Villain For Spider-Man 3?

Started by Syndicate_Lord297 pages

I actually agree with Evil seeD on this one!

It would hurt it a little

Originally posted by Evil SeeD
I'm sorry but we all know it's true.. changing characters that have been the same for 3 movies would not be the same, and it would be guranteed to lose money.....

Really??

Changing characters for Batman Forever didn't damage it's success.That actually made more money than Batman Returns,and Forever sucked.

The Bond movies are great examples of continuing success with changing actors.

Your arguement is baseless.I want examples of long running same cast movies,that changed actors,and failed miserably.

*Snips the rest of the BS waffle in SeeD's post*

You saying BS to me is even bigger BS 😉

And that remark is even bigger BS 😉

I agree with Ock. Batman Forever was terrible, but people need to forget that it wasn't because they changed cast and crew, it was who they changed cast and crew to. Remember before when everyone said Batman '89 was the best and nobody could top it? Now look at Batman Begins. True, it isn't a sequel or a follow up to that series, but how many people do you hear now saying "Bale just isn't Keaton man..." as compared to "Bale is the best Batman ever!"

And Ock, you brought up the perfect example, the one I would have brought up if I'd have gotten here earlier. James Bond. I'm a HUGE James Bond fan. I own every single one of the movies, I've been a fan of it for about 7 years now hardcore, and I have my likes and my dislikes with the series. Connery was a great Bond...Lazenby was bad. The Moore era was bad because of all the influence with the cheezy gimmicks and music and such, and people got so used to it that they didn't think it could get better. Then Dalton came. Dalton - THE 007 as Ian Fleming meant for the character to be. If they hadn't be tied up in legal problems after License to Kill, I'm positive people would have ranked Dalton better than Connery. Then we got Pierce, another great Bond to smack us back into the swing of things. The films are still going strong (though they're doing various stupid things with Casino Royale in my opinion), but you guys are saying that if they do SM3 and they want to do a SM4 without the normal cast, then that's it. No more Spider-Man. Its impossible. Bond is going for its 21st movie. I think Spider-Man can last 4, 5 or 6 films, unless they get people like Joel Schumacher or Jonathan Mostow.

Well it's all on the actors. That's why the Bernie Mac Show was cancelled, The guy got lupis. So if one of these guys were sick they wouldn't replace him. It wouldn't have the same flavor. You know why cause everyone acts differatly. Figurativly and Literaly.

yea, I mean it might hurt a little, but it wont have any major affect imo

Originally posted by NoFate007
I agree with Ock. Batman Forever was terrible, but people need to forget that it wasn't because they changed cast and crew, it was who they changed cast and crew to. Remember before when everyone said Batman '89 was the best and nobody could top it? Now look at Batman Begins. True, it isn't a sequel or a follow up to that series, but how many people do you hear now saying "Bale just isn't Keaton man..." as compared to "Bale is the best Batman ever!"

Exactly.

In fact,nobody compared Kilmer to Keaton at the time either.Because Kilmer was actually a decent Batman.The script just sucked.

And Ock, you brought up the perfect example, the one I would have brought up if I'd have gotten here earlier. James Bond. I'm a HUGE James Bond fan. I own every single one of the movies

You'd never guess from your name 😛

Kidding.I'm a huge Bond fan too.Connery is the king for me.

I've been a fan of it for about 7 years now hardcore, and I have my likes and my dislikes with the series. Connery was a great Bond...Lazenby was bad. The Moore era was bad because of all the influence with the cheezy gimmicks and music and such, and people got so used to it that they didn't think it could get better. Then Dalton came. Dalton - THE 007 as Ian Fleming meant for the character to be. If they hadn't be tied up in legal problems after License to Kill, I'm positive people would have ranked Dalton better than Connery. Then we got Pierce, another great Bond to smack us back into the swing of things. The films are still going strong (though they're doing various stupid things with Casino Royale in my opinion), but you guys are saying that if they do SM3 and they want to do a SM4 without the normal cast, then that's it. No more Spider-Man. Its impossible. Bond is going for its 21st movie. I think Spider-Man can last 4, 5 or 6 films, unless they get people like Joel Schumacher or Jonathan Mostow.

Exactly.

If there's strong love for the character,the movies will be successful.Just hire the right people for the role.

Agreed on all points

Originally posted by Doc Ock
You'd never guess from your name 😛

Yeah, too hard to make up a name that included Terminator, Bond, Batman, Spider-Man, Star Wars, all the Tarantino films, The Usual Suspects, The Shawshank Redemption, The Godfather...so I just picked the first two lol.

If you get a horrible cast or a horrible director or a horrible writer, its going to end up being terrible. Like yeah, of course Spider-Man 4 would bomb if you cast say, Chris Rock as Parker, Camryn Manheim as MJ and the writer was the person who did Plan 9 from Outer Space, and you got the director of Hercules in New York lol.

Originally posted by Syndicate_Lord
I actually agree with Evil seeD on this one!

Thank you.. And Ock.. you just told me exactly what i was making my point on.. Ok so it may make more money.. but thats from people seeing it for the first time in the theatre, it still could really really suck...but seeing it for the first time you wouldnt know that...

I still think a new Parker instead of Tobey would be horrible.. unless it was Jake Gyllenhaal or somthing because they kinda look the same..lol.. but it still wouldnt be the same.. it would be very frustrating to watch in my opinion......

...I'm completely lost hahaha!

lol its ok...

Hahaha! I'd think changing actors would have results varying from the way they play their characters.

Whether the new actors play well, or better or even worse, or maybe just purely bad script writing like Val Kilmer, that would be the deciding factor to me.

Clooney was the only TERRIBLE Batman... the best Batmen being Bale and west! Uhh... yeah, Gylenhaal as Peter Parker:

BROKEBACK SPIDER

Starring: Jake Gylenhaal as Peter Parker and Heth Ledger as Mark Jim Watson!

LOL!... Seriously tho Jake Gyllenhaal does have a Tobey Maguire look...

The characters will never be changed, They will either end it at 3, or continue with the same characters. They could make it to 4 with the same, maybe even 5. The age the characters are at now (besides Aunt May) they won't really age that much from 20's to 30's... and it is hollywood, they can make 70 year olds look 30, so i dont think we have anything to worry about with character changes...

Originally posted by Evil SeeD

The characters will never be changed, They will either end it at 3, or continue with the same characters.

And you're living in a fantasy world 😉

Dunst and Franco said they're finished with the franchise after SM-3.Gone.Leaving.Bye bye.

And if you think Sony are going to drop a franchise that has netted them over 1.5 billion dollars with only two movies,then you're really kidding yourself.

I thought Tobey said he was leaving also? If not, kill MJ off and bring in Gwen!

Yeah I think Tobey is finished too.

He'd have to leave anyway,even if he didn't want to.He'd be too old to continue doing it.He's already in his 30's.

Isn't he like 33 now? He either needs to be replaced or find a time machine.

There definitely isn't the possibility of unlimited Spider-Man films, seeing as you wouldn't want the main villain to be Big Wheel or something, but there's without a doubt more than 3 films worth of villains out there.