WILL EMMA STONE BE MARY JANE?

Yep, like. Kinda amazed that more details of the villains/ story haven't appeared yet.

Definitely like this choice if it comes to pass. I'm not convinced this reboot will turn out to be any good but I'm confident that it'll do good things for the careers of the actors involved, and I'd be excited to see Stone's career elevated a bit more.

I think this reboot is an important yard stick for the comic book film.

I truly think Super Hero movies could and should be treated like James Bond. Where the character is the principle draw, not necessarily an actor or filmmaker. This is a good thing for Super Hero movie fans IMO, and the casting of this film has filled me with a ton of optimism.

ETA:

I also wouldn't be surprised if Mary Jane isn't the main love interest in this film, I think they might be wanting to play up the Gwen Stacy angle early on in this new run of films. It might be flirty, and it certainly will lead to the classic Peter Parker/ Mary Jane relationship... but in this film I think it will be mostly hints.

Batman, Superman- been going on for a while.

Times like these, an actor has to envy a guy like DiCaprio, who has more than enough capital to pass on franchise roles, or films that he just plain doesn't want to do.

Edit: Just want to add that I will forever and always hate the whole nerd-powered "Dunst Gate" thing that ran throughout the three Raimi films (you can't even call it a proper trilogy).

They've been pretty open about the fact that this movie is going to be a love triangle/rectangle/rhombus with Mary Jane, Gwen Stacy, et al.

Superman only changed actors once (I am only referring to the cinematic world here) And in that change they hired a guy who could act like Reeves, so it was still beholden to an actor not the character.

Batman did indeed to exactly that in the 90s... but that was a different era.

We are in a new generation of Super Hero films, one that started with X-Men (or Blade depending on how you measure it) and this is the first major successful, tent pole franchise that is making the actor move.

The longevity of these types of films depends on people's willingness follow the character beyond actors and filmmakers, and like I said before the Spider Man reboot is a big yard stick in determining if that happens.

Yeah, but that doesn't tell us who the main love interest is. You can have the love triangle with Mary Jane at the center and Gwen in the ancillary, or you can go the other direction with it... so I was just throwing out my guess that Gwen will be the main squeeze for Parker in this film.

Unless of course they detailed it out further and I just missed it...

Well given the lack of info, the new leads are what's keeping me engaged in this project. I never saw 500 Days of Summer so I have no idea what to expect from director, or what kind of new demands Sony will make on the franchise. But if the chemistry between Stone and Garfield works, this could be something special for these iconic characters.

I hope she does it, if only to put her face out there for the world to see and to get her more roles. She's a rare starlet who actually deserves some more attention.

Good actress.. Just wondering about the story. They won't dare touch the Green Goblin or Dr Oct again will they?

This. If anything, Mary Jane was beneath Dunst. Hell, it kinda ticks me off that we've got fucking Natalie Portman (!!) playing Jane Foster in Thor.

It wouldn't shock me if they went for more of the gangsters of New York thing, with super powered hit men like Rhino and/or Shocker.

They might hint at Goblin, even try to set it up for a future movie... but I would be shocked if you saw the Goblin full on in this movie or it's potential sequel.

They might go for the Lizard if they don't want to totally abandon the previous 3 films...

So your point is valid as long as all the times it's happened before don't count? Okay, that makes sense.
This whole "But it's a whole new era" angle is bullshit. Audiences are already used to characters being recast. Even if you don't count previous superhero projects (which you have to), Bond already laid that groundwork. This isn't going to be a test of anything. We know it can work, because it has. Many, many times. James Bond. Jack Ryan. Batman. Hell, sitcoms and soap operas have done it. This isn't a brave new world.
They've been detailing it for months now. You missed it.

Personally, I never cared for MJ in the films, but I think that has more to do with how she was written than Dunst.

My point is that the rules are changing. Look at the backlash this film has before ANYTHING happened because it isn't Raimi Spider-Man 4. People still now hate this film on principle alone, and all we really know is a basic set of characters. I am not sold that people are willing to accept the character above the filmmakers yet. The only time it worked for a comic book film in the past was Batman in the 90s, and that was BEFORE comic book films were taken seriously. That is what I refer to as a "whole new era," comic book movies are accepted and respected now as a whole sub genre. They were generally scoffed at before X-Men and Spider-Man in 2000 and 2001.

The point is that since Comic Book films had a Renaissance they have not tried recasting a successful hero yet. These Comic Films are beloved just as much for the characters as they are for the filmmakers who make them, which is NOT how James Bond ever operated. THAT is what I am talking about when I say this is an important yard stick. If Spider-Man flops with the prevailing reasoning being that it "wasn't the Spider-Man we know and love from the last 3 films" it will severely limit what Comic Book films can be moving forward. If it is a hit then we will see studios more willing to keep the hero's alive past the original filmmakers.

Obviously I am not talking in absolutes, but you are being foolish if you think there are not big genre defining moments coming up in the next few years. How well Spider-Man, The FF reboot, X-Men First Class and Avengers do will determine if Super Hero films are a flash in the pan trend or a sub genre of block busters that are here to stay.

We've had a new Rhodey, but I guess that wasn't of huge importance.

On a bigger scale, we've had a Hulk completely rebooted that made pretty much exactly the same money as the original. People will go and watch movies that are good and exciting, and will quickly stop caring if it's a reboot or not.

Sorry, but you're wrong. The Batman films were not from a time before superhero films were taken seriously. Donner's Superman was taken seriously. The first two Batman films were taken very seriously. In fact, those three movies were what laid the groundwork for the current generation of superhero films. I'm not trying to be an age elitist, but you were barely alive in 1989. Take it from someone who was there. The Batman movies were not considered a joke. This isn't a new era; it's the era that those movies ushered in.

As for this backlash against the new film, it's a backlash that's exclusive to film and comics geeks. The general public doesn't give two shits who writes or directs a superhero movie. They care slightly more about actors, but still, not very much. They just want their popcorn entertainment. I doubt that even half of the people who paid to see the last three Spider-Man movies could tell you who directed them.

You're also wrong about Bond. The idea of recasting Bond after Connery walked was unthinkable to the general public. So much so that the movie posters for On Her Majesty's Secret Service hid the character's face hoping that people wouldn't know there was a new actor. And the film was hated for years by Bond fans for being the film that didn't have Connery in it. Once Roger Moore came along, everybody calmed down and learned to live with the idea of recasting.

And again, we now live in the world where that's already happened, and is no longer a big deal. You apparently want to think that this is a big thing because you feel like it is. But it really isn't. It's nothing new. It's been done. Business goes on as usual. The superhero genre is an established one now, and it isn't going anywhere for a while. When it does decline, it won't be because a couple of characters were recast, and the audience revolted.

Rhody was a secondary character...

Hulk was considered a failure and was rebooted to be apart of a larger Marvel universe. The recasting of Ruffalo is much closer to what I am talking about here, because despite the basically identical box office takes of the Hulk movies, the Norton film is generally considered to be a much better film.

Look I understand that recasting has happened and will continue to happen for all of time, I am more referring to the fact that MAJOR recasting (like everyone in the movie) hasn't happened in this era of Comic Book films, in fact the general rule of thumb up to now is that you have to wait several years to let the taste of the previous film be washed from the mouths of film goers. That is what is changing, the New Spider-Man film is coming out in about the same general time as Spider-Man 4 would have come out. Sony is trying to be seamless with this... and that is what is a toss up. Do audiences accept the seamless transition or do people balk at the proximity to the last trilogy.

This backlash you speak of is with a vocal internet minority. If you really think that little kids will be angry because Spidey isn't Tobey Maguire anymore, you're nuts. The general audience won't care as long as the film is good.

Everything Mr. David said is correct, but this even moreso. And they don't - you can find practically any John Q. Public who owns all three of Raimi's SPIDER-MAN films on DVD and they won't be able to tell you who directed them. Hell, in a lot of instances, Maguire is barely more than a "That guy!" to a lot of those people. It's not a case of whether or not it will be a hit - it's Spider-Man. It'll have flashy trailers and faces the kids recognize and it'll make a bajillion dollars.

Exactly. I doubt that it will even matter if it's good. Public interest plus effective marketing equals profit. Nobody's going to care about the previous creative team.

Wait, are you trying to say that Comic Book films were respected in the 90s and earlier? That is simply NOT the case... you have 2 franchises, one on the late 70s early 80s, the other in the late 80s early 90s... that is IT. Compare to today when you have twice as many properties hitting the screens every YEAR.

I want to be respectful in debate, but c'mon man. That is absurd, we are only just now getting films called "A great movie, not just a great comic book movie" Comic Book properties are respected now as valid forms cinema, that just simply wasn't the case in the 20th century (notable 2 exceptions aside)

So sheer volume of output is the same as respect? No, it isn't.

And again, I'm sorry, but you were four years old when Batman was in theaters. Where are you getting all this insight into how it was received?

OK I am going to leave this conversation here... I just want to known that I disagree and welcome a chance to debate it further on a day I am not running around trying to do things.

I will say this though. You guys are focusing way to much on the recasting angle, and yes I feed into it by just rebutting right back at your points.

The ultimate point I am trying to make is the proximity reboot is an important step for the future of the comic book blockbuster. That, along with the mega continuity experiment over at Marvel Studios, are huge stepping stones to whether or not Comic Book films keep chugging along or decline as a fad of the early 21st century. The last decade years have been an explosion of Comic Book films and if they can maintain that level of success through reboots we will see these heroes have feature film lives like James Bond...

Comic Book films drove the perception of sequel's having diminishing returns around, it will be interesting if they can move forward seamlessly through major shakeups in cast and crew.

With all due respect, just because I didn't experience Bat-Mania first hand doesn't mean I have no say in this subject. I remember vividly the era after Batman and Robin but before X-Men. Comic Book movies were a joke, and the general perception was Superman and Batman were great because of the filmmakers, NOT the characters. For 60 years prior to Blade, only 2 franchises were considered a hit, and all others (Including mega popular heroes like Spider-Man and Captain America) couldn't get made because studios didn't think the budgets justified the potential fan base. That changed when X-Men came out, and now we sit here during a cinematic era that turned the rules of "blockbuster" film making on it's head.

Emma Stone is a good choice. Strike that iron while it's hot, and hopefully it'll stay hot for awhile with her.

"Emma Stone" sounds so porn-like.

I think The Crow, Blade, The Punisher, The Shadow, Judge Dredd, Barb Wire, and Captain America would like to speak with you.

But that's true, because it takes more than just fun or cool characters to make a great film. See the majority of the examples I just gave as proof.

I think she would be great for this part.

Yeah I can't really think of anyone better for the part in that age-range.

It's important to remember that the Marvel characters, especially Spider-man, were tied up in litigation for a long time. That's one of the main reasons we didn't go right from Burton's Batman to Spider-man. Superhero movies were limited because many of the big potential franchises weren't available.

I have to say...if this movie does the Gwen Stacey storyline properly, and with a good cast (yes, Emma as MJ is a bullseye), it will more than justify its reason for existing. I enjoy the Raimi flicks, but there are some really weird missteps in there, including the casting. Maguire was always a weird choice for Spidey, it was always strange that the filmmakers ditched the quip-spouting aspect of the character, Dunst was just completely wrong for MJ, and their reworking the death of Gwen Stacey into something unrecognizable (and a huge copout in and of itself) still rubs me the wrong way. It can be improved on, for certain.

Unfortunately, Marvel-the-movie-studio's thing has been to pedantically deliver the plot points the fanboys want while stripping the films of anything resembling a personality, and I suspect that'll be the case with this one as well.

I'm cool with the reboot so long as they continue the rich tradition of out of control fucking cranes from Spidey 3.

Replace Blade with The Phantom and Howard the Duck! (Blade is a film I mentioned as part of the current era of Comic films)

But you are just illustrating my point. Comic book films were a joke back then, studios tried and all of those were either commercial or artistic failures, and in most cases both.

My point isn't that there was never comic book films before the new era... My point was that this last decade sky rocketed the genre into the stratosphere. And now that it is at the top, it is interesting to see how people will react to a close proximity reboot. If it is a smash expect to not have near decade long gaps in films for a lot of these characters.

Well, we've been given alot of shitty and/or unfortunate info to go on.
A] Raimi was pushed around by the studio in 3 and therefore didn't get to tie up the series how he wanted to.
B] Raimi laid ground work for the Lizard that we will probably not see.
C] The new director has NO action chops (that we are aware of).
D] The supposed budget doesn't really allow for much action.
E] Original word was this was going to set back in high school to target the TWILIGHT crowd. I understand it's changed now, but that caused much backlash.
D] Many people (even among the internet community and here at CHUD) don't know the director or the actor cast as PP to judge much, so there's ton of hesitation.

And E] A bunch of people (not everyone) has been pleased with what Raimi has brought to the Spidey table. Personally, I think he peaked at 2, but that's neither here nor there.

The weeping and gnashing of teeth has had some just cause.


With that said, if Stone is cast, it'll be the first news I can get excited about. She's perfect for MJ.

You're missing one very important element in all of this. There aren't going to be ten-year gaps for these properties no matter what, because the studios that hold the rights have to keep making content to prevent the rights from reverting back to Marvel. That's the reason this Spider-Man project is moving forward in such haste. If they sit on it, they lose it.

Expect the same thing to happen with Fantastic Four and every iteration of the X-Men. It's not going to matter whether this Spider-Man is a huge success or not. It's going to take a lot of box office duds for these studios to let their cash cows go.

She's a great actress and a solid choice for the role.

Still have zero interest in this film, though.

If Spider-Man reboot is a epic fail, Sony will not keep throwing a budget at the property every 3 years to keep the rights. Eventually the studio will decided spending money on future Spider-Man adventures will not turn any profit. Unless you think we are getting a Spider-Man movie no less than every 5 years forever, eventually the rights will go back. The point is profitability with the proximity reboot. If the reboot is a fail then we are a lot closer to seeing the rights revert back. If the reboot is a success then it proves that the studio doesn't need the originator actors and filmmakers which keeps the Spider films coming at a pretty consistent pace for the foreseeable future. So like I was saying, this reboot is an important yard stick to the longevity of the current Super Hero movie model.

A] If Raimi was pushed around by the studio on 3, why would any one expect different on 4, 5 or any future Raimi helmed Spider flick?

B] True, but based on EVERYTHING we heard about Raimi's Spider-Man 4 we weren't getting Lizard in that film either.

C] Granted, but every director who has "action" chops had a starting out point where it could be said he had no action chops... that seems more of a concern for AFTER we see what the director intends.

D]Well to be honest any "supposed" budget is pure speculation before a director has done pre production. I also remember stories that Sony was cutting Raimi's Spider-Man 4s budget too.

E]IIRC the original notion was to send Spider Man back to High School, which is where the character originates. The entire notion that they want to attract the "TWILIGHT" audience was pure misguided speculation that has been proven false by the actual developments of the film itself.

D2] That is the point. the hesitation is bred from the unknown factors of such a reboot. I am saying this reboot will guide our notions of all such reboots for the foreseeable future.

E2] Of course people were pleased by Raimi's films, they were amazing... the point is that the character is bigger than any one filmmaker. No one bitched about Martin Campbell not returning to direct Quantum of Solace, despite the fact that his direction is a big reason why that reboot was so successful. The point is people are pre judging based on filmmakers and actors, not on character... which feeds into my original point that the reboot marks an interesting yard stick to determine if the proximity reboot can happen with minimal backlash.

AnalanoWally is giving every film fan born in 1984 a bad fucking name.

Dave Coulier says "You don't know shit, and you should cut...it...out."

Darkmites,

A) have you read what Raimi had planned for 4? Get your hands on that script and you'll see most of 3s problems returning in there. It's a neat image of the poor Raimi being pushed around by greedy suits, damaging his Spider-Man 3, and that certainly happens very often, but thinking his third and finally undisturbed sequel would have returned to the qualities of 1 and 2 is wishful thinking.

C) Better than a director that has already proven he's not capable of action.

D) Did Spider-Man 3 need a budget of 260 million dollars? Did Kick-Ass need more than 50?

E) Yes it has changed by now. That was only concept influenced by the success of Twilight. Suits will describe it that way, because it features young people studying, but that will be it. I doubt Marc Webb or Andy Garfield describe the project like that.

F) About this - if you're a movie fan and not completely against romantic, dreamy and self-referential love dramas, you need to see 500 Days. For one, because Joseph Gordon Levitt is in it, and of course, to see what Webb did before. Also, it's not bad. It's no The Bounty Hunter. If your excuse for scepcism is "I don't know this other movie he did", well, just see it.

G) Isn't there general consensus that 3 is a missed opportunity? Changing the background of Bens murder, the new flying snowboarder Goblin design, the weak implementation of Gwen Stacy, the ridiculous presentation of Venom, the small screentime for Sandman and the lazy showdown with Mary Jane again being kidnapped ... who loves that? It's quite easy to do a better Spider-Man flick than that.

It's too early to be hard on this. Imagine they'd cast Taylor Lautner as Peter Parker and Blake Lively as Mary Jane and had David Goyer direct. Then we had something to be angry about.

That's something that a lot of people seem to forget when it comes to the suits pressuring him to include Venom and Gwen Stacy. Yeah, it sucks that he had to deal with that, but he didn't have to fuck it up as badly as he did (I say that as a modest defender of the film, b/c *some* of it does work).

Raimi could always have said "Guys, either I'm doing Spider-Man 3 MY way or find someone else". Instead, he took the (big) paycheck and with it, responsibility. It's not like he signed on for a very specific, great vision of a movie, than suddenly got backstabbed and was forced at gunpoint to direct something that could only become shit anyways. He could easily have said no, the flying snowboarder looks like shit or wait, Church doesn't get enough screentime or Venom should be less talky and bulkier, you know, because that's what directors mostly do for a living, but he didn't. The only input from above was Venom has to be in it, they didn't force him to portray him in a shitty way.

Hell, even if a director suggests you put a giant metal spider in your flick, you can think and try to do something entertaining with it.

Dude chill out man...

I get it, you guys don't agree but lets not act as if I am some blithering retard who is just determined to convince you the world is flat.

The last decade has represented a lot of shifts in big budget, block buster filmmaking, not just comic book movies. I am simply stating that because of those shifts a major reboot of one of the most high profile franchises of this era is going to be an important yard stick to measure the longevity of the current trend.

But I am an idiot because James Bond and Batman did it before so that is exactly how is is going to work? Gotcha. Never mind the fact that Batman and James Bond didn't so much reboot as recast, both of those franchises still had several recurring characters come back played by the same actors. Never mind the fact that when Batman did it, the fourth film almost killed the franchise, and never mind the fact that there has never been a franchise to completely reboot so close to a previous film that was the biggest money maker in it's franchise. So yeah, absolutely NOTHING about this reboot is new, and in no way will be telling about how all of these current franchises operate after their initial runs with creative teams end.

The point in my mind is that you are focusing on a very tangential element of filmmaking and assigning it much more importance than what is commonly accepted, possibly because of an obvious and deep passion for comic book characters.

The fourth Batman film almost killed the franchise because it was terrible filmmaking, not because it was too different from the previous installments. I think that this fact really undermines your point that the characters are somehow larger than the actors, directors, and producers which bring their talents and assets to the artistic endeavor of movie making.

Got it half right.

Jesus. Hard, deep, and no lube in sight.

I understand that counter point, and I might be speaking with a little bit of hyperbole. I still maintain though, that the reboot is going to be an important step in how comic book films look and act in the next few years. What happens with Spider-Man might help influence what WB does with Batman post Nolan, what Fox does with X-Men after the new partnership with Singer and what Marvel does with the rest of their stable once the Avengers experiment ends.

100% rebooting a popular franchise that isn't "dead" is new, and it goes against common practice in Hollywood up to this point. I might be assigning extra importance to this because it is a genre I really like, but I think the importance is valid because right now Super Hero movies are the biggest money makers. Trends change and fads go away, and the reboot of Spider-Man is a yard stick to help determine what this last decade of comic book films is.

I hate myself for reading this whole thread.

If it makes you feel any better I hate myself even more for blowing it up...