Do Spider-Man's villains suck?

[Tendrin]

Like Jameson is now considered a villain which is ridiculous. Then Harry Osborn who for the majority of stories is a supporting cast member and not a villain, and he was widely considered a poor successor to the Goblin to the point he was immediately replaced by other candidates (Bart Hamilton) until the Hobgoblin. And then his father came back anyway. Harry Osborn's best stories are with JMD leading to Best of Enemies and those were about him being a tragic self-destructive friend rather than a villain. And he dies at the end.

Jameson was absolutely an antagonist to Spider-Man and has served as a villain. He created several super-villains in his effort to 'get' him and contributed countless miseries. If anything, he's probably the most consistant villain Peter had for a long ass time. Villains come in all shapes and sizes, after all, and Scorpion and the Spider-Slayers are all JJJ's handiwork. :P


So, yeah. I'd have no problem with 'Spider-Man: Threat or Menace' guy being called a villain, unless you wanna get into the technical definitions between 'villain' and 'antagonist'.

[Snoop Dogg]

Jameson was a comedy relief antagonist. For all of his gags, he was in opposition the protagonist (back when the media cycle put actual pressure on Peter and wasn't one of Jonah's quirks) and tried to beat him up with robots. You can certainly say he was a villain, but the book's never considered him as a part of the "rogues gallery" and he was tempered down by the 70's, so I don't think he's relevant to this topic specifically.

[Tendrin]

Jameson was a comedy relief antagonist. For all of his gags, he was in opposition the protagonist (back when the media cycle put actual pressure on Peter and wasn't one of Jonah's quirks) and tried to beat him up with robots. You can certainly say he was a villain, but the book's never considered him as a part of the "rogues gallery" and he was tempered down by the 70's, so I don't think he's relevant to this topic specifically.

But he /is/ one of the best known Spider-Man antagonists.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Jameson was absolutely an antagonist to Spider-Man and has served as a villain. He created several super-villains in his effort to 'get' him and contributed countless miseries. If anything, he's probably the most consistant villain Peter had for a long ass time. Villains come in all shapes and sizes, after all, and Scorpion and the Spider-Slayers are all JJJ's handiwork.

Did Jameson intend Scorpion and the Spider-Slayers or specifically Smythe Father and Son, and their later careers in the form they took? Like did Jameson partner with Scorpion thinking yeah, I am going to empower a supervillain mwah-hah-hah. He thought Scorpion was on the level, he was a detective Mac Gargan, and while Jameson's actions can be called negligent and so on, what happened is unintended consequences. He has also fallen out with the Smythes and so on. You are acting as if Jameson is the same as Luthor creating and experimenting and manufacturing supervillains. I mean Peter Parker is personally and morally responsible for Uncle Ben's death because of his inaction, but it would be ridiculous and absurd to call him Ben's murderer in any rational sense. What happened was an unintended consequence, and a preventable accident that nobody could predict. In the same way, Jameson's actions are negligent and irresponsible but not criminal.

More than that, Jameson isn't a villain or an antagonist. Anyone who thinks he is or says he is, is misreading the stories, the intents of the writers and artist, and the established norms and conventions since then. He's a great character and a great supporting character but he's not a villain. He's his own thing.

And in either case, citing Jameson and calling him a great villain to specifically boost up Spider-Man's rogues gallery which is what the topic is considering, is absolutely inappropriate and beside the point.

[Tendrin]

Did Jameson intend Scorpion and the Spider-Slayers or specifically Smythe Father and Son, and their later careers in the form they took? Like did Jameson partner with Scorpion thinking yeah, I am going to empower a supervillain mwah-hah-hah.

I mean, if your definition of villain is that it requires 'mwah-ha-ha'.

He thought Scorpion was on the level, he was a detective Mac Gargan, and while Jameson's actions can be called negligent and so on, what happened is unintended consequences. He has also fallen out with the Smythes and so on. You are acting as if Jameson is the same as Luthor creating and experimenting and manufacturing supervillains. I mean Peter Parker is personally and morally responsible for Uncle Ben's death because of his inaction, but it would be ridiculous and absurd to call him Ben's murderer in any rational sense. What happened was an unintended consequence, and a preventable accident that nobody could predict. In the same way, Jameson's actions are negligent and irresponsible but not criminal.

No. I'm saying that villains can take plenty of forms. A negligent ******* creating unintended consequences is still the villain of the story.

More than that, Jameson isn't a villain or an antagonist. Anyone who thinks he is or says he is, is misreading the stories, the intents of the writers and artist, and the established norms and conventions since then. He's a great character and a great supporting character but he's not a villain. He's his own thing.

Depends on how you want to define 'villain' or 'antagonist'.

And in either case, citing Jameson and calling him a great villain to specifically boost up Spider-Man's rogues gallery which is what the topic is considering, is absolutely inappropriate and beside the point.

I wasn't doing it to 'boost' Spidey's rogue's gallery.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

No. I'm saying that villains can take plenty of forms.

In a superhero comic, villains largely take fixed specific forms. When the topic is about Rogues Gallery, the context isn't one that easily allows such literary attitudes.

A villain in a superhero is an external malevolent threat and force who actively commits actions that readers and in-universe characters consider to be crimes. It's Snidely Whiplash tying a girl on the tracks. Or in the case of Goblin dropping one from a bridge. Or Tarkin blowing up Alderaan.

Yeah "ever villain is a blah-blah-blah of their story" and so on, and a writer can convey that, but there is still a difference between flawed characters and bad guys.

[Tendrin]

In a superhero comic, villains largely take fixed specific forms. When the topic is about Rogues Gallery, the context isn't one that easily allows such literary attitudes.

I think this is a pretty revealing statement.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I think this is a pretty revealing statement.

Why?

There is a time and place for literary discussions about what is a villain and so on. What we are discussing is rogues gallery and whether Spider-Man's villains have problems in relation to others, it's taken for granted that people know that Rogues Gallery is a phrase from comics and that it specifically describes characters identified and classified as villains.

And its debatable if comics is entirely literary since so much of it is visuals, and so much of the words that count are sound effects and others, you know "thwip thwip" and "snikt" to name a few which isn't something that literary ideas can easily accommodate.

[Nero]

Villains that "suck", usually doesn't have any staying power.

In other words, they're not going to be repeatedly featured in the comics, movies, video games, action figure line ups, etc. They're certainly not going to be collectively considered by the general consensus as one of the greatest rogues gallery ever assembled. Villains that are lame usually fade into obscurity never to be seen or heard of again because they're not cared for by the vast majority. This simply is not the case for the Spider-Man rogues gallery. Not every rogues gallery is for everyone. If someone doesn't see the appeal of the Spider-Man villains that's their prerogative. But understand that the ones who don't get it are the minority, the majority not only get the appeal of the Spider-Man villains but they're also fans of it hence the Spider-Man villains sustaining the kind of longevity they've had.

There's no such thing as a perfect rogues gallery because there's no such thing as a perfect writer. One quick Google search on which superhero has the best rogues gallery will reveal that the rogues gallery that's often is rivaled with that of the Batman rogues are the Spider-Man rogues. Villains that "suck", don't ever get to that point.

[Killerbee911]

I don't know what was more disrespectful this thread or this statement in this thread

When you think of Marvel Comics' greatest villains: Doctor Doom, Galactus, Magneto, Thanos, Kang the Conqueror, Ultron, Red Skull, Loki...none of them are Spider-Man villains.

Kingpin, Green Goblin and Venom/Carnage aren't among Marvel's greatest villains? To each their own I guess but this thread is mad disrespectful


Batman, Superman, Fantastic Four, Flash, X-men and Spiderman.These are arguably the top groups of villains Spiderman is Top 6 and in Top 3 or 4 if you are going by solo heroes. I can't believe people are criticizing Spiderman villians in world Captain America, Thor, Iron Man, Luke Cage, Iron Fist, Hulk, Dr Strange, Black Panther can barely scrape together 6 or 7 good villains.

[NC_Yankee]

I don't know what was more disrespectful this thread or this statement in this thread



Kingpin, Green Goblin and Venom/Carnage aren't among Marvel's greatest villains? To each their own I guess but this thread is mad disrespectful

I do not know of anyone who knows anything about comic books that does not consider Kingpin, Green Goblin and Venom/Carnage to be great villains ( I would add Doc Ock, Mysterio, Hobgoblin (Kingsley), Rhino and Lizard to that list)). Does this mean all Spider-Man villains are great? No Gibbon and Kangeroo are "D-Listers" and there are others that just never appealed to me like Morbius and Chameleon. But the percentage of well done bad guys that you find in Spider-Man is better then what you find in most other comic books ( perhaps Batman excluded).

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Villains that "suck", usually doesn't have any staying power.

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.

In other words, they're not going to be repeatedly featured in the comics, movies, video games, action figure line ups, etc.

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 True Detective]

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.

We get it, Batman sucks and is only popular because of his villains (despite the fact only Joker is even close to his level of popularity) you've made your point very clear.

Your "the villains actors got top billing, therefore they're more popular than Batman" argument makes no sense. In the 1st Superman Movie Marlon Brando got top billing over Christopher Reeve. Guess that means Jor-El is a more popular than Superman, huh? Also going by your argument Batman is definitely more popular than Superman since Ben Affleck got the top billing in BvS.

Why did you ignore the fact that Venom made $855m worldwide at the box office and Batman villain filled Suicide Squad made $745m, if Spider-Man villains suck so much and are so unpopular than why did 1 of them make more than a movie with Joker, Harley Quinn and Killer Croc in it? I know you'll make some kind of excuse or just plain ignore my post but I wanna hear your answer.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Your "the villains actors got top billing, therefore they're more popular than Batman" argument makes no sense. In the 1st Superman Movie Marlon Brando got top billing over Christopher Reeve. Guess that means Jor-El is a more popular than Superman, huh?

Jack Nicholson was top billing, heavily featured in promos, and has more scenes and dialogues than any other character in the 1989 Batman movie and is in a large sense the protagonist of that movie. As is Heath Ledger in The Dark Knight. Whereas Jor-El wasn't featured to the same extent in Superman, aside from the billing.

For instance, Batman Begins which is very much Batman's movie, grossed some $350mn on a budget of $150mn. It had obscure villains like Ra's Al Ghul (This was his first live-action appearance) and he was in a modified form, and to serve the twist, he was promoted as Henri Ducard. The Dark Knight on the same budget grossed a billion dollars with the Joker. The Dark Knight Rises part three had a higher budget but made a smaller profit margin compared to TDK, and it had the highly popular Catwoman returning to the big screen after Michelle Pfeiffer's iconic turn in Returns (which was successful but not as much as 1989). It also pivoted on an obscure villain like Bane who had appeared in the last Schumacher Batman movie in a minor role.

Also going by your argument Batman is definitely more popular than Superman since Ben Affleck got the top billing in BvS.

I was referring to Superman being more popular than Batman in the 40s-70s, which peaked in the First Superman movie.

In the 80s Batman supplanted Superman which is the status-quo since then. So you can argue that Batman getting top billing, placement before Superman in the title, having more lines and scenes in the sequel to Superman's movie is an acknowledgment that Batman is definitely more popular than Superman.

For reference, the first crossover between Marvel/DC is Superman vs. The Amazing Spider-Man, the reason Superman comes before Spider-Man, aside from respect offered to the first Superhero and seniority, there's the fact that Superman's comics at the time were selling better than Spider-Man's at the time.

Why did you ignore the fact that Venom made $855m worldwide at the box office and Batman villain filled Suicide Squad made $745m, if Spider-Man villains suck so much and are so unpopular than why did 1 of them make more than a movie with Joker, Harley Quinn and Killer Croc in it? I know you'll make some kind of excuse or just plain ignore my post but I wanna hear your answer.

In Venom, he's an anti-hero and not a villain. It's basically a spin-off movie. Where Venom is the good symbiote who fights an even worse symbiote.

And the fact that Suicide Squad made $745mn dollars on a smaller budget than BVS, and so with a higher profit margin, largely shows that Batman's rogues can carry and sell a movie without him, especially Harley Quinn. In terms of profit margin it's more successful than BVS and certainly Justice League (which is a failure and one of the reasons cited was the weak villain that nobody felt was sufficient to demand the formation of the League).

[Nero]

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.
.
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.

Look, I get that the Spider-Man rogues aren't your favorite rogues. That's fine. I get that you prefer the Batman rogues over the Spider-Man rogues. That's fine. But I don't get why you can't give credit where credit is due here when it comes to the Spider-Man rogues. Yes, Spider-Man is very popular on his own accord no question but let's not pretend that having the kind of villains he regularly face off against hasn't strengthen his brand. There's a reason why whenever there's a Spider-Man movie or video game announced, one of the first questions asked is which Spider-Man villain is going to be presented.

Do you think the same level of intrigue would be there if all Spider-Man ever did was battle bank robbers and purse snatchers? I sincerely doubt it. At the end of the day, the comics, the movies, the toy lines, the video games and so on are a business and there's no way they're going to continue to feature characters (in this particular case, the Spider-Man rogues) if there's no demand for it and considering they're constantly featured, the demand is obviously there.