Current Events > Sam Raimi may direct Doctor Strange 2

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://variety.com/2020/film/news/doctor-strange-2-sam-raimi-1203475309/
Nice
---

Cool choice

---

Excellent choice if the rumors of it having more horror elements are true.

---

Wonder who Bruce Cambell will play.

That would be hype af
---

darkphoenix181 posted...

Wonder who Ted Raimi will play.

---

Also, with multiversing and magic

Toby Mcquire could cameo

darkphoenix181 posted...

Also, with multiversing and magic

Toby Mcquire could cameo

https://youtu.be/cyJZ0oQn43I
---

Oh man Raimi horror campiness would be a fantastic fit.

---

ya id say dr strange is a better fit for him than spider man was for sure, could be great.

---

Yea this is going to be a hit for sure

---

inb4 Bruce Campbell cameo
---

Did Sam Raimi read Dr. Strange as a child? He doesn't like characters that were after his time (Venom).

Skye Reynolds posted...

Did Sam Raimi read Dr. Strange as a child? He doesn't like characters that were after his time (Venom).

Doctor Strange is nearly 60 years old

---

Darmik posted...

Doctor Strange is nearly 60 years old

I hope his most popular foe is as well and happened to be in a comic Raimi read as a child.

Skye Reynolds posted...

I hope his most popular foe is as well and happened to be in a comic Raimi read as a child.

So popular you cannot even name who it is.

You should look up what happened to Iron Man's most popular foe in the MCU.

---

This would be amazing.

---

Darmik posted...

So popular you cannot even name who it is

I have no clue. I never read Dr. Strange.

But if I got stuck doing a Dr. Strange trilogy, I wouldn't force his most popular villain into the third act of the third movie under studio mandate because I don't like that character. Sam Raimi had two movies to decide on his villains, his friends and his love interests for Peter, his supporting cast. Now all of the sudden the studio is the bad guy for saying, "Give the people what they want," by third movie? To Hell with that.

I understand Venom requires a lead-in. You can't throw him out there in the first Spider-Man movie. But there was no reason to begrudge him in the third movie. I would say it's like not allowing the Joker to be in a Batman trilogy, but Venom has more merchandise than the Joker. In the grand scheme of things, that probably means he's probably more popular. (That, or DC has the stupid notion that you shouldn't be buying stuff that has the bad guy because it means you don't "hate" him if you do. I wouldn't be surprised.)

Sandman could have waited or Sam Raimi could have been replaced.

There is literally nothing Skye will not bitch about.

---

They already fired a horror director, now they want another one? Yeah, I know he did SM, but still.

---

vigorm0rtis posted...

They already fired a horror director, now they want another one? Yeah, I know he did SM, but still.

If they have Dr. Strange travel back to the old west, maybe they can get Quick and the Dead Sam Raimi.

Sounds cool but I really want a Guillermo Del Toro Dr. Strange movie.

Skye Reynolds posted...

I have no clue. I never read Dr. Strange.

But if I got stuck doing a Dr. Strange trilogy, I wouldn't force his most popular villain into the third act of the third movie under studio mandate because I don't like that character. Sam Raimi had two movies to decide on his villains, his friends and his love interests for Peter, his supporting cast. Now all of the sudden the studio is the bad guy for saying, "Give the people what they want," by third movie? To Hell with that.

I understand Venom requires a lead-in. You can't throw him out there in the first Spider-Man movie. But there was no reason to begrudge him in the third movie. I would say it's like not allowing the Joker to be in a Batman trilogy, but Venom has more merchandise than the Joker. In the grand scheme of things, that probably means he's probably more popular. (That, or DC has the stupid notion that you shouldn't be buying stuff that has the bad guy because it means you don't "hate" him if you do. I wouldn't be surprised.)

Sandman could have waited or Sam Raimi could have been replaced.

It really wouldn't bother me if Joker doesn't pop up in The Batman trilogy. There's also plenty of Joker merch wtf.

Doctor Strange's most popular villain was already in the first movie if you must know.

---

Darmik posted...

It really wouldn't bother me if Joker doesn't pop up in The Batman trilogy.

I think the majority of Batman fans would've been disappointed had Joker not appeared by the third film in the Christopher Nolan trilogy. And that's after the character had appeared in Batman: The Movie (1966) and Batman (1989).

Venom had never been in a live action movie before. Fans weren't clamoring for a return. They were looking to see the character's live action debut. Unfortunately, that was spoiled with a bad characterization and a crowded film.

And the studio isn't the bad guy for wanting Spider-Man's top villain over a guy who wasn't in the top five (Sandman). Maybe Sandman was in the top three during Sam Raimi's days. And it would've been fair to have had him in a movie were it not for Green Goblin, Dr. Octopus, or Green Goblin II getting in the way.

Something had to give and Sam Raimi wasn't willing to budge. It's his fault the film turned out the way it did.

Skye Reynolds posted...

Something had to give and Sam Raimi wasn't willing to budge. It's his fault the film turned out the way it did.

Luckily Sony managed to redeem themselves with Amazing Spider-man and Venom.

None of this is relevant anyway. Marvel doesn't have a reason to meddle like Sony did with SM3.

---

Darmik posted...

Luckily Sony managed to redeem themselves with Amazing Spider-man and Venom.

The first Amazing Spider-Man wasn't bad. In terms of character direction, it felt more like Spider-Man than Sam Raimi's films did. It's more what I associate with the character. The problem was with the bad decisions made in the sequel. Bad characterizations, trying to cram too much into one movie, etc.

Not only did Disney shake up the world with their notion of a shared universe, but they accidentally stumbled on a method of making other studios trip over their own shoelaces while trying to play catch-up.

Instead of allowing standalone films which eventually segue into one another, films like those of the DCCU or the ill-fated Dark Universe are written with the intent of baiting sequels and cramming as many mythology nods as they can. "Oh, look. There's a vampire skull in The Mummy. Dracula is coming... or would be if the sequels weren't all canceled." That's what killed Amazing Spider-Man.

The Sinister Six are harder to lead into than what a standalone Spider-Man versus Venom movie would be. And what we got was not what we needed in terms of characterization and origin for those who made it on-screen.

None of this is relevant anyway. Marvel doesn't have a reason to meddle like Sony did with SM3.

That depends on whether or not Sam Raimi has learned to tell a good story with characters he didn't create or grow up with.

Amazing Spider-man was bad because it was made redundant by a movie that came out nearly a decade earlier. It was doomed from the start.

Skye Reynolds posted...

That depends on whether or not Sam Raimi has learned to tell a good story with characters he didn't create or grow up with.

Just gonna point out that the rumor is that he's directing the movie. Doesn't mean he's gonna write it.

---

Darmik posted...

Just gonna point out that the rumor is that he's directing the movie. Doesn't mean he's gonna write it.

The producer gets final say on what's in the script and what's not.
The director gets next to final say.
The screenwriter does what they're told.

If the director is aware that the script is bad, they get another screenwriter to make changes to it. You can't say that Sam Raimi was doing the best he could with a bad script. That only happens if there's a writers strike.

Skye Reynolds posted...

The producer gets final say on what's in the script and what's not.
The director gets next to final say.
The screenwriter does what they're told.

If the director is aware that the script is bad, they get another screenwriter to make changes to it. You can't say that Sam Raimi was doing the best he could with a bad script. That only happens if there's a writers strike.

I'm talking about your weird paranoia that Sam Raimi hates characters that he didn't grown up with or write.

Sam Raimi was in a shitty spot because nothing in SM2 was setting up Venom. It was setting up Harry. Sony knew that. Sony could have asked for Eddie and a cliffhanger for 4 but they couldn't wait. It didn't work out for them in the long run. Oh well. Sometimes things don't work out.

And guess what. The next MCU Spider-Man probably won't have Venom either. Because again nothing in Far From Home set it up. So feel free to start hoping for Sony meddling to change that.

---

Sinister 6 really isn't that hard to lead into. I mean, lets look at it, if you assume they can use any of the previous Spiderman movies regardless of which Peter is which, then we already have Rhino, Doctor Octopus, Electro, Mysterio, and Vulture. Which leaves one spot open for either Kraven the Hunter, Scorpion, Sand Man, Chameleon or Shocker. Now, that being known, Sand Man was done in Spiderman 3 so they could bring him back. We don't need Shocker since we have Electro. If the Natasha Romanov movie could introduce Chameleon then we could go that route. Or even bring Morbius into the picture, but of course with that you'd have to introduce Felicia Hardy in some capacity.

All they need is a catalyst to bring them together. Which leads me into the next Spider-man movie, which should feature the Kingpin. Now, you could use the Kingpin that's in the daredevil series and connect that, or you could go outside the realm of possibility and get someone the size of Brian Shaw to play Kingpin. Having Kingpin tie into the Strange movie, could tie all 3 universes together.

It could tie into the end of Endgame by using the excuse that realities are broken now, and that cracks in the universe are showing, which gives us a reason to have Alfred Molina replay Doctor Octopus, through some stranger things type of set-up(people purposely breaking the gaps between universes).

This then leads into Secret Wars and then finally, when they finish up with Venom 2, Spider-Wars. Which then breaks the world as Spider-Carnage wants to destroy all realities. Also gives us options to explore other characters without fully utilizing them. Characters like Agent Venom and Anti-Venom.

Wow I totally forgot that Spider-Man 2 had a Doctor Strange reference.

https://youtu.be/kjbAcW7cNgo

---

Im totally on board. Spider-Man 2 is my favorite superhero movie of all time.

---

Smashingpmkns posted...

That would be hype af

---

https://twitter.com/scottderrickson/status/1225525933731393537

This basically confirms it. Fucking hyped.
---

Skye Reynolds posted...

I understand Venom requires a lead-in. You can't throw him out there in the first Spider-Man movie. But there was no reason to begrudge him in the third movie. I would say it's like not allowing the Joker to be in a Batman trilogy, but Venom has more merchandise than the Joker. In the grand scheme of things, that probably means he's probably more popular. (That, or DC has the stupid notion that you shouldn't be buying stuff that has the bad guy because it means you don't "hate" him if you do. I wouldn't be surprised.)

Venom is far closer to Bane than he is Joker as far a villain comparisons go. A 90's villain that came in with a big flashy arc. Was set-up as the Anti-[Batman/Spider-man]. Is ultimately defeated and then the writers never quite knew what to do with him after the arc because he sort of had his villainous peak. Venom ended up mostly going the anti-hero route, eventually the powers that be wanted him to go back to being a villain but that didn't make sense for Eddie at that point, so the symbiote bounced around a few other hosts, ultimately landing on Mac Gargan for the longest. But frankly none of those stories had the same spark that the original Venom stories had so Venom became a hero again.

Overall though, Venom's time as a true villain is pretty small and his time as a particularly good villain is even smaller.

Spider-man's Joker is more of a toss-up being Green Goblin and Doctor Octopus.

---

Darmik posted...

Sam Raimi was in a shitty spot because nothing in SM2 was setting up Venom. It was setting up Harry. Sony knew that. Sony could have asked for Eddie and a cliffhanger for 4 but they couldn't wait. It didn't work out for them in the long run. Oh well. Sometimes things don't work out.

Why should they have waited? Venom had been kept on the back burner long enough. It would have only taken a few tweaks of the plot to have replaced Sandman with Venom. That would have given us two villains to juggle instead of three.

Ivany2008 posted...

Sinister 6 really isn't that hard to lead into. I mean, lets look at it, if you assume they can use any of the previous Spiderman movies regardless of which Peter is which, then we already have Rhino, Doctor Octopus, Electro, Mysterio, and Vulture. Which leaves one spot open for either Kraven the Hunter, Scorpion, Sand Man, Chameleon or Shocker. Now, that being known, Sand Man was done in Spiderman 3 so they could bring him back. We don't need Shocker since we have Electro. If the Natasha Romanov movie could introduce Chameleon then we could go that route. Or even bring Morbius into the picture, but of course with that you'd have to introduce Felicia Hardy in some capacity.

That actually sounds pretty convoluted. No offense. Some of those are good ideas. But it really highlights how much of a lead-in it takes when you start talking about introducing a character in a Black Widow movie or reusing characters who appeared in previous movies without origins; just relying on the audience to recognize them from earlier Spider-Man adaptations.

Gheb posted...

Venom is far closer to Bane than he is Joker as far a villain comparisons go. A 90's villain that came in with a big flashy arc. Was set-up as the Anti-[Batman/Spider-man]. Is ultimately defeated and then the writers never quite knew what to do with him after the arc because he sort of had his villainous peak.

Granted, he has been an antihero more often than a villain. But that also reflects on his popularity. People were interested in reading comics which starred Venom. In terms of villain roles, he is tied into that one story. But it's a story worth presenting on the screen -- with heart and attention to detail.

Darmik posted...

Skye Reynolds posted...

I hope his most popular foe is as well and happened to be in a comic Raimi read as a child.

So popular you cannot even name who it is.

You should look up what happened to Iron Man's most popular foe in the MCU.

Whiplash was handled pretty well
---

TheRealDill2015 posted...

Whiplash was handled pretty well

If you say so

He was pretty forgetable and lame.

The only good things about the character (aka the bird thing) wasn't even from the writers/director. It came from Mickey Rourke insisting they do something, anything to give Whiplash some depth
---

Skye Reynolds posted...

Why should they have waited? Venom had been kept on the back burner long enough. It would have only taken a few tweaks of the plot to have replaced Sandman with Venom. That would have given us two villains to juggle instead of three.

Because they already had Harry as the villain.

Why would you want Venom wasted on a movie with Harry. They're villains who serve the same role. It's like wanting Red Hood and Hush in the same movie.

You could combine them and make Harry into Venom but that's also kinda dumb because Harry already has a reason to hate Peter when Venom should be a consequence of Peter's behaviour while in the suit.

---

Skye Reynolds posted...

Why should they have waited? Venom had been kept on the back burner long enough. It would have only taken a few tweaks of the plot to have replaced Sandman with Venom. That would have given us two villains to juggle instead of three.

That actually sounds pretty convoluted. No offense. Some of those are good ideas. But it really highlights how much of a lead-in it takes when you start talking about introducing a character in a Black Widow movie or reusing characters who appeared in previous movies without origins; just relying on the audience to recognize them from earlier Spider-Man adaptations.

It's the marvel universe.... chances are people are going to watch the movies regardless. And it isn't like you feature them as an actual character. Just word of mouth, or like Arrow did with Harley Quinn, stash her behind a prison cell and have her mutter a few lines.

There are ways to introduce characters without having them as prominent characters. Once you crack the multi-verse paradox, you can introduce them in many ways. Sadly we'll never have the best movie kingpin back, Michael Clarke Duncan.

Darmik posted...

Why would you want Venom wasted on a movie with Harry. They're villains who serve the same role. It's like wanting Red Hood and Hush in the same movie.

They put the Joker and Two-Face in the same movie. They're both disfigured psychotics who hold Batman responsible for what happened to them and have strong opinions on what they perceive to be the harsh realities of life. They tweaked both of them to fit.

Skye Reynolds posted...

They put the Joker and Two-Face in the same movie. They're both disfigured psychotics who hold Batman responsible for what happened to them and have strong opinions on what they perceive to be the harsh realities of life. They tweaked both of them to fit.

Joker is not that and he has no relationship at all with Bruce Wayne (in most adaptations).

Joker is also a significantly more flexible character than Venom.

---

DrizztLink posted...

There is literally nothing Skye will not bitch about.

---

Darmik posted...

Joker is not that and he has no relationship at all with Bruce Wayne (in most adaptations).

I didn't say Bruce Wayne. I said Batman.

Comic writers trip over one another over whether the Joker has a definitive origin, multiple potential origins, or no origin whatsoever. But in most media outside of the comics, the origin for the Joker is that he's a petty criminal who gets knocked into a vat of chemicals by Batman and emerges with his skin and hair discolored. It was the Joker's earliest origin story and the one most often returned to.

And the Joker's "one bad day" notion is pretty much what has defined him since the 1980s. All four live action adaptations since then have played off of this in one way or another without reciting the quote verbatim. So, yes, I would find continuity between the Joker and Two-Face in those areas. Two-Face is more "justice" than "society," but it's still commentary.

The truth is that most villains can be used interchangeably. If for some reason Bane's legal ownership were tied up in court, DC could have Killer Croc or Clayface break Batman's back instead. Batman Forever very clearly used the Riddler as Joker 2.0 on the grounds that both men laughed manically in the 1966 series. The Spider-Man cartoon from the 90s used Hobgoblin in place of Green Goblin and Hydro Man in place of Sandman because of aborted live action adaptations which would have used them as the primary villains. Green Goblin did appear in the final season, but that was well after plans for a movie had been dropped.

If you took Sandman out of the story and put Venom in his place, it might not be a perfect fit. But it would have been better than what we had. And it would have been better than asking fans to wait until the fourth movie which likely would've been released a full eight to ten years after the first movie. That's not a fair expectation for fans to wait that long for what was then his most popular foe. And there's no guarantee we would have seen him. Maybe Vulture would've been the villain of the fourth movie and we'd have still have been left wondering when or if Sam Raimi would get around to Venom.

You can look back in 2020 and say that Venom was a product of the '90s. In 2002, the '90s were the day before yesterday. Venom was still fresh. And being a product of the '90s doesn't invalidate its potential for a good movie or two. Just look at Infinity Wars.

Skye Reynolds posted...

I didn't say Bruce Wayne. I said Batman.

I know. That's my point. Eddie, Harry and Harvey all have personal relationships with the hero. They fill the same niche. Joker isn't that generally.

They compliment each other in TDK because The Joker uses Harvey Dent to get to Batman. The Joker is a force of nature and Harvey is the consequence of Bruce being unable to deal with him.

Venom and Green Goblin don't really fill that same niche. They both hate Peter. There's really no interesting dynamic between them outside of "We both hate Peter so lets be friends?"

The goal with Spider-Man 3 was to make a movie about letting go of hate (I'm not saying they accomplished this just what they were going for). Harry and Peter are supposed to be a mirror of each other. Harry hates Peter for 'killing' Norman and Peter hates Flint for killing Uncle Ben. Both of their character arcs resolve when they learn to forgive. Eddie Brock doesn't compliment that story at all. He's just filling the same role Harry does. This is always going to be an issue for these two villains because they fill the same role and obstacle for Peter to overcome. He doesn't fit the arc they did for Sandman either because Eddie is not supposed to be a villain before he gets the symbiote. He's always going to be a consequence of Peter using the suit and not being responsible. That is his role. That is the one story of him being a villain that matters. There isn't anything else to draw from without butchering the character. He cannot be the consequence of anyone else.

Now the symbiote could have fit Spider-Man 3 fine. I think plenty of people were expecting a Venom cliffhanger anyway. They did the retcon for Flint/Uncle Ben because Sandman's origin doesn't really matter that much. Venoms origin is literally the most important thing for the character. Similar to Harvey Dent.

Skye Reynolds posted...

And it would have been better than asking fans to wait until the fourth movie which likely would've been released a full eight to ten years after the first movie.

Wut? Sony used up Venom in 3 and didn't have anything else to build up to. So they started again. Who knows what would have happened if they were willing to save Venom for 4.

---

Darmik posted...

They compliment each other in TDK because The Joker uses Harvey Dent to get to Batman. The Joker is a force of nature and Harvey is the consequence of Bruce being unable to deal with him.

Just like the comics, right?

He's always going to be a consequence of Peter using the suit and not being responsible. That is his role. That is the one story of him being a villain that matters. There isn't anything else to draw from without butchering the character. He cannot be the consequence of anyone else.

You are selling him way too short.

Wut? Sony used up Venom in 3 and didn't have anything else to build up to. So they started again. Who knows what would have happened if they were willing to save Venom for 4.

Obviously, I meant if Spider-Man 3 had been Sandman and Green Goblin II as Sam Raimi had wanted. Who's to say he wouldn't have skipped right past Venom?