After the mess that was Spiderman 3, I'm glad they're looking at the franchise from a different angle. However, I really think that the franchise as a whole would do a lot better with the same actors.
Sony really shouldn't have stepped in with 3 and dictated what villians should and should not have been in the movie. The script was good; the interaction between Watson and Parker was excellent, but the Spiderman parts weren't as terrific (which I put down to the script being controlled by Sony).
The problem here, imo, is that Sony is in too much of a rush to make the "Spiderman" franchise the next "Batman". Spiderman doesn't need to be dark and angsty; he shouldn't. Leave that to Nolans' Batman, he does it well. Spiderman should be more light hearted, more about Parkers' outward changes as Spiderman (as opposed to the internal dialogue in the Nolan Batman films). Spiderman 3 tried to be dark and mature and instead came off as over complicated and messy. Somewhere between Spiderman 2 and 3, the higher ups at Sony decided that they wanted to emulate Batman and that's where, imo, the project started falling apart.
Spiderman really put superhero movies on the map; it was the first comic-movie, imo, that really paid respect to the characters and the stories that Marvel had created over 30+ years. Sony should be looking at the magic that made Spiderman 1 what it was and use it to continue the franchise. Don't just start throwing your weight around, trying to dictate how a project should pan out. If you want a dark superhero story, Marvel had plenty of those, go get one of those licenses and try to emulate Nolans success.
TL;DR - respect the source material. Spiderman 3 failed because Sony wanted to make it mature and angsty and Spiderman fans like Spiderman because a light hearted joker and, at his core, a bit of a loser 
Spiderman 3 was not a fail commercially though
infact it was the biggest success of the 3 films.
Anyway a prequel lol ?...so a remake of the first film then 
.
I guess it worked for Hulk.
The third film had too many villians, and Venom,
was absolutely annoying.
Worst depiction of a cool character I have seen
Venom was never some weedy little guy either
Also why why why did they always show him without
the venom mask...EPIC EPIC fail.
Moving on from the travesty of the third film,
If they get a decent director and someone
who can play spiderman/parker really well,
get rid of kirsten dunst ...despite the fact she is an awul actress
it would look stupid if she played MJ in a prequel.
Then who knows it could work.
It wont have the same impact I dont think
but it could be a nice popcorn flick
I wouldn't be surprised if Sony's reboot isn't a way of getting a more macho Spiderman like what Christian Bale is for Batman. Toby McGuire, imo, was the perfect choice at the time for the first film. If you wanted somebody to play a loser, a nerd and a very unlikely superhero, Tobey was the sort of guy who fitted the bill.
There's two things they shouldn't try to imitate though in the reboot:
a) The exact origin of Spidey - most fans will have seen the movie, or at the very least the trailer, so for a lot of fans the image of the tour guide pointing out "Oh, that's strange, there's only one in there" promptly before the spider bites Parker on the neck is just how a lot of fans of the movies remember his "birth", I don't think that image will go away anytime soon.
b) The Parker-Jane Watson Upside-Down kiss - It's still remembered as one of the most famous kisses in recent cinema history, along with films like the Notebook, Romeo & Juliet and Titanic. It's been spoofed a few times, perhaps most notably on an episode of the OC, but for a Spiderman reboot film to do it would just be too much of a slap in the face.
Well, the hot tip to play Spidey is..... Robert Pattinson 
All I can say is no. no no no no no no. no. The prime reason being is that Spiderman is not some sparkly vampire, and a vegan vampire at that. I'm sure that they may even try getting Kristen Stewart for Mary-Jane so that all the Twihards will go see it. Aside from anything else, they want a teenage Peter Parker, and by the time shooting beings Pattinson will be 23-24, I know Tobey McGuire was 20 or so when he filmed Spiderman 1 but he at least looked like a believable teenager. Everything about this tip is wrong. If Pattinson is the guy Sony is looking for, you can probably guess what kind of Spiderman they're going to go with - teenage angst but with a womanising obsession over Mary-Jane.
Dale2231 wrote:The "new" spidey movies might indeed be different... now that Disney owns Marvel Studios!!
Correction, Disney owns Marvel. As in, all of Marvel.
They haven't made the editors change the content of the comics (SPOILER: The Punisher was bumped off quite violently in the comics about a month ago now), so I don't see why they'd make Marvel Studios change the style of content for the films. The only one that's done that (so far) in the case of Spider-Man, is Sony Pictures.
Website ©2011 Sony Computer Entertainment Europe
All content, game titles, trade names and/or trade dress, trademarks, artwork and associated imagery are trademarks and/or copyright material of their respective owners. All rights reserved. [more info]
