Originally posted by xmarksthespotOh, your opinion.
Imo neither Rise of Apocalypse nor his Darwinian rationale are "deeper" than any of the other characters personal histories and mentalities... 😬 The former could probably be made into a B-movie starring Arnold Swartzenegger circa 1982's Conan the Barbarian film.
I wonder what it's based on.
Originally posted by StylishSmurphNo. Read what I said again.
You believe Apocalypse has a deeper character than Joker...? 😐Not to mention Doom, Mags, Luthor or about a dozen other names.
I believe he has a deeper backstory and more potential. As a character, he sucks. 😐
Having read Rise of Apocalypse and finding it a passable story but not brilliant or hugely innovative. And personally not finding the Darwinian rationale any more compelling or deep than the personal motivations, interactions and mentalities of many other characters. 😬
You sort of said, "than most." I only mentioned 4 characters, which really wouldn't equate to most. What are some other characters that he has "a deeper backstory" than?
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Having read Rise of Apocalypse and finding it a passable story but not brilliant or hugely innovative. And personally not finding the Darwinian rationale any more compelling or deep than the personal motivations, interactions and mentalities of many other characters. 😬You sort of said, "than most." I only mentioned 4 characters, which really wouldn't equate to most. What are some other characters that he has "a deeper backstory" than?
Not innovative? What's mundane about it?
May I assume that you in your opinion the backstories the characters are you named are both compelling and deep? How so?
Personal motive, huh? What's so deep about, say, Dr. Doom's motives? Joker's?
Originally posted by StylishSmurphWith his backstory, and his status as "the first mutant", he should be a bigger part of the excellent X-Men story arcs (there are plenty), and less of the sucktastic ones.
Potential as in character depth, power, what?His backstory is only more convoluted, not deeper.
Read Batman: The Killing Joke
One man's complexity is another man's profoundness.
I don't have time for that. Could you give a brief synopsis?
Originally posted by Cosmic CubeI don't dislike it because of complexity, I actually meant not to mistake one for the other.
One man's complexity is another man's profoundness.I don't have time for that. Could you give a brief synopsis?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman:_The_Killing_Joke#Plot_summary
But it won't be as good as reading it.
Originally posted by StylishSmurphI don't think I'm properly conveying my thoughts to you.
I don't dislike it because of complexity, I actually meant not to mistake one for the other.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman:_The_Killing_Joke#Plot_summary
But it won't be as good as reading it.
Apocalypse isn't a good character. He sucks. <- My opinion
When I said he has a deep backstory, I didn't mean that Rise of Apocalypse was a great book. I mean that the character had potential to be more than what he is.
Originally posted by Cosmic CubeYes. You said he had a deeper backstory than Joker. I'm addressing that point. 😐
I don't think I'm properly conveying my thoughts to you.Apocalypse isn't a good character. He sucks. <- My opinion
When I said he has a deep backstory, I didn't mean that Rise of Apocalypse was a great book. I mean that the character had potential to be more than what he is.
So all that survival of the fittest nonsense he spouts constantly is just for show? 🤨
Batdude could probably go on about Joker and Magneto. I'm just going to take an example of a character I know better than most and that would probably fit into the "most".
Mystique: The oldest part of her history known is her first meeting with Irene Adler, who would become the love of her life. Having observed humanity over time, she's come to the conclusion that they're basically wretched creatures. She's incredibly devious and manipulative, but then at the same time is incredibly affectionate towards her soulmate. When Destiny died she basically lost her sanity. She proclaims to represent mutantkind, but then frankly she's always really has her own agenda. She has the most bizarre relationships with her two children, on the one hand apparently loving them, on the other willing to kill them. She's an interesting character.
I don't really consider that she had more or less potential than Apocalypse at her inception, the difference being she's been developed to fulfill some of that character potential.
Maybe I'm just misinterpreting what you're saying but I don't really see how Apocalypse had so much more potential than most characters, every character with half a thought put into them have pretty good potential for development. I'm not saying Apocalypse is Liefeld's crappy Forearm character who amazingly had shock-horror four arms as a power and no semblance of personality - I just don't see how he had this huge level of potential from his inception than "most" including any of the other characters mentioned thus far.
Originally posted by StylishSmurphYeah.
Yes. You said he had a deeper backstory than Joker. I'm addressing that point. 😐
I just got the basics. Average guy struggling to provide for his soon-to-be family gets implicated in a crime and dives into a chemical vat to escape Batman. Semi-good reason for hating Batman.
An ugly baby gets dropped off in the desert, grows up dealing with feelings of abandoment, all the while being taught by a surrrogate father that he's superior to everyone, and that he was abandoned because he was feared by his weaker counterparts. And he's the first mutant. Theres a lot more that I can't recall at the time. Complex, maybe, but it's the makings of what could be have been a great character, if Apocalypse wasn't Apocalypse.
Originally posted by xmarksthespotYou are, because I've never said that he did.
Maybe I'm just misinterpreting what you're saying but I don't really see how Apocalypse had so much more potential than most characters.
However, as "the first mutant" he should at least be one of the better mutant characters, and there are some that suck. He's right down there with 'em.
Originally posted by Cosmic CubeNot much of an expert on Doom, but as for Joker...
Personal motive, huh? Joker's?
He lost his sanity completely and understands crime and morals only on the superficial level of what puts you in jail. Mentally he can't truly grasp the difference between speeding and killing, except that one causes people more fear.
It's not that he doesn't have ethics. He can't. So he just does what he pleases.
Originally posted by StylishSmurphHe's crazy. End of story.
Not much of an expert on Doom, but as for Joker...He lost his sanity completely and understands crime and morals only on the superficial level of what puts you in jail. Mentally he can't truly grasp the difference between speeding and killing, except that one causes people more fear.
It's not that he doesn't have ethics. He can't. So he just does what he pleases.
Being crazy is an extremely mundane reason for villainy. How are his any deeper than Apocalypse's ethics?
Originally posted by Cosmic CubeWell at one point you did state that you thought he had "more potential," but then later said he had "potential to be more than what he is." For the former, I'm not seeing it, for the latter, a lot of characters can claim that. Apocalypse isn't special in that regard.
You are, because I've never said that he did.However, as "the first mutant" he should at least be one of the better mutant characters, and there are some that suck. He's right down there with 'em.
His backstory baby gets orphaned, is different, grows up, is enslaved, uses differences to win out etc. etc. isn't all that more interesting or compelling than a story arc in Xena the Warrior Princess or other Conan genre tales. Just add in some scifi elements.
Additionally, Selene is older than Apocalypse. She's an old enemy of Kulan Gath, from thousands of years before Apocalypse was born. So technicall she is the first mutant.
Originally posted by Cosmic CubeIt's not about that.
Yeah.I just got the basics. Average guy struggling to provide for his soon-to-be family gets implicated in a crime and dives into a chemical vat to escape Batman. Semi-good reason for hating Batman.
The whole story is about how the piling bad luck of one bad day can drive a man over the brink.
His wife died in an accidental fire.
His baby dies with his wife.
He loses one job only to fail at his next, which was closer to his ideal dream.
The mob forces him into a job he doesn't want to do.
He's implicated in a crime that he wanted no part in, and as a last ditch effort, dives into a chemical vat that horribly scars and bleaches his face permanently.
Then, he loses complete sanity.
As I said, you should read it.
Originally posted by Cosmic CubeUgh.
He's crazy. End of story.Being crazy is an extremely mundane reason for villainy. How are his any deeper than Apocalypse's ethics?
He's not Carnage.
He's a villain because it pleases him and he doesn't understand the ethics and morals that explain why villainy is bad.
He just understands other peoples pain, but doesn't-can't- feel guilt.
Spectre was going to kill him for his crimes, but realized it wouldn't be right, because he didn't see them as crimes, because he had become mentally incapable of grasping ethics or morals.
Apocalypse wants survival of the fittest. End of story.
See how easy that is to say?