Sequels and Prequels and Remakes, Oh My! (Upcoming Films)

[Reply #200 on:]

SM3 sucking is the reason there is no SM4!

Lrn to life.

But it's not. Like it or not, Spider-Man 3 made a fuck-load of money and the studio was eager to make another.

Sam Raimi wanted the 4th to be good and it soon became apparent that Sony simply weren't going to let him make a good film so he jumped ship because otherwise Spider-Man 4 would have been a mess like Spider-Man 3 was. Sony were happy to reboot it because it meant that they could snap up some new talent for considerably less money.

So, what you're saying there is that it's less about SM3's suckitude and more about the anticipated suckitude of SM4 based on the suckitude of SM3?

Hm. Spider-Man 3 made a shitload of money based on the success of the first two pictures - both of which had their problems, but people were willing to overlook them because they had good points too. However, SM3 sucked a gigantic hairy transvestite wombat's cock from beginning to end. It was panned by critics and audiences alike, and only made tons of money immediately after release. It did not, unlike SM1 and SM2, make consistently high box-office returns during the entire release period.

Studios look at these things. They see films where audiences drop off quickly as being unviable projects on which to base a sequel, and that goes double for the third film in a trilogy. A second or third sequel to a film gets made if the film and its sequel take in a certain amount of money over a certain period of time. This ensures that the studio doesn't lose money by making a big-budget film that turns out to be a box-office turkey because people thought the previous film in the series was absolute shit.

When SM3 turned out to be a horrible failure with audiences and the putative SM4 couldn't rekindle Raimi's faith in the franchise, he decided to call it quits. Sony were happy to re-boot it because it's a re-branding excercise that has proven popular and successful in the past. They couldn't make SM4 as a direct sequel because Raimi refused to give up his interest (artistic integrity, perhaps. They didn't offer him enough money, much more likely). This was a direct result of SM3 sucking.

Therefore there is no SM4 because SM3 sucked.

Eat it.

[Reply #201 on:]

Looper

[Reply #202 on:]

Cool. I wish my older self was Bruce Willis.

[Reply #203 on:]

SM3 sucking is the reason there is no SM4!

Lrn to life.

But it's not. Like it or not, Spider-Man 3 made a fuck-load of money and the studio was eager to make another.

Sam Raimi wanted the 4th to be good and it soon became apparent that Sony simply weren't going to let him make a good film so he jumped ship because otherwise Spider-Man 4 would have been a mess like Spider-Man 3 was. Sony were happy to reboot it because it meant that they could snap up some new talent for considerably less money.

So, what you're saying there is that it's less about SM3's suckitude and more about the anticipated suckitude of SM4 based on the suckitude of SM3?

Not really, no.

Hm. Spider-Man 3 made a shitload of money based on the success of the first two pictures - both of which had their problems, but people were willing to overlook them because they had good points too. However, SM3 sucked a gigantic hairy transvestite wombat's cock from beginning to end. It was panned by critics and audiences alike, and only made tons of money immediately after release. It did not, unlike SM1 and SM2, make consistently high box-office returns during the entire release period.

It still made more than enough money to make the studio eager to make another.

Studios look at these things. They see films where audiences drop off quickly as being unviable projects on which to base a sequel, and that goes double for the third film in a trilogy. A second or third sequel to a film gets made if the film and its sequel take in a certain amount of money over a certain period of time. This ensures that the studio doesn't lose money by making a big-budget film that turns out to be a box-office turkey because people thought the previous film in the series was absolute shit.

That may be so. In this film's case, the studio still wanted another film in the series because they deemed it something that would be profitable.

When SM3 turned out to be a horrible failure with audiences and the putative SM4 couldn't rekindle Raimi's faith in the franchise

It absolutely could and briefly did but Sony wouldn't let him have things his way and so he basically decided it wouldn't wind up being a good film, again, because they weren't letting him make a good film.

Sony were happy to re-boot it because it's a re-branding excercise that has proven popular and successful in the past. They couldn't make SM4 as a direct sequel because Raimi refused to give up his interest (artistic integrity, perhaps.

Of course they were happy to. That doesn't mean that they didn't initially want a fourth Spider-Man film in the current series and only turned to the reboot as a plan B.

They didn't offer him enough money, much more likely

He was officially hired and actively working on the film when the project was cancelled. He likely had to hand his fee back or buy himself out of a contract in order to not simply just do as Sony told him. I really doubt it had anything to do with the fee. When you're a director at Raimi's level with people chasing you down to make films such as the upcoming adaptation of World of Warcraft or things for Disney then you can afford to be picky and only make projects that you want to because they do it for you, artistically. He could probably retire on his fee for Spider-Man 2, alone.

It's more likely that Sony basically fired him for not doing things their way this time and wrote a nice press release to make it look like he took the initiative and walked. If this is the case, you could say that they didn't make Spider-Man 4 because Raimi was being extra careful to make a good film this time because 3 was below par but it certainly wasn't a case of the studio not wanting a 4th film.

[Reply #204 on:]

So, what you're saying there is that it's less about SM3's suckitude and more about the anticipated suckitude of SM4 based on the suckitude of SM3?

Not really, no.
[/quote]
You should try to get your point across more clearly then.

[SM3] still made more than enough money to make the studio eager to make another.

Studios look at these things. They see films where audiences drop off quickly as being unviable projects on which to base a sequel, and that goes double for the third film in a trilogy. A second or third sequel to a film gets made if the film and its sequel take in a certain amount of money over a certain period of time. This ensures that the studio doesn't lose money by making a big-budget film that turns out to be a box-office turkey because people thought the previous film in the series was absolute shit.

That may be so. In this film's case, the studio still wanted another film in the series because they deemed it something that would be profitable.

I think you'll find that the studio and Raimi were contracted at that point to make six films in total, a pair of trilogies. Had there been no contract in place, it is unlikely that SM4 would have even been discussed. They'd probably not have discussed a re-boot either. But if Sony don't make the films at this point, Raimi and somebody else will end up doing it.

So they've got six films to make, a ton of credibility to recover, and a pissed-off director. The easiest solution is to make the director more and more unhappy (either by not giving him his daily money-shower or by making unreasonable demands that will ruin his film) and ensure that a re-noegotiation needs to happen. So the director and the studio are now at loggerheads. What usually happens in this situation is that the director will demand "creative freedom" and a fuckton more money. Sony refuse, and when he walks, re-boot the franchise without the director.

If this is the case, you could say that they didn't make Spider-Man 4 because Raimi was being extra careful to make a good film this time because 3 was below par but it certainly wasn't a case of the studio not wanting a 4th film.

That's not what was said. What was said was that SM3 sucking was the cause of us not having SM4. This is arguably the root cause, as it led to differences of opinion between Raimi and Sony that ultimately meant SM4 would never be made. This is what led to the re-boot of the franchise. If SM3 had not sucked, Raimi's departure from the project might not have proved to be an issue for the studio. Directors are replaced all the time, when they quit and the studio still really wants to make a film, after all.

SM3 sucked, SM4 won't get made now, and the studio are going with a re-boot instead. These things all follow on from one another.

[Reply #205 on:]

why is this a complicated debate? It's really very simple.

Sony's motivation: Milk the established franchise, spending as little as time and money as possible.
Ramis' motivation: actually make a good movie, even if it takes longer and costs a bit more.

With each subsequent film in one franchise series, sony wants to spend less, thus making more. If people thought SM3 was shit, sony didn't care, so long as they bought tickets and dvds. Their reputation is relatively unaffected, since a company like sony has so many different pies going at once anyway. The actors, writers, and directors involved can generally only make one thing at a time, and their reputations and careers stand to be more directly affected if they let themselves be associated with swill designed to milk an established franchise - so they want more money. Eventually this leads to a breakdown in negotations, and if there's still enough life in the franchise, a reboot is born. Or, in less extreme cases, just recasting (a'la 90s batman)

[Reply #206 on:]

[SM3] still made more than enough money to make the studio eager to make another.

Studios look at these things. They see films where audiences drop off quickly as being unviable projects on which to base a sequel, and that goes double for the third film in a trilogy. A second or third sequel to a film gets made if the film and its sequel take in a certain amount of money over a certain period of time. This ensures that the studio doesn't lose money by making a big-budget film that turns out to be a box-office turkey because people thought the previous film in the series was absolute shit.

That may be so. In this film's case, the studio still wanted another film in the series because they deemed it something that would be profitable.

I think you'll find that the studio and Raimi were contracted at that point to make six films in total, a pair of trilogies. Had there been no contract in place, it is unlikely that SM4 would have even been discussed. They'd probably not have discussed a re-boot either. But if Sony don't make the films at this point, Raimi and somebody else will end up doing it.

They weren't contracted to make six films; Avi Arad and a few other producer types had merely expressed a desire for them to make six films and clearly that was the plan for a while. There was never a contract in place for any films other than the one currently being made. Except for the cast - they may have been contracted for a few sequels initially, I don't know. They certainly weren't contracted for six, though.

[Reply #207 on:]

When your male lead is contracted to do six films, you're generally locked into a six-film agreement with somebody. I remember around the time SM2 was launched, he said in an interview that he'd be Spider Man for at least 4 more films.

That wasn't the point I was making initially though. You appear to be conveniently ignoring that the point under discussion was "SM3 sucking was the cause of us not having SM4" and picking nits with ancilliary details.

I do wonder if this is intentional obfuscation, or if you've conceded the point.

[Reply #208 on:]

Thanks for taking up the reigns on this one, tnuk. I got bored and forgot I was in a 'debate' until now. I need to get better at producing a huge wall of text that intimidates opponents, cause I tend to just type a few sound bites. I like brevity. There seems little point in spouting endlessly about a particular subject - it hardly gets you any further than just sticking to a concise expression of your opinion. I'm currently reading On the Origin of Species for the first time since I was out of my teens and I'm amazed at how much the man prattles on and on about his theory - "get to the point!", the reader cries.

By this stage my purpose has probably become clear; that I have no intention of actually discussing anything about the Raimi Spider-Man movies. But I just felt that if I posted something sufficiently long that it might just look like I had a coherent argument to make beyond my initial 'sucking = end' argument.

Sadly, no, I cannot be bothered with any such discussion, since to do so would make me think too much about a film which I really, truly...

Hang on, I nearly started talking about it again.

[Reply #209 on:]

The second half of The Avengers is filled with such fantastic action, it indeed has more action than all Marvel movies combined. Joss Whedon crafted the team conflict so well and balanced it out with such brilliant humour.

And though some characters managed to steal the show, Whedon showed the importance of every character and gave them their moment to shine on multiple occasions. As a comic fan there were times while watching Avengers I couldn't believe I am getting to see these comic characters come to life all together like that.

And one of the best things about opening day is the enthusiastic crowd, who cheered right from the title sequence and during every character's intro scene.

There is a moment in the film where Alan Silvestri's awesome main Assemble theme music kicks in during that surround shot of the Avengers, I had almost tears of joy during that brief moment. Also the audience really cheered at that scene (among many others).

And the 3D for The Avengers was really impressive, also maybe it was cause of the proper bright light conditions. It is one of the best live action 3D experience I had.

[Reply #210 on:]

Cool, Michael Jai White says they hope to shoot Black Dynamite 2 at the end of the year.
Kung Fu Bitches!

[Reply #211 on:]

...fucking awesome.

[Reply #212 on:]

I picked up Black Dynamite on a whim last year.  I've not yet watched it.  When I do, should I first prepare popcorn or beer?

[Reply #213 on:]

Anaconda Malt Liquor of course!
The only malt liquor approved by the US government!

[Reply #214 on:]

Tachyon: Make that shit before you come in the room!

...just watch the movie.

[Reply #215 on:]

So new Dark Knight Rises trailer is pretty good, I think I preferred the last one though, music was way more epic.

[Reply #216 on:]

Hehe, I thought this new one was much better than last one (which I found very underwhelming). But now I'm actually interested in the movie.

[Reply #217 on:]

The Amazing Spider-Man Trailer 3 - YouTube
New Spidey trailer is up.

Fluid web slinging shots (will look more amazing in 3D), rapid wall climbing, more wise cracks. This trailer will now surely get fans and audience pumped up for the movie.

[Reply #218 on:]

I'm not to happy that the movie is looking into Peter Parkers origins. Most of us knows how he gains the powers and uses them for good after Uncle Ben's death so why not explain the origins in 3 minutes like they did with the 'Incredible Hulk' movie in 2008.

I have nothing to say about the trailer because I'm going to watch it later.

[Reply #219 on:]

Depends on what powers the radioactive/genetically engineered spider gives him. In the movie trilogy he acquired biological web-shooting ability, which wasn't part of the original origin story.

[Reply #220 on:]

AVENGERS! I want to see it so bad! I was invited to go to the midnight showing last night with some friends, but I'm sick. SUCKS to be me right now!

[Reply #221 on:]

You have NO idea how badly I want to read those spoilers.

New Spidey trailer at least makes the film feel a tad more serious than the last trilogy... I may see it but it doesn't wreak of "totally the awesomest thing I've seen ever" so... we'll see.

[Reply #222 on:]

I love comics, and I'm a devoted Marvel fangirl, but... I guess I just don't get why we NEED another Spider-Man movie. Aside from the third film, which was kind of a train wreck, I thought the trilogy was quite good. The first film is only ten years old. Do Spidey's origins really need to be explored AGAIN?

Know which comic book character I REALLY want to get his own movie? The Silver Surfer. (Fantastic Four 2 doesn't count, because it was ridonkulous.)

[Reply #223 on:]

The trailers shown at The Avengers:

Dark Knight Rises: I've been planning to see it since The Dark Knight, so you know the movie trailer telling me to go see it is just prolonging the inevitable.

Amazing Spider-Man: I don't think I'll ever refer to it as the Amazing Spider-Man, I'm pretty sure I'm just gonna call it New Spider-Man. Still with each new trailer I see, I like it more and where I was not really hopeful with the first trailer, now I'm looking forward to it.

Prometheus: I'M SEEING THIS MOVIE STOP PRESSURING ME GODDAMMIT.

Frankenweinee: Yay! I love the short film I can't wait to see this.

Brave: I'm still not overly impressed, so if I don't see it in theaters I'll catch it on DVD.

[Reply #224 on:]

James Cameron Talks AVATAR 2, 3, Even AVATAR 4; Says He Now Only Wants to Make AVATAR Movies
Guess he's taking the George Lucas route.

[Reply #225 on:]

And one of the best things about opening day is the enthusiastic crowd, who cheered right from the title sequence and during every character's intro scene.

That's the single most annoying thing about any crowd. How can you hear what they're saying if people are cheering and clapping.

Idiots.

And the 3D for The Avengers was really impressive, also maybe it was cause of the proper bright light conditions. It is one of the best live action 3D experience I had.

I've heard that the 3D was utterly shite. From a few people.


With regards to the new spiderman movie... I'm actually really looking forward to it. I think it'll be interesting to see his origins portrayed a different way, plus the way the movie is shot looks so much more fantastic. I'm not overly fond of the original trilogy although I find the first one good fun, plus I think Andrew Garfield will do a much better job than Tobey Maguire. If only because he's prettier and a better actor.

[Reply #226 on:]

And one of the best things about opening day is the enthusiastic crowd, who cheered right from the title sequence and during every character's intro scene.

That's the single most annoying thing about any crowd. How can you hear what they're saying if people are cheering and clapping.

Idiots.

I think you're getting it wrong. These moments of cheers last for few seconds not that they go on for half a minute or something. These are crowd pleasing moments (especially for fans) which are not confined to dialogues. Title sequence, Cap's first appearance on screen (including first one in costume), Iron Man's intro, Thor's first appearance by landing on the jet etc. 

Show spoiler

Didn't your crowd cheer and laugh when Hulk beat the crap out of Loki? There were so many moments like that worthy of cheers.

Avengers is one of those rare movies which has plenty of eye candy and humour where audience gets to celebrate it together.

And from what I have been reading on various other forums most people in US and other countries are having similar reactions for Avengers in theatres.

[Reply #227 on:]

Show spoiler

Didn't your crowd cheer and laugh when Hulk beat the crap out of Loki? There were so many moments like that worthy of cheers.

Show spoiler

My crowd only laughed

[Reply #228 on:]

That's the single most annoying thing about any crowd. How can you hear what they're saying if people are cheering and clapping.

Idiots.

There is a special hell for people who do that

[Reply #229 on:]

Yeah I hate when people talk in theatres but this isn't the same as some of these scenes (without dialogues) are cheer worthy and doesn't really ruin the experience.

[Reply #230 on:]

Booked tickets to go see the Avengers tomorrow, so I've rented Thor and Captain America since they are the only two films I haven't seen in relation to the Avengers yet.

I'm guessing, despite the fact this is the 3rd actor to play Bruce, all 3 Hulk films (well 2 Hulk films & the Avengers) are a continuous arc?

[Reply #231 on:]

I am glad more people are viewing Thor and Captain America to prepare for Avengers.

Yes the three incarnations of Hulk are part of the character arc, but unlike the first Hulk film The Incredible Hulk officially lies in to the Marvel movie universe with the appearance of Tony Stark.

[Reply #232 on:]

I just saw Thor last night after I bought it for my brand spanking new Blu-Ray player. I was caught up anyway, but I now know more about Thor.

[Reply #233 on:]

Show spoiler

Didn't your crowd cheer and laugh when Hulk beat the crap out of Loki? There were so many moments like that worthy of cheers.

Show spoiler

My crowd only laughed

What he said. Also what Tweek said.

[Reply #234 on:]

Out of curiosity, which movie did everyone prefer, Thor or Captain America? I thought both were great, but Thor is my favorite of the two. It was just so visually stunning; I loved all the scenes in Asgard. Plus I'm a big fan of Kenneth Branagh.

But there's a scene in Captain America that I never get tired of, and that I quote frequently, and it's this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVmBAd76kak

[Reply #235 on:]

Well since I've only just watched Thor, I'm partial to it... Talk to me again in a few hours and you may have a different answer after I view Captain America. In regards to why I did this... I'm a completionist, wanted to see the films anyhow and now I've kicked my own ass into gear. Glad I have. Although during Thor I was giggling like the girl that I am and spouting silly commentary at my computer screen........ I hope I can stay quiet during Avengers.

[Reply #236 on:]

Captain America for me, the movie had more heart and made me root for Steve Rogers right from the start.

And though I've always been a fan of Marvel comics, I was never interested to read the issues of Captain America. But all that changed few years ago when I read the portrayal of the character in the Marvel crossover series Civil War. Now after Spider-Man and Wolverine, Cap is one of my favourite Marvel superheroes.

[Reply #237 on:]

Does anyone think this is going to be a 3-for-3 year with the superhero movies? The Avengers is fucking awesome, I'm much more excited for Spider-Man than I was when the first trailer came out, and we get The Dark Knight Rises. I think Spider-Man has potential to be not as good, but I don't think I'll go out hating it.

[Reply #238 on:]

I preferred Captain America to Thor, but they were both great movies.

Thor had some super sweet explosions and whatnot, so it gets bonus points for that.

[Reply #239 on:]

I liked Thor more than Captain America, but they were both good.