OmegaK2099
Gettin' It In
As a spider man fan how do you feel about them releasing bad movies based on spiderman characters, it's like the fox x men problem all over again
Who should be the villain in the next Spidey movie (Spoilers!)?
- Thread starter acri1
- Start date
As a Spider-Man fan I don’t give a shyt lol. I liked venom. But I also didn’t have crazy expectations for it nor do I particularly like the character. But everything I know of the character? That movie fit him perfectly. It was wacky. It was silly. It was all over the place tonally and that is exactly who that character is. He will try to murder someone one minute then web around the city singing to himself the next.
But to your larger point I also understand that I’m not the arbiter of what’s good or not. Everyone has different tastes and just because I don’t like something doesn’t mean someone else won’t. Or shouldn’t. The people who really liked venom? I’m glad they did. The people who didn’t? That sucks. Hopefully they’ll be pleased the next go around. But to act as if there’s a magic formula to make everyone across the board think something is good or bad isn’t the move. It also doesn’t exists.
If the Morbius movie comes along and something or someone convinces me to see it (cause I also don’t care much about it) then I hope I like it. If I don’t, okay cool.
Gonna probably be Scorpion or Chameleon since apparently Sony is doing something with Kraven.
Khalil's_Black_Excellence
The King of Fighters
They retconned that shyt in so they could do the same for Kingpin. Kingpin isn't even my vote, but that alone should give you cause and effect grounds they they can establish Kingpin's reasons at any point in the movie, because they've literally done the same for the first two Spidey villains. Once again, this isn't really a push for Kingpin, just answering your question or dispelling your reason as to why not have him.
Last edited:
OmegaK2099
Gettin' It In
Am I the only one that thinks releasing movies based on spiderman characters with no ties to spiderman is asinine
But that's a completely different retcon. Me saying "hey these low level guys work for Stark and have a grind to pick with him" is completely different than "there's been this big bad in New York pulling the strings for vulture (just vulture) and no one knows about him." While also kneecapping the vulture character. So you stretch your credibility while also destroying the credibility of another character. It's needless. It's the Insidious Chapter 2 effect where you go and explain things or retcon things and make them worse instead of adding to them.
How does it serve Vulture by making him someone's underling all along?
And Mysterio's plan had nothing to do with crime or organized crime or anything related to it, so he wouldn't even be involved in that. So now we're saying Vulture, a man who's whole steez comes from "I built this from the ground up with my own hands" works for someone else and was cool with that? Yeah, that's not the guy I saw on screen.
When you're retconning, you have to think of how it services your characters and how it adds to them, not subtracts. Spectre is a great example of how that goes completely wrong. You take away agency of characters and stretch your own universe's logic by saying they were all working for this guy in the shadows we didn't tell you about just to make it all look seamless. That's silly and bad storytelling
Am I the only one that thinks releasing movies based on spiderman characters with no ties to spiderman is asinine
You may not be the only one but I just don't care
I really don't. There are a few characters I believe can stand on their own and have in the comics (Venom, Black Cat, Silver Sable even Norman) but there are some that I believe are wholly dependent on interacting with Peter. But I also don't have to see these flicks so if I'm not interested, I keep my money. No harm no foul
Khalil's_Black_Excellence
The King of Fighters
Who's saying that Kingpin has to be connected to those two tho? I'm saying that their backgrounds being connected to Stark, they were not previously within any movie made of mention or anything until the movies that they made their appearances in. Kingpin could still show up, written to effect to explain how/why he's been connected to whomever they choose at whatever point they want if they wish to execute it well enough, which as shown with those two characters, it's totally possible. It's not written in stone anywhere that Kingpin has to be how Vulture was doing anything in this universe. And even if so, they can find away to mesh it regardless.
Nah I hear you. I’m saying if you retcon kingpin in through vulture that’s wrong. You could always introduce someone new and say they’re connected to kingpin but I still go to why. Why is kingpin worried about Spider-Man right now? What has Spider-Man done to disrupt his business? Knocking off the vulture? He probably did him a favor. Mysterio? Nothing to do with crime in New York. Helping defeat Thanos? Again did him a favor. So why would kingpin be concerned? Wilson Fisk, as a character, only cares when it affects his bottom line. Spider-Man hasn’t done anything to affect his bottom line. He hasn’t knocked over any crime organizations or messed with any arms dealings or protected any witnesses, or anything to hinder the kingpin. And he’s wanted for murder. If anything, kingpin should shake his hand because he’s made it easier for him to do business.
You save kingpin for a movie where Spider-Man is truly dealing with something in New York and isn’t wanted for murder and trying to figure out how to dodge that and get himself out of trouble.
Khalil's_Black_Excellence
The King of Fighters
You're still asking about the why as if that couldn't be established right within the same movie tho. So I'll ask you, considering that's already been show as to how that can be establish, why do you continue to question that, lol? His motivations, connections, "business interruptions" (if you will), etc. can all be established within the context of his introductory film. The only reason I could see that as being one of such pondering quandary for you to get is if you were introducing the Netflix Kingpin as the MCU kingpin. Even then tho, they can and would find a why, most assuredly and you would either like it or accept it nonetheless.
I'm saying including him in this next movie seems silly. If you want to include him in part 4, then yes everything I said makes sense. We're specifically talking about this movie. And Spiderman has done nothing to warrant being on the kingpin's radar right now. To have kingpin come at him for what he did to Mysterio would be silly and not in character. And to have Peter dealing with anything other than that when this movie starts would be a slap in the face. If you want to include him in part 4 and use all that good stuff, cool. Peter needs to earn that and he hasn't right now. The most important thing in his world as we speak is dealing with his ID being out there to the public and being framed for murder. The next movie needs to address all of that and it shouldn't be something that's just brushed over in the first act; the entire runtime needs to be devoted to that because it's a big damn deal. If they throw in the kingpin for reasons...that's stupid
There's no profit to be gained from kingpin right now and no profit to be lost. Once Peter deals with his major issue, then he can start knocking over crime lords and shutting down crime rings. THEN you bring in the kingpin
Honestly a who shouldn't be the next villain thread would be better.
The only 2 major spiderman villains that havent been done right on the big screen is kraven and venom (carnage too but you need venom to do that right)
You can do more with Venom and Goblin than anyone else. I expect them to introduce Goblin as Osborn first before he ever becomes GG tho.
I think its a little too soon for sinister six, you need doc ock for that and they need to shelve him for awhile because hes too fresh and he was already done well.
You can do more with Venom and Goblin than anyone else. I expect them to introduce Goblin as Osborn first before he ever becomes GG tho.
I think its a little too soon for sinister six, you need doc ock for that and they need to shelve him for awhile because hes too fresh and he was already done well.
I'm saying including him in this next movie seems silly. If you want to include him in part 4, then yes everything I said makes sense. We're specifically talking about this movie. And Spiderman has done nothing to warrant being on the kingpin's radar right now. To have kingpin come at him for what he did to Mysterio would be silly and not in character. And to have Peter dealing with anything other than that when this movie starts would be a slap in the face. If you want to include him in part 4 and use all that good stuff, cool. Peter needs to earn that and he hasn't right now. The most important thing in his world as we speak is dealing with his ID being out there to the public and being framed for murder. The next movie needs to address all of that and it shouldn't be something that's just brushed over in the first act; the entire runtime needs to be devoted to that because it's a big damn deal. If they throw in the kingpin for reasons...that's stupid
There's no profit to be gained from kingpin right now and no profit to be lost. Once Peter deals with his major issue, then he can start knocking over crime lords and shutting down crime rings. THEN you bring in the kingpin
Honestly this spiderman as a wanted criminal may be addressed in a crossover movie before its addressed in an actual spiderman movie. By the time the next movies out he might already be vindicated
He's only contracted for one more movie, which I would bet money comes out in 2 years. Unless they renegotiate that deal, the next movie he shows up in will be a spider-man movie.
