Spider-Man 4 &5 to get underway with Sam and Tobey signed?!?

[Captain Craig]

Its a mere 8 days later(no need for new thread) and now its official, for Tobey anyway.

Tobey Maguire will be Peter Parker/Spiderman in installments 4&5 to shoot back-to-back. His paycheck a cool $50m plus possible back end profits.

In a victory for working fathers in Hollywood, the actor Tobey Maguire has been granted “family time” with his young daughter as part of an unprecedented deal to star in the next two Spider-Man movies.
Maguire was willing to shoot Spider-Man 4 and 5 back-to-back over six months next year but insisted he should take early mornings and evenings off so he could play with his “favourite blonde”, Ruby Sweetheart, who is 22 months old.
The 33-year-old actor is expected to earn a record $50m (£28m) in salary and profit shares from the two films, substantially more than Keanu Reeves earned when he shot the last two Matrix films back-to-back. Reeves complained that it left him exhausted.
Until recently it was uncertain whether Maguire would put on the Spider-Man suit again, and Sony had drawn up a list of alternative actors before Maguire’s agents came back to the negotiating table.
Sony, which declined to comment, is thought to have been wary of allowing “family time” because it could set a precedent. Finally its chairman, Amy Pascal, herself a mother, stepped in, saying six months without family time would not be fair on any parent.
In the next few days Sony is expected to reveal whether Maguire’s ex-girlfriend Kirsten Dunst will be returning as his on-screen love interest, Mary Jane Watson. Dunst, 26, has recently talked about a struggle with clinical depression.
.....

So Kirsten Dunst will be decided soon("in a few days"), maybe by weeks end even. Her personal life is so screwed up that while I don't see her as that great an actress, let alone the best MJ there is a part of me that would like to see her back if only for consistency.

What the article doesn't elude to however is Sam Raimi. I'd like to know that as well. They tease us with word that Kirsten's deal is being examined but not the same with Sam?

Looking out long term then it seems Marvel will be very well represented during calendar year 2010/2011. Iron Man 2 will hit for sure in 2010. Thor and Captain America are suppossed to be ready as well although news is sketchy on start dates, Ant-Man as well. Spiderman 4 will most likely be ready for 2010 with Spiderman 5 in 2011 when an Avengers movie is on the calendar. Not to mention the "what if" of Fox rebooting Daredevil and Ghost Rider 2 being considered. Maybe a Wolverine Origins 2 in 2011 as well. I toss these all out to say that Marvel should be very busy with properties on the big screen.

 

[Norrin Radd]

I don't get why Sony would do this.

The character of Spider-Man is bigger than Sam Raimi and bigger than Toby Maguire. Raimi screwed up the last movie and I submit that Maguire doesn't even qualify as a fan favorite like Bale.

And why pay Maguire all this coin? Maybe Superman needs perfect casting, but for Spider-Man, there are many lesser-known actors who could take the role and run with it...all for lesser coin.

Given Spider-Man 3's critical drubbing (I don't care how much it made) you'd think it'd be the perfect time to start fresh with a new cast and crew.

 

[ClayinCA]

Raimi only "screwed up the last movie" because he was forced to include Venom against his original wishes, which threw off the rhythm of the entire story. If left to his own devices, we'd have had a movie about Sandman and Harry Osborn, which would have been much more balanced and felt a lot less crowded. I'm all for giving Raimi another shot (if he's even interested, that is).

 

[Turtletrekker]

^ Agreed. Raimi didn't want anything to do with Venom.

Also, IIRC, weren't the Stacys put in by Marvel's decree as well? There was a plot-line that could've been skipped for sure. The only purpose Gwen served (other than being a hottie) was for the scene where Peter tries to make MJ jealous, and they could've used the already established Betty Brant or the landlord's daughter for that.

 

[Captain Craig]

Exactly.
Raimi was "convinced" to use Venom and the Stacy's by corporate decree. One could easily read between the lines in those interviews where he said things to the effect, "after listening to what the character was about and their ideas for the character I found Venom to be an interesting character"[paraphrase]. When prior interviews had him explicitly state his non-desire for the character.

If he had done the film he wanted it not only would've been deeper on the Harry/Peter story but would've had Vulture in some capacity.

I'm confident that if Sony and Avi Arad allow him to make the movies that he did with Spidey 1&2 then we will have a great 2pt story. However, with $50m already tied up in Tobey I see executive oversight as being very real.

 

[Thrall]

Exactly.
Raimi was "convinced" to use Venom and the Stacy's by corporate decree. One could easily read between the lines in those interviews where he said things to the effect, "after listening to what the character was about and their ideas for the character I found Venom to be an interesting character"[paraphrase]. When prior interviews had him explicitly state his non-desire for the character.

If he had done the film he wanted it not only would've been deeper on the Harry/Peter story but would've had Vulture in some capacity.

I'm confident that if Sony and Avi Arad allow him to make the movies that he did with Spidey 1&2 then we will have a great 2pt story. However, with $50m already tied up in Tobey I see executive oversight as being very real.

So was that Jazz Song and Dance number by studio decree as well?

 

[Captain Craig]

^^^
well it was an extension of the symbiote so by extension I guess it was.
*I know your joking*
Hated that scene as well as Emo Peter bouncing down the sidewalk

 

[Norrin Radd]

I've long heard that Raimi was supposedly "strong armed" into including Venom and if true it just doesn't change anything.

I don't care if Venom was forced upon him...if he can't come up with a better introduction to the character than through a meteorite that just happens to contain a deadly alien creature that just happens to land right next to the main protagonist, then come on...that's not even B-movie level plotting. I can accept plot contrivances in films, but there's just no excuse for that crap.

That's just one example. Look at all the other things...oh-so convenient (and ultra-cliched) memory loss...embarrassingly EMO Parker...incessantly crying Parker...all-knowing Butler who comes out of nowhere...it goes on and on.

Does he deserve all the blame for this fiasco? Probably not...but it's still his responsibility to deliver a quality product. I mean, the guy directed this film and wrote at least a big chunk of it, and surely that has to count for something.

 

[Thrall]

Yeah I think everyone had a good cry at least once. I think even J. Jonah was blubbering like a baby once.

 

[crouteru]

So Sony is going to film 4 & 5 back to back...? Why the hell didn't they adopt this idea during the pre-production of 3? That way Raimi could have done his Sandman/Harry film and woven in plot elements for Venom, like the gradual introduction of Eddie Brock and the black suit, so he could be the primary villain in the fourth movie.

 

[CaptainCanada]

Raimi only "screwed up the last movie" because he was forced to include Venom against his original wishes, which threw off the rhythm of the entire story. If left to his own devices, we'd have had a movie about Sandman and Harry Osborn, which would have been much more balanced and felt a lot less crowded.

Well, actually, he would also have had Vulture in there, so it wouldn't have been much less crowded.

 

[Yassim]

I think, of all the characters mentioned so far, the Black Cat is the one with the most potential for an interesting character moment.

As far as I remember, her main idea was, why be normal? If you can stick to walls and lift cars, why would you ever put on a tie and take photos, and let JJ yell at you? Why would Spiderman ever want to be Peter Parker? I think that makes an interesting basis for a movie.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I like Kirsten Dunst in the part. Hopefully she'll be back.

 

[JacksonArcher]

So Sony is going to film 4 & 5 back to back...? Why the hell didn't they adopt this idea during the pre-production of 3? That way Raimi could have done his Sandman/Harry film and woven in plot elements for Venom, like the gradual introduction of Eddie Brock and the black suit, so he could be the primary villain in the fourth movie.

Good point. If any movie needed to be separated into two, it was Spider-Man 3. What's a bit funny is that writer Alvin Sargent (who co-wrote both Spider-Man 2 and to a lesser extent Spider-Man 3) remarked that Raimi and Co. thought about splitting up the film but couldn't find a good cliffhanger.

Umm...what about when Topher Grace turns into Venom? I think that would have been as good cliffhanger as any, but hey, what do I know?

 

[Augustus]

Yeah guys. Spiderman 3 was hurtful. I remember leaving the theater feeling like I had been betrayed. I still enjoy the movie but hey Sam and toby gave us Spiderman 2 which is still one of my favorite films.

If they can do that. I am sure they can give us something else good. If not.... off with their heads!!

 

[John Picard]

I've long heard that Raimi was supposedly "strong armed" into including Venom and if true it just doesn't change anything.

I don't care if Venom was forced upon him...if he can't come up with a better introduction to the character than through a meteorite that just happens to contain a deadly alien creature that just happens to land right next to the main protagonist, then come on...that's not even B-movie level plotting. I can accept plot contrivances in films, but there's just no excuse for that crap.

That's just one example. Look at all the other things...oh-so convenient (and ultra-cliched) memory loss...embarrassingly EMO Parker...incessantly crying Parker...all-knowing Butler who comes out of nowhere...it goes on and on.

Does he deserve all the blame for this fiasco? Probably not...but it's still his responsibility to deliver a quality product. I mean, the guy directed this film and wrote at least a big chunk of it, and surely that has to count for something.

When you're told to do something by the people who sign your paycheck, you do as your told lest you not eat. Therefore, he worked with what he had as best he could. Hopefully, SONY learned from this and will allow him to make 4 & 5 better than 3 was.

 

[Stone_Cold_Sisko]

I'm sure they didn't tell him, "add Venom oh and make sure it really sucks". Venom has been done well many times in other medium.

 

[Captain Craig]

^^^
Key phrase "other mediums".
He could have been done right in the motion picture medium, story wise, his look was nearly spot on but Sam was forced to shoehorn him into an existing story. Which sadly meant using cliches and contrieved situations.

 

[The Borgified Corpse]

Also, IIRC, weren't the Stacys put in by Marvel's decree as well? There was a plot-line that could've been skipped for sure. The only purpose Gwen served (other than being a hottie) was for the scene where Peter tries to make MJ jealous, and they could've used the already established Betty Brant or the landlord's daughter for that.

Strange. I understand that there would be immense studio pressure to put Venom into the story because he is one of the most popular & visible villains in Spider-Man's rogues gallery. (Really, beyond the Green Goblin & Dr. Octopus, Venom is the only one that seems big enough for a feature film.) But why force the Stacys into the story? If Columbia had thought that Gwen Stacy had enough mainstream popularity, they probably would have put her in the first movie rather than cannibalizing her backstory for Mary Jane. Furthermore, I recall them saying in the director's commentary that it was originally going to be Gwen that Venom kidnapped at the end of the movie but they decided at the last minute that the movie hadn't invested enough into Gwen to make it an effective climax, so they put Mary Jane in jeopardy... again.

I've long heard that Raimi was supposedly "strong armed" into including Venom and if true it just doesn't change anything.

I don't care if Venom was forced upon him...if he can't come up with a better introduction to the character than through a meteorite that just happens to contain a deadly alien creature that just happens to land right next to the main protagonist, then come on...that's not even B-movie level plotting. I can accept plot contrivances in films, but there's just no excuse for that crap.

That's just one example. Look at all the other things...oh-so convenient (and ultra-cliched) memory loss...embarrassingly EMO Parker...incessantly crying Parker...all-knowing Butler who comes out of nowhere...it goes on and on.

Well, I suppose some of the Venom problems can be blamed on not just having him forced into the movie but on forcing Raimi to include him when I think they were already locked into a start date, not giving them enough time to develop the idea well.

However, some of the other problems should have at least been noticeable enough in editing that they could have worked something out. The emo montage & butler-ex-machina especially. But then, I thought that Raimi made some very weird, campy, indulgent choices on Spider-Man 2 that made that film far less than it could have been. I was less surprised than most when Spider-Man 3 turned out the way it did.

For the record, I actually enjoyed Spider-Man 3 more than Spider-Man 2. It's not quite as well crafted but at least it's so cluttered with plot points that the suckiness is more difficult to notice.

As for Spider-Man 4, I'll see it. I'm not sure if I'll like it but I'll see it. I'm with everyone else in hoping that they bring the Black Cat into this. I'm kinda sick of Mary Jane (even if Kirsten Dunst looks like the cute Mormon girl I was sweet on in high school).

I'm not surprised that they're paying Tobey Maguire that much. Columbia has made SO much money from these movies that they would be very careful to not change the cast or the formula any more than they have to. (And now we also have a target amount that Christian Bale can ask for when he negotiates for Batman 3.)

 

[Broccoli]

So Sony is going to film 4 & 5 back to back...? Why the hell didn't they adopt this idea during the pre-production of 3? That way Raimi could have done his Sandman/Harry film and woven in plot elements for Venom, like the gradual introduction of Eddie Brock and the black suit, so he could be the primary villain in the fourth movie.

Good point. If any movie needed to be separated into two, it was Spider-Man 3. What's a bit funny is that writer Alvin Sargent (who co-wrote both Spider-Man 2 and to a lesser extent Spider-Man 3) remarked that Raimi and Co. thought about splitting up the film but couldn't find a good cliffhanger.

Umm...what about when Topher Grace turns into Venom? I think that would have been as good cliffhanger as any, but hey, what do I know?

I guess it depends on how they define "cliffhanger." It could be they wanted a cliffhanger, but with a complete story as well (such as Harry's discovery at the end of Spidey 2) instead of a direct "To Be Continued..." cliffhanger.

Maybe they didn't want to break the story with Eddie getting the black suit because they couldn't figure out a way to add more stuff into what became the latter half of Spidey 3. Maybe they felt it would have been a better character arc for Eddie (and to an extent, Peter) to show all of it in one movie (kinda like Nolan's original thoughts on Harvey Dent verses what ultimately happened in TDK).

Who knows.