Logan Lerman thinks he might be the next Spider-Man. 

Well, Spider-Man casting mania is already starting. Now that we know that Marc Webb is going to direct the next “Spider-Man” film (which, as you’ll remember, will go back to Peter Parker/Spider-Man’s high school roots), the next big question–huge question, actually–is who will play the title character. The first rumor, courtesy of Access Hollywood, is Logan Lerman.

The TV show was interviewing Lerman about his upcoming film “Percy Jackson and the Olympians: The Lightning Thief” when Lerman said he had had “a few discussions” with Sony Pictures, and that “it’s definitely something I’m looking into.” Lerman also said he’s a huge Spider-Man fan and he’d love to “have more conversations about it.”

Here’s my question when I hear something like this–he’s using words like “discussions” and “conversations.” Does that mean contract? Or does it mean he’s talking about the part with the director? Or are they trying to plan an audition or screen test? Not to insult Mr. Lerman, but he hasn’t put together a big enough body of work that anyone should hand him the title role in a major franchise without having him  read for the role. And no matter how highly Lerman may be regarded, you’d think the producers would have to take at least a look at a few other actors, just to make sure.

What do I think about Lerman? I don’t have an opinion. Way back when Tobey Maguire was cast as “Spider-Man,” I was able to say, “That’s a great idea!” because I’d seen him on film for years. All I’ve seen Lerman in was “3:10 to Yuma” and he was fine enough in that. I wasn’t bowled over and didn’t find myself thinking “Who was THAT kid,” but I didn’t think he wrecked the movie or anything. But I’d still like to hear a few more names, and hope that this is only a tiny beginning of the process.

Oh, one thing’s for certain–if Lerman does get the role, then they’ll need a new Percy Jackson if plans to make that a series go ahead (and Lerman is reportedly signed for three sequels). You can’t have one person be the face of two franchises. Audiences won’t like it.

Now picture this with a giant “2″ slapped across the middle. 

Last year at this time everyone was all abuzz with questions about the soon to open “Watchmen”–would it be any good or would it prove to be unfilmable, as many had speculated over the years? Would it fail or succeed at the box office? Would Alan Moore be happy or unhappy? The answers turned out to be not really what the fans wanted; fail–according to Box Office Mojo, it cost $130 million to make “Watchmen,” and it earned about $107 million domestically and $78 million at the foreign box office; and of course Moore was unhappy, even without seeing the movie.

So you’d think there’d be no interest in making a “Watchmen” sequel, right? That would also have to include former DC Comics President Paul Levitz’s resistance to further “Watchmen” films because he believed that it would be, ‘against the wishes of Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons.’ Well, Levitz is gone, and now TotalFilm is reporting that new DC exec Dan Didio is open to putting together some spin-offs of “Watchmen” in comics form, without Moore and Gibbons. That doesn’t necessarily mean movies will follow, but TotalFilm says Fox does have a clause in its contract for the rights to any “Watchmen” film sequels (WB actually made “Watchmen,” but remember there was the big legal dust-up about whether they had totally won the rights from previous rights holder Fox; maybe the outcome gave sequels to Fox).

So let’s see there is a new series of Watchmen spin-offs. Would Fox (if, indeed, it is Fox) want to make a sequel considering the film’s barely break even box office? Well, it is a somewhat recognizable name, and maybe a studio would think that there was a new generation of fans from the new books who weren’t there to power the first film’s success. If they could find a way to do it cheaper than Zack Snyder’s $130 million budget, than maybe they might say why not? This, of course, would anger the hardcore fans, but trust me, big businesses are not interested in the small group of niche fans, just the general public. If they think they can make a movie that will have mass appeal out of a ”Watchmen” property, they’ll do it and let all the real fans go cry over their signed first editions.   

Quentin Tarantino surprised us all last October by revealing that there would be a third Kill Bill film coming at some point. We’ve seen had both the man himself and Uma Thurman talk about the possibility of Kill Bill 3.

Now comes more talk of the sequel, with Daryl Hannah, who plays Elle Driver in the first two movies, speaking a little about the proposed movie. She even suggests there could be a place for her character in it, even though she was left blinded and assumed dead at the end of Vol. 2.

Hannah told Film24:

“He always meant it as a trilogy. Think about it. There’s always been a tradition of blind Samurai’s and you never actually saw her expire in the other film.”

That is, of course, very true. And Hannah’s off the cuff remark about a blind Samurai strikes me as something more likely to have come from the movie-obsessed mind of Quentin Tarantino than Hannah herself. So I wouldn’t be surprised to hear they’ve spoken about Kill Bill 3.

The problem for us Tarantino fans is that Kill Bill 3 isn’t going to make an appearance until at least 2014. And while there’s likely to be at least one more movie released by the master before that, it’s still a long time to wait.

Sarah Silverman stopped by the RS offices yesterday to treat us to an impromptu song about stopping by the RS offices. She also gave Peter Travers a rundown of what we can expect on The Sarah Silverman Program this season (an episode devoted to Sarah’s mustache, a show about the conflict that arises when she and her sister open competing Holocaust memorials), and opened up about her love of *Damages* and *Precious*, feeling manipulated by *Up*, and the types of film roles she’d like (Helena Bonham Carter in *Fight Club*) as opposed to the ones she gets offered (”You’re the bitchy girlfriend that he’s with before he realizes what love could be”). Watch the full interview now!

There’s some bad news for all you who wanted to kill time at the multiplex this weekend before the Super Bowl: In this installment of *At the Movies*, Rolling Stone’s Peter Travers says it’s a bleak, bleak week for new films. You pretty much have two new flicks entering theaters this weekend, and they’re both pretty awful.

Let’s start with From Paris With Love, which is not a foreign film about romance in France as the title suggests. Instead, it’s an action flick starring John Travolta as a spy who assassinates people in increasingly bombastic ways. The title is a take on the James Bond film From Russia With Love, but From Paris misses the mark big time. Travolta is in his full zany Taking of Pelham 123 mode once again in this film by Pierre Morel, who in 2008 directed Liam Neeson in an action film called Taken, which Travers says is far superior to this film one.