Homecoming Who should be the Villain in Spider-Man (2017)? - Part 3

[harryoscop]

Keep in mind, we're also on a forum dedicated to a character that got bit by a radioactive spider as a teenager that probably should've killed him but instead granted him the ability to climb walls, have a sixth sense, and heightened agility whilst also granting him the ability to make his own "web" fluid so he can put on red-and-blue spandex and swing around NY fighting off Goblins, an Octopus, an Alien, a Lizard, and everything else in between.

(Yeah yeah, I know they aren't actually animals/creatures but the point still works, I tell you! )

Good point.

 

[AvegningSpider]

Jonathan Banks for the win.

 

[ernesth100]

Is that a recolored Falcon TWS suit?

 

[Webhead2006]

If vulture is toomes he should be played by some in late 50s to late 60s. To play up the old man aspect to the character.

As for norman personally I wouldn't want him to be goblin already or tested formula on himself yet. We should just see him as ruthless business man and making deals. And then over time see deals fall apart he snaps and becomes the goblin due to insanity and sp forth.

 

[ernesth100]

They probably will build up to major villains like Goblin.

 

[Webhead2006]

Totally slowly build up ock and norman thru the films. Norman a minor background guy. Ock in the shadows. And like I said do 2 foes for first two films. The 4 get sent to jail at end of each film. Then 3rd film perfect set up for s6.

 

[Mike Murdock]

Well, to be fair his portrayal of Malekith was under a ton of make-up so they could probably get away with it if it happened.

Hell, even if people know he was the guy that played the villain in TDW, I doubt they'd even care as long as it's good.

He was terribly wasted in that role, so I would tend to agree. However, Eccleston doesn't like to be tied down in roles, so I'm doubtful he'd want to come back anyway even if it was offered.

 

[Webhead2006]

Ya I doubt he would want to return.

 

[terry78]

I still say keep it more low key like the mob aka the maggia, with the Enforcers, Hammerhead and maybe Tombstone as the big boss muscle.

 

[Webhead2006]

Be interesting to go that angle. Though I still want to see someone with a little more power.

 

[Venom'sDad]

It wouldn't make sense to cast Vulture around middle age since Aunt May is 50 along with Norman Osborn who will probably be 40-50 ish.

Not sure what that has to do with Toomes age?!?

If Vulture or Mysterio or anyone else is the Big Bad of a film, they need to do something more interesting then robbing banks.

People say they are tired of sympathetic villains, but then they want a villain who just robs banks. How is robbing banks unsympathetic compared to the things Red Skull or Killgrave did, bank robbing is not unsympathetic, its just generic.

I have heard people here say that Vulture should be nuisance rather then a real threatening villain, but if all he does is rob banks and not kill people, why Spider-Man endanger his social life to fight him? What happens if Vulture successfully robs a bank, what the bank's insurance rate goes up and Vulture escapes with some money that will ruined by a hidden ink pack in 5 minutes? Not very smart for a supposed evil genius. Really bank robbery is a crime in decline, bank robbing super villains would seem trivial in today's world, they represent no real stakes. Spider-Man should fight to protect people's lives, not protect a bank's insurance rate. Robbing banks is not the height of villainy.

Been said a million one times and many will still say, "have a powered villain, with unique abilities, rob a bank & be Spidey's nuisance, while we get a teen comedy, based off a mid 80's to early 90's genre."

ALLLLLL Righty Than!

Not get me wrong, bank robbery is a fine crime to have in Act 1, but the villains should move beyond bank robbery in Act 3.

NO Powered Villain, with any special abilities, should result to physical bank robbing. They should be portrayed much more of a threat than that. Leave the bank robbing to common criminals for opening scenes or to show Spidey is fighting common, street level, thievery.

Overall...I agree with you on a number of your opinions....they're spot on.

 

[ernesth100]

Sandman is the exception for Bank Robbing. I mean, what else would he do? Marko isnt a serial killer he's a common street thug.

 

[Venom'sDad]

As Flint yes....but once he become the Sandman, he should graduate from such petty crimes. Plus, I think you missing what Overlord, and maybe one or two others are saying...physically robbing banks, in this digital age, with capital being heavily insured...for these powered villains, is pretty antiquated...especially, when money is mostly digital, can be moved or transferred with the push of a button and/or hacked. Just saying...it's time for the comics powered villains to have more mature motivations, given their new found abilities.

 

[Webhead2006]

Thing is robbing things or stealing tech or folks is pretty much the mo for almost all of his rouges.

 

[Oscorp]

Whoever they choose as the villain should bring high stakes to the film. Not necessarily for the whole city, it could be personal. What matters is that we should be at the edge of our seats. That is something that's been missing in a lot of Marvel Studios' films, save for very few exceptions.

The villain ought not to simply rob banks or just be an annoyance to Spidey's daily life. I know that's how many villains have been portrayed in the early days, but films are a different kind of medium.

I want to feel impressed by the villain. Like "whoa, this villain is awesome!". I want the villain to be dangerous to Spider-Man even if Peter's personal life is the centre of the film (as it should be).

You can have both a compelling, dangerous and deep villain and a well written focus on Peter's personal life at the same time. They don't really exclude each other.

 

[Webhead2006]

That is what I am curious the most on. How will peter daily life issues. The whole hs angle. Play out with villain and the villain plot for film. The one thing I don't want is such deep personal ties between peter and villain. If it's not osborns, brock, connors. They don't really need to know each other.

 

[Venom'sDad]

Whoever they choose as the villain should bring high stakes to the film. Not necessarily for the whole city, it could be personal. What matters is that we should be at the edge of our seats. That is something that's been missing in a lot of Marvel Studios' films, save for very few exceptions.

The villain ought not to simply rob banks or just be an annoyance to Spidey's daily life. I know that's how many villains have been portrayed in the early days, but films are a different kind of medium.

I want to feel impressed by the villain. Like "whoa, this villain is awesome!". I want the villain to be dangerous to Spider-Man even if Peter's personal life is the centre of the film (as it should be).

You can have both a compelling, dangerous and deep villain and a well written focus on Peter's personal life at the same time. They don't really exclude each other.

 

[harryoscop]

Whoever they choose as the villain should bring high stakes to the film. Not necessarily for the whole city, it could be personal. What matters is that we should be at the edge of our seats. That is something that's been missing in a lot of Marvel Studios' films, save for very few exceptions.

The villain ought not to simply rob banks or just be an annoyance to Spidey's daily life. I know that's how many villains have been portrayed in the early days, but films are a different kind of medium.

I want to feel impressed by the villain. Like "whoa, this villain is awesome!". I want the villain to be dangerous to Spider-Man even if Peter's personal life is the centre of the film (as it should be).

You can have both a compelling, dangerous and deep villain and a well written focus on Peter's personal life at the same time. They don't really exclude each other.

 

[Slade W]

I don't have high hope for the villain being any good, no matter who it is, due to Marvels poor track record in that area. I hope I am proven wrong.

 

[Venom'sDad]

Whoever they choose as the villain should bring high stakes to the film. Not necessarily for the whole city, it could be personal. What matters is that we should be at the edge of our seats. That is something that's been missing in a lot of Marvel Studios' films, save for very few exceptions.

The villain ought not to simply rob banks or just be an annoyance to Spidey's daily life. I know that's how many villains have been portrayed in the early days, but films are a different kind of medium.

I want to feel impressed by the villain. Like "whoa, this villain is awesome!". I want the villain to be dangerous to Spider-Man even if Peter's personal life is the centre of the film (as it should be).

You can have both a compelling, dangerous and deep villain and a well written focus on Peter's personal life at the same time. They don't really exclude each other.

 

[harryoscop]

 

[The Overlord]

Thing is robbing things or stealing tech or folks is pretty much the mo for almost all of his rouges.

Well frankly I think a lot of his rogues need more interesting M.Os then. No offense, but I think some fans are so in love with the Silver Age, they seem to want the Marvel Universe to be stuck in the 60s, rather then acknowledging that crime and society has changed a lot in the last 50 years. Bank robbery was probably a bigger issue in the 6os then now and banks were likely more trusted institutions back in the 60s then they are now. Not mention with the comics code in place in the 60s, it was likely hard to have a villain do something worst then petty thievery. But its not the 60s anymore and the comics code is long gone, its time to take these villains out of the box they were created in and give them more compelling stuff to do.

The "simple crook" is not a character, its an archetype and its such simple and bland archetype on its own that its easy to become cartoonish, with villains who have no personality beyond "Mwa, ha, ha! I'm the greedy bank robbing villain, if Spider-Man doesn't stop me, I will escape with easily traceable money and raise the bank's insurance rates! Mwa, ha, ha!" I think the problem with making so many of Spidey's rogues "simple crooks" is they can come off as having interchangeable personalities, what makes one greedy bank robber villain stand out from the other greedy bank robbery villains?

Really if Vulture is supposed to be smart, shouldn't he do things besides rob banks, aren't there several other legal and illegal ways he could make a lot more money then bank robbery?

I mean who cares if the bank robbing villain successfully robs a bank or not, why shouldn't Spidey go on date and let the cops deal with such a minor nuisance, its hard to make the balance of Peter Parker's social life and his crime fighter life interesting, if there are no real stakes in just letting the cops handle these bank robber villains.

That is what I am curious the most on. How will peter daily life issues. The whole hs angle. Play out with villain and the villain plot for film. The one thing I don't want is such deep personal ties between peter and villain. If it's not osborns, brock, connors. They don't really need to know each other.

Well a villain can make things personal with a hero, without having a personal connection to the hero. Joker had no past connection with Batman in the Dark Knight, but things quickly got personal between those two, ditto the rivalry between Fisk and DD in the Netflix show, even Jessica Jones had no past connection to Kilgrave, before Kilgrave came into her life at random and ruined it. Also look at the Master Planner saga from the Silver Age, Doc Ock managed to provide personal stakes for Spidey in that story by accident and that is regarded as one of the best Silver Age Spidey stories.

Frankly this why I suggested Mysterio be a murderous mind breaker who wants to drive Spidey mad, because that makes for a dramatic tale then Mysterio being some idiot who spends 50 million dollars in special effects to steal 100,000 dollars from the bank. The balance between Spidey's crime fighting and personal life is meaningless if the villain doesn't provide real stakes that feel important if Spider-Man chooses to focus entirely on his personal life and ignore crime fighting, if the crime fighting aspect seems irrelevant, then there is no real conflict.

Also Kingpin and Kilgrave were not trying to blow up the city or anything, but they provided higher stakes for the heroes they fought, then common bank robbers would.

Sandman is the exception for Bank Robbing. I mean, what else would he do? Marko isnt a serial killer he's a common street thug.

Oh that's simple, make him a henchman, he can be a merc who serves the agenda of bigger, badder and brighter villains. I actually don't have a problem with Sandman being a bank robber, considering he likely isn't smart enough to come up something more cunning to do with his powers, but smarter villains like Vulture and Mysterio should have bigger and bolder plans. Sandman really isn't Big bad material, see Spider-Man 3, but you could make an potentially interesting henchman, really not every Spidey villain is cut out to be a Big Bad.

 

[Dark Raven]

Not sure what that has to do with Toomes age?!?

Toomes's age has nothing to do with Aunt May's age or Norman Osborn's.

The way I see Toomes, he could be an older war veteran. Maybe someone who invented the Falcon technology and could even have been one of Sam Wilson's commanding officers. He could be a real tough guy but still old and grumpy. He could also be a respected military scientist along the lines of Hank Pym, and would be of a similar age or older.

For instance, we could have Ed Harris:

He's played a military type in the Rock before, and could work.

Or if they wanted to go really big, Marvel could get:

 

[Venom'sDad]

The way I see Toomes, he could be an older war veteran. Maybe someone who invented the Falcon technology. He could also be a respected military scientist.

I wrote a treatment for the Spidey solo film, for Vulture, that follow similar but different line, in its own respect, in order to stay current with the MCU; and, the direction we perceive things to be going, leading to IW. I have not posted it here at the moment, but I will soon.

Anyway, I wrote the treatment, to give those an idea how I would like to see Vulture approached for the Spidey solo film, much like the other treatments in my sig...w/o impeding of the character core essence. Maybe some will start to paint a picture why I personally think this character would be good for the first film....as many of Spidey's villains are; so, there's really no wrong answer, as to, who should be the 1st villain.

 

[Oscorp]

The villain needs a combination of things such as:

- Charisma and personality traits that makes him memorable. It could be a theatrical and manipulating Mysterio who enjoys playing with Spider-Man's mind or a cold, calculating and angry Vulture. The spectrum is wide. What's important is the how. How he expresses himself and how he choses to do things. Well written dialogue that's not generic villain lines. He must feel threatening in a genuine way.

- Being able to put things at stake. As I said, I want to be at the edge of my seat like in Winter Soldier, The Dark Knight and so on. Not necessarily at the same scale though. Peter risking to run late to a date, home to Aunt May and such should be part of the extremely small but personal and important stakes, but the villain himself needs to bring something to the table. There needs to be a reason why Spidey needs to stop him. There needs to be a climax. Sure the small stuff I mentioned could work alone but then we'd have another throw away villain which we don't need nor want, at least I don't.

- Long enough screen time to let him feel important to the story and to develope a good character.

- Purpose. There should be reason for what he does that are understandable but not necessarily sympathetic.

- Be able to provide good action.