|
Post by ThatGuy on May 6, 2017 0:41:47 GMT
Nope, because for everything there is a "the one i like is better than the one I don't like, so it's me against you." If someone talks down on the thing I like that person is the enemy. Even if it is a minor criticism. This is really sad. I can understand, if childs or teenagers have such a behavior. But adult people should a little bit wiser. It only seems childish because its comics. But think about the same guys that do it over sports teams. They riot over this stuff. DC, Image, Marvel, Valiant, etc. Think of them as sports teams with their favorite player on the team. The people in charge are coaches.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on May 6, 2017 0:51:10 GMT
MCU movies are ashamed and grounded and formulaic and based on the villains though. You said so yourself. When? All I said (IIRC) was that they don't go for the lazy DC way and make the villains the stars of the show. We both know the MCU is too grounded and ashamed. They need to be more courageous and wondrous like the X-flicks and the DCEU.
|
|
|
Post by brownstones on May 6, 2017 0:51:51 GMT
This is really sad. I can understand, if childs or teenagers have such a behavior. But adult people should a little bit wiser. It only seems childish because its comics. But think about the same guys that do it over sports teams. They riot over this stuff. DC, Image, Marvel, Valiant, etc. Think of them as sports teams with their favorite player on the team. The people in charge are coaches. .....yeah and the rioting is pretty dumb. so i'm pretty sure it seems childish, not because it's comics, but because the pettiness, and the temper tantrums are something a child would do.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on May 6, 2017 0:51:57 GMT
This is really sad. I can understand, if childs or teenagers have such a behavior. But adult people should a little bit wiser. It only seems childish because its comics. But think about the same guys that do it over sports teams. They riot over this stuff. DC, Image, Marvel, Valiant, etc. Think of them as sports teams with their favorite player on the team. The people in charge are coaches. YOU SHUT YOUR MOUTH, YOU SON OF A -- oh, wait, you're neutral in this thread...
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on May 6, 2017 0:57:29 GMT
That's the point, you never have a point except for demonstrating lowbrow debating culture. It's your nature. Thank you for your unwavering propensity for low effort thinking. "lowbrow" You use that word so often. I don't think it means what you think it means. you will forgive me, if I do not trust a man of certified trivial taste with defining the scope and meaning of the term "lowbrow"; the shallow mind will find everything deep. That being said, indeed "lowbrow" was poorly chosen in this context: The more apt description of your debating culture and skills would be "low", "underdeveloped", "poor" or similar. I will gladly correct this if it gratifies you.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on May 6, 2017 1:01:31 GMT
When? All I said (IIRC) was that they don't go for the lazy DC way and make the villains the stars of the show. We both know the MCU is too grounded and ashamed. They need to be more courageous and wondrous like the X-flicks and the DCEU. Oh, I get it. You've turned Bizarro.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on May 6, 2017 1:08:48 GMT
We both know the MCU is too grounded and ashamed. They need to be more courageous and wondrous like the X-flicks and the DCEU. Oh, I get it. You've turned Bizarro. Or is it YOU who has...? WHAT IS REALITY?!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2017 1:20:41 GMT
"lowbrow" You use that word so often. I don't think it means what you think it means. you will forgive me, if I do not trust a man of certified trivial taste with defining the scope and meaning of the term "lowbrow"; the shallow mind will find everything deep. That being said, indeed "lowbrow" was poorly chosen in this context: The more apt description of your debating culture and skills would be "low", "underdeveloped", "poor" or similar. I will gladly correct this if it gratifies you. No, that would be you. For all your talk about debating with people, you've done nothing of the sort with any of us. As a counterargument to your point about the hero only being as good as his villain, I brought up that Shakespeare's villains were hardly deep or nuanced. Claudius from Hamlet is a chump at the best of times, and yet Hamlet himself is revered as one of the all-time great fictional characters. Even master manipulator Iago from Othella only has being passed over for a promotion as his motivation for driving a man to murder his wife. To this, I received no reply.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on May 6, 2017 2:06:25 GMT
you will forgive me, if I do not trust a man of certified trivial taste with defining the scope and meaning of the term "lowbrow"; the shallow mind will find everything deep. That being said, indeed "lowbrow" was poorly chosen in this context: The more apt description of your debating culture and skills would be "low", "underdeveloped", "poor" or similar. I will gladly correct this if it gratifies you. No, that would be you. For all your talk about debating with people, you've done nothing of the sort with any of us. As a counterargument to your point about the hero only being as good as his villain, I brought up that Shakespeare's villains were hardly deep or nuanced. Claudius from Hamlet is a chump at the best of times, and yet Hamlet himself is revered as one of the all-time great fictional characters. Even master manipulator Iago from Othella only has being passed over for a promotion as his motivation for driving a man to murder his wife. To this, I received no reply. If Shakespeare were alive today, he would be writing for the WWE.
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on May 6, 2017 7:18:47 GMT
you will forgive me, if I do not trust a man of certified trivial taste with defining the scope and meaning of the term "lowbrow"; the shallow mind will find everything deep. That being said, indeed "lowbrow" was poorly chosen in this context: The more apt description of your debating culture and skills would be "low", "underdeveloped", "poor" or similar. I will gladly correct this if it gratifies you. No, that would be you. For all your talk about debating with people, you've done nothing of the sort with any of us. As a counterargument to your point about the hero only being as good as his villain, I brought up that Shakespeare's villains were hardly deep or nuanced. Claudius from Hamlet is a chump at the best of times, and yet Hamlet himself is revered as one of the all-time great fictional characters. Even master manipulator Iago from Othella only has being passed over for a promotion as his motivation for driving a man to murder his wife. To this, I received no reply. that is because I feel that the argument is beside the point of what the OP is saying and in itself invalid. In a nutshell: 1. Comparing pulp superhero characters with characters from classic drama and tragedy is futile and misleading. Typically unlike in pulpy black & white/good vs bad stories there are no real heroes and villains in Shakespeare’s (or other literary) plays. There are some exceptions of course. But what makes Shakespeare’s characters interesting is that they are real conflicted human beings, motivated by the conflicts and things that motivate human beings: they react to their circumstances and to people in different ways, they act like villains and Heros, but they are not per se good or evil. 2. If you really wanted to press these characters into the hero-villain template, it still yields interesting results: That is per se incorrect. Some of his all time greatest "villains" are still templates for good, deep character writing . Some examples: - Macbeth and Lady Macbeth - Richard III (one of the greatest villain of all time, a mediocre play survived because of him for centuries) - Shylock (so good and complex you will root for him) - Richard II - Edmond, Don John - Tamora, Titus Andronicus, Aaron the Moor to name just a few, but see below: The fundamental thinking error you commit is that nobody claims that pulp villains have to be deep or nuanced in a literary sense to be iconic! Quite the contrary: All these famous, iconic DC villains are anything but: What is the Joker's motivation for being a nutjob and psycho killer? He is as simplistic and one dimensional a character gets! And yet he is one of THE most famous pulp villains. His dynamic with Batman is a cultural staple that will keep Bats stories alive beyond the bubble - and that only is the message of my OP. Jago is a corresponding non-pulp example (based on real events and characters): The play (and the operas and other media) survived all this time because of his fascinating, dark character - he is a truly iconic villain, yet shallow and, yes, petty and banal as a character. Another famous example would be Faust and Mephisto, the latter is fascinating, but is poorly motivated too (in the end he is the devil, and does not have to justify evil). Hell, what makes you a great forum villain running amok discussing beefcake in tights and other B-Movie matters? Definitely not your deep or complex character, but rather that that you have your man days and want to unload real life frustrations in a contentious adhom fashion. Who cares? You are still one of the greats regardless, ever since IMDb days...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2017 2:47:56 GMT
1. Comparing pulp superhero characters with characters from classic drama and tragedy is futile and misleading. Typically unlike in pulpy black & white/good vs bad stories there are no real heroes and villains in Shakespeare’s (or other literary) plays. There are some exceptions of course. But what makes Shakespeare’s characters interesting is that they are real conflicted human beings, motivated by the conflicts and things that motivate human beings: they react to their circumstances and to people in different ways, they act like villains and Heros, but they are not per se good or evil. 2. If you really wanted to press these characters into the hero-villain template, it still yields interesting results: That is per se incorrect. Some of his all time greatest "villains" are still templates for good, deep character writing . Some examples: - Macbeth and Lady Macbeth - Richard III (one of the greatest villain of all time, a mediocre play survived because of him for centuries) - Shylock (so good and complex you will root for him) - Richard II - Edmond, Don John - Tamora, Titus Andronicus, Aaron the Moor to name just a few, but see below: The fundamental thinking error you commit is that nobody claims that pulp villains have to be deep or nuanced in a literary sense to be iconic! Quite the contrary: All these famous, iconic DC villains are anything but: What is the Joker's motivation for being a nutjob and psycho killer? He is as simplistic and one dimensional a character gets! And yet he is one of THE most famous pulp villains. His dynamic with Batman is a cultural staple that will keep Bats stories alive beyond the bubble - and that only is the message of my OP. Jago is a corresponding non-pulp example (based on real events and characters): The play (and the operas and other media) survived all this time because of his fascinating, dark character - he is a truly iconic villain, yet shallow and, yes, petty and banal as a character. Another famous example would be Faust and Mephisto, the latter is fascinating, but is poorly motivated too (in the end he is the devil, and does not have to justify evil). Hell, what makes you a great forum villain running amok discussing beefcake in tights and other B-Movie matters? Definitely not your deep or complex character, but rather that that you have your man days and want to unload real life frustrations in a contentious adhom fashion. Who cares? You are still one of the greats regardless, ever since IMDb days... Well, your interpretation of Shakespeare is rather snobby, as I should expect from someone like you. No surprise. Hate to break it to you, but The Bard's plays WERE pulpy for their time. Shakespeare was a Populist who wrote his plays to appeal to a wide audience of all classes. Or heck, other times he'd pander directly to his high profile patrons, like King James I, and wrote Macbeth because the new king had an interest in the Occult. 1. First of all, Shakespeare's writing was a little less gray than you might think, and there certainly WERE villains in his plays. Hilariously, I can apply everything you just wrote about what makes Shakespeare's characters interesting to the characters of the MCU. Not that you'd know. You're so lost in your biases that I could talk all day about what makes Steve Rogers tick and you'd still brush it off, because you're unwilling to give any film in the genre any credit for good writing. That is why you fail. You haven't even given an example how these films are lowbrow or beneath you. You just insult the films and fans without any real evidence to back your claims. You are the true forum villain with pretentious adhom attacks, but you're certainly no great. Secondly, no, you did not just list Tamora and Aaron as deep, well-written villains. Titus Andronicus was a mess, more like a slasher flick with flowery dialogue than a proper tragedy. Of course, it was his first attempt, he deserves some slack as he did improve tremendously afterwards. 2. I wasn't referring to the Villain Protagonists of plays like Macbeth, first of all. Of course, they were deeply written. They were the main characters of their stories. I'm referring to the villains which weren't the centers of the narrative, characters like Claudius from Hamlet, who is a rather shallow character at the best of times. Hamlet himself is the true source of depth in that play. And lastly, if you're going to mock the MCU for the impractical costumes, lose the Thundercats avatar.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on May 9, 2017 23:16:39 GMT
an oft overlooked aspect of good drama is that any protagonist is only as good as their antagonist. Translated to the world of tightly clad DC and MCU beefcakes that that means: super-villains. And as sceptical layman, I must say only DC has really iconic household name villains. In fact it seems that some of the villains are even more famous than their rivals: Batman may be the biggest superhero next to Supes, but Joker seems to exceed him on many fronts; hell even his toydoll Harley Quinn is absurdly popular compared to Batgirl or Robin. Let's not discuss all the other Bats villains like Penguin, Catwoman, Riddler, 2-Face - all iconic household names. Same with Supes: Lex Luther is an icon of evil himself. My grandmother knows these names and she never read a comic book! MCU? Who? I knew Loki before, but from Norse mythology, music and literature, not the films. Most in the general public could not name one MCU villain without googling. This is a chronic, inherent deficit that will in the long will blast their heroes back into the obscurity of the nerdosphere, regardless of how many crap DC movies are produced.
Ironically, it's only fair that the same can be said about the second-tier DC heroes: no good household name villains! Thus, nobody in the general public really gives a rat's ass about Flash, Wonderwoman, Aquaman . Their DCU popularity may peak right now because of novelty paired with Bats/Supes fatigue, but in the LONG RUN they will sink back to semi-oblivion again, as will their MCU counterparts. Pretty sure that outside of Batman's and Superman's villain roster, none of the other heroes have decent villains. I mean, Flash has characters like Reverse Flash and Captain Boomerang. That's pretty lame even for comicbook standards. Majority of your average audience probably won't know even 1 Wonder Woman villain or 1 Aquaman villain. MCU unfortunately had sold the rights of most of their prime villains (mostly X-men, F4 or Spiderman villains) but at least they have an excuse.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on May 10, 2017 10:39:22 GMT
outside of Batman's and Superman's villain roster, none of the other heroes have decent villains. I mean, Flash has characters like Reverse Flash and Captain Boomerang. The Flash has a Rogues gallery of good villains, certainly better than any villains that have appeared in MCU. The individual characters with the best villains are Superman, Batman, Spider-Man, and the Flash. The X-Men and Fantastic Four as teams have good villains, but MCU doesn't have any good villains at all.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on May 10, 2017 13:29:51 GMT
outside of Batman's and Superman's villain roster, none of the other heroes have decent villains. I mean, Flash has characters like Reverse Flash and Captain Boomerang. The Flash has a Rogues gallery of good villains, certainly better than any villains that have appeared in MCU. The individual characters with the best villains are Superman, Batman, Spider-Man, and the Flash. The X-Men and Fantastic Four as teams have good villains, but MCU doesn't have any good villains at all. No, the Flash's Rogues are pretty silly. But they work because they embrace the silliness and don't treat them as actual full-on villains but just kooks the Flash messes with. The MCU doesn't take the lazy way out, it doesn't make the villains the stars of the show because they don't believe in that nonsense about "A Hero is only as good as the villain." Because it's not true.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on May 10, 2017 15:15:33 GMT
The MCU doesn't take the lazy way out, it doesn't make the villains the stars of the show because they don't believe in that nonsense about "A Hero is only as good as the villain." Because it's not true. It's 100% true. Without Darth Vader, Luke Skywalker is just a farmboy and not a Jedi Knight who destroyed the Death Star and help defeat the Galactic Empire. It's like Ben Affleck said in Boiler Room: "Whoever says 'Money isn't everything' doesn't have any." They don't have money so they say "Money isn't everything" in order to make themselves feel better about themselves. But if they were part of that 1% that was rich, they wouldn't say "Money isn't everything", they would say "Money is the most important thing". Likewise with MCU and the dumb MCU fans. The only reason that MCU and dumb MCU fans say that it's not true that a good hero needs a good villain to challenge them and push them to the limit is because they know MCU doesn't have any good villains. But if MCU had access to the X-Men's villains or the Fantastic Four's villains, then MCU and the MCU fans would be saying that it's true that a good hero needs a good villain and fortunately there are some good X-Men villains and Fantastic Four villains. But since MCU doesn't have access to those good villains and doesn't have any good villains left, that's why MCU and the dumb MCU fans say that it isn't true to make themselves feel better. But it's 100% true. A hero isn't great if he's not challenged or pushed to the limit by a great adversary. If all Perseus had to do was outsmart 3 blind witches and defeat Calibos, then he wouldn't be a great hero. It's defeating Medusa and the Kraken that made Perseus a great hero.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on May 10, 2017 16:20:23 GMT
The MCU doesn't take the lazy way out, it doesn't make the villains the stars of the show because they don't believe in that nonsense about "A Hero is only as good as the villain." Because it's not true. It's 100% true. Without Darth Vader, Luke Skywalker is just a farmboy and not a Jedi Knight who destroyed the Death Star and help defeat the Galactic Empire. It's like Ben Affleck said in Boiler Room: "People who say 'Money isn't everything' don't have any." They don't have money so they say "Money isn't everything" in order to make themselves feel better about themselves. But if they were part of that 1% that was rich, they wouldn't say "Money isn't everything", they would say "Money is the most important thing". Likewise with MCU and the dumb MCU fans. The only reason that MCU and dumb MCU fans say that it's not true that a good hero needs a good villain to challenge them and push them to the limit is because they know MCU doesn't have any good villains. But if MCU had access to the X-Men's villains or the Fantastic Four's villains, then MCU and the MCU fans would be saying that it's true that a good hero needs a good villain and fortunately there are some good X-Men villains and Fantastic Four villains. But since MCU doesn't have access to those good villains and doesn't have any good villains left, that's why MCU and the dumb MCU fans say that it isn't true to make themselves feel better. But it's 100% true. A hero isn't great if he's not challenged or pushed to the limit by a great adversary. If all Perseus had to do was outsmart 3 blind witches and defeat Calibos, then he wouldn't be a great hero. It's defeating Medusa and the Kraken that made Perseus a great hero. Luke isn't a very interesting character even WITH Darth Vader. But Star Wars has never been known for deep characters in the first place. So that's a lame example. That line from Boiler Room is crap. No, we say that because he enjoy having movies that are about the hero because the hero is an interesting and developed character as opposed to how DC does things where the hero is mainly just a cipher who is there purely to do nothing but react to the villain (the real star of the show). DC themselves even realized this, it's why they've been trying to ape Marvel's style since the 1980s.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on May 10, 2017 18:27:37 GMT
outside of Batman's and Superman's villain roster, none of the other heroes have decent villains. I mean, Flash has characters like Reverse Flash and Captain Boomerang. The Flash has a Rogues gallery of good villains, certainly better than any villains that have appeared in MCU. The individual characters with the best villains are Superman, Batman, Spider-Man, and the Flash. The X-Men and Fantastic Four as teams have good villains, but MCU doesn't have any good villains at all. Nah, Cap's rogues gallery is a lot better than Flash's. Thor's rogues gallery is better than Wonder Woman. Face it, outside of Batman and Superman, DC doesn't really have that many good villains.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on May 10, 2017 20:03:54 GMT
The Flash has a Rogues gallery of good villains, certainly better than any villains that have appeared in MCU. The individual characters with the best villains are Superman, Batman, Spider-Man, and the Flash. The X-Men and Fantastic Four as teams have good villains, but MCU doesn't have any good villains at all. Nah, Cap's rogues gallery is a lot better than Flash's. Thor's rogues gallery is better than Wonder Woman. Face it, outside of Batman and Superman, DC doesn't really have that many good villains. Who exactly is Cap's "rogue's gallery" besides Red Skull and a bunch of jabrones?
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on May 10, 2017 20:28:55 GMT
The MCU doesn't take the lazy way out, it doesn't make the villains the stars of the show because they don't believe in that nonsense about "A Hero is only as good as the villain." Because it's not true. pretty solid denial there, champ: I don't want it to be true, so it's not; who needs conclusive arguments and facts?! But if if it's any consolation to you: If you firmly believe it, at least it's not a lie...
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on May 10, 2017 20:42:52 GMT
Nah, Cap's rogues gallery is a lot better than Flash's. Thor's rogues gallery is better than Wonder Woman. Face it, outside of Batman and Superman, DC doesn't really have that many good villains. Who exactly is Cap's "rogue's gallery" besides Red Skull and a bunch of jabrones? Red Skull Winter Soldier Batroc Zemo Von Strucker Crossbones AIM ... and that's just off the top of my head. Certainly better than Reverse Flash, Captain Cold, Trickster, Captain Boomerang and Weather Wizard.
|
|