Grailknight

I would rather they left her as a white martian trying to do good, and see where that leads with Hank/J'onn.

I tried, but he's not currently seeing any new patients.  Probably a good thing, since I'm not sure he takes my health insurance.

Or maybe those starving dogs chewed on the Wikileaks for a while and found it tasteless and lacking in nourishment. Like the law enforcement wallahs have.
 
Or maybe those Wikileaks revelations are just "old news" (one for/from the "Oxymorons" thread ) and they're just in the usual feeding frenzy about the most recent scandal.
 
I get the impression that Clinton's "malfeasances" are "no worse than your run-of-the-mill politician". If you vote for pretty much any politician ever, you're going to be voting for one that has flaws and foibles and has done questionable or possibly incautious things, and things you don't agree with. 
 
Trump is simply a whole new level of crazy that most politicians would never have the imagination to approach and if they had some sort of fever dream to come up with the concept, they'd have the "nous" to take some febrifuge, some antacids and a nap, and come back to sanity.

Neither party is what they were 30 years ago. Each side has pushed so far into their respective corners that ideology trumps (pardon the pun) issues. The Republican Party is imploding because they sacrificed unity in the interest of some quick and easy votes when the Tea Party became a news item. Like most political decisions of late, the long-term consequences were never considered. Now we are paying for it.

You could also flip that question around and ask why would they make it the same?
 
The fact is that they didn't use them already. If they existed in Winter Soldier, Fury would have used one (or more). Since he didn't, then they probably didn't exist. Since they haven't existed in the MCU up until the last episode of the last season of AoS, that opens up an opportunity to use them as a plot point in the show, and to introduce them to the wider MCU (though I doubt anything from either of the TV franchises will make its way into the movies). I think AoS is the best place to introduce LMDs, provided the storyline is good.

First let me say that I completely agree with LL's assessment of MCU Tony Stark.
 
I want to further respond to the particular observation that I quoted above. It is a disease in Hollywood to have protagonists make decisions for (and keep secrets from) others "to protect them". This is such a profoundly flawed sentiment in real life that it kind of shocks me that writers continue to use this plot contrivance with an almost obsessive regularity in their fictive worlds.
 
And this is not just a problem in movies. It is a staple of television drama as well. The thing is, it doesn't really work. Any viewer past the age of a tween understands, on some level, how disrespectful and narcissistic that attitude is, and yet Hollywood insists on making characters, presumably good and heroic characters, do this again and again as if it makes any kind of sense.
 
I will say that I think it works to an extent for Tony Stark precisely because he is arrogant and narcissistic to enough of a degree to really believe he is protecting the world and that he knows the best way to do that. But as a general rule, this attitude simply does not fit well when worn by your average protagonist.
 
This is really just another anti-Hollywood rant, not an anti-MCU rant or an anti-Tony Stark characterization rant.

Sure. It's hardly that the pampered rich boy who had a "long list of character defects" and poor stress management habits before all this shit started should have trouble dealing with the aftermath of a major war where he not only saw death & destruction on a scale he'd never encountered before, but nearly died himself from riding a freakin nuke into another dimension? And then had his brain messed with and saw his own creation trash Sarkovia and nearly wipe out humanity? And the only woman he's ever had a real relationship with just walked out on him? And then he learns his parents didn't die in an accident but were murdered by a man standing right in front of him, and BTW one of his few actual friends (Cap) knew this and didn't tell him? Seriously, most professional soldiers who have trained their whole lives for combat would be quivering pieces of PTSD after all that, and as Cap pointed out the first time they met, Stark's no solder.
 
Now if if you don't like that the writers have dumped all this crap on Tony, ok. But I don't think we can say they haven't made his reaction to it believable.
 
And as others have pointed out in the superhero genre "Reacting Badly" almost always translates to "Hitting Someone." Seriously, how can we criticize the MCU for not following genre tropes, and then turn around and criticize them for having this disagreement end in a fight between friends? It doesn't get more comic book than that.
 
I'm also not sure Tony was trying to "kill" Cap. Beat the shit out of both of them? Absolutely. Kill Bucky? Maaaaaybe. But I don't think Tony would've killed Cap even if he'd won. Sure he wasn't exactly pulling punches, but he's fighting Captain Freakin' America - no need for kid gloves there.
 
Personally I think Stark's character arc has been one of the best things about the MCU thus far. He's grown from the guy telling Congress to pound sand in IM2, to realizing that maybe he doesn't in fact know everything. He's also made some really bad calls, and frankly I think he secretly is ready to let someone else take that responsibility for awhile. But at the same time, he's still who he is so even when he's trying to do the right thing he still has trouble getting past his own ego.
 
All that said, I'm hopeful that Marvel intends CW to be the low point, and that future movies will be about them working their way back out of the abyss, regaining both the public's trust and each others' trust. I really enjoyed CW: but one movie was enough and I'm ready for them to go back to fighting villains.

Sure, but you know what a big part of what made Star Wars work so well?  Darth Vader coming back.  You know a large part of what made the prequels suck?  Killing the most interesting bad guy in the first film.

That's because to you (and me), these are superhero stories. To the studios, they're action movies that happen to star superheroes, and they're not going to "arbitrarily" define a fundamental action movie trope just because it happens to conflict with a bunch of comics books. I'm not saying I like or agree with it. But from their perspective it's far from arbitrary.

It is the writer's task to see to it that he always can. Somehow. Remember, the writer is always in control here.
 
In my view, a writer who has decided to tell a story in which the hero can not, and does not, find a solution to that dilemma has perhaps told an interesting story, but he (or she) has not told a Superman story.
 
By way of analogy, The Godfather is a brilliant story, but a lousy romantic comedy.

Exactly.  Well stated overall.  The inability to comprehend or see this is a troubling reminder of how odd our culture has become.

I'm sure there are folks out there who want Superman to be kind and gentle and pacifistic or something, but that certainly isn't me. There's a difference between being honorable and virtuous and being completely non-violent.
 
Is Superman violent? Of course he is. He fights with the energy output of major nuclear weapons. Will there be collateral damage? Of course. These are superhero/supervillain fights he's getting into. There's going to be a lot of material damage, but comics tradition typically dictates that the cost in human lives is pretty minimal, even if that isn't terribly "realistic".
 
Can Superman get angry? Of course he can. But if that turns him into an angry man, that's different. Usually his anger gets channeled into a grim determination at worst. If he loses control and becomes reckless or hateful, then that's not Superman. Maybe it is Superman under the influence of red kryptonite or Braniac's mind control or something, but it isn't part of his core character.
 
Does Superman kill? Sure, when the writers have lost their way, IMO. Writers who understand and respect the core of his character will always find a way to avoid having him kill an adversary. Full stop. The fact that Supermam has killed before in the comics doesn't mean that killing is a core part (or even an acceptable part) of Superman's character, it only means that someone got it wrong (again, IMO). The same can be said of any film portrayal.
 
Was Superman born with a perfect moral architecture? Of course not. He learned that--or at least the human version of it--from Ma and Pa Kent. But the idea is that by the time he put on the blue supersuit he had integrated all the best features of "being human" and came to embody our ideal selves. Can he make errors in judgment and mistakes in action? Sure, but such moments should be rare, and they should be used merely to give Superman an opportunity to overcome those momentary lapses and return to the righteous path.
 
Should Superman be a light-hearted happy-go-lucky goof? Of course not. By the same token he shouldn't be a brooding, angst-filled figure of self-doubt. There is actually a middle ground that easily walks the line between the two, but I did not see that happening in MoS. I tend to see it in the animated versions of Superman (not all, but most). It's as if WB thinks that the only way to make Superman suitable for adults is to make him into an adult saddled with all the same neuroses as the writers tasked with making him fit the contemporary zeitgeist. Sorry, but I happen to think that is profoundly misguided.
 
The dramatic tension in a Superman story should never be one where the circumstances put him in a crisis situation and we wonder whether or not he will do the right thing, but whether or not he'll be able to do the right thing. His struggle should never be existential or ethical, but practical: Can he (find a way to) defeat Zod without hurting civilians and/or killing him, not will he choose to do so.

Wow Darkness, you are really passionate about this topic. If I may be so bold, might I suggest that those on the opposite side of the discussion feel just as strongly about their opinions. I agree with much of what you are saying, but I don't think either of us are going to convince anyone to change their mind. Don't get so wrapped up in it. Just an observation and suggestion.

I agree. Of course, that is not what I was saying. I'm not sure if you just oversimplified my point to draw up a straw man, or if I was being too subtle. In either case, let me clarify. 
The range of human emotions is quite broad. Not all heroes need display every single human emotion. The more noble and virtuous will, by definition, avoid all of the uglier emotions and behaviors. It will simply not be in their nature to succumb to those tendencies (if they have them at all, which is arguable if the subject isn't even human to begin with).
 
I don't subscribe to the notion that if a character does not display the full range of human emotion that they are "shallow". They are just more crisply defined. And when we're talking about a myth-level archetype, it isn't necessary for him/her to be the Everyman that stands in for us all. He (or she) may stand in for all our hopes and dreams (i.e., the wish fulfillment angle), and could be far more valuable as an aspirational paragon than as a metaphor for the human condition.

I'm a bit on the other side of the fence.  I don't mind temporary tweaks to characters, because I do like to see some variety even with established characters.  But it needs to be temporary, especially where personalities and values core to the character are concerned. 
 
But that's in the comics.  In the movies, which are much more mass market and heavily exposed, we really ought to be seeing something pretty close to the "standard" portrayal of a character, because that's going to be the baseline for the character for way more people.  Odds are, someone who barely knows anything about Superman probably expects to see the optimistic, moral, goody-two-shoes guy.  If you instead show a movie about an omnipotent, brooding alien loner, then 1) that might turn them off and 2) it doesn't tie in to the comics very well.

Having actually watched the show, this is mostly incorrect. Kara arrives on Earth - as a child - to find Clark is grown up and protecting Earth. Clark thinks it's important that Kara have a normal Earth childhood like he did. He also knows that as a child, she's vulnerable and his enemies would use her against him.* So he encourages her to just be a normal child as much as possible. Once she grows up and decides to become Supergirl, Clark makes it clear he's proud of her and had hoped she would choose this, but that it had to be her choice and it had to be an informed adult choice. That's all explained in literally the first episode.
 
Frankly, much of your argument on this thread comes across just like this - you're arguing very passionately about things you haven't read/watched. Which hey, we're all geeks here, nothing wrong with arguing passionately. But at some point you need to entertain the possibility that people who've actually read Superman comics might know the character better than you do?
 
I do agree with your point that early on Marvel's heroes were more relatably human than DC heroes; that's been well discussed. But you're vastly oversimplifying everything that's happened since then.
 
 
* This part is implied but not stated outright in the show.

One of the things I heard most often from viewers of Age of Ultron, both in person and online, was how happy they were to hear Alan Silvestri's theme from the first Avengers film played over the credits of AoU.
 
I often hear the "Captain America March" from The First Avenger praised by people for its stirring heroism and, like, American-ness.   And I've lost track of how many young people claim to be rehearsing it for their band class.
 
Those are just two thematic examples that I believe could easily achieve the iconic status of a Bond or Star Wars theme... if Marvel would just repeat them a few times in their movies, as those other themes have been.

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.

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.

I kind of feel the same way about changing Superman or Batman to such an unrecognizable degree as I do about the Abrams Star Trek movies. When you change the characters that much, along with their history, I feel you should just invent new characters. I mean, that's what they are anyway: entirely new characters. But the old names are appropriated in service to bigger box office returns (the studios aren't dumb, they know that bait and switch tactics do work).
 
So if you want a Superman-type character that snaps the necks of his adversaries, then by all means do so, but please don't call him Superman! Because that's not Superman.

Superman was only tolerable as a character because of his moral code which prevented him from crossing certain lines.  The indestructable, handsome, all-powerful hero is really unlikable and impossible to relate to unless he specifically limits himself with a code of behavior which is appealing.  Drop that and he's a terrifying, marauding alien stomping around on earth, unstoppable and unlikable.  He's only heroic by happenstance, not will or design.  He may save the kitty from the tree for a little girl or he may burn the tree to a cinder while fighting someone else, frying the little girl, too.

I hope Scott Bennie won't mind me reprinting this, but for this topic I just couldn't resist.   Scott often plays Champions Online, usually as his longtime superhero PC alter-ego, Thundrax. From time to time he also posts bits of CU-based fiction featuring that character to the CO website discussion forums. Not long ago Scott put up this bit of Thundrax fiction relating to Batman vs Superman, which I hope you'll find as satisfying as I did. Following are Scott's words:
 
 
(Warning: Spoilers for Batman vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice. Note, this is an IC fiction piece only and not a review of the movie, which many have enjoyed, and which many have also criticized.)






“Isn’t this great?” Sean exclaimed, munching on his popcorn. “This fight is gonna be awesome!”

Craig squirmed in his seat, sighing. It was bad enough when Sean dragged him to this movie the first time, but he wanted to watch it again? Teenagers. He muttered something about Christopher Reeve under his breath.

“Come on Batman,” Sean grinned. “Kick his ass again!”

Craig snorted in disgust, and finally rose to his feet. People immediately snarled at him to sit down. Sean winced. “Uncle Craig, you’re wrecking the movie!”

“Incubus,” Thundrax said with a growl, referring to an omnipotent, malevolent cosmic imp with whom he'd clashed repeatedly over the years. “You remember that favor you once promised me, as long as it’s totally selfish? I’m calling it in.”

With that, Craig walked into the screen.

“Who are you?” Batman and Superman exclaimed together. Craig shook his head.

“The “S” stands for hope?” Craig said. “How about for “stupid”. You’ve got an hour to find your mom, and you waste it on a fight scene? Duh. Superspeed, moron. Use it. Not to mention access to a crack investigative team who might move the damn planet to find a popular co-worker’s kidnapped mom.” He turned on Batman. “And you! Lex Luthor’s bitch!” He placed a Lexcorp logo over the bat symbol on his chest.

“I can take you down too.” the Bat growled.

“Shut up, Luthor's bitch. Oh, by the way, when you said that a 1% chance of him being hostile made you perform an action that has a much higher chance of turning a potentially deadly alien into an enemy... so damn stupid. I so wanted to hit you in the face."

"Try it."

"Give me a break. Even if I wasn't playing Rod Sterling for a day..."

"That's Serling," Superman corrected.

"Fine. Even if I wasn't playing Rod Serling for a day, you don't know my abilities and you haven't made preparations to handle me, so you're hosed." Craig answered. “But for now you’re going to stop being an emotionally stunted three year old and listen to me as I explain everything Luthor’s done to set up this fight. Also, to cut to he chase and quote the Brady Bunch, Martha, Martha, Martha.”

“Wasn’t that Marcia?” Superman wondered.

“Details, Details,” Thundrax chided dismissively. “And as long as I’m here…” Craig concentrated and the sky cleared. Batman shielded his eyes. “Man, no wonder you’re all angry and depressed. This palette makes Caprice look cheery and wholesome.”

“What’s Caprice?” Superman again wondered.

“Shut up. I’m talking.” Craig snapped, and he explained to Batman everything Luthor had done to set up the climactic showdown. He could see Batman's face drop by the end of the very long explanation. “Some detective you are. You still want to fight, Luthor’s bitch?”

Batman said nothing.

“Good. Now, bad CGI Doomsday is on his way, so don’t throw out the Kryptonite spear, give it to Wonder Woman instead, she’s tough enough to handle it, not to mention Amazon training. Okay, I think I’ve done enough for you two morons. This thing is almost as dumb as Thundrax the movie, and that’s saying a lot. But remember you two. Adult yourself. Testosterone can be controlled.”

With that, Craig stepped back out of the picture and returned to his seat, smiling in deep satisfaction. Sean Doerksen dumped his popcorn on the Canadian hero and, hands on his hips, shouted angrily at the Canadian.

“That was the best fight scene ever and you ruined it!” He paused to hyperventilate. “Never take a superhero to see a superhero movie! You’re worse than dad!”

Craig settled back in his seat and chuckled, drinking in the dirty looks of the rest of the audience.

1.  Explanations for fundamentally changing the main characters, does not justify fundamentally changing the characters!
2.  Completely changing the main characters are not minor issues where I come from.  Actually, if you throw in the fact that Eisenberg is actually playing the Joker instead of Lex Luthor...that's 3 main characters BTW.
3.  Your insult is particularly ironic given that you seem to be the only one not listening to the fact that my (and others) issues come from a standpoint of taste/preference and tone.

Of course Superman would kill a bad guy to save innocents, if he was backed into a corner with no other choice. But that's not a Superman story. The point of a Superman story is that the strong have a duty to act morally and lawfully. The point of MoS was that Superman's philosophy is hopelessly naive, and the whole story was about his struggle to finally abandon the moral code that was holding him back.

I think DC lives in terror of Cloony/Schumachrer's Batman And Robin being their legacy.  So they are striving with everything they have to never have a single moment like the old 60s Batman show.