The Amazing Spider-Man Clive Owen audtioning for Kraven The Hunter?

[Venom'sDad]

Pierfrancesco Favino would make a great Kraven the Hunter.

Stephen Lang would make a great Roderrick Kingsley/HG.

 

[LightningFlash]

Kraven could work, but I don't see anyother villain working well with him except for Lizard, and that would surpass the 80 million dollar mark.

I have said before, I think this movie will do fine within the budget with just the Enforcers and Electro.

 

[Deaths Head II]

Kraven could work, but I don't see anyother villain working well with him except for Lizard, and that would surpass the 80 million dollar mark.

What about Chameleon? You know, the dude he worked with plenty of times in the comics?

 

[chaseter]

If they just go with Kraven alone...that will be weak. If they go with Ultimate Kraven alone, that will be weak with a nice big helping of lame sauce.

 

[©KAW]

If it's Kraven alone, it has to be based on the 'Kraven's Last Hunt' storyline, as I found nothing weak about that story. As Batman Begins has shown us, you don't need to start a new series with your A-List villain(s). And it helps to have a movie that gets inside the head of both the hero and the villain. I would also set Curt Connors and his family up (wife and kid), and Connors background in the war with losing of his arm, and his determination to regrow human limbs. For THE LIZARD to star as the only villain in the sequel.

Or they can go the THE LIZARD and KRAVEN in the first film, and pretty much do whatever they want, the story practically writes itself.

Oh, and I don't believe the 80M dollar budget at all.

 

[zeptron]

If Vulture or Lizard appear then I will laugh at Sony's hypocrisy/stupidity. Considering they wouldn't even let Raimi use the latter because they thought he was "odd looking."

 

[kedrell]

Pierfrancesco Favino would make a great Kraven the Hunter.

Stephen Lang would make a great Roderrick Kingsley/HG.

He's at least got the look right:

 

[Batspider77]

The best Kraven of all Time would be "Gerard Butler"....

 

[kedrell]

^He could do it well, I think.

 

[chaseter]

If it's Kraven alone, it has to be based on the 'Kraven's Last Hunt' storyline, as I found nothing weak about that story. As Batman Begins has shown us, you don't need to start a new series with your A-List villain(s). And it helps to have a movie that gets inside the head of both the hero and the villain. I would also set Curt Connors and his family up (wife and kid), and Connors background in the war with losing of his arm, and his determination to regrow human limbs. For THE LIZARD to star as the only villain in the sequel.

Or they can go the THE LIZARD and KRAVEN in the first film, and pretty much do whatever they want, the story practically writes itself.

Oh, and I don't believe the 80M dollar budget at all.

Batman Begins had more than one villain. I don't want to see Kraven shoot Spider-Man, bury him, and then dawn the costume and goes around beating up bad guys. Sorry...don't want to see that. Vermin or Rat or whatever his name is was also in that series. Then of course, the great ending of Kraven committing suicide with a gun to his face. I don't want to see any of that. It may have been a good character progression piece but none of that I want to see on the big screen. If they change even one thing, then people will start whining that they have changed things from the series and that Marc Webb is a horrible director.

If Marc Webb kills off Kraven, will you bash Marc Webb for killing off all the villains?

I do agree that Lizard and Kraven would make a first good villain set for the first film. I just don't think Kraven can hold his own movie and I don't think they will go the route of Last Hunt as most of that is pretty over the top. I do agree 100% that Lizard + Kraven practically writes itself.

 

[GoldGoblin]

So were gonna get Kraven & Lizard,then Chameleon in the sequel to frame spidey for crimes to seek his revenge for his brother's death.

 

[Deaths Head II]

So were gonna get Kraven & Lizard,then Chameleon in the sequel to frame spidey for crimes to seek his revenge for his brother's death.

And then JJJ will help create the Scorpion to take down the "criminal" Spider-Man.

 

[LightningFlash]

What about Chameleon? You know, the dude he worked with plenty of times in the comics?

Well, I've never been a fan of Chameleon, lol.

And also, if we were to say this reboot will be more USM than anything, then I don't think we will see Chameleon anyhow.

 

[Jick]

I wouldn't mind Chameleon as long as we have a bigger physical threat.

 

[Deaths Head II]

Well, I've never been a fan of Chameleon, lol.

And also, if we were to say this reboot will be more USM than anything, then I don't think we will see Chameleon anyhow.

If we're going with the mentality that this needs to keep in line with USM then **** Kraven being in this movie completely. I'm a huge Kraven fan and I'd rather have no film Kraven then stupid reality show Kraven who becomes a lion.

 

[NinjaTurtleFan]

I wouldn't necessarily mind Clive but I think the role belongs to Gerard Butler more than anything. I want Clive to come back and do more "Sin City" movies if Rodriguez will just get off his keester and start making more. I also see him as a James Bond substitute if Craig gets tired of the series.

But I agree, Kraven can't hold a movie on his own unless he's teamed up with someone or there's another villain around. Lizard vs. Spidey vs. Kraven would make a hell of a matchup onscreen but I could also see Kraven working for Tombstone or Kingpin.

 

[©KAW]

NO villain can hold a movie if you have a crap script and director with no vision. SM3 boast three super-powered villains and it was a complete mess, together they couldn't hold a movie. It just proves that even with a so called spectacle movie with tons of effects and action, it can produce horrible results.

Hell, I even think Green Goblin and Doctor Octopus could have been done a hell of lot better--by making them more complex, obscure, deadly and character driven. As I saw The Joker (in The Dark Knight) with no powers, being ten times the villain they both were on screen combined. I can't stress enough how it's really all in the writing and direction.

 

[chaseter]

Batman and Spider-Man are two entirely different things. Spider-Man is playful, fun, but at the same time things can be dire. Batman is just brooding and angst but at the same time things can be dire. Batman is dark and gritty, Spider-Man is light and exciting. Sure Spider-Man has his dark moments, but the tone and themes of each are entirely different...they are to me anyways. Batman is and should always be more serious tonally and thematically than Spider-Man. The new Batman series seems to be on a more realistic approach and grounded and that is what has made those movies better. When you go over the top, things get stupid. While I like Spider-Man to stay based somewhat in reality, it will never be as grounded as Batman. Ultimate was grounded a lot more in reality than previous incarnations so we will see how they treat the series of films. I love scientific and pseudo-plausible explanations. SM3 jumped the shark in that department when they introduced aliens and had a man that could turn into sand

 

[Ajendo]

Batman and Spider-Man are two entirely different things. Spider-Man is playful, fun, but at the same time things can be dire. Batman is just brooding and angst but at the same time things can be dire. Batman is dark and gritty, Spider-Man is light and exciting. Sure Spider-Man has his dark moments, but the tone and themes of each are entirely different...they are to me anyways. Batman is and should always be more serious tonally and thematically than Spider-Man. The new Batman series seems to be on a more realistic approach and grounded and that is what has made those movies better. When you go over the top, things get stupid. While I like Spider-Man to stay based somewhat in reality, it will never be as grounded as Batman. Ultimate was grounded a lot more in reality than previous incarnations so we will see how they treat the series of films. I love scientific and pseudo-plausible explanations. SM3 jumped the shark in that department when they introduced aliens and had a man that could turn into sand

Buddy, Kaw wasn't talking about the tone of the respective character's series'. He was refering to the villainy of the antagonists. It doesn't matter how dark batman movies are or are supposed to be at the end of the day, these movies, both batman and spider-man are pg-13. Bearing that in mind, Ledger's joker was far more menacing and his villainy far more creepy simply because the character was, WELL WRITTEN.

I'm not interested in people trying to justify villains like ock and osborn being in a more tonally lighter film because that is beside the point. Ock and Osborn are dark characters. Murderers and on top of that are far more visually entertaining to watch as well as gifted with an intelligence that makes them all the more menacing. Given that these movies are working within the confines of a pg-13 bracket, if the joker can be well written to the point of his villainy being such a high point, I don't see why it should be a problem for spidey's villains. The comics have done their fare share of exploring this and TDK's joker has proven that you can have dark, menacing, well written villains that can fuction within the legality of censorship. Ock and Goblin weren't poorly written characters in Raimi's films imo but they were under written and were lacking big time. We could have and should have better written characters and I strongly agree with, Kaw. The script, the writing is what matters most and if it's botched at that first hurdle then nothing else really matters because there's already a fundimental problem.

 

[chaseter]

I'm not your buddy guy

There are plenty of characters that are extremely well written. They had to cut some stuff out to make that movie PG-13 by the way. Joker was a lot more brutal and if you watch the movie closely, you can see parts where they edit certain things out (when Bat's arm blades shoot out at joker and when he slices up Gamble) amongst others. I am sure you are also aware that the movie was adapted from a Batman graphic novel. Everything in this movie was meant to be dark. Joker was well written, I think that is because he comes off as mysterious. You don't really know anything about him and what we don't know, we fear. But, I think a big key to the success of that character lies with the costume and makeup department. They did a fantastic job making Joker look creepy. I will agree that he is well written but the best written villain? No, not in my opinion. I certainly thought the Doc Ock hospital scene in SM2 was very good in terms of being 'dark'. It wasn't overly violent or anything but it contained the right amount to make that scene creepy. That to me is what dark should be in the Spidey movies.

I don't think Ock or Goblin were under written. In those movies, they were great characters. I can understand that you didn't think they portrayed them according to your perception of them but that can also be said for the Joker in TDK. Where was the Joker gas!? Everyone has a different opinion on the characters. I was fine with both Spider-Man and Batman's changes because they were good movies in my opinion. But, in the end...I think you are calling for these movies to be more 'dark'. You can have a well written villain any day, but that doesn't equate to you wanting Spidey villains to be as well written as Joker...it equates to upping the violence. GG is a very dark character I will agree, and I agree that he was toned down a bit in SM1 but you have to realize what those movies were modeled after and then realize what TDK was modeled after. There are tons of source inspirations for all of these franchises. Nolan choose to start from a graphic novel where as Raimi choose to start from Golden Age. That doesn't make one film worse than the other or one director worse from the other because the characters that they are portraying are two entirely different beasts. If Nolan had choose to go from the early years of Batman from the 50's and 60's and the movie was well written, would you still praise him? Or would you think that a better movie could be made because there are better comics in which to model a movie after?

 

[Ajendo]

I'm not your buddy guy

What ever you say, kemosabe

There are plenty of characters that are extremely well written. They had to cut some stuff out to make that movie PG-13 by the way. Joker was a lot more brutal and if you watch the movie closely, you can see parts where they edit certain things out (when Bat's arm blades shoot out at joker and when he slices up Gamble) amongst others. I am sure you are also aware that the movie was adapted from a Batman graphic novel. Everything in this movie was meant to be dark. Joker was well written, I think that is because he comes off as mysterious. You don't really know anything about him and what we don't know, we fear. But, I think a big key to the success of that character lies with the costume and makeup department. They did a fantastic job making Joker look creepy. I will agree that he is well written but the best written villain? No, not in my opinion. I certainly thought the Doc Ock hospital scene in SM2 was very good in terms of being 'dark'. It wasn't overly violent or anything but it contained the right amount to make that scene creepy. That to me is what dark should be in the Spidey movies.

Firstly, who said anything about the joker being the best written villain? I sure didn't say that. Additionally, it doesn't matter if TDK was adapted from a graphic novel, the fact is, the joke r is for all intents and purposes a dark character by nature and would have been written accordingly. Sure, the less we know about him adds to the mystique of his character and makes him quite enigmatic but again, that comes down to the intelligence behind the writing.
Raimi's problem imo is that, he tried too hard to bring the humanity of all his villains to the forefront even venom to a certain extent. Doc Ock didn't need a wife and didn't need to be a mentor to Peter, that's why we have characters like Connors to deal with all that stuff and for it to carry more weight too.
Ock being a brilliant, underappreciated and disrespected, downtrodden scientist could have been a much more deeper MO for the character post transformation but again, imo the writing overall in Raimi's spidey movies are far from impressive. As for ock killing the scientists, I agree that was a dark scene but here's the problem, Raimi's glaring flaw is his lack of consistency. Doc Ock didn't really do anything else after that to uphold the consistency of his dark menace. Every time we saw Ock's arms, it should have evoked a creepy menace, like slithering snakes but it wasn't to be.

Even GG in sm1, again, he turned out to be somewhat of a joke. Being a "bad guy" isn't enough. These are supposed to be crazy supervillains and we all know how insane and disturbingly creepy GG is at the very least supposed to be.

I don't think Ock or Goblin were under written. In those movies, they were great characters. I can understand that you didn't think they portrayed them according to your perception of them but that can also be said for the Joker in TDK. Where was the Joker gas!?

My perception of GG and ock is that of, which I've read in the comics and yes, I thought they were underwritten and imo they were hollow and damn near souless shadows of what they could and should have been. Raimi obviously decided to focus more on spectacle than on character otherwise he wouldn't have just did what he always did with his spidey villains and just have them somehow linked to peter in some contrived way. As for the joker gas, I may understand people may have wanted to see it but its hardly a focal complaint. In the end, joker was consistently creepy, menacing and charismatic not to mention intelligent enough to be always one step ahaed. That is great writing.

Everyone has a different opinion on the characters. I was fine with both Spider-Man and Batman's changes because they were good movies in my opinion. But, in the end...I think you are calling for these movies to be more 'dark'.

The changes I don't really have a problem with but what I do have a problem with is, how Raimi poorly executed the changes and I know this is so easy to cite but I'm going to have to submit SM3 as an example of what I'm talking about because there's just so much wrong with that film, again down to horrendous writing.

You can have a well written villain any day, but that doesn't equate to you wanting Spidey villains to be as well written as Joker...it equates to upping the violence.

Not really. What it comes down to is what I've been saying and that is, great writing. Sure, violence plays an obvious instrumental role but what it realy comes down to is how the villain is written. How creepy the guy is, the strength of his conviction on his quest to villainy, his intelligence and resourcefulness. It's all in the writing. Some of the best villains ever written on screen rarely are physically involved in the violence they're causing but their villainy is renowned because of how well written they are.

GG is a very dark character I will agree, and I agree that he was toned down a bit in SM1 but you have to realize what those movies were modeled after and then realize what TDK was modeled after. There are tons of source inspirations for all of these franchises. Nolan choose to start from a graphic novel where as Raimi choose to start from Golden Age.

It really doesn't matter imo. The fact is, these film makers are trying to make credible films based on superheroes and supervillains. Raimi adapting stories from the goldenage is no excuse for shoddy writing and shoddy characterizations. The goldenage is the way it is because it's a product of its time. Adapting goldenage stories for contemporary times is what Raimi's job was and for me, it wasn't all that good and I don't think Raimi gets spider-man at all. Imo he's stuck and has confused certain aspects of the character that essentially surfaced into his movies and ultimately drove the creative process of the movies into a wall, leading to nowhere.

That doesn't make one film worse than the other or one director worse from the other because the characters that they are portraying are two entirely different beasts. If Nolan had choose to go from the early years of Batman from the 50's and 60's and the movie was well written, would you still praise him? Or would you think that a better movie could be made because there are better comics in which to model a movie after?

It would depend on what Nolan's objective was. If Nolan was credibly adapting the batman stories from the 50s and 60s into a contemporary setting then there wouldn't be much difference to if he was adapting better btaman comics. I know there are better written spidey comics post the 60s era but if a writer and director came along and adapted a well wriiten story based on the 60s era, I'd be over the moon because for me I don't care about what story is being adapted, it's all about how well written and executed the story is and that's what counts, for me.

 

[chaseter]

What ever you say, kemosabe

It is from South Park. Joke lost

Firstly, who said anything about the joker being the best written villain? I sure didn't say that.

I was making a statement. I am just perplexed that if Joker in TDK isn't the best written villain in a movie, then why make comparisons to TDK?

Additionally, it doesn't matter if TDK was adapted from a graphic novel, the fact is, the joke r is for all intents and purposes a dark character by nature and would have been written accordingly. Sure, the less we know about him adds to the mystique of his character and makes him quite enigmatic but again, that comes down to the intelligence behind the writing.

I think it does matter that TDK was adapted from a graphic novel. Why? Because it is a lot more serious and grounded in reality. It is a lot more...graphic! As I said, if TDK was based off of Batman from the 50's and 60's, would TDK Joker still be a great character heralded by everyone if the quality of writing remained the same? I don't think so. I think they liked TDK Joker because it was something new and something terrifyingly fresh. It was a new take on the character.

Raimi's problem imo is that, he tried too hard to bring the humanity of all his villains to the forefront even venom to a certain extent. Doc Ock didn't need a wife and didn't need to be a mentor to Peter, that's why we have characters like Connors to deal with all that stuff and for it to carry more weight too.

Now we are getting to the meat and bones of this argument. While I agree with you to an extent, it negates your point. It negates your point that the quality of writing is what made Raimi's Spider-Man movies bad and what made Nolan's Batman movies good. You don't agree with the choices made so you think the writing is sub par.

I loved that he brought humanity to the villains and it gave some extra depth to those characters. You also have to remember that the movies are an interpretation, not a direct translation. I can bet you that some Batman fans didn't like Dent being burned in a fire and think he should have been burned by acid in the courtroom. Did that make TDK worse? No. But I can bet some people hated TDK because they didn't agree with the choices. The list goes on and on.

Ock being a brilliant, underappreciated and disrespected, downtrodden scientist could have been a much more deeper MO for the character post transformation but again, imo the writing overall in Raimi's spidey movies are far from impressive. As for ock killing the scientists, I agree that was a dark scene but here's the problem, Raimi's glaring flaw is his lack of consistency. Doc Ock didn't really do anything else after that to uphold the consistency of his dark menace. Every time we saw Ock's arms, it should have evoked a creepy menace, like slithering snakes but it wasn't to be.

Raimi's movies are lighter fare and while I agree that Doc Ock should have been more devious...I think he worked great in SM2. It is an interpration.

Even GG in sm1, again, he turned out to be somewhat of a joke. Being a "bad guy" isn't enough. These are supposed to be crazy supervillains and we all know how insane and disturbingly creepy GG is at the very least supposed to be.

Again, I think he worked fine in SM1. Even though I had problems with some of the character choices, the movie was still a good movie.

My perception of GG and ock is that of, which I've read in the comics and yes, I thought they were underwritten and imo they were hollow and damn near souless shadows of what they could and should have been. Raimi obviously decided to focus more on spectacle than on character otherwise he wouldn't have just did what he always did with his spidey villains and just have them somehow linked to peter in some contrived way. As for the joker gas, I may understand people may have wanted to see it but its hardly a focal complaint. In the end, joker was consistently creepy, menacing and charismatic not to mention intelligent enough to be always one step ahaed. That is great writing.

TDK did have good writing, no one is arguing that. Ock has worked for Oscorp and Peter are personal friends with the Osbournes. That isn't a contrived connection. Norman knew Peter through Harry, that isn't a contrived connection. Brock knew Peter from the Bugle, that isn't a contrived connection. All of those have happened before in the comics! I totally agree with Sandman being contrived and it was, but that is one example. Most of the villains in Spidey's rogues gallery is connected to Peter.

- Scorpion (created by JJJ to get Spider-Man, JJJ is also Peter's boss)
- Vulture (tried to rob the Daily Bugle payroll where Peter works)
- Green Goblin (connected to Spider-Man through Harry and kills Gwen Stacy, Peter's love)
- Green Goblin 2 (Harry Osbourne, Peter's best friend)
- Doc Ock (has worked for Oscorp and even dated Aunt May!?)
- Venom (as Eddie Brock, worked with Peter at the Bugle)

to say that Raimi constantly made unnecessary connections to Peter/Spider-Man is bull when the comics that some of you use as a source to make a movie better have done it over and over again.

The changes I don't really have a problem with but what I do have a problem with is, how Raimi poorly executed the changes and I know this is so easy to cite but I'm going to have to submit SM3 as an example of what I'm talking about because there's just so much wrong with that film, again down to horrendous writing.

It was badly written. But, again if your heart isn't in something because you have lost creative control and what you wanted to do isn't going to be done...shouldn't shock anyone when the writing is mediocre.

A little known fact:

RAIMI DIDN'T WRITE SM1 and SM2. So to blame him for the writing in SM1 and SM2 is heeeeellllllllllarious

 

[©KAW]

Buddy, Kaw wasn't talking about the tone of the respective character's series'. He was refering to the villainy of the antagonists. It doesn't matter how dark batman movies are or are supposed to be at the end of the day, these movies, both batman and spider-man are pg-13. Bearing that in mind, Ledger's joker was far more menacing and his villainy far more creepy simply because the character was, WELL WRITTEN.

I'm not interested in people trying to justify villains like ock and osborn being in a more tonally lighter film because that is beside the point. Ock and Osborn are dark characters. Murderers and on top of that are far more visually entertaining to watch as well as gifted with an intelligence that makes them all the more menacing. Given that these movies are working within the confines of a pg-13 bracket, if the joker can be well written to the point of his villainy being such a high point, I don't see why it should be a problem for spidey's villains. The comics have done their fare share of exploring this and TDK's joker has proven that you can have dark, menacing, well written villains that can fuction within the legality of censorship. Ock and Goblin weren't poorly written characters in Raimi's films imo but they were under written and were lacking big time. We could have and should have better written characters and I strongly agree with, Kaw. The script, the writing is what matters most and if it's botched at that first hurdle then nothing else really matters because there's already a fundimental problem.

Brilliantly said.

You understood perfectly what I was getting at. And in truth, there is no reason why Otto Octavius/Doc Ock and Norman Osborn/Green Goblin shouldn't be more complex, obscure, deadly and character driven. The Joker didn't even have an origin or a secret ID like Norman Osborn and he still came off a hell of a lot more complex.

 

[kedrell]

It is from South Park. Joke lost



I was making a statement. I am just perplexed that if Joker in TDK isn't the best written villain in a movie, then why make comparisons to TDK?


I think it does matter that TDK was adapted from a graphic novel. Why? Because it is a lot more serious and grounded in reality. It is a lot more...graphic! As I said, if TDK was based off of Batman from the 50's and 60's, would TDK Joker still be a great character heralded by everyone if the quality of writing remained the same? I don't think so. I think they liked TDK Joker because it was something new and something terrifyingly fresh. It was a new take on the character.


Now we are getting to the meat and bones of this argument. While I agree with you to an extent, it negates your point. It negates your point that the quality of writing is what made Raimi's Spider-Man movies bad and what made Nolan's Batman movies good. You don't agree with the choices made so you think the writing is sub par.

I loved that he brought humanity to the villains and it gave some extra depth to those characters. You also have to remember that the movies are an interpretation, not a direct translation. I can bet you that some Batman fans didn't like Dent being burned in a fire and think he should have been burned by acid in the courtroom. Did that make TDK worse? No. But I can bet some people hated TDK because they didn't agree with the choices. The list goes on and on.


Raimi's movies are lighter fare and while I agree that Doc Ock should have been more devious...I think he worked great in SM2. It is an interpration.


Again, I think he worked fine in SM1. Even though I had problems with some of the character choices, the movie was still a good movie.



TDK did have good writing, no one is arguing that. Ock has worked for Oscorp and Peter are personal friends with the Osbournes. That isn't a contrived connection. Norman knew Peter through Harry, that isn't a contrived connection. Brock knew Peter from the Bugle, that isn't a contrived connection. All of those have happened before in the comics! I totally agree with Sandman being contrived and it was, but that is one example. Most of the villains in Spidey's rogues gallery is connected to Peter.

- Scorpion (created by JJJ to get Spider-Man, JJJ is also Peter's boss)
- Vulture (tried to rob the Daily Bugle payroll where Peter works)
- Green Goblin (connected to Spider-Man through Harry and kills Gwen Stacy, Peter's love)
- Green Goblin 2 (Harry Osbourne, Peter's best friend)
- Doc Ock (has worked for Oscorp and even dated Aunt May!?)
- Venom (as Eddie Brock, worked with Peter at the Bugle)

to say that Raimi constantly made unnecessary connections to Peter/Spider-Man is bull when the comics that some of you use as a source to make a movie better have done it over and over again.


It was badly written. But, again if your heart isn't in something because you have lost creative control and what you wanted to do isn't going to be done...shouldn't shock anyone when the writing is mediocre.

A little known fact:

Uh, no he didn't(unless they've retconned it since the 1980's). He worked at a completely different paper(The Globe) and never even met Peter.

 

[chaseter]

Yeah that is right...he worked for the Globe. I was thinking of SM3 for some reason. In Ultimate, Brock's dad worked with Peter's dad. My point was that people whine that movies aren't like the comics and one of the major gripes is that Raimi connected all the villains to Peter Parker personally when it has already happened in the comics time and time again.