Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2019 18:11:10 GMT
I see. In the comics he's much more of a cartoon character though. He's you classic cackling evil scientist villain. Did you really want that slim, that corny, of a character in the movie version? I think the changes in the movie made him a better overall character. The changes made him "relatable," which is fine. Everyone and their mother is hanging their hat on relatability now, especially when it comes to villains. Every villain somehow has to be relatable to be considered credible. Personally, I think the allure of the true villain is that you can't relate to them. Their brain chemistry, desires, and world view defy comprehension and analysis by the sane individual. Making villains more relatable is a way of downplaying the existence of actual indiscriminate evil. I will concede that the relatable approach does assist with building credible motivations. In the comics that I read, Otto Octavius is a cunning and manipulative sadist. He is a psychopath who is generally unconcerned with the suffering of others. I don't feel Spider-Man two captured that accurately. What I think Spider-Man two did capture about Otto correctly is that he is a member of the scientific community who feels he has been underappreciated. Making the Doctor into someone, we could sympathize with is an invention of the movie - which, again, is fine and worked well for the film. The problem is, you can't have this conversation without someone saying, "the MCU does that too!" You can no longer discuss this film as a standalone entity. The posture of those who love it is to defend it from all comers at all costs. Cool. I get that. I just can't bring myself to waste my time discussing it in that context. Maybe that's the problem, though. You seem intent on completely assassinating Spiderman 2 by highlighting all of these nitpicky flaws yet act as though it is out of line to point out similar flaws in the more recent Spidey movies. You want to discuss it in the context of "Spiderman 2 is not the best Spidey movie" where it is for some reason offensive to mention McU Spidey movies. I don't get it. This kind of studio allegiance stuff is exactly why I can barely discuss the genre on the internet anymore.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vassaggo on Jul 12, 2019 18:12:05 GMT
I see. In the comics he's much more of a cartoon character though. He's you classic cackling evil scientist villain. Did you really want that slim, that corny, of a character in the movie version? I think the changes in the movie made him a better overall character. The changes made him "relatable," which is fine. Everyone and their mother is hanging their hat on relatability now, especially when it comes to villains. Every villain somehow has to be relatable to be considered credible. Personally, I think the allure of the true villain is that you can't relate to them. Their brain chemistry, desires, and world view defy comprehension and analysis by the sane individual. Making villains more relatable is a way of downplaying the existence of actual indiscriminate evil. I will concede that the relatable approach does assist with building credible motivations. In the comics that I read, Otto Octavius is a cunning and manipulative sadist. He is a psychopath who is generally unconcerned with the suffering of others. I don't feel Spider-Man two captured that accurately. What I think Spider-Man two did capture about Otto correctly is that he is a member of the scientific community who feels he has been underappreciated. Making the Doctor into someone, we could sympathize with is an invention of the movie - which, again, is fine and worked well for the film. The problem is, you can't have this conversation without someone saying, "the MCU does that too!" You can no longer discuss this film as a standalone entity. The posture of those who love it is to defend it from all comers at all costs. Cool. I get that. I just can't bring myself to waste my time discussing it in that context. Making them unrelatable evil in the movies, I would just stay on this side of the psychopath/sociopath or chaos lover. I don't want to spend too much time with the people that are evil for evil's sake. Those who know right and wrong but is so in love with evil he chooses evil. Not saying you can't have one or two like that but reign it in on the screen. Most should be unrelatable because they are psychotic, sociopaths, psychopathic, unfeeling, or broken monsters. Obviously you will have the relatable villains too. So mostly Relatable and Unrelatable because of normally psychopathy, etc mostly. Pepper in a few in love with evil types. It's like this, for the last 2 decades I have fell out of love with Dean Koontz. He has fallen in love with writing about the people who love evil for evilsake. And fuck is it tedious. It used to be his villains were psychopaths, sociopaths, scientists with no morals, people who gained a super power and disconect themselves from the world, etc... Every once in a while he would through in someone like Vassago in the Hideaway. Spoilers for a 25+ year old book and Villain. He was a kid who was a teenage satanist named Jeremy Nyebern. He was born wrong a psychopath, but he was rational in that he knows what's bad and good but loves bad. So still crazy it takes someone who is crazy to not only believe in the supernatural more than the most pios Christian, Hindu, Jew, Muslim, etc... that there has ever been and you choose the wrong side. It's all crazy until his belief is proved. He dies he goes to Hell, because he sacrificed his sister and mother to Satan. Then himself. His father a world renounced resuscitation expert (I know what are the odds?  So yeah bit corny) His Dad couldn't bring the girl or wife back but brought his son back after 2 or 3 hours... When he came back the Demon Vassago came with him. That kind of villain was rare. Now half his villains are satanists, nihilists, and the stereotypical twirl your mustache villain and it SUCCCCKKKSSSS. So pepper it in there but be restrained. Obviously the evil for evilsake villain can work look at my name for fucks sake. 
|
|
|
|
Post by Vassaggo on Jul 12, 2019 18:40:36 GMT
I see. In the comics he's much more of a cartoon character though. He's you classic cackling evil scientist villain. Did you really want that slim, that corny, of a character in the movie version? I think the changes in the movie made him a better overall character. The changes made him "relatable," which is fine. Everyone and their mother is hanging their hat on relatability now, especially when it comes to villains. Every villain somehow has to be relatable to be considered credible. Personally, I think the allure of the true villain is that you can't relate to them. Their brain chemistry, desires, and world view defy comprehension and analysis by the sane individual. Making villains more relatable is a way of downplaying the existence of actual indiscriminate evil. I will concede that the relatable approach does assist with building credible motivations. In the comics that I read, Otto Octavius is a cunning and manipulative sadist. He is a psychopath who is generally unconcerned with the suffering of others. I don't feel Spider-Man two captured that accurately. What I think Spider-Man two did capture about Otto correctly is that he is a member of the scientific community who feels he has been underappreciated. Making the Doctor into someone, we could sympathize with is an invention of the movie - which, again, is fine and worked well for the film. The problem is, you can't have this conversation without someone saying, "the MCU does that too!" You can no longer discuss this film as a standalone entity. The posture of those who love it is to defend it from all comers at all costs. Cool. I get that. I just can't bring myself to waste my time discussing it in that context. Also I may or may not have just wanted to rant on Dean Koontz a bit.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Jul 12, 2019 18:59:15 GMT
The changes made him "relatable," which is fine. Everyone and their mother is hanging their hat on relatability now, especially when it comes to villains. Every villain somehow has to be relatable to be considered credible. Personally, I think the allure of the true villain is that you can't relate to them. Their brain chemistry, desires, and world view defy comprehension and analysis by the sane individual. Making villains more relatable is a way of downplaying the existence of actual indiscriminate evil. I will concede that the relatable approach does assist with building credible motivations. In the comics that I read, Otto Octavius is a cunning and manipulative sadist. He is a psychopath who is generally unconcerned with the suffering of others. I don't feel Spider-Man two captured that accurately. What I think Spider-Man two did capture about Otto correctly is that he is a member of the scientific community who feels he has been underappreciated. Making the Doctor into someone, we could sympathize with is an invention of the movie - which, again, is fine and worked well for the film. The problem is, you can't have this conversation without someone saying, "the MCU does that too!" You can no longer discuss this film as a standalone entity. The posture of those who love it is to defend it from all comers at all costs. Cool. I get that. I just can't bring myself to waste my time discussing it in that context. Maybe that's the problem, though. You seem intent on completely assassinating Spiderman 2 by highlighting all of these nitpicky flaws yet act as though it is out of line to point out similar flaws in the more recent Spidey movies. You want to discuss it in the context of "Spiderman 2 is not the best Spidey movie" where it is for some reason offensive to mention McU Spidey movies. I don't get it. This kind of studio allegiance stuff is exactly why I can barely discuss the genre on the internet anymore. I'm not aligned with a particular studio. I'm aligned without a point of view that appears to be unacceptable. I get that and, I don't mind being a man apart on this. It's the character assassination that follows that's frankly insane and incomprehensible. All due respect, you've stated your opinion and, I fully comprehend it, but I don't think that there is much more for you and I to discuss on this particular topic. Thanks for your input.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2019 19:06:39 GMT
Maybe that's the problem, though. You seem intent on completely assassinating Spiderman 2 by highlighting all of these nitpicky flaws yet act as though it is out of line to point out similar flaws in the more recent Spidey movies. You want to discuss it in the context of "Spiderman 2 is not the best Spidey movie" where it is for some reason offensive to mention McU Spidey movies. I don't get it. This kind of studio allegiance stuff is exactly why I can barely discuss the genre on the internet anymore. I'm not aligned with a particular studio. I'm aligned without a point of view that appears to be unacceptable. I get that and, I don't mind being a man apart on this. It's the character assassination that follows that's frankly insane and incomprehensible. All due respect, you've stated your opinion and, I fully comprehend it, but I don't think that there is much more for you and I to discuss on this particular topic. Thanks for your input. I guess we will just move on then. I don't see what is so wrong with bringing up the Vulture when talking about sympathetic villains. This is, after all, a conversation on the best Spidey films. I am just curious as to why Doc Ock in SM2 bothers you but Vulture doesn't. And by the way, I think the changes made to Vulture's motivation were good ones so this is not me attacking the MCU. But fine, I won't bother you anymore, Skull Man. |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Jul 12, 2019 19:11:32 GMT
The changes made him "relatable," which is fine. Everyone and their mother is hanging their hat on relatability now, especially when it comes to villains. Every villain somehow has to be relatable to be considered credible. Personally, I think the allure of the true villain is that you can't relate to them. Their brain chemistry, desires, and world view defy comprehension and analysis by the sane individual. Making villains more relatable is a way of downplaying the existence of actual indiscriminate evil. I will concede that the relatable approach does assist with building credible motivations. In the comics that I read, Otto Octavius is a cunning and manipulative sadist. He is a psychopath who is generally unconcerned with the suffering of others. I don't feel Spider-Man two captured that accurately. What I think Spider-Man two did capture about Otto correctly is that he is a member of the scientific community who feels he has been underappreciated. Making the Doctor into someone, we could sympathize with is an invention of the movie - which, again, is fine and worked well for the film. The problem is, you can't have this conversation without someone saying, "the MCU does that too!" You can no longer discuss this film as a standalone entity. The posture of those who love it is to defend it from all comers at all costs. Cool. I get that. I just can't bring myself to waste my time discussing it in that context. Making them unrelatable evil in the movies, I would just stay on this side of the psychopath/sociopath or chaos lover. I don't want to spend too much time with the people that are evil for evil's sake. Those who know right and wrong but is so in love with evil he chooses evil. Not saying you can't have one or two like that but reign it in on the screen. Most should be unrelatable because they are psychotic, sociopaths, psychopathic, unfeeling, or broken monsters. Obviously you will have the relatable villains too. So mostly Relatable and Unrelatable because of normally psychopathy, etc mostly. Pepper in a few in love with evil types. It's like this, for the last 2 decades I have fell out of love with Dean Koontz. He has fallen in love with writing about the people who love evil for evilsake. And fuck is it tedious. It used to be his villains were psychopaths, sociopaths, scientists with no morals, people who gained a super power and disconect themselves from the world, etc... Every once in a while he would through in someone like Vassago in the Hideaway. Spoilers for a 25+ year old book and Villain. He was a kid who was a teenage satanist named Jeremy Nyebern. He was born wrong a psychopath, but he was rational in that he knows what's bad and good but loves bad. So still crazy it takes someone who is crazy to not only believe in the supernatural more than the most pios Christian, Hindu, Jew, Muslim, etc... that there has ever been and you choose the wrong side. It's all crazy until his belief is proved. He dies he goes to Hell, because he sacrificed his sister and mother to Satan. Then himself. His father a world renounced resuscitation expert (I know what are the odds? So yeah bit corny) His Dad couldn't bring the girl or wife back but brought his son back after 2 or 3 hours... When he came back the Demon Vassago came with him. That kind of villain was rare. Now half his villains are satanists, nihilists, and the stereotypical twirl your mustache villain and it SUCCCCKKKSSSS. So pepper it in there but be restrained. Obviously the evil for evilsake villain can work look at my name for fucks sake. Okay... I'll say this - when we get to cosmic-level villains, especially those who represent a force of nature, those individuals who don't have an unethical boss (Mysterio) or an inequality-based score to settle (Kilmonger), relatability will be tougher to sell. Am I supposed to relate to a 60-foot tall giant whose origins date back to the very beginnings of the universe? He wants to absorb all energy derived from biological life on my planet. Should I tell him what a beautiful place my home town is to visit in the summer? Galactus isn't relatable. He's Galactus. His motivations, much like a tsunami or a cyclone, are unknowable. If we become overly reliant on relatability, we can't ask bigger questions.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Jul 12, 2019 19:17:32 GMT
I'm not aligned with a particular studio. I'm aligned without a point of view that appears to be unacceptable. I get that and, I don't mind being a man apart on this. It's the character assassination that follows that's frankly insane and incomprehensible. All due respect, you've stated your opinion and, I fully comprehend it, but I don't think that there is much more for you and I to discuss on this particular topic. Thanks for your input. I guess we will just move on then. I don't see what is so wrong with bringing up the Vulture when talking about sympathetic villains. This is, after all, a conversation on the best Spidey films. I am just curious as to why Doc Ock in SM2 bothers you but Vulture doesn't. And by the way, I think the changes made to Vulture's motivation were good ones so this is not me attacking the MCU. But fine, I won't bother you anymore, Skull Man. Where did I say that the Vulture did or didn't bother me? You tend to derive hidden meaning and false agendas in what people say. It's hard to carry on a conversation on that basis.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2019 19:26:13 GMT
I guess we will just move on then. I don't see what is so wrong with bringing up the Vulture when talking about sympathetic villains. This is, after all, a conversation on the best Spidey films. I am just curious as to why Doc Ock in SM2 bothers you but Vulture doesn't. And by the way, I think the changes made to Vulture's motivation were good ones so this is not me attacking the MCU. But fine, I won't bother you anymore, Skull Man. Where did I say that the Vulture did or didn't bother me? You tend to derive hidden meaning and false agendas in what people say. It's hard to carry on a conversation on that basis. You didn't say anything. That's my point. You want to explain why Spiderman 2 is not the best Spiderman, but keep it in a vacuum without acknowledging that other Spiderman movies commit the same unholy sins that you are writing paragraphs about here.. But forget it. I'm sorry to bother you. I really don't want to argue about this, Skull Man. Let's move on. |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Jul 12, 2019 19:43:08 GMT
Where did I say that the Vulture did or didn't bother me? You tend to derive hidden meaning and false agendas in what people say. It's hard to carry on a conversation on that basis. You didn't say anything. That's my point. You want to explain why Spiderman 2 is not the best Spiderman, but keep it in a vacuum without acknowledging that other Spiderman movies commit the same unholy sins that you are writing paragraphs about here.. But forget it. I'm sorry to bother you. I really don't want to argue about this, Skull Man. Let's move on. Fair enough...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2019 22:04:34 GMT
You didn't say anything. That's my point. You want to explain why Spiderman 2 is not the best Spiderman, but keep it in a vacuum without acknowledging that other Spiderman movies commit the same unholy sins that you are writing paragraphs about here.. But forget it. I'm sorry to bother you. I really don't want to argue about this, Skull Man. Let's move on. Fair enough... I'd be happy to read your thoughts on how the Spidey movies rank. I'm open to an argument that other movies may be better than Spiderman 2, even if I don't agree. Which would you rank higher, and why? And I promise, I won't refute your points or criticize your opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by darkpast on Jul 13, 2019 3:26:25 GMT
Spider-Man
Spider-Man 2
Spider-Man 3
The Amazing Spider-Man
The Amazing Spider-Man 2
Spider-Man Homecoming
Spider-Man Far From Home
i think each one was worse than the next
|
|
|
|
Post by Martin Brundle - Martinfly on Jul 13, 2019 16:42:37 GMT
Spider-Man (2002)
................. Then:
Amazing Spider-Man 1
Spider-Man: Homecoming
Spider-Man: Far From Home
Spider-Man 2
Spider-Man 3
Amazing Spider-Man 2
|
|
|
|
Post by merh on Jul 14, 2019 1:22:04 GMT
No one breaks with the idea that Spider-Man 2 is the perfect Spider-Man film even though Otto Octavius, as presented, isn't very much like his comic book counterpart. Interesting... Well, the Peter Parker in Homecoming and Far From Home isn't very much like his comic book counterpart either. The very first ones? Like 1965?
|
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Jul 14, 2019 1:41:44 GMT
Well, the Peter Parker in Homecoming and Far From Home isn't very much like his comic book counterpart either. The very first ones? Like 1965? The Peter Parker in the comics who became a hero because he learned that "with great power comes great responsibility". MCU Peter, who was given a powerful new toy, EDITH, and used it to order a killer drone attack against a fellow classmate just because that fellow classmate is his competition for MJ and that fellow classmate got an embarrassing photo of Peter with his pants down and who (after taking no action when he had a chance to stop the thief that killed Uncle Ben) once again takes no action to warn his fellow classmates when he knows that his fellow classmates are walking into an attack in Prague, still hasn't learned that "with great power comes great responsibility".
|
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Jul 14, 2019 1:47:24 GMT
The very first ones? Like 1965? The Peter Parker in the comics who became a hero because he learned that "with great power comes great responsibility". MCU Peter, who was given a powerful new toy, EDITH, and used it to order a killer drone attack against a fellow classmate just because that fellow classmate is his competition for MJ and that fellow classmate got an embarrassing photo of Peter with his pants down and who (after taking no action when he had a chance to stop the thief that killed Uncle Ben) once again takes no action to warn his fellow classmates when he knows that his fellow classmates are walking into an attack in Prague, still hasn't learned that "with great power comes great responsibility". Are you sure you are not a comedian in real life? Because you give Andre Cedeno a run for his money as the most unintentionally funniest person on the internet.
|
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Jul 16, 2019 22:23:05 GMT
That's an interesting pastime and, when I say interesting, I mean as in totally pathetic. I wonder if our mutual friend also feels obligated to go to bad restaurants, eat their bad food and then notify the public? He lost nothing other than the ticket price, the time spent watching the bad movie, and the hours it likely took him to generate his weak one-liner review. His most significant loss, of course, was his dignity when you annihilated his stupid justification. I feel obligated to let the public know that you wrecked him - well done. Someone that feels obligated to see these movies, no matter how much they hate them, out of some obligation to the overall genre.
He watches superhero movies because he's a fan of the superhero movie genre. Nothing wrong with that. I didn't like Star Trek: Voyager, but I watched every episode because I'm a Star Trek fan and I've watched all the movies and every episode of TOS, TNG, DS9, Voyager, Enterprise, and Discovery.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Jul 16, 2019 22:29:13 GMT
Someone that feels obligated to see these movies, no matter how much they hate them, out of some obligation to the overall genre.
He watches superhero movies because he's a fan of the superhero movie genre. Nothing wrong with that. I didn't like Star Trek: Voyager, but I watched every episode because I'm a Star Trek fan and I've watched all the movies and every episode of TOS, TNG, DS9, Voyager, Enterprise, and Discovery. There is something deeply wrong with that. At some point, most sane humans know when to say when.
|
|
|
|
Post by bud47 on Jul 16, 2019 23:55:25 GMT
He watches superhero movies because he's a fan of the superhero movie genre. Nothing wrong with that. I didn't like Star Trek: Voyager, but I watched every episode because I'm a Star Trek fan and I've watched all the movies and every episode of TOS, TNG, DS9, Voyager, Enterprise, and Discovery. There is something deeply wrong with that. At some point, most sane humans know when to say when. Yeah, I grew up with and love the X-Men, but I have no interest at all in watching Dark Phoenix. I wouldn't put myself through that torture for the genre. Some people just have weird obsessions or maybe it's an OCD thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by James on Jul 21, 2019 0:09:43 GMT
Spider-Man
Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse
The Amazing Spider-Man
Spider-Man 3
Spider-Man 2
Spider-Man: Far From Home
Spider-Man: Homecoming
The Amazing Spider-Man 2
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2019 5:37:10 GMT
1. Spider Man 2 (tie) 10/10
2. Spider-man: ITSV (tie) 10/10
3. Spider-man 8.5/10
4. Spider-man: Far From Home 8/10
5. Spider-man 3 (tie) 7/10
6. Spider-man: Homecoming (tie) 7/10
7. The Amazing Spider-man (tie) 7/10
8. The Amazing Spider-man 2 6/10
|
|
So yeah bit corny) His Dad couldn't bring the girl or wife back but brought his son back after 2 or 3 hours... When he came back the Demon Vassago came with him. That kind of villain was rare. Now half his villains are satanists, nihilists, and the stereotypical twirl your mustache villain and it SUCCCCKKKSSSS. So pepper it in there but be restrained. Obviously the evil for evilsake villain can work look at my name for fucks sake. 
