Okay, so the Spider-Man 4 rumor mill is already old news, even if part three hasn't technically ... you know ... happened yet. Essentially, the argument boils down to two camps -- a few of the actors, who say they are tired of Spider-Man and ready to move on, and a few of the Marvel execs who say the franchise will live forever because there are endless Spider-Man stories already in existence just waiting for a chance to make the big screen.

But a new voice has just entered the discussion; one of the most important voices. Sam Raimi, the talented and beloved director of all three films in the franchise, has just offered his thoughts on the future of the franchise in a discussion with Premiere Magazine. You can read all his thoughts here, but the short version is, Raimi is interested in more movies provided he can keep Tobey Maguire on board. He admits it is possible he will tire of the franchise any day, but his mood right now is one of pure love.

This is a fantastic endorsement for fans who hope to see the franchise live on. I have no doubt Marvel would hit up a new director if Raimi should quit -- or cast a new Peter Parker if Maguire moves on -- but we all know the dangers of a revolving door of directors, and losing the talent of Raimi would be a big blow. Not necessarily a death blow, because franchises like Harry Potter have passed through many a director, but I think we can all agree that Spider-Man is far better off with Sam Raimi than without him.

It is no secret for regular readers that I wasn't particularly impressed with Ang Lee's version of The Hulk. Don't get me wrong, I didn't hate the flick -- far from it, actually. I found it to be a decent effort with truly inspired moments; I just thought it was lackluster overall. The character of The Hulk has a lot of movie potential, and you've got to credit Ang Lee for trying to go beyond the basic "Hulk Smash!" mentality, but there's only so much character study we want to see on The Hulk before we get antsy for him to start breaking things in cheesy action-movie fashion. Why did we invent action movies if not to showcase characters like Hulk?

Apparently, current Marvel favorite Zak Penn was at one point asked to write up a script treatment for the film which was eventually handed to Lee. Penn's initial draft was rejected in favor of a more introspective piece, but when Marvel realized fans seemed to want more action, they went knocking on Penn's door again. Penn, who has since proved his worth to Marvel by putting together other successful movie scripts, was willing and eager to give it another try. According to Penn, Marvel went back to his original script and said "this is more of the tone we wanted," so he'll be lifting some of his original ideas for his second try.

I'll admit to being initially skeptical of a remake this quickly after an original, but at this point I'm one hundred percent fanboy geeked for a new Hulk film. What are your thoughts on going back to the Zak Penn well?

We're not going to spend a lot of time rehashing the basic points of this argument, because we've been over it many times before. Essentially, it boils down to one simple argument: Marvel makes a lot of money on their big title movies, and wants to continue doing so, while actors and studios eventually tire of the increasing commitments. While everyone from Hugh Jackman and Sam Raimi to the parking attendant guy at the Fox Studios lot may think they know for certain the future of their franchises, we all know the truth is very basic: if they feel the monetary benefits are great enough, they will roll out more movies. If they don't, then the movies are done.

So what do Marvel, Fox Studios, and Sony Pictures think about the monetary prospects of more films? Well, according to X-Men Film News, the opinion is different depending on who you ask. Marvel, of course, is hot to sell as much superhero as they possibly can. Times are very good for the company, and their properties are as hot as ever. Nobody knows when the hero movie trend will die down again, and Marvel needs to strike while the iron is hot. Sony, it seems, is in complete agreement, and thoroughly expects to make bazillions of dollars on the third installment of the successful Spider-Man film franchise. This naturally leaves them very open to the possibility of more movies, because hey ... who doesn't like making a bazillion dollars? Fox, on the other hand, wasn't so confident in their third installment, hence the "this is the last film ever" talk from the studio. But then the movie raked in some serious cash, and suddenly Fox might want to reconsider.

Even should Fox decide they are done with Professor X and his gifted youngsters, this won't necessarily mean the end of the X-Men on film. A Marvel insider reminds X-Men Film News that Marvel is aggressively pursuing their own business interests these days, and certainly has plans in place for the team if Fox bails. Tipster says to expect a "pleasant surprise," but what else would an employee say?

Ready for your lessons from geek movies? Following up on last week's Ten Things I Learned From the Fantastic Four, we're going to pick out a few general pointers for life from the X-Men film trilogy. Without further ado, I give you: The Geek Beat -- Eight Things I Learned From the X-Men (again, movies only, not the comics):

1. Wear hats frequently, particularly ones crafted from special materials. If you are an evil villain, all you need to do to escape the dangers of Charles Xavier, leader of the X-Men and most powerful telepathy on earth, is wear a nice hat. Not only will it keep Professor X out of your brain, it will also keep your head warm during the winter months and dry during unexpected rainfall. If you design it well, it can even be a fantastic addition to your villain ensemble. Nothing says super powers like a matching cape, costume and helmet.

2. Avoid city living, as it is far too complicated and laden with troublesome people. Again, a good note for evil villains -- if you want to conquer the world, try starting someplace other than New York. The crazy city is home to half of the known superheroes in America. I know there are a lot of cool buildings around to serve as labs/headquarters/hanger bays, but country living has a lot to offer you as well. For starters, you won't find the X-Men chilling out in Montana. Granted, your enormous headquarters will probably stand out a bit, but that's why we invented underground bunkers, right?

Well folks, the time is upon us: Spider-Man 3 is looming large and we're going to be under a whole mess of Spidey merchandising and advertising. I don't know about you, but I can't wait. Spider-Man has been the torch-bearer for all Marvel films, and the third flick in the franchise will certainly be one of this summer's biggest box office takes. With that in mind, here are my thoughts from the freshly released Spider-Man 3 trailer (yay!):

• Love seeing Spider-Man fans on the streets. The relationship between Spider-Man and the public is one of the most interesting in Marvel, and it's cool seeing kids in Spidey costumes cheering him on.
• Haha, there is a great moneyshot of Spidey posing in front of a flag. Feel the patriotism swell!
• If you ever thought the Sandman was a cheesy villain, and wondered why they chose him for the movie, wonder no more. Wow, does he look like a fun villain, and the CGI is performing marvelously for him. But seriously ... Sandman killing Uncle Ben?
• I've gone on record as being worried about the Venom suit. Move me officially into the excited column after watching the darkness creep over Peter. Stan Lee would be proud. I still want the giant white spider on the front, but I'm willing to give.
• As expected, it is flashy, full of pretty CGI, and lots of camera cuts. Thematically we're probably looking at a much darker film, but if you liked the first two (and who didn't) this trailer is certainly sure to excite. More of the same, but better.

P.S. I still don't like adding in Gwen.

Rare is the occasion your faithful Geek Beat author has the chance to throw around links to websites which explain such complex topics as Wall Street financing, so I'm taking full advantage of this opportunity. The Motley Fool is a website which attempts to translate the world of Wall Street into terms simpletons such as myself can have a fighting chance at understanding.

Why, you might ask, is Mark reading Wall Street websites? Well, I could claim it was due to personal interest and a healthy desire for education (I did earn my undergrad in politics, after all, and thus took a number of economics courses in my time), but you'd all see through such a flimsy lie. In point of fact, I happened upon the Motley Fool (which does seem to be a decent site, by the way) in my daily trolling of the internet for all things geek movie-related, because they published a brief and excellent explanation of Marvel's new financial situation with the big "war chest" they've borrowed from major investing firms. Essentially, it boils down to this: Marvel is producing movies with money which doesn't technically belong to them, and any profit they turn is pure gravy.

After granting the title role of Iron Man to Robert Downey Jr., director Jon Favreau and his casting team are on the move again. This time, they're finally making things official and bringing on Terrence Howard to play Jim Rhodes. If you aren't particularly familiar with comic books, then it's pretty safe to assume you have no idea who Jim Rhodes is. Well, I'll tell you: he's an old friend (and sometimes foe) of Tony Stark from his war days who served as Tony's personal pilot for a while, impersonated Iron Man on more than one occasion and eventually became the superhero War Machine with the help of an Iron Man-esque armor suit from Stark Industries. Yeah, he's a pretty big character.

Presumably Rhodes will only be in his friend/pilot role for the film -- if he's to become War Machine it'll likely happen in sequel land.
I wonder if this means the end of "Terrence Howard in Luke Cage" rumors. His name has been associated with the film in some form or another for some time, although, to my knowledge, nothing has been official. Now that he's found work elsewhere with Marvel, it seems rather unlikely we'll see him in a Power Man flick. How do you fans feel about the Howard casting? Good choice? Bad?

Related Posts:

Howard to Iron Man?

Howard Talks Iron Man

A new Ghost Rider trailer debuted recently. Despite my desire to enjoy this film, I found the trailer to be a disappointment. "Corny," I believe, was the word I used to describe it, and I stand by the description. Apparently, I wasn't the only one to be slightly underwhelmed by the tease, and director Mark Steven Johnson has spoke up to explain. He offers the following four reasons* for why you might not have been impressed:

1. PG-13 rules governing trailers are different in some ways from those governing movies. These rules prevent, among other things, showing people on fire in PG-13 movies.** Obviously, restricting people on fire greatly reduced Johnson's ability to display the transformation scene. So for those of you worried -- no, that isn't all there is to it. It'll be far more "intense" when it hits theaters.
2. The Voice of the Rider cannot be judged according to how it sounds on an internet trailer. It is a multi-track, multi-layered voice with sound effects of screeching cats and rusty chains and the like which get horribly condensed into a single track for the internet.
3. Humor. I don't fully understand this reason, but Johnson explains the film and the character are very "dark and intimidating" to the general public. There is some humor there to counterbalance the intensity, but it is ultimately not a funny movie.
4. Blackheart is going to look far more awesome than you can imagine. He will be "demonic and spikey," which I suppose are very good demon sorts of traits. It'd be more than a bit baffled if he told me Blackheart was going to look anything other than demonic.

While a fair amount of what he is saying makes sense, you've got to wonder about a movie when the director has to come out and defend the trailer.

*He offered five reasons in total, but the fifth was regarding the movie poster, and was unrelated to the trailer itself.
**This is according to Johnson. I personally do not even pretend to understand the inscrutable ways of the MPAA.

Oh the heels of Avi Arad's semi-departure from Marvel,* a bit of corporate rearranging has been done. Isaac Perlmutter, Marvel's CEO, now has some company in the executive-ing business as the Office of the Chief Executive has been expanded to three positions. Perlmutter has nothing to worry about; he will still be sitting atop the mountain, he's just getting a few new vice-presidents. David Maisel will be based out of Los Angeles, and will handle Marvel's "media activities, interactive businesses, video gaming, corporate development and long range planning." John Turitzin, who has worked as Marvel's general counsel for a few years now, will base himself out of Marvel's New York headquarters and will focus on licensing and publishing issues.

It is interesting to watch Marvel grow in the current superhero movie boom. Marvel has varied in size throughout the years through a few boom-bust cycles ... I just hope they don't over-reach themselves yet again. The movie fad will not last forever, but presumably Marvel is well aware of this and will plan accordingly.

*He left, but only to found a production company which will work very, very closely with Marvel.

Just in case you were worried, Kevin Smith has renewed his promise to avoid directing any comic book movies. Talking to BANG Showbiz, Smith said "Those movies are way beyond my capabilities. I'm not really talented enough to pull off a big visual spectacle like that," and then added "writing a comic book is fun and watching comic book movies is fun but I just don't see myself combining the two and making a comic book movie myself." Fair observations, and reminiscent of statements Smith has made previously, but his name has been attached to a few comic book projects in the past and still occasionally gets mentioned in rumors.

Given how long it took Smith to put out the short run of books he did with Marvel, I imagine it is probably good for him to avoid trying to put together an entire movie. Overall, I'm a big fan of Smith, but I think he's making a wise move recognizing his limitations and staying within them. Go ahead an insert your "learning his limits after Jersey Girl" jokes in here ... nobody will blame you.