NotSoLongAgo
#spidermansolit
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2009
- Messages
- 7,154
- Reaction score
- 13
- Points
- 58
He should be creepy but I dunno about full on scary. That's not a requirement for me. As long as Gobby is his crazy, fun to watch self im good.
He should be creepy but I dunno about full on scary. That's not a requirement for me. As long as Gobby is his crazy, fun to watch self im good.
Even that is too much though. Because then it just becomes alot of dramatic irony with no real payoff. We know Norman is Gobby, no one else in the movie does. When it's revealed to Peter, there's no oomph to it. Where's the fun in that? Wouldn't you want to be on your toes, questioning whether or not Norman even is Gobby? (Something Spectacular Spider-man did extremely well) The other way, having Goblin appear out of the blue with no explanation is much better. It has more dramatic potential, it's what a writer should aspire for because it's more challenging to pull off and has a great pay-off. Look it at this way:I also agree with those saying we don't need an detailed explanation for Norman's Goblin persona. However it'd be nice to have at least one little scene. For example:
When we first meet Norman we see him in his office or mansion. There are sculptures and statues everywhere. One of them is a silly yet creepy looking goblin. Later, after taking the formula, all you need to show is Norman walking out of his lab, limping, looking down. As he walks into the room with the sculptures, he stops, looks up. First thing he sees is the goblin. He starts laughing hysterically. Cut.
I think that would be enough "explanation" as to why he chooses the goblin. Like others have said: he's crazy! Lunatics do crazy stuff all the time and most of it you can't explain rationally.
Even that is too much though. Because then it just becomes alot of dramatic irony with no real payoff. We know Norman is Gobby, no one else in the movie does. When it's revealed to Peter, there's no oomph to it. Where's the fun in that? Wouldn't you want to be on your toes, questioning whether or not Norman even is Gobby? (Something Spectacular Spider-man did extremely well) The other way, having Goblin appear out of the blue with no explanation is much better. It has more dramatic potential, it's what a writer should aspire for because it's more challenging to pull off and has a great pay-off. Look it at this way:
Imagine if in the movie Scream the first five minutes showed why the killer killed, and why he wore that iconic costume. The rest of the movie would just be dramatic irony as we wait for Sydney to finally figure it out.
Instead we question the killers identity the whole movie and it pays off really well. It's the difference between a simple villain and one that's purposefully drawn out. I just don't like for movies to spell everything out for me.
Goblin should be scary, but not your typical 'creepy/demon' scary.
This is all subjective, but I think he should scare us in the same way Judge Doom in Roger Rabbit did once he turned into a Toon. He was corny, cartoonish, yet downright scarring for life.
But then again, parents nowadays would probably scold that movie for it's 'graphic' concepts and adult themes![]()
Its not the parents fault they care about there kids.![]()
That 's a nice approach indeed, but there are two things working against it:
1. From the audience's point of view, everybody knows Norman is the Goblin ^^ the idea of not knowing who the Gobby is would only work, if they really do surprise us in the end, i.e. making Harry the actual Goblin. We already got that with TASM2... and it didn't really connect well to the audience/fans
2. In Scream the killer always explains himself and his actions in a big monologue at the end. Even if playing with the killer's identity was as noble as you make it out to be (from the writer's perspective that is), it always is kinda lousy and cliché as well.
1) I don't like the design in general.There is absolutely nothing wrong with having a Goblin who looks like this:
![]()
[Actual concept art for the first Spider-Man film)
I want a legitimately creepy Goblin this time around, and who the heck cares about little kids? they get scared by characters in shows like "My Little Pony". And besides, did little kids stop Nolan from making a legitimately scary looking Two Face for The Dark Knight? nope, I didn't think so.
Give me a Goblin like the concept art above.
1) I don't like the design in general.
2) That suffers from the same monochromatic problem as the past three goblins. Give us some purple, people!
3) The Spider-Man of 2002 is a big chunk of my childhood, and I'm glad they were considerate of the children watching the movie.
could scare kids more than what's already been done (cough cough TASM2). I'm not saying they shouldn't try to make the design faithful to the comics, I'm just saying I respect the movie makers who take the children of the audience into consideration.
Or Joker.
I've always loved that design. Like you said, who cares about little kids, let them watch USM.
I don't see how this could scare kids more than what's already been done (cough cough TASM2). I'm not saying they shouldn't try to make the design faithful to the comics, I'm just saying I respect the movie makers who take the children of the audience into consideration.
OR Scarecrow! and him especially.
I agree, let them continue to watch that crappy USM show that they seem to love so much.![]()
and yeah, i've always like Ross's design for SM1, I think it's perfect for MCU Goblin. Only changes I would make would be making the cloak dark purple and smoothing his face out just a bit, but otherwise than that, It's perfect imo.
I don't wanna say don't care about the kids, but I don't think people are giving kid audiences enough credit to handle scary looking characters.
Agreed. I want something memorable, not shameful in execution. Dafoe was great in the role but he was more scary as Norman then he was as GG. To think they encased that wonderfully creepy and elastic face in plastic...![]()