The Big Picture: Too Many Villains

[twosage]

I'll put it simply.

Too many villains, too few villains, it makes no difference.

The Spider-Man reboot has no soul and it sucks REALLY bad.

I've heard this complaint so many times, but no one ever explains what they really mean. How did Amazing Spider-Man have no soul, but the completely formulaic hundred-million dollar Hollywood monster movie cheese factory titled "Spider-Man 2" is somehow John Coltrane?

There was no mention of the previous series until you brought it up.

By calling it the "Spider-Man Reboot", I thought you were implying a contrast to the "original". If you didn't mean to compare it to the Raimi films, fair enough, sorry for the confusion, but I think you'll find a LOT of people do. This thread, for instance. I wasn't intending to put words in your mouth. As I said: "I've heard this complaint so many times" by people who liked the Raimi films.

But my point remains: What is it about ASM that makes it soulless? Every person I've ever heard make that argument always talks about the production process or the studio or the behind-the-scenes drama. But what is it about the *film* that's soulless? The final product, not the process.

As far as I'm concerned, it does everything right on the character side. Great performances by Stone, Fields, and Sheen. And overall solid performance by Garfield. The relationships are grounded and real, the dialogue is pretty much fine. Like I said earlier, when it comes to the Lizard plot, it is a mess, and there are a few scenes here and there that just don't work, but I genuinely don't see "soulless".

 

[Kilt'd]

I'm just posting here to admit I'm not even watching this one. MovieBob can argue and rant all he wants to about the Spiderman series, but he's so blatantly biased about the movies that I can't take anything he says at face value.

MovieBob, I love most of your work, but I cannot take your opinions on Spiderman seriously. Even if you're right in this case, you've been wrong enough that I'm gonna just ignore your takes on this specific IP. Sorry.

Yeah, judging something before you've seen it sucks, doesn't it?

Seriously, your opinion of Bob's previous commentary on the Spiderman franchise has led you to form an opinion on this episode before you've even seen it, which is exactly what your calling out Bob for doing with ASM2.

 

[Psychobabble]

Well I think the real problem, which Bob pretty much pointed out is not very good script writing. I feel that every Spiderman film adaptation hasn't worked because studios keep missing the point of the character. First they all have to waste much of the first installments run rime retelling us Peter Parker's not very interesting origin story. Yeah very bright young man (though they always leave that bit out and ignore he created his web-shooting gadget himself) is bit by a radioactive spider, gains superhuman powers, decides to be a selfish shit and let a thug get away, said thug later kills Peter's Uncle Ben, scaring young man for life. That took what a few seconds to sum up?

Second problem is the studios much like their treatment of Batman, only seem to want to portray Spiderman's character and personality by who his villains are. Terrible mistake as first off Spiderman's winning quality is his personality. He's a fun yet good hearted hero, a comedic acrobat who usually humiliates his foes with the skill of a master bullfighter. Of course at the same time can be easily identified with as outside the costume he's as much of a normal joe klutz as the rest of us. That first part always seems to get thrown out so the story can focus on the edgy grudge match against whatever villian de jour the writers decided to pull out of their ass this time. Which always fails, not due to number of villains, but quality. Let's be honest here, most of Ol Webhead's enemies are some of the most two dimensional one note morons to ever grace the pages of comics. Just like Spidey many of them were normal guys who had some kind of accident and suddenly became super powered beings. In the case of a character like the Rhino this is more of a curse than a blessing as he is permanently stuck inside his costume. So anyway we the audience get stuck watching either ranging psychopaths hellbent on some misguided revenge or bumbling no necked thugs with superhuman abilities, well, bumble about the screen. Neither of these seem capable of carrying the story, but unfortunately they have to as the most interesting aspect of Spiderman's character, IE FUN, is continually ignored.

I figured that someone like Sam Raimi who brought us the very tongue and cheek Evil Dead films would understand this rather simple premise. Looks like I was wrong.

As to the updates of both the Rhino and Electro, I agree with ya Bob, the changes just make both characters that much more boring.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

The problem I think when it comes to throwing in so many villains or even so many heroes is that it tends to not allow a lot of room to develop the characters of each one. The reason the Avengers worked is because each hero got their own separate movie to establish their character before the Avengers happened so once the Avengers rolled around their characters were already established and the movie could skip right to the plot.

 

[Cybylt]

I'll put it simply.

Too many villains, too few villains, it makes no difference.

The Spider-Man reboot has no soul and it sucks REALLY bad.

I've heard this complaint so many times, but no one ever explains what they really mean. How did Amazing Spider-Man have no soul, but the completely formulaic hundred-million dollar Hollywood monster movie cheese factory titled "Spider-Man 2" is somehow John Coltrane?

There was no mention of the previous series until you brought it up.

By calling it the "Spider-Man Reboot", I thought you were implying a contrast to the "original". If you didn't mean to compare it to the Raimi films, fair enough, sorry for the confusion, but I think you'll find a LOT of people do. This thread, for instance. I wasn't intending to put words in your mouth. As I said: "I've heard this complaint so many times" by people who liked the Raimi films.

But my point remains: What is it about ASM that makes it soulless? Every person I've ever heard make that argument always talks about the production process or the studio or the behind-the-scenes drama. But what is it about the *film* that's soulless? The final product, not the process.

As far as I'm concerned, it does everything right on the character side. Great performances by Stone, Fields, and Sheen. And overall solid performance by Garfield. The relationships are grounded and real, the dialogue is pretty much fine. Like I said earlier, when it comes to the Lizard plot, it is a mess, and there are a few scenes here and there that just don't work, but I genuinely don't see "soulless".

I can see where labeling it "reboot" would bring in the comparison.

And I would say the production reasons are why people will call it soulless, it is a pretty shameless cash grab from that end so it is refreshing that at least the cast are putting heart and showing interest in the piece they bring.

Even then though, it is hard to shake off the production reasons for many. Overall, this is something that's going to draw more negative criticism from professional reviews and those who put more interest in the film industry than it is the public.

One complaint that sticks with me, and it could be something coming from the Ultimate version of the character and I wouldn't know, is the lack of Parker being a genuine outcast and anti-social intellect out of the suit. In this rendition he's a very smart, fairly charismatic smart ass both in and out of the suit where for more than a few fans of the series Spider Man was Peter's outlet for the snark and (occasional) charisma that he completely lacks in his day to day life. And that's probably the thing Raimi did best, at least in the first movie. My favorite remark about it was more of a joke about the whole issue though, "Peter's not a nerd in this movie! What kind of self-respecting nerd uses Bing? Fucking product placement bullshit ruining character."

The plot being too insular, Peter's dad worked on absolutely every piece of tech in the movie in one way or another, was another complaint I feel is justified especially with how it ties to the Lizard Man plot. Would be nice if they moved away from that because I don't want to find out the guy somehow made all of the robot suits and the cause of Electro's powers just so they can speed up the villain back stories.

On a more personal level, the hairstyle bugs me and not because of the "Oh they made him look like Twilight" nonsense. But because he looks like Jean Ralphio from Parks and Rec.

 

[twosage]

Let's be honest here, most of Ol Webhead's enemies are some of the most two dimensional one note morons to ever grace the pages of comics.

Well... outside of Batman, I don't think any hero has all that great a rogues gallery. Sure, most of them have a good villain or two, but beyond that, it's a low bar. Wonder Woman's most likely foe is probably a dimestore Tigra (if we're lucky, Catwoman if we aren't). Spider-Man's villains mostly just need a coat of paint and an overarching theme.

It's not revolutionary to talk about Batman's villains as various reflections of madness. In that same vein, Spidey's villains usually represent some form of "science-gone-awry". That has traditionally meant: Random Science Project X produces Accident Y. But if that central idea was really focused on, with a broader frame to build on (Oscorp wanting "tear down the old world to build a new one" for instance), then it *could* be a solid foundation. Neo-neodarwinism, the survival of those who can most change the world (which dovetails with the largely animal-based rogues he often fights). A lot of this sounds like it *might* be what the Amazing franchise is trying to do, especially in the sequel, but I have no real confidence in their ability to do it. Even so, it's not a bad direction.

Spectacular Spider-Man seemed to approach this more from the crime angle. Spider-Man fought crime because crime hurt people (like his uncle). He quickly realized that petty crime was largely orchestrated by organized crime, which used corrupt corporate science to create distractions for Spidey. They never really got around to wrapping that up, but one can imagine Spider-Man battling various forms of corruption (media, corporate, legal, etc.) as they are all reflections of a corrupt society... or something like that. It's off the top of my head, so grain of salt on that.

Personally, I've always believed all of Spider-Man's super antics are secondary to his personal travails. It doesn't matter to Peter why Dr. Octopus is going to blow up the city, what matters is that he's going to miss prom to do it (or Aunt May is sick or MJ's given him a one-night-only free pass with Black Cat or... etc.)

 

[twosage]

I'll put it simply.

Too many villains, too few villains, it makes no difference.

The Spider-Man reboot has no soul and it sucks REALLY bad.

I've heard this complaint so many times, but no one ever explains what they really mean. How did Amazing Spider-Man have no soul, but the completely formulaic hundred-million dollar Hollywood monster movie cheese factory titled "Spider-Man 2" is somehow John Coltrane?

There was no mention of the previous series until you brought it up.

By calling it the "Spider-Man Reboot", I thought you were implying a contrast to the "original". If you didn't mean to compare it to the Raimi films, fair enough, sorry for the confusion, but I think you'll find a LOT of people do. This thread, for instance. I wasn't intending to put words in your mouth. As I said: "I've heard this complaint so many times" by people who liked the Raimi films.

But my point remains: What is it about ASM that makes it soulless? Every person I've ever heard make that argument always talks about the production process or the studio or the behind-the-scenes drama. But what is it about the *film* that's soulless? The final product, not the process.

As far as I'm concerned, it does everything right on the character side. Great performances by Stone, Fields, and Sheen. And overall solid performance by Garfield. The relationships are grounded and real, the dialogue is pretty much fine. Like I said earlier, when it comes to the Lizard plot, it is a mess, and there are a few scenes here and there that just don't work, but I genuinely don't see "soulless".

One complaint that sticks with me, and it could be something coming from the Ultimate version of the character and I wouldn't know, is the lack of Parker being a genuine outcast and anti-social intellect out of the suit. In this rendition he's a very smart, fairly charismatic smart ass both in and out of the suit where for more than a few fans of the series Spider Man was Peter's outlet for the snark and (occasional) charisma that he completely lacks in his day to day life. And that's probably the thing Raimi did best, at least in the first movie. My favorite remark about it was more of a joke about the whole issue though, "Peter's not a nerd in this movie! What kind of self-respecting nerd uses Bing? Fucking product placement bullshit ruining character."

The plot being too insular, Peter's dad worked on absolutely every piece of tech in the movie in one way or another, was another complaint I feel is justified especially with how it ties to the Lizard Man plot. Would be nice if they moved away from that because I don't want to find out the guy somehow made all of the robot suits and the cause of Electro's powers just so they can speed up the villain back stories.

Let me start by saying I'm no official apologist for the movie. Product placement is bullshit in almost every case (it can sometimes work if it's a character intentionally selling out, like Booster Gold or the Human Torch) but it unfortunately seems nearly unavoidable for big-budget movies of this type. As for Peter's father being an inventor with his hands in everything. That is somewhat from the Ultimate series (I believe he invented the web fluid, but not web shooters, and he definitely had a hand in creating the Venom symbiote). In the mainstream comics, there was a period where he was possibly an American spy or something, so they've sort of combined those. I consider this stuff to be world-building for the franchise, so I'm not sure if I hate it or not yet. (I definitely don't like the idea of a TMNT-style subway car lab that seemed to have been Pete's dad's from the trailer)...

As for Peter's persona, I like it. He's certainly less of a traditional nerd, but nerds have come a long way since Peter was last in high school in the comics (sometime in the 1970's) and especially in the last decade. They aren't the social pariah's they once were, and the "Saved by the Bell" nerd stereotype has always been something of a modern minstrel show. I think it's less interesting of a transformation to go from "Puny Parker" to Spider-Man in a modern context, where those stereotypes don't resonate as much. (I would also refer you to the episode of the Big Picture where Bob talks about nerd-culture's obsession with the plight of middle-class-white-nerd-males, as I think it's relevant here)

In Amazing Spider-Man, Peter is shown to be a "punk kid from Queens", and as Spider-Man, he's even more of a punk. That suits me fine, especially the scene with car jacker. If they can keep that tone throughout a big climactic fight with a superpowered villain, then they will have nailed "obnoxious Spider-Quipping" for me. Just like how Robert Downey Jr. plays Tony Stark as an obsessive compulsive metal-head rather than the more suave rich boy of the older comics. It's a slightly different take, but I think it works.

On a more personal level, the hairstyle bugs me and not because of the "Oh they made him look like Twilight" nonsense. But because he looks like Jean Ralphio from Parks and Rec.

Never watched it, but genuinely lol'd.

 

[Tumedus]

I have a serious question to ask here.

Anyone who says that Bob is biased against the ASM series...are any of you people who didn't like the first Amazing Spiderman?

I thought the first movie was pretty terrible. I also think Bob is biased. It was evident in his review of it where its clear that the studio process and motivation as well as his affinity for the comic books sets this movie up for failure from the outset. To his credit, though, he acknowledges this bias himself so its possible if the movie had been better, (a la First Class) he may have been able to forgive some of that.

Still, the bias is there. I think the mere fact that he displays so much hatred for a movie as soulless (by his own words) as ASM, shows this. If you don't have a personal investment, its hard to be upset at a soulless movie for being bad. Its like being upset that water is wet.

All that said, saying ASM 2 looks like dogshit could be due to bias or not because... it does. There is all kinds of terrible stuff in that trailer but seriously, whoever designed and/or greenlighted the enemy design, especially Electro, really shouldn't work again in the field.

Slightly off topic but still related in the sense of bias, I think, from the trailers, DoFP looks pretty awful as well. And I wish people would treat that with the same critical eye that they seem to be attacking ASM2.

 

[Strain42]

On a more personal level, the hairstyle bugs me and not because of the "Oh they made him look like Twilight" nonsense. But because he looks like Jean Ralphio from Parks and Rec.

I WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO UNSEE THAT!!!

That did make laugh though. I might even say it was Hi-laaa-rrriiii-ouuusssss.

My biggest problem with Peter Parker in ASM (and admittedly even the Raimi films had a fair amount of this problem) it's just...it's REALLY hard to write Spiderman as the witty funny character that he is...without also making him come across as a cocky dickwaffle, and I feel like the Garfield Spiderman definitely leans more towards dickwaffle territory.

Many characters suffer from this problem as well, like a lot of people who try to write Sherlock Holmes.

But now, that...couple with Jean Ralphio...yeah, I can't unsee that.

 

[faefrost]

I think Bob both hit and missed with his explanation. Movies with multiple villains work when they have an established hierarchy; Gruber and his henchmen, Bond villains, etc. Even Batman Begins had a secret organization, with each villain having his strings pulled by another.

Audiences can accept that two villains might team up, but not when they don't have a reason to do so. Movie antagonists tend to have one big motivation (take over the world, resurrect a loved one, etc), and when that obviously clashes with the other villain(s), we want to see the problem dealt with, either openly between the villains or through a big reveal.

I think it's a little more complex than that in a comic book movie. The number of viable villains is inversly proportionate to the amount of explanation or backstory each needs. So Die Hard is fine. You got Terrorist, Terrorist Terrorist etc. Bad guy with gun, insert funny accent and hairdo. Batman Begins is passable because once again most of the Villains stories can be quickly surmised from audience assumptions. Falcone is a throwaway mobster. Ken Watanabe is playing on audience "mentally fill in the blank" expectations. That leaves only The Scarecrow and Obi Wan needing a story. And even then it felt a bit crowded at times.

Contrast this with the classic worst offenders. Spiderman 3, each Villain had so much going on, and so much that you needed to do that it got overwelming. The movie had to show how and why each villain got to that point, on top of the hero and his supporting cast. There's a reason that most of the bad guys (and a disturbingly large amount of good guys) are simply left as one note background thugs in the better XMen movies. In XMen one you have Primary Villain Magneto, gets full story. Head Henchman Mystique, gets a little bit of more fleshed out abilities but no real story. Sabertooth and Toad are completely flat. No story. No background. Just big shreddy guy and tongue guy.

The thinner you spread the villain story, the less effective the villains get in riveting the audience. Yeah you can and should have multiples. But as you say a hierarchy helps, and at the end of the day its a factor of how much you have to put into each one to elevate them above the threshold of disbelief.

 

[twosage]

I feel like the Garfield Spiderman definitely leans more towards dickwaffle territory.

The thing is, to me, Spider-Man is *supposed* to sound like an obnoxious prick or... eh... dickwaffle. This is probably why I liked the Garfield version so much, even though much of the "Spider-Man" side of the plot was so meh. He was the original guy that other Marvel superheroes would turn to each other and ask "does he ever shut up?".

Take, as an example, Shia Lebeouf. He's amazingly annoying and that stupid studdering motormouth act he does just grates on your nerves. But that's exactly what Spider-Man is supposedly doing to his foes while fighting them. It is irritating and infuriating and it makes you want to find some way *any way* to shut him up. YMMV on this one, I recognize I'm probably in the minority here, but the more irritating Spider-Man is while fighting, the better.

 

[Quiotu]

I'm just posting here to admit I'm not even watching this one. MovieBob can argue and rant all he wants to about the Spiderman series, but he's so blatantly biased about the movies that I can't take anything he says at face value.

MovieBob, I love most of your work, but I cannot take your opinions on Spiderman seriously. Even if you're right in this case, you've been wrong enough that I'm gonna just ignore your takes on this specific IP. Sorry.

Yeah, judging something before you've seen it sucks, doesn't it?

Seriously, your opinion of Bob's previous commentary on the Spiderman franchise has led you to form an opinion on this episode before you've even seen it, which is exactly what your calling out Bob for doing with ASM2.

Yep, he sure threw me a curveball, what with his subject being 'I'm certain I will hate this film, but this isn't why'. So yes, congratulations on white knighting MovieBob for basically saying 'See, I don't hate EVERYTHING about this movie, so leave me alone.'

And BTW, I still watch his stuff, I think I'd have a blast talking to the guy. I just think he's severely biased with Sony owning Spiderman, and he will refuse to outright say they made a good film. You want to bet money he won't like this next film, because I'm pretty much ready to set a wager anytime. His mind is made up, and him talking more about this film and what's 'okay' about it is him justifying his hateboner... nothing more.

It's like him and JJ Abrams. I do not listen to his opinions on anything Abrams does because he's outright admitted he HATES the man. Why in God's name would I take an opinion like that seriously? It's just mindless hatred of something he'll never let go, and he'll justify it any way he can.

 

[leviadragon99]

Hmm... I guess it really does all comes down to execution, if you can have multiple comic book villains in the one movie and divvy up the screentime effectively then it can work, if not... well Spiderman 3 all over again...

 

[Redd the Sock]

The multiple villain angle was the first thing that really got me interested in this thing. Others have said it, but I'll agree that Spidey might have a large and thanks to the old cartoon show, well known bad guy list, but so many are one dimensional, goofy, and devoid of any history of coolness. The best villain moments of Norman Osborn could fill a sizable trade. the best of Electro or Rhino wouldn't fill a single issue. You can either try and make the lame cool, which while not the only problem with the last movie, a better bad guy might have made us ignore the other faults, or you can leave them as fancy cannon fodder for the mastermind of Osborn (or Octavius if they want to pull a reversal).

 

[Cybylt]

On a more personal level, the hairstyle bugs me and not because of the "Oh they made him look like Twilight" nonsense. But because he looks like Jean Ralphio from Parks and Rec.

I WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO UNSEE THAT!!!

That did make laugh though. I might even say it was Hi-laaa-rrriiii-ouuusssss.

My biggest problem with Peter Parker in ASM (and admittedly even the Raimi films had a fair amount of this problem) it's just...it's REALLY hard to write Spiderman as the witty funny character that he is...without also making him come across as a cocky dickwaffle, and I feel like the Garfield Spiderman definitely leans more towards dickwaffle territory.

Many characters suffer from this problem as well, like a lot of people who try to write Sherlock Holmes.

But now, that...couple with Jean Ralphio...yeah, I can't unsee that.

And now Spider Man is a sleazy manchild who co-owns a club.

 

[Kilt'd]

I'm just posting here to admit I'm not even watching this one. MovieBob can argue and rant all he wants to about the Spiderman series, but he's so blatantly biased about the movies that I can't take anything he says at face value.

MovieBob, I love most of your work, but I cannot take your opinions on Spiderman seriously. Even if you're right in this case, you've been wrong enough that I'm gonna just ignore your takes on this specific IP. Sorry.

Yeah, judging something before you've seen it sucks, doesn't it?

Seriously, your opinion of Bob's previous commentary on the Spiderman franchise has led you to form an opinion on this episode before you've even seen it, which is exactly what your calling out Bob for doing with ASM2.

Yep, he sure threw me a curveball, what with his subject being 'I'm certain I will hate this film, but this isn't why'. So yes, congratulations on white knighting MovieBob for basically saying 'See, I don't hate EVERYTHING about this movie, so leave me alone.'

And BTW, I still watch his stuff, I think I'd have a blast talking to the guy. I just think he's severely biased with Sony owning Spiderman, and he will refuse to outright say they made a good film. You want to bet money he won't like this next film, because I'm pretty much ready to set a wager anytime. His mind is made up, and him talking more about this film and what's 'okay' about it is him justifying his hateboner... nothing more.

It's like him and JJ Abrams. I do not listen to his opinions on anything Abrams does because he's outright admitted he HATES the man. Why in God's name would I take an opinion like that seriously? It's just mindless hatred of something he'll never let go, and he'll justify it any way he can.

I'm not 'white knighting' for MovieBob, I think the point you were trying to make contradicted your own post. If you watched the video and still feel the same way then your opinion was obviously justified, but I feel it would have been stronger if you had done that in the first place.

For what it's worth I disagree with some of MovieBob's criticism of the Spiderman reboot and I admit that some of his opinions, like most people, come from a mixture of facts and personal experience. Personally I think ASM had some problems, but I generally enjoyed it when I watched it even though I don't consider it a great film.

 

[TheCorpseMan99]

They could be doing a "Sinister Six" thing. All the bad guys presented (or hinted at) in the trailer have all been members at some point, so maybe the shady guy is the sixth member?

 

[tzimize]

So. Who is to blame if this movie is shit? (which it will be). Sony? Marvel (Disney?)? Who? I need someone to hate. My instinct says Disney, because the stars in this movie just reminds me of high school musical. And that makes me want to kill myself. Or Sony. Or Disney. WHOSE FAULT IS THIS MESS?

You cant really blame Disney on this one, the movie rights to Spiderman and his group of villians, just like X-men and their group of villians, were given to studios well before there were plans to make serious superhero movies like the Avengers.

The reason they are making these spiderman movies is the "use it or lose it" clause of the contract, IE they have to turn out spidey movies within X years of eachother otherwise they lose the rights and they revert back to Marvel (Disney)

And we have to suffer for it. Fucking lawyers and their shit.

 

[Endocrom]

This is honestly the first time I've heard that Paul Giamatti was in this and as Rhino to boot. Doesn't look very fast though. [http://teamcoco.com/content/paul-giamatti-reveals-spider-man-villain-he-longs-play]

 

[Palindromemordnilap_v1legacy]

I don't know, one of the things I disliked about the first one was that it seriously failed on the villain front. Seriously, the hell was the Lizard's motivation? One minute he's just a test gone wrong following feral instincts, then he's clever and wants to destroy the world, then he thinks its legitimately better of all the world were lizards, then he's got his vendetta on against Spidey, then he's got a split personality or voices in his head or something, then he's a good guy again...jeez it was like different people were writing him in each scene and none of them had shared their notes. So I'm a little wary when this one tries to triple its load.

On the other hand, maybe this could be exactly what the movie needs. By splitting the movie's time up between three villains it forces them to simplify and condense. So they won't tack on various muddled motivations and conflicting characterisations on Rhino, he'll just smash stuff up. Great! Exactly what I want to see from Rhino!