This is also something that "anti-" could mean, as in "The conservatives are anti-abortion", or Jameson`s "anti-Spider-Man"; but it clearly isn`t the case here. We were both using "anti-" as "opposite of", which is a completely different thing as "opposed to". The former means that anti-X is everything that X isn`t, while the latter means it`s against X.
That's the point. It all depends on the context you use it in. When it's used as a label for a character, a specific character, in this case an anti-Spider-Man, it means it is someone who is similar to Spider-Man, but also their opposite, in this case hero and villain.
Again, that is "anti-" as "against". It`s a whole other meaning of "anti-" that does not coincide with the one we`re using here.
See above. Your straw clutching on this anti label is wearing thin and won't validate your point.
If you're so hung up on it will it make you happy to change it to dark Spider-Man instead? Anything to please the hair splitters
No, it doesn`t. It means the exact "opposite of" that person. Where in the definition of anti- did you get similar?
Yes it does, and opposite of means hero and villain. That's the opposite part. Otherwise why call it anti Spider-Man or anti Batman. It's because they are so similar to Batman and Spider-Man in personality traits.
There`s much more to Doc Ock and Spider-Man than being villain and hero to the Spidey Universe. That`s just a role they play in the story, not who they actually are as characters.
Being a hero and a villain to each other is exactly what defines their relationship. That's the core foundation of it. They are enemies. Everything that comes from their relationship it built on that.
Once again, you`re using "anti-" as "opposed to", not as "opposite of". While both are correct, the first one is completely irrelevant to our discussion.
In what way irrelevant?
The Joker is the opposite of Batman because he is everything that Batman is not. They couldn`t be any more different than they already are. If they were color hues, one would be total black and the other would be total white.
Most of Batman's enemies are the total opposite of him. They are no more his opposite than Joker. Your point is invalid on this. Do you really still want to cling to it?
Things that Octavius is different to Peter: he is evil, he is insane, he is overweight, and he is old. They have much more in common than they have apart.
Being overweight is a physical trait not a personality one. Same as age is just a number, it doesn't change their similar personality traits. Being evil and sane is what their opposite point is. One is villain, the other is hero, in spite of them sharing so many similarities personally.
Which only proves my point that he isn`t the opposite of Peter.
I'm assuming you're joking there.
Of course there would be, they are in the same world.
What has being in the same world got to do with it? Iron Man and a string of other characters are in the same world as Spidey it doesn't mean you name a character's anti stance after them just because they occupy the same universe.
And the similarity thing doesn`t make sense at all. Opposites are opposites because they are different in every single way, if they had similarities they wouldn`t be opposites. Think of color hues. What is the anti-total-black? Total white. One gathers all possible pigmentation, the other gathers none. Polar opposites.
Are you for real? Opposites can have plenty in common and still be opposites.You are taking the word opposite and being totally literal with your color analogy.
Let me give you an example; Bane and Batman see each other as opposites, and I can give you a scan that show that if you doubt me. But they have several things in common. They both lost their parents when they were kids and that loss helped turn them into what they become. They both mentally and physically trained themselves into physical perfection. They both wear masks.
I wholeheartedly agree with what they had to say. Doc Ock is a great villain, and he is very similar to Peter. He is a "what-if-Peter-Parker-were-evil" sort of character. That does not make him his opposite.
You were going so well there until that last sentence. He is the Peter Parker gone bad. His opposite.
And I wholeheartedly agree here, too. Doc Ock`s my favourite Spidey villain, as I have mentioned before in these boards. He plays off best with Spider-Man.
Something we agree on.
Many similarities. And thus, couldn`t be his opposite.
You're pulling my leg now. You have to be. Because they have so much common but are enemies they are not opposites? Pull the other one it has bells on it.
Not just about every Spidey villain, no, but many of the important ones, yes. As I said before in my previous posts (twice, actually), Spider-Man doesn`t have a polar-opposite villain such as The Joker is to Batman, or Lex is to Superman. Spider-Man has no definitive anti-Spider-Man (which was my original point), but some of his villains are opposites of some aspect of Peter`s life. In Brock`s case, it`s how he sees himself and the shortcomings that happen to him,as I`ve been trying to argue.
Your point fails because Joker and Lex are not the polar opposites to the hero. No more than many other villains in their rogues gallery.
Your argument about Brock's shortcomings can be applied to several other villains. The Scorpion blames Jameson and others for the crappy life he's had. Vulture too. Electro, Sandman.....could go on forever. They blame life or someone in their life for the lousy deal they got. Never themselves.
They are as much polar opposites as Brock.
Brock chose to trust an unproven source (who was a compulsive liar) and run an important story without a backup source due to his desire to succeed. So yes, he did wrong himself.
What difference does it make that he chose to trust him? Everyone who cheats or lies to someone does it because they were trusted and then turned around and back stabbed. And Brock had no idea Gregg was a liar.
I`m backtracking because you didn`t get what I was trying to prove with Gaston/LeFou`s image. If you haven`t ever seen Beauty and the Beast, I`m sorry, I assumed everyone had (which is why I chose it in the first place). This is what I was trying to say: Gaston is the most popular guy in town. Every single person but Belle`s family look up to him: the girls want to marry him, the guys want to be like him, etc. There`s even a big musical number about it. Gaston`s best friend is LeFou. LeFou is not popular though, no one admires him nor wants to be like him. He`s still part of the "in" crowd (he`s best friends with Gaston, after all), but he`s not popular himself. So, people can be friends with popular people and not be popular themselves. That was the point.
I got your point with the Gaston analogy, I just didn't agree with it, because Harry was liked and was popular. Nobody thought bad of him or looked down their nose at him. His wealth is what got him in with the cool crowd, but Harry didn't treat people around him like dirt.
This has nothing to do with my conception of "cool". I used "cool" as "seen as cool by his college mates"/"popular".
You kept arguing that Harry wasn't cool because he was wealthy, which you're wrong about. In the eyes of his college buddies he was.
I obviously disagree, but I already have explained why. This doesn`t elaborate on your previous post, so I don`t think there`s much left to say.
I don't need to elaborate the point. It's clear cut and dry.
Again, what I meant is that being wealthy doesn`t make you automatically popular.
It did for Harry. I don't know why you keep dancing around that point. We're not talking about wealthy kids in general, we're talking about specific characters here.
Football usually makes people automatically popular. Wealth does not. It`s very unusual for a jock to be unpopular, not so much for rich kids. There are unpopular rich kids all the time.
Rubbish. Kids who play football can be unpopular or not part of the cool crowd.
And if his wealth was the sole reason they were hanging out with that him, that proves that he was only accepted into the "in" crowd because of his family`s money. It had nothing to do with them admiring him nor wanting to be like him.
Same reason Flash got accepted into the cool crowd, because he was good at football. Being good at a sport or having wealth doesn't define who you are as a person. The cool crowd was wowed by a talent Flash had, and in Harry's case the wealth he had.
It doesn't negate the point that Harry was part of the cool crowd. He had friends.
He lived in his father`s shadow all the time.
That was his home life. We're talking about his school/social life.
I think it`s pretty in-character because they simply re-organized his story so that he was bullied afterwards in his job, instead of during his upbringing. Once he becomes Doc Ock, his arrogance is back in its place. I was fine with that, although I can see why people wouldn`t be.
Which is all wrong. Ock's weakness to being bullied was left behind in his childhood thanks to his upbringing with his abusive father and over bearing mother. It turned him into a over confident, arrogant, egotistical adult.
It was a small complaint though because I love how SSM handled Ock.
Are you agreeing on disagreeing?
Disagreeing of course.
Yes, but I started talking about the ones they got right. Then you quoted and said they got a lot wrong, to which I responded that it didn`t matter to the discussion, since you could have a show that got some things right and some things wrong.
Harry wasn't the ones they got totally right, which is why I asked why you were using that show as a crutch for your argument. In fact they generally messed up the Goblin story from the get-go by having Hobgoblin be the first Goblin on the scene.
I agree, but again, it is possible to get some things right and others wrong in an adaptation.
I don't think so. I think it can be done.
That was the point of using the TSSM example: they got a lot right, but there are still some things they got "wrong"(i.e. different from the comics: Shocker, for example).
Yes, but that was an easily avoidable error. There's was nothing forcing them to make Shocker Montana. Which is what I meant before when I said I think you can do it right if you really want to.
I could use another example: Wolverine and the X-Men TV show got a lot wrong, but it did get Magneto right (in my opinion, of course). Same could happen with any adaptation.
I'll bet the errors they made with Wolverine could have been easily avoided. Usually the mistakes made with characters can be avoided. The people doing these adaptions purposely do it just for the sake of being different or wanting something to fit so neatly into a story for convenience.
As I said in my previous post, this wasn`t an argument, it was an explanation. It was a reference to something most people here have had the chance to watch (common ground) so that they could understand what I was talking about when discussing Harry`s personality. (You even quoted me and said you got it was merely an explanation now, some three quotes up).
Fair enough. This is my last post on this as I feel we're start to go in circles now and repeat ourselves. If you want to reply go ahead, I'll read it but I won't post another reply. Though I hope we converse again in the future. I like your style overall. You present yourself well, even though I don't agree with you on this particular topic.
