The Amazing Spider-Man The After Credits Scene and other nitpicks

[UltimateWebhead]

Yeah, I'm just having a hard time believing it's him on account of the fact that he disappears into thin air, unless Norman could do that in the comics too.

They probably cut that part from the movie too

 

[Picard Sisko]

Yeah, I'm just having a hard time believing it's him on account of the fact that he disappears into thin air, unless Norman could do that in the comics too.

That was most likely added for a dramatic effect, to make him look even more mysterious (same reason for the lightning being there). Chances are it was actually an hallucination anyway. This big and powerful man Norman Osborn had a presence in the film, yet he was never even there. That is power.

 

[vrivasfl]

After reviewing the post credits scene, I am convinced that while the man in the shadows is intended to be Norman Osborn, this was not Norman Osborn in the flesh. After speaking with Dr. Connors, he turns away. Connors yells at him to leave Peter alone just before the second clap of thunder. The man in the shadows immediately disappears, and the camera angle changes so that we can see Dr. Connors is very much alone in his cell.

This leaves me with three possibilities in order of likeliness:

1. It's just a hallucination.

2. It's a hologram projected by Mysterio (on Osborn's behalf since he's probably too sick to do anything.)

3. It's the Chameleon who, in this continuity, has the power to blend into the background like a real chameleon rather than just being a master of disguise. (It would be a departure from the comics, but it would be in line the the cross-species genetics this film series has.)

Looking at old Ditko pictures, I am thoroughly convinced that the appearances in Norman Osborn. The trench coat. The hat. The shadows. It's classic Osborn.

 

[Picard Sisko]

Its definitely Norman Osborn in some shape or form.


[YT]l7IHEkOwRlM&list=UULdcU9bx05aWl60RnqVFFvA&index=2&feature=plcp[/YT]

 

[Hugebear]

At first it seemed like it was meant to be Norman, but after Ifans said it was not Norman, It became clear that it could be somebody else. Chameleon seems the most likely choice. One other thing I noticed is that the Chameleon doesn’t seem to be impersonating anyone. Hence why he uses the shadows.

 

[vrivasfl]

At first it seemed like it was meant to be Norman, but after Ifans said it was not Norman, It became clear that it could be somebody else. Chameleon seems the most likely choice. One other thing I noticed is that the Chameleon doesn’t seem to be impersonating anyone. Hence why he uses the shadows.

I'd be inclined to agree with you except for two things:

1. Michael Massee, who plays the Man in the shadows, also appears to have served as the silhouette of Norman Osborn for the hologram in the Oscorp lobby. The resemblance is pretty uncanny, so that's the general consensus, although it is possible that the general consensus is wrong.

2. The Man in the shadows shares many traits with what many Spidey fans would recognize as Ditko-era Norman Osborn--namely the trench coat, hat, and penchant for hiding in the shadows.

I will say this, though. The man in the shadows clearly disappeared, literally during a flash of lighting. This indicated that although the appearance is likely of Osborn, he was not actually there in the flesh. I previously listed by guesses: hallucination, Mysterio's hologram, or Chameleon with legitimate chameleon-like powers. If any of these are the case, then it's Osborn, but technically not Osborn, so Ifans was telling the truth...kinda.

 

[Hugebear]

1. I don’t see Michael Massee in the poster of Norman Osborn. He looks more like Peter Parker. Even seems to have the glasses. I even wondered if Webb used Andrew Garfield deliberately. Other people have also said this, so it’s not definitely accepted that it’s Michael Massee.

2. Trench coat, hat, does not help identify the villain either because I’ve seen the Chameleon also wear a hat and trench coat in a cartoon.

Yes it looked like he disappeared, but that was just for dramatic effect. It’s kind of like when Batman just suddenly appeared inside the bank vault. No one saw how he got in.

 

[Picard Sisko]

I'd be inclined to agree with you except for two things:

1. Michael Massee, who plays the Man in the shadows, also appears to have served as the silhouette of Norman Osborn for the hologram in the Oscorp lobby. The resemblance is pretty uncanny, so that's the general consensus, although it is possible that the general consensus is wrong.

2. The Man in the shadows shares many traits with what many Spidey fans would recognize as Ditko-era Norman Osborn--namely the trench coat, hat, and penchant for hiding in the shadows.

I will say this, though. The man in the shadows clearly disappeared, literally during a flash of lighting. This indicated that although the appearance is likely of Osborn, he was not actually there in the flesh. I previously listed by guesses: hallucination, Mysterio's hologram, or Chameleon with legitimate chameleon-like powers. If any of these are the case, then it's Osborn, but technically not Osborn, so Ifans was telling the truth...kinda.

I'm really glad we had this post credits scene. Gave us something to ponder on. Can't wait to find out who this mystery character is. Just don't want to hear that Green Goblin is going to look like the gargoyle version from Ultimate Spider-Man.

 

[Rogue Kira]

[QUOTE

Wikipedia says, he said this, which would've made much more sense, since the person is supposed to be Norman Osborn:

Osborn taunts Connors and tells him that he no longer needs Connors' formula, calling it a 'subordinate venom.' Instead, Osborn reveals that he has created his own formula that unlike Connors' is a success. A formula, that he claims, will make him more invincible than any man, including Spider Man

Don't trust Wikipedia.
That sounds false and most likely is.

 

[Anno_Domini]

If said line is spoken from Osborn to Connors, it would make sense that A.) Why Dr. Ratha was never brought up again and didn't still go to test Connors' serum and B.) Why Osborn wouldn't turn into just another Lizard as well.

That would have actually tied up some plot holes/lines. Too bad a line is never said and it's still a mystery if it's even Norman.

 

[Oscorp]

1. I don’t see Michael Massee in the poster of Norman Osborn. He looks more like Peter Parker. Even seems to have the glasses. I even wondered if Webb used Andrew Garfield deliberately. Other people have also said this, so it’s not definitely accepted that it’s Michael Massee.

2. Trench coat, hat, does not help identify the villain either because I’ve seen the Chameleon also wear a hat and trench coat in a cartoon.

Yes it looked like he disappeared, but that was just for dramatic effect. It’s kind of like when Batman just suddenly appeared inside the bank vault. No one saw how he got in.

This!

 

[Devil-In]

You folks are WAY over analyzing this. The lightning was, I am almost 100% sure, intended for dramatic effect.

Norman Osborn?
Electro?
Chameleon?
Mysterio?
Black Cat's father?
Some combination?

Fact is the Man in Shadows is meant to stay just that, in the shadows. Granted, I too firmly believe this is Norman, and even if it isn't Michela Massee has my vote to play him.

 

[Mob1423]

He kind of looks like Spock in that picture

 

[spidermanJLA!~]

I bet the man in the shadows was...Richard Parker himself!

 

[PSYLENTGuardian]

I bet the man in the shadows was...Richard Parker himself!

Err... no.

 

[spidermanJLA!~]

Hey, you never know.

 

[I Am The Knight]

I bet the man in the shadows was...Richard Parker himself!

Best twist ever

 

[Anno_Domini]

Best twist ever

"Did you tell the boy?"

"Did you tell the boy about myself?"

 

[I Am The Knight]

"Did you tell the boy?"

"Did you tell the boy about myself?"

He's unstable, you understand

 

[AF3619]

"Did you tell the boy?"

"Did you tell the boy about myself?"

Norman Osborn Did Connors ever told you what happened to your father?
Peter:No!, but i know you killed him!
NO: No, i am YOUR father
PP: NOOOOOOOOOOO!,that no true , that´s impossible!
NO: search your feelings, you know any test subjects on the Crossed species survived as you and me!
PP: Wait, but who is my mother?
NO: Gwen! DUN DUN DUN!



sorry i just saw TESB

 

[Anno_Domini]

Hahahaha, the Untold Story is the incest make out scene between mother and son

 

[Nave 'Torment']

the man in the shadow remains the man in the shadow, but i think it was a terrible idea to sort of make Norman Osborn this mysterious figure who's pulling all the strings. He's no Ra's Al Ghul. But even if it's done as a nod to the comics, he should remain as such: the whole "figure in the shadows" gimmick cheapens the film, makes it too comic-booky in my opinion, while the rest of the film just excelled in its "real-life" appreciation.

 

[AF3619]

the man in the shadow remains the man in the shadow, but i think it was a terrible idea to sort of make Norman Osborn this mysterious figure who's pulling all the strings.

why? he always is, in the actual comics , first he is seen as a misterious figure with fadora hat, in Ultimate Comics he creates the spider and studies Peter after the bite

 

[Nave 'Torment']

it's not like the movie's completely faithful to the comics. They could've made that same point about Osborn being a behind-the-scenes master of puppets much more tastefully imo. Instead, we get a very gimmicky look at him post-credits like some bizarre horror film. The invisible puppeteer worked for Ra's Al Ghul because the revelation was immediate, and because it was a genuine surprise (for me at least) when Henri Ducard was revealed as Ra's. You didn't expect a "revelation" because you never suspected Ra's to be someone else. But with this guy you already know that there's a big reveal in the next movie. I just don't find it that well planned or well executed.

Same goes with Thanos. It was a surprise to see him post-credits. Instead of diminishing the world of the film, it elevated it to its comic-book universe. Because the entire film was so much about larger-than-life characters and comic-book elements, that was a genuine dessert. Osborn on the other hand (if it is Osborn) makes that post-credits appearance in a movie that spends its entirety trying to ground a world in reality and science. It's not even like The Joker-card. I know I'll be hated for making these comparisons but this is the nitpick thread It's not like the joker card at the end of BB, because with Begins there was this idea that Gotham City was going into this larger-than-life world of the comics now, that things were changing, becoming more freaky, that there was a "escalation." TASM simply ends with the idea that there are a lot of unresolved strings and he has to solve all them. That the story hasn't come to an end.

In fact I really want to probe deeper here.... exactly what's the closure here at the end of the film?

 

[SpeterMan3]

Well as far as I know, it's still not fact that he's Osborn. I doubt it is, actually.