Sequels Who would you bring back: Green Goblin or Doc Ock?

[ThatDamnNinja]

Not really, I mean there must be some way to make Ock realise that he needs to rebuild once again. It also can be Ock wanting revenge on Spidey for trying to make him destroy his machine. There are quite a few possibilities.

He didn't say it couldn't be done. He said it would ruin his redemptive arc. Which it would.

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

He didn't say it couldn't be done. He said it would ruin his redemptive arc. Which it would.

Oh, sorry about that.

 

[Hectorminator]

Both.

In response to what was said earlier, that these are movies, and not comics, so death has to have a finality to them, I remember that when I was watching Spidey 2 for the first time, there was no better moment than when Norman Osborn returned (an old African-American lady sitting behind me with her grandkids literally said aloud: "Oh, hell no!"), it threw everybody for a loop.

Here's how; Osborn was never really dead, (he wolverined from his wounds real slowly and killed the guys at the morgue and replaced his body with a drifter's) just like the comics, and turns out he was messing with (and drugging, as well) his son Harry the whole time. So every time he was in the mirror, he was literally in the mirror. He set in motions events that led to Doc Ock's creation (by accident, he was just trying to sabotage's Harry's first big project, so that he would hit rock-bottom and turn into Gobby 2), he broke Flint Marko out of jail, (Osborn did his homework and found out who really shot Uncle Ben), and in Spider-Man 4 he appears at the end to anounce his plans to Kraven the Hunter (I hope.) Plus, he fished Octavius out of the Hudson at the end of 2 (with like a cool aquatic glider-thing in the flashback) and he's been brain-washing him to stay evil and become his personal scientist.

Both kind of need to be in the Sinister Six, (slowly hinted at until Spider-Man 6, duh, the merchandising itself is pure genius.) Look to Ultimate Spider-Man to see how Osborn makes a more convincing leader of the six.

In my opinion, the Spidey films are at an important crossroads. Yes, they can forget the past and just do these movies until they get to Hydro-Man and Iguana or something, or they can infuse a conspiracy-style story that revamps the series while paying homage to the first trilogy. The bringing back of Osborn, and eventually Doc Ock, is classic comic book storytelling, and unless I'm mistaken, WHAT EVERYBODY PAYS TO SEE IN MOVIES THESE DAYS. Heck even tv shows are using serialized story-telling, (Lost started it all, Heroes keeps it going strong.)

Lemme know what y'all think. Go web go!

 

[RonStoppablefan]

I wouldn't want either one to come back. But if I had to choose one it would be Doc.

 

[DarkSuperman]

Both.

In response to what was said earlier, that these are movies, and not comics, so death has to have a finality to them, I remember that when I was watching Spidey 2 for the first time, there was no better moment than when Norman Osborn returned (an old African-American lady sitting behind me with her grandkids literally said aloud: "Oh, hell no!"), it threw everybody for a loop.

Here's how; Osborn was never really dead, (he wolverined from his wounds real slowly and killed the guys at the morgue and replaced his body with a drifter's) just like the comics, and turns out he was messing with (and drugging, as well) his son Harry the whole time. So every time he was in the mirror, he was literally in the mirror. He set in motions events that led to Doc Ock's creation (by accident, he was just trying to sabotage's Harry's first big project, so that he would hit rock-bottom and turn into Gobby 2), he broke Flint Marko out of jail, (Osborn did his homework and found out who really shot Uncle Ben), and in Spider-Man 4 he appears at the end to anounce his plans to Kraven the Hunter (I hope.) Plus, he fished Octavius out of the Hudson at the end of 2 (with like a cool aquatic glider-thing in the flashback) and he's been brain-washing him to stay evil and become his personal scientist.

Both kind of need to be in the Sinister Six, (slowly hinted at until Spider-Man 6, duh, the merchandising itself is pure genius.) Look to Ultimate Spider-Man to see how Osborn makes a more convincing leader of the six.

I like all of the above! I'd only want them back as part of something larger though like the Sinister Six. Hell, maybe Norman can blackmail the other members of the sinister six into working for him! Like he has something that each of them wants and they won't get it until they help him kill spider-man! That would be sweet!

 

[TomPiltoff]

I think it would be supremely cheesy to resurrect either of them, but if I had to choose it'd be the Goblin because Norman at least was insane. It's easy to imagine him seeking revenge if he had the chance. Doc Ock was a good person twisted by the tentacles, which he finally learned to overcome.

 

[TomPiltoff]

Here's how; Osborn was never really dead, (he wolverined from his wounds real slowly and killed the guys at the morgue and replaced his body with a drifter's) just like the comics, and turns out he was messing with (and drugging, as well) his son Harry the whole time. So every time he was in the mirror, he was literally in the mirror.

Those are all terrible ideas.

For one, you can't just replace your body with some drifter. It doesn't work that way. It's unfeasible with anybody, let alone a prominent millionaire. VERY many people would say 'uh, wait, this isn't Norman Osborn'.

The idea of drugging Harry is also awful. For one, Norman went crazy after the performance enhancers and died relatively soon after. So you're saying that before he went nuts he had been drugging his son? I don't buy it, and neither would sane audiences.

That idea also destroys the father-son bond between Harry and Norman. It renders their scene of reconciliation before GG's death completely emotionless.

As far as Norman in the mirror, no. Just no.

He set in motions events that led to Doc Ock's creation (by accident, he was just trying to sabotage's Harry's first big project, so that he would hit rock-bottom and turn into Gobby 2)

Again, ridiculous. IF Norman were alive and wanted to quickly turn Harry into GG2 he would just chloroform him and put him in the chamber.

he broke Flint Marko out of jail, (Osborn did his homework and found out who really shot Uncle Ben)

But why? Why break some schmuck out of jail? Norman had no way of knowing what would happen to Flint as far as becoming Sandman.

and in Spider-Man 4 he appears at the end to anounce his plans to Kraven the Hunter (I hope.) Plus, he fished Octavius out of the Hudson at the end of 2 (with like a cool aquatic glider-thing in the flashback) and he's been brain-washing him to stay evil and become his personal scientist.

Everything you said previously was out of the realm of plausibility for a movie, but THAT is lame even for a comic.

The bringing back of Osborn, and eventually Doc Ock, is classic comic book storytelling, and unless I'm mistaken, WHAT EVERYBODY PAYS TO SEE IN MOVIES THESE DAYS.

No it isn't, not at all.

I want to see Spider-Man MOVIES, not a live action Spider-Man comic. There is a VERY important distinction.

What I have appreciated about the films thus far (Spidey 3 to a MUCH lesser extent) is that they typically only make the viewer take one or two big leaps of faith and let the rest play out fairly realistically.

Spidey 1, for example. OK, yes, you need to accept that there are two men with super powers but other than that the movie pretty much plays out as a situation like that would in reality.

Keep ideas like Doc Ock being brain washed and Norman hiding in mirrors in the comics where they belong.

 

[chaseter]

This is one of the lamest double edged sword arguments/polls ever.

 

[Spider-Vader]

I'd prefer neither. But if one of them did Ock.

The Goblin story is done.

 

[Hectorminator]

I like all of the above! I'd only want them back as part of something larger though like the Sinister Six. Hell, maybe Norman can blackmail the other members of the sinister six into working for him! Like he has something that each of them wants and they won't get it until they help him kill spider-man! That would be sweet!

Yeah, you get the idea. The main reason Norman Osborn should even come back is to form the Sinister Six in Spider-Man 6. (That way, the story has enough time to develop with the next trilogy of movies, plus the marketing just creates itself.)

Norman would blackmail mainly Sandman into joining, telling him that he has a cure for his sick daughter (when it was Osborn that made her sick to begin with.) And also Octavius, because Osborn himself brainwashes him into staying evil again and that Spider-Man was the cause for how everything went wrong in his life.

But guys like Electro, Kraven, and Vulture would join of their own accord, because either they want to kill Spider-Man, or they think they can double-cross Osborn or something, (which of course they can't, because Norman is freaking Willem Dafoe and he's awesome.)

And of course, at the end of Spider-Man 6, Flint Marko and Octavius found out what Osborn did to them and help Spidey beat the crap out of the rest of the Sinister Six. (But in a cooler way than Harry did in part 3.)

 

[Hectorminator]

Tom: ...you can't just replace your body with some drifter. It doesn't work that way. It's unfeasible with anybody, let alone a prominent millionaire. VERY many people would say 'uh, wait, this isn't Norman Osborn'.

Me: Uh, yes you can. Norman Osborn is powerful enough to fake his own death, don't give me that. His wealth IS one of the reasons it's very feasible. Plus, anybody finds out, he kills them.

Tom: The idea of drugging Harry is also awful. For one, Norman went crazy after the performance enhancers and died relatively soon after. So you're saying that before he went nuts he had been drugging his son? I don't buy it, and neither would sane audiences.

Me: No, after he faked his own death and saw how he basically failed at defeating Spider-Man, he would lay low and make his son follow in his footsteps, and begin messing with/drugging him.

Tom: That idea also destroys the father-son bond between Harry and Norman. It renders their scene of reconciliation before GG's death completely emotionless.

Me: No, Norman genuinley believed that he reconciled with his son. What makes that scene already kind of emotionless is the fact that Norman is so ****-ed up in the head that he thinks killing Peter Parker will make his son happy.

Tom: As far as Norman in the mirror, no. Just no.

Me: Yes, just yes. "Oh, snap! It was his dad all along, he didn't really go crazy!"

Tom: ...IF Norman were alive and wanted to quickly turn Harry into GG2 he would just chloroform him and put him in the chamber.

Me: No, Norman is insane, you said it yourself. He wants Harry to go through the same process he did. His ritual, rite of passage, whatever. Crazy people do that.

Tom: ...Why break some schmuck out of jail? Norman had no way of knowing what would happen to Flint as far as becoming Sandman.

Me: Like I said, he found out that Flint Marko killed Uncle Ben before Peter Parker did, while Osborn was chillin' in Europe. Then, Osborn himself planned to use Marko to torment Parker, and then Osborn HIMSELF subjected Marko to the experimental sand powers. Osborn was the head of the bunker project. (He told the head scientist to say "it's probably just a bird" when he knew full well that he was transforming Marko.)

Tom: Everything you said previously was out of the realm of plausibility for a movie, but THAT is lame even for a comic.

Me: Yeah, aquatic glider is lame. I'll give you that. But I was just saying that they could show Osborn saving Octavius before he dies.

Tom: I want to see Spider-Man MOVIES, not a live action Spider-Man comic. There is a VERY important distinction.

Me: Well, I know a lot of people that would like to see MORE COMICS injected into the movies. No more original storylines or dance numbers. They tried and failed in part 3.

 

[Hectorminator]

No it isn't, not at all.

I want to see Spider-Man MOVIES, not a live action Spider-Man comic. There is a VERY important distinction.

What I have appreciated about the films thus far (Spidey 3 to a MUCH lesser extent) is that they typically only make the viewer take one or two big leaps of faith and let the rest play out fairly realistically.

Spidey 1, for example. OK, yes, you need to accept that there are two men with super powers but other than that the movie pretty much plays out as a situation like that would in reality.

Keep ideas like Doc Ock being brain washed and Norman hiding in mirrors in the comics where they belong.

Also, If you own either Lost or Heroes on DVD then, yeah, you did pay for that kind of stuff. Conspiracy-type stories and comic-book sequential storytelling are all the rage nowadays. And if you don't own either Lost or Heroes, then it's just not YOUR cup o' tea.

 

[Sloth7d]

Do some of you guys understand the nature of this medium? Like, at all?

These are MOVIES. They're made for the general public, not just the hardcore comic fans who are used to the revolving door between life and death. There has to be a certain sense of finality to movies (unlike comics, which have to maintain a form of continuity indefinitely). In other words, anyone who dies, stays dead.

Is that why Whistler, Gandalph, Agent Smith, Lois Lane, Michael Myers, Jason, and Elektra all remained dead after their on screen fatalities?

 

[TomPiltoff]

Tom: ...you can't just replace your body with some drifter. It doesn't work that way. It's unfeasible with anybody, let alone a prominent millionaire. VERY many people would say 'uh, wait, this isn't Norman Osborn'.

Me: Uh, yes you can. Norman Osborn is powerful enough to fake his own death, don't give me that. His wealth IS one of the reasons it's very feasible. Plus, anybody finds out, he kills them.

No, you CAN'T. You can't just go find a dead guy and put him in the morgue. These movies take place in a real world, the only possible way to make that work would be for a clone of Norman to be killed and replaced. Which is just stupid.

It isn't a matter of wealth or power. He can't just kill anybody who finds out, because EVERYBODY would recognize the body as CLEARLY NOT Norman Osborn.

Tom: The idea of drugging Harry is also awful. For one, Norman went crazy after the performance enhancers and died relatively soon after. So you're saying that before he went nuts he had been drugging his son? I don't buy it, and neither would sane audiences.

Me: No, after he faked his own death and saw how he basically failed at defeating Spider-Man, he would lay low and make his son follow in his footsteps, and begin messing with/drugging him.

But again, WHY? Norman is bat**** insane, super powered and has the advantage of Spider-Man believing him to be dead. No, it's simply unrealistic to say he drugged Harry.

The one thing I like most about Harry's story arc is that you feel sympathetic for him. You might react the same way, if you saw things the same way he did. To retcon that and say he was actually just being drugged by Norman defeats all of that.

Me: Like I said, he found out that Flint Marko killed Uncle Ben before Peter Parker did, while Osborn was chillin' in Europe. Then, Osborn himself planned to use Marko to torment Parker, and then Osborn HIMSELF subjected Marko to the experimental sand powers. Osborn was the head of the bunker project. (He told the head scientist to say "it's probably just a bird" when he knew full well that he was transforming Marko.)

If only you knew how ridiculous that sounded.

Me: Well, I know a lot of people that would like to see MORE COMICS injected into the movies. No more original storylines or dance numbers. They tried and failed in part 3.

Right, but they tried and succeeded in 1 and 2.

Rest assured, your ideas are horrible and will never be used.

 

[comic_book_guy]

i would rather see GG come back but it would make more sense if Dock ock came bak instead of "green goblin bak from the grave!!!" ---Wtf??

 

[Hectorminator]

No, you CAN'T. You can't just go find a dead guy and put him in the morgue. These movies take place in a real world, the only possible way to make that work would be for a clone of Norman to be killed and replaced. Which is just stupid.

Dude, you're just ticked 'cause I totally showed you up, argument-wise. I can't believe I'm gonna have to keep saying this, but yeah, someone with as much wealth and power as Norman Osborn can fake their death. He did it in the comics, and it would work on film. He replaced his body's with a drifter's. And how do you know what even happened to Osborn after Spidey took him back home? We don't know, they never showed us. After Osborn comes back and claims he had amnesia, he could easily fake his death certificate and say that he was in a boating accident and his body was never found.

It isn't a matter of wealth or power. He can't just kill anybody who finds out, because EVERYBODY would recognize the body as CLEARLY NOT Norman Osborn.

Again, you don't know who even buried Osborn. It could have been just Bernard, the trusty butler. Yeah, Osborn would have had an obituary in the papers, but they're not gonna show you his dead body in the news or anything, man! "Tonight, millionaire Norman Osborn was in a fatal car accident, now here's a picture of his dead body, just to make sure..."

But again, WHY? Norman is bat**** insane, super powered and has the advantage of Spider-Man believing him to be dead. No, it's simply unrealistic to say he drugged Harry.

No, it isn't. He wants his son to follow in his footsteps. Dude, were you even watching the movies?

The one thing I like most about Harry's story arc is that you feel sympathetic for him. You might react the same way, if you saw things the same way he did. To retcon that and say he was actually just being drugged by Norman defeats all of that.

How can you not feel sympathetic for Harry after you found out that his turning evil was even more not his own fault!?! HIS DAD DRUGGED HIM!! THTA'S EVEN MORE TRAGIC THAN HIM BEING AN ALCOHOLIC!! HE WOULD GET EVEN MORE SYMPATHY!!!

If only you knew how ridiculous that sounded.

I have no idea what you could be thinking, it doesn't make any sense at all, dude. I'm sitting here trying to make Spider-Man 3 a BETTER MOVIE on repeated viewings, and by making Norman Osborn responsible for the stupid random crap that was happening, I'm doing just that. To watch that again, knowing that Osborn was funding that secret experiemnt in sand and behind the bunker, makes it all the better. Number one: it makes that scene not so random and unbelievable. Number two: it makes the Green Goblin TRULY Spider-Man's arch-nemesis, his greatest enemy.

Right, but they tried and succeeded in 1 and 2.

Rest assured, your ideas are horrible and will never be used.

No, they didn't succeed in one and two, did you even read what I said? I said that Spider-Man 3 had TOO much original content for some people, and could've used more stories from the comics, like a stronger origin for Venom, a better ending for when Harry Osborn had to die, maybe beginning to date Gwen Stacy, maybe Captain Stacy dying himself, any of those. You know, INSTEAD of Flint Marko shooting Uncle Ben, Eddie Brock involved with Gwen, the symbiote making Peter dorky and not evil, Harry not calling himself a Goblin exactly, etc. Spider-Man 1 and 2 were FULL of stories from the comics, really well adapted and moved around, but from the comics nonetheless. Part 3 was the most "original."
And my ideas MIGHT be used in future Spider-Man movies, YOUR LACK OF IDEAS will never be used. And that's a guarantee.

 

[Spideyfan01]

I'd prefer neither, but if I had to pick, I'd pick the Goblin. There was so much unused potential with him. Plus, the Goblin was just pure bad@ss in the first movie!

 

[Spiderine]

If I had to make a choice here it would be Doc. I would like to see him return more twisted than ever.

 

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

Doc Ock for sure...he was the best out of all the films.

 

[Venom'sDad]

I think one of the two MAJOR Spider-Man villians should make a return: Green Goblin in a more Green Goblin type costume with a masterplan type plot or Doc Ock recruiting a Sinister Six.

What would work better? Of the two scenarios, what would you want to see?

Well obviously, if I had to pick... I'll say Doc Ock, although I'm more of a Goblin fan.

 

[Spiderine]

Well obviously, if I had to pick... I'll say Doc Ock, although I'm more of a Goblin fan.

A lot more to do with Ock.

 

[Venom'sDad]

I agree... there is a lot more you can do with Doc Ock than the Goblin, based off what we seen thus far. It's time to close the book on the "Goblin Legacy"

I'm not oppose to using Kingsley's HobGoblin however.

 

[That'ssuper!]

Ock for the Sinister Six.

 

[Hectorminator]

Goblin for the Sinister Six.

 

[Ratcrawler]

Well, Harry showed that the goblin formula apparently has healing properties. It's not a total stretch of the imagination to have him and/or norman rise from the dead. Chances are slim Ock survived but they could probably pull out some explanation.

They can always bring in Hobgoblin. And the Sinister 6 can have different members.