Topic: Guys , anyone just see the Superman Returns Trailer?

[Sirgod]

This is going to be one Dark, And yet great movie. They just showed the Teaser on Smallville. I know alot of people don't like The Guy in Blue, But there's nothing wrong with having a Boyscout as one of our American heros.

Stephen

[E_Look]

Ah, Stephen, it just goes to show where our society has gone- to the land of cynics and jaded "sophisticates".

I agree.  What IS wrong with having a boy scout, a totally honorable man as a superhero?

I mean I enjoyed reading the Dark Knight (maybe more than) as anyone, but hey, he scares me.  I fear that the reason why the Dark Knight appealed to so many is that we truly ALL feel as the frustrated, angry, weakened, and retired Batman did.  That is, we've all become mean old men who delight only in kicking dogs and stealing candy from babies... just to see them cry, not that we can enjoy candy anymore.

Grab the flag, Supes!  Wave it proudly over the gleaming alabaster cities, purple mountain majesties and fruited plains!  Give the bad guys the iron fist!  Blast their butts with a pinch of heat vision!  Truth, justice, and the... oops I might get banned for political incorrectness! 

[Lepton]

Superman is a loser.  I can't imagine a more boring character.  He's just pre-WWII American propoganda that has hung around for well past its interest or usefulness. I am sure there have been any number of attempts to update the character but the essential Clark Kent company man/Man in Blue saving the world garbage is American pride and ideology from the 40's and 50's run amuk.  I don't need some smug ideological hero making me feel better about a country that wages wars of choice on sovereign nations.  You can take Pooperman and jam a hunk of red kryptonite up his butt as far as I am concerned.

[Rat Boy]

Ah, Stephen, it just goes to show where our society has gone- to the land of cynics and jaded "sophisticates".

I agree.  What IS wrong with having a boy scout, a totally honorable man as a superhero?

Nothing, but modern comicbookdom tends to think that honorable and heroic characters are "lame."

I mean I enjoyed reading the Dark Knight (maybe more than) as anyone, but hey, he scares me.  I far that the reason why the Dark Knight appealed to so many is that we truly ALL feel as the frustrated, angry, weakened, and retired Batman did.  That is, we've all become mean old men who delight only in kicking dogs and stealing candy from babies... just to see them cry, not that we can enjoy candy anymore.

The current core of writers for Batman over the past two decades or so have eviscerated the character to the point where Bob Kane must be rolling in his grave.  Batman isn't a hero anymore; he's just a psychopathic vigilante who wants nothing more than to beat criminals into a bloody pulp and claim that he's out for the same thing Superman is.  I think you can blame that lunatic Frank Miller for destroying whatever nobility the character had left.  Give me Superman any day.  Kal-El forever!

[Lepton]

I'd also ask you to consider who is buying these comic books, folks.  It ain't some nostalgic 50 year old.  It's teen and twenties.  Believe me, the comic book publishers know what sells to their target audience.  Frankly, you have no one to blame but yourselves if you don't like it.  They're past generations' kids, not mine.  My kid would be reading none of that clap-trap.  I don't think people bearly out of their childhood qualify as cynics or jaded sophisticates.  I'll lay the problem back on your doorstep.  "Your" kids, "your" problem, not mine.

[OlBuzzard]

I'd also ask you to consider who is buying these comic books, folks.  It ain't some nostalgic 50 year old.  It's teen and twenties.  Believe me, the comic book publishers know what sells to their target audience.  Frankly, you have no one to blame but yourselves if you don't like it.  They're past generations' kids, not mine.  My kid would be reading none of that clap-trap.  I don't think people bearly out of their childhood qualify as cynics or jaded sophisticates.  I'll lay the problem back on your doorstep.  "Your" kids, "your" problem, not mine.

Actually we become what we read, watch, and other wise feed the mind and soul.

I realize this is totally out of step with the philosophy of many ... BUT ...  that still does not change the truth of the matter.

I really did not see the new Batman as a psychopath ... 

There is nothing wrong with have a clean cut hero that actually has a sense of respect and decency about him.  There is nothing stupid, boring or otherwise messed up about it.  If you get the right script, and good actors you can make a super hero, SUPER.

[Sirgod]

I agree with you Buzz, Personaly, I have liked Superman over my Brief 35 years, simply because of his struggle to always do the right thing, no matter how much it hurts him.

With Batman, somewhere I have around here an old Comic of him actually carying pistols. I tell you what I didn't like was in one of the last few arcs in Justice League, where he was Mind wiped against his will.

Stephen

[Dash Jones]

I like Batman.  He always seemed rather clean cut and boy scoutish in most of the comic books that came out.  Heck, in the early nineties when they came out with the entire Knight Fall series, the reason he came back was because of that morality where Batman didn't kill, and so he came to take Azrael/New Batman out.

Then at least for a short while they gave the mantle to the one who Bats SHOULD have handed it too when he got his back broken...Nightwing.

[OlBuzzard]

I agree with you Buzz, Personaly, I have liked Superman over my Brief 35 years, simply because of his struggle to always do the right thing, no matter how much it hurts him.

With Batman, somewhere I have around here an old Comic of him actually carying pistols. I tell you what I didn't like was in one of the last few arcs in Justice League, where he was Mind wiped against his will.

Stephen

Not to disagree too sharply with ya bud ..

but stop and think about it...

YES they tried to break his spirit ...   and reshape him in their image ... but what happened?

They failed to break him.  That was why he refused to execute that unidentified man  (other than he was a criminal) that in their opinion was worthy of death.  Bruce, however, believed in the justice system .   Though struggling with the death of his parents ..  finally came to terms with the difference between the "justice league's" self righteous definition of "just deserts" ...  and civil law.  Bruce insisted that the man be turned over to the authorities.  At this point IMHO ....  the transformation is beginning to become complete.  He has come to terms with his parents death .. ( though still sorting out other details) ... and is becoming dedicated to "justice" ..  not "vigilantism".  IMHO the writers use the "League" to distinguish the difference between the two ideals.

The debate of the Vigilanti commonly called the Dark Knight has been one that has been around for a long time.  (And if ya think about it ...  that is one of the things the News Reporter  in on-going story of Spider Man as well).

IMHO the real turning point was the refusal of Bruce to execute the criminal.  That refusal ended up nearly costing Wayne his own life with the ensuing fight that followed.  The man who had trained him so well with anticipation tries to kill Bruce in the fight.  Knocked unconscious and sliding to his death this same friend finds Bruce saving his life.

[FPF-DieHard]

Superman is a loser.  I can't imagine a more boring character. 

Download the last Season of "Justice League:  Unlimited"   Superman is anything but boring.   The DC Animated Universe has these characters done right.

Anyone been Following "Infinite Crisis?"   The whole DC universe is getting an enima.

[E_Look]

Superman is a loser.  I can't imagine a more boring character.  He's just pre-WWII American propoganda that has hung around for well past its interest or usefulness. I am sure there have been any number of attempts to update the character but the essential Clark Kent company man/Man in Blue saving the world garbage is American pride and ideology from the 40's and 50's run amuk.  I don't need some smug ideological hero making me feel better about a country that wages wars of choice on sovereign nations.  You can take Pooperman and jam a hunk of red kryptonite up his butt as far as I am concerned.

Aw, come on.  There is nothing wrong with something based on a bright sunny world with stability and moral cardinal points.  The new comic heroes are either morally vacillating or flawed, captive to internal evils that make them in the end no better than the declared bad guys.  I suspect this is done on purpose, like the gratutious gore in a horror flick.  I liken it to the contrast between the beautiful, well crafted, LISTENABLE classical music of past eras, right before folks like Stravinsky stepped in with their amelodic, pseudochaotic, fear-tinged stuff; which makes some of Monk's and Coltrane's more far out riffs sound like a musical soundtrack.  This modern classical (and much of modern art), though they won't admit it, echoes and is partly spawned by the societal fears resulting from the emergence of the statistical uncertainties of the new physics reacting with the bleak, if comforting determininism of thermodynamics, the despair and despondence generated by the intrusion of Eastern philosophies and religions, the nuclear threat, the palpable, but almost ghostlike shadow of Nazi and Communist expansion in the last century.

In short it sucks because it is based on stuff that sucks.  Give me the good stuff, anytime.

[Hexx]

I think the fact that many comic heroes these days are portrayed as morally vacillating or flawed is that the writers
are trying to create somewhat believable fictional characters. Government & Industry in the 30's40's50's were
generally respected and believed to be honest.
I mean no disrespect- but if Superman says "Truth Justice and the American way" it's gonna sound kinda
funny in todays contexts. (and teh same could be said for any government these days)

Besides- and more to the point- what's the interest in a character who is for all intents and purposes invinclble
if he has no character flaws as well?
I mean if they throw Doomsday in, it would be cool.
But 3 or 4 movies with different flavours of Kryptonite are gonna be kinda dull .

I'm not saying he should be all bitter and full of angst- wouldn't be superman, but give him some kinda
character flaw.


One of the best Superman stories I ever read was "Red Son" where he landed in the USSR instead of the USA.
Some of it was stupid- but he was still a hero who wanted the best for humanity, his methods were just a little different. 

[Lepton]

There is nothing wrong with the hero, per se.  The concept began in antiquity as explained by Joseph Campbell to illustrate man's journey into new areas of experience or knowledge.  The hero is the paradigm breaker.  The western conception of the hero is still often a rule-breaker, but the American idea of a hero is one that advances the current ideology.  Superman is an excellent example.  In the beginning, Superman as American will to fight the Nazis.  Later, Clark Kent represents the 50's company man and Superman, the extension of American military might and economic power Post-WWII.  Truth, Justice, and the American Way.  AMERICAN WAY.  This is not a politically neutral character.  Since the American hero, such as Superman, upholds the current way of thinking and the power structures that keep that ideology in place, they are not heroes by definition.  They are merely symbolic embodiments of the status-quo meant to maintain and prop-up the status-quo.

I could list some modern heroes here in the areas of human rights, but these people are not heroes proper.  The hero is really just a device to transmit stories that illustrate the value of knowledge and traditions that are combating mainstream notions and ideals.  The stories are larger-than-life by design, therefore people are really not heroes.  People may do good things and make incredible sacrifices but that does not make them heroes, at least in this strict definition of hero.

That said, I will merely reiterate that the hero is an iconclast.  That ain't Superman, thus he ain't no hero.

[FPF-DieHard]

Besides- and more to the point- what's the interest in a character who is for all intents and purposes invinclble
if he has no character flaws as well?
I mean if they throw Doomsday in, it would be cool.
But 3 or 4 movies with different flavours of Kryptonite are gonna be kinda dull .

The post-Crisis Superman isn't unbeatable.   Many in the DCU can and have beaten him without using kryptonite.   The character has gotten better for this.

In Infinite Crisis, the Golden Age Supermane from Earth-2 (Geezerman) has broken through to the DCU.   Should be interesting to see how this pans out.

[E_Look]

There is nothing wrong with the hero, per se.  The concept began in antiquity as explained by Joseph Campbell to illustrate man's journey into new areas of experience or knowledge.  The hero is the paradigm breaker.  The western conception of the hero is still often a rule-breaker, but the American idea of a hero is one that advances the current ideology.  Superman is an excellent example.  In the beginning, Superman as American will to fight the Nazis.  Later, Clark Kent represents the 50's company man and Superman, the extension of American military might and economic power Post-WWII.  Truth, Justice, and the American Way.  AMERICAN WAY.  This is not a politically neutral character.  Since the American hero, such as Superman, upholds the current way of thinking and the power structures that keep that ideology in place, they are not heroes by definition.  They are merely symbolic embodiments of the status-quo meant to maintain and prop-up the status-quo.

I could list some modern heroes here in the areas of human rights, but these people are not heroes proper.  The hero is really just a device to transmit stories that illustrate the value of knowledge and traditions that are combating mainstream notions and ideals.  The stories are larger-than-life by design, therefore people are really not heroes.  People may do good things and make incredible sacrifices but that does not make them heroes, at least in this strict definition of hero.

That said, I will merely reiterate that the hero is an iconclast.  That ain't Superman, thus he ain't no hero.

Joseph Campbell speaks from the point of view that all belief is mythology (in all senses of the word) invented somehow so as to explain or protect society, it appears.  And whence this definition of hero emerge?  The heroes of the the classical Greek stories were no iconoclasts for the most part; they were kings and warriors, protectors of the status quo.

Didn't the classical DC and Marvel superheroes do that?

[OlBuzzard]

There is nothing wrong with the hero, per se.  The concept began in antiquity as explained by Joseph Campbell to illustrate man's journey into new areas of experience or knowledge.  The hero is the paradigm breaker.  The western conception of the hero is still often a rule-breaker, but the American idea of a hero is one that advances the current ideology.  Superman is an excellent example.  In the beginning, Superman as American will to fight the Nazis.  Later, Clark Kent represents the 50's company man and Superman, the extension of American military might and economic power Post-WWII.  Truth, Justice, and the American Way.  AMERICAN WAY.  This is not a politically neutral character.  Since the American hero, such as Superman, upholds the current way of thinking and the power structures that keep that ideology in place, they are not heroes by definition.  They are merely symbolic embodiments of the status-quo meant to maintain and prop-up the status-quo.

I could list some modern heroes here in the areas of human rights, but these people are not heroes proper.  The hero is really just a device to transmit stories that illustrate the value of knowledge and traditions that are combating mainstream notions and ideals.  The stories are larger-than-life by design, therefore people are really not heroes.  People may do good things and make incredible sacrifices but that does not make them heroes, at least in this strict definition of hero.

That said, I will merely reiterate that the hero is an iconclast.  That ain't Superman, thus he ain't no hero.

Joseph Campbell speaks from the point of view that all belief is mythology (in all senses of the word) invented somehow so as to explain or protect society, it appears.  And whence this definition of hero emerge?  The heroes of the the classical Greek stories were no iconoclasts for the most part; they were kings and warriors, protectors of the status quo.

Didn't the classical DC and Marvel superheroes do that?

A lot of it depends upon how you want to look at the over all scope.  The idea with Superman to begin with was the idea of a "super human" who is also clean cut, in every sense of the word, perhaps to a fault an idealist, upholds the law (careful not to break the smallest part) ... and other wise has super powers to do the miraculous.

There are other approaches ... IMHO that is what we have with the current Batman series .. No super human stuff to speak of  ( like Spidy senses for Spider man) ...  but rather uses technology combined with martial arts and a very sharp mind to do his work.  Here Batman posses no super human abilities, but rather applies his resources ( ok ..  over looked mounds of cash at his disposal   ) ... and combats the overwhelming odds of the criminal master minds of his time.

It should also be noted that most of the bad guys he is fighting off are representative of different types of criminal elements.

just my 2 cents worth.

[KBF-Kapact]

Superman is a loser.  I can't imagine a more boring character.  He's just pre-WWII American propoganda that has hung around for well past its interest or usefulness. I am sure there have been any number of attempts to update the character but the essential Clark Kent company man/Man in Blue saving the world garbage is American pride and ideology from the 40's and 50's run amuk.  I don't need some smug ideological hero making me feel better about a country that wages wars of choice on sovereign nations.  You can take Pooperman and jam a hunk of red kryptonite up his butt as far as I am concerned.

So just because you read modern politics into an iconic character, you have to not just say you hate it, but suddenly it's all about Iraq and Bush? Not at all. It's a comic book. It's about someone who tries to do the right thing just because it's the right thing, and not because he has a grudge against people of a particular religion or political leaning. Not all wars are bad things, and quite honestly, I have trouble being bothered that some tyrant who gassed his own people is out of power and on trial. And even if my country screws up sometimes and does something that I don't like.... well, I still love that country, and I still like to feel good about it. I don't understand how a story.... and that's all it is....  about someone who tries to save the world is a bad thing. I'm not really arguing politics here. I believe what I believe and you believe what you believe, and I don't really care, honestly. But don't blame Superman. Keep your kids away from it if you don't like it. That's your job as a parent, and I salute you for doing what you think is right. I just think a sense of perspective might be in order. What you said sounds (and I really mean no offense here) like a practised reaction to a political event. not a comic book that it seems like you haven't read in a long time.

[E_Look]

+1, Kapact; good points.

[Commander La'ra]

The reason Superman will never be as enthralling a character as Batman is because, of the two, only one is an actual character.

Whether or not you support the values that Superman is supposed to represent, or believe that truth and justice is the American Way (ask a Native American about this, eh?), Superman is meant to be an icon, a pillar of rigteousness rather than an actual man.  This is the secret of  his popularity as many people like imagining the perfect Eagle Scout shaping the world into the type of place we tell ourselves we'd like it to be.

But it's also the secret behind why Batman will always be more compelling, always more of a hero than Superman.  He's just a guy who's been driven too far, and despite being driven to extremes by this and having many character flaws that make him 'less' than Superman, he still hangs on to his moral center and still manages to save the world...without superpowers, mind.

[KBF-Kapact]

+1, Kapact; good points.

thanks I was actually waiting to see it go down.....