Science Fiction and Fantasy Community Forums

Full Version: Sam Raimi and Tobey Maguire commit to "Spider-man 4" and "Spider-man 5"
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Sony Locks In Sam Raimi & Tobey Maguire in 'Spider-Man 4'; Studio May Shoot '4' and '5' At The Same Time

It's time to end once and for all the rampant speculation. Sony doesn't want any info to leak but I'm told that both star Tobey Maguire and director Sam Raimi will be returning to make Zodiac screenwriter Jamie Vanderbilt's script of Spider-Man 4. Sources tell me that Sony has recently locked in both veterans of Spider-Man 1 through 3. And I do mean recently because just a few weeks ago sources told me that Sony Pictures co-chairman Amy Pascal was openly discussing Tobey's potential replacements with various Hollywood agents because Tobey was hanging tough about a deal. "She was looking around to cover herself because Sony wanted him badly and Tobey wasn't sure he wanted to do it," an insider explained to me. There's no deal yet for Kirsten Dunst but Mary Jane Watson will be in the movie again. I'm told Sony "would never recast her" despite her rehab problems. But expect another gal part, too.

Gone is the black costume from Spidey 3, even though "dark" is all the rage in superhero movies right now given the enormous success of The Dark Knight. But I'm told the filmmakers won't be borrowing from the latest Batman installment because "Spider-Man is its own thing," one insider tells me. "Sam Raimi made the first serious superhero movie, and others followed. The difference between Spider-Man and Batman is that Batman is duelling with a dark side of himself, and that's not what Peter Parker's struggle is. Peter Parker has no dark side himself. In Spider-Man 3 it was the black costume. Peter Parker's struggle is about sacrifice."

Sony is taking its time officially hiring the movie's villain since principal photography doesn't start on Spider-Man 4 until next fall because of the recently postponed May 2011 release. I am told, however, that "once you find out who the villain is, you'll know who's playing it." That should lead to speculation that Dylan Baker's character of Dr. Curt Connors will ultimately turn into The Lizard as he did in the comic books. There's one other character that's been set up but is a real longshot -- Daniel Gillies, who plays John Jameson, the astronaut fiance of Mary Jane in Spider-Man 2. In the comics he becomes the villain Man-Wolf. Raimi has said in the past that he wants the best actors to play the villains in the movie, not necessarily the most famous.

Read the full article here
I posted earlier that I'd like to see a new cast, however I am happy to read that they're not looking to make a dark movie. That goes a long way to helping me feel better about it. :bg:
I had forgotten about Man-wolf but I have to admit I've been looking forward to seeing Dr. Connors turn into the Lizard. That was such a complex villain.
SyFy Portal reported that Dark Horizons reported that MovieWeb ... oh, the trail of credits is way too long. :poke:

At any rate, the word at a bout a hundred sites is that Tobey Maguire is getting a whopping $50 million for the next two movies, plus a share of the profits, and that he has even gotten some kind of stipulation in his contract that he won't have to shoot in either the early AM, or the late evening, so that he can spend time with his family (and in particular, his adorably named daughter, Ruby Sweetheart, who is about to turn 2 later this fall.)
Good for him if he hammered out the contract he wanted, but this is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. Fifty mil for two movies, and a silly availability schedule.

They could have got someone else for a fraction of that and saved even more money with a fairly intensive shooting schedule. The point of shooting back to back seems kind of lost if your star is only on set 9 to 5.
And then when he's behind/under the mask, it can be a double anyway! :bounce:

I'm kind of ambivalent. On the one hand, plenty of actors have played Bond, the Saint, Sherlock Holmes, Dracula, etc. and usually they are exactly as good as the material, one way or another. And in theatre, you actually look forward to other actors being able to take on a particular role. So for example, when it's announced that Nathan Lane will recreate Zero Mostel's role in The Producers, you think "wow - what a great role for him!" and then when you hear that Jason Alexander is taking it over, you again think that it's a great role for him too.

On the other hand, if you admire particular performers or actors, you are glad that you get to see them, and you are happy if they're making lots o' cash. Like in my case, it made me very happy that Alec Guiness got a little teeny % of all Star Wars profits, which was probably more than he'd ever made in his life, so it enabled him to live out a very comfortable retirement.

But in the bigger scope of things, yes I agree, the huge salaries and budgets are killing the film industry, or the creative part of it anyway. Although monetarily it is working for the bottom line. So solely from that standpoint, if you pay Tobey $25 million for a film... you do pretty much guarantee that even if the film is terrible, you will make several hundred million dollars in profit no matter what, esp. when merchandising, dvd sales, tv reruns etc. are factored in. And if you think about it.... models make million of dollars just for standing and smiling while someone takes their photo,then publishes it on some cover. By that definition, if you can take photos of Tobey and guarantee yourself a profit, why not do it? Especially when that profit goes back to your stockholders...which basically are all of our local banks, credit unions, 401k's and our grandparents' pension funds.

The solution of course is to go see indie movies made for cheap (Eliza's Bottle Shock comes to mind) to ensure that they make a decent profit. But what film enthusiasts do is irrelevant - all of this is determined by what teenagers and their dates, and parents and their kids go see at the mall on Friday and Saturday. :dead:
I'm not against big Hollywood pictures in the least. But I think it's spiraling out of control. I mean, fifty million dollars for what? Twelve weeks of primary shooting? That's absurd.

I understand the why, but still. After seeing Spider-Man 3, the franchise doesn't need more money thrown at it, what it needs is to recommit itself to the material it's based on.
Boomstick Wrote:I'm not against big Hollywood pictures in the least. But I think it's spiraling out of control. I mean, fifty million dollars for what? Twelve weeks of primary shooting? That's absurd.

I understand the why, but still. After seeing Spider-Man 3, the franchise doesn't need more money thrown at it, what it needs is to recommit itself to the material it's based on.

:goodjob: Agreed.:goodjob:

The Spidey franchise IMO, got derailed right after the first film. It's gotten away from the superhero adventure, and turned into a '90210' with a guy who just happens to have spider powers.

The breakup scene with MJ and Pete was appalling. Parker was blubbering unintelligibly like a little girl, blowing snot bubbles, speaking in tongues....:jawdrop:



The last film was just plain lousy.