Another meaningless poll

[Chris Wallace]

This is about the PORTRAYAL of the villains in the first 2 Spider-man movies. Please do not be swayed by your dislike of the Goblin's costume or your feeling that Alfred wasn't fat enough, okay? Vote honestly.:gg:

[ru8up75]

I thought Doc Ock was much easier to translate on to film with a more modern story line.

[Chris Wallace]

Accidentally becoming part of your own device vs. testing a serum on yourself that you had no business making? Or tentacles vs. a green fright mask?

[Joker]

Since Doc Ock is my fav Spidey villain, I enjoyed him much more.

His characterization was somewhat different from the comics, but he was still an awesome villain, who threatened the entire city with his reactor of doom, not to mention he looked completely badass, and had the best fight scenes ever seen in a comic book movie.

Alfred Molina just rocked.

[Chris Wallace]

Arguably the biggest Otto fan here & yet the most objective critique of his portrayal.

[weezerspider]

GG is my favorite villain from the comics, but Ock was great in the movies, so Ock.

[blind_fury]

Dr. Ock wins based on looks alone.

Sorry but the Green Goblin costume is too crappy to ignore.

[Chris Wallace]

What did I say?

[blind_fury]

That's my point. The GG costume is simply too crappy to ignore. I had to take it into account. :)

[TheFlyinRussian]

I liked Doc Ock more, not taking anything away from GG. I liked how they didn't give him a foreign accent. If you switched them from one movie to another I probably would have said GG.

[Chris Wallace]

Why would they give him an accent? Just because one of the 3 cartoon series did? You should never be a slave to previous incarnations like that.

[Chris Wallace]

I guess Ock takes it.

[Herr Logan]

Movie!Ock's portrayal was absolutely pathetic in comparison to the actual character (because of the writing and direction, of course, not the actor's skill) whereas at least Movie!Goblin was allowed to truly perform, and in character.

Movie!Goblin and Movie!Ock were completely reversed in their respective strengths and weaknesses. Movie!Goblin looked like crap, but the character portrayal was highly faithful and Willem Dafoe was given decent material to work with and made the most of it.
Movie!Ock looked faithful, impressive, and I do actually prefer his movie tentacles over the comics version (minus the idiotic and offensive part where a computer a program is supposed to be able to dominate the mind of anyone who could even remotely be considered a version of Dr. Octopus), but his personality was almost completely wrong. Flame on, anyone who thinks they have an argument, but a huge factor in the quality of the portrayal of an adapted character should damn well be its accuracy to the material from which it is adapted. They had everything they could possibly need to make Dr. Octopus perfect in the movie in terms of monetary resources (and for now we'll ignore the fact that an accurate portrayal of Dr. Octopus requires an accurate portrayal of Spider-Man to oppose him, which they absolutely did not have, regardless of how great the costume was). They had the right actor, they had amazing props and puppeteers on hire, they had the special effects budget to at least make Movie!Ock look good in action, (even though the CGI Movie!Spidey for looked much worse than in the first movie for some reason), but they chose not to make good on it. What exactly does a decent script cost? How hard could it be to write properly for arguably Spider-Man's greatest foe, whom has dozens and dozens of comics from which to glean accurate characterization, or even just an interesting portrayal? Probably not much more than the *****ty script they got. It was personal bias that made it happen the way it did, either Raimi's, Arad's, or God knows who. The fact is, he wasn't a real person when he was a villain, except for possibly right before his accident where he attacked Spider-Man instead of turning off his crack-headed miniature sun (which inexplicably didn't blind all the people there who weren't wearing protective goggles, which, among many other ridiculous elements, completely destroys any silly arguments about how this movie is "grounded in reality"). He was controlled by a machine. Wow, that's real interesting. Sure am glad they spent hundreds of millions of dollars on a movie that couldn't even make a notoriously evil character actually evil. Here's another fact that refutes all "realism" arguments meant to defend this character: Dr. Octopus from the comics was one of the most realistic villains ever created in terms of his personality and behavior. Take away the fact that he's a cyborg, and he's more realistic than any other Spider-Man villain. They chose not to use that version, and instead used a tired, uninspired, endlessly recycled sci-fi plot where a good man goes evil because of an alien influence in his mind. Yeah, well, that's not realistic, that's not Dr. Octopus, and that's why I could never consider him a truly decent movie villain, even if everything else about him was superb.
Again, anyone who wants to argue about the realistic criminal mind and how Movie!Ock doesn't measure up, step the hell up.

Anyway, yeah, the Green Goblin easily wins in terms of who was portrayed better personality-wise, without consideration for visual appearance or special effects. Again, this has little to do with the actors, since they were about equally talented and well-chosen for their respective roles, and everything to do with the screenwriters and director.

:wolverine

P.S.: Doc Ock, yell at me if you must, I will understand. But you know I got nothin' but love for the real Otto Octavius. Maybe someday they'll relaunch and get it right (and no, I don't mean "like 'Batman Begins,'" which everyone else is thinking right now, I mean really get it right).

[Chris Wallace]

Okay-told you this was gonna be fun.
The Doc Ock with whom you are so greatly enamored is not "truly evil"; he is the result of 40 years of character evolution; numerous defeats & failures brought on by the same man, who was a kid when they first tangoed. His actions are most often driven by frustration, at the world's failure to "recognize his genius", for which he also blames Spider-Man. If Spidey didn't always ruin his plans, he would get the recognition he deserves. I'll give you that this wasn't the man we saw 2 summers ago, but he didn't have all the same forces driving him. He was driven mainly by his lust for power & a desire to see his dream fulfilled. I don't think the tentacles were controlling him so much as that. If he hadn't been blinded by his own ambition, he could've easily overcome any "voices in his head". Those voices were only telling him what he wanted to hear. They even convinced him that the failure of his experiment was Spider-Man's fault; not his own.
Keep in mind also that Ock's "evil" in the comics is the result of brain damage, from being caught in a miniature nuclear explosion. Everything he has done since then has again, been the result of blind ambition. That, and the need to vanquish Spider-Man once & for all. He even saved Spider-Man's life once, just because he couldn't pursue his dreams without Spidey there to interfere. That's not evil; that's obsessive.

[black_spiderman]

doc is a little better but spiderman 1 was more for setting up of the story so they couldn't get in to green goblin to much

[Herr Logan]

Okay-told you this was gonna be fun.

Now that I've really gotten into it, it feels more like schoolwork! Then again I'll bet that's what reading my posts feels like, too. :O

Oy... I'm gonna have to take a break from writing my response, Chris. I'll finish it up and post it sometime soon, so don't worry, it's comin'.

In the meantime, if Doc Ock will kindly provide me with the following pieces of material should he get the chance (my response refers to them), I'd be most appreciative:
The excerpts from the short story 'Arms and the Man' from the novel Untold Tales of Spider-Man you've got scanned.
The number of the issue of 'Spider-Man Unlimited' where a Daily Bugle reporter is trying to put together an obituary for Dr. Octopus, and any comic panels thereof you may have scanned already.Thanks in advance, buddy. :up:
Feel free to add your own thoughts on the subject as well (it might save me some typing... or it might inspire me to type even more... oh dear God, when does it end??).

:wolverine

[Silver Sable]

Honestly, GG

[TheFlyinRussian]

Now that I've really gotten into it, it feels more like schoolwork! Then again I'll bet that's what reading my posts feels like, too. :O
Yeah dude. I just got out of school, give me a 2 week break at least. :)

[Abaddon]

I loved Alfred's Ock. But I hated the sentient tentacles. Tough call.

[TheFlyinRussian]

Guy those tentacles rocked.

[Abaddon]

they didn't need to be sentient.

[TheFlyinRussian]

they didn't need to be sentient.
If they didn't use the sentient tentacles then they would've had to use the original Doc Ock origin. A lab accident causes him to go insane (???) and it would've been too much like Norm Osborn (lab experiment causes him to go insane). I don't know, Ock in SM2 seemed like an original villain all because of the tentacles controlling him.

[Abaddon]

If they didn't use the sentient tentacles then they would've had to use the original Doc Ock origin. A lab accident causes him to go insane (???) and it would've been too much like Norm Osborn (lab experiment causes him to go insane). I don't know, Ock in SM2 seemed like an original villain all because of the tentacles controlling him.

Insane and brilliant. Sounds good to me.:confused:

It's not like he wouldve tried to take over the city. He'd still have the same motivation to complete his project. What was the point of having sentient machines anyway?

[Herr Logan]

they didn't need to be sentient.

No, they damn sure didn't.

I'm fine with the idea of using artificial intelligence software to assist in controlling machines that are too versatile for a human brain to competently control. I also really like the actual design of the aparatus. I am not okay with them having the power to dominate the character himself. Then again, if it was the real Otto Octavius, he never would have been married and he damn sure wouldn't be prattling on about poetry and so forth. How feckin' embarrassing can you get?
What is with this stupid trend of wussifying classic superheroes and supervillains? When did people decide this was the cool thing to do?

:wolverine

[Abaddon]

Yeah,I don't see why there was a need to essentially tell The Lizard's story through Doc Ock.

[TheFlyinRussian]

Well if reading poetry helps you score, you're not as wussy as a guy who doesn't read poetry and can't score.

[Herr Logan]

Well if reading poetry helps you score, you're not as wussy as a guy who doesn't read poetry and can't score.

If reading poetry helps you score, then you're not Dr. Octopus, period.

I'm not saying a normal guy who uses poetry to woo women is a wuss (I'm not saying that's not true, either...), I'm saying it makes anyone who's supposed to represent Dr. Otto Octavius look like a wuss to have him telling a college kid to feed poetry to a woman.

The fact is, the real Dr. Octavius would have absolutely nothing to do with a useless person like Movie!Peter. It doesn't matter how brilliant you are, if you can't even decisively answer whether you've got a girlfriend or not, you're weak, and Octavius doesn't speak to weak people as if they're actually people. That isn't a change brought on by an accident, that's who he was well before that. When I finish my response to Chris Wallace, maybe it will make some sense to you, but then again, maybe not. If you can't tell the difference between Movie!Ock's embarrassing behavior and the way the real Dr. Octopus would respond to such pathetic behavior already, there may be no hope.
I'm not going to get into detail in this thread about how Movie!Spidey was nothing like the real character, in either persona. That's definitely either something you get or you don't. Dr. Octopus had some mystery to him in the comics, even with as many thought bubbles as he did, and he didn't show up every single issue, and he wasn't written as consistently as Spider-Man was, so there's room for interpretation and it's worth discussing. Peter Parker and Spider-Man, however were completely accessable to the reader, so I have no leeway for anyone who doesn't know what his/their actual behavior is like.

:wolverine

[Joker]

The Doc Ock with whom you are so greatly enamored is not "truly evil"

I'm afraid that is not true. Doc Ock from the comics is a very evil man. He has shown such ruthlessness and little regard for human life, that it's downright scary.

Herr Logan is quite correct in what he said. It was not a faithful representation of Ock in terms of his motivations for becoming a villain in SM-2.

Octavius himself is the driving force for his actions. Nothing else. The goals of his schemes have no noble intentions. This man tried to drown New York in radiation, simply to prove he was it's master. He once planned to blow up New York simply to prove a POINT!!! He wanted to show everyone he's the most dangerous man alive.
He's tried several times to conquer the world, thru various schemes. He's formed super villain groups/partnerships, and has betrayed every single one of his criminal partners, and taken all the profits of the scheme for himself. He's pulled off extortion schemes, caused city wide panic, and mass murder plans.I love the one where he tried to murder 5 million of the Bugle readers by poisoning the ink in the paper.

Keep in mind also that Ock's "evil" in the comics is the result of brain damage, from being caught in a miniature nuclear explosion.

That was the push that sent him into villainy yes. It removed his criminal/violent inhibitions because that accident endowed him with a power to do whatever he wanted.

Remember what he said in ASM 3 when he discovered he could mentally control the arms?? "With such power and my brilliant mind, I'm the supreme human being on earth".

Stan Lee also said that like with many of the villains he created, he gave Ock no backstory. He simply established that he was a nuclear scientist working with radiation, using mechanical arms he created.
Stan also said that he knew later on, other writers would give Ock the backstory that he never gave him. And they did. If you read Spider-Man Unlimited 3, you'll see how Octavius was shaped into what he is today, and how that explosion gave him the little push he needed to send him into villainy.

He even saved Spider-Man's life once, just because he couldn't pursue his dreams without Spidey there to interfere.

That was not the reason at all.

Ock noticed a change in Spider-Man, and he didn't like it. He discovered Spider-Man was dying. And he offered him a cure. Everyone was like GASP!!! What's Ock doing saving Spidey??
Then Ock reveals to Spider-Man that he's not doing it to give him a new lease on life, nor is he turning over a new leaf. Ock wants Spider-Man in the pink of health because the pleasure of killing Spider-Man is his, and his alone. For anyone else to kill Spider-Man would be unworthy of Ock.

There was no moral intentions behind what Ock did. He wanted the glory of killing Spidey. Because he felt Spider-Man was his to destroy.

That's not evil; that's obsessive.

It's both actually.


Now the question of your thread was who did we enjoy more on screen?? I enjoyed Ock way more than the Goblin. Despite the character changes, he was still an awesome villain to watch, and Molina looked so badass. He was much more enjoyable to watch than Dafoe for me.

But when it comes to who was more accurately portrayed from the comics. No question about it, it's the GG.

[Chris Wallace]

This is where fan sensibilities & movie enjoyment collide. The aspects of Spider-Man that I love-the things that really drew me to the character & are now conspicuously absent from the comics-were captured in the films. Beautifully, in my opinion. The main element that's missing, or not really focused on, is his scientific acumen, which I honestly don't care about. To some, you can't do one w/o the other.

[Chris Wallace]

I'm afraid that is not true. Doc Ock from the comics is a very evil man. He has shown such ruthlessness and little regard for human life, that it's downright scary.

Herr Logan is quite correct in what he said. It was not a faithful representation of Ock in terms of his motivations for becoming a villain in SM-2.

Octavius himself is the driving force for his actions. Nothing else. The goals of his schemes have no noble intentions. This man tried to drown New York in radiation, simply to prove he was it's master. He once planned to blow up New York simply to prove a POINT!!! He wanted to show everyone he's the most dangerous man alive.
He's tried several times to conquer the world, thru various schemes. He's formed super villain groups/partnerships, and has betrayed every single one of his criminal partners, and taken all the profits of the scheme for himself. He's pulled off extortion scehemes, caused city wide panic, and mass murder plans.I love the one where he tried to murder 5 million of the Bugle readers by poisoning the ink in the paper.



That was the push that sent him into villainy yes. It removed his criminal/violent inhibitions because that accident endowed him with a power to do whatever he wanted.

Remember what he said in ASM\3 when he discovered he could mentally control the arms?? "With such power and my brilliant mind, I'm the supreme human being on earth".

Stan Lee also said that like with many of the villains he created, he gave Ock no backstory. He simply established that he was a nuclear scientists working with radiation, using mechanical arms he created.
Stan also said that he knew later on, other writers would give Ock the backstory that he never gave him. And they did. If you read Spider-Man Unlimited 3, you'll see how Octavius was shaped into what he is today, and how that explosion gave him the little push he needed to send him into villainy.



That was not the reason at all.

Ock noticed a change in Spider-Man, and he didn't like it. He discovered Spider-Man was dying. And he offered him a cure. Everyone was like GASP!!! What's Ock doing saving Spidey??
Then Ock reveals to Spider-Man that he's not doing it to give him a new lease on life, nor is he turning over a new leaf. Ock wants Spider-Man in the pink of health because the pleasure of killing Spider-Man is his, and his alone. For anyone else to kill Spider-Man would be unworthy of Ock.

There was no moral intentions behind what Ock did. He wanted the glory of killing Spidey. Because he felt Spider-Man was his to destroy.



It's both actually.


Now the question of your thread was who did we enjoy more on screen?? I enjoyed Ock way more than the Goblin. Despite the character changes, he was still an awesome villain to watch, and Molina looked so badass. He was much more enjoyable to watch than Dafoe for me.

But when it comes to who was more accurately portrayed from the comics. No question about it, it's the GG.
I'll agree w/everything in your post except his motivations for curing Spidey; I think it was both to keep him around for his next caper (keep in mind he turned himself in immediately afterward, instead of attacking him once he was recovered) AND for the pleasure of killing him later, himself, in a real battle.

[Mr. Socko]

I loved both portrayals. Norman/Dafoe did such an excellent job of capturing the Goblin, from the voice to the insanity. But the costume was just terrible so Ock wins by default.

[TheFlyinRussian]

Herr Logan, I know Doc Ock in SM2 was a lot different from the comics, but they had to change him to set up a better climax. If they had Ock like he originally was he would've tried to destroy NYC 3 times then Spidey would've kicked his @ss the last time and that would've been it. Movie Ock had better motivation.

[Chris Wallace]

Comic motivations are usually thin; GG's original reason for going after Spidey? Because he was there!

[Herr Logan]

Herr Logan, I know Doc Ock in SM2 was a lot different from the comics, but they had to change him to set up a better climax. If they had Ock like he originally was he would've tried to destroy NYC 3 times then Spidey would've kicked his @ss the last time and that would've been it. Movie Ock had better motivation.
Don't even talk to me if you can't come up with something better than this. Seriously, this would be a real insult if you weren't practically brand new.

Someone should put a notice in the FAQ, warning people about me. If I wasn't in such a damn good mood, I'd make an example of you...

:wolverine

[Herr Logan]

Comic motivations are usually thin; GG's original reason for going after Spidey? Because he was there!

Because he offended him by getting in his way and then refusing him, actually.

The Green Goblin's motive in the comics seemed pretty idiotic-- trying to take over the New York mobs, when he was already a successful, wealthy businessman-- but then again, he was insane, so it can't be seen as unrealistic. Clearly he was drawn to the darker side of human nature, and trying to control organized crime was probably the biggest way of embracing the "dark side" that the Comics Code would allow back in the early sixties. It's still silly, but then again, so are most supervillains, regardless of how "modern" or "edgy" they seem, and especially if they're mentally unbalanced.

The Green Goblin in the movie didn't even have a greater motivation. Even so, his obsession with Spider-Man doesn't strike me as unbelievable, considering what an egomaniac he was. He wouldn't tolerate anyone refusing him, which seems very much like a real criminal with an unstable mind and too much power.

:wolverine

[Herr Logan]

The Doc Ock with whom you are so greatly enamored is not "truly evil"; he is the result of 40 years of character evolution; numerous defeats & failures brought on by the same man, who was a kid when they first tangoed. His actions are most often driven by frustration, at the world's failure to "recognize his genius", for which he also blames Spider-Man. If Spidey didn't always ruin his plans, he would get the recognition he deserves. I'll give you that this wasn't the man we saw 2 summers ago, but he didn't have all the same forces driving him. He was driven mainly by his lust for power & a desire to see his dream fulfilled. I don't think the tentacles were controlling him so much as that. If he hadn't been blinded by his own ambition, he could've easily overcome any "voices in his head". Those voices were only telling him what he wanted to hear. They even convinced him that the failure of his experiment was Spider-Man's fault; not his own.
Even if Movie!Ock was merely vulnerable to the manipulation of his computerized harness due to his excessive ambition instead of completely overrun (if there's even a significant difference), one of Dr. Octopus' defining traits is his indomitable will. True, the real Otto Octavius would blame Spider-Man for his own failures, but that's a part of his own character, and nobody else ever needed to tell him things weren't his own fault; at least not after he was fully grown, since I know his mother made a lot of excuses for him, such as when she excuses his unwillingness to stand up to bullies at school by saying he's destined to change the world with his brain, not his fists. That's no doubt a big part of why he now blames others for everything, but everyone is shaped by their parents. In 'Spider-Man 2,' he wasn't a pre-pubescent child being coddled for years and years by his neurotic, suffocating mother; he was a soft-hearted, full-grown man whose strings were easily pulled by a computer, making him a complete joke of a bad guy.

Yes, Dr. Octopus in the comics has evolved over the decades. If we were having this discussion 20 years ago, I don't know what I'd say, since I don't think all the pieces I now consider important were in place. As it is, I first saw him as a complete, complex and truly realistic fictional villain a few years ago when I had read all of the following:
The short story 'Arms and the Man' from the short story collection 'Untold Tales of Spider-Man,' in which a famous biographer decided to write a biography on Dr. Otto Octavius. He spoke with former coworkers, his only remaining family member, and at least one of the doctors who worked on him directly following the accident which melded him with his harness. Our friend Doc Ock has scanned several excerpts from this story and will probably, out of the goodness and zealous devotion in his heart, provide them when he reads this. One of the excerpts explains that while the doctor declared Octavius "brain damaged" due to the explosion, that doesn't necessarily mean he was cognitively impaired. He said that the human brain was equipped to control only the number of organs and appendages that the average human possesses, but Octavius now had the ability to control four extra, complex, multi-jointed appendages using his central nervous system. What he referred to as "brain damage" could well have been the diagnostic instruments' interpretation of Octavius' brain creating new neurological pathways that allowed him to deftly and instinctually control the new arms. That may well count as "brain damage," but that's a very broad term that can have all kinds of ramifications. The upshot of the story with regard to Dr. Octopus' character was that he wasn't insane, but merely evil. I think there's cause for suspicion that he is, in fact psychotic to some degree (which is the psychological equivalent of "insane," and we'll ignore the legal definition of "insane," since that's a worthless, often inaccurate and overly subjective value judgment that rarely ever serves a worthy purpose in society), but depending on the characterization, I can accept that description. This relates heavily to my third major source of insight into the character.
A 'Spider-Man Unlimited' issue from the late 90's that seemed like it either was following up on 'Arms and the Man' or on source material that 'Arms and the Man' may have been based on. I can't be sure where exactly these aspects derived from or if there were similar revelations and exposition in earlier years about Octavius' early history and personality. Again, Doc Ock would know. Anyway, it fleshed out his backstory even more and explained his relationship with his parents, his cooworkers and the impact his mother left on him.
A book on the biological causes behind certain kinds of criminal psychology. I don't remember the title (I was working at a book store and was reading various true crime and psychology books while at the cash register), but I've seen some of the same facts in several sources. The material of importance here is that there are often three essential factors that create a large portion of pathological criminals. These are not "born sociopaths," but victims who become victimizers.
Abuse. Habitual and early abuse, psychological and/or physical, from family members, peers or others, sows the seeds of angry, frustrated, hateful and vengeful aspects of human personality. The anger is what drives a person to lash out against another person in whatever way they do, be it overt physical violence, malevolent manipulation, sexual abuse, et al. Otto Octavius was bullied physically and verbally assaulted almost daily during his childhood years. When he would come home with bruises, scrapes and broken glasses, his working class, machismo-driven father would berate him for not defending himself. This all qualifies as abuse, and definitely sowed the seeds of hatred in Otto. Notice how he doesn't take ***** from anybody now? This is why people shouldn't bully others, because it doesn't take hydraulic, cybernetic, mechanical extensors or an ingenious mind to hurt people in return.
Neuroses. Anxiety disorders, personality disorders, mood disorders (I happen to have one of each) and other neurotic dysfunctions often result from abuse, chemical imbalances and generally aversive experiences, compounded over time and/or occurring during one or more individual traumatic experiences. A type of neurosis that frequently lends itself to repeated criminal behavior are those that are characterized by paranoia. Dr. Octavius has that in spades. He also shows signs of narcissistic personality disorder. Though he's often very melodramatic, I've ruled out histrionic personality disorder because I don't believe anyone with that would be able to remain solitary and hidden from view for long periods of time like Dr. Octopus often has between appearances. I would say he definitely has antisocial personality disorder (what is usually being referred to when people say "psychopath"), except I don't know if he is known to have shown any signs of a Conduct disorder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conduct_disorder) before the age of 15. Yes, I know Wikipedia isn't a venerable information source, but I know that particular page has correct criteria. Maybe Doc Ock knows if Octavius committed any of those acts
Brain damage. Even minimal trauma to the brain can cause a person to lose inhibitions that prevent them from behaving in certain ways. It doesn’t have to make you insane or cognitively impaired or subvert your core personality with alien influence. Dr. Octopus received some form of brain damage in his accident. Refer to my earlier section on “Arms and the Man” for the details on that, but the point is, Dr. Octopus from the comics has each of these components of a chronic, pathological violent offender, which makes him as “evil” as any other serial offender that can’t or won’t be rehabilitated. Dr. Octopus is too strong-willed to be rehabilitated, even if it was possible, so he is the way he is by choice as much as by nature. Keep in mind also that Ock's "evil" in the comics is the result of brain damage, from being caught in a miniature nuclear explosion. Everything he has done since then has again, been the result of blind ambition. That, and the need to vanquish Spider-Man once & for all. He even saved Spider-Man's life once, just because he couldn't pursue his dreams without Spidey there to interfere. That's not evil; that's obsessive.
In the book in which I learned that brain trauma on top of abuse/emotional trauma and the resulting psychological dysfunctions can turn a previously peaceful and law-abiding citizen into a violence criminal, the first case they gave as an example was a man who had a car accident and then began a sexual relationship with his very young daughter. We’re talking prepubescent here. He did not behave overtly violent, as in he didn’t lash out or physically harm her and the girl seemed to actually enjoy the situation, but it was still obviously wrong, and I think those with strong feelings about sexual abuse of children would describe such behavior as “evil,” even if he didn’t intend to hurt her. For me, evil has less to do with a strong level of deliberate, malicious intent as it does one’s capacity and predisposition for hurting people outweighing their self-control. I don’t care if the person is insane or mentally deficient for the most part, it’s what they do that defines them, for better or for worse.

All people have the capacity for unspeakable evil in them. It’s whether they can channel those impulses into something constructive or some kind of release that is harmless (simply repressing it isn’t a good thing, and people should own up to their own dark impulses and find ways to actually let it out rather than to deny it and bottle everything up) that makes the difference. People whose inhibitions about antisocial behavior have been damaged through brain trauma may or may not being able to control themselves, but that still makes them a force for evil in the world, and that’s why I said in that thread about the hypocrisy of the Marvel Universe’s mutant hatred that I wouldn’t make exceptions for the insane or developmentally impaired if they were truly dangerous and couldn’t be rehabilitated at reasonable costs and efforts. Pain is pain, and violence is violence. Dr. Octopus isn’t just indifferent to the needs and vulnerabilities of others, he actually enjoys terrorizing and hurting people. He’s a terrorist of the worst order, without even a political or philosophical agenda to rationalize his actions. That’s just plain evil, and not under any kind of justifiable circumstances. He could make billions of dollars and earn limitless esteem from the world by playing by the rules, but what he really wants is to be feared, not just respected. He wants power, not just money. He’s a villain from every angle, and the fact that he can stow away his hostility to bring out the charm just adds to that fact. He behaves like a sociopath even when he’s not hurting people directly. I realize that the term “evil” is subjective to an extent, but I’m pretty sure the definition I’m using conforms to the one used in classic comics to describe criminals who commit premeditated robbery, sabotage and murder, as Dr. Octopus has done.

Dr. Octopus saved Spider-Man only to provide himself with the thrill of fighting him. I don’t know if he ever truly would have killed Spider-Man from that point on, since part of him wants Spider-Man to be around as long as possible, again, for his own sake, not Spider-Man’s. He’s using Spider-Man, like he uses everyone else. The reason he tried to save Spider-Man is the same reason why the Joker didn’t kill the Batman in the story entitled ‘Joker’s Five-Way Revenge,’ where he happened upon a wounded and unsuspecting Batman. He kicked him in the face (leaving residue which led the World’s Greatest Detective right to him) and left him alone, thinking to himself that there’s no glory in killing him if it’s that easy. The Joker is an attention whore who gets off on his rivalry with the Batman, and Dr. Octopus is similar in that way. I think it’s understandable, the enjoyment one gets from a long-time rivalry with a formidable opponent, don’t you?

:wolverine

[TheFlyinRussian]

Don't even talk to me if you can't come up with something better than this. Seriously, this would be a real insult if you weren't practically brand new.

Someone should put a notice in the FAQ, warning people about me. If I wasn't in such a damn good mood, I'd make an example of you...

:wolverine
I wasn't trying to offend you or anything, but you certainly took it that way. And what's with the "I'd make an example of you" line? What would you do? Write an insulting 10 paragraph post towards me? :confused:

[Herr Logan]

I wasn't trying to offend you or anything, but you certainly took it that way. And what's with the "I'd make an example of you" line? What would you do? Write an insulting 10 paragraph post towards me? :confused:

You want to go for twelve paragraphs, smart guy?

Don't worry, I'm not going to bother explaining how deeply, disturbingly, offensively ignorant and uninformed your earlier post was, despite the fact that I obviously could. It's just not worth it to me.

:wolverine

[Kraven]

Hmm, tough call, but I'm going to say GG had a better portrayal. It's very close, though.

[Chris Wallace]

Because he offended him by getting in his way and then refusing him, actually.

The Green Goblin's motive in the comics seemed pretty idiotic-- trying to take over the New York mobs, when he was already a successful, wealthy businessman-- but then again, he was insane, so it can't be seen as unrealistic. Clearly he was drawn to the darker side of human nature, and trying to control organized crime was probably the biggest way of embracing the "dark side" that the Comics Code would allow back in the early sixties. It's still silly, but then again, so are most supervillains, regardless of how "modern" or "edgy" they seem, and especially if they're mentally unbalanced.

The Green Goblin in the movie didn't even have a greater motivation. Even so, his obsession with Spider-Man doesn't strike me as unbelievable, considering what an egomaniac he was. He wouldn't tolerate anyone refusing him, which seems very much like a real criminal with an unstable mind and too much power.

:wolverine
I was referring to his comics motivation; it was like he just picked a hero out of a hat. His movie motivation made much more sense. Or was at least plausible. Seems to me, barring a prior connection, the villain's beef w/the hero is usually-and should be-that the hero got in his way. Lex Luthor, for example, just can't abide Superman's existence. People only swallow that because of the lengths that he goes. But it's a pretty thin motive by itself.

[Chris Wallace]

Even if Movie!Ock was merely vulnerable to the manipulation of his computerized harness due to his excessive ambition instead of completely overrun (if there's even a significant difference), one of Dr. Octopus' defining traits is his indomitable will. True, the real Otto Octavius would blame Spider-Man for his own failures, but that's a part of his own character, and nobody else ever needed to tell him things weren't his own fault; at least not after he was fully grown, since I know his mother made a lot of excuses for him, such as when she excuses his unwillingness to stand up to bullies at school by saying he's destined to change the world with his brain, not his fists. That's no doubt a big part of why he now blames others for everything, but everyone is shaped by their parents. In 'Spider-Man 2,' he wasn't a pre-pubescent child being coddled for years and years by his neurotic, suffocating mother; he was a soft-hearted, full-grown man whose strings were easily pulled by a computer, making him a complete joke of a bad guy.

Yes, Dr. Octopus in the comics has evolved over the decades. If we were having this discussion 20 years ago, I don't know what I'd say, since I don't think all the pieces I now consider important were in place. As it is, I first saw him as a complete, complex and truly realistic fictional villain a few years ago when I had read all of the following:
The short story 'Arms and the Man' from the short story collection 'Untold Tales of Spider-Man,' in which a famous biographer decided to write a biography on Dr. Otto Octavius. He spoke with former coworkers, his only remaining family member, and at least one of the doctors who worked on him directly following the accident which melded him with his harness. Our friend Doc Ock has scanned several excerpts from this story and will probably, out of the goodness and zealous devotion in his heart, provide them when he reads this. One of the excerpts explains that while the doctor declared Octavius "brain damaged" due to the explosion, that doesn't necessarily mean he was cognitively impaired. He said that the human brain was equipped to control only the number of organs and appendages that the average human possesses, but Octavius now had the ability to control four extra, complex, multi-jointed appendages using his central nervous system. What he referred to as "brain damage" could well have been the diagnostic instruments' interpretation of Octavius' brain creating new neurological pathways that allowed him to deftly and instinctually control the new arms. That may well count as "brain damage," but that's a very broad term that can have all kinds of ramifications. The upshot of the story with regard to Dr. Octopus' character was that he wasn't insane, but merely evil. I think there's cause for suspicion that he is, in fact psychotic to some degree (which is the psychological equivalent of "insane," and we'll ignore the legal definition of "insane," since that's a worthless, often inaccurate and overly subjective value judgment that rarely ever serves a worthy purpose in society), but depending on the characterization, I can accept that description. This relates heavily to my third major source of insight into the character.
A 'Spider-Man Unlimited' issue from the late 90's that seemed like it either was following up on 'Arms and the Man' or on source material that 'Arms and the Man' may have been based on. I can't be sure where exactly these aspects derived from or if there were similar revelations and exposition in earlier years about Octavius' early history and personality. Again, Doc Ock would know. Anyway, it fleshed out his backstory even more and explained his relationship with his parents, his cooworkers and the impact his mother left on him.
A book on the biological causes behind certain kinds of criminal psychology. I don't remember the title (I was working at a book store and was reading various true crime and psychology books while at the cash register), but I've seen some of the same facts in several sources. The material of importance here is that there are often three essential factors that create a large portion of pathological criminals. These are not "born sociopaths," but victims who become victimizers.
Abuse. Habitual and early abuse, psychological and/or physical, from family members, peers or others, sows the seeds of angry, frustrated, hateful and vengeful aspects of human personality. The anger is what drives a person to lash out against another person in whatever way they do, be it overt physical violence, malevolent manipulation, sexual abuse, et al. Otto Octavius was bullied physically and verbally assaulted almost daily during his childhood years. When he would come home with bruises, scrapes and broken glasses, his working class, machismo-driven father would berate him for not defending himself. This all qualifies as abuse, and definitely sowed the seeds of hatred in Otto. Notice how he doesn't take ***** from anybody now? This is why people shouldn't bully others, because it doesn't take hydraulic, cybernetic, mechanical extensors or an ingenious mind to hurt people in return.
Neuroses. Anxiety disorders, personality disorders, mood disorders (I happen to have one of each) and other neurotic dysfunctions often result from abuse, chemical imbalances and generally aversive experiences, compounded over time and/or occurring during one or more individual traumatic experiences. A type of neurosis that frequently lends itself to repeated criminal behavior are those that are characterized by paranoia. Dr. Octavius has that in spades. He also shows signs of narcissistic personality disorder. Though he's often very melodramatic, I've ruled out histrionic personality disorder because I don't believe anyone with that would be able to remain solitary and hidden from view for long periods of time like Dr. Octopus often has between appearances. I would say he definitely has antisocial personality disorder (what is usually being referred to when people say "psychopath"), except I don't know if he is known to have shown any signs of a Conduct disorder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conduct_disorder) before the age of 15. Yes, I know Wikipedia isn't a venerable information source, but I know that particular page has correct criteria. Maybe Doc Ock knows if Octavius committed any of those acts
Brain damage. Even minimal trauma to the brain can cause a person to lose inhibitions that prevent them from behaving in certain ways. It doesn’t have to make you insane or cognitively impaired or subvert your core personality with alien influence. Dr. Octopus received some form of brain damage in his accident. Refer to my earlier section on “Arms and the Man” for the details on that, but the point is, Dr. Octopus from the comics has each of these components of a chronic, pathological violent offender, which makes him as “evil” as any other serial offender that can’t or won’t be rehabilitated. Dr. Octopus is too strong-willed to be rehabilitated, even if it was possible, so he is the way he is by choice as much as by nature.
In the book in which I learned that brain trauma on top of abuse/emotional trauma and the resulting psychological dysfunctions can turn a previously peaceful and law-abiding citizen into a violence criminal, the first case they gave as an example was a man who had a car accident and then began a sexual relationship with his very young daughter. We’re talking prepubescent here. He did not behave overtly violent, as in he didn’t lash out or physically harm her and the girl seemed to actually enjoy the situation, but it was still obviously wrong, and I think those with strong feelings about sexual abuse of children would describe such behavior as “evil,” even if he didn’t intend to hurt her. For me, evil has less to do with a strong level of deliberate, malicious intent as it does one’s capacity and predisposition for hurting people outweighing their self-control. I don’t care if the person is insane or mentally deficient for the most part, it’s what they do that defines them, for better or for worse.

All people have the capacity for unspeakable evil in them. It’s whether they can channel those impulses into something constructive or some kind of release that is harmless (simply repressing it isn’t a good thing, and people should own up to their own dark impulses and find ways to actually let it out rather than to deny it and bottle everything up) that makes the difference. People whose inhibitions about antisocial behavior have been damaged through brain trauma may or may not being able to control themselves, but that still makes them a force for evil in the world, and that’s why I said in that thread about the hypocrisy of the Marvel Universe’s mutant hatred that I wouldn’t make exceptions for the insane or developmentally impaired if they were truly dangerous and couldn’t be rehabilitated at reasonable costs and efforts. Pain is pain, and violence is violence. Dr. Octopus isn’t just indifferent to the needs and vulnerabilities of others, he actually enjoys terrorizing and hurting people. He’s a terrorist of the worst order, without even a political or philosophical agenda to rationalize his actions. That’s just plain evil, and not under any kind of justifiable circumstances. He could make billions of dollars and earn limitless esteem from the world by playing by the rules, but what he really wants is to be feared, not just respected. He wants power, not just money. He’s a villain from every angle, and the fact that he can stow away his hostility to bring out the charm just adds to that fact. He behaves like a sociopath even when he’s not hurting people directly. I realize that the term “evil” is subjective to an extent, but I’m pretty sure the definition I’m using conforms to the one used in classic comics to describe criminals who commit premeditated robbery, sabotage and murder, as Dr. Octopus has done.

Dr. Octopus saved Spider-Man only to provide himself with the thrill of fighting him. I don’t know if he ever truly would have killed Spider-Man from that point on, since part of him wants Spider-Man to be around as long as possible, again, for his own sake, not Spider-Man’s. He’s using Spider-Man, like he uses everyone else. The reason he tried to save Spider-Man is the same reason why the Joker didn’t kill the Batman in the story entitled ‘Joker’s Five-Way Revenge,’ where he happened upon a wounded and unsuspecting Batman. He kicked him in the face (leaving residue which led the World’s Greatest Detective right to him) and left him alone, thinking to himself that there’s no glory in killing him if it’s that easy. The Joker is an attention whore who gets off on his rivalry with the Batman, and Dr. Octopus is similar in that way. I think it’s understandable, the enjoyment one gets from a long-time rivalry with a formidable opponent, don’t you?

:wolverine
Here is where our problem is; somewhere between my opinion & yours is right. Again. Your points are valid, & the guy we saw in the movie was not truly the menacing Dr. Octopus of the comics. But I don't see him as the lame cheeseball Sci-Fi Channel villain that you're making him out to be. Some things weren't played up as well as they could have been, like Ock blaming Spidey for what happened to him. Ock was blinded by ambition & obsession, but he could've been MORE ambitious & MORE obsessed. He was willing to endanger innocent lives to slow Spidey down, but we could have had more of that, too. I think that's the only thing that was wrong w/his portrayal. Avi described him not as someone who started off good & turned bad, but who started off good & stayed good; Again, I didn't really have a problem here, but I can see where you do. I actually hope he comes back, amnesia-addled & bereft of conscience

[Shadow_Knight]

Doc Ock Green Goblin was good but, Doc Ock was better.

[Style 92]

I guess I like GG better.

[cosbydaf]

It's a REALLY close vote. but I picked Green Goblin, cause aside from the costume(which I thought was pretty good, just needed purple) He was pretty spot on. Doc Ock was awesome too, but his motivations weren't very good.(sentient tentacles? WTF?)

[American_Hobo]

Green Goblin...he just rocked.
especially the mirror scene

[American_Hobo]

oh yeah..and why is this on Sequel forum??

[Chris Wallace]

It's a REALLY close vote. but I picked Green Goblin, cause aside from the costume(which I thought was pretty good, just needed purple) He was pretty spot on. Doc Ock was awesome too, but his motivations weren't very good.(sentient tentacles? WTF?)
The armor was 2-toned; depending on how the light hit it, it showed purple.:gg: