Too many villains and/or characters...

[enyawd72]

I've heard this mentioned in several reviews of Amazing Spider-Man 2 and of course always referenced towards Spider-Man 3.

What I don't understand is why is this never addressed or seems to be a problem with the X-Men films?

They are loaded with multiple heroes and villains.

[madmarva]

I've not seen the Amazing Spidey 2 yet, but I agree it's a cop out to say too many villains always ruins a movie. I think Dark Knight (Scarecrow, Joker, Two-Face as well as corruption in the ranks of cops and city administration) proved if done right, multiple villains can work. Even with Dark Knight Rises, the film's issues don't really stem from too many villains (Talia, Bane, Scarecrow, Catwoman, lazy cops, the businessman who was trying to take over Wayne's companies).

Luthor and the Phantom Zone Villains in Superman II, I'd argue, worked really well. And as you mentioned several of the x-Men films were very good with multiple villains and heroes.

But we've also seen it fail in Batman Forever and Batman and Robin or Green Lantern with Hector Hammond and Paralax. But, again, I don't know if those films' real problem was multiple villains or just bad scripts and poor directorial and or editorial choices.

I do think some of the lesser movie reviewers use multiple villains as a crutch to criticize some super hero films because it's an easy target.

It all comes down to does the script work.

Obviously, all the villains won't get the same screen time or development, but a good script can use multiple antagonists to its advantage. Scarecrow in Dark Night wasn't just a means to introduce an action scene for Batman early in the film without pitting him against the Joker right off the bat. It did that but it also introduced the idea of throwing Batman, a new predator, into Gotham's mix made everything a little crazy by prompting copycat Batmans and more dangerous and destructive criminals.

[hedrap]

X-men movies are about teams and the powers concept is accepted through one explanation. Once Rogue gets the lowdown from Xavier as to what's up with her mutation, that applies to any character with mutant abilities for all movies, unless they introduced a deviation such as Apocalypse.

With Spidey, Batman, Superman, etc.. that rule does not apply since every character's ability comes about for a different reason, creating a need for an origin of each character. This can splinter the main storyline into a bunch of sub-plots, which is the case with ASM 2.

And people did complain about this with Batman Forever and B&R. Marvel understood this and used Batman '89 as their template - connect the hero and villains origins - which is why you see it in so many Marvel movies. It's a time-saver. When they haven't used it, you get a mess like Iron Man 2 and 3.

[huedell]

With Spidey, Batman, Superman, etc.. that rule does not apply since every character's ability comes about for a different reason, creating a need for an origin of each character. This can splinter the main storyline into a bunch of sub-plots, which is the case with ASM 2.

I think the "too many villains" negative review reasoning towards ASM2 is a cop out.

Electro and Harry Osborn are the only distinct priority plots. Any other villain in ASM2 is a facet, "just melding into" to either of those two. Additionally, Electro being so closely tied to Oscorp makes it so that I can't see any notably legit flaws in this regard.

(minor spoilers here???) The guy that appeared at the end of the first flick is a distinct plot which encompasses the Rhino but they (being writers deserving more praise than scrutiny IMHO) aren't foolish enough to misuse the few moments this faction is addressed in the movie. Every time you see the guy (or the Rhino) it moves the story forward as far as relating to the Gwen subplot, or relating to the Harry subplot, and they're even smart enough to include civilian Rhino in a scene that "intros" Spidey this time around instead using the other characters... or god forbid... an ADDITIONAL character-----

---so yeah, I don't get any of the criticism in this regard.

[huedell]

I've heard this mentioned in several reviews of Amazing Spider-Man 2 and of course always referenced towards Spider-Man 3.

What I don't understand is why is this never addressed or seems to be a problem with the X-Men films?

They are loaded with multiple heroes and villains.

There's a billion reasons why----but one that was alluded to by marva, I'll be more straightforward, using distinct examples as a blanket summation, and that summation is:
"People care a lot more about the Venom and Riddler characters than they do about the characters of Pyro and the Asian kid who turns into a porcupine. SO THAT demands more fleshed out characters."

THAT said: hedrap's point about the X-Men films being more about "the development of the TEAM'S dynamic", rather than being about "the development of ONE protagonist", is what I believe to be the primary answer to your question.

[madmarva]

After seeing Amazing Spider-Man 2, I guess it could be argued that too many villains spoil the brew, but I didn't find that to be a big issue.

I liked seeing Spidey fight the three different villains who challenged him differently, but what is getting old is the trope Hedrap mentioned of tying the origins of the villains to the hero. As super hero films stack up on top of themselves, it's getting to be a tired plot, to me, but it is the foundation this series of Spidey films is built on.

I liked the movie. The action is really good. Spidey's wisecracks and humor worked for me and the chemistry between Garfield and Stone is probably the best part of the film.

But at its core, we've seen this film before, and I think that is why it might not be as well received as other Spidey or super hero films.

I believe one of the reasons the Captain America film has done so well is that it escaped the need of telling a detailed origin as the prime plot of the film. The background of the Winter Soldier was quickly and fairly deftly given in exposition.

There's good stuff in ASM2 and it may play better with those that don't know the ins and outs of the Gwen-Peter relationship.

I enjoyed the movie, but I did not come out of it eager for the next outing. I doubt it will leave any Spidey fans disillusioned like Man of Steel did with some Superman fans. But I'm much more eager and anxious to see what happens in the MOS follow-up than ASM3.

[hedrap]

I don't mind connecting the hero and villain when it's not forced, because then it has a logic. With Iron Man, if they have adopted the idea behind Armor Wars, they would have had a pre-established explanation as to how and why IM is taking on armored variants. It's Stark's tech, he unleashed it, so it's his responsibility to stop it. That's where Favreau wanted to go with IM2, but he got derailed by the Avengers material.

I thought the new Spidey movie crew got it, but the emphasis on Peter's parents was a horrible idea in the comics and worse on film. You can make his dad a scientist, but why does it have to be that kind of science? It's like the stuff I've been reading coming this summer in Original Sin. If Stark is really going to have culpability for the Gamma Bomb, then we're entering soap opera territory where nothing is by chance, it's all an interconnected fate.

It's the curse of Lost. That show mastered the formula on how to make something feel "big", when in production reality, it was a small cast with one main location. That's all studios now want to mimic, and they think the key is interconnection built around Fate. Because Fate is as huge as it gets for a character while at the same time being invisible and always out-of-reach. Superman is the only character that should be drowning in Fate. I guess you also could make the argument for Cap, too. But Iron Man, Batman, Spidey, Thor, Hulk....it defeats the point of the character.

I mean, could you imagine if Nolan and Goyer decided to have Ra's Al Ghul choose Bruce Wayne because Thomas Wayne helped discover the Lazarus Pit, the fear toxin, or whatever? Not just would it have killed Begins, they never would have considered TDK's Joker - some disconnected, unknown, sociopath - as plausible. That's why we end up with the repetition in Marvel villains; it's too hard to see anything engaging without Fait Accompli. It works for the Avengers because like the X-Men, each person brings their problems to the larger group.

[huedell]

The trouble with discussing this is that sometimes blending the factors works and sometimes it doesn't. That said: I believe that blending the factors has the slight advantage because it condenses story story-telling easier than starting from scratch, and usually that's a smart move writing-wise regardless of all the other factors.

[johnmiic]

In Spider-Man 3 Sandman and Venom are a bad mix. The 2 characters don't mix well onscreen. Including both in the same film tugs too far from one extreme to another. Sandman might work with another villain but Venom is a loner. I'm not fan of Venom. He's too powerful and Spider-Man should not be able to beat him. If they're going to do a Venom story line best to have him as the only villain in the film so I can skip the film entirely.

The reason why the X-Men films work so well is the director and writer's talents. Bryan Singer knows how to handle a large cast and numerous complex characters like pieces on a chess board. Film-makers today are lazy and can't handle large complicated casts. Peter Jackson & Joss Whedon are also good examples of directors who work well with their writers & who can juggle many characters in a complex story. Unlike the FF films which could've been so much more. The FF films should've approached the dysfunction of the clashing characters like Avengers did but they never kicked it up to that level like Avengers did. The director in FF played it safe. He wanted Surfer but not Galactus or The Watcher.

[madmarva]

^And there is the real answer. It comes down to talent. The script, the direction, the cast, the production team and probably a hundred other things that either blend in some form or fashion to make a film work or don't and tear it apart.

Sometimes it's the struggle that helps makes it work, like with Jaws. Put a different director with a different cast with different producers and that movie might not only have been bad but also not completed.

The casting gods smiled on Webb with Stone and Garfiled. They are so likable and good in the roles.Tobey McGuire is a fine actor and he really brought Peter Parker to life in the Raimi films, but Garfield is Spider-Man on the big screen. As for Stone, if I were a director, I'd be fighting to have her in my next film. Whatever "it" is, she has it.

Overall, Raimi's Spiderman 2 is a tighter, more focused and better film than ASM2, although there are some great bits in Webb's film that really work and are classic Spidey. I do think Webb and the screenwriter's insistence of telling such a clockwork story where it all ties back into Peter's father's research and Oscorp works to hinder the story instead of making it more efficient because it takes time away from what really works: Garfield as Spidey and the Gwen-Peter relationship.

Part of my issue with ASM2 may be that I think Webb and the screenwriter miss Parker's motivation for why he uses his powers the way he does. In the overall arc of the comics, Parker's not motivated about finding out why his parents left him. Ben and May are his parents. He's motivated by the one time he was selfish as Spider-Man, it cost him the most influential person in his life, Uncle Ben.

Again, that is personal gripe and bias that a majority of the people who see the film won't carry with them into the theater, but it nagged at me while watching the film. It is a nitpick. The movie was fun,and if I were a kid today, I would definitely be playing Spider-Man.

[hedrap]

Overall, Raimi's Spiderman 2 is a tighter, more focused and better film than ASM2, although there are some great bits in Webb's film that really work and are classic Spidey. I do think Webb and the screenwriter's insistence of telling such a clockwork story where it all ties back into Peter's father's research and Oscorp works to hinder the story instead of making it more efficient because it takes time away from what really works: Garfield as Spidey and the Gwen-Peter relationship.

Part of my issue with ASM2 may be that I think Webb and the screenwriter miss Parker's motivation for why he uses his powers the way he does. In the overall arc of the comics, Parker's not motivated about finding out why his parents left him. Ben and May are his parents. He's motivated by the one time he was selfish as Spider-Man, it cost him the most influential person in his life, Uncle Ben.

What you're pointing out is the exact problem. Spidey 2 worked because Parker was autonomous and his connection to Doc Ock was informal. Here, everything intertwines which forces the story into artificial scenes of coincidence and chance. So ASM cannot be about "with great power..." because it has to be subservient to the mystery around Parker's parents.

A Spider-Man script should have more in common with Craven's Swamp Thing than Harryhausen's Clash Of The Titans.

[samurainoir]

I haven't seen ASM2 yet, but I think what it comes down to is the personal conflicts driving the narratives, and how that is handled within a large cast of characters.

X-Men works because it's largely an ideological struggle, with the personal conflict that embodies that drawn between Xavier and Magneto. The huge cast of characters falls largely between those two camps. This is why the third movie falls apart and First Class works so well even with so many "no name" characters.

It's the Kingdom Come structural model... where the personal/ideological focus is on the conflict between Superman/Wonder Woman and Batman, and the huge Where's Waldo cast of characters are generally the set dressing.

Spider-Man 3 starts to fall apart because those movies are generally structured around the personal relationships between Peter and each of the villains. In the case of Green Goblin and Doctor Octopus, they were largely surrogate father figures (and had they gone through with the plan to use Lizard/Dylan Baker as Raimi intended, the formula would have held).

The existing conflict between Harry and Peter was already compelling and should have been enough to drive that storyline, but instead, it was split and additional personal conflicts had to be created to service two additional villains... leading to them retconning in Sandman's connection to Peter and introducing the "doppleganger" origin of Eddie Brock. The previous formula worked as a metaphor for embracing adulthood and breaking free of parental influences. The three separate conflicts here didn't really fall into any clean through line for the audience. The Greek Tragedy between Peter and Harry devolved into Farce, there wasn't a strong enough redemption/forgiveness component in the Sandman component, and the Evil Doppleganger stories should have given Peter profound insight into himself. Toss that into a blender and it's not much of a whole.

[mightyquinn]

In Spider-Man 3 Sandman and Venom are a bad mix. The 2 characters don't mix well onscreen. Including both in the same film tugs too far from one extreme to another. Sandman might work with another villain but Venom is a loner. I'm not fan of Venom. He's too powerful and Spider-Man should not be able to beat him. If they're going to do a Venom story line best to have him as the only villain in the film so I can skip the film entirely.

You nailed it! Not too many villains, just not the right ones........along with a bad script.

[hedrap]

Venom was an addition by the Sony and Avi Arad to how Spidey2 underperformed along with the toy sales. Raimi wanted Sandman and was more open to other Silver Age villains.

Sandman and Electro made sense to me as a combination origin since they share silicon.

[huedell]

What you're pointing out is the exact problem. Spidey 2 worked because Parker was autonomous and his connection to Doc Ock was informal. Here, everything intertwines which forces the story into artificial scenes of coincidence and chance.

I don't see it that way---I see it as making all this wacky superpower stuff that runs all over the saga's landscape as being more plausi9ble with the science/Oscorp tie-ins and by being more efficient to the screenwriter and making a tighter story.

So ASM cannot be about "with great power..." because it has to be subservient to the mystery around Parker's parents.

Being subservient to Parker's parents is the genius of ASM and especially ASM2----it's not the same old, same old yet it espouses the very thing that Ben stated which is Spidey's credo and iconic motto.

And it's a SPOILER ladies and gents---so skip what I'm posting below here if you don't wanna be spoiled---

Parker's father knew that his creation was so powerful thaty he had to give up the one thing he really wanted: Peter. That's JUST what the whole theme of power/responsibility is asbout.... AND....there's even one MORE thing that hammers this home. Another big spoiler
, it's what by the end of ASM2, that Parker learns all too well through Gwen's fate and the final showdown with Rhino.

So, yeah, it occurs to me that by my particular view, ASM2 excels at refurbishing (or at least staying TRUE to) what Spidey has always been about---and that is: Stories with the theme of "With great power comes great responsibility."

And I prefer seeing it expounded upon the way it has been expounded upon in the Garfield series. Move Ben over a bit and let the other part of his life breathe onscreen, the Gwen/Mary Jane part... or "Leary's ghost instead of Sheen's"