The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Better 3 Villains: TASM2 Or SM3?

[LEVITIKUZ]

Both Spider-Man 3 and The Amazing Spider-Man 2 had 3 villains in them. Spidey 3 had Sandman, Venom, and Harry Goblin while TASM2 had Rhino, Electro, and Green Goblin. Basically, what film do you think had the better villains and handled them better?

Honestly, I'm going to say Spider-Man 3. In Spider-Man 3, the villains were taken more seriously than in TASM2. I mean Rhino felt like something from a Looney Tunes cartoon and Electro was just pathetic and too weak. Not to mentioned that Kid Goblin was more shoehorned in than Venom and was KO'ed in 2 minutes.

 

[OriginalMiles]

I'm gonna say The Amazing Spider-Man 2. I preferred that movie, and enjoyed all the villains and the way they were portrayed.

 

[The Joker]

Spider-Man 3 by a long way. Franco, Church, and Grace out classed Foxx, DeHaan, and Giamatti at playing their characters. None of them had me cringing the way I was with the slapstick portrayals of Max Dillon/Electro and Rhino, or face palming at the awful rushed Goblin story.

 

[A Necessary Evil]

Ugh, why is this even a poll? Spider-Man 3 by far. While Sandman didn't really do anything, and Venom was somewhat shoe-horned in to the final film, all three villains were necessary to help the film's narrative. I'm still trying to wrap my head around what significance Electro had to ASM2.

 

[Frodo]

Ugh, why is this even a poll? Spider-Man 3 by far. While Sandman didn't really do anything, and Venom was somewhat shoe-horned in to the final film, all three villains were necessary to help the film's narrative. I'm still trying to wrap my head around what significance Electro had to ASM2.

I concur. Electro was worse than Sandman, and I didn't think that was possible. Dane and James were close but i'd give the edge to Franco. I wouldn't really compare Rhino and Venom since Rhino was just a campy cameo , but even Topher Grace's Venom was more interesting and threatening than Electro and Goblin. The villains were at least set up and played a part in the overall plot even if that plot wasn't very good.

Ironically, i see Garfield as kinda a fusion of James Franco and Topher Grace. He has the James Dean , Teddy boy look of James Franco yet has the Lanky ,goofy and awkwardness of Topher Grace.

 

[socool]

I don't consider Rhino a villain in TASM2 by like...any chance. But if I have to for the sake of the question, I'd have to say SM3. While I prefer the movie of TASM2 to SM3 as a whole, I will say that SM3 managed to handle it's villains better...they were still poorly developed but not quite as much as they were in TASM2.

 

[StarkTheProdigy]

I choose Spider-Man 3 over The Amazing Spider-Man 2 any day. Spider-Man 3's Harry was much more developed as the studio let him grow over the three films, where in the Amazing Spider-Man 2, he was already a goblin in his first appearance. Sandman was lame, but at least taken somewhat seriously, especially compared to Electro. As far as Venom, yeah that was a weak character, but comparing it to Rhino, he shines in my book.

 

[Majik1387]

Clearly ASM2.

 

[Doctor Octopus]

Spider-Man 3.

The villains of TASM 2 were some of the worst ever done in a comic book film. They were embarrassing.

 

[Oscorp]

Both films were bad, both films had bad villains. I'll have to give Spider-Man 3 the edge though. Those were less terrible. Sure, Raimi ****ed up Spider-Man's origin by forcing Sandman to be Uncle Ben's killer by accident just to force a connection to Peter. But Webb ****ed up Green Goblin and thus the Death of Gwen Stacy.

While sometimes stupid and forcefully sympathetic, Sandman's motives and actions still made more sense than Electro's. Harry, while his plan to make MJ break up with Peter, and the amnesia stuff along with his costume, was disappointing to say the least, he at least had some good scenes. Venom was in the film for a short time and could be compared to TASM2's Harry Goblin in the same sense, but at least Venom's overall story was true to the character and wasn't completely screwed.

TASM2 had some very terrible villains in it. Easily the worst villains of every Spider-Man villain on screen so far.

 

[NewYorkSpider]

I watched Spider-Man 3 again the other day on FX. While I don't care for the film, Raimi did a lot better job with them. Franco, Church, and Grace were a lot better. Also, Harry had been established through the first 2 movies, which made explaining his story much more easier.

 

[webhead731]

ASM2 had villains?

 

[Majik1387]

Yep, and didn't rely on having to kill them.

 

[LEVITIKUZ]

Venom wasn't killed. Eddie was but Venom wasn't. Also Sandman is out there.

Electro's kinda dead, Rhino was a joke, and Harry is dying so....

 

[Majik1387]

Venom was killed; no off-screen death, he obliterated on-screen never to be seen again. I felt so bad for Topher Grace in the role; he didn't look the part, he didn't pull off the character acting-wise, it was depressing seeing such a huge Spider-Man fan sell out on a thankless role.
Sandman is alive yes, but his escape was total bull. Talk about some of the worst writing ever; I felt bad Thomas Haden Church gave his best with that shoddy material.
Harry died a hero; that's not the Harry I know. Franco played him amazingly though.

Electro is no more dead than Lizard, he is in containment. I have already said the writing was horrible for Electro; it was a worse-written Riddler from BF, and Jamie Foxx's "acting" is still absent.
Rhino, while a joke, is still a threat and was always only meant to be the bookend villain for the movie, I don't know what people were expecting. Giammati did the role as well as it could have been done.
Harry is 'dying' the same way Norman 'died'; They may have some sort of disease, but the radiated spider venom extract most definitely kept them alive, and Harry isn't dying. The role was written very well despite some minor complaints of people calling him a hipster; in this day and age, his character would be a hipster, and it took nothing away from his comic incarnation. Dane DeHaan owned the role.

I will take the better written and represented ASM2 villains over the SM3 villains any day.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

SM3 didn't have great villains, but the ones from TASM2 were a joke. Even the worst of the three SM3 villains (Venom) had more to offer than the best TASM2 villain (Goblin). This isn't even close.

 

[The Joker]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with killing off a villain in a movie. Movies are not the comics. They're a finite universe. They don't go on indefinitely. Only a very small handful of villains have been in more than one movie played by the same actor, and that's the likes of Magneto and Loki.

Yep, and didn't rely on having to kill them.

What a shame. It might have guaranteed they would never return to defile the screen again with their awfulness.

 

[Majik1387]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with killing off a villain in a movie. Movies are not the comics. They're a finite universe.

Obviously, they're not as finite anymore. Raimi and Sony missed that opportuinty the first go around.

They don't go on indefinitely. Only a very small handful of villains have been in more than one movie played by the same actor, and that's the likes of Magneto and Loki.

And look at the critical and fan acclaim they get, just saying.

 

[The Joker]

Obviously, they're not as finite anymore. Raimi and Sony missed that opportuinty the first go around.

If the result was what the TASM movies are doing, then they made a very wise decision. Keeping the villains alive in the TASM movies did nothing to enhance their quality.

And look at the critical and fan acclaim they get, just saying.

No more than what The Joker, Doc Ock, Pfeiffer's Catwoman etc have gotten. And another notable difference is Magneto and Loki were great and popular from the get-go. Unlike the TASM villains which have never been popular.

 

[Majik1387]

If the result was what the TASM movies are doing, then they made a very wise decision. Keeping the villains alive in the TASM movies did nothing to enhance their quality.

Not only did it enhance their quality, it also gives Sony the ability to return to said characters if need be.

No more than what The Joker, Doc Ock, Pfeiffer's Catwoman etc have gotten. And another notable difference is Magneto and Loki were great and popular from the get-go. Unlike the TASM villains which have never been popular.

Ledger's Joker and Pfeiffer's Catwoman lived. As for Doc Ock, there was no need for his character to die; it was just more of Raimi's bad cheesy writing.
Ummmm no. Magneto and Loki earned their popularity from the general public from the movies, not the comics.

 

[The Joker]

Not only did it enhance their quality, it also gives Sony the ability to return to said characters if need be.

It didn't do a thing to enhance their quality. Seeing these villains live at the end doesn't change a single thing about their performance and utilization in the movie.

Sony bringing them back is just giving us more of the same, unless by some miracle they rewrite the characters completely into actual good villains.

Ledger's Joker and Pfeiffer's Catwoman lived.

You're missing the point. They have only been in one movie. If you seriously believe that if they had died at the end of their movies that would magically change the quality of the characters presented throughout the movies themselves then you're really kidding yourself. It's a hilarious argument to make. It's like saying Hans Gruber in Die Hard would be a better character than he was if he lived at the end.

Even Nicholson's Joker back in the day was a big hit, and still has a strong fan base, and he popped his clogs in that first Batman movie, too.

As for Doc Ock, there was no need for his character to die; it was just more of Raimi's bad cheesy writing.

His death had meaning. He sacrificed himself to undo what he had done. He wasn't killed off just for the sake of it. That's one reason why he was so well received. Same with Norman in SM-1, and Harry in SM-3. Their deaths all had meaning. They served a purpose.

The only one you could argue was some what needless was Venom. Even then you could say he died trying to save the symbiote he loved.

Ummmm no. Magneto and Loki earned their popularity from the general public from the movies, not the comics.

I'm not talking about the comics. I'm saying Magneto and Loki were popular after their first movie. Fans loved them. McKellen and Hiddleston nailed it first time. Ditto with Fassbender in First Class. Unlike the TASM villains, which are not and never have been popular. That's because they have been very poorly done. Them living at the end didn't make a blind bit of difference. Dead or alive at the end, they'd still be as awful as they were in these movies.

 

[StarkTheProdigy]

It is a shame because I feel Electro could have been something amazing if they went with a more serious approach.

 

[LizardMan07]

Surely SM3 has to win;

Rhino has to be considered a villian, but he did absolutely nothing, so points to SM3.

Electro had plenty of screentime, probably better than venom, on par with sandman in a visual sense, I think Sandman's motives made more sense. So probably SM3.

Harry in TASM2 were probably equal.

Not 100% sure how fair the question is, as I'm really not sure if Rhino actually did anything to make him a villian, I think Kafka was more of a third villian.

 

[webhead731]

It didn't do a thing to enhance their quality. Seeing these villains live at the end doesn't change a single thing about their performance and utilization in the movie.

Sony bringing them back is just giving us more of the same, unless by some miracle they rewrite the characters completely into actual good villains.



You're missing the point. They have only been in one movie. If you seriously believe that if they had died at the end of their movies that would magically change the quality of the characters presented throughout the movies themselves then you're really kidding yourself. It's a hilarious argument to make. It's like saying Hans Gruber in Die Hard would be a better character than he was if he lived at the end.

Even Nicholson's Joker back in the day was a big hit, and still has a strong fan base, and he popped his clogs in that first Batman movie, too.



His death had meaning. He sacrificed himself to undo what he had done. He wasn't killed off just for the sake of it. That's one reason why he was so well received. Same with Norman in SM-1, and Harry in SM-3. Their deaths all had meaning. They served a purpose.

The only one you could argue was some what needless was Venom. Even then you could say he died trying to save the symbiote he loved.



I'm not talking about the comics. I'm saying Magneto and Loki were popular after their first movie. Fans loved them. McKellen and Hiddleston nailed it first time. Ditto with Fassbender in First Class. Unlike the TASM villains, which are not and never have been popular. That's because they have been very poorly done. Them living at the end didn't make a blind bit of difference. Dead or alive at the end, they'd still be as awful as they were in these movies.

Bif bang pow!

 

[spiderman2]

I am really surprised by the results so far has I think tasm2 villians are milles better but again I fell like tasm2 got slamed unfairly has I think tasm2 is a great movie. Venom wasn't in the movie long enough and got killed where harry in asm2 had a small rule but his fight was great and it was just a introduction to the next one for him. Elector was awesome so much eye candy and I don't think his charater development was that bad where sandman having him be uncle bens killer was bad. I didn't like that harry in sm3 dosnt have his memory for like half the movie. Rino while not in the movie long was a perfect way to end the movie. SM3 had I think 6 fights with the villians where tasm2 had I think 3 but tasm2 fights where way way more intertaining then sm3 and more creative then sm3. All 3 villains in tasm2 where good where sm3 only harry was good.