Could Villain in Spider-Man Reboot Be The Lizard?

Published 5 years ago by

spider man 4 the lizard main villain Could Villain in Spider Man Reboot Be The Lizard?

After breaking the rumor earlier in the week that Jamie Bell could be playing Peter Parker in Sony’s 3D reboot of Spider-Man, Bleeding Cool is now also reporting that the feature villain for the franchise restart could be The Lizard.

As Spider-Man fans know very well, The Lizard was widely speculated to be a secondary villain for Spider-Man 4 after the character of Dr. Curt Connors had been setup in the previous installments. It was the logical next step and was further rumored as a possible plot line when Dylan Baker, the actor who played the minor role of Dr. Curt Connors in Spider-Man 1 & 2 was confirmed to have joined the cast of Spider-Man 4.

As we know, Sam Raimi wanted John Malkovich to play the Vulture as the movie’s main villain and that was a big part of the reason Spider-Man 4 was canned but now it seems they may be going in the direction of the reptilian character.

I really wanted to see The Lizard become a part of Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man 4 because I really enjoyed Dylan Baker’s presence on screen. I know he would have made for an awesome character, especially with two rivaling identities but I now have a bit of trouble picturing someone else in the role. Then again, we can say the same for Peter Parker and the rest of the cast since the reboot is happening too so soon.

Perhaps this is the villainous role Michael Fassbender is rumored to have been offered? I think I’d rather see his skills utilized as Magneto in X-Men: First Class.

What do you think of The Lizard as the villain in Spider-Man 3D?

While Jamie Bell could be the leading candidate to play the title role in Spider-Man, we don’t yet have any more confirmed updates, so as far as we know, there are still five Peter Parker candidates being looked at by Sony Pictures and director Marc Webb.

Share your ideas with on Twitter @rob_keyes and @screenrant.

The Spider-Man reboot is set to hit theaters July 12, 2012.

Source: Bleeding Cool

Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:


Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.

If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it. Keep in mind that we do not allow external links in the comments.

  1. Aknot ur point should be that it doesn’t have to be realistic to be good not that it’s fairly realistc. I’m sorry but no it’s not fairly realistic not even close but that’s ok it doesn’t need to be. I don’t know about u but I never believed it or found it kind of realistic in the cartoon or comics but I didn’t need to so that I can enjoy it. Movies like Harry Potter, Hellboy, Lord of the Rings and Narnua are not even close to realistic but people still love them. Hell Avatar wasn’t realistic but look at it’s profits. Not every movie needs that it worked for Batman but Spiderman can never have a realistic feel and attempting that ruins everything it’s been about. That’s like trying to make a realistic silver surfer film. It just isn’t going to happen. This isn’t Batman , Punisher or even Iron Man it’s a story about a kid bitten by a radio active spider and his lizard and space alien villians. By the way I never made a claim that Hulk or any of the other comic films other than Batman and to a lessar extent Iron Man were remotely realistic. Most comic films need to be more fantastical and epic and less grounded by reality. Batman films benefit from the realistic approuch it makes the movies better than they would be with out it. Most comic films should never attempt that however because it’s laughable to pass most of them of as even kind of possible.

    • Well as bob posted above at what point does “realistic” take away from the character/history itself?

      I dont read/enjoy Batman/Spiderman/Superman/etc Comics in general to “beleive” they could be real. The whole point of “fantasy and fiction” in the entertainment field is to do just that.. entertain. And that is all comics are. Fantasy and Fiction.

      Why it has to “real” is beyond me. If you can believe (not saying you saying you in the general sense) in the Easter bunny, Santa, Aliens, and to another degree God and the Devil… how realistic does it have to be to believe in The Lizard?

      You mention Batman yet Batman has had a hand in defeating (in the comics) “God” classed beings. The Punisher has had some type of “demon” associated with him etc. All in the comics yes but it still “worked”.

      To use that wont translate well to the silver screen while something such as Avatar does is a poor excuse to use the “real” crutch.

      Sorry the studios must think people are pretty naive not to know the difference between real life and fiction.

      So why does something like a comic book have to be passed off as “kind of possible” to be successful? It doesnt. It just has to be well made. To be well made does not need to include real life plausibility.

      I tihnk this is where the studios fail and fail hard. They try to make it to real and screw it up.

      You know they NEVER explained Catwoman in the second Batman…. yet it was a great portrayal and people enjoyed it. I cant remember anyone questioning the “reality” of it.

      (im reading over this and hope you dont think Im pointing this AT you when I say you etc. Im just taking it out on the need for “realism”)

      • I guess I must be at polar opposites to most of you then. I do and always have read comic books from a (what if they could be real) perspective.

        For me I’ve always imagined these characters in the real world and the comic books have always had a greater degree of maturity and realism than the TV cartoons that are aimed at younger audiences.

        I certainly don’t believe a realistic approach detracts from using your imagination. After all cinema is about suspending your disbelief and someone with super powers along with the super technology that inhabits the comic book universe is no different than a good sci-fi film, an epic fantasy film or a great action/thriller flick which all have a degree of realism.

        Maybe I’m pursuing ideals from an unrealistic point of view :-) I don’t know. I know I don’t want to see big budget glorified cartoons on the big screen even if they are well made. Yes I did enjoy Avatar. :-)

        @bob, Daniel F and Aknot – you all make some very valid points and perhaps the degree of realism I’m looking for is more in the dramatic dialogue, the human interactions and depth of characters.

        • i have yet to se avatar, probably wont, too much cgi for my taste really. i aslso dont think that the big studios care enough about human character, or dialogue to fully develop a true representation of any comic book heroes/villians

          • Yeah, Avatar had a LOT of CGI, but it was some of the best damn CGI I have ever seen. You’re missing out on a very enjoyable film.

            • well, and i guess that at some point i will see it, really, just not sure when really, CGI in movies has its place, and in my opinion is taking over movies, its gonnna come to a point where they CGI famous actors thru an entire movie run. i am a fan of james cameron, but i wish that he would do hardcore scifi like he used to with T1, T2, and Aliens. T2 was such a milestone in cinema technological history, as is Avatar is today…ehh what the hell, ive convinced myself already that when the multi-disks version come out for sale that i’ll get it. only fault i have with T2 is the Aquaduct chase scene lol

  2. You do realize I just made the exact same point? Not sure why you went through all that typing to say the exact same thing as me which was that not every film needs to be realistic.

    However since u made the exact point that I’ve been making all day with very nearly the exact same words….. I agree well said I couldn’t of said it much better my self ur a bloody genious only a brillant mind could think up such sound logic.

    Mostly wanted to praise my self but looks better to praise some one else.

    • Because from your post: Batman films benefit from the realistic approach it makes the movies better than they would be with out it.

      Stood out.

      That is why I brought up Catwoman. So Clayface II (I believe that was the first “clay” one) would not work as a Batman villain in a Batman movie because it would be not as “believable”….

      You are more or less saying you need to take Batman and any “real” type characters and give them their own world even though they have lived in other mediums side by side with the “fantastic”….for them to benefit. At least that is the way I read it and I apologies if I have interpreted it incorrectly.

      I say you dont as long as the story is well made and done right.

  3. The CGI in Avatar was the only good thing about it good call skipping it.

  4. andrew garfield will be an amaizing parker/spider-man, and dylan baker shud come back. if not then he shud be doctor conners/lizard. clive owen needs to be kraven

  5. Sinister Six, man! I felt that they were going that direction in Sam Raimi’s movies anyway. They already had the Sandman and Dr. Octopus, and they had said The Vulture would have been in the movie. All they would have needed was Mysterio, Electro and Kraven, which would have been easy. I just hope they can have the Sinister Six in the reboot, or at least Electro.

  6. This rumor is true.