spider-man 4 and 5 confirmed

[thalaw2]

Check this out:

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."

Full Article

Personally, I hope they replace KD. 

[Gremlin]

Oh good Lord, they'd better revive the franchise from 3 or I'm going to hate Raimi for the rest of my life.

Not really. But still.

[Jakew]

Hopefully, Marvel took note of the bad reviews spider-man 3 received and won't pressure Raimi into doing stuff he doesn't want to do again ala Venom.   :thumbdown:

[Uncle Yuan]

I must agree - I thought 3 was very mediocre and I'm not real willing to get in line for 4, Raimi and Maguire or not.  Here's hoping that keeping these two in the mix helps.

[Jakew]

OT, I rewatched Spider-Man 2 recently for the first time since I saw it at the cinemas ... Alfred Molina is SO good in the role of Dr Octopus. I think he puts in the best performance of anyone in the entire series.

While I'm not sure how Raimi would juggle the characters (his juggling act was pretty weak in Spider-Man 3), he should consider bringing Doc Ock back for the Sinister Six (alongside Green Goblin and Sandman).

[BentonGrey]

I wasn't one of the people that were heartbroken about 3.  It wasn't the best of the series, but I thoroughly enjoyed it.  I agree that, as long as the suits aren't pressuring Rami to do something he doesn't want to, 4 and 5 should be good, maybe even great.  It was obvious that Venom was shoe-horned into the movie, and it was also obvious that there was no great love lost with the character.  If you listen to the commentary, Rami has plenty to say about Sandman, Harry, and even Eddi Brock....Venom?  Not so much.

[catwhowalksbyhimself]

I thought 3 was fantastic--up until the symbiote took over the storyline.  Sandman is fantasticly well done, and if they had just let Rami stick with the villains he feel comfortable doing, it would have lived up to the rest of the series.

So yes, I have great hope that 4 and 5 will be able to live up to the level of the first 2 movies.

As for Dunst, the way 3 ended, they could write her out and replace her with the other girl pretty easily, the way 3 ended.  It probably isn't the best thing, but would be easy enough.

[Jakew]

Well, they HAVE to do the [spoiler]Death of Gwen Stacy[/spoiler] storyline ... its a classic.

[Panther_Gunn]

Well, they HAVE to do the [spoiler]Death of Gwen Stacy[/spoiler] storyline ... its a classic.

Unfortunately, they already did that entire scene with MJ in the first one, so they'd have to find some other way to do it that worked, and didn't seem deriviative....even though it was the source for what they already did.... :wacko:

Personally, I wouldn't lose any sleep if they didn't bring Dunst back.  I don't think she ever really owned the role, she wasn't really ever a shining star of the series, and she obviously doesn't know the first thing about the Spidey franchise.  At the very least, she would need to remain an actress, and not have an opinion about things she doesn't know about.

[BWPS]

KD is the worst in the movies. Spider-Man 3 had some of the most god-awful scenes and a poorly-done plot. But as a special-effects filled Superhero action movie, it was one of the best. Sandman looked amazing, the fights (even with the lame New Goblin) were the best ever. And Topher Grace was awesome! I enjoyed it even though I did yell out "WTF" in the theater. I want more Spidey, and this is great news.

[qazwsx]

Meh, the Nolans should do it :rolleyes:

[docdelorean88]

I too didn't find 3 atrocious. I LOVED the casting for Gwen. she is perfect. I despised the new goblin crap. if he is going to be green gobin II then make him that. Not a skysticking/retractable skimask guy. Best part of the movie was when peter weblined him into that pipe! I also am concerned about the Gwen plotline. I would also love to see it in a movie, though it would be un-likely.

[qazwsx]

I thought the first was the only good one really. What I hated about the last two was that they weren't really serious in tone at all, and everyone seemed impervious to damage until conviniently needed. For example, why is Doc Ock able to take such a beating from spidey? I don't see how mechanical tentancles makes your face any tougher. Oh and why did he turn evil? Oh yes, the ARMS, they made him do it. Sounds like an excuse Bart Simpson came up with. I also didn't buy that crap about psychologically "not wanting to be spidey" reversing all of the GENETIC alterations to his body.(Sounds like a good way to cure cancer) Then Spider 3 butchered, no killed, venom. The scrawny nerd from that's 70's show? Okay...

[thalaw2]

I thought the first was the only good one really. What I hated about the last two was that they weren't really serious in tone at all, and everyone seemed impervious to damage until conviniently needed. For example, why is Doc Ock able to take such a beating from spidey? I don't see how mechanical tentancles makes your face any tougher. Oh and why did he turn evil? Oh yes, the ARMS, they made him do it. Sounds like an excuse Bart Simpson came up with.

I'm guessing he was overcome with madness and didn't feel the pain.  :blink:

I also didn't buy that crap about psychologically "not wanting to be spidey" reversing all of the GENETIC alterations to his body.(Sounds like a good way to cure cancer)

That story comes right out of the comics...right?

[qazwsx]

I dunno, had to be a pretty bad one at that, in any case they could've made it less ridicolous. Running out of web is tolerable, but um, his short sightedness instantly disapears  when he "decides to be spidey" What is there a switch in his cornea? :huh:

[qazwsx]

I thought the first was the only good one really. What I hated about the last two was that they weren't really serious in tone at all, and everyone seemed impervious to damage until conviniently needed. For example, why is Doc Ock able to take such a beating from spidey? I don't see how mechanical tentancles makes your face any tougher. Oh and why did he turn evil? Oh yes, the ARMS, they made him do it. Sounds like an excuse Bart Simpson came up with.

I'm guessing he was overcome with madness and didn't feel the pain.  :blink:

Haha yea, that's pretty creative. Although he'd still you know, die. I guess I shouldn't harp on about this however. It's likely not the only movie that's does this. Hollywood movies tend to have the mentality that pointy things are what kills you, just as Harry survives a massive explosion with a nary a long face then dies from a wee stab.

[TheMarvell]

each and every one of the Spider-Man films has something ridiculous that you just have to suspend your disbelief even more than the norm that is required to watch any fantasy movie. The "15 super spiders" in 1, the "i choose not to be spidey" in 2, and too many to list in 3 but I'll mention the "Anchorman inspired" scene specifically, are all really stupid, but can be forgivable if the rest of the movie makes up for it and then some.

That being said, I do like all 3 of them, but find the first two, especially 2, to be far greater than 3. When it comes to Venom, I heard Raimi's original plan was to have the third villain be Vulture. So Raimi always intended to have 3 villains, and personally I'd rather have Venom than Vulture. But in the end I would have had it only been Venom and "New Goblin" in 3 (but I'd at least make him a new GG with a cooler look than the first Goblin's suit, not a power ranger costume or the ninja paint baller...). I liked what they did with Sandman and it was clear Raimi has a lot of love for the character, but they didn't have to make him Ben's killer and towards the end the direction with his character seemed pretty lost. Plus, for a third film entry, I just didn't think Sandman was that major of a villain to carry the movie, whereas Venom is.

I was sort of hoping the series would go on in a new direction. I like Raimi and all, but after watching 3 I'm not sure he should be director going forward, but maybe producer or something. I don't know. This whole "back to back" filming rumor has me worried too, as it most likely means there will be some sort of crappy cliff hanger ending that will make more people mad than anything. It worked in LotR for obvious reasons, but it didn't work for The Matrix trilogy or Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy. Both of those movies ended as if the movie you were watching was only half-finished.  Don't follow the trend, Spidey. :angry:

[Talavar]

A few points of contention: 

1.  Doc Ock has always been able to take more of a beating from Spidey than he should.  Really, he should go down in about 1 hit, every time once Spider-man gets past the arms.  This rarely ever happens, whether comics, cartoons, or film - so it's not a fault of the movie, at least not exclusively. Take it up with years of the property's creative staff across various media.

2.  The film version of Doc Ock had a number of reasons to turn evil - physical trauma, his wife's death & his guilt over it, a desire to be vindicated, blaming Spider-man for the failure of the experiment, as well as the arms influencing him.

3.  Having super-powers get "turned off" happens all the time in super-hero story-telling, however powers are caused.  Spider-man's powers corrected his vision, so turning his powers off makes his eyes crappy again.  It's visual shorthand.

4.  Venom is a terrible character.  Eddie Brock is set-up to be Spider-man's evil doppleganger - a common superhero idea, and a lot of characters have at least one villain like that.  The problem is, in the comics Eddie Brock isn't really much like Peter Parker at all, which Raimi tried to correct with Topher Grace playing a morally-bankrupt version of Peter Parker.  Eddie Brock is fine in Spider-man 3; the problem is once he becomes Venom.  It feels like its shoe-horned in, and then there's the poor use of an already weak character.

[qazwsx]

A few points of contention: 

1.  Doc Ock has always been able to take more of a beating from Spidey than he should.  Really, he should go down in about 1 hit, every time once Spider-man gets past the arms.  This rarely ever happens, whether comics, cartoons, or film - so it's not a fault of the movie, at least not exclusively. Take it up with years of the property's creative staff across various media.

2.  The film version of Doc Ock had a number of reasons to turn evil - physical trauma, his wife's death & his guilt over it, a desire to be vindicated, blaming Spider-man for the failure of the experiment, as well as the arms influencing him.

3.  Having super-powers get "turned off" happens all the time in super-hero story-telling, however powers are caused.  Spider-man's powers corrected his vision, so turning his powers off makes his eyes crappy again.  It's visual shorthand.

4.  Venom is a terrible character.  Eddie Brock is set-up to be Spider-man's evil doppleganger - a common superhero idea, and a lot of characters have at least one villain like that.  The problem is, in the comics Eddie Brock isn't really much like Peter Parker at all, which Raimi tried to correct with Topher Grace playing a morally-bankrupt version of Peter Parker.  Eddie Brock is fine in Spider-man 3; the problem is once he becomes Venom.  It feels like its shoe-horned in, and then there's the poor use of an already weak character.

Yeah I agree with most of that actually, the "main baddie becomes unexplainedbly uber tough" syndrome isn't really exclusive to spider-man, even the Joker was pretty much invincible in TDK where bats took every one down with one hit. Doesn't mean I forgive it though :P  I still have beef with the disappearing power though, not in itself as such, but the reason given in the movie, I don't feel like it? C'mon...

I thought venom was brilliant in the comics before he was over exploited. Further, in the comics he wasn't truly evil in the classical sense. He just had a different opinion of who and what was wrong and right and spidey was misbehaving he thought. And he ate Sandman :D In contrast he fully evilised to the max in SM3, even the Bloody uncle killer was redeemed! somehow... Here's a brilliant lampoon: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HoNgMVFQNBI