JackFetch Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 2 villains is the maximum I think you can have before it just becomes a clusterfuck. Especially if there is just one hero. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delete Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 Batman movies - 2 villains, one major, one minor. Spider-man 3 - 3 major villains. It does make a difference. In Batman Begins you have Ra's Al Ghul, two different versions, Scarecrow, and Falcone. That is three or four major villains depending on how you count it. Not to mention Zsasz running around and the corruption of Gotham in general being villains. In The Dark Knight you have Joker, Two Face, the last gasp of the mob as the three major villains. Then you have a subplot where Batman has to go to Hong Kong, and the Scarecrow shows back up. By my count there are at least 3 major and 2 minor villains in those movies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stavros Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 Nolan's Batman tends to have a definite hierarchy of villainy. Scarecrow is basically a Ra's henchman in the first film, and a footnote in the second. They aren't promoting the film based on the numerous other minor villains, its always Ra's or Joker first, Two Face or Scarecrow second, Mob bosses and others third. You can't argue that Falcone is a major villain when his face isn't on any posters. You certainly can't call Zsasz a villain when he's basically just a random thug with minimal screentime. Aside from SMIII no other major hero film has tried to give three villains equal billing for merchandising and image purposes. Yes its Riami's fault but its also the studios for creating that situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 Batman movies - 2 villains, one major, one minor. Spider-man 3 - 3 major villains. It does make a difference. In Batman Begins you have Ra's Al Ghul, two different versions, Scarecrow, and Falcone. That is three or four major villains depending on how you count it. Not to mention Zsasz running around and the corruption of Gotham in general being villains. In The Dark Knight you have Joker, Two Face, the last gasp of the mob as the three major villains. Then you have a subplot where Batman has to go to Hong Kong, and the Scarecrow shows back up. By my count there are at least 3 major and 2 minor villains in those movies. The mob was always more of a subplot than a villain in itself. And saying there were two Ra's is a bit of a stretch. It was the same guy pulling the strings. Two Face was not a major villain in Dark Knight. He didn't even appear until the last few minutes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightWing Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 Batman movies - 2 villains, one major, one minor. Spider-man 3 - 3 major villains. It does make a difference. Batman also had Carmine Falconi, so that's an even three. And actually, I think that Scarecrow, Falconi, and Ra's all had an even amount of attention. They were all somewhat minor, though, so I think that helped. EDIT: Gah! Too slow on the enter key. Spider-Man 3 wasn't a terrible film in my opinion; it's just frustratingly not good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slothian Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 Spider-man 3 is just about the only major superhero film I don't own, and I haven't been sort of opportunities to pick it up. Thing is, I liked some parts. There was solid characterisation behind Sandman, even if the revisionist version of events ruins Spidey's entire mythos. Pete being a dick was hilarious in places. The way he just completely snubs MJ at that bar, its awesome. Unfortunately they ass-raped Harry (who up until then had the best slow build of any villain in a film series I've seen) and Venom was so rushed that he meant nothing, all because Sony wanted to sell the video games and the merchandise. As a result no-one could come across as strong as Doc Ock, and these films are sold on personalities. Whether its Nicholson or Ledger as the Joker, RDJ as Stark or Jackman as Wolverine, the public need those big characters as either the hero or villain. Doc Ock was a good watchable character, both in who he was and what he could do, and thats because so much time and care was put into him. Divide a burned out director three ways and you'll get three incomplete villains. This, really. As I said in my initial review in episode 99 of The Show, Spiderman III is not a horrible film (I have lowered the score since though). What it was is massively disappointing and Des is right in saying that Raimi can't be absolved of blame for this. I think he did a valiant job of fitting the three villains together, but if he wanted to make the best possible film within his mandate, he should have dropped Sandman and got some scriptwriter to develop Venom better whilst making Harry the fill-in antagonist. As noted above, Harry had a GREAT slow-burn towards his heel turn, but "The New Goblin" was mishandled from the word go. As such, I've never been compelled to own a copy of this film. Knightwing: Clearly I can't sway your belief that Maguire made a role showing off clear scientific genius come off as "dopey" (despite the fact that Doc Ock continually admitted that he got things wrong in spite of Peter's warnings). But you really can't blame the lack of quipping on him - if his script has no quips and the director doesn't place emphasis on quips, Maguire's got no reason to throw in quips. With regard to villain numbers, as has been stated bove, it's all about what emphasis is given to each. The Nolan-verse made it work for Batman whereas Raimi really couldn't give enough space to three advertised villains. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuaveStar Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 My main problem with three was that it was just a cluster. None of the villains got much time, and Venom was just jobbed out at the end. It's shit when you compare it to the better previous films, that's the only thing I can say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tnr105 Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 am I the only one who thought Tobey was a bad spiderman? Yes, just you. No, it's not just him. I agree. Tobey took all the brilliance out of the character of Peter Parker, replacing it with cow-eyed doofus stares and overly feminine melodrama. Don't get me wrong, I very much enjoyed the first two films, but the actual spiderman was just a stunt guy with Tobey's voice dubbed in. When it comes to him actually playing Peter Parker, he just seemed to emotional, sappy, and to dorky for Peter Parker (is that possible?). Another reason against his parker, Spideman is supposed to be the everyman of super heroes, I couldn't really relate to Raimi's vision of Parker at all. I think Tobey did okay with what he was given, which given Spider-Man 3, isn't really much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slothian Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 am I the only one who thought Tobey was a bad spiderman? Yes, just you. No, it's not just him. I agree. Tobey took all the brilliance out of the character of Peter Parker, replacing it with cow-eyed doofus stares and overly feminine melodrama. Don't get me wrong, I very much enjoyed the first two films, but the actual spiderman was just a stunt guy with Tobey's voice dubbed in. When it comes to him actually playing Peter Parker, he just seemed to emotional, sappy, and to dorky for Peter Parker (is that possible?). Another reason against his parker, Spideman is supposed to be the everyman of super heroes, I couldn't really relate to Raimi's vision of Parker at all. I think Tobey did okay with what he was given, which given Spider-Man 3, isn't really much. But he isn't an every-man. He absolutely faces everyday, ground-level problems, such as needing to succeed in work and education (something Tobey Maguire's Parker is always very aware of in the first two films), but he's also a scientific genius and has super powers. Maguire makes him dorky because the character IS dorky (why do you think he gets bullied at high school?), he's emotional because of the Uncle Ben guilt complex and he's sappy because the character's socially inept. In short, the character's "flaws" (if emotion and perceived dedication to education are indeed flaws) get played upon because they make up the Peter Parker character, and yet he's still heroic as his alter ego, which makes him a great character to root for. If anything, playing down the smart-arse quips helps to characterise the man behind the mask. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightWing Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 Maguire makes him dorky because the character IS dorky Only in the earliest comics. He's nearly always been shown to be an extremely clever and smart kid who was just picked on because the stupid jocks of the school dictated so. I can handle an amount of "dorky." But I don't want him to be "sappy" or "dopey." And yes, he is supposed to be the everyman. He's got superpowers, but he's still a human with human problems. He should act and react like a real person should. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DCAUFan1051 Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 so have we started speculating on actors that could pull off Pete/Spidey yet? As long as it aint one of the jonas brothers I'd be happy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackFetch Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 I don't know about who will star in it, but the only name I've heard about directing it is Marc Webb. He did 500 Days of Summer. A very green director for one of the biggest franchises around doesn't sound like a good idea to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 But 500 Days of Summer kicked ass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackFetch Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 But before that he did an Ashley Simpson music video. Nothing makes up for that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 It's spelled Ashlee. I hate myself for knowing that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackFetch Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 I love myself for not knowing that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chadzilla Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 so have we started speculating on actors that could pull off Pete/Spidey yet? As long as it aint one of the jonas brothers I'd be happy. Zac Efron is sure to be on the list. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 Michael Cera. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koete Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 Michael Cera. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightWing Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 Yeah... he's still too dopey. We need a kid with some real sharp wit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chadzilla Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 McLovin! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 I'm not saying I want Michael Cera, but it will be either him or Shia Lebouf. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tnr105 Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 I would like a serious, intellectual, yet funny Spider-Man who shows off his smarts, I mean sure we had all the stuff with Doc Connors and tutoring Gwen Stacey, but I never got the feeling he could construct web-shooters and web-fluid though (For the sake of timing, I can buy the organic webs from his glands or whatever). I wouldn't mind a Peter in high school based off the Ultimate Universe, hell, I think the Spectacular Spider-Man is the best representation of Spidey in other media. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightWing Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 I would like a serious, intellectual, yet funny Spider-Man who shows off his smarts, I mean sure we had all the stuff with Doc Connors and tutoring Gwen Stacey, but I never got the feeling he could construct web-shooters and web-fluid though (For the sake of timing, I can buy the organic webs from his glands or whatever). I wouldn't mind a Peter in high school based off the Ultimate Universe, hell, I think the Spectacular Spider-Man is the best representation of Spidey in other media. I concur wholeheartedly with every bit of this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaxPower Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 Robert Pattison will be on the rumour mill.... and not a single gossip monger that reports it will be able to back it up with any source at all..... Dan from Gossip Girl will on the list as well.... Shia won't do it, he's too scared to be the top name in a movie, easier to keep people wondering. I would say if Zac Effron wanted it, he could get it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.