I personally love the series and I'm looking forward to the 3rd. I think there's alot more going for the series then JUST Depp but that's me personally, and I think everyone can agree that Spider man's only real competition far as big blockbuster movies this summer is Pirates 3.

Transformers, Harry potter 5, Shrek the 3rd may be pretty big fish, but I don't think anyone will match Spider man's cash income. Pirates is the closest film series that could make that mark.

I just got into Spider-Man when CN showed it, I just saw the 2nd one last night.

I'm going to see the 3rd one soon.

I don't know, Transformers and HP 5 are going to be bigger in my opinion. All of the geeky people who saw SM will geek out of these two. I know I will.

Paul Newman kicks solid-gold butt. You have no idea how elated I would be if that actually came to pass. :bloogrin:

jekylljuice: Uh...did you follow my link and see who Turner D. Century actually is? He's a supervillain whose primary defining trait is that he, uh, hates social change and young people. His supervillain weapons are a flamethrower umbrella and a flying tandem bike, which he rides on his own with a mannequin in a pink dress, presumably because he has no actual friends. His supervillain apparel consists of a straw boater, a green stripey jacket and a handlebar moustache. Now, I know Paul Newman is a legend, but I think even he'd struggle to pull this one off. :bloogrin:

As for this summer's box office battle, I'm not sure there's enough money in the world to cover all of the absolutely massive releases coming in the next few months; after Spidey comes Shrek the Third, Pirates 3, Ocean's Thirteen, Fantastic Four 2, Die Hard 4, Harry Potter 5, Transformers, The Simpsons Movie, Ratatouille, The Bourne Ultimatum...I think we're going to see all sorts of records set this year. If we're talking in purely US box office terms, I reckon we're looking at, appropriately enough, a three-way fight between Spider-Man 3, Pirates 3 and Shrek 3, simply based on box office pedigree so far. I think you all are really underestimating Shrek's domestic appeal; Shrek 2 is the third highest grossing movie of all time in the US, ahead everything except Titanic and Star Wars, and it achieved that feat in direct competition with Spider-Man 2. Worldwide I'd throw Harry Potter into the mix, too, possibly ahead of Spider-Man and Shrek; not many current franchises match the mass global appeal of HP and Pirates, though the early success of Spider-Man 3 might challenge that. Elsewhere, I'm expecting very solid but not record-breaking stuff from Transformers, Simpsons, Ratatouille and Bourne, whilst I have a hunch that Ocean's, Die Hard and Fantastic Four might disappoint somewhat. Mark my words there; we'll see if I'm right! :bloocross:

As for what I'm actually looking forward to, Ratatouille and Harry Potter are the ones that I'm really desperate to see, whilst I'm optimistic about Pirates, Bourne and Transformers (despite all the indications that I shouldn't be). Shrek and Simpsons I'll monitor, but they're really going to have to do a heck of a lot to convince me to shell out my money; the rest I can live without.

Yeah, I followed. The man sounds absolutely fantastic. Plus, with that whole deal with the mannequin in the pink dress and his lack of any living, sentient companions, you have some potential for character depth. :bloocross:

And I actually think Mr. Newman would be pretty good at playing that role...if the Spider-Man movies ever go down the route of campiness. You gotta admit it would be surreal.

jekylljuice: Wow...you know what, the more I look at Mr. Century, the more I become convinced that Paul Newman might actually work. :bloocross: And hey, from my point of view, it's bound to be better than Spider-Man 3, eh? :P If you want to see a fairly damning (not to mention incredibly foul-mouthed) analysis of Turny D, check out this profile of him. Amusing pictures abound! :D


Also, I just finished rewatching Spider-Man like I said I was going to...I'm not going to pretend that it's not a flawed movie, but my lord, I can't get over how badly I think this film mops the floor with its sequels. The first hour or so in particular, where the film is dealing with Peter's transformation into Spider-Man, is just a joyful, innocent and satisfying ride that channels, if not the exact details, then definitely the honest and relatable spirit of the old comics that I loved, grounded by a sweetly likable Tobey Maguire and pleasant support work from Kirsten Dunst and James Franco, as well as Rosemary Harris and Cliff Robertson. David Koepp's script keeps things moving at a pretty brisk pace, but it hits all the right emotional beats along the way, and he sells the characters with his straightforward and lighthearted yet believable dialogue; Raimi does his part with good, sensible direction punctuated by some stylish flourishes (the costume design sequence is so much fun) and slick action scenes, despite the rubbery CG.

Most of the flaws of this film arise in the second half; once Peter has become Spider-Man, the momentum of the origin story itself runs out, and the film seems to struggle to replace it with anything. Willem Dafoe is thoroughly brilliant as Norman Osborn, throwing himself whole-heartedly into the cackling Goblin persona yet also really selling him as a friendly mentor and as a callous, conflicted father, but in his role as the movie's villain, he's a little weak. The unthreatening costume doesn't help, but worse than that the film seems to have trouble establishing and justifying his conflict with Spider-Man, meaning their battles some off as somewhat forced and unclear in terms of narrative purpose and significance. Maybe to compensate, the film starts ratcheting up the corn, with certain scenes and lines starting to stretch credibilty too far, notably Peter and MJ's conversations in the hospital and the graveyard, and of course the ridiculous "New Yorkers beat the Goblin by throwing trash at him" scene. ::)

Despite those problems though, this remains a film that I really like, and I just cannot get my head around the fact that the same creative team could have produced sequels that I hated so much. :wiltshock: The obvious answer is the one area that saw a significant personnel change between this and 2 and 3: writing, with the replacement of the very accomplished blockbuster writer David Koepp with Alvin Sargent, a man who, despite having won two Oscars, to me honestly seems like someone who doesn't know how to structure a scene or invest it with any sense of purpose, or how to put a together a logically flowing story, or indeed even have a clue what human beings sound like (interestingly, I hear he did an uncredited rewrite on the first film, which might explain those problematic Pete/MJ conversations that I referred to earlier). Still, that doesn't explain why Raimi's ability to structure and pace went out of the window as well as his ability to shoot action coherently (I'm sorry, but the famous Spider-Man 2 train sequence gave me a headache), or why the likes of Maguire, Franco, Dunst and Harris suddenly became so awful...

Ugh, sorry, I'm getting sucked back in to that negative mindset again, and I don't want to do that; what I wanted to do was remind people that Spider-Man, even though people have started to overlook it somewhat, remains a great movie, a bright, fun and lovingly-crafted superhero movie, and a worthy treatment of our Spidey. :frankiesmile:

After hearing so many long drawn out posts from Ditchy, I felt people wouldn't mind me expressing my comments so thoroughly. And for the record while my post may make several references to Ditchy's last post, this is by no means a "pick it apart" post lined with several contradicting quotes.

I think the thing that makes me appreciate Spider man 3 will everyone seems to honestly have given it such an unnecessary harsh cold sholder is the fact that it wraps up so much in one movie. And yet, this is the same reason that this movie worked so well for me, because it took a challenge and went with it.

Sam Raimi is one of the few directors who actually LISTENS to what people say and changes his movies depending on the results of his last film, something many directors tend to never do. I remember how well the first film was and how weird the second one felt considering Dr. Octopus took a back seat to the love story.

Considering the ass load of much worse and more miserably failed attempts to cram butt loads of information into a person's brain kind of movies, Spider Man 3 is probably the best one there is out there. While things may seem rushed, everything is at least SETTLED and no major issues are left dangling over our heads for years to come.

I HATE it when movies let you dangle. Super Mario Bros, Deep Rising, and Godzilla 98 all ended with cliff hanger endings and it sucks big time because you know for years and years there are stories left creeping around and are forever going to be left untold, unfinished, and undone by the fact the door was left open.

Films like Matrix Reloded, Lord of the rings, and Pirates 2: Dead Man's chest ended on similar notes, but at least you knew the money was gonna rank in enough that sequels were inevitably on the way. But with so much jibber jabber amongst Maguire and Dunst leaving, the studios had to prepare for a grand finale.

I'm happy with Spider Man 3, and yes I would have liked to see Venom more but if the series ends now, I'm at least happy he got the chance to come on screen before he possibly vanishes forever along with the rest of the Spider man universe. There was so much involved in this film that those 2 and a half hours blew by in a heartbeat.

I also felt that the first film is in truth, one of the very FEW select movies I consider "perfect". In regards to the whole Goblin's need to battle Spider man, evil never has really needed an excuse. The comics Green Goblin started on very basic principles, trying to become rich and powerful.

I felt his whole "choose your own way" motto was also a clear definition of why Goblin was doing this: because he wanted to. Every Spider man villain in the movies relies on the power of choice what determines who they are, not motives or greed or power, it's all a matter of the choices they make.

That's why I was never bothered with why Goblin fought Spidey, or why Harry flip flopped with being a bad guy or a good guy, they made the choice. In fact when you look at it in the long run, every villain was given the same "gift/curse" that Spider man was given and they all made a choice.

The whole power responsibility thing comes back, and it's because people will choose to be evil that makes them so interesting. The so called "corn" was NOT the movie's fault, in truth, it was everyone's fault. After 9/11 all of America started joining hands and positive reinforcement has popped up in every form and way.

The trash scene along with every shot of Spider man behind the American flag was for positive reinforcement, something that movie people felt we needed, whether we wanted it or not, and I don't blame the movie for that. I also just want to wrap up that the actors really have, in my book, made a difference as they progressed.

Franco in particular, he was a little tame in the first film but he really became the Harry Osborn the comics had created and I thought he especially was impressive returning to his "darker side" when he was messing with Mary Jane and Peter, and their very interesting fight in Harry's mansion with the "booming" climax.

Maguire I love mad props to, more so then Dunst because he made Spider man a geek through and through, something even the amazing 90's series cartoon managed to accomplish. You could tell he was a nerd and a tragic hero at the same time, even when Peter went bad and did all those dark "cool guy" poses and struts.

That to me really sold his portrayal of Parker because in truth: what other kind of dark nature do you expect to see from ma geek? Whew, that's enough of my 2 cents, more like 600 cents by the looks of it :gooblab:.

Aww, they weren't exactly very polite about poor Turny D, were they? I bet if they did get Paul Newman to fill his horse-and-buggy shoes he'd get more respect.

As for Spider-Man 3, I won't actually get to see it until two weeks time when I've finished all my essay-work. Despite the mixed press I've been hearing, both here and everywhere else, I'm looking forward to it. It'll be a welcome change to sitting at my desk all day, staring dejectedly at a blank piece of paper.

Here's how I see the box-office will turn out this year:
U.S.-
1. Spider-Man 3
2. Harry Potter & The Goblet of Fire
3. Shrek the Third
4. Pirates of the Carribean: At World's End
5. Transformers
6. Ratouille (Pixar movies are always succesful)
10. The Simpsons Movie
I don't what would be 7-9, but I'm sure Simpsons movie won't be there. Though it will be succesful.

For world-wide it be the same except switch Spidey & Potter, hey it happened in 2005 with Star Wars: Episode III & Goblet of Fire.

Back on Spider-Man, Spoiler Below I might see it Tuesday.

Spoiler Below

It depends on story, here's how I'd like to see 4,5, & 6 done. Of course I haven't seen 3 yet but this is how I'd think it should turn out.

4- Peter proposes to MJ. Lizard becomes the new villian.
5- MJ is pregnant, Peter becomes super-over protective of her. Rhino & Vulture become the new villians.
6- Peter & MJ's daughter has most of the powers that Peter has. (A.K.A. Spider-Girl). Spoiler Below

I personally think Spider-Man should either stop at 6 or 9 movies. Don't want to over-do the franchise.

The way movie sites have been talking about it, there's no way this will be the last Spider man movie. With the records they have been breaking and the millions upon millions of dollars the movie has earned, anyone can see that this is a gold mine and it would down right insane to stop here.

UNLESS the main actors or whatever leave, but that aside. Vulture was actually supposed to be the primary villain in 3, but Raimi was told to have more villains and more elaborate ones so he got power houses like Sandman and Venom. So far all Spider man films have used classic, old school Spider man villains.

I have no doubt Vulture will show up and eventually the likes of Kraven, Mysterio, and possibly Electro. Right now, word on the street is that Carnage and the Lizard will be the next villains. Lizard makes ALOT of sense, Carnage does not. You'd have to make the movie rated R just to do Carnage justice.

Well duh the movie is already the #2 highest grossing film already. Right now 300 is #1 but Spider will beat it.

I saw it, and I have to say that I disagree with the mixed reviews the film received by critics. Spider-Man 3 was certainly worth the money spent. It was just as action-packed as the previous Spider-Man films. I really appreciated how the villains were handed (especially the way Harry was handled, going from wanting to finish off Spidey/Peter to helping him and MJ).

I just wished that they would have explained the characters better.

Spidey 3 is now #1 movie so far this year. I'll see it sometime in the next 3 weeks.

Unfortunately, all prospects that Paul Newman would ever have portrayed my pal Turny D seem to have taken a dive this weekend. Mr. Newman recently announced his plans to imminently retire from the world of acting:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6695939.stm

His talent upon the big screen will be greatly missed, but I suppose it's the least he deserves to be able to enjoy his twilight years in peace. Many thanks to Paul for all the joy and entertainment he's given to the world via his wonderful acting abilities. And as for Turny D...there'll always be the dream. ;D

My nephew and I saw Spiderman 3 yesterday. Maybe it's me at 50, but the script, the dialogue and the acting came across like a cheesy fan fiction.

jekylljuice: I also noticed the announcement of Mr. Newman's imminent retirement on IMDb the other day, and I must confess that the first thing I thought was "well, so much for Spider-Man 4". I'm gutted too. :( Shame about Paul Newman generally, too; it's quite shameful for me as a so-called film fan, but I don't think I've ever actually watched a Paul Newman movie, even though I know I really should. :wiltshock: This seems a good chance to catch up, I guess...

Still, you never know with these actor types; they say they want to quit, but I'm sure if someone presented them with a really juicy role they'd find it hard to resist. Now, I don't know how adamant Paul Newman claims to be about this retirement, but frankly I think that our mutual friend Mr Century could be that role, as long as someone gets a screenplay out to him before he gets too settled. I know you've finished your essay work now, jj, so get writing! Live the dream! ;D

Ccook50: It's not just you, I think that's quite a good way of summarising it...but I've probably said enough on that topic. :P Didn't realise that's what the "50" in your username meant, though...that's pretty impressive. :D

I don't think Spidey 3 is anywhere near as cheesy a fan-fiction as the much beloved Burton affairs of so-called Batman movies, or the forced mismash of half-baked Star Wars into the Age of Piracy in the POTC movies. In fact off the top of my head I can think of many movies that are cheesier and more forced than anything in Spidey 3. The problem is many of these films are lauded as the best things in cinema by geeks and average moviegoers alike, so what do I know? You're talking to a man who thinks one of the best superhero movies of recent years, or in fact all time, is Mystery Men by Udo Kier with tons of help from Bob Burden.

I still think the Spidey movies are great. I also think that Raimi never truly got his chance to shine on this series, from focus groups to the great Arad, he was crushed in on all sides. Raimi hates Venom with a passion, and every Raimi fan knows this. It's the main reason why the character was treated as an afterthought in the film. He's a Silver Age lover. If Raimi had it his way Cromwell probably would've been the Vulture rather than Capt. Stacy. There's a reason why the Sandman thread of the whole plot was the best in my opinion, because that was the only part of the movie Sam put his whole heart into. He almost did the same with Goblin for a point, but just not with the same "oomph" as he did for Flint Marko.

One thing I think is funny is that in John Bryne's Spider-Man Chapter One Marko is related to the Osbournes, and in the comics it looked like he could be. Strangely enough, in the movie, it's not such a stretch to think the same thing. Church actually looks like an odd mix of both Defoe and Steven Tyler, making him look sorta like he could be some Osbourne family reject.

Turner D. Century could never work in actuality unless they chose to roll back time and send Spidey to San Francisco. Turner D. at this point in time would be way to old to be riding flying tandem bikes. If he acquired some youth serum it would totally negate his whole villanous scheme.

One sorta wonders what would have happened if MGM when it was still separate from Sony, would've done when it had the license to Venom. They actually had a big movie planned with Brock in a Spidey-free universe acquiring the black symbiote and rampaging through San Francisco before become the anti-hero he ended up being the comics. They ended up selling the license of course, because the idea was as stupid as it sounds. All screenplays for the project were buried. And now being owned by Sony, you'd have an easier time getting Disney to release Song of the South than ever getting your hands on a lost Venom script

The CW is starting another Spider-Man cartoon series, this one set during his high school years. Like every Spider-Man adaptation both Betty and Gwen are pushed to the side as love interests. Much to the chagrin of fans. The Parker-Watson marriage is thought of as a great Jump the Shark moment to many. If you look in the right circles you'll find that more people are upset that she didn't die during Civil War than Parker unmasking himself in public. A real surprise in itself seeing as Quesada himself admitting that he hated the fact that Peter and Mary Jane are still together. Back to the show, I hope it can live up to the fantastic 90s series which just went all out and brought in everybody. You can thank that show in bringing interest back to Blade which launhced that character to his own movie franchise. Plus, anyone under 30 who did not attempt to imitate that Joe Perry riff in the theme song is a major dork.

Anyway, back to the main topic, if you want to read some cheesy fan-fiction go check out JMS's current Back in Black arc in Amazing. Now that's cheesy!

I'm sorry but i have to speak against this, I REALLY, REALLY, don't think Venom's portrayal or appearance in the film has anything to do with a personal vendetta held by Raimi. Raimi is not in my opinion the world's greatest director, but i can't for one second honestly swallow the possibility he purposely screwed Venom.

Raimi is not that juvenile as to hold back and totally destroy and taint a character just because he doesn't personally like the guy. I don't buy that and never will, it's too childish to believe and no director would honestly do that unless they are fairly low down the decency bar if you ask me.

Heath Ledger for example hates comic books, he doesn't like them one little bit, yet he is perfectly willing and able to play one of the biggest comic book villains in history in a BIG comic book movie. There's a difference between your personal and professional interests, people don't let it taint their work.

If they did, they wouldn't bother doing it in the first place. Ledger knows this is a job and such he is treating it like any other job, with respect and dedication regardless of how he personally feels about comic books. Raimi does not seem like some sort of whiny fan boy would who make a fan fic film that costs over 200 million dollars to get in a few jabs at Venom's character.

And to be honest, I have no idea what the hell all this Turner Century talk is about. But I really wanted to get that whole Venom/Raimi issue off my chest. People hear the fact he hates Venom and it's automatically assumes he throws darts at boards with pictures of Venom on it in a bar or at home.

I think people take anything people say so out of content that it's almost disgusting that people can't accept the fact that people can dislike characters, and not purposely go out of their way to destroy that character in anyway possible.

I never said he tried to destroy the character, I just don't think he gave as much attention to it as he could. Notice that every other villain in the movie was given more time to develop and grow. Venom seemed like he was thrown into an already finished script by Avi to appease fans, and it changed the entire dynamic of the film. I thought this film was the most entertaining of the three, don't get me wrong, but it also was the one that seems to suffer the most from multiple personalities, and not in a good way as a reflection of the characters.

I honestly think if Sam had to play with Venom and would've been fully in control the clock tower sequence would've been the hook at the end and would've left Venom to the next guy. I'm not a big fan of the symbiote story myself, but even a Joe Schmoe like me can see that it deserves a bigger story not boxed in by two other major villains.

One thing I do believe was completely Raimi was Venom's use of hyphens in the web message. There's something very humorous to be found that even in situations of alien influenced vendettas, Brock still had the presence of mind to use proper grammar.

Mr. M - I think you're miunderstanding a couple of key points here. The first thing I should clarify (this is to you too, Aerostar, just in case) - the whole Turner D. Century/Paul Newman thing is only a joke. Don't worry about it. :P

As regards the Venom issue, Aerostar's right; no-one is actually suggesting that Sam Raimi went out of his way to deliberately sabotage Venom (and therefore his own movie) because of some personal grudge against the character. What people mean when they cite Raimi's dislike of Venom influencing the film is that those portions of the film felt like they were written by someone who had added them out of obligation rather than choice, who wasn't particularly enthusiastic about the material and was therefore unsure of how to execute them effectively. Sam Raimi doesn't get Venom; he doesn't understand what's cool about him, why people like him or what the appeal of the symbiote saga is, and that lack of understanding was always going to influence his ability to do the material justice, no matter how hard he tried. As such, we got the Venom story in Spider-Man 3, but it all felt off, as if the filmmakers didn't really know which parts were supposed to be important, what tone they were meant to be conveying or what the overall point of the whole arc was...which was all true. Much as I disliked Spider-Man 3, I don't really blame Sam Raimi for that portion of it; in an ideal world he should have been allowed to finish the film as he actually wanted it, and Venom could have been saved for someone with the desire and ability to do him properly.

Thanks for clarifying the Turner D. thing. For awhile it actually transcended parody and it seemed like you guys were actually taking the whole thing seriously. And, really it wouldn't have been a big surprise if you were. Many horrible villains had been turned into great foes in the past. Look at Mr Freeze and Killer Moth in the Batman universe. So a reinvention of Turner D. Century as played by Paul Newman could've been feasible. It could've been about a man born at the turn of our own 21st century who's come back to force the people of today away from the mistakes they made in his youth. The problem is, he'll go to great lengths, even killing to make the world into a "better place."

That's just on suggestion, I know it's pretty lame, but then again so was a man with a cold gun.

The issue with Turny D's age did occur to me too. I thought the best way around it would be to have him cryogenically frozen. He wakes up in the 21st century to find the world in an even more shameful state than he remembered it. Let the good times roll! 8-)

And Ditchy, if you're looking to catch up on your Paul Newman-viewing, then naturally there are all the obvious candiates like Butch Cassidy and Cool Hand Luke, but I've really gotta recommend the Hudsucker Proxy - it's my favourite film, and the one responsible for making me a fan of Mr. Newman (and, by strange coincidence, Sam Raimi of Spider-Man fame even co-wrote it with the Coen Bros). Its deeply stylised nature clearly isn't to everyone's taste, but I love it to pieces and feel that it deserves to be seen by everybody at least once. Here, Paul Newman plays Sidney J. Mussberger, one of the most awe-inspiring villains of all-time. Now, there's a man who really knows how to smoke a cigar.

I never honestly found the concept of a guy with a cold gun to be ridiculous. Mr. Freeze in actuality represents a common villaine type, elementals. Almost every super hero has super villains of water, fire, Earth, wind etc. Freeze is no different, the fact he uses ice as a weapon be it gun or not doesn't seem kooky to me.

Spider man actually has some of the least stupid villains around, nearly all of his foes prove their worth and don't seem as goofy as other heroes bad guys. DC has a habit of making completely abusrd and stupid villains, even stupid sounding ones. The likes of Pied Piper, Captain Nazi, Psycho Pirate, and Clue master come to mind.

In anycase, I think one of the harder parts of Raimi to adapt Venom wasn't just the dislike thing but was also the fact this is more bizarre territory for him. If you look at the past Spidey films with Dr. Octopus and Green Goblin, those 2 villains were not that incredibly "unbelievable" to see in a movie.

Least not compared to Sandman and Venom, those two were a gigantic leap from plausibility in comparison with Doc Ock and Goblin. Spider Man 3 introduced extremely super bizarre villains with outlandish powers and I think that was hard working both in at the same time while trying to balance both.

Plus, this was the first time Raimi had to use more then one villain in a movie. Both Spider man films had one villain each, and he hadn't done more then 1 before. Tim Burton is the best example of how to properly balance villains, both he and Schumacher actually did a good job with their dual villains in Batman's films.

Or at least I thought so.

Yes, but Freeze's initial character was nothing more than Captain Cold retread at best. He was a truly silly character until the introduction of Nora Fries in Heart Of Ice in B:TAS.

I think the best balance of multiple villians is Batman Begins. It seemed to better capture the warring nature of DC villains and the fragile nature of the few times they attempt to cooperate. Legion situations nonwithstanding. Tim Burton only looked like he balanced the villains so well because he gave almost no time to either Batman or Wayne. Both movies in the Burtonian Batman universe lent more time to the villains than the hero. It really wasn't until movies like Blade and Mystery Men came along that you actually got a comic book movie that realized if you have the hero in the title, they're the star. Still enjoyed the Burtonian universe, I just think they have less impact on the comic films today than most would think.

See, Turner D. actually could work with a few tweaks. Not only that everyone would come in droves to see Paul Newman in a Spidey flick.

Batman Begins in my opinion made the same mistake that Spider Man 2 did with Doc Ock, they didn't know how to use them. Begins bothered me because it totally wasted Scarecrow for a more realistic approach, which is redundant considering Ra's Al Ghul is one of the most unrealistic characters in the Batman universe.

Yes there are WAY more inhuman guys then he is, but still, Gul's whole claim to fame lies in the supernatural and bizarre. I enjoyed his actor choice with Liam Nieson but wished they would have bothered making a more clear identication of him being Gul and not even mentioning his immortality gimmick even in hypothetical passing.

Little hints from comic traits are fun, but when they mention it as in passing like "yeah right" it kind of bothers me. Scarecrow I was especially upset at because the credits don't even list him as Scarecrow despite the fact he referred to himself as it on horseback. I also think if they don't bring him back in the sequels, they will have truly wasted the last non used quality Batman villain.

I don't think they involved them enough, same with Ock, he appeared with the frequency of a fart, popping up occasionally now and then. The nice thing I like about Burton's bad guys is despite the fact Batman is the star, he at least gives us villains that are good enough to be the center of attention for a bit longer then unusual. Could have been loads worse if they sucked on screen and got major screen time anyway.

I am hoping Joker takes commanding prescence in "The Dark Knight", simply because the Joker is truly larger then life and the fact that (fan speaking) if they botch him up the series is gonna look very sore and bruised.

Batman was never the star of the Burtonian films, which is one of my biggest beefs with them. They never make it clear in Begins if Ghul is a title passed down or if Ducard actually is immortal. I hope they shed some light on this in later sequels I have no doubt that Talia will be showing up sooner or later. Scarecrow worked just fine for me. In the context of the film it made perfect sense. Many Batman greats were seen exiting Arkham leaving limitless sequel possibilites, Jonathan Crane was just another one who got away. And the last quality villain to be used? I beg to differ, we're still missing Black Mask, Mad Hatter, Killer Croc, Arnold Wesker and Scarface, a decent cinematic take on Freeze, Poison Ivy and Bane. And those are just off the top of my head. I mean you even see Zsasz roaming around Arkham. As long as there's a good story even a a mediocre villain like King Tut could be menacing.

You mentioned before about DC having lame villains. Well, I've got two words for you. Stilt. Man. I'm just going to stop there, because to go any further would just have me in fits of laughter of all the equally lame villains in other major companies.

I think Doc Ock had a decent amount of time in Spidey 2. Especially since 2 was basically a big screen adaptation of Issue 50. That whole storyline revolves around Parker and his relationship with his alter ego. I mean if the movie was called Spider-Man 2: Doctor Octopus Rises, then I would have a problem with his lack of screentime. But since it wasn't I was quite fine with how the whole thing played out.

Back to Batman Begins, it's called Batman Begins, not Batman vs the League of Shadows featuring Scarecrow, which by the way would be a killer name for a death metal band. So the villains were balanced properly within the context of the story being told.

Spider-man wasn't called Spider man: rise of green Goblin but he still got a good chunk of air time. You don't need to make him in every scene or put his name on the title to make him more active, just have him do something else other then show us brief clips of him working on a machine for 90% of the movie.

Plot point or not, he still had squatt air time to the likes of Goblin. Batman's remaining villains may work but most won't, especially with their new "approach". Scarface and Ivy are out, no one would take the dummy seriously and unless ivy is willing to drop the mutant plant gimmick, she ain't going anywhere either.

Mad hatter is too colorful for a darker more "edgier" Batman film franchise and Killer Croc (while he would be nice to see I admit) won't fly unless people will accept a freak in Batman's rogues gallery (which after Batman and Robin, that'd be hard to say). The average person knows batman's villains to be realistic or semi realistic of the majority. Especially again with this new franchise.

Black Mask wouldn't offer much then a good performance on screen if casted right considering his statistics. I also highly doubt we will EVER see Freeze again, Bane is the only one who I could see them redoing, and who NEEDS to be redone considering he was totally changed more so then anyone else.

Personalities is one thing to change, making someone a genius to a moron is quite another. Bane also represents a much bigger importance to Batman's life then most the other villains you mentioned because of the story arc he belongs to. Breaking Batman's back was a milestone event in Batman's comics.

Much like Parker's powers vanishing in Spider Man 2 and the symbiote in 3. We already know anyway that if there is a 3rd Batman film, Two-face will be top dog and unless any other big name villains join him in that movie, I highly doubt Christopher Nolan will stay with Batman past number 3.

I really hope that the Nolanian universe gets back to the noirish qualities of the Bat. He seems to get it but at the same time it also seems like he sorts of misses the point. Same thing with Burton, he seemed to get a lot of it but seemed to really miss the point as well. I would go so far to say that the undeservedly reviled The Batman gets the point better than any of the cinematic series, and that show licks the immaculate boots of the Timmverse. Not saying that's a bad thing. It's hard to top the Timmverse. And even that wasn't the best when it first started. I think they should give people credit and actually throw in some of the villains that are thought to be too much for the franchise. It's Batman based off a comic book, not Gotham Vice. Realism could really kill this franchise. Oh yeah, Basil Karlo! He could totally show up in this franchise.

As for Spidey, Goblin showed up a lot because he's responsible for making Spidey the hero that he is in this continuity. Ock was a reason for Spidey to regain his confidence and his powers. You want to be really pissed they could have took out a villain and just planted in a McGuffin like some sort of nuclear bomb, but instead we got Alfred Molina as a humanized and tortured Doc Ock, we got an awesome Evil Dead-esque scene with the tentacles just tearing up a surgical room, and we also got a hilarious subliminal advertisement for Sunny D in the form of clean, abundant energy. Villains are great, but it's also great to see that some movies are willing to do the other sort of comic stories where the adversary is not the main focus that drives the entire movie forward.

Except sadly that realism seems to be taking a strong foothold in alot of movies these days. Batman especially seems to be taking this approach especially with the new "Begins" franchise. The fact they went to the trouble of explaining the genetics and "facts" of Scarecrow's fear formula is a bad sign.

When movies start explaining genetics, and pherimones and stuff like that in their weapons and gimmicks things are going bad. The Blade movies did that and that bugged the crap out of me since when did vampire movies ever need that much technological jibber jabber. Of course, that movie has problems on an all together different level.

Truth is Batman is more or less the biggest super hero around possibly second only to the man of steel. Batman's villains mostly resonate from realistic origins or possibilities. The Penguin and Croc can both be accepted if you consider the whole birth defect thing. Spider Man was smart in taking the least outrageous villains first before jumping into Strangeland with Venom and Sandman.

I'm glad they did, don't get me wrong, but it would have been more effective had the approach been more gradual like they did with Octopus and Goblin. Realism however also conflicts with authenticity. In truth, Joker's fame is what got him into the "Dark Knight", otherwise he probably would have never come.

Considering he has a unrealistic origin with the chemical bath thing, if the realism approach keeps up, the new Batman series will surely never bring the likes of Clayface, Mr. Freeze, Man-bat, or freak like Batman villains to the silver screen. It'll only be saved for guys in costumes or things they can explain. And even then it depends if people think the costume is too stupid.

Something tells me people would definitely say that if the creators tried to bring the likes of Firefly, Mad Hatter, or Riddler into this new series.

Truthfully, that techno jabber was existent in the Tomb of Dracula series, and came front and center in the vampire episodes of Spider-Man. So the jibber jabber in Blade wasn't too far off.

Yeah, one of my gripes with Batman Begins is when they explained everything he does and how he does it. One of the coolest thing about the character is the mythical nature of Batman. The less you know about him the scarier he is. You can actually understand why crooks would think an actual giant bat is preying on the underworld. But in Begins we get a spleunking suit, magnets, and the most dangerous yet obvious Batmobile since Miller's DKR. Nolan's Dark Knight actually is hinging on one thing more than any other, and that's The Laugh. Doesn't matter how good the rest of the movie is, if the Laugh is wrong geeks and regs alike will trash this film and retroactively the entire franchise.

You know if they ever bring Rhino into the Spider-Man series, I think Id be forced to fly to Hollywood and slap somebody.

Even still, vampires and science do not belong together. Anyone who tells me that vampires have "an allergic reaction" to this chemical or substance gets a slap in the face for trying to tell me something that is biologically DEAD has allergies to something.

My beef with the Blade series is the fact that the term "vampire" gets lost in the fact the vampires hardly act like vampires outside of the use of the sun when it comes conveinet for the story. Otherwise they act like people who have a blood fetish or something and treat it more like a drug then act like a real vampire.

But that's just me. That's why I loved the Burton Batman movies, they didn't need to tell us how Bruce got these gadgets or what there made out of. Same with Joker. He fell into chemicals, that's it, they didn't bother saying the genetic code of DNA was altered or crap like that, it was simple and sweet.

And just like you and I both said, if Joker is botched, it will be franchise suicide. That's the risk of taking on a character like Joker, you gotta do it right. Spider Man does use alot of science but they don't bury you in it, that's because Spider man and majority of his villains/allies are scientists.

Green Goblin, Octopus, Morbius, Smythe, The Lizard etc. I think Rhino would be wise to put in just to get more villains out of the way, plus, because he's a thug you can easily slip him in without worrying him being too influential on the main storyline. Same with guys like Shocker, Scorpion, and Hammerhead.

Mac Gargan? I wouldn't be surprised if they skip the whole Scorpion thing and just slipped him the symbiote, simply because people crave the black suit, and no one in their right mind would try to PG-13 Kletus Kassidy.

Rhino would only work if they put together a Sinster Six in the film series. Though I hope we haven't come that far yet. I still think one of the best storylines they could come up with for the next film is having Kraven the Hunter hearing rumors of a Lizard Man in Manhattan and then giving chase. While in New York he sets his sights on yet another prize, the head of Spider-Man. It would be very fun, finally give Dylan Baker something to do, and we'd get two great villains.

Well that's the most obvious set up considering those 2 villains position. Lizard will HAVE to be done considering he's shown up twice as Connors, and if they don't use him it'd be stupid because it's kind of a glaring nod to comic fans and what not.

I too think Carnage in PG-13 light would be an insult to his character honestly. It'd be nice if Venom came back and they developed him more since there is a chance (though a slim one) he could come back.

I'm a little late, perhaps, but I only just got round to seeing Spider-Man 3 last night and, finding the film to be much to my liking, feel compelled to chip in with my own two cents.

I'm not really a superhero fan in general, and certainly not the best person to be judging how aptly this movie does justice to the Spidey franchise as a whole, but one thing which I really appreciate about the Spider-Man films is that they treat their villains with a striking degree of sympathy. For all their nefarious deeds you're never given any reason to doubt that they are indeed human - they have fears, self-doubt, emotions, and the majority of them were predominantly driven by some tragic or traumatic event in their lives. And I like that. Batman Begins, on the other hand, failed to strike much of a chord with me, in part because I found its approach to its own antagonists (along with practically everything else in the mixture), to be too cold for my own personal tastes. They weren't allowed to be human, nor were they allowed to be fun in any real way; just a bunch of rather unpleasant individuals who caused trouble against what was already a pretty forlorn backdrop. My major issue with that picture was that, Michael Caine aside, in its efforts to be dark and dingy it got far too bogged down with its own shadow and grime and became, in my eyes, just plain dull and uninteresting. The Spider-Man movies are different, in no small way because they really do seem to care about their villains and what makes them tick. I thought they did a decent job with the Green Goblin in the initial installment (that somewhat off-putting mask aside :P), improved upon it greatly with Doc Ock in the second (no less because they equipped him with an infinitely more awesome costume), and Harry and the Sandman most definitely continued that tradition in the third.

Venom was both an asset and a weakness to Spider-Man 3, in my view. He was cool, and I really enjoyed Topher Grace's portrayal of him. I have no qualms whatsoever with his entertainment value. But his character felt a bit too rushed and forced - his motivations for turning to villainy just weren't as convincing as those of the antagonists who proceeded him. I'm not talking about the whole business of the symbiote here - that aspect of his character arc I can understand. But what Raimi seemed to be going for here was the notion that, symbiote or no, Eddie Brock was pure evil to begin with, hence his expression of murderous - or at least bloodthirsty - intentions before the black goop got to him. His own particular axe to grind with the world - particularly compared to what Otto, Harry and Flint each went through - didn't seem quite developed enough to justify that kind of behaviour. I guess a little more time spent fleshing out Eddie's character in the initial stages would have made a world of difference.

But that's my only real complaint, and that aside, I'm at a loss to understand the mixed reaction to what I can only see as a really enjoyable and heartfelt blockbuster which, as with its two predocessors, succeeds in balancing the action and the characterisation perfectly.

Harry Osborn is my favourite character from the Spider-Man series, and I felt that his character arc, in contrast to Venom's, was absolutely perfect. I really loved how they handled his storyline, and I was very moved by the outcome. Given its significance to the Spidey saga right from the beginning, I fail to see how it could have been handled better.

Oh yes, and I love Dylan Baker (his performance in Happiness was the only thing I could really warm to in that particular film :P). I would be delighted to see him return as the Lizard in any possible future installments. But, for the time being, Spider-Man 3 seems to have wrapped things up neatly and I'm satisfied. :D

jekylljuice: Wow...that's the first time someone's articulated a case against Batman Begins that I can fully understand. No, it's not a film that seems to strike a very warm tone; I think that Christopher Nolan is an outstanding director, but there's a cold and ruthlessly intellectual tone to all of his films (Memento and The Prestige, for sure) that a lot of viewers find difficult to accept or connect with. Still, for my money, part of what I love about Batman Begins is that there is humanity to be found there, moreso than any of Nolan's other films, but you have to be prepared to dig through lots of grime to find it. In that way, the audience's journey mirrors Bruce Wayne's; the Gotham City of Batman Begins is an unrelentingly forlorn and unpleasant place, shaped by the the inhuman and soulless villains who control it, and that bleakness can often seem overwhelming, but the crucial point is that the movie, like Bruce, never embraces total emotionless nihilism (as represented by the League of Shadows), instead focusing on finding whatever vestiges of humanity remain (Michael Caine's wonderful Alfred, obviously, but also Morgan Freeman's warmly jovial Lucius Fox, Gary Oldman's understated yet unconquerably decent Jim Gordon, and the really-not-that-bad Katie Holmes's Rachel Dawes) and realising that they're worth fighting for, no matter how hopeless it might seem. And if that's not a warm, uplifting and humanistic message, I don't know what is. :D Maybe you should give it another go; I really think it's an outstanding, intelligent and maturely handled film.

Back on the Spider-Man topic, though...like I said before, I'm more or less at a loss about the mixed reaction to the film too, but for the exact opposite reason. The more analysis I read of the film's themes and intentions, the more I realise that there were actually quite a lot of good (or at least salvageable) ideas in there, but it doesn't change my feeling that the execution of those ideas (in terms of scripting, acting, plotting, pacing, direction) was utter cack; as in, not mediocre or even just bad, but actually sub-amateur in parts, which makes it astonishing to me that, outside of my group of close friends, there doesn't seem to be anyone else who feels this way. I mean, my mum - my own mother - saw the film recently, and she said she thought it was "OK", and when I start seeing you guys actually singling out Dylan "Utterly Faceless Bland Non-Entity Of A Curt Connors" Baker for praise, I honestly start questioning my own sanity. :wiltshock: Seriously, I'm really, genuinely sorry to keep going at this with such vociferousness, because I'm really not trying to offend anybody or cast aspersions on anyone else's opinion; this whole issue has just become a major bee in my proverbial bonnet. I feel like the guy in the Animaniacs sketch who's the only one in town that can see the sheriff is a giant chicken, and it's a confusing, unsettling place to be. ???

I can understand how you feel about why people don't seem to see what you see about being alone in thinking a movie is overrated. As I've mentioned, I still don't understand the heavy praise for Pirates of the Caribbean, and I'll add Invader Zim, Lord of the Rings, and Spongebob Squarepants to that list.

Wow, I really butchered some grammar there.

Dylan Baker has been given absolutely nothing to do in any of the movies. But I know he's an interesting actor. I think an expanded role would really work to show off his talent. I mean so far he's been nothing more than a placeholder for fans to cheer at, much like Betty Brandt and Robbie Robertson at the Daily Bugle, or the Stacys involvement in 3. So I don't think it's really fair to judge a guy for what amounts to less than 8 minutes of screentime in an entire franchise.

But back to other point, I'm just boggled by the many other major motion pictures more convoluted and cornier and chessier than Spidey 3 could ever manage that are heaped with the best of praise.