Page 339 of 388 FirstFirst ... 239289329335336337338339340341342343349 ... LastLast
Results 5,071 to 5,085 of 5810
  1. #5071
    Ultimate Member marhawkman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    10,643

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PCN24454 View Post
    I think it’s more that when writers actually do, people are quick to call bad writing.
    Well, bad writing in general seems to be an issue with modern comics.

  2. #5072
    Spectacular Member
    Join Date
    May 2022
    Posts
    111

    Default

    Old comics were bad writing too, just more fun.
    I don't know if this is an opinion about Superman per se, but I get really annoyed when people talk about Golden Age Superman being a 'social crusader' or powering down to 'golden age levels.' For one thing, in both cases they mean 1938. (Superman kicked off the golden age, it didn't start 'til Wonder Man and Batman appeared the following May) He was already flying in 1940 and the 'social' stuff are a couple of pages of helping people that they latch onto because they apparently think Superman hasn't help regular people in regular situations ever since.

  3. #5073
    Extraordinary Member superduperman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Metropolis USA
    Posts
    7,208

    Default

    Something just occurred to me. Superman hasn't had a stable continuity since the 20th century.
    Assassinate Putin!

  4. #5074
    The Man Who Cannot Die manwhohaseverything's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    9,485

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Z View Post
    You seem to just be shifting the goalposts. Complaining about not wanting realism, then arguing against Superman acting human not msking sense all at once. It seems like your real issue is anything human being attached to Superman at all because you think that is a problem for the character.

    Again, Snyder depicted the encounter with Zod that way because of the type of person Zod is. And he put considerably more focus on the victims and those trying to stay alive than most alien invasion stories, including ones from the Superman franchise.
    i never complained about anything here..i am just saying those who say "snyder's superman is realistic superman" is overselling.It's not realistic.It's just a take on superman.Nothing more or less.That's just it.

    what zod is or isn't, is up to the writer.Here zod is a xenophobic coloniser because of snyder(all the power to him).As said,I am saying the assertion that this whole "man of steel is realistic" makes it seem like meeting between any two alien civilisation will end certainly in death,distruction and colonisation.which might not be the case in reality.Does it?we will have to disagree on that..the ending just shifted towards clark on daily planet.Even bvs doesn't spend much time with black zero,other than to show bruce and the guy in wheel chair also had something to do with it(it's just very fast and i don't remember).

    My problem with the character is a separate issue,which is not even mentioned here.I have a problems with the savior concept.I have come to terms with that superman ain't for me.I am a guy who believes i can stand on my own two feet and people are capable of that as well.That people can work together as equals to make a future.So,Superman just doesn't do it for me(the whole ideal to strive towards ).If i want an ideal i would choose a monkey king or robin hood(just champions) than jesus.No offense to anyone here who like superman..
    Last edited by manwhohaseverything; 05-14-2022 at 02:49 AM.
    "People’s Dreams... Have No Ends"

  5. #5075
    Ultimate Member marhawkman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    10,643

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by superduperman View Post
    Something just occurred to me. Superman hasn't had a stable continuity since the 20th century.
    Or anything in DC, and that's the biggest issue they've been having IMO.

  6. #5076
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Posts
    4,392

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Filbert View Post
    Old comics were bad writing too, just more fun.
    I don't know if this is an opinion about Superman per se, but I get really annoyed when people talk about Golden Age Superman being a 'social crusader' or powering down to 'golden age levels.' For one thing, in both cases they mean 1938. (Superman kicked off the golden age, it didn't start 'til Wonder Man and Batman appeared the following May) He was already flying in 1940 and the 'social' stuff are a couple of pages of helping people that they latch onto because they apparently think Superman hasn't help regular people in regular situations ever since.
    Quote Originally Posted by superduperman View Post
    Something just occurred to me. Superman hasn't had a stable continuity since the 20th century.
    Quote Originally Posted by marhawkman View Post
    Or anything in DC, and that's the biggest issue they've been having IMO.
    I feel like the problem is that people look down on MOTW stories despite them making up over 80% of the continuity. Because of that, writers began to focus more on events and story arcs despite the fact that they rarely have lasting returns regardless.

    It just shows how the industry as we know has been on its way out.

  7. #5077
    Ultimate Member marhawkman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    10,643

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PCN24454 View Post
    I feel like the problem is that people look down on MOTW stories despite them making up over 80% of the continuity. Because of that, writers began to focus more on events and story arcs despite the fact that they rarely have lasting returns regardless.

    It just shows how the industry as we know has been on its way out.
    I've come to hate big events for this reason. Especially since DC has this bizarre fascination with using them to mangle continuity.

  8. #5078
    Amazing Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    78

    Default

    I think Superman is much better portrayed when he's written as an incredibly moral and kind man who simply wants to help rather instead of this perfect "savior" figure who will "guide humanity into the sun or lead them to greatness."

  9. #5079
    Ultimate Member marhawkman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    10,643

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yolo_dude View Post
    I think Superman is much better portrayed when he's written as an incredibly moral and kind man who simply wants to help rather instead of this perfect "savior" figure who will "guide humanity into the sun or lead them to greatness."
    This is true. Being a great man means doing great things, not just talking. Superman needs to lead by example, not just talk.

  10. #5080
    Astonishing Member Stanlos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    4,167

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yolo_dude View Post
    I think Superman is much better portrayed when he's written as an incredibly moral and kind man who simply wants to help rather instead of this perfect "savior" figure who will "guide humanity into the sun or lead them to greatness."
    I think that addition is so forced and so fake. Much as I laud Byrne I feel it was a mistake having Lara and Jor KNOW where he was going rather than it being the last desperate act of loving parents clinging to hope to the last moment. It's not Zeus-Is-WWs-Dad level of a shitake mushroom storm, but it is horrible to me compared to the purity of the other version primal nature

  11. #5081
    Black Belt in Bad Ideas Robanker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    7,986

    Default

    This is more relating to the idea of Dead Kents vs. Living Kents, but rather than derail a thread of "is the status quo regarding them working for you," I'll post my extended thoughts here.

    I prefer my Kents alive. They're there if needed, and I have never bought that he needs to watch his parents die or outlive them to become a man. It makes no sense in any other context and this one doesn't change that. You don't need to put both of them in the ground to be a man. I have one still alive, so I guess I'm only half an adult? It's preposterous.

    Moreover, the insinuation that he can only learn the lesson he can't save everyone from specifically his father is imparting that Clark will care less if he learns that anywhere else. I think it's more important he learn that on the job without it being someone specifically attached to him-- because Superman would care just as much for any one of us dying despite his best efforts. That's kind of the point. Part of what sets him apart from most heroes is his near infinite compassion. Requiring Jonathan Kent be the one who dies kind of flies in the face of that because all but the most selfish people will be moved by a loved one dying painfully. It doesn't really speak specifically to him. Some innocent bystander he tried to save with everything he had and still could not? That probably wouldn't resonate with some characters, but it would Clark. I refuse that it need be Jonathan for anything short of an innate human selfishness that we see less value in the lives of others, which Superman would not share.

    But I've long since tired of every reason they need to be dead. It's usually pretty trite, and comes down to the same flimsy "Batman is more relatable because " argument. There's no real specific reason they must die that's ever been particularly compelling except that writers have had a history of turning Pa into a corn-fed fortune cookie that makes Clark look incapable of solving his own philosophical problems. That's a legitimate concern I'll concede, but otherwise it's just lazy creativity stemming from wanting the character to reflect what they were introduced to.

    I should know, I'm doing the same with living Kents!





    In all seriousness, however, I think living Kents that only show up occasionally do more good than dead Kents, who are essentially just The Wayne Murder flashback in Kansas, save that we never even use that for Clark so they just become a footnote. Keep them around, use them when needed and focus on Clark's life in Metropolis.

    And I admit, this may just be wish fulfillment at its fullest, but as someone who has buried most of their direct family before 30, it's very nice to see at least one superhero able to get their life together and phone home to tell their parents they love them now and then. Moreso Superman, who is supposed to embody the best of us as opposed to another isolated loner who can't quite get it together.

    I understand he's the ur example, but pretending the rest of the comic book universe lives outside his bubble is foolish, but then I've long tired of the lack of creativity that permeates cape comics and their infantile need to explain why the actual trials, tribulations and challenges of life make for bad storytelling when good storytelling is ensuring that we refuse a character ever be anything more than the exact iteration we found them in. Re: Peter Parker can only be a college student who is incapable of finding a penny without it shattering Aunt May's spine if he picks it off the pavement. Married superheroes are boring because I am a writer who cannot comprehend a relationship being interesting betraying my own history with them. I think kids are stupid and not interesting because I hate children. That's what it comes across as to this reader, at least. Shortcomings justified as storytelling rather than embracing a different avenue to tell a compelling story.

    It's made all the worse when some of the most celebrated runs on more obscure characters are ones in which those very same subjects aren't shied away from. Hell, Starman smokes both David immediately, reusing him in significant ways, and Ted Knight gets a great sendoff that actually resonates with its hero for longer than the Kents do in practicality. Aside from All-Star Superman, Jonathan dies pretty much to make Clark frown for 3 pages. It serves nothing particularly special to him and he never calls back to dead Kents in meaningful ways. They just become a line of dialogue and usually not a particularly impactful one. Clark's dead parents contribute as little or less than living ones, which you can at least do something with. They're just more tools in the chest to use.


    I can live with them dying, but I honestly don't think it adds as much variety or depth to him you can't replicate elsewhere with Superman specifically, and the arguments for killing them have always felt like weak justifications to explain why we shouldn't change what a specific reader was introduced to. If that sounds like exactly what you just read but from the opposite argument, well now you at least know how it's felt.
    Last edited by Robanker; 05-24-2022 at 01:27 AM.
    May we never forget:

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaius View Post
    Daddy Zeus can hit the bricks.
    Truer words never spoken.

  12. #5082
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,220

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Robanker View Post
    This is more relating to the idea of Dead Kents vs. Living Kents, but rather than derail a thread of "is the status quo regarding them working for you," I'll post my extended thoughts here.

    I prefer my Kents alive. They're there if needed, and I have never bought that he needs to watch his parents die or outlive them to become a man. It makes no sense in any other context and this one doesn't change that. You don't need to put both of them in the ground to be a man. I have one still alive, so I guess I'm only half an adult? It's preposterous.

    Moreover, the insinuation that he can only learn the lesson he can't save everyone from specifically his father is imparting that Clark will care less if he learns that anywhere else. I think it's more important he learn that on the job without it being someone specifically attached to him-- because Superman would care just as much for any one of us dying despite his best efforts. That's kind of the point. Part of what sets him apart from most heroes is his near infinite compassion. Requiring Jonathan Kent be the one who dies kind of flies in the face of that because all but the most selfish people will be moved by a loved one dying painfully. It doesn't really speak specifically to him. Some innocent bystander he tried to save with everything he had and still could not? That probably wouldn't resonate with some characters, but it would Clark. I refuse that it need be Jonathan for anything short of an innate human selfishness that we see less value in the lives of others, which Superman would not share.

    But I've long since tired of every reason they need to be dead. It's usually pretty trite, and comes down to the same flimsy "Batman is more relatable because " argument. There's no real specific reason they must die that's ever been particularly compelling except that writers have had a history of turning Pa into a corn-fed fortune cookie that makes Clark look incapable of solving his own philosophical problems. That's a legitimate concern I'll concede, but otherwise it's just lazy creativity stemming from wanting the character to reflect what they were introduced to.

    I should know, I'm doing the same with living Kents!





    In all seriousness, however, I think living Kents that only show up occasionally do more good than dead Kents, who are essentially just The Wayne Murder flashback in Kansas, save that we never even use that for Clark so they just become a footnote. Keep them around, use them when needed and focus on Clark's life in Metropolis.

    And I admit, this may just be wish fulfillment at its fullest, but as someone who has buried most of their direct family before 30, it's very nice to see at least one superhero able to get their life together and phone home to tell their parents they love them now and then. Moreso Superman, who is supposed to embody the best of us as opposed to another isolated loner who can't quite get it together.

    I understand he's the ur example, but pretending the rest of the comic book universe lives outside his bubble is foolish, but then I've long tired of the lack of creativity that permeates cape comics and their infantile need to explain why the actual trials, tribulations and challenges of life make for bad storytelling when good storytelling is ensuring that we refuse a character ever be anything more than the exact iteration we found them in. Re: Peter Parker can only be a college student who is incapable of finding a penny without it shattering Aunt May's spine if he picks it off the pavement. Married superheroes are boring because I am a writer who cannot comprehend a relationship being interesting betraying my own history with them. I think kids are stupid and not interesting because I hate children. That's what it comes across as to this reader, at least. Shortcomings justified as storytelling rather than embracing a different avenue to tell a compelling story.

    It's made all the worse when some of the most celebrated runs on more obscure characters are ones in which those very same subjects aren't shied away from. Hell, Starman smokes both David immediately, reusing him in significant ways, and Ted Knight gets a great sendoff that actually resonates with its hero for longer than the Kents do in practicality. Aside from All-Star Superman, Jonathan dies pretty much to make Clark frown for 3 pages. It serves nothing particularly special to him and he never calls back to dead Kents in meaningful ways. They just become a line of dialogue and usually not a particularly impactful one. Clark's dead parents contribute as little or less than living ones, which you can at least do something with. They're just more tools in the chest to use.


    I can live with them dying, but I honestly don't think it adds as much variety or depth to him you can't replicate elsewhere with Superman specifically, and the arguments for killing them have always felt like weak justifications to explain why we shouldn't change what a specific reader was introduced to. If that sounds like exactly what you just read but from the opposite argument, well now you at least know how it's felt.
    One thing that really bugs me about the "I want the Kents alive" camp is how they never really explain what good the Kents do when they're alive and it's always just this finger wagging attempt of moral aggrandizing to try and guilt trip the opposition into abandoning ship and just rolling over. The Kent's are alive because management nuked the grand childhood Superman had in the Pre-Crisis days that dated back to the 40's where the Kent's played the nurturing parental role to a young Clark Kent. In some grand magnanimous instance of clarity Bryne realized that he didn't have an avenue to show Clark's brand new All American upbringing because his new backstory simply wasn't interesting enough to support long form storytelling like the Pre-Crisis one had so they proceeded to backport the Kent's from Kal-El childhood into his adulthood but they failed to realize that it makes no sense to have the Kent's serve the same role for +35 year old SuperMAN that they served for a adolescent SuperBOY. The Kent's don't have any relevant experience to Clark's adult life, he was doing thing they couldn't have even comprehended were possible until they found his rocket by the roadside. Pretending that they have valuable nuggets of wisdom for Superman when he's well into his career is ludicrous and that's exactly why you get "homespun wisdom fortune cookie" takes that make Clark look like a dumbass.

    In what world is it bad storytelling for elderly people who were already old when they found baby Kal-El to die of illness or natural causes? It's a reasonable estimation of how they might pass away. It's nothing like the random act of violence that spawned Batman because it has nothing to do with pain and suffering making Clark into the ultimate badass the way it did for Bruce. The death of the Kent's was always a much more sobering reminder of the limits of his great powers and quite honestly it was nice to see someone go through personal loss and TAKE IT WELL! (Maybe because Siegel went through similar events in his childhood!) To show actual maturity and growth as a person in the face of what the Bat writers popularized in the 80's where any instance of tragedy became some kind of great breaking moment and you were never the same ever again. We lost that with Superman either getting everything put back or having any emotional connection to things in his life he lost severed. With all of those moronic changes the Post-Crisis writers came up with the story of Superman became a weird accent piece to the DCU the Batman writers had come up with. To hell with that Superman is not a part of Batman's tale and anyone that believes otherwise can go back to the Batman side of the dance floor.

    Just because you do not like what a character is does not mean you get to beat it into a shape you find aggregable. There's a reason the Japanese don't do this with their storytelling and they're creaming the American's now.

    Edit: Also can someone explain to me why it's okay for Aunt May to die but not the Kent's? I've notice that double think for some time now. Apparently Peter does need May to die so he can move on with his life but Clark has to keep the Kent's around? Am I missing something?
    Last edited by The World; 05-24-2022 at 05:00 AM.
    Rules are for lesser men, Charlie - Grand Pa Joe ~ Willy Wonka & Chocolate Factory

  13. #5083
    Black Belt in Bad Ideas Robanker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    7,986

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The World View Post
    One thing that really bugs me about the "I want the Kents alive" camp is how they never really explain what good the Kents do when they're alive and it's always just this finger wagging attempt of moral aggrandizing to try and guilt trip the opposition into abandoning ship and just rolling over. The Kent's are alive because management nuked the grand childhood Superman had in the Pre-Crisis days that dated back to the 40's where the Kent's played the nurturing parental role to a young Clark Kent. In some grand magnanimous instance of clarity Bryne realized that he didn't have an avenue to show Clark's brand new All American upbringing because his new backstory simply wasn't interesting enough to support long form storytelling like the Pre-Crisis one had so they proceeded to backport the Kent's from Kal-El childhood into his adulthood but they failed to realize that it makes no sense to have the Kent's serve the same role for +35 year old SuperMAN that they served for a adolescent SuperBOY. The Kent's don't have any relevant experience to Clark's adult life, he was doing thing they couldn't have even comprehended were possible until they found his rocket by the roadside. Pretending that they have valuable nuggets of wisdom for Superman when he's well into his career is ludicrous and that's exactly why you get "homespun wisdom fortune cookie" takes that make Clark look like a dumbass.

    In what world is it bad storytelling for elderly people who were already old when they found baby Kal-El to die of illness or natural causes? It's a reasonable estimation of how they might pass away. It's nothing like the random act of violence that spawned Batman because it has nothing to do with pain and suffering making Clark into the ultimate badass the way it did for Bruce. The death of the Kent's was always a much more sobering reminder of the limits of his great powers and quite honestly it was nice to see someone go through personal loss and TAKE IT WELL! (Maybe because Siegel went through similar events in his childhood!) To show actual maturity and growth as a person in the face of what the Bat writers popularized in the 80's where any instance of tragedy became some kind of great breaking moment and you were never the same ever again. We lost that with Superman either getting everything put back or having any emotional connection to things in his life he lost severed. With all of those moronic changes the Post-Crisis writers came up with the story of Superman became a weird accent piece to the DCU the Batman writers had come up with. To hell with that Superman is not a part of Batman's tale and anyone that believes otherwise can go back to the Batman side of the dance floor.

    Just because you do not like what a character is does not mean you get to beat it into a shape you find aggregable. There's a reason the Japanese don't do this with their storytelling and they're creaming the American's now.

    Edit: Also can someone explain to me why it's okay for Aunt May to die but not the Kent's? I've notice that double think for some time now. Apparently Peter does need May to die so he can move on with his life but Clark has to keep the Kent's around? Am I missing something?
    I can address the rest later since I'm getting ready for work, but are you really asking the difference on the Kents and May? Clark leaves his parents and moves to the big city. He's not actively taking care of them and they in no way impede anything in his life by living.

    Aunt May is constantly an issue for Peter as he's basically her caretaker, but I still don't think she absolutely must die. She can stick around as she provides a lot of dramatic angles in his life, but she is a much heavier presence in Peter's life so equating her and the Kents in this way is pathetic. They serve entirely different narrative functions. The Kents let Clark come to them and don't have problems he's required to solve regularly. Aunt May can't help herself from interfering in Peter's life.

    Killing May's primary purpose is to allow Peter to no longer need to worry about her. Maybe to mark that time has passed since he was a young man first starting a superhero career. Otherwise, she can stay alive just fine. A married Peter trying to balance work, MJ, May and Spider-Man is a very, very Spider-Man problem to have. I can speak from experience at least that is stressful and leads to storytelling drama because I lived that life for ten years and the problems that arise are 100% the **** writers use to show why Peter is the most put-upon hero in Marvel. She can die but isn't necessary to get Peter to move on with his life. Claiming otherwise is just lazy. Tons of adults have sick parents they take care of while being married themselves with jobs and even children.

    It's just writers being unable to balance that and blaming it on an issue people already have answers to.

    The Kents dying from old age when Clark gets older makes a lot more sense in that respect, but it must be noted they're not elders when they find him anymore and haven't been for nearly four decades. Let's not bury our head in that sand.
    Last edited by Robanker; 05-24-2022 at 07:43 AM.
    May we never forget:

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaius View Post
    Daddy Zeus can hit the bricks.
    Truer words never spoken.

  14. #5084
    Ultimate Member SiegePerilous02's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    15,234

    Default

    I wouldn't advocate for killing May off, especially when they can let her in on the secret again and she's not as old as she was originally depicted.

    But even in her "doesn't know Peter is Spider-Man and struggles off and on with vague illnesses to give Peter angst" phase, I feel like May has always been a more distinct character as an individual than the Kent's have been as a pairing. They are more thematically important as origin characters but don't have much use after that. And they undercut Clark being a lonely figure who keeps people at arms length, doesn't let his walls down even with his best friends, etc. He really should be in that phase until his and Lois's relationship evolves and she becomes his wife. We don't get that if the Kents are alive to offer Clark some basic bitch platitudes on the farm when hes facing a problem. So they aren't bringing anything interesting to the table and actually lessen one of Clarks more interesting personal struggles.

  15. #5085
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    34,005

    Default

    Jimmy and Perry have offered far less to the Superman mythos for decades. Yet any writer who even suggested killing them off would be metaphorically crucified.

Posting Permissions

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