web counter
 

Marc Webb Confirmed as the Director of the Spider-Man Reboot

By Dustin Rowles | Posted Under Trade News | Comments (21)

marc-webb09-7-14.jpg

I really loved Marc Webb, or at least what he did with (500) Days of Summer. I don’t relish the idea of loathing him in the future. But it’s official now — Webb has been confirmed as not just the director of the Spider-Man reboot, replacing Sam Raimi, but of the next three Spider-Man flicks.

I know — production won’t even begin until the fall, but you’re already sick to death of Spider-Man reboot news. Apologies, but with casting in the works, it’s not likely to end until the 2012 release date, at which point we can begin pontificating on the villain in the second movie (I hear it’s going to be the Joker!).

Anyway, the idea behind hiring Webb to take over the new series is that Sony could do it on the cheap, or at least inasmuch as $80 million is on the cheap (that’s a good $180 million less than Spider-Man 3). I’m not sure why they need to cut corners — worldwide grosses recouped the cost of the last one several times over. But a reboot means a lot more of Peter Parker pre-costume, which means pre-action sequences, which means: Less money. And the reality is, we’re all going to see the damn movie anyway. Bad reviews won’t keep us away. Terrible casting won’t keep us away. Nothing will. There’s an audience, and it’s huge. And with Webb on board, and a new set of younger, hipper whippersnappers, the audience is going to get even bigger, bringing with it a new generation of Spidey fans.

At least Webb is saying all the right things so far:

“This is a dream come true and I couldn’t be more aware of the challenge, responsibility, or opportunity. Sam Raimi’s virtuoso rendering of Spider-Man is a humbling precedent to follow and build upon. The first three films are beloved for good reason. But I think the Spider-Man mythology transcends not only generations but directors as well. I am signing on not to ‘take over’ from Sam. That would be impossible. Not to mention arrogant. I’m here because there’s an opportunity for ideas, stories, and histories that will add a new dimension, canvas, and creative voice to Spider-Man.”

Lookit: Marc Webb is clearly a great director, and the fact that the reboot is probably going to focus more on character than on action sequences is probably a good thing, in addition to costing less money. So, maybe there’s no need to be skeptical. Maybe this is a good movie — God knows, Sam Raimi didn’t get it done with Spider-Man 3. Maybe it’s time to give another guy a stab at it.

So, I’m cautiously optimistic. At least until anyone from Twilight or High School Musical is cast in the movie, which is expected to return to high school and explore (or re-explore) Spidey’s origins. The best thing they can do, really, is find an unknown, because right now, there’s not a lot of high-school aged kids that fit the bill that I could abide by.









Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance

← Hesher, I Love Sarah Jane | Mel Gibson DiCaprio Flick to be Completely in Norse →









Comments

Marc Webb is clearly a great director

He's clearly a great director based off only one movie? You're really willing to say that? Clearly?

I admit that I, too, am sick of Spidey re-boot news. That last movie left such a horrible taste in my mouth that I pretty much lost interest in the franchise. Some new blood will certainly help.

Also, how could you pass up on having a director named "Webb" directing a Spider-Man movie? It's too perfect.

Posted by: Forbiddendonut at January 20, 2010 10:08 AM

Man, people really dog on Raimi for Spider-Man 3, but as I understand it, wasn't that movie twisted and malformed by Sony? Didn't they force certain changes -- like insisting that he integrate Venom into an already finished script?

The movie was lacking -- no doubt. The Sandman wasn't well developed enough, the whole amnesia thing with Harry was pretty awful (and so was Franco's acting, to be blunt) and Emo Spidey was one of the worst ideas to date. But the idea that fame has gone to Peter's head, the continuing drama of the love triangle (further complicated by Gwen Stacy), and the amazing fight sequences (best of the entire super-hero genre thus far, in my opinion) were all very inspired. Seeing Spidey rip the symbiote off his skin in the church tower was powerful -- not just thrilling visually, but emotionally as well. Watching the Sandman reform wasn't just beautiful computer imagery, it was also a strong character moment -- a beautiful example of how a story should SHOW instead of TELL. The scene in the restaurant when Peter is trying to propose to MJ, and is struck dumb with the realization that he hasn't devoted himself to her -- it was heart wrenching.

I dunno. Raimi has done so much that I love, I find it difficult to believe that he is solely responsible for the negative aspects of Spider-Man 3.

It's nice to hear Webb talk about his contribution to Spider-Man's history without putting an asterisk after it.

Posted by: superasente at January 20, 2010 10:11 AM

Maybe it's the latent comic dork in me, but I didn't see the big deal with the Spider-Man movies. They were straight up corn loaf, & I can't see Ted Raimi without thinking of that part in Darkman where his fake head is bobbing around in the sewer hole, in traffic. So maybe this reboot will make for a better movie, but I doubt it. I don't think anybody wants to see Peter meet Mary Jane, I think they all want to see Spider-Man crack wise & kick the weenises of the Sinister Six, then go home to MJ.

Posted by: the new transported man at January 20, 2010 10:11 AM

I don't know, based on 500 Days of Summer, which I didn't think was all that great, *and* a lowered budget, now I'm afraid Spidey is going to be way too emo for my taste.

I don't mind quiet introspective movies and I don't mind big 'splodey action movies, but marrying the two can be very tricky. I don't think he succeeded with the former and he doesn't have a history at all of the latter. Maybe it'll surprise me, but my expectations are officially low.

Posted by: Wednesday at January 20, 2010 10:24 AM

Please tell me Zac Efron is too tall to play Spiderman. Please?

IMDBS it

Phew. He's 5'10.5. Way too tall to play Peter Parker...

What do you mean Tobey Maguire's 5'9"? Just like Ryan Seacrest, right? As in, not really? Son of a bitch. Efron's going to be Spiderman, isn't he?

At the very least could they beef up Aunt May's role to balance out the suck?

Posted by: Robert at January 20, 2010 10:45 AM

He's clearly a great director based off only one movie? You're really willing to say that? Clearly?

Pfffffttt. You've obviously never watched his direction of Jesse McCartney: Up Close or Ashlee Simpson's music video of "Boyfriend" or...

Okay, so "clearly" may be a mite strong.

Posted by: branded at January 20, 2010 10:47 AM

On the back of my old marvel universe trading card of Spider-Man (ca. 1991), Peter Parker's height is listed as 5'11.

Posted by: Mr.West at January 20, 2010 10:58 AM

a reboot means a lot more of Peter Parker pre-costume, which means pre-action sequences

So they're definitely sweeping the board clean?

Personally, I'd go with setting the story in high school, but after Peter got bit. You don't need to retell one of the 3 best known origin stories (and it keeps Sony from having to deny Spidey 1 ever happen).

Not to mention that I'm tired of damn superhero origins stories. That's not what we want to see. Get to the good shit.

So do it in high school, but Peter's already Spider-Man. Go from there.

Posted by: Fredo at January 20, 2010 11:25 AM

Comics-wise, Spider-Man has been rebooted and his origin retold many times by different writers and artists and it remains a damn strong origin. I thought the Raimi directed films were awfully hammy (although enjoyable--until the 3rd one, at least) so I'm willing to see a new, more stylish spin. I don't envy Mr. Webb the task of re-making a recent, popular film, but it is an interesting proposition and, like I said, a strong story.

Posted by: The Wandering Parakeet at January 20, 2010 11:38 AM

I have trouble thinking of Marc Webb in any context other than a My Chemical Romance video. This is actually a good thing because maybe he'll be able to get Spider-Man to be a little less tortured.

Posted by: Martin at January 20, 2010 11:40 AM

which is expected to return to high school and explore (or re-explore) Spidey’s origins.

WHY?! The origins bits are always the most boring parts of these movies. Everyone knows the origin, just get it over with and get to the ass kicking, for crying out loud. Why do they need to do this again?!

Posted by: figgy at January 20, 2010 1:00 PM

The only thing heartbreaking about any of those Spidermovies was giving over my money to see them. I hope this one will at least have a decent Peter Parker, one with a sense of humor. But if they can't do a better job with the plot (meaning there will actually be one that is not completely nonsensical and get some Gwen Stacy up in that bitch), then I'll wait for cable. My favorite villain was Lizard. Be cool if they used him next time (or in one of the two more that Webb is signed for), tho.

Posted by: Chickaboom at January 20, 2010 1:12 PM

The origins bits are always the most boring parts of these movies.

I really don't understand that point of view. Plus, it's untrue.

Posted by: Jay at January 20, 2010 1:50 PM

Origins done well are awesome, no matter how many times you've heard it or read it.

That said, there is a high probability they're going to fuck up the casting real bad. Not sure how much control this guy is going to have, but if he is a studio puppet, look for a few pretty model/shitty actors to be thrown in there.

Posted by: Mick J at January 20, 2010 2:51 PM

Bah. The studio shouldn't take it for granted that I'll be there. That's the sort of attitude that gives us crappy blockbusters. (You didn't get my dollars for Transformers 2, you bastards!) I expect I'm a bigger Spiderman fan than at least 90 percent of the general moviegoing populace, and I'd say there's a decent chance that I'll skip this, especially if the reviews are lukewarm. I'm o.k. with Webb; in a movie this big directorial panache tends to get diluted regardless. It's all about the screenplay.

Again, I am so sick of superhero origin stories, but I suppose I'm willing to be pleasantly surprised.

Posted by: DarthCorleone at January 20, 2010 2:59 PM

I expect I'm a bigger Spiderman fan than at least 90 percent of the general moviegoing populace

.........no, it's too easy.

Posted by: Jay at January 20, 2010 3:36 PM

I'm lost, Jay, so go ahead and ridicule me.

Posted by: DarthCorleone at January 20, 2010 4:13 PM

Oh I just can't bring myself to it.

Posted by: Jay at January 20, 2010 4:29 PM

Ever feel that you would easily see yourself fitting into his / her life despite the age difference? http://AgelessOnly.com is a good place.

Posted by: Rose at January 21, 2010 1:18 AM

Does this mean I have to watch Uncle Ben get shot again? That's something a man should only have to endure once....

Posted by: Coco Bravo at January 21, 2010 9:03 AM

"Spider-Man 3" comes really close to being as difficult to follow as an "X-Men" movie. Well, maybe not that close since an "X-Men" movie requires the viewer to try to follow the lives of at least a dozen different characters. But I think it was a mistake for the makers to have Spidey contend with three different villains in one film. Unlike the two superior predecessors, it felt like they were trying to cram three movies into one with "Spider-Man 3".

Posted by: best sdhc cards at February 3, 2010 4:56 AM