I haven’t really been sure what to think about this since superhero movies have sort of reached the point of repetition to me (sequels, spin-offs, reboots, etc.). I just know that it’s because Spider-Man 3 did so terrible that they feel the need to reboot, though I would have been curious to see Sam Raimi’s version of The Lizard. What I don’t get about this is this: is the title really just going to be Spider-Man again? That makes it seem like they couldn’t think of something new to call it so they just used the same title again like no one would remember the 2002 film. When Batman was rebooted they at least changed it to Batman Begins so it wouldn’t be confused with Tim Burton’s Batman (before that though there was Adam West’s Batman: The Movie in the 60’s but that’s different). You can probably see what I mean about it feeling repetitive.
Isn’t this reboot at least partially motivated by Sony’s reluctance to let Disney (who now own Marvel) get their hands on the rights to Spider-Man? Because as long as they keep him active, they have some justification for hanging onto him? I don’t know - that’s just some speculation I heard when the reboot was first announced.
IMO, Spider-Man 3 wasn’t totally terrible - it had some interesting ideas, but it was overstuffed, and had so many villains and narrative threads that it inevitably couldn’t follow through with them all. Venom in particular got the short end of the stick, but as others have said, it’s because Raimi was basically pressured into including him.
That does make a lot of sense. I also think Marvel just wanted to keep making more Spiderman movies, but after Spiderman 3, I think people got tired of Toby McGuire, Kirsten Dunst, and Sam Rami.
I like the reboot a lot. Some fresh faces to the series will be great!
The reboot isn’t sounding good so don’t get your hopes up.
I think it’s so soon for a reboot. It doesn’t sound like a good idea.
Ok, maybe Sam Raimi did flop in Spider-Man 3, but the studios can’t ignore his first two were masterpieces. It’s a shame they didn’t gave him another chance, as I was sure he could fix it.
Raimi wasn’t fired or anything. He withdrew at his own will. His reason being that the deadline they placed on him for Spider-Man 4 was too restrictive.
Yes, I know the story because I was very intrested in the project and I was following it closely.
I didn’t say he was fired. But putting as many creative and schedule restrictions in this one as they did in the third one (because they did) is a negation to give him the chance. If they were intrested in having him, they could have been more considerate with him and give up to some of his demands.
Oh, okay, misunderstanding on my part. And I agree, Spider-Man 3 had brought things to a point where they could easily wrap up, narratively speaking, but if they were going to continue with the series, then I would like to have seen Sam Raimi carry on helming them. It’s a shame we missed out on seeing Dylan Baker eventually becoming the Lizard - I was always curious to see how that would have gone.
I also wanted to see that.
Andrew Garfield will be playing Peter Parker. I think this will be his film debut.
Darn. I really wanted Logan Lerman to play Peter Parker. I adore him.
Andrew Garfield seems a little too old… he is 27.
It isn’t his film debut. He’s been in a few films, most notably The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus with Heath Ledger.
Andrew Garfield seems okay, he has that quiet, nerdy-ish look to him I guess. But I really wanted Aaron Johnson (aka Kick-Ass) in the role. He’s already proven he can play a nerdy high school kid who moonlights as a superhero. Actually, maybe the roles are too similar then? Hmm, maybe Christopher Mintz-Plasse should have gotten the role 
Rumors are floating around that The Lizard might be the villian for the reboot.
I’m not happy about this. A reboot so soon, specially when the previous series wasn’t that bad, seems pretty forced.
I like that they are rebooting it because they can do it right this time. Let’s just hope they will.
Also Lizard is the perfect choice for the villian.
As I said before, the original trilogy wasn’t that terrible: the first two movies have 90 and 94 percent in Rotten Tomatoes, and were considered the best superhero movies until The Dark Knight. Even the much hated third movie has a Fresh 63%.
Is this going to be a gritty reboot, or just a reboot? Cause I think the grity reboot has been a bit overdone lately… Next we’ll be getting gritty reboots of such classics as Winnie the Pooh, and The Land Before Time 
Sorry for my ignorance of the english language. What does a gritty reboot means?
A gritty reboot is when they reboot a franchise and make it darker and edgier, and in some cases more realistic, like Batman Begins and The Dark Knight did for Batman. And don’t worry Spirit your English is quite good 
Hey, thanks!
Well, I think making Spider-Man more realistic is harder than whit Batman, because he hassn’t no superpowers.
I think the best they can do is stick to the most credible science fiction aspects of Spider-Man (like they did in the fisrt two movies, where the villains were mere humans helped by machinery) and leave the most unrealistic out (Sandman, Venom, the Chameleon, and even the Lizard).