74 replies to this topic

[Cruiserweight]

Sam Raimi and Tobey Maguire recently put to end months of gossip and signed on the dotted line for a fourth and fifth installment of "Spider-Man." The only principle not yet confirmed for the wildly successful franchise is Kirsten Dunst as Mary Jane Watson, though she's made recent statements that she wants to continue with the series. "Kirsten, I'd love to work with her again," Raimi told MTV's Splashpage: "I hope she'll be written into it. I couldn't imagine making one without her, and I think she's an important part of the movies."
Maguire will, of course, return as Peter Parker though Raimi's exact connection to the production seems a bit more up in the air. "I'm really excited about Spider-Man, and I'm hoping to direct it," said Raimi. "I don't have a script yet, but production would start probably by March of 2010, I'm guessing. It sounds like a long time away, but we need a script first, and a lot of pre-production has to take place."




There's also been much talk over whether or not the two movies will be shot back-to-back, like the "Lord of the Rings" films. As Raimi tells it, that too has yet to be determined. "It's [Sony Pictures Studio Head] Amy Pascal's decision. I don't think it has been decided yet, and she's the one that's really going to make that decision; I'm really curious myself."
Though there are no details on the story for Spider-Man 4 and 5, Raimi has hinted that the two movies will be connected. "If Tobey and me, and all the producers, like the story for two pictures and Amy wanted to do it, then we would do it. It just hasn't been written yet." Screenwriter James Vanderbilt, who wrote Zodiac, has been signed on to write the script. Sony is still casting for the films' villain, though internet speculation has lead to talk of Dr. Curt Connors, played by Dylan Baker, turning into The Lizard as he did in the comic series. There is even talk of Mary Jane's astronaut ex-fiancée John Jameson undergoing a transformation into Man-Wolf.


Raimi has admitted previously that shooting Spider-Man 3 was exhausting, so he's understandably daunted by the prospect of shooting two special-effects laden blockbusters at the same time. "It would be a real endurance test, probably only Peter Jackson knows how hard something like that would be."

[Harmsway]

I'm staying away from the SPIDER-MAN franchise as long as Raimi is involved. All three of his flicks have been mediocre at best and outright awful at worst.

[zencat]

I'm down for more Spidey. Bring it.

[[dark]]

The franchise needs a shake-up after the abysmal third outing, but if Raimi can pull it off, I'm up for more Spidey action.

[Professor Dent]

Excellent news. Hopefully, Kirsten Dunst will continue to hold out.

[Johnboy007]

They certainly can't be any worse than Spider-Man 3.

[Bondian]

I thought all three movies were extremely well done. But then again, has my 003.5 wanker of a son shown them to me so often I'm hooked?

I honestly think the SM franchise is very loyal to their punters. Also, the video games are pretty awesome as well.

[sharpshooter]

Spider-Man 2 was the best of the three. I'm not sure they will beat that one.

[EyesOnly]

More Spiderman....I'd rather watch "As The world Turns"

[Mister E]

All the Spider-Man movies suck. Marvel had a good idea re-booting Hulk after the first turkey, the same needs to be done for Spider-Man.

[Tarl_Cabot]

I think they should hire all new actors except for the lizzard, J.J.J. Tobey is 32 now and that's not old of course but I think if he's still gonna be a college student(grad) it's time for a new face. I like Spidey as a troubled 20-something...with money, girl issues...BUT...I do wanna see him hook up with that cute Russian neighbor finally.

[Safari Suit]

I thought the third film was an agreeable night at the movies. Yet I hated the second one and fail to see why it was, and probably still is, so beloved.

[DamnCoffee]

I'm down for more Spidey. Bring it.

Agreed. I love Spider-Man. Great movies, 1 & 2 are fantastic, 3 is mediocre, but still enjoyable.

Yup, I have no objections to see Spidey swing into some web action again!

[Qwerty]

They certainly can't be any worse than Spider-Man 3.

Agreed.

I generally liked the first two films and I think my expectations for #3 were so high, I ended up still thinking/saying it was OK after I'd seen it in theatres.

But I recently watched it again on DVD... yuck.

I'll likely see #4, but I really want to see a change from the soppy, silly mess that the third film was.

[Tarl_Cabot]

I do wanna see him hook up with that cute Russian neighbor finally.

Ugh. The actor who plays Peter's landlord is 25 years older than Tobey, and I don't think the fans want to see a same-gender romance. I'd prefer Peter have a romance with Felicia Hardy or Gwen Stacy.

sarcasim? I was refering to his "cute" daughter! The pretty but awhward girl who brings Peter cookies and seems to have a crush on him...

[Righty007]

The Spider-Man series jumped the shark the moment Parker started doing the Saturday Night Fever strut down the street. Batman and Iron Man are the new sheriffs in town.

[freemo]

I'm staying away from the SPIDER-MAN franchise as long as Raimi is involved. All three of his flicks have been mediocre at best and outright awful at worst.

Yes, I agree.

The first was "okay, I guess".

The second was quite possibly the single most overrated movie in the history of Moses.

The third was just bad.

They are to comic book movies what the Brosnan Bond films are to Bond films. I is a solid enough launch outing in the vein of GoldenEye, II, with all it's pretentious angst and ham-fisted melodrama, is surely TWINE in disguise, and III and DAD are clearly cut from the same ugly, ugly cloth.

[coco1997]

I don't get the "Spider-Man" hate.

Also, it's totally stupid to compare those films to "Batman Begins/The Dark Knight." I'm not the first to say that those two movies (and presumably the next one) are in a league of their own. In fact, a LOT of people would argue that "TDK" is hardly even a comic book movie. The "X-Men", "Iron-Man," and "Spider-Man" movies are all comic-booky. They're not realistic and gritty, because that's not at all what the source material was like, really. "Batman", on the other hand, has come to be known to have produced some truly dark, moody and downright twisted stories and characters throughout the character's rich history. So to compare "Spider-Man" to the Brosnan films is silly, considering the Spider-Man films really represent what comic books are all about. Just because "TDK" and "BB" are rated so highly because of their quality and down to earth nature, it doesn't make them better comic book films, it just makes them better films.

[Mister E]

I don't get the "Spider-Man" hate.

Also, it's totally stupid to compare those films to "Batman Begins/The Dark Knight." I'm not the first to say that those two movies (and presumably the next one) are in a league of their own. In fact, a LOT of people would argue that "TDK" is hardly even a comic book movie. The "X-Men", "Iron-Man," and "Spider-Man" movies are all comic-booky. They're not realistic and gritty, because that's not at all what the source material was like, really. "Batman", on the other hand, has come to be known to have produced some truly dark, moody and downright twisted stories and characters throughout the character's rich history. So to compare "Spider-Man" to the Brosnan films is silly, considering the Spider-Man films really represent what comic books are all about. Just because "TDK" and "BB" are rated so highly because of their quality and down to earth nature, it doesn't make them better comic book films, it just makes them better films.

Who the hell would say Nolan's films are not comic book films ? The source material he used was loyal to both THE LONG HOLLOWEEN and DARK VICTORY to some degree. Those are considered the definitive Batman stories. Also the interpritations of the characters are very loyal to the comic book counter parts, Joker's character was finally captured on screen in the right way.

[Johnboy007]

I don't get the "Spider-Man" hate.

Also, it's totally stupid to compare those films to "Batman Begins/The Dark Knight." I'm not the first to say that those two movies (and presumably the next one) are in a league of their own. In fact, a LOT of people would argue that "TDK" is hardly even a comic book movie. The "X-Men", "Iron-Man," and "Spider-Man" movies are all comic-booky. They're not realistic and gritty, because that's not at all what the source material was like, really. "Batman", on the other hand, has come to be known to have produced some truly dark, moody and downright twisted stories and characters throughout the character's rich history. So to compare "Spider-Man" to the Brosnan films is silly, considering the Spider-Man films really represent what comic books are all about. Just because "TDK" and "BB" are rated so highly because of their quality and down to earth nature, it doesn't make them better comic book films, it just makes them better films.

To be fair, I saw Spider-Man 3 long before TDK. My problem with Spider-Man isn't because it isn't "dark", but that it has taken itself too seriously and failed miserably. All of it feels terribly forced and unnatural. They try to play it both ways and don't succeed.

[coco1997]

Who the hell would say Nolan's films are not comic book films ? The source material he used was loyal to both THE LONG HOLLOWEEN and DARK VICTORY to some degree. Those are considered the definitive Batman stories. Also the interpritations of the characters are very loyal to the comic book counter parts, Joker's character was finally captured on screen in the right way.

I didn't mean that they're not essentially comic book films. What I was saying was that they didn't feel like any other comic book films before them. I can't remember one review of the film around the time it was released that didn't say something to the effect of, "This movie actually doesn't even feel like a comic book movie, despite its source material." People even called it a "crime drama." Whereas, a film like "Spider-Man," with its over-the-top action sequences, superpowered-characters and somewhat lighthearted tone is more in line with what people usually think of when they hear the term "comic book."

[Mister E]

I didn't mean that they're not essentially comic book films. What I was saying was that they didn't feel like any other comic book films before them. I can't remember one review of the film around the time it was released that didn't say something to the effect of, "This movie actually doesn't even feel like a comic book movie, despite its source material." People even called it a "crime drama." Whereas, a film like "Spider-Man," with its over-the-top action sequences, superpowered-characters and somewhat lighthearted tone is more in line with what people usually think of when they hear the term "comic book."

It isn't the conventional comic book movie but it's a comic book movie nonetheless. My hatred of the SPIDER MAN films is not because they aren't "down to earth" it's because they mis-handle the more serious themes . There are several moments in Spider man films which were clearly meant to be taken seriously by the audience but they really just make your eyes role. Like Doc Oc's corny death scene for example.

[Harmsway]

The Spidey flicks are just a mess of sloppy characterization, poor performances, and awful dialogue. Say what you will about SPIDEY 3 being particularly bad, but every flaw in that film was foreshadowed in the prior two to some extent.

[Shot Your Bolt]

What I love about the Spider-Man films are the fact that don't shy away from their comic book roots. While films like TDK try to go a realistic approach, Spider-Man has this fun, light-hearted sense to everything in does, like the flames that engulf the Green Goblin in Spidey 1("No one says no to me!"), or the "Raindrops Keep Falling On My Head" scene in Spidey 2. It took it waaaaaay too far in Spidey 3 though. That film sucked, hard. Way too many villains, Venom is totally wasted, Emo Peter is embarrassing, Mary Jane does a complete 180 and becomes a completely unlikable bore, the most obvious Deus Ex Machina this side of Moonraker, and you could feed all the starving kids in Africa with the amount of cheese in the movie.

That said, I love the first two films, and until TDK came out, Spidey 2 was my fave comic book film. I do look forward to Spidey 4/5, although I hope they dont go TDK route, making it all dark and serious. Thats just not Spidey's style.

Edited by Shot Your Bolt, 20 October 2008 - 03:47 AM.

[Safari Suit]

The second was quite possibly the single most overrated movie in the history of Moses...
II, with all it's pretentious angst and ham-fisted melodrama, is surely TWINE in disguise

Thank You!

[Cruiserweight]

I'm a Spider-Man fan.
As a matter of fact The Amazing Spider-Man was the first comic i ever read way back in 1988 so i'm loyal to everything Spider-Man.

I'm a fan of all three films & probably the biggest supporter of #3 that you'll find. I actually liked the first one the least of the three.I'm glad that they're making more if nothing more then the fact that #3 had such a sad,downer ending.


I'm also a fan of Emo Spidey maybe because i would consider myself Emo. Hair & eye liner & all.


As far as villains go The Vulture was planned originally for # 3 instead of Venom so i'd like to see him in the next film played by Ben Kingsley(He was connected with the part already)




I'd like to see Gwen Stacy as the main Spidey girl.Anyone who's ever read the comic knows that's what she was to begin with anyway.Mary Jane really didn't get that role until Gwen was killed off.

[gkgyver]

I expected her to die in Spidey 3 when I noticed they put here into the film. Really, it reminds me of how that film pushed all the wrong buttons.

Gwen Stacey - has - to - die!

[DLibrasnow]

I'm staying away from the SPIDER-MAN franchise as long as Raimi is involved. All three of his flicks have been mediocre at best and outright awful at worst.

I agree with you Harmsway.

I did enjoy SPIDERMAN 2, but 1 and 3 are dire.

I thought SPIDERMAN 3 was simply painfully bad, I actually walked out of the theater two-thirds of the way through.

[sharpshooter]

I did enjoy SPIDERMAN 2, but 1 and 3 are dire.

I thought SPIDERMAN 3 was simply painfully bad, I actually walked out of the theater two-thirds of the way through.

Yeah. I agree with all of that. And smart man for walking out!

[Cruiserweight]

I expected her to die in Spidey 3 when I noticed they put here into the film. Really, it reminds me of how that film pushed all the wrong buttons.

Gwen Stacey - has - to - die!

They were recently going to bring her back to life in the comics but voted against it. They did bring Harry back to life though.