News
Raimi to Get Back to Basics for Spider-Man 4
October 16, 2009
Director Sam Raimi was interviewed in the print edition of DVD & Blu-ray Review (via the Coventry Telegraph) and was asked about Spider-Man 4.
Asked about complaints that there were too many villains in Spider-Man 3, he said: "I think having so many villains detracted from the experience. I would agree with the criticism."
Raimi added that he had learned some new lessons and storytelling tricks from his last film, Drag Me to Hell. "I think I've learned about the importance of getting to the point and the importance of having limitations, and I'm hoping to take that into a production where I'm actually allowed to explore with more of the tools to pull it off with a little more splendor.
"I hope I don't lose that edge that I've just found. That would be my approach to 'Spider-Man 4': to get back to the basics."
Related Articles From Other SitesPosted by: sarasbigdaddy on October 16, 2009 at 10:59:30
And now we shall see how many of the fanboy armchair movie producers/directors/writers/freaks of nature are going to go off and hope Marvel will read their blog so it will be THEIR movie.
I can hear the pitter patter up the basement stairs of the fanboys screaming "DON'T RUIN IT SAM!" and then right after "MOM, I NEED MORE PIZZA POCKETS!!"
Posted by: Kent on October 16, 2009 at 11:00:04
LOL!!!
Posted by: Benovite on October 16, 2009 at 11:01:41
I like Spiderman 3 and think it's the best one in the series so far. It might not properly treat Venom in terms of marginalizing the fanboy experience of an unimportant alien invader, but at least it's not boring. And it had a some fun, goofy moments with Peter Parker.
Posted by: Shayera on October 16, 2009 at 11:09:04
Yeah, keep telling yourself that, Raimi. Here's what I think about the franchise.
Spider-man
The benefit of the doubt was what this movie had going for it. There weren't any expectations. Few knew who Blade was when they saw it, and afterwards, there was a moderately successful X-Men movie focusing on a bunch of characters. This was just Spider-man, and even non-fans were excited to see what would happen. Some complained about the "organic webshooters", which is legitimate - Peter Parker is supposed to be an under-developed genius and here he seems to just be a dork. That aside, some good things came out of it. Spider-man didn't have to worry about his web-fluid running dry (teehee) and how strong the lines would be. On top of that, it saves time in the movie for other things. While it really explores Peter Parker's path to heroism - growing towards his potential, it also focuses on the adverse idea, of how Norman Osborn, a man whose desperation drives him to transform into a schizophrenic killer. Unfortunately, he isn't really evil, but Willem Dafoe makes everything forgivable. The same cannot be said about Kirsten Dunst - Peter's flimsy excuse of a high school crush. She is either flirting with Peter (which is cute), or whining about how bad her life is. The audience doesn't really care if her career path starts with a job as a waitress. I will say that as hard as I am on her here, she is at her best in this movie. It would be fair to say that Spider-man is to comic book movies as First Contact is to Star Trek movies. You can go without seeing any of the movies, not a single episode of The Next Generation, and still be ensnared. This is also why it is Marvel's most successful franchise. So of the things that worked the best, I'd have to say it was the quirkiness that surrounds and follows Peter's transformation into Spider-man. It was the first super-hero origin story since Superman, and it did remarkably well.
Spider-man 2
This was proclaimed by many critics to be the best modern day sequel, and scored A reviews from some of the most cynical reviewers. Regardless of their opinions, I think it was a good movie, but not fantastic. Raimi has started a religious following or something like it with writers. The villains are to be misguided heroes who follow an oppostie path of the superhero in question. Doctor Octopus here, for instance, has Peter over for dinner before his lab accident. Rather than being one of the smarter villains as he is in the comics... one who purposefully sets out to make Spider-man's life a living hell... this interpretation has his life turned upside down and becomes an easy target for the self-serving tentacles' artificial intelligence to take over from the feed into his cerebellum. It is an interesting concept, but it completely takes away from what the character could have been. He really is, for all intents and purposes, a BOW from Resident Evil... a zombie. Something that I can appreciate but also disagree with is the nature of Spider-man's powers. As he was up until the movie came out - using web shooters he had built (for a grand total of 40 years), it's a branch off of a change to say that his powers will only work when he feels in character. The Freudian concept at work is just really corny and I don't think it helps out with the story. Lastly, I don't see how anything with Mary Jane works here. Kirsten Dunst is not some desirable actress, so instead of having Mary Jane pursue a career as a super-model, she is an actress who does some modeling on the side. Perhaps that was the director's attempt to flesh out the character a bit more, just as he tried to do with Doc Ock, but when it becomes the focal point of Spider-man's downfall... being unable to attend her play because he's stopping a bunch of gang bangers in a getaway car... makes him doubt his role as a superhero. She just isn't all that. But on the positive side, I think that the action sequences were fantastic. The bits with the tentacles were pretty cool, and the lab incident wasn't short of spectacular. Had Octavius survived the movie and evolved to a super-villain, this movie would have had more potential.
Spider-man 3
Spider-man 3 took on a completely different vantage point. It explored the world of celebrities, and how easily fame and fortune corrupts them. This could have been great had it not been loaded with soap-opera material that grows old fast even when it's played up in comedic form. The idea of a celebrity story arc should have just been left untried. Peter loves that HIS girlfriend is a Broadway performer. Mary Jane is obsessed with her failing career and cries about it all throughout. Eddie wants to quickly acquire what Peter has worked long and hard for. Harry, surprisingly, is completely out of the FAME equation, and just wants his revenge. By this time, the revenge plot is finite... an afterthought in comparison to the all-consuming poisonous fame-seeking storyline, which is a shame, since the first two movies worked to build that up for this movie. Sandman is a two-dimensional character, just as anyone would have expected, but the story tries to sell you on him just being some desperate father of a sickly daughter - and all his crimes are supposed to be forgiven. That just didn't work. There are some good parts to it, even when the cheese factor is played up pretty high. Harry and Peter fighting at the Osborn penthouse was amusing. Venom kicking Spider-man's ass was nice while it lasted. And Topher Grace was funny as Eric Foreman, or uh, Eddie Brock. But apart from that, even Jameson is a bit of a bore. It's an all-around disappointment. Lastly, I wouldn't call it "cluttered with too many characters" as some critics have determined... the problem in that respect was the characters didn't live up to expectations. If X-Men can have all of those characters and still come out ok, then Spider-man can be afforded three villains himself. My suggestion would have been to completely scrap the FAME story, and instead, explore what happens when Spider-man's villains go after his personal life as Venom and Harry know his true identity, and that still would have dipped into the celebrity privacy invasion element.
Posted by: SpoonyLuv on October 16, 2009 at 11:09:11
wow...came on and started bashing...nobody.....fanboys? you went to this site in the morning and posted a comment to something and called yourself sarasbigdaddy? But the people who disagree with how Spider-Man is being handled are the losers? umm...yeah. Since nobody is here for you to vent your anger...i'll be your huckleberry. What detracted from the experience Mr. Raimi is the fact that the movie sucked! Toby Maguire makes for a loser Spider-Man and Mary Jane is a hideous albino with freakishly small teeth. There.....now you simple people that are entertained by anything have something to yell at.
Posted by: Thekid on October 16, 2009 at 11:11:13
there wasn't anything i really liked in #3 (except Bryce dallas howard..wow).i thought the emo dancing in the streets was a little much. i hope sam tones that crap down in #4. i liked the first two movies so i'll definitely see the next one.
Posted by: Kent on October 16, 2009 at 11:14:47
SpponyLuv, i didn't like it either, but that's a terrible review. I think Tobey's a great Spidey. I don't care much for Dunst, but that's not what killed the movie. The plot and storyline, the giant sandman, the "kiss'n'makeup" scene with sandman, the dancing peter parker....all that crap is what killed the movie. and by far, the worst choice of actor was for Venom by Topher Grace.....that SUCKED.
"Mom! Meatloaf! Now!"
Posted by: kmaguire on October 16, 2009 at 11:18:51
One of the things that REALLY bugged me (no pun intended) in Spider-Man3, and there were many things, was the moment at the end when Harry's butler goes up to him and tells him that he knew Spider-Man didn't actually kill his father. Geez, you might have saved the kid a little heartache if you chimed in with that information a little earlier!
Either way, I have faith that Raimi is eager to re-deem himself and the series.
Posted by: Out of Left Field Guy on October 16, 2009 at 11:19:59
Missing the forest for the trees a bit. The problem is not the number of characters and/or villains, it's the hamfisted way these individuals are brought together. There needs to be a deeper story than the "I'm a bad guy, you're a bad guy, let's team up," path. I want to see the classic Sinister Six at some point, but it has to have a legitimate motivation.
Posted by: Tarc on October 16, 2009 at 11:21:33
OK,in a family of sci-fi fans - some serious and some not much so - Spiderman 3 was the only film of the last decade that anyone said to 'avoid at all costs'. These are not comic people; heck, my dad will watch Nazi Bimbos From Mars and still not say that. But he hATED Spiderman 3. Frankly, he's a movielover (good, bad, and ugly) and that is the only film I've ever heard him say that he'd wished he'd not seen it. *That's* how bad Spiderman 3 was. I'm sure Raimi (go Spartans!) will do significantly better with Spidy 4.
Posted by: Tyrone on October 16, 2009 at 11:22:14
You think!!!
Posted by: Tarc on October 16, 2009 at 11:24:42
Oh, and BTW, having two (or moer) villains NEVER work. Ever. It's one thing to have a little cameo in a movie to establish the presence of another villian in the universe, but NEVER, EVER have two villains. It's a disservice to the movie, the fans, and the actors. Each of these villains are good enough to get their own moment in the sun - if done properly. Do it properly.
Posted by: Jake on October 16, 2009 at 11:28:59
You know what I love? People who post in superhero message board forums and like to think they're better than the other superhero message board forum posters. You're here posting just like they are, and just like I am.
Posted by: Jake on October 16, 2009 at 11:30:54
Tarc...having two villains never works? Ever? Yeah, those Batman Begins and Dark Knight flicks were real failures...the difference is filmmakers who know how to handle them. Superman II? Yeah, what a piece of garbage.
Posted by: KCJ506 on October 16, 2009 at 11:33:11
The problem wasn't the amount of villains. It was the use of unnecessary things to spend time. They focused too much on Peter and MJ's relationship(which was already established) and have Harry and her cooking, dancing, reading poetry and other useless things, instead of developing the villains, Spidey's double life and showing MJ as a partner in life, like she was in comics, talking to Peter about his battles and curing his wounds, being present, caring. A different writer would matter, though.
Just too much unnecessary things going on. Both the 90s cartoon and TSSM handled the symbiote story a lot better. They developed so many things (many more things than the movie) within 60/90 minutes, telling the symbiote saga and Peter's showdown with Venom.
It depends on the writing and execution. It doesn't matter what the amount of villains it is. The movie could've been done wonderfully with the 3 villains used.
Posted by: mysterio-oo on October 16, 2009 at 11:33:14
@ Tarc, .. nonsense, more than one villain can work if done well.. look at the Dark Knight as one example. X-men 1 and 2.... etc...
The concept of Sinister 6 could be done brilliantly in the right hands, and I do think Sam Raimi loves classic Spidey.
Posted by: Shannon on October 16, 2009 at 11:37:04
I'm already worried because he said he learned something from making that trash of a movie Drag me to hell. He should have learned its time to retire. This guy may continue to ruin the Spiderman franchise. Thats a shame.
Posted by: ggreg on October 16, 2009 at 11:39:25
When you make 3 very complex films back to back about the same high profile character some burn out can't help but happen. Missteps occur and mistakes happen. SM3 is a good example. Having Sandman in any way being involved in Uncle Bens death is the major mistake of the film . Peters weird transformation that is more pathetic that bad and Venom being used a subplot villain are two lesser ones. Venom is not a great villain, contrary to most fans opinions, due to the lack of complexity and depth. Rami needs to back off on the over the top acting and inject a bit mote realistic acting to these movies. No more crying Peter Parker, Tone down J.J.and all will be well.
Posted by: KCJ506 on October 16, 2009 at 11:39:27
You know even if Mr Freeze was the only villain in Batman And Robin with the take they did on the characters, the tone of the movie, and all the cold puns the movie still would have sucked. Again it's all about the script and direction. Not the villain count.
Posted by: authorNYSE on October 16, 2009 at 11:46:22
I agree with sarasbigdaddy & Benovite. If the insults don't apply to you then brush it off.
Posted by: John N. on October 16, 2009 at 11:49:52
As long as people like Avi Arad stay the hell out of the mix there shouldn't be a problem getting this film made. That was a key factor why Spider-Man 3 wasn't as solid as it should have been. Interference from Arad that caused a domino effect.
Posted by: Phantom Blot on October 16, 2009 at 11:50:32
Spider-Man 3 was a big mess. Nice to see that Raimi recognizes what went wrong with it and hopefully he can deliver a better movie next time. It really shouldn't be that hard to do. But I hope they avoid having M.J. being kidnapped by the villain at the end and has to be saved...
Posted by: Kaardinal on October 16, 2009 at 11:55:51
@ Benovite
You are totally clueless. Spiderman 3 was the worst of the franchise. Venom never mentioned what is his name was at all and never spoke in the 3rd person and the story was just whack. The only character that did a decent job was Sandman and even he wasn't made out to be a villian as he is the comics.
Don't bring Venom back unless it's done right and with an appropriate actor to fit his build.
Posted by: Macroni Tony on October 16, 2009 at 11:56:29
Spidey 3 was a mess but I think Raimi can get it back on track with Spidey 4 (at least I'm hoping so).
Posted by: ttop on October 16, 2009 at 12:01:19
Raimi is incompetent. This movie will suck just as much as the last 3.
| « Previous Page | | | Page 1 of 6 | | | Total: 142 comments | | | Next Page » |
| Jump to page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 |
Add a Comment
Latest Headlines:
James McTeigue on Making a DC Superhero Movie
Natalie Portman on Why She Did Thor
New Kull Movie in the Works
Smallville Promo Shows Justice Society Members
New Moon Breaks Dark Knight's Single Day Record
New Moon Beats Harry Potter and Batman
International Featurette on Sherlock Holmes
Bay Not Killing Off Fox in Transformers 3
Peter Iliff to Write American Gladiators
Idris Elba to Play Heimdall in Thor
Chuck Taking Over Heroes' Timeslot
Iron Man 2 Trailer with Sherlock Holmes?
Iron Man 2 Minimates and Marvel Select Figures
Quesada & Bendis Tweet About Thor Production!
Update: Hathaway Also Up for Spider-Man 4?
Sam Worthington to Star in American Crime
Mandalay Picks Up Unthinkable
Warren Ellis' Global Frequency Coming to The CW
Aurora, Platinum Team on Nightfall Movie
Smallville TV Movie Has a Title
|
|
