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: 3,089
Subj: Re: Better than the original?
Posted: Sun Jan 10, 2021 at 12:30:56 pm EST (Viewed 147 times)
Reply Subj: Re: Better than the original?
Posted: Thu Jan 07, 2021 at 12:18:31 pm EST (Viewed 182 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!