Spider-Man 4 Villains?

[bkbluray]

Originally Posted by jasonbird

I think that Spider-man really missed the mark with number 3. While I enjoyed it, the problem is they focused too much on the main characters. They should have continued the story line from the second including Jameson's kid somehow. They should have really given Conners a bigger role to set something up for number 4 (to get the audience more involved in the plight of the character). IMO they should have saved Venom for later. They really have missed the boat (IMO) by not making the Spider sense more of a main power in the movies. The guy should be next to possible to hit, but they've only used it when they felt like it (it seems). I think one villain per movie is fine. Have him fight crime (normal thugs) a little bit more here and there. Personally I never much cared for Dunst or McGuire, but I don't think they should be changed at this point. I do think a fresh take (new director) may be a good idea.

+1 Good point. Honestly, just one Doc Ock was better than all three villains on Spidey 3.

[Blu-Curry]

Originally Posted by bkbluray

+1 Good point. Honestly, just one Doc Ock was better than all three villains on Spidey 3.

Well I think having 2 villains could work out. One villain was great and the 3 in Spidey 3 was really cumbersome. So, I wonder what they can do with 2.

[Blu-Curry]

Originally Posted by jasonbird

IMO they should have saved Venom for later.

I agree with that. They should have focused more on the symbiote's dark powers on Spidey (like come on, dancing isn't evil). I was hoping that it would show Spidey swinging away at the end and he goes off screen... but the camera stays still and Venom swings into the camera leading to the credits! I realized this after I first saw the movie, MJ has no idea of Spidey wearing a black suite while the public knows! I was wondering if she would see the connection between his behaviour and the black suite but she never knew about it!

[fighthefutureofhd]

Originally Posted by Blu-Curry

Ya, especially the third one. The New Goblin was pretty much handled well, but the Sandman story didn't end too well. His reasoning for killing Uncle Ben was like, "So what!" for me. Venom will always be my favourite villian and I was very disappointed on how they handled him. I was also looking forward to Jameson's son crash landing the space shuttle with the symbiote on Earth.

i'm not entirely jumping up and down for joy over how venom was handled. but for a character as complex as venom, they did about as good a job as one may be able to get. venom is just too complex and far reaching to translate to screen. at least for the non-spidey readers. the casual moviegoer would get lost.

[dereksworl]

What about Chameleon? he wouldn't make much of a physical foe, but could add some witty plot twists.

[Blu-Curry]

Originally Posted by dereksworl

What about Chameleon? he wouldn't make much of a physical foe, but could add some witty plot twists.

I guess if he was the secondary villain that would be cool, but not exactly the way Mystique is. He could be like in the cartoon where he was a mercenary type character and used a hologram emitter, or the newer show where he wears masks and can change his voice.

Rumors for Spidey 3 had said that Church would be Peter's enemy and Grace would make moves on MJ... but its the Chameleon the entire time!

[c0okiemonsta109]

the problem with spiderman 3 was the 2 minutes of screen time venom got... imagine if dark knight had the joker for that one scene where the truck flips over.... it was retarded filmmaking from sam raimi

they took one of my favorite villians in venom and turned him into a skinny terp when he was supposed to be a juicehead!!!

they need to bring the carnage in and follow up on the little symbiote that Dr.Connors still has so venom has still have a chance to be alive.

[Blu-Curry]

Originally Posted by c0okiemonsta109

the problem with spiderman 3 was the 2 minutes of screen time venom got... imagine if dark knight had the joker for that one scene where the truck flips over.... it was retarded filmmaking from sam raimi

they took one of my favorite villians in venom and turned him into a skinny terp when he was supposed to be a juicehead!!!

they need to bring the carnage in and follow up on the little symbiote that Dr.Connors still has so venom has still have a chance to be alive.

I love Venom too, but to me Venom isn't Venom without Eddie Brock. They screwed that character up in the movie with his blond hair, scrawny body and fun guy personality. I wanted to see the TRUE Brock! DC can give us pretty close to dark, but Marvel lets me down.

[kingofgrills]

Sam Raimi said in interviews before the film even came out that he wasn't feeling Venom at all for the third film. Sam being an older reader of the comic wasn't familiar with the whole Venom / Carnage storyline. Avi Arad was really excited about having Venom appear in the third film, based largely on what he'd been hearing from Spidey fans, so he lobbied Sam to include Venom.

Even though Avi is the CEO of Marvel, and as such a de facto producer of the films, Sam made a mistake wedging Venom in for Arad. It simply added too many villians to the mix, and I think Sandman and the film suffered because of Venom's inclusion. Flint Marko / Sandman's character wasn't developed well enough, and the audience's sympathy never really materialized for Sandman's plight with his sick daughter. Thomas Hayden Church is an incredible actor, but his talents were largely wasted on the role.

Had the filmmakers done it right, Eddie Brock would have appeared as a secondary character in 3, setting up his takeover by the symbiote in Spider-man 4.

[Blu-Curry]

Originally Posted by kingofgrills

Sam Raimi said in interviews before the film even came out that he wasn't feeling Venom at all for the third film. Sam being an older reader of the comic wasn't familiar with the whole Venom / Carnage storyline. Avi Arad was really excited about having Venom appear in the third film, based largely on what he'd been hearing from Spidey fans, so he lobbied Sam to include Venom.

Even though Avi is the CEO of Marvel, and as such a de facto producer of the films, Sam made a mistake wedging Venom in for Arad. It simply added too many villians to the mix, and I think Sandman and the film suffered because of Venom's inclusion. Flint Marko / Sandman's character wasn't developed well enough, and the audience's sympathy never really materialized for Sandman's plight with his sick daughter. Thomas Hayden Church is an incredible actor, but his talents were largely wasted on the role.

Had the filmmakers done it right, Eddie Brock would have appeared as a secondary character in 3, setting up his takeover by the symbiote in Spider-man 4.

+1 they orginally were supposed to have Marko and Vulture (don't know his name) escape from prison together and the Vulture puts pressure on Marko for committing crimes. Eventually Vulture (Venom was supposed to do this to) would take Marko's daughter captive in order for Sandman to stay as allies against Spidey. Harry would still be there as a villain but I wonder how this would have worked out in the end. A giant Sandman (or not) fighting Spidey while Harry fights in the air with the Vulture.

[fighthefutureofhd]

Originally Posted by c0okiemonsta109

the problem with spiderman 3 was the 2 minutes of screen time venom got... imagine if dark knight had the joker for that one scene where the truck flips over.... it was retarded filmmaking from sam raimi

they took one of my favorite villians in venom and turned him into a skinny terp when he was supposed to be a juicehead!!!

they need to bring the carnage in and follow up on the little symbiote that Dr.Connors still has so venom has still have a chance to be alive.

yeah, but there really wasn't much they could do with venom that would please fans. venom is the hardest character to bring to the screen. he's got too complex and too far reaching of a back history. a completely true to form venom wouldn't go over well with moviegoers.

[dereksworl]

Originally Posted by fighthefutureofhd

yeah, but there really wasn't much they could do with venom that would please fans. venom is the hardest character to bring to the screen. he's got too complex and too far reaching of a back history. a completely true to form venom wouldn't go over well with moviegoers.

I would have been fine with it. Brock Lesnar would have made a sweet Venom!

[fighthefutureofhd]

yes and so would i, but too many moviegoers would be completely confused. especially about the black costume's origins. interesting tidbit: did you know that the black oil substance in the x-files is modeled after venom. or least they share a lot of the same properties.

[Blu-Ray Buckeye]

Originally Posted by Blu-Curry

I don't think they should repeat Kingpin because he was already in Daredevil. He's too much of a mob villain... but in the future, if they reboot Spider-Man like how they did with Batman Begins (with the mob feel) then I think it would work. Kinda like the Spectacular Spider-Man series with the "Big Man" (supposedly Tombstone) and Hammer Head.

Exactly, they need a restart to claw back credibility. The great thing about Batman begins was that it was fairly simple from a villain perspective. I think Vulture could work well. Focus on the story not on the FX.

[fighthefutureofhd]

why would they need a reboot? it was only spider-man 3 that was so-so. and even then it did gangbusters at the box office. a reboot would only diminish returns and i can guarantee you that sony does not want to do that. why fix something that isn't broke. spider-man 3 did big at the box office, but it wasn't that great of a movie. ok. scrap the whole thing and start from scratch. that really doesn't make sense fiscally. in the case of batman though it did. i am really getting tired of all these movies getting reboots. a reboot should only be done when necessary.

[Blu-Curry]

Originally Posted by fighthefutureofhd

a reboot should only be done when necessary.

+1 with that ideology, i'm glad we won't see a reboot of Reboot (the classic cartoon show).

I'm glad they're rebooting Superman, but I could also go for Daredevil. They should reboot Spider-Man in about 15 years after Spidey 6.

[fighthefutureofhd]

they're rebooting superman?

[Blu-Curry]

Originally Posted by fighthefutureofhd

they're rebooting superman?

LOL ya, but there's a whole different thread for that one. That should come out some time in 2011.

[fighthefutureofhd]

i hadn't heard or read anything that was a definitive answer on that subject. no one to my knowledge has come out and stated for fact that they are doing a reboot. oh well. warner sucks when it comes to making comic book movies anyway. so i wouldn't be surprised. how they managed to make superman returns, batman begins, and the dark knight in the first place is beyond me.

[Blu-Curry]

Originally Posted by fighthefutureofhd

i hadn't heard or read anything that was a definitive answer on that subject. no one to my knowledge has come out and stated for fact that they are doing a reboot. oh well. warner sucks when it comes to making comic book movies anyway. so i wouldn't be surprised. how they managed to make superman returns, batman begins, and the dark knight in the first place is beyond me.

lol if u want a source for the confirmation: http://comicbookmovie.com/news/articles/4973.asp

if they suck i wonder how Watchmen will turn out... if warner keeps their rights to it