Welcome to the main discussion thread for the Marvel Cinematic Universe! This pinned post is here to establish some basic guidelines. All of the Media Forum rules
still apply.
- This thread is for talking about the live-action films, TV shows, animated works, and related content that use the Marvel brand, currently owned by Disney.
- While mild digressions are okay, discussion of the comic books should go in this thread
. Extended digressions may be thumped as off-topic.
- Spoilers for new releases should not be discussed without spoiler tagging for at least two weeks. Rather, each title should have a dedicated thread where that sort of conversation is held. We can mention new releases in a general sense, but please be courteous to people who don't want to be spoiled.
If you're posting tagged spoilers, make sure that the film or series is clearly identified outside the spoiler tagging. People need to know what will be spoiled before they choose to read the post.
Edited by Mrph1 on Jul 29th 2024 at 3:09:00 PM
That was my thought too. "The Vulture is so lame. Like, he might work as a starter villain for the first ten minutes or so, but he can't carry a movie. They'd need to pair him with a really cool villain like Hobgoblin for it to work."
Shows you what Teenage Me knew. I will never question a villain's film cred again.
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.It's all about exposure, which I why I don't take too much stock in characters being considered B or C listers any more. All it takes is a few strong appearances outside the comics and diligent use, and characters can jump up in public opinion dramatically. It's something Marvel took to heart a while ago, even if in villains' cases they don't always put a lot of effort into making those appearances memorable (Vulture being a great exception).
I mean, it happened for General Zod after just one movie.
edited 14th Feb '18 9:09:33 PM by KnownUnknown
Granted, the two silliest things about the Vulture- his decrepit age and his green feather suit -were both downplayed by making him an upper-middle-aged man in a harness that's halfway between Falcon's wings and a Quinjet. With those out of the way he's pretty easy to take seriously.
I do like how he actually uses his talon feet in the final battle, though. On paper it just sounds silly, an old man using claws on his feet, but on-screen it's awesome and brutal.
edited 14th Feb '18 9:51:31 PM by Anomalocaris20
You cannot firmly grasp the true form of Squidward's technique!As impressive as that was, all I could focus on was how that was not quite the best song to dance to with an audience of tiny babies.
My various fanfics.Movie Adrian Toomes is functionally an original character inspired by the comics character rather than a straight adaptation of the comics. Comics Toomes was basically a standard "I developed advanced technology, I will turn to crime" villains, other versions have make him looking for revenge because of some sleight, usually Osborn, with Spider-Man: The Animated Series making him an actual corporate rival to Osborn.
You could argue that Stark stands in for Osborn, but him being a blue collar businessman turned black market dealer completely changes the character, along with a much different depiction of his Vulture costume (comics is usually a wingsuit or something similar to what Falcon wears). The movie makes him more sympathetic in that he isn't trying to harm anyone personally, and he actually has some noble traits in taking care of his family and keep his workers employed. That's a bigger change than the one BTAS gave Mr. Freeze, which kept all of the gimmick but gave a tragic backstory.
The same could be said for a lot of the Raimi Spider-Man villains.
Norman Osborne in the comics is portrayed as a sociopath who uses the identity of the Green Goblin to commit crime to further his own goals that he couldn’t do as himself. While in the movie they played off this split personality angle with the character as if he was more of a Tragic Villain rather than the Complete Monster he usually is. Granted in the comics they did play off an amnesia theme with the character once his identity was revealed, it still doesn’t change the fact that prior to it he was well in control of himself when commiting crimes as the Goblin. Hell, even later comics makes it clear that he has been and always will be an evil son of a bitch who isn’t tormented by his split personality.
Otto Octavious in the comics was an Insufferable Genius nuclear physicist who has anti social tendency and makes schemes of world conquest because he believes as the smartest man he should rule everybody. Compare that ro Otto Octavious in Spider-Man 2 who is more of a Gentleman and Scholar that has a wife who loves him for who he is, is naturally friendly around others and is only a villain because his arms told him to and not because he is an egomaniac from beginning.
And then Flint Marko. Boy, the characters are completely different aside from being a bank robbing crook, having sand powers and beinf reformed in the end. SP 3 Sandman is not only (through retcon) is Uncle Ben’s killer but also the reason he steal money is so that he can help and support his daughter. Very different from comic Sandman who is a petty bank robber and thats it.
I would go as far as to say that the villains in Amazing Spider-Man were more accurate to their comic counter parts than the other two series. The only one who isn’t is Harry Osborne as Green Goblin who became the villain due to Peter actually pulling a dick move as both himself and Spider-Man, unlike the Poor Communication Kills of the comics and Raimi movies which convince Harry ti take up the mantle of Green Goblin since he sees his former friend Peter as a villain for killing his dad and stealing his girlfriend from under his nose.
. . : Fuck, now I’m in the mood of readinf classic Spider-Man comics.
I believe Normal Osborn as "tragic man tormented by the evil Green Goblin split personality" got its start in Spider Man The Animated Series.
I was talking about sweeping differences, not small changes in backstory or temperament. Green Goblin is still secretly CEO using the Goblin persona and technology to protect his own interests, Dr. Octopus is a scientist with mechanical tentacles grafted to his body and acts in a For Science! attitude, Sandman is a sand-based shapeshifter with an interest in reforming, etc. Most of the changes claimed are actually based on the comics stories in one form or another. Harry Osborn had a psychotic break when he became the second Green Goblin, that was transferred to be part of Norman Osborn's characterization in STAS. Flint Marko did have a connection to Uncle Ben's murder.
Other than the bird motif and being a thief Toomes barely aligns with anything from the original character, and as I mentioned even the exosuit nature of the costume pushes even that similarity. Even as a thief he was more of a wannabe Classy Cat-Burglar instead of leading a heist team.
Since Spider-Man keeps getting brought up what do people think of Spider-Man 2.1 and Spider-Man 3 Editor's Cut?
For me I enjoyed Spider-Man 2.1, but I can understand why the scenes were cut.
Spider-Man 3 Editor's Cut is the best version of the film, and there's no way that I could ever go back to the original cut.
I have heard every now and then people talking about how Toomes has nothing to do with his comics self. While this is an easy conclusion to make, it's incorrect. Movie!Toomes is a man who turns to crime after being betrayed by someone he works for, turning to crime out of resentment. He also cares deeply for his family.
All of that is taken, in some way or another, from the comics. He's likewise betrayed and turns to a life of crime due resentment in the comics (but there it's his crooked partner embezzling funs and here it's the government who pulls the rug under him and goes with Stark), this comes from his very first appearance and turn to villainy in The Amazing Spider-Man #2. His love for his family has been displayed many times in the comics, but the most famous examples are in (Mark Millar's Spider-Man
, in which he goes on a robbing spree to pay for the cancer treatment of his grandson and in the Identity Disk
miniseries in which (spoilers for said miniseries. it's great so I recommend everyone read it without the spoilers): Vulture conducts a master gambit strategem, playing several supervillains and even Nick Fury for chumps, plus massive heist and all of this solely to save his granddaughter's (completely honest) career as a SHIELD Agent from being dismantled by the fact she's his daughter.
What the movie did was go the route of Adaptation Distillation and play up some of these traits, putting a lot of emphasis on the family love and the resentment but those traits were already there way before the film was conceived. The only thing that they did add was giving him a more solid Noble Demon code of conduct (in the comics the only compulsion he occasionally showed was with hurting children every now and then and seemed to have a distaste for prostitution, finding it exploitative).
But the character as of itself is faithful to the comics. He's no Mr. Freeze.
edited 15th Feb '18 5:55:11 AM by Gaon
"All you Fascists bound to lose."
They also leaned heavily on him being from a different era, one without internet and political correctness (before someone jumps at my throat, that is no comment on political correctness whatsoever, I simply mention it because it was mentioned in the movie), thus contrasting him with Peter, for which all this is pretty much a given, keeping up the old vs young dichotomy. .
Mysterio would be such a good movie villain
He's literally a movie villain!
Forever liveblogging the AvengersNo, you're talking about aesthetic changes.
- Making the Vulture's wings into a technological flight-suit is an aesthetic change. It alters the visuals of the character, while the basic premise remains the same.
- Making Doc Ock, one of the single most 100% pure evil characters in Spider-Man's entire rogues gallery, a man who does shit like trying to superheat the atmosphere and kill 99.2% of the Earth's population as his lasting legacy on Earth, into a tragic and sympathetic figure who never meant to hurt anybody is a sweeping change that alters the very core of the character.
I would love Mysterio, especially if the first half of the film plays out like the most stereotypical modern superhero movie ever, complete with sky-beam and the villain in question being super bland and generic, only for the second half to turn into a mindbending mystery as it's revealed that the whole first half was staged to allow Mysterio to accomplish some other purpose.
He doesn't get taken down at the end, either. He f*cks off and for the rest of the franchise, it becomes Peter's Never Live It Down moment. "Hey, remember when you tried to sell your marriage to Mysterio?"
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.

And to think when I was leaving the theater after seeing Spider-Man 3 and with the majority of my knowledge coming from the 90s Spider-Man cartoon that I shrieked 'the Vulture is third rate' at a friend who suggested him for Spider-Man 4.
Forever liveblogging the Avengers