toplel's forum posts

#1 Edited by toplel (906 posts) - - Show Bio

The ideal candidate to inspire a giant death robot from space to do the right thing.

#2 Posted by toplel (906 posts) - - Show Bio
#3 Posted by toplel (906 posts) - - Show Bio

@redwingx said:

Same goes for Batman who is the richest man in the world.

The only difference between Clark and a human is that he has powers. That's freaking it. Not to mention Superman is a normal human in Krypton.

It's pretty interesting that Bruce who is so rich, intelligent and can do so much for the world instead is wasting his time to destroy crime which he will never be able to do.

Bruce could lose his company. Remember TDKR?

The difference is staggering, though. Superman's powers are immense. And Krypton doesn't exist anymore.

Do what exactly? How many times has he saved Gotham or the world? You don't get to play this card now, especially considering who you're trying to defend.


Batman is the odd one here he can do no wrong. I like the character but he just makes hardly any mistakes

Read more Batman.

#4 Edited by toplel (906 posts) - - Show Bio

@youknowwhattodo said:

Ok but where was that in the show. When I'm evaluating BM/WW in the DCAU and SM/WW in the new 52, I'm going off of what was presented in those particular mediums. The fact of the matter is that the attraction Diana felt for Bruce was never explained on the show, it doesn't matter what Bruce Timm said in an interview after the fact because the poll isn't BM/WW in the DCAU and interviews with Bruce Timm, it's just the DCAU.

To be fair, I don't like SM/WW either, I think that it was done for cynical reasons (to sell comics) and it isn't written all that well. That being said, even if it's contrived, it is still a partnership that isn't static, just like a real relationship, which is more than I can say for BM/WW in the DCAU.

Diana's attraction for Bruce grew gradually. The first time was rather obvious; she admired how he tried to save her from under the missile. From there on, it isn't hard to see why she'd be attracted to him. Best part is, it wasn't forced down your throat. It was just there and you could just as well ignore it because it didn't really matter much. SM/WW, however, was sudden and no one saw it coming. And since then, it's been forced onto you.

You're comparing a relationship to something that never happened. BM/WW died down barely a few steps in. SM/WW, on the other hand, has happened quite a few times and has been garbage every time. BM/WW trumps SM/WW based on the fact that there is potential there, because you can predict what could happen, but you don't really know because no one has ever tried it.

#5 Posted by toplel (906 posts) - - Show Bio

@killerinstinct4588: Using other characters and/or their rogue galleries to make another character look good has been going on in comics for quite some time, but rarely is it ever this idiotic.

#6 Posted by toplel (906 posts) - - Show Bio

@youknowwhattodo: Bruce Timm actually gave an explanation, but I can't be bothered to find it. Plenty of people were able to rationalize it anyway as Diana seeing him as a modern day Odysseus, which was what Timm said as well.

SM/WW at least developed into actual relationship with conflicts that mirror real couples

Wrong. It's grown into more of a contrived mess than when it started out.

#7 Posted by toplel (906 posts) - - Show Bio

So she writes his villains as idiots and then has Diana diss them. Smart.

I'm sure I could eat an alphabet book and s*** a better story than this.

#8 Edited by toplel (906 posts) - - Show Bio

Both are bad but I hate the DCAU BM/WW even more. The main reason is that while SM/WW isn't the best relationship, the writers at least tried to justify their romantic interest in each other. Bruce Timm just said "f-it, we'll just have Wonder Woman desperately want Batman's D, we won't tell you why, we won't even let it develop into anything worthwhile, we'll just have her fawn over him like a schoolgirl a few times because that would make Batman look even cooler".

The irony.

#9 Posted by toplel (906 posts) - - Show Bio

@tjsh96 said:

@toplel:

People say Superman is unrelatable because of his powers. Well, Batman is also just as unrelatable as Superman because of his physical and mental capabilities. There are what, 2 people on this entire planet that have the potential to become what Batman is? That's not exactly what I'd call relatable. My point here is that neither Batman is not more relatable than Superman. If you're talking about personalities, then Superman is also more relatable since Clark Kent is a middle class working citizen, who pays taxes, has mortgages, goes to work in a disguise like any other productive member of society, is always morally righteous and etc. Bruce Wayne is a world famous billionaire playboy who everybody respects and adores for his intelligence, wealth, looks, capabilities, can achieve so much more than any ordinary person and so on, so from that point of view, Superman is also more relatable.

Not true. Most people know him to be a dimwitted playboy squandering his wealth. The latter part of the statement holds true for Superman as well.

Clark does have a relatively normal life, but that image is really fragile because you realize he doesn't really need to do all that he does, unlike us. He could lose his job, his apartment and all his savings and all he'd need to do is auction off some kryptonian relic and make millions. Hell, he doesn't even need money. He only acts human because he grew up as one. Bruce is, despite everything, still human.

It's pretty interesting, though, because the alien wants to be as human as he can while the human wouldn't mind being less of one and becoming something completely independent.

#10 Posted by toplel (906 posts) - - Show Bio

@bsaa said:

@toplel: so an antisocial self absorbed azzhole who goes behind pole backs and uses children in dangerous ways is layman to u?

Behind pole backs? Is that a new feat?

It'll vary from person to person. Like I said, certain aspects of almost any character could be relatable to someone.

And layman? When did I actually use that word?