Spiderman reboot is go...

[rongravy]

I will see this. Sure, I'm sad that the original cast is gone, but what the hey? He looks good. I'm fucking game as hell. Bring it and I will critique the fuck out of it... Methinks I will like it, though...

[Neil]

Going to be very interesting to see how they can make it 'fresh' while still reaching the high standards the previous ones reached!

[Danny]

First the fanboys came for sam raimi, and we said nothing....

[SymphonicX]

Personally love the first two - the third I could rant about for a year... but the reboot is still too damn soon even with the missed trick that was 3 - its just too soon. It's like a band making an album and another band coming out with a cover album, based on the first album. How boring. One thing I do agree with is organic web shooters - Raimi was right to do that, as he said he couldn't "have peter parker using an adhesive that even 3M couldn't make"...and t'is true!

[blind2d]

Hey Hells... what the...?

[Publius]

but the reboot is still too damn soon even with the missed trick that was 3 - its just too soon. The way things are going, pretty soon they're going to start remaking and/or rebooting movies before the original is even released.

[bassman]

Turns out....it's not techinically a reboot. Here are some quotes from Producer Avi Arad: "it won't erase what came before but will try to weave a narrative that could take place within the framework of the earlier films. It's not a comeback. You have to look at it this way. Do you want to know more about Spider-Man? This movie is going to tell stories that you didn't see in movies 1, 2 and 3." So it's a prequel? BTW...it's now officially titled The Amazing Spider-Man.

[blind2d]

I'm still sad about this. I mean, really? What are they thinking?!

[ProfessorChaos]

it's pretty simple, blind: spider-man fans: + hollywood: = then "the spectacular spider-man" in theaters july 2015. rinse, repeat, reboot, etc.

[kortick]

I dont know who mentioned it here but I heard similar that the re-boot thing was due to the fact that Toby and Durnst were real problems as far as continuing the series. If u are a Spiderman fan, u would see that Raimi put in some charecters that really mattered and would have places in future movies like Dr Connor who became the Lizard, and John Jameson who became the Man-Wolf just to name two. Raimi had it set where he was really laying a solid foundation based on the comics themselves. It was obvious he lost control of things cuz the charecters of Venom, Harry Osborne and Sandman were nothing like the comic versions of them. That was Hollywood bullshit interfering with things. This reboot I think was needed due to many factors. I hope it follows along what Raimi was working towards cuz he really WAS following the true comic book.

[Doc]

^^^^^^^^ Err....didn't the original script of Spiderman 3 had the exact same problems like the finished product? Only it was Vulture instead, of Venom. No, hollywood producers involved with the exception, of the inclusion of Venom.

[Mitchified]

It was obvious he lost control of things cuz the charecters of Venom, Harry Osborne and Sandman were nothing like the comic versions of them. That was Hollywood bullshit interfering with things. To be fair, the Sandman was a lot like his incarnation in The Gauntlet, where he had begun caring for a little girl. Minus the random self-thinking copies he made, of course. Eddie Brock also seemed to be a mixture of his original self and his more emotional (read that as "emo") self from The Hunger. I'm not defending the movie or the characters, mind you, just pointing out that the character traits were present in the source material depending on the writer. Harry Osborne almost seemed to be patterned more after various incarnations of Norman Osborne than the character he was named for. The manipulation and extreme psychosis reminded me a lot of Norman right when he returned at the end of the Clone Saga and focused on ruining Peter Parker's life. Assuming that the plot still remained roughly the same, the Vulture would have been a much better fit for the movie than Venom. He tends to pick his spots more, wait for his opponent to be vulnerable and swoop in to pick at the remains like his namesake. It would have been a lot like his role in Down Among the Dead Men.

[kortick]

Well as as far as Venom/Brock go, they really bear little resemblance to originals done when McFarlane was the artist and Michelinie was writing. As creators of that charecter I look at the way they created him, not how others have changed him, same as with the character Thanos. Thanos is only, to me, done properly when penned by Jim Starlin. Also Harry Osbourne as the Green Goblin joining forces to fight along side Spiderman? That bears ZERO in relation to the comic. Go read issue #137 and see what Harry as the Goblin was like. Sandman is a difficult charecter, but was portrayed poorly, for his odd and yes silly power he is shown to be more complex in the comics as time goes on. And as far as Vulture being better, it really dont matter cuz they would have messed that up. There was no need to have all 3 of those vilians in the film. Why not just toss in the Sinister Six if we are going for pure body count. The great job they did with Dr Octopus, which really was a difficult charecter to put on screen left me and many others with the hope that the series was gonna be different from the usual garbage. But either way, the thing isnt really about Part 3, its about how and why this reboot is even occuring. Odd to take something that is generating so much cash and start over. As I said, and I do believe in some post somewhere another person mentioned it that the jumping thru hoops to keep the main stars attached had a major part in this.

[Mitchified]

Well as as far as Venom/Brock go, they really bear little resemblance to originals done when McFarlane was the artist and Michelinie was writing. As creators of that charecter I look at the way they created him, not how others have changed him, same as with the character Thanos. Thanos is only, to me, done properly when penned by Jim Starlin. Also Harry Osbourne as the Green Goblin joining forces to fight along side Spiderman? That bears ZERO in relation to the comic. Go read issue #137 and see what Harry as the Goblin was like. Sandman is a difficult charecter, but was portrayed poorly, for his odd and yes silly power he is shown to be more complex in the comics as time goes on. And as far as Vulture being better, it really dont matter cuz they would have messed that up. There was no need to have all 3 of those vilians in the film. Why not just toss in the Sinister Six if we are going for pure body count. The great job they did with Dr Octopus, which really was a difficult charecter to put on screen left me and many others with the hope that the series was gonna be different from the usual garbage. The original Spider-Man material isn't what the movies were scripted after, though. It was a combination of the standard Earth-616 Spider-Man and Ultimate Spider-Man. Sadly, Eddie Brock was basically, well, whiny in the Ultimate universe. I wasn't suggesting that the Vulture should have been in the movie in addition to Venom. I was saying that he should have been in the film INSTEAD of Venom, as the original script called for. To be honest, I don't think Venom should appear in any of the Spider-Man movies period, as the cosmic origin of the symbiote just seems out of place with the style they are going for. Incidentally, Harry Osborn did indeed team up with Spider-Man. Twice, actually; once as the Green Goblin (to fight Jason Macendale, the Hobgoblin, soon after the birth of his son) and once as American Son (to fight his father during Dark Reign). So there's been team-ups in both the older storylines and the newer ones. I thought that the Sandman's portrayal was one of the few bright spots for Spider-Man 3, as they managed to give depth to a character that traditionally doesn't have much. Where they completely screwed up with him was the ending, where they made him look like the offspring of Clayface and the Jolly Green Giant while making him completely mindless. With the new movie, I'm just hoping that they get back to emphasizing that it's really a story about Peter Parker and not some superhero. That's always been what set Spider-Man apart. Batman, Superman, the X-Men, Iron Man, etc., they're all about superheros that also happen to be someone else. Spider-Man works in reverse, and it's why you can connect with Peter Parker more than any other comic book character.

[kortick]

Well I will admit that I did not read the original script with the Vulture. Maybe it would have been better. I will say your info on the Spiderman comics is quite strong you obviously have more knowlege than just the average reader or movie goer. I would not have known this about you. I recently purchased http://www.amazon.com/Amazing-Spider...8376261&sr=8-2 which is a dvd rom of every Amazing Spiderman from 1963-2006. (There is an update that will collect, Spectacular, Web of, Spider-Man and the other issues of Amazing due out) and I have been reading from issue #1 on for a while so I am more in the know about the comic series than I was before due to having the entire run in my possesion. I agree with you on just about everything u said, and yes the true thing about spiderman is how peter parker is a regular teen and therefore meant to be related to. I also think tho that the villains he fights need to be done right because a hero without a good villain makes for a boring story. But to the main point. Why do you think the re-boot was done? I mean they had a HUGE franchise on thier hands and to stop it and re launch it is not standard practise. Is it true that the main actors involved became too much to deal with or was there some other factor I am not aware of?