Support NeoGAF

[sweetvar26]

Yup. It's on the Tonight Show site.

Damnit, it doesn't work in Canada.

 

[callmedave]

Right, so my previous request. Can anyone please do it?

Here ya go.

 

[MisterHero]

This is complete bullshit. Explanations for how things work are vital to making a coherent story. In the case of Superman, there isn't really a good explanation for how his physiology works, so it's better to spend time on other things instead of futilely trying to do the impossible, but that doesn't mean that if there was a reasonable explanation, it should be ignored or rejected, and more mundane things like the Batmobile's tires are easily explained (he has Alfred do it, or he does it himself, or he has a computer do it). "It's a story" isn't a reason to not do it.

The Superman mythos presents its own logic system. The original Kryptonians were super-advanced humans who were stronger and smarter than any current human. Under a yellow sun those attributes are multiplied.

Indestructibility is a metaphor for Supes's convictions. X-ray vision is a metaphor for him "seeing the truth". They aren't meant to be interpreted scientifically.

It becomes an issue when later stories contradict them without reason. The general logic stands though; the longer Superman lives on Earth, the more powerful he gets. He can even fly into the sun to supercharge his powers (a "sundip").

Here ya go.
http://i.minus.com/iiZiqqq9GeziH.gif

YES.

 

[Toa TAK]

I agree with that, but that is not what Morrison does. I'll go into this more when I reread All Star and write a review on it, but Morrison likes to throw the most absurd shit at the reader and just expects them to go with it without any kind of explanation. I really hate that kind of storytelling.

I get you there. For me personally, it depends on the story that's being told. If the world drives the story and characters there should be some decent explanation (like Star Trek) but if it's some sort of fantastical world or characters, then it won't matter how things work, but how these characters develop throughout the narrative.

If that makes sense.

Here ya go.
http://i.minus.com/iiZiqqq9GeziH.gif[IMG][/QUOTE]
Perfection.

 

[NotTheGuyYouKill]

Here ya go.

LOL.

Thanks man.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

You can write a decent explanation of who pumps Batman's tires, but he apparently considers that as inexplicable as Superman's flight.

You could, yeah - but who would want to read it? Not that many people. And how many people would like it if you stopped down in the middle of say, The Long Halloween, or The Dark Knight, to give a 1-page or 2-minute sidebar explaining how the Batmobile's tires got filled.

That's more what he's getting at. He's talking about people who leave a movie trying to figure out the myriad ways they can prove to others that they're smarter than the film. And with a lot of films - there are indeed myriad ways to show others that the movie is lacking some intelligence.

But is that really the point of having stories told to you? To essentially DEFEAT them in a battle of wits?

Morrison seems to be arguing more that there are some questions that probably just aren't worth asking in the face of what the story is really trying to do, the direction it's trying to head.

Yeah, Morrison is a fucking weirdo. I didn't like Final Crisis at all. Sometimes he crawls way up his own technicolor sphincter and the pages that come flying out might as well be tabs of psylocibin. But I agree that sometimes, mining for detail discrepancies is missing the point of why the story is even being told in the first place, and I think that's more what he's getting at.

 

[Can Crusher]

Wasn't he the one who wrote Superman coming up with a superman serum and giving it to Lois Lane so she could feel like superman for one day?

But I agree that sometimes, mining for detail discrepancies is missing the point of why the story is even being told in the first place, and I think that's more what he's getting at.

I agree with this too. Batman's tires would fit. His powers really don't though.

 

[Veelk]

The Superman mythos presents its own logic system. The original Kryptonians were super-advanced humans who were stronger and smarter than any current human. Under a yellow sun those attributes are multiplied.

Indestructibility is a metaphor for Supes's convictions. X-ray vision is a metaphor for him "seeing the truth". They aren't meant to be interpreted scientifically.

It becomes an issue when later stories contradict them without reason. The general logic stands though; the longer Superman lives on Earth, the more powerful he gets. He can even fly into the sun to supercharge his powers (a "sundip").

It doesn't necessitate a scientific explanation, but it does require an inuniverse explanation. And you can't provide one, then just leave it a mystery. A good example is how Clark repeatedly wondered how his powers make no sense (he can hear soundwaves before they reach his ears) in Secret Identity. But to say it doesn't matter or 'it's just a story' is idiotic. It matters and especially so when its not dealing with inexplicable things. And besides, like you said, other stories have contradicted even the logic that you present, so it's a void explanation regardless.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

And you can't provide one, then just leave it a mystery. A good example is how Clark repeatedly wondered how his powers make no sense (he can hear soundwaves before they reach his ears) in Secret Identity. But to say it doesn't matter or 'it's just a story' is idiotic.

But what you just described is essentially two sides of the same coin. Busiek couldn't come up with a reason why his powers made no real world sense - so he didn't. He, as a storyteller, is basically telling you, as a reader "it doesn't matter." Because if it did - he'd have come up with some pseudo-science to explain it.

Busiek & Morrison are essentially on the same page so far as that goes. Busiek in Secret Identity merely went to the extra step of having the character ASK the question on the behalf of the reader, only to arrive at the same answer, which is "Shrug. Dunno. Moving on."

Morrison just never asks the question in the text, and figures you'll just shrug & move on because you recognize the question you're asking doesn't really matter so far as the story's importance goes.

 

[Rastafarian42]

I most likely would mind, unless it's handled properly.

Just downloaded this from Comixology I'm gonna save for the Man of Steel Midnight release =).

 

[Veelk]

You could, yeah - but who would want to read it? Not that many people. And how many people would like it if you stopped down in the middle of say, The Long Halloween, or The Dark Knight, to give a 1-page or 2-minute sidebar explaining how the Batmobile's tires got filled.

That's more what he's getting at. He's talking about people who leave a movie trying to figure out the myriad ways they can prove to others that they're smarter than the film. And with a lot of films - there are indeed myriad ways to show others that the movie is lacking some intelligence.

But is that really the point of having stories told to you? To essentially DEFEAT them in a battle of wits?

Morrison seems to be arguing more that there are some questions that probably just aren't worth asking in the face of what the story is really trying to do, the direction it's trying to head.

Yeah, Morrison is a fucking weirdo. I didn't like Final Crisis at all. Sometimes he crawls way up his own technicolor sphincter and the pages that come flying out might as well be tabs of psylocibin. But I agree that sometimes, mining for detail discrepancies is missing the point of why the story is even being told in the first place, and I think that's more what he's getting at.

A good enough writer can write a story about paint drying and make it the most fascinating thing in the world. A story about how Batman has to manage the little things in his life could easily be interesting if written by someone talented enough.

But to be clear, I do agree with him to the extent that the point of stories isn't ultimately to slavishly adhere to reality. And stories, by nature, aren't a restatement of every little thing a person does. I mean, I assume that Batman goes to the bathroom at some points, but as far as I know, we've never seen him have to take a dump. And we don't see that because it's not the important part of what he's doing right now. However, I disagree that Morrison means something other than what he says in that quote. I think he is saying that these questions are so irrelevant that they don't warrant any thought at all, when they are not. Not at all.

But what you just described is essentially two sides of the same coin. Busiek couldn't come up with a reason why his powers made no real world sense - so he didn't. He, as a storyteller, is basically telling you, as a reader "it doesn't matter." Because if it did - he'd have come up with some pseudo-science to explain it.

Busiek & Morrison are essentially on the same page so far as that goes. Busiek in Secret Identity merely went to the extra step of having the character ASK the question on the behalf of the reader, only to arrive at the same answer, which is "Shrug. Dunno. Moving on."

Morrison just never asks the question in the text, and figures you'll just shrug & move on because you recognize the question you're asking doesn't really matter so far as the story's importance goes.

No, the difference is that one says "There is an explanation, but I can't figure it out" and the other just says "Shut the fuck up". Morrison just revels in being incomprehensible while Busiek atleast considers it an interesting point to think on. In that exact quote, he calls people who think about such things idiots.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

Wasn't he the one who wrote Superman coming up with a superman serum and giving it to Lois Lane so she could feel like superman for one day?



I agree with this too. Batman's tires would fit. His powers really don't though.

The powers thing is a side-effect from editors not letting the character have a natural ending (why would they) and writers having to come up with quick, gimmicky ways to make the character interesting. So for most of the 40s/50s/60s, that gimmick was "give him a new power!"

Because comics are so rooted in continuity/history, and sticking to that continuity is of utmost importance for a lot of editors/readers, even AFTER some reboots, they still adhere to a lot of powers that honestly don't fit with the guy anymore.

Morrison's All-Star Superman works with the introduction of a LOT of goofy silver-age powers because his story has a finite end. It has 12 issues, it's not beholden to any continuity (although it still pays homage to it) and then it ends. If the character had to go on and on with the power-set that Morrison gives him, it would...

...well, it'd probably look like a large chunk of the comics from the Silver & Bronze age. Which were fucking ridiculous and often very bad.

Man of Steel is interesting because it is very much starting a completely new, completely different continuity. We'll see what powers it introduces, how vulnerable/invulnerable they make the guy, how far they're willing to advance him - because this too has a finite end. Once they've exhausted Cavill/Snyder/Goyer - they'll start over.

No, the difference is that one says "There is an explanation, but I can't figure it out" and the other just says "Shut the fuck up". Morrison just revels in being incomprehensible while Busiek atleast considers it an interesting point to think on.

I feel the difference between those two takes is razor-thin, though. Either way, the writer doesn't believe the question is important enough to devote time to it in that story, for that story's purposes. There are differences in how they handle it, yeah, but ultimately - the detail you're asking about is irrelevant to what they're trying to do, storywise. So the detail is waved off. Busiek does it differently than Morrison, but they're both handwaving that detail away. Or rather, Morrison asks the audience to handwave it away on their own, Busiek tells the audience "fuck it, it's not that important. C'mere, lets look at this instead."

Again - Morrison's talking about smaller details like "who pumps Batman's tires" in the text of a story that is about way more than just "Who pumps Batman's tires." He's not talking about stories where we fully focus on the guy who pumps Batman's tires. That would be a completely different example. That's some Rosencrantz & Guildenstern shit right there, and that isn't what Morrison's quote is getting at.

 

[shira]

I do think that Superman

Spoiler

not killing is a large part of his character, much like Batman,

but in the case of the context of Man of Steel, I don't see Zod

Spoiler

being realistically contained. He's way too powerful to be locked up in most places and he already escaped from the Phantom Zone. And even if he could be put back there, I would argue that the Phantom Zone is a harsher punishment than death. Eternally being able to observe the universe but never interact with it is basically sensory deprivation for the skin. Anyone would go insane in a matter of hours, let alone years that he must have spent in there. It isn't humane and I would easily take death over that.

Superman really should be thoughtful about when

Spoiler

he chooses to kill though

. It should weigh heavily on him, even if it's justified.

Spoiler thread is up.
http://m.neogaf.com/showthread.php?t=579493&page=1

 

[MisterHero]

It doesn't necessitate a scientific explanation, but it does require an inuniverse explanation. And you can't provide one, then just leave it a mystery. A good example is how Clark repeatedly wondered how his powers make no sense (he can hear soundwaves before they reach his ears) in Secret Identity. But to say it doesn't matter or 'it's just a story' is idiotic. It matters and especially so when its not dealing with inexplicable things. And besides, like you said, other stories have contradicted even the logic that you present, so it's a void explanation regardless.

I agree, definitely. I think great that they're taking time to reinforce Superman's science fiction background, so we don't have to refer to the "It's comic books!" explanation everytime. We can have easy-to-follow adventures rather than situations leaving us to ask what happened. It might be likened to the Star Trek's jump from pure scifi to scifi military dramas.

For what it's worth, Morrison's first Action Comics arc in New 52 is an excellent down-to-Earth Superman story. He fights Brainiac even in his 1938 power levels.

He goes all out in the next arc, but it's not for everyone. He plays with the formatting and stuff that would only appeal to a longtime reader.* At least the backups with Krypto, etc. are nice.

*Another Star Trek comparison- it's a lot like "...All Good Things" told over a year or so.

 

[Ahasverus]

Welp Superman versus the Elite is boooring

 

[Sanjuro]

I hope this film has a scene where Superman is in the hospital hooked up to machines.

**crosses fingers**

 

[Raptor]

:O

 

[Veelk]

I feel the difference between those two takes is razor-thin, though. Either way, the writer doesn't believe the question is important enough to devote time to it in that story, for that story's purposes. There are differences in how they handle it, yeah, but ultimately - the detail you're asking about is irrelevant to what they're trying to do, storywise. So the detail is waved off. Busiek does it differently than Morrison, but they're both handwaving that detail away. Or rather, Morrison asks the audience to handwave it away on their own, Busiek tells the audience "fuck it, it's not that important. C'mere, lets look at this instead."

Again - Morrison's talking about smaller details like "who pumps Batman's tires" in the text of a story that is about way more than just "Who pumps Batman's tires." He's not talking about stories where we fully focus on the guy who pumps Batman's tires. That would be a completely different example. That's some Rosencrantz & Guildenstern shit right there, and that isn't what Morrison's quote is getting at.

I disagree. One says that it's worth contemplating, meaning that the answer is out there and worth seeking, they just fail to grasp it. The other is just flat out ignoring it, refusing to even go after it. In the end, both are left without a definitive answer, true, but the attempt at finding an answer is important. And this reflects in Morrison's writing style. I don't mind the lack of explanation for inexplicable things, but morrison throws so much absurd shit at the reader without any kind of explanation, even the things that are explicable and warrant it.

As for who pumps batman's tires, if you just mean minor details in a story about something else, then I still say he's wrong if that detail is necessary. A good example of this would be in the dark knight rises, where Bruce escapes the prison and makes his way back into Gotham. A lot of people nitpicked this to hell because they wanted an explanation of how he does it. To me, this never bothered me because I would it's completely with Batman's character to be prepared for this kind of stuff. Besides, in the first movie, he was in the same situation and managed to get back to gotham from the other side of the world just as easily. If this is what you mean about nitpicking details, then I agree, because I see no reason why we can't assume that Batman just had some money stashed in an offshore middle east Bank or something like that. In this case, we don't need to be told because we have enough established that simply assuming an explanation is enough. However, where I disagree is if the story was framed in such a way that Batman needed to get to gotham and it was established that he had no resources to do it....then did it anyway. Morrison considers the that to be unimportant. "Nobody pumps the tires!" he says. In his version, Bruce would have just spontaneously teleport from the prison to Gotham with no explanation because 'it's a story' and therefore doesn't need one.

 

[strafer]

Yours? :O

 

[Raptor]

Yours? :O

I wish, not yet, but it will be mine.

 

[Toa TAK]

:O

If those are yours, you need to upload those puppies.

I cannot wait for Monday 9pm PST.

EDIT:

I wish, not yet, but it will be mine.

Then that person needs to!

 

[Raptor]

That is not mine, it appeared in the facebook feed.

 

[strafer]

Track 14 is blowing my mind.

Zimmer knows how to make emotional music.

 

[Boss Doggie]

Nice to see Hans Zimmer is providing music here.

Can't wait for 12th here. It's the airdate of the movie.

 

[Matrix]

:O

That is one beautiful looking cd case. Can't wait to get my copy Tuesday.

 

[Dead]

No CD booklet with the limited edition?

First they came for DVD inserts, then video game manuals...now CD booklets too?

fuck!

 

[MisterHero]

it's still a pretty box

 

[Jarmel]

Has there been any other reviews than that longer pro/con one poster earlier?

 

[DaveH]

Has there been any other reviews than that longer pro/con one poster earlier?

A non-spoiler Youtube review:
http://youtu.be/kFGnW4dgE6Q

 

[Simo]

:O

Man of Steel OST in a steel case. Poetry.

Is it the 13th already?!

EDIT:

No CD booklet with the limited edition?

First they came for DVD inserts, then video game manuals...now CD booklets too?

fuck!

It comes with a booklet its just not posted in the above photos.

 

[evil solrac v3.0]

Any non-spoilery way of saying what exactly is bugging people?

I want to know this too.

If its something like the underwear gone then is just silly.

he's a man of action.

What is Superman for you, a character or a symbol? Your answer will define how much pissed off you'll be

a character. he has evolved but still the same at his core.

Good to know, cause if it doesn't bother you I know it won't bother me at all.

you've read enough comics Matrix.

This is complete bullshit. Explanations for how things work are vital to making a coherent story. In the case of Superman, there isn't really a good explanation for how his physiology works, so it's better to spend time on other things instead of futilely trying to do the impossible, but that doesn't mean that if there was a reasonable explanation, it should be ignored or rejected, and more mundane things like the Batmobile's tires are easily explained (he has Alfred do it, or he does it himself, or he has a computer do it). "It's a story" isn't a reason to not do it.

there is actually. lots of comics explain it and there is a whole book dedicated to it.

I don't know what's to complain about, as they grow older people tend to disassociate from children's fantasy metaphors (as it being all they seek). As our knowledge of the real world grows, we start relating to different themes, and start asking different questions. Details start mattering more and more, because details start mattering more and more in our own life.

Plausibility becomes one of the main ingredients. Essentially Grant Morrison is wrong, because adults don't look at fantasy elements and think they are ridiculous. That's more than proven in the countless movies that deal with those elements, and how big they are. It does become a constant though, to ask why Davy Jones looks like a squid and how can he live without a heart.

If it's so hard to explain why Superman can fly, and why he can shoot laser beams out of his eyes just because the Sun is different, then it's just a poorly constructed character in terms of his abilities.

So fuck Grant Morrison. Go write Sunday morning cartoons if you prefer.

it isn't hard to explain, it's just not necessary every damn time you write a story about him.

 

[evil solrac v3.0]

A non-spoiler Youtube review:
http://youtu.be/kFGnW4dgE6Q

ugh, that damn guy keeps smacking his lips or has too much saliva in his mouth! I hate when people do that, trying to be all pseudo-intelligent and thoughtful.

 

[Loxley]

I think we can forgive the lack of a genuine reason why Superman can do the things that he can do simply because he was created by two teenagers in the 1930's.

Why can superman shoot lasers out of his eyes? Why can he fly? Because it's fucking awesome, that's why.

 

[Meus Renaissance]

Has there been any criticism of Cavill's acting in the spoiler thread?

 

[NotTheGuyYouKill]

I think we can forgive the lack of a genuine reason why Superman can do the things that he can do simply because he was created by two teenagers in the 1930's.

Why can superman shoot lasers out of his eyes? Why can he fly? Because it's fucking awesome, that's why.

Good enough for me.

 

[Messypandas]

I really wish we could hark back to the simpler time of creating comic heroes. You JUST know Stan Lee was high as fuck creating them. "Fly on the wall? SPIDER-MAN!" "BIG GREEN ANGRY MAN"

 

[sketchsanchez]

Has there been any criticism of Cavill's acting in the spoiler thread?

Mostly Shannon

 

[Bobby Roberts]

It's really only two people who have actually watched it over there, basically.

 

[sketchsanchez]

It's really only two people who have actually watched it over there, basically.

And look how big its gotten despite that. its got people sniping at each other over one thing, someone calling another a fake superman fan...

it's fun!

 

[Meus Renaissance]

Mostly Shannon

Um. Wow

It's really only two people who have actually watched it over there, basically.

If that's the case then I might not even bother with that thread once I see the film

 

[Veelk]

Calling someone a 'fake' fan in comics is always baffling to me.

Superhero comics are extremely malleable in terms of storytelling. True, there are certain essential elements of a character that are necessary in order to be that specific character. But other than those, writers of superhero comics can make their takes unique enough that, when compared directly, you'd have trouble believing they are the same character. Even if the continuities are going on simultaneously. For example, Robin died recently in the comics, and while Scott Snyder's Batman is in quiet mourning, regretful and sad, but responsible and in control, Tomasi's Batman just tried to chop up Frankenstein so he can raise his son from the dead like a zombie and beat up Jason after he refused to tell him about how he got resurrected when he tried to traumatize it out of him by taking him to where Joker killed him. And they are both valid interpretations (though I prefer Snyder's). And even the essential elements also change as time goes on. Batman used guns, Superman was a dick, Joker was harmless, Lex Luthor was a scientist, etc.

There is almost nothing eternally consistent about the characters we have. There are so many interpretations and all of them aren't any more invalid than the other, just preferred.

Batman version if your interested.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

And look how big its gotten despite that. its got people sniping at each other over one thing, someone calling another a fake superman fan...

it's fun!

Yeah, its definitely a nice taster plate for the smorgasbord of fighting that is guaranteed to go down in a week

 

[sketchsanchez]

Yeah, its definitely a nice taster plate for the smorgasbord of fighting that is guaranteed to go down in a week

indeed.

 

[a secret-boss]

1hr more before the movie start. I hope the 3D is good

 

[inm8num2]

Can't wait for people who don't enjoy the film to take it out on Nolan.

 

[witness]

1hr more before the movie start. I hope the 3D is good

Please let us know, very curious about the 3D.

 

[MisterHero]

Can't wait for people who don't enjoy the film to take it out on Nolan.

It's a vast conspiracy between him and Jim Lee.

Getting rid of the trunks was the first sign!

 

[BenjaminBirdie]

Marcus Fenix lol

 

[DaveH]

6 more days of torture. So hyped. Anyone else get really nervous while sitting in a theater waiting for a movie they are really excited about?

These guys:
http://youtu.be/M6b2TqHv7Rc

 

[Future Foundation]

And look how big its gotten despite that. its got people sniping at each other over one thing, someone calling another a fake superman fan...

it's fun!

Is that why it's getting so hot now? I thought they were still kissed about the ending.