Making for a busy first day on the job, Mike Fleming reports for Deadline|New York (so bi-coastal!) that Spider-Man 4, a movie that just this morning had John Malkovich tapped to play lead villain the Vulture, is now apparently not going to happen at all. And according to a Sony press release just, uh, released, the next Spider-Man movie to come out will be a reboot penned by Jamie Vanderbilt, who most recently wrote Zodiac (and before that, a movie starring Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson and Seann William "The Stifler" Scott), which follows Peter Parker/Spider-Man through his high school days. So, that's... cool... I guess? Although, if you've followed the process of getting this sequel made, this news isn't all that surprising.
Even the casting update that went all around the internet today wasn't anything official from Raimi or the studio, but was based on a comment Malkovich made on an Italian TV show early this morning about waiting for another, "final," draft of the script. This news in itself was pretty surprising considering the rumors that Sony had made clear that, for whatever reason, they didn't want the Vulture as a villain. This news comes right on the heels of word last week that, because of a lack of a usable script, Spider-Man 4's 2011 release date was going to be given to Thor instead.
All of this, compounded by the reported the Raimi/Sony infighting during the making of Spider-Man 3-which resulted in a less than awesome movie for what had been an otherwise very awesome franchise-kind of made this abrupt news about no more Raimi Spider-Man 4 a little less abrupt.
The Awl's Mary HK Choi e-mails us about the proposed reboot: "The new thing is that Sony is bringing it back to Spidey's high school days for 4, which could be absolutely dreadful or amazing. I thought the MTV cartoon was great for exp but great as a series. I guess it'll be just after the discovery period... It's going to be tricky. I hope it's not Twi-tweeny or they're just worm-holing it back so they can come out with like 4 more. Man, do you remember Spider-Man 3? [Ed.: Yes, so annoying.] Only one in the franchise I didn't see more than once. What a steaming shitstain that was. They should bring Gwen Stacy in heavy. James franco is a loss though. He's magical."
And the full Sony release:
A decade ago we set out on this journey with Sam Raimi and Tobey Maguire and together we made three Spider-Man films that set a new bar for the genre. When we began, no one ever imagined that we would make history at the box-office and now we have a rare opportunity to make history once again with this franchise. Peter Parker as an ordinary young adult grappling with extraordinary powers has always been the foundation that has made this character so timeless and compelling for generations of fans. We're very excited about the creative possibilities that come from returning to Peter's roots and we look forward to working once again with Marvel Studios, Avi Arad and Laura Ziskin on this new beginning," said Amy Pascal, co-chairman of Sony Pictures Entertainment.
"Working on the Spider-Man movies was the experience of a lifetime for me. While we were looking forward to doing a fourth one together, the studio and Marvel have a unique opportunity to take the franchise in a new direction, and I know they will do a terrific job," said Sam Raimi.
"We have had a once-in-a-lifetime collaboration and friendship with Sam and Tobey and they have given us their best for the better part of the last decade.This is a bittersweet moment for us because while it is hard to imagine Spider-Man in anyone else's hands, I know that this was a day that was inevitable," said Matt Tolmach, president of Columbia Pictures, who has served as the studio's chief production executive since the beginning of the franchise. "Now everything begins anew, and that's got us all tremendously excited about what comes next. Under the continuing supervision of Avi and Laura, we have a clear vision for the future of Spider-Man and can't wait to share this exciting new direction with audiences in 2012."
"Spider-Man will always be an important franchise for Sony Pictures and a fresh start like this is a responsibility that we all take very seriously," said Michael Lynton, Chairman and CEO of Sony Pictures. "We have always believed that story comes first and story guides the direction of these films and as we move onto the next chapter, we will stay true to that principle and will do so with the highest respect for the source material and the fans and moviegoers who deserve nothing but the best when it comes to bringing these stories and characters to life on the big screen."
The studio will have more news about Spider-Man in 2012 in the coming weeks as it prepares for production of the film.
Let's have a reboot with Malkovich as the teenaged Peter Parker.
Zodiac was mind-numbingly boring. This does not bode well.
Get out of town, Zodiac was fan-bloody-tastic.
my mind is still reeling from the revelation that Zodiac and Southland Tales had the same writer.
False. I was watching it a friend's house and left in the middle of it to go home. Mind=benumbed.
It was 52% fan-bloody-tastic and and 48% mind-numbingly boring. Seriously, that second of half of the movie, bah.
Ha! So you're saying I saw the good part?
Woof.
Wasn't he in High School in the first one? Or is my mind playing tricks on me?
I think so. He got knocked down in the hallway or something.
Haha, I liked it when the Goblin was mean to Auntie May.
I liked it when the empty goblin mask was being mean to Willem Dafoe. I do remember that scene!
He was indeed, but now he's in high school again? I guess?
THINKING OUTSIDE THE BOX.
It's like the vampires in Twilight, see, they keep going back to new high schools, because they're eternal, see, and so will Peter now. Or something.
It's just like 90210
Reading any quote by Michael Lynton is like watching Memento. All I can think is "don't trust this guy".
I hear in the new version of the "reboot/reimaging/rehash" Peter Parker with twinkle and sparkle in daylight and have a thirst for blood.
Spidervamp?
It's worth mentioning that there's Spiderman villain named Mobius who's a vampire.
The only thing sucking hard here is the idea of a reboot of a series that was very well received even in its worst moments.
Also, I hope he fights werewolves.
The Spy Magician is right. 3 was bad by Spidey standards (and, in fairness, it's parts didn't mesh well by any standard), but come on. Have we forgotten the Nortonless Hulk? Have we forgotten Elektra!? This reboot is going to be crap on a stick.
The fact that they're doing exactly the same thing with the X-men franchise is even worse, because they're dragging Bryan Singer down with them. At least as it stands, X-men/Singer fans like myself can tell themselves Rush-Hour-guy is the only reason the third entry sucked. This requires us to plug our ears and scream the national anthem whenever anyone mentions Superman Returns, but that is a small price to pay! To drag Singer into the tween remake is going to post-emptively ruin the first two movies. Call it the Matrix Effect.
Did I seriously just fuck up it's/its?
EDIT BUTTON EDIT BUTTON PLEEEEEEEEASE
"Action is his reward": Alt-text mastery...
Man, remember when you had to let a franchise lie fallow for years before you were allowed to "reboot" it, to give everyone time to forget the shitty late entries in the series and get nostalgic for it again? I guess that got thrown out the window when they launched two only semi-compatible Hulk movies in, what, five years?
Also, when you wrote "a movie starring Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson and Seann William 'The Stifler' Scott," I thought you were talking about the wonderful/awful/baffling Southland Tales, the only movie I've ever seen to which I'd simultaneously give one and five stars. But The Rundown? Eh.
Yeah, I think Richard Kelly might have written Southland Tales himself? Don't quote me on that though--
The Rundown was kind of fun.
Then again, I didn't have exceedingly high expectations for it, and I enjoy seeing Dwayne Johnson play against type. He's like Vin Diesel with a sense of humour.
Dwayne Johnson is actually a hell of an actor when he's actually asked to, y'know, act. That SNL where he played an oblivious, badly-disguised Superman-as-Clark-Kent was revelatory. I'm totally serious: I sat up and said "oh crap, that guy is hilarious."
Thor though? Will Jack Black be playing Loki?
I can't see how Thor can be anything other than silly - a Viking god with long blond hair and a big hammer.
Unless Jack Kirby is involved somewhere.
I also think Thor is a dumb idea. The only point to a Thor movie is to establish the character for the Avengers movie. But any treatment that could make him not a total cheeseball would be completely incompatible with the Iron Man/Norton Hulk franchises!
The quotes around Spider-Man 4 in the title of this post are maddening, and not just because you don't put a movie title in quotes.
Strongly agree on the former, respectfully disagree on the latter since using HTML in headlines fucks things up for RSS.
On further consideration, agreed on second point. In that case, is not italicizing or quoting an option? That's how much I dislike quotes around titles.
It probably would have been okay in this case, but there are some occasions when titles sort of bleed into the words around them and make for confusing headlines? I'm mostly concerned with consistency, I guess. We are trying to fix that terrible end quote problem though.
In the case of Spider-Man 4 v. Smart Quotes, I'm sure the court will find that no one would be confused about an unmarked Spider-Man 4. Unless the post was titled something like When Spider-Man 4 Was Ur Man, in which case, I'd assume it was a track from Prince's new album, C4ptain Marv3l.