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.
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).
