What do you think of Norman Osborn as a good guy?

[Mistah K88]

It should’ve been Harry…as then you could have a legitimate redemption with past sins haunting rather than literal evil blasted out… instead they doubled down on Harry while making Norman have positive relationships he never had.

[Frontier]

I think it was a good idea. I like how Wells and Caldwell built on Spencer's development. It does bring back an obscure but classic characterization of Norman Osborn from the Lee/ Romita run, which is more complex than just being the Green Goblin all the time. I'd rather this stay the status quo, to develop the idea that Peter was right to spare Norman's life.

Feels like the jury is out on that with all the bodies he's already dropped.

I just wish Wells wrote Peter as well as Spencer did.

[marvelprince]

It's not Baldur's Gate; but I do love the characters and the game play.

I'm not fully sold on their interpretation of Peter's character, but it does fit with their interpretation of Spider-man, and I am all for their interpretation of Spider-man.
(Basically, his heroic set piece is saving lives; he wins fights by improvising clever plans - they can't really simulate that last mechanically but Spider-man's mechanics are there to gesture in that direction.)

The voice for Peter took a little getting used to me too (especially when you have Dr Strange and Tony and Magik who just feel so authentic) but it does fit the version of Spider-Man they’re using. I find myself just playing to see what the different characters say to each other.

[Kaitou D. Kid]

Normally I would agree, but the way they did lets you know its only temporary and the character himself knows and struggles with that and its actually been pretty compelling.

I don't think Wells wanted the reader to think it was temporary. It was almost played up as a twist/shock that it happened. And up to that point, Peter warming up to him was played straight.

I thought that was Dario Agger from Immortal Hulk (and now Immortal Thor) by Al Ewing, but I definitely see your point there.

Marvel's mascot for corporate greed should be Justin Hammer or Obadiah Stane, or else one of the directors of Roxxon.
It seems to me that Roxxon is a much more convincing portrayal of corporate greed than modern Norman Osborn could be, since its leaders are semi-anonymous interchangeable directors of an oil corporation. The evil of Roxxon is the evil of a corporate culture, whereas the evil of Norman Osborn is just the evil of the Osborn family drama. Oscorp has no well defined business model that I'm aware of; Oscorp doesn't really have anything interesting to say about the evils of corporate greed as such.
It says something sadly that the seventies could portray an oil corporation as a Big Bad, while in contemporary pop culture energy corporations are only evil if they're branching out into new apparently greener energy sources.

(Even the otherwise excellent spoilers:

Glass Onion

end of spoilers turns on a new green energy source being unstable.)

From the general audience's POV, Norman is arguably Marvel's Lex Luthor. Arguably more people know Norman than they know Hammer and Roxxon (and even Fisk). If for no other reason than being the archenemy of Marvel's mascot and getting tons of exposure in adaptations.

Stuff like Marvel Knights, Dark Reign and Evil Incarcerated elevates him too IMO.

In any case, he is up there. Definitely in the top 5 most iconic corporate tycoons in Marvel's world. And it's just in poor taste to argue someone like that deserves a second chance. (Not unless you go ahead and make that argument for every other villain that isn't a rich corporate dude - and that's just not realistic).

[Daibhidh]

From the general audience's POV, Norman is arguably Marvel's Lex Luthor. Arguably more people know Norman than they know Hammer and Roxxon (and even Fisk). If for no other reason than being the archenemy of Marvel's mascot and getting tons of exposure in adaptations.

Yes, but the most high profile of those adaptations - William Dafoe - makes him out to be basically a case of double personality brought on by the goblin formula. It's a bit ambiguous in Raimi's original film, but there's no two ways about it in No Way Home.
As I say, Norman Osborn is a decent way to explore toxic masculinity and patriarchy. He's much less suited to stories about corporate greed because his evil isn't really about enabling the corporate bottom line - it may have been faintly in his origin story but that ship has now sailed. As a villain he's now basically Marvel's worst case of Joker syndrome - the villain whose main motivation is their desire to hurt the hero.

[TinkerSpider]

The Gold Goblin series was excellent. In the hands of a writer like Cantwell, Norman's hero turn was compelling, and the most interesting thing to happen to the character in years. There was potential there for other stories as well, like meeting his former compatriots from the Dark Avengers or Thunderbolts. It was certainly a change of pace from the usual 'how can I screw Peter over this time" story that seems to be a hallmark of Spidey these days.

Gold Goblin truly was excellent. Christopher Cantwell excels at characterization.

But the current ASM run has wasted all the story potential with lilttle to no grasp of Norman's character or anything to say about him other than "Me once bad, now me good, oops, me might be bad again, LOL." The concept of sins and what effect their removal has had on Norman have been poorly defined and seem to change from issue to issue as the run needs them to change, rather than integrating them organically into the story and using them as a theme. The relationship with Peter is also cliche and thin, providing little to no suspension of disbelief for the reader, with both characters ignoring their actual long history and substituting a glib Raimi-verse reference instead.

So to answer the original questions: I like the idea of Norman as a good guy, it could be a very affecting story and even a tragic one. But is the current story in ASM a good arc? LOL no.

[Frontier]

Yes, but the most high profile of those adaptations - William Dafoe - makes him out to be basically a case of double personality brought on by the goblin formula. It's a bit ambiguous in Raimi's original film, but there's no two ways about it in No Way Home.
As I say, Norman Osborn is a decent way to explore toxic masculinity and patriarchy. He's much less suited to stories about corporate greed because his evil isn't really about enabling the corporate bottom line - it may have been faintly in his origin story but that ship has now sailed. As a villain he's now basically Marvel's worst case of Joker syndrome - the villain whose main motivation is their desire to hurt the hero.

That's always worked for me!

[Daibhidh]

That's always worked for me!

I don't like the desire to hurt the hero as a motivation (*). The nature of superhero stories means that heroes tend to be reactive rather than proactive, and having the villain's motivation be to harm the hero only exacerbates that. At best, it makes the hero's involvement in the event purely self-interested rather than altruistic - a hero should be helping other people not saving themselves. At worst, it means that the hero would be making the world a better place by retiring and so taking away the villain's motivation.

(*) The X-Men are a partial exception, as when anti-mutant villains are out to get them it's not personal and also because they're implicitly the first line of defence for all the other mutants out there. Even then I prefer seeing the X-Men actively infering with villains' plans, rather than being reactive targets.

[Frontier]

I don't like the desire to hurt the hero as a motivation (*). The nature of superhero stories means that heroes tend to be reactive rather than proactive, and having the villain's motivation be to harm the hero only exacerbates that. At best, it makes the hero's involvement in the event purely self-interested rather than altruistic - a hero should be helping other people not saving themselves. At worst, it means that the hero would be making the world a better place by retiring and so taking away the villain's motivation.

(*) The X-Men are a partial exception, as when anti-mutant villains are out to get them it's not personal and also because they're implicitly the first line of defence for all the other mutants out there. Even then I prefer seeing the X-Men actively infering with villains' plans, rather than being reactive targets.

I think it depends on the character and the execution.

Like it works really well for characters like Joker and the Reverse-Flash.

[marvelprince]

I don't think Wells wanted the reader to think it was temporary. It was almost played up as a twist/shock that it happened. And up to that point, Peter warming up to him was played straight.
.

Well yeah you can’t get a shock or emotions if you don’t at least build and commit to the relationship. But the hints were always there that this was coming. Plus it’s the nature of the medium so even if it wasn’t spelt out we knew Norman would go back goblin eventually cause that’s how these things work.

[Kaitou D. Kid]

Yes, but the most high profile of those adaptations - William Dafoe - makes him out to be basically a case of double personality brought on by the goblin formula. It's a bit ambiguous in Raimi's original film, but there's no two ways about it in No Way Home.
As I say, Norman Osborn is a decent way to explore toxic masculinity and patriarchy. He's much less suited to stories about corporate greed because his evil isn't really about enabling the corporate bottom line - it may have been faintly in his origin story but that ship has now sailed. As a villain he's now basically Marvel's worst case of Joker syndrome - the villain whose main motivation is their desire to hurt the hero.

To an extent, it's true that Dafoe's take casts a shadow on everything. But that has more to do with how much the live-action movies shadowbox Raimi and can't move past those first two films (as much as they pretend not to). I would say it goes beyond Norman there, IMO. General audiences to an extent still think of Maguire and Dunst when they think Spidey and Mary Jane.

But I wouldn't say the ship has sailed. I think all of that is slowly going away, and will probably go away fully when we get a reboot that matches Raimi's the way Nolan's matched Burton's.

Outside of the live-action films, Norman in the comics since the mid 2000s (starting with Thunderbolts/Marvel Knights to Dark Reign and all the way up to Spencer's run/Evil Incarcerated) has gone back to having other intentions besides just Spider-Man. Insomniac Norman (while more sympathethic) is very much a metaphor for corporate greed in the first game. And there's also Spectacular, which goes without saying. Heck, even the two Disney cartoons... as bad as they were, they did a lot of that corporate stuff, didn't they? As did the Ultimate comics and the TASM films (everyone joked how cliche they got that all the villains came from Oscorp).

Well yeah you can’t get a shock or emotions if you don’t at least build and commit to the relationship. But the hints were always there that this was coming. Plus it’s the nature of the medium so even if it wasn’t spelt out we knew Norman would go back goblin eventually cause that’s how these things work.

The hints were there in the sense that they were subtle enough you can overlook them. Which proves my point that Wells wanted us to be shocked/surprised/feel tragic about it when it happens, but it doesn't work because it's Norman.

[Mercwmouth12]

Well yeah you can’t get a shock or emotions if you don’t at least build and commit to the relationship. But the hints were always there that this was coming. Plus it’s the nature of the medium so even if it wasn’t spelt out we knew Norman would go back goblin eventually cause that’s how these things work.

So problem with that is pacing of the turn. In the sins arc we get Norman suddenly afraid when he cackles and then in the following arc when it hasn't even been established at all that he got his sins back we have a completly different acting Norman. There may have been one instance in the very beginning from him being sorta of mean to Peter, but that was to get him out of the apartment. To him suddenly acting like his old self without proper buildup. It just happens which deflates the whole setup

[Ubauba01]

So problem with that is pacing of the turn. In the sins arc we get Norman suddenly afraid when he cackles and then in the following arc when it hasn't even been established at all that he got his sins back we have a completly different acting Norman. There may have been one instance in the very beginning from him being sorta of mean to Peter, but that was to get him out of the apartment. To him suddenly acting like his old self without proper buildup. It just happens which deflates the whole setup

IIRC, in the scene where Norman cackles, the narration said the sins returned home (to Norman) and not the spear, so it was established.

Wıthin the established logic of the story, Peter with Norman's sins started acting like a complete pycho right after receiving them, so it is internally consistent that Norman would also have a quick personality change. If anything, it is taking him a while becoming Green Goblin again considering how instantenious Peter's transformation was.

From a storytelling perspective however, I can understand the complaints about the lack of proper buildup.

[TinkerSpider]

So problem with that is pacing of the turn. In the sins arc we get Norman suddenly afraid when he cackles and then in the following arc when it hasn't even been established at all that he got his sins back we have a completly different acting Norman. There may have been one instance in the very beginning from him being sorta of mean to Peter, but that was to get him out of the apartment. To him suddenly acting like his old self without proper buildup. It just happens which deflates the whole setup

Asking for this run to respect the reader and deliver story consistency, characterization and plot structure with internal integrity is like asking for green cheese crumbles from the Moon on your salad. Everything is nonsense, story beats appearing pulled without much rhyme or reason.