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

[Visionary]

Actually, if they start a new trilogy (which I doubt they will do), you can bring back any character. Either way, I'd say that they have more than enough villains for 3 more films, even if they don't start a trilogy anew.

 

[Hectorminator]

Norman Osborn, millionaire psycho, COULD fake his death if he wanted to.

Yeah, you're right, he can. Thanks for that. =)

BUT he didn't plan on getting stabbed in the kidneys with his glider. He can't be on the edge of death, wake up in the morgue, GET UP without anybody seeing him, find a drifter, kill him, drag the body back to the morgue, break in without anybody seeing him, replace the body and expect anybody to not notice that, holy crap, this isn't Norman Osborn. That suggestion requires about 5 leaps of faith, it's too unrealistic.

Well, you said yourself that first off, all comic book movies are really unrealistic and require leaps of faith, so what's your point? This ain't even a Sci-Fi leap of faith, like a meteor filled with space goo HAPPENS to land right next to Peter Parker in the park, it's leaps of faith about a very rich and powerful and crazy guy faking his own death. Second, you're stuck on this idea that there's even a morgue and that people would say that a drfiter's body isn't Norman Osborn (when again, Norman could just kill them or brainwash them or something, it's not important. It's a small detail.) But as I said before, maybe his trusty butler Bernerd burried him, WE the audience never even saw how he ended up in the ground. I was just thinking that a cool scene could be a B/W flashback where he heals and wakes up and kills some dudes.

But the mortician would notice that it wasn't Osborn, as would anybody else who came in contact with the replaced body. I mean, I'm sure Harry checked his dads vital signs when Peter dropped him off.
Or are we now in Schumacher land where a mans heart can begin beating 24 hours after he died, without brain damage or necrosis?

Maybe he could use cosmetic surgery to make a drifter look like him, I mean, if italian stero-type mobster guys can do it, genius Norman Osbon can too. The reason I EVER even brought up the idea of a morgue is so that I could borrow a page from Heroes when Claire pretty much does the exact thing I describe. Now, Norman Osborn has a healing factor, but it could be different from Wolverine's or anyone we're used to. He could pull a "Claire" and like die, all vitals are zero, but then come back. And how is that "Schumacher land"? I thought Schumacher land involved over-the-top sets and bad directing. Now, anything you disagree with is "Schumacher land"?

Yes, I did watch the movies and I think you missed something: that wasn't really the ghost of Norman in the mirror. Those scenes were either meant to show Harrys internal struggle or suggest that psychosis runs in the Osborn family.

Yeah, duh, dude. I got that. BUT it would be cool if it was revealed that Osborn has been playing puppet-master.

As things stand right now, the tragic thing about Harry Osborn is that anybody would feel the same way in his situation. In Spidey 2 he thinks his best friend is working with his fathers killer and, grasping for straws, asks the completely reasonable question 'if you knew who he was, would you tell me?'. WE know why Peter can't say yes, but to Harry it looks like he's saying 'no, he pays me well'.
THAT is a well grounded basis for such a tragic misunderstanding.
Who the hell can relate to their assumed-dead father somehow drugging them behind the scenes and hiding in mirrors? Besides again drifting into Schumacher territory it's just not as moving.

There's a lot to read into if Norman Osborn comes back from the dead. And it wouldn't take away from the first movies, they're still there. I'm not suggesting going back in and adding Hayden Christensen to Return of the Jedi. And I argue that Harry's story is real tragic, but what would be even more tragic is if the audience KNEW he didn't have a choice. If I were him, I wouldn't make some of the decisions he did. And the drugging of Harry would serve as a metaphor for actual drug use and addiction. Duh.

Oh yes, what an improvement. Rather than leaving things as is, which is Flint Marko running from the cops and falling into an experiment we have Flint Marko, broken out by Norman Osborn (though Flint doesn't know this), running from the cops, somehow mysteriously guided to the field. Furthermore Norman banks on Flint choosing to jump the fence. He also gambles on Flint falling into the pit.
Rather than turning the machine on himself (which seems plausible if we're assuming Norman has the means to buy land and build experimental machinery), Norman hires somebody to do it for him. And does he hire people who are loyal to him and turn on the machine no questions asked? No. Apparently he hires well-meaning scientists who have no idea that they're being paid by the presumed dead Norman Osborn. LUCKILY they're just incompetent enough to turn the machine on.
MUCH better. :|

I'm sorry, I seriously don't understand how that's not better than what came before. First, Norman Osborn is a genius and a criminal mastermind. Yeah, he would count on Flint Marko doing exactly what he did, he's a common criminal. A pawn that Osborn played in his master plan. Second, you've had jobs where you don't know who you're bosses' boss is, or even who pays you. How is that incompetent? Norman is a manipulator. I don't see the point in saying this stuff, it's obvious.

Spider-Man 3 suffered from too many storylines, that's all. I agree that Venom needed a better origin, Harry a better death and a deeper romance with Gwen. But the solution for that is either a four hour long movie or some of those elements removed completely. Adding some convoluted, utterly unrealistic story line with Norman just makes things orders of magnitude worse.

Solution's not a four hour movie, the soultion's better writing. And all I can attampt to make better is the level of randomness in Spider-Man 3, not really the other stuff. Like Spidey 1: Kid gets spider-powers THE SAME TIME adult gets abilities superhumanly enhanced. Fine. Spidey 2: Freak accident creates super-villain. Awesome. Spidey 3: guy breaks out of jail and gets freak powers THE SAME TIME alien goo lands next to THE SAME GUY who got spider powers in the first one AT THE SAME TIME original experiment enhances other guy's abilities THE SAME TIME jerk guy shows up to turn evil in the last half hour ...etc. My storyline doesn't make anything worse, it adds to the mythology of Spider-Man.

I personally guarantee that if your ideas are used (that is to say, not only Norman coming back, but in the manner you described) it would absolutely be the worst reviewed and received Spider-Man movie ever. And you're right, I have no ideas personally. Because I'm not a writer. I don't have to have ideas to say that yours suck.

It wouldn't be worse-reviewed than the Spider-Man movie with a dance number, I'm sorry. Yeah, man, if you wanna voice your opinion about something, go for it, but you should contribute. Otherwise your arguments are moot. Since you don't write, (or contribute) you don't really have the authority to say other people's ideas suck.

 

[ThatDamnNinja]

Yeah, okay, all those suggestions for how Norman could come back are TECHNICALLY viable... as in it COULD be done... but all of them fall under the category of what is commonly known as cheating.

Let's be honest. They're all cheap, unsatisfying deus ex machinas (diabolus ex machina, perhaps?) that would not go over well at all. I mean come on... Norman going out, getting a hobo, giving him plastic surgery to make him look like Norman...? Get real. I'm not buying that for a nickel.

To say that that's more plausible than a meteor carrying an alien organism crashing down to Earth? We have no reason to believe it couldn't happen. And it landing right next to Peter? Maybe it does border on "way too convenient," and it's mathematically improbable that it would land in that exact spot, but it's no more improbable than it landing in any OTHER exact spot. Where it lands is more or less random. Why not next to Spider-Man? To make an analogy, flipping a coin and getting tails ten consecutive times may seem HIGHLY unlikely, and it is, but in truth, it's no less likely than getting heads, heads, tails, heads, tails, tails, tails, heads, tails, heads.

The meteorite with the symbiote landing right next to Peter is improbable. Norman using plastic surgery to disguise a hobo as himself? That's implausible. And more importantly, it's stupid.

And I didn't even ADDRESS the issues surrounding Norman surviving the impalement.

 

[Visionary]

If they're going to bring a character back, it's going to be Doc Ock, not Norman Osborn. His Goblin story began and ended the three movies. Doc Ock is the one they might bring back in one of these films.

 

[Hectorminator]

I want to see Doc Ock come back, but he died a 'hero' in his own eyes, he didn't die a monster, I don't know why he would come back a monster. Unless he was tricked into being a criminal again...

It'd be cool to see Ock do some Master Planner stuff, some big plot, and then fight Spider-Man underwater. That would be awesome.

Maybe he could date Aunt May. He's charming.

 

[TomPiltoff]

Which ones might I ask?

Spider-Man
Spider-Man 2
Batman Begins

I'm not talking about Norman Osborn, but Doc Ock, read my flashback about bringing him back, this is something that happens two minute after he's in the water. The audience will easily accept a man being in the water for two minutes, and brought back to life by means of CPR. Especially, if they accepted two men falling thousands of feet off a building onto a moving train and not die. Or a man made of sand. This would be a walk in the park for a Spidey film.

First of all, it's one thing to say that Doc Ock was in water for two minutes and was revived with CPR. It's still totally cheap and ruins his character arc, but OK.

It's another thing completely to say that Norman Osborn is the one saving him.

So defensive I see, I wasn't even specifically talking about you, just in general. Someone is protesting too much.

Yeah, don't even try that one. I made a comment about grounded comic book movies and the very next post was you calling people who hold that opinion "geekier". My ass if the comment wasn't intended for me.

Then you better not watch anymore comic book films, because they're about as unbelievable as it gets, especially during their real world extroadinary events.

Well I think you need to take a nap and re-read this thread because you missed my point about one or two leaps of faith. OF COURSE the audience has to accept that Spider-Man and Doc Ock exist. But simply because they've made those two big leaps doesn't mean you can do whatever you want simply because it happened in the comics.

There has to be a singular universe, with laws and consequences, for the characters to live in. Once you begin bringing characters back from the dead and other cheeseball ideas, such as Norman being a zombie puppet master, you've lost the audience.

Except when some nut case starts preaching how his favorite fictional comic book character/movie is somehow real worldly. That's when you need the doctors with a white coat that makes you hug yourself.

Alright you have fun writing your fan script for Spider-Man 4 featuring The Rhino as a large man in skintight grey spandex.

Yeah, you're right, he can. Thanks for that.

Yeah, just like they COULD have a flashback where the Green Goblin throws a clone of Gwen Stacy off of the George Washington Bridge right before Spidey arrives. Just because something is possible doesn't make it not absolute tripe.

Well, you said yourself that first off, all comic book movies are really unrealistic and require leaps of faith, so what's your point?

My point is that it can only go so far. It MEANS something to the audience when Norman and Harry die because the characters live in the real world, with real world consequences.

Besides accepting the existence of super-powered characters, which is obviously necessary for the movie to even exist, there has to be a real world for the characters to inhabit. Aunt May can't pay the mortgage as a result of Uncle Bens death so she moves to a smaller place, Spider-Man doesn't contact his friend Reed Richards to make a money cloning machine.

This ain't even a Sci-Fi leap of faith, like a meteor filled with space goo HAPPENS to land right next to Peter Parker in the park, it's leaps of faith about a very rich and powerful and crazy guy faking his own death.

No, it's SEVERAL leaps of faith as the idea of Norman faking his own death invites so many questions.

Second, you're stuck on this idea that there's even a morgue and that people would say that a drfiter's body isn't Norman Osborn (when again, Norman could just kill them or brainwash them or something, it's not important. It's a small detail.)

Whoa, slow down.

First of all, there is a morgue. Just accept it. Unless Harry is some kind of creep show I'm sure he took his father to a freaking morgue. You don't just find your dead fathers corpse in your living room and bury him the next day.

Second, yes, there is no realistic, sensical reason to say that people wouldn't notice that the body is not Normans.

Third, I nearly laughed out loud at "Norman could just kill them or brainwash them or something".

But as I said before, maybe his trusty butler Bernerd burried him, WE the audience never even saw how he ended up in the ground.

Well we saw that he had a funeral in broad daylight with friends and family present, so there obviously wasn't a lot of secrecy there. But I suppose you'll tell me that the casket was occupied by a dead drifter who had received posthumous facial reconstruction.

I was just thinking that a cool scene could be a B/W flashback where he heals and wakes up and kills some dudes.

What dudes? Bernard buried him, remember?

Maybe he could use cosmetic surgery to make a drifter look like him, I mean, if italian stero-type mobster guys can do it, genius Norman Osbon can too.

Um, no. LIVING criminals hiding from the law can receive facial reconstruction. This happens sometimes. A dead drifter who had been murdered by a shirtless super-powered businessman bleeding out of his intestines is, let's count, 1......2........at least 3 giant unrealistic happenings for the audience to swallow.

And how is that "Schumacher land"? I thought Schumacher land involved over-the-top sets and bad directing.

Indeed it does. It also has to do with terribly unrealistic storylines.

Now, anything you disagree with is "Schumacher land"?

No, anything that can be mentioned in the same breath as 'bat-credit card', Batman and Robin feuding over Poison Ivy and ice-skates being built into the batsuit can be called Schumacher Land. And 'Norman Osborn coming back to life, killing a drifter, giving him reconstructive surgery, replacing the body, secretly drugging his son, hiding in mirrors, rescuing and brainwashing Dr. Octopus, freeing Flint Marko from jail with the knowledge of what would happen to him....' fits just fine with those awful ideas.

BUT it would be cool if it was revealed that Osborn has been playing puppet-master.

It would be cool in a reboot if the writers want to create a situation where that can realistically happen, sure. But in THESE movies Norman is dead as a doornail and besides ruining the point of existing stories, you'd have to look the other way on a shameful amount of common sense questions to make it happen.

And I argue that Harry's story is real tragic, but what would be even more tragic is if the audience KNEW he didn't have a choice.

That is so shallow, though. What we have now is a pretty well weaved tale of friction between friends. Peter wants to tell Harry, Harry wants Peter to be on his side, nobody wants to fight! But circumstances being what they are, they do.

vs.

His dad drugged him so he had to be a bad guy. L-A-M-E.

And the drugging of Harry would serve as a metaphor for actual drug use and addiction.

Are you serious?

No.

It wouldn't.

At all.

What would the metaphor be? Harry is unwillingly being drugged, what does that have anything to do with people who go out and buy drugs and subsequently become addicted?

First, Norman Osborn is a genius and a criminal mastermind. Yeah, he would count on Flint Marko doing exactly what he did, he's a common criminal.

*BUZZ* Wrong.

Norman isn't a mind reader. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to operate under the assumption that if a big hole is blasted into his cell a criminal will run. But there is no way Osborn could predict the route Marko would take. There is just no way that he could reasonably count on Marko traveling in a manner that would lead him to the test facility and jump the fence.

And you see, we've already hit a gap in logic. If Norman can brainwash Doc Ock and the people who saw him wake up at the morgue then why bother with a schmuck like Marko?

Seriously, imagine how much time and energy are wasted on this plan to turn Marko into Sandman. And why? Because he accidentally killed Ben Parker? If he wants somebody to be aggressive towards Spider-Man he can just BRAINWASH somebody into believing it!

A pawn that Osborn played in his master plan. Second, you've had jobs where you don't know who you're bosses' boss is, or even who pays you.

Yeah and so far I have been a waiter and a retail clerk. Genius scientists don't just receive briefcases full of money and call it a day.

Norman is a manipulator. I don't see the point in saying this stuff, it's obvious.

Norman IS a manipulator, that is obvious. But it's also obvious that he is DEAD.

Solution's not a four hour movie, the soultion's better writing.

Well yes and no. It's simply impossible for a two hour movie to feature Harry, the symbiote, Gwen Stacy, Sandman and Venom and do all of them justice. An Spider-Man 3 with the same running time would simply have to cut some of those characters in order to be better.

If you want to keep all of those characters and ideas then, yes, you need about four hours to do it well.

And all I can attampt to make better is the level of randomness in Spider-Man 3, not really the other stuff. Like Spidey 1: Kid gets spider-powers THE SAME TIME adult gets abilities superhumanly enhanced. Fine. Spidey 2: Freak accident creates super-villain. Awesome. Spidey 3: guy breaks out of jail and gets freak powers THE SAME TIME alien goo lands next to THE SAME GUY who got spider powers in the first one AT THE SAME TIME original experiment enhances other guy's abilities THE SAME TIME jerk guy shows up to turn evil in the last half hour ...etc. My storyline doesn't make anything worse, it adds to the mythology of Spider-Man.

But do you see how little you had to take on faith for Spidey 1 and 2? All you had to accept is that Spider-Man, Green Goblin and Dr. Octopus exist. That's it.

You had to swallow a lot more for Spider-Man 3 and that movie suffered greatly for it. Your idea of bringing Norman back from the dead asks at least as much, if not more.

It wouldn't be worse-reviewed than the Spider-Man movie with a dance number

Oh I beg to differ.

Yeah, man, if you wanna voice your opinion about something, go for it, but you should contribute. Otherwise your arguments are moot. Since you don't write, (or contribute) you don't really have the authority to say other people's ideas suck.

COMPLETELY false logic that I am not going to let you try and push on me for a second.

I'm not a mechanic but I have every right to say that my first car, that didn't even have a working gas gauge, was a PIECE OF ****.

I'm not a chef but I have every right to say that McDonalds hamburgers SUCK.

And I'm not a writer but I have every right to say that your ideas are TERRIBLE.

My opinions certainly aren't worth more than anybody elses but they also aren't worth less. Don't think for a second that that kind of kindergarten 'you can't do better!' logic is going to fly.

 

[Visionary]

Spider-Man
Spider-Man 2
Batman Begins

There's cartoon type stuff happening in the films, as well. A Bat-Thundertank jumpin' rooftop to rooftop, Bats being lit ablaze from head to toe yet his face don't burn (he's Superman now eh?), to Doc Ock falling off a 50 story building onto a moving train and surviving, Bats' magic flying cape, Aunt May falling and hangin' on dear life with a cane, to name a few. Hell, there are some people who would have killed to see Doc Ock come back, instead of listening to Peter/Mj talk. I find very little that's grounded in reality with these films, nor do I expect it.

First of all, it's one thing to say that Doc Ock was in water for two minutes and was revived with CPR. It's still totally cheap and ruins his character arc, but OK.

It's another thing completely to say that Norman Osborn is the one saving him.

Oh please, his story-arc was ruined when they turned Doc Ock good. Bringing him back, and using the brain damage motif could actually make his arc better the 2nd time around.

Yeah, don't even try that one. I made a comment about grounded comic book movies and the very next post was you calling people who hold that opinion "geekier". My ass if the comment wasn't intended for me.

You are determined to be singled out aren't you?

Well I think you need to take a nap and re-read this thread because you missed my point about one or two leaps of faith. OF COURSE the audience has to accept that Spider-Man and Doc Ock exist. But simply because they've made those two big leaps doesn't mean you can do whatever you want simply because it happened in the comics.

Who's rule is this, did someone pass a comic book film law stating this, of how many times you can have a comic book moment or event? As I've seen many in the Spider-Man films and he has made billions off of his leaps of faith.

There has to be a singular universe, with laws and consequences, for the characters to live in. Once you begin bringing characters back from the dead and other cheeseball ideas, such as Norman being a zombie puppet master, you've lost the audience.

I said nothing about bringing back Norman Osborn, I wouldn't want to see another Goblin even if he didn't die. But as for Doc Ock, I think they can bring him back, and without losing the audience.

Alright you have fun writing your fan script for Spider-Man 4 featuring The Rhino as a large man in skintight grey spandex.

Rhino would be no more absurd and cartoonish than a man dressed like a Goblin flying on an iron bat, throwing pumpkin bombs, wearing a hideous plastic green suit.

 

[TomPiltoff]

There's cartoon type stuff happening in the films, as well. A Bat-Thundertank jumpin' rooftop to rooftop, Bats being lit ablaze from head to toe yet his face don't burn (he's Superman now eh?), to Doc Ock falling off a 50 story building onto a moving train and surviving, Bats' magic flying cape, Aunt May falling and hangin' on dear life with a cane, to name a few. Hell, there are some people who would have killed to see Doc Ock come back, instead of listening to Peter/Mj talk. I find very little that's grounded in reality with these films, nor do I expect it.

And do you seriously equate the things you just listed with all of this zombie-Norman nonsense?

Oh please, his story-arc was ruined when they turned Doc Ock good.

Oh I get it now. You're the type that would be happy if it were two hours of Spider-Man fighting generic evil scientists.

Who's rule is this, did someone pass a comic book film law stating this, of how many times you can have a comic book moment or event? As I've seen many in the Spider-Man films and he has made billions off of his leaps of faith.

Again, are you trying to tell me that the Spider-Man films are in the same league as Batman Forever and Batman and Robin? After all, using your shortsighted logic, they're both superhero films!

Rhino would be no more absurd and cartoonish than a man dressed like a Goblin flying on an iron bat, throwing pumpkin bombs, wearing a hideous plastic green suit.

Um, yes he would. I don't think the Green Goblin outfit looked GOOD, but it DID look like what it was supposed to be: a suit of state of the art military tech customized by a psycho.

 

[Visionary]

And do you seriously equate the things you just listed with all of this zombie-Norman nonsense?

No, I equate them with bringing back Doc Ock, and the audience accepting something that's a leap of faith, but still entertains the hell out of them, as the return of Doc Ock would. I care not for the return of Osborn.

Oh I get it now. You're the type that would be happy if it were two hours of Spider-Man fighting generic evil scientists.

You have a thing against generic material, what are you doing watching Spider-Man or Batman, their movies couldn't function without them under their PG-13 ratings?

Again, are you trying to tell me that the Spider-Man films are in the same league as Batman Forever and Batman and Robin? After all, using your shortsighted logic, they're both superhero films!

Not at all, look at Hellboy, that has tons of leap of faith moments and it's not on the crap scale as Batman and Robin. All I'm saying is the audience wouldn't mind seeing Doc Ock return in a way that I described.

Um, yes he would. I don't think the Green Goblin outfit looked GOOD, but it DID look like what it was supposed to be: a suit of state of the art military tech customized by a psycho.

So, in other words...cartoony. Or would that be insulting cartoons?

One man CAN dress like a Goblin, but another CAN'T dress up like a Rhino in a Spider-Man film? So the audience accepts Goblins, but they don't accept Rhinos, gotcha.

What's gonna happen if they introduce a man turning into a giant man-sized Lizard in SM4. Hows that for grounded in reality?

 

[UltimateJustin]

One man CAN dress like a Goblin, but another CAN'T dress up like a Rhino in a Spider-Man film? So the audience accepts Goblins, but they don't accept Rhinos, gotcha.

Even if the comic book Rhino's costume would look ridiculous on film, that doesnt mean that they couldnt take the basic concept of the character and redesign it to look sweet. I dont know if audiences in general accepted the Sandman, but if they did then pretty much Rhinos are good to go in the Spiderman universe.

 

[Visionary]

Of course he can, I personally don't dismiss The Rhino from ever being used in a Spider-Man film. I would want a better and more creative director to take the helm before this happens, but it can be done well. I mean look at all the stuff in Hellboy (and now Hellboy 2), T2, Aliens or Harry Potter, as long as it entertains people they'll acccept it.

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

Even if the comic book Rhino's costume would look ridiculous on film, that doesnt mean that they couldnt take the basic concept of the character and redesign it to look sweet. I dont know if audiences in general accepted the Sandman, but if they did then pretty much Rhinos are good to go in the Spiderman universe.

Well, Rhino could work in a Spider-Man film, but I want to see other Villians besides him. Don't get me wrong, I really think Rhino is a very cool Villian and I would love to see him in a Spider-Man film, but I think other Villians such as Lizard, Kraven, Mysterio, Vulture, etc. are more likley to appear and it defenitley is the right time to start introducing those Villians into the films. So if there is room for Rhino in the enxt three films, then he could be used, but if there isn't room left then I think they should just concentrate on other Villians such as the Villians I listed.

 

[Visionary]

Well, let's focus on The Lizard and his potential secondary villain for now.

 

[TomPiltoff]

No, I equate them with bringing back Doc Ock, and the audience accepting something that's a leap of faith, but still entertains the hell out of them, as the return of Doc Ock would. I care not for the return of Osborn.

My argument is that bringing Doc Ock back would ruin his previous character arc.

Now whether or not you liked what they did with his character is irrelevant to that point. I don't think you can argue that bringing the character back, in this universe, severely harms his previous arc.

Not at all, look at Hellboy, that has tons of leap of faith moments and it's not on the crap scale as Batman and Robin. All I'm saying is the audience wouldn't mind seeing Doc Ock return in a way that I described.

Now you're comparing Hellboy and Spider-Man? Other than being comic book movies there isn't a whole lot in common. Hellboy is all about supernatural spectacle, obviously the rules are different.

One man CAN dress like a Goblin, but another CAN'T dress up like a Rhino in a Spider-Man film? So the audience accepts Goblins, but they don't accept Rhinos, gotcha.

Your ability to miss the point never ceases to astound me.

YOU said

Except when some nut case starts preaching how his favorite fictional comic book character/movie is somehow real worldly.

Which would seem to be suggesting that comic book movies don't have to worry about fitting their characters into the real world.

I rightly pointed out that without making these necessary changes we could be watching, for example, a guy in a grey spandex suit running around. Imagine how ridiculous that would look. If and when Rhino is ever brought to the screen there will have to be changes made to make him fit into the real world.

What's gonna happen if they introduce a man turning into a giant man-sized Lizard in SM4. Hows that for grounded in reality?

Wow, twice in one post, nice.

I'm going to put the rest of my post in bold so as to be more memorable for you.

Other than the characters existing (obviously a Spider-Man movie has to have Spider-Man and his villains), super hero movies, in my opinion, work best when grounded as much as possible in the real world. Bringing up such magnificent points as 'the lizard is a big lizard' does nothing to support your argument.

 

[Hectorminator]

No, it's SEVERAL leaps of faith as the idea of Norman faking his own death invites so many questions.

To me, Spider-Man 3 invited like a million questions. Stuff like, why would they push the button in a deadly sand experiment if they aren't even sure that it IS a bird? Why did Bernerd so conviently choose to tell Harry the truth about his father when he's never said more than four words? Why would Spider-Man kiss some other girl in front of his girlfriend? Where'd that alien goo come from? What's with the emo hair? I digress.

My idea for Norman Osborn coming back tries to answer some of those questions, like how Flint got out of jail and how he got his powers.

Well we saw that he had a funeral in broad daylight with friends and family present, so there obviously wasn't a lot of secrecy there. But I suppose you'll tell me that the casket was occupied by a dead drifter who had received posthumous facial reconstruction.

I don't think Osborn had any family other than his son. Business associates were there for sure, but it was a closed casket. No body.

What would the metaphor be? Harry is unwillingly being drugged, what does that have anything to do with people who go out and buy drugs and subsequently become addicted?

Drug addicts are unwillingly addicted after the initial dose. Peter lost his friend to it. It controlled Harry's life. Harry flirted with alcoholism.

Harry letting his father's ghost consume his life is as close as the drug storyline the kid-friendly Spidey movies will ever get, his father manipulating his son would be one small step closer.

Norman isn't a mind reader. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to operate under the assumption that if a big hole is blasted into his cell a criminal will run. But there is no way Osborn could predict the route Marko would take. There is just no way that he could reasonably count on Marko traveling in a manner that would lead him to the test facility and jump the fence.
And you see, we've already hit a gap in logic. If Norman can brainwash Doc Ock and the people who saw him wake up at the morgue then why bother with a schmuck like Marko?
Seriously, imagine how much time and energy are wasted on this plan to turn Marko into Sandman. And why? Because he accidentally killed Ben Parker? If he wants somebody to be aggressive towards Spider-Man he can just BRAINWASH somebody into believing it!

Osborn counted on Marko escaping because he knew Marko wanted to help his daughter. He could have either tipped off the cops as to where Marko was to lead him to the test site, or just hire fake police himself. Those cops with the whistles and stuff looked kinda fake anyway.

And most importantly, Norman Osborn let Flint Marko out of jail and experimented on him for the sole reason of ruining Peter Parker's life and breaking his spirit. He knew Pete would be pissed from hearing about this guy and Norman wants Peter to turn evil. "Be like a son to me now..." Norman Osborn always wanted Peter Parker as his heir. "What would drive Spider-Man to kill...?" he thinks.

But do you see how little you had to take on faith for Spidey 1 and 2? All you had to accept is that Spider-Man, Green Goblin and Dr. Octopus exist. That's it.
You had to swallow a lot more for Spider-Man 3 and that movie suffered greatly for it. Your idea of bringing Norman back from the dead asks at least as much, if not more.

Yeah, that's exactly what I was trying to say. Spidey one and two? Asks nothing outrageous of its audience. Spidey three? Um...

And I disagree, bringing back Norman Osborn would be new (you'll never see that in another Superhero film) threatening (he IS Spider-Man's greatest foe, he should start acting like it) and it would explain a LOT, especially in Spider-Man 3.


Magneto is the X-Men's greatest enemy, Dr. Doom is the Fantastic Four's most persistent nemesis, and the Green Goblin is Spider-Man's most cunning foe. Mags and Doom were in all their respective superhero movies, why? Because you're not gonna go from frakkin' MAGNETO to just William Stryker and then JUST Callisto or something. Magneto is too cool to be left out. And since they had no Galactus in FF2, they needed Doom to fight. Lex Luthor's stuck around for the same reasons, he's awesome.

You're only as good as your villain, I don't want Spider-Man to go the path of "Let's use whatever villain we haven't used so far for Spider-Man 6...OOOO! Shocker! Sweet!" -some Producer. If any villain deserves to return it's the Green Goblin, he can start some s**t for Spidey. Plus, I think Willem Dafoe is bloody brilliant. I want him to have work for the next six years.

 

[Visionary]

You all are going around in circles. Anyway, the director and the producer said that Doc Ock isn't dead. So don't be so sure you won't see him in one of these films.

 

[UltimateJustin]

SM2 clearly leads you to believe that Ock dies so that the movie has a bigger emotional impact. Saying he is still alive is just so it wont seems as forced if they bring him back. It would ruin his arc in SM2 to bring him back, but he is a great foe of Spidey's, so if they ever do bring him back as a villain it better be of his own doing and not any smallville chip. Not that I have any story problems with Spiderman 2, though.

If they ever bring Norman back, he should be the sole villain of the sixth one, so to destroy anyone's dreams of a sinister six movie. And they can use him to explain away all the bad plot holes of previous movies, and it will be ******ed but maybe have some decent action and closure.

 

[TomPiltoff]

To me, Spider-Man 3 invited like a million questions. Stuff like, why would they push the button in a deadly sand experiment if they aren't even sure that it IS a bird? Why did Bernerd so conviently choose to tell Harry the truth about his father when he's never said more than four words? Why would Spider-Man kiss some other girl in front of his girlfriend? Where'd that alien goo come from? What's with the emo hair? I digress.

I agree 100%.

My idea for Norman Osborn coming back tries to answer some of those questions, like how Flint got out of jail and how he got his powers.

But it raises more questions and makes things more complicated than they already are. As cartoony as Spidey 3 is now, let's not make it worse.

Drug addicts are unwillingly addicted after the initial dose.

Yes but drug addicts aren't administered doses of heroin in their sleep by their parents. Having Norman secretly drugging Harry is not at all a metaphor for drug use.

Osborn counted on Marko escaping because he knew Marko wanted to help his daughter. He could have either tipped off the cops as to where Marko was to lead him to the test site

Um, that's not how the police work. You don't make an anonymous tip and tell them 'chase him down Main Street, take a left on Flower Lane then go straight for about fifteen minutes, eventually you'll hit a fence and trap him'.

Norman could tip off the cops, but there is no realistic scenario where he could do so knowing where and how they'd get him.

or just hire fake police himself. Those cops with the whistles and stuff looked kinda fake anyway.

Hahaha, so now Norman is hiring fake police, what, for the sake of fooling the audience?

And most importantly, Norman Osborn let Flint Marko out of jail and experimented on him for the sole reason of ruining Peter Parker's life and breaking his spirit. He knew Pete would be pissed from hearing about this guy and Norman wants Peter to turn evil. "Be like a son to me now..." Norman Osborn always wanted Peter Parker as his heir. "What would drive Spider-Man to kill...?" he thinks.

So Norman took the time and money to break Flint out of jail, yada yada yada just to drive Spider-Man to kill?

You know what else would drive Spider-Man to kill? If Norman showed up at Pete's apartment with the head of Aunt May in his hand.

There is no reason for Norman to go through all the Flint nonsense.

And I disagree, bringing back Norman Osborn would be new (you'll never see that in another Superhero film) threatening (he IS Spider-Man's greatest foe, he should start acting like it) and it would explain a LOT, especially in Spider-Man 3.

It would not explain anything. I don't think you're grasping this concept completely.

Sure, things might look neat and tidy by saying 'so you see, Norman was behind Harry becoming the second goblin, Flint Marko escaping jail and becoming Sandman, Topher Grace being cast as Venom....'

But it BRINGS UP more questions than it answers. Example:

Norman broke Flint out of jail. Goody, this explains how Flint got loose.

But it begs the questions as to why, how, how he knew Flint would end up in the field, how Norman created the machine, how he funded the people working it, why he didn't just work it himself, etc, etc, etc.

Magneto is the X-Men's greatest enemy, Dr. Doom is the Fantastic Four's most persistent nemesis, and the Green Goblin is Spider-Man's most cunning foe. Mags and Doom were in all their respective superhero movies, why? Because you're not gonna go from frakkin' MAGNETO to just William Stryker and then JUST Callisto or something. Magneto is too cool to be left out. And since they had no Galactus in FF2, they needed Doom to fight. Lex Luthor's stuck around for the same reasons, he's awesome.

Well the Spider-Man movies don't follow that formula. Whether you agree with that or not, it is what it is. They killed his nemesis in the first film. If you're advocating a reboot more heavily featuring the Green Goblin then that's your opinion.

But I still don't see how Green Goblin can return in the current Spider-Man movie universe and have it not be one of the biggest logical cluster****s of all time.

You're only as good as your villain, I don't want Spider-Man to go the path of "Let's use whatever villain we haven't used so far for Spider-Man 6...OOOO! Shocker! Sweet!"

I care about the story first and foremost. If Spider-Man 6 features The Shocker and it's written damn well then I'm fine with it.

I am 100% against twisting all logic and rules and common sense just to get a particular villain back on the screen.

 

[Hectorminator]

But it raises more questions and makes things more complicated than they already are. As cartoony as Spidey 3 is now, let's not make it worse.

I don't wanna settle with what we were given, and it sucks that people think we should. Not enough time has passed where the next films couldn't mention the previous ones, so we're at a point where we could try and make Spider-Man 3 BETTER on repeated viewings.

Yes but drug addicts aren't administered doses of heroin in their sleep by their parents. Having Norman secretly drugging Harry is not at all a metaphor for drug use.

I thought about it, and I don't remember when I said "Norman drugged Harry in his sleep." If I did say that, I didn't mean to, I was just trying to come up with an example of how Norman manipulated Harry. The main things I think Norman does to his son are this: 1) he sabotages Doctor Octavius' experiment so that Harry "Head of Special Projects" Osborn is ruined, like Harry said, and then when hitting rock bottom he would plan to avenge his father by killing Spidey 2) makes Harry think he was hallucinating when he saw his father speak to him in the mirror, when really Norman was there 3) ensures that his son came up with the correct formula when trying to attain super powers (Harry isn't a scientific genius)

Hahaha, so now Norman is hiring fake police, what, for the sake of fooling the audience?

No, to fool Flint.

So Norman took the time and money to break Flint out of jail, yada yada yada just to drive Spider-Man to kill? You know what else would drive Spider-Man to kill? If Norman showed up at Pete's apartment with the head of Aunt May in his hand.

We'd never see that in a Spider-Man movie. Plus, Osborn doesn't want to be seen yet. He's planning something, something big. He needs people to do stuff for him. Osborn's crazy, he just wants to torment Peter. That's why he even bothers with Marko.

Sure, things might look neat and tidy by saying 'so you see, Norman was behind Harry becoming the second goblin, Flint Marko escaping jail and becoming Sandman, Topher Grace being cast as Venom....'

Ha.

But it BRINGS UP more questions than it answers. Example: Norman broke Flint out of jail. Goody, this explains how Flint got loose. But it begs the questions as to why, how, how he knew Flint would end up in the field, how Norman created the machine, how he funded the people working it, why he didn't just work it himself, etc, etc, etc.

See above as to the why. And Osborn wants anonymity, which is why he didn't just pull the switch himself.

I care about the story first and foremost. If Spider-Man 6 features The Shocker and it's written damn well then I'm fine with it.

Ha again. I know what you're saying, and I agree to a certain point, but that sounds like a really lame movie, lol.

The other thing I want to stress is that I want the Spider-Man movies to be EPIC. There are two ways to do a movie from an established franchise: 1) the origin of the character or story will serve as the first movie because audiences might not be familiar with it, or they're establishing a different story for the movie i.e. Underdog the movie is not a continuation of the old cartoon show, 2) a BIG, EPIC event that would be "movie-worthy" i.e. the Simpsons movie is a continution of the show, and because it's a movie, they're not just gonna do a longer episode, they need something really huge.

If Spider-Man goes the route of the old Batman movies, and a plot is written around the next villain they'll use, then not only will it enter "Schumacher-land", but the series will become stale, and too formulaic, like the James Bond movies (which only in the past movies did they decide to continue the story.) Spidey needs a MAJOR villain to carry the next three movies. I could see Doc Ock come back, but he wasn't that bad of a guy. The Green Goblin has all the reasons to come back, all the motivations.

Plus, how bad-ass would it be to see a scene with BOTH the Green Goblin and Doc Ock fighting Spidey, arguing with each other at the same time! Or a Sinister Six meeting with Molina on one side of the screen and Dafoe on the other! AWESOME.

 

[TomPiltoff]

I don't wanna settle with what we were given, and it sucks that people think we should. Not enough time has passed where the next films couldn't mention the previous ones, so we're at a point where we could try and make Spider-Man 3 BETTER on repeated viewings.

I'm not happy with Spider-Man 3 either, but what you're suggesting with Norman is basically what they did with making Sandman Uncle Bens killer, except on a massive scale and throughout every movie.

I thought about it, and I don't remember when I said "Norman drugged Harry in his sleep."

Well you suggested Norman drugging Harry without his consent/knowledge, so the drug metaphor certainly doesn't work.

If I did say that, I didn't mean to, I was just trying to come up with an example of how Norman manipulated Harry. The main things I think Norman does to his son are this: 1) he sabotages Doctor Octavius' experiment so that Harry "Head of Special Projects" Osborn is ruined, like Harry said, and then when hitting rock bottom he would plan to avenge his father by killing Spidey 2) makes Harry think he was hallucinating when he saw his father speak to him in the mirror, when really Norman was there 3) ensures that his son came up with the correct formula when trying to attain super powers (Harry isn't a scientific genius)

Not only do I dislike those things on a story level, they're just too implausible, for reasons I have covered.

No, to fool Flint.

But why fool him? Why go to all the trouble of hiring fake police and unwitting scientists when Norman could blow a hole in his cell, put a bag over his head and toss him in the experiment himself? There's no reason why he wouldn't do that. Flint doesn't go on a crime spree because the police chased him, who chased him is irrelevant.

We'd never see that in a Spider-Man movie.

That doesn't make it an invalid point.

See above as to the why. And Osborn wants anonymity, which is why he didn't just pull the switch himself.

How would pulling the switch endanger his anonymity? Hire some thugs to throw Marko in the pit, Osborn can flip the switch safely underground. No need for scientists or police (read: no need to basically retcon all of Spider-Man 3, which never works well).

The other thing I want to stress is that I want the Spider-Man movies to be EPIC. There are two ways to do a movie from an established franchise: 1) the origin of the character or story will serve as the first movie because audiences might not be familiar with it, or they're establishing a different story for the movie i.e. Underdog the movie is not a continuation of the old cartoon show, 2) a BIG, EPIC event that would be "movie-worthy" i.e. the Simpsons movie is a continution of the show, and because it's a movie, they're not just gonna do a longer episode, they need something really huge.

Epic and huge don't have to equate to overcomplicated and unrealistic.

If Spider-Man goes the route of the old Batman movies, and a plot is written around the next villain they'll use, then not only will it enter "Schumacher-land", but the series will become stale, and too formulaic, like the James Bond movies (which only in the past movies did they decide to continue the story.)

Wait, so you're saying the problem with the Schumacher movies is that the plot was written around the villain? Do you even know why people criticize those movies? I'll tell you one thing, it ISN'T because the plot was written around the villain.

And furthermore, I'm not even saying the plot has to be written around the villain. Just that bringing Norman back is impossible to do without turning the movies into a Saturday morning cartoon.

Plus, how bad-ass would it be to see a scene with BOTH the Green Goblin and Doc Ock fighting Spidey, arguing with each other at the same time! Or a Sinister Six meeting with Molina on one side of the screen and Dafoe on the other! AWESOME.

Yeah, that would be awesome. It's too bad the writers didn't create a realistic way of making that happen, because to get to that point now would ruin the franchise.

 

[Hectorminator]

Dang, Tom. We're never gonna agree on this, lol.

I'm not happy with Spider-Man 3 either, but what you're suggesting with Norman is basically what they did with making Sandman Uncle Bens killer, except on a massive scale and throughout every movie.

What they did with Sandman as Uncle Ben's killer is this: Sam Raimi (and Tobey, too)'s favorite villain is Sandman, they had in in their heads that NO MATTER WHAT happens in Spider-Man 3, or what would serve as the best story, they HAD to have Sandman in it, as they were both only contracted for three movies, and this could have been their last shot for it.

So the theme that Raimi and his bro came up with for Peter was "forgiveness" which actually ain't that bad. Especially if you include the black suit and its themes, and having to forgive himself, then Peter was off to a good start. Not to mention the whole, "Peter lets all the fame get to his head thing", it could have been great with JUST Harry Osborn as the new Goblin, and Venom.

But they decided to add depth to the two-dimensional character that is Sandman by adding the story of his daughter, (which just slowed stuff down and was plauged by bad writing and bad acting), and the fact that he accidentally shot Uncle B. This was the main problem with Spider-Man 3. Well, that and the fact the Sam and his brother wrote the script themselves. They wrote a plot around the inclusion of Sandman. AROUND SANDMAN. The Green Goblin was a perfect fit for the first film because Norman Osborn is basically evil, (meaning he's a schemer, not a mindless thug, or an misunderstood tragic villain) and he's related to Pete's best friend. Doc Ock was needed for part 2 because he's maybe the most famous villain, but he was another older than Peter, scientist, physical and intellectual threat, villain that make up most of Spidey's rogues gallery. But the main points of the movie weren't really Doc Ock-related, they were all "Pete is pathetic, has a crappy job, crappy apartment, loves MJ to no avail, etc."

I'm not saying write a plot around the Return of the Green Goblin, my plan was to have Osborn come back as the "surprise twist ending" of Spider-Man 4 (offering to help Kraven the Hunter) and have him publicly return as amnesiac Norman Osborn in part 5 (while Spidey fights either Electro or Venom or something) and then have him finally come back in part 6 as with the story arc of Harry Osborn, (which was always there in the background, and it never felt too forced, except right at the end of part 3.) I'm saying that the Green Goblin returning would feel somewhat organic. Let Peter have his story, his own plot development.

The most important thing I want is for Peter Parker to have good stories, to keep growing and changing. I want him to go out with Gwen in the next one, graduate school, get a nicer apartment, things that have him get out of the stale place he's been in for the past two movies. Back in the sixties, Stan and co. actually asked the fans if they wanted Peter to stay in high school forever (because I'm sure they figured out a formula that worked really well and they knew what they had on their hands) and the fans ACTUALLY repsonded with "MAKE HIM GRADUATE!!!" Why? Because they wanted Peter to follow along in life with them, go to college, get married, have kids, etc. He should totally do this in the movies, not let the movies get too stale like the Bond movies once were, with no real consequence or anything.

Wait, so you're saying the problem with the Schumacher movies is that the plot was written around the villain?

The main problem, yeah. Everything else kind of spun off from that. Batman was pushed to the background in each of his movies. The makers of those movies didn't care about anything as long as some particular villain was in it, kinda like Raimi with Sandman and all the producers around him with Venom.

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

If they're going to bring a character back, it's going to be Doc Ock, not Norman Osborn. His Goblin story began and ended the three movies. Doc Ock is the one they might bring back in one of these films.

Exactly, even though Ock may appear dead, nobody knows for sure. I mean he probably won't return, but he sure has a chance.

 

[thejon93]

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?

Neither.
Green Goblin - Dead. RIP. Gone. Zero. Strike-Out. End of Story. No More. Dead. If they went with this, this franchise would fall so hard that people just wouldn't care anymore.
Doctor Octopus - Although most fans are skeptic on whether or not he's alive or not, I think that the movie would be very split on positive and negetive reactions. One, if he was the bad guy that wouldn't work because before the film ended, Doc Ock fought the robotic arms and regained control over them. Two, if he however lost his control over the mechanical arms, why even bother have him back as a villain? Yet alone an ally? I mean, he served his time as a villain, and made a fantastic challenge towards Spidey and was portrayed to a T thanks to a steller performance from the count of Alfred Molina.

 

[TomPiltoff]

What they did with Sandman as Uncle Ben's killer is this: Sam Raimi (and Tobey, too)'s favorite villain is Sandman, they had in in their heads that NO MATTER WHAT happens in Spider-Man 3, or what would serve as the best story, they HAD to have Sandman in it, as they were both only contracted for three movies, and this could have been their last shot for it.

So the theme that Raimi and his bro came up with for Peter was "forgiveness" which actually ain't that bad. Especially if you include the black suit and its themes, and having to forgive himself, then Peter was off to a good start. Not to mention the whole, "Peter lets all the fame get to his head thing", it could have been great with JUST Harry Osborn as the new Goblin, and Venom.

But they decided to add depth to the two-dimensional character that is Sandman by adding the story of his daughter, (which just slowed stuff down and was plauged by bad writing and bad acting), and the fact that he accidentally shot Uncle B. This was the main problem with Spider-Man 3.

Wait, hold on. You're missing the point.

Sandman killing Uncle Ben and your idea of having Norman responsible for EVERYTHING are the same in that they're both cheap ideas meant to vicariously carry emotional weight from the films it references.

And Sandman wasn't the problem, nor was the story with his daughter. Two and a half hours of just the symbiote, Harry and Sandman would have allowed enough time to flesh out Sandmans story. The problem was the ridiculous amount of storylines, not any one idea.

Doc Ock was needed for part 2 because he's maybe the most famous villain, but he was another older than Peter, scientist, physical and intellectual threat, villain that make up most of Spidey's rogues gallery. But the main points of the movie weren't really Doc Ock-related, they were all "Pete is pathetic, has a crappy job, crappy apartment, loves MJ to no avail, etc."

Oh yeah you mean the movie focused on Peter Parker? The main character?

I'm saying that the Green Goblin returning would feel somewhat organic.

The complete opposite. I'm hard pressed to think of any weaker plot devices at the moment.

The most important thing I want is for Peter Parker to have good stories, to keep growing and changing.

And yet you complain about how much Spider-Man 2 focused on Peter Parker.

 

[Venom'sDad]

Exactly, even though Ock may appear dead, nobody knows for sure. I mean he probably won't return, but he sure has a chance.