I can hear the howls now. Not another horror remake and one of a classic in the genre that many fans consider one of the holy grails of horror cinema. Guess what I say to those people. SHUT THE FUCK UP!
With the complete blessing from both Sam Raimi and Bruce “Who is God when he wants to walk amongst his creations” Campbell and them back but in the role of producers and mentor to the remake’s director, Fede Alvarez, and the young ensemble cast I have much more faith with this particular horror remake than others of its kind.
The trailer itself looks to go on the far extreme on the horror side of the original. I didn’t get a sense of much of the black humor of the original film (and it’s subsequent semi-remake), but I think that’s a good thing. Why remake a classic beat for beat when one can go their own way and explore something even the original never did.
One thing I can say about this full red band trailer that has me jumping up and down like a horror fan on bath salts…
VIOLENTLY AMOROUS TREE: Check!
LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS OF BLOOD: Check!
GRAPHIC DISMEMBERMENT: Check!
CHAINSAW: Check!
DEADITE POSSESSIONS: Check!
FACE-EATING (or Extreme GIRL-ON-GIRL MAKE-OUT SESSION: Check and Check!
Evil Dead lands it’s bloody, possessed corpse on everyone this April 12, 2013. Until then….
Horror remakes is almost as old as the history of film. I’ve tried to educate those who complain that another horror classic was being remade and it will suck. Guess what horror classics have always been remade and they don’t always suck. So, instead of telling these snobs to go in their rooms and drool and jerk one off to their classics they don’t want tarnished by a remake I just shake my head and try to see if the remake holds up to the original or, better yet, judge the remake on it’s own creative merits and see if it brings something new to the “classic” original.
In 2013 we see one such horror remake arriving on the big-screen with Fede Alvarez’s new take on a true horror and grindhouse classic horror, The Evil Dead.
The film will be produced by two of the same people who made the original film in Sam Raimi and Bruce “God when walking amongst the humans he created” Campbell. There will not be a character named Ash, but the role of Mia (played by Jane Levy) will take on a similar role in the film. This trailer first premiered for a select audience during this year’s New York Comic-Con and the response was loud, louder and even louder. One thing which everyone who saw the trailer seemed to agree was that the remake looks to honor the original film (rushing POV tracking shots to the oppressive atmosphere throughout the film) while also giving director Fede Alvarez a chance to add his own visual and narrative style to the production.
It is going to be a gory remake and very oppressive and nihilistic. What the trailer doesn’t seem to hint at is any sign of dark humor that fans of the original film are now nitpicking about. Guess what…the original was straight up grindhouse horror that had nothing humorous about (well unless you consider a possessed tree raping a woman as being hilarious). So, it’s going to be interesting to see if this remake will get a chance to impress the fans of the original while at the same time show those new to the horror genre a glimpse at what 70’s horror was really all about.
With the recent announcement that Gary Ross will not be directing Catching Fire, the second film in The Hunger Games trilogy, there’s been a lot of online speculation has started as to who will take his place. Since I was bored at work, I spent an hour or two reading some of that speculation. Needless to say, a lot of names are being tossed around and some are a lot more plausible than others. However, a few names seem to be mentioned more often than others.
Speaking for myself, I don’t think that the loss of Gary Ross is going to really hurt the sequel, financially or artistically.
Financially, people are going to see the sequel regardless of who directs it and, quite frankly, I doubt many people went to the Hunger Games because they just couldn’t wait to see Gary Ross’s follow-up to Seabiscuit.
From an artistic point of view, the main reason that I loved the Hunger Games was because, after years of seeing blockbuster movies where being female was essentially the same as being helpless and insipid, it was so refreshing to see a film about a strong, independent young woman who is concerned about something more than just keeping her boyfriend happy. In short, I loved The Hunger Games because of Jennifer Lawrence’s performance as Katniss Everdeen. In short, Gary Ross was about as important to The Hunger Games franchise as Chris Columbus was to the Harry Potter films.
As for who the new director is going to be, here’s some of the more interesting names that I’ve seen mentioned:
Danny Boyle is one of my favorite directors of all time and he’s certainly showed that he can create entertaining films that both challenge conventional and force you to think. As well, directing the opening ceremonies for the London Olympics and, if that’s not good training for the Hunger Games then what is?
J.J. Abrams is a far more conventional director than Danny Boyle but he’s also proven that he can make blockbuster films that don’t necessarily insult one’s intelligence. Add to that, he created Alias and he deserves a lot of credit for that.
As the only woman to ever win best director, Kathryn Bigelow is an obvious choice for a franchise that is ultimately all about empowerment. Plus, she’s proven she can handle action films and I think it would be a neat if, under her direction, Catching Fire made more money than Avatar.
Sofia Coppola, who should have won an Oscar for Lost in Translation, would bring a definitely lyrical quality to Catching Fire and, if nothing else. her version would be amazing to look at. Add to that, Sofia Coppola deserves to have at least one blockbuster on her resume. (Yes, I know a lot of you people hated Somewhere but you know what? You’re wrong and I’m right.)
Alfonso Cuaron has proven, with Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azbakan, that he can step into a franchise without sacrificing his own individual vision. Children of Men shows that he can create a realistic dystopian future.
Debra Granik is best-known for directing Jennifer Lawrence in Winter’s Bone. If not for Granik, Katniss Everdeen could have very easily ended up being played by Kristen Stewart.
Catherine Hardwicke is, of course, best known for directing the first Twilight film and a lot of people will never forgive her for that. And you know what? That’s really not fair to Hardwicke. Say what you will about Twilight, the film was actually pretty well-directed and Red Riding Hood is one of the unacknowledged masterpieces of 2011. (No, really…) Finally, Hardwicke directed Thirteen, one of the best films ever made. Hardwicke’s Catching Fire probably wouldn’t be critically acclaimed but it would be a lot of fun.
Patty Jenkins is one of the more surprising names that I saw mentioned on several sites. Jenkins is best known for directing the ultra-depressing Monster as well as the atmospheric pilot for AMC’s The Killing. Apparently she was also, for a while, signed up to direct Thor 2, which would suggest that she can handle blockbuster action. Of course, she was also fired from Thor 2.
Mike Newell directed the best of the Harry Potter films (Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire) and has shown that he can handle action and spectacle. He’s also directed Mona Lisa Smile, which is one of my favorite films of all time.
Sam Raimi would turn Catching Fire into a thrill ride. While you would lose a lot of the story’s subtext, the film would certainly not be boring. Add to that, Raimi directing would increase the chances of a Bruce Campbell cameo.
To be honest, I haven’t seen anyone mention the name of Mark Romanek so I’m going to mention him because I think he’s great and that Never Let Me Go was one of the best films of 2010. Add to that, he actually played an important role in my life in that I can still remember being 12 years old, seeing his video for Fiona Apple’s Criminal, and going, “That’s what I’m going to do once I get to high school…”
Julie Taymor is best known as a theatrical director but her films have all been distinguished by a strong, individualistic vision. More people need to see her film version of The Tempest.
Susanna White, though not well-known, was a contender to direct The Hunger Games before the job went to Gary Ross. White got her start working with the BBC before coming over to America to direct episodes of Generation Kill and Boardwalk Empire for HBO. She was also a contender to director another film based on YA literature, The Host.
With Hanna, Joe Wright gave us the best film of 2011 (regardless of what the Academy thinks) and he’s proven that he knows how to mix empowerment and action.
There are other names in contention, of course. I’ve seen everyone from Stephen Soderbergh (bleh, to be honest) to Rob Zombie mentioned. Arleigh suggested both James Cameron and David Fincher but I think he was mostly doing that to annoy me. Someone on twitter (may have been me) mentioned Tyler Perry and then laughed and laughed. However, the 14 names above are the ones that I find to be the most interesting and/or plausible.
So, who do you think would be a the best director for Catching Fire?
As for me and who I would like to so direct the film, I think that the director of Catching Fire should be a woman because Catching Fire is, ultimately, a story about empowerment. I also think that characterization is far more important than action so I’m not as concerned about whether or not the director has a history of blowing things up onscreen. Instead, what the franchise needs is a strong, female director with an eye for detail and a strong appreciation for what film is capable of accomplishing as an art form.
As I haven’t been to the movies lately, I’m working on reviews of older films I’ve seen.
A long time ago, just after Tim Burton’s Batman and before Spielberg’s Jurassic Park, Sam Raimi came up with the idea of making his own superhero movie. Supposedly, he had tried to get a hold of both Batman and The Shadow (which eventually went on to Highlander’s Russell Mulcahy), but wasn’t able to. As a result, Darkman was created. I never mind watching it or recommending it, as long as the viewer realizes they’re not shooting for Oscar Winning material here.
Darkman was a strange film. It wasn’t really marketed very well, evidenced in the simple “Who is Darkman?” posters that I remembered seeing on the sides of buses. I don’t recall there being any kind of commercials for the movie. While the movie did alright (and even spawned 2 sequels), I never thought of it as a great success. It still is, despite its flaws, a good film. Well, for someone at 15, it was good.
In Darkman, Peyton Westlake (Liam Neeson) is a gifted scientist that has just about everything. He has a great girlfriend in Julie (Frances McDormand), who’s doing well in her job and he’s on the verge of a major breakthrough in developing a new synthetic skin. If he could only solve the problem where the skin apparently decays in light after 99 minutes. Soon after realizing the flaw in his project, he is attacked a group of criminals (lead by Larry Drake in a great role), burned with his own chemicals and his lab is set ablaze. Left for dead, he’s found and brought to a hospital. They’re able to confirm that he’ll live, but he’s also horribly scarred, has no sensation in his nerves (meaning he feels no pain), and will need skin grafts for the rest of this life. The result of all this trauma is also a bit of mental damage. Westlake breaks free of the hospital, resurrects his lab, and decides to get revenge for what was done to him. The synthetic skin technique now allows him to assume the appearance of anyone he chooses (as long as he has a picture of them, of course). He can wear a disguise for up to 99 minutes in direct sunlight, else his face begins to melt.
One thing I like about some of Sam Raimi’s films is that they’re just strange in some ways. Not Cronenberg strange (that’s just creepy sometimes), but they tend to have some weird elements. He likes to throw things into the camera, whether it’s someone’s face or an object. He’s also into these extreme zoom shots where he’ll have the camera low and bring it racing towards it’s subject. At the time the movie came out, my parents gave me a Camcorder. I did a lot of similar shots, chasing the cats around the house with the camera hovering a few inches off of the floor. I’ll admit it, it was pretty effective here.
Some of the acting was okay in Darkman. I particularly liked Larry Drake at the time because he seemed so different from the character he played on L.A. Law at the time, but everyone else here seemed like they were playing up their roles and in some cases, taking themselves far more seriously than they should have. Some scenes didn’t even make sense to me and felt like filler. I get that Westlake was just a little bonkers, but the whole “See the Dancing Freak” song and dance routine kind of left me with a “What the hell?” expression. Frances McDormand seemed to almost whine on cue (though I guess if I had a love one come back from the dead, I’d be a little shocked too). Colin Friels’ villain caused my family to collectively snicker and groan when at one part, he exclaims “Because I built it!!! I built it all!!” It was just all very strange. M. Night Shyamalan did something similar with The Happening, but for me, this really worked better in Darkman’s favor. Since the acting is so campy, the movie never really tries to make itself out to be Dark Knight / Captain America piece.
If you’re looking at it logically, there’s really no way that Westlake should have been able to pull off half of the disguises he used. You’ve height and weight to consider, and last I checked, Liam Neeson and Larry Drake really had two different body types. Where’d he get all the extra bulk, one has to wonder? Extra clothing, perhaps?
If Darkman has anything going for it, it’s the music. At the time, Danny Elfman was riding the high he had off of movies like Batman, Midnight Run, Dick Tracy and Nightbreed. While Edward Scissorhands remains the strongest score he had that year, Darkman has a number of nice action cues mixed with some somber tones. It helps to carry the film, somewhat.
Overall, Darkman was an interesting look at Sam Raimi’s approach to a superhero. It may have also been one of the key factors in securing the directing duties on the Spider-Man movies in the early 2000’s, which was far superior to this film. If nothing else, it’s worth a laugh or two.
Earlier today, when I was talking about which trailers I was thinking of including in this edition, Jeff asked me if I had included any Sonny Chiba trailers. The way he asked the question seemed to indicate that it was the most important thing he had ever asked so, understandably, I was a little nervous when I answered, “N-no, I don’t think so.”
Well, apparently, that wasn’t the right answer because Jeff’s eyes just about popped out of his head and he’s lucky that he’s s0 cute because I might otherwise have taken his reaction personally. Instead of taking offense, I’m going to start this edition off with Sonny Chiba in The Streetfighter.
This one is from one of the great, unacknowledged directors of British cinema, Peter Walker. I think it’s always strange for Americans to hear grindhouse dialogue being delivered in an English accent.
This is a trailer for an Italian film that is also known as “House 4,” “Witchcraft,” “Ghost House,” and “Demons 5.” In Italy, it was promoted as a sequel to Sam Raimi’s Evil Dead 2. For all I know, they may have tried to sell this as an installment in the Zombi series as well. I saw this film a few years ago when I was first starting to explore the world of Italian horror and oh my God, it gave me nightmares. Seriously, don’t let the presence of David Hasselhoff fool you. This is a disturbing movie that was produced (and some day actually directed) by the infamous Joe D’Amato.
Apparently, the trailer is disturbing as well as I tried to show it to my sister Erin earlier and she asked me stop it around the time the gentleman with the weird mouth showed up.
“Even a peaceful man…can get fighting mad!” Peter Fonda looked good playing archer. This is an early film from Jonathan Demme who directed one of my favorite films ever, Rachel Getting Married.
I’m scared to death of rollercoasters so I probably won’t be seeing this film anytime soon. Still this film has a surprisingly good cast — George Segal, Richard Widmark, Henry Fonda — for a movie about a rollercoaster.
Not to be confused with Crazy Mama or Bloody Mama, Big Bad Mama features Angie Dickinson, Tom Skerritt, William Shatner, and a lot of tommy guns. It’s not a great film but it is a lot more fun than Public Enemies.
There are exactly two things that keep Sam Raimi’s otherwise entertaining 2009 horror romp Drag Me To Hellfrom being a classic.
The first is that, about halfway through the movie, Alison Lohman murders her pet kitten. Admittedly, Lohman’s character is trying to thwart a gypsy curse at the time and the action does show just how terrified she’s become. But that doesn’t change the fact that it’s a cute kitten and quite frankly, I’m getting sick of seeing cats being killed in horror films. There’s something truly hypocritical about how far most filmmakers are willing to go to assure an audience that a dog has somehow survived the end of the world while cats are continually killed on-screen without a second thought.
Am I saying that the film would have been better is Lohman had murdered a cute puppy instead? Yes, I am. At least that would have been unexpected. That would have let the audience know that all the rules no longer applied. Quite frankly, whenever you see a cat in a horror film, you know that cat is going to end up either pinned to a door or hanging in the closet. Dogs, however, always make it to the end.
I imagine this is because there’s more “dog people” than “cat people” in the world. People — especially men of a certain age — just love dogs and I’ve never really understood why. I guess there’s a charm to a loud, smelly, slobbering beast eating its own fecal matter that I’ve never been able to pick up on.
The second thing that keeps Drag Me To Hell from reaching classic status is the fact that Bruce Campbell is nowhere to be found, making this the 1st Raimi film not to feature Bruce in at least a cameo. Regardless of how well-made or entertaining the movie may have been, I sat through the entire thing waiting for Bruce to show up and, when he didn’t, it was hard not to feel as if perhaps an era in filmmaking had come to an end.
However, despite these two issues, Drag Me To Hell is probably one of the best horror movies to have been released in the past few years. If nothing else, it proves that, even after directing three Spiderman films, Raimi is still a B-movie director at heart and a brilliant one at that.
In Drag Me To Hell, Alison Lohman plays Christine, a young bank loan officer who, attempting to impress her boss and win a promotion, refuses to give a loan to a decrepit old gypsy woman (played, wonderfully, by Lorna Raver as the type of grotesque character who could only appear in a Raimi film). The gypsy woman responds by promptly dying but before doing so, she puts a curse on Christine. In three days, Christine will be dragged to Hell.
What makes this is so effective is that Raimi, as opposed to a less adventurous director, sets the film up to suggest that perhaps Christine deserves to be dragged to Hell. As disgusting as the old woman is, she clearly doesn’t deserve to be treated as badly as she is by Christine and Christine herself (even before she kills that poor kitten) is a bit of a fake, a former “fat girl” who, when she lets her guard down, reverts back to a country hick accent that she’s obviously spent a lot of time trying to lose.
Lohman does an excellent job in the lead role, giving a likeable performance as an unlikeable character. Speaking as a former country girl who still occasionally feels a twinge of shame when I hear myself say “git” instead of “get,” one of my pet peeves is when an actor or actress trots out an unconvincing, patronizing attempt at a rural accent. However, Lohman captures the accent perfectly and, unlike most actors who try to play country, never allows her performance to just be about doing dialect. Instead, both she and Raimi show how Christine’s insecurities lead to her actions without ever suggesting that they excuse them.
Though absence of Bruce Campbell is painfully obvious, Raimi still surrounds Lohman with a very strong supporting cast who all bring just the right amount of B-movie seriousness to their roles. As Raver’s daughter, Bojana Novakovic appears in one the film’s best scenes in which she tauntingly explains the cure to Lohman. Dileep Rao (who would be wasted later that year in Avatar) steals almost every scene he’s in as a friendly psychic who tries to help Lohman. Lohman’s boyfriend is played by Justin Long (of the “I’m a Mac” fame) and he’s perfect as a somewhat nerdy guy who, quite frankly, seems like he might be a little bit too nice for his own good. Plus, the film’s final scene proves that Long can shed a tear with the best of them. Bruce Campbell would have been ideally cast as Lohman’s boss but, in Campbell’s absence, David Paymer fills the role well enough.
When Drag Me To Hell was first released in 2009, the majority of reviews described it as being an entertaining throwback to the old school horror films of the 50s and 60s. And, in many ways, this is a totally correct assessment. What wasn’t often mentioned was that Drag Me To Hell is one of the very few Hollywood horror films to capture the chaotic spirit of H.P. Lovecraft. Countless filmmakers have attempted to bring Lovecraft’s Cthulhu mythos to the screen and they’ve failed because they could never translate to the screen Lovecraft’s theme of mankind as a bunch of powerless pawns, existing and dying at the whims of a bunch of “demons” whose motivations could never be understood or questioned. Though Drag Me To Hell is not based on Lovecraft’s work, it perfectly captures the feeling of helplessness in the face of metaphysical chaos that runs through Lovecraft’s best stories. As the movie progresses, it becomes apparent that Christine isn’t going to be dragged to Hell so much because of the gypsy curse as much as just because the movie’s demon has decided to drag her to Hell. It’s this theme (and the way that Raimi relentlessly develops it) that takes Drag Me To Hell to a whole other level and which makes its final scene so powerful and effective.
When first released, Drag Me To Hell’s special effects were criticized by some and it is true that the film’s demon, when he does show up, is an obvious CGI creation but who cares? If anything, the obvious fakeness of the demon adds to the film’s exploitation charm (though the demon is probably another role that Bruce Campbell could have done wonders with). If you want perfect CGI devoid of subtext or originality, Avatar’s out on DVD. Me, I’ll take Drag Me To Hell any day.
Now that Guillermo Del Toro has made it official that he’s leaving The Hobbit as director there’s now a scramble to find who will be replacing him on the project. Del Toro was universally hailed as the best choice the first time around when Peter Jackson made it known that he would only produce the two-part film and not get back to directing them. The many delays due to MGM’s financial troubles, script still not completed and casting still not done forced GDT to back away and could shelve the project for good.
The only thing keeping the project afloat is the fact that this project has a major fan-base already clamoring to see it made. With the huge success both critically and commercially of Jackson’s The Lord of the Rings Trilogy this two-part film adaptation of The Hobbit is pretty much a lock to do the same in the hands of the right filmmaker.
Jackson and studio heads holding the rights to the project will not want just any director. While Peter Jackson was still a little-known director and an outsider from the Hollywood scene when he began work on the original trilogy, this time around studio people will want a marketable name or, at the very least, a filmmaker who has the skills to follow Jackson’s work. Guillermo Del Toro was the perfect choice now someone else has to take up the baton.
Some have mentioned Peter Jackson as the only choice if he’d back off comments that he won’t direct but only produce. There’s a camp that say now’s the time to sign Sam Raimi who recently has left another mega-franchise and now available. Raimi is an interesting choice in that knows how to handle huge blockbuster projects and he definitely needs a home-run to follow-up a bad end as helmer of the Spider-Man franchise.
Another name to come up which I would welcome if Jackson doesn’t return as director is Guillermo Del Toro’s fellow countryman and one of his best friends: Alfonso Cuaron. Cuaron has shown himself to be one of his generation’s best. He’s done fantasy as helmer of the third Harry Potter film (universally seen as the best in the franchise) and may see tackling this blockbuster project as a major artistic challenge. I, for one, would hope Cuaron takes the job if offered.
The one dark horse name which has begun making the rumor mill about who may replace GDT is Jackson’s own protege, wunderkind filmmaker Neill Blomkamp. He’s worked with Jackson already and his first feature-length film, District 9, shows he has the storytelling and directing chops. The only drawback to him accepting the job if offered is that this will be a major-budgeted studio film which means it could turn into another Halo-clusterfuck where he commits and the project dies due to problems within the studio.
Other filmmakers have been mentioned like Brad Bird, Jean-Pierre Jeunet, Andrew Adamson, Tim Burton and Peter Weir just to name a few. In the end, my money is on either Jackson just taking the reins on the film if he thinks no one else would give the necessary commitment to the project it deserves, Cuaron takes on the job as a way to challenge himself or Jackson protege Blomkamp tackling something bigger as a way to add more cred to his growing reputation as one of the best young filmmaker of his generation.
Who do you think should take charge of The Hobbit now that Guillermo Del Toro has left?
Sad news for Tolkien fans worldwide as Guillermo Del Toro has announced that he will be leaving the planned two-part film project to adapt J.R.R. Tolkien’s classic novel, The Hobbit. As his announcement on TheOneRing.Net explains the many delays to the start of the project has made his role as director to the two films untenable. He had signed up to spend three years in New Zealand to do the films and has even moved his family to have them closer to him during the process, but the constant delays to getting an official start date would mean he would need to spend double the time he had originally signed up for.
These delays have made him put on the backburner his own film projects which seem very close and dear to him. He still has to finish off his Spanish Civil War Trilogy (The Devil’s Backbone and Pan’s Labyrinth being the first two). There’s also his wish to do a third Hellboy film (the second film setting up what could be an epic closing to the franchise). Then there’s his dream project to bring to the big-screen a film adaptation of H.P. Lovecraft’s novella, At the Mountains of Madness.
With Del Toro now gone as headliner for the two Hobbit films there’s surely going to be new rumors about who shall replace him. There was major scuttlebutt that Sam Raimi was in the running in the beginning before Del Toro signed on. I wouldn’t be surprised if Raimi’s name came up once again. He definitely has free time now that he’s off the Spider-Man franchise. Will Jackson do another “out of left field” decision and tap Blomkamp to take over for Del Toro. I think that’s a brave move if it happens, but also one that could backfire and stunt Blomkamp’s career. He’s already been part of plans to adapt a major franchise only to have it taken away from him.
In the end, it looks like The Hobbit may just end up not being made or, at the very least, not make a 2012 release date many insiders have set it two-part film for.
It looks like the one major comic book film franchise of the last decade has started to fall apart.
The past couple weeks have seen news of the disagreements between the Spider-Man franchise’s only director (Sam Raimi) and it’s studio (Sony Pictures) ranging from script ideas to who should be the main villain of the fourth installment in the series. Raimi’s been very insistent in using the classic Spider-Man villains such as Green Goblin, Doctor Octopus and, in the third film, Sandman. The studio wants the newer villains such as Venom and Carnage (two villains I thought were given too much press by comic book fans of the younger generation).
With the fourth film’s start date for filming having been delayed the targeted release date for the film on May 2011 wouldn’t be met. Visual-effects teams and houses have been told not to start work. It is these production teams who need the most time to do their work and the fact that they’ve been told not to even start pre-prod work means the delay will most likely affect not just the targeted date of 2011, but probably it’s new release date of 2012 (FX quality could suffer if rushed for the latter which Sony may just take a chance on).
All these delays and postponements have just cost the franchise it’s two most visible frontmen. Director Sam Raimi and Tobey Maguire (the only actor to play Peter Parker in all three films) are not out of the fourth film. Sony looks to reboot the franchise with a new director and a new lead actor as they move forward to try and make a 2012 release.
Will taking in a new director and a new lead mean a fourth film in the franchise that will have less of a budget to work with (the three films averaged between 150-250 million budget per)? Is Sony trying to rush this fourth film and giving up on the franchise’s only director and lead actor to try and keep their licensing rights to the franchise? Will Marvel (now a subsidiary of Disney Corp.) play hardball with Sony and the other studios which hold the licensing rights to Marvel characters?
While the third Spider-Man film wasn’t on the same level in terms of quality as the first two it still made a ton of money. One would think that a studio such as Sony would listen to the director who actually made the franchise become a juggernaut when summertime comes around. As a company Sony has made many missteps in their consumer and entertainment divisions. The struggle between studio and filmmaker may just have started the death-knell to the franchise which ushered in the Golden Age of comic book-based films.
Only time will tell, but unless Sony is able to get a director who can bring in the sort of inventive and imaginative vision to the franchise and a lead actor who can easily step into Maguire’s shoes and make audiences forget about the change, then I see this franchise heading down a fast slope into B-movie territory. A development which would further cement Marvel’s desire to take back all it’s properties under it’s fold.
Through the Shattered Lens 