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

[The Joker]

I'm not a Venom fan at all and I'd prefer they just keep the symbiotes out of these new movies completely.

Hear hear

Honestly, I love the idea of buildups, esp for Norman/GG (I was excited to see what the ASM franchise was going to do when they teased him in 1), but I honestly think buildups aren't necessary at all to have a villain/character done properly. And actually kind of (to me at least) detract from the idea of great, stand-alone films.

- Norman/Ock in Raimi's trilogy? done in single, isolated films. And absolutely fantastic

- All the villains in TDK trilogy? Single, isolated films. And (IMO) all absolutely fantastic

Now like I mention, Norman/Goblin would be the one exception. But other than that, the buildup idea just screams 'world building' to me, and I've personally had more than enough world/universe building. Take me back to the days of SM1/2 type films, where each one might hint at something in the future, but all completely their own entity, and I'm a happy camper. Just my opinion tho of course

I actually agree with this. While it would be cool to have some of the villains like Norman and Otto pre-established as supporting characters, it's not a necessity for them to be effective villains. It's all about the writing. Quality not quantity.

 

[ThePhantasm]

Raimi did do world-building with Connors, he just never got a chance to become the Lizard

 

[Mike Murdock]

He would be, but I don't know about as the first villain in the series...

To me, he works fairly well because he has relatively low baggage (and because it'll be easier to top him next time). To me, Mysterio works best as a character who wants to destroy Spider-Man's reputation in order for his reputation to be improved. That works best with an established Spider-Man. And I know Spider-Man is technically established, but he has to be established in the audience's eyes too, not just through exposition saying he's been around. You have a movie where Spider-Man is the hero against the Vulture and then bring that down with Mysterio in movie two, leaving Kraven to want to kill him in movie three. That's my idea for a trilogy anyway.

 

[Webhead2006]

overlord do we really need to make the badguys motivations totally driven by modern real world deals. This is still comics books and fantasy. We could stretch things a bit.

 

[AnneFan]

Raimi did do world-building with Connors, he just never got a chance to become the Lizard

Exactly. Even though we never saw Raimi's Connors become the Lizard, I like how they handled things. If Raimi had the chance to film Spider-Man 5 (by all accounts other villains would've been in 4) it would've been a very powerful confrontation. Whereas TASM - my least favourite in the franchise, had a brand new Connors with very brief history with Peter, without the audience familiarity. I know what I would've preferred.

 

[ernesth100]

I still got my $500 on Mysterio or Vulture being the villains for the 2017 film.

 

[ThePhantasm]

Exactly. Even though we never saw Raimi's Connors become the Lizard, I like how they handled things. If Raimi had the chance to film Spider-Man 5 (by all accounts other villains would've been in 4) it would've been a very powerful confrontation. Whereas TASM - my least favourite in the franchise, had a brand new Connors with very brief history with Peter, without the audience familiarity. I know what I would've preferred.

Yeah, that would have been awesome.

 

[The Overlord]

overlord do we really need to make the badguys motivations totally driven by modern real world deals. This is still comics books and fantasy. We could stretch things a bit.

No offense, but I dislike this idea that because comics are supposed to be fun and fantastical that most of the villains should not a personality that is more interesting then a guy who woke up one morning and starting robbing banks. Villains with actual developed personalities and fun and fantastical writing are not mutually exclusive. I find villains compelling villains fun and frankly there is really nothing compelling to me about some villain who has no redeeming qualities, but does nothing more evil then bank robbery. That is not a suitably cinematic. There is no reason to really care whether that villain fails or succeeds. Also "bank Robber" is not a character, its an arhetype, if you have a character who's characterization begins and ends with "bank robber", you don't really have a character.

Did Claremont make Magneto less fun when he made him sympathetic? Did Bendis ruin Purple Man when he made him way more scary? Did Paul Dini ruin Mr. Freeze in BTAS? Did Frank Miller ruin Bullseye and Kingpin? Villains get revamped all the time in comics and their various adaptions, its hard to say there is a "true to the comics" version of some of these villains, because they get reinterpreted all the time.

Marvel has always been a blend of the real and fantastical, X-Men deal with prejudice in a fantastical way, Spider-Man deals with real life issues all the time, saying the villains should not reflect that all I think misses the point of the Marvel Universe. Just because Stan Lee created some villain as a stock villain back in 1963, doesn't mean that is how they should remain till the end of time. Again taking the whole "it should be that way because that's the way it is in the comics to an extreme is not the best to make a film, the two mediums are different.

If Shocker is such a great character, why does he get changed in his various animated adaptations (the Spectacular Spider-Man cartoon negated Herman Schultz as a character all together and that really didn't bother me because Herman Schultz is such a non entity in terms of personality in the comics).

 

[Webhead2006]

i was not talking about personality of villains. More about your stuff the other page that things should be taken more into modern real world for crime and evil deeds. Saying oh bank robbing isnt a huge thing any more and that much. That is why i was saying its still fantasy and comic book world. We dont need to have to follow how modern real life crime is for characters to be different or compelling.

 

[The Overlord]

i was not talking about personality of villains. More about your stuff the other page that things should be taken more into modern real world for crime and evil deeds. Saying oh bank robbing isnt a huge thing any more and that much. That is why i was saying its still fantasy and comic book world. We dont need to have to follow how modern real life crime is for characters to be different or compelling.

Except the comics has seem to try to capture what the world is like today (with everyone having a modern cell phone in today's comics). Really if the internet is as all encompassing is it is the real world, why wouldn't cyber crime be replacing traditional bank robberies? The Marvel universe has never been 100% fantasy and I think Marvel comics should reflect the changing nature of crime, rather then relying on old cliches that don't even work anymore, like the brilliant, but lazy criminal who thinks robbing banks is the best way to make a buck.

But here's the thing, I wouldn't have a problem with a bank robbery happening in the film, either in the beginning or the middle of the film, a film needs raising action and tension, so you can start with smaller crimes and build up to something more impressive in the climax. A bank robbery should not be the climax of the film though, so having a villain who robs banks and does nothing else is going to lead to really boring climax, there would be no rising action for the climax. That's what they did in Spider-Man 2 and I think that worked fine. The Dark Knight started with a bank robbery and that worked fine too, but that wasn't the climax.

So I am not against any bank robberies in this film, I am against a villain who robs banks and does nothing else.

 

[Webhead2006]

again phones is one thing vs what villains are doing in the books. Again its still fantasy everything doesnt need to go ultra realistic to the real world for every thing.

 

[The Overlord]

again phones is one thing vs what villains are doing in the books. Again its still fantasy everything doesnt need to go ultra realistic to the real world for every thing.

A fantastical setting should not justify lazy characterization and again the Marvel Universe has never been 100% fantasy, so giving the villains motive that is a bit better then "guy woke up one morning and decided to rob banks". I think giving a villain more aspects then "bank robber" is a good way to make them more compelling. Like I said captain Cold from the Flash robs banks, but they give him character aspects beyond that, I don't think that is too much to ask for. Also think some villains thinking bigger and coming up with more clever ways to make money in the modern age would more interesting then more bank robbing villains.

Look at Shocker, what is his character beyond greedy bank robber? Greed is one of the most common character aspects you can give a villain (most Spidey villains are greedy) and bank robber is an archetype, not a character. One issue will portray him as lovable loser and another will make him a potential mass murderer, the character has no real core, because he is an archetype rather then a character.

I think seeing the things I brought up as opportunities rather then problems. Why not tell us more ab out Shocker, tell us where he got his technical skills (most professional criminals do not have the education to build brand new technology) and tell us why he choose to be a criminal. Give him character aspects beyond the basic.

I don't see why "fun comics" have to rely on villain cliches that have become completely tried and never were that interesting to begin with (like the villain who is a bank robber and has no real characterization beyond that) when we see writers be willing to take chances and do new things with some these villains, since the 70s and 80s. I mean some of these villains have been around for 50 years, surely giving some of them something to do beyond "villain tries to rob bank, Spidey foils him" for the 832nd time, would be a nice change of pace.

 

[Webhead2006]

At this rate we are going no where with this debate. We don't even know what villains marvel plans to use. What inspirations and arch type they be playing out.

 

[harryoscop]

I predict them going with either Mysterio or Vulture.

 

[ThePhantasm]

Vulture just seems like such a boring villain. Plus, the Falcon comparisons would be inevitable.

 

[Chris B]

When it comes to the whole "Vulture or Mysterio" consensus, I've personally started to lean towards Vulture. While he would obvious bring the visual flare, I just have a hard time seeing how they can make Mysterio someone who could carry a movie. So I say go with the Vulture with probably a secondary villain like Shocker included as well.

Maybe borrow some of what Sam Raimi was planning on doing in S-M3 when it was going to have Vulture instead of Venom in regards to his planned partnership with Sandman.

 

[harryoscop]

Vulture just seems like such a boring villain. Plus, the Falcon comparisons would be inevitable.

You don't see people constantly comparing the two in the comics, why would the movies be any different? and they could even take advantage of their similarities and say Toomes created the flight tech.

Jackie Earle Haley for Adrian Toomes:

Maybe a little too young?

 

[Webhead2006]

I am done for vulture or nysterio. Mysterio still a little mire. Then for sequel as u said in past. I like to either do a jjj/scorpion story. So we have jj play a bigger role and play off scorpion stuff. Or do a chameleon and kraven story.

 

[harryoscop]

I want to see Sandman again, dammit!

This is how I would do a trilogy not including the Symbiotes:

Marvel's Spider-Man - Shocker and Mysterio/Vulture
Marvel's Spider-Man 2: Thrill of the Hunt - Kraven & The Lizard intertwined story
Marvel's Spider-Man 3: Arms of the Ocktopus - Doc Ock & Sandman

 

[Lobo]

Scorpion

 

[ThePhantasm]

You don't see people constantly comparing the two in the comics, why would the movies be any different? and they could even take advantage of their similarities and say Toomes created the flight tech.

Comic book fans are more forgiving of such similarities, the GA will just see Vulture as a bad-guy Falcon.

 

[Webhead2006]

another thing if we did get vulture i think it would be good to play into comparisons to falcon. And like i brought up months ago. It would be a perfect way to tie spidey world into the greater mcu world. And we go about toomes created the wing tech for the govt. He didnt get the credit or the govt took it and dumped his butt. And we have a cool little nod to greater mcu and have a reason vulture and spidey get tied to other characters in the mcu. Plus you could also maybe throw in the draco version of vulture and say he was in falcon unit when he was in the military but got throw out in disgrace and have another angle to play with.

 

[TheGearMan]

the GA will just see Vulture as a bad-guy Falcon.

That's a lot less likely if he's got a vastly different flying apparatus with extra abilities, like in Web of Shadows:

 

[ThePhantasm]

He's still a guy with a technological set of wings, no matter what bells and whistles you attach to it

 

[LEVITIKUZ]

I still will say Shocker. As much as I love Mysterio, wrong villain to start the series with. You have to start small with these world building type films.

Shocker will give you a film that feels truly different and unique from the other Spidey films. Of course Mysterio would give you the best film that would feel truly unique and different, it isn't the right time for him.