Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 78910111213 LastLast
Results 151 to 165 of 193
  1. #151
    The Man Who Cannot Die manwhohaseverything's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    6,865

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rightoya View Post
    That was a Batman event in disguise, where Batman was a hero, a villain, and side characters at the same time,
    Ok.so the reverse can't be done with other heroes.why?
    "I swear to devote my life to the destruction of piracy, greed, cruelty and injustice! And my sons, and their sons, shall follow me!"

  2. #152
    Fantastic Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    494

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by manwhohaseverything View Post
    Ok.so the reverse can't be done with other heroes.why?
    Cause Batman is their golden cow, and they are seemingly not competent enough to build up other characters remotely as much.

  3. #153
    The Man Who Cannot Die manwhohaseverything's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    6,865

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rightoya View Post
    Cause Batman is their golden cow, and they are seemingly not competent enough to build up other characters remotely as much.
    How are they building anything with them using batman to tear down other ips?Honestly,dc sucks.Marvel is better as a universe.They don't have spiderman or ironman running around kicking puppies to the same degree.
    "I swear to devote my life to the destruction of piracy, greed, cruelty and injustice! And my sons, and their sons, shall follow me!"

  4. #154
    Black Belt in Bad Ideas Robanker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    6,065

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by manwhohaseverything View Post
    I find the nature vs nurture nonesense to be dumb.Especially with character needing sky parents and earth parents.It doesn't take the individuals will into account.I am not my father and i am not my adopted aunt either.They are not my moral centre's.I am not here to play out their morality as a simple tool or gun.It doesn't matter.I don't believe that, superman was that either.It ties down Superman as something created by environmental and exterior factors.Therefore,joker's one bad day tears him down.Superman does what He thinks is right.Superman is superman because even if he is half zod or raised by hitler.He would be the champion of the oppressed.Otherwise,he ain't superman.Actions matter,not names.

    Just like this.Batman would always exist.
    Never become a parent if you legitimately think the influence of one's upbringing imparts that little effect on someone's development.

  5. #155
    The Man Who Cannot Die manwhohaseverything's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    6,865

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Robanker View Post
    Never become a parent if you legitimately think the influence of one's upbringing imparts that little effect on someone's development.
    If parents,upbringing...etc are what matters.then we would only have copies,Not a diverse population(in whatever ways).What about children with no parents?what about human genetic variations?No two humans are genetically identical.Even the most strict people are unable to tame children.Even when and If a Child mimics someone, that's their choice.If you think your child decided to follow you because of you.Then you are wrong.They do it because of them.Children have their own will.The external things may effect you.But your will and your choice is untethereed by those things.Parents want their children to do a lot of things.But,how many of them do and to what degree?even if they do,are they doing that because their parents or their own desire?hasn't human intelligence progressed to a degree where people make their own choices regardless of genetics and even overriding base instincts?This idea that humans can't transcend their respective society or are only as good as world allows them to be, is restricting.

    And actually from my experience.Personally always felt,all i need to tell my kid is my opinion on his actions.That's it.Even then,even if i yell and scream.He is gonna do what he wants .I may teach him stuff like how to throw a ball or clean a room.If it wasn't me the kid would have found someone else to learn stuff from,or would have on his own.Because he wanted it and does.Those kids who don't ,even if their parent yell and scream would shirk it.I am just priveledged that the kid chose me.As a baby,I am just it's protector.Whatever i became it's on me.Not on my abusive father and the aunt that took me in.It would be the same for the kid that chose me.
    Last edited by manwhohaseverything; 05-12-2021 at 12:45 AM.
    "I swear to devote my life to the destruction of piracy, greed, cruelty and injustice! And my sons, and their sons, shall follow me!"

  6. #156
    Mighty Member I'm a Fish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    The Ocean
    Posts
    1,929

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by manwhohaseverything View Post
    If parents,upbringing...etc are what matters.then we would only have copies,Not a diverse population(in whatever ways).What about children with no parents?what about human genetic variations?No two humans are genetically identical.Even the most strict people are unable to tame children.Even when and If a Child mimics someone, that's their choice.If you think your child decided to follow you because of you.Then you are wrong.They do it because of them.Children have their own will.The external things may effect you.But your will and your choice is untethereed by those things.Parents want their children to do a lot of things.But,how many of them do and to what degree?even if they do,are they doing that because their parents or their own desire?hasn't human intelligence progressed to a degree where people make their own choices regardless of genetics and even overriding base instincts?This idea that humans can't transcend their respective society or are only as good as world allows them to be, is restricting.

    And actually from my experience.Personally always felt,all i need to tell my kid is my opinion on his actions.That's it.Even then,even if i yell and scream.He is gonna do what he wants .I may teach him stuff like how to throw a ball or clean a room.If it wasn't me the kid would have found someone else to learn stuff from,or would have on his own.Because he wanted it and does.Those kids who don't ,even if their parent yell and scream would shirk it.I am just priveledged that the kid chose me.As a baby,I am just it's protector.Whatever i became it's on me.Not on my abusive father and the aunt that took me in.It would be the same for the kid that chose me.
    I’m not going to get into anything personal here.

    It sounds like the argument you are making is that it’s ok for parents to treat kids however they want since it will have no impact on who they will become as an adult.

  7. #157
    Black Belt in Bad Ideas Robanker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    6,065

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by manwhohaseverything View Post
    If parents,upbringing...etc are what matters.then we would only have copies,Not a diverse population(in whatever ways).What about children with no parents?what about human genetic variations?No two humans are genetically identical.Even the most strict people are unable to tame children.Even when and If a Child mimics someone, that's their choice.If you think your child decided to follow you because of you.Then you are wrong.They do it because of them.Children have their own will.The external things may effect you.But your will and your choice is untethereed by those things.Parents want their children to do a lot of things.But,how many of them do and to what degree?even if they do,are they doing that because their parents or their own desire?hasn't human intelligence progressed to a degree where people make their own choices regardless of genetics and even overriding base instincts?This idea that humans can't transcend their respective society or are only as good as world allows them to be, is restricting.

    And actually from my experience.Personally always felt,all i need to tell my kid is my opinion on his actions.That's it.Even then,even if i yell and scream.He is gonna do what he wants .I may teach him stuff like how to throw a ball or clean a room.If it wasn't me the kid would have found someone else to learn stuff from,or would have on his own.Because he wanted it and does.Those kids who don't ,even if their parent yell and scream would shirk it.I am just priveledged that the kid chose me.As a baby,I am just it's protector.Whatever i became it's on me.Not on my abusive father and the aunt that took me in.It would be the same for the kid that chose me.
    Yeah, dude, you're not ready to be a parent if that's how you see it. I don't mean to be rude when I say that, but you're describing parenting like talking to a reasonable adult who has life experience and whose actions and well-being you aren't responsible for. Moreover, I don't know anyone who would argue (save you, I suppose) that children without parents aren't at a significant disadvantage. They deserve better. Nobody asked to be here, but everyone deserves parents that love them.

    What you described... That's not parenting, and frankly I'm sorry you don't understand that. Strictly put, you've got this all wrong. There's some degree of difference in execution for parenting, but a hands off approach where you only provide an opinion and let the child raised themselves is borderline abandonment. Trying to couch it in evolution or transcendentalism just shows you are but mature enough to understand that there's a difference between your own development and fostering the development of a rapidly growing mind that needs a nurturing and patient influence to filter out the most important lessons to impart on them as well as protect them from things that will hinder their development and potentially damage them when they are most vulnerable to the world's outside influences.

    That's the last I'm going to discuss this with you. I don't really think you're ever going to understand the pushback on that philosophy of yours.

    Bringing the discussion back home, it's the Kents raising Clark with love and a good understanding of right and wrong that provides the example and morale compass that prevents Evil Superman from ever really being a thing. It's why every take feels like a complete asspull. They're good parents. They raised their son to make good decisions and know the difference between right and wrong. It doesn't mean he's their clone or won't make mistakes. It means he'll recognize those mistakes, learn from and correct them.

    Because that's what good parenting does.
    Last edited by Robanker; 05-12-2021 at 03:55 AM.

  8. #158
    The Man Who Cannot Die manwhohaseverything's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    6,865

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by I'm a Fish View Post
    IĀ’m not going to get into anything personal here.

    It sounds like the argument you are making is that itĀ’s ok for parents to treat kids however they want since it will have no impact on who they will become as an adult.
    No,I am saying.Whatever life throws at it is your choice that ultimately matters.I don't get to be bad,just cause my parent was abusive.
    Quote Originally Posted by Robanker View Post
    Yeah, dude, you're not ready to be a parent if that's how you see it. I don't mean to be rude when I say that, but you're describing parenting like talking to a reasonable adult who has life experience and whose actions and well-being you aren't responsible for. Moreover, I don't know anyone who would argue (save you, I suppose) that children without parents aren't at a significant disadvantage. They deserve better. Nobody asked to be here, but everyone deserves parents that love them.

    What you described... That's not parenting, and frankly I'm sorry you don't understand that. Strictly put, you've got this all wrong. There's some degree of difference in execution for parenting, but a hands off approach where you only provide an opinion and let the child raised themselves is borderline abandonment. Trying to couch it in evolution or transcendentalism just shows you are but mature enough to understand that there's a difference between your own development and fostering the development of a rapidly growing mind that needs a nurturing and patient influence to filter out the most important lessons to impart on them as well as protect them from things that will hinder their development and potentially damage them when they are most vulnerable to the world's outside influences.

    That's the last I'm going to discuss this with you. I don't really think you're ever going to understand the pushback on that philosophy of yours.

    Bringing the discussion back home, it's the Kents raising Clark with love and a good understanding of right and wrong that provides the example and morale compass that prevents Evil Superman from ever really being a thing. It's why every take feels like a complete asspull. They're good parents. They raised their son to make good decisions and know the difference between right and wrong. It doesn't mean he's their clone or won't make mistakes. It means he'll recognize those mistakes, learn from and correct them.

    Because that's what good parenting does.
    Personally do alright with kids.They get drawn to me,regardless.Not like the pied piper or anything.Especially because i become a kid with them and have no problem goofing off.It helps me alot actually when i was down..So?Everyone faces some disadvantage in their life.Personally,Kids with no parents can be more well adjusted than the ones that do many a times.

    On topic,So what?clark needs that programming?genetic programming or even social? to be "responsible" and "not evil"? Then clark isn't "good" to begin with and should turn "evil".Look,A robot can't be good or bad.It's just a tool.Superman's iron giant.Yet,It doesn't have the novelty or the innocence of that concept.why?Because it's a child raising a robot and not be a gun he was created to be.Do you think a kid needs to raised like that to learn "Mistakes"?right from being a baby a child starts observing it's surroundings and picks up things.Most of people intuitively by just living in the world or even by past experiences(that includes experience from others,everyone around) know when they make mistakes(If they are).I believe,kids have the capacity to know already that "Smoking is bad".Those that do even after having that knowledge do it because "they want to look cool".Some might do it because of ignorance.But those that do,they would know it while doing it and would have all the reasons to stop.People aren't dumb and i don't treat them that way.Even kids.If i were there,I would tell them that(not so calmly.lol!).But i sure as hell am not gonna be this.

    this is just treating kids as dumb.I assure you no kid like this or would take this seriously.And the choice was the iron giant's,not hogarths at the end of the day regardless of what when it acquired intelligence.
    Last edited by manwhohaseverything; 05-12-2021 at 08:49 PM.
    "I swear to devote my life to the destruction of piracy, greed, cruelty and injustice! And my sons, and their sons, shall follow me!"

  9. #159
    Extraordinary Member superduperman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Metropolis USA
    Posts
    5,393

    Default

    Everyone knows that the best evil Superman is Captain Hero from Drawn Together.
    WAKANDA FOREVER! Chadwick Boseman 1976-2020 BLM

  10. #160
    Astonishing Member Adekis's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,577

    Default

    I think a version of an Injustice adaptation that I would actually love would have to be too different from the games and comics to really satisfy Injustice fans? Jettison the conceit that Good Superman could someday become Evil Superman if he suffered enough, perhaps. Make the meta reality that Regime Superman is evil primarily because he's just built to be that way from the ground up (by the writers in real life) into an explicit part of the text.

    Every explanation or tragedy is just a vain attempt to rationalize the fact that the writers wanted an evil Superman. So maybe that's part of the story too! Maybe Superman is actually his evil doppelganger Kru-El, or Ultra-Humanite in Superman's body or something, and this faker personally engineered the illusory Doomsday, the nuke, etc to have an excuse to get rid of Lois Lane before she could figure out something was wrong with her husband, or to give "Superman" political plausibility and support for his fascistic regime.

    But of course if you do that, it's not really an adaptation of Injustice anymore, is it? It's a rebuttal. But that's the version of an Injustice adaptation I would want to see. Starring Big Blue here, the real one, leading the charge against his imposter.

    Similarly, despite being a Zack Snyder fan and apologist (at least where Superman is concerned - I legitimately dislike 300, but I digress) I always wanted the "Steven Moffat twist" that after all the build-up in BvS and ZSJL, the evil Superman was actually Brutaal all along. Brutaal is by far my favorite Evil Superman, precisely because he's, well, not really Superman, and that's the whole point of him, the bait-and-switch. I guess it's not impossible that Snyder was just doing a really good job of hiding the twist, but frankly I wouldn't bet any money on that.
    WHEN YOU DON'T VOTE, IT ISN'T REBELLION, IT'S SURRENDER!

    "You know the deal, Metropolis. Treat people right or expect a visit from me."

  11. #161
    Fantastic Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Posts
    450

    Default

    The only good superman that turns bad that I could accept, is a superman that changes due to external forces, not because he is mentally or emotionally weak. For example, when he is sent to earth he is exposed to dark energy that corrupts him, that energy becomes stronger with the increase in superman's power, that is why his actions are more and more violent until one day he loses control altogether.

  12. #162
    Obsessed & Compelled Bored at 3:00AM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    7,056

    Default

    Yeah, I have no problem with Evil Superman who is possessed by some great evil entity like the Anti-Life Equation, Darkseid, or Red Kryptonite. Dickhead Superman is a lot of fun. And the story works because you know that Good Superman is still trapped in there fighting to get out.

  13. #163
    Mighty Member I'm a Fish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    The Ocean
    Posts
    1,929

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NaVi View Post
    The only good superman that turns bad that I could accept, is a superman that changes due to external forces, not because he is mentally or emotionally weak. For example, when he is sent to earth he is exposed to dark energy that corrupts him, that energy becomes stronger with the increase in superman's power, that is why his actions are more and more violent until one day he loses control altogether.
    Does bad writing count as being changed by an external force?
    Sometimes I think that’s what possessed evil Superman.

  14. #164
    Astonishing Member Adekis's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,577

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by I'm a Fish View Post
    Does bad writing count as being changed by an external force?
    Sometimes I think that’s what possessed evil Superman.
    Well it sort of literally is, isn't it? I always thought the real meta tragedy of Injustice was that Good Superman reacted with horror at the realization that he was secretly capable of all that evil, ignorant of the true culprit: the fact that the writers had arbitrarily decided that his counterpart should be the Worst Villain Imaginable. So Superman goes through all this rigamarole with the Kryptonite capsule inside of him and all that, even though the simple fact is from a structural, writing perspective, the other guy was chosen to wear the bad guy hat, and he wasn't, and that's it that's the only reason.

    Which is why I'm so fond of the idea of the Evil Doppelganger Reveal in cases like this. It literalizes the fact that the heel turn is out of Superman's control and he bears no moral culpability for it.

    Also as just a side note, I want to say, it's not inherently bad writing. Everything I've heard about Tom Taylor indicates that he did good work on the Injustice comic, as good of a job as one can do on character growth when working from one good character to an inorganic, fixed evil conclusion. He allegedly missed Good Superman while writing it, but that was the job and he gave it his all. And that's fair. It's not necessarily bad writing, but it is an artificial imposition of evil onto Superman's character.
    WHEN YOU DON'T VOTE, IT ISN'T REBELLION, IT'S SURRENDER!

    "You know the deal, Metropolis. Treat people right or expect a visit from me."

  15. #165
    Astonishing Member marhawkman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    3,776

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adekis View Post
    Well it sort of literally is, isn't it? I always thought the real meta tragedy of Injustice was that Good Superman reacted with horror at the realization that he was secretly capable of all that evil, ignorant of the true culprit: the fact that the writers had arbitrarily decided that his counterpart should be the Worst Villain Imaginable. So Superman goes through all this rigamarole with the Kryptonite capsule inside of him and all that, even though the simple fact is from a structural, writing perspective, the other guy was chosen to wear the bad guy hat, and he wasn't, and that's it that's the only reason.

    Which is why I'm so fond of the idea of the Evil Doppelganger Reveal in cases like this. It literalizes the fact that the heel turn is out of Superman's control and he bears no moral culpability for it.

    Also as just a side note, I want to say, it's not inherently bad writing. Everything I've heard about Tom Taylor indicates that he did good work on the Injustice comic, as good of a job as one can do on character growth when working from one good character to an inorganic, fixed evil conclusion. He allegedly missed Good Superman while writing it, but that was the job and he gave it his all. And that's fair. It's not necessarily bad writing, but it is an artificial imposition of evil onto Superman's character.
    To me the issue with Injustice Superman wasn't the heel turn, it was the train of stuff that came after it. Like... killing Batson? doesn't really seem like a good idea... even if you're a supervillain.

Posting Permissions

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