Current Events > Spiderman 3 tries to do 3 villains = bad. NWH tries to do 6 villains = good.

(+) Yeah! (+)

MCU fanboy logic

I mean, we know SM3 didn't handle the three villains well.

That has yet to be seen for NWH.

Seems like you've been to the future though!

Spiderman = good
RDJ =

MCU logic

---

It's not that Spider-Man 3 had three villains, it's that the plot was a mess and the structure couldn't adequately support all its villains. They tried to cram two movies into one (the first one being Sandman and Harry vs. Black Suit Spider-man, with the second one being about Venom)

It was also just...really, really fucking cheesy. The whole way through.

Well the third villain of Spider-Man 3 ended up crowded out of the movie until the 11th hour in a shoehorned appearance. The Amazing Spider-Man 2 has a similar problem.

Spider-Man 3 really had the potential for being two movies (Spider-Man 3 should have had Sandman be a primary antagonist then have Harry exist in the background before coming after Spider-Man in the climax to cap off his character arc while 4 would have focused on the symbiote and Peter's relationship with Mary Jane).

---

You're doing it wrong. It's supposed to be;

NWH tries to do 6 villains = sweet man
Spiderman 3 tries to do 3 villains = douchebag

Never change, CE

---

Im gonna put some dirt in your eye.

---

MGS_4_evah posted...

It's not that Spider-Man 3 had three villains, it's that the plot was a mess and the structure couldn't adequately support all its villains. They tried to cram two movies into one (the first one being Sandman and Harry vs. Black Suit Spider-man, with the second one being about Venom)

It was also just...really, really fucking cheesy. The whole way through.

I found nothing wrong with the plot. The agenda Sandman had, the inclusion of Venom and Harry's revenge plot all felt seamless to me. You seriously expect one whole movie revolving around Sandman or something? I'd be bored to tears.
I also liked ASM2 and yet that movie received criticism when all it did was include TWO villains. Like what the hell?

Meanwhile hey, MCU NWH tries to chuck in 5 f***ing villains at once and from leaks I'm getting, some of them (Lizard) will be completely CGI. What an effin joke. Oh yeah, but let's also chuck in Strange, 2 more spideys and let's not forget to give MJ and Ned extra screentime even though no one gives an ass about them.

Doc Oc doesnt seem like a villain in the 2nd trailer

---

Murphiroth posted...

I mean, we know SM3 didn't handle the three villains well.

That has yet to be seen for NWH.

Seems like you've been to the future though!

Don't see anything wrong with the villains? The criticisms I read seem to do with the villains not being comic-accurate. But meanwhile you have MCU villains all being butchered up with completely new stories out of nowhere nothing to do with comic origins (ahem, shang chi for example) and HEY NO ONE CARES.

Veggeta_MAX posted...

You're doing it wrong. It's supposed to be;

NWH tries to do 6 villains = sweet man
Spiderman 3 tries to do 3 villains = douchebag

Never change, CE

MCU fanboys are the definition of hypocrites.

The comics and cartoons have done 6 villains vs Spider-man mutiple times before. The Sinister Six. The problem with Spider-man 3 wasn't the amount of villains, just how it was handled.

---

I wouldn't even say SM3 collapsed under the weight of its ambition. It's more like they made a mess and no one wanted to tell them to stop.

---

NoxObscuras posted...

The comics and cartoons have done 6 villains vs Spider-man mutiple times before.

Different storytelling mediums, different luxuries when it comes to fleshing things out sufficiently.

---

NoxObscuras posted...

The comics and cartoons have done 6 villains vs Spider-man mutiple times before. The Sinister Six. The problem with Spider-man 3 wasn't the amount of villains, just how it was handled.

but how was it handled that was bad?
If it's about comic accuracy, I just mentioned how MCU constantly butchers up almost every villain backstory anyway but no one complains

Wutobliteration posted...

Don't see anything wrong with the villains? The criticisms I read seem to do with the villains not being comic-accurate. But meanwhile you have MCU villains all being butchered up with completely new stories out of nowhere nothing to do with comic origins (ahem, shang chi for example) and HEY NO ONE CARES.

Again, you're prejudging the hell out of a movie you have yet to see and we already know SM3 was godawful and it had nothing to do with the villains not being comic accurate. It's just a mess of a movie.

A lot of people won't care if they change things from the comics if it's well done, and SM3 wasn't and the MCU usually is, what a shocker. You can't even say no one cares either because there are people who complain about it for the MCU too!

damn, TC is seriously offended by this guys.

---

Wutobliteration posted...

I found nothing wrong with the plot.

That's a matter of personal taste. It was just silly and cheesily written from beginning to end. The only part handled with competence was Sandman himself, and even that was dumb. The whole retcon that Sandman actually pulled the trigger to kill Uncle Ben (accidental or not) was completely unnecessary and totally undermines the message of the first movie.

Zeeak4444 posted...

damn, TC is seriously offended by this guys.

Hes also trolling and its his gimmick to do stuff like this
---

MGS_4_evah posted...

The whole retcon that Sandman actually pulled the trigger to kill Uncle Ben (accidental or not) was completely unnecessary and totally undermines the message of the first movie.

Also this. Doesn't even have anything to do with it not being comic accurate, it actively undermines the first movie in its own universe.

Eric Forman as Eddie Brock was a shit casting decision, for one of many issues with SM3.

I honestly don't even remember there being a multi-villain criticism over either movie, not saying there wasn't, but I don't recall seeing it brought up at all. It was more that SM3 and ASM2 were both pretty shitty overall.

---

Whoa I thought TC was playing

---

Murphiroth posted...

Again, you're prejudging the hell out of a movie you have yet to see and we already know SM3 was godawful and it had nothing to do with the villains not being comic accurate. It's just a mess of a movie.

A lot of people won't care if they change things from the comics if it's well done, and SM3 wasn't and the MCU usually is, what a shocker. You can't even say no one cares either because there are people who complain about it for the MCU too!

so which part of SM3 is godawful if not for comic origins? Because you sure arent explaining it

sktgamer_13dude posted...

Hes also trolling and its his gimmick to do stuff like this

my bad, it was Poes law with my post. I was joking that he was really serious if that makes sense.

---

MGS_4_evah posted... It's not that Spider-Man 3 had three villains, it's that the plot was a mess and the structure couldn't adequately support all its villains. They tried to cram two movies into one (the first one being Sandman and Harry vs. Black Suit Spider-man, with the second one being about Venom)

It was also just...really, really fucking cheesy. The whole way through.

When you get down to it, I guess Venom always had to exist as the "last-second villain" given the importance of tying the symbiote to Peter's inner demons.

Symbiote attaches itself to Peter, he comes to like it at the expense of his personal values and relationships with his friends, realizes what it's doing to him over time, forcibly separates himself from it, then the symbiote becomes resentful that it was rejected by its host. Meanwhile Eddie Brock is sick of playing second fiddle to Peter and the symbiote is speaking his language so they merge to become Venom.

Maybe SM3 and SM4 would form a story arc, since I guess you could cram that last part into the end of Spider-Man 3 (while they're wrapping up Harry's arc) and then spend 4 delving into the ramifications of Peter being attached to the symbiote.

---

If NWH has jazz numbers and pelvic thrusting then it might be just as bad.

---

SM3 had no quality control and basically nobody involved wanted to be there or was happy with the script/film. Tobey and Dunst had checked out and casting Topher Grace was literally the directors "fuck you" to the studio for forcing Venom into the movie.

---

The 3 villains in Spider-Man 3 had to be established in the same movie. Here, we've already been introduced to the villains and know the basics, so more time can be spent on them actually doing things.

---

It's just because Venom is a popular character but he got less screentime than a mook villain like Sandman.

Raikuro posted...

It's just because Venom is a popular character but he got less screentime than a mook villain like Sandman.

Yeah, THAT'S what's going on...

>:|

---

The biggest difference is all these characters have already been introduced and established. It's the reason Infinity War could have 100 characters in it but still work.

---

Awesker002 posted...

The biggest difference is all these characters have already been introduced and established. It's the reason Infinity War could have 100 characters in it but still work.

That was a good movie. Surprised it was but I liked it (more than Endgame, actually).

---

Wutobliteration posted...

so which part of SM3 is godawful if not for comic origins? Because you sure arent explaining it

Everything to do with EmoParker.
Venom feels entirely tacked on as he was mandated by the studio and Raimi didn't want to use him.
Topher Grace being miscast as Brock is a direct result of the above.
The already mentioned "IT WAS ACTUALLY SANDMAN!" bit that undermines the message of the first movie
Harry Goblin also feels tacked on and resolves itself way too quickly and neatly
Everyone seems kind of checked out at that point except for JK Simmons and Thomas Haden Church

It's just kind of a mess.

EmbraceOfDeath posted...

The 3 villains in Spider-Man 3 had to be established in the same movie. Here, we've already been introduced to the villains and know the basics, so more time can be spent on them actually doing things.

and how about people who never watched all the Spidey movies? Like I'm pretty sure most gen Z people have never actually watched the Tobey Spiderman movies before. One person I spoke to didnt even know who Tobey was.

In the same way, most people who watched SM3 back then likely never even read a single Spider-man comic before. It didnt matter to them whether Venom was comic accurate or not.

Raikuro posted...

It's just because Venom is a popular character but he got less screentime than a mook villain like Sandman.

I thought they said comic accuracy wasnt a problem here. So it really has nothing to do with writing but more to do with a minority of comic fans who were displeased their favourite villain wasnt given enough justice, even though the whole movie came together cohesively in the end. Also it's not like Raimi's version of Spider-man was ever comic accurate to begin with but I never saw anyone having qualms about that.

NWH doing 6 villains = Sweet man
SM3 doing 3 villains = Douchebag

Never change CE

---

just a reminder i don't think there has been a movie with one main hero vs multiple main villains doing well but multiple heroes/villain or multiple heroes/multiple villains doing quite well.

it's like a curse or something.

---

What 6th villain? Did I miss something?

NWH is a homage to the first 5 Spider-Man films. There are no Sinister 6.

---

A multiverse Sinister Six would be sexy.

No live action Spider-Man has been able to go up against a Sinister Six (ASM came close but got killed before it happened) so it's well overdue.

---

Murphiroth posted...

Everything to do with EmoParker.
Venom feels entirely tacked on as he was mandated by the studio and Raimi didn't want to use him.

Well, good thing Raimi did. It helped the movie gross almost 900 mil in the box office. Including Venom also helped bring in Parker's development by exploring his darker side. All this time all we ever got was heroic Parker. Showing Parker in a new light was a risk to take but also in challenging audience's familiarity with the character. We never ever see this sort of thing done again, especially not in MCU movies. But I guess people prefer the never-ending predictable black and white BS stories MCU movies are now only known for

Also yes bully Maguire is cheesy but that is kinda... the whole theme of the Raimi trilogy? The movies have always been cheesy to some extent. I dont think people remembered the cheesiness in 2004's movie too.

Topher Grace being miscast as Brock is a direct result of the above.
The already mentioned "IT WAS ACTUALLY SANDMAN!" bit that undermines the message of the first movie

Back then as a kid, I had no idea who Topher Grace was and I also had no idea of Venom's backstory so honestly I dont care. The venom migration scene was cool and completely unexpected to me.

For the sandman bit, yeah it's a retcon but I think it was needed to fit him nicely into the movie and be more relevant. Otherwise what'd he be but yet another villain that sprang outta nowhere?

Harry Goblin also feels tacked on and resolves itself way too quickly and neatly
Everyone seems kind of checked out at that point except for JK Simmons and Thomas Haden Church

Harry felt okay to me. His story has been built up across the past 2 movies anyway. And who wants to watch yet another green goblin fight? His apartment aerial conflict with Parker uncostumed was already one of... if not, the best fight scene I'd ever seen in a superhero movie back then (and still is). SM3 has some of the best most memorable fights ever IMO. (eg. Sandman and Spiderman punching each other onto moving trains was revolutionary at that time).

It's just kind of a mess.

The first time I watched the movie, I actually thought it was the best out of the 3 films. The movie brought fights to a whole other level of crazy and the brutal beating Maguire suffered at the end by Sandman while being choked by Venom was so memorable. I almost got scarred by that scene as a kid. And all the villains' backstories got resolved in the end. What does it matter if Venom isnt as much of a threat as he should be... Raimi did a different version of Venom and he did it well. I couldnt care less how comic accurate it was.

Wutobliteration posted...

So it really has nothing to do with writing

Writing is about way more than just "coming together in the end." It's about the actual dialogue, the pacing of the story, the specific events in the story, how the narrative is woven--there are intangible qualities in Spider-Man 3 that are hard to describe specifically, but they just come together and make the whole package feel phoned in and cheesy.

A major character like Venom deserves more focus than a third act surprise debut that ends after one scuffle. Venom isn't just a random space monster, he's a complicated organism with a personality of his own. Not only did he act wrong (called himself "I" instead of "we", for one thing) but his entire design was wrong. He didn't even look like Venom.

There's a certain degree of comic book accuracy that's required when you directly adapt one of comics' most beloved characters--Venom is one of the mostly highly regarded characters in all of Marvel, let alone just Spider-Man's realm. In SM1, Green Goblin acted like Green Goblin. In SM2, Doc Ock mostly acted like Doc Ock. So why didn't Venom act like Venom in SM3? It's because the soul wasn't there; the passion was missing from the character completely.

That's the case for a lot of SM3; it felt like a project made for a paycheck rather than a movie that anybody involved really wanted to make.

Kylo_Ren_ posted...

What 6th villain? Did I miss something?

NWH is a homage to the first 5 Spider-Man films. There are no Sinister 6.

It's all speculation right now. Only 5 villains are confirmed, but all 5 have been a part of at least one version of the Sinister Six (although not all at the same time). So people are hoping that's the direction they go in.

---

i'm hoping this one doesnt revolve around the love interests and just about spider guys doing shit

---

What is NWH?
---

Machete posted...

What is NWH?

No Way Home

---

NoxObscuras posted...

It's all speculation right now. Only 5 villains are confirmed, but all 5 have been a part of at least one version of the Sinister Six (although not all at the same time). So people are hoping that's the direction they go in.

Though neat but Spidey alone supposed to go up against all 6 and win. I wanted this to happen for TASM 3, I still do. I hope they finish the Garfield trilogy, it isn't too late, ending it with being vaccumed into the MCU, serving as a prequel.

There's Scorpion, Mysterio and Vulture in the MCU, one of those can enter the S6.

---

NoxObscuras posted...

It's all speculation right now. Only 5 villains are confirmed, but all 5 have been a part of at least one version of the Sinister Six (although not all at the same time). So people are hoping that's the direction they go in.

I thought they'd bring Vulture or Scorpion in.

---

Spider-man 3's issue wasn't the number of villains. It was that none of them were connected and were all over the place. Villains ultimately need picked to compliment the story, not distract from it. Which is why certain villain team ups work (because they make sense) and others don't. What works? Sandman and Vulture, Electro and Sandman, Vulture and Shocker, Lizard and Kraven, Venom and Carnage etc. Sandman and Venom however didn't.

Even if Raimi got to do it the way he initially wanted, there still was gonna be three villains. Just that instead of Venom, it would have been Vulture(played by Ben Kingsley). This would likely worked out better than what we ended up with. Because Sandman and Vulture would have been former cellmates and would have shared scenes together. That would be two story arcs going on instead of three completely unrelated ones. Vulture's also less complicated than Venom and would have began the film as a pure evil villain as a criminal that Spidey had previously busted(which may or may not have been shown) and was out for revenge. Thus no descent into evil would have been needed for him. He also would have manipulated Sandman into committing crimes. Which would have made the latter's villainous actions make more sense.

---

Wutobliteration posted...

and how about people who never watched all the Spidey movies? Like I'm pretty sure most gen Z people have never actually watched the Tobey Spiderman movies before. One person I spoke to didnt even know who Tobey was.

They can go watch the movies?

---

008Zulu posted...

I thought they'd bring Vulture or Scorpion in.

I understand them not bring Vulture around, since Keaton is expensive but Scorpion isn't and be only had very little cameos and about 3 lines.

I hope they use the sinister 6 for TASM 3.

---

Kylo_Ren_ posted...

I understand them not bring Vulture around, since Keaton is expensive but Scorpion isn't and he only had very little cameos and about 3 lines.

I hope they use the sinister 6 for TASM 3.

---