Spider-Man

[Mr. Marshmallow]

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.

[AerostarMonk]

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.

[Mr. Marshmallow]

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.

[AerostarMonk]

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.

[Mr. Marshmallow]

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.

[AerostarMonk]

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.

[Mr. Marshmallow]

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.

[jekylljuice]

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 ), 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 ). 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.

[Ditchy McAbandonpants]

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. 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. 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. ???

[AerostarMonk]

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.