Originally posted by DeadpoolXXX
don't know about n52 but allstar superman shits on any thor material ever written.
Nah
All star superman was kinda boring with terrible art
Thor Ragnarok literally talked about death rebirth universe cycle of life and all the other philosophical shit with an entire family and his people honor and dreams upon his shoulder
Originally posted by Bentley
Some of these arguments I can see affecting below average writers from making good Superman stories, if they buy into the notions that you present they will fall into pits and errors. "This is a comicbook, it can't be good if the good guys win" is ultimately a piss poor generalisation and a top down nonsensical way to analize a story, it's not about the end, it's about the journey.But that's also not a good criterea to dismiss Superman stories as if you analize some of the best Superman tales we are discussing such as Red Son or For the man who has everything you will realize Superman actually is defeated in them for the most part.
Edgy thinking like this misses on the fact some characters can be just fun to write. Actually the charm of Thor's is that he's fun
So to make a point for Superman being a good and totally-not-boring character, you bring up a 20 year old elseworld story? (An elseworld story, which somewhat contrasts the standard Superman, whom I'm calling bad.)
You're right about the edge. Edge is important, when it comes to characters. No one is a shining beacon of hope like DC has been portrayed Superman for over 80 years. You know what that means? That he has been the exact same character for 80 years. Now obviously some people like that, but let's not kid ourselves: Peter Parker / Spider-man is an infinitely better character than Clark Kent / Superman, because Peter has dimensions Clark can't even dream of.
I've said it before and I'm gonna say it again: In a decently written comic Superman would go crazy within the first few weeks of him being Superman. There is too much bad stuff going on in the world for a character like that to be that righteous and uplifting. And this isn't about Supermans character allowing him to be that way. It's about the fact that DC writers shield him from those sad and complex stories.
That's why I say that "Peace on Earth" is the best Superman story. He tries to save the entire world and he fails. Hungry people ask him, if he will bring them food the next day and he knows that he won't, because even he has limits. That's why "Grounded" is so good as well. He spends time with a suicidal girl and promises her that he won't stop her from jumping. He might be able to save her there against her will, but if she wants to die, she'll jump again, when he isn't around. And then you have some people whining their eyes out and saying that Superman would never act that way. And they post that stupid ass panel of him hugging a suicidal goth chick and immediately converting her. How in hells name is that not absolutely abysmal writing? It's such Gary Stu level non-sense and Superman comics are filled with it. You may like it, but Mary and Gary Stus are fundamentally bad characters.
None of the things you've said really shoots down the notion of Superman having better stories than Thor. Also I find your arguments regarding the superior quality of "Peace on Earth" and "Grounded" faulty because story is not defined by the kind of high concepts you are throwing but their execution and the narration put at their disposal.
Ultimately though I think our positions are too diametrically opposite to really match because we have established I don't like reader's obsessions with character "complexity"
Originally posted by Bentley
Kang proves that you don't need to be a "nuanced complex character" to make stories more compelling and fun.People need to stop thinking deep characters are better by default, a character is only as good as its ability to carry plots (character consistency is there to make these plots make sense)
Originally posted by MrMind
NahAll star superman was kinda boring with terrible art
Thor Ragnarok literally talked about death rebirth universe cycle of life and all the other philosophical shit with an entire family and his people honor and dreams upon his shoulder
Your taste in comics is only rivaled by your taste in anything else, dung bum. 👆
Originally posted by Enzeru
So to make a point for Superman being a good and totally-not-boring character, you bring up a 20 year old elseworld story? (An elseworld story, which somewhat contrasts the standard Superman, whom I'm calling bad.)You're right about the edge. Edge is important, when it comes to characters. No one is a shining beacon of hope like DC has been portrayed Superman for over 80 years. You know what that means? That he has been the exact same character for 80 years. Now obviously some people like that, but let's not kid ourselves: Peter Parker / Spider-man is an infinitely better character than Clark Kent / Superman, because Peter has dimensions Clark can't even dream of.
I've said it before and I'm gonna say it again: In a decently written comic Superman would go crazy within the first few weeks of him being Superman. There is too much bad stuff going on in the world for a character like that to be that righteous and uplifting. And this isn't about Supermans character allowing him to be that way. It's about the fact that DC writers shield him from those sad and complex stories.
That's why I say that "Peace on Earth" is the best Superman story. He tries to save the entire world and he fails. Hungry people ask him, if he will bring them food the next day and he knows that he won't, because even he has limits. That's why "Grounded" is so good as well. He spends time with a suicidal girl and promises her that he won't stop her from jumping. He might be able to save her there against her will, but if she wants to die, she'll jump again, when he isn't around. And then you have some people whining their eyes out and saying that Superman would never act that way. And they post that stupid ass panel of him hugging a suicidal goth chick and immediately converting her. How in hells name is that not absolutely abysmal writing? It's such Gary Stu level non-sense and Superman comics are filled with it. You may like it, but Mary and Gary Stus are fundamentally bad characters.
I appreciate that you took the time to write all that out. It's just a shame you wrote things that are factually inaccurate. Several times.
Originally posted by BentleyNone of the things you've said really shoots down the notion of Superman having better stories than Thor. Also I find your arguments regarding the superior quality of "Peace on Earth" and "Grounded" faulty because story is not defined by the kind of high concepts you are throwing but their execution and the narration put at their disposal.
Yeah, no. Characters determine what stories you can tell with them. A good writer can write anything, but you would still never put someone like Alan Moore on a character like Squirrel Girl. We know what kind of a character Miracleman was in the past and we know what kind of a character Miracleman became, when Alan Moore wrote him. Alan Moore transformed Miracleman into a complex and interesting character.
Superman has remained the same bad and boring character for 80 years. And every time you even consider elevating him as a character and giving him complexity, you end up with an (often superior) elseworld story. That's why standard Superman is a bad character.
Superman is one-dimensional. That is an undebatable fact. Again, compare someone as one-dimensional as Superman to someone as three-dimensional as Spider-Man. It's day and night difference in how interesting and relatable the character is. With Spider-Man you can go almost anywhere, because the stories he has been put in, have shaped him as a character. Superman on the other hand? Eh.
I'd strongly argue that even Thor is a more interesting, more complex and even more relatable character than Superman. But hey, we're talking Marvel VS DC here, so that's a given anyway.
Miracleman wasn't a character. He was a vehicle to show a flawed ideal.
Miracleman was a story about how utopian idealogy can only work if you literally have a pantheon of gods force it onto humanity, and transform humanity itself into something inhuman.
This was very obvious, Miraclewoman blatantly said humanity is nothing special, and Miraclemans wife very heavy handedly criticized him for it.
Originally posted by Enzeru
Characters determine what stories you can tell with them. A good writer can write anything, but you would still never put someone like Alan Moore on a character like Squirrel Girl.
Your argument goes against your point: you want to force Superman into non-Superman stories and claim those are good by the sheer fact they are not Superman stories.
Also I feel you don't get Alan Moore.
Tbf, a lot of this isn't a Superman specific issue.
What's the last interesting Spidey story? One More Day (note I said interesting) was nearly 15 years ago, same as WWH and Civil War and other big storylines. Annihilation was nearly 17 years ago.
Comics are just stuck atm. I'm sure Parm or Samzed would be angrily typing out how Spidey #7849 has just wrapped up an incredibly moving storyline, but most of us won't have kept up with it (and we profess to be comic fans, let alone the general public).
Originally posted by BentleyYour argument goes against your point: you want to force Superman into non-Superman stories and claim those are good by the sheer fact they are not Superman stories.
Oh my god. No, that's exactly the point I'm making. Superman is a bad and boring character, because he has been pushed into unrealistic and unrelatable stories for 80 years, which have turned him into the bad and boring character that he is.
Some people here are approaching the outlook on Superman the wrong way. Superman is an objectively bad and boring character. He is lawful good and lawful good is always one-dimensional.
You on the other hand subjectively like Superman, because you believe in the idea of a character, who is always good no matter the odds. Most people grow up and become more critical and cynical. They start asking questions. And once you start asking questions, a character like Superman objectively falls apart. You ignore those questions and continue to roll with Supermans status quo and one-dimensionality. Which is absolutely not a problem of course, but ultimately it's subjective.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjqqRlgzv6c
Originally posted by Bentley
Also I feel you don't get Alan Moore.
If I didn't, he probably wouldn't be my favorite comic book writer.
Originally posted by Enzeru
So to make a point for Superman being a good and totally-not-boring character, you bring up a 20 year old elseworld story? (An elseworld story, which somewhat contrasts the standard Superman, whom I'm calling bad.)You're right about the edge. Edge is important, when it comes to characters. No one is a shining beacon of hope like DC has been portrayed Superman for over 80 years. You know what that means? That he has been the exact same character for 80 years. Now obviously some people like that, but let's not kid ourselves: Peter Parker / Spider-man is an infinitely better character than Clark Kent / Superman, because Peter has dimensions Clark can't even dream of.
I've said it before and I'm gonna say it again: In a decently written comic Superman would go crazy within the first few weeks of him being Superman. There is too much bad stuff going on in the world for a character like that to be that righteous and uplifting. And this isn't about Supermans character allowing him to be that way. It's about the fact that DC writers shield him from those sad and complex stories.
That's why I say that "Peace on Earth" is the best Superman story. He tries to save the entire world and he fails. Hungry people ask him, if he will bring them food the next day and he knows that he won't, because even he has limits. That's why "Grounded" is so good as well. He spends time with a suicidal girl and promises her that he won't stop her from jumping. He might be able to save her there against her will, but if she wants to die, she'll jump again, when he isn't around. And then you have some people whining their eyes out and saying that Superman would never act that way. And they post that stupid ass panel of him hugging a suicidal goth chick and immediately converting her. How in hells name is that not absolutely abysmal writing? It's such Gary Stu level non-sense and Superman comics are filled with it. You may like it, but Mary and Gary Stus are fundamentally bad characters.
Originally posted by Enzeru
Yeah, no. Characters determine what stories you can tell with them. A good writer can write anything, but you would still never put someone like Alan Moore on a character like Squirrel Girl. We know what kind of a character Miracleman was in the past and we know what kind of a character Miracleman became, when Alan Moore wrote him. Alan Moore transformed Miracleman into a complex and interesting character.Superman has remained the same bad and boring character for 80 years. And every time you even consider elevating him as a character and giving him complexity, you end up with an (often superior) elseworld story. That's why standard Superman is a bad character.
Superman is one-dimensional. That is an undebatable fact. Again, compare someone as one-dimensional as Superman to someone as three-dimensional as Spider-Man. It's day and night difference in how interesting and relatable the character is. With Spider-Man you can go almost anywhere, because the stories he has been put in, have shaped him as a character. Superman on the other hand? Eh.
I'd strongly argue that even Thor is a more interesting, more complex and even more relatable character than Superman. But hey, we're talking Marvel VS DC here, so that's a given anyway.
Originally posted by Enzeru
Oh my god. No, that's exactly the point I'm making. Superman is a bad and boring character, because he has been pushed into unrealistic and unrelatable stories for 80 years, which have turned him into the bad and boring character that he is.Some people here are approaching the outlook on Superman the wrong way. Superman is an objectively bad and boring character. He is lawful good and lawful good is always one-dimensional.
You on the other hand subjectively like Superman, because you believe in the idea of a character, who is always good no matter the odds. Most people grow up and become more critical and cynical. They start asking questions. And once you start asking questions, a character like Superman objectively falls apart. You ignore those questions and continue to roll with Supermans status quo and one-dimensionality. Which is absolutely not a problem of course, but ultimately it's subjective.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjqqRlgzv6c
If I didn't, he probably wouldn't be my favorite comic book writer.
Superman doesn't needs your validation for you to be a good character. He wasn't and still is the highest selling superhero of all time (600 million physical copies) sold because he was a bad, one dimensional character.
Seriously, grow up.
Originally posted by Enzeru
You on the other hand subjectively like Superman, because you believe in the idea of a character, who is always good no matter the odds.
I haven't called you out in your strawmanning the other ten times you did it in your previous posts but I'm starting to wonder if you'll stop.
Saying stuff like "subjectively liking" is really redundant. If you could actually like something objectively, it'd be simple concepts such as justice and good which you would consider one-dimensional and boring.
Bottomline: a character is but a tool, a simple tool can be the best one for a specific task. Your appeal to complexity is like wanting a computer to hammer a nail by claiming hammer are objectively bad tools.
Superman will live on as an archetypal character with the most known symbol in the world next to the cross. All superheroes are inherently compared to him by how far or close they are to his profile.
Pedestrians on the street will unironically call him the greatest superhero of all time.
No one will ever say that about Sentry. You could make a list of the greatest comic characters of all time and he wouldn't even make top 100. Sentry is a nobody who will never leave the sphere of CBR droll, basement level discourse. (Don't get me wrong, I like the character)
This infuriates the virgin forum dweller Enzeru, clearly.
Originally posted by CosmicCometSuperman will live on as an archetypal character with the most known symbol in the world next to the cross. All superheroes are inherently compared to him by how far or close they are to his profile.
Pedestrians on the street will unironically call him the greatest superhero of all time.
No one will ever say that about Sentry. You could make a list of the greatest comic characters of all time and he wouldn't even make top 100. Sentry is a nobody who will never leave the sphere of CBR droll, basement level discourse. (Don't get me wrong, I like the character)
If popularity resulted in something being objectively good, then the "Twilight" and the "50 Shades of Grey" franchises would be objectively good. Which they're not. Yet you have teenage girls and bored housewives being in love with those franchises - which is, again, subjective.
Pedestrians on the street will also unironically call Batman and Spider-Man the greatest superheroes of all time, because that's all they know. Doesn't change the fact that there are characters, whom they'd potentially like even more. And that doesn't change the fact that both Batman and Spider-Man are better characters than Superman. Also, being less known =/= being less popular. I think we all know that Batman and Spider-Man outsell Superman. Even Spider-Mans first appearance outsold Supermans first appearance:
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/sep/10/spider-man-beats-superman-in-record-36m-comic-sale
Originally posted by CosmicCometThis infuriates the virgin forum dweller Enzeru, clearly.
It's funny to me, that you got so upset over my statements, that you have to attack me on a personal level. It's even funnier to me that you think attacking the Sentry will attack me on a personal level.
But the funniest thing is that you've registered in 2009 and have 18524 posts, while I've registered in 2011 and have 1610 posts. And I am the virgin forum dweller? Thanks for the laugh.
Originally posted by Enzeru
If popularity resulted in something being objectively good, then the "Twilight" and the "50 Shades of Grey" franchises would be objectively good. Which they're not. Yet you have teenage girls and bored housewives being in love with those franchises - which is, again, subjective.Pedestrians on the street will also unironically call Batman and Spider-Man the greatest superheroes of all time, because that's all they know. Doesn't change the fact that there are characters, whom they'd potentially like even more. And that doesn't change the fact that both Batman and Spider-Man are better characters than Superman. Also, being less known =/= being less popular. I think we all know that Batman and Spider-Man outsell Superman. Even Spider-Mans first appearance outsold Supermans first appearance:
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/sep/10/spider-man-beats-superman-in-record-36m-comic-sale
It's funny to me, that you got so upset over my statements, that you have to attack me on a personal level. It's even funnier to me that you think attacking the Sentry will attack me on a personal level.
But the funniest thing is that you've registered in 2009 and have 18524 posts, while I've registered in 2011 and have 1610 posts. And I am the virgin forum dweller? Thanks for the laugh.
Twilight or Fifty Shades of Grey don't sell for 80 years and are still going strong.
This is in 2020 lol
Sentry fans are just lulzworthy.