Do Spider-Man's villains suck?

[TheRay]

Not even close. Every one should be a credible threat to everyone else.

[NC_Yankee]

The whole point of Jameson is that he's not a villain. He's an embodiment of Peter's guilty conscience.

He hasn't made Spider-Man's life any worse than Peter did himself. Peter ruined Spider-Man's life the day he let that burglar go, and Jameson running roughshod over him only externalizes his own guilt, that there was a time when he really was every bit the glory-seeking fame-obsessed hack that Jameson keeps accusing him to be. Peter also let his supporting cast live with a time bomb with Norman Osborn being let go and unrevealed by him. He did that even after the relapse in the drug issue. And thanks to that, Gwen Stacy died.

And in practical terms, all Jameson did was unintentionally help in Scorpion becoming a villain, and also Spider-Slayer, both are fairly minor villains in the scheme of things.



Spider-Man villains are mostly old dudes or older dudes. There is not one major villain who is the same age or generation as Peter Parker's. Whereas in the case of Batman/Joker, Superman/Lex, Reed/Doom, all of them are the same age or generation. Spider-Man's villains are designed or created to give the sense of the hero being the underdog, so they are shown as more experienced, and adults, and in the early stories the fun was that this teenager was punking these guys and feeding them lunch. Remember Green Goblin's first reaction on learning Peter's identity, more or less, "A kid, I've been fighting a kid". He convinced them he was older than he was. So Spider-Man's rogues are fairly streamlined.

Spidey villains are generally thugs-with-tech or thugs-with-powers (Electro, Sandman, Rhino, Shocker, Scorpion, Vulture). Or Chameleon who's a mercenary (i.e. international expensive thug), one tragic scientist (Lizard), scientist who become gangsters and thugs (Dr. Octopus), or Green Goblin who's a businessman and scientist. And you have Mysterio, a genius artist who also becomes a thug.



That leads to the major problem with Spider-Man's villains. In Batman's case, all the villains feel connected to Gotham city, to Arkham Asylum, and a sense of institutional failure and urban decay. You have this sense of the city of Gotham as the main villain which many writers have put across. I am thinking of Neil Gaiman's Riddler story, "When is a man a city?"

In the case of Spider-Man villains, almost none of them feel like New Yorkers or specifically New York villains. Most of Spider-Man's bad guys are thugs with tech, but the heart of technology in America isn't New York, it's Silicon Valley, or in the East Coast, MIT (Ultimate Shocker who Bendis made into a MIT tragic graduate up to his nose in student loans is one of the few times this was dealt with). New York is the heart of finance, the art world, politics, advertising. And of the lot Norman Osborn makes the most sense as a New York villain. Many have taken to treating him as a Trump analogue (except Osborn has chops as a scientist). Then you have Roderick Kingsley who is this failure of design. He's a fashion designer and merchandise savvy bad guy, and they made him another goblin. Since Spider-Man is a specifically New York hero, unlike FF, X-Men, Dr. Strange, Avengers who may live in the city but they battle threats of global, inter-dimensional, cosmic and mystic threats...that's a problem because his stories follow Peter and his supporting cast who live in a sort-of real sense and then Spider-Man fits there with Jameson, but then he fights Vulture or Sandman and it's suddenly some other genre.

This comes strongly in Spider-Man PS4 which tries to create a New York sensibility and feeling with Peter, Miles and MJ being "on point". And for the first half, Martin Li/Mr. Negative, FEAST all fit. But then the Sinister Six arrive, and you have Vulture, Rhino, Scorpion, Electro and it feels like a incursion of characters from another setting.

A couple of points about your rant. 1: Silicon Alley ( NYC) is becoming an Increasingly large technological center ( that is why Google spent $1,000,000,000 on a building there). JJJ spent a lifetime opposing Spider-Man. Why? Because he is jealous. Does it mean Pete did not make mistakes? Yes. OMD and Amazing Fantasy 15 come to mind But it does not let JJJ off the hook. I am the first one to concede that Batman's rogues gallery is the best, but it does not mean that Spidy's suck either ( see Iron Man, Daredevil and Hulk as characters who have a weak baddy list top to bottom).
.

[TheRay]

As far as I have read, the use of any rogue against Spiderman has always served some greater purpose. All the way down to his first one: the mugger that murdered Uncle Ben.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

As far as I have read, the use of any rogue against Spiderman has always served some greater purpose. All the way down to his first one: the mugger that murdered Uncle Ben.

As a character, no. The mugger was a one and done rando. It could be any other thug and it would still work. There was nothing intrinsic that the story work with that mugger specifically.

In general, most Spider-Man villains would be villains with or without Spider-Man. With or without Spider-Man, Dr. Octopus would be Dr. Octopus, Norman would be Goblin, Max Dillon would be Electro, Toomes would be Vulture, Sandman would be Sandman, Connors would be Lizard, Beck would be Mysterio and Kraven would be Kraven.

Examples of villains who are unintended consequences of Spider-Man's actions are Scorpion (a PI hired by Jameson out of his hatred for Spider-Man later made into a villain), the Spider-Slayer (Smythe's robot concept that Peter unthinkingly convinced Jameson would be a good idea as part of what Peter thought would be a joke), Venom and Carnage, as a result of the symbiote Peter brought back to earth.

[WebLurker]

As far as I have read, the use of any rogue against Spiderman has always served some greater purpose. All the way down to his first one: the mugger that murdered Uncle Ben.

I don't know, seems like it's been a mix of characters that are meant to be foils in one way or another (science accidents and/or power without the responsibility) or just random crooks to create an interesting little story. For something running for decades, it's safe to say that the villains have been all over the map. That said, I do think the main villains seem to lean more to the former.

[TheRay]

As a character, no. The mugger was a one and done rando. It could be any other thug and it would still work. There was nothing intrinsic that the story work with that mugger specifically.

No, I do not think so. Even another generic mugger would not have done the situation exactly the same way. He was jumpy and maybe a bit incompetent. He stood absolutely no chance against Spiderman. It is entirely possible that any other mugger would not have been surprised into killing Uncle Ben and/or made even the slightest attempt to fight off Spiderman. No, this mugger was in way over his head, as Peter was, and Peter was going to go on being like the mugger until the mugger made the mistake of, more likely than not, accidentally killing Uncle Ben.

[Toxin45]

Bump to say the new joker movie is more the reason Spidey villains won't be any more than a joke as interesting character for their roles, they actually have to go anti hero to generate the same level of acknowledgement as Harley Quinn.

Well they have the mcu

[mathew101281]

Not even close. Every one should be a credible threat to everyone else.

So, by your definition, Batman villains should be credible villains for Superman? That ridiculous. Sure they have tried to make Batman villains work as Superman villains, but it usually takes massive plot contrivances, or random powerups for it to work (Emperor Joker). Their are different types of Superheroes, and the villains are usually designed to go up against particular types of heroes. A regular human with a gimmick works for Batman, because Batman himself is a regular human with a gimmick. Superman's villains tend to be godlike aliens and scifi monstrosities because that is what he is. Most of Spiderman's villains are a bunch of average joes who by accident or design wind up with superpowers or super tech, much like Spiderman himself. Different types of villains for different types of heroes.

[your_name_here]

A strong no. Spider-Man has rogues that are just iconic.

[The Overlord]

I don't know, seems like it's been a mix of characters that are meant to be foils in one way or another (science accidents and/or power without the responsibility) or just random crooks to create an interesting little story. For something running for decades, it's safe to say that the villains have been all over the map. That said, I do think the main villains seem to lean more to the former.

The problem is ''random crooks to create an interesting little story'' only work in a one-shot capacity if you keep on using them and do not develop them further, these characters can get pretty stale pretty quickly. A professional criminal who is driven by greed and robs banks isn't a character, that's an archetype. Giving someone like say Shocker more dimensions than that, helps the character out in the long run.

[Agent Z]

The problem is ''random crooks to create an interesting little story'' only work in a one-shot capacity if you keep on using them and do not develop them further, these characters can get pretty stale pretty quickly. A professional criminal who is driven by greed and robs banks isn't a character, that's an archetype. Giving someone like say Shocker more dimensions than that, helps the character out in the long run.

He's already been given more dimensions. You're complaining about a problem that no longer exists, if it ever exists at all.

[The Overlord]

He's already been given more dimensions. You're complaining about a problem that no longer exists, if it ever exists at all.

I disagree, is there ever a good explanation on why he couldn't have used his tech skills to make money legitimately or whether him being the most rational Spider-Man translates into moral standards or is he just a greedy scum bag who would be fine with completely immoral crimes, if the paycheck was high enough? Why not give Shocker a spotlight story that could answer these questions, what would be wrong with that? It seems like both the writers and the fans do not want to take chances with some of these characters.

[Agent Z]

I disagree, is there ever a good explanation on why he couldn't have used his tech skills to make money legitimately or whether him being the most rational Spider-Man translates into moral standards or is he just a greedy scum bag who would be fine with completely immoral crimes, if the paycheck was high enough? Why not give Shocker a spotlight story that could answer these questions, what would be wrong with that? It seems like both the writers and the fans do not want to take chances with some of these characters.

Spend enough time picking them apart and no villain's motivations make any sense. We are talking about Shocker being developed to be more than a simple robber which he has been as I have stated every time you bring up this topic. Every question you're asking about the Shocker has been answered by the comics.

[The Overlord]

Spend enough time picking them apart and no villain's motivations make any sense. We are talking about Shocker being developed to be more than a simple robber which he has been as I have stated every time you bring up this topic.

Really what issue stated why he couldn't have made money legitimately through his tech? It seems like you are taking vague hints at something as being equal to a well-developed story. Also, is the story where he tried to murder 12 people for a crime boss an example of his rationality? It seems like the writers and many fans do not want to put a lot of effort into Shocker as a character.

Because ''robber'' is not a character, its an archetype. There is nothing wrong with starting with an archetype, but an archetype is not a compelling character in of itself if you do not add dimensions to it. Electro started off as an archetype but adding the self-esteem issues and dependent relationship with his mother added something to mix, he is not the most compelling character ever, but you have moved him beyond just being an archetype. Would it kill Shocker if he was moved beyond one-note robber archetype? What is wrong with expanding the character? I am not asking for a lot, if he is a thrill-seeker who likes to rob banks for the trill, that could be an explanation, its something and putting him in situations where he is pretty defined morally is more interesting then ''he is a robber, nothing else''.

You say Shocker has moved beyond this archetype, but has he? He believes in honor among thieves why was he ok with murdering 12 civilians?

He is supposed to be smart, but there are likely a ton of different legal and illegal ways that would net him more money than bank robbing would, so just saying he is a robber and that is it., really makes him less like a stale one-note character. and doesn't make him seem smart. His motives do not need to make perfect sense, but come on, the writers could try a little harder with the character to add some depth or cleverness.

[Snoop Dogg]

More proof that Superior Foes should be studied in high schools.