Originally posted by MooCowofJustice
You know if you want the title of most hateful person you can just have it. You don't need to try and take it from me by force.
I am not hateful. Just on the whole not too impressed with Supes. Yes, he was the first hero and has inspired more heroes of modern day than probably any other.
That said, without Spacewar! we wouldn't have video games today more than likely. Does not make it the best game evar.
Spacewar! is no longer relevant today. Nor does anyone other than a person who is specifically looking for some delineated history of games going to know about it.
Superman is the first, has outlasted his copies, stood the test of time by adapting to changes, and remains the most recognizable superhero out there today. There's nothing that can't be done to constantly revamp him for the times.
Originally posted by CosmicComet
[B]Spacewar! is no longer relevant today.
Neither is Superman.
Superman is the first, has outlasted his copies, stood the test of time by adapting to changes, and remains the most recognizable superhero out there today.
Being the original does not make you good, nor relevant.
Being iconic does not make you good, nor relevant.
edit- Furthermore, Supes is the flagship of DC but his series doesn't even sell the most anymore, not by a longshot.
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Neither is Superman.Being the original does not make you good, nor relevant.
Being iconic does not make you good, nor relevant.
He is as relevant today as any superhero out there. Saying he's not is flatly being dishonest for personal biases.
Being a standard yet to be surpassed, being iconic, being the original, these are all qualities that very few fictional characters can be argued for period.
And they cannot be thrown to tatters on a whim when judging something like this.
Who could possibly take the crown from him? The only reasonable names one could come with are those that also fair well to compare with the mold he has set.
Maybe Bugs Bunny...but in his case it would actually be fairly truthful in saying he is not relevant today.
Wouldn't the closest thing to being as recognizable to Superman be like, Spider-Man? Maybe even Iron Man or Batman with the movies. But I'd think Spider-Man was more recognizable than those two.
Cartoon Network is making a new Looney Toons show. I can only pray they don't destroy Bugs Bunny in the process.
Originally posted by Nephthys
Yeah, in the clip one the last page actually! In DC One Million, supes returns to earth in the Year 1.000.000 after having to power the sun.
Cooooool. Then that must be where that sundippin' stuff originated.
I LEARNED SOMETHING TODAY.
Bugs Bunny was not the original.
As far as cartoon characters, would likely be Mickey Mouse. Trademark and all that jazz.
I'm not sure what a "standard yet to be surpassed" means. Iconic does not equal good. Original does not equal good.
That show will utterly destroy the Looney Toons. I will enjoy watching that horrendous train wreck.
Originally posted by TheAuraAngel
Bugs Bunny was not the original.As far as cartoon characters, would likely be Mickey Mouse. Trademark and all that jazz.
As I said, 'fairs well', not necessarily matches. I didn't mention Mickey just because I feel Bugs is above him somewhat. But Mickey could easily replace Bugs in my post, point is the same.
Originally posted by CosmicComet
[B]He is as relevant today as any superhero out there. Saying he's not is flatly being dishonest for personal biases.
How is he "relevant"? He's certainty not relevant in sales, he's certainty not relevant in DC's storylines, he's certaintly not relevant in fan popularity, especially compared to people like Batman or Wolverine, both of which consistently kick his ass in sales.
Being a standard yet to be surpassed, being iconic, being the original, these are all qualities that very few fictional characters can be argued for period.
Those are all relative, abstract qualities that only have meaning if you allow them too. Nothing that you've stated there has an objective value.
And they cannot be thrown to tatters on a whim when judging something like this.Yes they can, because they're not objective.
Who could possibly take the crown from him? The only reasonable names one could come with are those that also fair well to compare with the mold he has set.What?
I will always prefer Spiderman over D.C heroes, with the possible exception being Static Shock, a show that took kids so seriously that I am amazed at it.
**** did I love Static Shock.
Originally posted by CosmicComet
As I said, 'fairs well', not necessarily matches. I didn't mention Mickey just because I feel Bugs is above him somewhat. But Mickey could easily replace Bugs in my post, point is the same.
Bugs Bunny might be funnier but I prefer Mickey for the likability factor. Bugs was just kind of a dick, to everyone.
Mickey is the most recognizable cartoon character ever. If not the most recognizable character ever.
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
How is he "relevant"? He's certainty not relevant in sales, he's certainty not relevant in DC's storylines, he's certaintly not relevant in fan popularity, especially compared to people like Batman or Wolverine, both of which consistently kick his ass in sales. [/B]
Based on what? The All Star Superman DVD did great numbers, was number 7 for DVD sales the month it came out. He has been in several direct to dvd movies the last couple of years and they've all done well. He may be in some slump in comic sales, but that's nothing new for any character. He also has a new movie coming out soon.
Those are all relative, abstract qualities that only have meaning if you allow them too. Nothing that you've stated there has an objective value.
Simply saying his nigh unmatchable qualities don't make good over and over does not do anything for you. Simply say right now who you think is number one.
Yes they can, because they're not objective.
What?