josai21's forum posts

#1 Posted by josai21 (67 posts) - - Show Bio

Batman vs. Predator

Batman vs. Terminator (All versions)

Batman vs. Alien

Batman vs. All of the above

My choices for the next battle of the week.

#2 Posted by josai21 (67 posts) - - Show Bio

First of all...I really think it depends on which universe has the most powerful item/resources...with infinite prep...either one of them could get to it. Then it's a matter of using those things..

Just my opinion as I don't really know much about the objects of either.

#3 Posted by josai21 (67 posts) - - Show Bio

Round 1: Team 1.

That's the only one they win. When Kenobi was 18 in the Jedi Padawan series Jinn was already stating that Kenobi would surpass him soon. Kenobi just simply a better swordsman/combatant. Partially due to the war and partially due to Jinn's philosophical focus.

Dooku is the threat here, and as shown in ROTS they can take him.

#4 Posted by josai21 (67 posts) - - Show Bio

I will agree that the statement that "a lot of these people haven't read superman comics" is actually probably very true. The thing is, when the very idea of superman is a boring/OP/whatever to the general public...there isn't a reason to read the comics and believe otherwise. Until Man of Steel I had no desire whatsoever to read about superman in something that did not have him interacting with characters I liked better in the Justice League.

Then upon reading him in the N52, he was an utter jerk. I don't think nice has to equal boring, but a nice character still needs to face issues. Making him a jerk to artifically forumalate issues is poor story telling in my mind.

As for the OP thing, it's not so much his powers that I find OP but the way the writers write him that makes him such. At least from all I could find. And he is definitely such in all the previous movies aside from man of steel. Love the fact that in MOS Superman can technically be killed by someone stronger. Not just a green rock or magic.

#5 Posted by josai21 (67 posts) - - Show Bio

My main reasoning for "disliking" Superman is because I find the idea of him boring. Let me clarify, I've not read a ton of stories about him, but I've watched all the movies and Tv Shows(sans smallvile/loisand clark). By the idea of him being boring...I mean that there is no struggle to his character. He is a good person who fights crime and protects earth. That's the idea of superman. That's it. There is no struggle to be good. There is no struggle to control his powers. He just is.
I don't dislike his character, but I have difficult finding someone like that interesting. Characters like Spiderman or Batman or even Captain America on the other hand do interest me. Because they capture being human. Captain America is very similar to superman in that regard of being a "boyscout" but the idea of him doing so does not lose his humanity. Which I know is kinda an ironic statement considering that Superman is not a human but I degress.

Man of Steel, for all its flaws, made Superman interesting to me. So I'm eager to see where that goes. However the traditional idea of superman just feels like a Fanfic Gary-Stu. That's all I got to say. :)

(P.S. This is all opinion. I get that there are people who disagree and you have that right.)

#6 Posted by josai21 (67 posts) - - Show Bio

@amazingwebhead: I do agree to a point. The world has generally disliked Superman for being too perfect. However I feel Man of Steel changed that for a lot of people. At least in terms of the general populace. Superman was still an inherently good character, but he's not perfect. He can be killed. He can make mistakes, but ultimately he persevered and survived.

I didn't dislike Superman before this movie...but I certainly had no desire to know more about him or care about his character. Man of Steel changed that for me.

#7 Posted by josai21 (67 posts) - - Show Bio

@lvenger: He actually does have the legal right. This was self-defense. It was not like he could just hold Zod back. Zod was about to kill that family.

Superman does not have the deputized right to kill in the same way as a police-officer or soldier. You are correct in that; however self-defense is allowed. It's not like he had any other choice.

I understand where you are coming from in terms of it not fitting previous incarnations of his character. I do understand that. I just don't think that the movie should get all the hatred it does because of this point. This is a Superman for the modern era. And while it is not true for all, to many this movie made Superman interesting again. It appealed to the common audience.

Don't get me wrong, there were plenty of things wrong with this movie (Pa kent's whole spiel about hiding things; why didn't jor-el tell them about the phantom zone thing from the beginning; product placement)...but the killing thing is not something wrong with the movie. It is highly different, but not wrong.

My apologies for my frustrated earlier sentiments. It had been a rough day, but I should not have taken it out on you. My point comes from long irritation from the whole "killing makes us just as bad as them" train of thought. My apologies.

#8 Edited by josai21 (67 posts) - - Show Bio

@lvenger: The entire premise of your argument is flawed. You are arguing this on a basis of decades of comic book history that states that these things are integral to his character. Why should they be integral to his character? What reason do we have other than, 'oh it's superman.' There has to be a logical reasoning for him not to kill in this timeline. If it was written with all that back story then yes I would disagree with it, but quite frankly there has to be a logical reason other than some esoteric morality that is flawed even in the comic books.

Also I am appalled that you call Clark killing Zod murder and 'compromising his morals'. By that logic every soldier who has fought in the defense of their country and killed someone should be in prison for "murder." There is a huge difference between killing someone and murdering someone.

Just because you kill someone in self-defense (For example: a police-officer, or a person on a street defending themselves, Or Clark killing Zod to save that family) does not mean that you are not a good person. Your argument is an insult to the people who defend innocent civilians.

Clark Kent gets his morals his parents. Ma and Pa Kent are from Kansas farmland which most likely means they support soldiers and police officers etc. Clark has no reason to think otherwise that it is wrong to kill in self-defense based on these morals.

#9 Edited by josai21 (67 posts) - - Show Bio

@lvenger: Sheesh, People really don't understand the whole death thing do they?

It is correct that Superman in the Comics does not kill people. Why should that be a thing in the movie? Superman decides not to kill Zod. Why? Why shouldn't he kill this threat to his home?

People will state is the morals of Pa and Ma Kent. That does not mesh with the current modern culture of Kansas. People on a farm like that will typically be all for Gun Rights and while they might not like it...they view a soldier killing an enemy as the right thing to do.

So how does Clark Kent as Superman raised by this kind of mentality make the decision not to kill a huge threat to his home? Simple. He doesn't. He makes the decision that rends his heart in two. He in mental anguish kills the last of his race to protect humanity.

You want to talk about hope? This is it. Clark put aside his own desire to belong for humanity. Because he hopes that the human race will be better.

On a final is the fact that Clark killed the 'last' of his race that will make the no killing thing an integral part of his character. He has destroyed the 'last' of his race and the pain that causes will make him decide to never kill again.

#10 Edited by josai21 (67 posts) - - Show Bio

@joygirl: The first one was the best; but if you can, get KOTOR 2 for PC and get the Sith Lords restored content mod. It adds so much to the game that was cut. Fixes a good portion of the bugs as well. It makes the story make more sense.