So imagine what the forthcoming Spider-Man 4 and Spider-Man 5 movies would be like without Kirsten Dust’s anemic wailing and egg-based dance routines. You’re imagining they’d be quite good, aren’t you. Well, you’re in luck, because Spider-Man director Sam Raimi is giving off the impression that Kirsten Dunst won’t feature in either of the two new movies.

Actually, we should be a bit more accurate – Sam Raimi implied that Kirsten Dunst’s character Mary-Jane wouldn’t be in the new Spider-Man movies. He also hinted that one of the new Spider-Man villains could be a vicious scaly reptilian humanoid, though, so if that doesn’t warrant a callback for Kirsten Dunst then nothing will.

Remember when the Spider-Man movies were good? Remember when the thought of another Spider-Man sequel seemed like a good thing, rather than something you’d happily drown yourself in cattle guts to avoid? We do too, just about.

We don’t any more, obviously – the musical numbers, eggy dancing, evil haircuts, 19-hour running time and bad sand of Spider-Man 3 has made us fear 2011’s Spider-Man 4 with all the dread we’d usually reserve for an exam or a jail rape.

But luckily, Spider-Man director Sam Raimi has sensed our fear and he wants to calm us all down the best way he can – by implying that the services of Kirsten Dunst probably won’t be required for Spider-Man 4. Or Spider-Man 5, for that matter. Raimi told MTV:

“Kirsten, I’d love to work with her again,” Raimi explained to us this week, making it sound as if current plans to include Dunst for “Spider-Man 4” and “Spider-Man 5” are still up in the air. “I hope she’ll be written into it. I couldn’t imagine making one without her, and I think she’s an important part of the movies.” Nevertheless, Raimi admitted that the very nature of an episodic series requires that characters come and go.

Do you hear that? Kirsten Dunst might not be starring in any more Spider-Man movies. But then if that’s the case, who’s going to upside down kiss Spider-Man? And who’s going to provide the emotional core? And who’ll sing in the movies twice despite having a voice like an asthmatic 80-year-old? And who’ll be a shadowy reminder that age, unhealthy lifestyles and ill-advised romances with dirty indie stars can obliterate your once-good looks completely in a matter of years? Actually, come to think of it, no, we’re alright without any Kirsten Dunst in our Spider-Man thanks.

Actually, that’s a lie. We do want Kirsten Dunst in the new Spider-Man sequels. That’s partly because without her we won’t get the creeping sensation that she thinks she’s bigger than Spider-Man or the constant whining about how hard acting is.

But mainly it’s because, if Kirsten Dunst isn’t hired for Spider-Man 4 and Spider-Man 5, it’ll only give her more time to make more films like Marie Antoinette. And that’s worse.

Marginally.

Quite how much Edward Norton had to do with The Incredible Hulk being a bag of bums is unknown – hacked off at Marvel’s refusal to listen to him, he gathered up his blanket and flounced off in a strop right before the movie came out.

And that could be why Edward Norton doesn’t know if he’s got a future with The Incredible Hulk or not – if he’ll be in a sequel or if there’ll even be a sequel at all. Hopefully there’s a logical reason for this – like because the Marvel heads are too busy trying to track down and destroy every copy of The Incredible Hulk while personally visiting everyone who paid to see it to give them a refund and offer them a consolatory kick in the nuts.

2008 was a big summer for superhero movies, whether in The Dark Knight’s labyrinthine pitch-black plot or the freewheeling pizazz of Iron Man. But there was a third superhero movie this summer – the deformed son that the other superhero movies kept locked in the attic. The Incredible Hulk.

Conceived as a high-octane rollercoaster joyride compared to Ang Lee’s ponderous 2003 Hulk movie, The Incredible Hulk ended up taking less money than its predecessor while simultaneously giving off the vague impression that it was a direct-to-DVD spin-off directed by a toddler smashed off his face on E-numbers that had somehow wound up with a theatrical release, only not as good as we’ve just made it sound.

However, The Incredible Hulk has still managed to take close to $245 million worldwide, so a sequel looks fairly inevitable. But whether or not it’ll star Edward Norton is another matter entirely.

That’s because, back before The Incredible Hulk was released, Edward Norton threw a gigantic tantrum about the final edit and refused to take part in any promotion of the movie. Reports at the time suggested that Marvel wanted to make the movie shorter and punchier, while Norton was keen to include a 45-minute midsection where the Hulk embarked upon a contemplative rites of passage journey through post-imperial Calcutta or something.

But because of this, Edward Norton hasn’t got a bloody clue about what’s going on with any Incredible Hulk sequels, or even if he’ll star in them if they do get made, as he told MTV:

“The minds of Marvel are sometimes opaque. I won’t say [they're] obtuse, but I don’t have any idea what they want to do.”

Face it Norton. You blew your big chance. You could have kept your mouth shut and got another two guaranteed sequels out of The Incredible Hulk but, no, you had to go and get all precious about it. Now you’re going to be known as the man who was in that film about the magician with the gay voice and nothing more.

Now, Marvel, forget about Edward Norton. What you want to do is make a sequel to The Incredible Hulk, but this time hire an actor so preposterously dumb that he’ll go along with whatever cack-brained scheme you happen to spunk up, no matter how hacky and pointless it is. You want someone who’s not only mindblowingly stupid, but cheap as well. That way you can afford more explosions.

We’ve checked with Hayden Christensen’s agent. He’s free next week. Thank us later.

Don’t worry, kids. You won’t have to concern your pretty little heads trying to follow new characters, nor intricate plot lines, because Vin Diesel is going to cling on to the threadbare coat tails of the same old crap he’s done before.

Word on the street is that Vin Diesel has signed on to the third XXX movie, as well as the fourth Fast and the Furious sequel. Oh, and a couple of more of those Riddick film thingies, so get those Blockbuster Video cards ready to tear up the straight to DVD releases.

Vin Diesel is a special kind of person. And don’t be saying that the man can’t act, because he has about two and half movies with 37 sequels that prove otherwise.

You see, when Vin Diesel forms a complete and coherent sentence on his very own, you know there’s something special in the air. But when he forms the same choppy, clichéd sentences in formulaic action movies over and over and over again, it’s just another day at the box office.

The problem seems to arise when Vin Diesel tries to step out of his comfort zone and make actiony/science-fictiony type films like Babylon AD and it totally tanks.

What’s that? It’s exactly the same as the others just with the letters arranged to make different words in the titles? Well, then it’s time Vinny goes back to what he does best.

Or at least what has made him money in the past, since he’s problem in desperate need of some more money right about now.

Enter the recent signing of Vin Diesel to make a bunch of films he’s pretty much already made before including XXX: The Return of Xander Cage, another Fast and the Furious movie, and two more Chronicles of Riddick flicks. But this time he’ll be wearing a whole new set of white trash tank tops, so woo!

There’s still one untapped sequel he has yet to try and squeeze lifelessly dry, which is a sequel to the delightfully brain-bleeding Disney family film, The Pacifier. In the second movie, Vin Diesel stops working out and takes on the persona of the hamburger loving Popeye character, Wimpy, and saves the world of meat processing by eating enough burgers to make PETA spontaneously combust with rage. Everybody wins.

Forget the fact that so few people watched The Good Shepherd when it was released that demand for even one sequel is about the same as demand for a sequel to the Ebola virus, because this is Robert De Niro’s dream. You can’t deny an old man his dream, can you?

Actually, we’re right behind Robert De Niro’s decision to keep churning out sequels to The Good Shepherd. With his current hit rate, one of them’s bound to be a knockabout family comedy co-starring Ben Stiller, and only an idiot would turn down the chance of seeing that, right?

The Good Shepherd, the Robert De Niro-directed meditation on the history of the CIA, wasn’t exactly box office dynamite, and we think we know why:

1 - It was a basic trade description fraud. The Good Shepherd? Good? We can’t help but feel that if Robert De Niro had called his movie The Mediocre Shepherd or The Excruciatingly Long Shepherd he’d have engendered a lot more trust in the moviegoing audience.

2 – Films starring Angelina Jolie where she doesn’t play a slightly fetishistic female assassin are rubbish. Everyone knows that.

3 – The Good Shepherd was never going to attract the kids because all the words in the title were spelt correctly. The Good Shepherd? Boring. Da Nang Shep-Shep? Now that sounds like a cool movie.

But, regardless of why it failed, Robert De Niro hasn’t been put off by the public’s antipathy towards The Good Shepherd, to the point where he actually wants to make two more of them. According to CHUD:

De Niro said he would like to make two sequels to CIA Cold War drama The Good Shepherd — one bringing the action forward from 1961 to 1989, the other following its hero, Edward Wilson (Matt Damon), up to the present day. Although he is not working on research for the concluding parts of the hoped-for trilogy, De Niro said being in central Europe offered a good opportunity to begin thinking about the material.

Although the idea of sitting through another two bone-dry, stupidly-long excitement-vacuum movies about the CIA sounds like a living hell, we shouldn’t stop Robert De Niro from seeing through the creative vision he has for The Good Shepherd – especially since he’s apparently modelling the trilogy on the Lord Of The Rings movies, where the second one will be about Matt Damon walking across a mountain and the third one will be about an army of American spies charging at an army of Islamic terrorists across a giant field for three hours.

Also, the workload created by making more Good Shepherd movies means that Robert De Niro will have fewer chances to make more reputation-sullying late-period movies with Al Pacino. And for that reason we’re in.

Oh, and the fact that Hollywood hasn’t come up with any original ideas for years. And when they do they want to make the most of it – again, and again, and again…

Well, be prepared – because there is a host of sequels coming our way, whether you like it or not.

1. National Treasure 3

We just don’t understand why these films are popular. But apparently there is to be a third instalment, which has been earmarked for 2011. Oh no! You mean we have to wait three years to find out what happens next? Including what really is on page 47 of the presidents’ secret book? We’re not sure we can wait that long. Damn you Nicolas Cage.

2. I Am Legend 2

It’s difficult to see where they are going to go with this one. I Am Legend was OK, apart from the shit ending, in which Will Smith dies (sorry if you have not seen it). So where do they go next? Do they do a prequel, in which we learn more than we possibly want to know about the background to the first film? Or do we now follow shitty characters we could not give a rat’s arse about? Anyway, author Richard Matheson has already signed over the rights, and we wait with baited breath for its 2010 release. Not!

3. Ghost Rider 2

We cannot believe it either, but a sequel to this pile of turd is expected to be released next year. Nicolas Cage will once again saddle up for the titular role. All we can say is Nicolas Cage much have a very big family. Who else goes to see his films?

4. Night at the Museum 2: Escape from the Smithsonian

We can hardly wait for another crazy night of hijinks at the museum with Ben Stiller and the gang. It’s due out on Memorial Day weekend next year. Ben Stiller, Robin Williams and Dick Van Dyke will return, with Shawn Levy back in the director’s chair.

5. The Untouchables: Capone Rising

If ever there was a sequel which simply did not need to be made, it’s this one. What makes it worse is that Nicolas Cage is apparently going to play the young Capone. What is it with him? Is he set on destroying Hollywood? At least Brian De Palma is directing.

6. Pink Panther 2

Words fail us. It’s due to be released next February.

7. The Brazilian Job

If you enjoyed the US remake of the British cult classic The Italian Job, you will delighted to hear a sequel is planned for next year. If, like us, you hated it, you really could not care less that Mark Wahlberg, Jason Statham and Charlize Theron will all return for another heist we are guessing set in Brazil. Just nuts!

8. Ace Ventura 3

No Jim Carrey. No point.

9. Beverly Hills Cop 4

You can never keep a good man down. Just like Indiana Jones before him, Axel Foley is staging a comeback. Eddie Murphy will return as the wise-cracking detective and the movie is scheduled to begin production next year in anticipation of a summer 2010 release. Brett Ratner will direct. We have mixed feelings on this one. Does the world need another Beverly Hills Cop? The third was hardly a roaring success. Still, anything to stop him making Norbit 2. We hope!

10. War of the Worlds 2: The Next Wave

We give up.

Oh, and the fact that Hollywood hasn't come up with any original ideas for years. And when they do they want to make the most of it. But sometimes sequels can actually eclipse the original.

It's certainly rare. For every Godfather Part II there is a Speed 2, Ocean's 12 and Another 48 Hours waiting in the wings. For God's sake, this was going to be a a top 10, but we could only think of five.

But anyway, here goes:

5. The Empire Strikes Back (1980)

Irvin Kershner

Geeks all around the world have been battling with this tricky question for years (or is that light years?) Is The Empire Strikes Back better than Star Wars?

Frankly, get a life.

We would say, as a kid, we probably preferred the original. It's got more action in it; it's got less Yoda talking nonsense in it; and, let's face it, you never forget your first love. But as we get older we start to appreciate the second film a lot more.

There's more Darth Vader; it has the bit in the snow; and it has Boba Fett in it (Don't start, Fett was only added to Star Wars later.)

It's a much darker film, and we can remember as a kid being angry when it finished, which is usually a good sign.

Of course, if we'd have known then that it was going to finish with a teddy bears' picnic (bloody Ewoks!) we would probably have been grateful.
 

4. Terminator II: Judgement Day (1991)

James Cameron

More thrills, more spills and more terminators. It's as simple as that.

You have all the best elements of the first one, but with better special effects. No argument as far as we're concerned.

In fact, the only thing bad about Terminator II: Judgement Day is that it led to the turd that is Terminator 3.
 

3. Dawn of the Dead (1978)

George Romero

After annoying all of the sci-fi fans, we may as well try and irritate the horror fans too.
Okay, there is no denying that Night Of The Living Dead is a true horror classic.

However, Dawn of the Dead is far more shocking, it's funnier and you get to see all of the gruesomeness in colour. Bonus.
 

2. Aliens (1986)

James Cameron

This is another one that has been argued over for far too long.

Okay, look Aliens is just better. It's got more action, more stunning death scenes and more, errr, Aliens.

Why go for one face-sucking, stomach-bursting alien (alright, so that's strictly two) when you can have an army of them?

Case closed. No, argument won.

However, we do feel a bit unclean for nominating two James Cameron films.
 

1. The Godfather II (1974)

Francis Ford Coppola

This was a tough one. Huge fans of the original Godfather.

But the fact that you have got two of possible the finest screen actors around for the price of one just swings it for us.

Al Pacino is, as always, brilliant. But Robert De Niro, who isn't always so brilliant (The Fan and Analyse This anyone?), just shades it.

And anyone who wants to argue could find themselves sleeping with the fishes.