More Trouble For Spiderman 4

http://screenrant.com/thor-spider-man-4-release-dates-rob-40359/

I hope they just let it die after the horrible flick we got in #3. I am excited to see Thor though:thumbsup

Spiderman...meh. But IF they keep Thor out of the present for the most part I'll give it a shot.

Raimi arguing with Sony about villians?

Didn't he have Venom pushed on him for 3?

I wonder if it the same deal, Sony probably wants more villians to support toy deals or something.

A single primary villian is truly needed, and it should be The Lizard after three movies hinting at it for crying out loud. Maybe Black Cat making an apperance.


Depressing. So much went right for one and two for such a beloved character.

I have it on a reliable source that the villain will be the vulture

BIKERFETT said:

I have it on a reliable source that the villain will be the vulture

Click to expand...

Varity said that a few months ago, but sony wants a more of a well known villian..I am guessing they want the lizard...

The third film had the same problems..

Venom indeed was pushed on Raimi who wanted the Vulture for S3.

I see a delay as being more of a positive thing than a sign of trouble. If Raimi is digging in his heels and willing to fight to get the film he wants I think that's a sign we won't get another Spider-Man 3.

Malkovich as Vulture would ROCK!

Yeah, Raimi wanted the vulture for 4 and the studio said no again, this movie is just cursed. Ha ha. I don't care anymore personally, with all the new superhero movies coming out, they're just beating the dead horse with Spiderman.

I guess Sony didn't learn from SP3 when they forced Venom or from WB when they gave Nolan freedom with Dark Knight.

Nolan's freedom with The Dark Knight was...ok, but even there I felt two villains was one character too many. Well, two PRIMARY villains. the problem with TDK was that all three guys were major figures, and even with 2.5 hrs, that's just not really enough to do it justice. The film felt less like a true Batman film, and more like a Batman and The Joker and Two Face/Harvey Dent film. With Batman being the LEAST interesting of the three.


SM3 suffered the same problem, as did Batman & Robin (aside from Joel Schumacher, which took it to a whole other level of crap).

The only film I've seen succesfully handle more than one primary villain was Batman Returns, and I know I'm in the minority on that. Stick with one badguy per picture. It makes for tighter focus and the film is better because of it.

Stay focused on the good.
Leave SP3 and B&R out of this!!
This is a list of multiple comic book villian movies where it worked because they were careful and kept it simple!

Dick Tracy (pick a villian)
Superman II (Lex's team and Zod's team)
Batman Begins ( Mr. Zzaz, Ras, Scarecrow, Falcone)
Dark Knight ( Joker, Marone, Two-Face, Scarecrow)
Spiderman 2 (Doc Oc, Goblin, Bruce Camebell )
Daredevil
Hellboy
X Men
Ironman
Incredible Hulk
and on and on . . .

What thes guys need to stay away from is assuming that everyone has to kungfu fight at the end and then blow everything up. Keep the supporting villians on the bench so-to-speak.

if they could stay on track with a story and wrap up/cross each thread as they should, like Dark Knight and SP2 did, then a multi villian/hero story arc CAN work.

Sin City and Punisher did this best. Comic book film writing needs to be on par with these kind of vignettes (sp?).

I remember (sorta) reading the SP3 was to begin with a simple Sandman story, wrapping it up, then moving onto the other two villians. I'm sure that film could stand a fan edit or two.

I do have a fantasy of SP4 starting with Pete waking up from a bad dream, ala Brian Micheal Bendis . .but I bet that won't happen.

Raimi has never liked Venom. He made no bones about that in interviews following Spider-Man 2 when asked if Venom would ever appear in a movie that he felt the character was his least favorite. I think that Spider-Man 3 reflects that disinterest in the character.

Honestly, I think the studio made a HUGE mistake by pressuring him to put Venom in. The character simply doesn't FIT in the more 'realistic' world that the movies are grounded in.

Multiple villains only works when the villains don't have equal time/attention paid to them. You need to have the main guy, and the second (and subsequent) fiddles. Batman Begins worked in this respect because Ra's Al Ghul was the main villain (Well, Dumont, actually, or whatever Liam Neeson's name was). The other guys were small potatoes. Same with SM2. Doc Oc was THE villain. Anyone else was small potatoes. The Dark Knight put the three main characters on too level a footing, and as a result, the film feels less like a BATMAN movie and more like a movie that Batman happens to be in with two other guys.

X-men 1 and 2 worked because the primary badguy was ALWAYS Magneto. Everyone else was just cannon fodder. X-men 3 DIDN'T work because it was too interested in showing cameos of all these different characters, none of whom really mattered.

Ironman also had ONE central villain: Stane. Anyone else was ancillary.


So, while you can have movies that work with multiple villains, the multiple villains can't all be equally important. Some of them have to be cannon fodder or second stringers. Zsaz and Falcone in Batman Begins are perfect examples. Scarecrow is exceptionally well handled, simply because he ends up being the lead to the big badguy, and is dealt with in a very offhand manner.


The problem that Hollywood faces is the belief that bigger = better. It doesn't. But in Iron Man 2 we'll have the Black Widow AND Whiplash as villains. Oh, and we'll have War Machine and maybe Iron Maiden, too. Great. Then we'll have Cousin Oliver show up...