Is the Spider-Man editorial approach out of touch instead of just spiteful?

[PCN24454]

This isn’t a problem exclusive to Spider-Man. It’s mostly a Marvel DC problem (and a couple other Western franchises).

Villains just aren’t supporting characters nor should they be treated as ones. They ultimately exist to beat up the hero and make then get beat up in turn. There’s no point in getting attached to them.

[Coop]

This isn’t a problem exclusive to Spider-Man. It’s mostly a Marvel DC problem (and a couple other Western franchises).

Villains just aren’t supporting characters nor should they be treated as ones. They ultimately exist to beat up the hero and make then get beat up in turn. There’s no point in getting attached to them.

Definitely don't agree with this. Part of what defines a hero is defined by compelling and interesting villains. Disposable villains don't make for a great story. Complex and interesting villains result in the best stories.

[Vegan]

This isn’t a problem exclusive to Spider-Man. It’s mostly a Marvel DC problem (and a couple other Western franchises).

Villains just aren’t supporting characters nor should they be treated as ones. They ultimately exist to beat up the hero and make then get beat up in turn. There’s no point in getting attached to them.

I’m not going to attempt to argue with this because I genuinely do not think you or anyone else in the world for that matter, genuinely believes this.

[Mister Mets]

Having reoccurring villains is definitely a feature not a bug.

Regarding winning fights vs losing fights. As with everything else the execution matters more than the scenario. You can write stories where Spider-Man gets help, struggles, loses, wins by the skin of his teeth, or stomps the villain. The issue with Wells is, imo, he does it in a lazily written way that makes Peter seem incompetent rather than the villain seeming powerful. They needed him to use the Osborn suit for a new costume for marketing/toys/whatever, so he gets beaten around and screams and cries for the suit on the phone.

The story takes for granted a lot of things and doesn't show the work. It's true in the plots, the character relationships, and the fights. For me at least, it's not simply "Peter no beat villain comic bad"

It has its pluses and minuses.

Writers can easily have different approaches.
Stern looked at villains from other titles Spider-Man hadn't fought before. JMS mostly made new bad guys. DeMatteis went in depth into the psychology of classic bad guys.

There are some strengths to focusing on new villains. It's more accessible to readers. It avoids the question of realism when a recurring foe breaks out for the 20th time.

But it's also nice to see the familiar favorites. And it's great when someone has a new take on a B-lister (or lower-level villain)

With the Vulture story, Peter called for help but Osborn couldn't give it. He had to go get it himself.

Definitely don't agree with this. Part of what defines a hero is defined by compelling and interesting villains. Disposable villains don't make for a great story. Complex and interesting villains result in the best stories.

It is possible to make new villains who are compelling and interesting. Though that wasn't quite the point you were responding to.

[Frontier]

The last successful new villain was Mr. Negative, pretty much. And I don't think he really struck a chord with people until the game.

[Coop]

It has its pluses and minuses.

Writers can easily have different approaches.
Stern looked at villains from other titles Spider-Man hadn't fought before. JMS mostly made new bad guys. DeMatteis went in depth into the psychology of classic bad guys.

There are some strengths to focusing on new villains. It's more accessible to readers. It avoids the question of realism when a recurring foe breaks out for the 20th time.

But it's also nice to see the familiar favorites. And it's great when someone has a new take on a B-lister (or lower-level villain)

With the Vulture story, Peter called for help but Osborn couldn't give it. He had to go get it himself.



It is possible to make new villains who are compelling and interesting. Though that wasn't quite the point you were responding to.

Well, nothing in my post inferred an opinion about new villains for good or bad. I only said said that reoccurring villains isn't a negative. I also didn't suggest new villains are inherently less interesting, over in Batman a lot of villains I enjoy are on the newer side. You can introduce a new villain who becomes reoccurring. My point was that having villains continue to participate in the story and grow and develop as characters is absolutely a plus not a minus. Not that introducing new characters is bad.

I'm not gonna debate the merits of Wells depiction of Pete's battles because we have such differing views on that it's not worth getting into.

So I'll respond to the bit about realism, for me complaining about realism in Superhero comics is silly. Talking people who are like "Batman should just kill the Joker even though he exists in a world where death as a concept is meaningless". It's just not a criticism I find valid at all. We're talking about a perpetual 24 year old whose existed since 1962 and lives in an offshoot reality created by selling his wife and unborn child to a devil like space/extra dimensional alien to heal a bullet wound in an old lady. If you're (not specifically you MisterMets) really out here complaining that villains get out of prison you picked the wrong hobby hahah

[Garlador]

It has its pluses and minuses.

Writers can easily have different approaches.
Stern looked at villains from other titles Spider-Man hadn't fought before. JMS mostly made new bad guys. DeMatteis went in depth into the psychology of classic bad guys.

There are some strengths to focusing on new villains. It's more accessible to readers. It avoids the question of realism when a recurring foe breaks out for the 20th time.

But it's also nice to see the familiar favorites. And it's great when someone has a new take on a B-lister (or lower-level villain)

With the Vulture story, Peter called for help but Osborn couldn't give it. He had to go get it himself.



It is possible to make new villains who are compelling and interesting. Though that wasn't quite the point you were responding to.

Well, nothing in my post inferred an opinion about new villains for good or bad. I only said said that reoccurring villains isn't a negative. I also didn't suggest new villains are inherently less interesting, over in Batman a lot of villains I enjoy are on the newer side. You can introduce a new villain who becomes reoccurring. My point was that having villains continue to participate in the story and grow and develop as characters is absolutely a plus not a minus. Not that introducing new characters is bad.

So I'll respond to the bit about realism, for me complaining about realism in Superhero comics is silly. Talking people who are like "Batman should just kill the Joker even though he exists in a world where death as a concept is meaningless". It's just not a criticism I find valid at all. We're talking about a perpetual 24 year old whose existed since 1962 and lives in an offshoot reality created by selling his wife and unborn child to a devil like space/extra dimensional alien to heal a bullet wound in an old lady. If you're (not specifically you MisterMets) really out here complaining that villains get out of prison you picked the wrong hobby hahah

It depends. There are successes and failures with both approaches.

[PCN24454]

Well, nothing in my post inferred an opinion about new villains for good or bad. I only said said that reoccurring villains isn't a negative. I also didn't suggest new villains are inherently less interesting, over in Batman a lot of villains I enjoy are on the newer side. You can introduce a new villain who becomes reoccurring. My point was that having villains continue to participate in the story and grow and develop as characters is absolutely a plus not a minus. Not that introducing new characters is bad.

I'm not gonna debate the merits of Wells depiction of Pete's battles because we have such differing views on that it's not worth getting into.

So I'll respond to the bit about realism, for me complaining about realism in Superhero comics is silly. Talking people who are like "Batman should just kill the Joker even though he exists in a world where death as a concept is meaningless". It's just not a criticism I find valid at all. We're talking about a perpetual 24 year old whose existed since 1962 and lives in an offshoot reality created by selling his wife and unborn child to a devil like space/extra dimensional alien to heal a bullet wound in an old lady. If you're (not specifically you MisterMets) really out here complaining that villains get out of prison you picked the wrong hobby hahah

Are you saying that Peter selling his marriage and his supposedly unborn child to the devil was ok because comics are perpetually stagnant by nature?

I feel like this why I started to gravitate towards adaptations and manga. They’re allowed much more freedom in how far the plot can go.

By contrast, Peter can’t make any big changes to his life or the world around him cause it would interfere with other characters’ stories.

[Frontier]

Are you saying that Peter selling his marriage and his supposedly unborn child to the devil was ok because comics are perpetually stagnant by nature?

I feel like this why I started to gravitate towards adaptations and manga. They’re allowed much more freedom in how far the plot can go.

By contrast, Peter can’t make any big changes to his life or the world around him cause it would interfere with other characters’ stories.

How much have those adaptions benefited, though, from the repeated appearances of characters such as villains? And even in those adaptions the villains still appear more than once.

[Coop]

Are you saying that Peter selling his marriage and his supposedly unborn child to the devil was ok because comics are perpetually stagnant by nature?

No I think it absolutely sucks and is the worst decision ever made in comics and OMD and OMIT are two of the worst stories ever told with the character. I won't defend much about the current state of marvel comics.

I just think in storytelling, reoccurring villains can be a good thing. Like everything else it depends on how it's executed

[Lifetap]

I understand the importance of recurring villains in stories, but when stories get as long as Spider-Man and other comics I think they become somewhat of an anchor on the hero.

If you want a recurring villain in a story you basically have two main paths:
Hero + Villain fight > Villain is captured/arrested > Villain easily escapes confinement > The Heroes victory is hollow as the initial plan may have been stopped but another more villainous plan is around the corner. Do this enough times and you get the 'Batman should just kill Joker effect'
or
Hero + Villain fight > Villain wins/is defeated but escapes anyway > Villain is free to return at another time without having to escape confinement > Hero is ineffective and can't seem to actually win a fight

Which is why obviously the best approach in my opinion is to create new villains as you cycle through recurring ones, the issue is largely that creating new villains that actually stick seems to be tough as it is often up to chance. As unless you get a super long run as a writer you probably have one or two chances to try and sell a character, which has to be interesting enough that future writers become interested in them and add them to their stories, and the character has to compete with existing villains who have had years to build and develop.

[marvelprince]

I understand the importance of recurring villains in stories, but when stories get as long as Spider-Man and other comics I think they become somewhat of an anchor on the hero.

If you want a recurring villain in a story you basically have two main paths:
Hero + Villain fight > Villain is captured/arrested > Villain easily escapes confinement > The Heroes victory is hollow as the initial plan may have been stopped but another more villainous plan is around the corner. Do this enough times and you get the 'Batman should just kill Joker effect'
or
Hero + Villain fight > Villain wins/is defeated but escapes anyway > Villain is free to return at another time without having to escape confinement > Hero is ineffective and can't seem to actually win a fight

Which is why obviously the best approach in my opinion is to create new villains as you cycle through recurring ones, the issue is largely that creating new villains that actually stick seems to be tough as it is often up to chance. As unless you get a super long run as a writer you probably have one or two chances to try and sell a character, which has to be interesting enough that future writers become interested in them and add them to their stories, and the character has to compete with existing villains who have had years to build and develop.

Its a little overly simplistic though, especially when a character like Spider-Man has villains that have personal relationships with him. He's not limited to fight villains / escape / repeat , with Peter his villains can show up his life, at his work. Maybe they're in a situation where they need to work together? Ock and Peter have a ridiculously complex relationship now solely due to the fact he was a long time recurring villain.

[PCN24454]

Its a little overly simplistic though, especially when a character like Spider-Man has villains that have personal relationships with him. He's not limited to fight villains / escape / repeat , with Peter his villains can show up his life, at his work. Maybe they're in a situation where they need to work together? Ock and Peter have a ridiculously complex relationship now solely due to the fact he was a long time recurring villain.

I honestly don’t like that since it trivializes the point of having a secret identity when everyone important either knows who he is or interacts with him anyways.

[marvelprince]

I honestly don’t like that since it trivializes the point of having a secret identity when everyone important either knows who he is or interacts with him anyways.

Its not a necessity that Peter would need to have his identity known by a bad guy to have him intersect with Peter in his personal life though.

[PCN24454]

Its not a necessity that Peter would need to have his identity known by a bad guy to have him intersect with Peter in his personal life though.

It’s necessary in making sure the encounter doesn’t feel contrived.