Sony has to make this movie soon or the movie rights will revert back to Marvel (Which is now owned by Disney) won't they? Was that just the X-men movies?
Development isn't usually enough to satisfy the terms of the rights contract. You have to actually produce a film within the specified time frame (although the film doesn't necessarily have to be released - for example, the unreleased Fantastic Four film made in the 1990s was made for rights purposes). But Sony has some room to maneuver since the time frame in most Marvel rights contracts is five years. So as long as they make Spider-Man 4 by 2012 they'll retain the rights.If I recall correctly, you don't actually need a film itself to keep the rights from reverting, just to demonstrate that a film project is being actively developed. Which it clearly is; they're just not doing a very good job of it.
^ He meant that the next nuTrek film is slated for release mid-2011, and having Spiderman 4 out of the way would mean less competition for nuTrek.
Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman
Ah...I was thinking that Trek 2 was almost definitely a 2012 release...
Why do they need Toby and Dunst back, anyway? Nobody cares about them.
I've said it before, but I'll repeat it. When Raimi was left to his own devices to do Spider-man as he wanted, we got two great movies. In particular, Spider-man 2, the best of them, is the most Raimi-esque, with its Evil Dead-like scenes where Doc Ock's tentacles fuse with him.
The least good one is no. 3, where Avi Arad imposed a villain Sam always said he didn't want to use (Venom) and they vetoed his original choice of Vulture as the secondary villain. Laura Ziskin came up with the silly jazz club scene (much less entertaining than anything in the Fast Show ...)
You'd think it'd be a no-brainer that Raimi would thus be allowed to do Spidey 4 as he sees fit, but nope, the studio is too arrogant to learn from its mistakes. Thus we have this debacle.
However, Spider-Man 3 is the most financially successful of them all.
In worldwide box office, yes, it was:However, Spider-Man 3 is the most financially successful of them all.
Was it?
Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman
In worldwide box office, yes, it was:
Spider-Man 3 - $890,871,626
Spider-Man - $821,708,551
Spider-Man 2 - $783,766,341
In worldwide box office, yes, it was:However, Spider-Man 3 is the most financially successful of them all.
Was it?
Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman
Spider-Man 3 - $890,871,626
Spider-Man - $821,708,551
Spider-Man 2 - $783,766,341
No, those problems were legal disputes over who owned the film rights. These problems are disputes over the creative direction.Is this the same problems that caused James Cameron to drop out of directing Spider-Man too begin with?
Plus I think it's foolish of execs to assume that because a movie was a hit, fans will go to see a sequel and not to consider the word of mouth and reviews for it. A lot of people may have gone to see Spidey 3 because they enjoyed the first 2, but not go to see a 4th because they didn't like no. 3.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.