-= Gametoast.com =-

I'm not sure where to post this, I think it belongs here so I'll post it here.

http://www.deadline.com/hollywood/urgen ... um=twitter

http://www.deadline.com/hollywood/urgen ... um=twitter

http://blog.zap2it.com/frominsidethebox ... e-out.html

So, Sony decide to reboot Spider-Man eight years after the current (now, last) series began, and they've booted Sam Raimi, Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst and co, all because Raimi said he couldn't meet the deadline Sony wanted for the fourth film (to be released in 2011) What are your thoughts on this?

Here is what Raimi had planned for Spider-Man 4:

The Vulture, and Felicia Hardy, who becomes "Vulturette" would have been the two villains of the film, furthering the idea of the Sinister Six. Possibly, Spider-Man 4 would have tied in with Spider-Man 5.

Spider-man five? I heard they weren't even going to make third. before it came out, of course.

Well, this is an official announcement by Sony themselves.

There has been talk of Zac Efron taking the role. If these rumours are true, Sony have just killed one of their biggest franchises for no reason.

That's what I hate about the big industries. It's either a deadline or you get booted. Too much unneeded pressure, etc. Well, thanks for bringing this up.

[sarcasm]Nice to know Sony just killed one of their biggest franchises[/sarcasm]

I mean, I liked the movies and all.

ggctuk wrote:There has been talk of Zac Efron taking the role. If these rumours are true, Sony have just killed one of their biggest franchises for no reason.

You mean because he's a bad actor or because he's in movies you don't like?

Your fanboy is getting in the way of your logic. Please be rational. Efron's played his roles well and done what's been asked of him. Personally, I don't think he'd be the best for the character - he doesn't have the "nerdy jokester" vibe Peter Parker needs to have - but neither did Tobey Maguire, and he did a fine job because he was a good actor too. The character needs to be somewhere in between angsty (Maguire) and preppy (Efron) - someone like a Shia-LaBeouf-with-a-little-more-panache.

I don't really like him as an actor. And I saw him in NCIS long before I even heard of the High School Musical series.

I couldn't care less.

Now, to be fair, I liked the first and second movies, but I never really thought it was necessary to have a Spider Man movie adaptation, I would prefer it if they spent their money in the creation of something new, for a change. But oh well, you already know the deal, if there is something sucessful somewhere that does not have a movie adaptation, then you must create one; if there is a movie adaptation already, then it's time for a reboot or a remake.

If Zac Efron is involved (and I'll be surprised if he is) then Disney is kind of breaking their word about not influencing Marvel cause if anyone is going to campaign for him to be in the film it's Disney.

Anyway, I'm indifferent about the cancellation. Spider-Man 3 kind of killed my interest in the franchise and I didn't really see how the series could continue without becoming formulaic. But kudos to Raimi for refusing to bend over for the studio.

EraOfDesann wrote:If Zac Efron is involved (and I'll be surprised if he is) then Disney is kind of breaking their word about not influencing Marvel cause if anyone is going to campaign for him to be in the film it's Disney.

Anyway, I'm indifferent about the cancellation. Spider-Man 3 kind of killed my interest in the franchise and I didn't really see how the series could continue without becoming formulaic. But kudos to Raimi for refusing to bend over for the studio.

That's great and all but Disney doesn't own Efron.

EraOfDesann wrote:But kudos to Raimi for refusing to bend over for the studio.

Exactly what I thought. If it can't be done, it can't be done.

They don't own him, but they most likely have him under contract (which means they own his ability to take certain jobs for a set period of time), much as they would all of their Child/Teen Stars. Shia LeBeouf really only started other work after he disappeared from Disney productions.

Disney may as well own Efron. He's up there with the Jonas Brothers and Miley Cyrus in my book, and I know I'm not the only one. He may or may not be a decent actor, but I don't like him as a person. Or in any other way. That would take my not particularly caring about seeing another Spiderman movie, and turn it into specifically not wanting to see another Spiderman movie.

Anyways, I'm with the indifferent crowd on this one, except that I lost interest after the 2nd movie, not the 3rd. Granted, the first two were pretty good, as I recall (it's been a while), but when the 3rd came out, I just didn't care enough to go see it.

I also agree with RevenSithLord:

That's what I hate about the big industries. It's either a deadline or you get booted. Too much unneeded pressure, etc

Raptor522 wrote:Disney may as well own Efron. He's up there with the Jonas Brothers and Miley Cyrus in my book, and I know I'm not the only one. He may or may not be a decent actor, but I don't like him as a person. Or in any other way. That would take my not particularly caring about seeing another Spiderman movie, and turn it into specifically not wanting to see another Spiderman movie.

Anyways, I'm with the indifferent crowd on this one, except that I lost interest after the 2nd movie, not the 3rd. Granted, the first two were pretty good, as I recall (it's been a while), but when the 3rd came out, I just didn't care enough to go see it.

I also agree with RevenSithLord:

That's what I hate about the big industries. It's either a deadline or you get booted. Too much unneeded pressure, etc

Oh, so you've met Efron and he came across to you as a bad person? Or did you just get that from all the other countless people who know him closely and don't like him as a person?

Where your acting career takes you doesn't make you a bad person. While I'm not pro miley cyrus, or in favor of how Disney has been handling it's channel, but that's like saying an actor who plays Hitler in a film is just as bad as the real thing, because he plays him.

Reading the basic plot, this was a mercy killing.


Anyways, the only way I'd watch a reboot this close to the last trilogy is if Zach Braff was playing Peter Parker.

Grev wrote:

EraOfDesann wrote:If Zac Efron is involved (and I'll be surprised if he is) then Disney is kind of breaking their word about not influencing Marvel cause if anyone is going to campaign for him to be in the film it's Disney.

Anyway, I'm indifferent about the cancellation. Spider-Man 3 kind of killed my interest in the franchise and I didn't really see how the series could continue without becoming formulaic. But kudos to Raimi for refusing to bend over for the studio.

That's great and all but Disney doesn't own Efron.

Disney owns Marvel. Or at least, Disney owns the controlling interest (51% minimum) in the Marvel film franchise (it cost them 4bil).

This is undeniably Sony's worst marketing move. Why reboot a franchise that's been so successful with three films? And in ten years, that's a pretty short timespan. Sure, you can try to argue this with the Batman or Hulk films, but this was a franchise that wasn't in the garbage. The Spider-Man films were pretty well respected, because of its superb casting, director, writing, and box office success.

Batman went into the garbage after Joel Schumacher made Batman and Robin, and Ang Lee's Hulk just wasn't successful. But the Spider-Man films (more so the first two, not so much the third) are some of the best comic book films to date. What Sony is doing is perhaps the most idiotic thing to do. Spider-Man 3 was one of the top grossing films of 2007, and one of the highest summer blockbusters of that year. I'd say that combined with the success of the previous two films is more than enough to give Raimi his own timeframe.

Why Sony dumped them just because they couldn't possibly get a film out before 2011 is straight up malarkey. And why would you want to market your next film towards the Twilight crowd? Yes, the films are undeniably successful, and appealing to that crowd would bring in mass amounts of money. But the Spider-Man franchise has now followed the way of X-Men. Gone to waste. R.I.P. some of the best superhero films.

Overall, this new origins film is pointless, if you don't know Spider-Man's origins by now, please leave, you've had at least eight/nine years to learn that. Also, by 2012, the Twilight films will either be finished, or they will have lost a majority of their fan crowd, and something new will have taken its place. But I look to the bright side of things; Sam Raimi can go back to horror, and the old cast can go do whatever they want. I want something else along the lines of the Evil Dead trilogy or Drag Me to Hell to resurface.

Although there is rumors that J.K. Simmons might reprise his role as J. Jonah Jameson, that could make the film a little worthwhile. Of course, I won't pay to see this film. But the script for this new film has already been written. The focus of the new film is mainly more of Peter's high school years, and might possibly follow the Ultimate Spider-Man series; a high school Parker becoming Spider-Man and fighting villains all before college.

This is still really terrible news, as I would have loved to see Raimi's Spider-Man 4 and 5, considering they were to be tied together to pretty much end the series.

After everything Raimi has done for them you'd think the studio would be willing to give him the time he needs to make a quality film and just back away. And if this reboot actually does come out in 2012 then what's the point? It's still a year later! But I'm not surprised by the studio being so forceful -- rumor is that they were the ones who insisted on squeezing Venom into SM3... look how that turned out.

Lord Bardar wrote:

Hidden/Spoiler:

[quote="Grev"][quote="EraOfDesann"]If Zac Efron is involved (and I'll be surprised if he is) then Disney is kind of breaking their word about not influencing Marvel cause if anyone is going to campaign for him to be in the film it's Disney.

Anyway, I'm indifferent about the cancellation. Spider-Man 3 kind of killed my interest in the franchise and I didn't really see how the series could continue without becoming formulaic. But kudos to Raimi for refusing to bend over for the studio.

That's great and all but Disney doesn't own Efron.[/quote]

Disney owns Marvel. Or at least, Disney owns the controlling interest (51% minimum) in the Marvel film franchise (it cost them 4bil).

This is undeniably Sony's worst marketing move. Why reboot a franchise that's been so successful with three films? And in ten years, that's a pretty short timespan. Sure, you can try to argue this with the Batman or Hulk films, but this was a franchise that wasn't in the garbage. The Spider-Man films were pretty well respected, because of its superb casting, director, writing, and box office success.

Batman went into the garbage after Joel Schumacher made Batman and Robin, and Ang Lee's Hulk just wasn't successful. But the Spider-Man films (more so the first two, not so much the third) are some of the best comic book films to date. What Sony is doing is perhaps the most idiotic thing to do. Spider-Man 3 was one of the top grossing films of 2007, and one of the highest summer blockbusters of that year. I'd say that combined with the success of the previous two films is more than enough to give Raimi his own timeframe.

Why Sony dumped them just because they couldn't possibly get a film out before 2011 is straight up malarkey. And why would you want to market your next film towards the Twilight crowd? Yes, the films are undeniably successful, and appealing to that crowd would bring in mass amounts of money. But the Spider-Man franchise has now followed the way of X-Men. Gone to waste. R.I.P. some of the best superhero films.

Overall, this new origins film is pointless, if you don't know Spider-Man's origins by now, please leave, you've had at least eight/nine years to learn that. Also, by 2012, the Twilight films will either be finished, or they will have lost a majority of their fan crowd, and something new will have taken its place. But I look to the bright side of things; Sam Raimi can go back to horror, and the old cast can go do whatever they want. I want something else along the lines of the Evil Dead trilogy or Drag Me to Diet Dr. Pepper to resurface.

Although there is rumors that J.K. Simmons might reprise his role as J. Jonah Jameson, that could make the film a little worthwhile. Of course, I won't pay to see this film. But the script for this new film has already been written. The focus of the new film is mainly more of Peter's high school years, and might possibly follow the Ultimate Spider-Man series; a high school Parker becoming Spider-Man and fighting villains all before college.

This is still really terrible news, as I would have loved to see Raimi's Spider-Man 4 and 5, considering they were to be tied together to pretty much end the series.[/hide][/quote]

Couldn't have said it better myself. Another sequel would suck, but it wouldn't suck as bad as Zac Efron will. The only reason he's good at his roles is because he only plays idiotic jocks with an inflated sense of self. Outside of roles like that, he'll sound like something out of an Uwe Boll film.

Uwe Boll, hehe...

Grev wrote:Oh, so you've met Efron and he came across to you as a bad person? Or did you just get that from all the other countless people who know him closely and don't like him as a person?

Where your acting career takes you doesn't make you a bad person. While I'm not pro miley cyrus, or in favor of how Disney has been handling it's channel, but that's like saying an actor who plays Hitler in a film is just as bad as the real thing, because he plays him.

Aside from how clear I made it that I dislike him and his acting career as two different entities, I was unaware that you have to meet someone in person and spend some quality time with them before you're allowed to have a negative opinion of them, or that it's impossible to know anything about actors as people unless you're close friends with them. Thanks for clearing that up. But before this turns into an argument, please understand that I will continue to dislike him, probably forever. And I donno why people get defensive when others dislike Disney-related actors, there are plenty that have never associated with Disney that I despise.

Fusion wrote:Anyways, the only way I'd watch a reboot this close to the last trilogy is if Zach Braff was playing Peter Parker.

hehe Throughout the film, Spiderman keeps fantasizing about irrelevant, random things. That would be hilarious in Christian Bale's version of The Dark Knight.

Eh, I just can't imagine Zac Efron as Spider-Man. I don't think he looks too much like him anyways, and his personality is different from the character.

Raptor522 wrote:Uwe Boll, hehe...

Grev wrote:Oh, so you've met Efron and he came across to you as a bad person? Or did you just get that from all the other countless people who know him closely and don't like him as a person?

Where your acting career takes you doesn't make you a bad person. While I'm not pro miley cyrus, or in favor of how Disney has been handling it's channel, but that's like saying an actor who plays Hitler in a film is just as bad as the real thing, because he plays him.

Aside from how clear I made it that I dislike him and his acting career as two different entities, I was unaware that you have to meet someone in person and spend some quality time with them before you're allowed to have a negative opinion of them, or that it's impossible to know anything about actors as people unless you're close friends with them. Thanks for clearing that up. But before this turns into an argument, please understand that I will continue to dislike him, probably forever. And I donno why people get defensive when others dislike Disney-related actors, there are plenty that have never associated with Disney that I despise.

Fusion wrote:Anyways, the only way I'd watch a reboot this close to the last trilogy is if Zach Braff was playing Peter Parker.

hehe Throughout the film, Spiderman keeps fantasizing about irrelevant, random things. That would be hilarious in Christian Bale's version of The Dark Knight.

I'm no fan Of his acting either, I'm just saying that making a judgment about a person who you probably know little about, is a bit ridiculous. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions though, and in no way am I trying to make you his biggest fan. Just my morals.