Brock07
|
Spider-Man 4 Villian Announced!!The Lizard!!!
Yay! It's not going to be overcrowded with villians this time!
Also returning are Toby and Kirsten as Peter and Mary Jane.
|
Pannic
|
Figures, as they've hinted at that with having Curt Connors appearing.
But I don't ever recall the Lizard being that great of a villain. Possibly the dumbest Spider-Man villain there is.
|
jfmillet
|
| Pannic wrote: | Figures, as they've hinted at that with having Cut Connors appearing.
But I don't ever recall the Lizard being that great of a villain. Possibly the dumbest Spider-Man villain there is. |
Wow, I couldn't disagree more. To me, he's one of the best Spidey villains, because his story makes him so much more than a one dimensional villain. I mean, in his history in the comics he's done as much good as he has harm, and since Pete has such a soft spot for Connors, it could make for a very interesting situation.
However...the possible problem that I see is that it could be a little too much like the Doc Ock story that they used for SM 2. You know, good scientist has horrible accident that goes wrong, and channels it into anger, then ends up being redeemed in the end and sacrifices himself for the greater good. We'll just have to see.
|
Pannic
|
Connors is a decent character, but I just found The Lizard itself to be one-dimensional.
Though I did find it amusing in that one comic where he was looking for that super reptile formula, and decided to look for Connors...
|
Jman383
|
| jfmillet wrote: | | However...the possible problem that I see is that it could be a little too much like the Doc Ock story that they used for SM 2. You know, good scientist has horrible accident that goes wrong, and channels it into anger, then ends up being redeemed in the end and sacrifices himself for the greater good. We'll just have to see. |
I agree.
|
Yakko
|
Meh.....I kinda saw this one coming.
|
Brock07
|
Since it's the Lizard, I don't think I would mind two villians, but deff not three. And only if it's done well.
And not Carnage. Or Venom again. Or Green Goblin III.
|
BwayJuvinile
|
The rumor a while ago, was to phase out Mary Jane, as let's be honest, spiderman has been to lovey dovey and not enough wise cracking
Tobey & Kirstens careers have been DEAD since spidey 3, they should be craving to do 4-5-6
|
Yakko
|
| BwayJuvinile wrote: | The rumor a while ago, was to phase out Mary Jane, as let's be honest, spiderman has been to lovey dovey and not enough wise cracking
Tobey & Kirstens careers have been DEAD since spidey 3, they should be craving to do 4-5-6 |
Which is a shame because Kirsten isn't really that bad of a actress....I actually loved her in Interview With the Vampire.
|
BwayJuvinile
|
| Yakko wrote: | | BwayJuvinile wrote: | The rumor a while ago, was to phase out Mary Jane, as let's be honest, spiderman has been to lovey dovey and not enough wise cracking
Tobey & Kirstens careers have been DEAD since spidey 3, they should be craving to do 4-5-6 |
Which is a shame because Kirsten isn't really that bad of a actress....I actually loved her in Interview With the Vampire. |
but she was brutal in spiderman, and she went into rehab
|
Apples2for10
|
I've never even heard of the Lizard. And I'm shocked that Hobgoblin hasn't made it into a film yet; he was always my favorite Spidey villain.
|
Brock07
|
Hobgoblin's too similar to Green Goblin....people would get confused. I was for a while.
|
Mistress
|
| BwayJuvinile wrote: |
Tobey & Kirstens careers have been DEAD since spidey 3, they should be craving to do 4-5-6 |
I don't think I'd agree with that, at list on Toby's part. He's appearing in the movie Brothers, which, I'm guessing by its plot and release date, is vying for Oscar worthiness. It still looks good. He and Jake Gylenhall (I have no idea how spell his godamned last name XD) are two brothers (duh! and also interesting that after all the talk about how they look alike they're finally being cast as siblings). Toby is out fighting in Afganistan and Jake basically checks up his wife (Natalie Portamn) and kids. Eventually he and Portman get a little too cosy. Toby comes back extremely screwed up, and we can all guess what happens next. It's based on Danish film.
Kudos to to Toby!
|
Patch
|
Update...there will be more than one villian. POssibly Carnage (I hope not) and Kraven.
My only question...why no Mysterio???
|
Vichysois
|
While the franchise is going, I hope they redeem themselves after 3...which I found really silly and crowded. Venom was so poorly handled, and Peter's dark side was more silly than scary.
I prefer a measure of realism to films based on superhero comics. The Nolan Batman films are a prime example.
And while Batman has no superpowers, the films still require a bit of suspension of disbelief. But it's not inflated grossly. You don't have anybody turning into sand there.
The first Spidey film had plausibility once you accept the premise of radioactivity. The second one had plausibility accepting the nature of the materials involved in Ock's experiments. But to accept that somebody straight up shifts their matter form into immeasureable sizes and shapes is ridiculous to me.
In that regard, I'd go for Kraven. But how is he supposed to make a really tangible threat after Spiderman's had to face Venom, Sandman, and his EMO Saturday Night Fever self.
|
Patch
|
| Vichysois wrote: | While the franchise is going, I hope they redeem themselves after 3...which I found really silly and crowded. Venom was so poorly handled, and Peter's dark side was more silly than scary.
I prefer a measure of realism to films based on superhero comics. The Nolan Batman films are a prime example.
And while Batman has no superpowers, the films still require a bit of suspension of disbelief. But it's not inflated grossly. You don't have anybody turning into sand there.
The first Spidey film had plausibility once you accept the premise of radioactivity. The second one had plausibility accepting the nature of the materials involved in Ock's experiments. But to accept that somebody straight up shifts their matter form into immeasureable sizes and shapes is ridiculous to me.
In that regard, I'd go for Kraven. But how is he supposed to make a really tangible threat after Spiderman's had to face Venom, Sandman, and his EMO Saturday Night Fever self. |
While I love the Nolan Batman films...I couldn't disagree more in regards to wanting comic book films to have more realism.
For starters...they're comic book movies! Movies based super heroes and villians that in their printed paper format are taken (for the most part) very seriously. Yes most of these characters have abilities that are simply impossible in reality...but you know...that's where a certain level of suspension of disbelief comes into play.
I know that a man cannot turn into sand...or a woman control the weather...or someone fire organic optic blasts from his eyes...but in the universe that is created for these characters...it's completely plausible!
What it boils down to is the film makers/writers/production companies taking the source material seriously and treating these characters that have been revered and cared for for decades with respect. The same respect you'd give any characters in literature. You allow writers to fully acutalize the worlds these unbelieveable characters exist...cast actors capable of portraying said characters...not allow companies like FOX, Sony and Warner Bros to change things for marketing purposes...and you can make great films out of 'unrealistic" stories.
Next you'll be saying you wanted more realism in say the Lord of the Rings films...or the Star Wars saga...
|
Vichysois
|
| Patch wrote: | | I know that a man cannot turn into sand...or a woman control the weather...or someone fire organic optic blasts from his eyes...but in the universe that is created for these characters...it's completely plausible! |
Yes, that's true. And I felt that the third film had less plausibility in the universe that the first and second films established. And I did say a "measure" of realism...not that they can't be fantastic.
| Patch wrote: | | What it boils down to is the film makers/writers/production companies taking the source material seriously and treating these characters that have been revered and cared for for decades with respect. The same respect you'd give any characters in literature. You allow writers to fully acutalize the worlds these unbelieveable characters exist...cast actors capable of portraying said characters |
Indeed. And when this happens, a film can be solid. Spiderman 3 wasn't solid to me - it didn't fulfill this criteria on which you and I agree.
| Patch wrote: | | Next you'll be saying you wanted more realism in say the Lord of the Rings films...or the Star Wars saga... |
Now that slippery slope defense is a leap. Please don't try to use illogicallity to make my argument seem uncogent.
|
Patch
|
| Vichysois wrote: | | Patch wrote: | | I know that a man cannot turn into sand...or a woman control the weather...or someone fire organic optic blasts from his eyes...but in the universe that is created for these characters...it's completely plausible! |
Yes, that's true. And I felt that the third film had less plausibility in the universe that the first and second films established. And I did say a "measure" of realism...not that they can't be fantastic.
| Patch wrote: | | What it boils down to is the film makers/writers/production companies taking the source material seriously and treating these characters that have been revered and cared for for decades with respect. The same respect you'd give any characters in literature. You allow writers to fully acutalize the worlds these unbelieveable characters exist...cast actors capable of portraying said characters |
Indeed. And when this happens, a film can be solid. Spiderman 3 wasn't solid to me - it didn't fulfill this criteria on which you and I agree.
| Patch wrote: | | Next you'll be saying you wanted more realism in say the Lord of the Rings films...or the Star Wars saga... |
Now that slippery slope defense is a leap. Please don't try to use illogicallity to make my argument seem uncogent. |
I'm just making the extreme leap there.
What you're basically saying is Spiderman 3 is a bad movie. That I won't argue with. It was embarrassing.
However...the first two X-Men movies were good. The Ed Norton Hulk was good. The Crow...good. So it can be done right.
|
Vichysois
|
| Patch wrote: | | However...the first two X-Men movies were good. The Ed Norton Hulk was good. The Crow...good. So it can be done right. |
Definitely true.
|
Brock07
|
I will be sorely dissapointed if Kraven is the other villian. Hands down my least favorite ever.
I want the Kingpin! (I know rights won't allow it to happen, but I want it anyways!)
|
Pannic
|
The Kingpin would be sweet. One of my favorite Spider-Man villains.
|
Mistress
|
Gah! Hasn't Raimi learned his lesson about casting too many villans! Jeez, sticking to one bad guy worked just fine in the first 2 movies...Carnage is really bad idea. It has the same problems that doing Venom did. You need at LEAST one WHOLE movie to cover eithe of their stories adequately. Sharing the film with 1 or 2 or 3 other bad guys just won't work. On that note, if there HAS to be 2, then I vote Lizardman (as he's already called) and Kraven-he's probably the easiest to un-cheesify, so to speak, although he just can as easily by super-cheesified too, if one is not careful...over-the top villains just don't work to well on film in Spidey's case with the direction Raimi is taking (Tim Burton is another story XD)
|
Patch
|
To be fair to Raimi...the thrid film wasn't his fault...it was Sony's. The studio demanded all those villians and Sam and his brother balked...they also lost the argument.
I'm thining the Lizard paird with either Kraven or Rhino would work.
|
Mistress
|
Agreed  (and thanks for clarifying the Spidey 3 situation...friggin Sony...)
Actually how would one do Rhino without it going too over-the-top? I mean it would look kinda laughable watching a guy run around in a Rhino body suit, no?
|
Patch
|
| Mistress wrote: | Agreed (and thanks for clarifying the Spidey 3 situation...friggin Sony...)
Actually how would one do Rhino without it going too over-the-top? I mean it would look kinda laughable watching a guy run around in a Rhino body suit, no? |
Again remember...it's a comic book movie! We already have a guy running around in red and blue tights...spinning webs and crawling on walls...a huge indestructible guy in a rhino-esque suit isn't that bad.
|
Mistress
|
I guess you have a point, I just think that it would be hard to believe in Rhino...I mean Doc Ock was given a sympathetic back story, and we saw him human for a bit before The Attack of the Tentacles (same deal with Sandman), the whole thing with Goblin with the almost-clinical split-personality disorder going on (I will forever love Willem Dafoe for that performance) was humanizing in battling-your-demons sort of way...can the same be done for Rhino?
|
Patch
|
| Mistress wrote: | | I guess you have a point, I just think that it would be hard to believe in Rhino...I mean Doc Ock was given a sympathetic back story, and we saw him human for a bit before The Attack of the Tentacles (same deal with Sandman), the whole thing with Goblin with the almost-clinical split-personality disorder going on (I will forever love Willem Dafoe for that performance) was humanizing in battling-your-demons sort of way...can the same be done for Rhino? |
I don't think so...but honestly...does there have to be? Why can't he just be a huge human wrecking machine bent on destruction. Why do villians have to have a sympathetic side? They're VILLIANS!
Believe it or not...some characters are just evil for evil's sake. The Joker is a prime example.
|
Yakko
|
| Patch wrote: | | Mistress wrote: | | I guess you have a point, I just think that it would be hard to believe in Rhino...I mean Doc Ock was given a sympathetic back story, and we saw him human for a bit before The Attack of the Tentacles (same deal with Sandman), the whole thing with Goblin with the almost-clinical split-personality disorder going on (I will forever love Willem Dafoe for that performance) was humanizing in battling-your-demons sort of way...can the same be done for Rhino? |
I don't think so...but honestly...does there have to be? Why can't he just be a huge human wrecking machine bent on destruction. Why do villians have to have a sympathetic side? They're VILLIANS!
Believe it or not...some characters are just evil for evil's sake. The Joker is a prime example. |
Yeah.......if I have to watch a sympathetic villain one more time............
|
Mistress
|
Not necessarily sympathetic, just real. Ledger's Joker was realistic-they took a very comicy character and incorporated a sort of human equivilant-the sociopath/psychopath-just add the messy make-up and voila, a contemporary Joker. Actually, all I'm really saying is make him LOOK realistic. Mess smeared makeup is one think, but try doing that with Rhino, it would probably be really hard...
and I honestly do agree that Raimi drained the sympathetic villain idea clean, but that's only one way of making a comic villain work in a contemporary setting.
|
Patch
|
| Mistress wrote: | Not necessarily sympathetic, just real. Ledger's Joker was realistic-they took a very comicy character and incorporated a sort of human equivilant-the sociopath/psychopath-just add the messy make-up and voila, a contemporary Joker. Actually, all I'm really saying is make him LOOK realistic. Mess smeared makeup is one think, but try doing that with Rhino, it would probably be really hard...
and I honestly do agree that Raimi drained the sympathetic villain idea clean, but that's only one way of making a comic villain work in a contemporary setting. |
Have you read any Batman comics? In the good runs the Joker has always been more just just a "comicy" character. Bob Kane's original run, Denny O'Neil's, Frank Miller...The Killing Joke...Arkham Asylum...the list goes on.
Again you're bringing up something that I was afriad the Nolan films would create. This desire for comic book films to feel "real". That isn't nessesarily always the right way to go.
Remember, these movies exist in universes where super powered heroes and villians are a common occurance. Yes generally speaking the comic book costumes do not translate to film well...but they canbe adapted and not lose the fantasy aspects of the source material.
|
Mistress
|
Ok  you win. You definitely have waaay more knowledge on this than me, and, I bow to your genius
|
Patch
|
| Mistress wrote: | | Ok you win. You definitely have waaay more knowledge on this than me, and, I bow to your genius |
That's right...bow to my geekiness!!!
Seriously though, I am afraid that Hollywood is looking at thw Nolan films and thinks all super hero flicks have to be dark and that simply isn't the case.
|
jfmillet
|
| Patch wrote: |
That's right...bow to my geekiness!!!
Seriously though, I am afraid that Hollywood is looking at thw Nolan films and thinks all super hero flicks have to be dark and that simply isn't the case. |
I don't know about that. I think that Iron Man was successful enough to ward that off. If nothing else, at least Marvel is making their own films, so you'd think they'd at least get the tone right based on the character and the story being told.
BTW - Since you haven't acknowledged it...how'd you like the Music Challenge beat down I gave you? 
|
Dax
|
| Patch wrote: | I don't think so...but honestly...does there have to be? Why can't he just be a huge human wrecking machine bent on destruction. Why do villians have to have a sympathetic side? They're VILLIANS!
Believe it or not...some characters are just evil for evil's sake. The Joker is a prime example. |
The Joker is a prime example of what ultimately evil is, insanity. And that gave him complexity that made him fascinating.
The best villains are the ones we empathize or are fascinated with. (Not stating "sympathy" as in the case of Magneto. But when the likes of Dr. Doom starts fighting the nazi-like Red Skull...you want to cheer him on.)
There have been times (in the comics) that the Hulk played the villain. (Indeed, from a comic book view, we only need to look at the "Civil War" that happened a few years ago to see how complex things can get.)
"Normal" one-dimensonal villains are boring.
|
Patch
|
| jfmillet wrote: | | Patch wrote: |
That's right...bow to my geekiness!!!
Seriously though, I am afraid that Hollywood is looking at thw Nolan films and thinks all super hero flicks have to be dark and that simply isn't the case. |
I don't know about that. I think that Iron Man was successful enough to ward that off. If nothing else, at least Marvel is making their own films, so you'd think they'd at least get the tone right based on the character and the story being told.
BTW - Since you haven't acknowledged it...how'd you like the Music Challenge beat down I gave you? |
It's not the Marvel franchises I'm worried about..DC I'm looking at you.
Oh and I'll address this little Music Challenge issue over the weekend...I will not let this stand!
|
Mistress
|
You prefer Marvel over DC, huh? I admit there track record hasn't been as good as Marvel's for film adaptations (Superman returns wasn't anything exciting)
On another note, Iron Man was awsome...mostly because some friggin genius hired Robert Downey Jr. (apparant rumours ahve it that Tome Cruise was being considered for the part XP)
|
jfmillet
|
| Patch wrote: |
It's not the Marvel franchises I'm worried about..DC I'm looking at you.
Oh and I'll address this little Music Challenge issue over the weekend...I will not let this stand! |
2400 points, sir! You're gonna have to bring the A Game!
And your point about DC is well taken.
|
Patch
|
| Mistress wrote: | You prefer Marvel over DC, huh? I admit there track record hasn't been as good as Marvel's for film adaptations (Superman returns wasn't anything exciting)
On another note, Iron Man was awsome...mostly because some friggin genius hired Robert Downey Jr. (apparant rumours ahve it that Tome Cruise was being considered for the part XP) |
I don't really lean one way or ther other in terms of the films. Both companies have been very hit or miss. I could go off on a rant about both Marvel and DC films that have just been embarrassing.
Iron Man worked because of Jon Favaure. He's a fan. He adores the source material and as such treated...like I've said many times before...with respect.
|
jfmillet
|
| Patch wrote: |
Iron Man worked because of Jon Favaure. He's a fan. He adores the source material and as such treated...like I've said many times before...with respect. |
Favreau was a brilliant choice. I'll be interested in seeing Kenneth Branagh's vision for Thor.
|
Patch
|
| jfmillet wrote: | | Patch wrote: |
Iron Man worked because of Jon Favaure. He's a fan. He adores the source material and as such treated...like I've said many times before...with respect. |
Favreau was a brilliant choice. I'll be interested in seeing Kenneth Branagh's vision for Thor. |
I'll say this. Director aside, the Thor film is being scripted by the duo that wrote The Sarah Conner Chronicles! So that excites me.
|
jfmillet
|
| Patch wrote: |
I'll say this. Director aside, the Thor film is being scripted by the duo that wrote The Sarah Conner Chronicles! So that excites me. |
That'll be interesting.
|
Dax
|
| jfmillet wrote: | | Favreau was a brilliant choice. I'll be interested in seeing Kenneth Branagh's vision for Thor. |
Expectations are kinda low considering who they picked to play Thor...(Chris Hemsworth. Kirk's father in Star Trek movie that came out last summer)
.
|
Patch
|
| Dax wrote: | | jfmillet wrote: | | Favreau was a brilliant choice. I'll be interested in seeing Kenneth Branagh's vision for Thor. |
Expectations are kinda low considering who they picked to play Thor...(Chris Hemsworth. Kirk's father in Star Trek movie that came out last summer)
. |
True...but I'll give you two words that should just make you wait and see...
Michael Keaton.
|
Mistress
|
Whaaaaaaa? I like Keaton. Keaton is good. I'm trying very hard but my mediocre knowledge of comics is nowhere near what I need to keep up with you guys XD.
And Branagh? Really? I only really know is work with Shakespeare so for me it seems like an incongrous choice to have him direct Thor, but like I said, my knowledge of the comic-verse is very limited. I am curious as to what Branagh will do with it though since it is so unusually incongruous.
|
Patch
|
| Mistress wrote: | Whaaaaaaa? I like Keaton. Keaton is good. I'm trying very hard but my mediocre knowledge of comics is nowhere near what I need to keep up with you guys XD.
And Branagh? Really? I only really know is work with Shakespeare so for me it seems like an incongrous choice to have him direct Thor, but like I said, my knowledge of the comic-verse is very limited. I am curious as to what Branagh will do with it though since it is so unusually incongruous. |
Branagh actually personally sought out the Thor project. To the extent that he dropped other projects to make room for it. I recently read an interview with the script writers saying that Branagh has been emersing himself in the Thor mythos wanting to absorb as much information of the character regarding his role in the Marvel universe as possible.
|
le_moofin
|
| Dax wrote: | | Patch wrote: | I don't think so...but honestly...does there have to be? Why can't he just be a huge human wrecking machine bent on destruction. Why do villians have to have a sympathetic side? They're VILLIANS!
Believe it or not...some characters are just evil for evil's sake. The Joker is a prime example. |
The Joker is a prime example of what ultimately evil is, insanity. And that gave him complexity that made him fascinating.
The best villains are the ones we empathize or are fascinated with. (Not stating "sympathy" as in the case of Magneto. But when the likes of Dr. Doom starts fighting the nazi-like Red Skull...you want to cheer him on.)
There have been times (in the comics) that the Hulk played the villain. (Indeed, from a comic book view, we only need to look at the "Civil War" that happened a few years ago to see how complex things can get.)
"Normal" one-dimensonal villains are boring.
|
As an addition to this (because I agree wholeheartedly), I think it's important to remember the "theatrical environment" we live in... which is one of realism. I'm a theatre history class right now and it's been really interesting comparing our contemporary methods of theatre and acting with the classics, like the Greeks or Renaissance or Japanese (which was super cool to study). The audience for these movies doesn't appreciate "cheesiness" or over-the-top ridiculousness. They want realistic superpowers, which is a tough expectation to meet granted. And while on one hand it's important to remember the source material and not let it get out of hand, BECAUSE we're talking about comic books, the average American might be prejudiced against the stories and think that they're stupid and cheesy and everyone has way too many powers. So Hollywood feels the need to humanize villains, make realistic superheroes, and translate the magic of comic books into the cynicism of contemporary theatre.
And I'm done.
|
Patch
|
| le_moofin wrote: | | Dax wrote: | | Patch wrote: | I don't think so...but honestly...does there have to be? Why can't he just be a huge human wrecking machine bent on destruction. Why do villians have to have a sympathetic side? They're VILLIANS!
Believe it or not...some characters are just evil for evil's sake. The Joker is a prime example. |
The Joker is a prime example of what ultimately evil is, insanity. And that gave him complexity that made him fascinating.
The best villains are the ones we empathize or are fascinated with. (Not stating "sympathy" as in the case of Magneto. But when the likes of Dr. Doom starts fighting the nazi-like Red Skull...you want to cheer him on.)
There have been times (in the comics) that the Hulk played the villain. (Indeed, from a comic book view, we only need to look at the "Civil War" that happened a few years ago to see how complex things can get.)
"Normal" one-dimensonal villains are boring.
|
As an addition to this (because I agree wholeheartedly), I think it's important to remember the "theatrical environment" we live in... which is one of realism. I'm a theatre history class right now and it's been really interesting comparing our contemporary methods of theatre and acting with the classics, like the Greeks or Renaissance or Japanese (which was super cool to study). The audience for these movies doesn't appreciate "cheesiness" or over-the-top ridiculousness. They want realistic superpowers, which is a tough expectation to meet granted. And while on one hand it's important to remember the source material and not let it get out of hand, BECAUSE we're talking about comic books, the average American might be prejudiced against the stories and think that they're stupid and cheesy and everyone has way too many powers. So Hollywood feels the need to humanize villains, make realistic superheroes, and translate the magic of comic books into the cynicism of contemporary theatre.
And I'm done. |
While I will agree that that is probably Hollywood's mentality...I will add this...they're wrong.
|
Mistress
|
| Patch wrote: | | Mistress wrote: | Whaaaaaaa? I like Keaton. Keaton is good. I'm trying very hard but my mediocre knowledge of comics is nowhere near what I need to keep up with you guys XD.
And Branagh? Really? I only really know is work with Shakespeare so for me it seems like an incongrous choice to have him direct Thor, but like I said, my knowledge of the comic-verse is very limited. I am curious as to what Branagh will do with it though since it is so unusually incongruous. |
Branagh actually personally sought out the Thor project. To the extent that he dropped other projects to make room for it. I recently read an interview with the script writers saying that Branagh has been emersing himself in the Thor mythos wanting to absorb as much information of the character regarding his role in the Marvel universe as possible. |
Well, that's good to know! Branagh is really an excellent director and I don't think I'd fault his devotion to the Thor-verse (especially looking back at how he went through the trouble filming a complete and unabridged version of Hamlet)
|
le_moofin
|
| Patch wrote: | | le_moofin wrote: | | Dax wrote: | | Patch wrote: | I don't think so...but honestly...does there have to be? Why can't he just be a huge human wrecking machine bent on destruction. Why do villians have to have a sympathetic side? They're VILLIANS!
Believe it or not...some characters are just evil for evil's sake. The Joker is a prime example. |
The Joker is a prime example of what ultimately evil is, insanity. And that gave him complexity that made him fascinating.
The best villains are the ones we empathize or are fascinated with. (Not stating "sympathy" as in the case of Magneto. But when the likes of Dr. Doom starts fighting the nazi-like Red Skull...you want to cheer him on.)
There have been times (in the comics) that the Hulk played the villain. (Indeed, from a comic book view, we only need to look at the "Civil War" that happened a few years ago to see how complex things can get.)
"Normal" one-dimensonal villains are boring.
|
As an addition to this (because I agree wholeheartedly), I think it's important to remember the "theatrical environment" we live in... which is one of realism. I'm a theatre history class right now and it's been really interesting comparing our contemporary methods of theatre and acting with the classics, like the Greeks or Renaissance or Japanese (which was super cool to study). The audience for these movies doesn't appreciate "cheesiness" or over-the-top ridiculousness. They want realistic superpowers, which is a tough expectation to meet granted. And while on one hand it's important to remember the source material and not let it get out of hand, BECAUSE we're talking about comic books, the average American might be prejudiced against the stories and think that they're stupid and cheesy and everyone has way too many powers. So Hollywood feels the need to humanize villains, make realistic superheroes, and translate the magic of comic books into the cynicism of contemporary theatre.
And I'm done. |
While I will agree that that is probably Hollywood's mentality...I will add this...they're wrong. |
Why? Just because it's Hollywood? I'm not so sure. I think it's fitting to adapt older stories to the more realistic way we approach theatre today... we do the same thing with classical theatre.
|
Patch
|
| le_moofin wrote: | | Patch wrote: | | le_moofin wrote: | | Dax wrote: | | Patch wrote: | I don't think so...but honestly...does there have to be? Why can't he just be a huge human wrecking machine bent on destruction. Why do villians have to have a sympathetic side? They're VILLIANS!
Believe it or not...some characters are just evil for evil's sake. The Joker is a prime example. |
The Joker is a prime example of what ultimately evil is, insanity. And that gave him complexity that made him fascinating.
The best villains are the ones we empathize or are fascinated with. (Not stating "sympathy" as in the case of Magneto. But when the likes of Dr. Doom starts fighting the nazi-like Red Skull...you want to cheer him on.)
There have been times (in the comics) that the Hulk played the villain. (Indeed, from a comic book view, we only need to look at the "Civil War" that happened a few years ago to see how complex things can get.)
"Normal" one-dimensonal villains are boring.
|
As an addition to this (because I agree wholeheartedly), I think it's important to remember the "theatrical environment" we live in... which is one of realism. I'm a theatre history class right now and it's been really interesting comparing our contemporary methods of theatre and acting with the classics, like the Greeks or Renaissance or Japanese (which was super cool to study). The audience for these movies doesn't appreciate "cheesiness" or over-the-top ridiculousness. They want realistic superpowers, which is a tough expectation to meet granted. And while on one hand it's important to remember the source material and not let it get out of hand, BECAUSE we're talking about comic books, the average American might be prejudiced against the stories and think that they're stupid and cheesy and everyone has way too many powers. So Hollywood feels the need to humanize villains, make realistic superheroes, and translate the magic of comic books into the cynicism of contemporary theatre.
And I'm done. |
While I will agree that that is probably Hollywood's mentality...I will add this...they're wrong. |
Why? Just because it's Hollywood? I'm not so sure. I think it's fitting to adapt older stories to the more realistic way we approach theatre today... we do the same thing with classical theatre. |
But we're not dealing with theatre here. We're dealing with film...totally different medium. And in a world where we have films like the Lord of the Rings saga there is no excuse for watering down or changing characters in comic books that are just as (if not more) iconic.
Cosmetic changes are fine. As I've stated, quite often the original costumes worn by the characters do not translate well to the screen and I can understand those sort of augmentations. However changing origins...powers...motivations...all of this is simply inexcusable.
|
Brock07
|
Studio insiders are saying that Rachel McAdams is in talks to portray Felicia Hardy aka The Black Cat.
Thoughts?
|
Brock07
|
Studio insiders are saying that Rachel McAdams is in talks to portray Felicia Hardy aka The Black Cat.
Thoughts?
|
ActingDude17
|
| Brock07 wrote: | Studio insiders are saying that Rachel McAdams is in talks to portray Felicia Hardy aka The Black Cat.
Thoughts? |
I love Black Cat! I was hoping for this actually.
|
