Mike86

I really don't know how this will work out. Venom is a popular enough character but I think it's going to be hard to do a film based on the character without establishing him in The Amazing Spider-Man franchise first. Unless they plan to have Garfield in the film as Spidey but then wouldn't that just be the third film? The only other thing I can think of is if they introduce Brock in The Amazing Spider-Man 2 in a small part just to establish him in the universe and show him turn into Venom in his own film. I guess I don't really understand the thinking at Sony other than they want a bankable franchise but I dunno. The Sinister Six idea definitely doesn't seem like it would work without having Spider-Man involved.

DaveyJoe

I think The Amazing Spider-Man 2 could use another villain.

taffer

We don't know the timeframe for any of these movies. Venom could very well debut in Amazing Spider-Man 3 and then spin-off into his own movie the following year.

Sony has previously said they already plan for ASM 3 in 2016 and ASM 4 in 2018. If they want a Spidey-verse movie every year, Venom could be 2017 and Sinister Six could be 2019.

Mike86

That's just it the movie is crammed with characters already as is but I don't see how else to start a Venom film off unless Garfield reprises his role as Parker/Spidey or something.

That's true I suppose. I'm sort of guessing that since it appears Green Goblin will be a secondary character in The Amazing Spider-Man 2 that he'll be the main villain in the third film and maybe they'll at least introduce Brock in the third film. Hopefully if they go about the symbiote storyline it's better handled than the way it was in Raimi's Spider-Man 3.

devilshalo

Don't forget Uncharted. I hope this pays off. Morale around here is already pretty fucking low.

dex14

Drew Goddard in talks to direct: http://www.deadline.com/2014/04/sini...-drew-goddard/

Paul_SD

Interesting creative writing exercise. Sort of like- how do you make three films (the SW prequels) compelling in and of themselves when the out come, and tail of the character arcs, is already known?

I would guess they will likely have to go one of two ways
1) A spider-man surrogate. Not necessarily a superhero, but a "good guy" that represents a personal conflict with them who ultimately triumphs over them in some form or fashion.
This approach would likely appeal to a large corp like Sony because they can use the opportunity to create their own character which they would then own. Attaching him/her to a Marvel property gives it a leg up over introducing it on it's own and hoping it catches fire.

or

2) you make one or two of the six more sympathetic and make the (ultimate) conflict within the group. Think of a noir heist movie with a group that comes together for a purpose and then dealing with the aftermath as they each in turn are caught or incapacitated. Some of the characters will be absolutely despicable and you will root for them to fail. At least one though will be sympathetic and you would be happy to see him escape clean.

Initially I was highly skeptical too about a SS solo film working, but I can see at least the opportunity now of it having a shot. The end result will probably blow, but it's far from a fait acompli just because of the absence of Spider-man.

FWIW- in regards to the prequels, the key should have been to make Ben & Anakin a subplot whose twists would have ramifications to other characters who were the lead of these three films. At least that way there is an opportunity for suspense and playing with expectations

fujishig

The problem with 1) is that any superhero Sony creates will be crapped on by fans. For 2), there still needs to be a superhero involved because you basically have six super powered villains, there's no way that the normal police force will take them down, infighting or not. Heck, if you want them to be any kind of thread to Spider-man in future films, it'll have to be a team of heroes to even get close to taking them down.

Paul_SD

1) no doubt that would happen. But like with anything, the proof would be in the pudding. Ultimately it would come down to how well they have conceived and developed the character if it becomes a viable property or not.

2) Not necessarily. If you have an organic division within the group, and you have already set up one or more of the group as a sympathetic focal point (or at least worthy of sympathy) then they could become the de facto 'super-hero'. He's still a bad guy and still not a "good" character but he is in a position to frustrate the goals of even worse bad guys.

Or you could just have a Shield-esque super secret sci-fi military style task force that engages and takes them down one by one.

Boiling it down to the bare essentials, it would seem that six disparate characters need to be united in some goal (as in the case of a heist story).
there is conflict towards attaining that goal. If it is attained then the conflicts shift to within the group and externally against the group.
Spider-man would normally provide that last one- but there is so much you can cover before that point, that it seems it could be viable to me as 90 minute to 2 hour popcorn diversion.

Preterite

Sounds like Superior Foes of Spider-Man, which reads like Donald Westlake writing super-heroes. It's a great series that I'm sure Sony would fuck up Sinister Six ways to Sunday in any adaptation.

PhantomStranger

Marvel movie fans really don't like it that Sony and Fox control key Marvel properties outside of Disney. I think both studios will now face uphill battles convincing moviegoers their versions aren't second rate.

Matthew Chmiel

Fixed.

The problem Marvel has created for Fox and Sony is their goal is to produce a good film rather than something to simply exist to make money. Even if I am not the biggest fan of some Marvel outings like The Incredible Hulk or the Thor films, they are better films than say The Amazing Spider-man, Daredevil, Elektra, and the Fantastic Four and Wolverine franchises. Marvel has taken gambles on not only giving their B-list properties a chance to shine, but also who they put behind the camera. The Russo Brothers, James Gunn, and Joss Whedon would not be given the keys to a $200M property at most studios... especially since all of their attempts at past (mainstream) films have all flopped. Yet here they are now responsible for some of the highest grossing films of all time.

These numerous sequels and spin-offs to a Spider-man reboot just scream and smell like a cash grab, trying to imitate what Marvel has accomplished. The same applies now to Fox's attempt to do the same with Fantastic Four and X-Men. Don't get me wrong, I am looking forward to X-Men: Days of Future Past. However, if it sucks, the audience will have had enough after X3 and the last two Wolverine outings.

Yet Warner Brothers has no fucking idea what to do with the DC universe.

Mike86

Yeah, while there are certain exceptions for the most part a lot of the non Disney Marvel films have been kind of crappy. It would be really nice to get everything back to the Disney Marvel family of films. Unfortunately I really doubt that will happen because Sony and Fox most likely aren't going to let themselves get in a position where they lose the rights to the respective franchises/characters that they own the film rights to. The only way I could ever see something happening is if Disney struck a deal with Sony and Fox to co-produce their films and they get a certain amount of input on what's made.

PhantomStranger

I don't want Disney to control every Marvel property, I've found their cookie-cutter superhero films to be wildly overrated with some exceptions.

Mike86

They're not all perfect but I think they deserve a lot of credit. They've managed to build a pretty incredible cinematic universe and have done a lot more right than they've done wrong. Plus it's not like Sony and Fox are doing a lot of great with the properties that they have.

devilshalo

I guess with Trank on Fantastic Four....

PenguinJoe

I wonder how Raimi's Spider-Man would have ended the trilogy had it not had studio interference, Spider-Man 2 was a really fun comic book movie.

zero

This.

Venom has been Eddie Brock, Flash Thompson, Harry Osborn, and The Scorpion. The comics have changed him so many times its hard to even recognize the character anymore. However! I did enjoy how they portrayed him in Spectacular spider-Man, which is so far from his origin that it would have worked on film.

fumanstan

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=117678

Mike86

I always thought that Kraven would be a decent choice for a Spider-Man film. The Kraven's Last Hunt arc could be adapted into a decent film I think if it was done right.

whotony

How do they get Krave from that image?

The last one could be Mysterio due to smoke but looks to me like Chameleon because of the eye and the type of material

Solid Snake

I await the shit villain designs Sony will love.

fumanstan

I think that they assume it looks like the lion eyes from Kraven's vest.

taffer

"Shazaming the end credits song"

What the heck does that mean?


It kind of looks like the tiger on Kraven's vest.





I agree the last one looks more like Chameleon than fishbowl helmet Mysterio.

Edit: Dang it, fumanstan beat me by a minute.

fumanstan

You've never heard of the Shazam app? Basically it's an app that listens to the song that's playing and tells you the artist and title, but has since expanded so that it can "listen" to other media and bring up other information. It was one of the first big apps for smartphones.