shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,865
|
Post by shaxper on Sept 13, 2015 21:54:34 GMT -5
It's not even just the last few decades, I don't think I can name a single good mystery with Batman, I've seen the lack of mystery levied against the book but I've just never seen it as an important part of Batman's history. Paul Dini? Neil Gaiman's "Whatever Happened to the Caped Crusader?" I stopped reading early in Scott Snyder's run, so I'm not really familiar with anything that followed. |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Sept 13, 2015 22:04:59 GMT -5
It's not even just the last few decades, I don't think I can name a single good mystery with Batman, I've seen the lack of mystery levied against the book but I've just never seen it as an important part of Batman's history. Paul Dini? Neil Gaiman's "Whatever Happened to the Caped Crusader?" I stopped reading early in Scott Snyder's run, so I'm not really familiar with anything that followed. I don't see Gaiman's awesome two parter as a mystery, even though I love it. There are many decent detective stories, especially by Dini, but that's much different than a mystery in my mind. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,865
|
Post by shaxper on Sept 13, 2015 22:10:12 GMT -5
Paul Dini? Neil Gaiman's "Whatever Happened to the Caped Crusader?" I stopped reading early in Scott Snyder's run, so I'm not really familiar with anything that followed. I don't see Gaiman's awesome two parter as a mystery, even though I love it. There were two mystery elements to the plot, but I agree that they weren't what resonated most clearly. |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Sept 13, 2015 22:15:37 GMT -5
I don't see Gaiman's awesome two parter as a mystery, even though I love it. There were two mystery elements to the plot, but I agree that they weren't what resonated most clearly. I suppose it some elements of a mystery, especially its creation of a sense of unreality but to me it had more in common with horror than mystery. |
|
|
|
Post by dupersuper on Sept 14, 2015 12:12:56 GMT -5
There were two mystery elements to the plot, but I agree that they weren't what resonated most clearly. I suppose it some elements of a mystery, especially its creation of a sense of unreality but to me it had more in common with horror than mystery. To me it's just Gaiman. He's pretty much a genre on his own. |
|
|
|
Post by foxley on Sept 14, 2015 16:39:02 GMT -5
Paul Dini? Neil Gaiman's "Whatever Happened to the Caped Crusader?" I stopped reading early in Scott Snyder's run, so I'm not really familiar with anything that followed. I don't see Gaiman's awesome two parter as a mystery, even though I love it. There are many decent detective stories, especially by Dini, but that's much different than a mystery in my mind. What's your distinction between a mystery and a detective story? |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Sept 15, 2015 10:56:40 GMT -5
I don't see Gaiman's awesome two parter as a mystery, even though I love it. There are many decent detective stories, especially by Dini, but that's much different than a mystery in my mind. What's your distinction between a mystery and a detective story? It's not just my distinction, it's a true literary distinction as well. Though there are elements the two genres share they greatly diverge in terms of technique; a detective story appeals to logic and ones mental processes where as the mystery story appeals to ones emotions and strives to create an unexplained sense of unreality. Though the two often present the reader with an unexplained problem the ways they present it to the reader are wholly different. |
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Sept 15, 2015 18:48:03 GMT -5
I'm not sure I agree with either of those. Writing a good Batman story means writing a good mystery which - as Greg Hatcher noted - the last couple decades of Batman writers seem completely incapable of. And, personally, I've read a fair amount of Superman and a fair amount of Batman and I think, on average, that over the last 70 years the Superman books are stronger. It's not even just the last few decades, I don't think I can name a single good mystery with Batman, I've seen the lack of mystery levied against the book but I've just never seen it as an important part of Batman's history. Batman # 196 had a nifty locked room mystery. (The documents were hidden in the window shade!) I don't read that much Batman, but the big "Mystery" guys that I remember were the Julie Schwartz stable and Frank Robbins... Basically dudes who had been raised on detective stories in pulps, not super-heroes. |
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Sept 15, 2015 20:12:46 GMT -5
I prefer Batman, he's my favorite DC hero, but Superman is a close second. It really depends on my mood. I don't think either character is particularly "relateable" but I've always found relatability to be overrated. What Batman and Superman symbolize for me is the concept of absolute power (physically in one case, fiscally in the other) not corrupting absolutely. What if someone decided to use all those financial and superhuman gifts for truly altruistic purposes?
I do think that Superman would work better if he were allowed to have more of a personality, similar to how he was portrayed by Christopher Reeve in the first two Superman films. Superman almost seemed to have a sardonic sense of humor to go along with being a moral paragon. "I hope this hasn’t put you off of flying. Statistically speaking, it’s still the safest way to travel." There are ways to play up his "square" image and make it funny and charming but I don't see much effort on that front nowadays.
|
|
|
|
Post by Who's Who on Sept 16, 2015 2:33:56 GMT -5
Growing up, I was a huge Batman fan. Then a couple of things happened. I don't remember which came first, but I think the came out about the same time. One was The Great Superman Book. Talk about dog-eared. I completely wore that book out. (I later got the Batman and Wonder Woman volumes. I'm working on a JSA edition myself.) The other was Superman the Movie. It was so awesome. I'm been a Superman fan ever since. As much as I love the above, it pales to Man of Steel. I still love the Reeve movies but Superman had become clichéd, so I welcomed Henry Cavill. He won me over. He looks like Superman brought to life.  |
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Sept 16, 2015 19:22:54 GMT -5
That's interesting on two fronts because I think Man of Steel is far inferior to the first two Superman movies and that Cavill doesn't really look much like Superman at all. In fact, out of all the people to play the role since Reeve, I think he looks the least like the character.
|
|
|
|
Post by dupersuper on Sept 16, 2015 19:42:11 GMT -5
That's interesting on two fronts because I think Man of Steel is far inferior to the first two Superman movies and that Cavill doesn't really look much like Superman at all. In fact, out of all the people to play the role since Reeve, I think he looks the least like the character. I agree Superman 1 and 2 (and maybe 3) > MoS, but I think Cavill certainly looks the part. |
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Sept 16, 2015 19:51:15 GMT -5
I think Brandon Routh looked spot on, unfortunately he never got much of a chance thanks to the poor script he was dealing with...
I just don't see Superman at all when I look at Cavill and I certainly don't buy him as Clark Kent.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,865
|
Post by shaxper on Sept 16, 2015 21:39:34 GMT -5
I think Brandon Routh looked spot on, unfortunately he never got much of a chance thanks to the poor script he was dealing with... Routh was outstanding. I sorely regret that he wasn't given a better opportunity to show his stuff. Cavill was an attempt to move away from the Christopher Reeve standard and try a different approach to Superman. Certainly, his hulking He-Man build better channeled an earlier Superman (1950s and earlier), and Cavill did a great job of showing in practically every shot the massive contradiction of a man so mighty being so vulnerable and unsure of himself at heart. Cavill wasn't my Superman, but he captured that duality of strength and gentleness quite well. I think both Cavill and Routh were victims of poor scripts. Both brought something worthwhile to their roles. Cavill may yet win us over with a script that affords him a better opportunity to show his stuff. |
|
|
|
Post by Randle-El on Sept 16, 2015 22:07:42 GMT -5
For all of the flaws of Man of Steel, I thought Cavill definitely looked the part. He was able to bulk up in a much more convincing fashion than Brandon Routh, and his facial features look like a textbook lesson on how to draw a superhero face. I was part of the minority that actually liked Superman Returns, but I thought that Brandon Routh wasn't the best casting. He wasn't terrible by any means, but physically he just looked too boyish. Considering that he was supposed to be portraying Superman several years AFTER the events of Superman 1 and 2, it didn't help that he looked younger than Christopher Reeve in those films. I had the same issue with Kate Bosworth, who I honestly thought looked more like a college student than a seasoned reporter for a major metropolitan newspaper.
|
|
