I do not like MCU films

[Nerys Myk]

Maybe in the last few years they've tried to give him more depth, but for the first 40 to 50 years of his existence his stories were really just about his villains than him.

So until 1990 they were about the villains?
What do you mean by that? That there were villains and they had crimes and schemes Batman stopped? That's true of most comic stories. From DC, Marvel and everyone else.

I'd still like to know why you think archetype = barebones.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

It's more you losing it over this discussion.

You're the one being hypersensitve over a discussion, and attacking anyone not preferring their fiction dumbed down to Transformers level as being pretentious. You walked right into that.

Yes yes, the age old "Waaaah! My parents are deeeead!" thing. Doesn't change that he's clearly just the "Rich Socialite who fights crime" thing like those two.

Again, you have not read the two sources you cite...which is never a good idea. Moreover, you attempt (and fail) to tear down Batman's tragedy/reason to be, while supporting the film equivalent of a Universal Studios stunt show. Says much.

Yes yes yes, we're getting how ashamed you are of comic books.

There is no "we"--its only you repeatedly making blanket, inaccurate statements about board members and comics.

Lazy fiction that has no faith in its' leads.

Again, said the defender of Age of Ultron--a film overloaded with heroes doing nothing (like an episode of the 80s G.I. Joe cartoon), other than engaging in X-Box "fights" with cartoon robots and trying to set up other films.

Which means, guess what? The conflict isn't over and had an effect. Just not the bloodbath you were hoping for.

The conflict is over. Aside from some expected staring and harsh language aimed at Cap and/or Bucky, the Civil War (the specific reasons for that plot) is over and done. They will fight over the use of space jewelry before getting into anything as personal as the Bucky matter again.

 

[Anwar]

So until 1990 they were about the villains?

The stories were more focused on the villains' characters and Batman was little more than "The guy who fights them" instead of a person in his own right with equal focus on his actual character.

I'd still like to know why you think archetype = barebones.

Because it's just the basic character type with no unique personality traits that make them different, thus they need their villains to provide personality.

You're the one being hypersensitve over a discussion, and attacking anyone not preferring their fiction dumbed down to Transformers level as being pretentious.

You're labeling everything that bothers embracing the wondrous as automatically being silly, that's the pretentiousness. Any CBM character who isn't all angst or grim, anytime a superpower is shown without angst, no banal Nolan-Monologues, etc is all "silly" to you.

And of course, if the plotlines had all 100% been about them going after the World Security Council you'd have denounced THAT as well for being too dumb and an "Evil Government" cliche.

Again, you have not read the two sources you cite

Kingdom Come and Crisis? Read them both, enjoyed Crisis more for not being so heavy-handed and one-sided. As for Batman, what exactly makes his "Waaah! My parents are deeeead!" thing SUCH a standout exactly? Hardly anyone bothers giving the Waynes actual character.

There is no "we"--its only you repeatedly making blanket, inaccurate statements about board members and comics.

There's the pretentiousness again, assuming that the wondrous is somehow bad.

Again, said the defender of Age of Ultron--a film overloaded with heroes doing nothing (like an episode of the 80s G.I. Joe cartoon), other than engaging in X-Box "fights" with cartoon robots and trying to set up other films.

Uh-huh, so you also hate worldbuilding and heroes fighting a wondrous opponent instead of drug-dealers.

The conflict is over. Aside from some expected staring and harsh language aimed at Cap and/or Bucky, the Civil War (the specific reasons for that plot) is over and done. They will fight over the use of space jewelry before getting into anything as personal as the Bucky matter again.

Says you. They may not be going out of their way to slaughter each other to appease your bloodlust (funny how if Xavier and Magneto went to all-out war or if Batman wants to kill Superman again you'll condemn it) but that doesn't mean things are over and done.

It just isn't going to be the bloodbath you want it to be.

 

[Nerys Myk]

The stories were more focused on the villains' characters and Batman was little more than "The guy who fights them" instead of a person in his own right with equal focus on his actual character.

How many Golden and Silver Age Batman issues have you read?

Because it's just the basic character type with no unique personality traits that make them different, thus they need their villains to provide personality.

So your assumption is an archetype has to be devoid of any unique personality? And this is based on what?

 

[Anwar]

How many Golden and Silver Age Batman issues have you read?

Quite a few, an awful lot of them were still more about the villains than him. Hell, his life as Bruce Wayne didn't get much focus until a decade well after his intro (if even that).

So your assumption is an archetype has to be devoid of any unique personality? And this is based on what?

That there is a difference between a literary character and an archetypal character.

 

[fireproof78]

You're the one being hypersensitve over a discussion, and attacking anyone not preferring their fiction dumbed down to Transformers level as being pretentious. You walked right into that.

To be clear, are we calling all of the MCU that? If so, I would disagree on a number of films.

I think that depth in films can often be what an individual makes of it, as well.

 

[Awesome Possum]

None of them are that deep. The Marvel films are at least enjoyable movies that are at least somewhat focused on the characters instead of setting up action scenes. Even the worst movie is alright. They haven't really made anything as bad as X-Men: Last Stand or Green Lantern. At worst they tried something and it didn't work, but the cast has enough charm to hold the movie together or there are a few interesting things going on.

The DC films are trying something. It was done by Watchmen, but they are going for a very grounded look at what a world with real superheroes would be like and everything stems from that. I'd like to see some variation of themes. Hopefully Wonder Woman isn't about Wonder Woman somehow making WWI far worse and deadlier. A lot of fish are going to die in Aquaman.

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

Quite a few, an awful lot of them were still more about the villains than him. Hell, his life as Bruce Wayne didn't get much focus until a decade well after his intro (if even that).

Name one example of such a story. Just ONE! From those "awful lot" you've read!

That there is a difference between a literary character and an archetypal character.

What? Says who? You? Prove it to us! Why a literary character (like Sherlock Holmes for example) can't also be an an archetypical character? That's such nonsense!


But again not a single example, not a single reference, not a single explanation, not a single source, not a single confirmation, not a single case in point, not a single citation. Not even a bad one. NONE! Just wrong opinion trying to pass as fact. Archetypical!

 

[fireproof78]

None of them are that deep. The Marvel films are at least enjoyable movies that are at least somewhat focused on the characters instead of setting up action scenes. Even the worst movie is alright. They haven't really made anything as bad as X-Men: Last Stand or Green Lantern. At worst they tried something and it didn't work, but the cast has enough charm to hold the movie together or there are a few interesting things going on.

The DC films are trying something. It was done by Watchmen, but they are going for a very grounded look at what a world with real superheroes would be like and everything stems from that. I'd like to see some variation of themes. Hopefully Wonder Woman isn't about Wonder Woman somehow making WWI far worse and deadlier. A lot of fish are going to die in Aquaman.

To each their own. I think each as its own depth, some deeper than others. I think that Avengers and Winter Soldier, in particular, stand out as going deeper than most.

As far as being more grounded, I can fully appreciate the aesthetic of what DC is trying to do. I think it's hamstrung by its story and characters rather than what its trying to do. As much hit and miss that the MCU has, it at least feels like it is building up to something in each step and film, which means that there feels like a progression.

DCU, for good or for ill, feels very rushed. I liked Nolan's Batman trilogy but it doesn't feel as tied together to BvS or Man of Steel. As grounded as the films feel, as epic and grand the visuals are, there is something missing for me.

As for being more grounded, I have thoroughly enjoyed Daredevil because it does a similar thing. I would really enjoy a Daredevil film.

 

[Anwar]

Name one example of such a story. Just ONE! From those "awful lot".

The origin of Killer Moth.

What? Says who? Prove it to us! Why a literary character (like Sherlock Holmes for example) can't also be an an archetypical character?

An archetype is meant to be the bare character, like "The Wise Mentor" or "Scoundrel" but they have little beyond that basic set. Batman really was little more than the usual "Rich Socialite who acts like a fop but is really a crusader" popularized by the Scarlet Pimpernel or Zorro (though he borrows a lot from the Shadow and Green Hornet too). By the 70s and mainly the 80s the writers finally got the Marvel Memo that they should do more with Bruce Wayne than just have him be "the guy Batman pretends to be a fop as."

 

[Awesome Possum]

To each their own. I think each as its own depth, some deeper than others. I think that Avengers and Winter Soldier, in particular, stand out as going deeper than most.

As far as being more grounded, I can fully appreciate the aesthetic of what DC is trying to do. I think it's hamstrung by its story and characters rather than what its trying to do. As much hit and miss that the MCU has, it at least feels like it is building up to something in each step and film, which means that there feels like a progression.

DCU, for good or for ill, feels very rushed. I liked Nolan's Batman trilogy but it doesn't feel as tied together to BvS or Man of Steel. As grounded as the films feel, as epic and grand the visuals are, there is something missing for me.

As for being more grounded, I have thoroughly enjoyed Daredevil because it does a similar thing. I would really enjoy a Daredevil film.

They're deeper than most action films and especially comic book films. But they aren't art films, they're capable to older action films (70s era mainly, it died out in the 80s) that were about something more than just an excuse to show explosions.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

You're labeling everything that bothers embracing the wondrous as automatically being silly

You're not only abusing the word "wondrous," but misapplying it to the subject in question.

Any CBM character who isn't all angst or grim, anytime a superpower is shown without angst, no banal Nolan-Monologues, etc is all "silly" to you.

You reveal your own hang-ups in that post by referencing Nolan, and accusing others of exclusively wanting grim or angst-ridden characters. Such exaggeration is the hallmark of a weak position.

And of course, if the plotlines had all 100% been about them going after the World Security Council you'd have denounced THAT as well for being too dumb and an "Evil Government" cliche.

Utter nonsense. Eventually, you will stop trying to create arguments that were never made or suggested.

Kingdom Come and Crisis? Read them both, enjoyed Crisis more for not being so heavy-handed and one-sided. As for Batman, what exactly makes his "Waaah! My parents are deeeead!" thing SUCH a standout exactly? Hardly anyone bothers giving the Waynes actual character.

Once again, you prove you have not read any Batman comics exploring the parents from one generation to the next.

There's the pretentiousness again, assuming that the wondrous is somehow bad.[/quote]

As noted earlier, abusing the word "wondrous," and misapplying it to the subject in question...along with being insecure, hence the idea of anyone here being pretentious.

Uh-huh, so you also hate worldbuilding and heroes fighting a wondrous opponent instead of drug-dealers.

More lies created to protect your weak position. Consistent world-building is in MoS/BvS/Squad, instead of gargantuan plotlines (like the WSC's nuclear missile incident) being swept under the carpet to get to characters joking and jumping around like an episode of the original Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles cartoon. But oooh! look! its got robots! Fights with no consequence!

Its no wonder your motives are being questioned so much in this thread.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

To be clear, are we calling all of the MCU that? If so, I would disagree on a number of films.

I'm not sure about anyone else in this thread regarding their full MCU assessment, but I find The First Avenger, The Winter Soldier, IM2, the Bucky part of Civil War (and Cap's spoken resistance to the accords), are head and shoulders above the rest in all categories.

 

[JD]

The origin of Killer Moth.

A villain origin story would be a special case, it being that kind of story makes it pretty much automatic that it would focus on the villain more that the hero.

 

[LJones41]

The stories were more focused on the villains' characters and Batman was little more than "The guy who fights them" instead of a person in his own right with equal focus on his actual character.

Are you talking about the comics or the movies?

 

[Aldo]

Are you talking about the comics or the movies?

When he kept saying that the villains got more character it reminded me of Roger Ebert's review of the earlier Batman (the Keaton and Kilmer films, respectively) films. He kept complaining that Batman wasn't really a character but just a foil for the villains.

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

Are you talking about the comics or the movies?

When he kept saying that the villains got more character it reminded me of Roger Ebert's review of the earlier Batman (the Keaton and Kilmer films, respectively) films. He kept complaining that Batman wasn't really a character but just a foil for the villains.

That's the whole point. He was making wildly generalizations about Batman the comic book character based only in the few Batman movies he had seen!

 

[Anwar]

You reveal your own hang-ups in that post by referencing Nolan, and accusing others of exclusively wanting grim or angst-ridden characters.

Well, it's true. After all, that's why WB made Man of Steel the way it is.

Utter nonsense. Eventually, you will stop trying to create arguments that were never made or suggested.

Baloney, the MCU's been under attack from day one for daring to not go for the ashamed and bankrupt "grounded" approach and due to that they've been under heavy scrutiny ever since for daring to be unashamed. Nothing is satisfactory for MCU Detractors.

Once again, you prove you have not read any Batman comics exploring the parents from one generation to the next.

Because until the last 30 years or so, there have hardly been any.

As noted earlier, abusing the word "wondrous," and misapplying it to the subject in question...

Anything that embraces the fantastical nature of the source material instead of selling out for that 'grounded' stuff the Comic-Disliking Directors (Nolan, Singer) have been advocating as the only way to do CBMs.

More lies created to protect your weak position. Consistent world-building is in MoS/BvS/Squad,

It wishes. Plenty of stuff you'd expect BvS to cover from MoS is ignored. Same with SS.

instead of gargantuan plotlines (like the WSC's nuclear missile incident) being swept under the carpet to get to characters joking and jumping around like an episode of the original Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles cartoon.

So now characters aren't allowed to joke at all or battle anyone who isn't a "grounded" villain. Good to know. Honestly, you're making a mountain out of a molehill over the Nuke issue, the WSC thought they were saving the rest of the world.

That's the whole point. He was making wildly generalizations about Batman the comic book character based only in the few Batman movies he had seen!

And the comics themselves.

 

[Nerys Myk]

That there is a difference between a literary character and an archetypal character.

Makes no sense, because many literary characters are the archetype for those types of characters.

Batman really was little more than the usual "Rich Socialite who acts like a fop but is really a crusader" popularized by the Scarlet Pimpernel or Zorro (though he borrows a lot from the Shadow and Green Hornet too).

So he's an archetype, but is also a knock off?

 

[WebLurker]

The best American comics and graphic novels of all time are Batman's, The Dark Knight Returns, Year One, The Killing Joke, Arkham Asylum: A Serious House on Serious Earth.

I would wager that Maus is higher on the graphic novel list than anything they're ever done with Batman.

Batman has had more graphic novels, movies, novels, cartoons, books, games, TV series and video games than most. If there is one comic book character that's clearly defined (and clearly exciting) that's Batman.

I don't know. I'm not sure he's that interesting a character. Iron Man does the unpowered millionaire superhero thing and creates a far more interesting character, IMHO (and I'm not that big of an Iron Man fan, here).

It's funny that you mention Spider-Man because that's a great example of a character that's only defined (and constantly overshadowed) by his villains. Green Goblin, Doctor Octopus, Sandman, Venom, Lizard, Electro, Rhino, Vulture, Mysterio, Hobgoblin, Carnage, Black Cat, Kingpin, Chameleon, Shocker, Scorpion, Jackal, etc. I could go and on. Without these characters Peter Parker is just a boring high-school kid (or an even more boring adult failed photographer). No wonder Marvel replaced Peter Parker with his archnemesis Doc Ock!

I'm going to have to call bull here. Spider-Man does have one of the best rogues galleries in the business, but Spider-Man has always been defined by Peter Parker (hence why non Peter Spider-Men, like Miles Morales, Ben Reily, and the aforementioned Doc Ock, do not work). Not sure what you were reading, but he's easily one of the most interesting characters in the comics industry. As a starting point, the original Ultimate Spider-Man comics run is a pretty good showcase for why Peter is an interesting character.

FYI, Superior Spider-Man was a stupid idea through and through. However, in general, the post "One More Day" comics are not an accurate representation of Spider-Man, so if that's were you're basing your thoughts on the character, be forewarned that that is not the character that most Spider-Man fans know and love.