The current status of the Spider-Man rogues gallery

[GSman]

If you consider Dr. Octopus' best stories -- ASM#3, the Master Planner Saga, the Sinister Six, the Death of George Stacy, the Owl/Octopus War, and a few others here and there -- all of them feature him as a villain, and a fairly dark, dangerous, and deadly one at that. In The Owl/Octopus War he attacks a hospital and at one point attempts to drop a lift by cutting off the cables even after Spider-Man told them there were people inside. He also wanted to blow up a neutron bomb in New York.

That's who the character was for his first 30 years or so, until Tom Defalco's stories in the 90s added in his backstory. Dr. Octopus wasn't intended to be, wasn't seen as sympathetic for the entire classic period of Spider-Man. And even then, between Defalco's run and Slott's, Dr. Octopus was back to being a gangster thug during JMS and Jenkins' run.



Spider-Man gets his classic rogue back. And gets to punk and beat him up and humiliate him and score an unambiguous triumph over. Dr. Octopus is an uncomplicated villain that works best as an external threat to Spider-Man, someone who Peter can beat up and look like a boss doing so. That was the logic of those stories.



Because Dan Slott stayed on the title so long, and Chris Gage wanted to do a series with Superior, and Spencer didn't have plans to bring back classic Ock yet.



In the case of Venom, it's not that hard to divorce him from Spider-Man. For one thing the classic black Symbiote outfit while well known is still not as famous as Spider-Man's red-and-blue. The name Venom is also something that stands apart from Spider-Man. In the case of Ock, his title is "Superior Spider-Man", so he's a legacy of Spider-Man's, his outfit is also similar to Spider-Man's red-and-blue.

The other thing about Venom was that he was a huge merchandise success from the beginning, and he was a genuine across the board hit. Dr. Octopus as Superior Spider-Man isn't anywhere near that. Look at the Spider-Man PS4 game and you have a psychopathic Dr. Octopus who unleashes a bio-weapon on New York, look at ITSV, where you have another gangster-thug scientist, albeit this time looking like a hippie lady.

The version of Octopus that works best is the villain. His best stories have him as a villain. His status as villain makes more sense in Spider-Man's corner than in the situation you have now.

Yes all those stories you mentioned are all classics, but it wasn't until Superior that I became invested in his character, it's when we actually got an in depth look into his mind and his character.

But I just don't get why people are satisfied with characters staying the way they are, I know this is comics and all, but change once in a while is nice. Who wants to be stuck with the same status quo forever? Would that not get boring and uninteresting? Seeing as we've seen the same scenario over and over again? That's why I'm enjoying Otto's run since it's an established character branching from the same thing. Yeah, I'm sure some would be happy with Otto going back to being a villain, and showing up just to get beat up, go into limbo and rinse and repeat, but I personally wouldn't find it compelling whatsoever.

Also the main difference between Otto and Venom, is that marvel was willing to actually move Venom from the same status quo he would have been relegated to as a Spidey villain and it actually worked. He became popular, though I think that has more to do with the time he was a product of. Since comics back then were way popular in comparison to now. Though if Venom had been introduced in current times, I doubt he'd have reached the same level of success.

Also another thing to think about is that Venom, like Doc Ock is always portrayed as a villain. Be it from cartoons to games and so on. The only time he wasn't was in the movie, and that in part was one of the reasons the movie was criticised as much, since like Doc Ock you can't have a venom without a Spidey and make it true to the character.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Yes all those stories you mentioned are all classics, but it wasn't until Superior that I became invested in his character, it's when we actually got an in depth look into his mind and his character.

All we got is a sob story about a troubled kid that's intended to make this guy "like Peter but if he was more of a jerk than even Ditko-Peter was".

But I just don't get why people are satisfied with characters staying the way they are, I know this is comics and all, but change once in a while is nice.

The fact is we haven't gotten the classic Ock since the JMS era. That Ock was last seen throwing a public hissy fit in Sacassia's Sensational run when Peter unmasked himself in CIVIL WAR and Ock was angry that Peter humiliated and tricked him, as a teenager, back in ASM#14. Dan Slott in his run wrote Ock as a cancer-irradiated dying man who wanted to destroy the world, and then hijacked Peter's body for real-time 1 year. Then after that you had Ock the supporting cast member which is lame.

From my point of view, it's the classic Ock that has been left in the wayside. We haven't really seen the true version of the character in a long while. He was there in the first 30 years, then again in the JMS-Jenkins era, probably to tie in to the movies. And before and after that, we get sympathetic lame dude Ock.

That's why I'm enjoying Otto's run since it's an established character branching from the same thing. Yeah, I'm sure some would be happy with Otto going back to being a villain, and showing up just to get beat up, go into limbo and rinse and repeat, but I personally wouldn't find it compelling whatsoever.

It's possible to take characters to new directions while still keeping them grounded in what came before. But that hasn't happened in the case of Ock. There's nothing to connect the Ock of the first 30 years with Defalco's and Slott's versions. The Defalco and Slott version of Ock is basically a completely different character and the backstory doesn't really do anything. When Roger Stern added in the Vulture's backstory in his run, he made sure to keep that new information consistent with every previous appearance of Adrian Toomes. Toomes had human motivations and he became a deeper character but he was still a bad guy. That's not the case with Ock. A man who was callously endangering doctors, nurses, and patients, is not a good person and will never be acceptable as one.

Like Doctor Doom is a tyrant and dictator and then Gerry Conway, and later Roger Stern added in that his mother's soul is trapped in hell. That gave him a sympathetic and heroic motivation but that didn't change who the character was in any story before that. A villain can be complex and interesting and change in their schemes and approaches, but at the end of the day a villain has to stay and remain a villain.

At the end of the day, Dr. Octopus is first and foremost a bad guy. That's who he is, that's what he was created for by both Lee and Ditko. Even after Ditko left, while Norman was made sympathetic under Lee's pen, that didn't happen to Dr. Octopus. You can add in stuff that explains and clarifies that, but what you cannot do for long is negate that. And to me the current change in Ock is a negation of who the character was originally intended as.

Also the main difference between Otto and Venom, is that marvel was willing to actually move Venom from the same status quo he would have been relegated to as a Spidey villain and it actually worked. He became popular, though I think that has more to do with the time he was a product of. Since comics back then were way popular in comparison to now. Though if Venom had been introduced in current times, I doubt he'd have reached the same level of success.

Venom was also a new character introduced in a long running title. The rule of thumb is that new characters introduced later in the run allow for more room for change and growth since you have more control on "the most iconic version". In the case of Ock, he's a long running Spider-Man villain from the Lee-Ditko era. Refashioning him now and making that stick would be a dicey move. Especially since the sympathetic scientist who is mentor and cautionary tale for Peter was occupied by Dr. Connors and Spencer is making Connors reclaim that role again.

Also another thing to think about is that Venom, like Doc Ock is always portrayed as a villain. Be it from cartoons to games and so on.

Not always. Like in the Activision 2000 Spider-Man game, Venom is first a villain of Spider-Man then becomes his partner when they hunt down Carnage and Dr. Ock who have teamed up. He's actually like Spider-Man's buddy cop partner there. The Ultimate Spider-Man game also shows Venom as an anti-hero in a playable mission.

The only time he wasn't was in the movie, and that in part was one of the reasons the movie was criticised as much, since like Doc Ock you can't have a venom without a Spidey and make it true to the character.

I happen to like that movie a lot. And I think the criticism there was mostly out of bashing Sony for keeping their rights on Spider-Man.

But in any case, Dr. Octopus doesn't really work as a protagonist. He's not got any real depth.

[Snoop Dogg]

Otto (and Loki) should not go back to being simpler characters to fulfill roles in stories that can be filled by a variety of other characters when they have unique places of their own now. Otto's most important stories last century were ones like Master Planner and Stacy's Death where you can literally swap him out for anyone and what makes those stories beloved is still there, and that's on top of the piles and piles of goofy Otto stories that put him beneath the likes of Norman or Kingpin like him and amnesia Peter teaming up and driving a van, Otto marrying May for nuclear power, Otto being haunted by Hammerhead's ghost, comic vomit like the Larsen (?) story where he and the boys go traveling through dimensions to bring Gog in for a clusterfuck, being the Hulk's punching bag, and that Michelinie (?) story where Otto has to get his groove back because he's so scared of the Spider-Man. By the time stuff like Web of Death rolls around, the story has to work to make this guy a serious thing again. Yes, those stories could be enjoyable, yes, he added to them even if he wasn't essential, no, he was not so great of an antagonist that Spider-Man cannot exist without him.

Spider-Man existed for decades without more interesting characters like Kraven, who suddenly became hot and died, and Norman, who had crossed a personal line and was always provided a sense of dread in the Silver Age because of the chance he could enter psychosis yet again. No, he was not intended to develop into some redeeming superhero of his own, but creator intent is not its own argument in the Spider-Man franchise of all things, considering his love life and that Venom and Ghost Spider are their own hot IPs.

And while there's no metric to determine how much more popular a real hit Otto villain story in his parade of misses like Owl Octopus War is compared to Superior-- Oh, wait. There is. Superior was a best-seller that is still widely available and has been collected in multiple formats like Complete Collections while you can't find OO war via reprint or digital. Okay, so I guess Superior is the most popular Otto story. Well, not counting Spider-Man 2 where he was sympathetic and had a redemption.

Those Ditko and Speccy Otto stories were still heat, but that's like, less than 10 stories. Let's just kick back and enjoy a martini while waiting to see what the books and the multiple different mainstream Spider-Man media continuities will do. Did that cartoon do Superior yet?

[theoneandonly]

I wonder what the reaction will be if the centipede character instead of turning out to be some demonic hell Lord or alien parasitic creature turns out only to be a remnant of doctor octopus psyche in yet another body confused and amnesiac but remembering that he was a many appendaged villain adopted the centipede identity and is just haunting Peter due to the unclear memories hovering in his mind. the time he makes demonic speeches and strikes fear is due to a organization supplying him with otherworldly tech to make him seem a ethereal entity. it would be highly reminiscent of the trippiness of Judas traveller. LMAO

[Snoop Dogg]

what if judas traveler comes back and reveals he's uncle ben

[boots]

"basically i became judas traveller to get away from your aunt may, peter."

[theoneandonly]

his revealing that he is Peters true father not Richard Parker would be more meme mining gold. imagine Peter traveller hippy existentialist. LMAO

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Otto (and Loki) should not go back to being simpler characters to fulfill roles in stories that can be filled by a variety of other characters when they have unique places of their own now.

Which version of Loki are you talking about? Loki, like Magneto and Dr. Doom, has always been a slimy dude who changes sides and goes from being Thor's pal to being Thor's mortal enemy. Even in Lee-Kirby era, Loki was the guy in charge when the Mangog first attacked Asgard during the Odinsleep. In Simonson's run, Loki teamed up with Thor and Odin to fight Surtur.

Otto's most important stories last century were ones like Master Planner and Stacy's Death where you can literally swap him out for anyone and what makes those stories beloved is still there,

So the Master Planner could be Montana? C'mon you're better than this. Arguments like you could swap in any other villain or character and the story would work if they are intended as more than jokes, need a lot of serious groundwork. The whole point of the Master Planner was that Spider-Man needed that isotope and the Master Planner stole it, and at that time the only rogue that Spider-Man knew who had the knowledge, motive, and means to get that was former nuclear scientist Dr. Octopus. Dr. Octopus having a base under the East River is part of that, because you know Octopuses are aquatic and all.

...and that's on top of the piles and piles of goofy Otto stories that put him beneath the likes of Norman or Kingpin like him and amnesia Peter teaming up and driving a van, Otto marrying May for nuclear power, Otto being haunted by Hammerhead's ghost, comic vomit like the Larsen (?) story where he and the boys go traveling through dimensions to bring Gog in for a clusterfuck, being the Hulk's punching bag, and that Michelinie (?) story where Otto has to get his groove back because he's so scared of the Spider-Man.

He got scared because Spider-Man beat the crap out of him at the end of Mantlo's Owl/Octopus War. The point of Dr. Octopus is that he's both a goofball and can be scary. He's a Batman-villain type. Octopus is supposed to be this ugly dude with bad fashion sense who doesn't care what you say about him or how you mock him and so on.

No, he was not intended to develop into some redeeming superhero of his own, but creator intent is not its own argument in the Spider-Man franchise of all things, considering his love life and that Venom and Ghost Spider are their own hot IPs.

Creator intent is a commonly thrown around argument here and it's quite a mug's game because there's always ambiguity, rumor and hearsay. In the case of Dr. Octopus there isn't any ambiguity. He was intended to be and portrayed consistently as a bad guy without redeeming virtues.

And while there's no metric to determine how much more popular a real hit Otto villain story in his parade of misses like Owl Octopus War is compared to Superior-- Oh, wait. There is. Superior was a best-seller that is still widely available and has been collected in multiple formats like Complete Collections while you can't find OO war via reprint or digital.

The reason Owl/Octopus isn't collected is the reason why many if not most of the Spectacular stuff isn't collected. Marvel don't promote or anthologize second series as much as they should. The Owl/Octopus War was probably still read by more people back in the 80s than Superior ever will be, by virtue of the size of comics readerships back then, compared to today. And Superior Spider-Man's sales were largely strong in the early issues because of the gimmick and stunt, and not really sustained throughout it. Like Superior didn't sell remotely like the first ANAD ASM with Peter back in that Humberto Ramos cover (that probably was the main reason that otherwise bad issue sold).

Well, not counting Spider-Man 2 where he was sympathetic and had a redemption.

Spider-Man 2 made Otto Octavius a married guy and gent whose entire villain persona was his AI tentacles hacking his body and making him a meat-puppet. He's not sympathetic so much as non-existent as a character. The movie treats the Dr. Octopus persona as totally evil and false. It doesn't make the Dr. Octopus part worthy of any respect.

[boots]

Creator intent is a commonly thrown around argument here and it's quite a mug's game because there's always ambiguity, rumor and hearsay.

moreso that it doesn't matter. or only matters as much as you want it to.

[Zeitgeist]

Spider-Man gets his classic rogue back. And gets to punk and beat him up and humiliate him and score an unambiguous triumph over. Dr. Octopus is an uncomplicated villain that works best as an external threat to Spider-Man, someone who Peter can beat up and look like a boss doing so.

As opposed to basically any other standard villain, ever

Regardless, I believe two of the all-time best representations of Doc Ock have been ones where the character is far more layered than "punchable bad guy", those being Sam Raimi's Spider-Man 2 and the Spider-Man PS4 video game - though they both kind of riff off the same beats, mainly positioning him as a mentor figure before executing the turn. Don't underestimate well executed pathos when it comes to constructing a stand-out, tragic villain.

But in any case, Dr. Octopus doesn't really work as a protagonist. He's not got any real depth.

I'd argue depth can easily be added as characters are constantly evolving, and personally believe it has been.
I think your issue here is that you're conflating protagonist with hero, when not all protagonists are heroes. The Punisher is a protagonist, but he's not a good guy - and there's little chance he has more depth than Doc Ock. But he's been a solid player in the Marvel universe for how long now? Anti-Heroes can still very much be "bad guys" through moral lenses.

[PCN24454]

To regress Doc Ock back now would be as bad as OMD.

I hated it when it was done to Lizard. I hated it when it was done to Sandman. I hated it when it was done to Black Cat.

I just hate it. Let’s leave it at that.

[Hypestyle]

Octavious didn't earn his "hero card", regardless of whatever "good deeds" he's done since then. He kidnapped a person's body and was then "rewarded" with a clone copy. Nah, I'll pass. No other hero groups should accept him. they know what he's done.

[theoneandonly]

nothing a trip by Mephisto won't fix.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I'd argue depth can easily be added as characters are constantly evolving, and personally believe it has been.

In the case of a bad guy, you can make them deep, dark, and complex, even empathetic, without changing who they are. Dr. Doom has been made noble, and philosophical and at least at one point in his childhood a good person, but none of that ever changes the fact that he's a dictator and a tyrant who wants to take over the world. In The Killing Joke, Joker starts and ends as a remorseless killer and torturer, and in the course of the story you are invited to possibly identify with him, and accept that someone as dark as the Joker might have something human and relatable to him. It's not far from Shakespeare's villains. Like Macbeth is a bad guy sure but we certainly do empathize with him.

In the case of Dr. Octopus the current beat has essentially removed or altered him from a villain into a supporting character, a legacy character, and doing that has essentially destroyed Dr. Octopus in the form he was intended to be in.

Making Dr. Octopus a compelling bad guy with shades and personality. Yeah, that's right. Do that. But at the end of the day he still has to be the bad guy. The last Avengers movies made Thanos a really compelling and relatable villain, even humanized him to the extent he could be, but they do that without changing who he is. In the PS4 game, the villain with the most personality was Tombstone who's in an optional side-mission, he had a personality, wit, style, and cool and a lot of virtues. But yeah, still a murderous druglord and criminal.

Or see what Spencer did in Superior Foes of Spider-Man. All of the characters in that book start and end the story as objectively awful human beings. Yet you still like them somehow and see something human in them. Especially a scummy turncoat like Boomerang. You can humanize and deepen villains without changing them. That has not happened with Dr. Octopus so far.

I think your issue here is that you're conflating protagonist with hero, when not all protagonists are heroes. The Punisher is a protagonist, but he's not a good guy

The same applies to Wolverine but at the end of the day both Punisher and Wolverine are morally above scum like Otto and preferable to him.

Anti-Heroes can still very much be "bad guys" through moral lenses.

Only if we make "anti-hero" a word without any meaning whatsover. You don't equate a vigilante who takes the law into their own hands with a terrorist or a gangster.

To regress Doc Ock back now would be as bad as OMD.

I hated it when it was done to Lizard. I hated it when it was done to Sandman. I hated it when it was done to Black Cat.

I just hate it. Let’s leave it at that.

I don't see why getting Dr. Octopus back to being a bad guy is a form of regression. Dr. Octopus is his true self. The true self doesn't have to be someone's "good self" you know. In fact, a lot of the reasons why people tend to "break bad" either in life or in fiction is because they don't like being forced to being good or find value in being good because it's the right thing.

The fact is that there's value at least in a meta sense in Dr. Octopus being a villain. More value and purpose at any rate than in him being a hero. A smart writer could work that as a tragedy for him.

[boots]

mainly positioning him as a mentor figure before executing the turn.

anyone putting bets on spider-man:life story ock going this route?

I'd argue depth can easily be added as characters are constantly evolving, and personally believe it has been.
I think your issue here is that you're conflating protagonist with hero, when not all protagonists are heroes. The Punisher is a protagonist, but he's not a good guy - and there's little chance he has more depth than Doc Ock. But he's been a solid player in the Marvel universe for how long now? Anti-Heroes can still very much be "bad guys" through moral lenses.

i generally agree with the rev in that not all villains need "depth", some work perfectly well as monsters (see the majority of dr who). who doesn't enjoy a good moustache twirl?

on the other hand, now that doc ock no longer occupies that space, there's no urgency to put him back there...other than...what? tradition? another character can try to fill that role if there's a desperate lack.

it's clear that a significant portion of readers have taken to the current work on the character. if the spOck business has no legs (sayyyyy less than 8) then i'm sure he'll eventually "go back to basics" anyway.