How long should of they waited to reboot/remake Spider-Man

[Impact]

Of course as many feel 5 years was way too soon. I say at least 10-15 years.

[Neo]

I voted Should of waited at least 6-10 years, I say 8 years. A 2015 release would have been good. That would put it in line with TS3, The Hobbit and other movies that are getting the sequel treatment and reboot.

[Fake]

6-10 years. Would have liked it to see around 2015 too.

[Coffee]

I think the current time frame is fine.Yeah, people are aprehensive about it, but hey, if it's a good film, it's a good film......waiting another 5 years won't change that.In this current age of "instant gratification", it might be harder for franchises to succeed with huge gaps (not saying spiderman specifically),You can look at the things like Instant Streaming (Netflix) or just the amount of time between a films theatrical release & the time it appears on dvd / blu ray & ON Demand (a few months), There was a time when it took almost a year before something came out on VHS.The window of time in the world of film is rapidly changing, so early reboots will be a product of that. (The most recent example was the "tower hesit" contrevesy of appearing on VOD three weeks after it's release)I

Edited November 10, 2011 by Coffee

[pinocchio]

At least 10 years. Spidey flicks are still very popular on TV there I live (Switzerland/German TV). Don't think the situation is much different in the USA. A simple reboot that somehow looks like the original is the most stupid thing you can do under those circumstances IMHO.

[Kvikk Lunsj]

I would say 8 years or so. I was ending my Junior year (year 3) in high school when Spider Man 3 cam out and I will be ending my Junior year (year 3) in college when ASM comes out, seems way too soon.

[druv10]

They need to make sure Venom in the future is badass but 5 years time is fine for a reboot SM.

[CJohn]

Never :PKidding, I voted 6-10 years.

[Kevin Bacon]

Never, they shouldn't have driven Raimi away.

[Phil in the Blank]

2020 would had been a good time to reboot IMO. Doing it now is short term gain for long term pain IMO.

[Impact]

That was funny what I heard recently about them redoing Spider-Man."Okay unlike Batman which we never saw how it begin we have seen Spider-Man. What are they going to do? Have him in diapers?"

[fmpro]

Easier to answer when the first is released...

[Impact]

Still though it seems too early. (I do remember asking the same about The Hulk. Whenever I said there was a new Hulk coming out I always got "Why? The first one sucked")

[Rudolf]

I voted never, but ok a generation 20-30 years maybe.But think! Let us say the reboot works as it did for James Bond and Batman (after 42 and 16 years, I am counting first to first), what will happen. The studios own the franchise rights but not the actors. Everytime they have troubles, they will be tempted to start afresh.

Edited April 25, 2012 by Rudolf

[BK007]

I would say 2002 because Spider Man OT is shit.