Opinions on the Spiderman 3 Villain(s) [Archive] - Mania Forums - Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Horror Entertainment

easy D

06-07-2005, 11:59 AM

I would like a villain that they wouldn't have to use very much CGI on. I would like to see Venom more than I wanna see Sandman. But think about it, they are talking about Venom being in a movie, they are talking about filming 3 and 4 together, maybe while fighting whoever in 3, Spidey picks up the symbiote and then in the end he loses it and Venom is created leaving a cliffhanger so we would be anxious to see 4 thus the reason to film them together. (to get 4 out quickly to finish the story) Just a thought. Oh and if Harry does become a goblin, a hope he doesn't wear the same stupid suit from the first movie.

Well, if Spidey does pick up the symbiote, it would make sense to end it with him rejecting it, and end with the cliff hanger, much like Spider-Man 2 with Harry discovering his dad's Goblin Lair. But I doubt Sam Raimi would do that, since I believe that both he and Tobey Maguire will leave after this next film. And as for Venom, well, I don't really think he was ever that interesting a character. But, here I am, hoping that they will bring on Sandman, and since the director and star might be leaving, they would probably get their wish. But, maybe not.
Remember before Spider-Man 2, they had the villains confirmed as Doc Ock, Black Cat, and the Lizard? But only one showed up in the film? And now there are talks of Sandman, Venom, and Green Goblin 2. Well, I saw a flier for upcoming DVD's for a store I work at, and it had the Spider-Man animated series "Venom Saga" on it. Usually, they send those out with the main villain of the new Spider-Man flick. Like the first one had the Green Goblin and the second one had Dr. Octopus. This might be a sign that Venom might be in the new film. Honestly, I'm a little disappointed. But Sam is a good story teller, so maybe he would make Venom more exciting to me and still appeal to Venom's fanbase, you know, Ritalin addicts.

norrinraad

06-07-2005, 12:30 PM

When Venom was first introduced in the comics he was a fascinating character, as envisioned by his creator David Micheline. He was the result of two completely unrelated characters uniting due to a shared hatred for Spider-Man, which was one of the more credible motivations in comics. Brock had direct tie-ins to one of the best Spider stories ever, The Death of Jean DeWolfe, while the symbiote was of course related to the whole Secret Wars storyline. This was back in the days where the concept of a shared universe and continuity was still being enforced by Marvel's editorial department, but I digress...

As time went on Venom became a fanboy favourite, so the '90s Marvel regime attempted to force him down everyone's throats which was what untimately killed the character. Even Carnage was interesting and fairly novel when first introduced (again by Micheline) but I can't even stomach the character after years of misuse.

As for Venom in the movies, I would rather wait and see a solo Venom film instead of his inclusion in the Spidey franchise. Venom is a hard R character and I don't want to see him in a PG environment. Save the character for a New Line adaptation where he can get the treatment he deserves. Yes his entire backstory and motivation would have to be changed, but the character has been raked through the coals so much in the comics anyway that I really don't care anymore.

One other idea is to save Venom for a Punisher film. The two have fought before and a hard R Punisher vs Venom is something that would be worth a joygasm or two.
_____________
"Being famous sucks. The media won't stop talking about how fat I am."
Kelly Osbourne, 2005

Pod

06-07-2005, 03:38 PM

Well I got a wierd theory from watching spidey 1 yesturday wen i was bored. The thing was that the actor who played the green goblin...well i think the new villian actor has a wierd resemblance to the first villian actor...so maybe there will be a new goblin...lol harry becomes older and looks like a wierder version of his dad... :? ok thats just wierd.

But if they do a new villian other than a goblin i still think either electro or sandman are the best chioces for Church to act. Venom is no way a success with Church acting the part...Carnage maybe, but Venom is not at all a look Church would play well...we all want venom but cant have him in spidey 3...man it would be great for carnage to show up but isnt the venom DNA a part of carnage...

Oldsoul3300

06-07-2005, 04:01 PM

--I've always been partial to The Lizard. I'd love to see that done on screen. Especially since Raimi's been teasing me... er, us... about Conners in the last two movies.

stinckyfoot

06-10-2005, 03:59 PM

I believe you have 4 potential choices from what was introduced in the 2nd movie. Venom because j.j.j.'s astronaut son was introduced, the wereowlf character that the son becomes, the hobgoblin harry's character or the lizard becasue of conner.

easy D

06-11-2005, 12:12 AM

Hey, any of you watch Attack of the Show!, recently? They had Bruce Campbell on there, and he talked a little bit about his role in the upcoming Spidey flick. All he said is that he would be annoying Spidey. He didn't know if he would be wearing a costume, or not. Or if he was good or bad, if he would be flying or not, he's definately gonna annoy him.
Hmmmm.... now what could this mean? Would he be able to play Mysterio? Or would he be playing something less super, like a cabbie stuck in traffic. Any thoughts?

shaneomac

06-11-2005, 11:30 AM

theguilty1

06-12-2005, 12:22 AM

he's been in the last two, so i'm sure raimi got him for sm3.

Jakerman

06-12-2005, 07:53 AM

I hope he has a bigger part this time around.

shaneomac

06-14-2005, 11:19 AM

people are saying that bruce will play mysterio.
i dont think he will.

Shamose

07-04-2005, 03:52 AM

Church cant be electro as electro was included in the new animate series and the bad guys used in that are bad guys that arent reserved for the movies..

Church would make a good sandman or mysterio

Grace(based on his physique) could only be chameleon or hobgoblin

but i dont know why they would have two badguys, no bad guys ever teamed up as a duo did they? i know there was the sinister/incidious six

oooh what about church as rhino? or is rhino out because they used him in the game, well saying that i guess they cant use mysterio either as he was in the game

The Xenos

07-04-2005, 05:52 AM

When Bruce came to my university a few months ago, he made the same general comment. He would be in Spider-man and would be annoying to Tobey Maguire. Not anything concrete. I think all the actors are keeping their lips sealed.

-Xenos

DarrenJSeeley

07-07-2005, 05:30 AM

or is rhino out because they used him in the game, well saying that i guess they cant use mysterio either as he was in the game

Any characters seen in videogames are fair game for future films. Videogames regarding comic characters are seperate entities from thier film spin-off tie ins.

**********************

Now, about the rumor of four villians : Sandman, HobGoblin, Vulture and Venom...

I'm glad to see Vulture get a mention, but I think that character was namedropped due to the Spider-Man cartoon from the 90's, where Adrain Toomes aside from a thief and a terror in the skies could also absorb the life out of victims (?) and reverse his aging process; once an old man, then a man in his 30's or something like that. Therefore, it is possible that two (or three) actors could be playing the same part. I doubt it though. Likewise, I doubt Vulture will show up in the film.

Hobgoblin: same ol same ol' stuff you heard before...the lame idea that Harry is truly a chip off the old man's block and instead of being Green Goblin #2, paints his fathers mask and costume golden yellow and becomes Hobgoblin. I wish people would get off this kick.

Venom: Yes, but not sharing a spotlight with three other Spider villians. If Venom were in the pic the second banana, so to speak, would be Man-Wolf. There is a way storywise/filmwise to make such appearances work.

Sandman is the strongest contender. Now Topher Grace has been added, but no one knows his exact role. Much speculation is that he's another villian. If Topher is any villian, he is either a future villian yet to be seen in full glory (i.e. we see Doc Connors but he isn't Lizard yet) or Electro.

Yes, Electro.

Majik1387

07-07-2005, 08:25 PM

I think they're going to make Black Cat a villain. They wanted her in the second movie but cut her out. I think the four villains will be Hobgoblin, Venom, Black Cat, and Sandman. I think THC will probably be Sandman; he looks creepily like the Sandman with the same facial features. I think Harry is gonna hire Topher as Hobgoblin in some way. Venom I think is gonna be played by either Bruce Campbell or J.J.J.'s son(being broken-hearted after M.J. left him, he messes with what he found). Black Cat is probably being casted for at the moment, and I highly doubt that Chloe Sevigny is going to be her.

07-23-2005, 12:48 PM

Noooooooooooo!! Apparently it's the Chameleon as the main villain, according to today's news. Church is playing the role, and Harry will become the 2nd Goblin at the end of the movie.

I was really hoping for Sandman or something more classic. Chameleon - yeah, he's classic, but also rather generic. Diguising himself as anyone isn't something that spectacular we haven't seen so much before. It's more like a plot from an old 60s or 70s movie. Or even similar to those old Mission Impossible episodes where they have the latex mask. It's not like he's doing a Mystique either and morphing into anyone he chooses.

I hope this isn't true. Chameleon's about as interesting as seeing Man Wolf or the Jackal. I'd rather have Sandman, Lizard, Vulture, Shocker, Kraven, Electro or any of the more well known villains. Heck, even Venom.

Oh, and BTW - Topher Grace better not be Kraven, who they're apparently setting up for a sequel.

Pod

07-23-2005, 01:01 PM

I read that story too and I think it all a bunch of b.s. Chameleon is seems to have two different versions of himself. One where he puts on clothes and make-up to look like other people but the other one I remember was where he had a belt and could transform to anyone...I think both are stupid.

And if harry is the second villian then where is Topher? And if theres a fourth film with Topher being the villian then that means the main actors are changing...I seriously think it sucks when the main actors change. If this is true then the movie is ganna suck. I hope in a few weeks they say this was all b.s.

easy D

07-23-2005, 01:25 PM

Actually, wasn't Chameleon Kraven's younger brother? It would make more sense, since Church is a bigger dude than Grace. I'm still hoping to see Sandman in the film. God, the suspense is killing me!

Essex

07-23-2005, 03:02 PM

I don't believe this report one bit. It's easy for somebody to say it's official, but the report is far from reputable. I don't but it.

DarrenJSeeley

07-23-2005, 08:04 PM

I don't buy it for one moment either. The villian the scooper mentioned would be the last villian Raimi would use. Why? He's just be treading down Darkman territory again.

Heck, I'm surprised Universal hasn't given the go ahead for more DTV sequels. with Darkman.

As for Kraven, I would not mind it if he were the villian, but Javier Bardem would be more convincing than Topher Grace.

As for GG, did or did not Raimi actually say that Harry will not be the next Goblin in three? As far as I know, the answer was no.

DarrenJSeeley

07-23-2005, 08:08 PM

Noooooooooooo!! Apparently it's the Chameleon as the main villain, according to today's news...I hope this isn't true.

Actually, the truth is the main villian will be Stegron.

:?

Just kidding.

norrinraad

07-24-2005, 11:06 AM

I was really hoping for Sandman or something more classic. Chameleon - yeah, he's classic, but also rather generic. Diguising himself as anyone isn't something that spectacular we haven't seen so much before. It's more like a plot from an old 60s or 70s movie. Or even similar to those old Mission Impossible episodes where they have the latex mask. It's not like he's doing a Mystique either and morphing into anyone he chooses.

I agree, he really is the least interesting of Spider-Man's classic villains. He would also seem to be a step back from the marvel that was Doc Ock. However, as a secondary villain I could see him working just fine. As Easy D pointed out, he was indeed Kraven's half brother and was the one who first got Kraven obsessed with Spider-Man in the first place, and we all know how that ended up. There's the potential for some great drama here, as the final Kraven storyline was one of the most reverred in Spidey's history.

It may be a challenge for one film to do justice to about 20 years of comic book buildup. But if they do decide to go with Chameleon, best to have him operating in the shadows, manipulating someone who could actually give Spider-Man a run for his money.
_______
"I know I was born and I know that I'll die, but inbetween is mine."

easy D

07-24-2005, 09:18 PM

I'm still holding out for Sandman, though. But, as norrin said, it would be a step back from the fights between Spidey and Doc Ock in the last film, and the ones between Spidey and Green Goblin in the first film. However, I could definately see something like Spidey fighting a major villain, like Sandman or Lizard, and possibly trying to figure out a mystery as Peter Parker against someone like Chameleon.

Majik1387

07-25-2005, 12:50 AM

It's never been confirmed how many villains will be in this movie, right? I mean I heard four and it sounded cool, but I don't remember where I heard it.

07-25-2005, 06:22 AM

easy D

07-25-2005, 01:12 PM

The thing about Chameleon is that part of the time he'll wear a full mask, and other times he could be played by a number of actors (when changing identities), making it unnecessary to have Church specifically in the role.

I thought Raimi prefers villains without a mask as well, which is why he preferred Doc Ock to Gobby. So villains like Sandman or Kraven are more in line with Raimi's philosophy, and even Electro, who only has a half mask, would still be preferrable.

Yeah, the whole casting of Church could be a red herring. Maybe it's someone else who's been casted to be the real villain. Damn you Raimi, and your intelligent storytelling!

And Electro does wear a mask, but it's more for theatrics than anything. There are versions of his costume without a mask.

DarrenJSeeley

07-25-2005, 07:35 PM

Of those villians who do not wear masks (not yet featured):

1. Sandman (more than likely to be in 3)

2. The Vulture**

3. Kraven

4. Jonas Harrow (and his 'enchanced baddies: WilloW Wisp, Kangaroo and Hammerhead)

5. The Rhino

6. The Lizard (technically not a mask)

7. Smythe

8. Electro [when he lost the mask]

**There was something about the Chamelon. I don't think Church will play him, but consider during that 'phase' in Marvel where with the help of Chamelon, Adrain Toomes the Vulture not only cured his cancer but also "stole" life energy from others, and even sucked a bit out of Peter Parker. Hence, one theory of mine is that under makeup, Church plays Toomes. With the reverse age machine, he changes into Topher Grace...

Pod

07-25-2005, 08:13 PM

It's never been confirmed how many villains will be in this movie, right? I mean I heard four and it sounded cool, but I don't remember where I heard it.

In a interview with Ari Avad, or w/e his name is, that he says "the 2 main villains in spider-man 3 will be played by Church and Topher" or something like that but it states that there are 2 villains in it...there ya go.

Chameleon was the first villain for spidey in the comics but If he goes into the movies it wont be cool and wont out-beat doc ock. I think this is all a fanboy's dream he made look real by the web...If this stuff is true then spidey 3 will be mostly dissapointing.

Nightwing: Year One

07-27-2005, 03:59 PM

I am just writing this before I read pages 1 and 2. So tell me if some other user already said this. I think that the villain in the 3nd Spider-Man movie will be the Sandman and Harry Osborn picks up the suit of the Goblin and gets revenge on Spider-Man. ( I think that. And I don't know if Harry will get revenge now that he found out that Spider-Man is Peter Parker ) I am just wild guessing. :lol:
Correct me if I am totally wrong about this!

easy D

07-27-2005, 04:03 PM

Well, that was being said for most of the first page. But, more recent posts have Spidey fending off Chameleon and Kraven.

Znluvx

07-27-2005, 04:15 PM

Well, that was being said for most of the first page. But, more recent posts have Spidey fending off Chameleon and Kraven.

So would Topher Grace be playing Chameleon, and THC= Kraven?

Nightwing: Year One

07-27-2005, 04:24 PM

Well, that was being said for most of the first page. But, more recent posts have Spidey fending off Chameleon and Kraven.

OK. Thanks

- Nightwing: Year One

Pod

07-27-2005, 04:31 PM

Well, that was being said for most of the first page. But, more recent posts have Spidey fending off Chameleon and Kraven.

So would Topher Grace be playing Chameleon, and THC= Kraven?

I think people are saying it the other way around. I think Topher as a villian wont work, whichever character he'll play, he wont make it work good enough. Church as Kraven sounds wierd. Church as Chameleon sounds wierder!

The Xenos

07-27-2005, 10:05 PM

I could actually see Grace as Chamelion and Church as Kraven. Dunno how it would work revered.

Then again there's alway this funky conspiracy threory that a fan thought of. If you're a Spier-man fan, it will scare the webbing right out of you.
http://www.comicbookresources.com/columns/index.cgi?column=loosecannon&article=2198

-Xenos

easy D

07-27-2005, 11:02 PM

I doubt that would happen. The whole "Clone Saga" of Spider-Man was one of the most embarrassing moments in Spider-Man history. First, Aunt May died, then we found out she wasn't really Aunt May, then we find that that Spider-Man most of us grew up with wasn't the real Spider-Man, but a really confused clone. Even though Grace and Maguire look almost identical in the picture in the article, I don't think Raimi, another lifelong Spidey fan, would want to leave the franchise with that.

Oldsoul3300

07-28-2005, 10:12 AM

- A lot of people have theorized that the casting of Grace was a tip-off to the clone saga.
While it was a horrendously conceieved notion for the comics, I have to say it just might work on film. But, it would be really weird ending the series with that story. Arad has mentioned numerous times that they will continue to make Spider-Man films as long as they have a good story to tell. Can you imagine them deciding not to do any more after introducing a new Peter Parker? I think it would leave a bad taste in people's mouths. If they were to use the clone saga, it would almost promise us that another 1 or 2 or 3 are on the way.
All of this talk about Grace as Kraven is just ridiculous... I mean, look at him for Pete's sake. Kraven is not and could not be some lanky 20-something joker.

Essex

07-28-2005, 10:58 AM

I'm confused. Why do people think Topher's casting could mean clone saga because him and Tobey look similar? Wouldn't a clone look...identical?

Oldsoul3300

07-28-2005, 11:01 AM

Exactly! That's why people dropped the subject about 5 minutes after Grace was cast.

Pod

07-28-2005, 11:57 AM

Anyone watch Jay Leno last night? They had Church there and he had this stupid slide show of characters he wasnt playing for spidey 3. But all those characters were made up shit...But I liked it when Jay started asking Church who he's playing for money. Its funny also that Church's cat knows...SOMEONE GET THAT CAT!!!! :wink:

07-28-2005, 01:27 PM

All of this talk about Grace as Kraven is just ridiculous... I mean, look at him for Pete's sake. Kraven is not and could not be some lanky 20-something joker.

Just generally, for Pete's sake, or for Peter Parker's sake? :wink:

I hope there won't be any clones in Spidey 3. We already had that once in one of the 70s Spider-Man live action tv episodes. Some doctor grew one from a drop of blood that Spider-Man shed. Obviously they ended up fighting and one died.

Oldsoul3300

07-28-2005, 01:37 PM

07-28-2005, 01:56 PM

I hope there won't be any clones in Spidey 3. We already had that once in one of the 70s Spider-Man live action tv episodes. Some doctor grew one from a drop of blood that Spider-Man shed. Obviously they ended up fighting and one died.

Did he die, Welshcat? Did he?!?
Perhaps it was all a cover up to actually clone the Spider-Man from the 1978-79 TV series, Nicholas Hammond.
And that clone grew up to be...
dun-dun-dunnnnn...
Topher Grace, born in 1978.
The truth is out there... er... in here.

Agh! Does this mean he's going to star in a Sound of Music revival?

Since we're on the subject of the Sound of Music, I might as well take the opportunity to post a scene from my Marvel Legends version of that musical which I did way back in January. It's from the scene where Fraulein Maria is introduced to the children:

http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/4263/sound4copy0my.jpg

I have the entire musical mapped out like this if anyone's interested to see.

DarrenJSeeley

07-28-2005, 02:40 PM

I'm confused. Why do people think Topher's casting could mean clone saga because him and Tobey look similar? Wouldn't a clone look...identical?

Exactly. There is no law that says, as an actor, Topher can't change his hair color, or be under makeup of some sort. The same goes for Church.

easy D

07-28-2005, 03:00 PM

Agh! Does this mean he's going to star in a Sound of Music revival?

Since we're on the subject of the Sound of Music, I might as well take the opportunity to post a scene from my Marvel Legends version of that musical which I did way back in January. It's from the scene where Fraulein Maria is introduced to the children:

I have the entire musical mapped out like this if anyone's interested to see.

Ummm...........eh? :?

You know last night I was playing around with the idea of having some of my Marvel Legends (Professor X, Mr. Fantastic, Namor, Iron Man, and Dr. Strange) doing a cover of the Village People's "YMCA", complete with a breakdance from Professor X. I think it's funny!

DarrenJSeeley

07-28-2005, 03:25 PM

Since Tobey and Topher look alike and could play brothers if not first cousins, it got me considering: what if the scooper was partially right?
It isn't Church playing Chamelon, it is Topher. The Chamelon, if after Parker for some reason, might change his appearance to resemble Parker. Maybe I'd buy it.

But I'm not sure if a "fanboy" dropped the rumor. Considering most fans want to see Venom, but some were slightly coming around to say "okay...Sandman...interesting choice", maybe someone does want Lizard, or Sam to roll the dice on Mysterio, or even Rhino. But ...Chamelon?

If Church were to take on that role, why have to go in for makeup tests and body casts? Seems rather odd, to book up an actor for almost two years just to play a character who will have not only limited screen time, but said character will change his appearance to look like other people, and with limited FX around him.

But "oh that character is lame" excuse doesn't sit right with me, after all, there is another villian, so they say, in Spidey 3. When/if Chamelon shows up, it does not neccessarlily mean Kraven will also be in 3.
Curt Connors was namedropped in 1, seen in 2. Buy all means we should see Lizard in 3, but we won't -even though we should. A bit of foreshadowing perhaps, but also just because Harry finds his father's Goblin lair* does not mean the Harry Green Goblin will show up in #3.

However, given the fact that Raimi has done "Darkman" (1990) would he go to familiar ground? Consider Chamelon, now consider Mystique from X-Men. Let's go a step further: Mission Impossible. This is why, generally, the character might be done some justice, but an audience might yawn.

Until villian #2 shows up. The main villian. So unless Chamelon does his crime spree while Spidey has his hands full with Sandman, Vuture, or Harry's Goblin or whoever, that's another possibility.

But the story with Peter Parker and Mary Jane comes first, and in all this hype this little fact seems to have gotten lost in the shuffle.

Oldsoul3300

07-28-2005, 03:41 PM

norrinraad

08-01-2005, 11:53 AM

But the story with Peter Parker and Mary Jane comes first, and in all this hype this little fact seems to have gotten lost in the shuffle.

True enough. The first two films had both "Peter Parker" and "Spider-Man" components, which is what most fans of the comics probably appreciated the most. The third film will definitely have to address the issue of where Pete and MJ are heading, as their relationship changed pretty dramatically by the end of the second film. I can't see this getting lost in the shuffle, as Raimi has adhered pretty strictly to the spirit of the books so far.

As for Grace, I have to admit I'm stumped. I really have no idea who he's playing. An interesting thing about Spider-Man, at least in the Lee/Ditko days, is that he rarely, if ever, squared off against a villain his own age. Of his classic foes I can't think of one who was supposed to be a teenager like he was. Harry Osborn became a Goblin eventually but that wasn't until Gerry Conway had long since taken the writing reins away from Stan. The only other super-powered teenager I can remember Pete interacting with in those early issues was the Human Torch, who obviously won't be in this film. Now, nowhere has it been said that Topher will be playing a character the same age as Pete, but he looks so young it's hard to imagine him as any of the classic villains. However, if it's an Ultimate version of a classic villain, well that's a different story. Considering the film is still two years away :cry: there's plenty of time for speculation.
__________
"I like the sound of my own voice, I didn't give anyone else a choice."

08-02-2005, 01:45 PM

According to today's news...

SPOILER WARNINGS.............................

BOTH Church and Grace are playing Chameleon!!! Not 2 separate villains, but 1 single villain!

Oldsoul3300

08-02-2005, 02:00 PM

According to today's news...

SPOILER WARNINGS.............................

-But if you note in the article, it says that it's been confirmed that Church is playing the Chameleon. That isn't true. It's been rumored extensively, but nothing definitive has come from Sony, Marvel, or any of the cast.

08-02-2005, 02:47 PM

DarrenJSeeley

08-02-2005, 04:01 PM

give it about a week.

Then my Vulture theory will kick in.

A few weeks after that, we discover Church is actually Crime Master, and Topher is a chip off the old block.

By October, we will discover that Church is actually Lightmaster, and Topher is the Ned Leeds Hobgoblin...and Jimmy Franco goes after Topher as Goblin II...

And then, all will be back to normal, as Topher is Chamelon and Church is Sandman.

Did I say the Chamelon will be lame? No, I didn't.
Don't believe a word I say.

http://users.telenet.be/eforum/emoticons4u/violent/sterb184.gif

Batman15

08-02-2005, 05:01 PM

Why does everyone keep saying that Chameleon will be the villian just because one site reported it? :? He would'nt be bad as long as he had someone else and not just him alone. I'm sure this has been said already but it would be awsome if Venom was in it! :D

easy D

08-02-2005, 09:59 PM

By October, we will discover that Church is actually Lightmaster, and Topher is the Ned Leeds Hobgoblin...and Jimmy Franco goes after Topher as Goblin II...

I could see that happening.

How about I start my own Spidey villain rumor?

Church will play Swarm. A dude made completely out of bees. And Grace will play Scorpion. Yeah, dude 8) .

Comic Guru

08-03-2005, 10:32 AM

Actually, when I heard Church talk about that "amorphous electron" crap, the first person that came to mind was Will O' The Wisp. Church bears a striking resemblance to him and WOTW can produce hypnotizing light flashes as well as turn invisible and intangible. I don't think Sam would choose him, though, as he's not that big of a villain.

I will be disappointed if Church and Grace are both playing The Chameleon, as I'm hearing. Chameleon just doesn't have the appeal and action potential of other villains.

norrinraad

08-03-2005, 11:51 AM

08-03-2005, 12:25 PM

Majik1387

08-03-2005, 01:23 PM

You know what, maybe Chameleon is the villain. I mean when they were talking about how many villains are in the movie, they never specified how many. Maybe it's because Chameleon can be so many people that they count each as a villain.

norrinraad

08-03-2005, 02:39 PM

Peter could be spilling his heart out to Mary Jane or Aunt May only to find out it's Chameleon. Now while that might provide some suspense, I think it could easily get out of hand. Would we trust that even Peter Parker is who he says he is at the end of the movie?

See, now this I would like! It would be cool and it's actually happened in the comics, too. This is the only way to make Chameleon interesting in a film, IMO. Imagine if Pete and MJ finally got around to, um, consumating their relationship, only to have her find out afterwards that it really wasn't Peter? Now that is my kind of humour :twisted:

Essex

08-03-2005, 03:18 PM

The first time I heard Church was being cast I thought Vulture. Shave his head and he's a dead ringer, albeit a younger version. I personally would be equally happy with either Vulture or Sandman. And for the record, I doubt they would go to the trouble of hiring both Church and Grace for Chameleon. He's simply not interesting enough to warrant not just one, but two pretty well known actors.

Well, wouldn't hiring a known actor to play a character increase the impact that would come when it was revealed he doesn't technically exist, and is, in fact, the villain?

I'm curious why people (in general) are claiming that Chameleon isn't interesting; Why an old man in a bird costume or a loser criminal made of sand are somehow more interesting than a character who excudes suspense and intrigue. Chameleon was the FIRST villain Spider-Man ever faced. He's been a formidable villain since the very first issue of Amazing Spider-Man over 40 years ago.

The majority of the people on the internet probably haven't even read a story with the Chameleon in it.

Whether this is true or not, though, I doubt this is how it will play out in the final film. If this IS how things are planned now, they'll be changed. There's no way Raimi would let a story point be ruined two years in advance. However, saying that, I wouldn't be surprised if this was false information spread purposely.

norrinraad

08-03-2005, 07:47 PM

I'm curious why people (in general) are claiming that Chameleon isn't interesting; Why an old man in a bird costume or a loser criminal made of sand are somehow more interesting than a character who excudes suspense and intrigue. Chameleon was the FIRST villain Spider-Man ever faced. He's been a formidable villain since the very first issue of Amazing Spider-Man over 40 years ago.

Well, in my 23 years on this planet I've been reading Spider-Man for about 17 of them, so let me tell you a bit about Chameleon and his history. You can decide for yourself if he's worthy of inclusion in the franchise.

You're absolutely correct, Es, Chameleon was the first "super villain" Spider-Man ever faced. However, at the beginning of his career he wasn't that interesting or formidable a villain. Really, he was presented as an easy target for the times, this being the early 1960s and Chameleon being Russian. Spidey actually refers to him as a "Commie" at one point (I kid you not) and he's defeated in about 3 or 4 pages. Also, he gets second billing in the book behind John Jameson and his malfunctioning space craft.

In terms of super powers, well, he actually had none. As time goes on he eventually develops some pretty cool technology for his shape shifting, but in his first appearance he relies on make-up, wigs, and masks. His main weapon is a "multi-pocket disguise vest" which hangs below his waist and has about 20 pockets where he supposedly hid his paraphenalia. Any wonder he was so easily defeated? A bigger question, of course, is why Stan opted to make him such a goofball. He was clearly not meant to be taken seriously this time around. A little "Red" prejudice perhaps? Only Stan knows for sure.

During the mid '90s an attempt was made to take Spider-Man in a much harder, darker direction. Several themes from the Batman books of the time were incorporated into Spider-Man, with predictable results. You only need to peruse the letter pages of the time to see that the fans did not approve of this new direction. However, I personally loved the more intense storylines, and thought Spider-Man fit into this new mileu surprisingly well. Friendly Neighbourhood Spider-Man perhaps, but a character is only as good as his writer, and there were some fine ones during this period. One theme introduced, that Batman fans will be familiar with, is the idea that Spider-Man may intend to save lives but his very existence threatens the ones he tries to save. David Micheline used this idea as an excellent opportunity to re-invent Chameleon, and he became a pivital foe during this period in Spider-History. It was suggested that the villains who become obsessed with Spider-Man attack innocents as a means of provoking him into action, and it was shown that Chameleon's hatred of Spidey was so great that he wasn't above playing dirty. A large factor in this also had to do with the fact that he blamed Spider-Man for his half-brother Kraven's death, as the relationship between them had previously been ret-conned into an important plot point. Chameleon was still not able to face Spidey on common ground, but he became almost Kingpin-like in the role he played in destroying Peter's life from the shadows. Themes of identity were also introduced, in the sense that Dimitri had assumed other identities for so long that he no long knew who he was. He defined his entire existence through his hatred for Spider-Man, a hatred he could not give up, lest he lose what little sense of "self" he had left. By this point, I totally agree with you, he was one of the more complex and intriguing Spider-Man villains out there.

Now, in the context of the film franchise, could he be so interesting a character? I sincerely doubt it, as I don't see how there could be sufficient time to properly develop the required motivation to do the latter-day version of the character justice. That leaves Chameleon as he was initially presented, as a poor man's Mystique. Spider-Man 2 raised the bar so high with Doc Ock that having a character who likes to wear masks may be rightfully perceived as anti-climactic.

The reason I like the idea of Vulture and Sandman is because with advances in CGI, amazing things could be done with these characters. And don't sell either of them short just yet. Vulture was an embittered loner who developed the artificial power of flight to avenge himself against a former business partner who betrayed him. In the right hands he has always been a fascinating villain. He's also come closer than most of Spidey's Rouge Gallery to killing him on more than one occasion. Remember, Peter is powerful but he's not invulverable. A fall from the top of the Empire State Building would kill him just as easily as it would you or I. As for Sandman, he was a two bit crook who lucked into some pretty amazing powers, yet he tried to conceal his identity to protect his sick old mother from ever finding out about him. Both characters are pretty tragic in their own respects. And, after the one-two punch of the tycoon Osborn and the scientist Octavius, some working class sensibility would be welcome in the franchise.

Anyway, draw your own conclusions. There may very well be several interesting ways to beef Chameleon up into an A-lister. However, I would like to see what Raimi and his team of digital artists will be able to do with a winged adversary or a foe who can assume any shape he chooses! Each character also has a rich backstory, so I would assume that Raimi can also incorporate enough human interest into the sequel to keep the proceedings interesting.

easy D

08-03-2005, 10:56 PM

I don't think I've ever said that Chameleon was lame, either. It's just...well, take a look at the fight scenes in the Spider-Man movies. Doc Ock probably gave Spidey the fight of his life on top of the el-train with his tentacles. And Goblin handed Spidey his ass because of his enhanced strength and his Goblin Glider, now would Chameleon compare to those? He doesn't have the strength or weaponry to compete against that. He does, however, have his wits. And even though he does have a richer and broader backstory than someone like Sandman or Vulture, he couldn't have the kinda of jaw-dropping fights we've seen in the first two films.

Still hoping that Sandman gets even more fleshed out in the next film, and we can see some incredible action in the next film.

Pod

08-05-2005, 05:14 PM

hehe this thread is a rumor-fest....no truth just rumors...be gullible here.

So anyways I think there are too many people that make these rumors that are mostly thier own wanted storylines.

Sandman still feels like the most closest to be true.
wierd ideas just keep coming from sites...I think every fan just needs to hibernate until the day spidey 3 comes out...yes you must skip X3 and Superman...hehe just kidding lets keep rumoring for another year.

The Xenos

08-06-2005, 03:08 AM

I hear Mary Jane dies then the accelerated mutant children of her and Norman come back to kill Peter.

-Xenos

Batman15

08-06-2005, 10:07 AM

Please tell me your joking.

Essex

08-06-2005, 10:20 AM

Please tell me your joking.

He is and he isn't. That same thing (with Gwen Stacy instead of MJ) was a recent comic story.

DarrenJSeeley

08-18-2005, 07:10 PM

With Tom Church, It's back to Sandman.

But now, AICN also reports Topher Grace will be Electro. This news is interesting: in the original James Cameron treatment, Sandman and Electro were the the two villians.

For awhile I've been hoping for two Vultures, and I almost bought the idea of Grace being Chamelon and a buffed up Church being Kraven.
But with my Vultures theory I forgot one small detail: X3. If we see Angel flying, I don't think Vulture(s) would go over well if Tooms and Blackie appeared in Spider-Man 3.

But there's something about Sandman that also catches some appeal: in the comics, the charcter became 'reformed', and started working with Silver Sable and Wild Pack. That said, is it possible that if Sandman were used, in the end he could help Spider-Man fight villian #2?

Actually, I'm to the point where I honestly belive Church is the most underrated actor alive: the man can play any one of the Spider-Man rogue gallery and get away with it. Except for Black Cat and Stegron, of course.

norrinraad

08-18-2005, 08:47 PM

Church playing Sandman is hardly a surprise but the idea of Grace as Max Dillon threw me right off. These are both classic villains so I'm not sure I like the idea of them lumped together, but so be it. If I remember my Ultimate continuity, Electro was defeated within a page or two and the main villain took up the bulk of the story, so I'm wondering if they're going to go the same route here.

Funny that Stregron was mentioned. When Curt Conners was finally made flesh and blood in the second film, I had this wild fantasy of seeing Lizard and Stegron in the next sequel, as the two are intrinsicly linked in the comics. I knew it would never have happened but it's such a crazy idea, I loved the thought of it! Maybe at some point down the road...

As for the Sandman/Silver Sable connection, it would be great if after all this speculation about Black Cat, it was really Sable they were going for all along. Long time readers of Spidey comics will remember a running joke in the '80s issues where Felicia became frustrated because people kept confusing her with Silver Sable. If Raimi remembered this and deliberately set up this red herring, it would be a wonderful nod to a classic joke in Spidey's history.
_________
"Do you hear the lonely engines, screaming through the town?
There's nowhere to run, when the darkness comes down."

08-18-2005, 08:49 PM

Would people like it if Raimi never revealed the villain until the movie actually came out? And what if we didn't know which actor was playing which villain?

For example, imagine if the first time you were to see, say, Mysterio, he was in costume (we don't see an origin - he just turns up). We might not know exactly who he is or who he's played by. That could keep the suspense up in this movie.

Or alternatively, imagine there is a crime spree going on in New York. We don't know who is committing them. Then, after investigating it further, Spidey (and us) come face to face with.... Electro or Kraven (or whoever else it turns out to be)! We'd never know who to expect, so it would keep us guessing all the way through.

After all, they have these sorts of surprises and plot twists in other non-comic movies. Why not do the same here?

Pod

08-18-2005, 09:29 PM

Fans go crazy and everyone will want to know the movies secrets...ahh thats a big dare to do. I mean if they dont even show the villains (like using shadows and sounds only in the commercials) and everyone first feel "wow I wonder who it is" then later on "damn it tell us who it is!!!" and once they see the movie "whoa...but why keep it such a lame secret!"

I dont think they will hide it forever until the movie premiers. 8 months before the movie comes out or somewhere close to that, we'll kno who the villains are...but as of right now the mystery continues. I actually want this sandman/electro rumor to be true becuase i can see the actors being those characters than any other rumor out there. And Grace did get his hair dyed blonded...a sign? nahh but fun to think so.

Majik1387

08-18-2005, 10:50 PM

I could see the possibilty of Silver Sable in the next Spidey movie because she's going to be in the upcoming Ultimate Spiderman game. But then again she might be shafted the same way that Black Cat was in the Spiderman 2 game but not in the movie.

Pod

08-25-2005, 02:24 PM

okayy...I'm ganna try to keep this back up so...

On to the opinions.
I still think sandman will be played by Church(mostly he looks like him more than the other suggestions) & Topher as Electro (A more younger "spunky" crazy electro would be cool. Not the one from the MTV show electro but more the comic one with the green and yellow costume)

The chameolen thing is still bull in my opinion. One thing that still gets me is how they will work out introducing 2 villains. I kno the "2 actors playing one villain" might sound like a easy thing for intros but still maybe they will change the background of the characters so they can be somewhat related...not geneticly, more in the story way...

But I still wish they went with lizard...too bad.

DarrenJSeeley

08-25-2005, 09:18 PM

The Lizard

That reminds me. According to the IMDB, Dylan Baker is signed on to reprise his role as Curt Connors. We may see Lizard in Spidey 4 yet.

Fan Feed April 4:
Church has been in Los Angeles lately for wardrobe fittings on 'Spider-Man '] and "being in the mud all day. They did plaster casts of my body for prosthetics. They also wanted to cut my hair to get an idea for (computer) animators (to determine) what my look will be."

A funny thought occured to me. While everything (for the most part) points to Sandman, is is possible that, if under heavy makeup and with a slightly different voice...could Church play The Lizard and Baker just be Connors?

Pod

08-25-2005, 09:22 PM

The Lizard

A funny thought occured to me. While everything (for the most part) points to Sandman, is is possible that, if under heavy makeup and with a slightly different voice...could Church play The Lizard and Baker just be Connors?

Whoa, thats kinda wacky. I think that would be a interesting possibility and if that is the final result then man, that will be like a slap in the face from all the other ideas! Church playing a character we thought was already casted by another actor!

Essex

08-25-2005, 10:00 PM

That doesn't seem to make sense...I don't think they'd hire a recent Oscar nominee to play a character who barely speaks and will be mostly CG.

DarrenJSeeley

08-26-2005, 05:38 AM

The Lizard, should the character appear in 3 (or 4) won't be entirely a CG creation. But my warped mind was going in this direction: if the Lizard is used, Lizard could talk (with a hissing lisp) for most of the film, only to lose his voice as he becomes more lizard than man. Another villian (or bad guy) could have the antidote on his person while Spider-Man not only has to take on the rampaging Lizard and a crocodile or two, but also has to find the thief who stole Connor's antidote. By coincidence, the other villian's name is nicknamed the Chamelon.

In any case, I'm going to have to back this up in arguement- even though, like most, I'm jazzed on the idea of Church being Sandman-
but before Church was cast, way back in part 2's script stages, wasn't there a few drafts which suggested Otto Octavius help Spider-Man subdue The Lizard and help him change back to Connors, only to drop the idea because Lizard should not be a throwaway villian, but should be saved for either the third or fourth film?

Second, how was Church approached to be in Spider-Man 3? What was the factor that made him a consideration? When? I seem to recall that at a SAG awards luncheon producer Laura Ziskin heard him tell a joke in a speech and liked his voice delivery, made some phone calls, then approached him for the unknown villian part. This is also why there was some early speculation regarding Church being Venom.

Third, would an actor who would play Sandman need body casts and makeup prosthetic tests?

I don't know... it was just a funny thought.

evilsith

08-30-2005, 09:36 PM

Pod

08-30-2005, 09:54 PM

Well evilsith, your theory is understandable and I think it really doesnt matter on how the comic did it sometimes because its all about how the director and writer will choose to go for the storyline. The comics are just guidelines and thinks to help get the idea but mostly the villain connections to the story are new and rarely based on comics. I mean did Oscorp make a deal with Doc Ock in the comics to create that machine? Well I think not...but I'm not sure either.

I'm still holding in for the Sandman & Electro theory because we can always have a young electro people! Unfortunatly it will still suck with Topher playing in the movie as a villain...and being Electro...ugh... :shock: Well I hope Church is Sandman though....

Zac

08-30-2005, 10:42 PM

norrinraad

08-31-2005, 07:32 PM

I think the reltaionship between peter parker and Mary Jane could be the key to who the villian would be for the movie. Since the next step in the film would be their marriage, the villian would probably be one of the top villians from that period. However, I am unaware of who the major villian(s) were when peter and MJ got married so if someone can reply to this then that would be cool.

Very interesting idea, though I don't think we'll be seeing any marriage until the fourth film at least. In the comics, it took MJ about 50 issues from the time she admitted she knew the truth until Pete popped the question (for the second time, incidently). Keep in mind that by that point, it had been retconned that she knew who Peter was even before they met, but she always clung to the doubt that she might be wrong. Once Pete confirmed it, it took her quite awhile to become comfortable enough with the idea to actually agree to marrying him. He had actually proposed once before, in the '70s, but she turned him down. It was later retconned that the reason she said "no" had more to do with his dual identity than anything else.

Now, is they go ahead and marry the two of them off in the fourth film, many people will be happy to learn who the major villain at the time was. The Big V, Venom, was the first major villain to be introduced after the wedding (I believe time has shown us that the mercenary Chance doesn't count). However, immediately following the wedding, the first major storyline was "Kraven's Last Hunt". If your theory holds water, it will be either Kraven or Venom (or both) vs Spidey in the fourth film, which I know will please many fans, either way.
_____________
"Me I've got my strangers, to exile in the night.
I guess I'm just addicted, to the pain, of delight."

Pod

09-01-2005, 11:26 AM

Now, is they go ahead and marry the two of them off in the fourth film, many people will be happy to learn who the major villain at the time was. The Big V, Venom, was the first major villain to be introduced after the wedding (I believe time has shown us that the mercenary Chance doesn't count). However, immediately following the wedding, the first major storyline was "Kraven's Last Hunt". If your theory holds water, it will be either Kraven or Venom (or both) vs Spidey in the fourth film, which I know will please many fans, either way

As much as I would love to see Venom and Kraven I wouldnt want a fourth film for spidey. It would be re-casted and have a new director and writer which always makes things look confusing for peoples faces to change 3 years later (The batman films had alot of re-casts for bats which were wacky). I would try to get the new actors thing out of my head and stick to the story but it would be annoying to have a new face and vioce on a character we've seen before with 3 other movies by another actor...And overall I think they wont even go far to 6 films. I wish they would but I just dont think it will happen. A trilogy is as far as this movie should go. If it goes to 6 films then I dont think it will be as good as the first 3....

And about the marriage, I think it will happen in #3 but if not then a missed opportunity for a happy love/action film...

Majik1387

09-05-2005, 01:53 AM

If this is truly the last Spiderman film, which I hope it's not, I wanna see villains galore. Theycould have some working together and have some as minor or cameo evil-doing. If it isn't the last, then I don't know.

Znluvx

09-07-2005, 02:51 PM

Somewhere this week, (or maybe this past weekend) I heard somewhere that Topher Grace is working out like 2 hours a day in the gym in prep for Spidey3.
Guess he's going to be buff for whatever villian role he'll be playing.

Pod

09-07-2005, 04:43 PM

Mostly every villain is a buffed up guy in a way but for Topher he definitly needs to work out for any villain.

From the info we know of Topher(he has blonde hair now, buffing up, people say he kinda looks like Tobey) He might become Ben Reilly.

Many poeple still say Eddie Brock, but he's too buffed up and Venom is just not really a good go for Topher. I dont mind another spidey played by Topher and Church as Sandman....But at the same time I still want Topher as Electro.

DarrenJSeeley

09-08-2005, 05:41 PM

Okay, now comes that "source" saying Grace is Venom, Church is Sandman and, in addition, Franco is Hobgoblin.

I'm glad C2F put the news brief under the red bar, because ***yawn***

"Someone snatched up the Venom rights but we didn't know who"

*yawn*

First of all, the rumor mill, as I predicted (well, it was really more than obvious) has come full circle and we are right back the original fanboy rumor that started it all. Is it credible? Not in the least, unless Grace isn't Venom but just simply Eddie Brock before Venom. Actually Church is more Brock-like, and when he was first announced you had some say "Venom" and the other half say "Sandman".

You have also had countless fans want Venom, even if Sam couldn't fit him in. They all but corner the man during that one confrence a year ago, and pressure him into responding. And since he 'denies' it, then 'there's something to it' and he looks up in the air, 'oh it must be Venom!' but Sam could have thought about the Vulture, the second Goblin, Electro on a phone wire...or about that loud plane buzzing by the building.

Considering that there was no mystery who got the rights back from NLC, and only because Venom is part of the Spidey universe, nothing more, nothing less. In fact, Eddie was supposed to cameo in the first film, but is only mentioned by name. But let's take the 'scoop' at face value and it is 100% on the money. Just think: while Ramni has suggested that the third film will shake the House of M to the foundations, does anyone really think that Venom will be a second banana? No. That's what I thought.

Also, ironic that the scoop fails to mention that Dylan Baker has signed on for Connors. That's why I started thinking about Lizard, because it is so under the radar. Check out IMDB if you think I'm kidding. One thing about IMDB is that cast and crew lists cannot be faked. Connors wil make an appearance in the film.

Still, most fans by now are eager to see Sandman, which would be a visual feast if ever there was one, and Grace as Electro is winning folks over.

It's more than clear the Sony camp/Ramni's people are the 'leaks', or they leave a trail of false breadcrumbs. What they 'leak' is false leads and speculation. To throw people off, they throw a sketch of a character on a board and hope someone comes by it. Or an FX wizard working on early designs on sculpts for Venom and Man-Wolf. Remember that one? I also think the Chamelon stories were also mis-leads. It was out of the box thinking and not as fanboy.

shaneomac

09-20-2005, 07:03 PM

I was just wondering.........about the "3 being the end of the Spidey franchise" rumor

I do not think this is conceivable. How can they just end it when things are getting good with harry and mj? In spite of the cast and director potentially leaving, the franchise will not be cut loose.

Now that we have that settled........

My predictions.......

I cannot say that I have ruled the clone saga theory out completely.However, it is highly unlikely. I would kill to see Topher Grace as Elektro (even Ultimate). And I do believe that Church fits the sandman role. If these are the two main villains, than Harry will have to come to his senses and not become the GG2 or Hobby.

Here is my prediction for the Sandman: Bill Baker (played by Church) is exposed to harmful radiation and senses that something weird is going on with his body. So he travels to New York to see his cousin Norman Osborn, only to learn that he is dead. Bill stays with Harry for a while. During this time, Harry mentions his hate for Spiderman. When Bill discovers his powers, he goes after Spidey for Harry.

How about this for a little twist: Harry decides to not go after Peter directly, but hires someone to do the job for him. The person he hires turns out to be Mac Gargan, who volunteers because Harry offers him money. Harry gives Mac the green liquid stuff from his dad's lair and builds him a suit. Anyone know where this is heading???

THE SCORPION, THAT'S WHERE.

You heard me. The scorpion. Don't rule him out. Yes, I know this is changing his comic origin, but have the films really followed the comics all that well?

Also, let me just throw this out there Eddie Brock will be introduced in Spidey 3 whether Raimi likes it or not. (j/k)

DarrenJSeeley

09-20-2005, 07:21 PM

You heard me. The scorpion. Don't rule him out. Yes, I know this is changing his comic origin, but have the films really followed the comics all that well?

It has been speculated on before, but whether or not Harry wants to go after Peter/Spider-man is still up in the air (forgive me) - The Scorpion's tail could be a leftover from Otto Octavius. But don't rule on JJ's input on Scorpion either.

As to my Scorpion speculation (oh, come now, by now C2F knows I have a seperate speculation for almost every character! Don't look too surprised...)- there is also two other things.

Harry might speculate where Peter got his abilities. Will Peter trust him enough to tell he entire story? That said, Harry finds out the DNA manip'd spiders have all been shipped to Bora Bora or someplace. Using the same science, he does the same genetic manipulation to a scorpion. The goal is not to hurt Spider-man/Peter, but to 'help him out'. This backfires, as Max decides to go after Spidey, because his enhanced Scorpion self hunts Spiders etc.

Pod

09-21-2005, 02:04 PM

Sounds iffy...if thats a word. I would say that having harry say he hates spidey even after he knows its pete is wierd. And the harry/mj thing was long gone after the first movie, shaneomac.

Scorpion is a unusial chioce but I dont say a full no, but that means topher will play him, which is just a horrible casting if you ask me. I would like to see it but right now it feels...well..."iffy"... :?

I say the most realistic for me is the Sandman/Electro theory. Thats what I'm sticking with.

shaneomac

09-21-2005, 04:06 PM

what i meant by things getting good with harry and mj, was that they both found out and we dont know what they'll do(i know they are not in a relationship anymore)

Pod

09-21-2005, 04:15 PM

Hmm well in the comics of ASM mj is mostly the girl you come home to that heals your bruises. And as for harry thats a bit of a confusion. In the commentary of Spider-man 2 Raimi said that he'll now kno that pete killed his dad bcuz his pops was a wacko...or something like that hehe.

But I'm guessing he'll try to do something in the lines of continueing his company. Spidey is in his move to continue. As for the continuing of the franchise after #3 I have to say it will be bad if it happens.

Raimi gone, actors from the first 3 gone, and they can do things like the venom saga but it will be a bit of a new look that might not really feel like the first trilogy. I personally hate recastings of main characters, and with that I say #4-6 is going to suck for me. But I really doubt that they'll do it without the first cast. Avi Arad is the go to man on this. But if you ask him, another riddle will be needed to solve.

DarrenJSeeley

09-26-2005, 08:14 PM

or...Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind 2

Miss Dunst says she hasn't gotten the script yet, but blurts out that Church is Sandman and Grace is Venom. Or is it the other way around? Once before she said it was Lizard and Black Cat.

I'm still having a whopper of a time thinking Grace can play Venom, although from the looks of things Venom may have been in earlier drafts of the script. However, it is close enough for early screen testing, so could this be the bona fide story?

Let the next round of speculative theory commence!

Pod

09-26-2005, 09:59 PM

I think its another wacky Dunst rumor...said by her...hmm...

Well I cant stop thinking how horrible it would be for Grace to be eddie brock aka venom. Its just a bad casting. Sandman is always a ok with me for Church.

Eddie Brock has been mentioned in the first films but I just wonder if they would go that far. Only one film for Venom and he's crowded with another villain too? I think thats a bit too small. Venom is a character that should have 2 films. Spidey 4 is probably not happening so it might be another death of the villians again. Gobby and Ock have died in the end so now 2 deaths? well... 8) I can live with it. But its still a rumor! :shock:

ToM

09-27-2005, 03:37 PM

Venom. Where is he today?

This character was part of a *trend* in the 90's, a part of something larger than a single character. With the trend fading, Venom's strength as a character went with it. Raimi has had great success by sticking to the very basics of the Spider-Man continuity, and with the classic characters. Venom however emerges from and continues in his greatest popularity during a divergent, and dare I say it, degenerate period of the comic series.

Early in the eighties, Marvel started thinking their classic characters were getting a little long in the tooth and needed to be reformatted. Another person became Iron-Man, Thor was no longer Donald Blake, The Hulk gained the mind of Banner for a time, The Defenders became "The New Defenders", The Fantastic Four turned into their original 60's incarnations and later took on a whole new cast, Captain America put on a black costume. And so did Spider-Man.

The black costume that would go on to be revealed as an alien creature, was one of the "major changes" to the Marvel characters that the limited series Secret Wars existed to impliment. Later on, much later on, the ditorial staff came to see that such modifications were largely mistakes. In fact, McFarlane said that he'd come to understand that the way to make Spider-Man successful again was to make him *more* like Spider-Man (read: more like his classic self) and not "different" as Marvel had been trying to pull off.

Venom is *literally* the cast off version of Spider-Man getting his revenge for *being* cast off. This character actually represents a *mistake* that was made with the Spider-Man character. The only reason they put him in that black costume, and later had to invent this "Venom" figure, was because Spider-Man had become a little stale to his audience. Thing is, this character in the *movie series* *hasn't* become stale, he's still very vital, still in his "classic" stage. There's no *reason* to adopt the black costume, or any of the changes that coincide with it at this point. They're diverging from the best form of the character when no reason for that direction exists, and they're going exactly where McFarlane said was the place to steer clear from (referencing a period that is *less* like his true form).

Today, *Venom* is the stale character, with Spider-Man as the vital one. So, why do this? Because Venom has a huge following? Frankly, Venom doesn't generate the sort of interest he once did, he was a fad with no staying power. And general audiences, those who grew up with the cartoons of the sixties, or read the comics from the sixties through the seventies, they don't know this guy. The nostalgia factor doesn't come into play, and that's a problem. Also, Spider-Man in the eighties through the nineties...was horrible stuff.

Another problem with Venom, he's all one note as a character. He's all teeth and drool and eating people. Please. This would distract from The Lizard if he should ever crawl onscreen. And he has a much better slate of stories to pool from and come up with a great series of action pieces. And he's classic Spider-Man.

What it comes down to is that Venom represents a section of Spider-Man history where the series sort of lost it's way, and then turned on it's heel to rediscover it's identity. Venom sits in between where the slip of the foot happened and the regaining of direction took place. If the movie series is on track, why take it off into the rough ground?

You know, another thing that's allowed the general audiences to accept these films is the basic human element to the villains, people losing their loved ones, people, once good, choosing the wrong path with the *hope* of redeeming themselves, finding a way back. But they're *human, have human faces. Venom is all special FX. He's an empty black mask with huge gnashing teeth and a long slavering tongue. There's nothing human to relate to there. He'll have to be a cartoon. This is out of step with what Raimi has been working so hard to accomplish on these other film. This sounds like a studio choice being handed to him, and that feels all wrong. Actually, nothing about this selection feels *right.*

ToM

Pod

09-27-2005, 05:29 PM

Thanx for the history lesson ToM... :roll:

I think the character is just a villain version of spidey but even with its dark and gory personality its an all entertaining villain. Doc Ock was great but he had a mind and was robotic. This is an alien beast that is just a crazy creature ready to do anything insane.

Uncontrollable villains are the greatest. But I'm saying no for Venom for the same reason as always. Grace as Brock is BAD! Its just too off the physical appearance of the character.

Also Sandman is an escaped criminal which in a way can also call him a crazy insane wacko that has no motive and just does it all for fun. I guess this isnt that interesting to some people but hey its all for the $$$.

DarrenJSeeley

09-27-2005, 07:16 PM

I agree, ToM.

I could see "Eddie Brock" being a competitor/thorn in the side for Peter in the getting photographs department and/or other areas; but the more I hear Venom this and Venom that I just shudder. I'm not concerning myself if Grace can play the part or not, it is simply that I find The Lethal Protector unappealing in a possible appearance in Spider-Man 3. A Venom appearance would take away from Sandman (or whoever Church is playing) but would also yank away time to Peter Parker's life and his relationships with those around him. Venom would also steal thunder away from Lizard as pointed out.

Essex

09-28-2005, 09:21 AM

Looks like Harry will probably become a goblin.

Dunst: "I think we have ... I'm going to say two and a half bad guys,because I think one of them is resurrected. But yeah, two and a half bad guys, I think, about in this movie."

Now I'm guessing she isn't referring to the introduction of Dr. Octopus 2, the female version of the villain from the 90s ;)

theguilty1

09-28-2005, 01:14 PM

i love venom. i really do. i don't think he's a stale character at all. to me, the lizard is a boring character, but that's my opinion. do i think venom's the right villain for spidey 3? no, not really, but if anyone can pull of venom in a movie, mr. raimi is probably the guy. i'm just glad that raimi's still the guy doing spidey, and we're not stuck with a ratner(sorry x-men) or a bay(sorry transformers) or someone along those lines. the nice thing about movies is that you can take certain liberties. i don't want to see the exact same story i read in a comic book 15 years ago. i want to see something new, something different. all the hubub before the first spider-man came out about him having organic web-shooters. so what! i think making harry green goblin 2 would be pointless. we've seen green goblin already. change him up a bit and make him hobgoblin. i don't want to see it one way just because thats how it was in the comic. anyways, enough babbling from me. i love reading everyone's opinions though. venom haters.....venom lovers.......its all good. at least we all like spider-man. haha

ToM

09-28-2005, 01:37 PM

Venom an entertaining villain? He sure was for a great many people, but he was a big shrug to me. Also, much of what he was as a comic character will be *removed* from him for the movie. His origin, the long build up to his reveal, even what he *looked* like will be modified. And he sure won't be handing out all that dialog, because watching a huge mouth like that form *normal* English would be absurd. He'll look like something out of a Bugs Bunny cartoon in live action. That's a key thing.

What works as a graphic image on a comics page, or even a cartoon, doesn't always translate well as a real-world image. Venom is fine as a cartoon in a world of other cartoon characters. But put him on screen as he's always been known, and he'll look like something out of that Rocky And Bullwinkle movie from '2000. He'll have to be different on screen. Will this new character pawned off as Venom be as entertaining to his fans as the original? Why don't they just go with something easier.

Sony must have shelled out a lot to pick up the rights from New Line (who bought them way back when). So, they'll want to use him sonner or later. I just hope it's later. And I *never* want to see Spider-Man wearing that black costume, never. It would be so stupid for the studio to depart from this trademark image that's sold something like a billion dollars for them for something most audiences won't recognize as that same character. I highly doubt they'll ever use it that way (if Venom is in *this* movie, they surely won't). So, all around, doing "the Venom saga" as it stood in the comics, is an awful idea. And sticking with the comics content is partly what's kept this franchise so strong. If Venom being adapted is such a problem that it subverts all this, IMO he's a pass.

Sandman on the other hand could be back to what made the Goblin and Doc Ock resonate with audiences, that human factor. He's *not* just some escaped crook. We learn later on in the comics that Sandy *had* to escape from prison, because his mother is dying and needed him (and money). In fact, he tries to go straight later on. The only problem is nobody will *let* him go straight (not even Spidey) and he keeps being forced back into a life of crime. His powers make him just too dangerous for Spidey or anybody to trust in his rehabilitation. Now, this conflicted person could make for a great sympathetic villain.

The other plus is, unlike the Goblin and Doc Ock, Sandy isn't a respectable person that's gone off his rocker, or has a spilt personality. Venom falls into that classification as does The Lizard.

I know Raimi wants to plan out the villains with regard to how they can interplay with the internal and relationship conflics and life lessons learned by Peter Parker, but here's the movie I'd like to see. Doc Conners becomes The Lizard, and his antics and various battles with Spidey are the best of the material from the comics from the sixties. We could forgo Adventures in Florida, but they could work it so that Peter and Conners are in the swamps as a part of some grad project or something. And, you know, some experiment goes wrong, Conners goes all lizardy, Pete whips up his cure, Conners is normal again. They head back to the Big Apple, Conners reverts in the city.

This monster on the loose draws the attention of...KRAVEN THE HUNTER. The 'ol boy shows up for his greatest hunt, The Lizard. He could be sponsored by J.J.J. with Parker sent to snap pics, making things sticky for the web spinner. He's got to protect poor Doc Conners from Kraven, had to protect the innocent from *both* (Kraven could be reckless allowing for injuries). And Parker must switch to Spidey and back without Kraven noticing.

In the middle of a three way battle, Kraven decides he *really* wants to hunt Spider-Man. So, at some point, Spidey takes out Kraven (starting this whole grudge thing) and turns to The Lizard, who is, naturally, quit instoppable. Nearly beaten to death, Spidey tricks The Lizard into following his crawling form into THE REFRIGERATION CAR of a passing train. Once inside, Spidey manages to leap out and lock Lizzie in the cold. Freezing to death, the only escape for The Lizard is to revert (automatically and against his own will) to a mammalian form capable of surviving the freezing temperatures. Doc Conners is saved.

But then, oh no, Kraven strikes back and Spidey has become the hunted, leading to a major showdown in the zoo! There's all those campy jungle themes and replicas set up, the two battling through them. Oh, and then you have the two fighting their way through tigers, alligators, lions, all that (picture the big final battle from Bird On A Wire). Yeah, these are the sorts of action sequences these comics on film haven't gotten to yet.

Now, there *has* to be some sort of way for Raimi to work in the love story here, the life lessons here (lots of those to be taken from jungle themes and hunting and all that). It'd probably be pretty easy. If you ask me, all of this is so much coller and more visually compelling than "Venom" with his drooling tongue hanging out and flopping around spouting off campy one liners.

I don't think Kirsten Dunst really knows what she's talking about when it comes to the bad guys. She only gets sections of the script relating to her character early on. I doubt we're going to see Harry as The Goblin jumping into things. If he's a villian, I'm guessing it'll be in the sense that he sets Parker up for something, or is working to destroy him in some behind the scenes way that, in some future film results in him becoming the Green Goblin.

Given that the insiders say they've been working with lots of *sand*, I'd say Sandman is the guy. There *could* be two, but there's been two before and one was dropped by the more evolved scripting. I think Venom is still a question mark at this point, no matter what Dunst says. BTW, I doubt Black Cat will ever be dropped into this series because it'll seem too much like WB's Catwoman. And that film was a flop. Sony wants Spider-Man to stand apart. In fact, they shot the first film on some locations used for Batman in '89, and the studio was nuts about not drawing attention to that.

Bad guys I'd like to see? I'd like to see THE TARANTULA...in that storyline where he starts changing into a huge spider. I'd also love it if they tied that into the whole Neogenic-Nightmare plot (Parker grows four additional arms).

Dark "monster" baddies? Skip Venom. You'll get the same from MORBIUS, THE LIVING VAMPIRE. People forget that he was the *original* Spidey baddie to become so popular he won his own series ( as far back as "ADVENTURE INTO FEAR").

Johnathan Smyth and his SPIDER-SLAYERS! These came in some really wild shapes and sizes, mechanical spiders, that robot with Jonah's face on it! Great stuff.

The Vulture has a somewhat interesting back story. And you know, those Ditko stories allowed for some pretty spectacular action sequences. The real problem with The Vulture is that he can only do *one* thing, fly, and that could get really boring on screen. But if they took the best action bits from the classic comics. merged them all into a series of several encounters, it would be really dynamic stuff. He could work on screen really well (unlike, you know, The Shocker, who amounts to piont and shoot over and over).

Another thing I'd like, is if these films would adopt teaser sequences like in the Bon films, or Indiana Jones pictures. Yeah, yeah, they'd have nothing much to do with the stories themselves. But if they're set in the opening, they won't distract from the *real* story, and just give the audience all that much more bang for their buck. Naturally, as I'm sure you'd guessed, I'd like these sequences to make use of villains who could *never* support an entire film, but would be great for one or two outstanding action sets. The Shocker comes to mind, or Electro (has to be somebody obviously using technology seeing asyou're not allowing time for an origin tale).

But even then, Venom doesn't fit the bill. He's too complicated an idea to just be shoved in, he must be explained in some real way. Venom, all around, just doesn't work.

ToM

easy D

09-29-2005, 12:41 PM

Wow, ToM, spell check often?

Well, from what I'm hearing, it sounds more likely that the movie would feature Sandman, Electro, and Green Goblin 2. But, I don't think that Venom would show up, yet. His powers are too similar to Sandman and Spider-Man. But, I would admit, Raimi's style and experience with horror films would make Venom much, much more interesting to watch (and I'm not even a Venom fan). Also, if they are doing another Green Goblin, I think it'll be better than doing a bastardized version of Hobgoblin. It'll show that GG is part of a family curse, and make Harry's character seem more tragic. Plus, maybe, they could work out a decent GG costume. There were a lot of good ideas from those concept drawings on the Spider-Man DVD. Use one of those. Or,maybe take an idea from the Ultimate comics and give him a purple cape and hood. Something like that.

DarrenJSeeley

09-29-2005, 09:14 PM

There were a lot of good ideas from those concept drawings on the Spider-Man DVD

A HR Gieger-like Goblin? Hmmm...

ToM

09-30-2005, 10:25 AM

Venom's powers really *are* too much like both Sandman and Spider-Man EasyD. Having him there could start to wear the fun out of both of them really fast by having too many action sets looking the same. That's another problem these movies have to overcome, repetition.

I started getting bored in Spider-Man 2 because Doc Ock's methods of attack were over and over again...exactly the same thing. It was all reach out and grab, swing and throw, reach out and grab again, pick Spidey up and bash him or throw him. I think that Raimi saw this would be the problem, so he spent a lot more time with other characters and broke up the fight scenes into sequences that ended quickly, spreading them out more so as to allow enough action for the film to satisfy. Otherwise, the fights would lose their thrill really quickly and seem dragged out, as Doc Ock only has *so* many methods of fighting by the nature of his "powers."

Now, Venom is an even worse example. He does *exactly* the same things that Spider-Man does. He crawls walls, leaps, shoots "webbing" in a way, swings on these strands. Seeing two guys, over and over again swinging around the buildings, it's all going to get dull. More problematic, Spidey is going to feel worn out with audiences, because the thing that makes him unique is being used up. Then, we have all that growling and drooling, snapping, biting, and corny one liners. Spidey is the one with the zippy one liners that get the overly serious villains all tied in knots. Why do we need *two* Spider-Men?

The whole morphing thing would already be covered by Sandman. And Sandman can take that much farther. That gives it a much better chance of working on screen.

If they *have* to be repetitious, why not introduce The Jackal and attempt to adapt that whole "Spider-Man Or Spider-Clone?" storyline? BTW, I hear that in enough time Marvel revealed that the "current" Spider-Man IS in fact the clone after all. I thought that in #150 Conners established that Spidey was the real deal? I mean, sure, in the end he never *read* the findings, but Conners whole demeanor when forking over the data to the guy who saved his life, and that of his family time after time didn't suggest a guy breaking the worst news ever, you know?

Hobgoblin or Green Goblin? I saw go with The Green Goblin. It wouldn't be as shocking, or as personal to Parker if it was anything other than The Green Goblin. Just putting on that garb says everything to Parker that Harry wants it to. It says, "I'm following after my father, I'm taking my father back from you (because he stole his love from Harry, and this demonstrates that whole "flesh of his flesh, I'm directly in line in ways you aren't" thang) and that whole "I'm avanging Dad, he's coming for you *through* me" deal. It just has more dramatic punch than some new costume for the sake of being new, with a new name.

Still, this "new" Goblin *is* going to have some wardrobe modification from the original. I mean, if they do that for Spider-Man himself with each film, come on, it's a given. And to keep audiences form going , "Oh, it's going to be all this *%$#@* all over again, huh?" they have to give him something a little new to put on. And, I might add, something closer to the comics, like some of those first film designs promised.

No matter what they do, I'm sure it'll work well enough. At least it won't be utter toss like Batman Begins.

ToM

evilsith

10-01-2005, 09:11 AM

I don't know y everyone is so down on having Topher play Venom. In my personal opinion I think they could use him to portray an awesome Venom. Sure he wouldn't be all big and bulked up as everyone is used to seeing Venom, but Topher still wouldn't look like the Scrawny Eric Forman you are used to seeing on that 70s show either. Plus I think with a slimed down version of Venom they could make him swifter and have more rapid style attacks. Also even through it wouldnt make since to have a slim Venom going around crushing people in half with his bare hands, that would be a good excuse to use more CGI and have the symbiote do all the crushing. well thats just my rambling anyway...

ToM

10-01-2005, 11:29 AM

Ah, you guys still ain't gett'in it. Topher won't play *Venom*, he'll play * Eddie Brock.* A larger, bulkier man will play the *transformed Eddie Brock, transformed into *Venom.* Remember that old story about Topher and another man (Church) playing the *same* character? Getting a little glimmer? Topher will be Brock who will turn into Church/Venom. Church isn't Sandman *if* they're going with Venom this time out. They're the same character.

The original story *was* true, the character just wasn't The Chamelion, it was Venom.

ToM

Essex

10-01-2005, 01:19 PM

Are you kidding me? Why would they hire a recent Oscar nominee to play a character who will be covered in black ooze, will have a face entirely covered and a voice that will likely be altered. And the bigger question is, why would that actor accept the role that's better suited for a stunt man? That makes no sense whatsoever.

Pod

10-01-2005, 07:16 PM

ToM your theory is a bit on the unusual side. I dont see how a CGI type of character with a creepy vioce being played by (as Essex said) an oscar winner? I mean he wont even be recognized, the vioce will probably be played by Grace with some wierd changes involved.

And the theory is also false because as Avi Arad said, there will be two villians in spidey 3. And I as for Evilsith's post on Grace being Venom, I think its really stupid to have a skinny slim Venom, it would look like spidey with the symbiote then the giant sized venom. Carnage is in the skinny size but would never work for the film if Venom isnt introduced first.

I see Grace as Electro because one, if they go with the mtv version it can work but I didnt like the full body of electricity thing. I would like to see a costume on him but it might as well get a laugh...A bad laugh. And Sandman is still IMO the closest character Church can play and be believable. I just hate having Grace even in the casting list...I never thought of him as a good actor.

ToM

10-02-2005, 03:43 PM

Gee, how many Oscar winners or other acclaimed actors have given voices to purely CGI characters in the past ten years? Kinda...a lot? I seem to remember DeNiro being completely covered up in make-up for a Frankenstein picture a few years back.

Venom would be a guy in a suit with CGI for lots of sequences, just as Spider-Man has been rendered. And Oscar winners have lined up to do comics2films since Superman in '78. If the movies do huge, it boosts their asking rate up higher than if they were carried merely by an Oscar and a half dozen critically acclaimed moderate commercial successes. The Spider-Man films are among the *few* that have ever guaranteed a three hundred million plus box office take. And every actor, no matter what accolades they've won wants at least *a* single such film attached to their name.

It isn't all about respect and vanity, it's about business too. That's why these actors all do these "issues" based activities, charity work and so on. Their agents direct them to it because it's free publicity, keeps them in the public eye, helps them make all the more money. Spider-Man is big reward, risk free work that'll pay off down the line. How far would Halle Berry's Oscar be carrying her by this point, hmmmm? How many flops till she's just another actress? Movies like X-Men and Bond will keep her around for years simply because she was in them and they made huge money.

Oh, and by the way Essex, Kerry Washington was a recent Oscar nominee, and they hired her to play the bit role of Alicia Masters in the FF film. If they can get 'em cheap, and say they've got an Oscar nominee in there, for whatever reason, it's all the better.

Yeah, Arad said there would be two baddies. Maybe Harry turns up for the final real in the green goodies? Maybe Sandman and Venom *are* there, or Electro. Could be. But then again, this early into production of the first Spider-Man film Arad *also* said there were two, Doc Ock and Green Goblin. My, the story sure changes, doesn't it?

Oh, and Essex, weren't you the one saying Batman Begins was going to be a whole new take on the character, not a reworking of the Burton film? No war on terror subtext, all that? Yeah, you're not exactly skilled at the extrapolation of details. I'm not saying I'm right and this *is* happening. It could be, it's all a guess. But where it comes to these things Essex, no matter what's coming down the pike, you'll be the last to see it I'm sure.

ToM

easy D

10-02-2005, 06:38 PM

Oh, and Essex, weren't you the one saying Batman Begins was going to be a whole new take on the character, not a reworking of the Burton film? No war on terror subtext, all that? Yeah, you're not exactly skilled at the extrapolation of details. I'm not saying I'm right and this *is* happening. It could be, it's all a guess. But where it comes to these things Essex, no matter what's coming down the pike, you'll be the last to see it I'm sure.

ToM

Well, most of us on this site said that Batman Begins was a new take on the character, not based on Burton's previous work. Actually, I think, you, ToM, are the only one to say that Begins is a reworking of Burton's films.

Pod

10-02-2005, 06:41 PM

I wonder if ToM would separate his posts into like 3 paragraphs each he would have his post count be 3 times more and also more people would actually read all of them.

But on a note of this thread: Stop talking about BB here people! Its spidey we talk bout! :lol:

Essex

10-02-2005, 09:03 PM

Well, ToM, nobody's surprised that you're willing to use comparisons that make no sense and in some cases, actually make things up (Kerry Washington was NOT nominated for an Oscar). How are any of the examples you cited anywhere close to being comparable to your theory about Church playing Venom? Let me say this again. By your logic, he'd be playing a character with a completely different voice, a body comprised of CGI or prosthetics and a monstrous face without any resemblance to his actual face. You don't actually believe Venom would sound just like Church's real voice, do you?

Why would they hire ANY actor for that role, when it could be done by any stuntman or even some random homeless person they pick up from outside the studio?

Deniro used make-up to alter his face, but it was HIS face!! He could emote, he could ACT. Hiring an actor in order to hide him under an enourmous suit and/or a cgi creation is ludicrous. You are being ludicrous. Allow me to register my utter shock at that.

easy D

10-03-2005, 12:23 AM

Well, let's see, I've got Kerry Washington's site on imdb.com. Awards, awards, awards,....
She's been nominated for a Black Reel award, a Golden Satellite Award, a S.A.G. award, and a Teen Choice award for Ray, (she won an Image award, though). But no Academy Awards. You should really look these things up. Also, bear (and possibly Essex), Church was nominated for an Academy Award, he lost out to Morgan Freeman.

By the way... if you want to listen, imdb.com has said that Thomas Haden Church will play Sandman, and Topher Grace will play Venom, but that is coming from Kirsten Dunst. So take that however you want it.
Now, I will say this. I'm not loving the idea of bringing Venom in. Especially with a villain as powerful as Sandman. One of them might seem diminished by the abilities of the other, and we'll probably get one villain seeming more sorry than he actually is. But, if they do bring in Venom, hey, I saw it coming. I remember when they brought in the Spider-Man cartoon's "Venom Saga" on DVD, and saying that it might be a sign that he might make an appearance in the next movie. Also, if you want to think about it, hasn't Venom made a strong push as of late? Showing up in a couple of video games (Marvel Nemesis and Ultimate Spider-Man),and I remember seeing a 12" Venom action figure around. Now if you guys want to argue that Grace is too small to play him, well, I'm guessing they might add some CGI to the character making him seem larger than he actually is.

ToM

10-03-2005, 01:24 AM

With regard to Kerry Washington, she was under consideration for an Oscar nom for her role as the wife of Ray Charles in "Ray." Guess she didn't get it after all. But much was made of it at the time.

Why would they hire *any* genuine actor for that role when a stuntman would suffice? Prestige. Church is by no means a major player, costs relatively little. And they *have* that kind of money to throw around on a Spider-Man picture. If he wants to do it? And he'd have plenty of reasons why he would, why wouldn't they? It-helps-sell-the-movie. A stuntman *doesn't* help sell the movie. And neither does a homeless person. If they want to do Venom, they can't count on the selling point of the name "Venom" to bring in mainstream audiences. Thy'll want someone they can speak highly of.

You're also talking as if Venom will look like he does *exactly* in the comics. Did The Green Goblin? Of course not. Venom may have some other kind of face if they use him. He could be a make-up creation, just like the DeNiro Frankenstein, or the Burton version of The Penguin. And sure, they'll use cgi on him. But they already do that with Spider-Man, so, what's the diff? None. We'll say. Again, I'm not even saying Venom is in this movie. I hope he isn't.

ToM

easy D

10-03-2005, 09:05 AM

Why would they hire *any* genuine actor for that role when a stuntman would suffice? Prestige. Church is by no means a major player, costs relatively little. And they *have* that kind of money to throw around on a Spider-Man picture. If he wants to do it? And he'd have plenty of reasons why he would, why wouldn't they? It-helps-sell-the-movie. A stuntman *doesn't* help sell the movie. And neither does a homeless person. If they want to do Venom, they can't count on the selling point of the name "Venom" to bring in mainstream audiences. Thy'll want someone they can speak highly of.

You're also talking as if Venom will look like he does *exactly* in the comics. Did The Green Goblin? Of course not. Venom may have some other kind of face if they use him. He could be a make-up creation, just like the DeNiro Frankenstein, or the Burton version of The Penguin. And sure, they'll use cgi on him. But they already do that with Spider-Man, so, what's the diff? None. We'll say. Again, I'm not even saying Venom is in this movie. I hope he isn't.

ToM

Actually Venom is pretty well-known to mainstream audiences. And with the push I'm talking about, he might be a little bit more come next summer.

And, well, what's the difference if they use CGI on Venom and Spider-Man? Well, might have to construct about half of Venom's body to do him justice (make him appear taller and larger), while the CGI Spidey is mostly for the web-slinging scenes.

ToM

10-03-2005, 10:01 AM

Essex

10-03-2005, 11:23 AM

I'll repeat myself once again. You don't actually believe the voice of Venom is just going to be a regular human voice, do you? A regular human voice which is, for some reason, not that dissimilar from Topher's voice, but noticeably different nonetheless? Why on Earth would they do that? This isn't like big stars agreeing to voice a character in Shrek. Any person's voice as Venom would be heavily altered.

Church has also publicly stated that he's been putting on muscle for his roles for months. Something tells me he doesn't need a great body to show up and record some lines.

easy D

10-03-2005, 12:00 PM

"To do Venom justice."

Hey, remember when people thought they'd use cgi to make The Thing larger in the movie? They didn't. The villains in the Spider-Man movies are largely changed from the comic pages. They do what's most convenient for the movie. Venom could very well end up being just a man in a costume, same as Spider-Man. They could even put plastic "vampire" teeth in his mouth and call him "Venom."

The reason I'm saying it's no big deal if there's some cg work on Venom in *this* sort of instance is that it's already the sort of thing they do with Spider-Man. It was *said* that a "Oscar nom" wouldn't end up being painted over by cg work. But if he's a monster in a costume with *some* cg work, that's not entirely the same thing. Besides, plenty of Oscar noms, alums, popular actors, lend their voices to cg characters all the time if they think the movie will be huge. Spider-Man movies *are* huge. Hey, Oldman and Freeman were given next to *nothing* to do in Batman Begins, and they stayed to play, right? And *that* movie was a big "if." Nothing "iffy" about a Spider-Man movie at this point.

As for Venom being known to general audiences...who do you think that *means* anyway? Kiddies from the 90's? No, it means people in their thirties, forties, college students who don't read comics or watch cartoons, mostly everybody. Venom *isn't* a name like "Batman" or Superman" or, for that matter "Spider-Man." The name "Spider-Man" will be the selling point here. but other names, and some prestige, won't hurt. And the genre needs some of that right now.

ToM

Well, there was this one guy I worked with, didn't know too much about comics. Every once in a while, he'd catch me reading a comic, and all he'd be talking about how cool Venom is. Once, while I was reading a Silver Surfer comic, he told me "Venom would beat his ass". First couple of times, I thought he was kidding, but he really seemed serious. Even telling me that Venom could suffocate him. Suffocate someone who travels in space, and possibly take down a building with his pinkie.
And besides, a villain doesn't have to be a household name to be in a movie. But, trust me, Venom is more popular than you might think. Also, if you think about it, the kiddies from the 90's are young adults. Some with families, who take their own little kiddies to see the Spider-Man movies.
And the whole Morgan Freeman and Gary Oldman being next to nothing in Batman Begins. Well, maybe next time you see it, pay more attention, instead screaming at the top of your lungs "IT'S A RUBBER BATMAN!!"

ToM

10-03-2005, 11:42 PM

Essex, why do you ask me these things if you're simply going to ignore what I've already said? Church, if he *is* playing Venom, could very well be putting on a "black Spider-Man" suit. The action stuff could be cg, as it is with Spider-Man, that character mostly being a costume. Sure, they could touch Venom's costume up with cg, as was done with Man-Thing and , well, The Thing. It wouldn't have to be just voice work.

I'm not sure I'd call Church a "big" star anyway. But plenty of *bigger* stars have taken on make-up that utterly disguised their features. Goes all the way back to Lon Chaney as a tradition in Hollywood. Mel Gibson was a handsome leading man, and played a disfigured person. Charlize Theron, a living beauty, was unrecognizable beneath her "Monster" make-up. It isn't a jump for an actor, especially an up and coming one, to get dummied up like this for a movie that cannot hope but to crack three hundred million at the box office. In Hollywood, you're only as good as your last box office, and that kind of money keeps your expiration date nicely backdated.

Oh, and HeavyD, it WAS a rubber Batman. At least Venom wouldn't be made of rubber. But then again, I'm not sure I'd like Venom no matter what he was made out of, Oscar worthy actor inside or not.

ToM

Zac

10-03-2005, 11:46 PM

For one, Lon Chaney was known for his frequent make-up use, so you can't use him in your argument.

But then with the others, let's see:
Mel Gibson in Man without a Face - plays a disfigured human
Charlize Theron in Monster - plays an ugly human

If Church were playing Venom - human playing alien with no human facial characteristics what-so-ever

easy D

10-04-2005, 12:15 AM

Oh, and HeavyD, it WAS a rubber Batman. At least Venom wouldn't be made of rubber. But then again, I'm not sure I'd like Venom no matter what he was made out of, Oscar worthy actor inside or not.

ToM

Hmmm...If I were Heavy D, that would mean I'm rich, and have a hot wife. Wow, thanks ToM! Really.:wink: But really, don't you think it'd be watseful for Columbia to go and send Church for these little publilcity romps? A couple of weeks ago he was on Jay Leno, billed as "Spider-Man 3 Villain, Thomas Haden Church". Still he didn't give any mention about who'd he be playing other than it would be a man. (Hmmm, Sandman perhaps? I'm still not letting it go until I hear otherwise from Sam Raimi) He also narrowed down some characters he won't be playing (Like "Man with 1000 Chins", or "Gorilla in a Man Suit", or "The Period" (With the ability to end Spider-Man's sentences and make women cranky) or his cat, Beans. So I guess we can all cross them of our lists.

ToM

10-04-2005, 10:03 AM

Yeah, he was billed as "Spider-Man Three Villain, Hayden Church." Didn't help amp up *his* publicity machine for free, did it? Oh yeah, it *did*, right? People are off talking about how "Hayden Church is the new Spider-Man foe"...and plenty are saying, who is he? And they're finding out. He's becoming higher profile. Every actor wants a role in a legit blockbuster to boost them up. No reason he'd not want this.

Also, Columbia has placed two respectable actors in bad guy suits for the first two films. So, what, now they...just don't? They'd just use cg, or some stunt man? That just doesn't follow the model they've used before. They'd want some kind of *name* inside that monster. Somehow, Topher Grace as villain just doesn't track, doesn't sit up there with the last two names who dressed as bad guys, does it? Didn't that always sound....off, and oddly fishy to you?

Now, as for this faceless monster bit Zac brings up, come on. Do you *really* expect Venom to look just like he does in the comics? I was thinking along those lines till just the other day, and recalled how these films have gone. Did you assume the Green Goblin would be some armored suit and shell-face, a green Darth Vader? Of course not! Even after that, I expected to see Doc Ock in coveralls, not that trench coat that he sometimes sported briefly in comics stories. Venom could look like anything at this point. They could even match the movie version of the Spidey suit, only black.

He doesn't have to be faceless. He could have a mixture of real face and Spidey mask, what have you. Hey, remember Jack Nicholson in Batman? They could go *that* way with it too. A disfigurement of sorts, all mixed up in those masked features.

Would it be a waste for them to manage it this way? Well, if this is the way Raimi wants to do it, I figure the studio would probably just let him go with that given the success of the last two films.

Of course, it *could* be Sandy and Venom, or Electro and Sandy (love to see Electro turn Sandy into glass). I suspect we still haven't had the real truth here.

ToM

easy D

10-04-2005, 12:07 PM

Well, for Dr. Octopus, what would you prefer? Green spandex?

And if they did use CGI for Venom, I think that it would make sense, given the abilities that he has and the fact that the tongue (Venom's trademark) is too complex for an animatronic puppet, or his entire jaw for that matter.

Of course, I could be wrong, and Grace would play Electro, and all this talk would be for nothing. Don't care as long as I see Sandman on screen.

Pod

10-04-2005, 12:45 PM

Hey, did anyone check out the sony page for the spidey villians? Its mostly the main list but they're missing alot of other good villians.

http://www.comics2film.com/FanFrame.php?f_id=15468

I didnt read any of the info stuff because I own the Spider-Man Encyclopedia but most of the character on it have all been rumored to be there. Rhino, jackal and hydro-man seem to be the only ones I've never heard anyone say that they thought will be in the third film. Anyone else got a comment on this page?

ToM

10-04-2005, 03:12 PM

Easy, what makes you think Venom's trademark tongue and jaw will *be* there *if* they use him? All the trademarks of The Green Goblin were gone, aside from the bat-glider. That long stocking cap? The globliny booties and spark shooting gloves? He was denuded of all these things because they didn't work as well on screen.

Now Sandman, he's terrific, and more like what Raimi *has* committed towards. Not only is he from the period that he's been sourcing, he's a *non-costume* bad guy. Raimi says he thinks it's a little too much for audiences to swallow when there's *two* guys with superpowers running around in costumes. Sandman, in his trademark green striped shirt fits Raimi's tastes perfectly. Venom....eh, not so much.

Other characters fitting this criteria, as they have *functional* reasons for their get-ups are The Vulture and The Shocker (still from the period of Green Goblin 2). The Lizard also fits in there. All of *these* I'd much rather see.

Bear, I *did* notice that story today about the website. Given that they're still playing up the "candidates" and the speculation, it seems to me that they've just been *feeding* speculation, probably with intention. The villians, as named and claimed, are still, in truth then, unconfirmed. Thankfully (in the case of Venom anyway).

ToM

denjin

10-05-2005, 03:07 PM

First off I'm sure everybody knows the backstory to Venom...I dont know how the hell Raimi will explain the appearance of Venom in a 2 and a half hour time frame. I know for a fact it wont be true to the comics.

As for Topher Grace playing Eddie Brock,why? I really thought they should just get some nobody character actor and have Dwayne Johnson aka The Rock .

Pod

10-05-2005, 04:14 PM

First off I'm sure everybody knows the backstory to Venom...I dont know how the hell Raimi will explain the appearance of Venom in a 2 and a half hour time frame. I know for a fact it wont be true to the comics.

Well the rumors running around is that they'll go with the ultimate universe origin and change it up from there. It seems likely that fans will just suck it in or hate it to the limit. I just want to see a better villian that Topher can look more alike to.

As for Topher Grace playing Eddie Brock,why? I really thought they should just get some nobody character actor and have Dwayne Johnson aka The Rock .

This idea has been said before, and I think the rock was even mentioned to be a good namor, but I would choose someone more like the guy who plays lincoln in Prison Break. More buffed up and less of a skinny Topher Grace.

denjin

10-06-2005, 08:14 AM

arent you talking about the same guy who played Dracula aka Drake in the god-awful Blade Trinity, he does have the build but being a bad actor is a strike against him.

Lets face it the second Spiderman did not capture the magic of the 1st, too sentimental in trying to portray Spidey/Parker as just a regualr guy with lots of problems ,even if that is just like the comics.

I also feel that Raimi has a really big head, he swears that hes the link that keeps this franchise running, look at what happened to Danny Elfman. its time Sam Raimi did another pic in between films like Nolan will do in between batman films to retain a level of respectability in the "film world."

The cgi in S2 was really crappy with the exception of Doc Ock, every shot of Spider-man looked halfed ass and too Playstation like. Ihope they fix it up for the next one

i am looking forward to see the sandman, but why sony and raimi introduce characters like J.Jonah Jameson's son aka ManWolf and Dr.Connors aka the Lizard and not develop them in sequels (atleast not the 3rd one) beats the hell out of me.

also in the spider man comics isnt it that Hobgoblin doesnt have a clue who spiderman is and vice versa? that really sucked when harry found out that peter parker was spiderman

Essex

10-06-2005, 08:33 AM

Harry Osborn was not the Hobgoblin. Harry Osborn was the second Green Goblin, and yes, he DID know Peter was Spider-Man.

Wording like "Let's face it..." infers that what you're saying is not just your opinion, but, let's face it, most people would disagree with you about Spider-Man 2. It is widely thought to be superior to the first film.

denjin

10-06-2005, 08:57 AM

youre right about the Hobgoblin... Kirsten Dunst did mention that there are 2 and a half villains in Spider Man 3 so who knows what might happen.
im just tired of mentioned villains that don't get developed. The Lizard and Man-Wolf should be the villains in Spiderman 3 , Spiderman 4 and 5 should be of the symbiote Spider man suit and the ultimate revelation of Venom (surprised New Line let the property go).

But i honestly doubt that Maguire will want to be a part of the franchise when 4 and 5 hit the silver screen. To which Sony should develop Spiderman 2099 and have Jake Gylenhal play the title role.

and as for Spiderman 2 being superior to 1, there is no absolute way anybody feels that way the 2nd was above and beyond the 1st, watch them again my friend.

10-06-2005, 11:58 AM

I don't think that, just because John Jameson became Man Wolf in the comics, and he featured in the last movie, that we should automatically have Man Wolf in the movies. There are a load more classic villains that should get a look in first before him. THe problem with Man Wolf is that he could easily seem too much like a generic Werewolf or Wolf Man, which we've seen dozens of times before on screen. Remember, not so long ago, that movie called Van Helsing?

Both Green Goblin and Doc Ock were unique because they hadn't been seen before on a cinema screen. It was something fresh in viewers' minds. They wouldn't think, particularly for Ock "hey, that looks like [something else]." With Man Wolf (and to some degree with Lizard) they would immediately recall associations with other movie villains/monsters.

denjin

10-06-2005, 12:04 PM

I guess you're right to some extent but the problem with films like Van helsing was that it depended on CGI way too much , the movie was also pretty predictable; remember that Raimi worked on the Evil Dead so my guess is that Lizard would CGI and Man Wolf would be a costume from Winston(Stan man).

DarrenJSeeley

10-06-2005, 02:15 PM

But i honestly doubt that Maguire will want to be a part of the franchise when 4 and 5 hit the silver screen. To which Sony should develop Spiderman 2099 and have Jake Gylenhal play the title role.

Possible. Dunst said the third film is her last. But this is because the principal actors contracts were signed only for three pictures, and not the quality of the films, which you suggest went down a notch or two.

Box office wise, yes, the first film was better, but that was more due to antcipation after many years of development and/or the Hollywood hype machine. Story-wise and character-wise, the edge goes to the second film, which to many fans, the bar was raised and the film went beyond expectations. When I first saw those stills of Alfred Molina as Doc Ock outside the bank, I thought the film was in trouble. Those arm tentacles looked awful. When the film came out, my rear was kicked, and the FX wizards pulled it off.

im just tired of mentioned villains that don't get developed. The Lizard and Man-Wolf should be the villains in Spiderman 3

While I think Man-Wolf would have worked nicely to tie in with a Venom storyline, I, too, would have have liked to see the Lizard run around Manhattan. Lizard was built up a lot, as Connors was mentioned in the first film and seen in the second. By the way, Eddie Brock was also mentioned in the first film, but the scene in which Brock bumps into Parker at the bugle got chopped on the cutting room floor. (The actor was Richard C. Everbeck)

But I'm happy with the idea that Sandman is making an appearance. I'm not too keen on Grace as Brock/Venom, but I think that it will be "Eddie Brock" who is a character who makes Parker's freelancing at the Bugle a bit tougher. In this, I would not call him a 'villian', but more of an antagonist. If Connors doesn't Lizard out, that does not mean Church will be Venom-ized either.

The possibilities of the possible rouge's galley has worked the hype machine since Church was cast. Some people tire of it, others like me sort of like it. It keeps the film's surprises alive, but consider: we really don't know the story of the film yet, and one might think there may have been leaks on this- even early drafts (although I think one may have had a Man-Wolf/Venom idea, as FX wizard Tim Pheonix mentioned six months or so ago), but I noted that Dan Gillies hasn't signed on for Spidey 3 yet.

denjin

10-06-2005, 04:29 PM

You are dead on about Doc Ock he looked absolutely gorgeous on film ;it was the Spidey sceens that made me cringe a little. When the first movie ended the cgi shots of Spiderman flying around New York were absolutley superb they looked really credible. The physics in Spiderman's movements,in part 2, looked off ;like in the scene where he rescues a cat for some kids and "flys" off, the opening shot of Spiderman had me gasping.

The casting of Topher Grace as Eddie Brock/Venom befuddles me cuz that dude is a wimp and could never do Venom the justice he deserves. I'm pretty sure they'll use a body double; as much as Topher wants to bulk up i doubt he can add atleast 85 pounds of pure muscle for the part.

As for the deleted Eddie Brock scene , i had also heard that there was suppose to be a scene where Peter passes by Stark Manor aka Iron Man's crib. But if memory serves me correct the Eddie Brock/Venom property was up in limbo after New Line decided to put it on the back burner which leads me to an interesting idea....What if SONY ,during Marvels bakruptcy period ,had bought Marvel and blanketed all characters and developed them under the Sony banner?? Try and imagine characters like Blade and Wolverine sharing screen time or Dare Devil locking horns with Punisher , perhaps Spiderman appearing in Fantastic Four movie?....one can only dream

10-06-2005, 05:19 PM

Why is everyone talking about Grace as Venom? Has it been officially announced that Venom IS in the movie and that Grace is playing the part? Or is this merely speculation on the part of fans? :? :?:

Pod

10-06-2005, 05:30 PM

So much to say...

Well first off I say spidey 2 was better than the first. In other topics Venom is still not the official villian! He's just the friggin closest to being in it. Sandman is also not official, which sucks...But still on the topic I would just like to say that people should really not trust Dunst, I mean its just not really a good idea to depend on her.

As for the films that will come up after the third film, it wont happen in my opinion. If there will be more spidey films it will sooo feel completely different. Spidey 4-6 will have a new director, writer, actors for the main characters and it'll be like watching the first trilogy of star wars and then the next trilogy then thinking "wha?! that was made by the same dude? wow thats really different" or something like that :lol: :wink: .

Spidey 2099 sounds like a cool idea but hell no is what I say, hell no. :!:
That idea was cool and all but as a motion picture it will crash and burn. Keep it as a cartoon show like I think they did...ah that was fun to watch. CARTOONS! :shock:

Man Wolf: happy he aint happening, this is a very good to not happen because I think, like many have said, it would feel like watching a werewolf movie.

Well thats all I can type for now...phew. :lol:

denjin

10-06-2005, 06:01 PM

I think it pretty much is official , I mean Kirsten Dunst isnt a fanboy and she isnt the type to just blurt something out of the blue like that.Watch the incoming weeks to see if Sony makes it official. I'm still sticking to my guns that it will be Venom and Sandman, plus what about the report of grumblings about the Venom costume?

2+2=4

Pod

10-06-2005, 06:07 PM

I think it pretty much is official , I mean Kirsten Dunst isnt a fanboy and she isnt the type to just blurt something out of the blue like that.

:lol: I think your forgetting that time she said Lizard and Black Cat were going to be the villians last year. She does blurb out anything out of the blue, its for publicity and she probably doesnt know herself and was hinted by Raimi about it. So its still NOT OFFICIAL. :shock:

2+2=4

Uhh, why did you type this? :?

denjin

10-06-2005, 06:19 PM

I thought you would fall into my logical trap......guess it didnt work. Plus you didnt mention the reports about the grief over Venoms costume as repoted on here and various other publications. I dont recall Kirsten saying that about the Black Kat but they might have considered her then scrapped the idea when Catwoman came out.

1-0=1

10-06-2005, 06:47 PM

Zac

10-06-2005, 08:44 PM

Didn't Dunst also say that she thought Spider-Man should die in one of the films or something like that, and maybe how she would have his babies? Something really weird anyway around the time Spidey 2 came out. Anyone remember this?

Yeah, though that was her wishings because she's tired of the Spidey franchise and she wants it to end by killing the main character and her having a spider-baby.

ToM

10-07-2005, 11:58 AM

Okay people, time to get down, Brother ToM has hit the ground, and I'm telling you the truth on this issue. Fact is, there's no way Dunst can know who the bad guy is this time out by what she's seen of the scripted material. First of all, as I've said before, she's only given material related to *her* character so early on. Secondly, the studio hasn't elected a bad guy yet I'm thinking. "What, how can you say that, they're scripting it now!" Check it-

How they script these Spider-Man movies is kind of atrocious. You see, first they write a charming tale of a youth coming of age, his grand romance, or the old boy meets girl, boy gets girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl back kind of thing. They figure out what his "journey" is,write it, set it in stone. *Then*, they figure out what kind of bad guy can best *suit* those struggles, can best suit the subtext of the life lessons...and they start writing *that* character a story tailored to fit. Yes, that's right, they invent a tale of young angst and then shoehorn in some action sequences and a bad guy and call it a Spider-Man movie.

It doesn't always work well. Spider-Man Two largely had this Doc Ock character sitting around in some crumbling warehouse fiddling with this and that, only emerging and impacting the rest of the events to provide some action. He never feels truly integrated into the story. And that's because he *wasn't* an essential part of the story. If you think about it, Parker's whole "crisis" can take place and be resolved, get the girl in the end *without* Doctor Octopus showing his tentacles at all.

He has nothing to do with why Parker loses his powers. And it's his giving up on being Spider-Man that has Mary Jane considering giving Parker a shot in the first place. It isn't Doctor Octopus that convinces Parker to suit up again, it's Aunt May! It isn't even Doc Ock who causes Parker to lose his powers, it's his own neurotic identity!

So, here we go again. Raimi and friends are working out a Peter Parker/Mary Jane story which they will later on cram some outside element into it, someone who can present personal challenges for Parker and mix up his relationships (this I don't disagree with, because it's key to Spider-Man, just *how* they go about it allows for problems). Anyway, I'm not even sure they know who the bad guys are. The cast people to play bad guys, bad guys of a certain stripe. Church could play Venom, he could play Sandman, he could even play Molton-Man, The Shocker, so on and so forth. He's got the right build, look, to play any of these characters. Besides, the movie incarnations are so different, it would hardly matter.

Of course, I could be all wrong about this.

I think Venom and Green Goblin 2 together would be a major creative mistake. See, the whole boost to seeing another Goblin is the highly *personal* nature of the conflict. Venom, a character with a huge personal grudge against Parker, would take some of the air out of that. It would break up the mood a bit I think. And besides, Venom's personal hate would seem tame given the history Harry has, and that the audience is invested in.

ToM

easy D

10-07-2005, 12:56 PM

Hmmm....
If you think about it, Parker's whole "crisis" can take place and be resolved, get the girl in the end *without* Doctor Octopus showing his tentacles at all.

So Peter Parker would have gotten Mary Jane back, even if he didn't reveal himself to Doc Ock in the warehouse? Is that what your saying? Please explain...

10-07-2005, 12:56 PM

It doesn't always work well. Spider-Man Two largely had this Doc Ock character sitting around in some crumbling warehouse fiddling with this and that, only emerging and impacting the rest of the events to provide some action. He never feels truly integrated into the story. And that's because he *wasn't* an essential part of the story. If you think about it, Parker's whole "crisis" can take place and be resolved, get the girl in the end *without* Doctor Octopus showing his tentacles at all.

Yes, it could take place without Doc Ock, just as any person's personal crisis can be resolved without some villain, but this is the way Raimi has chosen to resolve Peter's internal journey, using the external circumstances of Ock.

In movies, unlike real life, the protagonist has to have a greater set of external circumstances that enable him or her to deal with their internal conflict. In real life, Parker could go to therapy, or a relationship counsellor, or whatever. He can't do that in a movie. Ock is the mirror image of Parker's internal journey, because Ock is someone who, for the most part, shirks his responsibility to do his own thing, while Parker is constantly wrestling with having to deal with being responsible and not simply doing his own thing. So Ock is integrated into the story.

The way Raimi crafts the story is the way a story has to be crafted. If it doesn't have an internal journey but merely a set of external circumstances, you don't live through the film with the protagonist and see how they ultimately become the hero at the end. You can't justify audiences spending 2 hours of their time to see your movie if there's no journey, because then it's just a bunch of stuff that happens.

denjin

10-07-2005, 01:49 PM

I think the biggest mistake in Spiderman 2 was the revelation of Spiderman's identity to Harry unless they try and develop it in the 3rd one which would be too much like the 1st one albeit with another villian thrown into the mix as to not seem too much like the first.

The villains in the 3rd movie to me should be Sandman and Electro part 4 would be about Green Goblin 2 and Lizard with the symbiote costume as a back drop to part 5

Pod

10-07-2005, 02:17 PM

denjin

10-07-2005, 02:31 PM

I highly doubt that Harry would understand Peters point of view in "killing" his father. Recall that in the 1st movie where Harry introduces Mary Jane to Norman then leaves abruptly telling him to get rid of her after he's 'done" with her, then stands by his fathers action when MJ complains about his remarks to which he defends his father saying if he's lucky he'll be half the man his father is. That's insight into Harry's persona, you cant honestly believe that after finding his father's lair in part 2 he'll just throw a garage sale and forgive Spiderman/Peter or that he'll easily don the costume and plot his revenge, I think it will tug at Harry's character as to what he will do.

10-07-2005, 02:34 PM

you cant honestly believe that after finding his father's lair in part 2 he'll just throw a garage sale ...

Exactly WHAT is Harry meant to be selling at this garage sale? The Goblin suit? And can anyone come?

denjin

10-07-2005, 02:47 PM

that was some sarcasm.

2+2=4

10-07-2005, 02:57 PM

that was some sarcasm.

2+2=4

There goes my chance to get my own Goblin suit and glider! :cry:

Essex

10-07-2005, 03:26 PM

I think it will be very rare to see Harry develope hate to peter...god I've said this for months now...Because they're friends and from most of the time in the 3rd one peter will hopefully explain the goblin thing but it looks like harry is already finding that out by himself. He see's his dad was a villian and a lunatic so peter had to kill him, Harry gets that and knows not to become his father. :shock: A story of love and hate... :wink:

I think you're kind of lending Peter and Harry's relationship more closeness than it ever really had. How good was their friendship? Harry has been constantly jealous of Peter and he hid his relationship with MJ from Peter for quite some time. Above all, he resented how much his dad respected Peter. Their friendship really deteriorated in Spider-Man 2 when it appeared to Harry that Peter cared more about Spider-Man than for him. I don't see any evidence to suggest Harry will just take Peter/Spider-Man at his word and see his father as a nefarious villain, as opposed to a victim of the wallcrawler.

denjin

10-07-2005, 03:38 PM

you are right

denjin

10-07-2005, 03:39 PM

Essex, you are dead on about Harry's and Peter's relationship, but it's still up in the air as to what will happen .I personally think that story line will be more intriguing than the fall of Anakin Skywalker, due to the fact that its not clear cut what will happen to Harry's character.

norrinraad

10-08-2005, 12:49 PM

I've read speculation that if Venom appears, he will be modeled more closely to the Ultimate version where Eddie is only a few years older than Peter and their backgrounds will somehow be linked. Grace would play Eddie Brock and Church would play Venom. The problem with this, however, is why would an actor of Church's status want to play the simpler of the two roles? I say simpler because Venom would most likely be mostly CGI with Church's voice being his primary contribution. Just about any voice actor could do that, so why hire Church, and why would he want to do it? Saying it was done with Dafoe as GG doesn't hold up because Dafoe got to play the dual role of both Osborn and GG, a juicy assignment that most actors would probably want. Add to this the fact that Venom just doesn't seem to fit in with the mileu that Raimi has created, and the fact that he has repeatedly said that he doesn't like the character, and a far different picture emerges. Clearly, the box office for this franchise is healthy, Venom is not needed to sustain interest. I doubt Dunst would simply blurt out something that is obviously being kept a closely guarded secret. Her statements are most likely meant to throw fans off and start creating momentum for a film that is still almost two years away.

As for Harry, once again it depends on which mythology the movie wants to follow. In the franchise so far it doesn't appear that Harry and Pete are super close, but in the comics they were the best of friends and Harry's death was one of the most indelible stories of the '90s. Keep in mind that in the comics Harry was addicted to drugs at one point, and he unfortunately inherited the Osborn psychosis. Add to this the fact that he misused the chemicals that drove his father insane, and you have a potent mixture for guaranteed madness. However, despite all this, his love for Peter in the long run won out, which made his death even more tragic. This is the route I would like them to take with Harry, but within the context of the film it may not be possible.
_________
"I couldn't fake it
I'm tired and naked
I don't know what I'm hungry for
I don't know what I want anymore."

Pod

10-08-2005, 01:40 PM

So does anyone here have a completely different idea on the villians that will be chosen? I just see alot of Sandman/Venom, Sandman/Electro and I think a Mysterio/Venom. So is that it? Anyone with a really different theory that hasn't been said? I just want to see your thoughts on why those characters work for the story and actors. Its getting boring talking about the same villians over and over so lets see who has a unusual cookie in thier head on the idea. Maybe it would be the actual desicion for the film if all these rumors are just made for people to get off track on the real villians in the film. So, if your mind is farout of ours :lol: post!

DarrenJSeeley

10-08-2005, 05:56 PM

Well, I had several, ranging from:

* What if it was two Hobgoblins and one really ticked off green one,

* The Lizard/Chamelon

* Venom/Man-Wolf

* Two Vultures

* Chamelon/Kraven

* Scorpion/Hammerhead/Willow The Wisp/Kangaroo and Jonas Harrow.

Look through the quagmire of this long thread, bp. You'll find them.

Pod

10-08-2005, 06:06 PM

* What if it was two Hobgoblins and one really ticked off green one,

I can't see the characters that would be 2 hobgobbys.

* The Lizard/Chamelon

Cham is a fav after the rumors but its always fun to think the collage prof will be played by church :lol: .

* Venom/Man-Wolf

Church being venom and Grace replacing the actor from Spidey 2 to play MW?

* Two Vultures

Never a fan of Vulture...but hey its a wacky world! :wink:

* Chamelon/Kraven

This is popular, before the Venom craze, I remember picturing the actors as these characters and that was some scary stuff.

* Scorpion/Hammerhead/Willow The Wisp/Kangaroo and Jonas Harrow.

Scorp is a D-list villian IMO, Hammy looks better in the Ultimate Universe, who's wisp? :? , Kangaroo...that's just silly :lol: . Most of these characters I've never heard of until I read my spidey encyclopedia.

Good ideas DJS! anyone else? 8)

evilsith

10-08-2005, 08:22 PM

Lets see...
Church as venom, and Grace as Carnage.
It could work?
really horrible idea...but... could work

hey, you said post some different ideas, so.....

easy D

10-09-2005, 12:15 AM

10-09-2005, 08:13 AM

Well, there is the possibilty that the Lizard would make his on-screen debut, and that Church could replace Dylan Baker as Curt Connors (I don't know if Baker has signed on for the sequel or not). Also, maybe Grace could play Electro. Maybe something modeled closely after either the Ultimate version or the MTV version of him.

According to imdb, Dylan Baker has signed up. But that might not necessarily be correct. But Baker was perfectly acceptable as Connors, and might look more of a sympathetic character towards Peter. Church might look like he's already started out as a villain.

easy D

10-10-2005, 12:02 AM

Huh, well, that shoots my theory down.

ToM

10-10-2005, 05:03 PM

Okay Easy D asked me how Parker could've gotten Mary Jane without revealing his identity as Spider-Man. It's simple really, all the information is there to be used at hand. At the conclusion of "Spider-Man The First One" Mary Jane tells Peter that to her shock, when her life was in danger of ending, her thoughts were to be with Peter Parker, *not* Spider-Man. And she confesses, most lovingly, that she *loves* Peter Parker. But he rejects her because he chooses to live a life as Spider-Man.

Now, in the sequel, Mary Jane decides to visit Peter again, asking him to lunch. She wants to kiss him to see if the *spark* is there (the spark that she didn't get by kissing John Jameson upside down). Given that we *know* she loves Peter, not *Spider-Man*, and she *did* gain the spark from that kiss, we *know* Mary Jane would get the response needed, and prove for herself what she suspects (that Parker is the man she's looking for).

What cost Parker Mary Jane was that he was inconsistent. When he establishes for her that he's now reliable, her interest in him returns. The fact is, Mary Jane has had a long standing investment in Parker, not Jameson. And if that investment should seem to pay off, she'll take it up. Had Ock not been ther to throw the car through the window, the kiss would've happened, Parker and Mary Jane would adopt a relationship.

The entire Parker story can be told without Ock. This is the problem with the script. Yes, certain character points would be lost without Ock, and Welshcat is correct asserting that Ock is shown as a parallel to Parker's life. Still, this element would really serve best if there was at some point a hint that Parker was at risk of becoming *like* Ock if he should fail to learn this vital lesson (about having to be willing to give up a dream in order to be a good man). But we never end up with such a hint.

Instead, what resolves the conflict with Ock is the lesson Parker learns from *other* characters (Aunt May and the young boy helping her move). In other words, Parker didn't even learn this lesson by observing Ock's doomed plans unfold, he learned it in his *normal* life as Peter Parker. He saves the day by convincing Ock by Aunt May's words. Funnily enough, he starts to convince Ock by using something Octavious had said before his accident...but that doesn't sell on him. Aunt May's words ring true, and this saves the city.

Granted, it is *Parker's* story which guides the super-antics, as in the comics,as it should be. Yet, because so much of the material involving Ock is so utterly peripheral, it doesn't work as well as it could (the Green Goblin/Parkers/Osborns/Spider-Man material of the first film was entirely intigrated into the whole of the story).

So, what I'm saying is that the super-heroics and bad guy content here wasn't intigrated really into the story, but existed as external circumstances only integrated in the most flimsy of ways. The "hero" *does* take a journey in this movie, but almost entirely without the *need* of the villain.

Darren... WILL'O THE WISP! No way! Yeah, I could see that! Bearpod, ye have no idea, truly, of the Willow that is Wisp? The cover that introduced him is a classic! Take a look!

http://www.comics.org/graphics/covers/1570/400/1570_4_00168.jpg

This cover was a showstopper! Given that *Sony* is running the film franchise they could even duplicate this scene! Wispy graps hold of Spidey, reaches into the Sony sign and takes the voltage, has it run through his barely material form, and electrocute Spider-Man. And these sequence has the sort of conclusion that's lock in step with the stuff Raimi has been doing for his final confrontations in the films (Spidey takes perfect sense to the baddies and awakens some humanity in them).

The story runs this, Jonas Harrow, a mad geneticist has created supwer powered slaves to do his bidding. Jameson meanwhile has in his posession, photos that *may* prove Peter Parker is Spider-Man. Spidey must break into Jameson's office to substitute the photos for ones he's duplicated and created a forgery of images that can be *proven* fakes (that way when Jameson has them authenticated, the scrutiny will "prove" someone is trying to frame Peter Parker when in fact the photos are *real*). But Wispy needs something in Jameson's office too, and mistakes *that* envelope as being his means to an end (recovering his humanity).

Wispy is a being who can take his atoms apart, fly as a stream of glowing light, pass through solid objects, or destroy them. He can hypnotize you, the works. So, you know, Spidey has his hands full (even though Wispy is constantly in danger of his atoms falling apart and his "identity" ceasing to exist).

In the end, Wispy is off on another tirade about how he's "lost his humanity" through the process that's turned him into the creature he is and Spidey gives him the perfect lecture. He says to Wispy, as he's shocking his life away, that up till *this* point, he's retained the one thing that's still humane, his sense of mercy and free will. But if he should scramble for life to the extent of *murdering* an innocent person, he's *entirely* lost all that he was, the last shred of his humanity.

And in that moment, Wispy realizes that in *trying* to regain his humanity at *any* cost, he's really been on the road to completely losing who he really was, forever (to regain his human physiology, he'd lose his human *soul*). So, he defies Jonas Harrow, and, in payment for his defiance, Harrow allows his atoms to be disassociated, rendering Will'O The Wisp non existent. And of course, Wispy *knew* this would be the result. But the moment allows him to be once more, a human being (having both a conscious before it could be lost, and free will).

Spidey then goes about tricking Jameson and saving his *own* identity ("true" identities and their meaning, the depths to which we can be tempted to go to "protect" them being the theme of the story) and all's well that ends well, mostly anyway.

In other "identity" content, the story features a Spider-Slayer robot wearing Jameson's "face" (something without his identity *wearing* his identity and acting out his well, sort of like Will'O The Wisp). It's a great story.

Later, Wispy returns when The Tarantula has been mortally wounded, and agrees to a "secret project" that will give him spider-abilities of his own to eliminate Spider-Man. The projects goes wrongly, and Tarantula starts to become a *literal* spider! The monster story is fantastic, with a three-way battle between the costumed Man-Spider, Spider-Man, and Will'O The Wisp out for revenge! I'm sure Raimi could have these stories botteled down into a two hour film. It all gives Parker and Jameson a journey to take together, interesting characters who provide themes and subtext of the sort Raimi wants (including a sympathetic villain). And, you know, it features some outstanding settings and action sequences. I'm all for it.

If you guys only know these characters from the encyclopedia you're missing *critical* Spider-Man stuff. Go to a comics shop and find the back issues of MARVEL TALES. These will be affordable, and are reprints of these stories. Great stuff.

ToM

Pod

10-22-2005, 01:13 PM

I think this forum has been quiet long enough. Now its time to go back to the conversations people!

So yesturday I was reading a dot comic online of Amazing Spider-man #300. The Venom issue. And I just kept looking at the art of Eddie Brock's face and body. He is completely the opposite of both the actors that are casted as villians for spidey 3. Closest is Church but he can't act like Eddie. Topher doesn't fit in spidey 3...Electro is the closest with a few changes to the character. If they start changing up Venom to fit topher in, then thats the most dumbest thing the directors and producers would want to do. Sandman and Electro is still on my vote. I dont get it but IMDB has the villians listed as, you guesses it, Sandman and Venom. This obviously will change by next year.

ToM

10-22-2005, 04:03 PM

Hey Bearpod, IMDB often has mistakes put in there. And once somebody registers with them, they can post information and fill up missing data. Lot's of times people make mistakes. I can remember one movie data base that had listed actor Christopher Lee as deceased! And as we know, he's being awesome in big movies with regularity (most recently in Willie Wonka). So, yeah, you're right to distrust that Venom data. Where do you read dot comics at? Try to check out Amazing Spider-Man #167 and #168. Oh, and Amazing Spider-Man # 88-90 are awesome too. I have those. Check out the original Goblin War, from issues #178-180.

ToM

DarrenJSeeley

10-22-2005, 09:51 PM

It's true hat IMDB can make errors, but not with cast lists of films in production, as these lists are supplied by those connected to the actual productions and/or through trade listings, such as H'wood Reporter and Variety.

ToM, I thought about Jonas Harrow creating or enchancing villians, since the Arad concept was for Spidey to tackle more than one villian. But, yes, Willow Wisp would be a good cinematic villian of sorts. Not to mention that the character would not have a lot of 'baggage'...he isn't a 'mad scientist' type, and Harrow's presense could plant seeds for Hammerhead or Kangaroo cameos, seeds could be planted for Spider-Slayers/Smythe, and Tartantula. Wisp, as you point out, also fits a sympethetic villian mold.

See the kind of mess I start? Now someone will say Church is Harrow and Grace is Wisp.

OMG

ToM...refresh my memory. Does Wisp have blonde hair? I'm pretty sure he did...

easy D

10-22-2005, 10:22 PM

Well, I'm guessing that the cast listing is only based on what Kirsten Dunst said. Might not be final. Last I checked, Yahoo! Movies had Church and Grace listed as the Chameleon. So I'm guessing that Raimi and Co. might pull a "gotcha!" on the whole Venom scenario. Besides, he might work better alone. There's so much going on story-wise in Spider-Man 3 that I don't think they have room to do Venom properly. Like Curt Conners, or the Harry/ Peter relationship (heh, heh, "hairy peter", sorry, couldn't resist), or, even for that matter, the return of the Green Goblin. And let's not forget about Peter and Mary Jane. Don't you think someone like Venom, someone with such close ties to Spider-Man would be a third wheel (or fourth, or fifth) at this point?

DarrenJSeeley

10-23-2005, 09:51 AM

Without question. I think this Venom thing has been most contreversial- there are those who want the Lethal Protector to show up, but the same people would much rather Venom be a solo villian, and not have him (or anotherbig name vilian) play second fiddle.

It is, however, quite possible that Grace is simply "Eddie Brock" and seeds are planted for Venom., and as Brock, he is a 'rival' of Peter Parker...not Spider-Man.

Pod

10-23-2005, 06:20 PM

It is, however, quite possible that Grace is simply "Eddie Brock" and seeds are planted for Venom., and as Brock, he is a 'rival' of Peter Parker...not Spider-Man.

The thing that gets me thinking this is true is the recent picture on the cover of a Wizard magizine I just saw on the shelf in my local comic shop. It's cover was talking about the actors and thier characters with question marks on the end. The photo of Topher completely scared me. A blond short hair look....Then looking back at the dot comic of Eddie Brock...they match...well the hair does. Now one way they can go is having (I think I said this like 2-3 months ago) Eddie be assigned with Peter to get some pictures of the other villian that is happening in that moment.
(For example...)
JJJ: Parker! Brock! Get in here! There's a maniac on the street all over tv smashing up the place! Get me some pictures! Fast!
(They both go there and they dont really become friends but when peter runs off into an alley and dresses up in the spidey costume, Eddie witnesses it and then the edgy villian side of Eddie comes out)

I dont like the idea that much for having Topher be Eddie but it works.

ToM

10-24-2005, 12:41 AM

Yeah Darren, Will'o The Whisp is blonde. And his hair is longish.

I'd bet good money EasyD is correct in assuming that what they have at IMDB is crafted out of what Dunst said. They don't always list name sand data based on what the production staff says to *them*, but what makes it to print or is widely accepted so it seems. They've had info up a few times that was totally off. Names of cast members, sure. But names of characters? No, they can have this wrong.

Has anybody considered Scorpion? I could see Church as Scorpy. But this whole "planting the seeds" of a Venom for the future, that makes sense to me also. Right now I could picture Sandman and Green Goblin/Hobgoblin making their way into this picture with Venom down the road.

ToM

Pod

10-24-2005, 03:00 PM

Has anybody considered Scorpion? I could see Church as Scorpy. But this whole "planting the seeds" of a Venom for the future, that makes sense to me also. Right now I could picture Sandman and Green Goblin/Hobgoblin making their way into this picture with Venom down the road.

I don't really think Scorpion can become a good villian (Even when there's two in one movie). From what I've seen of him in the Spider-man: TAS he looks like a controllable character that doesn't really give out a good motive. I wouldn't want Church being Scorpy because of the type of acting that'll come out of him. He'll do something wrong with him, he has to. It's not really good to let him become this crappy character (I just don't see how this character is soo amazing and interesting).

Keep Scorpion out of the picture...Thats what I say.

norrinraad

10-25-2005, 07:49 PM

Scorpion is a classic villain, one of the first wave, right up there with Doc Ock, Vulture, Sandman, et al. I would love to see him in the franchise.

In terms of casting, Mac Gargan isn't as easily cast as it would first appear. Before he lost his mind he was kind of like one of those gangsters from an old film noir, wise cracking, s**t eating kind of guy. After the experiment that gave him his powers, he became a total psycho. Terry Quinn from Lost would have been perfect about 20 years ago or so. I'm not sure who could play him now.
___________
"Wake up young man, it's time to wake up
Slow suicide's no way to go."

ToM

10-26-2005, 11:18 AM

The only real problem with Scorpion is how to keep him fresh through the movie. If all he's going to do is leap around and throw out his tail, well, that's not very compelling after a few scenes.

What brought Scorpy to mind was seeing Doc Ock in Spider-Man 2 throwing all four arms at Spidey in the old warehouse. It suddenly looked like Scorpy's tail to me, and I could totally see how it could be done (Scorpy facing Spider-Man, throwing his tail over his own head or around his shoulder, not turning his back). But even Doc Ock started getting to be a little too much of the same sort of action after a bit (reaching, grabbing, throwing, starting to look too much the same).

Of course, with Scorpy being able to wallcrawl as well as Spidey, think of all the sideways wall battles forty stories up we could thrill to? That's a fight scene we've not had before on screen (even upside down, under a girder sort of boxing matches).

One thing that that always comes to mind for me when considering who I want in one of these films is what sort of new imagery they'd bring with them to make the movie something fresh. This is why I'd really like to see Scorpy or Sandman, as we've not had something *specifically* like this before, yet, existing technology and other FX work points the way to possibilities. With Sommers' Mummy films, we get a sense of what could be done with Sandman, and Doc Ock allows Scorpion some consideration.

The other thing with these characters is that they *don't* bring the sort of camp that Batman poured on thick for years. By that I mean they don't use themes or gimmicks and gadgets. There have been *very* few super villains on screen who actually have superpowers. Moreover, these are unusual powers, not just being generally "super" (flying, super fast and strong, ect).

Anyway, I'm on page with Norrin, classic cast all the way. Anybody introduced after 1970 should be off the list (aside from, say, Will'o The Wisp or The Jackal who could be interesting down the line).

ToM

easy D

10-26-2005, 12:21 PM

Well, ToM, I'm going to disagree with you on the whole Doc Ock bit. Yes, he did do some grabbing, throwing, but some of the things you have mentioned that would be good for Scorpion was also done in Spider-Man 2, there were several action scenes that have used fights from the sides of the buildings, even one on the side of the L-train car. If they did introduce Scorpy, it would seem like Doc Ock-lite.

My ideal movie would feature the Lizard, though. I mean, just the speed and the agility of the guy is similar to Spider-Man, maybe a little faster. And maybe a little smarter, too. Plus, with the Lizard, you'd also get the personal connection to Peter that was present with the first two villains. And, also, you'd get more of a threat of something huge and devastating. Unlike Scorpion or Venom.

Majik1387

10-26-2005, 01:41 PM

I honestly wouldn't mind Scorpion as long as there's at least 3 other villains besides him. Whoever plays him could be able to find one of Doc Ock's arms in the pier and use it for himself somehow.

Pod

10-28-2005, 06:30 PM

It would be cool to see Doc Ock be, in a way, usen in Spidey 3. I think it would be a sense of having him not completely gone. Like Norman in the ending of Spidey 2, he was there and you kinda felt he wasn't fully gone.

It works with the movie and has a cool feel for the last movie.

DarrenJSeeley

10-29-2005, 08:05 PM

In terms of casting, Mac Gargan isn't as easily cast as it would first appear. Before he lost his mind he was kind of like one of those gangsters from an old film noir, wise cracking, s**t eating kind of guy. Terry Quinn from Lost would have been perfect about 20 years ago or so. I'm not sure who could play him now.

Gargan wasn't a gangster before Scorpion. He was a private investigator, sort of like Mickey Spillane's Mike Hammer, if that's what you mean. As for the talented character actor Terry O' Quinn from 20 years ago, now you got me thinking Gargan as The Stepfather. Thanks.

norrinraad

10-30-2005, 12:05 PM

I said Gargan came across as a '40s gangster type. I didn't say he actually was one. I'm aware of his origin, I own a reprint of Amazing Spider-Man #20 Vol 1.

As for O'Quinn, I'm thinking more about the role he currently plays on Lost. He comes across to me as a slightly more cerebral version of Gargan. Add a little working class sensibility and he would be perfect. Besides, he's an actor, and a damn good one. I highly doubt modern audiences purely relate to him based on one straight-to-video exploitation film he did like 20 years ago. It may be a classic in some circles, but it's hardly a seminal entry in the slasher film canon.
__________
"I've always had to run
I don't know just why
Desire slowly burning
Under a Mid West sky."

Pod

11-03-2005, 06:37 PM

Hey, looking through the rogue gallery of Spidey who thinks is the most sci-fi type villian? I mean the guy that is in a wacky technology extreme stage of a total alien thing.

My opinions...
Total sci-fi type alien villian: Closest I got is Venom. Symbiote liquid thingy from space.
Total sci-fi Technology villian: Spider-Slayer version #9-18. The robots look cool and those version in my opinion are very cool in science fiction technology.

Your turn! :D

easy D

11-03-2005, 10:50 PM

Well, there are a whole bunch of amorphic villains (Venom, Carnage, Sandman, Hydroman, Will O' the Wisp, Swarm, The Thousand), but I'd say The Jackal. Simply put, the guy has perfected cloning in the 70's! He cloned Spider-Man and Gwen Stacey wihout them even noticing. That might account for something.

Essex

11-05-2005, 09:49 PM

One down.

http://spiderman.sonypictures.com/

Pod

11-05-2005, 09:53 PM

One down.

http://spiderman.sonypictures.com/

OMFG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:

YES!!!!!!

easy D

11-05-2005, 10:01 PM

Two to go...

Well, it is a mixture of joy and relief. Damn you Sam Raimi, keep up the good work!

Zac

11-05-2005, 11:42 PM

Well, to be honest I was hoping it wouldn't be Sandman, but since it is, let me just say:

Wow, THC pulled off the look of William Baker/Flint Marko perfectly! It's very obvious that he's not really standing on a city street, but who cares? He looks awesome! But I just noticed.... is it me or is his left arm a lot thinner than his right?

Oh well, One more to go...

Pod

11-06-2005, 12:11 AM

But I just noticed.... is it me or is his left arm a lot thinner than his right?

Good eye, Zac! I see it too! And that giant vain poping out. Maybe it's going back to normal from just turning into sand a few seconds ago. Could be that he just increased the size of the other hand with the sand ability (Which makes me want to imagine him doing something like turning his hand into a hammer or a sword...ahh the possiblilties are endless) and he just went back on the street turning into a normal person look thing.

I'm still in this feeling of shock that I'm looking at this picture. :shock:

11-06-2005, 08:58 AM

Great picture! For once, it's a completely comic-accurate costume - none of these redesigns like Green Ranger... er Goblin, or trench coat Doc Ock. It's just plain and simple green stripey t-shirt and brown slacks Sandman!! And it's a look that works too - nothing camp about it. We'll actually have a movie battle that looks just like the comics.

Essex

11-06-2005, 11:22 AM

He even has the really lame Sandman haircut! And I meant that as a good thing.

Pod

11-06-2005, 12:04 PM

He even has the really lame Sandman haircut! And I meant that as a good thing.

I can't see Sandman in any other type of hair. Finally Raimi does good with the villian look. Now to wait and see a sand covered THC! 8)

ToM

11-06-2005, 12:30 PM

The sleeves are too short. I'm boycotting this movie!

A return to basics for this character is just what this film requires, his shirt and slacks. Raimi was right in saying that too many costumed characters just turning up out of nowhere might take Spidey himself out of the realm of credibility with mainstream audiences. And, besides, Kirby's character design revision of the Ditko original was always...pointless. There was no thematic value to it, the colors scheme and linework said nothing about his nature or identity. Besides, the modification there was to render him something of a "new" seeming character to play as part of the Fantastic Four stable of villains. This design restores him him to his proper Spider-Man rogue status. ( Not to go all "comics righteous" on you or anything)

Anyway, all that said about too many costumes spoiling the webs, with a third movie in, and nary another set of leotards in the pages of the Daily Bugle, it could work for a fourth installment (or maybe even in this third film if another bad guy makes it in). Enough time has passed and enough baddies come and gone for *one* costumed creep to hit the street. With Sandman sporting his green stripes, I could see another villain more able to get on his getup and not have it seem too silly. Besides, crooks wearing costumes aren't *more* outlandish or unbeleivable than so many of them having actual superpowers once such a large stack of them have been introduced (and with *three* of them now, quite a pile has formed).

Here's what I *like* about Sandman being in this film. First of all, Spider-Man can't just resort to the webspinning, leaping and punching that's been carried on for the first two films. There's no winning that way. He has to use different approaches, and that forces the character in new directions by way of not only action and visuals, but character use. We're going to see him strategizing. Rather than just being all reflexes, he's going to have to be thinking on his feet at every step of the conflict just to survive. And you know, that really *is* what the best Spider-Man stories have him doing, being up against more than what just his physical abilities can compensate for. Spider-Man has to be *clever*, outthinking his enemies.

So, who do we have left? Will it be Electro? I could see that. Picture Spider-Man tricking them into blasting each other and turning Electro into a glass plated statue, and Sandman into an actual pile of glass? Of course, I'd love to see Spidey suck Sandman up into a vacuum cleaner as he did in that Lee/Ditko issue way back when.

So, in '07 Spider-Man will be facing off against the Fantastic Four? Well, this is what they get for not letting him join up way back in Amazing Spider-Man #1. He did say as he swung off, "I'll make you guys look like pikers." And now he's swiped back on of his villains *from* them, and will end up swiping much box office dollars from them. Good for you Spidey. Reed Richards makes enough cash off his patents anyway.

ToM

norrinraad

11-06-2005, 01:26 PM

Here's what I *like* about Sandman being in this film. First of all, Spider-Man can't just resort to the webspinning, leaping and punching that's been carried on for the first two films. There's no winning that way. He has to use different approaches, and that forces the character in new directions by way of not only action and visuals, but character use. We're going to see him strategizing. Rather than just being all reflexes, he's going to have to be thinking on his feet at every step of the conflict just to survive. And you know, that really *is* what the best Spider-Man stories have him doing, being up against more than what just his physical abilities can compensate for. Spider-Man has to be *clever*, outthinking his enemies.

I actually couldn't agree more. And, although Sandman wouldn't have been my first choice (Vulture, Mysterio, Lizard, and Scorpion are also valid choices), I have to agree that he looks the part. That face of his would have been better suited for Vulture as far as I'm concerned, but the simplicity of the costume design really nails the Ditko version of Sandman.

As for Grace, Electro is looking more and more likely all the time. Sandman and Venom are similar in terms of how their powers are used, and Brock is too big a character to share the spotlight. Electro makes sense because Cameron's original outline had the two of them starring together, and Raimi may want to pay tribute to that.

Or Grace could simply be Flash Thompson or Ned Leeds for all we know. Raimi has avoided putting two villains in the films so far. There's nothing to indicate he would change his mind this time around either.
__________
"You bring me closer to God."

Pod

11-06-2005, 01:33 PM

Yes that is a good thing about Sandman. He can't be beat with punches and webs. I wonder how spidey will do it. I really never read a spidey comic with Sandman so it's pretty much a mytery for me. But maybe...water? :lol:

And as for the other villian. I wonder if this will have a team-up or a kind of stage thing like in video games where you play different levels with different boss characters. First Sandman, second ?????. Or will they work together. I would like it to be a separate type of event. Like two villians with spidey fighting both but at different times and different places. Or maybe you see Sandman attacking spidey while he fights another villian a few blocks away. It could work.

norrinraad

11-06-2005, 01:44 PM

Yes that is a good thing about Sandman. He can't be beat with punches and webs. I wonder how spidey will do it. I really never read a spidey comic with Sandman so it's pretty much a mytery for me. But maybe...water?:lol:

Electro was beaten with water the very first time he fought Spider-Man, which of course is only logical. As for Sandman, if you doused him with water it wouldn't defeat him. It would only turn him into Mudman :P

Zac

11-06-2005, 01:59 PM

Pod

11-06-2005, 02:07 PM

I just really hope that they don't play up Sandman and/or Grace's characters the same way they did GG and Doc Ock. Both of them were good-hearted scientists who let their pet project consume them, so they went ahead with it, messed themselves up, then took it out on Spider-Man. For once I want to see the bad guy go down without having a slight change of heart, maybe don't even kill the bad-guy, just have him apprehended or something.

Well I'm thinking it's going to be the complete opposite. Look at Sandman, he's a dumb guy who escapes from jail and gets hit by radiation by accident and starts using his new abilities to get stuff he wants and do things he wants. He becomes out of control and is an idiot with too much power.

Now for the mystery second villain lets go with Eddie Brock (I hate this but...lets just analyze it). He is a buffed up baboon who finds the symbiote and is controlled by it and can't stop himself.

Looks like both villians might just be guys who stumble upon something that turns them into something extrodinary and with thier low intelligence they use it the worst way. Lucky idiots.

Oh, and if you ask me it's looking more and more likely that Grace will be either Electro or Ned Leeds, most likely the latter.

Well other boards say that it might turn up to be Eddie Brock because one of the two rumored villians blabbed by Dunst have come true.

11-06-2005, 04:07 PM

Well other boards say that it might turn up to be Eddie Brock because one of the two rumored villians blabbed by Dunst have come true.

But Sandman was always a good guess, with or without Dunst to add anything. It could just be coincidental.

easy D

11-06-2005, 05:36 PM

People have been saying "Church is Sandman" ever since Church was announcd to be in Spider-Man 3. Grace is a bigger question mark. He could still be Chameleon, he could still be Brock. He could even be Electro.
Also, if you want to go by what Dunst had said, she said that there would be two and a half villains. Brock could be the half villain, and Harry could still be the second villain.

Essex

11-06-2005, 05:54 PM

Oh, and if you ask me it's looking more and more likely that Grace will be either Electro or Ned Leeds, most likely the latter.

What's that based on? I'm not understanding the Ned Leeds assumptions.

11-06-2005, 06:02 PM

Jakerman

11-06-2005, 07:31 PM

Did anyone else see that new Sandman pic and think he looked really goofy? Because I did. :lol:

DarrenJSeeley

11-06-2005, 10:13 PM

What's that based on? I'm not understanding the Ned Leeds assumptions.

I think it has something to do with all this nonsense about Harry becoming the Hobgoblin, when he *should* be Green Goblin II if he , in the films, would go that route. It makes better sense if Leeds stole/borrowed a glider and redid some of the exoskeleton; Harry would either go after him as Green Goblin II or ask for Peter's help.

Now, if Spidey is busy with Flint Marko, this would not only give something for Harry to do, but if Harry flips out more than his father, even though early intentions might be to help his friend on the war of costumed crime- he could in the end think "This city isn't big enough for the both of us". Now, seeing the pic of Chruch as Marko, I think it is safe to say that Raimi isn't going to call Harry Hobby.

Zac

11-06-2005, 10:17 PM

Oh, and if you ask me it's looking more and more likely that Grace will be either Electro or Ned Leeds, most likely the latter.

What's that based on? I'm not understanding the Ned Leeds assumptions.

Well originally Ned Leeds was the Hobgoblin, then some kind of brainwashing happened and then somehow it wasn't Leeds. I'm not entirely sure how it happened, but I figure that Hobgoblin or Green Goblin 2 is very likely for Spidey 3, so perhaps Leeds will be Hobby (or maybe not Leeds, maybe Macendale or one of the other Goblins). Honestly I just said Leeds because thats what I'm hoping. But it's really not based on much thats been said.

ToM

11-07-2005, 02:04 AM

I can't see Grace as Ned Leeds, largely because there's no *purpose* for "a" Ned Leeds in this film series. Ned Leeds turns up as Parker's rival for the affections of Betty Brant. He was only important in terms of character use, so long as *Brant* remained important. As Mary Jane Watson and Gwen Stacy grew in roles, Brant became more and more a residual element, a tadpole's tail stuck onto a frog.

Continuity being one of the defining characteristics of Marvel Comics in the sixties and yet into the seventies (till it started playing an equal role in DC Comics storytelling as well) Brant remained, as did Leeds, but only in sporadic employment. Brant and Leeds are useful for a number of things, such as having a gun held to their heads. As they're of such little value by the early seventies, The Jackal can make a fight for the life of Ned Leeds into a sick game of revenge. It's perfect because Leeds really *can* be killed without disrupting any subplots, and so the threat of killing him works because you can believe the editor will allow the scribe to off him. His history with the book makes the threat more weighty than some newly introduced player.

Then, you have Betty. Her wedding day to Leeds makes for a great "splash" issue, a great setting for a Spidey battle. Yet, more importantly, it allows for more Marvel Soap elements to get into the Spider-Man laundry. With Gwen Stacy dead, and Ned Leeds off in Europe all the time (where The Bugle had sent him as a correspondent) they start having the neglected Betty remembering the early, simpler times with Peter Parker. He ends up having to deal with his old feelings for this married woman, having to figure out ways to subvert her feelings she has for him (to keep them *both* out of trouble). So, this made for some solid Parker angst, something the writers were always searching for (Lee has said he sometimes had trouble thinking up fresh problems for Parker).

But as we can see *here*, the most important role Ned Leeds had to play in the plot, was to be *gone.* He was so peripheral a character that by the eighties he was perfect to be the Hobgoblin, because his reveal would be all the more shocking as he was a character so utterly unimportant.

Naturally, after Parker turns Betty away, she, and Ned Leeds, are returned to being references rather than characters. So, what point would Ned Leeds serve *here* as Betty Brant in these films serves only as part of the Jameson skits? Brant isn't important enough here to have Ned Leeds included.

No, in Grace is playing anybody here, I tend to think it *is* Eddie Brock. He won't be Ned Leeds/Hobgoblin. And, I tend to think, he won't be Venom either. He'll merely be one sort of rival for Peter Parker or other, competing with him at The Bugle. In my opinion, this all but shatters any hope (not one that I had, but oh well) of Venom turning up in this film, or, as I wish, in any future film in this series.

Still, there's another angle here. What if.....Raimi poses it that Grace's character discovers the Goblin gear, and the audience (and Parker) are led to assume Harry Osborn has adopted his father's identity? It could be cool if they go the mystery route, leading us on, then shocking us with what we least suspect. Naw, after so long, this'd be a let down I think.

Also, take a look at Raimi's Sandman here, he's classic Ditko. Raimi is sticking to the taproot of Spideydom, the essential material. Given the choices he's making with Sandman alone (as with the other two films) I just can't see him tapping eighties character content that was all about looking back highlights of the sixties and seventies. Raimi is able to revist the material of the sixties and seventies in ways Marvel *couldn't* in the mid-eighties. Why would he use material from Marvel's attempts to do a wayback when machine? He can sample that stuff directly. Good for him.

ToM

Pod

11-07-2005, 02:58 PM

So through school I got bored and started thinking about the Sandman storyline for the movie. Because they never stay truly to the comic. So here are my wacky ideas that might happen in the movie from past films...

-So Oscorp are now testing inmates for experiments. Lets say Harry doesn't know about this and the scientists are hiding this from him. Or he can be agreeing with them and does the projects anyway. And one of the inmates is Flint Marko. He gets tested for "cell manipulation" :lol: and BOOM! The next morning he's melting yellow! 8)

Discuss. 8)

DarrenJSeeley

11-07-2005, 04:51 PM

So Oscorp are now testing inmates for experiments. Lets say Harry doesn't know about this and the scientists are hiding this from him. Or he can be agreeing with them and does the projects anyway.

Why inmates? Why not just have a former private eye voulnteer, and out pops the Scorpion?

Pod

11-07-2005, 09:31 PM

Hey, here's a funny spoof type of picture I found made by a member from another board.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v299/FeralPrime/BCsandman3.jpg

:shock: :lol: :shock:
Kinda funny...hehe.

Zac

11-07-2005, 09:55 PM

Hahahaha, that's great.

easy D

11-07-2005, 11:10 PM

I don't get it. Why is Blue's Clues chasing him? He stole his crayon?

effektdmentality

11-07-2005, 11:56 PM

church is wearing a striped green shirt, akin to steve, the guy seen on blue's clues.

and how i know this is none of your concern. *backs away slowly....*

http://images.usatoday.com/news/health/spotlight/_photos/2001-08-13-matlin-aids.jpg

Pod

11-08-2005, 10:48 AM

http://images.usatoday.com/news/health/spotlight/_photos/2001-08-13-matlin-aids.jpg

Hmm maybe if Church does a good job in Spidey 3, he'll take that guys job! :lol: :wink:

11-08-2005, 10:59 AM

http://images.usatoday.com/news/health/spotlight/_photos/2001-08-13-matlin-aids.jpg

Hmm maybe if Church does a good job in Spidey 3, he'll take that guys job! :lol: :wink:

Or if he doesn't he might be demoted to that anyway! :lol:

norrinraad

11-08-2005, 04:29 PM

I can't see Grace as Ned Leeds, largely because there's no *purpose* for "a" Ned Leeds in this film series. Ned Leeds turns up as Parker's rival for the affections of Betty Brant. He was only important in terms of character use, so long as *Brant* remained important. As Mary Jane Watson and Gwen Stacy grew in roles, Brant became more and more a residual element, a tadpole's tail stuck onto a frog.

But as we can see *here*, the most important role Ned Leeds had to play in the plot, was to be *gone.* He was so peripheral a character that by the eighties he was perfect to be the Hobgoblin, because his reveal would be all the more shocking as he was a character so utterly unimportant.

ToM, your knowledge of Spider-Man's history is impressive, but your perspective is a bit off. Ned Leeds, during the '70s and '80s, was as legitimate a character as anyone else in the supporting cast. The whole idea of him being a lesser character who could be killed off at any time is a valid one; however, the same can be said for any of the characters in the Spiderverse at that time, including Peter himself.

After Amazing #121 and 122, where both Gwen and Norman Osborn were killed, any and all bets were off. At the time, Gwen was arguably second in importance only to Aunt May, and by that point the Green Goblin had become Spidey's Joker. Surely you are aware ToM that at the time those issues were printed, there were no plans to being back either character. Gerry Conway has gone on record stating that he was mandated by editorial to get rid of Gwen as the next logical step in her relationship with Peter was marriage, and nobody thought a married Spider-Man would fly with the kids. Of course, we all know that Stan and Roy Thomas caved and Gwen was soon brought back, sorta. Now, Stan of course gives a different spin on the whole fiasco, but it hardly matters now. Suffice it to say, if Gwen and Norman could both bite it in the same storyline, was there anyone who wasn't expendable?

Go back and read Amazing #150 again. See how ambigious it was left as to who was the true Peter Parker and who was the clone on the last page? Why do you think Archie Goodwin was allowed to get away with that? So that Peter could one day be killed and the original brought back once the current character had accumulated too much baggage. Also, go read the arc with Mysterio and The Burglar leading up to Amazing #200. You are aware that Aunt May was supposed to die for real in that arc, no? Of course Marvel caved, but the point was there were no longer any guarantees after Stan stopped writing the character. Perhaps the only truly "safe" character was Jonah himself, as he was too much of a fan fave to bite the dust. From this perspective, Ned may not have been an A lister, but he was as legitimate a character as just about anyone else in the book at that time.

As for Ned's introduction in the franchise being pointless, I must beg to differ. I trust you saw the LOTR and Matrix trilogies. New characters were added to both those series, with varying degrees of success, and the films didn't deteriorate to any great degree because of those inclusions. Who would you like to see in Spidey 3? Peter, MJ, Harry, and Sandman, with a cameo by May and Jameson? B-O-R-I-N-G. I say bring on some new blood. It would definitely be a left curve, and a lot less predictable than *yawn* Eddie Brock. Also, having Harry see someone else adapt the Goblin gear into the Hobgoblin identity would force him to see how twisted he almost became, and it would allow for some much needed growth for a character who, so far, is nowhere near as complex as his comic book counterpart.

Another possibility could be that a minor character who was briefly glimsed in one of the first two films may be fully fleshed out in the third, and the producers want a "name" actor for the role. For all we know Grace may have been hired to play John Jameson, who was briefly introduced in the second film and was portrayed by a bit player. It would make sense to have Grace play a role like this because he is still affordable yet marketable at the same time.

Final thought: The fact that many see Ned as being a secondary, disposable character in the books may actually make him more compelling within the context of the franchise's continuity. There is only so much that can be done with Peter, May, Jonah, Harry, and MJ in the movies, as in both Classic and Ultimate continuity they are very defined characters. However, Ned has been dead in the books since the late '80s. In many ways he is a clean slate, and perhaps in the films he could be made tragic enough to warrant the respect he never got in the comics. I'd rather see something interesting done with a secondary character from the books than see Venom. He wasn't even made interesting in the Ultimate Universe, where there was evey opportunity to re-invent him for the better.
______________
"I only smile in the dark."

11-08-2005, 04:43 PM

Norrin Radd - you seem to have been possessed by the spirit of ToM. Your last post was as long as his. :lol:

Pod

11-08-2005, 04:50 PM

Norrin Radd - you seem to have been possessed by the spirit of ToM. Your last post was as long as his. :lol:

At least his was fun to read! :lol: :wink:

norrinraad

11-08-2005, 04:51 PM

Please! I was posting long, drawn out, nonsensical psychobabble here long before he came along! Credit where it's due, Welshy...

STOP ME BEFORE I POST AGAIN!!

ToM

11-08-2005, 08:19 PM

Norrin, I gotta give it to you, you're incredibly right. After killing not only the incredibly popular Gwen Stacy character, but the followed up by offing Green Goblin, Marveldom assembled were so stunned into accepting that nobody was safe anymore. One fine day May Parker might actually have that fatal heart attack that was constantly being threatened for years. If *Gwen Stacy* can die, than Ned Leeds can certainly be killed. No gun need be held to a head, because the murder of Gwen Stacy unseated the security of every character.

And yeah, by the conclusion of #150 of Amazing Spider-Man, nobody could be sure that Peter Parker *hadn't* actually been killed. Makes it all the more chilling when Jameson is looking over those pictures of Parker being thrown into the smoke stack by Spider-Man. Think about how Peter falls on the floor laughing after he's tricked Jameson, just after Jameson has tried to pull the "rubber Parker mask" from his face. The eerie element there was that Parker doesn't seem to grasp that Jameson might be right, and he *is* just a rubber mask of a sort who *has* burned Peter Parker to ashes. It was great storytelling, that left the readers uncertain of *all* the things they always thought they could place stock in with regard to that book.

Still, with so many characters filling the shelves, somewhat holding back the writers from introducing newer, more relevant characters, you'd think housekeeping would insist on offing more people. And Ned Leeds always looked like a human target. They had to find *something* to do with Betty and Leeds, and after offing Stacy and the Goblin, this was a good way to employ them. The only problem was that they weren't as beloved as Stacy, and after *her* death it'd hardly carry the same impact. That's probably why they *weren't* killed off (oddly, they just weren't important enough to kill off by this point, though hardly important enough to keep around).

I don't see Thomas and Lee as caving where it comes to Stacy's return, because she *isn't* Gwen Stacy, just a clone. What makes it really great is that Parker has finally been seeming to be able to move on a bit from her murder, when he starts seeing her everywhere, thinking he's losing his mind. He's not! And then he has to lose her a *second* time. They sure milked that one in wonderful ways.

Harry as the Goblin is just more of Marvel sourcing The Bard, and it was a big shock too. It belonged. Hey, it works much better than Ned Leeds being the Hobgoblin. Harry as Goblin is the natural extension of a long-standing plot, one which changes the dynamics greatly, enhancing them. Leeds as a Goblin is just an attempt to revive something long gone.

So, what does this leave s with? Gwen was offed because she couldn't go any farther, and she'd just drag things out. The Norman Osborn was killed, and Harry implemented in his stead, because it would move things *forwards.* But Betty and Ned Leeds neither held things up, requiring their deaths, nor could *advance* any element of the book, because they were so unimportant by this point, having long ago served their purposes. The writers were forced to find things for them to do periodically for continuity purposes. They were good victims. The point is, this movie series doesn't *require* Betty and Ned to serve *any* such roles. There's simply no reason to have a Ned Leeds in these films as there was in the comics. Where would the power be in discovering Leeds to be Hobgoblin in a movie? It all sits with Harry.

Now, as for Aunt May biting it in the seventies, look, she was a great example of where the Parker character was *leaving* from. He'd moved on, he wasn't living with her any more, he was in college, living on his own, he'd grown up. May Parker was marked for death for the same reasons Betty and Ned were skirting the blade. They were all refuse of the past. But Aunt May *does* have a role to play as a character in these films, so it's hardly comparable.

I also agree that the film incarnation of Parker is nowhere near as complex as he is in the comics. However, the more characters you cram into these films, the less time they have for delving into the characters we're *already* invested in. Yeah, I want to see Parker, Watson, Osborn and Jameson. In fact, I want to see the *real* Jameson enter into things. He's not some fuddy duddy, he's actually an incredibly dangerous person. And he's smart, has guts. Look at him in Amazing # 169, confronting who he believes to be the superpowered murderer of Peter Parker, alone, unarmed, in that man's home, presenting him with *proof* of his Spider-Man identity, and his status as killer. Had he been right, Jameson could easily have been slain on the spot. And he knew that walking in the door. Let's see *that* Jameson turn up!

Eddie Brock is just as listless to me as Ned Leeds really. He'd have some value if he were even something as simple as "the reverse Spider-Man"...but he isn't. He doesn't really bring anything that wasn't already introduced by say, The Lizard. Now, Harry being The Goblin serves this "path not taken by Parker" that you mention very well. See, since the first film Raimi has posed The Parkers and Osborns as constrasting elements. The Parkers are the struggling, open loving family in the light, the Osborns as the self obsessed, secretive ("don't tell Harry!") well off family sitting in the *dark.*

Norman and Parker are even given a discussion where they sum up for each other the philosophies that set them on opposite poles. Osborn sees the mass of people as material existing to lift certain prime examples to the next level, the minds who in turn guide and direct the society. Parker on the other hands sees the extraordinary individual as a *servent* to *individuals* in society. The whole bit about the road Parker *almost* stepped onto was covered here with this exchange. So, we don't need a Ned Leeds to express this, we've already had it.

ToM

Pod

11-10-2005, 08:23 PM

Hey check out this pic my cousin made. It looks really good and is a great comparison to the movie and early comics.

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c275/Bearpod91/tchurch-sandman.png

Pod

11-27-2005, 01:32 PM

So are we given up here too?! We all got lost in the idea of who's Topher's ganna be?! Arg, I'm still on Electro! Eddie Brock get out of here! :x :x :x

So going away from Sandman the topic now stands on Topher Grace. The mystery hold him as either Eddie/Venom from the Dunst blabing it to the public or your opinion on who he will play. So...Do you go to the Dunst, or do you have an idea of your own? Post here. :shock:

Kombat Wombat

11-29-2005, 10:57 AM

I hoping for Venom, I can live with Electro but now i'm thinking along the lines of Mysterio... anyone?

Pod

11-29-2005, 02:32 PM

I hoping for Venom, I can live with Electro but now i'm thinking along the lines of Mysterio... anyone?

Mysterio? He can't survive on the franchise and I can't picture Grace wanting to wear that fish bowl as a mask...He would go for Eddie Brock(Unfortunately... :x ) but I still think he goes best as Electro. He doesn't need a mask, he can have that look from the MTV spidey cartoon but keep him away from Venom! Skinny guy cannot be Eddie.

Actually...damn it the blonde hair is making me go towards Ben Reilly or whatever his name is. Yeah the clone (I never read the saga but heard it was bad) is here. It would be nice to see another spidey instead of a skinny eddie brock turned into a skinny Venom.

effektdmentality

11-29-2005, 02:40 PM

NO CLONES! hokey smokes, bear, whatever u heard about the spider-clone saga, it was NOT meant for a movie franchise. not to knock u or anthing, but if u haven't read it, DON'T. unless u want a huge headache afterwards. multiple spider-clones, gwen stacy clones, the jackal (what kinda character is the jackal?!), arguments over who gets to be spidey, ugh! and all that before villains like venom, the lizard, electro, even mysterio, etc?! no way!

that being said, i agree grace is too small for venom. my choice would've been leave grace out and use church as eddie/venom. however, i am still happy about raimi using church as sandman. would've been ecstatic if church was venom though. :?

Pod

11-29-2005, 02:49 PM

that being said, i agree grace is too small for venom. my choice would've been leave grace out and use church as eddie/venom. however, i am still happy about raimi using church as sandman. would've been ecstatic if church was venom though. :?

Well what's done is done so we're stuck with Church as Sandman which is a great thing IMO. As for the clone thing, I just heard that the comic said that Peter was the clone and that Ben was the real spidey...which is completely stupid. But isn't Ben something else? I think I saw his spidey costume on the net in some places and it would be cool to see that costume on the big screen. As for the story, hopefully they completely change it to the point where Ben Reilly is just a wanna-be-spider-man who works at the daily bugle and has a resemblance to Pete but that doesn't matter... :shock: Nahh, sounds stupid too.

norrinraad

11-29-2005, 03:02 PM

The mid '90s Clone Saga resulted in some amazing and memorable stories. The surprisingly likeable and well-defined Ben Reilly provided a nice counter-point to the direction Peter had gone and showed what kind of Spider-Man may have evolved had the character not undergone so much tragedy. Early '90s Spider-Man had really gone as far as the character could go and a cleaning of house was necessary, something the Clone Saga provided.

I personally loved the revelation that Peter was the clone and Ben the original. It was a brilliant way to rid the character of decades of baggage and start fresh. Unfortunately, the "fans" all whined and booed and hissed and sales plumetted by as much as 90%, Marvel panicked, and the status quo was restored. To this day, sales are still only a fraction of the mid '80s heyday.

Not everyone liked the Clone Saga (how's that for an understatement?) but at least editorial tried something new and interesting. The whole storyline shook up a line of books that had become stale. The only problem was the stories that went on and on and on and on and on. I wish something that monumental could happen in the books now.
__________
"How long do I have to climb
Up on the side of this mountain of mine?"

Pod

11-29-2005, 03:11 PM

So the Clone Saga is like the recent The Other thing where alot of titles of 616 spidey are all getting crossovers and connecting this mysterious story that all follows the return of a villian that was soon to come back and what are one of the results? A lost organ. From spidey of course, but what? Do you really want to know this bizarre spoiler that made me think the writers are just despurate to kill these characters? Well then, all right I'll tell you. HIS EYE!!! :shock: I'm not sure that beats the Pete being the clone thing but it certainly is a crazy outcome...I'm just hoping we wont see a Nick Fury look-a-like in the soon Spider-man comics. :lol:

ToM

12-01-2005, 12:42 PM

I never read the 90's Marvel materials. I only like the classic content. However, I wouldn't say that current Spider-Man or Marvel stuff in general hasn't shaken things up in a like manner as that clone story.

Having Spider-Man's origins shaken to the core with that whole Ezekiel plot, that Spidey is supernatural in nature, not science based, that was a big deal (I hated it). That was nearly as earth shattering as Parker being the clone. Of course, that's a creative disaster. What Makes Peter Parker is that he's one of us, a prosaic, though incredibly good person, who through a quirk of fate became something amazing. We identify with him because of his ordinariness as a person, allows a bridge to believe in all the superheroing. But is Parker is in fact some kind of "Chosen One", that eternally divorced from "Everyman", which is his strongest appeal. Strazinski failed to understand that. He could handle quirky dialog, but didn't understand what makes the character work.

Then there was the whole, Spidey relives his greatest moments anniversary issue. Hey, same author manages that. And he makes another huge mistep in understanding the character. He has Spidey get to actually *talk* to his Uncle Ben, the man who died as a result of his mistake, the event which fuels his life, creating the neurotic conflicted character we know (a critical element to his superheroing is his responsibility for this death and the guilt he lives with...which drives him to never quitting). Here, Ben Parker ABSOLVES Peter, removes this key element to his identity. I was shocked that Marvel would allow such a grave misreading of the identity Stan Lee perfected.

McFarlane was an awful writer on Spider-Man. But he *did* understand that the problem the character had faced from the late eighties into the 90's was that he'd been made *less* like the classic incarnation. You didn't need to "change" Spider-Man to make him successful again. You just needed to *restore* him, make him more *like* Spider-Man, concentrate the classic form. He was right.

Now the same writer that was drunk behind the wheel of Spider-Man is retrofitting the origins of the Fantastic Four. Their powers weren't given them by some cosmic accident, but rather as some kind of "message" from an alien being. And, of course, it all amounts to nothing *large* really being said in the end, just what you'd expect from a writer who can come up with a basic concept, yet, be utterly unable to say anything meaningful. It all ends nowhere.

Another major shake up is the whole Gwen Stacy gave birth to Norman Osborn's twins plot. Say WHAT?? Take a look at Amazing Spider-Man #121. Osborn throws Mary Jane and Gwen out of his house, and neither Gwen nor he even bat an eye at each other. It's so obvious that you cannot take these sequences and retrofit them like this. But oh well. Aside from this, the current Stacy tale was well told and suspenseful, it's just that character must remain key, and that ain't Gwen Stacy.

What tends to happen is that when a character is not exactly selling well, or not *as* well, they play fast and loose to shake things up. And then when stuff is tops, they're incredibly careful, keep things safe. But the other thing is, well, this stuff doesn't always work well. That Stacy story has major flaws because of the *character* at the core being *out* of character. So, there's plenty of daring shake-ups out there, it's just that they don't really work so well when you're going back to old continuity. That clone story was just one that *was* able to be taken on with success. These other attempts are just a mess.

ToM

norrinraad

12-02-2005, 09:19 AM

Having Spider-Man's origins shaken to the core with that whole Ezekiel plot, that Spidey is supernatural in nature, not science based, that was a big deal (I hated it). That was nearly as earth shattering as Parker being the clone. Of course, that's a creative disaster. What Makes Peter Parker is that he's one of us, a prosaic, though incredibly good person, who through a quirk of fate became something amazing. We identify with him because of his ordinariness as a person, allows a bridge to believe in all the superheroing. But is Parker is in fact some kind of "Chosen One", that eternally divorced from "Everyman", which is his strongest appeal. Strazinski failed to understand that. He could handle quirky dialog, but didn't understand what makes the character work.

I couldn't have said it better, ToM. I also hated the direction that storyline took. Taking away the most relateable part of Peter Parker, his humanity, is not just a ill advised move, it's downright idiotic.

Thankfully, continuity does not seem to be a priority for many mainstream titles at Marvel these days, so I'm sure this whole direction will be swept under the rug. However, this raises larger issues. Creators have always just conveniently forgotten about storylines that fans rejected, but in the current climate there doesn't seem to be any accountability. People like Bendis and JMS can do anything they please, regardless of whether the fans accept it or not. There needs to be a tightening of the editorial reigns over at Marvel, as it seems to have been a free-for-all in recent years in regards to creator freedom.
_______________
"I've stopped trying to fit into the world
Your world, anyway."

ToM

12-02-2005, 10:45 AM

Oh Norrin, of course you could've said it better. Look at my typos!

Regarding this free for all at Marvel, yeah, this is a disaster waiting to erupt on them. They're not learning from their D.istinguished C.ompetition's historic problems. One key creative distinction etween Marvel and DC (historically anyway) was that Marvel would depend on strong *editors* to shape the direction of books and the creative talent on them, whereas DC would have people come in, "do their thing" with a given book, have it work, have those talents move on, leaving the editors to wonder what to do next.

For example, they'd have Alan Moore do Swamp Thing, spruce it up, make it amazing, and then leave. Moore was able to do whatever he wanted to. And when he leaves, all the greatness is gone completely and it dries up and blows away in double quick time. It was all *artist specific* leaving the editors to scramble to come up with a way to keep it going, find a direction. (For example, Hush ends and the next thing you know the Batman titles are all adrift at sea creatively with sales dropping like horses in the desert). At Marvel the books were cultivated over time by editors riding herd over the writers and artists, making the creative calls (editors had decided what "the new" X-Men would be long before Claremont showed up, later demanded that Pheonix die, ect). Now, this doesn't seem to be so much the case.

At the present time, Marvel seems to be saying, "Bendis, JMS, do whatever it is that you do, just keep making it sell." And when they leave, the book is lost till someone else shows up who attracts enough interest (rather than cultivating the direction of the material, cultivating artists and so on). Where's the strong editorship at Marvel? In the good old days somebody like Bendis would be moved *up* and could dictate his creative advice and demands on *down* through writers, maximize the quality and direction on *many* books (like the way Lee had Kirby doing the breakdowns for nearly every other artist at Marvel in the 60's to finish, guiding them *all* in "the Marvel look").

What really bothers me is the way they allow someone like JMS to *revise* the origins of such key Marvel characters as Spider-Man and the Fantastic Four, when clearly he misreads the central elements of these characters and their appeal. Yet again, as with Spider-Man, we see that the FF. are in fact "Chosen Ones", not people who blundered into an accident of fate. Does this get tedious? And JMS is so bald brained that he doesn't contemplate that discovering some incredible cosmic power has chosen you will completely alter your perception of "self" and instantly start transforming you into another personality. Yet, Ben and Johnny, the two characters most easily seduced by this thinking out of the four, never have it enter into their noodle other than, " So, it wasn't an accident after all."

I know JMS gets props because of his television work, and that genre fans know him from B-5. But let's not forget what an amateur night that so often was. Or that he had Ellison holding his hand across the street for years on that thing. JMS writes some fun dialog on these things, and has the germs of some good plot ideas. But he needs an editor who feels secure enough (or has the props to outweigh his gorilla) to prop the ideas up some. If you tell forty years of FF. readers than their origin wasn't an accident, but a message, you'd better have something innovative to say with that message. JMS never took it beyond the *idea* *of* a message. Anyway, he bores me.

ToM

12-02-2005, 01:27 PM

Well I prefer the original origin for Spidey, just as I did for Hulk. I didn't like the rewritten mutant origin in Incredible Hulk #312 or thereabouts, which forms much of the basis of the Hulk movie. Why does it need all this explanation to say why he is a monster, other than the gamma bomb turned him into one?

But I think the Ezekiel story was simply to tie Spidey in to another "Spider-Man" of African folklore. I had heard of this Anasi character before, but obviously he isn't as well known as the Peter Parker Spider-Man.

shaneomac

12-16-2005, 08:04 PM

I want to see Grace as Electro.

I can't really picture it, though. Can they make a guy in a green and yellow suit hurling lightning bolts believable?

shaneomac

12-16-2005, 08:06 PM

Also, if they have two villains (not including GG2) how can they put the origins into one movie?

This is the only speculation I have on a multi-villain movie.

Pod

12-16-2005, 08:52 PM

Zac

12-16-2005, 10:17 PM

I agree about Grace being Electro and as for the origins...

It's very simple to have there being two villians and two origins in one movie. For example look at most of the Batman films. They have done a good job on it. Feature both villians and first get one villians story shown then after a moment or two get the next one started. And look at the origins of Sandman and Electro...

Sandman: Accident from radioactive testings after escaping from jail. Get hits by the radiation while having sand in his clothing from escaping a jail that's around a beach.

Electro: Accident from getting hit by electricity and amazingly surviving it and gaining control of electricity in the process.

Pretty much the origins can be connected is what I'm saying. Make it an accident that happens to both guys but they don't know each other. It can work better than having different origins IMO.

I wouldn't be against their origins coming from the same source like you mentioned, but frankly, I'm tired of "accidents" causing the supervillians to get their powers. That's what happened to both Green Goblin and Doc Ock... for Spider-Man 3, at least one of the villians should be willing. Maybe it could be a similar situation as with the Scorpion, being a volunteer for an experiment.

norrinraad

12-17-2005, 01:57 PM

I wouldn't be against their origins coming from the same source like you mentioned, but frankly, I'm tired of "accidents" causing the supervillians to get their powers. That's what happened to both Green Goblin and Doc Ock... for Spider-Man 3, at least one of the villians should be willing. Maybe it could be a similar situation as with the Scorpion, being a volunteer for an experiment.

I agree totally. I know we're supposed to suspend disbelief here but having all these supervillains just suddenly appear out of thin air doesn't ring true. It's like they're there just because the plot requires them to be, and that bugs me. All these super-powered people gaining their powers at the exact same moment in time is too difficult to believe.

I would prefer to see a small time crook volunteer to an experiment, similar to how Scorpion got his powers. Another example of this from the books was the Human Fly, who held the brother of the scientist who created Scorpion at gunpoint and demanded super powers so he could kill Spider-Man, all because he had a grudge against him. Tarantula went through a similar type experiment just so he could go toe-to-toe with the webslinger, with tragic results. Actually, if you look at the books, there are tons of villains who either gained super powers or created them artificially just so they could defeat Spidey. This is a much more believeable explanation than just having one "accident" after another.
____________
"Do they know it's Christmas?"
"Umm, no, because most people in Africa don't celebrate Christmas, dumbass."

easy D

12-17-2005, 02:37 PM

Pod

12-17-2005, 02:51 PM

shaneomac

12-18-2005, 11:35 AM

Pod

12-18-2005, 02:19 PM

I do think its getting kind of old with the accidents happening, but with Electro they can make it a believable accident. For example: he's fixing an electrical wire during a thunderstorm or something.

The thing is that he'll be dead either way. His origin needs an update...a really big update. Sandman we understand it's like the Hulk but different. But if we're going to see Electro we're going to need to see a whole new origin for the guy.

shaneomac

12-18-2005, 06:37 PM

true, true......

But how can they make the origin believable. I mean the guy can control electricity.

If you guys were updating the origin, what would you make it?

Pod

12-19-2005, 02:11 PM

true, true......

But how can they make the origin believable. I mean the guy can control electricity.

If you guys were updating the origin, what would you make it?

I...uh...this is going to take a while but I'll wing it.
(this will pretty much piss off Stan Lee's origin)
Have him as a scientist trying to find a way to create powerful electricity that can become unlimited and more powerful then natural electricity. His partnership with Oscorp helped him as he grew more and more he found new ways of conducting this new electricity. He finds a way to use it manually with his body and while testing it, he is hit by the electricity and the electric currents go through his mind and manipulate him to the point where he is a crazy lunatic...

Ok...I suck. And this reminds me too much of Doc Ock's origin so, forget it.... :shock:

easy D

12-19-2005, 04:30 PM

Actually, not too bad. But, I'd make it a little more like The Matrix (keep the "using electricity made from the body" thing, put in a green power suit), and not use Oscorp. There should be more than one scientific corporation. Hey, what's going on in Quest Aerospace (from the first movie)? Maybe they could use something like that to prevent pilots from blacking out during flying missions. Just a thought. And maybe, instead of a scientist, Max Dillon would be a pilot instead.

Znluvx

12-19-2005, 04:45 PM

true, true......

But how can they make the origin believable. I mean the guy can control electricity.

If you guys were updating the origin, what would you make it?

Electro would start off as a run of the mill crook looking for a big score. He'd break into a lab looking to fence some lab equipment. The lab would be working on genetic manipulation and gene splicing (particularly with electric eels). During the robbery he'd bust his a$$ on something and accidently take an injection used in the experiments. Soon after he'd realize he's drawing in ambient electricity from his surroundings, storing it and releasing it (even drawing in lightning). With his new found powers he looks for the biggest score he can find.

shaneomac

12-20-2005, 05:06 PM

Those are some good ideas, but I think the true fans of Electro and Spiderman in general will not be happy. It's changing he whole origin.

I don't know, but I can't wait to see how they pull it off.

ToM

01-09-2006, 12:49 PM

Here's the mistake in all the complaining that you guys are doing. The problem isn't that they have "an accident", it's that it's something taking place in a lab with tragic results. Actually, an accident, like the one Sandman met with, would be *the change* in these films for origins, not a continence!

As for GG, look, that wasn't an accident. I'm surprised how many fans still don't get what happened there. The performance enhancers work perfectly. The experiment was a complete success. See, the formula enhances you to the ultimate degree, just as advertised. The reason it seems to have failed is because it makes you MORE OF WHAT YOU ALREADY ARE. And if you're a little narcissistic, if you have a *little* crisis of identity, are a *little* corrupt it enhances that too. It doesn't just make you stronger, faster, more agile. It enhances your intelligence as well. And your existing psychological frame.

The experiment didn't go horribly wrong. It went horribly *right.*

Doc Ock wasn't experimenting on himself, but he was the victim of an unforseen element in his lab work. Yes, that's again like GG.

Sandman or Electro being caught in an accident that's *not* in a lab, something they were uninvolved with, that's fresh and new. If they sign on to be a human experiment, that's the same as the first Spider-Man film, *not* something new. That's why Scorpion can be a problem.

However, the suggestion that they both be captives of the same event, that's not a bad idea.

As for the modification in origin, I like the idea of the small time crook trying to make it big as was mentioned. How about this, it's a tragic tale where he's the victim? Okay, he's this small time crook trying to make it big, and he's hired by the big boys he'd like to impress....to steal something, some technology. He's eager to please them, and signs on. But, what they don't tell him is that the thing he's stealing is *dangerous* and unstable. And, whilst stealing it, there's an accident, and he's badly injured, almost killed, and to boot, ends up setenced to prison for a *long* time because of the nature of what he stole (he thought it wouldn't be a "big time" theft, just something to get him in with the big time crooks). So, now he's doing hard time.

But then his powers manifest, and he breaks free from prison. Now, he's out to even the score with the crooks who set him up and ruined his life by scamming him. That'd be cool, right? I mean, what I remember about The Sandman was that he was trying to go straight, but nobody would let him. This could fit in realy well. He just wants to bring these guys down, but Spider-Man keeps getting in the way, and it all starts getting worse and worse till he gives up the idea of going straight and goes hard core (with Spidey to blame, making it all the more tragic).

Another good direction is the sort of thing The Vulture presents. See, he's a guy who invents a *device* to provide him with the power to take on the web slinger. And hey, there's always The Shocker, he's another one (but he's really only got one trick so he's best saved for a teaser sequence and left to that only). Who're some other invention/gizmo guys that would work? That could eb a good direction for later down the line.

ToM

01-12-2006, 07:40 PM

Or, instead of an accident, Electro could actually create his powers specifically for criminal activity. Not everything has to be an accident. The villains could deliberately acquire their powers.

Znluvx

01-13-2006, 07:14 AM

Does anyone think that since we've seen Dr. Doom with electrical powers in FF, Marvel may want to stay away from redundancy and NOT have Electro in S3?

Jakerman

01-13-2006, 08:44 AM

Stay away from redundancy? Doom was almost exactly like Green Goblin with the whole head of the company gets kicked by the board so goes to kill them thing. So I don't think Marvel has much of a problem with redundancy. :lol:

Znluvx

01-13-2006, 09:03 AM

Good point Jaker :lol:

ToM

01-13-2006, 11:18 AM

The studios *should* be worried about redundancy. The *diverse* nature of the Marvel library is one of the strengths they have in keeping the whole "Marvel Age of Movies" running (and they've kept this trend alive a good deal longer than most trends...remember the fast bleed off of gothic horrors in the 90's for example). Spider-Man and Ghost Rider are worlds apart, and the distinctions in tone and characterization styles between the X-Men and Fantastic Four allow both film franchise to be successful. However....

Let's face it, the studios, all of them, are following a formula now, following Spider-Man. The whole "Boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl back" thing is in all of them. Look at Fantastic Four, they turned Reed and Sue into Peter Parker and Mary Jane. Reed is all unable to commit, Sue resents this, is moving on (but not really) with the successful media darling (as in John Jameson and Mary Jane). Then, she gets him to turn it around and "take charge." Doom is The Green Goblin *again.* So much the same.

The whole "will they get together or won't they" bit was in the Hulk film. Oh, Batman Begins used this...and oh boy does the doomed Superman Returns play this to the ends of the earth and beyond. In that one, Lois has gone beyond getting engaged, she's had a kid!

When stuff gets this out of hand, man, there's no way they'd allow a little thing like the kind of powers somebody has to concern them with the bottom line. Hopefully X-Men 3 will do away with all this when Jean comes back to life and kills the one true love of her life, and then everybody else. Maybe that'll break the pattern.

ToM

Pod

01-13-2006, 02:02 PM

Ok, it's really been seen a lot of times that comic book films always have a connection. I mean, we get a superhero, a girl, a villian, and a plot. Wow...I can't believe they relate! :o

They can really have any villian if the actor can portray the character perfectly and if the plot works with it. Sandman got it down. Now for the skinny blonde dude. Who the heck can he play? Electro, IMO. Venom being played by him would be a disgrace to the character.

Zac

01-13-2006, 02:16 PM

Ok, it's starting to become more speculated that there will indeed be a Spider-Man 4. Now, whether or not this is just wishful thinking on TPB's parts or not is unknown, as is how Spidey 4 will be filmed. If it's going to happen, is it going to be done after the main cast and crew of the last Spidey films depart, or perhaps will it be filmed alongside of Spidey 3? The point I'm trying to make is perhaps, if the latter is true, this offers an explanation for the seemingly high number of villians suggested to be in Spidey 3. We have Sandman and Topher Grace's character, as well as the potential for a new Goblin and maybe Lizard. If Grace is indeed to be Eddie Brock, I think the idea of a simeltaineously-filmed Spidey 4 is a likely option, as that film could be dedicated to Venom, as many people have been wanting, in fear of him being not-as focused on in the 3rd movie due to the other villians.

ToM

01-13-2006, 03:35 PM

When I heard word about a possible Spidey 4 the first thing I thought of was that they're doing parts three and four simultaneously. But then I read that they're *trying* to get Raimi *onto* part four. See, if they were being shot at the same time, that would've been worked out already. You know, because *somebody* would be directing that material.

Yeah, three possible villians for two films at the same time would seem to make more sense. Still, recall that they went through *two* villians in the script for the first film, and ruled one out. I tend to think they're just playing with ideas and will rule one in, or two, and work one out.

The news that facial appliances were designed, made, and will be applied to Franco says an awful lot about who the bad guys are in this film. Either Sandman or Electro (or whoever the second one is) turns out to be a cameo or some teaser sequence villian, or the studio has been dropping all this stuff to misdirect people from "the reality" that Franco is GG2 in this film.

Bearpod, yes all these films have a girl and a romance, but come on! The romance in Fantastic Four is *very* much like the romance in the Spider-Man movies. Even the whole bit about Sue "being tired of waiting" for Parker, I mean, Richards, is the same. Superman chasing after Lois after she's moved on from him is just like Parker chasing after Mary Jane after she moved on from *him.* Hey, Peter Parker and Mary Jane knew each other as children, he loved her from when he was a little boy...and so did BRUCE WAYNE! And of course, Spider-Man and Batman couldn't be with their sweetheart in the end...because he was Spiderbatman. Oh, and Bruce Banner *also* knew his love in childhood, and, in the end, he couldn't be with her because he was HulkSpiderbatman.

Gee, sensing a pattern here? All these superheroes knowing the love of their lives as children, growing up, finding them, and then having to walk away?

Dark Pheonix, kill, kill the one you love the most, end all this smarmyness!

ToM