web
counter
 

The Franchise is Dead, Long Live the Franchise

By Steven Lloyd Wilson | Posted Under Trade News | Comments (22)



Spiderman2-1.jpg

As Dustin reported yesterday, Sony has pulled the plug on Spider-Man 4, tossed the cast, told Sam Raimi to please by all means let the door hit his ass on the way out, and announced that they’re going to reboot the franchise with a new director, new actors, and a new script. And by reboot they mean that they’re going to take it back to the beginning and show us Peter Parker in high school. Again.

Reboots should follow the same rules as covers of songs. If you’re going to bring something entirely different to the song, go for it. But if you’re not going to change a thing then there just isn’t any point.

Last time I checked, Spider-Man did this origin story just eight years ago, and was damned well received. What exactly are they going to change? What amazing new special effects have become available today that will make this new telling of the origin story profoundly more realistic? Look, Parker’s a geek, gets bit by a radioactive spider, gets superpowers, becomes Spider-Man. There’s a redhead, a newspaper, and struggles to maintain a normal life while fighting crime on the side. Do we really need another two hours to show this again? There are monks who have lived in silent seclusion for most of post-pubescence who can recite the Spider-Man origin story better than their Psalms.

More to the terrifying point though is the answer to the question: who do they expect to want to see this? It’s one thing to reboot a franchise in which the starter film was badly received (like Hulk). If no one liked the original, there’s no reason people wouldn’t want to see the reboot if done right. But if the original is widely praised, no one will have any reason to go see the film, they’ll already have a perfectly good version of the story sitting in their stacks of DVDs. And if the reboot hits screens as planned in 2012, then the only people who didn’t get to see the original in theaters are those who were less than around seven years of age in 2002 when the original came out, otherwise known as today’s fifteen year olds.

The only rational market choice that yields this decision is if Sony has decided to push the film exactly for that young teenage crowd, the ones who swamp theaters for Twilight. Touché, cruel universe, touché.









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



Bill Paxton Talks Possible Twister Sequel | Nathan Fillion Joins James Gunn's "Super"









Comments

This is a good thing. It's a very good thing.

Posted by: Brian at January 12, 2010 10:38 AM

This is so lame. All that build-up for the Lizard -- gone. Malcovich Malcovich Malcovich -- gone. Possibly seeing Kirsten Dunst shivering in the rain again -- gone. Sam Raimi -- gone.

I hate you, Sony. I know you don't hear me individually, but I'm certain my voice is only one of millions, and I am happy to join the chorus.

Posted by: superasente at January 12, 2010 10:45 AM

Oh, Jesus H. Christ on a cracker. I am getting really sick and tired of retarded shit today.

Posted by: Katers at January 12, 2010 10:50 AM

Damn it! Are they NEVER going to get around to a properly cast Kingpin? Son of a bitch...

Posted by: alphawhiskey at January 12, 2010 11:17 AM

Man, fuck Sony. There is nothing they can do to Spider-Man that Sam Raimi hasn't done better. On the plus side, there's nothing they can do to Spider-Man that Sam Raimi hasn't done worse, unless they incorporate the Clone Saga and One More Day into the reboot series.

Posted by: George at January 12, 2010 11:29 AM

When The Amazing Spider-Man comic book changed writers or artists, they did not go back to the beginning, they simply picked up where the previous person left off and continued the story. Sometimes you might have an instant of discontinuity and of course some issues were better than others, but comic book readers were able to follow along regardless of who was drawing Peter Parker or who was controlling what he said or did.

The same should be done with the movies; sure someone else might be controlling the direction of the story, but in the end the mythos is still the same. There's really no reason to go back to the beginning. You could fast forward a few years and not make any obvious references to the previous installments, but there's no need to hand hold the audience all the way back to the start. We've seen that already. we want to go forward again.

It certainly wouldn't be without precedence. For example, the role of James Bond had changed hands over 40 years without a reboot. I would argue that it could have continued without one as every time a new actor stepped into the tux, he was in fact reinterpreting the role into a new version. Nobody got confused, no one asked why the character was still young after four decades just as comic book heroes don't age- we get that it's just a story. Just as the role of Bond changed with every actor and director to reflect the times in which he was presented, so to could it be applied to any other character.

This reminds me of Terry Gilliam's "Doctor Parnassus". While the role of Tony being split up among four actors wasn't initially planned. The principle is still the same. The same character played by different people (albeit within the same movie) and yet the audience can still in fact follow along. By Sony's logic, Gilliam would simply have to either start shooting the movie all over again, or just junk it.

So Spider-Man 3 wasn't up to snuff. One theory of blame is that despite the success of the previous two chapters, the studio couldn't keep their interfering mitts out of production. Now instead of acknowledging they fucked it up, they want to wipe the slate clean and pretend that NONE of the previous movies existed. Bad move Sony.

Posted by: bleujayone at January 12, 2010 11:31 AM

It's going be a seriously dramatic film. I hear it told that they will be casting Zack Efron and, before you ask, yes, he will be going full retard.

Posted by: admin at January 12, 2010 11:32 AM

... the ones who swamp theaters for Twilight

If Spiderman starts to sparkle, I'm walking out.

Posted by: mswas at January 12, 2010 11:35 AM

I'd love to see them try a Green Goblin that doesn't look ridiculous, with Gwen Fucking Stacy.

Posted by: Jay at January 12, 2010 11:46 AM

In a twist aimed at twee girls the whole thing will be told from Jane's PoV.

Posted by: EricD at January 12, 2010 11:49 AM

Exactly. No interest in the high school years here. Maybe those studio nincompoops will haunt the internet today and realize how stupid their idea is.

Posted by: DarthCorleone at January 12, 2010 11:57 AM

Can the Green Goblin work in a real world scenario? He wears a purple tunic and a stocking cap. Who could pull that look off?
Well, besides Link from Legend of Zelda.

Posted by: Optimus Rhyme at January 12, 2010 12:06 PM

Maybe Twilight Moms are into geeky high school reporters. Didn't they all end up marrying them?

Posted by: Bizarro Sofía at January 12, 2010 12:46 PM

bleujayone, I'm with you on your overall point, but I do have one quibble: you say that the Bond series has never been rebooted...but isn't that exactly what "Casino Royale" was? It showed Bond achieving his 007 status, making stupid rookie mistakes, and getting to know M. Seemed like a reboot to me, at least.

Posted by: Abe Froman at January 12, 2010 1:05 PM

Abe-

I didn't say that Bond didn't reboot, only that the effort to reboot it (as with Casino Royale) wasn't needed as in a way it kind of already did reboot a little each time the role was taken over by someone new. It had survived role changes for decades without a full-on reboot and could have survived without having one outright.

If you take a look at Bond before Daniel Craig took over, the Bond universe changes sometimes drastically from movie to movie, but they still can reference previous installments as they acknowledge them as being part of the fabric of the character's past- with a so-called "reboot" you throw everything out and start from scratch.

One example would be from "Goldeneye" when Bond meets the new M. Even though it's Bronson's first turn as 007, the previous adventures are hinted as being his history- hence he's a seasoned veteran spy to the new greenhorn Judi Dench as M. By the time "Casino Royale" rolls around, Bond's the rookie, and Dench's M is the incumbent MI-6 head. All previous adventures in any way shape or form are thrown out. Granted most Bond movies didn't critically rely on previous installments, but it was interesting to see both new interpretations of the same character, and how the previous adventures might have affected the present.

If done properly(such as 2009's Star Trek) reboots can be used to free a storyline of restrictions of established rules and history that might otherwise impede upon a story's ability to expand and evolve. But the point being is that reboots are becoming the 21st century's cinema version of crying "DO OVER" in the hopes of making moviegoers forget studio cock-ups and continue forking over money. It has become a studio's magic wand to cheat their way out of both producing quality product and to answer for the times when they are called out for doing so. Changing the lead or the director is not the lynchpin for ordering a reboot. Running into a creative wall because there is little else that can be done with a story or character might be, and I believe that Spider-Man was in little danger of that.

Posted by: bleujayone at January 12, 2010 2:08 PM

Spiderman: one good movie out of three. 33%. Not lamentable.

Not as good as Reeve's Superman series, 50%.

Still better than the Star Trek reboot, 0% and counting.

The numbers do not lie!

Posted by: Bluesilver at January 12, 2010 3:14 PM

Bluejayone: I have never agreed with anyone as much as I agree with you. If you threw in a "Oh yeah, and zombies are awesome," I'd be on my knees by now.

Posted by: superasente at January 12, 2010 3:17 PM

@bleujayone
Unless you believe that "James Bond" is a code name passed down to agents with the 007 id number. Just read an article about that that's definetley(sp? sorry I'm a few deep and too lazy to spell correctly) worth the time to read if you're a college student with too much time between classes and parties.

Posted by: Maloney at January 12, 2010 9:04 PM

Honestly I could dig a reboot if they are going to include more of spideys trademark humour into it. The sam rami movies had spidey as far to dry for my liking.

Posted by: Ben at January 12, 2010 9:49 PM

Interested in a discrete and mutually beneficial relationship? http://agelessonly.com gives you a chance to make your life better.

Posted by: Celia at January 14, 2010 2:23 AM

So what will the target audience be this time around? Obviously you are going for the much younger generation with number four, probably cause Toby is older and the Aunt and girlfriend have been taking up too much space. You already covered the wet t-shirt , love'em and leave'em , redemption and name clearing scrimp. One and two ARE excellent movies - but the 3rd installment caused me to hit the SKIP button more than a few times on my player. But I'm the type of guy who hates long winded scripts and cringe on the thought of the Simpsons doing another year, (I think they should've been cancelled 10 years ago).
So start over. Good call.
You have to appreciate the effort in making modern movies, with such a tight schedule and what probably amounts to a tanker truck of coffee the production staff must go through just to get the job done, much respect there.
But, I also have to work hard. So if movie makers want me to put down my hard earned bucks - its gonna have to be something I not only feel is worth every cent, its going to entertain people of every age.

Mysterio. The Boba Fett of menace and mystery. Swirling oxide inside the chamber, punches in and out of the past, present and {future?} (Thanks to Doc Oct's black hole) and takes a long trip back in time dragging Peter along for the ride(retains his Spider sense). Pete has to find a way back. You would have to use Toby for the opening and final scenes, but it would probably be the last of the Spiderman series if number four doesn't exceed the first three, so the money spent for production and contract earnings could be easily recovered.

Billy G. 'eh


Posted by: Billy G. at January 14, 2010 2:32 AM

I THINK Spider Man 4 GOING TO B STUIPED THERE NO USE IN MAKING IT IF Tobey maguire Not In It And Besides Spider Man 3 ENDING LOOK LIK IT WASANT GOING TO continue The 1st 3 Films Were Great . BuT If They Want A Peter Paker They Should Put Jake Gyllenhaal as Peter Paker . PLZ DNT SCREW UP 1 Of My Fav Movies Snd Hero

Posted by: Tyler Pena at July 2, 2010 12:17 PM