|
Post by formersamhmd on Jan 25, 2018 23:59:55 GMT
Really, when taken as a whole...Superman has only ever had ONE good movie. The original Donner film. Superman II may be seen as good but it has way too many characterization issues from the main character. Supes II is my favorite. Still like Supes 1 a lot though. Superman II suffers, IMO...from Superman hardly being heroic through most of the film. He gives up his powers so he can be with his deranged stalker, never thinking it through. Then when he decides he doesn't like being powerless (it isn't just Zod and co that make him think this, he didn't like feeling powerless) he gets his powers back to stop them. He stops them and then sadistically tortures Zod for the Hell of it, then he violates Lois' mind without her permission so things can go back the way they were before and finishes off by beating up that Redneck Trucker purely for revenge.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Jan 26, 2018 4:08:57 GMT
For the 1930s, yes that is still child-oriented because it was still portrayed in a cartoonish way.
Just like Dick Tracy had plenty of violence but was still for kids.
I wouldn't use the term child-oriented. Superman was created by a teenager who was the frequent victim of bullying. He channeled his frustration into the fantasy of an all-powerful protector. He wanted his work to primarily appeal to other teens who had endured the same and the downtrodden in general. It helps to go beyond wikipedia if you're looking for a deeper perspective... Regarding Superman's premise as conceived by Jerry Siegel Regarding the target audience for Action Comics #1 Excerpts From Larry Tye's “Superman: The High Flying History of America's Most Enduring Superhero” It's worth noting that it wasn't just children/teens who became enamored of Superman almost immediately. Adults also read the comics because Superman represented hope and optimism during a time when both were in short supply. It wasn't because the character was dark and gritty or frequently perpetrated wanton violence. The revisionist narratives that Superman was always for adults and only enjoyed by adults is nonsense that can easily be debunked by picking up a well-researched text on the matter.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Jan 26, 2018 4:24:32 GMT
I think there are a few levels to this, Lord Death Man . Certainly the ‘50s and early ‘60s comics are for kids, though they’ve got some great plotting, art, and color in them; I really enjoy them. “The Night of March 31st,” one of my favorite Superman comics, is absolutely ingenious—borrowing a clever central gambit from Ellery Queen’s “The Emperor’s Dice,” in fact. Though I didn’t know Shuster and Siegel’s motive in creating Superman, I’m not at all surprised that that’s what it was. With that said, I should also note that the comics in the ‘30s, though also for kids, were much more serious than those in the ‘40s and ‘50s. Supes was an almost-nasty kind of vigilante, dropping villains from the top of the Daily Star building and then catching them just centimeters from the ground, putting the fear-of-God into ‘em. So, yeah, there are two sides to him. Also, he was always intended (primarily) for kids, though there’s genuine intelligence in a lot of the comics then.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Jan 26, 2018 4:52:05 GMT
I think there are a few levels to this, Lord Death Man . Certainly the ‘50s comics are for kids, though they’ve got some great plotting, art, and color in them; I really enjoy them. “The Night of March 31st,” one of my favorite Superman comics, is absolutely ingenious—borrowing a clever central gambit from Ellery Queen’s “The Emperor’s Dice,” in fact. Though I didn’t know Shuster and Siegel’s motive in creating Superman, I’m not at all surprised that that’s what it was. With that said, I should also note that the comics in the ‘30s, thought also for kids, were much more serious than those in the ‘40s and ‘50s. Supes was an almost-nasty kind of vigilante, dropping villains from the top of the Daily Star building and then catching them just centimeters from the ground, putting the fear-of-God into ‘em. So, yeah, there are two sides to him. Also, he was always intended (primarily) for kids, though there’s genuine intelligence in a lot of the comics then. Well said. We do a disservice to the character if we choose to selectively recognize some aspects of his roots and not others. I recognize his early sadistic tendencies as a reflection of the times he was born in. That aspect of the character came from the mind of Jewish teenager who was victimized relentlessly and, when he had a venue to "respond," his reactions were disproportionate. We also need to acknowledge the character's roots as a fantasy figure, rooted in the pseudo-science of the day and targeted towards children and teens.
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Jan 26, 2018 7:52:09 GMT
the guy claimed that SM was created for 8-10 year old children, my respons was to that. In fact the character was a symbol of optimism and national strength to uplift morale in depression & war times.
And this Wiki article shows that Superman always had an dark side, the current arc-version is closer to the original Superman than anything. Like with Batman there are many versions, from Lego Supes to the Man of Steel.
So that makes at least 2 attempts to make Superman "dark" and twice they had to change it because it didn't work. This is a pointless argument as purely subjective, and pretty "pretentious" as you do not decide for anyone what works or what does not. This whole discussion is a pointless straw man anyway as nobody here claimed that Superman is "Only for Adults" or necessarily dark - except for some posters creating an straw man claiming that this was claimed. And then claiming stuff that SM was created for 8-10 year olds, which is clearly nonsense if you know the very dark Reign of Superman origins (as a criminal vagrant) and the later brutal origins of the real Superman.
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Jan 26, 2018 15:56:19 GMT
So that makes at least 2 attempts to make Superman "dark" and twice they had to change it because it didn't work. This is a pointless argument as purely subjective, and pretty "pretentious" as you do not decide for anyone what works or what does not. This whole discussion is a pointless straw man anyway as nobody here claimed that Superman is "Only for Adults" or necessarily dark - except for some posters creating an straw man claiming that this was claimed. And then claiming stuff that SM was created for 8-10 year olds, which is clearly nonsense if you know the very dark Reign of Superman origins (as a criminal vagrant) and the later brutal origins of the real Superman. Just like Batman essentially dressed like Adam West's Batman and killed, and the Wonder Woman was filled with bondage and sexual subtext in them. Again, these are all early versions of the characters. We're talking about the mainstream version of each characters, which generally is aimed at kids.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Jan 26, 2018 16:56:30 GMT
This is a pointless argument as purely subjective, and pretty "pretentious" as you do not decide for anyone what works or what does not. This whole discussion is a pointless straw man anyway as nobody here claimed that Superman is "Only for Adults" or necessarily dark - except for some posters creating an straw man claiming that this was claimed. And then claiming stuff that SM was created for 8-10 year olds, which is clearly nonsense if you know the very dark Reign of Superman origins (as a criminal vagrant) and the later brutal origins of the real Superman. Just like Batman essentially dressed like Adam West's Batman and killed, and the Wonder Woman was filled with bondage and sexual subtext in them. Again, these are all early versions of the characters. We're talking about the mainstream version of each characters, which generally is aimed at kids. William Moulton Marston saw untapped potential in the comic book medium for education. Wonder Woman was created as a role model for young girls which would eschew the idea that girls were timid and weak. Wonder Woman's strong female archetype also challenged the popular wisdom of the day that said a superhero must solve all of their problems with violence. The fact that bondage and submission featured prominently in early Wonder Woman stories doesn't necessarily mean that it wasn't meant for children or only meant for adults. If I recall correctly, in the Marston biography, he refers to bondage and submission as a 'respectful and noble' pursuit. He thought it was an entirely suitable idea to expose young girls to as the psycho-sexual implications of the practice were not fully understood at that time. Kids back then were far less sheltered. There was only a loose framework for what constituted ideas and imagery that would be harmful to their development.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Jan 26, 2018 18:44:35 GMT
DC and WB need to stop aiming too high. Every time they make these DCEU movies they're trying to go for a massive hit like the Avengers did. The MCU was fine with making smaller movies like Captain America TFA and Antman which, although good, were not juggernauts. Wonder Woman is the first time the DCEU felt like they stepped back and allowed a movie to just "be" instead of forcing to make it so epic. And look how that turned out: their most successful movie yet.
If the DCEU can learn to make a superhero movie that enjoys itself and knows how to breath then they'll be on the path to success. As it is now, they're putting too much expectations on the movies and the movies have a feeling of being strangled and buckling under immense weight.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Jan 26, 2018 18:58:55 GMT
DC and WB need to stop aiming too high. Every time they make these DCEU movies they're trying to go for a massive hit like the Avengers did. The MCU was fine with making smaller movies like Captain America TFA and Antman which, although good, were not juggernauts. Wonder Woman is the first time the DCEU felt like they stepped back and allowed a movie to just "be" instead of forcing to make it so epic. And look how that turned out: their most successful movie yet. If the DCEU can learn to make a superhero movie that enjoys itself and knows how to breath then they'll be on the path to success. As it is now, they're putting too much expectations on the movies and the movies have a feeling of being strangled and buckling under immense weight. Honestly, WB/DC should not have attempted a shared universe at all. No one cares if you're second and late when it comes to innovation. They should have found a totally different cinematic direction to go in. They needed another concept altogether. They should have treated their "universe" like an anthology series.
|
|
gromel
Sophomore
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
@gromel
Posts: 279
Likes: 119
![](http://storage.proboards.com/6692551/images/CTEdkGf0wmfSETIzYiXk.gif)
|
Post by gromel on Jan 28, 2018 14:17:43 GMT
So that makes at least 2 attempts to make Superman "dark" and twice they had to change it because it didn't work. Really, when taken as a whole...Superman has only ever had ONE good movie. The original Donner film. Superman II may be seen as good but it has way too many characterization issues from the main character. Half of a good movie then, because Space God Jor-El nearly ruins the first half. It's indirectly responsible for Snyder's Christ imagery. Superman is not Space Jesus.
|
|