This site will work and look better in a browser that supports web standards, but it is accessible to any browser or Internet device.

Whedonesque - a community weblog about Joss Whedon
"You have the emotional maturity of a blueberry scone."
11944 members | you are not logged in | 28 August 2014




Tweet







April 08 2014

Sony announces Drew Goddard as the director of 'Sinister Six' movie. He is also writing the film announced back in December, which will focus on the villains of the Spider-Man universe.

Now can Sony and Marvel make peace signs so we can get the verses together via the Whedonverse..

Anyone knows if it's supposed to be 'The Sinister Six' or just 'Sinister Six' without the The?

If this turns out to affect his involvement in Daredevil, then I'm already outraged by this.
I think this is fantastic news. Drew is a fantastic writer and director. I don't see this creating any type of bridge between Disney and Sony, but it's still exciting.
Ugh. The new Spider-Man franchise is awful. Hopefully this will at least give Goddard freedom to do what he wants afterwards
Great news to hear.I don't think this will effect Daredevil for Drew.This past week I read in a interview with Jeph Loeb that the Daredevil series will film this summer.Sinister Six won't shoot until after Amazing Spider-Man 3 in 2016.
Whoa. And I'm suddenly interested in this.
I rewatched Amazing recently, and really quite liked it. I think it matches up and modernises Stan Lee's Peter in a fantastic way. I'm curious to see how they'll work, but trust In Drew We Trust.
Love "Cabin in the Woods." Ecstatic that Drew Goddard is getting another directing gig.
Daredevil is definitely scheduled to air next year so there's no way he's working on Sinister Six until after then. And it will likely be even after Amazing Spider-Man 3, since that is Andrew Garfield's last turn as Spidey and Sony will need to find a new actor for the role. It makes sense to use Sinister Six as a way to wipe the slate clean.
Good stuff. Happy for Drew. I was skeptical of how this movie could work, but having Drew behind the project gives me a lot of hope. I like ASM, and am looking forward to ASM2.
That's actually a very good decision on the part of Sony.
I don't think this will effect his involvement in Daredevil. Both projects were announced right after the other and I think he's only directing the pilot episode while exec producing the rest. As long as they have a good team in place for the other episodes there should be no worries.

Also I don't think theres a start date or firm release date for this S6 movie. Daredevil is starting this summer.

[ edited by eddy on 2014-04-08 08:43 ]
Okay, one, I hope Drew does something new. Why not cut Peter Parker out and bring another incarnation of Spider-Man. I am so bored with Peter Parker and I cannot be the only one who feels this way.

I feel like the Spiderman movies have dropped in quality with each film. Admittedly there was a boost with Garfield taking the role, but it just did not feel real or meaningful to me. There was nothing at stake.

That's part of the problem for Spider-man as a series as well. The only thing at stake is Spider-man, New York and his family and friends. In a post-MCU world, the stakes have to be upped.
Maybe we'll see Miles Morales as Spiderman at some point?
The Spiderman "franchise" is hugely disappointing to me. As much as I like Sam Raimi, I never thought he really "got" Spiderman, and now Sony seems hell-bent on creating an ill-conceived Spider-Verse series of movies - not because they have a story to tell, but because shareholders demand it

So yeah, MY Spiderman doesn't have a secret conspiracy, or mysterious spy parents, or Oscorp responsible for every damn villain Spiderman meets ... and my take is all these changes were done for the sakes of creating the film series

My take on why the MCU has done so well, both critically and commercially is that Joss and Kevin and team are fans of the source material, the enjoyment is palpable on the screen

That said - I think Drew IS capable, if Sony lets him, of making a fun and subversive villain centric movie
Even as a massive Spidey fan, I can somewhat relate to alber's comments. But the 'Peter Parker' problem for me with Sony's current franchise is really that I cannot recognise comic-book Peter Parker in the movie version at all. I blame the script much more than the acting. Garfield's thin face and massive hairdo don't make for the face from the pictures either, but that's only a small part of the problem for me. The main thing is that he has no cleverness or sympathetic charm to go with his social awkwardness. Movie-Pete shows up at Aunt May's house late at night with his face full of bruises and merely tries to smile it off. Comic-book Pete would make up a clumsy but funny excuse ("Stupid me managed to get hit by an old man on a moped!") to at least try and take the worries off his elderly aunt. Just one example. While I do think Garfield's a good actor and Spider-Man in costume works better than he did in the old triology, movie Peter Parker just bugs me. And spiders aren't bugs.

Anyway, so a lot of the script of the first one didn't work for me, the trailer for the second one didn't excite me either - but Drew Goddard at the helm of a movie about six of his main villains could become something very different indeed! I'm already vastly more excited for Sinister Six than I am for the upcoming 'Rise of Electro' (which I, a Spider-Man comics collector, don't even really feel the need to see...).
That said - I think Drew IS capable, if Sony lets him, of making a fun and subversive villain centric movie


I doubt Sony will let him do that. Marvel gave James Gunn something like $150 million and a talking raccoon and let him go to town. Sony has absolutely no guts to do anything close to that, even with something that's much "safer" than a talking raccoon.
This movie still baffles me. Especially if they're setting it after Amazing Spiderman 3. That doesn't make much sense to me if Garfield isn't going to be continuing in the role after that point. I mean what's the point in the main movies setting it up if it gets essentially rebooted at that point? And try as I might I can't imagine a Sinister Six story that doesn't end with Spiderman catching them and them getting sent off to prison. It'll be a weird note to end the Garfield movies on if all his villains are still roaming about causing havoc afterwards.

P.S I do actually love Andrew Garfield in the role, and did enjoy his first movie as Spidey, (much more than I had the Tobey/Sam Raimi trilogy,) so I'm not the type to criticise a reboot just for the sake of it. But as much as I'd wish Drew all the best and can't wait to see what he does with Daredevil. I just don't see how the Sinister Six movie will work. I actually wouldn't have minded them in the third movie if the sinister six miovie fell in between 2 & 3, but it being afterwards just bewilders me!
Personally I think Webb, Garfield and Company did a fine job with the reboot, but the whole thing still smacks of "too soon." So I didn't really get any enjoyment out of it. I'm with Joss in that I think Raimi did a fine job with the material. And I'm with everyone else who's much more concerned with seeing Drew's Daredevil, that was my favorite title back in the day and the Affleck version needs to be struck from the record.
I'm happy for Drew, Cabin proved him a great director, but I don't really have the patience to keep track of all these reboots and spin-offs. Best of luck to him.
I don't get the impression that Sony has any master plan for its movies. It wants to release a Spider-man or Spider-man related movie every year but it has no idea how they should all integrate and what they should say about each other. I mean, The Winter Soldier changed so much about how I viewed things in The Avengers. Not only did I watch Avengers again after The Winter Soldier, I had a totally different reaction to a lot of things that take place.
TallMichaelJ : Actually, Peter's parents being spies goes back to a SPidey annual (which I missed) back in the late 60s or early 70s; they were apparently killed by the Red Skull, from what I've read. Goodness knows what the current continuity, comics or films, is.

Movies seem to need a conveniently recognizable villian; the first Batman mvoie combined The Joker and Joe Chill into one character, for which I never forgave them.
I for one enjoyed ASM. I'm a bit wary of ASM2 because I've yet to be impressed with the Kurtzman & Orci writing team, but I choose to remain cautiously optimistic that it'll at least not be a complete abomination, as I feel Marc Webb has earned at least some amount of trust.
Basically, unless ASM2 turns out to mess things up for the future as badly as the third Raimi movie did, I'll be excited to see this Spidey-verse expand, even if it is just to milk the license (which clearly it is), now that Drew Goddard is the person doing it. I trust Webb to some degree, but my trust in Drew is well cemented and I think he'll knock it out of the sports metaphor.

As for what should happen after Garfield is done, I personally would quite like to see Spider-Woman take over. I don't know what effect that would have on the contract, though. If the deal is that they have to keep making "Spider-MAN" movies rather than simply having to keep using related characters in order to avoid being forced to sell the rights back, I guess they'd have to also either recast Peter or bring in Miles, but even if that is the case, they should let Drew make Spider-Woman on the side.
I really hate this reboot and hope these duties dont cut into his Daredevil tv series work.

You need to log in to be able to post comments.
About membership.



joss speaks back home back home back home back home back home