Homecoming Vulture vs Doc Ock

[Venom 1988]

I will say its very interesting to see how close the poll results are

 

[HanShotFirst]

Voted Vulture.

Doc Ock was already a great A-tier villain in the comics and turning him into Doctor Connors did not sat well with me. Being mind controlled is so beneath the great Otto Octavius. His fight scenes were badass though.

Vulture was a so-so B-tier at best in the comics and thus his reinterpretation had bigger impact on me.

 

[Mjölnir]

Voted Vulture.

Doc Ock was already a great A-tier villain in the comics and turning him into Doctor Connors did not sat well with me. Being mind controlled is so beneath the great Otto Octavius. His fight scenes were badass though.

Vulture was a so-so B-tier at best in the comics and thus his reinterpretation had bigger impact on me.

I agree. While it's not all that matters in a comparison Doc Ock didn't really live up to his comic book self, while there's some room for saying Vulture even surpassing it, but at the very least matching it.

 

[The Joker]

I think it's pretty expected for a character in a beloved movie, that came out in a time where there was less competition and it being easier to stand out, will be competitive.

You can discount the beloved movie part, as the largely forgettable MCU villains have proven time and again that being in a beloved movie doesn't automatically elevate your status. As for being in a time when there was less competition, what does that have to do with anything? We're in 2017 now, not 2004. The likes of Gene Hackman's Lex Luthor would be heralded as one of the all time greats if that was a factor.

On top of the merits of the character there's also nostalgia, which is easily as powerful as the sense of being new.

Nostalgia after 13 years, and multiple great CBMs later, doesn't have any kind of hold like this. Whereas being the new villain, especially the first decent one in a Spidey movie since Ock, is going to have a far more powerful effect. The new shiny toy syndrome as they call it.

 

[Adhesive Boy]

You can discount the beloved movie part, as the largely forgettable MCU villains have proven time and again that being in a beloved movie doesn't automatically elevate your status. As for being in a time when there was less competition, what does that have to do with anything? We're in 2017 now, not 2004. The likes of Gene Hackman's Lex Luthor would be heralded as one of the all time greats if that was a factor.



Nostalgia after 13 years, and multiple great CBMs later, doesn't have any kind of hold like this. Whereas being the new villain, especially the first decent one in a Spidey movie since Ock, is going to have a far more powerful effect. The new shiny toy syndrome as they call it.

You're making the mistake of taking contributing factors and trying to misrepresent my argument as if I'm saying that's all the reason. I'm clearly just pointing to helping factors that match the effect of being new. That Doc Ock is a good villain at the core is something I thought would be obvious.

If I used your own logic on your post then Ares would be seen as a good villain compared to other DC ones as he's the newest. That should display how trying to twist the person's words isn't a good thing.

 

[The Joker]

You're making the mistake of taking contributing factors and trying to misrepresent my argument as if I'm saying that's all the reason. I'm clearly just pointing to helping factors that match the effect of being new. That Doc Ock is a good villain at the core is something I thought would be obvious.

If I used your own logic on your post then Ares would be seen as a good villain compared to other DC ones as he's the newest. That should display how trying to twist the person's words isn't a good thing.

I'm not misrepresenting your argument, I'm saying those factors you mention wouldn't have as much of an effect as you think for the aforementioned reasons.

As for Ares, he wasn't a good villain. Just like Leto's Joker wasn't. Enchantress wasn't. Eisenberg's Luthor wasn't etc. Most of the MCU villains are seen as bland or forgettable. That's why them being new doesn't help, or in the MCU villains case, being in good movies doesn't help either. So why would it for Ock? Vulture on the other hand was actually a good memorable villain. Sure it helped he was in a good movie, too, but even in a bad movie he would stand out as a highlight. That combined with the fact he's the first good villain since Ock, and that he's brand new, would have a far more powerful effect than nostalgia.

It's like Wonder Woman, it was the first decent DCEU movie after three duds, so it's like Christmas for DC fans. Because of that you see fans overrating it by calling it a game changer for the CBM genre, or a landmark movie because it's the first female heroine CBM (while ignoring the likes of Elektra or Supergirl).

Again let me stress Vulture deserves his praise. But the fact that Ock can still stand toe to toe like this after 13 years shows what a great villain he is. Time is always the tell tale factor on how well something will hold up. Especially when the genre keeps producing new great movies and villains. Usually when something "better" comes along, the older stuff is seen as inferior. The fanboy cycle of the old stuff is crap, the new stuff is awesome.

 

[OcStat]

With this franchise starting off as strong as it is, we may have several villains contending with Ock when all is said and done.

It really is a toss up.

I can agree with those that have said some of the changes made to his character don't sit well with me, but this is as time has passed and I look at the film retrospectively. The sympathetic manipulation of the good man turned bad has always worked in the film regardless of who the comic Otto Octavius is. The scene where Peter is invited to dinner with the Octavius' is great. The "birth" of Dr. Octopus is great. The action scenes are all great, maybe not so much the final one at Ock's warehouse.

Vulture's opening sequence was great. The car scene obviously great. He was the most intimidating foe Spider-Man has faced since Ock. There are some great shots of the character that I found genuinely frightening like the suit ripping out of the van on the ferry or when Vulture attacks Spider-Man with his wings on top of the cargo plane.

It is a toss up, maybe with a slight edge to Vulture as Dr. Octopus was already one of Spidey's greatest foes and Vulture was lower-tier.

 

[Adhesive Boy]

I'm not misrepresenting your argument, I'm saying those factors you mention wouldn't have as much of an effect as you think for the aforementioned reasons.

As for Ares, he wasn't a good villain. Just like Leto's Joker wasn't. Enchantress wasn't. Eisenberg's Luthor wasn't etc. Most of the MCU villains are seen as bland or forgettable. That's why them being new doesn't help, or in the MCU villains case, being in good movies doesn't help either. So why would it for Ock? Vulture on the other hand was actually a good memorable villain. Sure it helped he was in a good movie, too, but even in a bad movie he would stand out as a highlight. That combined with the fact he's the first good villain since Ock, and that he's brand new, would have a far more powerful effect than nostalgia.

It's like Wonder Woman, it was the first decent DCEU movie after three duds, so it's like Christmas for DC fans. Because of that you see fans overrating it by calling it a game changer for the CBM genre, or a landmark movie because it's the first female heroine CBM (while ignoring the likes of Elektra or Supergirl).

Again let me stress Vulture deserves his praise. But the fact that Ock can still stand toe to toe like this after 13 years shows what a great villain he is. Time is always the tell tale factor on how well something will hold up. Especially when the genre keeps producing new great movies and villains. Usually when something "better" comes along, the older stuff is seen as inferior. The fanboy cycle of the old stuff is crap, the new stuff is awesome.

I think you went further than that with your argument, but it's not an interesting discussion.

I see plenty of rose-tinted glasses with many things, and I'm guilty of it myself. I really enjoy Terrence Stamp's Zod, but I don't think you'll get a large majority of people born this century to agree with me. I'm big enough to admit that there's a decent amount of nostalgia at play for me. The same even goes for Darth Vader imo, who had a great presence but really doesn't do all that much in the first movie. His actions are about the same, or in some case even fewer, than some today that are called underutilized. He was helped by that we hadn't seen much in the terms of such sci-fi villains back then, and later ESB made him so much better that it elevated the first movie.

 

[Infinity9999x]

I take Vulture for the simple reason that SM2 really missed the mark on who Ock is as a character. Molina did great, but the character in SM2 wasn't Doc Ock.

Otto Octavius is not a good man deep down. He never needed the influence of "evil" AI to make him do bad things. His abusive upbringing and a life of constantly being bullied lead him to be the kind of person who, when confronted with great power, decided to use it to prove his superiority over others. He is the true anti-Peter Parker. And that's why I love him. Heck, Ock needed the influence of a "good" intelligence to make him halfway decent with Superior Spider-man.

The Ock in SM2 is a mesh of Curt Connors and Otto Octavius, and that's not a character I needed to see. It's a shame, because with some better writing, I think Molina's Ock could have crept into Ledger Joker territory.

Vulture in this film took a fairly one-dimensional, and frankly, silly looking villain and made him intimidating and interesting. I give him the edge for the creativity factor in that alone.

 

[Faith_Cassidy]

I think it's pretty expected for a character in a beloved movie, that came out in a time where there was less competition and it being easier to stand out, will be competitive. On top of the merits of the character there's also nostalgia, which is easily as powerful as the sense of being new.

Yep. How many years now have people been extolling the greatness of Doc Ock and SM2? To think a lot of fans would suddenly stop beleving in its superiority because a new thing come along isn't all that realistic. In fact, many are even more likely to dig in their heels. Nostalgia is a powerful thing, indeed.

Frankly, I think almost every aspect of SM2 is overrated, save the action scenes and a few of the emotional ones. The writing and some of the acting is especially mediocre. Vulture, on the other hand, is just one of the aspects of SMH that is really well written and brilliantly portrayed by MK.

 

[UltimateWebhead]

I voted Vulture. Both actors gave great performances though I'd give Keaton the slight edge for the car scene. As for the characters, Vulture was a great update from the 616 version with some improvements added where as Ock fit nicely into the narrative of SM2, however imo, he was not nearly good enough to be on par with his 616 counter.

 

[The Joker]

I think you went further than that with your argument, but it's not an interesting discussion.

You started this discussion with me, so if you don't find it interesting then don't start it in the first place.

I see plenty of rose-tinted glasses with many things, and I'm guilty of it myself. I really enjoy Terrence Stamp's Zod, but I don't think you'll get a large majority of people born this century to agree with me.

You'd be surprised. Stamp's Zod held his own with the modern day DC villains here;

http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=470861&highlight=villain

The same even goes for Darth Vader imo, who had a great presence but really doesn't do all that much in the first movie. His actions are about the same, or in some case even fewer, than some today that are called underutilized. He was helped by that we hadn't seen much in the terms of such sci-fi villains back then, and later ESB made him so much better that it elevated the first movie.

Not a Star Wars fan, so no comment on this one.

 

[Darepool]

The recency bias definitely had an impact on my vote, how could it not?, but Keaton was every bit as great as Molina. I guess time will ultimately be the deciding factor. I definitely think the Vulture will stand the test of time like Ock though.

 

[DocLathropBrown]

Truth is, Ock in Spider-Man 2 is strong on-paper as written. Molina doesn't give a bad performance or anything, but whenever I revisit the film I always find more that the performance feels relatively by-the-numbers to the script. I found Keaton brought a lot more gravitas and nuance to his performance, even if he had less focus than Octavius did in Spider-Man 2.

However--while both are equally altered from the source material, The Vulture gets the edge moreover because Doctor Octopus is so wildly off from the comic books by comparison. Ock was never a sympathetic villain in the comics aside from the few times they flashed back to his childhood and showed he was ostracized by other kids. He was not a tragic figure. Ock is a maniacal, truly villainous figure. A character who genuinely is evil. Altering him into a scientific mentor/idol for Peter who undergoes a tragic transformation due to his scientific mistakes (and who acts evil out of his own influence) is really The Lizard. Once I realized that, I enjoyed Spider-Man 2 a lot less.

Now, Keaton's Vulture isn't that resemblant of the comics character, but his overall decency and simple goals (he cares more about thieving, not much about murder or wreaking havoc) is straight from the comics. There were a few times when Toomes quit a life of crime and settled for living a simple life amongst other senior citizens, so the decency in Keaton's character has basis in the books.

Now, Octopus is one of Spidey's real A+ villains, a contender for the position of arch-nemesis. Vulture is like B-list. So altering Vulture for the movies is more understandable/forgivable than getting Ock so wrong.

Molina was great and all, but he wasn't Doctor Octopus. Not really.

That train fight is still the best Spidey film fight, though.

 

[Adhesive Boy]

You started this discussion with me, so if you don't find it interesting then don't start it in the first place.



You'd be surprised. Stamp's Zod held his own with the modern day DC villains here;

http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=470861&highlight=villain



Not a Star Wars fan, so no comment on this one.

The discussion I didn't think was interesting was the one about whether you misrepresented my argument.

I'm aware of that poll and we have a good deal of older people on this forum.

 

[The Joker]

The discussion I didn't think was interesting was the one about whether you misrepresented my argument.

Also a topic you raised.

I'm aware of that poll and we have a good deal of older people on this forum.

Define older. I look at profiles who voted and a lot were either babies or not born when Superman 2 came out. Including myself.

Stamp's Zod still makes modern day best CBM villain lists e.g.

http://www.filmgazm.com/top-10-comic-book-villain-portrayals.html

http://screencrush.com/best-superhero-movie-villains/

http://comicbook.com/2015/06/19/the-top-comic-book-movie-villains/

http://www.sky.com/tv/channel/skycinema/gallery/bad-guys-gallery

I don't think you're as alone as you think you are on Stamp's Zod.

 

[SpeterMan3]

Hard for me to say right now. Give me another 13 years or so...

 

[Infinity9999x]

Joker, forgive me, because I know we've discussed this before over the years, but I can't remember where you stood on the subject of the AI with Ock in SM2.

To me, it was just something that I found to be too against the way I enjoy seeing Ock portrayed, and it's one of the big things that holds the film and the interpretation of Ock back from being one of my favorite villains. Was it just something that never bothered you as much, or was Molina's performance good enough that you were willing to overlook it?

Also, completely separate subject, have you posted your full review of Homecoming yet? I know you enjoyed it, but I would like to read your full thoughts.

 

[DaddlerTheDalek]

I can't decide. Both have Equal Billing for me.

 

[Johnny-Oh]

Doc Ock EASILY! Such a well rounded character with an interesting arc, fantastic action sequences, great dialogue and memorable music. Even Dafoe's Goblin is better than Vulture. That being said, Vulture is a solid villain elevated by Michael Keaton's performance. He's the villain I wanted for this movie so I'm very happy that it turned out to be so good. It's also funny how so many people are liking him now considering most people didn't want him to be in the movie.

 

[Johnny-Oh]

It's a really good scene but one that would have been better with Tom in it instead of Tobey. It gets quite comical when the people see him without his hood and someone goes "it's just a kid", when Tobey actually looks like the 30 year old man that he was at the time.

It's great that we don't have to go the Beverly Hills 90210 route anymore and have people over a decade too old to play teenager parts.

It's not comical if a man much older than him considers him a kid, which is what happened.

I think it's pretty expected for a character in a beloved movie, that came out in a time where there was less competition and it being easier to stand out, will be competitive. On top of the merits of the character there's also nostalgia, which is easily as powerful as the sense of being new.

What could be easier than make a villain stand out among the MCU's group of forgettable villains? On top of that there is also the fact that Homecoming is 2 weeks old, he's the new toy, fresh in people's minds which is a big advantage in polls like this. Even TASM 2 was voted by many the best Spider-Man movie when it just came out.

 

[spider-neil]

One thing that is a little silly about Doc Ock is when he is making his cold fusion demonstration to the press he opens with saying how advanced the arms are.
You'd think one of the press would say 'OH WOW! Your arms potentially can help every everyone who has lost limbs!!'. But no, obviously in the Sam Raimi movie advanced technology is old hat.

 

[Johnny-Oh]

Doc Ock had better action, but he ain't topping that scene in the car. I'll vote equal billing.

Doc Ock's horror hospital scene alone >>>>

 

[spider-neil]

Doc Ock's horror hospital scene alone >>>>

Just watched it. The cinematography and mastery of the camera for the scene is incredible.

 

[AnneFan]

I love Keaton, but Molina's Ock is nigh untouchable in the comic book movie villain world.