Which villain(s) could headline an event?

[Huntsman Spider]

It's funny how he was originally intended to be an alien in disguise.

Yeah, funny how these things work out.

[TheRay]

Robot Master and Gaunt.

[Huntsman Spider]

Robot Master and Gaunt.

Would have to be a new Robot Master, since Mendel Stromm is pretty much done for after bargaining with Kindred and coming out on the worse end of that deal near the beginning of Nick Spencer's ASM run.

[Somecrazyaussie]

More Green Goblin events please, and by that I mean 'Green Goblin' and not Norman Osborn. The Norman from Dark Reign was practically a different character from the one in Spider-Man comics. Bendis has tried to reinvent Norman Osborn on two occasions now (Ultimate and Dark Reign), and it's very telling that neither of those stuck while Ditko's take on the Green Goblin continues to live on.

I mean, Green Goblin MU events practically write themselves. He is the "dark" trickster to Spider-Man's "good" trickster. You would expect him to mock and gaslight other heroes the way Spider-Man mocks and gaslights other villains. You would expect the Avengers to function as essentially his version of the Sinister Six (I like the idea of Tony Stark being Norman's equivalent to Ock, #2 archenemy and all, but so far no one has explored that idea), or more interactions between him and Red Skull given how frequently Spider-Man interacts with Captain America. You would expect more parallels between Green Goblin and Loki the way JMS did parallels between Loki and Spider-Man. Lastly, if Spider-Man is about growth and a late 20s Spider-Man is now one of the most competent heroes in the MU (at least when he is written well), you would expect a similar trend with the Green Goblin.

Outside of Warren Ellits' Thunderbolts, I don't know if any MU-wide comics has taken advantage of the Green Goblin like that.

Norman already tried (and almost succeeded) in gaslighting Peter. The wonderful Revenge Of The Green Goblin. Here's a guy who is like, "well, I can't beat him, I can't destroy him... I know! I'll twist him into becoming my heir!"

[Somecrazyaussie]

1) Would be a retread of Osborn as Head of Hammer.

Which was just a poor rip-off of when DC made Lex Luthor POTUS.

Norman going after multiple heroes etc never made sense. The guy has had blinders on ever since Peter foiled his attempts to seize the underworld. From then on, it was purely personal.

[your_name_here]

Spy-Fi heavy event would be cool with Prowler, Silver Sable etc.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Which was just a poor rip-off of when DC made Lex Luthor POTUS.

I'd hardly call it "poor" since Osborn Head of Hammer led to better stories in Marvel than POTUS Lex provided in DC. When Luthor became POTUS it was fairly inconsequential in terms of a big status-quo and hardly seemed to affect or disturb or change stuff across titles. It also didn't provide or produce any significant stories with Luthor in that form. It was a stunt that got headlines but didn't actually go anywhere and then it ended in some Superman satellite title rather than some big event.

Whereas Osborn Head of Hammer was much better executed and much more consequential where Osborn got in everyone's face, and made everyone in the Marvel Universe, in Bendis' verse, "feel like Peter Parker". This isn't to say it was perfect or anything but hey it got us Matt Fraction's "World's Most Wanted" and Kelly Sue DeConnick's "Osborn" so that validates that period.

And you know at the end of the day, Norman Osborn is a better character than Lex Luthor anyway.

Norman going after multiple heroes etc never made sense. The guy has had blinders on ever since Peter foiled his attempts to seize the underworld. From then on, it was purely personal.

Norman lost his memory of Spider-Man's identity after OMD, and deep down he's just a Goblin who wants to establish himself at the top of the criminal food-chain.

[Kaitou D. Kid]

In regards to why Norman would be fixated on Spider-Man if he is an MU villain, I think it would still make sense.

First of all, when we let Spider-Man be Spider-Man and not prematurely stunt him like OMD, 616 Spider-Man is one of the most competent heroes in the MU. The Spider-Man written by someone like JMS or Chip Zdarksy makes perfect sense as Norman's archenemy. He isn't any 'lesser' in ability than the Avengers just because he isn't a (main) Avenger.

More importantly, though, Spider-Man is the Green Goblin's natural foil, in a way. He is probably just as unpredictable to Norman as Norman is to him, and is just as much of a psychological manipulator in battle as Norman can be. I know it sounds weird to refer to Peter as a psychological manipulator, but I mean that's kinda what he does when he is quipping and trying to get under his villains' skin - which is part of what's so disturbing about Norman wanting Peter as a heir, the guy has a point that they're similar, and Peter not only sees it too but knows that a guy as egotistical as Norman wouldn't hand the Green Goblin mantle over willy-nilly like that.

I'm rambling a bit, but my point is that the tricks that Norman would normally use on a guy like Tony Stark and most of the Avengers, would not necessarily work on Spider-Man. In a rock-paper-scissors game, Norman would be rock, Spider-Man would be paper, and Iron Man would be scissors.

[Huntsman Spider]

I'd hardly call it "poor" since Osborn Head of Hammer led to better stories in Marvel than POTUS Lex provided in DC. When Luthor became POTUS it was fairly inconsequential in terms of a big status-quo and hardly seemed to affect or disturb or change stuff across titles. It also didn't provide or produce any significant stories with Luthor in that form. It was a stunt that got headlines but didn't actually go anywhere and then it ended in some Superman satellite title rather than some big event.

Whereas Osborn Head of Hammer was much better executed and much more consequential where Osborn got in everyone's face, and made everyone in the Marvel Universe, in Bendis' verse, "feel like Peter Parker". This isn't to say it was perfect or anything but hey it got us Matt Fraction's "World's Most Wanted" and Kelly Sue DeConnick's "Osborn" so that validates that period.

And you know at the end of the day, Norman Osborn is a better character than Lex Luthor anyway.



Norman lost his memory of Spider-Man's identity after OMD, and deep down he's just a Goblin who wants to establish himself at the top of the criminal food-chain.

Funny enough, Norman did the "corrupt corporate tycoon-slash-secret criminal mastermind" thing at least two decades before Lex Luthor, going by Lex's revamp in the post-Crisis on Infinite Earths Superman comics from the mid-to-late 1980s.

In regards to why Norman would be fixated on Spider-Man if he is an MU villain, I think it would still make sense.

First of all, when we let Spider-Man be Spider-Man and not prematurely stunt him like OMD, 616 Spider-Man is one of the most competent heroes in the MU. The Spider-Man written by someone like JMS or Chip Zdarksy makes perfect sense as Norman's archenemy. He isn't any 'lesser' in ability than the Avengers just because he isn't a (main) Avenger.

More importantly, though, Spider-Man is the Green Goblin's natural foil, in a way. He is probably just as unpredictable to Norman as Norman is to him, and is just as much of a psychological manipulator in battle as Norman can be. I know it sounds weird to refer to Peter as a psychological manipulator, but I mean that's kinda what he does when he is quipping and trying to get under his villains' skin - which is part of what's so disturbing about Norman wanting Peter as a heir, the guy has a point that they're similar, and Peter not only sees it too but knows that a guy as egotistical as Norman wouldn't hand the Green Goblin mantle over willy-nilly like that.

I'm rambling a bit, but my point is that the tricks that Norman would normally use on a guy like Tony Stark and most of the Avengers, would not necessarily work on Spider-Man. In a rock-paper-scissors game, Norman would be rock, Spider-Man would be paper, and Iron Man would be scissors.

Solid points there, and I can buy Norman finding Tony easier to predict in some ways compared to Peter, as Tony and Norman operate in the same corporate world, only Tony's saner and more altruistic (or ethical) than Norman.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Funny enough, Norman did the "corrupt corporate tycoon-slash-secret criminal mastermind" thing at least two decades before Lex Luthor, going by Lex's revamp in the post-Crisis on Infinite Earths Superman comics from the mid-to-late 1980s.

And he killed people close to the superhero a full decade before Joker in The Killing Joke as well.

But you see pointing stuff like that out and treating the DC characters as anything other than Alex Ross statuary hall pinups is taboo, because people like hierarchy and straight chronology over actually reading the comics. Because Joker and Luthor came first in some halcyon "golden age" (not called as such until about the 90s), Marvel villains and characters are always to be denigrated to these versions of the characters.

[Huntsman Spider]

And he killed people close to the superhero a full decade before Joker in The Killing Joke as well.

But you see pointing stuff like that out and treating the DC characters as anything other than Alex Ross statuary hall pinups is taboo, because people like hierarchy and straight chronology over actually reading the comics. Because Joker and Luthor came first in some halcyon "golden age" (not called as such until about the 90s), Marvel villains and characters are always to be denigrated to these versions of the characters.

Actually, the Joker only paralyzed Barbara Gordon in The Killing Joke. Jason Todd, the second Robin, was the one he outright killed in A Death in the Family. Besides that, excellent point you raise.

[Kaitou D. Kid]

Now that I think about it, The Joker is actually a good example of how a genius business magnate can struggle against a trickster archetype with not a lot of money due to said trickster's unpredictable nature, while not having as hard of a time anticipating the moves of more conventional heroes (Tower of Babel comes to mind).

And Norman, if he was based on any comic book character directly, was likely inspired by both Bruce Wayne and the Joker (since Ditko studied under Jerry Robinson).

So if Batman can be part of the JL and face DCU-level threats while still having a hard time with the Joker, is it that unbelievable that Norman can be an MU-level threat while still struggling against Spider-Man?

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Now that I think about it, The Joker is actually a good example of how a genius business magnate can struggle against a trickster archetype with not a lot of money due to said trickster's unpredictable nature, while not having as hard of a time anticipating the moves of more conventional heroes (Tower of Babel comes to mind).

And Norman, if he was based on any comic book character directly, was likely inspired by both Bruce Wayne and the Joker (since Ditko studied under Jerry Robinson).

Green Goblin being a mix of Batman and Joker is a good point. If you look at the way Goblin operates, hidden bases across New York City with all kinds of gadgets (one of which, when discovered accidentally, led to the rise of the Hobgoblin) that's quite a lot like Batman with his multiple hideouts. Then Norman also uses razorbats and other bombs and pellets from his utility belt.

That's one reason why Mark Millar's MK:Spider-Man is great because that Norman does comes across as an evil Bruce Wayne. And the usual joke about Batman being a rich guy who goes out at night to beat the poor is probably the true motivation for Norman's turn to supervillainy, an excuse for a rich oligarch to personally oppress the unfortunate.

[Kaitou D. Kid]

Yep, and the bat-shaped glider too.

[Huntsman Spider]

Green Goblin being a mix of Batman and Joker is a good point. If you look at the way Goblin operates, hidden bases across New York City with all kinds of gadgets (one of which, when discovered accidentally, led to the rise of the Hobgoblin) that's quite a lot like Batman with his multiple hideouts. Then Norman also uses razorbats and other bombs and pellets from his utility belt.

That's one reason why Mark Millar's MK:Spider-Man is great because that Norman does comes across as an evil Bruce Wayne. And the usual joke about Batman being a rich guy who goes out at night to beat the poor is probably the true motivation for Norman's turn to supervillainy, an excuse for a rich oligarch to personally oppress the unfortunate.

Uh-huh, and then there was his letter to Peter (that Peter never got because he moved out of that apartment) where he thanked Peter for giving him a purpose and meaning in life that "saved" him from being "just another boring businessman," which kind of reminded me of the Joker expressing both in the comics and other media that Batman was who and what gave him purpose and meaning in what would have been an otherwise purposeless and meaningless existence. And hell, Millar also did a take on "what if a wealthy man in the vein of Bruce Wayne became a costumed supervillain borrowing Batman's cape-and-cowl iconography while thinking and acting more like (a supremely depraved version of) the Joker?" with Nemesis, so . . .