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

[The Joker]

Isn't the 2017 movie a Sony movie? Sure, it'll be in the same universe as the MCU, but Sony still has the rights to Spider-Man, so I would suppose that they have final say.

In name only I'd say. To get their cash percentage. Marvel will probably, and hopefully, be steering the creative process.

 

[NotSoLongAgo]

Isn't the 2017 movie a Sony movie? Sure, it'll be in the same universe as the MCU, but Sony still has the rights to Spider-Man, so I would suppose that they have final say.

Didn't rothman or someone along the way say that Marvel was producing it for Sony? Isn't it similar to TIH with universal?

 

[Mike Murdock]

Similar but not quite the same. Marvel financed and produced The Incredible Hulk and received all the profits from it. Universal was merely the distributor. Sony is financing Spider-Man completely and receiving 100% of the profits with the exception of merchandising (which goes to Marvel). So they necessarily have creative say with how their money is spent (although Feige has day-to-day control, so, if he really wants to do something, it's hard to overrule him without firing him, which is no personal loss for Feige because it just means one project blew up).

 

[JOE]

Let's just make Mysterio the villain and be done with it.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

I think mysterio should wait until peter has a tragedy.. and Mystrio can torture him with it...


I think Vulture and Scorpion make the most sense personally... Vulture is a simple villain who fits with Peter's earliest days in High School... and after the events of Civil War... it likely makes sense for Jameson to help fund a "spider slayer" program... with Scorpion being the Ultimate spider-slayer

 

[Venom'sDad]

Vulture is not a bad pick, even though, a number of posters disagree.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

Vulture is not a bad pick, even though, a number of posters disagree.

I think Vulture is a bad choice if they only want 1 villain... The only time i've ever found him compelling was in the animated series when he'd try to suck the life out of people to make himself younger... and i don't really want that interpretation of him on film either...

Vulture works best working with someone else imo...

 

[The Joker]

Vulture couldn't hold a movie solo. Most Spidey villains couldn't.

 

[Venom'sDad]

Hmmm...I never said Vulture should be a solo villain or not...don't know where that's coming. Vulture would make a good villain. Character/villain usage is what matters, how he is used in the plot, and moving the story forward.

I don't care about old connotations, from old, dated material or media. Get away from that & Let it go, characters are suppose to evolve, some more than others. None of these characters are good, if you're talking about using characters in the same way they always being used. That is tiresome & lazy, lack of imagination & creative.

Although I agree, Vulture is best used in conjunction with another villain, does not mean he can not be a solo villain...I would disagree everytime...Vulture imo, is just as compelling of a villain, as a number of others. It all in the writing...which incorporates everything.

 

[CaptainWagner]

Vulture couldn't hold a movie solo. Most Spidey villains couldn't.

Well, one point out of two ain't bad

 

[The Joker]

Well, two points out of two is awesome

Fixed your typos for you.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

Vulture couldn't hold a movie solo. Most Spidey villains couldn't.

i agree.. I've always seperated spideys villains into basically 3 groups...

Group A ) these villains tend to effect both sides of peters life, spidey and parker. They're his most compelling villains... and if they don't effect the parker side, there stories, psychosis, and challenges they give spider-man are top notch... they include... Green Goblin, Hobgoblin, Venom, Lizard, Doctor Octopus, Carnage, Scorpion (though scorpion himself is a thug (see part C) the psychosis, insanity, and hatred for jameson makes him pretty compelling)

these can all hold a film by themselves...

Group B ) these villains are compelling... but get a little more "umph" if partnered or have a little help... they can work solo given the right story.. but it could be a difficult task Kraven (kraven tells a great story, but i think he's enhanced even more with the likes of Calypso, Chameleon, Vermin or Lizard, or the rest of his family added into the mix.), Jackal (though wont be used has always had a few henchmen.. be it tarantula or punisher), Chameleon (works best in a mafia or his half brother kraven), Kingpin (kingpin as much as i love him, needs his men for hire), Mysterio (Mysterio can work on his own.. and works best on his own aside from sin six, but he's a difficult story to craft. I say go the broadway route over hollywood. But either way he needs to torment spidey)

Group C ) these villains are THUGS.. plain and simple, they don't need a whole lot of development.. these are people who are career criminals who just so happen to have great power.. and act irresponsibly. Sandman, HydroMan, Electro, Vulture, Hammehead, Rhino

 

[spideyboy_1111]

Hmmm...I never said Vulture should be a solo villain or not...don't know where that's coming. Vulture would make a good villain. Character/villain usage is what matters, how he is used in the plot, and moving the story forward.

I don't care about old connotations, from old, dated material or media. Get away from that & Let it go, characters are suppose to evolve, some more than others. None of these characters are good, if you're talking about using characters in the same way they always being used. That is tiresome & lazy, lack of imagination & creative.

Although I agree, Vulture is best used in conjunction with another villain, does not mean he can not be a solo villain...I would disagree everytime...Vulture imo, is just as compelling of a villain, as a number of others. It all in the writing...which incorporates everything.

never said or implied you said that... just branching off of it for those who do or may think that

eh... im not a fan of changing characters for the sake of change either... I want to see these characters on the screen as something familiar... not something that seems foreign and completely different than what i know them to be...

and no... i just do not see Vulture as a solo villain and think it'd be a big mistake... especially when he's a character that can be improved and added to with the help of another.... You don't want to also step on other villains toes... Vulture could easily share alot in common with Ock and we don't want that either. The man is a tech genius.. i think he works best tied into the spider-slayer program.. and make him a cranky disgruntled employee

 

[MyDudeSpidey]

Any villain can hold a film if the writing and story is good enough.

 

[NotSoLongAgo]

Definitely fail to see how vulture would be a compelling villain

 

[spideyboy_1111]

Any villain can hold a film if the writing and story is good enough.

and if you drastically change the character....


something i don't want... There's a reason you have arch-enemies and better villains than others.. someone like Vulture and Sandman should not turn out to be villains that are on par with Green Goblin and Doc Ock... you can't make everyone in batman's roster to be as much of a threat and a better villain than Joker...

that doesn't mean they can't be good and entertaining villains though...

I want the villains to speak for themselves.. there's a reason they've lasted in the books for 60 years. Because people like who they are and how they are written.

 

[The Joker]

i agree.. I've always seperated spideys villains into basically 3 groups...

Group A ) these villains tend to effect both sides of peters life, spidey and parker. They're his most compelling villains... and if they don't effect the parker side, there stories, psychosis, and challenges they give spider-man are top notch... they include... Green Goblin, Hobgoblin, Venom, Lizard, Doctor Octopus, Carnage, Scorpion (though scorpion himself is a thug (see part C) the psychosis, insanity, and hatred for jameson makes him pretty compelling)

these can all hold a film by themselves...

Group B ) these villains are compelling... but get a little more "umph" if partnered or have a little help... they can work solo given the right story.. but it could be a difficult task Kraven (kraven tells a great story, but i think he's enhanced even more with the likes of Calypso, Chameleon, Vermin or Lizard, or the rest of his family added into the mix.), Jackal (though wont be used has always had a few henchmen.. be it tarantula or punisher), Chameleon (works best in a mafia or his half brother kraven), Kingpin (kingpin as much as i love him, needs his men for hire), Mysterio (Mysterio can work on his own.. and works best on his own aside from sin six, but he's a difficult story to craft. I say go the broadway route over hollywood. But either way he needs to torment spidey)

Group C ) these villains are THUGS.. plain and simple, they don't need a whole lot of development.. these are people who are career criminals who just so happen to have great power.. and act irresponsibly. Sandman, HydroMan, Electro, Vulture, Hammehead, Rhino

Good categorizing

Any villain can hold a film if the writing and story is good enough.

No you really can't. Not unless you rewrite them into something they're not. If you have to do that then there's no point in using them at all.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

anyone care to explain how he (vulture) could be all by himself? The guy is and old man, a burglar who makes little gadgets, and flies around... burgling people...

without changing those aspects how would you tell a 2hr film centered around him, and make him seem like a major threat? you couldn't... you'd have to add much more depth to him... and eventually turn him into something he's not.

 

[Slade W]

Any villain can hold a film if the writing and story is good enough.

I agree. Thing is though, Marvel seem far more focused on their heroes than their villains. I doubt this will change with Spiderman. I would say their best villains so far have been Kingpin and Loki (and both had time to develop after appearing in several movies/episodes). Like Marvel have shown with lesser known heroes, they can be great if written well and given a great actor (like RDJ with Iron Man) and the same could be done with the villains that are seen as B or C list in the comics. But based on what Marvel have done so far I doubt this will happen. I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and see it as them choosing to focus more on the hero rather than them not being able to make a great villain (as there is only so much screen-time). I think if they decided to focus more on the villain then they could make one without requiring several films to do so like they did with Loki. I guess in a perfect film, you could have both a well developed and fleshed out hero (like Bruce in Batman Begins) and a very compelling villain who steals every scene and grabs your attention (like Joker in The Dark Knight) but it would be very difficult to find that balance IMO. It seems like its much easier for one to make way for the other and to only have one of them shine.

 

[The Joker]

care to explain how he would be all by himself? The guy is and old man, a burglar who makes little gadgets, and flies around... bur-glaring people...

without changing those aspects how would you tell a 2hr film centered around him, and make him seem like a major threat?

I'm pretty sure NotSoLongAgo was saying he couldn't imagine Vulture as a compelling villain.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

I'm pretty sure NotSoLongAgo was saying he couldn't imagine Vulture as a compelling villain.

ahhh my bad. sorry miss-read

 

[MyDudeSpidey]

No you really can't. Not unless you rewrite them into something they're not. If you have to do that then there's no point in using them at all.

You don't have to rewrite them into something they're not to have great villains. If the story and writing is good enough, usually it works out... like it did with Ock in SM2. If not, just reinvent them. Like Nolan did with Joker & Bane.

 

[The Joker]

You don't have to rewrite them into something they're not to have great villains.

Yes you do. For example sell me a story that could carry the Rhino as a solo villain without changing his character.

If the story and writing is good enough, usually it'll works out... like it did with Ock in SM2. If not, just reinvent them. Like Nolan did with Joker & Bane.

None of them were total rewrites, reinventions, or radical departures of their characters. Reinventing a character is like what BTAS did with Mr. Freeze.

 

[MyDudeSpidey]

Yes you do. For example sell me a story that could carry the Rhino as a solo villain without changing his character.



None of them were total rewrites, reinventions, or radical departures of their characters. Reinventing a character is like what BTAS did with Mr. Freeze.

Well I'm not a professional screenwriter who can craft an entire story in minutes, but I'm sure Marvel would be able to come up with something.

And I'd say Nolan's entire DK trilogy was a reinvention of the Batman mythos.

 

[The Joker]

Well I'm not a professional screenwriter who can craft an entire story in minutes, but I'm sure Marvel could come up with something.

I wasn't asking for a detailed script, just a synopsis summary.

Marvel are not miracle workers. It's not a case of missing potential with these characters. Some villains are just not strong enough to carry a movie, not unless you rewrite them into something they're not. Which is definitely something you'd have to do with villains like Rhino, Shocker etc if you wanted them as the solo villains in a movie.

And I'd say Nolan's entire DK trilogy was a reinvention of the Batman mythos.

You're very wrong on that. I can prove it if need be.