When Super-hero franchises announce sequel’s years
in advance, Fanboys and Fangirls will often rush to the myriad of fan forums
across the web to extoll the virtues of their favourite or preferred villain or
villain’s trying in a vain hope that their choices will somehow make it into
the collective consciousness of the film-makers.
When that Franchise is Spider-Man with his extensive
rogues gallery then the debate over which of the vast list of foes for the
wall-crawler should be the next to face off the webbed one on the silver screen
become as wide and varied as ever.
It’s often the case that because of
popularity in the comics many fans believe that a particular villain should
make the transition to the big screen citing reasons for why their choices
should be the next big threat.
This list however illustrates a number of Spidey foe’s
who may indeed have a modicum of gravitas in print, they’d just become
laughable on celluloid.
Carnage
Within the pages of Spider-Man comic Books Cletus
Kasady with an alien symbiote costume works Carnage is free to commit…..well
Carnage, there are no limits. His name says it all. In theory he would definately
be a draw as a villain for a Spider-Man film,
You’d think he has the gravitas to bring people
through the door and be a credible threat for Spider-Man, but I draw your
attention to Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man 3. Specifically Venom. The character was
dealt with hideously in Spider-Man 3, pretty much forced onto Raimi by Avi Arad’s
insistence that he be included because “It’s what the fans want to see” What people
got in that film was a luke warm tame representation ofVenom completely devoid
of the threat that fans had seen the character rise to since his creation by
Todd McFarlane. Movie-goer’s need to feel that the antagonist in a movie is a
serious threat to the hero…and be honest who’s ever felt threatened by Topher
Grace?
By contrast within the comics Carnage is a grade A
psychopath, a stone cold murderer, and what’s more he really enjoys his work.
Even before bonding with the symbiote Cletus Kasady was
an incarcerated serial-killer. The creation of David Michelinie as a darker
version of Venom. It’s hard to see how any director could make Carnage work. Not
after studio interference contributed towards Spider-Man 3 getting Venom so
badly wrong, and after Andrew Garfield has recently been on record inferring
that the same studio interference was evident in the final cut of Amazing
Spider-Man 2, could you really see Sony not altering the essence of Carnage?
Not to mention you’d never get the film
classification board to sign off any film with Carnage done to justice as a
PG-13.
Much like Venom I see no point in having a character
on screen if you’re not at least going to adequately represent his comic book
counter-part. Any Spider-Man movie with Carnage would be a pale watered down
version and what’s the point of that?,,,,although……does anyone know what Topher
Grace is doing?
Hydro-Man
During research for this article, I have come across
some wild and wacky suggestions by Fanboy’s as to which of Spider-Man’s
villains would make a suitable antagonist to the hero on the silver screen. Not
many have been wackier than the inclusion of Morris Bench to the Spider-Man cinematic
universe.
Hydro-Man just about works in the comic book, hardly
an iconic villain, he does pose an interesting threat to Spider-Man, After all
how do you beat a character with telekinetic control over water? Or even the
ability to transform his entire molecular structure to a watery liquid? But I
can’t see how Hydro-Man could carry a film as the main villain, not just
carrying a threat in a film I don’t think he’d capture the audience attention even
in his appearances in the 90’s animated series Hydro-Man was a b-list character
with a passable story arc. Yet he’s a character on the Universal Studios
Spider-Man ride appeared in the Spectacular Spider-Man Cartoon and the
aforementioned 90’s animated series, would suggest that there is some gravitas
to the character
However to see that there has been some discussion
on some forums around the internet even going as far to suggest Actor’s such as
Chris Carmack could make an accurate portrayal of Morris Bench would suggest
that some fans at least have given the idea some serious thought
The fact is Hydro-Man just doesn’t fit work as a
realist option in my view to ever appear to the silver screen. Yes the
character would make a visually stunning spectacle but is that really any
reason to place him in a movie? Not in my view. If only for the reason’s that
he lacks the heavyweight appeal, and is too similar to ‘Sandman’ and look how
that turned out. One of Spider-Man’s most deadly foe’s reduced to a maudlin
mopey miserable character who Spider-Man forgave and let get away. Because "He
wasn’t a bad person, he’d just done bad things"
The universe that Sony are attempting to build has
no room for characters such as Hydro-Man not if they’re in any way remotely
serious about the Spider-Man franchise.
Carrion
Back in December 1978 readers got their first look at a new Spider-Villain within the pages of Peter Parker The Spectacular Spider-Man #25…….Carrion.
The creation of writing team Bill Mantlo and Jim
Shooter, Carrion was a zombie looking creature hell bent on destroying
Spider-Man, he also seemed to have knowledge of who Spider-Man was beneath the
mask.
The original Carrion was revealed to be a decaying
clone of Professor Miles Warren who blamed Peter Parker for the deaths of both
Gwen Stacy and the original Miles Warren. During the cloning process the ‘Warren’
clone endured accelerated aging which rendered him resembling a living corpse. With
the abilities to cause any organic matter he touched with his bare flesh to
wither rot and die.
Now written on the page he seems a credible option
for a future Spider-Man film, albeit a slightly darker and edgier movie than
what was seen in Amazing Spider-Man 2 In fact in terms of narrative and moving
the story forward Carrion would seem ideal for say Amazing Spider-Man 4. The
main issue however would be how to introduce a villain that was essentially born
out of the original Clone Saga from Amazing Spider-Man #139 - #150.
Even adapting his origin would be too convienent as
at no point has any reference been made to Professor Warren within the film
franchise and to do so would make the character feel contrived, they’d also
have to give Carrion a credible reason for wanting to destroy Spider-Man outside
of revenge not to mention explain how Warren knows Spider-Man’s identity.
I feel there’s just too much confusion to the casual
movie-goer as to the motivations of such as character as Carrion, additionally
are the general audience going to buy into a clone of a middle aged university
professor being that wrecked with grief over the death of one of his students? Even
if the character was adapted that Miles Warren became Carrion as result of a
failed experiment or accident then die-hard fanboy’s will be up in arms over
the fact that Warren begins his decent into villainy as “The Jackal” and he’s
another who should never be portrayed on film. Not unless Sony want their films
to resemble a bad comic-book plot.
No Carrion just doesn’t seem to be a viable or
credible villain based on lack of audience knowledge hokey revenge reasons and
corny costume. Carrion should just carry on in the pages of comics and
fan-fics.
Tombstone
Another fan favourite, and we’re not just talking
about size here. Lonnie ‘Tombstone’ Lincoln is another name that has been
touted in some forums across the web as a man who deserves to have
representation on screen. Pointing to the threat and problems he’s caused
Spider-Man in the comics. This again is really not justification to include
what essentially is a C-list or even D-list character into the Spider-Man cinematic
universe.
The reasons cited for inclusion are…..well he’s insane, yep I’ll
give you that Lonnie Lincoln after all is a man who specifically filed his
teeth into sharp points to appear more intimidating, as if being a 6.6’ft
African American albino wasn’t intimidating enough. So he’s insane so’s Cletus
Kasady and he shouldn’t be in a movie either.
Other arguments I’ve seen around refer to Sony’s
Viral campaign in which they hinted at a wider world some fans stating that
references to New York’s underworld include organised crime rings, that there’s
been subtle hints towards characters like Tombstone and Hammerhead why not
include them.
The way I see these viral’s they’re there to pay
lip-service to the fans to make subtle nods, They’re trying to give the
impression of a wider cinematic universe. Just because “The Looter” gets a
mention doesn’t mean he’s gonna be in a movie.
The main problem is, a lot of Tombstone’s back story
revolves around Joe ‘Robbie’ Robertson and as yet the Amazing Spider-Man franchise
hasn’t introduced any Bugle characters.
Secondly I have an issue with how Tombstone gets his
powers it’s a little too cartoony with the absorbing of mutagenic gasses into
his blood stream, causing his skin to become hard as granite and enabling
Tombstone to have super-strength.
Thirdly Tombstone is a henchman, an enforcer for
either The Kingpin or Silvermane. He’s not really seen in the books as a
mob-boss in his own right, though he has previously made plays against bosses.
Gravitas-wise he also suffers the fate of Hydro-Man,
whilst well-known by readers and fans of the comic’s I fail to see where
Tombstone is going to grab the general audience attention. I mean a two hour
plus movie of Spidey meets ‘Goodfellas’ isn’t going to be a box office draw is
it.
The Jackal
A second entry on the list for Professor Miles
Warren (AKA) ‘The Jackal’ although this time it’s the original Miles Warren, a
professor at Empire State University. Who was driven mad with grief over the
Death of Gwen Stacy, whom Professor Warren was infatuated with. He in turn held
Spider-Man responsible for allowing the Green Goblin to murder her
Regarded as one of the more deadly Spider-Villains
The Jackal’s prowess stem’s from being one of the few Spider-villains who that
prefer to fight Spider-Man on an intellectual battle-ground rather than in the
physical sense. His brilliance as a biologist and preference to use it for evil
means makes him a considerable threat, evidenced within the comics as the
master-mind behind both Clone saga’s and is also a master at manipulation.
It’s argued and claimed that the Jackal would be a
welcome addition to the Cinematic universe that Sony are building from Spider-Man’s
world. The problem is how to fit the Jackal into the story narrative that Marc Webb’s
Amazing Spider-Man franchise to trying to tell.
From this point of view he doesn’t seem to have a
place in the current franchise, there’s been no mention of Warren in the
previous films and his motivations as a consequence lack gravitas or weight.
Even if they went down the Clone route it’s a
storyline that is the cause of division among some Spider-Fans, and really how
confusing would any clone arc played out on the movie screen be for the general
and casual audience?
Then there’s the Jackal’s costume, it’s laughable if
you had problems with The Green Power-Ranger Goblin from the Raimi trilogy, or
even the bad CGI for the Lizard or the Transformer Rhino-bot in Amazing
Spider-Man & 2 respectively then how do you really think a middle aged
university Professor is going to look?
No for me it's a case of The Jackal works in print really well but on film he's just be a bad joke. There's just no room for Miles Warren's story in the narrative. I mean even if they had Warren as a biologist at Oscorp,how long until the audience get bored with every villain in this franchise being connected to a corporation that should've been closed down after Amazing Spider-Man if not Amazing Spider-Man 2.
Why not leave a
comment? feedback is good. like/dislike what you've read? click the
button above to follow me on google+ or follow me on Twitter @TelFirth additionally why not check out http://www.unleashthefanboy.com/ where this article also features.
No comments:
Post a Comment