Herochat

Times you disagreed with the writer on who was in the right.

g-train

  • ********
  • 10716
  • +1/-9
    • View Profile
Re: Times you disagreed with the writer on who was in the right.
« Reply #15 on: May 31, 2015, 02:29:46 AM »
Yeah, the Sally Floyd bit was another glaring example, where the writer clearly wanted that to be a sign of how out of touch Cap was with the modern world, but winds up coming off as the most asinine argument ever.

As someone else put it:



Yeah but Cap; the reason why Soldier's families "aren't" endangered is because they "are" soldiers.  Because they are faceless.

If Superheroes were working under a similar kind of structure, villains etc....wouldn't target them or their families with personal vendetta's the vast majority of the time like they do as Super-Heroes.

I mean; how morally bankrupt would someone have to be to endanger their own families like that?

g-train

  • ********
  • 10716
  • +1/-9
    • View Profile
Re: Times you disagreed with the writer on who was in the right.
« Reply #16 on: May 31, 2015, 02:31:51 AM »
There was a Justice League one-shot called 'Superpower' that dealt with one-shot hero Mark Antaeus. It's weird because even the writer isn't apparently sure who's supposed to be in the right.

So we have Mark, whose father has basically turned him into a supersoldier, who enjoys being an everyday hero. When he fails to save a family from a burning building, he undergoes extensive cybernetic augmentation to give himself superpowers. The Justice League recruit him onto the team, while its clear Mark's obsession with heroics is getting out of control, as he distances himself from his family, eventually moving to the Watchtower to live on the moon. He eventually decides that the League isn't doing enough good in the world, especially when they refuse to topple a Saddam Hussein stand due to that not being what the League is about. They specifically cite how doing so would destabilize the entire region and lead to even more death. Mark eventually ignores them, flies down to Not-Iraq, kills several soldiers on his way in, and kills Not-Saddam. The League confront him, a fight breaks out, and he eventually is allowed to leave. Sure enough, the entire country is destabilized and thousands of people die. Mark can't take this turn of events and commits suicide.

Now, this sounds like it could have been an interesting way to show a character fall due to his own obsessions, but the writing is all overt he place.

See, Kyle Rayner is basically used as the JLA/Human viewpoint character. He's the first Leaguer to make contact with Mark, the only Leaguer that tries to get to know Mark outside of the missions, and really does his level best to connect with the guy. While Superman and others admire Mark's dedication to his work and Mark's commitment to being a hero, Kyle is the only one worried about Mark's obvious disconnect with humanity. Yet every time Kyle brings up a concern or offers a hand to Mark, he basically gets slapped down for it.

There's literally a part where Kyle points out that the guy willingly had over 50% of his body replaced with machines, only for Batman to ask Kyle if he has a problem with someone who is willing to work hard and make sacrifices to improve themselves. Kyle even tries to point out how there's a difference between training and between having limbs cut off to replace them with robotics. If Batman really believed that, wouldn't he have gotten the same augmentation? Instead, all of Kyle's objections, valid points and concerns are just brushed aside, even while he's the only one seen really trying to be Mark's friend. Whereas Mark just blows Kyle off and idealizes Superman, until Superman no longer supports what he does, at which point Mark gets violent.

And at the end, after Kyle is proven right, Superman comments that Kyle can say "I told you so" if he wants, and then asks Kyle to just 'let it go'. Kyle actually refuses to do so, saying he didn't want Mark to die, but that if he hadn't, who knows what would have happened? Superman then throws the mother of all bitch-fits, saying that "THIS IS WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED!" as he holds onto Mark's helmet. He then talks about how Mark wasn't crazy or a maniac, and was just a good man who did a bad thing. And that if Kyle couldn't understand that, then "What the Hell are you doing here?" Superman then walks off, while the rest of the League just looks at Kyle.

While the goal was to paint Mark as a sympathetic man driven by the ghosts of his past to do something terrible in the name of justice, it fell flat to me because of how obviously unhinged he was and how the only person bringing it up was getting slapped down for it, and then when that same person did his best to mitigate those issues, he again gets slapped down for it. The ending makes it seem like we're suppose to feel that Kyle was in the wrong somehow for not giving Mark a chance and for viewing him as dangerous . . . despite Kyle doing his best to help Mark and Mark having shown that he WAS very dangerous.

That's the problem with Super-Heroes their own naivitie and do-gooder nature can leave them blinded towards the complexity of others.

Well, that and their own non-self awareness or unwillingness to truly look at themselves.

I could see how questioning someone like Antaeus might make some of the other heroes begin to question or doubt themselves.

Abhilegend

  • *******
  • 6624
  • +24/-29
    • View Profile
Re: Times you disagreed with the writer on who was in the right.
« Reply #17 on: May 31, 2015, 02:52:01 AM »
Superpower was fantastic IMO. Though it got heavy handed at the end.

Ares

  • *****
  • 1276
  • +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Times you disagreed with the writer on who was in the right.
« Reply #18 on: May 31, 2015, 03:09:22 AM »
Yeah, the Sally Floyd bit was another glaring example, where the writer clearly wanted that to be a sign of how out of touch Cap was with the modern world, but winds up coming off as the most asinine argument ever.

As someone else put it:



Yeah but Cap; the reason why Soldier's families "aren't" endangered is because they "are" soldiers.  Because they are faceless.

If Superheroes were working under a similar kind of structure, villains etc....wouldn't target them or their families with personal vendetta's the vast majority of the time like they do as Super-Heroes.

I mean; how morally bankrupt would someone have to be to endanger their own families like that?

Because villains aren't going to remember that he was taken down by the guy who bursts into flames or has a magical hammer. And knowing such individuals are listed in a registry that enough money can get them a copy won't give them some means of tracking them down and getting whatever revenge they might want.

But you're right, it would be good to take steps to protect their families and loves, something to distance their families from them, some kind of alternative identity that exists to be the target the villains focus on, keeping the attention on said identity and away from other cops, civilians and other innocents.

80sBaby

  • *******
  • 5532
  • +32/-8
    • View Profile
Re: Times you disagreed with the writer on who was in the right.
« Reply #19 on: May 31, 2015, 02:15:41 PM »
Seriously, fuck black Panther.

No fuck Namor and Atlantis.
No BP was in the wrong period. They attacked Atlantis killing millions, they planned on Namor attacking them back in revenge and laid a trap for him. Namor for once uses his brains and uses the Cabal to get his revenge and spare the rest of his people dying. Yet somehow Namor is in the wrong but BP and his whole nation of mass murderers are innocent bystanders ::). Yeh right

Um, T'Challa had nothing to do with attacking Atlantis. He warned Namor when he found out what Shuri had planned. And Wakanda was only at war due to Namor's attack in AvX. He started the aggression and is not a victim, at all.

g-train

  • ********
  • 10716
  • +1/-9
    • View Profile
Re: Times you disagreed with the writer on who was in the right.
« Reply #20 on: June 01, 2015, 10:34:54 AM »
Yeah, the Sally Floyd bit was another glaring example, where the writer clearly wanted that to be a sign of how out of touch Cap was with the modern world, but winds up coming off as the most asinine argument ever.

As someone else put it:



Yeah but Cap; the reason why Soldier's families "aren't" endangered is because they "are" soldiers.  Because they are faceless.

If Superheroes were working under a similar kind of structure, villains etc....wouldn't target them or their families with personal vendetta's the vast majority of the time like they do as Super-Heroes.

I mean; how morally bankrupt would someone have to be to endanger their own families like that?

Because villains aren't going to remember that he was taken down by the guy who bursts into flames or has a magical hammer. And knowing such individuals are listed in a registry that enough money can get them a copy won't give them some means of tracking them down and getting whatever revenge they might want.

But you're right, it would be good to take steps to protect their families and loves, something to distance their families from them, some kind of alternative identity that exists to be the target the villains focus on, keeping the attention on said identity and away from other cops, civilians and other innocents.

Eh....it wouldn't matter as much, it wouldn't really be "them" doing it.

It would be the organization.  They would simply be "soldiers".  Its their tendency to create these super attention getting alter-ego's and then make conflicts between them and the bad guy(s) personal that does it in the first place. 

Not their weapons or powers.  Especially in a world "full" of super tech and super powers.

Just another guy tossing fireballs end of the day.

And they would be "crearting an alternative identity" for these people in essence via giving them all one monolithic uniform and design.  They could even be designed to hide their identities.  Make all teams composed of similar powers, rotate members etc.....

Mightily Oats

  • *******
  • 6203
  • +77/-582
  • Master of Fagnetism
    • View Profile
Re: Times you disagreed with the writer on who was in the right.
« Reply #21 on: June 01, 2015, 10:39:42 AM »
Until the day comes (as it would) when those files get hacked and some enterprising villain now has the identity of every hero.

On top of that, a hero would be a lot easier to take unawares.

After all. The govenment guaranteed his/her anonymity and the safety of his/her family.

They thought big brother was the only one watching

Strawman Abridged

  • *****
  • 1896
  • +20/-5
    • View Profile
Re: Times you disagreed with the writer on who was in the right.
« Reply #22 on: June 01, 2015, 11:44:57 AM »
....Hail Hydra....

Dalek

  • *****
  • 1257
  • +5/-3
    • View Profile
Re: Times you disagreed with the writer on who was in the right.
« Reply #23 on: June 01, 2015, 01:28:21 PM »
Also a lot of Hulk writers particulary some Pak stuff acting like characters being worried about a guy with potentially planet crushing strength known for rampages and anger issues running around loose.

The same applies to the horrible Buffy season 8 comics that depicted the military as over agressive despite the fact the initial moves of the Slayer Army were extremely criminal and could easily be seen as threatening.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2015, 01:31:23 PM by Dalek »

AP

  • ********
  • 18459
  • +111/-56
    • View Profile
Re: Times you disagreed with the writer on who was in the right.
« Reply #24 on: June 02, 2015, 12:15:34 AM »
The Hulk bit reminds me of Marvel's mutants. I'm usually annoyed when writers have normal people afraid of mutants and it's treated as this irrational fear.

Sure, the more extreme mutie-haters are pretty nuts with their giant killer robots and whathaveyous, but there is a good reason for some people to be nervous about kids who can blow up the planet.  Even if these people mean well, there's always the potential for accidents that cause death or destruction, which happens roughly 50% of the time when a young mutant first discovers his/her powers.  There is some logic behind their reservations.

While it's not a comic, True Blood did the same thing.  Why wouldn't people be terrified to learn vampires exist?  Yes, obviously there are good vampires, but even they get a thirst from time to time.  It's at the very least understandable to be leary of these groups.

Panthergod

  • ********
  • 7753
  • +45/-82
    • View Profile
Re: Times you disagreed with the writer on who was in the right.
« Reply #25 on: June 02, 2015, 01:08:52 AM »
The Hulk bit reminds me of Marvel's mutants. I'm usually annoyed when writers have normal people afraid of mutants and it's treated as this irrational fear.

Sure, the more extreme mutie-haters are pretty nuts with their giant killer robots and whathaveyous, but there is a good reason for some people to be nervous about kids who can blow up the planet.  Even if these people mean well, there's always the potential for accidents that cause death or destruction, which happens roughly 50% of the time when a young mutant first discovers his/her powers.  There is some logic behind their reservations.

While it's not a comic, True Blood did the same thing.  Why wouldn't people be terrified to learn vampires exist?  Yes, obviously there are good vampires, but even they get a thirst from time to time.  It's at the very least understandable to be leary of these groups.
It's because since the 90s, muties (in X-Men) and vampire (in True Blood)= gays. and anyone who doesn't like gays is evil amirite?

Hamburglar

  • ******
  • 3916
  • +2414/-55
  • I use naughty words
    • View Profile
Re: Times you disagreed with the writer on who was in the right.
« Reply #26 on: June 02, 2015, 01:13:39 AM »

FUCKING DIGUSTING

Panthergod

  • ********
  • 7753
  • +45/-82
    • View Profile
Re: Times you disagreed with the writer on who was in the right.
« Reply #27 on: June 02, 2015, 01:16:31 AM »

no one's who had read a single major X-Men comic arc in the past 24 years minimum or seen more than two episodes of True Blood can honestly argue otherwise.

Thanos6

  • *****
  • 1564
  • +19/-17
    • View Profile
Re: Times you disagreed with the writer on who was in the right.
« Reply #28 on: June 02, 2015, 04:50:29 AM »
It's understandable that people fear individual mutants of great power. It's when they fear

A.) Mutants with negligible powers ("He has scales instead of skin! Kill him!")

B.) The very concept of mutation/evolution ("At some point in the far future mutants may become a majority! That will be the end of humanity, even though they'll still think and feel like we do! Kill them!")

That it becomes ludicrous.
Truten forever!

Mightily Oats

  • *******
  • 6203
  • +77/-582
  • Master of Fagnetism
    • View Profile
Re: Times you disagreed with the writer on who was in the right.
« Reply #29 on: June 02, 2015, 05:02:03 AM »
It's understandable that people fear individual mutants of great power. It's when they fear

A.) Mutants with negligible powers ("He has scales instead of skin! Kill him!")

That it becomes ludicrous.
I hope you mean ludicrous in the sense that it's a stupid thing to hate someone for.

And not ludicrous as in "That makes no contextual sense" because guy.

People hate people, in the real world, due to skin colour.

Scales would make it even easier, being that much "different".

And while I want to pretend that some chicken or fish faced motherfucker (and that's not even taking into account the REAL abominations)wouldn't freak me out (but they would) and I'd still think they have rights, it definitely makss it easier to see why people would also want them dead