Should Norman Osborn Have Stayed Dead?

[Triniking1234]

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.

Thank you. They messed up Hobgoblin pretty bad. Kingsley is nowhere near Osborn's level and the other ones suck.

The cartoon managed it better with Hobgoblin being a prototype and then escalating to Norman and Harry as Green Goblin.

[Aura Blaize]

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

Then they probably should have let it be then. Either give Peter a "win" through redemption or a "loss" through death. Close the chapter and then move on. There doesn't HAVE to be a Green Goblin after all.

[AxolotlThe_4th]

Norman's resurrection kind of took away the weight of his original death.

[comictimes]

Some of the post-resurrection stories with him are good, others aren't. In the end is about the larger story, the Marvel Universe one: does his coming back benefit the whole, or make it less? Not sure.

[Blunt Guy]

A lot of Dark Reign was enjoyable. Norman became more interesting in his efforts toward world domination, along with settling scores with all his enemies, all while using his Avengers team for his own selfish goals while masquerading as heroes. Up until the very end of Dark reign, Norman was so devious and always a step ahead of the heroes trying to dethrone him. It was another level of evil for the character, and I thought he was a great villain for the whole Marvel Universe instead of only Spidey. I actually prefer him having that stature while still hating Peter the most of anybody.

[Daibhidh]

. Up until the very end of Dark reign, Norman was so devious and always a step ahead of the heroes trying to dethrone him.

I actually dislike it when the villain is always a step ahead. The villains and heroes should make at least some missteps or the heroes win at least some victories along the way. Otherwise it feels like the heroes' victory came out of nowhere, or was based on dumb luck or rather the narrative gods being on their side.

[Huntsman Spider]

I actually dislike it when the villain is always a step ahead. The villains and heroes should make at least some missteps or the heroes win at least some victories along the way. Otherwise it feels like the heroes' victory came out of nowhere, or was based on dumb luck or rather the narrative gods being on their side.

You mean like The Light in Greg Weisman's Young Justice?

[SpideyClone]

Hard to say if he should have stayed dead. I think his initial return was great, Spider-man 75 is one of my favorites. His subsequent appearances in mid-late 90's, the Byrne/Mackie era were hit or miss. Sectret Invasion/Civil War/Dark Reign/Dark Avengers was peak post resurrection Norman. I can't imagine any of those events succeeding as well without him. Slott had some good stories with him, while Spencer and now Wells gave us a different shade of Norman. The character still has legs if written well, and I think there's more benefit for him being alive than dead.

[deadboy80]

I voted no. At the time, when they revealed him at the end of the clone saga it was huge. I was maybe 14 or 15 when it happened and was truly shocked and excited. The real problem may be that he is overused. DC does this with the Joker.

[Huntsman Spider]

I voted no. At the time, when they revealed him at the end of the clone saga it was huge. I was maybe 14 or 15 when it happened and was truly shocked and excited. The real problem may be that he is overused. DC does this with the Joker.

Yeah, that's a very valid point there.

[berserkerclaw]

IMO yes. Expected that he came back and. More Osborn is cool. But still

[SturdyMike89]

Norman was always going to come back once the Spider-Man movie came out as someone here posted. But now, i would like to see a new Green Goblin. Someone different who has maybe a different reason for opposing Spider-Man. I think Norman works best as the corrupt businessman who uses his influence to make Spider-Man's life a living hell.

[Huntsman Spider]

Norman was always going to come back once the Spider-Man movie came out as someone here posted. But now, i would like to see a new Green Goblin. Someone different who has maybe a different reason for opposing Spider-Man. I think Norman works best as the corrupt businessman who uses his influence to make Spider-Man's life a living hell.

And for those who would cite Lex Luthor . . . Norman Osborn was Lex Luthor before Lex Luthor was Lex Luthor, who was reinvented as the Lex Luthor we all know today after DC's Crisis on Infinite Earths in the 1980s, whereas Norman was a corrupt, unscrupulous businessman in his civilian identity during his early appearances in the 1960s.

[t-spider]

And for those who would cite Lex Luthor . . . Norman Osborn was Lex Luthor before Lex Luthor was Lex Luthor, who was reinvented as the Lex Luthor we all know today after DC's Crisis on Infinite Earths in the 1980s, whereas Norman was a corrupt, unscrupulous businessman in his civilian identity during his early appearances in the 1960s.

I think, for me, there were two issues with Normans return...

1) Even in setbacks in the post-resurrection early issues, he always felt in control. You rarely got a glimpse of the insanity of the Goblin or that he was severely pissed off... he was too calm at times, and it just didn't feel like Norman. More like Lex or Kingpin.

2) He was behind too many of the things going on in the books... got to the point it became redundant. There was Black Tarantula and Fortunato and all that, plus Ocks return... but everything else felt too Norman-centric. (Then again, honestly, I wasn't much a fan of a lot of the Post Clone Saga books at that time. A few things I liked, but most of it...)

[SturdyMike89]

I think, for me, there were two issues with Normans return...

1) Even in setbacks in the post-resurrection early issues, he always felt in control. You rarely got a glimpse of the insanity of the Goblin or that he was severely pissed off... he was too calm at times, and it just didn't feel like Norman. More like Lex or Kingpin.

2) He was behind too many of the things going on in the books... got to the point it became redundant. There was Black Tarantula and Fortunato and all that, plus Ocks return... but everything else felt too Norman-centric. (Then again, honestly, I wasn't much a fan of a lot of the Post Clone Saga books at that time. A few things I liked, but most of it...)

It seemed like they were setting up a conflict between Norman Osborn and the Kingpin just before they veered with the whole Gathering of Five storyline mess. I would have loved to see that story which I get the feeling would have really kicked off with Peter Parker: Spider-Man #100. Instead, we got a Green Goblin who suddenly is interested in weird magical ceremonies and who is now completely insane.