Spider-Man getting a Reboot !

[D-rock]

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.

Your point isn't helped out by the fact Roger Moore sucked and almost single handedly ruined Bond for a lot of people. Plus in the comics Peter Parker grew up. (Although they have been pretty much screwing with all is character development the last few years to make him go back to the way he was for some stupid reason.) None of that even takes into account you can have different actors playing the same role without having to redo everything. It's not like all the previous Bond movies didn't happen anymore when the next one came out or even when another actor came on board. They were all a part of Bond's canon. (With one exception that I know of in past Bonds and the whole new Daniel Craig version excluded. Even then in a lot of ways the Craig verson could just be seen as a sort of prequel to the others so it might fit also.)

There is another issue that needs to be kept in mind. Rebooting something like Batman after about 25 years since the last incarnations of the his movies started is one thing. Rebooting Spiderman after a short a time is another. Lets just say hypothetically the new Spiderman movies drastically underperform expectations. What are they going to do then? They can't reboot because they have just done that, and they will have left nowhere for themselves to go. People will start writing off the movies if they have three or more reboots in that short a period of time. I know I would. By using what you have when it's still doing good and is still working, when things finally do head south for some reason you leave a way to fix it.

 

[PlasmaTwa2]

There is another issue that needs to be kept in mind. Rebooting something like Batman after about 25 years since the last incarnations of the his movies started is one thing. Rebooting Spiderman after a short a time is another. Lets just say hypothetically the new Spiderman movies drastically underperform expectations. What are they going to do then? They can't reboot because they have just done that, and they will have left nowhere for themselves to go. People will start writing off the movies if they have three or more reboots in that short a period of time. I know I would. By using what you have when it's still doing good and is still working, when things finally do head south for some reason you leave a way to fix it.

Oh yes they can. They can rebuild him cause they have the technology.

 

[SiCo]

Your point isn't helped out by the fact Roger Moore sucked and almost single handedly ruined Bond for a lot of people. Plus in the comics Peter Parker grew up. (Although they have been pretty much screwing with all is character development the last few years to make him go back to the way he was for some stupid reason.) None of that even takes into account you can have different actors playing the same role without having to redo everything. It's not like all the previous Bond movies didn't happen anymore when the next one came out or even when another actor came on board. They were all a part of Bond's canon. (With one exception that I know of in past Bonds and the whole new Daniel Craig version excluded. Even then in a lot of ways the Craig verson could just be seen as a sort of prequel to the others so it might fit also.)

There is another issue that needs to be kept in mind. Rebooting something like Batman after about 25 years since the last incarnations of the his movies started is one thing. Rebooting Spiderman after a short a time is another. Lets just say hypothetically the new Spiderman movies drastically underperform expectations. What are they going to do then? They can't reboot because they have just done that, and they will have left nowhere for themselves to go. People will start writing off the movies if they have three or more reboots in that short a period of time. I know I would. By using what you have when it's still doing good and is still working, when things finally do head south for some reason you leave a way to fix it.

Hey, if you think maturing the characters to match the actors aging is what they should do, fair enough, but you won't be recapturing the earlier movies, that's not how it happens. They've come and gone. All I know is that folks expect to see something they recognise. A middle-aged Spider-Man may not be it. As for Roger Moore, I think you're letting your own opinion sound like general consensus there.

There have been 6 Batman movies since 1989, that averages out to be a movie every 3 years and 4 months. One could argue that within that time the franchise has seen itself originate no less than three times. Burton, Schumacher and Nolan all did their own takes and re-workings.

I think one of the problems here is that you expect to have to start from the beginning all over again just because you have a new cast and director. Sometimes it is possible to cut to the chase. Look at Ed Norton's Incredible Hulk. They didn't waste much time with the origin, they practically sprinted through it in recap mode so they could get to the story of Blonksy etc.

 

[D-rock]

Hey, if you think maturing the characters to match the actors aging is what they should do, fair enough, but you won't be recapturing the earlier movies, that's not how it happens. They've come and gone. All I know is that folks expect to see something they recognise. A middle-aged Spider-Man may not be it. As for Roger Moore, I think you're letting your own opinion sound like general consensus there.

There have been 6 Batman movies since 1989, that averages out to be a movie every 3 years and 4 months. One could argue that within that time the franchise has seen itself originate no less than three times. Burton, Schumacher and Nolan all did their own takes and re-workings.

I think one of the problems here is that you expect to have to start from the beginning all over again just because you have a new cast and director. Sometimes it is possible to cut to the chase. Look at Ed Norton's Incredible Hulk. They didn't waste much time with the origin, they practically sprinted through it in recap mode so they could get to the story of Blonksy etc.

They didn't really start over with all those Batman movies. Even if the majority of them were lame, poorly done, and ended up being nothing more than a marketing gimmick all the moves since Burton's first one have been a spiritual successor if not a literal sequels to that one until Batman Begins.

It's also not like the people that played in the past few Spiderman movies are over the hill yet. It's isn't like Maguire is a grizzled graying middle aged actor or is going to be that way in a few years.

It's easy to cut to the chaise on something like The Hulk. He's The Hulk, and probably has the simplest origins and plot of any superhero that's popular enough to put into a movie. Some guy gets bombarded with gamma rays, turns green, gets big and strong, and mindlessly smashes stuff most of the time. The only thing that needs to be done is to make him look cool and make it cool how he crushes everything. That is pretty much the premise of every Hulk movie that's ever going to come out. I also helps that the movie he had right before the second reboot was bad enough and enough people didn't like it that nobody gave a second thought about them making a newer better one. That isn't the case here.

As for Roger Moore. I can't speak for other people, but from people I have ever known personally the feeling on him playing Bond range from apathy and indifference to despising him in it. I've never know anybody not on the Internet that actually liked him in that role. There have been a handful of Bonds that I didn't think where great, but he's the only one I can't really tolerate. It's anecdotal I will admit but from personal experience I have known people that either almost game up watching 007 because of that or just never watch them and tune those ones out. Shaun Connery would have been much better if he had stayed even if a little older, or at least somebody other than Moore. That's also with Moore having some of the best written (or at least entertaining) 007 movies there are. Maybe that allowed the movies to make it despite him.

 

[Ray Ecks]

I'm not really a big fan of the series, so this news really doesn't matter to me.

 

[SiCo]

They didn't really start over with all those Batman movies. Even if the majority of them were lame, poorly done, and ended up being nothing more than a marketing gimmick all the moves since Burton's first one have been a spiritual successor if not a literal sequels to that one until Batman Begins.

It's also not like the people that played in the past few Spiderman movies are over the hill yet. It's isn't like Maguire is a grizzled graying middle aged actor or is going to be that way in a few years.

It's easy to cut to the chaise on something like The Hulk. He's The Hulk, and probably has the simplest origins and plot of any superhero that's popular enough to put into a movie. Some guy gets bombarded with gamma rays, turns green, gets big and strong, and mindlessly smashes stuff most of the time. The only thing that needs to be done is to make him look cool and make it cool how he crushes everything. That is pretty much the premise of every Hulk movie that's ever going to come out. I also helps that the movie he had right before the second reboot was bad enough and enough people didn't like it that nobody gave a second thought about them making a newer better one. That isn't the case here.

As for Roger Moore. I can't speak for other people, but from people I have ever known personally the feeling on him playing Bond range from apathy and indifference to despising him in it. I've never know anybody not on the Internet that actually liked him in that role. There have been a handful of Bonds that I didn't think where great, but he's the only one I can't really tolerate. It's anecdotal I will admit but from personal experience I have known people that either almost game up watching 007 because of that or just never watch them and tune those ones out. Shaun Connery would have been much better if he had stayed even if a little older, or at least somebody other than Moore. That's also with Moore having some of the best written (or at least entertaining) 007 movies there are. Maybe that allowed the movies to make it despite him.

Schumacher took the reigns with his first installment, Batman Forever. Now, as a slight departure from an overall re-imagining, we in stead had snippets of the Bruce Wayne to Batman origin. This we can take as Schumacher's own portrayal, the added factor of course which helped this was the replacement of Michael Keaton with Val Kilmer.

I've nothing to add on the age of Maguire. He's no spring chick, that much is true and again I repeat, if you want to have the saga continue into middle age Spider-Men movies, I'm sure he would be suitable, but that is highly unlikely the direction the franchise will go in.

Please don't dismiss the origins of the Hulk as something that takes five minutes purely because you've now seen it portrayed that way. It wasn't by chance, it was by choice, my point is that that is very much an avenue they, the studios, can take with any of the Marvel characters they have in their portfolio. The Hulk merely illustrates the ease and coherence in can be executed. QED

I really can't buy your Roger Moore diagnosis. The Moore years are identifiable, they are not trying to be Connery films. You shouldn't be comparing them like for like, the portrayal is different on purpose and knowingly more tongue in cheek. This acknowledgment was made based on the choice of Moore as the lead. (Moore famed for his good looks and razor sharp wit) This is how a franchise should try and move on, don't try and copy …but be imaginative.

Anyway, I feel I'm going round in circles with you on this one.