huh? wha? I never even brought up that subject. Who said anything about Connery or Craig?

I’m not biased to the Raimi movies, there are problems in them. And by get over the Raimi movies, I mean I think its stupid that people, compare the comic books to the movies so much. I really don’t go to these comic book movies, to see a fair accurate representation of the comic book, because much like books to movies, I know that will never be 100%. And I’m not lumping Brad and Spoony into the people that just hate it now because its new, I’m pointing the finger at you internet fools. And I love that you blindly follow Spoony like his loyal fan and agree with his opinion, newsflash Terrell Spoony is usually full of shit most of the time in my opinion. He hates a lot of things, he nitpicks things to freaking death and has a negative opinion on most things. And even the movies he likes so much he nitpicks so much. Besides his constant love of Reb Brown movies is stupid as all hell, like Reb Brown movies are that good, maybe for a laugh. Or is he just playing that up, oh well. I am not trashing the movie, no the movie was pretty good, it had flaws, but unlike you it will not measure up so well to Raimi’s for me, part of it is the nostalgia factor. So no, I take Spoony’s opinion with a freaking grain of salt, the man has problems. I take Brad’s opinion on a more face value, I just disagree with it. Spoony is usually full of shit, he’s right sometimes but for the most part I don’t agree with him.

I don’t know… After reading what you said, I was prepared to agree with you, but then I thought back over it all again and really think there’s more differences than you’re given credit to.

You mention a few things in the opening, differences that I feel are somewhat important to the character of the villain. For instance:

You point out that the Lizard hasn’t the intelligence to go after Aunt May, instead charging right at Peter where he knows he can find him (the school). You say this is due to bad screenwriting. Then later you say that the writers “had it right” when the Lizard is mindlessly going after the Indian guy on the bridge by just acting on Dr. Connor’s last immediate thought and barrelling off (wild Id unchecked by Ego).

If the Lizard is acting on instinct and an unchecked want for gratification (known here as “Id”), then wouldn’t he have simply gone after Peter as directly as he could without giving thought to the consequences or other, more manipulative ways to go about it? This is in contrast to the maniacal intellect of the Green Goblin, who liked to torment Spider Man by capturing his loved ones, Aunt May and Mary Jane, and to give him cruel moral dilemmas such as whether to save his girlfriend or a vehicle full of strangers.

Sure they’re both subjected to an experimental chemical, but that’s really a very vague similarity when it comes to super villains and heroes. Many heroes/villains are brought about by untested experiments of some sort – Dr. Octopus with those arms, the Sandman with that pit. If it’s not some form of mutation then it has to be an augmentation (magical artefact/curse, technological suit/weapon, etc…), or just intense training. They’re archetypes that don’t directly copy one another, unless you’re arguing they should have used a non-mutated villain. In this case, the experimental chemical doesn’t even have a similar purpose. Norman Osborne’s chemical is designed to make super soldiers for the military, Dr. Connor’s chemical is to give animal qualities to humans for medicinal uses.

Both Lizard and Green Goblin become villains in response to testing their experiments when under pressure, yes. That’s a generally accepted, if not recommended, way to tell a story. If you don’t put up stakes for a character to do something they don’t want to do then they don’t have motivation, and it’s usually less tragic when a villain is created by something they’re confident will succeed than by something they were forced to resort to test on themselves. Is Mohinder Suresh a Green Goblin clone because he injects himself in Heroes?

As for them both finding out who Spider-Man is, there’s a sense of catharsis (pleasure through release of pent up tension/stress – the pay off) that’s missed if the villain doesn’t realise who it is he’s really fighting with. The same goes for the hero’s loved ones. I’m pretty sure every Spider-Man movie has the villains realise who he is. Though I agree perhaps the discovery could have been handled better.

The split personality thing I already addressed. As you said, the Green Goblin is fighting with an alternate persona. With the Lizard, it was less a split personality/alter ego and more just giving voices to an internal struggle in his head. As in, Norman Osborn literally went insane and became two personalities, the Green Goblin and Norman Osborn. Dr. Conners doesn’t hallucinate or talk to himself, the one brief internal-conflict scene is done in voice-over while Dr. Connors is working hard in the hidden lab. It’s just voicing a losing battle in his head where his Id and Ego are fighting it out for control. Maybe there was another way to show this internal conflict, but this wasn’t the worst way. “The Lizard” isn’t another personality, he’s basically just Dr. Connors under the effects of intellect-and-self-control-inhibiting drugs.

I think the Lizard-people plan was explained in the movie as Dr. Connors (who had an interest in helping cure what he saw as weakness, such as a missing limb, through his research) lost control of the Lizard (Id part of his psyche) when he realised that being the Lizard cured all physical weaknesses that human beings are susceptible to, and he ran with the idea of them being superior. If Dr. Connors were normal, and his experiment worked perfectly fine, he’d want to (through proper, legal channels) get this miraculous cure out into the public so that people can start living enriched, better lives. The same happened here, The Lizard thought his experiment worked, ‘curing’ him of weakness, and he wanted to share this with the world. However, since he’s all Id, no Ego or Super Ego, he decides to do it in the most direct, quickest, easiest way by dispersing his gas over the entire city. This mutation would make everybody equally superior to human beings, rising humanity into a new age of empowerment. Or so the Lizard saw it, because it couldn’t think straight with the higher brain functions that deal with morality and “what is humanity” and the like.

I felt this was different to the Green Goblin, who was more about destruction and merely being insane. Didn’t the Green Goblin try to convince Spider Man to join him in his destruction? That he and Spider Man were superior to humans and had a right to rule over them? That seems like a different motivation, and plot, to trying to raise everybody up to be equal with you (by mutating them without their consent).

Even as expies though, they’re not similar. Norman Osborn lives a double life where he still pretends to be normal to his family, while Dr. Connors starts to alienate Peter Parker and the others he knows, and then retreats into the sewers even when in human form.

The Green Goblin has a glider to fly around on, and he makes a lot of use of explosive pumpkin grenades and homing blades and all sorts of technology, making him more like a technologically advanced threat that is maliciously directed. The Green Goblin targets people he wants to see suffer, and causes other random mayhem such as attacking that bank or terrorising the citizens at the parade.

The Lizard just weaponises his gas, which itself is non-lethal but transforms people into what he considers to be superior beings. He has super regeneration and is a more animalistic force, and spends little time on the surface, or terrorizing anybody who isn’t in some way a threat to him. At the school, for instance, he only goes after Peter, completely ignoring everybody else, except when Gwen intervenes. Even at the end when Gwen has taken something he needs, he sees no reason to maliciously harm Gwen, who at that stage is not a direct threat, and simply takes what he wants and leaves. Other than that he has his claws. He can’t fly, or explode things at a distance, or set up traps or moral dilemmas.

You mention how both The Lizard and Norman Osborne are both closely related to Peter Parker. In this case, I think Dr. Connors was handled better. There is an overarching plot in Dr. Connors relation to Peter Parker’s parents, and their research, which is heavily implied to be explored in a sequel. Peter Parker unwittingly helps create his nemesis with the answer to the formula, but Dr. Connor’s (along with Peter’s Father) created the spiders that made Peter into Spider Man. Their origin stories are intertwined and of similar source, with animal-human genetic mixing.

With the first movie, Norman Osborne just happened to be the father of Peter’s best friend. Then, completely unrelated to one another, they developed super powers from unrelated sources, and just happened to do so around the same time as one another. There’s no real reason given as to why this coincidence happens.

I thought you didn’t want comic book examples, but fair enough. I don’t know which depiction of the Lizard, across all the various works it appears in, is more effective or better handled. I’m just concerned with the movies.

All in all, I can’t see enough similarities to warrant calling the Lizard a clone of The Green Goblin. They’re not similar superficially, in personality, in aims or wants, in methods, or even in story progression beyond the basics of what any hero vs. villain story has.

Perhaps there’s enough there to say they’re similarly treated? I don’t think so, but I’d accept that rather than calling him an outright clone (which is where something has been copied so closely that it’s almost identical, with perhaps only a different name to avoid copyright or a slightly different power or something.)

If anything, the Lizard would be a “clone” of the Hulk. The two are far more similar than with the Green Goblin, as they’re both based upon the same original character, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. There are still enough differences that I’d count them separate enough though (Id vs. Rage, though they’re similar, and how they undergo transformations).

Fair enough, though I don’t really know why you would want that.

If all the Lizard did was attack his loved ones and some random people that get in the way, because he’s an uncontrollable monster, then he’d basically be just a reptilian re-skin of a werewolf. I don’t know about you, but I’ve never seen a werewolf movie that isn’t either a survival horror or a hunt-the-monster movie (or supernatural action flick amongst many, many creatures). Hardly worthy as a single super villain nemesis to a hero in a large city.

I don’t really now why you’d highlight that as something unique about the Lizard either. As I said, werewolves as a monster already cover the man/beast relationship. As a reptile, however, and as our most instinctive and base part of our brain is often known as our “Lizard” or “Reptillian” brain, it makes more sense for him to “be about” uninhibited fulfilment of urges without concern for consequence or morality. Unchecked Id.

This also complements the theme of Spider Man’s origin story far better, which was partly the content of the movie. You want the Lizard to be about Animal vs. Human (i.e. Brutal Savageness v.s. Civility)? Well, as the Lizard was portrayed, it was about Unchecked Id vs. Responsibility.

Peter had to learn how to be responsible in this movie. Going from a vigilante thug on a personal vendetta and growing into an actual hero that is responsible for his actions and does his best to protect people. The Lizard here is about irresponsibility (once again, all Id).

If something is all Id, it literally means it is thinking only of what it wants and how to get it now. It’s not governed by conscience, morality, ethics, or consideration for anything other than itself and what it wishes to do. Even if the concept in psychology is fairly outdated, it’s still used often as a literary theme.

That this isn’t your favourite version of the Lizard is personal preference, and that that “Someone who, under pressure, creates a psycho out of himself.” reminds you solely of the Green Goblin sounds more like a personal problem. I’m guessing it’s not due to a lack of reading/watching other stories, so maybe it’s because you’re comparing this movie so closely to the Raimi versions simply because they both happen to be movies about Spider-Man but otherwise unrelated to each other?

And no, it’s not an objective requirement that every Spider-Man villain find out who he’s fighting. But c’mon, really? You really think it’d be a better movie if Dr. Connors, who knows Peter Parker in person, doesn’t realise that Spider-Man is him? Spider-Man doesn’t NEED to realise the Lizard is Dr. Connors either. They could have written the movie so that he finds a way to defeat the Lizard without ever figuring out that it’s a man he admires. Would that really be more interesting?

In cases where the villain doesn’t know the hero in person, it’s no great loss. But both the Green Goblin and the Lizard (and Dr. Octopus, for that matter) all actually know Peter before becoming super villains. It’s not a requirement, no, but it does hit a cathartic note because many people enjoy seeing how characters react when they find out their nemesis is their friend.

As for “I didn’t say he was exactly like the Green Goblin, he just seemed like one at certain points, there were a lot of echoes to Raimi’s original bad guy.”

You said, and I quote, “… the Lizard was sucha Green Goblin clone.” (with context to the movies). Maybe you just picked a word you didn’t mean, or have a really skewed definition of “clone,” but you basically said that “The Lizard in this movie was such a rip-off of the Green Goblin in Raimi’s version.”

If you don’t think the Lizard was a good choice as a super villain, then that is a separate issue to thinking that the Lizard is a “clone” of the Green Goblin in the movies. I personally think that the version of the Lizard that you wanted sounds kind of dull and uncreative, no different to a “raging monster” werewolf, and that it’s far more interesting to have the Lizard be more like, well, a lizard, but that’s just me and it’s all personal preference.

If you felt the movie misrepresented the Lizard/betrayed the way you feel he should have been treated, then I can understand that feeling. At the same time though, as someone who doesn’t particularly care about his portrayal as a reptillian werewolf, I think that his portrayal in this movie complements the themes and story far better than otherwise. =

You still haven’t explained how it’s a rip-off in any way that doesn’t involve lots of “It’s the same here, except for the bit where it’s different.” such as “Both Lizard and Green Goblin find out that Spider Man is Peter Parker and then decide to kidnap one of his loved ones, Aunt May. Oh, except that Lizard doesn’t kidnap Aunt May, or any of Peter’s loved ones, or anybody at all actually.”

Also, it’s Id, not ID. Id as in “idd,” not “eye-dee” or “identification.” It’s not my fault if you’ve never heard of the term before, or understand the use of character representation of Id, Ego and Super Ego as metaphors in literature. They’re quite common actually, often in the form of a character trio (usually women), where one woman represents each.

This is how the argument is going at the moment:

*Part of your initial argument*: “The Lizard is sucha clone of the Green Goblin.”
Me: “Can you elaborate on why the Lizard is a copy of the Green Goblin.”
You: *Elaborates opinion and interpretation, and then talks about how Lizard isn’t how he is in the comics, and Green Goblin had vaguely similar cinematic moments.*
Me: *Contests with own opinion and interpretation, and pointing out the similarities aren’t as close as you think.*
You: “I hate the movie because it’s all wrong.”
Me: “That’s nice, but why is the Lizard a clone of the Green Goblin?”
You: “You don’t get it, I hate the movie because it’s obviously all wrong. You’re a sony slave!”
Me: “Interesting, but once again, how is this relevant to your argument that the Lizard is a clone of the Green Goblin?”

See how this keeps going? I don’t care if the movie was worse than the first one. How was the Lizard a clone of the Green Goblin? All your other complaints about the movie are irrelevant to this argument. If the topic were “Is this movie “better” than the first Spider-Man movie?” then it would be relevant, but that’s not the topic.

Whether the movie is good or bad is entirely separate to whether the Lizard is a rip-off of the Green Goblin. For all you know I thought this movie was worse than the other Spider Man films, it doesn’t matter, because that’s a different topic. That you keep flailing off topic by grabbing onto red herrings seems to indicate you really don’t actually know what it is you’re trying to argue.

You hated the movie, fine, be content with that. I don’t care if you liked the movie or not, I just don’t see how you can confuse seeing a few similarities between two very different villains as being a complete “rip-off” of one another. Are you one of those people that think Battlefield 3 is a 100% rip off of Modern Warfare 3 because they both have soldiers and guns whilst first-person shooting? If not, why not? Because it’s the same logic you’re using here, or at least it seems to be the case, unless I’m mistaken and you can show me otherwise.

As for Spider-Man’s portrayal, it doesn’t matter how he is in the comics. Once again, if you’re just pissed that the movie didn’t cater specifically to you when it comes to fan service, then that’s a separate topic and problem. If you feel your loyalty was betrayed, you have a right to hate the movie. However, the movie and the comics follow different continuities and have different stories to tell with different versions of the same character. If you think Spider-Man should have been portrayed differently, fine, but that still doesn’t prove Lizard is a rip-off of Green Goblin. How do you get to that conclusion?

I don’t know, I guess it all just comes down to subjective opinion and personal tolerance then. While I can see enough similarities between the Lizard and the Green Goblin’s portrayal to see what you’re getting at, I personally feel that other aspects of the character redeemed this by making them even more distinct from one another. Then again, I have no particular hold-ups over how the Lizard is portrayed in other media, because I don’t really follow the character myself.

As for outdated and cheesy, that’s all personal preference. A lot of people these days want to be treated more seriously and to have more mature portrayals of things, and a lot of comic books heroes simply aren’t that, and require re-design. Turning people into Lizards is closer to cheesy than just being a monster, but it’s less cheesy than the cartoons I remember of the Lizard taking over the streets with armies of crocodiles.

It’s not necessarily a maturity thing, though it can speak to how people in general are feeling they’re treated. Sometimes on the whole they just want something to feel good and laugh about, but then too much of that and a feeling of being treated like children sets in, and they want more stories that are more realistic, or intellectually challenging, or just more opposite of what they’ve been getting. Then, after a while of this, people start to get overloaded on huge doses of symbolism, or plots that are riddled with meta-plots and everybody is drearily serious all the time, and people start to wonder why these movies don’t just lighten up once in a while.

The “outdated” feeling for many comes from something like that I think. It’s not necessarily outdated cinematography, or special effects, it’s just a product of a culture before more recent cultural shifts made it less desirable to the general public. That’s not a complete rule, and many will still like it or hold it close to their heart, but you can’t really blame others whose tastes have just changed since.

People just like variety, is all, so when something new comes along and everybody likes it, all the companies and businesses start trying to market their stuff so that it’ll be on the edge of these new cultural trends, until once again everything is just too much and people are itching for something new again.

“You are the one who brought up how the Lizard was a Green Goblin rip-off, and I answered you …” I brought it up after you mentioned it, so in a way you brought it up. My bringing it up, however, was a question that became the topic of an argument, which is why I didn’t quite understand why you kept bringing lots of other topics into it (such as the overall quality of the movie, or the ability of others to enjoy cinema these days without becoming slaves to Sony).

And yes, don’t worry, I understand you didn’t like this movie very much, but there’re none of those people you were responding to left. Most of the people who posted here did so over 20 days ago, and none of them get updates on our discussion, it’s just you and me in here.

All in all, whichever movie was “better” is basically all just subjective opinion, and isn’t really worth debating over unless one of us hadn’t yet formed an opinion of our own and were still trying to do so. How much one work copies another is at least somewhat measurable, and so at least somewhat objective, and that’s all I was really trying to discuss. =

Either way though, I think we’ve basically said all we can on the subject.
I definitely learnt a lot about The Amazing Spider-Man through this though, so thanks and have a nice day! =)

Sorry, you must have edited your post after I opened it up to read, because there’s more here now than before (I could only see the first paragraph and a bit, which have been changed a bit too.

Sorry if before I was coming off elitist or condescending, I was trying to type politely, but I think it came out wrong.

However, as you outline with Dr. Connors and the Lizard being separate personalities in your favourite version, where Dr. Connors fears turning into the Lizard again and hurting those he loves… Well.. Honestly that is so incredibly boring to me now after years of Werewolf literature, which the classic werewolf practically fits that to a tee. Maybe a scaly werewolf is a new enough spin for some, or if you didn’t get exposed to werewolves much and the Lizard is one of the first times you experienced it, then fine, but for me (and many others) that’s a rather overused, stale, character story.

But as I said, if this hate for the movie is because you feel betrayed by the portrayal of the Lizard, compared to one version of him in the comic books, then that is an entirely separate issue. If you’re unwilling to view the movie as a self-contained continuity and story, then are you just here to see your favourite comic book characters be shown in live-action?

As for his motivation, I don’t know why that part confuses you. The Lizard in this movie is not 100% there in the same way a human is. Id acts on impulse. After Dr. Connors first becomes the Lizard he is still angry and acting on the impulse of wanting to stop the indian guy from doing something that Dr. Connors didn’t approve of. Later, he comes to the realisation that being a Lizardman isn’t half-bad, and he actually thinks that it means his work was successful after all. Now his impulse is to make more people like him, because that’s what he’s lived his life doing – trying to cure weakness.

This hypocracy of using his serum on unwilling people, which is what the indian guy was going to do, is not a character plot hole, but something that a person without any form of moral self-control, or ability to look at themselves critically, is likely to do.

The indian guy was doing something he didn’t want to happen, so he goes out and stops it. He then decides he wants to do something himself, so he goes out and does it. Pure impulse, which is what Id is. When he’s chasing the indian guy he hasn’t realised yet that he wants more people to be like him. And even if he did, it wouldn’t matter, because people who act on impulse can’t withold doing stupid things that hurt them later if they get tempted to. The Lizard wouldn’t have stopped to think about what the consequences are of letting the indian guy live, or kill him, he was just thinking about stopping him.

Note how being a hypocrite, and not being able to think your actions through, are signs of immaturity and irresponsibility? That’s what the Lizard embodied in this movie, which is in contrast to the responsibility Spider-Man had to learn if he wanted to be a hero and not just a thug that was a menace to the police.

As for you insisting the Lizard had a split personality in this movie, he didn’t. That conversations is a metaphor for how the impulsive desires of the Lizard (Id) are out of control of the rest of Dr. Connor’s psyche (Ego and Super Ego). If he was like that in some of the comic books, that’s different.

Also, I find your rambling rhetoric at the end of your comment to be completely uncalled for. I’m not overrating the movie, I never said it was good or bad or the best thing ever. I’m saying that The Lizard is not a clone of The Green Goblin, even how he was treated as a character, and no, being “more of a clone” than something else has no meaningful use, because apples are “more of a clone” of oranges than horses are. It still doesn’t mean they’re “clones”.

I never said any of you people were easily entertained absent minded morons and by the way yes he did, re-watch the Tron: Legacy review and see him tell everybody who liked it was a person who was easily amused and entertained (i.e. a moron, lower than him). I just said you were fooled by the movie, a lot of people are fooled by a movie and like it the first time they watch it. The second time they do, they realize how weak and mediocre said movie is. I hope some people in rewatching the movie in the future suddenly stop singing their damning of Raimi and realize that this movie wasn’t that good. I admit to my over the top attitude and apologize. But really rewatch some of these v-logs and I can find several where he basically says how dumb you are for giving this movie money, blah ,blah, blah. I think he did it when Transformers 2 came out, told the audicence they were a bunch of idiots then. I know he did with Tron: Legacy and his so called grounded arguments could easily be debunked as him nitpicking and not watching the movie well enough.

I admit my expecting too much out of an audience, I mean I just thought the movie was ok. It is mean of me to think that about the people that watched it. And I wrote that post 3 months ago and my opinion on it has dwindled. I no longer feel as much rage, I felt, mostly out of disappointment at the movie. I mean I will admit Raimi got cheesy in some categories, no cheesier than Burton did with Batman. And I guess that’s the problem to me Raimi’s Spider-Man 1 and 2 are like Burton’s Batman there something that is good, albeit dated but when they came out and when I watch it, I considered groundbreaking to me especially the first one.
I mean at the time we had so many bad comic book adaptations and only Blade to fall back on. But then I watch this one and well, it just seemed to repeat everything Raimi did minus the cheesy aspect and added in some Twilight factor in the movie. Plus, it’s just the movie had stuff in it that was never explained, I mean what happened to the Indian guy, why did the whole my parents got killed thing get dropped. I mean I know it’s sequel baiting possibly, and no I just found The Lizard to be a weak bad guy. And he just looked horrible, I mean like a cartoon sometimes. I know Willem Daefoe as the Green Goblin looked like he walked off the power rangers set, but this was equally goofy. And then the crane scene, well just kind of meh.
But Spoony, well his thinking he is better than other people has gotten old, and his nitpicking and his drama. I mean the guy is just an emotional wreck, I honestly feel sorry for him, but he’s not helping himself much right now. And our entertainment is based probably in his suffering, which is sad as well. That Noah’s problems serve us as entertainment.

The one scene that I’m sure Webb copied was the the Willem Daefoe talking to himself scene, I mean they did exactly the same. It’s like really movie, please, come up with something different. And no I’m not normally this mad at movies, I mean don’t get me wrong I hate certain movies (Twilight, a lot of Roland Emmerich) but I do not really let it get me. I just don’t watch them. But at the same time, I’m a guy who can watch a Michael Bay movie and not fly into a rage about it. Which is why I didn’t quite share Spoony’s absolute rage and venom on the Transformers movies, I recognized his complaints but I could also see some worth in the movies. Just as I can see some worth in Amazing Spider-Man, it’s not a completely horrible movie, it just has problems. But that’s just me, I don’t agree with Spoony a lot, I mean lately Spoony has gotten tiresome to watch him just rant and rant.
Even when he does a movie he really likes, he must say something crappy about another. For instance, Dark Knight Rises, he mentions how horrible Batman Returns is. So when Amazing Spider-Man comes out he suddenly states how horrible Raimi’s is and I’m kind of just looking at him slack jawed. I mean I know the movie I saw wasn’t horrible, but it wasn’t really good enough for me to consider it better than 1 and 2. And I know Raimi’s are certainly not horrible. But then again this is the guy comparing Tron: Legacy to Inception. Yes, he actually wanted, Tron: Legacy to be like Inception, he wanted a sequel to a fun but cheesy 80s movie, to be inception level groundbreaking, who is he kidding here. It’s Tron spoony, not Chris Nolan here, wake up. I consider that v-log his worst he has ever done. I mean spew all your venom at Michael Bay all you want, he deserves it somewhat but what were you expecting out of a 20 something year to Tron, 2001.