Do Spider-Man's villains suck?

[Bor]

USM started around October 2000, and filming on the first Raimi film started in January 2001, with the script, casting, and production starting much before that, so the film couldn't have taken any significant influences from Ultimate. Just from the overall style, and the, for lack of a better term, cheesiness, of it all, Raimi is clearly channeling Lee/Ditko/Romita thru and thru.

Honestly, its much more reasonable to think that USM itself took influence from what the Raimi film was going to do and incorporated some of those character dynamics into the comic.

This. USM is clearly felt on the ASM movies but not the Raimi movies.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Parting on bad ways is not something USM invented, that has been in several different other versions so again you are looking to fit USM in to the movies because you want it to fit in,

Can you name and list these versions? I haven't found any of that until USM 1. At least when I argue I cite examples in detail to make my case rather than just rattling off vague lines with no explanations.

And there aren't "several different other versions". In Chronological order here are the different alternate versions in comics.

1976 - Superman Vs. The Amazing Spider-Man - Which doesn't deal with the origins, focusing only on Peter, MJ and Jameson from his supporting cast.

1977 - The Spider-Man Newspaper Strip - Where the origins to the extent it's described is the same as 616.

1992 - Spider-Man 2099, dealing with Miguel O'Hara Peter's far future legacy character

1998 - Spider-Girl, same continuity as regular Spider-Man until the Clone Saga where the path diverged. Peter's origins is related by Mary Jane to her daughter in the earliest issues and it's consistent to AF#15, just fewer panels, 90s dumb updates of props (Ben gives Peter a PC and not a Microscope because apparently Johnny Bynre thinks its the same thing), and art that is not as good as the original or Byrne at his best.

1998 - Spider-Man Chapter One by John Byrne which was actually intended by the megalomaniacal Canadian to be legit new foundation for Spider-Man until Marvel wised up and said its not canon. No "parting words regret" in the origin at the start.

2000 - Ultimate Spider-Man.

When USM came up, the concept of an alternative universe take on the mainstream continuity was still new and fresh. The ones that were there before that succeeded were alternate future versions (2099 and Spider-Girl). The Newspaper Strip was a largely comedic-in-tone series that admittedly had Lee contributing plots and scripts in full (i.e. no Marvel Method) for a far extensive period (say the first 10 years or so) then his run on Spider-Man. What none of them did was actually try and ask what if Spider-Man started today. A question that became more obvious in 2000 with the turn of the millennium, and obviously more pertinent when the character was approaching his 40th anniversary (Sam Raimi's Spider-Man 1 came out in May 2002, 39 years and 9 months after AF#15 was published in August 1962) and had a lot more history behind him.

[Agent Z]

The point is it makes Peter's actions more understandable. Because Tobey Maguire's Peter was established already as a nice boy. He's kind and compassionate to MJ for her troubled home, and so on. Peter having a friend in Harry is itself a reduction and alteration. Because didn't have any friends at that time. In fact until he started dating Betty (Peter went from friendless to having a girlfriend...because he's a stud), he didn't have any companions. So Peter callously telling the fight promoter up yours when he let the burglar go in AF#15 because he was a straight-up d--k wouldn't fit with the more softer character you have in the trilogy.

So Peter letting the Burglar go in response to the fight promoter stiffing him over in the context is understandable. And it's also tragic. Because I think a lot of people in that situation you might say, sure I might have done that to someone if they stiffed me too. So you as an audience feel complicit in his actions, whereas in AF#15, it was pretty obvious that Peter letting that burglar go was just pure selfishness because as he said earlier, "I only care for my Aunt and Uncle who are nice to me, the rest can go hang for all I care".

Peter didn’t want the money for a noble goal like giving to charity or providing for his aunt and uncle. He wanted a car to impress Mary-Jane. If anything, what he does in the movie is far more selfish. In the comics, his rationale for not stopping the thief was that it wasn’t his job to catch criminals. After all, there’s a difference between beating a wrestler and facing an armed man.

Norman admiring Peter and dimissing Harry wasn't there in the Lee-Romita era, nor in USM.

Irrelevant to my point. You asked why Harry was jealous of Peter in the film and I told you why. Whether or not it completely matches up what is in the comics is of no importance here.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Irrelevant to my point. You asked why Harry was jealous of Peter in the film and I told you why. Whether or not it completely matches up what is in the comics is of no importance here.

This strain in the thread was about whether Harry Osborn in the movie, whether parts of his story has any precedent before, and how the stuff in the movie resembles the opening arc of Ultimate Spider-Man more than it resembles the Lee-Ditko-Romita era. My point is that this idea that Norman preferred Peter or that Peter and Noman had bond wasn't there originally. This is for the simple fact that Peter met Norman for the first time when he unmasked himself. Before that they didn't meet, and Peter's first reaction is more or less, "Ugh...you would be that ******* Harry Osborn's dad" since Peter and Harry weren't exactly friends when that happened. To me that always presented a problem since if Peter doesn't feel all that connected to Harry personally, why does he go so far to make sure that Norman isn't outed as the Goblin, it doesn't make sense? The other reason is of course Norman knows his identity and so on.

The movie does a better job of dramatizing that but in the process they kind of had to rewrite and alter the characters. So Peter and Harry were friends from way earlier, but Harry still has to be a kind of douchy guy "because Osborn" and Harry being a a little scummy is part of his character.

Peter and Harry Osborn's friendship much like his romance with Gwen never made any sense from a character perspective in both the comics and even the Spider-Man 1 movie. It's something the writer, Stan Lee, made happen without doing any organic buildup. They are two characters who are best friends yet they do stuff that best friends aren't supposed to do...i.e. lie to each other all the time, such as Peter never once considering telling Harry his double life and so on, or Harry never telling Peter his drug problem. The movie has it be exploitative and one-way, where Harry treats Peter as a stooge, the guy who does his homework and Peter feels obliged to be his friend since Harry at least talks to him and so on, and so Peter lets Harry abuse him and belittle him, and in the second movie slap him around in public when drunk.

And Spider-Man 3 collapsed when they tried to make Harry this tragic figure because nothing the character did leading up to that made any damn sense. JMD in Spectacular Spider-Man in the issues leading to Harry's death had to go heavy and bridge connections, such as crappy childhoods for both, Harry having it worse because Norman is his Dad, Harry not being able to be a good husband and Dad, somehow not being able to accept that Noman did kill Gwen Stacy which Mary Jane calls him out on repeatedly throughout that, and the story is as much about Peter and his generation being kind of jaded and sad, similar to Lawrence Kasdan's movie The big Chill. There's that sense they all look back on the Coffee Bean as the "good old days" even if as MJ points out those good old days were only good because everyone lied to each other and pretended. MJ lied about her past, Peter about his life, Harry had issues with drugs and his Dad.

That's one reason why Harry Osborn was such a failure as a villain, and why the idea that he was some kind of ultimate friend-turned-enemy never made sense. There's a reason Len Wein and Roger Stern went "nope" on Gerry Conway's idea to make Harry Osborn a villain. He and Peter weren't even friends when Norman was unveiled as the Goblin. Their friendship never made all that sense in the L-R era, as a Green Goblin he was a flop. He's only interesting to highlight how Peter who sees himself as all woebegone is actually a figure of envy and even then, the most poignant bit that ever came across was by Johnny Storm in Dan Slott's series.

[Agent Z]

The movie does a better job of dramatizing that but in the process they kind of had to rewrite and alter the characters.

Yeah that's what adaptations do.

So Peter and Harry were friends from way earlier, but Harry still has to be a kind of douchy guy "because Osborn" and Harry being a a little scummy is part of his character.

Harry doesn't become a douche until Spider-Man 2.

Peter and Harry Osborn's friendship much like his romance with Gwen never made any sense from a character perspective in both the comics and even the Spider-Man 1 movie. It's something the writer, Stan Lee, made happen without doing any organic buildup. They are two characters who are best friends yet they do stuff that best friends aren't supposed to do...i.e. lie to each other all the time, such as Peter never once considering telling Harry his double life and so on, or Harry never telling Peter his drug problem. The movie has it be exploitative and one-way, where Harry treats Peter as a stooge, the guy who does his homework and Peter feels obliged to be his friend since Harry at least talks to him and so on, and so Peter lets Harry abuse him and belittle him,

Where does Harry abuse or belittle Peter in the first film?

And Spider-Man 3 collapsed when they tried to make Harry this tragic figure because nothing the character did leading up to that made any damn sense.

Spider-Man 3's failure isn't due to Harry. It was due to making the Sandman the (accidental) killer of Uncle Ben and shoehorning Venom into a movie he had no business being in.

[PCN24454]

Yeah, the Spectacular cartoon does a great job at fleshing the villains out in their own ways. Helps alot of them you get to see start out as just regular good guys, Brock, Max, Otto, etc.

Interpretation is important. A villain that might my underwhelming in one series might be interesting in another.

Otherwise, I think the reason why Peter's villains are often thought of in-universe as lame is because in-universe Spider-Man is seen as second-string by the general public. Since he doesn't save the world often, people see him and those associated with him as underwhelming.

[Mister Mets]

I do agree that the title of this thread was not a good one. Because the intent of the OP is "Spider-Man's villains seem weak compared to other Marvel villains and other rogues, in terms of character, plot, and concept". By putting in the word "suck", you are going to upset or miscommunicate and give a sense that this is about bashing it overall, when it's about actually discussing these villains in different terms and categories.



Aren't they repeatedly featured in different media because Spider-Man is big and popular and so on? Are they the main reason that did well and sold well. That leads to an interesting thought experiment, Spider-Man without rogues gallery. Or superheroes without rogues gallery. Is the character of the superhero such that they could command interest without a roster of regular villains. Superman in the Siegel and Shuster era did not have a rogues gallery and overall Superman has generally not had a good bunch of villains, and yet Siegel and Shuster's Superman became the biggest thing and Superman's most profitable era in comics was the 50s to the 70s when he was the top superhero character. For instance, Superman Vs. The Amazing Spider-Man canonized the fact that Superman and Spider-Man were the two biggest heroes, i.e. both were bigger than Batman.

In the case of Batman, his best-selling movies, such as The Dark Knight featured the Joker who appeared in a movie after a gap of nearly 20 years in a new style. And Batman 1989 was also heavily promoted with the Joker, who was played by one of the biggest stars in movies and was heavily promoted in that, and had top billing too and that movie's success was a big deal at that time. Michelle Pfeiffer and Danny Devito also got top billing and heavily promoted that way in Batman Returns. The Adam West Batman show also featured a number of prominent celebrities and figures of that time as villains.

So you can actually argue that the Rogues Gallery of Batman is a significant reason why that character is profitable. Whereas in the case of Spider-Man, both Homecoming and ITSV did well without featuring prominent Spider-Man villains. I know everyone will say "Kingpin though" in ITSV, but again Kingpin is a Daredevil villain (officially classified that way by Marvel) and the most popular and respected version of Kingpin is the one in the Daredevil Netflix show.

The original question probably framed the question in too extreme a way, so that people who thinks the best rogues gallery ever and people who think it's okay are on the same page. That said, there were some interesting points from people who think this is a series that doesn't need good villains.

[Cmbmool]

The hero is only great as it’s villain and Spider-Man has many great villains. Yes some of them are lame, but so are some of Batman’s and they get reworked from time to time.

I’ve considered Spider-Man villains second only to Batman’s foes at first.

Spider-Man villains may not be big and epic like the other villains, but they are memorable given how they are seen in the media.

[Huntsman Spider]

Interpretation is important. A villain that might my underwhelming in one series might be interesting in another.

Otherwise, I think the reason why Peter's villains are often thought of in-universe as lame is because in-universe Spider-Man is seen as second-string by the general public. Since he doesn't save the world often, people see him and those associated with him as underwhelming.

It's more like he's not on the front lines for a lot of the big "save the world" events. He can be seen getting involved in just about every major Marvel event, though it's mostly to protect civilians while the more "big-time" heroes directly confront the main source of the danger or threat to those civilians. It also doesn't help that he's not often a leader in those events, but following the lead of someone like Captain America or Iron Man, though when he does take the lead in saving the world/universe/Multiverse, it's usually an event centered around him or one of his enemies and isn't exactly something the rest of the superhero community gets involved in, barring (a few) outliers like Ends of the Earth. A lot of the reason for that boils down to maintaining a sense of quasi-relatability, in that it's hard (or harder) to buy Spider-Man as the proverbial "everyman" if he's saving the world/universe/Multiverse on a regular basis in full view of his fellow heroes and those he's saving. That being said, a lot of future-set Marvel stories or continuities have Spider-Man ultimately acknowledged as the greatest hero of his era, so at some point in time, a lot of the public wises up (or the historians do, at any rate).

As for his villains being largely seen as underwhelming, I'd say that's because most of them are either solely focused on a vendetta against Spider-Man himself or basically petty thugs and criminals with superpowers and/or advanced tech. They're not necessarily trying to take over the world or burn said world to a cinder, just trying to get rich quickly and illegally or die trying, so their threat level isn't perceived as being that high in comparison to the grander and more grandiose schemes and ambitions of the villains faced by the Avengers and the Fantastic Four, or even the X-Men. Of course, as miscellaneous arcs in the comics have shown, give Spider-Man's villains room to cut loose, and they prove to be much more dangerous than a lot of the other heroes credit them with being.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Otherwise, I think the reason why Peter's villains are often thought of in-universe as lame is because in-universe Spider-Man is seen as second-string by the general public. Since he doesn't save the world often, people see him and those associated with him as underwhelming.

The topic is more out-of-universe judgment than in-universe one. Batman's villains are In-Universe street-level thugs and mostly menace Gotham City. Yet out-of-universe they are the most famous villains of all. I don't think being street level or small-scale has any bearing. Like The Kingpin is often ranked as a great villain but basically he's a gangster of one part of New York City, Hell's Kitchen (which in Daredevil stories seems to come across as a city-inside-a-city) with some legitimate business connections that allow him to interface and connect with other parts. The Kingpin after Miller wrote him came off as a sophisticated manipulator and controller when in the Spider-Man stories before that he was just some big wall of flesh and Sydney Greenstreet rip-off. And after that, Kingpin has had only minor appearances in 616 Spider-Man, with Back in Black being the big exception.

The hero is only great as it’s villain...

That's not always true. Superman for instance did pretty well without great villains when he started out. The version of Luthor people liked didn't exist then. And even then, Gene Hackman's Luthor is outside of nostalgic old-timers not everyone's favorite and certainly one of little influence on the one in the Bruce Timm cartoons that I think is everyone's main Platonic ideal of Luthor. The Max Fleischer cartoons that defined Superman had none of his classic rogues, and mostly just generic types and...wartime racist caricatures of Japanese airmen...but anyway. And in the Golden and Silver and early Bronze Age, Superman still sold better than Batman even if Superman's own lead editor and writer, Mort Weisinger, admitted that his villains sucked compared to Batman's.

The greatest X-Men film is LOGAN and it doesn't have any iconic villains at all.

It's more like he's not on the front lines for a lot of the big "save the world" events. He can be seen getting involved in just about every major Marvel event, though it's mostly to protect civilians while the more "big-time" heroes directly confront the main source of the danger or threat to those civilians.

Batman's rogues as a rule aren't worldwide threats either but they are still iconic and popular. I don't think that has anything to do with popularity or level. Batman comes from Gotham and as a rule in the DC corner, Metropolis is considered the real center and place of importance while Gotham is a "national disgrace" which the US Government sealed off from the rest of America during No Man's Land (an exaggeration of Gerald Ford telling New York, as per that headline, to "drop dead"). The major Non-Batman storyline that happened in Gotham is Alan Moore's Swamp Thing.

To take a Spider-Man example, Firelord is not as famous a villain as the Scorpion, let's say. He's a much bigger threat but as a character he's second string even in the Avengers, Silver Surfer, FF side of things. But Spider-Man's fight with Firelord is one for the ages. Is that because Firelord is a great character or because it was a great moment of character for Peter and Spider-Man as he grapples with the fact that he's dealing with a threat out of his league, tries to and is unable to call for backup, and the fate of the planet is literally down to a wall-crawler from Queens, and that makes it the great underdog triumph? Spider-Man made Firelord great and not the other way around.

I do think that one reason why Batman's villains work is that thanks to Batman and other DC heroes having their own special city for themselves, the stories are allowed to have a density of scale even when it works in a smaller note compared to everyone. Spider-Man shares the city with Daredevil (who handles' Hell's Kitchen), the Punisher, the FF, and the Avengers. Batman's villains allow them to inhabit different parts of Gotham whereas Spider-Man's villains are all basically thugs with suits, thugs with powers, mad scientists with one gimmick who are older and smarter than Peter but not close enough to Reed/Pym/Stark level or Doom level. Like you know Dr. Octopus in the Owl/Octopus War says that killing Spider-Man will prove to the world he's the greatest intellect ever...and I am thinking "Why don't you go knock on the door of the Baxter Building and measure your diploma against Ol' Stretch". I mean those are issues which happen when you inhabit a shared universe.

So Spider-Man's rogues are tuned to a particular set of instruments and notes in the orchestra of the Marvel Universe. Kingpin after Daredevil is the greatest mobster of New York so Hammerhead, Tombstone, and others in Spider-Man's corner will never be "organized crime" and top level threats. Dr. Doom is the greatest mad scientist of the Marvel Universe so Green Goblin, Dr. Octopus will never step up.

There has only ever been one Spider-Man villain and one Spidey-centric crossover event in Marvel history...Maximum Carnage, which held the title for best-selling event until Civil War. And Carnage is a divisive figure in the annals of Spider-Man's rogues.

[Zeitgeist]

I don't think because most of Spider-Man's villains aren't world leaders in their respective psychopathic fields that it means that they're less than as characters. I feel 'power rankings' are really besides the point - it's about the relationship these respective villains have with the hero and how they effect his narrative: do they have interesting dynamics? Has it lead to great storytelling? Are there personal stakes? And so on. Lizard isn't the strongest villain despite being a beast-man, nor the smartest despite being a scientist, but he holds unique place within Spider-Man's rogue gallery due to Peter's personal affection for the man Curt Conners, juxtaposed against the reptilian personality who is more often than not his enemy. From a character and narrative standpoint, a lot of Spider-Man's villains are positively iconic.

There has only ever been one Spider-Man villain and one Spidey-centric crossover event in Marvel history...Maximum Carnage, which held the title for best-selling event until Civil War. And Carnage is a divisive figure in the annals of Spider-Man's rogues.

They weren't Spidey-centric events, but Norman Osborn was at the center of a few crossovers in the Dark Reign era and Siege.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I don't think because most of Spider-Man's villains aren't world leaders in their respective psychopathic fields that it means that they're less than as characters. I feel 'power rankings' are really besides the point - it's about the relationship these respective villains have with the hero and how they effect his narrative: do they have interesting dynamics? Has it lead to great storytelling? Are there personal stakes? And so on

The best Spider-Man story with the villain as the lead character -- Kraven's Last Hunt features what even Spider-Man fans consider a minor figure in the rogues gallery. It was all about Kraven's fixation on Spider-Man as the costume and the myth and not being able to understand the human behind him. So you have the best villain story about a lack of connection with the hero, and it doesn't feature the best villain at all.

Lizard isn't the strongest villain despite being a beast-man, nor the smartest despite being a scientist, but he holds unique place within Spider-Man's rogue gallery due to Peter's personal affection for the man Curt Conners, juxtaposed against the reptilian personality who is more often than not his enemy. From a character and narrative standpoint, a lot of Spider-Man's villains are positively iconic.

Dr. Connors and Lizard and that dynamic he has with Peter is genuinely compelling and in movies and adaptations they try and give that to Peter and Osborn to a lesser extent, and more egregiously Dr. Octopus. And the attempt to make Ock sympathetic in the 90s with Defalco creating a sob-story background was also an attempt to make Ock more like Connors, while also having them in the stories leading to Ock's "death" as sorta science-bros with Peter.

They weren't Spidey-centric events, but Norman Osborn was at the center of a few crossovers in the Dark Reign era and Siege.

The whole point about that, was that Norman Osborn now saw himself as "above Spider-Man's pay grade" or words to that effect...and Norman Osborn's past as Green Goblin was treated as a joke and bemusement by other villains. Whereas Maximum Carnage had none of that condescension.

[Zeitgeist]

The best Spider-Man story with the villain as the lead character -- Kraven's Last Hunt features what even Spider-Man fans consider a minor figure in the rogues gallery. It was all about Kraven's fixation on Spider-Man as the costume and the myth and not being able to understand the human behind him. So you have the best villain story about a lack of connection with the hero, and it doesn't feature the best villain at all.

I think a lot of that is subjective; personally however I feel that while Kraven isn't the most popular villain, he's one of the more revered ones particularly because of that story-line, so much so people were worried him being brought back during BND would ruin that aura.

The other point about Kraven specifically is that while they didn't have a personal connection (When I say 'relationship', I don't mean in the formal sense first name basis sense), he still had affected Spider-Man/Peter in a profound way that not many of his enemies ever had before.

The whole point about that, was that Norman Osborn now saw himself as "above Spider-Man's pay grade" or words to that effect...and Norman Osborn's past as Green Goblin was treated as a joke and bemusement by other villains. Whereas Maximum Carnage had none of that condescension.

Norman's past as Green Goblin was such a sticking point for everyone because people knew the Goblin persona was unstable, untrustworthy and batshit crazy - which was very much at odds with what Norman was presenting himself as at the time - a leader/mastermind people could get behind. Joke/bemusement or not though, let's look between the lines: at the end of the day he had the ire of almost every active hero (and quite a few villains on top of that) in the MU at the time on his ass - not to mention leading up to and during the Dark Reign era he had rounded up and lead some of the most dangerous minds around in: the Cabal (Doom, Emma Frost, Loki, The Hood, Namor), a restructured SHIELD as HAMMER, the Thunderbolts, Dark Avengers, and Dark X-Men by extension. Of course it all came undone in part by his paranoia and resurfacing instability, because hubris is a great thing.

Carnage in comparison was on a very public killing spree, and while he commanded some C-listers and caused a few riots thanks to the help of Shriek, the worst he had coming down on him were randoms like Dethlok, Cloak & Dagger, Iron Fist - plus Venom, Spidey and Black Cat. I think Cap was in there also? It's been a while.

In terms of a dick measuring contest, I feel Osborn's hits the floor here.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I think a lot of that is subjective; personally however I feel that while Kraven isn't the most popular villain, he's one of the more revered ones particularly because of that story-line, so much so people were worried him being brought back during BND would ruin that aura.

The other point about Kraven specifically is that while they didn't have a personal connection (When I say 'relationship', I don't mean in the formal sense first name basis sense), he still had affected Spider-Man/Peter in a profound way that not many of his enemies ever had before.

It's more Kraven and Spider-Man rather than Sergei and Peter was my point. But you are right and correct.

JMD had the idea behind that story for many months and initially wanted to do it at DC with Batman and then later with Wonder Man and his villain, and eventually came to Spider-Man's corner and he chose Kraven by going through a handful of villains in a handbook to see who he could work with.

Norman's past as Green Goblin was such a sticking point for everyone because people knew the Goblin persona was unstable, untrustworthy and batshit crazy - which was very much at odds with what Norman was presenting himself as at the time - a leader/mastermind people could get behind. Joke/bemusement or not though, let's look between the lines: at the end of the day he had the ire of almost every active hero (and quite a few villains on top of that) in the MU at the time on his ass - not to mention leading up to and during the Dark Reign era he had rounded up and lead some of the most dangerous minds around in: the Cabal (Doom, Emma Frost, Loki, The Hood, Namor), a restructured SHIELD as HAMMER, the Thunderbolts, Dark Avengers, and Dark X-Men by extension. Of course it all came undone in part by his paranoia and resurfacing instability, because hubris is a great thing.

You know a lot of Marvel U fans, didn't think Osborn entirely worked in that role. They thought it was jobbing and Osborn being a publicly known, exposed, and imprisoned murderer and being made "the king of everything" was hard for people to accept and get behind as a premise.

Carnage in comparison was on a very public killing spree, and while he commanded some C-listers and caused a few riots thanks to the help of Shriek, the worst he had coming down on him were randoms like Dethlok, Cloak & Dagger, Iron Fist - plus Venom, Spidey and Black Cat. I think Cap was in there also? It's been a while.

In terms of a dick measuring contest, I feel Osborn's hits the floor here.

Maximum Carnage sold more than Osborn's little crossovers. And Osborn returned to former glory by fusing with the Carnage symbiote anyway.

[Nasty_Boys]

I was thinking the other day could an origin TV show ever work for Spiderman and his villains like Gotham for Batman? Maybe Peter going through high school while the origin of his villains are told and towards the end Peter gets bit/becomes Spiderman?? Just a thought.