'Spider-Man' 4 and 5

[ALIASd]

Two more 'Spider-Man' films on the way

Tobey Maguire to return for fourth and fifth installments

By Leslie Simmons
The Hollywood Reporter
Sept 5, 2008, 07:45 PM ET
Updated: Sept 5, 2008, 09:24 PM ET

Tobey Maguire and Sam Raimi are looking to spin more webs for Sony's Columbia Pictures.

The actor and helmer are said to be close to locking in a deal to return for the fourth and fifth installments of the studio's top-grossing "Spider-Man" franchise, with Laura Ziskin and Avi Arad producing.

In hopes of containing costs, Columbia is considering shooting the films back-to-back starting in fall 2009, much like New Line did with "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy, which filmed simultaneously for 274 days. Ziskin had said she would like to aim for a May 2011 release for "Spider-Man 4," nine years after the original movie's debut.

Jamie Vanderbilt ("Zodiac") is writing the screenplay.

"Spider-Man" is Sony's most successful movie franchise; the first three films have grossed $2.5 billion worldwide.

Although there has been speculation whether Maguire would return to play Peter Parker, the studio said there was no question he would be back.

"The studio never considered any other actor. Tobey was our only choice and the only person we've discussed the role with," Sony spokesman Steve Elzer said.

Two more 'Spider-Man' films on the way

[aimster]

Ummmm.... didn't the 3rd one kind of flop?

[ALIASd]

Originally Posted by aimster

Ummmm.... didn't the 3rd one kind of flop?

Worldwide: $890,871,626

Doesn't this question seem to get old?

[Browncoat]

flop =/= poorly received

everyone knew it would make a bajillion dollars, but it was horrible

[bigwavedave]

As long as they don't put too many villians and try to do too much the next should be good

[ALIASd]

Originally Posted by Browncoat

flop =/= poorly received

everyone knew it would make a bajillion dollars, but it was horrible

In Hollywood flop only translates to $$$, poorly received and/or widely-panned typically leads to anemic receipts at the box office via widespread word-of-mouth. However this genre of film tends to be review-proof.

Was 3 better than 2 or 1? Of course not.

But it made more $$ than 2 so you get interest from the principals on 4 and 5.

[Mr. Yeti]

The good thing about the Spider-Man franchise is that there are still a lot of villians to go around, so that means plenty of story opportunities.

[Alice's Wonderland]

At some point isn't it overkill? Why does Hollywood feel the need to ruin a good thing?

[MickeyMousePal]

Nope Superman 3 was a flop...

[aimster]

Originally Posted by Alice's Wonderland

At some point isn't it overkill? Why does Hollywood feel the need to ruin a good thing?

Thank you! I am so sick of a million bajillion sequels. STOP THE MADNESS!

Yet further proof Hollywood has run out of any truly original ideas.

[nathan detroit]

With a franchise as potentially sprawling as Spiderman I disagree that many sequels are a bad thing. Even SM3 was better than a lot of blockbusters out there.
However, there isa little back peddling in the press release because I seem to remember Toby Maguire going on record at the time of SM3's release saying that he was not doing another.
Anyway, the first three films have already set up one of SM's best villains - Lizard!

[ALIASd]

Originally Posted by nathan detroit

I seem to remember Toby Maguire going on record at the time of SM3's release saying that he was not doing another.

Tobey Maguire is a terrific actor with long-time back problems. It's been mentioned many times in interviews and articles, my BFF has shared a chiropractor with him for years.

The drama of replacing Maguire with Jake Gyllenhaal back on 'S-M2' was for real. Freddie Prinze Jr. would have paid the producers for the part! Maguire's trepidation in continuing the role was more of physical concerns in the long run.

[sailerm]

Originally Posted by MickeyMousePal

Nope Superman 3 was a flop...

Yeah, but they still made Superman IV: The Quest For Peace, just to make doubley sure the franchise was dead.

They could have save two or three of the villains from 3 for 4 and 5.

[Mr. Yeti]

Originally Posted by nathan detroit

With a franchise as potentially sprawling as Spiderman I disagree that many sequels are a bad thing. Even SM3 was better than a lot of blockbusters out there.
However, there isa little back peddling in the press release because I seem to remember Toby Maguire going on record at the time of SM3's release saying that he was not doing another.
Anyway, the first three films have already set up one of SM's best villains - Lizard!

Toby said after Spider-Man 3 that he would be up for it, even if director Sam Raimi wasn't on board. Kirsten Dunst doesn't seem she's up for anymore however.

[Craigroy8287]

I'm just glad Toby and Sam are back. Although I was not a fan of the 3rd installment I could not see them doing these movies with out them. When leading actors and directors are replaced it seems to make the movies not as good. That is why I was only a fan of the original 2 Batman movies. Michael Keaton was great as Batman. I was so upset when they brought in Kilmer and then Clooney. I just hope Bale stays on for all the new ones.