Rise of the Silver Surfer DR. DOOM/Julian McMahon Discussion

[Kelly]

I thought he was much better this go around.....but they had such a long way to go, he still has quite a ways to get to true Doom....

 

[Qwerty©]

I thought he was much better this go around.....but they had such a long way to go, he still has quite a ways to get to true Doom....

It's still unacceptable. They should've done it correctly the first time. Waiting to be 'third time lucky' is not an example of good writing.

 

[Kelly]

It's still unacceptable. They should've done it correctly the first time. Waiting to be 'third time lucky' is not an example of good writing.

Well, the way I looked at it in the first movie was, we knew we were not getting Doom LOOOOOOOOOOOONG before the movie came out, so I was hoping for a kick ass villain, we didn't get that either......I liked the villain we got in the 2nd movie, I thought Julian did an excellent job, except I would fire whoever wrote in "Let's go for a spin..." it wasn't Payne, so fire whoever did that....anyway......I liked the villain in the 2nd movie much more.......was he Doom, no..........but I liked the villain.......I'm not sure that I even want a 3rd try for Doom.....I'd rather them go with another villain....

 

[Iron Maiden]

It's still unacceptable. They should've done it correctly the first time. Waiting to be 'third time lucky' is not an example of good writing.

I think screenplays always try to see if they can throw a different spin on things. To me, Alfred Molina's Doctor Octupus was very good even though his origin was quite a bit different from the comics. Otto Octavius was not a crusading, do-gooder and he controls the tentacles. The movie made it appear that the tentacles corrupted him. But the writing sold it for me.

 

[Qwerty©]

I think screenplays always try to see if they can throw a different spin on things. To me, Alfred Molina's Doctor Octupus was very good even though his origin was quite a bit different from the comics. Otto Octavius was not a crusading, do-gooder and he controls the tentacles. The movie made it appear that the tentacles corrupted him. But the writing sold it for me.

That is nowhere near the same.

Dr. Octopus was a good villain, and in action he was very much like the comic version, how he got his powers and how they worked was all that was different (although i do disagree with the changes)

Doom, however, was deliberately made more mundane and cliche. They weren't prepared to do him correctly, and he wasn't even a shadow of his real self. Nothing about him was anything like the character of Dr. Doom.

They got Doc Ock's appearance right, his personality as a villain right, and he was a convincing threat. Dr. Doom only looked right in the face for the first film, and had a cheap-looking semi-faithful costume in the second. He acted nothing like Doom in neither, other than sharing characteristics that can be found in EVERY villain. He was not a convincing threat in either film.

Even if we do not factor faithfulness into his overall quality level, he is still sub-par and has no place in the list of memorable villains, where the REAL Doom is meant to be.

 

[Obi-Ron]

That's exactly what annoyed me about the Spiderman movies.

My current sig sums up my feelings on the matter.

 

[highguard]

Well on Doom they had to gradually turn things around for him. They dropped the ball on the first movie and have been playing catch up since.

Just Saying.

 

[Iron Maiden]

That is nowhere near the same.

Back up and follow what I was saying in previous posts. I said they made changes to Doom and it didn't work. The changes to Doctor Octopus were made at the front end, the Otto Octavius character. He was a social outcast, shunned by his colleagues and never worked for the greater good.

Dr. Octopus was a good villain, and in action he was very much like the comic version, how he got his powers and how they worked was all that was different (although i do disagree with the changes)

True enough, the realization of the villain Doctor Octopus was very successful, far more so than in the comics IMO , where he ended up being Aunt May's suitor at one point. You are forgetting one big difference. At the very end, the Doctor Octopus persona is supplanted by the "crusader" Otto Octavious who altruistically sacrifices himself to stop the whatchamacallit from destroying the city. I doubt if you can find any similar act of heroism on his part in the comics... Reed had to tussle with him all over NYC to get him to agree to see if he could help Sue when she was miscarrying.

Doom, however, was deliberately made more mundane and cliche. They weren't prepared to do him correctly, and he wasn't even a shadow of his real self. Nothing about him was anything like the character of Dr. Doom.

See previous posts in which I have said the same thing... I've posted several times about the frustration on hearing these comments on the DVD commentary so you're not getting much of an argument from me on that. At least the second film shows that he does have some science/engineering skills somewhat on par with Reed's. And I did like the scene where he wacked the guy getting the mask loose t: Probably the most Doom-like scene was showing him keeping tabs on global events with sophicated spy satellite hookups and tapping into other transmissions. Now that was very much like the Kirby scene in FF #86

They got Doc Ock's appearance right, his personality as a villain right, and he was a convincing threat.

Agreed that he was a convincing threat but as to the part about getting the personality, I disagree. Doctor Octopus in the comics doesn't have this Jekyll and Hyde personality we see in Spider-Man 2 where he only does bad things when the tentacles are in control.

Dr. Doom only looked right in the face for the first film, and had a cheap-looking semi-faithful costume in the second. He acted nothing like Doom in neither, other than sharing characteristics that can be found in EVERY villain. He was not a convincing threat in either film. Even if we do not factor faithfulness into his overall quality level, he is still sub-par and has no place in the list of memorable villains, where the REAL Doom is meant to be.

I've also noted this many times about the first film... you have to factor in Marvel's (read: Avi Arad again) insistence on using a bit more of the Ultimate version of Doom than the Lee/Kirby version. If you ask me, the new regime in Marvel has been itching for the Ultimate universe to eventually supplant the classic Marvel MU. I would agree that they had no intention of bringing classic Doom to the first film, especially after listening to the DVD commentary track.

They did some damage control in the second film but with the Surfer being played up plus your four core cast members, there was really not enough attention paid to fully realizing Doom as a villain. We will just have to disagree as to what level of success they had in what reparations they did make. It was a definite improvement over FF1 IMO and you're right.... it shouldn't have to take 3 films to do it.

If one were to be honest about it, it would take some clever writing to explain Doom's penchant for wearing medieval styled armor in a modern day world. This is one of the reasons why I wished they had gone with Peyton Reed's retro take on the FF. The FF movies place the FF in a very contemporary world and don't use elaborate sets, with a lot of the action taking place in broad daylight on the streets of Vancouver standing in for New York. I don't think the traditional Doom would come across very well in that setting. He's better suited for the highly stylized sets of say, the first Batman or the frequently gloomy world of Harry Potter films.

 

[NUFFSAID2004]

That is nowhere near the same.

Dr. Octopus was a good villain, and in action he was very much like the comic version, how he got his powers and how they worked was all that was different (although i do disagree with the changes)

Doom, however, was deliberately made more mundane and cliche. They weren't prepared to do him correctly, and he wasn't even a shadow of his real self. Nothing about him was anything like the character of Dr. Doom.

They got Doc Ock's appearance right, his personality as a villain right, and he was a convincing threat. Dr. Doom only looked right in the face for the first film, and had a cheap-looking semi-faithful costume in the second. He acted nothing like Doom in neither, other than sharing characteristics that can be found in EVERY villain. He was not a convincing threat in either film.

Even if we do not factor faithfulness into his overall quality level, he is still sub-par and has no place in the list of memorable villains, where the REAL Doom is meant to be.

"EXACTLY"!!!!!

 

[Sardaukar]

One argument is "who cares about Dr. Octopus".

I'm sure Doc Ock has his own fans who're mad over the way he was portrayed. But I think most would say that he just isn't in the same league as Doom when it comes to popularity, complexity, and overall menace.

If you're going to get any Marvel villain right in a movie, it's gotta be Doom. In comparison, Ock is just your standard villain.

 

[Obi-Ron]

Here's a question that just occurred to me...why didn't Johnny's power-switching come into play when he was in contact with Doom?

 

[crazydawg22]

because apparently dr doom is way too cool to switch powers

 

[Iron Maiden]

Here's a question that just occurred to me...why didn't Johnny's power-switching come into play when he was in contact with Doom?

Sounds like a candidate for a No Prize to me ....

The only explanation I could think of is that it couldn't transfer through the armor???

By the way, a Happy B-Day to Julian, who turns 39 today. Just like Jack Benny (that's one for the old timers )

 

[Burori]

Julian McMahon did much better this time around as Dr. Doom, he was less corny. He even said "marko....polo" in the first movie, that was lame.

 

[SerialKiller567]

One argument is "who cares about Dr. Octopus".

I'm sure Doc Ock has his own fans who're mad over the way he was portrayed. But I think most would say that he just isn't in the same league as Doom when it comes to popularity, complexity, and overall menace.

If you're going to get any Marvel villain right in a movie, it's gotta be Doom. In comparison, Ock is just your standard villain.

I do

pretty sure that there are alot less Ock fans upset over Molina's performance in Spider-Man then fans that are disappointed with McMahon's Doom IMO.

Molina's Doc Ock was a well rounded character that was fleshed out and had depth.Was mencing when he was evil and tragic at the same time,a character you cared about.I can see why the critics consider him to be a great onscreen villain.

Now you are right comic Doom is a complex character with real depth yet in the film we got"IM made of metal and you stoled my girlfriend,I'll kill you all".Wizard magazine was right on the money when they said comic Doom if real should sue for character defamation.t:



I guess thats the difference between hiring a great character actor in Molina and hiring a standard TV actor in McMahon.No comparison IMO.

Well Doom was a better villain then the cloud,not by much thought:

 

[Brolli]

Julian McMahon did much better this time around as Dr. Doom, he was less corny. He even said "marko....polo" in the first movie, that was lame. He even had more similarities to his comic book counterpart & I loved how he was even more evil this time around. I think McMahon's performance will only get better as time goes on.

 

[SerialKiller567]

Julian McMahon did much better this time around as Dr. Doom, he was less corny. He even said "marko....polo" in the first movie, that was lame. He even had more similarities to his comic book counterpart & I loved how he was even more evil this time around. I think McMahon's performance will only get better as time goes on.

nah it'll get worset:

Just hope like a cold or a rash it will go away.t:

 

[Brolli]

Like I said, his performance will get better as time goes on.

 

[Panophobia]

Wait, you mean in the next movies?

 

[Brolli]

Duh.

 

[Panophobia]

Julian McMahon did much better this time around as Dr. Doom, he was less corny. He even said "marko....polo" in the first movie, that was lame. He even had more similarities to his comic book counterpart & I loved how he was even more evil this time around. I think McMahon's performance will only get better as time goes on.

Good christ, how many times do you use the word even?

Duh.

That's what I thought. The one post I read could've also meant that his performance in the two movies will be more widely appreciated as time goes on. But that would be ridiculous. However, clarity helps.

And, on a side note, is FF3 a lock?

 

[Kelly]

Good christ, how many times do you use the word even?



That's what I thought. The one post I read could've also meant that his performance in the two movies will be more widely appreciated as time goes on. But that would be ridiculous. However, clarity helps.

And, on a side note, is FF3 a lock?

No....

 

[Panophobia]

No....

That's what I thought. What about the SS spinoff?

 

[Brolli]

Good christ, how many times do you use the word even?



That's what I thought. The one post I read could've also meant that his performance in the two movies will be more widely appreciated as time goes on. But that would be ridiculous. However, clarity helps.

And, on a side note, is FF3 a lock?

I'll use the word as much as I want. What, you want me to use it even more?

even even even even even even even even even even even even even even even even even even even even even even even even even even
even even even even even even even even even even even even even even even

Seriously, if you have a life you won't worry about how many times I use a word.

 

[Kelly]

That's what I thought. What about the SS spinoff?

There is a script being given to the powers that be, pretty much as we speak I believe.......lol........but yeah it looks like its a go, possibly for Summmer 2008.....