...and some news on Spidey 5 Last week, director Sam Raimi revealed that on Spider-Man 3, he didn't have complete control over what villains to include, but for the next two movies he does. For Spider-Man 4 and Spider-Man 5 (which are expected to film back-to-back) it's now been revealed that Raimi plans to tell one big story that will incorporate elements from classic plot lines from the comics, with Spider-Man 5 in particular focusing on one of Spidey's most beloved tales. In Spider-Man 4, Peter Parker will find the spider inside him lashing out, with his powers going violently out of control. Link for the rest: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/spi...tion_raimi_announces_next_spider_man_villians
Sounds pretty good, if they do make a movie out of Kraven's Last Hunt I'd be there opening night. Thats one of the if not my favorite storyline in the Spidey comics ever.
I dunno Ive been spoiled by The Dark Night and Watchmen I doubt Spiderman 4 can even live up to my expectations.
That sounds awesome. I wasn't too impressed with the last one and thought it would just be a trilogy.
Going dark didn't work for Spidey back then and it's really just not as applicable to his nature as the other series. And that's one thing I liked about it. Simple and lighter, yet still serious.
My question is how Sam Raimi didn't have full and complete control over the 3rd film. How is that possible? The guy made the studio billions of dollars on th first 2 films, you'd think the guy would have put his foot down and said no I'm not doing it that way or I don't like the script let's change it around. I mean I don't get it but that's Hollywood for you I guess. The problem of the 3rd film wasn't which villians were in it, the problem was the script, bad casting for Venom and just dumb plot lines and scenes.
It was pretty well known that Raimi just wanted it to be about Sandman but the studio wanted Venom in there. So they shoe horned everybody in.
My point is Raimi should have been able to do what he wanted since the first 2 films were so successful. The problem wasn't that it had the Sandman and Venom, the problem was with the script. It was just awful and Raimi should have realized that.
While picking producer Todd Black's brain about "The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3," I asked a few questions about the upcoming "Spider-Man 4." Black was understandably cryptic, but here's what I did learn: - Kirsten Dunst is definitely on board. Last month, director Sam Raimi was quoted as saying he didn't know if the actor was going to sign up to play Mary Jane again, but it appears that she has. - Contrary to online rumors, it doesn't look like the script will feature a wedding between Mary Jane and Peter Parker. Black had no knowledge of that subplot. - Also contrary to online rumors (but really, are there any other kind?), the villain will not be Morbius the vampire. Sure, vampires are hot, but Black squashed that rumor completely. - As for who the villain will be, Black had this to say: "We're just coming up with who the villain's going to be now. We'll be shooting in New York again. Trust me, people will appreciate who we pick, because it'll be a big part of New York." So who could it be? What Spidey villain has ties to New York City? Let's speculate after the jump. http://blogs.nypost.com/movies/archives/2009/06/exclusive_spide.html
Well, I guess it's a good thing they aren't jumping on a vampire bandwagon. Dunst being back is meh. Good for continuity in the lead actress role (unlike Dark Knight which went from shrug to barf with the Rachel Dawes role) though still likely sub-par acting.
I wouldn't mind seeing the Kingpin if there's other interesting villans involved. Lord knows Michael Clark Duncan's schedule isn't busy these days.
In all honesty...... The plot, at its bare bones, wasn't so bad. From what I heard, it was supposed to be about a hero whose has everything going for him until things start crumble around him (e.g. Relationship issues with MJ, his best friend now becoming his worst enemy, etcetera). So he starts taking a downward spiral on the heroism scale while going up against a new threat to the city, only for the threat (Sandman), to have redeemable qualities. As for your point about Sam Raimi, I don't think there's much he could have done. Movie Executives have ruined a lot of movies in the past, because, quite frankly, they have the final say, and while some movie execs are willing to go with a director on an issue or just reach compromise, a lot of execs can simply look at a script, meet with the director, and say "Okay, I want you to change A, B, C, and D. Oh you don't want to? We'll just fire you and find someone who will." Edit: As far as I know, anyway.
I would love to see the Sinister Six but that wouldn't make sense now that Spidey has killed half of the Six. That leaves.... -Scorpion -Rhino -Carnage -Kraven -Vulture -Mysterio -Electro -Kingpin -Chameleon -Lizard I would also like to see Black Cat make an appearance.
Bad news http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr...6f66cc49571580a441debbe8?loc=interstitialskip Sony and director Sam Raimi are at loggerheads over which direction to go with the villains for the latest installment -- an impasse which has prompted the studio to delay its scheduled spring production start and potentially to bump the pic from its May 6, 2011 release slot. Raimi wants to have a criminal known as the Vulture act as the primary antagonist in the film while the studio, which dislikes the idea of the winged wrongdoer, is pushing for a romantic sub-plot involving a burglar named the Black Cat in addition to another villain.
Carnage would have to be so watered down to appeal to the little kid audience they're going for that it prob would be worse than Venom. Maybe Ashton Kutcher is available lol
If it's not Kraven, I don't want to see it. Kraven was Spidey's most vicious foe...they should adopt the plotline where Kraven "kills" him.
