batshrine's forum posts

#1 Posted by batshrine (994 posts) - - Show Bio
@blade_r said:

@batshrine said:
@blade_r said:

@batshrine said:
@blade_r said:

Sorry but Man Of Steel Superman was not evil. He wasn't perfect, but he wasn't evil.

I'm glad you caught on to that. I put him in on purpose. The problem is unless you have a perfect Superman, where is the line between good and evil drawn?

To put it in perspective, I am willing to bet that Osama bin Laden, Hitler, Lex Luthor, and Ra's Al Ghul all think that what they are doing is just and right. When Superman in Man of Steel helped with the destruction of an entire city easily causing the death of MILLIONS (ya that's more than what Osama even did), he stopped being good. Sure he was stopping Zod, but the Superman we all know and grew up with would have and could have easily moved the fight to somewhere less inhabited. Then he became executioner at the end of the movie...no due process. So sure he wasn't evil, but I can hardly say he is good when people are just a means to an end.

I even put the Black president Superman that morrison made at the very end. He is a good guy, and way less flawed from Man of Steel (as far as I remember). But he is the most powerful man ruling the (arguably) most powerful country. Call me paranoid, but that is too much power for one person to have. Unless we think versions of dictator Superman is good, cause he probably does lower the death rate by A LOT. So that begs the question for us as readers, is freedom worth that sacrifice?

I believe his heart was in the right place but he just made mistakes like most people do. I don't know why he didn't try to move the fight to a less populated area but I don't think he was intentionally trying to cause destruction and kill innocent people. I think he was just focused on stopping the bad guy, which obviously caused a lot of unnecessary death and destruction but I think what was intentional and will make him into the Superman people like. He will probably catch flack and get bashed for causing so much destruction, he will probably be haunted by killing Zod with his own hands, and probably will feel really bad about all those innocent people dying, and I think those things will lead to him creating his no kill code and eventually shape him into classic Superman in a way.

a tale of redemption! I like it, like honestly, it could turn out really well if they actually go that route with what you said. I just don't want brooding Superman anymore...lol

Lol yeah I know what you mean, a lot of people are not very fond of MOS Superman. (I actually loved Man Of Steel) Anyway yeah, I think a lot of the stuff he gets flack for in real life by fans and critics, he will get flack for in the actual movies, and im thinking (hoping) this will kind of hit Clark hard, he will have some internal conflict, probably beat himself up over it, and eventually promises to himself that he wont let something like that happen again, and this will mold him into the Superman most people know and l love in a way lol

Oh I actually loved MoS. The movie was trying to hard to be epic for me that it forgot what epic was. They will do a great job if they use Lex Luthor as the voice of the critics and what I've been saying, and have Superman grow to prove everyone wrong. But honestly, after MoS..I'm just hoping Cavill just smiles once :-P

#2 Posted by batshrine (994 posts) - - Show Bio
@blade_r said:

@batshrine said:
@blade_r said:

Sorry but Man Of Steel Superman was not evil. He wasn't perfect, but he wasn't evil.

I'm glad you caught on to that. I put him in on purpose. The problem is unless you have a perfect Superman, where is the line between good and evil drawn?

To put it in perspective, I am willing to bet that Osama bin Laden, Hitler, Lex Luthor, and Ra's Al Ghul all think that what they are doing is just and right. When Superman in Man of Steel helped with the destruction of an entire city easily causing the death of MILLIONS (ya that's more than what Osama even did), he stopped being good. Sure he was stopping Zod, but the Superman we all know and grew up with would have and could have easily moved the fight to somewhere less inhabited. Then he became executioner at the end of the movie...no due process. So sure he wasn't evil, but I can hardly say he is good when people are just a means to an end.

I even put the Black president Superman that morrison made at the very end. He is a good guy, and way less flawed from Man of Steel (as far as I remember). But he is the most powerful man ruling the (arguably) most powerful country. Call me paranoid, but that is too much power for one person to have. Unless we think versions of dictator Superman is good, cause he probably does lower the death rate by A LOT. So that begs the question for us as readers, is freedom worth that sacrifice?

I believe his heart was in the right place but he just made mistakes like most people do. I don't know why he didn't try to move the fight to a less populated area but I don't think he was intentionally trying to cause destruction and kill innocent people. I think he was just focused on stopping the bad guy, which obviously caused a lot of unnecessary death and destruction but I think what was intentional and will make him into the Superman people like. He will probably catch flack and get bashed for causing so much destruction, he will probably be haunted by killing Zod with his own hands, and probably will feel really bad about all those innocent people dying, and I think those things will lead to him creating his no kill code and eventually shape him into classic Superman in a way.

a tale of redemption! I like it, like honestly, it could turn out really well if they actually go that route with what you said. I just don't want brooding Superman anymore...lol

#3 Posted by batshrine (994 posts) - - Show Bio
@blade_r said:

Sorry but Man Of Steel Superman was not evil. He wasn't perfect, but he wasn't evil.

I'm glad you caught on to that. I put him in on purpose. The problem is unless you have a perfect Superman, where is the line between good and evil drawn?

To put it in perspective, I am willing to bet that Osama bin Laden, Hitler, Lex Luthor, and Ra's Al Ghul all think that what they are doing is just and right. When Superman in Man of Steel helped with the destruction of an entire city easily causing the death of MILLIONS (ya that's more than what Osama even did), he stopped being good. Sure he was stopping Zod, but the Superman we all know and grew up with would have and could have easily moved the fight to somewhere less inhabited. Then he became executioner at the end of the movie...no due process. So sure he wasn't evil, but I can hardly say he is good when people are just a means to an end.

I even put the Black president Superman that morrison made at the very end. He is a good guy, and way less flawed from Man of Steel (as far as I remember). But he is the most powerful man ruling the (arguably) most powerful country. Call me paranoid, but that is too much power for one person to have. Unless we think versions of dictator Superman is good, cause he probably does lower the death rate by A LOT. So that begs the question for us as readers, is freedom worth that sacrifice?

#4 Posted by batshrine (994 posts) - - Show Bio

As long as we get a whole Batman franchise of movies, I'll be happy :). And I wanna see a Robin that isn't Dick...like maybe Tim?

#5 Posted by batshrine (994 posts) - - Show Bio

Cassandra Cain is the only one skilled enough. But after her I guess I pick Tim Drake

#6 Posted by batshrine (994 posts) - - Show Bio

Sure I guess, as long as it's well written

#7 Posted by batshrine (994 posts) - - Show Bio

@heavenlydarkdragon: I honestly like how you're just riding this wave and just seeing where it goes. It is interesting how this is solely affecting Superman. I know in the 90's we had almost everyone shaken up from Parallax to Azrael to the 4 Supermen. It maybe just a trend, and we may get an awesome character out of it, we did get Steel and Superboy from the Death of Superman after all.

The odd thing however, is that at the moment, if we had to say what Superman is in all his current depictions, he should be labeled as a villain. And this isn't affecting any of the other Supers even though GL, Flash, MM, WW, and some more are arguably just as strong as him, DC is having a fun time tarnishing their poster boy. Though I do agree with some people who commented like @smashbrawler, in many cases it's an easy way out to make Superman interesting enough to sell.

I mean to put things in perspectives in November 2014, Batman has over 20 comics coming out in his name, and not one of them involve him going rogue, or crossing a line.

#8 Posted by batshrine (994 posts) - - Show Bio

@manwhohaseverything said:

I hope all the people thinking Rocket Raccoon beating Batman means much aren't really that naive. Rocket Raccoon NUMBER ONE...beat Batman number 33. Next month, Batman will out sell everyone again, unless someone else has a number one. What I really means for Marvel is that GoTG is doing well. It doesn't mean Rocket Raccoon will sell better/is more popular than Batman. (Stating the obvious, I know.)

Not that I'm "rooting" against Marvel. One of my more common rants on here lately has been the poor way they've put the FF out there. Not saying it's a bad book, I like the new run. But how they can go sooo out for GoTG and not for the FF makes me sad. :( And I don't buy that's it's solely that they don't have the movie rights to the FF. They don't have the rights to Spider-Man either.

So I had a previous post that agreed with most everything you said and supplements it well. There is something that I don't agree and thats the bold.

There is definitely a correlation and very plausible connection why Marvel isn't putting much energy into FF and that connection is movie rights. Sure they don't have the rights to Spider-Man, but Spider-Man is making big bucks right now (well Spider-Man is always making money), so they can capitalize on his success. Fantastic Four isn't so there isn't much to take advantage of.

Now let's look at the reverse, if they don't treat the Fantastic Four well, the fanbase may decrease (kinda like how the fanbase for Iron Man skyrocketed when they did treat him well, or the Guardians of the Galaxy having #1s to match the new movie), then when the Sony movie comes out, if it flops then Sony may stop making FF movies, slowly losing their rights over the characters.

So does that mean Marvel wants the FF to fail? No, but its like a Xanatos Gambit. If FF movie comes out and it is good, Marvel can almost instantly up the quality of the FF comics to capitalize on it's success. If FF movie is a flop, then the quality can remain poor to keep FF movies down, so they can get the rights again, and bring FF back up. In the end Marvel wins regardless, and eventually FF...though in an agonizing process.

So does this mean that Marvel wants Sony, DC, Warner Bros, Dark Horse, etc. to fail? Well it may want Sony to fail, just to get it's characters back. But Marvel wants the rest of these companies to succeed, just as long as Marvel has the leading edge. Reason being is that the more success in the genre, the more interest in the genre, meaning the more customers. So all you non-Marvel or DC haters out there, by hating you are rooting against your own company's interest. Let's not forget Superman, Batman, and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles convinced the movie industry that superhero movies can be successful and worth the investment.

#9 Posted by batshrine (994 posts) - - Show Bio

I hope that's the spectre, and I hope Raven doesn't turn old cause she's an immortal demon! (is that how she is in the comics?)

#10 Posted by batshrine (994 posts) - - Show Bio

Can one really say that Batman lost? He is the standard that comic sales are still measured by. Out of all the DC books in the top 10, they are all Batman related comics. While Marvel needed three #1 issues, and two event issues to make it to top 10, Batman only had one #1 issue. And while Batman's main team, the Justice League, made it to top 10, where is Rocket Raccoon's main team? For that matter where is the Avengers, or the far superior X-Men (sorry X-Men will always trump Avengers in my opinion). Oh and let's not forget 100,000 of Rocket Raccoons books were given out in a subscription, not willingly purchased by individuals like the Batman comics. And on top of that the Batman issue sold at the highest price, and still had the most costumers relative to price.

Statistics can fool even the brightest of minds, so it's no shock that it fools most of the minds on here too. And as far as you out there that thinks Marvel taking a higher percentage of the market means every comic brand out there is by default bad, then that is also faulty logic. Cause for anyone that likes something that isn't Batman, then I can use that logic to say you're favorite comics are by default bad. Can we accept that most of our comics that we like, we like for a reason, and that other people's interests don't need to match our own.