zslane

Dragging superheroes like Superman down to our level is fraught with all kinds of deconstructionist pitfalls. I don't want my Superman to be brooding or pensive or full of self doubt or any of the other neurotic ills that afflict normals humans. I need my Superman to be a steady rock of confidence and a moral compass that always points to true north. That is only ever boring when the story surrounding him is boring.
 
If a publisher wants a Superman character who gets consumed by rage, guilt, jealousy, indecision, or any number of other petty traits we normally associate with "real people", then they should go for it, but they should give him a new name, a new costume, a new origin story, and his own title. Calling him Superman is disingenuous, no matter how strong your legal hold on the IP is.

Dragging superheroes like Superman down to our level is fraught with all kinds of deconstructionist pitfalls. I don't want my Superman to be brooding or pensive or full of self doubt or any of the other neurotic ills that afflict normals humans. I need my Superman to be a steady rock of confidence and a moral compass that always points to true north. That is only ever boring when the story surrounding him is boring.
 
If a publisher wants a Superman character who gets consumed by rage, guilt, jealousy, indecision, or any number of other petty traits we normally associate with "real people", then they should go for it, but they should give him a new name, a new costume, a new origin story, and his own title. Calling him Superman is disingenuous, no matter how strong your legal hold on the IP is.

I feel rather strongly that if they are going to "tweak" a character's core essence to a really substantial degree, then they should just make it a new character (with a new name). Yes, that means they wouldn't be able to exploit name recognition in order to facilitate their creatively hollow cash grab, but I believe integrity ought to be more important than short-term profit.

It would be good, I think, to also read something that was written prior to the 1980s, to get a more thorough understanding of how the character has been portrayed. Restricting one's reading to only Crisis and post-Crisis material will certainly deliver the modern trajectory of the character, but not necessarily the core of him. There was over 40 years of material that was written prior to Crisis, and I think that has more to say about who Superman really is than all the post-modern experimentation that has struggled (and continues to struggle) to keep him popular/relevant.
 
I kind of disagree with the notion that iconic characters should be changed in fundamental ways to adapt them to the current zeitgeist. Rather, I think the creative challenge ought to be finding ways to maintain the character's core being, no matter how "old fashioned", despite the changing times. None of the attempts I've seen to turn Superman or Capt. America into douchebag anti-heroes have ever worked, no matter how much that characterization may resonate with a contemporary readership.

I feel rather strongly that if they are going to "tweak" a character's core essence to a really substantial degree, then they should just make it a new character (with a new name). Yes, that means they wouldn't be able to exploit name recognition in order to facilitate their creatively hollow cash grab, but I believe integrity ought to be more important than short-term profit.

I wasn't strictly speaking of his characterization in MoS, but the various temperments he (or some variant of him) has shown in recent years in the comics. The thing is, this tendency to keep messing with the Superman recipe in the comics leads to a distinct lack of consistent vision for him in the movies as well.

It would be good, I think, to also read something that was written prior to the 1980s, to get a more thorough understanding of how the character has been portrayed. Restricting one's reading to only Crisis and post-Crisis material will certainly deliver the modern trajectory of the character, but not necessarily the core of him. There was over 40 years of material that was written prior to Crisis, and I think that has more to say about who Superman really is than all the post-modern experimentation that has struggled (and continues to struggle) to keep him popular/relevant.
 
I kind of disagree with the notion that iconic characters should be changed in fundamental ways to adapt them to the current zeitgeist. Rather, I think the creative challenge ought to be finding ways to maintain the character's core being, no matter how "old fashioned", despite the changing times. None of the attempts I've seen to turn Superman or Capt. America into douchebag anti-heroes have ever worked, no matter how much that characterization may resonate with a contemporary readership.

It would be good, I think, to also read something that was written prior to the 1980s, to get a more thorough understanding of how the character has been portrayed. Restricting one's reading to only Crisis and post-Crisis material will certainly deliver the modern trajectory of the character, but not necessarily the core of him. There was over 40 years of material that was written prior to Crisis, and I think that has more to say about who Superman really is than all the post-modern experimentation that has struggled (and continues to struggle) to keep him popular/relevant.
 
I kind of disagree with the notion that iconic characters should be changed in fundamental ways to adapt them to the current zeitgeist. Rather, I think the creative challenge ought to be finding ways to maintain the character's core being, no matter how "old fashioned", despite the changing times. None of the attempts I've seen to turn Superman or Capt. America into douchebag anti-heroes have ever worked, no matter how much that characterization may resonate with a contemporary readership.

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.

The question is whether or not any of the MCU film themes will ever reach the iconic status of themes like Star Wars, Super Man, Raiders of the Lost Ark, or Jurassic Park. I seriously doubt it. But I think the reasons have less to do with the quality of the music and more to do with our relationship to pop culture today. In particular, I think the way we consume cinema is very different today than in the 70s, 80s, and even 90s. Our relationship to the music of cinema has changed along the way as well, I suspect.

I dunno. Filling out an extensive questionaire feels like overkill to me. I mean, if a player really wants to go to all that trouble that's fine, but most GMs I know wouldn't bother with pouring over and integrating that much character information. I don't think that the answer to the problem of "no information" is "too much information". There's got to be a happy middle ground somewhere.
 
Some folks seem to be getting hung up on the act of writing a character background, as if they are expected to write scintillating prose worthy of publication by Random House. As a GM, all I would ask is that a player imagine in their heads the scene (or series of linked scenes as with Dr. Strange or Iron Man) that caused their character to acquire their powers. If you can imagine the scene(s) in your head, then you are certainly capable of jotting down the bare basics of what is going on in those scenes:
 
"Talented surgeon is trained (for years) by ancient master in the mystic arts after losing the use of his hands in a car accident."
 
"Genius inventor/engineer builds first armored suit out of scraps and misappropriated weapons parts while held captive by terrorists."
 
These are just one sentence summaries of what I imagine was going on with two characters during their origin stories. This is not a writing contest, and nobody is going to grade your work. If you can write forum posts, you can write one-sentence summaries of scenes you are capable of imagining in your head. And I know you are capable of imagining scenes in your head because you are playing an RPG.
 
Most GMs aren't looking for anything more than the bones of an origin story, not a full story written in novel form. I don't know very many players who are good at writing fanfic, and no GM I've ever played with expected anyone to be. So let's not get hung up on an expectation nobody has of you. Just do something we all know you are capable of: imagining a scene (or set of connected scenes) and jotting down one-line summaries of what you see in your head.
 
Given how simple and straightforward that is, there is just no excuse for writing (or saying), "mutant; born with fire powers," and leaving it at that.

Superman doesn't have to turn evil to be out of character; all it takes is straying noticeably from the path of high virtue. There's a reason he's called the Big Blue Boyscout...

Superman doesn't have to turn evil to be out of character; all it takes is straying noticeably from the path of high virtue. There's a reason he's called the Big Blue Boyscout...

Hmm.
 
I kind of feel that my capacity for superhero movies is really no different than my capacity for superhero comic books. As long as they are well written and competently visualized, I will continue to be an avid consumer. Superhero comics have been around, with little interruption, for nearly 80 years. There always seems to be a contemporary audience hungry for superhero stories, whether they are told in a form you read or a form you watch.
 
Westerns suffered from very quickly becoming period pieces, whereas superhero movies will probably always take place in our preset or near future, keeping them from ever feeling like a genre stuck in an irrelevent past.

Snyder is a talented visualist. He consistently knocks the visuals out of the park. He's not nearly as strong with story. The only times I feel he has delivered adequately in story, he was adapting someone else's (non-screenplay) work.

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.

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.

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.

I think this is the most salient point of all.
 
We can't really talk about Superman as if he were a real person, because he's not. Everything he is and does is governed and constrained by the story that is written for him. It is meaningless to ask, "What would Superman do if given no choice but to kill an adversary?" because a competent writer (i.e., one who truly understands the character and the genre) would never put Superman in that position.
 
It reminds me of Star Trek, original series, in which Kirk looks like a genius most of the time because whenever he appears to be stuck having to choose between two truly awful options, the story (i.e., the writer) always manages to drum up a third option for him that saves the day. Saavik was spot on when she observed that Kirk had never faced a no-win scenario before, and she was in effect making a rather meta statement (as was Kirk with his retort about not believing in the no-win scenario) about the original series and the writing philosophy that drove it.
 
To my mind, a story in which Superman kills an enemy according to Machiavellian ethics is not a Superman story at all, but an ill-conceived distortion of one. Similarly, a story in which Batman kills/tortures criminals, or repeatedly brawls with Bane in futile contests of raw power, is not a Batman story at all, but a confused misappropriation of the character. I think that's why these movies fail: because they refuse to adhere to the accepted axioms of storytelling established for these characters.

I think this is the most salient point of all.
 
We can't really talk about Superman as if he were a real person, because he's not. Everything he is and does is governed and constrained by the story that is written for him. It is meaningless to ask, "What would Superman do if given no choice but to kill an adversary?" because a competent writer (i.e., one who truly understands the character and the genre) would never put Superman in that position.
 
It reminds me of Star Trek, original series, in which Kirk looks like a genius most of the time because whenever he appears to be stuck having to choose between two truly awful options, the story (i.e., the writer) always manages to drum up a third option for him that saves the day. Saavik was spot on when she observed that Kirk had never faced a no-win scenario before, and she was in effect making a rather meta statement (as was Kirk with his retort about not believing in the no-win scenario) about the original series and the writing philosophy that drove it.
 
To my mind, a story in which Superman kills an enemy according to Machiavellian ethics is not a Superman story at all, but an ill-conceived distortion of one. Similarly, a story in which Batman kills/tortures criminals, or repeatedly brawls with Bane in futile contests of raw power, is not a Batman story at all, but a confused misappropriation of the character. I think that's why these movies fail: because they refuse to adhere to the accepted axioms of storytelling established for these characters.

I think this is the most salient point of all.
 
We can't really talk about Superman as if he were a real person, because he's not. Everything he is and does is governed and constrained by the story that is written for him. It is meaningless to ask, "What would Superman do if given no choice but to kill an adversary?" because a competent writer (i.e., one who truly understands the character and the genre) would never put Superman in that position.
 
It reminds me of Star Trek, original series, in which Kirk looks like a genius most of the time because whenever he appears to be stuck having to choose between two truly awful options, the story (i.e., the writer) always manages to drum up a third option for him that saves the day. Saavik was spot on when she observed that Kirk had never faced a no-win scenario before, and she was in effect making a rather meta statement (as was Kirk with his retort about not believing in the no-win scenario) about the original series and the writing philosophy that drove it.
 
To my mind, a story in which Superman kills an enemy according to Machiavellian ethics is not a Superman story at all, but an ill-conceived distortion of one. Similarly, a story in which Batman kills/tortures criminals, or repeatedly brawls with Bane in futile contests of raw power, is not a Batman story at all, but a confused misappropriation of the character. I think that's why these movies fail: because they refuse to adhere to the accepted axioms of storytelling established for these characters.

Great examples all. This reminds me of the GMs who complain that their players don't follow genre conventions. When we get in deeper, we discover the GM does not follow genre conventions.
 
Superman and Batman do not kill. And they prevail despite their refusal to kill. When the GM puts them in a situation where their refusal to kill guarantees they lose, the players stop building characters with Codes vs Killing, and the GM gets upset that THEY are not following genre conventions.
 
I read a great article on running an early Star Trek RPG which hit the nail on the head. When the opportunity to trade his life for that of a crew member arises, the Captain should have no hesitation in taking it. That's playing to the genre. But so is the ability of the Captain to turn his certain death into victory - the GM also has to follow genre conventions.

I think this is the most salient point of all.
 
We can't really talk about Superman as if he were a real person, because he's not. Everything he is and does is governed and constrained by the story that is written for him. It is meaningless to ask, "What would Superman do if given no choice but to kill an adversary?" because a competent writer (i.e., one who truly understands the character and the genre) would never put Superman in that position.
 
It reminds me of Star Trek, original series, in which Kirk looks like a genius most of the time because whenever he appears to be stuck having to choose between two truly awful options, the story (i.e., the writer) always manages to drum up a third option for him that saves the day. Saavik was spot on when she observed that Kirk had never faced a no-win scenario before, and she was in effect making a rather meta statement (as was Kirk with his retort about not believing in the no-win scenario) about the original series and the writing philosophy that drove it.
 
To my mind, a story in which Superman kills an enemy according to Machiavellian ethics is not a Superman story at all, but an ill-conceived distortion of one. Similarly, a story in which Batman kills/tortures criminals, or repeatedly brawls with Bane in futile contests of raw power, is not a Batman story at all, but a confused misappropriation of the character. I think that's why these movies fail: because they refuse to adhere to the accepted axioms of storytelling established for these characters.

I think this is the most salient point of all.
 
We can't really talk about Superman as if he were a real person, because he's not. Everything he is and does is governed and constrained by the story that is written for him. It is meaningless to ask, "What would Superman do if given no choice but to kill an adversary?" because a competent writer (i.e., one who truly understands the character and the genre) would never put Superman in that position.
 
It reminds me of Star Trek, original series, in which Kirk looks like a genius most of the time because whenever he appears to be stuck having to choose between two truly awful options, the story (i.e., the writer) always manages to drum up a third option for him that saves the day. Saavik was spot on when she observed that Kirk had never faced a no-win scenario before, and she was in effect making a rather meta statement (as was Kirk with his retort about not believing in the no-win scenario) about the original series and the writing philosophy that drove it.
 
To my mind, a story in which Superman kills an enemy according to Machiavellian ethics is not a Superman story at all, but an ill-conceived distortion of one. Similarly, a story in which Batman kills/tortures criminals, or repeatedly brawls with Bane in futile contests of raw power, is not a Batman story at all, but a confused misappropriation of the character. I think that's why these movies fail: because they refuse to adhere to the accepted axioms of storytelling established for these characters.

I think this is the most salient point of all.
 
We can't really talk about Superman as if he were a real person, because he's not. Everything he is and does is governed and constrained by the story that is written for him. It is meaningless to ask, "What would Superman do if given no choice but to kill an adversary?" because a competent writer (i.e., one who truly understands the character and the genre) would never put Superman in that position.
 
It reminds me of Star Trek, original series, in which Kirk looks like a genius most of the time because whenever he appears to be stuck having to choose between two truly awful options, the story (i.e., the writer) always manages to drum up a third option for him that saves the day. Saavik was spot on when she observed that Kirk had never faced a no-win scenario before, and she was in effect making a rather meta statement (as was Kirk with his retort about not believing in the no-win scenario) about the original series and the writing philosophy that drove it.
 
To my mind, a story in which Superman kills an enemy according to Machiavellian ethics is not a Superman story at all, but an ill-conceived distortion of one. Similarly, a story in which Batman kills/tortures criminals, or repeatedly brawls with Bane in futile contests of raw power, is not a Batman story at all, but a confused misappropriation of the character. I think that's why these movies fail: because they refuse to adhere to the accepted axioms of storytelling established for these characters.