Ooh, more Spidey!

Mr. K

http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/exclusive-sony-sets-sam-raimi-studio-may-shoot-4-and-5-at-same-time/

I'm okay with this news! As a huge Spidey fan, I didn't 3 was that bad. Disappointing, yes. But it had a lot to live up to, the first and second films were great. I imagine 3's poor reception has been noted, hopefully Sony have learnt their lesson!

longshanks

i thought the first one was shit, the second one was shit, and guess what? i thought the third one was one of the biggest piles of festering shite in years. i cant imagine the series getting any better to be honest

challengemaster

Why can't they just let it die...

BlitzKrieg

ahh f*ck

tman

Mneh... I'd be more interested in the Venom movie tbh.
He was the villain that I'd been waiting for since Spiderman 1, and felt a little let down by his appearance in 3. Hopefully they don't cock this up, but I'm sure they will...

They should really give up on the main series now, it's going the way of the older Batman films.

Podge_irl

I actually thought Spiderman 1 and 2 were both fun films to watch. Tob Maguire was annoying and the Peter Parker and Mary-Jane storylines were annoying but the Spiderman bits were enjoyable. Spiderman 3, however, was an unmitigated pile of ****e and if they are intent on making a fourth one I hope to god they have learnt their lesson (alas I doubt they have seeing as 3 was possibly the most profitable of the lot - I'm open to correction on this).

Pepe LeFrits

1 and 2 were okay, nothing special. 3 was dire. I won't be bothering with any more of 'em.

krudler

am i the only one who wanted to murder Mary-Jane the whole way through 3? "boo hoo my crappy acting career fell on its arse and my boyfriend is getting his way in life finally and people love him wahhh waahh!" thats because hes Spider-man you stupid woman!

But didn't the 3 Spiderman movies make shedloads of money. Doesn't matter if they're a festering pile of sh1te, they still make money.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

First was ok, second was boring. No idea about the third. (Why did people go see it if they thought the first two were bad...?)

Galvasean

challengemaster wrote: »

Why can't they just let it die...

Because its worth too much money.
I liked 1&2, nothing great but entertaining romps. 3 was just a horrid mess.
My expectations for 4&5 are fairly low.

Bubs101

Give some credit to number 2. Had a great villian, a good storyline and set up 3 well. It was a great popcorn film. Just because the Dark Knight has changed the way people percieve a superhero movie to be now doesn't mean that all that came before was crap

MooseJam

1 was good , 2 was great, 3 was as stated not great, think 3 killed the series tbh , lot's of people wouldn't be bothered going to see 4

Kiith

Yup, same as above. Loved the first two, but i thought 3 was absolute dog****. That blue hair/emo peter bit was the most cringe worthy piece of **** ever. And not cringe worthy in a good way.

Placebo

they were all enjoyable films, with nice special effects, non-comic fans coming out of these films expecting really in-depth intertwining story lines need to go watch the wire. Its an action packed, adventure film, with SPIDER MAN, stfu and dont watch THE SECOND and THE THIRD, if you didnt like the first. Pretty simple.

Sandwich

krudler wrote: »

am i the only one who wanted to murder Mary-Jane the whole way through 3? "boo hoo my crappy acting career fell on its arse and my boyfriend is getting his way in life finally and people love him wahhh waahh!" thats because hes Spider-man you stupid woman!

Come on!?!?

Mary-Jane is really the center of all three movies, the Spiderman element just the wrapping and excuse to provide a little spectacular action and CGI wow.
Mary-Jane is one of the more richly constructed female roles in recent cinema. Superficially leaving the top billing to the male lead, she is in fact the most important influence on his life and the core of his own motivation in everything he does as Peter/Spidey. She knows who she is and what she wants - but it is thwarted because of his deficiencies - yet in the end she accepts his failngs and remains true to him. His own dual identity is the expression of his inability to express his true feelings for her and while the coherence of the allusions was uneven throughout the three movies, his own life is an expression of this conflict(saving her yet rejecting her, his general failure in life[the 2nd movie], his frustration and 'turning to his dark side' due to his inability to consume their passion, distracting himself in crime fightinging yet subconsciously it is all to try and both 'correct' the world to the way he wants it and an attemp to attract her attention with the spectacular, the web spinning from his wrists as his masturbatory emissions etc etc).

Where they can take it from the rather pat ending of the 3rd one will be interesting to see, but I fear it was just a rather cheap Hollywood sellout, and they may now struggle to retain the overall dynamic and psychological exploration that was behind the blockbuster elements of the movies up to that point.

shenanigans1982

Sandwich wrote: »

Come on!?!?

Mary-Jane is really the center of all three movies, the Spiderman element just the wrapping and excuse to provide a little spectacular action and CGI wow.
Mary-Jane is one of the more richly constructed female roles in recent cinema. Superficially leaving the top billing to the male lead, she is in fact the most important influence on his life and the core of his own motivation in everything he does as Peter/Spidey. She knows who she is and what she wants - but it is thwarted because of his deficiencies - yet in the end she accepts his failngs and remains true to him. His own dual identity is the expression of his inability to express his true feelings for her and while the coherence of the allusions was uneven throughout the three movies, his own life is an expression of this conflict(saving her yet rejecting her, his general failure in life[the 2nd movie], his frustration and 'turning to his dark side' due to his inability to consume their passion, distracting himself in crime fightinging yet subconsciously it is all to try and both 'correct' the world to the way he wants it and an attemp to attract her attention with the spectacular, the web spinning from his wrists as his masturbatory emissions etc etc).

But she has red hair....

...I am a huge Spider-man fan and thought the third movie had the most potential out of all three, but they just didn't pull it off. I will go see all the movies that they bring out but I won't have very high expectations.

Dont be at yourself

I think people are too harsh on the 3rd movie. It wasn't as good as the previous installments, but it wasnt all that bad either.

Hopefully the poor reception and the gap between filming 3 and 4/5 will mean that everyone returns with their creative energies ready to rock.

I read an interesting quote regarding the villain, something like 'once the villain is revealed, you'll know who will play him'... this can be taken a few ways, but for me it points to Dr. Connors/The Lizard, who has had a cameo in the films already and so is already cast!

Galvasean

NekkidBibleMan wrote: »

I think people are too harsh on the 3rd movie. It wasn't as good as the previous installments, but it wasnt all that bad either.

Really?
"we uncovered new evidence, here's your uncle's REAL killer"
Bump on the head = Amnesia FTW
Venom's back story

he just fell from the sky one day. no explanation whatsoever

emo tap dancing spidey
Topher Grace whining all the time
Venom being in the movie for 5 minutres
The last confrontation with Sandman

"I didn't wnat any of this" *flies away*

krudler

Sandwich wrote: »

Come on!?!?

Mary-Jane is really the center of all three movies, the Spiderman element just the wrapping and excuse to provide a little spectacular action and CGI wow.
Mary-Jane is one of the more richly constructed female roles in recent cinema. Superficially leaving the top billing to the male lead, she is in fact the most important influence on his life and the core of his own motivation in everything he does as Peter/Spidey. She knows who she is and what she wants - but it is thwarted because of his deficiencies - yet in the end she accepts his failngs and remains true to him. His own dual identity is the expression of his inability to express his true feelings for her and while the coherence of the allusions was uneven throughout the three movies, his own life is an expression of this conflict(saving her yet rejecting her, his general failure in life[the 2nd movie], his frustration and 'turning to his dark side' due to his inability to consume their passion, distracting himself in crime fightinging yet subconsciously it is all to try and both 'correct' the world to the way he wants it and an attemp to attract her attention with the spectacular, the web spinning from his wrists as his masturbatory emissions etc etc).

Where they can take it from the rather pat ending of the 3rd one will be interesting to see, but I fear it was just a rather cheap Hollywood sellout, and they may now struggle to retain the overall dynamic and psychological exploration that was behind the blockbuster elements of the movies up to that point.

Sweet Jesus theres a whole new level of pretentiousness in there, richly contructed female character? give me a break!

4zn76tysfajdxp

Sandwich wrote: »

Come on!?!?

Mary-Jane is really the center of all three movies, the Spiderman element just the wrapping and excuse to provide a little spectacular action and CGI wow.
Mary-Jane is one of the more richly constructed female roles in recent cinema. Superficially leaving the top billing to the male lead, she is in fact the most important influence on his life and the core of his own motivation in everything he does as Peter/Spidey. She knows who she is and what she wants - but it is thwarted because of his deficiencies - yet in the end she accepts his failngs and remains true to him. His own dual identity is the expression of his inability to express his true feelings for her and while the coherence of the allusions was uneven throughout the three movies, his own life is an expression of this conflict(saving her yet rejecting her, his general failure in life[the 2nd movie], his frustration and 'turning to his dark side' due to his inability to consume their passion, distracting himself in crime fightinging yet subconsciously it is all to try and both 'correct' the world to the way he wants it and an attemp to attract her attention with the spectacular, the web spinning from his wrists as his masturbatory emissions etc etc).

Where they can take it from the rather pat ending of the 3rd one will be interesting to see, but I fear it was just a rather cheap Hollywood sellout, and they may now struggle to retain the overall dynamic and psychological exploration that was behind the blockbuster elements of the movies up to that point.

You're right, the Spider-Man films are all about Mary Jane despite the films being named after the main character, Spider-Man, and a forty year old series of comics also called Spider-Man or derivatives of Spider-Man.

Sandwich

Camryn Harsh Skepticism wrote: »

You're right, the Spider-Man films are all about Mary Jane despite the films being named after the main character, Spider-Man, and a forty year old series of comics also called Spider-Man or derivatives of Spider-Man.

I am only refering to the movies here having not read the comics, and do not know whether they had the same fundamental theme. Yes of course its about Spiderman, but only in so far as he is defined by his relationship with Mary-Jane - the core character who has a strong persona capable of existing without him. Not a weak one whose life is a search for his character as determined by his realtionship/lack-of-relationship with her.

(Calling the movies 'Mary-Jane' wasnt exactly going to pull in the crowds was it . Thats Hollywood for you.)

BlitzKrieg

wait...

you werent being sarcastic when you wrote that post?

Mitch Connor

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

wait...

you werent being sarcastic when you wrote that post?

yeah - i had my money down on that too.

Mr. K

In the comics, MJ is a far stronger character. It's crazy how she's been through and how much she loves Peter. In fact, they're having a huge crisis at the moment!

ztoical

Sandwich wrote: »

Mary-Jane is one of the more richly constructed female roles in recent cinema. Superficially leaving the top billing to the male lead, she is in fact the most important influence on his life and the core of his own motivation in everything he does as Peter/Spidey

Thats you trying to be funny or ironic right?

ztoical

Mr. K wrote: »

In the comics, MJ is a far stronger character. It's crazy how she's been through and how much she loves Peter. In fact, they're having a huge crisis at the moment!

the movie MJ is far more like the comic Gwen Stacy and the movie Gwen is more like the comic MJ - they got it all mixed up.

Mr. K

Especially since Gwen's a model in the movies, good point! Seems a strange way for them to go about it, but there were lots of strange decisions in 3.

faceman

If spiderman 4 was just a film about Bryce Dallas Howard jumping around in low cut tops with blonde hair for 2 hours I would watch it.

If its about more peter parker antics and has that plain plank Dunst in it, Id rather chop my eyeballs out and post them to Stan Lee.

Cadeaus

Was really let down by one and two. Went to see three and thought it was the best by a country mile. Hilarious. Action packed. Stupid. B movie. Well worth the 9 quid I spent on it.



Were you really expecting Schindlers list? If you like Sam Raimi's early stuff you probably would've liked it.

Cadeaus

faceman wrote: »

If spiderman 4 was just a film about Bryce Dallas Howard jumping around in low cut tops with blonde hair for 2 hours I would watch it

NOW THAT'S A MOVIE!!!

monkeyfudge

ztoical wrote: »

the movie MJ is far more like the comic Gwen Stacy and the movie Gwen is more like the comic MJ - they got it all mixed up.

Yeah.. and they got a red head playing a blonde and a blonde playing a red head...

I reckon a radioactive spider bite would kill Peter Parker. I'd like them to reboot the series from scratch and explore that possibility.

doonothing

But like.. if they're good I'll be happy, if they're not, I won't really care.. I like the whole spidey thing, I'd rather they kept makin' em, and they end up good or give us something to bitch about than them not making any at all...
It's only spiderman like, they're not remaking the godfather or anything.

shenanigans1982

Cadeaus wrote: »

Was really let down by one and two. Went to see three and thought it was the best by a country mile.

To quote one Brennan Huff...." Are you high?"

chopperbyrne

They need to stick to just one main villain.

Dark Knight is one of the few films that has worked well with two villains, but most superhero films with two villains end up with one being severely overlooked like Venom in Spider-Man 3.

Electro would be my choice.

Handsome Bob

I really enjoyed 1 & 2, but 3...........

I would really like to say S-M3 was poor because Raimi effectively had a villain forced on him by Arad and Sony. But that is no excuse for a poor story. The suit was meant to amplify aggression, make Parker a real bad-ass, instead all we get is Parker dancing like a buffoon. And the only real evil thing he did was by accidnt (hitting MJ). Also, I agree with previous posts saying that MJ was really unlikeable in this film. She just came across as bitter and having sour grapes. This is all down to the writing and it was simply a poor story.

BUT, now that Venom is out of the way, I don't think the Studio will be forcing any villains on Raimi. Now hopefully he can fully focus on this film without any interference (unless they force Carnage on him:rolleyes::pac:).

Mr. K

Wow, Carnage is all kinds of stupid. I kind of enjoy the stories that feature him though. Venom was so poorly used in three, he (they?) should be given another chance as the only villain in a film.

Handsome Bob

Mr. K wrote: »

Wow, Carnage is all kinds of stupid. I kind of enjoy the stories that feature him though. Venom was so poorly used in three, he (they?) should be given another chance as the only villain in a film.

Ther is a spin-off movie planned for Venom, I'd be pretty confident in calling right now that Carnage will be the villain.

Mr. K

Don't really have much faith in the spin off, but Carnage is the obvious choice for a villain. He's still stupid though, like Venom to the extreme!

Galvasean

Carnage is far from stupid. He is actually a genius. Unfortunately he is too insane to focus his efforts on anything constructive.

I'd like a Venom spin-off, as long as Nic Cage keeps away.

Vic Vinegar

shenanigans1982 wrote: »

To quote one Brennan Huff...." Are you high?"

I am sometimes, but even then i'd say Spiderman 3 is a terrible mess of a film, the worst by 8 furlongs!

Handsome Bob

Galvasean wrote: »

Carnage is far from stupid. He is actually a genius. Unfortunately he is too insane to focus his efforts on anything constructive.

I'd like a Venom spin-off, as long as Nic Cage keeps away.

I'd like a Venom spin-off too just once it's rated R. If Carnage is the villain, then to make it work it would have to be rated R, a PG Carnage defeats the whole purpose of the character.

PullMyFinger!

Tobey Maguire has apparently reached a record deal to return for Spider-man 4 & 5, according to the Sunday Times. The deal will allow Maguire to take early mornings and evenings off so that he can spend time with his toddler daughter, and also pay Maguire "a record $50 million" for the sequels. The two sequels will be filmed back-to-back over a six month span.

The Times also says that we will know in the next few days if Kirsten Dunst will return for the sequels.

It just wouldnt be the same without him tbh. But maybe its time for a new Mary Jane.

Handsome Bob

^:mad::pac::p

Kirsten Dunst "in" for Spider-Man 4


The recent revelation that Sony Pictures is looking to shoot Spider-Man 4 and Spider-Man 5 at the same time didn't reveal whether Kirsten Dunst would rejoin director Sam Raimi and Tobey Maguire for the films.

Now, Dunst has told MTV that she'll be back as Mary Jane Watson:

"I'm in," said the actress matter of factly. However, when pressed to make the announcement official, Dunst quickly changed her tone, and rather cryptically added, "I'm not saying anything, I know there's rumors..."


The studio is targeting a May 2011 release for the fourth pic.
_______________________________________________________________________________

Well just once they stop dressing her like a dowdy middle aged woman and actually present the character in a way that endears her to the audience then I'm fine about her being back.[/SIZE][/FONT]