"The Amazing Spiderman" (2012)

[Xero]

As much as I'd like to see Carnage I hope they don't do it. If the rumors of a Venom spinoff are true, save him for that. Just focus on Lizard/Morbius and make it good!

[Rappy Veteran]

As much as I'd like to see Carnage I hope they don't do it. If the rumors of a Venom spinoff are true, save him for that. Just focus on Lizard/Morbius and make it good!

Yeah I agree

[vip]

I would like to see Carnage, KingPin, and Mysterio ... (he's the one who messed with spidermans mind and all right?)

[Victor Rambo]

Like I said, Charlize Theron or Scarlett Johansson for Black Cat! I Want Felicia Hardy!

Scarlett Johansson can't be. Because she is black widow in Iron Man 2. :D :p

btw Charlize theron is more hot than scarlett. :shifty:

[Xero]

Damn straight she is, Charlize mmmmmm too fine.

[Rappy Veteran]

[Xero]

Pretty generic but I hope that he's being serious and doesn't try to make something huge like before, keep it on a smaller scale with a better story.

[DrunkenMaster]

They could save A LOT of money and make a hell of a lot of a better movie if they did a more Marvel Universe think in 100% CGI - like the Final Fantasy: The Movie. The more recent animated movies have disappointed. Could Pixar do some violence?

Do a huge Avengers battle (Wolvie, Spidey, Hulk, Thor, Cap, Iron Man) Vs Dr. Doom, The Sentinels and some other Baddies. Or let Marvel kick Supermans Ass!

I want a big 2 or 3 hours superhero fight in full CGI. I'm a big spidey fan (read comics for 10 years I think) but between the all the Marvel and DC movies the only that stand out are Spidey 2 and Bat Begins.

So hi-res CGI one big fight, explosions, death, destruction bunch of Marvel good guys and bad guys. You get it!

[Rappy Veteran]

[Victor Rambo]

^Nice

But May 6, 2011 is too far. :(

[vip]

Nice, must get that poster to go along with my others!

[Rappy Veteran]

Anyone care to speculate what the torn web means? if anything?

[Guest MGS3_GrayFox]

Anyone care to speculate what the torn web means? if anything?

Aunt May goes on a rampage through the city.

[starburst1980]

Yeah...I think the poster probablably means something but I cant figure it out right now..

Carnage would be ideal. But, they might save that for SM-5. I'm thinking it would be a Kingpin related plot, with some other baddies to make the story interesting.

Kingpin was already done in Daredevil....They would have to include him (Ben Affleck aka Matt Murdock aka Daredevil) in a cameo.

[Rappy Veteran]

Aunt May goes on a rampage through the city.

haha I lol'd :rofl:

[Xero]

Anyone care to speculate what the torn web means? if anything?

How dare you steal my comment! you probably didn't even notice it! :laugh:

Maybe he's losing his powers? or getting weaker and his webs can't hold the weight they used to? or maybe just maybe, Mary Jane put on a few pound and ripped it while they enjoy their nightly lie in the web. There's something with it as it'd be a hell of a lot easier to design a complete web, so it was done on on purpose.

[Rappy Veteran]

Don't speculate anymore...even tho the poster is hanging at the expo its a fake!

On Wednesday, Ain't It Cool News posted this teaser poster for Spider-Man 4 that is on display at the Licensing International Expo in Las Vegas this week. While we no doubt believe that the poster is hanging at the Expo (to not discredit AICN's story), official sources are telling us that this poster was not created by Sony Pictures or Marvel Studios for the fourth film. It is indeed fake and no official artwork has been released yet for the movie. (Coming Soon)

[Xero]

..****ers

[Rappy Veteran]

..****ers

My thoughts exactly

[Rappy Veteran]

Spider-Man 4 To Feature New York City Centric Villain

New York Post blogger Reed Tucker has been speaking to producer Todd Black. Their chat was ostensibly about Tony Scott?s The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 rehash though Tucker valiantly swung in with a few Spider-Man 4 questions too. Black gamely discussed the involvement of Kirsten Dunst, the villain they have in mind for the movie (what? only one?), and the rumoured wedding between Peter Parker and MJ. But what did he reveal? It?s all coming up, right after this break?

The most solid revelation is that Tucker learned how Kirsten Dunst is ?definitely on board?. This is hardly a shocker, despite Sam Raimi recently stoking up suspicions and doubts around the actress? involvement. Doesn?t sound like she?ll be donning a frilly meringue and veil, though - Black denied any knowledge of the rumoured marriage subplot.

Black also swatted off stories of Morbius being locked in place as the picture?s villain. Let?s just assume we can believe this claim - though, really, official word is never any more reliable the unofficial - and accept that The Living Vampire is well and truly out of the frame. This starts to make Sam Raimi look like the least acceptable source on what is, indeed, his own film. What do you think of Raimi?s pot-stirring? Does it just make for jolly japes, is it a good way to garner publicity, or will you get tired of being steered up dead ends, time after time?

What Black did say regarding the proposed antagonist is really just another flame-fanning clu We?re just coming up with who the villain?s going to be now. We?ll be shooting in New York again. Trust me, people will appreciate who we pick, because it?ll be a big part of New York.l be a big part of New York.

Tucker guessed this might refer to Kraven the Hunter or The Kingpin, while simultaneously offering reasons for it to be neither. With Kraven, of course, his only connection to New York is his wild incongruity in the city. With The Kingpin, there?s a possible rights issue. The character previously appeared in the Daredevil films, suggesting he?s off bounds for this Sony production.

Personally, I think The Lizard foots the bill best of all - alligators in the sewer and all that. That he?s also compatible with Morbius is quite compelling too - because no matter what Black said, I don?t know that I believe him. Raimi really was giving us some strong Morbius indicators, and Black?s seeming suggestion that the film will only feature a single villain doesn?t quite ring true with me.

All speculation, hearsay and conjecture. Rumours, rumours, rumours. But fun ones, and good to kick around a while, until the big announcements break - right? (Slash Film[/b]k-city-centric-villain/"]Slash Film)

[Xero]

Boo. I want Lizard to be unveiled and Morbius alongside him. Both hold their own, Vampire stuff has always been cool and Lizard was great character in the comics. I hope they don't go another route. I also don't want them to have 1 villain. I don't mind if 1 takes the limelight but I like others being part of it too even if they aren't the main focus. It's one part I really love about Dark Knight, makes the "world" seem more real. Rarely do villains take turns :)

[Rappy Veteran]

Dunst "Definitely On Board" For Spider-Man 4

Everyone's getting in on the action trying to guess what to expect from Sam Raimi's return to the Marvel superhero franchise with Spider-Man 4, slated for release on May 6, 2011. It's obviously still very early in development, but that didn't stop the New York Post from asking Sony producer Todd Black a few questions in order to clear up some of the rumors that have been circulating.

In the article, Black confirms that Kirsten Dunst is definitely on board, but that there are no plans to have a wedding between Peter Parker and Mary Jane in the forthcoming movie. He also squashed the rumors that Morbius the Living Vampire will be the villain in the movie, but that the villain will be very New York centric.

This is what he told the Post about the potential villain: "We're just coming up with who the villain's going to be now. We'll be shooting in New York again. Trust me, people will appreciate who we pick, because it'll be a big part of New York." (Spoiler TV)

[Rappy Veteran]

Bruce Campbell: Next Spidey Shooting in January, Bigger Part For Him

The world?s most A-grade B-actor, Bruce Campbell, was stopped at the red carpet premiere of Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs and pressed for details on the upcoming Spider-Man 4. Seeing as he?s had a role in each of the three Sam Raimi Spidey pictures so far it wasn?t too much of a stretch to assume he?d be on the call sheet for the next go around too. Not only did he confirm that, he also claimed a January start date for the project. But what could he reveal about his appearance in the film?

According to the info garnered by Access Hollywood, Campbell is expecting his role in the next film to be ?a major part.? Of course, they translated this in their headline to there being a ?villainous role in the works? for the actor, despite the absolute lack of evidence to support this supposition.

It?s just about possible that Campbell has been playing the same character in each of the films so far, one guy who just doesn?t seem able to hold down a job. Explicitly revealing that could be a fun quirk. Or maybe they could hold that off until the fifth installment, already rumored to be at the basic planning stages.

Campbell?s little roles in the series have turned out to be rather important to the overall narrative - from giving Spider-Man his ?mask name? to creating serious tension in the Peter-MJ romance or, last time around, facilitating Peter?s wedding proposal, if in a slightly embarrassing manner. Perhaps this kind of significance is all Campbell meant by major, and he knew he could pull a few legs and start a wave of speculation with his use of the term yet still justify it later? I wouldn?t be surprised. But then, I wouldn?t be surprised if his comment was based on nothing at all. What would surprise me, if pleasantly, would Bruce Campbell actually taking one of the lead roles in the film.

A whole host of talented writers have taken a pass at the Spider-Man 4 screenplay and Raimi swears that the lessons of part 3 have been learned (hopefully this means that Avi Arad has been chained up in the dungeon with Sean McNamara and their Robosapien) so I guess I?m back to full on optimism.

[ThisSiteHasLostItsCharm]

there's a pattern, x-men 1 & 2 were great, 3 not so great. Spider-man 1 & 2 were great, 3 was again not so great. Why is it that second sequels turn out not so good? Pirates 1 & 2 great, 3 too long and not so good. I hope Spider-man 4 is really good.

[Mathachew Veteran]

there's a pattern, x-men 1 & 2 were great, 3 not so great. Spider-man 1 & 2 were great, 3 was again not so great. Why is it that second sequels turn out not so good? Pirates 1 & 2 great, 3 too long and not so good. I hope Spider-man 4 is really good.

X-Men 3 lacked one key component: Bryan Singer.

I enjoyed Pirates 3 and Spider-man 3, but they weren't on par with the previous two, that's for sure.