Spider-Man 4: July 3rd, 2012 - Page 8

What would be really funny is if Marvel and Sony have better success with their character than DC and Warner did with that Halle Berry film.

Wah wah wah.

Finally the report cites that Curt Connors won't be turning into The Lizard as the studio "can’t bring themselves to sign off on such an odd-looking enemy"."

Ok... thats just retarded.
Edited by JonZ - 12/9/09 at 9:29pm

I hope all of the above are just rumors, because this is starting to go down that sick and twisted Batman Forever path.

Pretty sad if that's the case.  They had a slight misstep with 3, but not enough to derail the whole thing.  This could force a years-long dormancy until someone goes all Spider-Man Begins on it.  It sounds like it's time to have new blood all around.

AICN is saying Spiderman 4 is on hold. Studio & Raimi cant agree on the villian.

Studio wants someone whos currently selling books, Raimi wants the Vulture. I guess the studio heads are too stupid to learn their lesson from SM3.

My interest in SM4 runs concurrently with Raimi's.  No, they didn't learn their lesson with SM3.  Most people know Spidey through his classic cartoons and villains.  No one reads the current comic books, Sony.

Still, wanting to base the whole movie around the Vulture and his daughter is a stupid idea.

Lots of stupid ideas become good movies when the script is good and the director is interested.

Assuming this story is true, I doubt that with millions on the line for Raimi and billions on the line for Sony and Marvel that they won't be able to quickly iron out the problems.

I can't even imagine what character that is selling books they could be talking about.  It's certainly no one invented during the current run.  They are all retreads like the Red Vulture, Kraven's Daughter and Anti-Venom.  If they mean someone who has been around for the past twenty years or so a la Venom, I'm still coming up empty.  Spidey has a killer rogues gallery, but most of the great ones date back to when Stan was still writing it.

How about Vermin? Seriously, the studio is probably wanting to go with Carnage. Personally, I would not mind seeing the movie being based off the 70's story with Morbius, the Lizard, and Spiderman having to cope with six arms.

LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) - The latest "Spider-Man" sequel is proving villainously difficult to plot out.

 

Sony and director Sam Raimi are at loggerheads over which direction to go with the villains for the latest installment -- an impasse that has prompted the studio to delay its scheduled spring production start and potentially to bump the picture from its May 11, 2011 release slot.

 

Raimi wants to have a criminal known as the Vulture act as the primary antagonist in the film while the studio, which dislikes the idea of the winged wrongdoer, is pushing for a romantic sub-plot involving a burglar named the Black Cat in addition to another villain.

 

A succession of writers has tried to marry the two parties' differing visions to no effect.

 

Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright David Lindsay-Abaire ("Rabbit Hole") was hired in October 2008 to pen a key version of the screenplay, on top of the earlier version penned by James Vanderbilt ("Zodiac"). Last year, Sony brought in Gary Ross -- Oscar-nominated for his adapted script on 2003's "Seabiscuit" -- which he also directed.

 

Alvin Sargent is penning the latest iteration.

 

Word of the Sony-Raimi conflict first surfaced mid-December on genre Web site IESB, but Sony denied the report, saying tweaking of the script was "nothing unusual."

 

The differing views about the villain have their origins in the making of "Spider-Man 3."

 

Raimi, a fan of the wall-crawling super-hero since the character's 1960s debut, wanted to use classic villain Vulture in addition to Sandman, another classic creation, for that movie. The studio pushed him to use Venom, a character that was introduced in the late 1980s, because it thought that character, with its slick alien-symbiote origin, would lend itself to more effective marketing material and a way to attract "the kids."

 

"Spider-Man 3," while ensnaring $890 million in its worldwide web, turned out to be reviled by both the fanboy community and by many critics.

 

Production still could begin by this summer. While Sony insiders maintain the pic still could remain in its current release date, a shift to a date later in summer 2011 may be more likely considering the lack of a final script for the visual effects-driven project.

Lizard.

Lizard.

Lizard.

I think that Raimi is dead wrong about the Vulture being a more compelling or interesting villian, Malkovich or no.

Well I doubt there'll be just one villain in the next Spider-Man flick. So the Lizard and Vulture and maybe Rhino too, might be good for a start. And if they can find room for the Jackal, Scorpion and Kangaroo Man in the next film I'd be very happy.

from the above link for those who don't click.

"Malkovich Confirms Vulture Role in Spider-Man 4


With all the rumors and speculation about Sam Raimi's Spider-Man 4, whether or not it will make its scheduled May 5, 2011 release date and why it has run into production problems, it's come out in the wash that John Malkovich was indeed up for the role of the Vulture, Raimi's choice of villain for the fourth movie, which was first broken by Movieline a month ago.

Malkovich was interviewed by an Italian sports show called "Quelli Che il Calcio" and he was asked not only about whether he had been approached to play the Vulture but also about the production delays. The fine folks at the Italian web site Bad Taste have graciously provided an English summation of what was said on the show:

"When conductor Simona Ventura asked him about his role of Vulture in the movie, he not only didn't deny his involvement, but confirmed that he's waiting for the final script to be sent to him, and that the movie has been delayed. He also hopes that shooting will begin as soon as possible."

Some may remember that Malkovich was the alternate choice to play the Green Goblin in the first "Spider-Man" movie, a role that went to his Shadow of the Vampire co-star Willem Dafoe, so it has always made perfect sense that Raimi would be interested in him to play a Spidey villain. The question is whether Sony will agree to the lesser Spider-Man villain for such an important tentpole franchise. "

I think the key phrase is, " it's come out in the wash that John Malkovich was indeed up for the role of the Vulture,"

Anyway you would think the studio would learn from the mistake made with SM4 and let Raimi handle the next film.

Seriously? Personally I'm really sick of the multiple villian/multiple storyline approach. One of the reasons that Spidey 2 worked so well was because it was JUST Doc Ock (a great antagonist) and Spider-man. A similar character study approach with the Lizard, particularly considering Parker's existing relationship with Connors, would be 1000% more interesting to me than a half dozen villians running amok just so Sony can sell toys and fast food tie-ins. That and I find the Lizard much more compelling than the Vulture.

I care way more about Raimi getting what he wants than getting a villain I like.  Just let him pick the villain(s) he likes, and get a decent script, and make the movie.  You'd think the studio would have learned not to meddle after 3, but who knows.

I just wish that Raimi was making a different choice, that's all.

My problem with the third movie was the Sandman which would be one of the old characters. The way they put him into the movie by changing up the Uncle Ben death scene was blasphemy the way I see it. How do you take the one thing that made Spiderman who he is and tried to reconfigure it. I also hated how after the Sandman tears up half the city and tries to kill everyone that Spiderman just let him go.

I would like to see the Lizard but I do not want them to rewrite Spiderman history to put him in the movie.

Spider-Man 4 dead. Reboot time. http://www.superherohype.com/news/spider-mannews.php?id=8976

Great idea, Sony 

Seriously, genius.  Making a reboot 9 years later without Raimi or Maguire.  Awesome 
Edited by Chuck Mayer - 1/11/10 at 3:41pm

Wow...epic fail.  That's all I can say.  I didn't like #3, but was still looking forward to Raimi & co. maybe finding their footing again.  But a REBOOT?  You've got to be kidding me.

Reboot seems like the worst idea. This franchise isn't that old, there have only been 3 movies, and we got the origin story in the first one.

People seem really hung up on the term 'reboot'. Reboot just means that they're getting a new actor and creative team in the role. There's no way that they'll be dumb enough to basically retell the first movie over again.

It's nice to see that Raimi and Maguire didn't just take the millions being offered to them and churn out whatever the studio wanted.