The Amazing Spider-Man.

Sony Pictures announced today that going forward, The Amazing Spider-Man will be the title to director Marc Webb’s reboot of the superhero franchise for the studio.

Sony also released a new photo of the Spider-Man costume (at left, click for a much bigger version) which reveals two things – 1) Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) will definitely be using mechanical webshooters as opposed to the organic ones he had in Sam Raimi’s previous Spider-Man trilogy of films, and 2) The redesigned costume perhaps deviates a little too much from the basic comic design, at least for my liking.

The Amazing Spider-Man is, of course, the title of one of the several Spider-Man comic book series that have been published over the years. I suppose that it is possible that future installments will take their names from some of the other Spider-Man comic series like The Sensational Spider-Man, The Spectacular Spider-Man and Web Of Spider-Man, though they’ll probably give Spider-Man And His Amazing Friends a pass.

The 3D film will be swinging its way into theaters on July 3.

In case you’ve been wondering why in all the cast announcements for the upcoming Spider-Man reboot you haven’t seen an actor named to play Peter Parker’s cigar chomping boss, Daily Bugle publisher J Jonah Jameson, it turns out that there’s a reason for that.

It turns out that it isn’t because the production hasn’t cast the role yet so much as the character isn’t in the film. IGN is reporting that there will be no J Jonah Jameson in at least this installment of Spider-Man.

So what does this mean to the film’s storyline? Well, Peter could still be working as a photographer for the Bugle, just not interacting with Jameson. From a real-world perspective that does make a certain amount sense. A freelancer would never, except under extraordinary circumstances, report directly to a publisher. There’s two or three intermediaries in the usual chain of command between the two. Of course, a freelancer repeatedly showing up with great pictures of the thing that probably sells the most papers on any given day may just get him a meeting with said publisher.

The prospect that there will be no one yelling “Parker!” around the cigar clenched in their teeth is a bit disappointing though. I doubt that the character will be abandoned entirely from this new take on the franchise and we will probably see him in a sequel.

And the Spider-man reboot casting news keeps on coming. This time it appears as if the film’s director Marc Webb is turning out to his 500 Days Of Summer star Zoey Deschanel to fill in the supporting role of Betty Brant.

For those only familiar with the Spider-Man mythos through Sam Raimi’s previous film trilogy, Betty is more than just Daily Bugle publisher J Jonah Jameson’s harried secretary. In the early years of the comic book series, Betty was also a sometimes girlfriend of Peter Parker, before their relationship evolved into one of close friends.

Given the star status of Deschanel, it looks as if the part will not be as small as it was in the previous films and that Webb is looking to use the character more in the way of the comics. Could poor Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) find himself in a love triangle between Betty and Gwen Stacey (Emma Stone)? We should all be so unlucky.

We should note that this story originates back at Showbiz Spy, whose track record has not always been the greatest, so let’s take this with the pre-requisite grain of salt.

When redhead Emma Stone was cast as flaxen blond Gwen Stacy in the upcoming Spider-Man reboot, people wondered why she wasn’t cast as the redheaded Mary Jane Watson. The answer appears to be a simple one: Mary Jane Watson isn’t in the reboot.

The Wrap is reporting that Mary Jane Watson will not be a character in the upcoming reboot and apparently she never was.

Rumors ran rampant that MJ was going to enter a love triangle with Gwen for the affection of Spider-Man’s alter ego, Peter Parker. But according to The Wrap’s source, MJ was never in any version of James Vanderbilt’s screenplay.

As an old school comic book fan, I’m glad to hear this. Gwen Stacy was Peter’s first big love in the comics, and her death was one of the moments that most defined the Spider-Man as a character. Mary Jane did not enter a romantic relationship until after Gwen was killed off.

It doesn’t look it will happen, but it would be cool if they introduced Mary Jane in the film the way they introduced her in the comics. In the book, she was the oft mentioned but never seen niece of the Parker Family’s neighbor, Anna Watson. Peter’s Aunt May kept trying to set him up with MJ, but Peter resisted, thinking any girl Aunt May would recommend wouldn’t be date able. When they finally were introduced and MJ turned out to be a redheaded bombshell, the joke was on Peter.

That was fast.

No sooner had word broken that Martin Sheen was set to play Uncle Ben in Columbia’s upcoming Spider-Man reboot, then it is announced that Sally Field is in talks to play his on screen wife, May Parker, the other half of the kindly couple who raise nephew Peter Parker.

Columbia’s 3D Spider-Man franchise reboot begins shooting in December for a May 2012 release.

Via The Hollywood Reporter.

2010 has been a rocky year for the comic book film. There were two blockbuster smash hits. The first, Iron Man 2, which $621 million worldwide box office take more than tripled its estimated $200 million dollar budget. So what if this edition was less favorably received by the critics than its predecessor, that haul guarantees a sequel, which is already been scheduled.

The second, Kick-Ass, is sort of a phantom hit. It made only $48 million in the United States, just over a 50% profit on its $30 million budget. However, it duplicated its U.S. take over seas making it a healthy hit and a sequel all but certain, when schedules align.

After that, it gets a bit dicey. The Losers, and underrated film if there ever was one, made $29 million worldwide against an estimated $25 million budget. That’s barely covering your costs if you don’t add in advertising.

Then there are the flops. Jonah Hex made $10.9 million at the box office, less than a quarter of its relatively modest $47 million budget. And Scott Pilgrim vs. the World made only $31.5 million domestically, half of its$60 million budget. It made another $12.7 million overseas, which only means that it made three fourths of its budget back instead of only half.

With two sizable flops such as the ones listed above, talk begins anew  about the death of the comic book film. This time, the talk might be right on, although the performance of RED this past weekend gives us hope.

The reason why we should worry is because the failure of Jonah Hex and Scott Pilgrim can be laid at the feet of one thing–the movie studios.

The Jonah Hex we got differs quite a bit from the one that was on paper. The script I read was closer to the original comic book stories. There were no superpowers for Hex, no superweapon for him to stop. I believe that a majority of this original script was shot. The climax between Hex and Turnbull from the script makes its way into the film as a dream sequence, so we know it was filmed.

However, there were a number of reshoots done on the film. If I was to hazard a guess, I’d imagine that a studio executive saw a cut of the film made from the script, question where Hex’s superpowers were and why the film wasn’t more comic book-y, and demanded reshoots to bring the film in line with what his idea of a comic book film should be.

The result is an awful movie. Characterization was truncated, exposition was given in big info dumps of dialog, and the more blockbusteresque aspects added were laughable. Would the original version be any better? Maybe not. But it certainly wouldn’t be any worse.

Quality was not an issue with Scott Pilgrim. The film was a visual masterpiece and incredibly inventive. While changing quite a bit from the original text, it kept true to the tone and feel of the original graphic novel.

The problem came in the way it was marketed. It was sold mainly as a comic book action film. It was marketed as a story of a young man who must fight the seven evil exes of his current paramour. That leads to fairly straightforward expectations–we’ll see Scott Pilgrim fight his girlfriend Ramona Flowers’ exes from the onset. I’d imagine many people were fairly surprised when the first 10 to 15 minutes of the film details Scott’s relationship with another woman, Knives Chao. Ramona Flowers isn’t introduced until much later and the fighting doesn’t come in until later still.

By marketing it as a frenetic version of your typical comic book film instead as a layered romance and story of a man growing up, it set up unrealistic expectations on the film. And when these expectations weren’t met, audiences rebelled.

RED is a sign of hope, mainly due to the fact the studios got it right. Instead of marketing the film to the typical comic book movie audience–the 18 to 35 demographic, they skewed 35 and above. The film made $25 million in its opening weekend, not enough to cop the number one spot but far better than its rather mediocre reviews call for. It’s too soon to tell if RED will truly be a hit, but making half its budget back right out of the gate and well before it opens internationally is a very good sign.

Of course, this does not mean that the future of comic book films is guaranteed to be rosy. Yes, there are a lot of comic book films in the pipeline, but there are a lot of potential question marks in the road as well.

January brings is The Green Hornet, not truly a comic book property but close enough. It’s release has been delayed and it has the makings of being the kind of campfest that destroyed the first Batman film franchise. Marvel’s Thor is scheduled for May. While Marvel’s films they do in house seem to be can’t miss opportunities, Thor leads more to the epic fantasy genre than the conventional superhero one. Outside of The Lord Of the Rings trilogy, these kind of films are hit or miss.

June brings us X-Men: First Class and Green Lantern. The former is a prequel to the X-Men franchise, focusing on the early days of Charles Xavier and Magneto. Granted, it is understandable that FOX would want to get a little bit of separation from Brett Ratner’s disappointing X-Men: The Last Stand, but is this taking the franchise too far back for the fans to follow?

And Green Lantern has a solid script that could be turned into a very good comic book film. But this is put out by Warner Brothers, the same studio that ruined Jonah Hex. Since GL is more of a conventional superhero flick anyway, I can’t see Warners needing to meddle at all. But if they do, the results could be disasterous.

After that we have Captain America: The First Avenger in July. On paper, this seems to be a can’t miss proposition. A man dressed as an American flag fight Nazis in Europe during World War II? In a film that stylistically resembles the Indiana Jones franchise? Directed by the man who made one of the best, if severely underrated comic book films of all time in The Rocketeer? I’d buy ticket to that right now if I could. But would anybody else?

And after that? Well, we have a Ghost Rider sequel nobody really asked for or wants, the culmination of Marvel’s cinematic universe build with The Avengers, sequels to The Dark Knight and Iron Man 2, both which should be decent, and revamps of the Spider-Man and Superman film franchises, the former which was unnecessary and the latter which will be rushed–to say the least. Lots of potential pot holes in the future.

The continued success of the comic book film depends on how well studios understand the reality that each comic book film is unique and should be treated as such. If the studios come to that realization, then the genre will remain vibrant. If not, then the naysayers who hope that the comic book film will just go away will get their wish.

Well, it was only a matter of time before we found out, though I didn’t expect it to happen quite so fast. When it was announced at the beginning of the week that Rhys Ifans had been offered the role of the villain of Sony’s upcoming Spider-Man reboot, no one knew which villain he would be playing. Now, thanks to the folks over at The Wrap, we know that Spider-Man will be facing off against the Lizard!

For the uninitiated, the Lizard is actually biologist Dr. Curt Connor, whose attempt to make a serum replicating a lizard’s ability to regrow its tail in order to regrow a severed arm results in him changing into a six-foot tall half-man, half-lizard with a penchant for picking fights with a certain wall-crawler.

There’s no word yet as to how close the screenplay will follow the comics origin or if they’ll try and tie it in with Peter Parker’s own transformation into Spider-Man by having both a lizard and a spider get doses of radiation but Peter’s mutation doesn’t turn out as bad as Connor’s. Sure it sounds like a crappy idea, but this is Sony we’re talking about. Remember, they’re the ones who forced Raimi to include Venom in his third Spider-Man film, a move which unbalanced the film to a harmful degree.

In the midst of this news, though, I have to feel a bit sorry for Dylan Baker, who had played Dr. Curt Connors in two of Sam Raimi’s three Spider-Man films. Although his character never underwent the transformation into the Lizard, it was obvious that Raimi was establishing the character to be used in a later sequel in a larger capacity.

Rhys Ifans has been offered the role of the villain in Sony Picture’s upcoming Spirder-Man reboot. No word yet as to which one of the wall crawler’s rogue gallery he will be playing though. Speculation is running the range from classics like Green Goblin to more modern baddies like Venom.

Ifans joins Andrew Garfield as Peter Parker/Spider-Man and Emma Stone as Gwen Stacey under Marc Webb’s direction of the 3D film that will take the character back to his roots as a high school student who learns about responsibility after he receives superpowers from the bite of a radioactive spider.

If Ifans name doesn’t seem particularly familiar don’t be surprised. His casting certainly fits in with Sony’s Method of Operation on the Spider-Man reboot of keeping talent costs low by casting folks who haven’t made enough of a name for themselves that they can command the large, multi-million dollar salaries. That doesn’t mean, though, that he is a substandard actor. Ifans has a pretty good filmography of supporting roles in movies like Notting Hill, Elizabeth: The Golden Age, Pirate Radio and Greenberg.

Via Deadline.

Actor Bruce Campbell and director Sam Raimi have been friends since childhood and it can be fare to say that each owe their success in the film industry in part to their relationship with the other. They made their first films together and Raimi still manages to find a small role for Campbell in his features whenever possible. It should come as no surprise then, that Campbell has Raimi’s back over the director’s departure this past spring from the Spider-Man franchise that he helped launch for Sony.

Speaking to a room full of fans at the Wizard World Philadelphia convention this past weekend, Campbell took a shot at the studio and its plan to reboot the successful super-hero series in response to a fan’s question.

“Did I think Sam Raimi made a mistake dropping out of the Spider-Man franchise? Not when they want it to be like Twilight,” Campbell quipped to a roar of approval from the audience. “Isn’t it just a little awkward that Spider-Man is going to be Spider-Man before he was bitten by a radioactive spider? Doesn’t that strike anybody as weird that now he’s just a guy? Where does he get his powers from if [the movie is set] in high school before he gets bitten?”

And of course, Campbell ruled out his participation in any future cinematic adventure of a certain wall-crawler.

“Will Sam Raimi be part of the Spider-Man reboot?” Campbell rhetorically asked to a chorus of “No’s!”. “Then I guess I’m not available. There’s no reason to do a man-in-tights movie unless Sam is involved.”

Campbell also defended his appearances in the Spider-Man films as something more than just cameos.

Technically, I had cameo roles in the Spider-Man movies. Technically! But as you’ll recall in the first Spider-Man, in my little “cameo role” as the ring announcer, I name Spider-Man! If I wasn’t in that movie, that billion-dollar franchise would be called The Human Spider. Part two, sure it’s an insignificant role as the Snooty Usher. Cameo, just a cameo. Quick question – Did Spider-Man ever get in that theater? Interesting, so technically, I’m the only character who has ever defeated Spider-Man! Part Three – Spider-Man comes to me, a French matre’d for advice. How many superheroes come to a lowly matre’d for advice? Not many buddy. Did it do him any good? Not really because Spider-Man was kind of a dick to me in the first two movies, so I wasn’t going to help him out in the third.

While Sam Raimi is currently thinking over what film he may do next, it’s probably safe to assume that Bruce Campbell will probably pop up in it.

Almost immediately after Sony Pictures squeezed Sam Raimi out of the Spider-Man franchise that the director launched for the studio at the beginning of the year, speculation began as to whom would replace star Toby Maguire in the title roll of a mild-mannered high school student who must learn to handle great responsibility after he receives great power from a radioactive spider bite.

The Hollywood Reporter has learned that the studio and incoming director Marc Webb have been meeting with many candidates. None of them have advanced to the screen test stage yet, but there certainly seem to be some front- runners in the pack. They are -

Jamie Bell – The British-born actor first burst on to screens at the age of 14 as the titular Billy Elliot in 2000. Since then, he has appeared in such indie fare as The Chumscruber (2005) and more Hollywood projects like Jumper (2008). Next year, he’ll be starring in Steven Spielberg and Peter Jackson’s motion-capture CG animated The Adventures Of Tintin.

Alden Ehrenreich – According to the IMDb, Ehrenreich was “discovered” by Spielberg when he saw the young actor in a comedy video playing at his daughter’s friend bat mitzvah. Ehrenreich has parlayed that in to a couple of television appearances and a lead role in last year’s Frances Ford Coppola film Tetro.

Frank Dillane – This 19 year old actor has just two film credits on his resume – 1997′s Welcome To Sarajevo and last year’s Harry Potter And The Half-Blood Prince in which he played a young Tom Riddle.

Andrew Garfield – Garfield made a good impression on me earlier this year in Terry Gilliam’s The Imaginarium Of Dr. Parnassus. But he has been steadily building up an impressive resume over the last few years with appearances in the British television series Sugar Rush, the British Red Riding crime trilogy and landing a part in Aaron Sorkin’s upcoming movie about Facebook, The Social Network.

Josh Hutcherson – Although barely 18 years old, Hutcherson has the most impressive resume of this bunch with lead roles in Zathura, Bridge To Terabithia, Journey To The Center Of The Earth, the much buzzed about Sundance  film The Kids Are Alright and the upcoming Red Dawn remake.

Out of these five, I would say that Hutcherson and Ehrenreich are the two strongest contenders in my book. Being in their mid-20s, Bell and Garfield are both a bit old to fit in to the studio’s mandate that this new Spider-Man film moves the character back to his high school student roots. While Dillane fits the age range for the character, I just don’t remember him making much of an impression in his Harry Potter role. Ehrenreich doesn’t have much more of a profile, but he has the cache of Spielberg and Coppola behind him. Hutcherson has the most experience out of the group. While he is signed to do the upcoming Journey To The Center Of The Earth sequel, I am sure that the two productions can work out a schedule to allow him to appear in both.

Currently Webb is readying the Spider-Man reboot to start shooting by the end of the year. Writer Alvin Sargent is currently putting a polish on the screenplay.