|
|
Post by K-Box on Dec 19, 2008 10:27:17 GMT -8
Harry's return worked exactly as I predicted some time ago (on the old board). Actually, it worked exactly as I said back in the 1990s, when Norman came back. Harry had used the Goblin serum. It made Norman immortal, and it made Harry immortal. Mystery resolved in the most obvious way. Except, once again, for the fact that it completely fucks over Norman's motivations. Norman BELIEVED Harry was dead. He MADE SPEECHES TO HIM on his grave. From the Clone Saga forward, pretty much every story in which he's appeared has hinged, in one way or another, on him knowing that his son is dead. If Harry had come back via the Goblin serum, and Norman HADN'T known about it, that'd be one thing, but as it stands, either a) Norman is so insane that he can't even keep track of who's dead and who's alive anymore, which makes him even more impossible to take seriously, either as a threat or even as a character, b) Norman deliberately mind-wiped himself to believe that Harry was dead, which is just as damaging to any sort of suspension of disbelief, or c) the writers don't have any explanation at all, because much like Mary Jane's pregnancy, this one one of those cases where they're demanding that their readers accept two mutually contradictory assertions - 1) "everything is exactly the same as it was," and 2) "except for all the stuff that's now different, which we're not bothering to let you know about except as an afterthought." |
|
|
|
Post by jensaltmann on Dec 19, 2008 10:51:16 GMT -8
I posit a "so what." Because there are multiple comic book-plausible explanations for the whole mess. Some of which you provide yourself.
I'm calling it that after the next EIC change at Marvel, when the current batch (Quesada, Bendis, Millar) are oustet, Norman will be revealed to be a clone. Which makes much more sense than Immortal Norman, considering how the Jackal was involved from the get-go. And then some people will bitch about how it invalidates Mega-Norman the unbeatable Supermegavillain who conquered the world.
Hey, I was right about how they're gonna bring back Harry.
|
|
|
|
Post by K-Box on Dec 19, 2008 13:15:40 GMT -8
Jens, the problem is here is that, the more times you wind up having to use one trait or another to serve as a deus ex machina means of clearing up continuity discrepancies, the less that character actually IS a character anymore.
This explanation manages to include BOTH of Norman's most overplayed traits in recent years - he faked Harry's death because HE'S UBER-POWERFUL AND SECRETLY THE EVIL PUPPET-MASTER BEHIND EVERYTHING BAD IN SPIDER-MAN'S WORLD, and he presumably forgot about it, and/or brainwashed himself to forget, because HE'S CRAZY!!!
This is the EXACT same sort of shit that Byrne did in the "Chapter One" retcons, by making Norman the culprit behind all of Spidey's misfortunes, and explaining away his reasons for going to all the trouble with, "Well, he's BATSHIT,so what OTHER reason does he NEED?"
It sucked back then, and it sucks every bit as much now, and it's no more "plausible" than Norman and Gwen having a secret affair which results in two illegitimate hyper-age-accelerated Goblin-children, because it basically turns the character of Norman into a SCAPEGOAT for plot developments that don't make any fucking sense otherwise.
"How did that happen? Um ... NORMAN DID IT!!! Why? Um ... BECAUSE HE'S BUGFUCK!!!"
Shit writing like this is why the character of the Sentry needs to fucking die, and it's the same reason why anyone who thinks it's a good thing that they brought back Norman in the first place is a fucktard, because the only decent story that could be told with Norman right now would be for him to get KILLED, because it's now INHERENTLY IMPOSSIBLE to tell ANY good stories about him.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mario Di Giacomo on Dec 19, 2008 14:04:08 GMT -8
Really, those two traits aren't even compatible.
If there's one quality that's required to pull off a Xanatos GambitTM, it's self-control. I think even his supporters would suggest Norman lacks that.
|
|
|
|
Post by K-Box on Dec 19, 2008 15:42:09 GMT -8
Really, those two traits aren't even compatible. If there's one quality that's required to pull off a Xanatos Gambit TM, it's self-control. I think even his supporters would suggest Norman lacks that. THANK YOU. Really, that's one of the things that's bugged me about Norman for YEARS. It's like the writers want him to be equal parts Lex Luthor and the Joker, and THAT SIMPLY DOESN'T WORK. Then again, his killing off Gwen Stacy aside, I was NEVER impressed by Norman. Outside of his costume, he's a slimmed-down, third-rate Wilson Fisk with bad hair. In his costume, he's actually LESS interesting than all of the guys who have RIPPED HIM OFF over the years, from Harry to the Hobgoblins, and even Phil Urich. Otto Octavius? Now THERE'S an archenemy who deserves to be kept around. |
|
|
|
Post by michaelpaciocco on Dec 19, 2008 16:50:37 GMT -8
Really, those two traits aren't even compatible. If there's one quality that's required to pull off a Xanatos Gambit TM, it's self-control. I think even his supporters would suggest Norman lacks that. THANK YOU. Really, that's one of the things that's bugged me about Norman for YEARS. It's like the writers want him to be equal parts Lex Luthor and the Joker, and THAT SIMPLY DOESN'T WORK. Then again, his killing off Gwen Stacy aside, I was NEVER impressed by Norman. Outside of his costume, he's a slimmed-down, third-rate Wilson Fisk with bad hair. In his costume, he's actually LESS interesting than all of the guys who have RIPPED HIM OFF over the years, from Harry to the Hobgoblins, and even Phil Urich. Otto Octavius? Now THERE'S an archenemy who deserves to be kept around. And really, doesn't that explain Raimi's decision to use Norman more than the Goblin in the films? |
|
|
|
Post by Mario Di Giacomo on Dec 19, 2008 17:32:08 GMT -8
You're welcome.  Otto Octavius? Now THERE'S an archenemy who deserves to be kept around. Especially "white suit Otto". He'd be great as a Marvel equivalent to the Penguin, don't you think? With just a dash of Calculator.... |
|
|
|
Post by jessebaker on Dec 19, 2008 17:59:40 GMT -8
Really, those two traits aren't even compatible. If there's one quality that's required to pull off a Xanatos Gambit TM, it's self-control. I think even his supporters would suggest Norman lacks that. THANK YOU. Really, that's one of the things that's bugged me about Norman for YEARS. It's like the writers want him to be equal parts Lex Luthor and the Joker, and THAT SIMPLY DOESN'T WORK. Then again, his killing off Gwen Stacy aside, I was NEVER impressed by Norman. Outside of his costume, he's a slimmed-down, third-rate Wilson Fisk with bad hair. In his costume, he's actually LESS interesting than all of the guys who have RIPPED HIM OFF over the years, from Harry to the Hobgoblins, and even Phil Urich. Otto Octavius? Now THERE'S an archenemy who deserves to be kept around. Norman works best, and this is WHY Ellis's Thunderbolts got raved reviews BTW as far as his portrayal of Norman, when he's written as Jeckyl and Hyde, not as an uber-Satanic figure (which goes back to BEFORE the Clone Saga, when writers decided Norman as an absentee dad who largely funded his son's drug habits in order to avoid having contact with him as far as the notion of "Money and not being around for any period of time for your son>Love and Attention" type of bad parenting not cutting it and turned him into a physically and emotionally abusive father from hell). Think Vic Mackey, devoted family man and nice guy who will stab you in the back, frame you for crimes, betray you to let you rot in jail to avoid being caught for his own crimes, and if all else fails shoots you in the head-type villain. He's a monster who cloaks his evil and selfishness in the guise of affability and compassion. It's one of the few reasons why I can stand the more recent "Norman wants Peter as his heir" twist to the character that Paul Jenkins thought up to replace Norman as Uber-Villain as far as Norman truly liking Peter and feeling some perverse sense of kinship towards him as far as seeing that Peter, in another life and another time, would have been the son he wished Harry was. And in a way, this makes me wish, more than anything that they would have just used the Skrull excuse to bring Harry back. ESPECIALLY since it would also explain WHY Norman suddenly has the big, utterly out-of-character shifting of vendettaism towards Tony Stark and the Avengers. It would be much saner and logical if Norman's newfound vendetta against them was revealed to be due to the fact that because of Tony Stark, that the Skrulls kidnapped his son and made him think he was dead, and drove him to such madness actionwise as a result, it would explain why Norman is now out to destroy Tony Stark once and for all, complete with usurping complete and utter control over the Avengers in order to do so. |
|
|
|
Post by Mario Di Giacomo on Dec 19, 2008 18:03:45 GMT -8
I can't help but note that for all of his grand planning, Bendis's direction for the next several months is basically derived from Warren's decision to write Norman as a stock Ellis Bastard.
|
|
|
|
Post by jessebaker on Dec 19, 2008 19:34:07 GMT -8
Well Bendis IS not exactly the most creative fuck in the comic industry. Basically strip-mining out everything out of Thunderbolts that sort-of made it popular and bastardizing it (in this case, Dark Avengers featuring only the most unlikable members of the Thunderbolts, with Songbird, Radioactive Man, and Speedball forced to fake their death and go into hiding, expelled from America just-because, and sent to a corrupt mental institution by Moonstone out of bitterness that Doc Samson got to Speedball before she could lay her claws into him) isn't exactly a suprise.
|
|
|
|
Post by K-Box on Dec 19, 2008 19:43:58 GMT -8
I can't help but note that for all of his grand planning, Bendis's direction for the next several months is basically derived from Warren's decision to write Norman as a stock Ellis Bastard. Bendis has flat-out stated that his own use of Norman amounts to nothing more than (in Bendis' exact words) "Ellis fan fiction." |
|
|
|
Post by K-Box on Dec 19, 2008 19:46:17 GMT -8
And in a way, this makes me wish, more than anything that they would have just used the Skrull excuse to bring Harry back. ESPECIALLY since it would also explain WHY Norman suddenly has the big, utterly out-of-character shifting of vendettaism towards Tony Stark and the Avengers. It would be much saner and logical if Norman's newfound vendetta against them was revealed to be due to the fact that because of Tony Stark, that the Skrulls kidnapped his son and made him think he was dead, and drove him to such madness actionwise as a result, it would explain why Norman is now out to destroy Tony Stark once and for all, complete with usurping complete and utter control over the Avengers in order to do so. I'm convinced that, every time you manage to pitch a story idea that's more entertaining and intelligent than what Marvel comes up with in canon, God kills a kitten. It violates the natural order of things for your crackfic ideas to be more sane than what the pros come up with. |
|
|
|
Post by K-Box on Dec 31, 2008 23:34:19 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by paulpogue on Jan 1, 2009 7:48:49 GMT -8
Who's writing the daily Spider-Strip these days, anyway? (I refuse to believe that Stan Lee, who can barely manage one actual comic book every other year, and is uber-busy in Hollywood anyway, is actually turning out any sort of daily content.)
|
|
|
|
Post by jkcarrier on Jan 1, 2009 11:20:34 GMT -8
Larry Lieber used to write comics, back in the early days of Marvel, so it may be him doing the whole thing. I can see Stan doing a quick edit/polish on the dialogue, just to keep his hand in.
|
|
