InsaneJournal

Tweak says, "Th-they're watching me! AIIEE!"

sherkahn (sherkahn) wrote in scans_daily,
@ 2009-05-01 09:16:00

Entry tags:

char: green goblin/norman osborn, char: spider-man/peter parker, char: wolverine/logan/james howlett, publisher: marvel comics

Logan and Peter discuss their movies
Ok, they might as well be talking about their movies.
Wordless previews from IGN.

IGN previews for Spiderman 595

Fist pump? Really?

Now Peter, you know he's taping this and going to edit it to make them hunt you down again, and May will be shot again.

Besides, you're supposed to fire your blaster, and then have the impact stopped by his hands, and then have the gun Force-ripped out of your hands into his before he invites you to sit, just so you know how powerless you are against... wait, wrong scene. I'm thinking Doom.

(Post a new comment)

	brandiweed.livejournal.com 2009-05-01 12:26 pm UTC (link)
	Hm-- the penciler or inker forgot the linework on Spidey in the last panel of the first scan. (Reply to this)

	greenmask 2009-05-01 12:45 pm UTC (link)
	OH LOGAN in that hat you look even more like the guy who sells me my comics. It is weird and hilarious! Also is that a webless spidey in the last panel of that page, or.. someone else? (Reply to this)

box_in_the_box
2009-05-01 12:56 pm UTC (link)

The only possible worthwhile conclusion to this whole debacle will be a) Norman Osborn is exposed as a villain in the eyes of the public, AS HAS ALREADY HAPPENED, IN CONTINUITY, b) Norman is defeated, by SPIDER-MAN, and not somebody like LUKE FUCKING CAGE AGAIN, and c) Norman dies again, AND STAYS DEAD THIS TIME.

Stop trying to make Norman seem like a better villain than he is, Marvel. It's easy to forget, because of the long shadow that he cast posthumously, but he has ALWAYS been the WORST of all the Goblins. The Hobgoblins, Harry, hell, even PHIL URICH were more interesting than him, because when Norman is being written consistent to how his character has appeared for MOST of his history, he's nothing more than a small-minded, incompetent sadist. Norman does not care about wealth or fame or even power, unless it's a means to an end of hurting other people, and he's so stupid at that aim that his primary archenemy was a supposed "loser" (in Marvel's own words). Retroactively grafting megalomaniacal motives and schemes onto him NOW is like trying to say that all the Red Skull really wanted to do was become a Lex Luthor businessman - that's NOT WHO HE IS.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	cyberghostface 2009-05-01 05:42 pm UTC (link)
	http://www.spideykicksbutt.com/GreenwithEvil/goblinlegacy.html (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

It fails utterly and completely right out of the starting gate:

box_in_the_box
2009-05-01 06:01 pm UTC (link)

This was something Bob Harras tried to push, and it's one of the many, MANY ways in which he demonstrated his TOTAL misunderstanding of the characters. It was NEVER about Parker versus Osborn - it was ALWAYS about Spider-Man versus the Goblin. Neither Norman nor Peter had ANY reason to hate each other, until the death of Gwen Stacy (another character who ALWAYS sucked - YES, I SAID IT).

And what's interesting about this article is that its few good arguments on behalf of Norman have all been utterly invalidated by current continuity, since now, EVERYONE KNOWS that he was the Green Goblin, but EVERYONE LOVES HIM ANYWAY.

Basically, Norman Osborn is what happens when writers try to combine two really disparate supervillain archetypes - in this case, Lex Luthor and the Joker - and wind up turning both sides of the character's personality into trite deus ex machinas. HOW can Norman Osborn have fucked with Peter Parker in so many probability-defying ways? Because like Lex Luthor, he's RICH and POWERFUL! But WHY would Norman Osborn devote so much time, effort and expense to fucking with Peter Parker that much? Because he's CRAZY and MEAN! Fucking YAWN. And, oh, look, he's YET ANOTHER character whose aberrant psychology can be written off as the symptom of an abusive father! It's not like THAT'S become a cliche excuse, or anything!

The ONLY worthwhile things that Norman Osborn EVER did were a) kill off Gwen Stacy and b) DIE. There's a reason why "The Night Gwen Stacy Died" is the ONLY Norman Osborn story that's universally known and praised - it marked both the beginning and end of his relevance.

P.S. Earth X was terrible, too, but I didn't recognize, until now, how much it's to blame for the current characterization of Norman Osborn.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Re: It fails utterly and completely right out of the starting gate:

cyberghostface
2009-05-01 06:39 pm UTC (link)

Its funny how you say that Norman Osborn is a ripoff of Lex Luthor when Normie was an evil businessman when Lex Luthor was still in spandex. As for the Joker, I'd say Carnage is more of a ripoff of him than the Goblin was. And not only is the "He only hates Spidey because he's crazy and mean" a huge oversimplification, but you might as well be criticizing 90% of the comicbook villains out there.

And the guy who wrote that article is probably the biggest Spider-Man/Green Goblin expert on the internet. Obviously that article is outdated now, but the majority of his points still stand.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

box_in_the_box
2009-05-01 06:58 pm UTC (link)

To be fair, Byrne-era Luthor is basically a Miller-era Kingpin made respectable by high society, yes, but my point still stands - both Norman's power and his insanity have been used as deus ex machinas to excuse HUGE amounts of storytelling fail, from hiring a genetically modified actress to pose as Aunt May to hiring Mysterio to fake his own son's death, and then LYING IN HIS OWN THOUGHT BALLOONS about his son's "death."

And the fact is, Norman's single-minded obsession with Spider-Man is fundamentally irreconcilable with setting him up as an aspiring Master Of The World, because he ALREADY HAD POWER, countless times, and he THREW IT ALL AWAY, to go chasing after a character who, according to Marvel itself, is regarded as one of the more minor superheroes by the general public of the MU.

And the guy who wrote that article is probably the biggest Spider-Man/Green Goblin expert on the internet.

I don't care. He's still wrong.

After all, Dan Slott and Tom Brevoort are, by all accounts, total gurus of Marvel continuity, and yet, their vision of Spider-Man is still wrong.

Nothing you've shown me has changed my mind on this score.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

cyberghostface
2009-05-01 07:17 pm UTC (link)

To be fair, Byrne-era Luthor is basically a Miller-era Kingpin made respectable by high society, yes, but my point still stands - both Norman's power and his insanity have been used as deus ex machinas to excuse HUGE amounts of storytelling fail, from hiring a genetically modified actress to pose as Aunt May to hiring Mysterio to fake his own son's death, and then LYING IN HIS OWN THOUGHT BALLOONS about his son's "death."

His character has been mishandled by hacks like Slott and Byrne--I'm not doubting that. But that's just like saying that Spider-Man fails as a character because of his bastardization at the hands of Quesada.

And the fact is, Norman's single-minded obsession with Spider-Man is fundamentally irreconcilable with setting him up as an aspiring Master Of The World, because he ALREADY HAD POWER, countless times, and he THREW IT ALL AWAY, to go chasing after a character who, according to Marvel itself, is regarded as one of the more minor superheroes by the general public of the MU.

I haven't read Dark Reign or Secret Invasion, but from what I've understood, Norman gaining 'absolute power' in this case fell on his lap after he killed the Skrull Queen so he's taking advantage of it to further his own agenda. But I don't see how one negates the other--Ellis's Thunderbolts run clearly showed that Norman's still obsessed with Spider-Man even if he has his hands in a piece of the pie. I have more problems with the public accepting Norman rather than him acting the way he is right now.

Nothing you've shown me has changed my mind on this score.

Likewise.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

ashtoreth
2009-05-02 12:23 am UTC (link)

It's worth noting that the current Norman doesn't remember that Peter Parker is Spider-man. He wouldn't even remember why he targeted Gwen--"Hey! I screwed that chick once, right?" Also, Warren Ellis' Norman is pre-I-forgot-everything Norman. Remember they stopped fighting to watch Peter's televised coming out.

The Deadpool series has canon that says Norman intercepted information on how to kill Skrull Queens that Fury had sent Deadpool to get. That Norman deliberately used that info to kill Skrull Spiderwoman (which is confusing, because haven't other skrulls died from being shot? Jarvis Skrull ferinstance?).

Madgoblin isn't always right but he is definitely right that Norman works better as the monster that no one else can see.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: It fails utterly and completely right out of the starting gate:

lbd_nytetrayn
2009-05-01 10:30 pm UTC (link)

And what's interesting about this article is that its few good arguments on behalf of Norman have all been utterly invalidated by current continuity, since now, EVERYONE KNOWS that he was the Green Goblin, but EVERYONE LOVES HIM ANYWAY.

616 is populated by wrestling marks, clearly. If you do something good, they cheer, and if you do something bad, they boo. Unless they get tired of you or something.

--LBD "Nytetrayn"

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	box_in_the_box 2009-05-01 10:33 pm UTC (link)
	No. The Marvel Universe is populated by wrestling marks from BIZARRO-World. If you do something GOOD, they BOO, and if you do something BAD, they CHEER. Hence, Norman Osborn - who was TELEVISED LIVE NATIONWIDE KILLING COPS AND SERIAL-MURDERING YOUNG WOMEN - is treated like America's greatest hero. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	lbd_nytetrayn 2009-05-01 11:49 pm UTC (link)
	Indeed, my mistake. The mentality is the same, just the polarities are switched. "Our universe," my ass. ;P --LBD "Nytetrayn" (Reply to this) (Parent)

ashtoreth
2009-05-01 11:31 pm UTC (link)

Gwen Stacy (another character who ALWAYS sucked

I sometimes feel that--if they were going to do Sins Past--they should have focused more on why Gwen would have sex with Osborn. She's overdue for a something-is-changed-that-you-always-thought-was-true storyline. That Goblin Kills Gwen thing is tired. It needs to be put to bed. The only way to do that is to change the character.

I know a lot of people canonize comic past, but in an ongoing narrative, this sort of thing has to be done now and then.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	ashtoreth 2009-05-01 11:24 pm UTC (link)
	I pick C! C! (Reply to this) (Parent)

	philippos42 2009-05-02 11:46 pm UTC (link)
	Word. to 11. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	mullon 2009-05-01 01:03 pm UTC (link)
	So here's a question for people: Who are the two faces that are being reflected in that large flower vase thing? (Reply to this) (Thread)

	sherkahn 2009-05-01 01:21 pm UTC (link)
	I think they are part of the greek/phoenician busts decorating the rooftop dining patio. Notice the 2nd panel below that and the design theme. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	vignettelante 2009-05-01 05:05 pm UTC (link)
	"Melodramatic rhetoric is a royal prerogative." Ha! (Reply to this)

	silverzeo 2009-05-04 11:16 pm UTC (link)
	SPIDEY STRIPES VANISHED! (Reply to this)