Homecoming Who should reboot villain be? (Poll Version)

[Spiderdevil]

Is there a story where Doc-Ock isn't pure evil but a good at heart person controlled by arms?
Doc-Ock is almost always pure evil in the comics

 

[Spider-Ock]

Little thing called the superior Spider-man. Google it

 

[Spider-Aziz]

Is there a story where Doc-Ock isn't pure evil but a good at heart person controlled by arms?
Doc-Ock is almost always pure evil in the comics

The Joker explained how that is a blend of a few idea from the comics.

 

[TheWallCrawler]

Is there a story where Doc-Ock isn't pure evil but a good at heart person controlled by arms?
Doc-Ock is almost always pure evil in the comics

that's his character basically, pure evil. he later got a backstory with his mother forbidding him to date this random girl he had fallen in love with and something. I hear it's pretty decent though an obvious after thought of course

 

[JOE]

Is there a story where Doc-Ock isn't pure evil but a good at heart person controlled by arms?
Doc-Ock is almost always pure evil in the comics

They already made a movie about that, it's called Spider-Man 2.

 

[The Joker]

Specifically The look, the actor, the accent, the love-sick-puppy ending and his motive (lets take control of Gotham and starve it for 3 months before blowing a nuclear weapon in a suicide mission..instead of you know..blowing it up immediately) and don't give some Nolan philosophical ***** about losing hope or something, I don't buy that at all!

The look 99% agree was awesome and way better than the Lucador wrestling mask look the comics have. The actor equally applauded. What love sick puppy ending? Talia was a friend, not a lover. He protected her when she was a kid. In the comics he has equally strong feelings for Talia, and it doesn't reduce the character to a love sick puppy.

What Bane did to Gotham is exactly the kind of thing you are praising Venom for. Torment. Tormenting Gotham for months in a fascist anarchy ruled state with the impending threat of doom coming. It was twisted, sadistic, and he also did it to torture Bruce. Force him to watch it from the captivity of the prison pit. The same one he rotted in all his life.

Its not 'basically a brand new character', Villains are rewritten all the time, especially in Marvel movies, like I said about Doc-Ock, they took his free-will and made him sympathetic instead of pure-evil
And no they are not enough great villains who haven't been already used, now don't tell me Shocker, Sandman, Vulture or Scorpion are better than Venom

Name villains, apart from Iron Man's god awful ones, that are completely rewritten. I've covered Doc Ock above with proof. Feel free to address it if you want.

I would say, hand on heart, that Sandman, Vulture, and Scorpion are better than Venom any day. Because they are all well rounded believable villains who work.

There is very little in their back story to make them interesting, and we don't want a rewrite to turn an B list character into an A list (it felt flat on its face when they tried to make Sandman or Electro interesting)
Only times likes of Shocker, Sandman, Scorpion or Rhino should be used is as a Intro-Villain or as a Side-kick to a bigger villain (Kingpin) or a team-up (sinister six)

There's plenty of back story to them. The problem with Sandman and Electro in the movies was not the attempt to make them more interesting, it was the execution of it. Sandman is a sympathetic character, who cares about family (Doc Ock had to threaten to kill this family he was living with once in order to force him to rejoin his Sinister Six), and now Sandman has a daughter in the comics which they obviously took from Spider-Man 3. There was nothing wrong with that element in Spider-Man 3. It was the retcon of Uncle Ben's death involving Sandman that sucked.

As for Electro, he has a big sad loser back story, the problem with TASM 2 is they executed it like something out of a Joel Schumacher Batman movie. Camp as a row of tents.

Exactly! And Venom is a lot more interesting than those stale villains (Sandman, Vulture, Shocker, Rhino, Electro or Scorpion) AND has the potential to be visually stunning

Saying he's better than Rhino and Shocker, who are at best C or D list villains, is not saying much. Sandman, Vulture, Electro and Scorpion are all better than Venom because their characterizations are better written, more well rounded, and not contrived or stupid.

No one ranks him above Goblin or Doc-Ock and which Villain is above him apart from those two?
He is easily among top 5 spider-man villains if not top 3

Oh come on loads of people consider him as good or better than them. Usually because he looks like an evil Spider-Man with similar powers.

The kind of shallow mentality that got him the popularity he has.

No its not, it changed his character from a brutal mastermind to someone who is a love-sick side-kick, it completely destroyed him

How did it change him into that? Because he was secretly working with Talia as a partner he was not brutal any more, or a mastermind?

What utter tripe.

As far as the two movies are concerened, No

Oh yes. Bane has already immersed himself into pop culture. More than TWS will ever.

Most would disagree but anyway..

I could say the same to you about your Bane criticisms. Do you feel more invalidated because you don't agree with a consensus on something?

And Goblin has been done three times and Doc Ock too, we need to look beyond them.

And we can. Spidey has plenty more great villains. Venom is not needed to break away from Goblin and Ock.

We are not discussing Comic Books here but what Villain we can use in a movie, Goblin and Doc-Ock are completely out the equation. Its between likes of Kraven, Venom, Kingpin, etc

Yeah and I've already said why there's plenty of other choices. Spidey has the second best rogues gallery of villains in comics after Batman. There is life for the bad guys beyond Ock, Goblin, and especially Venom.

 

[The Joker]

I am sorry but Doc Ock was done to perfection in SM2. I am a major fan of the comics and he is pretty comic-accurate.

Thank you. Though I wouldn't say perfection. Not even close. Always room for improvement. But he was done really well.

The Joker explained how that is a blend of a few idea from the comics.

Thank you, Aziz. I feel like some are only reading what they want to read, and not what is actually being said.

 

[Morbius]

Spidey has the *best* rogues gallery of villains in comics

fixed

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

It's irrelevant. Venom is 'black spiderman with teeth' to the general audience. Give him a cool backstory, make him hate spiderman, call him Eddie Brock and slap on a symbiote and you have Venom. As long as he's interesting and fun to watch on the big screen, nothing else matters. His comic counterpart is irrelevant to the general audience.

I have a couple of problems with re-writing Venom:

1. Why bother when you can just use one of several other better villains first (ex. Kraven, Mysterio, etc.)? After they are used up we can begin talking about doing villains like Venom, but that should be quite a ways off in the future.

2. Venom, for whatever reason, is pretty popular among the fanbase. Would they accept wholesale changes to the character, even if it makes him more interesting? Or would we get a thousand threads on this forum complaining about VINO?

 

[Spiderdevil]

The Joker explained how that is a blend of a few idea from the comics.

He mentioned there was a love story somewhere, an experiment and arms controlling themselves but the main personality change was SM2's Ock's lack of Free Will

Rest all he showed was visual similarities

 

[Spiderdevil]

Little thing called the superior Spider-man. Google it

Yeah obviously 2013 comes before 2004

 

[Spiderdevil]

They already made a movie about that, it's called Spider-Man 2.

Way to jump in the argument without reading it all

They made a movie about a sympathetic dedicated scientist who gets controlled by arms and not a person who is simply pure evil at heart

If that isn't a rewrite then I don't know what is

 

[CaptainWagner]

Admittingly, I think most of the sympathetic Ock stories came after the movie. But either way, that's the version I prefer, and audiences know. Making him "pure evil" wouldn't go over well with the general public.

 

[Spiderdevil]

The look 99% agree was awesome and way better than the Lucador wrestling mask look the comics have. The actor equally applauded. What love sick puppy ending? Talia was a friend, not a lover. He protected her when she was a kid. In the comics he has equally strong feelings for Talia, and it doesn't reduce the character to a love sick puppy.

The Look- the mask and cloak were pure awesome but he was too short to be intimidating
The actor-As much as I like Tom Hardy,he was a complete misfit for Bale, that accent ugh! "Ofcourse"
Love-sick-I didn't have problems with his feelings with Talia but the way they were revealed and his anticlimactic death ended up making him look like a side-kick

What Bane did to Gotham is exactly the kind of thing you are praising Venom for. Torment. Tormenting Gotham for months in a fascist anarchy ruled state with the impending threat of doom coming. It was twisted, sadistic, and he also did it to torture Bruce. Force him to watch it from the captivity of the prison pit. The same one he rotted in all his life.

All which never made sense, specially the suicidal intents, The League of Shadows wasn't like that, they destroyed cities, they didn't torment it and they never commited suicide

That are completely rewritten. I've covered Doc Ock above with proof. Feel free to address it if you want.

Your 'proof' only had visual similarities
Nothing changes the fact that he was mostly evil at heart and not a good guy controlled by arms

I would say, hand on heart, that Sandman, Vulture, and Scorpion are better than Venom any day. Because they are all well rounded believable villains who work.

LMFAO!!!
Seriously!!!
Dude they are basically thugs with Superpowers, just for fillers
And please your own criteria and tell we what iconic storyline those 3 have with Spider-man? Or what important Motivation they had? Or what significant thing did they do to Spider-man?

There's plenty of back story to them. The problem with Sandman and Electro in the movies was not the attempt to make them more interesting, it was the execution of it. Sandman is a sympathetic character, who cares about family (Doc Ock had to threaten to kill this family he was living with once in order to force him to rejoin his Sinister Six), and now Sandman has a daughter in the comics which they obviously took from Spider-Man 3. There was nothing wrong with that element in Spider-Man 3. It was the retcon of Uncle Ben's death involving Sandman that sucked.

As for Electro, he has a big sad loser back story, the problem with TASM 2 is they executed it like something out of a Joel Schumacher Batman movie. Camp as a row of tents.

There is no back story significant enough to base a movie on, meaning they would have write the back story themselves, which is much bigger facelift that giving better motivations to Venom

Oh come on loads of people consider him as good or better than them. Usually because he looks like an evil Spider-Man with similar powers.

The kind of shallow mentality that got him the popularity he has.

If they do then isn't it better to do those people justice? Instead of scrapping the bottom the barrel to get someone like Scorpion or Sandman and giving them a complete new back story to make them interesting?

How did it change him into that? Because he was secretly working with Talia as a partner he was not brutal any more, or a mastermind?

Because he was killed off unceremoniously to shift the focus on Talia
Because he worked for her to fulfill her father's last wishes, the wishes of the same League of Shadows who rejected him.
None of it made sense

Oh yes. Bane has already immersed himself into pop culture. More than TWS will ever.

Maybe because Batman is a lot more famous than Captain America but as individuals The Winter Soldier wins each day of the week and twice on weekends

I could say the same to you about your Bane criticisms. Do you feel more invalidated because you don't agree with a consensus on something?

I don't undermine Bane's status as a villain and I don't say random thugs are better than him

Yeah and I've already said why there's plenty of other choices. Spidey has the second best rogues gallery of villains in comics after Batman. There is life for the bad guys beyond Ock, Goblin, and especially Venom.

And I for the life of me can't think of anyone who can carry a movie apart from Mysterio,Kraven and Kingpin.And the latter two don't provide spectacle so its difficult to see them in a movie

 

[Spiderdevil]

2. Venom, for whatever reason, is pretty popular among the fanbase. Would they accept wholesale changes to the character, even if it makes him more interesting? Or would we get a thousand threads on this forum complaining about VINO?

No one is asking for a wholesale change, all we are asking is a better backstory for Eddy Brock, better introduction and better motives to hate Spider-man (they can even get motives similar to the original ones in the comics)

Who won't agree to those?
And is that a complete rewrite or facelift like The Joker keeps saying?

 

[Oscorp]

I have a couple of problems with re-writing Venom:

1. Why bother when you can just use one of several other better villains first (ex. Kraven, Mysterio, etc.)? After they are used up we can begin talking about doing villains like Venom, but that should be quite a ways off in the future.

2. Venom, for whatever reason, is pretty popular among the fanbase. Would they accept wholesale changes to the character, even if it makes him more interesting? Or would we get a thousand threads on this forum complaining about VINO?

I totally agree with the first point. About the second point, I don't think Venom fans would care that much because he'd still have the same look and the revenge theme.

I must say that I agree with basically everything The Joker said, except I'd perhaps be even more harsh on Venom. I honestly think both Rhino and Shocker are better villains than Venom. Sure Venom has a more menacing vibe, but I think their motivations are more believable and logical. They're also much more fun in my opinion. Because while they aren't the deepest villains out there, I just can't help but love when they appear. They have enjoyable personalities and writers never pretend them to be more than they are. Whereas with Venom, much about him feels forced and shallow. He doesn't feel like a real character to me, yet he's been desperately and falsely played up as some kind of big deal.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

One thing they absolutely need to do with Venom, if/when they use him, is give him more of a personality. The previous adaptations generally already do this, thankfully, which is one reason why he tends to be more tolerable than in the comics. In the comics, all too often, he's just a big, drooling monster and little else. 95% of the time he shows up in the comics, he does absolutely nothing besides stalk and eat a few people, and it is just...so...boring.

 

[The Joker]

The Look- the mask and cloak were pure awesome but he was too short to be intimidating

Too short? He was 5'9 and built like a brick house. You're talking like Danny DeVito played him. You don't have to be a very tall person to be intimidating. Hardy's Bane was plenty intimidating. He's done it in several roles. Go watch him in Bronson for example. He was perfect for Bane.

The actor-As much as I like Tom Hardy,he was a complete misfit for Bale, that accent ugh! "Ofcourse"

In what way is he a complete misfit?

Love-sick-I didn't have problems with his feelings with Talia but the way they were revealed and his anticlimactic death ended up making him look like a side-kick

How did revealing he had a secret partner in this make him look like a sidekick? Nothing about Talia's reveal reduced him to that, not in dialogue or otherwise. That's just your own false perception of it. Talia called him her friend. They were partners. He led the LOS, and she did the cloak and dagger sneaky stuff posing as a reputable business woman.

All which never made sense, specially the suicidal intents, The League of Shadows wasn't like that, they destroyed cities, they didn't torment it and they never commited suicide

Why did it not make sense? Bane wasn't Ra's Al Ghul. He was worse. He took control of the LOS and made them even more sadistic. I don't know how you didn't get that. The LOS was under new management. Like if any new villain takes over a gang or organization.

Your 'proof' only had visual similarities
Nothing changes the fact that he was mostly evil at heart and not a good guy controlled by arms

Of course he had free will. Or are you honestly trying to tell me the arms made him smile and laugh, and crack all those witty villain one liners he made? There was no on/off control switch that had to be pressed to make Ock realize the error of his ways. He just had to be convinced that what he was doing was wrong, and he shouldn't listen to the suggestions of the arms. All Peter did was explain to him the folly of his was, relaying the same words Aunt May had said to him, and Ock realized he was right and made the right choice.

Visual similarities? Being a decent guy who was in love before he was Doc Ock is not a visual similarity. Using villainous strategies like abducting someone Peter cares about to force Spider-Man to meet him is not a visual similarity. Having tentacles that come to life and attack while he is unconscious is not a visual similarity. Doing a noble deed like saving innocent's lives is not a visual similarity. Using warehouses as his base of operations is not a visual similarity. Smoking cigars and drinking alcohol using his tentacles are not visual similarities. These are all character traits. Part of his personality in who he is and how he does things. That's not all. That's just a handful of examples in that blog. There's lots more. You keep going on that Ock being influenced by the arms is a total rewrite. How is that a total rewrite?

Visual similarities is wearing sunglasses, and having four tentacles come out of his back.

LMFAO!!!
Seriously!!!
Dude they are basically thugs with Superpowers, just for fillers
And please your own criteria and tell we what iconic storyline those 3 have with Spider-man? Or what important Motivation they had? Or what significant thing did they do to Spider-man?

A lot of Spider-Man's enemies are thugs that got super powers. A villain doesn't have to come from some high class background to be a high class villain. Some of the Joker's origin stories suggest he was just a failed loser comedian who fell in with the wrong crowd and got dropped in some chemicals. Magneto was just a lowly Jew from a concentration camp.

I'm not saying Sandman et al are all on their level. My point is a good villain doesn't have to have been a millionaire or a scientist or something really impressive before they became villains.

As for what was their motivation. Sandman was already a criminal, he just got given powers. But Marko has a great human back story of being an underdog guy who just wanted to survive the only way he could. Sandman is not a bad guy deep down. Vulture's career as a criminal began when he discovered his then partner Gregory Bestman (in the engineering firm of Bestman & Toomes) had been cheating him out of his share of the profits. Electro is a product of a long life of repression and rejection. The Scorpion was paid by Jonah Jameson to undergo an experimental trial to become a super powered being so he could take down Spider-Man for him. The experiment back fired and Gargan got trapped in the Scorpion suit forever being a freak.

They all have good solid back stories for being the way they are.

There is no back story significant enough to base a movie on, meaning they would have write the back story themselves, which is much bigger facelift that giving better motivations to Venom

I don't know what you're talking about. There is no back story significant enough for who?

If they do then isn't it better to do those people justice? Instead of scrapping the bottom the barrel to get someone like Scorpion or Sandman and giving them a complete new back story to make them interesting?

First of all they don't need to give Sandman or Scorpion new backstories. The ones they have worked fine. And could be translated onto screen. Second it's not scraping the bottom of the barrel to use them. These characters are good villains.

Look at the terrific TSSM cartoon. They gave the likes of Sandman and Shocker whole episodes to themselves as solo villains in it's two season run. You saying they were scraping the bottom of the barrel doing that?

Of course they weren't. Even Rhino got an episode to himself.

Because he was killed off unceremoniously to shift the focus on Talia
Because he worked for her to fulfill her father's last wishes, the wishes of the same League of Shadows who rejected him.
None of it made sense

At the end of the movie. In the climax he was killed off. And the last ten minutes of the big bomb chase was with Talia. So what. You act like he was killed off half way through the movie. Giving Talia the final few minutes didn't reduce Bane's prominence at all.

Was Joker suddenly a lesser villain in TDK because the finale was with Two Face? Of course not.

Maybe because Batman is a lot more famous than Captain America but as individuals The Winter Soldier wins each day of the week and twice on weekends

Batman is more famous than The Avengers characters, too, but the Avengers has ingrained itself into pop culture nicely. You saying The Winter Soldier 'wins' is just your own opinion. It is a fact that Bane is a more memorable villain. Not because he was in Batman. Ra's Al Ghul and Scarecrow are not as memorable as Bane even though they were in Batman, and they were both done well, and one of them played by a great famous actor.

It's about quality.

I don't undermine Bane's status as a villain and I don't say random thugs are better than him

You have just spent the last couple of posts calling him a love sick puppy who was reduced to a side kick. What is this if not undermining his status as a villain?

And I for the life of me can't think of anyone who can carry a movie apart from Mysterio,Kraven and Kingpin.And the latter two don't provide spectacle so its difficult to see them in a movie

This goes back to a discussion with another poster I had last week. Only about four Spidey villains can carry a movie as the solo villains - Ock, Goblin, Lizard, and maybe Mysterio. The others would all have to share a movie with more than one villain. I don't see that as a problem. Any competent script can accommodate 2 villains.

Admittingly, I think most of the sympathetic Ock stories came after the movie.

They did not. Not one single story I posted there came after Spider-Man 2. They all predate it. There's even a couple more I never even mentioned which I can post if anyone is interested.

I have a couple of problems with re-writing Venom:

1. Why bother when you can just use one of several other better villains first (ex. Kraven, Mysterio, etc.)? After they are used up we can begin talking about doing villains like Venom, but that should be quite a ways off in the future.

2. Venom, for whatever reason, is pretty popular among the fanbase. Would they accept wholesale changes to the character, even if it makes him more interesting? Or would we get a thousand threads on this forum complaining about VINO?

Excellent post.

I must say that I agree with basically everything The Joker said, except I'd perhaps be even more harsh on Venom. I honestly think both Rhino and Shocker are better villains than Venom. Sure Venom has a more menacing vibe, but I think their motivations are more believable and logical. They're also much more fun in my opinion. Because while they aren't the deepest villains out there, I just can't help but love when they appear. They have enjoyable personalities and writers never pretend them to be more than they are. Whereas with Venom, much about him feels forced and shallow. He doesn't feel like a real character to me, yet he's been desperately and falsely played up as some kind of big deal.

Thank you, Oscorp

I think a lot more people feel that way than we realize.

 

[I'm Batman.]

That is not even an opinion. That is just factually wrong. And if you want me to start listing the hundreds of comics which prove it then just say the word because I'm guessing you've never actually read Joker based on that remark. In fact it doesn't even sound like you've seen anything of the character at all because not even the cartoons or movies portray him like that.

So you must only know the character by name. Your second comment is just funny.

But even still that's not my point.

 

[The Joker]

But even still that's not my point.

No, that's my point which will prove your point factually wrong. Since you didn't take me up on my offer to post the proof that Joker is not just some mindless killer like Carnage, I'm assuming you concede to that.

 

[I'm Batman.]

No, that's my point which will prove your point factually wrong. Since you didn't take me up on my offer to post the proof that Joker is not just some mindless killer like Carnage, I'm assuming you concede to that.

We obviously just disagree with what makes a good villain.

 

[The Joker]

Fair enough.

Btw if they ever were going to cast Venom, as actors go, your suggestion in your sig is a good one. I always liked Jensen Ackles.

 

[GoldGoblin]

A villain who has the same powers as the superhero is boring and has been done and done a bunch of times,and I think moviegoers will think the same.

 

[Doctor Octopus]

Agreed. That is really only thing Venom have going for him.

 

[Spiderdevil]

Too short? He was 5'9 and built like a brick house. You're talking like Danny DeVito played him. You don't have to be a very tall person to be intimidating. Hardy's Bane was plenty intimidating. He's done it in several roles. Go watch him in Bronson for example. He was perfect for Bane.

And Christian Bale is 6 feet, I expected Bane to be as tall as Batman if not taller

In what way is he a complete misfit?

Mainly his height, body type and the accent he used

How did revealing he had a secret partner in this make him look like a sidekick? Nothing about Talia's reveal reduced him to that, not in dialogue or otherwise. That's just your own false perception of it. Talia called him her friend. They were partners. He led the LOS, and she did the cloak and dagger sneaky stuff posing as a reputable business woman.

He was quickly killed to make way for her and shift the focus, sugar coat it as much as you like but it was stupid as hell

Why did it not make sense? Bane wasn't Ra's Al Ghul. He was worse. He took control of the LOS and made them even more sadistic. I don't know how you didn't get that. The LOS was under new management. Like if any new villain takes over a gang or organization.

Being suicidal isn't being more sadistic, it means being stupid

LOS's main purpose was destroying the cities which were out of control, for them to rise from rubble and restore the order, it made sense in a twisted kind of way, Bane's motives were stupid since order was already restored in Gotham and it wasn't a ****-hole like in Batman Begins, not to mention their suicide won't let them carry on their work

Of course he had free will. Or are you honestly trying to tell me the arms made him smile and laugh, and crack all those witty villain one liners he made? There was no on/off control switch that had to be pressed to make Ock realize the error of his ways. He just had to be convinced that what he was doing was wrong, and he shouldn't listen to the suggestions of the arms. All Peter did was explain to him the folly of his was, relaying the same words Aunt May had said to him, and Ock realized he was right and made the right choice.

It was made extremely clear that the arms were highly intelligent beings with the ability to control a human being, that's the reason why the inhibitor chip was made in the first place

Sigh..just think of it in this way, could you convince the comic book Doc-Ock the error in his ways by just a simple 'Look what have done' ? No way! He is the literal personification of evil

Was he ever a mentor for Peter Parker pre-powers? Was he ever happily married with a loving wife? Did the death of a loved one motivate him to do the things he did? All those things are not rewrites but a simple 'Okay guys, Eddy Brock hates Peter because he lost his wife/his parents/his kids/whatever because of something Peter/Spidey unintentionally and not because of a stupid false news article' is a complete rewrite?
Bravo!

Even DocOck's had a different origin (Nuclear disaster instead of Radiation leak and inhibitor chip damage instead of brain damage),no family angle in the comics, no light sensitivity in the movie , no inherent evil trait-All those are lot more than a simple change of motivation for vengence

Visual similarities? Being a decent guy who was in love before he was Doc Ock is not a visual similarity. Using villainous strategies like abducting someone Peter cares about to force Spider-Man to meet him is not a visual similarity. Having tentacles that come to life and attack while he is unconscious is not a visual similarity. Doing a noble deed like saving innocent's lives is not a visual similarity. Using warehouses as his base of operations is not a visual similarity. Smoking cigars and drinking alcohol using his tentacles are not visual similarities. These are all character traits. Part of his personality in who he is and how he does things. That's not all. That's just a handful of examples in that blog. There's lots more. You keep going on that Ock being influenced by the arms is a total rewrite. How is that a total rewrite?

Exactly!
So you nab the look of Venom (the tongue and all), the 'we' persona and the sadistic prankster attitude, the gym hobby and hulking body, the same profession, the same weakness of high frequency sounds etc , just give him better motives (which can be similar to the original one) and get a good actor to play him

Those things can easily be done, I don't know why you continue to look at it as a complete rewrite or a facelift ?

A lot of Spider-Man's enemies are thugs that got super powers. A villain doesn't have to come from some high class background to be a high class villain. Some of the Joker's origin stories suggest he was just a failed loser comedian who fell in with the wrong crowd and got dropped in some chemicals. Magneto was just a lowly Jew from a concentration camp.

Way to underplay them dude, I don't mean that they should come from a high class background, its Joker's and Magneto personality and charisma which make them special

While everything about Sandman and Rhino boils down to, I have Superpowers and I use them to Rob banks DUH'

I'm not saying Sandman et al are all on their level. My point is a good villain doesn't have to have been a millionaire or a scientist or something really impressive before they became villains.

Who said they needed to be?

As for what was their motivation. Sandman was already a criminal, he just got given powers. But Marko has a great human back story of being an underdog guy who just wanted to survive the only way he could. Sandman is not a bad guy deep down. Vulture's career as a criminal began when he discovered his then partner Gregory Bestman (in the engineering firm of Bestman & Toomes) had been cheating him out of his share of the profits. Electro is a product of a long life of repression and rejection. The Scorpion was paid by Jonah Jameson to undergo an experimental trial to become a super powered being so he could take down Spider-Man for him. The experiment back fired and Gargan got trapped in the Scorpion suit forever being a freak.

They all have good solid back stories for being the way they are.

None of them are good enough to carry a movie and you know that
Actually they are not even compatible to work with/for The Kingpin, Shocker can work with him though
That's what I want actually, Either Kraven or Kingpin + Shocker for the first movie and Venom for the 2nd or 3rd (preferably the 3rd with the symbiote and Eddy Brock introduced in the 2nd)

I don't know what you're talking about. There is no back story significant enough for who?

Sandman, Rhino and Shocker

Look at the terrific TSSM cartoon. They gave the likes of Sandman and Shocker whole episodes to themselves as solo villains in it's two season run. You saying they were scraping the bottom of the barrel doing that?

Apple and Oranges, it wasn't the season finale, in a episode format you can use villains like that to progress the story while a movie is a grand one-off event

At the end of the movie. In the climax he was killed off. And the last ten minutes of the big bomb chase was with Talia. So what. You act like he was killed off half way through the movie. Giving Talia the final few minutes didn't reduce Bane's prominence at all.

Was Joker suddenly a lesser villain in TDK because the finale was with Two Face? Of course not.

1.Joker didn't cry like a baby
2.He wasn't working for Two-face, instead he actually created two-face and made Harvey Dent into a psycho

Had there been a scene of Harvey revealing himself to be the mastermind and stabbing batman in the climax while joker gets killed, I would have called Joker a side-kick too

Batman is more famous than The Avengers characters, too, but the Avengers has ingrained itself into pop culture nicely. You saying The Winter Soldier 'wins' is just your own opinion. It is a fact that Bane is a more memorable villain. Not because he was in Batman. Ra's Al Ghul and Scarecrow are not as memorable as Bane even though they were in Batman, and they were both done well, and one of them played by a great famous actor.

Since when is it a fact?

You have just spent the last couple of posts calling him a love sick puppy who was reduced to a side kick. What is this if not undermining his status as a villain?

In the movie, not as a CB villain in general
You can say all you want about SM3's venom and I would probably agree

This goes back to a discussion with another poster I had last week. Only about four Spidey villains can carry a movie as the solo villains - Ock, Goblin, Lizard, and maybe Mysterio. The others would all have to share a movie with more than one villain. I don't see that as a problem. Any competent script can accommodate 2 villains.

And Venom