Follow TV Tropes
\"Lot of fans disliked the changes to villains. The Green Goblin becoming a giant goblin monster who can throw fireballs was a neat concept in theory but it in effect made Norman more of a Hulk or Captain America villain than a Spider-Man one, and also made him too similar to Curt Connors (i.e. scientist who turns evil by transformation). The popular villains in the Ultimate run were the ones who were the least changed (Doctor Octopus, Kingpin, Electro).\"
That may be better moved to Broken Base. Yes, some people does not like the new Goblin, but other people do. See for example the thread in CBR 616 Green Goblin or Ultimate Green Goblin. Some users preferred the original for the reasons cited, and others preferred the Ultimate one because the original would be too narm and corny. There\'s also this article is USA Today about the adaptation for the animated series, close to the comic book one. \"Having a super-strong, super-smart beast of a bad guy in the Green Goblin seemed better than something more classic. The original Goblin, who first began haunting Spidey in 1964, was essentially a dude in a Halloween mask who wanted to take over the world — an outdated conceit in modern superhero tales.\"
And the last sentence contradicts itself. Electro, among the least changed? If I remember correctly, the original Electro was a guy in a gaudy green and yellow costume with a mask with \"bolts\". A design that was completely ignored, going for a being of pure energy instead. And, as a character, Ultimate electro is treated as a serious threat, not as a pathetic loser.
YMMV does not have majority vote. And you only need article citations for Unfortunate Implications. If people have problems with the changes they can list those changes in They Changed It Now It Sucks.
Everything else is nitpicking. I suppose you can remove that bit about the bits who were liked were the least changed.
I don\'t think anyone really likes Ultimate Green Goblin, since that has never been retained later on. Neither Marvel\'s Spider-Man nor the Amazing Spider-Man movie or anything went with that, it\'s always goblin-guy on glider thing. And Dan Slott\'s recent Spider-Man comics have Osborn as the original Ditko-era crime lord. So that part lacks empirical evidence.
In either case, I think it\'s past time someone else made contributions here, especially those that dissent from Grigor II, since there seems to be a total monopoly on opinion here. This isn\'t after all your personal fansite.
You already have your empirical evidence, there are two links for that. Other than Unfortunate Implications, they are not mandatory, but they help to clarify things in discussions if the need arises. I mean, I say that there is people who do prefer the Ultimate Green Goblin and cite pages that detail that, and you say that nobody likes it, but your proof is just your own reasoning? And a faulty one at that, you say that adaptations have ignored it, but the Ultimate Spider-Man animated series did. As for the comics, I doubt that Marvel\'s own editorial actions are a good reflection of the fandom\'s preferences. Or did the fandom really preferred that much the Inhumans over the X-Men?
I don\'t think those examples are comparable i.e. Inhumans hoopla over X-Men is not the same as the total lack of influence and importance given to the Monster Goblin. Adaptations in most cases are likewise not determined by editors. Like Marvel editors have no say whatsoever with what an animation producer or creative decides to take or leave, and even less so with film-makers. The situation with the Inhumans was passed on by the executive guy to the editors and so on.
In any case one doesn\'t cancel out the other. Just because a trope entry criticizes the changes to the character in a YMMV page doesn\'t mean you can\'t have another entry defending those changes. Put it under Evil Is Cool and so on.
You can have contradictory tropes on a YMMV page since that is opinion. Like on Spider Man Trilogy you have entries making fun of the costume and some defending it.
\"The main dislike is that Bendis took \"teenage\" Spider-Man to mean \"incompetent\" and that Ultimate Spider-Man gets unmasked all the time, not only to major villains like the Goblin but also minor random characters like Silver Sable. Apparently the fact that 616!Peter went through his original high school arc (which was a mere 28 issues by the way) with no one deciphering his secret and then with only the Goblin knowing it, was too much to handle. Likewise, Spider-Man was so competent that when Green Goblin finally unmasked him in OTL, he was shocked that Peter was Just A Kid since he was certain he was an Experienced Protagonist, the overall effect goes from Batman turning out to be as young as Robin, to Robin trying to be Batman and failing.\"
Citation needed on this one. This reason seems too complex to be a general opinion held in the fanbase, and it sounds more like just some editor\'s review. And it has a big flaw, and it\'s summarized in the last sentence: Spider-Man is not Batman. He has never been the professional hyper-competent and crazy prepared super hero that Batman is. In fact, his whole distinctive trait is that he\'s the incompetent super hero, the one who commits all sorts of mistakes and gets in all sorts of embarrasing situations, and then has to wangst, atone or try to fix it. From Uncle Ben\'s death in the 1960s to modern day. In fact, just look at his most recent arc in Nick Spencers Spider Man: he could not defeat the two highest losers of loserville without being subjected to a machine that splitted his Spider-Man and Peter Parker personas, and could have killed him in time if both did not merge back. If he got his secret identity under control, that was just because of Plot Armor, and because the trope was not usually defied much at the time anyway.
Community Showcase More
How well does it match the trope?