Raimi Girds Up for More Spidey Sequels

Summary

The fourth and fifth "Spider-Man" movies are officially in the works, but still too far away to know much about -- but that didn't stop MTV's Larry Carroll from trying to get a little info out of Sam Raimi. Back to Article

Comments

infernaldude

Infernal Dude

I'm down. Hopefully they can learn from past mistakes and end the series on a high note.

They have to keep MJ for at least one of the pictures. And keeping Dunst would help the continuity. Everyone hates her as MJ, but I think she did alright. I know that in the comics she's a smoking hot redhead. I know the singing in 3 was bad. But her and Maguire had some chemistry, which is way more than most movie couples have these days. Plus no one really complained until 3 about her any way.

Make 4 and 5. Keep Dunst and all the other remaining cast members. Don't ***** it up!

Oct 17 - 02:56 AM

The Iron Invader

Matthew D.

Worst news of the year. The franchise needs a reboot, not another Raimi-suckfest.

Oct 17 - 03:50 AM

Vortex&Vertigo

Joel Feliciano

ahhhhh, but it is clear that Raimi does not have total creative control, notice that he is a little out of the loop.

Oct 17 - 04:46 AM

Matanuki

Matanuki .

It's impossible at this point for me to get excited about another Spider-Man movie. It's kinda like the Daredevil reboot. I want it to be good, of course, because I love the character, I love the mythology. But it's for these same reasons that I'm concerned. They'll just have to come and wash away the stink the way Nolan did with Begins before I can truly get back on board.

Nice to see them talking about Lizard, but no mention of Gwen? What are they doing with that, one wonders. And this two movie arc, which set of villains fit the mold better than a saga involving Venom? Oh yeah, they already blew that load. *sigh*

At best, I'm on the fence with this one. It's up there with Transformers 2. But maybe that's not fair. I liked Transformers a hell of a lot more than SM3.

Oct 17 - 05:49 AM

thereign

lance berry

As long as they make it better than Spider-Man 3(and what couldn't be better than SM3?), I'm in. Raimi shouldn't be waffling about doing the Lizard's story...just get it done already!

I still wish Marvel hadn't let Sony keep the rights to Spider-Man; their own studio has been doing a good job so far with making their heroes respectable again(Iron Man, Hulk), and I'd love to see them finally get Spider-Man completely right(read: Peter Parker is a SCIENTIST, and NO organic web-shooters).

Oct 17 - 06:21 AM

Shatter24

Jeremiah Rancourt

No apologies necessary for Spiderman 3. There was a lot in that film, sure, which could prove exhausting to keep up with. But S3 was not a "suckfest" and there is no "stink" associated with the franchise. Before the success of The Dark Knight, Spiderman was the most successful and critically acclaimed superhero franchise ever. Spiderman 3 does not diminish that, since it was still a really good movie. Was there too much in it, maybe, but rather too much than too little. I felt there was too much in Dark Knight also, and maybe having some of it in another movie would have worked better. I am not going to fault DK, so I am not going to fault S3.

Spiderman 3 does not deserve to be everyone's whipping boy. Raimi made an excellent three picture story arc and I believe most moviegoers are willing to allow him to continue. Let's not jump to the reboot preemptively, get your finger off the button people. Save it for movies that weren't successful and were generally panned or disliked not for Spidey. So, let's all get off our ivory towers and stop making mountains out of molehiles . . . and accept the fact they are making two more films in a franchise that deserves continuation.

Oct 17 - 07:11 AM

Matanuki

Matanuki .

Comparing TDK to SM3 even on the subtle is tantamount to a slap in the face. And let's break it down to where it is forever and consistently broken, shall we; Spider-Man is not the "whipping boy" here, it's the atrocity that his latest film counterpart represents. Maybe you watched a different movie than the rest of us, Shatter. Perhaps the one I'm still waiting to see that was advertised in those praiseworthy trailers. ;-)

Real tip, nothing against you. But come on, man. Monetary success, especially in today's movie going climate that would allow something like 'Meet The Spartans' to be no.1 for two weeks (!!), DOES NOT correspond to artistic and/or aesthetic success. You're a movie buff yourself, so I'm quite sure you're aware that there have been countless films worthy the adjective "great" that were both critically and financially lukewarm.

Mountains out of molehills? You CAN'T be talking about the same SM3 the rest of us saw.

Is the Spider-Man mythology worthy of more movies? Sure. Not in dispute. Is there a stink that needs to be washed away in order for those movies to achieve anything resembling the overall success of the first 2? You better believe it.

Oct 17 - 07:56 AM

Matanuki

Matanuki .

Comparing TDK to SM3 even on the subtle is tantamount to a slap in the face. And let's break it down to where it is forever and consistently broken, shall we; Spider-Man is not the "whipping boy" here, it's the atrocity that his latest film counterpart represents. Maybe you watched a different movie than the rest of us, Shatter. Perhaps the one I'm still waiting to see that was advertised in those praiseworthy trailers. ;-)

Real tip, nothing against you. But come on, man. Monetary success, especially in today's movie going climate that would allow something like 'Meet The Spartans' to be no.1 for two weeks (!!), DOES NOT correspond to artistic and/or aesthetic success. You're a movie buff yourself, so I'm quite sure you're aware that there have been countless films worthy the adjective "great" that were both critically and financially lukewarm.

Mountains out of molehills? You CAN'T be talking about the same SM3 the rest of us saw.

Is the Spider-Man mythology worthy of more movies? Sure. Not in dispute. Is there a stink that needs to be washed away in order for those movies to achieve anything resembling the overall success of the first 2? You better believe it.

Oct 17 - 07:56 AM

Hamboner

Brian Lorenzen

-Matanuki... is it really a slap in your face? C'mon man.

-Bring back MJ if you want, but for once, let's not have her be the damsel in distress in the final act. It's predictable and displays a laziness in plotting to do this over and over again.

-Norman Osborne should appear in every film, somehow, even tangentially. Like Peter fails to deliver a pizza and someone hallucinates him screaming "AVENGE ME!!!" Yeah, that's a joke.

-I could see Dr. Connors/The Lizard being the pendulous entity stuck between a hero and villain, similar to Harvey Dent. It could make for a very interesting arc for 2 films.

-I like writing in bullet points.

Oct 17 - 08:21 AM

Matanuki

Matanuki .

Well yeah, dude. I mean, comparing TDK to SM3!!!! WTF?!?! While we're at it, let's insult Spider-Man 2 by offering that it's comparable to, say, Mortal Kombat 2. lol. You get my drift. Sometimes we take things too far.

I agree with you on the MJ and Dr. Connors points. In fact, approaching the Connors story in that fashion could very well make up for the gross mistakes of the last film. A great deal of people posted in tandem some time ago about how they'd like to see them somehow bring the symbiote back into the story. I'm in agreement with that idea.

The organic web shooting was done in the sense of an allegory for puberty, what with the way he was waking up with sticky webbing all over the place. I'd like to see them continue in that allegorical tradition by inserting the symbiote/Venom story as sort of a story on the effects of a powerful drug. Sometimes you kick a drug, think yourself over and done with it, only to find yourself, struck by overwhelming grief, rationalizing going back to it later.

The Lizard is one of Spidey's nearly unbeatable heavyweights. Combine Spidey's feelings of inadequacy with yet another great tragedy (MJ's death due to him finally being too late to save her) and, like magic, you've got one hell of a reason for him to embrace the darkness again. Enter remnants of the symbiote. Enter also Brock Sr., hellbent on an unshakable need to avenge the death of his son at Spider-Man's hand. I could totally get on board with that!

By the way, another case for revisiting the Venom story is so they can portray the biomorphic capabilities of the symbiote. It's one of the unforgivable things they fu.cked up on in 3.

Oct 17 - 08:51 AM

Shatter24

Jeremiah Rancourt

It is one thing to have modest success or even break $100 million and still be a mediocre film critically/objectively. But Spiderman 3 broke the bank at home and internationally. The Rotten Tomato meter has it marked as fresh, meaning most critics liked it and saw merit to the film. It didn't have a break-out performance like Heath Ledger's, sure, but overall it was a strong follow up to two great movies.

I will continue to stand up for this film and not be shamed out of liking it. You want to ignore me or ridicule someone for liking Elektra, Ghost Rider, Fantastic Four 2, Batman and Robin that's fine. But words are important and putting Spiderman 3 in with those comic book dregs (which you are by using the words suck, stink, and reboot) is unfair to Sam Raimi, the fans who enjoyed ALL THREE films, and limits our ability to truely have a conversation critiquing the film or any films.

Its a matter of degree. I liked Spiderman 3 but I can respect people for saying they were let down by it or that it wasn't as good as the other two. I can at least understand those objections. But to say it was awful means your unfairly shading it against whatever your expectations were and not judging it on its merit.

If I'm going to go down fighting, this is one of the films I will do it for. There needs to be one objector on this post, simply to keep the rest of you honest.

Oct 17 - 08:44 AM

Matanuki

Matanuki .

Ok. While we're being honest, Shatter. Explain for me how honest a representation of descending into darkness it is to have Peter Parker bouncing off the walls in a jazz club like in a bad outtake from The Mask, how is it a representation of the suits evil influences to show him walking down the street like a fool in a bad John Travolta parody? This kind of camp is dishonest, at best. I shouldn't be laughing or groaning at this sh.it. I should worried about the soul of a conscientious hero being noticeably corrupted by the exploitation of his own insecurities and self-doubt, his grief, his guilt. I should continue to identify with Parker, seeing as myself can suffer the rigors of a punitive plot and deteriorate morally, intellectually, emotionally, if, eventually, I don't somehow dredge up the strength to overcome the influence. I shouldn't be suddenly detached, choking on popcorn because, hey look, Raimi just a made a funny.

Now, you've gotta agree that everything they attempted to do in that movie involving Venom was a complete disaster. We're being honest, right? We're being objective?...

Expectations? The trailer itself set up those expectations, and by the result the film seems nearly in every respect to have intentionally betrayed them. That's not honest. It's gratuitous, man.

Oct 17 - 09:05 AM

danrice56

Dan Rice

"overall it was a strong follow up to two great movies."




"overall it was a piece of ****."

Oct 19 - 05:33 PM

Matanuki

Matanuki .

lol. Poetry, danrice. Poetry.

Oct 19 - 05:56 PM

Matanuki

Matanuki .

Well yeah, dude. I mean, comparing TDK to SM3!!!! WTF?!?! While we're at it, let's insult Spider-Man 2 by offering that it's comparable to, say, Mortal Kombat 2. lol. You get my drift. Sometimes we take things too far.

I agree with you on the MJ and Dr. Connors points. In fact, approaching the Connors story in that fashion could very well make up for the gross mistakes of the last film. A great deal of people posted in tandem some time ago about how they'd like to see them somehow bring the symbiote back into the story. I'm in agreement with that idea.

The organic web shooting was done in the sense of an allegory for puberty, what with the way he was waking up with sticky webbing all over the place. I'd like to see them continue in that allegorical tradition by inserting the symbiote/Venom story as sort of a story on the effects of a powerful drug. Sometimes you kick a drug, think yourself over and done with it, only to find yourself, struck by overwhelming grief, rationalizing going back to it later.

The Lizard is one of Spidey's nearly unbeatable heavyweights. Combine Spidey's feelings of inadequacy with yet another great tragedy (MJ's death due to him finally being too late to save her) and, like magic, you've got one hell of a reason for him to embrace the darkness again. Enter remnants of the symbiote. Enter also Brock Sr., hellbent on an unshakable need to avenge the death of his son at Spider-Man's hand. I could totally get on board with that!

By the way, another case for revisiting the Venom story is so they can portray the biomorphic capabilities of the symbiote. It's one of the unforgivable things they fu.cked up on in 3.

Oct 17 - 08:51 AM

Matanuki

Matanuki .

Ok. While we're being honest, Shatter. Explain for me how honest a representation of descending into darkness it is to have Peter Parker bouncing off the walls in a jazz club like in a bad outtake from The Mask, how is it a representation of the suits evil influences to show him walking down the street like a fool in a bad John Travolta parody? This kind of camp is dishonest, at best. I shouldn't be laughing or groaning at this sh.it. I should worried about the soul of a conscientious hero being noticeably corrupted by the exploitation of his own insecurities and self-doubt, his grief, his guilt. I should continue to identify with Parker, seeing as myself can suffer the rigors of a punitive plot and deteriorate morally, intellectually, emotionally, if, eventually, I don't somehow dredge up the strength to overcome the influence. I shouldn't be suddenly detached, choking on popcorn because, hey look, Raimi just a made a funny.

Now, you've gotta agree that everything they attempted to do in that movie involving Venom was a complete disaster. We're being honest, right? We're being objective?...

Expectations? The trailer itself set up those expectations, and by the result the film seems nearly in every respect to have intentionally betrayed them. That's not honest. It's gratuitous, man.

Oct 17 - 09:05 AM

rle4lunch

Chad W

Okay, I have to say it. The only reason that TDK was so critically accepted was for the simple fact that it was written as a crime drama and not an actual superhero movie. Between SP3 and TDK, they're too completely different films. Where all three Spiderman movies hinged on comic book science and sci-fi technologies (which haven't come to be invented, yet), TDK tried to base its science/technology on tangible, real world/real time, technologies. There's nothing wrong with that, for either film. Batman was originally a detective comic (as all you nerds know, much more than me about), Spiderman was born out of fantasy.

So, it would be stupid to put each one in the same category as 'superhero' films. Clearly Nolan wanted to strip the superhero vibe off of Batman and the previous films made be Burton/Schumacher, and make a more gritty, realistic view of the character.

Not so with Spidey. To do the same sort of reboot to this franchise would most likely be its downfall. Spiderman needs to stay in his own realm of fantastic imagination. And while I enjoyed all three Spidey flicks, I must say that SP3 was my least favorite, due to the frantic nature of trying to fit in 3 villians, a new love interest, as well as Peter crying every 15 minutes of the film. I also think that Sandman should've been left out. The CGI for him sucked for the most part. The only part I liked was when he was initially changed into the Sandman.

Oct 17 - 09:18 AM

Matanuki

Matanuki .

"To do the same sort of reboot to this franchise would most likely be its downfall."

Perhaps. But no one so far has even suggested that.

Oct 17 - 09:34 AM

rle4lunch

Chad W

Contraire Mata- The Iron Invader said it early in this thread. He didn't specify anything, but did say 'reboot'. And since everybody on this effin' site likes to liken the Batman reboot to fix the woes of EVERY movie, well, I just expected that's what he meant.

Oct 17 - 09:43 AM

Timbo0075

Tim Hautekiet

YOu make a good point man. I love both Batman and Spider-Man, both are in my favourite 3 superhero's of all time. Spidey being nr 1 and Batman nr 2. They have defonately evolved into 2 completely diffrent kind of frachises the way you put it

Oct 19 - 04:16 AM

TragicVillain

Alexander Walker

I think the truly ironic aspect of any Spider-man TDK comparison is the Heath Ledger / Venom coincidence.

Ledger's joker was originally rumored to have been **Spoiler** left alive **Spoiler over** and brought back, in one way or another in a third film. And considering how he played the part, why wouldn't they leave that door open. But alas, Ledger passed away, and now an excellent performance with the option for continuation has to be closed.

On the other hand, Venom, the villain everyone WANTED to be awesome and be a main villain was ruined by poor portrayal and killed off in film.

In both these situations, the worst possible fate befell both villains. Only one had a fictional demise, and the other, quite sadly, did not.

Oh irony.

Oct 17 - 09:23 AM

RoadDogXVIII

Michael Zimmerman

I agree with the people for Kirsten Dunst to return. Remember, she said in interviews that she was aware that she didn't do too well a job (I agree, she came off like a bad soap opera actress). I'll give her the benefit of the doubt. But, for the love of Christ, DON'T KILL HER! Just because she grated on everyone's nerve's in the last installment doesn't mean a death should be a reward. And Peter and MJ Watson were destined to be together for a long time, right?

Oct 17 - 09:33 AM

Matanuki

Matanuki .

"To do the same sort of reboot to this franchise would most likely be its downfall."

Perhaps. But no one so far has even suggested that.

Oct 17 - 09:34 AM

rle4lunch

Chad W

Contraire Mata- The Iron Invader said it early in this thread. He didn't specify anything, but did say 'reboot'. And since everybody on this effin' site likes to liken the Batman reboot to fix the woes of EVERY movie, well, I just expected that's what he meant.

Oct 17 - 09:43 AM

collex

Alex D.B.

I don't think SP3 sucked. I wasn't as good as SM1 and SM2 (wich I completly love). It was a letdown yes, like X3. (I used to hate X3, but then someone brought on new perspective). Does it mean Raimi and co. can't redeem it? No. It can't redeemed easiy. Everybody know what didn't work. Just remove it and tadaah!

I agrre however, that it could be a tough job. After all, most saga possibility has been ruled out (Sinister Six? They killed their leader Symbiote? They killed venom. There is still Connor's bit so maybe but... Clone Saga? Just no...)

Lizard/Kraven is the best to go I think...

Oct 17 - 09:40 AM

rle4lunch

Chad W

Contraire Mata- The Iron Invader said it early in this thread. He didn't specify anything, but did say 'reboot'. And since everybody on this effin' site likes to liken the Batman reboot to fix the woes of EVERY movie, well, I just expected that's what he meant.

Oct 17 - 09:43 AM

collex

Alex D.B.

No. It can be redeemed easily. (Just a typo, but a pretty important one)

Oct 17 - 09:43 AM

Shatter24

Jeremiah Rancourt

Thank you rle4lunch, for keeping the naysayers honest. Reboot was mentioned, completely inappropriately. And I agree the Batman reboot will not work with every film, especially Spiderman who is fantastical, young, and funny. Yes, I dare say it, Spiderman comics and movies are supposed to have humor in them.

In retort to Matanuki, you take a guy who's been a geek most of his life, a social outcast, and give him powers and a sense of invisibility and what is he going to do? Start killing people and knocking over banks, probably not. Start strutting his stuff and acting like a general a--, yeah probably. It was meant to be funny. Like how Raimi's Army of Darkness was funny in parts, or his Evil Dead films. You start taking your material too seriously and your going to start estranging the passive fan and the die-hard. The audience is there to have fun, and you need light moments to make the dark/dramatic moments more effective.

I am a pre-Venom Spiderman reader, who enjoyed his original villains. The treatment of Venom wasn't that appalling to me, I didn't care for the villain that much anyway. I preferred the idea of Peter battling against himself more, which we saw plenty of in S3. And there is an opening for bringing Venom back in another guise, which I have no problem with.

The real story which resonated with me was Peter's changing relationship with MJ and Harry and his fame going to his head from being Spidey. The idea of a former villain fighting alongside the hero to defeat even bigger villains made the end battle particularly exciting and satisfying. I however agree that the MJ storyline does need a breather, a rest. The way the film was ended in S3 gives Raimi the opportunity to take a break from this couple. I suggest he takes it.

Oct 17 - 10:43 AM

Matanuki

Matanuki .

Struggling with dark influences is no laughing matter, and attempting to convey the meat of a punitive plot through the vehicle of gawkish, cheesy humor is just bad writing. There are better ways to interject comic relief. In fact, are you familiar with the 'Spectacular Spider-Man' Saturday morning cartoon on WB? That show shovels on the camp in truck loads, and yet still managed to handle the Venom story arc infinitely better than Raimi's embarrassing film. One look at that and you see just how bad Spider-Man 3 really was.

Agreed on the Harry/Peter team up for its cool moments, but that just makes the entire affair that much more depressing. All the high flying action makes you imagine what could have been if they'd bothered to write a decent story. If they'd bothered to, yes, take it seriously. As for your question about the social outcast. Obviously, it can go either way. The Venom storyline is supposed to explore the possibility of power and invincibility having made Peter go bad instead of good. As much as Spider-Man is known for quirky one-liners and playful high-jinks, his turn to the dark-side is supposed to represent the polar opposite of that. In other words, Spider-Man 3 should not have been the goofiest of the three films, it should have been the least goofy.

Oct 17 - 12:14 PM

Eat.Before.We.Eat.You

Derek Ornee

"You take a guy who's been a geek most of his life, a social outcast, and give him powers and a sense of invisibility and what is he going to do? Start killing people and knocking over banks, probably not. Start strutting his stuff and acting like a general a--, yeah probably."

First of all, it's a sense of invincibility, not invisibility.

Second of all, you're way off. If you take a geeky guy who's been shunned by society, like me for example, and give him spider-man's powers, yes, he would probably start strutting around and acting like an a-hole. But he would also almost certainly start killing people and robbing banks. I don't know what kind of fairy tale you were told as a child to make you believe that people are kind and decent, but I've got news for you. They aren't. People are evil. If they could get away with killing people and robbing banks (like if they had powers of some sort for instance), almost everyone would. That's why the whole idea of a random person acquiring some kind of power and using that power to aid humanity is so laughably outrageous.

Oct 17 - 01:10 PM

Matanuki

Matanuki .

Actually, I think the comics have it right. The social outcast who is suddenly endowed with great power, makes the decision to embrace the darkness within (randomly killing people, robbing banks, etc.) only after he/she succumbs to weakness first. Therein lies the irony that strikes the archetypical differences between heroes and villains.

Oct 17 - 01:40 PM

TombstoneLawDog

Daniel Klein

'Eat' wrote: If you take a geeky guy who's >been shunned by society, like me for example, and give him spider-man's powers, yes, he would probably start strutting around and acting like an a-hole. But he would also almost certainly start killing people and robbing banks. I don't know what kind of fairy tale you were told as a child to make you believe that people are kind and decent, but I've got news for you. They aren't. People are evil. If they could get away with killing people and robbing banks (like if they had powers of some sort for instance), almost everyone would.


WOW. Dunno how old you are, where you live or what you do for a living, but I gotta ask, Do you:
a) Start fires?
b) torture or act cruelly to animals?
c) wet the bed at an inappropriate age?

..I ask because these are the three most common indicia of serial killers, and you, my friend, have me worried and thankful that you do NOT have special powers.

Oct 17 - 02:54 PM

v-alexander-the-great

victor alexander

I don't understand how the Lizard is NOT a confirmed choice of villain yet. The very first piece of paperwork that went into pre-production for Spiderman 4 should have been a sheet with "LIZARD IS THE BAD GUY" scribbled in Sharpie on it. It's just one of those, well DUH! things.

Oct 17 - 12:09 PM

What's Hot On RT

Total Recall
Total Recall

Ethan Hawke's 10 Best Movies

The Hunger Games
The Hunger Games

New Mockingjay teaser trailer

24 Frames
24 Frames

Pictures of great movie apes

Planet of the Apes
Planet of the Apes

Watch interviews with the cast

Find us on:                     
Help | About | Jobs | Critics Submission | Press | API | Licensing | Mobile