The Amazing Spider-Man Moviehole scoops details on both scripts...

[Ace of Knaves]

So Raimi is somehow an idiot for not using the Lizard, in part cause Sony doesn't want to use the Lizard?

Does this mean that in the reboot we'll automatically hate the new guy for not using the Lizard also? IF THERE IS NO LIZARD, I WILL SCREAM BLOODY MURDER!!!!

No Lizard, no new Spider-Man films. I'm starting a petition!

No I'm not saying that at all. For me, the Lizard story made the most sense. Then mix that with Kraven, who correct me if I'm wrong doesn't wear a mask. Hey presto.

And with the new films at least we might get a Norman Osborne/Green Goblin who isn't killed off after doing... well... nothing.

 

[Reikowolf]

I had a thought about this whole Dark/Gritty thing last night. I wonder if this is Sony's idea or Marvel's. If Sony, I would think their aim would be to make a Dark Knight style movie; my fear with this option is that they will create a Venom trilogy. If Marvel, I was thinking whether this would mean they would try and make the movies turn into a Marvel Knights direction; the focus of which would be villains such as vermin, the lizard and more of the 'genetic freak' types.

Last year, I remember Raimi commenting on how 'The Dark Knight' changed the game. My interpretation of this was that a superhero movie did not have to cater to children to be a box office giant.

In either case, it really worries me that the studio is using a movie and character with different themes as the benchmark. Part of what I though made TDK such a power house was its attention to the source material and originality. Not sure if this formula will translate well to Spider-Man. It will be a different interpretation of the character I grew up reading in the late 80's and 90's. That version's 'dark/ gritty' time was during the Clone Saga and that's a story which would serve as a challenge to any director as it did the Marvel writing staff.

We'll see I suppose. The new director has their work cut out for them.

 

[spider-neil]

I had a thought about this whole Dark/Gritty thing last night. I wonder if this is Sony's idea or Marvel's. If Sony, I would think their aim would be to make a Dark Knight style movie; my fear with this option is that they will create a Venom trilogy. If Marvel, I was thinking whether this would mean they would try and make the movies turn into a Marvel Knights direction; the focus of which would be villains such as vermin, the lizard and more of the 'genetic freak' types.

Last year, I remember Raimi commenting on how 'The Dark Knight' changed the game. My interpretation of this was that a superhero movie did not have to cater to children to be a box office giant.

In either case, it really worries me that the studio is using a movie and character with different themes as the benchmark. Part of what I though made TDK such a power house was its attention to the source material and originality. Not sure if this formula will translate well to Spider-Man. It will be a different interpretation of the character I grew up reading in the late 80's and 90's. That version's 'dark/ gritty' time was during the Clone Saga and that's a story which would serve as a challenge to any director as it did the Marvel writing staff.

We'll see I suppose. The new director has their work cut out for them.

studios don't understand children, they treat them with (pardon the pun) kids gloves. my little niece saw the hospital scene (from SM2) when she was 8 and it didn't bother her at all. kids could take seeing a dark/gritty lizard saga.

 

[Reikowolf]

/\

It's not so much children as it is the MPAA. They have sunk films before for having material they deemed as offensive if they feel it is geared towards children at all.

 

[spider-neil]

/\

It's not so much children as it is the MPAA. They have sunk films before for having material they deemed as offensive if they feel it is geared towards children at all.

the movies are PG13, makes you wonder what 13 year olds they picture. obviously 13 year olds who have lived in a box all their lives.
having said they gave TDK a pass so its the studio not MPAA

 

[Erundur]

Moviehole has details on both scripts.

Basically for SM4:
- Spider-man 4 DID feature Peter and Mary-Jane with a baby.
- Vulturess was added in the script, at the request of the studio.
- Vulturess was a retooled version of Black Cat.
- Vulture was the editor of the Daily Bugle.
- Script was apparently pure crap.
- Raimi had lost hope in the project and walked.
- The studio also wanted to add a third villain.
- Anne Hathaway was gone from the project late last year (my guess is when Sony turned the Black Cat into the Vulturess).

http://www.moviehole.net/201022855-caffeinated-clint-my-spider-senses

What a terrible plot I mean just wow. I was peeved that they rebooted the series but if this the actual truth then I am glad Raimi walked.

As for the reboot, I'm going to take a wait and see approach.

 

[Reikowolf]

the movies are PG13, makes you wonder what 13 year olds they picture. obviously 13 year olds who have lived in a box all their lives.
having said they gave TDK a pass so its the studio not MPAA

TDK was not geared for a child audience, same as Batman Begins.

Watch TDK carefully, very little violence, much of it happens off screen.

Spider-Man 3 actually gets away with a lot more than TDK did.

 

[[A]]

What a terrible plot I mean just wow. I was peeved that they rebooted the series but if this the actual truth then I am glad Raimi walked

After reading these terrible ideas, I think they were actually pushing Raimi away..

 

[Nightmare]

That's possible, Im glad raimi walked away though. The script sounded like ****. Reminds me of terminator salvation with constant rewritten drafts that still ended up like ****.

 

[Dark Helmet]

So both scripts are done ? No wonder Sony jumped on the reboot if all they have to do is cast & find a director

 

[Doctor Jones]

I still wouldn't mind reading the SM4 script.

Geez, it seems everyone except the studio hated the Vultress idea.

RAIMI: (on the phone with Hathaway) Anne, there's been some slight changes to your character.
ANNE: How so?
RAIMI: Well, the studio wanted me to retool the character to make you Vultress.
ANNE:...
RAIMI: (whispers) I know, that's what I said.
ANNE: Can I leave?
RAIMI: Get the hell out as soon as you can. They have me in a prison.

 

[thejon93]

simple sm4 script was crap reboot is atleast what they wanted

I know. But, why couldn't they have fixed the script?... Were they too cheap or something? The requested budget for the film was around 300 million dollars, and this is for a multi-billion dollar franchise that has been extremely successful (even with the third's estimated 270 million dollar budget). My point with the post was, why couldn't they have just transferred elements from Vanderbilt's screenplay over to 'Spider-Man 4' if it was so "humourless and serious"? Haven't the last few 'Spider-Man' films delved into serious topics?

It's aimed at ANYONE who seriously believes Sony, a money making corporation, would take Spider-Man, a character worth MILLIONS, a character worth MILLIONS mainly because of his great personality, and change him beyond recognition into a ****ing dark, gritty vigilante.

It's obvious that they won't do that much to the character, TAOK. But, I guarantee you that, if they go in this direction, Spider-Man will be completely devoid of personality. Seriously, I've been reading Spider-Man comic-books for the longest-time and it's not fair for the studios to say that they're gonna take-out the humour and jack-up the seriousness. It's just not fair. Humour and wit is what seperates Spider-Man from other comic-book characters, but now they want to completely turn that around with this bull----?!... Not cool.

I'll say it again for you, I will not see this movie if they dare go down this route. Again, I don't give a ---- because obviously the studios don't. It's all about the benjamins with this reboot, 'cause they know that a serious 'Spider-Man' film could have a lot of advertising-value. Just like 'Spider-Man 3', with it's heavy score playing in the background of every commercial next to sequences that looked to be "serious". Seriously, if this is in the tone of a 'Batman' movie. I ain't seeing it.

 

[Venom75]

Personally,I could go for a more serious tone to the Spidey films. Obviously,Raimi's movies had alot of cheesiness to them. But Spidey is NOT Batman. The Spider-man films have to have some humor and fun to them. As good as The Dark Knight was,I rank Spider-man 2 above it simply because Spider-man 2 was more fun/enjoyable to sit through. Plus,you gotta have Spidey throwing some wisecracks here and there.

 

[Project862006]

I am happy Raimi left not because i hate him hell he gave us great films especially SM2 we should be grateful to him.He just was not going to be able to make the film he wanted for the second time in a row.

 

[thejon93]

Personally,I could go for a more serious tone to the Spidey films. Obviously,Raimi's movies had alot of cheesiness to them. But Spidey is NOT Batman. The Spider-man films have to have some humor and fun to them. As good as The Dark Knight was,I rank Spider-man 2 above it simply because Spider-man 2 was more fun/enjoyable to sit through. Plus,you gotta have Spidey throwing some wisecracks here and there.

I'd probably rank three other comic-book films above 'The Dark Knight' at the top of my head (not that I don't think 'The Dark Knight' isn't a masterpiece, I still enjoy the movie and respect the people who rank it as their #1 comic-book adaption): 'Iron Man', 'Superman: The Movie' and Tim Burton's 'Batman' (although I would most definitely agree that 'TDK' is way more faithful to the source material). 'Spider-Man 2' is actually my least favourite 'Spider-Man' film. I just didn't care about the characters in that movie. I liked the performances, but the characters were pretty mediocre (if you ask me). The only character who I really liked in 'Spider-Man 2' was Harry Osborn. James Franco also gave two of my favourite performances of the last-two installments, I thought he was a standout in both.

But, anyhow, I agree with you on the wisecracks and what-not. What makes Spider-Man such a great character is that he has personality. In the Raimi films, he was pretty much just Peter Parker but in a Spider-Man costume. I want to see some change between the two (like with Bruce Wayne and Batman). I want to see those changes happen because it makes it more heartbreaking when you hear Peter go back to his normal-persona when behind the mask. Like when a villain's about to kill someone he loves (Gwen Stacy). I want to see subtlety with this reboot. I want to see the characters think and make mistakes and change over passing time. I don't want to see Spider-Man be like Batman where Batman's more in-control of his actions. I want to see him be young and naive.

Ugh... You don't know how much I want this reboot to be faithful to the comics. I didn't mind Raimi's take at all. But, I think that it's about time that we get a fresh-take. I don't want to see this reboot inspired by anything but the comics and Spider-Man himself; the character from the comics that the studios are basing this movie on, in case some geniuses out there forgot.

 

[Infinity9999x]

- The aim of the script is to cut the "fluff" - which they speculate means no humour and a serious tone.

http://www.moviehole.net/201022855-caffeinated-clint-my-spider-senses

Horrible. If this is true then I'll be incensed. It only means that we'll go from one director who doesn't know how to handle Spider-man's humor to yet another creative team that doesn't know how to handle the humor.

Honestly. You think it would enter these people's dense heads that part of the reason TDK did so well is because it was FAITHFUL to the spirit of it's source material!!!

That's all I'm asking for. Does anyone know if Greg Wiesman does live action directing?

 

[DACrowe]

Wow that sounds terrible. Y'know I actually, gulp, wouldn't mind a pregnant MJ story in the final film. Maybe not Peter Parker, Mr. Dad. But Peter having to deal with that kind of responsibility and not whining about whether he can afford rent would be a nice change and honestly was one of the few great things of the Clone Saga that Marvel took a huge ****e dookie all over.


But the rest of the movie was sounding AWFUL. Vulture running the Bugle and outsing JJJ? TURNING BLACK CAT INTO THE VULTRESS, THE DAUGHTER OF THE VILLAIN?!?!?!

if that is the actual direction, then I am glad that wasn't made as a film.

With that said, there are two things I'm sorry we never got to see in the Spidey movies that Raimi created:

1) Peter and MJ tie the knot. This interpretation of them really deserved and needed that happy ending to have a real solid closure.

2) AS the writer said, Dylan Baker not playing the Lizard doesn't seem fair after he was set up so perfectly. Sad, really. Indeed.

 

[Xamjes]

If they want this reboot to do well, and be gritty like the studio wants, It will most likely be very similar in tone to the ultimate spiderman line of comics. which i think would be awesome, i love ultimate spidey!

 

[SLYspyder]

I'm not buying that Sony wanted to turn Black Cat into Vulturess, that looks more like Raimi's usual desperate attempt to link EVERYTHING together....

Sounds more to me like Sony wanted Black Cat to be added, but made a compromise with Sam when he put in Vulturess.

 

[Jennifer Walters]

Hell, or even Sam pulled what he did with Venom. Sony wanted Black Cat. And he just botched what they wanted all to hell.

 

[spider-neil]

Hell, or even Sam pulled what he did with Venom. Sony wanted Black Cat. And he just botched what they wanted all to hell.

sam - 'you want venom do you? I'LL give you venom, I'll give you a venom you'll never forget MWAH! HA! HA!'

sam - 'so...you want black cat do you do you? I'LL give you black cat, I'll give you a black cat you'll never forget MWAH! HA! HA!'

 

[Ace of Knaves]

I know. But, why couldn't they have fixed the script?... Were they too cheap or something? The requested budget for the film was around 300 million dollars, and this is for a multi-billion dollar franchise that has been extremely successful (even with the third's estimated 270 million dollar budget). My point with the post was, why couldn't they have just transferred elements from Vanderbilt's screenplay over to 'Spider-Man 4' if it was so "humourless and serious"? Haven't the last few 'Spider-Man' films delved into serious topics?

It's obvious that they won't do that much to the character, TAOK. But, I guarantee you that, if they go in this direction, Spider-Man will be completely devoid of personality. Seriously, I've been reading Spider-Man comic-books for the longest-time and it's not fair for the studios to say that they're gonna take-out the humour and jack-up the seriousness. It's just not fair. Humour and wit is what seperates Spider-Man from other comic-book characters, but now they want to completely turn that around with this bull----?!... Not cool.

I'll say it again for you, I will not see this movie if they dare go down this route. Again, I don't give a ---- because obviously the studios don't. It's all about the benjamins with this reboot, 'cause they know that a serious 'Spider-Man' film could have a lot of advertising-value. Just like 'Spider-Man 3', with it's heavy score playing in the background of every commercial next to sequences that looked to be "serious". Seriously, if this is in the tone of a 'Batman' movie. I ain't seeing it.

Tell me, why would they completely take away the humour and wise cracks? Spider-Man is worth MILLIONS mainly because of the humour and wise cracking personality. It just doesn't make business sense. And that's all these studios care about right? $$$

Then you take into account that one of the big complains about Raimi's movies was there wasn't enough wise cracks... put 2 and 2 together.

 

[Reikowolf]

sam - 'you want venom do you? I'LL give you venom, I'll give you a venom you'll never forget MWAH! HA! HA!'

sam - 'so...you want black cat do you do you? I'LL give you black cat, I'll give you a black cat you'll never forget MWAH! HA! HA!'

Wait.

So if Vulturess was Raimi's idea, and they were going to move forward with Vulturess... why would he walk?

I don't see how your argument holds up.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

I think what happened was Raimi wanted Black Cat and wanted her as daughter of the Vulture. The studio then stepped in and went.

"If she's daughter of Vulture, why would she be Black Cat? Let's make her Vultress!"

Either way, BOTH Raimi's ideas AND the studio's were ****ing stupid.

Therefore, I'm glad SM4 never happened.

 

[spider-neil]

Tell me, why would they completely take away the humour and wise cracks? Spider-Man is worth MILLIONS mainly because of the humour and wise cracking personality. It just doesn't make business sense.

Then you take into account that one of the big complains about Raimi's movies was there wasn't enough wise cracks... put 2 and 2 together.

just playing devils advcate here, its entierely possible they may write wise cracks and then find (whilst shotting) it breaks up the flow of pacing or add levity to an otherwise serious moment. just putting it out there, I don't think I've seen a movie EVER where someone is ripping the piss out of someone whilst beating them up. if they do it kudos, if they don't its posible its because they CAN'T

beats of the clocktower

spidey lands on flag pole

'hey fatty, were's mj?'

they throw punches - no room for wise cracks here

ock throw him off - no room for wise cracks here

spidey fires web balls at ock - no room for wise cracks here

spidey pulls doc ock off the tower - no room for wise cracks here

I could give the beats of the train fight but you get the idea