InsaneJournal

Tweak says, "I'm cookies dough."

cyberghostface (cyberghostface) wrote in scans_daily,
@ 2009-07-30 15:14:00

Entry tags:

title: amazing spider-man

Two pages from the upcoming Amazing Spider-Man #601

OH NOES THE TYPICAL PARKER LUCK!!!

(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)

box_in_the_box
2009-07-31 01:36 am UTC (link)

Peter killing Norman, if he felt the character-appropriate amount of guilt for it afterwards, could actually result in genuine character growth for him - as he struggled for redemption and his conflicted feelings over saving lives by committing an act that he himself nonetheless considers wrong - something that he's been totally devoid of throughout BND. Plus, it would rid the MU of Norman Osborn, which would be The Ultimate Good.

So, yes, Peter killing Norman would be better, in every possible way, than everything else that's happened in both OMD and BND, all of which have been garbage.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	punishermax 2009-07-31 01:42 am UTC (link)
	So murdering someone in cold blood>dissolution of marriage. Okay then. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	box_in_the_box 2009-07-31 01:52 am UTC (link)
	Murdering the most dangerously evil man on Earth? Depending upon your job - like, say, if you're wearing a UNIFORM - that makes you a goddamn HERO. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	punishermax 2009-07-31 01:54 am UTC (link)
	He isn't the most dangerousman on earth. Did you read the Cabal mini? Both Namor and Doom know he's gonna crack, he's already shown signs of breaking down, Nick Fury is taking him out from the inside AND out and his Dark Avengers are slowly imploding while Sentry slowly grows crazier. He's dead and he just doens't know it already. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	box_in_the_box 2009-07-31 01:59 am UTC (link)
	He's taking too damn long to die, and the fact that so many HEROES - and so many members of the civilian populace - seem perfectly content to let him ruin the world in the meantime? Really does make me think that the ultimate villains in the Marvel Universe are the civilian public themselves. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	punishermax 2009-07-31 02:01 am UTC (link)
	He so far hasen't done anything drasticly bad, he created HAMMER which is basically just a dickier version of SHIELD, made the Dark Avengers , which are slowly imploding, and the Dark X-Men will last of all a month before Daken peaces out and does his own thing. Sentry is gonna end up flipping a shit and murdering Norman more than likely. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

box_in_the_box
2009-07-31 02:07 am UTC (link)

Everybody knows he's the Green Goblin! Everyone saw him murdering uniformed police offers and young women live on national television! And thanks to Phil Urich's book, everyone knows that he killed Gwen Stacy, and yet, people LAUGH about his "thing for blondes," and JOKE about the fact that the window of his office deliberately faces the G.W. Bridge.

I mean, for fuck's sake, a Hispanic jurist gets a dozen angry white men crawling up her ass for making a "wise Latina" remark, when she's being considered for the Supreme Court, and yet, you're telling me that NOBODY in the MU would be saying HOLY SHIT NORMAN WTF over all the COUNTLESS things that he's ALREADY done, when he's gaining FAR greater powers?

If Jon Stewart existed in the MU, he could devote an entire spin-off show just to savaging Norman's reputation, with nothing more than what's already PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE.

Quesada and company keep trying to sell this new status quo as "more realistic," and yet, it is inherently impossible to reconcile with any reality that even remotely resembles our own.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	punishermax 2009-07-31 02:10 am UTC (link)
	Dude, humanity is retarded, and Norman has already played them perfectly. His tenure as Thunderbolts leader, his rescue of the PResident, his killing of the Skrull Queen and his live interview baring his soul and for America have all been calculated moves to make him palatable. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	kingrockwell 2009-07-31 02:14 am UTC (link)
	"humanity is retarded" I take serious exception to this. Humanity isn't retarded, just everyone in the fuckin' MU. (Reply to this) (Parent)

box_in_the_box
2009-07-31 02:16 am UTC (link)

Dude, humanity is retarded

The problem is that humanity in the MU is somehow even more idiotic than in the real world, which is, once again, inherently impossible.

Norman has already played them perfectly.

Except that, as has already been pointed out in this thread, Norman simply doesn't possess the mental stability to "play" anyone this perfectly, not when he's so OPENLY nuts that he's threatening to kill children IN THE UNITED NATIONS.

I'm one hell of a cynical and misanthropic guy, and even I know that there's one hell of a huge gulf between "realistic" and "nihilistic."

And if humanity in the MU really is this stupid and evil, then Magneto was right all along, and they don't deserve to be saved. At the very least, I'm not going to care about any plot which hinges upon the heroes trying to save them.

There must be SOMETHING good about the world and its people, for them to be worth saving, and that goodness simply DOESN'T EXIST in the MU now.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	punishermax 2009-07-31 02:17 am UTC (link)
	Simple, Read Ultimatum and come back. Everything will look a million times happier. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

(no subject) -

box_in_the_box, 2009-07-31 02:27 am UTC

	kingrockwell 2009-07-31 02:10 am UTC (link)
	Who says it would be murdering him in cold blood? There's nothing "in cold blood" about dispatching an enemy in the heat of battle. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	punishermax 2009-07-31 02:16 am UTC (link)
	Except the moment we're talking about had Norman on the ground Helpless and Harry holding a weapon over his head, that's killing in cold blood. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	kingrockwell 2009-07-31 02:27 am UTC (link)
	Subduing a rabid dog doesn't change its rabid nature. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	punishermax 2009-07-31 02:34 am UTC (link)
	Jesus are we still talking about PETER PARKER here? Great power, great responsibilty, the guy who never even killed the guy who murdered his uncle? (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

kingrockwell
2009-07-31 03:03 am UTC (link)

The "rabid dog" in this case was Norman, whom Peter has allowed to die before. Doing something, anything, beyond letting him go free would've made a lot of people's lives way easier.
Though given that Norman has set a precedent for surviving normally mortal wounds, could Marvel possibly up his healing factor to Wolverine levels, making him essentially unkillable? Or could that perhaps be why they had Daken getting implants in his claw from a word that negates healing factors?

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	punishermax 2009-07-31 03:06 am UTC (link)
	The difference here would be allowing him to die would mean Harry would murder his father. Peter knew Harry could never reconcile himself if he did that and Norman WANTED him to do it. Allowing Harry to kill Norman would have caused huge damage to Harry. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

kingrockwell
2009-07-31 03:22 am UTC (link)

Well, then he could do the responsible thing and kill Norman for Harry. (joking, of course)
But it still sticks in my craw that he didn't even gain a foothold on something to depose Norman. Sure, Harry might feel better for not killing his father (good enough to be back on drugs!), but the only thing that even vaguely interested me in American Son was the prospect of Peter being an insider on the Dark Avengers, which ended abruptly and went nowhere. It's like Box said, no progress made, total failure on Pete's part. It's all one step forward, two steps back.
I'm sick of having one of my oldest favorites be nothing but a failure.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	punishermax 2009-07-31 03:24 am UTC (link)
	Not a total failure. Venom got his ass kicked and out of commission for a bit, Norman has lost all control over his son, the American Son program is ruined, and the other reporter inside Avengers Tower has highly damaging information on Norman. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

(no subject) -

kingrockwell, 2009-07-31 03:34 am UTC

	arilou_skiff 2009-07-31 09:52 am UTC (link)
	But it's killing it in cold blood, not heat of the moment. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	kingrockwell 2009-07-31 12:12 pm UTC (link)
	So. killing in the heat of the moment, losing yourself to rage, instead of deliberating on it and realizing it's the most effective option, makes it better somehow? Legally, sure, but morally? (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

kagome654
2009-07-31 01:26 pm UTC (link)

Morally? I'd say, yes, it's better to kill in the heat of the moment (IMVHO). Your passions get the best of you and you do something you wouldn't otherwise have done, that's something very easy to understand. Killing someone in cold blood is calculated, it robs the person you're killing of their humanity, treating them like an object. It's...well, cold and dehumanizing. I can sympathize with someone who is so hurt, scared or angry that they lash out and kill someone, but people who kill in cold blood tend to just scare me.

Though it does depend on a few things. For example I'm not going to rage against a sniper who takes down a man menacing hostages with a knife. That sniper is still coolly detached, but he's making decision based on an immediate threat. It's not a job I'd want, and it's not something I can cheer and say 'job well done!', and I do sometimes worry about anyone who makes a living killing other human being, but I understand the necessity, even while acknowledging it as something tragic. Had he shot a prone man on the ground, however, that would be something totally different to me. By removing potential victims you've removed the sense of urgency and suddenly there are a lot more viable options open to you.

Basically, as bad as OMD/BND is I'd consider Spider-man killing, or allowing Harry to kill, Osborn to be....really bad for the character. I like my absurdly idealistic comic book characters, thank you very much!

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

kingrockwell
2009-07-31 01:41 pm UTC (link)

It would be bad, and traumatic, for Peter or Harry to kill Norman, and even if he did it would result in major fallout and I'd never want to see him make a regular thing of it.

What I'm arguing here is that simply because the fight was over and Norman lost, sure the immediate danger was gone, but what other options are available when the law won't touch it and nobody seems to care about his bad reputation? Even if Batman never kills the Joker, he at least doesn't just walk away and let him rampage unchecked.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

(no subject) -

kagome654, 2009-07-31 02:01 pm UTC

(no subject) -

kingrockwell, 2009-07-31 05:07 pm UTC

	arilou_skiff 2009-07-31 06:58 pm UTC (link)
	No, killing in cold blood makes it worse. Sitting down and saying "Norman osborn deserves to die" and killing him while he is defenceless is morally far worse than killing someone in the middle of a fight while your life or that of others is in immediate danger. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	kingrockwell 2009-07-31 07:27 pm UTC (link)
	So immediate danger is tantamount to constant danger then? (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

(no subject) -

arilou_skiff, 2009-07-31 07:29 pm UTC

(no subject) -

kingrockwell, 2009-07-31 07:53 pm UTC

(no subject) -

arilou_skiff, 2009-07-31 11:15 pm UTC

(no subject) -

kingrockwell, 2009-08-01 02:05 am UTC

(Read comments) -