Man of Steel into the Darkness *SPOILERS MAYBE*

[orthonorm]

If you haven't seen either Man of Steel or the garbage they call Star Trek. Into the Darkness you might find a spoiler in this thread. If you liked either of these movies a whole lot, you might get your attitude spoiled. If you disliked Man of Steel a lot you might also find this thread problematic.

 

[orthonorm]

So I saw these two movies. I pretty much want to follow up on a thread that left me scratching my head after seeing Man of Steel:

Just checked to see what that ending is about. Is there anyone who *does not* know how it ends?

Me.

When I think I am going to see something I avoid trailers, quickly stop reading anything that looks like it could be a spoiler.

I basically didn't listen to much NPR when I was watching The Wire for the first time via DVD. You never know when something might slip.

That being said, I can't imagine any ending in a Superman film not being obvious within the first 15-18 minutes of the show.

In any case, thanks to everyone not ruining the ending for a show I might see soon.

So what was the problem with the ending? Which these posts suggested might be "probematic"?

Sigh. The movie, by the way, was loud, long, tedious and violent. There was little humor as in the prior Superman movies and little to really humanize the hero. In other words, it took itself seriously. Thank God for Ironman - they know it's just stupid fun.

Leaving the marketing aside- this isn't the first time Evangelicals have been targeted in this way- I thought the movie was definitely the best Superman to hit the screens since the first one. What humor was there belonged there, there was none of the Richard Lester shenanigans of II or III (that said, I do love "A Hard Days Night"), the movie had far less sermonizing than the Reeves-penned IV, and the less said about Returns the better. As for the lack of "humanity", I think it fit really well with the theme of this movie- this was more of an exploration of his alien-ness and how he fits in with the world around him. The minor quibble I have would involve major spoilers, so I'll save that for later. All in all, I hope that it continues its performance at the box office so that we can get a sequel, which will hopefully address Clark's humanity in more detail.

I throughouly enjoyed the movie, though I can definitely sympathatize with critics' responses. There were some pacing problems, and I'm NOT a huge fan of that controversial thing that Superman does near the end of the movie. However, as a ridiculous Superman fanatic, it was good to see the man in blue back on the big screen.

To avoid spoilers, we can carry on a conversation about this in PM, if you wish. I'm not the biggest fan of it, but I can also see why it was necessary and not out of character.

So what is the big deal?

And anyone feel free to openly mock that Star Treck film if you like. It was pretty terrible and extremely problematic, but I wouldn't necessarily suggest avoiding it. There are a few chuckles and it makes the second installment of the first series of films look even better than it was.

FWIW, I really don't like either franchise and think Superman is arguably the worst hero ever developed and yet I think this was certainly the best film of that brand.  People laughed with the movie not at it. It made some sense. It was action from the get go. Really, it wasn't terrible, which is saying something when making a superhero movie, and saying a lot when it is a Superman film.

Oh and it had a real villain for once. I think the over the top and arguably overly long fight sequences were driven by this reason (amid many), to demonstrate the a real threat exists and to demonstrate how bizarrely frightening a being like Superman would be.

Anyhoo. Hackneyed tripe? Sure, but way better than what anyone else has done with the goof ball in tights. I was sorta hoping they were going to by pass the ridiculous notion of Clark Kent at the Daily Planent altogether. Oh well.

Oh, great nods in the film to those of us who somehow managed to watch every season of Smallville.

 

[mike]

and think Superman is arguably the worst hero ever developed

+1

 

[Papist]

FWIW, I really don't like either franchise and think Superman is arguably the worst hero ever developed a

Anytime some one says this to me, I usually assume I am speaking to a hipster, or someone deeply influenced by hipster thought.

 

[FormerReformer]

So I saw these two movies. I pretty much want to follow up on a thread that left me scratching my head after seeing Man of Steel:

Just checked to see what that ending is about. Is there anyone who *does not* know how it ends?

Me.

When I think I am going to see something I avoid trailers, quickly stop reading anything that looks like it could be a spoiler.

I basically didn't listen to much NPR when I was watching The Wire for the first time via DVD. You never know when something might slip.

That being said, I can't imagine any ending in a Superman film not being obvious within the first 15-18 minutes of the show.

In any case, thanks to everyone not ruining the ending for a show I might see soon.

So what was the problem with the ending? Which these posts suggested might be "probematic"?

Sigh. The movie, by the way, was loud, long, tedious and violent. There was little humor as in the prior Superman movies and little to really humanize the hero. In other words, it took itself seriously. Thank God for Ironman - they know it's just stupid fun.

Leaving the marketing aside- this isn't the first time Evangelicals have been targeted in this way- I thought the movie was definitely the best Superman to hit the screens since the first one. What humor was there belonged there, there was none of the Richard Lester shenanigans of II or III (that said, I do love "A Hard Days Night"), the movie had far less sermonizing than the Reeves-penned IV, and the less said about Returns the better. As for the lack of "humanity", I think it fit really well with the theme of this movie- this was more of an exploration of his alien-ness and how he fits in with the world around him. The minor quibble I have would involve major spoilers, so I'll save that for later. All in all, I hope that it continues its performance at the box office so that we can get a sequel, which will hopefully address Clark's humanity in more detail.

I throughouly enjoyed the movie, though I can definitely sympathatize with critics' responses. There were some pacing problems, and I'm NOT a huge fan of that controversial thing that Superman does near the end of the movie. However, as a ridiculous Superman fanatic, it was good to see the man in blue back on the big screen.

To avoid spoilers, we can carry on a conversation about this in PM, if you wish. I'm not the biggest fan of it, but I can also see why it was necessary and not out of character.

So what is the big deal?

Mainly the fact that some people assume it is an immutable law that "Superman does not kill, ever" (Except for those times Superman kills, like in Golden Age comics, Zod in the John Byrne reboot run, and Doomsday).

Oh, great nods in the film to those of us who somehow managed to watch every season of Smallville.

Oh, you poor man. You deserve more than a nod for sitting through that tripe.

 

[orthonorm]

FWIW, I really don't like either franchise and think Superman is arguably the worst hero ever developed a

Anytime some one says this to me, I usually assume I am speaking to a hipster, or someone deeply influenced by hipster thought.

OK. Tell that to my four year old self who refused to wear Superman garbage as a kid.

Do you have nothing of interest to say?

 

[orthonorm]

So I saw these two movies. I pretty much want to follow up on a thread that left me scratching my head after seeing Man of Steel:

Just checked to see what that ending is about. Is there anyone who *does not* know how it ends?

Me.

When I think I am going to see something I avoid trailers, quickly stop reading anything that looks like it could be a spoiler.

I basically didn't listen to much NPR when I was watching The Wire for the first time via DVD. You never know when something might slip.

That being said, I can't imagine any ending in a Superman film not being obvious within the first 15-18 minutes of the show.

In any case, thanks to everyone not ruining the ending for a show I might see soon.

So what was the problem with the ending? Which these posts suggested might be "probematic"?

Sigh. The movie, by the way, was loud, long, tedious and violent. There was little humor as in the prior Superman movies and little to really humanize the hero. In other words, it took itself seriously. Thank God for Ironman - they know it's just stupid fun.

Leaving the marketing aside- this isn't the first time Evangelicals have been targeted in this way- I thought the movie was definitely the best Superman to hit the screens since the first one. What humor was there belonged there, there was none of the Richard Lester shenanigans of II or III (that said, I do love "A Hard Days Night"), the movie had far less sermonizing than the Reeves-penned IV, and the less said about Returns the better. As for the lack of "humanity", I think it fit really well with the theme of this movie- this was more of an exploration of his alien-ness and how he fits in with the world around him. The minor quibble I have would involve major spoilers, so I'll save that for later. All in all, I hope that it continues its performance at the box office so that we can get a sequel, which will hopefully address Clark's humanity in more detail.

I throughouly enjoyed the movie, though I can definitely sympathatize with critics' responses. There were some pacing problems, and I'm NOT a huge fan of that controversial thing that Superman does near the end of the movie. However, as a ridiculous Superman fanatic, it was good to see the man in blue back on the big screen.

To avoid spoilers, we can carry on a conversation about this in PM, if you wish. I'm not the biggest fan of it, but I can also see why it was necessary and not out of character.

So what is the big deal?

Mainly the fact that some people assume it is an immutable law that "Superman does not kill, ever" (Except for those times Superman kills, like in Golden Age comics, Zod in the John Byrne reboot run, and Doomsday).

There is enough deus ex machina in most superhero garbage to avoid using to relieve Superman the clear and real choice and obviously foreshadowed fact that the son would avenge his father.

I think the writing was terribly but the direction was decent. The alien nature of Superman is by far the most interesting aspect of the story. The outdated notion of being able to be the bumbling reporter for one of the largest news outlets and the most visible being on the planet needs to go.

 

[FormerReformer]

So I saw these two movies. I pretty much want to follow up on a thread that left me scratching my head after seeing Man of Steel:

Just checked to see what that ending is about. Is there anyone who *does not* know how it ends?

Me.

When I think I am going to see something I avoid trailers, quickly stop reading anything that looks like it could be a spoiler.

I basically didn't listen to much NPR when I was watching The Wire for the first time via DVD. You never know when something might slip.

That being said, I can't imagine any ending in a Superman film not being obvious within the first 15-18 minutes of the show.

In any case, thanks to everyone not ruining the ending for a show I might see soon.

So what was the problem with the ending? Which these posts suggested might be "probematic"?

Sigh. The movie, by the way, was loud, long, tedious and violent. There was little humor as in the prior Superman movies and little to really humanize the hero. In other words, it took itself seriously. Thank God for Ironman - they know it's just stupid fun.

Leaving the marketing aside- this isn't the first time Evangelicals have been targeted in this way- I thought the movie was definitely the best Superman to hit the screens since the first one. What humor was there belonged there, there was none of the Richard Lester shenanigans of II or III (that said, I do love "A Hard Days Night"), the movie had far less sermonizing than the Reeves-penned IV, and the less said about Returns the better. As for the lack of "humanity", I think it fit really well with the theme of this movie- this was more of an exploration of his alien-ness and how he fits in with the world around him. The minor quibble I have would involve major spoilers, so I'll save that for later. All in all, I hope that it continues its performance at the box office so that we can get a sequel, which will hopefully address Clark's humanity in more detail.

I throughouly enjoyed the movie, though I can definitely sympathatize with critics' responses. There were some pacing problems, and I'm NOT a huge fan of that controversial thing that Superman does near the end of the movie. However, as a ridiculous Superman fanatic, it was good to see the man in blue back on the big screen.

To avoid spoilers, we can carry on a conversation about this in PM, if you wish. I'm not the biggest fan of it, but I can also see why it was necessary and not out of character.

So what is the big deal?

Mainly the fact that some people assume it is an immutable law that "Superman does not kill, ever" (Except for those times Superman kills, like in Golden Age comics, Zod in the John Byrne reboot run, and Doomsday).

There is enough deus ex machina in most superhero garbage to avoid using to relieve Superman the clear and real choice and obviously foreshadowed fact that the son would avenge his father.

I think the writing was terribly but the direction was decent. The alien nature of Superman is by far the most interesting aspect of the story. The outdated notion of being able to be the bumbling reporter for one of the largest news outlets and the most visible being on the planet needs to go.

I can buy the glasses disguise in a universe where one man wages a war against crime using an arsenal of toys that would cost the GNP of a small first world country and no one suspects the traumatized orphan billionaire who disappeared off the face of the planet for seven years. The people of the DCU are just SO dumb and/or have near-sightedness as an epidemic.

 

[orthonorm]

So I saw these two movies. I pretty much want to follow up on a thread that left me scratching my head after seeing Man of Steel:

Just checked to see what that ending is about. Is there anyone who *does not* know how it ends?

Me.

When I think I am going to see something I avoid trailers, quickly stop reading anything that looks like it could be a spoiler.

I basically didn't listen to much NPR when I was watching The Wire for the first time via DVD. You never know when something might slip.

That being said, I can't imagine any ending in a Superman film not being obvious within the first 15-18 minutes of the show.

In any case, thanks to everyone not ruining the ending for a show I might see soon.

So what was the problem with the ending? Which these posts suggested might be "probematic"?

Sigh. The movie, by the way, was loud, long, tedious and violent. There was little humor as in the prior Superman movies and little to really humanize the hero. In other words, it took itself seriously. Thank God for Ironman - they know it's just stupid fun.

Leaving the marketing aside- this isn't the first time Evangelicals have been targeted in this way- I thought the movie was definitely the best Superman to hit the screens since the first one. What humor was there belonged there, there was none of the Richard Lester shenanigans of II or III (that said, I do love "A Hard Days Night"), the movie had far less sermonizing than the Reeves-penned IV, and the less said about Returns the better. As for the lack of "humanity", I think it fit really well with the theme of this movie- this was more of an exploration of his alien-ness and how he fits in with the world around him. The minor quibble I have would involve major spoilers, so I'll save that for later. All in all, I hope that it continues its performance at the box office so that we can get a sequel, which will hopefully address Clark's humanity in more detail.

I throughouly enjoyed the movie, though I can definitely sympathatize with critics' responses. There were some pacing problems, and I'm NOT a huge fan of that controversial thing that Superman does near the end of the movie. However, as a ridiculous Superman fanatic, it was good to see the man in blue back on the big screen.

To avoid spoilers, we can carry on a conversation about this in PM, if you wish. I'm not the biggest fan of it, but I can also see why it was necessary and not out of character.

So what is the big deal?

Mainly the fact that some people assume it is an immutable law that "Superman does not kill, ever" (Except for those times Superman kills, like in Golden Age comics, Zod in the John Byrne reboot run, and Doomsday).

There is enough deus ex machina in most superhero garbage to avoid using to relieve Superman the clear and real choice and obviously foreshadowed fact that the son would avenge his father.

I think the writing was terribly but the direction was decent. The alien nature of Superman is by far the most interesting aspect of the story. The outdated notion of being able to be the bumbling reporter for one of the largest news outlets and the most visible being on the planet needs to go.

I can buy the glasses disguise in a universe where one man wages a war against crime using an arsenal of toys that would cost the GNP of a small first world country and no one suspects the traumatized orphan billionaire who disappeared off the face of the planet for seven years. The people of the DCU are just SO dumb and/or have near-sightedness as an epidemic.

In all seriousness, this is like adapting some Greek tragedies or various epic poems or the like to our contemporary world. Genres and times have their internal logic which often do not translate well elsewhere.

I think Superman would've been a story to be reboot completely from a sympathetic Lex's POV primarily. I understand this has been done in the comics to some degree (I am really no expert or even well read in this stuff).

Superman is threat rather than a promise. Sometimes threats to the promises we believe we are entitled are emancipatory. Sometimes not.

In any case, Smallville of course was dumb. I like high school garbage. And I watched it for most part during its run in German, so I could tell myself it had some redemptive qualities. But I did like how Lex was developed and portrayed for the most part.

 

[Fabio Leite]

The outdated notion of being able to be the bumbling reporter for one of the largest news outlets and the most visible being on the planet needs to go.

Unless you're Billy Batson. Shazam!

I can buy the glasses disguise in a universe where one man wages a war against crime using an arsenal of toys that would cost the GNP of a small first world country and no one suspects the traumatized orphan billionaire who disappeared off the face of the planet for seven years. The people of the DCU are just SO dumb and/or have near-sightedness as an epidemic.

It's not dumb. It's like Chinese kung-fu movies or 007 (pre-realism era) movies. The absurdities are part of the fun. You *can* get some very good themes in these genres, but they are not essays after all.

The inconsistencies in super-hero tropes exist because they started as sheer projections of adolescent wishes: the awkward nerd who can't talk to girls, is, deep inside (as he see himself), a superman and nobody notices. The lonely child with a sad past (real or imaginary) just wished to have all that money and go avenge all the people who abused him. You add other themes into that and you get super-heros. That's why Wonder-Woman is such a poor super-heroine. Few women want to be a masculinized dominatrix icon of radical feminism.

 

[Asteriktos]

I haven't seen either of the JJ-Trek movies yet. I was hoping to ignore them and eventually get news of a Trek-like Trek project, but haven't heard/seen anything...  :-\

 

[Gebre Menfes Kidus]

I keep seeing commercials for a movie that's supposed to be in theaters this summer. It's got lots of action, explosions, special effects, robots, superheroes, and it takes place in the future. And Jamie Foxx plays the president. And did I mention that there's lots of explosions and stuff? Anyone know what it's called?


Selam

 

[Fabio Leite]

The Amazing Spiderman 2.

He plays the villain Electro.

I keep seeing commercials for a movie that's supposed to be in theaters this summer. It's got lots of action, explosions, special effects, robots, superheroes, and it takes place in the future. And Jamie Foxx plays the president. And did I mention that there's lots of explosions and stuff? Anyone know what it's called?


Selam

 

[Luke]

It was interesting seeing a former Law and Order SVU star in the Man of Stee  film.  I have been wondering from time to time if he is still acting.

 

[Asteriktos]

It's called White House Down...

 

[mike]

The Amazing Spiderman 2.

He plays the villain Electro.

I keep seeing commercials for a movie that's supposed to be in theaters this summer. It's got lots of action, explosions, special effects, robots, superheroes, and it takes place in the future. And Jamie Foxx plays the president. And did I mention that there's lots of explosions and stuff? Anyone know what it's called?


Selam

Not that. He means some Gundam-like film. I've seen that trailer too.

 

[FormerReformer]

The outdated notion of being able to be the bumbling reporter for one of the largest news outlets and the most visible being on the planet needs to go.

Unless you're Billy Batson. Shazam!

I can buy the glasses disguise in a universe where one man wages a war against crime using an arsenal of toys that would cost the GNP of a small first world country and no one suspects the traumatized orphan billionaire who disappeared off the face of the planet for seven years. The people of the DCU are just SO dumb and/or have near-sightedness as an epidemic.

It's not dumb. It's like Chinese kung-fu movies or 007 (pre-realism era) movies. The absurdities are part of the fun. You *can* get some very good themes in these genres, but they are not essays after all.

The inconsistencies in super-hero tropes exist because they started as sheer projections of adolescent wishes: the awkward nerd who can't talk to girls, is, deep inside (as he see himself), a superman and nobody notices. The lonely child with a sad past (real or imaginary) just wished to have all that money and go avenge all the people who abused him. You add other themes into that and you get super-heros. That's why Wonder-Woman is such a poor super-heroine. Few women want to be a masculinized dominatrix icon of radical feminism.

Oh, I didn't say the trope itself is dumb- just that the people of the DCU itself are. Some of my favorite Superman moments have pointed out the trope- such as an episode of Lois and Clark where a time-travelling villain spends a good minute insulting Lois Lane's intelligence for not having caught on to the whole Clark/Superman thing.

 

[Fabio Leite]

Can it be Pacific Rim? Is Jamie Foxx in it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5guMumPFBag

The Amazing Spiderman 2.

He plays the villain Electro.

I keep seeing commercials for a movie that's supposed to be in theaters this summer. It's got lots of action, explosions, special effects, robots, superheroes, and it takes place in the future. And Jamie Foxx plays the president. And did I mention that there's lots of explosions and stuff? Anyone know what it's called?


Selam

Not that. He means some Gundam-like film. I've seen that trailer too.

 

[mike]

Can it be Pacific Rim? Is Jamie Foxx in it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5guMumPFBag

I think so.

Errm, it looks like it's more like NGE, not Gundam.

 

[Achronos]

But Papist, Batman has like 100 times more character development than Supe.

 

[Achronos]

I like high school garbage.

Dawson's Creek?

 

[Gebre Menfes Kidus]

I keep seeing commercials for a movie that's supposed to be in theaters this summer. It's got lots of action, explosions, special effects, robots, superheroes, and it takes place in the future. And Jamie Foxx plays the president. And did I mention that there's lots of explosions and stuff? Anyone know what it's called?


Selam

Thanks for trying guys. But I was actually describing every movie that's out right now.



Selam

 

[Asteriktos]

I like high school garbage.

Dawson's Creek?

 

[Papist]

FWIW, I really don't like either franchise and think Superman is arguably the worst hero ever developed a

Anytime some one says this to me, I usually assume I am speaking to a hipster, or someone deeply influenced by hipster thought.

OK. Tell that to my four year old self who refused to wear Superman garbage as a kid.

Do you have nothing of interest to say?

Some people have a greater tendency towards being a hipster than others. Posts filled with attempts to prove how edgy, cynical, and saracastic one can be, betray the attitude of a hipster. It would not surprise me that a person who continually posts as such would be cynical from youth. Is that true of you? Well, I don't know you, so I cannot say.

 

[Papist]

But Papist, Batman has like 100 times more character development than Supe.

If you mean TKD vs. Man of Steel, then I would agree. There are some script and plot problems with Man of Steel that prevent the entertaining moving from becoming a great movie.

If you mean Supes vs. Batman in general, then I disagree. In reality, the reason that I think most side with batman is that it is sort of "cool" to do so. As Fabio has pointed out on another thread, in our society, we tend to glorify what is dark, broken, and disordered. Probably because it provides us with goals that we can all easily reach without much work. It's easy to like Iron Man and Batman because they teach us that we can be great without actually being good. Very lazy stuff.
However, when societies tend to put greater value on manly virtue, they create heroes and ideals that are impossible to reach. Yet, there is something good in this, because it makes us strive for something, for goodness. In the striving, and even the failing, we become better people.

Now back to Superman's development as a character. I think people fail to recognize the deep conflicts which Superman must face, conflicts that shapes who he is. Superman can never do enough. It does not matter how powerful, or how good he is, he can never save everyone, and he can't end all suffering. He may wish he could, but he cannot be in all places at one time. In choosing to save Alice from falling off a building, he may have failed to notice an entire school burning down, with children inside. The enormous weight of responsibility is simply beyond bearing.
And beyond that, it would be inappropriate for him to right all of our wrongs. If he tried to, we would not grow as a species, and would become ever more dependent on him. Thus, there are some problems he has to let us sort out ourselves. For example, he just can't fight our wars for us. He has to remain apolitical.

Reading the Death and Return of Superman series in middle school shaped my understanding of the Man of Steel, and I think he's a much deeper character than those who are "cool" and "with it" would like to admit.

 

[Gebre Menfes Kidus]

I liked Spider Man as a kid. I thought he had a cool vocabulary and a keen wit. I haven't seen any of the Spider Man movies though. I will ask in all seriousness: are any of them any good?

Also, I think the original Superman with Christopher Reeves was a pretty good movie. Good character development which is what I like in a movie.



Selam

 

[FormerReformer]

But Papist, Batman has like 100 times more character development than Supe.

If you mean TKD vs. Man of Steel, then I would agree. There are some script and plot problems with Man of Steel that prevent the entertaining moving from becoming a great movie.

If you mean Supes vs. Batman in general, then I disagree. In reality, the reason that I think most side with batman is that it is sort of "cool" to do so. As Fabio has pointed out on another thread, in our society, we tend to glorify what is dark, broken, and disordered. Probably because it provides us with goals that we can all easily reach without much work. It's easy to like Iron Man and Batman because they teach us that we can be great without actually being good. Very lazy stuff.
However, when societies tend to put greater value on manly virtue, they create heroes and ideals that are impossible to reach. Yet, there is something good in this, because it makes us strive for something, for goodness. In the striving, and even the failing, we become better people.

Now back to Superman's development as a character. I think people fail to recognize the deep conflicts which Superman must face, conflicts that shapes who he is. Superman can never do enough. It does not matter how powerful, or how good he is, he can never save everyone, and he can't end all suffering. He may wish he could, but he cannot be in all places at one time. In choosing to save Alice from falling off a building, he may have failed to notice an entire school burning down, with children inside. The enormous weight of responsibility is simply beyond bearing.
And beyond that, it would be inappropriate for him to right all of our wrongs. If he tried to, we would not grow as a species, and would become ever more dependent on him. Thus, there are some problems he has to let us sort out ourselves. For example, he just can't fight our wars for us. He has to remain apolitical.

Reading the Death and Return of Superman series in middle school shaped my understanding of the Man of Steel, and I think he's a much deeper character than those who are "cool" and "with it" would like to admit.

I'd have to disagree with that, especially where Batman is concerned. Batman is great BECAUSE Batman is good and he maintains this goodness even in the face of a society that has been almost completely corrupted, and despite being almost constantly in mortal danger to maintain this goodness. Even the grimmer/grittier Batman of Frank Miller's Year One exhibits this goodness- Gordon is won over as an ally, not because the Batman gives a beating to the people that deserve it, but because Batman consistently risks his life to save innocent lives (in this series, an old woman about to be run over by a truck and a cat caught in the crossfire between Batman and a SWAT team).

The reason Batman and Superman contrast so well isn't because Supes is the Big Blue Boyscout and Batman is the Dark Knight. It's because they are both Good and they maintain this goodness despite temptation that would be overwhelming for anyone else. Superman might have it slightly easier with being good- he had the upbringing of loving parents with good values and very little can put him in mortal danger- but Superman also has the constant temptation of nigh absolute power. Batman, despite being a billionaire, has every disadvantage of the DCU- aside from having had his parents (and thus his moral guideline) gunned down at an early age, he truly has to work to be the best he can and faces constant danger. They are both Good, it's the fact that they are incorruptible and corruption approaches them from two completely angles that make them both the paragons of the DCU.

 

[orthonorm]

I haven't seen either of the JJ-Trek movies yet. I was hoping to ignore them and eventually get news of a Trek-like Trek project, but haven't heard/seen anything...  :-\

The first film was pretty good. The main problem of the second is, well can you handle a possible spoiler?

 

[orthonorm]

I keep seeing commercials for a movie that's supposed to be in theaters this summer. It's got lots of action, explosions, special effects, robots, superheroes, and it takes place in the future. And Jamie Foxx plays the president. And did I mention that there's lots of explosions and stuff? Anyone know what it's called?


Selam

I think you like myself have run together about three equally ridiculous movies from White House Down to Pacific Rim.

 

[orthonorm]

I like high school garbage.

Dawson's Creek?

Watched it at the same time. Neither are really my sorta high school schlock, but they played 24/7 on German and Austrian TV.

 

[orthonorm]

FWIW, I really don't like either franchise and think Superman is arguably the worst hero ever developed a

Anytime some one says this to me, I usually assume I am speaking to a hipster, or someone deeply influenced by hipster thought.

OK. Tell that to my four year old self who refused to wear Superman garbage as a kid.

Do you have nothing of interest to say?

Some people have a greater tendency towards being a hipster than others. Posts filled with attempts to prove how edgy, cynical, and saracastic one can be, betray the attitude of a hipster. It would not surprise me that a person who continually posts as such would be cynical from youth. Is that true of you? Well, I don't know you, so I cannot say.

The above is utter gibberish. You bely lacking any intelligible grasp of what amounts to hipsterism, cynicism, and Superman. Do you know about anything?

 

[orthonorm]

I liked Spider Man as a kid. I thought he had a cool vocabulary and a keen wit. I haven't seen any of the Spider Man movies though. I will ask in all seriousness: are any of them any good?

Also, I think the original Superman with Christopher Reeves was a pretty good movie. Good character development which is what I like in a movie.



Selam

I liked the Spiderman cartoons from the 80s whatever that was. Spiderman was my superhero as a kid. I really didn't like either Batman (due to my own neurosis about possessions, seriously) and well Superman, that is obviously.

 

[orthonorm]

but Superman also has the constant temptation of nigh absolute power.

Which I have rarely seen taken seriously. Maybe they do it in comics, but that is exactly the part thats needs to be translated into film or something.

We need a less human Superman, after all he ain't human, even if he is a person.

Strangely, making him the ultimate hero of Papist, robs him even more of his "humanity".

 

[Papist]

FWIW, I really don't like either franchise and think Superman is arguably the worst hero ever developed a

Anytime some one says this to me, I usually assume I am speaking to a hipster, or someone deeply influenced by hipster thought.

OK. Tell that to my four year old self who refused to wear Superman garbage as a kid.

Do you have nothing of interest to say?

Some people have a greater tendency towards being a hipster than others. Posts filled with attempts to prove how edgy, cynical, and saracastic one can be, betray the attitude of a hipster. It would not surprise me that a person who continually posts as such would be cynical from youth. Is that true of you? Well, I don't know you, so I cannot say.

The above is utter gibberish. You bely lacking any intelligible grasp of what amounts to hipsterism, cynicism, and Superman. Do you know about anything?

Q.E.D.

 

[Papist]

But Papist, Batman has like 100 times more character development than Supe.

If you mean TKD vs. Man of Steel, then I would agree. There are some script and plot problems with Man of Steel that prevent the entertaining moving from becoming a great movie.

If you mean Supes vs. Batman in general, then I disagree. In reality, the reason that I think most side with batman is that it is sort of "cool" to do so. As Fabio has pointed out on another thread, in our society, we tend to glorify what is dark, broken, and disordered. Probably because it provides us with goals that we can all easily reach without much work. It's easy to like Iron Man and Batman because they teach us that we can be great without actually being good. Very lazy stuff.
However, when societies tend to put greater value on manly virtue, they create heroes and ideals that are impossible to reach. Yet, there is something good in this, because it makes us strive for something, for goodness. In the striving, and even the failing, we become better people.

Now back to Superman's development as a character. I think people fail to recognize the deep conflicts which Superman must face, conflicts that shapes who he is. Superman can never do enough. It does not matter how powerful, or how good he is, he can never save everyone, and he can't end all suffering. He may wish he could, but he cannot be in all places at one time. In choosing to save Alice from falling off a building, he may have failed to notice an entire school burning down, with children inside. The enormous weight of responsibility is simply beyond bearing.
And beyond that, it would be inappropriate for him to right all of our wrongs. If he tried to, we would not grow as a species, and would become ever more dependent on him. Thus, there are some problems he has to let us sort out ourselves. For example, he just can't fight our wars for us. He has to remain apolitical.

Reading the Death and Return of Superman series in middle school shaped my understanding of the Man of Steel, and I think he's a much deeper character than those who are "cool" and "with it" would like to admit.

I'd have to disagree with that, especially where Batman is concerned. Batman is great BECAUSE Batman is good and he maintains this goodness even in the face of a society that has been almost completely corrupted, and despite being almost constantly in mortal danger to maintain this goodness. Even the grimmer/grittier Batman of Frank Miller's Year One exhibits this goodness- Gordon is won over as an ally, not because the Batman gives a beating to the people that deserve it, but because Batman consistently risks his life to save innocent lives (in this series, an old woman about to be run over by a truck and a cat caught in the crossfire between Batman and a SWAT team).

The reason Batman and Superman contrast so well isn't because Supes is the Big Blue Boyscout and Batman is the Dark Knight. It's because they are both Good and they maintain this goodness despite temptation that would be overwhelming for anyone else. Superman might have it slightly easier with being good- he had the upbringing of loving parents with good values and very little can put him in mortal danger- but Superman also has the constant temptation of nigh absolute power. Batman, despite being a billionaire, has every disadvantage of the DCU- aside from having had his parents (and thus his moral guideline) gunned down at an early age, he truly has to work to be the best he can and faces constant danger. They are both Good, it's the fact that they are incorruptible and corruption approaches them from two completely angles that make them both the paragons of the DCU.

But Batman isn't good. Look at his personal life.

 

[orthonorm]

But Batman isn't good. Look at his personal life.

This is sad.

 

[Papist]

But Batman isn't good. Look at his personal life.

This is sad.

Are you really sad about a comic book character? I thought that was only for people who live on in their parents' basements playing online video games all the time. Surely you are above that.

 

[Papist]

But Batman isn't good. Look at his personal life.

This is sad.

Q.E.D.

 

[orthonorm]

But Batman isn't good. Look at his personal life.

This is sad.

Are you really sad about a comic book character? I thought that was only for people who live on in their parents' basements playing online video games all the time. Surely you are above that.

You surely missed my point and the source of my sadness. And I do tend find myself above basements.

 

[Papist]

But Batman isn't good. Look at his personal life.

This is sad.

Are you really sad about a comic book character? I thought that was only for people who live on in their parents' basements playing online video games all the time. Surely you are above that.

You surely missed my point and the source of my sadness. And I do tend find myself above basements.

Your posts have a point???