I dunno, Norman Osborn hasn't farted out his latest attempt at returning to greatness in some time.. And he was the guy behind everything in the original Clone Saga, wasn't he?
He'll probably return eventually but I don't think he's involved here. When Ben was recruiting the villains he was in Africa (I think) working with arm dealers. In this case I think Ben's motives are altruistic whereas Norman just wanted to fuck over Peter.
That bit about Peter being surprised about 'Jackal's' strength and speed is weird, since the resurfaced incarnation in the original clone saga was faster and stronger than two Spider-Men.
I guess he's taken lots of hits to the head since then, though.
Since the mask doesn't cover his mouth and he doesn't appear to be using a voice changer, shouldn't Original Recipe Peter Parker be able to recognize his own fucking VOICE?
Jesus Christ, Dan. If cribbing from TV shows is a fundamental part of your writing process, you can at least switch to something other than "Doctor Who".
The sentence -- and it's not even the same sentence -- is being used in an entirely different context. Sorry, man, but you're *really* stretching here.
The villain tempting the hero with undoing a loved one's death is hardly a Who-specific trope. Honestly, with nine seasons under its belt, you'd be hard-pressed to find a sci-fi plot that *doesn't* correspond to a Doctor Who ep.
My first thought: if they have any intention of bringing back Uncle Ben as part of this storyline, they shouldn't have killed off Jay, because imagine the emotional dilemma of May having to deal with her old and new husbands...
My second thought: what if the Jackal let Jay die, and his refusal to bring him back is so that he can restore the Parker family to what it should be, with May and Ben together again at last? If he's truly trying to do all of this for Peter in some twisted way...
My third thought: when do they pull the "And I can also bring back... your parents!"
My fourth thought: How about the burglar? Does he get brought back also?
My fifth thought: how many of the resurrectees will they allow to live afterwards? Because either there's a whole lot of extra trauma when George and Gwen and the Connors and Jean all keel over, or there'll be a weird dynamic with the mass revival of so many characters, both good and bad. I honestly can't predict which way they'll swing at the moment.
Or it might be as impactful as when the Hood brought back a dozen villains to kill the Punisher, and at least half of them are still wandering around... i.e. not much at all. Who knows?
My second thought: what if the Jackal let Jay die, and his refusal to bring him back is so that he can restore the Parker family to what it should be, with May and Ben together again at last? If he's truly trying to do all of this for Peter in some twisted way...
My daughter and I (we read our comics together) had this exact same thought. Could be this'll be what wakes Peter up to the hypocrisy of Ben's plan: it's not "everybody lives", it's "everybody who I need for my vision of a perfect world lives". And Ben has zero attachment to poor Jay, and would rather the Parker family be reunited... not even for Pete's sake, necessarily, but for his own.
My fourth thought: How about the burglar? Does he get brought back also?
Oooooooh. I would really, really like a scene where Pete asks this of Ben, and Ben says the burglar doesn't deserve it (or similar), which'd further cement his hypocrisy. That and it's cold as hell, given Ben dated the burglar's daughter for a time.
... don't get me wrong: I love Ben, but if he's gonna be the antagonist of this here shin-dig, there need to be flaws in his reasoning or we're never getting out of this moral conundrum.
Founded by girl geeks and members of the slash fandom, scans_daily strives to provide an atmosphere which is LGBTQ-friendly, anti-racist, anti-ableist, woman-friendly and otherwise discrimination and harassment free.
Bottom line: If slash, feminism or anti-oppressive practice makes you react negatively, scans_daily is probably not for you.
no subject
Date: 2016-12-07 02:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-12-07 03:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-12-07 06:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-12-07 03:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-12-07 03:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-12-07 04:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-12-07 05:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-12-08 07:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-12-08 08:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-12-07 04:31 pm (UTC)"Stop, my penis can only get so flaccid."
no subject
Date: 2016-12-07 04:45 pm (UTC)Fans: "Bring back Ben Reilly, we loved him!"
Slott: *cackles maniacally* "Did you now..?"
no subject
Date: 2016-12-07 05:13 pm (UTC)"Be careful what you wish for."
no subject
Date: 2016-12-07 05:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-12-07 04:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-12-07 09:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-12-07 09:18 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-12-07 10:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-12-07 05:23 pm (UTC)I guess he's taken lots of hits to the head since then, though.
no subject
Date: 2016-12-07 05:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-12-07 11:38 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-12-07 06:18 pm (UTC)Sad, though, because I never liked the original before and now I remain... of the mindset that now won't be any different.
no subject
Date: 2016-12-07 09:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-12-07 06:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-12-07 07:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-12-07 07:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-12-07 09:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-12-08 03:30 am (UTC)*Or has the copied memories of the person who did so, same difference.
no subject
Date: 2016-12-08 04:15 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-12-08 09:16 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-12-08 02:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-12-07 09:19 pm (UTC)Jesus Christ, Dan. If cribbing from TV shows is a fundamental part of your writing process, you can at least switch to something other than "Doctor Who".
no subject
Date: 2016-12-08 03:32 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-12-08 12:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-12-10 03:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-12-07 09:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-12-07 10:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-12-07 10:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-12-08 03:38 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-12-08 04:06 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-12-08 05:14 am (UTC)My second thought: what if the Jackal let Jay die, and his refusal to bring him back is so that he can restore the Parker family to what it should be, with May and Ben together again at last? If he's truly trying to do all of this for Peter in some twisted way...
My third thought: when do they pull the "And I can also bring back... your parents!"
My fourth thought: How about the burglar? Does he get brought back also?
My fifth thought: how many of the resurrectees will they allow to live afterwards? Because either there's a whole lot of extra trauma when George and Gwen and the Connors and Jean all keel over, or there'll be a weird dynamic with the mass revival of so many characters, both good and bad. I honestly can't predict which way they'll swing at the moment.
Or it might be as impactful as when the Hood brought back a dozen villains to kill the Punisher, and at least half of them are still wandering around... i.e. not much at all. Who knows?
no subject
Date: 2016-12-08 09:54 am (UTC)My daughter and I (we read our comics together) had this exact same thought. Could be this'll be what wakes Peter up to the hypocrisy of Ben's plan: it's not "everybody lives", it's "everybody who I need for my vision of a perfect world lives". And Ben has zero attachment to poor Jay, and would rather the Parker family be reunited... not even for Pete's sake, necessarily, but for his own.
My fourth thought: How about the burglar? Does he get brought back also?
Oooooooh. I would really, really like a scene where Pete asks this of Ben, and Ben says the burglar doesn't deserve it (or similar), which'd further cement his hypocrisy. That and it's cold as hell, given Ben dated the burglar's daughter for a time.
... don't get me wrong: I love Ben, but if he's gonna be the antagonist of this here shin-dig, there need to be flaws in his reasoning or we're never getting out of this moral conundrum.
no subject
Date: 2016-12-09 12:10 am (UTC)They kind of spoiled this in....
Date: 2016-12-09 01:26 am (UTC)