Spider-Man 4

[2099net]

*yawn*

http://io9.com/391526/two-more-spideys- ... ck+to+back

Whatever! They killed the goose which laid those golden eggs back with spider-man 3.

[SpringHeelJack]

Yeah. "Spider-Man 3" was bad enough. Unless they wanted to do more flashback scenes of James Franco in his boxer-briefs. Then I'd go see them.

[Disneykid]

Sometimes I feel like I'm the only person who genuinely loved Spider-Man 3, even if it did have a lot of problems. With that in mind, though, I feel that three is enough. I'll be more accepting of this if:

1. The cast and crew return, otherwise I have no interest.

2. The fifth will be the really-for-real conclusion to the series. I think four-to-five already is a bit much, but six and over is really overkill.

3. They follow a more linear story structure so that only the middle act of the series (the third) is overstuffed.

4. They let Sam Raimi do his thing. Venom and Gwen Stacey were forced on him for the third film after the script was already written, so he had to shoe-horn them in. Let Raimi choose the story he wants to tell rather than figuring out merchandising capabilities.

So as of right now, I'm not exactly sure what to think of this news until I hear more details.

[Flanger-Hanger]

Yeah. "Spider-Man 3" was bad enough. Unless they wanted to do more flashback scenes of James Franco in his boxer-briefs. Then I'd go see them.

So if they released a 90 minute film with just him strutting around in his boxer briefs in front of a plain white background you'd buy it? Come to think of it...I might too. Franco played Harvey (or what's his face) right?

[Escapay]

Sometimes I feel like I'm the only person who genuinely loved Spider-Man 3, even if it did have a lot of problems.

I liked it too. In the Batman & Robin kind of way: it's not what it should have been, but you're still thoroughly entertained. The only difference between Spidey 3 and B&R is that there was some semblance of acting in Spidey 3.

Albert

[Jules]

Sometimes I feel like I'm the only person who genuinely loved Spider-Man 3, even if it did have a lot of problems.

I liked it too. In the Batman & Robin kind of way: it's not what it should have been, but you're still thoroughly entertained. The only difference between Spidey 3 and B&R is that there was some semblance of acting in Spidey 3.

Um .. I feel a bit stupid reiterating the same stuff, but I liked it too! I didn't love it - but "crap" or "ineptitude in film-making" would certainly be two very unfair monikers to slap onto the film. Hey, I liked it better than Pirates 3. Then again, I was never crazy about Disney's Pirates films. I'll take Spiderman (and the gorgeous Kirsten Dunst ... she's so beautiful! ...and this is coming from a gay guy!) over Pirates any day.

[Isidour]

... Hey, I liked it better than Pirates 3.

BLASPHEMY!

(as everyone may see, I WUV POTC) Haven't seen Spidey 3 so I can't tell if is it bad or worse that I've heard but if it is as everybody says, they'll film 4th and 5th together to make the biggest Spidey fraud ever!

Will the spiderweb help to prevent the fall of this sequels?

Sorry, checked and corrected now!

[Disneykid]

Hey, it wasn't me who said it; it was Julian. You can rest easy in the fact that I, personally, prefer Pirates.

[DarthPrime]

I might be the only one, but I welcome the options of a new cast and director. Spider-man and Spider-man 2 were good, but 3 was a train wreck.

3 could have been good. Venom was forced into the movie, and if it was just left as a Sandman story it would have turned out a lot better. Venom should be a lesson learned in 3, and no more symbiotes get introduced in 4 or 5. There are to many other classic villains they could do, before bringing back Venom or introducing Carnage.

Still 4 and 5 will get made because its huge for Sony. I'm not excited, mainly because of 3. I hope I'm proven wrong and the series improves though. 1 and 2 were good, and the series could get back on track. I just don't know if it will or not.

[memnv]

I have heard The Lizard was going to be in one of them, they are already setting him up in the previous films, I would also like to see other villians like Elektro, Rhino, and Vulture. maybe the sinister 6 without Doc Octopus, since they killed him. Also I dont expect Harry back since he did die

[SpringHeelJack]

Yeah. "Spider-Man 3" was bad enough. Unless they wanted to do more flashback scenes of James Franco in his boxer-briefs. Then I'd go see them.

So if they released a 90 minute film with just him strutting around in his boxer briefs in front of a plain white background you'd buy it? Come to think of it...I might too. Franco played Harvey (or what's his face) right?

Hells yes, I would! Also, he played Harry.

In response to liking the movie in a "Batman and Robin" sort of way... I like "Batman and Robin" because every time I think the movie can't get more ridiculous or stupid, it somehow manages to. It's one of those things that I'm still to this day shocked it got made.

"Spider-Man 3", on the other hand, suffered from a bloated list of baddies, unnecessary tampering of a back story, and some utterly laughable song and dance sequences. It almost feels like the creative team was afraid of pulling a "Batman Returns" in which the sequel is very dark that they added some woefully out of place comedy scenes. Had they just focused on the duality of Spider-Man and Venom and jettisoned the largely superfluous character of Sandman, I might have liked it more.

Also, a side note, I've never been thrilled any time a comic book character based on Earth encounters some extra-terrestrial form. Whatever my problems with "X-Men 3" are, I am still glad that the Phoenix force was not some cosmic entity and instead a part of Jean's personality. Thus, in retrospect, I'm not sure if portraying Venom as an alien would ever work for me.

[2099net]

Sometimes I feel like I'm the only person who genuinely loved Spider-Man 3, even if it did have a lot of problems. With that in mind, though, I feel that three is enough. I'll be more accepting of this if:

1. The cast and crew return, otherwise I have no interest.

I couldn't care less if Dunst came back or not - she really was just phoning it in for part three. I've never seen anyone so disinterested in the story they are telling before.

And, while I sympathise with Rami - God, I too would hate having the non-entity venom forced upon me - I still think much of part 3's mess is down to Rami and his likewise disinterest in Venom (and even "evil/emo" Parker).

2. The fifth will be the really-for-real conclusion to the series. I think four-to-five already is a bit much, but six and over is really overkill.

3. They follow a more linear story structure so that only the middle act of the series (the third) is overstuffed.

4. They let Sam Raimi do his thing. Venom and Gwen Stacey were forced on him for the third film after the script was already written, so he had to shoe-horn them in. Let Raimi choose the story he wants to tell rather than figuring out merchandising capabilities.

So as of right now, I'm not exactly sure what to think of this news until I hear more details.

Even now on that blog (and I've seen it on other pages too) people are demanding Carnage make an apperance. Have these people learned nothing? You can't make a film with characters who only have one dimension and one motive. It just goes to show, the public doesn't always know what's best for them.

[Ariel'sprince]

I agree with Disneykid,I really loved Spider-Man 3,I thought it was the best so far .
So Spider-Man 4 will be out?.

[Mooky]

I'm really pumped up for "Spider-Man 4 & 5". Well, only if Raimi, Maguire and Dunst return. Otherwise, they might as well release it directly-to-video.

[Luke]

I really enjoyed Spider-Man 3 -- it was one of my favorite movies from last year and I honestly don't find any of the problems with it that everyone else seems to.

That said, filming sequels back-to-back is generally a bad idea. I can't think of a single instance where it's produced two really good sequels. Not that we've had an overwhelming number of examples or that it'd be impossible. It just seems to make sense that sequels should be born organically and a bit of perspective and reaction helps a lot in deciding where next to go.

At the same time, I'm eager to see another <i>Spider-Man</i> movie. I don't think any superhero film has met the heights of the three Spidey films. Bring on more, and before too much time passes. I mean clearly the series is really profitable -- who cares if the IMDb fanboys are only ga-ga for the second film? From the one movie I've seen of his (<i>Zodiac</i>), James Vanderbilt seems talented.

P.S. Please don't cite the <i>Lord of the Rings</i> movies as examples of successful back-to-back productions to me. Don't feel like going there. And while economically, it may have been the only way to make a trilogy, perhaps some of that series' excesses could have been reduced doing one at a time. Then again, Peter Jackson and excess seems to go hand-in-hand.

[WickedElphie]

How about Back to the Future 2 & 3? Two was excellent and I enjoyed three a lot too.

[Luke]

Two was excellent and I enjoyed three a lot too.

I wholeheartedly agree with the first part of this sentence. I thought Part III was a pretty big letdown, however.

[Mooky]

Woo hoo, Sam Raimi and the cast may return!

http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=22691

http://www.iesb.net/index.php?option=co ... &Itemid=99

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=45727

[Mooky]

Great news:

http://www.firstshowing.net/2008/09/05/ ... der-man-4/

http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/e ... same-time/

http://www.hollywood-newsroom.com/break ... kki-finke/

[Disney-Fan]

I'm not sure if I should be happy or disappointed. Weird...