There's a lot of buzz going 'round right now regarding the forthcoming Spider-Man trilogy conclusion and what will become of the franchise in the next few years.
Toby Maguire and Kirsten Dunst are both pretty much done with the franchise. They've each smugly hinted that they're all but done and bored with the characters. But everyone with half a brain knows that the chain will continue to bring in massive cash and acclaim if the right director is helming the series.
We already have a fantastic director running the show; one who started off as the fanboy I am right now and thus knows what people who actually care about the character want to see (and expect to get) out of a Spider-Man film. The problem is that on top of being loyal to the source material, Sam Raimi is eqaully as loyal to the principle actors. Specifically Toby and Kirsten. He has stated that while we would love to make a fourth (and presumably final) film in the series, he said that he could not possibly forsee doing it without them.
I get it. It's been 6 or 7 years since you started working together. You're all great friends. You're probably so filled with trust with one another that you swap spouses on occaision. But don't hang the future of a successful series as well as hundreds of thousands of salivating fanboys in the balance for two actors that aren't even that into the material. Yeah, they've done very well with the roles. They've done a lot better than most people were going to give them credit for, in fact. But the contract for the first film should have been:
"Should the project exceed expectations and sequels are ordered, be prepared to remain on call for decades until we've run it into the ground or you're too old to properly fulfill the roles; so you'd best go out and get some comic books and learn to really love the character."
I read in an interview that Toby Maguire never read the Spider-Man comics growing up. If I was Sam Raimi, having pretty much every Spidey comic ever printed, I would have said simply "You're just not right for this part. We need someone who isn't looking for a paycheque to play Spider-Man.". That's what I would have said.
On top of all of this, we have Avi Arad, the producer who says that with or without any of the original team the Spider-Man films will continue. Which means that unless Sam Raimi can get over his leads, the next Spider-Man film will be directed by someone entirely different.
I have always maintained that the proper way to chronicle Spider-Man's adventures on the big scree is to do it in chapters. Seperate trilogies to represent different parts of his life. So we've got his origin established. He's had some pretty iconic battles. I imagine that Peter Parker will be 21 years old at the begining of the third film. Great.
Let's make him 27 in the next one. Then 29, 31. Then jump another 6 years for the last 3 movies. Establish the time in between during the course of the new pictures. The best part about doing it this way is that after each trilogy is over, another actor is not only viable but realistic to portray Spider-Man in his later years. Thanks to the people in casting who got a 26 year old Tobey Maguire to portray a 16 year old kid, I cannot picture Spider-Man as a 30 year old being played by anyone younger than 36.
It's perfect this way.
-
You have actors who play a beloved role for a few years and then move on amicably to continue they're careers without backlash from loyal fanboys who hold personal grudges against actors who abandon the series and it gets run into the ground (Val Kilmer as Batman, anyone?).
-
The characters look a bit different after a few movies for a legitimate reason. The character is almost a decade older, so he should look a bit different.
-
Story ideas can be made closer to the continuity of the source material because you can assume that characters like Electro and Mysterio tangled with Spidey during the "down-time" between trilogies.
-
Large story-arcs could take 2 or 3 movies to complete, which makes long backstories more viable and lessens the chance that alternate "film-length friendly" origins don't have to be made up for characters with long, complicated beginings. Like Venom...
-
Each chapter could have it's own tone. Like in the late 80's when Todd MacFarlane started writing and illustrating Spider-Man, the comics got darker and scarier. Innocent people died savage ands at the hands of the Lizard and Venom; among other villains. You could have an entire three-part section of films be the "horror" days of Spider-Man. Not to be directed by Wes Craven.
The best part about these changes is that they will be standard, pre-set changes that everyone will be aware of in advance. And barring the off-chance that an actor or director had to leave due to ilness or death, there would be no reason to make last minute changes that ALWAYS piss off a certain number of fans.
When Tobey bails on Spidey, there will be a backlash wherein fans of Spider-Man who are angery at him will refuse to see his films on principle. I have a Spider-Man tattoo and believe it or not, I watch LOT's of movies that do not have Spider-Man in them. Some of them do have Tobey Maguire, and most of those ones are from before they ever made a Spider-Man movie.
Speaking as a die-hard Spider-Man fan who doesn't want to see his favourite fictional character go down in flames after a couple bad films, I would prefer it to go in a way similar or identical to the way I suggest. Or end after the third; going out with people wondering why they ever stopped making Spider-Man film rather than people wondering why they are still being made
And if Joel Shumacher ever gets his hands on a Spider-Man script I will fucking shit!