Spider-Man 4, Wolverine, Superman 2, Silver Surfer Updates

[GrnMarvl14]

Source.

At some point within the next two weeks, producer Laura Ziskin and the top brass of Sony Pictures Entertainment will sit down together for the first time since "Spider-Man 3" opened May 4 to discuss the franchise's future.

It's a crucial meeting, all the more so because director Sam Raimi will be there. And Raimi, who has sent contradictory messages about his future plans, might at last indicate whether he'll helm the next installment.

"It would be great to have everybody back," Ziskin says. "But no one is going to sign on the dotted line until we have a script. These are the questions being discussed now. The one thing we have answered definitively is: There will be more 'Spider-Man' movies. We just haven't answered what shape they will come in and (Sony) hasn't given us a release date."

The upcoming meeting "will be the first step in a process," Ziskin adds. "'Spider-Man' will continue; I can't tell you every person who will be involved."

It goes without saying just how critical the "Spider-Man" franchise is to the studio's bottom line; at press time, the franchise had netted upwards of $2 billion in boxoffice receipts, not to mention home video revenue and other income from ancillary ventures. But it is hardly unique in today's Hollywood.

At Fox, 2006's "X-Men: The Last Stand" appears to have concluded the franchise -- at least in its present form. Instead, the studio is developing two possible spin-offs: "Wolverine," starring Hugh Jackman, and "Magneto," which would follow the character portrayed by Ian McKellen as a much younger man.

Also at Fox, the future of "Fantastic Four" is unclear after the second installment, "Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer," dropped 66% in its second weekend, following an exceptional $58.1 million opening. Fox is developing a "Silver Surfer" follow-up and is considering another "Fantastic Four" sequel, but no script is in development, sources say. (Fox's surprise success "Live Free or Die Hard," showed the long-term value of the best franchises.)

The studio has been so eager to get "Wolverine" out next year that it has committed to go into production the instant Jackman finishes Baz Luhrmann's epic romance "Australia," which Fox is tentatively set to release next year. "The idea is, they can finish him out in September or October and put this one on the fast track so they can get it out next summer," says one source.

For the time being anyway, it seems that "Wolverine" is the best hope for continuing the "X-Men" movie franchise. "There is no script for an 'X-Men 4,' and there is none in the works," avers producer Lauren Shuler Donner.

The future of the studio's recent comic book adaptation, 2006's "Superman Returns," is somewhat more dubious. That film cost $209 million (even after various tax rebates) and marketing costs sent expenses upward of $300 million, but director Bryan Singer's Man of Steel picture made only $201 million domestically. While insiders say the movie was profitable, the studio mandated major cost cuts before proceeding with a sequel.

"If we do a sequel to 'Superman,' we want it to be less expensive," Horn acknowledges. "I have to see a screenplay before I say yes to anything. But the studio would be willing to spend as much as $175 million if the screenplay and other factors warranted it."

Still, Singer has announced that he plans to direct a second "Superman" project.

Damn, no X-Men 4. And I'm worried about Wolverine suffering the Elektra factor. Relying too much on the hype and going with a weird storyline, or straying too far from the source material and just making shit up.

And cutting production costs on a Superman sequal...would suck. That would almost ENSURE that we don't get a GOOD villain. I just want to see someone OTHER than Luthor in a movie. Metallo. Or Mr. Mxyzptlk. Maybe even Bizarro. Just...someone who actually presents more than a philosophical challenge.

 

[Zeta]

Brainiac would be the best bet for a new Superman movie, I think, anyways. He's intelligent, can fight Superman, is loaded with gadgets. If they use the Diniverse origin, it'd work even better.

 

[Habunake]

Maybe it's just me...but unlike other franchises, I just could never get a feel for Superman's villains...I dunno why...

 

[Zeta]

It's not just you. Superman has some awful villains. He's got Lex and Brainiac, and everyone else kind of blows.

 

[GrnMarvl14]

Metallo is cool, if you don't mind super-evil cyborgs. And Mr. Mxyzptlk is just...quirky, but in a very good way. The rest, post-Golden Age (ANY Golden Age villain automatically has a 50/50 shot of being good, based purely on the wacky-factor) are largely kind of boring.

 

[Joe]

Wolverine can fuck off. >>; I can't be the only person who didn't like how much attention he got in the 3 X-movies. Hell, #2 was basically a Wolverine movie.

The only way they can make Spider-Man 4 good is too not overshadow one villain with another, like they did for most of the movie in 3. Yes, Sandman rocked, but I would've liked more Venom. :O

Next Superman movie...THE RETURN OF NUCLEAR MAN! Seriously, I'd like to see Mongul. Dunno why, I just think it's be quite fun. And since the directors of comic book movies can basically fuck up the entire universe, why not have him turn Earth into WarWorld? MON-AAAYYYY!!

Magneto movie. Meh. xd Never really liked Magneto's backstory.

 

[Lil Brother]

Spider-Man 4: Eh, I want one eventually. Just not soon. Juding by the reaction to 3, the general movie-watching public is pretty sick of Spider-Man. And who can blame them? All the over-merchandising was just begging for a fall-out. Give it a while: a new team, a new direction, but enough for it to still have the feel of Spider-Man.

Wolverine: Bah. I'm pretty anti-X right now.

Superman (Returns) 2: Sure, why not? The last one was pretty dissapointing and I don't see how they're going to approach the whole love child thing, but may as well give it a chance.

Silver Surfer: Ew, Silver Surfer. I've never liked him. The only good thing I could possibly think of from this movie is Galactus being... well, Galactus and not a thunderstorm.

 

[GrnMarvl14]

Looks like Luthor returns. I'm so freaking sick of Lex Luthor. Gimme somebody, ANYBODY different.

 

[The Big Al]

I see I'm not the only one who thought Galactus was a major disappointment.

Am I the only one who thought the Superman Cartoon's Lex Luthor was better than the movie version?

Speaking about the cartoon. It seemed like they were making Dark Side into Superman's arch villian. I would like to see a movie with him as a villian. Especially if they went into the depth of his backstory and all.

 

[GrnMarvl14]

Darkseid IS Superman's arch-foe. Well...he's second to Luthor, but if Spider-Man taught us anything, you can have more than one. Problem with him is that he's largely an Apocalypse-style villain. He sits around while his minions do the work for him. Would be a cool way to lead into an Orion movie (maybe a Mr. Miracle movie), but I sincerely doubt we'll EVER see Darkseid in a live-action film.

 

[Joe]

Superman (Returns) 2: ...I don't see how they're going to approach the whole love child thing...

Make Doomsday be the villain, have Superman killed and let the kid take over as Superboy.

Oh god, I hope that never happens EVER. xd Would really suck if they tried to pull it off in a movie.

Huh, only just noticed the Silver Surfer movie thing. Meh, could be good I guess.

 

[Zeta]

I don't see how they're going to approach the whole love child thing, but may as well give it a chance.

Best case scenario: They ripoff Image's "Invincible".