Slog
News & ArtsMonday, January 11, 2010
Film / Nerd Spider-Man Begins
Posted by Paul Constant on Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 3:44 PM
Comingsoon.net is reporting that Sony Pictures will be rebooting the Spider-Man franchise. Sam Raimi and Tobey Maguire are out, and the new Spider-Man movie will tell the origin story again. It's scheduled to be released in 2012.
The studios are now remaking movies that came out ten years ago.
UPDATE: In the comments, Ackham says:
Don't confuse remakes with reboots, Paul, just because they're commonly used interchangeably.Ang Lee's Hulk was rebooted, not remade.
Batman was rebooted, not remade.
Same concept applies here for Spidey.
I dunno, Ackham. While you have a good point, I do feel like you're giving the studios a bit too much credit. If I were to make a movie about a newspaper publisher named Charles Foster Kane who died, leaving a cryptic secret, would you call that a Citizen Kane reboot or a remake? How many times can you tell the story of a student named Peter Parker whose Uncle Ben dies before it starts to be informed by the previous film iterations? Where is the line between reboot and remake?
3
Don't confuse remakes with reboots, Paul, just because they're commonly used interchangeably.
Ang Lee's Hulk was rebooted, not remade.
Batman was rebooted, not remade.
Same concept applies here for Spidey.
Ang Lee's Hulk was rebooted, not remade.
Batman was rebooted, not remade.
Same concept applies here for Spidey.
5
I like the first two Raimi movies, but here's my wish list:
1) Maybe this time they can actually keep him in high school for more than a minute. Funny how every other movie or TV show skews even more young than maybe it should (how old was Lois Lane in that failed Superman reboot, 19?), yet Spider-Man, traditionally about a high school student who's a superhero, spent very little time in that situation.
2) How about some actual quipping? I seem to recall Spider-Man constantly making with the wise cracks while battling enemies. I think Raimi's made around two total.
1) Maybe this time they can actually keep him in high school for more than a minute. Funny how every other movie or TV show skews even more young than maybe it should (how old was Lois Lane in that failed Superman reboot, 19?), yet Spider-Man, traditionally about a high school student who's a superhero, spent very little time in that situation.
2) How about some actual quipping? I seem to recall Spider-Man constantly making with the wise cracks while battling enemies. I think Raimi's made around two total.
6
It was a common practice in the 30 and 40's when movies appeared in theaters for a few days and then disappeared. They didn't have cable movie channels, DVD, Hulu, Blockbuster, Blu-ray, broadcast television, file sharing, video piracy, etc, etc, ad infinitum.
We do, though.
So yes...it's awfully lame.
We do, though.
So yes...it's awfully lame.
8
Oh boy! Another telling of the bitten-by-a-radioactive/genetically-altered/whatever-spider story. How refreshing!
10
If they're going to use a new team, I do really really wish they wouldn't do the origin story yet again. Everyone knows the origin story, and Raimi did it very well. Why not just illustrate it in the credits, like Raimi did in the 2nd film (if I remember correctly)?
I don't think Citizen Kane is a good example to use, though, Paul: Citizen Kane is an original film, not a series, and not an adaptation of an existing story from another medium. Any retelling of Kane would be a remake. However, if someone did a faithful adaptation of the Oz books (not likely) would that be a remake? I wouldn't consider it so.
I don't think Citizen Kane is a good example to use, though, Paul: Citizen Kane is an original film, not a series, and not an adaptation of an existing story from another medium. Any retelling of Kane would be a remake. However, if someone did a faithful adaptation of the Oz books (not likely) would that be a remake? I wouldn't consider it so.
11
@ Paul: That's funny. You thought I was trying to give the studios credit.
You're right - the distinction between remake and reboot is fuzzy but I'd argue that a remake acknowledges the existence of the original work (sliding scale of homage versus satire) and a reboot pretends the first work never happened.
You're right - the distinction between remake and reboot is fuzzy but I'd argue that a remake acknowledges the existence of the original work (sliding scale of homage versus satire) and a reboot pretends the first work never happened.
12
The difference with Hulk and Batman is that those franchises were transparently in NEED of rebooting. The Hulk "reboot" was enabled by Ang Lee's interesting but disastrously unsuccessful effort...the franchise had to start from scratch again, because you don't make a sequel to an unsuccessful film. Meanwhile, Batman had run itself into the ground 8 years before Batman Begins came out (with 1997's notoriously terrible Batman and Robin) in 2005, and people were ready for a reinvention.
But the situation here is completely different. Spidey 3 was a fucking mess of a movie but it was extremely successful and in no way was anyone thinking this series--with this cast and general Raimi-driven approach--was done. There is no reason to "reboot" this franchise in the public's mind. So it'll be an uphill battle to justify this with people who could care less about the bullshit politics (i.e. 99.9% of the populace).
They might still pull it off...if they can build excitement with interesting/popular cast/director choices; if they come up with a vastly different and appealing story approach; if it's actually a good movie...but those are all big ifs.
But the situation here is completely different. Spidey 3 was a fucking mess of a movie but it was extremely successful and in no way was anyone thinking this series--with this cast and general Raimi-driven approach--was done. There is no reason to "reboot" this franchise in the public's mind. So it'll be an uphill battle to justify this with people who could care less about the bullshit politics (i.e. 99.9% of the populace).
They might still pull it off...if they can build excitement with interesting/popular cast/director choices; if they come up with a vastly different and appealing story approach; if it's actually a good movie...but those are all big ifs.
14
I'm not coming down on either side of this argument. Take for example:
Batman and Robin - 1997
Batman Begins (the reboot) - 2005
But nobody is whining about that. I think the difference here is that, third movie trainwreck aside, Rami's Spiderman series had been surprisingly well handled.
The news last week that Rami was throwing out the current Spiderman 4 script. It seems like this is just Sony showing Rami that they own the property not him. I give it a 75% chance of biting them on the ass.
All of this aside, in the comic book universe series get rebooted all the freaking time. If they pick a good director this could be.. not so bad.
Batman and Robin - 1997
Batman Begins (the reboot) - 2005
But nobody is whining about that. I think the difference here is that, third movie trainwreck aside, Rami's Spiderman series had been surprisingly well handled.
The news last week that Rami was throwing out the current Spiderman 4 script. It seems like this is just Sony showing Rami that they own the property not him. I give it a 75% chance of biting them on the ass.
All of this aside, in the comic book universe series get rebooted all the freaking time. If they pick a good director this could be.. not so bad.
15
Ackham @11: That's as good a defnition as I've ever heard.
P.S. Hope my picking you out didn't make you feel picked-on; I enjoy your comments a lot.
P.S. Hope my picking you out didn't make you feel picked-on; I enjoy your comments a lot.
16
I always assumed the following regarding the remake/reboot definition debate:
remake= original script and plot, slightly altered to take into account current trends.
reboot= original concept, taken in an entirely new direction with a new script and plot.
Thus, Batman/Batman Begins may both have the same basic concept and characters, but Batman Begins is a reboot; If one were to recreate Citizen Kane, you would be (presumably) using the exact same script/plot, thus making it a remake.
(unless it's the story of Zombie Kane killing people with Rosebud, in which case that's just awesome.)
remake= original script and plot, slightly altered to take into account current trends.
reboot= original concept, taken in an entirely new direction with a new script and plot.
Thus, Batman/Batman Begins may both have the same basic concept and characters, but Batman Begins is a reboot; If one were to recreate Citizen Kane, you would be (presumably) using the exact same script/plot, thus making it a remake.
(unless it's the story of Zombie Kane killing people with Rosebud, in which case that's just awesome.)
17
Just FYI:
Franchises are rebooted
Single films are remade
"The Hulk" is obviously a little problematic in this regard, since there was only one previous film (Lee's) prior to Leterier's. But, since the latter used a different back story and plot, not to mention coming out a mere five years after its predecessor, it fits the "reboot" criteria.
Paul, your "Citizen Kane" suggestion as you posit it (essentially retelling the same story) is a definite remake: Welles never intended to make a series of "Kane" films, and in any case it would be more than 70+ years between the two iterations - even by reboot standards that's an unusually long time.
But, there's going to be a lot more of this post Abram's "Star Trek"; once Hollywood suits get it into their heads that some formula (in this case, rebooting tired, neglected or worn-out-their-welcome franchises), they'll churn out increasingly paler imitations so long as people continue to see, rent, or buy them.
Franchises are rebooted
Single films are remade
"The Hulk" is obviously a little problematic in this regard, since there was only one previous film (Lee's) prior to Leterier's. But, since the latter used a different back story and plot, not to mention coming out a mere five years after its predecessor, it fits the "reboot" criteria.
Paul, your "Citizen Kane" suggestion as you posit it (essentially retelling the same story) is a definite remake: Welles never intended to make a series of "Kane" films, and in any case it would be more than 70+ years between the two iterations - even by reboot standards that's an unusually long time.
But, there's going to be a lot more of this post Abram's "Star Trek"; once Hollywood suits get it into their heads that some formula (in this case, rebooting tired, neglected or worn-out-their-welcome franchises), they'll churn out increasingly paler imitations so long as people continue to see, rent, or buy them.
18
This is so pointless and stupid, but you know what? Enough people will pay to see it for it to get made.
19
Please Gawd let them reboot the X-Men! Puuhhleease, I'll totally start believing in you again, I promise.
20
Actually, now that I think about it, it kind of reminds me of the comic book series. Marvel would come out with another new Spider-Man series every now and then, and then we'd have five or so series running concurrently with nothing to do with each other. When I read Spider-Man back in the early 90s, there was the Amazing Spider-Man, the Spectacular Spider-Man, Web of Spider-Man, and Spider-Man. I'm not sure if there were any others. So, still a stupid idea, but it's not like this stupid idea hasn't been done before.
21
The only point of this reboot/remake/whatever is that Sony needs to release a new Spiderman product within a certain time frame, or the rights will revert to Disney/Marvel -- because Raimi (and presumably the cast) was unwilling to go with the existing script, and also unwilling to rush into production without a script this time (the way most if not all Marvel movies are made), Sony had to scramble to come up with a way to salvage their movie rights and maybe also their existing script.
Bonus (from Sony's point of view): they get a cheaper new cast, presumably.
Count on one thing -- a new version of Spidey's costume, essential to the marketing and toy rights
Bonus (from Sony's point of view): they get a cheaper new cast, presumably.
Count on one thing -- a new version of Spidey's costume, essential to the marketing and toy rights
22
As a comic book fan, I say go for it. Fire everybody. Avengers clusterfuck! Secret Wars! Everybody dies and comes back to life! 200 times over!
23
The problem is that the only superhero story a wide audience cares about is the origin story. They have to keep rebooting or it descends into farce almost before the second episode ends
24
@23,
Except... when a superhero story can somehow overlap with a real-life interesting story... So, like, a superhero/holocaust story, or a superhero/Sept. 11 story, and so on.
I'd say those stories have the capability of being just as interesting and marketable as an origin story, if they're packaged right.
Except... when a superhero story can somehow overlap with a real-life interesting story... So, like, a superhero/holocaust story, or a superhero/Sept. 11 story, and so on.
I'd say those stories have the capability of being just as interesting and marketable as an origin story, if they're packaged right.
26
The fact we have to create definitions for remake and reboots should be telling how fucked up Hollywood has become in the past 20 years.
27
reboot = remake as a hopeful play that the studio can crank out 2-3 sequels with the same cast before they have to remake/reboot/tell the same exact story with different actors again.
28
Paul Verhoeven and the Kuzuis are planning to reboot Buffy the movie. And Eli Roth will reboot the Dollhouse series.
I booted all over and had to reboot my interwebtubebox.
I booted all over and had to reboot my interwebtubebox.
29
@11: I was going to say pretty much the same thing. The difference between "reboot" and "remake" is the amount of shame.
Heads of "reboots" tend to make SURE you know their version has nothing to do with any version you already know. They want to get it "right."
Heads of "remakes" tend to be more respectful; they want to put their own spin on it, but past versions provided inspiration rather than a spiteful impetus.
Heads of "reboots" tend to make SURE you know their version has nothing to do with any version you already know. They want to get it "right."
Heads of "remakes" tend to be more respectful; they want to put their own spin on it, but past versions provided inspiration rather than a spiteful impetus.
30
Reboot = Remake of a franchise
Also, this is fucking ridiculous. The Spiderman franchise isn't even a decade old yet!
Also, this is fucking ridiculous. The Spiderman franchise isn't even a decade old yet!
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
NYC Man Ticketed for Not Riding in the Bike Lane by Jonathan Golob
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (30) RSS