Relationship drama because she was crazy. She wanted honesty, and believed the best way to do this was through secretly going behind his back. That's not sane.
That's not sane... A conversation with a guy in a public coffee shop. Yeah. That's tantamount to conspiracy. So, you think Gwen should've gone to Peter and said- "Hey Pete- we've been dating for about 6 months and you're acting pretty weird. Since you won't tell me the truth, I'm going to have a casual convo with Flash at the Coffee Bean.. Won't be late.." I suppose you've never discussed relationship problems with a friend?
And let's be clear- PETER was doing things behind HER BACK. Things which I'll remind you- led to her and her father's DEATHS. Wasn't THAT a little
crazy of him? Wouldn't it have been easier if he'd just told her the truth?
What did she think happened? A van fell on top of them and she was knocked out beneath it?
Uh..
Yeah- pretty much. They were in fact knocked away by the van. It then toppled over after Gwen was down and unconscious. So yeah, she thought they were thrown clear. Or should she have immediately figured that her 165 pound boyfriend
lifted a twenty ton truck off of them? Which explanation was more likely?
Even Captain Stacey said "Don't worry, she, like all females, think with emotions."
Well, aside from being kinda sexist.. Her dad said ALL FEMALES so I guess Gwen's reaction was considered
normal. I suppose Peter figured it's either deal with that or go stag. And BTW- Captain Stacy
knew he was Spider-Man, so he'd be a bit more understanding.
How is Stern wrong? Because MJ did worse? And nobody wanted MJ and Peter together except the money people.
Because Gwen
wasn't the Girlfriend From Hell. Any relationship will have challenges. She never did anything to hurt Peter. And she defended him constantly. If anything, Peter was The Boyfriend From Hell. He did, ultimately put her life in jeopardy because he was too cowardly to tell her the truth and let her decide if she wanted to accept the risks of being with Spider-Man.
But you don't know that they are because Carlie hasn't been developed yet.
But I know what they've shown hasn't been very good.
Why would he have given him a lot better fight? Spidey wiped the floor with the X-Men, beat a hearld of Glactus and beated the Fanstastic Four as well.
And Spidey has also been knocked around by again, Black Cat, Captain America, Daredevil, Silvermane, Man-Mountain Marko, Kingpin, Black Widow, etc. All people with not only a minute fraction of his strength, but his speed as well. They shouldn't have been able to lay a glove on Spidey but did.
If Norman- who again-
wanted Spider-Man dead- had super powers in their
life and death struggle- then he should have given a better showing of himself than he did. He knew Spidey was coming at him with blood in his eyes, so Norman should have been ready.
Spidey wasn't holding back, that's why he has to stop and compose himself.
That was only one moment during the fight when he had the Goblin pinned down. And he was holding back. If he wasn't and The Goblin had the stength you think he did, he would've been punched through the wall as happened to Luke Cage in the very next issue. And BTW- that was the first point in the battle that such a thing had happened anyway. Spidey spent most of the fight dodging the Goblin's blasts and pumpkin bombs ( Funny he'd rely on those things if he had super strength).
Look, I showed a page where it is stated that Osborn is stronger than anyone
You showed a page where Norman ( a nut-job as that page DOES state) BRAGS he's stronger than anyone. He doesn't
display any such power. And we know Stan didn't believe Norman was as powerful as Thor, the Thing or The Hulk. So no, that utterance isn't true, but the ramblings of a psycho.
I gave an example where a normal man would be dead but he was still standing and your proof? A letters page. What happens in the comics is what matters, not a letters page.
I'd say a statement from the guy who CREATED the Goblin trumps your unscientific assumptions.
Yeah, and we;ve seen what happens there when Spidey cuts loose.
Yeah, which brings us right back to where we are.
OK but that doesn't change the fact that his Spider-Sense changes of a number of issues, meaning that Stan wasn't always aware of the power levels of his characters like you claimed.
Every writer on Spider-Man has shifted his power levels to suit their story. So don't dump this on Stan Lee. And in fact, Stan did it far less than anyone else. At least when Spidey came up short Stan would make it clear that he was sick or was purposely holding back (Not wanting to hurt a woman for example). But this doesn't jibe with his not knowing that a character that HE CREATED doesn't have super strength. He'd know a helluva lot better than YOU.
Black Cat has bad luck powers.
You're getting desperate, pal. Cat hasn't had bad luck powers for twenty years. And she didn't have them in recent years battles with Spidey and The Lizard.
No you misuderstand. You see after Bucky's death in the 40s, Captain America comics continued, and was even reviived in the 50s. In these stories he trained a new Bucky. Then in the 60s, when Stan brought him back, he re-conned these stories, so now, twenty years after the stories were told that had Cap getting over Bucky's death quickly, were changed so that he was guilty as hell.
No, actually YOU misunderstand. Bucky didn't die in the forties or fifties. Stan killed him off in the Avengers #4 flashback (Mostly because he didn't like teen-sidekicks). Marvel disregarded the 50's return, since it was extremely short-lived anyway, until a story in 1972, which dealt with the return of the 50's Cap and Bucky. Cap DIDN'T get over Bucky's death. I have EVERY ISSUE featuring Cap from the sixties, and Bucky's death was a constant torment to him. Cap even hunted down Baron Zemo, the one responsible in Avengers #15, which resulted in Zemo's death.
It;s the equalivent of Peter, after Gwens death getting over it straight away and suddennly getting guilty in the 90s.
If you'd read the comics instead of the Cliff-notes, you'd know this wasn't true.
Drugs, social unrest and Vietnam etc are different because they were selling comics to people, who had the same view point on these subjects, and are those things knew in an idustry where you have Superman telling you to slap and jap? Superman in the 30s used to force cops to shoot at him so that they would rebuild poor ares and give people better housing.
Anti-heros have always had comics, I mean look at Batman, the guy used to carry and gun and taught a 8 year old to kill the guys who killed his parents.
I have no idea why you'd compare comics in the 30s and 40s to those in the 60s, but my point remains the same. Comics as a whole were becoming more serious and darker in tone, reflecting, yes the desires of the readership and the times as a whole. This is WHY they felt that killing of Gwen would work. Innocence was dying in society as a whole. This started with the killing of JFK, King, Vietnam, student protestors, etc. Comics were simply catching up.
And Batman was never an anti-hero. He was a hero for the times he existed in. May I remind you that at one point the Ku Klux Klan were regarded as heroic?
But that isn't the same as giving killers like Dracula or the Werewolf their own titles. And again addressing taboos like pacts with Satan in the case of Ghost Rider. The same with the popularity of violent stuff like Conan. All a sign of the times and PRE-Gwen's death.
What changed in Gwen's detah was that a flag ship hero failed. Not Nick Fury but Spider-Man, the guy who was YOU, was cryig into the dead body of his girlfriend. That's different.
You seem to forget that Spidey's career BEGAN with failing to save a loved one. And yeah, Spidey was a more popular character than Fury or Namor. But that drives my point home even further. That the darker approach of the time even caught up to the most popular character in Marvel's line-up. He had to change with the times also.
Yes we know, the chacters know, so they're not "deaths," they're escapes.
Exactly my point. Glad you've gotten it.
123, 124 or 125, around there. He was looking a Newspaper and said something along the lines of, "Scum, two people are dead, can't they ;eave them alone. Gwens dead and so is poor Norman Osborn"
It was ASM #124. And he wasn't sympathizing with Norman. That you think someone is tragic isn't the same as sympathizing with them. Spidey in the end didn't want him dead, but he wanted him to pay for his crimes. He was going to take him to jail rather than let him fade back into an amnesiac state.
But it didn't alter Peter or the industy. That's why people remember that Gwen died in that story and babrely mention Norman. Norman died because they had wrote themsleves into a hoel because he knew who Spidey was and they didn't want to keep having him bang his head and forget, and it opened up the story with Harry. But once those stories are over he can come back. But there will never be a time when Uncle Ben's death and Gwens death can't help some stories.
So they were concerned with Norman knowing Spidey's secret. and then immediately follow with THREE NEW CHARACTERS that know his secret? Then that's three new holes.
They had TWENTY YEARS of stories that resulted from Norman's death, between Hobgoblin, Harry and others dealing with GG's legacy.
They had from Gwen's death, The Clone Saga and Sin's Past. Not a very good comparison. And the only thing resulting from Ben's death have been flashbacks reminding Spidey of his responsiblity- oh and the storyline when Ben was RESURRECTED. Not a huge amount of altering there.
You can't prove a guy who wears and suit that exposes no part of his body was responsible for someone's death. Even if you could prove Norman was the Green Goblin, he could still say the man who killed Gwen was a copycat, and you could not prove otherwise. To prove he did something as the Goblin, you have to catch him in the act.
Hmm. But the cops
do have the Goblin's Glider which would have both Gwen and Norman's DNA on it, that Harry didn't remove. They have Norman's journals proving he's the Goblin. And since you mentioned "Marvels" they have photos by the photog in that story (Forgot his name). If the writers are actually CREATIVE- they can think up a scenario where it all comes together.
As for making something contrived and made up to cattch. Nu-uh, can't do that. Anybody who knows anything about writing stories is that a villian can win in some contrived way any day of the week, but the hero can't. he has to win fair, otherwise people don't accept it. If James Bong has Dr. No at gun point and his gun jams, that's drama. If Dr. No has Bond at gun point and his gun jams, that's a cheat.
You've got to be kidding. There have been endless contrived victories for heroes in both comics, TV and movies. Where have you been? Spidey himself has won many (too many in fact) battles because of dumb luck or some other deux ex machina.
And you're about the only one who says it's okay for a villain to have a contrived victory. No one wants to read something that's unconvincing; and most fans think Norman's return is crap. Some are simply glad to see the Goblin back (Marvel spent twenty years trying to replace him) and disregard the cheez of his return.
And I'm not saying they should contrive a way for Spidey to nail him. I'm saying that if they thought a little, they could come up with something good. But then if they thought a little we probably wouldn't be having this debate at all.
No it's not. In Sen Spidey team-up with doc Strange, its a nice moment when he meets Ben's soul, in MK Spidey he mentions him as poor old Ben Reilly. There was a time it was shameful, one that has come and went. And if tomarrows story sells well, I would prepare myself for a whole lot Ben Reilly stories.
Sez you...
t:
), the big joke amongst the users here during Skin Deep was how this new guy was merely Molten Man 2...
