Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 163
  1. #16
    Fabulous GreenComixEnvy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    The Land of Oz
    Posts
    2,288

    Default

    So essentially this person hates Superman.

  2. #17
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    221B Baker Street
    Posts
    18,005

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Namtab View Post
    Thanks for linking to the article... now I'll know to skip over anything from io9' in the future.
    i09 always has really dumb articles. Even when I agree with them, I find them to be really superficial and pseudo intellectual/clever.

  3. #18

    Default

    Really, nobody here recognizes irony or satire? It's perfectly clear to me that the point of the article is that none of those things ruined Superman: that he's survived fundamental changes to his powers/concept (flying, Electric Blue), terrible movies (III, IV, Returns), terrible comic stories (Grounded, Sleez), and terrible, regrettable costume changes (Electric Blue, mullet) over and over again. None of the current controversies or missteps (kissing Wonder Woman, quitting the Planet, ditching the trunks, Scott Lobdell, Man of Steel) will ruin him either.

  4. #19
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    221B Baker Street
    Posts
    18,005

    Default

    You're giving them way too much credit. That irony if anything is why the article is hilarious.

  5. #20
    I caught you red-handed Wild_Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,082

    Default



    What is this attacked called?

  6. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,093

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rithmomachy View Post
    Really, nobody here recognizes irony or satire? It's perfectly clear to me that the point of the article is that none of those things ruined Superman: that he's survived fundamental changes to his powers/concept (flying, Electric Blue), terrible movies (III, IV, Returns), terrible comic stories (Grounded, Sleez), and terrible, regrettable costume changes (Electric Blue, mullet) over and over again. None of the current controversies or missteps (kissing Wonder Woman, quitting the Planet, ditching the trunks, Scott Lobdell, Man of Steel) will ruin him either.
    The idea that new things to evolve the character can be misteps is really dumb.

  7. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wild_Child View Post


    What is this attacked called?
    Say hello to my little friend.
    People who chime in on vs. threads with "I don't like Superman at all, but he'd win.", STOP HELPING! Superman doesn't need your damning him with faint praise, thank you.

  8. #23
    Cavilling Metropolitan Self-DCeit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    2,160

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rithmomachy View Post
    Really, nobody here recognizes irony or satire?
    Like Mr. Holmes said, you're giving them waaaaaay too much credit.

    Also, why does the author speak about "retcons" when listing things from the new continuity...?

  9. #24

    Default

    The only thing that has ruined Superman were those assholes who frequently try to "fix" Superman and tell everyone how stupid he is. He's pretty much the only character were you hear that stuff all the time.

    I'd rather have people go forward with him and embrace the fact that he works in different ways. As a sci-fi hero, a mythological hero even as a method to explore philosophical concepts..

  10. #25

    Default

    I hate to break to you fellow Superman fans but...

    This article is actually right. Or at the very least, if you kept an open mind, you would see it actually makes very strong points:

    1. I do happen to like the fact that Superman can fly just as much as the next person, so I disagree that him being able to fly is a bad thing. However, the author does have a point in saying that it also opened the door for various Superman writers to add additional powers which made him into a virtual demigod and made challenges too easy. This, unfortunately, has been one of the things which not labels Superman "boring" but is also become too much a challenge for his writers, hence why they're always looking for ways to reduce his power levels or give him weaknesses.

    2. Not that the author is NOT saying Lois Lane being Superman's love interest is bad; rather, he's talking about the way their relationship had been depicted for so many years, with Lois trying to trick him into marriage and Superman acting like a complete jerk to stymie her efforts. In short, he's talking about "Superdickery."

    3. Pretty much the same exact point as #1, which, I do agree is superfluous.

    4. Again, the author is pointing out the obvious: Superman is the public figure, not the "mild-mannered" Clark Kent, and being a TV news anchor offers less freedom to slip away as opposed to being a reporter does.

    5. He's also stating the obvious here: Superman III and IV are considered the low points of the Chirstopher Reeve Superman films to the point that Superman Returns didn't even consider them canon.

    6. Again, he's stating the obvious here: the "Sleez" story is considered one of the worst Superman stories ever penned and low point for John Byrne. However, this story was also ignored and, thanks to the New 52, is no longer in continuity, so thank goodness for that.

    7. Yes, the Death and Rebirth of Superman is considered one of the more monumental moments in Superman history, but as the article points out, and especially the Max Landis' film short which the article links to, it had the negative effect of cheapening death in comics, especially since it paved the way for both DC and Marvel to temporarily kill off their bigger headline superheroes, only to then bring them back in a couple of months or less. And how many of the folks on these very message boards complained about this exact same thing?

    8. I agree, this was just silly, but the "super-mullet" and the "Electric-Blue Superman" were pretty bad looks for him.

    9. The main point he seems to be making about Smallville here is that it over-exhausted it's premise of "the adventures of young Clark Kent before becomes Superman" to the point where it lost all meaning. Yes, it was a popular hit show, but it also meant the show creators had to keep coming up with all sorts of ways to keep it going to where it started becoming stale as time went on.

    10. Again, he's just pointing out the obvious, specifically the major flaw of Superman Returns--that it not only meant Superman abandoned Earth which he promised to never do, but it also made him into a creepy stalker and a dead-beat dad to boot. Why else would Warner Brothers want to reboot the Superman movie franchise yet again shortly afterwards?

    11. Here his larger point is all the gimmicks that writers have made to try and make Superman more "cool" and "relevant" to contemporary times, which end up doing the exact opposite and highlight stuff like "Superman walking across America" or "Clark quits to become a blogger" as the gimmicks they really are.

    12. I know some Superman/Wonder Woman shippers hate to hear this, but the writer is absolutely correct when he says "When you've got a character who can juggle black holes while memorizing every book ever written, you know, it's not a bad idea for him to have strong relationships with ordinary humans." One thing he doesn't add is that it also is detrimental to Wonder Woman, since it reduces a character who is supposed to be a independent superhero in her own right with her own separate mythos by merely defining her as "Superman's sexy sidekick" or "Superman's current lover."
    Blog: Yes, I Am STILL a Nerd!

    Don't ever take a fence down until you know the reason why it was put up.--G.K. Chesterton

  11. #26
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    221B Baker Street
    Posts
    18,005

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stillanerd View Post
    I hate to break to you fellow Superman fans but...

    This article is actually right. Or at the very least, if you kept an open mind, you would see it actually makes very strong points:
    No it doesn't. Nobody is saying those are all high points in the characters' history (some are better/worse than the others). Those things are not what "ruined" the character or did long term damage. The closest thing the article has to a point is in Death of Superman, but that was detrimental to the industry and the speculator's bubble, not the fictional character himself.

    And regurgitating what the article says doesn't make it more valid.

  12. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    1,805

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Holmes View Post
    What ruined the character:

    - CCA: Censoring the character from antiestablishment to pro-establishment (as Miller satirized in DKR)
    - Multiple hard and soft reboots making continuity irreconcilable.
    - Nostalgia-driven writing in the last 10 year

    I agree with these points, especially the first one. I see that as an affect of the code. I also see the Superdickery stuff in Lois Lane's title as a result of it. Basically I think Superman's problem as a character is having a rough time escaping the Silver Age, which is pretty connected to your last point.

  13. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Holmes View Post
    No it doesn't. Nobody is saying those are all high points in the characters' history (some are better/worse than the others). Those things are not what "ruined" the character or did long term damage. The closest thing the article has to a point is in Death of Superman, but that was detrimental to the industry and the speculator's bubble, not the fictional character himself.

    And regurgitating what the article says doesn't make it more valid.
    Okay, first of all, which points did the article make that were considered invalid? The fact that writers kept giving Superman more and more powers? The many years of Superdickery? Superman III and IV which pretty much killed the movie franchise for years, and then Superman Returns being a failed attempt at reinvigorating it? You yourself just pointed out how the Death of Superman was detrimental to the industry which was exactly the point the article was making.

    And the reason why I "regurgitated" the points the article made was because some seemed to have too quickly dismissed what the article was talking about, saying "Oh, what he wrote was stupid" and didn't seem to examine closely what was actually being said. Just because you disagree with someone's argument doesn't make it necessarily invalid.
    Blog: Yes, I Am STILL a Nerd!

    Don't ever take a fence down until you know the reason why it was put up.--G.K. Chesterton

  14. #29
    Veteran Member Sacred Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    7,547

    Default

    I may be a Superman fan but I'm not so stubborn that I can't go into any critical piece about the character without an open mind. I just find this one to be poorly constructed, with poor points and poor explanations. If it were a satirical read it'd be funny, but I didn't come away feeling it was a purposely satirical article.

    The character's appeal has taken a hit in modern days. And there are indeed reasons for that. But the article in my opinion hits on on none of those, instead, like I said before, it seems to just be picking and choosing landmark moments of the character's existence and putting a negative spin on it. Which in of itself is fine but still doesn't fit the theme of hurting the character's appeal. Hell, some entries, like Smallville, actually reinvigorated the appeal of the mythos to a new audience.
    Last edited by Sacred Knight; 02-02-2013 at 02:56 PM.

  15. #30
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    221B Baker Street
    Posts
    18,005

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stillanerd View Post
    Okay, first of all, which points did the article make that were considered invalid? The fact that writers kept giving Superman more and more powers? The many years of Superdickery? Superman III and IV which pretty much killed the movie franchise for years, and then Superman Returns being a failed attempt at reinvigorating it?
    Invalid in what sense? Some people liked those things and others didn't. That it "ruined Superman" is pretentious and superficial analysis at best.

    You yourself just pointed out how the Death of Superman was detrimental to the industry which was exactly the point the article was making.
    And it's a completely different point from the article's headline.

    And the reason why I "regurgitated" the points the article made was because some seemed to have too quickly dismissed what the article was talking about, saying "Oh, what he wrote was stupid" and didn't seem to examine closely what was actually being said. Just because you disagree with someone's argument doesn't make it necessarily invalid.
    Nope, it's possible to have read the article before knowing how dumb it is.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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