Predictable, but reassuring news: Marc Webb signs on to direct The Amazing Spider-Man sequel

In Stuff We Knew Would Probably Happen, the director of this summer's The Amazing Spider-Man, Marc Webb, has officially been confirmed to helm the sequel. And it's a good thing, too, because it already had a release date of May 2, 2014! That would have been really awkward without a director. Mr. Parker/Spidey, Andrew Garfield, has also signed on to return, but Emma Stone (Gwen Stacy) is still in talks. Probably trying to find out if/when that thing that happens to her character in the comics will be happening in this movie or, perhaps, another one. (via /Film)


  1. Uhm, How is this anything other than bad news?  I mean, all reviews had that movie as a piece of crap only made to keep the franchise rights from changing hands……   I haven’t bothered to see it because of that feedback, is it wrong?

    Good news, would be like a movie being made about another superhero with actors and directors that hadn’t jsut laid an egg…..   Wonder woman, cyborg, Nightwing, Martian manhunter, Deadpool…  Etc etc

    1. They put Deadpool in Wolverine, a film so bad that I was tempted to shoot myself in the head with an Adamantium bullet just to erase the memory.

      1.  At least Wolverine had a reason to exist.  The previous Spiderman movies are recent and even at their worst, pretty much fine.

    2. I was prepared to believe it was a piece of crap too, but I’m glad I saw it anyway.  I’ve been a lifelong Spider-Man fan and TASM “gets” what made Spidey so popular to begin with.  I’ve said for years that Raimi’s films got the *look* of the comics right – they could have been beamed straight from John Romita’s brain, especially J.K. Simmons as J. Jonah Jameson – but that they yada-yada’d over some of the best stuff.  Webb’s movie really gets the *feel* right.  

      I’m a little worried about where they might go with the mystery of Peter Parker’s parents, but I’m really excited for them to bring in more of the classic elements – the Osborns, Mary Jane, some more of the classic villains.

      EDIT: though in a perfect world, Spectacular Spider-Man would have gone six seasons and a movie and be as highly regarded as Batman: The Animated Series. But you take what you can get.

      1. There was a scene in the commercials for Spider-man that almost spells out that he was somebody’s science project like in Ang Lee’s Hulk. They wisely edited those scenes, but you can still pick out traces of the backstory in the film. I really don’t like the idea of his parents treating him like Frankenfood, but we’ll see what happens. Word is that Webb and Garfield argued a lot during filming, which is why I’m surprised he’s back on the project.

      2. I liked the first film because he was dragged kicking and screaming into superherohood.  He really just seemed like a human being who fell into it rather than a bookmark for destiny waiting to happen.

        1. Which “first film?” Do you mean the one that is the direct predecessor to this one? Or the Sam Raimi one?

          1. I thought so, but haven’t seen this new “reboot” to compare. The Sam Raimi film really captured the spirit of the original comic which was about a reluctant superhero.  It always struck me as amazing that he had these powers, but his life was kind of sad: Lived at home with his Aunt May, went to school & had to supplement his income by being a photographer… Even thinking about getting battle shots while in battle to get a decent payday.

            And when I say “sad” I always saw the original Spider-Man’s story as one of a true everyman dealing with the burden of a power he never asked for.

            So yeah, you have good taste.

      3. I don’t know about that. I think the Raimi films captured some aspects of what made Spider-man popular  and the new one captured others. I’m pretty sure smoldering hot brooding loner is kind of a new interpretation in any case, not that I was complaining :). It was nice that they included a few moments of snarky jokes, but that was actually a pretty minor part of the movie. I went in to TASM feeling pretty well disposed to it. There are worse ways to spend an afternoon. But I think on balance I have to say I prefer to Raimi movies, if only because (minus the third one) they were a lot more coherent as films. (not that they didn’t have their own flaws) TASM didn’t really…gel. Stuff happens. Some more stuff happens. None of it really comes together in any particular narrative. I think Film Critic Hulk had the best take on it, which isn’t unusual. He may be a gimmick reviewer, but his reviews are so insightful and well-thought out. 

    3. I honestly ignore reviews on genre films. It was fun and the actors were very good. I didn’t want a reboot either, but it surprised me. The villain wasn’t a cut and dried bad guy. I appreciated the fact that the ending didn’t result in him getting mulched like in Raimi’s films. I fully expect Sony to keep cranking out movies to retain rights to Spider-man. Yes, I would feel better if the character were back with Marvel, but I think you should give it a chance and judge for yourself.

    4. I’m sorry but, Webb’s Spiderman was much better than Raimi’s, and that’s coming from a die-hard Evil Dead fan.

      Deadpool and Red Sonja (without Rose McGowan or Megan Fox, maybe Gina Carano?) are on the shortlist of movies I really want to see.
      I think introducing Thomas Jane Punisher into the next Spiderman, with some SHIELD or Deadpool action would be a great way unite Marvel Movie Multiverse

    1. I feel you, but you know many of us grew up on a steady diet of superhero mythology. There isn’t a shortage of great cinema out there–but it’s moved from the theaters to cable.

Comments are closed.