Sony confirms The Amazing Spider-Man 3 and 4 release dates

News Simon Brew 18 Jun 2013 - 06:14

With The Amazing Spider-Man 2 in production, Sony has confirmed two more films for Andrew Garfield's webslinger...

With director Marc Webb currently hard at work in New York filming The Amazing Spider-Man 2, Sony has wasted little time putting a sequel together to last year's hit reboot of the Spider-Man franchise. The two year gap between films doesn't leave much breathing room, but Sony does seem to have got things to a point where it can turn the film around in that amount of time.

It's a good job too if the latest announcement from the studio is anything to go by. For Sony has now announced two further Spider-Man movies, and set the release date for them too. The Amazing Spider-Man 3 is thus due for release on June 10th 2016, and The Amazing Spider-Man 4 is coming on May 4th 2018. Each is expected to feature Andrew Garfield, which will stretch this iteration of the franchise at least one film further than Sam Raimi's.

Sony's Jeff Blake, announcing the news, said that "Spider-Man is our most important, most successful, and most beloved franchise, so we’re thrilled that we are in a position to lock in these prime release dates over the next five years".

That should also fend off any chance of Marvel getting the movie rights back, too.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is set for release on April 18th 2014 in the UK.

Follow our Twitter feed for faster news and bad jokes right here. And be our Facebook chum here

Disqus - noscript

Well this is very inconvenient as I've just booked a last minute holiday departing May 4th 2018. You'd think Sony would've at least consulted me first?

Oh joy. 2 more badly scripted, badly cgi'd snooze fests

If Sony's plan is to take the once iconic Marvel character of Spiderman and run the franchise into the ground with tawdry and soulless cash-ins and then hand him back to Marvel tattered and ruined with a reputation akin to a second rate Daredevil then they are going the right away about it. It's just as well Marvel has an entire roster of characters to fall back on.
The only sad thing about this news, apart from the confirmation of two more empty and lifeless CGI vehicles, is that Andrew Garfield's career is going to be locked into this vacuous and redundant franchise for the foreseeable future.

I hope Spidey is less of a dick in the next one

Jesus Christ, did the first abomination really deserve three sequels? The sad thing is that the worst part of this isn't even these films being made, it's that the rights for the character won't revert to Marvel even in time to be used in Phase 3.

wow so much hate
D:
I'm pretty happy to hear this, though I'm not entirly sure how the 4th can work out :I

Still not in the Avengers, Spidey

Well that puts a dent in getting Marvel Civil War off the ground.

Agreed (mostly). I thought it was okay but it probably wouldn't have had a sequel (or have done well in the box-office) if it were an unknown character. Marvel have done pretty much all of their heroes justice so far and would do Spider-Man perfectly.

I'm sure that is exactly the reason Sony plan to keep pumping out these movies, to hold onto the rights.

Unless your holiday will last two months, I think it's safe to assume it'll still be playing upon your return.

I thought their reason would have been to make money, not to flip the middle digit Disney's way. I liked the first movie, and am looking forward to the next one. It sure would be nice if Sony and Disney could find a way to play nice and let Spidey in with the Avengers though.

What would you like Sony to do with the film rights? Who would you cast instead of Garfield? Spiderman could have turned out far worse than we got, and the fact that we have three more outings in the plan hopefully means we get a thread throughout the rest that brings more depth. I was not a rabid fan of Garfield, but I thought he was good enough. The story was a replay for the most part, but the next three should tread new ground and I'm interested to see what they do with the next three films.

I'm not expecting Whedon-level quality, but I have hope.

Franchise - the word itself should strike fear in any self-respecting cinema goer....!

Yeah. Blokes a cock.

Clearly they are not making them to lose money but isn't part of the deal that if they don't make a new Spiderman film every so often the rights revert back to Marvel? I liked the first movie too, so...

Andrew Scott's Doctor is apparently supposed to regenerate into Stephen Mangan on that day too. Busy day.

If he gets 5 and a half years in the roll then I'll be happy with that!

Is it really just me who really liked the first Amazing Spider-Man? Some of the effects were, um, a bit iffy, to put it kindly, but generally I thought it was very good and can't wait for more :D

I hardly think "Spiderman could have turned out far worse than we got, and the fact that we have three more outings in the plan hopefully means we get a thread throughout the rest that brings more depth" is a ringing endorsement for a franchise to have not one but three sequels each only two years apart. You said it yourself, there is hardly a bedrock of quality to use as a foundation. Now, I could be wrong and future installments could see this franchise soar, but considering the major flaws in the first one where not the part which retread the Raimi movies (which imo where the best parts of the movie) but the things which the movie brought to the table.
It used to be things gt sequels because people actually enjoyed the first movie, not because people thought a mediocre movie might get better.

It seems to me from the last movie that Spiderman's greatest enemy is his quiff. I mean Parker's quiff. How the hell does he manage to squeeze it under that mask. It must be his greatest weakness. Imagine the sheer pressure on his cranium as he swings about and stuff. The sheer amount of time wasted squashing down the Jedward-bound mop is surely going to cost somebody dearly one day. I wonder if that's how Gwen Stacey is going to die. Hold on a sec honey I just... have to put.. this last.. tuftt... under the.. mask.... BOINK! Oops, she's dead. *cue maniacal goblin laugh*

You're not wrong - it was a good movie, but not great. It was fun, but certainly not genre defining and made good money, almost $700 million and got good reviews (average 7/10). So, while not a stellar movie, it was good enough for people to pay for. And I suspect we'll get as good, but hopefully better, in the next one and beyond.

You know what would be nice. Just don't. The first movie was utter garbage, with the only shinning light being Andrew Garfield's performance.

Stop pumping out shite movies just to keep the franchise, and let Marvel get it back, where they might be able to do something good with it. (Then put him in the Avengers.)

Whedon level quality WTF he sucks and so did the avengers what are you 3 years old haaaaaa retard

I know the amazing spider man SUCKED

Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa the avengers SUCKED FACT

You liked the amazing spider man haaaaaaaaaaaaaa you're retarded dumb teenagers

F-UCK marvel they suck GO DC

Spider mans too good for the avengers because they suck

Just if you boys are thinking if I am boy or girl here I am

Rubbish troll is rubbish.

F-UCK YOU retarded teenager get LOST

The Avengers sucked? It's you against the world, Emily Kimble.

No the movie sucked well in opinion the movie sucked

I love you babe wanna see how I look well here I am

Oh dear, am I now trolling the troll?

I love you

lol. That wasn't the expected response, but far be if for me to not take some lovin' when it's offered.

When we gonna get married

As a rule of thumb, I don't get married after 2 insults and someone else's picture.

Lol my 8 year old brother keeps perstering me to take him to the cinema when this next spiderman film comes out :O

I don't really like spiderman very much,but it's alright I guess.I enjoyed the first few movies.

Sponsored Links