Screen Rant » spider-man 3

Spider-Man 4: Willem Dafoe’s Green Goblin is Done

Rob Keyes — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 12:16:28 +0000

In recent weeks, there’s been some chatter as to what characters, or more specifically, villains, we will see in the upcoming fourth installment to the Spider-Man franchise.

First, we heard arguably crazy speculation that Bruce Campbell’s larger role in Spider-Man 4 would see him playing a villain such as Mysterio. Unlikely in the eyes of many fans, but we followed that up with a report on director Sam Raimi discussing the Spider-Man 4 villains where he admitted he favored the idea of The Lizard but wasn’t keen or familiar with the idea of Carnage.

Then, we finally got one confirmation on the topic of potential villains: Dylan Baker would in fact be returning as Dr. Curt Connors in the next movie but that didn’t necessarily mean he’d be transforming in the scaly green two-armed lizard, especially not if you can take Baker’s words as complete truth (he says he’s a background character). Of course, this was followed with more rumors where it was said that The Lizard could be Spider-Man 4’s only villain.

So, what about going backwards and playing with the villains of before? A little hard seeing as how in the first two movies, the bad guys died and it’s doubtful we’ll get Venom again this time around with his own spin-off coming (I think we’ll see Venom in either Spider-man 5 or 6).

MTV had a chance to chat with the talented Willem Dafoe who of course played Norman Osborn in the first Spider-Man. With the Spider-Man 4 in development with a confirmed release date and plenty of headlines to go around, MTV took the opportunity to ask the actor if he’ll be making a return to the franchise in any form (even though he’s dead).

There wasn’t much from Dafoe’s response other than he said he hasn’t been called but he thinks it’s possible (or that’s just a standard media-trained response):

“I think it’s possible… But I haven’t heard anything.”

Admittedly, Raimi and company do go out of their way to tie each movie to the previous but from all accounts it seems that Spider-Man 4 will be a fresh start where Sam Raimi will have “full control” over the project and they may distance themselves from the existing trilogy. We’ve had three movies of goblins, it’s time to move on.

The Green Goblin story is over, Harry and Norman Osborn have passed, and so there’s no real reason to have Dafoe return unless it involves Peter having flashbacks or Mysterio creating illusions of Spidey’s prior villains. That (Mysterio’s illusions) would be a neat way to at least have a scene for every character we’ve met in the trilogy – makes for an interesting look-back and Sam Raimi/Tobey Maguire conclusion movie for their part in the franchise (I don’t expect to see them back after Spider-Man 4).

I love Dafoe as an actor but I think he’s served his role in the Spider-Man franchise and that it’s time to move on. Don’t count on seeing him again.

What did you think of Dafoe’s portrayal of the Green Goblin and would like to see him cameo again in another Spider-Man movie in memory, flash-back or illusion?

Spider-Man 4 starts production next March and is scheduled to hit theaters May 6, 2011, the year of the super hero.

Source: MTV

You Might Also Be Interested In:

Is The Lizard Spider-Man 4’s Only Villain?

Rob Keyes — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 23:36:08 +0000

Less than a week ago, Dylan Baker confirmed that he’d be returning as Dr. Curt Connors in Spider-Man 4. At the time, he said he’d be regulated to a small background role similar to his appearances in the last two Spidey films.

Now, comes an insider report from Jim over at Market Saw who’s saying that The Lizard may not only be in Spider-Man 4, but that he’d be the only villain of the movie. This of course would bring the franchise back to its one-villain roots as utilized in the first two movies of the series.

Sam Raimi did say that he loves The Lizard…

The info allegedly comes from a reliable inside source, but we know that the script is still being worked on by Gary Ross.

If true, this wouldn’t be unexpected as the franchise so far has made plenty of effort in tying each film to its predecessors and Raimi made sure to include Dr. Curt Connors in the last two movies. It makes total sense to have The Lizard make an appearance and I’d love to see that transformation finally occur. However, I wouldn’t mind if he was the lesser villain of a pair of baddies instead.

Three villains, as we saw awfully featured in Spider-Man 3 is simply too much, but as we’ve seen in other comic book films, two can work nice if done right. So, whether that means The Lizard is the featured super villain or a secondary one, don’t be surprised to see Dylan Baker grow some scales in Spider-Man 4.

Remember though, this next Spider-Man adventure may be the last time we see Tobey Maguire as Peter Parker and Sam Raimi helming behind the camera. With that in mind, is Dylan Baker’s Lizard really the last villain we see Tobey Maguire and Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man duke it out with? Is that an epic enough conclusion to their Spider-Man franchise which may continue with a Spider-Man 5 & 6 starring different actors and helmed by a different director?

Dylan Baker to take the spotlight in Spider-Man 4?

However this may play out, I’m a fan of Baker and would be happy seeing Connors turn grow his arm back. This could be the end of the hopes of some fans who want to see Bruce Campbell play Mysterio.

What do you think of the idea of The Lizard being the main (and only) villain of Spider-Man 4?

Spider-Man 4 is scheduled for an early March production start and will hit theaters May 6, 2011.

Source: Market Saw, Header edited from beautiful art by Julie Bell

You Might Also Be Interested In:

Dr. Curt Connors Confirmed For Spider-Man 4

Rob Keyes — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 11:21:32 +0000

Speculation, here we come!

Dylan Baker, the actor who played the minor role of Dr. Curt Connors in the last two Spider-Man movies has confirmed that he’ll be in Spider-Man 4. Now, this doesn’t mean we’ll be seeing his scaly alter ego known as The Lizard, but it sure wouldn’t be surprising.

Even if The Lizard wasn’t making his appearance, we’d expect Dr. Curt Connors to play at least a small part again. It wouldn’t make sense to have him involved in the plot of Spider-Man 2 & 3 then throw him away.

During the Q&A segment for a Trick ‘r Treat presentation on Wednesday, Mr. Baker was asked about his involvement in the next Sam Raimi Spidey adventure and he said he was on-board but that he’d just be a smaller background character again.

Online speculation from polls and forums seems to bring up two names consistently: Lizard and Carnage. While I don’t like the idea of going with another symbiotic villain after Venom’s poor turn-out in Spider-Man 3, I do think seeing Mr. Connors transform into The Lizard and finally having two arms again is an obvious choice, even if he’s a minor villain for the next movie.

The last we heard from director Sam Raimi on the topic of Spider-Man 4 villains was that he really liked the idea of The Lizard but that he didn’t know too much about Carnage. Take from that what you will but it’s possible none of what they say is true. Perhaps the denied Morbius could still be a villain choice since his story does mesh perfectly with The Lizard. There’s also that rumor of Bruce Campbell playing Mysterio, but all we know for sure is that Campbell will have a bigger role in Spider-Man 4.

Are you happy to know that Dylan Baker will be acting in Spider-Man 4? What do you think the story implications of this are?

Spider-Man 4 is planned for an early March production start and is scheduled to hit theaters May 6, 2011, the summer of the superhero.

Source: UGO

You Might Also Be Interested In:

Will Sam Raimi Direct Spider-Man 5 & 6?

Rob Keyes — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 05:38:53 +0000

It’s been a big week for Sony’s Columbia Pictures and fans of the Spider-Man franchise. A mere week ago we found that the studio has selected Gary Ross to direct and rewrite the upcoming Venom solo film. Ross has a long history with the studio and actor Tobey Maguire and he’s currently involved with the script of Spider-Man 4. While we later heard that Venom might be far off with Ross also being tipped to helm the Spielberg-less Matt Helm remake, there’s no slowing the Spidey franchise one way or another.

On the Peter Parker side of things, Raimi revealed a few days back that they’re planning for an early March start of production for Spider-Man 4 to meet their summer kick-off release date in 2011. That’s not all however, as more recently we reported on director Sam Raimi discussing the possible villains of Spider-Man 4.

Now, MTV is sharing the part of their interview with Raimi where he touches even more Spider-Man sequels in the pipeline, specifically the 5th and 6th installments. Read on after the jump for more!

In the interview, Raimi is directly asked if he will direct Spider-Man 5 & 6.

“Every time I make one of the ‘Spider-Man’ movies, I have to ask myself, is the character still intriguing to me?… Do I love the character? Am I dying to tell the next story of Peter Parker and Spider-Man?”

“And so far the answer has been yes.”

Spider-Man 5 & 6 are happening not long after Spider-Man 4 hits theaters whether Raimi’s involved or not. Since it seemed like such an effort for the studio to bring him back alongside the stars, Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst, I’m not sure I’m buying into the likelihood of him returning for more. If you want just one big reason why, just check out the ridiculous amount of upcoming and in-development projects he has listed on IMDB. He’s got too much else going on and he’s also responsible for helping adapt Warcraft to live-action which will no doubt kick off another major franchise.

He doesn’t need more Spider-Man and after the debacle of interference related to the production of Spider-Man 3 (hopefully and apparently rectified this time around), he’s got so many other things to look forward to.

On top of all of that, we know that James Vanderbilt’s scripts for Spider-Man 5 & 6 are being written so they can act as a quasi-reboot of the franchise should Raimi and crew not return. With the Venom solo project on its way down the road, the likely possibility of the cast not returning for a 5th Spider-Man, Raimi’s words on how they’re picking the villain of Spidey 4 as to not set up for a solo film, the ruining of Venom in his first on-screen appearance, and the need of the studio to fast-track these highly-profitable films, I don’t expect Raimi to be back in the director’s chair for Spider-Man 5.

Click to continue reading about Spider-Man 5 & 6…

You Might Also Be Interested In:

Sam Raimi Discusses Spider-Man 4 Villains

Rob Keyes — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 02:46:18 +0000

Spider-Man 4 has been receiving plenty of buzz in recent times with announcements and confirmations of it going into production next year for a 2011 release. On top of that, we’ve had countless reports and speculation about what storylines it may follow, the start of development for Spider-Man 5 & 6, and discussions of what villains will be the focus of the fourth installment in the super successful superhero franchise.

MTV spoke with Sam Raimi and got the director to discuss a bit about the villains of Spider-Man 4 and the results of a fan poll they ran on the site which saw The Lizard and Carnage come out on top as the most desired villains, with the highest percentages from an unknown number of votes.

Raimi responded to the two top choices but couldn’t reveal who they’ve selected as the villainous characters are for the next Spider-Man adventure.

“I love the Lizard… There’s a great story there in the Marvel comic books about Dr. Connors. I’m less familiar with Carnage.”

After this, you could tell Raimi wanted to be more open on the topic, but he must remain tight-lipped for obvious reasons with shooting not even expected to begin until next March. After a long pause, Raimi followed up by saying “I’m not allowed to say at this point.”

Normally, I’d think that The Lizard would be an obvious choice and that the other would be a character not introduced into the franchise yet. I can pretty much guarantee Carnage will not be in Spider-Man 4. After what happened with Venom in Spider-Man 3, they’ll be leaving the symbiotic villains behind until the franchise restarts and/or the Venom solo film gets underway.

However, Raimi later explains that the next movie doesn’t have so much to do with a character introduced in the films so far or about intertwining with/setting up the Venom spinoff. This partially puts a damper on The Lizard’s full introduction.

Of course, he could just be intentionally misleading. It seems like too much of a missed opportunity to not have The Lizard finally make an appearance after seeing Dr. Curt Connors introduced and slightly developed over the last few films.

Raimi continued by elaborating on the goal of Spider-Man 4’s story and how the villain will fit into that plan.

“What we’re trying to do right now is really understand the journey Peter is going to go on this time and have the villain maybe be a counter to that growth, something that he has to overcome… Or maybe he has to grow in a way to overcome the villain, because there always seem to be stories of coming of age, of a young man growing up and learning things about life, so once we are identifying the exact movement that Peter has to grow to, I think the villain—and we’re trying this right now; we’re trying to choose a villain based on who would be the proper counter to that growth, so we really have dramatic conflict.”

Click to continue reading about Spider-Man 4 villains…

You Might Also Be Interested In:

Venom Updates: How Will It Tie Into Spider-Man Franchise?

Rob Keyes — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 00:55:00 +0000

SCI FI Wire had an exclusive interview with Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick, the writers behind next month’s Zombieland flick (which looks great!) and they spoke about that other big project they’ve been working on: the script for the Venom solo film.

The last we heard on the Venom project from the writers was from back in April when they couldn’t comment on whether or not this incarnation of Venom would be the same as/related to the wasted version we saw in the highly disappointing Spider-Man 3.

In the interview, Reese and Wernick take questions on the status of the project and when the film could be in production.

So, What’s the latest on their scripts?

“We’ve written two drafts of Venom, and the studio has it, and they’re pushing forward in whatever ways they push forward,”

As for when the film going move into actual production, the writers said they weren’t sure and re-iterated that they’ve submitted their latest two drafts.

With Spider-Man 4 moving into production early next year for a summer, 2011 opening, fans are curious as to when we might expect this film – Could it come before or around the game time? Could the movies cross-over?

“We can’t really talk about that, unfortunately… Basically, the studio and Marvel and the Arads are taking our drafts and going beyond and figuring out what’s the next step.”

What we do know about the future Spider-Man movies are that Sony hired James Vanderbilt to pen scripts for Spider-Man 5 and 6. The interesting part about the news was that the scripts would act as a franchise reboot should Raimi and his cast not return for more after Spider-Man 4.

I’m not sure I expect to see Tobey Maguire want to do another after this. He seemingly wasn’t too interested in coming back for this fourth installment and the same can be said about co-star Kirsten Dunst.

Either way, Sony is sick of waiting so long between installments in their prized film franchise and with Tobey Maguire not seemingly interested in more installments and Sam Raimi’s rediculously busy schedule, I could see them pulling the trigger on the reboot idea.

Click to see what this may mean for Venom and how it could tie into Spider-Man 5…

You Might Also Be Interested In:

Writer Hired For Spider-Man 5 & 6

Rob Keyes — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 11:05:09 +0000

According to Variety, James Vanderbilt has been picked up by Sony Pictures Entertainment to pen the scripts to another two Spider-Man films.

What’s interesting about this is that Vanderbilt had initially written the first script for Spider-Man 4, a script that director Sam Raimi wasn’t fully in support of. Raimi brought in other writers to do several re-writes but executives at Columbia Pictures and Marvel Studios actually liked Vanderbilt’s ideas.

That’s a tad worrisome seeing how Raimi was involved with the mess that was Spider-Man 3 and Marvel Studios has been dead-on with their first two films; Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk.

A big issue here is that there’s no confirmation on whether or not any of the key players will return for another two installments. Raimi was doubtful of doing a fourth but he eventually came back aboard, as did its star Tobey Maguire with the help of an insanely big contract.

Raimi will be a very busy man after Spider-Man 4 with a ton of projects in development and his position in kickstarting another massive franchise, World of Warcraft, so it’s possible he may not be around to film back-to-back large-scale superhero films. Either way, Spider-Man is the headline franchise for Sony Pictures and their biggest money-maker. They want to be ready to continue the franchise and not have to wait many years in-between future installments.

Apparently, if Raimi and his cast doesn’t return for the 5th and 6th interconnected Spidey adventures, Vanderbilt’s script would act as a franchise re-boot.

I’m actually fine with that so long as we don’t get a complete re-hash of the origins story. They nailed that down well in the first Spider-Man film and I want to see new villains that haven’t been touched on in the franchise yet. They could even re-cast the lead with a new director and just continue if they wanted to – It almost happened with Jake Gyllenhaal back with the first sequel.

Spider-Man 4 is a real test for Sam Raimi as he’s in full control of it, unlike the situation with the last one. We’ve already seen some of that control with the re-writes of the script so I’m curious how good the next installment will be. If it’s not, I’m all for a different direction with 5 & 6.

What do you think of this news and what storylines and villains could be included with Spider-Man 5 & 6?

Spider-Man 4 is set to begin production early next year for a May 6, 2011 opening.

Source: Variety

You Might Also Be Interested In:

Does Spider-Man 4’s Next Rewrite Mean We Should Be Worried?

Rob Keyes — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 11:14:19 +0000

News has surfaced that Gary Ross, writer of such films including Seabiscuit, The Tale of Despereaux, Dave and Lassie in the past and writer/director of some others (that we’ll discuss later), is being brought in to re-write the script of Spider-Man 4.

What does this mean for the movie?

On one side, Ross was likely chosen because of his growing relationship with Sony which includes his directing of a Lance Armstrong cycling film and his work on the in-development Tokyo Suckerpunch.

On the other side, Spider-Man 4’s script is getting yet another rewrite meaning there are major issues with it (probably due to what happened in Spider-Man 3). This leaves me wondering what direction the film will take after the last movie and how, or if, it will lead at all into the Venom spinoff movie we’ve heard a lot about.

If you were expecting to hear any official updates as to who the villain(s) may be in the next installment, expect to wait a little longer with this news.

With these rewrites, I hope we get a solid and polished story for the movie. I highly disliked Spidey 3 and this needs return to the form of the first two. However, the difference is that I would like to see more of a real villain this time. We’ve seen far too much of the same formula of “I’m not really a bad guy, science did this to me” villains who redeem themselves at the end.

I wonder what Sam Raimi’s involvement with the script and story is this time around…

Interestingly, the only two movies Ross has directed, Tobey Maguire has starred in: Pleasantville and Seabiscuit which were both good movies. On top of that, they have two in-development films coming up in Tokyo Suckerpunch and The Crusaders. That gives me some hope at least.

What do you think of this fourth installment getting another re-write? Are they just ensuring the quality or is it a big mess?

Spider-Man 4 is scheduled to begin production next year and open May 6, 2011, sharing the summer with other heroes including Thor, Green Lantern and Captain America.

Source: Variety

You Might Also Be Interested In:

Spider-Man 4 Updates: Mary Jane & Morbius

Rob Keyes — Mon, 25 May 2009 01:37:30 +0000

Sam Raimi, director of the Spider-Man films, revealed back in January of this year that he has an interest in the character of Morbius and that sparked rumors that he would be (one of) the featured villains in the upcoming Spider-Man 4.

To me, this made perfect sense as it would allow the next movie to explore a darker and more realistic tone (compared to the more extreme Sandman and Venom characters). Even more than that, Morbius shares plenty of Marvel Comics history with the Lizard character (Dr. Curt Connors) who we saw introduced in Spider-Man 2 and play an important role in Spider-Man 3.

To keep the speculation flowing, the idea of Spider-Man duking it out with a vampire was brought up with Sam Raimi in an interview with FearNET about his upcoming horror film, Drag Me To Hell. Raimi gave a very coy and humorous response to the question and then went on to discuss how the idea of a vampire-like villain is very appealing and gave some reasons why that would be interesting for the movie.

There is still no confirmation on the villains and we shouldn’t expect any until we see the script completed. There’s also a bit of an issue surrounding which studio owns the film rights to the Morbius character that will need clarifying if in fact, the character is to appear in the next movie.

Switching gears, let’s move on to the character of Mary Jane… [Continue to Page 2]

You Might Also Be Interested In:

Sam Raimi Controls Spider-Man 4 (Unlike Spider-Man 3)

Rob Keyes — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 06:49:15 +0000

Did you like Spider-Man 3? I didn’t. Sadly, many fans of the Spider-Man franchise were let down by the third installment of the series but don’t fret! We just may get a return to form with Spider-Man 4.

In an interview with Empire for this May’s issue, Raimi openly talked about some of the problems with Spider-Man 3 and confirmed some rumors we all heard about two summers ago when the movie was released.

“They really gave me a tremendous amount of control on the first two films, actually. But then there were different opinions on the third film and I didn’t really have creative control, so to speak.”

There were rumblings that Raimi wasn’t allowed to truly do his own story and that producers forced him to include the popular Venom character as one of the villains in the story. When asked about that, Raimi responded:

“I don’t even want to comment on Venom, because I know he’s a great character and all the fans love him. I never want to say anything bad about a much-beloved character because usually it turns out that I’m the one that doesn’t understand what makes it great.”

It seems that the image above is more meaningful than at first glace…

More questions were thrown at the director about the issues surrounding Spider-Man 3 and the at-the-time Marvel head honcho Avi Arad’s rumored insistence on Venom’s inclusion, but Raimi responded professionally and didn’t name names or play the blame game in his answers.

“The best way for me to move forward on films, I realize…and this was a lesson I had to learn for myself…is that I’ve gotta be the singular voice that makes the creative choices on the film.”

It sounds promising that the next movie will return to the quality we’ve come to expect from the first two films in the franchise. I’m glad that Raimi is back in the captain’s chair (for real this time) and that Tobey will be back as Peter Parker. We also know that Raimi really wants Kirsten Dunst back as Mary Jane but no deal has been made on that front as of yet.

As for the villains of the next Spidey film; we know Raimi has an interest in Morbius and they’ve spent quite a bit of effort in developing The Lizard. So, we could be seeing those two in the story. I like those choices as villains as they go hand in hand as a pairing in the Spider-Man comics and both have very similar origins.

I definitely prefer that pairing to the recently rumored (originating from a fan site) Electro and Carnage combo which I think would be a poor decision. They need to avoid Carnage if they want to keep the suspension of belief and have a more realistic (as realistic as it can be for a superhero flick) movie experience.

Or at least, save Carnage for the fifth film.

What do you think?

Spider-Man 4 is set to open in theaters May 6, 2011.

Source: The Geek Files

You Might Also Be Interested In:

The Dark Knight Burns Up First-Day Box Office Records

Kofi Outlaw — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 19:53:56 +0000

To quote the Joker, “It’s not about money. It’s about sending a message.”

Consider the message received, loud and clear.

The Dark Knight has officially dethroned former champ Spider-Man 3 to become the movie with the highest-grossing first-day premiere. Led by fan fervor, strong buzz, impeccable reviews from both fans and critics alike, and a all that talk, talk, talk, about the late Heath Ledger’s boundary-shattering performance as the Joker, Dark Knight managed to rake in $66.4 million in just its first day! (More than twice what The Love Guru has made all Summer.)

And the record breaking didn’t stop there. Dark Knight also set a new record for the biggest ever midnight bow, taking in $18.5 million from 3,040 screens, a higher gross than Revenge of Sith’s $16.9 million midnight debut on 2,915 screens, back in 2005. Not even factored into TDK’s midnight figures are the 1 am, 3 am and 6 am showings of the film, which is running 24/7 throughout the weekend in many theaters. (I went to a 3AM show myself and I can tell you, it was a packed house.)

All signs seem to indicate that Dark Knight will ultimately top Spider-Man 3’s $151.1 million opening weekend to set a new record in that category as well. (Guess that puts to rest any and all talk about whether the expectations for the film were too high.) Of course, the great news has made the suits over at Warner Bros. giddy with green fever.

“We’re very proud of the film,” [said Dan Fellman, Warner Bros. head of distribution,] “It’s the magic of the movie business, how one film just stands out above the others.”

No magic involved, Danny, just the end result of having great source material to work with, phenomenal actors to play the parts, a great script, big enough budget, and all of it placed into the hands of a competent and accomplished director like Chris Nolan, with enough free reign for him to do what he does best. The resulting film has set a new bar for what both comic book movies and summer blockbusters can be. Kudos to you, your crew and your cast, Mr. Nolan. Heath, we miss your talent more than ever, man. (And here’s hoping you get your Oscar. The buzz is that you definitely deserve it.)

So, did you do YOUR part to help The Dark Knight get to the top? Did you ever think a movie could become such a cultural phenomenon as this film has? Rant back and speak on it.

The Dark Knight is now playing at a theater near you.

Source: MSNBC

You Might Also Be Interested In:

Why Do Studios Let Great Movies Die?

Vic Holtreman — Sat, 06 Oct 2007 11:10:10 +0000

The 2007 Toronto International Film Festival ended recently and the 2008 Sundance Film Festival is just around the corner, and these have gotten me thinking (uh oh!).

I’ve been thinking about why it is that some movies that are so mediocre go on to earn hundreds of millions of dollars at the box office while other films that are just as good (and quite often far better) end up unseen not talked about. While I enjoy a good popcorn movie as much as the next guy, I do tend to hold even action and sci-fi movies to a higher standard than the average 14 year old.

So I find it extremely frustrating when movies that seem to be mediocre or worse make incredible amounts of money and give some directors credibility and the opportunity to pump out more schlock, while other movies that are better go on to make almost nothing and those directors continue to have to fight to get movies made.

Let’s look at some examples from the last 10 years or so…

Most recently we had the mega-monster hits Spider-man 3 and Transformers. Each of these has grossed over $300 million so far at the box office. Now I’ll grant you that these are well known names – Spider-man 3 having a built in audience from the first two films, but Transformers? Sure, there’s the nostalgia factor there, but I guarantee you that most of the people buying tickets didn’t buy them due to nostalgia from their childhoods. It was due to an insane amount of marketing by Paramount/Dreamworks.

Now I realize that although I didn’t like it much, on average it received ok reviews with the average being around stars (BTW, when I refer to average reviews here I’m not just taking movie critics into account, but also regular folks who vote at IMDB.com). Most people seem to have enjoyed it as just a fun rollercoaster ride of a movie. On the other hand a lot of folks thought that Spidey 3 was very weak, especially compared to the first two, but again, it became a “must see” event due to the studios merciless pummeling of our senses via advertising.

Unfortunately not only pretty good movies get monster marketing campaigns to promote them and therefore end up making some decent coin for the studios. As evidence I present to you: Norbit. This was Eddie Murphy in a fat suit as well as in multiple roles. It went on to make over $95 million despite the fact that the average review for it was stars. Great word of mouth? I don’t think so. Tons of marketing effort? I’d have to say: yeah.

Compare that to say, the action-packed, crazy and fun Shoot ‘em Up, which despite the average rating of only made just over $12 million, or the oh-so-excellent () Serenity which only made it to about $25 million.

Were these films better than Norbit? More entertaining for the average movie viewer? Of course they were.

So why didn’t the studios put as much marketing muscle behind movies that probably would have done better with a bigger push? Better movie = better word of mouth, but you have to get enough people to lay eyeballs on it in the first place in order to talk about it.

Here’s a table listing a cross-section of blockbusters along with smaller films that I think would have a wide appeal if people had actually ever heard of them. Some of them did relatively well despite lousy or not enough marketing just because they were so good. Included is an upcoming movie that I think will suffer due to almost complete lack of marketing: The Signal.

Movie	Average Review	Box Office	Theaters	Weeks in Release
Spider-man 3		$336.5MM	4,324	16
Transformers		$314MM	4,050	13
Norbit		$95.4MM	3,145	12
Serenity		$25.5MM	2,189	7
The Iron Giant		$23.2MM	2,179	16
Dark City		$14.4MM	1,754	4
Shoot ‘em Up		$12.3MM	2,108	4
Slither		$7.8MM	1,946	4
Zero Effect		$2.1MM	129	3
Idiocracy		$0.4MM	130	5
Fido		$0.3MM	67	4
The Signal (not released yet)		?	?	?

Have you even heard of some of these films? And notice how the number of theaters and weeks in release drops despite the fact that all the films lower on the list are considered better than the movies up at the top. The fantastic animated film The Iron Giant went on to make a ton in DVD sales due to word of mouth. Sure Slither was kind of a niche film being a horror comedy, but look at how well the stupid Scary Movie series did. Fido is a zombie comedy starring Carrie-Anne Moss (from The Matrix trilogy) and Billy Connolly. It was ridiculously good but I’m betting that you’ve probably never even heard of it. Of course who can blame you, when it was only released at 67 theaters!!

Other great ones worth checking out are Dark City, a cool film noir sci-fi movie that stars (are you ready?) Keifer Sutherland, William Hurt and Jennifer Connelly and The Zero Effect, an offbeat detective comedy that was great and included Ben Stiller and Bill Pullman in the cast. Oh, and let’s not forget Idiocracy: a bizarre, funny and scathing commentary on the average American’s disinterest in the world in general and how things work. Whose movie is that? Only Mike Judge, the guy who brought us Office Space and the animated series Beavis and Butthead and King of the Hill.

The other odd thing is that most of the movies that are in the lower half of the list cost a fraction of what the movies at the top did. You’d think the studios would look at these lower cost films as having far more upside in regards to return on each dollar invested. Ok, sure if a movie cost $100 million and makes $300MM that’s $200MM profit. But they’re spending $1 to earn $3. With the smaller films they don’t have to put as much money at risk and $1 could return $6 or even more, and they could put more of them out.

I don’t know, it just chaps me to see crappy movies do so well while movies that are just as much fun and entertaining fall by the wayside.

Thanks to The Movie Blog, Box Office Prophets, IMDB and Box Office Mojo for reference material and ideas.

You Might Also Be Interested In:

Review: Fantastic Four: Rise Of The Silver Surver

Vic Holtreman — Mon, 18 Jun 2007 20:20:47 +0000

By Vic Holtreman

Short version: Although at times it felt like a made-for-TV movie, a far better film than the first and more entertaining than the super-serious Spider-man 3.

So it’s possible.

Not only can a sequel be better than the original, but it can be done with the same director and writer. By process of elimination, it would seem that the blame for how bad the first film was can perhaps be laid at the feet of the one guy missing from the new production crew: writer Michael France. I can’t say for sure, but at the top level it seems like pretty much everyone from the first film was still there for the second one. Pure speculation on my part, of course.

Anyway, on to the review…

It seems that expectations were all over the place for Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer – The first one was pretty awful, would this one be any better? Rumors of Galactus being portrayed as a giant cloud, Laurence Fishburne’s voice not fitting the CGI Silver Surfer, etc., etc. However I posted about the first whiffs of possibility that this sequel might be better than the first about a month ago. And guess what? It is better.

Much better, in fact.

The film opens with a shot of a planet being destroyed and then a look at the Silver Surfer, albeit only identifiable as a comet-like projection zooming through space. We’re re-introduced to our heroes, and their individual personality quirks are all still there. Sue Storm (Jessica Alba) and Reed Richards (Ioan Gruffudd) have apparently tried multiple times to get married, but some emergency/disaster always seems to pop up to keep them from exchanging their vows. To complicate things they are now very popular celebrities, whose lives seem to be in the spotlight as much as Paris Hilton’s.

Reed vows that this time the wedding will happen and although he still has a bit of the “Absent Minded Professor” vibe, in his heart he’s committed to making Sue happy. Of course despite his best intentions, the military wants him to build a device to detect the Silver Surfer, and our silver friend zooms right past the Baxter Building as the wedding is in progress. Also alerted to the arrival of this alien presence is Victor von Doom (Julian McMahon), who was last seen stored as cargo on a ship bound for Latveria. Doom meets up with the Silver Surfer and the result of his encounter is that he is no longer horribly scarred.

After Johnny Storm (Chris Evans) comes in contact with the Silver Surfer, the team discovers that he can now switch powers with other members of the team. There’s a funny moment when Sue absorbs his ability to burst into flame, and when the ever vain Johnny takes on Ben Grimm’s (Michael Chiklis) appearance.

A military general that Reed has had dealings with in the past grudgingly turns to the team for help, and after they flub an incident with the Surfer in London pretty badly, the general decides to bring in Doom to work with Reed despite the warnings the Fantastic Four give him that Doom cannot be trusted.

Along the way Reed determines that planets visited by the Surfer are destroyed within a matter of days of his arrival and sets about coming up with a way to separate the Surfer from his cosmic surfboard, apparently the source of his power. Of course as you can imagine Dr Doom (aka Victor) wants to get his hands on such a powerful device.

Enough about the story… is the movie any good? Yeah, it is. Overall I hate to admit that for the most part I found it a more enjoyable experience than Spider-Man 3. Granted, it may not be fair to compare the two… despite the fact that they’re both in the superhero genre, they are as fundamentally different in their approach as Batman Begins was to Superman Returns. While Spidey 3 was heavy and overall pretty much a downer (not a criticism in and of itself), despite it’s end of the world storyline Rise of the Silver Surfer was a much more fun movie to sit through. The interactions between members of the team seemed much more natural and indeed like that of a bickering family and I really liked the change in Reed’s character from the first film: Here he actually seemed like the Reed Richards of the comics – more mature, confident and secure in his genius. One scene in particular where he puts the general in his place put a huge grin on my face. I also liked that they added some depth to Johnny Storm this time around.

Ben Grimm was pretty much the same, although the prosthetics did give him more subtlety of expression, which was appreciated. However Jessica Alba as Sue Storm, while exceedingly pleasant to look at, just did not generate much depth no matter how hard she tried. I don’t know, maybe her beauty is too distracting? One thing I found quite funny in particular was director Tim Story’s decision to have her wear glasses in many of the scenes in the film. Can you get a more classic (or cliche) method of trying to make someone seem intelligent than slapping a pair of black framed glasses on their face?

And yes folks, Galactus is indeed basically a giant, planet-sized storm cloud. I’m not a purist when it comes to Fantastic Four and I do believe that some things in comics would just seem absurd in a live action big screen movie, so it didn’t bother me much. Perhaps they could have come up with some other solution, but honestly I think they did pretty well with the concept of a giant planet eating entity.

As to the PG rating, I can see why it was not given a PG-13 with what passes for PG-13 these days, but for those of you with little ones, it does push the PG envelope pretty hard. There were some moments in the film that may be pretty intense and scary for little kids. Just don’t go into this expecting Shrek.

Overall, while certainly not a great movie, I thought it was pretty good and very entertaining. I would be more likely to watch this one again than I would Spider-Man 3, if that means anything to you.

You Might Also Be Interested In:

Spider-Man 4 News Roundup

Vic Holtreman — Tue, 08 May 2007 21:41:29 +0000

Soooo…. The prints of Spider-Man 3 running in movie theaters are barely dry and already a couple of days ago news began surfacing that yes, there will be a Spider-Man 4. Heck, there will even be a 5, 6 and beyond.

Yeah, we’ll just have to see about that. There is no doubt that Sam Raimi (director of the first three Spiderman movies) is not about to make a lifelong career out of ol’ web head. What does that mean? That either a new director or directors will be brought in, and each one will want to put his own personal mark on the franchise. Sure, it could turn out to be a good thing, but lets keep one thing in mind, shall we?

Nipples on the Batsuit.

BBC news had a report a few days back where a Sony movie exec confirmed Spider-Man movies will be coming out until the Apocalypse (or whenever they run out of “good stories”).

Over at Freeze Dried Movies they have a source that says that the villains for Spiderman 4 will be the Lizard (aka Doc Connors, Peter’s college professor, who’s appeared in all three movies so far) and… Carnage. For those of you not aware, Carnage is like Venom on steroids. The word is that the next film would have to be “darker” to accomodate the Carnage character.

Darker than Spider-Man 3? And after the great (*cough*) job they did with Venom in this one?

Hoo boy.

I suppose you can go pretty dark in a PG-13 movie (look at the progressively creepier Harry Potter movies), but Spider-Man appeals to the little kiddies all the way down to kindergarten. In the comics, Carnage is a serial killer. Great stuff to bring little Timmy to, don’t ya think?

Also, since three antagonists worked so well in this movie, there’s also talk of adding Black Cat to the mix for the next film.

Finally, although Raimi stated a few weeks ago that he might be up for number four, the studio has said that the franchise could go on without him, Kirsten Dunst or Tobey Maguire. The vibe from various interviews is that they’ll do it as a team or they won’t do it at all. It wouldn’t be the first time that a movie studio replaced directors and lead actors in a superhero franchise. They did it quite successfully with Batman Begins and they’re in the process of doing it with The Incredible Hulk.

You Might Also Be Interested In:

Review: Spider-Man 3 (IMAX)

Vic Holtreman — Mon, 07 May 2007 15:52:18 +0000

By Vic Holtreman

Short version: Although Spiderman 3 is the weakest of the trilogy, it’s still good enough to be a member of the club.

Man… where to start on a review of a movie like this? Spider-Man 3 has been one of the most wildly anticipated movies coming out this year, so could it possibly live up to expectations? (By the way, this review is spoiler-free.)

My answer would have to be: Almost.

While the story of Spiderman 3 fits very nicely into an overall three-movie arc, there are problems with it that keep it from being as satisfying as it might have been. In the first film we meet Peter Parker as the geeky, picked-on teenager and watch him acquire his newfound powers, experiencing with him the initial giddiness and then the weight of responsibility that comes with those powers. In the second film we meet a character who has come to terms with who he is, but struggles with the amount of responsibility, difficulty and loneliness that comes with his new life.

In this third film, things have finally come around for both Peter Parker and his alter ego Spider-Man: He’s got the girl, he has fame, is beloved by the city he’s protecting, and is even doing extremely well in college. Of course, we know this can’t last. The flip side of all this is that Peter is starting to get a bit full of himself and is getting a dose of “Hollywood Ego Disease”, where he is beginning to get caught up in all the fame and adoration.

Mary Jane, on the other hand is having a hard time: She gets fired from her latest play and is struggling within, feeling once again like she did when she lived with her father due to the bad reviews of her performance and her being fired. Peter tries to console her, but although he can relate to what she’s going through, he’s so on top of the world right now that his cheery, “get back on the horse” advice rings hollow for her. The combination of her life heading downward and his heading up puts a strain on their relationship.

Then we have Flint Marko, a convict who has escaped and is on the run, breaking into his ex-wife’s apartment in order to see his sick daughter. The only thing that matters to him is curing her of whatever disease she has by finding the money to pay for it. By his own words he’s a good guy who’s just had some bad luck. Flint stumbles into a disintegration chamber just in time for an experiment to begin and is turned into the classic Spidey villain: The Sandman, who can morph into different shapes built from sand, and can also look like his old self. Peter discovers somehting about Flint Marko that puts him on a mission to track Marko down.

There’s also Eddie Brock, a new and aggressive photographer who shows up to try and usurp Peter as the premiere photographer of Spider-Man, and he happens to be dating yet another classic Spiderman comic book character: Gwen Stacey. Oh, and did I mention that Harry Osborn is in there, too?

If this sounds like a lot going on (and I haven’t even mentioned Venom yet!), well, it is. It’s one of the things that hurt this movie… there are just too many characters/stories to cover in one movie. You get the sense that they were all jammed in there because at the time they thought this would be the final film and that they wanted to please the fans by sticking in all these reference characters from the comic book. It’s a noble thought, but there’s just too much going on and it ends up marginalizing the very characters they wanted to highlight.

Let me say that I certainly didn’t hate Spider-Man 3 or even think it was awful, but there were some things that kept it from being great. The first problem is what I mentioned above: there are just way too many main characters in the film. The reason for Eddie Brock’s presence is of course, Venom (and I’ll get to that aspect shortly), but Gwen Stacey and her dad could have been left out of this film very easily. I don’t know if Gwen was in the script from day one, but I know that Sam Raimi added Venom to the story at the request of producer Avi Arad because the character is such a comic book fan favorite. I believe the original story was meant to have only Harry Osborn as the new Green Goblin and Sandman as villains.

The problem with adding Venom to the story is that if he’s going to be in there, he needs to really be in there, and that’s one of the complaints from fans of the character: the full-blown Venom character appears in the film very briefly towards the end. Sam Raimi has stated he was never a fan of the character, and it’s kind of obvious from the way Venom was used in the film. It’s ironic, because the dark/evil mood enhancing aspect of the character actually really fits the story and helped move it forward. The problem is that they probably should have done an Empire Strikes Back sort of ending where the big confrontation would be in Spider-Man 4. Instead, this felt like a typical Sci-Fi TV show episode where a huge problem has been created during the first 55 minutes of the show, you think “Wow, this must be a two-parter”, and it ends up being resolved in the final five minutes of the episode.

Other things that bothered me during the film included the transformation scene where Marko becomes Sandman: The scientists were supposedly doing a “dematerialization experiment” and Marko got caught in it. There was nothing but sand in the pit, were they trying to dematerialize sand? If so, it didn’t seem to work, because the sand was still sand. Point being what would have been the result of the experiment of Marko hadn’t been there? Very plot-devicey in my opinion. Another Sandman-related thing that really bothered me a lot was how he moved through the city: giant flying sand cloud. I didn’t realize that sand could, um… fly.

Then there’s Venom. I stopped reading Spider-Man comics around the time Spidey first got the suit so I’m not attached to the character at all. What bugged me however was that he happened to land from outer space just a few feet away from Peter Parker. Talk about your huge honkin’ coincidences! Again, I think this was due to the juggling of so many plot points: if they had limited things to fewer characters they would have had time to expand on this more. Venom should have found it’s way to Peter after perhaps inhabiting a number of non-super-powered human hosts, or heck, maybe even a dog or something. Having it land right next to Peter was a bit much.

Ah, now to the biggie: Mary Jane singing. Man oh man, what was Raimi thinking? I actually cringed at the opening of this movie with her song number. I suppose the point of it was that she was not a good singer and that’s why she was fired, but man, couldn’t they have come up with something different? And then there’s the scene where she’s dancing with Harry Osborne in his kitchen… oy. I’d love a director’s cut of this film where any scenes in which M.J. is singing or dancing is removed. That would add at least half a star to my rating for this movie.

Ok, enough about that… of course this movie will still make a gazillion dollars (they’re already talking about Spider-Man 4) and the reason why is that if you subtract out the stuff above it was still a fun, action-packed movie. Watching Peter Parker go from surprised and happy at how well his life is going to dark bad-boy mode was extremely fun to watch (until he got too “bad”). Seeing a strutting, disco-dancing Peter Parker was almost worth the price of admission. There were lots of fun bits in the movie, including a scene with Miss Brant and J. Jonah Jameson that left me in stitches and Bruce Campbell’s cameo as a French maitre’d was priceless. Then there were the action/fight sequences which were plentiful, long and amazing to watch, especially on a giant IMAX screen. Folks, for big action movies like this, I highly recommend you go out of your way to catch them in IMAX. The size of the picture and the clarity make you feel like you’re in the movie, even if you’re sitting in the back row.

Although I’d seen the majority of the Goblin/Parker fight online ahead of time, it did not compare to the way it looked on a giant IMAX screen. It was like watching it for the first time all over again. The effects work on Sandman were particularly good, especially in closeups where you could actually make out the individual grains of sand forming expressions on his face. When it came to Venom at the end of the movie however, I have to agree with a lot of the fans’ comments online: I thought it was kind of weak and especially in the face, way too CGI-ish. It didn’t look organic to me at all, instead looking very video-gamish.

In the final analysis, sure, there were things that annoyed me and even made me cringe, but overall I have to cut Spider-Man 3 some slack and say it was pretty good overall. Not great, but good and well worth seeing.

You Might Also Be Interested In:

Spider-Man 3 Mini-Bust Winner!

Vic Holtreman — Sat, 05 May 2007 14:59:02 +0000

We have a winner of Screen Rant’s Sideshow Collectibles Spider-Man 3 mini-bust contest:

The Spider-Man 3 Mini-Bust Winner is

Eric Hall

Thanks to everyone who entered and signed up for our daily movie/tv newsletter!

You Might Also Be Interested In:

Spider-Man 3 Movie Props Auction

Vic Holtreman — Fri, 04 May 2007 15:11:17 +0000

If any of you have some spare cash burning a hole in your pocket, check out the Ebay auction that’s coinciding with the opening of Spider-Man 3 today. It’s sponsored by Sony Pictures and they’re auctioning off some serious stuff… not aftermarket collectibles but actual costumes, wardrobe and props used in the movie!

You can either click here or on the image above to see what they have to offer.

You Might Also Be Interested In:

If Die Hard 4 Makes Money, Do I Get A Cut?

Vic Holtreman — Wed, 02 May 2007 15:29:40 +0000

It seems that Live Free or Die Hard, the long awaited fourth film in the Die Hard movie series is king of online movie buzz so far this year. This is according to the number of mentions of upcoming movies in blog as tracked by Nielsen BuzzMetrics.

Die Hard 4.0 (as I prefer to call it) even beat out mentions of Spider-Man 3 by 2 to 1, which I find very surprising.

Maybe it’s just the blogs that I follow, but I’ve seen WAY more mentions of Spidey 3 than of Bruce Willis’ upcoming movie. Of course (good) action movies attract a broader market than superhero movies, but it still seems odd to me. After a quick look at my stats I know that here at Screen Rant I’ve mentioned Spider-Man 3 twice as many times as Die Hard.

These are interesting numbers, but past history shows that online buzz is no guarantee of a movie’s box office success (Snakes on a Plane, Grindhouse). Having said that, unless they really screw it up, I’m sure Die Hard will make a ton of money this summer, as will Spider-Man 3. As a matter of fact, this summer is shaping up to be a HUGE moneymaker for Hollywood with those films being released along with the likes of:

Shrek the Third
Pirates Of The Caribbean: At Worlds End
Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer
Transformers
Harry Potter And The Order Of The Phoenix
The Bourne Ultimatum

It’s looking like a blockbuster summer, folks!

Source: Latino Review

You Might Also Be Interested In:

Spider-Man 3 Contest Reminder!

Vic Holtreman — Mon, 30 Apr 2007 16:45:00 +0000

Hey, just a reminder that this is the final week to enter Screen Rant’s Spider-Man 3 Mini-Bust Giveaway!

The contest ends midnight this Friday May 4th, the same day that Spider-Man 3 opens. I also want to remind you that all you have to do to enter is subscribe to our daily newsletter, but remember that you have to be a VERIFIED subscriber! That means you need to reply to the verification email or you won’t be entered (and you won’t receive our updates either!). This is in place to protect you from receiving unwanted emails.

You’ll be entering to win the collectible bust shown below.

So head on over to the contest page for more details and to enter!

And for tons more cool Spider-Man 3 movie stuff check out the new Screen Rant Movie Store.

You Might Also Be Interested In:

Screen Rant Weekly Podcast – April 27, 2007

Vic Holtreman — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 16:43:45 +0000

Here’s this week’s edition of the Screen Rant podcast with my thoughts on this week’s news including why Death Race 3000 won’t be any good, the double-dose of “punking” received by AintItCoolNews, Iron Man updates, a reminder to enter the Spider-Man 3 contest and more!

You Might Also Be Interested In: