Tweet
>in his early appearances Superman wasn't above kicking sand in the face of bullies and thugs
That's true; and I think it hints at one of the problems with pinning down the essence of Superman, or ANY long term franchaise. The original Supes.... from the 30's (like most Golden Age heroes) borrowed quite liberally from the old pulp heroes. The pulp guys had no problem dispatching their foes; often in brutal ways. Superman never really approached that level of mayhem, but the very original constantly strongarmed his foes, and left more than a few in situations likely to result in death. (I'm thinkin' of one story where he drop kicked a dude into the ocean....) The whole "superheroes don't kill" bit was a post-Wertham creation.
>Superman is going to do whatever he can to take the fight away from people and it was reinforced in Superman II, but the same expectation hasn't been set with the Avengers
....which I think ties in with my last point. A lot of the lessened mayhem from Supes comes from the 50's kiddification of the character. I suspect they WOULD have done more WAY back in the day, but the idea of a dude who can lift the Sears Tower was way too much at the time. But that idea's been part of the character for at least as long as any of us have been around. When Marvel came about in the 60's there was an idea of presenting more "realistic" heroes; so there was a tendency to show a little more of the hazards of those big, awesome fight scenes. So yeah; maybe we can give the Avengers.... and Marvel characters in general more of a break 'cos there's more.... I dunno the right term, maybe "physics?".... behind them?
It feels like hair-splitting to me, but I can see the audience; especially the long-term superhero fan audience buying ino to it. Superheroes especially, but most branches of the nerdly arts are a very fine balancing act of providing novelty but contrasting that with well defined and very rigid expectations.
>I also believe the destruction and Superman's involvement in it was a clear choice made by Snyder and Goyer because it does deviate from Superman II
Maybe; but I kinda think it's 'cos the property damage is EXPECTED from a superhero story. (The very first thing we see Superman doing EVER is smash a car.)
>the Avengers weren't the cause of the invasion, while in MOS his use of the key and spaceship drew Zod and his cronies to Earth
I dunno; that's basically blaming the victim. Nothing Superman did led directly and neccessarily to Zod DESTROYING the Earth.
Don C.
That's true; and I think it hints at one of the problems with pinning down the essence of Superman, or ANY long term franchaise. The original Supes.... from the 30's (like most Golden Age heroes) borrowed quite liberally from the old pulp heroes. The pulp guys had no problem dispatching their foes; often in brutal ways. Superman never really approached that level of mayhem, but the very original constantly strongarmed his foes, and left more than a few in situations likely to result in death. (I'm thinkin' of one story where he drop kicked a dude into the ocean....) The whole "superheroes don't kill" bit was a post-Wertham creation.
>Superman is going to do whatever he can to take the fight away from people and it was reinforced in Superman II, but the same expectation hasn't been set with the Avengers
....which I think ties in with my last point. A lot of the lessened mayhem from Supes comes from the 50's kiddification of the character. I suspect they WOULD have done more WAY back in the day, but the idea of a dude who can lift the Sears Tower was way too much at the time. But that idea's been part of the character for at least as long as any of us have been around. When Marvel came about in the 60's there was an idea of presenting more "realistic" heroes; so there was a tendency to show a little more of the hazards of those big, awesome fight scenes. So yeah; maybe we can give the Avengers.... and Marvel characters in general more of a break 'cos there's more.... I dunno the right term, maybe "physics?".... behind them?
It feels like hair-splitting to me, but I can see the audience; especially the long-term superhero fan audience buying ino to it. Superheroes especially, but most branches of the nerdly arts are a very fine balancing act of providing novelty but contrasting that with well defined and very rigid expectations.
>I also believe the destruction and Superman's involvement in it was a clear choice made by Snyder and Goyer because it does deviate from Superman II
Maybe; but I kinda think it's 'cos the property damage is EXPECTED from a superhero story. (The very first thing we see Superman doing EVER is smash a car.)
>the Avengers weren't the cause of the invasion, while in MOS his use of the key and spaceship drew Zod and his cronies to Earth
I dunno; that's basically blaming the victim. Nothing Superman did led directly and neccessarily to Zod DESTROYING the Earth.
Don C.
Comment