Coming to this one late, but for what it is worth at the point:
-Wrecking car vs. Beating up the bully:
I think it comes down to two things. The first, most important, is tone. Sure, putting the two actions down on paper as facts and they might compare. But to me the two scenes *feel* different. The bully comeuppance in Donner/Lester feels lighter because the whole tone of the movie is lighter. In Snyder, it seems darker because the movie is.
Also, even if letting the bully punch you in your steel-this-time face is sneaky, at least you are doing it face to face. The thing with the truck was both vengeful and done out of sight. Those two things feel different. And I think that the tone problems and lack of hope-- attached to a LONGstanding character that we (at least those of us in the audience not meeting a "Superman" for the first time) can be expected to want some hope and aspiration from-- is simply put the main problem with MOS.
-Superman as the gold standard:
The simplest way to signify "superhero" is to put a red cape on something and add the prefix "Super-". Superman is the archetype. The genre creator. Other characters may make more at the box office. May have sold more merchandise and moved more paper. But Superman is what took all sorts of prior myths and some bits of sci-fi and pulp, and fused them into this new thing (or, at least, people felt it was new). And it exploded Into the culture, and has been one of the most recognizable icons ever since. It's always been Superman. Even if more people are reading and watching Batman. (And, hell, I like Batman better, but he straddles other genres. Even from the earliest days, Batman wasn't really a superhero strip.)
But that's us just turning every thread into a conversation about Batman again... ;)
I kind of interpret this 'gold standard' bit to equate the first in the era. I might go along that Kent is the most recognized as the original, but I don't buy that that makes him 'the gold standard.' Especially since he's changed over the years just as much as other characters from the beginning years.
Coming to this one late, but for what it is worth at the point:
-Wrecking car vs. Beating up the bully:
I think it comes down to two things. The first, most important, is tone. Sure, putting the two actions down on paper as facts and they might compare. But to me the two scenes *feel* different. The bully comeuppance in Donner/Lester feels lighter because the whole tone of the movie is lighter. In Snyder, it seems darker because the movie is.
Also, even if letting the bully punch you in your steel-this-time face is sneaky, at least you are doing it face to face. The thing with the truck was both vengeful and done out of sight. Those two things feel different. And I think that the tone problems and lack of hope-- attached to a LONGstanding character that we (at least those of us in the audience not meeting a "Superman" for the first time) can be expected to want some hope and aspiration from-- is simply put the main problem with MOS.
-Superman as the gold standard:
The simplest way to signify "superhero" is to put a red cape on something and add the prefix "Super-". Superman is the archetype. The genre creator. Other characters may make more at the box office. May have sold more merchandise and moved more paper. But Superman is what took all sorts of prior myths and some bits of sci-fi and pulp, and fused them into this new thing (or, at least, people felt it was new). And it exploded Into the culture, and has been one of the most recognizable icons ever since. It's always been Superman. Even if more people are reading and watching Batman. (And, hell, I like Batman better, but he straddles other genres. Even from the earliest days, Batman wasn't really a superhero strip.)
But that's us just turning every thread into a conversation about Batman again... ;)
I kind of interpret this 'gold standard' bit to equate the first in the era. I might go along that Kent is the most recognized as the original, but I don't buy that that makes him 'the gold standard.' Especially since he's changed over the years just as much as other characters from the beginning years.
M
Do you mean "gold" as in quality or as in fame and visibility? I mean the latter. Not that Superman has remained consistently the best, but that he is the thing people thing of first when they think "superhero". His is the theme for everything else to be a variation on.
Coming to this one late, but for what it is worth at the point:
-Wrecking car vs. Beating up the bully:
I think it comes down to two things. The first, most important, is tone. Sure, putting the two actions down on paper as facts and they might compare. But to me the two scenes *feel* different. The bully comeuppance in Donner/Lester feels lighter because the whole tone of the movie is lighter. In Snyder, it seems darker because the movie is.
Also, even if letting the bully punch you in your steel-this-time face is sneaky, at least you are doing it face to face. The thing with the truck was both vengeful and done out of sight. Those two things feel different. And I think that the tone problems and lack of hope-- attached to a LONGstanding character that we (at least those of us in the audience not meeting a "Superman" for the first time) can be expected to want some hope and aspiration from-- is simply put the main problem with MOS.
-Superman as the gold standard:
The simplest way to signify "superhero" is to put a red cape on something and add the prefix "Super-". Superman is the archetype. The genre creator. Other characters may make more at the box office. May have sold more merchandise and moved more paper. But Superman is what took all sorts of prior myths and some bits of sci-fi and pulp, and fused them into this new thing (or, at least, people felt it was new). And it exploded Into the culture, and has been one of the most recognizable icons ever since. It's always been Superman. Even if more people are reading and watching Batman. (And, hell, I like Batman better, but he straddles other genres. Even from the earliest days, Batman wasn't really a superhero strip.)
But that's us just turning every thread into a conversation about Batman again... ;)
I kind of interpret this 'gold standard' bit to equate the first in the era. I might go along that Kent is the most recognized as the original, but I don't buy that that makes him 'the gold standard.' Especially since he's changed over the years just as much as other characters from the beginning years.
M
Do you mean "gold" as in quality or as in fame and visibility? I mean the latter. Not that Superman has remained consistently the best, but that he is the thing people thing of first when they think "superhero". His is the theme for everything else to be a variation on.
I'm under the impression, based on @WetRats initial usage that since Kent was the first & began the "Age of Superhero" he's the 'gold standard' of superheroes.
I just think that's the case. I don't think the Model T is the gold standard of cars. I don't think the Wright Brothers' plane is the gold standard.
I also don't think Kent would be the first person people think about when they hear "superhero". It's probably Iron Man at this point. I'm sure at some point in time, Kent was what people thought of first. I just think there's been SO many comic book movies in the last 10-15 years that Kent isn't in the forefront like say, in the 80s.
Coming to this one late, but for what it is worth at the point:
-Wrecking car vs. Beating up the bully:
I think it comes down to two things. The first, most important, is tone. Sure, putting the two actions down on paper as facts and they might compare. But to me the two scenes *feel* different. The bully comeuppance in Donner/Lester feels lighter because the whole tone of the movie is lighter. In Snyder, it seems darker because the movie is.
Also, even if letting the bully punch you in your steel-this-time face is sneaky, at least you are doing it face to face. The thing with the truck was both vengeful and done out of sight. Those two things feel different. And I think that the tone problems and lack of hope-- attached to a LONGstanding character that we (at least those of us in the audience not meeting a "Superman" for the first time) can be expected to want some hope and aspiration from-- is simply put the main problem with MOS.
-Superman as the gold standard:
The simplest way to signify "superhero" is to put a red cape on something and add the prefix "Super-". Superman is the archetype. The genre creator. Other characters may make more at the box office. May have sold more merchandise and moved more paper. But Superman is what took all sorts of prior myths and some bits of sci-fi and pulp, and fused them into this new thing (or, at least, people felt it was new). And it exploded Into the culture, and has been one of the most recognizable icons ever since. It's always been Superman. Even if more people are reading and watching Batman. (And, hell, I like Batman better, but he straddles other genres. Even from the earliest days, Batman wasn't really a superhero strip.)
But that's us just turning every thread into a conversation about Batman again... ;)
I kind of interpret this 'gold standard' bit to equate the first in the era. I might go along that Kent is the most recognized as the original, but I don't buy that that makes him 'the gold standard.' Especially since he's changed over the years just as much as other characters from the beginning years.
M
Do you mean "gold" as in quality or as in fame and visibility? I mean the latter. Not that Superman has remained consistently the best, but that he is the thing people thing of first when they think "superhero". His is the theme for everything else to be a variation on.
I'm under the impression, based on @WetRats initial usage that since Kent was the first & began the "Age of Superhero" he's the 'gold standard' of superheroes.
I just think that's the case. I don't think the Model T is the gold standard of cars. I don't think the Wright Brothers' plane is the gold standard.
I also don't think Kent would be the first person people think about when they hear "superhero". It's probably Iron Man at this point. I'm sure at some point in time, Kent was what people thought of first. I just think there's been SO many comic book movies in the last 10-15 years that Kent isn't in the forefront like say, in the 80s.
M
I disagree. There is something so simple about the image of Superman that the icon, the brand of him, is still more present. More sticky. There is a reason why even knockoffs or parodies of superheroes (just imagine any little local ad that shows "Tire-Man" or "Carpet-Cleaner-Man". It is always a drawing of someone with a cape flapping behind. A riff on Superman. He is so simple that he is the easiest to adapt. Or impersonate. He is the Coke logo. The Santa Claus in the red and white suit.
Heck, anecdotally, my toddler will tie a little fabric around her neck and declare herself " Super-Emma". Thanks to subway posters and toys and kids books she can identify a lot of superheroes. She loves Spider-Man, Hulk, and Iron Man, too. But when it is time to impersonate the easiest one for her to take on is the riff on Superman. (The Hulk a close second, that makes me enormously happy) But Supernan seems the easiest way in.
Might that change with 30 or 40 years more of Avengers and Spider-Man culture? Maybe.
But at the moment, the archetype is still Superman.
Coming to this one late, but for what it is worth at the point:
-Wrecking car vs. Beating up the bully:
I think it comes down to two things. The first, most important, is tone. Sure, putting the two actions down on paper as facts and they might compare. But to me the two scenes *feel* different. The bully comeuppance in Donner/Lester feels lighter because the whole tone of the movie is lighter. In Snyder, it seems darker because the movie is.
Also, even if letting the bully punch you in your steel-this-time face is sneaky, at least you are doing it face to face. The thing with the truck was both vengeful and done out of sight. Those two things feel different. And I think that the tone problems and lack of hope-- attached to a LONGstanding character that we (at least those of us in the audience not meeting a "Superman" for the first time) can be expected to want some hope and aspiration from-- is simply put the main problem with MOS.
-Superman as the gold standard:
The simplest way to signify "superhero" is to put a red cape on something and add the prefix "Super-". Superman is the archetype. The genre creator. Other characters may make more at the box office. May have sold more merchandise and moved more paper. But Superman is what took all sorts of prior myths and some bits of sci-fi and pulp, and fused them into this new thing (or, at least, people felt it was new). And it exploded Into the culture, and has been one of the most recognizable icons ever since. It's always been Superman. Even if more people are reading and watching Batman. (And, hell, I like Batman better, but he straddles other genres. Even from the earliest days, Batman wasn't really a superhero strip.)
But that's us just turning every thread into a conversation about Batman again... ;)
I kind of interpret this 'gold standard' bit to equate the first in the era. I might go along that Kent is the most recognized as the original, but I don't buy that that makes him 'the gold standard.' Especially since he's changed over the years just as much as other characters from the beginning years.
M
Do you mean "gold" as in quality or as in fame and visibility? I mean the latter. Not that Superman has remained consistently the best, but that he is the thing people thing of first when they think "superhero". His is the theme for everything else to be a variation on.
I'm under the impression, based on @WetRats initial usage that since Kent was the first & began the "Age of Superhero" he's the 'gold standard' of superheroes.
I just think that's the case. I don't think the Model T is the gold standard of cars. I don't think the Wright Brothers' plane is the gold standard.
I also don't think Kent would be the first person people think about when they hear "superhero". It's probably Iron Man at this point. I'm sure at some point in time, Kent was what people thought of first. I just think there's been SO many comic book movies in the last 10-15 years that Kent isn't in the forefront like say, in the 80s.
M
I disagree. There is something so simple about the image of Superman that the icon, the brand of him, is still more present. More sticky. There is a reason why even knockoffs or parodies of superheroes (just imagine any little local ad that shows "Tire-Man" or "Carpet-Cleaner-Man". It is always a drawing of someone with a cape flapping behind. A riff on Superman. He is so simple that he is the easiest to adapt. Or impersonate. He is the Coke logo. The Santa Claus in the red and white suit.
Heck, anecdotally, my toddler will tie a little fabric around her neck and declare herself " Super-Emma". Thanks to subway posters and toys and kids books she can identify a lot of superheroes. She loves Spider-Man, Hulk, and Iron Man, too. But when it is time to impersonate the easiest one for her to take on is the riff on Superman. (The Hulk a close second, that makes me enormously happy) But Supernan seems the easiest way in.
Might that change with 30 or 40 years more of Avengers and Spider-Man culture? Maybe.
But at the moment, the archetype is still Superman.
I guess in that context. I normally don't equate a kid in a cape as pretending to be Kent. Just some make believe hero in a cape. That could be because I know there were heroes before Kent that had capes.
Coming to this one late, but for what it is worth at the point:
-Wrecking car vs. Beating up the bully:
I think it comes down to two things. The first, most important, is tone. Sure, putting the two actions down on paper as facts and they might compare. But to me the two scenes *feel* different. The bully comeuppance in Donner/Lester feels lighter because the whole tone of the movie is lighter. In Snyder, it seems darker because the movie is.
Also, even if letting the bully punch you in your steel-this-time face is sneaky, at least you are doing it face to face. The thing with the truck was both vengeful and done out of sight. Those two things feel different. And I think that the tone problems and lack of hope-- attached to a LONGstanding character that we (at least those of us in the audience not meeting a "Superman" for the first time) can be expected to want some hope and aspiration from-- is simply put the main problem with MOS.
-Superman as the gold standard:
The simplest way to signify "superhero" is to put a red cape on something and add the prefix "Super-". Superman is the archetype. The genre creator. Other characters may make more at the box office. May have sold more merchandise and moved more paper. But Superman is what took all sorts of prior myths and some bits of sci-fi and pulp, and fused them into this new thing (or, at least, people felt it was new). And it exploded Into the culture, and has been one of the most recognizable icons ever since. It's always been Superman. Even if more people are reading and watching Batman. (And, hell, I like Batman better, but he straddles other genres. Even from the earliest days, Batman wasn't really a superhero strip.)
But that's us just turning every thread into a conversation about Batman again... ;)
I kind of interpret this 'gold standard' bit to equate the first in the era. I might go along that Kent is the most recognized as the original, but I don't buy that that makes him 'the gold standard.' Especially since he's changed over the years just as much as other characters from the beginning years.
M
Do you mean "gold" as in quality or as in fame and visibility? I mean the latter. Not that Superman has remained consistently the best, but that he is the thing people thing of first when they think "superhero". His is the theme for everything else to be a variation on.
I'm under the impression, based on @WetRats initial usage that since Kent was the first & began the "Age of Superhero" he's the 'gold standard' of superheroes.
I just think that's the case. I don't think the Model T is the gold standard of cars. I don't think the Wright Brothers' plane is the gold standard.
I also don't think Kent would be the first person people think about when they hear "superhero". It's probably Iron Man at this point. I'm sure at some point in time, Kent was what people thought of first. I just think there's been SO many comic book movies in the last 10-15 years that Kent isn't in the forefront like say, in the 80s.
M
I disagree. There is something so simple about the image of Superman that the icon, the brand of him, is still more present. More sticky. There is a reason why even knockoffs or parodies of superheroes (just imagine any little local ad that shows "Tire-Man" or "Carpet-Cleaner-Man". It is always a drawing of someone with a cape flapping behind. A riff on Superman. He is so simple that he is the easiest to adapt. Or impersonate. He is the Coke logo. The Santa Claus in the red and white suit.
Heck, anecdotally, my toddler will tie a little fabric around her neck and declare herself " Super-Emma". Thanks to subway posters and toys and kids books she can identify a lot of superheroes. She loves Spider-Man, Hulk, and Iron Man, too. But when it is time to impersonate the easiest one for her to take on is the riff on Superman. (The Hulk a close second, that makes me enormously happy) But Supernan seems the easiest way in.
Might that change with 30 or 40 years more of Avengers and Spider-Man culture? Maybe.
But at the moment, the archetype is still Superman.
I guess in that context. I normally don't equate a kid in a cape as pretending to be Kent. Just some make believe hero in a cape. That could be because I know there were heroes before Kent that had capes.
M
Indeed. There were. And *you* know that because you are an expert on that era, and have studied pulp heroes like an academic.
But my daughter knows cape=superhero because of Superman.
I guess in that context. I normally don't equate a kid in a cape as pretending to be Kent. Just some make believe hero in a cape. That could be because I know there were heroes before Kent that had capes.
I guess in that context. I normally don't equate a kid in a cape as pretending to be Kent. Just some make believe hero in a cape. That could be because I know there were heroes before Kent that had capes.
M
They're not pretending to be Kent.
They're pretending to be SUPERMAN!
"Superman" is just the name he was given by Lois. He'll always just be Kent in a special colorful suit.
I guess in that context. I normally don't equate a kid in a cape as pretending to be Kent. Just some make believe hero in a cape. That could be because I know there were heroes before Kent that had capes.
M
They're not pretending to be Kent.
They're pretending to be SUPERMAN!
"Superman" is just the name he was given by Lois. He'll always just be Kent in a special colorful suit.
I guess in that context. I normally don't equate a kid in a cape as pretending to be Kent. Just some make believe hero in a cape. That could be because I know there were heroes before Kent that had capes.
M
They're not pretending to be Kent.
They're pretending to be SUPERMAN!
"Superman" is just the name he was given by Lois. He'll always just be Kent in a special colorful suit.
M
Not to that kid.
Days like these, it would be great to have a dislike button, no?
I guess in that context. I normally don't equate a kid in a cape as pretending to be Kent. Just some make believe hero in a cape. That could be because I know there were heroes before Kent that had capes.
M
They're not pretending to be Kent.
They're pretending to be SUPERMAN!
"Superman" is just the name he was given by Lois. He'll always just be Kent in a special colorful suit.
M
Not to that kid.
Days like these, it would be great to have a dislike button, no?
I guess in that context. I normally don't equate a kid in a cape as pretending to be Kent. Just some make believe hero in a cape. That could be because I know there were heroes before Kent that had capes.
M
They're not pretending to be Kent.
They're pretending to be SUPERMAN!
"Superman" is just the name he was given by Lois. He'll always just be Kent in a special colorful suit.
M
Not to that kid.
Days like these, it would be great to have a dislike button, no?
Yes it would!
M
Wait-- weren't you the one that wanted them taken off the menu??
I guess in that context. I normally don't equate a kid in a cape as pretending to be Kent. Just some make believe hero in a cape. That could be because I know there were heroes before Kent that had capes.
M
They're not pretending to be Kent.
They're pretending to be SUPERMAN!
"Superman" is just the name he was given by Lois. He'll always just be Kent in a special colorful suit.
M
Not to that kid.
Days like these, it would be great to have a dislike button, no?
Yes it would!
M
Wait-- weren't you the one that wanted them taken off the menu??
I guess in that context. I normally don't equate a kid in a cape as pretending to be Kent. Just some make believe hero in a cape. That could be because I know there were heroes before Kent that had capes.
M
They're not pretending to be Kent.
They're pretending to be SUPERMAN!
"Superman" is just the name he was given by Lois. He'll always just be Kent in a special colorful suit.
M
Not to that kid.
Days like these, it would be great to have a dislike button, no?
Yes it would!
M
Wait-- weren't you the one that wanted them taken off the menu??
It was (apparently) one of my 20% instead of 80% comments.
I guess in that context. I normally don't equate a kid in a cape as pretending to be Kent. Just some make believe hero in a cape. That could be because I know there were heroes before Kent that had capes.
M
They're not pretending to be Kent.
They're pretending to be SUPERMAN!
"Superman" is just the name he was given by Lois. He'll always just be Kent in a special colorful suit.
M
Not to that kid.
Days like these, it would be great to have a dislike button, no?
Yes it would!
M
Wait-- weren't you the one that wanted them taken off the menu??
David D... the man who got it!
"Freak out" is a vastly over exaggerated way of describing a gnat flying around the face. Annoyance is closer to the truth.
...its been years since I've 'freaked out' about anything.
I guess in that context. I normally don't equate a kid in a cape as pretending to be Kent. Just some make believe hero in a cape. That could be because I know there were heroes before Kent that had capes.
M
They're not pretending to be Kent.
They're pretending to be SUPERMAN!
"Superman" is just the name he was given by Lois. He'll always just be Kent in a special colorful suit.
M
Not to that kid.
Days like these, it would be great to have a dislike button, no?
Yes it would!
M
Wait-- weren't you the one that wanted them taken off the menu??
David D... the man who got it!
"Freak out" is a vastly over exaggerated way of describing a gnat flying around the face. Annoyance is closer to the truth.
...its been years since I've 'freaked out' about anything.
I guess in that context. I normally don't equate a kid in a cape as pretending to be Kent. Just some make believe hero in a cape. That could be because I know there were heroes before Kent that had capes.
M
They're not pretending to be Kent.
They're pretending to be SUPERMAN!
"Superman" is just the name he was given by Lois. He'll always just be Kent in a special colorful suit.
I guess in that context. I normally don't equate a kid in a cape as pretending to be Kent. Just some make believe hero in a cape. That could be because I know there were heroes before Kent that had capes.
M
They're not pretending to be Kent.
They're pretending to be SUPERMAN!
"Superman" is just the name he was given by Lois. He'll always just be Kent in a special colorful suit.
I guess in that context. I normally don't equate a kid in a cape as pretending to be Kent. Just some make believe hero in a cape. That could be because I know there were heroes before Kent that had capes.
M
They're not pretending to be Kent.
They're pretending to be SUPERMAN!
"Superman" is just the name he was given by Lois. He'll always just be Kent in a special colorful suit.
M
DISAGREE
Is that a 'strongly disagree'?
M
It's a "disagree" while making a stern face. If it was a strong "disagree" I would have included an exclamation point.
I guess in that context. I normally don't equate a kid in a cape as pretending to be Kent. Just some make believe hero in a cape. That could be because I know there were heroes before Kent that had capes.
M
They're not pretending to be Kent.
They're pretending to be SUPERMAN!
"Superman" is just the name he was given by Lois. He'll always just be Kent in a special colorful suit.
M
DISAGREE
Is that a 'strongly disagree'?
M
It's a "disagree" while making a stern face. If it was a strong "disagree" I would have included an exclamation point.
Ah. The all caps threw me.
Again, to each his own. Looking at Smallville & Man of Steel, Kent was Superman well before he donned the suit & used the name*, hence my comment.
M
*You can argue the applications again, @David_D@WetRats & @Chuck_Melville, but Kent was saving people before and after he donned the suit in Man of Steel!
I haven't seen anything remotely "heroic" much less "super" about the MOS. To top it off, he sulks, doesn't smile, is petulant and altogether unlikeable. MOS seems sort of like the kind of film a person who prefers Batman over Superman would've made - much like @Matt which explains his diehard defense of a clearly flawed and poorly received / reviewed movie.
I'm tired of being told how "if you don't like this movie you just don't get it." I've concluded that the movie is "meh" and Snyder is out of his depth, as usual. I can't be convinced otherwise anymore than you could talk me into liking food that I've just tasted and not liked.
This film had so much potential and top-shelf special effects but no heart. So many confusing decisions by Snyder too, from the truck stop cowardice, to that Temple of the Dog tune, to bearded Superman, and the list goes on.
I agree with @David_D and @WetRats on this thread completely. If Superman 2's bully scene at the end gives license to make Superman an immature, classless revenge-seeker, then I have nothing but pity for the fans of these "modern" heroes that are sadly not worth looking up to.
I haven't seen anything remotely "heroic" much less "super" about the MOS. To top it off, he sulks, doesn't smile, is petulant and altogether unlikeable. MOS seems sort of like the kind of film a person who prefers Batman over Superman would've made - much like @Matt which explains his diehard defense of a clearly flawed and poorly received / reviewed movie.
I'm tired of being told how "if you don't like this movie you just don't get it." I've concluded that the movie is "meh" and Snyder is out of his depth, as usual. I can't be convinced otherwise anymore than you could talk me into liking food that I've just tasted and not liked.
This film had so much potential and top-shelf special effects but no heart. So many confusing decisions by Snyder too, from the truck stop cowardice, to that Temple of the Dog tune, to bearded Superman, and the list goes on.
I agree with @David_D and @WetRats on this thread completely. If Superman 2's bully scene at the end gives license to make Superman an immature, classless revenge-seeker, then I have nothing but pity for the fans of these "modern" heroes that are sadly not worth looking up to.
Gee, THIS is what it feels like to the 60s Batman series!
I guess some people only want one version of the character; with minimal depth.
Comments
M
I just think that's the case. I don't think the Model T is the gold standard of cars. I don't think the Wright Brothers' plane is the gold standard.
I also don't think Kent would be the first person people think about when they hear "superhero". It's probably Iron Man at this point. I'm sure at some point in time, Kent was what people thought of first. I just think there's been SO many comic book movies in the last 10-15 years that Kent isn't in the forefront like say, in the 80s.
M
You win!
Everything is relative and subjective.
There are no standards.
Idealism and wonder are boring.
Hoorah!
Heck, anecdotally, my toddler will tie a little fabric around her neck and declare herself " Super-Emma". Thanks to subway posters and toys and kids books she can identify a lot of superheroes. She loves Spider-Man, Hulk, and Iron Man, too. But when it is time to impersonate the easiest one for her to take on is the riff on Superman. (The Hulk a close second, that makes me enormously happy) But Supernan seems the easiest way in.
Might that change with 30 or 40 years more of Avengers and Spider-Man culture? Maybe.
But at the moment, the archetype is still Superman.
M
M
But my daughter knows cape=superhero because of Superman.
They're pretending to be SUPERMAN!
M
M
As it is, I'm confused.
M
It would certainly make sense.
:D
But the formatting makes it somewhat unclear.
M
However, feel free to interpret in any manner that you choose. David D... the man who got it!
M
...its been years since I've 'freaked out' about anything.
M
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-marich/blockbuster-fatigue-anyon_b_5512397.html
M
M
Again, to each his own. Looking at Smallville & Man of Steel, Kent was Superman well before he donned the suit & used the name*, hence my comment.
M
*You can argue the applications again, @David_D @WetRats & @Chuck_Melville, but Kent was saving people before and after he donned the suit in Man of Steel!
I'm tired of being told how "if you don't like this movie you just don't get it." I've concluded that the movie is "meh" and Snyder is out of his depth, as usual. I can't be convinced otherwise anymore than you could talk me into liking food that I've just tasted and not liked.
This film had so much potential and top-shelf special effects but no heart. So many confusing decisions by Snyder too, from the truck stop cowardice, to that Temple of the Dog tune, to bearded Superman, and the list goes on.
I agree with @David_D and @WetRats on this thread completely. If Superman 2's bully scene at the end gives license to make Superman an immature, classless revenge-seeker, then I have nothing but pity for the fans of these "modern" heroes that are sadly not worth looking up to.
I guess some people only want one version of the character; with minimal depth.
M
LOL