With Sam Raimi dragging everyone to hell this past week, Spider-Man 4 rumors are flying as fast and furious as its webby hero. The New York Post caught up with Sony producer Todd Black to pump him for info, and here's what he had to confirm and deny.

Black says Kirsten Dunst is returning as Mary Jane, which may quash all that undecided talk that has plagued the film since it was first announced. However, there are no plans to unite Peter and Mary Jane in holy matrimony. All rumors of Morbius being the villain are false, but it will be someone from the Spidey comics, and Black drops a very slight hint as to who it could be: "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."

The villain that hint really points to is Kingpin, but he was in Daredevil which suggests Fox has the rights to that particular villain. (Are there crossover claims? I honestly have no idea.) There are a lot of similar mobsters to pick from, but would they resist the temptation for a supervillain and go all real-world? As for other NY based villains, could it be Wraith? He was a NYPD patrolman, and has a tragic origin story that would be pretty ideal. Two weaker suggestions would be Jackal, who was an Empire State University professor, but as they didn't kill Gwen Stacy, I don't know how they would work him in. I think Hydro-Man lives in the Hudson, but that skirts too close to Sandman. Argh, I'm no good at this guessing game. I'll hand it over to you Spidey fans and go enjoy the weekend.

Alright, let's get the Twilight out of the way first. Entertainment Weekly has a couple of new images from the set of New Moon, and if anything, I suppose it's small solace that director Chris Weitz looks like he has this shoot on schedule for a November 20th release. For those of us who didn't know, this sequel concerns Bella (Kristen Stewart) and her divided love for both vampire Edward (Robert Pattinson - SQUEE!) and werewolf Jacob (Taylor Lautner). Maybe Kate Beckinsale should give her some advice on how to handle this...

Now, in somewhat related news, the rumor du jour as to which villain will play a part in Sam Raimi's Spider-Man 4 has turned to Morbius, the well-meaning scientist (natch) who unwittingly transforms himself into a psuedo-vampire (no, thank you, Wikipedia!). The notorious showman plays coy when asked in this FearNET interview (that's hosted on... CHUD?), but then goes on about the appeal of vampires in a way that doesn't rule the possibility out...

Spider-Man 4 is scheduled for a 2011 bow, so let me use this as yet another opportunity to nudge you to support Raimi's very fun Drag Me to Hell this weekend.

Sam Raimi is currently gearing up for the release of Drag Me to Hell, his long-awaited, and (sorry, Kevin Kelly), brilliant return to Evil Dead-style horror filmmaking. Predictably – meaning we were instructed to ask on your behalf – discussion of Spider-Man 4 came up during Cinematical's recent chat with the director, and he talked about what his goals are in returning to the franchise for one more installment. Check back in the coming weeks for the rest of our Raimi interview, but here's what the filmmaker said about making a fourth movie in the multimillion dollar series.

"I learn lessons on every single picture I make," he said. "I learned a lot on [Drag Me To Hell], about timing, and that you don't have to give up any character at the expense of horror. It's just an excuse that maybe I've used in the past. As far as Spider-Man, I've learned a lot of lessons about what people didn't like and missteps that I'd made. But I learned those lessons on the previous two, I was just a little quieter about them. I made a lot of mistakes, and it's part of the reason I so want to make this next story of Peter Parker."

Like an out-of-control freight train barreling down a hill, more 3-D movies are coming, whether we want them or not. Hollywood studios have placed their bets, theater owners are feeling the pressure to upgrade, and moviegoers are being pummeled with the idea that 3-D is the greatest thing since, well, the last time the studios tried to shove 3-D down our throats, in the long ago, musty, medieval decade known as "the 80s."

That being the case, perhaps we should bow to the inevitable and consider which upcoming movies should be in 3-D, and which ones would be a total wash with an extra-dimensional viewing experience. Amy Pascal of Sony Pictures Entertainment told Forbes Magazine that Spider-Man 4 "could be" shot in 3-D. She and fellow exec Michael Lynton think most animated movies will be in 3-D, and believe James Cameron's Avatar "could change the world," in Pascal's words. (Which we've heard before.) She continued, "I don't know that it will ever be the way you see dramas, but I can't say anymore that it won't be."

Announced 3-D releases for 2010 include: Beauty and the Beast, Alice in Wonderland, Piranha 3D, Toy Story 3, Step Up 3D, and Rapunzel. To allow for development and pre-production time, let's put our thinking caps and consider the future. For example, Spider-Man 4 is slated for release in May 2011. What other live-action pictures planned for 2011 would benefit from 3-D? How about Thor? What if he could hurl his hammer at you in 3-D? Or The First Avenger: Captain America? How about making Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows: Part II extra special -- in 3-D? Why not The Hobbit? Maybe some flicks scheduled for late 2010 could make the switch. Green Lantern in 3-D, anyone?

Which ones should be in 3-D?

Remember the Venom spin-off rumors that were slithering around last July? They've now turned into something official. Sony is developing a Venom movie, and they've hired two writers to develop it: Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick, who have only just left the still-filming Zombieland. The project is in such early stages that we don't have additional details, though more might become clearer once Spider-Man 4 settles down.

However, our Scott Weinberg actually caught up with Reese and Wernick last week and has this to say: "Based only on the half-hour I spent talking movies with the screenwriters, I can say that IF there has to be a Venom movie, then these are the guys who can pull it off. They seem to understand the practical (studio) side of the project, the professional (screenwriter) perspective, and (best of all) the enthusiasm needed to make the movie cooool. They couldn't divulge ANY tidbits at all, sorry! But at this early point, I'm feeling a bit more optimistic about Venom."

So, there you have Weinberg's take on the project and you know he'll probably be right. In the interests of keeping things balanced in cinematic geekdom, I shall remain skeptical about the symbiotic spin-off. Admittedly though, my bias may be purely based on how many jerks I know who sport Venom t-shirts.

Apparently the ShoWest Sony presentation just ended out in Las Vegas with the announcement that the studio would be returning to the very successful Men in Black franchise for a third installment to hit theaters in 2011. According to reports at Collider and JoBlo, there were no further announcements as far as cast and release date, however Sony probably wouldn't launch another Men in Black film without at least Will Smith's participation. Will Tommy Lee Jones reprise his role, too, or will Smith get himself a new partner in crime? Will it go 3D? IMAX? Sadly, these questions were not answered. Aside from Men in Black 3, Sony also confirmed that they're working on Spider-Man 4 and Ghostbusters 3, which is news we've already known for quite some time now.

The Men in Black stuff is brand new, though, and if they do hold it for summer 2011, they'll be going up against some mega competition from Avengers, Harry Potter and Spider-Man. Unfortunately, Sony did not talk more about the next Spider-Man sequel, either revealing its cast or villains or production schedule. All we have regarding Spidey right now is its May 6, 2011 release date.

Are you excited for a new Men in Black movie? Did you dig the first two? Which project are you looking forward to the most: Ghostbusters 3, Men in Black 3, Spider-Man 4 or Where Have All The Original Ideas Gone?

Have you ever listened to a director talk about one of their stars and wonder where the love and dedication came from? There's something refreshing in the loyalty that inspires it, in a business that's so often fickle -- but nevertheless, it sometimes boggles the mind.

The most recent manifestation of this is Sam Raimi. He's gearing up for the next installation of Spider-Man, and unsurprisingly, the subject of Mary Jane came up when he was talking about the film with MTV: "'I can't imagine making a Spider-Man movie without Kirsten [Dunst],' he said, seemingly contemplating the idea in his head with a long pause. 'Of course it can be done because Spider Man has existed without the character of Mary-Jane, but she's one of my favorite parts and it would be a shame not to have her in the picture. I'm hoping she'll be in it and I'm planning on having a story with her in it.'"

Evil Dead without Bruce Campbell, that would be unimaginable. But I'm sure there are many fans out there who could very easily imagine a Kirsten-free Spider-Man, whether that meant recasting Mary Jane or letting Peter Parker fight bad guys without the distraction of drama-filled love. For some of us, that absence is not only imaginable -- it's desired. There's little more aggravating than a supposedly epic love that doesn't contain enough on-screen chemistry to contain it. But the directorial love lives on.

Has there ever been a moment when a director gushes over an actor that you couldn't comprehend?

Yesterday it was announced that Marvel was changing the release dates for a few of its upcoming heavy hitters, including Thor (pushed to June 17, 2011), Captain America (July 22, 2011) and The Avengers (May 4, 2012). Additionally, we were told that Spider-Man 4 would hit theaters on May 6, 2011 -- allowing the summer of 2011 to become a make or break time for the future of several Marvel properties. But what was the thought behind making these release date adjustments? Is it simply to give folks a little more time to get the films right, or did part of it have to do with freeing up the schedule of one Jon Favreau?

According to a Marvel spy who wrote into AICN, that's exactly what's happening. Says the spy: "Avengers is delayed a year because of financing issues but also because the plan is for Favreau to helm it. Everybody here loves the guy and he wants to do it, but it would have been impossible for him to do before the date change given his Iron Man 2 commitments. Also partly the reason why he agreed to do the Stark sequel on such an accelerated schedule was so he could get given first dibs on this. It would still be a punishing schedule for him, so hes not firmly confirmed yet, but he is certainly the presumptive director at this point."

What do you think? Is Favreau the man to direct The Avengers, or would you rather some fresh eyes at the helm?

It has been a busy couple of weeks for Marvel. After signing Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury for the rest of the man's natural born life and stalling on Iron Man casting (although that all worked out in the end), their behavior might have looked a little crazy -- but, it appears it was all a part of the plan. Deadline Hollywood Daily has posted a press release from Marvel today announcing "an adjusted release pipeline for its self-produced feature film properties that reflects the first time individual Super Hero characters and story arcs will be inter-woven and culminate in a multi-character motion picture."

So what exactly do they mean by adjusted? According to the new schedule, Thor will now be released June 17, 2011 (previously the big guy was slated for July 2010), The First Avenger: Captain America will now hit July 22, 2011 (one year later than expected), and the big bad daddy of them all, The Avengers has been moved to May 4th, 2012. Marvel even got a little feisty and stole some of Sony's thunder by announcing Spider Man 4's release date of May 6th, 2011. The good news for Marvel is this new schedule means that they will have a summer blockbuster entry every year between 2010-2012.

The last we heard about the webbed wonder, Eugene Novikov posted that the Pulitzer Prize-winning David Lindsay-Abaire (pen behind Robots and Inkheart) was getting ready to take his stab at Spider-Man 4. Now MTV reports that the film will start shooting in 2010 -- so, at the very least, another year from now.

It seems that they ran into J.K. Simmons at Sundance, and he said that he'll continue his gig as J. Jonah Jameson in the next instalment, and that he "saw Sam [Raimi] at his Christmas party." I guess that statement is referring to how he found himself involved in the film -- unless Spidey takes on Santa in number 4? Red v. Red, the final showdown?

Considering this news, it certainly seems like the planned May 2011 release can happen, which will mean that each Spidey instalment adds a year (two years between 1 and 2, and three years between 2 and 3). Now, four years is a really long time, so I wonder if there will be a reboot of sorts -- not exactly throwing out the storyline and going wild and fresh a la Batman, but finding a fresh spin to win back the disappointed fans after the last outing. Letting the dust settle before moving on could help, but on the flip side -- will it be too much time to wait? Do you think a four-year hiatus will be the thing to bring Spider-Man back to form, or will no one be lured to the web come 2011?