What version of Doctor Doom do you want to see?

[VICTORVONDOOMX]

You choose not to see how that is relevant and everything after that statement in your response is just doubletalk. As Spider-Fan aptly pointed out the masculine qualities in Doom's personality help define him. Goals and skills are moot. It's personality that IS us and gender helps define that. As such, it is obvious that a female Doom can never be Doom.

 

[Spider-Fan]

I'll answer you question: If I was born physical female then yeah, I'd probably turn out pretty different because many of my life experiences would have been different. But I don't see how that's relevant. If you change something about a character in an adaptation, you're not required to then rework their entire history based on that change to make them a different person. If you change a character's sex of ethnicity or sexual orientation or whatever, you can still have them end up with the exact same personality, motivations, and abilities as they originally had. Characters in productions of Shakespeare plays get gender flipped and race-lifted all the time, and the people putting on those plays never change what the character does or says.

So, now I will restate my question: Do you think it's impossible for a woman to have the same personality, goals, and skills that Doom has?

Yes, because Doom being male is vital to his upringing. Doom came from Eastern European culture, which his entire views of chivalry, honor, etc. are grounded in Medieval principles. These same attributes don't exist in women because women don't feel they need to be protected and seek equality, not superiority. Why is Doom traditionally less likely to harm Sue? She's a woman. He doesn't needlessly harm women. Another women doesn't have that perspective.

So, yes. It is. Women can want to rule the world and such. But, this Medieval mentality would be absent. Now you're just making a generic, female dictator. Not making Dr. Doom.

 

[The Question]

You choose not to see how that is relevant and everything after that statement in your response is just double-talk.

No it isn't.

As Spider-Fan aptly pointed out the masculine qualities in Doom's personality help define him. Goals and skills are moot. It's personality that IS us and gender helps define that. As such, it is obvious that a female Doom can never be Doom.

So women can never have qualities that are traditionally considered to be masculine?

Yes, because Doom being male is vital to his upringing. Doom came from Eastern European culture, which his entire views of chivalry, honor, etc. are grounded in Medieval principles. These same attributes don't exist in women because women don't feel they need to be protected and seek equality, not superiority. Why is Doom traditionally less likely to harm Sue? She's a woman. He doesn't needlessly harm women. Another women doesn't have that perspective.

So, yes. It is. Women can want to rule the world and such. But, this Medieval mentality would be absent. Now you're just making a generic, female dictator. Not making Dr. Doom.

I've never really seen Doctor Doom as having a Medieval mentality. And I don't think him being less likely to harm Sue because she's a woman has been a part of his character for a very long time. I've seen plenty of stories where Doom went after female opponents with just as much ruthlessness as he did men.

 

[Spider-Fan]

I've never really seen Doctor Doom as having a Medieval mentality. And I don't think him being less likely to harm Sue because she's a woman has been a part of his character for a very long time. I've seen plenty of stories where Doom went after female opponents with just as much ruthlessness as he did men.

When they make Doom angry enough, he will. But he avoids harming women and children. Plenty of stories showcase this element of Doom. Even as far back as issue #5. He didn't imprison Sue or put her in a dungeon. He had dinner with her. Treated her like a guest. Doom has never done that for any other member. Why does he for Sue? It's because of his chivalry. The fact Doom's costume has a knight design showcase his medieval influences.

 

[VICTORVONDOOMX]

Haha. Just because you choose not to see something doesn't mean it isn't there.

 

[The Question]

When they make Doom angry enough, he will. But he avoids harming women and children. Plenty of stories showcase this element of Doom. Even as far back as issue #5. He didn't imprison Sue or put her in a dungeon. He had dinner with her. Treated her like a guest. Doom has never done that for any other member. Why does he for Sue? It's because of his chivalry. The fact Doom's costume has a knight design showcase his medieval influences.

I'm not disputing it's something that has been apart of the character. I just don't think that it's remained apart of the character. Citing his first appearance in the 1960s, when that kind of behavior was the norm for super villains, doesn't mean that it's inherent to what Doom is all about. In more modern interpretations of the character, I don't see any evidence that he ever holds back against female opponents. Especially not Sue, he knows that she's by far the most dangerous member of the team.

Haha. Just because you choose not to see something doesn't mean it isn't there.

Could you please keep a civil tone? There's no need to be rude.

 

[VICTORVONDOOMX]

I'm not being rude. I'm amused.

 

[The Question]

I'm not being rude. I'm amused.

No, you were being rude. Laughing at someone and dismissing their position as them simply being unwilling to see the truth without offering anything to back that statement up is just straight up rude.

 

[VICTORVONDOOMX]

So not offering anything to back up an argument like say:

No it isn't.

is rude? Who knew? There needs to be some kind of Robert's Rules of Order for messageboards published.

 

[The Question]

So not offering anything to back up an argument like say:is rude? Who knew?

I don't know what else to say there. You accused me of "double talk." I don't know what else to say besides that that's not what I did. You asked me if I would be the same person if I'd been born with a different sex. I said no, but then I said I didn't think that was particularly relevant to the issue of changing a fictional character's sex because a writer can change a character's sex but keep the same personality and goals if they want to in most cases. I disagreed with you and I explained why. How is that double talk?

Also, I didn't insult you without backing up my claims, so I don't see how the two things are that similar.

There needs to be some kind of Robert's Rules of Order for messageboards published.

Or you could simply be polite and not make fun of people who disagree with you about movies based on cartoon characters.

 

[VICTORVONDOOMX]

I have never been impolite. I am amused by your feigned offense and the fact that you apparently can't distinguish comics from cartoons. Perhaps that's the crux of your lack of ability to understand these character's personalities: you are only familiar with them from the cartoons.

 

[The Question]

I have never been impolite.

Yes you have. You've been pretty consistently dismissive and condescending.

I am amused by your feigned offense and the fact that you apparently can't distinguish comics from cartoons.

From Merriam Webster:

car·toon noun, often attributive \kär-ˈtün\
: a drawing in a newspaper or magazine intended as a humorous comment on something

: a series of drawings that tell a story

: a film or television show made by photographing a series of drawings : an animated film or television show

Perhaps that's the crux of your lack of ability to understand these character's personalities: you are only familiar with them from the cartoons.

I grew up with my dad reading old Marvel and DC comics to me as bedtime stories, so no not so much.

 

[Spider-Fan]

I'm not disputing it's something that has been apart of the character. I just don't think that it's remained apart of the character. Citing his first appearance in the 1960s, when that kind of behavior was the norm for super villains, doesn't mean that it's inherent to what Doom is all about. In more modern interpretations of the character, I don't see any evidence that he ever holds back against female opponents. Especially not Sue, he knows that she's by far the most dangerous member of the team.

I'm citing something from the 60s that is consistent with his character since forever, and it still applies. Doom has never lost these core aspects of his character. Unless you choose to ignore they exist. There are PLENTY of issues this comes up.

 

[The Question]

I'm citing something from the 60s that is consistent with his character since forever, and it still applies. Doom has never lost these core aspects of his character. Unless you choose to ignore they exist. There are PLENTY of issues this comes up.

And I've seen plenty of counter-examples where he's acted just as ruthlessly towards women as he has towards men.

And either way, I'm not sure that such a thing is that crucial an aspect of what Doom is all about. If you cut it out there are still plenty of things that make Doom what he is that I think are a lot more important. His arrogance, his insecurity, his burning aimless hatred, his intellect, his genuine belief that he knows and wants what is best for Latveria and for the whole world, his pretentious of being high class, etc. Wether or not his holding to an outdated notion of chivalry is a consistent part of his character, it still seems like a very minor one to me.

 

[Spider-Fan]

And I've seen plenty of counter-examples where he's acted just as ruthlessly towards women as he has towards men.

Name 2. Said examples must also not have done something to anger Doom. I backed up my point with evidence. Give me a specific example.

And either way, I'm not sure that such a thing is that crucial an aspect of what Doom is all about. If you cut it out there are still plenty of things that make Doom what he is that I think are a lot more important. His arrogance, his insecurity, his burning aimless hatred, his intellect, his genuine belief that he knows and wants what is best for Latveria and for the whole world, his pretentious of being high class, etc. Wether or not his holding to an outdated notion of chivalry is a consistent part of his character, it still seems like a very minor one to me.

Part of these stem from his medieval beliefs. So, lose that and he is a generic, arrogant scientist with robots. There is a reason Doom's entire appearance is based on a merging of the grim reaper and a medieval knight. This is not a minor thing to lose, and everyone who says this I think doesn't understand what makes Doom tick or what makes him unique from characters similar characters.

Instead of stripping characters of their core essence, and making them generic, cliche' ripoffs of archetypes, why don't we look at what makes the character work. Before we make Reed a cliche' awkward nerd and Doom a female villain without any of Doom's psychology.

 

[The Question]

Name 2. Said examples must also not have done something to anger Doom. I backed up my point with evidence. Give me a specific example.

He murdered his long time girlfriend, Valeria, in order to obtain a significant power source.

He took advantage of and basically mind-****ed an amnesiac Scarlet Witch in order to steal her powers.

He murdered Cassandra Lang because she was in his way.

He put some ****ed up mind control spell on baby Valeria Richards simply because it was advantageous for him to do so.

Part of these stem from his medieval beliefs. So, lose that and he is a generic, arrogant scientist with robots. There is a reason Doom's entire appearance is based on a merging of the grim reaper and a medieval knight. This is not a minor thing to lose, and everyone who says this I think doesn't understand what makes Doom tick or what makes him unique from characters similar characters.

I really don't see the medieval beliefs as being a thing. Sure, that's an influence on his aesthetic, but that's not something I've ever gotten from the guy. It's certainly not something I think that his entire identity and what makes him unique hinges on. I don't see how that's his core essence.

Instead of stripping characters of their core essence, and making them generic, cliche' ripoffs of archetypes, why don't we look at what makes the character work. Before we make Reed a cliche' awkward nerd and Doom a female villain without any of Doom's psychology.

I don't think what makes Doom work is that he has an outdated notion of chivalry. Of all the most important aspects of the character, that's kind of at the bottom of the list. I think to say that removing it would be removing all of Doom's psychology is quite hyperbolic.

 

[Spider-Fan]

He murdered his long time girlfriend, Valeria, in order to obtain a significant power source.

He took advantage of and basically mind-****ed an amnesiac Scarlet Witch in order to steal her powers.

Both examples were not needless. Doom benefited and would obtain power. I said he doesn't harm women or children NEEDLESSLY. In the case of Valeria, Doom made a huge sacrifice. Part of what those demons wanted was Doom to do something he'd regret.

He murdered Cassandra Lang because she was in his way.

He put some ****ed up mind control spell on baby Valeria Richards simply because it was advantageous for him to do so.

I always felt the Valeria thing was out of character for Doom (and many FF fans agree). And you just said Cassandra Lang was in his way. So again, it wasn't NEEDLESS! She was an enemy.

I really don't see the medieval beliefs as being a thing. Sure, that's an influence on his aesthetic, but that's not something I've ever gotten from the guy. It's certainly not something I think that his entire identity and what makes him unique hinges on. I don't see how that's his core essence.

I don't think what makes Doom work is that he has an outdated notion of chivalry. Of all the most important aspects of the character, that's kind of at the bottom of the list. I think to say that removing it would be removing all of Doom's psychology is quite hyperbolic.

No, you're just removing him of his culture, upringing, and what his motif symbolically means. Doom has Latverian values, and Latveria (being Eastern Europe) has influences from medieval Europe, and classic Eastern Europe of that era. But, that isn't a drastic change or anything. Do you consider Doom's castle essential? That has a medieval influence. As does his armor. His psychology. Etc. It's connected. Your culture helps socialize you. When you put someone in a different culture, their psychology changes (because you learn from your environment). Don't overlook the forest from the trees.

Many villains have robots, armored suits, wealth, power, etc. What seperates Doom from Darkseid IS his psychology. His honor. Etc. Darkseid is a dictator. He's ruthless. He's power hungry. He's arrogant. However, Darkseid has no honor or limits. Doom does. This is something anyone who approves of Victoria Von Doom is overlooking.

Not to mention Hollywood I am sure would add sexual tension, and the rivalry with Reed is based off intellectual differences and Doom's vanity/jealousy. Not because deep down, Doom wants to sleep with Reed.

 

[The Question]

Both examples were not needless. Doom benefited and would obtain power. I said he doesn't harm women or children NEEDLESSLY. In the case of Valeria, Doom made a huge sacrifice. Part of what those demons wanted was Doom to do something he'd regret.



I always felt the Valeria thing was out of character for Doom (and many FF fans agree). And you just said Cassandra Lang was in his way. So again, it wasn't NEEDLESS! She was an enemy.

You never stipulated needless. You said, and I am quite literally quoting:

Name 2. Said examples must also not have done something to anger Doom. I backed up my point with evidence. Give me a specific example.

But, okay, now you're saying that you want examples of Dr. Doom hurting a woman when he doesn't need to and when she doesn't make him angry in order for you to buy that maybe him treating women differently from men isn't a thing anymore.

But the thing is, Dr. Doom never hurts people unless he either gets something out of it or they piss him off. He's not a psychopath who murders people in order to get off, he only ever ****s with people if there's a practical gain or, in his eyes, they've done something to make him mad.

So, like, how exactly does he treat women any differently than he treats men? Either way, he doesn't **** with you unless he gets something out of it or he's pissed off at you.

No, you're just removing him of his culture, upringing, and what his motif symbolically means. Doom has Latverian values, and Latveria (being Eastern Europe) has influences from medieval Europe, and classic Eastern Europe of that era. But, that isn't a drastic change or anything. Do you consider Doom's castle essential? That has a medieval influence. As does his armor. His psychology. Etc. It's connected. Your culture helps socialize you. When you put someone in a different culture, their psychology changes (because you learn from your environment). Don't overlook the forest from the trees.

Except that Eastern Europe has, you know, advanced through history since the Middle Ages along with the rest of the world. Eastern European culture isn't stuck in a Medieval mindset with Medieval values, it's pretty thoroughly modernized and has been for the last century or so. Sure, the Medieval period is apart of their history in a way that it isn't for Americans, but people from Eastern Europe don't think like their from 1486.

Many villains have robots, armored suits, wealth, power, etc. What seperates Doom from Darkseid IS his psychology. His honor. Etc. Darkseid is a dictator. He's ruthless. He's power hungry. He's arrogant. However, Darkseid has no honor or limits. Doom does. This is something anyone who approves of Victoria Von Doom is overlooking.

A character can have honor and limits without having an archaic notion of chivalry. A female villain can have honor and limits. You're taking one small aspect of that honor and acting like removing it removes the whole thing.

And I've never said that Doom's psychology isn't important. All I've said is that an old time-y sense of chivalry is probably the least important part of his psychology.

Not to mention Hollywood I am sure would add sexual tension, and the rivalry with Reed is based off intellectual differences and Doom's vanity/jealousy. Not because deep down, Doom wants to sleep with Reed.

Oh no, I agree. That's one of the reasons why I think making Doom female is a bad idea.

 

[Spider-Fan]

You never stipulated needless. You said, and I am quite literally quoting:




But, okay, now you're saying that you want examples of Dr. Doom hurting a woman when he doesn't need to and when she doesn't make him angry in order for you to buy that maybe him treating women differently from men isn't a thing anymore.

Quote my first post on this topic. The word needless was there.

But the thing is, Dr. Doom never hurts people unless he either gets something out of it or they piss him off. He's not a psychopath who murders people in order to get off, he only ever ****s with people if there's a practical gain or, in his eyes, they've done something to make him mad.

So, like, how exactly does he treat women any differently than he treats men? Either way, he doesn't **** with you unless he gets something out of it or he's pissed off at you.

If a male servant screws up, they die. If a female servant screws up, killing them is not his first instinct. Difference.

Except that Eastern Europe has, you know, advanced through history since the Middle Ages along with the rest of the world. Eastern European culture isn't stuck in a Medieval mindset with Medieval values, it's pretty thoroughly modernized and has been for the last century or so. Sure, the Medieval period is apart of their history in a way that it isn't for Americans, but people from Eastern Europe don't think like their from 1486.

And women fought for equality worldwide, and are still in many places fighting for that. Different life experience and socialization. To say the nature of Doom's personality would be the same, man or woman, is naive and ignores societal influence. Classic example, boys get blue towels and a ball to play with, girls get a pink towel and a doll. Different societal expectations, and examples like this exist everywhere. Also, chivalry didn't die in the middle ages, and it is more prevalent in many places outside the US. Even in the US, do people still yell at you sometimes if you don't open a door for a women? I hear people do it everyday.

A character can have honor and limits without having an archaic notion of chivalry. A female villain can have honor and limits. You're taking one small aspect of that honor and acting like removing it removes the whole thing.

And I've never said that Doom's psychology isn't important. All I've said is that an old time-y sense of chivalry is probably the least important part of his psychology.

You're removing part of the basis for his psychology, and you consider this small? You're also, by association, changing the culture of Latveria. If you're not going to honor Doom's sense of chivalry and such, what is the point of the castle/medieval motif? The motif of a villain reflects both their powers (if any) and their personality. Why not just make Doom operate out of a lab or something, if the culture and chivalry are not important. If you're going to remove the personality behind the motif, then there is no reason for the motif. Just give Victoria a lab somewhere, a generic costume, and some bland robots.

Oh no, I agree. That's one of the reasons why I think making Doom female is a bad idea.

We finally agree on something.

 

[The Question]

Quote my first post on this topic. The word needless was there.

But that's not what you asked for when you asked me to give two examples.

If a male servant screws up, they die. If a female servant screws up, killing them is not his first instinct. Difference.

I would like to see some examples of that, please.

Honestly, I thought Marvel stopped doing the whole "killing servants for minor mistakes" thing with Doom a long time ago.

And women fought for equality worldwide, and are still in many places fighting for that. Different life experience and socialization. To say the nature of Doom's personality would be the same, man or woman, is naive and ignores societal influence. Classic example, boys get blue towels and a ball to play with, girls get a pink towel and a doll. Different societal expectations, and examples like this exist everywhere.

I'm not saying that if Doom were a real person and that if he had been born a girl instead of a boy that his life wouldn't have turned out differently. I'm saying that writers are under no obligation to reflect that in a film script. I'm saying that it is entirely possible for a woman to come into adulthood with the same personality, motivations, and abilities that Dr. Doom has.

Also, chivalry didn't die in the middle ages, and it is more prevalent in many places outside the US. Even in the US, do people still yell at you sometimes if you don't open a door for a women? I hear people do it everyday.

I never said it did die in the middle ages.

You're removing part of the basis for his psychology, and you consider this small?

I don't consider it part of the basis of his personality. Having a sense of chivalry is not a part of the basis of his personality. It is one small part of his personality that doesn't take anything away from the other, more important and consistently written parts of his personality, by it's absence.

You're also, by association, changing the culture of Latveria.

Nope. Even if we're portraying Latveria as some old time-y barely out of the dark ages theme park version of Eastern Europe, Doom doesn't have to hold to old sexist views of chivalry. He's been to other places in his life, Latverian culture isn't the only one he's ever known.

If you're not going to honor Doom's sense of chivalry and such, what is the point of the caste/medieval motif?

Because him having a castle in an Eastern European country (where they have quite a few of those) is not dependent on him thinking that women should be treated differently than men.

The motif of a villain reflects both their powers (if any) and their personality. Why not just make Doom operate out of a lab or something, if the culture and chivalry are not important.

Because he's an Eastern European dictator. They have castles in Eastern Europe. It just kind of makes sense.

If you're going to remove the personality behind the motif, then there is no reason for the motif. Just give Victoria a lab somewhere, a generic costume, and some bland robots.

His personality behind the motiff is not that he thinks women should be treated differently from men. If you take that away (and I'm still not convinced it's really there at all in the first place), you still have an honorable-yet-ruthless Eastern European dictator who's obsessed with mysticism and old world culture. Taking out the notion that women should be treated differently from men does not change anything else.

We finally agree on something.

Yeah.

 

[VICTORVONDOOMX]

I'm saying that it is entirely possible for a woman to come into adulthood with the same personality, motivations, and abilities that Dr. Doom has.

Motivations and abilities, yes. However your insistence that she could have the same personality flies in the face of basic psychology. You've said that you don't care for the female Doom idea so I'm uncertain why you are clinging to such an untenable position.

 

[The Question]

Motivations and abilities, yes. However your insistence that she could have the same personality flies in the face of basic psychology.

I don't really see how it does. There are no personality traits that are inherently female or male. Given the right circumstances and inherent neurological traits, in theory anyone can develop any kind of personality.

You've said that you don't care for the female Doom idea so I'm uncertain why you are clinging to such an untenable position.

Because I disagree with your reasons for opposing the idea. I think they reflect some very nasty and stubborn trends and attitudes in the comic book fan community regarding both the nature and value of change in adaptation and the roles of men and women. While I think, for a few reasons, that a gender-flipped Doom wouldn't work, I think gender-flipping in general is a fine idea and works in the vast majority of cases.

I'm only against it with Doom because I think Hollywood wouldn't be able to resist adding a sexual undertone to Reed and Doom's relationship, and I think that having a female character with a scarred face that she hides all the time and who's hatred for her arch enemy is partly motivated by blaming him for that disfigurement dips into kind of a nasty stereotype of women.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Much of this revolves around the same point, so not quoting every single portion of your post (addressing at end).

But that's not what you asked for when you asked me to give two examples.

Figured as I said it multiple times already, it was implied.

I would like to see some examples of that, please.

Honestly, I thought Marvel stopped doing the whole "killing servants for minor mistakes" thing with Doom a long time ago.

Well, when he was uspurped from Latveria, naturally it died, LOL!

I'm not saying that if Doom were a real person and that if he had been born a girl instead of a boy that his life wouldn't have turned out differently. I'm saying that writers are under no obligation to reflect that in a film script. I'm saying that it is entirely possible for a woman to come into adulthood with the same personality, motivations, and abilities that Dr. Doom has.

I think it becomes relevent when speaking about differences he would have psychologically from a gender change, which is what this discussion is about. Whether Doom would be the same man or woman. I don't think he would.

Nope. Even if we're portraying Latveria as some old time-y barely out of the dark ages theme park version of Eastern Europe, Doom doesn't have to hold to old sexist views of chivalry. He's been to other places in his life, Latverian culture isn't the only one he's ever known.

No, but he clearly values his Latverian life, and he did retain much of his Latverian heritage (likely partly since he feels scorned by Western culture due to his lab accident and his intellectual differences with Reed, who has more classic Western ideals).

Because him having a castle in an Eastern European country (where they have quite a few of those) is not dependent on him thinking that women should be treated differently than men.

His personality behind the motiff is not that he thinks women should be treated differently from men. If you take that away (and I'm still not convinced it's really there at all in the first place), you still have an honorable-yet-ruthless Eastern European dictator who's obsessed with mysticism and old world culture. Taking out the notion that women should be treated differently from men does not change anything else.
.

No, it isn't directly ties to his treatment of women. I am not saying it is. But it IS based off honor and such (knighthood principles mixed with science and facism). Chivalry isn't just about treatment of women. It's part of the idealogy, but not all of it. It's also about duties to your fellow man and nation. Which are vital. But, chivalry is mostly practiced by men. That is a larger point to me, and part of that being practiced by men mostly is due to socialization.

I also think, even if sexual tension is not intended by Trank, it will be read into the movie by the audience.

 

[VICTORVONDOOMX]

I don't really see how it does. There are no personality traits that are inherently female or male. Given the right circumstances and inherent neurological traits, in theory anyone can develop any kind of personality.

Once again, just because you don't see or understand something doesn't make your opinion about it reality. There are absolutely major differences in male and female personality formulation right down to the details of brain chemistry. You are simply wrong about your made up personality theory.

 

[VICTORVONDOOMX]

I think they reflect some very nasty and stubborn trends and attitudes in the comic book fan community regarding both the nature and value of change in adaptation and the roles of men and women.

Haha. Yeah, we would actually like to see the thing we love adapted to the screen in the form we love. How dare we!