If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Starpulse)   Why are Columbia excutives so hellbent on destroying the "Spiderman" franchise?   (starpulse.com) divider line 64
    More: Fail, Robert Pattinson, Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst, Zac Efron, High School Musical, Britain's Daily Mirror, alter-ego, Spider-Man  
•       •       •

6881 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 17 Jan 2010 at 6:04 AM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



64 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-01-16 07:15:11 PM  
Because it sucked?
 
2010-01-16 07:23:05 PM  
Because it's about farking time to move away from comic book movies?
 
2010-01-16 07:31:25 PM  
I guarantee Subby would still go see it if they gave the part to Vanilla Ice. Do you know the kind of shiat storm fans would send through Hollywood if they just stopped going to lame movies?

but... but.. but... etc.. etc..
 
2010-01-16 07:36:39 PM  
To be fair, Spiderman sucks ass anyway.
 
2010-01-16 07:51:22 PM  
how bad is this movie if Tobey McGuire is backing out due to a script dispute? I mean, the third one was bad enough...I just...I mean...wow. We're talking Batman with nipples here.
 
2010-01-16 07:56:23 PM  
Because NBC set the bar pretty damn high w/ their treatment
of Conan and The Tonight Show

/When they remake "The Late Shift" (and they will) I'm betting on Michael Bay directing just to add some more superfluous fireworks and useless 360 deg camera angles.
Mark. My. Words.


Oh, and Jackie Earle Haley will play Conan. And he won't suck.
 
2010-01-16 09:46:40 PM  
Because there's profit to be had.
 
2010-01-16 10:51:53 PM  
Oh good. Like there wasn't enough submissions of the fail tag to deal with around here, now I have to put up with this too.
 
2010-01-16 11:06:29 PM  
Well, it has something to do with the rights to Spiderman reverting back to Marvel aka Disney if Columbia/Sony sits on them for too long.
 
2010-01-16 11:43:13 PM  
It's "Spider-Man." It's not "Spiderman."
 
2010-01-17 12:02:54 AM  
Wasn't this last years April Fool's joke?

I really doubt this is a credible source.
 
2010-01-17 04:14:30 AM  
Why are Columbia excutives so hellbent on destroying the "Spiderman" franchise?

If you used to be a cutive and you had that taken away from you, you'd be bitter and vengeful too.
 
2010-01-17 05:20:28 AM  
I could care less about the Spiderman movies at this point. Remake, reboot, recast, just make them watchable. One was barely watchable, two was halfway decent, and three was just an abortion.

If they are going to redo it, make the characters age appropriate for a reboot. Cast some kids from the Disney channel, cheese it up with Peter crackin wise on some bad guys and introduce Gwen Stacy first. Hell don't bring in Mary Jane until a second movie after Gwen dies/moves away (for the little snowflakes who don't like death) at the end of the first.

I hated the cast in the raimi films...Dunst was an emotionless sack of bones, McGuire was about as bad, and aunt may was just cardboard. The only person that i enjoyed was J.K. Simmons as J. Jonah Jameson...perfect casting there.

my two coppers on the ordeal
 
DOW
2010-01-17 06:13:37 AM  
I'm a little confused.

A month ago, everything was "moving ahead". Then last week, they allegedly decided to reboot the whole thing with a new cast. Now McGuire "backed out"?

WTF?
 
2010-01-17 06:28:48 AM  
I would love for the next spiderman movie to do so terribly that columbia just gives the rights back to Disney for nothing.
 
2010-01-17 06:46:10 AM  
I blame Mephisto.
 
2010-01-17 06:50:38 AM  
DantheApe: I could care less about the Spiderman movies at this point.

Meaning they are of some importance to you. Which is obviously why you felt compelled to comment.
 
2010-01-17 07:06:39 AM  
Ugh.
 
2010-01-17 07:45:44 AM  
BOOOOO! HISSSSS!
 
2010-01-17 07:47:42 AM  
So Spider-Man is going to sparkle?
 
2010-01-17 08:28:20 AM  
FTA: Daily Variety claimed movie bosses are planning to make a prequel about Spider-Man's alter-ego, Peter Parker, as a teenager instead

Great idea. A spider-man movie with no spider-man.

The pile of cocaine that got this greenlighted must have been huge.
 
2010-01-17 08:32:13 AM  
Subby, you should know better.
We do not dignify absurdities with coverage.
 
2010-01-17 08:40:52 AM  
Mobkey: Wasn't this last years April Fool's joke?

I really doubt this is a credible source.


It's false, he IS not playing Spider-Man
 
2010-01-17 08:41:31 AM  
img191.imageshack.us
 
2010-01-17 09:48:36 AM  
Why are Columbia excutives so hellbent on destroying the "Spiderman" franchise?

Because it is played out and they want to squeeze the last cent out of it before turning over the rights. Duh.

GreenAdder:
It's "Spider-Man." It's not "Spiderman."

You really need to figure out what that thing between your legs is really for. Hint: It is not just for making tinkle.
 
2010-01-17 09:55:33 AM  
bloobeary: FTA: Daily Variety claimed movie bosses are planning to make a prequel about Spider-Man's alter-ego, Peter Parker, as a teenager instead

Great idea. A spider-man movie with no spider-man.

The pile of cocaine that got this greenlighted must have been huge.


FYI, Peter was Spider-Man when he was a teenager. I'm not sure when the comics had him grow up there, but the initial 60's run had Peter in high school.
 
2010-01-17 09:57:51 AM  
elvisaintdead:

Oh, and Jackie Earle Haley will play Conan. And he won't suck.


I can wholeheartedly support this.
 
2010-01-17 10:40:37 AM  
Screw the psuedo-vampire with a rusty chainsaw.

Stephen Lunsford for Spider-man!
 
2010-01-17 10:55:32 AM  
Antidamascus: Because it sucked?

Came here to say that exact same thing.
 
2010-01-17 11:02:21 AM  
Hollywood needs its own Dr. Kevorkian to make house-calls to studios and put shiatty movie "franchises" out of their pathetic misery before they are raped to death on the screen.
 
2010-01-17 11:05:17 AM  
"R-Patz" is the stupidest media nickname ever.
 
2010-01-17 11:23:55 AM  
elvisaintdead: Oh, and Jackie Earle Haley will play Conan. And he won't suck.

They just need to make him a foot taller, and they'll be set.
 
2010-01-17 11:39:59 AM  
I thought they already did that with Spiderman 3.
 
2010-01-17 11:46:42 AM  
beve: Why are Columbia excutives so hellbent on destroying the "Spiderman" franchise?

If you used to be a cutive and you had that taken away from you, you'd be bitter and vengeful too.


+1
 
2010-01-17 12:07:35 PM  
When are they are going to "get it"???

Then again, the powers that be only care about the bottom line, not a concept.

But they don't understand that the reason things are successful are because of these concepts.

Shallowness does not provoke creativity or understanding.

They are good at manipulation, that's it.
 
2010-01-17 12:27:26 PM  
Critch: bloobeary: FTA: Daily Variety claimed movie bosses are planning to make a prequel about Spider-Man's alter-ego, Peter Parker, as a teenager instead

Great idea. A spider-man movie with no spider-man.

The pile of cocaine that got this greenlighted must have been huge.

FYI, Peter was Spider-Man when he was a teenager. I'm not sure when the comics had him grow up there, but the initial 60's run had Peter in high school.


Roughly 38 issues and three years.

That's the only time Spider-Man was a high school student and Spider-Man.

Everyone wanting to go back to this period in Spider-Man history is a pretty stupid, narrow minded idea, kind of like wanting to go back to the Kirk and Spock Days in Star Trek.
 
2010-01-17 12:27:53 PM  
Just get Elijah Wood, most people probably wouldn't even notice the switch.
 
2010-01-17 12:53:31 PM  
Mobkey 2010-01-17 12:02:54 AM
Wasn't this last years April Fool's joke?

I really doubt this is a credible source.


HAHAHA Quotes from that:

he could be set to weave an even more exciting web as the flying superhero.

after Toby Maguire, 34, announced he was hanging up his cape

If R-Patz bags it, will Kristin Stewart will be his Mary Jane?

SPIDER-MAN DOES NOT FLY NOR WEARS A CAPE!
 
2010-01-17 12:57:16 PM  
mr.fisher:

SPIDER-MAN DOES NOT FLY NOR WEARS A CAPE!


...yet.

Spider-Man does not fly nor wears a cape yet.

I'm sure if Sony asks the Twilight and Avatar audiences if they think Spidey should wear a cape, and they say yes, Spider-Man will wear a cape.
 
2010-01-17 12:58:02 PM  
I can't decide if Michael Cera as Spiderman is better or worse


I'll choose better because of the inevitable gnashing of teeth that will ensue from comic book fanboys. That and it also wouldn't completely kill my interest in the movie like Pattinson would.
 
2010-01-17 01:06:30 PM  
I had faint hope after the shiat-in-hell dreck that was Spiderman III, that the studio would not be so intrusive with Spiderman IV and let Rami do his thang. Instead like the coked-out farks they tend to be, they decide to go all scorched-earth on the whole farkin' franchise. Idiots.

Oh well, guess I have to settle for The Spectacular Spider-Man animated series for my spider-man fix, which is not a bad thing since it is pretty cool (new window).
 
2010-01-17 01:42:48 PM  
Does this question even need to be asked?
 
2010-01-17 01:44:13 PM  
They were promised cake.
 
2010-01-17 02:14:03 PM  
In defense of Patterson, he only signed onto Twilight because he wanted to work with the main actress, whom he respected.

He apparantly has criticize Twilight and the character of Edward a lot.
 
2010-01-17 02:15:14 PM  
aevert: Because there's profit to be had.

DING! DING! DING! DING! We have a winner!
 
2010-01-17 02:25:02 PM  
It was ruined when they cast farking Toby McGuire as farking Spiderman. I don't know if they could have picked a worse actor for the role if they tried.
 
2010-01-17 02:34:32 PM  
CK2005: It was ruined when they cast farking Toby McGuire as farking Spiderman. I don't know if they could have picked a worse actor for the role if they tried.

Now, search your heart and you know that's not true. Sad Sack Parker was the role Tobey was born to play. Awkward, sad, but hopeful in the way decent nerds can be, he was a spot on choice. You must have seen some movie after part one and two to think otherwise. DId they make some cartoon or something that Tobey voiced?

/looking forward to Spider-man 3
 
2010-01-17 02:56:24 PM  
Norad: Because it's about farking time to move away from comic book movies?

This.
 
2010-01-17 03:17:23 PM  
Norad: Because it's about farking time to move away from comic book movies?

Because what harms a Marvel property harms Disney?

Fano: CK2005: It was ruined when they cast farking Toby McGuire as farking Spiderman. I don't know if they could have picked a worse actor for the role if they tried.

Now, search your heart and you know that's not true. Sad Sack Parker was the role Tobey was born to play. Awkward, sad, but hopeful in the way decent nerds can be, he was a spot on choice. You must have seen some movie after part one and two to think otherwise. DId they make some cartoon or something that Tobey voiced?

/looking forward to Spider-man 3


Actually, I agree - Tobey was, unfortunately, no Peter Parker. Not clever enough by half, not sarcastic enough - just not "sharp" enough. Kirsten Dunst did a reasonable job with Mary Jane, but Tobey Macguire could've done better with Peter Parker.
 
2010-01-17 03:23:37 PM  
bob_ross: I guarantee Subby would still go see it if they gave the part to Vanilla Ice. Do you know the kind of shiat storm fans would send through Hollywood if they just stopped going to lame movies?

but... but.. but... etc.. etc..


When they saw the trailers for Fantastic Four, I'm pretty sure they saw the shiatty special effects, the shiatty acting, and the general shiattiness, because it shined through that trailer like a beacon, yet the film still made $56 million on opening weekend.

And they still went because they have to support this empty, stupid, fake looking crap. Just like so many genre movies of the first decade of the 21st century, a totally soulless experience (League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, Van Helsing, The Brothers Grimm, Fantastic Four, parts 1 and 2, Xmen 1&3 (2 was just ok), Hulk, The Incredible Hulk, Spiderman 1-3, and a host of other farking garbage I've mercifully forgotten).

The only ones that were truly good were the new Batman movies, because a) the acting was decent, b) the special effects were not fake looking, except for the part with the elevated train at the end of BB, and c) the directing was by someone who understands directing (and has the balls to say NO to the studio execs), not some dumb shiat who has only directed a few music videos or episodes of sitcoms on TV.

It was a bad decade for genre films.
 
Displayed 50 of 64 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report