Sundown

OT: these comic book movies are sucking hard. Except x-men. I think society is outgrowing these type of movies.

I hardly think society is outgrowing these movies when producers are making them one after another and when they do remain very profitable. We've seen more in a short period than we have for decades. What I do see are a lot of bad movies, but the fact that they still do sell means that the genre is far from dead. Some of us might be outgrowing these, however, and it's ironic that I find the X-Men movies (or rather the first one... I haven't seen the rest yet) among the more simplistic and kiddy-ish.

Saw it last night... don't read if you care to see the movie fresh, unhampered by someone else's opinion.

It was good to see Supes back on the screen... Routh actually does a better Superman than Clark Kent, which surprised me, since I was expecting it to be the other way around. He has a presence that I wasn't expecting, and when I stopped comparing him with Reeves, he was actually a pretty believable Superman. His Clark Kent was a little dissapointing, mainly because he didn't get very many lines, and because the Lois-Kent relationship was written so that Lois hardly seems to even know Kent. She's always so distracted and aloof, and Bosworth's performance so serious that it's hard to enjoy what could have been a fun, awkward dynamic. The two don't share the familiar chemistry from the old movies this one is supposed to be taking its cues from, but then again, Clark's been gone five years.

The movie's pacing caused it to drag on a bit... it felt like it wasn't edited as tightly as it should have been, and the fact that there was about 1/2 a second of silence too long in every scene really took away the energy from a lot of the movie. And some of the cuts were jarring and didn't make sense dramatically to me. Didn't help that none of the actors carried any genuine enthusiasm or energy in their deliveries and even Spacey was a little bit dissapointing. Then again he wasn't given that much dialogue to work with in the first place.

And for those who care, there wasn't much squinting, and I stopped noticing the gripes I had with the costume a bit into the movie. They really weren't that big a deal, and watching Supes fly again to William's old soundtrack is still stirring. There are some breathtaking sequences that for me made the movie, even if I would have liked to see a lot of things done differently, but in the end, it was a decent ride, if slow and faltering in parts.

Saw it last night. Thought it incredibly well done, and was surprised just how much of it was geared at adults. After reading some of your comments, I'm now realizing how little there was for the kids. I'm not that big a car nut, but I know about and appreciate enough of auto racing that the movie still sucked me in, and I loved the detail and realism that the movie captured despite being a animation with kiddie aesthetics. Was cool seeing little details the cars in the race swerving back and forth in the beginning of the race to warm their tires, and I really appreciated the nostalgic history lesson on Route 66 and the old car culture that I never quite understood till now.

And I recognized the Rust-eze guys as Click and Clack, but not until they said their "Don't drive like my brother" line.

New CG coloring tends to be highly formulaic, and everyone and everything looks like it's made of brushed chrome.

...

Give me flat tones or watercolors anyday.

Just so we're clear, let's not confuse the artists with the media being used. If an artist really wants to, they can do some great things with digital colouring. It's just that digital colouring, much like digital animation, also allows for a lot of shortcuts not available with traditional media. If an artist is willing to forego those shortcuts, digital colouring can be every bit as "dark and gritty" as inks and watercolours.

Oh I know that. I'm just bitter about how the popular "comic look" tends to look and how pervasive those canned shortcuts are.

I guess we're pretty much saying the same thing. Questioning is good, initiative is good, and thinking is good. And I can totally see the appeal of the lone wolf.

I just don't quite understand why all your examples of legitimate questioning must necessarily be by loners, when examples, both in fiction and real life show plenty of other personalities that do the exact same thing.

The Lone Gunmen from the X-Files are three decidedly un-loner, un-macho, concerned citizens who rightfully question the government and attempt to expose conspiracies for what they are. They're even fun to watch, or at least fun enough to get their own TV show, which, unfortunately got cancelled after awhile.

There are some bad people in authoritive positions and there are some good people there too, it is just that the loner is more cynical and suspicious so they naturally want to question "why should I do this? Why should I be the pawn for things I was not supportive for in the first place?"

Again, doesn't take a loner. I give you many disillusioned war vets who have done plenty of questioning, many of them who fought for and alongside others, and many of them who aren't loners.

(in other words you want me to paint "not following orders for a good reason" with "being a jerk and never following orders")

No, I've already agreed repeatedly that questioning is a good thing, and not following orders when those orders shouldn't be followed is a good thing.

The only thing I'm hoping that you would concede is that it doesn't always require a "jerk" or a loner to do so (as much as that sort of personality might help), because if it did, it necessarily means that everyone else is an idiot. That sort of flies in the face of other fictional characters the same way it flies in the face of reality. You do seem very focused on just one type of character personality, when some of the same things you value are key to characters like the Lone Gunmen, Superman, Stabler and Benson, Gloval, Hikaru, and so forth.

One of my favorite characters is Yang Wen Li from Legend of the Galactic Heroes. Brilliant tactician who'd rather study history than make it. He's a team player and reluctant leader, but still manages to be an innovative, independent thinker who accurately perceives how to win battles as well as he perceives what makes people tick. He can see the validity of opposing viewpoints and can express them so well you think he's bought into them.

He's obeyed orders that he's disagreed with, because he recognizes that it's his duty and responsibility, and what he signed up for when he accepted his post-- and that as right as he might be, he knows that the Alliance can't survive if orders could be disobeyed on a whim, so he makes his objections, retreats when he'd rather attack, and plans for the future. He thinkingly obeys orders he'd rather not, because he regards the big picture and holds his personal commitments sacred. There are probably orders that he wouldn't follow, but few orders that he disagrees with would actually qualify. And when some in his own government attempt to assasinate him, he remains loyal to the Alliance, still planning, because its still democracy's best hope.

I guess I just tend to be drawn towards characters that can think for themselves and recognize the idiocy in a lot of things, but haven't withdrawn and haven't given up on dealing with other people and the system, however stupid they and it are. And I would agree that a lone-wolf mentality paired with a rightful distrust of authority makes for a compelling character. I just don't think the former has an exclusive monopoly of the latter or that they necessarily mean the same thing.

But I thnk that if snake had to call for help to beat up liquid, it would make snake look really weak and unmanly.

If Solid Snake needed help against Liquid, he would be less of a man, because he would have needed help against a clone of himself. Now I wouldn't fault him for needing help against a walking tank of nuclear destruction, and in fact, thought it rediculous and borderline stupid that Raiden would take on 30 of them by himself.

Oh, and the Ninja/Grey Fox actually sacrifices himself so Snake could destroy Metal Gear Rex. So he didn't quite do it alone.

In the game "metal gear solid" they handled it beautifully where you actually fight the enemy hand to hand. In that: Snake works alone, is in control of the situation, and his unique skill is required. Although calm, many situations in the story are setup where he has massive disadvantages and he must work it all out by himself with no help from others. At the end you feel fullfilled after defeating the bosses because you know as a loner he was not robbed of any of the credit as it requires just him.

Actually, I was satisfied just because Snake is a bad ass and looks cool doing what he does best, not because he's a loner. He's so bad ass that he doesn't even fear having credit robbed from him, and he isn't so insecure that he has to work alone. Credit doesn't matter. Only the mission does. Sounds a little like a certain Cyclops I know.

That's why he eventually lets Otacon, Meryl, and Raiden tag along, and if he doesn't, it's mainly for their own good or because he's afraid they'd get in the way. Even playing as Raiden, and helping Snake, you couldn't help but feel how big a badass he was, and that you wish you were playing him instead. If Kojima did anything right, it's making us envy Snake even as his companion. I also think hostage rescue teams are badasses, and just because they actually have to cooperate and work together to save lives in extreme situations doesn't lessen their accomplishment any.

It's kind of funny that you mention Snake not receving any help, when he in fact receives constant help through his codec, and sometimes even has to be told out to eat, how to fire his weapon, how to do a pullup, and how to make himself throw up when he eats something he shouldn't have.

And again, I'm not sure why you equate lone wolf and tough guy with questioning authority, and why questioning must necessitate being a gruff, private, loner. I mean, there's probably some correlation between questioning and personality type, but I personally question authority as a rule (even while acknowledging the validity of their principles) and I've never felt the need to chomp on cigars or do the tough guy bit when I do.

My favorite work of Jim Lee's is his first run on X-men. The art in that time period really got the most out of the old printing and coloring methods. And two guys that I think never get enough credit are Marc Silvestri and (?) Green the two artists that had a great run on X-men before Jim Lee took over. I rank the art that those two produced on X-men right up with the best of Jim Lee, Todd McFarlane (before his giant ego explosion) and Frank Miller.

Yeah, the old Lee X-men pages just looked sooo goood, and his pencils worked especially well with the muted flat tones and old newsprint. I also feel that his proportions were a lot more accurate back then than they are now. For someone who's supposed to draw the best women in comics, he sure draws more stiff poses and makes more anatomic errors than I expect.

2. the main picture: protecting people even if it means not following the rules or teachings given despite that you will be punished/penalised for it. Punishment is a small price to pay for protecting something important.

Protecting others and self-sacrifice can be a teaching and an ideal itself, so, I think we invariably follow one teaching or another. It might seem like "common sense" to some, but the drive towards self-preservation and self-benefit appears to be a whole lot more common. In fact, it's so rare and uncommon that we need heroes, both fictional and real, to exemplify and live it out for us.

Anyway, I guess what you're saying here is that you place protection of others as a higher ideal than say peaceful human/mutant co-existence. Guess that makes sense. But Xavier probably believes that if peaceful co-existence and understanding isn't established, many more will suffer and die than just his own friends, and that's something he can't live with.

It is just a matter of how important. If a friend is dying and cyclops tells you to run, wouldn't you sympathise more with the character that chooses to stay and fight, or the one that flees? I would say "screw the order to leave, I'm going back to get my friend!" But that's just me.

Of course. What if your friends were wounded and retreating, and Cyclops ordered you to stay, knowing that the cost of losing the battle would mean the untold suffering of yet others-- but you yourself knew that if you stayed, your friends might perish while retreating without your aid? What if Cyclops wasn't set up like a patsy, only ever giving one-sided orders we'd disagree with-- but instead, gave orders that made us choose between one ideal, protecting our friends, and another ideal, protecting those you were fighting for in the first place?

Just because Cyclops isn't as entertaining a character doesn't mean that he's only allowed give stupid orders for us to disagree with all the time, just so we can go nuts about Wolverine. And if that's all he gets to do, then that's just crummy writing.

If a person even tougher than yourself starts bullying you, the "cooler" option is to choose to fight back, not try to negotiate with them when you know they are wrong for picking an unfair fight with someone who is at a disadvantage. A brave person will choose to take the risk.

I have to disagree that negotiation is somehow always cowardly, and that physical response is the only brave option. I would say that it takes just as much chutzpa to reason with a bully while standing your ground, and some of the bravest individuals we know were those who defiantly and with dignity refused to fight back. And I'd also say that it takes some amount of courage to remember that "cool" and the opinion of others is often highly over-rated. =)

"Common sense" means the job was done, the risks were high, but the result after success was worth it because the audience can agree his actions will save a life or save the world or be worth breaking the rules for.

But then "common sense" becomes whatever the author decides it is, and gets conveniently labelled as that after the fact.

If Xavier's persistent kindness and insight somehow got to Sabertooth, and he began to see the error of his ways despite his past, and then they became one big happy mutant family, then Xavier's "soft approach" would have been "common sense". I know, it would have been a lame story to an audience wanting tension and action, but this sort of stuff happens in real life-- so if we define "common sense" as whatever philosophy works in the end and that a vague "we" can agree with, it doesn't only mean kicking arse and taking names.

Anyway, I think I'm finding the comic Wolverine that someone described a lot more interesting a character. He sometimes does things that he himself regrets and feels guilt for, in order to shield his teammates from it. He doesn't always come out smelling like roses, doesn't always have perfect vision, doesn't always end up doing the exact right thing, and can't always excuse his methods with a smug and cynical "I know better", but his mistakes are still made for the right reasons.

Add me to the crowd that can't stand the way most of the newer comics are colored. Yes, the old pulp paper felt cheap, but I miss it. Probably a nostalgia thing and I could really take it or leave it. But the old comics used color in a way that just felt more gritty and more expressive, even when limited to a few tones. New CG coloring tends to be highly formulaic, and everyone and everything looks like it's made of brushed chrome. For me, it really messes with the mood and believability of the books, when everything is blinding and glitzy.

I mean modern coloring is essentially:

1. Paint by numbers.

2. Gaussian Blur it!!

3. Profit!

Give me flat tones or watercolors anyday. It says something when a Miller written Batman ceases to be dark and gritty, because the art and coloring kill whatever mood the writing would have had. Then again, it could also be because Miller's writing is subpar in All-Star, and that Miller and Lee is just not a great pairing.

And I think it also says something when I loved the 90's Lee, but his new stuff is almost so sacharinely sweet that it's intolerable. I'm not sure who to blame, him for losing a step, or his colorist.

Sundown you do make some valid points, but you make it out like the only reason he is popular is because he is "anti-authoritarian". I was saying that the reason we are attracted to the anti-hero, has to do with the fact that characters that only follow rules without question are boring to watch.

Anti-heroes are popular because partly because of a distrust of authority that our culture has developed since the 60's. They're also popular because watching someone kick arse and cut through the "BS" is refreshing. And they also appeal because they have the grit and flaws we have as real people, when some traditional heroes are so perfect as to be uncompelling and unrelatable.

I agree that characters that only follow rules are boring to watch. But it's not mindless to have real convictions and ideals that one's thought through and remains faithful to. Xavier of the comics is not mindless, and it sounds to me like Xavier of X3 is just badly written.

Each time cyclops or xavier says to calm your temper or control anger it is like they are being a hypocrite and telling the other members "I can go against my own teachings, but you can't."

People aren't perfect, despite their teachings, and leaders are the most scrutinized. But I'd rather someone have teachings and principles than to do with them altogether, just because they fail them on occasion. Does Cyclops or Xavier regret their hypocracy? Or do they just ignore it altogether? If it's the former, I see them as real men trying to live under a standard that they sometimes fail but are determined to live up to. And I think there can be plenty of honesty in that. But if it's the latter, then that's just hypocracy or maybe poor writing.

It just seems like a lot of people have an axe to grind against wolverine.

Right so wolverine is wrong all the time because he is the anti hero and you think I'm biased.  

Where did I ever say that? I'm not sure where I even came close to suggesting Wolverine was always wrong in my last few posts, and I'm not sure where this idea that I'm attacking Wolverine comes from (aside from some silly jabs earlier on).

Often he's perceptive. But sometimes his instincts and feral nature leads him to take courses of action that might not be the best (IMO). Highlighting the potential bad sides of a character concept in response to unqualified praise of its pros does not necessarily mean bias. I was simply countering the assertion that Wolverine's loner nature and baser senses somehow makes him unable to be wrong, and that everyone else is thus necessarily an idiot.

And for what it's worth, anti-hero does not mean "not hero". It just means a character who doesn't carry a squeaky-clean image and might engage in questionable behavior. Anti-heroes can be heroes. Just as heroes can be heroes. And my point has always been that both can be heroes, even according to your own definition of what makes one a hero.

No that is not my opinion, it was in the show.

Then we're talking about two different things. Many of us are talking about the characters presented as a whole in the comics, and not one particular episode in the animated series, and we're looking at their histories, and not boxing the characters in entirely upon evidence from one animated episode that we (or I) haven't seen.

You are only seeing it in black and white. "Wolverine is a beast, is cruel, and that he is not out to protect others in his own way."

Where am I seeing it in black and white? I've already noted Wolverine's perceptiveness in certain moments but I'm not willing to buy that his instincts can never be wrong and that he can't have blind spots. You're using an episode of the cartoon as your case study and as evidence that Wolverine can do no (real) wrong, but I think it's important to look at their entire histories in whole.

Just because I don't buy that Wolverine is flawless doesn't mean that I believe him a raging, cruel lunatic 100% of the time. Again, false dichotomy. Sometimes, he can be a bit of one, and he can be wrong, even if he's right in other moments. Same goes with Xavier and Cyclops. Hence why the X-men make for a good team in the comics. They compliment each others' weaknesses, and they bring their own strengths.

But if one's idea is that the X-men are, for the most part, a bunch of idiots and Logan has to constantly set them straight, then I think one misses what the X-men are actually about. I haven't seen the movie yet, but it's starting to sound like this is how the team's presented. And if that's the case, that's just crappy writing.

Please answer that question! Why is wolverine not allowed to stop sabretooth, but xavier able to fight magneto? What difference is there between a guy controlling your mind and manipulating you and a guy knocking you over the head to stop you from harming others? They are fighting the same thing.

Xavier was wrong, in that particular instance, in an animated episode that I've never seen. Happy? But him being wrong in that instance doesn't brand him uber-softy-idiot for life, nor does it invalidate his preferred approach, and Wolverine being right doesn't make him smell like roses eternally, nor does it discount the times he'd been mistaken himself in comic history.

Xavier needs a Wolvie, and Wolvie needs an Xavier.

What you want is for me to say that an anti hero like wolverine (even in instances when he IS right) is lower than other members, (his experiences are not valid) and still agree with thier methods when their judgment was off. I agree that an antihero is not perfect. But neither is the real world, so long as the character's intent is to help it matters very little.

No, what I hoped was that you'd acknowledge an anti-hero's cynical perspective isn't the only one that's right, and that as much as you enjoy the archtype, you might be able to see that the things you value (initiative, thoughtfulness, perception) has been exemplified by traditional heroes as well. Here you seem to admit that the anti-hero isn't perfect, but then imply that his imperfection is actually the perfect thing in an imperfect world. Yet we have no real-life anti-hero role-models in this world, because they only function well in fiction where the setup is fabricated and the outcome is predetermined.

I'm not trying to rank the characters on a ladder. I'm trying to show the validity of each of their concepts and the validity of their differing and sometimes warring perspectives. I love it when Batman and Superman knock heads, where both sides are presented fairly, and so much truth is seen from both sets of eyes. And I hate it when Miller writes Superman like a big dumb errand-boy for Batman just because he doesn't know how to express Superman's nobility in a compelling way.

I guess you might in this instance say "Batman's awesome, and Superman's an idiot." I guess I'd say "In Kingdom Come Waid's treatment of Superman is awesome, and in All-Star Batman & Robin, Miller's treatment of Superman's kind of idiotic."

No offense but I think you are more biased than me. 

If using counterexamples to shed light on both sides of each archtype makes me baised, okay, then guilty as charged.

So there's no confusion, do I like Wolverine? Yes. Do I enjoy anti-heroes? Heck yes. But I like Beast and I like Superman when they're well written as well, and I don't believe the anti-authorian cynicism of the former, as valid as it is sometimes, is the only accurate way to see things. And I don't think it makes me biased to say so.

You need to be able to question the person leading a team as a person looking at it from outside. I gave a good example of how a system can fail and how a person who is innocent can be seen as the wrong doer and a person who is guilty can manage to seem "good".

Of course. But you don't have to be a Guile, Punisher, or Wolverine to do it. You yourself mentioned Cyclops doing that in moments. I think jerk=sensible/team player=idiot is a false dichotomy.

For a character to be interesting to me, he should be able to question the leader (eg about xavier taking action against magneto, but denying wolverine the right to go after sabretooth) and stand up for himself rather than merely do as he is told and be an obedient robot. Without conflict Xmen is just another super hero comic and loses its appeal for me. We just have to agree to disagree on this.

Err, super hero comics are fraught with internal conflict, or at least they've been for the last 20 years. X-men isn't the only title to feature conflicted stars-- I think more do than dont-- and some titles that feature a very classic Superman have issues of conflict and tension for him to resolve.

My opinion is that: He is not at all bad, just that the society itself might paint him as that within the world they are in. (a good example is how, say the patlabor teams In Patlabor can sometimes get a bad reputation as being a waste of tax payers money and being "reckless and dangerous" in the public eye thanks to the press - even though they are saving lives and catching the bad guy)

I actually agree with your opinion on the anti-hero archtype. He sees many things as they are, because he's been through them on the ground level. And sometimes, he can do things that others can't, because he's not shackled with certain sensibilities. But I also think those characters have blindspots and their instincts aren't always right, nor is their perception of the world (or at least one we live in) always accurate. And sometimes, their disregard for convention can be used selfishly or impulsively.

However you seem deny all other types of heroes the ability to be thinking or perceptive (which I think is inaccurate, and in cases where you're right, it's due mostly to bad writing, not to a bad character concept). And I also don't agree what you seem to imply: that a thinking reader must love unconventional, jerk, loners over all other types of heroes. I would think that a thinking reader would see the truths in viewpoints held by all character types, and might especially enjoy an otherwise "boring" character like Beast.

Yeah yeah, "you are one-sided, biased"  and "I disagree". "You don't have to be this way to get this done" That's ok. I just said that I prefer characters that are like that. I'm only speaking for me and bringing my own theory as to why wolverine is popular to a lot of people because of the fact that the dirty harry type maverick characters tend to get a lot of attention.

I love these characters myself. But to paint all other characters as stupid, unthinking, mindless followers of rules is to misunderstand them in order to prop up the faults of the anti-hero/rogue/jerk architype.

Superman is again, as big a boyscout as they come. In Kingdom Come, he becomes detached from the humanity that he was once sworn to serve, and begins to lay down the law on villains as he sees fit. In some ways, here he becomes the by-the-book hero, but one without heart or understanding. His attempts fail. Then villains and heroes rumble in Kansas, and due to the danger of the power that could be released in this battle, the UN decides to nuke all the heros and metahumans once and for all. In anger, Superman decides to bring down the roof of the UN upon its members-- and here Superman becomes a bit of the anti-hero, or maybe simply unheroic.

Who brings him back from the brink? An ordinary man-- a pastor no less. And Superman again discovers what he's about-- his responsibility is to work alongside mankind, and not to do his work for him. Through this journey, Superman questions his beliefs, questions authority, and man in general, and discovers that the giant boyscout he used to be was who he needed to be. He finds that he can serve men only by identifying with them. The moment he abandons Clark Kent is the moment he fails.

What I'm trying to say is that what makes heroes interesting, heroic, and in some part real-- being able to question, being able to perceive, and being able to take initiative, is not something limited to the loner/gruff/detached stereotype. Just because Superman prefers law and order and Wolverine leans towards emotion and impulse does not mean that one or the other is automatically more or less thinking. And frankly, both types of personalities can have their own blind spots.

I love Law and Order: SVU. Detectives Stabler and Benson face the usual shackles law enforcement officers do, and while they've both seen it all and know that the system is far from perfect, they attempt to serve justice within the system as best they can. Occasionally, they may take a questionable step outside, and when they do, they face consequences for doing so. But by and large, they're police officers respectful of the law and even more respectful for the law's spirit and intent. To me, they're "heroes", because they have to use all their savvy to do the right thing, even when the powers that enable them to do that end up working against them. And more than once, I've thought about law-enforcement as a career, but I've never been compelled to tape steak knives to my wrist, get a bad haricut, and go on a rampage for great justice.

So these anti heroes are often misunderstood as being almost like 'villains' themselves when in fact they are more like the common sense fighters of justice in the world they live in, just choosing to fight as they see fit with thier own moral code and thier own judgement.

One thing I know I would not want is real life vigilantes fighting for "justice" according to their own moral code. Comics have the luxury of scripting the setups and outcomes so that vigilantes are proved right more than not, but in real life, vigilante justice is extremely problematic on its own, and frankly, most people who attempt such a thing do so when the common sense they believe they have fails them.

Another Law and Order example: A child is abducted, and "common sense" tells a child safety activist that it's obviously the work of a registered sex offender that lives nearby. Frustrated by what he perceives as the inadequacy of law enforcement, he poses as a detective and convinces another child to be the perfect witness against the offender to the real detectives. Of course he's wrong, and ends up obstructing justice, and the wrong man is accused. Vigilante justice, at least in America, simply does not work on any appreciable scale, because common sense is simply what we label our own beliefs and outlook when we assume that others agree with it. But because everyone has a different outlook, following what one thinks is "common sense" blindly is a sure way for many folks to be wrong.

A dream is worth striving for but not if it comes at the expense of others or if it is going to endanger the other people in the team and you can't do anything to prevent the damage caused from your mistake due to an error in judgement.

I still relate much better to characters in a movie that act on thier instincts and common sense over those who typically hold ideals (like don't endanger people with your anger) yet do a 180 and can't live up to thier own rules (getting magneto for personal reasons, not work) and can cost lives by being too trustworthy. (being too nice with sabretooth, not listening to warnings)

Wait, so it's okay to endanger people with your anger, but it's not okay to endanger people for a cause? =) For what it's worth, I do believe some causes are worth dying for, but the choice to sacrifice has to be made by each person themselves.

Honestly you people can't see misuse of power when Xavier stops time like that? Or probes the mind of someone who doesn't want his memories available to strangers? You could reason "the ends justify the means", but then I could say the same goes for wolverine you hypocrites.

I have to admit that I haven't seen X3 yet, so I'm arguing primarily from what I know of the comics. As mentioned by someone else, Xavier shys away from intrusive use of his powers except when necessary. But let me play devil's advocate and flip that around... why is Xavier's use of his power "abuse" when Wolverine's instinctual rage isn't? Why can't Xavier use his abilities to control others, seeing that it's necessary "by experience" but Wolverine can throw principles out the window at his own convenience? Is it because Xavier talks in a snooty accent and doesn't chomp on cigars? Is it because he's not "cool" enough to break rules and principles? Or is it because he's the leader and must set an example, the very thing that frustrates some in the first place?

But it's a bit unfair to ask someone to be a leader, call him a dirty hypocrite when he makes an occasional mistake, call him unbending and unflexible even when he doesn't, all while on the sidelines naysaying one decision after another because the shackles of responsibilities aren't on him. I understand that the comic Wolverine doesn't do that though.

Would you rather watch a show where the main character is trying to reason with the villain when the villain is just acting and 'playing a game' to get close enough to cheat you?

Or one where the guy actually sees the evil for what it is and acts on stopping it go any further? There are other people's asses on the line which is why the loner is more appealing. It's why characters who know better, never trust the by-the-book way of doing things (they are just boring and whiny and come off as mindless robot) and can go beyond what others have told them is right or wrong ways of behavior by thinking for themself and thier own instinct.

You don't have to be a loner, jerk, or anti-hero that bucks and distrusts all authority as a rule to see evil for what it is. You simply need to be perceptive. Boyscouts and goody-two-shoes can also be perceptive, and not everyone who agrees and complies with certain authorities is automatically a mindless robot who hasn't thought through the issues. The irony is, I find some classic heroes more heroic in the diluge of anti-heroes we see today, because the ideals they stand for are still virtues today, and because they don't have to chomp on cigars and spit expletives to do their jobs, as cool as it is to do that kind of thing.

My only goal was to point out that people prefer those who use common sense to solve the problems rather than playing into the hands of the enemy by taking a soft aproach. It's why Wolverine get his own movie because he is more marketable.

A "soft", or rather, more subtle approach doesn't necessarily mean one devoid of common sense. And I'm sure there's more than one instance where Wolverine's stab first, ask questions later approach ended up being the incorrect one. You make it sound like Wolvie can do no wrong, which, ironically is what the classical heroes were accused of when the anti-hero became popular.

You're also equating anti-hero and "loner" with common sense and flawless perception, when the two are completely different things. The anti-hero tends to distrust all authority, sometimes to his and others' detriment. The perpetual cynicism many anti-heroes are stricken with is a very one-sided way of looking at things that also fails to account for reality.

Like in macross plus you can think of Dyson as a reckless irresponsible pilot or see him as a person with unique ability that allows him to overcome problems in his own way to save people. (he lectures Myung on this later) The weakness of him is that he probably hates teamwork (it might seem 'weak' to need help, james bond doesn't get rescue, he is usually in control and able to rescue others) but this need to go against the limits (break the rules that ordinary people must follow and are "safe") in extraordinary circumstances are necessary for an audience to give a poo and to be of any use in the real world.

Again, in the real world, no one gets very far bucking all authority, and no one gets very far without cooperating and relying on others... the real heroes in my opinion know which authorities to buck and which to comply with. But respecting well-intentioned authority and at least attempting to work with it is in my opinion, a noble cause, especially when many of these rules and limits are there to protect others in the first place.

A "hero" who blatantly ignores authority and complies with it only when it's convenient, is in my opinion, a bit of a lazy-man's hero. =P He doesn't deal with any of the realities we have to deal with, so we end up sitting back and letting him do all our work for us. I just think that heros, both real and fictional, should ultimately inspire action, rather than be figures that fulfill our wishes, because their fictional hands aren't tied by real life.

In a way he is pioneer we all "look up to". That's what a hero is (it's my own definiation): they can go above the ordinary and stand out amongst all the other heroes. Usually the tough characters hate others getting in the way of something because it might slow them down.

I'm not sure how that makes sense. A hero isn't a hero unless he stands above heros? Tough, rough and tumble characters are fun... but again, I think that's an extremely narrow definition of "hero". And I do happen to like thinking heroes (even brainy ones), because "common sense" is often wrong, especially when everyone thinks they've got it.

Luke isn't just a jedi tied to rules, but is defiant enough to act on his own and solve the problem his way. All the jedi are heroes but just not as "marketable" as the main character.

I agree that one can't be an unthinking slave to rules, but rules are also there for a reason. The balanced hero considers both truths. And there's also an anti-anti-hero emerging: the hero who does it "by the book" even though he's constantly being told by "common sense" and society that it's already a lost cause to try that sort of thing. It's the hero who stands above base emotions and understands the spirit and heart behind the rules, even when the rules themselves fail.

I guess in the end, we both agree that what makes a hero is personal intiative, rising above the crowd, and self-sacrifice. I just don't think that you have to be a jerk, loose cannon, or be prejudiced against all forms of authority to be one. But yes, the latter's more marketable nowadays, at least until we get tired of it.

To illustrate what I mean there is an episode in the cartoon where beast is actually in jail for a crime he didn't commit. He chooses to serve time in jail, despite this. Magneto offers to break him from the jail, but he refuses and decides to stay. Now there is several reaction you can have:

1. he follows principles this is admirable.

2. he should do everything he can to prove innocence

3. "what a boring bookworm, I would never read his comic! Why doesn't he just break free? He is innocent dammnit"

I would probably be thinking along the lines of the 3rd option because, the other two would be boring to watch. It doesn't translate well to an action movie. It's not a popular thing to do. It's not "cool" response to take.

And see, here I would be thinking beast incredibly cool, because what makes him cool here is that he's not another action puppet, but a character of reasoned mind and integrity despite the beastly nature of his physical powers. And I do find integrity and character very cool. Especially when one refuses to do the "cool" thing. And especially in my comics.

I'm going to have to politely rebut your argument a little bit. The Wolverine I know in the comics was an out of control team member who butted heads with authority.

I'm sure fans realize after X3 that the Wolverine in the movie is very different from the Wolverine in the comics, and they will come to realize that the movies aren't the real X-men.

It occurs to me now that Low Vis might be referring to the Wolverine of the movies and cartoons, who's probably sort of watered down and who's more right than not in his judicious rage, because a often misguided, violent beaver-man probably wouldn't make a very good hero to the kiddies, at least not while their parents are also watching.

So instead, he's angry at all the right times, and the other characters are made more wooden and stupid to give him room to be expressive and emotional.

IMO being grounded in reality is one of the important skills and can come from experience or just having sharper and more accurate judgement skills. This is why people like the anti-hero. Just because Cyclops or Xavier have higher rank, they will automatically think he is just responding by letting anger "control" him, denying emotion when it is convenient to thier own ideal or way of doing things. So naturally they come off as the "do gooder", and the more straight-thinking ones come off as the violent one who can't control thier anger or is too mean or harsh.  A good example is Judge Dredd, where he can come off as almost too scary.

See, again it seems that your analysis is a bit too one-sided. Of course leaders have flaws. And that's why they occasionally need others to call them out, just as figures like Wolverine work best alongside someone with a bigger picture and who has more imagination than sticking everyone who's a problem through with claws. But to assume that the pessmistic, cynical, loner, anti-hero always has a more accurate grasp of every situation and what constitutes "real life", and that they're the only ones that "think stright" seems a little bit simplistic a view as well. I don't believe either Cyclops or Xavier deny the X-men emotion. They simply value control over them in the performing of one's duties. It's the same case with police officers and military personel, many of which we would consider heroes, and many of whom must also cooly and professionally use violence in the service of others.

Even Batman, who would fit your perferred mold of "hero", has come close to losing his status as such when he allows his emotions to win over. In those moments, someone has to pull him back from the brink. And guess who does that? Usually a big boyscout, in the form of Superman or Commissioner Gordon, although Gordon's sort of a big, cynical boyscout, who manages to hold to his ideals even though he's seen and gone through it all.

The whole appeal of the anti-hero is that they're fraught with flaws, make mistakes, and that they possess our very real human frailties. Their cynicism from "experience" is their justification for doing sometimes unheroic things. Sure, we're glad to have them around when they're on our side, but it's like we've watched them for so long that we have a hard time recognizing their flaws as flaws. Instead, their cool demeanors lull us into thinking that they can no longer do wrong so long as their actions, however mistaken, can be backed by a dry, quippy one-liner.

I can agree that I don't think wolverine should be leader, but he should be the focus because that is who most people see in a hero.

Those were the qualities that I liked about wolverine in the cartoon. Unlike the other members on the team, (who are just going through the motions and taking orders) it was always wolverine do the "common sense thing" and going after the bad guys the old fashioned way by hunting them down and beating the poo out of them. (if he can)

405952[/snapback]

I think that's an extremely narrow definition of what makes a "hero", or at least a good one, and Wolverine's whole does-not-play-well-with-others, Clint Eastwood persona is in some ways closer to the anti-hero that's been made popular in the last few decades. I think a hero is better defined as one who's committed to the well being of others, even if it requires his own sacrifice, and in that vein, Cyclops and Xavier are just as much heroes as Wolverine and Spiderman. Sometimes, that sacrifice includes being "cool". Not to mention that the biggest boyscout of them all, Superman, is as much of a hero as any other that comes to mind.

Plus it's sort of a one sided look at the members of the X-Men. Without Cyclops' leadership and discipline and Xavier vision, Wolverine would just be a mostly pissed off regenerating furball of claws. And weasel-men don't change the world, at least, not alone.

As far as "real life" goes, many of our real life heroes are in fact compassionate idealists, leaders, teammates, and visionaries, committed fully to the mission, and the solitary no-nonsense badasses we think we love are few and far between. The greatest heroes of course know when it's time to be the former and when it's time to be the latter.

What really scares me is that eventually the growing popularity of anime will make the large media corporations like Disney and WB decide to get into distributing anime instead of just imitating it (badly), specifically that they will almost certainly decide that fansubbers have served their purpose and will set their lawyers on them and shut them down.  I for one don't like the idea of those Disney Dickwads deciding which pasteurized and homogenized anime I get to see.  I don't like that idea at all. [/b]

404321[/snapback]

Actually, Disney's own anime releases have subs that are more faithful and readable than most fan subs, not to mention dubs that are actually tolerable. If they're going to sue, that means they've bothered to pay for and obtain the license, and that also means you're likely to get something better than most fans can put together in the first place. I don't see that as a bad thing, so long as Disney treats the source material with the respect they've shown so far.

And like JB0 mentions, it won't be Disney who decides that fansubbers have served their purpose. It'll be the fansubbers themselves.

I can feel for ya on the parent factor on the demise of our stuff.  Had a 1/100 vf-1s back in the 80s, he took it out to the range and he shot it with a 308 then blew up whats left with a blasting cap. To make matters worst he went out and retrive whats left of the head and dropped it in my hands.

403863[/snapback]

That is just wrong on so many levels. I'm half wondering if you don't actually live somewhere in the south where your dad is actually also your bully big brother.

Cleaning and Organizing is what they all said. If your father came home and found half his beer can collection missing would he have accepted your story of spring cleaning? The spring cleaning bugs effects them all but its always the property of others that needs to be gone.

Sigh... not to mention the countless times things went missing or slightly broken because they felt the need to clean up my room to impress their guests. I sometimes wonder if they know what that hinged slab of wood called "a door" is for.

You know, I really feel some of your guys' pain. I haven't experienced anything as horrific as some of what you've described, and the women in my life have always been understanding about my stuff... but I've had my dad throw out things here and there that were important to me at the time in the name of "cleaning" and "organizing".

It's something that I have a hard time understanding, why some folks just don't have respect for someone else's stuff. Feels like that sort of thing should be common sense. I wonder if it's because some parents didn't have childhoods filled with toys, so they don't quite understand what these chunks of plastic actually mean to their kids.

Okay, I did let a friend borrow a bunch of my Star Wars figures, including the ROTJ Luke that was my favorite. At some point he either decided he wasn't giving them back or broke/lost enough of them to make that difficult. All I remember was that I had to get my parents to drive me over in order to exchange back all of the belongings we had of each other, and by then, the friendship had kind of soured so it ended up being a last shot hostage exchange of sorts. Luke never made it though, and I never found a replacement.

A basic sci fi movie playing it safe would have had a prolonged shootout, a long fistfight, then Deckard would have tossed Batty off the roof by punching him in the groin and said something cheesy like "No nuts on this flight"

Did you come up with that by yourself? I'm seriously laughing my head off here.

Warning, if this thread degenerates into discussing whether Routh or Reeves has the bigger bulge, then it's definitely getting locked.

Wow, I don't think that topic of discussion crossed any of our minds.

Until now.

I guess narrowing his eyes is better than this

Routh is still no Reeves. Reeves can do no wrong by me.

If I wasn't clear enough, I'd meant to say that the narrowing he does at the end of the second trailer isn't the same as the squinting he does in the shot you posted earlier.

*Cues bsu's fanboy attack for still talking about this.*

Routh does much better as Supes when he narrows his eyes a bit... there were a few shots and angles where he really felt and looked the part. And no, steely narrowing ain't the same as squinting. =P

I almost wonder if the reason Kojima likes Raiden so much is because the Raiden that's in his head isn't the one that the American audience got. Japanese Raiden has a deep, booming voice despite his pretty, Bishonen looks, and the difference between the two is the difference between Macross Max and Robotech Max. Except in the case of RT, Max is still pretty slick and doesn't whine.

Who, incidentally, was voiced by Cam Clark, the actor that did Liquid Snake.

I thought the trailer mentioned he's aging because he's a clone.

400001[/snapback]

That could also be it. I must have missed it in the trailer, but I do remember (or misremember) something about clones aging faster in one of the earlier games.