DarKush said:
You seemed to have a different opinion about this in the other IGN thread. You said yourself that Peter idolized Octavius, and Octavius and his wife even gave Peter relationship advice. So, there is a hint of a personal connection there. However, it is not as deep or long-standing as the Norman/Peter relationship
No,my point in the IGN thread was the Norman relationship was about as deep as the Octavius one.Which was as shallow as a pond.
A few brief scenes does not show a "long standing relationship".Regardless of how nice the antagonist was to Peter.
Raimi really tries to make it feel personal,when it shouldn't be,not with Ock anyways.Peter doesn't need to know and like these villains before they turn evil.And if the rumours I've heard about Sandman in SM-3 are true,it's going to get worse.
I never said that it did. However, I think the personal connection between Norman/Peter was done more effectively than the attempt to create a bond between Peter/Octavius. I do feel however that eventually the best villians do become personal.
And a personal connection just adds another layer of emotion and drama that works well onscreen, and emphasizes for the viewer that taking out this person really means something, has some intimate, emotional meaning to the hero or villian.
Maybe for you,but not for me.I can find a villain just as compelling without any personal connections to the hero.In fact I would find it extremely tedious if every antagonist the hero meets is someone who's got a personal connection to him.
Which is why I'm glad that is not the case with most of Spidey's and Batman's villains.My two fav heros.
When I think about it, even the Batman 1989 movie invented a personal connection between Joker and Bruce Wayne to mine the emotional and dramatic potential of a personal connection.
A completely unnecessary and pointless move on Burton's part.
More examples: Zod's hatred for Superman stemmed primarily from his hatred of Jor-El. Howard Saint wanted revenge against Frank Castle for killing his son. Ra's Al Ghul was a mentor/surrogate father figure to Bruce Wayne in Begins. Kingpin killed Matt Murdock's father. Bullseye killed Elektra, Matt Murdock's girlfriend. Top Dollar was the architect of the chaos that led to Eric Draven's girlfriend being murdered. Magneto and Charles Xavier were long time friends, and in X2, Stryker blamed Xavier, and all mutants for his son's mutation. The Hulk was pretty much a story about father/son angst. Even in Blade, he faced his mother and Deacon Frost, the cause of his hybrid nature. Doctor Doom was Reed's rival and Sue's spurned lover.
And even impersonal villians, like Lex Luthor in Superman: The Movie become more personally connected to the hero in subsequent movies. By Superman 4, they were talking like old acquaintances, both of them knowing each other so well.
If you found movie Doom compelling,then I tip my hat to you
As for the other villains you mentioned,that IS their nature.It's supposed to have a personal element.
But I say again,that does not make them any better than villains who don't have a personal connection to the hero.
Norman Osborne, though insane, was already somewhat of an arrogant, loathsome figure to begin with
That should of been Octavius' personality pre-accident.Not the Curt Connors clone Raimi made of him.
And I didn't find movie Osborn arrogant or loathsome pre-accident.He was actually very pleasant to everyone.He was more a driven scientist than an arrogant loathsome figure.
The Goblin persona only seemed an extreme of his normal personality
No,the gas created his Goblin personality.The side effects are in Stromm's words Violence,aggression and insanity.It created an entirely different persona.
It wasn't a slight tweak of Norman's personality.Heck even his voice changed when he was the Goblin.
Octavius' accident was a slight tweak of his persona in the comics.That was the Ocavius with his inhibitions lowered.
I didn't see him as tragic or misguided. I saw him as a fairly lucid and dangerous enemy. Though Ock did have his fusion device, which was cool, and Goblin didn't have a grand scheme. I don't think Goblin really needed one.
Two different villains.Ock is a grand scheme type villain.He was not once known as the Master Planner for nothing.That is his nature.
But GG always has an agenda too that suits his personal needs,albeit not usually as grand as Ock's schemes.And his motive in the movie to simply make Spidey join him was weak IMO.
They should have continued to play on the Oscorp angle,while also having him plan to take down Spidey.
