Sandman Screw-Up?
Robert
is a fake identity created by Flint Marko after his "traumatic
experience" with the Hydro-Man.
That doesn't make sense since we learned about Willaim Baker being his
real name in the late 70s (years before that story), and even saw his
mother in one of the first issues of Marvel Team-Up.
Admittedly, this is better than Byrne's "he faked it" idea, but
geez...couldn't they just say Wizard brainwashed him and not get into
the two different name stuff?
Kitchen T
>real name in the late 70s (years before that story), and even saw his
>mother in one of the first issues of Marvel Team-Up.
Byrne retconned William Baker into a separate fellow convict who had a
remarkable resemblance to Flint Marko in SPIDER-MAN: CHAPTER ONE #0.
Tom Brevoort
Dinobot
So there are two Sandmen?
Ben Pridmore
Dinobot <xfo...@hotmail.com> wrote
> >>That doesn't make sense since we learned about Willaim Baker being his
> >>real name in the late 70s (years before that story), and even saw his
> >>mother in one of the first issues of Marvel Team-Up.
> >
> >Byrne retconned William Baker into a separate fellow convict who had a
> >remarkable resemblance to Flint Marko in SPIDER-MAN: CHAPTER ONE #0.
>
> So there are two Sandmen?
Yep. The real one, and the one Byrne's been writing about. Seriously (and
get your sick-bag ready), it seems that Flint Marko met the real William
Baker years and years ago and decided to steal his identity many years in
the future, if he ever decided to pretend to reform (and think to himself
about having reformed, and generally acting like someone who'd reformed for
YEARS!)
--
Ben
"Oh look. Let's kill it."
Miss Wonderstarr
A.Patyk
Ben Pridmore wrote in message <7v9vf7$s6h$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>
>Yep. The real one, and the one Byrne's been writing about. Seriously (and
>get your sick-bag ready), it seems that Flint Marko met the real William
>Baker years and years ago and decided to steal his identity many years in
>the future, if he ever decided to pretend to reform (and think to himself
>about having reformed, and generally acting like someone who'd reformed for
>YEARS!)
Uhm...just jumping in here, but wasn't Sandman totally reformed for a
reeeally long time? Wasn't he even an Avenger and everything? Why would
they change him back?
Ralf Haring
Such are the ways of Byrne.
///
Ralf (. .) Haring
|-------oOO-(_)-OOo-------|
| Kilroy is watching YOU! |
|-------------------------|
Bubba2
"A.Patyk" <paty...@pilot.msu.edu> wrote:
[stuff snipped]
> Uhm...just jumping in here, but wasn't Sandman totally reformed for a
> reeeally long time? Wasn't he even an Avenger and everything? Why
would
> they change him back?
>
>
For the same reason they tried the clone fiasco--MONEY! Unfortunately,
the Spidey they've created is nothing I want to read, and now they've
butchered Sandman. I guess next we find out that the Black Panther
ain't really Black, the Hulk can be cut by Wolverine's bone claws (oops,
been done!), the X-Men don't have angst, Aunt May ain't dead (oops, been
done too!), Norman Osborne ain't dead (oops again!), Hawkeye is really
Bullseye who's reformed only he later finds out he was brainwashed, and
Daredevil ain't blind!
--
Happy Birthday,
Bubba2
Where are we going, and why am I in this handbasket?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Paul O'Brien
<kitc...@aol.com> writes
>
>Byrne retconned William Baker into a separate fellow convict who had a
>remarkable resemblance to Flint Marko in SPIDER-MAN: CHAPTER ONE #0.
And this explains the depiction of the Sandman's mother Mrs Baker
how, exactly?
Sorry, but the sooner this ridiculous little back-to-basics retcon
gets kicked into touch, the better.
Paul O'Brien
THE X-AXIS REVIEWS - http://www.esoterica.demon.co.uk
The law will get there.
Robert
>
> >That doesn't make sense since we learned about Willaim Baker being his
> >real name in the late 70s (years before that story), and even saw his
> >mother in one of the first issues of Marvel Team-Up.
>
> remarkable resemblance to Flint Marko in SPIDER-MAN: CHAPTER ONE #0.
>
I knew that, and it doesn't really answer my question.
Sandman thought of himself as Willaim Baker for YEARS before that
Hydro-Man story, several stories confirm this. If you wanted to say
that Sandman convinced himself that he was William Baker, it would've
had to been BERFORE Marvel Team-Up #1.
The back-up story still doesn't explain why the old lady thought "Marko"
was her son (is she that stupid?), and why Sandy stated (years before
that Hydro-Man story) that he was William Baker.
If anything, this back-up just created more continuity errors.
Ben Pridmore
Paul O'Brien <pa...@esoterica.demon.co.uk> wrote
> >
> >Byrne retconned William Baker into a separate fellow convict who had a
> >remarkable resemblance to Flint Marko in SPIDER-MAN: CHAPTER ONE #0.
>
> how, exactly?
>
Well, apparantly the resemblance was so remarkable that poor old Mrs Baker
thought that nasty old Flint was really her son...
> Sorry, but the sooner this ridiculous little back-to-basics retcon
> gets kicked into touch, the better.
>
Yep.
--
Ben
"Oh look. Let's kill it."
Miss Wonderstarr.
Ben Pridmore
A.Patyk <paty...@pilot.msu.edu> wrote
>
> Uhm...just jumping in here, but wasn't Sandman totally reformed for a
> reeeally long time? Wasn't he even an Avenger and everything? Why would
> they change him back?
>
>
No, you see, he wasn't actually reformed. He was just pretending. He was
actually evil all along. John Byrne says so.
A.Patyk
slapping these kind of stupid ideas down *hard* before they're printed?
Sandman's reformation was all just...pretend?! What? So well-acted that
even his thought balloons completely didn't reveal his *Evil Master Plan*?
What a load. It was cool to see Sandman reform, work with Silver Sable,
etc. and become an actual hero. This just cheapens all of these events and
the storylines he was involved in. I guess his rabid defense of Spider-Man
in Avengers #1 was all just part of the "act," too? *sigh*
Ben Pridmore wrote in message <7vabas$47f$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>...
Kitchen T
>>remarkable resemblance to Flint Marko in SPIDER-MAN: CHAPTER ONE #0.
>
No. There was Flint Marko and his prison-mate William Baker. Baker died, Marko
went on to become the Sandman, and later adopted Baker's identity for his own
use.
Tom Brevoort
Kitchen T
>Hydro-Man story
Sandman claimed to be William Baker once that I can remember before that
Hydro-Man story--in MARVEL TEAM-UP #1, in which he used the fact that he had to
get home to Mama Baker for Christmas to get away from Spidey and the Torch. But
he didn't start thinking of himself as Wiliam Baker until after TWO-IN-ONE #86.
>The back-up story still doesn't explain why the old lady thought "Marko"
>was her son (is she that stupid?)
Since I didn't create that problem, it doesn't fall to me to clean it up. But
John established that Marko and Baker looked an awful lot alike, so if you
stretch a point and figure that old Mrs. Baker was getting on in years, and
that her eyes and mind weren't working so good...
Tom Brevoort
Kitchen T
>how, exactly?
The short answer is: not my problem, in the context of that back-up story.
The longer answer is that she was getting on in years, and may not have been in
the best of shape mentally. From personal experience, I can tell you that my
aged grandmother often confuses one person for another, or forgets family
members altogether. So it's not like this sort of thing doesn't happen in real
life.
Tom Brevoort
Mikko Aittola
Not really.
Read the back-up story in PPSM #12.
/Mikko
Bubba2
kitc...@aol.com (Kitchen T) wrote:
[some snippage]
> >The back-up story still doesn't explain why the old lady thought
"Marko"
> >was her son (is she that stupid?)
>
> Since I didn't create that problem, it doesn't fall to me to clean it
up. But
> John established that Marko and Baker looked an awful lot alike, so if
you
> stretch a point and figure that old Mrs. Baker was getting on in
years, and
> that her eyes and mind weren't working so good...
>
> Tom Brevoort
>
No offense meant, Tom, but the same excuse could be used for some Marvel
editors and writers! (grin)
--
Happy Birthday,
Bubba2
Nathan
wrote:
>Not to be rude or anything, but shouldn't there be an editor somewhere
>slapping these kind of stupid ideas down *hard* before they're printed?
>Sandman's reformation was all just...pretend?! What? So well-acted that
>even his thought balloons completely didn't reveal his *Evil Master Plan*?
>What a load. It was cool to see Sandman reform, work with Silver Sable,
>etc. and become an actual hero. This just cheapens all of these events and
>the storylines he was involved in. I guess his rabid defense of Spider-Man
>in Avengers #1 was all just part of the "act," too? *sigh*
>
Spoiler for the end of PP:SM #12
The Wizard kidnapped the Sandman, while good. Used a gizmo to screw
with his head, so now he is bad again. If Sandman says 'I was just
pretending' it is his new bad personality compensating.
Dwight Williams
>
> Read the back-up story in PPSM #12.
I just read the notes elsewhere on this...error.
They did a $#%@ing "Fix the Catwoman" number on his brain!!!
Remember Fall 1986, _Detective_, Mike Barr and Alan Davis, just after
O'Neil came back to DC? *That's* what they did to Marvel's Sandman here!
Going back to fuming now...
--
Dwight Williams(ad...@freenet.carleton.ca) -- Orleans, Ontario, Canada
Maintainer/Founder - DEOList for _Chase_ Fandom
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Paulo Costa
>> >remarkable resemblance to Flint Marko in SPIDER-MAN: CHAPTER ONE #0.
>>
>> how, exactly?
>
>thought that nasty old Flint was really her son...
Does that mean the "other" "William Baker" is also related to Norman
Osborn?
>> Sorry, but the sooner this ridiculous little back-to-basics retcon
>> gets kicked into touch, the better.
>
>Yep.
What little back-to-basics retcon? As far as I'm concerned, it never
happened.
--
Paulo Costa
Jar Jar Binks wasn't THAT annoying.
Handbook of Marvel Creators: http://welcome.to/homc
Squadron Supreme: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/4489
Ocelot
kitc...@aol.com (Kitchen T) wrote:
>>>Byrne retconned William Baker into a separate fellow convict who had a
>>>remarkable resemblance to Flint Marko in SPIDER-MAN: CHAPTER ONE #0.
>>
>>So there are two Sandmen?
>
>No. There was Flint Marko and his prison-mate William Baker. Baker died, Marko
>went on to become the Sandman, and later adopted Baker's identity for his own
>use.
Actaully, there may be another 'Sandman' in the MU... the alien one from
JIM #70 ('The Sandman Cometh') :-)
Wouldn't a more obvious solution to this problem be that Marko was so
convinced he was Baker that he took on his appearance after becoming the
Sandman, rather than having the unlikely probability that Marko and Baker
were look-a-likes?
Regards,
Rob S.
Titano
Yes, that would be a brilliant solution.
That's why Byrne didn't use it.
Meow.
no.fun@all
>>That doesn't make sense since we learned about Willaim Baker being his
>>real name in the late 70s (years before that story), and even saw his
>>mother in one of the first issues of Marvel Team-Up.
>
>Byrne retconned William Baker into a separate fellow convict who had a
>remarkable resemblance to Flint Marko in SPIDER-MAN: CHAPTER ONE #0.
>
>Tom Brevoort
Was the story of Sandman beeing "brain washed" by the Wizard planned
from the beginning (when Byrne wanted him to be a bad guy again) or
created after all the negative reactions you got?
Markus
Tom Galloway
Nathan <bou...@thunREMOVEtek.net> wrote:
>Spoiler for the end of PP:SM #12
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>The Wizard kidnapped the Sandman, while good. Used a gizmo to screw
>with his head, so now he is bad again. If Sandman says 'I was just
>pretending' it is his new bad personality compensating.
OK, I can actually live with this as a rationale (haven't read the story
itself), particularly assuming the Wizard used the ID machine from the
early 40s of the FF which he used to turn the Thing bad for a few issues.
Both because this would be an established way of doing it, and because
Reed Richards knows how to fix it. Capture Sandman, call in Reed, and he's
back to good.
Which is what I'd prefer. While I can live with the rationale, I don't
like the results.
Also, if the story is being told by Sandman without corroboration, there's
still a very simple way of retconning this whole thing, even using a
Byrne method.
Namely, the current "Sandman" is a Skrull. After all, except for Mr.
Fantastic, Sandman's got about the easiest powers for a Skrull to emulate.
Skrulls are currently active even (see Wolverine).
tyg t...@netcom.com
Kitchen T
>convinced he was Baker that he took on his appearance after becoming the
>Sandman, rather than having the unlikely probability that Marko and Baker
>were look-a-likes?
>
Maybe it would have been. But that's not the way John wrote the story, so it's
not what happened.
Tom Brevoort
Kitchen T
>from the beginning (when Byrne wanted him to be a bad guy again) or
>created after all the negative reactions you got?
Since I came up with that explaination when I was writing the back-up story, it
came later.
Tom Brevoort
Mikko Aittola
ad...@freenet.carleton.ca (Dwight Williams) writes:
> They did a $#%@ing "Fix the Catwoman" number on his brain!!!
>
> Remember Fall 1986, _Detective_, Mike Barr and Alan Davis, just after
> O'Neil came back to DC? *That's* what they did to Marvel's Sandman here!
All I remember is that the Davis/Neary Catwoman looked very nice
and healthy. :-)
Barr/Davis/Neary was a perfect creative team for Batman. I think
I've read most of the issues they did, but I guess I missed
the Catwoman "fix" part.
/Mikko
Paul O'Brien
<t...@netcom.com> writes
>
>Also, if the story is being told by Sandman without corroboration, there's
>still a very simple way of retconning this whole thing, even using a
>Byrne method.
There's an even simpler way.
Everything that we've been told in Byrne stories is false, and the
Wizard brainwashed Sandy to believe it all.
Mikko Aittola
t...@netcom.com (Tom Galloway) writes:
> >Spoiler for the end of PP:SM #12
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> itself), particularly assuming the Wizard used the ID machine from the
> early 40s of the FF which he used to turn the Thing bad for a few issues.
> Both because this would be an established way of doing it, and because
> Reed Richards knows how to fix it. Capture Sandman, call in Reed, and he's
> back to good.
>
> Which is what I'd prefer. While I can live with the rationale, I don't
> like the results.
>
> still a very simple way of retconning this whole thing, even using a
> Byrne method.
>
> Fantastic, Sandman's got about the easiest powers for a Skrull to emulate.
> Skrulls are currently active even (see Wolverine).
Or maybe he's a Space Phantom...
But frankly, I don't understand why people think Sandman makes
a good and interesting superhero.
I think Stan Lee and Steve Ditko created a whole bunch of great
Spider-Man villains. Doc Ock, Vulture, Mysterio, Green Goblin and
Sandman. They've all been my favorites along with Hobgoblin since
I started to read Spider-Man. When I read the Lee/Ditko stories and
the later stories drawn by Romita Sr. I just don't understand why
somebody could think that those characters would get better by turning
them to heroes.
Sandman as a hero is just as good concept as Lex Luthor as a hero
or Ming as a hero or Magica De Spell as a hero or Ultron as a
hero or Red Skull as a hero.
It just doesn't fit.
/Mikko
Mario Di Giacomo
> But frankly, I don't understand why people think Sandman makes
> a good and interesting superhero.
Because he implies that _any_ villain can find redemption, if he tries?
I'm not saying I want a Sandman ongoing, but it's an excellent form of
character development.
>
> Sandman as a hero is just as good concept as Lex Luthor as a hero
> or Ming as a hero or Magica De Spell as a hero or Ultron as a
> hero or Red Skull as a hero.
Well, Flint/William/Sandy isn't a megalomaniacal world conqueror either.
::)
mdg
Hurricane Season
>
I don't understand why people think Sandman makes
> a good and interesting superhero.
< SNIP>
> Sandman as a hero is just as good concept as Lex Luthor as a hero
> or Ming as a hero or Magica De Spell as a hero or Ultron as a
> hero or Red Skull as a hero.
>
> It just doesn't fit.
>
It does if you read the watershed moment for him in Marvel TWO IN ONE
years ago. He didn't just up and say "I guess I want to try my hand as
a hero now," In fact, he was just plain tired of his life as he had
been living it. He told his story to Ben Grimm over a few beers and
Ben decided to let him go. It was perhaps Tom DeFalco's Crowning
achievement as a comic writer.
Sandy basically fell into superheroing gradually over the course of
several more years (almost slipping into crime again out of desperation
once he left the Avengers over a misunderstanding), finally becoming a
full fledged hero in the Wild Pack.
He was redeemed. You were happy for him.
No change in Marvel is allowed to stay. Prof. X had to get his legs
recrushed, Beast had to become Furry again. Cap had to get his shield
back. Hulk had to become a freaking idiot again.
Some of these are good to go back too (Cap's Shield, Beast being blue
and furry), some wipe out years of careful personality growth. The
Hulk and Sandman's current conditions are cases of that.
Both of them, you are probably aware of are from Byrne.
I used to look forward to Byrne's work, but now I cringe when I see his
name on the cover.
HEY!!! MAYBE THAT MIND DOOHICKEY WAS USED ON BYRNE. That would sure
explain a lot.
--
-------------------------
As a dreamer of dreams and a traveling man, I have chalked up many a mil
(Jimmy Buffett from "Son of a Son of a Sailor")
Hurricane Season
> The longer answer is that she was getting on in years, and may not
have been in
> the best of shape mentally. From personal experience, I can tell you
that my
> aged grandmother often confuses one person for another, or forgets
family
> members altogether. So it's not like this sort of thing doesn't
happen in real
> life.
In an upcoming issue, Byrne will reveal that Mrs. Baker is the sister
of the mother of Seymore Skinner, Principal of Springfield Elementary,
and show that this "mistaking a total stranger for your son" thing runs
in the family.
Mikko Aittola
Mario Di Giacomo <m...@ids.net> writes:
> Because he implies that _any_ villain can find redemption, if he tries?
Turning Sandman to superhero doesn't imply anything at all about
other villains.
If a writer wants to write a story where supervillain is turned into
superhero there's no need to involve Sandman in it.
> I'm not saying I want a Sandman ongoing, but it's an excellent form of
> character development.
Just about as excellent as turning Spider-Man to a supervillain.
/Mikko
Peter Meilinger
: Mario Di Giacomo <m...@ids.net> writes:
: > Because he implies that _any_ villain can find redemption, if he tries?
: Turning Sandman to superhero doesn't imply anything at all about
: other villains.
Maybe nothing specific about other villains, but it does let the
readers and the characters know that nothing is set in stone.
Sandman started out as a supervillain. More of a super-thug, really,
a two bit hood who became a two-bit hood with superpowers. He wasn't
evil, really, just criminal. There's a big difference there. And
as the years went by and he kept getting the crap kicked out of him
by heroes, and living either in prison or on the run, he came to realize
that he didn't enjoy his life any more. So, with some guidance from
Ben Grimm, he stopped being a criminal. He reformed. He didn't even
try to be a hero at first, he was just no longer a villain. That
to me is one of the biggest success stories the Marvel Universe
superheroes can claim - they didn't just stop a villain's latest
plan, they convinced him to stop being a villain altogether.
I really liked the Sandman as a reformed villain. I wasn't crazy about
it when he became a hero, but it made some sense - he was an ex-con
with superhuman powers that made him look funny, what else could he
do? It made sense when he joined Silver Sable's group - he got to use
his powers to make a living and help people at the same time. Sure
he was a mercenary, but that's a helluva lot better than a supervillain.
: If a writer wants to write a story where supervillain is turned into
: superhero there's no need to involve Sandman in it.
And if a writer wants to write a story where a reformed villain is
turned back into a supervillain, there's no need to involve Sandman in
it.
What Byrne did was literally throw out years of characterization. Maybe
he didn't like what had been done with the Sandman. Personally, I
don't see why he wouldn't, but different strokes for different folks
and all. But if he wanted to make Sandman a villain again for whatever
reason, he could have been a lot more respectful of the characters
previous development and of the writers who brought him to that stage.
But he wasn't.
: > I'm not saying I want a Sandman ongoing, but it's an excellent form of
: > character development.
: Just about as excellent as turning Spider-Man to a supervillain.
If Marvel publishes a series of stories turning Spidey into a villain
that make as much sense and are as well-written as the ones that
had Sandman give up the supervillain life, I would indeed call
it excellent.
Here's a question for you, Mikko - why the hell wouldn't Sandman want
to get out of the villain racket? He wasn't a world conqueror, he
didn't have a special cause he was fighting for. He was just a guy
who didn't know any other way to get by. So he became a criminal.
And when he got superpowers, he became a supercriminal. A lot of
that was most likely anger as well as greed. But after years and years
of losing EVERY SINGLE TIME you try a scheme and spending most of
your life in jail or in hiding, Sandman lost the anger and greed. It
was most likely beaten out of him by the various superheroes who
defeated him EVERY SINGLE TIME he went up against them. So why
exactly wouldn't he want to go straight if he could figure out
how?
Pete
Mikko Aittola
Hurricane Season <hurs...@my-deja.com> writes:
> It does if you read the watershed moment for him in Marvel TWO IN ONE
> years ago.
I'm not talking about the quality of the story or if the story
elements explained why Sandman became a superhero.
I'm just objecting to the idea. I don't understand how Sandman could
be more interesting and/or better character as a hero than as a
villain. Sure a writer could turn Magica De Spell to a hero, but
I don't see any point why that should be done.
So, I'm asking here that somebody could explain me why they like
Sandman as a hero more than as a villain. I'm not asking people
to explain me how good the story was or how villains can turn
into good guys. I know villains can turn to good guys. I don't
need to read a story where Sandman is turned into hero to believe that.
I also know that good guys can turn into villains. I don't need to read
a story where Superman gets turned into villain to believe that.
> No change in Marvel is allowed to stay. Prof. X had to get his legs
> recrushed, Beast had to become Furry again. Cap had to get his shield
> back. Hulk had to become a freaking idiot again.
AFAIK, Beast wasn't originally blue and furry.
> Some of these are good to go back too (Cap's Shield, Beast being blue
> and furry), some wipe out years of careful personality growth. The
> Hulk and Sandman's current conditions are cases of that.
I hope you understand that you're talking about your subjective
opinion. If you think that it's sometimes good to go back you
_have_ to accept that you're not going to like _all_ the stuff that
"goes back".
It's called a shared universe. Not all writers are going to write
the characters the way you like. I think you have to accept that
if you're going to read stories about shared universe.
I accepted that some writers wanted to make Sandman a hero, even
if I don't understand the point of the idea. I think you should
accept that some writers want to make Sandman a villain. Maybe
the next writer will write the character more in the way you
like.
/Mikko
Wolf031877
>Sandman as a hero is just as good concept as Lex Luthor as a hero
>or Ming as a hero or Magica De Spell as a hero or Ultron as a
>hero or Red Skull as a hero.
>
>It just doesn't fit.
For you, that is. On the other hand, you could find a number of people (myself
included) who think the idea of a guy like Sandman reforming after getting his
butt handed to him one time too many is a very logical one.
James
-----------
DANGEROUS CALLIGRAPHY: A comics webzine geared towards exploring comic books as
both art and entertainment. Essays, reviews, news, specials, interviews, etc.
http://www.angelfire.com/ny2/dangerouscalligraphy
Wolf031877
sense and all. ;-)
Wolf031877
Mikko:
>Turning Sandman to superhero doesn't imply anything at all about
>other villains.
Why? Explain, please.
Mikko:
>If a writer wants to write a story where supervillain is turned into
>superhero there's no need to involve Sandman in it.
Unless, of course, Sandman is the villain being changed.
>> I'm not saying I want a Sandman ongoing, but it's an excellent form of
>> character development.
Mikko:
>Just about as excellent as turning Spider-Man to a supervillain.
That didn't make any sense. You're obviously overlooking the actual STORIES
behind Sandman's change.
If there was a sensible story behind Spider-Man becoming a bad guy and it
worked, I could accept that just as easily as I could accept Sandman's
reformation.
Try opening yourself up to change for once.
James Moar
<mait...@alpha.hut.fi> wrote:
>Sandman as a hero is just as good concept as Lex Luthor as a hero
>or Ming as a hero or Magica De Spell as a hero or Ultron as a
>hero or Red Skull as a hero.
Actually, I think some of those might make interesting heroes.
>It just doesn't fit.
>
>
>/Mikko
>
--
James Moar
"Hey, what's on the other side of this here wormhole?"
- Cletus the slack-jawed starship captain.
Wolf031877
>I'm not talking about the quality of the story or if the story
>elements explained why Sandman became a superhero.
>
>I'm just objecting to the idea. I don't understand how Sandman could
>be more interesting and/or better character as a hero than as a
>villain. Sure a writer could turn Magica De Spell to a hero, but
>I don't see any point why that should be done.
So you don't care about the hows and the whys behind it -- you just don't like
the idea, period. Nice open mind you've got there.
Mikko:
>So, I'm asking here that somebody could explain me why they like
>Sandman as a hero more than as a villain.
Personally, I could care less whether Sandman's a hero or a villain. If he's
written well, he can do either just fine. One of the points myself and others
held on the SMB back when Mackie and Byrne returned Sandman to villainy wasn't
that he WAS bad again, but in HOW it was brought about. I'd have had no
problem with it if the story respected Sandman's past appearances and what
happened in them.
His change to good did. His change back to bad did not.
>> Some of these are good to go back too (Cap's Shield, Beast being blue
>> and furry), some wipe out years of careful personality growth. The
>> Hulk and Sandman's current conditions are cases of that.
Mikko:
>I hope you understand that you're talking about your subjective
>opinion. If you think that it's sometimes good to go back you
>_have_ to accept that you're not going to like _all_ the stuff that
>"goes back".
Um, where did he say or act like it was anything BUT his opinion? Also, aren't
all opinions going to be naturally subjective, by definition?
Mikko:
>It's called a shared universe. Not all writers are going to write
>the characters the way you like. I think you have to accept that
>if you're going to read stories about shared universe.
This was never being challenged. I don't understand what point there is in you
bringing it up. Seems this is more something you need to accept rather than
anybody else, since you don't seem to be able to comprehend why someone
would've wanted to turn Sandman good. You say you accepted it, but you also
said you don't understand the point of it. Again, nobody here seems to have a
problem accepting that some writers prefer Sandman as a villain. Like I said
before, it all has to do with how the change is executed.
Read the stuff that led up to him turning good again (or for the first time, if
you haven't).
See how he kept getting his rear end handed to him.
See what effect that had on him.
See him do a very realistic thing and actually attempt to make a change for the
better.
Then, if you still can't understand that, I'm afraid there's nothing any of us
can tell you that'll clear it up for you.
Peter Meilinger
: Hurricane Season <hurs...@my-deja.com> writes:
: > It does if you read the watershed moment for him in Marvel TWO IN ONE
: > years ago.
: I'm not talking about the quality of the story or if the story
: elements explained why Sandman became a superhero.
: I'm just objecting to the idea. I don't understand how Sandman could
: be more interesting and/or better character as a hero than as a
: villain. Sure a writer could turn Magica De Spell to a hero, but
: I don't see any point why that should be done.
: So, I'm asking here that somebody could explain me why they like
: Sandman as a hero more than as a villain.
I didn't actually like him too much as a hero, though it didn't bother
me. What I liked him as was a reformed villain. He was a supervillain
for years, but not for any real reason. He was a villain for the same
reason people in the real world are criminals - anger, greed, lack
of legitimate opportunities, whatever. And he got beat up and sent
to jail just about every time he showed his face in public. After
years of that, it's only natural and smart that he started thinking
about getting out of the racket. But he didn't know how. Being a
crook was all he knew how to do. He didn't have to strength to change
his whole way of life.
Until that day he and Ben Grimm shared a beer together and Sandman
actually put all those feelings into words. Then he thanked Ben
for taking the time to talk to him and promised not to fight when
Ben dragged him off to jail. But Ben didn't bring him to jail, he
gave him a second chance instead. And Sandman took that chance and
reformed, over the course of at least one more story (also a damn
good read).
Do you understand why that's so compelling to me? Rehabilitation and
reformation are supposed to be what our society wants its criminals
to strive for. Sandman is the only really good example I can think
of of a Marvel villain actually reforming, trying to make up for
his past mistakes and live a good, normal life without hurting anyone.
It truly boggles my mind that that concept doesn't interest you.
I could understand if you disagreed with the execution (though that
would boggle me too since I think those were some of the best stories
Marvel's ever produced), but the very idea of a supervillain reforming
has no interest for you? I don't get that.
Pete
Wolf031877
the head with this one, especially the last paragraph. Amen, man.
Pete:
Mikko Aittola
mell...@bu.edu (Peter Meilinger) writes:
> Maybe nothing specific about other villains, but it does let the
> readers and the characters know that nothing is set in stone.
There has been many other things in the Marvel universe that
have let the readers and the characters know that nothing is
set in stone. Before Sandman's reformation and after it.
And since we agree that nothing is set in stone...Sandman's
reformation must not be set in stone either, right?
> And if a writer wants to write a story where a reformed villain is
> turned back into a supervillain, there's no need to involve Sandman in
> it.
I was talking about changing a character to something he wasn't.
You're talking about changing a character back to something the
people who created the character defined. There's a difference.
(And, no, I'm not against changing characters. I'm not even
against changing them back.)
> What Byrne did was literally throw out years of characterization.
The Sandman stories, including years of characterization,
before the current developments are still exactly the same as
before. Everybody can read and enjoy those stories as much as they
like.
> If Marvel publishes a series of stories turning Spidey into a villain
> that make as much sense and are as well-written as the ones that
> had Sandman give up the supervillain life, I would indeed call
> it excellent.
I think Spider-Man works well as a hero. I don't see a need to
change him to a supervillain. If writer wants to change an
existing charcter to something he is not, why not create a new
character and change that? The quality of the story would be
exactly the same.
> But after years and years of losing EVERY SINGLE TIME you try a scheme
> and spending most of your life in jail or in hiding, Sandman lost the
> anger and greed. It was most likely beaten out of him by the various
> superheroes who defeated him EVERY SINGLE TIME he went up against them.
> So why exactly wouldn't he want to go straight if he could figure out
> how?
Because he's a bad guy.
With your excuse there wouldn't be any criminals in the Marvel Universe.
Spider-Man comics would be about Uncle Ben and Peter eating Aunt May's
wheatcakes for 22 pages.
/Mikko
Carmen Williams
Bubba2 <armso...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <7v9vug$4mh$1...@msunews.cl.msu.edu>,
> "A.Patyk" <paty...@pilot.msu.edu> wrote:
>
> [stuff snipped]
>
> > Uhm...just jumping in here, but wasn't Sandman totally reformed for
a
> > reeeally long time? Wasn't he even an Avenger and everything? Why
> would
> > they change him back?
> >
> >
> For the same reason they tried the clone fiasco--MONEY!
Unfortunately,
> the Spidey they've created is nothing I want to read, and now they've
> butchered Sandman. I guess next we find out that the Black Panther
> ain't really Black, the Hulk can be cut by Wolverine's bone claws
(oops,
> been done!), the X-Men don't have angst, Aunt May ain't dead (oops,
been
> done too!), Norman Osborne ain't dead (oops again!), Hawkeye is really
> Bullseye who's reformed only he later finds out he was brainwashed,
and
> Daredevil ain't blind!
Don't be ridiculous.
The X-Men will always have angst.
Carmen W.--not actually this cynical, but I couldn't resist the line...
Mikko Aittola
wolf0...@aol.com (Wolf031877) writes:
> Pete, I see you beat me to it with the comments about the reformation making
> sense and all. ;-)
I'm not claiming the reformation doesn't make sense.
I just want to know why people think Sandman the superhero is a better
character than Sandman the supervillain.
/Mikko
Mikko Aittola
wolf0...@aol.com (Wolf031877) writes:
> If there was a sensible story behind Spider-Man becoming a bad guy and it
> worked, I could accept that just as easily as I could accept Sandman's
> reformation.
>
> Try opening yourself up to change for once.
I happen to like Spider-Man being a good guy. I'm funny that way.
/Mikko
Peter Meilinger
: mell...@bu.edu (Peter Meilinger) writes:
: > But after years and years of losing EVERY SINGLE TIME you try a scheme
: > and spending most of your life in jail or in hiding, Sandman lost the
: > anger and greed. It was most likely beaten out of him by the various
: > superheroes who defeated him EVERY SINGLE TIME he went up against them.
: > So why exactly wouldn't he want to go straight if he could figure out
: > how?
: Because he's a bad guy.
So once a bad guy, always a bad guy? So what, Sandman was born evil
or something? Do you believe rehabilitation is possible for ANY
criminal?
: With your excuse there wouldn't be any criminals in the Marvel Universe.
No, not at all. There are plenty of criminals in the real world, where
the consequences of failure tend to be a helluva lot more serious than
in comic books. There are a whole lot of reasons people become criminals
and a whole lot of reasons they choose to stop being criminals. Sandman's
wasn't even all that unique - he was just sick and tired of the life
he'd been leading. It wasn't what he wanted to be doing any more.
Here's an honest question - can you simply not imagine a criminal (real
world or comic books, I don't care) becoming fed up with the way
his life is going and trying to change it? Because that's what I and
I think many others are getting out of your posts on this subject.
Pete
Carmen Williams
wolf0...@aol.com (Wolf031877) wrote:
> >> I'm not saying I want a Sandman ongoing, but it's an excellent form
of
> >> character development.
>
> Mikko:
> >Just about as excellent as turning Spider-Man to a supervillain.
>
> That didn't make any sense. You're obviously overlooking the actual
STORIES
> behind Sandman's change.
>
it
> worked, I could accept that just as easily as I could accept Sandman's
> reformation.
You could? Really? Mind you, I don't think that this is a reasonable
comparison to draw in the first place, and I think your point about the
quality of the stories developing the reformation is well-taken. But if
you could actually accept Spidey becoming a villain--for keeps, in the
regular continuity--even if the story behind it was the WATCHMEN of the
Spider-books...well, I kind of think you're in the minority there.
Carmen W.
Mario Di Giacomo
a hero has to stay the same, issue after issue. All I ask is that his
present flow naturally from his past [it's called character
development].
If I am interpreting your position correctly, characters like
Quicksilver, Scarlet Witch, Black Widow, Hawkeye, the Thunderbolts, and
the Silver Surfer should all still be villains.
By this token *no* criminal should ever reform. After all, they are
villains, right? Prisons just take them out of circulation for a
while..no one actually thinks that a felon might actually *learn* from
the experience..maybe try to become a better person.
Bottom line: Byrne did his usual "change the past to fit the story" as
opposed to 'write a story that fits the past". I'm sure you'll
disagree, Mikko..your fondness for his work is apparent.
mdg
Paulo Costa
>> OK, I can actually live with this as a rationale (haven't read the story
>> itself), particularly assuming the Wizard used the ID machine from the
>> early 40s of the FF which he used to turn the Thing bad for a few
issues.
>> Both because this would be an established way of doing it, and because
>> Reed Richards knows how to fix it. Capture Sandman, call in Reed, and
he's
>> back to good.
>>
>> Also, if the story is being told by Sandman without corroboration,
there's
>> still a very simple way of retconning this whole thing, even using a
>> Byrne method.
>>
>> Namely, the current "Sandman" is a Skrull. After all, except for Mr.
>> Fantastic, Sandman's got about the easiest powers for a Skrull to
emulate.
>> Skrulls are currently active even (see Wolverine).
>
>Or maybe he's a Space Phantom...
>
>But frankly, I don't understand why people think Sandman makes
>a good and interesting superhero.
>
>I think Stan Lee and Steve Ditko created a whole bunch of great
>Spider-Man villains. Doc Ock, Vulture, Mysterio, Green Goblin and
>Sandman. They've all been my favorites along with Hobgoblin since
>I started to read Spider-Man. When I read the Lee/Ditko stories and
>the later stories drawn by Romita Sr. I just don't understand why
>somebody could think that those characters would get better by turning
>them to heroes.
>
>Sandman as a hero is just as good concept as Lex Luthor as a hero
>or Ming as a hero or Magica De Spell as a hero or Ultron as a
>hero or Red Skull as a hero.
Let's compare the type of villains each one is, in terms of personality:
Sandman - common street thug
Lex Luthor - megalomaniac manipulative corporate owner
Ming - merciless dictator
Magica de Spell - scheming sorceress in quest to enhance her magical powers
Ultron - robot with a hatred for humanity
What could turn them good?
Sandman - someone giving him a chance and showing him respect
Lex Luthor - complete world domination
Ming - nothing, he revels in death and suffering
Magica de Spell - she'll never succeed in getting Scrooge's #1 dime, so
it's a moot point
Ultron - extinction of the human race
--
Paulo Costa
Jar Jar Binks wasn't THAT annoying.
Handbook of Marvel Creators: http://welcome.to/homc
Squadron Supreme: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/4489
Mikko Aittola
mell...@bu.edu (Peter Meilinger) writes:
> Do you understand why that's so compelling to me? Rehabilitation and
> reformation are supposed to be what our society wants its criminals
> to strive for. Sandman is the only really good example I can think
> of of a Marvel villain actually reforming, trying to make up for
> his past mistakes and live a good, normal life without hurting anyone.
Sandman being a mercenary or an Avenger is "normal life without
hurting anyone"? :-)
To tell that kind of story, a writer could create his own
character instead of using, say, Sandman. If a writer chooses
to use Sandman, a shared universe character, it's probable
that the story isn't "set in stone". Which basicly means
that at some point comes another writer who happens to like
Sandman the way he was before.
To use an another example, look at Iron Man. Tony Stark
was brought back as well.
> It truly boggles my mind that that concept doesn't interest you.
> I could understand if you disagreed with the execution (though that
> would boggle me too since I think those were some of the best stories
> Marvel's ever produced), but the very idea of a supervillain reforming
> has no interest for you? I don't get that.
I never said supervillain reforming as a concept doesn't interest me.
I just happen to like Sandman as a bad guy. I understood that Tom Galloway,
in his reply to Tom Brevoort's message, said that he'd like Sandman
to be a good guy. Then I replied, because I'm interested why he (and
other's who I've heard share Galloway's opinion) think Sandman would be
better as a good guy.
/Mikko
Mikko Aittola
Not necessarily.
> Do you believe rehabilitation is possible for ANY
> criminal?
It's possible.
> No, not at all. There are plenty of criminals in the real world, where
> the consequences of failure tend to be a helluva lot more serious than
> in comic books. There are a whole lot of reasons people become criminals
> and a whole lot of reasons they choose to stop being criminals. Sandman's
> wasn't even all that unique - he was just sick and tired of the life
> he'd been leading. It wasn't what he wanted to be doing any more.
For the 5th time, I'm not arguing that Sandman's reformation story
doesn't make sense. I'm saying I like Sandman being a bad guy.
What I want to know is: Why should Sandman be changed to a good
guy again?
> Here's an honest question - can you simply not imagine a criminal (real
> world or comic books, I don't care) becoming fed up with the way
> his life is going and trying to change it? Because that's what I and
> I think many others are getting out of your posts on this subject.
I hope the paragraph I wrote above clears up what I'm trying to say.
/Mikko
Mikko Aittola
> Quicksilver, Scarlet Witch, Black Widow, Hawkeye, the Thunderbolts, and
> the Silver Surfer should all still be villains.
You're not interpreting my position correctly. Not even close.
/Mikko
Peter Meilinger
: mell...@bu.edu (Peter Meilinger) writes:
: > So once a bad guy, always a bad guy?
: Not necessarily.
: > Do you believe rehabilitation is possible for ANY
: > criminal?
: It's possible.
: > No, not at all. There are plenty of criminals in the real world, where
: > the consequences of failure tend to be a helluva lot more serious than
: > in comic books. There are a whole lot of reasons people become criminals
: > and a whole lot of reasons they choose to stop being criminals. Sandman's
: > wasn't even all that unique - he was just sick and tired of the life
: > he'd been leading. It wasn't what he wanted to be doing any more.
: For the 5th time, I'm not arguing that Sandman's reformation story
: doesn't make sense. I'm saying I like Sandman being a bad guy.
And I liked him as a reformed villain.
: What I want to know is: Why should Sandman be changed to a good
: guy again?
Because that's the way I like him.
Not much of a reason, is it? But it's the same reason you give
for wanting him to be a bad guy.
I had no real problem with Sandman as a bad guy. He was a pretty
good villain, good powers, okay personality. But he didn't do much
for me as a character. Then came the reformation stories, and I
really liked those. Not because he was becoming a good guy but because
he was actually changing and growing as a character, and I think for
the better. I liked the character he ended up being better than the
villain he started out as. That's why I wish he'd never been changed
back to a bad guy. You liked the villain he started out as better
than the character he turned into. That's fine by me.
Pete
Wolf031877
>And since we agree that nothing is set in stone...Sandman's
>reformation must not be set in stone either, right?
Nobody claimed it was. Nobody here has said "THEY CAN'T MAKE HIM BAD AGAIN!"
>> And if a writer wants to write a story where a reformed villain is
>> turned back into a supervillain, there's no need to involve Sandman in
>> it.
Mikko:
>I was talking about changing a character to something he wasn't.
>You're talking about changing a character back to something the
>people who created the character defined. There's a difference.
>(And, no, I'm not against changing characters. I'm not even
>against changing them back.)
And who are you to suggest that Sandman couldn't change from his villainous
ways just because he started out that way? Obviously, he did change, and he
changed in a realistic way. You imply that Sandman was changed to something
he's not, and I don't buy it.
>> What Byrne did was literally throw out years of characterization.
Mikko:
>The Sandman stories, including years of characterization,
>before the current developments are still exactly the same as
>before. Everybody can read and enjoy those stories as much as they
>like.
You're dodging. The stories are still out there, yes. However, that WAS
thrown out in the interest of a half-assed retcon by Mackie and Byrne.
You've used this ridiculous line of "reasoning" before, never to much success.
Thankfully, Tom Brevoort came along and was able to at least fix things just a
bit with his brief story in the latest PP:SM.
>> If Marvel publishes a series of stories turning Spidey into a villain
>> that make as much sense and are as well-written as the ones that
>> had Sandman give up the supervillain life, I would indeed call
>> it excellent.
Mikko:
>I think Spider-Man works well as a hero. I don't see a need to
>change him to a supervillain.
Who cares whether you see a need to change him to a villain (super or not)?
That's not meant to be a knock on you because I could say I don't see the need
for it either, but if Marvel decided to do it, they'd do it regardless of what
you or I felt
Mikko:
>If writer wants to change an
>existing charcter to something he is not, why not create a new
>character and change that? The quality of the story would be
>exactly the same.
No, the quality would not be exactly the same. People won't be as attached to
a brand new character changing as they would if a well-known one was changed.
Changing a well-known character would create a lot more attention than making
Generic Bad Guy, having him undergo a realization about himself in his second
appearance, and become Generic Good Guy.
Once again, it also has a lot to do with how well a change is pulled off.
Let's not forget that. The reason the Sandman reformation worked was because
it was done well, and done in a believable fashion. Sandman was not changed
into something he wasn't (or couldn't be), because he had the ability to
change, and did.
>> But after years and years of losing EVERY SINGLE TIME you try a scheme
>> and spending most of your life in jail or in hiding, Sandman lost the
>> anger and greed. It was most likely beaten out of him by the various
>> superheroes who defeated him EVERY SINGLE TIME he went up against them.
>> So why exactly wouldn't he want to go straight if he could figure out
>> how?
Mikko:
>Because he's a bad guy.
Sorry, but it's not as black and white as you want it to be. We're talking
good writing here, buddy. Sandman kept getting mashed and it had an effect on
him. He's obviously NOT a two-dimensional half-wit who's going to go out and
keep getting his butt handed to him over and over again.
However, that's how Byrne wants him to be.
Mikko:
>With your excuse there wouldn't be any criminals in the Marvel Universe.
>Spider-Man comics would be about Uncle Ben and Peter eating Aunt May's
>wheatcakes for 22 pages.
You're not making any sense. Just because one villain reformed, this does not
mean they all will. Stop being obtuse.
Wolf031877
>> If I am interpreting your position correctly, characters like
>> Quicksilver, Scarlet Witch, Black Widow, Hawkeye, the Thunderbolts, and
>> the Silver Surfer should all still be villains.
Mikko:
>You're not interpreting my position correctly. Not even close.
Then you haven't defined your position well enough. You act like Sandman
should remain a villain because that's the way he was when he first appeared.
Going with that, Mario's above words are more than valid.
Wolf031877
>I happen to like Spider-Man being a good guy. I'm funny that way.
Hey -- I like him as a good guy as well, but I'm not going to say flat out that
I could never accept him going bad if a good enough story was presented to do
that.
Besides, you said yourself in another post that "If a writer chooses
to use Sandman, a shared universe character, it's probable
that the story isn't "set in stone". Which basicly means
that at some point comes another writer who happens to like
Sandman the way he was before."
Going with that, we could easily see Spider-Man go bad for a while because at
some point another writer would probably come along who'd make him good again.
So where's the problem?
Wolf031877
>You could? Really? Mind you, I don't think that this is a reasonable
>comparison to draw in the first place, and I think your point about the
>quality of the stories developing the reformation is well-taken. But if
>you could actually accept Spidey becoming a villain--for keeps, in the
>regular continuity--even if the story behind it was the WATCHMEN of the
>Spider-books...well, I kind of think you're in the minority there.
Oh, I wouldn't be expecting Spider-Man to stay bad for good if this happened
(big, big if). I didn't expect Sandman to stay good forever either. All I'm
saying is I'd prefer to see a reasonable, well-thought explanation for any
changes rather than "Well, I don't like him this way, so back he goes to how he
used to be!" along with a subpar explanation for it.
Wolf031877
>Let's compare the type of villains each one is, in terms of personality:
>
>Sandman - common street thug
>Lex Luthor - megalomaniac manipulative corporate owner
>Ming - merciless dictator
>Magica de Spell - scheming sorceress in quest to enhance her magical powers
>Ultron - robot with a hatred for humanity
>
>What could turn them good?
>
>Sandman - someone giving him a chance and showing him respect
>Lex Luthor - complete world domination
>Ming - nothing, he revels in death and suffering
>Magica de Spell - she'll never succeed in getting Scrooge's #1 dime, so
>it's a moot point
>Ultron - extinction of the human race
I think this one deserves a well-earned "'Nuff said!"
Tom Galloway
Mikko Aittola <mait...@alpha.hut.fi> wrote:
>I just happen to like Sandman as a bad guy. I understood that Tom Galloway,
>in his reply to Tom Brevoort's message, said that he'd like Sandman
>to be a good guy. Then I replied, because I'm interested why he (and
>other's who I've heard share Galloway's opinion) think Sandman would be
>better as a good guy.
Sandman himself, I don't particularly care one way of the other, in the
abstract sense.
However, he represents something very rare in the Marvel U, pre-Thunderbolts.
Namely, a longtime (clear back to Spidey #4) villain reforming in a good,
appropriate to his character, way and staying such over an extended (at
least ten years now) period. Yes, I know about Cap's Kooky Quartet and the
Swordsman, but, in reverse order, the Swordsman's been dead for 25 years
now, Hawkeye was never a true villain, just a dupe, and the Scarlet Witch
and Quicksilver were always somewhat reluctant villains, and also turned
after fewer than ten appearances. He's interesting as a good guy for the
same reason that the Tbolts are interesting; how much is he trusted? How
do other villains feel about his going over to the other side? How does he
get along with people who he's tried to kill or maim in the past and who
his previous interaction with was their trying to beat him up. Also, he's
a blue collar street brawler type, and outside of Ben Grimm, he's not that
similar to most heroes in personality or background, increasing the potential
tension in interacting with them. I've been honestly surprised that Sandman
has never even been mentioned in Tbolts so far.
Or, to put is as basically as possible, Sandman's reformation made the
character massively better defined and interesting than he ever was as
a one-dimensional bad guy, the latter of which is what he's been returned
to (his being good has no effect on his current persona; it's the same as
if he'd always stayed a villain. Bad characterization.)
It's very possible to do a good story about Sandman going bad again. A nice
slippery slope where he takes the easy way out and uses his powers. Or he
gradually gets tired of being an outcast from both the super-hero and
super-villain communities. Heck, see the Steeljack story currently going
on in Astro City where Steeljack could've quite plausibly "turned bad" again
at any number of points in the story. And it still would've been a good
story, just a different one.
But if you're going to do a story about Sandman turning bad again, it's a
*bad story* to have him just turn bad in what amounts to waking up one morning
and going "What the heck, I think I'll be eeeeee-vil again". TomB's Wizard
and the ID Machine retcon story at least gives some rationale to what
happened, but, to be honest, makes it even more imperative that Sandman
get cured of the effects as he'll now be back to square one in terms of trust
by super-heroes and normals. He could easily end up sinking back into
villainy. But if so, hopefully it'll be done in a fashion that makes me care
about the character rather than going "What the heck is going on here?" as
the "Oh, by the way, I'm eeee-vil again, don't bother to ask why" method
originally used this time did, which only served to lessen Sandman as a
character rather than enhance him.
tyg t...@netcom.com
GI Trekker
slapping these kind of stupid ideas down *hard* before they're printed?>>
There obviously should be.
<<Sandman's reformation was all just...pretend?! What? So well-acted that
even his thought balloons completely didn't reveal his *Evil Master Plan*?
What a load. It was cool to see Sandman reform, work with Silver Sable,
etc. and become an actual hero. This just cheapens all of these events and
the storylines he was involved in. I guess his rabid defense of Spider-Man
in Avengers #1 was all just part of the "act," too? *sigh*>>
AGREED! I like Byrne's artwork, although I haven't been following his
Spider-Man tales. But if he's pulling a continuity glitch like turning the
Sandman evil again, or more accurately, making his years as a hero one big
joke, then Byrne's believing his press releases too much same as Claremont
ruining the Fantastic Four.
Hurricane Season
>
>
> Sandman being a mercenary or an Avenger is "normal life without
> hurting anyone"? :-)
>
hurting anyone," okay Mr. Semantics? :P
>
I'm interested why he (and
> other's who I've heard share Galloway's opinion) think Sandman would
be
> better as a good guy.
Because it would be a sign that reformation actually and occasionally
WORKS.
Like I said before, nothing in comics seems permanent. Marriages come
and go, people die and get better, and criminals reform and return to
crime. It would be nice to have a couple of instances of each of these
where they do seem to be relatively permanent. Example: The Richards
have one of the few marriages in all of Marvel that seems to have
weathered the test of time. Bucky is one of the only heroes to stay
dead (please don't deluge the newsgroup with other examples, this is
off the top of my head) and Sandman is the rare criminal that should
have stayed reformed.
Going back a few posts, let me respond to some of your other challenges.
I never said blue and furry was the Beast's original configuration. I
said that when he changed back it was doomed.
Of course we are talking about subjective opinions here. You realize
(of course) that YOUR opinion is subjective too. It such an obvious
thing that I don't understand why you brought it up (btw, water is wet
also :) )
-
-------------------------
As a dreamer of dreams and a traveling man, I have chalked up many a mil
(Jimmy Buffett from "Son of a Son of a Sailor")
Mikko Aittola
wolf0...@aol.com (Wolf031877) writes:
> And who are you to suggest that Sandman couldn't change from his villainous
> ways just because he started out that way?
I haven't suggested that. I have suggested that Sandman could as well
stay as a villain forever.
> You imply that Sandman was changed to something he's not, and I don't buy it.
I think there's a difference between bad and good. I think there's a
difference between being a supervillain and being Avengers member.
> The stories are still out there, yes.
Yes.
> However, that WAS thrown out in the interest of
What was thrown out? You just agreeed the stories are still there.
So, what was thrown out?
> Who cares whether you see a need to change him to a villain (super or not)?
I do. I'm not asking anybody else to care.
> a brand new character changing as they would if a well-known one was changed.
Skilled writer could introduce a new character and make him well-known.
That's what Stan Lee and Steve Ditko did, right?
> Changing a well-known character would create a lot more attention than
> making Generic Bad Guy, having him undergo a realization about himself
> in his second appearance, and become Generic Good Guy.
It doesn't have to be a second appearance.
> Once again, it also has a lot to do with how well a change is pulled off.
> Let's not forget that.
Once again, I'm not arguing whether the story worked or not.
I'm just curious to hear why people think Sandman should be changed
to a hero again.
/Mikko
Mikko Aittola
wolf0...@aol.com (Wolf031877) writes:
> Going with that, we could easily see Spider-Man go bad for a while because
> at some point another writer would probably come along who'd make him good
> again.
>
> So where's the problem?
The problem is that it seems some people who liked Sandman as a good guy
have a hard time to accept that he's now a bad guy. But I could be
wrong about that.
The other problem is that if a writer wants to change a character A to
character B, the writer could just as well create a new character C and
change him to character B. That way there's a better chance that the
character stays being a B -- and that's what I understand some people
want in Sandman's case.
Which, in the case of Spider-Man, means that I don't understand what
the benefit of turning Spider-Man to a villain would be.
/Mikko
Mikko Aittola
I'm not arguing about the probability or the reason a villain
turns to a good guy.
I simply happen to like Sandman, Lex Luthor, Ming, Magica De Spell
and Red Skull as bad guys.
I don't understand what the benefit of turning them to good guys
would be.
I'm asking people to explain why they think Sandman should be turned
to a good guy again.
Hope that helps making my position more clear!
/Mikko
Mikko Aittola
Maybe.
> You act like Sandman should remain a villain because that's the way he
> was when he first appeared.
I think Sandman should remain a villain because he's one of my
favorite villains.
I'm asking people who want to turn him to a good guy
explain why they think Sandman should be turned into a
good guy again. Is he a better character that way? Why?
/Mikko
Mikko Aittola
t...@netcom.com (Tom Galloway) writes:
> Sandman himself, I don't particularly care one way of the other, in the
> abstract sense.
I care about him being a villain. If you don't care one way or other
it makes me think why not choose some other character or create a
new one.
> Or, to put is as basically as possible, Sandman's reformation made the
> character massively better defined and interesting than he ever was as
> a one-dimensional bad guy, the latter of which is what he's been returned
> to
I think here we have a pretty massive difference of opinion here, because
I think Sandman, along with Doc Ock, Mysterio, Vulture and Green
Goblin were just about perfect characters back in Lee/Ditko and Lee/Romita
days and IMO not one dimensional at all.
That, again, from my point of view speaks for creating a new character
instead of messing with a one that was, IMO, just fine before.
But I understand your opinion and I thank for the reply.
> (his being good has no effect on his current persona; it's the same as
> if he'd always stayed a villain. Bad characterization.)
I think I'm going to pull my Tony Stark card here at this point. :-)
I haven't noticed being a bad guy affecting Tony Stark's current
persona and I think Kurt Busiek (and Roger Stern) have handled
the character nearly perfectly IMO. Same goes for Mackie and Byrne
in the case of Sandman.
> But if you're going to do a story about Sandman turning bad again, it's a
> *bad story* to have him just turn bad in what amounts to waking up one
> morning and going "What the heck, I think I'll be eeeeee-vil again".
That's not what happened in Mackie's and Byrne's story.
Granted, the story didn't explain what exactly had happened and why.
But there was a clear possibility to explore that further.
Just like in the case of Tony Stark. Then of course, my selfish
view is that there's no immediate need to explain these things because
I never cared about Tony Stark being a bad guy or Sandman being
a good guy. They were just fine being the way they were created.
But like I said, I understand your opinion now and we just
have to agree to disagree. Maybe we'll see Sandman turned in
a good guy -- I can see the possibility exploring the trust
issue between heroes and villains and how they react to Sandman.
But I still wish Marvel would use some other character to
explore that stuff.
/Mikko
Mikko Aittola
Hurricane Season <hurs...@my-deja.com> writes:
> I never said blue and furry was the Beast's original configuration. I
> said that when he changed back it was doomed.
I'm afraid I don't know the Marvel history well enough to know
what you mean.
Do you mean that "it" was doomed when Beast changed from
a furry guy to normal skin guy or when he again changed
from a normal skin guy to a furry guy. I probably haven't
read those stories.
I like Beast both ways. What exactly do you think is doomed now?
/Mikko
Mike McGarvie
wrote:
>> Namely, the current "Sandman" is a Skrull. After all, except for Mr.
>> Fantastic, Sandman's got about the easiest powers for a Skrull to emulate.
>> Skrulls are currently active even (see Wolverine).
>
>Or maybe he's a Space Phantom...
>
>But frankly, I don't understand why people think Sandman makes
>a good and interesting superhero.
>
>I think Stan Lee and Steve Ditko created a whole bunch of great
>Spider-Man villains. Doc Ock, Vulture, Mysterio, Green Goblin and
>Sandman. They've all been my favorites along with Hobgoblin since
>I started to read Spider-Man. When I read the Lee/Ditko stories and
>the later stories drawn by Romita Sr. I just don't understand why
>somebody could think that those characters would get better by turning
>them to heroes.
>
>Sandman as a hero is just as good concept as Lex Luthor as a hero
>or Ming as a hero or Magica De Spell as a hero or Ultron as a
>hero or Red Skull as a hero.
>
>It just doesn't fit.
Hmmm. So you live in a universe where people never change eh? Never
look at the way their lives are going and say to themselves "I could
do better."
If a writer comes along, and goes to the effort of making a character
change their outlook on life, then I dont want to see, twenty years
later, some editor come along and tell me that "He's a villian again -
the way he should be!" Thats just insulting.
The fact is, characters can and do change. If the Sandman had decided
that being good was boring, and we'd seen his change back into a
villain then perhaps it would be alright, but I dont think weve seen
that. He's just suddenly turned evil, with no explanation - and now
the editors are giving us retcons to explain how it happened, because
they were too lazy to give us a brilliant tale about how a man who
turned his life around somehow strayed back to the dark side.
Of course, I should add to all this that I havent read Spidey since
the Clone Saga, and I personally think anyone who actually reads the
sh*t they bundle out now should pretty much shut up if its crap,
because hey - IT IS!
Mike
Hurricane Season
> Do you mean that "it" was doomed when Beast changed from
> a furry guy to normal skin guy or when he again changed
> from a normal skin guy to a furry guy. I probably haven't
> read those stories.
Okay, pretty much everybody realizes the Beast used to look more
human. Then he experimented on himself and became a purple (later blue)
furry, instantaneously healing (beating Wolverine to that by several
years, but it was an aspect later MUCH downplayed) "BEAST".
In the first couple of issues of X-Factor, he was reverted to human
form. This lasted IIRC a couple of years. What I knew even then was
that the reversion was temporary.
What I should have been clearer on is that this was a case in which I
was GLAD it was temporary. I much prefer the blue Beast.
what exactly do you think is doomed now?
Do you mean what changes currently are going to be reverted? If so, I
would say that if THUNDERBOLTS should ever fold (GOD FORBID...really)
some writer with no respect for what has gone before will revert at
least some of these characters back to criminals.
I would also say that eventually Alicia Masters will return to Ben
Grimm.
--
Mikko Aittola
kes...@echidna.id.au (Mike McGarvie) writes:
> Hmmm. So you live in a universe where people never change eh?
No really, no.
> If a writer comes along, and goes to the effort of making a character
> change their outlook on life, then I dont want to see, twenty years
> later, some editor come along and tell me that "He's a villian again -
> the way he should be!" Thats just insulting.
Personally, I don't understand that kind of thinking. Everybody who's
involved in creating the comics have a right to have their opinion.
It isn't any more insulting than to say: "Sandman's a good guy again -
the way he should be!" I can't imagine how one could interpret that
as an insult.
> The fact is, characters can and do change.
Yes. Even Sandman.
> Of course, I should add to all this that I havent read Spidey since
> the Clone Saga, and I personally think anyone who actually reads the
> sh*t they bundle out now should pretty much shut up if its crap,
> because hey - IT IS!
How do you know if you haven't read them?
/Mikko
Carmen Williams
Mikko Aittola <mait...@alpha.hut.fi> wrote:
> > If a writer comes along, and goes to the effort of making a
character
> > change their outlook on life, then I dont want to see, twenty years
> > later, some editor come along and tell me that "He's a villian again
-
> > the way he should be!" Thats just insulting.
>
> Personally, I don't understand that kind of thinking. Everybody who's
> involved in creating the comics have a right to have their opinion.
> It isn't any more insulting than to say: "Sandman's a good guy again -
> the way he should be!" I can't imagine how one could interpret that
> as an insult.
Well, when the stories involved in making him a good guy were sensible
and well-done, and he stayed that way over a long period of time, and
then turning him back into a bad guy was handled really, really badly,
it gets a lot easier. Byrne is perfectly entitled to have an opinion.
He's even entitled, within limits, to write the characters according to
that opinion. But he can't just suddenly say "Sandman's a bad guy
again!" any more than he could suddenly tell us that Peter Parker has
decided to quit superheroing, use his powers to become a money-grubbing
TV personality, and dump Mary Jane for the Black Cat. It doesn't matter
if that's his version of the character; if he's going to go with a
version that contradicts years of previous material, he needs to show
the change and explain how it came about and how it's consistent with
what we've seen before (and at least one person has said they would have
been okay with Sandman's reversion if it *had* been done that way),
because doing anything else shows a serious lack of respect for both the
readers' intelligence and the previous stories. It's not Byrne's
opinion that Mike is saying is insulting--I think, anyway, and he can
correct me if I'm wrong--it's his handling of the situation.
Carmen W.
Paulo Costa
>mell...@bu.edu (Peter Meilinger) writes:
>> Maybe nothing specific about other villains, but it does let the
>> readers and the characters know that nothing is set in stone.
>
>There has been many other things in the Marvel universe that
>have let the readers and the characters know that nothing is
>set in stone. Before Sandman's reformation and after it.
>
>And since we agree that nothing is set in stone...Sandman's
>reformation must not be set in stone either, right?
Right. He could become a villain again. What happens to ex-cons who try to
go straight and can't get a break? They go back to crime.
But Sandman got a break? Why would he want to become a villain again?
Even if hadn't gotten a break, there're better explanations than just "I
was just faking it all along", don't you think?
>> And if a writer wants to write a story where a reformed villain is
>> turned back into a supervillain, there's no need to involve Sandman in
>> it.
>
>I was talking about changing a character to something he wasn't.
>You're talking about changing a character back to something the
>people who created the character defined. There's a difference.
>(And, no, I'm not against changing characters. I'm not even
>against changing them back.)
Changed to something he wasn't? Does that mean you agree with "Once a
criminal, always a criminal?"
>> If Marvel publishes a series of stories turning Spidey into a villain
>> that make as much sense and are as well-written as the ones that
>> had Sandman give up the supervillain life, I would indeed call
>> it excellent.
>
>I think Spider-Man works well as a hero. I don't see a need to
>change him to a supervillain. If writer wants to change an
>existing charcter to something he is not, why not create a new
>character and change that? The quality of the story would be
>exactly the same.
Because if you create a character with the single purpose of changing him,
there's no story. What do I care if a character starts out as villain only
to be almost immediately changed into a hero? Look at Hawkeye.
What we do is take a hardened character, one we know has every reason to be
a criminal, and show him another path.
>> But after years and years of losing EVERY SINGLE TIME you try a scheme
>> and spending most of your life in jail or in hiding, Sandman lost the
>> anger and greed. It was most likely beaten out of him by the various
>> superheroes who defeated him EVERY SINGLE TIME he went up against them.
>> So why exactly wouldn't he want to go straight if he could figure out
>> how?
>
>Because he's a bad guy.
And bad guys will always be bad guys? That's very intolerant, Mikko. Very
intolerant indeed.
Paulo Costa
>
>> Pete, I see you beat me to it with the comments about the reformation
making
>> sense and all. ;-)
>
>I'm not claiming the reformation doesn't make sense.
>
>I just want to know why people think Sandman the superhero is a better
>character than Sandman the supervillain.
We don't think Sandman the superhero is better than Sandman the
supervillain. We think Sandman the REFORMED supervillain is better than
Sandman the supervillain. We don't care if he's a hero. We care whether he
reformed or not.
Mario Di Giacomo
> I'm asking people who want to turn him to a good guy
> explain why they think Sandman should be turned into a
> good guy again. Is he a better character that way? Why?
>
Rehabilitation. Redemption. Growth.
> /Mikko
mdg
Carmen Williams
>
> And bad guys will always be bad guys? That's very intolerant, Mikko.
Very
> intolerant indeed.
I don't think Mikko means that one on a real-world level, though. I
think the point she's making is that Sandman *character* is such a good
villain to her that she doesn't want him to not be a villain, no matter
how good the transition. And I can sort of see her point. I mean,
somebody could probably write about the Joker slowly being cured of his
madness by some means, and having to deal with all the horrible things
he's done, and trying to set up a normal life and all. And it would
very likely be a great story, but it wouldn't necessarily be worth
losing the Joker as a villain for. However, this sort of thing is
deeply subjective, so it's difficult to argue with. And it doesn't
really address the bad handling of how he was made a villain again.
Tom Galloway
Mikko Aittola <mait...@alpha.hut.fi> wrote:
>I simply happen to like Sandman, Lex Luthor, Ming, Magica De Spell
>and Red Skull as bad guys.
>
>I don't understand what the benefit of turning them to good guys
>would be.
In the case of Lex, it was a significant addition/expansion of his character
when he became a good guy [1], and two other excellent stories (one Imaginary)
[2-3] also played off him going good in different ways.
[1] In the mid-60s, Lex and Superman travelled to a planet under a red sun so
Lex could fight Superman physically on even terms. Lex fell in love with Adora,
a native woman, and worked to revive the decayed culture and try to find a
water supply for the drying planet. He even threw away a victory against
Superman so that Superman could direct space ice to the planet for a water
supply. He eventually returned and married Adora. The character addition was
that Luthor had a place, a whole planet (renamed Lexor to boot), which
considered him a hero, but he still was so obsessed with killing Superman
that he couldn't just stay there.
[2] The 1960s Death of Superman story, where Luthor cures cancer, gets
paroled, seems to have reformed to the point where other criminals are all
trying to assassinate him...and then uses this to lure Superman into a trap
where he kills him with Kryptonite. He's then captured by Supergirl, put on
trial in Kandor (a chilling scene where Luthor mentally regards the entire
court and its persona as "puny ants"), tries to bribe Kandor with enlarging
the city, and is turned down and sent into the Phantom Zone
[3] An 80s story where he seemingly reforms due to the love of a good woman,
but it was actually a case where he'd hypnotized himself to do so, cloned a
woman dying of an incurable disease, and biologically made her a deathtrap
for Superman...who only escaped it because he realized that Luthor had
seemingly forgotten his marriage to Adora and her very existance. At the end
of the story, the hypnosis is reversed, but it closes with Lex crying over
the loss of the woman.
tyg t...@netcom.com
Mikko Aittola
"Paulo Costa" <darkm...@mail.telepac.pt> wrote lost of stuff:
Paulo, I've written several messages to this thread yesterday.
The answers to ALL of your comments/claims/questions can be found in
them in plain old English.
I think that it's amazing how you can interpret pretty much
everything I've said wrong (assuming you've actually read
the posts in this thread -- sorry if you haven't).
Thanks again for Tom Galloway for actually answering to the
IMO simple question/comment I made.
/Mikko
Paul O'Brien
<mait...@alpha.hut.fi> writes
>
>I just want to know why people think Sandman the superhero is a better
>character than Sandman the supervillain.
I don't think either is inherently better. What I object to is the
present attempt to erase previous character development and pretend
it never happened. I'd feel the same way if Byrne was erasing a
criminal relapse and painting the sympathetic and heroic Sandman as
the one and only approach to the character.
The way it comes across, to me at least, is that it's not enough for
Byrne to make the character the way he wants. He actually feels
compelled to erase everybody else's interpretation as well. This is
one of the reasons why I walk away from many of his stories not with
a sense of entertainment but a nagging feeling of "arrogant little
man - hope I never get caught in a lift with him."
Paul O'Brien
THE X-AXIS REVIEWS - http://www.esoterica.demon.co.uk
The law will get there.
Mikko Aittola
Hurricane Season <hurs...@my-deja.com> writes:
> In the first couple of issues of X-Factor, he was reverted to human
> form. This lasted IIRC a couple of years.
Yeah. Now I remember. I haven't read much X-Factor stuff with
the original lineup, though.
> Do you mean what changes currently are going to be reverted?
No. :-) I thought you meant that Beast is now doomed and
I couldn't understand why. LOL
/Mikko
Roger B.A. Klorese
wrote:
>
>Mario Di Giacomo <m...@ids.net> writes:
>> If I am interpreting your position correctly, characters like
>> Quicksilver, Scarlet Witch, Black Widow, Hawkeye, the Thunderbolts, and
>> the Silver Surfer should all still be villains.
>
>You're not interpreting my position correctly. Not even close.
OK, then. The statically-described "Sandman the suprerhero" and
"Sandman the supervillain" are not particularly interesting
characters. The changing "Sandman the superpowered guy who is
struggling to have the strength to stay on the good side of the law"
is a very interesting character, *because* there's inherent
development and struggle.
Raymond Down
character he gets his hands on. Sandman, Spider-Man, the Hulk...
What next take Captain America and say he wasn't "created" in W.W.II.
Instead he was the "by-product" of the chemical agents used during the Gulf
War.
Or maybe Tony Stark was a member of a gang and created the Iron Man armor
after he was stabbed by a rival gang members
or maybe take Thor and ..........................
The point is that these characters have lasted because their origins were
great. If a character had a lame origin then they usually only last a few
issues at best. I mean look at "Factor Three" these guy recently mentioned
in Thunderbolt recently, appeared years ago, and most people probably
figured they were dead, because no one cared about them and the disappeared
Wolf031877
Mikko:
>What was thrown out? You just agreeed the stories are still there.
>So, what was thrown out?
The significance of Sandman's reformation no longer means what it meant before
the Mackie/Byrne retcon. Stop playing this game, please. The stories are
still out there, but the meaning is lost when so many years of development are
cast aside in the interest of simply turning the guy bad again just to do it.
>> a brand new character changing as they would if a well-known one was
>changed.
Mikko:
>Skilled writer could introduce a new character and make him well-known.
>That's what Stan Lee and Steve Ditko did, right?
Sure they did. But the characters didn't become well-known overnight.
>> Changing a well-known character would create a lot more attention than
>> making Generic Bad Guy, having him undergo a realization about himself
>> in his second appearance, and become Generic Good Guy.
Mikko:
>It doesn't have to be a second appearance.
I'm aware of that. I was using an example.
You're catching yourself in a trap, here. Creating another character that
spends a good amount of time one way and becomes known that way, then changing
him -- it's no different than the Sandman case. You'd probably complain about
that too, saying "Why not make a new character if you want to just change him?"
when that's exactly what was done.
The only way to get around people complaining that a character who'd been known
a certain way was changed all of a sudden would be to make that new one and
change him quickly. Letting him stay the same way for very long will just
bring complaints from those that hate change.
Mikko:
>Once again, I'm not arguing whether the story worked or not.
>I'm just curious to hear why people think Sandman should be changed
>to a hero again.
Nobody I can see has been saying Sandman should be changed back to a hero
again. I certainly haven't said that. The complaints have centered around the
way he was returned to being bad.
You've had a number of people explain that to you both here and back on the SMB
when this was a topic following the comic in which he went bad again.
Wolf031877
>The problem is that it seems some people who liked Sandman as a good guy
>have a hard time to accept that he's now a bad guy. But I could be
>wrong about that.
I think you are. I accept he's bad again. I don't like the way it was done.
That's all.
>The other problem is that if a writer wants to change a character A to
>character B, the writer could just as well create a new character C and
>change him to character B. That way there's a better chance that the
>character stays being a B -- and that's what I understand some people
>want in Sandman's case.
Like I said in another post, the impact of doing such a thing is not going to
be the same if you just change a character that's brand new, one very few
people care about.
>Which, in the case of Spider-Man, means that I don't understand what
>the benefit of turning Spider-Man to a villain would be.
To surprise people, to tell a good story if there's one to be told, etc.
There's no rule that I know of that says he's got to remain a hero forever.
Effective tales have been told that had the good guy going bad for a period of
time. All I'm saying is that if there's a reasonable explanation behind
something like that happening temporarily, why not?
Wolf031877
>I think Sandman should remain a villain because he's one of my
>favorite villains.
Well, we're all allowed to be selfish in our own ways, I suppose...
>I'm asking people who want to turn him to a good guy
>explain why they think Sandman should be turned into a
>good guy again. Is he a better character that way? Why?
Once again, I don't see anybody demanding Sandman be turned back into a good
guy again just because they didn't like the way he was turned bad again.
Wolf031877
>The way it comes across, to me at least, is that it's not enough for
>Byrne to make the character the way he wants. He actually feels
>compelled to erase everybody else's interpretation as well.
I'm just waiting for Mikko's usual question of "How is he erasing anything?
Aren't the other comics still out there?"
darkmas...@my-deja.com
> would be.
>
Sandman should be turned
> to a good guy again.
>
> Hope that helps making my position more clear!
We understand your position. Sandman is one of
your favorite villains.
I don't object to Sandman being a bad guy. I just
don't like it when someone erases character
history just because he feels like it.
Sandman can become a villain again, but it can't
be done with a sentence "I was faking it all
along."
Some kind of explanation like "Nobody gave me any
breaks. So, I go back to what I did best."
Paulo Costa - darkmasters at mail.telepac.pt
darkmas...@my-deja.com
Mikko Aittola <mait...@alpha.hut.fi> wrote:
>
> "Paulo Costa" <darkm...@mail.telepac.pt> wrote lost of stuff:
>
> Paulo, I've written several messages to this thread yesterday.
> The answers to ALL of your comments/claims/questions can be found in
> them in plain old English.
I had missed your (and everybody else's) messages. My news server has
gone bonkers, and I'm posting via Deja temporarily.
> I think that it's amazing how you can interpret pretty much
> everything I've said wrong (assuming you've actually read
> the posts in this thread -- sorry if you haven't).
>
> Thanks again for Tom Galloway for actually answering to the
> IMO simple question/comment I made.
I prefer Sandman has a reformed villain, but I can accept if he goes
back to being a villain if it's done well. What has happened recently
was not.
In fact, from all this mess it may just happen that he *has* to go back
to being a villain again. After all, who can trust him. It's not his
fault, but people don't know it.
darkmas...@my-deja.com
Anthony Isabella
>[3] An 80s story where he seemingly reforms due to the love of a good woman,
>but it was actually a case where he'd hypnotized himself to do so, cloned a
>woman dying of an incurable disease, and biologically made her a deathtrap
>for Superman...who only escaped it because he realized that Luthor had
>seemingly forgotten his marriage to Adora and her very existance. At the end
>of the story, the hypnosis is reversed, but it closes with Lex crying over
>the loss of the woman.<<<
I have always felt that this story and the "Return of Pa Kent" story
that came just before it could have been exciting turning points for
the Superman comic books. If Pa Kent had remained in the stories,
then the readers would have believed that Luthor could, indeed,
reform. And, if Luthor *had* reformed, suddenly, anything could have
happened in the Superman books.
If DC had then continued with what would have been a very exciting
trend, I think the John Byrne reboot might not have been necessary.
Because, for all the good things Byrne brought to the character, there
were just as many ill-considered changes-for-the-sake-of-change.
Tony Isabella
http://www.wfcomics.com/tony
Read "Routine" by Tony Isabella in STAR WARS TALES #2, coming in
December from Dark Horse Comics.
>
>tyg t...@netcom.com
darkmas...@my-deja.com
Mikko Aittola <mait...@alpha.hut.fi> wrote:
>
> "Paulo Costa" <darkm...@mail.telepac.pt> wrote lost of stuff:
>
> Paulo, I've written several messages to this thread yesterday.
> The answers to ALL of your comments/claims/questions can be found in
> them in plain old English.
>
> everything I've said wrong (assuming you've actually read
> the posts in this thread -- sorry if you haven't).
I hadn't. My news server has gone bonkers and I had to use Deja as a
back-up measure.
> Thanks again for Tom Galloway for actually answering to the
> IMO simple question/comment I made.
Maybe the time is right to make Sandman a villain again. With all this
mess, who's gonna trust our boy William B.?
Trinity
> And bad guys will always be bad guys? That's very intolerant, Mikko. Very
> intolerant indeed.
Let's settle one thing right now: You -cannot be intolerant of a comic
book character.- It's time to leave the house more if you're actually
spending any quantifiable amount of time worrying about "hurting the
feelings" of your favorite supervillian. =P
> Paulo Costa
> Jar Jar Binks wasn't THAT annoying.
Actually, he really, really was. =)
A.Patyk
Mikko Aittola wrote in message ...
>
>Because he's a bad guy.
>
That's just stupid. So I guess no one can ever change?
Sandman is more interesting as a super-villain who is trying to reform
because that's the only time he was really interesting at all! Sandman the
super-villain is just another Spidey thug with powers.
Paul O'Brien
tch.com> writes
>I mean look at "Factor Three" these guy recently mentioned
>in Thunderbolt recently, appeared years ago, and most people probably
>figured they were dead, because no one cared about them and the disappeared
Factor Three were an organisation, and most of the other villains
who were in the group have appeared plenty of times since. The
leader hasn't, but since the story hinged on his pretending to be
somebody else and being exposed at the end (at which point he
really becomes just a generic alien invader type), that's not really
surprising.
Eric Stevenson
: For the 5th time, I'm not arguing that Sandman's reformation story
: doesn't make sense. I'm saying I like Sandman being a bad guy.
: What I want to know is: Why should Sandman be changed to a good
: guy again?
Because other people want him to be a good guy?
Look: he was bad, then he was good, now he's bad again. He might as well
go good again. I personally like it when a villain goes good, or a hero
goes bad, if it's done well. I like change. When those changes are
reversed, I get annoyed.
Marvel's current 'concept' of restoring everything to square one disgusts
me. If the writers are incapable of coming up with new ideas, they
shoudln't be writing.
Eric Stevenson
: Mikko:
: >I happen to like Spider-Man being a good guy. I'm funny that way.
: Hey -- I like him as a good guy as well, but I'm not going to say flat out that
: I could never accept him going bad if a good enough story was presented to do
: that.
I could really go for that. I mean, Spider-Man has problems left and
right, no money, not much respect, he's surrounded by the worst of
humanity. The theme for him currently is that he overcomes that because
he's such a true hero. That's good. It would also be good if he finally
cracked up.
Eric Stevenson
: So, I'm asking here that somebody could explain me why they like
: Sandman as a hero more than as a villain.
There have been several attempts to do so. I'll try again.
As a villain, Sandman never impressed me much. He was just another thug.
Spider-Man stories are full of thugs. As a thug trying to reform, Sandman
was much more interesting. Very few villains ever decide to change. It
showed some complexity, instead of the usual one-dimensional motivations
that drive both heroes and villains.
In order to tell a story like this, some villain had to reform. It works
for Sandman. His reformation made sense. If he had eventually failed and
went back to villainy, I'd be disappointed, but I could accept it. To
have him secretly be a villain all along is lame. To have him mind
controlled into being a villain again is lame. Neither of these
explanations is acceptable.
I'm not asking people
: to explain me how good the story was or how villains can turn
: into good guys. I know villains can turn to good guys. I don't
: need to read a story where Sandman is turned into hero to believe that.
: I also know that good guys can turn into villains. I don't need to read
: a story where Superman gets turned into villain to believe that.
Hey, you know Superman can win, and you know he can lose, so let's throw
out all Superman stories where he either wins or loses. I see a big
difference between Sandman and Superman. Superman is a major character,
an icon. Sandman is a disposable supervillain. Any kind of change that
adds to the character is good for him. Turning him back by dismissing
that change is bad because it *removes* the complexity that was added.
Eric Stevenson
: To tell that kind of story, a writer could create his own
: character instead of using, say, Sandman.
The problem is that the story loses most of its value when this is done.
Sandman has a long history, people know who he is. Changing him affects
those people. Creating a character simply to change him is boring,
whether the character is reformed, corrupted, or killed. When the Hulk's
partner Jim Wilson died, it had some effect. When a woman got shot at an
abortion clinic in a later issue of the Hulk, it was boring and
predictable because she was introduced in that very same issue.
Eric Stevenson
: t...@netcom.com (Tom Galloway) writes:
: > Sandman himself, I don't particularly care one way of the other, in the
: > abstract sense.
: I care about him being a villain. If you don't care one way or other
: it makes me think why not choose some other character or create a
: new one.
*Some* character had to be chosen. Creating a new character for the
purpose is uninteresting. It has to be an established character. In this
case, it was Sandman.
Desert Moon
>
> I could really go for that. I mean, Spider-Man has problems left and
> right, no money, not much respect, he's surrounded by the worst of
> humanity. The theme for him currently is that he overcomes that because
> he's such a true hero. That's good. It would also be good if he finally
> cracked up.
Spider-llax! And then he'd try to remake the Bugle after beating the
snot out of every other major NewYork hero, get killed, replaced by some
kid no one ever heard of, fan uproar, he'd be brought back and become
the Living Tribunal?
--
DEsertmoON : DEON : DE_m_ON
-=======}** -<-@ --]=======>
"What is life without a song?"
[www.geocities.com/Area51/Vault/5330/]
[de_m_...@yahoo.com]