Originally posted by Hercules
Morning!Everyone is dissing Cap...I quite like Steve, I like Ultimate Cap better though.
What is it excatley about Cap that makes you hate him so MM?
I am intrigued!
I was going to ask MM the exact same thing. I am like capt thou, I absolutely hate Superman but am more than cool with Cap.
Is it because he's not green? 😛
Originally posted by Pure Poison
I dont like Marvel full stop.
Crazy hoe! 😛 jk
I don't hate wolverine at all. I just think his limits are greater than people believe them to be and therefore the writers make him look more powerful then he is by popular demand.
I actually still love Wolverine despite this thou.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Here's a conversation topic for anyone.What is the difference between a villianious character and a monster?
Some characters are obviously malicious and some obviously monsters but what about people like Joker or Rorschac who are insane?
Rorscach is neither villanious nor a monster, he is too good to the point he takes it too far. For example at the end of Watchmen when they all realise Ozymandias has murdered millions, but stopped the world from being destroyed they all know that for the greater good of the world it can't be exposed. But Rorscach can't see past the death of millions and his choice of forcing Manhattan to kill him proves him not to villanious.
Normally I see a monster as something that is responsible for how it is, for example Frankenstein's monster is so because Frankenstein made it like that.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I've always felt that the difference was that villians are malicious and do what they do intentionally and monsters don't understand that their actions could be considered evil.
Agreed, Villains do their deeds knowing that they are evil and what the consequences of them are. Whereas monsters are much like animals in the fact that they can't exactly be held accountable for doing them with any malicious intent.
But how does insanity play into all of that? Does insanity make villains any less accountable for their actions?
Originally posted by Pure Poison
Okay but I owe you for the hoe remark.
Ummm... Who me? 😮
🙄 😛
I agree that monsters can't really be held accountable for their actions but cause they don't understand what they're doing. Much as Doomsday didn't when he killed superman. They still have to be stopped thou. The needs of the many!
I still hold that the Joker my be insane but I fully believe he is completely aware of just how horrible his actions are. Even if he doesn't Bruce should still have off'd him years ago. Just think of how many lives would have been spared if Bruce had been willing to take that one sin onto himself and killed Joker back when he tried to kill Gotham like the 3rd time or something!
Originally posted by Entity
Ummm... Who me? 😮🙄 😛
I agree that monsters can't really be held accountable for their actions but cause they don't understand what they're doing. Much as Doomsday didn't when he killed superman. They still have to be stopped thou. The needs of the many!
I still hold that the Joker my be insane but I fully believe he is completely aware of just how horrible his actions are. Even if he doesn't Bruce should still have off'd him years ago. Just think of how many lives would have been spared if Bruce had been willing to take that one sin onto himself and killed Joker back when he tried to kill Gotham like the 3rd time or something!
True, but specifically in the DC universe killing is taboo for heroes no matter what. Bruce could have made it much easier on himself and the world by killing the Joker but by doing so he would succumb to the Jokers level. Something he's vehemently against and is sworn against it, it's against his principles.
Much like the "flashlight" joke in The Killing Joke, Bruce could easily walk over the light and kill him but it'd be wrong (it can be interpreted either way, Bruce refusing to walk over it or Vice Versa) and the Joker will never cross it and simply choose to not commit crimes. Therefore nobody can ever win, it won't ever stop.
Personally I'd just kill him 🙂
Originally posted by CasanoVa
But how does insanity play into all of that? Does insanity make villains any less accountable for their actions?
Perhaps Joker and Rorschac were bad examples.
What about the Riddler he knows exactly what he's doing and thinks it out but he's unable to stop. His OCD prevents him from not leaving clues and it stops him from ceasing to be a criminal.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Perhaps Joker and Rorschac were bad examples.What about the Riddler he knows exactly what he's doing and thinks it out but he's unable to stop. His OCD prevents him from not leaving clues and it stops him from ceasing to be a criminal.
Ah the Riddler is a hard one (I know crap all about him but the basics, read a hanful of his appearances so bear with me) does he leave the clues because he wants to be caught? or simply for his amusement? Because if he leaves clues because he wants to get caught (which alot of criminals do) then its hard to judge; his OCD makes him commit the crimes, but he leaves the crimes to ensure he gets caught, I wouldn't see him going to prison for the crimes he does because on some level he's trying to stop himself. He'd end up going back to Arkham Asylum because he's mentally unstable, he'd eventually break out and reek havoc again.
It's a never ending cycle really, theres not much you can actually do about it. Except hope for rehabilitation (like Harvey Dent)
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
What is the difference between a villianious character and a monster?
Some characters are obviously malicious and some obviously monsters but what about people like Joker or Rorschac who are insane?
A monster(I'm talking personality wise, not an actual physical monster) on the other hand sees evil actions on his part as being rewards in and of themselves. They may benefit financially, politically, etc, from their schemes, but their true motivation is normally the satisfaction they feel by bringing misery to others. They KNOW they're wrong for doing the things they take pleasure in, they just do the stuff anyway because they don't give a shit about anything other than their own gratification.
I don't know much about Rorschac, but Joker DEFINITELY falls under the heading of "Monster".
Originally posted by CasanoVa
True, but specifically in the DC universe killing is taboo for heroes no matter what. Bruce could have made it much easier on himself and the world by killing the Joker but by doing so he would succumb to the Jokers level. Something he's vehemently against and is sworn against it, it's against his principles.Much like the "flashlight" joke in The Killing Joke, Bruce could easily walk over the light and kill him but it'd be wrong (it can be interpreted either way, Bruce refusing to walk over it or Vice Versa) and the Joker will never cross it and simply choose to not commit crimes. Therefore nobody can ever win, it won't ever stop.
Personally I'd just kill him 🙂
But see, he isn't succumbing to that level. He is doing what needs to be done and with great regret at that. The Joker is killing to get a laugh and Bruce would be killing to save lives. Sometimes to do the right thing you have to be willing to do whats wrong. The world isn't black and white, just endless shades of grey and Bruce more than anyone should know that. By allowing him to continue and to keep playing the game, Bruce is letting the Joker win the game the entire time. There's wining and There's wining.
You see what I'm saying?