Have You Tried Turning It Off and On Again, Tiger?

(Haa, clever IT joke.) In 2012, we’ll be getting a reboot of Spider-man. Marc Webb will be directing, Avi Arad will still be on board as a producer, and thus far we have Andrew Garfield (27) as the new Peter Parker and Emma Stone (nearly 22) as the new Gwen Stacy. The movie as of right now is being called a ‘reboot.’

Really? It’s a bit soon, don’t you think, Sony? Oh no wait you’re a massive money-grabbing corporation.

So lets review the previous Spider-man films that the producers are now saying they’d like to start anew.

Spider-Man

• Released May 2002, directed by Sam Raimi, Avi Arad as executive producer.
• Starred Tobey Maguire (then 26) as Peter Parker, Kirsten Dunst (20) as Mary Jane Watson.
• There was this hilarious scene.
• This was Marvel’s fourth film with big studios released after the 90’s. Blade, Blade II and X-men preceded it.
• It broke all kinds of records when it opened. First to pass $100 million in a weekend, $821+ million worldwide by the time it was done in theaters.

Spider-Man 2

• Released June 2004, directed by Sam Raimi with Avi Arad as executive producer.
• Still starred Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst, 29 and 22 respectively, at the time of release.
• The posters, in my opinion, got better.
• Marvel’s ninth movie (Daredevil, X2, The Hulk, and The Punisher all came out between Spider-Man 1 and 2).
• It made $783+ million worldwide, and won an Academy Award for effects.

Spider-Man 3

• Released (in the US) May 2007, directed by Sam Raimi with Avi Arad as producer, again.
• Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst still headlined, now 32 and 25 respectively. It also brought in Bryce Dallas Howard as Gwen Stacey, she 26 years old.
• There was this.
• Though the critical reception of the movie for the most part tanked, it proved to be the most successful worldwide.
• It broke money records, highest opening day, worldwide highest day-long gross, so on. Worldwide, it made $890+ million at the end of it’s run.

There’s really no question why Sony would want to continue the franchise. These things bled money, and that’s before you factor in the toy lines and such. I would just like to point out rebooting the series five years after the last movie does not qualify as a reboot. It’s essentially going down a different strain of story. The Batman films? The originals done by Tim Burton and concluding with a little humorous flick involving Schwarzenegger and Clooney versus the movies done ten years later by Christopher Nolan? That would be an instance that uses the word “reboot” properly to describe the situation. Here, the studio has said this adaptation is going to be more faithful to the comics from the 80’s-90’s. They’re redoing it because they screwed up the first three so badly they even recognized the error of their ways. As far as source material goes, I never read Spider-Man. It doesn’t concern me, although I can appreciate the director and producers trying to stay closer to that source.

Other than I think it’s incredibly too soon, I’m undecided on how I feel about this. Andrew Garfield is growing on me since I got the new Entertainment Weekly:

Sexy geeks? Always a plus. I’ve gotta see The Social Network.

I never really got into the first Spider-Man films because when the first one came out I was 11 and thought it was super scary. I remember seeing it at a friend’s house and then having a nightmare of the Green Goblin setting the house on fire. I don’t think I even saw 2 until the week of the 3^rd being released, because by then I was very into Marvel comics and wanted to see any and all put out. Funny how things change like that. I guess all in all, only time will tell if this proves to be a truly good idea or not.