https://www.cbr.com/marvel-spider-ma...tes-downsides/
I'm amused Green Goblin made #5. It's true, but not for the reason listed.
I don't think family members should count against the arbitrary overexposed appearance quota. Put Liz Allan in Venom, and it's an example of the parasitic relationship spin-off books have on the franchise. Put her in Spider-Man, and it's "Osborn family drama overexposure" hours once more. Marvel cannot win.
On a similar note, I hope the Kindred arc wasn't "counted" as Norman wasn't "behind everything". When Spider-Man's archenemy appears
spoilers:
in Spider-Man 2099: exodus alpha |
end of spoilers, my initial musings shouldn't be about whether Mephisto is ultimately responsible. I'd welcome a possible return to form if it meant Mephisto was buried under the Shed.
As I see it, merging overexposure and master manipulator Norman weakened their intended argument. It is odd to suggest Spider-man's books stagnate because of a cliche no longer in place. It's been ten years at least since we've seen that kind of status quo for 616 Peter Parker. I agree Spider-man's other
villainous figures need more attention. Tombstone's appearance in ASM #1 was the highlight of the book.
They've all been mismanaged alongside Peter Parker and his supporting cast. Most contemporary Osborn showings were failed attempts to fundamentally change the character, so a more fair criticism might be "616 is running short on ideas for the Green Goblin". I'd have split that off from the "neglected villain" argument to make a list of nine.