I really don't think an explanation is necessary. A lot of movies don't give actual explanations for powers, the characters often just have them. I see no reason for super hero movies to be different, I think we just get caught up in the idea because origins play a major (but hardly necessary) part in comics.
Which movies?
I honestly can't think of any right now.
Push, Chronicle, the good half of Hancock comes to mind.
Chronicle technically has an origin for their powers but all of thirty seconds is spent on it and Hancock does have an origin but it had nothing to do with the parts o the movie that were good and a lot to do with the parts that sucked.
Basically I don't see origins being as important as others think.
Push was basically "mutants". Haven't seen Chronicle yet, but I agree re: Hancock.
I don't think superheroes need firmly established reasons for their powers or anything, but if you are doing "real world + super hero" you need to acknowledge either a reason for the power or the weirdness of that power existing.
Beyond that, I think origins compromise far more then that. Most of the time, they compromise motivation and backstory too. That's not always necessary, but you've got to write a different kind of story if you wanna skip over that or handle it it flashback or the like.
Absolutely. Origins can be a very good thing. They're just not essential for the audience to enjoy the film.
Also, check out Chronicle. It's a very, very stealthy super hero movie.
Seeing that it was on Netflix I checked out Superman vs The Elite yesterday.
For a direct to video movie it was really solid up til the end. I really like the different animation style and atmosphere they went with and I'm kind of surprised at what they got away with given the PG-13 rating.
My only real complaints in addition to the fact that the description on Netflix is terrible are
Inconsistent power levels. Cold Cast knocked Superman out by accident in one scene but at the end of the movie his strongest blast just pisses him off.
Most important though is that the message the movie tries to get across is kind of ham strung by the fact that it's a lot easier to stick to your morals with a giant army of Super Robots. I would have liked it a lot more if Superman actually lost something in order to keep his code.
Yup. This is why Superman in comics is so dumb and bad.
In the end, the Elite are right. Might makes right, its just that Superman is mightier and he says that you should do things the truth/justice/american way style. Wooo boring
The same problem exists in "All Star Superman". Which is hamstrung by the fact its a superman story and not a Lex Luthor story.
In it, Luthor poisons superman with too much sunlight and superman is going to die. Then totally pointless stuff happens with the exception of explaining that Superman has developed a potion that will give people superpowers for 24 hours and has guns that can hurt him. Then Luthor reveals his true plot to make money on water or something dumb and gets double crossed by some robotic sun eater that superman tries to kill with his own organic sun eater yadda yadda yadda lex luthor gets the 24 superman potion and takes it and superman hits him with a gravity gun and then since superman is dying anyway he "sacrifices" himself to save the sun. Since the potion gives luthor supermans powers he is able to perceive the realities of the universe and realizes that he can save the world, after which superman tells him that he could have saved the world all along.
But there is no character arc for superman. He learns and accepts his death in like the first 5 minutes. And then at the end, when he beats luthor and sends him to prison again he dies.... like beating luthor actually mattered (because as we have seen before luthor can just escape from jail whenever he wants)
But as an arc for luthor it could be brilliant. The man is brilliant and smart and would be on top of the world a super-scientist able to do anything. But everyone only cares about superman. So Luthor works to defeat superman and, in his triumph learns that he had squandered his gifts that he never really cared about anything that mattered and has destroyed a great force for good in the world. Of course this would require writers who understood stories so it wouldn't ever happen.
No man you misread Superman Vs the Elite.
The reason he wins in the end is because he wins the public back at the end.
The point of that display was to showcase the end result of that kind of might makes right morality. It galls them and they choose to support superman.
Superman didn't kill the guys or imprison them himself. He made it possible for the population to house them.
@nightmarenny I moved this in here since there's a perfectly good thread here for it and that way we don't clutter up the movie thread with more Superman discussion.
I had to think on it a bit to come up with my reply but I feel pretty good about it now. In essence, I don't agree with what you believe the message of the story was. I saw it as
You don't compromise your morals just because things get tough. Yes the "might makes right is wrong" message was there but that wasn't the main challange for Kent. He's Superman. Of course he thinks might makes right is wrong, even if he has very momentary wavers like he did at the start of the movie. What he found challenging was that the world no longer agreed with him on what was morally right and while he wasn't willing to abandon that, he was willing to abandon Superman if his values no longer matched up with the rest of the world's. And even if I don't agree with Superman's code, someone willing to do something like that for what they believe in is something I do have a lot of respect for because I do agree a person should stick to their values if they believe them to be true.
But what ended up happening instead of him making any sacrifice at all in the face of enemies willing to sacrifice human life was him solving the problem with a giant robot army. Which, I have nothing against a giant robot army generally speaking, but it hurt the message I think the movie was trying to get across. That a person's moral code is important and they should stick by it, even in times of adversity. Most of us have to make real, permanent sacrifices to maintain by our values which makes them all the more precious. But in this story all Superman had to do was try harder. And as an entity who's meant to be an example to humanity, I don't see that as a very good example.
Overall I still think it was a very good movie. The animation, characters, and music were all wonderful. It's just... the story in the end took it from something that I think could have been fantastic and made it generalized comic book affair harkening back to the silver age when I think a modern/dark age solution would have been more appropriate.
So how is it that there are seperate comic series like Superman and Batman, and most of the time it is like they are the only heroes and their villains are the only villains, when the world is so full of heroes and villains?
This is even more perplexing for marvel, since mutants are everywhere in the Xmen and nowhere to be found in other series.
The comics don't act like they are the only hero? In fact often the characters will make an appearance in each others stories. The whole Batfamily teamed up to fight the court of Owls in Batman. Batman showed up to convince SUperman to reclaim his human persona after he abandoned it in action comics.
Mutants appear constantly in other series. Or at least when appropriate.
Faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive, able to leap tall buildings in a single bound - it's Superman! Strange visitor from another world, Superman fights for truth, justice, and the American way.
That's all the origin story we need.
For Superman, yes. For Elongated Man, no-one will know or care who the fuck he is.
I guess I also don't see why "superhero movie" needs to be a genre. Why can't they just be structured as action movies starring superheroes? Look at Terminator or the Matrix. They have origin stories, but they are integrated into the actual film, and help establish the universe and the story to come, vs superhero origin stories which tend to be seperate from the movies, too long, and boring. By the end of the new Spider-Man origin story, I was rooting against him (although, to be fair, his hair had me rooting against him anyway).
Because it is a separate genre. Action heroes are slightly different to super-heroes.
Instead of an origin story, I'd much rather see an opening vignette, ala James Bond movies. That way you get to have an introduction, but you can do more with it, show the status quo of the hero, and not have to deal with all the boring non-superheroness.
Gotta disagree Harry. While there are similarities in all Super hero movies similar to genre convention each individual character dictates another genre which they should mimic.
I think that the marvel movies and the Dark Knight Trilogy both did what they did so well by realizing that you shouldn't try to force heroes into a generic action genre shell or just be a "superhero movie".
Gotta disagree Harry. While there are similarities in all Super hero movies similar to genre convention each individual character dictates another genre which they should mimic.
I think that the marvel movies and the Dark Knight Trilogy both did what they did so well by realizing that you shouldn't try to force heroes into a generic action genre shell or just be a "superhero movie".
Dark Knight is a crime drama
Captain America is a pulp adventure movie
Thor is a fantasy/fish-out-of-water movie
and they are all stronger for it.
Super-heroes can each have their own sub-genres in their series that fits the protagonists, which is another difference from action heroes. That's where the variety comes from. Typically all super-heroes 1) have costumes, 2) secret identities, 3) super-hero personas and 4) fight super-villains.
Harry Dresden on
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Gotta disagree Harry. While there are similarities in all Super hero movies similar to genre convention each individual character dictates another genre which they should mimic.
I think that the marvel movies and the Dark Knight Trilogy both did what they did so well by realizing that you shouldn't try to force heroes into a generic action genre shell or just be a "superhero movie".
Dark Knight is a crime drama
Captain America is a pulp adventure movie
Thor is a fantasy/fish-out-of-water movie
and they are all stronger for it.
Well, I for one didn't care for any of those movies, but man did I love the iron man movies, which playrmore like traditional action movies IMO. Where did he get his powers? From being smart and awesome. Why is he being a hero? Because he's awesome and has an ego big enough to believe he can save the world.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
So how is it that there are seperate comic series like Superman and Batman, and most of the time it is like they are the only heroes and their villains are the only villains, when the world is so full of heroes and villains?
This is even more perplexing for marvel, since mutants are everywhere in the Xmen and nowhere to be found in other series.
The comics don't act like they are the only hero? In fact often the characters will make an appearance in each others stories. The whole Batfamily teamed up to fight the court of Owls in Batman. Batman showed up to convince SUperman to reclaim his human persona after he abandoned it in action comics.
Mutants appear constantly in other series. Or at least when appropriate.
I'm not really sure what you mean.
I guess what I mean is it shouldn't just be crossovers. Villains the world over should be aware that superman could just fly in and instantly wreck their plans, for example. And why doesn't superman do that in every comic either? It just seems like in general super heroes should be solving more problems by calling their buddies.
Gotta disagree Harry. While there are similarities in all Super hero movies similar to genre convention each individual character dictates another genre which they should mimic.
I think that the marvel movies and the Dark Knight Trilogy both did what they did so well by realizing that you shouldn't try to force heroes into a generic action genre shell or just be a "superhero movie".
Dark Knight is a crime drama
Captain America is a pulp adventure movie
Thor is a fantasy/fish-out-of-water movie
and they are all stronger for it.
Well, I for one didn't care for any of those movies, but man did I love the iron man movies, which playrmore like traditional action movies IMO.
That's why I like them. They have their own theme and tone which make them unique from each other.
Where did he get his powers? From being smart and awesome. Why is he being a hero? Because he's awesome and has an ego big enough to believe he can save the world.
Tony didn't become a hero from satisfying his ego. In fact, when he became Iron Man in the first film he only did it since no-one else had the power to stop them. It was a massive burden to carry to atone for his misdeeds. He had to learn humility for once in his life. His ego came back more in Iron Man 2 and Avengers but his heart was always in the right place when it counted.
The first movie is about him saving the world from his mistakes, he accidentally created game changing devices with the Iron Man armor and the Arc Reactor - which is why he had to stop the bad guys from using them.
So how is it that there are seperate comic series like Superman and Batman, and most of the time it is like they are the only heroes and their villains are the only villains, when the world is so full of heroes and villains?
This is even more perplexing for marvel, since mutants are everywhere in the Xmen and nowhere to be found in other series.
The comics don't act like they are the only hero? In fact often the characters will make an appearance in each others stories. The whole Batfamily teamed up to fight the court of Owls in Batman. Batman showed up to convince SUperman to reclaim his human persona after he abandoned it in action comics.
Mutants appear constantly in other series. Or at least when appropriate.
I'm not really sure what you mean.
I guess what I mean is it shouldn't just be crossovers. Villains the world over should be aware that superman could just fly in and instantly wreck their plans, for example. And why doesn't superman do that in every comic either? It just seems like in general super heroes should be solving more problems by calling their buddies.
Seeing that it was on Netflix I checked out Superman vs The Elite yesterday.
For a direct to video movie it was really solid up til the end. I really like the different animation style and atmosphere they went with and I'm kind of surprised at what they got away with given the PG-13 rating.
My only real complaints in addition to the fact that the description on Netflix is terrible are
Inconsistent power levels. Cold Cast knocked Superman out by accident in one scene but at the end of the movie his strongest blast just pisses him off.
Most important though is that the message the movie tries to get across is kind of ham strung by the fact that it's a lot easier to stick to your morals with a giant army of Super Robots. I would have liked it a lot more if Superman actually lost something in order to keep his code.
Yup. This is why Superman in comics is so dumb and bad.
In the end, the Elite are right. Might makes right, its just that Superman is mightier and he says that you should do things the truth/justice/american way style. Wooo boring
The same problem exists in "All Star Superman". Which is hamstrung by the fact its a superman story and not a Lex Luthor story.
In it, Luthor poisons superman with too much sunlight and superman is going to die. Then totally pointless stuff happens with the exception of explaining that Superman has developed a potion that will give people superpowers for 24 hours and has guns that can hurt him. Then Luthor reveals his true plot to make money on water or something dumb and gets double crossed by some robotic sun eater that superman tries to kill with his own organic sun eater yadda yadda yadda lex luthor gets the 24 superman potion and takes it and superman hits him with a gravity gun and then since superman is dying anyway he "sacrifices" himself to save the sun. Since the potion gives luthor supermans powers he is able to perceive the realities of the universe and realizes that he can save the world, after which superman tells him that he could have saved the world all along.
But there is no character arc for superman. He learns and accepts his death in like the first 5 minutes. And then at the end, when he beats luthor and sends him to prison again he dies.... like beating luthor actually mattered (because as we have seen before luthor can just escape from jail whenever he wants)
But as an arc for luthor it could be brilliant. The man is brilliant and smart and would be on top of the world a super-scientist able to do anything. But everyone only cares about superman. So Luthor works to defeat superman and, in his triumph learns that he had squandered his gifts that he never really cared about anything that mattered and has destroyed a great force for good in the world. Of course this would require writers who understood stories so it wouldn't ever happen.
No man you misread Superman Vs the Elite.
The reason he wins in the end is because he wins the public back at the end.
The point of that display was to showcase the end result of that kind of might makes right morality. It galls them and they choose to support superman.
Superman didn't kill the guys or imprison them himself. He made it possible for the population to house them.
@nightmarenny I moved this in here since there's a perfectly good thread here for it and that way we don't clutter up the movie thread with more Superman discussion.
I had to think on it a bit to come up with my reply but I feel pretty good about it now. In essence, I don't agree with what you believe the message of the story was. I saw it as
You don't compromise your morals just because things get tough. Yes the "might makes right is wrong" message was there but that wasn't the main challange for Kent. He's Superman. Of course he thinks might makes right is wrong, even if he has very momentary wavers like he did at the start of the movie. What he found challenging was that the world no longer agreed with him on what was morally right and while he wasn't willing to abandon that, he was willing to abandon Superman if his values no longer matched up with the rest of the world's. And even if I don't agree with Superman's code, someone willing to do something like that for what they believe in is something I do have a lot of respect for because I do agree a person should stick to their values if they believe them to be true.
But what ended up happening instead of him making any sacrifice at all in the face of enemies willing to sacrifice human life was him solving the problem with a giant robot army. Which, I have nothing against a giant robot army generally speaking, but it hurt the message I think the movie was trying to get across. That a person's moral code is important and they should stick by it, even in times of adversity. Most of us have to make real, permanent sacrifices to maintain by our values which makes them all the more precious. But in this story all Superman had to do was try harder. And as an entity who's meant to be an example to humanity, I don't see that as a very good example.
Overall I still think it was a very good movie. The animation, characters, and music were all wonderful. It's just... the story in the end took it from something that I think could have been fantastic and made it generalized comic book affair harkening back to the silver age when I think a modern/dark age solution would have been more appropriate.
Superman vs The Elite's real problem is that ignores the elephant in the room. We've had the death penalty on and off in the US for a long time, and that's in a world where someone escaping from prison to commit crimes is a once in a blue moon kind of thing and not every Tuesday. The entire premise of the story falls apart because it conflates the Elites vigilantism with capital punishment, when in reality the State would already be killing all the super villains Superman captures.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
I don't feel it ever conflates it with capitol punishment.
Superman makes it clear that his objection is the Elite acting out of the justice system. Though you are right it does suffer from Superman never going "Hey if you want supervillains executed why don't you get it done legally? Why are you asking me to do it?"
It is worth noting that the book is primarily an indictment of books like The Authority
So how is it that there are seperate comic series like Superman and Batman, and most of the time it is like they are the only heroes and their villains are the only villains, when the world is so full of heroes and villains?
This is even more perplexing for marvel, since mutants are everywhere in the Xmen and nowhere to be found in other series.
The comics don't act like they are the only hero? In fact often the characters will make an appearance in each others stories. The whole Batfamily teamed up to fight the court of Owls in Batman. Batman showed up to convince SUperman to reclaim his human persona after he abandoned it in action comics.
Mutants appear constantly in other series. Or at least when appropriate.
I'm not really sure what you mean.
I guess what I mean is it shouldn't just be crossovers. Villains the world over should be aware that superman could just fly in and instantly wreck their plans, for example. And why doesn't superman do that in every comic either? It just seems like in general super heroes should be solving more problems by calling their buddies.
Aside from Superman being busy, there's nothing stopping other super-heroes coming in and wreck Superman's villains plans before they get completed either. Occasionally this occurs in comics and cartoons. Superman isn't the only powerful super-hero operating in the DCU. Another reason is to avoid solo and team titles have too many guest-stars show up any time a villain tries something. This doesn't happen much in Green Lantern since the GLC are in space or the Legion which are not in space but centuries into the future.
Well, there is the whole "humanity must be able to stand on its own" principle that the most powerful superheroes adopt. Superheroes basically have the power and technology to turn earth into a paradise but humanity would grow to be completely reliant on superheroes and society would stagnate. So superheroes don't help humans do everything because humanity has to face and overcome challenges on its own in order to grow and prosper.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
So how is it that there are seperate comic series like Superman and Batman, and most of the time it is like they are the only heroes and their villains are the only villains, when the world is so full of heroes and villains?
This is even more perplexing for marvel, since mutants are everywhere in the Xmen and nowhere to be found in other series.
The comics don't act like they are the only hero? In fact often the characters will make an appearance in each others stories. The whole Batfamily teamed up to fight the court of Owls in Batman. Batman showed up to convince SUperman to reclaim his human persona after he abandoned it in action comics.
Mutants appear constantly in other series. Or at least when appropriate.
I'm not really sure what you mean.
I guess what I mean is it shouldn't just be crossovers. Villains the world over should be aware that superman could just fly in and instantly wreck their plans, for example. And why doesn't superman do that in every comic either? It just seems like in general super heroes should be solving more problems by calling their buddies.
Aside from Superman being busy, there's nothing stopping other super-heroes coming in and wreck Superman's villains plans before they get completed either. Occasionally this occurs in comics and cartoons. Superman isn't the only powerful super-hero operating in the DCU. Another reason is to avoid solo and team titles have too many guest-stars show up any time a villain tries something. This doesn't happen much in Green Lantern since the GLC are in space or the Legion which are not in space but centuries into the future.
I understand the out of universe reason for it. I just seems like a problem for internal consistency.
So how is it that there are seperate comic series like Superman and Batman, and most of the time it is like they are the only heroes and their villains are the only villains, when the world is so full of heroes and villains?
This is even more perplexing for marvel, since mutants are everywhere in the Xmen and nowhere to be found in other series.
The comics don't act like they are the only hero? In fact often the characters will make an appearance in each others stories. The whole Batfamily teamed up to fight the court of Owls in Batman. Batman showed up to convince SUperman to reclaim his human persona after he abandoned it in action comics.
Mutants appear constantly in other series. Or at least when appropriate.
I'm not really sure what you mean.
I guess what I mean is it shouldn't just be crossovers. Villains the world over should be aware that superman could just fly in and instantly wreck their plans, for example. And why doesn't superman do that in every comic either? It just seems like in general super heroes should be solving more problems by calling their buddies.
Aside from Superman being busy, there's nothing stopping other super-heroes coming in and wreck Superman's villains plans before they get completed either. Occasionally this occurs in comics and cartoons. Superman isn't the only powerful super-hero operating in the DCU. Another reason is to avoid solo and team titles have too many guest-stars show up any time a villain tries something. This doesn't happen much in Green Lantern since the GLC are in space or the Legion which are not in space but centuries into the future.
I understand the out of universe reason for it. I just seems like a problem for internal consistency.
Someone messes it up sometimes, only it's always temporary and it'll be retconned later on so the status quo stays intact. Except in unique universes like the Ultimate universe or WildStorm (pre-DC), then anything can and will happen.
Harry Dresden on
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
The whole "different authors change things" and alternate time lines are part of why I could never get into comics, despite really enjoying things like the superman, batman, xmen and ironman cartoons from the 90's. Doesn't having writers take things in different directions, some of which get retconned away get exhausting?
Comic books can and often will completely screw up continuity for the sake of adding in a popular character who is frankly too busy to be everywhere at once but often is anyways. See Wolverine in the past 15 years or so or Spider-Man at the height of his powers.
DC is much better at avoiding this but it has happened to Batman and Supes before.
The whole "different authors change things" and alternate time lines are part of why I could never get into comics, despite really enjoying things like the superman, batman, xmen and ironman cartoons from the 90's. Doesn't having writers take things in different directions, some of which get retconned away get exhausting?
No, it becomes part of the fun. It's not that hard to figure out once you know the basics, though sometimes it requires a bit of researching and talking with other fans (who can offer different perspectives). Sometimes new directions fail, so just ignore them until its replaced by something else worth your time. Alternate timelines can be confusing and require a bit more research unless its a single story line or you've read the series for years and aren't stopping any time soon. Online encyclopedias like wikipedia, comic message boards, creator interviews and fansites can be help, as well. Everything becomes much easier when you understand how comics work and where the series is going. I recommend you stay away from Legion of Super-Hero and the X-men comics. They can get convoluted fast. The Legion reboots everything from scratch every few years, which is a reason why I like it.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
It's the whole idea of authors just changing things so much and canon getting confusing or screwed up that gets me, I guess. I know this is my own hang up, but I wouldn't read the best fan fiction ever written in history, because it isn't "real" and so I would feel like I was wasting my time reading it, and would be frustrated if it described something better than the official materials because it would be false but also make the real things seem worse.
I'd like to be able to sit down and just read batman for example, the same way I can read the Malazan books of the fallen, or even the Horus heresy books (which have different authors).
It's the whole idea of authors just changing things so much and canon getting confusing or screwed up that gets me, I guess. I know this is my own hang up, but I wouldn't read the best fan fiction ever written in history, because it isn't "real" and so I would feel like I was wasting my time reading it, and would be frustrated if it described something better than the official materials because it would be false but also make the real things seem worse.
I'd like to be able to sit down and just read batman for example, the same way I can read the Malazan books of the fallen, or even the Horus heresy books (which have different authors).
You can read the Batman novels. They're unconnected to the comics, aside from a few adaptions (and they're not in any continuity).
It's the whole idea of authors just changing things so much and canon getting confusing or screwed up that gets me, I guess. I know this is my own hang up, but I wouldn't read the best fan fiction ever written in history, because it isn't "real" and so I would feel like I was wasting my time reading it, and would be frustrated if it described something better than the official materials because it would be false but also make the real things seem worse.
I'd like to be able to sit down and just read batman for example, the same way I can read the Malazan books of the fallen, or even the Horus heresy books (which have different authors).
Yeah, that's pretty much your own hangup. "This is an imaginary story... aren't they all?" Just enjoy the good stories and assume the truly terrible ones will be ignored and scrubbed from history eventually. Sometimes even the bad stuff that everyone would like to ignore (Ace the Bat Hound!) is picked up by a good author and brought to life again (in Batman International #3 I think).
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
It's the whole idea of authors just changing things so much and canon getting confusing or screwed up that gets me, I guess. I know this is my own hang up, but I wouldn't read the best fan fiction ever written in history, because it isn't "real" and so I would feel like I was wasting my time reading it, and would be frustrated if it described something better than the official materials because it would be false but also make the real things seem worse.
I'd like to be able to sit down and just read batman for example, the same way I can read the Malazan books of the fallen, or even the Horus heresy books (which have different authors).
Yeah, that's pretty much your own hangup. "This is an imaginary story... aren't they all?" Just enjoy the good stories and assume the truly terrible ones will be ignored and scrubbed from history eventually. Sometimes even the bad stuff that everyone would like to ignore (Ace the Bat Hound!) is picked up by a good author and brought to life again (in Batman International #3 I think).
But you wind up stuck investing time and money into the bad stuff.
Another thing that is really daunting to me about comics is how long the established brands are. It seems like you either need to make a massive time investment to read a series like superman (and everything else he appears in) from the start, or accept that you will miss things. I'm the kind of person that can't start watching a tv show in the middle, so knowing I can't practically read the whole story is also a turn off. If they said "we are rebooting superman completely, and this will be the only superman comic for the indefinite future and it will be self contained," then I could get into it.
It's the whole idea of authors just changing things so much and canon getting confusing or screwed up that gets me, I guess. I know this is my own hang up, but I wouldn't read the best fan fiction ever written in history, because it isn't "real" and so I would feel like I was wasting my time reading it, and would be frustrated if it described something better than the official materials because it would be false but also make the real things seem worse.
I'd like to be able to sit down and just read batman for example, the same way I can read the Malazan books of the fallen, or even the Horus heresy books (which have different authors).
Yeah, that's pretty much your own hangup. "This is an imaginary story... aren't they all?" Just enjoy the good stories and assume the truly terrible ones will be ignored and scrubbed from history eventually. Sometimes even the bad stuff that everyone would like to ignore (Ace the Bat Hound!) is picked up by a good author and brought to life again (in Batman International #3 I think).
But you wind up stuck investing time and money into the bad stuff.
Another thing that is really daunting to me about comics is how long the established brands are. It seems like you either need to make a massive time investment to read a series like superman (and everything else he appears in) from the start, or accept that you will miss things. I'm the kind of person that can't start watching a tv show in the middle, so knowing I can't practically read the whole story is also a turn off. If they said "we are rebooting superman completely, and this will be the only superman comic for the indefinite future and it will be self contained," then I could get into it.
Actually, they did reboot Superman last year, and the books have mostly been self-contained. In fact, the only DC books that weren't really rebooted were Batman and Green Lantern since they were high-selling and in the middle of popular arcs.
But the main thing to remember is that, while TV shows are written with the expectation that you've seen every episode, the same isn't really true of comic books. Generally, the story arc will contain all the information you need to understand it within itself.
Like, I concur with it being hard to get into the big first tier us comics. I love manga and atomic graphic novels. And shorter basically stand alone series. I watched basically all the cartoon based on the comics, but short of reading through various borrowed trades I haven't felt any drive to get into the actual comics. At least some of this is due to the massive amount of disparate content.
It's the whole idea of authors just changing things so much and canon getting confusing or screwed up that gets me, I guess. I know this is my own hang up, but I wouldn't read the best fan fiction ever written in history, because it isn't "real" and so I would feel like I was wasting my time reading it, and would be frustrated if it described something better than the official materials because it would be false but also make the real things seem worse.
I'd like to be able to sit down and just read batman for example, the same way I can read the Malazan books of the fallen, or even the Horus heresy books (which have different authors).
No, that's not your own hang up. Most of the people I know who quit reading comics did it because of that.
Basically, they realised it was a soap opera where shit just kinda happened at whatever time and for whatever reason the current writer felt like. Nods to cohesion or continuity were cursory at best.
It's very much a medium that just sort throws out stories and doesn't give a shit about anything but the now. Which can work for some, but not all.
I don't think it's that much different than having a bunch of different James Bond films with some sense of continuity but no coherent overarching vision.
The main difference with comics is that these shifts in creative vision happen at an accelerated pace since they're constantly being published with no breaks in between.
Like, I concur with it being hard to get into the big first tier us comics. I love manga and atomic graphic novels. And shorter basically stand alone series. I watched basically all the cartoon based on the comics, but short of reading through various borrowed trades I haven't felt any drive to get into the actual comics. At least some of this is due to the massive amount of disparate content.
Which heroes are you interested in?
The best Marvel stories tend to come from runs by certain writers and big events, where most of DC's best stuff tends to come from Elseworlds stories.
I never worry about trying to stick to an ongoing series; eventually, they all run out of gas. I just want good stories and good art. It's kind of like watching movies -- don't go looking for certain genres or characters, look at the above-the-line talent (writers, artists).
Is the Elseworlds imprint even still being used? I don't think one has come out since the reboot, and I can't remember the last time there was a really good one.
A new issue of JSA: The Liberty Files came out this past week (starring the Whistling Skull, a character formerly of the Wildstorm imprint), but that's the first time in quite a while. And I think Grant Morrison's Multiversity is supposed to finally come out pretty soon... but people have been waiting for that since 52... so...
LordSolarMacharius on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Is the Elseworlds imprint even still being used? I don't think one has come out since the reboot, and I can't remember the last time there was a really good one.
No idea. And yeah, there were some really awful Elseworlds books, too. I remember one where Superman was a skinny old man. Wtf.
The issue with any ongoing series for either brand is that stakes are always muted by the assumption that the status quo will eventually be returned to. You just kinda have to get past that and treat each story on its own. The X-Men will always return to the norm given enough time, but that doesn't make Days of Future Past any less interesting, or make Whedon's run on Uncanny any less iconic.
But I just don't have it in me anymore to follow monthlies. I'll read trades I hear good things about, but mostly I go looking for good volumes that tell good stories. It's kind of like doing your homework to gain perspective; don't watch reruns of Law & Order if you haven't seen The Wire, and don't read monthly dreck if you haven't read the classic runs and graphics.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
As a life long pro-wrestling fan, I know a thing or two about uneven quality. It took me years to accept that I could jus stop watching when things were bad and pick up when it was good again without feeling guilty.
Like, I concur with it being hard to get into the big first tier us comics. I love manga and atomic graphic novels. And shorter basically stand alone series. I watched basically all the cartoon based on the comics, but short of reading through various borrowed trades I haven't felt any drive to get into the actual comics. At least some of this is due to the massive amount of disparate content.
Which heroes are you interested in?
The best Marvel stories tend to come from runs by certain writers and big events, where most of DC's best stuff tends to come from Elseworlds stories.
I never worry about trying to stick to an ongoing series; eventually, they all run out of gas. I just want good stories and good art. It's kind of like watching movies -- don't go looking for certain genres or characters, look at the above-the-line talent (writers, artists).
For instance, Hawkeye is an amazing book right now because it has had two great artists and one great writer on it. It's certainly not because Hawkeye is innately the most compelling character in Marvel.
Good writers will pull off good shit with whatever they get handed. It doesn't mean I'm not excited to see Dr. Doom wreck some shit or Star Lord be all cool but I'm more interested in Hickman or DnA than I am in the characters. If they're written by Jeph Loeb or something I might give them a pass.
Actually, that's a great example. Red Hulk is Jeph Loeb being a big old dummy like he always is. But Red Hulk is also Jeff Parker being fucking amazing, like he always is. All comes down to the talent.
I switched to getting comics by trade only years ago.
Story sound interesting? Buy the trade (or trades in the case of bigger stories like No Man's Land). Story sound bad? Don't get the trade.
I've also recently starting to go through the trades at my local library for stuff that sounded interesting but I wasn't sure if I wanted to put money on.
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
I just petered out and stopped reading comics, so there is that option as well.
Is the Elseworlds imprint even still being used? I don't think one has come out since the reboot, and I can't remember the last time there was a really good one.
No idea. And yeah, there were some really awful Elseworlds books, too. I remember one where Superman was a skinny old man. Wtf.
The issue with any ongoing series for either brand is that stakes are always muted by the assumption that the status quo will eventually be returned to. You just kinda have to get past that and treat each story on its own. The X-Men will always return to the norm given enough time, but that doesn't make Days of Future Past any less interesting, or make Whedon's run on Uncanny any less iconic.
But I just don't have it in me anymore to follow monthlies. I'll read trades I hear good things about, but mostly I go looking for good volumes that tell good stories. It's kind of like doing your homework to gain perspective; don't watch reruns of Law & Order if you haven't seen The Wire, and don't read monthly dreck if you haven't read the classic runs and graphics.
This is my basic strategy, although I find it still slightly annoying as no matter how self-contained the stories can be, they tend to still lean on things that happened previously (*issue 331 for the explanation for this comment and all that)
Posts
That isn't how stealth works.
@nightmarenny I moved this in here since there's a perfectly good thread here for it and that way we don't clutter up the movie thread with more Superman discussion.
I had to think on it a bit to come up with my reply but I feel pretty good about it now. In essence, I don't agree with what you believe the message of the story was. I saw it as
But what ended up happening instead of him making any sacrifice at all in the face of enemies willing to sacrifice human life was him solving the problem with a giant robot army. Which, I have nothing against a giant robot army generally speaking, but it hurt the message I think the movie was trying to get across. That a person's moral code is important and they should stick by it, even in times of adversity. Most of us have to make real, permanent sacrifices to maintain by our values which makes them all the more precious. But in this story all Superman had to do was try harder. And as an entity who's meant to be an example to humanity, I don't see that as a very good example.
Overall I still think it was a very good movie. The animation, characters, and music were all wonderful. It's just... the story in the end took it from something that I think could have been fantastic and made it generalized comic book affair harkening back to the silver age when I think a modern/dark age solution would have been more appropriate.
The comics don't act like they are the only hero? In fact often the characters will make an appearance in each others stories. The whole Batfamily teamed up to fight the court of Owls in Batman. Batman showed up to convince SUperman to reclaim his human persona after he abandoned it in action comics.
Mutants appear constantly in other series. Or at least when appropriate.
I'm not really sure what you mean.
For Superman, yes. For Elongated Man, no-one will know or care who the fuck he is.
Because it is a separate genre. Action heroes are slightly different to super-heroes.
I think that the marvel movies and the Dark Knight Trilogy both did what they did so well by realizing that you shouldn't try to force heroes into a generic action genre shell or just be a "superhero movie".
Dark Knight is a crime drama
Captain America is a pulp adventure movie
Thor is a fantasy/fish-out-of-water movie
and they are all stronger for it.
Super-heroes can each have their own sub-genres in their series that fits the protagonists, which is another difference from action heroes. That's where the variety comes from. Typically all super-heroes 1) have costumes, 2) secret identities, 3) super-hero personas and 4) fight super-villains.
Well, I for one didn't care for any of those movies, but man did I love the iron man movies, which playrmore like traditional action movies IMO. Where did he get his powers? From being smart and awesome. Why is he being a hero? Because he's awesome and has an ego big enough to believe he can save the world.
I guess what I mean is it shouldn't just be crossovers. Villains the world over should be aware that superman could just fly in and instantly wreck their plans, for example. And why doesn't superman do that in every comic either? It just seems like in general super heroes should be solving more problems by calling their buddies.
That's why I like them. They have their own theme and tone which make them unique from each other.
Tony didn't become a hero from satisfying his ego. In fact, when he became Iron Man in the first film he only did it since no-one else had the power to stop them. It was a massive burden to carry to atone for his misdeeds. He had to learn humility for once in his life. His ego came back more in Iron Man 2 and Avengers but his heart was always in the right place when it counted.
Because Superman is doing other things?
Superman vs The Elite's real problem is that ignores the elephant in the room. We've had the death penalty on and off in the US for a long time, and that's in a world where someone escaping from prison to commit crimes is a once in a blue moon kind of thing and not every Tuesday. The entire premise of the story falls apart because it conflates the Elites vigilantism with capital punishment, when in reality the State would already be killing all the super villains Superman captures.
Superman makes it clear that his objection is the Elite acting out of the justice system. Though you are right it does suffer from Superman never going "Hey if you want supervillains executed why don't you get it done legally? Why are you asking me to do it?"
It is worth noting that the book is primarily an indictment of books like The Authority
Aside from Superman being busy, there's nothing stopping other super-heroes coming in and wreck Superman's villains plans before they get completed either. Occasionally this occurs in comics and cartoons. Superman isn't the only powerful super-hero operating in the DCU. Another reason is to avoid solo and team titles have too many guest-stars show up any time a villain tries something. This doesn't happen much in Green Lantern since the GLC are in space or the Legion which are not in space but centuries into the future.
I understand the out of universe reason for it. I just seems like a problem for internal consistency.
Someone messes it up sometimes, only it's always temporary and it'll be retconned later on so the status quo stays intact. Except in unique universes like the Ultimate universe or WildStorm (pre-DC), then anything can and will happen.
DC is much better at avoiding this but it has happened to Batman and Supes before.
No, it becomes part of the fun. It's not that hard to figure out once you know the basics, though sometimes it requires a bit of researching and talking with other fans (who can offer different perspectives). Sometimes new directions fail, so just ignore them until its replaced by something else worth your time. Alternate timelines can be confusing and require a bit more research unless its a single story line or you've read the series for years and aren't stopping any time soon. Online encyclopedias like wikipedia, comic message boards, creator interviews and fansites can be help, as well. Everything becomes much easier when you understand how comics work and where the series is going. I recommend you stay away from Legion of Super-Hero and the X-men comics. They can get convoluted fast. The Legion reboots everything from scratch every few years, which is a reason why I like it.
I'd like to be able to sit down and just read batman for example, the same way I can read the Malazan books of the fallen, or even the Horus heresy books (which have different authors).
You can read the Batman novels. They're unconnected to the comics, aside from a few adaptions (and they're not in any continuity).
Yeah, that's pretty much your own hangup. "This is an imaginary story... aren't they all?" Just enjoy the good stories and assume the truly terrible ones will be ignored and scrubbed from history eventually. Sometimes even the bad stuff that everyone would like to ignore (Ace the Bat Hound!) is picked up by a good author and brought to life again (in Batman International #3 I think).
But you wind up stuck investing time and money into the bad stuff.
Another thing that is really daunting to me about comics is how long the established brands are. It seems like you either need to make a massive time investment to read a series like superman (and everything else he appears in) from the start, or accept that you will miss things. I'm the kind of person that can't start watching a tv show in the middle, so knowing I can't practically read the whole story is also a turn off. If they said "we are rebooting superman completely, and this will be the only superman comic for the indefinite future and it will be self contained," then I could get into it.
Actually, they did reboot Superman last year, and the books have mostly been self-contained. In fact, the only DC books that weren't really rebooted were Batman and Green Lantern since they were high-selling and in the middle of popular arcs.
But the main thing to remember is that, while TV shows are written with the expectation that you've seen every episode, the same isn't really true of comic books. Generally, the story arc will contain all the information you need to understand it within itself.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
No, that's not your own hang up. Most of the people I know who quit reading comics did it because of that.
Basically, they realised it was a soap opera where shit just kinda happened at whatever time and for whatever reason the current writer felt like. Nods to cohesion or continuity were cursory at best.
It's very much a medium that just sort throws out stories and doesn't give a shit about anything but the now. Which can work for some, but not all.
The main difference with comics is that these shifts in creative vision happen at an accelerated pace since they're constantly being published with no breaks in between.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
Which heroes are you interested in?
The best Marvel stories tend to come from runs by certain writers and big events, where most of DC's best stuff tends to come from Elseworlds stories.
I never worry about trying to stick to an ongoing series; eventually, they all run out of gas. I just want good stories and good art. It's kind of like watching movies -- don't go looking for certain genres or characters, look at the above-the-line talent (writers, artists).
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
No idea. And yeah, there were some really awful Elseworlds books, too. I remember one where Superman was a skinny old man. Wtf.
The issue with any ongoing series for either brand is that stakes are always muted by the assumption that the status quo will eventually be returned to. You just kinda have to get past that and treat each story on its own. The X-Men will always return to the norm given enough time, but that doesn't make Days of Future Past any less interesting, or make Whedon's run on Uncanny any less iconic.
But I just don't have it in me anymore to follow monthlies. I'll read trades I hear good things about, but mostly I go looking for good volumes that tell good stories. It's kind of like doing your homework to gain perspective; don't watch reruns of Law & Order if you haven't seen The Wire, and don't read monthly dreck if you haven't read the classic runs and graphics.
For instance, Hawkeye is an amazing book right now because it has had two great artists and one great writer on it. It's certainly not because Hawkeye is innately the most compelling character in Marvel.
Good writers will pull off good shit with whatever they get handed. It doesn't mean I'm not excited to see Dr. Doom wreck some shit or Star Lord be all cool but I'm more interested in Hickman or DnA than I am in the characters. If they're written by Jeph Loeb or something I might give them a pass.
Actually, that's a great example. Red Hulk is Jeph Loeb being a big old dummy like he always is. But Red Hulk is also Jeff Parker being fucking amazing, like he always is. All comes down to the talent.
Story sound interesting? Buy the trade (or trades in the case of bigger stories like No Man's Land). Story sound bad? Don't get the trade.
I've also recently starting to go through the trades at my local library for stuff that sounded interesting but I wasn't sure if I wanted to put money on.
This is my basic strategy, although I find it still slightly annoying as no matter how self-contained the stories can be, they tend to still lean on things that happened previously (*issue 331 for the explanation for this comment and all that)