How do you think the Green Goblin will return?

[clonegeek]

Yeah like, feeling guilt is an important part of redemption, but if a character changes personality too fast, too easily, then it feels too, convenient and poorly done.



And then the sexual assault **** continued between Spidey and Cindy after Superior lol.

Like, people like to say Cindy threatened to rape Spidey, but she didn't, she still was way too into the whole thing while Spidey wasn't comfortable with it, it was disgusting:



https://i.imgur.com/yQG4w2E.jpg

(ASM#9 vol 3).

"And while it's a nice problem to have"

**** lol.

Slott was in a weird mood when writing those comics, like he was bringing his inner 12 year old fanfiction writer.



Honestly the basic idea of Superior is fine, even if it's too much of a Kraven's Last Hunt ripoff, the one idea I find to be bad no matter what is Cindy's existence, it's fucking cringe.



Well, he was definitely meant to be insane since he did kill innocents at least once, and didn't really regret it:





(ASM#300).

Sure he says it's not pleasant and all, but he could always knock the cop unconscious or whatever, but his immediate instinct was to kill, and he immediately justifies having to kill him lol.

So yeah I still think there are issues with him changing sides, but again, I generally find it to not be really believable when such villains change sides to begin with, though, in his case, I can kinda see it happening, with the likes of Norman and Otto though, yeah...



Kinda sucks his one heroic moment is just "Eh this is too much, **** it, I quit" lol.



Hm... Yeah seems that you're right, I'm checking her appearances on the wiki and she's around for Maximum Clonage.



As long as it doesn't end with Ned eating the kid lol.



Sounds like they're doing it just to have more panels of Norman killing Gwen :P.



The thing is that, the way you describe it, this can only maybe benefit Spidey's character, but it doesn't benefit Norman's lol.

Like I don't really care that much about Norman, I always found him to be overrated when he never really did a lot of cool **** besides killing Gwen, but it's stupid whenever he gets screwed over for the sake of another character, that makes him be less imposing, and Spencer's run implying he was indirectly doing Mephisto's will by becoming Green Goblin was another case of this...



**** like this is why I say even Otto gets screwed over by Slott's plot over character writing style lol.

After he went back to a cloned body that was like his original, he was sad that Anna Maria was rejecting him and wondered if she'd be okay with him being in a body like Spidey's, it's, ridiculous, pathetic even, that someone as arrogant as Otto would even consider doing that:

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachmen...8821/image.png

(Clone Conspiracy#4).

I fundamently dislike Silk as a charactor. Good costume and name but by Crom does her origin just feel just like Spider-Boy who is at least the third character that he has created for Spider-Man whose whole existence is based around being a lost part of history. Characters who were literally shoehorned into continuity for no really good reason.

Spider-Boy was apparently there the whole time but everyone just forgot about him.

Silk was the long lost other person who got bit by the radioactive spider. Ignoring the fact that that in Peter Parker the Spectacular Spider-Man 60 shows, Peter stomping on the spider right after it bit him.

Mr. Negative, honestly the most original character of the bunch is also a long lost part of another characters origin story. With him being of one of the people tested with the same drug that gave Cloak and Dagger their powers.

[Lukmendes]

I fundamently dislike Silk as a charactor. Good costume and name but by Crom does her origin just feel just like Spider-Boy who is at least the third character that he has created for Spider-Man whose whole existence is based around being a lost part of history. Characters who were literally shoehorned into continuity for no really good reason.

Spider-Boy was apparently there the whole time but everyone just forgot about him.

Silk was the long lost other person who got bit by the radioactive spider. Ignoring the fact that that in Peter Parker the Spectacular Spider-Man 60 shows, Peter stomping on the spider right after it bit him.

I think Slott himself may have shown the origin again before ASM#1 vol 3, and didn't imply someone else got bitten too, though, I'm not sure if that actually happened lol.

Though retcons like this happen, but it's just silly to have someone else also be bitten by the spider at this point, even sillier to make the fucking pheromone bullshit.

Mr. Negative, honestly the most original character of the bunch is also a long lost part of another characters origin story. With him being of one of the people tested with the same drug that gave Cloak and Dagger their powers.

Lol I didn't know that was Mr. Negative's origin.

Funnily enough, there is a fourth one with Clayton Cole/Clash, though he's not involved with anyone's origin story, he was retconned to have shown up a few times back in Ditko's run, though in his case he's doing the same **** as Untold Tales of Spider-Man, so it's kinda whatever.

[TheKryptonMan]

Looking back at how Dan Slott created Silk ( Cindy Moon ) , I really don't like that supposedly she was bit by the same Spider as Peter .
I like to think of Peter as being unique , so can't editorial retcon Silk's origin ?
She could have been bitten by a different Spider thus giving her different powers.

[clonegeek]

Looking back at how Dan Slott created Silk ( Cindy Moon ) , I really don't like that supposedly she was bit by the same Spider as Peter .
I like to think of Peter as being unique , so can't editorial retcon Silk's origin ?
She could have been bitten by a different Spider thus giving her different powers.

Or just bring in Mephisto into the kid

[Xenon]

As long as it doesn't end with Ned eating the kid lol.

Wells is still the main writer I can't rule it out.

Sounds like they're doing it just to have more panels of Norman killing Gwen :P.

Possible.

The thing is that, the way you describe it, this can only maybe benefit Spidey's character, but it doesn't benefit Norman's lol.

Like I don't really care that much about Norman, I always found him to be overrated when he never really did a lot of cool **** besides killing Gwen, but it's stupid whenever he gets screwed over for the sake of another character, that makes him be less imposing, and Spencer's run implying he was indirectly doing Mephisto's will by becoming Green Goblin was another case of this...

This is true but I'm kind of ok with it because ....what else can you do with Norman? Like he already killed his (first) love of his life and his baby, what more can he do to go next level? Like..nothing. It's one of the reasons I'm ok with villains moving on and gettig new ones, even if those new ones are just sucessors with similar powers. GG being absent led to Hobgoblin which was great. Sandman got development and became a hero, Doc Ock was throughly dismissed and replaced with both Lady Octopus and Calvin Calamari. Like I suspect this is jsut going to set GG up again as a villain, but I really hope Norman gets to make a heroic sacrifice and just dies. I DO think he's spidey's greatest villain, but lets get some new guys in there.

**** like this is why I say even Otto gets screwed over by Slott's plot over character writing style lol.

After he went back to a cloned body that was like his original, he was sad that Anna Maria was rejecting him and wondered if she'd be okay with him being in a body like Spidey's, it's, ridiculous, pathetic even, that someone as arrogant as Otto would even consider doing that:

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachmen...8821/image.png

(Clone Conspiracy#4).

Yeah Otto originally woudl be way too prideful to ever suggest Peter's body could be "superior" to his.

I fundamently dislike Silk as a charactor. Good costume and name but by Crom does her origin just feel just like Spider-Boy who is at least the third character that he has created for Spider-Man whose whole existence is based around being a lost part of history. Characters who were literally shoehorned into continuity for no really good reason.

Spider-Boy was apparently there the whole time but everyone just forgot about him.

Silk was the long lost other person who got bit by the radioactive spider. Ignoring the fact that that in Peter Parker the Spectacular Spider-Man 60 shows, Peter stomping on the spider right after it bit him.

Mr. Negative, honestly the most original character of the bunch is also a long lost part of another characters origin story. With him being of one of the people tested with the same drug that gave Cloak and Dagger their powers.

Mr. Negative is much better than he has any right to be with his vague powers and stupid costume (like....everyone would recognize him). But he's getting worse as time goes on. Silk has a terrible origin they need to retcon and Spider-Boy is just....lol.

Looking back at how Dan Slott created Silk ( Cindy Moon ) , I really don't like that supposedly she was bit by the same Spider as Peter .
I like to think of Peter as being unique , so can't editorial retcon Silk's origin ?
She could have been bitten by a different Spider thus giving her different powers.

Yeah when I tried to jump back into Dan's run after Superior Silk's origin immediately turned me off lol.

[Tendrin]

I mean this was one of my problems with Superior, that makes his actions in Superior make no sense. Like in 2, he breaks up with Mary Jane specifically because he reasons having someone more important causes him to prioritize that one person and be less efficient in saving lives. Why be heroic at all if he's still a villain deep down. And what about Peter's last ditch brainwash in 700? Did that just not work despite what he says? He just bounces in between noble hoerics and outright villain with no driving motivation.

Well, remember, he dived into Peter's memories and came to share a degree of affection for MJ as a result. Otto being Otto, however, his answer was to push her away as those feelings were a distraction from his own vision of how to be a better version of himself, and of Spider-Man. Otto didn't know how to balance or grapple those things, and overall, the story uses the same logic to demonstrate how this outlook on the needs of the many over the one is a fundamentally flawed approach to being a hero, particularly Spider-Man. Honestly, it holds together better than you think, even if its got its flaws and questionable choices. The through line is there from beginning to end. Like I said: Otto never demonstrates a truly heroic moment until the end when he's finally endured about an inch of what it actually costs to be Spider-Man and he can't hack it. He's too weak to make the decisions required when he can't control and predict the outcomes, and realizes it and finally chooses the appropriate answer: self-sacrifice, and righting the original wrong that led him here in the first place. Some view it as an act of cowardice, but I think it's pretty textually clear that he's sacrificng out of love and guilt, and there ain't nothing more Spider-man than guilt making you a better person. (See also, Gold Goblin.)

The seemingly wobbly characterization that's frustrating you, though, is a lot less inconsistent than you think, but it'd take a lot to get into that. XD

[Xenon]

Well, remember, he dived into Peter's memories and came to share a degree of affection for MJ as a result. Otto being Otto, however, his answer was to push her away as those feelings were a distraction from his own vision of how to be a better version of himself, and of Spider-Man. Otto didn't know how to balance or grapple those things, and overall, the story uses the same logic to demonstrate how this outlook on the needs of the many over the one is a fundamentally flawed approach to being a hero, particularly Spider-Man. Honestly, it holds together better than you think, even if its got its flaws and questionable choices. The through line is there from beginning to end. Like I said: Otto never demonstrates a truly heroic moment until the end when he's finally endured about an inch of what it actually costs to be Spider-Man and he can't hack it. He's too weak to make the decisions required when he can't control and predict the outcomes, and realizes it and finally chooses the appropriate answer: self-sacrifice, and righting the original wrong that led him here in the first place. Some view it as an act of cowardice, but I think it's pretty textually clear that he's sacrificng out of love and guilt, and there ain't nothing more Spider-man than guilt making you a better person. (See also, Gold Goblin.)

The seemingly wobbly characterization that's frustrating you, though, is a lot less inconsistent than you think, but it'd take a lot to get into that. XD

I think what you're arguing here is that Otto never has to actually sacrifice or struggle, perhaps, at least until the end, but I'm not sure that really absolves the inconsistent characterization. Otto does a plenty of things that are "good" and cost him time and effort. Or may even be bad for him. Like Killing massacre. There's no benefit to Otto to killing Massacre, in fact because it's so ooc for Peter it actually endangers him, but he still does it becuse he judges it the right thing to do. Even the breaking up with MJ, he obviously wants to bang her, that's the plot of the issue, but in the end he sacrifices that desire for the greater good. Just the fighting of crime itself is "sacrificial" to an extent. And that's consistent with 700 where Peter beams morals into him. But then, he shows no remorse or guilt over stealing a man's life. Shows no concern about erasing him a second time. Threatens that professor into submission to get what he wants, and just the whole trying to bang MJ under false pretenses thing entirely. Dying Wish makes it sem like Peter taught Otto his catchphrase, that with great power comes great responsibility, and though he killed Peter (which just puts the whole thing on a bad start), he vows to pick up that torch and carry it for him. Except when he doesn't. It just doesn't work for me.

[Tendrin]

I think what you're arguing here is that Otto never has to actually sacrifice or struggle, perhaps, at least until the end, but I'm not sure that really absolves the inconsistent characterization

But it was always academic, and he always felt he could control the consequences. And I think what you're viewing as 'inconsistent' is rather a deliberate authorial chocice to demonstrate a one step forward, two steps back sense of reversion to type. Otto never really changed until the end, he just adjusted his aims.

Like I said, it's less inconsistent than you think.

Otto does a plenty of things that are "good" and cost him time and effort. Or may even be bad for him. Like Killing massacre. There's no benefit to Otto to killing Massacre, in fact because it's so ooc for Peter it actually endangers him, but he still does it becuse he judges it the right thing to do.

There absolutely *is* a benefit to Otto for killing Massacre. He does that for himself. Does he judge it as the right thing to do? Yes, but only as a means of proving himself superior to Parker, 'doing what he was too weak to do'. The entire scene is a demonstration of Otto's hypocrisy and weakness as a person. His dialogue, like it does in the later 'No Escape' makes clear his lack of self-reflection.

Even the breaking up with MJ, he obviously wants to bang her, that's the plot of the issue, but in the end he sacrifices that desire for the greater good. Just the fighting of crime itself is "sacrificial" to an extent. And that's consistent with 700 where Peter beams morals into him.

Otto has never been portrayed as incapable of doing right by people he cares about, but he just mosty doesn't care about people, obviously, except as an abstract sense of the 'greater good'. (THE GREATER GOOD)

But then, he shows no remorse or guilt over stealing a man's life.

Right. That's the point. He's still a dick.

Shows no concern about erasing him a second time.

Correct. He's still a dick, but in fairness to him, he didn't see it as killing Peter a second time, rather, he saw it as putting down a fragmentary, leftover echo born of him accessing Parker's memories, rather than a 'real person'. Otto's justifications are ultimately what spells his doom.

Threatens that professor into submission to get what he wants, and just the whole trying to bang MJ under false pretenses thing entirely.

Right. He views himself as entitled to Parker's entire life. He's a bad guy. He just assumes MJ comes with the package and can't figure out why she's just not into him, and after he experiences Parker's memories, he finally starts seeing her as a person rather than something that belongs to Parker and therefore to him. He's horrible.

Dying Wish makes it sem like Peter taught Otto his catchphrase, that with great power comes great responsibility, and though he killed Peter (which just puts the whole thing on a bad start), he vows to pick up that torch and carry it for him. Except when he doesn't. It just doesn't work for me.

He *does* pick up the torch, though. He gained a sense of responsibility to his fellow man ... but Otto mostly views people as an abstract resource, with an abstract ideal of the greater good, which he meticulously plans for and is ultimately ruined by since Spider-man can't have it all. His lack of empathy and abstraction is after all what ultimately allows the Green Goblin to ruin everything he accomplished with ease, which is followed by Parker utterly defeating said Goblin with ease. Mind you, the Goblin's realization that Parker was back in the saddle followed by his immediate attempt to nope out was a highlight.

Anyways, I think you're being too hard on it, and coming at it from the wrong angle. You can take issues with a number of things in SSM, but I don't think Otto's characterization under Slott is one of them.

[Alan2099]

To me, Otto never felt like he became a hero for the right reasons. He would do heroic things, fight villains, and save people but it always felt more in serrvice to his own ego rather than it did to being a real good guy.

He was more interesting in being better than he was in being good.

[Tendrin]

To me, Otto never felt like he became a hero for the right reasons. He would do heroic things, fight villains, and save people but it always felt more in serrvice to his own ego rather than it did to being a real good guy.

He was more interesting in being better than he was in being good.

In fairness, Otto's intentions to do good with his new life were legitimate, but yeah, his self-interest and ego got in the way. Sounds like Doc Ock to me! When he *finally* makes the right decision, and erases himself fully, one has to look at that as the ultimate sacrifice, not just because it's his life, but *because* Ock is such an egotist that the total erasure of the ego would be ordinarily unconscionable to a guy like that, who was willing to steal another man's life rather than face its dissolution.

[Aura Blaize]

To me, Otto never felt like he became a hero for the right reasons. He would do heroic things, fight villains, and save people but it always felt more in serrvice to his own ego rather than it did to being a real good guy.

He was more interesting in being better than he was in being good.

Superior Vol 2 completely addressed that IMO. He still had an ego, but he was absolutely doing good for the sake of doing good. To the point where he was upset about not doing enough. He was on the road to being a genuine hero. And then, of course, Marvel pulled their bull just so we can have Doc Ock again.

[Tendrin]

Superior Vol 2 completely addressed that IMO. He still had an ego, but he was absolutely doing good for the sake of doing good. To the point where he was upset about not doing enough. He was on the road to being a genuine hero. And then, of course, Marvel pulled their bull just so we can have Doc Ock again.

That was all on Gage, tbh, not 'Marvel'. He's said as much.

[Venomsaurus]

So while I know Queen Goblin got killed off in Gold Goblin, I doubt she's out for the count in Wells' ASM plans. For one, once you're a Goblin, you're just kinda immortal and can come back from anything. I doubt he'd set her up in his series just to have her taken off the board in a side-comic. I figure she'll be back and turn Norman evil again.

[exile001]

Though retcons like this happen, but it's just silly to have someone else also be bitten by the spider at this point, even sillier to make the fucking pheromone bullshit.

That and the ludicrous idea that she was held in a bunker* for a decade+** as the reason we've never seen or heard of her before.

*a special, Inheritor proof bunker that blocked their ability to sense her. Is it like putting Lois in a lead lined coffin? Lol.

**and then Marvel doing nothing interesting with the concept of a person who'd lost a whole decade!

[exile001]

Neil Gaiman, to be precise. He actually wrote a pretty decent one-shot about the Riddler coming back from hiatus, only to be horrified at how the other members of Batman's rogues gallery had degenerated into murdering psychopaths when they used to just be relatively harmless troublemakers. "Was I away when the rules changed, for God's sake?!"

This was "When is a Door?" from 1989's Secret Origins Special. It's an absolute masterpiece of a short story.

When Is A Door.jpg