Homecoming Who should reboot villain be? (Poll Version)

[I'm Batman.]

This.

You're the best guy on these forums.

 

[Spider2099]

You're the best guy on these forums.

Why thank you kind sir.

 

[Broseph44]

Cool looking is poor reason to use a villain. If they not interesting enough then no reason to use them. Use villains who are worth using.

Venom is not interesting enough. He have a stupid origin and motive. He could never have a movie as only bad guy.

No more symbiotes. No Morbius either. I don't want vampires in Spider-Man.

Says you, meanwhile others disagree. So there's that too.

 

[The Joker]

I second no more symbiotes. They are gimmick characters. All style and no substance.

 

[Leenie]

I'm all for the symbiotes playing a factor in the MCU Spider-Man movies at some point (just not right now, while they're trying to re-introduce the character). Why not? It's giving the fans something they want, yes? And Marvel Studios aims to please.

Secret Wars at some point in the distant future, anyone? And Marvel could totally write Venom and Carnage to be more interesting characters, in my opinion.

 

[I'm Batman.]

Disney is all about the money would it really be smart to do Goblin yet again? Everybody hated Venom in Spider-Man 3, delivering fans with a proper Venom would be a perfect move for them to come out smelling like roses for rebooting so quickly after ASM. To this day people are still saying how Topher was a terrible Venom and they want to see the character given justice on screen.

 

[2094]

I really want the reboot to have a B list villain like Shocker. Something smooth for Spidey to face. I'm really hoping they bring Mysterio in this and they could even give him the Reality gem. So maybe Mysterio and Shocker? or nah?

 

[SoNicRaDiATioN]

Venom will appear again at some point. He may not be as classically iconic as GG or Doc Ock, but Venom is the bigger box office draw. Not just for Spidey villians but for Marvel villians in general. There is no denying his place in popular culture. The origin could easily be tweaked and made more interesting in the movies.

 

[Morbius]

I second no more symbiotes. They are gimmick characters. All style and no substance.

Good thing this is a movie where you know, writers can make characters interesting
They made Starlord go from dull to extremely fun as he transitioned from comics to film. Good writing can inject live into otherwise dull comic book characters.

 

[Mike Murdock]

I'm all for the symbiotes playing a factor in the MCU Spider-Man movies at some point (just not right now, while they're trying to re-introduce the character). Why not? It's giving the fans something they want, yes? And Marvel Studios aims to please.

Secret Wars at some point in the distant future, anyone? And Marvel could totally write Venom and Carnage to be more interesting characters, in my opinion.

I'd love Secret Wars. I don't see it happening any time soon. They should get Dr. Doom back before they consider it.

 

[The Joker]

Good thing this is a movie where you know, writers can make characters interesting

This logic fails me. What is the point of using a character as a primary antagonist in a movie if they need a rewrite in order to be made interesting? A villain worthy of being a main villain shouldn't need to be rewritten in order to be made interesting. Part of being a worthy villain is already being interesting enough to be one.

Marvel themselves can't even sustain Venom as that. That's why the symbiote has been passed off from pillar to post. Flash Thompson of all people is Venom now. Venom is a gimmicky character, and the movies can do just fine without his overrated shallow presence.

They made Starlord go from dull to extremely fun as he transitioned from comics to film. Good writing can inject live into otherwise dull comic book characters.

I've never read the GOTG comics, but your comparison is apples and oranges. Starlord is the leader of the GOTG. If they were going to make a movie about them they HAD to upgrade his character because they couldn't leave him out. He's an integral part of the team. It would be like doing X-Men without Xavier or Fantastic Four without Reed Richards. On the other hand Spider-Man can go as many movies as he likes and not have Venom appear because he's not a necessity, and Spidey's got a huge range of much better villains to choose from.

 

[harryoscop]

Neil IS Mysterio, nuff said.

 

[April Ludgate]

I'm really not sure who they should go for (hence why I haven't voted in the poll), but I can see them going with either lesser known villains or the other way around. I think they'd wanna distance themselves from the previous movies, though, so they'd probably go with new villains.

I don't think they should abandon the symbiote. Venom could be interesting, but I think it'd be better to develop the symbiote over a couple of movies, instead of one. What's cool about Venom is how we get to explore Peter's anger and darker side and how he's not very light hearted as people thought he is (just don't repeat the SM3 emo Peter). It gives Peter depth. Then we'll get to see Spider-man go head to head with somebody equivalent to him, only evil. They can go so many ways with the symbiote--as antagonists, anti-heroes like Agent Venom. Granted, it all comes down to writing and execution.

Good thing this is a movie where you know, writers can make characters interesting
They made Starlord go from dull to extremely fun as he transitioned from comics to film. Good writing can inject live into otherwise dull comic book characters.

I don't think Star-Lord is that dull in the comics. His movie incarnation is fun, but he gets a little bit too goofy at times. I don't know, just my opinion. I love the movie, though.

 

[JOE]

Neil IS Mysterio, nuff said.

One of the things the MCU does fantastically is cast. Let's just hope they cast correctly for the poster boy... With the almighty Sony's blessing of course!

 

[CaptainWagner]

I'll admit I'm not a huge fan of Brock-Venom. But the Black Suit Saga is a key Spidey story, and I desperately want to see Agent Venom on the big screen. Admit tingly, they could do both those things without using Venom as a villain, but I don't know if that's something they could/should do.

Carnage, on the other hand, makes for a great villain. He's basically Spider-man's Joker. Rewrite his origin as a government attempt to duplicate the original symbiote, and there you go. Perfect foe for an Agent Venom movie.

 

[The Joker]

Carnage, on the other hand, makes for a great villain. He's basically Spider-man's Joker.

Please explain how he is like Spider-Man's Joker. All Carnage does is go around slaughtering people in cold blood for fun. He is even more shallow than Venom. He is as one dimensional as they come. There is no diversity to the character. He's more akin to Zsasz than he is to the Joker. The Joker has bags of layers and diversity to him. Carnage is just one note killing machine. Look at his most famous story, Maximum Carnage. 12 straight issues of him and his psycho gangs going around NY just randomly kill people. There's no story there.

It was funny how the 90's cartoon had to tone him down into a life energy drainer. No slaughter on a Saturday morning kids cartoon.

 

[Spider2099]

I'm pretty sure the Green Goblin is seen as "Spider-Man's Joker." But I think Carnage would be a good foe for a Venom film (whether it's Brock or Flash).

 

[Oscorp]

This logic fails me. What is the point of using a character as a primary antagonist in a movie if they need a rewrite in order to be made interesting? A villain worthy of being a main villain shouldn't need to be rewritten in order to be made interesting. Part of being a worthy villain is already being interesting enough to be one.

Marvel themselves can't even sustain Venom as that. That's why the symbiote has been passed off from pillar to post. Flash Thompson of all people is Venom now. Venom is a gimmicky character, and the movies can do just fine without his overrated shallow presence.

I've never read the GOTG comics, but your comparison is apples and oranges. Starlord is the leader of the GOTG. If they were going to make a movie about them they HAD to upgrade his character because they couldn't leave him out. He's an integral part of the team. It would be like doing X-Men without Xavier or Fantastic Four without Reed Richards. On the other hand Spider-Man can go as many movies as he likes and not have Venom appear because he's not a necessity, and Spidey's got a huge range of much better villains to choose from.

Which begs me the question...would you say Sandman was the main villain of Spider-Man 3? Did he work well?

Coming to think of it, I don't think any villain was a main villain in SM3. I enjoyed Sandman though, at least when he didn't turn into a goofy giant.

EDIT: About this symbiote debate...I think a writer can make Venom interesting while staying true to the source. I don't think it's worth it though. Instead of spending time trying to make a mediocre villain work, and also having to spend time on the symbiote stuff, I'd prefer them to simply ignore him and go with the more interesting and classic villains.

 

[JOE]

@ The Joker & Oscorp:

You can't really call any villain "Spider-Man's Joker" as he doesn't have one. Not as far as I'm concerned. He's on a completely different level than any Spider-Man villain. On the other hand you could say a villain is Batman's Green Goblin, or Batman's Doc Ock?

 

[Oscorp]

@ The Joker & Oscorp:

You can't really call any villain "Spider-Man's Joker" as he doesn't have one. Not as far as I'm concerned. He's on a completely different level than any Spider-Man villain. On the other hand you could say a villain is Batman's Green Goblin, or Batman's Doc Ock?

I don't think neither me nor The Joker called anyone "Spider-Man's Joker".

I don't think it's even necessary to call any Spider-Man villain "Spider-Man's Joker" because Spider-Man doesn't need a Joker. He's fine with the villains he has. In the same way, I don't think you could really call any villain "Batman's Green Goblin". There's really no point in making comparisions like that.

Batman has his Joker, Spider-Man has his Green Goblin. They are their respective arch enemies.

I'd say Green Goblin is Spider-Man's true arch enemy (with Doc Ock at close second) and that he should be in a Spider-Man film series for it to feel complete.

 

[JOE]

I don't think it's even necessary to call any Spider-Man villain "Spider-Man's Joker" because Spider-Man doesn't need a Joker.

It's not a matter of not needing one, what I'm saying is he doesn't have one to begin with as far as villain quality.

 

[Oscorp]

It's not a matter of not needing one, what I'm saying is he doesn't have one to begin with as far as villain quality.

When I see someone say "He's Spider-Man's Joker", I'm not interpreting it as "He's as good of a villain as Joker", but rather "He's Spider-Man's most integral villain", or like "You don't make a Spider-Man trilogy without Green Goblin" - in which case I agree with such a statement.

 

[TheWallCrawler]

It's not a matter of not needing one, what I'm saying is he doesn't have one to begin with as far as villain quality.

That's very true actually. And it's sad there isn't that many good movie fitting villains left

even the better villains of Spider-man are designed very much for short episodic adventures (mostly the ones that haven't been used yet I mean). I mean, what is the movie gonna be? MacGargan becomes scorpion, Spider-man loses the first battle, wins the second one. nothing is changed, status quo continues as the same, and it just becomes another stale 300 million dollar Spidey adventure that might've been much better & more focused as a tv series episode

a Spider-man movie needs a very qualified writer that can add a lot of layers to villains that aren't that deep in the source material to begin with.

 

[JOE]

When I see someone say "He's Spider-Man's Joker", I'm not interpreting it as "He's as good of a villain as Joker", but rather "He's Spider-Man's most integral villain", or like "You don't make a Spider-Man trilogy without Green Goblin" - in which case I agree with such a statement.

Understood! Thanks for clarification.

 

[JOE]

That's very true actually. And it's sad there isn't that many good movie fitting villains left

even the better villains of Spider-man are designed very much for short episodic adventures (mostly the ones that haven't been used yet I mean). I mean, what is the movie gonna be? MacGargan becomes scorpion, Spider-man loses the first battle, wins the second one. nothing is changed, status quo continues as the same, and it just becomes another stale 300 million dollar Spidey adventure that might've been much better & more focused as a tv series episode

a Spider-man movie needs a very qualified writer that can add a lot of layers to villains that aren't that deep in the source material to begin with.

The tragic villains with good intentions are getting old with Spider-Man.

Green Goblin- wanted to save his company by taking a risk.
Doc Ock- wanted to create renewable energy to make the world a cleaner place.
Sandman- wanted to get money to save his daughter's life.
Lizard- wanted to help amputees all around the world, and cure other diseases.

Can we please break the mold this time Marvel? Give us a villain we can love to hate.