Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 46
  1. #1
    Incredible Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    819

    Default What if ... Green Goblin was a nobody?

    What if ... Green Goblin was a nobody?

    Ditko clashed with Lee over the identity of GG. Steve felt he should be a total stranger who tried to be a somebody by committing crimes. A what-if could explore this in greater detail...

    YOUR ideas on this or YOUR what-ifs?

  2. #2
    Extraordinary Member Revolutionary_Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    8,369

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AnthonyO'Brien View Post
    Ditko clashed with Lee over the identity of GG.
    NO he didn't.

    Steve felt...
    DITKO ALWAYS INTENDED NORMAN OSBORN TO BE THE GREEN GOBLIN. NO IFS. NO BUTS. NO WHAT IFS.

    This is a dated and completely debunked rumor, please do not spread it.

  3. #3
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Posts
    2,965

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    NO he didn't.



    DITKO ALWAYS INTENDED NORMAN OSBORN TO BE THE GREEN GOBLIN. NO IFS. NO BUTS. NO WHAT IFS.

    This is a dated and completely debunked rumor, please do not spread it.
    Well, what's your source? Green Goblin was always intended to be Peter's archnemesis which I'm skeptical of.

  4. #4
    Spectacular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2020
    Posts
    242

    Default

    “I had a big argument with Steve Ditko, who was drawing the strip at the time. When we had to reveal the identity of the Green Goblin, I wanted him to turn out to be the father of Harry Osborn, and Steve didn’t like that idea,” Lee explained. “He said, ‘no, I don’t think he should be anybody we’ve seen before.’ I said ‘Why?’ He said ‘Well, in real life, the bad guy doesn’t always turn out to be someone you’ve known.’ And I said, ‘Steve, people have been reading this book for months, for years, waiting to see who the Green Goblin really is. If we make him somebody that they’ve never seen before, I think they’ll be disappointed — but if he turns out to be Harry’s father, I think that’s an unusual dramatic twist that we can play with in future stories.’ And Steve said ‘Yeah, well, that’s not the way it would be in real life.’ And I said ‘In real life, there’s nobody called The Green Goblin.’ And so Steve was never happy about that, but since I was the editor, we did it my way.” - Stan Lee, 2017

    https://comicbook.com/marvel/news/st...-green-goblin/

    Not that Lee doesnt have a history of being a unreliable narrator, but he's about the only one who could verify what happened.

  5. #5
    Incredible Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    928

    Default

    I'd figure the unmasking would be much like the other people Spidey unmasked and straight up said. "I don't know who this is". I think Crime Master and Shocker had reveals like this.

  6. #6
    Extraordinary Member Revolutionary_Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    8,369

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kingkalamari View Post
    Not that Lee doesnt have a history of being a unreliable narrator,
    Stan Lee isn't an unreliable narrator. He's a dishonest narrator.

    Per Abraham Riesman, "Stan Lee lied about little things, he lied about big things, he lied about strange things, and there's one massive, very consequential thing he may very well have lied about. If he did lie about that last thing—and there's substantial reason to believe he did—it completely changes his legacy."

    Stan Lee never truly cared about the narrative elements of any of the comics he worked on (mostly because he was largely not involved with it).

    ...but he's about the only one who could verify what happened.
    Nope. Steve Ditko when he was alive, time and time again confirmed that he intended Norman Osborn to be the Green Goblin:

    "Now digest this: I knew from Day One, from the first GG story, who the GG would be. I absolutely knew because I planted him in J. Jonah Jameson’s businessman's club, it was where JJJ and the GG could be seen together. I planted them together in other stories where the GG would not appear in costume, action. I wanted JJJ’s and the GG’s lives to mix for later story drama involving more than just the two characters. I planted the GG’s son (same distinctive hair style) in the college issues for more dramatic involvement and storyline consequences. So how could there be any doubt, dispute, about who the GG had to turn out to be when unmasked?"

    I mean think about it, if Ditko who was never shy talking about and complaining about Stan Lee or setting the record straight and was vocal about disagreements had a big stink about Norman being Green Goblin don't you think he would shout it from the rooftops. Instead he consistently denied this claim.

    Steve Ditko had plotting credit from ASM#25 onwards, which for those keeping track includes the lead-up to the Crime Master 2-Parter (ASM#26-27) which had Norman Osborn's first named appearance in comics.

    Ditko designed the characters and he had Norman Osborn with his distinct Cornrow hairstyle. His final issues presented Norman far more unsympathetically than how Lee-Romita depicted him.

    And there's also visual foreshadowing. Go to ASM#27, take a look at this silhouette of the man behind the goblin costume and compare the silhouette of the hair-style to Norman introduced in the same comic and consider that in Ditko's run every character had a distinct unique hairstyle for the most part.

    Silhouette Composite.jpg

  7. #7
    Spectacular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2020
    Posts
    242

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    Stan Lee isn't an unreliable narrator. He's a dishonest narrator.

    Per Abraham Riesman, "Stan Lee lied about little things, he lied about big things, he lied about strange things, and there's one massive, very consequential thing he may very well have lied about. If he did lie about that last thing—and there's substantial reason to believe he did—it completely changes his legacy."

    Stan Lee never truly cared about the narrative elements of any of the comics he worked on (mostly because he was largely not involved with it).



    Nope. Steve Ditko when he was alive, time and time again confirmed that he intended Norman Osborn to be the Green Goblin:

    "Now digest this: I knew from Day One, from the first GG story, who the GG would be. I absolutely knew because I planted him in J. Jonah Jameson’s businessman's club, it was where JJJ and the GG could be seen together. I planted them together in other stories where the GG would not appear in costume, action. I wanted JJJ’s and the GG’s lives to mix for later story drama involving more than just the two characters. I planted the GG’s son (same distinctive hair style) in the college issues for more dramatic involvement and storyline consequences. So how could there be any doubt, dispute, about who the GG had to turn out to be when unmasked?"

    I mean think about it, if Ditko who was never shy talking about and complaining about Stan Lee or setting the record straight and was vocal about disagreements had a big stink about Norman being Green Goblin don't you think he would shout it from the rooftops. Instead he consistently denied this claim.

    Steve Ditko had plotting credit from ASM#25 onwards, which for those keeping track includes the lead-up to the Crime Master 2-Parter (ASM#26-27) which had Norman Osborn's first named appearance in comics.

    Ditko designed the characters and he had Norman Osborn with his distinct Cornrow hairstyle. His final issues presented Norman far more unsympathetically than how Lee-Romita depicted him.

    And there's also visual foreshadowing. Go to ASM#27, take a look at this silhouette of the man behind the goblin costume and compare the silhouette of the hair-style to Norman introduced in the same comic and consider that in Ditko's run every character had a distinct unique hairstyle for the most part.

    Silhouette Composite.jpg
    Steve Ditko was a social recluse who never gave interviews, and hated Lee with a burning passion, the quote you gave was just a second hand account from Romita of what Ditko said, not a direct quote, so it's a bit wee dicey to say it's a great source, but suppose it's the best you'll get by Ditko standards. Ultimately I dont feel either is a particularly trustworthy quote, suppose it comes down to who you choose to believe in the situation.

  8. #8
    Extraordinary Member Revolutionary_Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    8,369

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kingkalamari View Post
    Steve Ditko was a social recluse who never gave interviews,
    First of all:
    -- It's normal, even commendable, for an artist to let his work speak for itself and avoid interviews.
    -- There's no need to preface this by calling him a "social recluse" as if that in and of itself invalidates his viewpoint.
    -- Ditko didn't give regular back-and-forth interviews to fans but he did write letters and wrote notes for newsletters which had short essays where he often discussed and referred to the creation of Spider-Man.

    ...and hated Lee with a burning passion,
    As did Jack Kirby, as did Wally Wood, and even Steranko and Denny O'Neil weren't big fans either. Lee was a union-busting credit-stealing self-aggrandizing hack who never could have created anything valuable on his own.

    ...the quote you gave was just a second hand account from Romita of what Ditko said,
    False.

    not a direct quote,
    Ditko wrote this in a 2009 essay for the Newsletter called "The Comics". It is a direct quotation from Stephen John Ditko.

    so it's a bit wee dicey to say it's a great source,
    It's dicier to accuse people baselessly and flail doubts around blithely when a simple copy-paste to Google would have revealed this citation in a bunch of places such as CBR itself:
    https://www.cbr.com/comic-book-legen...ed-400-part-1/

    You could have at least asked me outright rather than pass spin out of nothing.

    Ultimately I dont feel either is a particularly trustworthy quote, suppose it comes down to who you choose to believe in the situation.
    The empirical evidence repeatedly reveals and confirms Steve Ditko and Jack Kirby to be eminently more credible and believable than Stan Lee. If not for the latter's celebrity, there would be no controversy in affirming the former two as more consistently valid and truthful in their accounts of the character's creation.

  9. #9
    Spectacular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2020
    Posts
    242

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    First of all:
    -- It's normal, even commendable, for an artist to let his work speak for itself and avoid interviews.
    -- There's no need to preface this by calling him a "social recluse" as if that in and of itself invalidates his viewpoint.
    -- Ditko didn't give regular back-and-forth interviews to fans but he did write letters and wrote notes for newsletters which had short essays where he often discussed and referred to the creation of Spider-Man.



    As did Jack Kirby, as did Wally Wood, and even Steranko and Denny O'Neil weren't big fans either. Lee was a union-busting credit-stealing self-aggrandizing hack who never could have created anything valuable on his own.



    False.



    Ditko wrote this in a 2009 essay for the Newsletter called "The Comics". It is a direct quotation from Stephen John Ditko.



    It's dicier to accuse people baselessly and flail doubts around blithely when a simple copy-paste to Google would have revealed this citation in a bunch of places such as CBR itself:
    https://www.cbr.com/comic-book-legen...ed-400-part-1/

    You could have at least asked me outright rather than pass spin out of nothing.



    The empirical evidence repeatedly reveals and confirms Steve Ditko and Jack Kirby to be eminently more credible and believable than Stan Lee. If not for the latter's celebrity, there would be no controversy in affirming the former two as more consistently valid and truthful in their accounts of the character's creation.
    Shouldn't be my job to ask you for a source, albeit I did mistake the quote from a fanzine source, from a google search, so I apologize for the mischaracterization there.

    https://nick-caputo.blogspot.com/201...rview.html?m=1

    I bring up Ditko as a social recluse because it only left Lee to tell the story, which he did for years. I'm quite aware of Lee's shittiness, but he has decades of consistency with this particular story, as well by and large making Marvel what it is today. That earns credibility to some degree in his side of the story, enough in which it's really just down to who you believe. If ya wanna believe Ditko, go for it, I dont see it as much of a unfounded truth as you're insisting.

    Though I will say you bringing this quote from him is the first time I've seen it, so i appreciate that.
    Last edited by Kingkalamari; 05-12-2021 at 08:20 PM.

  10. #10
    Incredible Member
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Posts
    751

    Default

    This is a dated rumor by now. Ditko always intended Norman to be the Green Goblin.

  11. #11
    Extraordinary Member Revolutionary_Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    8,369

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kingkalamari View Post
    I bring up Ditko as a social recluse because it only left Lee to tell the story, which he did for years.
    DITKO ALWAYS TOLD HIS STORY. HE SAID SO IN PERSONAL LETTERS AND HIS NEWSLETTERS.

    That people simply took Lee at his word and did not fact-check him or hold him accountable, or do basic research is a reflection of the general sh-ttiness of comics journalism and not down to Ditko's personal decision to let his work speak for itself.

    I'm quite aware of Lee's shittiness, but he has decades of consistency with this particular story,
    NO HE DIDN'T.

    The rumor about Ditko leaving over the Goblin's identity came from fans and then migrated to Lee, but Lee himself never consistently said or stated this. Over the years he's had handlers and others feeding him lines or stories (his final years especially).

    That earns credibility to some degree in his side of the story, enough in which it's really just down to who you believe.
    Not by standards of actual journalism or academic research and citation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaitou D. Kid View Post
    This is a dated rumor by now. Ditko always intended Norman to be the Green Goblin.
    Dated rumors have a habit of festering even after the information debunking it has been revealed. Like Kitty Genovese didn't get stabbed while people did nothing. The Civil War wasn't about States' Rights. Orson Welles didn't steal credit from Herrman J. Mankiewicz over Citizen Kane contrary to whatever latest Netflix concoction.

    Paul Krugman the economist has a word for this, "Zombie Facts" which happens all the time whenever right-wing economists spread misinformation about the causes of the Great Depression and what helped America out of the Depression and so on. The information exists and has come out but nobody wants to debunk myths.

    This is another "Zombie Rumor". An actual rumor is a case where you have truly unknowable stuff and real ambiguity. But here it's been resolved by all reasonable standards. Steve Ditko absolutely created and developed Norman to be the Green Goblin. I mean it's pretty obvious when you read the actual comics.

  12. #12
    Mighty Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,777

    Default

    Brian Cronin did a feature on this and even he said the myth was "mostly" false. One that seemed to grow due to the fact Lee was front and centre telling the same story for years on end. Ditko being a private individual also didn't help. That is despite the fact he did provide correspondence and interviews here and there.

    Lee and Ditko were barely talking during the latter months. So I doubt that it was a decision "forced" on Ditko. Remember, Ditko provided the pencils and he dropped the artwork off at Marvel. Lee would then script over them. Also, Norman was prominently featured in stories that contained The Green Goblin.

    I do believe they clashed. But all the great creative partnerships do (Paul and John, Mick and Keith). Both men were from different ends of the spectrum with Lee the Showman and Ditko the one behind the scenes. There was also the belief they clashed over Peter moving on to College as well (Lee apparently wanted him to graduate, while Ditko supposedly wanting him to stay in high school). In the end, Steve probably left for the same reason the others did - not getting their due and being poorly paid.

    Lee did contribute and he did help to make Marvel. But he didn't do it alone. Kirby and Ditko were also pivotal pillars.

  13. #13
    Extraordinary Member Revolutionary_Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    8,369

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Somecrazyaussie View Post
    I do believe they clashed. But all the great creative partnerships do (Paul and John, Mick and Keith).
    Lee and Ditko and for that matter Lee and Kirby are not comparable in the slightest to The Beatles or The Rolling Stones. In those bands, the members largely did collaborate on largely equal amount. In the case of Lee and Ditko, it was like Ditko was doing 80% of the heavy lifting, and as it picked up steam - 90%. The Master Planner Saga was entirely Ditko's. And it does seem like that in AF#15, it was Ditko who created the main plot twist -- the burglar Peter lets escape kills his Uncle. That means that Ditko designed the engine, the chassis, the body of the car (the design of the suit and the characters), while Stan Lee at best designed the license plates and the scent to use for the upholstery.

    There was also the belief they clashed over Peter moving on to College as well (Lee apparently wanted him to graduate, while Ditko supposedly wanting him to stay in high school).
    Ditko repeatedly said that he intended Spider-Man to go to college and made the decision to age him up. He said this to Russ Maheras, and he also said that in one of his letters.

    Ditko Letter.jpg

    Unlike the Goblin rumor, this rumor has slightly more credibility since the source is Marv Wolfman's second hand testimony of his interaction with Ditko when they collaborated on Machine Man during the late '70s and early '80s. We only have Wolfman's word and obviously no minutes or record of what Ditko's actual words were. From the way Wolfman describes it in Comic Creators on Spider-Man, it sounds like Wolfman was proposing a concept or idea to Ditko and the latter is entertaining the notion and Wolfman is mistaking that for actual agreement or that this was a true disagreement that Ditko shared. Because the thing is Ditko was known for never discussing Spider-Man in office and always clamming up when people brought up his work on Spider-Man, so it feels very out of character for Ditko to suddenly pour his heart to Marv Wolfman. Alternatively, maybe Ditko agreed that day but later disagreed or forgot about it and gave it no thought.

    Because again in all his public statements, which exist, Ditko said multiple times that he intended Peter to go to college and never had issues with him graduating.

    In the end, Steve probably left for the same reason the others did - not getting their due and being poorly paid.
    Got it in one.

    Lee did contribute and he did help to make Marvel. But he didn't do it alone. Kirby and Ditko were also pivotal pillars.
    The problem with this, is that the assumption it operates is that Stan Lee is somehow the protagonist of this story, and that Kirby and Ditko are somehow important to acknowledge as "pillars", or supporting characters.

    When in fact they should be seen as the true protagonists, with Stan Lee as a supporting player in the story of their lives. And certainly in the story of their creations.

  14. #14
    Amazing Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    85

    Default

    We already got the answer to that one...Hobgoblin being Kingsley

  15. #15
    Better than YOU! Alan2099's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    4,772

    Default

    -- There's no need to preface this by calling him a "social recluse" as if that in and of itself invalidates his viewpoint.
    You can't start your statement with a bold underlined "Stan Lee isn't an unreliable narrator. He's a dishonest narrator," and complain about others trying to skew things.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •