Do you think Raimi wanted "Vultress"?

[Jick09]

Reading all of these rumors and early drafts ideas...I think we got lucky with SM1 and SM2.
Lucky that, in the end, they decided for one villain and to do it closer to the comics instead of completely changing them, like they were planning with Ock. Just that. Sheer lucky. Not even common sense.

Unfortunately, that ultimately happened with SM3, when Sandman was introduced and the death of Ben, retconned.

[BlueLightning]

But he's not called New Goblin in the film. Only as a stinging joke from Peter to humiliate him.

Actually I think it was "Goblin Junior", but yes, they don't call him New Goblin.

[henzINNIT]

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

Yah, I guess that is true. Wasn't thinking about Doc Ock's story being very similar to Dr. Connors. Would the fans have been still pleased if Lizard was in an installment of Raimi's series even though Raimi pretty much used that sympathetic storyline for Otto?

I think there is probably an angle you could have used to make Lizard fresher, but the similarities woulsd have been overwhelming if one directly followed the other.

[Anno_Domini]

Originally Posted by Dragon

What webbing? Harry slams Peter into a brick wall. Peter is mounted there and appears defeated. So Harry opens the mask to reveal himself and gloat. Yes. His ego is showing. Yes. His lack of experience is showing (Thus why Peter so easily defeats him). Harry is not a criminal mastermind. He's an angry, petty, lonely guy who misses his daddy and misplaces the blame on Peter, rather than realizing that his father was a murderous nutjob (Something Harry was witness to) who deserved to be taken down. And geez- I guess Captain America, Thor, Ironman, all experienced combatants who also remove their protective covering at the drop of a hat are a problem for you as well.

(Around the 2:00 minute mark)

VIDEO-CLick to Watch!:

I've only seen the film three times and I even remember this. His masked is used AFTER he shows his face to Peter but Peter shot some webbing unto his mask and that's the last we see of Harry's ski mask.

What's hilarious is since you have no idea what I am talking about you think I would want Iron Man to keep his mask on or something like that? Lol. I am referring to Harry NOT USING HIS MASK AGAIN. Way different than your suggestions man.

And you're saying this is the first time you've seen a villain that's conflicted? Didn't you say that Venom is your favorite? Does everything he does make sense? Harry needed the Goblin's power serum and weaponry to "avenge" his father. It doesn't mean he had to have his father's Goblin fetish. HARRY had been in Peter's shadow. HARRY had been a disappointment to his father. HARRY had failed in Oscorp's business ventures. So, it's reasonable that he'd want to triumph over his enemy as himself- not as a carbon copy of his father.

But yet he wanted revenge for the name of his father. Yep, you're still making sense right there. You're seriously going around circles trying to defend your points.

But he's not called New Goblin in the film. Only as a stinging joke from Peter to humiliate him.

Ivan Vanko isn't called Whiplash in Iron Man 2 but we know him as Whiplash as well as in promos, toys, et cetera which is the same for Harry Osborn's identity as New Goblin.

Except that Malkovich confirmed himself that he was in the film playing the Vulture. Hathaway never did and made no mention of Vultress.

Nah, you can't be wishy-washy with this. It's either one way or the other. If Malkovich confirmed it and if he was in the same article as Hathaway, then Hathaway was indeed going to be Vulturess.

Originally Posted by henzINNIT

I think there is probably an angle you could have used to make Lizard fresher, but the similarities woulsd have been overwhelming if one directly followed the other.

What do you think could be added to Connors/Lizard to make it more different than the sympathetic Otto Octavius we were given in Spider-Man 2?

[Dragon]

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

(Around the 2:00 minute mark)

VIDEO-CLick to Watch!:

I've only seen the film three times and I even remember this. His masked is used AFTER he shows his face to Peter but Peter shot some webbing unto his mask and that's the last we see of Harry's ski mask.

Wow. What a waste of memory, posting that clip. I know Peter nails Harry with webbing. But Harry FIRST REVEALS HIMSELF at 00:56 to GLOAT not because of webbing in his face. Your initial argument was why Harry would want to wear a mask for concealment and then stop using it. When I'm pointing out to you that his reason for the mask wasn't concelament- but protection. He certainly wanted Peter to know who was defeating him. And after the webshot- if my psychological explanation is too much for you- then you even provided the other explanation yourself- the webbing could've damaged the function of the mask.

What's hilarious is since you have no idea what I am talking about you think I would want Iron Man to keep his mask on or something like that? Lol. I am referring to Harry NOT USING HIS MASK AGAIN. Way different than your suggestions man.

Uh.. No. In Avengers, Captain America stops wearing his helmet in the midst of battle- Same as Harry. Thor disgarded his helmet in the Thor movie and doesn't even bother to wear it in Avengers.

But yet he wanted revenge for the name of his father. Yep, you're still making sense right there. You're seriously going around circles trying to defend your points.

Right. FOR THE NAME OF HIS FATHER. His father's name was Norman Osborn. Not Green Goblin. In fact, in the movie-verse it'd be even less likely that Harry would want the Goblin mantle, since it was Jonah Jameson who names the Green Goblin, not Norman Osborn himself.

Ivan Vanko isn't called Whiplash in Iron Man 2 but we know him as Whiplash as well as in promos, toys, et cetera which is the same for Harry Osborn's identity as New Goblin.

What was done for marketing has nothing to do with the drama of the character on film. In the film, Harry doesn't chose to be a Goblin, doesn't call himself one and thus he doesn't wear a costume to depict himself as one.

Nah, you can't be wishy-washy with this. It's either one way or the other. If Malkovich confirmed it and if he was in the same article as Hathaway, then Hathaway was indeed going to be Vulturess.

What are you talking about? Malkovich said nothing about Hathaway's casting when he confirmed his own participation in the film. He doesn't mention Hathaway at all. He doesn't even say he was playing the Vulture.

[Anno_Domini]

Originally Posted by Dragon

Wow. What a waste of memory, posting that clip. I know Peter nails Harry with webbing. But Harry FIRST REVEALS HIMSELF at 00:56 to GLOAT not because of webbing in his face. Your initial argument was why Harry would want to wear a mask for concealment and then stop using it. When I'm pointing out to you that his reason for the mask wasn't concelament- but protection. He certainly wanted Peter to know who was defeating him. And after the webshot- if my psychological explanation is too much for you- then you even provided the other explanation yourself- the webbing could've damaged the function of the mask.

Gosh dang you're dumb. Sorry if that's rude, but you STILL don't understand my logic in this.

You're telling me Harry spent so many time in creating extras, even having an extra suit and tech even when his lair was destroyed, but he DIDN'T have any extra masks? Although he did create a goldish/orange mask? Lol.

Uh.. No. In Avengers, Captain America stops wearing his helmet in the midst of battle- Same as Harry. Thor disgarded his helmet in the Thor movie and doesn't even bother to wear it in Avengers.

Your point in those are what? Lol. People aren't aware of who Cap is and Thor is a demi-god. They have no identities as of yet because Steve is supposedly "dead" and well...as I said, Thor is a demi-god. STILL dude...your reasoning is just pathetic.

Right. FOR THE NAME OF HIS FATHER. His father's name was Norman Osborn. Not Green Goblin. In fact, in the movie-verse it'd be even less likely that Harry would want the Goblin mantle, since it was Jonah Jameson who names the Green Goblin, not Norman Osborn himself.

It'd be less likely, but he is still called New Goblin in the ending credits, thus he is called New Goblin. No reasoning to defend this point. He's called New Goblin, period. He took in the Goblin mantle in some way as Sam Raimi wanted him to. Yes, he's doing all of this for the name of his father, but in the end of the day, it'll be stupid to not say he's called New Goblin when the director and writers named him that. Not in the movie, but sorta since it's in the end credits. At least Vanko is only called Ivan Vanko in the ending credits.

What was done for marketing has nothing to do with the drama of the character on film. In the film, Harry doesn't chose to be a Goblin, doesn't call himself one and thus he doesn't wear a costume to depict himself as one.

Yet, as I said "New Goblin/Harry Osborn JAMES FRANCO".

What are you talking about? Malkovich said nothing about Hathaway's casting when he confirmed his own participation in the film. He doesn't mention Hathaway at all. He doesn't even say he was playing the Vulture.

Except that Malkovich confirmed himself that he was in the film playing the Vulture

Which is it now? Are you saying he was confirming himself to be Vulture or not?

Again, wishy-washy.

[Dragon]

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

Gosh dang you're dumb. Sorry if that's rude, but you STILL don't understand my logic in this.

Mostly because you have no logic in this.

You're telling me Harry spent so many time in creating extras, even having an extra suit and tech even when his lair was destroyed, but he DIDN'T have any extra masks? Although he did create a goldish/orange mask? Lol.

Again. Wow. Your hate for this movie has completely removed any sense from your argument. First- when was his lair destroyed? The explosion only damaged the back wall. Another bit of logic for you- if you regularly work with explosives, you'd likely reinforce your workshop to survive explosions. Second- that Harry made protoype Goblin masks only means he was considering the Goblin mantle. Obviously his final choice was to go a different way. The thing you seem to miss is that characters in fiction, like real people- often have more than one motivation and quite often those motives can conflict with each other. And moreover- (And it's very sad that this has to be noted for you) This is a Hollywood movie. They planted the various colored Goblin masks as frickin' easter eggs for the comic fans. And as is trending throughout superhero films (Including TASM) the studios want to see the faces onscreen of the actors they are paying millions of dollars to. The actors would like to ACT which is impossible behind a full face mask. So for those reasons as well as narrative ones- they chose to forego Harry's wearing a mask after the first minutes of the intial fight. It didn't damage the scenes and only you seem to be concerned about this.

Your point in those are what? Lol. People aren't aware of who Cap is and Thor is a demi-god. They have no identities as of yet because Steve is supposedly "dead" and well...as I said, Thor is a demi-god. STILL dude...your reasoning is just pathetic.

Sigh. No one knows who Harry is either. Harry Osborn isn't famous. Honestly, was his father even famous? There are many successful tycoons with millions to billions of dollars who the man on the street wouldn't know from Adam. And (and again, how sad this needs to be explained to you) Harry is a little crazy. He doesn't care if anyone sees him (However unlikely that would be with him flying dozens of stories above the ground anyway). He's obsessed enough to commit MURDER- so it's kinda likely he isn't considering what will happen to him if he's caught.

It'd be less likely, but he is still called New Goblin in the ending credits, thus he is called New Goblin. No reasoning to defend this point. He's called New Goblin, period. He took in the Goblin mantle in some way as Sam Raimi wanted him to. Yes, he's doing all of this for the name of his father, but in the end of the day, it'll be stupid to not say he's called New Goblin when the director and writers named him that. Not in the movie, but sorta since it's in the end credits. At least Vanko is only called Ivan Vanko in the ending credits.

No, he's called Harry Osborn, period. In the context of the film, Harry never refers to himself as New Goblin. Do you think when credits read So & So played "Waiter" or "Girl at Bus Stop" that's their name in the film's context? It's stupid of you to assume that Harry is something other than who he's referred to just because some goofball threw in the technical name on the credits. Obviously it wasn't any concern to Raimi otherwise I think he'd have come up with something catchier than "New Goblin". He'd have been Green Goblin II or the like.

Yet, as I said "New Goblin/Harry Osborn JAMES FRANCO".

Yet, you're still wrong.

Which is it now? Are you saying he was confirming himself to be Vulture or not?

Again, wishy-washy.

No it's mostly that you're a moron. Read for yourself:

From Reelz.com:


When host Simona Ventura asked Malkovich about his role of Vulture in the movie, he not only didn't deny his involvement, but confirmed that he's waiting for the final script to be sent to him, and that the movie has been delayed. He also hopes that shooting will begin as soon as possible.

A second article after Spidey 4 was shelved:

For a few months, news that John Malkovich would play the Vulture in Sam Raimi's Spider-Man 4 filled the Internet, until Sony pulled the plug on the sequel and decided to reboot the franchise instead. Malkovich told Collider that he was "disappointed" with the decision.

Yes [I was disappointed], but because I like Sam and I like Tobey [Maguire] and all that stuff, and the producers, two of whom I'd met before because I'd been offered the first [film] ... I came to like them, so sure why not? But it didn't play out.

Malkovich had been offered the Green Goblin role, which eventually went to Willem Dafoe, who eventually appeared in all three Spider-Man movies. While Malkovich was clearly happy to play the Vulture, he thinks it may have been the role, itself — that of an aging villain who can fly with the aid of prefabricated wings — that was the movie's undoing.

Well, I think a lot of the people who sort of follow that genre.... I'm not sure, I never really spoke with Sam about this, but I'm not sure they — maybe the kind of fanbase, the fanboys — either didn't approve of that character as an adversary for him to some extent ... or maybe the studio. Or maybe that was totally unrelated to why it fell apart.

Now, even you can discern from the above that-

1. Malkovich confirms his involvement.
2. He makes no mention of what role Hathaway would've played or even that she was cast in the film.

[Anno_Domini]

Lol, oh this conversation is hilarious...

Originally Posted by Dragon

Mostly because you have no logic in this.

If you think so

Again. Wow. Your hate for this movie has completely removed any sense from your argument. First- when was his lair destroyed? The explosion only damaged the back wall. Another bit of logic for you- if you regularly work with explosives, you'd likely reinforce your workshop to survive explosions. Second- that Harry made protoype Goblin masks only means he was considering the Goblin mantle. Obviously his final choice was to go a different way. The thing you seem to miss is that characters in fiction, like real people- often have more than one motivation and quite often those motives can conflict with each other. And moreover- (And it's very sad that this has to be noted for you) This is a Hollywood movie. They planted the various colored Goblin masks as frickin' easter eggs for the comic fans. And as is trending throughout superhero films (Including TASM) the studios want to see the faces onscreen of the actors they are paying millions of dollars to. The actors would like to ACT which is impossible behind a full face mask. So for those reasons as well as narrative ones- they chose to forego Harry's wearing a mask after the first minutes of the intial fight. It didn't damage the scenes and only you seem to be concerned about this.

First - Did you see what the glider did during the mansion fight in the lair? In any case, if the lair wasn't destroyed, where are Harry's extra masks?

Second - It doesn't matter if he made those masks while he was tempting to "be" a Goblin(even though he was one), he most likely created more of those ski masks but yet we only see one. Is Spidey the only smart one of the bunch to have more than one of something?

And..."moreover"? Let's just call it third - Yes, I do understand that Raimi wanted to have "face time" with all of his characters, but I don't understand the initial usage of NEW GOBLIN'S mask if he just uses it for only a couple of minutes. Just one more thing of fail logic in Spider-Man 3

Sigh. No one knows who Harry is either. Harry Osborn isn't famous. Honestly, was his father even famous? There are many successful tycoons with millions to billions of dollars who the man on the street wouldn't know from Adam. And (and again, how sad this needs to be explained to you) Harry is a little crazy. He doesn't care if anyone sees him (However unlikely that would be with him flying dozens of stories above the ground anyway). He's obsessed enough to commit MURDER- so it's kinda likely he isn't considering what will happen to him if he's caught.

Norman Osborn would have been pretty famous. I mean, Peter Parker even idolized Norman in some way in the first film, so of course Norman's son and the new owner/CEO/whatever of OsCorp would be too. BUT....your reasoning of Harry and his mask and the other guys from IM and Captain America are not similar situations and you yet bring those in.

No, he's called Harry Osborn, period. In the context of the film, Harry never refers to himself as New Goblin. Do you think when credits read So & So played "Waiter" or "Girl at Bus Stop" that's their name in the film's context? It's stupid of you to assume that Harry is something other than who he's referred to just because some goofball threw in the technical name on the credits. Obviously it wasn't any concern to Raimi otherwise I think he'd have come up with something catchier than "New Goblin". He'd have been Green Goblin II or the like.



Yet, you're still wrong.

New Goblin/Harry Osborn JAMES FRANCO

No it's mostly that you're a moron. Read for yourself:

From Reelz.com:


When host Simona Ventura asked Malkovich about his role of Vulture in the movie, he not only didn't deny his involvement, but confirmed that he's waiting for the final script to be sent to him, and that the movie has been delayed. He also hopes that shooting will begin as soon as possible.

A second article after Spidey 4 was shelved:

For a few months, news that John Malkovich would play the Vulture in Sam Raimi's Spider-Man 4 filled the Internet, until Sony pulled the plug on the sequel and decided to reboot the franchise instead. Malkovich told Collider that he was "disappointed" with the decision.

Yes [I was disappointed], but because I like Sam and I like Tobey [Maguire] and all that stuff, and the producers, two of whom I'd met before because I'd been offered the first [film] ... I came to like them, so sure why not? But it didn't play out.

Malkovich had been offered the Green Goblin role, which eventually went to Willem Dafoe, who eventually appeared in all three Spider-Man movies. While Malkovich was clearly happy to play the Vulture, he thinks it may have been the role, itself — that of an aging villain who can fly with the aid of prefabricated wings — that was the movie's undoing.

Well, I think a lot of the people who sort of follow that genre.... I'm not sure, I never really spoke with Sam about this, but I'm not sure they — maybe the kind of fanbase, the fanboys — either didn't approve of that character as an adversary for him to some extent ... or maybe the studio. Or maybe that was totally unrelated to why it fell apart.

Now, even you can discern from the above that-

1. Malkovich confirms his involvement.
2. He makes no mention of what role Hathaway would've played or even that she was cast in the film.

I'm the moron but yet you said Malkovich confirmed he'd play Vulture and then you said he didn't confirm he's Vulture. Which stance are you going to take? Was he or was he not going to be Vulture? Was he going to be Vulture with what that article said that also said Anne Hathaway was going to be Vulturess or was that false? Make up your mind before you call me a moron

[Dragon]

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

First - Did you see what the glider did during the mansion fight in the lair? In any case, if the lair wasn't destroyed, where are Harry's extra masks?

Who cares? Obviously not Harry or Sam Raimi.

Second - It doesn't matter if he made those masks while he was tempting to "be" a Goblin(even though he was one), he most likely created more of those ski masks but yet we only see one. Is Spidey the only smart one of the bunch to have more than one of something?

You're about as obsessed over this as Harry was over killing Peter. And like Harry it clouds your judgement. Harry didn't think he needed the mask anymore. Harry isn't the greatest of combatants. You might have noticed he was beaten twice by Peter and finally killed due to his lack of experience.

And..."moreover"? Let's just call it third - Yes, I do understand that Raimi wanted to have "face time" with all of his characters, but I don't understand the initial usage of NEW GOBLIN'S mask if he just uses it for only a couple of minutes. Just one more thing of fail logic in Spider-Man 3

And that's the point I've been making all along. the characters in Spidey 3 (and all characters involved in dramatic story telling) MAKE MISTAKES. They do dumb ****. Harry makes a dozen errors in judgement throughout the trilogy and the only thing you zero on is his not wearing his safety mask? How about not defending MJ to his father? How about blaming Spider-Man for his dad's death? How about financing Ock without having his theories thoroughly checked? How about arming Ock with enough tritium to destroy the city? How about leaping in front of his board to protect Peter instead of just tossing something at Venom? Not to mention that Peter could've easily dodged Venom's attack since his legs weren't bound.

Norman Osborn would have been pretty famous. I mean, Peter Parker even idolized Norman in some way in the first film, so of course Norman's son and the new owner/CEO/whatever of OsCorp would be too.

Okay.. Name a real world scientist and his son off the top of your head. That Peter, a budding scientist would know who Norman Osborn is isn't surprising. But Peter knowing who he is and the average man on the street being able to identify Harry as he's rocketing around on his board is another realm altogether.

BUT....your reasoning of Harry and his mask and the other guys from IM and Captain America are not similar situations and you yet bring those in.

It's exactly the same. You gripe over Harry not wearing his mask. But it's okay if Captain America doesn't wear his protective mask in combat. And actually Captain America is far more famous than Harry Osborn ever could be.

I'm the moron but yet you said Malkovich confirmed he'd play Vulture and then you said he didn't confirm he's Vulture. Which stance are you going to take? Was he or was he not going to be Vulture? Was he going to be Vulture with what that article said that also said Anne Hathaway was going to be Vulturess or was that false? Make up your mind before you call me a moron

I've made up my mind. You are a moron. Mostly because you keep switching your argument. First you're saying how it was confirmed that Hathaway was cast as "Vultress". Then you bring up Malkovich's casting to give some basis for that. So I point out that Malkovich did indeed confirm his casting in Spidey 4, while Hathaway never did. I post quotes from Malkovich to prove this and now you're going on about an unconnected article that spoke of the Hathaway rumor. You've read Malkovich's quotes (If you didn't understand them, just say so and I'll explain it in small words). The Hathaway casting rumor has nothing to do with Malkovich's confirmation.

Malkovich casting= real. Malkovich playing the Vulture= probably.
Hathaway casting= rumor. Raimi interest in Black Cat= Real. Vultress= Unlikely. End of story.

[Anno_Domini]

Lol, you STILL didn't even explain how YOU said he was going to be Vulture and then you said he wasn't going to play Vulture and you said my arguments have switched? Yep, I'm still the moron, haha. Boy you're so lost in your own arguments already that you're now trying to say how I'm at fault. Saddening.

[henzINNIT]

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

What do you think could be added to Connors/Lizard to make it more different than the sympathetic Otto Octavius we were given in Spider-Man 2?

Hmm I though about this a little and here's what I came up with:

Play Dr. Connors as a bit of a House MD character. Brilliant but tragic and ultimately self-destructive.

The Arm: He suffered a great personal loss and it has in turn ruined other aspects of his life. He let things deteriorate with his wife and feels regret for not letting her in, which could tie into Peter's continuing story with Mary Jane. Clinging to his scientific study, he's willing to go to drastic lengths to repair himself in the vein hope that it will also fix his life.

I'd play Lizard simply as a mindless, rampaging beast, just the consequence of Connors' reckless behavior. Peter could develop a temporary cure to allow Connors to reflect on his situation later in the film.

So yeah something like that I think would make him stand out from Doc Ock. Connors could ultimately represent a potential future Peter, someone who gave up fighting for himself and succumb to regret.

You read my SM4 idea in a previous post... tying into that I might add more detail about the circumstances that lead to his missing limb, creating a scenario that Connors could feel guilty about but also one that he is not resonsible for. This could mirror my idea for Gwen's death and the feelings Peter has over it. Connors and Parker could learn from eachother to let go of things that are out of their control, and also learn that being a strong and good person can't always mean preventing or undoing the bad times, but sometimes merely surviving through it. My loose theme for SM4 would be "Endurance".

[Dragon]

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

Lol, you STILL didn't even explain how YOU said he was going to be Vulture and then you said he wasn't going to play Vulture and you said my arguments have switched?

I said what?

I said: Malkovich doesn't say he's playing the Vulture.

Meaning he never mouths the words that the role he was cast in is the Vulture. He makes allusions to the role, but doesn't say it. I wasn't asserting that Malkvoich wouldn't be playing the Vulture. In that case I'd have said that Malkovich says he's NOT playing the Vulture.

But I can see that since you have no place to go on Hathaway as Vultress why you'd harp on this one point.

[Anno_Domini]

Originally Posted by henzINNIT

Hmm I though about this a little and here's what I came up with:

Play Dr. Connors as a bit of a House MD character. Brilliant but tragic and ultimately self-destructive.

The Arm: He suffered a great personal loss and it has in turn ruined other aspects of his life. He let things deteriorate with his wife and feels regret for not letting her in, which could tie into Peter's continuing story with Mary Jane. Clinging to his scientific study, he's willing to go to drastic lengths to repair himself in the vein hope that it will also fix his life.

I'd play Lizard simply as a mindless, rampaging beast, just the consequence of Connors' reckless behavior. Peter could develop a temporary cure to allow Connors to reflect on his situation later in the film.

So yeah something like that I think would make him stand out from Doc Ock. Connors could ultimately represent a potential future Peter, someone who gave up fighting for himself and succumb to regret.

You read my SM4 idea in a previous post... tying into that I might add more detail about the circumstances that lead to his missing limb, creating a scenario that Connors could feel guilty about but also one that he is not resonsible for. This could mirror my idea for Gwen's death and the feelings Peter has over it. Connors and Parker could learn from eachother to let go of things that are out of their control, and also learn that being a strong and good person can't always mean preventing or undoing the bad times, but sometimes merely surviving through it. My loose theme for SM4 would be "Endurance".

As something different from what Otto Octavius did, I do like the idea of Connors being a self-destructive scientist. Granted, Otto pretty much used up his life for the only thing left in his life, but with having a son and everything, I can see Connors putting up his life, health, et cetera to get what he can get.

Originally Posted by Dragon

I said what?

I said: Malkovich doesn't say he's playing the Vulture.

Meaning he never mouths the words that the role he was cast in is the Vulture. He makes allusions to the role, but doesn't say it. I wasn't asserting that Malkvoich wouldn't be playing the Vulture. In that case I'd have said that Malkovich says he's NOT playing the Vulture.

But I can see that since you have no place to go on Hathaway as Vultress why you'd harp on this one point.

Originally Posted by Dragon

Except that Malkovich confirmed himself that he was in the film playing the Vulture.

Originally Posted by Dragon

What are you talking about? Malkovich said nothing about Hathaway's casting when he confirmed his own participation in the film. He doesn't mention Hathaway at all. He doesn't even say he was playing the Vulture.

[Dragon]

Okay, considering that you're really confused here I'll break it down again-

I posted TWO quotes from Malkovich.

In one quote when he CONFIRMS that he's in the film (prior to it being canned) he doesn't say he's playing the Vulture. (Again- this doesn't mean he NOT playing the Vulture, just that he doesn't mention the character).

In the second quote- after the film is shelved he alludes that he was playing the Vulture without naming the character.

In my initial post mentioning Malkovich's confirmation I was speaking generally- (not about a specific quote)- that he'd confirmed his participation (Unlike Hathaway), and I knew that in at least one quote he mentioned playing the Vulture. Then when I re-read the confirmation quote (Not the "disappointed about the film" quote) I pointed out that he doesn't name the character he'd be playing, only that he was going to do the film and was waiting on a script.

In the "disappointed" quote, he still doesn't name the character, but responds to the reporter's questions about the Vulture in the affirmative. Got it?

Originally Posted by Dragon
I said what?

I said: Malkovich doesn't say he's playing the Vulture.

Originally Posted by Dragon

What are you talking about? Malkovich said nothing about Hathaway's casting when he confirmed his own participation in the film. He doesn't mention Hathaway at all. He doesn't even say he was playing the Vulture.

And this is still nothing but a dodge on your part since you still haven't backed-up your Hathaway/Vultress assertion.

[henzINNIT]

I guess it's impossible to know if Raimi had anything to do with the Vultress idea, but it's unfair to discredit him for it because ultimately walked away from the project as it was fast becoming a cluster****.

[Dragon]

The very fact that Raimi was unhappy with the film's progression suggests that if there was any mention of Vultress it was more studio interference. Again, Raimi confirmed himself that he wanted Black Cat since 2. So why would he now fight to make Felicia "Vultress"? Is the assertion that Raimi wanted Vultress and the studio wanted Black Cat?

[Anno_Domini]

Lol.

[henzINNIT]

Originally Posted by Dragon

The very fact that Raimi was unhappy with the film's progression suggests that if there was any mention of Vultress it was more studio interference. Again, Raimi confirmed himself that he wanted Black Cat since 2. So why would he now fight to make Felicia "Vultress"? Is the assertion that Raimi wanted Vultress and the studio wanted Black Cat?

Well the thread is about whether or not Raimi had anything to do with the "Vultress" idea, because I've seen a lot of people write the guy off over this brainfart. I'd love to see Raimi asked about this someday.

Your logic is solid but it is possible that Raimi was trying to use Vultress as some kind of compromise to keep the Vulture story in the sequel. The studio seemed to be uncomfortable with an aging man as the main villain.

[Picard Sisko]

Originally Posted by henzINNIT

Well the thread is about whether or not Raimi had anything to do with the "Vultress" idea, because I've seen a lot of people write the guy off over this brainfart. I'd love to see Raimi asked about this someday.

Your logic is solid but it is possible that Raimi was trying to use Vultress as some kind of compromise to keep the Vulture story in the sequel. The studio seemed to be uncomfortable with an aging man as the main villain.

I really want to see an interview with Sam Raimi about what went wrong with Spider-Man 3, and why Spider-Man 4 just could not happen. This could be a full length interview on DVD (like Stan Lee's Mutants, Monsters & Marvels), as there would be SO MUCH to talk about!

[Lord]

Come on, i doubt the vultress would last to the final version of spider-man 4, it would probably go as far as the idea of the female goblin sidequicks did in the original.

[Picard Sisko]

There was going to be a female Goblin sidekick in the first movie?

[Dragon]

Originally Posted by Picard Sisko

There was going to be a female Goblin sidekick in the first movie?

There was a design by Berni Wrightson of "Goblinettes". But this was only a concept that wasn't in any scripts written.

Originally Posted by henzINNIT

Well the thread is about whether or not Raimi had anything to do with the "Vultress" idea, because I've seen a lot of people write the guy off over this brainfart. I'd love to see Raimi asked about this someday.

Your logic is solid but it is possible that Raimi was trying to use Vultress as some kind of compromise to keep the Vulture story in the sequel. The studio seemed to be uncomfortable with an aging man as the main villain.

I think eventually we'll get the full story, but considering how ego-driven Hollywood is it might take a while. I'm sure there are alot of bruised egos over what would've likely been a nearly 300 million dollar film that went south. And Sam also likely doesn't want to burn any bridges with the studio by blaming anyone (Just as he didn't blame anyone for Spidey 3).

[Anno_Domini]

Originally Posted by henzINNIT

Your logic is solid but it is possible that Raimi was trying to use Vultress as some kind of compromise to keep the Vulture story in the sequel. The studio seemed to be uncomfortable with an aging man as the main villain.

This. The studio HATED the Vulture for Spider-Man 3 and even 4 because the villain was "too old". Using the Vulturess makes sense in a way that Raimi wanted to use the villain and still please the studio as that's what he did with Spider-Man 3, right? He was trying to please the studio. But, too many script treatments made him leave. I still say the Vulturess would've been in the film.

[Spuzz]

I dunno about Vultress...I'm way more familiar with just plan ol' Vulture. But a female villain would have been cool in Spidey 4.

[Anno_Domini]

You're way more familiar of just the "plan ol'" Vulture because there is no actual Vulturess.