Symbiotes vs Goblins

[Heasensy32]

Harry and his dad aren't cool villians, they dress up like kiddy sentai villians and throw pumpkin grenades at people. I mean surely Norman had the right idea to ditch the green gayelf shtick when he was leading the dark avengers no one would have taken him seriously.

[exile001]

It'd be really hard for me to pick which has the bigger impact on the franchise as a whole.

I think I'm more partial to a goblin, because I like more goblins than symbiotes.

Goblins:

Green Goblin 1 (Norman), 2 (Harry) and 3 (Hamilton).

Hobgoblin 1 (Roderick), 2 (Jason), 3 (Phil)

Demogoblin

I never got into Menace, and really don't like the actual mutated goblin-people stuff at all.

Symbiotes:

Venom (Eddie)

Agent Venom (Flash. It's a solid progression for Venom I guess. Still hate that it's Flash)

Carnage (at least 1 in every 5 appearances is good, so he gets a pass)

Toxin (Eddie, and only then because he can't be Venom again)

[Agent Z]

Thanks for the responses so far guys, I'm liking how this conversation is developing. Anyway, I was thinking about the Spider-Man TAS and how that show came up with the idea of the symbiote being a corrupting force for Peter. I didn't mind it at fist but then it bugged me how this seemed to carry on to other incarnations even the comics. I think the original story has something of a tragic element to it. The symbiote wasn't evil, it was just doing what it's species needed to survive. The problem was that it wanted to be attached to Peter 24/7 and wouldn't let him have his rest. This is also more frightening than it being a generic force for evil because the symbiote was merely ignorant of how it was negatively impacting Peter. As cheesy as it sounds, I think the symbiote was kind of sympathetic back then. I've even heard one writer describe it as a pet that grew to love it's master too much.

As for the Goblins, I haven't read much about Phil Ulrich but I still am a bit dissapointed as I'm sure some fans are that he ended up as yet another evil Goblin (seriously we can have a good symbiote but not a good or at least morally gray Goblin). Well, maybe a new guy could fill that role. Harry maybe?

[Pav]

I'd love to delve a little deeper into what makes some of the goblins and symbiotes work (while others seem not to work so well); so far people really seem interested in only explaining their own subjective preferences - "I Like X but not Y" or merely pointing to the histories of the characters, as if that's all that matters - "Norman is the best because he killed Gwen and Ben and Baby May and..." - because I maintain that what the characters represent is equally important, if not more important, than their histories. (One could argue that they are famous historically BECAUSE of what they mean thematically to the series.)

First, I think it's easy to see why someone like Doc Ock is so important to the mythos, as he is a blatant "evil Peter Parker" - a nerd who gained powers and had to decide what to do with them; obviously Ock wasn't raised as Peter was and so went down a different path. OF course, we're not here to talk about Ock.

Norman and Harry are vital because their relationship is like a funhouse mirror of Uncle Ben and Peter's relationship. If Norman were more like Uncle Ben, then perhaps Harry would be the kind of hero that Peter Parker has become: self-sacrificing, brave, noble. Unfortunately for Harry, his father was a ruthless, selfish businessman and egomaniac. Thematically, I think the Goblins show the importance of generational relationships: we are heroes or villains because of what we were taught, how we were raised - essentially, what was done to us becomes what we do to others; each of us has great power in that we lead future adults down a certain path during their childhood, but not everyone can handle this great responsibility. (I could also get into how Norman represents "legitimate business/politics" while Peter represents "freelancing", which I think is interesting to look at given the state of the U.S. right now, but I haven't fully fleshed out my ideas regarding that yet.) Overall, I think the "goblin" motif functions well in the Spidey comics because it symbolizes how a person becomes a monster.

The Venom/Spider-Man relationship is much more blatant, I think, in that Venom is clearly "dark Spider-Man." Any writer who knows what he's doing should always play up the harmony between the two characters - what makes them the same - while simultaneously playing up the variety between them - what makes them different despite their similarities. This is one reason why I like Flash as Venom: he certainly has a sense of responsibility to match his power, but while a writer will more or less constantly show the positive side of that with Spidey, a writer can show the tragedy and horror inherent in the situation as well. Flash's substance abuse, for example, is vital to the character of Venom now, in my mind: can one be addicted to "doing good"? What happens when one part of your life has to be sacrificed for another part? Is that ever a good thing? These kinds of questions are asked in both Spidey and Venom comics, but the answers we get are different because of the subtle (or not so subtle) differences between the two characters and their experiences. With Flash as Venom, it's almost like getting a What If? Spidey where things are dark dark dark but who gets to interact with the "normal" Spidey.

The further we get into "spinoff" characters, the less thematic resonance is felt, I think. But that's not to say that these other characters don't present unique perspectives. For example, Carnage shows both Spidey and Venom what happens when someone can no longer identify with any common moral beliefs; he also symbolizes the chaos inherent in our lives: Peter started using the symbiote innocently and for heroic purposes, yet this led to the creation of Carnage, a super-powered serial killer. Spidey could've never known this would happen, just as we don't know how our actions will eventually lead to other actions and events. How responsible should someone feel in this scenario? It's an interesting question.

I'm hoping that the character of Phil Urich will stick around as a more-or-less regularly recurring character, as he is clearly a mirror of Peter Parker yet also gets to function as a goblin. Guys like Bart Hamilton and Jason Macendale just didn't have that going for them, and so it's no surprise that they are no longer vital, often-used characters. Lately, Phil's his motto seems to be "With Great Responsibility Must Come Great Power" - and it's super interesting to see the Spidey motto turned on its head and investigated from that vantage.

All of these guys make for interesting threats because they show us how Spidey MIGHT have been if things had gone differently. That's what separates these guys from someone like Shocker or Electro, who are excellent characters but don't hold the thematic weight that the best goblins and symbiotes (and octopi) do.

And, okay, I don't think Demogoblin has really offered much thematically in the past; I just like the dude. I think he holds a lot of potential for whoever decides to dust off the concept again.

-Pav, who has guilty favorites too...

[Zeitgeist]

Goblins, Symbiotes - there's been way too many of both, but particularly the latter. They were practically giving out symbiote costumes in the bottom of cereal boxes in the 90s, and that along with general character mishandling helped Venom and Carnage become pretty played out, IMO.

[Venomous Mask]

Vanage looks like a Red venom character with some Carnage abilities. Besides that there is now history just a character with skills.

There's also the cybernetic abilities (minigun, handcannon) and the interesting way he talks. I agree that there is currently no history but I think it could be fleshed in the right hands unlike just regular mods like Bloodthirsty Venom and Sulfur Venom.

Thanks for the responses so far guys, I'm liking how this conversation is developing. Anyway, I was thinking about the Spider-Man TAS and how that show came up with the idea of the symbiote being a corrupting force for Peter. I didn't mind it at fist but then it bugged me how this seemed to carry on to other incarnations even the comics. I think the original story has something of a tragic element to it. The symbiote wasn't evil, it was just doing what it's species needed to survive. The problem was that it wanted to be attached to Peter 24/7 and wouldn't let him have his rest. This is also more frightening than it being a generic force for evil because the symbiote was merely ignorant of how it was negatively impacting Peter. As cheesy as it sounds, I think the symbiote was kind of sympathetic back then. I've even heard one writer describe it as a pet that grew to love it's master too much.

As for the Goblins, I haven't read much about Phil Ulrich but I still am a bit dissapointed as I'm sure some fans are that he ended up as yet another evil Goblin (seriously we can have a good symbiote but not a good or at least morally gray Goblin). Well, maybe a new guy could fill that role. Harry maybe?

The Venom symbiote was actually an aberration in that it wanted to bond with its host rather than just consume it. Its desire to have a relationship with its host disgusted the other symbiotes and it was slated for execution when Spiderman found it. As time has gone on, it has increasingly wanted to dominate its host (like what happened in The Hunger and the beginning of the new Venom series) but it has never gone down the usual part of sucking an individual dry and then moving on to another one.

As for Urich, he never really was a hero to begin with. When he was the Green Goblin, it was more about having fun than actually helping people. He had none of Peter's sense of responsibility and thus I think was vulnerable to becoming evil.

I'd love to delve a little deeper into what makes some of the goblins and symbiotes work (while others seem not to work so well); so far people really seem interested in only explaining their own subjective preferences - "I Like X but not Y" or merely pointing to the histories of the characters, as if that's all that matters - "Norman is the best because he killed Gwen and Ben and Baby May and..." - because I maintain that what the characters represent is equally important, if not more important, than their histories. (One could argue that they are famous historically BECAUSE of what they mean thematically to the series.)

First, I think it's easy to see why someone like Doc Ock is so important to the mythos, as he is a blatant "evil Peter Parker" - a nerd who gained powers and had to decide what to do with them; obviously Ock wasn't raised as Peter was and so went down a different path. OF course, we're not here to talk about Ock.

Norman and Harry are vital because their relationship is like a funhouse mirror of Uncle Ben and Peter's relationship. If Norman were more like Uncle Ben, then perhaps Harry would be the kind of hero that Peter Parker has become: self-sacrificing, brave, noble. Unfortunately for Harry, his father was a ruthless, selfish businessman and egomaniac. Thematically, I think the Goblins show the importance of generational relationships: we are heroes or villains because of what we were taught, how we were raised - essentially, what was done to us becomes what we do to others; each of us has great power in that we lead future adults down a certain path during their childhood, but not everyone can handle this great responsibility. (I could also get into how Norman represents "legitimate business/politics" while Peter represents "freelancing", which I think is interesting to look at given the state of the U.S. right now, but I haven't fully fleshed out my ideas regarding that yet.) Overall, I think the "goblin" motif functions well in the Spidey comics because it symbolizes how a person becomes a monster.

The Venom/Spider-Man relationship is much more blatant, I think, in that Venom is clearly "dark Spider-Man." Any writer who knows what he's doing should always play up the harmony between the two characters - what makes them the same - while simultaneously playing up the variety between them - what makes them different despite their similarities. This is one reason why I like Flash as Venom: he certainly has a sense of responsibility to match his power, but while a writer will more or less constantly show the positive side of that with Spidey, a writer can show the tragedy and horror inherent in the situation as well. Flash's substance abuse, for example, is vital to the character of Venom now, in my mind: can one be addicted to "doing good"? What happens when one part of your life has to be sacrificed for another part? Is that ever a good thing? These kinds of questions are asked in both Spidey and Venom comics, but the answers we get are different because of the subtle (or not so subtle) differences between the two characters and their experiences. With Flash as Venom, it's almost like getting a What If? Spidey where things are dark dark dark but who gets to interact with the "normal" Spidey.

The further we get into "spinoff" characters, the less thematic resonance is felt, I think. But that's not to say that these other characters don't present unique perspectives. For example, Carnage shows both Spidey and Venom what happens when someone can no longer identify with any common moral beliefs; he also symbolizes the chaos inherent in our lives: Peter started using the symbiote innocently and for heroic purposes, yet this led to the creation of Carnage, a super-powered serial killer. Spidey could've never known this would happen, just as we don't know how our actions will eventually lead to other actions and events. How responsible should someone feel in this scenario? It's an interesting question.

I'm hoping that the character of Phil Urich will stick around as a more-or-less regularly recurring character, as he is clearly a mirror of Peter Parker yet also gets to function as a goblin. Guys like Bart Hamilton and Jason Macendale just didn't have that going for them, and so it's no surprise that they are no longer vital, often-used characters. Lately, Phil's his motto seems to be "With Great Responsibility Must Come Great Power" - and it's super interesting to see the Spidey motto turned on its head and investigated from that vantage.

All of these guys make for interesting threats because they show us how Spidey MIGHT have been if things had gone differently. That's what separates these guys from someone like Shocker or Electro, who are excellent characters but don't hold the thematic weight that the best goblins and symbiotes (and octopi) do.

And, okay, I don't think Demogoblin has really offered much thematically in the past; I just like the dude. I think he holds a lot of potential for whoever decides to dust off the concept again.

-Pav, who has guilty favorites too...

Given his upbringing, Harry turned out pretty good. It was really only when he had two mental breakdowns that he became seriously dangerous. He was never the amoral sociopath his father is.

Peter has stated several times that bringing the symbiote back to Earth was one of the worst decisions that he ever made. Of course, he couldn't have known the full consequences of what he was doing, but then again, his spider sense did go off the first time he encountered the symbiote.

Goblins, Symbiotes - there's been way too many of both, but particularly the latter. They were practically giving out symbiote costumes in the bottom of cereal boxes in the 90s, and that along with general character mishandling helped Venom and Carnage become pretty played out, IMO.

Venom and Carnage were really the only symbiotes of note in the 90s. The five Life Foundation symbiotes were only featured in a few isolated stories, including the ones where four of them merged to become Hybrid. Outside of that and the Planet of the Symbiotes arc, only Venom and Carnage were ever around.

[Metamorphosis]

I'd love to delve a little deeper into what makes some of the goblins and symbiotes work (while others seem not to work so well); so far people really seem interested in only explaining their own subjective preferences - "I Like X but not Y" or merely pointing to the histories of the characters, as if that's all that matters - "Norman is the best because he killed Gwen and Ben and Baby May and..." - because I maintain that what the characters represent is equally important, if not more important, than their histories. (One could argue that they are famous historically BECAUSE of what they mean thematically to the series.)

First, I think it's easy to see why someone like Doc Ock is so important to the mythos, as he is a blatant "evil Peter Parker" - a nerd who gained powers and had to decide what to do with them; obviously Ock wasn't raised as Peter was and so went down a different path. OF course, we're not here to talk about Ock.

Norman and Harry are vital because their relationship is like a funhouse mirror of Uncle Ben and Peter's relationship. If Norman were more like Uncle Ben, then perhaps Harry would be the kind of hero that Peter Parker has become: self-sacrificing, brave, noble. Unfortunately for Harry, his father was a ruthless, selfish businessman and egomaniac. Thematically, I think the Goblins show the importance of generational relationships: we are heroes or villains because of what we were taught, how we were raised - essentially, what was done to us becomes what we do to others; each of us has great power in that we lead future adults down a certain path during their childhood, but not everyone can handle this great responsibility. (I could also get into how Norman represents "legitimate business/politics" while Peter represents "freelancing", which I think is interesting to look at given the state of the U.S. right now, but I haven't fully fleshed out my ideas regarding that yet.) Overall, I think the "goblin" motif functions well in the Spidey comics because it symbolizes how a person becomes a monster.

The Venom/Spider-Man relationship is much more blatant, I think, in that Venom is clearly "dark Spider-Man." Any writer who knows what he's doing should always play up the harmony between the two characters - what makes them the same - while simultaneously playing up the variety between them - what makes them different despite their similarities. This is one reason why I like Flash as Venom: he certainly has a sense of responsibility to match his power, but while a writer will more or less constantly show the positive side of that with Spidey, a writer can show the tragedy and horror inherent in the situation as well. Flash's substance abuse, for example, is vital to the character of Venom now, in my mind: can one be addicted to "doing good"? What happens when one part of your life has to be sacrificed for another part? Is that ever a good thing? These kinds of questions are asked in both Spidey and Venom comics, but the answers we get are different because of the subtle (or not so subtle) differences between the two characters and their experiences. With Flash as Venom, it's almost like getting a What If? Spidey where things are dark dark dark but who gets to interact with the "normal" Spidey.

The further we get into "spinoff" characters, the less thematic resonance is felt, I think. But that's not to say that these other characters don't present unique perspectives. For example, Carnage shows both Spidey and Venom what happens when someone can no longer identify with any common moral beliefs; he also symbolizes the chaos inherent in our lives: Peter started using the symbiote innocently and for heroic purposes, yet this led to the creation of Carnage, a super-powered serial killer. Spidey could've never known this would happen, just as we don't know how our actions will eventually lead to other actions and events. How responsible should someone feel in this scenario? It's an interesting question.

I'm hoping that the character of Phil Urich will stick around as a more-or-less regularly recurring character, as he is clearly a mirror of Peter Parker yet also gets to function as a goblin. Guys like Bart Hamilton and Jason Macendale just didn't have that going for them, and so it's no surprise that they are no longer vital, often-used characters. Lately, Phil's his motto seems to be "With Great Responsibility Must Come Great Power" - and it's super interesting to see the Spidey motto turned on its head and investigated from that vantage.

All of these guys make for interesting threats because they show us how Spidey MIGHT have been if things had gone differently. That's what separates these guys from someone like Shocker or Electro, who are excellent characters but don't hold the thematic weight that the best goblins and symbiotes (and octopi) do.

And, okay, I don't think Demogoblin has really offered much thematically in the past; I just like the dude. I think he holds a lot of potential for whoever decides to dust off the concept again.

-Pav, who has guilty favorites too...

I think people make way too much of the "dark mirror" aspect of Peter's villains, and it's a story trick that's become almost as run of the mill as symbiotes and goblins themselves.

I never really saw Venom as the "dark mirror" of Spider-man. Maybe in ways. You could certainly make the case for it, but that's not all Brock Venom had going for him.

As for Phil Urich, what they did with him was very cynical and lazy storytelling. Have they really done anything with him being the flipside of Peter since early in Slott's Big Time run? He was selling pictures of himself as Hobgoblin to the Bugle and he has an Uncle Ben and whatnot, but now he's been outed and gone underground. What was really disappointing with Phil was that they took a character who was once a hero and made him this dipshitty, cackling, kind of Joker-y Goblin who was going insane. It didn't add anything to him, and in fact, he seemed like Phil in name only. It could have been any new character. He became a Goblin that could almost kill Spider-man when they first meet, who could hold his own with Kingsley when he came back, but get his ass kicked by every other single character he faced. And of course, Kingpin keeps him around--because why again? Yeah, Philgoblin sucks ass--he's a terrible Hobgoblin.

If you really wanna get to the heart of why goblins and symbiotes work so well in Spider-man, I really think it's because they look cool. They have dark, kind of Halloween-ish imagery that hooks people. Doesn't hurt when the villains themselves are written in a good, compelling way. Which, 75% of the time, they're not.

[BlitheringToot]

I generally prefer goblins but I love the symbiotes, too. I would've loved to see an epic throwdown between Norman/Gobby and Eddie/Venom.

[Pav]

As for Phil Urich, what they did with him was very cynical and lazy storytelling. Have they really done anything with him being the flipside of Peter since early in Slott's Big Time run? He was selling pictures of himself as Hobgoblin to the Bugle and he has an Uncle Ben and whatnot, but now he's been outed and gone underground. What was really disappointing with Phil was that they took a character who was once a hero and made him this dipshitty, cackling, kind of Joker-y Goblin who was going insane. It didn't add anything to him, and in fact, he seemed like Phil in name only. It could have been any new character. He became a Goblin that could almost kill Spider-man when they first meet, who could hold his own with Kingsley when he came back, but get his ass kicked by every other single character he faced. And of course, Kingpin keeps him around--because why again? Yeah, Philgoblin sucks ass--he's a terrible Hobgoblin.

I definitely get what you're saying and agree with some of it to a certain degree. I don't think Slott (or other writers) has handled the character perfectly; I can see the clunkiness in Phil's character progression, but I also think your reading of Phil is a little off. First, I think it's clear that Phil was always supposed to be a riff on Peter Parker in his first appearances. It seems like Tom Defalco was trying to create a "90s Peter" who liked fun more than responsibility, and had yet to learn the tough lessons that Peter learned with the death of his Uncle Ben, which is why I wouldn't consider him a straight "hero" even back then. Second, Phil's slide into insanity wasn't established by Slott but by C.B. Cebulski in the Loners miniseries, and I think Slott justifiably saw an opportunity to establish Phil as a symbolically important antagonist based on the sum of his parts. So I don't agree that Phil could've been "any other character" because his backstory was used to establish his present characterization and his perspective as the nephew of Ben Urich gives him a unique place in the landscape of Spidey's world (especially as a gateway into a Daily Bugle that doesn't employ Peter Parker). The execution might not have been there, but I still like the idea of what Slott tried to do. Hopefully a future writer will really nail what was set into motion by him.

Also, as an aside, I like the potential that Phil brings to the Hobgoblin identity in terms of emphasizing the traditional concept of a hobgoblin as a being that is neither purely good or bad but more of a trickster.

If you really wanna get to the heart of why goblins and symbiotes work so well in Spider-man, I really think it's because they look cool. They have dark, kind of Halloween-ish imagery that hooks people. Doesn't hurt when the villains themselves are written in a good, compelling way. Which, 75% of the time, they're not.

Ha! Totally agree with you there. In this visual medium, the character has to look right. The goblins and the symbiote characters definitely have that going for them much of the time.

-Pav, who needs remind no one of the importance of costuming with Spider-Gwen around...

[Tupiaz]

Goblins, Symbiotes - there's been way too many of both, but particularly the latter. They were practically giving out symbiote costumes in the bottom of cereal boxes in the 90s, and that along with general character mishandling helped Venom and Carnage become pretty played out, IMO.

But it gave us this awesome book:

http://blip.tv/at4w/at4w-spider-man-...tes-sd-5671003

There's also the cybernetic abilities (minigun, handcannon) and the interesting way he talks. I agree that there is currently no history but I think it could be fleshed in the right hands unlike just regular mods like Bloodthirsty Venom and Sulfur Venom.

But what is the need for another symbiote?

[Metamorphosis]

I definitely get what you're saying and agree with some of it to a certain degree. I don't think Slott (or other writers) has handled the character perfectly; I can see the clunkiness in Phil's character progression, but I also think your reading of Phil is a little off. First, I think it's clear that Phil was always supposed to be a riff on Peter Parker in his first appearances. It seems like Tom Defalco was trying to create a "90s Peter" who liked fun more than responsibility, and had yet to learn the tough lessons that Peter learned with the death of his Uncle Ben, which is why I wouldn't consider him a straight "hero" even back then. Second, Phil's slide into insanity wasn't established by Slott but by C.B. Cebulski in the Loners miniseries, and I think Slott justifiably saw an opportunity to establish Phil as a symbolically important antagonist based on the sum of his parts. So I don't agree that Phil could've been "any other character" because his backstory was used to establish his present characterization and his perspective as the nephew of Ben Urich gives him a unique place in the landscape of Spidey's world (especially as a gateway into a Daily Bugle that doesn't employ Peter Parker). The execution might not have been there, but I still like the idea of what Slott tried to do. Hopefully a future writer will really nail what was set into motion by him.

Also, as an aside, I like the potential that Phil brings to the Hobgoblin identity in terms of emphasizing the traditional concept of a hobgoblin as a being that is neither purely good or bad but more of a trickster.



Ha! Totally agree with you there. In this visual medium, the character has to look right. The goblins and the symbiote characters definitely have that going for them much of the time.

-Pav, who needs remind no one of the importance of costuming with Spider-Gwen around...

Yes, I was reading Spectacular way back when DeFalco introduced Phil. I even read his Green Goblin series for awhile. Gotta say the stuff was fair but Phil didn't make a whole lot of an impression even back then.

But we have another character in Phil going mad after ingesting goblin serum (again), and finds another one of Norman's lairs stocked to the ceiling with gear (again--they really need to stop going to that well). Not sure if I've been reading too long, or if they're doing too many of the same stories and not in a different enough way.

What I saw of Gage's Superior annual #2 about Phil and Ben Urich looked pretty good. In the hands of the right writer, Phil could have potential. Just wish he wasn't trying to be Hobgoblin. That should just be Roderick.

[MASTER-OF-SUPRISE]

What impact did Venom have? He knew PP's secret (but venom agreed that the beef was between them and not with others) and he was a treat because he could not sense him. Green Goblin had a much larger impact on PP's life.

Spoilers:
GG killed Gwen, he made Flash drink again and then got him crippled Flash by a car accident. He took away PP's child and he adducted Aunt May, he was behind the clone scheme (it was original Jackal but since Marvel is obsessed with putting GG behind every scheme he was behind this too), he is the father to one of his best friends (who then later also became the Green Goblin who got PP believe his parents was alive it was the Chameleon to be begin with but it was changed to being Harry),and I'm probably forgetting something at the moment.


Spoiler free:
How many kids played with Vennom toys or think Venom was a cool character as child doesn't make Venom better Character. Maybe more relatable but saying Venom had a bigger impact on PP's life, mythos. GG is the biggest impact on PP's life it is even a contents.

Norman's impact was limited to the comics for a long time. if you asked someone who hadn't read a comic but saw the show in the 90s their more likely to say Doc Ock or Venom. I'm just saying why my opinion is biased. Venom was the enemy he couldn't escape. He could appear anywhere it didn't matter if Peter was in his civilian or superhero identity. Eddie was essentially the evil Spider-Man. Then they did the whole anti-hero thing. Carnage his goal was just kill everything I see. But he was definitely a huge threat because it forced the team up between Spider-Man and Venom. Eddie wasn't as above involving other people. Didn't he involve MJ at one point?

[Tupiaz]

Norman's impact was limited to the comics for a long time. if you asked someone who hadn't read a comic but saw the show in the 90s their more likely to say Doc Ock or Venom. I'm just saying why my opinion is biased. Venom was the enemy he couldn't escape. He could appear anywhere it didn't matter if Peter was in his civilian or superhero identity. Eddie was essentially the evil Spider-Man. Then they did the whole anti-hero thing. Carnage his goal was just kill everything I see. But he was definitely a huge threat because it forced the team up between Spider-Man and Venom. Eddie wasn't as above involving other people. Didn't he involve MJ at one point?

Kingpin was the big enemy in the show. Hoever Green Goblin and the hobgoblin had several good episodes. Doc Octavius had some appearance in the same league. However again the impact isn't that important for which character is the best or richest history. I was kid in the 90's and one of my favourites from the show and that i had a figure of was Hobgoblin.

[Beacon]

Norman's impact was limited to the comics for a long time.

…until the movies where Norman and Harry are prominent threats and Eddie was shoehorned in as an afterthought by Sony.

I guess using Venom before the Green Goblins in the Fox cartoon might support your claim if not for (a) the Hobgoblin being around since the beginning, (b) the Osborns being around from the beginning, and (c) the Green Goblin being treated as a villain you build up to.

We can’t count any media adaptations from the 30-some years before that because Venom didn’t exist yet. I guess the people making the 60s and 80s Spider-Man cartoons were just biding their time until an important villain got introduced.