# Man of Steel > Iron Man



## Mindfire




----------



## Reaver

Meh.


/10 CHAR.


----------



## Mindfire

What do you mean, "meh"? This is awesome! It'll easily be the best Superman film ever made.


----------



## Reaver

In your opinion.


----------



## Mindfire

Well it doesn't have much competition, does it? Superman II was alright, but a little too goofy. Superman 3 was goofier still. Superman 4 was a disaster. Superman Returns was underwhelming. And the original Superman the Movie is extremely dated and hasn't aged too well.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

I'm underwhelmed. Not because of this movie compared to others but simply because Superman as a character bores me.

Too powerful, too few flaws.


----------



## Mindfire

T.Allen.Smith said:


> I'm underwhelmed. Not because of this movie compared to others but simply because Superman as a character bores me.
> 
> Too powerful, too few flaws.



Even were that true, I don't see how it has any impact on the awesomeness of this trailer, or the entertainment value of the film. And actually, in an environment where flawed heroes are the rule rather than the exception, Superman is a refreshing change of pace. A good guy whose actually a _good guy_? Imagine that!


----------



## Shockley

I'll wait to watch the movie before I compare it, favorably or unfavorably, to Iron Man or any other film.

 That said, the first Superman film is bad-a.


----------



## CupofJoe

It will do great box office. 
At least it has Richard Schiff...


----------



## Penpilot

I hope the movie is good, but from what I've seen from pictures to trailers, it doesn't look good to me. The actor they cast looks good for a grungy Clark Kent but as Superman, he doesn't cut it for me.

From what I can gather from the trailer, they're taking the standard approach. With Superman being of the mindset of it's like its really hard being a god-like being. All I want to be is normal and a normal life, wahhh, wahh, woe is me, leave me alone. I think they already hit those notes with the last Superman film and it didn't work. 

To me they should have gone in the opposite direction, created something like the comic All-Star-Superman, where they totally treat his powers as god-like and imbue the world with wonder. It'd be harder writing, but at least the approach would have been fresher. To me this gritty approach is bringing Superman down, and to me that's not who Superman is. I mean, they have a poster of Superman in handcuffs. To me it looks sill because that like chaining King Kong up with dental floss.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want this movie to fail, I have high hopes, but low expectations just from what I've seen. I really hope my judgement is wrong.


----------



## Ankari

Mindfire said:


> Even were that true, I don't see how it has any impact on the awesomeness of this trailer, or the entertainment value of the film. And actually, in an environment where flawed heroes are the rule rather than the exception, Superman is a refreshing change of pace. A good guy whose actually a _good guy_? Imagine that!



Because flaws are a source of conflict.  Weaknesses too.  If a character has so few of them, what are your options when trying to write a story about that character?  Isn't that why DC had to fabricate some weird weaknesses?  Like magic?

A near all powerful man should have a lot of moral flaws.  That keeps the story intriguing.  It's the same reason why I don't like the Hulk so much.  In the comics, he is nearly impossible to kill.


----------



## Jess A

Henry Cavill  

I've been looking forward to this for ages. Looks interesting! Not sure what they're going for, but I'll watch the film and see for myself.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick

Ankari said:


> A near all powerful man should have a lot of moral flaws. That keeps the story intriguing.


I agree with the premise, but disagree that Superman's flaw should be amorality.

In fact, his moral flaw in _Superman Returns _came as a disappointment. Superman knocks up Lois Lane then leaves the Earth for five years? What the hell is that! That's the sort of behavior you'd expect from Wolverine.

Kryptonite is actaully a boring flaw, too, in my opinion. A rock that drains his powers, bah... how about showing how Superman has to compete on a grand scale? Zod, nuclear missiles, and the moral corruption in Superman III was cool because it wasn't Supes being himself or making an uncharacteristically bad decision. In any case, power shouldn't be an issue. His power is relative to that of the main antagonist, not to that of a single ordinary human, so Supes isn't necessarily OP. (If he is, blame the writer, not the character.)

Now, if you want an interesting flaw in the area of morality that's _true to the character,_ I'd prefer having Superman forced to hold himself to a higher standard. He can't go around killing people even when they deserve it. Why not? That's just how Kryptonian justice works. (Spend eternity in a two-dimensional prison? That's okay. But no, you can't kill them.) He would also suffer because, despite his powers, he can't save everyone. It's gotta be frustrating being this overpowered goody-two-shoes and your telescopic x-ray vision catches glimpse after glimpse of people doing the worst things to other people for petty and insane reasons. Maybe his brand of merciful "justice" gets a good cop killed because Superman wouldn't use his heat vision to melt an armed suspect's face off.

Anyway, I know Superman's not for everyone, but I'd rather this film stay true to Superman's original roots, which is--as Mindfire put it--"a good guy who is actually a good guy." If you want morally corrupt heroes, watch_ Watchmen._ (The most recent _Watchmen_ is my favorite superhero movie!)


----------



## Devor

Mindfire said:


> Even were that true, I don't see how it has any impact on the awesomeness of this trailer, or the entertainment value of the film. And actually, in an environment where flawed heroes are the rule rather than the exception, Superman is a refreshing change of pace. A good guy whose actually a _good guy_? Imagine that!



Having "flaws" doesn't mean anything that would necessarily make the character not a good guy; though, as a matter of fact, I would readily consider his excessive-good-guyishness a pretty big flaw.

((ninja'ed! Blasted unrefreshed page.))


----------



## MadMadys

I wan't really impressed by the trailer but, as others have expressed, Superman isn't really an exciting character nowadays anyway.  The appearance of his I enjoyed was _The Dark Knight Returns_ where an elderly Batman beats the crap out of him.  Other than that occurrence, I don't really enjoy following his character around.

DC has always had, in my opinion, the weaker of the characters between them and Marvel.  Though to even it out, I'd say DC has better writing overall.  How this lends itself in movies is Marvel characters are a little bit more adaptable compared to the likes of Flash, Green Lantern and Wonder Woman.  Again, I'm speaking in a general sense.

Also, because I can't resist, _The Watchmen_ movie would have been better had they not mucked up the end so hard.


----------



## Devor

MadMadys said:


> DC has always had, in my opinion, the weaker of the characters between them and Marvel.



I think DC heroes are overpowered and one-dimensional, but that it forces the villains to pick up the slack.

Like, for instance, compare Batman to Iron Man, then compare Bruce Wayne with Tony Stark.  Or compare Superman to Spiderman, and then compare Clark Kent to Peter Parker.  The DC "Super Hero" is more powerful, but the Marvel _character_ is more complex and real.  But when you apply the same test to the villains, DC has to make pretty extreme villains to keep up with the overpowered heroes, while Marvel villains are equally multi-dimensional and flawed, making them in some ways less impressive.


----------



## Mindfire

Devor said:


> I think DC heroes are overpowered and one-dimensional, but that it forces the villains to pick up the slack.
> 
> Like, for instance, compare Batman to Iron Man, then compare Bruce Wayne with Tony Stark.  Or compare Superman to Spiderman, and then compare Clark Kent to Peter Parker.  The DC "Super Hero" is more powerful, but the Marvel _character_ is more complex and real.  But when you apply the same test to the villains, DC has to make pretty extreme villains to keep up with the overpowered heroes, while Marvel villains are equally multi-dimensional and flawed, making them in some ways less impressive.



The DC and Marvel heroes are the products of different eras. DC's most iconic heroes were largely forged in the era of the Great Depression and World War II, a time when the idea of purity and goodness standing up against monolithic evil was "in vogue", black and white morality was the norm, and superheroes were a relatively new idea. Marvel's heroes from that period, mainly Captain America, also share that boy scout attitude. Batman is a bit of an exception, but he was created as a pulp hero more so than a superhero. 

By contrast, Marvel's heroes were mainly born in the 50s, 60s, and 70s. A time of social and political change and upheaval. The Civil Rights movement, Watergate, Communism, Hippies, etc. Their characters are more "human" because they're not intended to be icons that inspire, like the earlier heroes. They were made to address the political and social issues of the time. The lines of good and evil weren't as clear as they were in the decades before. People were more cynical and Marvel's heroes reflected that. 

In short, DC was Lord of the Rings, and Marvel was A Song of Ice and Fire. I don't think it's fair to say one approach is less valid than the other. Just take them for what they are. Personally, DC's icons of truth and justice appeal to me more than Marvel's heroes, who for some reason fight _each other_ more than they fight the villains. -_- And it irks me when DC tries to be more like Marvel instead of staying true to the characters they've got. If people didn't like Superman, Batman, and the rest, they wouldn't be nearly as iconic as they are. And what's more, while Marvel has done better with films lately, DC has always ruled animation. Batman the Animated Series, Superman the Animated Series, Justice League/Justice League Unlimited, Batman Beyond, Teen Titans, and most recently, Young Justice. All awesome shows that prove that DC's heroes don't have to be boring if they stay true to their characters. If the movies just looked at what these shows did right, they'd be fine.

And Batman will always be better than Iron Man _*everyone*_.


----------



## Ankari

In the case of Batman, wasn't he similar to Superman's moral code?  I remember the watching the TV shows from the '60s with Batman and Robin.  They were very White on the black and white moral gradient.  I'm interested in how Batman become the Dark Knight with his dark personalities and flaws and why people forgave DC for the transition.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

I'm no expert but I believe there are several versions of the Batman world. They range from the very goody two shoes Batman to an extreme telling where Batman is a true vigilante and kills the evil-doers which separates himself less from the bad guys themselves.

When the changes & alternate tellings developed? I don't know.


----------



## Steerpike

A lot of modern writers, both of film and literature, think that to be edgy and relevant you have to do the who demon-haunted dark hero thing.


----------



## Mindfire

Ankari said:


> In the case of Batman, wasn't he similar to Superman's moral code?  I remember the watching the TV shows from the '60s with Batman and Robin.  They were very White on the black and white moral gradient.  I'm interested in how Batman become the Dark Knight with his dark personalities and flaws and why people forgave DC for the transition.



Actually, the dark Batman was the original version. He even carried a gun in his first few appearances (and shot people with it!). The Adam West style Batman came later to make the character more kid-friendly and soon after that Batman's sidekick Robin was introduced.  Eventually the colorful, kid-friendly version fell out of style and Batman went back to his roots as a detective and dark avenger (minus the gun obviously), and that version of the character has been the most popular ever since.


----------



## Reaver

I think that as a whole, society's perception of superheros is skewed. We're talking about fictional characters in fictional worlds. If these characters existed in reality, they would be pariahs; hated by most people because they think they have the right to operate outside our laws.


In the make-believe world of comics, might equals right. In the real world, might doesn't equal right. Apply that any way you want to, be it a government, country or any other geo-politic, socio-economic entity. Just because you have the ability to impose your will on those weaker than you doesn't mean you should.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick

Steerpike said:


> A lot of modern writers, both of film and literature, think that to be edgy and relevant you have to do the who demon-haunted dark hero thing.


This is why I like goody-gumdrops Supes. There are plenty of dark heroes that I like, but Superman is extreme in terms of goodness and power, and that will always be his thing. You can call him cheap, flat, OP'd and boring for that. You don't have to like him. Just don't change him or expect him to change.

...well, maybe you can expect it. I'm still mildly PO'd by Superman's kid being raised by an unwitting stepdad. Really? So he slept with Miss Lane, what, the day after her one night stand with Superman? Suddenly the girl who waited four movies to get it on with her Mr. Perfect invites her boss' nephew into her bed. Did she know Superman was flaking out in space somewhere, as opposed to just being busy fighting crime in other continents? Did she consider that the kid might not be What's-His-Face's? Did no one suspect anything when the kid could walk at three months, lift his own weight at eight weeks old, fly at five months old, heat his milk bottle by staring at it...? He's not an X-Man. (X-Boy?) Throwing a piano at the bad guy couldn't have been his first display of superpowers.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick

Reaver said:


> I think that as a whole, society's perception of superheros is skewed. We're talking about fictional characters in fictional worlds. If these characters existed in reality, they would be pariahs; hated by most people because they think they have the right to operate outside our laws.
> 
> 
> In the make-believe world of comics, might equals right. In the real world, might doesn't equal right. Apply that any way you want to, be it a government, country or any other geo-politic, socio-economic entity. Just because you have the ability to impose your will on those weaker than you doesn't mean you should.


True.

I think Spiderman and Batman do an okay job portraying that reality, though in a comic-booky way where you know the cops will secretly root for the vigilantes because they're the heroes of the story.

In Watchmen, The Comedian was a bully and let his power go to his head. They all were guilty of that to different extents. I hated Dr. Manhattan! I mean in a good way--I love the story. He's a guy who could've been Superman, but chose not to. He justifies his action or lack thereof, and really, he's even more overpowered than Superman. He kills with a thought and can reassemble his body after being blown to bits.


----------



## Devor

Mindfire said:


> And what's more, while Marvel has done better with films lately, DC has always ruled animation. Batman the Animated Series, Superman the Animated Series, Justice League/Justice League Unlimited, Batman Beyond, Teen Titans, and most recently, Young Justice.



I don't know about that.  SpiderMan and X-Men both did very well at the same time as Batman the Animated Series, and the Avengers and other Marvel series have been doing pretty well for the Disney channel.  Warner Bros. had more experience and better connections than "Marvel Animations," and I think that's more what their awards were for, and why they continued on the Cartoon Network while Marvel didn't.

I enjoyed Batman and Batman Beyond, but I still find the Superman and Justice League unwatchable.  Yet I put on all the Avengers/Marvel Animations from Netflix for my kids, and I enjoy those as much as most of the shows I watch.


----------



## Shockley

As to the question on Marvel versus DC:

 I tend to prefer the DC characters, and that can be explained by the stereotype that Marvel's heroes are flawed and DC's are not. They're both flawed, the difference is that DC's characters have internalized their flaws into a fifty year stream of content and the Marvel characters parade their flaws through town square.

 Take, for example, Superman. Yes, he's incredibly powerful (which is why he fights guys like Doomsday and Lex Luthor rather than street thugs, a la Batman) and morally upright, but we've had years of that character being challenged. For instance, until the most recent reset, Superman had been having a moral crisis for nearly a decade because he had murdered General Zod to save the world. It was an alternate Zod and no one really cared, but it bothered the character and drove it to new levels.

 There was also a recent Superman story where he was having to deal with the fact that he was nearly all-powerful and still had to live in a world where he could not stop death, where bad things still happened, where he didn't even so much as have the time to walk around and tell unknowing people to get their hearts/lungs/whatever checked out because he could see their illnesses. All of this was done with Lois Lane in the background, growing increasingly frustrated by Superman's apparent infertility/inability to breed with humans.

 So that we have this conflicted character with a legitimately nuanced situation, yet everyone immediately jumps to the 'boy scout' idea of the character. I think that's just a sign of how well Dc has played Supes' faults.


----------



## Reaver

Legendary Sidekick said:


> True.
> 
> I think Spiderman and Batman do an okay job portraying that reality, though in a comic-booky way where you know the cops will secretly root for the vigilantes because they're the heroes of the story.
> 
> In Watchmen, The Comedian was a bully and let his power go to his head. They all were guilty of that to different extents. I hated Dr. Manhattan! I mean in a good way--I love the story. He's a guy who could've been Superman, but chose not to. He justifies his action or lack thereof, and really, he's even more overpowered than Superman. He kills with a thought and can reassemble his body after being blown to bits.



I think The Watchmen are great. If ever there were a "real" bunch of comic book characters, it's them.  Rorschach is my favorite amongst them.


----------



## Mindfire

Devor said:


> I don't know about that.  SpiderMan and X-Men both did very well at the same time as Batman the Animated Series, and the Avengers and other Marvel series have been doing pretty well for the Disney channel.  Warner Bros. had more experience and better connections than "Marvel Animations," and I think that's more what their awards were for, and why they continued on the Cartoon Network while Marvel didn't.
> 
> I enjoyed Batman and Batman Beyond, but I still find the Superman and Justice League unwatchable.  Yet I put on all the Avengers/Marvel Animations from Netflix for my kids, and I enjoy those as much as most of the shows I watch.



You must be an oddity, because everyone I know has the opposite opinion. Justice League was a masterpiece. And while Superman's series wasn't quite as good as Batman's it was still good. Probably a matter of preference. I never liked Marvel's animated series in the 90s. They all had this weird rubbery style of animation I just couldn't like. All their other series have never been able to draw my interest.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick

Reaver said:


> I think The Watchmen are great. If ever there were a "real" bunch of comic book characters, it's them.  Rorschach is my favorite amongst them.


Rorschach is easily on several of my top ten lists. #1 on the superhero list. On the way home from work, I was thinking about the prison scene. He's awesome!


----------



## Reaver

Mindfire said:


> You must be an oddity, because everyone I know has the opposite opinion. Justice League was a masterpiece.



I must be an oddity too because the only DC cartoon I ever liked is SUPER FRIENDS (the pre-lame ass Wonder Twin years, of course).




​


----------



## Reaver

Legendary Sidekick said:


> Rorschach is easily on several of my top ten lists. #1 on the superhero list. On the way home from work, I was thinking about the prison scene. He's awesome!



That was a phenomenal part of the movie! "Give me back my face!!!!"


----------



## Mindfire

Reaver said:


> I must be an oddity too because the only DC cartoon I ever liked is SUPER FRIENDS (the pre-lame ass Wonder Twin years, of course).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​



You know, there's a Justice League episode where they _make fun_ of the Wonder Twins? Two actually. In one episode, one of the heroes, I think Flash, accidentally demolishes a cardboard cutout of the Wonder Twins. And later in the series, the Justice League fights a group of wannabe heroes who are based on the lame original Superfriends characters. And the Wonder Twin expies have their butts handed to them... by Aquaman. They tried to _drown_ him. The idiots.






Anyhow, I thought the Superfriends were _okay_, but their version of Batman was kinda lame.

And speaking of Batman, not liking Batman the Animated Series? HERESY.


----------



## Reaver

Mindfire said:


> And speaking of Batman, not liking Batman the Animated Series? HERESY.



Well, by the time that BATMAN: The Animated Series debuted, I was kinda busy playing soldier in Bosnia. Needless to say, I never knew it existed until a few years ago and never got into it. The only cartoon I watch these days is South Park.


----------



## Mindfire

Reaver said:


> Well, by the time that BATMAN: The Animated Series debuted, I was kinda busy playing soldier in Bosnia. Needless to say, I never knew it existed until a few years ago and never got into it. The only cartoon I watch these days is South Park.



Well, you get a free pass then, I guess. But you should check it out. Even a couple decades later it still holds up.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick

Reaver said:


> That was a phenomenal part of the movie! "Give me back my face!!!!"


I just changed my quote to the one I used to use on Capcom's forum. Rorschach had the best lines! At least he could beat Dr. Blue Wang _verbally._


----------



## Reaver

Legendary Sidekick said:


> ! At least he could beat Dr. Blue Wang _verbally._



Heh..blue wang.


----------



## wordwalker

Yeah, you could compare Avengers to Justice League. But on the one hand, there's no concept so good the wrong people won't get their turn to debase it (Batman Forever) or so bad the right vision couldn't uplift it (Galactica). And on the other hand... behind what story does or doesn't work, there are some levels one roster will always outdo the other.

Thor is a lot like Superman with a bit of Wonder Woman's origin. (But, Wonder Woman is Superman with Wonder Woman's origin too-- at least, her other difference has meant more to the real world than to her presence in comics.)

And yet, even though Thor actually *is* a god, Superman's the one who's played like one. But when he's watchable it's when they play that off his human side and make us wonder if he really can keep saving and hiding in the world without something coming apart.

And, if Iron Man is pure iconic genius and Captain America is raw courage, Batman is both, wrapped up in a black cape of "and you'll believe it!"

--Maybe that's all it really is. Superman and Batman have had some terrible movies, comics, and so on, but they've been out there so long and had the potential to be so elemental, they *mean* more than the rest because they *say* they mean more.

Or part of us always hopes they will, each time they try to put a project together for one. _C'mon, Zack..._

(Hmm, ever notice how much Thor's classic costume... he's got the helmet and all that hair, but is that so we don't quite admit he's still the only other hero in blue with a red cape plus bare face and hands...)


----------



## Shockley

If Thor is a direct rip of any superhero, it's not Superman - It's Captain Marvel. Then again, Captain Marvel is just a Superman ripoff... But still, he's more directly Captain Marvel.


----------



## Reaver

Shockley said:


> If Thor is a direct rip of any superhero, it's not Superman - It's Captain Marvel. Then again, Captain Marvel is just a Superman ripoff... But still, he's more directly Captain Marvel.



I always thought it was funny how DC bought the rights to Captain Marvel (SHAZAM!) and then killed him off. (SHAZAM!)

Dammit. I can't even type the word without turning into Captain Marvel.


----------



## wordwalker

Shockley said:


> If Thor is a direct rip of any superhero, it's not Superman - It's Captain Marvel.



But isn't Superman a ripoff of Thor? (and Hercules and Gilgamesh)?

Guess I was thinking less of what's "original" and more of how well someone used that concept. Almost all of them do fine, but the Big Big Two have still built themselves up to the Big Big Two.


----------



## Shockley

There is almost no correlation between what I would consider the primordial inception of the character Superman and the mythological figure of Thor. Superman was always written, to the best of his ability, as a force for good - this is not something that we ever saw of Thor in the Norse myths, where he runs around like a madman murdering anyone anyone who vaguely ticks him off. 

 Marvel Thor and Norse Thor are very, very different creatures. 

 That said, Joe Schuster was very good at chronicling what was going through his head and what he was doing when he created a character. We not only have fairly elaborate backstories on Superman's creation, but lesser characters like the Specter as well. As I recall, he took the name straight from Nietzsche - he had composed a story a few years earlier where someone named 'Superman' was the bad guy, and that just carried over. In addition he had been reading a hack sci-fi novel called 'Gladiator,' and that's where Superman's powers derived from. 

 As to the actual mythic essence that is Superman, I'd say he's fairly close to the Golem. They're very similar in their abilities and nature, and Schuster never concealed that the Golem was an influence and that the entire Kryptonian origin was supposed to be a reference to his own Jewish-in-America experiences.


----------



## Reaver

Shockley said:


> As I recall, he took the name straight from Nietzsche - he had composed a story a few years earlier where someone named 'Superman' was the bad guy, and that just carried over.



He did indeed take it from Nietzsche's Ãœbermensch theory. Which is really ironic considering that the Austrian nutjob Hitler and his goosesteppin' pals wanted to wipe out the Jews and create a race of supermen. Does no one else find this ironic that Superman, a character created by two Jewish men, is the Nazi's (completely flawed, historically inaccurate) Aryan ideal?


----------



## Shockley

Well, in all fairness Nietzsche had no love for anti-semites, nationalists or even Germans (despite being German). 

 That a Jewish writer and his artist pal could draw inspiration from Nietzsche is not surprising, nor is it surprising that a bunch of frustrated Germans could draw inspiration from the same source. I am perhaps prone to superlatives, but Nietzsche might very well have been the single most influential philosopher after Socrates and Aristotle.


----------



## wordwalker

Commentators often point out that comics' punch-the-world-to-goodness has a lot of totalitarian feel. (Superman himself was a serious bully in his early issues.)

Of course, there was that "what if" issue Siegel & Schuster did when Superman flew in and hauled Hitler into international court, war over. Hitler actually responded to that, and among other things, called Superman a Jew.

Oy...


----------



## Shockley

There are a few great comics (Watchmen, Kingdom Come, OMAC Project) that really delve into how vigilantism and fascism tend to overlap in a lot of ways, and point out that a lot of good people can become monsters if they feel that it is necessary.


----------



## Devor

Mindfire said:


> You must be an oddity, because everyone I know has the opposite opinion. Justice League was a masterpiece. And while Superman's series wasn't quite as good as Batman's it was still good. Probably a matter of preference.



I just watched _Justice League:  Doom_, the only "Justice League" title available on Netflix.

The first half was awesome, but the second half jumped the shark.  And there were questions I couldn't get past, like the credibility of the way they use (or forget to use) their tremendously-too-powerful powers.  Aside from Batman, and just a little with Wonder Woman, I didn't sympathize with any of the heroes.  On top of which, the ending - that is, the resolution of the "team conflict" - came across as far too forced and flat to do justice to the change in roster which took place.  The characters are just too predictable.




> I never liked Marvel's animated series in the 90s. They all had this weird rubbery style of animation I just couldn't like. All their other series have never been able to draw my interest.



Again, that goes towards the point I was making earlier.  The Justice League was done by _Warner Bros._, an experienced animation studio.  Marvel did their animations in-house.  I credit that one difference with DC's success in animation.  Both Spiderman and X-Men did about as well, ratings-wise, but Warner Bros. had better animators and more connections, which I think helped take DC to the Cartoon Network.


----------



## Mindfire

Devor said:


> I just watched _Justice League:  Doom_, the only "Justice League" title available on Netflix.
> 
> The first half was awesome, but the second half jumped the shark.  And there were questions I couldn't get past, like the credibility of the way they use (or forget to use) their tremendously-too-powerful powers.  Aside from Batman, and just a little with Wonder Woman, I didn't sympathize with any of the heroes.  On top of which, the ending - that is, the resolution of the "team conflict" - came across as far too forced and flat to do justice to the change in roster which took place.  The characters are just too predictable.
> 
> Again, that goes towards the point I was making earlier.  The Justice League was done by _Warner Bros._, an experienced animation studio.  Marvel did their animations in-house.  I credit that one difference with DC's success in animation.  Both Spiderman and X-Men did about as well, ratings-wise, but Warner Bros. had better animators and more connections, which I think helped take DC to the Cartoon Network.



I had an eloquent reply, but i accidentally hit back on the browser and lost it. So, bullets then.

-JL Doom has NOTHING to do with the JL TV series I've been advocating for. It's an adaptation of a comic book called Tower of Babel. A very loose adaptation at that. A lot was changed or cut.

-This: Justice League (TV series) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia is the series I've been advocating. Find episodes. Watch them. Be amazed. Season 2 is considered the best by many. Me, I like them all.

-Don't dismiss the success of DC's series as simply the result of WB pulling strings. Batman: The Animated Series, Superman: The Animated Series, Batman Beyond, Justice League/JLU, Teen Titans, Batman: The Brave and the Bold, and Young Justice were and are excellent shows in their own right. Good writing, great animation, interesting characters, great action, everything you could want in a kids any show.

As far as the movie goes, I don't particularly care if characters are overpowered or predictable. I just want to watch them be awesome. Justice League Doom delivers on that. But it's not one the better DC animated movies. Batman: Under the Red Hood is much better writing-wise even though if you have any Batman knowledge (and even if you don't) you can see the twist ending from a mile away. The Wonder Woman movie is good. There's also one called Justice League: Crisis on Two Earths which is really good. The villain Owlman is a particularly chilling nihilist type and nearly steals the show.


----------



## wordwalker

DC's had of lot of great stuff; even the neglected Legion of Superheroes had its moments.

Marvel's been good too. Its animation isn't usually equal, and it doesn't have the sheer legendariness of the DC characters (watch the theme sequence of the first Justice League season and tell me those aren't gods), but it was the first to get into continued storylines and take things up several notches. (And if you think Spectacular Spider-Man had the worst animation in years, they saved all their money for the fight scenes. Watch and goggle.)

But right now, it's Young Justice in the lead, for looks and story and the Big Boys just far enough in the background to keep things extra-cool.


----------



## Devor

Mindfire said:


> -Don't dismiss the success of DC's series as simply the result of WB pulling strings.



I didn't.  I credited WB for the reason Marvel _didn't_ move on.  You're the one who was dismissing Marvel's success.  I've said nothing about JLA except why I don't like them.




> As far as the movie goes, I don't particularly care if characters are overpowered or predictable.



I've seen Crisis on Two Earths, and several episodes of the Justice League and Team Titans, and all of the Batman Animated Series (and Batman Beyond).  Aside from Batman, I find all of the DC heroes to be nearly unwatchable.  I don't care that they're overpowered, I care that they are so overpowered that they have to resort to gimmicks to create a sense of challenge (_what shape will the Kryptonite come in today?_).  I don't care that the characters are predictable, I care that the characters are flat and stale.

And shark jumping?  In Doom, they used a technology that phased the entire Earth so that a solar flare would pass through it.  As I remember the episodes I've seen, that kind of thing is pretty much par for the course with JLA.

Now, compare that with _Avengers:  Earth's Mightiest Heroes_.  The characters are so strong that just from the trailer, you get a feel for who they are as people.  None are anywhere near as overpowered as even JLA's Martian (Shapechanging?  Mind reading?  Invisibility?  Wow.)  And you get a feel for some of the real issues that can come up when you throw together a team of people who have been through the issues they have.


----------



## Mindfire

Devor said:


> I didn't.  I credited WB for the reason Marvel _didn't_ move on.  You're the one who was dismissing Marvel's success.  I've said nothing about JLA except why I don't like them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen Crisis on Two Earths, and several episodes of the Justice League and Team Titans, and all of the Batman Animated Series (and Batman Beyond).  Aside from Batman, I find all of the DC heroes to be nearly unwatchable.  I don't care that they're overpowered, I care that they are so overpowered that they have to resort to gimmicks to create a sense of challenge (_what shape will the Kryptonite come in today?_).  I don't care that the characters are predictable, I care that the characters are flat and stale.
> 
> And shark jumping?  In Doom, they used a technology that phased the entire Earth so that a solar flare would pass through it.  As I remember the episodes I've seen, that kind of thing is pretty much par for the course with JLA.
> 
> Now, compare that with _Avengers:  Earth's Mightiest Heroes_.  The characters are so strong that just from the trailer, you get a feel for who they are as people.  None are anywhere near as overpowered as even JLA's Martian (Shapechanging?  Mind reading?  Invisibility?  Wow.)  And you get a feel for some of the real issues that can come up when you throw together a team of people who have been through the issues they have.



Are we arguing about the quality of the show or your like/dislike for the characters? Because that's two different issues. If you don't like the Justice League, I can't help you there. But failing to recognize the quality of the show is another matter entirely. The Cadmus arc from Justice League Unlimited alone was one of the best stories ever to grace television. Ever. I disagree with you that the League was stale and flat however. Superman, Green Lantern, and Hawkgirl all had interesting and satisfying character arcs. Flash was a great comic relief, but he also showed he could be taken seriously as a hero. Wonder Woman's character was good, though not as strong as the others. Batman was Batman. Only Martian Manhunter came close to being boring, but even he had his moments. Kryptonite was hardly ever used in the series because their version of Superman is actually weaker than most. 

Even if you don't care for the Big Seven, Justice League Unlimited did a great job of introducing smaller name heroes and making them interesting characters: Green Arrow, Black Canary, Huntress, Booster Gold, Vixen, The Question. OMG the Question. And if that's not enough, the villains were always spectacular and fun to watch. Lex Luthor's feud with Gorilla Grodd and the episode where the Joker takes on the entire League all by himself (and of all the villains they've faced, he's come the closest to beating them). The tension between the Justice League and the US Government, who see them as a threat and a loose cannon. All of these things were memorable and great. You didn't need gimmicks to challenge the Justice League, you just needed clever, well written villains. Justice League had those in spades.

I haven't watched Avengers, but I doubt it has story arcs that can stand up to the pure epicness of Justice League and Justice League unlimited. The worst show DC has put out in recent times is The Batman, and even it was good. Meanwhile, Marvel has put out Super Hero Squad and Iron Man Armored Adventures.

Also, you contradict yourself. If something is par for the course, then it is by definition not shark jumping. The term "shark jumping" is only appropriate when a show does something that not only strains suspension of disbelief, but is a sudden and unexpected divergence from the show's basic premise. The phase device in JL Doom does neither. By your own admission this is par for the course for the Justice League, so the second accusation is void. And how this kind of device could strain SOD while telepathic shapeshifters, immortal warlords, mutant cat-women, cyborgs, and solar powered flying aliens allergic to radioactive rock are perfectly acceptable is beyond me. If the phase device is shark jumping, so is the Chitauri portal from Avengers.

And you're wrong about that trailer btw. I watched it. The characters are no stronger than any in Justice League. The trailer was good, don't get me wrong. But it doesn't have as much impact as you say it does. At least not for me. Now, the Justice League intro on the other hand...






This is awesome. It introduces all the characters, defines their major abilities, establishes them as equal parts of a formidable team, all with zero dialogue and the epic level is over 9000.


----------



## Mindfire

The Justice League Unlimited intro is equally good:






In 60 seconds, it establishes the whole premise of the sequel: the Justice League has expanded. The Big Seven are still around, but they've taken lesser heroes under their auspices to form an even more powerful team, a veritable army of heroes each more capable than the last. As a bonus, it also includes clips from the episode you're about to watch to give you an idea of what the episode's premise will be.

DC characters have _presence_. These shows know that and take advantage of it.


----------



## Devor

Mindfire said:


> And you're wrong about that trailer btw. I watched it. The characters are no stronger than any in Justice League. The trailer was good, don't get me wrong. But it doesn't have as much impact as you say it does. At least not for me. Now, the Justice League intro on the other hand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is awesome. *It introduces all the characters, defines their major abilities*, establishes them as equal parts of a formidable team, all with zero dialogue and the epic level is over 9000.



I don't mean to brag about the trailer - it was just something I found quickly on youtube.  But I've been saying that I find the members of the Justice League flat as _characters_, with too few personal weaknesses.  The Marvel trailer was able to show us the human side of several of the Avengers very quickly.  The JLA trailers don't really address who they are as characters.

I don't mean to bash.  I respect the production value of the show, I do like Batman, and Superman is good for a movie or two.  I can respect that they're employing long-term story arcs effectively.  But overall, I find their powers to be excessive, and with their lack of personal weaknesses, I think that causes their enemies to rely too often on gimmicks or else escalate to a scale that's hard for me to accept.  A _phase shifter_ works for me, but a _phase shifter that's immediately adapted to phase out the entire planet_ breaks my suspension of disbelief.  And I find myself questioning why they don't use their powers at points when they aren't.

Those are the things which make me not want to watch.


----------



## Mindfire

I think you're exaggerating the power level's of the characters actually. Superman, especially in season 1, was a huge victim of the Worf effect. He got knocked out about once per episode. As for gimmicky, I guess it depends on how you define gimmicky? What _is_ your definition of gimmicky?

And if I recall, the phase shifter was only designed to shift a localized area. The managed to use it to shield the earth by boosting the power and flying it into earth orbit, which makes sense in a way. It's like a shadow. The closer you move something to the light, the bigger the shadow gets. So the closer the phase shifter gets to the sun, the more radiation it can block? But I do see what you mean. The writers obviously wrote themselves into a corner. But I'd say that's a result of adaptation decay, not overpowered or gimmicky characters.


----------



## Devor

Admittedly, I'm speaking pretty broadly about the characters, and it's come down to a series I've only seen a few episodes of, and only the movie was recent.  I've heard others talk about the series highly as well, so I may not be doing it justice.  But these are problems I've had with these characters from seeing them in a number of sources - those few episodes of the show, but also movies, comics, other TV shows, and wherever else.  But I know Batman gets a lot of play in the series, and he gains the power of "Manipulative Bastard," which sounds pretty cool.  So if it comes available on Netflix I would give it another try.

But if the movie was any indication, I'm not optimistic it'll change my opinion of the characters.

I wouldn't, at all, begrudge someone for enjoying it, though.  I wouldn't even criticize, except that we're on a writing site, and perceived story weaknesses are worth pointing out and learning from.




Mindfire said:


> As for gimmicky, I guess it depends on how you define gimmicky? What _is_ your definition of gimmicky?



I'm trying to think of a way to define gimmicky as it applies to these situations, and I'm not sure I can hit the nail quite on the head.  I don't even mind Kryptonite, if it's used well (I would say the Doom movie did that well).  I guess it's gimmicky when the conflict or the resolution are too far outside the natural story structure.  "You can't stop me, because you have to be on the other side of the planet saving someone else.  Right now."  In the Doom movie, the phase shfiter had little to no role to play in the plotline, and its presence when it does come up makes little sense, but it ended up being the crux of the conflict's resolution.

I don't really want to defend that definition.  I don't know if that definition works well or not, or if I can quite articulate what I'm trying to get at.  But there you go.


----------



## wordwalker

In one sense, Justice League has to be gimmicky. They're still partly defined by the days of their highest level of power (the apex of their tall tale-esque escalations) plus their old-school morality, and the Unstoppable Machine Of The Month's Battle of Wits To Bypass It-- even though the most rarified of those days are long gone. DC still wants to have it both ways, play them as sometime gods that Marvel can't match but mostly play the simpler fights and the darker stories too. Sometimes they pull it off.

(I keep thinking I can only rationalize "okay, Supes is invulnerable but human-weight enough to be knocked flying by the opening barrage" so often-- and then he goes and does something cool anyway. Even at their best, *nothing* makes superheroes stay consistent for too long.)


----------



## Shockley

Well, we're judging a children's tv show guys. It's not like this was made for people in their 20s and 30s - they just happen to enjoy it.


----------



## wordwalker

Shockley said:


> Well, we're judging a children's tv show guys. It's not like this was made for people in their 20s and 30s - they just happen to enjoy it.



You sure you've seen them?  

--Okay, sort of. But not quite.


----------



## Wanara009

BGY-11 "Big Guy" > Man of Steel AND Iron Man 

You _cannot_ resist the allure of the Elbow Gun. Hollywood need to make a live-action of this or somebody will be a ghost.


----------

