Spider-Man reboot in 2012

[Metal Mario]

I don't know, you could read a review or any of the reactions on the Interweb. That only explains the first weekend, not the ensuing 12 or so that it was still in theatres.

With a movie like Spider-Man 3, everybody was going to go see it anyway, no matter how many people bashed it. The entire Spider-Man fanbase was already assured of seeing it, along with all the twenty-something girls who didn't even know who the Green Goblin was before they went to see the first movie with their boyfriends. It was the brand name that sold the movie, not the quality (or lack thereof, in this case). Spider-Man 3 didn't make a ****load of money because it was good. It made a ****load of money because it was about Spider-Man.

Why aren't they likely to make another Fantastic Four movie

Actually, I hear they're rebooting that as well.

You're being melodramatic anyway. Spiderman 3 was decent if you ignored the Venom subplot. Still better than either Fantastic Four movie, better than Daredevil, better than Batman 3 and 4, better than the Spirit, etc.

It's not good enough to say "Oh, sure, Spider-Man 3 sucked, but at least it didn't suck quite as much as Batman & Robin." I don't want something that sucks slightly less than something else. I want something good.

[ZeldaGirl]

With a movie like Spider-Man 3, everybody was going to go see it anyway, no matter how many people bashed it. The entire Spider-Man fanbase was already assured of seeing it, along with all the twenty-something girls who didn't even know who the Green Goblin was before they went to see the first movie with their boyfriends. It was the brand name that sold the movie, not the quality (or lack thereof, in this case). Spider-Man 3 didn't make a ****load of money because it was good. It made a ****load of money because it was about Spider-Man.

That's their own damn fault. I didn't see it, because I heard it wasn't good. I am not crushed over this fact, despite being a huge Spider-Man fan. No one forced them to buy the tickets; they made that decision on their own.

I want something good.

You can't always get what you want. Besides, it's not like you're entitled to a good movie, you know. We were privileged enough to get the first two and have them be as good as they were. But we weren't entitled to them.

[Metal Mario]

it's not like you're entitled to a good movie, you know. We were privileged enough to get the first two and have them be as good as they were. But we weren't entitled to them.

So we should just accept whatever steaming pile of crap Hollywood forces down our throats, then console ourselves by saying, "Oh well, it could have been ****ing worse."? Accepting crap is what gets you more crap. Just look at the Transformers movies for a perfect example. The first movie was crap, but everybody (for some inexplicable reason) liked it anyway. So the world was given a second Transformers movie that was crap. Batman & Robin, on the other hand, was crap, and nobody pretended otherwise. We told the filmmakers to go and **** themselves if that was the best Batman movie they could manage. And what did we get in response? Batman Begins.

Don't swallow the crap. Reject it. Always demand better. Always demand that a filmmaker actually does his job, instead of just phoning it in for a paycheck.

So I'm glad that Raimi's gone. He gave us one mediocre movie, one slightly better than mediocre movie, and one steaming crap sandwich. Move over, Raimi, and let someone else have a try.

[ZeldaGirl]

So we should just accept whatever steaming pile of crap Hollywood forces down our throats

Nobody forced it on you. You chose to see it.

[glux]

Someone once described to me the second act of Spider-Man 3. Even I couldn't believe that a film with such a gigantic budget would screw up so royally. Then I saw the movie. I was proved wrong.

Yeah.

Now, that part wouldn't have been so bad had they not had him act all cheery, and had him act more serious.

[Metal Mario]

Nobody forced it on you. You chose to see it.

It was made for me. I'm a lifelong Spider-Man fan (or at least I was before the comic books got all ****ed up). I represented their target audience. If somebody is going to make a movie that's aimed specifically at me, I reserve the right to tell them they failed.

[ZeldaGirl]

The producers don't see it that way, because they made a ****-ton of money. They were going for mass appeal, their intended demographic was much larger than just those who have read the comics. In a purely economic sense, they succeeded.

So sorry dude, but I still think you're overreacting and being melodramatic.

EDIT: Sidebar, not really having anything to do with Spider-Man, but Metal Mario, have you ever read A Confederacy of Dunces?

[Metal Mario]

The producers don't see it that way, because they made a ****-ton of money. They were going for mass appeal, their intended demographic was much larger than just those who have read the comics. In a purely economic sense, they succeeded.

Well, the producers may have succeeded in lining their pockets, but I would hope that other people involved with the project (director, writers, actors, etc.) would have aspired to something higher than just financial success. Such should be the case with all creative works. Yes, by all means, make money. But take a little pride in your work while you're at it.

Sidebar, not really having anything to do with Spider-Man, but Metal Mario, have you ever read A Confederacy of Dunces?

No, but upon your mentioning it, I read the article about it on Wikipedia.

[Lurch1982]

With a movie like Spider-Man 3, everybody was going to go see it anyway, no matter how many people bashed it. The entire Spider-Man fanbase was already assured of seeing it, along with all the twenty-something girls who didn't even know who the Green Goblin was before they went to see the first movie with their boyfriends. It was the brand name that sold the movie, not the quality (or lack thereof, in this case). Spider-Man 3 didn't make a ****load of money because it was good. It made a ****load of money because it was about Spider-Man.

Brand name alone doesn't carry a movie to box office records.

Nobody forced you or anyone else to pay some insanely stupid amount of money to see it that much. They did something right if they kept people coming back to it.

Actually, I hear they're rebooting that as well.

From what I've read, its in development hell. The first two didn't make enough to justify a sequel, and Fox is hesitant on greenlighting a proposed reboot because of that. The cast is also inked to a 3 movie deal, so if they recast they'd have to buy them out. Same with the proposed Silver Surfer spinoff. I'd expect them to basically sit on the rights until they revert back to Marvel/Disney.

It's not good enough to say "Oh, sure, Spider-Man 3 sucked, but at least it didn't suck quite as much as Batman & Robin." I don't want something that sucks slightly less than something else. I want something good.

ZG hit this on the head: you're acting like you're entitled to something that you have no control or bearing on.

So we should just accept whatever steaming pile of crap Hollywood forces down our throats, then console ourselves by saying, "Oh well, it could have been ****ing worse."? Accepting crap is what gets you more crap. Just look at the Transformers movies for a perfect example. The first movie was crap, but everybody (for some inexplicable reason) liked it anyway. So the world was given a second Transformers movie that was crap. Batman & Robin, on the other hand, was crap, and nobody pretended otherwise. We told the filmmakers to go and **** themselves if that was the best Batman movie they could manage. And what did we get in response? Batman Begins.

I respond to this whine with this:

Repeat it with me: If the movie stinks, just don't go.

So I'm glad that Raimi's gone. He gave us one mediocre movie, one slightly better than mediocre movie, and one steaming crap sandwich. Move over, Raimi, and let someone else have a try.

God this is wrong on so many levels.

It was made for me. I'm a lifelong Spider-Man fan (or at least I was before the comic books got all ****ed up). I represented their target audience. If somebody is going to make a movie that's aimed specifically at me, I reserve the right to tell them they failed.

No, it wasn't. Comic book movies have to balance the nerd-rage and mass appeal. When it picks up mass appeal, they don't care about the nerds (transformers). When it gets both, they win (Spiderman 1 and 2, Batman Begins/Dark Knight, etc). When it gets neither, it flounders and disappears (Daredevil). When it only focuses on the nerd-appeal, it has a niche box office take and nobody cares.

Well, the producers may have succeeded in lining their pockets, but I would hope that other people involved with the project (director, writers, actors, etc.) would have aspired to something higher than just financial success. Such should be the case with all creative works. Yes, by all means, make money. But take a little pride in your work while you're at it.

They DID. Hence the whole "Raimi walking off on script issues" and Toby following him out the door. The entire cast/crew almost walked after 3 on the same reasons.

No, but upon your mentioning it, I read the article about it on Wikipedia.

That's not good enough, read the ****ing book.

[Metal Mario]

Brand name alone doesn't carry a movie to box office records.

Nobody forced you or anyone else to pay some insanely stupid amount of money to see it that much. They did something right if they kept people coming back to it.

I only paid to see it once.

Repeat it with me: If the movie stinks, just don't go.

1. I didn't know it sucked until I saw it.

2. Yeah, like I'm really going to not go see a Spider-Man movie (and that's where the brand name value comes in).

Comic book movies have to balance the nerd-rage and mass appeal. When it picks up mass appeal, they don't care about the nerds (transformers). When it gets both, they win (Spiderman 1 and 2, Batman Begins/Dark Knight, etc). When it gets neither, it flounders and disappears (Daredevil). When it only focuses on the nerd-appeal, it has a niche box office take and nobody cares.

If it's that tricky to make a good comic book movie that appeals to enough people (and it apparently is, judging by the ratio of good to bad superhero movies Hollywood has put out over the past decade), then maybe they just shouldn't bother. It would save everybody a headache.

They DID. Hence the whole "Raimi walking off on script issues" and Toby following him out the door. The entire cast/crew almost walked after 3 on the same reasons.

Hey, as long as they're out, I don't particularly care why.

That's not good enough, read the ****ing book.

No.

[Lurch1982]

I only paid to see it once.


1. I didn't know it sucked until I saw it.

2. Yeah, like I'm really going to not go see a Spider-Man movie (and that's where the brand name value comes in).

Absolutely no excuse for this now with that interweb thing the kids are crazy about. Even less of an excuse now that you can search for a twitter hashtag and get reactions from people seeing it right now.

I've skipped out on numerous movies that I would have gone in just on brand name because I heard it was terrible. What's your excuse?

If it's that tricky to make a good comic book movie that appeals to enough people (and it apparently is, judging by the ratio of good to bad superhero movies Hollywood has put out over the past decade), then maybe they just shouldn't bother. It would save everybody a headache.

Risk/reward. When they work they bring in buckets of money. Same thing on why so many companies dump out MMORPGs when there's basically a 99% failure rate. They look at something like WoW and see the huge bucks.

Superhero movies aren't even that horrible in the ratio. Its probably about 2-1 bad/good, which is better than most genres IMO.

Hey, as long as they're out, I don't particularly care why.

Do you honestly think they're going to put anyone in charge of this product that will speak out or question a crap script? You might think Raimi is bad, I'm expecting something MUCH worse. At least Raimi had an understanding of the franchise (up until the late 80s anyway, but honestly he didn't really miss much). He took an inherently boring villain like the Sandman and made him extremely compelling. You're going to get some hamfisted retard in charge of the project and it will be absolutely horrible. Mark it.

No.

Stop being illiterate.

[Metal Mario]

Absolutely no excuse for this now with that interweb thing the kids are crazy about. Even less of an excuse now that you can search for a twitter hashtag and get reactions from people seeing it right now.

I've skipped out on numerous movies that I would have gone in just on brand name because I heard it was terrible. What's your excuse?

There are these things called "spoilers". I like to avoid those when possible. So forgive me if I don't take the time to read everybody's review of a film before I see it myself.

I already didn't know what Twitter is, and this is the first time in my life that I've heard the word "hashtag".

[CaptHayfever]

...Yeah, I don't know what a hashtag is either, but based on context clues (see also: elementary school reading class) I'm guessing that it's the Twitter-speak for "keyword" or "search tag".

2. Yeah, like I'm really going to not go see a Spider-Man movie (and that's where the brand name value comes in).

With that degree of negative press, I would (and DID) go to a matinee and/or wait to rent it. Either way, they're getting less money.

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

[Booyakasha]

Seeing a movie based solely on its branding is akin to seeing a movie because the movie posters have your favourite colour on them.

Part of being a responsible consumer is researching products and services instead of just impulse-buying. 'Avoiding spoilers' isn't really any excuse, when most big sites (IMDB and Metacritic spring to mind) apply a simple numerical score aggregated from as many reviewers as possible.

[ZeldaGirl]

No, but upon your mentioning it, I read the article about it on Wikipedia.

Eh, it's not that big a deal. I think Lurch understands what I was getting at, but either way, it's more for my amusement than yours. :p

[glux]

I already didn't know what Twitter is, and this is the first time in my life that I've heard the word "hashtag".

...Yeah, I don't know what a hashtag is either, but based on context clues (see also: elementary school reading class) I'm guessing that it's the Twitter-speak for "keyword" or "search tag".

Twitter hashtags: #VideoGames, #Spiderman, etc

Putting the # in front turns it into a link and you can click it to see other Tweets containing that certain "hashtag". Also they're used to find "Trending Topics"

Clicking this:

Takes you to this:

[I REALLY HATE POKEMON!]

[quote="Dr. Furball]Heck"]

"With great power comes great responsibility."

That was the whole idea. Not being a tortured high-schooler. They hardly focused on his "troubles" so much as forcing him to make decisions, like in the first Spider-Man movie. Save his girl, or the bus full of screaming children? It was about the responsibility to do what's right.[/nerdy]

[spooky scary bearatons]

If you chucked out vemon and Spidemo, Spiderman 3 was decent.

[Gumchum]

All I've learned from this thread so far is:

1) Spider-Man 3 did, in fact, blow chunks.

2) MM isn't allowed to expect a good movie.

3) HASHTAGS.

So...what's this about a reboot?

[Lurch1982]

There are these things called "spoilers". I like to avoid those when possible. So forgive me if I don't take the time to read everybody's review of a film before I see it myself.

I already didn't know what Twitter is, and this is the first time in my life that I've heard the word "hashtag".

I'm not asking you to read a full plot synopsis or a leaked script, but there are numerous ways you can get buzz on movies. Also, whining about spoilers is pretty ****ing stupid after a certain point. Like when people were doing it for the Harry Potter movies, Lord of the Rings, etc. Protip: the hero generally wins.

...Yeah, I don't know what a hashtag is either, but based on context clues (see also: elementary school reading class) I'm guessing that it's the Twitter-speak for "keyword" or "search tag".
With that degree of negative press, I would (and DID) go to a matinee and/or wait to rent it. Either way, they're getting less money.

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

Hashtags are used primarily in Twitter, but the Gawker blog family (most here probably know about Kotaku) adopted it for the comment system and posts. Context clues FTW though.

Also, reiterating the bolded part. I grew up with GIJoe and I have a box of the toys somewhere (if it wasn't destroyed or trashed). I tend to like mindless action movies from time to time. The GIJoe live action probably should have appealed to me. Then I read a few reactions like "cinematic abortion" or "worst movie ever made" or "Where did the budget go because it certainly wasn't used for actors or script." I didn't see it in theatres (though I did get a Snakeeyes cup from 7/11) and wound up Netflixing the DVD. It was one of the worst movies I've ever sat through.

If this were you, you'd just blindly march into a theatre and drop down $10 or whatever the going rate is and then bitch on the Internet that the movie was terrible.