Spider-Man 3: No Way Home

[Kaitou D. Kid]

Characterization-wise he was Kingsley, they just used Macendale's name. It was basically like DCAU Tim Drake being Jason Todd in all but name.

More or less true.

The 90s show is definitely what had the biggest impact on me back then and I would argue that it laid the foundation for a lot of the decisions that would be made in the movies. Though, I can't deny that while the show might have been what impacted kids the most in the decade leading up, the movie obviously had a MUCH wider audience than any cartoon or comic and was probably the introduction to a lot of Spiderman elements to a lot of people, including Norman.

The 90s show made me a Spider-Man too. My earliest memory of Spider-Man is watching the 90s show as a three-year old. It's also one of my first ever memories (in the grand scheme of things).

The Raimi films definitely borrowed a lot from that show. The idea of the Green Goblin being a split-personality was from there, and the way they did Venom is exactly like in the 90s show - the symbiote taking over while Peter is asleep and Peter waking up in the position he is in. Eddie Brock's jerkish attitude is also from that show.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I will amend what I said and argue that the Normanaissance (lol) really began in the mid-90s with the Fox Cartoon and the denouement of the Clone Saga, and then Ultimate Spider-Man (that came out in 2000).

I'd say it's a bit like Batman and Frank Miller. Batman had become darker and grittier with Dennis O'Neill and Neal Adams from the early 70s onward but it was Frank Miller with his 80s story that really cemented it and encapsulated it in the eyes of a lot of people. Likewise, Norman's popularity was rising steadily but it was the 2002 film that really changed things.

[Lukmendes]

Well so far the trailers are implying that it's the same guy but obviously they're not gonna do the full movie in the trailer.

It could be they aren't the characters we know. But maybe they're not.

Maybe the twist is that Otto who seems like a nice guy and ally (as implied in the second trailer) is actually the main villain by the end.

That's just weird though while the trailer is implying it's the same, the inconsistencies are noticeable, so I have my doubts here.

In context, "You're not Peter Parker" could be Ock's disappointment because he's looking for his Spider-Man to help him make sense of what's happening.

By trying to beat him up? Lol.

Then again, it might be that Otto was attacking around to get his attention, them Peter started to fight him and didn't let him explain... That would work.

I think Otto would know of Norman as this big time businessman-scientist, and would recognize his face at least since Norman was a public figure in that world. But seeing Dafoe's Norman and Molina's Otto interact on screen would be pretty neat.

So far all we have is this behind this scenes where Dafoe shows up on stage and hams up in Molina's outfit.



I wonder if Raimi seriously thought, "Can I get Dafoe to play all the bad guys in each movie?" at some point.

That's hilarious lol.

There's a distinction between fans of 616 Spider-Man comics and "general readers". And among the latter, GG was invisible.

To put this in perspective, take the three biggest and most famous Spider-Man comics to the non-comics fan until about 2002:
1) SUPERMAN VS. THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN (1976)
2) SECRET WARS 1984
3) THE WEDDING ANNUAL

Green Goblin didn't appear in any of these comics, but Doctor Octopus appeared in all three of them.

Otto was a joke in Supes vs Spidey though, does basically nothing after teaming up with Lex, which sucks, he ironically did more as a hero, since once he learned that Luthor was planning to destroy the planet, he tried to stop Luthor.

3) Norman becoming an MU-wide villain, which typically happens only with archenemies.

I recall that Slott he wasn't happy with this, 'cause it meant that he couldn't use Norman much, once the "Iron Patriot" shit was over, he got Norman as soon as he could lol.

Characterization-wise he was Kingsley, they just used Macendale's name. It was basically like DCAU Tim Drake being Jason Todd in all but name.

I don't remember Tim being a lil' shit lol.

Then again, maybe I didn't watch enough episodes...

[Mistah K88]

Characterization-wise he was Kingsley, they just used Macendale's name. It was basically like DCAU Tim Drake being Jason Todd in all but name.

To be fair was he though? Hobgoblin Lives came out in the late 90's...what we knew of Kingsley back when the animated series was airing was that he was a blithering wuss.

[Kaitou D. Kid]

I will amend what I said and argue that the Normanaissance (lol) really began in the mid-90s with the Fox Cartoon and the denouement of the Clone Saga, and then Ultimate Spider-Man (that came out in 2000).

I'd say it's a bit like Batman and Frank Miller. Batman had become darker and grittier with Dennis O'Neill and Neal Adams from the early 70s onward but it was Frank Miller with his 80s story that really cemented it and encapsulated it in the eyes of a lot of people. Likewise, Norman's popularity was rising steadily but it was the 2002 film that really changed things.

Only thing I would add to that is that yes it began with the cartoon and the Clone Saga, peaked with Dafoe and Paul Jenkins and Mark Millar in the comics, and was then completed with The Spectacular Spider-Man and with Norman being elevated in Dark Reign.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Only thing I would add to that is that yes it began with the cartoon and the Clone Saga, peaked with Dafoe and Paul Jenkins and Mark Millar in the comics, and was then completed with The Spectacular Spider-Man and with Norman being elevated in Dark Reign.

Spectacular was Norman's BTAS-Hamill moment, while Dark Reign was...I guess a combination of Killing Joke and crowbarring Jason. At least that's far you can take it because then things diverge. Like I doubt Norman will ever have a "Heath Ledger" moment because his character can't really be defined that way.

[Lukmendes]

To be fair was he though? Hobgoblin Lives came out in the late 90's...what we knew of Kingsley back when the animated series was airing was that he was a blithering wuss.

I think he means Roderick's Hobgoblin, 'cause Macendale's Hobgoblin on the comics wasn't taken seriously and he was too tryhard.

Spectacular was Norman's BTAS-Hamill moment, while Dark Reign was...I guess a combination of Killing Joke and crowbarring Jason. At least that's far you can take it because then things diverge. Like I doubt Norman will ever have a "Heath Ledger" moment because his character can't really be defined that way.

To be fair, Ledger's interpretation of Joker is what I like to call "Joker trying to prove a point", he definitely doesn't define Joker overall, he just did a good interpretation of that specific version.

Of course, Joker's major characterizations are contradictory with each other, so a single movie can't have all of them lol.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

To be fair, Ledger's interpretation of Joker is what I like to call "Joker trying to prove a point", he definitely doesn't define Joker overall, he just did a good interpretation of that specific version.

Of course, Joker's major characterizations are contradictory with each other, so a single movie can't have all of them lol.

I was thinking more in terms of Ledger's performance and presentation, his aesthetic, rather than the narrative.

Heath Ledger was the first time you had a Joker whose actor looked like he could play Bruce Wayne, and heck who seemed to be in the running to play a few superheroes. He's obviously quite good-looking, and dude looks very good in the Joker costume, even under the face paint. That lent Joker an aspirational thing that the other earlier adaptations maybe didn't put across well. Obviously Nicholson's Joker and Hamil's Joker are great fun and very entertaining, nothing against them but they didn't have the same aspirational element. Michelle Pfeiffer's Catwoman had that aspirational quality too, but she's an anti-heroine there. Whereas Ledger's Joker had that and was an outright villain at the same time.

Part of the reason they could do that was that Joker was in the comics since The Killing Joke or thereabouts made him be about the same age as Batman, but a lot of the adaptations never really got across that youth (Nicholson obviously was way older than Keaton's Batman even aside from that dumba-- plot twist that nuked the first movie into incoherence). Hamill's Joker is younger than Nicholson but Mask of the Phantasm made him an established gangster when Bruce was in college so not exactly the same age either. The comics never really drove that home until the Killing Joke (where Bolland's Joker looks really young and barring the face-paint kind of good looking).

With Norman given he's established as an older guy and a mid-life crisis is a big part of him, you can never quite have that interpretation barring a radical rewrite which would be controversial because it would be quite hard to make Norman the same age as Peter, and nobody's cracked the code into making Harry Goblin work.

[Username taken]

I'm not really participating in the GG discussion but I want to point out that the Green Goblin was in the 1982 Atari Spider-man game.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I'm not really participating in the GG discussion but I want to point out that the Green Goblin was in the 1982 Atari Spider-man game.

I did say major console in the 90s multiple times. Obviously Pre-Video Game Crash and so on belongs to a period of console history that has little continuity with the console market that exists today. Today's console games and also the PC game market for that matter (while obviously taking influence from Pre-Crash games and so on and so forth...stand on the shoulders yada yada) originates from the NES and it making videogames mainstream and successful in a way even Atari never was.

In that period Goblin didn't show up as a villain in most releases. Wikipedia does list some titles, but they are arcade games and I have no idea what they are like but it's not in the conversation of Spider-Man games people remember from the 90s.

The fact is that Green Goblin is the major Spider-Man villain who shows up rarely in narrative action adventure Spidey games. Rarely as a boss fight and so on. And I mean Norman/Goblin in the 616 variant. You have Ultimate Goblin in the USM game but that doesn't count (because Ult. Goblin sucks), Norman shows up in the PS4 game but not as the Goblin (and it seems unlikely that version will be Green Goblin anytime soon, if at all). The only major showing is the 2002 game where to compensate you have like three boss fights with the guy.

[Username taken]

I did say major console in the 90s multiple times. Obviously Pre-Video Game Crash and so on belongs to a period of console history that has little continuity with the console market that exists today. Today's console games and also the PC game market for that matter (while obviously taking influence from Pre-Crash games and so on and so forth...stand on the shoulders yada yada) originates from the NES and it making videogames mainstream and successful in a way even Atari never was.

In that period Goblin didn't show up as a villain in most releases. Wikipedia does list some titles, but they are arcade games and I have no idea what they are like but it's not in the conversation of Spider-Man games people remember from the 90s.

The fact is that Green Goblin is the major Spider-Man villain who shows up rarely in narrative action adventure Spidey games. Rarely as a boss fight and so on. And I mean Norman/Goblin in the 616 variant. You have Ultimate Goblin in the USM game but that doesn't count (because Ult. Goblin sucks), Norman shows up in the PS4 game but not as the Goblin (and it seems unlikely that version will be Green Goblin anytime soon, if at all). The only major showing is the 2002 game where to compensate you have like three boss fights with the guy.

My comment wasn't directed at anyone in particular.

I just thought to point it out because GG did get some exposure way back.

It spoke to the character's "popularity" in those days.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

My comment wasn't directed at anyone in particular.

That's cool, thanks.

I just thought to point it out because GG did get some exposure way back.

Well, my response to that was how popular was the Atari Spider-Man game?

Obviously Spider-Man did have adaptations and exposure in media before the 90s - the Amazing Friends cartoon, the 1967 Show - but Green Goblin's presence in this didn't have a significant impact or notable presence as compared to stuff in the '90s.

[Username taken]

That's cool, thanks.



Well, my response to that was how popular was the Atari Spider-Man game?

Obviously Spider-Man did have adaptations and exposure in media before the 90s - the Amazing Friends cartoon, the 1967 Show - but Green Goblin's presence in this didn't have a significant impact or notable presence as compared to stuff in the '90s.

The game wasn't really popular back then.My point was more to GG's standing within Spider-man rogues way back then.

Osborn was shot back to prominence in the 90s and afterwards as you've pointed out.

Honestly, I feel Norman Osborn got a pretty perfect death and should have been gone permanently because Harry had fallen into role quite successfuly. Not to mention he'd been dead for quite a long time already at that point and Marvel brought him back because they didn't know how to end the Clone Saga. Norman Osborn coming back just seemed unnecessary at that point.

But the paragraph above is just my opinion though.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

The game wasn't really popular back then.My point was more to GG's standing within Spider-man rogues way back then.

Osborn was shot back to prominence in the 90s and afterwards as you've pointed out.

Honestly, I feel Norman Osborn got a pretty perfect death and should have been gone permanently because Harry had fallen into role quite successfuly. Not to mention he'd been dead for quite a long time already at that point and Marvel brought him back because they didn't know how to end the Clone Saga. Norman Osborn coming back just seemed unnecessary at that point.

But the paragraph above is just my opinion though.

That's cool.

It's funny you mention Harry though. When we talk about perceptions being recent or more recent than people think...the fact is that this idea people have of Harry and Peter as this close deep friendship or Harry as having fallen successfully into the Green Goblin wasn't really something that defined the franchise until DeMatteis/Buscema's run on Spectacular in the late 80s and early 90s.

Obviously Harry and Peter were friends in the Lee-Romita era, and Gerry Conway made him Green Goblin II but for a full decade or so after that, Harry was basically a background character and totally marginal in the continuity. Len Wein introduced Bart Hamilton as Green Goblin 3 because he didn't think Harry had the chops to be a full-time Goblin. Then Roger Stern came in and likewise didn't think Harry could be the new Goblin so he introduced Hobgoblin to be the permanent replacement goblin for Norman which thanks to mistakes on Stern's part, misjudgments on Defalco's, genuine clusterf--k after that, the Hobgoblin thing collapsed.

With all this, Harry had become one of those "he's friends and part of the supporting cast, I guess" figures who hardly featured in the continuity. He wasn't exactly Peter's best friend in that period. You read the Wedding Annual, Flash Thompson and not Harry is "best man" at Peter's wedding.

If not for JMD's run redefining Harry, he'd have been forgotten and it's because of JMD, that Harry became so prominent in the Fox Cartoon, USM, the Raimi Trilogy and so on.

[Lukmendes]

You have Ultimate Goblin in the USM game but that doesn't count (because Ult. Goblin sucks),

That boss battle sucks too.

Like I have a low opinion on the combat Spidey games tend to have, but even back when I used to like the combat in Ultimate Spider-Man, I thought Ultimate Norman was a really boring battle.

Although it's not the worst one, pretty sure Ultimate Beetle is as low as you can get in that game, fighting Beetle with Spidey is pain, guy has awkward air combat, fighting a flying boss, fuckin' piece of shit...

Norman shows up in the PS4 game but not as the Goblin (and it seems unlikely that version will be Green Goblin anytime soon, if at all).

It'll be weird if he doesn't become Goblin at some point, there's blatant prototypes for a mask and the bombs in the first game, and, y'know, he's Norman Osborn, if he's not becoming Green Goblin we're wasting time lol.

The only major showing is the 2002 game where to compensate you have like three boss fights with the guy.

While maybe not major, he's both a boss and a playable character in Ultimate Alliance 2, one of the few villains you can play as even.