The Amazing Spider-Man The reboot movie will be the first of how many?

[SLYspyder]

The Harry Potter franchise keeps on coming to mind when I think of this reboot. I have a feeling Sony wants to bring out Spider-Man movies at a higher frequency which is why they went on back to high school with this one.

I could definitely see the sequel to the reboot coming out in 2013 with Peter one more grade up.

How many movies do you think they are going to make and at what frequency?

 

[Avengers-Report]

The Harry Potter franchise keeps on coming to mind when I think of this reboot. I have a feeling Sony wants to bring out Spider-Man movies at a higher frequency which is why they went on back to high school with this one.

I could definitely see the sequel to the reboot coming out in 2013 with Peter one more grade up.

How many movies do you think they are going to make and at what frequency?

Can't compare this to Harry Potter. Potter keeps coming out because of the books. Spider-Man is different, the movies will keep coming out based on the success of the previous one.

 

[Wally West]

The Harry Potter franchise keeps on coming to mind when I think of this reboot. I have a feeling Sony wants to bring out Spider-Man movies at a higher frequency which is why they went on back to high school with this one.

I could definitely see the sequel to the reboot coming out in 2013 with Peter one more grade up.

How many movies do you think they are going to make and at what frequency?

Sony has to make one every 5 years or the property goes back to Marvel. So we'll see a constant stream of sequels and reboots for as long as they continue to be succesful.

I'd imagine they'll have the normal 2-3 year gap between sequels(unless they shoot two films back to back at some point) and obviously no more than 5 years seperating films before a reboot.

It'll be interesting to see how long the cycle will repeat itself.

 

[sauronthegreat]

It would be great if they take the 'back-to-back' formula, that is very popular nowadays for part 2 and 3, or all the next installments. It would be great to see a quality Spidey film every year or two.

 

[Rodrigo90]

Umm...2 NO! 5...Do I get a price for guessing? I guess I ll find out when the final sequel arrives...What do I win if Im right?

 

[eledoremassis02]

As long as the franchise brings money lol

 

[rocco2216]

Their plan for now is a trilogy. I'm sure if they get to a 4 then they'll probably make another trilogy continuing from the first three but we'll see I guess.

 

[Deaths Head II]

It would be great if they take the 'back-to-back' formula, that is very popular nowadays for part 2 and 3, or all the next installments. It would be great to see a quality Spidey film every year or two.

Except most sequels that do that end up sucking. Matrix and Pirates being the prime examples.

 

[sauronthegreat]

Except most sequels that do that end up sucking. Matrix and Pirates being the prime examples.

Matrix was great as a stand alone film. Part 2 was not better than 3. They are on the same level. For me Matrix ended with part one, that was one of the best endings on film ever. The sequels just continued the story so that we could visually get a feeling of what that war will look like.

But I never got the thing what was the problem with 'At World's End'? Why is that film always taken as a bad example?
In my opinion it was an epic end to the trilogy. Maybe even part 2 derived from the first film, where it all got out of hand and stopped being a pirate's tale, but why is part 2 so praised then? As a whole I like that trilogy a lot and I have no bad comment for it. It had everything an entertaining film should have. Great characters, one of the best interactions with them (Jack and Barbossa), epic feel and stunning visual effects, great comedy moments, a very good story (the part of it to be inspired from Wagner's 'Flying Dutchman' really amazes me to this day how they incorporated that and made it flow so good), and not to mention the music and score of Hans Zimmer which is a masterpiece.

 

[sauronthegreat]

IMO this next Spider-Man should be treated as a series that will continue on for many sequels, and not treated for a purpose of one movie, like Raimi treated it. That way I guess we'll get a more creative solutions to character's arcs and their interaction. That way we'll not have MJ to be kidnapped by a villain, or Peter to take off his mask before every villain, or JJJ to do nothing except yell hysterically at everything, or every villain to be a sympathetic one and with a correlation with Peter... and many other repeating examples.

 

[Deaths Head II]

Matrix was great as a stand alone film. Part 2 was not better than 3. They are on the same level. For me Matrix ended with part one, that was one of the best endings on film ever. The sequels just continued the story so that we could visually get a feeling of what that war will look like.

But I never got the thing what was the problem with 'At World's End'? Why is that film always taken as a bad example?
In my opinion it was an epic end to the trilogy. Maybe even part 2 derived from the first film, where it all got out of hand and stopped being a pirate's tale, but why is part 2 so praised then? As a whole I like that trilogy a lot and I have no bad comment for it. It had everything an entertaining film should have. Great characters, one of the best interactions with them (Jack and Barbossa), epic feel and stunning visual effects, great comedy moments, a very good story (the part of it to be inspired from Wagner's 'Flying Dutchman' really amazes me to this day how they incorporated that and made it flow so good), and not to mention the music and score of Hans Zimmer which is a masterpiece.

Dead Man's Chest and At World's End were both disappointing. I actually prefer AWE, but they're both lame compared to the first film. The stand alone film in both franchises was better then the back-to-back films.

 

[sauronthegreat]

Dead Man's Chest and At World's End were both disappointing. I actually prefer AWE, but they're both lame compared to the first film. The stand alone film in both franchises was better then the back-to-back films.

But in a way both were stand alone projects for a single film. They didn't plan sequels at first, because none would have expected such interest. Spider-Man has to have sequels. It's hard to put a 40 year old, and still existing, character and all the story arcs in one single film. You do a film for a sequel to come in a year or two and that's what finally studios learned by now. The Dark Knight did that masterfully by concluding the story within a film and still left the door open for endless possibilities, they even left the main villain alive and still approved that with the philosophy of "we are meant to do this forever" which makes perfect sense. Iron Man also ended like that, even the Incredible Hulk did. What am I saying is they must think on a grander scale now, if the script is written by a true fan who does it with passion for the characters it is possible, he just needs to put it together.. the stories are out there.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

They'll be 11 sequels in this franchise. I have it on good authority.

 

[Cuyan]

... and 7.5 spin-offs.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Heh we must have the same source!

 

[Cuyan]

It is both good and authoritative!

 

[Ace of Knaves]

YES!

 

[spider-neil]

I read somewhere that the right revert back to disney/marvel in 2017 regardless so we are going to see another reboot after this reboot.

 

[Michael Frost]

I'm sure if they get to a 4 then they'll probably make another trilogy continuing from the first three but we'll see I guess.

They can get to a 4th one fine if they don't mess with the characters and the story beyond repair in the 3rd movie..

 

[spidermanJLA!~]

You have to admit, fans want the series to keep coming. They should keep going until the fans say "ENOUGH!"

 

[FaT_tONle]

Ima say they will milk one sequel out of this, it will flop, and hopefully they ditch the property.