I originally said SII made Clark look weak and that is why SM2 is better. Because even without Peter's powers, as an individual he has personal strength and a sense of self. He's still able to help people (in the fire) and stand up for himself around MJ or his Aunt. It's not that Clark lost a fight, it's that he considered himself worthless without his superpowers and by extension so did the audience. I don't think I ever called Clark pathetic. But he seems to have a weak personality if all he thinks is might makes right. He's not weak because he isn't manly enough, he's weak because he holds himself in low regard by that standard.
No, at first you said he was 'weak and pathetic' without his powers because he lost that fistfight.
edit: You want to know how I distinctly recall that this was your attitude to the Clark Kent fight? That losing a fistfight made him 'weak and pathetic'? Because the reason you brought it up was because I suggested that it would have been a good idea for Peter Parker to have intervened in that mugging in Spider-Man2, instead of walking away, even if he got beaten up, and *that* was when you came in and said if they had done that, it would have made him look 'weak and pathetic' just like Clark Kent in Superman II.
So, even if you did not type up 'Clark Kent is weak and pathetic because he can't handle himself in a fistfight', That *is* what you were saying when you came in with that opinion on my suggestion for Spider-man 2.
I recall you skimmed over the fact i had pointed out something was wrong in your reply to me, only admitting it later on when I again called you out on that. So i guess it would have been that aspect of the discussion.))
When I came back with the argument that this notion was nonsense, that there is no dishonour in losing a fair fightfist(never mind one where the opponent fought dirty as per this example), it was only then that you concentrated solely on the fact that if you encompass the scene when he went back with his powers, that it presented him in a misleading manner, ie that he is worthless without his powers.
Also, I disagreed about the intention of him beating himself up with that line in the first scene, it was understandable, he was just punched from behind through a plate glass window in front of his gf, you don't feel too good in those moments. So, what does he do right after that line? Go right back up to fight the guy, who again resorts to dirty fighting. Not exactly the actions of a guy who thinks he is worthless without his powers, he doesn't walk away after that line.
Yes and no. He's not just subverting expectations, he's satirizing and critiquing fanboy and comic book culture. Fans really liked Stars and were pissed when he died, yes? That's because he was a big macho tough guy with a grizzly origin (born again mobster hitman) who had a dog that bit guys in the junk and carried around guns. Those who think he is cool, would not consider dying "in a room surrounded by comic book merchandise" and having his head cut off so the dog's could go on top as "heroic" or cool. Look at how DC did the "Death of Superman" or recently the Ultimate "Death of Spider-Man." Millar makes these characters look bad in the context of superheroes and supervillains because superheroes aren't supposed to die like that. Why? Because the context is male fantasy stupidity. That's what Millar is getting at and that is why he successfully got such a negative reaction from readers both times. He doesn't care a lick (at least in his personal creations) about what is morally black and white or what is supposed to be considered heroic in the superhero sense. He actually rather dislikes that thought process from what I gather. So he tries to make the characters look as "weak" (by comic book standards) as possible in the process.
Yeah, 'male fantasy stupidity', see, that's what I'm getting at, I agree, it is stupid to think that these kind of characters can exist in real life, Batman, Superman, whoever, or you can present yourself like that and get away with it.
Because everyone makes mistakes, none of us are beyond reproach.
When you have an obsession about trying to present yourself as having no faults in your character, or the type who never makes mistakes, it's because you want to present yourself like one of those silly comic book characters, and that is weak. Because when you have no humility and are all about your ego, it means you really think of yourself as being above other people, and want other people to think of you that way, like you are operating on a higher plain.
But, what happens in real life, like these guys in the Millar books, is that you slip up, and the attitudes you try to hide will slip through the net every once in a while when you lose your cool, and the fact that you are desperate to hide these faceats of your character will only serve to show you up as someone who has a lot to hide, and are very different indeed from the image you so carefully and obsessively try to project and maintain.
edit: So, now you are saying he is 'weak' by highly unrealistic idealized comic book standards, and have dropped the use of the word 'pathetic' in reagrds to the character.
edit: Dude, this conversation is taking the same shape as that Superman discussion. You say one thing, and then when I call you on it for being wrong, you backtrack and say 'What I was *really* saying was this...', but along with that statement you drop part of what you were saying in the first place, the part I called you out on, without admitting you were off about that.
) After issue 2 of Vol. 2, the one thing fans kept talking about was how cool Col. Stripes was. Only when I saw that reaction in the fan community did I get that Milalr was pulling a BD again. Though, I was surprised how quickly the other shoe dropped.
