WILL EMMA STONE BE MARY JANE? - Page 2

Thanks.

So, sure, here's another vote from a 40 year old man in favor of Emma Stone...

I get your point. The thing concerning the Spiderman reboot is the target is already in place so its first two weeks of release are going to be huge. If that 80 million budget rumor is true then it'll have no trouble making a profit. Since the reboot is going to happen the only thing it's going to effect is the sequel. I don't see how its performance is going to effect other films such as Batman, X-Men, Fantasic Four....etc.

That's just it. This is practically a no-risk venture. The odds of it failing are just about nil. It's not going to be a yardstick for anything, because it's as close to a sure bet as movies come.

And cinematic history has already proven that this works repeatedly, despite Wally's refusal to accept anything that happened before his memory.

It could effect other films because it shows that a 100% reboot off the heels of a huge moneymaker is a viable option. I am not sold that it is a forgone conclusion that the film will be huge just because it is Spider-Man, and we don't know if there will be a backlash. Also don't misunderstand my use of the term backlash. I am not saying movie goers will storm the Sony studio gates, I am talking about the potential 300-400 million less gross this film could bring in. It is not at all unreasonable to think the film just doesn't connect with audiences and makes 400 mil world wide. That is less then half of what the last movie made. That is the kind of backlash I am talking about.

On the other hand if it makes a reasonably similar gross it will indicate that you don't need any sort of connection to the previous films, or even a great deal of time to "wash" the palette of the movie goer.

The effect it might have on other big properties is that you can now reboot and not skip a beat, because up until now longevity has been based on recasting not really rebooting until the franchise hits a dead end.

With an 80 million dollar budget, it doesn't have to connect with audiences. It won't be so dependent on repeat business. With effective marketing and public interest (which is already there), it's going to make its money back in two weeks.

That's the model we have now. Shoot for opening weekend so word of mouth can't hurt you.

I am not saying it could be a huge failure... but it can certainly make 500 million less world wide then the last one. That is a bit of a risk when all the Raimi Spider-Man films brought in around 800 million world wide (The last one bringing in near 900 million).

Also name me a single franchise in movie history that 100% reboots after it's most successful financial film? Name me a single franchise that is as popular as Spider-Man has been in this last decade that 100% reboots instead of moving ahead with another planned sequel?

I wish I would have realized this earlier, but I have not vocalized on of the reasons I don't see a big correlation with James Bond and Batman in regards to this topic. Neither of those are examples of reboots off of success. They are recasting, NOT rebooting. Going from Connery to Lazenby (or even Moore) was a recast, many recurring characters remained the same, played by the same actors. Batman had a ton of returning side characters across all of it's first 4 films. They only rebooted when the franchises hit dead ends. Spider Man is rebooting while the franchise is still alive and doing really well. That hasn't happened before and if this is a huge hit it will happen again with other franchises.

I like the casting in this film so far, but it just ticks me off that the movie is another by the numbers origin. Just a waste of time, could have just started after all the "spider biting-uncle dieing-superhero turning" nonsense...

Dude, just stop it. You have precious little grasp of how the industry works, no sense of movie history, and your long-winded, repetitious defenses are just becoming obnoxious now.

You're wrong, you're never going to admit it, and you're too proud of what you think is your understanding of the situation to let it go.

Just stop.

I'm hoping you're wrong, and they don't go that route. But you're probably right. I really don't want to sit through anymore superhero origins of any kind. There needs to be a rule that once an origin story has been onscreen, nobody's allowed to do it again. Just move forward.

So you can't name me a single movie franchise that reboots after it's biggest moneymaker? You can't name me a single franchise that reboots while the popularity is still high?

Gotcha, and I am the guy with no grasp of film history.

You are confusing recast with reboot... it is equally my fault because I didn't try to clarify earlier.

This film will give us an idea how the big studios will try to extend the life of these franchises, we are seeing something new. I don't see why you have to fight this.

Have I introduced you to my ignore list? I don't believe I have.

Seriously, you argue like a ten-year-old. You're just repeating yourself. Let it go.

Wait wait wait... lets not let this become a stupid internet pissing contest. Neither of us want that and it just makes this thread poor.

I am sorry for repeating myself, I simply thought that my point was incredibly valid when you say this is not something new.

I get that you disagree, you wont change my mind any sooner then I will change your mind. I feel my opinions are valid, you feel yours are. You don't need to treat me like to petulant child just because I am younger than you. I thought for the most part you argued your point well and I was less eloquent in my rebuttals. We will just have to agree to disagree because if this keeps on going no one wins.

Agreed. But what exactly IS 'moving forward' for a superhero franchise? The character needs to remain recognizable, and that means variety comes from introducing new villains, which means origin stories all over again. I suppose Mysterio or Shocker could just pop up unexplained, but if they're going to do more Green Goblin (and with both Gwen and MJ back in the picture how can they not?) they'll have to start from scratch. And ditch the Power Ranger armor this time around.

Oh no, villains are fine, as long as their origin doesn't take up too much screen time. But the heroes are well-trodden territory at this point. There are probably as many people in the world who can tell you Superman's origin as the story of Jesus. You can just drop people into a Superman story and they'll know what they're getting.

I would at least like to see a classic villain last longer than one film.

Let's be clear; I wasn't getting down on you for being younger, I was getting down on you for your debate style. People would would come in and make counterpoints, and you'd simply repeat the same points over and over. It became a big vicious circle.

I apologize if my last post came across as too dismissive or aggressive. The repetitious style of the argument just got on my nerves.

It's one thing I'll give Batman Forever credit for. As ridiculous as that movie was, it at least had the good sense to put its villain in Arkham Asylum at the end instead of killing him.

Killing the villain is such a staple of American action cinema that I understand it's hard for filmmakers to break away from it. But the rules need to change slightly for superhero films.

Although now that I think of it, the first big one out of the gate was Superman, and he took Luthor to jail at the end. So once again, we see that Donner knew what he was doing.

I agree that it became repetitive. That is only because I stand by my stance, I am not wishy washy and all over the place because I don't think I am wrong. When I believe something to be true I won't back down just because you keep saying I am wrong. You tried to bring points that proved me wrong, the only problem is I don't see them as overly relevant.

The core difference is how we perceive the state of the comic book movie genre. I think it is golden age, an era that started in 1999, and as such follows a different set of rules because it is a different type of film. It seems you think comic book movies have gone through no major change since Superman happened. Agree to disagree on that core difference and everything else is moot. Based on how you see things nothing is new, based on how I see things the landscape is changing.

That is a slippery slope because with Superman they never really branched away from Luthor. He was an important part of nearly every Superman movie ever made, that isn't good either. The X-Men films do that too with Magneto (interestingly enough another film with Donner connections).

There should be a happy medium, the Villain's shouldn't always die or always get off... and they most certainly should keep the doors revolving, because the more you see one villain the less of an impact he can make.

Batman Begins and The Dark Knight did well with their villains. Kill one, let the other one live, and you get a cute cameo for the sequel.

I think that the best option for this new Spiderman film is to introduce some potential villains for the sequels, like they did with doc. Connors in Raimi's films. Teased the fucker for three films and never got to use him, what a shame...

My biggest lament is that we probably wont ever see Dylan Baker as the Lizard, or Bruce Campbell as Mysterio

Yep, agree with this. the time saved on origins can be better spent- X-Men 2 is probably the best example of this.

The X-films as a whole did a fairly decent job bypassing origins.

Well the concept behind the X-Men, that they were "born that way", was specifically designed so that Stan Lee and co. could get around creating unique origins for each character, so it's not much of an accomplishment that the films managed to avoid them (save Wolverine, obviously). Also, I'm not totally against origins in superhero films, it just depends on where they fit in the grand scheme of things. Example: When, not if, but when they reboot Batman, I don't think we need to see a brand new origin, but if a new universe with new rules is being established, it may need to be touched upon (not necessarily rehashed) to help the audience adjust to the new vision. Nolan did this by establishing Joe Chill and then killing him off to distance Batman Begins from the '89 film, though people still refer to it as a prequel.

What is interesting is that I agree that origin films are pretty repetitive at this point, but the one Super Hero film I am looking forward to the most next year is X-Men First Class... which is pretty much the Xavier/Magneto origin story.

Kinda different (I hope) in that it's the origin of their conflict rather than their powers.

Die Another Day was the biggest Bond film as of 2005, I believe. WHYWHYWHYAMIENGAGINGTHIS

It's hard to resist, isn't it? You see wrongness, and you have to correct it.

Then a 300 word "Yeah, but..." will come behind it.

I 100% agree. Love the casting.

This movie has potential.

Part of me misses the days when I was young enough to be convinced I knew everything - the rest of me is very very happy I grew up and got over that shit.

Wisdom and perspective rocks yo.

Yes. I could live without the arthritis, though.

The slowing metabolism's a bitch to boot.

Regardless of how this film performs, it wont have an effect on the other planned reboots. A studio will always believe that it's selling a damn good product regardless of how its competition fared.

Would Sony be making another Spider-Man if they would not lose the rights after a period of time? My guess would be NO. At least not this fast.

Correct. It's a business, plan and simple. The audience tiring of Superhero films would be the reason why some films don't fare too well.

Don't be all smug. If you knew that you would have saved everyone a lot of time if you just said it upfront. I was wrong about that factoid and freely admit it. I don't think it fundamentally changes my point though.

The fact that James Bond rebooted under similar circumstances a few years ago doesn't mean that the Spider Man reboot is any less interesting and potentially impactful to the current set of Comic Book movies. The point remains the same.

Comic book films have been bucking trends, setting new standards and establishing themselves as something more than your typical blockbuster film making for the past decade. The idea that they are willing to take the top properties now and reboot them 100% so close to the successful last installment is uncommon and could help install a new standard to how the properties are treated at the studios.

Jesus wept...

Yeah because it is horrible that I enjoy the debate and continue it forward. I have learned some interesting information based on the back and forth here in this thread. That is why we debate things, to put up your held opinions against others and scrutinize them. To rethink the things you think you know and adjust accordingly.

If you don't wish to participate in that, you are freely allowed to avoid it.

You're officially giving me epic flashbacks to belligerent 'debates' I used to suffer through working in a comic book store fifteen years ago.

You're not 'continuing the debate forward' (wtf?) - you're simply making the same points over and over and over...

But you're not carrying it forward. Again, you're just repeating the same opinion over and over. And it is nothing but an opinion. You have no history or precedent to back it up, which is why you have nothing but repetition to go on.

Essentially, your argument is "Yuh-huh, yuh-huh, yuh-huh".

Edit: Yeah, what Rain Dog said.

OK, debate done.

Sorry to have wasted your time. We are two different wave lengths on this topic. It is to far gone for me to say anything that sounds like a new point or for you to say anything other then nope you are wrong. I was telling the truth when I say I learned a few interesting things in this debate, and I enjoyed the back and forth for the most part. I am sorry that wasn't mutual.

Hopefully the next time this debate pops up I will do a better job of being concise and not allowing myself to go on belligerent tangents that just cloud the original point.

I'll tell you this much, when the studio finally decides Richard Burbage is too old to play Hamlet, the nerd rage is going to be palpable.

Okay, I know I'm probably just going to irritate people by perpetuating this. Sorry in advance.

Firstly, please don't take this as a personal attack, it really isn't. I just thought I'd offer my opinion on why people are getting annoyed with you. In my view, you are almost expressly utilizing the No True Scotsman logical fallacy in your arguments, also known as "begging the question."

Examples:

You stated that filmmakers should feel the freedom to recast superhero movies. You were given two examples of just that: Batman and Superman. Your responses? Batman doesn't count because it wasn't in your idea of the right "era." Superman doesn't count because it was only recast once, and was too similar in tone, by design, with the original series.

You argue that comic book films were not taken seriously until after 2000. Again, someone assures you that Superman and Batman, both comic book films, were taken seriously when they debuted, a point you arbitrarily dismiss as not being a high enough occurrence. Also, you don't state how many respected comic films it takes to make the genre respected.

Lastly, you posit that a successful quick reboot of Spiderman will spur a new phenomenon in Hollywood. A different likely and very reasonable alternative motive for making these reboots is suggested to you in the need of retaining the property rights for such films. You dismiss this out of hand by saying that at some point in the future, Sony will relinquish those rights if they can't make a profit. Surely this is true, but it doesn't address the counter argument made to you.

Just speaking for myself, it seems that when someone gives some examples or counterpoints to your argument, a purely qualitative dismissal is the response. "That's too old, that number isn't high enough, etc."

Again, I'm not trying to antagonize you, this is just my opinion on why this discussion has felt a little frustrating to me. Perhaps you disagree, but hopefully this post at least informs you of how at least one other person is viewing it. I am now going to disengage from this and stop annoying the crap out of everyone.

I feel bad for all the little kids whose Tobey Maguire era spider-man t-shirts will be rendered obsolete by the much cooler yet somehow identical Andrew Garfield era spider-man t-shirts. They're gonna get the shit beat out of them on the playground by the older kids, for not knowing any better.

Damit! Just when I was going to leave well enough alone you break down the miscommunications in a very well thought out, and organized way! I am going to rebut your points ONLY because I feel my points are misunderstood more than just being wrong. I appreciate you helping me see the other side of this debate, it is only going to help me in the future to understand how I am coming off to other people.

The biggest thing I failed to clarify is the difference between recasting and rebooting. Of course recasting is nothing new, and is common across nearly every genre. 90s Batman and Superman were examples of recasting in established universes, not reboots. Of course the new Nolan Batman is a true reboot, which happened because the franchise was dead in the water and the studio had no other choice. Spider-Man is neither a recast nor a franchise forced to reboot because of a dead series of films. That is the difference I am talking about.

There are no absolutes, Superman was well received and beloved. Burton's Batman wasn't just a hit, it was a phenomenon. Of course I know that. Aside from that, no one gave comic book films any respect. For every Superman their were 5 other properties that failed miserably. The new era represents a time when all Comics are considered future tent poles and even B and C level heroes are being set up as franchises. Times have changed, and the environment is much more different for Super Hero movies than it was just 15 years ago.

Spur a new phenomenon is not at all what I meant to say... That is a core problem with this debate because my hyperbole easily led people to that interpretation. That is my bad. I simply think that the current generation of Super Hero films have a shelf life, and a quick reboot is risky for a popular character. If Sony succeeds, other studios might be more willing to take the risk. Thus extending the longevity of the current Super Hero boom.

I agree that my responses are probably the reason this debate dissolved so quickly. Thank you for helping point that out, knowing my argumentative flaws are the first step in avoiding them in the future. I am also sorry if this seems like a repetitive continuation, the point was to enlighten, not annoy.

EDIT: I fixed a few minor errors in grammar and elaborated in a few places to illustrate the points.

I was honestly about to post another past example of why this is nothing new, but then I realized that you're just going to tell me that it doesn't count for no reason again.

I've stepped off this merry-go-round. I'm gonna get a hot dog. Anybody else want a hot dog?

Can I get one with Mustard?

Hey Utah - get me two.

I'm off to slam my dick in a door repeatedly as it would be less painful than engaging this guy.

Jeez, that drawing looks like Emma.

Exactly what I thought actually.