« Directors fighting for Mark Millar’s Nemesis? | Filmstalker | Red Baron trailer online »


Spider-Man 4 rumour frenzy

SamRaimi.jpgNow that the Spider-Man 4 news is out, first that Sam Raimi is off the fourth film and that there is no fourth film, then that there's going to be a prequel and reboot to the franchise, rumours are going mad. We're hearing silly names being attached to the prequel and the rumours of exactly why the fourth film was canned have been springing up all over the place.

This is one aspect of writing about film that I do hate, the incessant rumours, and how so many of them are made up, clutching at straws, and just plain wrong. For me it's just not fair on the people behind the films, the films themselves, and the fans.

However saying that sometimes the rumours are worth looking into, as long as you realise what they are and don't let them reflect on the film or those behind the film, until you hear the actual facts of course.

Avatar (Filmstalker review) is getting blamed for everything at the moment. As we do in society, we build something up, then we have to destroy it, it's an embarrassing aspect of us humans, and while Avatar has ripped off just about every other original (really?) story and film in existence , it's now being blamed for the failure of Spider-Man 4. Of course, why wouldn't it? Didn't it also cause the earthquake in Haiti?

According to New York Magazine through ComicBookMovie, Avatar was to blame for the failure of Spider-Man 4 because when Sam Raimi saw the film he wanted all these expensive and immersive effects for the new Spider-Man film, and while that would increase the budget, something I believe that the studio wouldn't have been hugely adverse to, but it would have increased the time scales to beyond those that the studio had budgeted for, and Sony had already spread sheeted those returns. Not only that but if they aren't careful, the rights can revert back to the original holders if they don't make a Spider-Man film soon.

The article claims that an insider, there are your warning bells straight away so salt at the ready, stated the real problems were the agreements on a script and the direction that Sam Raimi wanted to take the franchise in. Here's what they say about the script:

Peter Parker gets over MJ, finds a new girl, falls in love. But: Peter also discovers her father is actually the Vulture, a naughty green guy with wings to be played by John Malkovich. Peter is torn between the love of his new lady and taking down the Vulture. Being a Spandex tight-ass, he decides to take down the Vulture, and kills him. This patricide goes down poorly with Peter’s new fiancée, and she rejects him. Despondent, Peter decides to abandon his superpowers, and Movie No. 4 ends with Peter Parker throwing away his Spider-Man mask, and audiences wondering if they are watching Superman II.

Oh look, quickly leaping all over Spider-Man 4 and comparing it with films before it. Why do people do that? Sure if the film is identical or there are indistinguishable marks that mean it's really just the same film, but yet again I think there's plenty there to identify it as a different film. When did Superman kill his lover's father who was a super villain? Wow, I didn't see that Superman II!

Anyway, according to this insider it was a negative and down turned story that the studio didn't want. That, and here's where a big issue could be, the toy maker Hasbro had expressed concerns about toy sales should Spider-Man hang up his hat at the end of the film. Ah, now it's becoming clear, it's all about merchandising and sales.

Now, in another story, one of the other insane rumours on the franchise has been quashed. James Cameron to direct the prequel/reboot of the Spider-Man franchise? I really don't think so, especially when one of the reasons given about the restart of the franchise is cost savins on salary, how could any of the big named directors that have been associated with the film be cheaper?

According to James Cameron through MTV and SuperheroHype he has never been called about directing the new Spider-Man, and wouldn't want to anyway, describing it beautifully as:

”It's a little bit sloppy seconds, let's face it.”

Exactly, and they couldn't afford you anyway, and if they refused Raimi his chance to add in effects galore, why would they want Cameron to fight with him to not do the same?

“I haven't gotten a phone call...I don't expect to — certainly [not] after this interview. But if you're thinking about it, it's sloppy seconds. I'm not interested.”

This is just showing how the previous rumours of the other directors are rubbish, perhaps Marc Webb is the choice after all?



Add a comment


Site Navigation

Latest Stories



Vidahost image

Latest Reviews


Filmstalker Poll


Subscribe with...

AddThis Feed Button

Windows Live Alerts

Site Feeds

Subscribe to Filmstalker:

Filmstalker's FeedAll articles

Filmstalker's Reviews FeedReviews only

Filmstalker's Reviews FeedAudiocasts only

Subscribe to the Filmstalker Audiocast on iTunesAudiocasts on iTunes

Feed by email:


My Skype status


Help Out


Site Information

Creative Commons License
© www.filmstalker.co.uk

Give credit to your sources. Quote and credit, don't steal

Movable Type 3.34