Spiderman vs. The Sandman????

Montez said:
The spiderman movies have been fairly faithful to the source material so far
Click to expand...
Right. The fact that he can shoot webs organically (and thus never run out of web fluid) is straight from the comic book, sure. And didn't he meet Mary Jane in university/college, not high-school? And doctor octopus, as I recall, became a villian of his own free will, not because of some renegade AI in the tentacles. I've only seen a few comic books and a few cartoon episodes of Spider-Man, and I can already name three mistakes. Wonder what would the list look like if I was a Spidey-freak...
 
Shadowbird said:
And didn't he meet Mary Jane in university/college, not high-school?
Click to expand...

MJ appeared pretty early, actually, although it was a long time before they became a couple (he had to work through Liz Allen, Betty Brant and Gwen Stacy first, I think). I would agree that on the whole the movies are not true to the comics, though. They take various elements (which is generally enough for non-readers to declare that they are true to the comics) and change and shuffle them around as they please.
 
Well, I did say fairly faithful, which it is compared to other Hollywood comic adaption abortions. I think some of the things they changed are retarded, foremost being the organic webs, but compare it to say Hellblazer or League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen, and it's pretty true to the material. I've been reading Spiderman for about 18 years and I wasn't dissapointed with what Raimi did with it.
 
Montez said:
compare it to say Hellblazer or League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen, and it's pretty true to the material.
Click to expand...

True. True. (I actually came close to using Constantine as an example of how some people can argue vigorously that a movie is as true to the source as it should be, and that anyone who disagrees is automatically disqualified for being a nerd.)
 
In my opinion Venom is likely to at least make an appearance in #3. This is because even though venom may not be the longest running villain in the Spiderman comics, he is probably the most widely known bey people who are only familiar with the comic books in passing. He has all the right ingredients for being in a movie:

-evil (always a plus in villains)

-an alien, which makes him all the more sinister to us humans for the simple fact that it plays on the dark nature of humans which makes us prone to hate/fear all things that are foreign

-has many of the powers that spiderman has which makes him sinister by being the perversion of something which is accepted to be good and benevolent

-has the ability to disguise itself/himself which adds to the suspense because he/it could potentially be anywhere

-fairly one dimensional, with clear cut goals ...... kill spiderman, hurt humans, ..... which makes it easy to incorporate the character into the movie where time is extremely restrictive. It is much easier to incorporate a shallow character into a movie and develop him/her further in the movie as needed, rather than trying to introduce a complex character which will inevitably need to trimmed down due to time constraints.

Having said all that, I really would be surprised, and somewhat disappointed if the Hobgoblin was not in #3. The storyline so far seemed like it was progressing towards that, with the death of Norman Osbourne and the fact that Harry thinks that Spiderman is the bad guy, and pretty much the entire second movie.

I also think that if they do bring Venom in to the third movie they will make it something like the cartoon serries in the nineties. They can not possibly fit the Secret Wars into the trilogy. If I remember correctly they already introduced Jameson's son the astronaut, who is the one who brings Venom to earth in the cartoon.
 
Venom was developed to be extremely believable and lifelike. The fact that he wasn't simply random guy #37 who gained super powers is what made him great. The fact that Eddie Brock was a fully fleshed character before the symbiote and the fact that the symbiote was fully fleshed before Venom. There's a reason that Venom is superior to the horrible piece of shit spawn that is Carnage. I don't see how all of this can be thrown into one movie. I'd love to see it, but not without some development. Of course, Eddie Brock could be easily made without any problems which would signal Venom in Spiderman 4, but if he's completely done in 3, it'll be a shitty movie.
 
Ekarderif said:
Venom was developed to be extremely believable and lifelike. The fact that he wasn't simply random guy #37 who gained super powers is what made him great. The fact that Eddie Brock was a fully fleshed character before the symbiote and the fact that the symbiote was fully fleshed before Venom. There's a reason that Venom is superior to the horrible piece of shit spawn that is Carnage. I don't see how all of this can be thrown into one movie. I'd love to see it, but not without some development. Of course, Eddie Brock could be easily made without any problems which would signal Venom in Spiderman 4, but if he's completely done in 3, it'll be a shitty movie.
Click to expand...

good point.

a few things on what gonzo said.

Venom has got a few more cool things on spidey you didnt mention - he knows his real identity and he can avoid spider sense to mention a few.

also, Venom isnt completely evil and his goals dont directly involve hurting people (in fact they eventually made Venom comics where hes the hero). What drives Venom is purely hatred towards spiderman. That makes him a great villan for the movie. I'd like to see spidey get the black costume in 3 to lay out the carpet for venom in 4 but i get the feeling that its just wishfull thinking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top