Spider-Man: No Way Home *spoilers from post 185*

It's a hereditary disease that affects the Osborns, and was part of what drove Norman to try different experiments with animals and insects, such as Richard Parker testing with spiders, and Connors testing with lizards. Norman was trying to find something that could heal him. Norman died from it and told Harry it'd affect it him too. Harry then started being affected by it (which was stupid because Norman lived to mid-50's to 60's with it, yet it started affecting Harry almost instantly after he finds out about it and he is rushing to find a cure immediately). Harry was given Norman's secret files about his research and realised he needed Spiderman's blood to try and cure him. But he didn't know that Richard Parker had used Parker DNA in his experiments and so the healing properties of his experiments would only work on someone with Parker DNA. Harry got some of Spiderman's blood and used it to try and cure himself, but it made him worse and turned him into the Green Goblin.

Harry was still alive by the end, he says the effects of the Goblin potion he took comes and goes.

Yeah, it just comes back to my main criticism of TASM films which is that they had some good ideas, but taken a few steps too far.

I'm really happy for Andrew Garfield in particular. Given how hated his SM films were to the point where he didn't get a third film and Sony's struggles with the films (and their proposed spin-offs) ended up causing them to get together with Marvel, for Garfield to be getting so much love now for his NWH appearance is great. The issues with the TASM films were never his fault and he and Emma Stone were always lauded for their roles, but he does seem like the kind of actor who would take stuff like that to heart.

The love he's getting for his appearance and the redemption his character gets for saving MJ is fantastic, and whether or not they do go for a third TASM film or does lead to further appearances, I think this has helped bring him up to a similar level to Maguire and Holland.

I think people say his Peter Parker was a bit of a d*ck, and that's true in a sense. Particularly once he gets his powers, he became very over-confident and played around with the guy he caught a bit too much before the cops came. But I think that's natural enough in a way, that he was a kid being bullied and now has all this strength and power. There was a clear shift though when he saved the kid in the car on the bridge, I think his confidence balanced out a bit more and he realised the responsibility he had. After that, I had no real issue with either his Peter or his Spider-Man, I thought he was excellent in both roles. Definitely more of the quippy, sarcastic side of the character than the nerdy, unlucky side that Maguire's character focused on. Also I think he moved a lot more like Spider-Man than any of the others.

Well, my knowledge of Peter Parker's Spiderman was (Rightly or wrongly) that he was a kid somewhere between 15-17. Was a bit dorky and self-conscious when not Spiderman but pretty quippy and more confident when in suit.

As a result, for me, while I enjoyed Toby Maguire's films to various degrees, most of that was down to my enjoyment of Sam Raimi and the villains. I always thought Tobey Maguire looked too old for the part. He always looked like his biggest problem wasn't teenage angst but keeping up mortgage payments :)

Also, while Garfield was more into the quips as Spiderman, I thought he was also slightly too old and more traditionally handsome to be an average self-conscious geeky teenager.

Having said that, it was fantastic to see them both in the movie and did bring a laugh and smile to my face (Especially, as I said before, Garfield. He was awesome and I could have watched the three of them chat for another hour. lol) ,

So for ME (A non-reader), I thought Tom Holland was a great choice. He looks about the right age. Looks sufficiently "Hollywood Average" and portrays the right amount of awkwardness. (And, especially in Civil War, the tight amount of banter. Not so much quippy but banter).

But, once again: NON reader.

They pretty much reboot most of the comics every decade or so, so at times in the comics he's high-school late-teens, at other times he's working as a photographer to put himself through college, and at times he's been mid-to-late 20's working as a scientist. His personality kinda shifts and evolves over the years in the same way too. Then they reboot the comics universe in some way and start again.

So all versions of him that we've seen are pretty much right in some way or are pulling from certain eras or styles of the character, but everyone has different familiarity with it and will recognise some parts of the character and not others. But it really boils down to something I've said previously about things like comparing Joker or Batman actors; they each suit the films they were in and probably wouldn't have been as good as others. Maguire's Spider-Man/Peter wouldn't have suited Garfield's films and vice-versa. Tom Holland is actually a good mix of the two and I think he probably would have been good in the other SM films, but probably still wouldn't have been as good as Maguire/Garfield.