I dislike Superman by AnthonyT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Alternatively, perhaps some Superman fans/apologists can explain to me why they like him?

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews. I apologize for the inconvenience.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 20, 2010 4:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

I dislike Superman, and I think the first and last movies illustrate why he is an uninspiring hero.

I was wondering if anyone else felt the same way, or if I was unique in my dislike for the character (at least as portrayed in film.)

You don't like the 1978 film Superman?
If that's true Tony, you are dead to me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 20, 2010 4:22 PM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

http://superdickery.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&lay
out=blog&id=28&Itemid=45

I don't think you're the only one.

[/sig]

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 20, 2010 4:31 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Well Chris... It's bad storytelling. It's like a Greek Hero without any of the tragedy. Superman might as well be a God for all the jeopardy and risk he endures to do his deeds.

From what I can tell, Superman was designed with two major weaknesses. One is physical, and one is, for lack of a better word, philosophical.

1) Kryptonite - This is Superman's physical weakness. It theoretically allows ordinary human villains to threaten him with harm. It has proven demonstrably ineffective, however. When physically stabbed by Kryptonite, with a piece of it still inside his body, Superman was able to fly through the crust of the Earth, lift a mountain into space, hurl it into the sun, and survive a fall back to Earth. So this is apparently more of a mild inconvenience like a skin rash, as opposed to a real weakness.

2) Superman can't be in Two Places at the Same Time. For all his godlike power, Superman was designed to be vulnerable to this simple tragedy. With all his might, he can't save everyone, because he can't be everywhere he's needed. This is a psychological/philosophical tragedy that speaks to those of us who might wish, "If only." If only I was stronger, faster, smarter, handsomer, whatever. If only, THEN life would be perfect. Except life is never perfect, not even for Superman, because in the end he was powerless to preserve the one thing in life that was most important to him. THAT could have been a great movie. A story of the age. The ultimate modern take on the Greek tragedy.

Except they take it back in the last five minutes of the movie, ruining the whole thing.

Honestly, what's there to like about this guy? Why is an indestructable man who can't fail at all interesting? Does he work on some level other than being a hero? Because heroes feel heroic due to the possibility of failure and suffering. Not only can Superman not die, but he can undo any loss in his life through time-travel. He is largely incapable of true loss.

Heroes suffer. Heroes can die. Heroes can fail. Heroes can lose.

Superman, as presented in the first and last films especially, can do none of these things.

He is boring.

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews. I apologize for the inconvenience.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 20, 2010 4:50 PM

Agreed.

I don't like Superman. For the longest time I didn't really like Batman either, but the newest movies have simply been excellent. However, neither character is what I would call particularly relateable.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 20, 2010 4:59 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I agree with you about the new Batman films.

I think the recent films have done a lot to heighten my appreciation for Batman and salvage him as a character. They've made him more human, they've made him suffer deeply, and they've made him lose to the bad guys at least some of the time. (He couldn't save his love interest. He couldn't save his successor Harvey Dent. Part of the city got poisoned despite his best efforts. He was powerless to prevent a Hospital from being destroyed. He is forced to surrender his public goodwill.)

Also, when Bruce Wayne showed up to the courthouse with a revolver, hoping to assassinate his parent's murderer, he was an everyman. An everyman with a lot of money, but an everyman nontheless. He felt like we would feel.

Batman as currently portrayed beats Superman all to hell.

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews. I apologize for the inconvenience.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 20, 2010 6:12 PM

SPACEJANITOR

I sympathize most with Sheldon from the Big Bang when it comes to Superman. As much as I like a good superhero, I think about the physics way too much to ever really enjoy Superman, but I really, really like the 1978 movie. I just can't help myself.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 20, 2010 8:12 PM

BIGRICHARD

I agree with you to a certain extent.

Superman, when written poorly, is not an interesting hero. And a lot of people think this. I regularly have discussions with friends where I must defend him.

The first film is excellent, in my opnion. But I have to agree, whenever time-travel is used to undo everything, I don't like it, and Superman was no exception.

Superman is saved by the writer. If written correctly, Superman is interesting BECAUSE he is near-perfect. He should be near-perfect, striving for insane goals, and he should fail. He needs to succeed in saving the day because he has made insane choices, choices which only a perfect hero would need to make.

I actually really liked the new Superman movie. Not particularly for the Superman vs Lex story which is so familiar these days, but more for the Clark/Superman/Lois/World subplots. Lois writing "Why the World Doesn't Need Superman" was particularly interesting, and should've been explored more. What happens when the world depends on a perfect hero, and they have to leave? What happens when the perfect hero only wants one thing for himself, and he loses her?

These questions are what makes Superman interesting. I don't think Superman is a bad character at all, but poor writing can ruin anyone.

I think if you loved the recent Batman films, you should know that Jonathan Nolan (co-wrote Dark Knight/Prestige, and wrote the short story Memento was based on) is looking to write and possibly direct a new Superman movie, with his brother, Chris (directed and cowrote Begins, Dark Knight, Prestige, Inception, etc), producing. The story was written by Jonathan and David Goyer, who also helped the Nolan's write Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. So hopefully now we'll get a Superman movie completely worthy of the character.

I don't think Superman needs to be as dark and suffer to the extent that Batman does, but he needs to be vulnerable, even if it's not at the same standards as humans.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 20, 2010 8:23 PM

OPPYH

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Honestly, what's there to like about this guy? Why is an indestructable man who can't fail at all interesting? Does he work on some level other than being a hero? Because heroes feel heroic due to the possibility of failure and suffering. Not only can Superman not die, but he can undo any loss in his life through time-travel. He is largely incapable of true loss.

Heroes suffer. Heroes can die. Heroes can fail. Heroes can lose.

Superman, as presented in the first and last films especially, can do none of these things.

He is boring.

--Anthony

Superman is immortal, but he would hardly do anything to prevent time from marching on. He saved Lois in the first movie because a lunatic caused mass destruction. Her death was a result of this(think a loved one dying from a drunk driver) it should have been prevented. He has never attempted such a feat since.

I think the duality of Clark/Superman is rather interesting myself. Here is someone forced into a humble existence to practically act himself the invisible man. Anything to keep his secret identity.

Add to that the sci-fi Kryptonian aspect, and you have one hell of a complex superhero...If the character is written correctly.

Boring? That's a laugh. Batman is boring. A rich vigilante that wallows in misery(as displayed in the last two movies). About as interesting as a tooth ache.

----------------------------------------------------------------

70's TV FOREVER

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 20, 2010 10:52 PM

HKCAVALIER

From the soon to be published (cross yer fingers!) novel The Defenestrator by Kevin Haggerty:

Good evening everyone and welcome to the Saturday night meeting of Super Persons Anonymous, “Heroes and Villains Healing Together”, my name is Clark K. and I’m a recovering super person.

(Hi, Clark.)

They asked me to chair the meeting tonight, but before I get into my story (which I know most of you are probably sick of hearing by now), I wanted to read a passage from the Big Book of Bruce W.

This is from the chapter “Taking Off the Mask One Day at a Time.”

Quote:
Whether we chose the role of villain or hero as a reaction to the origin trauma, we all have this in common: we have all lived violent and emotionally chaotic lives. Those of us who have taken on the hero’s mantle may find this most basic of truths the hardest to take in. As heroes, we may participate in the destruction of whole city blocks or throw villains literally “into the next county,” and yet by our own reckoning nobody dies, nobody’s maimed, no one is paralyzed for life and absolutely no one cries. It is only the villain’s violence, in the hero’s view, that is “senseless” and can actually hurt people.

Wow.

I was so wrapped up in that shit. You know, “truth, justice and the American way,” while the whole time I was lying to everybody I knew! It amazes me now that I never saw the hypocrisy in all that.

I remember the first time I threw a bus. There was this alien...thing, I mean, person with tentacles and beams shooting out of his or her eyes, and he or she was obviously in crisis, very emotional, tearing down power lines and destroying property. This person, whose name I never even thought to discover (I think the papers simply called him or her “Monster X”) was easily taking everything I could dish out up to that point and without thinking I lifted a parked bus and hurled it.

It wasn’t until years later--after I’d been out of the lifestyle--coming to these meetings for about a year, when I was looking up old newspaper articles in the library and I found out that the driver of the bus had died that day. His body was found in the bus wreckage, it had been his lunch hour and he had been taking a nap on the back seat.

Musta been a pretty sound sleeper.

The papers blamed his death on the alien person, of course. The only thing more powerful than the denial of us super heroes is the denial of the press that chronicles our exploits. The papers always make it sound like all I ever did was show up and give my enemies some tough talk, maybe roughed ’em up a little bit before they surrendered.

I wonder sometimes if the papers really loved and believed in me so much, or if they were just scared out of their minds!

The paper noted that the bus driver had no surviving relatives, that he was childless and his parents were both dead. That really hit me hard. You know, it was like, this could have been me. Only now he was dead. Because of me.

Well, I started researching everything at that point. I was obsessed with exposing what Bruce calls the “inner villain,” looking for evidence of all my unacknowledged victims over the years.

I know we’ve all been there.

Anyway, having exhausted all the terrestrial libraries and news gathering agencies, I started moving out of the solar system into the larger galaxy and that’s when I found out the truth about my origin. As you know, Bruce in the Big Book puts a lot of emphasis on the so-called “origin” as the defining moment of our disease. The origin is the central trauma in the life of a super person that forever cuts us off from our ordinary humanity and with it, any hope of a normal existence. Our sense of self is so devastated by this trauma--whether it’s a bite from a radioactive animal, a freak bombardment of cosmic rays, or the double homicide of our parents as we look on helplessly--that we reconceive ourselves as the embodiment of the trauma. We even tend to rename ourselves after this force or creature that stole our lives from us--talk about becoming the disease!

I never identified very strongly with that part of the program, though. Granted, I’d lost both my parents, but it was, as far as I knew, a natural disaster. And granted, that natural disaster meant the destruction of my entire planet, but somehow it didn’t seem to add up to a self-destroying origin. I don’t mean to minimize my pain, but seriously, plenty of refugees before me had lost their families and their way of life without becoming vengeful megalomaniacs. It just didn’t add up. You know, and my adoptive parents were so kind and my adoptive world so beautiful and green, as far as I could see I was one of the lucky ones.

Oh man. This next part of my story is still so hard to get into, even after all these years of sharing my story in these rooms. Turns out I had my origin all right. I found where the rage comes from.

I was down in the basement of some hall of records on I don’t know, Rygel 4, pouring over microfiche when I read an article that referred to my home planet (for the sake of anonymity, I won't mention the name). What was weird was that the article postdated the disaster. I just dismissed it as a typo, but deep down something shifted inside me and I knew.

I kept finding references to my home world all over that part of the galaxy, until it was obvious even to me that my home world had survived somehow. The news of my planet’s continued existence never made me happy though.

It still doesn’t make me happy.

The next thing I remember was hurtling towards my home planet so fast I got there a week before I set out. The disaster had never even happened--no earthquake, no typhoons, no cataclysm of any kind!

Even though they changed their names and moved, I found them easily enough. They’d moved out of our old house and were living in a crappy little apartment downtown. I’ll never forget seeing my dad’s face when he answered the door. He looked so old. His hair had gone completely white. We just stared at each other. Then he looked down, glancing around the hall as if he’d seen a rat or something. When he looked up again he said in this creepy little voice that I almost couldn’t recognize, “Can I help you?”

Dad, it’s me, it’s Kal.

“We don’t know anyone by that name.”

It’s me, Dad! I’m your son.

Back in the house my mom says, “Who is it at the door, Dear?”

Then my dad shoots back still looking at me, “Never mind, Doreen, I’m handling it. Just stay there.”

Doreen? Dad, what’s going on? I’m your son, what are you doing?

“You have mistaken me with someone else.”

You’re Jar-El, you’re my father and that’s my mother Lara in the apartment. Mother! It’s me, Kal, it’s your son!

And with that my father slammed the door.

I was absolutely stunned.

I could have been through that door and crushed my father’s head between my thumb and forefinger as easy as breathing, I could have incinerated their apartment with a blink of my eyes, I could have torn the whole building from its foundations and tossed it into the sea but I couldn’t move. I just stood staring helplessly at my father’s door until he opened it again.

I could hear my mother quietly sobbing in the room behind him as my father looked up at me and said, “If you don’t leave right now, I’m calling the police.” I couldn’t believe how cold he was being. But all of a sudden I think I saw my father clearly for the first time in my life. Hands shaking, mouth dry, eyes wide, standing on the balls of his feet, he was scared--terrified really, of me. And I realized that...that was why they had abandoned me in the first place. They’d been afraid of me. They were afraid of my...

My power.

But they were completely ignorant of their own. This frightened little old man and his weeping wife had trumped every bug-eyed monster and mad scientist that ever tried to take me down.

Oh my god. The truth had been staring me in the face the whole time. For those of you that don’t know, back in my acting out days I suffered from a very peculiar weakness: a single piece of rock from my supposedly extinct planet could rob me of all my powers, leaving me in a semi-catatonic state, helpless. Scientists from seventy different worlds have given me thirty bullshit explanations apiece for why this happened but I knew the truth now. Every time I came into contact with any fragment of my home planet some part of me knew the secret truth it harbored. It cut right through my denial like heat vision through a silk curtain. “We’re still here,” it would say. “Nobody died,” it would say. “Everything is just as it was, except we got rid of you.”

I used to feel real sorry for Bruce, you know, losing his parents like he did, watching his father’s helpless body fall, seeing the face of his dead mother, the gunman cackling as he disappeared into the night. I couldn’t imagine anything worse. But now I think, Bruce, at least you can believe that your parents were kind. At least your parents are truly dead, and not just dead to you.

(Long pause.)

Yeah, I know. Not a lot of “experience, strength and hope” to offer. But I have this.

(CLARK pulls a large translucent green gem-cut stone hanging from a chain around his neck from the collar his shirt. It radiates a subtle greenish glow that shows on his face as he concludes his speech.)

I wear it everywhere I go now as a reminder to always live in my truth. And I hardly suffer any ill effects from it at all anymore.

At least not most days.

(CLARK tucks the stone back down his shirt.)

Thanks for listening.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 21, 2010 1:52 AM

EVILDINOSAUR

I like Superman, I can't really tell you why, it definitely depends on who's writing him as someone else said. I think he's more interesting as Clark Kent actually, which is why my favorite Supermans are from Smallville and Lois and Clark.

I will say though that I agree with both of your examples of problems with the character. Kryptonite is often written as an inconvenience, and that's not right. I believe there was an episode of Lois and Clark where Superman had a kryptonite bullet inside him and he was completely powerless, unable to even move, and slowly dying. It was only because Lois was able to get the bullet out and get it far away from him that Superman survived. That is how powerful kryptonite should be.

Every time I get into a discussion about the most recent movie I bring up the ridiculousness of Superman lifting a fucking mountain made of kryptonite. He simply can't do that, he is powerless in it's presence, that was just bad writing.

Same for the going back in time. I'm glad he's never done that again since, because it makes no sense. Superman has enough powers without time travel.

"Haha, mine is an evil laugh."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 21, 2010 1:58 AM

JONGSSTRAW

The "real" Superman is not the movie versions, it's the TV series with George Reeves and Noel Neill from the 50's. I grew up watching that show every day in reruns. That Superman had emotions and feelings, and he was not always perfect. The early B&W years presented some very adult-natured and dark themes.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 21, 2010 2:00 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

I dislike Superman, and I think the first and last movies illustrate why he is an uninspiring hero.

I was wondering if anyone else felt the same way, or if I was unique in my dislike for the character (at least as portrayed in film.)

You don't like the 1978 film Superman?
If that's true Tony, you are dead to me.

Can't he just be severely wounded to you? Can he have a limp to you? Why's he gotta be dead to you?

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 21, 2010 3:08 AM

THESOMNAMBULIST

Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Quote:
He is boring.

...and yet here we all are discussing him. Perhaps the word you're seeking is that he is a 'frustrating' character/hero...?

I'm no comic book expert but I find the more popular superhero's somewhat samey anyway. Batman, Superman, Spiderman, X-men etc... You never really have any sense that they'll die or be defeated. But that's kind of the point isn't it?

I tend to find Superman only interesting as Clark Kent. And if I'm honest I only really enjoyed the second Superman film with Christopher Reeve. The others i'm somewhat indifferent to, but I think that in part is down to some poor film-making.

There is plenty of material in the character though and SMALLVILLE has gone some way into exploring that. And for the most part I'd say successfully too.

But to answer your question as to what it is I like about him...
Well it is the fact that he is alone in the world.

Cartoons - http://cirqusartsandmusic.blogspot.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 21, 2010 4:11 AM

ZEEK

Superman is interesting because he has all this power and yet he can't overcome his selfish nature. He could spend every waking moment saving people. Instead he lives a dual life as Clark Kent. He's so lonely being the last of his kind (ok there are other kryptonians but there aren't many) that he creates an identity to try to get some human companionship. He constantly struggles between being the ultimate hero or creating a life for himself. He struggles between telling the people he cares about who he really is or sticking with the false identity. He's pretty far from perfect.

Let's face it super heroes more or less aren't going to die. If they are going to die it's going to be a big event specifically to make their death have a big impact. Most of the time they'll be revived eventually anyway. A dead superhero doesn't sell comics. So, for the most part they're all invincible.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 21, 2010 5:20 AM

CYBERSNARK

Hoo boy. I'll be brief because I have tonnes of stuff to do and I could easily be here all day.

My problem with the Superman movies (and every TV series except the Timmverse) is that they're all firmly Pre-Crisis. Pre-Crisis Superman was a cardboard cutout of the Ideal Superhero. The first Superman stories were in media res --he was already a costumed hero, Lex Luthor was already his enemy, Jimmy Olsen was already his younger pal, Lois Lane was already his girlfriend --the traditional Superman backstory was all filled in piecemeal after the fact, and every incarnation of Superman since then has defaulted to that status quo.

He's Superman who disguises himself as Clark Kent, a meek, self-effacing wimp. Lex Luthor is an Evil(tm), obscenely wealthy genius who wants to destroy Superman. Lois Lane is an ambitious reporter who wants the scoop.

Post-Crisis Superman is much more interesting. He is Clark Kent, an intelligent, courageous, and savvy guy who wears an admittedly ridiculous costume to protect his privacy (and his friends and family), as he struggles to live up to the code of honour, compassion, and human decency inculcated in him by his parents. Lex Luthor is a businessman first and foremost, a self-made son of Metropolis who truly loves the city as his home, and who has very valid philosophical reasons for wanting Superman as far away as possible. Lois Lane is the tomboyish black sheep of her family, who has struggled so hard to get away from her career-military father that she hasn't realized all the things she sacrificed.

Comic Superman has drama and character development and depth that no film or TV portrayal has ever managed to capture.

-----
We applied the cortical electrodes but were unable to get a neural reaction from either patient.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 21, 2010 6:26 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"...and yet here we all are discussing him. Perhaps the word you're seeking is that he is a 'frustrating' character/hero...?"

Hello,

Yes, perhaps it is the sense of wasted potential. He isn't just boring in these portrayals. He's less than he should be. There is a fundamental disconnect between me and anyone who enjoyed the Superman film (or the most recent), and I've never understood how to bridge the gulf.

"You never really have any sense that they'll die or be defeated. But that's kind of the point isn't it?"

Well, for me, at least a part of the enjoyment is when the writer finds ways to test that faith. Some of my favorite hero portrayals include stories where the hero loses in some way. Stories where victory- if achieved- is expensive, bloody, or painful. If not every time, then at least some of the time.

"From the soon to be published (cross yer fingers!) novel The Defenestrator by Kevin Haggerty:"

This sounds like a good piece of work that treats superheroes as people. I'll look for it when it comes out.

"Batman is boring. A rich vigilante that wallows in misery(as displayed in the last two movies). About as interesting as a tooth ache."

Well, inquiring minds will disagree. I enjoy that Batman's motivations are relatable. In most portrayals of Superman, his motivation is ill defined.

"I don't think Superman is a bad character at all, but poor writing can ruin anyone."

That may indeed be the case. I've been continuously dismayed about how the celebrated Superman films have treated the character. Perhaps a better writer would make all the difference. But in the absence of that better writer, I haven't been able to grasp the love for the film version.

"decides to take them to the top of a mountain and strand them there. It was implied that they would not/did not survive."

That would be an interesting story to see and explore, since it would add something profound to the character.

"Superman is interesting because he has all this power and yet he can't overcome his selfish nature."

That's interesting, because I never understood why Superman wasn't much more selfish. Something I wanted to see on Smallville but didn't get to see was a rebellious, selfish bastard who could do anything he wanted... and who learns through some event or series of events that he wants to live his life a different way. With the exception of some mind-altered/possession episodes, we saw a nearly flat character trajectory. Good restrained superkid becomes good restrained superman. It was a great disappointment to me.

"Comic Superman has drama and character development and depth that no film or TV portrayal has ever managed to capture."

It may be that I should abandon big and small screen portrayals and return to comic books. When I was a lad, comic books were entertaining but they usually weren't very good. They were either episodic or they were like soap operas, and any significant character development was usually undone with a magic reset button at the end of each episode or the end of a series. Are they really much better now? I keep hearing about witches or god-beings who wave their hands and cause all of reality to re-arrange itself. It sounds like the reset buttons have just gotten bigger. Is my perception off base? Should I pick up a comic again?

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews. I apologize for the inconvenience.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 21, 2010 6:47 AM

There are big bads like witches and god beings cluttering up the joint, and bad retconning/reboots, but a number of more recent reboots have tried to give flatter superheroes more depth and humanity.

There are mixed results.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DarkerAndEdgier

But, there has been some interest in improving the stories in comic books and redeeming the literary value of the medium. Frank Miller is pretty well known for good writing, though his work after Sin City is not considered very good, and Neil Gaiman is another favourite if you lean more towards human whimsy, mysticism, and mythology.

And, of course, there's also manga, which if you can get past the art style, translation issues, and weird crap like lolicon, hentai, and guro, they probably have some of the best comic book drama out there right now.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 21, 2010 7:32 AM

OPPYH

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
In most portrayals of Superman, his motivation is ill defined.

Considering his limitless power he has a few choices:

The choice to do good-which is noble, and helpful to mankind.

The choice to do evil-which is totally against the character of Kal-El.

The choice to not use his powers-which would be a waste. Doubt Clark Kent could live with himself if he didn't try to help our planet.

Doing the right thing is his motivation. Struggling between two identities is his plight(why couldn't he be Superman 24/7?).

----------------------------------------------------------------

70's TV FOREVER

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 21, 2010 8:00 AM

Tony, consider the end of Superman II (I prefer the Donner cut of it, but whatever): He can do ALL these amazing things, almost literally a God with all that power, yet he cannot have that which he wants most- Lois. By giving up his mortality, he gave up his chance to be with her. That quite a gorram tragic sacrifice IMO.

The Kryptonian Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 21, 2010 8:57 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"Doing the right thing is his motivation."

Hello,

Doing the right thing is less a motivation than the choice based on a motivation. He could, after all, do neither good nor evil. Or he could do both good and evil things. He could just be a guy, like the rest of us. Rich men have great power to shape the world, and many of them do neither good nor evil. They just live a life of leisure and pleasure. So why is Superman the way he is?

Spiderman learned that his apathy had a price. He lost loved ones due to a selfish point of view. So he feels compelled to do good as penance. Batman is motivated to do good out of a combination of suppressed vengeance and a desire to shut down the cycle that cost him his parents.

Superman is devoted to doing good because... I have to believe there was some formative event that channeled him into being who he is. Not just good, but lily-white.

"Tony, consider the end of Superman II (I prefer the Donner cut of it, but whatever): He can do ALL these amazing things, almost literally a God with all that power, yet he cannot have that which he wants most- Lois. By giving up his mortality, he gave up his chance to be with her. That quite a gorram tragic sacrifice IMO."

Superman II was, for this reason, a much better film than either the first or the most recent. It's also notable in that it's the only film where we see Superman taking revenge on someone. However, the choice he is forced to make comes off as a weak one, since it is never explained WHY he should have to make the choice. It's just stated he has to. And he agrees. The sequence is bizarre. Most ordinary people would say, "Oh, sure, I guess I have to give up Lois, aww shucks" and then they'd just have Lois anyway, without agreeing to strip themselves of their powers. Also, the mysterious memory erasure he uses later in the film was a magic reset button in the worst tradition of comics.

The most horrible Superman film (I think it was called The Quest For Peace) was also the most realistic from one standpoint. Superman steps up and owns his God role, stealing billions of dollars worth of hardware from the world's militaries and hurling it into the Sun. It's the first time we see Superman make the kind of moral choice you'd expect of an actual Superbeing who has elected to look after a population of contentious mortals. The movie could have been even better if we had seen the expected Military reaction to such an act. i.e. the Superpowers of the world start looking for a way to destroy Superman, considering him Public Enemy #1, and realizing he is essentially a dictator of the planet. If humans do something he doesn't like, he's prepared to step in and give them the proverbial smack-down. He's no longer enforcing laws, he's dictating a new reality to the subject race.

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews. I apologize for the inconvenience.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 21, 2010 9:02 AM

FARFLY

I've always liked Superman but only saw the first couple of movies, Smallville, and the original TV series. That they keep making movies and TV series about him and people keep watching indicates he must be interesting. My favorite quote about Superman comes from "Kill Bill".

"Bill: About two minutes, just long enough for me to finish my point. Now, a staple of the superhero mythology is, there's the superhero and there's the alter ego. Batman is actually Bruce Wayne, Spider-Man is actually Peter Parker. When that character wakes up in the morning, he's Peter Parker. He has to put on a costume to become Spider-Man. And it is in that characteristic Superman stands alone. Superman didn't become Superman. Superman was born Superman. When Superman wakes up in the morning, he's Superman. His alter ego is Clark Kent. His outfit with the big red "S", that's the blanket he was wrapped in as a baby when the Kents found him. Those are his clothes. What Kent wears - the glasses, the business suit - that's the costume. That's the costume Superman wears to blend in with us. Clark Kent is how Superman views us. And what are the characteristics of Clark Kent. He's weak... he's unsure of himself... he's a coward. Clark Kent is Superman's critique on the whole human race. Sorta like Beatrix Kiddo and Mrs. Tommy Plimpton.
The Bride: Aso. The point emerges.
Bill: You would've worn the costume of Arlene Plimpton. But you were born Beatrix Kiddo. And every morning when you woke up, you'd still be Beatrix Kiddo. Oh, you can take the needle out.
The Bride: [does so] Are you calling me a superhero?
Bill: I'm calling you a killer. A natural born killer. You always have been, and you always will be. Moving to El Paso, working in a used record store, goin' to the movies with Tommy, clipping coupons. That's you, trying to disguise yourself as a worker bee That's you tryin' to blend in with the hive. But you're not a worker bee. You're a renegade killer bee. And no matter how much beer you drank or barbecue you ate or how fat your ass got, nothing in the world would ever change that."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 21, 2010 9:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Also, the mysterious memory erasure he uses later in the film was a magic reset button in the worst tradition of comics.

The VERY reason I feel the Donner Cut is far superiour. No "kiss of forgetfulness." They part, with Lois crying & Superman saying that they will still see each other every day at the Planet.

However, you DO have to skip the two chapters with the time-travel redux they felt forced to include at the end for the sake of remaining true to the original script. Easily skipped with two presses of a button, and a near perfect film is made apparent.
Yeah, I liked the Paris stuff in the theatrical one (Removed in the Donner Cut), which is why I own both.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 21, 2010 9:27 AM

AKK! Kryptonite post!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 21, 2010 9:28 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"Easily skipped with two presses of a button, and a near perfect film is made apparent."

Hello Chris,

Well, yes, if I could re-edit the films I could make them superior. In fact, if I could re-edit the films, Lois would never have survived for part II.
This would have made the first film a near-perfect modern take on the Greek tragedy.

Farfly,

The Superman monologue in Kill Bill does a great job of explaining some level of appeal to the character concept as a critique on the human race. However, once one absorbs that critique, there's very little to be said for the character. "Superman shows us that people are weak, frightened creatures" is good for a one-off, and has value. But this isn't really further explored or plumbed beyond the initial existence of the Clark Kent persona.

Anyone,

Is it just me, or is Lex Luthor oddly obsessed with Real Estate ventures? He's a more interesting character than Superman, by virtue of being a villain, but his obsession with Real Estate really handicaps him, I think.

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews. I apologize for the inconvenience.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 21, 2010 9:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Well, yes, if I could re-edit the films I could make them superior. In fact, if I could re-edit the films, Lois would never have survived for part II.

You are working so hard at being dead to me...

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 21, 2010 9:47 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I'm sorry Chris. You know, if I didn't have such a strong tendency to get caught up in small details, I'd probably be a happier person. I lament that some otherwise excellent stories have been ruined for me by the botched execution of the climax. I feel that the most celebrated Superman movies all suffer from poorly written endings. It's like an orchestral piece that rises to a crescendo where every instrument falls to pieces before the ultimate triumphal notes can be played.

I have these same problems with other films that I want desperately to love, but who have climaxes that corrupt the satisfaction of the enterprise to the point of being, at best, a mildly pleasant diversion. This, handicapped further by my frustration that what *could* have been was so much better than what was.

However, if the movies are great to you, I am willing to believe that I am missing some important nuance, like a man with color-blindness trying to understand the full glory of the color pink... And failing. I just can't see what you see.

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews. I apologize for the inconvenience.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 21, 2010 9:54 AM

Quote:
Superman is devoted to doing good because... I have to believe there was some formative event that channeled him into being who he is. Not just good, but lily-white.

I agree with you that the lack of motivation and character depth IS an issue and does reduce how interesting the character is for a lot of people. But in time that Superman was created it wasn't seen as impossible for someone to just be RAISED with a helpful, wholesome moral outlook.

In fact, I suspect that superman was marketed to young boy scouts as a model of what they should try to be. Which is why he seems so over the top perfect, and why he doesn't NEED any formative event. I think the message that was trying to be conveyed is "look, kids, you can grow up to be a good person and help little old ladies across the street too!"

Although the superpower thing kind of mars the message, but I think we can agree that Superman had about as average an upbringing as possible, right?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 21, 2010 9:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

However, if the movies are great to you, I am willing to believe that I am missing some important nuance

Okay, I'll spoil it here: After the destruction of the Fortress of Solitude (in the Donner Cut), and Superman has acknowledged to Lois that they cannot be a "couple", a tearful Lois says "Don't ever forget."
The same line Clark's Mom said to him just before he left home in the first film.
I'm all tearin' up here just typing it, I'm such a sucker for that kind of connection in films.

*Runs off to find a carton of tissues*

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 21, 2010 10:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:

Although the superpower thing kind of mars the message

I believe the key to a good Superman story is locating & exploring his internal conflict (the ONLY good moment in Superman III); he really can't be permanently harmed, so any "fight" treated as "serious" is just lazy nonsense (see: The END of Superman III, btw).

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 21, 2010 10:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Cybersnark:
He is Clark Kent, an intelligent, courageous, and savvy guy who wears an admittedly ridiculous costume to protect his privacy

That's why I liked Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman so much. That Clark was very cool.

The Lois wasn't bad, either.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 21, 2010 10:35 AM

I've always liked the stories where everyone actually knows Clark Kent is Superman, but they're kind of just humouring him. It becomes an interesting question of just who he's performing for and why. And in that case the answer can only be himself, and what he wants to be is human, and normal. That's an interesting take on Superman.

Though by that interpretation, Lois Lane still doesn't get it, and must just be a complete idiot.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 21, 2010 10:38 AM

CYBERSNARK

Yeah, Lois and Clark got them right. Still didn't really love their version of Lex, though (but they were still closer than most).

"My" (post-Crisis) Lex is a self-made billionnaire, born in Metropolis, in Hobb's Bay (a.k.a. Suicide Slum), to a perpetually drunk mother and an absent father. He started out with nothing, and he earned every penny he's ever had. He built the Lexcorp business empire and turned Metropolis from a fading port city into one of the cleanest and most beautiful cities on Earth, and he did it with nothing more than blood, sweat, and tears.

And then Superman arrives.

-----
We applied the cortical electrodes but were unable to get a neural reaction from either patient.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 21, 2010 10:47 AM

THESOMNAMBULIST

Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Quote:

Yes, perhaps it is the sense of wasted potential. He isn't just boring in these portrayals. He's less than he should be. There is a fundamental disconnect between me and anyone who enjoyed the Superman film (or the most recent), and I've never understood how to bridge the gulf.

Well this is an argument that's kind of indefensible. I have it regularly with my best friend. See he thinks iRobot could have been a far better film and Will Smiths' character should have been much more than he was... But you need something to quantify such a remark. The reason being because your point could be attributed to a number of cinematic and comic book heros. Batman for one, the Hulk or dare I say it Harrison Ford in Blade Runner. They could all be said to be less than they should be... But how?

I think it boils down to a choice you either like or dislike. The disconnect you talk of I would suggest is nothing more than meer slight of opinion. I wasn't particularly taken with Singer's recent Superman effort either but I think it's a version of the character that is of it's time. For me I think I've fallen out of sync with current cinematic character preoccupations and so I guess I let it go. For example I'd rather sit and re-watch Adam Wests' interpretation of Batman, because I honestly think this brooding dark knight thing we have now with Batman has gone way over top. OK the guy lost his parents but for crying out loud, he's a grown man now. Get over it! It doesn't have that much endurance - at least not for me. And, in so much as trying to bridge the gulf - I don't think you can. I've never particularly got Bond. He's ok and stuff and he has some cool gadgets but really for the most part I just want his smarmy face kicked in!

Quote:
Well, for me, at least a part of the enjoyment is when the writer finds ways to test that faith. Some of my favorite hero portrayals include stories where the hero loses in some way. Stories where victory- if achieved- is expensive, bloody, or painful. If not every time, then at least some of the time.

Yes I agree. But do you not think you have that with Soop? I mean the guy regularly overlooks his own desires in order to save the human race. Not only once but several times, and everytime Soop just goes ahead and saves them. There's pain there for sure.... No?

Quote:
Well, inquiring minds will disagree. I enjoy that Batman's motivations are relatable. In most portrayals of Superman, his motivation is ill defined.

Soops motivation is to save humanity from itself. It's actually quite philosophical. Like Sisyphus rolling the stones up the hill only watch them role down again... This is Soops dilemna.

Quote:
That's interesting, because I never understood why Superman wasn't much more selfish. Something I wanted to see on Smallville but didn't get to see was a rebellious, selfish bastard who could do anything he wanted... and who learns through some event or series of events that he wants to live his life a different way. With the exception of some mind-altered/possession episodes, we saw a nearly flat character trajectory. Good restrained superkid becomes good restrained superman. It was a great disappointment to me.

Because when you can do anything you want ... you don't want to do it any more. Imagine if mount everest had steps leading all the way up. You think Sir Edmond Hilary would have bothered climbing the thing? Not a chance... No I think the greater more challenging thing to do is that which is hardest to achieve. That's where Superman has his motivation and his reason to be.

Quote:
Should I pick up a comic again?

Yes Asterix! Though those are probably not strickly comics. But they are great and very entertaining.

Nice chatting to you AnthonyT

By the way. What do you regard as worthy cinematic ventures..? Give me your top ten flicks. Let's see what we can see :P

Cartoons - http://cirqusartsandmusic.blogspot.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 21, 2010 11:00 AM

EVERYONE here should read THIS:

Man, it was great. Seriously.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 21, 2010 11:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by TheSomnambulist:
For example I'd rather sit and re-watch Adam Wests' interpretation of Batman, because I honestly think this brooding dark knight thing we have now with Batman has gone way over top.

I really enjoy Clooney's Batman & Robin, myself.
Call me foolish, call me irresponsible...

Without versimilitude, all superhero movies go too stupid or too serious.
The best 3 superhero movies that employ versimilitude are, IMO:

Iron Man
Superman : The Movie
Legend Of Zorro

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 21, 2010 12:41 PM

http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,1542018_2,00.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 21, 2010 2:23 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"By the way. What do you regard as worthy cinematic ventures..? Give me your top ten flicks. Let's see what we can see :P"

Hello,

It's always an excruciating process to come up with a top ten list. I can list some films that I thought were very good, though.

Action/Adventure
_____________________

Die Hard: I thought the first Die Hard film was very good. The idea of a lone, poorly equipped off-duty officer out-thinking and out-fighting several amply equipped, prepared, and hardened criminals/mercenaries is frankly unbelievable. However, the movie sells it to us. We can see the character's wheels turn, we can see his narrow victories and escapes, and we can feel his pain as he is progressively ground up throughout the film. Finally, by giving us a really intelligent villain, the hero seems very bright as well. This was one of the first movies I ever saw that realized that the strength of the villain adds to the strength of the hero that defeats him. Hans is a great villain, and so Mcclaine (sp) seems like a great hero.

Indiana Jones 1-3: Highly entertaining romps that enjoy a dalliance with the supernatural. The movies are aware enough of their own occasional sillyness to wink at us and invite us along for the ride. Outside of supernatural events, nothing portrayed is so flatly, mind bogglingly impossible as to toss us out of our immersion. Good fun all around.

Thrillers/Mysteries
_____________________

The Usual Suspects: I will never forget the feeling I had in the last few minutes of the film, when the thread in the tapestry of lies became apparent, and a sub-par cripple transformed into an unparalleled criminal mastermind. An excellent use of the Unreliable Narrator.

Memento: By revealing things backwards, we are left to experience the continuous sense of disconnect that the main character feels. The film invites us to participate in the mystery of what is going on rather then simply observe it. The final reveals are very satisfying.

Western
__________

Unforgiven: The movie deconstructs the glamour and myth of the Wild West while providing us three-dimensional characters and a resolution that feels right. I'm not sure Deadwood could ever have existed if not for Unforgiven. Because of Unforgiven, a new kind of Western story became possible. Some people dislike it for the same reason I love it.

Superheroes
______________

Spider Man: I love Superheroes and Superhero stories, but the Spider Man movie with Mr. Mcguire (sp?) has, in my opinion, the best superhero origin story. I don't mean the stuff about the spider bite. I mean what happens after. In a stable mind, Anger fades. Spiderman is not a broken vigilante like Punisher or Batman. He needed a different motivator suitable to his nature and age. The Dangers of Apathy and Greed are his origin story, and so his superhero motivation becomes a formative life lesson and personality trait rather than a mere traumatic incident that shattered his psyche. Someone didn't do something to Spiderman to make him Spiderman. He made choices for himself, choices he deeply regretted. That's the best reason for becoming a Hero I've seen. The stuff with the Green Goblin was so-so and incidental. I like Spider Man for it's remarkable origin story. Spider Man is also one of the more relatable heroes because he has job trouble and girl trouble just like us normal folks.

Watchmen: I read the comic before the movie, but the movie was about as faithful a rendition of the comic as you could hope for. What would real people be like as Heroes? They'd be as messed up as the rest of us. What would a real Superman be like? Increasingly distant and detached from his charges, concerned with things beyond this flimsy existence. What would a real supervillain be like? Not someone who does evil for its own sake, or gets money for its own sake, or gathers power for its own sake. Add into this moral choices that are not easy to resolve. Not a perfect superhero tale, but a relatively unique one that holds a special place in my heart.

Sci-Fi
________________

Bicentennial Man: I'm probably one of five guys on Earth who liked this movie. I also read the short story and novel. A good tale of a thinking machine's quest to become a fully accepted peer of humanity. He demonstrated free will and he contributed to society in myriad ways. In the end, we couldn't stomach him unless he was stripped of everything that made him different than us. This required him to die. A good commentary on humanity.

The Wrath of Khan: Mostly on here because I'm a Trekkie. But the film is also the deconstruction of a Hero. Kirk makes mistakes here and people pay for it. He himself endures a deep, personal loss. This movie takes the character from a 2D 'I win because I'm cool' hero and makes him into a 3 Dimensional entity. This film's events also carry forward to influence his future in a way that few other events ever have. ST III gives us a magic reset button on some of this, but it puts something on the sacrificial altar so that retrieving Spock is at least a 2 for 1 deal. (Lose two things you love in order to get one back.) The villain in this movie is intelligent and capable, despite making some classic supervillain mistakes. I'm prepared to forgive them because of the strong literary allusions to Moby Dick and Paradise Lost. Khan is Ahab and Satan, and must personify all of their obsession and tragedy along with their strengths.

Musicals
_____________

The Sound of Music: I'm hard-pressed to quantify why I really like The Sound of Music while I really dislike South Pacific. The story isn't very innovative. I am a sucker for Romance, though, and the music was catchy and energetic for the most part. I really, really don't like South Pacific. There is a mind block that keeps me from understanding why.

A Chorus Line: A theatrical director interviews a bunch of hopefuls. They are nobodies. Hardly important. Normally, when interviewing someone for a job, there is no big psychological interaction. These aren't people. They are potential people if they get hired and happen to work with you. Otherwise, they are just unrealized people. Except these people are each given a story, a tale of triumph or woe. They each become a person. This made a job interview interesting enough to become a movie. Maybe I like this film because of that simple achievement. It's a frickin' job interview, and I enjoyed it.

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews. I apologize for the inconvenience.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 21, 2010 2:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Watchmen: I read the comic before the movie, but the movie was about as faithful a rendition of the comic as you could hope for. What would real people be like as Heroes? They'd be as messed up as the rest of us. What would a real Superman be like? Increasingly distant and detached from his charges, concerned with things beyond this flimsy existence. What would a real supervillain be like? Not someone who does evil for its own sake, or gets money for its own sake, or gathers power for its own sake. Add into this moral choices that are not easy to resolve.

Wow, totally on the same page here!!!

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 21, 2010 3:03 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello Chris,

See, I'm not completely evil. ;-)

By the way, any discussion of Watchmen deserves some mention of Kick Ass, because I see the latter film to be the child of the former film. Like all children, it's far from a carbon copy, but it owes some of itself to the parent.

While Kick Ass doesn't make my 'top' list, it was still good. I really liked something it did.

As I see it, there are two universes in Kick Ass. The first universe you could call the 'Real' Universe. What would happen if a regular kid just decided to fight crime? Pain. And lots of it. Accompanied by a healthy helping of marginal/mixed results.

At the same time, we have a firm Superhero Universe. Hit Girl and Big Daddy are classic superheroes from the Punisher mold. Incredibly adept and pretty much untouchable. The film suggests a healthy history of success in their crimefighting based on the amount of money and resources they have accumulated. Hit girl is just now being brought in like Robin to Batman (nice view on how horrible that is, btw) but Big Daddy at least has been going around and doing this for a little while.

In the middle of the film, there is a collision of Universes. When the two Universes collide during the Apartment Fight Scene, each Universe contaminates the other. Kick Ass's real-world vulnerabilities leak onto the True Superheroes, making them mortal. Meanwhile, the True Superheroes' rediculous ability and exploits leak onto Kick Ass. This results in the final scenes where Big Daddy dies, Hit Girl gets hurt, and Kick Ass swoops in to save the day in over-the-top fashion.

It's more than just a youthful retread of Watchmen's superhero deconstruction. It's practically a sci-fi piece about two alternate realities that come crashing together.

I may be digging deeper than the creator intended, but the stark difference between the first and second halves speak strongly to me that it isn't just a U-turn. I think it's intentional that the two groups of characters contaminate each other's worlds. With this viewpoint, Hit Girl's comment that her father is dead because of Kick Ass is particularly poignant. If he hadn't entered their universe, they'd still be invincible vigilantes.

Of course, unspoken by Hit Girl is the dirtier truth. She sought out Kick Ass. On some level, she wanted something outside her crazy Superhero universe. She wanted to reach out to something Real, and Kick Ass' aspirations made him close enough to touch. Sadly, breaking the bubble of her world condemned her own father to death so that she could have a chance at a new life.

It also destroyed the Real Universe forever. While she may try to live a normal life, the two Universes continue to mix in the background. This will doubtless lead to more pain and tragedy for everyone in a future sequel, as the Real World's capacity for Loss is now permanently mixed with the Superhero Universe's amazing antics. Normal people are becoming superheroes and villains as the metaphorical Luis and Clark, pioneers of a new mixed universe, try to rediscover Paradise.

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews. I apologize for the inconvenience.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 21, 2010 3:11 PM

Thanks dude, that's the review of Kick Ass I've been waiting for- I will definitely see it now!

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 21, 2010 3:38 PM

Superman: The Movie- a near perfect superhero film.

Superman II- deeply flawed due to initial incompletion & director changes, yet a very nearly perfect film exists in the netherworld between the theatrical & Donner Cut, if you can edit in your mind (or DVD player).

Superman III- Nice-looking garbage with a couple of good scenes involving Lana & dark Supes.

Superman IV- Bad-looking garbage with a nice scene at the UN.

Superman Returns- nice-looking garbage with some good dialogue & bullet-hitting-eye scenes.

Superman: Doomsday- near perfect Superman movie in animated format.

Superman: Last Son (graphic novel)- as good as it gets, in any medium (IMO).

The SuperChrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 21, 2010 7:27 PM

OPPYH

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:

Superman II- deeply flawed due to initial incompletion & director changes, yet a very nearly perfect film exists in the netherworld between the theatrical & Donner Cut, if you can edit in your mind (or DVD player).

Wow! No edits necessary for me, The Lester version blows the Donner cut out of the water. I watched it in the theater twice, and enjoyed it immensely.
I'd take the magic kiss any day over Lois jumping out of a window and Clark using his super breath to cushion her fall. UGH!!!

Superman the Movie-Perfect

Superman 2(Lester version)-Near perfect

Superman 2(Donner cut)-Like one big deleted scene.
I mean I thought this version was going to be the definitive(all Donner's footage included). It wasn't. There are still scenes missing that aired on the ABC broadcast premiere.

----------------------------------------------------------------

70's TV FOREVER

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 22, 2010 2:32 AM

THESOMNAMBULIST

Hey AnthonyT

Interesting list.

I like your take on Die Hard. It's a cracking action film!
Indian Jones - well you'll get no arguement from me I adore those films. For pretty much the reasons you mention too.

While I enjoyed both Usual Suspects and Memento I don't think I could say they really stuck with me. Usual suspects had a cracking ending yes, but I must admit the build up seemed plodding and laboured. But it is a great film. Just not a repeat viewing. Memento is the same. Once was enough and while I enjoyed the concept I must say I tired of the structure by mid way and just wanted the end to happen. But both are well made no doubt.

As for the others on the list. Yeah all's fair I must say. I didn't like Watchmen though and I too had read the graphic novel. Just not one of those films that didn't grab me (but I think by them I had just become weary of Superhero films) Patrick Wilson though is brilliant. A great actor.

The strangest mention though is Bicentennial Man. Not that I've seen it it's just one of those films that you rarely hear about. Interesting....

Cool

Cartoons - http://cirqusartsandmusic.blogspot.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 22, 2010 4:11 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"it's just one of those films that you rarely hear about."

Hello,

It's got Robin Williams in it, and the Marketing Boys billed it as a comedy.

So the fans of Asimov typically gave it a pass, in disgust.

The Robin Williams fans went to see it, looking for a comedy.

And they left, confused and disappointed, because there were few laughs.

I wasn't lying when I said I'm one of five dudes who liked the thing. I lament it didn't get more attention. The only critique I have of the movie is that it omitted a particularly powerful scene from the book, probably to be more family friendly.

But taken for itself? I really, really like it. It remains the only true-to-form big budget adaptation of Isaac Asimov's writings. I, Robot was, by contrast... well, it may have shared the same Universe as Asimov's stuff, but little of the same story.

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews. I apologize for the inconvenience.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 22, 2010 4:29 AM

CYBERSNARK

Gotta agree on Bicentennial Man. I'm apparently one of the other four.

-----
We applied the cortical electrodes but were unable to get a neural reaction from either patient.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 22, 2010 8:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by OPPYH:

Wow! No edits necessary for me, The Lester version blows the Donner cut out of the water. I watched it in the theater twice, and enjoyed it immensely.
I'd take the magic kiss any day over Lois jumping out of a window and Clark using his super breath to cushion her fall. UGH!!!

Truth to tell, most times I watch the Lester version until about the scene where they get to the Fortress, then switch to the Donner Cut.
Then I add in the Arctic Police from deleted scenes, then switch back to the Lester version to see Superman deliver the flag to the President.
It's actually a LOT easier than it sounds with my 2 DVD players.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 22, 2010 8:30 AM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:

Superman II- deeply flawed due to initial incompletion & director changes, yet a very nearly perfect film exists in the netherworld between the theatrical & Donner Cut, if you can edit in your mind (or DVD player).

Or just download the Hybrid version online, which nicely combines the best of both cuts.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 22, 2010 8:32 AM