|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Apr 5, 2018 12:48:47 GMT
You really must get over your obsession with poo. Act like real people, unlike most DC and Fox characters. All well done, human characters. Much moreso than DCEU Batman (Psychotic who apparently was heroic once, though you'd never know it), Superman (clinically depressed moper who can't stop moping) and Wonder Woman (Naïve woman-child who becomes slightly less naïve, but the writers are too cowardly to put in real danger). Cyborg, Flash and Aquaman don't have any actual characterization. The only "formula" the MCU has is that they get their movies done on time, they don't require massive budgets unless it's for films that really need them, they don't hire control freak directors and prima donna actors, they don't need to reshoot movies to the point they're new movies, and they know how to do proper storytelling. Get with the times, throwback. |
|
|
|
Post by sostie on Apr 5, 2018 12:54:54 GMT
There has always been a general consensus that Marvel comics and characters were more character based and "human" than DC ones. Marvel was always ahead of the game when it came to characterisation, storylines and presentation - just compare the publications from both in the 60s - a lot of Marvel heroes were coming to terms obtaining powers yet preserving their humanity and dealing with real life problems. DC heroes were mostly dealing with an evil genius who had a big hand of something ridiculous, and there were never really any continuing stories of any length or character arcs. (Wonder Woman did have "human" problems for a while, when DC turned her into a woman yearning for a boyfriend and worried about house work!!)
Millar was perhaps wrong to use the term "cinematic" but he isn't wrong in that Marvel comics/charecters are/were more relateable or "real". Not so much the case now....DC has improved over the years. But their origins still remain the same.
It is of course Millar's opinion, but he has worked for both publishers, created the work both Logan and some of the MCU films were based on (Old Man Logan, The Ultimates, Civil War), and wrote possibly one of the best Superman stories ever (Red Son), as well as creating some of the best non Marvel/DC comics in recent times including Kick Ass and Kingsman. It's not that he has no insight on the subject.
|
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Apr 5, 2018 15:36:40 GMT
Peter Parker has had trouble with money, girls, his job, his aunt, being somewhere on time etc. That's why Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2 are great movies while SMH is an awful movie. In Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2, Peter Parker is struggling in school, his boss is a jerk, his relationship with Mary Jane isn't as great as he wants it to be, and Aunt May is struggling to pay the mortgage. Peter has plenty of problems that most of us have experienced at some time in our lives so we can empathize with Peter and root for Peter to succeed. But in SMH, Peter Parker has no problems at all. He's doing well in school (he's on the Academic Decathlon Team so he must be getting good grades to be on the team), he doesn't have to get a job, he gets invited to parties and has a date for the Homecoming Dance, and Aunt May gets free meals in restaurants. Everything is going perfect for Peter and Peter is nothing more than a shallow show-off who's only concern is not a jerk boss or poor grades or relationship problems or financial problems but only how to impress Tony Stark. There's nothing to make the audience empthasize with Peter or want to root for Peter to succeed. In fact, in SMH, Adrian Toomes was a more likable character than Peter Parker and Toomes was the ONLY likable character in SMH. Toomes was only trying to provide for his family and got screwed over by Tony Stark's Damage Control team (which actually pulled out guns and threatened to shoot him). Peter wasn't on that team. He took another person's spot to get down to DC. Even then he missed the competition. Raimi's Spider-man went overboard with how crappy Peter's life is. With all the things that kept going wrong you'd think that Black Cat was his roommate. Another thing. You are comparing 2 different Peter Parkers. Not because of the universe they are in, but the time in their life. The Peter in Raimi's movies was in college and on his own. Homecoming's Peter is still living at home with May and in high school. The only problem he has is being where he's suppose to be. |
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Apr 5, 2018 15:57:04 GMT
Spider-man is his strength. He's Peter Parker before he is Spider-man. The explanation he gave the kid in TASM about the mask making him stronger is how he is in the comics. The mask is what gives him his confidence. When he goes on the date with Lois and is about to tell her his secret. When he stands up straight, that's the real person. He became Superman and shrugged off Clark. He does the same thing in Superman 2 when he stuck his hand in the fire and got upset when she ultimately figured him out. Same goes for when they are together in the FoS and when he's talking to his holo mom. That's all the real Clark. Yes, he's putting on a show when he tells her flying is the safest way to travel. You can see that he's trolling her when he turns around and smiles. Part of it, yes. The trying to be the "messenger of hope" Superman. But the Kal El that's with the Justice League is the real one. There is the Superman that's talking to journalist or a crowd, Clark Kent, and the Kal El that hangs with the Justice League and others that know his secret and grew up in Smallville. That Kal El is usually different than the Clark in Metropolis. And, yes, he does take pride in that article because that is not something that came to him from birth. So is the real Peter Parker meek and timid? Clark did indeed shrug off the mild-mannered reporter, yes. But he wasn't using the Superman persona. We also saw in Superman 4 when the developers were trying to buy his farm the real Clark. The bumbling fool persona he puts on for Lois and everyone else is as much a disguise as the blue tights and cape. The real Clark is somewhere in the middle. Plus, he's not Kal-El. He's Clark. He grew up with Johnathan and Martha Kent on their farm. He learned their values and morals. Kal-El is someone he never got to be. Kal-El would also be a disguise to other heroes who aren't as close to him. Bruce calls him Clark. The JL/JLU series was great at showing all their real personalities. Clark becomes Superman so people will let him lead a normal human life. If Superman was who he really was, there'd be no need for Clark. Peter isn't meek and timid at all. In any iteration. He was using the Superman persona because that is him. He was going to reveal that he was Superman. None of them know him as Kal El. Also, if they did know his Kryptonian name they would still call him Clark because that makes him more human. Clark is what he use so he stays grounded and doesn't become this:  If he didn't stay close to the people he is trying to protect, he'd be on the Watchtower like in Kingdom Come, scanning the Earth. |
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Apr 5, 2018 16:36:38 GMT
So is the real Peter Parker meek and timid? Clark did indeed shrug off the mild-mannered reporter, yes. But he wasn't using the Superman persona. We also saw in Superman 4 when the developers were trying to buy his farm the real Clark. The bumbling fool persona he puts on for Lois and everyone else is as much a disguise as the blue tights and cape. The real Clark is somewhere in the middle. Plus, he's not Kal-El. He's Clark. He grew up with Johnathan and Martha Kent on their farm. He learned their values and morals. Kal-El is someone he never got to be. Kal-El would also be a disguise to other heroes who aren't as close to him. Bruce calls him Clark. The JL/JLU series was great at showing all their real personalities. Clark becomes Superman so people will let him lead a normal human life. If Superman was who he really was, there'd be no need for Clark. Peter isn't meek and timid at all. In any iteration. He was using the Superman persona because that is him. He was going to reveal that he was Superman. None of them know him as Kal El. Also, if they did know his Kryptonian name they would still call him Clark because that makes him more human. Clark is what he use so he stays grounded and doesn't become this: If he didn't stay close to the people he is trying to protect, he'd be on the Watchtower like in Kingdom Come, scanning the Earth. Peter was meek and timid for decades in the comics. He was going to reveal he was Superman, yes. But that's not his real personality. The persona of Superman is as much a disguise as the bumbling Clark. The real Clark is in the middle. And they all do know his birth name is Kal-El. That's public knowledge. And he became that not because he didn't have Clark, but because Lois died. That's what led him down the dark path. Which is similar to what happens in Kingdom Come, yet even there, he retired to his farm for over ten years. That's who he is. Clark, not Superman. And even at the end, he returns to farming in Kansas. |
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Apr 5, 2018 17:58:34 GMT
Peter isn't meek and timid at all. In any iteration. He was using the Superman persona because that is him. He was going to reveal that he was Superman. None of them know him as Kal El. Also, if they did know his Kryptonian name they would still call him Clark because that makes him more human. Clark is what he use so he stays grounded and doesn't become this: If he didn't stay close to the people he is trying to protect, he'd be on the Watchtower like in Kingdom Come, scanning the Earth. Peter was meek and timid for decades in the comics. He was going to reveal he was Superman, yes. But that's not his real personality. The persona of Superman is as much a disguise as the bumbling Clark. The real Clark is in the middle. And they all do know his birth name is Kal-El. That's public knowledge. And he became that not because he didn't have Clark, but because Lois died. That's what led him down the dark path. Which is similar to what happens in Kingdom Come, yet even there, he retired to his farm for over ten years. That's who he is. Clark, not Superman. And even at the end, he returns to farming in Kansas. What Peter are you talking about? Why reveal he is Superman by putting on another persona? Why not "be himself" and then fly her out of there? Putting on another persona means he'd still be lying to her. Since when? Everyone publicly calls him Superman. And he lost sight of who he was. Farming after retiring from being Superman doesn't mean he's Clark. That's just how he grew up. He still flew around and lifted wooden beams as a Kryptonian. |
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Apr 5, 2018 18:12:05 GMT
Peter was meek and timid for decades in the comics. He was going to reveal he was Superman, yes. But that's not his real personality. The persona of Superman is as much a disguise as the bumbling Clark. The real Clark is in the middle. And they all do know his birth name is Kal-El. That's public knowledge. And he became that not because he didn't have Clark, but because Lois died. That's what led him down the dark path. Which is similar to what happens in Kingdom Come, yet even there, he retired to his farm for over ten years. That's who he is. Clark, not Superman. And even at the end, he returns to farming in Kansas. What Peter are you talking about? Why reveal he is Superman by putting on another persona? Why not "be himself" and then fly her out of there? Putting on another persona means he'd still be lying to her. Since when? Everyone publicly calls him Superman. And he lost sight of who he was. Farming after retiring from being Superman doesn't mean he's Clark. That's just how he grew up. He still flew around and lifted wooden beams as a Kryptonian. Peter Parker. He's not putting on a persona. He's shedding the bumbling reporter. Bingo, he lost sight of Clark. Meaning that totalitarian version of him isn't who he is. It's who he becomes if he's lost his way. Yes, it does mean that because he went on to do what he wants, and yes, he flew around and lifted wooden beams. Those are his powers. They are part of him. They are part of what they can do. But they are are not his personality. Clark is his personality. The farm boy who grew up in Kansas. |
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Apr 6, 2018 3:53:39 GMT
That's why Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2 are great movies while SMH is an awful movie. In Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2, Peter Parker is struggling in school, his boss is a jerk, his relationship with Mary Jane isn't as great as he wants it to be, and Aunt May is struggling to pay the mortgage. Peter has plenty of problems that most of us have experienced at some time in our lives so we can empathize with Peter and root for Peter to succeed. But in SMH, Peter Parker has no problems at all. He's doing well in school (he's on the Academic Decathlon Team so he must be getting good grades to be on the team), he doesn't have to get a job, he gets invited to parties and has a date for the Homecoming Dance, and Aunt May gets free meals in restaurants. Everything is going perfect for Peter and Peter is nothing more than a shallow show-off who's only concern is not a jerk boss or poor grades or relationship problems or financial problems but only how to impress Tony Stark. There's nothing to make the audience empthasize with Peter or want to root for Peter to succeed. In fact, in SMH, Adrian Toomes was a more likable character than Peter Parker and Toomes was the ONLY likable character in SMH. Toomes was only trying to provide for his family and got screwed over by Tony Stark's Damage Control team (which actually pulled out guns and threatened to shoot him). Peter wasn't on that team. He took another person's spot to get down to DC. Even then he missed the competition. Peter was originally on the Academic Decathlon Team. He quit the team. Then he re-joined the team just in time for the trip to D.C. And he missed the competition because (as DHS and FBI would see it), he gave an explosive device to his best friend Ned to take into the Washington Monument to blow up the elevator so obviously Peter wouldn't want to show up for the team's trip to the Washington Monument when Peter knows that his best friend is going to blow up the elevator with an explosive device that Peter gave him. That's another reason why SMH is such a badly-written movie. DHS and FBI would've detained Ned for questioning until Ned gave up Peter as the guy to gave him the explosive device. Then DHS and FBI would've gotten a warrant to search Aunt May's apartment. You are comparing 2 different Peter Parkers. Not because of the universe they are in, but the time in their life. The Peter in Raimi's movies was in college and on his own. Homecoming's Peter is still living at home with May and in high school. That only means the jerk boss thing doesn't apply. But high school kids can have relationship problems like college students do. In Spider-Man 2, Petre's relationship with Mary Jane wasn't as close as what he wanted. In SMH, Peter not only gets invited to parties but also has a date to the Homecoming Dance with the girl he has a crush on. And in Spider-Man 2, Peter was struggling to keep up his grades in school. In SMH, Peter is doing so well in school that he's on the Academic Decathlon Team. And in Spider-Man 2, Aunt May is struggling to pay the mortgage, which makes Peter worried and concerned as well. But in SMH, Aunt May gets free meals in restaurants. So my point still stands. Peter Parker in Spider-Man 2 has many of the same problems that most of us have experience at 1 time or another so we can empathize with Peter and root for Peter to succeed. Nut in SMH, life is perfect for Peter. No relationship problems. No problems trying to keep up in school. No financial problems for Aunt May. Life is perfect and Peter's only concern is how to impress Tony Stark. There's nothing hard about Peter's life in SMH and nothing that makes us want to root for Peter to succeed in SMH. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Apr 6, 2018 3:59:16 GMT
That only means the jerk boss thing doesn't apply. But high school kids can have relationship problems like college students do. In Spider-Man 2, Petre's relationship with Mary Jane wasn't as close as what he wanted. That's more because of the Raimi Peter's incompetence than bad luck. Because he's not as incompetent as Raimi's Peter was. He was doing fine by SM2...because he started being competent. She struggles because they had a house, and those struggles ended because she moved into an apartment. The MCU Parkers already realized an apartment was the better idea. Competence. Is that Raimi's Spidey was pretty incompetent. |
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Apr 6, 2018 4:05:25 GMT
They could always go back to THE ADVENTURES OF CAPTAIN MARVEL approach and make it about the adventure elements.
That serial movie hardly focused on Billy Batson beyond what he needed to do for the plot.
I think it was longer than a 2 hour movie and yet held your attention because it is focused on the adventure aspects.
Or follow the cartoons. The animations tended to emphasize the adventure because no one wants to sit through a cartoon where people hand wring over their marriage.
If they need a human story, they can add supporting characters for that.
You dont usually watch a story about someone in a colourful costume and super powers because you want to see them discuss quirky relationship problems.
|
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Apr 6, 2018 11:38:04 GMT
You dont usually watch a story about someone in a colourful costume and super powers because you want to see them discuss quirky relationship problems. That's what made Marvel famous and made DC and everyone else want in on that, though. |
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Apr 6, 2018 12:46:42 GMT
That's what made Marvel famous and made DC and everyone else want in on that, though. No what made Marvel famous was mass marketing. Other companies dont have the money Disney has, or its willingness to use access to hotels and other perks to promote itself. If the fantasy element was taken out of the films, they would be about as mainstream as a Woody Allen film. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Apr 6, 2018 12:54:02 GMT
That's what made Marvel famous and made DC and everyone else want in on that, though. No what made Marvel famous was mass marketing. Back in the 60s, when they first became famous?
If anything, DC only lasted as long as it has because WB bought them out back in the 60s.
|
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Apr 6, 2018 13:19:05 GMT
Back in the 60s, when they first became famous?
If anything, DC only lasted as long as it has because WB bought them out back in the 60s.
Partly--Spider-man toys, cartoons etc. But I was referring to the mass marketing of the movies. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Apr 6, 2018 13:45:14 GMT
Back in the 60s, when they first became famous?
If anything, DC only lasted as long as it has because WB bought them out back in the 60s.
Partly--Spider-man toys, cartoons etc. But I was referring to the mass marketing of the movies. I'm talking about Marvel's popularity in general. It started in the 60s with their revolutionary storytelling for comics. We had Spider-Man learning about Great Power and Great Responsibility and Captain America dealing with stuff like Civil Rights, meanwhile DC gave us stuff about Superman dealing with Rainbow Kryptonite.
It would've been a great story if we had a Batman comic where he realizes he's a White Collar Criminal who steals from his Shareholders.
|
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Apr 6, 2018 17:48:53 GMT
I'm talking about Marvel's popularity in general. It started in the 60s with their revolutionary storytelling for comics. We had Spider-Man learning about Great Power and Great Responsibility and Captain America dealing with stuff like Civil Rights, meanwhile DC gave us stuff about Superman dealing with Rainbow Kryptonite.
It would've been a great story if we had a Batman comic where he realizes he's a White Collar Criminal who steals from his Shareholders.
Popularity with whom? Most of the public had never heard of Iron Man until 2008. Batman and Superman on the other hand were household names by 1960. The appeal of rainbow kryptonite runs deep I guess. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Apr 6, 2018 18:45:00 GMT
I'm talking about Marvel's popularity in general. It started in the 60s with their revolutionary storytelling for comics. We had Spider-Man learning about Great Power and Great Responsibility and Captain America dealing with stuff like Civil Rights, meanwhile DC gave us stuff about Superman dealing with Rainbow Kryptonite.
It would've been a great story if we had a Batman comic where he realizes he's a White Collar Criminal who steals from his Shareholders.
Popularity with whom? Spidey? Lots of people. Iron Man was known by some, just not a superstar until the last 10 years. Lack of competition, mainly. If Marvel had come out at the exact same time as DC, Batman and Superman would've had a harder time of it. |
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Apr 6, 2018 18:59:21 GMT
Spidey? Lots of people. Iron Man was known by some, just not a superstar until the last 10 years.Lack of competition, mainly. If Marvel had come out at the exact same time as DC, Batman and Superman would've had a harder time of it. Spider-man was widely known thanks to his unique appearance and merchandising--cartoons etc. Same with the Hulk. But Iron Man and the rest were much lesser known. If Sam Spade and Phillip Marlowe came along at the same time as Sherlock Holmes, the latter would have a harder time of it--but there is something to being first or a trend setter. Mind you, in the case of Batman and Superman another factor was that they were heavily promoted--while other characters like Doc Savage and the Shadow were sidelined. If they had had the same kind of publicity-who knows. Doc Savage and Conan enjoyed a revival in the 60s thanks to wider marketing. In the case of Spider-man, he was such a unique looking character that he practically could sell himself. Darth Vader a similar situation. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Apr 6, 2018 19:29:54 GMT
Spidey? Lots of people. Iron Man was known by some, just not a superstar until the last 10 years.Lack of competition, mainly. If Marvel had come out at the exact same time as DC, Batman and Superman would've had a harder time of it. Spider-man was widely known thanks to his unique appearance and merchandising--cartoons etc. Same with the Hulk. But Iron Man and the rest were much lesser known. And Spidey got that because his books sold better...because of the new kind of storytelling you didn't see in other comics. |
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Apr 6, 2018 19:32:28 GMT
And Spidey got that because his books sold better...because of the new kind of storytelling you didn't see in other comics. The cartoon was in development right as Ditko was leaving so I would say it had less to do with story and more to do with seeing the selling potential in merchandising to kids overall. The comics for kids part was just one aspect of it. In fact, I believe Ditko left because he was seeing the merchandising starting to happen and wanted a bigger cut (he was already taking over the plotting alone). And Spider-man's design is entirely Ditko's doing. |
|
