Spider-Man 4 may be delayed indefinitely
It seems that the studio and director Sam Raimi are at odds over who should be the villain in the film. Here's an excerpt from the sites' article.
Raimi is pushing hard for the Vulture to be the big baddie, something he also pushed for in the third film to star alongside the Sandman but didn't get and we all know how that one turned out. Vulture was to do his evil deeds alongside the new Goblin and Sandman. A single concept art sketch can be seen in "The Art of Spider-Man 3" book. Vulture and Flint Marko would have been cellmates who escaped together, with Vulture pressuring the more passive Marko into committing crimes.
On the flip side, who does the studio want to be the villain? Our source says they seem to only be interested in featuring which ever character is selling books right now but basically they have no idea, just not the Vulture.
On the flip side, who does the studio want to be the villain? Our source says they seem to only be interested in featuring which ever character is selling books right now but basically they have no idea, just not the Vulture.
The site also reported that many of the department heads working on the film were told of the production halt last Thursday, and also that the film is being referred to as Spider-M4n around the office.
for the site's full piece and be sure to keep it right here as we'll be sure to update you on any and all news coming fromm Spider-Man 4 (or Spider-M4n) as soon as we have more information.Spider-man 4 is in development .
Comments (73)
To leave a comment, please sign in or use
Facebook or Twitter
Chad Vital
If Sam sticks to his guns, they will replace him.
2 years agoby @chad-vitalFlag
Josh
I too hope Raimi sticks to his guns. You have to wonder, though, if ultimately Sony will give him the boot and bring in a new director just to get their way, which would also mean bringing in a new cast because Maguire has stated he won't work on Spiderman with anyone except Raimi.
2 years agoby @shuabertFlag
Clockworkcookie
The studios are such cowards. To me it's clear that if Raimi hadn't been pressured to change his vision on 3, that one would have been much better, instead it turned out to be absolute crap. Sure, I love Venom but if the director didn't want him I would prefer him to be faithful to his own ideas.
But I guess the studios only see what it got at the box office, not the epic fail that were the reviews and general opinion on the movie. And now they are about to make the same mistake again..
I hope Raimi doesn't give in. No Spiderman movie at all, is better than another piece of crap like Spiderman 3.
2 years agoby @clockworkcookieFlag
Drewski37
Galactus shows up in new york and steps on mary jane squishing her on the bottom of his boot! lol
2 years agoby @drewski37Flag
Chad Vital
CBF I agree with you 100%. It's like a conflict of interest after 3. The studio is playing the safe game which is really really smart but sucks for Sam's ability to make a great project on his own like we've seen with 2. He can do it, but we all know the studio has heard the outcries of how much they disliked 3, thus, the studio will tread carefully. Sam wants HIS favorites on the screen, which is cool to a point, cause he does them well, but it's never what the fans want to him, which really bugs me as well. For example, if I were him, I'd do any of these villians for the fans... Lizard, Carnage, Mysterio, or Electro. I'm pretty sure most hardcore Spidey fans would be content with any of these villians as the one main villian. Maybe the studio knows this, and are trying to get an early start on trying to get one of these characters in the next one and not at the last minute like Venom in 3. Maybe they are simply trying to fix the problem they ran into in the last film. And I'm glad that Sam and Sony are fighting about it NOW and not months from now after all the writing has been done or revised 4 times just to fit that character in. They need to take their time and approach this very seriously. They CANNOT afford to mess this one up to loyal fans. Sony knows this, but I'm not sure Sam does. Or maybe he does and just is like 'eh whatever not a big deal'. He's not a dick or anything, but lets face it, he is kinda stubborn. Don't get me wrong, I like him, just when it comes to Spiderman, he's selfish, and I'm not big on selfish people. Does that make sense lol?
2 years agoby @chad-vitalFlag
Illuminati
Since Rami is continuing to bore us i won't bother even talking about this. the 3rd film, as horrible as it was, was the end off the story arc. The was a definite close. FINISH WITH THE TRILOGY!
It was a great moment for a NEW retelling of SPIDEY, with new writers/directors/actors. A new vision is needed & it has to happen with the NEXT FILM! It's the same thing that'll happen with the next BATMAN film. The NOLANS & BALE will walk away after the trilogy is completed, and rightfully so. It was a good ride, but it's good to change the artistic vision.
Since SONY has the rights for 3 more spidey films & till the rights comes back to Marvels hands we are screwed.
2 years agoby @illuminatiFlag
CBF
I agree Chad, and incmob. First off, when I saw Venom in the full-length theatrical trailer to "Spider-Man 3", I was like, 'oh...sh*t... they done did it now!' I figured it was going to top the amazing "2," which would be a longshot of course, but it could happen given another awesome story/conflict. Then I saw he was in the movie for a lackluster 5 minutes and, with the Venom mask actually covering his face, maybe 2-3 total. Which, by the way, we all know SUCKED. How could they favor Topher's face over such an iconic... OK, well, we've all heard this stuff before. Moving on. Yes the executives should have faith in Raimi but a huge misstep for this film regarding the famed horror director was that he was GOING TO RELINQUISH CREATIVE CONTROL... Not trying to yell or scream that there, as people get confused when caps are typed, lol, I just used it for emphasis (as we all know now that we can't use HTML on MovieBook). So instead of sticking to his word, which would have been great, he doesn't say anything about it and just takes up control of the story... again. And after "3," I would have a definite raised eyebrow against Raimi, and maybe just keep an eye on how things are coming, from a studio perspective, because now the fans of the films know what he did to the last installment, and, one more f-ed up Spidey movie and this boat will pretty much sink. Well, except for the kids and their moms, which will always show up if it's Spidey. But the main hardcore audience will be left alienated, and I seriously doubt that Sam Raimi thinks about this. I don't think that he makes a Spidey film for fans, no, he makes Spidey films for himself, and what HE - as a fan - would want to see on screen. Instead of thinking of the fans of the films as a whole, and what they would be excited about. His comic fanboy homages in the films are cool, but I don't think he thinks about his core audience, and that is my main problem with him as Spidey director. He is stubborn. He even dislikes the studio's interference.
2 years agoby @comicbookfanFlag
Chad Vital
Yeah but the 3rd movie was only successful because everyone saw Venom in the trailer, which was basically an automatic ass in the seat in the theater, we just didn't know how messed up it was beforehand. Venom was the reason why the movie was successful and the reason why it's so despised lol. Kinda ironic actually.
2 years agoby @chad-vitalFlag
incmob
PLAIN AND SIMPLE, put more than one villian in these films and it will fail, as proven with most of the batmans, supermans, and even the last spidey film. Everyone has alot of good points on this topic, and i certainly agree with CBF and TheBd. The execs should have alot more faith in Raimi, as he did have two successful films with the first two, and a moderate success with the third (i know the fans dont like that one as much, but nonetheless it was still a moderate success.). The thing with spidey is that his rogues gallery has alot of good villians, much like the batman. But too many villians, is less screen time and character build for any one character, especially when continuing the main characters as well. And i agree that when the execs start dipping (i.e. VENOM) into the control pot, then films tend to fall short of the directors true vision. Its not for us to decide, but i am sure that when the villian is announced that not everyone is going to be happy with the results, and even if we are... like with venom... not all will be satisfied with the screen depiction... like venom. I still hold my vote for lizard, i think scorpion would also be a good choice even going as far as having Mac Gargan a cell mate of cletus kasady (the comic premise for gargan i dont think would work for a film), foreshadowing the things to come in the 5th spiderman, maybe have the kingpin intro'd here as well, by getting gargan out of prison, and funding the scorpion project to get rid of parker because of published photos of kingpin incriminating him in a scandal of some sort, and he looks for a scapegoat so that nothing can be traced back to him. i just think they need to go a bit deeper, and raise the standards a bit especially after 3. and as far as my idea, no i am not a screenwriter, and i dont think i could make a better film than hollywood, all i am saying is that many superhero movies since the 3rd have raised the bar, and us consumers have become harder to please as well.
2 years agoby @incmobFlag
CBF
Yeah. The rumor was that Anne Hathaway would be taking over as leading lady as Felicia Hardy/Vulturess, daughter of Adrian Toomes AKA The Vulture, from here on out and MJ would be written out, by death or not, none of it has been confirmed. The whole thing with the hiatus tip was that the studio was pissed, because they do not want Vulture as the main villain, and us die-hards know that Raimi has been pushing that stupid character since the early films, and Raimi was stubborn about keeping him, so the SCRIPT keeps being re-written because they keep changing villains and who will/will not work. The studio seemingly wants whichever villain is selling comics right now. But the thing they need to realize is, the current Spidey comics are in an entirely alternate universe where Mephisto CHANGED TIME AND THE SPACE CONTINUUM so they can't refer to current storylines. They need to go back to the pre-Morlun era and figure out who's who in the Web-slinger's classic rogues gallery. Of course, all that is rumor anyway, and I'm seriously getting pissed that sites are not citing sources, only claiming that they have one, which is bullsh*t. So of course, naturally, Sony came onto IESB and stated that the production hiatus story was "false", and that they are on a scheduled holiday break. I actually believe that over this other BS. I guess we'll see when it picks back up in January. I don't think they are thinking about using Carnage in the franchise, though.
2 years agoby @comicbookfanFlag
Chad Vital
CBF, about that rumor, if it's true, I think the studio wanted Carnage to be the one who kills her if a villian does kill her, (he would make the most sense out of all of the villians) and Sam wanted Vulture, thus the hiatus on production.
2 years agoby @chad-vitalFlag
Masta_Chiefed
Or maybe M.Jane goes to rehab like her real life persona...
2 years agoby @masta-chiefedFlag
CBF
Now the new rumor is that Kirsten Dunst's Mary Jane has been written out of the franchise in this movie. But it's just a rumor, just like this news item. How long before MovieWeb posts it as news?
2 years agoby @comicbookfanFlag
CBF
Rumor sh*t.
2 years agoby @comicbookfanFlag
Chad Vital
Interesting news too, Dunst being removed after 4. Our assumptions and theories were correct guys lol. She probably dies somehow. Maybe to a villian? Or giving birth to their son?
2 years agoby @chad-vitalFlag
Chad Vital
Gracious
2 years agoby @chad-vitalFlag
Twisted Smile (The Untold Smile)
More Spider-Man news.
http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/story/spoiler-alert-dunst-is-written-out-of-spider-man-franchise_1126542
2 years agoby @twistedsmileFlag
Chad Vital
BD, usually I think of interesting casting choices as well, but I haven't really put much thought into who would play Carnage/Cletus if he would ever turn up on film. I just can picture how he would be, not exactly who would play him. I would go with a unknown actor, give him his debut sort of thing. I mean, think of how many actors are huge now because they came out of nowhere in either a superhero or villian role. Tobey, Jackman, Alfred Molina, pretty much everyone in X-Mens lol besides Hallie Berry, even Downey wasn't very big til Iron Man, everyone in Batman Begins/TDK besides Katie Holmes & Michael Caine, Ralph Fiennes, every main character in Transformers, etc. I like when they get unknown actors because they always become stars and give that "character" what it deserves.
2 years agoby @chad-vitalFlag
Brainiac
just random through back, if the rumor that Malkovich would have been playing vulture is true, then that would have been awesome. and hypothetically who would we want to play Carnage/Cletus Cassedy? My first choice is Jonathan Rhys Meyers, if he can do an american accent, if not then Zack Braff...
jk, no i have no one else in mind.
2 years agoby @thebdFlag
Greenbay1
the lizard should be next and lets not forget that he has a specimen of the venom from parker...and bringin the sandman back could be good because if venom specimen+sandman=big as hell venom
2 years agoby @greenbay1Flag
Josh
Ultimately you have to look at both sides, because they both have a legitimate claim. The studios got their wish for #3 and it made the most money of any of the three films. Would it have made that much money if it hadn't had Venom? Probably not.
On the other hand, had they let Raimi make the film he wanted to make (e.g., the first two films) it would have ended up being a much better film, because the man knows what he's doing and has a vision for these characters. Spiderman 2 was Raimi let loose--complete with Evil Dead-level campy Frankenstein-esqyue villain transformation scene--and it was one of the best comic book films ever made (probably THE best, at the time). The same goes for Goblin in the first film.
Obviously Raimi wants to make the best film HE can make, and the studios want to make the most money THEY can make. Those two ideals are most likely at odds.
Personally, I trust Raimi. If he wants to make a Vulture film, I think it will most likely be great. He's an interesting character and there's a lot a filmmaker could do with him. I too like the Lizard and think he would be great to see onscreen (hopefully with Kraven the Hunter), but it's not like part 4 is the last chance anyone would ever have to see a Lizard film. Either way, someone will have his way, and I hope it's Raimi. It would take a lot for me to go see a movie with Carnage in it, because that would be f*cking terrible.
2 years agoby @shuabertFlag
Chad Vital
I think they should have just had Harry's story, and Sandman's. I don't even know how they would have fit Vulture in that film, he would need some time to be explained storywise. Otherwise he would have just been another Green Goblin.
2 years agoby @chad-vitalFlag
renodc
Virtually every franchise like this falls victim to studio micro-management, which ultimately is what kills the franchise.
2 years agoby @renodcFlag
Mutant
It would have been much better if 3 was cut in two a bit more LOTR like. I would have perferred it that way, instead of having it the way it was. To many characters which not only confused us but the way it was handled with both parties.
We all know that Venom was played by well not a great actor. Instead they should've introduced Venom at the very end of the film, leaving it open for Sandman to shine.
Gwen Stacy should have only had two scenes in the film, in other words I would have preferred a daulagy. A two movie arch.
2 years agoby @zenderFlag
Bane5000
bet they wish now that they wouldve saved venom for this sequel, wouldve made it easier for them to continue the series, instead of introducing him and killing him within the same film
2 years agoby @bane5000Flag
Brainiac
I get your point that it is Sam's responsibility to make a great film, but part of the responsibility is the ability to make decisions, like "i don't want Venom in this movie, I want the Vulture" by taking away those choices that he can make as a director u r limiting wut he can do. while i don't agree with it necessarily, cuz it isn't in the comics, Sandman as a sympathetic bad guy could have worked. he was doin wut he had to do to provide for his family, that could have worked. but execs had him push too much into the movie. imagine if all the symbiote stuff was saved for the next movie, or at the very least all the stuff with Brock becoming Venom. that would have been alot more screen time for Sandman, which would have meant a more developed story. I also think the Harry stuff was forced, that might have been Raimi's fault. all i'm saying is that with the first two movies nothing was really forced on him by the execs and they were quality movies, if nothing was forced in the third i bet it would have been just as good. i think the Gwen Stacy thing was forced too, and that i bet was an exec thing cuz they knew it would get a fan reaction. and i'm not trying to disrespect u or anything. i just disagree.
I think the best thing they can do is let him make the movie the way he wants to. i'm not saying he is the end all of directors, but i at least trust him to make the movies well. however i do agree that if he can't get wut he wants, he should at least only do wut the execs want, i don't want to see Carnage, Vulture, then Vulturess/Black Cat and Hobgoblin all thrown into one movie. make it simple and it will be better then number 3.
2 years agoby @thebdFlag
CelluloidDreams
Good ...Take all the time U guys in Hollywood need to make Part 4 since Part 3 was a waste of Time Space....
2 years agoby @2movieguysFlag
Chad Vital
responsibility*
2 years agoby @chad-vitalFlag
Chad Vital
I think both of them are being selfish to be honest. Sam thinks it's his way or the high way, but he ain't no Christopher Nolan, he doesn't hold the most respect title yet. He has potential to do it one day, but he has a way to go. It's Sam's responsible to make a great film, regardless of who is forced in, and it's not like the person who was forced in was a terrible choice, it's VENOM, one of the most beloved superhero villians of all time, probably in the top 10 (if there were an accurate/actual list). He has so much potential I don't know HOW one could screw up Venom, but they did, big time. How hard was it to have him look exactly like he should? Get rid of pointless scenes that have no meaning, which could have been better used for Venom screen time. You think of all the flaws of the film, and it makes you literally confused on how bad it went. I just don't get it. Sandman was a cool visual villian, nothing more. Now, maybe Sam argued the execs telling them that maybe the next film should just be Venom by himself and let me do Sandman and Vulture in this one. Who knows. Maybe Sony is tired of Sam demanding stuff. They went with all of his favorite old school villians after all. I guess the main piece missing from this puzzle is what villian does the higher ups want in SM4? That's the real question. If it was somebody who didn't bring anything to the table, then I'd be on Sam's side, but thus far, I'm not. I think it's stupid to hold a movie in dire need of a comeback. I think there is a lot of information we don't know about, maybe they did something to completely piss off Sam and now he is like "see ya" and walking out the door. We just don't know for sure. I also think you guys are giving Sam way too much credit, he isn't that great, yeah, I like him as a director and all, and I like his work, but I don't think he's the end-all to Spiderman lol. There are talented people out there who would jump at the chance to give us a great Spiderman flick, I think most of the people here want him to stay on board because he is safer than some unknown director taking over, and you're right, but that shouldn't be the only reason why he should have it his way. And like you and I are talking about BD, about the quick buck thing... I can see Carnage as the only one besides the Lizard who would make them super duper money lol. Carnage is just as favored as Venom, and I'm sure Sony and company know this information as well, they use that to their advantage. The studio tried doing the right thing by sliding in Venom BECAUSE OF THE FANBASE, they even said that. Gold (Venom) + Spiderman = Money lol. Honestly, it's not even the studios fault for trying, it's the writers, that script sucked every which way you could think of lol. Even if Venom wasn't in it, the movie was still pretty bad by itself. It was poor directing, very poor writing, and stubbornness from the studio execs that made it flop verbally. They pushed, got sh*tty results. So was it the pushing or was it the fact Sam didn't care for the character enough to give him the attention he deserved? And how many licks does it take to get to the center of my popsicle Newkill? Owned. Ha. Didn't see that one coming did you? It's okay, neither did your mom. Oh! Owned again. lol
2 years agoby @chad-vitalFlag
Brainiac
Sorry i'm goin back down to wut chad said, i gotta disagree completely. i get that the studio has alot invested in it and if they didn't f*ck with wut he was doin in number 3 then it wouldn't have been sh*tty. the studio isn't film makers they r corporate heads and execs who simple want to make a fast buck. and as u said we don't know all the details so it is pretty crazy to assume that they r pushing for Carnage and he is saying no. u have no idea it could be that he wants Lizard and Vulture and Fox is like "we don't like one armed scientists or old ppl" u have no idea. but i will say that when Raimi did wut he wanted to do (Spider-man 1 and 2) they were awesome, when the execs forced him to add another villain late in the game (spider-man 3) it sucked. Let Raimi do wut he wants, he knows how to make compelling films, if he has ideas for Vulture let him do it.
2 years agoby @thebdFlag