Super hero movies: When will they learn?

[Jadeskies]

After reading rumors of all the villains to appear in the next batman movie I hear a voice in the back of my head that says, "When will they learn that jamming more villains in a movie does not make a better movie!?"

I only need to point to movies like Spiderman 3 or any 90's era Batman movie that jam packed any star power actor into a villains costume (The worst being the one with Poison Ivy and Mr. Freeze.).

There are exceptions to this of course, Zod's crew and Luthor in Superman 2, and X-men movies which are team based and the viewer -wants- to see as many mutants in the film as possible.

When the director has to introduce multiple major villains, thier origins, explain thier motivation and the plot mechanics that result in thier 'team up' and cram it in 90-180 mins of movie time the movie typically ends up as a bomb. Yet Hollywood continues to cram as many villains into one show as possible as if they have not learned from the past.

I can only guess that they want to capitalise on toy sales, or they don't want to save a character for later in fear that someone else will capitalise on the character in a film if they don't get a second chance.

Now I am not saying they you can't have more than one villain, I am saying they -will- be more successful focusing on one villain than trying to string 3 or 4 villains into one film. Remember how badly Bane was presented in Batman? Now do you remember the first Batman movie which only had the Joker? WHy is it that Joker could hold a movie but Penguin/Catwoman/Mr.Freeze/Riddler/Poison-Ivy can not?

There are ways to present multiple villains without mucking up the movie;

1. Major Villain and Henchmen: Include one major villain and several lower tier villains hired by the major villain to deal with the hero. One example would be having the Green Goblin hire the Shocker and Rhino to take down spiderman.

2. Introduce the character in a previous episode. Spiderman Movies have presented the LIzard's alter ego to the viewer as Parkers college professor, so we know the professor. Billy Dee Williams was introduced as Harvey dent and then replaced by Tommy Lee Jones in later sequels? Luthor was introduced in Superman and they introduce General Zod in 2 but have both villains running around seamlessly.

3. A Returning Villain: Green Goblin returns in all 3 Spiderman Movies through normans haunting of his son's psyche.

Its getting to the point now with superhero films that I am expecting it to be awful before I even sit down and I rarely walk out of a movie feeling differently. I find a lot of the problems in a superhero movie stem from adding too many characters for one film to follow with any degree of skill or eloquence. Script writters need to change or I can see people loosing interest in the future of comic based movies.

[G. Boney]

2. Introduce the character in a previous episode. Spiderman Movies have presented the LIzard's alter ego to the viewer as Parkers college professor, so we know the professor. Billy Dee Williams was introduced as Harvey dent and then replaced by Tommy Lee Jones in later sequels? Luthor was introduced in Superman and they introduce General Zod in 2 but have both villains running around seamlessly.

Zod (and the other two) were in the first Superman as well.

[StoneGold]

The problem isn't too many villains. It's too many villains with separate character arcs. Look at both Batman Begins and Spider-Man 3. BB has three to four name villains, with Scarecrow, Ra's, Zzazz, and kinda sorta the Joker, but not really. And it worked, because the villains were all a part of a single story.

Now look at Spidey 3. New Goblin and Venom were a part of a single storyline, involving the dual nature of the hero, vengeance and redemption, and the ol' chestnut about with great power...

Whereas as Sandman was a completely separate story, that just happened to run into the NG/Venom storyline at the end, kind of. You could have cut Sandman out of the movie completely, and it probably would have been a better film for it (as much as we all wanted the old-school character story to be better. But it wasn't.) Same goes for Poison Ivy and Mr. Freeze in B&R (yeah, I know, clusterf*ck all over, but it would have been slightly less of one with Ivy removed). Not so much for Batman Forever, but only because Two-Face was little more than a henchman for Riddler in that film.

It's less too many villains, as too many plot points. Which was X3's problem. That, and the producers wanted it to be the last X-Men movie, and killed off characters we like randomly. Which was DareDevil's problem, because they were dealing with too many origins shoved into one film.

Honestly, I think the problem is less too many characters, and more the desire to tell all of a character's 40 year history in an hour and a half.

[GRANT!]

I'd agree with that. The Spider-man 3 storylines didn't mesh together.
Seems like Nolan is trying to tell one big story with the Batman movies. So if we see The Riddler, Two-Face, Jokeror Scarecrow in the Dark Knight it's going to play with with the other two movies (in theory). Whether it works or not remains to be seen. But I think he's going for something bigger then just one movie.

Non comic book movies make this mistake too. Pirates had a lot of stuff going on that didn't work for the movie. Something my old highschool video teacher said "Just keep it simple, stupid."

And then there's Superman Returns which could have used another villan. Or something else other the Luthor's real estate scheme.

[StoneGold]

I'd agree with that. The Spider-man 3 storylines didn't mesh together. I'd lose the symbiote storyline over the Sandman storyline though. Raimi's heart wasn't into telling that story. I think Raimi just wanted to tell a Sandman and Vulture (who was the original choice as the second villan). I think he'd rather have someone else handle Venom (though I like what Topher Grace did with the character).


Problem is the Sandman didn't have much of a story at all. The whole thing with Sandy killing of Uncle Ben just didn't work at all. And the ending was... gah! The Gobby/Venom arc was far more satisfying. Like I said, I know, we all wanted the Sandy arc to be better, but it wasn't. You could cut Sandy out and it might have been a better movie. You cut Venom and Harry out, you have Sandy going "All we are is dust in the wind, dude."

[G. Boney]

Problem is the Sandman didn't have much of a story at all. The whole thing with Sandy killing of Uncle Ben just didn't work at all. And the ending was... gah! The Gobby/Venom arc was far more satisfying. Like I said, I know, we all wanted the Sandy arc to be better, but it wasn't. You could cut Sandy out and it might have been a better movie. You cut Venom and Harry out, you have Sandy going "All we are is dust in the wind, dude."

Wow...you thought the Venom storyline worked? That was the obvious tacked on story, IMO...

[StoneGold]

Wow...you thought the Venom storyline worked? That was the obvious tacked on story, IMO...

It had a beginning, middle and end, right? Fit in with the New Goblin story pretty seamlessly. Whereas Sandy had no ending, and was shoehorned into the entire picture. The black costume was the main part of the movie. You could have easily subbed in any character for Sandman. You couldn't do the same for Venom.

[G. Boney]

It had a beginning, middle and end, right? Fit in with the New Goblin story pretty seamlessly. Whereas Sandy had no ending, and was shoehorned into the entire picture. The black costume was the main part of the movie. You could have easily subbed in any character for Sandman. You couldn't do the same for Venom.

Our views obviously differ. The black costume and Venom should have had their own movie. They didn't fit into this story. Venom was rushed and handled terribly to me.

[Jack Zodiac]

I think Sandman would've worked if they hadn't forced the whole crappy "he killed Uncle Ben... or did he!?" subplot in there. If he were just a down on his luck career criminal trying to save his kid, would've been less plot to deal with, would've saved us a couple of crappy, unnecessary scenes (like the scene in the subway), and would've made the end tighter without that godawful scene between him and Spider-Man.

Stone's right, multiple villains work, when the multiple villains are working in tandem with the singular plot, not against it. Harry and Eddie were well-developed the entire way through the movie, Flint wasn't.

[StoneGold]

Stone's right, multiple villains work, when the multiple villains are working in tandem with the singular plot, not against it. Harry and Eddie were well-developed the entire way through the movie, Flint wasn't.

The thing there being that you had to do the Harry story. Peter and Harry's emotional arc ended up being the unifying thing of the trilogy. It's great power and great responsibility explored from different angles. Venom was great power with no responsibility, so he tied in thematically. Sandman just didn't. He was separate from the rest of the characters. Which might have worked as Spider-Man 4, but not as a third movie that thematically links back to the first two.

[Jadeskies]

I'd just like to note that a single villain will work too, as Jack Nicholson showed in the original Batman movie. Sure there was Boss Grisham but he didn't really count. And as others have stated on many forums, Venom should of had his own movie all to himself.

There was no sign of stalker Brock who peter would walk in his house and find Brock helping Aunt May put away groceries and then when parker took him out of the house while looking polite and Brock would remind parker that he could return at any time and slurp down poor Aunt Mays heart after running it through the waffle iron. That was a shame as those acts alone gave Brock a place of honor in my mind.

[StoneGold]

I'd just like to note that a single villain will work too, as Jack Nicholson showed in the original Batman movie. Sure there was Boss Grisham but he didn't really count. And as others have stated on many forums, Venom should of had his own movie all to himself.

There was no sign of stalker Brock who peter would walk in his house and find Brock helping Aunt May put away groceries and then when parker took him out of the house while looking polite and Brock would remind parker that he could return at any time and slurp down poor Aunt Mays heart after running it through the waffle iron. That was a shame as those acts alone gave Brock a place of honor in my mind.

Again, given the structure of the movies, you still kind of needed Harry. But the Harry and Venom storylines worked together. One was great power with responsibility perverted, the other was great power with no responsibility at all. They were both Bizarro-Peters.

[The Xenos]

Well, if they're basing the movies on Long Halloween, they had plenty of villians show up. Hell, if you listened to the ending of Begins, Gotham is exploding with costumed freaks. This all makes sense. In Long Halloween we saw how the mob and regular crime was being taken over by the costumed freaks. If they can show that in this film, how Gotham became a town full of costumed freaks, then I think it quite fits.

Of course the trick is how to fit all those characters in. Previous films had no vision or reason to have mutple villians. It was just tacked on to sell more action figures. This one not only has a basis in the book, but they already set up a flood of villians taking over the city in the first film.

[G. Wayne]

It had a beginning, middle and end, right? Fit in with the New Goblin story pretty seamlessly. Whereas Sandy had no ending, and was shoehorned into the entire picture. ...

Just saying, but I thought they'd said it was the other way around? Avi Arad had to talk Raimi into putting Venom into the movie, making Venom the tacked on villain.

... You could have easily subbed in any character for Sandman...

Yeah, sadly, pretty much. I forget where I head it, but it's something like Raimi wanted a villain for Peter to focus his feelings about Uncle Ben on. They gave it to Sandman since he had so little of an established history in the comics.

[G. Boney]

Just saying, but I thought they'd said it was the other way around? Avi Arad had to talk Raimi into putting Venom into the movie, making Venom the tacked on villain.

That's what I've heard. Supposedly Raimi doesn't even like Venom...probably why the character went out like a biyatch.

[Sean Whitmore]

You could have cut Sandman out of the movie completely, and it probably would have been a better film for it (as much as we all wanted the old-school character story to be better. But it wasn't.)

Absolutely. For all the talk about how poor, poor Raimi had Venom foisted upon him, Harry + MJ X Peter's dark side is the story worth telling. It's the way to tie things together and end the trilogy.

Sandman served no purpose beyond viewers going, "Oh, look, it's Sandman. I like Sandman."

And the only reason tying Sandman to Uncle Ben's death isn't considered the dumbest move by a comic adaptation is because Superman's bastard son exists.


SEAN

[CE_Rap]

Venom just needed his own movie. You don't tack on Venom. He's Venom, got-damnit---the villian that instilled the most visceral fear into Peter.

Brock's disgust needed to be played up from another movie prior. They already introduced Conners, so just have Lizard in the damn movie. Don't shove venom as a last minute addition. He was HORRIBLE, Brock didn't even get a chance to have a valid hate for Pete other then, "you embarrassed me, so I'm gonna go to the chapel and whine like a little bitch and pray for your death!"

and don't get me started on the bullshit that was the Spidey/Goblin team up.


And Sean, I agree, "Emo-Parker" was, indeed, teh best part of the movie.

[Wenatchee the Hatchet]

And the only reason tying Sandman to Uncle Ben's death isn't considered the dumbest move by a comic adaptation is because Superman's bastard son exists.

Those are probably the worst main plots points but I thought Magneto abandoning Mystique was the single worst SUB-plot point in X3. For some reason I just didn't buy that part ... but then X3 was X3, I guess. 1

Sandman "could" have been more important to the story if the story was about Peter's sense of guilt for not only having allowed Ben to die but to also be in some sense guilty of the mugger's death in the first film. The flashback suggested as much but only as a possibility and not something Peter really admits to. That could have been an interesting element but it wasn't an element that required Sandman in the film. It could have been integrated into the Brock/Venom story-line.

As a potential plot point that not all villains are completely bad I can kind of see how Raimi justified Sandman, but the problem is that the bad guy who isn't all bad was done so much better in Spiderman 2 with Dr Octopus I'm not sure trying it for a second sequel in a row would necessarily work.

I think that Stonegold has a point that Venom's story, even if it WAS tacked on, fit the arc of the film. Venom and Harry seem more connected. Even though theoretically Harry and Sandman "should" share the connection of villains who have a link to Peter's past Sandman just didn't get much development.

[The Batman]

Magneto abandoning Mystique showed that Magneto wasn't some guy who'd been pushed too far and was simply fighting back for the rights of his people but rather that he was an uncaring zealot more interested in his vision of mutant supremacy than the well being of anyone. I mean, could you see Charles kicking out one of the X-Men because they lost their powers?

I thought that that was one of the few good bits of the movie.