Original Green Goblin (Norman Osborn) Appreciation 2022

[Huntsman Spider]

When it comes to Norman's (and by extension Harry's) hairstyle, has any artist attempted to draw it where it actually looks like actor Joseph Cotten's hair instead of directly copying Ditko's attempt to make it look like that?

Not that I'm aware of, which is a shame.

[HypnoHustler]

https://www.cbr.com/spider-man-osbor...veness-marvel/

[TinkerSpider]

https://www.cbr.com/spider-man-osbor...veness-marvel/

Co-signed a thousand times.

Maybe if Norman showed some remorse for his villainy I’d cut Peter some slack but no, Norman is acting like a smug, manipulative SOB.

[Huntsman Spider]

https://www.cbr.com/spider-man-osbor...veness-marvel/

Co-signed a thousand times.

Maybe if Norman showed some remorse for his villainy I’d cut Peter some slack but no, Norman is acting like a smug, manipulative SOB.

He was showing genuine remorse (or so it seemed) when he was cleansed of his sins and throughout the remainder of Nick Spencer's run. It's a shame Wells has him acting more like his usual scumbag self, even if he's still "cleansed" until further notice. Then again, Last Remains did have Mary Jane herself bring up the (valid) point that even "cleansed," Norman was still the same rotten bastard who ruined his own son's life, to say nothing of Peter's or hers, let alone all the lives he was responsible for outright ending, and always would be, so his characterization in Wells's run could just be a manifestation of that fact.

[Tabs]

https://www.cbr.com/spider-man-osbor...veness-marvel/

Someone asks for examples of accurate hair, and now I have a reaction image.


1. Wasn't the Parker industries CEO era textually addressed as built entirely off the back of Doctor Otto Octavius and "borrowed" technology? The position was unearned and Spider-man lost it through heroism.


2. Peter hasn't sacrificed his "With great power, there must also come great responsibility" coda. By looking after those kids he's a "responsible" godfather. Stanley was a Menace. Good job on Pete. And...Zeb Wells for adding more proof to the idea that Peter Parker can be present both as a parental figure and a crime-fighter. Peter Parker hasn't "lowered" himself yet. Child care doesn't mean errand boy.

3. Think of all the very real personal harm Otto Octavius committed against Peter Parker and his loved ones during Superior alone. Spider-man still offered to do everything in his power to help Superior Octopus because Peter "knows there's some good in him" while Otto was working for HYDRA. Peter has had time to cool down after Norman Osborn put Mary Jane Watson in danger and Kindred tortured Spider-man a few times. I don't get BND Parker's willingness to forgive people in general but this is a problem with Cape comics. Peter Parker only tried killing Osborn in the heat of the moment, but I understand the argument that he's simply done too much. Flash Thompson was killed while Osborn had the carnage symbiote and didn't stay dead. Ben Reilly also returned and then tried to harm Peter because of edgy writing. That makes the situation more complicated when Norman is currently "sinless". Or, as I think of it, "brainwashed".

4. Osborn was pardoned. Peter Parker has no say in what mistakes the Marvel public makes during an election. Obviously, Osborn is not going to stay in prison like scum he is deserves. Not when he's been cleared and is currently being all nice and compliant.

5. Harry Osborn? While Norman has only been present one issue, Wells, Lowe, or both set this run up for outrage when the "6 months later" approach was chosen.

[TinkerSpider]

1. Wasn't the Parker industries CEO era was textually addressed as built entirely off the back of Doctor Otto Octavius and "borrowed" technology? The position was unearned and he lost it through heroism.

Yes, Peter willingly and actively accepted everything that Otto earned - including the PhD as well as the company - but IMO he didn't lose them through heroism but rather stupidity. He was incredibly irresponsible and put the privacy of millions, if not billions, of people at risk. Otto is absolutely correct here in calling out Peter's self-delusion, only I'd add unbelievable incompetence and pathological inability to pull his thumb out of his tights as well. But that's a Slott story for you.

2. Peter hasn't sacrificed his "With great power, there must also come great responsibility" coda. By looking after those kids he's a "responsible" godfather. Stanley was a Menace. Good job on Pete. And...Zeb Wells for adding more proof to the idea that Peter Parker can be present both as a parental figure and a crime-fighter. Peter Parker hasn't "lowered" himself yet and child care doesn't mean errand boy.

A point for showing him being a parental figure, I suppose, but Wells is writing Peter as a sad sack loser who can barely be motivated to websling - he showed up at Tombstone's truck after everyone has been massacred so yay, you, Pete - I mean, Tombstone pulled the trigger so he's definitely the bad guy here but the big galoot has a point that Peter is also responsible in a way. After all, even Peter hopes he isn't too late and yet...whoops.

I still say asking Peter to babysit (it was different when Liz and Harry asked MJ and Peter, as MJ would still be there if Peter had to run off) is tempting fate - or is Norman doing his best to sideline Spider-Man and/or play on Peter's guilt, because what if, say, the Lizard was on the loose in the vicinity? Would Peter just sit there slurping pudding? What does that do to his sense of responsibility?

3. Think of all the very real personal harm Otto Octavius committed against Peter Parker and his loved ones during Superior alone. Spider-man still offered to do everything in his power to help Superior Octopus because Peter "knows there's some good in him" while Otto was working for HYDRA.

Peter's reaction to Ock killing him and highjacking his body and identity was not at all believable and broke the suspension of disbelief pretty much beyond repair. But again, that's a Slott story for you. That's on the writer, not on the character. Same for Ben's asinine heel turn. That's on Wells. Neither writer provided proper motivation and both events throw the reader out of the story.

[HypnoHustler]

The point is, Peter shouldn’t be subservient to someone who caused him so much pain. This is the person directly responsible for the deaths of his loved ones. Whether he’s still conscious or aware of what he did doesn’t change that fact. If a drunk driver hit and killed your loved one, but was genuinely sorry afterward and claimed not to remember the event even happened maaaaaaybe if you’re a really good person you could forgive them but I doubt you would want to associate with them as that would be a constant reminder of the trauma they inflicted on you.

[Tabs]

Yes, Peter willingly and actively accepted everything that Otto earned - including the PhD as well as the company - but IMO he didn't lose them through heroism but rather stupidity. He was incredibly irresponsible and put the privacy of millions, if not billions, of people at risk. Otto is absolutely correct here in calling out Peter's self-delusion, only I'd add unbelievable incompetence and pathological inability to pull his thumb out of his tights as well. But that's a Slott story for you.

As I read it, Otto Octavius had a back door in every product that Parker Industries constructed. The Doc advanced the company by manipulating the stock market and borrowing tech from other sources. Peter Parker never noticed. That enough is damning for his supposed competency and future employment. Spider-man had a moral responsibility to shut the entire thing down. Or confess what happened to the public officials and proceed to court. If guilty, Peter would risk a personal fine of up to $1,000,000 and 10 years imprisonment. Peter would need to prove to the court that neither he nor anyone he directly supported intended to benefit from Octavius' unlawful actions. That's hard to do when the writing made it so that no one whose judgment wasn't successfully compromised (Carlie Cooper as Monster) noticed the change between Parker and Octavius. If Slott was kind, I suppose someone would have been there to help pretend to be Spider-man when the court tried sending for the vigilante. If not, that adds more complications. There would be a mandatory recall of Parker products. Peter would need to hire someone he trusted or personally test each one, interfering with Spider-man's vigilante activities. Peter can no longer trust the merchandise or his employees. Peter would have to resign himself to have Parker industries as a business charged up 10 million because the founder was knowingly involved in crime. Peter has lost the ability to sell his main product. If Parker industries persisted in existing, some other corporate entity would have taken its dried-up husk. Some might have enjoyed reading about the legal system dismantling everything Spider-man profited from but never built more than a quick dash of it. I'm not sure if Slott would have written that as anything but a humiliation conga. Prospective employers would be less prone to hire someone with a reputation as… "radioactive" as Peter Parker's would be, whether or not he won that trial. That might have been a better narrative decision, in retrospect. It would justify his present circumstances better than two all-black pages with white text.

Bankruptcy or worse should have happened to quite a few fictional billionaires realistically, but the writing isn't protecting Parker from changes in the status quo. Peter's luck is out to get him for being a decent person. If he kept it quiet and tried to undo the damage on his own while retaining his company, his "luck" would ensure someone would rat him out, and now he looks guilty. He was narratively screwed from the start, so at least the dismantling was quick and happened on his terms.

A point for showing him being a parental figure, I suppose, but Wells is writing Peter as a sad sack loser who can barely be motivated to websling - he showed up at Tombstone's truck after everyone has been massacred so yay, you, Pete - I mean, Tombstone pulled the trigger so he's definitely the bad guy here but the big galoot has a point that Peter is also responsible in a way. After all, even Peter hopes he isn't too late and yet...whoops.

Tombstone blames Spider-man because Parker interfered with a business transaction. Lincoln "needs" to pressure Peter because that interference means Tombstone's credibility is shot after his home was successfully bombed. Lonnie's motivation is "correct" in a moral relativist fashion because that's business as usual for organized crime. There were other options Peter Parker could have chosen to arrive more quickly. For example, Spider-man might have saved himself time if he had just let White Rabbit go instead of securely webbing her up. Or killed her. But Peter's morals wouldn't have allowed it. Spider-man is fast. He's not the Flash, yet the speedsters still arrive at a scene late. Everything else becomes less believable when the suspension is already snapped, but it's not him being a loser. It's a fault of the medium, not Peter in particular.

I still say asking Peter to babysit (it was different when Liz and Harry asked MJ and Peter, as MJ would still be there if Peter had to run off) is tempting fate - or is Norman doing his best to sideline Spider-Man and/or play on Peter's guilt, because what if, say, the Lizard was on the loose in the vicinity? Would Peter just sit there slurping pudding? What does that do to his sense of responsibility?

Using Harry's children to manipulate Spider-man would be so typical of that ****. How I read the situation:

Except more brusque because Osborn is genuine this time and Peter is thankfully still feeding himself. You do have an excellent point about rampaging Lizards. It would frustrate Aunt May, but Peter could always ask her for help even if she's in "I'm not mad, just disappointed" mode if the situation arises. Or ask Miles Morales or Cindy Moon if they can cover Lizard duty. With any of them, Peter can vow to do something to help them in return and promise to treat them for dinner. The above presents a reasonable test opportunity too. If Osborn is earnest, he will voluntarily pay for the meal Spider-man now owes his friends since Norman is fully aware of Peter Parker's duty and hired him anyway. If Osborn is using Spider-man, Norman will pitch in to ingratiate himself to Parker, or he won't. In one scenario, a Lizard is taken care of, and there's a high chance Peter's friends are fed on Osborn's dime. If they aren't, Spider-man knows the villain can't be trusted, and Peter knows to reject the next attempt. The second would force Osborn to reveal those kids are leverage. Peter can then start figuring out a plan to combat the crisis.
I miss Harry Osborn. There wasn't a need for understandable moral debates over supervising some godchildren when he was around. Liz Allan is one lab accident away from Supervillainy, and Norman Osborn's metaphysical sins "eat" people.

Peter's reaction to Ock killing him and highjacking his body and identity was not at all believable and broke the suspension of disbelief pretty much beyond repair. But that's a Slott story for you. That's on the writer, not on the character. Same for Ben's asinine heel turn. That's on Wells. Neither writer provided proper motivation and both events throw the reader out of the story.

BND era strikes again. I'm not blaming the characters, but the events still happened.
Peter hasn't seemed like himself since… books from the early 00s? BND Peter Parker reads like a variant. If there was an actual explanation beyond "Popular hero must be scoured of personality for the plot," I'd wonder if the incident with Otto Octavius was another Black Fox and Peter's due for another "conversation" with "Uncle Ben". Or if Peter is subconsciously self-sabotaging himself after OMD. Or if Spencer was going somewhere when it was said something was "wrong" with Peter's soul. Etc. He was briefly himself with a couple of hiccups under Spencer, but even that had problems.

The point is, Peter shouldn’t be subservient to someone who caused him so much pain. This is the person directly responsible for the deaths of his loved ones. Whether he’s still conscious or aware of what he did doesn’t change that fact. If a drunk driver hit and killed your loved one, but was genuinely sorry afterward and claimed not to remember the event even happened maaaaaaybe if you’re a really good person you could forgive them but I doubt you would want to associate with them as that would be a constant reminder of the trauma they inflicted on you.

True. I believe we're catching this from different angles. I don't consider someone looking after a godchild "subservient". Peter made a commitment, but no one would fault an actual person for defaulting on it. Spencer tried untangling Peter Parker from a chaotic mess of a relationship by character assassinating Harry Osborn, but godparents remain an extension of family for children. The role of a godparent in a child's life is to serve as a strong role model and provide guidance. Spider-man can't offer a positive influence if Parker doesn't spend more time with them. Sometimes adults cannot entirely cut themselves off from someone who does nothing but hurt them because children are involved. It's unfair, but it's authentic. There is still a battle waged over the lives and souls of those children. Or there will be if Stanley and Normie survive Norman's return to villainy. Unintentionally or not, Wells reminded the readership that the lives of the hero and one of his villains are tied together with innocents and violence.

If you're talking about the impending Issue #7? As the article linked mentioned briefly, working for Oscorp is only in character for Spider-man if Parker intends to "investigate" him. I like the idea that he plans to find some way to take Oscorp or Alchemax out from the inside. Or Osborn did something significant and/or revealed that the little girl calling Mary Jane Watson "mommy" was the child he killed. In that, I expect disappointment, but I would appreciate that reveal.

Even if Osborn is dead level, his smug attitude alone merits a swift kick up the rear. This plot had better result in Norman Osborn in the hospital after all this is over if he doesn't wake up in the morgue again.

[TinkerSpider]

As I read it, Otto Octavius had a back door in every product that Parker Industries constructed. The Doc advanced the company by manipulating the stock market and borrowing tech from other sources. Peter Parker never noticed. That enough is damning for his supposed competency and future employment. Spider-man had a moral responsibility to shut the entire thing down.

He had that responsibility from the start. Yet Peter blithely accepted the company and didn't think to even kick the tires until it was much too late despite the company being Otto's brainchild. He was incredibly gullible, naive and incompent.

That's hard to do when the writing made it so that no one whose judgment wasn't successfully compromised (Carlie Cooper as Monster) noticed the change between Parker and Octavius. If Slott was kind, I suppose someone would have been there to help pretend to be Spider-man when the court tried sending for the vigilante. If not, that adds more complications.

Hobie stood in for Spider-Man. So Peter had his decoy.

The whole story is poorly conceived and executed to the point of pain. Slott made everyone carry the idiot ball, including Peter whose only response to what happened was merely, "Otto was a jerk."

Peter would have to resign himself to have Parker industries as a business charged up 10 million because the founder was knowingly involved in crime.

This would have been a far more palatable outcome to the story. THAT'S how Parker Luck should work, IMO: Peter's setbacks are because he actively does good for others instead of choosing his own wants and desires. If Peter gave up Parker Industries and his PhD from the start, taking the consequences despite it being Ock's fault, that makes him a hero.

Peter saying, "Kewl! Otto left me a company and my PhD, WHEEE! Let's go play CEO!!!! I'm sure everything is on the up and up!!!!!1!!" makes him a moral loser - and again, unbelievably stupid and gullible.

If Parker industries persisted in existing, some other corporate entity would have taken its dried-up husk.

In fact, Beyond Corporation did just that.

Some might have enjoyed reading about the legal system dismantling everything Spider-man profited from but never built more than a quick dash of it. I'm not sure if Slott would have written that as anything but a humiliation conga.

Wasn't the Scorpio storyline basically about Scorpio upset over his insider trading? I don't really recall because that story was silly preposterous (Peter can pinpoint a landing in Paris while jumping from a space satellite on the fly but can't calculate the difference between miles and kilometers...whatevs, Slott) and I've tried to wipe it from my memory.

I agree Slott should stay far away from stories that use corporate shenanigans because he fails to understand the basics of how business works (for example, claiming Peter is still struggling because Peter took a middle manager salary - Parker Industries was set up to be a rival to Google/Apple, and middle managers at those companies make mid-six figures, with stock grants doubling or more their take home pay, so just how poor was Peter? Not to mention CEOs aren't rich because of their salaries, they're rich off their stock ownership and it was made clear Peter owned stock as the "founder," so...

It's rather insulting to the reader to assume readers don't know/don't care about these basics, considering how much companies and their CEOs/ownership are in the news.

Prospective employers would be less prone to hire someone with a reputation as… "radioactive" as Peter Parker's would be, whether or not he won that trial. That might have been a better narrative decision, in retrospect. It would justify his present circumstances better than two all-black pages with white text.

To be fair, Spencer did start off with that status quo. Peter was tainted by Parker Industries and couldn't get a job, and his academic career was tainted by the revelation that "he" plagiarized his dissertation from Otto.

Peter's luck is out to get him for being a decent person. If he kept it quiet and tried to undo the damage on his own while retaining his company, his "luck" would ensure someone would rat him out, and now he looks guilty.

I fundamentally disagree with this interpretation of Parker Luck (which to be fair, is Slott's interpretation as well). Peter isn't doomed or born under an unlucky star or fated to always be a loser. Parker Luck is when Peter has to make a choice between doing good for others or good for his personal life. Inevitably, whichever he chooses will have an impact on the other side of his life. Parker Luck is the tension between his responsibility and his wants. Sure, sometimes Parker Luck is imposed externally, but even then it's usually as an unintended consequence of his actions.

He was narratively screwed from the start, so at least the dismantling was quick and happened on his terms.

Was it? Pretty sure the company collapse was forced on him. But it's a Slott story and I'm not going back to re-read so I could be wrong.

Tombstone blames Spider-man because Parker interfered with a business transaction. Lincoln "needs" to pressure Peter because that interference means Tombstone's credibility is shot after his home was successfully bombed. Lonnie's motivation is "correct" in a moral relativist fashion because that's business as usual for organized crime.

Except Tombstone didn't originally blame him. He called Spider-Man "force majuere" or an unstoppable act of nature on his phone call with Hammerhead, and force majuere means no human is liable for what happened. The Rose bombed his mansion, so really, the Rose is to blame. But Tombstone is a bad guy so his illogical is excused.

There were other options Peter Parker could have chosen to arrive more quickly. For example, Spider-man might have saved himself time if he had just let White Rabbit go instead of securely webbing her up. Or killed her.

Or...not agreed to do a favor for Norman when Peter knows there is a gang war afoot? Or called Miles or Silk to check out the gang war for him if he couldn't get out of babysitting? Just sayin'. That was an awful lot of massacred bodies.

BND era strikes again. I'm not blaming the characters, but the events still happened.
Peter hasn't seemed like himself since… books from the early 00s? BND Peter Parker reads like a variant. If there was an actual explanation beyond "Popular hero must be scoured of personality for the plot," I'd wonder if the incident with Otto Octavius was another Black Fox and Peter's due for another "conversation" with "Uncle Ben". Or if Peter is subconsciously self-sabotaging himself after OMD. Or if Spencer was going somewhere when it was said something was "wrong" with Peter's soul. Etc. He was briefly himself with a couple of hiccups under Spencer, but even that had problems.

Agree. Would be nice if they ever addressed the hole in Peter's soul (which Joe Kelly also referenced in Spider-Man/Deadpool).

And to get back on topic: I'm not asking for Peter to web up Norman every time he sees him. But an acknowledgement that Norman may not have Peter's best interests at heart and Peter isn't gullibly and naively accepting Norman at face value would be helpful. I know Peter is a bit frosty to Norman at the beginning of ASM 2, but he's nicer to Norman than he was to Johnny in ASM 1, so.

[Tabs]

Peter

Slott's Parker was a donkey's butt.

Peter had his decoy.

Hobart Brown was an official employee of Parker industries. Peter noted Hobie was not the real Spider-man in front of others. I'd expect he would need to testify too. If Slott went rule of drama, things would get bad for Parker.

"Otto was a jerk."

Peter: Doc Ock isn't a bad man, he just gets confused sometimes.

more palatable outcome.

There must be Spider-man fans in the legal profession. Petition to have actual lawyers help Marvel write Spider trials?

"Kewl! Otto left me a company and my PhD, WHEEE! Let's go play CEO!!!! I'm sure everything is on the up and up!!!!!1!!"

Spider-Man ran afoul of Slott's Peter principal. I interpret the hostile takeover of Parker's body as a complicated squatter situation. Octavius settled the metaphorical maintenance and utility bills, did some renovation, and paid property taxes. The Doctor didn't make his adverse possession claim evident to others, and Ock couldn't retain custody of the "property" for the ten years required by New York law. The company belonged to Parker because it was created by exploiting the life, livelihood, and physical image of "Peter Parker". Even if the situation had only been a standard imposter ordeal with the Chameleon, Parker would be entitled to a share of the profits. Anyone using a person's name, portrait, picture or voice, for monetary profit without written consent can be sued in New York for an injunction and damages, including exemplary damages. Otto Octavius could sue and win for a co-founder settlement of Parker industries. The Doctorate is the only thing Peter Parker never had the privilege to claim.

In fact, Beyond Corporation did just that.

Technically Beyond bought the rights to a name Peter Parker didn't know Otto Octavius trademarked, so Spidey neglected to file the proper renewal documents.

Wasn't the Scorpio storyline basically about Scorpio upset over his insider trading?

What I remembered most about the Zodiac plot: failed suicide, Scorpio waving around a massive key, Spidey locking him in the vault of knowledge, and Otto the incel robot.

Vernon Fury's words were a foreshadowing to the "Master planner".

People scanned the facilities, attempting to find how deeply Scorpio's reach went. More examples of how "Otto Octavius is smarter than Spider-man" with time travel providing added knowledge. Dan Slott meant to compose a cautionary account of what happens when a person is promoted too quickly beyond their level of competency. Later, the news mentioned Parker industries were already facing class-action lawsuits and recalls. Writers can tell a story like that. It could even work for Peter Parker if the tale is nuanced. Dan Slott shouldn't have done it.

To be fair, Spencer did start off with that status quo.

I wasn't crazy about that reveal in his ASM 1. I know it's an advanced machine, but if Doctor Octopus is attempting to hide his body heist, why would he plagiarize himself? It makes Octavius seem less intelligent. Perhaps Octavius was due for a dressing down in a karmic sense after others looked foolish in his favor, but I'd have liked it better if Peter admitted he hadn't earned the damn thing. After everything Otto got away with, it drops everyone else down too.

I Parker Luck is the tension.

Peter Parker wasn't assigned loser at birth. Most ongoing comic characters return to their status quos eventually. The Parker luck is their most cited reasoning for it. Peter Parker is middle class, and to the middle class, he will return. Some writers are better at transitioning back to the status quo than others. Ditko gave Dan Slott's interpretation some precedence, but his was balanced out with positive things happening to Parker too. Slott carried it to unduly harsh extremes.

company collapse was forced on him.

Deciding between "Destroy company" or "Let the founder profit from it" is still a choice but if you want to to read it your way it works.

Tombstone.

Tombstone sees Spider-man as a supercop. Organized crime might avoid killing law enforcement. They won't always stay their hand.
High-profile cop killing is usually advised against unless necessary due to the consequence of retribution. The stakes are raised when an esteemed police officer is murdered in the line of duty. Other authorities are less likely to overlook crimes and accept bribes. The perp might end up dead resisting arrest. Departments concentrate their resources on the killings of police officers. Assassinating well-known cops brings attention to the mafia in general, not just those who axed the celebrity officer. That means lawbreakers are put under much more scrutiny, so other unlawful activities the mafia is involved in are more likely to be investigated, detected, and hit by police. It's not unheard of for gangs to actively suppress members who might put them at risk through cop killing. It is more logical to leave the cop alone, rough them up a bit, or, if necessary, set up an "accidental death". Organized crime units run their operations like a business. They will do what they deem necessary to make capital. They are also criminals who value their lives and would rather dodge jail time.
Spider-man's involvement was initially dismissed. Spidey is a team player who knows and is usually liked by many noteworthy people. Organized crime is all about making money. A super mobster is not raking in cash when every supercop around wants him arrested or dead for killing one of their own. Tombstone knows he doesn't have the manpower or weapons to openly wage war against all of Spidey's amazing friends operating in New York. However, the other gangs aren't denouncing The Rose's declarations. Someone not shrewd enough to catch that engaging a high-profile supercop like Spider-man should be seen as a liability in a business where liabilities can devastate the "industry" and get their people killed or put them in prison. After the events of Devil's Reign and possibly [redacted], Lonnie Lincoln's viewpoint isn't necessarily agreed on by the rest of the New York mob. This might be because of the weakness shown in how the supercops handled the Wilson Fisk crisis. When the mob took on the government, the institution's legitimacy was questioned. The punishment needed to be swift, certain, and severe for the deterrent.

Spider-Man showed up. The Rose declared Spider-man's involvement is a sign of weakness. Tombstone thought he was an idiot. Richard Fisk uses the chance to bomb Tombstone's home to message Lonnie Lincoln that his perspective is outdated. Tombstone now needs to show those who agreed with Richard Fisk that he can keep his house in order. To me, it reads like a natural progression. In a relativistic fashion, making Spider-man aware of the consequences of his role is "necessary" to revitalize his standing among the other criminals, continue making money, and stay alive.

Or…not agreed

We hold different assumptions about what Peter would be doing with his time. I saw Peter Parker take two hours to wake up in ASM 1. He spent the day attempting to get into the right mindset to fight crime. There is no indication Parker wouldn't have spent the day doing the same since Osborn discovered him at the apartment rather than on the streets. Peter reads like a person experiencing a major depressive episode.


Tough to empathize when readers don't know the cause. I'd have Zeb Wells add a line noting Spidey had Moon check on the Gangsters if the edit job was up to me. Morales can shadow Osborn to confirm Norman wasn't conducting any stunts Peter regretted. Parker could contact Liz Allan and question if she knew Osborn had both kids and was fine with Peter managing Normie. The decision not to do so is both a failure of [redacted], the "Superman stays out of Gotham" trope comicbook writers reinforce, and a questionable editorial rather than Peter's competency. After numerous spider team-ups, "Batman stays out of Bludhaven" is a more noticeable slip.

massacred bodies

Rule of drama. There ain't indicators those mooks were superhuman. So. Gotta cram in as many bodies as possible in the panels. If he chose, Wells could explain the bodies by factoring in the speed disparities between an average to athletic male (8-17 mph) and Marvel's concept of "peak human" speed (27-60 mph) fused with Tombstone's strength and durability. Those mooks were balloons set before a single-minded jack russell.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=X-_tqd7e_D8
One hundred balloons popped in 39.08 seconds. Side note, execution still sucked, but s*** like this is why I say the MCU's adaptation on the Registration side had reasonable arguments.

And to get back on topic: I'm not asking for Peter to web up Norman every time he sees him.

I'd like that. "Web up Gobby" is the latest "Shut up Hannibal".

But an acknowledgement that Norman may not have Peter's best interests at heart

Not much to ask at all. The bare minimum, to be honest.

accepting Norman at face value would be helpful.

My thought is that Wells, Lowe, or both are trying to get a rise out of the readers.

Peter is nicer to Norman than he was to Johnny in ASM 1, so.

There is a way to argue with friends. Both Peter Parker and Johnny Storm mismanaged the situation due to residual hard feelings over [redacted]. The Mephisto-alligned enemy sided with Parker in a decision that resulted in massive property damage. RED FLAG

[Matt Rat]

Posting this excerpt from webcomic "The Rescue" in the accurate thread (thanks for pointing this out to me Lukmendes)

[Ursalink]

Honestly, the whole "Gold Goblin" is stupid, no matter how you see it. I almost would prefer Norman returning to the old "Iron Patriot" stuff. At least that had some more sense.

I have to say, "Gold Goblin" makes me think about Doc Ock as "Superior Octopus".

[Matt Rat]

Christopher Cantwell confirmed the villain of Gold Goblin is

spoilers:

Jack O'Lantern

end of spoilers

[Ursalink]

Christopher Cantwell confirmed the villain of Gold Goblin is

spoilers:

Jack O'Lantern

end of spoilers

Why am I not surprise? With so many Goblins and "wannabe" goblins in the Marvel Universe, Norman's villain had to be one of those.

[Matt Rat]

Evoking memories of "The Final Chapter" a bit here....