Another meaningless poll

Discussion in 'Spider-Man Sequels' started by Chris Wallace, Jun 23, 2006.

?

Who did you like better on film? (Read opening post before voting)

  1. Green Goblin

  2. Doc Ock

Multiple votes are allowed.
Results are only viewable after voting.
  1. Chris Wallace LET'S DO A HEADCOUNT...

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2001
    Messages:
    35,660
    Likes Received:
    0
    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:
     
  2. ru8up75 Registered

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2006
    Messages:
    130
    Likes Received:
    0
    I thought Doc Ock was much easier to translate on to film with a more modern story line.
     
  3. Chris Wallace LET'S DO A HEADCOUNT...

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2001
    Messages:
    35,660
    Likes Received:
    0
    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?
     
  4. The Joker The Clown Prince of Crime

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2003
    Messages:
    51,155
    Likes Received:
    3,117
    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.
     
  5. Chris Wallace LET'S DO A HEADCOUNT...

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2001
    Messages:
    35,660
    Likes Received:
    0
    Arguably the biggest Otto fan here & yet the most objective critique of his portrayal.
     
  6. weezerspider Registered

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2006
    Messages:
    4,064
    Likes Received:
    1,100
    GG is my favorite villain from the comics, but Ock was great in the movies, so Ock.
     
  7. blind_fury Registered

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2003
    Messages:
    13,584
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dr. Ock wins based on looks alone.

    Sorry but the Green Goblin costume is too crappy to ignore.
     
  8. Chris Wallace LET'S DO A HEADCOUNT...

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2001
    Messages:
    35,660
    Likes Received:
    0
    What did I say?
     
  9. blind_fury Registered

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2003
    Messages:
    13,584
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's my point. The GG costume is simply too crappy to ignore. I had to take it into account. :)
     
  10. TheFlyinRussian Borisnikov Lankomir

    Joined:
    May 20, 2006
    Messages:
    549
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  11. Chris Wallace LET'S DO A HEADCOUNT...

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2001
    Messages:
    35,660
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  12. Chris Wallace LET'S DO A HEADCOUNT...

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2001
    Messages:
    35,660
    Likes Received:
    0
    I guess Ock takes it.
     
  13. Herr Logan Registered

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2004
    Messages:
    12,393
    Likes Received:
    0
    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).
     
  14. Chris Wallace LET'S DO A HEADCOUNT...

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2001
    Messages:
    35,660
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  15. 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
     
  16. Herr Logan Registered

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2004
    Messages:
    12,393
    Likes Received:
    0
    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
     
  17. Silver Sable Wild Pack Commander

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2004
    Messages:
    27,576
    Likes Received:
    0
    Honestly, GG
     
  18. TheFlyinRussian Borisnikov Lankomir

    Joined:
    May 20, 2006
    Messages:
    549
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yeah dude. I just got out of school, give me a 2 week break at least. :)
     
  19. Abaddon Watching

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2004
    Messages:
    38,933
    Likes Received:
    0
    I loved Alfred's Ock. But I hated the sentient tentacles. Tough call.
     
  20. TheFlyinRussian Borisnikov Lankomir

    Joined:
    May 20, 2006
    Messages:
    549
    Likes Received:
    0
    Guy those tentacles rocked.
     
  21. Abaddon Watching

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2004
    Messages:
    38,933
    Likes Received:
    0
    they didn't need to be sentient.
     
  22. TheFlyinRussian Borisnikov Lankomir

    Joined:
    May 20, 2006
    Messages:
    549
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  23. Abaddon Watching

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2004
    Messages:
    38,933
    Likes Received:
    0
    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?
     
  24. Herr Logan Registered

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2004
    Messages:
    12,393
    Likes Received:
    0
    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
     
  25. Abaddon Watching

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2004
    Messages:
    38,933
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yeah,I don't see why there was a need to essentially tell The Lizard's story through Doc Ock.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"