Page 14 of 14 FirstFirst ... 41011121314
Results 196 to 208 of 208
  1. #196
    Fantastic Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Posts
    267

    Default

    reading all the comments I understand why many think that superman is boring, his personality is boredom taking control over a body, you can not be more bland. The modern superman has gone from a man of action to being a submissive by nature.
    ww the way I see it is a tsundere

  2. #197
    Leftbrownie Alpha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    823

    Default

    If you find responsibility to be boring, sure, I guess he could be boring in that sense. I personally think it's one of the most complex and interesting conflicts to have.

    As far as Wonder Woman, from what I read just now tsundere means someone who is very temperamental/ hotheaded and hostile at first but becomes warm and fuzzy after a while. This definitely isn't Diana. I think she is curious and wonderfull, but not like a young schoolgirl.

  3. #198
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    26,284

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    Oh, I'd suggest you hit up the WW forum, I'm pretty sure there's a dedicated recommendations thread and the folks there are more knowledgeable about Diana than I am.

    But for myself, I really enjoy both of Rucka's runs (one from the early/mid 00's and one in 2016) and a huge chunk of how I view Diana is informed by his work. I like the original 40's material by Marston (which requires you read it kinda slanted, to account for the change in eras and social norms), Perez's run from the 80's (I think it's over rated, but still good), and....I wanna say Jimenez in the 90's? Was that a thing? Might be crossing my wires on that one. Probably a few more worth mentioning that I'm forgetting too. Simone almost had a fantastic run in the 00's, but was hobbled by having to uphold a previous status quo that didn't work for me at all.

    I also liked a lot of what Azzarello did in the New52, but it's a really weird, uneven thing. The stuff where he hits, he hits perfectly (like Diana's characterization and the pantheon) but when he missed, he missed big (like the Amazons). It was well written, but a super, super slow burn with a lot of horror elements and....I dunno if I'd say I recommend it as a WW fan, but I think it's overall interesting and worth reading if you like Azzarello.
    Jiminez's run was from the 2000s.

  4. #199
    Mighty Member John Venus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,572

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    Oh, I'd suggest you hit up the WW forum, I'm pretty sure there's a dedicated recommendations thread and the folks there are more knowledgeable about Diana than I am.

    But for myself, I really enjoy both of Rucka's runs (one from the early/mid 00's and one in 2016) and a huge chunk of how I view Diana is informed by his work. I like the original 40's material by Marston (which requires you read it kinda slanted, to account for the change in eras and social norms), Perez's run from the 80's (I think it's over rated, but still good), and....I wanna say Jimenez in the 90's? Was that a thing? Might be crossing my wires on that one. Probably a few more worth mentioning that I'm forgetting too. Simone almost had a fantastic run in the 00's, but was hobbled by having to uphold a previous status quo that didn't work for me at all.

    I also liked a lot of what Azzarello did in the New52, but it's a really weird, uneven thing. The stuff where he hits, he hits perfectly (like Diana's characterization and the pantheon) but when he missed, he missed big (like the Amazons). It was well written, but a super, super slow burn with a lot of horror elements and....I dunno if I'd say I recommend it as a WW fan, but I think it's overall interesting and worth reading if you like Azzarello.
    The high point of Azarello's run was Cliff Chiang's artwork. That man can draw and his character designing was incredible.

    Azarello's run would have been fine if it was an original series under the Vertigo imprint or if the protagonist was Artemis and the 'Amazons' in the story were the Bana or if the story was about Cassie Sandsmark who was already the daughter of Zeus in the previous continuity but even the weird stuff with Ares acting like a mentor would have clicked more. As it was I think it did more damage to WW especially now that you have all these people claiming that Azz finally 'fixed' WW and the movie not only cemented Zeus as her father but also made him the creator of the Amazons.

  5. #200
    Fantastic Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Posts
    267

    Default

    It is one thing to be responsible and another is to be submissive, Superman is submissive.
    Batman is responsible (among other things) because he thinks about how to stop his teammates if necessary. Superman is submissive, because he leaves that responsibility to someone else.
    Lois leaves and begins to live alone in a hotel, superman accepts it without more, submissive.
    Jon wants to go with a psychopathic grandfather, superman instead of acting like a father accepts that Jon leaves, submissive.
    More than once I've said that I don't like ww, maybe that's why I see the worst of the character.

  6. #201
    Mighty Member SecretWarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    1,999

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NaVi View Post
    reading all the comments I understand why many think that superman is boring, his personality is boredom taking control over a body, you can not be more bland. The modern superman has gone from a man of action to being a submissive by nature.
    ww the way I see it is a tsundere
    Well, that's what happens when you make a character as ISFJ afraid of his own power. Superman with his Golden Age personality and Silver Age powers could take over the world and remake it if he wanted to. Not only is that a scary thought, but it would also mean that the DCU would deviate more from our reality in terms of government and science, which would make it harder to write and less relatable-- It'd be a bigger fantasy than it already is.

    Steve Rogers has the same personality type, but his lower power level allows him to be more proactive without making huge cultural waves or scaring people.

  7. #202
    Fantastic Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Posts
    267

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SecretWarrior View Post
    Well, that's what happens when you make a character as ISFJ afraid of his own power. Superman with his Golden Age personality and Silver Age powers could take over the world and remake it if he wanted to. Not only is that a scary thought, but it would also mean that the DCU would deviate more from our reality in terms of government and science, which would make it harder to write and less relatable-- It'd be a bigger fantasy than it already is.

    Steve Rogers has the same personality type, but his lower power level allows him to be more proactive without making huge cultural waves or scaring people.
    Unfortunately, comics have long abandoned fantasy and focused on reality, which gives great strength to characters with a lower power level, but turns the most powerful into empty casings.

  8. #203
    Extraordinary Member Lightning Rider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    5,796

    Default

    I knew Ascended would nail it and add some great layers. You're all welcome

    To pick your brain some more, how do you feel about some of these scenarios? The OP was also trying to examine how they would both act differently in specific situations and whether they have distinct enough voices in stories with internal League/Trinity disagreement.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lightning Rider View Post
    I liked the earlier attempts to try and think of scenarios in which the both would react very differently.

    I think the lasso of truth is almost a cheat in the sense that Diana can avoid a lot of difficult moral dilemmas by eliciting the truth from actors with ambiguous intentions. So the situation with Hawkgril in JLU could largely be resolved by putting the lasso around her and asking if she could be trusted. Though I guess asking for that in itself implies a lack of trust. Does being such a staunch believer in truth mean that she takes betrayal doubly seriously? I could see her asking her to take the lasso test as a show of good faith. While Clark would probably try to redeem her the good old fashioned way and just give her a second chance, without requiring more (though not without watching her closely).

    In fact, I see Diana's use of the lasso as a liberty that Clark wouldn't be entirely comfortable with. Sure he infringes on people's privacy from time to time, but he probably sees the lasso as borderline coercion, an extrajudicial inducement of confession. But Diana sees the truth as a universal good that can't ever be bad.

    That said, I can also see Superman going in guns blazes against someone he honestly and reasonably thinks betrayed him, puffing out his chest and asking direct questions, whereas Diana would be more patient at the outset.

    I guess I'm arriving at the conclusion that Superman may have more of a temper, but generally respects institutions. Diana is more clear-headed, but has stricter morals that operate outside of man-made institutions.

    The Ozymandias situation is a tricky one. I could see her wanting to spill the beans right away, but then compromising to let the truth be known after 10 years or something like that, if humanity can keep the peace.

    Let me think of some others:

    If the gods, particularly the more benevolent ones, came down and gave Diana a controversial mandate, I think she would instinctively follow their lead, so long as she thought it was with good intentions. She might defy them later, but Clark would be skeptical from the jump, if their demands were significant. For example, if Athena & Aphrodite asked Diana to preach and open temples in communities that had lost their way, in exchange for blessings, she might do it. Whereas Superman would be like, "1. I don't owe these 'gods' any special reverence, and 2. this is going to seriously rock the boat and make humanity dependent in a way I don't like."

    I also think that if it came down to an actual war with humanity, in which both sides committed blunders and made mistakes, Diana would side with her Amazon sisters and fight to protect them. Whereas Clark would side with humans if Kryptonians could only exist by inevitably replacing humans. "Krypton had its chance", type of deal. Maybe my perception is colored by the fact that the Amazons are more uniformly good, but it also has to do with their actual relationships to their respective civilizations.

  9. #204
    Leftbrownie Alpha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    823

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NaVi View Post
    It is one thing to be responsible and another is to be submissive, Superman is submissive.
    Batman is responsible (among other things) because he thinks about how to stop his teammates if necessary. Superman is submissive, because he leaves that responsibility to someone else.
    Lois leaves and begins to live alone in a hotel, superman accepts it without more, submissive.
    Jon wants to go with a psychopathic grandfather, superman instead of acting like a father accepts that Jon leaves, submissive.
    More than once I've said that I don't like ww, maybe that's why I see the worst of the character.
    Batman is not responsible. He is a control freak, but not responsible. The whole robin concept is proof of that (not just talking about Jason). He also creates the tower of babel by allowing the plans to be stolen. And all the complaints you pointed out are things from Bendis run, which plenty of Superman fans didn't like.

  10. #205
    All-New Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2021
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    8

    Default

    I like this question. Given that Wonder Woman was raised to be a warrior and Superman was raised as a human (and taught to blend in), you can see how their upbringing shaped who they are today. Superman is more of a pacifist while Wonder Woman can more easily shift into warrior mode and discard any compassion that could get in the way of justice. Superman can also have a more "fairy tale" view of the world while Wonder Woman, again relying on her warrior upbringing, can see things like they truly are.

  11. #206
    Extraordinary Member Lightning Rider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    5,796

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GeekSlop View Post
    I like this question. Given that Wonder Woman was raised to be a warrior and Superman was raised as a human (and taught to blend in), you can see how their upbringing shaped who they are today. Superman is more of a pacifist while Wonder Woman can more easily shift into warrior mode and discard any compassion that could get in the way of justice. Superman can also have a more "fairy tale" view of the world while Wonder Woman, again relying on her warrior upbringing, can see things like they truly are.
    I think if you read through the thread, you'll find that more than a few people have made a strong case for Diana having the even more idealistic outlook when it comes with dealing with enemies, and Superman having more of a temper, even if he's slightly more reluctant to take a life.

  12. #207
    Leftbrownie Alpha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    823

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GeekSlop View Post
    I like this question. Given that Wonder Woman was raised to be a warrior and Superman was raised as a human (and taught to blend in), you can see how their upbringing shaped who they are today. Superman is more of a pacifist while Wonder Woman can more easily shift into warrior mode and discard any compassion that could get in the way of justice. Superman can also have a more "fairy tale" view of the world while Wonder Woman, again relying on her warrior upbringing, can see things like they truly are.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lightning Rider View Post
    I think if you read through the thread, you'll find that more than a few people have made a strong case for Diana having the even more idealistic outlook when it comes with dealing with enemies, and Superman having more of a temper, even if he's slightly more reluctant to take a life.
    Yeah I totally disagree with Geekslop, but I also don't think Clark has a temper. I think if anything he is the one that has yo put himself the check the most. He has to be very responsible with everything he does, because it's far too easy for everyone to get scared of his powers, which means they are less likely to trust him and listen to him.

  13. #208
    Ultimate Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    16,006

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lightning Rider View Post
    I knew Ascended would nail it and add some great layers. You're all welcome

    To pick your brain some more, how do you feel about some of these scenarios?
    Me? Well.....

    I see Diana's use of the lasso as a liberty that Clark wouldn't be entirely comfortable with. Sure he infringes on people's privacy from time to time, but he probably sees the lasso as borderline coercion, an extrajudicial inducement of confession. But Diana sees the truth as a universal good that can't ever be bad.
    Diana definitely sees truth as something external. Of course she does; everything in her culture from the sunrise to the harvest to intangible things like love, wisdom, and art, all come from external (godly) sources.

    Clark, however, thinks that perception influences truth. How many times has he interviewed a group of witnesses, had them describe the same event, and gotten different stories from each of them, everyone convinced they were being utterly truthful? And you see this in his duality too; both "Clark" and "Superman" are the "true" him, and who he is at any given moment depends on the context. Of course, Clark's a habitual liar anyway, even about things he doesn't need to lie about (like his secret identity). And don't confuse "truth" with "morality." Clark's still got that binary world view, but being an outsider who never fully understands people has driven home the fact that one person's truth isn't necessarily the same for all others. It's an inverse of his black-white morality, and this is part of what causes him such stress when his binary morality is crashed up against his more fluid views on truth (like using lethal force).

    So yeah, Diana trusts the lasso utterly, and it'd be a failing of hers if the damn thing was wrong more often. Clark, however, sees it as a tool; powerful and useful when used correctly but damned dangerous if not applied in its intended way.

    I guess I'm arriving at the conclusion that Superman may have more of a temper, but generally respects institutions. Diana is more clear-headed, but has stricter morals that operate outside of man-made institutions.
    I agree. Clark most definitely has more of a temper than Diana. He's become very good at controlling it, but go look at an issue where Jon gets beat up a little or kidnapped by a Bat, and you'll see what kind of temper Clark actually has. Clark's temper is quick to ignite and quick to die, but with Diana, it takes a lot piss her off but once you do, there's no calming her down.

    The Ozymandias situation is a tricky one. I could see her wanting to spill the beans right away, but then compromising to let the truth be known after 10 years or something like that, if humanity can keep the peace.
    In this case....yeah, tricky. Diana's love for truth would be completely at odds with the political machinery of Man's World, and it'd drive her nuts. Hard to say what she'd do and I think she could potentially come down in any number of ways....but Ozy being Ozy and manipulating everyone....I think Diana would reveal the truth immediately and use it as a call to action in an effort to unite everyone (ironically not far off from Ozy's own plans). But if the situation were just slightly different, she might compromise.

    Clark wouldn't put up with Ozy's sh*t for one minute, for any reason, especially to protect a political system that's clearly been corrupted.

    If the gods, particularly the more benevolent ones, came down and gave Diana a controversial mandate, I think she would instinctively follow their lead, so long as she thought it was with good intentions. She might defy them later, but Clark would be skeptical from the jump, if their demands were significant.
    Agreed. I mean, Diana doesn't trust the gods completely, she's been screwed over by them often enough, but they're still her gods and she's still their champion and at the end of the day, she'd follow them unless she was given a good reason not to. I also agree that Diana would side with her Amazon sisters in a conflict with humanity (assuming neither side was clearly in the right) while Clark would defend humanity from Krypton.
    "We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another, as if we were one single tribe."

    ~ Black Panther.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •