Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Spider-Man: Homecoming' started by Spider-Aziz, Jul 10, 2017.
Man, that's a tough one. Right now for me they're even. Both are great villains in their own ways.
Side note: I know he's already been done, and I wouldn't want anyone to try to knock Alfred Molina off the podium, but I think Marvel has to do Doctor Octopus for the current Spider-Man movies. I realize people want to see different villains, but we'll get them. I have a feeling Holland's Spidey is going to be around for a loooong time and Feige has even indicated that the MCU's focus will be on him after Phase 3.
Besides, it looks like they're going to go the route of the Sinister 6 and you can NOT do that without Doctor Octopus.
While its nice to get villians we have not had yet I don't see a problem with having doc ock again because it has been 13 years and 4 Spider-Man movies with out him now. Now goblin I can understand giving him a break because we have had a goblin in 3 out of the 6 Spider-Man movies and like his story in like 4 of the 6 Spider-Man movies with the harry stuff in Spider-Man 2 finding out about his dad and such.
Same here. I wanna see Ock the master planner this time around.
I did like how Peter never beat The Vulture in combat. Peter was thrown in the river and had a building fall on top of him. Peter also was beaten down in the finale - it was only that Vulture's suit was destroyed by the technology as he was flying away.
I liked this as well. I really like the Spidey villains that overwhelm him physically. Doc Ock could be his toughest opponent because not only is he powerful, he's also intelligent. A seemingly unbeatable foe, until Peter learns through his journey about the nature of ego, and how that is connected to one's insecurities
Doc Ock is the best Spidey movie villain by a mile. Not even a discussion for me.
I don't know if I would call that darkness. If I was in his shoes, I'd probably feel the same way about a project I worked hard to plan and build for a long time.
My problem is that even though his reaction is extreme, it's still not until the AI gets to him until he hoes into Ock mode. The fact that there is debate at all as to how much the AI influences him show's me that they didn't depict Ock correctly. Otto's villainy is all based on choice. You are never in any doubt that Otto chose to become the villain he was.
Now, as to how justified he was in making those decisions, that's up to interpretation. But at the end of the day, the turning point to be full villain should be Otto's and Otto's alone. That's what defines him as the true anti-Peter. Peter and Ock are both defined by the choices they made. Their own choices, not choices made under the influence of outside sources.
Adding the AI created a diluted version of Doc Ock that just wasn't nearly as complex or interesting. It's a clear misunderstanding of the heart of who Ock is. It's akin to saying Lex Luthor is being mind controlled...or has some sort of virus that makes him behave badly. I mean, sure, you could do that, but I'm more interested in someone who chooses the morally black path and learning their reasoning behind it.
And Norman doesn't go into Goblin mode until the serum screws his brain and gives him a dual personality. Connors doesn't go into vicious Lizard mode until the reptilian DNA screws his mind etc. Most of these villains don't go nasty until their own bad science, or some sort of accident screws their brains and turns them into full on bad guys willing to go to extremes they never would have done before the accident.
Yes the A.I. is an external influence on Otto, like a devil on his shoulder, but to me it was simply preying on something that was already inside him. In this case his ruthless zeal to finish his life's work. That was clearly depicted at the demonstration scene when we saw what he did to Spidey. Compounded worse by the fact it's the only thing he has left that he cares about after his wife is killed.
Furthermore A.I. doesn't force a man to smile, laugh, and spout witty villainous one liners. Are we also expected to believe the A.I. coerced him to smoke cigars, and drink Harry's glass of booze like a slick cool bad ass, too, lol? No, why would it? That was all Otto embracing the villain side.
Obviously it's not a totally faithful adaption of the character. That's not the debate here, yet you keep consistently bringing it up. It's who came off as a better villain. And for my money that is unquestionably Doc Ock. Great as Toomes was, and he was great, Molina is still the king. Clearly the poll results here also reflect that.
If we wanted to go with who was more faithfully adapted, then Toomes would win. But then Sandman was more faithfully adapted, too, and nobody would hail him as one of the greats. In fact there's a lot of popular CBM characters who are unfaithfully adapted. Starlord in GOTG is a recent one that springs to mind. At the end of the day quality wins out. And Ock was quality. That's why he and SM-2 hold their own even 13 years later.
Even with the character change, they still successfully managed to make Otto a mirror image of Peter and his struggle in the movie. That is one of the great things about Ock. He's like the Peter Parker gone bad. In SM-2 Peter was irresponsible by giving up being Spidey to live his dream of a normal life. Otto was irresponsible by doing evil things to make his dream happen. In the end they both come full circle and accept responsibility for their actions. That's why Peter was able to repeat May's little speech to Otto, because it applied to him, too. That was one of the things I loved about SM-2's Ock. They were able to link them on a conceptual level, rather than have Otto personally connected in some significant way into Peter's personal life. He wasn't his best friend's father, or his best friend, or the killer of his uncle, or the guy he worked with at the Bugle, or his father's work colleague, or the father of the girl he's taking to prom etc. He was just a great scientist whom Peter admired.
The rest of your post is just you going on further about faithfulness of adaption. That's not the point of this thread. So I'm ignoring it.
I see your point. The interesting thing about this, is that it really comes down to whether or not including faithfulness to the character is something you include in terms of which was "better." And I suppose that's just personal preference. And I don't completely disagree. Faithful doesn't always equal better. However, an argument could be made that when saying what the "best" version of a fictional character in film is, faithfulness should be taken into account. It's a hard discussion or debate to have though, since faithfulness can really exist on a very large sliding scale.
Take the first two Potter movies. I'm a big HP nut, and those first two films were incredibly faithful...in a certain way. They had word for word dialogue at times. However, I would argue that often times those films missed the spirit of the story or certain characters they portrayed. Whereas POA was much more loose with the strict plot details, but I felt much truer to the spirit of that book.
For me, faithfulness to what I consider to be the heart of the character is the most important to me. I don't mind changes if I think they stay true to the character, which is why many of the changes in Homecoming didn't bother me. To me, the addition of the AI in SM2 really messes with what I viewed to be the heart of Doc Ock, and that's not the best version of that character in my eyes. Though I can't really make an argument if we do want to discount faithfulness, because it is such a subjective thing. So I totally see your point on that aspect.
And I will say, reading your posts over the years, you have definitely edged down my dislike of how they did portray Ock. I do think he had inherent darkness in him, and you've been good at pointing out the more subtle references to that. But for me, at the end of the day, I still don't like seeing Ock need ANY outside influence to do what he does. Sure, Norman and Lizard have them, but in the comics, those were parts of their characters. They were both examples of Jekyll and Hyde type villains. Ock never was that.
Still, I can't discount that Ock was executed very well, when I put aside my comic nerd pickiness. And I also can't really fault your logic in approaching this thread, as I still love Keaton as Batman, but I really can't make a solid argument that his Bruce Wayne was comic accurate. I just thought he was executed well.
So, as always, good to see your analysis on it.
Vulture is easily the best one, and my favorite.
The Dr. by a country mile. As for other cool villains, I've always wanted to see Morbius used in live action, just because he introduces a bit of a horror element.
Looking back at them both, I really do like the Vulture here. They both had real impact. But I feel like the major threat to Peter came from the Vulture. Doctor Octopus had a lot of help from Peter's own powers being really unstable in that movie.
Both though showed nice intelligence in taking advantage of Spider-Man. The train scene worked really well for pushing Spidey to his limits. While the Vulture made use of Spidey's inexperience. Also liked how the Vulture felt like he had the advantage. He was a real danger that throughout the movie wasn't something Spider-Man could easily respond to. While honestly Peter could have KO'd Doctor Octopus in multiple scenes without much difficulty.
I still like both. Doctor Octopus is a big reason why Spider-Man 2 was so good. While I just give the Vulture the edge. I liked some surprise factors we got there, the threat level, and what he did at the very end of the movie.
I really, really love Doc Ock, but upon multiple rewatching the fact that he became a villain because his tentacle arms were controlling him made it seemed a rather dumb plot to turn him good in the end. Vulture, on the other hand, had a change of heart in a more logical way and not a cop out. And as great as Molina was, I think Keaton did it better. It's hard for me to believe, but I think Vulture is better than Doc.
Ock wins, superior intellect and his tentacles are super strong.
I agree with every single word written on this post.
I like that both these guys were smart in different ways. Ock was clearly top notch in terms of scientific knowledge. He knew how to make the things he wanted and no one could say he wasn't smart. But Vulture was smart in how he organized things. He was able to be a criminal for years on years without being found out. Ock just smashed through banks and openly attacked his targets. But he could make things that Vulture had to turn to others for.
Tough to compare the power of their tech since both were pretty darn overwhelming. Though personally I do like the aerial mobility the vulture suit gives. He can just go places that Spider-Man can't easily follow.
I concur with this. It is very close though. Vulture is probably my favorite villain in the MCU though right now.
I appreciate the Vulture not being just an old guy in a goofy wing suit but this Vulture felt more like an Iron Man villain with a big tech upgrade inserted into a Spider-Man film. If Raimi had got a chance to make his Spider-Man 4 with Vulture, he probably would have kept him more classic with minor upgrades here and there and not have made such a drastic upgrade as Spider-Man Homecoming made with Vulture.
Doc Ock is awesome. Vulture was good but he wasn't very memorable.