The Amazing Spider-Man 3 - 2018

[oscarmerkx]

Certainly did not see this coming 2 sequels already being confirmed

[Lemmy Lugosi]

Originally Posted by Michael Bay Fan

Don't you mean something Sinister?

Keeping my fingers crossed!

Originally Posted by blu-mike

Maybe now we will get a good Venom

Sorry....there is no good Venom. So long as they keep the villains "Silver Age Only" (all Lee & Ditko characters), they'll earn my $$$.

[hthomas20]

Wow this is great! Great news for Spidy fans. Should be interesting to see how the upcoming plays out. Since they already know there at least 4 in the series there could alot of interesting questions still unanswered by TASM 3 comes. Really looking forward to them!

[TommySyk]

Originally Posted by blu-mike

Maybe now we will get a good Venom

I don't think they're going to use Venom as of yet.. There are still plenty of other villains to use and I don't think rushing Venom into the franchise is a good thing. Look at Spider-Man 3 for example lol
I'd like to see that Venom spin-off movie get made though. It sounded pretty interesting.

[Edword]

Hopefully since there are 2 more sequels coming they won't

[Show spoiler]kill off Gwen Stacy so fast.

[GuruAskew]

Originally Posted by nolfoc

they have no choice if they don't make a spiderman movie every 2 years they lose the rights to Marvel.. Sony already said they will never let that happen hence the announcement today

Easier said than done. There's a world of difference between wanting to do this and actually financing a biannual series to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars for an uninterested audience. Throw an inevitable regime change into the mix and I could see Sony letting the rights lapse eventually.

The unfortunate thing is they'll return the character to Marvel in shambles. 10 years ago Spider-Man was an A+ list franchise but now Marvel's signature character is a box office force more akin to the similarly-mismanaged Fantastic Four, Daredevil and Ghost Rider. When Disney gets Spidey back it'll be when nobody gives a crap about seeing the 8th or 9th Spidey movie in 20 years.

Quite frankly the only studio that is even arguably doing right by their Marvel properties is Fox with the X-Men series and even then 2 of the 5 entries so far are considered terrible by most of the audience. If they don't nail these next two (and I don't think either one is a sure thing) then they could be in big trouble.

[TommySyk]

I think if Sony listened to the fans and somehow arranged a deal with Marvel that let them use Spider-Man in The Avengers franchise while gettting a small part of the box office money from it, it would be great. I mean, nobody loses anything, right? Sony still gets to keep the rights to Spidey a and the fans would be super happy. Plus, they'd make extra money. That, if Marvel agreed of course. I think that'll eventually happen. I hope we see Spidey pop up on The Avengers 2 or 3.

[Buddy Ackerman]

Originally Posted by GuruAskew

10 years ago Spider-Man was an A+ list franchise but now Marvel's signature character is a box office force more akin to the similarly-mismanaged Fantastic Four, Daredevil and Ghost Rider.

The last Spider-Man movie made $750m at the worldwide box office. The last FF movie made $289m, Daredevil made $179m and Ghost Rider 2 made $132.

In other words, Amazing Spider-Man made more than all of them combined so it's in no way "akin" to those three.

Originally Posted by nolfoc

they have no choice if they don't make a spiderman movie every 2 years they lose the rights to Marvel.. Sony already said they will never let that happen hence the announcement today

It's not every two years (otherwise the rights would have lapsed in 2006). After all, they signed the deal in 1990 and didn't release one until 2002.

Some people have said it's every five years (which is why they got Amazing Spider-Man out five years after Spider-Man 3, though I think that has more to do with it replacing the dropped Spider-Man 4 that was due then and Sony wanting to keep the Spidey money coming in) but that also seems to be speculation - most sites mention it being open-ended.

[GuruAskew]

The $750 worldwide take isn't all that impressive considering the massive growth of the worldwide box office compared to when all those other film were released. It's kinda like how The Dark Knight Rises out-grossed The Dark Knight when everyone with any common sense knows it wasn't truly a more popular or widely-scene film.

The real comparison is to put the Garfield/Webb Spider-man up against the Avengers and TDKR. What you have with this series is a character that will always be bankable to a point pretty much coasting on that bankability. I guess Sony can count on crapping out movies that will make X amount of money based on the title and poster alone but the point that that model becomes a tedious chore is rapidly approaching.

Spider-Man isn't Bond. There's really only one way to properly portray the character and Spider-Man doesn't benefit from advances and changed in technology or politics or pop culture so there's not much Sony is gonna be able to do to keep this series fresh.

Ultimately this series either should have kept going with Raimi/Maguire/Dunst Harry Potter-style with us talking about a 7th entry instead of a 4th entry of Spidey 2.0. As it stands Sony is neck-deep in a franchise that has alienated fans of an earlier incarnation that was far more popular and prematurely thrust a reboot on an audience that wasn't asking for one.

[Buddy Ackerman]

Originally Posted by GuruAskew

The $750 worldwide take isn't all that impressive considering the massive growth of the worldwide box office compared to when all those other film were released. It's kinda like how The Dark Knight Rises out-grossed The Dark Knight when everyone with any common sense knows it wasn't truly a more popular or widely-scene film.

The real comparison is to put the Garfield/Webb Spider-man up against the Avengers and TDKR. What you have with this series is a character that will always be bankable to a point pretty much coasting on that bankability. I guess Sony can count on crapping out movies that will make X amount of money based on the title and poster alone but the point that that model becomes a tedious chore is rapidly approaching.

Even with inflation and market-growth, those three films come nowhere near ASM's take. Especially Ghost Rider, which was released last year (there wasn't 560% market growth in six months). Is it impressive? For a franchise reboot that no-one asked for and that covered a story already told 10 years early in a beloved film - yes, it is. No-one was expecting this to hit a billion, most were using $600m as the bar for success (considering also it was out two weeks before Dark Knight Rises).

And no, you can't compare the reboot to Avengers - the finale to a four year, six film build up - and The Dark Knight Rises - the follow-up to the world's first billion dollar comic book film that's held up by many as the best of the genre. Completely different.

I can see you don't like the new film but your arguments are using bad examples - "It's like these rubbish, underperforming films! (its not) when it should be like these mega-blockbusting films (it shouldn't be)!" Amazing Spider-Man did have the bankability of Spider-Man going for it, it's ture. But, coming off Spider-Man 3 and having all of the "unwanted/unneeded" bias against it, it performed very, very well.

Oh, and as for this statement -

Spider-Man isn't Bond. There's really only one way to properly portray the character

Are you kidding? Would you like to look at the history of the comics to see how many different spins on the Spider-Man character there have been?

[Edword]

Originally Posted by GuruAskew

The $750 worldwide take isn't all that impressive considering the massive growth of the worldwide box office compared to when all those other film were released. It's kinda like how The Dark Knight Rises out-grossed The Dark Knight when everyone with any common sense knows it wasn't truly a more popular or widely-scene film.

The real comparison is to put the Garfield/Webb Spider-man up against the Avengers and TDKR. What you have with this series is a character that will always be bankable to a point pretty much coasting on that bankability. I guess Sony can count on crapping out movies that will make X amount of money based on the title and poster alone but the point that that model becomes a tedious chore is rapidly approaching.

Spider-Man isn't Bond. There's really only one way to properly portray the character and Spider-Man doesn't benefit from advances and changed in technology or politics or pop culture so there's not much Sony is gonna be able to do to keep this series fresh.

Ultimately this series either should have kept going with Raimi/Maguire/Dunst Harry Potter-style with us talking about a 7th entry instead of a 4th entry of Spidey 2.0. As it stands Sony is neck-deep in a franchise that has alienated fans of an earlier incarnation that was far more popular and prematurely thrust a reboot on an audience that wasn't asking for one.

So $750 million isn't impressive?

[Lehnhart]

Sony Snags 'Amazing Spider-Man 2' Writers for Third Film (Exclusive)

Alex Kurtzman, Roberto Orci and Jeff Pinkner are being hired to write the screenplay for the next web-slinging movie.

The trio are sharing screenwriting credit on Sony’s The Amazing Spider-Man 2, now in post-production and swinging towards a May 2, 2014 release date, and are reuniting for the third installment. In June, Sony staked out the dates for the third and fourth Amazing Spider-Man films, setting June 10, 2016, and May 4, 2018 as release dates respectively. Andrew Garfield is expected to reprise his role of Peter Parker/Spider-Man. Marc Webb directed the first and second installments and the hope is that he will return. Electro and The Rhino are the villains of 'The Amazing Spider-Man 2' although perennial bad guys Norman and Harry Osborne appear in the movie as well. Fans are hoping that one of the future movies at least deals with the classic Death of Gwen Stacy storyline - Sorry, Emma Stone - but Sony was mum on the plot details.

Avi Arad and Matt Tolmach are back as producers for the continuing adventures of the hero created by Stan Lee and Steve Ditko.
Kurtzman and Orci also received executive producer credit on Spider-Man 2. While Kurtman, Orci and Pinkner share screenwriting credit, James Vanderbilt is billed under the story by credit.

For the third installment, Kurtzman, Orci and Pinkner are expected to receive story by and screenplay by credit. Kurtzman and Orci will have to fit Spider-Man 3 in their already busy schedule. The duo have signed on to work on Star Trek 3 and are producing Universal’s reboot of The Mummy franchise as well as an adaptation of the Joe Hill comic book Locke & Key. Pinkner, who was a writer on Lost, is a longtime Kurtzman and Orci associate. He worked with the duo on Alias and was a major writer and exec producer on Fringe, the acclaimed sci-fi TV show the pair created with J.J. Abrams.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hea...ringing-640074

[Walts Ghost]

Elizabeth Olsen in 'Avengers 2' and Paul Giamatti in 'Spider-Man 3'

Two casting confirmations in the world of Marvel comic book adaptations have surfaced today, straight from the talent playing them. First up, we already know that Paul Giamatti is playing Rhino in The Amazing Spider-Man 2, but director Marc Webb says that Jamie Foxx as Electro is the primary villain in the film. Considering the rumors of a lead-up to to the assembly of the Sinister Six, many assumed Giamatti would likely return on one of the other two sequels set for 2016 and 2018. Now Giamatti himself has confirmed to Collider that he will return for The Amazing Spider-Man 3, but isn't yet signed for The Amazing Spider-Man 4. If the fourth film really does feature Spider-Man's nemesis team, he'll probably be back.

Meanwhile, following rumors that Elizabeth Olsen would be taking the role of Scarlet Witch in The Avengers: Age of Ultron, a report about Bradley Cooper voicing Rocket Raccoon in Guardians of the Galaxy confirmed that she was in final talks for the role. However, we never heard that a deal had closed. But if Samuel L. Jackson is to be believed, then Olsen is officially part of the cast. Speaking with The Wall Street Journal about the sequel, Jackson couldn't reveal much about the sequel, mostly because he didn't know tons of details, but he did say:

For those unaware, Scarlet Witch uses a power called Chaos Magic Reality Warping, the superhuman ability to manipulate chaos magic. Her hexes essentially destabilize probabilities by inducing chaos. She's also the brother of Quicksilver, another hero Joss Whedon has confirmed will be in the sequel, and may be played by Aaron Taylor-Johnson. With the production date looming nearer, hopefully we'll learn more about the Marvel superhero ensemble sequel sooner than later.

Source

[TheAnimeLegend]

I was wondering seeing as it unconfirmed that Shailene Woodley will return as Mary Jane Watson, I am curious what possible candidates would be good in this role. The one that came to mind with me was Scarlett Johansson. I know that she has already played Black Widow. But Chris Evans who played Steve Rogers/Captain America had also played Johnny Storm/Human Torch so it is not uncommon for the same actor to play different comic book characters.

[Mandalorian]

Originally Posted by ShamelessFanGirl

I was wondering seeing as it unconfirmed that Shailene Woodley will return as Mary Jane Watson, I am curious what possible candidates would be good in this role. The one that came to mind with me was Scarlett Johansson. I know that she has already played Black Widow. But Chris Evans who played Steve Rogers/Captain America had also played Johnny Storm/Human Torch so it is not uncommon for the same actor to play different comic book characters.

She's a year younger than Garfield, but would never pass for a high school student. I don't think she'd fit.

[mike79]

Also she is still going to be playing more black widow where as Evans will not be playing Johnny Storm any more.

[TheAnimeLegend]

Originally Posted by Mandalorian

She's a year younger than Garfield, but would never pass for a high school student. I don't think she'd fit.

You've got a point there. What about Jennifer Lawrence? She might be good in the role of Mary Jane.

[Batman1980]

Originally Posted by ShamelessFanGirl

You've got a point there. What about Jennifer Lawrence?

I doubt they will let her be Mystique, Katniss Everdeen and Mary-Jane Watson at the same time. Her schedule's an absolute bear for now anyway so it won't be her.

[Lehnhart]

I honestly hope they just bring Woodley back, if she's available. I didn't understand the fan backlash that she was getting. But I guess that what most comic book films get these days with casting choices. Everyone screams out about every little thing. I'm sure she would of looked fine in the final film. Plus, she a very solid actress and I'm into the more 'down to earth' looking MJ anyways. No thanks to the 'smoking hot model' MJ. This isn't a Michael Bay film.

[mike79]

Originally Posted by Lehnhart

I honestly hope they just bring Woodley back, if she's available. I didn't understand the fan backlash that she was getting. But I guess that what most comic book films get these days with casting choices. Everyone screams out about every little thing. I'm sure she would of looked fine in the final film. Plus, she a very solid actress and I'm into the more 'down to earth' looking MJ anyways. No thanks to the 'smoking hot model' MJ. This isn't a Michael Bay film.

I would think with Woodley, since she was supposed to be just a small role in the 2nd with a bigger in the 3rd, they would have made sure she would be available anyway for the 3rd. So, if she really was just cut from the movie for story purposes, than I would think she should be available for the third movie, unless they only signed her for the second one.