Amazing Spider-Man Message Board >> View Post
·
Post By
Omar Karindu

In Reply To
Comp

Subj: Re: You know what's evident from this thread?
Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 11:20:02 pm EDT (Viewed 2 times)
Reply Subj: Re: You know what's evident from this thread?
Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 08:55:21 pm EDT (Viewed 1 times)

Previous Post

> > > That it's been 15+ years since Spidey has had even a somewhat classic addition to his rogues gallery. And don't give me Morlun, he's terrible.
> > >
> >
> > Kaine is the last REALLY good major new baddie I can recall. Carnage was derivative of Venom, so he doesn't really count.
>
> There have been a lot of POTENTIAL major baddies introduced in the last 10 years, but none of them have been followed up on and turned into a major new threat.
>

That's the critical thing. Are classic villains like Electro, the Vulture, and the Sandman inherently better than those created by later writers? Not really, but by virtue of being there from the start, they're considered better.

There's also a mentality that exists nowadays that a character created by a writer belongs to that writer. Brian Michael Bendis wanted Paul Jenkins's approval before using the Sentry, for example. There's less of a public domain mentality than there used to be, so an original villain isn't likely to be used by anyone but his creator. And how long does one creator stick around on the same book?

-Comp

> > > > That it's been 15+ years since Spidey has had even a somewhat classic addition to his rogues gallery. And don't give me Morlun, he's terrible.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Kaine is the last REALLY good major new baddie I can recall. Carnage was derivative of Venom, so he doesn't really count.
> >
> > There have been a lot of POTENTIAL major baddies introduced in the last 10 years, but none of them have been followed up on and turned into a major new threat.
> >
>
> That's the critical thing. Are classic villains like Electro, the Vulture, and the Sandman inherently better than those created by later writers? Not really, but by virtue of being there from the start, they're considered better.

Well, and because they've been around long enough that writers have actually spent time fleshing them out. I've posted upthread about why I think it's harder to flesh out some of the newer villains in most comics these days, which is a further handicap.

> There's also a mentality that exists nowadays that a character created by a writer belongs to that writer. Brian Michael Bendis wanted Paul Jenkins's approval before using the Sentry, for example. There's less of a public domain mentality than there used to be, so an original villain isn't likely to be used by anyone but his creator. And how long does one creator stick around on the same book?
>
> -Comp

Also, the turn against continuity eliminates the major method by which the older villains were developed as characters; they simply don't show up in other titles as often anymore, and thus don't get to reveal new facets or character points by interacting with new characters.

- Omar Karindu

"A Renoir. I have three, myself. I had four, but ordered one burned...It
displeased me." -- Doctor Doom

"It's not, 'Oh, they killed Sue Dibney and I always loved that character,' it's 'Oh, they broke a story engine that could have told a thousand stories in order to publish a single 'important' one.'" -- John Seavey


Posted with Apple Safari on MacOS X
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