Comics New Interview with Dan SLott

[Dragon]

Without getting too nit-picky, which I think you've done, it's not that big of a deal to tear apart Slott's Harry ressurection... sure, you might find it hard to believe that Norman wrote "fake" journal entries, but if that's the bad side of it, then be happy that that's it... for it could have been a LOT worse under someone else's pen... JMS would have just brought him back without explanation... sort of like how he wrote Sins Past, and then let the fans figure out if/how it could have worked... THAT was insulting to our intelligence and lazy writing in my opinion... for Christ sake's... give Slott some props for at least attempting to make it work... which in my opinion, he has done.

Slott's a Marvel ****e, so as long as he's on the Spidey-Team, I'm sure that Spidey's continuity will be tighter than ever... and when's the last time we all
felt that way about ASM?

Nit-picky? I'm talking about the thrust of the the Harry resurrection. I've been focusing on the Norman portion in my last few posts becausre that's where the discussion went (Blader brought up the lack of validity of the Journals). Norman is (Or should be) an important character in Spidey's mythos. Decisions made regarding him should be handled alot more carefully.

If we're going back to Harry himself, then again I bring up that he was killed by the Goblin formula in the first place. How does it kill him, then revive him? Sure, you can take Slott's stance and say "It just did" But we should expect more. Any fan could've come up with that scenario.

Yeah, I agree that JMS stunk up the room when he was off his game. He also did some pretty good stuff during his run as well. I also agree on Sins Past that he did insult us by leaving plot threads dangling, especially since he promised us early on that by the end it would all make sense. But we also know that the Sins Past we got wasn't the story JMS wanted to tell. It was supposed to be about Peter and Gwen's children. Fat Joe turned it into the Osborn-sexcapade nightmare we were left with.

 

[kguillou]

Well, in all fairness, wouldn't you prefer that it was Osborn's kids than Peter's? How would spider-man be if he had two fully grown kids around the marvel universe?I would love to see peter have a child but not like this. I think Quesada made the right call on that one.

 

[Jack O Lantern]

Peter can't have kids it ages him. And not is some BS way. If he has kid when it's one, Peter is a year older, when it's five Peter is in his thirties, etc.

 

[Themanofbat]

If we're going back to Harry himself, then again I bring up that he was killed by the Goblin formula in the first place. How does it kill him, then revive him? Sure, you can take Slott's stance and say "It just did" But we should expect more. Any fan could've come up with that scenario.

When Norman died, he was in a state of comatose as well... considering that we see Norman's dead face being carted away at the begining of ASM #123, so why can't we think that Harry couldn't have "died" as well, only to recover later...

Maybe you wanted something "better", but considering the lame ressurections that we see in recent years, this one was pretty good and somewhat in correlation with established continuity.

 

[kguillou]

Originally posted by Jack O Lantern

Peter can't have kids it ages him. And not is some BS way. If he has kid when it's one, Peter is a year older, when it's five Peter is in his thirties, etc.

Well, there is a way around that. They can just simply not age peter anymore. Once Peter has his kid they can just keep him perpetually in his mid twenties and never mention his actual age. Hey it worked for Batman. Batman has watched both Dick Grayson and Tim Drake grow from boy to man and Bruce himself seems to be the same age he's always been no?

 

[Venom 1988]

Well, there is a way around that. They can just simply not age peter anymore. Once Peter has his kid they can just keep him perpetually in his mid twenties and never mention his actual age. Hey it worked for Batman. Batman has watched both Dick Grayson and Tim Drake grow from boy to man and Bruce himself seems to be the same age he's always been no?

No Bruce is his late 30s now, he became Batman in his mid 20s.

 

[Jack O Lantern]

Wouldn't that open a massive amount of problems? Because at some point the kid will be so old that the mother and Peter couldn't have been in a relationship at the time. Imagine if they had of done that would May, at some point she would have been old enough to be around when gwen was alive.

Not to mention what kind of guy puts himself in harms way like that with a kid to raise. Not to mention he can barely feed himself, let alone a family.

 

[kguillou]

Eh, thats a good point, i guess the other option would be to very very slowly age the baby, like every ten years or so have it age a year. But that's not the best solution either i guess.

 

[Dragon]

When Norman died, he was in a state of comatose as well... considering that we see Norman's dead face being carted away at the begining of ASM #123, so why can't we think that Harry couldn't have "died" as well, only to recover later...

Maybe you wanted something "better", but considering the lame ressurections that we see in recent years, this one was pretty good and somewhat in correlation with established continuity.

The difference is obvious. Norman died from trauma, not poisoning from the Goblin formula (Which as I mentioned on the other thread, didn't exist anyway.. But I digress). Harry died specifically because of the Goblin formula, not some outside injury. So while Norman might have needed to have the formula heal him, Harry couldn't have.

We shouldn't have to accept crappy writing because it could be crappier.

 

[Dragon]

Well, in all fairness, wouldn't you prefer that it was Osborn's kids than Peter's? How would spider-man be if he had two fully grown kids around the marvel universe?I would love to see peter have a child but not like this. I think Quesada made the right call on that one.

The whole thing was poorly handled. They either didn't have to be fully grown kids and they didn't have to survive. But yes, the kids being Peter's is far better than having screwing Osborn.

 

[Themanofbat]

The difference is obvious. Norman died from trauma, not poisoning from the Goblin formula (Which as I mentioned on the other thread, didn't exist anyway.. But I digress). Harry died specifically because of the Goblin formula, not some outside injury. So while Norman might have needed to have the formula heal him, Harry couldn't have.

We shouldn't have to accept crappy writing because it could be crappier.

Is it possible for you to ever think that maybe Harry simply succumbed to the formula, and it kicked in after the fact?

If the formula itself has a "healing factor", then even if it caused Harry's death, couldn't it be possible that it could have made him survive?

If we are to believe that Wolverine's healing factor once made him come back to life from a "drop of blood", why is that so hard to believe?

Is it because you don't "want to believe"?

I know that you don't like the new direction, but perhaps liking an element of two doesn't necessarily mean you "like" it...

It just seems unreasonable to me that a rather "credible" reason seems so "incredible" to you...

 

[ben_reilly_s_s]

Nit-picky? I'm talking about the thrust of the the Harry resurrection. I've been focusing on the Norman portion in my last few posts becausre that's where the discussion went (Blader brought up the lack of validity of the Journals). Norman is (Or should be) an important character in Spidey's mythos. Decisions made regarding him should be handled alot more carefully.

If we're going back to Harry himself, then again I bring up that he was killed by the Goblin formula in the first place. How does it kill him, then revive him? Sure, you can take Slott's stance and say "It just did" But we should expect more. Any fan could've come up with that scenario.

Yeah, I agree that JMS stunk up the room when he was off his game. He also did some pretty good stuff during his run as well. I also agree on Sins Past that he did insult us by leaving plot threads dangling, especially since he promised us early on that by the end it would all make sense. But we also know that the Sins Past we got wasn't the story JMS wanted to tell. It was supposed to be about Peter and Gwen's children. Fat Joe turned it into the Osborn-sexcapade nightmare we were left with.

Harry's Goblin Formula was different from Norman's.
Harry's killed him, Norman's brought him back to life.

Also, as to the validity of the Osborn Journals, why would he be so pissed off and scared that Kingsley had them and was going to expose them to the press if they were fake?

 

[Themanofbat]

Also, as to the validity of the Osborn Journals, why would he be so pissed off and scared that Kingsley had them and was going to expose them to the press if they were fake?

Well, there might have been some truths in them...

 

[Venom 1988]

Like the fact that hes the Green Goblin for one, which was not known to the public at the time...

 

[Dragon]

Harry's Goblin Formula was different from Norman's.
Harry's killed him, Norman's brought him back to life.

Also, as to the validity of the Osborn Journals, why would he be so pissed off and scared that Kingsley had them and was going to expose them to the press if they were fake?

Exactly the points I've been making. Osborn fakes journals to keep Harry being alive a secret, but reveals the bigger secret, that he's both alive and is the Green Goblin. Seems counter-productive.

 

[Dragon]

Is it possible for you to ever think that maybe Harry simply succumbed to the formula, and it kicked in after the fact?

If the formula itself has a "healing factor", then even if it caused Harry's death, couldn't it be possible that it could have made him survive?

If we are to believe that Wolverine's healing factor once made him come back to life from a "drop of blood", why is that so hard to believe?

Is it because you don't "want to believe"?

I know that you don't like the new direction, but perhaps liking an element of two doesn't necessarily mean you "like" it...

It just seems unreasonable to me that a rather "credible" reason seems so "incredible" to you...

You honestly think it's credible to say that what's killing you then revives you? It's like saying a bullet to the head destroys a brain tumor. Fine. But if it also destroys your brain, then it ain't doing you much good. You can't compare Logan's natural healing factor to the artificial one that the Goblin formula is supposed to give. And since Harry's body was being poisoned by the same formula, how could the healing factor kick in? No, it makes not a lick of sense. Maybe if Harry came back bearing the damage of this poison/cure, then it might work. But here he is, completely intact.

These stories are fantasy. But even in fantasy there should be ground rules. The real problem here is that Marvel can't draw a line. So no story is valid if the stakes are constantly shifted. And the only reason they're shifted is because their writers, who are supposed to be creative, aren't being creative. "Since we can't come up with anything new, just disregard what we've already told you". It's shameful. And for me, it has nothing to do with wanting to believe or not. If the writers make me a believer, then I'll believe. I'll even be accepting of something I don't like if you make it plausible. For example, as much as I hated the Sins Past concept, if it had been told in a compelling way, I'd have been onboard with it. But Marvel didn't do that then and aren't now IMO.