Marvel Studios will Go Head to Head with Batman vs. Superman

[Space Ghost]

You're not arguing for a consistency of character. You mostly sound like someone that as simply hasn't read or watched superman media in the last 40 years. You are arguing for some hyperbolic interpretation of the character you picked up in your readings and proclaiming any deviation or deconstruction of that is beyond acceptable. Superman being a great man is more along the lines of 'definitive', him being perfect is an idea a handful of books may have broached upon.

For example. If you ask anyone aware of comic book fiction right now if a character like Captain America steals, they will probably all agree that he wouldn't. He's an honest 'boy scout', if you will. That being that, the reaction to cap stealing a car in this last movie, given given the dire and immediate circumstance seems wholly accepted and even endearing. That is people are going with it. I didn't see him ask the owner nor did I see him return it(I think I saw it destroyed). Now if we were to apply your hyperbolic prerogative to this exact situation: "The definitive Steve Rogers is supposed to be a role model and inspiration for all of us. The term super soldier, like man of tmr means he's perfect. Having him steal the car like that wasn't super or honest, it was a deviation of the character. I'm better than that so how am I supposed to look up to cap. The point of Dr. Erskine was to choose a good man, this isn't a good man, so they crapped all over that Dr characters entire point. Now cap is like every other cool character.....and on and on."

And you would go on to defend all that by again citing the definitive version of the character is a Boy Scout, and doesn't steal. The first problem with this is your use of the word definitive. Clearly the character has more than one interpretation(see the popular Ultimates). The second problem is that you have no appreciation for circumstance. What a character does is 100% dictated by the circumstance, how he/reactions is characterization. That's why Rogers can unenthusiastically steal a car when the fate of the world is at stake. That's why superman can take steal clothes that one time or a life and not make a John McClane like quip after the fact but rather shed a few tears. The film provides a circumstantial for every decision they give him.

Secondly, even if you were arguing about the definitive interpretation of the character(you're not imo), there is a greater discussion between definitive and 'best'. See my avy for example.

Great post, but you´re wasting your time. He can only see in one direction.

 

[Heretic]

You're not arguing for a consistency of character. You mostly sound like someone that as simply hasn't read or watched superman media in the last 40 years. You are arguing for some hyperbolic interpretation of the character you picked up in your readings and proclaiming any deviation or deconstruction of that is beyond acceptable. Superman being a great man is more along the lines of 'definitive', him being perfect is an idea a handful of books may have broached upon.

For example. If you ask anyone aware of comic book fiction right now if a character like Captain America steals, they will probably all agree that he wouldn't. He's an honest 'boy scout', if you will. That being that, the reaction to cap stealing a car in this last movie, given given the dire and immediate circumstance seems wholly accepted and even endearing. That is people are going with it. I didn't see him ask the owner nor did I see him return it(I think I saw it destroyed). Now if we were to apply your hyperbolic prerogative to this exact situation: "The definitive Steve Rogers is supposed to be a role model and inspiration for all of us. The term super soldier, like man of tmr means he's perfect. Having him steal the car like that wasn't super or honest, it was a deviation of the character. I'm better than that so how am I supposed to look up to cap. The point of Dr. Erskine was to choose a good man, this isn't a good man, so they crapped all over that Dr characters entire point. Now cap is like every other cool character.....and on and on."

And you would go on to defend all that by again citing the definitive version of the character is a Boy Scout, and doesn't steal. The first problem with this is your use of the word definitive. Clearly the character has more than one interpretation(see the popular Ultimates). The second problem is that you have no appreciation for circumstance. What a character does is 100% dictated by the circumstance, how he/reactions is characterization. That's why Rogers can unenthusiastically steal a car when the fate of the world is at stake. That's why superman can take steal clothes that one time or a life and not make a John McClane like quip after the fact but rather shed a few tears. The film provides a circumstantial for every decision they give him.

Secondly, even if you were arguing about the definitive interpretation of the character(you're not imo), there is a greater discussion between definitive and 'best'. See my avy for example.

I'm well aware that DC is ashamed of Superman and has been trying to move him into a cooler, edgier character for quite some time.

I'm also aware that different people can have differing views. Someone who read the original Superman comics saw him torture people for answers...and they would certainly be baffled at the idea that he is a "Boy Scout." However, IN MY VIEW, the Superman character was NAILED when they created the Big Blue Boy Scout concept. He is the first and best, everyone else is in awe of him (even the people who think he's a chump)...he's the man who sees things from an angle no one else sees, and we can only hope to someday be as good as him. DC has been trying to move away from that, and in my opinion, that makes Superman pretty much like every character on the stands.

I actually don't view Cap as a boy scout. For years, whenever I read Cap comics, it seemed like a desperate attempt to make him like Superman. That never rang true to me, since he's a soldier. Cap should have no problem shooting someone in the head. However, as I mentioned, I think it's also a valid take on the character to be an "America Rules!" type propaganda character. What you CAN'T do with Captain America is make him a communist or something...because it is against what that character MUST stand for to be that character.

So...Space Ghost claims I can only see one direction, when in fact I see two very different directions for Captain America.

But as I said before...is it "acceptable" to have a Tarzan that was not raised by apes, and in fact grew up in the city in an upper middle class family, and he is actually an attorney that defends the environment? No, because we all know what Tarzan is. Is it acceptable to have a Batman whose parents didn't die and maybe they werent even rich, so he fights crime as a middle class vigilante (and has no aversion to guns)? No, that is not acceptable because that isn't Batman. In my OPINION, changing the Kents to be morally conflicted...and having Superman "born" to be a hero like Jor-el was born to be a scientist, is screwing with a vital element of the character.

In fact, I'll go one further...

Part of what makes Superman special is that he is the Last Son of Krypton. That, to me, is VITAL. When you throw in Supergirl, Superboy, Supercat, Supermonkey, Kandor etc etc etc, I think it takes away an important element from him (something DC repeatedly does out of laziness). It makes him commonplace. It's like with Flash...what's so great about being the Fastest Man Alive when there are 5 or 6 people who can make that claim??? Publishers (and movie makers) should identify exactly what it is about the characters that make them special, and embrace those things. The fact that Superman flies and punches things does not make him special.

I keep hearing these arguments making the claim that Superman doesn't have to be unique...doesn't have to be any different from any other character...and I can't wrap my head around why I should be reading comics about a thousand characters that are all interchangeable.

I do understand that I am in the minority though. People don't like the old fashioned Superman anymore.

 

[Space Ghost]

I'm well aware that DC is ashamed of Superman and has been trying to move him into a cooler, edgier character for quite some time.

Nothing that Superman does in the film is new to the character. Everything he does has already been done in the comics several times over the decades. It´s part of the character and doesn´t violate any sacred rule.

I'm also aware that different people can have differing views. Someone who read the original Superman comics saw him torture people for answers...and they would certainly be baffled at the idea that he is a "Boy Scout." However, IN MY VIEW, the Superman character was NAILED when they created the Big Blue Boy Scout concept.

Ok. Then stop acting like your view represents the only valid approach to this character. "If you don´t do it the way i like it, it´s not Superman".

You could simply have said: "I prefer the version of Superman that doesn´t kill".

But instead you´re acting like there´s only one way of portraying the character and everything else is wrong.


Snyder didn´t break any rules by making Superman snap Zod´s neck. He simply wasn´t faithful to YOUR PERSONAL FAVORITE VERSION of Superman.

And also: Stop acting like the "no killing" rule is the thing that most defines Superman, because it isn´t. Most people aren´t even aware of that "rule". It´s certainly not what defines Superman.

 

[Heretic]

I've never claimed that Superman has always been the Boy Scout. I'm claiming that, to me, the Superman that feels unique is the Boy Scout.

According to you, what defines Superman is that he punches things...which also defines every other Superhero. As I mentioned, I dont think a character needs to exist if they don't have something that is unique to them. Like, when Wolverine became a huge success, suddenly the Marvel universe (and every other universe) was full of characters just like him. Aside from creative laziness and the hope to cash in on a similar character, why do these characters exist? Why does Superman exist? What is it about him that makes him unique? That is why writers try to create defining aspects of a character...so that there's a reason why you'd read Batman rather than The Punisher.

Man of Steel (and many other iterations...in no way am I saying this is a one time thing) removes the Boy Scout image, removes the no-kill policy, removes the Kent's old fashioned upbringing, alters the feel of the character. Of course, DC/WB are behind these iterations...so clearly they are official. I just struggle to see why the character is called Superman rather than any number of other superhero names.

Let's have a Wonder Woman in Batman/Superman that draws from the Women's Lib era where she had no powers. I mean, it isn't like the Warrior Amazon is "definitive," and the powerless Wonder Woman IS from the comics! Punisher was once like Frankenstein...so lets see Marvel put THAT version of the character in Avengers 2! Please don't tell me that Punisher has a "definitive" version.

But nah...if they even dared do that, all of you would be saying "They can't change the character like that! It's too important to what the character is!" I'd be right there with you on those...I wouldn't be a hypocrite like that and change my stance just because we're talking about a different character.

 

[Marvin]

I've never claimed that Superman has always been the Boy Scout. I'm claiming that, to me, the Superman that feels unique is the Boy Scout.

You opened with this^, then you made a turn back into the 'definitive' talks again towards the end there.

But nah...if they even dared do that, all of you would be saying "They can't change the character like that! It's too important to what the character is!" I'd be right there with you on those...I wouldn't be a hypocrite like that and change my stance just because we're talking about a different character.

If they remove wonderwoman's powers, it would be like them removing superman's powers(also from the comic books). I don't think there would be much people here excited about that. The problem(again) is that you are equating the change from superman being perfect/flawless/faultless to less than perfect(right now), to something like Wonderwoman literally having powers taken away. Surely you can see how that's hardly the same thing?

Here's an idea how's about you equate this slight deviation in superman's(young/early) character personality to say....a shift in Wonderwoman's(young) character personality. Like, instead of a the peaceful warrior, she's a belligerent/violent/no apologies wonder amazon. Both of which exist in the mythos.

Peaceful Diana - Take no prisoners Diana with the promise that the character is going to evolve from one to the other in her cinematic narrative.
Oh wait, here comes the Heretic type to rant about how the former is the 'definitive' one and DC is just trying to be cool by making a movie about the latter.

 

[Heretic]

But wait...Wonder Woman went a stretch without powers! Who are you to say that the definitive Wonder Woman has powers??? Maybe THIS Wonder Woman won't! If I say "guy who runs fast" you have NO IDEA who I'm talking about. But if I say "Big Blue Boy Scout" then you know for CERTAIN who I'm talking about. And yet you think the powers are what defines the character????

Personally, I PREFER to have characters that are all different from one another. I cant imagine that I would have been a comic fan for long if the differences were "this guy punches hard in a blue outfit, the other guy punches hard and wears red."

 

[Space Ghost]

But wait...Wonder Woman went a stretch without powers! Who are you to say that the definitive Wonder Woman has powers??? Maybe THIS Wonder Woman won't! If I say "guy who runs fast" you have NO IDEA who I'm talking about. But if I say "Big Blue Boy Scout" then you know for CERTAIN who I'm talking about. And yet you think the powers are what defines the character????

If you´re a comic book reader. I know for a fact that most people have no idea who "Big Blue Boy Scout" is. If that name really defined Superman, everyone would know about it, because the character is very popular.

Again, what´s your problem, exaclty? You don´t like this version of Superman? Ok, we understand. But that´s a valid approach, whether you like it or not. Nobody is stripping the character from his true identity.

You still haven´t addressed some of my questions. You only pay attention to what suits you.

Let me ask again:

You say that Superman is perfect. You say that what defines him is that he is the Man of Tomorrow. He is what we can only aspire to be. That´s why he always find a way, even when there´s no way. He is a symbol of hope and is supposed to send a good message to his readers. If that´s the case, why does he almost always use physical strenght to solve his problems? Is that the great message that The Man of Tomorrow sends?

You asked me what message snapping a neck sends. And i ask you what message spending most of his time being violent sends. If this is about sending a message, if this is about The Man of Tomorrow, then he should only use his brains. There´s nothing "Boy Scout" about a guy who beats people up on a regular basis.

 

[Marvin]

But wait...Wonder Woman went a stretch without powers! Who are you to say that the definitive Wonder Woman has powers???

I'm not anyone to say the definitive Wondy is powerless(though I'm pretty sure it isn't). That's just it, you're the only one in the habit of claiming anything definitive. I've been saying all these characters have various interpretations throughout the years and filmmakers should simply pick the best one for the given circumstances.

Also, I'm sure the same people that would argue against a powerless Wondy are the same who would argue against a powerless Superman, regardless of if they went a stretch without powers. Arguing against a slight personality change is a different matter all together.

Personally, I PREFER to have characters that are all different from one another. I cant imagine that I would have been a comic fan for long if the differences were "this guy punches hard in a blue outfit, the other guy punches hard and wears red."

Ok so you say that you like(need) characterizations between various character to be different beyond what they wear, otherwise you have no interest in comic stuff. That's great, I'm not so sure how the differences between; the superman in this movie(back story and all) is the same as the guy in the Thor(back story and all) movie, Captain America movie, batman movie, wolverine movie, 300..etc simply boil down to the way they dress and how hard they punch. This is you being hyperbolic.
You say you want variety, then actually take in what is present(ed) in the movie. Him not being a flawless individual doesn't result the superman movie/brand the same as any of the listed above, no matter how you frame the comparison.

Then you say what you really mean(imo), that you aren't happy being presented with a superman that simply punches hard and wears colours. That's also great, this superman isn't simply that either. Rejoice.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Cap's domestic numbers so far aren't exactly devastating. For all the talk leading up, it might end up a ways off MoS domestically.

 

[Heretic]

If you´re a comic book reader. I know for a fact that most people have no idea who "Big Blue Boy Scout" is. If that name really defined Superman, everyone would know about it, because the character is very popular.

Again, what´s your problem, exaclty? You don´t like this version of Superman? Ok, we understand. But that´s a valid approach, whether you like it or not. Nobody is stripping the character from his true identity.

You still haven´t addressed some of my questions. You only pay attention to what suits you.

Let me ask again:

You say that Superman is perfect. You say that what defines him is that he is the Man of Tomorrow. He is what we can only aspire to be. That´s why he always find a way, even when there´s no way. He is a symbol of hope and is supposed to send a good message to his readers. If that´s the case, why does he almost always use physical strenght to solve his problems? Is that the great message that The Man of Tomorrow sends?

You asked me what message snapping a neck sends. And i ask you what message spending most of his time being violent sends. If this is about sending a message, if this is about The Man of Tomorrow, then he should only use his brains. There´s nothing "Boy Scout" about a guy who beats people up on a regular basis.

I've answered your question many times. People view Jesus as being perfect, and Jesus got violent in the Bible (in fact, he wasn't even defending himself...he was just ticked off and grabbed a whip). Superman is an action hero stand-in for Jesus...so defensive violence is accepted as moral in the context of the story. And as I've said before, Superman is not necessarily perfect. It's a version of perfection that many comic readers would flat think is wrong on a regular basis.

 

[Space Ghost]

I've answered your question many times. People view Jesus as being perfect, and Jesus got violent in the Bible (in fact, he wasn't even defending himself...he was just ticked off and grabbed a whip). Superman is an action hero stand-in for Jesus...so defensive violence is accepted as moral in the context of the story. And as I've said before, Superman is not necessarily perfect. It's a version of perfection that many comic readers would flat think is wrong on a regular basis.

Jesus had a moment of anger, for all we know. He didn´t harm anyone. Superman didn´t have a moment of anger. Superman is all about kicking ass. That´s what the comic books are about: Him defeating evil through violence. It´s not something that happened once. It´s something that happens all the time. It´s the difference between someone who got angry one time and someone who gets angry every day.

If Superman is "so perfect" (as you said), and if has to send a message to the readers (as you said), and if he is so genius that he always finds other options (as you said), then he shouldn´t fight at all. What message does that send?

I think we can all agree that, if Superman has to fight, that´s because he can´t find any other option. And if he can´t find any other option, he is not the man who always finds a way, even when there´s no way, like you said.

I also think we can all agree that, if he solves his problems through violence, he isn´t exactly that different from humans.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Cap's domestic numbers so far aren't exactly devastating. For all the talk leading up, it might end up a ways off MoS domestically.

Oddly, Cap has a shot at beating MoS internationally though thanks to the numbers in Asia. Never would have guessed that!

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Oddly, Cap has a shot at beating MoS internationally though thanks to the numbers in Asia. Never would have guessed that!

I don't think that is a surprise. Marvel Studios has a strong brand name in Asia and TWS very much looks Avengers connected. I think what would have been odd is really strong European numbers.

All in all though, this brings me back to the entire idea of this topic. I don't think either film has to "fear" anything, not yet. The first footage of BvS is going to be very important imo. How do they deliver Batman?

 

[Heretic]

I'm not anyone to say the definitive Wondy is powerless(though I'm pretty sure it isn't). That's just it, you're the only one in the habit of claiming anything definitive. I've been saying all these characters have various interpretations throughout the years and filmmakers should simply pick the best one for the given circumstances.

Also, I'm sure the same people that would argue against a powerless Wondy are the same who would argue against a powerless Superman, regardless of if they went a stretch without powers. Arguing against a slight personality change is a different matter all together.

Ok so you say that you like(need) characterizations between various character to be different beyond what they wear, otherwise you have no interest in comic stuff. That's great, I'm not so sure how the differences between; the superman in this movie(back story and all) is the same as the guy in the Thor(back story and all) movie, Captain America movie, batman movie, wolverine movie, 300..etc simply boil down to the way they dress and how hard they punch. This is you being hyperbolic.
You say you want variety, then actually take in what is present(ed) in the movie. Him not being a flawless individual doesn't result the superman movie/brand the same as any of the listed above, no matter how you frame the comparison.

Then you say what you really mean(imo), that you aren't happy being presented with a superman that simply punches hard and wears colours. That's also great, this superman isn't simply that either. Rejoice.

You guys are arguing that there is no such thing as a definitive take on a fictional character...so you should fully support the idea of a karate chopping, powerless Wonder Woman in Batman vs Superman. Personally, I hope it happens (it wont) just to see the meltdown from the exact people arguing that fictional characters don't have definitive versions.

I'm actually not being hyperbolic. It has been stated by someone in this thread that as long as Superman flies and punches hard, it's Superman. I disagree with that. That description could be any number of superheroes, so you need to give me some reason to prefer Superman over the rest.

And thats the issue...none of you can explain WHY I should prefer Superman over other characters, or why I should prefer Punisher or anyone else. If the characters have no distinguishing details that identify them as them, aside from the costume, then who cares? Sell me on why I should watch a Superman movie instead of something else. And "He wears an S on his chest" isn't enough to sway me.

 

[Heretic]

Jesus had a moment of anger, for all we know. He didn´t harm anyone. Superman didn´t have a moment of anger. Superman is all about kicking ass. That´s what the comic books are about: Him defeating evil through violence. It´s not something that happened once. It´s something that happens all the time. It´s the difference between someone who got angry one time and someone who gets angry every day.

If Superman is "so perfect" (as you said), and if has to send a message to the readers (as you said), and if he is so genius that he always finds other options (as you said), then he shouldn´t fight at all. What message does that send?

I think we can all agree that, if Superman has to fight, that´s because he can´t find any other option. And if he can´t find any other option, he is not the man who always finds a way, even when there´s no way, like you said.

I also think we can all agree that, if he solves his problems through violence, he isn´t exactly that different from humans.

I guess you never read the era of Superman that I consider important to the character. The justification is that defensive violence is often necessary, but there are lines that heroes do not cross, and one of those is killing the bad guy. When John Byrne (I am a Byrne victim, by the way, and usually support his every move) made Superman kill, it ruined the book...DC spent a decade trying to apologize for that one action. It was through this period that they created the idea that Superman is horrified by the idea of killing a bad guy, and that since he's the best hero etc, it was against his character to do it. If Man of Steel had established that belief system over a few movies and then truly left him with no other choice, then I would have accepted it. But I suffered through the comic era where an emo Superman exiled himself from earth because he was so distraught over the fact that he killed. I don't need that Superman in the movies because it was such a freaking downer. I don't watch Superman to get depressed.

 

[Space Ghost]

I guess you never read the era of Superman that I consider important to the character. The justification is that defensive violence is often necessary, but there are lines that heroes do not cross, and one of those is killing the bad guy. When John Byrne (I am a Byrne victim, by the way, and usually support his every move) made Superman kill, it ruined the book...DC spent a decade trying to apologize for that one action. It was through this period that they created the idea that Superman is horrified by the idea of killing a bad guy, and that since he's the best hero etc, it was against his character to do it. If Man of Steel had established that belief system over a few movies and then truly left him with no other choice, then I would have accepted it. But I suffered through the comic era where an emo Superman exiled himself from earth because he was so distraught over the fact that he killed. I don't need that Superman in the movies because it was such a freaking downer. I don't watch Superman to get depressed.

You´re still contradicting yourself. Basically, what you´re saying is that violence is often necessary, but killing can ALWAYS be avoided. How does that makes him The Man of Tomorrow?

Being The Man of Tomorrow doesn´t imply that he is better than humans? So, if he is better, why does he act in a way that is very similar to what humans do?

You said he is perfect, so he always finds a way. Won´t you agree that, if you can solve a problem without violence, you should do it? Don´t you agree that a book based on punching, kicking and crashing isn´t the most educational thing a kid can read?

The concept of Boy Scout and violence are two things that don´t go together very well.

Superman not being able to fight crime without physical violence is the definitive proof that his resources are limited. If his resources are limited, it´s pretty logical to assume that once in a while he might find himself in a position where the only option he has is killing someone.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

How can a man raised by humans be better then humans? Clark above all else if the boy raised by the Kents. Also it implies that Clark sees himself as better then humans, which he doesn't.

 

[Space Ghost]

How can a man raised by humans be better then humans? Clark above all else if the boy raised by the Kents. Also it implies that Clark sees himself as better then humans, which he doesn't.

Apparently some people think he should be portrayed as perfect, otherwise he is not the "real superman" from the comics.

 

[Marvin]

A perfect character vs relatable one. I for one am glad DC/WB finally caught on to what's been keeping the character out of touch with cinema(basic story) audiences for years. Then again I suppose they already tried their hand with Superman 2.

You guys are arguing that there is no such thing as a definitive take on a fictional character...so you should fully support the idea of a karate chopping, powerless Wonder Woman in Batman vs Superman. Personally, I hope it happens (it wont) just to see the meltdown from the exact people arguing that fictional characters don't have definitive versions.

No, I said there have been various interpretations of all of these characters today and to absolutely pick the definitive one is a fools errand. Is the definitive batman Neal Adams, Frank miller, BTAS, Nolan...none of those are the same and to suggest one is the absolute definitive is silly imo. As for this issue of 'because I don't think there is absolutely one definitive take on on Wondy then I should then fully support the powerless one'. No. If I don't think there is one definitive take that means I want them to put a great wonderwoman on screen, nothing more.

Again
I vote for them to put the BEST take on screen! You are the one that demands they put the 'definitive' one then you go ahead and choose which one you want that to be... Back in 1998 when they made blade, if they followed your mentality they would have put the 'definitive' blade on screen where instead they opted to film the best one for the times.

 

[Heretic]

You´re still contradicting yourself. Basically, what you´re saying is that violence is often necessary, but killing can ALWAYS be avoided. How does that makes him The Man of Tomorrow?

Being The Man of Tomorrow doesn´t imply that he is better than humans? So, if he is better, why does he act in a way that is very similar to what humans do?

You said he is perfect, so he always finds a way. Won´t you agree that, if you can solve a problem without violence, you should do it? Don´t you agree that a book based on punching, kicking and crashing isn´t the most educational thing a kid can read?

The concept of Boy Scout and violence are two things that don´t go together very well.

Superman not being able to fight crime without physical violence is the definitive proof that his resources are limited. If his resources are limited, it´s pretty logical to assume that once in a while he might find himself in a position where the only option he has is killing someone.

Again...though I know you hate the comparison. JESUS grabbed a whip and went after people violently because he objected to their business practices. Superman uses his fists to save the earth. Superman isn't necessarily the brightest bulb in the pack...and since he's an action hero substitute for Jesus (in a sense), we accept that he uses violence more than Jesus does. Then again, we only have 4 stories about Jesus, which all basically tell the same subplots. Still, in that limited space, he used violence once (and one time got really petty over a fig tree and killed the tree because it wasn't fig season...kind of a jerk move for a perfect man). Superman is action Jesus. He isn't the greatest strategic mind...he's a hick from Smallville...so there you have it.

And YES...Superman may find himself in a position where he might kill. When he does it is CATASTROPHIC because we know that he hates the idea of killing. We know that the guilt will tear him apart. We know that he will no longer trust himself with all of this power, worried that he may use it for his own gain or out of anger etc. We know these things because of the many stories that proceed him killing. Man of Steel had him kill his first time out, with no attempt to establish him as having a problem with it. What could have been an incredibly emotional story in a few movies was instead blown off immediately.

 

[Heretic]

No, I said there have been various interpretations of all of these characters today and to absolutely pick the definitive one is a fools errand. Is the definitive batman Neal Adams, Frank miller, BTAS, Nolan...none of those are the same and to suggest one is the absolute definitive is silly imo. As for this issue of 'because I don't think there is absolutely one definitive take on on Wondy then I should then fully support the powerless one'. No. If I don't think there is one definitive take that means I want them to put a great wonderwoman on screen, nothing more.

Again
I vote for them to put the BEST take on screen! You are the one that demands they put the 'definitive' one then you go ahead and choose which one you want that to be... Back in 1998 when they made blade, if they followed your mentality they would have put the 'definitive' blade on screen where instead they opted to film the best one for the times.

Well, Blade is another issue entirely. I'm a lifelong comic fan and still knew nothing about the character or what makes him tick. Sometimes, if a character hasn't really been given anything that makes him stand out, the movie can create something...and then hopefully if that works the comic would adopt those traits. But, for instance, Deadpool had been firmly established in the minds of the people who knew him (it doesnt matter that most people have never heard of Deadpool). It makes ZERO sense to make a movie about the merc without a mouth, when everyone knows that he is the merc with a mouth.

Ant Man is an unknown quantity to most. The average person on the street would probably assume that he is half man, half ant. I don't care what those people guess, because it would be inherently wrong to present him that way. The concept is at least well enough established to be certain that he is not an insect version of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. However, there's a problem...the "definitive" Hank Pym beat his wife. Marvel CANT deal with that in a movie about a hero. They don't even want people asking if that storyline will happen. It stains the character they are trying to create on screen. As a result, Hank Pym is an old man in the movie and Scott Lang is Ant Man. That way you can keep the stuff you want (romantic relationship with Wasp) and toss the parts you don't want.

But again...give me a reason to watch a Superman film beyond "it'll have explosions and fights" because that describes every action movie. Give me a reason why I should care to see Superman, rather than Optimus Prime. If there is nothing special about Superman that sets him apart...after over 75 years of existence...then that is just pathetic.

 

[Marvin]

Well, Blade is another issue entirely. I'm a lifelong comic fan and still knew nothing about the character or what makes him tick. Sometimes, if a character hasn't really been given anything that makes him stand out, the movie can create something...and then hopefully if that works the comic would adopt those traits. But, for instance, Deadpool had been firmly established in the minds of the people who knew him (it doesnt matter that most people have never heard of Deadpool). It makes ZERO sense to make a movie about the merc without a mouth, when everyone knows that he is the merc with a mouth.

And now you are adding the asterisk of a character having to be popular before we can apply your rules...

Entirely taking away deadpools biggest trait and gimmick, is a lot more a deviation than the the superman in mos has done to superman. You said it yourself, superman should be devastated if he's ever forced to take a life and he would only take a life if his hick brain can't find a way around the issue. THAT WAS MOS. How very different from superman that was..it was almost like watching punisher Too bad the cut away before he pulled out his cirgar.

A better example would be the marvel studios version of Tony Stark vs what he was in the Comicbooks before that time. Safe to say the comic book version was RDJ. They changed him for the big screen into something verrrrrry similar to what I assume you would refer to as definitive. Why? Because he still the same origin, he still was a genius engineer, he will was a playboy, still has no powers and wears a suit...
It's the same deal with MOS.

You want a reason to make YOU care about superman? Simple make him perfect cause you've decided that's what he needs to be for you to find him interesting and identifiable to the stories you've encountered, I assume when(if) you read a superman story in the comics that isn't like that you hate it. You want to give a reason to mass audiences to watch superman, tell a superman's story like they do in the comic books. You want to know how it's different from other films, watch it back to back with the some of these other films. For example:[YT]wkxLWWiz5O8[/YT]Gotta admit, that neck neck snap was pretty similar to mos.

compared with(random mos tv spot)
[YT]s2PQMoYmhDs[/YT]Why people should pick one of the other their own prerogative but anyone suggesting there is no discernable difference...nah.

 

[Heretic]

How can a man raised by humans be better then humans? Clark above all else if the boy raised by the Kents. Also it implies that Clark sees himself as better then humans, which he doesn't.

The idea is that he was raised by this family straight out of a Norman Rockwell painting, the perfect couple...and because he is powerful enough to enslave the world, they raised him to be more self-sacrificing and humble etc than anyone else.

It isn't realistic, but neither is a flying alien who can shoot beams out of his eyes.

 

[Space Ghost]

Again...though I know you hate the comparison. JESUS grabbed a whip and went after people violently.

Did he hurt them? No. Is his story made of situations where he acts in a violent way? No. But the Superman story is. Why can´t you just see the huge freaking difference?

"Superman isn't necessarily the brightest bulb in the pack"

I can´t help but notice how much this statement contrasts with some of your previous ones, like "Because he is so perfect, he always finds a way, even when there´s no way".

Yeah, you actually said something like that.

And YES...Superman may find himself in a position where he might kill. When he does it is CATASTROPHIC because we know that he hates the idea of killing. We know that the guilt will tear him apart. We know that he will no longer trust himself with all of this power, worried that he may use it for his own gain or out of anger etc. We know these things because of the many stories that proceed him killing. Man of Steel had him kill his first time out, with no attempt to establish him as having a problem with it. What could have been an incredibly emotional story in a few movies was instead blown off immediately.

To me it was obvious he had a problem with it.

 

[Heretic]

And now you are adding the asterisk of a character having to be popular before we can apply your rules...

Entirely taking away deadpools biggest trait and gimmick, is a lot more a deviation than the the superman in mos has done to superman. You said it yourself, superman should be devastated if he's ever forced to take a life and he would only take a life if his hick brain can't find a way around the issue. THAT WAS MOS. How very different from superman that was..it was almost like watching punisher Too bad the cut away before he pulled out his cirgar.

A better example would be the marvel studios version of Tony Stark vs what he was in the Comicbooks before that time. Safe to say the comic book version was RDJ. They changed him for the big screen into something verrrrrry similar to what I assume you would refer to as definitive. Why? Because he still the same origin, he still was a genius engineer, he will was a playboy, still has no powers and wears a suit...
It's the same deal with MOS.

You want a reason to make YOU care about superman? Simple make him perfect cause you've decided that's what he needs to be for you to find him interesting and identifiable to the stories you've encountered, I assume when(if) you read a superman story in the comics that isn't like that you hate it. You want to give a reason to mass audiences to watch superman, tell a superman's story like they do in the comic books. You want to know how it's different from other films, watch it back to back with the some of these other films. For example:[YT]wkxLWWiz5O8[/YT]Gotta admit, that neck neck snap was pretty similar to mos.

compared with(random mos tv spot)
[YT]s2PQMoYmhDs[/YT]Why people should pick one of the other their own prerogative but anyone suggesting there is no discernable difference...nah.

No, no, no.

When I say "give me a reason why I should care about about Superman" it is NOT a demand that he be perfect because I like perfect characters. I care about The Punisher, and he is not at all like Superman. If they make a movie about a Punisher who refuses to kill, I'd be up in arms over it. The Punisher FEELS liked a character who blasts criminals to bits without a second thought, and you'd need to really build up to him taking a vow to not kill again (and even then it likely shouldn't be permanent).

What I want is for SOMETHING to exist about the character that defines them beyond "His shirt has an S on it." This is freaking BASIC stuff.

I agree, sometimes the movie will create something so much better than what the comics ever did, that the comics SHOULD follow suit.

With Iron Man, they changed the comic character into Robert Downey Junior. Something about that FELT right. Maybe Iron Man just was never a great character. Maybe they never really nailed anything unique about him that was worthwhile (besides the alcoholism, which I understand why they didn't want to pursue that). Whatever the reason, the change worked. RDJ then went on to play Sherlock Holmes...and they changed Sherlock into RDJ: Action Hero. That just didn't feel right. We know who Sherlock is...and should be...and it just FELT wrong to many people familiar with the source material.

The fact is...most characters are throwaway characters. Comics generally say "Wolverine is popular...so here's Ripclaw." If they want their character to actually mean anything beyond "I'm a rip-off" then they need to do something more. On the surface, Captain America, The Fighting American and The Shield might as well be the same guy. If I'm going to watch each of them in their own movie, then they'd better do something to expand them beyond their costumes.

So...again...WHY should I want a Superman movie rather than a Supreme movie or a Prime movie or Shazam or Mr Majestic or The Sentry or any number of others. There MUST be some traits unique to Superman that FEEL right that the others don't possess. "His name is Clark and he wears an S on his chest" isn't good enough.