Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Movies' started by oscar_merkx, Jun 27, 2004.
http://superherohype.com/spider-man/index.php?id=1624 wow that is a lot
read my lips : AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN...
I could picture two more, but definitely not seven. It's just a strange number. Do they have storylines or particular character arcs they wish to fulfill?
No, but they have merchandising to think about..
If they start doing the future sequels every four years instead of 2, it could work.Think of it like James Bond.
I read Kirsten Dunst says she is out after 3 and doesn't think Tobey Maguire and Sam Raimi will do any more. She also said she hopes Spidey dies and leaves her pregnant with a litter.
Well, from a super-villan stand point there's: The Lizard Hob-Goblin Venom Carnage Kraven Mysterio Electro Shocker Black Cat Green Goblin 2 (Harry Osbourne) Doppler-ganger Demi-Goblin Silver Mane Hydro-man Sand-man and I'm sure MANY more
Well none of the primaries is critical to the franchise IMO. They have all done outstanding work of course, but other great directors, producers, actors, etc. do actually exist. As long as they have good scripts and can replace talented people with other talented people then I say go for it. Bond and Dracula have both been revisited as characters time and again and the success is dependent on who is doing the film and the script more than "the character just got tired". Spidey is one of the all-time great characters, period. Hero or otherwise. Lots of material and conflict to be mined if they want to. I like his attitude of "hey, we aren't planning it, but we also aren't anti-planning it (ie, ruling it out)". If they can make more good ones even without the original artists then why not? BTW, clearly they need to do EIGHT of them.
I wish I could be as optimistic as you, Seth, but let's face it: the chances aren't good. Sci-fi/fantasy/superhero franchises traditionally turn to crap by the third movie or so, then die a horrible death one or two movies after that. As for the Bond comparison, I'm not sure that inspires me; I happen to think the Bond movies stink and always have.
It is possible, the superman series went strong. I just don't see 9 happening at the pace that are right now.
Silver Sable should be added to the list of baddies also his spy parents android duplicates, the clones, ummm Also Spider-Girl, his daughter from an alternate future could be a possible continuation of the film
Please let that be the last mention of the misbegotten clone storyline
The Wall Street Journal reported last week that Raimi and Maquire were on board for #4. I posted the quote from the article in the Spider-Man 2 discussion thread.
You guys are forgetting 2 villians I think could work really well on film 2 of my favs - Scorpion and The Vulture (I always preferred the old man version) I thought the plan was for 6 films. Kirsten did say shes out after 3 but $$$ talks. With Sam and Tobey on for 4, I wouldnt be suprised to see Kirsten stay.If she doesnt they can always go on with out her. I actually preferred when she wasnt around in the comics.
Only if you compare it to Batman. And that's only 'cause they had the original Superman to keep things from going too shitty. I mean, if Superman IV hadn't had Reeve Supes and Hackman Lex it would have been just another power rangers-style clone.
I'm going to have to agree with Seth. I'd love to see as many Spider-Man Movies as long as they are done at the same level of quality as the first and second (of which I'll be seeing tonight!!!). Oh, and Tory, don't ever mention the Clones again. (that is unless it's to bash them )
It's not impossible to consider. Initially, the Salkinds had envisioned somewhere between 7-10 "Superman" films with Christopher Reeve in the role. Of course, we all know fully well what happened there. Then, of course, there's the "Zatoichi" (sp?) series from Japan, with at least 27 films in that series (not counting the TV series or the recent remake). But realistically, as for a planned series of films, the sequel should be as good as the first one in order to sustain the life of the series. If there's more "Spider-Man" films in the works, I'll be happy with them, as long as the quality is maintained from the original and the new sequel. If not, it could easily go by the wayside big time - can we all say "Batman and Robin"?
If you can't speak up, who is going to listen to you?
Batman and Superman suffered because the directors changed. If Raimi sticks onto this for the long run, who knows what could happen. Back-to-back shooting is the best bet, IMHO. If they do LOTR-like filming and kill three birds with one stone, they could have Dunst on for 3, 4, and 5. Or, they could go onto unprecented ground and shoot all 7 at once.