Homecoming Who should reboot villain be? (Poll Version)

[Daedalus]

With Eddie Brock, the problem is that he seems like a loser in a badass costume. You don't want to see Eddie, you want to see Venom.

Well, that`s the point of the character. He`s a loser, and he is a sore one. Venom is the "easy way out" of his problems.

And the amount of Venom usage isn't what has killed Venom. It's the fact we have Venom, Anti-Venom, Carnage, Toxin, Scorpion as Venom, female Venom. We have some many symbiotes it's too much and takes away from whatever makes Venom special. Honestly the only one I like is Carnage because Carnage is ****ing evil. Carnage is a serial killer. There are times where Venom is a hero and times he's a villain. With Carnage, he's 100% villain (except that recent comic arc).

I agree that we have too many symbiotes, but I don`t think that was what killed Venom. What killed Venom is that he is a more one-story type of villain than one that can come back with different plans (like Doc Ock does), so there`s a limit of stories you can tell with Eddie Brock. His arc was stretched and somewhat concluded when he had cancer (which shifted his whole perspective in life), but even then they tried to milk more out of this character.

I only like Venom when he's with Flash. Agent Venom was the best thing ever to Venom. I love Agent Venom like I love Guy Gardner as a Red Lantern.

I love Agent Venom, but I think it is important to have Brock before Flash. Only when we have already seen the corruption and the evil that the symbiote draws out of its host is that we truly appreciate how much Flash`s character has grown over the years to become a good man. His becoming of Venom and his ability to actually stay in control is a poignant part of his character, since he doesn`t give in like Brock did.

On a side-note, I`d love an Agent Venom spin-off after some Spidey solo movies setting up both Venom and Flash.

 

[I'm Batman.]

Nothing you've said there makes Brock an anti Peter Parker. You are saying the same false logic the other poster I was addressing was saying. What issues and experiences in life did Brock face that are the same as Peter's? Was he a lonely nerdy kid? Did he lose parents at a young age? Was he bullied constantly because he was the Science geek? Did Brock even love Science and acquire his powers through that? Was he unpopular with girls? Your claim is so vague and devoid of any details. As for him not being able to live with his let downs in life, name me a Spidey villain who can. They are all products of their let downs and backgrounds. Every single one of them. Why you think Brock is one of the few contenders to that I don't know.

Name me as many personal traits he has in common with Peter that Octavius does. Then you can say he's a candidate to be the anti Spider-Man.

Venom is the anti-Spider-Man. I don't see how you can dispute that. Peter lives by the mantle "with great power comes great responsibility." Brock just thinks, "Awesome! I deserve it!" It goes even further to show that Brock is Parker, just without the sense of responsibility.

 

[The Joker]

Venom is the anti-Spider-Man. I don't see how you can dispute that.

Because it's not true that's how. I don't know how you can dispute that. Any reasons that are given make no sense. Like yours here;

Peter lives by the mantle "with great power comes great responsibility." Brock just thinks, "Awesome! I deserve it!" It goes even further to show that Brock is Parker, just without the sense of responsibility.

What kind of silly logic is this? Nearly every Spidey villain treats their powers like that. That's why they're villains. They don't use them responsibly. It doesn't make them all anti Spider-Men.

 

[CaptainWagner]

Venom is the anti-Spider-Man. I don't see how you can dispute that. Peter lives by the mantle "with great power comes great responsibility." Brock just thinks, "Awesome! I deserve it!" It goes even further to show that Brock is Parker, just without the sense of responsibility.

The thing is, Eddie's life is nothing like Peter's. He has everything Peter would love to have (pre transformation), but still is consumed with jealousy. The true "anti-Spiderman" would be Doc Ock, whose life was the perfect mirror of Peter's missing only an Uncle Ben to guide him through his troubles.

 

[Doctor Octopus]

Venom is the anti-Spider-Man. I don't see how you can dispute that. Peter lives by the mantle "with great power comes great responsibility." Brock just thinks, "Awesome! I deserve it!" It goes even further to show that Brock is Parker, just without the sense of responsibility.

Disagreed. Venom is not anti Spider-Man. Venom just has some powers like Spider-Man but that not make him anti version of him. Spidey villains have no sense of responsibility. If they did they would be good guys lol. But they don't they are irresponsible by using powers for bad. Venom not only one like that.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

The thing is, Eddie's life is nothing like Peter's. He has everything Peter would love to have (pre transformation), but still is consumed with jealousy. The true "anti-Spiderman" would be Doc Ock, whose life was the perfect mirror of Peter's missing only an Uncle Ben to guide him through his troubles.

Agreed. This is why Dr. Octopus is my favorite Spider-Man villain, even above Green Goblin.

 

[ernesth100]

User CP

But where in the User CP? Like is there a specific section to add my signature and avatar. Because I don't see it.

 

[The Joker]

The thing is, Eddie's life is nothing like Peter's. He has everything Peter would love to have (pre transformation), but still is consumed with jealousy. The true "anti-Spiderman" would be Doc Ock, whose life was the perfect mirror of Peter's missing only an Uncle Ben to guide him through his troubles.

Exactly. Doc Ock even had an anti Uncle Ben in his life. His father. Where Uncle Ben taught Peter good morals like with great power comes great responsibility, Otto's father told him a man is measured by his strength and power (the kind of warped philosophy Ock often lives by);

 

[LEVITIKUZ]

Y'all know that before Green Goblin killed Gwen, Doc Ock was seen as Spider-Man arch-enemy right?

IMO Ock is to Spider-Man what Zod kind of is to Superman. Similar people (with Zod and Supers having similar powers) just that they go 2 different directions.

Not sure what Batman's villain would be. Maybe Hush but when you look at Bruce, there isn't someone who's had problems like him and became a villain so to speak.

As I said before, when you look at Venom the biggest problem is he won't go violent and that's why I prefer Carnage. Spidey doesn't have many serial killers and the fact Venom looks like something out of a horror film and the fact his host has never gone into horrorish motivates like Carnage just makes me feel Carnage is a lot better.

You don't have a Spidey foe who's as scary as Carnage who won't just kill you but will kill everyone in a violent manner.

 

[Daedalus]

Nothing you've said there makes Brock an anti Peter Parker. You are saying the same false logic the other poster I was addressing was saying. What issues and experiences in life did Brock face that are the same as Peter's? Was he a lonely nerdy kid? Did he lose parents at a young age? Was he bullied constantly because he was the Science geek? Did Brock even love Science and acquire his powers through that? Was he unpopular with girls? Your claim is so vague and devoid of any details.

Name me as many personal traits he has in common with Peter that Octavius does. Then you can say he's a candidate to be the anti Spider-Man.

Being a lonely nerd kid that is unpopular with girls are but a few of Peter Parker`s characteristics. Just because a specific villain doesn`t play to them, I don`t see how that immediately discards him as being a possible flipside to Peter. Look at The Joker (since you obviously appreciate him), or Lex Luthor. They aren`t the flipside of Batman and Superman because they are versions of those characters gone wrong, they are their flipsides because they are their complete opposites.

As I said before in my previous comment, I feel that instead of having one clear flipside, most important Spider-Man`s villains are that to Peter in one way or another (Doc Ock included). Brock is a flipside of Peter because he had a pretty amazing life up to the Sin-Eater affair, but he felt entitled to it. Then, when all of that comes crumbling, he is unable to hold off the stress (his career destroyed, his girlfriend/wife leaving him, his father disowning him, depression, cancer, etc.) up to the point he thought of killing himself. He has one almost redeeming moment in the church, but luck strikes and the Symbiote joins with him. Once he gets the Symbiote, he reverts back to his entitled self.

It`s the opposite of Peter Parker`s life outlook: Peter had had shortcomings all his life, but he always dealt with them optimistically and was thankful for what he could have. He had very stressful moments, but he didn`t let them put him down, but instead used them to mature. Brock, on the other hand, had it good for most of his life, and let one shortcoming destroy the rest of his life completely (blaming other people for it). He felt he was entitled to having a great life though, and as soon as he saw one bit of power, he took it to be vindictive upon other people to justify that shortcoming. No other Spidey Villain plays to that specific theme as strongly as Brock does.

But Harry was popular. Harry was admired because he was the rich kid of the school. He was the popular money bags with clout. You concede Harry was part of the in crowd, and that's why he was.

I stated from the beginning he walked around with popular people, so I don`t see why that concedes anything. As I said in my comment, Harry`s wealth was certainly appreciated by his popular friends, but I never got any impression that he was appreciated or admired or considered cool himself by his college community. That`s why I defended that his portrayal in the 90`s TAS was spot-on on this, he was pretty much walking in Flash`s shadow and trying to be a cool guy by association, while Flash kind of shrugged him off and took that for granted (hence the LeFou/Gaston Disney reference).

 

[Daedalus]

But where in the User CP? Like is there a specific section to add my signature and avatar. Because I don't see it.

You need to have 300 posts and been around for a month before getting an avatar, ernesth.

 

[Daedalus]

Y'all know that before Green Goblin killed Gwen, Doc Ock was seen as Spider-Man arch-enemy right?

I still pretty much consider Octavius to be Spidey`s nemesis. I love Norman, I just think Doc Ock plays off Spider-Man better.

 

[The Joker]

Being a lonely nerd kid that is unpopular with girls are but a few of Peter Parker`s characteristics.

You're right. There's more. Both love Science. Both were bullied. Both lost parents at a young age. Both raised in middle class New York. That's when someone is the flip side or anti version of someone. They have things in common that make them mirror images, but one deviates left and the other deviates right. In this case one went hero, the other went villain.

Just because a specific villain doesn`t play to them, I don`t see how that immediately discards him as being a possible flipside to Peter.

Because for a character to be the mirror image or anti version of them they have to have specific things in common with them. Not vague traits that multiple villains all share, or something superficial like similar powers.

Look at The Joker (since you obviously appreciate him), or Lex Luthor. They aren`t the flipside of Batman and Superman because they are versions of those characters gone wrong, they are their flipsides because they are their complete opposites.

The Joker is not the flip side of Batman. Where did you get that idea from? They have literally nothing in common. Joker doesn't even an official back story. I am not a big Superman fan, so I can't comment on whether Luthor is seen as the flip side of Superman. But based on a previous poster's comment, General Zod is seen as the anti Superman, not Luthor.

As I said before in my previous comment, I feel that instead of having one clear flipside, most important Spider-Man`s villains are that to Peter in one way or another (Doc Ock included). Brock is a flipside of Peter because he had a pretty amazing life up to the Sin-Eater affair, but he felt entitled to it. Then, when all of that comes crumbling, he is unable to hold off the stress (his career destroyed, his girlfriend/wife leaving him, his father disowning him, depression, cancer, etc.) up to the point he thought of killing himself. He has one almost redeeming moment in the church, but luck strikes and the Symbiote joins with him. Once he gets the Symbiote, he reverts back to his entitled self.

None of this makes him the flip side of Peter. That would be like saying a poor man who puts on a mask and cape is the flip side of Bruce Wayne just because he was poor instead of rich. Your argument makes no sense at all on any level.

It`s the opposite of Peter Parker`s life outlook: Peter had had shortcomings all his life, but he always dealt with them optimistically and was thankful for what he could have. He had very stressful moments, but he didn`t let them put him down, but instead used them to mature. Brock, on the other hand, had it good for most of his life, and let one shortcoming destroy the rest of his life completely (blaming other people for it). He felt he was entitled to having a great life though, and as soon as he saw one bit of power, he took it to be vindictive upon other people to justify that shortcoming. No other Spidey Villain plays to that specific theme as strongly as Brock does.

Again you can say this about so many Spider-Man villains. Nearly every one of them had short comings, failures, and losses in their lives, and instead of flipping it around and taking the blame for it, they lash out at the world for it, and pervert their powers and talents because of it.

This doesn't make them anti Spider-Men any more than it makes Brock being a loser one.

I stated from the beginning he walked around with popular people, so I don`t see why that concedes anything. As I said in my comment, Harry`s wealth was certainly appreciated by his popular friends, but I never got any impression that he was appreciated or admired or considered cool himself by his college community. That`s why I defended that his portrayal in the 90`s TAS was spot-on on this, he was pretty much walking in Flash`s shadow and trying to be a cool guy by association, while Flash kind of shrugged him off and took that for granted (hence the LeFou/Gaston Disney reference).

It concedes it because Harry was part of the cool crowd. He was seen as cool because he was a wealthy guy. He was not walking in Flash's shadow in the comics. So why you are using the 90's show as a crutch for your argument, when it got so many things wrong with several important Spider-Man characters, is beyond me.

 

[TheWallCrawler]

I love Agent Venom, but I think it is important to have Brock before Flash. Only when we have already seen the corruption and the evil that the symbiote draws out of its host is that we truly appreciate how much Flash`s character has grown over the years to become a good man. His becoming of Venom and his ability to actually stay in control is a poignant part of his character, since he doesn`t give in like Brock did.

On a side-note, I`d love an Agent Venom spin-off after some Spidey solo movies setting up both Venom and Flash.

I'd love an Agent Venom spin-off too... but it would be difficult. Assuming we would get the same actor that plays Flash in the new movies, would the shift in character be too jarring? The reason it works so well in the comics is that there's so much history and character building in the comics between his bully days to being Agent Venom. It's not enough for me that first Flash bullies Peter, then quickly decides he's a different person in the span of 2 movies, then suddenly he lost his legs in battle and he becomes a hero using the symbiote. They will start from the ground up, Flash is the dim-witted high school bully again, even if he and Peter form some kind of odd friendship by the end of the trilogy like in TSSM, I think most of you would agree that having TSSM season 3 include Flash already becoming Agent Venom would suck pretty hard

 

[John Locke]

Most superhero rogue galleries have an underline theme that's a flip side to the hero's theme. Superman's is perverse translation of Ubermensch, Batman's is loosing sanity to one bad day, and Spider-Man's is abusing great power. Each gallery has a "poster child" of the theme Lex, Joker, and Green Goblin. They are usually arch nemesis and they usually want the hero to see the theme as they see it. Sometimes there is a villain who lives by the theme but wants to kill the hero rather than become a team like Venom (Metallo and Bane maybe?) But there is usually only one villain who is the exact opposite of the hero, Zod, Prometheus, and Doc Ock.

 

[The Joker]

Most superhero rogue galleries have an underline theme that's a flip side to the hero's theme. Superman's is perverse translation of Ubermensch, Batman's is loosing sanity to one bad day, and Spider-Man's is abusing great power. Each gallery has a "poster child" of the theme Lex, Joker, and Green Goblin. They are usually arch nemesis and they usually want the hero to see the theme as they see it. Sometimes there is a villain who lives by the theme but wants to kill the hero rather than become a team like Venom (Metallo and Bane maybe?) But there is usually only one villain who is the exact opposite of the hero, Zod, Prometheus, and Doc Ock.

 

[ernesth100]

speaking of Doc Ock. I wouldn't mind seeing Octavious using his arms in the 2017 before he went crazy. Mainly to do simple tasks like life large objects.

 

[The Joker]

Ideally I'd love to see several of the villains appear before they become villains. See Octavius as a prominent scientist in NY. Flint Marko as a well known thief. Adrian Toomes as a notable engineer in aviation. Norman Osborn and Harry, as well as Oscorp etc etc.

 

[ernesth100]

Hell have the entire film littered with cameos of villains before they become villains. They can have a daily bugle article about a man in the savannah that wrestles Lions(Kraven). I'd pee myself if I saw that.

 

[Daedalus]

You're right. There's more. Both love Science. Both were bullied. Both lost parents at a young age. Both raised in middle class New York. That's when someone is the flip side or anti version of someone. They have things in common that make them mirror images, but one deviates left and the other deviates right. In this case one went hero, the other went villain.

"Anti-" stands for "the opposite of" (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anti). Hence The Joker being the anti-Batman, and Luthor being the anti-Superman, and so on. They are polar opposites, that`s the point. Same thing goes for "flipside". From "thefreedictionary.com"`s thesaurus: "flip side - a different aspect of something (especially the opposite aspect)".

Doc Ock is the opposite of Peter Parker in some aspects of his life, but not in all of them.

Because for a character to be the mirror image or anti version of them they have to have specific things in common with them.

Mirror image =/= anti version.

Doc Ock`s early life indeed mirrors Peter`s. That does not make him the antithesis of Spider-Man.

The Joker is not the flip side of Batman. Where did you get that idea from? They have literally nothing in common. Joker doesn't even an official back story. I am not a big Superman fan, so I can't comment on whether Luthor is seen as the flip side of Superman. But based on a previous poster's comment, General Zod is seen as the anti Superman, not Luthor.

That`s the point of an anti-version.
On Superman, General Zod is more of an “what if Superman were evil?” thing.

None of this makes him the flip side of Peter. That would be like saying a poor man who puts on a mask and cape is the flip side of Bruce Wayne just because he was poor instead of rich. Your argument makes no sense at all on any level.

That was not an argument, that was explanation, because you said my last argument had no details (so I put them here). I was laying down Brock`s attitude towards his life so that when I claimed it was the opposite of Peter Parker`s.

Again you can say this about so many Spider-Man villains. Nearly every one of them had short comings, failures, and losses in their lives, and instead of flipping it around and taking the blame for it, they lash out at the world for it, and pervert their powers and talents because of it.

Most Spider-Man villains are out for revenge of some sort indeed, but most of them was actually wronged by another person. Brock wronged himself. And besides, his attitude was already present much before he had his shortcoming, that was the point of my previous paragraph. His understanding of life and its disappointments are essentially opposite to Peter Parker`s.

It concedes it because Harry was part of the cool crowd.

No, it does not. You can have cool friends and not be cool yourself. That was the point of the image.

He was seen as cool because he was a wealthy guy.

Being wealthy doesn`t make people automatically cool. I always thought that was actually an integral part of his character: despite being wealthy, he was never the best kid around. In Norman`s twisted eyes, that`s what justifies his disappointment. (It obviously doesn`t, but Norman`s a terrible father)

He was not walking in Flash's shadow in the comics.

Wholeheartedly greed. I think that is completely in-character for him though, that`s why I said I find his 90`s college portrayal to be pretty spot-on.

We don`t see pre-Doc-Ock Octavius cowering before Norman in the comics either, but I still think that`s completely in-character for him to do in TSSM. Same thing with Vulture`s hatred towards Osborn. Invented feuds, but they fit the characters.

So why you are using the 90's show as a crutch for your argument

The part about the 90s show is an explanation, hence the “why” that precedes it. I was making myself clear, because I thought you hadn`t grasped what I had to say, so I used a very well-known example.

when it got so many things wrong with several important Spider-Man characters, is beyond me.

You can get some characters right while not doing the same with other characters. Take TSSM, for example. Most (including myself) would say they got most characters right and faithful to their comic-book counterparts. Shocker was however a totally different person than his comics` counterpart, as was The Big Man. You could say they got that “wrong”, but that still doesn`t take away from the fact that they got the others right.

 

[Daedalus]

I'd love an Agent Venom spin-off too... but it would be difficult. Assuming we would get the same actor that plays Flash in the new movies, would the shift in character be too jarring? The reason it works so well in the comics is that there's so much history and character building in the comics between his bully days to being Agent Venom. It's not enough for me that first Flash bullies Peter, then quickly decides he's a different person in the span of 2 movies, then suddenly he lost his legs in battle and he becomes a hero using the symbiote. They will start from the ground up, Flash is the dim-witted high school bully again, even if he and Peter form some kind of odd friendship by the end of the trilogy like in TSSM, I think most of you would agree that having TSSM season 3 include Flash already becoming Agent Venom would suck pretty hard

I wholeheartedly agree. I`m actually really hoping they pick a good actor for Flash, and they can develop his character through the following sequels. You could believably have him be the bully in the beginning of the first movie, but have his odd-friendship with Peter by the end of it. Perhaps instead of focusing on a love interest, the High School part of it could be both of them becoming odd friends. In the second movie you can build on that, and so on. Have Flash be an important character. By the end of the third movie, you could have a scene setting up that spin-off; or you could have Flash in Black-Widow-in-IM2 sort of role by the fourth movie. This is obviously wishful thinking on my part, but hey, so was wishing we would get a Civil War movie 5 years ago .

 

[CaptainWagner]

I'd love an Agent Venom spin-off too... but it would be difficult. Assuming we would get the same actor that plays Flash in the new movies, would the shift in character be too jarring? The reason it works so well in the comics is that there's so much history and character building in the comics between his bully days to being Agent Venom. It's not enough for me that first Flash bullies Peter, then quickly decides he's a different person in the span of 2 movies, then suddenly he lost his legs in battle and he becomes a hero using the symbiote. They will start from the ground up, Flash is the dim-witted high school bully again, even if he and Peter form some kind of odd friendship by the end of the trilogy like in TSSM, I think most of you would agree that having TSSM season 3 include Flash already becoming Agent Venom would suck pretty hard

Well, you have to draw it out. Flash bullies Peter in high school, but idolizes Spiderman. When Peter goes to college, Flash joins either the army or SHIELD. Either offscreen or possibly in another property, he loses his legs. He comes home a national hero, and finally apologizes to Peter. This sets him up to receive the symbiote after Brock is defeated. Carnage can be in turn created by a government attempt to recreate the symbiote. He goes on a rampage, Flash is sent after him, and there's your Agent Venom spinoff! t:

 

[The Joker]

"Anti-" stands for "the opposite of" (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anti). Hence The Joker being the anti-Batman, and Luthor being the anti-Superman, and so on. They are polar opposites, that`s the point. Same thing goes for "flipside". From "thefreedictionary.com"`s thesaurus: "flip side - a different aspect of something (especially the opposite aspect)".

"a person who is opposed to a particular practice, party, policy, action, etc."

Nearly every villain is anti to the hero in their practice, policy, actions etc. Being Anti Spider-Man or Batman or who ever means similar to that person but opposite on who they are, in this case one is a hero and the other is a villain. That's the anti part. Otherwise every villain is anti Batman or Spider-Man since most of them are completely different to him in nearly every way. That includes Joker and Luthor.

Doc Ock is the opposite of Peter Parker in some aspects of his life, but not in all of them.

In the important ones he is. He's the only villain with many significant similarities to Peter personally.

Mirror image =/= anti version.

Yes, it does. You can't be an anti Spider-Man unless you're like Spider-Man in many ways. Otherwise there's no need to have Spider-Man in that label.

Doc Ock`s early life indeed mirrors Peter`s. That does not make him the antithesis of Spider-Man.

Of course it does. You are literally the only person I have seen try to argue otherwise.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDY0WKvFwQ8&t=3m3s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDY0WKvFwQ8&t=0m39s

Even the experts don't agree with you. I mean why do you think Ock of all the villains was chosen to be Spider-Man for 2 years in the Superior Spider-Man saga? Because of all the villains he's the one that fits like a glove into Peter's life. He even had the personal affection for Aunt May.

That`s the point of an anti-version.
On Superman, General Zod is more of an “what if Superman were evil?” thing.

Because Zod shares similarities with Superman.

That was not an argument, that was explanation, because you said my last argument had no details (so I put them here). I was laying down Brock`s attitude towards his life so that when I claimed it was the opposite of Peter Parker`s.

Which is phony logic. Because if we followed that then just about every Spidey villain is Peter Parker's opposite.

Most Spider-Man villains are out for revenge of some sort indeed, but most of them was actually wronged by another person. Brock wronged himself. And besides, his attitude was already present much before he had his shortcoming, that was the point of my previous paragraph. His understanding of life and its disappointments are essentially opposite to Peter Parker`s.

But that's just it Brock did not wrong himself. He was given a false news source. He thought the real Sin Eater was Emil Gregg, and he had not been. He used bad information, though he didn't realize he had. So he was wronged by someone.

No, it does not. You can have cool friends and not be cool yourself. That was the point of the image.

Yes it does. You're back tracking your point now. Harry was seen as cool because he rich. Whether you agree he was cool or not is irrelevant. That's how he was seen by the college crowd, that's why he was in the cool gang.

Being wealthy doesn`t make people automatically cool. I always thought that was actually an integral part of his character: despite being wealthy, he was never the best kid around. In Norman`s twisted eyes, that`s what justifies his disappointment. (It obviously doesn`t, but Norman`s a terrible father)

Again being wealthy doesn't make him cool to you. It did to the crowd he hung around with. You keep missing that point. You're talking like you're speaking on their behalf. Being great at football doesn't make someone cool either but it got Flash into the in crowd even though he was a complete jerk.

Wholeheartedly greed. I think that is completely in-character for him though, that`s why I said I find his 90`s college portrayal to be pretty spot-on.

I'm not sure why you would think that since he didn't live in anyone's shadow in school in the comics.

We don`t see pre-Doc-Ock Octavius cowering before Norman in the comics either, but I still think that`s completely in-character for him to do in TSSM. Same thing with Vulture`s hatred towards Osborn. Invented feuds, but they fit the characters.

I don't. Not with Octavius anyway because Ock was an arrogant a-hole before he became Doc Ock. He never cowered before anyone. The only person who had any kind of hold over him that way was his mother, and that was an emotional blackmail type of hold, not a fearful one.

The part about the 90s show is an explanation, hence the “why” that precedes it. I was making myself clear, because I thought you hadn`t grasped what I had to say, so I used a very well-known example.

I get what you mean now, but it still doesn't make sense for Harry.

You can get some characters right while not doing the same with other characters. Take TSSM, for example. Most (including myself) would say they got most characters right and faithful to their comic-book counterparts. Shocker was however a totally different person than his comics` counterpart, as was The Big Man. You could say they got that “wrong”, but that still doesn`t take away from the fact that they got the others right.

I'm not talking about the ones they got right, I'm talking about the ones they got wrong. And they got many wrong, as well as many important storylines wrong, too. It's not a show that can be put on a pedestal for faithfulness, so using it to support your Harry theory wasn't the best source you could have chosen.

 

[ernesth100]

My analysis of Spider-Man's rougue gallery.

Chameleon=Has No Personal Vendetta Against Spider-Man and is usually hired to antagonize him.
Scorpion=Was literally made to kill Spider-Man. It's kind of a natural predator thing.
Shocker=Is much like Chameleon.
Hobgoblin=Usually doesn't mind Spider-Man but will gladly take the him out if he get's in his way.
Green Goblin=Is literally the definition of the word insanity. He's the villain made to antagonize Spidey. His Lex to Superman, his Joker to Batman, etc.
Venom=Is just Revenge bound. He wants revenge at all costs. Not just because of what to Peter did to Brock. But what he did to the Symbiote and how he ditched it. Even if he has to kill everyone in Spider-Man's life to get it.
Carnage=Has no other thoughts other than kill everything he can. This includes Spider-Man.
Doc Ock=A prime mirror example of what Spider-Man could've turned out like had he used his powers and intelligence for bad.
Kingpin=Imagine you're a big market business. Now imagine there's a small corner store always trying to sell infront of your gigantic business and you're like "who the **** do they think they are?" and some how some way they always succeed at selling in front of your store. Despite all the connections and resources you have. So now you want that small business out of the way at all costs. That small store is Spider-Man and the big business is Kingpin.
Electro=Electro is just a guy who was corrupted by power. He got a taste and now he wants more. And will take Spider-Man out if he get's in the way.
Rhino=Rhino much like Electro got power and was corrupted by it. Only his wasn't by accident. He doesn't want more, he thinks he has all the power he needs. He thinks he unstoppable. Spidey has proved him wrong though on several occasions,
Sandman=I don't think Flintever intended to become Sandman. But he accepts it and uses the power to get what he wants. He's a basic villain. Nothing too deep in my opinion.
Vulture=Is has a grudge against Osborn. Spider-Man get's in the way. Vulture does not like this. This last to conflict, and the outcome is obvious. Fun Fact: Some Spiders eat birds.
Kraven=Much like the Scorpion but different. He does want to kill Spider-Man and hunts him. However Kraven does it for sport and thrill. Scorpion is in my opinion a bit more serious and brutal about it.
Mysterio=Was a much like Doc Ock in a sense. He could've used his talents for the Art's. And did but when he failed, instead of trying again, he resorted to a life of crime.


That's only the main villains. I could REALLY get into it. But I think this is a good capping point.


Who's Spider-Man's true enemy? Green Goblin no doubt. Who's Spider-Man's absolute opposite? Doctor Otto Octavious, point blank. Who is his most dangerous enemy? Let's be honest here for a second. Carnage.


Main=Goblin
Opposite=Doc Ock
Most Dangerous=Carnage


Simple as that. Of course then again. I totally forgot what we were talking about.

 

[Daedalus]

"a person who is opposed to a particular practice, party, policy, action, etc."

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.

Nearly every villain is anti to the hero in their practice, policy, actions etc.

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.

Being Anti Spider-Man or Batman or who ever means similar to that person

No, it doesn`t. It means the exact "opposite of" that person. Where in the definition of anti- did you get similar?

but opposite on who they are, in this case one is a hero and the other is a villain. That's the anti part.

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.

Otherwise every villain is anti Batman or Spider-Man since most of them are completely different to him in nearly every way. That includes Joker and Luthor.

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.

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.

In the important ones he is

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.

He's the only villain with many significant similarities to Peter personally.

Which only proves my point that he isn`t the opposite of Peter.

You can't be an anti Spider-Man unless you're like Spider-Man in many ways. Otherwise there's no need to have Spider-Man in that label.

Of course there would be, they are in the same world.

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.

You are literally the only person I have seen try to argue otherwise.

And I appreciate your time.

Even the experts don't agree with you.

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.

I mean why do you think Ock of all the villains was chosen to be Spider-Man for 2 years in the Superior Spider-Man saga? Because of all the villains he's the one that fits like a glove into Peter's life. He even had the personal affection for Aunt May.

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.

Because Zod shares similarities with Superman.

Many similarities. And thus, couldn`t be his opposite.

Which is phony logic. Because if we followed that then just about every Spidey villain is Peter Parker's opposite.

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.

But that's just it Brock did not wrong himself. He was given a false news source. He thought the real Sin Eater was Emil Gregg, and he had not been. He used bad information, though he didn't realize he had. So he was wronged by someone.

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.

Yes it does. You're back tracking your point now.

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.

Harry was seen as cool because he rich. Whether you agree he was cool or not is irrelevant. That's how he was seen by the college crowd, that's why he was in the cool gang.

This has nothing to do with my conception of "cool". I used "cool" as "seen as cool by his college mates"/"popular".

That's how he was seen by the college crowd, that's why he was in the cool gang.

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.

Again being wealthy doesn't make him cool to you.

Again, what I meant is that being wealthy doesn`t make you automatically popular.

You keep missing that point. You're talking like you're speaking on their behalf. Being great at football doesn't make someone cool either but it got Flash into the in crowd even though he was a complete jerk.

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.

And if his wealth was the sole reason they were hanging out with him, that proves that he was only accepted into the "in" crowd because of his family`s money. It had nothing to do with the students in general admiring him nor wanting to be like him.

And I don`t really see how I`m talking in a fictional character`s behalf. We`re discussing our interpretations of these characters on the page.

I'm not sure why you would think that since he didn't live in anyone's shadow in school in the comics.

He lived in his father`s shadow all the time.

I don't. Not with Octavius anyway because Ock was an arrogant a-hole before he became Doc Ock. He never cowered before anyone. The only person who had any kind of hold over him that way was his mother, and that was an emotional blackmail type of hold, not a fearful one.

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.

I get what you mean now, but it still doesn't make sense for Harry.

Are you agreeing on disagreeing?

I'm not talking about the ones they got right, I'm talking about the ones they got wrong.

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.

And they got many wrong, as well as many important storylines wrong, too. It's not a show that can be put on a pedestal for faithfulness,

I agree, but again, it is possible to get some things right and others wrong in an adaptation.

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).

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.

so using it to support your Harry theory wasn't the best source you could have chosen.

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).

Well, it`s almost midnight, so I`ll call it a day. We can continue tomorrow!