No matter the superhero franchise, when it comes time to make a sequel, people mainly want to know one thing: Which villains will be in it? Currently, fans are trying to crack the mystery of Spider-Man 4’s bad guys; rumors and speculation had it that every actress in Hollywood was trying out for the sexy villainess Black Cat, or that Dylan Baker’s Curt Connors would finally get to transform into the Lizard in this installment. Now, though, Movieline has confirmed with sources close to the film that Raimi’s sequel is circling John Malkovich and Anne Hathaway to play Spider-Man’s adversaries, and neither evildoer is quite what you might have expected.
If negotiations proceed according to plan, Malkovich will be playing Spider-Man’s nemesis the Vulture, who packs a punch despite his advanced age. The Vulture is able to fly through the air and brandish his sharp wings to attack Spider-Man.
As for Hathaway, that’s where things get tricky. The 27-year-old actress is currently the top choice for Felicia Hardy, who’d been long-rumored as one of the new characters in this installment. (Other names bandied about for the role included Julia Stiles, Rachel McAdams, and Romola Garai.) However, unlike in the comic books, this Felicia Hardy doesn’t transform into the Black Cat. Instead, Raimi’s Felicia will become a brand-new superpowered figure called the Vulturess.
What does this mean for poor Dylan Baker, who’s patiently played Curt Connors in the last two installments? As much as it would seem that the series is setting up his eventual transformation into supervillain the Lizard, we hear that the suits simply can’t bring themselves to sign off on such an odd-looking enemy — instead, they’d rather hew closer to villains with a human face. Perhaps, then, it’s the best-case scenario for Baker: He gets to remain the subject of fanboy interest, but he doesn’t have to cede his role to a motion-captured reptile in a lab coat.
However, unlike in the comic books, this Felicia Hardy doesn’t transform into the Black Cat. Instead, Raimi’s Felicia will become a brand-new superpowered figure called the Vulturess.
Indication that this is Sony fucking with fanboys and sending out misinformation.
An inside source working on the project tells IESB that there are some major issues director Sam Raimi is dealing with that include an incomplete script. And why is the script incomplete? Looks like Raimi and the studio heads at Sony Pictures can't agree upon a villain for the film.
Raimi is pushing hard for the Vulture to be the big baddie, something he also pushed for in the third film to star alongside the Sandman but didn't get and we all know how that one turned out. Vulture was to do his evil deeds alongside the new Goblin and Sandman. A single concept art sketch can be seen in "The Art of Spider-Man 3" book. Vulture and Flint Marko would have been cellmates who escaped together, with Vulture pressuring the more passive Marko into committing crimes.
On the flip side, who does the studio want to be the villain? Our source says they seem to only be interested in featuring which ever character is selling books right now but basically they have no idea, just not the Vulture.
If that's the studio's plan maybe they should bring back Dafoe and adapt Dark Reign or whatever that shit's called.
UPDATE: Sony has contacted us this morning and they are denying the story. The production is on their expected holiday hiatus, but will ramp up again early next year.
Yes, the filmmakers are working on the script, but there is nothing unusual about that at all, productions always are working and tweaking scripts right up until principal photography begins and that is still a few months away.
One villain....not two,three or more should be in the movie.Less backstory is involved.If they had just had Sandman and made him a true villain and not a sympathetic character,it would've been way better.Also ditching the whole black costume/symbiote/emo Peter thing would've helped a lot as well.Getting rid of Mary Jane would be cool too....hmmmm,maybe developmental hell would be better after all.
AICN says confirmed: Spidey 4 dead, Raimi and Maguire out and Studio going reboot route.
Peter Parker is going back to high school when the next Spider-Man hits theaters in the summer of 2012.
Columbia Pictures and Marvel Studios announced today they are moving forward with a film based on a script by James Vanderbilt that focuses on a teenager grappling with both contemporary human problems and amazing super-human crises.
The new chapter in the Spider-Man franchise produced by Columbia, Marvel Studios and Avi Arad and Laura Ziskin, will have a new cast and filmmaking team. Spider-Man 4 was to have been released in 2011, but had not yet gone into production.
“A decade ago we set out on this journey with Sam Raimi and Tobey Maguire and together we made three Spider-Man films that set a new bar for the genre. When we began, no one ever imagined that we would make history at the box-office and now we have a rare opportunity to make history once again with this franchise. Peter Parker as an ordinary young adult grappling with extraordinary powers has always been the foundation that has made this character so timeless and compelling for generations of fans. We’re very excited about the creative possibilities that come from returning to Peter's roots and we look forward to working once again with Marvel Studios, Avi Arad and Laura Ziskin on this new beginning,” said Amy Pascal, co-chairman of Sony Pictures Entertainment.
IF this is true, ten bucks says they are going the TWILIGHT route. We are going to see emo pretty boys in the roles, and it is going to be teen Spidey fighting other teen villais. Also look for a much stronger focus on romance than action.
Of course, "confirmed" at AICN can be "gossip" anyplace else.
No word from "real" press on whether it's true or not, but given the Disney-Marvel marriage (even if Sony's making the picture I could see Disney wanting their biggest teen star part of the Spidey brand they now own,) and the direction the franchise is apparenty going, I wouldn't be surprised.
No word from "real" press on whether it's true or not, but given the Disney-Marvel marriage (even if Sony's making the picture I could see Disney wanting their biggest teen star part of the Spidey brand they now own,) and the direction the franchise is apparenty going, I wouldn't be surprised.
I doubt sony consults Disney on who to put in their movies though.
True. What I meant was that, even if Zefron's under contract with Disney I could see Disney letting him do a picture for a rival studio if it involved a character they now owned.
Andrew Garfield, 26, has been cast as the new Peter Parker for the next installment in the "Spider-Man" movie franchise, Columbia Pictures announced on Thursday.
Andrew will make his official screen debut as the legendary superhero on July 3, 2012, when the film hits theaters in 3-D.
Production on the film will begin in early December.
Marc Webb, who helmed "(500) Days of Summer," the indie hit which starred Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Zooey Deschanel, will direct the picture.
The director said in a statement that fans will be pleased with Andrew's casting.
"Though his name may be new to many, those who know this young actor's work understand his extraordinary talents," Marc said. "He has a rare combination of intelligence, wit, and humanity. Mark my words, you will love Andrew Garfield as Peter Parker."
Andrew has appeared in a few films, including "The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus," the project Heath Ledger was working on at the time of his death in 2008 and 2007's "Lions for Lambs" with Tom Cruise, Meryl Streep and Robert Redford.
The young actor is also a part of the cast of the upcoming Facebook movie, "The Social Network," due for release later this year.
Columbia Pictures also confirmed that James Vanderbilt is penning the screenplay. He previously wrote the screenplays for 2007's "Zodiac," which starred Jake Gyllenhaal and most recently "The Losers," which starred Jeffrey Dean Morgan, Chris Evans (who coincidentally is playing another superhero - Captain America), and Zoe Saldana.
BREAKING: Sony Pictures Entertainment has offered the villain role in the Spider-Man reboot to Rhys Ifans. Studio insiders wouldn't say which villain he's playing, and there's been speculation about a bunch of baddies. He's the next piece in the puzzle after SPE hired Marc Webb to direct, Andrew Garfield to play the wall crawler and Emma Stone to play his first love Gwen Stacy.
The Goblin had been involved in the Gwen Stacy storyline from the comics, but there have also been rumors that Spidey will battle Venom. Will tell you when I know for sure.
They could at least use different villains. that guy might make a good vulture. Or maybe that could finally let that professor guy change into the lizard.
Train-wreck. Sony just needs to hand the keys back to MARVEL...
I cant seen anything that suggests train wreck.
Cant say I am familiar with Webb (its almost like he was born to direct a film about spidey), or the guy playing Spidey, but Stone and Ifans are not bad choices.
Nothing has been firmed up about villains or story, so I really cannot see what your issue is, above and beyond you always say super hero films will be shit the moment they are announced.
Martin Sheen will play Uncle Ben. This news continues my overwhelming indifference to this movie.
Yeah, that would seem to indicate they're retelling the origin. Who needs that?
Kind of ironic, however, that Charlie Sheen's dad would end up playing Uncle Ben, given how the younger Sheen publicly all but begged Cameron to cast him as Peter back in the late 80s- early 90s.
So this will be Ultimate spider-Man? A younger looking Aunt may (even though she's still old)?
As long as there is no Venom ....
I agree...it seems too soon...underwhelmed. But in rewatching the Spider-Man films I realized I have no real affinity for them really. This may be a good thing.
Not counting the colors, I see the comparison Rob's making. Without a doubt the eyes. Not to mention the red one-piece, with the blue longer in the front on gay-boy versus Ross' sketch...
I think its got elements of both. The black eyes are a direct lift from the Ross design. The colors are clearly more in line with the traditional suit.
Personally I think it most closely resembles the Ben Reilly costume
The eyes aren't black. They're reflective. Just like the Rami movies, the 70's TV show, and what the comics are supposed to represent. That shot seems to have some black, like a car, reflecting in the eye pieces.
Meh, once again I have no interest in this at all. Everything in this trailer was done before and not enough time has passed to start all this shit over again.
The mirror's edge rip off part is more than likely going to make me vomit if I saw it in the theater.
Meh, once again I have no interest in this at all. Everything in this trailer was done before and not enough time has passed to start all this shit over again.
The mirror's edge rip off part is more than likely going to make me vomit if I saw it in the theater.
Yes. I can understand the need for a "soft reboot," ala the Hulk, but essentially remaking the first film ten years later? Pass. I'll wait for a sequel.
I know boycotts never work but we need to find a way to make this movie fail so Marvel can get the rights back and at least stick Spider-Man in an Avengers movie.
Quite frankly, I haven't seen anything bad from this yet. It's not Raimi, and that is a minus. I still haven't seen anything that makes this movie look bad, though. This is leagues better than anything put out to promote the GL movie.
My complaint with the trailer is that it doesn't show anything new. Based on what was shown, the new movie has the same story as the first spidey movie, minus a villain.
looks like a teenybopper version of the original movie. How does putting teenagers in the role of characters change the story enough to warrant a movie?
Spider-Man's Rhys Ifans Arrested for Misdemeanor Battery at Comic-Con
He plays a villain in The Amazing Spider-Man, and if his actions at Comic-Con are any indication, Rhys Ifans is a bit of a bad boy in real life, too.
The actor, who plays Dr. Curt Connors/The Lizard in the movie, shoved a female security guard prior to Friday night's panel in San Diego, Calif. Ifans, who turned 44 the same day, became irate when a member of his team was denied access to the hall because he lacked proper credentials.
According to The Wrap, Ifans -- who smelled of alcohol -- pushed the guard in order to pass through. He was allowed to participate in the panel with costars Emma Stone and Andrew Garfield, though he walked on stage late and said very little. The guard made a citizen's arrest once it was over. (A Sony spokesperson said that Ifans "deeply regrets the incident.")
"He was aggressive and belligerent," Lt. Andra Brown said. "He was berating everyone from the security staff to the United States of America."
"He was cited and released, which is a non-custodial misdemeanor arrest," Brown said. The San Diego City Attorney will now determine whether to pursue charges against Ifans. He could be required to pay a fine, or he could dispute the case before a judge.
"But, according to him, the U.S. sucks and he doesn't want to come back," Brown said of the actor, who once dated Sienna Miller.
My complaint with the trailer is that it doesn't show anything new. Based on what was shown, the new movie has the same story as the first spidey movie, minus a villain.
i do think it looks better than the original, but only in a "remastered, now with kung fu grip!" type way. like when they re-released the donner superman film on blu-ray, or something. it's oddly and unnecessarily similar - even garfield's voice is all not-black, like tobey's.
this could have easily been spider-man 4, without skipping a beat. throw in a quick "here's whatcha missed: spider bites peter, peter strong" recap, and bam - new film!
Sony wants a younger Spider-man still in high school. Hard to do that as a sequel with a new cast. Yeah, they probably don't need to redo the origin, but it looks like they want to put the Lizard in with the whole mutation thing as well. Don't know. Still will wait and see. The POV rooftop stuff looked a lot better on the big screen than on the computer monitor.
Sony wants a younger Spider-man still in high school. Hard to do that as a sequel with a new cast. Yeah, they probably don't need to redo the origin...
Yeah, if its a reboot anyway, just reboot it at a few months post origin. Most people who aren't continuity obsessed fanboys wouldn't care much.
Yes, rex, because people never play characters that are anything but their own age. You have out smarted a multibillion dollar company. Collect your reward of a brand new nothing.
Sony wants a younger Spider-man still in high school. Hard to do that as a sequel with a new cast.
i spose. tobey really only went to school for one day in the first trilogy. and then the next day, they were adults.
there looked to be a scene of parker in high school in the trailer, so maybe that will last longer than the afternoon. otherwise, spider-man 4 could have still worked nicely.
i like how they actually include "the untold story" in the very trailer that matches, shot for shot, so many scenes from the ten year old film. beyond the repeated origin, we get the locker fight scene? bridge action? well played, marvel.
i DO think it looks like a better version of the 2002 film, if i was comparing the two side by side... which i will.
Sony. Maybe it'll bomb and Sony will give up and let the rights lapse and Marvel will get a chance to do a Spidey movie (though I think Sony would sooner ask Roger Corman to do a remake and not release it than let the rights lapse).
What's up with the girly web-swinging? What happened to the web sound effects? Is Dennis Leary supposed to be taking the place of J. Jonah Jameson now? Is there a single moment in that trailer where I was supposed to be....excited? Involved? Are there actual "fans" excited for something like this? I just....I don't know what to say.
I agree with Mxy. I hope Roger Corman makes a Spider film and MARVEL uses the Corporate Military to attack SONY and reclaim what is rightfully theirs...
i like how they actually include "the untold story" in the very trailer that matches, shot for shot, so many scenes from the ten year old film. beyond the repeated origin, we get the locker fight scene? bridge action? well played, marvel.
i DO think it looks like a better version of the 2002 film...
It's funny reading interviews with the director where he tries to say with a straight face this isn't a "remake"
"The Amazing Spider-Man" Debuts New Theatrical Poster: a new poster for director Marc Webb's Columbia Pictures franchise reboot has surfaced on AddictoMovie that puts the high-swinging wall-crawler, and his web-shooters, front and center.
"He is back and it will be amazing"?
That's the tagline now?
Seriously?
It is interesting largely only because it seems to signal ("He is back" replacing "untold" story) that Sony has decided that maybe no one wants a remake of a ten year old superhero film and they had better try marketing it as another sequel.
Spidey Peters out: hardly awful but not coming close to living up to that adjective in the title either. Sometimes dull and mostly uninspired, it’s much less a satisfying reboot like “Batman Begins’’ than a pointless rehash in the mode of “Superman Returns.’’
The pic chosen to represent this article for the Frontpage banner is further evidence of G-Pussy's in-the-closet-status. Someone please love him so he'll finally know what happiness is. MEM? Anyone?
Spidey Peters out: hardly awful but not coming close to living up to that adjective in the title either. Sometimes dull and mostly uninspired, it’s much less a satisfying reboot like “Batman Begins’’ than a pointless rehash in the mode of “Superman Returns.’’
Here’s a cool idea for a movie: Teenage dweeb Peter Parker weathers the taunts and pokes of high-school bullies until one day he’s bitten by some kind of magical spider and starts shooting sticky webs out of his hands and scampering up walls and…
Oh, wait—we’ve already seen this movie. Ten years ago, in Sam Raimi’s opening installment of the first Spider-Man series....
Will The Amazing Spider-Man suck up millions over the long Fourth of July weekend? Sure. So did the goopy Spider-Man 3—even though that film wound up tanking the first Spidey series.
I did. i thought it was really good. I didn't expect to like it,but I did.Sure,the basics of the origin were the same,but I thought it had better characterization than the first Raimi flick and the action was good.So yeah.I reccommend people going to see it.
I did. i thought it was really good. I didn't expect to like it,but I did.Sure,the basics of the origin were the same,but I thought it had better characterization than the first Raimi flick and the action was good.So yeah.I reccommend people going to see it.
The pic chosen to represent this article for the Frontpage banner is further evidence of G-Pussy's in-the-closet-status. Someone please love him so he'll finally know what happiness is. MEM? Anyone?
The pic makes it looks like Nowie and spidey know each other.
Went to see this with a group of Spiderman fan-tards yesterday (I was forced).
I got to the point where unkie Ben went into his "obligation" rant before I decided I couldn't take it anymore. I walked out and went across the hall to watch the last half of Avengers.
I wasn't planning on seeing it anyway but, when my Sex and the City loving step-mom started gushing about it...well, that pretty much closed the door on me even renting it with an open mind.
saw this last week. it was in 3d, which i loathe, but unlike every other 3d movie, the entire thing could be watched without the glasses. no 2d blurriness, except in a handful of moments. so that was a nice perk.
i think i enjoyed it more than any of the first three spideys, but its difficult to say how much i actually liked it because it was so friggin similar to the first three spideys. it felt much more like when you watch a remastered version of indiana jones and the temple of doom; familiar, but neato! so many scenes felt shot-for-shot similar.
but, i liked garfield better than tobey. i liked that they kept him in high school rather than moving right along. i liked that there were more scenes without the power-rangers, everyone-pantomime-in-masks effect.
i probably would have loved it much more, and thought it much more amazing, if i didn't just see it years ago. but it was still fun.
I enjoyed it, but too close after the Raimi Tobey trilogy. (I know the legal reasons.) Not found of having a build up for Green Goblin again, but if it means they'll have Hobgoblin later...
... Though Hobgoblin isn't that interesting without The Rose, and for the Rose they'll need Kingpin.... I hope Sony gets Kingpin, and Marvel will be forced to use another villain for Daredevil.
Two more 'Spider-Man' sequels coming It looks like "The Amazing Spider-Man" has a few more webs to sling.
Sony Pictures' Chairman of Worldwide Marketing and Distribution, Jeff Blake, announced the dates for two more 'Spider-Man' sequels - and the schedule extends into 2018.
"The Amazing Spider-Man," the 2012 reboot of the series (which followed three Sam Raimi-directed films in the 2000s) took in over $750 million at the worldwide box office last year. Production is already under way in New York on "The Amazing Spider-Man 2," set for release on May 2, 2014.
Banking on the success of the new series, the studio has plans for a third film to be released on June 10, 2016, followed by the fourth installment, scheduled for May 4, 2018.
" 'Spider-Man' is our most important, most successful, and most beloved franchise," Blake said in a statment. "We're thrilled that we are in a position to lock in these prime release dates over the next five years."
Chances are Spidey fans worldwide are nodding their heads in agreement.
and have just announced several more sequels, so am not sure Dave understands what sunk like a stone means. Personally despite my initial fears that they were going all emo twilight bullshit from the trailers, I think this is my favourite Spidey movie as Garfield just seems to get the role more than Maguire did.
In an interview with Entertainment Weekly released on Wednesday, The Amazing Spider-Man star Andrew Garfield suggested that he’d like to play Peter Parker as a young man exploring his bisexuality. According to Garfield, he told producer Matt Tolmach that he’d like MJ – Mary Jane – to be a boy. “I was kind of joking, but kind of not joking about MJ,” he said. “And I was like, ‘What if MJ is a dude?’ Why can’t we discover that Peter is exploring his sexuality? It’s hardly even groundbreaking!…So why can’t he be gay? Why can’t he be into boys?”
I think you're watching the wrong movie or reading the wrong comic if you're always thinking about spider-man's gender preference. It doesn't matter if he's gay or straight when he's punching crime in the face (unless the criminal looks like Channing Tatum).
also, first they turned him black, then they're going to make him BI. Is there something about Spider-Man that people always want to push their own agenda by modifying the character?
I've never heard of any actor or writer try to drastically change Superman or Batman in terms of the the core things that defined the characters.
