Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 96
  1. #16
    Mighty Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,400

    Default

    Are you seriously going to discuss about it? The answer is clear: Norman Osborn/Green Goblin. I'm quite pissed with Doc Ock for the whole "Superior Spider-Junk" thing, but that's just one big thing compared to Norman Osborn's long list of "hits". Even during "Superior Spider-Junk", Ock had to revive the one true Spider-Man because he realized he couldn't defeat Osborn like Spidey did. And in the last issue with his cloned body, he turned back completely into Doc Ock to defeat "Spider-Nor-Man". The combination of insanity, cruelity, personal vendetta and a lot of stinky money and resources makes Norman Osborn the ideal arch-nemesis for Peter Parker/ Spider-Man.

  2. #17
    Extraordinary Member WebLurker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    7,011

    Default

    I think that someone like Kraven should be used instead of Goblin or Ock. Norman Osborn is and always will be Spider-Man's arch-nemesis (Ock is in the top three, but, as I remember seeing an op-ed on this forum put it, the only time he can claim to be Spidey's number one enemy is when Goblin and Venon are off the board, not to mention lacking the threat to both Spider-Man and Peter Parker that those two pose). However, Goblin has ben overused in the movies so far and I'd rather see a new character then bringing one back like Ock (who's had two successful film incarnations to date).

    Quote Originally Posted by your_name_here View Post
    Although I would love to see Jason Mamoa playing Kraven going up against Tom Holland. The size difference alone make it’s interesting.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    Norman Osborn makes a lot of sense as an evil version of Tony Stark.
    I like those ideas.
    Doctor Strange: "You are the right person to replace Logan."
    X-23: "I know there are people who disapprove... Guys on the Internet mainly."
    (All-New Wolverine #4)

  3. #18
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    6,167

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    The reason Loki had that role is because Thor as a character doesn't have a list of great rogues, at least at the time that the first Thor movies and Avengers 1 came (Thor 1 came out in 2011, Avengers in 2012, and Dark World in 2013). Jason Aaron's run which began in 2013 actually did introduce and revive the Non-Loki rogues of Thor, including Gorr the God Butcher, who is in my view, Marvel Thor's ultimate arch-nemesis.
    Honestly, I don't think that's the case. Loki is undoubtedly Thor's biggest villain, but he's definitely not his only one. If anything, I think the argument could be made that the Thor movies didn't do enough to explore all of Thor's classic villains. I'm still amazed that, in three films, we still haven't even seen Amora the Enchantress or Mangog. But, who knows, maybe they'll show up in Love and Thunder.

    Anyway, back on topic, not all Spider-Man villains are created equal. I think that's the point of a nemesis: it shows how some things, some people challenge the hero more than others. I mean, Batman, like Spider-Man, also has a more than decent bench of rogues. However, if you ask anyone, they'll tell you that the Joker is undoubtedly Batman's greatest nemesis and has been portrayed as such across various forms of media. A lot of that is largely because a lot of the stuff that's impacted Batman the most has been the doing of the Joker.

    I don't think there's any denying that Norman and Octavius have done the most to impact Peter out of all his rogues.

  4. #19
    Extraordinary Member WebLurker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    7,011

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zeeguy91 View Post
    I don't think there's any denying that Norman and Octavius have done the most to impact Peter out of all his rogues.
    Eh, I think there's a fair case that Venom edges out Ock a bit, but mileage may vary.
    Doctor Strange: "You are the right person to replace Logan."
    X-23: "I know there are people who disapprove... Guys on the Internet mainly."
    (All-New Wolverine #4)

  5. #20
    Moderator Frontier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    48,640

    Default

    Now I'm starting to think...will the Goblin suit be re-imagined as a demonic Iron Man armor?

    How will they connect Otto to Stark? College roommates? Stark didn't like what Otto was selling when he applied for a job at Stark Industries?

  6. #21
    Astonishing Member Revolutionary_Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,962

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zeeguy91 View Post
    Honestly, I don't think that's the case. Loki is undoubtedly Thor's biggest villain, but he's definitely not his only one.
    Around the time of Thor 2011, you could definitely have argued that Loki was Thor's only significant enemy. I mean you could say Hela, Enchantress, and Surtur, or Malekith but those were all villains that were tied to Loki in some way or fashion. Hela is his daughter, Surtur, and also Malekith are enemies that Thor needs to ally with Loki to bring down. Enchantress is similar. There's also Mangog and Jormungandr but they're like Doomsday i.e. a monster with no personality, and in the case of Mangog, Thor and Loki once again allied to bring him down.

    When Jason Aaron came around, he introduced Gorr the God Butcher who broke Thor in a way that even Loki never did, and who is absolutely not tied or connected to Loki in any fashion. Gorr the God Butcher is the Joker to Thor's Batman, in that he absolutely challenges and questions the very foundation of his being...making him a very classical arch-enemy. Gorr set Thor down a path where he became the God of the Unworthy. Something Loki never could have done.

    Then after that you had Dario Agger the Minotaur, who is also not tied to Loki. Aaron also reinvented Malekith in a big way, to the extent that Aaron's Malekith would have made an excellent MCU villain as opposed to the Ecclestone misfire which totally didn't get the whole Fair Folk Celtic thing that Simonson's original had and which Aaron and also Gillen returned to.

    I mean, Batman, like Spider-Man, also has a more than decent bench of rogues. However, if you ask anyone, they'll tell you that the Joker is undoubtedly Batman's greatest nemesis and has been portrayed as such across various forms of media. A lot of that is largely because a lot of the stuff that's impacted Batman the most has been the doing of the Joker.
    At this point it kind of seems like Joker has become bigger than his original role as Batman's enemy. When you headline a $1bn solo movie that looks set to win big at the Oscars and I think it's good that Matt Reeves' upcoming reboot is avoiding the Clown.

    Batman has the advantage of having multiple enemies who can be a villain of a movie. Penguin, Catwoman, Riddler, Poison Ivy (although considering how underused she is, and her now more common status as sidekick to Harley, I think people should consider transplanting her to Wonder Woman or Superman, since she has the potential to be a really major villain for both of them), Scarecrow can all be major headline villains and that's the second tier after Joker and Ra's Al Ghul (usually considered Batman's top two). Not to mention villains who haven't appeared in ******action yet such as Clayface, Mad Hatter, Man-Bat who can also potentially carry a movie, and mastermind types like Hugo Strange who can interface with other rogues and so on (I personally am a huge fan of the Arkham City version the guy who enjoys dissecting brains).

    Quote Originally Posted by Frontier View Post
    Now I'm starting to think...will the Goblin suit be re-imagined as a demonic Iron Man armor?

    How will they connect Otto to Stark? College roommates? Stark didn't like what Otto was selling when he applied for a job at Stark Industries?
    At this rate, the Burglar who shot Uncle Ben will be connected to Tony Stark in some fashion.

  7. #22
    iMan 42s
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    3,246

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frontier View Post
    Now I'm starting to think...will the Goblin suit be re-imagined as a demonic Iron Man armor?

    How will they connect Otto to Stark? College roommates? Stark didn't like what Otto was selling when he applied for a job at Stark Industries?
    If I had to guess then if Osborn shows up and if he has a connection to Stark it's more likely to be tied somewhat to Extremis. That after Tony blew off Killian, Osborn probably assisted with a bit of the research that went into Extremis, and the Goblin Formula is either an earlier version or a variant Oscorp has made. We also know that some companies had been working on its own Iron man and so its possible Oscorp was one of them explaining where the suit came from. That the body armor worked but the flight system didn't which explains the glider.

    Otto I could see actually using the Iron Spider. That it comes into his possession and it's altered to be more Ock-like with the benefit that the arms can fully retract. Might be a way to quickly use the Superior Octopus costume.
    -----------------------------------
    For anyone that needs to know why OMD is awful please search the internet for Linkara' s video's specifically his One more day review or his One more day Analysis.

  8. #23
    Astonishing Member Revolutionary_Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,962

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SuperiorIronman View Post
    If I had to guess then if Osborn shows up and if he has a connection to Stark it's more likely to be tied somewhat to Extremis. That after Tony blew off Killian, Osborn probably assisted with a bit of the research that went into Extremis, and the Goblin Formula is either an earlier version or a variant Oscorp has made. We also know that some companies had been working on its own Iron man and so its possible Oscorp was one of them explaining where the suit came from. That the body armor worked but the flight system didn't which explains the glider.

    Otto I could see actually using the Iron Spider. That it comes into his possession and it's altered to be more Ock-like with the benefit that the arms can fully retract. Might be a way to quickly use the Superior Octopus costume.
    Realistically speaking, I don't think if (and it's a fairly big if) Osborn and Otto show up in the MCU, they will be connected to Tony. Because the situation with Green Goblin and Dr. Octopus is not the same as with Vulture and Mysterio.

    I definitely don't think that either of them will show up in the next MCU Spider-Man movie. Mostly because the situation at the end of FFH's post-credits doesn't really work as the best platform to reintroduce Goblin and Octopus.

    Unlike Goblin and Dr. Octopus, neither Vulture nor Mysterio appeared before in movies. Furthermore, both of them were perceived to be B-List villains. The tie-ins with Tony was also done for reasons of branding and corporate politics rather than creative reasons, and what it did was further tie Vulture and Mysterio to "B-List". The idea for the MCU Tom Holland movies is that MCU Spider-Man fights street-level criminals i.e. "below the pay grade" of Tony Stark and the Avengers. Whereas Dr. Octopus and Green Goblin at their toughest and most dangerous are threats on par with the Avengers. So the weird MCU-Sony caste system will ensure that these Brahmin-tier villains will be treated with respect.

    Whereas audiences who remember Dafoe's Green Goblin and Molina's Doctor Octopus will expect and demand that the MCU treat those characters with respect and certainly the comparisons would be found vaunting if it didn't measure up.

    In any case, I think there will be one more MCU movie with Tom Holland and I don't know if there will be anything more.

  9. #24
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    6,167

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    Around the time of Thor 2011, you could definitely have argued that Loki was Thor's only significant enemy. I mean you could say Hela, Enchantress, and Surtur, or Malekith but those were all villains that were tied to Loki in some way or fashion. Hela is his daughter, Surtur, and also Malekith are enemies that Thor needs to ally with Loki to bring down. Enchantress is similar. There's also Mangog and Jormungandr but they're like Doomsday i.e. a monster with no personality, and in the case of Mangog, Thor and Loki once again allied to bring him down.
    Agan, we are getting pretty off-topic, but that's just not true. Also, its pretty weak reasoning to say that Malekith and Surtur are too tied to Loki only because Thor teamed with Loki to take them down. Malekith and Surtur are tied to each other but they're not that linked to Loki. And what's more is that they're epic Thor villains. You could definitely make the argument that the MCU didn't show them enough justice.

    Then after that you had Dario Agger the Minotaur, who is also not tied to Loki. Aaron also reinvented Malekith in a big way, to the extent that Aaron's Malekith would have made an excellent MCU villain as opposed to the Ecclestone misfire which totally didn't get the whole Fair Folk Celtic thing that Simonson's original had and which Aaron and also Gillen returned to.
    Uh, again, off topic, but Aaron's Malekith is actually pretty consistent with how Simonson first introduced him. I wouldn't call it a reinvention.

    At this point it kind of seems like Joker has become bigger than his original role as Batman's enemy. When you headline a $1bn solo movie that looks set to win big at the Oscars and I think it's good that Matt Reeves' upcoming reboot is avoiding the Clown.
    For now, but every cinematic interpretation of Batman so far has included the Joker at some point. Joker and Batman are too linked. The Joker movie even includes the Waynes and Bruce.

    The point is that a hero tends to have a nemesis that stands above the rest, even if they do have a strong rogues' gallery. That's also the case for Spider-Man.

  10. #25
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    6,167

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frontier View Post
    Now I'm starting to think...will the Goblin suit be re-imagined as a demonic Iron Man armor?

    How will they connect Otto to Stark? College roommates? Stark didn't like what Otto was selling when he applied for a job at Stark Industries?
    I'd actually prefer if the villains from here on out weren't tied to Tony Stark. Like at all. Peter needs to be afforded the right to have his own corner of the MCU that's just his and nobody else's, especially given that he's basically been Marvel's flagship character since the 1960s. Its already weird enough that the two villains he has faced in his own movies seem to have a bigger bone to pick with Tony Stark than with him even though in the comics, they're Spider-Man rogues.

  11. #26
    Astonishing Member Revolutionary_Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,962

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zeeguy91 View Post
    The point is that a hero tends to have a nemesis that stands above the rest, even if they do have a strong rogues' gallery. That's also the case for Spider-Man.
    In the case of Spider-Man, the single best story in his mythos told from a villain's perspective and centered around a villain isn't Green Goblin or Dr. Octopus (his official #1 and #2 villains), it's Kraven's Last Hunt. And Sergei Kravinoff was considered a joke villain until this story, and even after that in cartoons and other places, the joke-y version of Kraven predominates (except for the MTV Spider-Man cartoon of all places) because KLH is a rather inaccessible story for adaptations owing to its adult themes and psychological focus.

    Just because a character has an arch-nemesis doesn't mean that everything that can be done with the character can only be done with that character. Nor does that mean that villains who aren't "arch" cannot be significant.

    Remember that the extreme of Superman Movie syndrome where the total lack of faith in Superman's mythos by writers/producers/directors means that the only villains who keep showing up are Luthor and Zod, and this overexposure has kind of made Luthor a laughing stock at least in the movies. Movies!Luthor whether played by Hackman, Spacey, or Eisenberg are hucksters and used-car salesman who are frothing on the mouth madmen who don't invent anything, who don't have any virtues, and are basically just "megalomaniacal masterminds".

    That was very nearly happening with Norman Osborn and Harry Osborn in the Garfield movies. Where basically, Oscorp was name-dropped from the start of ASM1, and then the second movie had Dane DeHaan taking over Green Goblin, because Sony keep believing that Harry Osborn is a significant supporting character and villain when he isn't either. The Garfield movies went to the extreme of making every Spider-Man rogue and Peter's family tied to Osborn and Goblin and that is just as bad as tying every villain to Tony Stark.

  12. #27
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    6,167

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    In the case of Spider-Man, the single best story in his mythos told from a villain's perspective and centered around a villain isn't Green Goblin or Dr. Octopus (his official #1 and #2 villains), it's Kraven's Last Hunt. And Sergei Kravinoff was considered a joke villain until this story, and even after that in cartoons and other places, the joke-y version of Kraven predominates (except for the MTV Spider-Man cartoon of all places) because KLH is a rather inaccessible story for adaptations owing to its adult themes and psychological focus.

    Just because a character has an arch-nemesis doesn't mean that everything that can be done with the character can only be done with that character. Nor does that mean that villains who aren't "arch" cannot be significant.
    Nowhere did I ever say that everything with Spider-Man had to be done through the perspective of either Norman or Otto nor did I say that other Spidey villains cannot be significant. That's just putting words in my mouth. Just because there are some villains that are the most impactful doesn't mean that the other ones don't matter and just because I think they should build up a nemesis for Spider-Man doesn't mean I think they should treat the others as an afterthought.

    Just because Venom and Carnage and Jackal are also some of Peter's most personal and greatest villains all capable of carrying their own films, that doesn't mean that GG or Ock shouldn't be his greatest and most personal nemesis. They're all very important to the Spider-Man mythos. It's just that one is slightly more crucial than the others. Plus, having at least one villain as the most important villain enriches the mythos. Its not just one bad guy that's forgotten after the next.
    Last edited by Zeeguy91; 02-01-2020 at 05:56 PM.

  13. #28
    Moderator Frontier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    48,640

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    When Jason Aaron came around, he introduced Gorr the God Butcher who broke Thor in a way that even Loki never did, and who is absolutely not tied or connected to Loki in any fashion. Gorr the God Butcher is the Joker to Thor's Batman, in that he absolutely challenges and questions the very foundation of his being...making him a very classical arch-enemy. Gorr set Thor down a path where he became the God of the Unworthy. Something Loki never could have done.
    Gorr doesn't really fit as an archnemesis because he's not really a character you can use on a frequent basis. He's more memorable for just the two stories he was in then someone you can make a a frequent nemesis to the hero.

    And there isn't that personal enmity and relationship that makes Thor and Loki's relationship more complicated.
    Then after that you had Dario Agger the Minotaur, who is also not tied to Loki. Aaron also reinvented Malekith in a big way, to the extent that Aaron's Malekith would have made an excellent MCU villain as opposed to the Ecclestone misfire which totally didn't get the whole Fair Folk Celtic thing that Simonson's original had and which Aaron and also Gillen returned to.
    The Minotaur is pretty low B-list when it comes to Thor villains, C-list at worst, and I felt Aaron had to make his Malekith more Loki like to make him convincing as a villain.
    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    Realistically speaking, I don't think if (and it's a fairly big if) Osborn and Otto show up in the MCU, they will be connected to Tony. Because the situation with Green Goblin and Dr. Octopus is not the same as with Vulture and Mysterio.

    I definitely don't think that either of them will show up in the next MCU Spider-Man movie. Mostly because the situation at the end of FFH's post-credits doesn't really work as the best platform to reintroduce Goblin and Octopus.

    Unlike Goblin and Dr. Octopus, neither Vulture nor Mysterio appeared before in movies. Furthermore, both of them were perceived to be B-List villains. The tie-ins with Tony was also done for reasons of branding and corporate politics rather than creative reasons, and what it did was further tie Vulture and Mysterio to "B-List". The idea for the MCU Tom Holland movies is that MCU Spider-Man fights street-level criminals i.e. "below the pay grade" of Tony Stark and the Avengers. Whereas Dr. Octopus and Green Goblin at their toughest and most dangerous are threats on par with the Avengers. So the weird MCU-Sony caste system will ensure that these Brahmin-tier villains will be treated with respect.

    Whereas audiences who remember Dafoe's Green Goblin and Molina's Doctor Octopus will expect and demand that the MCU treat those characters with respect and certainly the comparisons would be found vaunting if it didn't measure up.

    In any case, I think there will be one more MCU movie with Tom Holland and I don't know if there will be anything more.
    I think they are expecting to get more movies out of Holland. Whether they will or not with the new deal with Sony is another story altogether.
    Quote Originally Posted by Zeeguy91 View Post
    I'd actually prefer if the villains from here on out weren't tied to Tony Stark. Like at all. Peter needs to be afforded the right to have his own corner of the MCU that's just his and nobody else's, especially given that he's basically been Marvel's flagship character since the 1960s. Its already weird enough that the two villains he has faced in his own movies seem to have a bigger bone to pick with Tony Stark than with him even though in the comics, they're Spider-Man rogues.
    I don't disagree, I just am keeping up with the trend that these movies just can't seem to let go of Tony Stark.

  14. #29
    Mighty Member Uncanny Mutie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    1,266

    Default

    I've always preferred Doc Ock as Spidey's main bad guy, myself. Maybe because I started reading Spider-Man at a time when Norman Osborn had already been dead in the comics for years.

  15. #30
    Astonishing Member Revolutionary_Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,962

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zeeguy91 View Post
    Nowhere did I ever say that everything with Spider-Man had to be done through the perspective of either Norman or Otto nor did I say that other Spidey villains cannot be significant. That's just putting words in my mouth.
    I wasn't being accusatory or anything, sorry if it came off that way.

    I was just thinking out the whole issue of having an arch-enemy and so on.

    Just because there are some villains that are the most impactful doesn't mean that the other ones don't matter and just because I think they should build up a nemesis for Spider-Man doesn't mean I think they should treat the others as an afterthought.
    You are correct.

    In any case for Tom Holland's Spider-Man to have a personal arch-nemesis, he needs to have a personality. For him to have his own corner, he need to first be his own character.

    In the MCU, the issues of why Tom Holland's Peter Parker is who he is hasn't been established clearly. SO far all that's been established is "Tony Stark fanboy and wannabe" and living up to Iron Man's legacy. And at the end of FFH, Peter's identity has been outed for all the world, so what's to establish Norman's threat and interest in Peter's personal life if everyone knows who he is. Until you establish that, you can't really reintroduce Green Goblin and Dr. Octopus. And in fact you can't do Kraven's Last Hunt either because that entire story is about Kraven's fixation on Spider-Man, i.e. the totem embodied by the costume and not the human behind him (for whom Kraven can't care less, leave alone the secret identity, and that's always been the case, Kraven has zero interest in who Spider-Man really is).

    Quote Originally Posted by Frontier View Post
    Gorr doesn't really fit as an archnemesis because he's not really a character you can use on a frequent basis.
    That's kind of moot in the context of movies. As a rule, movies were, and movies essentially still are, 1 Villain per Movie.
    -- We forget that Loki was only really Thor's main villain in one movie (Thor 2011). After that it's been Loki + Chitauri (and both are servants of Thanos as outed at the end of Avengers 1), then Malekith with Loki as miscreant who tags along in The Dark World. Then Loki isn't a villain in Thor Ragnarok nor in Avengers IW. He's now a protagonist of a TV Series where he'll probably be reinvented as an anti-hero. In the comics, Loki has become Venom-ized, or even Magneto-ized, utterly defanged of villainy.
    -- And Gorr the God Butcher returned in Aaron's final King Thor story which left a backdoor for his resurrection for later writers to use. So it's too early to say that Gorr can't be used in a regular basis.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •