Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I want a Doctor Strange movie, directed by Tim Burton.

Gitzbitah wrote:I am really enjoying Frazz owning this thread as hard as Superman would own anything moviegoers would accept as a villain.

A related quote sequence from Community-
Abed: "Are you Superman?"
Troy: "No."
Abed: "Would you tell me if you were?"
Troy: "I'd tell everyone. I never understood why he cared who knew."

The secret identity serves a few purposes.

Firstly it lets him -- to an extent -- lead an ordinary life, if only for short times, and lets him connect with ordinary people in a way that Superman can't. Think how star struck people get when they meet celebrities.

Plus it also goes a long wat towards protecting his family and friends from attack from his (many) enemies who wouldn't hesittae to strike at him in this way. Hell, think how often Lois gets into trouble as it is.

Best way to think about it is that Clark kent is really who he really is, with Superman being something of an act he puts on so he can do what he does -- conversely it's generally agreed that Batman is who Bruce really is now -- after all those years of training etc etc -- with Bruce waybe being an act or disguise he puts on.

It's worth bearing in mind that with the exception of some of the err.... wackier.... stories in the past most people don't know that Superman even has a secret identity, he doesn't generally mention it as, well.. you wouldn't would you.

For the record : In TDKR Batman does indeed whup Supes ass... but to do this takes a lot of planning, some synthetic kryptonite, Supers is already weakened having been caught in a nuclear explosion not long before, he puts a massive electrical charge from the city mains through him and unleashes ultra soics etc to disorientate and slow him.

Superman has/had a fairly extreme vulerability to magic as well.

Ahtman wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Awesome. Our opinions differ.

But you aren't offering up opinions, just bad information. At no point have I said you have to like Superman, as that would be an opinion. The problem is that your facts are wrong, and you are using incorrect information to inform you. It is like saying 2+2=6, and when someone tries to explain that it is 2+2=4 your response is to say that you just have a differing opinion.

What facts are wrong?
I reference the last movie. He survived being machine gunned in the freaking eyeball. He flew in space without assist and without life support. He lifted an island. Thats pretty invulnerable.

In the first movie. he flew so fast he travelled back in time. In another movie he survived a missile attack with the only effect of ticking him off.

In this teaser alone he breaks the sound barrier and can apparently reach speeds to achieve at least low orbit. Without anything else, thats pretty freaking invulnerable. That means lack of oxygen is ok. extreme friction G forces are not a problem. He can withstand forces that would jellify our bones instantaneously. in the realm of movie superheroes he just beat everyone besides Iron Man and maybe Thor without breaking a sweat.

But my facts are off...

Wikipedia:

Superman films In Superman: The Movie, Superman's speed was shown as fast enough to reverse the timestream. In Superman II, he possessed the ability to hypnotize Lois Lane with a kiss. Because the three Kryptonian villains of the movie had the ability to shoot beams from their hands, Superman presumably would have the same power. In Superman III, he was able to create a diamond from coal using super strength and raising his heat temperature with a glowing yellow flash from his hand. In Superman IV: The Quest for Peace, he demonstrates the ability to repair damaged structures with a telekinetic beam from his eyes, and to levitate several falling people; he also shows a greater extension of his superhuman strength to draw the moon out of orbit and then return it back to normal. In Superman Returns, Superman is shown to possess enough invulnerability to stare unblinkingly as a gun is fired point blank at his eye and receive no damage at all. Kryptonite does rob him of his strength and make him vulnerable, but due to flying above the clouds and into the rays of the sun, he gained enough amplified strength to lift Lex Luthor's kryptonite-based sub-continent beyond the Earth's atmosphere and into space, despite the kryptonite shard in his body and the kryptonite pillars coming from the continent, though this severely weakens him and he falls back down to Earth in a coma.

Frazzled wrote:
*Red Skull. Superman extermines Hydra.
*Loki. Just chunks him into space.
*Luthor. Punches through his skull (now that would be epic, lets start the movie with that).
*Zod. isn't he like old? What you can't beat an old guy from your own planet? What are you Super Nerd?

Oh Frazz. Are you just warming up for the Jihadi websites?

Of course, Superman COULD do all of those things. What makes Superman interesting is that he does NOT do those things. That would demean what he stands for.

I think what really bugs you Frazz is that he is not a Neitszchien "superman" who does what ever he wants to do. He holds himself to a higher standard, because nobody else can force him to be held to a higher standard.

Anothe rway you can make a Superman movie dramatic is not to endanger Superman (other than morally or spiritiually) but to but others that he cares about in danger. You can see this in most of the former Superman movies. However, I do agree that successfully writing and challenging a omnipotnetn chracter can be a huge challenge.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rubiksnoob wrote:I want a Doctor Strange movie, directed by Tim Burton.

I second this, although I'm not usre it has to be directed by Tim Burton. I would choose the Wachowski Brothers.

I've already addressed the inconsistencies in your information several times, and since I doubt you read them the first time I don't see why I should do it again.

He's an 80 year old character that has been in comics, books, movies, and TV shows pretty consistently for that 80 years and you pick two limited examples and act as if they encompass some great understanding of the character.

Of course, Superman COULD do all of those things. What makes Superman interesting is that he does NOT do those things. That would demean what he stands for.

Actually it just makes him stupid. There's no morality check to not taking out the bad guy. It just means the bad guy is going to again hurt more people.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:I've already addressed the inconsistencies in your information several times, and since I doubt you read them the first time I don't see why I should do it again.

He's an 80 year old character that has been in comics, books, movies, and TV shows pretty consistently for that 80 years and you pick two limited examples and act as if they encompass some great understanding of the character.

No, just the movies that millions of people have seen, not the comics that only comic book readers have seen.

Frazzled wrote:No, just the movies that millions of people have seen, not the comics that only comic book readers have seen.

Then perhaps you shouldn't make generalized statements about the character and refer specifically to and only about the film incarnation, which is not the only one, and, while I love Christopher Reeve, was simply overpowered and also confusing at the same time. Much of the stuff in those films exists only in those films. If that was all there was to determine Superman I would agree with you, but it isn't close to the only source of information so judging a completely separate work based only on that is incredibly myopic. When people keep telling you that there is more, and give you examples of how those movies aren't all there is to the character but you just turn your nose up and say you want to pretend there is nothing else that is frustrating. Not because you don't like the character, but because you obstinately choose to remain ignorant of the larger picture of the possibilities. People aren't trying to combat you, they are trying to share with you something they like and you just keep gaking on them for no real good reason other than you think because you saw a few movies you know enough, which is both sad and ridiculous.

Also, millions of people have read the comics, or they wouldn't have lasted 80 years.

The comics are irrelevant. The movies are out. One movie was recently done.
Again in the one clip he's already boogeying at least mach 5 and taking unbelievable forces.

Frazzled wrote:

Of course, Superman COULD do all of those things. What makes Superman interesting is that he does NOT do those things. That would demean what he stands for.

Actually it just makes him stupid. There's no morality check to not taking out the bad guy. It just means the bad guy is going to again hurt more people.

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

We can all be very happy that Kal-El didn't land in Texas.

gorgon wrote:We can all be very happy that Kal-El didn't land in Texas.

Just think of all the bad guys that wouldn't be around, not to mention North Korea...

George Spiggott wrote:

Easy E wrote:

George Spiggott wrote:

Ahtman wrote:Except for Braniac, Doomsday, Darksied, Bizarro, Lobo, Metallo, Parasite, ect ect.

Will they be in it or will it just be the Kryptonite thing again?

Worse. General Zod and friends.

That's not worse that's better. Superman II was one of the first films ever saw at the cinema. It was, and still is, a great film. Six year olds are never wrong about the quality of films.

Garbage Pail Kids. I loved it as a 6 y/o. Its beyond a steaming pile of gak. Trust me, your wrong



Automatically Appended Next Post:

rubiksnoob wrote:I want a Doctor Strange movie, directed by Tim Burton.

That would suck. And mostly because of Burton. The guy had some cool ideas and all 15ish years or so back, but now its the same goddamn thing. I bet if he directed a Superman movie, the entire audience would die from boredom

I really don't get the "Superman is too OP" argument. Granted he probably wouldn't be to phased by some of the villains of some other heroes but that hardly means there isn't any entity that can go toe to toe with him. Even just within the context of the cartoons I've seen supes get his ass handed to him on more than one occasion. Granted he makes a comeback but that's expected for any super hero story, regardless of who they are.

Beyond that, if my understanding is correct anyone with magic can stand up to him as his general invulnerability doesn't work on it. People were making the avenger's comparison, if the sort of Magic Loki was using counts as "Magic" in the superman context he certainly could pose a non-trivial challenge to superman. It's not clear if it would or not since they also say magic/super-tech are kind of one and the same.

Hulk literally played with him like a rag doll. Super man pops Loki from behind at the speed of sound and splatters his guts over a square mile. Bring forth the next bad guy!

Now here's the real question: who wins: Superman or William Shatner Captain Kirk?

unstoppable force meets mojo king personification of plot armor

Frazzled wrote:The comics are irrelevant.

Only if one is particularly lacking in imagination or intellect I suppose. It takes a particularly craven line of reasoning to come to the conclusion that a film that is completely separate from any previous movies can only be only be the same as the previous films. Thankfully the people working on it are aware that there is a whole mountain of stories and ideas beyond the Richard Donner films and their sequels, or psuedo-sequels in the case of Singer's Superman Returns.

Frazzled wrote:The movies are out.

So are the comics, cartoons, books, action figures, ect ect

Frazzled wrote:One movie was recently done.

Not that recently, but it was also a continuation of Superman II, and not all that well received. This isn't a continuation of those films and isn't beholden to being the same films as them. The 1960's Adam West Batman is very different than the Nolan Batman which is different than the Burton Batman. Unlike Batman, there has really only been one Superman interpretation in theaters for the last 30 odd years, and it's about time we got a new one. Your problem in not knowing there are other interpretations of the character, despite all the evidence contrary to the fact, isn't a problem with Superman, it is a problem with your inability to recognize there is more to it than just your limited understanding. It is like saying that because you can't see outside your door that that must mean there is nothing outside your door: just because you only know the film version of Superman doesn't mean there is only the film version of Superman.

Frazzled wrote:Again in the one clip he's already boogeying at least mach 5 and taking unbelievable forces.

It's almost like he is a fictional character that can do amazing things. Iron Man can build armor that is implausible, Hulk can turn green and toss around tanks like we swat flies, Thor can do pretty much everything Superman can do and control weather.

And yes, Loki could mess Superman up becuase he uses magic, and Superman is just as susceptible to magic as anyone else.

I think someone nailed it earlier when they observed that the problem Frazzled really has with Superman is that he just can't understand why someone that pwerful would not just use all that power kill all his enemies (ignoring that he has enemies that are more powerful). The idea that someone could have all that and not be corrupt isn't something he can grasp.

Frazzled, you really need to stop speaking authoritatively concerning subjects about which you very clearly know absolutely nothing.

Only if one is particularly lacking in imagination or intellect I suppose. It takes a particularly craven line of reasoning to come to the conclusion that a film that is completely separate from any previous movies can only be only be the same as the previous films. Thankfully the people working on it are aware that there is a whole mountain of stories and ideas beyond the Richard Donner films and their sequels, or psuedo-sequels in the case of Singer's Superman Returns.

Reported. Nice attack. To the point though, we're talking about the movie. While you can draw sources from the comics, the movies already have him at a 9 on the Superhero Richter scale. You can't get around that. Sorry but there already have been what five movies?

Again, the teaser looks like cardboard. You seem to be personally offended about that like you have a vested interest in it. Who knows, it could be good. But that teaser doesn't cut it.

Frazzled wrote:Again, the teaser looks like cardboard.

Fine, you don't like the teaser. That means nothing about the character of Superman.

Frazzled wrote:Reported. Nice attack.

Frazzled wrote:To the point though, we're talking about the movie.

No, we are talking about a new movie. One that is drawing from the comic books and not the Richard Donner universe.

Frazzled wrote:You seem to be personally offended about that like you have a vested interest in it.

The way you wallow in your ignorance of the subject, practically flaunting it, like a pig rutting around in the mud is indeed personally offensive. I tend to find anything that seems to celebrate remaining uniformed as a virtue over being informed offensive.

Frazzled wrote:like you have a vested interest in it

People do have a vested interest in this character. I know I do. Superman stands for truth, justice, and the American way. It might be hard to understand but calling him boring and stupid and meaningless is a lot like what you might perceive in flag burning.

Manchu wrote:Frazzled, you really need to stop speaking authoritatively concerning subjects about which you very clearly know absolutely nothing about.

Why because I haven't ready every Superman comic since #1? So what. I've seen the movies. This will be a movie. The teaser looks boring. It looks like the same superman thats been done over and over and over.

Get over yourselves about some claim to authority. Its a movie. There have been many movies. They've all pretty much sucked. This one doesn't look different, just angstier. There's no villain sufficiently capable of dealing with him, that itself doesn't look like a nerd's dream. Zod's been done, and even then he looked like some escapee from a bad disco.

Maybe it will be good. Thats fine, but don't get your panties in a wad because someone is not enamored. Jeez, serious nerd rage.

On the other hand, coming from the director, I guess we could put Leonidas against him...
Spartans, what is your profession? uuh ray
I'm superman. I get all the girls and can throw the moon at you.
Spartans! Prepare for glory!

EDIT: I'm just assuming that you don't like flag burning.

Y'know, there was plenty of opportunity in this thread for a good conversation about the challenges presented by powerful characters, but it kinda got buried under the bravado and dismissive, conversation-killing statements.

Frazzled wrote:Why because I haven't ready every Superman comic since #1? So what. I've seen the movies.

No, because you seem to think the character is just about power. The character is about being responsible, wise, just, and compassionate with power. He's not just a dude who punches other dudes.

Frazzled wrote:It looks like the same superman thats been done over and over and over.

Really? I can't think of anything about this movie that looks like Richard Donner's movie, for example. You know, except for a red cape and blue suit.

So back to the topic.

I like the fact that the teaser is not just "Superman smash!".

We all know he'll smash something or use his heat vision, etc. But seeing (and hearing for that matter!) the idea of him "growing into his destiny" is a fantastic teaser.

As some said, it took them until the very end to realize "Oh it's Superman!".

That's a good thing.

Manchu wrote:EDIT: I'm just assuming that you don't like flag burning.

I could care less, unless you start a brushfire, in which case I'd like to skin you alive on tv as a warning to others. And no I am not joking.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Again, the teaser looks like cardboard.

Fine, you don't like the teaser. That means nothing about the character of Superman.

You're right. Maybe thats the difference here. I'm not impugning the charater of Superman. I'm saying its hard to make a good superman movie and the teaser didn't impress me.

Frazzled wrote:

Manchu wrote:EDIT: I'm just assuming that you don't like flag burning.

I could care less, unless you start a brushfire, in which case I'd like to skin you alive on tv as a warning to others. And no I am not joking.

Well, that's exactly why I clarified that I was assuming.

Frazzled wrote:I'm not impugning the charater of Superman. I'm saying its hard to make a good superman movie and the teaser didn't impress me.

To be honest, these trailers aren't hitting it out of the park with me, either. And the reason that worries me is because I think Supes is such an important character and we need to be saved by Superman now more than ever.

Frazzled wrote: I'm saying its hard to make a good superman movie and the teaser didn't impress me.

If that was actually what you had said, you would have saved everyone a lot of grief and frustration, including yourself.

To the whole "Supes could kill Loki" thing...Loki is a god. Superman is an alien. Loki has lived for thousands of years, Superman ages (possibly slower than regular people, but still ages). I think Supes would get his righteous butt thumped. Superman has vast stores of energy and power, but Hulk is only limited by his rage (which can go higher than Supes power). I see Superman getting thumped by Thor, Loki, Hulk, and the Wasp after Bruce Wayne gives her lovely emerald earrings before he violates her batcave.

I've spent a long time disliking/hating the Superman character. I did like the first two Superman movies, but the very premise where a bald man with a rock consistently beats him is ridiculous. I gained respect for him when I saw him flip out on Darkseid in the Justice League video game, then watched him in the Justice League cartoon, and now I buy every DC movie that has him in it. He gets questioned for being a boyscout, crooks an eyebrow and says "whatever gave you that idea." He has morals, but he can go rabid, and has, and will do so again. It's a question of what sets him off. Also, he can be a badass when he wants to be. Check him out in Superman Vs. The Elite. The ending is the personality that makes me now like Superman.

Ahtman wrote:

Frazzled wrote: I'm saying its hard to make a good superman movie and the teaser didn't impress me.

If that was actually what you had said, you would have saved everyone a lot of grief and frustration, including yourself.

I thought I did.
Thats the issue for me. Superman is like Batman in some ways,a dn the terminator in others. He's not corruptable. He can't be reasoned with. He'll just keep coming.

But finding an opponent for him that is believable at this power level is difficult without appearing corny. The joker as Charles Manson was (mostly) believable because there are people like that in the world. And again, this teaser wasn't doing it for me.