I do not like MCU films

[dahj]

That's an archetype, not a character.

You keep saying that without any elaboration. I honestly don't know what you're even trying to say here.
How exactly is Batman "not an actual character"? What is he lacking in your opinion to be a character?

 

[Grendelsbayne]

Just keep swimming!

Oh, I am sorry, I thought we were playing the Finding-Nemo-quote-game.

I never said or implied that emotional movies aren't allowed to have any humor or non emotional scenes. All I've said is that GotG is not that great of a movie. It's not as good as Finding Nemo as you keep suggesting and certainly not good enough to be included in the 100 Greatest Movies list™.
You probable find it a great, amazing, emotional, funny joyride. Which is fine. But for me, with the exception of Peter's mother's death (which was in the first 5 or 10 minutes) the rest was (again to me) a nitwitted Star Wars wannabe rip-off full of imbecilic jokes. Groot's death was emotional until (they couldn't help themselves) they turned it into an infantine gag. Maybe it's because I grew up reading Jim Starlin's Captain Marvel and Warlock comics. (Have you read anything from these?) For instance Drax the Destroyer has such a great and tragic origin story there.
It's obvious by now that whatever you say won't make me change my mind on GotG and whatever I say won't make you change your mind on GotG. Can we just move on without insulting each other?



Because we argued if page 1 or page 2 was a better page to end this thread. Neither side won.

What you said was that it wasn't good because it wasn't emotional. Then, instead of saying anything about why you didn't think it was emotional you threw out a list of the 'best movies of the 21st cent' as proof, even though that has nothing to do with whether a movie is emotional or not, bizarrely claimed that the list has every truly emotional movie on it (even though you already endorsed, for instance, Up, which I did not see on the list) and then backed it up with a clip of Starlord dancing, completely ignoring the fact that the movies you were endorsing as better are filled with moments that are just as silly.

Agree to disagree is fine. If you don't like GotG, more power to you. Just stop throwing out random claims if you're not prepared to defend them with real arguments actually based on the movie itself.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

You have that completely backwards. The greater heroes are defined by many characteristics, least of which are their villains. Luke's heroes journey had nothing to do with the single throw away line aboit Vader, but about leaving his boring life, joining the rebellion and fighter in a war that was bigger and more important than himself.

Luke had no center to his desire to truly fight the empire until it was made personal to him; from learning that Vader "killed" his father, to watching that same villain cut down Kenobi, to Vader being the single focus of his dark vision in the cave in TESB, to knowing Vader is responsible for his friends' plight on Cloud City, its all about the villain's effect on the hero. Remove Vader, and Luke has no more pushing him on his hero's journey than Biggs, Wedge or any other Rebel.

And saying Dr. Who is defined by the Daleks is kind of laughable and does a disservice to 99% of the rest of the show.

Notice how you skipped over The Master reference. The Master and the Daleks have consistently made the Doctor's struggles personal for decades; The Master was created to be that evil, well matched opposite of the Doctor--his Moriarty to the Doctor's Holmes. For anyone who watched the Master from the original series forward, his history and actions were designed not only for his own ends, but to torment / control or dominate that one point of challenge--his perfect opposite, the Doctor. That was was a well established, defining creation all along, and made the Doctor a stronger character as a result.

You probably think Kirk is solely defined by Khan (just going by what you're saying) which would mean you don't know much about Kirk's heroism. Again, if you truly believe the rest of the absurdities you said.

What is absurd is thinking a hero simply exists free of needing a prime, driving villain, and its repeated use in literature, film and TV. If you cannot understand that need in heroic fiction, then you have nothing more to contribute.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Dial down on the pretentiousness and wannabe-snobbery, m'kay?

Its a message board--there's no need for your unjustified hypersensitivity to a discussion.

It was just the latest take on the "Socialite who fights crime" archetype, like Zorro or the Scarlet Pimpernel.

You have no idea how Batman is different than both--if you ever read either original story.

The lazily written ones.

Again, said the defender of hollow nerd-porn like Age of Ultron.

Utter dung.

...the reply of one not knowing heroic fiction, and is satisfied with WWE / Power Rangers-esque nonsense in print or on screen.

Just that one murderous episode, not the entire conflict. Otherwise Steve would've come back.

You were likely watching another film; even beyond Stark's attacks on Rogers and Barnes, Steve would not return to a team led by one who supports the accords. Stark was Hell-bent of all Avengers handcuffing themselves to it, so there was no room for negotiation. At best, Steve will show up to help when needed (his message was clear about that), but for the moment, it would not be as an official servant of the government.

AOU is only that if you dislike comic books in the first place and only go for that spineless "grounded" stuff.

Absurd; you trash comic history by suggesting AOU is a representation of it, when nothing could be more removed from the truth...that, is if one actually read more than the G.I. Joe cartoon-styled (or 1990s Image Comics garbage) crap that ultimately influenced films like AOU.

Crisis was nothing BUT the stuff you say you dislike in AOU, and Kingdom Come wasn't very good. It's mainly remembered for Alex Ross' artwork.

Its clear you did not read either work.

BS. Batman has been around for 77 years. He has been in more comics than any other comic book character (even more than Superman). The best writers have written Batman, Frank Miller, Alan Moore, Grant Morrison, Scott Snyder, Jeph Loeb, Chuck Dixon, Dennis O’Neil, Ed Brubaker, Paul Dini, Steve Englehart, Bill Finger, just to name a few. I could go and on. The best artists have drawn Batman. 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. 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.

Well put--so much for the allegedly underdeveloped, empty character.

If we are talking about Spider-Man Clone Saga, Heroes Reborn, Spider-Man Sins Past, House of M, Spider-Man One More Day, AvX, Uncanny Avengers, Superior Spider-Man (boy, Marvel really hates SM!) then we should be ashamed.

Yes, that was a regrettable period for Marvel, and it did not help the legacy of Spider-Man at all.

Or if you only go for that spineless cartoony kiddie unconvincing lame shallow trivial unemotional superficial brainless stuff like Bay's Transformers, Power Rangers and Disney's Marvel movies.

Several of the Marvel movies, to be certain. None are even a generation old, and one can easily say many will not age well.

 

[Anwar]

What? How do stories focused on his villains make Batman an archetype? How does being an archetype make Batman "not a character"? You're using "archetype" in a way I'm unfamiliar with

If the protagonist 100% needs his antagonists to be the driving force in his stories (instead of himself) then it's because either the writer didn't have much in the character to begin with or because the lead doesn't have enough to him to drive the story.

 

[Anwar]

Its a message board--there's no need for your unjustified hypersensitivity to a discussion.

It's more you losing it over this discussion.

You have no idea how Batman is different than both--if you ever read either original story

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, said the defender of hollow nerd-porn like Age of Ultron.

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

...the reply of one not knowing heroic fiction

Lazy fiction that has no faith in its' leads.

You were likely watching another film; even beyond Stark's attacks on Rogers and Barnes, Steve would not return to a team led by one who supports the accords. Stark was Hell-bent of all Avengers handcuffing themselves to it, so there was no room for negotiation. At best, Steve will show up to help when needed (his message was clear about that), but for the moment, it would not be as an official servant of the government.

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

Absurd; you trash comic history by suggesting AOU is a representation of it, when nothing could be more removed from the truth...

It is, if you enjoy the wondrous instead of running from it.

Its clear you did not read either work.

I did, I found KC to be pretentious and heavy-handed, unmemorable aside from the art. Crisis was very enjoyable though, but it didn't flee from the wondrous.

 

[dahj]

doesn't have enough to him to drive the story.

Batman?

Let me get this straight, you're saying that the guy who frequently tops charts as the best comic book character in history, who is very likely the comic book character that has the most stories written about him, who has a large extended support cast he interacts with, an entire family of characters he has relationships and issues with, who's one of the founders of Justice League and who interacted with probably every other hero in the DC stable at some point in history isn't a driving force.

That's just crazy talk.

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

If the protagonist 100% needs his antagonists to be the driving force in his stories (instead of himself) then it's because either the writer didn't have much in the character to begin with or because the lead doesn't have enough to him to drive the story.

That doesn't make any sense at all. In fiction the protagonist always needs an antagonist, or a threat, or a danger, or a mystery, or a crime to solve otherwise there is no plot.

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

The only one who's ashamed of comc books and doesn't read them is you.

It is, if you enjoy the wondrous instead of running from it.

Ah, yes, your second talking point. Where "wondrous" equals fake CGI animated fisticuffs.

I did, I found KC to be pretentious and heavy-handed, unmemorable aside from the art. Crisis was very enjoyable though, but it didn't flee from the wondrous

Proof that you didn't read them.

 

[Nerys Myk]

If the protagonist 100% needs his antagonists to be the driving force in his stories (instead of himself) then it's because either the writer didn't have much in the character to begin with or because the lead doesn't have enough to him to drive the story.

And that connects to being an archetype how?

 

[JD]

I've got to disagree with the whole "batman is not a character" thing. There are plenty of stories that have gone very deep into his character, and really examined him and how and why he does what he does. If he was so shallow there would be no way to do that.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Yeah, writers have been delving into Batman's psyche for decades. So much that it seems every character needs "trauma" to become a hero.

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

Yeah, writers have been delving into Batman's psyche for decades. So much that it seems every character needs "trauma" to become a hero.

Well, it also worked for Spider-Man, Daredevil, Iron Man, Punisher…

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

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.

Wow, didn't know you hated Marvel's Iron Man /Tony Stark so strongly!

 

[Nerys Myk]

Well, it also worked for Spider-Man, Daredevil, Iron Man, Punisher…

Yeah but when they got to Barry Allen.....

 

[Anwar]

Let me get this straight, you're saying that the guy who frequently tops charts as the best comic book character in history, who is very likely the comic book character that has the most stories written about him, who has a large extended support cast he interacts with, an entire family of characters he has relationships and issues with, who's one of the founders of Justice League and who interacted with probably every other hero in the DC stable at some point in history isn't a driving force.

He's not. His stories were really mostly about his villains than him for decades. His stories very very seldom are driven by internal conflict.

That doesn't make any sense at all. In fiction the protagonist always needs an antagonist, or a threat, or a danger, or a mystery, or a crime to solve otherwise there is no plot.

A threat/danger/mystery doesn't have to be the real star of the show, it just needs to be an obstacle/plot device to start off the story while the real focus is on the hero.

[quote[The only one who's ashamed of comc books and doesn't read them is you.[/quote]

Maybe the ones that don't care about the hero and makes the story really be about the villain.

Ah, yes, your second talking point. Where "wondrous" equals fake CGI animated fisticuffs.

Wondrous, where you aren't someone ashamed of anything that isn't a "Gritty Urban Crime Drama".

Proof that you didn't read them.

Crisis was all about the wondrous, and KC IS heavy-handed. If it wasn't for Ross' art the story wouldn't be half as well regarded.

And that connects to being an archetype how?

If you're so bare bones you NEED the villain to be the real stare of your story, it means your character needs work.

Wow, didn't know you hated Marvel's Iron Man /Tony Stark so strongly!

He was always more than the "Rich Socialite who pretends to be a Fop" thing. He was new in that he REALLY WAS the kind of self-absorbed fop the archetype pretended to be and we had to see him struggle to become a hero.

I've got to disagree with the whole "batman is not a character" thing. There are plenty of stories that have gone very deep into his character, and really examined him and how and why he does what he does. If he was so shallow there would be no way to do that.

It took decades to get to that point. Decades they wasted on making the stories really be about his villains than him.

 

[Nerys Myk]

If you're so bare bones you NEED the villain to be the real stare of your story, it means your character needs work.

Archetype doesn't equal "barebones". Batman's a pretty complex character.

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

He's not. His stories were really mostly about his villains than him for decades. His stories very very seldom are driven by internal conflict.

Yes, and until the 1970s (when DC finally realized what Marvel was doing) his stories were more about his villains than him. That's an archetype, not a character.

It took decades to get to that point. Decades they wasted on making the stories really be about his villains than him.

That's total BS. Again it shows how ignorant you really are on the subject. It's the exact opposite. After the late 80's /early 90's writers began to explore Batman's villains. Up until then the Joker was just a crook with a clown motif, Catwoman a thief with cat ears and Penguin a short scoundrel with a monocle and a top hat. And stop using words (like archetype) you don't understand the meaning of.

A threat/danger/mystery doesn't have to be the real star of the show, it just needs to be an obstacle/plot device to start off the story while the real focus is on the hero.

You've just described a Batman story.

Maybe the ones that don't care about the hero and makes the story really be about the villain.

Oh you mean like Spider-Man's The Night Gwen Stacy Died where the story is about the Green Goblin, or Spider-Man's Alien Costume Saga where the story is about Venom? Or perhaps Iron Man Enter the Mandarin where the story is all about… the Mandarin? Or like Captain America Winter Soldier where the story is about… can you guess?

Wondrous, where you aren't someone ashamed of anything that isn't a "Gritty Urban Crime Drama".

Like Marvel's Daredevil? I had you figured wrong. You really hate Marvel!

So you must be a huge fan of DC's Green Lantern movie! It's full of your kind of "wondrous".

Crisis was all about the wondrous, and KC IS heavy-handed.

See I knew you haven't read them. If you did you would know it's the other way around. Your only relationship with comics is watching Disney/Marvel movies. Which, judging from your misconception that Scarlet Witch is a teen high-school student in CW, you don't understand.

 

[dahj]

He's not. His stories were really mostly about his villains

That's literally not true.
You're full of it.

 

[Anwar]

Archetype doesn't equal "barebones". Batman's a pretty complex character.

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.

That's total BS. Again it shows how ignorant you really are on the subject. It's the exact opposite. After the late 80's /early 90's writers began to explore Batman's villains. Up until then the Joker was just a crook with a clown motif, Catwoman a thief with cat ears and Penguin a short scoundrel with a monocle and a top hat.

And even then, the stories were more about them than about Batman himself. Of course, this is because DC couldn't grasp the idea of internal conflict.

You've just described a Batman story.

Except with him, the villain always got the real focus instead of being on Batman.

Oh you mean like Spider-Man's The Night Gwen Stacy Died where the story is about the Green Goblin,

Spidey's stories have always been more about him than about his villains. Goblin wasn't much focused on.

or Spider-Man's Alien Costume Saga where the story is about Venom?

...Have you read that story? It was mainly about Peter first and foremost.

Or perhaps Iron Man Enter the Mandarin where the story is all about… the Mandarin?

Still more focused on Tony.

Or like Captain America Winter Soldier where the story is about…

Steve and how he reacts to the stuff happening.

Like Marvel's Daredevil?

It doesn't shy away from him having superpowers.

So you must be a huge fan of DC's Green Lantern movie! It's full of your kind of "wondrous".

Not really, it shies away from it too.

See I knew you haven't read them. If you did you would know it's the other way around.

Funny how you being unable to take criticism is leading to you being selectively oblivious. I don't like Kingdom Come much, deal with it.

That's literally not true.

If Batman's stories were more driven by internal conflict, then the villains would be in the background and most of the story would be Batman clashing with Gordon and Alfred on how to work the Case.

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

Yes, and until the 1970s (when DC finally realized what Marvel was doing) his stories were more about his villains than him. That's an archetype, not a character.

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

So first you argued that Batman is a "bare-bones" character and now you're saying that in the last 27 to 37 years he is a complex character. Which exposes you don't know what you're talking about.

Yes, and until the 1970s (when DC finally realized what Marvel was doing) his stories were more about his villains than him.

And even then, the stories were more about them than about Batman himself. Of course, this is because DC couldn't grasp the idea of internal conflict.

Except with him, the villain always got the real focus instead of being on Batman.

Name one example. ONE. One example of such a Batman comics story "until the 1970s". Otherwise STFU.

Spidey's stories have always been more about him than about his villains.

Except Spider-Man is the 'angsty teenager fighting crime' archetype. That's "an archetype, not a character" according to you.

Still more focused on Tony.

Except Iron Man is the "rich socialite who fights crime" archetype. That's "an archetype, not a character" according to you.

Steve and how he reacts to the stuff happening.

Except Captain America is the 'patriotic superhero' archetype. That's "an archetype, not a character" according to you.

It [Daredevil] doesn't shy away from him having superpowers.

"Only if you like that creatively bankrupt grounded stuff" and "are ashamed of the wondrous". See I've learned your talking points!

really, it [Green Lantern] shies away from it [wondrous] too.

"Only if you dislike comic books in the first place and only go for that spineless grounded stuff". "Grounded is for people who are ashamed of the wondrous". See, it's easy writing like a Disney/Marvel fan-boy!

Fine, I'll say it. Ledger dying boosted the film [TDK] and made it near-immune to criticism.

Oh, like when actor Raúl Juliá's death made his last movie "Street Fighter" near-immune to criticism. Whatever.

Funny how you being unable to take criticism is leading to you being selectively oblivious. I don't like Kingdom Come much, deal with it.

What's funny is how you're trying to explain something you've haven't even read. Please elaborate how Civil War the comic book story is full of the "wondrous" that you like so much.

Your [Anwar's] only relationship with comics is watching Disney/Marvel movies. Which, judging from your misconception that Scarlet Witch is a teen high-school student in CW, you don't understand.

Hilarious that you've skipped that over once again!

If Batman's stories were more driven by internal conflict, then the villains would be in the background and most of the story would be Batman clashing with Gordon and Alfred on how to work the Case.

Again you're describing Batman's stories. And once again failed to give a single example.



In every post and every comment you've made in this thread you have failed to back it up with a single example, a single source, a single confirmation, a single case in point, a single citation. Not even a bad one. NONE! You just repeat over and over again your catch phrases and talking points about "archetypes", "villains", grounded stuff", "wondrous". Archetypical internet troll behavior.