Sequels Why there should NOT be multiple villains in Spider-man 4

[spiderfan21]

They keep talking about how there should be all these different villains in Spider-man 4. I STRONGLY disagree. Why? Well look at the trilogy so far: Pretty much everyone liked Spider-man. Spider-man 2 is said to even be better than the first. Look at Spider-man 3. Most of you guys on here trash this movie constantly.(Note: When I say "success," I mainly mean critically and fan-wise success.)Spider-man had one villain: The Green Goblin, and it was a success. Spider-man 2 had one villain also: Dr. Octopus, it too was a success. But Spider-man 3 had three villains: Sandman, New Goblin, and Venom. (I guess they wanted to match the villain count with the number of movies.) According to a lot of people on this board, Spider-man 3 sucked. Don't you see? Having one villain allows more character development for the villain, and a real conflict between Villain and Spider-man. Having multiple villains seems to have been a recipe for disaster.Look at another comic book movie franchise: Batman. Which one was biggest success, critically and financially? The first one, with one villain. As the villains increased, the quality decreased. So guys, don't be so eager for so many villains in Spider-man 4, unless you want a repeat of part 3.

 

[Blader5489]

Batman Begins had two villains, and that was a pretty big success (the best superhero movie to date, IMO).

The problem is not the multitude of villains, it's how they relate to each other. Now, I enjoyed SM3 and didn't have a problem with Raimi using three villains for one movie. But the reason SM3 is criticized for having so many villains is because they didn't play off each other. They all fit thematically in the movie, which allowed Raimi to explore the different angles of the internal struggle between vengeance and forgiveness ("The Greatest Battle Lies Within"). But as characters, as parts of a story and not a morality play, the three villains in SM3 didn't really work together. The movie was essentially three separate stories (Peter and Harry, Peter and Marko, Peter and Eddie) and then combining them all in the final act.

A lot of people are suggesting the Lizard and Kraven for SM4 because their stories, and Peter's, weave in and out of each other so well.

 

[spiderfan21]

Good point, though I don't think that Venom fit cinematically into Spider-man 3, though the introduction of Eddie Brock did. I read in an interview that Avi Arad had Venom put into the movie, though it's not what Raimi wanted. Arad said "listen to the fans" and so Raimi did, though it was not his original plan for the movie. I thought that Venom was what was wrong with the movie, because of the great lack of development.

 

[Visionary]

I don't want 3 villains, however, I do want 2. THE LIZARD and KRAVEN THE HUNTER.

 

[ThatDamnNinja]

I don't want 3 villains, however, I do want 2. THE LIZARD and KRAVEN THE HUNTER.

Two seems like the ideal amount. They shouldn't have skipped straight to three.

 

[Visionary]

True, but they ain't complaining with the money SM3 is making worldwide. I just hope they don't take its success as 3 villains is a charm. Two villains is indeed the ideal choice. THE LIZARD/KRAVEN THE HUNTER for me.

 

[Spiderine]

I don't want 3 villains, however, I do want 2. THE LIZARD and KRAVEN THE HUNTER.

Agreed

 

[NewYorkSpider]

2 Villains is enough for me. Maybe introduce somebody like they did with Dr.Connors and Harry, then later on have them as a villain.

 

[DACrowe]

2 is likely as Sony doesn't wnat to look like they are "stepping back" but no team ups and better development though....Lizard and Kraven are perfect. Really.

 

[weezerspider]

Batman Begins had two villains, and that was a pretty big success (the best superhero movie to date, IMO).

The problem is not the multitude of villains, it's how they relate to each other. Now, I enjoyed SM3 and didn't have a problem with Raimi using three villains for one movie. But the reason SM3 is criticized for having so many villains is because they didn't play off each other. They all fit thematically in the movie, which allowed Raimi to explore the different angles of the internal struggle between vengeance and forgiveness ("The Greatest Battle Lies Within"). But as characters, as parts of a story and not a morality play, the three villains in SM3 didn't really work together. The movie was essentially three separate stories (Peter and Harry, Peter and Marko, Peter and Eddie) and then combining them all in the final act.

A lot of people are suggesting the Lizard and Kraven for SM4 because their stories, and Peter's, weave in and out of each other so well.

Thats a good point. 2 Villains would work and thats what they should do. I mean going from 3 villains to one might make Sm4's anticipation go down. 2 would be good especially if they go well together like Lizard and Kraven or, even though I don't really want this, Venom and Carnage.

 

[spiderfan21]

Yes, Kraven the Hunter and Lizard. No more goblins or symbiote.

 

[Kirk Langstrom]

They keep talking about how there should be all these different villains in Spider-man 4. I STRONGLY disagree. Why? Well look at the trilogy so far: Pretty much everyone liked Spider-man. Spider-man 2 is said to even be better than the first. Look at Spider-man 3. Most of you guys on here trash this movie constantly.(Note: When I say "success," I mainly mean critically and fan-wise success.)Spider-man had one villain: The Green Goblin, and it was a success. Spider-man 2 had one villain also: Dr. Octopus, it too was a success. But Spider-man 3 had three villains: Sandman, New Goblin, and Venom. (I guess they wanted to match the villain count with the number of movies.) According to a lot of people on this board, Spider-man 3 sucked. Don't you see? Having one villain allows more character development for the villain, and a real conflict between Villain and Spider-man. Having multiple villains seems to have been a recipe for disaster.Look at another comic book movie franchise: Batman. Which one was biggest success, critically and financially? The first one, with one villain. As the villains increased, the quality decreased. So guys, don't be so eager for so many villains in Spider-man 4, unless you want a repeat of part 3.

Who cares what a bunch of Internet fanboys say? The fact of the matter is, SM3 had multiple villains, and has made the most money of all three films.

THe people have spoken, bring on Lizard and Kraven for SM4.

 

[RustyCage]

I'm sorry, but I don't care what justifications one makes for all the villains in Spider-man 3. The fact of the matter was, as much as I shunned nay-sayers before I actually went and saw the film, there just was NOT enough room for all three of them. We didn't get to know them or appreciate them like we did with Octavius and Osborn. And I think that seriously took a toll on the depth and quality of the movie.

I figure this has been argued to death, so I won't go into explaining why as it should be obvious by now.

 

[RustyCage]

Who cares what a bunch of Internet fanboys say? The fact of the matter is, SM3 had multiple villains, and has made the most money of all three films.

THe people have spoken, bring on Lizard and Kraven for SM4.

Considering that they actually have intertwined stories with some depth to them instead of just some shallow team-up at the end a la Sandman/Venom, I'm all for that too. It's all in the handling, much like with Batman Begins. Black Cat might be a good fit in all that as well, but probably won't be necessary (as much as I love her).

The development of Doc Connors would set up Lizard nicely, so I have no doubts about that happening and turning out nicely. So bring on the Lizard at least!

 

[DACrowe]

I think it can work if there is fewer than 3 (2 is doable) and if they compliment each other very well. Lizard and Kraven don't have to team up and rather serve as an interesting NEW dynamic not seen in a superhero movie. The hero protecting one villain from another while the public thinking he has lost his mind and is helping a "monster," in the Lizard.

An interesting dynamic that works well. You also can have your new name in Kraven to cast that the studio needs so they just don't say "Dylan Baker will be in Lizard make-up/prosthetics/CGI") and Kraven can let them try and cast a Gerard Butler-type.


Also here is why there will be more than one. Studios have a law of increasing action for sequels (a la SM2 to SM1 and SM3 to sM2).

While after SM3, I think it is a wise idea to take a step back and tone it dow na bit, one villain would hurt this too much in Sony's eyes after how big SM3 was. I think two villains but in a more desolate and even claustrophobic setting like sewer catacombs and collapsing subway tunnels would be different from so many high rise fights with thousands of gawking on lookers which has been in all three previous movies and in 2 out of 3 climaxes, no less.

 

[Kmack]

I'm thinking Raimi didn't enjoy the critic frying pan so he'll go back to his winsome formula: one villain per film, lolt:

 

[Visionary]

846 million at the box office (...and counting) says he won't.

 

[GoldGoblin]

What if MJ secretly takes the Goblin formula thinking she won't be so vulnerable if a villain holds her hostage again,but she takes the dose that makes her insane.

And she becomes the mysterious Hobgoblin who is revealed at the end of the movie.A different way for a villain to take her hostage.

 

[spiderfan21]

It seems that everyone agrees on less than 3 villains, but what if they do the Sinister Six?

 

[NinjaTurtleFan]

I want three villains again but here's how to make it work:

1. 2 hrs and 45 minute-3 hr movie. I think "Spider-Man 3" would've worked better if it were longer and Raimi kept alot of the deleted scenes into the movie that are reported on the net or he intended to put in to make the movie flow more. A longer movie means you can establish better characterization, relation to the players, buildup to drama, etc.

The beginning of Spider-Man 3 was perfect, than in the middle it started slipping, and finally the end felt too fast-paced and rushed. I mean the Venom and Sandman team-up reminds me of Freeze and Poison Ivy.

2. 3 villains are what you need in this movie but you got to make them relateable. Here's how. Kraven you really don't have to bring into the movie till the middle and he could just be in the shadows stalking and hunting the Lizard and Spider-Man throughout the film, but he doesn't fully reveal himself till movie's end. Which lead us to Lizard who would be the main villain and Scorpion I'd have as a secondary villain.

Why Scorpy? Because Jameson is going to need another photographer since Brock got caught doctoring a Spidey photo and went AWOL as Venom. So, he would have to bring in another photographer. This would be desk-jockey turned shutterbug Mac Gargan. Gargan in this movie unlike "3" would be to follow Peter around. Jameson starts suspecting that Peter is Spider-Man in this movie and wants Gargan to prove it. Nobody believes Jameson, but he decides to put all his money and effort in finding out.

When Gargan comes back showing him the photos that Peter IS Spider-Man. Then, Jameson could create The Scorpion using Gargan as the test-subject.

And now onto how everyone relates to everyone... Lizard is of course Dr. Connors, Peter's friend and mentor. Kraven wants to kill The Lizard, but you could also make it where Connors knows of Kraven like maybe he's read about him and his many safaris. Connors could tell Pete and the audience that Kraven was arrested by Kenyan police on accounts of poaching wild animals and served time in prison for 5 years. Mac could relate to Peter, because you could show that he is as clumsy, dorky, and has problems talking to women.

3. If Gwen is in it then she should just be a background character along with Captain Stacey. What I mean by that is, they need to have more of those two in this film, than in "3", because most of their screentime was given to the Cake Girl. LOSE THE CAKE GIRL AND HER FATHER! Have Peter living with MJ this time. Have him creating a tight bond with the Staceys that'll be broken by movie's end when both die.

4. Lastly, give MJ less to do this time around. Have them get married at movie's start and then she plays housewife through rest of movie. This way we wouldn't be bogged down with having her be "the damsel in distress" and the WB soap-opera-drama like always and instead she could just give Peter advice and be there when he needs her. She'd sort of be like Aunt May in this one. As for Aunt May, I'd give her maybe one scene where she usually gives Peter some inspiring words, or maybe tells Pete that MJ is expecting a child.

 

[spideyman101]

teh common n00b: "hey y0s d00d! we neds Venom to return! And Carnage! lOts of HiMS!!! Add Kravin huntEr and Lizurd! And HaVE SandMAn vbecoMWe a villin gain! and havE OcK reTURns!!! HydRo-MAN shoud MAke an APPIrance!!! HAve SeVin villins!!!"

ha ha... ha... ha... yeah, no.

1 Villain = Good
2 Villains = Better
3 Villains = Bad
4 Villains = Worse
5, 6, etc Villains = HORRIBLE!!!

I say go with Lizard and Kraven.

 

[Cyrusbales]

Just one villain, it's what I've been saying. Build up the relationship between Conners and Peter, in this movie, while he battles against one villain

 

[ScarletVenom25]

I agree with two villians-Lizard and Kraven for 4 (this is when Arad tells Raimi to "listen to the fans), Carnage and Venom for 5 (its gonna happen, no matter how much we dislike it). I think they should break the rule for 6 caus of the SS, but ONLY if they can set it up right.

 

[Cyrusbales]

At the moment, Conners and Peter's relationship isn't strong enough to make the lizard a decent villain, they should build him up over the course of a movie or two, to make a better storyline and impact, not RUSH IT LIKE THEY DID WITH SM3 and make it rubbish!

 

[Symbiotic]

IMO, Spider-Man 4 should have two villains at the most. Lizard and Kraven if two, Lizard if just one.