‘The Amazing Spider-Man’ Producers Planned for (At the Very Least) a New Trilogy

Published 3 years ago by

amazing spider man andrew garfield The Amazing Spider Man Producers Planned for (At the Very Least) a New Trilogy

Now that The Amazing Spider-Man has web-grabbed the record for the highest Tuesday opening in box office history (an impressive $35 million), and continued success expected throughout the coming weeks, some moviegoers are already looking forward to more Andrew Garfield Spidey action. Critical response has been equally enthusiastic (read our Amazing Spider-Man review) as many reviewers claim the film is the best Spider-Man movie yet – even if it does retread a lot of story beats from Raimi’s first installment.

The other major criticism levied against Marc Webb’s The Amazing Spider-Man is the film’s attempt at paving the way for future sequels – at the expense of the current narrative arc. However, according to producer Matt Tolmach, that was the idea all along – claiming that  the filmmakers have “at least three” movies planned.

Audiences will notice the current film is unapologetic about setting up larger story beats and subsequently withholding resolutions for the already announced Amazing Spider-Man 2 (set for release on May 2, 2014) and, assuming both films perform, other installments down the road.

According to Tolmach, who spoke with SuperHeroHype last week, the producers didn’t approach The Amazing Spider-Man as a standalone project:

“We knew that it was going to be more than one, and at the very least three. We’re going to let this movie tell us what the story is.”

The film’s Facebook page made a similar assertion in a recent post:

“It’s finally here! The Amazing Spider-Man is the first installment in a movie trilogy that will explore how our fave hero’s journey was shaped by the disappearance of his parents.”

The notion of a larger Parker-family storyline is evident for anyone who has seen the current film and, in keeping with Marvel-based movies, a mid-credits scene foreshadows other potential plot points for the sequel(s). That said, it’ll definitely be interesting to see how reactions to The Amazing Spider-Man movie “tell [the producers] what the story is.” Presumably, this means that if the Emma Stone/Andrew Garfield relationship fell flat or viewers complained about Webb’s approach to The Lizard villain, the producers and screenwriters (including fan-favorites Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci) might adjust the planned trajectory of the franchise to accommodate different options.

Spider Man Web Slinging in Amazing Spider Man  e1336150156462 The Amazing Spider Man Producers Planned for (At the Very Least) a New Trilogy

Of course, even if Sony wants to present The Amazing Spider-Man as the first installment in a new film trilogy, nothing is set in stone at this point – since the movie (or its scheduled sequel) could fail to bring in enough money to justify keeping the series going. Though, don’t count on that happening. Movies don’t just make money at the box office or on store shelves – especially a kid-friendly film like The Amazing Spider-Man which will pull in truckloads of dollar bills through merchandising.

Purely from a business standpoint, it’s unsurprising that Sony is positioning the wall-crawler for another trilogy – since the studio is required to make a new Spider-Man movie every five years (or the rights revert back to Marvel). It’s a tricky business scenario that we detailed in our article Why are the Spider-Man Movies Starting Over? As a result, having learned from past mistakes (i.e. inflated budgets for the Raimi film trilogy), Tolmach’s “at the very least three” comment is pretty telling – meaning that Spider-Fans could see the series extend well-beyond a trilogy (with a possible Avengers 2 cameo thrown into the mix).

If you want to talk about the future of the franchise, head over to our Amazing Spider-Man spoilers discussion and check back here at Screen Rant for future updates.


Follow me on Twitter @benkendrick for more on The Amazing Spider-Man 2 as well as future movie, TV, and gaming news.

The Amazing Spider-Man is currently in theaters.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is web-shooting for a May 2, 2014 release.

Source: SuperHeroHype [via Coming Soon]

Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:


Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.

If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it. Keep in mind that we do not allow external links in the comments.

  1. This movie wasn’t necessary, and it wasn’t even all that good. First of all, it’s quite insulting to the audience to be asked by Sony to pretend that three perfectly good Spiderman movies hadn’t already been released in recent history. Also, Tobey Macguire embodied a nerdy high school student turned superhero overnight, and he and Kirstin Dunst had great on-screen chemistry.

    In this reboot, we’re asked to believe that Andrew Garfield is Spiderman? Is this a remake of Spiderman, or of “Rent”? I mean, c’mon. The special effects with the Lizard were good, but doesn’t justify a positive reveiew or a reboot. This remake has no personality or stylistic stamp of the director, unlike the vision Christopher Nolan brought to the Batman reboot.

    Sony should have admitted that it screwed up royally with Spiderman 3, by centering the film around the most boring Spidey villain of all time, the Sandman, and rushing through the story arc of Spidey’s comic book arch-villan, Venom.

    Bring back Sam Raimi.

    • Sam Raimi screwed up the trilogy with that awful third installment. there was no way they could have made a forth movie without it sucking royally because they had to clean the 3rd up. looks at how many scripts they went through before it got cancelled.
      Andrew Garfield is better actor than Tobey and he played a better Peter Parker. Peter was extremely smart and you felt like he was this character.
      This movie was better than Spider man 1 but not as good as Spider man 2. Spider man 2 is the comic book movie incarnate, it just that perfect but how can you make another movie based on the mess of the third? you cant. Sony and Sam have themselves to blame.
      if you are a Spider man fan you would want another film. why would you complain? The amazing Spider man is a really good movie. Nolan has nothing to do with this. so why do you all wanna bring him up? Batman films are way 2 overrated

      • Raimi was forced to put story elements in the third movie that he didn’t want to use, such as Venom. He wasn’t even a fan of the character but Avi Arad and his infinite wisdom forced Raimi to use the character. Spider-Man 3 was a weak film, but not the worst of the worst in comic book fares.

        As for a fourth Raimi film, I would’ve been much more excited to see that. The prior film should have no barring on what the fourth film does. Why should the fourth film be forced to “clean up” anything when it could just pay attention to its own storyline. Case in point: Star Trek V, arguably the worst in the series. What was it followed up with? Star Trek VI, one of the best in the series. This “cleaning up” crap doesn’t make any sense.

        The Amazing Spider-Man was okay, but it was poorly paced and drained the life out of what made Spider-Man himself. Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2 are still some of the best in the genre.

    • for the record, Raimi insisted on the sandman. He liked the old school villains and hated venom. When Raimi was prepping for his 4th spidey he wanted tr bulture as the main antagonist, the studio (and rightly so) saw things differently, so Raimi quit.

      • the 4th spider-Man would of had Black Cat as the daughter of Vulture no lie.

    • Sam Raimi Spider-Man movies was weak as hell.

      • Agreed.

    • Riiight… can someone get this troll out of here? Because saying Sandman is the worst Spider-Man villain of all time is downright wrong, I don’t care what anyone says. I’m sorry, but I can name SO many villains that are FAR worse than the Sandman.

      • Sandman was actually good.

    • Thank you finally somebody I can agree with. Half way through this movie I wished Toby would come back. Also too I felt they were trying to hard to make this dark and gritty as batman begins. Does not work for spider man. I really would have rather seen spider man 4 with the vulture and black cat. Oh well.

      • Where did it feel dark and gritty? If I recall correctly, Peter was constantly having fun with his new found power even when he was beating up bad guys and while he was taking down the Lizard. Andrew is a better actor than Tobey, and his Peter Parker was more believeably “conflicted and burdened, but still a teenager” than Tobey’s.

    • just think of Spidey 3 as batman forever, sony made a good move if Spidey 4 were to come out we would get some crap like batman and robin and then u would complain that they should have reebooted so just enjoy TASM

  2. I could live without the trilogy approach to filmmaking and prefer the serial concept.
    The Indiana Jones series and the biggest of all James Bond being prime examples.
    In serials the films can be self-contained more films to come is understood.

    • I have a different take on this. If well done, just because a film is part of a greater story arc of series doesn’t mean that the film itself cannot be made to be self conatined. I think a prime example is LOTR three movie yet each can stand on its own AS well as being part of that seminal trilogy. It comes down to the writing in the end, a delicate balance must be struck between immediate resolution of the scenario/main plot and the beginning of future threads that arent forced but rather feel organic to the plot as a whole.

      Spiderman kinda felt like “heres the origin story everybody knows mpre or less but look at whats coming down the pipe”. I think its apparent the filmaker, though they had a alot of pressure to establish a solid financial basis for future installements are more focused and potentially more excited on future movies in the franchise as it will further distance/diverge and free them from the Raimi films.

  3. I’m not surprised in any way that this is the plan. Sony will never let Spiderman go so let’s just accept that we will be seeing Spidey movies for a long time to come.
    I really really liked TASM. It wasn’t perfect IMO because a few story beats felt rushed but that’s honestly my only complaint. I was just a skeptical as anyone else when they announced the reboot but with every bit of new footage we saw I became more hopefull and then left the theater pretty happy yesterday.
    So I’m ready for more. And hopefully Webb will be back.

  4. Webb and Sony should have made TASM as a self contained movie. Then perhaps tack on an after credit teaser or something. Maybe I should say, a GOOD after credit scene. The mid credit stuff in this movie sucked. I couldn’t figure out who visited Conners in prison. No visual queues at all for who the villain will be for TASM 2. I was reading the comics since the beginning….. Yes I’m effing old, and I’m clueless. Mysterioso? Anybody figure that out?

    The best parts of this movie were in the Spidey action sequences. The Peter Parker side was weak. Not Garfield’s fault. His acting was good, and the rest of the cast too. I blame Webb. I was especially irritated by that end scene where Gwen Stacy visited Parker after her dad’s funeral. It didn’t make any sense. How did Gwen Stacy figure out the dying wish of her father to PP? Just from the look on Parker’s face? Just because he didn’t go to the funeral? WTF?

    • It’s not a stretch to see that Gwen is a very clever girl and therefore perceptive. Her piecing together that he couldn’t see her any more wasn’t hard.

      • I think real world Gwen would have thought PP was seeing somebody else. That’s what I would have thought in my teen years. “Oh, this person I dated for a while doesn’t call me back or come over any more? They must be more interested in someone else.” NOT – My father, after finding out that someone I’m interested in, is actually a good person. Then makes a dying wish that this person never see me again. DUMB

        Gwen is the one with superpowers. She can read minds.

        • No, I don’t think a real world Gwen would immediately think he was seeing someone else. Not after the connection they made. It’s not mind reading, but simply a matter of being smart enough to put two and two together.

    • It was norman osborne. If you have read ultimate spiderman there are similar dialouge scenes

    • “Webb and Sony should have made TASM as a self contained movie.”

      Good point. One of my many gripes. BB was self contained. It’s normal for this movies to drop hints or work in some set-ups, but I really thought this movie put too many things front and center and did little to nothing with them. Certainly the parents story could have been introduced in another movie. A simple scene with Peter asking or Connors talking about his parents would have sufficed. Instead there is a long opening scene and another scene with him finding the briefcase, etc. Not needed, and then later there are actual relevant plot points introduced and then dropped or mishandled. Good and bad reviews refer to this as a “pacing” problem. BB made a great movie and THAT is what made us want a sequel.

      I’m not thrilled about a lot of things, like Peter, his costume, etc. But I can live with it. What I really didn’t like was the sloppy storytelling. Raimi’s movie’s aren’t “my” Spider-man but I still love the movies. And so many people say it told the same story. I’m not sure it did. There wasn’t really the clear connection that he needed to be responsible, or it was a lot more diffused (I suppose that is more realistic than the single “epiphaney” from comics and movies). Unlike the “wrestling” or starring on TV, we never see Peter using his powers for selfish gains. Therefore, no contrasting realization.

  5. Raimi knew what he was doing. If there were any interference at all, it was directly from SONY: Perpetrators or the Super Mario Bros. Goomba version of the Lizard.

  6. Yeah spiderman 1 and 2 was overrated. Nothing but Toby crying over MJ all day. The only thing great about the previous trilogy was the spidey and dock ock fights.

  7. I was unaware of this but supposedly the budget for this film was 215 mil. I thought they were taking a more conservative/conventional and less costly approach than the first trilogy? That means this movie needs to make around 300+ mil just to break even (because of marketing costs) which may very well be a tall order with TDKR coming out in just 2 weeks.

    Considering it continues it’s backward slide on RT (now at only 70% with about 80% of the normal critics reporting in already) there might be some small hope after all that Marvel can get this franchise back.

    And as successful as the first trilogy was, I have never thought Sony did the Spider-man universe correctly (this includes TASM). There are parts of them all that are good but overall I think marvel is the only group who can do real justice to the character. So yes, I’m rooting for this movie to not be enough of a success for Sony to continue with a trilogy.

    • I’ve said it before, but when I saw the Raimi movies I was keenly aware of everything that was different from the comics. But I still love them. He got it right, made Spider-man as big as Superman, and is the reason we’re talking about this new movie.

      That said, I can see the reason for a reboot. There’s more to Peter’s story that the first movies would make impossible to tell. But it better be a darn good reboot. I haven’t seen it yet so I can’t really judge.

      As far as the RT 72% goes, a lot of the reviewers seem to be focusing on the fact that this is a reboot, and the negative ones don’t think this brings anything new. That’s fair enough, but as a Spider-man fan, like I said, I can see room for changes. What I’m saying is that it clearly could have scored higher if it wasn’t an origin story.

      • Well perception is everything now a days and if people hear this is basically the same origin story (basically, not exactly) then it very well may keep people from going to see it.

        Also considering the economy, the expense of going to see a movie now a days and TDKR being just around the corner, there are probably more than a few people looking for a reason to not spend that money or are saving it for Batman.

  8. That’s not really news considering all hopeful franchise films have standard 3 picture contracts starting from as far back as Star Wars.

  9. Personally I liked the movie. It wasn’t as grand as Sam Raimi’s Spiderman, but I really liked the fact that peter didn’t learn the ropes all of a sudden. He makes mistakes. And the best part was that it’s following the Ultimate Spider man storyline’s origin. C’mon haven’t anyone wondered why he was left by his parents and why peter never went after it. I couldn’t make out who was acting as Norman Osbourne. Any ideas??? It’s true that only a silhouette of him is shown in the movie. And who the heck travels with lightening. I’m really confused after watching the post credit scene…..

    • Character actor Michael Massee. Some folks may remember him from Carnivale, playing serial killers in the TV shows Criminal Minds and Rizzoli & Isles.

      He’s best known for his role as ‘Funboy’ in The Crow, and voiced Bruce Banner in the Ultimate Avengers animated films.

  10. It looks like I might be in the minority here but I thought TASM was FAR superior to anything ever released previously. And I liked the first two Raimi films. I just felt like this was so much better in every way.

    Garfield and Stone’s chemistry was incredible. It almost made me sad that he and Gwen can’t stay together for the long haul, because I don’t see anyone doing a better job than Emma Stone. Who would you leave Emma Stone for??? I can’t really think of anyone. The bar has been set really high.

    I thought there was so much more genuine emotion in this movie than in the others. Garfield is a great actor. There are several points where I almost teared up because it was so emotional. The swinging around was a lot more realistic and the action was dynamic in a way that I felt like I hadn’t seen before. It was the way he moved like an actual spider, and used the web to fight that just sold it for me.

    Anyway, I could go on about why I liked it so much. I guess I feel sad that people are being so critical of the film just because it’s a reboot. I feel like it’s a much stronger movie, with a much better spider man. Better actors. Better action. Better story. Better chemistry for the love interest. Blah blah blah.

    I liked it. The end.

    • +1

    • I agree with what MDPerkins says. I really enjoyed the film. I’m looking forward to seeing it again and what the sequels have in store.

    • +1

    • Yes! My thoughts exactly…

      • Dammit, I’m going to have to come to SA and interrogate (then kill) you to discover where you Skrulls are holding the real Avenger (and then rescue him)!

  11. I think Andrew Garfield brought a whole new emotional depth to the character that Tobey could’ve never given. Andrew is an amazing actor and I think he fits the role perfectly. Raimi’s vision on Spider-Man was definitely different to Marc Webb’s. Spider-Man 3 was just awful. They screwed up the romance BIG time in the third installment. They screwed up on both venom and Sand Man so bad that I could not believe what I was seeing. TASM is definitely more for kids only because Peter Parker is still a kid himself in this film. I think with a sequel we will see him probably mature more and hopefully it won’t all feel so rushed, but this is the ‘best’ Spider-Man hands down. I love what they have done with this film. I think people need to give this film more of a chance.

    • Haven’t this one yet but everytime i think of Spiderman movies the image that pops to my mind is Tobey’s smirk in Spiderman 3.

  12. saw the new movie today – Really enjoyed it – the effects are superb when Spider-Man is in flight around New York & the cast are good too – all good – but it did feel abit slow in places and repeating storylines already mapped out in the last 3 movies.
    Also – since the Avengers world kicked into place – it feels odd – Spider-Man is not part of that Universe too – even the little extra at the end…good…but not what we want.
    All in all it’s great to have Spidey back on the big-screen.

  13. Looking forward to this trilogy and to the next one, most likely called “The Spectacular Spider-Man” trilogy. Sorry to all the grippers, I don’t see they’re coming from. Spider-Man and the rest of the comic book heroes we like have been rebooted and re-conned and re-imagined by countless comic book writers and artists over the years. It’s part of the medium. It’s part of what keeps them relevant to today’s and tomorrow’s audiences. To pretend the movies will be any different is too not acknowledge the history and lasting power of these icons. Even if you didn’t like this version (I thought it was great myself), don’t you think kids growing up today deserve to see their version of Spider-Man, etc. on film? You just make yourself seems jealous by spewing so much hate. Enjoy your version and let this generation enjoy theirs. The funniest part is you’re probably the same crowd that’s perfectly fine with the Nolan reboot of Batman. Guess what? You haven’t seen the last of Batman either – and WB won’t wait 10 years to give it to you. Brace yourselves fanboys.

  14. All I ask is that the producers stop waiting valuable screen time giving us an origin for every villain. If ASM 2 immediately opens with Spidey evading a blast by either Electro or the Shocker, no one is going to demand that we be given their motivation for want him dead…or their backstory for that matter. If after fifty years of continuity, you can’t immediately identify Spider-Man’s rogues gallery, then you have paid to see the wrong movie.

    • “If after fifty years of continuity, you can’t immediately identify Spider-Man’s rogues gallery, then you have paid to see the wrong movie.”

      So people who don’t read comic books and never saw the 90s cartoon should miss out just because they don’t know who the villains are?

      The point of showing a villain’s backstory in whatever way possible is for the viewers who don’t read the comic books and are going into a movie like this “blind” as it were will be able to identify with what’s going on.

      The Joker didn’t get a backstory in The Dark Knight because his history changes depending on which writer is coming up with his origin story, otherwise every other villain in most other comic book movies present either the backstory in the movie or hint at motivations for what they’re doing.

      These types of movies shouldn’t pander to comic book readers by not giving an origin or backstory for a character just because “we’ve spent 50 years with these characters, just get on with it”.

      They’re meant to inform the rest of the viewing public who a character is and what they do so that the majority can enjoy it as much as the comic book fans would.

      Would you have known why Hans Gruber did what he did in Die Hard if they hadn’t shown a little backstory on him when the police looked at his old file and revealed his criminal past?

      • The audience that I saw it with didn’t seem to scream outrage because the filmmakers didn’t provide a “backstory” for those bikers that miraculously appear out of nowhere to chase down Peter Parker while he’s still in vigilante mode.

        After four movies, several cartoon series, and one really bad live action TV series, Spider-Man’s origin is known by even the most casual non-fan. Additionally, like the Bond series, you cannot expect to simply reheat and serve the same story (see “Never Say Never Again” vs. “Thunderball”) and not expect the fanbase to be critical.

        This movie is going to make a ton of money, but that doesn’t mean it deserves to.

        • This will always be a sticking point with movies based on comic books, and as long as they keep remaking them it won’t end. If they introduce a new character, bad guy or otherwise, they will feel the need to explain them in some way. Like the Batman situation though there are so many villains, and at a point the origins are almost pretty much the same.

          The Spider-Man villains tended to be either the science experiment gone wrong (in contrast to Parker), or the stock parolee who Jameson or someone else hired to kill Spider-Man, who has been augmented through yet another science experiment. Doing that over multiple movies with multiple characters is going to start to look redundant unless they change some things around.

  15. I am not sure how anyone could say this was a better movie that the 1st two Raimi Spideys. It wasn’t a stronger movie at all outside of the better CGI and some of the nifty action sequences. Even those sequences however felt disconnected overall. None of the relationships were as strong as the previous movie, outside of Garfield’s acting, which I thought was great, everyone else I felt fell. In other words I just didn’t buy it. The relationship between Martin & Sally Fields didn’t vibe.

    The pacing of the movie was just off and choppy and so much of the movie just seemed rushed through.

    Did you seriously not let out a laugh when “Emma Stone” said, “I am 17″.

    The greatest testament to what I am saying is my two teenage daughters and teenage nieces who crucified the film mercilessly when it was done.

    • I thought it was far more entertaining than Raimi’s first movie (which I watched the day before by the way) and on the same level as the second movie as far as entertainment goes. It wasn’t just the action and the CGI that was better. This movie was far more emotional and actually made you feel for the characters on the screen, which is what Raimi’s first and third films failed to do. It wasn’t only because of the acting, but because Webb placed alot of focus on the character as people and how the events unfolding around them effected them.

      You’re right, Garfield’s acting was great but so was everyone else’s. Especially Emma Stone. Her role as the love intereset was far, far, far superior to Kirsten Dunst’s. Whoever that cast in the future to play Mary Jane won’t really have anything to worry about as far as reinventing that character. But she’ll have her work cut out for her with going toe-to-toe with Emma Stone.

      I agree that there were some parts that felt rushed, but as a whole the movie was enjoyable. You can especially appreciate it more after seeing it the second time around.

    • [Rude comment by someone who was obviously poorly raised by his parents deleted. - Moderator]

      • Rude much? what “stupid” word do I have to use to get Vics attention?

    • Spider-man III was a better movie than this. One can legitimately argue that it was too goofy and battered comic-book cannon. It was overstuffed with villains and stories. But consider that it managed to clearly tell all of the stories. ASM did a sloppy job of telling one story that’s basically been told already. I’m not saying I loved SM 3, or that anyone should. I’m not saying only Raimi should make SM movies. ASM made me appreciate Raimi storytelling ability. The movies had his stamp all over it, and were Raimi movies for better or worse. This movie was a messy production.

  16. Hey dudes and dudettes, this movie is on par with Spider Man 3…laughable.

  17. Best Spider-Man movie ever. Come at me bros.

  18. Man I hope they do the scorpion for the sequel.

  19. 1 thing though they’ve got 2put jjj in the sequel.

  20. Does anyone think that the thug who killed uncle ben is going to play shocker? He kinda looks like ultimate spiderman’s version and he was never caught and one of the last shots was of the wanted poster. It would make a good challenge for spiderman. Not only is this guy a threat to the city but he killed uncle ben. Could offer good character development. The choice to do what is right and not seek vengence. Just my thoghts. Loved the movie!

  21. While this film is getting a bit overpraised, it’s still a good film. Yes, the justified criticisms are accurate (origin story retold; the 3D) but far from coming close to being as great as Spider-Man 2.

    At least the Lizard got his due!
    Now if Green Goblin is set up for the next film I hope Sony holds back on that.

    This “animal mutation” theme could open the door to The Scorpion, but I’d like to see Sergi Kraven next up myself.

  22. Smart idea in my opinion, I like how they’ll most likely leave it at three not the biggest believer in fourquels

  23. Darren J Seeley my man you got a point Kraven is a great spider bad guy I’d love to see him in a spidey flick, I say Gerard Butler would be awesome as Kraven

  24. Awesome news!
    I was surprised when they scheduled a sequel for 2014 when the movie hadn’t even been released yet, but after seeing the movie I understand why.
    It was really, really good IMO and I can’t wait for future installments.
    I just hope they get Simmons to reprise his role in the sequel….

  25. I would love to see the killer of Uncle Ben become Scorpion since a spiders number one villian inn real life is a scorpion and have JJJ have something to do with him being created to take down spiderman.

  26. sorry but i think someone new should come in as JJJ and have a real bad attitude like in the comics, and slowly add new characters in like Mary Jane and Harry. the next film should def set up Harry as a new friend of Peters, and toward the end introduce Mary Jane.I am looking forward to whatever they do next, after this im excited for the sequels again. really want to see Kraven,Doc Ock,Scorpion,Green Goblin and Mysterio in this version and maybe Venom at some point.