Spider-Man no more.

Holy Toledo, movie fans! Today has been a dozy for movie news. A real dozy.  I have good movie news and I have bad movie news.

Which do you want first?

Ah, fuck it, I'm giving the good movie news first. That way I can leave you as depressed as I am (though, most likely not, as you don't really give a shit, do you?).

First then,  the bitter sweet news that Star Trek II will boldly go where it has never gone before... again... for the 12th time (because Star Trek II [or whatever they decide to call it] will actually be Star Trek XII) ... on June 29th, 2012. This news is, of course, mighty sweet because it lets us all know when to expect more glorious Trek. It's bitter because there's still two summers between me and that summer! Fuck!

That means we'll have to go a full 'nother week before we even get a teaser trailer (that was supposed to be a joke. Har-de-har-har.)!  Excuse my internet speak, but "WTF?" I get it, some franchises care about quality over quantity (Thank God!), but that is a long time to wait! Can I possibly get Star Trek II (aka Star Trek XII) in 3D as a reward for being patient? With scene shot in IMAX a la Dark Knight (because, you of course already know that a full movie shot in IMAX is still impossible, because you cannot record audio with an IMAX camera because it is too loud)? Pwetty pwease!

For those of you keeping track at home, that's Mr. Will Smith's favorite week, as June 29th will see Trek coming out just in time for the 4th of July (the world's last 4th of July according to our Mayan friends. Then again, they sure knew a lot about the future... but not enough to keep them all from getting DEAD!). I can hear Mr. Smith now, "Aaaaw Heeell Naaaaah!" (Sorry, could not resist [nor could I find a compilation video with all his "Aaaaw Heeeell Naaaaah"'s on youtube. How very strange.]). Though there are still no script details; no word on who Kirk, Spock, and Bones come up against next (could be Khan, Klingons, or even Borg... I doubt very much that Abrams and company would use Romulans again.)

As you may or may not know, the wonder twins (who are not twins at all), Kurtzman and Orci are writing the script for the second Trek with newcomer Damon Lindelof, who has no released features as of yet, but who was a writer on Lost (yuck), Crossing Jordan, Avatar: The Last Airbender, and Nash Bridges (WTF?).

Now, I do take Kurtzman and Orci as good news as they wrote the expertly crafted Star Trek script and Mission: Impossible III, though it cannot be ignored that they are also responsible for the God-awful scripts for Transformers 1 & 2, The Legend of Zorro (the shitty Zorro movie), and The Island. I still don't get how they could write something as wonderful as Star Trek and something as horrible as Transformers 2 all in the same year! Directors must have more input than I realize (as Abrams is hot and Bay, most certainly, is not). Abrams is producing Trek, but he may or may not direct (pwease direct, Mr. Abrams! Pwease!).

So that was the good news.

Now for the bad news...

Spider-Man is being rebooted.

Say what? Already?

Well, to be fair, it's not necessarily an actual reboot. We don't have all the details yet. Though Sony is calling it a reboot (though this just may be because Reboot is the hot word in H-Town right now.)

First, let me explain what a reboot is in movie terms. For retarded people like Andrew, who don't know (Just because you don't know doesn't actually make you retarded, unless you are Andrew). I'll do it in Batman terms. Batman and Robin was a SEQUEL. It was a sequel to Batman Forever. Batman Begins was a REBOOT. It took the character of Batman back to his origin story, taking the franchise in a darker direction, steering it clear of the campiness of the dreadful films that preceded it.

Casino Royale was also a reboot. It brought Bond back to his beginnings. It traded cheesy gadgets and one liners for a brutal Bond who kicked ass in the Bourne style (only was far better than those boring movies). Star Trek was a reboot (even though it is also technically a sequel... as mentioned before it's really the first of it's kind as a sequel and prequel). The Incredible Hulk was technically a reboot of Ang Lee's Hulk. The plot of the first film was ignored and the Hulk's look was changed, even though the film was not his origin story again.

With Spider-Man, it's unclear how much of a reboot this "reboot" it will be.

Here's what we do know. Spider-Man 4 has been in development hell for a while now. Sony originally set its release date as May 4th, 2011. But, Sony and Sam Raimi (brilliant director of the first 3 Spider-Man flicks) disagreed on the script. Sony wanted to go forward with a script by James Vanderbuilt (who wrote the amazing, sweeping Zodiac script) while Sam Raimi thought the script needed work. A lot of work. So much work, as though the special effects team was set to begin this month on preproduction in order to make the May 4th, 2011 release date, they were given a memo saying this wasn't going to happen until script issues were resolved. Raimi and Tobey Maquire (who played Peter Parker in the first 3 films. Duh!) were optimistic an agreement could be reached and remained attached to the project...

Until Today. Blerg!

Today, Sony announced the pair are no longer involved. What most likely went down is Sam Raimi decided Sony wouldn't budge on the script, so he left the franchise. Sony knew Maquire would not stay on as Parker without Raimi (as he had previously stated) so they called "Reboot!"

But, how much of a reboot will it be? Back to the origin story? The Batman Begins treatment or the Incredible Hulk Treatment?

My guess is "no" to back to the origin story. I bet we get an Incredible Hulk level reboot.

If they have any sense, Sony will start this Spider-Man adventure with Peter Parker already as Spider-Man. Sony has said they are going with the Vanderbuilt script (which has long been rumored to actually be scripts [plural] with Spider-Man 4 and 5 to film back to back) which was not written as a origin story (considering it was originally written to be Spider-Man 4).

So, Spider-Man is already Spider-Man, but expect other details to change. Expect no reference to earlier adventures. My bet is that it's technically a different Spider-Man universe, in the way The Incredible Hulk seemed to have not relation to Ang Lee's Hulk. A new director will bring a different style, a different feel to the world and some of the charater's parameters will change. Spider-Man's costume will look slightly different, he may be a different age, at a different point in his relationship with MJ (possible with Gwen Stacey) and he may fight the same villains over again as if it never happened.

Think of it like going from one Bond actor to another, more than an actual reboot. This won't be like going from Brosnan to Craig in the reboot that was Casino Royale, this will be more like switching from Connery to Roger Moore. The tone and character of Spider-Man will change, but it's not a legitmate reboot. Cause it's too soon to reboot. Just ask The Incredible Hulk (Hint: that experiment didn't work!).

If it's too soon to reboot, then why not lay low on the Spider-Man movies for a while rather than going ahead with Sony's announced "reboot?" I'm glad you asked, me (as in, I'm glad I asked, not I'm glad you asked me that question, because you didn't ask it, I did).

Two reasons. First, Sony must make Spider-Man movies. As you are already well aware (or not), Disney bought Marvel in 2009. So,  they own all Marvel characters that do not already belong to other studios (ex: They don't get to make X-Men movies cause Fox retains X-Men rights... for now...). So, Spider-Man continues to belong to Sony as long as Sony continues to make Spider-Man movies on a regular basis. If Sony ceases to make said movies, Disney gets the rights to Spider-Man. That would be disastrous for Sony, as Spider-Man is their  most profitable franchise. So, the first reason is that Sony wants to make millions upon millions of dollars in the future, and it order to do that, they cannot wait on rebooting Spider-Man. They need to pump out Spidey flicks like Bond movies, even if it means switching actors every few years. I predict that if Spider-Man remains profitable, like Bond, it may become a similar franchise, and we may be up to 20 movies and 5 different actors in 40 years.

The other, more immediate, reason is that Sony wants money, NOW! Duh. Why sit on a franchise that could be making you hundreds of millions if you were to release a movie now. It doesn't matter who plays Spider-Man, who directs Spider-Man, or if the franchise is rebooted or not. As far as the accountants at Sony are concerned, it's all the same. The next Spider-Man movie is going to gross over $200 million no matter what. It's Spider-Man for christsake!  

So, that's the story. That's the big news today, rocking the film world, as well as my own. That's why I really had to stop playing video games, dear Andrew. Because I was too distracted by such monumental news. I mean, I love Spider-Man. All 3 movies are my shit, especially the third (can't beat a liberal dose of Raimi humor. Emo-dancing-Spider-Man and James Franco at his silliest are my joint [by which I mean I love them]). This news is bigger than any news could be from the real world (I'm sure there are some exceptions). I mean, in my own pitiful way, this news hits me harder than learning someone had shot the President or something (maybe I will get a few extra readers from the FBI with that poor choice of statement). This is my JFK. I'm not particularly upset or anything, as I wouldn't be if my prez was shot, cause, nothing really changes in my life anyway and I never met the guy, but this is just news of massive importance in my world, is all I'm sayin'. Is all I'm sayin'! (Don't lock me up!)

And what are my thoughts on such monumental news? They are mixed. Mixed thoughts.

I love Sam Raimi. The man has endless talent as a director, way more visual style than most directors working today. And the Spider-Man films ooze with that style (the third film oozes literally as well), more than any other superhero franchise does. I mean, don't get me wrong, Batman Begins and The Dark Knight are much better films, but they don't really have any Nolan style (besides his expert writing). But watch a Spider-Man film and Raimi's fingerprints are all over it. So, Raimi will certainly be missed. As will Maquire. It always sucks when you have to recast a character after someone has associated a certain actor's face with him for so long. I was looking forward to a Spider-Man 4 with both involved and I am saddened such a project is now dead.

That being said, I am excited for the possibilities brought on by a reboot. Though the Spider-Man movies gave birth to the super hero movies that followed (there would be no Iron Man without Spider-Man, the influence is undeniable) and defined the previous decade, they weren't flawless films. There is room for improvement, and at the very least, a new direction can be good in different ways, if not better. Hell, wouldn't it be great if they used this new freedom to redo Venom's story, treating the character with a wee bit more respect? So, I am not frightened by the change. Sure, the new Spider-Man movies could be a lot worse, but they also have the chance of being better.

So, yeah, that's today's blog. Sorry If I'm not being really clever or anything. I kinda wanted to take this blog to report the news and comment on it. Hopefully, you learned something!


Oh, but I will leave you with three random thoughts of mine. Perhaps they will make up for the knowledge heavy blog...

Thought while in the shower this week, "Why the fuck am I using shampoo on my body?"

Thought after three days of diarrhea (Diarrhea of A Wimpy Twenty-Something), each after eating pudding purchased at Ralph's earlier this month, "Fuck pudding bought at Ralph's! Goddamn it!"

Thought after seeing puppies in their little glasses cages at the mall, "That's what you fuckers get for being so goddamn cute!"

There. Don't ever say I didn't try. Even though I may not have.