Spider-Man

[AerostarMonk]

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!

[Mr. Marshmallow]

Originally Posted by AerostarMonk

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.

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.

[AerostarMonk]

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.

[Ditchy McAbandonpants]

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.

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.

[AerostarMonk]

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.

[jekylljuice]

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!

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.

[Mr. Marshmallow]

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.

[AerostarMonk]

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.

[Mr. Marshmallow]

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.

[AerostarMonk]

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.