Marvel Universe >> View Post
·
Post By
The Black Guardian
Moderator

Location: Paragon City, RI
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
In Reply To
Unstable Molecule

Location: Calgary, AB Canada
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 3,103
Subj: Re: Better than the original?
Posted: Sun Jan 10, 2021 at 12:30:56 pm EST (Viewed 153 times)
Reply Subj: Re: Better than the original?
Posted: Thu Jan 07, 2021 at 12:18:31 pm EST (Viewed 192 times)

Previous Post

Hobgoblin was better than the Green Goblin. Hobgoblin took the goblin concept and separated it from the toxicity of the Osborn family. It was a great concept that fell apart due to well-documented editorial politics. If he had been revealed to be Richard Fisk instead of Kingsley, Hobgoblin would probably be a major presence and Norman may not have been revived.

Otto was better than Peter as Spider-man. FAR more effective. His brief time as Spidey made Peter seem like a complete failure who squandered his intelligence and potential. It made Peter's immaturity look like a tragic flaw, which was probably a meta dig at Peter's constant de-aging by editorial.

I also agree with the comments below that Zemo the son is better than his father.

The lack of Osborn is why I never really cared about Hobgoblin.

Aaaand Otto was better at being evil is what you're saying. Gotcha. He was definitely not a better Spider-Man. What floored me was that it took people so long to recognize his evil nature when it was so blatant.




City of Heroes is BACK!
Posted with Mozilla Firefox 84.0 on Windows 10
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2022 by Comicboards/TVShowboards. Software Copyright © 2003-2022 Powermad Software