It was recently reported that Tobey Maguire would reprise his role as Peter Parker/Spider-Man for two more installments of the "Spider-Man" franchise. While the films will undoubtedly gross sky-high profits at the box office, they will also be highly scrutinized. "Spider-Man" and "Spider-Man 2" got rave reviews from critics and the public, but the third film was not as well received.

"Spider-Man 3" was long and had too many subplots. It seemed as if the Eddie Brock/Venom character (played by Topher Grace) was thrown in to the film at the last second. Director Sam Raimi even admitted that he never liked Venom and was against the villain appearing in the movie. Only at the behest of Sony Pictures did Raimi finally make the addition.

The film was also met with a less than gracious reception because Maguire and Kirsten Dunst seemed uninterested in the "Spider-Man" franchise. When doing publicity for the third installment, Maguire and Dunst both hinted that they wanted to work on other projects and quit doing superhero films for a while.

Now, it appears Raimi, Maguire and the supporting cast will do at least two more films. Is this a good idea? I will admit there are a few more Spidey villains I'd like to see on the big screen (Mysterio and Carnage), but this franchise is going downhill. Batman and Iron Man have become the new draws in the superhero movie realm and a fourth Spidey film is bound to have even more detractive subplots.

The writing is on the wall. All the signs are there. "Spider-Man 4" will likely be the worst of the franchise because going over three is usually a disaster.

More often than not, movie franchises call it quits after three films. Think about the greats like the original "Star Wars," "Back to the Future," or the "Indiana Jones" movies. All three were great trilogies, but the third film in each of them was probably considered the worst.

This is usually by design. The first film in a series introduces the characters and sets up the coming events. Therefore, it is not as harshly judged. The second installment in a series should always be the best because it is the most unpredictable. It is made to build up to the climactic third film. The third movie is made to bring final resolution to the trilogy. It usually disappoints because expectations are extremely high and everyone has a different opinion about the ending.

So when a fourth film is thrown in to the mix, it might as well be slap in the face to the original body of work. It's a box office add-on. The story was already told, but people just can't let it go.

That's why there shouldn't be another "Back to the Future." That's why George Lucas did prequels to the original "Star Wars" instead of a complex adventure where Luke Skywalker is an old man with an intergalactic Rascal. That's why the plot and dialogue of "Indiana Jones: Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" were below average at best.

History says "Spider-Man 4" should fail, but it does have a better shot than some of the aforementioned fourth films. "Spider-Man 3" never gave us a clear cut ending and it had plenty of characters that have yet to have their moment in the spotlight (Dr. Curt Connors/The Lizard and Gwen Stacy).

The "Spider-Man" series has a chance to continue success critically, but it has subplots, disinterest, a below average third film and other caped crusaders to battle. I say that Spidey's adventures on the big screen should be re-tooled or laid to rest.

Source: Stjoelive