• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sony Spider-Verse discussion thread

Grendelsbayne said:
Supposedly this version of Kraven is actually an animal lover. What that looks like exactly? IDK, maybe he starts out by hunting people who hurt animals or something?

Not that hunting people is in any way better than hunting animals, so what the hell that change is supposed to accomplish, idk.
Click to expand...
I can see him working as a hunt saboteur; going after big game trophy hunters, ivory poachers, "scientific research" whalers, that kind of thing. Not sure how one fits that kind of character into the sphere of a friendly neighbourhood Spider-Man though. I mean one assumes there's not a lot of trophy hunting going on in Central Park.

Much easier of course if he *is* one of those rich twats that get off on "hunting" endangered species with high calibre weaponry so they can pose next to a corpse for their instagram followers. Which is basically what he was in the comics anyway.

Kind of illustrates the problem with trying to convert villains into anti-heroes; more often than not making them more sympathetic strips them of what made them an antagonist in the first place. That's not to say you can't have sympathetic villains (most of the really good ones are!) but it needs to be baked into the character from the jump. Also, if you have to totally re-invent a character to make them work, then why even bother? Just make an original character.
 
Last edited:
The other problem with making Kraven an antihero is that his name is presumably a play on "craven," as in cowardly or mean-spirited, which works as a critique of a murderous sport hunter but not so much as a character we're asked to root for.
 
I mean at that point, I can't really blame them. Comics readers didn't exactly balk at the idea of a character named 'Venom' (or variations thereon) becoming an anti-hero instead of a villain. A whole lot of people just aren't going to think that deeply about the character's name.
 
JD said:
So then why the hell haven't we gotten a Spider-Woman movie? She's a popular character, or at least a character who pops up in a lot of comics, she's more than just a gender flipped copy of Spidey, and she doesn't really rely on him the way characters like Kraven do.
Click to expand...

Don't want to defend Sony, but they are making or have made a Madame Web movie.
 
Oh right, I forgot about that one. But that just brings up the question of why they went with her instead of Spider-Woman, who seems like she's a much higher profile character.
 
JD said:
Oh right, I forgot about that one. But that just brings up the question of why they went with her instead of Spider-Woman, who seems like she's a much higher profile character.
Click to expand...
I still can't figure out why Sony even has Spider-Woman. Other than the "Spider" in her name she didn't have even the slightest connection to Spider-Man when Sony acquired the Spider-Man rights. Marvel's rights deals must have been written up by idiots.
 
Yeah, I've always been confused by that too, but I guess any character with Spider probably just automatically goes with Peter. To be fair, she has been involved in a lot of the Spider-Man comics crossovers, so they're not totally disconnected in the comics.
 
JD said:
Yeah, I've always been confused by that too, but I guess any character with Spider probably just automatically goes with Peter. To be fair, she has been involved in a lot of the Spider-Man comics crossovers, so they're not totally disconnected in the comics.
Click to expand...
In the last couple of decades or so, I guess. But then, every hero seems to be in every other heroes back pocket these days, :lol:
She must have got swept up with the other Spider-Women from Marvel who did have connections to the Spider-Man mythos.
 
Nerys Myk said:
I still can't figure out why Sony even has Spider-Woman. Other than the "Spider" in her name she didn't have even the slightest connection to Spider-Man when Sony acquired the Spider-Man rights. Marvel's rights deals must have been written up by idiots.
Click to expand...

I suppose one could argue that she's legally a derivative character of Spider-Man, if not narratively. As explained here, Marvel created the character when they heard that Filmation was developing a character called Spider-Woman, and they rushed a Spider-Woman comic into production to beat Filmation to it (so that Filmation had to rename their character Web-Woman). But why would Marvel have felt the need to poach the trademark on "Spider-Woman" if not for its perceived connection to Spider-Man? So there's a case to be made, at least tenuously, that the creation of Spider-Woman was inspired by Spider-Man in a roundabout way.

Although, yeah, it's more likely that it's because of her later association with Spider-Man in their various crossovers, or perhaps just that the lawyers drawing up the licensing agreements threw her in with every other "Spider" character because they weren't looking too closely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top