TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Superheroes

Go To

Tuckerscreator (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: Drift compatible
#51: May 30th 2013 at 9:59:46 AM

Yup, that's true. Being an archery teacher, it's kinda amusing to see some of those instances (firing your bow sideways is a recipe for making your arrow go five feet over your target), but I don't really mind.

While the movie doesn't say so, I had wondered if he perhaps had small powers like Ultimate Hawkeye, who can alter the shape of his eyeballs to change his depth perception and focus. Avengers never mentions it, but it would make him slightly more than a mere Muggle.

metaphysician Since: Oct, 2010
#52: May 30th 2013 at 11:55:13 AM

I disagree. An important theme in the MCU is that you don't need superpowers to be heroic. Getting rid of all the Badass Normal's by making them all stealth superhumans would be a bad idea.

Home of CBR Rumbles-in-Exile: rumbles.fr.yuku.com
AnSTH Lawful Evil Since: May, 2013 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#53: May 30th 2013 at 12:57:54 PM

I've kind of wanted to do a Booster Gold movie. I don't read comics but his animated appearances have left a big impression on me.

Wanted to tweak his "origin" story a bit so that it also sets off a myth arc. Future janitor is unhappy with his job, jacks a high tech supersuit and buddy robot back to the 2010's (or whenever "now" is supposed to be these days) to meet and fight alongside the heroes he's idealized and dreamed of being since he was a kid. Time travel warps him back to Metropolis, in the midst of a large scale attack by Toyman's evil army of playthings. Booster handily defeats Toyman and waits for Superman to show up so he can introduce himself.

Instead he learns that the Man of Steel has been missing and the villains have been getting bolder in their attacks. This worries Booster as such an event is reported by Skeets to have never occurred. So he decides to "fill in" for Superman until Big Blue's return. This goes fairly well, as Booster dispatches a couple more villains in a timely manner, but after his victories he acts like the glory hound many people think him to be, basking in the praise and encouraging it. He even signs up to appear in a fast food chain commercial (or something equally petty and moneygrubbing).

Considering this behavior compared to that of Metropolis' usual protector, the populace is pretty split on their overall opinion of Booster Gold. The most generous say that he's trying his best but he's simply not as good as Superman. The really negative people claim he showboats too much during fights with villains and needlessly endangers the lives of civilians. (This last point is completely untrue. As noted above Booster tries to end the crisis fast and ensure that people don't get hurt. I want viewers watching closely to notice that even if he is a bit prideful he's still a hero at heart.)

The tipping point comes roaring in on a space motorcycle as Lobo has come lookin' to give Supes a bruising as payback for some previous fight the two had. He confronts a demoralized Booster and proceeds to literally pound it into him that "You ain't got what it takes to handle the Main Man. You can't even touch me, let alone hurt me!" Booster Gold falls to the floor with a broken body and a broken will. Lobo leaves to cause a ruckus in the vain hope to get someone out there to fight him. People start screaming for help. Booster hears them. He picks himself up, steels his determination to do everything he can to save those people, and flies out to engage Lobo once more. He fares much better, but his injuries keep him from going all out and Lobo manages to eke out an advantage and gaining respect for the little guy's spirit, but still being determined to crush him like a tin can.

The movie ends with the appearance of a couple of other heroes(preferably Wonder Woman and Green Lantern) who rally behind Booster and give him the edge he needs to kick the alien menace's ass so hard he's forced to flee the planet. After a thanks for the assist Booster asks just what they're doing in Metropolis. They say the world is becoming dangerously unpredictable and high powered villains throughout the world are becoming more bold in the absence of Superman who is the one threat they know could probably solo them. So the heroes have gotten together to form a Justice League, and were stopping by to ask for Booster Gold's possibilities for entering.

The stinger (since superhero movies apparently need one) finally shows us Superman in person. He wakes up. On War World.

—-

Since Booster Gold is not exactly a mainstream superhero, the movie would end up being both a literal and figurative attempt to get him out of the shadow of more prominent superheroes such as Superman and recognized in his own right. It also sort of starts off a myth arc about an alternate timeline and introduces the audience to the larger DC world without hopefully being too overbearing.

I have no intention of Nolan-ifying it. It's a superhero story and there are just some things you have to roll with like supervillains robbing banks with ridiculously advanced and expensive contraptions. Bright colors, this movie is about heroism not brooding and philosophy. The audience doesn't have to know who the minor villains are or their incredibly tragic backstories, only that they're big, mean and causing trouble without a care for anyone else. It's a world that's been home to superheroes for a long time and I want that to come through.

Just my take on something I sometimes daydream about doing. The sequel would be about Blue Beetle. :)

EDIT: Daaayuuum!

edited 30th May '13 12:58:26 PM by AnSTH

But that's a story for another time.
maxwellelvis Mad Scientist Wannabe from undisclosed location Since: Oct, 2009 Relationship Status: In my bunk
Mad Scientist Wannabe
#54: May 30th 2013 at 4:54:00 PM

[up]That's a neat idea.

Can I just say that anyone that would try "Nolan-fying" someone like Booster Gold would be supremely missing the point of both Booster and the Dark Knight trilogy?

Of course, don't you know anything about ALCHEMY?!- Twin clones of Ivan the Great
TheHandle United Earth from Stockholm Since: Jan, 2012 Relationship Status: YOU'RE TEARING ME APART LISA
United Earth
#55: Oct 25th 2017 at 7:49:24 AM

This isn't from a movie, but look at this:

Skip to 2:06. Spidey tries to stop the helicopter from hitting the ground. When bits fly off, he urgently tries to stop them from doing any damage.

This is something most heroes in contemporary media suck at: Comes Great Responsibility. Cleaning up after themselves. Looking out for civilians first and foremost. Not just resolving their petty personal vendettas or self-discovery quests in amateurish and irresponsible ways. This, my friends, is proper heroing.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
comicwriter Since: Sep, 2011
#56: Oct 25th 2017 at 7:57:51 AM

[up]Folding Ideas did a really good video about that too.

Aside from the ahem, elephant in the room example that's been debated to death a thousand times, he criticizes some scenes in The Amazing Spider-Man that make it seem like Peter doesn't give a shit about collateral damage and that the movie just expects you to kind of ignore that he dropped a huge metal tower on a crowded city street.

He makes the somewhat bold charge that a lot of modern superheroes are less concerned with having the hero actually help people than they are with having the heroes kick the shit out of the bad guys in as cool and flashy a way as possible, collateral damage be damned.

Even Spider-Man: Homecoming, which I think made a nice effort to veer away from The Amazing Spider-Man's problems of having Peter not give a shit about the people imperiled by his actions, still has a scene where a fucking jet turbine gets dropped onto the city, and it's never followed up on.

edited 25th Oct '17 7:59:14 AM by comicwriter

windleopard from Nigeria Since: Nov, 2014 Relationship Status: Non-Canon
#57: Oct 25th 2017 at 10:37:16 AM

Not sure how it's an elephant in the room when it's been debated to death a thousand times.

Of course, this raises the question of how much of so-called heroism in superhero universes is a result of genuine heroism or just writers ignoring the implications of their actions. Let's face it, the hero ignoring what harm they've caused and the films glossing over that isn't a modern idea. It can be seen going back to how Superman only reverses time to save Lois in the first Reeves movie but doesn't do anything about the earthquake. or how the second one just has him accepted by the public after he gave up his powers and left them vulnerable to the Kryptonians.

Jackass behavior can be found in all superhero stories. What sets them apart is which ones are self aware enough about it.

comicwriter Since: Sep, 2011
#58: Oct 25th 2017 at 10:46:47 AM

Not sure how it's an elephant in the room when it's been debated to death a thousand time

Because people tend to get insane when that specific example is brought up. You know it meant. Don't be nitpicky.

windleopard from Nigeria Since: Nov, 2014 Relationship Status: Non-Canon
#59: Oct 25th 2017 at 10:56:34 AM

I'm not being nitpicky about anything. I'm pointing out how you used the term wrong. On the other hand, maybe you should have avoided posting that video if according to you, "people tend to get insane" whenever that topic gets brought up.

edited 25th Oct '17 10:59:55 AM by windleopard

comicwriter Since: Sep, 2011
#60: Oct 25th 2017 at 10:58:41 AM

Nah. I posted it because it had Spider-Man bits relevant to the point the poster brought up.

Robbery Since: Jul, 2012
#61: Oct 26th 2017 at 8:57:20 AM

I should say that by most metrics, the late '70's is considered "modern," so Superman altering time to save Lois would indeed be considered a "modern" develpment.

I think it's a fair charge that a lot of super-hero films want to concentrate more on the heroes and villains spectacularly beating the hell out of each other than they want to concentrate on the heroes being heroic. It's a continuing problem I've noticed with any portrayal of Superman that you'll have one camp that see's his restraint and compassion as weakness, and another that sees any high-energy action-movie style battles as a betrayal of the character. Super-hero films are not strictly speaking action movies, in the same way that stuff like the Mission Impossible, Fast and the Furious, and Expendables franchises are. They require a different mindset and approach.

unknowing from somewhere.. Since: Mar, 2014
#62: Oct 26th 2017 at 10:08:28 AM

[up]Kinda and kidna not, is undeniable superhero movies have ussing action hero trapping for quite while: hell avenger is pretty much indepence day with superheros and Winter soldier is jason bourn with a shield.

But yeah, as Indiana 404 have said plenty of times, the genre expand it become to care about the chararter for themselves ratrher than their roles, now superheroing is a given, and after tough no given much consideration, this is rather glaring Bvs S fixing metropolist wreck from zod battle and Civil war sweeping Wanda behivor in Ao U so we can angst with her in this movie.

"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"
windleopard from Nigeria Since: Nov, 2014 Relationship Status: Non-Canon
#63: Oct 26th 2017 at 11:45:23 AM

We still saw buildings under constructions in Bv S and even then the damage to Metropolis in the first movie wasn't that great.

I don't think fans see restraint and compassion as a weakness. Rather it's the writers that mistake it for naivety and thus unintentionally end up portraying it as a weakness that needs to be covered by narrative contrivances.

edited 26th Oct '17 11:47:34 AM by windleopard

unknowing from somewhere.. Since: Mar, 2014
#64: Oct 26th 2017 at 12:25:57 PM

[up]is not even weakness anymore, they just dont care....the superhero universe have become to exist for them alone, nobody care except the capes.

Is the anti watchman a this point.

"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"
KJMackley Since: Jan, 2001
#65: Oct 26th 2017 at 1:01:33 PM

Not to kick a hornets nest here, but whatever you might have thought about Man of Steel, the destruction shown was intended to be uncomfortable. Even in the smaller superhero films an entire block may end up trashed and the only reason is to show how heroic the hero is for stopping it, and in many cases their involvement is the very cause of the destruction. It reminds me of various Power Rangers parodies (like Animaniacs or Powerpuff Girls) with jokes made where the smallest action wipes out a line of buildings, but they beat the monster and that's all that matters.

indiana404 Since: May, 2013
#67: Oct 26th 2017 at 2:09:51 PM

It's a continuing problem I've noticed with any portrayal of Superman that you'll have one camp that see's his restraint and compassion as weakness, and another that sees any high-energy action-movie style battles as a betrayal of the character.
I reckon the guy suffers greatly from power inflation. From an action perspective, flying bricks are already notoriously difficult to write proper fight scenes for, the exceptions being few and far between. With Superman, however, it's nowadays all but taken for granted that he will win any fight automatically... so he barely fights at all, and is instead used more often as a vehicle for personal dramas or a mouthpiece for political views. It's just not an efficient use of character resources. Might as well let him star in his own version of No Heroics, or indeed, the HISHE Superhero Cafe.

As for restraint and compassion... the fulcrum of all my arguments regarding things like lethality and direct action, is that, being a video game alumnus, I tend to think in terms of problems and solutions rather than moral stances and philosophies. If comic writers were to present villains as the products of fundamentally flawed social frameworks, rather than scapegoat them as their creators, that would call for restraint and compassion. Most of Spider-Man's villains are like that, which is why his own non-lethal stance doesn't bother me; guy is nothing if not consistent. And I must say, I actually prefer comic villains with redeeming qualities or even outright virtues.

However, by and large, comics nowadays function on the logic that all the world's problems can be blamed on particular people, unambiguous bad guys doing unambiguously bad things, the vast majority of superheroes already treat them with nothing but contempt and knee-jerk rejection of even the possibility of rehabilitation, and their very existence is regarded as a problem in itself. If that's how the problem is presented, there's no room for compassion or restraint in any actual solution.

Nor is there any grace or poignance in the nigh-invariable downer endings where such villains shed plenty of blood before being captured, in full knowledge they would do it again. If I wanted to read those kinds of stories day in and out, I'd read the newspaper.

Bottom line: More action, lighter and/or more complex villains, and far less angst would come in handy right now.

unknowing from somewhere.. Since: Mar, 2014
#68: Oct 30th 2017 at 10:48:23 AM

"However, by and large, comics nowadays function on the logic that all the world's problems can be blamed on particular people, unambiguous bad guys doing unambiguously bad things, the vast majority of superheroes already treat them with nothing but contempt and knee-jerk rejection of even the possibility of rehabilitation, and their very existence is regarded as a problem in itself. If that's how the problem is presented, there's no room for compassion or restraint in any actual solution. "

Most of the time is like that, I feel the problem is it have silver age villians(overly villianous) while running in a cynic frame work.

"but whatever you might have thought about Man of Steel, the destruction shown was intended to be uncomfortable."

Sure but Bv S make all that pointless and use a similar excuse of "the docks are empty" kinda like animated show did in the pass, show that they cave into fan complains.

"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"
Swanpride Since: Jun, 2013
#69: Oct 30th 2017 at 11:02:58 AM

I don't think that the destruction was supposed to be uncomfortable. It was supposed to look cool. Which is the main problem with it. The audience doesn't really care if stuff gets destroyed in a big battle, but it does care if the hero cares about it and if the reaction of the people who are involved in it is realistic.

windleopard from Nigeria Since: Nov, 2014 Relationship Status: Non-Canon
#70: Oct 30th 2017 at 11:26:58 AM

It was supposed to look cool.

It wasn't and it didn't. If anything it is shown far more realistically than most superhero violence. And the destruction in Mo S was the subject of two subsequent films.

RAlexa21th Zettai Ryouiki Enjoyer from California (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: I <3 love!
Zettai Ryouiki Enjoyer
#71: Oct 30th 2017 at 11:29:49 AM

Even the citizens don't give a crap about the destruction as long as their lives are preserved.

Continue writing our story of peace.
unknowing from somewhere.. Since: Mar, 2014
#72: Oct 30th 2017 at 11:30:16 AM

I dont think the battle was to look cool, the destrution is epic but very destructive and more important Zod was handling Superman half of the time, it dosent feel cool like Tony vs Hulk for example.

[up] Much of the time in movies, what the citizen think means nothing, is the hero who matters.

edited 30th Oct '17 11:31:00 AM by unknowing

"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"
NickTheSwing Since: Aug, 2009
#73: Oct 31st 2017 at 12:09:26 AM

I would really like to see a movie based on The Sentry, portraying Bob as a young man, dealing with his drug addiction and the ripple effect that happens on his life as a result of that even after attaining his powers - namely, the toxic influences and the bad people who still keep antagonizing him not knowing who he is now. All while he's trying to show Lindy he's a new and improved man, not a druggie any more - though it is implied he is a "heroism junkie".

The General is the Disc-One Final Boss / apparent Big Bad of the movie, wanting to use Bob's powers for his well financed Right-Wing Militia Fanatic group's plans, and targeting Bob and his loved ones when this falls through. (Bad Idea, General).

Being The General had some Mad Scientist types at his beck and call, Bob thinks the horrible shadow he keeps seeing is something they sicced on him. Nope, that is The Void, the true villain of the movie and Bob's evil side / The Angel of Death. When Bob proves unwilling to kill The General, wanting to prove he's better than The General, Void emerges from Bob's shadow and skewers the General almost fifteen times from multiple angles on its Infini-Tentacles.

Void reveals he acts on Bob's fears and inner turmoils - when he feared Lindy was going out with the more charismatic Marco from their college's wrestling team, Void says "I took care of it for you," and we see Void massacring the wrestling team.

Void is played for sheer horror - even his Deadpan Snarker tendencies tend to be used to show how little regard he has for everyone else. He snarks at seeing people's pain, making fun of it and showing this amuses him. Void is adamant that he represents a necessary force, however - he does what Bob doesn't want to do, and what he represses - so he gets that out of Bob's system.

There would be some limited comedy, such as having Bob get up after his weird acid trip during obtaining his power and seeing he's now absolutely ripped to shreds...and asking, "Am I still high? I did NOT have abs before that trip."

Otherwise it would be a pretty serious movie.

indiana404 Since: May, 2013
#74: Nov 7th 2017 at 4:05:15 AM

Most of the time is like that, I feel the problem is it have silver age villians(overly villianous) while running in a cynic frame work.
Pretty much. More particularly, stories have begun to be built not on presenting problems and solutions thereof, as provided by the heroes (villain attempts nefarious deed, hero stops him etc.), but by milking drama out of the very existence of problems itself, be they necessary weasels or not. When people root for more violent heroes, it's not because they're bloodthirsty for its own sake, but because the story presents a violent villain, and for most people, fighting fire with fire is considered a viable solution. When registration controversies arise, it's not because half the fans are particular sticklers for the law, but because superhero activities in an of themselves are presented as problematic in-story, and people typically expect some sort of solution to follow.

Consequently, if and when it doesn't, you can hardly blame prospective fans for jumping ship and going over to video game tie-in novels and the Baen Books catalog for their sci-fi/fantasy action needs. Or Image and Dark Horse, of course. Or... Russia?!?

This being a generic superhero film thread, it might be proper for discussing the more unconventional films, with or without actual comic origins, and particularly international works. Having seen Night Watch - it being the Eastern Bloc take on urban fantasy - I'm rather intrigued by how the bratushki would handle a superhero story.

edited 7th Nov '17 4:06:07 AM by indiana404

IndirectActiveTransport plays capoeira from Chicago (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: Every rose has its thorn
plays capoeira
#75: Nov 10th 2017 at 8:36:09 PM

My superhero 'franchise' take one. The main villains would be a Mega Corp, and Criminal Syndicate, with The Government ranging between incompetent but well meaning to corrupt but not actively malicious, from individual to individual, the exceptions being those directly controlled, corrupted or intimidated by the syndicate or the mega corp.

The mega corp and the syndicate would be largely independent of one another. If the mega corp is doing electronics, the syndicate is doing water. If the corporation is doing energy, the career criminals are doing housing. The syndicate drugs, the corp paper. Even if it is the same market, in theory, the "legitimate" business would be, say, movies, while "petty" criminals would be prostitution/trafficking. Not to say they'd never work with or against each other, but one would be the initial Big Bad, the other would be the Villain of Another Story, then in reverse.

The mega corp is more powerful than most countries, and certainly more so than the one that serves as the main setting. It's barely held in check in its own country and from that base causes humanitarian and ecological disasters abroad, caring only for the production of product. The syndicate is better armed than most military and certainly more than the police forces of the story. Some have been evicted, deported from their initial nation of operations, but this has had the unintended side effect of causing their brand to spread across national borders.

The corporation would have super powered operatives, possibly because one of their subdivisions is a Shrouded in Myth mercenary company, because they are just one arm of a giant NGO super power, or perhaps the result of their own secret studies that they are in fact marketing to foreign buyers based on their "success" in the countries they are ruining. These are sent into the field when native police, local business man, populist politicians, whoever is threatening to get in the way of their profits, can't bribed away.

The syndicate's super powered agents would be of a different nature, naturally. Rewards bestowed on those higher up the ranks, as well as to certain designated assassins sent in when conventional violence is getting too messy and compromise fails. Their exact nature would in fact be closely guarded, with just general knowledge being exaggerated in myth as a recruitment tool.

Enduring much early life trauma brought on by both groups, the protagonist was able to overcome her situation and rise to the elite ranks of her society. Or as elite as one can get without becoming the enemy, and she can't forget those who weren't so lucky, the lives which continue to be ruined. She becomes a loud voice for the oppressed but her government can't or won't do much. She means to organize as a result. Reform is long overdue. New politicians need to rise. The people need to take land back from their would be overlords. She also joins an existing organization steering the youth away from the gang. While rallying for one problem she is killed by the other in an incidental manner, not being their intended target. Or maybe she's not dead...

Buried under rubble, rolled into a river, washed to the sea, Never Found the Body. Even she considers her old life pretty much over, but she lives, or maybe she Came Back Wrong? She feels okay, she remembers most things, but goes among her people unrecognized. That which should have killed her is now trivial, but once again most weren't so lucky. She's "discovered" saying a memento to the fallen out loud. This she becomes known as, perhaps because most people don't understand what she really means.

Perhaps a date of tragedy, a place where one occurred, a certain number of victims, the number of years her homeland has been occupied, a slur, indictment, condemnation against the objects of her wrath? They may not know the context of the word but the people see soon that she dedicated to the ousting of the mega corp, the dismantling of the syndicate, discrediting all that they stand for and improving the lives of her people. Now she's taking the fight to them directly, with superpowers unlike any before witnessed.

She becomes well known for working with the government(especially the government, who are convinced she is one of those who actually did die), with the media, the activists, the entrepreneurs, she finds much adoration. But she also finds enemies. Bounty hunters and assassins just waiting to catch her unaware. She appeals to the state for protection, but it is unwilling or unable to provide. The private sector is inadequate, most of the quality guards are sold out.

Eventually overwhelmed physically and mentally, she finds herself just needing a break, some seaside relaxation. Before she knows it she has dozed off and finds herself being frantically awoken by one of her old friends, who presumed her dead during an incident that felt so long ago. Someone recognizes her? Her superpowers have gone dormant? People now see her the way she was before? Hmm, a lot less people are interested in the ineffectual activist than the death defying super powered hero...

Wonder Woman. Or specifically Wonder Woman after I've made so many changes that DC/Warner refuses to let me make the movie but by now I have enough script that's known by enough people in the film industry to go forth with a Divorced Installment. It was Wonder Woman, before changing her nationality to Portuguese/Guyanese/Congolese/etc, ethnicity to Taino/M'Bo/Ilocano, having her wear sleeves/pants/goggles, removed the Classical Mythology, drastically reducing Like Reality, Unless Noted and refusing to lead into a Justice League. Not that I'd never do Justice League, I'd just make it Justice League from the beginning. That introduction to Wonder Woman would be directly related to the introduction of the team.

The first of these movies would establish her and the first major blow she dealt to one of the power players in the region. If successful, the second would be life with people being used to her, and her efforts to deal a blow to another major power in the region. If still successful, the third movie would then reveal more about the nature of her powers with the uncovering of a nebulous cabal that's been able to move in thanks to her efforts and proves her powers aren't as unique as initially believed. (Gangsters-Public Enterprise-Secret Society, Contrasting Sequel Antagonist in affect)

Franchise take two coming soon, maybe.

edited 10th Nov '17 8:37:56 PM by IndirectActiveTransport

Buldogue's lawyer

Total posts: 126
Top