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

[Lawnmower Boy]

After reading this thread, I can't tell if I'm heroic or not!

 

Go see if you can break someone's neck by twisting their head. We'll wait right here!

[assault]

Go see if you can break someone's neck by twisting their head. We'll wait right here!

 

Do they have to be Kryptonian?

[Lawnmower Boy]

Do they have to be Kryptonian?

They're an endangered species! For shame!

[assault]

True. So, human then.

[Cassandra]

After reading this thread, I can't tell if I'm heroic or not!

 

If you brave to ask, you are!

[Pattern Ghost]

Go see if you can break someone's neck by twisting their head. We'll wait right here!

 

My chiropractor tells me that it's easier to pull the head straight back. Too much play side to side.

[Burrito Boy]

My chiropractor tells me that it's easier to pull the head straight back. Too much play side to side.

That's what makes snapping someone's neck by twisting heroic. Anybody can just pull someone's head straight back. Only a hero would go the extra mile and do what it takes to get the job done right.

[Pattern Ghost]

Good point.

[TheDarkness]

Wow.

 

Lesser authors. Cannot put the egg back together. How they are written for children. No metric someone can claim.

 

You might want to read these before posting and consider how those in this thread who disagree with you on nearly every point you appear to make here might take your latest contribution.

First, in response to lesser authors. It is a reality that the comics genre, especially from the late sixties to early seventies, began to take advantage of better writing. Better writing was a strong reason for Marvel's kicking DC's butt for quite a while, and adherence to previous approaches was not helping DC. By the eighties, the powerhouses in both companies were far more versed in writing than any of the early writers.

 

Second, in regards to can't put the egg back together. That is specifically in response to the idea that there is a superior form of depicting these superheroes, and that that superior form is based in an ethical center. Miller and Moore did not diverge from the material, they followed it to logical conclusions implicit in what was already there, but always avoided by previous writers to one extent or another. You'll note that I did NOT say that there was no merit in writing or making 'traditional' Superman/Batman/whoever stories, but that the merit is not some bygone morality implicit in the work. the merit is wish fulfillment and entertainment. One could argue that there is merit for a society in symbols that unite people into a common culture, but it is rather dangerous to imbue those symbols with an assumed perfect morality that must never be put in doubt.

 

Written for children. Now, of course, the period before the comics code is another animal, and so characters, including Superman, were more violent. But aside from that era, for a long time, children were all the market they were written for. That long time largely being exactly the periods that established the norms for the older characters. For mainstream comics, you need to go all the way forward to characters like Spiderman before you find successful mainstream characters whose target market that helped define the norms for the characters and stories weren't children. And, for many titles, and many issues within titles and sections of issues, this is still the target. I NEVER made a value judgment on that, I specifically said, in several different ways, that this approach is valid. The Comics Code made it the only acceptable approach, and put a choke hold on a lot of adult writing, including in Superman and Batman. Fortunately, no twisting neck break followed.

 

As for disagreeing with me on every point, I would only know which points people agree or disagree on and why based on what they say. I cannot know why if they do not address the point. As such, I'm entirely unclear on how depicting an ideal as a character actually has a moral value in other people's view, for example. Or what scenes in MoS show adult Superman as angsty in a way that is inconsistent with other accepted depictions. Or a number of other of the key points I'm asserting.

 

As for no metric anyone can claim, unless you are espousing that an unexamined morality based on vigilante justice is superior to a morality applied in a way that shows its validity within the story under pressure, I stand by this. There is a long history of the failures of using the idealized to convey morality. In myths, as I pointed out earlier, the flaws tend to also become central to the depiction, and so the gods were generally highly flawed individuals whose flaws point out a deeply human nature.

 

So, to sum up, children's stories good, adult stories good, teen stories good, more professional writers changed comic history and are generally the source for most of the best stories that are being used in movies, deconstruction in the form of Miller and Moore did not add anything, it pointed out what was already there, showing not telling works better for showing a moral code.

 

I think what's getting missed is that I'm defending BOTH the type of Superman stories you want, and the kinds others also want to see, and pointing out that both are logical applications of the character, and not a divergence from it. Why is a point that you actually haven't managed to contradict or disagree with.

 

Now, both approaches have excesses, and will.

 

Good writers writing the more innocent versions are never the majority, and are in a strange zone in which their goals, if they are to convey morality, are better served writing Peanuts, but if they do it because they love writing the Superheroes under the sort of approach you favor, this can be good, but the title and the character will eventually suffer and stagnate under lesser writers(I know you don't like this term, but they exist), and that stagnation has generally not been solved by new and good writers who must avoid more human characterization(something that has been specifically said shouldn't happen with Superman in the sort of form you are arguing for).

 

The more adult versions also are going to be more lesser writers than good, that is the reality of all mediums. And these versions can and often do add depth to the title that often influences the more innocent versions without incorporating the darkness. Daredevil certainly benefited from Miller, going from a knockoff character to a character in his own right, and now, the most recent title I've seen is definitely more on the innocent side, which is good, because by a certain point, the writing had gone from dark but lush to not knowing whether to go grimdark or just repeat the same things endlessly.

 

The more ardently one applies the insistence that everything the innocent heroes do is based in a flawless morality, the uglier the logical conclusion that is the adult version. The more ridiculously grimdark(as in, stylistically in how the characterization occurs: so, one could debate this for BvS's Batman, but not really for Superman in either), the less who the characters are even applies. I agree with those who say that there are cases where the makers should have just made their own new character. Rogue in the X-Men movies is a far suitable example than Superman in MoS of a stand-in posing as the same character.

 

Just my views on it. Yes, I used strong language, but what that strong language was applied to was generally accepted reality as far as comic history and ethical philosophy. Now, if you want to claim that a society needs iconic fictional or fictionalized heroes that it takes for granted are good, I might, on some level, agree with that assertion, but if you want to claim that that hero will actually represent a functional ethics, that's an entirely different argument that goes to some ugly places, even in the history of Superman comics.

[Iuz the Evil]

I don't actually have to debate you, nor am I inclined to do so. You present as fact your opinion repeatedly, in obviously subjective areas. At best it's a straw man argument being set up, and I have better ways to spend my time.

 

Again, I merely pointed out your choice of terms and arguments appear intentionally insulting to those with opposing views. Similar to if one were to say: "Those who prefer iron age violence, like Frank Miller's depiction of Batman, are emotionally stunted adolescents and his body of work is massively overrated". One can even produce examples (All Star Batman which I consider hot garbage, discussion about the shock value fading over time, author's apparent disdain for the genre) and ramble on about it. This doesn't make for a civil approach to a discussion, or make the stated opinion correct. Those elements are your opinion and interpretation, I respectfully disagree.

[TheDarkness]

I don't actually have to debate you, nor am I inclined to do so. You present as fact your opinion repeatedly, in obviously subjective areas. At best it's a straw man argument being set up, and I have better ways to spend my time.

 

Again, I merely pointed out your choice of terms and arguments appear intentionally insulting to those with opposing views. Similar to if one were to say: "Those who prefer iron age violence, like Frank Miller's depiction of Batman, are emotionally stunted adolescents and his body of work is massively overrated". One can even produce examples (All Star Batman which I consider hot garbage, discussion about the shock value fading over time, author's apparent disdain for the genre) and ramble on about it. This doesn't make for a civil approach to a discussion, or make the stated opinion correct. Those elements are your opinion and interpretation, I respectfully disagree.

And I think your subjective opinion is correct in a certain context. Have a nice day.[EDIT: Just to make clear, as these things are often lost in text, I actually mean the last sentence, hope you have a good one.]

[NuSoardGraphite]

I didn't like Man of Steel or BvS, but one defense of the fight in Man of Steel that I think I have concede has some merit, is that Superman's fight against the Kryptonians (and Zod in particular) was that it was his FIRST FIGHT EVER. And even if not his very first, certainly the first one ever against superpowered opponents. Given how he was raised by Pa Kent, I think it's safe to say he's never brawled with anyone, and never used anything close to his true power in a fight before. He's learning this in the middle of a life-and-death battle to save the planet. Mistakes are inevitable. A lack of tactical or strategic thought too, as he's completely inexperienced.

 

I don't entirely buy this argument, but I think reasonable people can disagree on the point.

That argument is 100% buyable.

[Lord Liaden]

Or rather it would have been, had he not proceeded to toss the man down an icy canyon then stood by and watch Lois do the same thing to Ursa.  Then to top it off, not bat an eye as Non leaps to his death.

 

"Icy canyon" is, pardon my saying so, an exaggeration. They fell a few feet into mist and disappeared. The Fortress of Solitude was built over the Arctic Ocean, so at worst they would have fallen into water. Even from the first time I saw that scene, I took it to mean they were placed into some Kryptonian prison.

 

You can dispute that, since we can't say for certain where they ended up; but your interpretation would be no more objectively supportable than mine.

[Pattern Ghost]

, so at worst they would have fallen into water.

 

Wait. Were they de-powered? So the water would have given them hypothermia within minutes. I guess that really was at worst.

[Lord Liaden]

If I could, I would like to divert the discussion of idealism and ethics in comic-book characters for a moment to Marvel's recent Civil War movie. In this movie we see Captain America portrayed as a man of strong convictions and principles, an inspiration to people around him; but also a man who's imperfect, who makes mistakes (as he admits himself). Those mistakes weigh on him, but he doesn't give up the fight because of them, because he knows the consequences of his not acting would be worse.

 

But this movie places him in a situation where the issues of right and wrong aren't clear-cut, where it isn't initially obvious what the "right thing" to do is. Cap struggles with whether or not to compromise his principles for what he keeps being told is the "greater good." But once circumstances lead him to make up his mind, he has no more doubt or hesitation. That was true during the famous airport fight scene, and I was struck by the contrast between Cap and Tony Stark when they confronted each other. Stark is nearly breaking from the stress of what he's trying to do; Cap is calm and resolute, sure of what he needs to do. The kind of man you can believe other people would follow.

 

That's how you make these larger-than-life idealistic characters interesting and realistic, yet still inspirational. You present them with issues that test their beliefs, but see them overcome the challenge and stand firm in the end.

[Lord Liaden]

Wait. Were they de-powered? So the water would have given them hypothermia within minutes. I guess that really was at worst.

 

I think there are a few nits over there you forgot to pick.

[Pattern Ghost]

I think there are a few nits over there you forgot to pick.

 

Yeah, I didn't mention that even if he dropped them in his Jacuzzi, he destroyed the Fortress of Solitude at the end, so . . . 

[Pattern Ghost]

If I could, I would like to divert the discussion of idealism and ethics in comic-book characters for a moment to Marvel's recent Civil War movie. In this movie we see Captain America portrayed as a man of strong convictions and principles, an inspiration to people around him; but also a man who's imperfect, who makes mistakes (as he admits himself). Those mistakes weigh on him, but he doesn't give up the fight because of them, because he knows the consequences of his not acting would be worse.

 

But this movie places him in a situation where the issues of right and wrong aren't clear-cut, where it isn't initially obvious what the "right thing" to do is. Cap struggles with whether or not to compromise his principles for what he keeps being told is the "greater good." But once circumstances lead him to make up his mind, he has no more doubt or hesitation. That was true during the famous airport fight scene, and I was struck by the contrast between Cap and Tony Stark when they confronted each other. Stark is nearly breaking from the stress of what he's trying to do; Cap is calm and resolute, sure of what he needs to do. The kind of man you can believe other people would follow.

 

That's how you make these larger-than-life idealistic characters interesting and realistic, yet still inspirational. You present them with issues that test their beliefs, but see them overcome the challenge and stand firm in the end.

 

MCU Cap makes a great Superman IMO. Heck, his power level isn't much lower than the original.

[assault]

MCU Cap makes a great Superman IMO. Heck, his power level isn't much lower than the original.

 

Absolutely.

 

Or you could put him in Iron Man's armour, and he would pretty much have Superman's full power set as well. (Hype about relative power levels aside.)

 

Hmm... give Tony Stark the super-soldier serum and have him investigate the death of his parents...

[Christopher R Taylor]

Given how he was raised by Pa Kent, I think it's safe to say he's never brawled with anyone, and never used anything close to his true power in a fight before. He's learning this in the middle of a life-and-death battle to save the planet. Mistakes are inevitable. A lack of tactical or strategic thought too, as he's completely inexperienced.

 

 

Problem is that he didn't learn anything.  The first time he punches Kryptonian thug and he crashes into a building he should have gone "oh crap!  Look at the damage, those people were hurt!" and then he tries not to do that.

 

This is all just excuse making for the writing.  They wanted epic damage and huge, massive strength on display.  Look, he punched him so hard, the building collapsed!  ITS EPIC!!!!!!

[Lord Liaden]

MCU Cap makes a great Superman IMO. Heck, his power level isn't much lower than the original.

 

When DC and Marvel Comics published their "Amalgam" crossover series compositing characters from both universes, it made sense that Superman and Captain America were combined into "Super-Soldier." Despite their many differences, each character traditionally serves the same function in their respective worlds: as the role model, the example of heroism for others to emulate.

[Twilight]

"Icy canyon" is, pardon my saying so, an exaggeration. They fell a few feet into mist and disappeared. The Fortress of Solitude was built over the Arctic Ocean, so at worst they would have fallen into water. Even from the first time I saw that scene, I took it to mean they were placed into some Kryptonian prison.

 

You can dispute that, since we can't say for certain where they ended up; but your interpretation would be no more objectively supportable than mine.

If they fell to the bottom of an icy canyon and died upon impact or the felt into the Arctic Ocean and drowned, they're still dead as a result of Superman's actions.  Actions he didn't need to take since all three of them had been depowered and could easily have been captured and brought to justice.

[Cassandra]

Also, if you really want to stick to the source material, then Wonder Woman will be tied up and gagged for half the movie so....

 

The 1975 Pilot of the Wonder Woman TV show pretty much covered all the elements of her December 1941 comic book origin story.

 

Major Steve Trevor intercepts a German Bomber over the Bermuda Triangle and bails out over Paradise Island.  The Queen decides to hold a contest to see which of the Amazons will return him to the outside world.  Diana in disguise wins the contest and becomes Wonder Woman.  After delivering Steve to the Hospital she breaks up a bank robbery and displays her ability to deflect bullets with her bracelets.  A crooked Theatrical Agent convinces her to put on a show so she can get some money.  In the comic he tried to steal all the money and run out on her, but on TV he was a Nazi Agent.  Diana becomes a nurse to watch over Steve, and in the comics she buys the idea of a nurse named Diana Prince who is going to join her husband in South America.  Steve learns that another bomber is heading for America and rushes to the airfield to intercept it.  On TV he is captured because he trusted his secretly Nazi Spy secretary, but in the Comics he shoots down the Bomber but has to bail out without a parachute.  Wonder Woman saves Steve in the comics from the fall, but on TV she learn about the Nazi Bomber from Steve's Secretary by using the magic lasso.  Afterwards on TV Diana becomes Steve's new secretary.

 

She doesn't get tied up until the next episode.

[Lord Liaden]

If they fell to the bottom of an icy canyon and died upon impact or the felt into the Arctic Ocean and drowned, they're still dead as a result of Superman's actions.  Actions he didn't need to take since all three of them had been depowered and could easily have been captured and brought to justice.

 

Or, they could have fallen very much alive into the Kryptonian prison which, I posited in my previous post, is suggested by the visuals of the scene. In which case they were indeed captured and brought to justice, by the only person qualified to dispense it, a fellow Kryptonian. None of them were citizens of any Terrestrial country, or even human. And they were captured in the high Arctic, international waters with no national jurisdiction, and only one resident.

 

But I'm inclined to think that all that is digging into the scene a lot more intensively and seriously than anyone making the movie ever intended.

[Nolgroth]

 

 

Problem is that he didn't learn anything.  The first time he punches Kryptonian thug and he crashes into a building he should have gone "oh crap!  Look at the damage, those people were hurt!" and then he tries not to do that.

 

This is all just excuse making for the writing.  They wanted epic damage and huge, massive strength on display.  Look, he punched him so hard, the building collapsed!  ITS EPIC!!!!!!

 

 

You say that as if it's a bad thing.....

 

....I kid! I kid!

 

We've already gone over the morality thing. I just had to get a dig in. Character flaw. It's on my sheet as a Psychological Complicative Disadvantage.