"Realism"
David Johnston
uncostumed as the Smallville series got me thinking again
about comic book conventions.
Masks and secret identities:
The archetypical masked hero is Batman. He more or less
invented the concept. Why does he wear a mask?
In theory to protect himself from off-duty criminal retaliation,
and to try to look scary. Both of those theories are little
on the iffy side, since a criminal who tried to come after
a public Bruce in his own customised mansion is liable
to find himself at a considerable disadvantage, and as it
turns out most of his criminals weren't all that cowardly
and superstitious after all. However, there is another
important reason for Bruce to wear a mask and that's
because his activities are known to veer into outright
illegality. Usually having the Commissioner in his pocket
keeps the heat from being on, but the police have come
after him before, and will again.
So that's one perfectly reasonable basis for your hero
to wear a mask. To keep his occasional crimes in the
pursuit of justice from coming home to roost. Similarly
if you live in a world where simply having super powers
can sometimes be a crime, at least if you don't use them
in the service of the State, putting on a mask before
you engage in public demonstrations might be a good
idea. The old Marvel Superheroes penalised your
Popularity if you had a secret I.D., and that makes
quite a lot of sense. Masked men are less likely
to play by the rules when they have the security of
anonymity.
But at the same time in the real world there are
actually crime fighters who wear masks. They just
happen to belong to elite anti-terrorism units. Any
why do they wear masks as part of their uniforms?
Concealment in the dark may play some role.
But the real reasons are to reduce the chance
of off-duty retaliation...and to look scary.
Skin Tight Costumes: The new Flash won't
have one. Audiences think they are goofy.
But are they right? Well consider the case
of the Flash. He routinely accelerates to
at least the vicinity of the speed of sound
in blatant defiance of the laws of inertia
(I understand this Flash actually manipulates
time to achieve his superspeed which seems
like a good justification.). Does a skin tight
costume make sense for such a character?
Damn skippy it does. Have you seen what
speed skaters wear? Luge atheletes?
The faster you go, the more reasonable
it is that you'll want as streamlined a profile
as you can manage. Any character who
can move as fast or faster than a automobile
has a very legitimate reason to prefer a
skin tight costume, and any character
who has superhuman flexibility is probably
going to be hampered by clothing which is
not stretchy.
David Wright
While I agree with a number of your points regards wearing a mask, it is
always worth noting that :
1) Wearing a mask hides your private identity and hence protects those you
love in the event that your arch-enemy may kidnap them etc etc.
2) Not wearing a mask doesn't mean you don't have a secret identity. The
whole Clark Kent / Superman look-alike contest is proof of that.
Masks are a part of the costume of any "caped crusader" and hence should
only be there if they add to the costume. Supes with a mask would look kind
of odd and Batman without one likewise.
Cheers,
Dave
"David Johnston" <rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
news:3f6c1d55...@news.telusplanet.net...
David Johnston
>
> Dave,
>
> While I agree with a number of your points regards wearing a mask, it is
> always worth noting that :
>
> 1) Wearing a mask hides your private identity and hence protects those you
> love in the event that your arch-enemy may kidnap them etc etc.
That's covered under the sphere of "off duty retaliation".
> 2) Not wearing a mask doesn't mean you don't have a secret identity. The
> whole Clark Kent / Superman look-alike contest is proof of that.
Ah but the subject was "realism". Would I allow a well known superhero
in my campaign who took such inadequate measures to not have his secret
identity be revealed? Heck no.
Bryan J. Maloney
Masks: They look really spiffy and are very easy to make distinct when
using a fairly simple and flat art style.
Skin-tight outfits: Reminiscent of circus performers and Robin Hood
paintings of the Pyle era. Likewise, Fairbanks, Sr. tended to wear very
tight pants in his films.
Bryan J. Maloney
thusnews:3F6CE1...@telusplanet.net:
But the measures aren't inadequate. His eyeglasses focus laten Kryptonian
telepathic powers to automatically fool anyone.
Oops, wrong Superman.
Sidhain
> Skin Tight Costumes: The new Flash won't
> have one. Audiences think they are goofy.
> But are they right? Well consider the case
> of the Flash. He routinely accelerates to
> at least the vicinity of the speed of sound
> in blatant defiance of the laws of inertia
> (I understand this Flash actually manipulates
> time to achieve his superspeed which seems
> like a good justification.). Does a skin tight
> costume make sense for such a character?
> Damn skippy it does. Have you seen what
> speed skaters wear? Luge atheletes?
> The faster you go, the more reasonable
> it is that you'll want as streamlined a profile
> as you can manage. Any character who
> can move as fast or faster than a automobile
> has a very legitimate reason to prefer a
> skin tight costume, and any character
> who has superhuman flexibility is probably
> going to be hampered by clothing which is
> not stretchy.
>
Very well put.
Of course I've learned long ago that TV executives and their logic does not
remotely resemble logic of any other member of humanity.
So of course I mean Costumes are wierd people don't understand them--Hence
why oh Spiderman was such an un-popular movie.
And why Hulk had 14 origins because it made it easier to understand! :)
Sea Wasp
>
> Of course I've learned long ago that TV executives and their logic does not
> remotely resemble logic of any other member of humanity.
>
> So of course I mean Costumes are wierd people don't understand them--Hence
> why oh Spiderman was such an un-popular movie.
Spider-man (remember the hyphen) is an example of the RIGHT kind
of costume judgement being used not once, but twice.
First, they recognized that Spidey's honest-to-god real costume
COULD be made to work right... and they did it. Second, they
recognized that the Green Goblin's honest-to-god real costume was of
the sort that ONLY worked in the comics, and that if they went with it
they'd be laughed out of the theater, so they found a way to design a
costume which would have roughly the same effect that the original was
intended to have.
>
>
> And why Hulk had 14 origins because it made it easier to understand! :)
Heh. I was extremely pleasantly surprised by the Hulk movie. Ang
Lee as director had given me cautious optimism, but I wasn't sure it
would work. The ads had some cheesy appearing moments. On the
widescreen, however, the cheesiness mostly disappeared and I spent
most of my time impressed.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
http://www.wizvax.net/seawasp/index.htm
Zachary
just had it, and put it on.
Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote in message
news:3F6CF1B3...@wizvax.net...
David Johnston
>
> The Spiderman movie never did explain how spidy got that fancy costume, he
> just had it, and put it on.
Probably because a scene of Peter at the sewing machine wouldn't have
exactly galvanised the audience.
Sea Wasp
> The Spiderman movie never did explain how spidy got that fancy costume, he
> just had it, and put it on.
>
Other than the long design and construction sequence showing that
he in fact created that design even before his cheapo quickie approach
for the wrasslin'? Once he decided he had to make use of these powers
in the long haul, he went back and made up his much better design.
What, did you want to see him doing every friggin' stitch?
Joseph Teller
Johnston) wrote:
>The introduction of a new "Flash" Tv series which will be as
>uncostumed as the Smallville series got me thinking again
>about comic book conventions.
>
>Masks and secret identities:
>
>The archetypical masked hero is Batman. He more or less
>invented the concept. Why does he wear a mask?
Actually this can be argued as being wrong, as Batman was a much later
creation than some of the pulp characters.
Generally it can be argued that the Scarlet Pimpernel or Zorro are the
original archetypes for the masked hero in Western Literature. (I
prefer Zorro myself).
Joe
--------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Teller joet...@mindspring.com
www.fantasylibrary.com
David Johnston
>
> On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 20:58:44 GMT, rgo...@telusplanet.net (David
> Johnston) wrote:
>
> >The introduction of a new "Flash" Tv series which will be as
> >uncostumed as the Smallville series got me thinking again
> >about comic book conventions.
> >
> >Masks and secret identities:
> >
> >The archetypical masked hero is Batman. He more or less
> >invented the concept. Why does he wear a mask?
>
> Actually this can be argued as being wrong, as Batman was a much later
> creation than some of the pulp characters.
>
> Generally it can be argued that the Scarlet Pimpernel or Zorro are the
> original archetypes for the masked hero in Western Literature. (I
> prefer Zorro myself).
>
The Scarlet Pimpernel didn't wear a mask, except in the sense of
being a master of disguise. Neither did most of the pulp characters
I know of, at least not the well-known ones. Not Doc Savage,
or The Shadow, or the Avenger. The Lone Ranger did...but I'll
be damned if I can figure out why. He had no secret identity
and nothing approaching a rational explanation for his mask
wearing affectation.
Sea Wasp
> The Scarlet Pimpernel didn't wear a mask, except in the sense of
> being a master of disguise.
True, but I'd say the "demmed, elusive Pimpernel" effectively
qualifies as until the end of the book NO ONE had ever seen his real
face except those he intended to see it.
Neither did most of the pulp characters
> I know of, at least not the well-known ones. Not Doc Savage,
> or The Shadow, or the Avenger.
Hmm. I don't know about the original (he was in radio, hard to see
that way) but the pictures I have seen always show him wearing a
wide-brimmed hat and a scarf or something pulled across the lower half
of his face, leaving pretty much only his eyes and the upper part of
his nose exposed. If so, I'd say that counts as a mask beyond any
reasonable argument. You can't see his hair, you can't see most of his
face, all you really see are the eyes.
The Lone Ranger did...but I'll
> be damned if I can figure out why. He had no secret identity
> and nothing approaching a rational explanation for his mask
> wearing affectation.
>
>
My take on that was that it was symbolic. With the mask off, he was
just a man. With it on, he was a symbol. The Lone Ranger was a
statement. Sort of like the later adaptation of Zorro, or the Princess
Bride's Dread Pirate Roberts.
Harold Groot
> The Lone Ranger did...but I'll
>> be damned if I can figure out why. He had no secret identity
>> and nothing approaching a rational explanation for his mask
>> wearing affectation.
> My take on that was that it was symbolic. With the mask off, he was
>just a man. With it on, he was a symbol. The Lone Ranger was a
>statement. Sort of like the later adaptation of Zorro, or the Princess
>Bride's Dread Pirate Roberts.
The Lone Ranger was afraid of family & friends being hurt if his real
identity was known. He was a bit unusual in that he faked his own
death and very seldom had any contact with those he was protecting
this way, but it was still one of the classic reasons for anonymity.
Bryan J. Maloney
thusnews:u6lpmv8m1ufnmelih...@4ax.com:
> Generally it can be argued that the Scarlet Pimpernel or Zorro are the
> original archetypes for the masked hero in Western Literature. (I
> prefer Zorro myself).
Technically, while far older, the Pimpernel did not wear a "mask" or
"costume". He used a variety of disguises. He was much more of a proto-
superspy than a proto-superhero.
Bryan J. Maloney
thusnews:3f6dfd33...@news.west.earthlink.net:
> The Lone Ranger was afraid of family & friends being hurt if his real
> identity was known. He was a bit unusual in that he faked his own
> death and very seldom had any contact with those he was protecting
> this way, but it was still one of the classic reasons for anonymity.
He erased the grave after finally killing the guy and gang who wiped out
his Texas Ranger detachment. His nephew knew his identity.
Hmm... Wears tight clothes, runs around with another guy all the time,
has a nephew as a confidante--Paging Dr. Wertham!
Sidhain
> Hmm... Wears tight clothes, runs around with another guy all the time,
> has a nephew as a confidante--Paging Dr. Wertham!
He's a supervillian in my setting ;)
Peter Meilinger
> Spider-man (remember the hyphen) is an example of the RIGHT kind
>of costume judgement being used not once, but twice.
> First, they recognized that Spidey's honest-to-god real costume
>COULD be made to work right... and they did it. Second, they
>recognized that the Green Goblin's honest-to-god real costume was of
>the sort that ONLY worked in the comics, and that if they went with it
>they'd be laughed out of the theater, so they found a way to design a
>costume which would have roughly the same effect that the original was
>intended to have.
I agree with you about Spidey's costume, but not the Goblin's.
Actually, maybe I do agree. But I don't like it. If they could
have come up with even an ounce of justification for it, I'd
have preferred the real Goblin costume. It's just so much cooler
than a green plastic suit.
I do agree that the movie version worked better in the movie
storyline. But I want my pumpkin bombs, dammit!
Pete
Sea Wasp
The problem, as I'm sure you recognized in your paragraph above, is
that the comic world allows you to do things that don't work in real
life; specifically, wear a nice rubber mask that somehow moves like
it's your real face, with expression and all. In actuality, it'd look
idiotic. And the dress-up he used was even worse, if possible; bad
color combo and cut for RL use. The Hobgoblin was somewhat better.
I agree about pumpkin bombs, though.
Peter Meilinger
>Peter Meilinger wrote:
>> I do agree that the movie version worked better in the movie
>> storyline. But I want my pumpkin bombs, dammit!
> The problem, as I'm sure you recognized in your paragraph above, is
>that the comic world allows you to do things that don't work in real
>life; specifically, wear a nice rubber mask that somehow moves like
>it's your real face, with expression and all. In actuality, it'd look
>idiotic.
CGI! Sure, it'd cost many millions more dollars than the suit
they actually used. Not my problem!
>And the dress-up he used was even worse, if possible; bad
>color combo and cut for RL use. The Hobgoblin was somewhat better.
Probably the only time I'll ever agree that the Hobgoblin was
in any way better than the Green Goblin.
> I agree about pumpkin bombs, though.
Yeah. They got as close as they reasonably could, though,
with the bombs and razor bats both. I'll give them that
much.
Pete
DShomshak
(David Johnston) writes:
>ave you seen what
>speed skaters wear? Luge atheletes?
>The faster you go, the more reasonable
>it is that you'll want as streamlined a profile
>as you can manage.
Back in college, a friend of a friend sometimes practiced skiing on nearby
streets late at night, using skis on rollers. We ribbed him about his scarlet
bodysuit: "Admit it, you're really going out to fight crime!"
Dean Shomshak
DShomshak
>his activities are known to veer into outright
>illegality. Usually having the Commissioner in his pocket
>keeps the heat from being on, but the police have come
>after him before, and will again.
Civil suits, too. Hoo boy, can you imagine the potential? Property damage?
Violating the civil rights of the mentally ill? "Emotional distress"? Paternity
suits from publicity-seeking women? A mob boss or mastermind could pin the
Batman down indefinitely through a barrage of lawsuits filed by proxies.
Dean Shomshak
Sea Wasp
> Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote:
>
>>Peter Meilinger wrote:
>
>
>>>I do agree that the movie version worked better in the movie
>>>storyline. But I want my pumpkin bombs, dammit!
>>
>
>> The problem, as I'm sure you recognized in your paragraph above, is
>>that the comic world allows you to do things that don't work in real
>>life; specifically, wear a nice rubber mask that somehow moves like
>>it's your real face, with expression and all. In actuality, it'd look
>>idiotic.
>
>
> CGI! Sure, it'd cost many millions more dollars than the suit
> they actually used. Not my problem!
That's not the problem. The problem is that he was using a latex
mask. We know what latex masks look like. Making his latex mask
suddenly work like "The Mask" would be WSOD breaking in a film where
you're already loading an awful lot on the WSOD. Again, that would
actually sorta work for the Hobgoblin (Inferno-era) because there IS
magic involved in his powers, so funky magic disguise would work.
I actually like the suit they used. A creepy-looking suit of power
armor makes sense coming from an armament research firm like Oscorp.
>
>
>>And the dress-up he used was even worse, if possible; bad
>>color combo and cut for RL use. The Hobgoblin was somewhat better.
>
>
> Probably the only time I'll ever agree that the Hobgoblin was
> in any way better than the Green Goblin.
Better fashion sense, yes. That's about the only thing. Origin,
>
>
>> I agree about pumpkin bombs, though.
>
>
> Yeah. They got as close as they reasonably could, though,
> with the bombs and razor bats both. I'll give them that
> much.
>
> Pete
Yeah, again, the problem comes from the fact that most of his weapons
are (in the film) supposed to derive from the research they were doing
there. It's really hard to believe that the regular researchers there
would expend huge effort to make bombs look like mini-pumpkins and
razor-attack weapons look like bats. He lost a "villain style" point
or two but in exchange gained credibility, which you REALLY need when
you're doing a superhero film.
Peter Meilinger
>> CGI! Sure, it'd cost many millions more dollars than the suit
>> they actually used. Not my problem!
> That's not the problem. The problem is that he was using a latex
>mask. We know what latex masks look like. Making his latex mask
>suddenly work like "The Mask" would be WSOD breaking in a film where
>you're already loading an awful lot on the WSOD.
It wouldn't have to be like the Mask, but it could've looked better
than a real latext mask. It'd have to be subtle. Which would probably
have cost even more, of course.
> I actually like the suit they used. A creepy-looking suit of power
>armor makes sense coming from an armament research firm like Oscorp.
Yeah, I guess. Was the armor even powered, though? I thought his
strength came from the drugs, and the suit was just armor.
>>> I agree about pumpkin bombs, though.
>>
>> Yeah. They got as close as they reasonably could, though,
>> with the bombs and razor bats both. I'll give them that
>> much.
> Yeah, again, the problem comes from the fact that most of his weapons
>are (in the film) supposed to derive from the research they were doing
>there. It's really hard to believe that the regular researchers there
>would expend huge effort to make bombs look like mini-pumpkins and
>razor-attack weapons look like bats. He lost a "villain style" point
>or two but in exchange gained credibility, which you REALLY need when
>you're doing a superhero film.
I don't know. I could see the techs making the bombs into pumpkins.
"Jenkins, what the hell is that?"
"It's the grenade for the new project, sir."
"Why does it look like a pumpkin?"
"Well, Smith and I were bored, and Halloween is coming up, and
it doesn't actually add anything to the cost per unit, so..."
Pete
Sea Wasp
> Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote:
>
>>Peter Meilinger wrote:
>>
>>>Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote:
>>
>
>>>CGI! Sure, it'd cost many millions more dollars than the suit
>>>they actually used. Not my problem!
>>
>
>> That's not the problem. The problem is that he was using a latex
>>mask. We know what latex masks look like. Making his latex mask
>>suddenly work like "The Mask" would be WSOD breaking in a film where
>>you're already loading an awful lot on the WSOD.
>
>
> It wouldn't have to be like the Mask, but it could've looked better
> than a real latext mask. It'd have to be subtle. Which would probably
> have cost even more, of course.
Hell yeah. You want SUBTLE in Hollywood? IN A SUPERHERO FLICK? Pay
millions just to get the execs to stop choking on the concept.
Well, okay, there was some subtle stuff in the Hulk, but that's
friggin' Ang Lee directing.
>
>
>> I actually like the suit they used. A creepy-looking suit of power
>>armor makes sense coming from an armament research firm like Oscorp.
>
>
> Yeah, I guess. Was the armor even powered, though? I thought his
> strength came from the drugs, and the suit was just armor.
I think there was some power augmentation in the suit. There's no
definite statement one way or the other, but given the overall goals
of the program and so on I'd be surprised if Oscorp hadn't at least
touched on that little advantage too.
Not drugs, BTW -- nanotech. Nanites could do (some of) the things
they talked about, and certainly work in a comic-book setting. There
were some drugs involved but ISTR their overall description was more
nanotech than anything else.
>> Yeah, again, the problem comes from the fact that most of his weapons
>>are (in the film) supposed to derive from the research they were doing
>>there. It's really hard to believe that the regular researchers there
>>would expend huge effort to make bombs look like mini-pumpkins and
>>razor-attack weapons look like bats. He lost a "villain style" point
>>or two but in exchange gained credibility, which you REALLY need when
>>you're doing a superhero film.
>
>
> I don't know. I could see the techs making the bombs into pumpkins.
>
> "Jenkins, what the hell is that?"
>
> "It's the grenade for the new project, sir."
>
> "Why does it look like a pumpkin?"
>
> "Well, Smith and I were bored, and Halloween is coming up, and
> it doesn't actually add anything to the cost per unit, so..."
>
> Pete
Now THAT wouldn't fly. "The General's already on my case for the
other research lagging, and you want me to present him with EXPLODING
JACK O' LANTERNS? Get your ass back into the lab and don't come back
until you have something I can show our sponsors without getting us
cut off!"
Adam Brooks
> in any way better than the Green Goblin.
Since someone brought them up could anyone please explain the difference
between / background of the two goblins? I'm quite confuzzed on the matter.
Cheers,
Ad.
Peter Meilinger
You and me both, really. The short answer:
The Green Goblin was Normal Osborn. Pretty much the same origin as in
the movie - he was a rich scientist and father of Peter Parker's
friend Harry, but he was also an insane supervillain with a lot
of weird gadgets. He was eventually killed after he caused Peter's
girlfriend Gwen Stacey to die.
He wasn't actually killed, though. Apparently Marvel brought him
back a few years ago. He had a healing factor so he didn't die, and
he's been hiding out in Europe for years. The less said about this
story, the better.
Anyway, on to the Hobgoblin. I still don't know who the person
behind the mask was. I knew it once, 'cause I read the whole
storyline, but I've forgotten. It doesn't really matter all
that much. The reason the Hobgoblin is so similar to the Green
Goblin is because the guy who became the Hobgoblin did so by
finding one of Normal Osborn's old labs, which was full of
the Green Goblin gadgets. So this guy worked up a slightly
different costume and he was off to the races.
Pete
Joseph Teller
<rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
>The Scarlet Pimpernel didn't wear a mask, except in the sense of
>being a master of disguise. Neither did most of the pulp characters
>I know of, at least not the well-known ones. Not Doc Savage,
>or The Shadow, or the Avenger. The Lone Ranger did...but I'll
>be damned if I can figure out why. He had no secret identity
>and nothing approaching a rational explanation for his mask
>wearing affectation.
Lady Domino, The Phantom Detective, and The Spider were all of the
masked pulp hero type.
Zorro certainly did, and the Lone Ranger was a modernization of Zorro.
The ranger originally wore a mask to hide his identity from the Butch
Cavendish Gang, who thought they had killed him and six other rangers
in an ambush. Tonto had found the bodies and only the one was alive.
He buried the six who died and made a seventh empty grave.
The reason to disguise his identity was so the gang members had no
idea who was after them, and couldn't use their family members back
east to stop him from hunting them all down.
According to the radio serials, after the gang was brought to justice,
the ranger re-established contact with his family, and his Nephew
appeared in a number of epsidodes. This was the boy who would be the
grandfather of the man who would re-establish the legacy years
later... as the Green Hornet.
The Lone Ranger, Yukon King, and The Green Hornet were all creations
of the same radio station, in Detroit, and went on to become
nationally syndicated shows on the Mutual Network. They were one of
the most successful series of Syndicated shows on radio in the 40s and
50s.
(Sorry, I'm a bit of an OTR fan and a Pulp Hero Fan, so I do have a
tendency to go on about such things when the opportunity comes up).
Joseph Teller
> Hmm. I don't know about the original (he was in radio, hard to see
>that way) but the pictures I have seen always show him wearing a
>wide-brimmed hat and a scarf or something pulled across the lower half
>of his face, leaving pretty much only his eyes and the upper part of
>his nose exposed. If so, I'd say that counts as a mask beyond any
>reasonable argument. You can't see his hair, you can't see most of his
>face, all you really see are the eyes.
Yep, the Shadow can be definitely counted among the masked men, at
least the pulp version who depended on stage magic as his primary way
of hiding his presence etc. (the radio version had mental invisibility
and didn't need a mask, really)
David Johnston
<fantas...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>Zorro certainly did, and the Lone Ranger was a modernization of Zorro.
I believe Lone Ranger came before Zorro.
>
>The ranger originally wore a mask to hide his identity from the Butch
>Cavendish Gang, who thought they had killed him and six other rangers
>in an ambush. Tonto had found the bodies and only the one was alive.
>He buried the six who died and made a seventh empty grave.
>
>The reason to disguise his identity was so the gang members had no
>idea who was after them, and couldn't use their family members back
>east to stop him from hunting them all down.
I said I couldn't think of a rational reason. How many bands of
western outlaws have affiliates in the east?
David Meadows
news:2731nv8bhr27e3jh5...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 16:31:44 GMT, David Johnston
> <rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
>
> According to the radio serials, after the gang was brought to justice,
> the ranger re-established contact with his family, and his Nephew
> appeared in a number of epsidodes. This was the boy who would be the
> grandfather of the man who would re-establish the legacy years
> later... as the Green Hornet.
Wow, thanks for that synopsis. I had no idea that the Green Hornet and the
Lone Ranger were part of the same "universe". Was that established at the
time of the original stories or was it a later "fan boy" type of add-on?
--
David Meadows
Heroes: www.heroes.force9.co.uk/scripts/
A comic book -- without the pictures
Just A Rat
"Peter Meilinger" <mell...@bu.edu> wrote in message
news:bkpvj0$qr5$1...@news3.bu.edu...
> Adam Brooks <adam.te...@tfn.coffee.com> wrote:
> You and me both, really. The short answer:
>
> The Green Goblin was Normal Osborn. Pretty much the same origin as in
> the movie - he was a rich scientist and father of Peter Parker's
> friend Harry, but he was also an insane supervillain with a lot
> of weird gadgets. He was eventually killed after he caused Peter's
> girlfriend Gwen Stacey to die.
>
> He wasn't actually killed, though. Apparently Marvel brought him
> back a few years ago. He had a healing factor so he didn't die, and
> he's been hiding out in Europe for years. The less said about this
> story, the better.
After he was supposed to be dead, however, young Harry Osborn took up his
father's mantle and hounded Spidey for killing his father. (Shades of this
were seen in the first film). Later, a kid also found a stash of Green
Goblin stuff and became a hero with it. That was before the original came
back.
>
> Anyway, on to the Hobgoblin. I still don't know who the person
> behind the mask was. I knew it once, 'cause I read the whole
> storyline, but I've forgotten. It doesn't really matter all
> that much. The reason the Hobgoblin is so similar to the Green
> Goblin is because the guy who became the Hobgoblin did so by
> finding one of Normal Osborn's old labs, which was full of
> the Green Goblin gadgets. So this guy worked up a slightly
> different costume and he was off to the races.
>
Again, there has been more than one Hobgoblin. I think one of them was Ned
Leeds, someone Peter Parker knew from the Bugle, but I could be mistaken.
And, again, my memory is a little fuzzy, but I think that the villain
formerly known as Jack O'Lantern (Had a flaming pumpkin mask/helmet and a
"pogo platform") ended up killing that Hobgoblin and taking over.
Of course, this is from my (somewhat iffy) memory, so I could be wrong.
Sidhain
>
> Again, there has been more than one Hobgoblin. I think one of them was Ned
> Leeds, someone Peter Parker knew from the Bugle, but I could be mistaken.
> And, again, my memory is a little fuzzy, but I think that the villain
> formerly known as Jack O'Lantern (Had a flaming pumpkin mask/helmet and a
> "pogo platform") ended up killing that Hobgoblin and taking over.
Jason Macendale--aka Jack O-lantern, a mercenary villian became the new
Hobgoblin IIRC
Michael Sears
The "Hobgoblin Lives" limited series revealed that Ned Leeds was
actually a brainwashed pawn of the real Hobgoblin, just like when
"Lefty" Donovan was brainwashed into fighting Spider-Man as the
Hobgoblin to test the refined version of the Goblin strength serum
before the real Hobgoblin used it on himself.
Macendale was then blasted to ashes in his prison cell by the real
Hobgoblin, so he could reclaim the identity.
The real Hobgoblin was...
Spoiler space, just in case
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Roderick Kingsly. His brother had been masquerading as him in the
original storyline so "Kingsly" could appear at the same time as the
Hobgoblin. I reread the original stories and there were scenes of
"Kingsly" wishing his brother would return, just as the Hobgoblin
attacked somewhere.
--
Michael Sears armi...@mhcable.com
"No turning back where the end is in sight.
There's a job to be done, a fight to be won."
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Adam Brooks
Thanks all.
Joseph Teller
Johnston) wrote:
>On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 18:18:58 GMT, Joseph Teller
><fantas...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Zorro certainly did, and the Lone Ranger was a modernization of Zorro.
>
>I believe Lone Ranger came before Zorro.
Nope.... If I'm remembering correctly the first Zorro novel was
published in pulp format somewhere between 1909 and 1913. The Lone
ranger wasn't until around 1938 or 39 (and that on the radio).
Joseph Teller
<da...@no.spam.here.uk> wrote:
>Wow, thanks for that synopsis. I had no idea that the Green Hornet and the
>Lone Ranger were part of the same "universe". Was that established at the
>time of the original stories or was it a later "fan boy" type of add-on?
It was established on the original radio shows... the programs were
both produced by the same radio station, and included using some of
the same voice talent.
Duggy
>The archetypical masked hero is Batman. He more or less
>invented the concept. Why does he wear a mask?
>In theory to protect himself from off-duty criminal retaliation,
>and to try to look scary. Both of those theories are little
>on the iffy side, since a criminal who tried to come after
>a public Bruce in his own customised mansion is liable
>to find himself at a considerable disadvantage,
And if Lex or the Joker went after Alfred or WayneTech...
>However, there is another
>important reason for Bruce to wear a mask and that's
>because his activities are known to veer into outright
>illegality.
Well, duh. Read the first year of Batman stories in Detective
Comics. The police are chasing Batman.
>Usually having the Commissioner in his pocket
>keeps the heat from being on, but the police have come
>after him before, and will again.
Sure in those stories Bruce was a close personal friend of Gordon's... but
he'd still have arrested him.
>So that's one perfectly reasonable basis for your hero
>to wear a mask.
Duh.
>But at the same time in the real world there are
>actually crime fighters who wear masks. They just
>happen to belong to elite anti-terrorism units. Any
>why do they wear masks as part of their uniforms?
They belong to a lot of things.
Even the Australian SAS wears dark glasses when being sent anywhere so
they "can't be identified"
>Skin Tight Costumes: The new Flash won't
>have one. Audiences think they are goofy.
>But are they right? Well consider the case
>of the Flash. He routinely accelerates to
>at least the vicinity of the speed of sound
>in blatant defiance of the laws of inertia
>(I understand this Flash actually manipulates
>time to achieve his superspeed which seems
>like a good justification.). Does a skin tight
>costume make sense for such a character?
As much as it does for Olympic runners.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
>The Lone Ranger was afraid of family & friends being hurt if his real
>identity was known. He was a bit unusual in that he faked his own
>death and very seldom had any contact with those he was protecting
>this way, but it was still one of the classic reasons for anonymity.
I though his brother was already dead?
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
> Hmm. I don't know about the original (he was in radio, hard to see
>that way) but the pictures I have seen always show him wearing a
>wide-brimmed hat and a scarf or something pulled across the lower half
>of his face, leaving pretty much only his eyes and the upper part of
>his nose exposed. If so, I'd say that counts as a mask beyond any
>reasonable argument. You can't see his hair, you can't see most of his
>face, all you really see are the eyes.
Which was a standard badguy identity hiding technique.
These days computer technology works best matching eyes so it's bad in
these modern times. (And "Eyes Only" on Dark Angel would have been
arrested 24hrs after his first broadcast.
> My take on that was that it was symbolic. With the mask off, he was
>just a man. With it on, he was a symbol. The Lone Ranger was a
>statement. Sort of like the later adaptation of Zorro, or the Princess
>Bride's Dread Pirate Roberts.
There's a lot of "the mask makes a different person" stuff in Batman
stories... mainly one-shots and LotDK... but they refer to it. Lots of
quoting Campbell and others who study myth and ritual.
===
= DUG.
===
Prospero
Besides if the Flash wore street clothes and accelerated to a fast
enough speed, the wind would probably rip them to shredds. Talk about lack
of secret identity. I don't believe authorities would appreciate a hero
"streaking" around town. Even a standard skin tight costume would only take
so much abuse.
Prospero