when it came out)and it was uber-dark....so there are lots of interpretations of the dark knight.

I'm an even bigger fan of Venom (because Eddie Brock is that dude!) and Carnage than I am of Spidey, and I think employing a darker side to the franchise can really offer a lot to bring out one of Spidey's fiercents foes. Let's face it, one of the biggest things we have judged on the previous Spidey movies are the quality of the bad guys. The best Batman movies were the ones with the best villains too: Original Joker (Nicholson who was awesome), Penguin (DeVito who was equally as good of a villain), and Dark Knight (Joker again). The crappy Batman movies had crappy portayals of villains (though I did enjoy Tommy Lee Jones as Two Face).

[anybody]

I have to throw my chips in with Jason here, besides a few of the comics (like the recent Spiderman Noir), Spiderman just isn't a 'gritty' comic (like Superman, FanFour for that matter) while Batman is made for that - besides the campy approach in the 60's. From the characters (Peter Parker/Clark Kent) to the setting (sunny New York/Metropolis vs. Gotham), its a sunshine comic versus the dark kNIGHT of Batman.

As far as reboots, I agree it's too soon. I wouldn't mind having some spin-offs like a Venom or Carnage movie where spiderman plays second fiddle to the villain (we don't need to see PP's origin story again). Something like The Joker comic by Brian Azzarello but centering on the aforementioned villains in the Spiderman universe. As far as comics that are ripe for a reboot, I think we can have a new Superman with a complete origin story and I'd especially like to see Daredevil start fresh. You don't need to reboot successful franchises (two out of three ain't bad) but the ones that missed the mark with the first try.

[Get The Big Picture]

Ramsay, I just mean in the current movie marketplace, the reaction to go dark and gritty is linked to the success of the Batman reboot. That's why DC wanted to do the same thing with Superman. I don't believe that's the answer so much as it's just the wrong time for that character, that the themes of Superman don't work in a more morally ambiguous time. Batman is ideal for that. Spidey...not so much. But Spidey can work the way he is, and Iron Man, too. There's no need to radically alter what they already have, just get better scripts. Maybe I'm piling on to what anybody just said, but in the interest of explaining my point...

The trouble with going dark as a direction, in my opinion, is that you have to stay that way. It's no problem in the Nolanverse, but how far could they realistically take it with Peter Parker?