Spider-Man Villain Revealed? *SPOILER ONLY IF YOU COUNT MY OPINION*

[Brandondragons]

I was reading a comic today and on the back cover there was an ad for the Spider-Man Venom Saga DVD (cartoon). The DVD will be released June 7.

 

Kind of out of the blue?

 

Or....Sam Raimi has said that the villain for the the third movie would be revealed in a big shindig by Sony. Is it just a cowinkydink that this DVD is coming out June 7...when the show has been off the air for a while...and they always seem to release these DVDs to tie in with a movie?

[Camp]

I don't understand. How does this tie in with the movie? Isn't Spiderman 3 like a year away?

[Romier S]

I think he is saying that since these DVD release usually tie-in with the movies or some form of movie announcement, it could be pointing to who Spidey will face in the film. Hence being a Venom related DVD set, Venom could end up being the villain in the third movie.

 

I would say don't count on it as far as that is concerned. Raimi wants nothing to do with Venom. He considers him a rather crappy character in general and has stated many times he doesn't wish to use him, but prefers to use classic Spidey villains. I'd bet my money on Sandman being in the third film.

[Jeff W]

I remember reading that Topher Grace of That 70's Show was being cast as the 2nd of 2 villians for the flick with Thomas Hayden Church as the first.

 

But no matter what, we know that Topher Grace is playing one of two villains in SPIDER-MAN 3 and Thomas Hayden Church is playing the other villain.

 

It's an older article but can be seen here.

[Romier S]

Check this link out gentleman for a first appearance by one of the villains in the movie. Looks spot on too.:tu

 

http://spiderman.sonypictures.com/images/tchurch.jpg

[foogledricks]

Um, whose tchurch?

[General Zot]

Topher Grace does have a top billing in Spidey 3 though as Eddie Brock. Wasn't Eddie the one who becomes Venom? Thomas Hayden Church as Sandman is a done deal, but maybe two supervillians in this next one (or a setup to Venom in pt. 4?)

[Mark E]

God I hope they don't go with two villains. That's one of the big factors that killed Batman. You don't NEED two villains, it's overkill and you start stripping out characterization from two to spread it over three and you lose a lot in the process. Batman Returns, Forever, and & Robin should have taught this to people by now.

 

And they keep killing them off, stop that! Good villains come back, it's what they do! Anyway .

[PoisonJam]

God I hope they don't go with two villains. That's one of the big factors that killed Batman. You don't NEED two villains' date=' it's overkill and you start stripping out characterization from two to spread it over three and you lose a lot in the process. Batman Returns, Forever, and & Robin should have taught this to people by now.

[/quote']

 

Batman Begins had Raz Al-Ghul (sp?) and Sandman and that seemed to work okay, no? Generally I do agree with you though.

[Romier S]

And they keep killing them off, stop that!

No shit! It's an utter shame they killed off Doc Oc at the end of Spidey 2. Molina was fantastic in the role and I would have loved to see him come back at a later date.

 

Batman Begins had Raz Al-Ghul (sp?) and Sandman and that seemed to work okay, no?

If Sandman was in Batman, we have truly entered Bizarro world.

 

I know what you mean though Dave. Though, I would argue that Scarecrow was a minor character in Batman Begins, and pretty underdeveloped character wise. Though that is the point isn't it? The movie served as an origin story for him almost as much as it did for Batman. Where Nolan and co. trumped most others who have worked in this genre is by keeping Scarecrow alive at the end of the film, as well as the legacy of Rhas Al Ghul. Scarecrow is free to be used again in another film, and Ducard taking over the mantle of Rhas Al Ghul allows for another to do the same later if need be.

 

The point though is that in the land of Spidey, I really don't want the character of Sandman to be glossed over in favor of a Venom, or Electro (or vice versa for that matter). Sandman alone is a worthy adversary I think. I'm personally not caring about Venom either way since he's a pretty disposable character. One that I wish Raimi had stuck to his guns with and not bothered including in the Spidey films till far later. (if his inclusion does indeed come to pass)

[PoisonJam]

Lol, Scarecrow, sorry.

[General Zot]

God I hope they don't go with two villains. That's one of the big factors that killed Batman. You don't NEED two villains' date=' it's overkill and you start stripping out characterization from two to spread it over three and you lose a lot in the process. Batman Returns, Forever, and & Robin should have taught this to people by now.

 

And they keep killing them off, stop that! Good villains come back, it's what they do! Anyway .[/quote']

 

 

Nah, Batman movies sucked because they were written and directed like shit and were financed by whores that only desired to leech extra $ out of the license no matter what the cost. The number of villians contributing to that downfall was a product of this extreme suckage, not the cause.

 

My case in point is the 2 Xmen movies. How many darn heroes/villians are in those movies? And they've both turned out ok.

 

Having Spidey, a main villian, and a secondary villian could work out just fine. Actually, in a mature license like Spidey the origin and main character are so well understood that you almost need multiple villians moving forward to fill 2 hours without doing some annoying wagontraining. I mean, what is Peter Parker going to do in Spidey 3, miss another date with Mary Jane Watson? That dog needs a rest...

 

We'll see, wasn't Eddie Brock Venom in the comic though? (I really don't know, wasn't reading them when that char entered the scene.)

[Romier S]

I mean, what is Peter Parker going to do in Spidey 3, miss another date with Mary Jane Watson?

Marry Mary Jane Watson. Deal with his duel identity in a stable relationship instead of a "chasing after her but never can have her" type of setting. There is a great deal of material and characterization that can be covered there without the need of introducing a second villain to move the story along. What about The Sandman and his motivations? Or having to move along/wrap up the situation with Harry. How will he fit into Peter and Mary Jane's life now that he knows Peter's secret. Furthermore, where will the discovery of his father's work lead to? Will he help or aid Spiderman?

 

I'm sorry but I agree with Mark in this particular case. There is a boat load of story to tell without having to throw in a second villain. This isn't the X-men where a director /has/ to juggle a team of characters on both sides. It's not a planet wide conflict on the level of humans vs. mutants. Different type of film, different set of rules.

 

Keep in mind that I'm not saying the film will suck. I have zero basis to formulate that opinion. Spiderman 2 was fantastic, and I'm really looking forward to part three. I'm not entirely sold on the need for a second villain just yet though.

[Andy Sheets]

Why do so many assume that Doc Ock is dead at the end of Spider-Man 2? Just because he was under the water and had a dead expression on his face? Comic book villains come back from worse than that all the time

[Romier S]

Just because he was under the water and had a dead expression on his face?

um, yeah.

 

If Spiderman 4 features zombie Octopus, Romero best be directing.:leaving

[Angry the Clown]

Alivin Sargent, who's script really made the second film, is for me the greatest factor involved in number three and I do think he can deliver another strong screenplay (for this type of movie) and balance the prospect of two foes nicely. That said, as much as I enjoyed the second instalment it ends on a nice enough note to have left me caring little for a further adventure.

 

Daniel

[AnthonyVolpe]

Kirsten Dunst was quoted saying Venom will be the second villiain in the next movie.

 

http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1510482/09272005/story.jhtml

[General Zot]

Why do so many assume that Doc Ock is dead at the end of Spider-Man 2? Just because he was under the water and had a dead expression on his face? Comic book villains come back from worse than that all the time

 

 

I agree, there are ways to get Doc Ock back. After all, his tentacles are alive and don't need to breathe to survive. So he blacks out at the end of part 2, sinks to the bottom, and the tentacles "walk" him out and revive him on the shore. They were on a pier, how deep can it be if there were wooden pylons holding it up, and how far out from the shore? Doc Ock wasn't definitively finished like GG was in pt 1 with the sled through his midsection.

 

I don't think that we'll be seeing him again, but assuming his death isn't a done deal.

 

And to clarify, the new movie isn't required to have multiple villians to be good. What I'm saying is that if it has one villian or two villians it's no indication of whether or not it will suck. Batmans 3+ sucked because they SUCKED, not because of the headcount. I believe it is easier to fill 2 hrs with 2 villians than to drag out Peter and MJ's nuptials. Remember the Niagra Falls bit in Superman and the "marriage" to Lois Lane? Didn't that just suck the vigor out of that flick like a kyptonite codpiece pulled over Jorel's head?

 

I'm thinking it's two villians, why the heck would Topher Grace chose this role unless it had some sort of decent payoff? That guy is getting better press than Tobey MacGuire, playing a 2D reporter in a go nowhere role wouldn't seem very smart for him.

[Angry the Clown]

Doc Ock wasn't definitively finished like GG was in pt 1 with the sled through his midsection.

 

Ah but you forget he redeems himself at the end, something I was always fond of. To bring him back and for him to be bad again I think would diminish what they did with the character.. I just don't see the point.

 

Daniel

[Romier S]

What I'm saying is that if it has one villian or two villians it's no indication of whether or not it will suck.

That goes without saying. I'm with you there and I've said as much.

 

Remember the Niagra Falls bit in Superman and the "marriage" to Lois Lane? Didn't that just suck the vigor out of that flick like a kyptonite codpiece pulled over Jorel's head?

So we are to accept two villains may or may not suck, but you automatically assume Peter and MJ's nuptials, and subsequent exploration of thier relationship as affected by Spiderman are automatically filler material? This as compared to some other villain running around? Just because because such things were handled poorly (in your eyes) in a previous film? That dog won't hunt mon senior.

 

I agree, there are ways to get Doc Ock back. After all, his tentacles are alive and don't need to breathe to survive. So he blacks out at the end of part 2, sinks to the bottom, and the tentacles "walk" him out and revive him on the shore. They were on a pier, how deep can it be if there were wooden pylons holding it up, and how far out from the shore? Doc Ock wasn't definitively finished like GG was in pt 1 with the sled through his midsection.

The character redeemed himself at the finale of Spiderman 2. There *are* ways to get Doc Oc back. All of which throws out any semblance of morality and characterization that made the film version of Doctor Octopus so interesting a character to watch. The reason films like Spiderman 2, Batman Begins, and the two X films work so well is because they do thier best to ground these fantastical characters in our reality. If I wanted to see cheap comebacks and resurrections I'd read the comic books. (which have been fucked for years requiring a million restarts and relaunches just to get them back to some semblance of readability if your Spidey fan keeping score)

[James T]

Kirsten Dunst was quoted saying Venom will be the second villiain in the next movie.

 

http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1510482/09272005/story.jhtml

 

Considering Kirsten is drunk 90% of the time, I really don't trust her. AICN is tabloids online, but they believe the villian is Sandman and Electro. This was way before the picture confirmation of THC. I think Topher looks alright as Ultimate Spider-man Eddie Brock. If that's the case with this movie, then Topher being casted was a setup.

 

Remember, a lot of people were thinking that because Curt Connors was casted in Spider-man 2, that the Lizard would play a part in the movie. It wasn't until a good while later that people started confirming the Lizard wasn't going to appear for a couple movies, at least.

[Angry the Clown]

I am quite sure Rami has said once or twice that he was never too keen on Venom. In fairness to Dunst I believe she made her comments before she even got a script

[PoisonJam]

So we are to accept two villains may or may not suck, but you automatically assume Peter and MJ's nuptials, and subsequent exploration of thier relationship as affected by Spiderman are automatically filler material? This as compared to some other villain running around? Just because because such things were handled poorly (in your eyes) in a previous film? That dog won't hunt mon senior.

 

I won't presume to clarify what Dan was saying, I'll only add my opinion that if there is an extra hour to fill in a superhero movie I would damn sure rather see another villain running around then a marriage/relationship sequence on a "very special Spiderman".

[MastaRedSnappa]

Scarecrow is free to be used again in another film, and Ducard taking over the mantle of Rhas Al Ghul allows for another to do the same later if need be.

 

I'm not very intimately familiar with all the intracacies of Batman's origins (I was always more of a Marvel fan) so please forgive me if what I'm about to say is stupid but my impression from Batman Begins is that Ducard wasn't taking over the mantle of Ra's Al Ghul but that he actually WAS Ra's Al Ghul and the guy Batman thought was Ra's Al Ghul was just a decoy (much like the Queen Amidala/Padme setup in the Star Wars prequels). Am I mistaken?

 

As far as Spider-man villains go, I'm not a big fan of Venom. Spider-man has one of comic's great peanut gallery of villains. There's gotta be someone more compelling than Venom:

 

- Green Goblin (Spider-man 1)

- Doctor Octopus (Spider-man 2)

- Sandman (Spider-man 3?)

- Rhino

- Scorpion

- Mysterio

- Hobgoblin

- Vulture

- Electro

- Shocker

- Lizard

- Chameleon

- Hydro-man

- Kraven the Hunter

[General Zot]

I won't presume to clarify what Dan was saying, I'll only add my opinion that if there is an extra hour to fill in a superhero movie I would damn sure rather see another villain running around then a marriage/relationship sequence on a "very special Spiderman".

 

Bingo!

 

In action movies, actions sells and drama smells. You can slip in some tears, but you better damn well have a mega-fight ontop of a subway train right after or before.

 

And where did I say Doc Ock would return as a villan? I just said he could return, he isn't positively dead. Maybe he'd open a haberdashery or a sushi restaurant, or teach kids how to telepathically mind-slap a bunch of deviant metal tentacles.

 

I don't think he'll be back (really no point), I'm just saying we never saw him die in #2.