PDA

View Full Version : Supe's and where is he going!


chrono
September 8th, 2001, 03:46 PM
I've been following the current "Worlds at War" storyline and have to admit I like the way they are handling Supe's.

He's back up to his "can move planets" strength level and he's 'evovled' into a different state.

[VERY cool]

But even cooler is what they did in Superman issue 174. It really brings the 'potentiality' of his "Kingdom Come" future.

I really hope they start to do some of the things 'hinted' at in the old story arc of DC 1,000,000.

Guardian Of Paradise
September 8th, 2001, 05:50 PM
Y'know, I was disappointed that they suddenly doubled back from the "electric" Superman. I was interested to see how his powers would mutate. Just from what I saw, he developed some interesting vulnerabilities that were a lil easier to take advantage of, like Clark Kent being totally human.

I liked that.

chrono
September 8th, 2001, 07:27 PM
Yeah I would've liked to see them explore that facet a little more, but I think people REALLY REALLY didn't like him that way. A pity really. I was very interested in the fact that he had some control over dimensional energy's. That really could've opened up alot of storylines.

I'm still trying to figure out Supe's relationship with Kismit though. Why is she seemingly protecting him? Is she supposed to be a 'future' love interest? Like many of the 'Otherworld' books show Wonder Women as.

chrono

Guardian Of Paradise
September 8th, 2001, 09:35 PM
That's the problem with the general comic book crowd. There's a bunch of purists who can't really stand anything new. I remember when they tried to introduce Azrael as the new Batman. They got so much mail about Bruce Wayne, they changed the end of Knightfall into a match between the new and old Bats. Same with the Green Lantern. Kyle Wagner only got respect as the new guy in the last year. Especially when they wrote Hal Jordan into a new role as the Spectre.

thomas7g
September 8th, 2001, 11:33 PM
Bah...superman should be the last Kryptonian. Not a lightning bolt ;)

Changing him like that is up there with Disney's improved Hercules!

Guardian Of Paradise
September 9th, 2001, 10:00 AM
Geh. Shows what you know. He wasn't a lightning bolt. That was just one facet of his powers.

chrono
September 9th, 2001, 02:51 PM
It was a joke! shesh!

I thought it a fairly good direction to take the character in. It really helped to point out the results of him being an alien from another planet. Normal things for us aren't normal for him.

chrono

Guardian Of Paradise
September 9th, 2001, 03:52 PM
Nope. He's serious. I talked to him about it last night. That wasn't a bluff. He thought Superman was just electricity in that form.

thomas7g
September 9th, 2001, 04:10 PM
Nooo.... I knew he had mutated into a different thiing. And his powers had changed. I was being sarcastic with the lightening bit.

I didn't like the idea. So I avoided the comic duriing that.

Actually I dropped out after they killed him and brought him back. That sorta was a big semihoax to get money at the cost of true story writing. The death and especially the rebirth of Superman was reaallly lame.

And Jer- You are not really a fair judge of superman. You don't like him to begiin with, and the only way you would like him is if he became something NOT superman. :D

Guardian Of Paradise
September 9th, 2001, 06:21 PM
lol I knew that'd draw you out... :D

To me, Superman was never "super". I mean, how can you really be a "super-man" when you don't have any real weaknesses except for your mind.

The new Superman had a host of weaknesses that was easier to take advantage of and would cause a whole host of situations that would be life threatening.

I thought that was way cool.

thomas7g
September 9th, 2001, 06:44 PM
DAMN MOUSE!

*looks up to see the anvil balancing on the top of the door.....*

thomas7g
September 9th, 2001, 06:50 PM
I think Superman is a great concept character. People love the idea of him.

Unfortunately after 70 or so years, a ton of stories and a change of culture...he's a hard character to write for. And most storylines fall short.

It takes a superior writer to do a good superman story.

Guardian Of Paradise
September 10th, 2001, 11:09 AM
*responds to anvil with a frying-pan shot*

CLAAANG

Not a whole lot of great writers left. Hell, we're lucky Claremont came back from his book series to write for Marvel again.

The 19th Letter
September 14th, 2001, 11:29 PM
It's true there aren't a whole lot of good writer's left, but Claremont is not a god. It is an arguable point that a lot of what is wrong with comics today started with Claremont.
I don't think Superman in any of his many incarnations is hard to write. The problem has always been the people buying comics. A lot of people mistakenly believe that Frank Miller was the first to depict heroes with "clay feet" but it really started when Marvel began penning stories of average men becoming super-men. Classic superheroes were (and to me still are) metaphors of their times. Comic superheroes began as beings who overcame incredibly harsh circumstance and drew from that to become forces of good. Nowadays it's always 'me-me-me' with these heroes.

Look, Superman began as an escape from the harsh realities currently facing the people of the time. As America became a stronger nation, subconsciously, people began to succumb to the pressures of being citizens of a world super power. Comic readers moved away from heroes like Superman because they couldn't escape from those pressures (responsibilities) through him, but could definitely get into Watchmen/Dark Knight/Wolverine because they're greatest enemies were generally thier own faults. These faults generally being their sole motivation for lashing out against others around them with usually only some cliche circumstance putting them on 'the side of good'.

Now, we are seeing todays comic protagonists basically being designed as a collection of faults.

Oh, and I never really bought the idea that people don't feel Superman is approachable becuase of his powers. Anybody picking up a comic book solely to check out the breadth and depth of a characters powers wouldn't be in it for the long haul anyway and comics wouldn't have thrived if that was all people looked for either. Anybody familiar with writing knows the only way to hook a reader is to make the reader relate to the character and in comics more than any other medium that has a lot to do with what the character stands for.

In order to make an imaginary character appear real in our mind, we have to put a little bit of our own personality into the hero. If the writer successfully communicates the hero's motivation, our subconscious will attempt to match our own sensibilities to them and reject or accept them based on how close they match. Works kinda like hypnosis ;) So IMO if a person doesn't like Supes, they don't like what he stands for. His powers, and thier range, are irrelevant.

As far as Supes' current direction, I think DC could do better by having him stop straddling both sides of the fence and either stick to 'truth, justice and the American way' or find him a new angle so he can be more consistent.

Guardian Of Paradise
September 14th, 2001, 11:37 PM
A character's weaknesses are extremely important, because without them, there is no palpable growth. That's a basic element of any story. Be it a lack of will, a circumvented power, or a lack of training, growth only comes by being presented with hurdles that test their abilities to the fullest.

Superman is amazingly inconsistent, that the definition of his maximum power seems to flux depending on the current story. And I don't mean life altering events, but a lack on continuity. I tried, I really tried to follow it, but the only major hurdle crossed was death, and it wasn't all that interesting after he came back.

The 19th Letter
September 14th, 2001, 11:46 PM
A well constructed character in any vein comic, movie, or otherwise will have weaknesses but it is unfair to say Supes lacks because his weaknesses are not centralized around his powers. By having his weakness being his 'mind' as you put it, he is actually more like us than some other heroes. A weakness is a weakness. It's almost funny how you criticize Supes for being too powerful and at the same time having a weakness that is so human...

Guardian Of Paradise
September 14th, 2001, 11:48 PM
When I said his mind, I didn't mean psychic or something of that nature. I meant he's an idiot. He often bashes his way into a situation, which gets him into trouble more times than not.

The 19th Letter
September 14th, 2001, 11:59 PM
In fairness, that same thing can be said about any hero. Bashing your way into a situation and getting into more trouble for it more times than not is a comic formula. Superman didn't invent it nor does he particularly do it best. If that's your main criticizm, I dare say there isn't a character existing who doesn't fall prey. Hell, that's the main plot to any good detective story.

Guardian Of Paradise
September 15th, 2001, 12:06 AM
Everyone does that, yes, but that's Superman's opening to everything. It never changes. He charges headfirst into EVERYTHING. Always driven near the point of exhaustion before battling back...

If I wanted writing that repetitive and bad, I'd watch Dragonball Z...

Every step in character evolution he takes, he steps back to the old ways all over again. His death, returned. His new abilities, reset. His replacements, replaced.

He's a character with zero growth from 1960.

Hito
September 15th, 2001, 12:09 AM
Originally posted by Guardian Of Paradise
Everyone does that, yes, but that's Superman's opening to everything. It never changes. He charges headfirst into EVERYTHING. Always driven near the point of exhaustion before battling back...

If I wanted writing that repetitive and bad, I'd watch Dragonball Z...

Every step in character evolution he takes, he steps back to the old ways all over again. His death, returned. His new abilities, reset. His replacements, replaced.

He's a character with zero growth from 1960.

And you have all the issues from 1960 i trust?
I have only read Supse on and off for the last 10 years and i have noticed plenty of growth.

His marrage bring the largest yet.

Guardian Of Paradise
September 15th, 2001, 12:16 AM
The wonders of digital technology and an uncle that collectes Golden and Silver Age books... you get to flip through a lot. I haven't read Action Comics #10, but I've gone trough a myriad of books dating 1968 and on. Nothing new. The villians names have changed and that's about it.

The 19th Letter
September 15th, 2001, 12:37 AM
As a collector of Superman for a number of years I can feel safe in saying you engage in generalization when you say that is his only response. Superman was often placed in situations where his strength was not the first thing he resorted to using nor was it always the way he ended a story. Superman resorts to force with the regularity that any other character in comics today uses force. That's just fact. In fact, since Supes usually uses his strength against inanimate objects that suggests at least a little more thought into the action and it's outcome than, say, a cannonball special from Wolvie and Colossus. :) Plus, he never uses more strength than necessary in any situation which demonstrates control. I would like to suggest that maybe you are speaking more from a "I don't like Superman" POV than actual knowledge of the character, but I could wrong :D

Guardian Of Paradise
September 15th, 2001, 12:44 AM
I'm afraid you are wrong.
The most recent, and one of the last Superman books I bought was when Superman, newly transformed into his energy persona, took on the revived Metallo, who had taken over an aircraft carrier. During the fight, he continuously tried to punch and whack away at Metallo's growing power, not taking into account that his powers OBVIOUSLY didn't work that way anymore.

The 19th Letter
September 15th, 2001, 01:28 AM
Superman did not have control over his power then and, more to the point, those aren't really his powers. So judging him on the use of his powers at a time when they were new to him is unfair. How would you react if everything you are capable of doing now produced a drastically different effect than you expected. Imagine putting on roller skates for the first time. If Superman had come out using his powers at thier full potential practically his first time out, that would have been ridiculous.
To say that Superman should have been at master of his new powers from the beginning that would be pretty much asking for bad storytelling.

Oh BTW were you saying I was wrong in that I say you were generalizing? :wtf:
If you were, I think you may want to reconsider...

thomas7g
September 15th, 2001, 02:24 AM
Uh... dudes...

may I point out that to a large part this character is aimed for much younger readers. You guys are kinda on the old side for reading comics. :nervous:

Not to knock you down. I still enjoy a good comic (when I can find that rare one that is really well done.) But Superman plots needs to be understood by a ten year old.

And then they have to be mass produced on a monthly deadline. And the pay isn't that great no more.

chrono
September 15th, 2001, 01:19 PM
Umm... I see what GOP means by "lack of growth" and 19th's "growth of character" agruments.

GOP means a lack of personal growth, which I can understand and which doesn't appear to have changed overly much to really glare as "character growth". This is easly seeable to the collecter who sees that "growth". While the irregular read won't see "growth", but more of a "raising" of the comics maturity level with Supes "marrage" and various other things. [[Like the current "war-trama" Supes has.]]

Tom, very few 10 years olds would want to read comics, let alone low-violence ones like Supes! Also they haven't been 'aimed' at younger people for several years now. But I totally agree with the monthly deadline thing and pay involved.

chrono

BTW 19th, good points about comics being reflective of it's society. I've read that else where and it quite true.

Guardian Of Paradise
September 15th, 2001, 02:39 PM
19, you keep making odd assumptions about my thought processes that aren't there.

I didn't say Supes new powers would/should/could be mastered on the first try. But when you're a muscle bound mass turned into a living super-conductor, you can't attack anything the same way. A few nano-seconds of thought would tell you, "I'm different, so the old way probably won't work."

Besides, which, the strength, flight, invulnerability aren't his powers either. According to DC, Supes powers come, in fact, from high level mental abilities. All that invulnerability comes from a psionic shield, which explains why the cape and costume, made on Earth, takes as much punishment as he does.

Hito
September 15th, 2001, 04:06 PM
Originally posted by thomas7g
Uh... dudes...

may I point out that to a large part this character is aimed for much younger readers. You guys are kinda on the old side for reading comics. :nervous:


This coming from an anime fan :rolleyes:
Those cute little cartoons like pokemon and sailor moon.

Guardian Of Paradise
September 15th, 2001, 04:43 PM
What? I am an anime fan. You haven't seen a great story until you've watched the unedited version of Cowboy Bebop.

Hito
September 15th, 2001, 07:37 PM
I am an anime fan from way back too (when u brought your vcr and some coax cables to trade the latest anime)

The point i was making is that to tell comic fans that they are engaging in a childish pastime is like throwing stones in a glass house when you are a fan of a genera that is similarly characterised as a childish persuit.

Guardian Of Paradise
September 15th, 2001, 11:46 PM
I have no idea who you talk to about anime. Every time I bring it up, most people I meet say, "Oh, you watch those sex cartoons?"

Hito
September 16th, 2001, 12:39 AM
I am getting that more now too :D

The 19th Letter
September 17th, 2001, 05:50 PM
Originally posted by Guardian Of Paradise


Besides, which, the strength, flight, invulnerability aren't his powers either. According to DC, Supes powers come, in fact, from high level mental abilities. All that invulnerability comes from a psionic shield, which explains why the cape and costume, made on Earth, takes as much punishment as he does.

So no hero who has mental powers really owns them huh? So Prof. X is just borrowing his powers? :confused:

I'm not sure where I am making the odd assumptions.
You said that Superman had weaknesses that were too difficult to take advantage of. Drop any superhero into the real world and you could say the same thing about any of them. Every story has a challenge the hero must overcome. Most stories don't make how the villian foils the hero it's central issue. It's usually the other way around.

You sited Supe's battle with Metallo as an example of his incompetence (you called him an idiot) because he didn't use his powers more effectively. You should remember the reader usually gets more info than the protagonist does. And since they aren't his regular set of powers there really isnt any reason to believe he even knew how to effectively use them. Besides, the "powers gone awry" type stories generally have the heros bungle thru their newfound abilities. So again you specifically fault Supes using examples of actions not unique to Supes.

You said Supes does not grow but if you study the medium you notice that growth is actually the biggest hurdle to comics writers and now editors because of the exceptionally fine line they have to walk when they attempt to maintain some semblance of continuity vs. creating innovative storylines vs. drawing in new readers vs. retaining older ones. Again, lack of growth is not a situation unique to Supes.

I don't have any problem with the fact any of your opinions are anti-Supes. It's just that every point you've raised to support your position against Supes are faults that the VAST majority of comic heroes share.

thomas7g
September 17th, 2001, 06:48 PM
Hito-

I said that expecting great works of fiction from a medium that appeals to 10 year olds is kinda fruitless.

And there is alot more quality anime stories out there than superman stories.

And that isn't coming from a biased otaku. Superman is one of my favorite comic book heroes. But frankly the writiing is up there with Disney comics....

The 19th Letter
September 17th, 2001, 09:04 PM
I think you may agree with me Thomas ( I may be wrong) when I say that the attitudes towards animation and comics are different in Japan than here in America.

IMO animation and seqeuntial art, if used to their potential, can accomplish far more than the 'more accepted' mediums like film and tv.

I feel that the stigma attached to comics has been the major reason you don't see better stories.

Comics are a lot like math in that it is the formula that counts most. No matter what, a good story has to follow a certain formula. It has to include certain elements. An achilles heel is, or some other exploitable flaw and/or restriction is often time a very good tool to create drama, but the most important things to any story are 1.) the heros goal and 2.) the heroes adversary as these most define the main character. The major goal of comics when they were created was to demonstrate good could and would triumph over evil. The adversaries were usually beings who perpetrated whatever forms evil came in as seen by the storyteller. This was the major goal of every superhero by default. Nowadays, the goals have changed to self preservation and retribution. Personally, I think comics arew starting to try to come away from that however slowly. Of course I think they have no clue where they are going.

Supes suffers like the industry is suffering. He's lost his goal. And the editors are floundering trying to figure out how to get him back on track.

Guardian Of Paradise
September 17th, 2001, 09:12 PM
Not true.

Several characters show a measure of growth over time, and Marvel writers did an excellent job of hot-shoting their titles. Storylines that take years are settled in one. DC doesn't seem to have a handle on the tempo of modern life.

Wolverine is a perfect example. He isn't some kind of uber-hero. His powers have faults that are easily accessable, in the fact that someone with an adequate ranged attack or overbearing strength can take him down. He's also gone through a myriad of changes, including where he lost the metal in his bones. He came to a sealed door, unsheathed his bone claws, and looked at the large door, thinking "Bones can't cut through that," as he looked for another way in.

It's probably why I respect the X-Men more than Supes, because these are a bunch of people who have a wide range of abilities and weaknesses per person.

Guardian Of Paradise
September 17th, 2001, 09:14 PM
Comics, or manga, is a huge industry in Japan. Men, women, and children read them like religious toomes. And that formula you mention doesn't show up very often in their stories.

The latest example is the Excel Saga. It doesn't have any such formula, yet it still sells as the current #4 manga, even though it was introduced about 4 years ago.

thomas7g
September 17th, 2001, 10:20 PM
Japanese anime and manga are a story. The characters and stories are more closesly associated with the character's creator.

American comics and animation is more or less treated like a production factory. The characters are not a creaters property, rather it belongs to the company and the company mass produces it.

Guardian Of Paradise
September 17th, 2001, 10:44 PM
He's got a point. The creators of manga are often the people that get final say in what the story does, making the direction of the characters more cohesive and very close to what was intended. Where comics get input from everyone, and the producers listen to every little suggestion, sans the security guards, trying to put it in.

Then again, mangas often work out better because a lot of them have predetermined lengths. Once the primary story arc is over, that's it.

Hito
September 17th, 2001, 10:48 PM
Ok i get where u r coming from now tom.
But remember there have been some heavy hitters from both the literary and television/film world have penned comic book stories.

Originally posted by thomas7g
Japanese anime and manga are a story. The characters and stories are more closesly associated with the character.

American comics and animation is more or less treated like a production factory. The characters are not a creaters property, rather it belongs to the company and the company mass produces it.

i agree.
This is basicaly the same reason that B5 was (in my opinion) way ahead of somthin like Trek.
One is basicaly a cash cow run by a big corporation
the other is the vision of one man.

Guardian Of Paradise
September 17th, 2001, 10:55 PM
Yeah, but those "heavy hitters" have fallen flat in the comic world, too. Mark Hamill, William Shatner, Stephen King... their books fell way short of people's expectations. It's a perfect show of, just because you can do one thing well, doesn't mean you can do all things well.

Guardian Of Paradise
September 17th, 2001, 10:56 PM
And I'm sorry, but I think B5 suffered from a lack of budget and creidble actors.

The 19th Letter
September 18th, 2001, 12:12 AM
Sorry GOP but you havta remember there is a difference between change and growth. Wolvie has a new limitation which adds drama but but not growth. Besides, the rule is there is always someone or something more powerful than you so anybody, Supes included, can be taken out if you apply sufficient force. It is also surprising that you say a 'perfect example' of character growth lay in a character you said was uninteresting in a separate thread. Just like Supes and many other heros, I can pick up a book with Wolvie in it and predict how he will attempt to solve his problems.

DC doesn't have a grip on the tempo of modern life? You ever read the Green Arrow and Green Lantern books? Lets also remember Marvel publishes lots of books that are market successes but DC has produced many of the critically successful books. Books like Watchmen, Swamp Thing, The Dark Knight Returns, Sandman, Kingdom Come and others were not only critical and market successes but they shaped the industry and they were all published by DC.

I only bring that up because I felt it needed to be said. Not because I like DC better than Marvel. I am a fan of the medium. I refuse to 'tow the company line' for either because I can think for myself and I have read enough material from BOTH companies to know they can produce quality and crappy material with equal regularity.

I also have an issue of Animerica that has a flowchart that can be used to re-create the plot of most anime. It doesn't have to be tweaked much to fit in the others.

I stand by my idea that all stories follow a formula. It may help if you read 'The Hero with a Thousand Faces' by Joseph Campbell who travelled the world and studied many different cultures and their stories along the way and came to a similar conclusion. It's on the list of recommended reading in many courses on writing for comics.

Guardian Of Paradise
September 18th, 2001, 01:07 AM
Wolverine has grown. He's gone from being the wild outcast, to an integral family member, teaching other outsiders of the Xavier family on how to overcome their own rages and inability to live life in society. The outer changes are more cosmetic than anything else. And just because I don't find a character interesting, doesn't mean he hasn't grown. I'm just not a Wolverine fan.

I've read the new Green Arrow and Lantern. They're following in the footsteps of their predecesors to a "T". Kyle Rainer is having the same problems balancing power vs. personal life as Hal Jordan did early in his career, and Green Arrow is trying to figure out how to survive in a world of SPB's, like his father.

On a side note, most anime fans don't consider Animerica a medium that shows the actual path of anime, but of the Cartoon Network fans of Sailor Moon and DBZ. Besides which, I wasn't talking about anime, but manga. Manga has a lot of depth that doesn't follow a conventional path. Again, read the Excel Saga for a great example of a top selling story without said pattern.

On top of that, I think a lot of comic-writing courses are the problem. It teaches thinking within a framework that's ruining a lot of the creative thought as is. Time to come up with something a little more odd.

thomas7g
September 18th, 2001, 01:39 AM
Hito- I may not be in the comic industry, but I've been in children's publishing for 15 years now. And its not about the story. Not on the business side.

Quite literally you have a "property" which tells you which character you will be using, a book format that marketing tells you you need one of to put on the store shelves, and a deadline for when the publisher has reserved the use of a printing press.

Your job is to fill it. You do the best you could, but basically its more important to fill the pages than make a good story. You try to rework it as much as you can, but often the deadline doesn't leave you alot of time. And then there are the routing that must go on as your work circulates and gets either approvals or changes requested all before deadline.

Its very assemblyline-like production.

The 19th Letter
September 18th, 2001, 02:50 AM
If I thought it was odd I would definitely post it for you.

You said you had an uncle who collected old comic books so I figured you may have read some of the old Green Arrow and Green Lantern books as in the series they did together which is what I was referring to. A critically acclaimed run, sorry you missed it.

So the anime/manga you like have no protagonist, no antagonist, no goals and therefore no obstacles to achieving them, no confrontation and no resolution? Sounds like primo material. :D

If I actually liked Sailor Moon or DBZ I might be offended. I never offered Animerica as a bible of anything. I merely stated the fact that an issue has a flowchart that can be used to breakdown most of the storlylines seen in the medium. Anyone is free to agree or disagree with how successful it is but it is available.

Anybody who takes a class in anything has to learn how to apply knowledge learned. It is not what is being taught in classes that is ruining creative thought. It more likely the conditions that Thomas is describing.

All that to say that an objective, unbiased analysis of Supes says that he's suffering from what the medium itself is suffering from. Superman himself is not real therefore he cannot be at fault in any of the situations you describe. What's wrong has more to do with what people will accept and what they won't accept. What people are writing and what people are reading and how they relate. Some people can accept the fantasy of Superman and some think the fantasy of X-men is more realistic. Which, to me, is like stating that a CG bannana looks like it tastes better than one rendered in oils.

As far as my odd assumptions about your thought processes, well, you say Wolverine is an example of a character with a wide range of abilities and weaknesses, a character with faults that are easily accessable, has gone through a myriad of changes and experienced growth. Yet your own description of him was as an uninteresting character. You describe yourself as not a Wolvie fan. This suggests to me that if Wolvie possesses all the things to make him a perfect example, as you say, of a character done right...then there MUST be something else that has nothing to do with any of the points you listed that determines WHY you are not a fan. Which is what I said in the beginning. People will choose what characters they are fans of based on things that have nothing to do with the width or breadth of their powers or weaknesses. Or perhaps you misstate yourself when you say Wolvie is the "perfect example".

Which would be odd indeed.

Guardian Of Paradise
September 18th, 2001, 08:54 AM
Did you ever think that it's because Wolverine's following a preset chart of growth is what makes him uninteresting? He's been following a path set by marines in action movies. He's an old fashioned action hero doing the same things Schwartzenegger has back in the eighties.

The 19th Letter
September 18th, 2001, 10:36 PM
Originally posted by Guardian Of Paradise
Did you ever think that it's because Wolverine's following a preset chart of growth is what makes him uninteresting? He's been following a path set by marines in action movies. He's an old fashioned action hero doing the same things Schwartzenegger has back in the eighties.

Doesn't matter much what makes him uninteresting as my point was, and is, there are other factors that can make a character unacceptable besides the breadth and depth of his weaknesses. You actually provided the proof to that statement yourself.

Guardian Of Paradise
September 19th, 2001, 06:26 PM
You're not clicking.

The point is that Superman has no growth.
How did the last statement have ANYTHING to do with that?

Guardian Of Paradise
September 19th, 2001, 06:27 PM
Superman doesn't grow. Doesn't have any significant change. Doesn't have any odd situations. I'm betting that this black symbol stuff will go back to normal sooner than later.

The 19th Letter
September 19th, 2001, 08:41 PM
Originally posted by Guardian Of Paradise
You're not clicking.

The point is that Superman has no growth.
How did the last statement have ANYTHING to do with that?

You sound frustrated GOP.

But, to be fair, I went back and read my other posts. It doesn't appear to me that I ever said Superman experienced growth. I didn't say that Superman hadn't experienced growth either. So, since I am not clicking, I will summarize:



There can, and will, be many things that will make a character acceptable to different people.


It doesn't matter if the character doesn't grow. It doesn't matter if the character does grow. It doesn't matter if the character has claws. It doesn't matter if the character wears a big red cape. It doesn't matter if the character has 'roids and acne.

It doesn't matter what you think.
It doesn't matter what I think.

What matters is that the individual is able to derive pleasure from whatever particular fantasy s/he wishes to derive it from. A very simple and very valid point.

You could get a signed affadavit from, say, a billion english speakers that Superman does not grow and the point expressed in the paragraph directly above this one will still remain intact.

That Superman doesn't grow was your point, not mine, so anything I post doesn't have to support that view. That should answer your question as to the meaning of my last post. I'll reiterate tho' by saying since you believe Wolverine is the perfect example of a character with growth yet you still believe he is uninteresting (and you claim to not be a fan), you demonstrate my point (the paragraph before last) 'perfectly'.

For additional insight relative to my point, please see the First Amendment.

Guardian Of Paradise
September 20th, 2001, 06:53 PM
I apologize for my tone, but moving from a 1-7pm shift to a 7-1pm shift overnight can make anyone cranky.

Now that made more sense.

You got me curious though. Who is your favorite comic character, and why?

The 19th Letter
September 21st, 2001, 12:54 AM
My fav comic character is Superman. What a shock huh?

Why? It was the first comic I ever read. Back then, my dad used to buy them and put them next to my bed so they would be there when I woke up. Reading a Superman comic used to be the first and last thing I did everyday as a kid.

I was hooked. I had to have my fix. But here was the buzzkill...Pop quit buying them. I would keep bugging him until he promised to deliver some more but he never came thru. Finally, I gave up and consigned myself to getting my pops off with Choose Your Own Adventure and Endless Quest books (Rose Estes and Edward Packard rawk), Anything by Gordon Korman (The War with Mr. Wizzle was my fav) and just about every book that had to do with detectives and/or the paranormal the public library had to offer.

I don't remember how long this went on before I discovered what had been right under my nose all along. You see, right across the street from the library was a little mom and pop candy store where I got my junk food on my way back home. One day, I noticed way in the back, in the corner, was a shelf full of comics. Of course I ran over to them thrilled beyond words! Here, finally, was the answer to my prayers! A place where I could get my comics! But who was gonna pay for them?

A rag, a chamois, a bucket and a squeegee (all stolen from my older bro) and a heap o' doe-eyed innocence solved my problems. I happened to live practically across the street from a car wash so I used that location to stage my hussle. I actually made enough money that I could afford my comic AND junk food addiction! Of course, there was still one little problem. This little store didn't sell DC comics.

So even tho I was aware of them, I was formerly introduced to the Marvel Universe during that period. Characters like Spidey, Hulk and Iron Man made the biggest impression on me. I really did enjoy Marvel but I still missed Supes.

Then tragedy struck.

If Fox ever produces a tv special entitled Caught on Tape: Plundering Parents it will likely have hidden camera footage of my Mom disposing of my first comic collection. :mad: I still collected, but now I was starting from square one all over again with no way of recovering what I had lost. Or so I thought.

Some guy, I would never see again, told me of a place where they sold nothing but comics. I got a chance to go there and the rest is history. The back collecting. The new issues. The new titles. The community. The conventions. The eventual disillusionment. Well, every now and again I still visit the comic shop, but I have been leaving with less and less and often nothing at all. But every time I pick up a Superman comic I still get that buzz even if it's a little more faint now. And it takes me back to when times were simpler.

So I guess the short answer to your question as to why I like Supes is simply nostalgia.

Guardian Of Paradise
September 22nd, 2001, 01:37 AM
My favorite guy is Grifter. He's always intrigued me as a man who's primary weapons are his wisecracking attitude and his pistol-work. He's gone from government trigger-man, to outlaw, to team leader.

He's a dangerously high level psi due to the government infusing him with artificial super powers (he and 5 of his teammates combined their abilities and walked away from a nuclear ground-zero).

http://team7.free.fr/interface/histoire.jpg

The 19th Letter
September 22nd, 2001, 02:41 AM
Style wise, I always liked the Grifter too. I even bought the Kindred mini-series with him and Backlash. Team 7 was like scary powerful. It used to be 'the thing to do' for me and some friends to speculate on whether or not those guys could take Dr. Doom :)

Too bad using the power too much would drive a guy nuts. I didn't keep up well enough with the Wildstorm universe in general to know too much about the character tho'.

I even watched the cartoon too. I almost choked on my cereal the first time I heard Cole Cash utter those immortal words:

"Let's Grifter-ize 'em!"

Guardian Of Paradise
September 22nd, 2001, 10:48 AM
I'd like to think Team 7 would be able to take Doom without using their mojo. Doom generally runs into heroes that won't take that "final step" to make sure Doom is no longer a problem, whereas any member of Team 7 wouldn't bat an eye at putting a steel jacketed sleeping pill behind his ear.

Then again, if Backlash and Dane were in their updated forms (Stormwatch, Wetworks) it would be a much shorter fight. Of course it's a lil hard to predict, since Doom is one heck of an inventer and tactician.

I haven't bought a Wildstorm book since DV8 was cancelled. Their stories just weren't over the top anymore. And the cartoon... I couldn't get into it. It was definately made for a younger audience than the book it was spawned from.

Grifter just got my respect as a single guy who would step up with a pair of guns, and still hold his own vs. some very powerful characters.

chrono
September 22nd, 2001, 03:46 PM
Gee from supes to the wildstorm universe!

Grifter for me was ALWAYS a Gambit knock-off, but only the military angle saved him from being a complete copycat.

Wildstorm and Image in general pissed me off alot back in the early Image days when Jim Lee still did the art for his book. When Lee stopped drawing his own book and MacFarlane started getting overzealous with the toy biz and frecked up his own book.... Image started a nose-dive. I stopped getting WildCATS and others, others just stopped being put out! WetWorks and CyberForce were books that HAD potentienal but were half-heartly made.

Currently I've been getting back into Image stuff. Warlands, Universe, and Rising Stars are my current favs. Well written and somewhat well drawn. Oh yeah and BattleChaser's isn't too bad the odd shipping pattern will spell it's doom though. Pitt comes to mind in that respect. A small following that stayed small and never saw alot of nessasary growth.

/rant-off

:D

chrono

chrono
September 22nd, 2001, 03:49 PM
Doom would kick Team 7's ass. ;)

It's the 'magic' thing that would do it. :]

Guardian Of Paradise
September 23rd, 2001, 03:00 PM
What magic? Doom's a scientist, not a mystic.

We actually tried to match up Gambit and Grifter in a fight once. We thought they were pretty even except when it came to Grifter's power. If he felt provoked, Grifter comes up with enough juice to make Xavier look like a novice.

chrono
September 23rd, 2001, 05:30 PM
Actually Doom IS a mystic. Has been for a VERY long time.

The 19th Letter
September 24th, 2001, 06:42 PM
It's true. Doom does have mystical powers. His mother was a gypsie who ignorantly thought she could entreaty the power of Mephisto (of all people) to help her regain land for her people. She unleashed her new found abilities and as a result, all the children of a village were killed. She renounced the power, but too late. A village soldier struck a death blow to Cynthia von Doom.

It had been one of Doom's biggest goals to free his mother from Mephisto's clutches which he was able to do at a terrible cost. Doom even learned some magic at the foot of Dr. Strange. Doom does prefer his sciences tho'.

While even Doom isn't perfect, it should be noted that he was able to usurp the power of the Beyonder. My argument as to why Team 7 couldn't take Doom was that their thinking would be too linear and thus their plans would be transparent to one such as DOOM! :)

Sheer power alone can't stop Doom 'cause he been up against (literally) the most powerful and came out on top.

Guardian Of Paradise
September 24th, 2001, 07:25 PM
I dunno about that. With their grouped experiences, including aliens, night tribes, and dimension hopping at will... They're more esoteric than they appear.

chrono
September 25th, 2001, 06:33 PM
Well if you compare experience then Doom would have nearly equal the experience. Plus he have done time-travel, is the leader of a small country, and has a much deeper/broader knowledge then most people do.

I have to agree with 19th on this Doom has more experience dealing with 'larger' situtations then Team Seven does.

Guardian Of Paradise
September 25th, 2001, 09:09 PM
Not entirely. Team 7 has had various cross time adventures and experience doing the "impossible". These are guys who shaped the outcome of the world with their own actions. Doom has never shown or experienced the sheer power coming from Team 7.

chrono
September 26th, 2001, 12:23 AM
"....Sheer power coming from team 7"

LOL oh that's a good one! :)

I suppose they have more power then the Watcher, and the Beyonder, and the silver surfer too? Dooms bested the Watch and the Surfer and has gone toe to toe with the beyonder.

I'll say this. IF Doom had the chance to "prepare with field", like any good general would do, he would win. If it was a chance meeting then I'd say the team aspect would give T7 the edge.

It's kind of like comparing, in chess, a king to a group of pawns.

Guardian Of Paradise
September 26th, 2001, 07:50 PM
Pawns don't stop a nuclear warhead with ease.

Guardian Of Paradise
September 26th, 2001, 07:53 PM
It took only one of Team 7 to stop someone who's "power was limited only by his imagination".

I think it's a more even fight than you give them credit for.

chrono
September 27th, 2001, 09:32 PM
Actually no.

7 has little history to clearly define their characters, skills, knownledge.

Doom has a long history that clearly defines his experience, knownledge, his overall skills, and his intelligence.

I'll stick with my previous statement.

Guardian Of Paradise
September 28th, 2001, 07:27 PM
Their history is actually pretty detailed. You just had to follow each one's trek through their various series. Backlash, Dane, and Grifter were especially run through. Callahan and Chang were the only two with any major question marks.

The 19th Letter
September 30th, 2001, 11:06 PM
Hmmm.

Let me use your own argument against you GOP. You say that one of the things that makes characters interesting is that they have relatively easy to exploit weaknesses. If we are to assume this is the case with Team 7, that they have weaknesses that are easily exploitable, that alone makes Doom the odds on favorite.

As I said, I don't know too much about the Wildstorm universe in general. But, I think it's also a safe bet that Team 7 hasn't exhibited any ability beyond what Doom has dealt with before.

I don't doubt that Team 7 has enough raw power to bring to the table. I do doubt that Team 7's power is so great that Doom's technology can't counter it.

I don't doubt Team 7's tenacity or intelligence. I do doubt their combined tenacity and intelligence matches Doom's.

I would also venture to guess attacking Doom would require a sustained use of their powers which is a problem for them as has been detailed in their comics, correct?

All in all GOP, your arguments for Team 7 have still centered around power and experience. Neither of them are good benchmarks against Doom. I believe the question isn't who's the more powerful but of the two sides who is the more vulnerable.

I think Team 7 is the more vulnerable. Thus, giving the advantage (and the victory) to Doom.

Guardian Of Paradise
October 4th, 2001, 06:14 PM
Depends. Grifter and Backlash have suffered broken necks that they've walked away from, and Backlash had a gaping hole in his chest to match. Several of their members have come back from vaporized limbs and shredded torsos and kept fighting during their regenerations.

The 19th Letter
October 4th, 2001, 08:56 PM
Originally posted by Guardian Of Paradise
Depends. Grifter and Backlash have suffered broken necks that they've walked away from, and Backlash had a gaping hole in his chest to match. Several of their members have come back from vaporized limbs and shredded torsos and kept fighting during their regenerations.

Again. I don't doubt Team 7 is tough. But really...in the realm of comic superheroes, is walking away from a broken neck or surviving with a gaping hole in your chest really all that impressive?

To compare similar experiences, Doom had his entire body destroyed caught in a battle between the Silver Surfer and Terrax and, using the power of his mind, usurped complete control of a bystander. An act that the power of the Beyonder had to reverse in order to ensure balance in the cosmos.

Besides, you have to consider what constitutes victory. Team 7 would be attempting to kill Doom while Doom would be satisfied with taking their powers for his own. If science can give it, then science,magic...and Doom... can take it away.

The 19th Letter
October 6th, 2001, 05:09 PM
Hey...wait. I thought this thread was about Supes...?

Guardian Of Paradise
October 19th, 2001, 05:47 PM
Oh, the Supes conversation was old a long time ago:D

I hope this is the last part of this, because we'd be going around and around forever...

I'm not saying Doom would fall to their might like a domino. I just don't think he'd be prepped for an odd assault that would be about as varied as one could get. Like Doom, these are people that combined, and singlely have stood up to cosmic level beings and either held their own, or ripped them a new one. I mean, in addition to the powers that half of them naturally had, they've been gene-jacked with something that has been shown to never really be successfully removed, and these guys were taking on armies before all these weird abilities surfaced.

With the nature of who all involved are, it would probably be a stalemate that would leave a large part of Latveria a smoking pit.

The 19th Letter
October 22nd, 2001, 12:02 AM
You are right. This is going 'round and 'round. You may want to consider this is mainly your doing because you keep pushing the same point. That Team 7 has enough power to go against cosmic level entities. Since no one is disputing that, how is it relevant? I am going to present some facts that I believe to be indisputable:

Doom is more intelligent.
Doom has more resources.
Doom's arsenal is more diverse.
Doom is far more elusive.
Doom has defeated opponents of far greater calibre than the ones Team 7 has defeated (calibre being measured as the length of time the concept of Doom's opponent has been around. The concept of the Beyonder is some 30 years old...).

As far as your statement:
"...in addition to the powers that half of them naturally had, they've been gene-jacked with something that has been shown to never really be successfully removed..."

Are you implying Doom can't do it?? Riddle me this. Which ranks highest on the scale of difficulty: usurping the power from a being whose genes have been altered, usurping the power from a being who was reconstructed on the cosmic level, or usurping the power from an entity that is power? Come on now. Isn't that a pretty weak defense?

If you were comparing 2 boxers and one of them had the reach, height, weight, and experience advantage with a more diverse fighting style and the other had an impressive win/loss ratio with a majority of fights won by KO but all of his victories were over unestablished rookies and he couldn't use his most powerful combinations without fear of dying, would you really bet on a draw???

So far, you've been unable to present a single reason why Doom couldn't defeat Team 7. Instead, opting to suggest Doom is either no or hardly better than what Team 7 has defeated before, and what possible benchmark can you be using to come to that conclusion? I also find it ridiculous that you would assume Doom would be unprepared when he has proven to be prepared for attacks of a technological, psychological, mystical and psionic nature. Given that you only found out Doom had mystical capability a few posts ago, could you really claim to know what Doom is prepared or isn't prepared for?

In conversations such as these, it isn't about absolutely pinning down the method of victory. It is merely enough to establish who has the advantage because s/he will be the likely winner. It is an indisputable fact that level of power alone will not give one the advantage over Doom. In this case, it is all but elementary.

Advantage Doom.

Guardian Of Paradise
October 25th, 2001, 12:11 PM
As if your points ever change. And I read up on Doom's mystic background. But as before, you don't know what Team 7's been through. So, it's just as possible that your standpoint isn't as educated.

Team 7 is resourceful.
Team 7 has diverse and abundant resources from government, private parties, and otherworld items.
Team 7's arsenal has a variance of technology and mystical items.
Team 7 is highly elusive, with certain members who only just emerged from hiding.
Team 7 has defeated numerous, highly powered sorcerers, despots, demons, X-Men, and interdimensional mystics.

Now, someone did try to steal their extra powers, but thanks to the original substance being as much mystical as technological, but now, it's as if it was always a part of their genome. Their power might be able to be copied, but not removed. In the same story arc, it took only ONE of them to stop a world devouring cosmic being. Not just stop him, but to kill him.

Did I ever say that Team 7 had a fear of dying in their use of power? Just because it's a possibility, doesn't mean it stops them. That's their edge... a willingness for self-sacrifice that makes them capable of going the extra mile to defeat an opponent.


Advantage: Team 7

The 19th Letter
October 25th, 2001, 01:27 PM
Sorry GOP, you've constructed a false argument. You cant say Team 7 has the advantage without indicating where the advantage is.

You state that Team 7 is resourceful, diverse, has a varied arsenal, is elusive and has defeated strong opponents. Heres the BUT:

Having those qualities doesnt give one an advantage unless they have them in greater quantity. Which you (not surprisingly) didn't indicate was the case for Team 7.

You say "someone" tried to take their powers before. Well...that just takes us back to benchmarking.

Is that "someone" Doom? Not likely. By saying:

...the original substance being as much mystical as technological...

All you are really saying is that it falls within Doom's area of expertise.

That's the fallacious part of your argument there. Just because someone failed to do it before, doesn't mean it can't be done. You even admit it is possible to copy the power which again gives Doom an advantage.

If you, personally, have a willingness to die in a fight with a tiger...would you really believe you had an edge? How about the upper-hand? Of course not. The willingness to die is merely an option. An extreme tactic. Not an advantage.

Doom has been around for decades. Team 7 has not. The burden of proof is on you to provide some sort of evidence that Team 7 has an advantage somewhere. Saying that:

Team 7 has defeated numerous, highly powered sorcerers, despots, demons, X-Men, and interdimensional mystics.

...doesn't mean squat. Name one comic book character that can't say they have done that exact same thing (or at least assisted in the process) at least once.

You can't use generic terms to arbitrarily assign advantages.

Advantage still Doom.

P.S.
As far as my 'uneducated' stance as it relates to Team 7, I offer this:

I said as much. From the beginning, I said I wasn't totally up to speed on the Wildstorm Universe in general. However, I've only chosen to present the facts I know.

I haven't once made assumptions about what Team 7's specific abilities were or weren't. I said their level of power wasn't a factor. You on the other hand actually said Doom wasn't a mystic :wtf:

My points don't need to change if they haven't been refuted by any valid arguments.

chrono
October 25th, 2001, 02:10 PM
Ok enough this only going around in circles and really only PROVES one thing.

Yer BOTH stuborn! :P :D

GOP, T7 is a group of people with personal failings and can not be so hughly powerful that NOTHING can stand against them. It would be a REALLY boring book if it were that way. And nobody would want to read about them. Also you must have ALOT of comics to read about Dooms entire mystical background. :rolleyes:

Question: How many are leaders of countries? How many have had leadership postions beyond any gov't agency?

The whole question of comparing Doom to T7 break down to nothing more then experience and luck/writers plot.

Which is nearly completly in Dooms favor.

As I've said before and I'll say again. IF Doom prepares the field of combat then the clear and overwelming advantage is in his favor. BUT IF T7 comes at Doom prepared then it's there advantage.

chrono

Guardian Of Paradise
October 25th, 2001, 04:36 PM
Two of Team 7 are the heads of multi-billion dollar, multi-national corporations. Two more are the commanders of black-op/security and enforcement organizations. The income of one of these companies is easilly the GNP of a small country, like Latveria. These orgainzations have danced on the graves of similar despots who ran two different countries. And again, this was due to an effort by one member of Team 7.

And, as I've said, the substance that originally creadted and bridged their powers was ALREADY REMOVED without removing the power, so that avenue isn't open to someone like Doom.

A willingness to die is definately an advantage. If one of your men is willing to die to claim a victory for your cause, then you can overcome somone, like Doom, who treasures his life above all other. If anything, Sept 11 proves that.

My points are highly valid, but if you refuse to keep an open mind, it becomes harder to have a decent debate.

The 19th Letter
October 25th, 2001, 05:23 PM
Here's why your argument is fallacious (false).

You aren't using proper benchmarks. You can't say "like Doom" for any Wildstorm creation simply because they haven't been around long enough to justify the juxtoposition.

Just because a substance that caused a condition has been removed doesn't mean the condition itself cannot be remedied or destroyed. If that were the case, antibiotics wouldn't exist, moreover it would be impossible to cure anything. So, again, your argument is false.

You start another false argument by saying that:

"Two of Team 7 are the heads of multi-billion dollar, multi-national corporations. Two more are the commanders of black-op/security and enforcement organizations. The income of one of these companies is easilly the GNP of a small country, like Latveria."

it is false because it makes the assumption that Doom's resources are only that of a small country. Just because he is the leader of a small country does not mean that is the extent of his resources.

A willingness to die is NOT an advantage. Being willing to die does not make one more powerful nor does it make one more adept. Go back to my last post. If you are in a pit, naked, with a tiger, do you have the advantage because you are willing to die to win? No, you do not.

Your points are only valid insomuch as you agree that Team 7 assets are greater than Doom's which there is no evidence to suggest that it is.

Nice points Chrono, but when I have these conversations with my friends I never allow the "if so-and-so was prepared..." arguments because the obvious comeback is "what if the-other-guy is prepared too?" .

I am perfectly willing to keep an open mind. It's always been open. But I just don't accept false arguments. Remember, the art of debate is in constructing valid arguments. So far all you have done is state Team 7 has a large amount of this or has done a impressive amount of that. none of which means they can defeat Doom.

Unless you are willing to directly state which assets that Team 7 has that are in greater amount or higher calibre than Doom's your argument will always fall flat. Just stating that Team 7 has great power or resources is not enough if Doom beats them on both counts.

Being willing to die for the cause isn't going to save the terrorists from the US any more than it will save Team 7 from Doom.

The 19th Letter
October 25th, 2001, 06:33 PM
Debate is a skill that I am familiar with but not necessarily proficient at.
Debaters often engage in false arguments on purpose. In fact, my stance is a form of false argument. Here are some examples that may shed some light on the value (or lack there of) of false or fallacious arguments.

One of the types of fallacies you are using GOP, is called:
Dicto simpliciter (spoken simply, i.e., sweeping generalization).
This is the fallacy of making a sweeping statement and expecting it to be true of every specific case -- in other words, stereotyping. Example: "Women are on average not as strong as men and less able to carry a gun. Therefore women can't pull their weight in a military unit." The problem is that the sweeping statement may be true (on average, women are indeed weaker than men), but it is not necessarily true for every member of the group in question (there are some women who are much stronger than the average).

Stating that the willingness to die gives one an advantage as a fact is false because it can't be applied to every situation evenly. See my 'tiger in the pit' example.

The type of fallacy I am using is called:
Argumentum ad logicam (argument to logic).
This is the fallacy of assuming that something is false simply because a proof or argument that someone has offered for it is invalid; this reasoning is fallacious because there may be another proof or argument that successfully supports the proposition. This fallacy often appears in the context of a straw man argument.
This is another case in which the burden of proof determines whether it is actually a fallacy or not. If a proposing team fails to provide sufficient support for its case, the burden of proof dictates they should lose the debate, even if there exist other arguments (not presented by the proposing team) that could have supported the case successfully. Moreover, it is common practice in debate for judges to give no weight to a point supported by an argument that has been proven invalid by the other team, even if there might be a valid argument the team failed to make that would have supported the same point; this is because the implicit burden of proof rests with the team that brought up the argument.

Yes, I am insinuating your position is false because you have failed to prove it. However, the burden of proof is yours. So, in a debate, it is perfectly acceptable.

It isn't fair for you to accuse me of having a closed mind just because I point out the weakness of your argument. That was an attack on me and not my ideas, which is unacceptable in a civilized debate. It goes back to when you were calling me 'odd' simply because I didn't agree with you earlier. If you truly wish to have decent debates GOP, you have to curb your tendancy to attack the presenter.

chrono
October 25th, 2001, 07:53 PM
GOP, so no and yes maybe. But no real international political experience beyond convert-ops and business. Also it would take MUCH more time for the 'team' to gather their resources then Doom would.

BTW, did you know Doom is the current world leader of marvels new Counter-Earth?

Also just because they removed the substance that provided those powers and those same powers haven't been removed doesn't mean that Doom couldn't find a way to dampen or out-right remove them himself. He stripped both the Silver Surfer and the Watcher of their powers and that doesn't count the numerous other times with mystic's. Really how could that be ANY different then removing T7's?

Yes the willingness to die for one's cause is a large factor. BUT only if the problem is also removed from the field(by death and not retreat). Otherwise that's just dying foolishly. And yes Doom WILL die for his country, but only when he KNOWS there is no other recourse.

Please leave Sept 11 out of the discussion. It has no relevence AT ALL!


***Nice points Chrono, but when I have these conversations with my friends I never allow the "if so-and-so was prepared..." arguments because the obvious comeback is "what if the-other-guy is prepared too?".***

First off thanks. Secondly they do?!?! By the time it gets that far generally people are shouting at each other or OVER each other. The 'easy' answer to that is "they" must come to "him". Advantage "him", because he's already prepared "his" field which "they" have to come through to get "him". Even prepared "they" will be worn down so "him" will have little problem with capturing or dispatching them.

Now I find it a better comparison if it were Kang vs Doom.

chrono

The 19th Letter
October 26th, 2001, 10:37 AM
Kang? :upchuck:

A few more tips on good debate...

It is good to keep these 2 words in mind when debating: rebut and refute. The difference?

When you rebut someone's argument you argue against it. To refute someone's argument is to prove it incorrect. Unless you are certain you have achieved success, use "rebut".

Also, it is good to recognize when you are merely denying the oppositions point. This is a definition I got from Dictionary.com

Deny
1.To declare untrue; contradict. 2.To refuse to believe; reject. 3.To refuse to recognize or acknowledge; disavow.

In a debate, a simple denial will not score you points with the judges because a judge wants to know why a point is not true. You have to be able to back up every statement in a debate.

A parting shot at the idea the willingness to die is an advantage. Another definition:

Tactic
An expedient for achieving a goal; a maneuver.

The willingness to die is all but useless if other conditions are not met to make it effective. For example, if you have someone willing to put on a vest with high explosives attached to it, it will only do you good if you can get your human bomb within range. If your guy is a klutz, it becomes obvious the real advantage would be stealth, right?

Also, take this into consideration. Darwinian and Evolutionist schools of thought say that it is self preservation that drives a species on into the next generation. So, it is not a stretch to say the person who wants to live more will create (and often innovate) ways to preserve themselves. It is an arguable point that the person whose instinct to survive is stronger actually has the advantage.

chrono
October 26th, 2001, 04:20 PM
Yeah have to agree they did really make a mess of Kang. But with the current Avenger's storyline it looks like they might fix that. Finally going to use the "Conqueror" aspect correctly.

Captain Zefram Mann
December 14th, 2001, 04:37 PM
Since I'm new to this forum I'll add my two cents to all the stuff I should have commented on but missed.

Not a whole lot of great writers left. Hell, we're lucky Claremont came back from his book series to write for Marvel again

Claremont is a friggin' monkey! He used to be the best on the block, but the key words there are USED TO. I tried to read is attempt at a team book, Soveraign 7, and was not so much angry about wasting two dollars as wasting a hafl-hour trying to read the damn thing. I tried to read one of his novels and couldn't even get half way through. It was a mess. The secret in good writing is making a story engaging, not more convoluted.

If I wanted writing that repetitive and bad, I'd watch Dragonball Z...

That's not fair to DBZ at all. I saw more lasting (and the key word here is lasting) growth in that than in what I've seen in Superman. Face it, Goku started the story twelve years old and we eventually saw him become a grandfather. As a character there were moments of revelation where Goku changed in little ways. They are hard to see but they are there. One point is when Vegeta, with his dying breath, reveals to Goku that it was Freeza that made the Seiya-jin from a proud race of warriors into a group of murderous pirates. Goku was able to come to terms with his heritage, and no longer felt shame for being a Seiya-jin after that, and fought Freeza not only for his friends, but also to avenge his people. Piccolo became a whole different character in his run, but it was always an organic growth. He didn't suddenly become good, it happened over the course of months raising Gohan and finaly came to a head when he gave his life saving the boy. Although he changed dramatically, there were certain mannerisms and traits that made him instantly recognizable. He was the same,but different. Vegeta also underwent a similar change, but again, he still remained Vegeta. He eventually grew to care deeply about his son and even the human race, but was still a mean bastard on his best day. There is a part in the Buu saga when he tells Goku that he is not the same person he once was, and that he wishes he could be the heartless, pure warrior he once was unfettered by caring, hence the reason he allows Bobbity to cast his spell on him.

American comics and animation is more or less treated like a production factory. The characters are not a creaters property, rather it belongs to the company and the company mass produces it.

Not all, thankfully. Rare gems like Bone, Cerebus, Shi, and the original Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles come along every once in a while to prove that it can be done over here. Also, remember that D.C. let Sandman end when Neil Gaiman left.Even they realized that no one else could fill his shoes on that.

This brings me to Superman. I think it should have ended when he died. The fact is that the character is so old, that there is very little to do with him. Superman is practically the father of all superheroes, which presents the problem. At what point does the father step aside to let the kid take over. Superman is like a parent that can no longer handle the work he once could, in this case holding the readers. He should step aside and let the new guys handle it. At the risk of going back to the DBZ thing, this is exactly what they did do. Goku stepped aside, and let his son, who was more powerful, finish Cell. A passing of the torch that proved that it was the characters, and not the name... the story, not the symbol, that was important.This should have happened with Superman years ago. After Supes "died", it should have ended with Lois finding out she was pregnent. The last words should have been...

"The legend begins anew."

The 19th Letter
December 20th, 2001, 11:52 AM
Wow, Zef! You actually went back and read all those posts? :D
I felt like a ressurected slayer when I got that response e mail...

But I have to agree with you on the Claremont thing. Like I said before, Claremont is no god. I really enjoyed a lot of his X-men stories but I can say that about a lot of writers. And alot of people say Byrne wasn't given some of the credit for his part in plotting some of the x-hits attributed to Claremont.

Your Sovereign 7 point hit dead on with me. I never got past the first issue of that series. And yeah, about convoluted stories, the disturbing trend that has been going around is that many creators have been making characters that have the same amount of 'back story' as established characters even tho they haven't been on the stands for more than a year. And to top it off, they couldn't even get the books out consistently so that all but the most hardcore 'fanboys' lose interest.

As far as your statements about DBZ, it wouldn't be right for me to comment. I never really got farther than being able to recognize some of the major characters because I had a problem with the pacing. Mebbe if I knew someone who had the entire run on vid or dvd I would give it a chance...

I'm really glad you brought up those points about Bone, Cerebus and Shi because in my own long winded way, that was the part of what I was trying to say. That not every comic falls under the same hammer of criticism. Just because I personally thought Sovereign 7 sucked I don't use my reasons for feeling that way to pummel people about the neck and shoulders with my 'superior method of experiencing fantasy'. There are a lot of good stories out there and they can be found almost everywhere if you're willing to truly look.

And yes, some of them are Superman stories. :D

I have to agree and disagree with you on the Superman death thing tho. I agree if your going to pen a story in which Superman dies, then yes that should be the demise of the Man of Steel. Killing him and bringing him back was cheap and it sucked too. As far as killing him a long time ago, well, I am glad they didn't. After all, he was over 40 years old before I read my first issue, and I don't regret getting my chance to read new stories. Having read your thoughts tho, I would suggest, if you haven't already done so, that you see if you can get your hands on the 2 Supes issues that encompassed the "What Ever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?" story written by Alan Moore. They were the last two issues before the Byrne revamp.

Alan Moore got it.