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.....   

[KBF-Kapact]

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.

Right you are. I liked Michael Keaton doing Batman, because in the first one, at least, there were times when he didn't seem far removed from the Joker. What do you do when the good guy just might be a nut? And you know, the movie "Daredevil" made a good point. At some point towards the end (I think.... I just saw it once), he has to explain to some kid who's just seen him beat the %$%^* out of someone that he's the good guy. I didn't love the movie, but that made a good point. And yeah, Superman will always be the ideal. Maybe not as interesting, and pure fiction, but it's a good thing to keep ideal characters around. Makes the world smell a little better.....

[Lepton]

(Krusty the Clown delivery) Hey, Hey.  My karma keeps dropping.  Thanks, folks.  Save that crap for Hot and Spicy.  I've got an opinion.  I express it.  Don't like it?  Have the balls to bear it.  They're only words.

[Commander La'ra]

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?

The X-Men were sort of a comic book idea of the stuggle for racial equality....superheros shunned by the very people they were protecting.

The Hulk was sort of an 'individual versus society' thing in some portrayals.

Spider-Man just wanted to save people.  Specific values never seemed to be his big motivator.

[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.

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?

I can't say I am any expert on mythology, but I would say that most mythological heroes defy the conventions of man and society.  In the Greek tradition, I think they are often the offspring of a mating of a god and a mortal.  They are thereby really outside of the human realm by definition.  They do things that regular mortals cannot.  I don't know if I would call them iconclasts, but let's take Perseus.  Son of a king, I believe, sent into exile at birth, I think.  He moves beyond his humble life to become the hero that rides Pegasus and slays Medusa, with the assistance of the gods.  Perhaps it is merely a tale that confirms the validity of the Greek Gods and of the ruling class.  The problem is that the idea of hero has come to the point that it can include everything from a firefighter to Superman to Jesus and Buddha.  I have selected a narrow definition of hero to suite my arguement and my opposition to Superman is not his hero status as much as the American Imperial Manifest Destiny that he represents.

I'll admit to not having read a Superman comic in sometime, but the Superman I know does not do the right thing because of some complex moral deliberations.  He does what he is written to do.  Now, Spiderman is more a superhero that wrestles with his personal desires and his duty as does Batman I believe.  These characters are more human.  Superman is a monolith.  He may have been written in more complex ways recently, but I am unaware of any such complexities in the character of Superman.

[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.

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.

Yes, perhaps I injected too much current politics into my arguements, but any era in U.S. Post-WWII politics might do.  The dropping of the atomic bombs, Korea, Vietnam, the Cold War, the Arms Race, what-have-you.

This thread started with some nostaglia for the good old days.  I am here to say they are neither good nor old.  The era of Superman is the same era before civil rights, after one of the greatest genocides in history, a half-century of wars with millions dead, etc, etc.  While truth and justice are nice words, the American way has little to recommend itself to me in recent, modern, or distant history, nor does the history of almost any other European country.

Yes, it's a comic book, but the nostalgia for the ideals surrounding it are a mire as far as I am concerned.

[KBF-Kapact]

(Krusty the Clown delivery) Hey, Hey.  My karma keeps dropping.  Thanks, folks.  Save that crap for Hot and Spicy.  I've got an opinion.  I express it.  Don't like it?  Have the balls to bear it.  They're only words.

Good on you for being free with your opinions. Thing is, though, you have to be prepared to be unpopular if you put your opinion out. Some people call it brave, some call it arrogant. I call it brave. At the same time, it is possible to make your opinion known without tearing down anyone else. You and I obviously disagree quite strongly, (not just here), and the only thing I take issue with is the tone. Maybe that would be more at home in Hot and Spicy. And the political soap-boxing (???) would be better there too. Just my opinion.

[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.

Yes, perhaps I injected too much current politics into my arguements, but any era in U.S. Post-WWII politics might do.  The dropping of the atomic bombs, Korea, Vietnam, the Cold War, the Arms Race, what-have-you.

This thread started with some nostaglia for the good old days.  I am here to say they are neither good nor old.  The era of Superman is the same era before civil rights, after one of the greatest genocides in history, a half-century of wars with millions dead, etc, etc.  While truth and justice are nice words, the American way has little to recommend itself to me in recent, modern, or distant history, nor does the history of almost any other European country.

Yes, it's a comic book, but the nostalgia for the ideals surrounding it are a mire as far as I am concerned.

It's easy to find bad things to say about any war. But there are also two sides to each one. I mean, hell, Germany wouldn't have been seduced by Hitler if the rest of the world hadn't hit Germany so hard at the end of WWI. A country on its knees will listen to just about anyone who gets the trains running and puts money in your pocket at the same time he makes your country strong again. Hitler was a psycho, but he understood people.

Sure, Superman was a reflection of a society that was only squeaky clean on the surface.... but a little progress is still progress. And even if for every two steps forward we take one back, at least we're stepping forward. I think it speaks more to the willingness to keep trying, no matter the initial success. Do I do more for the world by saying how screwed up it is, or by trying to at least clean up my little corner of it? I can wail about how dirty my neighborhood is, or I can get off my behind and grab a broom. Superman isn't hurting anyone. He isn't teaching any bad lessons. He is a simple, good character. And that's good enough for me.

[OlBuzzard]

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.

Yes, perhaps I injected too much current politics into my arguements, but any era in U.S. Post-WWII politics might do.  The dropping of the atomic bombs, Korea, Vietnam, the Cold War, the Arms Race, what-have-you.

This thread started with some nostaglia for the good old days.  I am here to say they are neither good nor old.  The era of Superman is the same era before civil rights, after one of the greatest genocides in history, a half-century of wars with millions dead, etc, etc.  While truth and justice are nice words, the American way has little to recommend itself to me in recent, modern, or distant history, nor does the history of almost any other European country.

Yes, it's a comic book, but the nostalgia for the ideals surrounding it are a mire as far as I am concerned.

It's easy to find bad things to say about any war. But there are also two sides to each one. I mean, hell, Germany wouldn't have been seduced by Hitler if the rest of the world hadn't hit Germany so hard at the end of WWI. A country on its knees will listen to just about anyone who gets the trains running and puts money in your pocket at the same time he makes your country strong again. Hitler was a psycho, but he understood people.

Sure, Superman was a reflection of a society that was only squeaky clean on the surface.... but a little progress is still progress. And even if for every two steps forward we take one back, at least we're stepping forward. I think it speaks more to the willingness to keep trying, no matter the initial success. Do I do more for the world by saying how screwed up it is, or by trying to at least clean up my little corner of it? I can wail about how dirty my neighborhood is, or I can get off my behind and grab a broom. Superman isn't hurting anyone. He isn't teaching any bad lessons. He is a simple, good character. And that's good enough for me.

I'm afraid out of everthing I've read .. that if it smacks of "American" some people will g out of their way to flame the XXXX out of it.

That's sad.

I know the price my family has paid to help the world in 3 wars now that has affected the free world ...

Sorry ...  this thread (or at last the opinion of one individual) seems to be hell bent on distruction of a simple, good descent charactor.

Oddly enough the Superman charactor shows kindness and respect to the rest of the world.  I refuse to debate political issues here.  And unless you want you butt handed to ya on a silver platter .. (BTW...  I am capable ...  but refuse to doop my self any lower)  I think it would be a good idea to stick to the intent of the thread. 

BTW...  KK ...   kudos bro ..  I think you have hit the nail on the head.

Now then ...

can  we find the positive that was intended at the start of the discussion ...

PLEASE !

[Hexx]

Without getting into who's families have sacrificed to save teh" free world"...


How is it interesting having a hero who (unless they do the movie differently) always does the right thing and is invincible?
The problem with having a boyscout as a hero is that it's boring.
He's stronger than anyone, tougher than anyone, and will always do the right thing ,without (usually) even a thought about being selfish.
With Batman there's always the concept of "Will he let his rage go to far?" " Will he be defeated ?"
Both very very unlikely true, but with Supes there's no question.

[OlBuzzard]

I'm afraid out of everthing I've read .. that if it smacks of "American" some people will g out of their way to flame the XXXX out of it.

That's sad.

I know the price my family has paid to help the world in 3 wars now that has affected the free world ...

That's why. while I do respect what teh US has done, there are also those who see anyhting the US does as saving or Helping the free world while the
rest of the world may not agree.

But..
Bak to the original-  How is it interesting having a hero who (unless they do the movie differently) always does the right thing and is invincible?
The problem with having a boyscout as a hero is that it's boring.
He's stronger than anyone, tougher than anyone, and will always do the right thing ,without (usually) even a thought about being selfish.
With Batman there's always the concept of "Will he let his rage go to far?" " Will he be defeated ?"
Both very very unlikely true, but with Supes there's no question.

I think I understand what you are trying to say ..  but ...

often the matter is not wheather or not the Super hero can solve the problem ..  but how the would be bad guy attempts to give the Super a choice.

Sometimes its his (or her) comapassion for the weak, needy or other wise defenseless that is often exploited.    Granted ..  sometimes the writting of the pervibial solution is not as good as I'd like for it to be.   But then again ..  the simplistic story, with a moral to it is often some of the better stories written.

[Hexx]

Yess..

OK first -I realize it's kinda stupid to argue about how "The Good guys alway win" or to say that I like Batman or Spiderman (Who always win) but
not Superman .


I first started reading comics early 80's with the X-Men. (well  mid-late 80's actually) At the time they had two (kinda) major opponents
Magneto & the Sentinels. At the time they were fun to read, occasionally the X-Men had to actually run away, later other stories added onto
this , I really had the feeling that the X-Men (as a team) could handle pretty much anything, but occasionally were overmatched.
Reavers, The original Genosha storyline, Sentinels etc could all give them trouble, and defeat them if they weren't careful.

I stopped reading for a while, came back and found the X-Men ripping through endless numbers of Sentinels, found Magneto had gone from a guy
who was powerful, but a match for the whole team to a guy who could SINGLEHANDEDLY fire an ECM pulse around the planet, and STILL get beaten by the X-Men.

For me the stories weren't as good anymore, the writers had gone from (imo) trying to tell good stories to simply overpowering their characters to the point
where the only question was how badly the women's clothes were going to get ripped up during the fighting.

Superman (to me) was always the latter type of story. I admit i didn;'t read nearly as much DC , but he always seemed to be the guy who needed another
otherworldy opponent to fight him, he never really questioned himself, he never seemed to have moral or ethical dilemnas, he never made a mistake.
nothing could beat him physically, he was more intelligent than just about anyone, and he never even really seemed to get upset.

I guess -to me- the Xmen , Spiderman, even Batman were heros because they had to overcome some kind of adversity,
Superman was perfect, he didn't have to overcome any kind of adversity, he was deux ex machina personified.

 

[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.

Yes, perhaps I injected too much current politics into my arguements, but any era in U.S. Post-WWII politics might do.  The dropping of the atomic bombs, Korea, Vietnam, the Cold War, the Arms Race, what-have-you.

This thread started with some nostaglia for the good old days.  I am here to say they are neither good nor old.  The era of Superman is the same era before civil rights, after one of the greatest genocides in history, a half-century of wars with millions dead, etc, etc.  While truth and justice are nice words, the American way has little to recommend itself to me in recent, modern, or distant history, nor does the history of almost any other European country.

Yes, it's a comic book, but the nostalgia for the ideals surrounding it are a mire as far as I am concerned.

It's easy to find bad things to say about any war. But there are also two sides to each one. I mean, hell, Germany wouldn't have been seduced by Hitler if the rest of the world hadn't hit Germany so hard at the end of WWI. A country on its knees will listen to just about anyone who gets the trains running and puts money in your pocket at the same time he makes your country strong again. Hitler was a psycho, but he understood people.

Sure, Superman was a reflection of a society that was only squeaky clean on the surface.... but a little progress is still progress. And even if for every two steps forward we take one back, at least we're stepping forward. I think it speaks more to the willingness to keep trying, no matter the initial success. Do I do more for the world by saying how screwed up it is, or by trying to at least clean up my little corner of it? I can wail about how dirty my neighborhood is, or I can get off my behind and grab a broom. Superman isn't hurting anyone. He isn't teaching any bad lessons. He is a simple, good character. And that's good enough for me.

I'm afraid out of everthing I've read .. that if it smacks of "American" some people will g out of their way to flame the XXXX out of it.

That's sad.

I know the price my family has paid to help the world in 3 wars now that has affected the free world ...

Sorry ...  this thread (or at last the opinion of one individual) seems to be hell bent on distruction of a simple, good descent charactor.

Oddly enough the Superman charactor shows kindness and respect to the rest of the world.  I refuse to debate political issues here.  And unless you want you butt handed to ya on a silver platter .. (BTW...  I am capable ...  but refuse to doop my self any lower)  I think it would be a good idea to stick to the intent of the thread. 

BTW...  KK ...   kudos bro ..  I think you have hit the nail on the head.

Now then ...

can  we find the positive that was intended at the start of the discussion ...

PLEASE !

Agreed! By the way, no, I haven't seen the trailer yet. I'll go to see the movie though. I like Superman

[KBF-Kapact]

Without getting into who's families have sacrificed to save teh" free world"...


How is it interesting having a hero who (unless they do the movie differently) always does the right thing and is invincible?
The problem with having a boyscout as a hero is that it's boring.
He's stronger than anyone, tougher than anyone, and will always do the right thing ,without (usually) even a thought about being selfish.
With Batman there's always the concept of "Will he let his rage go to far?" " Will he be defeated ?"
Both very very unlikely true, but with Supes there's no question.

I agree. I usually watch Superman movies for the baddies.... and just because I happen to like the character of Superman. I have since I was a kid, and it hasn't changed. From a literary point of view, you are right about an invincible character being boring. But there have been interesting moments. In the movies.... making a deal with Valerie Perrine and stopping the nuke headed for New Jersey first, and losing Lois because of it. Then he gets pissed and breaks the rules to save her. I liked that, except that there was no penalty. There should always be some penalty for breaking rules.  In the second one, I liked having super-villains. After that I didn't bother. I'll go see the new one though, just out of curiosity I think. As for the comics, well, I haven't touched read one in years. I seem to recall that the Doomsday thing was really just a publicity thing, wasn't it? Maybe I'm remembering wrong. But you see, that could have been interesting. Now that he's back, just what is the deal? There were a few characters sort of spun of, if I recall. Is/are he/they vulnerable now? That again could be an interesting thing.

[Fedman NCC-3758]

                     

[E_Look]

Hey Lepton!  +1 for honestly stating what you feel.

I totally disagree with your opinion and you may have stated it with a sharp, hard, dripping edge, but there was no need to neg you.

For what it's worth, and I'm sure you are completely aware of this, you are not alone in how you feel.  I'll bet if I wanted to I could guess your age (+/- 5 years).

But we are all products of our times... some of us were born in better times than others, some grew up in worse times than others; this is nothing but a fairly aseptic electronic medium.  I'm sure (and I can sympathize to an extent, believe it or not) there is substantial validity to your viewpoint.

[Commander La'ra]

                     

Ah, if we're gonna do patriotic Marvel characters, gimme Nick Fury.  Captain America is too much like Superman for me.

Just not the David Hassellhoff interpretation.

[Dash Jones]

So tell me all, how does Superman cut his hair?

Since he doesn't have waist length long hair I imagine he must have it cut somehow...but what on earth can cut something like that...heck he goes through a flaming inferno and not a strand is even singed?

How in the world does he keep it short?

[Chris Johnson]

Anti-Hair Krypto-Scissors by Lex Luthor!

CAUTION: VIOLENT REACTION WHEN USED ON BODY PARTS AND NOT HAIR.

Yeah, I should work on my humor, cheesy as it is.

[FPF-DieHard]

Just started reading comics again because of Infinite Crisis . . .

How the hell did Spiderman and Wolverine become Avengers?

PS.   Cap needs a good movie, I just don't trust Hollywood to not screw it up.

[Sirgod]

Just started reading comics again because of Infinite Crisis . . .

How the hell did Spiderman and Wolverine become Avengers?

PS.   Cap needs a good movie, I just don't trust Hollywood to not screw it up.

IIRC, Vision and a gruop similiar to him, Obliterated the Avengers mansion, and Killed a few others. It was a slow process with Spidey, but basicly he joined, as the new mansion had a place for Aunt May and Mary Jane.

I could be wrong, but here's a good site that you can find the info...

http://forums.comicbookresources.com/

also Here's a link to the trailer.  http://www.superherohype.com/news.php?id=3640

Stephen

[Lono]

Superman is a Dick!

http://www.superdickery.com/dick/1.html

*Warning do NOT drink milk when clicking link!*

 

[FPF-DieHard]

Superman is a Dick!

http://www.superdickery.com/dick/1.html

*Warning do NOT drink milk when clicking link!*

 

OMG!  Is this real or Photoshop?

[Hexx]

Superman is a Dick!

http://www.superdickery.com/dick/1.html

*Warning do NOT drink milk when clicking link!*

 

OMG!  Is this real or Photoshop?

As far as I know they're real, I've seena few of them-

Kroma should appreciate the Batman and Robin ones..

http://www.superdickery.com/seduction/7.html

http://www.superdickery.com/seduction/13.html

and for the marvel fans
http://www.superdickery.com/seduction/40.html