Jump to content

DC Movies- if at first you don't succeed...


Cassandra

Recommended Posts

I had a feeling some people would bring up the collateral damage in that clip. :rolleyes:

 

I admit it looks less than ideal out of context; but to be fair, the city was a war zone under attack from Darkseid's forces, and most civilians had already been evacuated from the vicinity, while the Justice League (and a bunch of supervillains who wanted to help) fought to contain the enemy.

 

But let's be honest: if you can't punch a villain through at least a few buildings, it wouldn't be a comic-book fight. :angel:

 

The context provides everything. I agree about the trope of knocking down things in a comic book fight, but without the evacuation context, it does look a lot like an animated MoS fight. Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not collateral damage. THIS is collateral damage.

 

 

Indeed it is. And Superman suffered a severe blow to his reputation as a result, as he should have. Which is what Luthor wanted. Not to mention the Justice League losing Captain Marvel over the incident. But "Lexor City" was uninhabited at the time, so no lives were lost.

 

But they sure did f--k s--t up real good!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While the public has occasionally demonstrated a lack of trust for Superman in the portrayals I've preferred he has never failed to DESERVE their trust. The Cadmus storyline I would include, when push came to shove he (and the JLU) did not retaliate even in the face of outrageous provocation.

 

Same thing with the Elite. And many other examples. To (possibly mis-) quote the Question "you must not succumb".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah Cap has over his long career repeatedly disagreed with and acted against the government.  Being mindlessly obedient has never been a core character issue.  There may be other examples of core stuff I'm willing to waver on, but that's not a good one.

 

The truth is though, its not so much core character issues that are the problem here.  Its the core character issues that make the character work and be who they are.  Captain America's core character issue is that he's unfailingly heroic, self-sacrificing, and never gives up no matter what the odds or situation.  He's really reluctant to kill, but will and has in the past (particularly in the war), so if he kills someone its not a violation of his core.  But if he just gives up because things are too hard or lets someone die because he'd rather not be bothered, that is a serious problem.

 

I'll never understand why movie makers will do a film about a character, using that character's surrounding world setting and support cast, based on that character's existing stories, then do something really different and violating the entire thing.  Why didn't you just make a different film with your story?  I mean, if someone had made Hancock but instead called it Superman it would have sucked not because the story was bad, but because its not freaking Superman.

 

I think that says more about your moral system than Superman though.

Two points. Captain America's character, at the outset, most definitely was not a character who questioned the government. Of course that is a product of the times it was written in, that is always the case for every work, but it does not make later iterations merely a continuation of the character, but taking a character written during a different time and changing it to suit the times.

 

The last comment missed the point. There is a difference between not being materialistic out of morality and simply having no interest in things. Those two are entirely different.

 

Superman has NEVER been portrayed as being non-materialistic out of morality. He has always been portrayed as basically white bread in terms of taste, he never, ever shows any particular interest in things, we can only guess he likes his costume, his white shirts, his ties, and his glasses. That's not much to go on. Considering that I'm not considered particularly focused on things by anyone who actually knows me, I'm curious what you are meaning by this reflecting the content of my moral system, since there is not a single Superman story that comes to mind that suggests his tastes are in any way based on morality. Or, really, much in the way of work on what his tastes actually are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure I'm not the only one who recalls the FF fighting a former herald of Galactus who had been given power back by Doctor Doom; Silver Surfer came and helped. I'm thinking it was in the late eighties. The area they fought was, to my recollection, not evacuated, laid waste, and the last shot of the comic was the damage wrought.

 

All these cases, including in the movies, are attacks on cities. More would have died without the heroes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is canonical that while Superman doesn't need to eat, he sure does love ma's pie (and beef bourguinon with catsup). He's capable of experiencing pleasure.

It's really hard to conceive of a moral test for him that is based on this list of objects/things that are literally  the only tastes he apparently has:

 

-ties

-white collared shirts

-slacks

-glasses

-pie

-beef bourguinon

 

One could argue that in BvS, the only reason he was saving Martha was without her, he would be reduced to only liking button down shirts, slacks, ties, and glasses, and pie and beef bourguinon would join Krypton and Krypto in the list of his life's losses. :snicker:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's really hard to conceive of a moral test for him that is based on this list of objects/things that are literally the only tastes he apparently has:

 

-ties

-white collared shirts

-slacks

-glasses

-pie

-beef bourguinon

 

One could argue that in BvS, the only reason he was saving Martha was without her, he would be reduced to only liking button down shirts, slacks, ties, and glasses, and pie and beef bourguinon would join Krypton and Krypto in the list of his life's losses. :snicker:

You can apply this same test to any fictional character of cosmic supernatural power using the same litmus test. Silver Surfer only saves Earth because he'd then be reduced to only liking (actually his list is vastly shorter... art created by a blind girl?).

 

Liking those things is an indicator of his connection to humanity, and a subset of the broader interests he has. Similarly, his lack of enjoyment of brie (also canon) is a reflection of personal taste.

 

He also has been depicted as loving a number of terrestrial women. And activities. Is there a favorite food of Peter Parker? Maybe Spider Man is really a horrifying arachnid predator with no relation to humanity based on the absence of this relatable element?

 

The core concept is that Kal El of Krypton was adopted as a refugee, raised by Jonathan and Martha as Clark Kent, and instilled with his values/morality by his earthly parents (ma and pa). You can not like the story, but it's central to the concept (from it's earliest incarnation with clear overtones of moses in the river, commentary on the fascist ubermensch, and so forth by a couple Jewish guys who created him). It's been told and retold, but that's always there.

 

He also likes milk shakes. I can find other things if you want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DCMU Superman simply doesn't have the depth of personal history that"s necessary for his personality to show. Comics Superman does even though it's taken 70+ years to develop it.

 

DCMU Superman has the emotional and moral values instilled in him by the Kents with (brief but meaningful) reinforcement from Jor-El. His childhood relations with others were glossed over (lack of time most likely) so you never see the character build any friendships or romances. We do know that he has a temper that he keeps  in check, that he values human contact(hence the odd jobs) and that he wants to explore the world. His only true anchors are Martha and Lois. His personality and motivations beyond that are unknown .

 

Comics Superman is much more developed. He had the Kents as parents  just as the DCMU version but we've seen his childhood and formative years. He had Pete and Lana as childhood friends and the LSH to hang with during his high school times. He's developed deep and nuanced friendships with Jimmy, Lois, Bruce and Diana. You can see his core persona is based on believing in the goodness of people, helping those in need(cuz he likes people) and doing the right thing(cuz it's the right thing to do). He wants to do good and inspire everyone around him to do good also.

 

DCMU Superman is in the process of forming that personality. He's also doing it in a much more negative world than Comics Superman grew up in. I'll give him some slack, he a newbie with good intentions.

 

DCMU Batman has the same background as Comics Batman but he's gone in a different direction, Comics Batman doesn't kill. He just doesn't. He certainly doesn't mount 50 cals on his vehicles and fire them in a high speed chase through Gotham, He'll beat you to a pulp but he won't brand you with a mark that causes others to kill you. And he won't he won't try, convict and execute you for hypothetical crimes. It's the depiction of Batman far more than Superman that caused the backlash against BvS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More would have died without the heroes.

That's the key point, that the heroes did everything they could to limit the damage, and at a minimum recognized that massive collateral damage was a bad thing. The contrast between Avengers 1 vs MoS could not be more stark.

 

And speaking of Stark, something else I found interesting in Civil War was how it showcased how Tony has changed over the years. Original Recipe Tony would've had his army of spin doctors all over the airwaves hammering this exact point. But New Formula Tony is just tired of all the destruction and the personal cost, and can't bring himself to "spin it good." It's something I wish they'd brought up more explicitly, but the subtext was there IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Superman has NEVER been portrayed as being non-materialistic out of morality. He has always been portrayed as basically white bread in terms of taste, he never, ever shows any particular interest in things, we can only guess he likes his costume, his white shirts, his ties, and his glasses. That's not much to go on. Considering that I'm not considered particularly focused on things by anyone who actually knows me, I'm curious what you are meaning by this reflecting the content of my moral system, since there is not a single Superman story that comes to mind that suggests his tastes are in any way based on morality. Or, really, much in the way of work on what his tastes actually are.

 

Superman is a reporter. He makes a reporter's salary. Can you afford everything you would like to have? Neither can I. The fact we don't have them is not indicative of us not wanting them. If Superman wanted those things he could take them, and no one could stop him. He doesn't.

 

You haven't addressed the other side of the coin -- Superman not destroying people who cause him grief. That point was graphically hammered home in the Authority clip I linked to. Without a level of moral conviction very few people could muster, Lex Luthor would have been a bloody smear on Clark's fist years ago. Superman makes moral choices that often cost him, because he considers them the right choices.

 

At base, though, we can identify with Clark Kent precisely because he's so human. He was raised on Earth. He thinks like us, he feels what we do. Yes, he's in many ways the best of humanity, but he's not an alien in the way his mind and heart work. He has doubts, he suffers pain, and he has made mistakes and done things he regrets and that haunt him. But he never stops trying to do what he believes to be the right thing and live up to his own impossibly high standards. "Elseworld" stories are full of the terrible things that happen when Superman loses sight of the things that hold him back from his worse instincts.

 

You may say that this isn't realistic, that because Superman doesn't have the same needs as us he won't feel the way we do. In the first place comics aren't supposed to be realistic -- they're supposed to be wish-fulfillment morality plays. Superman is us, only magnified to epic proportions. His stories aren't about an alien, they're about a human being placed in a position of unparalleled power, and of how he chooses to use that power for the common good, not his own benefit. That's a powerful parable.

 

In the second place, "realistically" all we can do is try to imagine how someone uniquely gifted from childhood with powers and abilities far beyond other humans, would react and develop. We may try to work out some logical progression based on our theories of what that would be like, but no one like that has ever existed, so it's impossible to truly know. All we have are theories with no experiential basis to test their validity.

 

For me, stories about a Superman I can relate to work just fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As the subject of the physics of Superman's universe was brought up in relation to normal people being punched through wall with dying, I would like to point out the DCU uses Champions' physics.  Or stated more correctly, Champions emulates comic book physics and does a damn fine job of it.  In Champions going through an interior wall does 3 or 4d6 of damage, so after subtracting PD we are only talking about a couple BODY.

 

Because of how Champions and comic book physics work, Superman almost never takes BODY but takes STUN frequently.  It is really hard to do BODY to most Champions' bricks, but if you have an attack that does 12d6 or 14d6 you can generally inflict some STUN.  Since STUN is basically defined as non-life threatening pain, this means because he chooses to go out and fight supervillains to protect the weak and innocent Superman endures a lot of pain.  You can see this in the comic books.  Livewire will hit with lightning bolts and Superman will be shown as clearly experiencing a lot of discomfort.  Of course, if he didn't elect to fight supervillains, he could avoid all that pain.

 

Nor, in those rare occasions where he is facing a foe that can potentially kill him, does Superman change his tune.  When faced with a Doomsday, a General Zod or a Darkseid, the man of steel does not run and hide.  He goes out and faces the possibility and sometimes even the actuality of serious injury or death in order to protect human life.

 

Now if enduring pain and injury to protect total strangers from harm isn't a moral act in your book,  then I can only suspect that you are one of those people who thinks that morality is not a thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say more then anything that Clark/Superman covets are the things "normal" people have. Friends, a certain anonymity to walk down the street and go to the grocery store, to be a normal human. He can't because he has these powers, but he wants to more then anything. It's why we so often say that he is Clark Kent and not Superman. It is actually what makes Bruce/Batman respect him and accept that he will not be destroying the planet. There are times that Diana/Wonder Woman does not understand it. But she was raised a princess. Clark wants to be a normal everyday reporter for the Daily Planet, breaking news stories about crime and other things. He goes out of his way to live on this salary.

Many recent stories have taken this away from him, at least for awhile.It was interesting reading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its pretty obvious that even that pretty damaging fight in the clip is dwarfed by the Man of Steel fight where they're knocking over more buildings than an earthquake disaster movie.  Half of Metropolis is dust at that point.

The problem is, people expect some damage and awesome epic hits in a superhero movie, and Avengers had come out with a pretty spectacular amount of damage.  That level of wreckage was troubling, but at least 99% of it was done by the alien invaders and the worst damage was prevented by the only single heroic and sacrificial thing Iron Man ever did in his life -- fly the nuke into the wormhole.

 

So Man of Steel came out and they said "lets crank that up to eleven!!!!" but the problem was twofold: first, the level of destruction was so vast it stopped looking like a superhero battle and people started to count bodies.  And second, a large portion of that battle was caused not by invading aliens (unless you count Superman as one, a valid thought in that film) but by the supposed good guy.  It was too much, too over the top.  Superman seemed to relish knocking people directly into occupied buildings and explosive things even when he started a fight in the middle of a field somewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At base, though, we can identify with Clark Kent precisely because he's so human. He was raised on Earth. He thinks like us, he feels what we do. Yes, he's in many ways the best of humanity, but he's not an alien in the way his mind and heart work.

They touched on this in a Supergirl episodes towards the end of Season 1:

 

The Bad Guys have created a mind control device and enslaved National City. Only Kara is immune because her brain waves and thought patterns are still largely Kryptonian. Then Superman send word that he's on his way to come back her up, he flies into town...and immediately falls under sway of the mind control device, because Clark thinks like an earthling. It was kindof a throwaway bit (and a good excuse to avoid having Superman save the day), but I thought it captured the character.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As the subject of the physics of Superman's universe was brought up in relation to normal people being punched through wall with dying, I would like to point out the DCU uses Champions' physics.  Or stated more correctly, Champions emulates comic book physics and does a damn fine job of it.  In Champions going through an interior wall does 3 or 4d6 of damage, so after subtracting PD we are only talking about a couple BODY.

I don't think it is the hitting of the wall that is expected to kill a normal when Superman punches them. I think the 25d6 damage roll will do that sufficiently on its own. Obviously the reason normals don't die is because Superman doesn't hit them with all of his STR. Presumably he applies a very small amount of STR, just enough to take them down without killing or maiming them. If that also sends them through a wall, it is probably due to artistic license (beyond the norm for the genre), not due to fidelity to comic book physics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now if enduring pain and injury to protect total strangers from harm isn't a moral act in your book,  then I can only suspect that you are one of those people who thinks that morality is not a thing.

Comments like that just muddy the water.

 

More often than not, Superman as 'unerringly moral', as well as 'just like humans' plays FAR more in exposition than in characterization. If people are upset over a change in a character, they cannot resort to one or the other, both must come into play. We are told that he thinks just like a human, and also thinks like a super genius, and then the characterization we are given is often at odds with one or the other. So, there is a huge amount of room for different writers to make different interpretations, and without them, all that there can ever be for this character is decades and decades of Crisis/Death of Superman storylines that then obviously reboot.

 

The same problem comes in with Batman as never killing(which is unsupportable, the Batman some grew up with never killed, certainly not the original fans, or the later fans), yet also having a fanatic desire based on his parent's death, these things lend themselves far better to darker interpretations than wholesome ones.

 

It is not 'is helping people moral', it is 'does this character(including the depiction of their morality) prove more based on exposition than characterization'? Superman lacks personality, and his morality OUTSIDE OF EXPOSITION more often seems by his innate nature than his moral development, which is at odds with someone who is supposed to be just like humans.

 

Spiderman most certainly was developed and succeeded as a comic in part because more went into his characterization. He has a moral failure that is central to his character. Spiderman's life was often depicted, and it had a fairly involved cast that came and went, and a social life that felt real. Clark Kent's is much weaker in comparison, and most of those in his life had as much plot armor as he had. Spiderman feels more real because his is depicted that way, If Spiderman had been written like Superman usually is, his uncle would still be alive because 'Spiderman would never do this'. If writers cannot do this with Superman, then 'he is just like us' remains exposition that has little relation to his characterization.

 

One example of a good use of this in relation to Superman is in the Supergirl show, though I've only heard this second hand. Apparently, she is pressured by Superman to not go public with her identity, it would endanger people, and she points out that hiding that from those people is actually wrong. Which is true. THAT'S 'just like real people', not just exposition. Real people make moral errors, including very, very good people. I can understand wanting to make a character who is an ideal who will, despite humanity not being ideal, will always protect them, but you really cannot do that AND make them 'just like other humans'. THAT character would be interesting to see, although I suppose you might call him Martian Manhunter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Comments like that just muddy the water.

 

More often than not, Superman as 'unerringly moral', as well as 'just like humans' plays FAR more in exposition than in characterization. If people are upset over a change in a character, they cannot resort to one or the other, both must come into play. We are told that he thinks just like a human, and also thinks like a super genius, and then the characterization we are given is often at odds with one or the other. So, there is a huge amount of room for different writers to make different interpretations, and without them, all that there can ever be for this character is decades and decades of Crisis/Death of Superman storylines that then obviously reboot.

 

The same problem comes in with Batman as never killing(which is unsupportable, the Batman some grew up with never killed, certainly not the original fans, or the later fans), yet also having a fanatic desire based on his parent's death, these things lend themselves far better to darker interpretations than wholesome ones.

 

It is not 'is helping people moral', it is 'does this character(including the depiction of their morality) prove more based on exposition than characterization'? Superman lacks personality, and his morality OUTSIDE OF EXPOSITION more often seems by his innate nature than his moral development, which is at odds with someone who is supposed to be just like humans.

 

Spiderman most certainly was developed and succeeded as a comic in part because more went into his characterization. He has a moral failure that is central to his character. Spiderman's life was often depicted, and it had a fairly involved cast that came and went, and a social life that felt real. Clark Kent's is much weaker in comparison, and most of those in his life had as much plot armor as he had. Spiderman feels more real because his is depicted that way, If Spiderman had been written like Superman usually is, his uncle would still be alive because 'Spiderman would never do this'. If writers cannot do this with Superman, then 'he is just like us' remains exposition that has little relation to his characterization.

 

One example of a good use of this in relation to Superman is in the Supergirl show, though I've only heard this second hand. Apparently, she is pressured by Superman to not go public with her identity, it would endanger people, and she points out that hiding that from those people is actually wrong. Which is true. THAT'S 'just like real people', not just exposition. Real people make moral errors, including very, very good people. I can understand wanting to make a character who is an ideal who will, despite humanity not being ideal, will always protect them, but you really cannot do that AND make them 'just like other humans'. THAT character would be interesting to see, although I suppose you might call him Martian Manhunter.

Doesn't seem like you are very familiar with the depiction of Clark Kent if you don't think there's much that went into his characterization.

 

That's your opinion, it isn't supported by the 75 years of material (though you can probably cherry pick some examples from the Silver Age). Clark's adolescence is a great example of extended periods of character development in the source material. And his work in journalism. His family relationships and friends. There's literally hundreds of examples.

 

Now, you can like him less as a character than Peter Parker. But he's not less developed.

 

Essentially it seems like you just don't like the material, which is of course your right. But I fundamentally do not agree with your analysis of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd go with:

 

Man of Steel (1986)

Superman for All Seasons (1998)

What's So Funny About Truth, Justice, and the American Way (2001)

Secret Identity (2004 - technically am Elseworlds but really good)

Kingdom Come (1996)

 

All are really enjoyable. "What's so funny" is the story featuring the Elite that is essentially a response to the Authority comic series (and was in my opinion brilliant).

 

There are others, "What ever happened to the Man of Tomorrow?", "All Star Superman", etc. Lots of really interesting stories in the last thirty years or so. That isn't even getting into the Justice League or World's Finest or Batman/Superman. But I like all the ones I listed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't seem like you are very familiar with the depiction of Clark Kent if you don't think there's much that went into his characterization.

 

That's your opinion, it isn't supported by the 75 years of material (though you can probably cherry pick some examples from the Silver Age). Clark's adolescence is a great example of extended periods of character development in the source material. And his work in journalism. His family relationships and friends. There's literally hundreds of examples.

 

Now, you can like him less as a character than Peter Parker. But he's not less developed.

 

Essentially it seems like you just don't like the material, which is of course your right. But I fundamentally do not agree with your analysis of it.

I don't dislike the character, and am actually not a Spiderman fan, though there are stories that I've liked of both.

 

However, there is no reasonable claim that the cause of Spiderman's success in the early years wasn't better characterization. That is almost always the first thing mentioned about the early Spiderman stories.

 

Characterization is not saying "Superman was raised to be good", or even showing it, and then claim "he is just like everyone else" while never making central to the character a single moral failing. Moral failings ARE what everyone else, including Peter Parker, have.

 

This was one of the keys to why Marvel was beating DC so badly in my youth, for even the DC characters with flaws, like Batman, DC had effectively erased those flaws in characterizations, while Marvel had Spiderman with his pivotal moral failing shaping him, Wolverine with his temper, The Thing with his inability to have a normal life, et al.

 

Yes, DC responded to this, rather slowly, but adding more bits. Yes, lots of things have been mentioned in past Superman stories. Almost none of them are truly canon. We do not assume he is still scrapbooking because it was mentioned once. Superman ALWAYS does a character reboot to his exposition, not his past characterization. Zany Clark has gone by the wayside, but this fails to recognize why zany Clark was necessary. Zany Clark was half of the characterization work of a substantial part of the character's history. Boring Clark alongside Superman's otherwise uneven characterization doesn't make up the difference.

 

Peter Parker's cast of friends has always been rather extensive compared to Superman's, and they come and go. His job and how it was depicted, his personality, these things have consistently been part of the story, not put there to justify anything, but a larger part of it. Through most of the history of Superman, Clark Kent as a boy is a person, the adult Clark Kent's entire personality, however, was an artifice, not Kal El's or the boy Clark Kent's personality. I am not saying these elements are flaws if used by writers to actually do some characterization, but that, between writers, the character defaults to the exposition of what Superman is, not the characterization done by the best writers.

 

Rewriting the character has always been exactly what writers have done who weren't phoning in the story. Heck, Superman was originally beating up anti-union thugs and corrupt businessmen and politicians, and the best one can say of the original was that he most often did not kill. He was brash and arrogant and brutal to those he fought, far more brutal than he needed to be.

 

To be honest, Flash is probably one of the only examples I can think of who it is fairly easy to define what his character would and would not do. Superman and Batman are rife with exceptions to what are the accepted norms by the fans most resistant to change.

 

For Superman, it is not a matter of so many people think he's boring because they don't understand him like the True Fans. Many of those people, like myself, can think of stories where he's not boring, or where his boring nature creates an engaging story(such as Moore's annual). Not caring for his characterization, or the often false narrative of his virtue being human while his failings usually amount to nothing, is not disliking the character, but the writing and what is done with it.

 

For most comics, it is all cherry picking, and always has been. Not all the best stories can be reconciled with each other. Anyone who saw that the movie was clearly going to base the fight on material from Miller's Dark Knight Returns should have been expecting dangerously psychotic batman and naive tool Superman. Instead, they did get 'trying to reconcile' Superman. Bonus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd go with:

 

Man of Steel (1986)

Superman for All Seasons (1998)

What's So Funny About Truth, Justice, and the American Way (2001)

Secret Identity (2004 - technically am Elseworlds but really good)

Kingdom Come (1996)

 

All are really enjoyable. "What's so funny" is the story featuring the Elite that is essentially a response to the Authority comic series (and was in my opinion brilliant).

 

There are others, "What ever happened to the Man of Tomorrow?", "All Star Superman", etc. Lots of really interesting stories in the last thirty years or so. That isn't even getting into the Justice League or World's Finest or Batman/Superman. But I like all the ones I listed.

Yeah, those are all pretty good ones, though I haven't read "What's so funny..."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't dislike the character, and am actually not a Spiderman fan, though there are stories that I've liked of both.

 

However, there is no reasonable claim that the cause of Spiderman's success in the early years wasn't better characterization. That is almost always the first thing mentioned about the early Spiderman stories.

 

Characterization is not saying "Superman was raised to be good", or even showing it, and then claim "he is just like everyone else" while never making central to the character a single moral failing. Moral failings ARE what everyone else, including Peter Parker, have.

 

This was one of the keys to why Marvel was beating DC so badly in my youth, for even the DC characters with flaws, like Batman, DC had effectively erased those flaws in characterizations, while Marvel had Spiderman with his pivotal moral failing shaping him, Wolverine with his temper, The Thing with his inability to have a normal life, et al.

 

Yes, DC responded to this, rather slowly, but adding more bits. Yes, lots of things have been mentioned in past Superman stories. Almost none of them are truly canon. We do not assume he is still scrapbooking because it was mentioned once. Superman ALWAYS does a character reboot to his exposition, not his past characterization. Zany Clark has gone by the wayside, but this fails to recognize why zany Clark was necessary. Zany Clark was half of the characterization work of a substantial part of the character's history. Boring Clark alongside Superman's otherwise uneven characterization doesn't make up the difference.

 

Peter Parker's cast of friends has always been rather extensive compared to Superman's, and they come and go. His job and how it was depicted, his personality, these things have consistently been part of the story, not put there to justify anything, but a larger part of it. Through most of the history of Superman, Clark Kent as a boy is a person, the adult Clark Kent's entire personality, however, was an artifice, not Kal El's or the boy Clark Kent's personality. I am not saying these elements are flaws if used by writers to actually do some characterization, but that, between writers, the character defaults to the exposition of what Superman is, not the characterization done by the best writers.

 

Rewriting the character has always been exactly what writers have done who weren't phoning in the story. Heck, Superman was originally beating up anti-union thugs and corrupt businessmen and politicians, and the best one can say of the original was that he most often did not kill. He was brash and arrogant and brutal to those he fought, far more brutal than he needed to be.

 

To be honest, Flash is probably one of the only examples I can think of who it is fairly easy to define what his character would and would not do. Superman and Batman are rife with exceptions to what are the accepted norms by the fans most resistant to change.

 

For Superman, it is not a matter of so many people think he's boring because they don't understand him like the True Fans. Many of those people, like myself, can think of stories where he's not boring, or where his boring nature creates an engaging story(such as Moore's annual). Not caring for his characterization, or the often false narrative of his virtue being human while his failings usually amount to nothing, is not disliking the character, but the writing and what is done with it.

 

For most comics, it is all cherry picking, and always has been. Not all the best stories can be reconciled with each other. Anyone who saw that the movie was clearly going to base the fight on material from Miller's Dark Knight Returns should have been expecting dangerously psychotic batman and naive tool Superman. Instead, they did get 'trying to reconcile' Superman. Bonus.

We are at "agree to disagree". "No reasonable claim" isn't accurate in my assessment, among many other things in your post I disagree with (the number and depth of associations, etc).

 

In any case, I don't see much point in continuing this back and forth as we clearly have profoundly different beliefs regarding the subject matter that are not going to be reconciled.

 

It will be interesting to see how this version works out for DC in their movie sales. If they profit I'm sure it will be the direction of the intellectual property, and if not it'll go a different direction. My hope would be that it results in a direction I would enjoy taking my kids to the theatre to watch, which isn't the case in it's current iteration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Essentially, ongoing comics are soap operas with super powers, with the caveat that, at any one time, there are a few people taking the exposition of the characters and doing something unexpected and lasting with whatever they're working on, followed by soap opera writers making what they did come back from its coma over and over.

 

If one is too strict on maintaining the exposition of what the characters are, they really cease to be able to be good, and remain soap operas with super powers. And, the oldest characters, since they've had so many stories told about them, are the most prone to this, and Superman most of all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...