(Hurrr, upside down kiss; ur doin’ it wrong)

It was first reported as a rumor on DeadlineHollywood and later confirmed by Sony, Spider-man 4 is off, and Sony is rebooting the franchise.  Looks like they were still having script problems, so Sam Raimi told Sony he couldn’t make the planned summer 2011 release date.  Rather than replace him on 4, they opted for a total reboot with a new director and cast, planned for 2012.  From DHD:

Immediately, the news brought celebration and consternation equally to webslinger fanboys who say the reboot plot puts Peter Parker back in high school. There’s also much unconfirmed speculation that this new franchise will be in 3D. And the fans also recall that, in 1991, James Cameron wrote a treatment for Spider-Man and now they’re wondering if he might helm the reboot. (Sony ended up acquiring his treatment in a legal settlement.)

Let me put an end to their wonderment: no, James Cameron isn’t going to direct a Spider-Man movie.  He’s the hottest person in Hollywood, no way he’s dealing with Sony’s bullsh*t and an established franchise.  However, now that Spidey is safely back in high school, Sony is free to cast some kid with fruity Zac Efron hair from Wizards of Waverly place or similar (keep your phone on, Taylor Lautner).  And of course it will be in 3D because money.  Sony couldn’t strongarm Sam Raimi, so they’ll get a director who they can, and it will suck because directors you can strongarm rarely make good movies.  Say what you will about Sam Raimi — Spider-Man 2 was the only decent movie of the franchise — few directors do schlock and silliness as well as he does, and the success of the franchise seems more because of him and despite Sony, rather than the other way around.  Does anyone even care about a Spider-Man movie at this point?  I think we’ve hit the tipping point on Superhero movies.  I never thought I’d hear myself typing this, but not every protagonist has to wear spandex.

However, I’d like to see the rebooted Spider-Man look something like this:

Read the rest of this entry »

If I’d had room for a longer headline, it would’ve been “John Malkovich confirmed as villain in that Spider-Man 4 movie that might not happen.”  Which is to say that the rumors about him playing the Vulture seem to be true, insofar as he’ll be playing the character if that character actually ends up in the final script — Spider-man 4 currently being on hold while Sam Raimi and Sony work out their story differences, one of which being that Raimi wants Vulture as the villain and Sony wants someone else.  Phew.  From BadTaste.it (via GeekTyrant):

When conductor Simona Ventura asked [Malkovich] about his role of Vulture in the movie, he not only didn’t deny his involvement, but confirmed that he’s waiting for the final script to be sent to him, and that the movie has been delayed. He also hopes that shooting will begin as soon as possible.

It’s my job to report this stuff because it’s big business and people care, and even I care, to some degree, but every time I write about comic book movie production troubles, I get this mental image of two middle-aged guys in suits and briefcases in a board room pouting and refusing to talk to each other.  “You know Jenkins?  He thinks Mighty Mouse could beat up Superman.  Guy’s a f*ckin’ child.  I can’t even look at him.”

(Sam Raimi hates having to raise his hand in order to speak at board meetings.)

A while back, IESB reported that Spider-Man 4 was being put on hold indefinitely because Sony and Sam Raimi couldn’t agree on a story.  Sony denied it, but long story short, it’s true.  Sam Raimi wants to use Vulture as the bad guy like he originally wanted in Spider-Man 3. Sony wants to f it up like they did Spider-Man 3.

Raimi wants to have a criminal known as the Vulture act as the primary antagonist in the film while the studio is pushing for a romantic sub-plot involving a burglar named the Black Cat in addition to another villain.

A succession of writers has tried to marry the two parties’ differing visions to no effect. Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright David Lindsay-Abaire (“Rabbit Hole”) was hired in October 2008 to pen a key version of the screenplay, on top of the earlier version penned by James Vanderbilt (“Zodiac”). Last year, Sony brought in Gary Ross — Oscar-nominated for his adapted script on 2003’s “Seabiscuit” — which he also helmed.  Alvin Sargent is penning the latest iteration.

[For Spider-man 3] Raimi wanted to use classic villain Vulture in addition to Sandman, another classic creation. The studio pushed him to use Venom, a character that was introduced in the late 1980s, because it thought that character, with its slick alien-symbiote origin, would lend itself to more effective marketing material and a way to attract “the kids.” [THR]

If you hire someone to do a job, let him do the damn job.  You don’t see me telling the hookers how to poop on my glass coffee table do you?  …Okay, bad example.  What do you think, Emo Spider-Man?

Read the rest of this entry »

Take this news with a grain of salt because it’s a rumor that came from a blog — or snort the salt, take a tequila shot, and squirt the lime in your eye — but IESB claims they have it on good authority that Spider-Man 4 is on hold indefinitely.  The reason?  Sam Raimi and Sony can’t agree on a villain.

Raimi is pushing hard for the Vulture to be the big baddie, something he also pushed for in the third film. Vulture was to do his evil deeds alongside the new Goblin and Sandman. Vulture and Flint Marko (Sandman) would have been cellmates who escaped together, with Vulture pressuring the more passive Marko into committing crimes.
On the flip side, our source says Sony seems to only be interested in featuring which ever character is selling books right now but basically they have no idea, just not the Vulture.
Oh, and the film is known as SPIDER-M4N within the production offices so take note!

Sandman was the lamest villain Spider-Man ever fought (the best? Doctor Octopus by a mile), so I don’t know why they’d want to bring him back [update: yes commenters, my bad, they were only talking about Raimi's original idea for Spidey 3].  He’s basically Meatwad from Aqua Teen.  But in either case, in a just world, Sam Raimi could tell Sony, “Hey, did you just call it ‘SPIDER-M4N’?  Here, go play with this ball of string while the adults write a movie.”

John Malkovich and Anne Hathaway have been named as the villains Vulture and Vulturess in Spider-Man 4.  Movieline, reporting an exclusive, describes them as ‘circling’ the project, though it’s unclear if that means they’re close to a deal or if it’s just a forced vulture pun.

If negotiations proceed according to plan, Malkovich will be playing Spider-Man’s nemesis the Vulture, who packs a punch despite his advanced age. The Vulture is able to fly through the air and brandish his sharp wings to attack Spider-Man.
Hathaway is currently the top choice for Felicia Hardy, who’d been long-rumored as one of the new characters in this installment.  However, unlike in the comic books, this Felicia Hardy doesn’t transform into the Black Cat. Instead, Raimi’s Felicia will become a brand-new superpowered figure called the Vulturess.
What does this mean for poor Dylan Baker [the "what does cum mean" guy in Happiness], who’s patiently played Curt Connors in the last two installments? As much as it would seem that the series is setting up his eventual transformation into supervillain the Lizard, we hear that the suits simply can’t bring themselves to sign off on such an odd-looking enemy — instead, they’d rather hew closer to villains with a human face.

It’s fun to imagine a room full of grown men in suits debating the relative merits of various Spider-Man villains.  But I can’t argue with choosing Anne Hathaway ‘s face over a big CGI lizard.  I’d pick Anne Hathaway’s face over just about anything.  I’ve been shooting my webbing at it for years.

FACT: Black Spider-Man shouts “SKEET SKEET!” when he shoots his webbing.