Homecoming Who should reboot villain be? (Poll Version)

[Loki882]

On the other hand, there are still MANY more "selfish" villains, and they tend not to be all that interesting to me. Sure there are exceptions most of the time when it's just
"he's doing this because he evviiill" then my reaction is "ok, why should I give a crap?" I just find it dull and keep looking at my watch until the actual interesting stuff comes back onscreen.

 

[Spideyfan93]

Just for refreshment think they should go with a villain who hasn't been introduced to the cinematic world yet...then build up to bigger villains in fellow Marvel films or Sinister Six or whatever.

And I'd like to see Kraven be the premiere villain for this new chapter in the Spidey franchise!

 

[DigificWriter]

Since Sony gets no benefit whatsoever from Spider-Man's inclusion in films produced by Marvel Studios, it isn't likely that they'd use their Spider-Man films to 'seed' future villains for "fellow Marvel films", and their ability to use existing MCU characters is something that isn't immediately guaranteed by the current parameters of this arrangement and would have to be grafted into it after-the-fact.

Since we know the S6 film is still happening but will now be happening at some point after the release of this movie (rather than before it), I expect that whatever villain(s) we see in this movie will have some type of connection to that group, either directly or indirectly.

 

[fixxxer]

^

Sony indefinitely delaying S6 rather than canceling it outright is hardly proof that it is "happening". It might come sometime down the line, but the script will be heavily retrofitted in order to fit it into the MCU.

 

[DigificWriter]

The very fact that the arrangement that Sony struck with Marvel Studios includes provisions about MS and Feige not having any involvement in S6 and the other already-announced Sony Spider-Man 'side projects' should be all the proof that is needed that those films will still happen at some point even in light of this deal.

Even with the arrangement they've struck with MS, Sony still remains in firm control of the Spider-Man license and will be doing everything it can to maximize that license. It's clear that S6 (even though it's release has been 'delayed indefinitely'), Venom/Carnage and the female-centric film project still remain part of Sony's strategy for maximizing their Spider-Man license even in light of this deal with MS, and I wouldn't expect that to change.

These 3 movies are still happening; they're just happening on a less definite timetable than they would've before this arrangement with MS was agreed upon.

 

[Nemeres]

I doubt it'll be the "Spidey vs 1 villain" formula yet again. It's all about team-ups lately, solo superhero ventures might be starting to feel small potatoes at this point. The only thing that I would assume they'd feel confident by putting out there while expecting big results would be Spidey vs a mega villain team-up.

 

[Broseph44]

I think we will get two villains in the film. Even if one is more behind the scenes pulling the strings/mastermind while the other is the muscle.

 

[Oscorp]

There are several of Spider-Man's villains that are sympathetic and if they are done properly, there's no way to get around that. But I agree that villains are becoming cliche. And turning or attempting to turn every villain into a sympathetic one is lame. For an example outside of Spider-Man movies, look at how Maleficient ruined that character from her original appearance in Sleeping Beauty. They not only made her into a sympathetic villain, they turned her into a hero.

I really like your 3rd paragraph. There's no need to force feed these stupid sympathetic reasonings into the villains--just give them their own set of selfish goals and the proper logic to follow them.

Yeah villains like Lizard should very much be sympathetic (it's pretty ironic that he isn't in TASM though). It's not just about feeling sorry for the villain though. I can feel sorry for Electro when I take his childhood into consideration, or Sandman in his struggle between being a good person or being a criminal (something that exists in the comics). Though the films obviously overplayed that card. Harry is an obvious one you should feel sorry for.

No, my problem lies in the amount of villains in films and video games who talk about how their intention was to change the world for the better, how they with their twisted actions wanted to help people. Oh, he's not a bad person in his own mind, he looks at himself as a hero! How deep. I just roll my eyes when antagonists are portrayed like that nowadays because it's so common and forced. It's hard for me to understand their actions with that kind of motivation.

The sympathetic card is also overplayed however. I'd for example hate to see a Vulture who "just wants to feel young again!", rather than him being a greedy, sociopathic old bastard. I don't want a Mysterio who "just wants to retain his lost career" or anything like that, rather than him being a narcissistic, attention seeking a-hole. Sure, most often such behavior originates from something tragic in the past, but we don't need to see that.

 

[Doctor Octopus]

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

 

[Nemeres]

The symbiotes are too good to waste. They should be treated as a macguffin of sorts for a whole movie, something like that. Then in the next film, bam, Venom and/or Carnage. I don't get the hate, they're cool-looking, and if they're not interesting characters you make them that. Simple in theory at least.

 

[Doctor Octopus]

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.

 

[Nemeres]

That was addressing the opinion that they're uninteresting characters, which I don't agree with. Venom's interesting enough. He's no favorite of mine, but he can carry a movie as antagonist for sure.

 

[Doctor Octopus]

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

 

[Frodo]

I think there is a balance that you need to have. You want to know the villains motivations but they don't have to be sympathetic. I frankly don't mind if the villain is just evil and someone the hero can't reconcile with. Not every villain needs to have a fleshed out backstory or sympathetic background in order to work well. Audiences will accept a villain just being a bad guy. Further, audiences accept a villain full formed ala X Men films and the Nolan Batman films. Audiences aren't automatically expecting every villain to have an indepth back story or to have to understand why they're bad. Its really not that complicated, assuming the villain and the story are good.

Basically , alot of the sympathetic portrayals and full on backstories are hold overs from the Burton/Schumacer Batman films in which studio intentionally cast big name actors because they felt the villains were more important than the heroes. As a result they wrote in back stories and origins to give more screentime to the big name actors. Alot of the sympathetic villain arc comes from Spiderman 2 and Sony just kept trying to redo it over and over.

Personally I think the next Spiderman villain needs to be someone who is truly a villain and not another misunderstood, sympathetic, scientist slash father figure. Characters like Kingpin, Vulture,Carnage, Kraven, Mysterio, Chameleon , Venom, and Doc Ock usually fit that bill.

 

[UltimateWebhead]

I think there is a balance that you need to have. You want to know the villains motivations but they don't have to be sympathetic. I frankly don't mind if the villain is just evil and someone the hero can't reconcile with. Not every villain needs to have a fleshed out backstory or sympathetic background in order to work well. Audiences will accept a villain just being a bad guy. Further, audiences accept a villain full formed ala X Men films and the Nolan Batman films. Audiences aren't automatically expecting every villain to have an indepth back story or to have to understand why they're bad. Its really not that complicated, assuming the villain and the story are good.

Basically , alot of the sympathetic portrayals and full on backstories are hold overs from the Burton/Schumacer Batman films in which studio intentionally cast big name actors because they felt the villains were more important than the heroes. As a result they wrote in back stories and origins to give more screentime to the big name actors. Alot of the sympathetic villain arc comes from Spiderman 2 and Sony just kept trying to redo it over and over.

Personally I think the next Spiderman villain needs to be someone who is truly a villain and not another misunderstood, sympathetic, scientist slash father figure. Characters like Kingpin, Vulture,Carnage, Kraven, Mysterio, Chameleon , Venom, and Doc Ock usually fit that bill.

There are several villains from Spidey's mythos that have sympathetic qualities and they vary from one to the next. The problem with many movies is they take the idea of sympathy and go overboard--there's no need to force the audience to try and connect with these villains and feel sorry for them. Even to the point where they change the underlying characteristics of the villains themselves.

I agree that the next villain should avoid the sympathy card altogether.

 

[I'm Batman.]

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

We'll be getting Venom again and to be honest I see no reason why ten minutes means we can't bring him back on screen properly. And honestly there's not much of an argument for his exclusion. By the time Spidey's movie comes out, it'll have been a decade since we last saw Venom on screen. And if he isn't introduced until a few movies down the line, it'll be closer to twenty. It's only natural for him to be in the movies. Venom is inevitable.

 

[Spider2099]

We'll be getting Venom again and to be honest I see no reason why ten minutes means we can't bring him back on screen properly. And honestly there's not much of an argument for his exclusion. By the time Spidey's movie comes out, it'll have been a decade since we last saw Venom on screen. And if he isn't introduced until a few movies down the line, it'll be closer to twenty. It's only natural for him to be in the movies. Venom is inevitable.

This.

 

[Mike Murdock]

While I suspect Venom will be back no matter what (and I loved him as a villain), I am a little nervous of him as an anti-hero. I don't think that ever worked quite so well. It just struck me as Spider-Man with an edge, or Spider-Man meets the Punisher, which is just derivative of two characters instead of one. As a villain, he's a bigger, badder Spider-Man immune to his Spidey sense. He's the equivalent of Reverse Flash more than any other analogy I can think of and works well as a mirror to the hero. On top of that, he has knowledge of Spider-Man's entire life, so he incorporates elements of Norman Osborn. To me, that's an effective villain.

In short, I'd love him as a villain done right, but they want to set up a solo movie that I'm more nervous about. Maybe they can hire Michael Bay for Maximum Carnage, but I can't say I think it'll be a good story. It just strikes me as 90s self-indulgence.

 

[Frodo]

There are several villains from Spidey's mythos that have sympathetic qualities and they vary from one to the next. The problem with many movies is they take the idea of sympathy and go overboard--there's no need to force the audience to try and connect with these villains and feel sorry for them. Even to the point where they change the underlying characteristics of the villains themselves.

I agree that the next villain should avoid the sympathy card altogether.

Yeah. In the case of Spiderman in particular, Sony saw how well Alfred Molina's conflicted and likable Doc Ock went over with audiences and critics at the time, and Sony just tried to copy the formula again and again with the following three films.

 

[Sterling Archer]

While I suspect Venom will be back no matter what (and I loved him as a villain), I am a little nervous of him as an anti-hero. I don't think that ever worked quite so well. It just struck me as Spider-Man with an edge, or Spider-Man meets the Punisher, which is just derivative of two characters instead of one. As a villain, he's a bigger, badder Spider-Man immune to his Spidey sense. He's the equivalent of Reverse Flash more than any other analogy I can think of and works well as a mirror to the hero. On top of that, he has knowledge of Spider-Man's entire life, so he incorporates elements of Norman Osborn. To me, that's an effective villain.

Never thought of it like that before, but you are completely right. I think that makes me like Venom even more.

 

[Spider2099]

I don't know how far they will take Venom as an "anti-hero" but I think we will at least get to see him as a villain. We only got him for 10 minutes in SM3 so I think Venom fans deserve to see more of him.

 

[The Overlord]

On the other hand, there are still MANY more "selfish" villains, and they tend not to be all that interesting to me. Sure there are exceptions most of the time when it's just
"he's doing this because he evviiill" then my reaction is "ok, why should I give a crap?" I just find it dull and keep looking at my watch until the actual interesting stuff comes back onscreen.

Well it depends, when we talk about unsympathetic villains are we talking about someone who is just a jerk or an evil psychopathic monster?

A villain who is just a jerk usually is not very interesting, because they are not sympathetic or menacing, an evil psychopath villain on the other hand, can if well done, can be compelling by virtue of the audience really wanting to see hero defeat this guy and the extra lengths a hero has to get through to counter a foe with no real moral limits. It gives the audience villain that provides real menace and gives them a character they love to hate.

Let's face it Joker in The Dark Knight has no redeeming qualities and is just a monster and people seem to think he is one of the best villains ever seen in a comic book movie.

 

[Mike Murdock]

Well, I think we're more likely to see him as an Anti-hero than a villain since they still apparently want to do a Venom movie.

 

[Spider2099]

Venom should go from being a villain to an anti-hero though.

 

[Nemeres]

We'll be getting Venom again and to be honest I see no reason why ten minutes means we can't bring him back on screen properly. And honestly there's not much of an argument for his exclusion. By the time Spidey's movie comes out, it'll have been a decade since we last saw Venom on screen. And if he isn't introduced until a few movies down the line, it'll be closer to twenty. It's only natural for him to be in the movies. Venom is inevitable.

I've read some of people's really specific arguments for why Venom's a terrible character, and while I'm sure it means a lot to them, they don't carry much weight as a reason for why not to use (or re-use) one of Spider-Man's most popular villains in a movie. I think it's the same logic as Bane in TDKR, a brawny 90s character known for a brief period of glory... re-conceptualized, with added nuance and good writing. The same goes for Carnage. Venom's a cool cat and he'll appear again eventually.