Why didn't Sony simply recast rather than completely

>>94824354
Because it's Sony.

Because they wanted to appeal to younger audiences by having Peter be back in high school.

Because you don't recast a main character. THE main character.

File: James-Bond-Actors-All-Picture.jpg (71KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 1280x720px

>>94824521

Because Spider-Man 3 was a disaster?

>>94824614
>$1.2 billion inflation-adjusted box office
>generally positive reviews though lower than the two previous two
>the cast and crew (as revealed on the DVD commentary) were totally up for another film
>advances in technology meant that you could do a good Spider-Man movie with about half the third's budget (fucking Sandman and Venom are budget-hogs)
>"disaster"

>>94824590
James Bond gets explained away as just being a code name. Peter Parker isn't.

>>94824590
different agents same codename

>>94824590
Bond (the character) doesn't need to be tied to a particular look. When you put a face to an iconic character like Spider-Man, any deviation will change that,

Also, a majority of the time, when they re-cast Bonds, they kept similar elements, but reset the story.

>>94824354
Spider-man 3 was bad but they probably could have kept going with the Raimi Spider-mans if they really wanted too. ASM was complete trash though, it needed to be put down.

>>94824521

but....they did with a reboot. Batman went from Keaton to Kilmer to Clooney. I think audiences could have handled a recasted spider-man.

>>94824590
I would pay to see young Sean Connery play spiderman.

>>94824643
>>the cast and crew (as revealed on the DVD commentary) were totally up for another film

Were they? I could've sworn I hear otherwise. Maybe they were talking it up for the sake of the commentary?

>>94824668
>>94824674

Nope.

>>94824682
Your wording makes it sound like you're suggesting that James Bond isn't an iconic character.

>>94824711

Tobey, Kirsten and Sam were down for a 4th and even 5th and 6th Spider-man movies. They looked into filming some back to back to save money. Sony wanted Spider-man out by 2010 and were looking into delaying till 2011 and Rami wanted more time..... and instead of delaying Spider-man 4, they delayed anyway for a reboot. It's insane to me to think we could have had Spider-man 4 in 2012 if Sony was paitient possibly even spider-man 5 and 6 in 2014 and 2015 and.... who knows if a MCU deal would have happened. Imagine civil war with Tobey Maguire.

>>94824799
>Imagine civil war with Tobey Maguire.

Ehh I like Sam Raimi but there was never anything particuarly good about Maguire as Spider-man. The new MCU kid is way better.

The only real loss is that we no longer have J.K. Simmons as Jameson.

>>94824799
Those movies were on a downward slide though.
Spiderman 6 would've been a 40 year old Maguire playing a 20 something.
Unless they actually allowed Parker to mature for once.

>>94824786
I didn't mean that.
At the time of the Raimi series, and because the movies were good and popular, people expected Peter to look like Tobey Maguire. Any differentiation from that ovbiously would upset the flow that series was setting up, and it did.

Each Bond movie could have been a standalone movie with it's own separated story. The Spider-Man movies were a connected story, and for that, you need similarities. If you break connections, audiences will notice. e.g. Rachael in the Nolan Batman movies.

>>94824354
The Raimi movies sucked dick.

>>94824946
Well in the case, I'm glad we've had a few different Peters/Spider-Men now. I don't feel like a character like that should be tied to an actor. But that's definitely a good point you raise.

>>94824946
People didn't walk away because Spidey changed, they walked away because SM3 was SHIT

People forget toxic movies don't suffer themselves, it's the movie after them that pays the price.

Same with X-Men 3 being a 'successful' movie that took multiple movies for the brand to recover from.

>>94825243
Simon better not mess up DP.

>>94825243
Correct.
Your point deals with the stopping of a series. Mine deals with the attempt to continue one after a stop.
We're both still right.

>>94824354
because that's not how super hero movies work. Every god damn batman series made has been a different voice actor (almost cept for the ones by Bruce timm for the most part). There's only a handful of people who haven't been rebooted yet and that's, for the most part, are all the current Marvel movies.

I mean FFS Grant looks nothing like Barry Allen and neither does the dude that playing him in JL but whatever, companies don't know how to do shit right anymore.

>>94824776
Yup. Faggot

>>94825243
>Same with X-Men 3 being a 'successful' movie that took multiple movies for the brand to recover from.

They followed up X3 with Origins which was many times worse.

>>94825489
No, really, nope.
Blofeld was fought by both Connery and Lazenby. Lazenby's wife was referenced in the Roger Moore movies. You can make arguments about Dalton and Brosnan being one guy. Craig is a reboot.

>>94824354
I really like ASM's sports sunglasses eyes.

File: 1395608612816.jpg (104KB, 613x533px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 613x533px

>>94824799
>Raimi starts building up Lizard
>Sony doesn't want Lizard
>eventually things break down
>Sony reboots without Raimi
>first villain in the reboot is Lizard

>>94826593
Sony had some weird ideas for 4, like having Felicia Hardy but making her the Vulturess instead of Black Cat.