Why are the ‘Spider-Man’ Movies ‘Starting Over’?

Published 3 years ago by , Updated March 14th, 2012 at 7:49 am,

Spider Man 2002 Amazing Spider Man 2012 Movies Why are the Spider Man Movies Starting Over?

“Why are they starting the ‘Spider-Man’ movies over?”

It’s a question we’ve heard echoed again and again (and again) by casual movie fans who have recently seen the trailer for The Amazing Spider-Man; those still wondering why, what should’ve been the fourth film in a popular movie franchise, is now a film with an all new cast, an all-new look, but is essentially the same origin story that was covered by director Sam Raimi and Co. in the 2002 Spider-Man.

Comic book fanboys and/or hardcore cinephiles can probably explain the situation – but to those still looking for answers, today we have a rundown that will help explain what is going on with this Spider-Man movie situation, and give you some information that will make you sound like the smarty in the group, when the subject inevitably comes up in social discourse.

Comic Book Retcons

Ultimate Spider Man Comic book Why are the Spider Man Movies Starting Over?

Properly referred to as “retroactive continuity,” ‘retconning’ is when comic book creators go back and revise aspects of a character or story that have been previously established in continuity. See, comic books are a unique medium in that they’ve run for an incredibly long time, but under the guidance of many different creative visionaries. The writer/artist team that created Superman in the ’30s had different ideas and sensibilities than the creative team in the ’50s, the ’80s, and so on; Batman has been around since 1939, and even “newer” superheroes like Spider-Man or the X-Men have been around since the ’60s, about half a century (or more). In that time, more than a few writers and/or artists have altered a superhero’s backstory, powers, costume, attitude – sometimes even their identity (for example, since 1940 four different boys have taken on the mantle of Batman’s sidekick, Robin).

On the one hand, the constant change of creative teams keeps a comic book character fresh, as new people bring new ideas to the table, and keep the character relevant and connected to the (at that time) current generation. On the other hand, there is the danger that a prior idea may become outdated, unsustainable over a longer course of storytelling, or was simply born of an era and/or social context that no longer exists. When that happens, comic book creators rely on ‘retcons’ to right (and re-write) the (possibly) outdated aspects.

Marvel Ultimate Universe Why are the Spider Man Movies Starting Over?

The revamped heroes of Marvel's "Ultimate" Universe.

In 2000, Marvel Comics launched their “Ultimate Marvel” comic book universe, starting with Ultimate X-Men and Ultimate Spider-Man. The goal was simple: create an alternate reality in which popular superhero origin stories were re-told in a modern context – free from decades of convoluted and dated backstory. New readers could start from a fresh beginning and follow a character through a more familiar world; longtime readers could get a new take on their favorite heroes, but could still enjoy the “classic version” being offered by the original comics.

As you may surmise, a modernized look at Marvel superheroes also became the basis for a fair number of superhero films – including the upcoming Avengers movie, which borrows many elements of the modern “Ultimate” universe – not least of which is a Nick Fury who looks like (and is played by) Sam Jackson. Thanks to a wonderful and dedicated creative team (the same writer has written all 140+ issues of the series), Ultimate Spider-Man‘s modernized take on the web-slinging superhero became a hit – and the primary inspiration for the franchise reboot film, The Amazing Spider-Man.


Amazing Spider-Man’s ‘Ultimate Spider-Man’ connection…

« 1 2 3»

Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:


Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.

If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it. Keep in mind that we do not allow external links in the comments.

  1. I’ve never met a single person confused by the issue.

    And as for why they are staring again, there’s a very basic and obvious answer to that. Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man films were terrible.

    Asking that is like asking why did they start the Batman movies again.

    • I agree on your first point. I enjoyed Raimi’s films (yes, even spider-man 3), but I can’t wait for this new film.

      • I know that there were popular and I confess to enjoying parts of Spider-Man 2. But I felt that all involved never quite got the characters.

        • I also enjoyed the second one most. The only one I would call “decent”. Spiderman 3 was atrocious. This is the adaptation I have always wanted to see.

    • Well trust us, people who AREN’T hardcore movie fans have been asking. Every day.

      • I think most people will understand perfectly well. The fact that it’s not called Spider-Man 4 and has completely different actors and quite clearly features a character that is dead in Raimi’s films.
        Might wanna give people more credit.

        • @Dr. Sam

          Question: Do you think we wrote this up proactively, thinking people needed it explained, or do you think we wrote it up reactively, after enough people inquired about it?

          • Kofi… don’t try to understand Sam… all he does is RANT.

            And Sam… obviously this article was needed because even you don’t know the reason for the reboot based on yet another post stating your distaste for something. Your answer is wrong, period. The reboot actually has everything to do with the mass popularity of Raimi’s Spider-Man films. Hell, if it weren’t for his films we might not have seen the comic movie boom at all. Spider-Man launched this era of super hero movies. The main reasons for the reboot is MONEY, HOLDING ONTO THE RIGHTS to the character, and the popularity of the Spider-Man franchise fueled by Raimi’s works. It came down to the all mighty dollar. Sony doesn’t need them to make money on the franchise … people are going to go see the film regardless … so why add 150 million to the budget in actor and director wages if you don’t have to? It’s a business… that’s why there’s a reboot.

            And … Spider-Man 3 was horrible. That didn’t have anything to do with it. It still made money and that’s all that matters. Humans would still flock to a Spider-Man 4 … EVEN MORE SO THAN A REBOOT due to the large instilled fan base that wasn’t a comic fan. The reboot is more of risk for the studio than continuing the SURE THING story of Spider-Man 4. IT’S ABOUT THE CASH.

            • “all he does is RANT.”

              Isn´t the site called Sreen Rant?

              • Lol “Screenrantandraveandinform” was already taken ;)

            • And btw, X-Men launched this era of superhero movies.

              • I don’t know if you are being sarcastic or not. This film has gotten at best a lukewarm reception so to claim it will make 100 million opening weekend is crossing the insane line. Not even the last Harry Potter movie managed that (although they came close).

                We’ve already had a Spiderman trilogy so it’s not as if people are clamoring for something they have never seen. So I can guarantee you this film will NOT do nearly as well as you are claiming for a “fact”. I estimate at best it will do as well as XMFC which will not bode well for the movie if estimates are correct and it cost 220 million to make.

                  • My blood pressure is just fine thanks and commenting on SR does not raise it.

                    I also never said matter of factly it would be a flop. I said at best it would be like XMFC which, afaik, was a success (unfortunately). I did say however that I HOPED it would tank simply because I really want the franchise to revert back to Marvel. If this is successful that means we will have to wait probably another 10 years for Marvel to get it back.

                    You are also being very fanboi-istic of you think opening weekend is gonna crack even 50 million much less 80. This is not the blockbuster season so anything over 50 for this time of year would be impressive.

                    • @Mongoose
                      Just because Marvel gets the rights back doesnt mean we would get a better adaptation. The MCU track record has been met with mixed reception.

                      ASM will do fine at the box office. SPider-Man, Batman & Superman are three biggest and most popular superheroes of all time. They will always do well at the box office.

                    • @mongoose

                      Stan Lee & Steve Ditko? I doubt they would write a feature length film.

                    • I think Spider-man will make a lot more money than XMFC did, whether you’re talking opening weekend, overall domestic total, or internationally.

                      Continuity mishaps and canon errors aside, I enjoyed First Class. But, it underperformed in a fiscal sense. When its intake is adjusted for inflation, it actually made less than the first 3 X-Men films. While Spider-man has at some point or another suffered from every bit as much antagonism as XMFC, I’ve witnessed pretty significant changes in public approval (at least, as indicated by various sites such as this, CBM, SSH, etc.) The movie also has the 3d factor to count in, that XMFC didn’t have.

                      I know that in 2011, post converted 3D films have taken a hit in ticket sales. Movies like Pirates of the Caribean 4 made more money in regular 2D ticket sales than they did in 3D ticket sales, but not many main stream movies have been shot in native 3D (by that I mean, movies that were not post converted) since 2009′s Avatar. There’s been Resident Evil 4, and what else? Transformers 3? I don’t know if Ghost Rider: SOV was shot in native 3d, but it’s a B rate movie to begin with. It’s hard to make a super accurate comparison because data is minimal, there simply haven’t been that many native 3D films since 2009. My observation, has been that if the film is shot natively in 3d, with the 3d in mind specifically when doing the cinematography, the audience will respond by going to see more 3D showings.

                      To make my point about Spider-man making more money than First Class in a domestic and international consideration, consider: First Class made less than $375 million internationally, which is around what Spider-man 2 did domestically. Remember, Spider-man 2 was the lowest grossing domestic earner of all the Spider-man films. So TASM would have to make close to half of what it’s least financially lucrative predecessors did in order to make XMFC money.

                    • @Mongoose: Why would Marvel Studios talk to Stan Lee other than to schedule his cameo. They might ask him some question bout the character but nobody is really looking for scrernplay input, that’s why you have screenwriters.

                      Marvel Studios hasn’t done anything to make me think they could do better instintcively. I’d rather my second favorite character stay at Sony. Plus they barely can handle all the characters now. A Marvel spiderman movie would take another four years to come to fruition. They dont even have Antman done yet.

                    • @ Mongoose: In your response to me you made a very good point, & in spite of my opinion I think what you said makes sense. But my skepticism still remains that the opening weekend will sink to the likes of $50 million. Well, I might consider $80 million. But at $50 million, you have over a 50% drop in profits when compared to the smallest opening weekend from Raimi’s series. Actually, we’re between 55 and 60%. that’s astronomical.

                      I just think it’s a bit of a stretch, to assume the film’s opening weekend will take a hit like that, and it doesn’t have to do with our informed opinion so much as its just economics. Many of us follow box office profits pretty closely, and in all my years of observation, I’ve never seen a series tank that bad. I’ve seen a decline in profits, but again, 55 to 60% is a bit of a gamble by my estimation. I think that if Sony’s financial advisors had believed spidey’s early profits were going to take that big of a hit, they would’ve changed the date for the film to give it room for long term gains.

                    • I know, me too lol. It’s like Screenrant is telling us to stop.

          • FYI… It’s Dr. Beckett, not Dr. Sam. I know that because I was born and raised on Quantum Leap series…


          • Yes, but do those people actually go around reading websites like we do?

            • They enjoy comic book movies and there are many newcomers to this site everyday as I understand it

            • Something like that will happen with “The Avengers”, at least here in Germany, because in IM, IM2 and Thor, there where no post-credit-scenes or they where too far at the end.
              I sat there alone with my wife in the cinema, at least 10 minutes waiting and nothing was coming(everyone else was gone already, because they didn’t know they exist or they don’t care).
              So, I believe most people in Germany will not know exactly what’s going on with this flick (Avengers) and didn’t understand all the innuendos in the other Marvel-movies.

              • “…because in IM, IM2 and Thor, there where no post-credit-scenes or they where too far at the end.”

                Too far at the end? Hence why they´re called ‘after credits scene’. And in the theater in which I watched those movies, there were maybe 10 people leaving during the credits, because it´s pretty much known that Marvel movies tend to have after credits scenes.

                • Maybe they know but some don’t care to stay and see what’s coming,some don’t even watch the movies too busy texting,tweeting,whatever….I think Marvel should run those scenes earlier as Green Lantern did with the Sinestro/yellow ring scene, more people would see it.
                  At the very end of the Captain America credits the curtains were closing so I had to watch the Avengers sneak peak through the curtains(the theater I went to had cue curtains in front of the the screen).

          • The average movie-goer probably doesn’t even know who Sam Raimi is, yet alone the tenuous relationship he has had with Sony, or how involved he was with the Spiderman films.

    • It makes no sense to reboot. Case closed.

    • I completely agree with you, sir. I disliked almost every aspect of Raimi’s trilogy, from the cast to the choice of villains and so on. I was never a fan of Tobey Maguire’s take on Peter Parker from the very get-go, but I’m liking what I’ve seen so far from Garfield (he just looks the part, ya know?). The only thing I liked from the Raimi trilogy was James Franco, and in all honesty, he’s the one thing that kept me coming back. I like the fact that they’ve decided to make Spider-Man and a darker and by the looks of it, a troubled character. In the Raimi trilogy it just seemed to me, he chose to be Spider-Man to basically get the girl and show off. With ‘The Amazing Spider-Man’ (from what I’ve seen) it looks like the character will have real motivations behind is actions.

    • only good raimis spidey was the second1

    • DrSamBeckett: I’ve had the opposite reaction from most people when I drop “Did you hear there’s a new spiderman movie coming out?”.

      Their first thought is it’s the next installment (part 4), until I say it’s a “reboot” which raises eyebrows because 1) what’s a reboot? and 2) why reboot this story so soon.

      Lastly, their opinion is of confusion because most of the people Ive spoken with (and even the casual friend on chat) had thoroughly enjoyed the Tobey version especially the first one in the trilogy.

      I personally trip on the idea they’re rebooting this so soon after a spectacularly successful run. I’m afraid precedent is being set to just remake too many things every decade. I only see that sort of strategy benefiting the youngest of teens who were too young to watch the “original”.

      • Good comment Vanguard. Most of the people I speak to are not in the know about this movie either. (Though I don’t tend to bring this movie up.)

  2. That picture on the second page of Garfield next to Maguire shows exactly why this needed rebooting.

    • 10 years back i actually thought they got the suit spot on. Now it kinda looks meh….

      Plus tobey was a little too buff for my liking…

      But having said that Garfield is way too tall and lanky…

      • But they’re using Ultimate Spidey as the basis for this movie, and in that Peter was tall and gangly…

        • Spiderman was meant to be gangly… They didnt want him to be super buff like every other superhero out there.

        • You’re confirming their point.

        • But yet they are using a version of The Lizard from the original comics, How does that make any sense? If they are going to do an Ultimates version, they need to be using the Ultimate version of the Lizard also.

          • No they don’t, can’t they borrow from sides of the spectrum or should I say dimension.

            • Exactly. As with every Comic book movie, this is an adaptation. Perhaps they felt The Lizard from the original comics was better suited for film than the one from the ultimates?

              • Also, this movie is not 100% based on Ultimate Spider-Man. Hence why Gwen is the love interest, not MJ.

              • They took the foundation of the mythos, etc. and built on it with respect to the source (such as the current/forthcoming Batman Trology, since TDKR is not out yet, and now Spiderman)

              • @ Ghost, does your statement not resonate with the current Batman franchise? Seems somewhat hypocritical from your past posts indicating your distaste about the Batman films not being comic book movies.

                Whatever, Dark Claw for the win.

                • I don’t see how. My statement that Nolan’s Batman films not feeling like comic book movies has nothing to do with disregarding source (which they do). I don’t care how much a film sticks to source material or not. But Nolan’s films just don’t have the feeling of a comic book films such as Raimi’s Spider-man films or Burton’s Batman do. To me, The Dark Knight felt more like a crime drama with a guy dressed up like a bat than a comic book film. I’m not saying that’s bad considering they genre has become formulaic, but I guess I prefer that formula practically every comic book film follows.

                  To be more clear, Nolan’s “realistic” take on Batman just takes away from it.

                  • This is all just my opinion. I know the majority of audiences prefer Nolan take on the character, and I do love both BB and TDK. But they just don’t feel like Batman.

                    • I appreciate your response and understand where you are coming from. Although I do argue that BB does reflect much of the source material, but also incorperates some liberties. In my opinion it does reflect the Batman mythos.

                      In relation to the Raimi Spiderman trilogy I do look at it as “goofy”. So far what has been presented to us of the Amazing Spiderman I am looking forward to it immensely. I feel that this incarnation reflects the Spiderman I know from the comics. It seperates itself from the Raimi movies as do the comics seperate themselves from the kiddy ailse versions.

                      I like the more “mature” tone it seems to be taking which is why I liked the Batman movies and A History of Violence.

                    • I enjoyed the Micheal Keaton Batman.=o

                    • I love the Nolan movies so far. But I also loved Frank Miller’s Batman: Year One. So I think I prefer a more grounded “realistic” Batman. However, in the comics the “realism” always sooner or later gives way to more fantastical elements. It’s seems as inevitable as clockwork that Batman can only ride “realism” for a limited time. There was an article (in Slate I think) that argued that the end of TDK saved Batman from that slide, for the time being, by ensuring that Batman isn’t friendly with law enforcement.

                      Batman really is an amazingly resilient character that can withstand all kinds of interpretations. When I was a kid I loved the Adam West Batman, and even took it seriously. I enjoyed the humor later. I know Nolan’s way isn’t the only way, but I’m glad he’s done it, and done it so well.

    • No it doesn’t, it just shows overall tonal differences. The Raimi image worked great within the context of the film. They are two different kinds of movies. The new Spiderman is taking its tone more from Ultimate Spiderman (hence the darker lighting, more sardonic humor, etc.), while the Raimi films took their tone more from the 60′s Spiderman comics (brighter lighting, campier stories, etc.). The first two Raimi movies were fantastic (especially the 2nd one, which I maintain is the second best superhero movie of all time behind The Dark Knight), and the third one had some serious tone and story issues (largely due to studio interference) which is why it sucked. There were still good parts though.

      This new film is going to be darker and more modern. It could very well be better, or it might not be that great. I think it looks like a very good alternate take on Spiderman. I just wish it wasn’t coming at the cost of the original Raimi franchise.

      • The fact that you put The Dark Knight and Spider-Man 2 as the best superhero movies of all time tells me that I’m not going to argue a point with you. I wouldnt put either of those in my top 10 CBMs.

        It might be ‘darker’ in the sense that there is less light, but it won’t be dark in the terms of Batman. I don’t see how anyone watched the trailer and got dark from it…

        • So what is a good comic book movie to you? I read your constant displeasure with the Batman movies and the new Superman movie. Do you want a literal transition from a comic book to film? Are adaptations not good enough or don’t qualify as a comic book movie in your opinion?

          I have my displeasures with Raimi’s Spiderman trilogy, but there are elements that I enjoyed.

          The new Spiderman is exactly what I want to see out of a Spiderman movie. “Darker”, “heavy”, “mature”, whatever you want to call it, but still looks fun, not “campy” as many of you say. The trailer set a different mood/tone than the Raimi’s movies.

        • It is very clearly a darker story, even aside from lighting. Unless I’m mistaken the filmmakers have said as much. In fact I’m pretty sure everyone involved with the project has been saying as much from the time they started making announcements about the film. It is intended to be darker in tone than the Raimi films.

          Out of curiosity, what would your top 10 superhero movies be? I can’t say everyone shares my opinion of the top 2, but I would think that you would be in a very small minority if you think Spiderman 2 and The Dark Knight aren’t even in the top ten.

          • Am I the only one on the planet who thinks TDK is not a great ‘superhero’ movie? Main reason being Batman is a VIGILANTE not a superhero. Maybe that’s why a more ‘realistic’ take on the story works for Batman but wouldn’t for Spiderman, XMen etc

            • You might want to state that to DC then and have them adjust their Batman franchise to state he is a vigilante.

              • …or label Batman as a Superbad*** instead of a superhero. You may be onto something here.

                • How is a man with no ‘super powers’ a ‘superhero’? I also view The Punisher as a vigilante or would that be wrong too?

                  • Well shouldn’t you include Iron Man in this category? He is only a man in a suit, big robotic armored suit, but still a suit, costume, whatever your preference may be.

                    • Fair play, never even thought about that before

        • In fact, my friend, who for some reason had heard nothing about the new Spiderman movie, just watched the trailer for the first time. His first question to me was whether Spiderman was supposed to be dark like the trailer suggested.

        • “subpar” but it was no Batman and Robin.

          I’ll say it again, when I first watched the Raimi version I, like many, noticed all the things that were different from the comics. But I met several people who knew nothing of Spider-man, but really liked it. They liked the story and characters and hearing them talk reminded me of what made me love Spider-man, over most other comics, when I was a kid. The same is true for the X-Men movies. A lot of comic fans seem to equate more detail from the comics as making a better movie. Sam Raimi and Bryan Singer were both accomplished filmmakers when they took on the projects. There wouldn’t be these discussions without them, because their success made these movies possible.

          I remember hearing an Historian talk about how he loved all historical drama movies. They are full of flaws and inaccuracies (about real people I might add), but he thinks they are very effective way of getting people interested in history.

    • how does the pics of 2 different actors prove the film needed rebooting? they both look like peter parker/spiderman to me. that comment makes no sense.

  3. Cant wait for a new Spiderman

    • +1

  4. The reason why the Spiderman movies are starting over again is because of Spiderman 3.

    Too much villains, too much goofy, the script wasn’t right and last but not all, Tobey Magurie dancing like a stupid idoit in Spiderman 3.

    That part destoryed the movie for me because when does the audicene watch a superhero dance instead of saving lives.

    I don’t know who to blame- Sam Raimi, Sony or the film itself.

    I just hope The Amazing Spiderman will be a great restart for the Spiderman series just like the Batman Nolan movies.

    • Some people say it was studio interference because Sony forced him to include Venom, but Raimi was still responsible for the final product, he didnt need to have two other villains. he could have found a way to include Venom properly.

      • I agree with a lot of what you say, though I’d have preferred a solid Sandman plot over Venom. It was too much. Raimi managed to juggle that huge mess admirably, but in the end none of the plotlines had enough attention.

        • They should have skipped Sandman and do a proper (back-)story on the symbiote. It just fell off the sky and bonded with Spider-Man. No one knew why. No one knew it´s motivations. A proper backstory would have helped the movie a lot. But we all knew how it turned out. A total fail.

        • I would have been fine with either because both are great villains but for some reason Sony demanded they pack both into a single film.

          I think we can all agree, more is not always better.

    • The symboite affected his personality that’s why he was dancing and became a jerk.

      • Last comment was for Nawtnt.

  5. I cant stand people saying that the Sam Raimi movies were horrible and terrible. I personally remmeber seing spiderman 1 and being blown away on how good it was and back then people said it was one of the best super hero movies, and not to mention Spiderman 2 will go down as one of the best super hero movies, but i agree the third one wasent too good, but i do hope the new spiderman is beyond better

    • “I cant stand people saying that the Sam Raimi movies were horrible and terrible.”

      And I can’t stand people who can’t stand what other people think.

    • The problem with spider-man 1 was the plot was thin after Peter got his powers. The green goblin had really thin motivations as well. I’m sure this version will have a much better plot.

  6. i quite agree with u…raimi’s version was a little candy coated to me…and spidey’s struggles werent really thoroughly explored…but it did enough for me to enjoy the first 2…

    • While I agree that it certainly began like that, of course Sony want to hold onto the rights, it made them billions of dollars but Marvel sold those rights in the first place.
      I think your hoping the film fails just so Marvel can get the rights back is a depressing attitude to have. And it won’t fail, it’s going to be great.

      • If you want to call giving Marvel back what is theirs so they can do a better job depressing, then guilty as charged. They sold the rights to save the freakin’ company but now you are pretty much saying they should be punished for doing so. I find that an even more disappointing attitude.

        Sony has made their billions as you say, and it’s time to let Marvel have their property back already!

        • On every thread about a marvel property, you boast that marvel would be able to do the characters “justice” or “properly”, but who’s to say that marvel wouldn’t approve what sony is doing with spider-man right now?

          • It not a boast. I’m only making a statement, nothing more. After what I have seen Marvel do over the past 5 years, I have a certain measure of confidence in their ability. Is that an opinion I’m not allowed to have?

            And without getting into specifics about what this incarnation is screwing up (because you can read that in other related threads) I can simply say that Marvel wouldn’t approve because THEY aren’t the ones making billions off of their IP. ;)

            • But who’s to say that Marvel wouldn’t make the same changes to Spider-man that Sony is making in this film? And if I had to judge Marvel’s films, I would say that only The Incredible Hulk and Captain America were great films. Iron Man was average at best, but enjoyable. If it wasn’t for Robert Downey Jr. and Jon Favreau’s directing, then the film wouldn’t be as popular as it is. Iron Man 2 was garbage. Thor was enjoyable, but had many flaws with the characters.

              • Alright, I’m not the only who doesn’t like IM2. I prefer to call it a carbon copy of a much better first film.

        • I don’t see why every movie has to fail in order to get better. But at the same time I do agree, Marvel has a better chance of making a better comic book movie than Sony can. Regardless, I hope this movie can become Epic and spawn other baddies like Carnage, Venom, Anti-Venom, She-Venom or Miss Venom, Scream, Spider Girl, Hybrid etc.

    • That wouldn’t make sense for them to reboot it then b/c if they just wanted to keep the rights, then they could have let Raimi make Spider-man 4. OR they could have just Raimi let go and just continue with his story. Obviously, they want to keep the rights to the franchise, but that doesn’t explain them rebooting the franchise.

      • Well actually it does as Kofi explained for the most part. To keep the franchise Sony HAD to have a Spiderman something in the works fairly soon. They were at the, “use it or lose it” stage. The problem was, no one was biting on putting Spiderman 4 into production. They screwed the pooch on 3 (which gave it negative press), Raimi and Maguire quit before starting #4 and it was going to be a huge money pit anyway because of all the bloated actor salaries.

        With all that kicked to the curb, they pretty much had to do a reboot since no one would have bought replacing Maguire (plus they would have had to also find a new director to take over turkey 4). So new actors, new script, new direction, and possibly smaller budget (although it’s rumored to be up to 220 mil)

        • @”With all that kicked to the curb, they pretty much had to do a reboot since no one would have bought replacing Maguire (plus they would have had to also find a new director to take over turkey 4).”

          And what are we getting here? New director and new actors. Canning Spider-man 4 was a bad move for Sony b/c it meant they would had to wait even more time to get another film out, and the idea of replacing Tobey and Raimi was gonna happen if they rebooted the franchise anyway. I’m all for this reboot, but it makes literally no sense to do it. Besides, my point was that rebooting the franchise meant nothing when wanting to hang onto the rights when like I said, they could have just as easily continued the franchise.

            • The Batman fiasco is a good example, since Studios kept turning to Batman and reinvent him until they got it right. Micheal Keaton, Val Kilmer, George Clooney, Adam West and now Christian Bale have portrayed as Batman. Some are pretty good as Batman and some are not as good, but they kept on trying until they found the right mix to attract us fans. If this movie turned out not as everyone expected, maybe other studios have a chance to make it great.

    • “For that reason alone I hope this movie fails miserably because I would really like to see Spidey back home at Marvel and free to appear in any movie Marvel makes.”

      Why would you want Spider-Man to appear in a Marvel movie that´s not about him? And now, I can already see a “He should be in The Avengers movie” comment coming. And I beg to differ. The only reason why Spider-Man and Wolverine are in the Avengers comic books is simple: to sell more copies. Spider-Man was always a loner, he doesn´t belong there.

      • *Bzzzzz* Fail, you lose. Sorry but you are putting words into my mouth I would have never uttered. I would MUCH rather have Pym and YellowJacket on the Avengers because they DO belong on the team.

        You are missing my point though which is it gives Marvel the FREEDOM to use the character again however they see fit. With the Avengers on the cusp of exploding into more superhero movies, we could have things like spin offs and what not. Wouldn’t it be great if we could have say a Spiderman and Cap. team up movie? Or allow him do show up for a cameo in other Marvel projects?

        The sad thing though is even if this incarnation is unsuccessful, we will have to wait 5 more years and by then this current crop of superhero actors may already be done and over with. :/

        • Of course I can only speak for myself, but I don´t wanna see a Cap/Spidey movie.

          • Just an example I threw out there off the top of my head because I knew the two had officially teamed up in the comics before. How about Spiderman and Hawkeye then?

            Again the point is, atm we CAN’T even entertain those possibilities because of ownership. Spiderman is in his own encapsulated universe just like Batman, Superman and the X-Men which is a travesty. Although he is a loner, having crossovers and involvement in the larger Marvel universe is something we are definitely missing with this and other Marvel characters.

    • @mongoose…imo…Marvel has not done a movie to top Spiderman 2 to date,and as much as 3 wasn’t my favorite not a lot of Marvel movies were over it.

      • Why does it have to “top” Spiderman 2? Can’t they be just as good? I thought Thor, Captain America and Iron Man were all at least as good and I think you will find most agree with that opinion. Conversely, all of those were better than most of what DC has been giving us for the last 5 years (their only bright spot has been the Batman Begins reboot)

        • I disagree about your assessment of DC. There is Batman of course, I thought Watchman was good. Also the Losers and A History of Violence were good too. Under Vertigo, but still a DC property.

          • Adding V for Vendetta and (Superman Returns(good reviews).

            Iron Man was the closest to Spiderman 2. Thor and Cap far from it.

          • I also thought Watchmen was decent but not nearly as good as the majority of Marvel’s movies imho. Plus the Watchmen is not really part of the DC Universe, owned by them, yes but they are in their own separate, different world.

            I also really don’t think it’s fair to start dragging everything DC has done over the years into the picture. But if you want to do that then I will be forced to bring up titles like; Green Lantern, all the 90′s Batman sequels, JONAH HEX, Constantine, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, Steel, CATWOMAN ……need I go on? ALL much much worse than what Marvel has made (please remember before adding titles to the Marvel side which movies Marvel actually produced ;) )

            I did also thoroughly enjoy V for Vendetta but Superman Returns sucked and I doubt you will find many that will defend your opinion on SR. It may have garnered favorable critic reviews but there is a REASON why it is getting semi-rebooted with a new actor and direction.

            And if you think Captain America was not even on par with Spiderman 2 then there is really no way to discuss it further because I disagree. They are all opinions in the end but I think you will find that most here on SR will disagree with your Cap. assessment.

            • Cap was good, but I feel it could have been better, hell, I’ll say it, it could have been great. The second half seemed rushed.

              • Well I’m not going to say Cap. was the best movie ever made but it did an excellent job and belongs in the win category way before any of those DC movies I listed.

                Sounds to me you are suffering from what I like to call the, “Green Lantern vs ScreenRant syndrome”. Green Lantern wasn’t really THAT bad of a show (not saying I didn’t have issues with it, because I DID) but if you had read SR’s reviews of it you would have thought someone had gunned down all their beloved pets. The reviewers had such impossibly high hopes that when they saw the actual product and it didn’t come close to meeting their expectations, they took it personally and it showed in their review (and subsequent unnecessary and spiteful comparison article between the movie and the comics).

                • Critics can say what they want to,I still regard it as just an OPINION…I enjoy what I want to and if I don’t I just didn’t…GL was good imo.
                  Sometimes I wonder ifthe “top critics’ get together for a movie bashing…hmmm….

                  • I was just responding to your fairly aggressive assertion that not only has Marvel not been able to match Spider-Man 2 but they have also not been able to surpass Spider-man 3 (which most will agree was pretty bad) for the most part?. So to re-phrase it, you were basically saying that Marvel movies have sucked which I disagree with. Thems fightin’ words and makes you come off as a DC fanatic.

                    If you are going to make a brash claim like that you had better be ready to defend it.

          • Kudos to you @Tim for the History of Violence shoutout. One of the best & most slept on comic book film. I love thending of Viggo at the dinner table with his family. Top ten cbm.

  7. Excellent article. Very informative.

  8. I’m just disappointed Mr. Jameson won’t be in it. Other than that I think this film will kick ass.

  9. Fanboys don’t make up the majority of money studios make. On that note,i enjoyed the first Spiderman trilogy. I enjoy watching them with my kids. These films “sucked” so bad,Sony made more than 1.5 Billion dollars of of them. You all don’t know jack about business. If you make the films a bit “cheesy” guess who they are targeting? Not crybaby fanboys,it’s the family crowd. Studios have NEVER cared about pleasing fanboys,they never will,they care about making a profit. Profit they did. Anyways,this movie looks like it will be pretty good as well.

  10. The only thing i hated about Spider-man 3 was that Venom was all wrong. They didnt pick the right actor plus they kept showing his dang face, i wanted to see venom not freaking Eric from that 70′s Show. Plus he is supposed to say “we” not “I” when he is talking.

  11. It seems like the movies are taking their cue from the comics now and creating disposable entertainment that will be obsolete in ten years or less. They will then repackage it and sell it to a new audience again down the road.

    The whole Ultimates line and the retcon approach is mainly to draw in new fans who can’t be bothered to learn decades of back story for these characters, overall though I don’t know how many long term fans it draws in. Younger fans will go see these movies because it seems new to them, but older fans of the movies and the comics might take a pass. Comic book properties are turning into monster movies (albeit expensive ones) and when they start hitting the wall and after four movies try this reboot thing, both the casual and fanboy audience will stop paying to see them.

    • Interesting comment. One of the Marvel guys referred to comics as cheap research and development. There’s a lot more money on the line with movies.

      I assume they decided to reboot because they want to capitalize on the wider popularity of Spider-man due to Raimi movies. They want to go deeper into the world and characters. I agree it would have been harder with the others. We’ll see. I won’t be surprised if these succeed or fail.

  12. Makes perfect sense, the same is true of any remake, for example A nightmare on Elm Street. Once you understand these facts its silly to hate the changes, unless you live in the past or have some sort of nostalgic connection to it lol

  13. GOd when you compare the two spideys side by side, Tobey looks like a complete dingus. Thank you for the reboot, I was about to give up.

  14. It was a horrible mistake to relaunch the franchise so soon. Not that I was a particularily avid fan of the three previous installments. But I’m growing weary of this reboot-mania.

    There once had been a huge movie franchise starring five actors in one and the same role for over four decades. You know his name, you know his number. And it worked out just fine…I never understood why they had to reboot this one in 2006… The only two reboots that every worked were Batman and Star Trek. The first because ALL FOUR of the original movies s*cked balls, the second one because the reboot was part of the STORY!

    They could have introduced a new actor / director without rebooting the Spider-Man storyline any day…

  15. Kofi – First off, I love the picture of Tobey-Spidey holding the cash. Hilarious. Also, even though I didn’t honestly need the explanation, your article is very informative for those who aren’t humongous movie and/or comic book enthusiasts. I’ll be sure to forward this article to my wife and friends.

    • When you put it in perspective, and by perspective I mean putting yourself in the shoes of those making the decisions.. (which seems so difficult for so many to do)… the reboot is ultimately the best option. I didn’t agree with it at first either… but then I put myself in Sony’s shoes and it all makes perfect sense. It’s too expensive and more importantly not worth the production cost to continue Spider-Mans story and if they want to keep the rights to the characters they need to make a movie. That being said… they know they are going to want to make more (not just Spider-Man 4… but 5 and 6. It would just be too expensive and far too difficult to stretch out Tobey’s Spidey that long. So either reboot and gain a entirely new audience 10 years removed from the original, or LOSE THE RIGHTS TO THE CHARACTERS. The answer is obvious and it’s the only viable option to sustain the character story and rights. Period. Get over it.

  16. I appreciate Screenrant for taking an unbiased stance on the reboot issue. To me, reboots/remakes/adaptions of properties aren’t necessarily a bad thing– if there’s some legitimate, artistic, substantial reason for doing so (taking a different perspective, revisiting the story in a new way that’s worth our time). But most of the remakes/reboots that we see are terrible and happen for no real reason besides profit (all movies are for profit of course, but there has to be balance and restraint). Reboots like The Amazing Spiderman, to me, are clear for take off. I’m confident it’s going to be a great movie.

  17. Most people assume a new spider-man means “Spider-man IV.” I’ll clarify that it is a completely new series, with new actors, new director, and starts the story from the beginning. I’ll even use the word “reboot.”

    Usually I hear an “oh,” like a disinterested groan. Sometimes people do a “doubletake” at the notion. “Why are they doing it again?” They often ask. But everybody seems to understand the concept.

    I think Batman Begins helped bring the word “reboot” into movie lexicon. I remember how they were calling it a prequel/possible reboot before it was released. The advantage there was that Tim Burton hardly dwelled on the origin. BB was one of those movies that had OK box office but then major buzz as people caught it on cable and DVD. People were initially “over” Batman. That’s not the case with Raimi’s Spider-man. There is a BB vibe to some of the trailers and marketing (a Hans Zimmerish sound during SM fight with the police). I am definately interested to see this movie, and also to see how fans react.

  18. like fox and the fantastic four franchise, if more spidey movies are not made by sony, the rights revert to marvel and sony will never be able to again make them…correct? hence, we’ll continue getting FF and spidey flicks until those studios decide they don’t want to make money from them anymore

  19. Not to be rude but it’s Spider-Man not Spiderman. I understand in the rush of typing, one might forget the hyphen but the hyphen needs to be in there, else we’ll end up getting a rebooted Spider-Man brought to you by the people who brought us Ghost Rider 2 and Kofi should not be forced to watch another coconut to the junk movie.

    • Ghost Rider 2 was written by Scott M. Gimple, Seth Hoffman and David Goyer and was directed by Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor.
      The Amazing Spider-Man was written by James Vanderbilt, Alvin Sargent and Steve Kloves and is directed by Marc Webb.

      So how exactly are those the same people?

      • It was a joke about the hyphen that people are forgetting in the comments. So if they make this movie Spiderman and not Spider-Man (correct spelling) there will have to be another reboot. Notice the or “else we’ll get another reboot”

        • I see the joke, but in this environment I assumed you were serious. It’s too close to the truth. I was going to say that “I always begin a Spider-man discussion by schooling people on the proper spelling, then berating their ignorance.”

  20. Defiently liked the article, just hope this movie will be good.

  21. There are many unaware of the spidey/sony/raimi mess. I explained the whole thing to my girlfriend and she was “amazed” that it was so complicated. Good article, we CBM fans take for granted how much useless information we obsess over.

    And the worst part of Spiderman 3 was not the dancing, not the jumbled storyline, not the studio interference… it was the deus ex machina symbiote that just HAPPENS to fall out of space and attach to Peter’s scooter. It made me crave for the Secret Wars and the Beyonder to change the reality of my movie ticket price.

    • Lol, you are severely underusing the Beyonder’s powers! How about if he just creates a “What If” reality where Spiderman was never made?! I think virtually everyone would be just a little bit happier :)

      • Sorry, that was supposed to be Spiderman THREE was never made :P

        • To quote Louis Armstrong:

          “What a wonderful world” (it could be).

    • “we CBM fans take for granted how much useless information we obsess over.”- brilliant sir!

  22. Raimi’s vision was borrowed from James Cameron. The organic web shooters all Cameron’s idea. The story was on the shelf and Sony bought the rights to it. This version is more realistic and the web shooters rock!

  23. What Sony is doing is wrong, the movie will get money and maybe again another trilogy -_-, then what? Reboot from the reboot?

  24. outdated ideas,changing society,irrelevant moral values that don’t resonate with 21 century sensibilities etc etc

    hmmm, death seems to be still with us ,evil characters wanting to do us harm seem to be still with us, reasonable people acting to defend against said evil dudes are still with us,alienated teenagers looking for an identity are still with us,troubled human relations are still with us,
    Thank the stars for the great writers who make sure I can read things still relevant to me and this current generation and not be bothered by pesky human foibles that have been with us since first walked on this Planet.

  25. I liked All of Raimi’s Spider-Man films the same really. Even Spider-Man 2 wasn’t all that great imo but i did enjoyed all 3.

  26. i think Sony basically wants to forget the previous 3 films ever existed and hopes to “get it done right the fourth..i mean first time”…
    adding more to the story,acting,script as well as details like web shooters and that Peter Parker is a scientist first, hero second is important..

    • @ vkatnyte

      I wouldn’t doubt it. Spider-Man 3 turned the way it did mostly because of them just as WB had in-part ruined the previous Batman franchise.