Comic Vine News

82 Comments

Can You Have Multiple Villains In A Sequel?

Pinchuk thinks you can, and should.

What are sequels about? Escalation, in the words of Jim Gordon. You pit your hero against one villain in the first movie so, when you want to ratchet the threat up, what do you do in the second movie? Pit him against two. The first Batman movies had this notion, though it expanded to include sidekicks in the later movies. BATMAN had just the Joker; BATMAN RETURNS had Catwoman and the Penguin; BATMAN FOREVER had Two-Face, the Riddler and Robin; and BATMAN & ROBIN was overflowing with Batgirl, Mr. Freeze, Poison Ivy and Bane. As my choice of words might hint at, escalation can lead to overcrowding sometimes, and that’s something Jon Favreau has been keenly aware of while making IRON MAN 2.

Favreau broke it down to the LA Times like this…

"You want to be sure you don't suffer from multi-villainitis… That's been the downfall of many other superhero franchises. I was more concerned about the interpersonal dynamic and how the presence of Natasha [a.k.a. the Black Widow, played by Johansson] would affect Tony and Pepper, because what I didn't want to do is make this film episodic, like just another episode of a TV series. So one way to approach that is shift the dynamic with the introduction of new characters. So you have Justin Hammer [Rockwell] inserted into the Tony-Rhodey relationship, and you have Natasha Romanoff inserted into the Tony-Pepper relationship. When done right, a superhero movie has the character's personal life mirroring what's happening in their superhero world, and sometimes you have to force things to do it. In this case, I'd say, we found an organic way to do it. We wanted both A-story and B-story to be affected by these new characters."

Favreau’s definitely got the right sense of how to handle a storyline conceit that’s become something of a bone of contention amongst fans of superhero movies. Obviously, the hallmark of any superhero’s mythos is a rogue’s gallery packed with colorful villains. You’d expect that to be represented in on-screen translation. I think the issue doesn’t lie so much in the number of villains, per se, so much as it does in how they fit into the larger scheme.  What causes these sequels problems, in my opinion, is that all-too-often they feel compelled to devote significant amounts of screen name to illustrating the villains’ origins when it’s rarely necessary. I think of DICK TRACY as a good example of this, since that movie had an entire gang of supervillains whom we didn’t get any backstory on, because we didn’t need to. You have a gangster named Pruneface, his face is shriveled like a prune - - what more do you need to know?

Thinking further outside the box, I’d look at something like the STAR WARS movie, which can arguably have up to a dozen villains on hand in one movie. ATTACK OF THE CLONES, for instance, had Jango Fett, Boba Fett, Count Dooku, the Geonasians and their big monsters,  in addition to Darth Sidious, the Trade Federation and all their Battledroids, Super Battledroids, Droidekas, and so on.   At no point did I ever say, “Whoa whoa… hold on. What’s the story on this Zam Wesell chick?” No, she was a bounty hunter and she got killed after screwing up. That’s all I needed to know.  

I’ve said it a few times that I really think the third Batman movie ought to blow out the rest of rogue’s gallery, but keep it to the minor ones. You’d have Gotham over run by the likes of the Ventriloquist, Firefly, Deadshot, the Mad Hatter, Clayface, Deathstroke and the KGBeast, bringing the whole “escalation” theme to a head.   It could work if Nolan didn’t get into any of their origins (as he did with the Joker) and singled out one villain - -   say, Black Mask - - as the main antagonist, and then relegated the rest to either random obstacles or as his thugs.  You might say it would be hard to handle that many villains, but I’d point out the DARK KNIGHT already had multiple villains. Oh, sure, there were the obvious ones like the Joker, Scarecrow and Two-Face, but let’s not split hairs. What would you call Maroni, Lau, the Chechyan, Gambol and all the corrupt cops, hm? If they weren't villains, what were they?
 
 
 
 

-- Tom Pinchuk is the writer of UNIMAGINABLE for Arcana Comics and HYBRID BASTARDS! for Archaia. Watch out for the HYBRID BASTARDS! hardcover collection this April - - available for pre-order now on Amazon.com.

82 Comments
  • 82 results
  • 1
  • 2
Posted by Emperor Gonzo Noir

It's not the amount of villains, it's how you use them

Posted by Green ankh

I'd like to see Batman being a Detective.
Posted by EdwardWindsor

above somes it up, as long as they use the villians properly and  cast then well i see no problem with it , just when stuff like the venom/sandman issues came up is was because of a bad casting for brock and a muddled hash of story to get villians together

Posted by Pez85

I can't speak for anyone else, but I know that I never really had a problem with Batman & Robin. Sure, it was pretty much the straw that broke the camel's back for most Bat-Fans, but it was still a fun movie. It was kid friendly, and gave the older folk some nostalgia with those cheesey lines. The movie made quick work of detailing the origins of Batgirl and Mr Freeze, while fleshing out Poison Ivy and Bane, which gave more time for the movie to progress. 
 
Spider-Man 3 worked in a very similar way. It balanced Sadman's origin and the Peter/Harry hatred nicely. I think everyone's main problem with the movie is how Venom was handled (that, and the emo Peter Parker). Other than that one gripe, I'd say it was pretty much on par with the rest of the Spider movies.

Posted by IrishX

I thought Batman Returns worked well with Catwoman because she isn't a true villian atleast in my opinion. 
 
Spider-Man 3 would have worked better with just Venom and Harry becoming the Goblin.
Posted by Crymsun
@Emperor Gonzo Noir:  Agreed.  You don't need a bunch of villains to make it good.  Just one villain really written well.   
 
Let's say you were making another good Bat movie.  Could you include only The Riddler and make it good?  Of course you could!  A good villain with a lot depth can keep the hero busy throughout the movie.  There are so many good Bat villains that this could be done easily. 
 
Iron Man?  Hmm.. he's got who..?  Whiplash in this one?  MMM.. yeah.. maybe you should add more characters.  IMO, i don't think Whiplash could carry it on his own.  As for other Iron Man villains... other than the Mandarin, I don't think he has any others that could carry a story on their own.
Posted by Bruce Vain

If you have the right writer's yes it could work no doubt. I mean I was surprised they were able to pull off X-Men cause of all the characters in it. 
 
And technically Batman Begins had multiple villains. You had Ra's ,Scarecrow, Mr.Zsasz, &  Carmine Falcone , and to me I considered Ken Watanabe to be Ubu  - Ra's loyal bodyguard. so that's another one. 
 
So for the next Batman I would like to see Black Mask, Two-Face to return ; and yes I don't think he's dead, Penguin, maybe have Scarface, Killer Croc (yes there are ppl who actually have a reptillian like skin problem) , perhaps have Scarecrow or Zsasz return maybe, & definitely have  Catwoman or at least introduce Selina Kyle.
Posted by Kid_Zombie
@Emperor Gonzo Noir said:
" It's not the amount of villains, it's how you use them "
yup! 
 
@Green ankh said:
" I'd like to see Batman being a Detective. "

YUP!!
Posted by Bruce Vain

Oh and can we get the Batwing please & have Wayne Manor & the Batcave complete too ?  
 
I also like to see Batman show his chemist side of him & show him training like they did in Begins. Except I wanna see him lifting and doing gymnastics this time.
Posted by Yung ANcient One
@IrishX: 
True but... Rami planned on jus using Sandman... and maybe HArry.
he jus put Venom because the Company forced it on him... plus the HArry thing was kinda forced a lil too... so Rami did the best he could with the story he wanted and the story that was forced on to him... i know it could have been better... but Rami hates Symbiotes so its clear why he was lousy(or didnt care) on Venoms story(and or screen time)
 
 
@Topic:
I think it should be 2 villains... or jus one... IMO... it can easily be Riddler/Black Mask/etc and Deadshot. or Bane
Posted by Golden Cod
@Crymsun: 
Hard to say without seeing the film but I think Whiplash is more like the snowball that starts the avalanche.   He took on Iron Man with DIY equipment, which proves that Stark doesn't have the armor market cornered, which in turn precipitates the Armor Wars.   Cue industrial sabotage.    It would make sense with all those military robots chasing Iron Man in the later trailers.   I think Justin Hammer will be the central villain through most of the movie.
Posted by m_man360

Spider-Man 3 sucked bad because they overloaded the film with terrible cheap villain's as MAIN foes, such as the whishy washy Sandman and cheap laughing New Goblin....Venom may have worked if he had more screen time or if he just replaced the striped shirted basterd that was Sandman. 
 
I am a little worried for Iron Man 2, it seems as if they are just too many characters in this one. Widow, Whiplash, War Machine and Justin Hammer. And how can we forget Nick Fury of SHIELD.
 
I have a strong gutt feeling that Iron Man 2 will turn out to be a rather sloppy concoction of a film even with all they hype. However, i have been proven wrong.

Posted by The Wretch

I don't recall hearing the complaints against the Batman movies being about "too many villains." 
 
Think it had more to do with the poor writing, neon light gangs, gay overtones, etc.  "Too many villains" is just an excuse used by crap writers.

Posted by m_man360

The next Batman film should have Riddler as a main foe while firefly and scarecrow serve as backseat villains. Mad Hatter to me just seems silly. Batman is already displayed as a detective in the previous two films. I strongly suggest to watch them again, you will notice his techniques trying to locate Jokers bullet thumb prints, interogating him and using GPRS radar signals and stuff. Of course he needs a new cool vehicle a bat wing indeed, he should return to a newly rebuilt batcave that looks really kitch. For a love interest he should see Salina Kyle, however she is already in her career as The Cat (not catwoman) and they shouldn't focus on why she is. We only know that she came from a bad upbringing.

Posted by Moomin123

Too many villains is bad for me in a superhero film, and villains are my favourite part about them. 
I especially didn't like Sandman, New Goblin AND Venom in Spider-Man 3. It should've been Venom on his own. And New Goblin should never have gone good.
Posted by goldenkey
@Emperor Gonzo Noir said:
"It's not the amount of villains, it's how you use them"

Perfectly said.  In Batman Begins I must admit a large smile crossed my face when I heard the name Mr Zsasz, and it grew even bigger when I saw the knife marks on his neck.  It worked well and if anything made the die hard fans happy.  Quick cameo's done right like Mr Zsasz are great, and the use of familar names when they didn't need to be there are a plus.  Using Falconi and Maroni keep the fanboys from talking shit, but it makes the fanboys who haven't seen the films drool.
Posted by m_man360

Villains are the best part of any film or comic book series. I just don't like to see them all girly like Sandman. I like my villains like Joker and Green Goblin sr, nicely evil.

Posted by goldenkey

I think if the use of villians pertains to the 3rd Batman film the villians should something that can be used in a way that's more or less believable.  I wouldn't want to see Clayface, or Poison Ivy in the film.  The Riddler could be done because of the itellect battle, and the Penguin because of his arms dealing and black market habbits, but for the lesser roles Deadshot minus the shiny suit.  I think the Ventrioquist would be great because of the creepiness of the guy.  An old man yelling at people thru a puppet can be done real well, and I think an audience who has no idea what enjoy the hell out him.  A lot of people didn't know who the Scarecrow was and look how well he was. 
Posted by m_man360
@Crymsun said:
" @Emperor Gonzo Noir:  Agreed.  You don't need a bunch of villains to make it good.  Just one villain really written well.    Let's say you were making another good Bat movie.  Could you include only The Riddler and make it good?  Of course you could!  A good villain with a lot depth can keep the hero busy throughout the movie.  There are so many good Bat villains that this could be done easily.  Iron Man?  Hmm.. he's got who..?  Whiplash in this one?  MMM.. yeah.. maybe you should add more characters.  IMO, i don't think Whiplash could carry it on his own.  As for other Iron Man villains... other than the Mandarin, I don't think he has any others that could carry a story on their own. "
Iron Man has no one interesting except for a bottle of jack.
Posted by m_man360
@goldenkey said:
" I think if the use of villians pertains to the 3rd Batman film the villians should something that can be used in a way that's more or less believable.  I wouldn't want to see Clayface, or Poison Ivy in the film.  The Riddler could be done because of the itellect battle, and the Penguin because of his arms dealing and black market habbits, but for the lesser roles Deadshot minus the shiny suit.  I think the Ventrioquist would be great because of the creepiness of the guy.  An old man yelling at people thru a puppet can be done real well, and I think an audience who has no idea what enjoy the hell out him.  A lot of people didn't know who the Scarecrow was and look how well he was.  "
I dunno an old man and a puppet it kind of goes back to the days of corniness don't you think.
Posted by MrMiracle77

Don't forget Superman 2.  4 baddies, plus a few underlings.

Edited by chalkshark

I think the idea that each sequel has to be bigger & better than the last movie, ends up being a detriment to the overall film. I don't understand why no one seems to follow the James Bond model for films. It's only been successful for five decades. Each new film serves as a continuation of the character, who is involved in a brand new adventure. It doesn't have to pick up 10 minutes after the last film ended. The Indiana Jones films follow the Bond model, to great effect. Yes, you can put these films into a chronological order if you absolutely must, but they all also stand very well on their own. They're not just chapters, they're their own books. Shoehorning a dozen extra characters into a film might sell a few more tickets to the people who've waited their whole lives to see the Melter or Killer Moth on the big screen. Historically, though, it doesn't really showcase those characters or serve the story. The Riddler clearly outshone Two-face in Batman Forever. Poison Ivy played second fiddle to Mr.Freeze in Batman & Robin, with Bane barely showing up. Spider Man III has so many adversaries jockeying for position that they're practically elbowing each other in the face for screen time. I don't doubt that, if written well, you could successfully pull off an army of super villains in any given film. The problem, though, is, how often is it ever really written well? There's no shame in telling a really good story that focuses on the conflict of one really well-fleshed out adversary against one really well-fleshed out protagonist. Hollywood should try it more often.

Edited by cmaprice

Quality trumps quantity. Quantity helps, especially if things start to get stale, as it adds more complex dynamics, but it can also spread the writing thin. Look at X3 and Wolverine Origins. Those films introduced characters (heroes and villains) seemingly just for the hell of it. As a result, the "main" characters were drowned out and the writing was rushed, cliche, and ultimately ruined the franchise twice over. 
 
Spider-Man had Green Goblin and the burglar. Spidey 2 had Doc Ock and Harry. Spidey 3 had Sandman, the black suit, Venom, and Harry. Third one was a mess.
 
Bamtan (1989) had the Joker and his goons. Returns had Penguin, Catwoman, and Max Schreck. Forever had Two-Face, Riddler. And Robin had Ivy, Freeze, and Bane. Begins had Ra's al Ghul, Scarecrow, Falconi, Mr Zsasz, and Joe Chill. Knight had Joker, Two-Face, Maroni, Scarecrow, The Russian, Lao, etc. In terms of featured bad guys, the Nolan films have much more and are much better films. 
 
This suggests it's not the size of your rogues gallery; it's how you use it.

Posted by m_man360
@chalkshark said:
" I think the idea that each sequel has to be bigger & better than the last movie, ends up being a detriment to the overall film. I don't understand why no one seems to follow the James Bond model for films. It's only been successful for five decades. Each new film serves as a continuation of the character, who is involved in a brand new adventure. It doesn't have to pick up 10 minutes after the last film ended. The Indiana Jones films follow the Bond model, to great effect. Yes, you can put these films into a chronological order if you absolutely must, but they all also stand very well on their own. They're not just chapters, they're their own books. Shoehorning a dozen extra characters into a film might sell a few more tickets to the people who've waited their whole lives to see the Melter or Killer Moth on the big screen. Historically, though, it doesn't really showcase those characters or serve the story. The Riddler clearly outshone Two-face in Batman Forever. Poison Ivy played second fiddle to Mr.Freeze in Batman & Robin, with Bane barely showing up. Spider Man III has so many adversaries jockeying for position that they're practically elbowing each other in the face for screen time. I don't doubt that, if written well, you could successfully pull off an army of super villains in any given film. The problem, though, is, how often is it ever really written well? There's no shame in telling a really good story that focuses on the conflict of one really well-fleshed out adversary against one really well-fleshed out protagonist. Hollywood should try it more often. "
Yeah but the studios want to make money, and from now on we will have seven villains on film all in 3-D of course.
Posted by -Eclipse-

I think the problem is not so much that there are too many villains, just that there is a lack of a MAIN villain. Let's take the Star Wars example. Sure, there are tons of villains in the movies. But when it comes down to it, Palpatine is the main baddy in most of them. Darth Vader in a few. There are loads of minor nasty guys, but none of them are important when compared with Vader or Palpatine. 
 
X-Men had the Brotherhood. A whole team of villains. But Magneto was the bad guy. Batman Begins had R'as and Scarecrow, but R'as was clearly the main villain. Same with Dark Knight, Joker was Palpatine, Harvey was his Vader. Where Spider-man 3 failed is that it lacked a great main villain. We had Harry, Sandman, Venom... But did any of those guys really stand out as the main villain? Sure, at the end Sandy and Harry got 'redeemed', so you could say that Venom was the main villain. But was he? Was he a Ras al Ghul type character, manipulating the whole movie? Was he a Joker, who did very much the same? Nope. He was an angry dude who got black-goop-spidey powers. Sandman was a guy who wanted money for his kid. Harry was also an angry dude, who found his dads grenades hiding behind a mirror and decided to become a Power Ranger on a skateboard (it's every kid's dream). 

None of these guys scream 'evil mastermind', and none of them were. If it turned out, at the end, that Norman Osborn had been manipulating events all along, that he planted the symbiote on Parker and kidnapped Sandmans daughter and played on his sons emotions, all as a way of trying to bring hell upon his enemy Spider-man... Suddenly we have a far more interesting movie. Every superhero movie needs a GOOD villain, and that villain needs to have more of the spotlight than the other bad guys. Iron Monger was the main baddy of Iron Man, but the terrorists were bad guys too. There's loads of examples... 
 
You can throw in as many villains as you like. But you can't give all of them the spotlight. The focus has to be on ONE villains. One really awesome villain.

Posted by Decept-O


It's odd.  I've not seen many complaints pertaining to the use of Joker, the Mafia dude (whose name escapes me sorry), Scarecrow and his wimpy henchmen,  and Two-Face in Batman: The Dark Knight, not to mention all of Joker's henchmen.  Plenty more than just one villain in that movie, right?  Yet, concerning Spider-Man 3 (which failed for different reasons IMO), we had Harry Osborn temporarily as a bad guy to an extent, Sandman, and Eddie Brock/Venom.   Yet what do I constatnly read?  Spider-Man 3 had too many villains.  So why the difference?  I know why.  The story and acting.  Batman: The Dark Knight blew a lot of people away on many different levels.  I still get goose bumps just thinking about that movie.  Spider-Man 3 elicits a different reaction.  I get hives and nauseau when I think about that movie.  Therein lies the crux of the problem. 

 

  You bring up a good point with the Star Wars movies.  You knew who the bad guys were for the most part yet we didn't need to have their origins told.  I think the difference with comic book movies is that if the hero is going to be explained, I think it's "expected" on some level that the villains are explained.  For those of us who are already familiar with the characters, it's annoying but for audiences who may not be familiar, maybe it helps them.   
 
Regardless, I'm all for having more than one villain in a superhero movie.  Superman 2, Batman: The Dark Knight, the first 2 X-Men movies, along with Hellboy 1 & 2 had more than one villain, yet look how successful those movies were.  It's how the movie is written, the level of acting, FX, direction, production, etc.  that makes a difference.   
 
I WANT more than one villain.  A hero needs to be challenged.  If anyone has ever been in a fight, or seen a fight involving teens or some adults who are less than civil, sometimes more than one person may jump in against you or another perosn,  and no, it's not fair, and yes it's cowardly for someone to do such a thing.   However, a super hero is not a normal person in many regards, and is supposed to have the ability to handle such a  situation--and then some.  More than one villain in a comic book movie?  Sign me up, Bunky!

Posted by Grim

 the problems come when you throw too many origins into a movie. If you spend the whole movie trying to make a 15 minute figt at the end make sense, thats a no no. 
 If the spiderman franchise had spent the first two introducing villains, and then the third bringing all of those villains back in at once, it probably would have worked better. Then it would have been more like the comics, where the story was about Spidey trying to figure out how to beat this new unstoppable force, instead of them just jumbling together and getting their butts kicked. It says very little of the villains if they do better divided than united.
 the reason it worked in Batman Returns is because Catwoman and Penguin where never on the same page. It was a 3way brawl. But in all the films where the villains meet up half way through the same film they where introduced.... and the fan reaction was not great.
just sayin

Posted by Gylan Thomas

Good story's what matters. Simple as.

Posted by glforthewin
@Emperor Gonzo Noir said:
" It's not the amount of villains, it's how you use them "
Posted by m_man360

Well it's not hard to play it safe with ONE villain per film. Just add plenty of action and explosions.

Posted by Violet-Eyed Dragon
@Emperor Gonzo Noir said:
" It's not the amount of villains, it's how you use them "
agreed
also id like to see multiple villains in the FIRST film, if done properly.  Daredevil had three (Elektra, Kingpin, and Bullseye) but was a lot better because of it.  likewise, iron man only had one, but it still was pretty bad.   

 



Posted by m_man360
@Violet-Eyed Dragon said:
" @Emperor Gonzo Noir said:
" It's not the amount of villains, it's how you use them "
agreed
also id like to see multiple villains in the FIRST film, if done properly.  Daredevil had three (Elektra, Kingpin, and Bullseye) but was a lot better because of it.  likewise, iron man only had one, but it still was pretty bad.   

 

"
Iron Man was excellent you can't be serious that Daredevil was at all a great film. It was nothing but a blatant remark on comic book adaptions and how stupendous they can be with cheap written scripts. Stane was a creepy villain that gave you the chills he has a certain stature to him that is just plain out menacing.
Posted by HaloKing343

Agreed
Edited by Jordanstine
@Decept-O said:

"I WANT more than one villain.  A hero needs to be challenged.  If anyone has ever been in a fight, or seen a fight involving teens or some adults who are less than civil, sometimes more than one person may jump in against you or another perosn,  and no, it's not fair, and yes it's cowardly for someone to do such a thing.   However, a super hero is not a normal person in many regards, and is supposed to have the ability to handle such a  situation--and then some. 

I'm the opposite.  I see your point, but I prefer the one villain who can go toe-to-toe with the main hero of the film. 
 
It's like wrestling.   
 
Superman vs Goku 1-on-1 = The Wrestlemania of Comics vs Manga
You have the triple-threat matches and the royal rumbles, etc.   But the best championship matches worthy of headlining Wrestlemania are won by 1-on-1 matches.  I.e. The Undertaker vs Shawn Michaels, The Rock vs Steve Austin, etc.  In other words: the Best of the Best.
 
Same in comics.   That's why all these messageboards are filled with "Who would win a fight?" Like The Hulk vs Wolverine, Superman vs Thor, Batman vs Captain America, etc. 
 
Posted by Joe Venom

Its a shame that we will not get to see Kurt Conners become the Lizard (Spiderman Movies), they have been building his character up since the first film it would have been nice to see him in action.

Posted by Meteorite

I think it's better to just have one villain, but have that villain used very well.

Posted by Bruce Vain
@Joe Venom said:
"Its a shame that we will not get to see Kurt Conners become the Lizard (Spiderman Movies), they have been building his character up since the first film it would have been nice to see him in action."

Dylan Baker pretty much got robbed on getting a chance to finally be the Lizard.
Posted by They Killed Cap!

depends on who the villians are and if they are interesting.
Posted by AMP - Seeker of Lost Knowledge
@Emperor Gonzo Noir said:
" It's not the amount of villains, it's how you use them "
I agree with him/her/them. If it wasn't for Mr. Freeze and Poison Ivy...there wouldn't a Winter/Spring conflict for the Dynamic Duo in Batman and Robin.
Edited by texasdeathmatch
@Violet-Eyed Dragon said:

" @Emperor Gonzo Noir said:

" It's not the amount of villains, it's how you use them "

agreed
also id like to see multiple villains in the FIRST film, if done properly.  Daredevil had three (Elektra, Kingpin, and Bullseye) but was a lot better because of it.  likewise, iron man only had one, but it still was pretty bad.   

 

"
HAHA clearly a reliable movie critic if he or she is seriously comparing Daredevil to Ironman. God, Daredevil was so bad. What is wrong with you? Also, multiple villains in a first movie is WAY TOO overwhelming, and would only target comic book fans. You think random movie goers are going to appreciate ridiculous characters and costumes flying all over the place? I'd like to see your first screenplay if you write one, sounds like you have some unique ideas for a pitch.
Posted by reaper2923

You liked that third Batman movie? Also there were numerous factors which contributed to the sucking of Batman and Robin heres a few.

Too kidy 
NIPPLES!!!!!!!!!! 
Terrible puns 
NIPPLES!!!!!!!!!! 
Bad director replaced an excellent director 
NIPPLES!!!!!!!!!! 
need I say more

Edited by grimreaper1980

i agree with you completly tom, have black mask as the main villain and all the other villains as his enforcers/hitmen, except for clayface, cause then it would be too sci fi ish. unless nolan mad him to be more like the chameleon, just be a master of disguise/ assassin

Posted by greenenvy

I guess it could work still but all the characters/villains cant be rushed or put in the last minute thou. 

Edited by DevilmanEX
@The Wretch said:

" I don't recall hearing the complaints against the Batman movies being about "too many villains."  Think it had more to do with the poor writing, neon light gangs, gay overtones, etc.  "Too many villains" is just an excuse used by crap writers. "

I STRONGLY CONCUR.  Have as many or as little villains as the story provides.  Just make sure the writing makes sense and the director can bring the pages to life believably.  LORD OF THE RINGS had a SH*T load of Heroes a SH*T load of Villains and it worked perfectly as a movie because 1) it was a well written story and 2) the director was able to translate it unto the screen
 
@Green ankh said:

" I'd like to see Batman being a Detective. "

Yea I liked the Dark Knight but really....we have yet to see a full on Detective Batman movie.....We get the very superhero-y version.  In DK the superhero was toned down. Excellent story telling and performances prevailed but did we really get the star of Detective Comics?   Rorschach was a waay better detective in Watchmen.  Come on!
Posted by m_man360
@texasdeathmatch said:
" @Violet-Eyed Dragon said:

" @Emperor Gonzo Noir said:

" It's not the amount of villains, it's how you use them "

agreed
also id like to see multiple villains in the FIRST film, if done properly.  Daredevil had three (Elektra, Kingpin, and Bullseye) but was a lot better because of it.  likewise, iron man only had one, but it still was pretty bad.   

 

"
HAHA clearly a reliable movie critic if he or she is seriously comparing Daredevil to Ironman. God, Daredevil was so bad. What is wrong with you? Also, multiple villains in a first movie is WAY TOO overwhelming, and would only target comic book fans. You think random movie goers are going to appreciate ridiculous characters and costumes flying all over the place? I'd like to see your first screenplay if you write one, sounds like you have some unique ideas for a pitch. "
I agree with Texas, it's bad for the audience to see so much colour and gloss the same mistake that films like Batman and Robin, Daredevil and Watchmen (works in the comic but not in film) made. As an aspiring screenwriter I have noticed that in order to make a really good comic adaption you have to make the characters real and your setting almost believable. You don't have to make it dark, but you need to bring in a sense of grittiness and grimness that harsh reality brings to the table.
 
Not everyone (as a comic fan/film fan) wants to see a movie full of comic story arks such as CIVIL WAR or SECRET WARS turned to screen because it will come to them as a large gimmick that film studios try to encapsulate to rake in children. When it comes to film I think adding your own story ark is the best.
Posted by Silver Knight75

 you need to give villains a proper amount of screen time. make each one an equal or near equal of a threat. 
 
in the first X-men, Sabretooth was taken out FAR too easily, Mystique put up a fight, Toad did some damage, it just didn't seem balanced. 
 
Venom was seriously robbed of his big moment in Spider-Man 3 film time-wise.  
 
I'm just saying give the villains more respect, a fair amount of screen time and maybe it can work

Posted by KansetsuWaza

Fuck you ass hole batman and robin was awesome!

Posted by Ryvuk
@KansetsuWaza:
no...no....no it wasn't
Posted by ComicStooge
@KansetsuWaza:  It was like a 2 hour commercial...
Posted by leokearon

More baddies = more toys = more merchanise = $$$$$$$€€€€€€€€€€
  • 82 results
  • 1
  • 2