For those who complain about "sympathetic" villains

[Shin-Natsume]

well, sandman as sympathetic villian is better than ock as sympathetic villian if you ask me.
he fits to this route better. ock was a scientitst. and scientists, especially mad scientists tend to be... well.. mad..
and this is not what ock was portrayed in the end....

sure it was well done, but no ock in no universe would eveer say a line likc e"i will not die a monster"..
come on... its silly...
norman was prtrayed good, comic book style from the earyl years, thats how i love him but ock was out of place.

sandman however seems to fit, and as long as there is at least one real bad guy, and i think brock is, as religios as he is as mad is he, the badddie we want..


so once again i trust raime.

you cant get everyoen statisfied, but the pure ticket numbers show that most of the people are, including me-.-

that shoul do it^^

 

[pt_photo_inc]

sympathetic characters breed more emotion from the audience...one dimensional "evil for the sake of it" villians are much less interesting. and it's more realistic to have a sympathetic villian, most "bad" people in this world (as in reality) are a product of something horrible happening to them as well...it's an exaggeration of reality and it makes the characters more accessible to more people.

i like it.

CAN WE SAY "DARTH MOTHER FUC*KKING VADAR"!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

a lil sympathy to one of the greatest and scariest villans that ever walked the golden screen!

 

[Spider-X]

CAN WE SAY "DARTH MOTHER FUC*KKING VADAR"!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

a lil sympathy to one of the greatest and scariest villans that ever walked the golden screen!

um...i don't get if you liked it or not

sympathy for Vader doesn't ruin anything about that character...it just makes him seem that much more dynamic.

 

[Master of Zinj]

From what I can tell, Sandman may be the only 'villain' (including Peter, actually) who isn't totally corrupt. It could actually be that his story arc is almost the opposite of other characters'.

Peter, for example, gets more powers and becomes more corrupt. Brock becomes more corrupt and gets powers. Sandman, potentially, gets his powers, but then uses them to protect or help his daughter.

In fact, it could be that for most of the film, he's the one who most closely lives out the 'with great power comes great responsibility' sentiment. Sure, he commits crimes and causes havoc, but deep down, his motives are centred around his responsibility for his daughter. And maybe that'll prove a counterpoint for everyone else - and maybe even an example to Spidey.

Or, I may be talking crap. I guess we'll see.

 

[str8raz0r]

Those are some interesting points, Zinj.

Everyone seems to be focusing on Sandman in the mid-sixties sense. Yeah, he was a low-level thug who got lucky, and decided to rob banks and whatnot. However, do you really think people will swallow that sort of sentiment nowadays? "Oh, he's robbing banks and destroying blocks of property just because he can!" It worked great in Stan Lee's day, when villains could be simple.

Now, we live in this ridiculous psycho-analytical society, where we need to know why things are the way they are. This is the country that, apparently, needs a Jason Voorhees "origin" movie that explains his "motivations." We needed Leatherface in the TCM remake to have "reasons" to wear his dead-skin mask.

What it comes down to is that monsters can no longer be mysterious. It scares people to think that something can be evil without "logical reason," they simply can't be chalked up to "they're evil."

Sandman, I remember, was a pretty sympathetic character in the comics for a brief period, as some people have mentioned. He was sort of on the fence as far as his villainy, as opposed to Doc Ock, who was always an arrogant ******* and pretty honkin' bad.

Sandman having "reasoning" behind his villainy doesn't seem that outta place. Common thugs do what they do simply out of want for a better life for themselves or their loved ones. If that's the angle we're playing on Sandman and it works, I'll take it.

 

[fenox]

From what I can tell, Sandman may be the only 'villain' (including Peter, actually) who isn't totally corrupt. It could actually be that his story arc is almost the opposite of other characters'.

Peter, for example, gets more powers and becomes more corrupt. Brock becomes more corrupt and gets powers. Sandman, potentially, gets his powers, but then uses them to protect or help his daughter.

In fact, it could be that for most of the film, he's the one who most closely lives out the 'with great power comes great responsibility' sentiment. Sure, he commits crimes and causes havoc, but deep down, his motives are centred around his responsibility for his daughter. And maybe that'll prove a counterpoint for everyone else - and maybe even an example to Spidey.

Or, I may be talking crap. I guess we'll see.

^^^^ THAT IS AMAZING!!!(NO FUN INTENDED)

 

[James"007"Bond]

Sandman is supposed to be a common thug who gets powers, not a father figure.

Yes and look how well he's turned out since his introduction in the comics.

People here said it themselves, sandman is a lame villain. My God, the threads and rants were endless. However, those who managed to project some sort of cerebral dexterity agreed that, if the studio are going with sandman, its quite clear they'll alter his character by attributing interesting factors that pull him away from being just some common thug who gets powers. Now that we've got this, people are still whining like ignorant pr1cks.

 

[Visionary]

CAN WE SAY "DARTH MOTHER FUC*KKING VADAR"!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

a lil sympathy to one of the greatest and scariest villans that ever walked the golden screen!

Exactly, this just proves that people will b:tch about anything. It's the reason you people are ignored, and passed off as fanboyish internet geeks by those running things, and I don't blame them one bit.

 

[Mephistophelian]

Sympathetic villains are so lame they make me gag, I'd rather the challenge of brutality and violence pitted against Spider-man's overwhelming desire to save everyone around him. It makes a more interesting conflict to see the hero having to save everyone around him and still fighting the insanity of a super powered murderer, I say nay on the sappyness of retreating villains that "care" about the well being of police as they fire at him , but I still want to see Sandman in action!!

 

[JDym]

Now, we live in this ridiculous psycho-analytical society, where we need to know why things are the way they are. This is the country that, apparently, needs a Jason Voorhees "origin" movie that explains his "motivations." We needed Leatherface in the TCM remake to have "reasons" to wear his dead-skin mask.

What it comes down to is that monsters can no longer be mysterious. It scares people to think that something can be evil without "logical reason," they simply can't be chalked up to "they're evil."

These horror "origin" movies are for studio profit and a current fad that people seem to pay to see. Nothing do with people scared of evil without logic.

Plus, while it's now overdone and whatnot, there was a long stretch of time in which there was just dumb no point villain/horror pics and it got redundant.

 

[Tokage]

Although Sandman having a daughter is a Raimi addition to the character, the concept of Sandman being a good guy for a while happened in the comics so I can deal with it.

Doc Ock being "controlled" by his tentacles (even if one makes the excuse that the destroyed inhibitor chip also made Otto's already-existing egocentricity go crazy) was the biggest problem I had with SM2. Otto could have been just as interesting a character if Peter had gone to interview him and found out that Otto was brilliant, but also a self-absorbed "mad scientist" with a mean streak (and no wife).

But --since Otto was made to play the part of family-man/friend of Peter-turned-villain beyond his control, that pretty much was the last nail in the coffin of Curt Connors ever becoming the Lizard onscreen.

 

[Mr. Roboto]

I always saw Sandman as generally a good guy just on the wrong side of the law.

 

[chaseter]

I think he is a bad guy with good intentions. He will save his daughter no matter what or who gets in the way.

 

[Drago]

Sandman will be a villian but have good intentions and reasoning. Parker will be a bit of a villian here, Venom will just be someone with a grudge (probably the most evil of the bunch), and Harry won't be evil as much as someone with a huge internal struggle. No truly tragic villians here, unless, from what we've seen in the CC footage, Parker attacks Harry and is responsible for his following his father's footsteps, and at the end kills him... that would be a tragic villian but would be freakin' sweet on film- it would be controversial, a bit ambiguous, and fantastic story-telling.

The only reason we saw Doc Ock as a tragic villian was because Raimi was going back and doing Spider-man his way (which is why he did another origin story... he was given much more creative control), and the thematic struggle of responsibility and sacrifice that Parker had to undergo for that second "origin story" was reflected the same way in Doc Ock being a tragic villian.

 

[ultimatefan]

A certain level of sympathy makes the character more human and believable than being a one-dimensional, moustache-twirling villain. In his own mind nobody is a villain, they´re misunderstood, underappreciated, etc. I find it funny that people complain about Ock´s redemption in Spidey 2, if he got killed off or beaten up a lot would have complained it was very cliché.

 

[Grobb]

They're gonna need some sympathetic villians before Venom enters the screen, cause he will bring the whole god damn house down with his evil madness!

 

[stryfe]

To some extent, the Spider-man films have been grounded in reality (with the obvious understanding that we're dealing with superheroes and villains). Love (Peter-Mary Jane), family (Peter-Aunt May-Uncle Ben), friendship (Peter-Harry) and other themes are present in these films because Rami and co. (wisely) decided that-- as seen in the comics and cartoons as well-- these things are important in the world of Spider-man.

A lot of people had problems with Doc Ock turning good/sympathetic at the end of Spiderman 2. This is an old argument, but I'll simply say this-- the man was a good guy with good intentions from the beginning, failure and an excess of power changed his motives (which are both components of turning characters into villains in many stories) but then he grasped what was truly at stake.

Now people are having problems with Sandman possibly being softened up by having a daughter and possibly being turned into another sympathetic villain. What exactly do you people prefer? Heartless one-dimensional criminals that are present in piss poor renditions of your other favorite superhero movies and comics? If you're gonna complain about an excess of "sympathetic villains", then why not make a case that Doc Ock, The Green Goblin, Venom AND Sandman (that being, all the villains we're dealing wtih in all of the movies) are also an excess of villains as a result of an accident of some sort?

I apoligize if this topic isn't the most fresh of debates, however, I fear that once we see more footage and get to know more about the movie, that people are going to complain more about Sandman and his daughter (especially after the release of that poster).

I want a villain so crazy insane that no one feels bad about his sob story. I dont want to sympathize with him I want to watch him lose his mind do mean ass things to people cause there funny then enjoy watching him get is ass kicked. sympathetic villains are simply anti heros.

 

[The Joker]

if he got killed off or beaten up a lot would have complained it was very cliché.

Why would anyone complain about Ock getting physically beaten by Spider-Man?? It's usually how Spidey defeats Ock, not appealing to Ock to do the right thing. Something that is completely against type for Ock's character.

Sandman being sympathetic is fine, because he is not by nature evil. So I can't see any basis for people complaining about that. Ock on the other hand is a completely different story.

It would be like Batman sitting the Joker down and asking him to stop poisoning Gotham with his laughing gas. It would never happen.

 

[ultimatefan]

Why would anyone complain about Ock getting physically beaten by Spider-Man?? It's usually how Spidey defeats Ock, not appealing to Ock to do the right thing. Something that is completely against type for Ock's character.

Sandman being sympathetic is fine, because he is not by nature evil. So I can't see any basis for people complaining about that. Ock on the other hand is a completely different story.

It would be like Batman sitting the Joker down and asking him to stop poisoning Gotham with his laughing gas. It would never happen.

That´s how usually villains have been defeated a hundred billion times, it´s very cliché. It´s against type if Ock is a one-dimensional mad scientist, which I had no interest in seeing...

Actually, there´s a great scene in Killing Joke where Batman tries to appeal to Joker to look for rehabilitation. He turns it down, but there´s a moment of hesitation, where he considers it. It´s a great moment.

 

[The Joker]

That´s how usually villains have been defeated a hundred billion times, it´s very cliché.

If it's so cliche and uninteresting, the comics would have lost their popularity years ago. It's how he defeats them and the circumatances surrounding the situation that's interesting.

It´s against type if Ock is a one-dimensional mad scientist, which I had no interest in seeing...

Ock never was a one dimensional mad scientist. And I challenge anyone to prove Octavius to be one dimensional. And Ock was also never a good hearted misguided scientist. That's the Lizard's gig.

According to the Marvel writers, one of the best things about Octavius is that he is the evil Peter Parker. The Peter Parker gone bad. Because they are both so similar in thir backgrounds and interests, the only deviation between them was the paths they chose. I only wish SM-2 had followed that route rather than the student/idol thing.

It would have mirrored the theme of SM-2 much more powerfully. Peter being steady and giving up what he wants the most to do the right thing, while Octavius being selfish and evil chooses to use his power to take what he wants and do what he wants. Not using his power with great responsibility.

Actually, there´s a great scene in Killing Joke where Batman tries to appeal to Joker to look for rehabilitation. He turns it down, but there´s a moment of hesitation, where he considers it. It´s a great moment.

Yes, I know.

But after getting the crap kicked out of him by Batman, there was not much Joker could do but listen to Batman But his brief hestitation was good.

 

[ultimatefan]

If it's so cliche and uninteresting, the comics would have lost their popularity years ago. It's how he defeats them and the circumatances surrounding the situation that's interesting.

Even if he was more sympathetic, he was also dangerously vain and egoccentric, as is the comics counterpart. His behavior in the fusion experiment was unforgivably irresponsible. The ending was right for the story.

 

[TheCardPlayer]

I love The Killing Joke. I think it's the best Joker story ever. Glad to see it was confirmed later (kinda)

 

[The Joker]

Even if he was more sympathetic, he was also dangerously vain and egoccentric, as is the comics counterpart. His behavior in the fusion experiment was unforgivably irresponsible.

Yes, that was great. And they should have followed with that violent passion Octavius had, rather than having an external influence misguide him. It should of ultimately been his own humerus, greed, and selfish passion to do what he wanted because he had the power to do it.

Like I said being the flip side of the coin to the noble Peter Parker. It would have echoed SM-2's theme wonderfully. Peter tries to ignore doing the right thing and give up being Spider-Man, but ultimately he cannot. With great power comes great responsibility. He cannot escape that because it's in his soul. It's who he is.
Octavius is the total opposite. The ying to Peter's yang in that aspect.

The ending was right for the story.

But not right for the villain.

 

[ultimatefan]

Yes, that was great. And they should have followed with that violent passion Octavius had, rather than having an external influence misguide him. It should of ultimately been his own humerus, greed, and selfish passion to do what he wanted because he had the power to do it.

Like I said being the flip side of the coin to the noble Peter Parker. It would have echoed SM-2's theme wonderfully. Peter tries to ignore doing the right thing and give up being Spider-Man, but ultimately he cannot. With great power comes great responsibility. He cannot escape that because it's in his soul. It's who he is.
Octavius is the total opposite. The ying to Peter's yang in that aspect.



But not right for the villain.

If you read the first original Doc Ock comics, his behavior was influenced by the tentacles. The way I saw it, the tentacles weren´t as "external" as they seemed. They basically told Doc Ock what he wanted to hear anyway.

 

[The Joker]

If you read the original Doc Ock comics, his behavior was influenced by the tentacles.

Tell me you're joking. I own every Ock comic in existence. He was NEVER influenced by the tentacles. They never had A.I. in them. Give me issue numbers, post some pics to back this up.

I gotta see this.

The way I saw it, the tentacles weren´t as "external" as they seemed. They basically told Doc Ock what he wanted to hear anyway.

Well I agree somewhat with that analysis. But ultimately they were what set him on the wrong path, when that should have been his own decision. And he shouldn't have redempted on that. Ock chooses his path, Spider-Man chooses his. They don't turn back on it. And never have.