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.

 Compel wrote:
Comicswise, I'd say Marvel are always consistently darker and drearier than the main DC fare (EG not Black Label / Vertigo).

The main reason I can never get on with Spider-man is because I've never been able to shake the feeling his life is an unrelenting hellscape of neverending torture and misery.

I think Batman probably has him beat, there. Although Spiderman at least stays upbeat about it all...

This is actually something I'd really like to see change in comics - everyone lives in a quasi-stable time bubble where they only age very, very slowly (unless they're kids, in which case they may or may not age as the ongoing plot demands) and little reference is made to the passing of time outside of the story at hand. And as a result, everyone winds up with a thoroughly improbably amount of stuff happening during the time that they spend wearing that costume.

I'd love to see Marvel and DC, during one of their thoroughly irritating universe reboots, actually set a strict, believable timeline on each character, populate that timeline with a reasonable amount of adventure and mayhem, and then retire or replace that character with a successor. We would see actual, visible character advancement, and they would get to explore different aspects of each hero without having to keep rebooting them all the time.

 LunarSol wrote:

GL is a good example of a movie that wanted to write a sequel but didn't know how to get there. Hal is just really written as this generic, blank slate protagonist without really understanding how his personality is important to his role in the story. I think he's probably the second hardest main league member to get right, which is why he so often ends up in the same, bland shell Superman does.

What you're saying here obviously checks out with the last couple decades of precedent, but for the life of me I can't understand why Hal's personality has been such a stumbling block. People right now seem to love stubborn, charismatic men who are slightly on the dumber side at times. That's why Thor's so popular, right? It seems like translating Hal's core character traits to screen should be easy. Is there something I'm missing?

 insaniak wrote:

This is actually something I'd really like to see change in comics - everyone lives in a quasi-stable time bubble where they only age very, very slowly (unless they're kids, in which case they may or may not age as the ongoing plot demands) and little reference is made to the passing of time outside of the story at hand. And as a result, everyone winds up with a thoroughly improbably amount of stuff happening during the time that they spend wearing that costume.

I'd love to see Marvel and DC, during one of their thoroughly irritating universe reboots, actually set a strict, believable timeline on each character, populate that timeline with a reasonable amount of adventure and mayhem, and then retire or replace that character with a successor. We would see actual, visible character advancement, and they would get to explore different aspects of each hero without having to keep rebooting them all the time.

Part of the problem is that a lot of characters live and die by their long term relationships. For example, as much as I love Wally as the Flash in a solo series and as well as he can fit in the League, he can't quite replace the dynamic Barry creates with Bruce and Hal. Personally, I like the idea of a decade or so reset, but a lot of these things work because they were forged over lifelong events. Hal and Ollie for example, aren't a dynamic that you can force, but one that came naturally from the civil rights era. Part of the problem with reboots is they have nothing to offer in place of this, and can't really plan how the future will naturally create this. It's similar to the problem of trying to force Cyborg into founding League status. He's a great character, but one who thrives in the stories about seeking acceptance that come from younger characters. He doesn't have anyone to work with in the classic League and attempts to make him more series reduce his personality down to 'Puter status.

So in a way I agree, and I have no idea how to pull it off.

 insaniak wrote:

I think Batman probably has him beat, there. Although Spiderman at least stays upbeat about it all...

I'd kind of disagree about Batman... At least comic Batman, the movies it's true, probably. With one exception.

I think a lot of modern Batman is really about him building and protecting his family. Whether it's Damian, Catwoman, Kate or even a miniature clone of a [ur=https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/batman/images/c/ce/Jarro.jpeg]psychic alien starfish that lives in a jar.[/url]

There's kind of a feeling to me, at the end of his arcs, he'll come through it in a better place.

Spider-man, well, more specifically, Peter Parker, has always seemed to be stuck in this never ending horror cycle of "Well, I can save the day, or lose my job, or save my job, and disappoint my family. Or help my family, and then something horrible happens to my friends. Or do those 3 things and then the villain kills some innocent person and it's all my fault.

There was a wonderful Batman moment I read recently where Bruce is being all gloomy. "One hundred and eighty-two innocent people murdered this year."
Then Damian chips in with, "Last year, it was 214, father." Then Alfred comments, "231 lives the year before that, Master Bruce. I'd like to point out the number of murdered innocent souls has been dropping since the night you rang the bell and put on the cowl."

And then? He gets dragged out to go to dinner with his family. And the story ends.

 Flipsiders wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

GL is a good example of a movie that wanted to write a sequel but didn't know how to get there. Hal is just really written as this generic, blank slate protagonist without really understanding how his personality is important to his role in the story. I think he's probably the second hardest main league member to get right, which is why he so often ends up in the same, bland shell Superman does.

What you're saying here obviously checks out with the last couple decades of precedent, but for the life of me I can't understand why Hal's personality has been such a stumbling block. People right now seem to love stubborn, charismatic men who are slightly on the dumber side at times. That's why Thor's so popular, right? It seems like translating Hal's core character traits to screen should be easy. Is there something I'm missing?

The main thing is that a character like Hal or Thor really depends on their supporting cast to do the heavy lifting in the story. They're a reactive characters by nature rather than someone with a narrative drive. Thor needs a quest, usually from Odin sometimes in response to Loki to get his adventure rolling at which point he can react to each challenge along the way. Hal's primary version of this is either the Guardians or Sinestro, neither of which fit in particularly well with his original origin story. He gets the ring and then... does... what? Bad guy appears and he fights them, but he needs a supporting cast that gives that fight purpose. Generic love interest and "guy in the chair" best friend (seriously, what was Waititi's purpose in this movie?) aren't going to cut it. When you've got a reactive character as your lead, you really depend on a motivated antagonist and a strong supporting cast to give the story meaning so your hero can really thrive how much unwavering conviction in doing the right thing can win the crowd.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Compel wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

I think Batman probably has him beat, there. Although Spiderman at least stays upbeat about it all...

I'd kind of disagree about Batman... At least comic Batman, the movies it's true, probably. With one exception.

I think a lot of modern Batman is really about him building and protecting his family. Whether it's Damian, Catwoman, Kate or even a miniature clone of a [ur=https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/batman/images/c/ce/Jarro.jpeg]psychic alien starfish that lives in a jar.[/url]

There's kind of a feeling to me, at the end of his arcs, he'll come through it in a better place.

Spider-man, well, more specifically, Peter Parker, has always seemed to be stuck in this never ending horror cycle of "Well, I can save the day, or lose my job, or save my job, and disappoint my family. Or help my family, and then something horrible happens to my friends. Or do those 3 things and then the villain kills some innocent person and it's all my fault.

There was a wonderful Batman moment I read recently where Bruce is being all gloomy. "One hundred and eighty-two innocent people murdered this year."
Then Damian chips in with, "Last year, it was 214, father." Then Alfred comments, "231 lives the year before that, Master Bruce. I'd like to point out the number of murdered innocent souls has been dropping since the night you rang the bell and put on the cowl."

And then? He gets dragged out to go to dinner with his family. And the story ends.

One More Day really crushed my soul as MJ was like the one thing in Peter's life that wasn't about making him miserable and gave him something to keep fighting for.

Batman's big problem is that too many people define him by distrust in others, so he regularly drives his family away and resets things. I've long felt the Incorporated era was cut woefully short in this regard. To a degree I get it, but we've also long hit the point where Joker murdering a few dozen people each weekend before Bruce breaks his teeth before putting him in a cell for a few days is... not a good or healthy character dynamic.

 LunarSol wrote:

GL is a good example of a movie that wanted to write a sequel but didn't know how to get there. Hal is just really written as this generic, blank slate protagonist without really understanding how his personality is important to his role in the story. I think he's probably the second hardest main league member to get right, which is why he so often ends up in the same, bland shell Superman does.

I don't know that I agree with that. The GL film was really bad, and the character of whichever GL it was about was the central problem. He wasn't presented as a protagonist. He was presented as a stupid, arrogant, forgetful, sexist jackhole with no redeeming features or any interesting traits beyond 'fly planes real good.' He was Tom Cruise in Top Gun dialed up to 11.

So I turned it off, because whoever that was, his story wasn't even vaguely appealing. (And I also don't think I'm alone with the general audience when it comes to being unable to differentiate between various Green Lanterns)


That's very different from the Superman problem (which the modern films never address like the films and tv shows that came before). Supermans problems are his connections and his vulnerabilities that have jack/squat to do with his powers. When the film is only about his powers and his relationships make no sense (leaves his dad to die because he says so?), it just goes splat.

I've actually been fortunate enough to have never watched the GL movie. It wasn't something that interested me when it came out, and by the time I was more invested in DC and the various GL series in particular, I was rightfully warned away from going back to see it.

Voss wrote:

I don't know that I agree with that. The GL film was really bad, and the character of whichever GL it was about was the central problem. He wasn't presented as a protagonist. He was presented as a stupid, arrogant, forgetful, sexist jackhole with no redeeming features or any interesting traits beyond 'fly planes real good.' He was Tom Cruise in Top Gun dialed up to 11.

Hal Jordan (the Green Lantern in that particular film) is admittedly supposed to be forgetful, stupid, and to an extent arrogant. Well, maybe "stupid" is too far, but he's certainly no Batman. It's hard to come up with a good comparison. Hercules in his Disney incarnation maybe? Either way, Hal's main appeal is that he's just a fun guy to hang out with. He's pleasant, positive, funny, and genuinely cares about the people he protects. If they fethed that up, and it sounds like they did, it's no wonder you didn't like the character.

 Compel wrote:

Spider-man, well, more specifically, Peter Parker, has always seemed to be stuck in this never ending horror cycle of "Well, I can save the day, or lose my job, or save my job, and disappoint my family. Or help my family, and then something horrible happens to my friends. Or do those 3 things and then the villain kills some innocent person and it's all my fault.

The issue with Spider-Man, in my eyes, is that the writers are always too scared to push his story forward. Aunt May almost died in the Clone Saga, but they backed out at the last minute and, as comics are wont to do, brought her back to life. Spider-Man had to live for about a year with his identity revealed before One More Day, but the whole reset turned that back to the way it was as well. I don't think I even need to bother mentioning his relationship with Mary Jane.

The most baffling thing is that there seems to be a subconscious agreement at Marvel that people hate this. I can think of at least 3 separate comic runs where the entire story centers around an alternate universe Spider-Man and Mary Jane having a child and a happy marriage, but for some reason they don't want to do that in the mainline series? Why? I don't think I'll ever understand it. Such is life, I suppose.

I can think of at least 3 separate comic runs where the entire story centers around an alternate universe Spider-Man and Mary Jane having a child and a happy marriage, but for some reason they don't want to do that in the mainline series? Why? I don't think I'll ever understand it. Such is life, I suppose.

There is a long running fear that a stable adult relationship and especially kids ruins entertainment for people. I think it started in 70s/80s sitcoms, but a lot of entertainment execs treat it as entirely verboten.*

Part of it, I suspect, is the perception that is where 'Happily Ever After' starts and the story is over. But reinforced by generations of Nielsen ratings.
Why might be seeing a shift away from that particular trend with the shift away from network television and all its hang-ups, but no idea how long that would take to translate over to comics.


*as aside, its because of this that when Infinity War introduced Stark's kid, I knew for certain he was going
The 'Hollywood narrative' is basically pre-programmed there.

Voss wrote:

I can think of at least 3 separate comic runs where the entire story centers around an alternate universe Spider-Man and Mary Jane having a child and a happy marriage, but for some reason they don't want to do that in the mainline series? Why? I don't think I'll ever understand it. Such is life, I suppose.

There is a long running fear that a stable adult relationship and especially kids ruins entertainment for people. I think it started in 70s/80s sitcoms, but a lot of entertainment execs treat it as entirely verboten.*

Part of it, I suspect, is the perception that is where 'Happily Ever After' starts and the story is over. But reinforced by generations of Nielsen ratings.
Why might be seeing a shift away from that particular trend with the shift away from network television and all its hang-ups, but no idea how long that would take to translate over to comics.


*as aside, its because of this that when Infinity War introduced Stark's kid, I knew for certain he was going

Spoiler:

to die.

The 'Hollywood narrative' is basically pre-programmed there.

It's somewhat depressing that somehow having a stable adult relationship is seen as undesirable considering how rare its becoming in both IRL and in fiction. I've already noticed there's a lot more single/divorced parents being shown in some kids shows which is pretty concerning IMO. If I want wholesome couples I have to go out of my way to find books and mangas that itch that scratch for me. Considering that life definitely doesn't just become EZ-mode once you're in a committed relationship, it just smacks of laziness and the idea that there's no inherent "drama" that you can usually pull like the love triangle.

I wouldn't say there's no inherent drama. But the easy road for shows is couple's drama, which in hollywood terms is usually 'spiteful bickering.' Personally I get enough of that in real life.

This particular aversion is largely limited to the transition for younger characters (like spiderman or various robins). There's a long history of shows that start out as (and focus on being) family dramas that don't have the same hang ups. Its just not something you usually see in comics.

I think the closest you really get in media is stuff like Sky High and Spy Kids, where the family drama is focused on the kids.

Otherwise you get plotlines like the Fantastic Four kid and Scott Summers/Jean Grey nightmarish timeline(s) child(ren). Don't know about you, but for me those kind of push (and justify) that aversion.

----
Though the Young Justice 'tv' series progresses to the point that a lot of heroes have semi-retired and kids are showing up, though the focus isn't really on any of them. Main characters do get engaged, however, and there's usually a season hiatus time skip, so when Season 4 finally happens, it could do something with the idea.

Incidentally I love the episode of Young Justice where some villain/assassin, I forget who, found out where the day care all the heroes sent their kids to was.

Comics have traditionally been the medium of kids and teen. Spiderman has been a teen and then younger adult and the single superhero that sells the most merch (toys and gak) to kids.

The end result is he gets married to MJ... and then hes and clone and it's Ben Riley's turn with the new 90s spiderman suit to match. Young and single baby!

Then old peter is real and what does Ben do? Grabs a Jean vest and becomes scarlet spider. The 90s is back for the kids baby!

Then on top of that... tragedy builds good stories and spiderman does tragedy a LOT.

Ultimately they want kids to relate to spiderman on some kind of level. And a man in his 30s with a job and a wife and a kid just ain't doing it for a 11-14 year old.

I think that comics is fundamentally a serial medium and trying to have an arc like in a novel or a movie is a fundamental mistake.
We all consider stuff like Sandman and Watchmen classic because it follows the traditional narrative structure and therefore is very satisfying.
Serial writing can't really do that. Or if it does, it's actually a mistake, essentially that writer being selfish and messing up the status quo for the person that comes after them. A good serial writer can work within the confines and still do something interesting and entertaining while leaving the status quo alone.

If you don't do that, you end up changing the status quo to the point that it is unrecognisable to newcomers (spiderman in his forties with two kids is not the character new readers are expecting) or weighing it down with so much baggage that it becomes totally unwieldy (making a psychic clone in a jar a recurring character).

And then, eventually, you have to do the reset. You've gotta start again with the core concept. The resets and the people who write them tend to be reviled, but really they are essential to the longevity of the series and are usually only fixing problems introduced by others over time. The problem is that all the comic "big names" feel writing serials is beneath them and want to do earth shaking stuff all the time, so the reset cycle gets shorter and shorter and we spend more and more time worrying about continuity and alternate worlds and various "crisis" storylines rather than getting on with telling a story about a hero doing hero things which is what most people expect from a comic book story.

That put me off DC. The golden age for me was when you had a bunch of DC comics which were chugging along with a well maintained status quo that was enjoyable and a nice story every month that was interesting and fun but didn't need to shake up the whole series. I'm talking about Chuck Dixon's run on Robin (Tim Drake) and Nightwing, and Devin Grayson's run on Legends of the Dark Knight, and the main batman title being written by a rotating cast who mostly did short arcs with new villains and so on. Some time after that great few years, they started with Infinite Crisis and it's been a constant reshuffle ever since. And Batman as a comic disappeared into Grant Morrison's private postmodern world that is impenetrable to me and doesn't feel like the same character. I'm really not fond of Damien Wayne either.

And given that the movie version of Batman is a gun wielding maniac, I guess I'm just not a batman fan any more. Weird. He was my favourite super hero all through the 90s and into the early 00s. The animated versions still tend to be true to what I consider the character to be, at least.

But I guess it is also troublesome that Batman is a really rich guy who takes out his trauma on the mentally ill and economically disadvantaged rather than using his wealth to fix systemic issues. It just kinda...doesn't work when he stops being a millionaire and starts being a billionaire. Why is he using that money to build gadgets instead of actually fixing systemic problems? Wouldn't any time spent as Batman just be inefficient compared to time spent dealing with complex systemic issues? So I guess he just likes beating up poor people. Huh.

I realise that is a fairly obtuse way to look at it, I just think they shouldn't have scaled up his wealth as much as they did. But I guess it's part of aspirational stuff in the USA I don't understand. They made Peter Parker into Mark Zuckerberg for a whole run, and...I dunno. I feel like I just am so far away from getting that that I might as well be in a parallel reality!

 Da Boss wrote:
I think that comics is fundamentally a serial medium and trying to have an arc like in a novel or a movie is a fundamental mistake.
We all consider stuff like Sandman and Watchmen classic because it follows the traditional narrative structure and therefore is very satisfying.
Serial writing can't really do that. Or if it does, it's actually a mistake, essentially that writer being selfish and messing up the status quo for the person that comes after them. A good serial writer can work within the confines and still do something interesting and entertaining while leaving the status quo alone.

And it's worth remembering that not every attempt to "move a character on" was fondly remembered and caused everyone to cry out for the reset button. Blowing up Nightwing's hometown in Infinite Crisis. Ms Marvel and the legendarily bad Marcus Immortus thing. Cassandra Cain becoming a cold-blooded killer who inexplicably spoke Navajo. Many, many, many others.

And given that the movie version of Batman is a gun wielding maniac, I guess I'm just not a batman fan any more. Weird. He was my favourite super hero all through the 90s and into the early 00s. The animated versions still tend to be true to what I consider the character to be, at least.

One line in Lego Batman that prompted a (despairing) laugh from me was when Batman listed Superman as one of his greatest foes, and Joker's response is a bemused "But Superman's a good guy!"

It’s oft mentioned in the comics anymore how Bruce publicly funds a lot of charities, then further secretly funds even more stuff like Arkham itself, and just generally puts a ton of money into various Gotham infrastructure. Fight the immediate crime as Batman, and fund preventative/rehabilitation efforts as Bruce. Of course actually solving the issues would ruin that status quo and end the series, so various institutional corruptions and incurable psychopaths will always get in the way.

It's a common 'hot take,' usually found on tumblr that typically doesn't have any real relevance to Batman as a character that's portrayed in the comics.

It's probably not that far aware from the Snyder interpretation of the character either.

I think Kingdom Come said it best.

"More than anyone in the world, when you scratch everything else away from Batman, you're left with someone who doesn't want to see anybody die."

If you'd like to read about a 'realistic' take on DC superheroes, without the inherent cynicism of Snyder, I'd suggest reading 'Worlds Greatest Superheroes' by Paul Dini and Alex Ross.

Voss wrote:

I can think of at least 3 separate comic runs where the entire story centers around an alternate universe Spider-Man and Mary Jane having a child and a happy marriage, but for some reason they don't want to do that in the mainline series? Why? I don't think I'll ever understand it. Such is life, I suppose.

There is a long running fear that a stable adult relationship and especially kids ruins entertainment for people. I think it started in 70s/80s sitcoms, but a lot of entertainment execs treat it as entirely verboten.*

Part of it, I suspect, is the perception that is where 'Happily Ever After' starts and the story is over. But reinforced by generations of Nielsen ratings.
Why might be seeing a shift away from that particular trend with the shift away from network television and all its hang-ups, but no idea how long that would take to translate over to comics.


*as aside, its because of this that when Infinity War introduced Stark's kid, I knew for certain he was going

Spoiler:

to die.

The 'Hollywood narrative' is basically pre-programmed there.

Except the narrative for Hawkeye counters this very well - he is in a happy mariage with kids and part of the point of Tonys sacrifice is that people like him can be reunited with his family. Their introduciton in Ultron was an unexpected (to me) and well done aspect.

Incidently the sacrifice here is more effective as well not just as a emotional payoff but because its make sense in the moment (mostly - lets not get into the many ways that Strange could have cut off Thanoos arm with his portals in Infinity War 1) - whereas the Superman sacrifice in B vs S make zero sense when Wonder Woman is basically standing there going - hey give me the spear I'll kill him dead and not suffer any ill effects- I was giving as good as I got without it! It just comes off as stupid.

In terms of character deconstructions, it would seem General Public just isn’t that interested in it.

Consider what came before.

For Batman? Tim Burton films and the 60’s TV show remain the public perception of the character. And the sublime Animated Series.

Superman? Christopher Reeve and the John Williams music. Absolutely iconic. The Big Blue Boy Scout.

Wonder Woman? Lynda Carter’s incarnation.

All quite campy in their own right. And with the exception of the Nolan films (middling, good, god awful in that order) those are the takes most people will think of.

For my money, Edge Lord takes on them just aren’t as interesting or entertaining. And their alter egos aren’t terribly interesting either.

Compare to the MCU. Their alter egos are pretty much just Code Names. And it’s the interplay between them that creates the interest. Because at all times they remain fallible human beings, despite their powers and abilities.

BvS went straight for a Civil War type affair, but it all felt incredibly forced, especially the “you Mom has the same name as my Mom we should party” idiot resolution. Loopy Lex is just a symptom of a crap film, rather than the cause.

Even in MoS, there’s no attempt by Superman to negotiate with Zod - and all because his alleged Dad’s hologram told him Zod was a Richard. Absolutely zero middle ground is explored. Where was even the suggestion that Supes would assist Zod, but they’d need to find a different planet to terraform. That could’ve made the resolution more interesting, with Zod showing his insanity, and refusing to backdown on terraforming Earth.

Lazy, hamfisted Edge Lord tripe.

MDG, I'm not really sure where you're going with that DC/Marvel comparison. And I don't think audiences are as stuck on those older versions as you say. Reeve's Superman still looms large, but audiences have moved on from Adam West and Linda Carter...as the box office has shown.

BvS certainly had its problems. I don't think Zod was one of MoS's. He was one of the better superhero movie villain of the past decade IMO. As the movie explained, he had his purpose. It wasn't to show up and negotiate...he was a warrior caste who would literally do whatever it took to preserve/restore Krypton. So he did. I don't think the average moviegoer is clamoring for Snyder's '11' approach all the time, but villains who can't be reasoned with are all over our entertainment...right? Even the DC animated films are popular without being campfests that have Clark telling Darkseid and Doomsday to eat their vegetables.

Shoot, Christopher Reeve's Superman didn't fight Zod with his words...he depowered him and threw him down a chasm. Then went back to the bar to brutalize the guy who previously beat him up there. So.

There’s not being reasoned with, and not even trying to reason with them though.

The basic cycle of retcon is essentially that when kids grow up to work on comics, they go out of their way to make the comics like they remembered them when they were kids.

Are you arguing that the story should have been written such that Zod was a reasonable fellow open to negotiation?

As written...there's no reason why he would be once he had the codex, knew Earth could be their new home, and that its star would make them gods. He was basically a Krypton-first extremist...the movie explained that he was genetically designed to be that way. It wasn't that he had something against humanity exactly...human civilization was just in his way to restoring Krypton and fulfilling his reason for existence.

It's not unrealistic...we've seen pretty horrible things done to indigenous peoples throughout human history because a more powerful people decided they needed the land.

I think, honestly, if you want a modern Superman origin movie that's newer than Superman 1978, Man of Tomorrow is right there.

It deals with pretty much identical themes to Man of Steel in a lot of ways but does it so much better.



Jonathan Kent : You know what they are going to say, what we've always said: the world is dangerous and unforgiving. If you are different, special, you have two options: you can either...

Superman : Either meet it head-on and accept the consequences or you can keep you head down and accept the consequences. There is no wrong choice, but...

Martha Kent : But you have to make one.

Superman : Why?

Jonathan Kent : Because you are not our little boy any more. Becoming a man means making these choices for yourself. Just be ready. Because each choice, each action, has consequences.

 gorgon wrote:
Are you arguing that the story should have been written such that Zod was a reasonable fellow open to negotiation?

As written...there's no reason why he would be once he had the codex, knew Earth could be their new home, and that its star would make them gods. He was basically a Krypton-first extremist...the movie explained that he was genetically designed to be that way. It wasn't that he had something against humanity exactly...human civilization was just in his way to restoring Krypton and fulfilling his reason for existence.

It's not unrealistic...we've seen pretty horrible things done to indigenous peoples throughout human history because a more powerful people decided they needed the land.

No, I’m suggesting there was zero reason for Superman to not try to negotiate. Instead he just dives on in to having a punch up.

 gorgon wrote:
MDG, I'm not really sure where you're going with that DC/Marvel comparison. And I don't think audiences are as stuck on those older versions as you say. Reeve's Superman still looms large, but audiences have moved on from Adam West and Linda Carter...as the box office has shown.

BvS certainly had its problems. I don't think Zod was one of MoS's. He was one of the better superhero movie villain of the past decade IMO. As the movie explained, he had his purpose. It wasn't to show up and negotiate...he was a warrior caste who would literally do whatever it took to preserve/restore Krypton. So he did. I don't think the average moviegoer is clamoring for Snyder's '11' approach all the time, but villains who can't be reasoned with are all over our entertainment...right? Even the DC animated films are popular without being campfests that have Clark telling Darkseid and Doomsday to eat their vegetables.

Shoot, Christopher Reeve's Superman didn't fight Zod with his words...he depowered him and threw him down a chasm. Then went back to the bar to brutalize the guy who previously beat him up there. So.

I think the point he was trying to make wasn't that Supes should have resolved the issue by negotiating reasonably with Zod, but that Supes should have TRIED to negotiate... and only resorted to lethal force after Zod proved he COULDN'T be reasoned with.

But in MoS he never even tried. Thus, the disconnect between MoS and people's expectations of Superman.

I actually think the broader issue with MoS is that it completely ignored Clark Kent as a mask Superman wears. By removing the humanity Superman adopts in his time on earth for an edgy teenager's super angsty story about wandering the earth and doing jack all for years, Snyder completely hosed the lowkey thing that makes the Superman character work. Without Clark Kent Superman is just a brute who talks lofty and smashes things (Homelander from the Boys). Clark Kent is what brings home his compassion and empathy, integrating the superhuman into the human.

But Snyder clearly had no interest in the character as anything but a flying brick who can break necks. You could say his entire take on Superman is a very 'brute force' interpretation that I think rips the heart out of the character. People focus on the Zod thing because it's very different from how we often view Superman, but the movie was off the rails long before that moment because it never grasped the heart and soul of the character.

Did we not see the same film? Was the whole sequence of Zod demanding Superman being turned over by Earth not in the UK version?
Kal went, willingly, to turn himself over...and Zod+crew promptly tried to kill him on board of their ship once he was depowered by the Kryptonian atmosphere.

Yeah, he could have saved Jonathan...but he's still human, at heart. He's scared.

As for the constant, annoyingly vexing fixation people have with the whole "Martha" thing...Bruce/Batman dehumanized Superman. To him, he was nothing but a potential weapon.

Hearing Clark/Superman call out for "Martha"(AND LOIS LITERALLY EXPLAINS THIS IN THE SIMPLEST TERMS TO THE AUDIENCE/BRUCE! "It's his mother!")...it flips that switch off. He's not some sword of Damocles hanging over the world anymore--he's a person, calling for his mother as he lays potentially dying.

This is the whole schtick of Batman. It's a mindset for Bruce, it's his 'warface'. They did a great job examining it in a fairly recent short story where Penguin is bragging about having known who Batman was for decades. He says that he didn't kill Bruce Wayne because without that last veneer of humanity? Batman would kill him. Batman would kill every last damn villain he could get his hands on, because without Bruce Wayne...Batman takes over.

 Vulcan wrote:

 gorgon wrote:
MDG, I'm not really sure where you're going with that DC/Marvel comparison. And I don't think audiences are as stuck on those older versions as you say. Reeve's Superman still looms large, but audiences have moved on from Adam West and Linda Carter...as the box office has shown.

BvS certainly had its problems. I don't think Zod was one of MoS's. He was one of the better superhero movie villain of the past decade IMO. As the movie explained, he had his purpose. It wasn't to show up and negotiate...he was a warrior caste who would literally do whatever it took to preserve/restore Krypton. So he did. I don't think the average moviegoer is clamoring for Snyder's '11' approach all the time, but villains who can't be reasoned with are all over our entertainment...right? Even the DC animated films are popular without being campfests that have Clark telling Darkseid and Doomsday to eat their vegetables.

Shoot, Christopher Reeve's Superman didn't fight Zod with his words...he depowered him and threw him down a chasm. Then went back to the bar to brutalize the guy who previously beat him up there. So.

I think the point he was trying to make wasn't that Supes should have resolved the issue by negotiating reasonably with Zod, but that Supes should have TRIED to negotiate... and only resorted to lethal force after Zod proved he COULDN'T be reasoned with.

But in MoS he never even tried. Thus, the disconnect between MoS and people's expectations of Superman.

As Kan said...he did. That was the whole second act of the film. Zod demands that Kal-El turn himself in. Clark goes and talks to a minister about whether he can trust the government or Zod. After thinking about WWJD, he reports to the government peacefully and gets given to Zod, who is shown to be a LIAR about his plans for Earth.

If we're going to talk about the film, we can't ignore whole chunks of it. I assumed that MDG was talking about negotiation after Zod turned on the world engine. But why would Zod do that?





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
I actually think the broader issue with MoS is that it completely ignored Clark Kent as a mask Superman wears. By removing the humanity Superman adopts in his time on earth for an edgy teenager's super angsty story about wandering the earth and doing jack all for years, Snyder completely hosed the lowkey thing that makes the Superman character work. Without Clark Kent Superman is just a brute who talks lofty and smashes things (Homelander from the Boys). Clark Kent is what brings home his compassion and empathy, integrating the superhuman into the human.

But Snyder clearly had no interest in the character as anything but a flying brick who can break necks. You could say his entire take on Superman is a very 'brute force' interpretation that I think rips the heart out of the character. People focus on the Zod thing because it's very different from how we often view Superman, but the movie was off the rails long before that moment because it never grasped the heart and soul of the character.

If you actually watch the film, it makes the point multiple times that Clark is helping people during his travels. That's the big chunk of Lois's arc and in fact how she tracks him down. There's a montage with voiceover that shows her talking to all the people whose lives he's touched. She even tells him that but comments that not helping people doesn't seem to be an option for him. Since helping others is shown onscreen and mentioned in dialogue...what more should the creators have done? I suspect that you're solely focused on the boss battle. Fine...but there's a lot of movie before that.

And are you saying that Clark should be feeling human emotions or not? He does that throughout MoS and even BvS. Feeling like an outsider, searching for his place in the world, being regretful about his failings, etc....isn't that a very human Kal-El?

 LordofHats wrote:
I actually think the broader issue with MoS is that it completely ignored Clark Kent as a mask Superman wears.

I think this is where a lot of writers get in trouble. I'll blame Tarantino for the epic speech, but writing Clark as a mask is what causes Superman to become boring. He might hide his powers as Clark, but more out of preservation for what's really important. Clark is far more of who he is than Superman. Superman is relatively aimless. He maintains the status quo but isn't looking to fundamentally change the world and actively rejects guiding the general populace or in any way interfering with their lives. Clark's dreams in life have nothing to do with his powers. He wants friends, he wants love, and significantly, he wants his words and ideas to matter. He seeks acceptance, not as an all powerful godlike being, but as a peer. He finds joy in the simply ordinary wonder of our world and all the people in it. He'd be happy just being Clark, but the world needs Superman and he's the only man for the job.

 LunarSol wrote:
The basic cycle of retcon is essentially that when kids grow up to work on comics, they go out of their way to make the comics like they remembered them when they were kids.

That... doesn't make sense. That means the next generation of writers is trying to copy the original, then the 3rd gen is trying to copy the original (since 'copy of the original' is what they grew up on) and so forth. That's just stasis and likely why DC particularly is a painful series of reboots that don't go anywhere. But that cycle doesn't require much retconning.

Retconning is often the product of specifically diverging from the source material, either because it was stupid, follows outdated social standards, technology outdates a plot element (so many comic plots are nullified by the ubiquity of cellphone cameras) or the author just plain didn't like that element. Its intentionally _not_ trying to make them as remembered.