Designer Constantine Serkeris has released some concept art for a proposed incarnation of the Lizard that was solicited for possible use in a Sam Raimi sequel. Perhaps surprisingly, it's not too different from the Rhys Ifans version, with a similarly humanoid face.
Dylan Baker's a great actor, and it must really suck to be told for three movies that you're eventually going to be the Lizard, only to have the series rebooted and recast on you. I imagine him saying something like, "Judi Dench got to survive Bond's reboot; why can't I?"
That's what I would have said, anyway. Then gone home and cried into my three-movie residual checks.
The full image of this Lizard can be found here.
Source: Comicbookmovie.com, which has assembled several more highlights.
Oooh, neat! Honestly, I wasn't a huge fan of the Lizard's design in ASM. Mostly because I didn't dig the humanoid face. I gotta say though, I do like this kind of sleek, viscous look they had in mind. More threatening and badass than the bigger, brutish interpretation of ASM.
"...it must really suck to be told for three movies that you're eventually going to be the Lizard..."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't he only in the 2nd and 3rd movie? I don't recall him in the first one.
Also, except for the face I like this design much better. The long neck is nifty and the tail is awesome.
@GreggoryBasore He was mentioned in the first one but didn't appear. So the character arc was already beginning to be teased there. I know I for one was waiting for it, I really hoped that was going to be 3.
4 Like
".........it must really suck to be told for three movies that you're eventually going to be the Lizard, only to have the series rebooted and recast on you."
Reminds me of when Billy Dee Williams was Harvey Dent.............
http://gothamalleys.blogspot.com/2010/11/harvey-dent-in-movies-1980s.html
1 Like
Amazing looks like they vastly improved the look over this weird-necked thing. I can only imagine this thing doing some kind of funky Lizard-dance if Raimi made the film, at least with the direction his take on the franchise was heading in.
2 Like
Well that doesn't look much better. The long neck is far goofier than the snoutless face of the recent reboot. That said we're comparing concept art to finished product, so it is what it is. I was bummed that we didn't see the Dylan Baker lizard. I like to think that his Trick r Treat role is a fictionalized version of himself shortly after hearing about the reboot. The unnecessary reboot.
@JesseDeath I was starting to think I was the only one who did not like it. It's not really much of a concept art, it's more like a bad photo manipulation. Cropped to just the head and shoulders, it's ok, but the full piece just looks bad and awkward. The idea is, I suppose, good, but it's certainly not groundbreaking, it's the Lizard, I mean, it hits the high notes, and certainly looks like the Lizard, but if that's all they're going to do then they didn't need to pay someone for concept art, they could have just used a page from the comics.
The reason seems to be this stupid insistence in Hollywood, whether from the studios, or the actors, that actors have visible faces. It's not like we forget that it was Bill Nighy as Davy Jones in Pirates of the Caribbean.
6 Like
my interest in the "Spiderdude Xtreme" reboot has not reached the level where I'm even willing to watch it for free
1 Like
@Gallen_Dugall I said the same thing about Spider-Man 3. Then I watched it. And that won't be happening again.
@EliasAlgorithm @Gallen_Dugall mind you I'm not saying that this defect in any way prevents this from being a good movie - this is an action movie after all and not a character driven drama. All I'm saying is that the change to the character makes me angry - mainly because I connected to the way he was and do not connect to the way he is.
3 Like
@Gallen_Dugall My little brother, who is obsessed with all things Spider-Man, loves it and says it's relatively comic-accurate (at least to the current comics he's reading, which may not be saying much). My friend who went expecting to completely hate it came out stunned at how much she liked it. I imagine I'll be seeing it this weekend (it's my brother's late Christmas present, so he'll probably want to turn it on), so I can't give you personal experience of it, but I was stunned that it impressed my friend. She's one of the pickiest moviegoers I know.
2 Like
@rabidronnie @Gallen_Dugall I concede that they may have simply updated the character, however I find this interpretation completely unsympathetic - I just want to punch this Peter Parker in the junk every time this movie comes up.
The original protected people who loved the Spiderman but who were completely alienated from Parker because of his age (in the case of his aunt and uncle and teachers) or because of his intelligence and sensitivity (his peers). There in lay the conflict.
This Parker is a hollow shell painted to appeal to marketing survey defined demographics
2 Like
@Gallen_Dugall I get how one could feel that way. I'm personally sympathetic to the actor's exuberant, geeky enthusiasm for the role, and so I'm willing to give it a shot.
5 Like
@Someguy @rabidronnie @Gallen_Dugall
Here’s my brief assessment:
Infinitely better romance: Gwen Stacy is smart, competent, willing to go into danger to help, and is not just a damsel in distress. Peter Parker actually acts like he likes her. There is zero pining. Minimal angst, and good chemistry.
Underdeveloped villain: It feels like there needed to be a stronger relationship between Peter and Dr. Connors. And a brief explanation as to why he suddenly goes evil would be good. Also you know, if you’re comparing the two, no one does scenery chewing like Willum Defoe.
It’s another origin story… so… yeah.
Peter Parker: He skates. He feels like less of a nerd (though he is shown to be intelligent) outcast than he is an outcast because of his own internal anger issues. Still, he’s a standup guy and not a sad sack.
Overall, I liked it. It’s not perfect by any means. It’s probably just an average film, but I liked it more than the first Spider-man movie, mostly because the teen romance angst and emotional misery between Peter and MJ has not aged well in my opinion.
3 Like
@rabidronnie @Someguy @Gallen_Dugall It was definitely better than I expected it to be. Of course, my favorite part of the film was Flash Thompson, so my credibility might be in question.
3 Like
Much like Spider-Man 3 I really wanted to like the new one but the more I watch it the less I do (my son loves spider-man this is why I have seen it multiple times.) Just my two cents.
6 Like
And the mystery of why it couldn't have looked like, I dunno, The Lizard continues.
1 Like
@Mike_Pants If you notice, Raimi was obsessed with showing the faces of his actors. Hence why Goblin's eyes flipped up, Venom frequently unmasked himself, and Spidey always got his facial covering ripped apart at some point.
Peter Jackson's King Kong (the character) is still the best example of how an actor can still give a performance as a CG animal without looking facially human.
@LYT @Mike_Pants I'm not sure if that was because Raimi wanted it that way, or that the actors contracts had stipulations for a certain amount of 'face time' on screen. The reboot also has a lot of scenes with Peter unmasked for no good reason other than to show off Andrew Garfields face.
@EliasAlgorithm We really need a renaissance of monster actors in the west. It's not like the guy in the rubber Godzilla suit ever complained that you can't see his face. Granted, it wasn't nuanced performance, but the idea that we must be able to see the actor's face is basically the height of actor-laziness. When an actor insists on face time, they are literally saying "I don't feel I'm a good enough actor for this role." When an agent insists, they are doing their client a disservice in the same way.
Monstrous characters really shouldn't be *harder* to act than humanoid characters, it's still about conveying emotion and intent and feeling, it's just using the body rather than the face.
@GreggoryBasore @LYT @Mike_Pants It's pretty much a given with the producers and agents essentially putting their feet down and insisting. That's why Karl Urban as Dredd was such an anomoly and probably why it underperformed despite its critical success. Although, V never took his mask off either and that was a box office success.
1 Like
@LYT @Mike_Pants I dunno; Rise of the Planet of the Apes also did a great job there with Caesar's performance.
Granted, it was also dealing with apes, and Andy Serkis was also the actor like with King Kong.
@GeneralTekno @LYT @Mike_Pants That too. Caesar was a bit more humanized than Kong, but then chimps do look more like us than gorillas do anyhow.
1 Like
@10glfan59 It just doesn't work. I get that the Lizard in the books looks "unrealistic" but at least it looks like a humanoid lizard. This just looks like art from an FFF about an underage Killer Croc.
Nerd news, humor and self-loathing. Edited by Luke Y. Thompson
