Talk:Hobgoblin (comics)

message: What is the beef with the tense of the article? The complaint is that the tense changes. It has to change. The article has events in it that have passed and characters who are now dead. It can't all be written the present tense. Majestic Lizard 17:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Changing Tenses

message: Looking again, I'd suggest that we should aim to give some of the production background, but it's one of the messiest situations of all. Having read comments by Roger Stern (in the Hobgoblin Lives! tradepaperback), Peter David (in a 1996 column in Comics International; now available on his website), Jim Owsley/Christopher Priest (on Usenet), Tom DeFalco (on the Spider-Girl messageboard) and Ron Frenz (reported from a convention) we have massive contradictions between the four. Anything added to the article will have to find some way to see sense through all this.
Here's a rough summary, noting the disagreements:
*In the early 1980s Roger Stern took over writing on Spider-Man and decided/was charged with coming up with a new Green Goblin type character. He felt creating yet another Green Goblin wouldn't work but spinning off a new character design and background was the way forward, so came up with the Hobgoblin.
*The character's identity was kept a secret, with only Stern knowing who he was meant to be.
*The Hobgoblin in Stern's stories was shown to have links to the underworld, be a natural person to investigate a cache of weapons, willing to murder, rich enough to afford a Long Island estate, hoods and much equipment, calculating, seemingly lacking a grudge with Spider-Man before they clashed, able to book a room in a very expensive New York club and aware that Wilson Fisk was the Kingpin (not publicly known).
*Stern moved on from Amazing Spider-Man at the end of 1983 and was succeeded by Tom DeFalco.
*According to Stern he did not tell DeFalco the Hobgoblin's identity, other than offering a random name, stating that it was entirely in DeFalco's court. However Priest recollects DeFalco claiming to have been told by Stern, whilst DeFalco states that his notes show he knew Stern intended Hobgoblin to be Roderick Kingsley (but rejected it because the two had been seen together and he didn't agree with the identical brother idea).
*Under DeFalco there is a shift of emphasis, with Hobgoblin forming an alliance with the Rose, to the point where Hobgoblin is almost reliant on the Rose for resources, even for menial tasks like kidnapping.
*According to David (then writing Spectacular Spider-Man) there was a Spider-writers conference, at which the Hobgoblin identity was discussed. Tom DeFalco wished to go with Ned Leeds. Ron Frenz has apparently corroborated this at a convention.
*The writers convention adopted Leeds as the consensus, though with the option to go another route if this proved too obvious.
*However DeFalco states that only David and Priest were at this conference. He states his intention was that the Hobgoblin would be Richard Fisk and that Ned Leeds was just a red herring.
*Priest agrees about Leeds being a red herring, but states that it was always the intention that Richard Fisk was the Rose. Priest states he had a casual joke idea about revealing Leeds to be the Hobgoblin and replacing him with Jack O'Lantern but asserts this was not intended to be used.
*Amazing Spider-Man #275-276 steps up the Hobgoblin storyline, dropping heavy hints that his identity is Leeds. It also drops hints that the Rose is Fisk.
*DeFalco moves on in the mid #280s either due to disagreements with Priest or from an edict from Jim Shooter (Editor in Chief) about DeFalco's workload (despite most of it being given by Shooter).
*Priest wrote the Spider-Man vs Wolverine one-shot in which Leeds is killed in Berlin. All sides agree that at this point (at least) Priest did not intend Leeds to be the Hobgoblin.
*Priest is replaced as editor by Jim Salicrup around this point.
*Amazing Spider-Man #289 is planned as the revelation issue. Peter David is commissioned to write it. He recalls this was by Priest, but Priest recollects it was Salicrup (but isn't 100% sure on this point).
*According to David he and Priest discussed the question over lunch. At this lunch Priest announced that Leeds could not be the Hobgoblin as he was killing him off. Priest suggested the Foreigner as an alternative, but David felt this was unworkable as a) the Foreigner's character was totally against running around as a costumed supervillain; and b) the Foreigner had first appeared after the Hobgoblin, who had been promised to be an existing character. Priest conceded and they examined who it could be. David realised that no other suspect could fit the clues available - it had to be Ned Leeds - and proposed doing a different revelation issue by playing on fans least expecting a dead guy.
*In the story Hobgoblin is taken down by a bunch of thugs. Roger Stern, as a mere reader, felt this was implausible.
*About a decade later Stern wrote the Hobgoblin Lives! limited series in which he revealed Leeds to have been set up and that the real Hobgoblin was Roderick Kingsley. Kingsley's twin brother was introduced to cover their dual appearances (though he had been mentioned in Stern's run way back then).
Nice and simple it is not! Timrollpickering 17:27, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Production background

message: :Image:Macedabledie.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 02:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Macedabledie.png

message: :Image:Shadowinevilspast.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 23:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Shadowinevilspast.png

message: Shouldn't we include a screenshot of the Hobgoblin mask from Spider-Man 3 or something. We did take a shot of the Alien skull in predator 2.--76.25.34.20 (talk) 23:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A thought 

message: :Image:Spidermanep11.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 05:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Spidermanep11.jpg

message: :Image:Futuregoblinvsspidey.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 20:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Futuregoblinvsspidey.PNG

message: I think it's not universally accepted that Lefty Donovan should be listed as the Hobgoblin II nor should Ned Leeds be considered the Hobgoblin III. Both were pawns of the original Hobgoblin that he used as stand-ins, but weren't independent characters that took on the identity. The Marvel Universe 1989 update listed Mackendale as Hobgoblin II and even though it was not yet revealed that Ned Leeds wasn't the real Hobgoblin, it did take Donovan into account. It gives too much reverence to both Donovan and Leeds to list them as Hobgoblin II and III, and not enough to Kingsley and Mackendale.  —Preceding -Todd Novak comment added by Beanlynch (talk • contribs) 00:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Identities

message: Should we move that to after the Macendale section?  As it stands now, it's jarring and disrupts the continuous narrative flow of the article. Thanos6 (talk) 15:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Return of Kingsley" section 

message: Is this really true! Where might this be heard? Captain Virtue (talk)
This issue is dead now that that show has been cancelled without the character ever being introduced. beanlynch (talk)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.250.33.72 (talk) 17:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Mark Hammil reprising the role for Spectacular Spider-Man!!!

message: The Roderick Kingsley section is starting be be too long, it should split as Hobgoblin (Roderick Kingsley), along with the "Powers, abilities, and weaknesses" section, to a new article, mirroring the Green Goblin (set index) and Green Goblin.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 05:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I'll do it.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 19:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It is done.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 22:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hobgoblin (comics). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100809124321/http://comics.ign.com/top-100-villains/57.html to http://comics.ign.com/top-100-villains/57.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified