Quote Originally Posted by okpanic View Post
Au contraire, nobody will dispute that it has been done before, but the fact is that each character devised as a dark reflection of Spider-Man has always emphasized different aspects. Venom was the physical representation of a dark mirror, Morbius and Lizard an intellectual representation where their scientific curiousities got the better of them, Kaine of a Peter with his humanity stripped away, so on and so forth. Here we have somebody from the same general roots who tried the hero thing but fell off the tracks, more a "with great power comes more opportunity" than anything. The potential is actually great, and nothing you could do with the old Hobgoblin. So unless you're actually going to commit to the argument that Phil Urich is an Eddie Brock knock-off or something, which: be my guest.



Call me crazy, but a character's power levels have nothing to do with my interest in them. I don't measure what I like reading by the number of "feats" they accomplish and I actually do pity anybody that does. For all of Phil's defeats, he cut off Kingsley's head, right? Right? :D




Oh I'd pity me too, the 90s were generally terrible, even though Bagley rocked it. But don't you worry about me Mr. Billium sir, never said I didn't read back later.
I see no potential in the Philgoblin for the reasons you mentioned. I mean, not even using the dark mirror of Spidey/Peter thing. "With great power, comes great opportunity". Yeah, because no villain in the Marvel Universe has thought of that before, right? And that's a potential I wouldn't want to see used on the Kingsley Hobgoblin. It wouldn't work for him, thank goodness. After years of retirement, and with many fans clamoring for his return, I see far more potential in the Kingsley Hobgoblin than I ever will in the Philgoblin. And I never said he was an Eddie Brock/Venom knock-off. He's just a dime-a-dozen dark mirror of Spider-Man/Peter Parker.

And you make it sound as though that's Phil's one solitary claim to fame. "Oh boy, he decapitated Kingsley!". It was cheap; done to make the new guy seem cool for seemingly taking out the original guy. And that's assuming that's really:
A) Kingsley under that mask.
B) And that he didn't manipulate Phil into believing he had done that with the Winkler device, or what have you. Which would explain the rash behavior exhibited in Phil (it happened to Ned Leeds) and why he never uses his lunatic laugh outside of costume. Perhaps he was manipulated into believing he had been able to keep his laugh without use of that mask. But if that was the case, why does he only use the laugh in costume. Hmm... Those are just a few of the many plot-holes in the "Kingsley is dead, nuff said" debate. You'd best hope it's not revealed Kingsley didn't get decapitated, or else Philgoblin will have NOTHING to his name worth mentioning. I mean, according to you, seemingly chopping Kingsley's head off is all he's got. And it wasn't even conclusive.

And if you don't measure a character by his accomplishments, then how do you judge a character like Phil, hmm? It can't be because he is a likable character, because really, I fail to see anything likable or endearing about him currently. As I and you yourself admitted before, the dark mirror thing's been done, so that's out; it's not 100% unique. What then, in your opinion makes Phil the great goblin you make him out to be? I'm just not seeing it, and I'm trying to, for argument's sake.

And yes, a good deal of the 90's were terrible; I would know, as well, seeing as that was when I was introduced to Spider-Man and his world and started reading the books. But at least we can both agree one ONE thing: Bagley did a good job on art. Though I do fail to see how that pertains to any of this.