The Lizard - How does he compare with Spidey's other onscreen adversaries?

[Mr. X]

As far as the threads purpose goes...

I know a lot of people had a problem with lizard in film. I honestly liked him. Thought he was a good first villian and like the story. Good thing is, is that Connors still alive a possible still infected, as we saw in mid credits scene, he still has the scales on his neck.....so him alive means possibly seeing lizard again and those who were disappointed with him first time around, might get what they want 2nd time around...

My order goes as follows:

1-doc ock
2-gg
3-gg 2
4-lizard
5-venom
6-sandman

[Mr. X]

Originally Posted by SpiderMan'sBoot

Well I've got a script for something else being read by a director at the moment! Who knows :P

The first approval for this sort of thing is the fanboys haha. Harshest critics of all. I'd love to do something more with them definitely!!! It's the career I'm hoping to get into. Hard one to get into though.

I'll post a link when I'm done for people to take a look at.

Sounds good! Look forward to reading them!

[theShape]

Originally Posted by terry78

I still liked him in the role regardless.

But...he didn't do anything. He was barely present at all. Showed little to no emotion whatsoever. I understand the script was atrocious but THC was essentially just cashing a paycheck. I don't blame him.

[Mr. X]

Originally Posted by theShape

But...he didn't do anything. He was barely present at all. Showed little to no emotion whatsoever. I understand the script was atrocious but THC was essentially just cashing a paycheck. I don't blame him.

Yep

[The Joker]

His dialogue was so bland and unmemorable for the most part, too. What little dialogue he had.

[Anno_Domini]

"I'm not a bad person."

I really like THC, but...his dialogue and everything was just awful.

[Nathan]

I think he did ok with what he was supposed to do. I entirely blame the direction. Had he just been a crook, looking for the big score and being overconfident because of his newfound powers, I think he could have been a lot better. But in the movie he's a murderer on the run, who's constantly worried about his daughter's wellbeing. There's just no fun to the character, like there was in Spectacular Spider-Man for example.

[theShape]

And I found it hilarious that his daughter's necklace was always perfectly draped around his hand whenever we wanted to look at it. He never even pulled it out of his pocked. It was just...there.

[GENERAL RAAM582]

He probably kept it under his skin.

[Jick09]

Originally Posted by theShape

And I found it hilarious that his daughter's necklace was always perfectly draped around his hand whenever we wanted to look at it. He never even pulled it out of his pocked. It was just...there.

And it didn't turn into sand during the transformation, even though all else did.
Because...you know, it was magical.

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by Nathan

I think he did ok with what he was supposed to do. I entirely blame the direction. Had he just been a crook, looking for the big score and being overconfident because of his newfound powers, I think he could have been a lot better. But in the movie he's a murderer on the run, who's constantly worried about his daughter's wellbeing. There's just no fun to the character, like there was in Spectacular Spider-Man for example.

The serious nature of the character shouldn't prevent him from being an exciting and interesting villain. But he was practically mute for most of his scenes, or a CGI creature.

Visually a great looking villain. Character wise and acting wise he was a bore, IMO.

[Anno_Domini]

Originally Posted by theShape

And I found it hilarious that his daughter's necklace was always perfectly draped around his hand whenever we wanted to look at it. He never even pulled it out of his pocked. It was just...there.

A necklace that didn't turn into sand and was able to be "inside" Sandman. Gotta love that idea!

[Picard Sisko]

Originally Posted by Spiderdevil

In terms of acting I would put Ifans the lowest,even below Topher Grace and Haden Church

Seriously? Ifans did a fantastic job as Dr. Connors, and I think his performance was much better than Thomas Haden Church, and especially Topher Grace.

Appearance:

1. Doc Ock
2. Sandman
3. Venom
4. The Lizard
5. Green Goblin
6. New Goblin

Acting:

1. Alfred Molina
2. Willem Dafoe
3. Rhys Ifans
4. Thomas Hayden Church
5. James Franco
6. Topher Grace

Script/Plot

1. Doc Ock
2. The Lizard
3. Green Goblin
4. New Goblin
5. Sandman
6. Venom

[Anno_Domini]

Better than Franco? No way. Franco is one of the highlights of Raimi's trilogy.

[Spiderdevil]

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

A necklace that didn't turn into sand and was able to be "inside" Sandman. Gotta love that idea!

That was because he dropped it

[Spiderdevil]

Originally Posted by Picard Sisko

Seriously? Ifans did a fantastic job as Dr. Connors, and I think his performance was much better than Thomas Haden Church, and especially Topher Grace.

Appearance:

1. Doc Ock
2. Sandman
3. Venom
4. The Lizard
5. Green Goblin
6. New Goblin

Acting:

1. Alfred Molina
2. Willem Dafoe
3. Rhys Ifans
4. Thomas Hayden Church
5. James Franco
6. Topher Grace

Script/Plot

1. Doc Ock
2. The Lizard
3. Green Goblin
4. New Goblin
5. Sandman
6. Venom

Haden Church and Topher Grace imo didnt do a anything wrong in terms of acting,their acrs werent written properly which is why they felt bad
lizard's story,even though poorly written,wasnt half bad as Sandman's or Venom's,but Ifans didnt do much to better it imo,with a better actor I think the flaws od the messy storyline could have been masked

[Picard Sisko]

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

Better than Franco? No way. Franco is one of the highlights of Raimi's trilogy.

I meant simply as New Goblin, not the Harry Osborn character overall.

Originally Posted by Spiderdevil

Haden Church and Topher Grace imo didnt do a anything wrong in terms of acting,their acrs werent written properly which is why they felt bad
lizard's story,even though poorly written,wasnt half bad as Sandman's or Venom's,but Ifans didnt do much to better it imo,with a better actor I think the flaws od the messy storyline could have been masked

I don't see how Church or Grace did a better job in terms of acting. Rhys did the best he could IMO. I think he is such an underrated actor.

[Anno_Domini]

Originally Posted by Spiderdevil

That was because he dropped it

Hrm......

what?

The necklace is seen inside the same area where Flint turned into sand and yet the necklace didn't turn into sand.

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by Spiderdevil

That was because he dropped it

No, he didn't. You can see it around his neck when he falls into the sand pit.

[Spiderdevil]

You cant apply any logic to the transformation,Sandman is the most unrealistic villian in Spider-man's rogue gallery
Basically the living part(his body) will mutate and change while the non-living things(clothes and the necklace) wont change,but since nobody wants to see a naked sandman,thats how he has been showed since he was invented and thats how Raimi showed it

[Picard Sisko]

Originally Posted by Spiderdevil

You cant apply any logic to the transformation,Sandman is the most unrealistic villian in Spider-man's rogue gallery
Basically the living part(his body) will mutate and change while the non-living things(clothes and the necklace) wont change,but since nobody wants to see a naked sandman,thats how he has been showed since he was invented and thats how Raimi showed it

He's just a comic book character, so it never really mattered if it made sense or not. The Hulk never made sense to me, considering how his pants always find a way of staying on him. But like sandman, nobody was to see a naked Hulk.

[Anno_Domini]

Originally Posted by Spiderdevil

You cant apply any logic to the transformation,Sandman is the most unrealistic villian in Spider-man's rogue gallery
Basically the living part(his body) will mutate and change while the non-living things(clothes and the necklace) wont change,but since nobody wants to see a naked sandman,thats how he has been showed since he was invented and thats how Raimi showed it

Saying you can't apply any logic to his transformation is saying you shouldn't apply any logic to anything regarding a CBM. There has to be some, period, or you'll lose interest with anyone who wants some sensibility to it.

If Flint Marko turns into a pile of sand and if his clothes do as well(and they do, so I don't get why you said his clothes don't mutate), then the necklace should as well or you just take out continuity to the transformation.

[Picard Sisko]

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

Saying you can't apply any logic to his transformation is saying you shouldn't apply any logic to anything regarding a CBM. There has to be some, period, or you'll lose interest with anyone who wants some sensibility to it.

If Flint Marko turns into a pile of sand and if his clothes do as well(and they do, so I don't get why you said his clothes don't mutate), then the necklace should as well or you just take out continuity to the transformation.

Its also just a movie. Not really that big of a deal.

[Anno_Domini]

Shouldn't it be though? What if there was no science jarble on how Connors can become Lizard with the decay rate algorithm or anything of the sort? Without some sense to it, why would anyone be interested in watching it if it has no set continuity?

[SpiderMan'sBoot]

Just realised that's a fair point with Marko's clothes.

So, in the Pilot I'm writing, we've now got a naked Sandman. To be fair there's a fair few quips that Spidey can get from that.

Science of super-villains eh?