InsaneJournal

Tweak says, "The bird of hermes is my name."

Doop (xdoop) wrote in scans_daily,
@ 2009-09-10 22:27:00

Current mood:	disappointed
Entry tags:	char: sandman/flint marko/william baker, publisher: marvel comics, title: amazing spider-man

Disappointing news about Sandman

From Newsarama:

Nrama: And what's Sandman's new status in your story?

Fred Van Lente: Sandman is one of these characters who has gone back and forth for awhile from, is he a villain? Is he a hero? He was an ally of Spider-Man the last time he appeared in a Spider-Man comic, which was in Peter David's Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man, and he and Spider-Man were working together.

In "The Gauntlet," we're not quite re-imagining the villains, certainly not anywhere near as radically as the Chameleon got re-imagined here, but they're definitely establishing new status quos for them. And the Sandman of Gauntlet is going to be a villain. And what sets him back on the purely villainous path is, unfortunately, Spider-Man. So tune in to #615 and #616 to find out more.

For those who don't know, Sandman redeemed himself and became a superhero during the 80s and 90s. John Byrne, who hates the idea of villains redeeming themselves, made Sandman a villain again with little explanation when he wrote Spider-Man during his disastrous reboot. Tom Brevoort later revealed that the Sandman's return to villainy was due to the Wizard brainwashing him, and after Byrne left Sandman began to be portrayed more sympathetically again by Paul Jenkins, Zeb Wells, and Peter David.

Sandman appeared in Dan Slott's Thing series, where the Wizard's brainwashing was addressed again. It was because of this that I was hoping that plot point would be dealt with now that Slott's one of the writers on ASM, but I guess that's not the case now. :(

(Post a new comment)

	seriousfic 2009-09-11 02:31 am UTC (link)
	And what sets him back on the purely villainous path is, unfortunately, Spider-Man. I offer a preemptive "Our hero, ladies and gentlemen." (Reply to this) (Thread)

	zordboy 2009-09-11 02:52 am UTC (link)
	But hey, that's the kind of hero Marvel thinks is worthy of promotion. Someone who's life sucks and everything he does either falls apart or turns people evil. Go hero! (Reply to this) (Parent)

	kamino_neko 2009-09-11 03:35 am UTC (link)
	Nice job causing recidivism, Petey. I apologize for nothing! (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	leikomgwtfbbq 2009-09-11 04:48 am UTC (link)
	Nooooooooo! fist shake Damn your sneaky link, kamino_neko! (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	kamino_neko 2009-09-11 04:58 am UTC (link)
	Mine is an evil laugh. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	dejadrew 2009-09-12 03:38 am UTC (link)
	No... NO! I just escaped from that fiendish place! I had just closed the last tab! I was free again! Nooooooooooo...... (Reply to this) (Parent)

	khamelea 2009-09-11 02:47 am UTC (link)
	I've discovered that I care very little for Byrne's philosophy of drama. Well written redemptions, like deaths, should tend to stick. (Reply to this)

fredneil.livejournal.com
2009-09-11 02:56 am UTC (link)

Well, that link bent my brain a bit. Byrne was actually using Stan Lee to support his case? He even admits that Lee often wrote villians with sympathetic back stories, but since he didn't give Magento or Sandman ones, it would be wrong to ever make them sympathetic. I'm inclined to think that not giving them back stories makes them some of Lee's lesser efforts. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if, one day, Lee came across a notebook he lost in 1964 that says "Note for x-men: Magneto-Holocaust survivor. Reveal after we tell everyone that Ben Grimm is Jewish." After all, he even thought of Norman Osborn as a good person when he doesn't remember the Green Goblin.

Speaking of Green Goblins, I guess this means that Harry saving Mary Jane, Normie, and Peter before dying should never have happened. Now I feel dirty for liking his run on She-Hulk.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	queenanthai 2009-09-11 03:07 am UTC (link)
	Speaking of Green Goblins, I guess this means that Harry saving Mary Jane, Normie, and Peter before dying should never have happened. That can't possibly still be in continuity, can it? (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	xdoop 2009-09-11 03:10 am UTC (link)
	It is. http://asylums.insanejournal.com/scans_daily/571630.html#cutid1 (Reply to this) (Parent)

	ex_menagerie993 2009-09-11 03:04 am UTC (link)
	Boo to him being a villain today, yay to him apparently doing something new with his powers. (Reply to this)

	cleome45 2009-09-11 03:15 am UTC (link)
	My main argument against turning villains into heroes is usually that well-done villains always seem to be scarcer than well-done heroes. But that's just me. It can be done well, I admit. (Reply to this) (Thread)

Hmm..

steverodgers5
2009-09-11 07:15 pm UTC (link)

I didn't like it when they started doing that with Sabretooth, Venom and Juggernaut..(ESPECIALLY Sabretooth!) But I was very fond of the growth of Magneto as a character during the 80es.

So yeah, I agree it can be done well. But I also think that might be more the exception than the rule...

Not sure how I feel about Sandman. I think I like him more as a troubled villain who's guilty conscience occasionally has him doing the right thing. (Like in the recent animated Spectacular episode..)Or maybe as someone who's willing to hire himself out to people like Siver Sable, as he did in the Sinister Syndicate arc. But for me personally, it didn't quite feel right making him an Avenger. That maybe felt like a step too far..

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Re: Hmm..

cleome45
2009-09-12 02:39 am UTC (link)

Yeah. I tend to find it more plausible to see villains retire. Or maybe they keep doing lousy things but with a different agenda a la Suicide Squad.

I liked how they treated the rehabbed Ron-Karr in the Legion cartoon. He performed this redemptive act but then sort of flew off into the sunset. You don't know whether he became a hero or just decided to spend more time at home with his stamp collection. :D But he definitely didn't turn himself in to the law, so it's still up to the viewer's imagination as to whether the goodness was a passing phase or not.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	jcbaggee 2009-09-11 03:50 am UTC (link)
	This kind of thing happens to me all the time, and therefore I can now totally relate to Spider-Man. cough >_> (Reply to this)

starwolf_oakley
2009-09-11 03:52 am UTC (link)

From Byrne's board:

Of course, (Stan Lee) also gave us villains who were simply bad people -- Magneto, who even went so far as to adopt Nazi-esque trappings when he invaded a peaceful South American nation. The Sandman, who was on the FBIs Most Wanted list, which in those days meant you were a child killer, or a mass murderer.

Both have been "redeemed". One by a writer who wasn't permitted to play with someone else's toys, so turned the one he had into an imitation; the other by a writer who found echoes of himself in the character, and turned up the volume on those echoes so that they overwhelmed everything else.

Now I'm interested: Did Chris Claremont "redeem" Magneto because he wanted to do a similar story with another character? Tom DeFalco wrote the MARVEL TWO-IN-ONE story where the Sandman considers "going legit." Or am I mixing up Byrne's descriptions.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

xdoop
2009-09-11 03:55 am UTC (link)

Did Chris Claremont "redeem" Magneto because he wanted to do a similar story with another character?

That's what Byrne's saying, but it's bullshit. He mentioned before that Claremont wanted to use Doom, and when he wasn't allowed to he just changed it to Magneto or something.

Tom DeFalco wrote the MARVEL TWO-IN-ONE story where the Sandman considers "going legit."

He's referring to Marvel Team-Up #1, which was when Sandman started to be portrayed sympathetically. He's complained about the ish before.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	blake_reitz 2009-09-11 04:46 am UTC (link)
	Because Doom is sooooo sympathetic in the original Kirby and Lee... (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

domino_blue
2009-09-11 05:59 am UTC (link)

Frankly those were some of my favorite stories about villains growing up. The issues of Marvel two in one with the Sandman made him a nuanced character then just a simple thug. It showed that the man was a failure who after one really bad mistake just kept on falling and falling then. He became a semi-regular in the comic who even visited the Thing in the hospital just to have a beer with him.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

blake_reitz
2009-09-11 04:28 pm UTC (link)

Oh man, that was a great issue. I loved how it would cut to the Sandman sneaking into the hospital, insinuating that he had some diabolical plan to wreak up on a helpless Thing...and then boom, twist, he just wanted someone to hang out with and throw back a few brews.

It's an arc that gets used a lot, but one I don't think can be overused in superhero comic books: The villain who abandons stupid selfishness and gets a second chance. One of the things I liked about Tom Strong is how nearly every foe turned into a good guy, or at least less of a threat, through Tom Strong's diplomacy and negotiation.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

aaron_bourque
2009-09-11 05:30 am UTC (link)

hates the idea of villains redeeming themselves

Well, of course. That requires growth of character, instead of slavish devotion to what has come before. It also requires imagination, creativity, originality . . . not just to imagine that someone is capable to acting incongruently with a specific character bin, but to come up with other iconic villains who can be used in place of the redeemed villain.

Of course, it would be difficult. Just like in real life. But it is possible.

(Reply to this)

	shadoestar 2009-09-11 06:04 am UTC (link)
	Am I the only one who thought this was gonna be about the Neil Gaiman series? (Reply to this) (Thread)

	zegim 2009-09-11 06:30 am UTC (link)
	Oh no! I expected the same! (Reply to this) (Parent)

	bj_l 2009-09-11 06:33 am UTC (link)
	No, you are not. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	sandoz_iscariot 2009-09-11 07:13 am UTC (link)
	"Disappointing news about Sandman -- series still over." (Reply to this) (Parent)

	zegim 2009-09-11 06:31 am UTC (link)
	No, Van Lente, no D: He's been great on Hercules and now this. It makes me sad, really. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	daso 2009-09-11 07:54 am UTC (link)
	Fred van Lente is a consistently good writer, so I would expect him to handle this well. Calm down ;) (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	box_in_the_box 2009-09-11 09:00 am UTC (link)
	No, Fred Van Lente WAS a good writer, but his latest arc on ASM was dogshit, not in the least because IT PLAYED UP THE RAPE OF A FEMALE CHARACTER FOR LAUGHS. Fuck him; his ass is DEAD to me now. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	daso 2009-09-11 10:53 am UTC (link)
	I ONCE READ A COMIC BOOK AND I GOT SO MAD (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	box_in_the_box 2009-09-11 10:59 am UTC (link)
	You said he's a writer of consistently good quality. I cited an example of how his quality on this title has been anything but good. If you don't like me disagreeing with you, then don't make incorrect statements. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

daso
2009-09-11 11:18 am UTC (link)

I know how you feel about Spider-Man, I don't agree with it and I'll stand by my statement that Fred van Lente is a consistently good writer. I see no point in arguing this or anything else with you since there's never any discussion with you - only you capsing wildly and trying to push your views onto others. I can't make you even consider that anything else than your views may be valid, so why even try?
Feel free to laugh it off, discredit my post and write the usual demagoguery in your livejournal about how you slammed a supporter of "mutual date rape" (or whatever you called it) hardcore. I don't care that much. Good day.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	box_in_the_box 2009-09-11 11:21 am UTC (link)
	He wrote a story that turned rape into comedy. Period, The End. That is not quality writing. You are objectively wrong. Even posters on this comm who SUPPORT the new status quo have called bullshit on that story, so you can't even hide behind the excuse that only people who hate the new status quo feel this way. You are simply wrong. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	psychosesman 2009-09-11 11:57 am UTC (link)
	This is you: "My subjective interpretation of a story is the only correct interpretation, Period, The End. My opinions are objective fact. My opinion is also popular, which makes it even more correct. I am literally 12 years old." (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	greenmask 2009-09-11 12:40 pm UTC (link)
	LITERALLY (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	Mod note angelophile 2009-09-11 02:06 pm UTC (link)
	I'm going to ask that everyone steps back from this conversation now. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	Re: Mod note greenmask 2009-09-11 02:08 pm UTC (link)
	:3 sorry. Literally is so abused these days! (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	Re: Mod note psychosesman 2009-09-11 02:17 pm UTC (link)
	I said what I meant, for the record. I wasn't just using it as emphasis. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	cyberghostface 2009-09-11 12:51 pm UTC (link)
	sighs I lked the idea of Sandman being a semi-decent guy. (Reply to this)

nr4b
2009-09-11 05:40 pm UTC (link)

I agree with Byrne to an extent. Sociopathy isn't a bad mood, it's an incurable neurological condition. Scientists have even pinpointed the part of the brain that causes it. If you're missing the part of your brain that gives you things like conscience and remorse, you don't grow it back because someone taught you a valuable lesson about getting along.

That said, most of the villains in Spider-Man's rogues gallery are either petty criminals who use their powers to further their petty ambitions, or ordinary people who were driven mad and/or controlled by whatever super-powered them. Redeeming those sorts should be a difficult process, and when it's done well it should be respected.

(Reply to this)