Marc Webb signs to Direct New Spider-Man Trilogy

Rodney 77 Comments

Rumoured director Marc Webb will direct Sony’s reboot of the Spider-Man franchise.

Three times.

NYMag says:

Webb, whose (500) Days scored a Golden Globe nomination and whose name seems to have predestined him for this job, has long been a favorite of Columbia chairman Amy Pascal. We’re told that last year she very nearly hired him to direct the adaptation of Michael Lewis’s Moneyball after she pulled the plug on Steven Soderbergh three days before shooting. She ultimately chose Bennett Miller (Capote), thinking that Moneyball might be hurt by Webb’s whimsical style, but she views him as a latter-day Cameron Crowe for the economically and socially angsty Generation Y, and thinks he’d be perfect to explore the conflict within Parker.

The press release continues to illustrate how much they are paying Webb ($10m per film with bonus for hitting boxoffice milestones) instead of the percentage of the take like Raimi had. Maybe part of the falling out was that Sony was tired of Raimi and Maguire making so much money. It was reported that between the two of them, Spider-man 4 was going to owe them 25% of the rake.

It was also pointed out that ironicly the Agency that negotiated Webb’s deal and got him the coveted comfy chair was the same agency that pushed to get Maguire the role of Spidey himself.

I don’t mind Webb as a director for the social elements of Spiderman – that much we know he is capable of handling. But I wish they hired a director with some notion that he can handle the wit and action of a comedic comic book character.

Comment with Facebook

About Rodney

View all posts by Rodney →

You may like these posts

77 thoughts on “Marc Webb signs to Direct New Spider-Man Trilogy”

  1. Personally I think that Sam Raimi is a good director and think he should have stayed for the fourth movie. He went a little astray with the third one but still made God knows how much money for Sony so i beleive he should have stayed in order to keep with the consistency with the story. It was a good idea to get a new director for a reboot but i think it is way to soon to do a reboot. I am not sure how people will react when they are expecting a continuation of the series and then it gets brought back to high school. I think the studio went wrong with this one but it will be interesting to see what comes of it.

    1. I find it so weird when people excuse horrible movies because they make a lot of money… How is that a positive thing for audiences? Isn’t that just encouraging crap film making so long as they make a profit?

      3. Dana, every movie ever created was to make money. You’re right that none of them had great plots but at least the first two we watchable. Either way it doesn’t change the fact that just because a movie makes a lot of money doesn’t excuse it from being bad.

        And Ayser, I could not understand most of what you said, so I won’t try to reply.

  3. Everytime theres a new writer and illustrator on a comic theres some kind ofchange with the character and story especially when they re-number them(in most cases) correct?

    o.k. so this is a common thing among super heroes
    and such types of entertainment.
    when they change a writer it could turn into total shit as well. same with the artists.

    I remember the Venom comic back in the mid-2000’s they re-started over(#1)and I enjoyed it
    alot, the story, the art, and then they got some Magna Artist to take over and I hated the look.

    so this shit is the Norm.

    I’ll be happy to see another Spidey as long as his pure essense is still intact.

    1)Smart-ass, always crackin’ jokes (mostly missing w/ raimi)
    2)Always strapped for cash and takin care of Aunt May (part 2)
    3)torn between friends and Spidey duties.

    the rest will take care of itself

  4. im kind of new skul so i hate all the complete sci-fi stuff.
    they should pour some realism into these movies,thats how the dark knight was so awsum.
    in my opinion they shooooould stick 2 the comic version where spideys got super senses and makes a gadgeet for his webs
    i din completely like the last few movies cuz of that

    they should introduce real life stuff into the scrpt and make the costumes more realistic
    i laughed at the green goblin outfit.

  6. This is fucking BAD NEWS.

    NO good will come out of this.

    Sure, theres a 12% chance this guy may be able to direct Spiderman, but all hes ever done is music videos and ONE movie.

    Sony only hired the least experienced mutherfucker so they could handle him and ass-rape him into making the movie THEY want to make.

    Which is EXTREMELY sad and pathetic

    1. I fail to see how this is bad news! Maybe I’m a glass half full guy today, but after the disaster that was Spider-Man 3, I fail to see how this could get any worse. 500 days of Summer was an intelligent well paced film. It wasn’t perfect, but it was really quite good! And who knows, Webb may surprise you by not pandering to Sony’s every whim. Give the guy a shot! He can’t do any worse!

      2. I just think Spiderman is too big a franchise to take risks like these.

        Why not get a guy like Mathew Vaughn???

        They can STILL get a director that takes it up the ass AND be a good experienced one at the same time

        I think that this was seriously the worst possible move besides getting Raimi back. Worst case scenario in my honest opinion

      3. While I’m forgiving of 3 (I was never among those who flat out hated it) and, unlike some, I fail to see what the fuss over 500 Days Of Summer was about (“it’s good, but not great”, that’s where I stand on it) but I also happen to agree that Webb should be given the benefit of the doubt.

        You ant a bombshell dropping prediction? I’ll give you one.
        They’ll keep the organic shooters.

        How about two?
        They’ll keep the origin seen in the 2002 Spider-Man with minor ret-cons.

        Should we go for three?
        There will be a rewrite of the script, and the high school angle will be dropped in favor of college.

      7. The conversation is about a kid who gets bitten by a radioactive spider and is able to climb walls, lift cars, and has a 6th sense. Soooo, why is it also lame that he can shoot webbing from his arms?

      8. Because it makes no freaking sense.

        Hes juiced up not a magician.

        The best comic books always have a neat science side to them…
        theres nerds and geeks… im a nerd.
        I like my comic books having a little bit of scientific “sense” behind them. Not just “He can fly because he fucking CAN!”

        This is only my side of it though…

      11. What I dont like about the organic web is that it is disgusting. He just seems like a freak. A 6th sense, super strength and agility is all fine. Sticking to walls is a little bit freaky, but shooting webs out of your arms just takes it to a whole new level.

      12. Here’s my thoughts. I don’t agree that it’s bullshit because again, from what I’ve heard, 500 days of Summer was a great movie. And you don’t know how great it will be until it comes out.

        For example, when Zack Snyder was announced to direct Watchmen, many Watchmen fans gave up hope. But he made the right choice by saying “Fuck it” and making the movie his own way. And we ended up (well, some people ended up anyway) with a kick ass film. And he had only directed two movies beforehand.

        So again, you never know. But that’s just my opinion.

      13. Zack Snyder was perfect to direct Watchmen

        The guy that directed 300 AND loves Watchmen? He did it beautifully

        And you guys still dont get what i mean by “Making sense”

        I know its a comic book, but even in science fiction everything should hold a base of logic, a limit.
        I dont want to see Wolverine flying or Tony Stark turning invisible, but you guys are like 2 years old so no matter how i explain myself youll pull out an answer that sounds like something from the movie “Idiocracy”
        so i give up with reason. You guys are right. Lets give Spidey another superpower, the power to create ropes out of thin air, or beter yet, have them fit inside his forearm.

  7. I guess I have a problem with the term ‘reboot’ on this one. I’ve said before, just ’cause a movie isn’t “great”, to hit the redo button isn’t necessary. Sometimes a movie just doesn’t work, but life goes on – why start over? But I see a reboot as pretending the originals never happened and starting fresh with a similar story. This doesn’t seem to be the case here. They’re telling a different story, one that couldn’t be told if they continued the franchise. So not really a reboot, just a new story.

  8. Wonder if Webb will entice Joseph Gordon Levitt to play Parker? I think he’s a great actor, has enough charm to come across caring, and as witnessed on Third Rock, quite funny and witty. Only problem might be making him look young enough to play a highschooler.

    I’m in the “can’t understand the reboot instead of just continuing the story line” camp. I find it too early to start over.

  9. I can tell you that I’m not interested in a reboot. This is just plain stupid. The first 2 were great movies. Because the 3rd wasn’t so good they need a reboot? Dum and not interested. I hope it fails bigtime!

    1. The 3rd one ‘wasn’t so good’? You sir, just got nominated for the Understatement of the Year Award.

      Why would you hope it fails? Why wouldn’t you hope it surprises you and is actually good? Seems kind of masochistic to me…

      1. @”The 3rd one ‘wasn’t so good’? You sir, just got nominated for the Understatement of the Year Award.”

        People exaggerate how bad SM3 is. Sure, it was bad, but I can name some comic book films that are far worse, like Ghost Rider, Wolverine, Batman and Robin, The Spirit, Catwoman, Steel. The series could have been salvaged from that dibacle.

        I watched the film the other day, and it did have some good moments in the film.

        However, this film won’t fail, because the general audience will see it.

      2. Ok when you have to compare a film to the likes of Batman and Robin and Catwoman to make a movie look good, you know it sucks.

        And the difference between Spider-Man 3 and a lot of the films you mentioned is that SM3 followed two amazing films, whereas most of the ones you mentioned were one off bargain bin films. I’m sorry but with a ridiculous budget and a renowned director there is absolutely no excuse why it was as bad as it was. And it was bad.

      3. Oh and I also disagree about the film being salvageable. Here’s why:

        1. The Spider-Man films’ reputation and credibility have been severely hindered by the last film.
        2. Many fans are extremely disenfranchised with Spider-Man as a whole (especially after Brand New Day).
        3. There is an overall consensus that Kirsten Dunst is horrible.
        4. Many people can’t take a hero that danced for 10 minutes in the past film seriously.
        5. Gwen Stacy was JUST introduced, completely messing up the timeline. Peter probably would have had 4 potential love interests, MJ, Gwen, Miss Brant and Felicia Hardy. It would have been a mess.
        6. Vulture was pretty much confirmed as the main villain, which would have sucked. I’m sorry but if you can’t make venom look cool, how are you going to make an elderly man in a green jumpsuit and wings look cool?

      4. I cannot say I disagree with you on points 1 thru 5. But on point 6: IMO thought that venom looked pretty tight. In fact, to answer your question about making Vulture look cool: The same way they made a middle-aged chubby man with tentacles look cool. The only villian I thought was dorky-looking in the Spider-Man movies was the Original Green Goblin. He looked like a retarded Power Rangers reject.

      5. Fair enough, Doc Oc was pretty badass. Oh and you’re right about Green Goblin too. I’m still not sure about Venom though, to me he is a brute. He’s usually nearly double Peter’s size and completely overpowers him. The graphics were cool and the symbiote itself looked awesome, but the enemy and the man were just weak.

  10. It’s like announcing the new Spider-Man as having 60% LESS Spider-Man. Now it’s clear that Sony only wants to give the audience what it wants: more angst-ridden Peter Parker. Can’t wait for Emo Spidey.

    It’s now very clear that this move was all about saving money, not just on talent, but also on FX. This will probably cast with either an unknown or a supposed “up and comer” instead of a proven good actor. It’s not about making a good movie. It’s all about getting tweens to spend as much money as possible to see a high school Spider-Man while cutting costs as much as possible. Once again Sony proves that there are few real filmmakers in Hollywood anymore, only accountants.

    1. Jump to conclusions much?

      They said they like that he can connect with that generation on an emotional level. That doesn’t mean we are going to see a “more angst-ridden Peter Parker. Can’t wait for Emo Spidey.”

      And its not clear that they were only about saving money (obviously an element) but that Sony had their ideas on where to go with this franchise, and the guy they were overpaying was arguing against it.

      You assume too much from too little information. This movie hasnt even got a script or any actors and you are already writing the review.

      1. Here’s a little from the Hollywood Reporter on the subject:

        “The studio holds sequel options on Webb, who will now tackle a Jamie Vanderbilt script that sees a “Spider-Man” movie that will look and feel very different from the big movies that went before it.

        The plan for the movie is to be in the $80 million range and feature a cast of relative unknowns (so you can quash those Rob Pattinson or Gordon-Levitt rumors at this point). And the story will be pared down to center on a high school kid who is dealing with the knowledge that his uncle died even though the teen had the power to stop it.”

        I should have pointed the THR piece out in my comment.

        Nonetheless, this report says to me they want an angst-ridden Peter Parker with less Spidey visuals. At $80 mil (if that number holds), with unknowns as the main players, they are DEFINITELY trying to save cash.

        Personally, I like my comic movies to be action heavy. I thought Raimi hit a good balance, especially in the first 2.

    3. I say give Webb a shot! Cameron wasn’t always Cameron, nor was Tobey (or however the hell you spell his name) always Tobey. Everyone is unknown until the get the chance to become “known” and every actor was at one point an “up and coming” star. You have to start somewhere right?

    4. To be completely honest, Tobey wasn’t actually a proven actor or big name before Spiderman. He’d done a few movies, but most of his stuff had been TV roles. It’s not like he was RDJ taking on the role of Tony Stark or Ed Norton playing Bruce Banner.

      1. Oh you mean apart from Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, Pleasantville, Cider House Rules and Wonder Boys, right? True he wasn’t at RDJ or Ed Norton’s level, but still pretty popular. My guess is Tobey was way more experienced and popular before Spider-Man than whoever they will choose for the reboot.

      3. Actors can be replaced but when you are replacing the majority of the cast and the director it wouldn’t have the same feeling as the previous movies. Batman Forever may have technically been a sequel to the Burton films, but we see how different those movies were. As far as I am concerned Batman forever had nothing to do with the first two movies.

      4. @” Batman Forever may have technically been a sequel to the Burton films, but we see how different those movies were.”

        It wasn’t “technically” a sequel, it was a sequel.

        It doesn’t matter those who left could have been replaced.

  14. I also hope they do good. But a part of me wishes it would flop at the doorstep of hell!! I also wish that the fans would boycott this movie.

    That way Sony will finally give the property back to Marvel.

    2. That’s a bit of a jam, isn’t it?

      Even if you or I think this *****is***** the wrong way to go in terms of what the film will be about, let’s be honest. We may have a predetermination to hate it, but does that mean we won’t give the film a chance?

      If the film is a success the execs will think that’s what “we (the fans/audience) wanted. If the film tanks, they won’t make another Spidey film for another five or six years.

      See? That’s a pickle.

      The film isn’t before cameras yet, things could change. Maybe for the better. It pains me to say this. Every ounce of my being wants to get steamed over the concept. But I repeat: are we really not going to see the film and give it (and the director) a decent shot?

      Let’s see how the rest of it falls into place at least before we all go into our geekfest rants.

      1. True, Martin Campbell directed Casino Royale, a nearly out and out action flick, after directing Finding Neverland, an out and out drama. So there’s hope.

        Having said that, I hated 500 Days of Summer.

        Besides, no one knows Spidey the way Raimi does or did. And you guys might not think Maguire’s the best actor ever, but you do have to admit that he did more than a commendable job on Spiderman. He WAS Peter Parker. He WAS Spiderman. I just don’t see anybody fitting into that role again.

        I mean, seriously, think about it. Spidey going back to High School. Played by Zac Effrontery? Rob Pantyson? Shia InTheBuff? Come on, you can’t possibly see that happening…..

        Sony fucked up, simple as that.

      2. Good Lord, I should jump from somewhere. WHERE did I get that Campbell directed Finding Neverland? NOOOOO!

        That totally fucks up my credibility, doesn’t it?

        Don’t answer that :-S

        *stabs himself repeatedly in the gut.

      5. The action in Forster’s QoS was marred by poor shakycam usage, though. I wouldn’t exactly call him a good action director, just a competant one.

        I’m excited for a reboot – I didn’t like the original movies, and i HATED tobey maguire as spider-man. Completely wrong for the job.

  15. Well now we know, so I wonder if he goe’s with web shooters instead of the wrist orgasm like Raimi did, now that I think of it that was weird at first then I forgot about it, and then they could dig into the geeky scientist side that’s always in the comics and cartoons, y’know dig deeper.

    BUT I hope this dude gets the action right..

    let us pray

    1. I was disappointing at first with the web shooters being cut from the first three films, but then Marvel ended up integrating that into the mythos after the movie was released so I accepted it as an evolution of the character. Now that Marvel is back to the shooters (the entire S-M franchise is reading like an 80s reboot, it sucks) I’m hoping that they keep that piece more true to form. The web-shooters were always a good spot for humor and ingenuity. S-M had a limited amount and if he didn’t have a backup charge he was screwed. It could make fore more interesting plot devices and character moments.

Leave a Reply