roronoa3000
Banned
With a good director and writers it won't.
I vote Christopher Nolan!!
Realistically though McTeigue maybe. :dunno:
Spider-Man getting a Reboot !
- Thread starter The Joker
- Start date
With a good director and writers it won't.
I vote Christopher Nolan!!
Realistically though McTeigue maybe. :dunno:
I'd much rather see them start a decent Superman franchise. This is way too soon to be rebooting Spiderman.
Uuuuummm.......why???
Spider-Man 3 was one of the largest grossing movies of all time. I don't understand why they would take a chance when part 4 would have probably made even more money. Sounds like a bad marketing strategy to me. Kind of reminds me of when they scrapped original Coca-Cola and replaced it with new Coca-Cola and it flopped.
Anyway, I could care less. I'm about sick of comic book movies and remakes so I have double the reason not to go see this now.
What next? A new X-Men with Taylor Lautner as Wolverine?
Fuck this new generation of movies. Fuck Hollywood.
Spider-Man 3 was one of the largest grossing movies of all time. I don't understand why they would take a chance when part 4 would have probably made even more money. Sounds like a bad marketing strategy to me. Kind of reminds me of when they scrapped original Coca-Cola and replaced it with new Coca-Cola and it flopped.
Anyway, I could care less. I'm about sick of comic book movies and remakes so I have double the reason not to go see this now.
What next? A new X-Men with Taylor Lautner as Wolverine?
Fuck this new generation of movies. Fuck Hollywood.
Very true I thought Superman Returns was okay but I need a new great Superman film series
lechepicha
Prince of the Rotten Milk
Ditto, ditto, ditto. Spider-Man and Superman reboot were both awful.
Batman is the only reboot I can think of which has surpassed what came before. Alhthough, Batman is different for the simple reason that he isn't with super-powers. I think if you've got Spider-Man or Superman, you've really got to strip the story down and make it solid - don't waste screen time with unnecessary visual effects, crappy ones at that.
Batman is the only reboot I can think of which has surpassed what came before. Alhthough, Batman is different for the simple reason that he isn't with super-powers. I think if you've got Spider-Man or Superman, you've really got to strip the story down and make it solid - don't waste screen time with unnecessary visual effects, crappy ones at that.
That's what I'm wondering. Combined box-office and DVD sales for Spiderman 3 broke $1 billion. Even with a huge budget and mediocre reviews, Sony made $750 million on the film. In this market, how do you gamble a guaranteed half-billion dollar profit on a franchise reboot?
Don't you think they're getting a bit too old now? People want to see something fresh and new. They can either go the way of Batman Begins, Casino Royale and Star Trek or they could go the way of Police Academy.
The recent Superman movie was not a reboot. It was essentially Superman 5.
True. Still crap though.
That would only be a legitimate argument to me if the franchise showed any signs of decline. But look at the box office numbers:
Spiderman: $820 million
Spiderman 2: $780 million
Spiderman 3: $890 million
Now compare that to your example of Police Academy:
PA: $81 million
PA 2: $56 million
PA 3: $43 million
PA 4: $24 million
PA 5: $19 million
PA 6: $5 million
PA 7: $126,000
Spiderman = consistently strong
Police Academy = obvious decline
I got to admit, I'm not going off box office returns and I think the only people who should be are those you are investing in the production of the films i.e. the studio.
The movies, wholly speaking, are dull. This is obviously my opinion but I think I will be vindicated in the long run when they face the test of time. Superman 1 and 2 are probably still considered the best superhero films. They had a brilliant cast and the story was original for it's time and without comparison.
Don't get me wrong though, I was/am a big fan of Tim Burton's Batman movies but I recognise how Nolan's take has seriously added value and quality to the series. Spider-Man will not suffer for a reboot if you say it was box office gold. I think they will be very keen to see that success repeat itself.
That was my whole point in the first place, though. I don't understand Sony's thought process here. They had a guaranteed huge profit with Raimi/Maguire/Dunst. Maybe a reboot will bring new life into the series. Maybe it won't. But they had an established fanbase, particularly for Toby Maguire (my wife and sisters absolutely adore him), who was willing to fork over $800-900 million every 3 years for the product they were producing, and now they're very effectively alienating them so that they can go after teens and pray they bring in $400 million like Twilight or $700 million like New Moon? That's just horrible business.
It's not bad business, they have to look forward. I understand you want to cheerlead for it and say what a success it was, which based on the box office you can do successfully but it becomes harder to do when you try and be more specific, for example, 'It is a success because Tobey Maguire and Dunst were in it' — that I just don't buy. The number of people that have agreed with me that they were a poor choice isn't few I assure you. I'm sure it was a success purely because it was Spider-Man. When you look at it that way, you can then imagine that it is possible to surpass the success the first three brought the studio.
:2 cents:
You could look at it from the view of "If it's not broke, don't fix it." While the casting of the other Spiderman movies could have been better from my personal view, those people tended to work and it produced a nice stable movies that could be predictably counted on to perform relatively well. It's possible the new movies could do just as well. Of course it's also possible the new movies could fall off because of the change. As long as the old format was being successful why even take that chance, unless it can be showed that the chances the new movies are going to significantly be better than the old ones are very likely?
True but isn't it better to go out on a high? If you wait until the decline then you have a marred franchise and anything afterwards could look like a desperate resurrection.
The reality is that the cast is getting older with each passing year. They're supposed to be young. Tobey Maguire is older than me for pete's sake (pun intended). Sean Connery got slated for doing the later Bond films, Roger Moore also had the same critics on him and until Daniel Craig was picked that's what a lot of people were starting to say about Brosnan. It's shit but that's what happens. Good actors shouldn't lament for they can always move on to pastures greener.
Similar threads
