52 replies to this topic

[ciardha]

To be honest, I don't mind this change as long as it's good. But the thing is, Superman hasn't been labeled as "dark" compared to Batman and Spiderman. Not to mentioned Wolverine.

All this means is you are moving out of the age demographic they are selling to. They are remodeling the character in a way they think will appeal to the next generation that is moving into the age range they target. It's like you see Spiderman as "dark" but that sounds off kilter to me.

To those that read and liked Spiderman from the 1960's to the early 1990's Peter Parker was a geeky guy newspaper photographer who became a wisecracking superhero, and ended up marrying his high school sweetheart who had grown up and become a model and actress. He wasn't dark. The Spiderman of the past several years is alien to me. The Peter Parker in Tom DeFalco's Spidergirl was an older version what feels "right" to me for the character.

[dl316bh]

Peter Parker was a geeky guy newspaper photographer who became a wisecracking superhero, and ended up marrying his high school sweetheart who had grown up and become a model and actress.

That was just in the movies. Mary Jane wasn't in his high school or even much of a factor; Gwen Stacy was meant as Peters sweetheart. Let's not even get into the wedding; that wedding special had to be the most unromantic thing going.

It's like you see Spiderman as "dark" but that sounds off kilter to me.

It is off. Spidey isn't dark. Never really has been. I think he's perceived as such because he deals with more real world problems and his status as the "hard luck hero". But dark is a very vague term that means different things to different people.

The Spiderman of the past several years is alien to me.

Guess we feel differently about it then. Spidey during much of the marriage felt alien to me and BND onwards has made me more of a fan instead of Spidey only being a passing interest. I suppose we can both agree Tom DeFalco wrote a good Peter Parker, from what little I've seen of Spider-Girl.

Edited by dl316bh, 07 November 2010 - 10:11 PM.

[James S Cassidy]

The only real DC hero that was truly ever dark was Batman and that's why they created him. When marvel/Stan Lee started releasing more "human" super heroes with dark past and even darker inner emotions, Batman was kind of the answer to it.

If Superman becomes like Batman, then what's the point of Batman? Keep in mind this is not to say that Superman should be with lack of problems both on a personal and practical level.

[alexander]

The only real DC hero that was truly ever dark was Batman and that's why they created him. When marvel/Stan Lee started releasing more "human" super heroes with dark past and even darker inner emotions, Batman was kind of the answer to it.

If Superman becomes like Batman, then what's the point of Batman? Keep in mind this is not to say that Superman should be with lack of problems both on a personal and practical level.

I think that even Batman isn't really dark, I mean, yeah, he can be unordoxe, use psicological torture and such, but i aways tought that his relutance in eliminating any of his enemies made him a little too soft, I mean, there is a limit of how much your enemies can scroll you over. Yeah, killing them is just the easy way and will make you as bad as them, but there also moments when you just need to dirt your hands for the grater good. I remembered in the issue were the jocker shot Oracle in the back and proceeded to humiliate and torture both her and her father, in that issue I just wished Batman could had grown some b*lls and twisted Jocker's neck.

[dl316bh]

I remembered in the issue were the jocker shot Oracle in the back and proceeded to humiliate and torture both her and her father, in that issue I just wished Batman could had grown some b*lls and twisted Jocker's neck.

The closest he ever came was when Joker murdered Jason Todd in "Death in the Family". He was pissed and it looked like he was going to go over the line. Only a couple factors seemed to really keep him from truly getting his hands on the Joker, but it looked like that might have been the tipping point at the time.

As for killing Joker in general, well, that would just be giving him what he wants. wants to drive Batman to that point. It's his ultimate victory; and really, Joker could give a **** about being killed.

But most heroes don't kill for a simple reason. There'd never be any villains to have the hero face. Ever notice The Punisher doesn't have any real enemies? That's because he kills them all, every story. Makes it so every time you want to do anything you need to build a credible adversary who... would just end up being killed off at the end of the story.

[chouzu_tao]

The closest he ever came was when Joker murdered Jason Todd in "Death in the Family". He was pissed and it looked like he was going to go over the line. Only a couple factors seemed to really keep him from truly getting his hands on the Joker, but it looked like that might have been the tipping point at the time.

As for killing Joker in general, well, that would just be giving him what he wants. wants to drive Batman to that point. It's his ultimate victory; and really, Joker could give a **** about being killed.

But most heroes don't kill for a simple reason. There'd never be any villains to have the hero face. Ever notice The Punisher doesn't have any real enemies? That's because he kills them all, every story. Makes it so every time you want to do anything you need to build a credible adversary who... would just end up being killed off at the end of the story.

Well from a writer's viewpoint that's why heroes never really kill. But from a character building point, it's more interesting to have heroes who choose not to even though in the Joker's case it might be a little easier to swallow if Batman killed him. That's also what makes Batman's character an interesting dynamic. He strives in a way to keep his Batman mask on, kind of like Rorsharche in Watchmen, the line between the bat and Bruce Wayne kind of blur, but then he also has to fight off 'the Bat' to keep his humanity.

There was also the time after Joker "killed" Thomas Elliot. He had to be talked down from killing Joker by Jim then as well.

I also agree with whomever said that Spiderman just may seem darker than Superman because he deals with more regular issues. But that being said, I think they also noted that just because Spider-man deals with more familiar issues, that doesn't mean he's darker.

But I'm straying a little off topic. So yes "Say what!?"

[dl316bh]

But from a character building point, it's more interesting to have heroes who choose not to

I agree, I was just saying. To tell the truth, I'd never really want to see Batman kill the Joker in the mainstream continuity anyways. Maybe a separate standalone story, but not the main continuity. The Joker's one of the best villains going and writers are always finding new ways to use him.

But just in general, I don't think Batman can bring himself to cross that line. I'm reminded of the Batman Beyond film, Return of the Joker, where Joker had tortured the animated shows version of Tim Drake and warped his mind. Batman had Joker in his grasp and threatened to break him in two. Joker responded with a "if you were capable of that sort of fun you would have done it years ago", which says a lot about the whole thing, whether it's the animated stuff or comics. Even death's kind of a joke to Joker and he even recognizes Batman won't cross such a line, as he sees it as going too far.

That was actually the crux of Jason Todds argument and feelings of betrayal when he came back in "Under the Hood", that Batman didn't kill the Joker; which was probably a representation of the arguments of any fan who thinks Joker should have just been killed by now.

Batmans career started with death and his purpose is to try and prevent what happened to him from happening to anyone else again. It's about saving lives, not ending them. But I guess some folks just don't understand such an ethical line, which likely echoes a given persons own view on whether certain criminals should live or die (see Death Penalty debate).

Edited by dl316bh, 09 November 2010 - 08:50 PM.

[Fyuria'sLeo]

Life as we know it just went down the drain.

[alexander]

I agree, I was just saying. To tell the truth, I'd never really want to see Batman kill the Joker in the mainstream continuity anyways. Maybe a separate standalone story, but not the main continuity. The Joker's one of the best villains going and writers are always finding new ways to use him.

But just in general, I don't think Batman can bring himself to cross that line. I'm reminded of the Batman Beyond film, Return of the Joker, where Joker had tortured the animated shows version of Tim Drake and warped his mind. Batman had Joker in his grasp and threatened to break him in two. Joker responded with a "if you were capable of that sort of fun you would have done it years ago", which says a lot about the whole thing, whether it's the animated stuff or comics. Even death's kind of a joke to Joker and he even recognizes Batman won't cross such a line, as he sees it as going too far.

That was actually the crux of Jason Todds argument and feelings of betrayal when he came back in "Under the Hood", that Batman didn't kill the Joker; which was probably a representation of the arguments of any fan who thinks Joker should have just been killed by now.

Batmans career started with death and his purpose is to try and prevent what happened to him from happening to anyone else again. It's about saving lives, not ending them. But I guess some folks just don't understand such an ethical line, which likely echoes a given persons own view on whether certain criminals should live or die (see Death Penalty debate).

And by sparing them for the sake of morals, these criminals go on taking many innocents lifes and causing pain for those that doesn't deserve it, yeah, great logic
Sorry I know I sounded like an a**, but you gotta be kidding me if you think I shoud weight a life of a criminal over the life of many innocents.

[dl316bh]

Sorry I know I sounded like an a**, but you gotta be kidding me if you think I shoud weight a life of a criminal over the life of many innocents.

You do, but I'm not letting it bother me.

I don't know. Everyone views the value of life differently. To be blunt, it's something that just needs to be accepted, because there's no way they're ever going to have their Cash Cow break his rule of killing on one of their most popular - and character rich - villains, no matter what anyone things the prevailing logic may be.

If you want an in-universe explanation though, the thing that's stopped Batman from killing Joker twice now has been Jim Gordan. Jim's said straight up that if you kill him, he's just another criminal and the law will force him to hunt Bats down. Hell, it's been said in the past that a lot of the reason Batman is tolerated by the Gotham government is because he doesn't kill in the process and it's his well known rule. Besides which, the government and police hunting you down whenever you put on the cowl is not a sustainable situation, as Batman himself realized during Year One.

[alexander]

You do, but I'm not letting it bother me.

I don't know. Everyone views the value of life differently. To be blunt, it's something that just needs to be accepted, because there's no way they're ever going to have their Cash Cow break his rule of killing on one of their most popular - and character rich - villains, no matter what anyone things the prevailing logic may be.

If you want an in-universe explanation though, the thing that's stopped Batman from killing Joker twice now has been Jim Gordan. Jim's said straight up that if you kill him, he's just another criminal and the law will force him to hunt Bats down. Hell, it's been said in the past that a lot of the reason Batman is tolerated by the Gotham government is because he doesn't kill in the process and it's his well known rule. Besides which, the government and police hunting you down whenever you put on the cowl is not a sustainable situation, as Batman himself realized during Year One.

Well, I'm not saying the creator should kill Joker, I'm saying that Batman should at least atempt to do it, and not be stoped by his own moral codes, but for outside factors like someone saving Joker in the last second. Well you are right everybody thinks differentily, if not, we would live in a utopia. I believe in greater good, and that if you try to achieve it following the book, you gonna get stepped on sooner or later, just like Batman with some villains that take advantage of his morals. But I think this discussion is over, is not like you are going to change my mind neither I going to change yours, right?

[chouzu_tao]

Hm... I wanna add my two-cents but that's for a different topic thread. Anyway.

Life as we know it just went down the drain.

"Say what?!"

[chouzu_tao]

I just received this in the mail. It was a steal off of amazon as the hard cover was only $11.

This topic is certainly an interesting look at how a cover can mislead, and how art in general can be interpreted many different ways. To me, I thought artist Shane Davis was going for a more bad@ss look, while many viewers saw it as a dark, brooding, "emo" take on the man of steel. I also feel that many people confuse introspection with being "emo" or brooding. This book certainly does have a lot of introspection, but that's because it explores Clark's decision to become a public figure, and the burdens being a hero might have, but at no point does it feel like it depresses him into a state of whining or darkness. The book itself isn't great but there are many good components. The writing could be stronger, with a few of the segments at the beginning being less choppy. The lines are kind of cookie cutter at times, but the coloring is a really great component to the atmosphere of the story. They hinted at a reason as to why Clark chooses to be a news reporter versus any number of high-paying jobs he could have been due to his physical abilities and high intellect, but they never cement it. And I wish they did. Part of the issue was pacing, it starts very steadily then suddenly starts clipping along once the antagonist appears. I wish they had taken a little more time to explore the depth of character, which was one of the selling points to this story-line. But overall I was pretty happy with it.

Others have said it before, just as a criticism, without having read the book, but what they said is true: "Superman is not emo." And he's not in this title either.

Edited by chouzu_tao, 13 November 2010 - 07:41 PM.