Comments on: Discuss: With Electro, Rhino & Green Goblin, Is ‘Amazing Spider-Man 2’ Promising Villain Overkill?

By: Craig

Craig — Sun, 22 May 2016 03:15:44 +0000

''nor did Raimi work in an industry enamored with the cross-pollination of their superhero brands.'' In one paragraph you've summed up the entire comicbook movie industry's problem !

By: rodie

rodie — Sun, 22 May 2016 03:15:44 +0000

I think Electro is the main villain in part 2. We'll see Osborn as the "dying" old man with his son Harry, and we'll see Rhino before his transformation. By the end of the movie, Electro will be defeated and Osborn dead, but Rhino and Harry will be set up as the villains of Part 3.

By: berk

berk — Sun, 22 May 2016 03:15:44 +0000

Superhero movies could avoid being overstuffed with villains while still having more than one per movie if they followed the James Bond/Indiana Jones cold open. Instead of waiting 45 minutes to see the hero in costume, have the movie start with them foiling a minor bad guy (like Rhino or Scorpion). That way the character has already been introduced if they are brought back later in the film or franchise. Not every bad guy has to be directly tied to the hero or have their own story arc, some can just be a criminal with a crazy costume.

By: Ian

Ian — Sun, 22 May 2016 03:15:44 +0000

I don't have much confidence in the filmmakers managing the character overload. We're talking about the same filmmakers who couldn't even handle one villain correctly.

By: Alan B

Alan B — Sun, 22 May 2016 03:15:44 +0000

At Comic-Con, Shane Black commented on the difference between 'Iron Man 3' and 'Spider-Man 3', suggesting that – although both films have big casts – they are very different in terms of story construction: "We've got all these pieces, all these interlocking parts, it's not like Spider-Man 3 where they're all separate." THAT's the distinction between 'Spider-Man 3' and all these other superhero films with ensemble casts. In the Nolan Batman films, Bruce's actions drive the stories (he inspires The Joker, his responsibility in Ra's death prompts retribution in the final chapter); in the first 'Iron Man' film, Tony's actions ignites the narrative (if Tony had been less selfish and reckless, Obadiah might not have tried to kill him). In contrast, a science experiment that NO OTHER CHARACTER has anything to do with causes the Sandman transformation. The problem with 'Spider-Man 3' is that there is little unification in regards to any of the stories, everyone exists in their own small world and there is little cross-pollination between the various stories (unlike the first two films). I almost laughed at the end in which Gwen attended Harry Osborn's funeral: these two characters didn't even know these characters AT ALL, yet Gwen has taken time out to chillax at Harry's funeral (Gwen was originally going to be the damsel-in-distress at the end. I am not sure whether this was changed before or after the shooting of the final action sequence, though, so Gwen's appearance might be as a result of this change). The 'Spider-Man 3' problem was story construction, and I thought Raimi made the mistake of keeping Sandman if Sony was forcing him to include Venom: he thought he could balance these elements into the narrative and he was wrong, so something had to go. He needed to make a sacrifice, but was unwilling to let go of his baby and the film suffered as a result. It might not have been right for Sony to pressure its director after the phenomenal success of the first two films, but all studio filmmakers – in some shape or form – have to deal with executive notes, and Raimi needed to react responsibly.

By: mpm

mpm — Sun, 22 May 2016 03:15:44 +0000

I don't think we will see cooper as green goblin I honestly believe they will take a page from the spectacular spiderman cartoon and just make Harry the goblin it makes it more relatable and more personal without making Norman look like a big old pervert like he was in the comics. The reason I say that was because Norman was in love with Gwen and if memory serves me, that's why he killed Gwen not to just get after Pete but because if he couldn't have her then neither could Peter which would be a lot more relatable with Harry taking reins as goblin. But I don't think u go that route until ASM3. Who knows we could see the rhino not as a hard suit clad dumb villain but as a Russian mob boss, which I could see more fitting with Paul's talent. They did the same thing with the scorpion in ult comics spiderman recently with Mac gargon being a Latino mob boss so that could be a possible route but I would really hope not but removing the old rhino would make way for green goblin to be the main antagonist in this film because u wouldn't have to spend as much time on that rhino character. With saying all of that I'm not gonna get all in a tizzy about the movie just yet. Amazing spider man was a great movie and I won't pass judgement on the 2nd until I see it. Plus u could really just introduce electro and rhino in small parts just for a big sinister six plot for ASM3 and that way u have goblin as the main bad guy and the death of Gwen Stacy in this movie then u introduce doc ock and another 2 bad guys in the next movie they all break out and want to go after spidey for locking them up. That's what I would do anyways…..

By: Burnsy

Burnsy — Sun, 22 May 2016 03:15:44 +0000

Honest;y, they never say Cooper is playing Green Goblin, just that he's playing Norman Osborn. Also who knows how much screen time Rhino is gonna have. This is all speculation and you guys are getting ahead of yourselves.

By: bapi

bapi — Sun, 22 May 2016 03:15:44 +0000

Giamatti was announced only one week before first shooting day but THR story about Foxx was online in October and had first costume tests in October/November so I doubt that we'll see a lot of the Rhino. Same with Cooper.

By: TheoC

TheoC — Sun, 22 May 2016 03:15:44 +0000

I guess you fill his universe with potential villains, so whist Norman Osborne is in this, maybe we only see Green Goblin in the third movie, but having those characters already on the periphery of the story makes it easier to introduce them, i.e Dylan Baker in the Raimi movies, who sadly we never got to see Lizard up.

What if Giamatti's Rhino is only at the start of the film, an end of a previous adventure, like Indy or Bond , it might be a nice way to kick it off, yet not stuff the actual plot with too many villains at the one time.

I liked the first movie, up until the lizard actually came into it, I just zoned out after that, big dumb CG monster again.

By: RNL

RNL — Sun, 22 May 2016 03:15:44 +0000

I don't understand why a trend of shooting two-part films hasn't caught on with these guaranteed money-making brands. I first thought that with Spider-Man 3 – that was two films mashed together: Part 1, Peter with the symbiote, Sandman and Green Goblin 2 (or preferably Harry as Hobgoblin) as the villains, ends with the creation of Venom, death of Harry, and creation of the Lizard. Part 2, Venom and Lizard as the villains, etc. They could have released them on consequtive years and they'd have made a billion dollars. They did it with The Matrix, they did it with Pirates of the Carribean. They're doing it with Avatar. Why aren't they just making two or three Spider-Man movies back-to-back?