|
Post by poelzig on Aug 4, 2017 6:53:31 GMT
No, because to "inspire" other superhero characters, they have to get published first. And when Action Comics became the most popular comic-book after the premiere of Superman, many comic-book writers and artists started creating other superheroes but most of them didn't get published because comic-book publishers didn't think they would be able to sell comics so those unpublished superheroes were just forgotten. So No, Superman wasn't expendable. Superman was the 1st superhero that a comic-book publisher thought would be able to sell comics and it's because of Superman's popularity that the door was opened for other superhero comic books. So without Superman, there would be no comic-book superheroes.Superman was, and is, utterly expendable. He's an archetype and those are a dime a dozen. He was just lucky someone thought he could sell when anyone else in his place would have sold just as well. Comic book superheroes would've had someone else who sold well in Superman's place and comics would proceed unchanged. It's obvious your word of the day calendar has woefully misled you concerning the definition of the word archetype. It has been amusing watching you dig your chasm of stupidity ever deeper but out of curiosity are you just trolling or are you amazingly clueless?
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Aug 4, 2017 8:17:23 GMT
Superman was, and is, utterly expendable. He's an archetype and those are a dime a dozen. He was just lucky someone thought he could sell when anyone else in his place would have sold just as well. Comic book superheroes would've had someone else who sold well in Superman's place and comics would proceed unchanged. It's obvious your word of the day calendar has woefully misled you concerning the definition of the word archetype. It has been amusing watching you dig your chasm of stupidity ever deeper but out of curiosity are you just trolling or are you amazingly clueless? ![](https://s26.postimg.org/gf93ycxax/giveup.gif) that's the big question around here, I say both. I for one tried to explain the exact concept to samy several times (CG Jung, Freud etc), without any avail. All words and no brains, it seems. To be fair, he is one of the smarter ones here, you should see the raptor or archstanton.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Aug 4, 2017 12:05:13 GMT
Once again, you're ignoring the obvious boosters in WW that artificially augmented it. Nah, I'm saying the film succeeded on its own merit and you've done nothing to prove otherwise. It succeeded thanks to the artificial boosters. Without that it's mediocre. Of course, by DC standards mediocre is still better than their products thus far.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Aug 4, 2017 12:06:41 GMT
Superman was, and is, utterly expendable. He's an archetype and those are a dime a dozen. He was just lucky someone thought he could sell when anyone else in his place would have sold just as well. Comic book superheroes would've had someone else who sold well in Superman's place and comics would proceed unchanged. It's obvious your word of the day calendar has woefully misled you concerning the definition of the word archetype. It has been amusing watching you dig your chasm of stupidity ever deeper but out of curiosity are you just trolling or are you amazingly clueless? Calm down man, this is imdb. An archetype is a recurrent symbol or motif in literature, art, or mythology. Superman is basic enough that he really wasn't necessary, and anyone else could've easily replaced him in the grand scheme of things.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Aug 4, 2017 12:12:58 GMT
It's obvious your word of the day calendar has woefully misled you concerning the definition of the word archetype. It has been amusing watching you dig your chasm of stupidity ever deeper but out of curiosity are you just trolling or are you amazingly clueless? ![](https://s26.postimg.org/gf93ycxax/giveup.gif) that's the big question around here, I say both. I for one tried to explain the exact concept to samy several times (CG Jung, Freud etc), If Superman was more than a basic archetype, then bringing up those guys would've meant something. But as it is, he merely is just one of the modern day incarnations of an archetype seen many times before without really bringing anything new to the table.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Aug 4, 2017 13:39:20 GMT
Nah, I'm saying the film succeeded on its own merit and you've done nothing to prove otherwise. It succeeded thanks to the artificial boosters. Without that it's mediocre. Of course, by DC standards mediocre is still better than their products thus far. So you can't prove shit and are talking out your ass, got it.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Aug 4, 2017 21:39:26 GMT
It succeeded thanks to the artificial boosters. Without that it's mediocre. Of course, by DC standards mediocre is still better than their products thus far. So you can't prove shit and are talking out your ass, got it. It succeeded thanks to the artificial boosters. Without that it's mediocre. Of course, by DC standards mediocre is still better than their products thus far.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Aug 5, 2017 4:11:53 GMT
So you can't prove shit and are talking out your ass, got it. It succeeded thanks to the artificial boosters. Without that it's mediocre. Of course, by DC standards mediocre is still better than their products thus far. Wrong again, BJ.
|
|
|
Post by poelzig on Aug 5, 2017 6:24:18 GMT
It's obvious your word of the day calendar has woefully misled you concerning the definition of the word archetype. It has been amusing watching you dig your chasm of stupidity ever deeper but out of curiosity are you just trolling or are you amazingly clueless? Calm down man, this is imdb. An archetype is a recurrent symbol or motif in literature, art, or mythology. Superman is basic enough that he really wasn't necessary, and anyone else could've easily replaced him in the grand scheme of things. An archetype is the ORIGINAL object on which all others are based. In the case of Superman original means unique and never before seen. Are you seriously so ignorant you think original concepts are a "dime a dozen"? If so explain how you have NEVER had an original idea in your entire sad little so called life. Your word of the day definition of archetype applies to EVERY Timely and later Marvel comic book character. They are all just pale imitations of superior characters. I'm still not sure if you're trolling or actually as stupid as you seem. I can't remember you ever posting anything that wasn't at least slightly stupid so........ According to you, any superhero character would have started the superhero craze. Yet Popeye who gained super strength and powers when he ate spinach didn't start a craze. Neither did The Clock the first masked hero who had a secret identity and a hidden lair. Both predated Superman but neither created the kind of crazed popularity that Superman did. It took Superman to create an industry that still thrives today. If you have even a tiny bit of intelligence you will admit you were entirely wrong. If you are a pathetic moron you will keep prattling on about how The Whizzer could have easily started the super hero phenomenon.
|
|
|
Post by poelzig on Aug 5, 2017 6:30:49 GMT
![](https://s26.postimg.org/gf93ycxax/giveup.gif) that's the big question around here, I say both. I for one tried to explain the exact concept to samy several times (CG Jung, Freud etc), If Superman was more than a basic archetype, then bringing up those guys would've meant something. But as it is, he merely is just one of the modern day incarnations of an archetype seen many times before without really bringing anything new to the table. Again you really can't grasp what archetype means when applied to Superman, huh? Try and search for the definition somewhere other than the 5 word definition in your word of the day calendar. It will help you look slightly less pathetic. You're welcome.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Aug 5, 2017 11:52:57 GMT
If Superman was more than a basic archetype, then bringing up those guys would've meant something. But as it is, he merely is just one of the modern day incarnations of an archetype seen many times before without really bringing anything new to the table. Again you really can't grasp what archetype means when applied to Superman, huh? It means he was just the latest iteration of a heroic idea seen many times before, he was just lucky that he came at the right time for comics to be popular. But he was overall expendable and any other hero would've filled his place if he hadn't existed.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Aug 5, 2017 12:00:47 GMT
Calm down man, this is imdb. An archetype is a recurrent symbol or motif in literature, art, or mythology. Superman is basic enough that he really wasn't necessary, and anyone else could've easily replaced him in the grand scheme of things. An archetype is the ORIGINAL object on which all others are based. In the case of Superman original means unique and never before seen. Are you seriously so ignorant you think original concepts are a "dime a dozen"? If so explain how you have NEVER had an original idea in your entire sad little so called life. Your word of the day definition of archetype applies to EVERY Timely and later Marvel comic book character. They are all just pale imitations of superior characters. I'm still not sure if you're trolling or actually as stupid as you seem. I can't remember you ever posting anything that wasn't at least slightly stupid so........ According to you, any superhero character would have started the superhero craze. Yet Popeye who gained super strength and powers when he ate spinach didn't start a craze. Neither did The Clock the first masked hero who had a secret identity and a hidden lair. Both predated Superman but neither created the kind of crazed popularity that Superman did. It took Superman to create an industry that still thrives today. If you have even a tiny bit of intelligence you will admit you were entirely wrong. If you are a pathetic moron you will keep prattling on about how The Whizzer could have easily started the super hero phenomenon. Archetypes can be recurrent in storytelling, a bare-bones figure that keeps showing up in one form or another. Superman included, as he's derived from a basic ideal that's existed long before the 20th Century, an ideal that's existed since classical mythology and biblical times. To be a true character he'd need more than what his basic character was, and that didn't start to happen until the 1970s. And yes, concepts like him (people of power, and little else) are a dime a dozen until you get to the improved later versions from the 70s and 80s that tried to give him more distinctive qualities beyond his powers. "They are all just pale imitations of superior characters.", nah that's just salty DC readers who can't accept Marvel tried something new and it paid off. Like flawed characters and interpersonal conflict. Or leads who deal with common issues beyond "hammy villain who steals the story from the hero." "According to you, any superhero character would have started the superhero craze." In the late 30s, yes. That was the right time for the boom. Popeye came too early, and the Clock's stories were never long enough for him to leave an impression. Plus he had to compete against the Shadow, a more distinctive character. My estimate, Captain Marvel would've easily replaced Superman in the grand scheme of things. He had a bit more to him.
|
|