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

[Web-Head]

John Malkovich would be the absolute best choice for Vulture.

He was going to play him in Spider-Man 4 before it was cancelled

 

[Doctor Octopus]

He would have been perfect for Raimi Spider-Man 4. I wonder was he choice when they first planned for him in 3rd movie instead of Venom.

 

[Webhead2006]

He was also rumored for norman too I believe.

For mcu spidey these are some foes I want to see in no perticular order: mysterio, kraven, kingpin, shocker, vulture, scorpion. Then of course I want to see better takes on goblin, ock, venom down the road. And I love some cameos of lesser known guys too.

 

[CaptainWagner]

If they did toomes.

If they do Vulture, it has to be Toomes. His age is really the only thing that makes him unique.

 

[Webhead2006]

I know I was just saying that with a few foes having multi mantle holders they could decide to use one over another. Or like marvel did with whiplash and merged whiplash with crimson dynamo that could happen. But ya vulture and mysterio I want toomes and beck.

 

[Doctor Octopus]

They would only do Toomes because all other Vultures not fan favorites or as famous.

 

[Webhead2006]

of course i was merely pointing out with certain foes who have had many users of the name they could pull a switch and use a later take before first take. Or merge characters a bit. Just like TSSM did too.

 

[I'm Venom]

He would have been perfect for Raimi Spider-Man 4. I wonder was he choice when they first planned for him in 3rd movie instead of Venom.

Ben Kingsley was going to play him in Spider-Man 3.

 

[Doctor Octopus]

He a great choice as well. He look almost identical to Toomes.

 

[ernesth100]

The Raimi Trilogy had pretty A+ casting in some places.

 

[The Overlord]

Now I have heard people here are tired of sympathetic villains in Spider-Man movies, but would people here support the exact opposite, a villain who is a monstrous psychopath who truly makes the audience hates them?

A villain who just robs banks is not truly unsympathetic, bank robbery is such a mundane crime its hard to have any real strong feelings for them. All they are doing is marking up the bank's insurance rates by stealing money that is easily traceable, not is not a truly sympathetic crime, it is not the makings of a truly twist villain, just a really generic and forgettable one.

If Mysterio was willing try and commit mass murder in order to drive Spider-Man insane, that is unsympathetic. Mysterio is easy is make into an evil monstrous psychopath because he seemed that way in the Guardian Devil storyline.

A sympathetic villain is compelling, but so is a truly evil villain (like the Joker in most of his film appearances), so should Spidey face a really evil villain in contrast to the various sympathetic villains he faced in the past movies?

 

[ernesth100]

Eh, I want to disagree. But I've never read the Gaurdian Devil thing so I dunno.

 

[Webhead2006]

That's the thing alot of spidey rouges have alot of different reasons for life of crime. Be it revenge, go nuts, just a simple crook, mob, etc..... reasons.

 

[The Overlord]

That's the thing alot of spidey rouges have alot of different reasons for life of crime. Be it revenge, go nuts, just a simple crook, mob, etc..... reasons.

How is a "simple crook" even remotely compelling enough to carry a movie? A simple crook sounds like the most dull villain you put on the Silver Screen

If you have a villain who lacks any sort of redeeming values, but never commits a crime worse then petty thievery, why should I care about that villain? They have done nothing to make me like or hate them, they have established themselves as villains I have no reason to care about. What are stakes if Shocker successfully robs a bank? The bank's insurance rates go up? Big deal, Spidey should be saving lives, not protecting the banks insurance rates. How many cop shows are about preventing bank robberies nowadays? It seems like cop shows deal with more serious heinious crimes for a long time now. A villain who tries to commit mass murder leads to higher and more exciting stakes then one who robs bank. If you want a truly unsympathetic villain, you need to have him do something worse then petty thievery.


Also revenge is a nebulous concept, are we taking about sympathetic revenge, petty revenge or something else?

 

[Webhead2006]

I didn't mean it is a compelling reason for a film. And not every foe is worthy to be lead liner. I was just pointing out we don't just need to go sympathetic or overtly evil as only driving factors for villains.

 

[The Overlord]

I didn't mean it is a compelling reason for a film. And not every foe is worthy to be lead liner. I was just pointing out we don't just need to go sympathetic or overtly evil as only driving factors for villains.

Except a villain who's "driving factor" is to be a "simple crook" is not very compelling in general.

But you need something to make the villain compelling, you can't have a villain rob banks for 2 hours be compelling. You need some sort of hook for the villain of the film to make an impact, making the villain sympathetic or evil is the easiest way to do it (or giving a villain a personal connection to the hero). If the villain is neither sympathetic or evil, what is he? Generic, that is what, he is a generic bad guy, like most of the unimpressive villains who appear in the MCU. And I am talking about villains who would be headliners, not henchmen material, henchman villains do not need a lot of discussion in general, they are often plot devices rather then real characters. Toad from X-Men or Riptide from X-Men First Class are barely characters, for example.

And frankly, I think the bank robbing villain is a trope Marvel should step away from, a lot people don't even like banks nowadays, so robbing one is not the height of villainy it was in the 60s. A lot people think banks are responsible for the economic crisis of 2008 and think bank owners rob people better then anyone who actually tries to rob bank. But let's face it, someone who is tries to rob bank for selfish greed is not committing a sympathetic act. So at is point, bank robbery is a crime that leaves zero impact on a audience, the film makers have to do better then that to make a compelling villain.

Bank robbery has been in decline for a while in the real world, you need crimes that seem relevant to today's audience, rather then recycling outdated stories from the 1960s:

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/05/14/todays-bonnie-and-clydes-getting-tougher-to-find.html

At this point, most Spidey villains could make more money with a laptop and commuting cyber crimes, then they could by physically robbing banks.
Besides Spidey has not faced a really evil villain in the movies, it would make for a good change of pace. Personally I would make Mysterio a monstrous villain, because Mysterio willing to break people's minds and trying to commit mass murder just to gain fame is just the final conclusion of Mysterio's M.O. in the comics. Nothing about Mysterio's M.O is sympathetic, so I say take him in the opposite direction.

Heck having someone like Shocker work for Mysterio at first, but then turn against him because he has moral reservations about his plan, would give him more characterization then being some one dimensional greedy villain would. I also think Mysterio becoming a monster due to his desire to become famous would provide some commentary on our fame obsessed culture, would make him more relevant then some guy who uses slight of hand tricks to pretty thievery.

 

[Webhead2006]

Again man I was pointing out we just don't need he is evil for evil 9r he was good but went bad. For why villains do what they do. As I pointed out spidey rouges have a variety of reasons they became badguys. And we don't just need them to be evil for evil or turn them from a good guy and went evil sympathetic take.

 

[The Overlord]

Again man I was pointing out we just don't need he is evil for evil 9r he was good but went bad. For why villains do what they do. As I pointed out spidey rouges have a variety of reasons they became badguys. And we don't just need them to be evil for evil or turn them from a good guy and went evil sympathetic take.

And I'm pointing out that some of those villains you mentioned, may not be able to carry a 2 hour movie with 3 acts and a climax, if they are are "simple crooks" who have no real redeeming qualities, but never do anything more evil then petty thievery. Movies are different from comic books, you can't just slap any old super villain into a staring movie role and make it instantly work. I think an evil psychopath Mysterio would be more of a cinematic villain then a bank robber with a gimmick.

And frankly I think some Spider-Man villains need a revamp. Shocker for example is a character I want to like, but can't because the writers don't put consistent effort into him and he comes across as a character defined by a vague idea (he is the most rational Spider-Man villain) rather then giving him a core characterization (what does rational mean for him, does that mean he has moral lines he won't cross or is he just cold hearted psychopath who doesn't care about anyone but himself and will do any evil thing to get money). Captain Cold from Flash is a way better blue collar crook, because they give him defined moral lines he won't cross, with Shocker it seems like his character will just be whatever the writer feels like this week. So at this point, I don't think the character works well in the comics, so not every Spider-Man villain is compelling, even in the comics.

Really movie Electro might prove that not every villain can carry a movie and since MCU as a rep for bland villains, I think they have step their game with the Spidey villains and a simple crook as the main bad guy won't cut it, they need something more cinematic.

 

[Mike Murdock]

If Mysterio was willing try and commit mass murder in order to drive Spider-Man insane, that is unsympathetic. Mysterio is easy is make into an evil monstrous psychopath because he seemed that way in the Guardian Devil storyline.

I thought the tone of that story was so over the place particularly because of that. Mysterio had such a hands off traditionally villainy but would occasionally spice it up with a cold-blooded nearly pointless murder. I'm not all that familiar with Mysterio, but the whole thing seemed out of character.

 

[Webhead2006]

also overlord i said this to someone before if you really want to turn a guy into a sympathic villain or a overt evil is evil dude. When the character traits isnt that. Whats the point in even doing said character if you want to change them so much. They dont look or feel as fans expect them too.

 

[The Overlord]

I thought the tone of that story was so over the place particularly because of that. Mysterio had such a hands off traditionally villainy but would occasionally spice it up with a cold-blooded nearly pointless murder. I'm not all that familiar with Mysterio, but the whole thing seemed out of character.

Well let's face it, Mysterio was just not a well defined character in the comics (they didn't really give him a reason why he quit his movie career to become a super villain till pretty recently, before that it just seems like he gave up a successful special effects career and became a super villain for no real reason).

Mysterio was often more of a gimmick then a character, he trap Spidey in weird situations, tried to mess with his psyche a bit (not as nasty as say Scarecrow from Batman). But what we really know about the character, not much, he is more of a plot device then an actual character in the comics.

Most stories with him are him just doing generic super villain things, rather then about him as a character.

That's why I think it might be a good idea to make him a bit more nasty in the movie then he is the comics. Really I think these B-list villains are best place to experiment with on screen, because they are often more defined by a gimmick then characterization, so you can play around with their personalities. Frankly I had no problem with making Dr. Octopus more sympathetic in Spider-Man 2 and I don't think Mysterio as a generic super villain will break the MCU's streak of forgettable movie villains. A movie doesn't have to adhere to every little detail from the comics.

also overlord i said this to someone before if you really want to turn a guy into a sympathic villain or a overt evil is evil dude. When the character traits isnt that. Whats the point in even doing said character if you want to change them so much. They dont look or feel as fans expect them too.

So was Dr. Octopus and Whiplash fundamentally ruined by their Silver screen adaptions? An adaption is an adaption, not a 100% recreation from the comics, they change villains all the time in these movies. Also sometimes comic books have certain characters that wouldn't work in today's wold (comic book Mandarin would have been a really hard sell in today's world). Just saying something should be the way it is from the comics, without justifying it beyond the fact it is how it was in the comics, is non starter with me.

Also face it, Mysterio in the comics is more of a plot device then a character, his gimmick defines him in the comics, but his personality is not very well defined at all, there are very few stories where he see what makes him tick. Since he doesn't have a very well defined personality in the comics, why not tweak it for the Silver screen, I wouldn't suggest this if I thought he did have a strong personality in the comics, but he just doesn't.

 

[Webhead2006]

overlord i do agree certain guys do need some revisions to them. But then others i dont see the need to change. Like i said above if you change said guy so much whats the point in using said character if its just in name only and he/she is a totally different character that has nothing of what the fans want in said character.

 

[The Overlord]

overlord i do agree certain guys do need some revisions to them. But then others i dont see the need to change. Like i said above if you change said guy so much whats the point in using said character if its just in name only and he/she is a totally different character that has nothing of what the fans want in said character.

Except with a lot of these B-list villains, even the writers can't agree what their personality actually is? Which is the real Shocker, the the kinda lovable loser from Superior Foes or the guy who was willing to commit mass murder for money in the "Unscheduled Stop" story, because those don't seem like the same guy to me. Its hard to have a true version of a character, when the writers can't decide what the character is actually is.

Plus adaptions can actually improve some villains, was the Mr. Freeze from the comics ruined by his adaption in BTAS? I don't think so.

Plus you really have not explained how Mysterio has a well defined personality in the comics. A lot of these B-list villains have no real defined personality, so changing isn't "In Name Only" adaptions, its adding something because not very much was there in the first place. Comic writers themselves do this all the time by making previously bland villains more sympathetic or sinister or something other then some guy who robs banks in his long johns. Claremont changed Magneto in the 70s, did that ruin Magneto or should Magneto still be the same generic super villain he was back in the 60s ?

Also film makers can't and shouldn't just pander to fans at the expense of story telling and selling something to larger audience, Marvel should not lost access to the Chinese market to please a few fan boys who wanted a "true to the comics" version of Mandarin.

Saying "don't question it because that is how it done in the comics" is not logic I agree with, keeping true to the spirit of something in an adaption is more important then being slavish to every last detail.

 

[Webhead2006]

you got good points all i was saying as i said above i dont want change just to be change. Their is reasons folks like this or that villain and stories/characters and want to see these stories/characters/etc.... done in a way they loved. Now yes some things from comics dont work on screen and some things need to change do to the nature of changing times. I just dont think we need to flat out change just for change. Look at what that did for the recent FF film, and other films/shows did to one character/group and changed them so much.

 

[The Overlord]

you got good points all i was saying as i said above i dont want change just to be change. Their is reasons folks like this or that villain and stories/characters and want to see these stories/characters/etc.... done in a way they loved. Now yes some things from comics dont work on screen and some things need to change do to the nature of changing times. I just dont think we need to flat out change just for change. Look at what that did for the recent FF film, and other films/shows did to one character/group and changed them so much.

On the flip side, change should not be feared just because it is change, it depends on the changes that are done. I think Dr. Doom has a far more developed personality then Mysterio, so frankly I wouldn't change Doom at all, but I would tweak Mysterio, because frankly I do think he needs some tweaks to work better on the Silver Screen.

I don't think I am suggesting change for change's sake, I think I am suggesting something that I think would work well cinematically and taking Mysterio to his logically extreme, by having him put fame above all else. Frankly I am just suggesting a Mysterio that is willing to go further then he has in the past, the desire for fame is still there, but he has taken it further.

Look since Mysterio is not a well defined character, so you have pick and choose which elements you think work and expand upon, because in the comics, he often is just a gimmick and nothing else. So I would suggesting working with. Now sometimes Mysterio is written as your typical greedy money obsessed villain rather then a fame obsessed one (again he is not very consistently written), but that is more generic and less interesting to me then the fame obsession, personality wise the obsession with fame is what sets Mysterio apart from other Spider-Man villains, take that away and he is interchangeable with every other B-list Spidey villain in terms of personality.

Its hard to stay true to character's personality in these adaptions, when even the comic book writers can't even agree with what their personality is, so I think some tweaking is inevitable with some of these villains.