Wednesday, January 13, 2010

Spider-Man reboot thought for the day

(y'know what would be great? If this story stays big long enough that this title becomes no longer a joke...)

I was struck by a bitter thought today, regarding A.) this unfolding story and B.) the whiny, insecure twits who're still convinced that Peter Parker - gasp! - DANCING!!!! in "Spider-Man 3" is the worst, most horrible thing in the history of cinema. The following is addressed to them:

I hope you're happy now. I hope you're fucking thrilled.

I also hope that, in 2012, when we all get to see whichever "adorable" up-and-coming castoff from whatever the 2012 equivalent of "Gossip Girl" get's picked to don the hip, fresh n' with-it "reimagining" of the Spider-Man costume and do battle with an inexplicably all-important Eddie Brock (Mike "The Situation," perhaps?) under the direction of some hired gun director who's only prior credits are some Puma commercials and 2nd unit on a fucking Lady Gaga video (or just Bret Ratner, same difference really) ...I hope you're even happier.


Anonymous said...

I'll be the first to admit that Peter Parker - gasp! - DANCING!!!! in "Spider-Man 3" isn't the most horrible thing in the history of cinema. In fact it has quite a bit of competition. There is the fact that the film had three villains and couldn't think of anything interesting to do with any of them. The fact that the Sandman was given barely any screen time to establish his character beyond a trite cliche before he becomes an even more cliche walking monster. The fact that his transformation is given even less of a pseudo-scientific explanation then the already poor standards of bizarre super power rational. The fact that the Sandman's more outlandish shape-changing abilities seem out of place in the more reality grounded universe of the first two films. There is the overly long melodramatic romance sub-plot which serves little purpose other then to given us such riveting scenes as Marry Jane and Harry Osborn making an omelet. The amnesia sub-plot which similarly goes nowhere. The sub-plot about the Sandman being the one who actually killed Peter's father (which completely negates the point of the scene in the first movie) which still could have been interesting or important but is never given the time or priority to do so. The unbelievably fast rate at which Harry goes from being a bad guy, to a good guy, then back to a bad guy, and then to a good guy at the drop of a hat, and then his derivative "death" at the end. The slow pacing, the poor special effects, the bland action scenes, the phoned in acting, the annoying obligatory Peter Parker narration, the annoying obligatory Aunt May insipid inspirational speech, the annoying obligatory Stan Lee cameo, the annoying obligatory non-subtle American patriotism symbology. So you see? Peter Parker dancing? Nah, I don't even get that far! At least we agree on one thing. And considering my over all aversion to the last film in the trilogy, I am also not holding out much hope for thing new sure to be trilogy. At least this time I will know ahead of time not to waste my money on it. Hey, two things!

Leoja92 said...

You know I'm really going to miss Raimi, the best thing he did was protect the series integrity from the heartless studio heads. Now we have a dark road ahead of us.(lets all have a moment of silence).

Dav3 said...

Hey Bob,
I've been rolling an idea around in my head for a few years now, and I think maybe this is the perfect time to bring out the "B-word" that every producer dreads...


I think the time has come to send the studios a message, in the one language that they'll hear it. MONEY.

I think we have to tell the studios that, unless we're impressed by the integrity of the source material, we won't see it, and we'll convince all our friends to not to see it.

In other words, we have to tell the studios that any comic-book movie we don't like will not make money.

I'm Boycotting any non-Raimi/Maguire Spiderman movies...

Who's with me?

stickmangrit said...

about the boycott thing, i don't really think it'll be necessary. this project already has severe backlash potential all on it's own. people still remember and enjoy the previous three films, and a complete reboot and recast, especially if the Twilight theory proves correct(and i expect it will) could be enough to turn the average filmgoer against the franchise. assuming that Sony pulls the shit we expect them to pull, they'll have alienated the core fanbase, average joe moviegoers who enjoyed parts 1-3, they'll be desperately trying to bring in the teenage girl demographic(who's not all that likely to warm up to a superhero franchise as they have with Twilight) which will likely alienate teenage boys/douchebag fratboy Bay fans("they made Spider-Man GAYER!"). this whole decision strikes me as terrible financial planning on the part of the studios.

Smashmatt202 said...

Pardon me for asking, but how can you be so sure that the movie is just going to be a hip, fresh n' with-it "reimagining" of Spider-Man?

stickmangrit said...


it's largely jumping to the worst possible conclusion, but it does make sense. the fact that Sony's willing to no simply shit-can Raimi(a-la- Fox/X3), but the entire cast and continuity of a franchise whose weakest installment grossed $330 mil. domestic despite being a piece of shit, and whose first was a record shattering success that ushered in the modern era of comic book movies. combine that with the rumor that the straw that broke the camel's back was not being able to meet a release date because the scripts have failed to meet Raimi's specifications(and the fact that they had a release date before they even had a set storyline), and the picture darkens considerably.

as of right now, Sony has scrapped it's biggest cash cow franchise's entire continuity in order to get the next one out in 2012 at any cost. this seems to indicate them needing to get the movie made before the rights revert. that they've announced that it'll be a high school reboot despite the fact that, again, there is no script means that this is purely Sony's decision. and they're willing to fire a shitload of bankable talent and alienate a lot of people(average moviegoers especially) to make these things happen.

this means they're crazy enough to think they have an ace up their sleeve, and as studio execs have a long and storied history of thinking only of what's selling right now, the most chilling probability is that they're seeing all the Twilight money that Summit and Meyer are rolling in, and figure they can get this franchise(which theoretically already has a built in base) to get a good portion of that market as well.

basically, it's not a sure guess, but it's the best explanation i've yet heard for this madness.

Lance said...

Huh- perhaps we should start campaigning for a second Spider-Man reboot. If rebooting replaces prequels/sequels as the new Hollywood fad there might be some room for a remake that stays 100% true to the source material. Something like "Spider-Man 1 v3.01: The Fandom Strikes Back."

Danny said...

It's never going to happen, if it does it will flop, but I am going to say it anyway - Joss Whedon would make an amazing spider-man film (no pun intended).

M said...

Yeah I'm sure this is going to take the horrible Twilight route. There is even a little bit of source material they could mine in the first book when Whatserface main character girl is talking about "I have considered...*breathy gasp*...radiactive spiders...."

and Sparklepoo is all "How do you knoooooow I'm not....*wistful sigh* the hero, Bella...."

chartos said...

Spider-man’s dancing is not the worst image or scene in movie history. That is Arnold Schwarzenegger’s face on a baby body in Junior. Six words, Replaces Freddy Krueger as Nightmare Incarnate.

The Prodigy said...

It seems someone has been watching the NC, eh, Chartos?

That said, my only interest in the next Spider Man movie is how in tune with the comics they are. I'd rather a story that sticks to the subject matter, than one that creates characters for the sake of your interests. Yes, Sam, you did great with 1 and 2, and 3 was a disappointment, in many ways, but to stick it to your employers by making a "Vultress", when you could have a "Black Cat" is ridiculous.

Dave said...

It wasn't the WORST thing, because by then we'd already seen what Mcguire looks like when he tries to cry. And when he tries to strut. And hump the air. And you know, breaking into a musical number for no reason makes no sense. And if he has all this enhanced agility...shouldn't he be at least as good at it as NPH?

Bob, I mean this with a great deal of respect, because on nearly every issue I'm usually right there with you, but grow the fuck up man.

Just because someone does not happen to share your particular vision of what the spiderman movie should be does not mean they are stupid.

I hated the films because they turned Spidey from a wisecracking hero you could identify with, into a mopy, sulking wuss. Spiderman is supposed to be upbeat and snarky and the films mnevewr captured that. Its hard to like a film when no one involved understands the essence of the main character.

I liked even less raimy's obsession with cramming together parts of the mythology that had no business being together.

The Spectacular Spider-man cartoon intentionally deviates from established continuity whenever possible, with nearly every character having a different origin than they are supposed to. But it works because they care about the essence of the characters. Raimy never did.

I realize you like the films and that's fine. Many people did. But right now you are just sounding like the same "whiny, insecure twits" who complained about rebooting batman, and rebooting james bond. Remind me how those grittier more canon appropriate movies turned out?

Bob said...

I'm still waiting on the James Bond reboot.

I've seen two pretty-okay generic action-guy movies where Daniel Craig played a guy named James Bond... but I haven't seen a James Bond Movie in many years...

Dave said...

How do you figure? Casino royale was the closest bond got to ist roots in decades.

QOS was admittedly more of a bourne supremacy type film (i'm not a fan of shakycam unless wielded by someone who REALLY knows how to use it and when not to) but even then was still a far better film than any of the ones PB (unfortunately for him, as i always liked him) did. Oustide of the connery films (and even they had a couple of really terrible entries), you aren't likley to find a better bond.

Craig's bond is in nearly way the most accurate depiction of bond.

Please tell me you aren't one of those guys who thinks the roger moore ones were where the series should go...

Linranis said...

Bob, i agree with everything u say, but im sorry. i absolutely despised spiderman 3 for turning peter parker into some "trendy" emo kid, and i think the fact that the series is getting a reboot even worse. just let the saga die already.

Bob said...

You're "supposed" to hate "trendy" Peter Parker - that's the whole point of the story. If the black-suit just turned him into some kind of edgy badass (like happens in the comics, Reason #1 why Venom never really works) the whole "this is wrong and I need to change back" angle would have no teeth.

As for Bond... Roger Moore made better Bond movies than Brosnan or Dalton did, overall. Dalton's were the worst, through no real fault of his own. The current Bond films... look, I don't DISLIKE them... they just don't read as "James Bond" movies to me.

Dave said...

This wasn't directed to me but the emo parker wasn't unlikeable because he was a jerk. It was becaus it was impossible to take him seriously. He just became a waltzing airhumping clown and completely took me out of the movie.

And despite the fact thatraimy insists on repeating ben's mantra a billion times per film, he doesn't understand it. The whole reason that is there is to explain why Parker doens't abuse his power like his rogues gallery does. It's very much akin to batman being as mentally damaged as his villains but guilt over his parents being the one thing that keep him 'sane'.

The black suit gives him MORE power and slowly causes him to become more and more irresponsible and violent. That's why he needs to get rid of it, because he can't handle it. That's also why Venom DOES work when handled well, because he is a walking pile of peter's dirty laundry. He's a direct result of peter's actions and actually has pretty decent justification for what he does.

All of this is lost in the film.

As for the bond movies,I suggest you read the books. Morre has more in common with austin powers than james bond.

Dav3 said...

Moore is better than Brosnan? C'mon Bob!
The guy fights like an insurance salesman!

I dare you to name me one Moore-era Bond that's better entertainment than Goldeneye.

*The only exception I make is the theme from Live And Let Die. (the Wings version obviously, not GnR course)

Bob said...

"The Spy Who Loved Me" is better than "Goldeneye;" and a mainstay on my list of "Five Great James Bond Movies That Aren't Goldfinger." (the others are Thunderball, You Only Live Twice, On Her Majesty's Secret Service and From Russia with Love, generally.)

It has a solid bad guy, the best henchman of the franchise other than Oddjob, the TWO of the hottest Bond Girls in Barbara Bach and Caroline Munro, one of the best-ever pre-title action sequences (Bond has a GUN in his SKI-POLE, show me ONE thing in the Craig Bonds that cool) the 2nd coolest villain-headquarters (volcano-base in YOLT is #1) and the central conflict between Bond and Bach's character makes for one of the more unique relationships of the series - if it didn't cop-out of the "when this is over, one of us has to kill the other" thing it would be essentially perfect.