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

[Huntsman Spider]

I think it's in poor taste to take Marvel's mascot for corporate greed and try to give him a redemption story.

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

[Jman27]

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

the only time I would agree at best is during the post clone saga era when he brought the daily bugle and Kingsley companies. Prior to his death not much of him was seen in the corporate world

[Frontier]

This is exactly it IMO. I think an arc exploring a repenting Norman Osborn and the tragic surrogate father-son dynamic that sometimes pops up between him and Peter can work with incarnations like the Raimi iteration or potentially the Insomniac Norman.

But 616 Norman? I'm sorry, but no. Peter properly met the man when he revealed himself as the Green Goblin and it wasn't long after that the man went on to murder Gwen Stacy. And if that wasn't an immediate dealbreaker, consider the first things that Norman did to the Parker family when he came back from the dead. Peter and MJ lost their baby because of the man.

Wells straight up had to act like they had a Raimi film dynamic which was never canon to the comics just to make sense of it from Peter's perspective.

[Aura Blaize]

It was the most interesting Norman's been in ages. So of course it couldn't last. He was at his most interesting in Gold/Red Goblin. He was fine when he showed up in Slott's Spider-Man as well. Unfortunately the bulk of his time was in ASM under Well's pen so....yeah

And this point though, I think the best thing to do is kill him off. I think we've told all the possible stories that we can with Green Goblin. Scratch that. I really wouldn't mind Red Goblin vs Green Goblin. But even that would wear out it's welcome.

They got what they want from him now it's time to broom him.

[Tendrin]

It was the most interesting Norman's been in ages. So of course it couldn't last. He was at his most interesting in Gold/Red Goblin. He was fine when he showed up in Slott's Spider-Man as well. Unfortunately the bulk of his time was in ASM under Well's pen so....yeah

And this point though, I think the best thing to do is kill him off. I think we've told all the possible stories that we can with Green Goblin. Scratch that. I really wouldn't mind Red Goblin vs Green Goblin. But even that would wear out it's welcome.

They got what they want from him now it's time to broom him.

Norman'll never be gone for good, and I think the idea that we've 'told all the possible stories' is a mistaken belief based largely on fan-jadedness, I think.

Yes, this is the most interesting Norman's been in years.

I think they're just getting him back where they want him, as someone who can have multiple directions and uses, and has a recognizable characterization to the kind of fan that hasn't been reading comics for 30 years.

[9AlphaOmega1]

I would like to see Osborn stay good as long how much effort Marvel put in reverse of the Spidey marriage. Lex Luther in the current Superman comics is interesting, his past enemies are coming back to get him, and needs Superman's help. When Marvel try to make Osborn to Dr Doom level during Dark Reign didn't make sense to me than again real life is stranger than fiction.

[Daibhidh]

I think it's in poor taste to take Marvel's mascot for corporate greed and try to give him a redemption story.

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.)

[Daibhidh]

On that note, interesting depictions of Tony Stark (eg MCU, Midnight Suns the computer game) strongly imply that his jerkish tendencies are enabled by the fact that being wealthy and the head of a big corporation gives him a lot of power to make decisions for other people who don't have the power to come back at him. Midnight Suns has him voiced by Josh Keaton; that's not the only way the game implies that if Tony hadn't been really wealthy he could have been Peter Parker (its depiction of Peter is in the Maguire/Holland/Bendis Ultimate mold as one of the nicest most purely heroic characters on the roster).

[Confuzzled]

In the minority here but vastly preferred Norman being a dead guy. Everything that was done with him after his return could have been done with Roderick Kingsley. Harry could have survived and been the haunted on and off bad guy.

[marvelprince]

On that note, interesting depictions of Tony Stark (eg MCU, Midnight Suns the computer game) strongly imply that his jerkish tendencies are enabled by the fact that being wealthy and the head of a big corporation gives him a lot of power to make decisions for other people who don't have the power to come back at him. Midnight Suns has him voiced by Josh Keaton; that's not the only way the game implies that if Tony hadn't been really wealthy he could have been Peter Parker (its depiction of Peter is in the Maguire/Holland/Bendis Ultimate mold as one of the nicest most purely heroic characters on the roster).

Man I loved that game. The characterization and deep lore was soooo much fun. And all the voice actors really bought it.

[Huntsman Spider]

It was the most interesting Norman's been in ages. So of course it couldn't last. He was at his most interesting in Gold/Red Goblin. He was fine when he showed up in Slott's Spider-Man as well. Unfortunately the bulk of his time was in ASM under Well's pen so....yeah

And this point though, I think the best thing to do is kill him off. I think we've told all the possible stories that we can with Green Goblin. Scratch that. I really wouldn't mind Red Goblin vs Green Goblin. But even that would wear out it's welcome.

They got what they want from him now it's time to broom him.

Quoting Norman's advice to Harry about Mary Jane after meeting her at Thanksgiving dinner with Peter and Aunt May in Sam Raimi's first Spider-Man film? Good one.

[SpideyClone]

Pretty much my exact feeling. I think the supernatural angle is the only way to make Norman plausibly have a change of heart, but it was an interesting and fresh dynamic for him and Peter.

It also led to the excellent Gold Goblin miniseries.

I'm always interested in those existential questions of what makes us who we are, what good and evil really mean, etc. So this idea that this really despicable, hateful human being is suddenly purged of his cruelty and madness and is now a good man that has to face the enormity of his sins....I find that compelling. I actually felt bad for Osborn at times and, to some extent, was rooting for him to stay good and find peace.

Wells didn't do a lot of deep exploration of those ideas like Cantwell did, but it was the only part of his run that felt new or fresh.

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.

[Mister Mets]

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.

[Daibhidh]

Man I loved that game. The characterization and deep lore was soooo much fun.

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.)

[Aura Blaize]

Norman'll never be gone for good, and I think the idea that we've 'told all the possible stories' is a mistaken belief based largely on fan-jadedness, I think.

Yes, this is the most interesting Norman's been in years.

I think they're just getting him back where they want him, as someone who can have multiple directions and uses, and has a recognizable characterization to the kind of fan that hasn't been reading comics for 30 years.

It's frustrating because Marvel has a habit of moving away from interesting new directions and characterizations to fall back on same old same old. And there are Green Goblin stories to tell but at this point they're some variation of "how to screw over Peter" that we've seen for years.

Quoting Norman's advice to Harry about Mary Jane after meeting her at Thanksgiving dinner with Peter and Aunt May in Sam Raimi's first Spider-Man film? Good one.

Heh heh. I was wondering when someone would point that out.