Homecoming Who should be the Villain in Spider-Man (2017)? - Part 1

Status
Not open for further replies.
Agreed I don't mind changes if comic book character still stay basically true to character. Most characters of comics need some changes anyway for to be done in movies.
 
ya that is all i am saying overlord i do not want to see change just to be different and all that. If they make logical changes to update a out dated thing good but dont just throw it to the wind and hope to strike gold. As like i said their is reasons folks love events, characters, plots, etc..... and dont want to see things screwed around with.
 
So what if they do one of the used villains instead? Green Goblin, Ock, Sandman, Rhino, Electro, or Venom. What would you guys like to see?
 
ya that is all i am saying overlord i do not want to see change just to be different and all that. If they make logical changes to update a out dated thing good but dont just throw it to the wind and hope to strike gold. As like i said their is reasons folks love events, characters, plots, etc..... and dont want to see things screwed around with.

I think the thing you are missing though is, Mysterio is memorable in the comics for his gimmick, not his personality, is personality is rather bland and pretty underdeveloped, so you have change it for a movie, because Mysterio in the comics has hints of a personality, not a fully developed personality.

Let's face it, a lot of Spidey villains are just gimmick characters with flashy costumes, but very little in the way of personality, you need something a bit more substantial to be the Big Bad in a film, that is not really suitable villain to headline a movie. Really Rhino only got any sort of character development recently, before that he started out as a generic super villain who slowly morphed into the big dumb guy who Spidey easily outwits, only recently did they start writing him like he is an actual human being, rather then a generic baddie or a punch line and I think that's a good thing.

That's why I don't have any problem with giving some villains more devloped personalities in the movies, because they often don't have them in the comics. Not every villain gets the same level of development as say Joker, Magneto or Dr. Doom in comics, so almost out of necessity. You can disagree with ideas about Mysterio, but frankly something would have to be done with his personality in a movie, because he doesn't have much of one in the comics. Its not an "in Name only" adaptation to give Mysterio something he lacks in the comics,

So if what Mysterio is memorable from the comics almost solely due to his gimmick (don't get me wrong, I like the gimmick, that is why I would want be the villain in a film, but it takes more then a gimmick to make a good villain,) then really why wouldn't you give him a more developed personality in the films?

I will say that Spidey having to dealing with a totally ruthless and utterly cruel breaker of minds makes for a more epic movie then Spidey vs. the rather generic villain Mysterio is usually portrayed in the comics.

So what if they do one of the used villains instead? Green Goblin, Ock, Sandman, Rhino, Electro, or Venom. What would you guys like to see?

I would say Venom, but clearly not in the first film, he needs a lot of set up before he can appear. But he is the best option out of that bunch, I think they did Dr. Octopus pretty well (I don't care if they made him more sympathetic in the film, because Ock is pretty inconstant in the comics), Goblin is over used and Rhino, Electro and Sandman are B-list villains who really don't need to appear again for a long while, I rather give some other B-list villains a chance then bring these guys back so quickly. Frankly of the movie villains, Venom got the sort end of the stick, he appeared in 20 minutes of a film and then died. I know Venom had some conceptual problems in the comics and not everyone likes him, but this is why you change some things from the comics, set up Eddie Brock as a character right away and maybe give him a more defined reason for hating Spidey and he could carry a film, once the set up is done.
 
Last edited:
Ernesth cone on we already know for at least first and likely second film be all new villains. But of course in time marvel will use ock, venom, goblin. You really think marvel won't want to use them.
 
Read my post clearer, I was saying if they use them IN THE 2017 FILM.



Edit: Wait, no I didn't *blush* but that's what I meant.
 
^ If they did, the only one I'd want to see is Doc Ock again. I can wait to see another Goblin and it's too early to use Electro again
 
I'd prefer they start off with Mysterio , though I also wouldn't mind seeing Ock again, albeit a ruthless version closer to the comics, as opposed to the sympathetic villain of SM2. I agree with the sentiment that the Goblin saga could and should wait.
 
So what do you guys want to be the reason for the villains evilness.

-Sandman: Just a thug who wants to be rich
-Rhino: Same as Sandman.
-Norman Osborn: Serious grandiose condition that develops into something much worse like as he spirals down into his insane Goblin persona.
-Otto Octavious: Something similar too Norman, except Otto see's himself as a genius and everyone else as...idiots that can't be left in charge of themselves basically.
-Doctor Conners: Not his fault, the lizard personality is evil not him(and not evil like TASM, evil like wild uncontrable animal evil)
-Kraven: Not evil so much as just doing his job, possibly hired to hunt and kill Spider-Man but fails and then becomes a TRUE villain bent on killing him
-Vulture: He's old and people see him as obsolete and not a threat, but he dawns the Vulture suit to show that he's just as big a threat as anyone.
-Electro: Something similar to TNAS.
-Shocker: Same as Sandman and Rhino, except Shocker is specifically a safe cracker.
-Kingpin: We already know.
-Scorpion: Possibly just a weakling tricked into becoming the Scorpion by JJ and now he wants to kill JJ but Spidey can't let that happen so boom, new villain
-Hobgoblin: If it's Harry, then perhaps he's just gone crazy after finding out his father is GG. If it's someone else, maybe GG is MIA or something and they decide to take up the mantle.




That's all the villains I can think of the using in the first few films.
 
personally as i pointed out in the thread spidey rouges have a wide range of reasons to go to crime or are doing crime. Some i am fine with keeping them close to the comics. And others sure some will need to change. But who should and shouldnt be changed that is a hard one for me.
 
When do you think we will find out who the villain will be?
 
well lets see we know filming begins in june. So with that we 8 months before filming officially begins. I would say jan/feb time frame would be about right. As i figure the main casting wont begin to the new year anyway.
 
So what if they do one of the used villains instead? Green Goblin, Ock, Sandman, Rhino, Electro, or Venom. What would you guys like to see?

The one and only;


PwnedSpideyhahaha.jpg


Ockreturns.jpg


Quietquietquiet.jpg


OckVsSpideyroof.jpg


diediedie.jpg




I've no real urge to see Sandman, Electro or Rhino again any time soon. I can't stand Venom. And we've had a gut full of Goblin villains in these movies. They need a long break.
 
Last edited:
While I wouldn't conisder it a change of the characters, I would prefer that in these first HS films we see the fall from grace of Norman Osborn as a supporting character. I'd actually like to see him as more of a decent man instead of him already being bad as he was in the other films. The one thing I would change would actually be to have Emily Osborn , Norman's wife and Harry's mother, still be alive in the first two films. I'd like to see her as another supporting adult character in Peter's life.

I'd want to see her portrayed as warm and full of life, and to be the glue that holds the three of them together. After she gets sick and eventually dies in the third film, we then see Norman start to become harsher , more distant to Harry, angrier , and closer to the Norman we know. It would also provide another reason as to why Harry , after highschool, would begin to change and spiral downward himself.

Alot of that stuff is implicit in the comics, though she dies soon after Harry's born so it hasn't been exploited in the films or even the cartoons yet. I'd love to see that angle added to this version.
 
Everyone talks about the pressure Leto has as Joker being compared to Ledger and Jack.

Imagine the pressure of the next Doc Ock. We've only had one Doc Ock and he's probably the best Marvel villain next to Ian and Fassbender's Magneto. Not hating the MCU but Molina's Doc Ock is better then any villain in the MCU. Molina made that role his own.

I mean we've had so many live action takes on Joker but only one with Doc Ock. How could you make yourself stand out from Molina? It's like Zod in MOS though I did feel Shannon did well as Zod. Writing wise, Shannon's Zod was very disappointing.
 
I think Ock is actually the easiest villain you could do again because Molina's Ock, in large part , was basically Kurt Connors/Lizard. What you do is you go 180 and portray the character as the ruthless villain he is in the comics and cartoons. You make him a true , cunning , foe and a villain who isn't a mentor and doesn't want to be Peter's friend. With the right writing and actor, you could totally have an amazing Ock. The problem would be if you just rehashed Molina's version because it is icon. You make your own iconic version.
 
Everyone talks about the pressure Leto has as Joker being compared to Ledger and Jack.

Well Ledger more so since to the general public and CBM fans he's the favorite Joker, and the best CBM villain. Leto's performance will get a lot of comparisons to Ledger's. Which is kind of unfair because it should be judged on it's own merits. Not against someone elses. Even though the comparisons are inevitable.

Imagine the pressure of the next Doc Ock. We've only had one Doc Ock and he's probably the best Marvel villain next to Ian and Fassbender's Magneto. Not hating the MCU but Molina's Doc Ock is better then any villain in the MCU. Molina made that role his own.

I agree. It's one of my concerns about Marvel taking over. They make excellent movies but their Achilles heel is villains. Aside from Loki, whom you could argue might not stand out if he had only been in Thor instead of three movies, they have no great memorable villains who leave an impression.

A great villain leaves an impression after one movie like Ledger's Joker, Magneto, Doc Ock, Zod (Stamp's version) etc.

I think Ock is actually the easiest villain you could do again because Molina's Ock, in large part , was basically Kurt Connors/Lizard.

I will never understand that opinion. Any similarities they had were superficial. Lizard was trying to cure his own body. Ock was not. Lizard had a family whom he puts in grave danger when he becomes a villain (something the TASM movie missed on big time). Ock did not. Curt is actually friends with Peter. Otto was not, he just spent an afternoon with Peter because Harry Osborn arranged it because Peter was writing a college paper on Octavius. He wasn't his mentor either. Spending an afternoon with someone doesn't make them your mentor or your friend. Otto was a Scientific idol of Peter's, as the movie specified. Their relationship didn't extend beyond that.

Doc Ock was more a parallel of Peter and his personal journey in the movie. Peter was being irresponsible by giving up being Spider-Man so he could live his dream of a normal life. Ock was being irresponsible by doing evil things to make his dream succeed. In the end they both came full circle and accepted responsibility.

Much like in the comics in how they are dark mirror images of each other.

ockpete567_zpsu9c2muqu.jpg


WOD4-1.jpg


http://molinaock.blogspot.ie/

I hope the new movies use that angle again when they inevitably do Doc Ock, because it's part of what makes him and his rivalry with Spidey so interesting.

The problem would be if you just rehashed Molina's version because it is icon. You make your own iconic version.

That I agree with.
 
Last edited:
Thst is why I want to see brock and norman in minor support roles for two or so films. Then we see then fall and go bad.
 
I will never understand that opinion. Any similarities they had were superficial. Lizard was trying to cure his own body. Ock was not. Lizard had a family whom he puts in grave danger when he becomes a villain (something the TASM movie missed on big time). Ock did not. Curt is actually friends with Peter. Otto was not, he just spent an afternoon with Peter because Harry Osborn arranged it because Peter was writing a college paper on Octavius. He wasn't his mentor either. Spending an afternoon with someone doesn't make them your mentor or your friend. Otto was a Scientific idol of Peter's, as the movie specified. Their relationship didn't extend beyond that.

Doc Ock was more a parallel of Peter and his personal journey in the movie. Peter was being irresponsible by giving up being Spider-Man so he could live his dream of a normal life. Ock was being irresponsible by doing evil things to make his dream succeed. In the end they both came full circle and accepted responsibility.

Much like in the comics in how they are dark mirror images of each other.

ockpete567_zpsu9c2muqu.jpg


WOD4-1.jpg


http://molinaock.blogspot.ie/

.

I say Ock and Lizard were the same because the earlier draft of SM2 literally featured the Lizard and Doc Ock and when they took out Lizard, they literally gave alot of his characterization to Doc Ock. It's a choice the writers made for their version of the character which likely explains why he has a wife. So yeah, Molina's Ock was based in large part off of the Lizard. Its not an opinion. He wasn't a mentor grant you, but it wasn't like they were totally foes either. Spiderman was basically in the way of Ocks plans but it wasn't as if Ock hated him . That's why you can do a different version of Ock who is a cunning foe or opponent as opposed to someone who isn't opposed to him.

I agree with your characterization of Ock, but that's not the point. The point here was how you make Ock different from Molina's popular version . You make him more of a ruthless villain and less of a sympathetic character , who was, basically given alot of Connors motivation and characterization. Molina's Ock was what you said he was, but he wasn't a ruthless bad guy who hated Spiderman or saw him as a true enemy.
 
I say Ock and Lizard were the same because the earlier draft of SM2 literally featured the Lizard and Doc Ock and when they took out Lizard, they literally gave alot of his characterization to Doc Ock. It's a choice the writers made for their version of the character which likely explains why he has a wife.

Having the Lizard in an earlier draft of the script didn't mean Ock got lumbered with some of his character just because Lizard was removed. The Vulture was in the early drafts of the Spider-Man 3 script. It doesn't mean Venom got his characterization just because he was excised in favor of Venom.

The wife was included as part of the parallel between Peter and Octavius. Otto had the life Peter had wanted for himself. Being a great scientist working on something he's passionate about, and married to the woman he loves. They even touched on this in the comics. Otto used to be in love and engaged to a woman called Mary Alice (wink wink Otto's version of Mary Jane) until he lost her because of his biotch of an interfering mother.

Ottolove1.jpg


Ottolove2.jpg


In the movie Ock's wife dies before he even becomes a villain, much like how he lost Mary Alice before he became Doc Ock. Very different to Curt Connors' wife who lives when her husband becomes a villain, and along with their son is a key factor in the Lizard's story because he's a father and husband who is endangering his family, and has someone at home worrying about him and needing him to be saved from himself. Ock didn't have any of this. Ock's motivation wasn't to cure his body of some ailment. Ock wasn't friends or a mentor to Peter. That's why I say any similarity he had with Lizard was superficial.

It's like saying Electro, Sandman, Rhino etc are all the same because they're losers who are thieves and got their powers by accident.

So yeah, Molina's Ock was based in large part off of the Lizard. Its not an opinion.

I'd like to see some official source that says this is what they did. Then I'll concede to it. Otherwise it's just putting two and two together and getting five.

He wasn't a mentor grant you, but it wasn't like they were totally foes either. Spiderman was basically in the way of Ocks plans but it wasn't as if Ock hated him .

Which is exactly how it usually goes between them. Ock has his own plans and goals that don't involve Spider-Man, and Spider-Man gets in the way of them all the time. Ock did hate Spider-Man in the movie for getting in his way, and tried to kill him several times. But the difference was in spite of his interference he didn't stop Ock from getting what he was after. Ock still got away with the money from the bank. He still got the tritium. He still rebuilt his reactor. In the comics the only reason Ock formed the Sinister Six was because he got to the point where he was sick of Spider-Man messing up his schemes, and felt it was time he and the other villains got rid of a common problem they all had.

Unlike the Goblin, who has a specific fixation on Spider-Man.

I agree with your characterization of Ock, but that's not the point. The point here was how you make Ock different from Molina's popular version . You make him more of a ruthless villain and less of a sympathetic character , who was, basically given alot of Connors motivation and characterization. Molina's Ock was what you said he was, but he wasn't a ruthless bad guy who hated Spiderman or saw him as a true enemy.

As we've already established, Ock was not given Connors characterization or motivation. They were totally different in that regard. What you are correct about is doing a more ruthless version of Ock. One who becomes the Master Planner/gang war/ Sinister Six leader type of villain. That will help separate him from Molina's Ock. Personally I'd love to see them go that route with Ock next.
 
Last edited:
Having the Lizard in an earlier draft of the script didn't mean Ock got lumbered with some of his character just because Lizard was removed. The Vulture was in the early drafts of the Spider-Man 3 script. It doesn't mean Venom got his characterization just because he was excised in favor of Venom.

The wife was included as part of the parallel between Peter and Octavius. Otto had the life Peter had wanted for himself. Great scientist, and married to the woman he loves. They even touched on this in the comics. Otto used to be in love and engaged to a woman called Mary Alice (wink wink Otto's version of Mary Jane) until he lost her because of his biotch of an interfering mother.

Ottolove1.jpg


Ottolove2.jpg


In the movie Ock's wife dies before he even becomes a villain, much like how he lost Mary Alice before he became Doc Ock. Very different to Curt Connors' wife who lives when her husband becomes a villain, and along with their son is a key factor in the Lizard's story because he's a father and husband who is endangering his family, and has someone at home worrying about him and needing him to be saved from himself. Ock didn't have any of this. Ock's motivation wasn't to cure his body of some ailment. Ock wasn't friends or a mentor to Peter. That's why I say any similarity he had with Lizard was superficial.

It's like saying Electro, Sandman, Rhino etc are all the same because they're losers who are thieves and got their powers by accident.



I'd like to see some official source that says this is what they did. Then I'll concede to it. Otherwise it's just putting two and two together and getting five.



Which is exactly how it usually goes between them. Ock has his own plans and goals that don't involve Spider-Man, and Spider-Man gets in the way of them all the time. Ock did hate Spider-Man in the movie for getting in his way, and tried to kill him several times. But the difference was in spite of his interference he didn't stop Ock from getting what he was after. Ock still got away with the money from the bank. He still got the tritium. He still rebuilt his reactor. In the comics the only reason Ock formed the Sinister Six was because he got to the point where he was sick of Spider-Man messing up his schemes, and felt it was time he and the other villains got rid of a common problem they all had.

Unlike the Goblin, who has a specific fixation on Spider-Man.



As we've already established, Ock was not given Connors characterization or motivation. They were totally different in that regard. What you are correct about is doing a more ruthless version of Ock. One who becomes the Master Planner/gang war/ Sinister Six leader type of villain. That will help separate him from Molina's Ock.

He was given Connors characterization and motivation from that version of the script , which i'm sure you could find yourself in an online search. If you don't want to believe or don't believe it ,fine. At this point the issue is about how to make the new Ock different from Molina's.

I think we can what we can all agree to, which the early question I was responding to anyway, is to make him different from Molina's version. That's to make him much more of a villain and enemy to Spiderman and to give him different motivations from Molina's version. With the right writing and actor, the next Ock can be totally as unique and interesting as Molina's Ock. It can be done very easily and isn't as big a hurtle as alot fans think it is.

@ Webhead 2006, yeah i'd like to see them do that with Brock and Norman. In Brock's case it works well since he could always have a bit of a rivalry with Peter from the start of the series instead of introducing him in the same film that he becomes Venom in.
 
He was given Connors characterization and motivation from that version of the script , which i'm sure you could find yourself in an online search. If you don't want to believe or don't believe it ,fine. At this point the issue is about how to make the new Ock different from Molina's.

I've seen it. I've seen all the ideas they had for Spider-Man 2 before they settled on what they did. The first one had Ock, Lizard, and Black Cat in it. Lizard's part and character was nothing like what Ock did in SM-2. Then they did another rewrite, written by Michael Chabon, and that had a younger Doc Ock, who becomes infatuated with Mary Jane. His mechanical limbs use endorphins to counteract the pain of being attached to his body, which he enjoys. When he injures two muggers on a date, this horrifies Mary Jane and in the resulting battle with Spider-Man his tentacles are fused together, and the fusion begins to kill him.

Also Octavius is the creator of the genetically-altered spider from the first film, and gives Peter an antidote to remove his powers: this means when Octavius is dying with his tentacles, he wants to extract Spider-Man's spine to save himself. This leads to the alliance with Harry in the final film. Beforehand, Harry and the Daily Bugle put a $10 million price on Spider-Man's head, causing the city's citizens to turn against him.

That's what their original plans were. Thank god they scrapped them. Bloody awful, IMO. We have Raimi to thank for canning those ideas.

I think we can what we can all agree to, which the early question I was responding to anyway, is to make him different from Molina's version. That's to make him much more of a villain and enemy to Spiderman and to give him different motivations from Molina's version. With the right writing and actor, the next Ock can be totally as unique and interesting as Molina's Ock. It can be done very easily and isn't as big a hurtle as alot fans think it is.

Yes, no disagreement there. I totally want the Master Planner/Sinister Six leader type of Doc Ock next time.
 
Ya that is what I hope they do for a few foes we see them in bit parts build them up over a few films. Then see them go bad. Makes for better story telling and having things laid out already. So when we do they go evil film less time spent on that aspect.

As for ock. I did like molina ock he was good. And I do see what Frodo was saying about lizard ock deal for Sm 2. If or when we see ock again u rather go more like comics and have him that cunning ruthless dude. Maybe play off the master planner stuff.
 
Everyone talks about the pressure Leto has as Joker being compared to Ledger and Jack.

Imagine the pressure of the next Doc Ock. We've only had one Doc Ock and he's probably the best Marvel villain next to Ian and Fassbender's Magneto. Not hating the MCU but Molina's Doc Ock is better then any villain in the MCU. Molina made that role his own.

I mean we've had so many live action takes on Joker but only one with Doc Ock. How could you make yourself stand out from Molina? It's like Zod in MOS though I did feel Shannon did well as Zod. Writing wise, Shannon's Zod was very disappointing.

Agreed it be hard to follow Alfred Molina because he so great as Dr Octopus but they can do it if they get another great actor and write him well.

I hope this time they use Dr Octopus wearing suits for his new look because I think that look so cool on him.

Well Ledger more so since to the general public and CBM fans he's the favorite Joker, and the best CBM villain. Leto's performance will get a lot of comparisons to Ledger's. Which is kind of unfair because it should be judged on it's own merits. Not against someone elses. Even though the comparisons are inevitable.



I agree. It's one of my concerns about Marvel taking over. They make excellent movies but their Achilles heel is villains. Aside from Loki, whom you could argue might not stand out if he had only been in Thor instead of three movies, they have no great memorable villains who leave an impression.

A great villain leaves an impression after one movie like Ledger's Joker, Magneto, Doc Ock, Zod (Stamp's version) etc.



I will never understand that opinion. Any similarities they had were superficial. Lizard was trying to cure his own body. Ock was not. Lizard had a family whom he puts in grave danger when he becomes a villain (something the TASM movie missed on big time). Ock did not. Curt is actually friends with Peter. Otto was not, he just spent an afternoon with Peter because Harry Osborn arranged it because Peter was writing a college paper on Octavius. He wasn't his mentor either. Spending an afternoon with someone doesn't make them your mentor or your friend. Otto was a Scientific idol of Peter's, as the movie specified. Their relationship didn't extend beyond that.

Doc Ock was more a parallel of Peter and his personal journey in the movie. Peter was being irresponsible by giving up being Spider-Man so he could live his dream of a normal life. Ock was being irresponsible by doing evil things to make his dream succeed. In the end they both came full circle and accepted responsibility.

Much like in the comics in how they are dark mirror images of each other.

ockpete567_zpsu9c2muqu.jpg


WOD4-1.jpg


http://molinaock.blogspot.ie/

I hope the new movies use that angle again when they inevitably do Doc Ock, because it's part of what makes him and his rivalry with Spidey so interesting.



That I agree with.

Agreed. He not like Lizard at all. I love Dr Octopus being like evil Peter Parker. Peter Parker gone bad they say on Ockumentary on Spider-Man 2 dvd.
 
@ Webhead 2006, yeah i'd like to see them do that with Brock and Norman. In Brock's case it works well since he could always have a bit of a rivalry with Peter from the start of the series instead of introducing him in the same film that he becomes Venom in.

There are elements that need to be established with a Brock Venom that can only be done within a movie.

1. The symbiote needs to be introduced.

2. Brock needs to be introduced, his jealousy of Parker needs to be established, and Parker must don and reject the suit before it finds its way to Brock. Have Parker get rid of the suit in the tower near the end of the movie, but don't reveal that it fell on Brock until the next one. Make it clear that Parker didn't just get him fired he totally destroyed Brock's career. This will allow us to further develop the Brock/Parker rivalry and Brock himself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"