Should Norman Osborn Have Stayed Dead?

[Amadeus Arkham]

As we all know(at least most hardcore comic fans) Norman was retconned to have survived after his fight with Spider-Man following his climatic fight with Spider-Man in The Death Gwen Stacy Saga and while there are great stories made since he was brought back into the story(I love Dark Reign) I can’t help but feel his revival somewhat robs his original death by the glider piercing him of its finality. I know expecting comic book deaths to remain permanent is as laughable as expecting comic book companies to properly compensate their creators for their work but there’s still a part of me that feels like Norman’s original death should’ve been one of the few comic book deaths that should’ve stuck. Where do you guys fall?

[Frontier]

Spider-Man comics would be in a very different place if he did.

Also the frequency that the Green Goblin gets used in other media and as Spidey's biggest villain, he probably would've been brought back one way or another.

There have been a lot of good comics, Spider-Man or otherwise, that have involved Norman Osborn post-resurrection.

[Kurus]

I probably liked Norman better after he came back, then who he was pre death. So yeah, bringing him back was the right move.

[Hurricane Billy]

I'm not entirely sure.

On the one hand, I absolutely am of the mind that Norman Osborn's comeback led to him being unquestionably the primary arch-nemesis to Peter in the same sort of manner you see for Joker or Lex being to Batman and Superman. And as someone who would regularly argue from as soon as it was announced in 2015 that Spider-Man was joining the MCU that the best creative direction for Feige to go in post-Endgame in Phase 4 would be to adapt Dark Reign as a sort of palette cleanser from the sheer cosmic scope of the end of Phase 3, obviously none of that would have been particularly feasible if Norman hadn't come back in the first place.

But on the other hand... I think Norman being dead for so long and haunting over the narrative of Peter's life led to equally interesting developments and at least two of the best Goblin-related plots in Spider-Man history with Stern's Hobgoblin and DeMatteis' Spectacular Spider-Man run with Harry's Green Goblin.

[LordUltimus]

Yes, and Harry should have lived, even if his death was really well-written.

[Spider-Tiger]

I think the story that resulted from Norman's death is better than the story that resulted from his revival. But revived Norman is also a better adversary than Silver Age Norman. So, it's complicated.

I think for the purposes of an ongoing never-ending comic, he should be revived at some point. New writers should be able to re-interpret the character for new generations. But perhaps that should be left to a new continuity. For the purposes of meaningful continuity, he should have stayed dead within the canon that began with Lee, Ditko, and Romita in the 60s.

[MisterTorgo]

I actually liked the Dark Avengers stuff with Norman but I think death has become such a joke in comics and it really shouldn't be. And the image of the Goblin impaled on his sputtering glider as he "died" is still one of the first images I think of when I think of him.

On general principle, I think he should have stayed dead.

[Frontier]

I'm not entirely sure.

On the one hand, I absolutely am of the mind that Norman Osborn's comeback led to him being unquestionably the primary arch-nemesis to Peter in the same sort of manner you see for Joker or Lex being to Batman and Superman. And as someone who would regularly argue from as soon as it was announced in 2015 that Spider-Man was joining the MCU that the best creative direction for Feige to go in post-Endgame in Phase 4 would be to adapt Dark Reign as a sort of palette cleanser from the sheer cosmic scope of the end of Phase 3, obviously none of that would have been particularly feasible if Norman hadn't come back in the first place.

But on the other hand... I think Norman being dead for so long and haunting over the narrative of Peter's life led to equally interesting developments and at least two of the best Goblin-related plots in Spider-Man history with Stern's Hobgoblin and DeMatteis' Spectacular Spider-Man run with Harry's Green Goblin.

Heck, even the MCU brought DaFoe's Norman back to life because he was just that good .

I think one could argue that both the Hobgoblin and Harry's Goblin had pretty much ran their course by the time they brought Norman back (Harry because he was, well, dead and Hobby because I think it was Macendale by that point).

[Triniking1234]

Ugh. I clicked Yes by accident.

They did a lot of good stories with Norman since he was back. I remember the arc in Peter Parker Spider-Man vol 2 where he tried to convert Peter into his son. Good ****.

[Thievery]

Norman should have stayed dead. I think he has one of the most iconic deaths in comics. Getting impaled by his glider and all that.

I honestly don't think that I have read a better story involving him than his original death scene after killing Gwen. And that's despite the fact that he is way overused in my humble opinion.

Harry was fine enough in the role to leave Norman dead. Even with Norman's appearances in media outside the comics Harry could have picked up the slack after Norman was killed. I just think that Harry provided Peter with a better antagonist, being Peter's friend. Has to be tough on Pete knowing your pal wants revenge on you because he blames you for his fathers death.

[Vortex85]

My favorite Norman stories were over the 10 years after his return from the dead so I voted "No". I really like his return and there is still a lot of potential with the character.

[Tuck]

Yes.

And Peter should have stayed dead after Big Time.

[Hurricane Billy]

Heck, even the MCU brought DaFoe's Norman back to life because he was just that good .

I think one could argue that both the Hobgoblin and Harry's Goblin had pretty much ran their course by the time they brought Norman back (Harry because he was, well, dead and Hobby because I think it was Macendale by that point).

Very true, though I would argue that creative decision might come back to bite Feige down the line, depending on how much longer we can actually expect see a Spider-Man in the MCU in general. But I have a feeling we're due for a reset in a few years, so it might not matter much.

That's definitely true, though it was also around that same time frame that Stern came back to finally properly resolve the Hobgoblin mystery IIRC. Like I said, I'm not opposed to them having brought Norman back, especially I'd agree with the consensus that Norman post-revival is a more compelling villain than his original Silver Age self was, despite how iconic his death was.

[Frontier]

Norman should have stayed dead. I think he has one of the most iconic deaths in comics. Getting impaled by his glider and all that.

I honestly don't think that I have read a better story involving him than his original death scene after killing Gwen. And that's despite the fact that he is way overused in my humble opinion.

Harry was fine enough in the role to leave Norman dead. Even with Norman's appearances in media outside the comics Harry could have picked up the slack after Norman was killed. I just think that Harry provided Peter with a better antagonist, being Peter's friend. Has to be tough on Pete knowing your pal wants revenge on you because he blames you for his fathers death.

Harry's problem is he also had iconic death syndrome.

[ImOctavius]

I like his return, but he should be dead by now. For good.