A MAJOR Change in the status quo of Phil Urich/"Hobgoblin"

[Billium 3]

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.

[okpanic]

So what, his one claim to fame now is beheading Kingsley (which, who knows really, they left some holes in that story on purpose, methinks). That's what makes him a badass?

Once again, what's the preoccupation with power feats and badassery? Is that what really defines a comic book character for people these days? I don't get it.

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?

Name a character of the same age range as Peter, same working background, same place of work (or used to), interacts directly with the hero and with the same supporting cast and yet is on the other side of the coin, somebody who tried to be a hero but fell off the path so completely. Harry Osborn shares a very few similar traits but other than that I can't think of anybody who has come from this direction and been put in the position of a slow-burn antagonist of note, and therein lies my interest in the character. It remains to be seen if such an interesting set-up ends up capitalized, but I'm not going to prematurely and irrationally call Urich a failure as a Hobgoblin when it's clear his story isn't over yet. Let's face it, your opinion is heavily biased in this matter because you're such a big Kingsley fan. Blatantly so, because there can't be a discussion about Phil Urich without Kingsley being brought up ad nauseum.
We get it.

And you make it sound as though that's Phil's one solitary claim to fame. "Oh boy, he decapitated Kingsley!".

Like I already said, I don't judge characters by feats. I was just yanking your chain there.

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.

I said the general dark mirror thing has generally been done, but each instance has been from different angles so that there's never been an actual retread. Stop butchering my posts plz.

I plainly see a great potential in the character and his set-up. He's not meant to be 'endearing', he's a villain. It's like Pro-Wrestling really: a good heel (bad guy) is somebody who plays their part well. They can get their ass beat every week and yet still hold onto that devlish charm that makes you want to see more of them, and look forward to the time when the face/hero steps into the ring with them once again. Just think: how many embarrassing defeats has Doc Ock had over the years? And yet he's still a magnificent bastard.

[Cheesedique]

Once again, what's the preoccupation with power feats and badassery? Is that what really defines a comic book character for people these days? I don't get it.

Not really my preoccupation, per se, though there was a feeling that having Phil take out Kingsley initially was to prop Phil up as the next Hobby and show how tough he was. Really, this is probably the wrong reading as it was made to look like Phil barely
saved himself from being killed by Kingsley.

And by what standard are we to judge them by? Like Billium, I find the evil Phil unlikable, tedious and thinly written, even the "dark mirror to Parker" stuff hasn't been explored enough (yet) to be interesting whatsoever. He's not a villain I even want to really read about if this is the way they're going to portray him. I'd like the characters, good and evil, to be a little better defined than just one-dimensional, "pro-wrestling" style baddie.

[ViewtifulJC]

I thought the main appeal of Hobgoblin was the mystery of who he was. And that went on for waaaaay too long and now it's over. I think Phil has as interesting dynamic as Anti-Peter Parker, something Kingsley didn't have, so I think it's a good direction. I can't wait to see more of him.

[Billium 3]

Once again, what's the preoccupation with power feats and badassery? Is that what really defines a comic book character for people these days? I don't get it.




Name a character of the same age range as Peter, same working background, same place of work (or used to), interacts directly with the hero and with the same supporting cast and yet is on the other side of the coin, somebody who tried to be a hero but fell off the path so completely. Harry Osborn shares a very few similar traits but other than that I can't think of anybody who has come from this direction and been put in the position of a slow-burn antagonist of note, and therein lies my interest in the character. It remains to be seen if such an interesting set-up ends up capitalized, but I'm not going to prematurely and irrationally call Urich a failure as a Hobgoblin when it's clear his story isn't over yet. Let's face it, your opinion is heavily biased in this matter because you're such a big Kingsley fan. Blatantly so, because there can't be a discussion about Phil Urich without Kingsley being brought up ad nauseum.
We get it.





Like I already said, I don't judge characters by feats. I was just yanking your chain there.






I said the general dark mirror thing has generally been done, but each instance has been from different angles so that there's never been an actual retread. Stop butchering my posts plz.

I plainly see a great potential in the character and his set-up. He's not meant to be 'endearing', he's a villain. It's like Pro-Wrestling really: a good heel (bad guy) is somebody who plays their part well. They can get their ass beat every week and yet still hold onto that devlish charm that makes you want to see more of them, and look forward to the time when the face/hero steps into the ring with them once again. Just think: how many embarrassing defeats has Doc Ock had over the years? And yet he's still a magnificent bastard.

He doesn't have to be a bad ass. I'm just saying, he hasn't done anything worthwhile as the Hobgoblin. Very forgettable. He's taking what was once a good villainous identity and making it a sad villain to be ala Jason Macendale. What's defining this guy? Evil Peter Parker. Uhmm, ok. So he's defined by being an evil version of someone. Someone else had to do his defining for him. Ok...

Sure, I'm a huge Kingsley fan. Kingsley Kingsley Kingsley! Nauseated yet?

But seriously, I'm trying to remain as neutral as possible here; of course a tad bit of my biased liking for Kingsley is going to get through. And you're none to unbiased yourself. You obviously have a great disliking of the Kingsley Hobgoblin for some reason that I can't possibly fathom and a great liking for Phil (something I obviously can understand even less). So I'd say it's fair to say we BOTH have some biased feelings going on. Come on, now, don't pretend you're not biased in favor of Phil. To say your're not would just be rediculous. Ok? Ok.

And I see him as a very shallow, almost one dimensional character now. Phil I mean. He's not very deep or interesting at all. I don't see any charm that would make me want to come back story after story to read about him. Sure, Doc Ock has been defeated numerous times. But he's well defined; he has very good, consistant characterization, he commands respect and has a certain likable charisma and intelligence about him. All of these coupled with stuff like his powers and appearance (not relevent here, I know) make me want to read about his various sinister exploits, even if I know he's going to be defeated eventually; it's the great way Doc Ock goes about doing things. But with Phil? I know he'll be defeated, and that's it. He doesn't do anything else! It's like "Oh boy, the Hobgoblin who gets defeated everytime, sorta like Jason Macendale. Yawn!". It becomes boring and stale after a while. You say you don't like characters based on accomplishments and such. Good. That shouldn't be the case, anyway. Actions do speak louder than words, though, in some cases, mind you, not always. And seeing Phil consistantly lose, and being an unlikable heel with no charm (like I said a lil while back, even his dialogue is hard to wade through; being objective and neutral, I can honestly say if any character talked like him, I would most likely not want to read about him or her, either). It's predictable. Predictably bad. I mean, he doesn't even do what he wants for himself. He does what the Kingpin tells him to do. He's a lackey, and a bad one at that. It's a wonder Fisk hasn't sent him his severence package yet. I mean, in many jobs, when someone fails to complete a task as often as him, he would most likely be let go or face some form of punishment. He had one very shallow objective: To get Nora, and he did. Now he's done that and it seems like he has no good form of motivation, either. A good character AT LEAST has some good form of motivation, right? What's Phil's, if he accomplished his one shallow task and just does what Kingpin tells him?

[Spider's Comics]

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.

You are very wise in the ways of the Hobgoblin.

[Chuckles]

The way I see it, there is a similarity between OMD and killing Kingsley. I liked Pete and MJ's marriage, but was willing to have an open mind for BND. I like BND and the current direction, but I look back on OMD/OMIT and it all seems so pointless. I was willing to have an open mind about a new direction for the Hobgoblin, but it increasingly seems like that will go nowhere. Phil as an anti-Peter sounds interesting, but that seems more like an idealized version of the potential rather than what's been on the page.

[David Walton]

Phil as an anti-Peter sounds interesting, but that seems more like an idealized version of the potential rather than what's been on the page.

Slott's been playing around with a lot of ideas. I bet we'll see more on the anti-Peter angle in "The Danger Zone."

[Blight]

Slott's been playing around with a lot of ideas. I bet we'll see more on the anti-Peter angle in "The Danger Zone."

There's a lot that seems will be continued off in Danger Zone. Obviously we get a Spider-Sense negated Phil going up against Pete. I just wonder whatever revelations we get will happen near the end of the story. Honestly, I get the feeling that whatever happens at the end of Danger Zone it'll be the next big storyline. Either Phil grapples with the ramifications of whatever happens. OR.. we get Kingsley being the dutiful mentor to Phil.

Oddly enough, that be weird seeing the dropped Goblins of the Gates Phil centric subplot become a reality. For those who don't know, Phil was intended to be the fifth Green Goblin and was being blackmailed by Norman into being his imposter goblin.

[Ian Pressman]

As far as I'm concerned, the Hobgoblin that Phil killed was the unnamed Green Goblin who worked for Norman Osborn in the nineties when Marvel brought him back. Kingsley is kicking back on a beach somewhere, rolling his eyes at the stupidity going on.

[mugiwara]

They have already killed the new Vulture before even fleshing him out, just to bring back stories with the old thing. So I wouldn't be surprised if they did the same with Urich.
But I still hope that Slott is better than that. Marvel Comics need fresh blood, they should do everything to prove that they can create and make work new things, like in Stan Lee's time, instead of just overexploiting the established characters and repeating the old stories.
If people want to read stories with old characters, they should read the dozen of old issues featuring them.

[Spidey_Legend]

As far as I'm concerned, the Hobgoblin that Phil killed was the unnamed Green Goblin who worked for Norman Osborn in the nineties when Marvel brought him back. Kingsley is kicking back on a beach somewhere, rolling his eyes at the stupidity going on.

I like that idea, but need more development.

[Billium 3]

It's funny you should mention Stan Lee, new/old characters, and the Vulture, because he co-created Blackie Drago to become the new Vulture back in the 60's. I believe he was created because Stan didn't want Spidey battling an old man, or so I recall hearing somewhere. Anywho, wouldn't you know it, Stan brought back the original Adrian Toomes Vulture issues later, the same Adrian Toomes who he had seemingly killed off?

[Fanofthegoblins]

The original Hobgoblin is a trickster just like Mysterio. This is an intelligent man who used robots and dupes in the past. With tricksters, you can't always believe what you see, including their "deaths".

[DV1Band]

I actually didn't know that Phil was blackmailed by Norman... Do you know the issues so that I can get them? I have the whole Green Goblin series, but haven't read it all, so if it's in there, please let me know...

As far as Phil...

Yes, I think he's a great character. The thing that him and Roderick share is that they are both full of potential, and have storylines that could take them anywhere... Phil could stay a villain, or find some sort of redemption, and become some really serious hero. He could also become obsessed with being better than Peter. I'm not sure where that storyline's going yet, as far as being a mirror-Peter.

When it comes down to it:

I want Phil to have his own codename and costume, or use one that hasn't been used in a bit, i.e. what Kane is doing right now. I'll buy it.
I want Roderick as the Hobgoblin. They spent 20+ years building up to Hobgoblin lives, and then... Marvel let it go... Roderick Kingsley still has so much untapped potential, because we don't know a lot of what goes through his head. Yes, we know he's a business man and a villain, but he's not like Norman where he's got some known agenda. Here's hoping to more...