#1 Posted by Rumble Man (11118 posts) - - Show Bio

Its interesting to me how heroes apply problem-solving in ways that we do in normal earth, the fact that not many of them realize that they are living in a 'comic' world that gives more opportunities is mind-boggling.

Take the crummy One More Day example where even dr Strange cannot heal a bullet hole.

#2 Posted by Kairan1979 (16868 posts) - - Show Bio

My thoughts exactly.
http://www.comicvine.com/myvine/kairan1979/wheres-my-jet-pack/87-72854/

#3 Posted by Rumble Man (11118 posts) - - Show Bio

@Kairan1979: Not only that, even the flow of time acts differently in comics verse

#4 Posted by quirky_anecdotes (344 posts) - - Show Bio

I don't know if this fits this topic properly but I've always found it funny how as a trekker/whovian that you have a guy like Picard or Kirk or even The Doctor going on about how great the human race when they live in universe where in the case of Kirk/Picard where Racism/Sexisim and seemingly Homophobia have all been don away and in The Doctor's case fought of hundreds of aliens invasion.

It's not hard to believe in Human greatness when your version of humanity has spent the last fifty years leg dropping massive invasions of alien robots like your Hulk Hogan at Wrestlemania 3. It's a bit harder to believe in it when you live in a world where Dictators starve their own people to death and commit Ethnic Cleansing at the drop of a hat.

#5 Posted by JediXMan (30976 posts) - - Show Bio

@Rumble Man said:

Take the crummy One More Day example where even dr Strange cannot heal a bullet hole.

... such bullcrap...

Moderator
#6 Posted by Rumble Man (11118 posts) - - Show Bio

They can beat alien invasion sure, but they cannot pay national debt or end social problems (sources of crime)

@JediXMan: where reed richards is dumbfounded, over a lil gunshot wound

#7 Posted by JediXMan (30976 posts) - - Show Bio

@Rumble Man said:

@JediXMan: where reed richards is dumbfounded, over a lil gunshot wound

Doom. Beast. Pym.

I mean... wow.

Moderator
#8 Posted by Rumble Man (11118 posts) - - Show Bio

@JediXMan: who wrote that anyways?

Quesada right?

#9 Posted by Veshark (9058 posts) - - Show Bio

Well, Grant Morrison explained it in JLA. In it, Superman gave his reasoning for why superheroes are reactive (handling villains and invasions) rather than proactive (solving all of the world's problems).

Essentially, what he said was that humans need to live to their own potential - and not be the 'pampered lapdog of superhumans'. That they had to stand on their own instead of depending on superheroes and using them as a crutch. In the DC Universe at least, what would achievements like the Olympics or a Nobel Prize mean if superhumans completely took over all aspects of humanity?

And then when Flash asks him 'then what's the reason for us even existing', Superman replies, 'To catch them if they fall.'

Of course this line of logic is debatable (see: Kingdom Come vs. Authority), but I thought I'd just put it out there.

#10 Posted by Rumble Man (11118 posts) - - Show Bio

@Veshark: Its sad to see starman doing actual change only for it to be retconned after end of the series

#11 Posted by Veshark (9058 posts) - - Show Bio

Afraid I haven't got a clue there, I've never read Starman! But yeah, nature of superhero comics I guess. Status quo is king.

#12 Posted by Rumble Man (11118 posts) - - Show Bio

@Veshark: But what I am referring to is not the just 'improvement' of mortals but alternative ways problems can be solved, say they don't want to advance humanity but there is a strong villain that can be defeated faster with X(whatever) technology. Yet next issue said tech is forgotten or lost.

#13 Posted by Veshark (9058 posts) - - Show Bio

But like I said, it's the nature of superhero comics. Status quo is king, and keeping deus ex machinas around simply makes for boring storytelling. If the Ultimate Nullifier worked every time against Galactus, and Reed Richards kept it next to his car keys, any invasion by Galactus would be over in a matter of panels. Where's the fun in that?

In-universe, it can be a little contrived, but I look at it this way. Such powerful items can never fully be in the control of mortals, and such power can often lead to bad consequences (Cosmic Cube, for instance).

#14 Posted by Rumble Man (11118 posts) - - Show Bio

@Veshark: It creates plot when they have an arms race between heroes and villains

#15 Posted by Veshark (9058 posts) - - Show Bio

That's one way to go about it, I guess.

#16 Posted by Rumble Man (11118 posts) - - Show Bio

@Veshark:

because I remember somewhere about a neat theory of why heroes don't kill

Stylized battles are more realistic
Ironically, the old stylized battles are more realistic than modern blood-and-guts battles. This is why:
Superpowers are dangerous. One wrong move and you're all dead. Where superpowers exist, wars become largely a matter of posturing, to intimidate but not to kill. We see this in the Cold War: nobody dared use nuclear weapons in anger, so the goal was to intimidate without escalating to mass death. So stylized super powered fights are more realistic than simple attempts to kill the enemy.
We can learn from Shaka Zulu.
Super beings are like the old Zulu tribes. Battles involve a lot of posturing and spear shaking, and warfare can continue for generations. But then Shaka Zulu came along, and he focused on more efficient killing. So he quickly defeats everyone and stability ended. For a stable costumed population you need to have wars based on proving your ability, not based on blood. As soon as a grim and gritty leader appears (like Shaka Zulu) then the game is over.
So for superheroes to exist, the only realistic kind of battle is the flamboyant ritual fighting of the silver age, not the bloodletting of modern times.
#17 Posted by Veshark (9058 posts) - - Show Bio

@Rumble Man said:

@Veshark:

because I remember somewhere about a neat theory of why heroes don't kill

Stylized battles are more realistic
Ironically, the old stylized battles are more realistic than modern blood-and-guts battles. This is why:
Superpowers are dangerous. One wrong move and you're all dead. Where superpowers exist, wars become largely a matter of posturing, to intimidate but not to kill. We see this in the Cold War: nobody dared use nuclear weapons in anger, so the goal was to intimidate without escalating to mass death. So stylized super powered fights are more realistic than simple attempts to kill the enemy.
We can learn from Shaka Zulu.
Super beings are like the old Zulu tribes. Battles involve a lot of posturing and spear shaking, and warfare can continue for generations. But then Shaka Zulu came along, and he focused on more efficient killing. So he quickly defeats everyone and stability ended. For a stable costumed population you need to have wars based on proving your ability, not based on blood. As soon as a grim and gritty leader appears (like Shaka Zulu) then the game is over.
So for superheroes to exist, the only realistic kind of battle is the flamboyant ritual fighting of the silver age, not the bloodletting of modern times.

Interesting analogy. I guess one could compare superheroes as walking nuclear deterrents.

#18 Posted by Rumble Man (11118 posts) - - Show Bio

@Veshark: well till the 90's came along

#19 Posted by JediXMan (30976 posts) - - Show Bio

@Rumble Man said:

@JediXMan: who wrote that anyways?

Quesada right?

JMS wrote it, I think.

Moderator
#20 Posted by Dragonborn_CT (23253 posts) - - Show Bio

@JediXMan said:

@Rumble Man said:

@JediXMan: who wrote that anyways?

Quesada right?

JMS wrote it, I think.

Its safe to say that Quesada came up with that whole bulls*** and JMS's name was just attached to it.

#21 Posted by lightsout (1831 posts) - - Show Bio

@Veshark said:

Well, Grant Morrison explained it in JLA. In it, Superman gave his reasoning for why superheroes are reactive (handling villains and invasions) rather than proactive (solving all of the world's problems).

Essentially, what he said was that humans need to live to their own potential - and not be the 'pampered lapdog of superhumans'. That they had to stand on their own instead of depending on superheroes and using them as a crutch. In the DC Universe at least, what would achievements like the Olympics or a Nobel Prize mean if superhumans completely took over all aspects of humanity?

And then when Flash asks him 'then what's the reason for us even existing', Superman replies, 'To catch them if they fall.'

Of course this line of logic is debatable (see: Kingdom Come vs. Authority), but I thought I'd just put it out there.

Also this, when Kyle was Ion (the original "god" one) (Also, do you remember what issue your quotes happened in? I'd love to find a scan & crop it out, like I did this one).

#22 Posted by Veshark (9058 posts) - - Show Bio

Great scans! Leave it to Superman to drop some poignant knowledge about being a 'god'.

Uh, the quote is from JLA #4, in the last few pages I believe.

#23 Posted by lightsout (1831 posts) - - Show Bio

@Veshark: Right? If I were a super hero (hold for laughing, lol), that would be part of my creed

Sweet, thanks - I found the page & here's the part you're taking about (for everyone else to see)

#24 Posted by Veshark (9058 posts) - - Show Bio

No problem. Oh yeah, definitely one of my favorite pages in comicdom!

#25 Posted by lightsout (1831 posts) - - Show Bio

@Veshark: If only because of Superman's glorious mullet in that era

#26 Posted by Veshark (9058 posts) - - Show Bio

Lol, I actually like the mullet. Then again, I also like the Electric Blue Superman, so take from that what you will ;)

#27 Posted by lightsout (1831 posts) - - Show Bio

@Veshark: Ooo boy...I may have to delete any evidence I was communicating with you :p.

seriously though - I remember reading the Blue-Supes issues of JLA, but not having read any Superman of that era (or any other comic for that matter) and thinking "wait.....when the hell did this happen?!", lol

#28 Posted by JediXMan (30976 posts) - - Show Bio

@Dragonborn_CT said:

@JediXMan said:

@Rumble Man said:

@JediXMan: who wrote that anyways?

Quesada right?

JMS wrote it, I think.

Its safe to say that Quesada came up with that whole bulls*** and JMS's name was just attached to it.

If memory serves, it was JMS' idea to end their marriage, but he had nothing to do with the crap that came after.

Moderator
#29 Posted by Veshark (9058 posts) - - Show Bio

Haha, I honestly don't mind it! I thought it was a nice departure from the usual Supes, and I actually quite like the design.

Yeah, it was a little jarring for me too, and till this day I still have no idea how Superman turned blue - and no desire to find out why. I just thought he had a cool new look, new powers, and just rolled with it. After all, the blue suit only lasted like two arcs, so I could live with it.

#30 Posted by lightsout (1831 posts) - - Show Bio

@Veshark: Yea, it was interesting to see a change-up in his power-set, and for him to have to apply himself different to do his normal duties. Now Red Superman is where I'm extra confused, lol. (just to derail this thread, lol. Although I think between our quotes we thoroughly answered why heroes don't solve all the world's problems).

#31 Posted by Rumble Man (11118 posts) - - Show Bio

@lightsout: Glorified babysitters?

#32 Posted by Veshark (9058 posts) - - Show Bio

I know nothing about Red Superman either...now that I think about it wasn't there something about Superman being split into two beings? And Red Supes being the angry one or something? Gah whatever, screw the 90s, I don't wanna know.

Haha I hadn't realized how many off-topic posts we've made until now XD.