Just before Christmas rumors began to leak out of Hollywood that Sam Raini’s Spider-Man 4 had run into trouble. Nonsense, came word from Sony; the production is only on “holiday break,” all is well in Spidey-Land, and your favorite web-slinger will be swinging into your local multiplex on May 6, 2011 as planned.
What a difference a new year makes. Apparently, those rumors were true after all: Variety is reporting that sources from Sony confirm that the production is on hold, perhaps indefinitely, and that a May 2011 release is now unlikely.
The reason? It seems there are deep and perhaps intractable differences between Raimi and the studio regarding the quality of the latest script, the structure of the proposed plot, and even the choice of villain for this fourth outing. Raimi is said to be keen on the Vulture, with John Malkovich to fill the bald baddie’s bird suit. The studio, however, reportedly fears that the Vulture – an elderly character in the comics – is a poor choice of villain for a tent-pole, summer franchise film. It’s unclear whom the studio would prefer, but clearly they are angling for more ‘hip’ than ‘hip replacement’ to bedevil Peter Parker’s alter ego.
It is true that Vulture is not exactly fresh – in fact, he dates back to Spidey’s early “golden-age” rogue’s gallery. But that was also true of the Green Goblin, the villain in the first Spider-Man film, and Doc Ock, of the second. Both of those villains seem just as ridiculous on paper as the Vulture. Yet both were played by terrific character actors (Willem Dafie and Alfred Molina respectively) who infused them with genuine passion and pathos, and were fashioned into remarkably compelling film villains in Sam Raimi’s capable hands. And is it any wonder? After all, the mastermind behind the Evil Dead triliogy should know a thing or two about villains.
The first two Spider-Man films were, of course, box office and artistic triumphs. But during the making of the third installment, something went wrong – the studio reportedly pressured Raimi to include a surplus of villains, one of which, the alien symbiont Venom, he was unfamiliar with and had little interest in. The result? Spider-Man 3 was an overstuffed mess, and widely reviled by critics and fans (I know it still made gobs of money, but it would have made a lot more had it been any good).
Sony had forgotten the winning formula for comic book movies: Choose a talented director who excels in character and plot, chops usually developed toiling away for years on lower budget fare, and then let them do their job. It is a formula that gave us Chris Nolan’s Batman, Brian Singer’s X-Men, and John Favreau’s Iron Man, critical and box office darlings all.
Sony ignored this formula at their detriment, and they are apparently hell-bent on repeating this mistake. It reminds me of Congressional logic, which seems to go something like this: Government messing things up? Let’s have more government! I suppose if there is one group likely to be even more dunder-headed than Congress, it would be Hollywood studio executives.
If Sony is wise, they would bring Sam Raimi into their plush offices, sit him down, offer him the beverage of his choice, and say, “Sam, you make awesome movies, and you’ve made us a shit load of money. Tell us what you need to make another Spider-man, and you’ve got it.” Of course, they won’t do that, anymore than Congress will get their snout out of our affairs.
The result in both instances will be suitably, predictably, disastrous.
(Authors Note: Happy Birthday to Big Hollywood, and congratulations to Andrew Breitbart, our esteemed editor John Nolte, Alex Marlow, and all my fellow Big Hollywood contributors. It is an honor and a blast to be in your company.)
COMMENTS
Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.