You can web me up anytime, Pete.

Mary Jane:"...but if I can't dance with Pete, I guess I'll dance with... it's Randy, right?"
Rand Robertson:"Very."

Neither of which beat Black Cat's: "Just don't get your goo in my hair."

Just saw the Colonel Jupiter episode. Holy crap, that was one of my favorites. This show is all sorts of awesome.

EDIT: My only problem with the show is that villains refuse to die, and I feel like the main reason is, more likely than not, that it's a kid's show. [spoiler] Sandman's death would have been great if it had been just that. A death. The same with Green Goblin. Instead, they're alive, but Sandman just stopped showing and Osbourne went to the Cayman Islands, most likely to never be seen again.[/quote]

Have to agree with NonCon; I actually thought the S2 finale was one of the weaker episodes in the series because it really would have been more powerful and resonant if Norman stayed dead. Heck, it's not as if Harry can't take dad's place; killing off Norman wouldn't even necessarily imply the death of 'the Green Goblin' as an antagonist.

My major problem with the Spider-Man movies is that all the villains died too easily, and by biggest problem with Spectacular Spider-Man is the exact opposite; there's like presumably twenty-someodd villains introduced so far and Spidey can't kill any of them. At this rate, I fully expect in a hypothetical (perhaps nonexistent) fourth season, Spidey will be forced to fight off the population of the entire city of New York. The problem is, it's starting to get unrealistic; with that many villains with superpowers all clamoring for Spidey's death, and without any superpowered allies for Spidey to rely on in this universe, we're treading dangerously into "suspension of disbelief" territory as Spidey continues defying longer and longer odds. In the beginning of the series, the odds were at least a little more rational (and I found the fight sequences were better handled in S1 in general, insofar as Spidey's most badass performances had logical explanations and relied less on deus ex machinas -- the black suit essentially won him his first battle against six opponents.)

Still, I mean, I just feel it's a bit obsessive to nitpick over such a phenomenal series. The writing is so brilliant that I'll forgive Weisman if he never kills a single character off. I'm still hoping the story follows continuity at least in regards to killing off father and daughter Stacey, though. I know it's a kid show and all, but Weisman has the unique opportunity to defy the stereotypes and challenge his adolescent audience in ways few epic cartoons have managed.)

Oh, he can. He's just not, y'know, really trying to. You're more pointing out an arguable character flaw.

That said though, the ending for the Sandman and Norman Osborn did leave something to be desired. However, I'm not actually gonna call it a flaw in the story until I see what he does with it. It's very possible that he does actually have more stories to tell with those two characters.

That said, it's amazing what you can do in a seemingly unfair fight if you use hit-and-run tactics.

well whats the alternative. Spiderman is the hero, he cant just kill bad guys, and it would be less realistic if they each have a deus ex machina death. Thats how all these series go. you put them in jail and hope they dont all attack at once. Though it is often awesome when they do

Except Sandman's death would have meant something and been fairly believable as far as villain death's go, and Goblin's death would have had the same influence on the story without the To Be Continued? bullshit they pulled. I'm not saying I don't like the show. I love it, and it is everything awesome about Spiderman. I just feel that in those two instances, the villains actually dying would have been preferable.

Here's the thing. As far as stories go, I'm looking at the fact that they have hope for more episodes. Ergo, they may have more use for the characters in question, so they don't want to kill them off.

I mean, you guys seem to be thinking "it's the end of the season, so therefor it's the end of the story. Now why did these people have to survive?" Instead, it's much better to look at "okay, this is a lull in the story, what else are they going to use these characters for since they are pointedly not dead."

Basically, it's faulting a play's choices of style as far as what the characters are and how they're used at the end of the first act.

Except it isn't. Gobbie went to some far away islands. From this I infer two things. First, he's staying "dead", else why would he just leave to some vacation islands. Second, the fact that they very pointedly said, "He's not dead he's alive hahaha!" makes me think that he's alive not because they wanted to keep him alive for plot reasons, but because they couldn't have a person die because it's a kid's show. If they were going to bring him back, it would be better to leave the audience thinking he's dead and have it at least be kind of a surprise.

As for Sandy, his "death" and subsequent not showing up in any episodes makes me believe that he isn't coming back as a villain, but once again, couldn't have him die because this is a kid's show.