• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Man of Steel |OT| It's about action.

C

callmedave

Member
NotTheGuyYouKill said:
Right, so my previous request. Can anyone please do it?
Click to expand...

Here ya go.
iiZiqqq9GeziH.gif
 
MisterHero

MisterHero

Super Member
Veelk said:
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.
Click to expand...
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").

callmedave said:
Here ya go.
http://i.minus.com/iiZiqqq9GeziH.gif
Click to expand...
YES.
 
T

Toa TAK

Banned
Veelk said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
callmedave said:
Here ya go.
http://i.minus.com/iiZiqqq9GeziH.gif[IMG][/QUOTE]
Perfection.
Click to expand...
 
B

Bobby Roberts

Banned
Veelk said:
You can write a decent explanation of who pumps Batman's tires, but he apparently considers that as inexplicable as Superman's flight.
Click to expand...

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.
 
C

Can Crusher

Banned
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?

FatboyRoberts said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

Veelk

Banned
MisterHero said:
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").
Click to expand...

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.
 
B

Bobby Roberts

Banned
Veelk said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
V

Veelk

Banned
FatboyRoberts said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

FatboyRoberts said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
B

Bobby Roberts

Banned
Can Crusher said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

Veelk said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

shira

Member
Veelk said:
I do think that Superman
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
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
he chooses to kill though
. It should weigh heavily on him, even if it's justified.
Click to expand...
Spoiler thread is up.
http://m.neogaf.com/showthread.php?t=579493&page=1
 
MisterHero

MisterHero

Super Member
Veelk said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
V

Veelk

Banned
FatboyRoberts said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Boss Doggie

Boss Doggie

all my loli wolf companions are so moe
Nice to see Hans Zimmer is providing music here.

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

Dead

well not really...yet
No CD booklet with the limited edition?

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

fuck!
 
E

evil solrac v3.0

Member
NotTheGuyYouKill said:
Any non-spoilery way of saying what exactly is bugging people?
Click to expand...

Raptor said:
I want to know this too.

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

he's a man of action.

Ahasverus said:
What is Superman for you, a character or a symbol? Your answer will define how much pissed off you'll be
Click to expand...

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

Matrix said:
Good to know, cause if it doesn't bother you I know it won't bother me at all.
Click to expand...

you've read enough comics Matrix.

Veelk said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

Can Crusher said:
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.
Click to expand...


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

Loxley

Member
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.
 
N

NotTheGuyYouKill

Member
Loxley said:
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.
Click to expand...

Good enough for me.
 
M

Messypandas

Member
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"
 
V

Veelk

Banned
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.


Superman_D_D_Alignment_by_Granite_M.png
Click to expand...


Batman version if your interested.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Variety: When Superman and Batman Copyrights Expire in a Decade, Will It Be Kryptonite for DC?
20
2K
Skyfox replied
"It's About Persistence"
Drama
39
2K
vkbest replied
Kraven the Hunter - Review Thread
News Cringe
30
2K
AJUMP23 replied
Transformers One: SHOCKINGLY good!
43
3K
ManaByte replied
Borderlands Movie | Rotten Watch
Community Cringe 2 3
122
9K
StreetsofBeige replied
Top Bottom