Rene

Re: Ultimate vs The Authority

For Snide well I have concede' date=' in all honesty. It may well be that anytime I enter the issue (and giving the topic is discussing some of my favourite comics characters, it's rather tempting to do), knowing my ideas are not precisely the most popular around here, I unconsciously go into with full guns blazing and ready to escalate, so to speak. Insulting, dear God, I hope not. I strive never to be actively insulting to anyone, personally. If someone feels insulted by my ideas, well, I'm at a loss.[/quote']

 

Don't worry, friend. I may not agree with all that you say, but having watched this thread and others for a while, I must say: some of the four-color defenders are much more arrogant, rude and insulting in the way they talk about some Iron Age comics than you and other Iron Age fans talking about the four-color comics. I think you're right about this at least; it's like your oppinion were worth less than theirs, just because you're kind in the minority.

 

I've seen fans of the Authority that are snide and arrogant, but I don't think you are. Like I said, I don't agree with all that you say, but you try to explain your points and I don't remember seeing you calling people names, saying stuff is crap or worthless, etc. at least not in this thread. Can't say the same for some of the four-color defenders.

Re: Ultimate vs The Authority

Divis Mal is a couple orders of magnitude more moral than the Authority. . .

 

( won't say the same about alot of the Teragen, though )

Divis Mal basically wants to be left alone, and wants his fellow novas to be left alone.

Re: Ultimate vs The Authority

And including he glories in child sexual abuse' date=' and is ready to kill a small child (Jenny Quantum) to the drop of an act).[/quote']

 

Yes, I find it hard to credit that someone could consider a child rapist "likable", but whatever. Whatever their flaws, no member of the Authority is a child rapist.

Re: Does Champions encourgage conformity?

So' date=' it wouldn't surprise me if they did exactly that, even if they are all new people.[/quote']

 

I'm not sure that the Aberrant designers are the same guys who do the World of Darkness. If I am not mistaken, a guy named Steve Long helped to design the powers.

Re: Does Champions encourgage conformity?

When the gave me characters in systems where they were not awarded points for these things' date=' where it was not expected for everyone to add in the same amount of disads, where "character powers" was not hinged on these disads... i got MORE detail, richer detail, better backstory and a whole lot more people mentioned in the backgrounds. The characters were more diverse and frankly had more plot hooks and richer plot hooks.[/quote']

 

You're refering to GOOD D&D players. I'm playing at a D&D PbEM right now, and we have very well-realized characters, mostly because the GM don't overemphasize combat, there are no dungeons, and the world's society is more like a fantasy novel and less like a fantasy video game.

 

But I've played in plenty of D&D games where the lack of in-built hooks in the rules resulted in characters that lived in a vaccuum and were little more than the sum of their classes, alignment, and race. Don't tell me you never met such D&D players? Maybe you're very lucky, or smart and have set the bar high for admission in your games.

Re: Does Champions encourgage conformity?

What he really hates are point totals. He think its forces all character into a false equality that you just don't see in comics. To an extent' date=' I think he has a point. [/quote']

 

Holy sh*t!!!

 

But Aberrant IS a point-based system too! Just like HERO. Maybe worse, because the characters all have the same points to expend in Attributes, Skills, Powers... It would be as if in HERO a 500-pt character were forced to expend 300 pts in powers, 100 in Attributes, 100 in Skills. That would result in characters MORE like each other.

 

The thing that makes Aberrant characters sometimes more diverse in power level is that the power costs are seriously unbalanced. Homunculus costs a lot of points and is pretty useless, while some Mega-Attributes are a must buy, because they're cheap and potent.

 

It would be kinda funny if your friend enjoyed Aberrant for what really isn't an intentional design decision from the creators. I bet they tried (though maybe not too hard) to make the powers balanced. I doubt they thought "Well, let's make the costs all wrong just so characters with similar points have wildly different capabilities." If they wanted this effect, they'd probably institute random rolls.

Re: Ultimate vs The Authority

But what about the important question? Which team would win a fight?

The Authority in about six panels. The Ultimates are basically a weaker version of the Avengers, while the Authority is probably as powerful as the JLA.

The Ultimates could last longer if they had their full membership (Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch make just occasional appearances and mostly as a running gag).

Re: Ultimate Champions: How would you do it?

That is freakin' depressing. I have no interest in dysfunctional drivel. Please don't take this personally' date=' but there isn't anything of value in reading or coming up with this kind of crap.[/quote']

 

There isn't anything of value to *you*. Everyone comes equiped with their own tastes in fiction. We can't all be like you, as much as we might try... And one man's crap is another man's ambrosia.

 

I agree though that a bunch of severely dysfunctional people isn't necessarily any more "realistic" than a bunch of extremely well-adjusted people. Anyway, I always hated the word "realistic". Fiction mustn't be always about emulating real life. Actually, some fictional heroes have personal flaws that are blown up out of proportion almost as much their nobler qualities, they're not just "people", they're symbols too. Most fiction isn't a mirror, but a lens.

 

Now, I wouldn't necessarily make them all psychos. There are other aspects of the "Iron Age" that I enjoy. Making the aliens more alien and magic more magical, for instance. Try to give it more of a science fiction aspect, as opposed to superhero superscience. I always liked the way Alan Moore depicted aliens in Swamp Thing and Miracleman, as real strange beings with real strange societies, more like current literary SF, less like 30s space opera. Same with magic, make it more unpredictable, stranger, and paradoxally more steepled in real magical traditions. Make psi powers more SF-like too, with bleeding noses and weird side effects.

 

Basically, make it all weirder.

Re: Ultimate vs The Authority

the way it acknowledges politicians' date=' governments, bureaucracies, organized religions and corporations are often corrupt and self-serving (the degree they are shown corrupt, though, is wholly unrealistic).[/quote']

 

I don't think that is so new. Most of said figures are pretty corrupt in some straightforward comics, especially Marvel. X-Men and Hulk come to mind. The backlash the Authority suffers from them is greater, but that may be because the X-Men never tried to take over the US. That is something Magneto would do.

Re: Ultimate vs The Authority

I think what really gets to me is being told how much more this comic is "realistic" and "cutting edge" when its really got the same stuff in it almost every other comic has.

Gets a bit to me too. It isn't Alan Moore, it isn't even Planetary or Supreme Power. It's basically an action comic book, even though it's a fun one, IMO. The only aspects that I think are more "realistic" than an ordinary book is that the superscience in Ellis issues were less Kirby and more Moorcock/Lovecraft/cyberpunk. I kinda like that. Even though it's perhaps a not really more realistic, just less unrealistic. Of course, Millar later went crazy with it, and would make Kirby proud. I also dig Warren Ellis's cinematographic style.

Re: The Authority:What the heck?

The degree of clear and present danger (cities/Earth/universe about to be blown apart) is typically made so great that the reader is mentally led to ignore them as "acceptable". The same plot device by which you don't feel much objection to their battle kills or after-battle baddie summary execution because the opponents were just shown so bad.

I basically agree. The comic book is conveniently written in such a way as to never put the Authority into doubt. At least not in the Ellis/Millar issues. I'm not familiar with the later issues.

I don't think this makes the Authority a bad comic. It just keeps them from exploring some interesting moral questions. But basically the Authority's universe is planned in such a way as to allow them to be heroes.

So, yes, I think they *are* heroes, in their universe's context.

Re: The Authority:What the heck?

This is a good point. However' date=' where's the point where you severe flaws disqualifies you from being an hero ? A possible answer would be where the evil you do out of herodom totally unbalances, or if you want a more outstanding concept of hero, greatly obfuscates the good you do in it. Given the level of heroism superhuman generally pull out (saving individual lives on a routine basis, periodically saving cities, worlds, or entire civilizations), how bad you must be that such cannot wash the stains of out your hands? It is open to debate, but personally, I'd be willing to set the threshold rather high.[/quote']

 

I think intentions matter a lot too. What is the "hero"'s reason for saving others? Is he genuinely worried about them, or do he play the hero just for money, fame, and glory? If such saviour routinely used his fame to sexually abuse people, then I wouldn't consider him a hero in any way.

 

If we're talking about someone who cares about others, then a single heinous act commited in a moment of weakness would immediately trigger deep regret. But if it becomes an habit or if he don't feel any regret, then I can't see how he can be a caring person, and he probably play the hero for other reasons (well, except if we're talking Multiple Personality Disorder here).

 

PS: I think gratuitous murder is a worse crime than rape, BTW. Mostly because I'd prefer to be raped (repeatedly, even) than to be killed, I guess. I also would prefer if someone that I know be raped than killed. It's kinda harder to come back from death...

Re: The Authority:What the heck?

Actually, if any comic would have this happen, it /would/ be AUTHORITY.

 

For one thing, it's hardly new in the Wildstorm U for the protagonists to get totally screwed over by bad intel. Just ask any veteran of Stormwatch.

 

For another thing, we're talking about the same team that let NYC get wiped out by a tidal wave because their one member who was capable of handling the situation was all strung out on his junkie juice. So 'the Authority screws up like a dumbass and lots of good people die' is hardly a new element in this thing.

Yeah, but they didn't screwed up due to overzealousness that time. Just one of their members was irresponsible in his personal life. Nothing that could be used to put into question the team's modus operandi.

I've not read Stormwatch, but I understand that they had to follow orders from one of those corrupt, incompetent human organizations (it's the only type of human organization there is in the Wildstorm universe). But as soon as they were on their own, they were basically infallible in their choice of targets.

Somehow I doubt the writers would introduce anything to put into question the team's vigilante mentality. I would like to see it, but I doubt it will ever happen. The writers have, traditionally, sided with the Authority too much.

Re: The Authority:What the heck?

Casual killer is a tough case because it runs directly contrary to the core concepts of protection and improvement that are at concept of the hero. Yet the casual killer concept is an extreme case: it involves ones that kills almost at random' date=' "civilian" innocent people that slightly interact with him over the slightest justification or provocation or none at all. It has nothing to do with being merciless in combat or to one's chosen enemies. Utterly none of the Authority characters would fit the prerequisites for casual killer.[/quote']

 

Comic book vigilantes like the Authority and the Punisher are not casual killers. They only kill the baddies. Those comics operate under some rules that aren't any less unrealistic than those in the four color comics.

 

In the comic, the Engineer would never approach Jack Hawksmoor and say: "Hey, Jack, do you remember that third-world president we executed last week without second thought? Turned out he was framed by his political enemies. He was innocent, we screwed up." This kind of thing just don't happens in the comic.

 

Likewise, Frank Castle never snaps completely and starts harming civilians, except if some supervillain is controlling him. The victims of the collateral damage of the Authority's battles are never highlighted. We can only infer that they exist. Even the infamous "Let's flip Italy into space" scene don't make it explicit that not everyone in the country was a Blue.

 

Interestingly enough, this kind of moral dillemma isn't addressed in those comics, despite their claims of realism and sophistication. At least they weren't in the Authority issues I've read. I stopped when Millar left the title.

 

 

One could say though that this kind of hero sets a bad example, but I'm not one of those who think healthy people are so dumb as to parrot what they see in fiction. Those who do are crazy to begin with, and probably anything would set them off.

Re: Ultimate vs The Authority

The proper term for the Authority would be "Super Powers Psycho Hippies."

Drug Use? Check.

Free Love? Check.

Lefist Philosophy? Check

Dress Weird? Check

Pacifist Outlook? No way.

4 out of 5

Re: What is a Superhero to you?

hmm first of all a superhero does not care about countries or races or religion. So Guy Gardner' date=' Cap. America, Red Rockets are not heros they are only warriors.[/quote']

 

I'd agree if said super-patriot cared only for his country and nothing else, but that is not the way Captain America has been traditionally portrayed. Cap embodies only the best aspects of the "American Dream" and that is something I can get behind, even as a non-American.

 

Actually, perhaps due to the writers' bias, Captain America has been mostly portrayed as a left-wing liberal's wet dream of what a patriot should be. Steve Englehart, J.M.deMatteis, Mark Gruenwald, Mark Waid, all wrote from a liberal perspective, more or less. Cap is been know to discard his costume, grow a beard, and hop on a motorcycle to cross the country in soul-searching when the American government does something he disagrees with. I can't see him following orders he disagrees with.

 

Captain America is the kind of American hero who probably cares for immigrant's rights and gay's rights. He is the kind of American hero we need to see more of in real life. He certainly is no Rambo.

Re: The Authority:What the heck?

I think if anything' date=' the Authority sounds like it was a good thing at least early on. It shook things up in the mainstream, or at least turned a few heads. Successful or not it has had an impact, one that cannot be denied, and one that will affect comics in the near future. It may be only a phase, it may be a change, good or bad, I don’t know.[/quote']

 

There are some who hate something not just for what it is, but by the kind of following it generates and the impact on the industry. I can relate to this feeling. For instance, while I enjoyed the original "Vampire: the Masquerade" book, the way the World of Darkness came to dominate the RPG scene irked me to no end.

 

Likewise with the Authority. Thankfully I only read it after the craze had more or less passed. So I had some perspective. I recommend the Ellis issues (that would be issues 1-12 of the book), especially the last two arcs. What I liked about the book was the emphasis on a somewhat "harder" science fiction and a smathering of horror, instead of the superhero pseudo-science you usually see. The planet-eating omnipotent alien the Authority fights isn't a human giant in a bright blue and red armor, but a Cthullu monstrosity.

 

Ellis also has a way with cinematic storytelling. One of the things that most impressed me in the first issue of Planetary was how the characters' powers were shown. In a typical superhero story, the writer would have the heroes explaining their own powers in a wooden dialogue specifically created for that purpose. Ellis instead don't reveal anything early on, he just shows Jakita Wagner refusing Elijah Snow offer of using a rope ladder and leaping from an helicopter, landing unharmed, and you see the rock shattered where she landed.

 

That was great. That is what I like the best about Ellis. He knows how to tell superhero stories through images too.

 

There was also little politics in Ellis's run. It wasn't like he took himself so seriously. He was just doing a kick-ass version of the Justice League. Unlike you guys, I don't mind politics in fiction, my problem with the Authority's later stories was that the writer sided with the protagonists a little too much, and all the protagonists had the same oppinions, so it sounded a bit like propaganda. You can compare that to, for instance, the Ultimates, where the different heroes have different oppinions, and the book's message isn't clear-cut or hopelessly incestuous.

Re: The Authority:What the heck?

By the way' date=' I have a question. Is the Authority, Ultimates, Justice League: Elite a trend that you want to see, or do many people here on these threads yearn for a more holistic, Silver Age feel where no one kills, and well things are much more cleaner?[/quote']

 

Makes no difference to me. I don't judge a superhero story's worth based on whether or not the protagonist kills. My hatred for the so-called Image style comes more from the interchangeable heroes, confusing art, and emphasis on guns/martial arts to the exclusion of all else. But I like the Ultimates and I think the Authority is shallow but fun. I also like Silver Age-y stories. I also like re-interpretations of the Silver Age, from "atacks" (Identity Crisis) to homage (Supreme). I like it all.

Re: The Authority:What the heck?

Thanks for the information chuckg

 

I agree with you there’s something very wrong and also deeply contemptible about lies like.

 

That doesn’t stop me appreciating wrights work and hoping I do get the last issue of storm watch. It’s really a shame he’s ruined his career with something so pointless and unnecessary.

It gets worse.

Wright might be even sympathetic if his confession were motivated by a guilty-ridden conscience, but despite his claims he only confessed because he was about to be exposed by some newspaper.

Also, Wright's version of the facts kept changing *daily*, as more people started to disprove his tales. He basically lied when he tried to come clean about lying.

Even worse, Wright kept his arrogance until the very end. His non-apology apology about lying wasn't even contrite. He blamed everyone but himself. He kept mouthing off against "big business corporate media" for not exposing him (or not exposing him sooner) in a Jayson "ahaha I'm so smart" Blair kinda way, he kept blaming conservatives for forcing him to lie so people would be more receptive to his positions, he blamed Bush, he blamed oil, he blamed everybody but himself.

You know, I don't buy into the notion that all American leftists are paranoid weasely whackos who hate their country, but Micah Wright really seems to fit the stereotype. I find him beyond comtemptible. Chuckg was kind when describing him.

Re: Ultimate vs The Authority

My position is that in any remotely rational universe' date=' *somebody else* would have shot, hung, or gassed the Joker long ago. The US military, for being a nuclear terrorist. The SWAT team, during one of the Joker's innumerable hostage stand-offs. Even a hired gunman, executing someone else's revenge.[/quote']

 

Of course, you're right. I should relax, close my eyes, take a deep breath, and remind myself one more time that the logic of the stories isn't always the same as the logic from the real world. But it's just that I hate the Joker so much. Not, I don't really hate the Joker, I hate how he always gets away with doing sick sh*t.

 

Basically, I think the problem is this: before about 1986, the Joker was a Bronze Age supervillain that was a bit nastier than most, while the Batman was a Bronze Age hero that was a bit nastier than most heroes. They were evenly matched. But after "the Killing Joke" the Joker was evolved into a full-blown Iron Age villain, while the Batman remained more or less the same Bronze Age-y guy in terms of morals and outlook, and is made to look kinda helpless.

 

It would be more or less the same if Kid Miracleman, from "Miracleman" were a Superman villain, and Supes just locked him into the loony bin after his monthly massacres of making severed body parts rain down Metropolis's skies. Miracleman killed the Kid after he escaped once to mass murder in London for the second time, but Superman and Batman would just let him do it again and again, so my point is, don't put a guy like Kid Miracleman as Superman's main villain. Iron Age villains should stay in Iron Age comics.

 

(Thank God Carnage isn't a frequent Spider-Man enemy.)

 

Heh. The only other character/concept I hate so much in comics is Lobo. I'm usually very tolerant, I either like or am indifferent to fiction. I rarely hate something. But the Joker just push all my wrong buttons.

Re: Ultimate vs The Authority

Hey guys, I'm not one of those people who think, say, Saddam Hussein should have been just killed without a trial. But what if Saddam had been proven able to escape once a month, had been proven again and again that his madness was so extreme that you couldn't have a prayer in hell to reason with him, had been proven again and again that he is extraordinarily cunning and willing to take hundreds of lives at the top of a hat not for power lust, but for something as unpredictable like, say, yesterday he ate pizza, and he always likes to kill after he ate pizza...

The Joker is that extreme. It's a situation so extreme that it's frigging unreal even for superhero comics. The Joker in the 70s was scary, but not that scary, he was more like a extremely evil supervillain who killed dozens a year, probably, not this walking holocaust that post-Alan Moore writers seem to have turned him into. The Bat writers kept upping the Bat-Villain' perversity and body counts, while keeping Batman more or less the same, and the poor guy just looks helpless to me in his own title (in the JLA he is Mr. Unbeatable).

I dunno. I buy Chuck's explanations about editiorial fiat, but it irks me to try to argue the letter of the law in such a ridiculously extreme situation, as if the Joker's "civil rights" were more important than the lives of the next hundred people he will surely kill next month (not probably, not likely, we just know he will kill), so we shouldn't even sedate him. Yeah, okay, I can certainly buy that permanently removing the Joker would make the comics less fun for some, and that is a valid explanation.

But talking morals when we discuss the Joker... leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Hell, I don't know why people still live in Gotham City, with mass murders occurring daily, not to mention plagues and earthquakes, the place should be deserted by now. The whole situation is ridiculous.

Re: Ultimate vs The Authority

Where we disagree is your stubborn insistence on somehow making this Editorial Fiat out to be Batman's fault... which is absurd' date=' as he's a fictional character. [/quote']

 

No, no, no. It isn't Batman's "fault", it just ends up looking that way, because he is the Joker's nemesis. I don't think Batman is a spineless retarded fool, I think he is *made* to look like that on account of Editorial Fiat. And it makes me pissed that he is made to look like a incompetent superhero.

 

I also am not advocating mindwipe or heavy sedation for burglars. Just this one guy that escaped a million times to mass murder again and again. He isn't just a guy that once tried to rape one of the hero's loved ones, he is the damned Joker. I think I even agree with you that the Batman already is psycho enough to be unhinged by killing someone, because Bruce has a pretty extreme personality. Still, it makes me frustrated. But that is my own problem.

 

I think a cool mature instance of a hero dealing with this stuff was when Jack "Starman" Knight killed his brother's murderer in the heat of battle. Jack is an ordinary person. He didn't enjoyed the killing, he didn't went into a slippery slope rage killing every other villain he found, he didn't exiled himself in space. He just promised to himself not to do it again and tried to go on living. And the cops basically looked the other way.

 

But you're right, Batman is pretty extreme in his "thirst for justice", who knows what killing would do to him? Still, the way the Joker just go on killing and killing and killing and nothing ever happens to him... pisses me off to no end, I don't like the message it sends. It's one of those rare instances where I can't suspend my disbelief anymore, telling myself that there are style reasons involved (not ultra-tech in Batman's stories, and making Bruce and Dick and everyone else pulling a Samaritan and giving up the few scraps of social life they have to stand watch over Arkham would sacrifice the secret identity subplots).

 

It's just makes me look at Batman as ineffective, even if I know that the deck is stacked against him. Jeez, I remember that issue of Hitman when someone paid Monaghan to finish the Joker for good, and some convoluted plot point intervened to stop this unstoppable mercenary from achieving his goal. So you're right, and it makes no difference, the Joker is just unkillable.

Re: Ultimate vs The Authority

> Chuckg, I see your point. But the Batman, seeing that the system does

> nothing to contain the Joker (not to mention all the other psychos in

> Arkham) should do *something*.

 

Such as?

I dunno. I can think about some things from the top of my head, besides killing the Joker, or maiming him, or lobotomizing him:

1) Put him into a tougher prison than Arkham.

2) Enlist other heroes' help in toughening Arkham's security.

3) Exile the Joker to another dimension.

4) Keep the Joker heavily sedated into the Batcave.

5) Ask Dr. Fate or Zatanna to magically alter the Joker's personality.

6) Camp on the Arkham's doorstep to catch the Joker whenever he escapes, taking turns with Nightwing, Robin, Huntress, etc.

But that is just little me, spending some minutes to think about it. I'm sure that a genius who is able to master every discipline and science know to men could be able to think about a million more possibilities if he worked at it.

Also, the assumption that Batman would have to reform society to dispose of the Joker is... chancy. He wouldn't even be arrested. A more realistic outcome would be everyone looking the other way, when a mass murderer who escaped a million times is disposed of.

Re: Ultimate vs The Authority

As a serial medium that spans not just decades' date=' but generations, comicbooks require that we not pay very close attention to what happened in the past. Additionally, we all know that what superheroes do is driven by what it's entertaining to [i']see[/i] superheroes do, not by what necessarily makes sense. At their most basic level, superhero stories -- even the gritty, "realistic" ones -- are fundamentally goofy.

Yeah. Though I don't like the word "goofy", I agree with you that what works for certain characters and genres isn't always necessarily "realistic". Mostly, it's the comic book format that necessitates certain contortions. Batman's story is a never-ending story, and you can't dispose of the best villains permanently.

Chuckg, I see your point. But the Batman, seeing that the system does nothing to contain the Joker (not to mention all the other psychos in Arkham) should do *something*. I don't know what, though. I agree with bblackmoor that sometimes you have to just accept the unrealistic parts and move on, but it got too silly for me, and that is probably one of the reasons I'm unable to follow Batman for longer stretches, even though I can enjoy the occasional story.

I get sick of seeing mass murderers being led to a resort for a holiday just to escape next month again and again and again, while the "hero" does nothing. I think the whole thing is too immoral, as immoral as "the Authority", probably, even though in Batman's case it isn't a conscious thing on the writer's part, probably.

(Even though the occasional story hints at this. I've read an issue recently that speculated that the Batman is "soft" on the Joker, Two-Face, etc. because Batman can easily see how he could become as deranged as them if he hadn't channeled the tragedy that befell him into justice. Interesting rationale, but I wouldn't care to hear it if I were a Gothamite with my family picked piecemeal by Arkham escapees.)

There is the occasional villain that deserves death as much as Batman's enemies (I can think of Sabretooth and Bullseye, for instance) but in this case it appears to be less the heroes fault. Wolverine has at least *tried* to deal with Sabretooth.

Re: Ultimate vs The Authority

The Joker's survival is purely due to artificial and arbitrary whim of the Plaht Gawds' date=' and *not* from a failure of either intellect or moral courage on the part of any fictional character.[/quote']

 

In other words, the Joker is just too popular to be killed off.

 

I still think the whole situation, even if it's really the editors' fault, makes Batman looks like a spineless retarded hypocrite.