Oh yeah, I loved it. http://www.spider-friends.com/BuenaVista/BuenaVista.html
There’s a good reason - the way the licensing deals are structured, a specific Marvel property may only appear in movies by the studio that currently holds the license. If I recall correctly, there are at least three different studios doing Marvel stuff. Still, you must recall in Spidey 2, when the Bugle staff is trying to name Doc Ock, the name ‘Doctor Strange’ is suggested, then dismissed as ‘taken.’
DC doesn’t have the licensing excuse, as far as I can tell. I think the closest we’ve gotten in recent major productions is a mention of Metropolis in Batman 3.
Harborwolf thought the same thing I did - Harry is too much of a wuss to actually do anything himself, so he’d be more likely to find someone to be the Goblin for him.
Not until they give me a 2 picture deal.
i’d like to see the hobgoblin, but come on, we’ve already had the green goblin. the producers will want a completely unique villian instead of a variation on a theme.
sandman is tolerable. mysterio would be cool, just because that fishbowl helmet would be funny to see. i was always a big kraven fan, but it seemed like that storyline was more about him while spidey was sort of a supporting character.
what bout the scorpion? nah, he was pretty lame.
what about styx and stone? really, how far will a comic book writer go to slip in a bad pun?
I’d have to disagree. Venom’s first appearance – big, hulking figure; dislodged jaw with drooling, flappy tongue; pointy fingernails; and Todd McFarlane art – all screamed “character created by Marketing Department to appeal to kids who like ‘kewl’ characters” to me.
The character might have potential (heck, I believe any character can shine if written well), but I haven’t seen any evidence that says Venom was created for a reason other than a dictate from marketing.
None of you have the scoop. Raimi will be teaming with two wildly successful animators to bring a new villain to the Spiderman universe.
BWAHAHAHAHA!!! Professor Chaos! (non-anime version) <D&R>
…protect my balls, let’s fighting love. Let’s fighting love.
I’m not familliar with who Church is, but the first thought I had when I looked at his imdb photo was “Morbius the Living Vampire.” A classic Spidey bad guy, whose tragic character-traits (a basically good guy driven to commit evil deeds because of an ironic twist of fate) fits in well with the overall tone of the Spider-Man movies thus far.
Big ol’ nitpick:
Web of Spider-Man #18 was venom’s first appearence, albeit it as a hand and arm seen only at the end of the comic book. Now, McFarlain might have plained the costume, but the idea wasn’t his.
Even closer was “This is why Superman works alone” from the fourth Batman film, though it’s unclear from George Clooney’s semi-mocking tone if Superman actually exists in that context or is a fictional character.
Personally, I’d’ve preferred Marvel work out a system allowing “common ground” references, i.e. every Marvel movie set in New York can show a copy of the Daily Bugle, as well as use the word ‘mutant’ to describe the various supercharacters (“I wonder if he’s one of those mutants I’ve heard so much about lately?”).
Ah, I’d forgotten that one! No, I’d count it.
Heh heh heh, good call. He does kind of look like Morbius. Now I’ll never be able to see him without thinking that.
I wonder if he’ll bulk up for the role if it indeed turns out to be the Sandman. Either way, I hope they have him at least wearing a green shirt with black stripes at some point.
Still think he should be Mysterio.
Didn’t Aunt May, when watching her nephew run himself ragged, warn him that he wasn’t Superman in the first Spidey film?
No, Todd MacFarlane did have a hand in creating Venom, but regardless he is a good character. He is a character that exists solely to push a hero farther than they can go. In the hands of good writers, he is exceptional.
I’ve also read enough issues to see why people would think he was crap.
down by law, it’s all but certain that, after the events of SM2, that some form of goblin will be involved. I’d be fairly disappointed if they didn’t. Hobgoblin would open up some story possibilities IMHO that the Sandman does not, but if Sandman is Raimi’s decision then I’ll trust him. Spider Man and 2 were good enough for that.
Count me in as uninthused about the Sandman. One of the blander villians IMHO, with very little depth of character. For all those bitching about Venom, his powers basically make him a sand-based Venom, only not as bloodthirsty, with a two-bit criminal background. He may be an old-time Spidey villian, but a classic one? I doubt most causal Spidey fans have even heard of him.
But that doesn’t count: it’s not even the right universe!
Maybe not younger fans, but that’s probably because he’s been a hero for a long time now. I’d guess that older fans probably know him, though.
They didn’t use him on the Spider-Man cartoon, did they? I remember that they used Hydro-Man a lot, which I thought was weird (just like how they introduced Hobgoblin way before Green Goblin).
This is the same problem that Batman Forever faced. The primary villains were used up in the first two movies, leaving no single strong front-runner. Result: The Dynamic Duo versus the Tiresome Trio (Riddler, Two-Face and Poison Ivy).
The disappointing Superman 2 phoned-in three nobodies (propped-up by a slightly used Lex Luthor) to take the roll of the supervillain.
This makes me a little nervous about Spidey-3.
There have been four diffrent Hobgoblins. Of them, I think that Church resembles Ned Flander the most. I mean, Ned Leeds.
http://www.spiderfan.org/characters/ned_leeds.html