However, we will also go on record as saying that this entire story sounds not only like bullshit, but bullshit filtered through the doors of Sony as damage control in the wake of their questionable decision to deep-six the Sam Raimi continuity of “Spider-Man” in favor of a more youthful take. It’s a strange piece with solid posits (of course everyone wants 3D), but the reporting feels… off (who is that byline).
According to the site, Raimi, who was cryptic for a long time about the intended plot for “Spider-Man 4” (likely because for the longest time it didn’t exist), found a new angle on the film based on the success of the immersive special effects of “Avatar.” An “insider” drops this priceless quote: “But the tipping point was that Sam wanted to do certain things that would push the envelope in terms of [special effects] ‘toys’ and other visual stimulation, and Sony didn’t feel that was essential to the franchise.” Yeah, a studio saying adding fancier special effects to a tentpole blockbuster wasn’t essential for the franchise. Let us be clear that this would be the first time a major studio would have said, “Hey filmmaker! Stop polluting our precious story with your special effects!” Especially considering the press release announcing the new Spider-Man films went out of their way to mention the new approach would necessitate using 3D, which is nothing if not an old approach necessitating new “toys” in this day and age.
Moreover, this “scoop” further contradicts itself by revealing the plot that Raimi wanted would have “torpedoed” the franchise. Apparently, Raimi intended to reveal the father of a new love interest to Peter Parker as the villainous Adrian Toombs, aka the Vulture, to be played by John Malkovich. When his actions result in the death of the Vulture, the new fianceé (Spidey acts quick to nail down his post-MJ poon, no?) ditches him and he responds by abandoning the Spider-Man identity, leaving everyone to wonder if he’ll ever assume the mantle again. Being that this would place Spider-Man against the feathered wings of a fifty/sixty year old man in a flying contraption amidst New York City skyscrapers doesn’t really scream for the type of technology that brought us to Pandora, no?
There’s probably truth in the idea that, as speculated, Sony was extremely uncomfortable with the Vulture as a villain, since toys of John Malkovich covered in green feathers probably wouldn’t be as lucrative as Venom or Doc Ock figurines. Knowing Sony’s interest in a separate “Venom” movie, the influence of the darker, less motivation ally-inclined villain probably mattered to the studio more than another antagonist from Spidey’s more classical and openly silly eras, and we’ll bet their eyes were on supplanting the Vulture with a more modern, violent enemy (Spidey fans can probably think of more than a few names…).
And we have to believe that Raimi was probably feeling too crunched by the film’s hypothetical shooting schedule, which was not set yet and dependent on a script that hadn’t been finished. The concrete details of this situation seem to point to the idea that Raimi and company know movies with a pricetag that big and a schedule that small don’t turn out well. The article claims Sony is still trying to fill that slot in next summer’s schedule, though a 2012 release has already been planned for another Spider-Man adventure, though they may be referring to Sony simply finding more 2011 product to release.
And what of Raimi’s apparent appreciation and respect for Mary Jane Watson and Kirsten Dunst? If suggested by Raimi, as the article intimates, this storyline would have very quickly scuttled the relationship between MJ and Peter Parker in favor of another coupling so strong it convinces Peter to again abandon the mask, which is a story Raimi already covered in the second film. Why would Raimi, who took great pains to show that Peter chooses MJ over his all-time comic book love Gwen Stacy (Bryce Dallas Howard) in the third film suddenly dump that film’s (admittedly sweet and low key) ending for a cheap, quick writing-out of Dunst for the sake of manufactured drama?
Raimi’s smart enough to know that not even the ill-fated Superman franchise would shake Margot Kidder, even when it seemed most prudent. And then there’s the sudden dark tone of the third film, which Raimi showed visible unease with, that seems entirely inconsistent with the previous films. Raimi’s a fan of the more optimistic, outlandish adventures of the character, so why would he turn to cheap, “dark” plot devices like breaking up (“Spider-Man 3“), death (ditto) and retirement (“Spidey 2”) to spice up the franchise?
While the hook of this story (bringing “Avatar” into all this is a reach) seems dubious, the truth can’t be denied that Raimi’s vision so drastically clashed with the studio’s that both sides got sick of fighting each other over the course of a decade-long multi-billion dollar franchise. The promise is the next film will be much, much cheaper, though that probably comes from no longer having to pay Raimi or the nearly-40 Tobey Maguire. The studio hopes to find a similarly small-ish director to fill Raimi’s shoes, with Marc Webb and Nimrod Antal leading the charge (though the Antal rumors are likely just that), though we’ll put our money on the next Spider-Man again costing somewhere in the ballpark of $250 million.