Should Norman Osborn Have Stayed Dead?

[Nero]

Way I see it, Norman's return from the dead was inevitable.

The Green Goblin is always going to be around in some capacity because he's too significant to Spider-Man's world and let's face it, that's mainly due to Norman. Truth is, no one else was ever going to be able to fill Norman's shoes as the Green Goblin. Despite his best efforts, Harry was still in Norman's shadow and he came across more like Spider-Man's Two-Face than his Joker. Bob Harris made the right call in having Norman be the mastermind behind the Clone Saga because of how personal the feud between Norman and Peter was and still is, IMO no other Spider-Man villain would've had the same level of effect.

[Tuck]

Way I see it, Norman's return from the dead was inevitable.

The Green Goblin is always going to be around in some capacity because he's too significant to Spider-Man's world and let's face it, that's mainly due to Norman.

He was dead for over 20 years. Far longer than he had been a character the first time around. And until he killed Gwen (and was brought back) Ock was generally considered Spider-Man's archenemy.

It's the Kraven situation. The story that made the character also killed him off. So, he gets brought back. It is worse with Kraven. I'll give Norman that at least. Kraven was a joke. Got one good story that killed him off. And Marvel has spent all the time since then trying to recreate his one good story.

[Kaitou D. Kid]

He was dead for over 20 years. Far longer than he had been a character the first time around. And until he killed Gwen (and was brought back) Ock was generally considered Spider-Man's archenemy.

This is false.

The Green Goblin was considered the archenemy since the Lee/Ditko days.

Gerry Conway even said that he picked the Green Goblin as the villain who kills Gwen because the Green Goblin was the archenemy.

[Daibhidh]

Looking at the list of appearances on the Marvel fandom wiki:
The Goblin appears seven times in the Ditko era, not counting appearances of Norman. Otto Octavius appears in nine, including his appearance as leader of the Sinister Six. Three of Otto's appareances are before the Goblin's first appearance and three of them are the Master Planner saga. So there's an argument that on his first appearance the Green Goblin took over as Spider-man's chief villain with Otto as second place with no challengers. And then Norman is the first villain to discover Peter's secret identity.
Otto has eleven more appearances before Gwen Stacy's death; Norman has about the same number, including the story where he discovers Peter's identity, but some of those are as Harry's father with no memory of being the Goblin.

[Triniking1234]

So before Gwen and Norman dies, we have...

1) Dr. Octopus who beat Spider-Man and unmasked him publicly (then messed it up cuz no one believed Peter can be Spidey), formed the Sinister Six and the Master Planner story.

2) Green Goblin who managed to properly figure out Peter was Spider-Man

This is a tough one.

[Kaitou D. Kid]

So before Gwen and Norman dies, we have...

1) Dr. Octopus who beat Spider-Man and unmasked him publicly (then messed it up cuz no one believed Peter can be Spidey), formed the Sinister Six and the Master Planner story.

2) Green Goblin who managed to properly figure out Peter was Spider-Man

This is a tough one.

Before he figured out his identity in the Lee/Romita era, the Green Goblin had the most appearances and was the only one that Spidey never managed to beat. He was also the first one to trick Spider-Man (in ASM#12).

Stuff like ASM#18 also establishes Gobby as more of a "top dog" than Ock (where he brags about being the first to make Spidey run away while Ock is shown looking jealous in his cell).

My understanding is that those were the reasons he was considered the archenemy over Ock (although I don't think the archenemy gap between him and Ock was as wide in the Lee/Ditko era compared to now).

[Agent Z]

Yes, he should. If only so death has some kind of meaning.

[Mistah K88]

This is an interesting question... On one hand, in comics that don't have an ending in sight it is inevitable that he would come back as his death left a void. Harry took up the mantle, but he wasn't "evil" enough, thus Hobgoblin came about to fill that Goblin spaced hole...but even then Kingsley was kind of like a modernized (at the time) Norman, and he didn't even get revealed as the Hobgoblin proper until WAY after. As far as comics go, probably not, as he's a big enough presence that they needed to copy him 500 times... That said, in adaptations/alternate universes (if they EVER make it that far) he should definitely remain dead.

[Aura Blaize]

Eh, while his character was fleshed out post resurrection I still feel they should have kept him dead. Instead, they should have brought Harry back as the dynamic between them was more...natural? Personal? The whole "you're my greatest enemy but also my best friend" thing. And it could have led to actual true redemption as opposed to getting shot with a magic shotgun.

[Lunala]

true redemption.

Harry's redemption probably wouldn't have survived his return as the Clone Saga architect and the robot parent plot. It's difficult to return to heroism after killing the baby (and Ben) of your best friend and your ex-girlfriend, because, let's be honest, the editorial wanted baby May dead.

Since most of the Norman stories would now, with some revising, probably be Harry's, he would have broken his vow not to harm MJ. He would also have lost his mind during the Gathering of Five when he attempted to seize power, presumably in hopes of reviving his dead father. I doubt many writers would bother presenting him with any kind of redeeming qualities after that, and we'd lose more of his character than we gained.

[Huntsman Spider]

Eh, while his character was fleshed out post resurrection I still feel they should have kept him dead. Instead, they should have brought Harry back as the dynamic between them was more...natural? Personal? The whole "you're my greatest enemy but also my best friend" thing. And it could have led to actual true redemption as opposed to getting shot with a magic shotgun.

Yeah, I could agree with that, at least insofar as Harry's redemption feeling more earned compared to Norman getting all his evil mystically shotgun-blasted out of him, since Harry was almost always depicted sympathetically, even tragically, despite some of the worse things he did. Norman, on the other hand, was (almost) pure evil ever since his resurrection, and while backstory elements would provide some context for how he turned out the way he did, at the end of the day, he was someone who got his jollies by making other people suffer, especially if they stood in the way of his acquisition of more wealth and power, and influenced his own son for the worst, even after his death.

[godisawesome]

It’s probably Harry’s death and a lack of a clear “heir” to GG’s role as the archenemy more responsible for Norman’s return - My Best Friend Is My Archenemy worked great for over a decade.

[Frontier]

It’s probably Harry’s death and a lack of a clear “heir” to GG’s role as the archenemy more responsible for Norman’s return - My Best Friend Is My Archenemy worked great for over a decade.

But I also think they got as much mileage as they could out of it in the comics.

[godisawesome]

But I also think they got as much mileage as they could out of it in the comics.

Thanks why the lack of an “heir” for the archenemy role becomes important - Norman 1.0 had worked well at the role, but hit his end at his greatest moment of villainy, Harry then picked up the role pretty organically but eventually also hit the end of the rope, so now we have Norman 2.0 who’s semi-designed to be a reusable archenemy.

I think that of Hobgoblin’s mystery had been resolved more satisfactorily during his heyday, or if Venom’s popularity as an Anti-Hero hadn’t taken off and exploded, one of them might have been able to step into the role.

Doc Ock is generally considered the #2 baddie overall, but never quite seems to take the #1 spot. Ironically, I think Norman 2.0 probably resembles Doc Ock more than Norman 1.0 did, especially in threat level.

[Frontier]

Thanks why the lack of an “heir” for the archenemy role becomes important - Norman 1.0 had worked well at the role, but hit his end at his greatest moment of villainy, Harry then picked up the role pretty organically but eventually also hit the end of the rope, so now we have Norman 2.0 who’s semi-designed to be a reusable archenemy.

I think that of Hobgoblin’s mystery had been resolved more satisfactorily during his heyday, or if Venom’s popularity as an Anti-Hero hadn’t taken off and exploded, one of them might have been able to step into the role.

Doc Ock is generally considered the #2 baddie overall, but never quite seems to take the #1 spot. Ironically, I think Norman 2.0 probably resembles Doc Ock more than Norman 1.0 did, especially in threat level.

Not for lack of trying by Dan Slott .

I don't think post-resurrection Norman is that much like Doc Ock, way too personal and like 10x more sadistic and crazy.