# The new Spiderman....



## ZachGranstrom (Mar 11, 2010)

This is the new Spiderman:










https://latimesblogs.latimes.com/movies/2010/07/andrew-garfield-spider-man-peter-parker.html

This is just interesting, because I didn't know Sony wanted to reboot the whole Spiderman series....


----------



## Pirendeus (Jul 17, 2009)

Eh, I guess he'll be ok. He's gotta be better than Toby Maguire; I always thought he was too 'campy' for the role.


----------



## realbrineshrimp (Jun 28, 2010)

I loved the campy-ness of the Spider-Man movies. It's interesting to see that the franchise is getting a reboot especially considering it was a very profitable franchise that was pretty universally acclaimed. As opposed to something like the Hulk which got rebooted because they wanted to incorporate the Hulk mythos in to the Avenger's movie or something like that.

Even the new director seems to be a strange choice since his only experience is directing (500) Days of Summer which isn't exactly a summer action blockbuster...


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

realbrineshrimp said:


> Even the new director seems to be a strange choice since his only experience is directing (500) Days of Summer which isn't exactly a summer action blockbuster...


As compared to Sam Raimi... of Evil Dead....


----------



## andy b. (Mar 18, 2010)

I'm not too concerned about Spiderman, I just hate the fact they changed Wonder Woman's costume. 

Andy B.


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

Why they want to reboot the series is beyond me. It's not like it's an old series that's been lying stagnant for years, and had ended on a couple of low notes. I'm looking at you, Joel Schumacher's Batman movies, and also at you, Superman III and Superman IV.

The first Raimi/Maguire _Spider-Man_ is only eight years old and started from the beginning, with Parker getting bit and gaining his superpowers. To start telling the story all over again so soon is, in my opinion, a mistake.

But that's not necessarily what they're doing. True, the article says "reboot" but doesn't explain exactly what's meant by that.

It would make more sense, in my opinion, to just continue with another Spider-Man story, basically _Spider-Man 4_, continuing where the series left off, just with a different actor in the lead role.


----------



## ZachGranstrom (Mar 11, 2010)

andy b. said:


> I just hate the fact they changed Wonder Woman's costume.
> 
> Andy B.


Yeah, what's up with the new costume?










Everyone knows that Wonder Woman looks better in this costume:


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Okay everybody, let's stop saying _reboot_. Besides, nobody cares about this except Zach and Justin, and Andy B doesn't count. Let's talk about Donnie Darko. I understand that Paramount is gong to reboot uh restart the series starring Gyllenhaal's sister Maggie as DD. I'm really into time travel and giant bunny costumes so I can't wait.


----------



## realbrineshrimp (Jun 28, 2010)

Apatheticviews said:


> As compared to Sam Raimi... of Evil Dead....


Hey now, Army of Darkness had some action and explosions!


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

ZachGranstrom said:


> Yeah, what's up with the new costume?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah Zach, Wonder Woman was a symbol of America,thus wearing the costume.


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

Peak and Pine said:


> Okay everybody, let's stop saying _reboot_.


I'm only saying "reboot" because that's what the article said, and was a point being discussed here.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

You're too serious. _Reboot_ is fine. Go with it. You wrote a post while I was away that was some kind of confessional about being or not being confrontational or something. Time for another one maybe, on not being too serious. And bye the bye, you and me, we have to be very careful because there are those on another planet, as we've recently found out, who may be watching us.


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

I wasn't being confrontational, or particularly serious.

If I have any shortcoming that needs to be addressed, then more than anything else, I need to learn to use smilies to my advantage to indicate how serious or confrontational I'm actually being.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Nooooooooo. Do not give in to the smiley thing. Someone PM'd me sometime back and suggested that my 'stuff' could perhaps be more appreciated and less taken as an offense if I peppered my 'stuff' with smilies. I thanked him, signed off and blew him the bird. I've never used a smiley. Because I think it's cheating. You oughta be able to write (and I think you do) in a manner and tone that's understood by the reader without holding up little smiley cue cards that say 'just kidding' or the like. So I've never used one. Which is why all the Trads hate me because I refuse to cartoonishly clue them in to when I'm kidding and when I'm not and with that bunch _I'm never kidding. Or am I?_


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

You say you don't want to use "cue cards" to indicate that you're just kidding, etc., but the fact is that when you speak with someone face-to-face, you use a different set of cue cards to indicate various things. You have body language, facial expression, tone of voice, etc., all of which contribute to you're meaning in face-to-face communication. You can _say_ "Go **** yourself" with a smile on your face and the other person will know you're just joking, but if you _write_ "Go **** yourself!" the reader might take offense. But if you write, "Go **** yourself! " or "Go **** yourself :biggrin:" then it's more likely the reader will know you're just kidding.

Turn-based written communication is both the simplest and also the hardest to understand. It could be made better if people would write only exactly what they mean; if this was the case, nobody would ever write "Go **** yourself!" unless the writer truly wants the reader to do just that. But I have learned, much to my chagrin, that I get into far too much trouble taking people at their literal written word, or expecting others to take me at mine.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

realbrineshrimp said:


> Hey now, Army of Darkness had some action and explosions!


Don't get me wrong.. I'm a huge fan of S. Raimi (And Brice Campbell... who epitomizes Men's Fashion of the 31st century!). But i felt the need to respond to "untried summer blockbuster" comment. Sometimes you get these beautiful pearls from the strangest sources.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

ZachGranstrom said:


> Yeah, what's up with the new costume?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Everyone knows that Wonderwoman looks best with _either_ costume at the foot of your bed.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

JJR512 said:


> You say you don't want to use "cue cards" to indicate that you're just kidding, etc., but the fact is that when you speak with someone face-to-face, you use a different set of cue cards to indicate various things. You have body language, facial expression, tone of voice, etc.,


What you say is correct, but I'm not comparing the use of smilies with the body language of speech, I'm comparing it to the trillion zillion pages that have been_ written_ throughout time without the use of smilies. I don't want to hand out Cliff's Notes. It's incumbent upon me get it right in words. I have not achieved that nirvana yet. But I'm doing as well as most. As are you. Don't give in to the satan smiley.


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

There's a big difference. If it's a work of fiction, the author can describe the body language, tone of voice, facial expression, etc. If it's non-fiction, then either the emotion doesn't matter, or if it does, it can be explained the same way. Going back to my earlier example, I'd rather write, "Go **** yourself " than have to write, "Go **** yourself, and I say that with a smile on face as I pat you on the shoulder." I guess maybe I'm just lazy.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

ZachGranstrom said:


> Yeah, what's up with the new costume?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ya know, if they ever designed a costume for Linda Carter that left her looking a lot like a pair of Whiskey shell cordovan LHS's, my wife might have good reason to be concerned! ROFALOL!


----------



## ZachGranstrom (Mar 11, 2010)

Since we're already off-topic from the op....Do you think it is smart that Seth Rogen will be the new Green Hornet?


----------



## realbrineshrimp (Jun 28, 2010)

Apatheticviews said:


> Don't get me wrong.. I'm a huge fan of S. Raimi (And Brice Campbell... who epitomizes Men's Fashion of the 31st century!). But i felt the need to respond to "untried summer blockbuster" comment. Sometimes you get these beautiful pearls from the strangest sources.


Oh I agree with you that he may make a great movie, I just find it weird that they're giving the reigns of a very profitable franchise to a new guy.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

ZachGranstrom said:


> Since we're already off-topic from the op....Do you think it is smart that Seth Rogen will be the new Green Hornet?


From the previews, and research I've done (HUGE! GH fan here), I think he's gonna do this right. I think they're going to add a little bit of "camp" into the series, giving it more of a 60's batman feel. Kato definitely is more of a partner this time around. I'm very excited about it.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Why is it though that (apart from the first Batman film and the two most recent Batman films) most other superhero films really suck? The Phantom with Billy Zane...awful. Hellblazer - tough English geezer John Constantine becomes American wimp Keanu Reeves, FFS! 
The Hulk ,the Fantastic Four, Daredevil films -all easy to forget. The Punisher, really? Just an embarrassingly bad cheezy film, terribly acted. Spiderman -well, what can you say.. awful! Electra....terrible!


Hellboy and Van Helsing were good though.

I haven't seen either of the Iron Man films yet, they at least look good, from the clips I've seen.

Has there been a Thor film yet or a Sandman film? If not, why not!!! The people have a right to know!


----------



## ZachGranstrom (Mar 11, 2010)

Thor will come out in 2011:https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0800369/
_______
Sandman has been in development hell since the 90'S
)

Edit: I just realized how nerdy I sound....


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

ZachGranstrom said:


> _______
> Sandman has been in development hell since the 90'S
> )
> 
> Edit: I just realized how nerdy I sound....


When it comes to DC's Vertigo line I'm just as nerdy, believe me. I really miss not been able to go into a comics shop over here and browse new Vertigo titles. Probably a good thing though at my comic buying peak mid-90s in London I was probably spending about £60 a month on various Vertigo and Batman titles as well as various British indie titles and 2000AD titles.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Why is it though that ...most other superhero films really suck?


Generational Gap Syndrome, & the attempt to Modernize an Icon.

Batman is cool, because he's Batman. The problem is that Hollywood doesn't make Batman. They make something _like_ Batman. You can tell when the writers and directors like the characters, and you can tell when they are going through the motions.

A prime example is the Hulk series. Hulk was gawdawful. Incredible Hulk however.... is where the "spark" was. somebody figured it out. Iron man had it. Even the first X-Men movie had it.

But sometimes you end up with these producers who just make a decision to make a movie. Let's do Superman again. It was the most boring Superman movie of all time. Heck it was the most boring superhero movie of all time. Even though it had a solid cast, great visuals, and the budget to succeed. They had all the tools to succeed, but they tried to make Superman something he wasn't.


----------



## Cardinals5 (Jun 16, 2009)

Peak and Pine said:


> Nooooooooo...Do not give in to the smiley thing.


Sage advice :icon_viking:



> Jovan PM'd me...I thanked him, signed off and blew him the bird. I've never used a smiley.


Not nice :icon_study:



> You oughta be able to write...without holding up little smiley cue cards...


Tough, very tough :icon_headagainstwal



> Which is why all the Trads hate me because I refuse to cartoonishly clue them in to when I'm kidding and when I'm not and with that bunch _I'm never kidding. Or am I?_


P&P, thanks for showing your respect for the trads by capitalizing our handle. :icon_peaceplease:

p.s. good to see you over at that other Other spot :icon_smile_kisses:


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

eagle2250 said:


> Ya know, if they ever designed a costume for Linda Carter that left her looking a lot like a pair of Whiskey shell cordovan LHS's, my wife might have good reason to be concerned! ROFALOL!


Does Lynda Carter know about her new costume?


----------



## andy b. (Mar 18, 2010)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Why is it though that (apart from the first Batman film and the two most recent Batman films) most other superhero films really suck? The Phantom with Billy Zane...awful. Hellblazer - tough English geezer John Constantine becomes American wimp Keanu Reeves, FFS!
> The Hulk ,the Fantastic Four, Daredevil films -all easy to forget. The Punisher, really? Just an embarrassingly bad cheezy film, terribly acted. Spiderman -well, what can you say.. awful! Electra....terrible!
> 
> Hellboy and Van Helsing were good though.
> ...


You forgot Superman (was there ever a good Superman film?) and the X-men (which was palatable). Does Conan the Barbarian count as a superhero? The first one was decent. How about Judge Dredd? Sucked. There are tons of comic book movies. The fact you can't recall half of them is because they stunk. Of course having Lynda Carter running around in a glorified swimsuit or Jessica Alba in her underwear does provide some enjoyment in otherwise lackluster films.

Andy B.


----------



## ZachGranstrom (Mar 11, 2010)

Can we all agree that at least The Watchmen was a good movie?


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

andy b. said:


> You forgot Superman (was there ever a good Superman film?)


I thought the first two Superman movies were generally considered to be pretty decent. But I'm not a big comic book fan, so I don't know how those movies were perceived in that world. I particularly think the Richard Donner cut of the 2nd film is better than the Richard Lester cut.

On another note, I would definitely stand in line to watch a feature-length movie that consists entirely and solely of Jessica Alba running around in her underwear.


----------



## realbrineshrimp (Jun 28, 2010)

ZachGranstrom said:


> Can we all agree that at least The Watchmen was a good movie?


Yeah.....sorry bud but we can't agree on this


----------



## ZachGranstrom (Mar 11, 2010)

realbrineshrimp said:


> Yeah.....sorry bud but we can't agree on this


What?!?! That's it.... I'm challenging you to a duel.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

andy b. said:


> The fact you can't recall half of them is because they stunk.


Actually no, Conan doesn't count, because it was a series of fantasy novels By Robert E. Howard 40 years before it was ever a comic, plus the obvious fact that Conan wasn't a superhero. Unlike Superman, Spiderman etc all with special powers who all started out as comics. I read several Conan novels in the 70s long before I read a Conan comic. I thought both the Conan films were good, I mean how could they not ne good with Arnie in the lead role.

As for the rest of the films you mentioned, yea, they sucked.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

ZachGranstrom said:


> Can we all agree that at least The Watchmen was a good movie?


eeerrr...no.


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> ...Conan wasn't a superhero. Unlike Superman, Spiderman etc all with special powers who all started out as comics.


Batman wasn't (and isn't) a superhero, either, although he did start out as a comic book character.


----------



## ZachGranstrom (Mar 11, 2010)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> eeerrr...no.


Duel: Tuesday 3:00pm


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Don't suppose I could interest anyone in a personal fave of mine, Lash LaRue? Maybe not exactly a super hero, but, man, was he good with a bull whip.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

JJR512 said:


> Batman wasn't (and isn't) a superhero, either, although he did start out as a comic book character.


Actually I have to disagree here. Iron man is a superhero, and is the DC equivalent of Batman (uber rich playboy who fights crime, and possesses no actual powers). Innate possession of superpowers does not make one a superhero. Fighting Supervillians does. Batman has his share of Supervillians, therefore he is a Superhero. He hangs out with every other superhero in the DC universe as an equal, because of keen intellect and access to "super powered" equipment.


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

ZachGranstrom said:


> Duel: Tuesday 3:00pm


I've got yer back! - I really liked Watchmen - I mean, it was always going to be a toughie - the graphic novel was amazing and there was no way the movie was going to cut to the depths the book went. But it was a bloody good stab. Moore's work is a favoutite of mine and while he hated the idea of his books moving to the big screen, I'm really glad they did it with Watchment and V for Vendetta. Which incidentally is the best comic/graphic novel ever. Ever. Movie was great too - though I really do understand Moore's position on the matter. Either way, V is my kind of action hero - a brutal anarchist with a gift and predilection for killing fascists.

I like my comics and my Action Hero movies with a heavy distopian slant.

Everything else is just, well, twee.....


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Peak and Pine said:


> Don't suppose I could interest anyone in a personal fave of mine, Lash LaRue? Maybe not exactly a super hero, but, man, was he good with a bull whip.


I'm a El Zorro fan myself. I'll have to look up Lash LaRue though.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Apatheticviews said:


> I'm a El Zorro fan myself.


That too. And the Cisco Kid, Red Rider and Yancy Derringer. But Lash was the greatest of them all.


----------



## ZachGranstrom (Mar 11, 2010)

Peak and Pine said:


> That too. And the Cisco Kid, Red Rider and Yancy Derringer. But Lash was the greatest of them all.


Thank goodness for Wikipedia. ( I had to look- up all of these people)


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

And did you also look up Fernando Lamas?


----------



## ZachGranstrom (Mar 11, 2010)

Peak and Pine said:


> And did you also look up Fernando Lamas?


Yes, yes I have.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

And so you realize that it's Billy Crystal_ as_ Fernando Lamas who says your sig quote, and not actually Fernando himself?


----------



## ZachGranstrom (Mar 11, 2010)

Yes, but like I said earlier, reportedly Fernando Lamas actually said this quote on the Tonight Show....however, I'll change my signature quote if it bothers you so much.


----------



## andy b. (Mar 18, 2010)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Actually no, Conan doesn't count, because it was a series of fantasy novels By Robert E. Howard 40 years before it was ever a comic, plus the obvious fact that Conan wasn't a superhero. Unlike Superman, Spiderman etc all with special powers who all started out as comics. I read several Conan novels in the 70s long before I read a Conan comic. I thought both the Conan films were good, I mean how could they not ne good with Arnie in the lead role.
> 
> As for the rest of the films you mentioned, yea, they sucked.


Batman doesn't have "special powers".

EDIT- Oops, I see several folks pointed this out.

I forgot another superhero movie (because it wasn't all that great), Ghost Rider.

Andy B.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Would Roland Deschain, the gunslinger in Stephen King's Dark Tower series, qualify as a "superhero"? Indeed, a genetic predisposition, gifting him with inhuman reflexes and almost super natural instincts, allowed him to successfully combat agents of the mystic and para-normal realms but, his critical sets were not of a nature similar to Superman's or even of a Spider man! :icon_scratch:


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

andy b. said:


> Batman doesn't have "special powers".
> 
> EDIT- Oops, I see several folks pointed this out.
> 
> ...


No, but I think anyone who wears a costume to go out crimefighting can be classed as a superhero 

Ghostrider sucked big time. However, Ghostrider's mate Blade made for a good film.

Did you ever read the Midnight Sons series from Marvel? Apart from Ghostrider and Blade, Morbius also made an appearance. Although Morbius as a vamp himself was keener on rehab for other vamps, wheres Ghostie and Blade(half-vamp) were all about total desturction!


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> Would Roland Deschain, the gunslinger in Stephen King's Dark Tower series, qualify as a "superhero"? Indeed, a genetic predisposition, gifting him with inhuman reflexes and almost super natural instincts, allowed him to successfully combat agents of the mystic and para-normal realms but, his critical sets were not of a nature similar to Superman's or even of a Spider man! :icon_scratch:


My understanding is that a superhero has to have his/her own comic book series as the starting point, not novels, which is why I dismiss Conan.

Then we also have everyday heroes in comic books that aren't superheroes and that don't have super powers but might have heightened senses and mental capacities, my favourite in that genre being John Constantine in Hellblazer. A London geezer communing with demons and angels, while enjoying a cig and a pint of Guinness. 

(Rather silly that the UK slang word for cigarette that rhymes with bag is censored!!! I mean really, what is the point of that type of censoring, are we not all adults? )


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

JJR512 said:


> Batman wasn't (and isn't) a superhero, either, although he did start out as a comic book character.


Does that go for Robin too?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

We clearly need a working definition for superhero then. As an ISO representative (Swedish Govt SIS expert) I'll kick off with a draft standard in ISO style

Is it: 

Proposal A: person who,through their training,skill, mental & physical capacities and equipment achieves great deeds for the benefit of society e.g. Batman, Ironman, Daredevil

OR

Proposal B. person equipped with super (i.e. extra-human) powers for the execution of superhuman deeds for the benefit of society 
e.g. Spiderman, Thor, Wolverine 

OR simply an amalgam of both. 

Proposal C: person who, through their training,skill,mental & physical capacities and equipment or equipped with super (i.e. extra-human) powers achieves great deeds for the benefit of society.

Right I'm happy with C and I'm ready to send a CD (Committee Draft) out to the ISO representatives on the Superhero Working Group for a CD Ballot  

For me a superhero (as in C) is defined by the good societal deeds he/she carries out regardless of how he/she does so.

I now pass this CD over to the Technical Committee secretariat for preparation of a CD ballot for all Superhero WGs !


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

Apatheticviews said:


> Actually I have to disagree here. Iron man is a superhero, and is the DC equivalent of Batman (uber rich playboy who fights crime, and possesses no actual powers). Innate possession of superpowers does not make one a superhero. Fighting Supervillians does. Batman has his share of Supervillians, therefore he is a Superhero. He hangs out with every other superhero in the DC universe as an equal, because of keen intellect and access to "super powered" equipment.


I'm going to have to disagree with your disagreement.

Random House says a superhero is:


> a hero, esp. in children's comic books and television cartoons, possessing extraordinary, often magical powers.


The American Heritage Dictionary says a superhero is:


> A figure, especially in a comic strip or cartoon, endowed with superhuman powers and usually portrayed as fighting evil or crime.


(Both from https://dictionary.reference.com/browse/superhero)

And Merriam-Webster says a superhero is:


> a fictional hero having extraordinary or superhuman powers; also : an exceptionally skillful or successful person


Finally, for what it's worth, Wikipedia has this to say:


> A superhero (sometimes rendered super-hero or super hero) is a type of stock character possessing "extraordinary or superhuman powers" and dedicated to protecting the public.


The Wikipedia article is a bit of a problem, though, because it goes on to say: "By most definitions, characters do not strictly require actual superhuman powers to be deemed superheroes." Oddly, the reference listed for this statement actually quotes the Random House and Merriam-Webster definitions that I just quoted, so I'm not sure how they can say that "most definitions...do not strictly require actual superhuman powers" when, as a reference, they quote two definitions to the contrary.

I understand what you're saying, though. Batman and Iron Man are heroes, certainly, and there's no argument that they are super-duper heroes at that. But they both lack innate supernatural powers, which my interpretation of the various definitions says is a defining characteristic. In fact, I believe the word itself comes from "*super*natural + *hero*".

My familiarity with Iron Man extends only to the first movie; I know nothing of that character beyond that. I'm a bit more familiar with Batman, though, and feel it's worth noting that no Batman villain I can think of has supernatural powers any more than Batman himself does. Dictionary.com and m-w.com don't seem to have definitions for "supervillain", but Wikipedia has an article that says:



> Whereas superheroes often wield fantastic powers, the supervillain possesses commensurate powers and abilities so that he can present a daunting challenge to the hero. Even without actual magical or superhuman powers, the supervillain often possesses a genius intellect that allows him to draft complex schemes or create fantastic devices.


It seems that it's more possible to call a villain a supervillain even if he doesn't have any supernatural powers. In fact, it seems to me that a supervillain is defined more in the same way that you want to erroneously define a superhero. You say a superhero is a hero that fights supervillains. But to me, it seems it's more accurate to say that a superhero is a hero with supernatural or superhuman powers, and a supervillain is a villain that fights superheroes, even if the villain doesn't have any actual super powers of his own.

Well, that's just my take on the matter, anyway. I certainly agree that Batman and Iron Man deserve their spot hanging out with the true superheroes.

Batman would no chance in a fight against Superman, just on a side note.


----------



## andy b. (Mar 18, 2010)

Is Underdog a super hero?

Andy B.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

andy b. said:


> Is Underdog a super hero?
> 
> Andy B.


What was he saving the world from?


----------



## Dingo McPhee (Aug 13, 2009)

[Pedantic nerd mode ACTIVATED]

It's two words, hyphenated, both capitalized: Spider-Man.

Also I vote that a superhero is a fictional heroic figure with extraordinary abilities and a distinctive appearance when in hero mode (either a costume/suit or some other physical change like the Hulk or Ghost Rider).


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

I think "Extraordinary" is enough to classify one as a Superhero, as do most reference sources listed. That said the following people would be classified as Superheroes, even though they do not possess actual _*innate*_ powers.

Captain America (No actual powers, but classified as the Height of human power)
Batman (Training & Equipment)
Iron Man (Powered Suit)
Dr. Strange (Mystical Training)


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

JJR512 said:


> It seems that it's more possible to call a villain a supervillain even if he doesn't have any supernatural powers. In fact, it seems to me that a supervillain is defined more in the same way that you want to erroneously define a superhero. You say a superhero is a hero that fights supervillains. But to me, it seems it's more accurate to say that a superhero is a hero with supernatural or superhuman powers, and a supervillain is a villain that fights superheroes, even if the villain doesn't have any actual super powers of his own.
> 
> Well, that's just my take on the matter, anyway. I certainly agree that Batman and Iron Man deserve their spot hanging out with the true superheroes.
> 
> Batman would no chance in a fight against Superman, just on a side note.


Let's try this instead. Superheroes & Supervillains are nothing more than extensions of the Hero/Villain relationship within a Extraordinary or Superpowered _*setting*_. Therefore either the villain or the hero can possess superpowers/extraordinary abilities, which in turn makes the other a superX.

As for BW vs CC. Don't forget Batman *ALWAYS* has Kryptonite. BW fights dirty, and CC would never use his heat ray vision to strike at a distance, being the ultimate boyscout. Now I do agree Superman has the potential to take down Batman... But lacks the willingness to use the tools at his disposal to actually do so. Batman however has absolutely no qualms about taking down Superman if he gets in the way.


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

Sorry, I don't believe in changing definitions just to make things the way I want them to be. The definition as it is is good enough for me.

As for "BW vs. CC", took me a minute to figure out what you were talking about; thanks for suddenly switching to the initials of their civilian forms. Anyway, yes, you are right, and a welterweight can defeat Mike Tyson if Tyson just stands there dumbly. And Superman might be unwilling to hurt Batman because Superman knows Batman is a fellow good guy. But in a no-holds-barred match, Superman would win. Or, if you prefer to look at it another way, a generic evil person with all of Superman's powers and weaknesses should be able to easily defeat Batman.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

CC? who hell he? 

BW = Bruce Wayne
BB = Bruce Banner
CK = Clark Kent
PP = Peter Parker
TS = Tony Stark


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> CC? who hell he?


who hell he? where hell grammar?

Sorry, I'm sitting here laughing my ass off--not at you, but at myself. :biggrin:

Anyway...I assumed "CC" was a typo for "CK" since it was a direct response to my "Batman vs. Superman" statement, and I contextually assumed "BW" meant Bruce Wayne, which in turn meant the "CC" must refer to Superman.


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

When it comes to the subject of the superhero, killed Bill summed it up perfectly.....


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

JJR512 said:


> who hell he? where hell grammar?


The Brits will understand the "who hell he?" It was from one of the Vic Reeves shows called Shooting Stars.


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> The Brits will understand the "who hell he?" It was from one of the Vic Reeves shows called Shooting Stars.


And the Irish too...! New series started last night. Surreal as ever and hilarious..... Gerorge Dawes is gone but replacement - Angeloos is even whackier.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

VictorRomeo said:


> Gerorge Dawes is gone but replacement - Angeloos is even whackier.


Yea, Matt Lucas went & got himself all famous and loved up didn't he! Too good now is he to sit behind a drum set in an oversized nappy?  

Who's the host now? And is Ulrik-ka-ka-ka still on it? Team cap'ns?


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

Well... Still Vic n'Bob if that's what you mean and yep.... Ulrikakaka is still there with sourpus Jack Dee on the other team.... Have to say, Ulrika has not aged so well..... she's taken on that sinewy-leathery complection that comes from way too much sub/sunbes use and cigarettes..... Which is a shame as she had that typical fresh, Swedish look of natural blond hair, blue eyes and fairish skin that takes a nice colour in the summer....


----------



## ZachGranstrom (Mar 11, 2010)

The Dark knight meets Superman:




The Dark Knight meets Superman part 2:




:icon_smile_big::icon_smile_big::icon_smile_big:


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

JJR512 said:


> As for "BW vs. CC", took me a minute to figure out what you were talking about; thanks for suddenly switching to the initials of their civilian forms. Anyway, yes, you are right, and a welterweight can defeat Mike Tyson if Tyson just stands there dumbly. And Superman might be unwilling to hurt Batman because Superman knows Batman is a fellow good guy. But in a no-holds-barred match, Superman would win. Or, if you prefer to look at it another way, a generic evil person with all of Superman's powers and weaknesses should be able to easily defeat Batman.


Power for Power, Superman would win... If Batman doesn't break out the Kryptonite (which he *ALWAYS* has). But keep in mind, in many of the continuities, Superman gave Batman the Kryptonite just in case he went rogue. Batman has been plotting Supe's demise for a long long time, whereas I doubt Superman has even given a thought about taking down Batman.

As for your "generic" superman, that removes one of Superman's major weaknesses (his nobility). If the Kryptonian Criminals (Superman 2) went up against Batman, he'd be toast in a heartbeat. By the time he broke out the Kryptonite, it would be over. But we're not talking about generic hero vs generic hero. We're talking Supes vs Bats. Bats has the right "philosophical" mentality to take down the boy in blue.


----------



## ZachGranstrom (Mar 11, 2010)

Batman could indeed beat Superman....All he needs to do is get Superman on a planet that has Red sun radiation (Krypton had red sun radiation,which is why all the people there had no superpowers.)


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

ZachGranstrom said:


> Batman could indeed beat Superman....All he needs to do is get Superman on a planet that has Red sun radiation (Krypton had red sun radiation,which is why all the people there had no superpowers.)


Yes, and if Batman wants to travel to another planet, I'd tell him "good luck". That's something I don't think even Bruce Wayne could do. Maybe if he spent all his money on years of research... Or, he could just ask Superman to take him there, wouldn't that be convenient?


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

JJR512 said:


> Yes, and if Batman wants to travel to another planet, I'd tell him "good luck". That's something I don't think even Bruce Wayne could do. Maybe if he spent all his money on years of research... Or, he could just ask Superman to take him there, wouldn't that be convenient?


Or Batman could develop a device or Room that duplicates the Red Sun effect (which he & Lex Luthor have both done in several of the comics/shows), using his ownership of WayneTech, and merely meet Superman on earth. Significantly less expensive endeavor.


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

Yes, well you're missing the point, which is that if pigs had wings, they'd fly. Yes, it's possible for a tortoise to beat a hare in a race, too.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

JJR512 said:


> Yes, well you're missing the point, which is that if pigs had wings, they'd fly. Yes, it's possible for a tortoise to beat a hare in a race, too.


Or as David Brent once remarked in an episode of "The Office": 
"If, if , if,...if you're aunty had bollox she'd be your uncle"


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

ZachGranstrom said:


> Batman could indeed beat Superman....All he needs to do is get Superman on a planet that has Red sun radiation (Krypton had red sun radiation,which is why all the people there had no superpowers.)


put Batman and Superman in a wrestling ring and let them duke it out.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

JJR512 said:


> Yes, well you're missing the point, which is that if pigs had wings, they'd fly. Yes, it's possible for a tortoise to beat a hare in a race, too.


The tortoise did beat the hare...


----------



## ZachGranstrom (Mar 11, 2010)

I want to post the new Green lantern movie trailer, but since I'm too lazy to create a new thread, I thought I would resurrect my Spiderman thread from the dead.






Here's a few pics:


----------



## ZachGranstrom (Mar 11, 2010)

Spiderman Trailer:






:aportnoy:


----------

