Talk:Hobgoblin (comics)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Changing Tenses[edit]

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)[reply]

Wiki Links[edit]

Someone keeps removing Hobgoblin from the Marvel Supervillains list. He is a Marvel Supervillain. Although the Kingsley version of Hoby pretty much only messed with Spiderman, the Macendale version really got around and was getting the snot beaten out of him in a lot of different comicbooks. Hoby doesn't just exist in the Spiderman comic as a bit character than only appeared there. He's a pretty prominant super villain worthy of being listed with other supervillains.

Old news[edit]

Removed from article because I don't think RPG stats belong in Wikipedia. Since large numbers of these "vital stats" sections have been added to various articles, I'm using Talk:Strength level (comics) to discuss this issue in general. Bryan 08:33, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

  • Name: Jason Philip Macendale Jr.
  • Height: 6'1"
  • Weight: 210 lbs.
  • Eyes: Brown
  • Hair: Black
    • Intelligence Level: Gifted (possibly deteriorated due to insanity)
    • Strength Level: Superhuman Class 10
    • Endurance Level: Metahuman
    • Speed Level: Superhuman, subsonic with magical transport
    • Agility Level: Enhanced human
    • Stamina Level: Enhanced human
    • Reflexes Level: Enhanced human
  • Special Skills: Macendale was trained by the CIA and various para-military organizations.

--

Should there be something about the Owsley/Stern controversy and the retcons that ensued?

"I came into work one day, Jim Salicrup was sitting in my office, and Ned Leeds was the Hobgoblin." - Christopher Priest

DS 16:57, 18 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

This is potentially a very messy area - I once had a protracted online discussion with Priest (formerly Owsley) in which we established that of the major contributors - Roger Stern (creator), Tom DeFalco (writer for a large and important period), Peter David (write of revelation issue) and Christopher Priest (as Jim Owsley editor at the time of DeFalco's run, but moved on just before the revelation issue was printed) - David and Priest have given very different acounts of how decisions on the identity were taken, Stern's account is basically "I let DeFalco [his successor] call the shots on Hobby's identity and didn't fix a name" (which ties in with David's version) whereas Priest believed DeFalco had been told by Stern and I'm not sure what DeFalco has said on the issue. Result one very confused situation!
Now trying to extract who exactly called which shot is tricky - I suspect if we tried to put a version up it would go through many edits as different people try to, as they see it, "correct" the information to match whichever version they're aware of. Does anyone know of a way forward? Timrollpickering 01:48, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)


This issue has actually been well documented in an issue of BackIssue (Issue #35, July 2009) by TwoMorrows Publications. I actually suggested this article in an earlier letters column. I would suggest that it is an important part of the real world history of the character that should be included. beanlynch — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.250.33.72 (talk) 16:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Production background[edit]

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)[reply]

Hobby of 2211?[edit]

With this recent reappearance in Friendly Neighbourhood Spider-Man, I was wondering, could an informed soul toss a little information on this version of the character into the article? I'd never even heard of him before now! - Chris McFeely, 4th May 2006

Respect for Jason Macendale?[edit]

What's up with all the bias against Jason Macendale coming from the writers of this article? From dismising Jack O'Lantern as "a cheap knock-off of the Green Goblin", to claiming that he was "fiercely defeated" by the Hobgoblin (both of their clashes in the 1980s ended inconclusively), to his Hobgoblin being "one of the weaker Spider-Man villains", despite his repeatedly giving Spider-Man trouble while powerless, almost killing him, and being played as a serious threat when he did have powers. Yes, he had some lesser performances (one of which was specifically done to set up his following power upgrade, and another was in an unmemorable fill-in), but most long running Spidey foes have a couple of such easy defeats. So can we stick to the facts, rather than embracing the rest of the internet's hatred of him?

68.205.189.231 16:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Its not that there is a bias against the fictional character. You have to understand that Macendale was originally the Jack'O'Lantern, one of the silliest villains. Then he took over the guise of the Hobgoblin and immediately he was not respected by other villains. Kingpin had him thrown out of a Window. The character was consistently portrayed as a short-sighted, delusional wannabe by just about every writer that handled the character. The writers are the ones who give the characters "life" in the stories. Also, whether or not he was slightly stronger than the original (and he wasn't) isn't as relevant as his competence. He was not drugged in jail. Stern would have mentioned that. He had most of his cybernetic implants removed and the Kraven formula (which could only make him about half as strong as Spider-Man) was either not in his system, or fading away.[reply]

As for his Secret War appearance, the timeline of the story begins with the "one year ago" scenes set during the "King Thor" era, Iron Man is wearing the armor from the Grell run, and it is after the "Unthinkable" and "Authorative Action" arcs on Fantastic Four, after the 'death' of Doom, that SHIELD capture and interrogate Macendale, and Killer Shrike, and learn of the new Latverian government's plot. It simply doesn't work for SHIELD to have interrogated Macendale way back in the 1980s, (when Latveria had an entirely different regime, as well) and sat on the information for what would, even in Marvel-Time, be a few years, and not done anything until 2004-5. For the sake of Secret War, he appears to have joined Cutthroat, Count Nefaria and Red Guardian amongst the ranks of villains Bendis has brought back with little or no explanation.

Wrong again. The new Hobgoblin was explained in the Secret War series to be a new Hobgoblin. The writer even stated Macendale was dead in the bio. The interrogation by Macendale was supposed to have been in the late 1980's. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.205.189.231 (talk) 17:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I vaguely recall a website that didn't like Macendale's death scene because "he is stronger than the original Hobgoblin" (apparently because of the Kraven formula) and that around now we should be due a "Spider-Man: The Other Hobgoblin Lives" limited series considering the basis for the first one! Just in case any writer/editor reads this I think it's clear in the scenes that Macendale was probably drugged in order to reduce his strength whilst in jail and in any case he was caught off guard. Oh and the claim he was the strongest of all the Goblins (give or take Harry Osborne) can be shredded - look at the way the Scarlet Spider took him down in the Clone Saga!
I agree about some of the comments, although I do think the perception of the Mac Hobgoblin as being poorly handled deserve mention - had he been recognised across the board as one of the premier Spider-villains, on a par with Doc Ock, then it's probable that there wouldn't have been no less than three attempts to "upgrade" him and then the return of the original Hobgoblin. Timrollpickering 21:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Macedabledie.png[edit]

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)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Shadowinevilspast.png[edit]

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)[reply]

A thought[edit]

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)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Spidermanep11.jpg[edit]

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)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Futuregoblinvsspidey.PNG[edit]

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)[reply]

Identities[edit]

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)[reply]

"Return of Kingsley" section[edit]

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)[reply]


My opinion is that the Hobgoblin should be listed as three characters, Roderick Kingsley, Jason Phillip Macendale, and Phil Urick. Like listings for other characters where more than one character has had the identity, each of these characters should probably have their own listing with a general Hobgoblin listing that includes them all.

Lefty Donovan was a stand-in. He wore the costume while Roderick Kingsley was still the Hobgoblin but they were pawns that were being manipulated. He was never the actual Hobgoblin and was even referred to not being the real Hobgoblin in the issues that he appeared. Perhaps a section that lists stand-ins might be appropriate but I think it makes the article too complicated to include him as actual identities for the Hobgoblin.

Ned Leeds is debatable because at the time of publication he was actually intended to be the original Hobgoblin by the editors. It is worth noting that Kingsley was Sterns original choice, and Richard Fisk was who Tom Defalco intended the character to be when he wrote the book. beanlynch (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.250.33.72 (talk) 17:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did the Hobgoblin Defeat Jack O' Lantern in Amazing Spider-Man #276[edit]

The commented documented by bullet point #21, referring to the battle between the Hobgoblin and Jack O' Lantern in Amazing Spider-Man #276, states that "Hobgoblin fiercely defeated Jack O'Lantern". There was actually no clear victor of that battle. Both characters were injured and retreated from the scene. Jack O'Lantern was noticeably shaken, and it was the conclusion of the battle that did lead to him hiring the Foreigner to kill The Hobgoblin so the main point is correct, but the details leading up to it are somewhat skewed. -Todd Novak comment added by Beanlynch


Mark Hammil reprising the role for Spectacular Spider-Man!!![edit]

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)[reply]

Split[edit]

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)[reply]

sounds fine. 24.12.74.21 (talk) 12:18, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then I'll do it.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 19:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is done.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 22:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]



Requested move 27 December 2020[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved  — Amakuru (talk) 15:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Hobgoblin (comics) → Hobgoblin (Marvel Comics) – per WP:NCCDAB NeoBatfreak (talk) 07:44, 27 December 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. —Nnadigoodluck███ 11:17, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. My search is non-exhaustive and I'm willing to change my mind, but from what I can gather, other instances of (Marvel Comics) are used when similarly named characters appear in other publications. The Shi'ar are also a Marvel property so it wouldn't differentiate between the two, and there are no other Hobgoblins in comics notable enough to have a WP article. FN17 (talk) 15:48, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as the publisher name disambiguates between different publisher versions of characters. Daredevil is clunky but necessary as there is a Golden Age unrelated Daredevil, the DD TV show, DD film, etc. Calling Hobgoblin a supervillain would probably open up the perennial can of worms about supervillain v. fictional character debate. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 19:16, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hobgoblin_(comics)&oldid=1199886775"