In my review of Dan in Real Life on Friday, I mentioned what an excellent writer I find Peter Hedges to be. He wrote my favorite novel, What's Eating Gilbert Grape, as well as the screenplay for the Johnny Depp adaptation. He co-wrote About a Boy, and wrote and directed Pieces of April. All great stuff. Dan is the weakest of that lot, but still an entertaining film. It seems other people are fans of Hedges as well, he's just been signed to write and direct Everything Changes, an adaptation of the Jonathan Trapper book of the same name. Hedges was hired to adapt the book, and loved it so much he opted to direct as well.

According to The Hollywood Reporter, the story focuses on "a man on the verge of marrying the perfect girl when he undergoes a life crisis as he faces feelings for his recently deceased best friend's wife and also deals with the sudden arrival of his womanizing, estranged father." Did you follow all of that? The film will most likely star Tobey Maguire, who will also co-produce with Wendy Finerman (Forrest Gump). It will be good to see Maguire back in non-Spider-Man roles, his vicious performance in the otherwise limp The Good German reminded me how good he can be. Have any of you read Everything Changes? Thoughts?

Sony has accused the Walt Disney Company of bending the rules in announcing the box office totals for Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End. The main issue in question is whether Pirates 3 or Spider-Man 3 brought in the most gold doubloons over its first six days of worldwide release. Sony spokesman Steve Eltzer is claiming that At World's End opened in at least two areas on the previous Tuesday, which would add a seventh day of grosses to what Disney announced as a six-day record. Disney is claiming "we had previews that generated $1.4 million. And in keeping with industry practice, we rolled it into the opening day." I, Patrick Walsh, am claiming that if these people would put as much work into their movies as they do into arguing about insanely trivial financial records, moviegoers would be a hell of a lot happier.

Sony opened Spider-Man 3 on a Tuesday in some territories overseas and announced a "six-day opening record" of $232 million. Disney announced its "six-day opening record" of $251 for Pirates. And both have been grumbling and bickering back and forth ever since. "While there may or may not be other territories that opened prior to Wednesday, we believe that as more day-and-date releases enter the market, there should be a consistent standard in international box office reporting," says Eltzer. "This issue is larger than an opening-week box office statistic." Hear hear! Way to focus on the truly important issues, boys! This is a sad day indeed. I thought Hollywood was supposed to be a world of magical entertainments and childlike wonder, and now we come to find out that these people seem to be most interested in ... money? Who knew?

In a story about this summer's blockbuster franchises and the plans for their continuation, iF Magazine shares this interesting quote from Sony Pictures chairperson Amy Pascal: "If you want the kind of longevity we're hoping for with Spider-Man, you have to think of them as stand-alone movies, not '1-2-3-4'. They're sort of like the James Bond stories." I find this statement quite amusing considering the definite three-part story arc followed in the first few Spider-Man movies. Plus, if Sony didn't mean for us to think of each as a numerical installment, the studio might have wanted to title the sequels differently than Spider-Man 2 and Spider-Man 3. They should have done something more along the lines of The Dark Knight or Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer.

But thinking of the Spider-Man series as being like the 007 franchise would make it okay for Sony to replace Tobey Maguire in the role of Peter Parker/Spider-Man, which could happen if the actor refuses the reported $20 million offer to return. Sony is currently looking for screenwriters to pen Spider-Man 4, though the studio has already been talking with David Koepp, who wrote the first installment, about signing on. Koepp is also responsible for writing the next Indiana Jones movie, a fourth installment in a franchise that does actually consist of stand-alone parts. Whoever is hired for the script, though, it may, according to Pascal's statement, be more of a one-shot rather than the beginning of another trilogy (the studio is apparently interested in at least three more films). Perhaps they can title it one of the following number-less suggestions: Spider-Man: Maximum Carnage; Spider-Man and the Lizard's Tale; Doc Octopussy. Or, if they re-cast and reboot, a la The Incredible Hulk: The Amazing Spider-Man; The Spectacular Spider-Man; Web of Spider-Man; etc.

You'd think that Spider-Man creator Stan Lee would receive privileged information about Spider-Man 4, but apparently he doesn't even know what is going on in the comics, let alone the movie scripts. Still, he is smart enough to know what should happen in the next installment of the series: Dr. Curt Connors, who we've briefly seen in parts 2 and 3, should finally turn into The Lizard. Of course, an appearance from the scaly villain has been expected since Connors was first alluded to in the first film. In addition to suggesting that The Lizard should be the next villain, in a video interview with Reelz Channel's Dailies, Lee also discusses the possibility of Peter Parker ending up with Gwen Stacy rather than Mary Jane in part 4.

Lee's suggestion is simply that, a suggestion, as long as he has no real creative input, but he is right to say The Lizard is a logical next step. Certainly such logic makes it less of a surprise when we hear rumors about the villain already being a lock for the film. However, expecting a villain because of onscreen allusions means we should also logically predict that Man-Wolf and Robot-Master will show up at some point, too. Anyway, Lee probably wants to see another one of his own creations like The Lizard on the big screen instead of any of Spidey's newer villains, like Carnage, who is also being talked about for #4. For me, either villain or both is fine, just as long as Spidey doesn't team up with Venom to fight them. I actually stopped reading the comics following the Maximum Carnage storyline (though I did give the good-guy Venom series a fair shot), and I'd probably stop watching the movies at the same point. I know the end of Spider-Man 3 suggests this couldn't happen, but you never know -- either with comic books or the movies.

I saw Spider-Man 3 Saturday night. It was a total mess, but the visuals were incredible, the fight scenes were thrilling, and I enjoyed enough of the film to make it worth my time. Still, it occurred to me on the way home that with a few simple changes, the film could have been a superhero classic. And

Before we begin, please know that I'm not a die-hard Spidey fan. The first two Spider-Man films were entertaining enough, but I forgot them immediately afterward. I know when you read that heading you probably thought this article would consist of complaints like "Why didn't they do such-and-such with the character of Venom like they did in Issue #231 of blah-blah-bloo?" But that's not me. This article comes from the point of view of an average guy with no knowledge of comic books who went into Spider-Man 3 with no expectations. Here's what I would have changed to make the movie more entertaining to me. SPOILERS AHEAD!

1) Kill Mary Jane in the opening scene

The Uncle stuff is played out, Peter needs something new to be upset about. And I used to love Kirsten Dunst, but now she "acts" her scenes like she can't wait for someone to yell "Cut!" so she can go and make out with one of The Strokes. Are we really supposed to believe that Peter would choose Dunst's dehydrated, negative, miserable Mary Jane over Bryce Dallas Howard's pants-explodingly hot, upbeat, and cheerful Gwen Stacey? Mary Jane is a terrible girlfriend! She spends the entire film whining about her lackluster singing abilities to a guy who spends his time keeping the city free from evil! She's dull, she's pouty, and she participates in elaborate Chubby Checker-scored cooking/dancing/infidelity montages with James Franco! Dump her!

2) Have your villains get upset before the last twenty minutes roll around

A no-brainer. I can't recall seeing a movie where the villains decided "You know, maybe we should kill the hero" so late in the game. The Sandman appeared to be thinking about what to have for dinner for most of the film. Venom doesn't even enter the picture until the last third. It's screenwriting 101, especially in a movie of this kind. By the end of Act One, you better be damn sure your audience knows who the antagonist is, and what your hero is up against. Nobody seems to have clear motives here. All the characters are confused and conflicted and don't really know who they want to kill and why or if they even want to. That's fine for a Scorsese film, but this is Spider-Man, people!

3) More J.K. Simmons and Bruce Campbell

In the few moments of screen time given to each of these fantastic character actors, they charged the movie with an energy that nearly all of the other actors lacked. As a huge Oz fan, it's always a little jarring to see J.K. Simmons in other roles – I kept expecting him to sexually assault Peter Parker. But once I got past that, the guy was hilarious. And Bruce Campbell's champagne back-and-forth in the restaurant was pure gold. Truth be told, Campbell should have played The Sandman. He certainly would have brought more life to it than Thomas Haden Church -- who must have thought he was playing the Sandman who puts kids to sleep.

One of the more appealing aspects of Marvel superheroes is that they are set in the real world as opposed to fictional places like Metropolis. Because of this, we can actually visit the city in which Spider-Man is an honorary (though fictional) resident: New York. Sure, we can't locate made-up places like Empire State University or read the Daily Bugle, but we can check out the locations used for those places in the movies. But if you are ever planning on doing some Spidey-related tourism in the Big Apple, you might want to schedule your trip around the "Spider-Man Week in New York City" event, which we told you about earlier this month. Seven days of fun-filled activities, being held in conjunction with the release of Spider-Man 3, begins April 30 and continues through the film's opening weekend.

Sony has just put up a special website that includes an interactive map to help you prepare for the festivities happening around the five boroughs. Some of the highlights of the event include a special exhibit of live spiders at the Museum of Natural History (inclusion of radioactive spiders is not likely), a Green Goblin mask-making workshop, opportunities to feel like a wall-crawler (at Chelsea Piers' rock-climbing wall) or a web-slinger (at the Trapeze School of New York City), an exclusive deal for redheads at Supercuts and our favorite, and a closing-night concert of Spidey-themed rap songs at the Apollo Theater. And don't forget about the sight-seeing (the famous Flatiron Buildling was used for the Bugle's offices), which will be made easier with a special tour through Gray Line.

In the vein of everyone having an opinion, many of which don't agree, The Guardian's film blog has a piece about superheroes -vs- talented actors. The spin -- the actors who are taking on the roles of comic icons are being fooled into doing so: "What seems to be happening is that the actors themselves are being duped into thinking that these are roles of Shakespearean complexity." Is that the case? The piece mentions George Clooney's less-than-loved Batman and Robin and Halle Berry's terrible stint as Catwoman. If either of them took on the roles thinking they were getting a meaty, complex story, they should probably get their heads examined.

The blog goes on to talk about the increase of suffering and torment in superhero roles, and that the ones who are truly successful don't take themselves seriously -- Spider-Man, Wolverine. Wait ... Hugh Jackman? His role isn't the darkest thing out there, but the character definitely has his share of angst. Considering the built-up aversion to dark superheroes, it's no surprise that the piece then goes on to describe Batman Begins as "a po-faced, dark (in every sense) and confusing two hours in the company of a man with the lowest voice and most clenched jaw in Gotham city." Sure, if Spidey had to fall into the depths of despair, that would be strange, but can you fault Batman for being dark? Isn't it supposed to be? It's based on an orphan who wants revenge. That's not light and happy fare, even if the television version made it that way.

What do you think? Are some superheroes failing because the actors are taking the roles too seriously? Did Eric Bana's green, fighting fiend fail because he made it too awkward and real life? Is Batman Begins not half as good as we've all said it is? Does suffering make superheroes smaller?

If you're like me, no bad reviews are going to stop you from seeing Spider-Man 3 next month. Fortunately, if the majority of reviews are like the first reactions we've seen, you won't have to worry about bad reviews anyway. But there is one person who didn't have a glowing response to the movie that you might want to be worried about. Tobey Maguire, who plays the titular superhero, has just seen the latest installment at its Tokyo premiere, and he seemed to imply that it is only so-so. The Associated Press quoted the actor, who initially said he "kinda liked it" before amplifying his publicity-minded attitude by saying that he "really enjoyed it." Kirsten Dunst, on the other hand, apparently loved the movie. She told the AP that Spider-Man 3 was a very difficult movie to act well in (I noticed), but that everyone performed phenomenally.

Maguire also gave hope that he might actually return to the Spidey costume for Spider-Man 4, confirming what he told Sci-Fi Wire earlier this month. He said that he won't continue the role just because the movies are successful, but he would be interested if the next script features a story that is good enough and deserves to be told. Dunst was caught referring to the new movie as the last, which, added to her recent words about not being hopeful about a fourth installment, makes it a fairly certain assumption to say that she is done with the franchise regardless of whether or not it continues (thank goodness!).

There aren't too many movies that necessitate sequels. Unless a movie is part of a pre-proposed series or is an adaptation of a series of books, it should probably be able to stand alone. But a lot of sequels come from movies that are perfect by themselves -- sometimes the sequels compliment nicely; sometimes they are easily ignored; occasionally they actually take away from the previously regarded original.

It isn't often that a movie screams out for a sequel, but I think I've come up with seven that at least whisper a request for one. Two actually have source sequels that they would be adapted from. One has a lot of history to mine material from. Three of them have been discussed at length at different points in time by makers of the original(s). The problem is that none of these sequels is likely to ever grace your DVD player let alone your local theater. For whatever reason, they simply have too much against them in the minds of studio execs. For now, though, we can dream.

1. The Restaurant at the End of the Universe (sequel to The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy)

Even with the incredible cast and the surprisingly faithful-enough script, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy was not the epic that I was hoping for. It also wasn't the blockbuster that Disney was hoping for. The filmmakers, Garth Jennings and Nick Goldsmith (aka Hammer and Tongs) and the necessary actors had signed on for the sequel, to be adapted from Adam's follow-up, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe, but it appears to be dead in the water. Despite my few reservations with the first film, I would love to see the sequel, as well as the rest of the series (they could end before The Salmon of Doubt, I guess). I remember being bored with some of the prehistoric Earth sequences in Restaurant, but I think they'd make for great cinema. In any event, I think Martin Freeman and Mos Def were a great duo in the original, and they alone should have been propelled to stardom following its release. Maybe they can appear in something else together.

I linked earlier today to an exclusive interview Sam Raimi did for Entertainment Weekly. In it, Raimi announced that he is "seriously interested" in directing the film adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien's The Hobbit. This news has to be thrilling to New Line, but those who might not be thrilled include the millions of fans hoping for a Spider-Man 4. New Line/MGM only has the rights to The Hobbit for a limited time, and if Raimi decides to go that route, Spider-Man 4 will either have to be pushed back or a new director will have to be found. Kirsten Dunst, for one, doesn't think she'd return without Raimi, telling EW ''It's disrespectful to the whole team, I think, to do that. And audiences aren't stupid. It'd be a big flop without me, Tobey, or Sam. That would really not be the smartest move."

I think Dunst might be overestimating her popularity there, but without Tobey Maguire and Raimi, the franchise could definitely be caught in a web of trouble. Maguire has already said he's on the fence about returning for another. The Batman franchise did alright (financially if not creatively) after Michael Keaton and Tim Burton jumped ship, but the fans might smell a rat this time around. Dunst doesn't think Sony would make the movie without the original team either, saying "(Sony Chief) Amy Pascal would never do that." Sony's President of Production Matt Talbach has a different take, saying ''Listen, we're making Spider-Man 4. Our hope, dream, and intention is to do it with Sam. But I don't have a crystal ball.'' Anyone out there have one? Maybe you can help sort this out.