DO we even want a fourth villain?

I'm afraid it will be too much. Batman Begins, comic book film perfection, had three and even that was a lot.
 
Hmmm well let's see one villain just about got enough screen time in SM-1, and one villain didn't get enough screen time in SM-2.

So is FOUR villains a good idea for SM-3, when we're also getting the Stacy family introduced??

HELL NO!!!
 
skix said:
4th bad guy = spiderman symbiote

I can't wait till this is proven to be the case. :up:

Welcome to the Hype.
 
This villain will supposedly cause "mass hysteria". So it won't be a cameo villain at the start. I simply believe there is not a 4th villain. The 4th Villain Raimi and Arad were talking about? Most likely Spider-man, in his full symbiotic glory doing something evil. At comic-con that is what I believe will be revealed on a poster.
 
TheFuture said:
This villain will supposedly cause "mass hysteria". So it won't be a cameo villain at the start. I simply believe there is not a 4th villain. The 4th Villain Raimi and Arad were talking about? Most likely Spider-man, in his full symbiotic glory doing something evil. At comic-con that is what I believe will be revealed on a poster.

Another :up:
 
Four villans, no matter how cool it would be to see some comicbook badguys on screen for whatever amount of time, is just too much for a single movie. The movie-going auidence will eat up what Spider-Man 3 has to offer, but the fans of the comic will never be happy with crazy and twisted character development, and ten minutes of screen time -- more, to top it off, in what will probably be two hours.
 
I could have expected Batman fans, or Hulk fans to say that SC and BB were comic film perfection, but not in the SM threads.....we're supposed to know better...
 
jimmy rhoads said:
Four villans, no matter how cool it would be to see some comicbook badguys on screen for whatever amount of time, is just too much for a single movie. The movie-going auidence will eat up what Spider-Man 3 has to offer, but the fans of the comic will never be happy with crazy and twisted character development, and ten minutes of screen time -- more, to top it off, in what will probably be two hours.

:up:




(i think i'm getting the hang of this now!11!!) /sarcasm
 
I believe four is okay, just as long as they do it correctly... Just look at Batman Begins, it had a numerous amount of villians and was an excellent movie none the less. Ra's Al Ghul, Scarecrow, Joe Chill, Carmine Falcone. :spidey:
 
Why is everyone so into BB? I thought it was one of the worst comic movies I've seen(not including the original FF, Captian America, and Supergirl).
 
fangrl06 said:
Why is everyone so into BB? I thought it was one of the worst comic movies I've seen(not including the original FF, Captian America, and Supergirl).

Taste my girl. Taste. YOU MUST FIND IT! ;) :batman:
 
Wow....that means a lot coming from you two......








:O
 
Four villains is too much but I wouldnt mind seeing a small time villain,like Shocker,in the film for like 10 minutes.
 
fangrl06 said:
Why is everyone so into BB? I thought it was one of the worst comic movies I've seen(not including the original FF, Captian America, and Supergirl).

I still favor Batman 89. But It's far from one of the worst comic books films made. It's a good film IMO.
 
jusblaze21 said:
I still favor Batman 89. But It's far from one of the worst comic books films made. It's a good film IMO.

I'd like to reiterate FAR!
 
jusblaze21 said:
I still favor Batman 89. But It's far from one of the worst comic books films made. It's a good film IMO.
:up:
hey, I listed some comic movies that were worse....
 
fangrl06 said:
Why is everyone so into BB? I thought it was one of the worst comic movies I've seen(not including the original FF, Captian America, and Supergirl).

:eek:
 
fangrl06 said:
:up:
hey, I listed some comic movies that were worse....

I don't even consider those 2 films when i compare comic book films:o . I'd watch F4 or even Blade Trinity before I'd watch those.:O
 
Well underbudgeted comic films from the 80s or 90s and from non-major studios don't really count in my book. Films with actual Hollywood hotshots and big $ behind them that really suck? Those are the ones that deserve the flaming.
 
cmill216 said:
Well underbudgeted comic films from the 80s or 90s and from non-major studios don't really count in my book. Films with actual Hollywood hotshots and big $ behind them that really suck? Those are the ones that deserve the flaming.

exaclty. case in point -- elektra.
 
cmill216 said:
Well underbudgeted comic films from the 80s or 90s and from non-major studios don't really count in my book. Films with actual Hollywood hotshots and big $ behind them that really suck? Those are the ones that deserve the flaming.

I agree.:up:
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"