User blog comment:LoveWaffle/Looks at Screen Dumbstrack for a Good 10 Minutes at this Terrible Casting/@comment-3317214-20130129092237

Okay, so yeah, there's some interesting logic going on here, and I think I agree that having more supervillains means that a great deal of attention then needs to be paid to making the film work. However, a great deal of attention needs to be paid to making the film work anyway, no matter how many villains there are.

The examples you provided all have numerous villains, yes, but that's probably not the main reason why those movies were bad. I know for a fact that Spider-Man 3 was a bad movie. Getting rid of Sandman could have made it a little better, but it had plenty of other flaws. And FF was a bad movie, even though it only had one villain. It certainly didn't deserve a sequel, but I enjoyed the sequel more, simply because it had more villains, which kept things interesting while sitting through an almost equally bad movie.

Yes, when making a movie, if you get caught up in thinking, "Yeah, more villains, more action, wooo!" then it's not good, but provided that you have a clear vision and a great story, the movie should have a much better chance.

The reason Nolan's Batman trilogy worked with the number of villains, was Nolan's brilliant story and directing, etc. But really, there were essentially only two villains in each of those films.

Anyway, to the point at hand, if Webb can handle two villains in a great story, and still have the looming threat of Osborn hanging, this movie will be awesome. As for whether Paul Giamatti is good for this role, I've got no idea, so I'm excited to see what he does with it.