Spider-Man 4 In Trouble
Thu, December 17, 2009 
UPDATE: Super Hero Hype has received word from their sources within Sony that the delay is 100% related to a break for the holidays. Nothing more, nothing less. Work will get back up at the start of next year. Meanwhile, Aint It Cool News reports they heard similiar rumblings to what IESB first reported. Take all of that for what you will.
When you hear a movie is on "indefinite hold," its prospects of crawling out of Development Hell don’t sound encouraging. If the film in question is Spider-Man 4, it makes matters worse. We’re talking hundreds of millions of dollars and the career projectory of studio executives on the line here. Correction, I meant to say Spider-M4n. Yeah...
The good folks over at IESB have the exclusive lowdown. Even though production was long said to commence in the early months of next year, there is still no script. Yikes. In fact, there’s yet to be an agreement between Sam Raimi and Sony over which villain to use.
The director wants Vulture as reported earlier this month. Sorry, but that Vultress bit sounded like bullshit. The studio, on the other hand, would prefer a villain who wasn’t as "out there" looking. Not that I was against using him, but I can sympathize with Sony. Shouldn't they have already settled on this forever ago?
Furthermore, things are said to be getting pretty heated with plenty of "very pissed off" people involved in the production. One assumes Mr. Raimi is among them. In fact, a number of departments have been told to stop work until all of this gets sorted out.
With the film scheduled for a May 6, 2011 release and these productions starting up way ahead of time in order to finish the effects work, the longer this drags out the less likely this becomes. Let me rephrase that. It becomes less likely that a Sam Raimi directed Spider-M4n happens.
Then again, this could explain why Tobey Maguire is suddenly being looked at for The Hobbit.
Reader Comments (14)
Yeah but IESB.net isn't credible...
I wouldn't be surprised at all if this were true.
@Jonathan
They know their shit, bud.
Whether it is true or not, it isn't like the studio would admit to it anyway.
Why are you...?
Why...
Jamie, I'm shocked at you. Why in your update would you suggest that Sony is suggesting spin ("Take all of that for what you will.") and why in your update you didn't mention that Maguire is refuting the Hobbit talk?
To analyze at face value:
1) The rumor doesn't hold up to logic. It does not matter if Raimi uses Vulture, Black Cat or Hammerhead. By the time the film comes out, the villain of choice will be heavily promoted through varied tie-in merchandise. If popular enough, that character will also be back in a commic books rotation somehow. Also, a "popular character" now may not be popular two years from now. In fact, one such character -Menace- is another variation on The Green Goblin. Yes, that'll go over well.
2) A script is never completely finished. There are tweaks here and there. They still have a good two to three months to work it out- or even a new draft if they had to. On the flip side, maybe it is to make something better. I would not rule out either scenerio, but either scenerio hardly means that a film is in trouble.
3) Spider-Man makes Marvel money. It's printed money for Sony. Even the mixed reaction on the third film still made coin. Raimi has proven himself. Now, out of the blue, Sony just second guesses him?
4) Why not talk to Vanderbuilt whathisname who is working on 5 and 6? (He wrote an early draft of 4) and say to him 'write so-and-so" in?
See, Jamie? The newsbit rumor makes no common sense whatsoever. Yet you imply Sony's out for spin. Damage control and setting the record straight is more like it. They don't have anything to cover up. Hell, why not just confirm it if it were so? Or delayed for another reason? No. But the truth is "spin" and it makes me peeved just a slight bit when nobody can set the record straight and squash misleading rumors. You hear it from the horse's mouth, but who wants to listen?
No Jamie, they don't "know their shit." This would be the first time they were right in a long time if this is true. They were wrong about a Superman film being fast tracked when they swore up and down that it was true. Just because Robert Sanchez is one of your buds doesn't mean he's right.
@Darren,
The way you make it sound, the studio can wait just before filming starts before they decide on the villain. That's only unrealistic as Hell, my friend. These productions need time to cast the character, do various tests (i.e. motion-capture work, costume fittings, etc.) and so on. You do realize that studio reps, actors, producers, etc. lie all.the.time. about deals currently in development. That's their job. Can't just take it at face value.
@Jonathan,
That has absolutely nothing to do with anything. You just don't like the information, bud. So it's attack the messenger instead of the message. Do they have a bullet proof track-record? No. Neither do we or anyone else. But they do in fact know what they're talking about. Still don't like it? Meh.
Studios rarely if ever confirm that a project is dead until months later if that, the cast and crew follow that same "company line" for the most part. Studios lie, publicists lie, actors lie, and so on. Whether Rob is right or not will play out over time, just like anything else. Jumping out and saying Rob is wrong is kind of ridiculous at this point. Wait till it plays out. We'll see if he was wrong or right.
Fans who want Spiderman 4 to happen will not want to listen to this news, people who aren't in favor of the project will revel in this news.
Patience. Then we can be dicks about it and say "you're an idiot you were wrong" and "shut the hell up."
You know what I meant, Jamie. I am not that dull. I know studios need x amount of time to work on certain things, especially big budget genre films such as this one. I wasn't born yesterday.
"You do realize that studio reps, actors, producers, etc. lie all.the.time. about deals currently in development. That's their job."
Jamie, I take that back. seems I was born yesterday. It seems I am under this illusion that nobody can tell the truth or give an honest answer. When an actor, such as Racheal McAdams, says "She's not going to be in Spider-Man 4"
either she is telling the truth or she isn't. Is it her job to lie, or is it her job to say 'I was never asked'?
Let me put it to you this way: do you buy this story of the studio wanting to ditch The Vulture in favor of a more current character? After all this time of develping a script? Talking with Raimi? Talking with Grant Curtis? Marvel? Just out of the blue ditch the majority of the current story?
(Personally, since they are tight lipped on the Vultress thing I'd be more concerned about that- what a golden opporuntity to talk about that angle and confirm or deny that...but I guess if they did, we would not believe them because "the job is to lie")
"
Maybe it's me and I'm just an optimist. But I don't think "studio reps, actors, producers, etc. lie all.the.time. about deals currently in development." Not all the time, anyway. And not everyone. So yes, I do take that statement at face value, because it's clear The Vulture is the main adversary. It seems to me that some work (at least in the design process) has already been done.
Of course, there is that odd possibility, however unlikely, that, like former Scorpion Mac Gargan became a new Venom, that Black Cat Felicia Hardy becomes Vultress in the comics, and Sam didn't like the idea...,
In any case, I don't think the studio is stalling by any means.
" That's only unrealistic as Hell, my friend"
And every film is different. Sure, this is Spidey 4 and not a Lethal weapon sequel (those sequels were notorious for boasting of filming with 'unfinished' scripts)
And I'm talking about the writing process in general. Scripts get small revisions during and before filming all the time.
IESB might get it right every now and again but that doesn't make them credible. They might "know their shit" to a certain extent but they can't be called credible for that.
Well Jonathan, what site would be credible by that token. No site has a 100% track record, so I'm not sure how you would define credible. More right than wrong? I'm not saying that this is definitely going to pan out and Raimi is gone, but I would like to see this play out. If the production ends up going forward, then we can say "How can IESB not know the difference between a holiday hiatus and a indefinite hold?" The question is, if IESB indeed turns out to be correct, then what do we say?
Credible to me is being right MOST of the time and if they're right this time then we'll say "They were right this time." LOL
So Jonathan, is Nikki Finke and Variety not credible either?
Darren does the news no longer make sense?
Interested to hear your reactions, now that Finke and Variety are piggbacking on Rob @ IESB's info.