The Status Quo

[Garlador]

Except it’s a pretty terrible message to send that you can murder and kidnap and emotionally abuse your son and terrorize millions but if you say you are sincerely sorry and that’s not you now, you get off scot free without having to pay for your crimes.

Norman needs to be serving several consecutive life sentences and make untold amounts of restitution. He shouldn’t be still swanning about as a billionaire CEO. IMO.

I mean, Paul had a hand in killing billions of people, and he’s done pretty much nothing to atone for it besides say he feels bad about it before going to bed with the gorgeous supermodel he knowingly convinced wouldn’t be saved by her devoted boyfriend.

… A lot of characters just kind of ignoring these insane actions or excusing them outright.

[Moxxi517]

I want Norman Osborn to stay a good guy. It fits the ethos of the series better and justifies the times Spider-Man helps the bad guys.

Personally agree with this. Mostly just cause this guy that is now Norman Osborne doesn’t really feel like the Norman of Osborne of old. Not in like a, he grew and changed as a person way. But in a, I might as well have woken up in Norman Osborne’s body kind of way. Just so totally different. So I end up feeling bad that he’s punished for being Norman.

But also think we could do with a lot more cycling in of new villains. Like I like the idea of building up tombstone as a big bad to replace some of those we’ve lost. But gang war gives the impression that he and spidey will be working side by side for part/most of it? I think that’s a bit of a misstep, especially if Randy’s marriage ends up going belly side up.

When you cycle out a bunch of iconic big bads without replacing them with appropriately menacing villains. The stakes just feel much lower imo. There’s gotta be A bad guy at the end of the day.

[Tuck]

That’s…not what Spider-Man does. He didn’t pat the burglar on the head and let him go on his merry way.

I mean, he does if she looks good in a catsuit.

This flanderization of Peter Parker into some sort of mindless compassion machine who lets bad guys walk is very recent, and just goes to show how much the character has been allowed to drift by editorial over the last 15 years or so from his defining core ethos of responsibility to the greater good.

Villain redemptions do seem to have ramped up in modern times . . . across superhero stories.

And I think this is a good thing. The only real reason not to do it is that it eventually would begin to take too many classic villains out of play. (But I'm all for periodic hard reboots, which would solve that problem.)

[TinkerSpider]

I mean, they should address it. There wouldn't be no consequences.

But the fact is that Norman was not mentally competent as the Goblin.

Welllllll…

This is something the current run has also whiffed.

Because Norman still has the Goblin formula in him.

Which implies all the acts Norman did were done by Norman, and not by the Goblin formula acting on him.

The run wants to have its cake and eat it, too, so the run waves all the bad stuff off as “sins” instead of the Goblin formula - and Kafka turned into a literal goblin, again suggesting the goblin is actually Norman and not the formula. The book also is playing coy with what “sins” actually means, but going by the generally understood concept of sin, it’s an immoral action/emotion people choose of their own free will to give into. Suggesting again, the crimes were all Norman’s choice.

Now, did the Goblin formula impair Norman mentally? Many stories say yes. But now he’s competent with the formula still present, so *shrug*

Regardless - and maybe I’m wrong in this particular read, Norman has never been a character I particularly care for so I might have gotten some details wrong - I’d love to see the book acknowledge that Norman did terrible things and can’t walk away scot free. Gold Goblin was Norman being internally tortured and putting on a costume, but he’s done very little heroing (and the climax of the series was him stopping Kafka, so an act that benefitted mostly him). He still owes a major debt to society. And letting him get away with it paying that is a huge abdication of responsibility both inside the world of the story and outside as a message to the reader. IMO.

[TinkerSpider]

I mean, he does if she looks good in a catsuit.

He didn’t, actually. That’s why Felicia just broke up with him, because he stopped trying.

Villain redemptions do seem to have ramped up in modern times . . . across superhero stories.

And I think this is a good thing. The only real reason not to do it is that it eventually would begin to take too many classic villains out of play. (But I'm all for periodic hard reboots, which would solve that problem.)

Villain redemptions are one thing. And they can be very powerful stories.

Peter Parker letting an unrepentant Tombstone walk free because it makes things easier for Peter and because Tombstone, an unreliable narrator, told him a sob story, is not a villain redemption.

Norman Osborn being sins cleansed by a magical gun in a story that was all about supernatural smoke and mirrors and people not being who they seem to be is not a villain redemption story. That’s a magic wand being waved; nothing in the story was earned by the characters.

I agree, I’m all for periodic hard reboots.

I mean, Paul had a hand in killing billions of people, and he’s done pretty much nothing to atone for it besides say he feels bad about it before going to bed with the gorgeous supermodel he knowingly convinced wouldn’t be saved by her devoted boyfriend.

… A lot of characters just kind of ignoring these insane actions or excusing them outright.

Let’s add Maddie murdering the serial killer debt collector in cold blood, but sure, a mentally altered Ben who is literally not in his right mind is the bad guy.

This run has made a lot of morally questionable if not downright squicky story choices.

[Spider-Tiger]

Stan Lee said, "I don't recall ever emphasizing the 'illusion of change' or even using that phrase, though I might well have. As for the changes I did make, it was probably because I thought the series needed something to inject new life into it, yet something that wouldn't be out of character for our principals. It's difficult to have hard-and-fast rules when you're writing. Sometimes something hits you which you think would be a great idea, even if it goes against certain preconceived notions, or guidelines, you might have had. I tried to be as flexible as possible when writing about our characters."

from Spider-man: A History & Celebration of the Webslinger, Decade by Decade, 2022

[Hurricane Billy]

What a perfect, classic example of what Peter Parker should be and how he should be written.

A noble, selfless hero who sacrifices for his community and loved ones, up against an unfair and cruel world that kicks him down over and over. Setback after setback, loss after loss, at the risk of losing everything he’s built up over the years because he refuses to compromise his integrity. Often broken, despairing, and lost.


Yet reminded of all that he HAS earned. Of the things and people more important to him than wealth and fame. That even with “nothing”, life can be wonderful and the difference he made in other people’s lives saved the very soul of his city.

He suffered but at the end of the day still had the victories that count - a loving wife, their children, a community that appreciates and supports him.

The movie doesn’t end with the villain “defeated” for good, only with the hero reinvigorated to keep fighting because he has to and because he has what matters most no matter the blows he receives.

That’s SPIDER-MAN. Or… it was.

Exactly.

There's melodrama in It's A Wonderful Life, especially in regards to George and Mary's romance earlier on, but the exact circumstances that the Baileys go through change and evolve as the story goes on. Especially for George, which is why the film's third act in Pottersville is so nightmarish. For all the various instances and circumstances George runs into during his visit to this alternate reality, he's forced to confront the numerous ways in which his presence had a dramatic and substantial effect on the lives of others for the better, even while the town's lingering villain continues to get away with his misdeeds. And that's what Spider-Man is too. Or rather, he was.

[Frontier]

I guess my thing with Norman as he currently is is that it's false because his sins were artificially taken away from him, so it's not like he was really redeemed, no one is really reacting to him like you would expect from their history together (Wells is outright rewriting history to make it seem like he was always more like Raimi Norman), and he feels like a completely different character.

[Garlador]

I guess my thing with Norman as he currently is is that it's false because his sins were artificially taken away from him, so it's not like he was really redeemed, no one is really reacting to him like you would expect from their history together (Wells is outright rewriting history to make it seem like he was always more like Raimi Norman), and he feels like a completely different character.

He doesn't "feel" like a completely different character; he IS a completely different character. When you bypass a villain's redemption by just magically erasing their evil and transforming them into a person that never before existed, it's effectively a brand new person.

It's some strong history revisionism. Norman had a LONG history of abuse, dating back to killing the family dog...




The truth of the comics was always that Norman was a "goblin" long before the formula made him WORSE. He was the anti-Spider-Man; he had the wealth, the fame, the success... but didn't appreciate it and despised those who were "lesser" yet happier than he was, abusing his own son often to become the man he expected him to be with no regard for Harry's own wishes.

[Coop]

He doesn't "feel" like a completely different character; he IS a completely different character. When you bypass a villain's redemption by just magically erasing their evil and transforming them into a person that never before existed, it's effectively a brand new person.

It's some strong history revisionism. Norman had a LONG history of abuse, dating back to killing the family dog...




The truth of the comics was always that Norman was a "goblin" long before the formula made him WORSE. He was the anti-Spider-Man; he had the wealth, the fame, the success... but didn't appreciate it and despised those who were "lesser" yet happier than he was, abusing his own son often to become the man he expected him to be with no regard for Harry's own wishes.

This is another thing with the sin stuff - didn't the Goblin Juice impact his disposition? I'm all for moving away from "the goblin formula made him crazy and that means he's bad!" But even without his sins shouldn't the goblin formula still be affecting his mental state?

[Knightsilver]

This is another thing with the sin stuff - didn't the Goblin Juice impact his disposition? I'm all for moving away from "the goblin formula made him crazy and that means he's bad!" But even without his sins shouldn't the goblin formula still be affecting his mental state?

"It's magic...we don't have to explain it" is likely still the official explanation for current ASM.

[Garlador]

"It's magic...we don't have to explain it" is likely still the official explanation for current ASM.

I mean, the entire post-OMD status quo is "it's magic"...

[PCN24454]

I mean, the entire post-OMD status quo is "it's magic"...

The entire pre-OMD status quo was “it’s magic”, too.

[Mister Mets]

That's a leap in logic. "Vote with your wallet" and "You can't say if you liked this issue or not until you actually bother to read it first!" are two separate ideas.

If someone buys a comic, they are supporting it. If a comic sells poorly it is likely to get retooled or cancelled. If a comic sells well the publisher is likely to stay the course. That's what is meant by voting with your wallet.

Saying that you can't have a fully informed opinion on a comic you haven't read is just a fact.

It's okay for people to just not engage with media they strongly suspect they aren't going to enjoy.

If someone disliked #1 of a comic so much that they chose not to read #2, that's absolutely fine. Should they want to, they can send a letter to the editor explaining what they disliked about #1 and how that resulted in them not reading #2. The editor can do what they will with that feedback.

If that person sent a second letter saying "I haven't read #2, but it's poorly written and a bad story", that's worthless feedback that won't be taken into consideration and they're only wasting their own time.

If they wrote a letter saying "I don't currently read Comic X, but I would if it was written by Writer Y or if you brought back character Z", that's useful feedback that can be taken into consideration.

This gets complicated.

Sometimes there are advantages to critiquing culture you don't like. Granted, it's a bit different if it's someone making a go of it as a professional critic (or aspiring comics pro) versus a random schmuck arguing online.

Someone can be honest and say that it is worth five bucks an issue to follow the series and complain about it, especially since this is not typical fan behavior. But for them, ten bucks a month provides hours of fun and community on Discord, CBR, Twitter/ X, Truth Social, wherever.

There are ways to follow comics you don't pay for. Piracy is sketchy, and most people who pirate comics they don't like aren't willing to admit it. Sometimes there are claims to have a close relationship with the owner of an LCS, though the point's been made that if that were true, the owner's not happy about it.

There are some excuses I haven't heard much. Someone can say their roommate reads the title, and that's how he gets it. They could also say they work at a comic shop and feel a professional duty to keep up.

Fans could pick up issues cheap later, so it's a buck a pop, and probably not helping Marvel's bottom line much. There's less engagement with back issues, but I've found in my reread of the era between the clone saga and the relaunch that there are plenty of places where you can talk about older comics.

I guess for someone who hates a comic there's no way to trash it without getting called out. If they pay for it, why are they doing that to themselves? If they read it without paying for it, that's sketchy. If they don't read it, they're complaining about something without the firsthand experience.

As an example, I've heard bad things about the movie The Happening (as an example of something silly with what seems to be a misguided twist), but I've never seen it, so I could joke about it, but if I tried to persuade people not to see it, someone who saw it would have the upper hand in any argument.

[TinkerSpider]

The entire pre-OMD status quo was “it’s magic”, too.

No, dei ex machina and figurative magic wands being waved by figurative magic wizards who just happen to show up and wave them were in pretty short supply pre-OMD. That’s what people means by, “It’s magic.” Not the use of magic and science fiction concepts that are rooted in the story and the characters.