The Nerdz Lounge.

andreboba said:
Comic characters without human foibles and vulnerabilities are really hard as a reader to root far, is all I'm saying.

That's why in many ways Superman was so dry as a comic book hero.
There's a downside to giving a comic book hero godlike powers.

No wonder Marvel's superheroes were always more popular, because most of them were mortal and could be killed if they weren't careful.
Click to expand...

Exactly
It should tell you something when people consistently pick Batman over Superman for their favorite superhero and doesn't even have super powers.
In comparison to the movies Batman did much better critically and financially. Vulnerability is relatable
 
Morning Star said:
Like Thor for the Hulk (among other countless characters designed to be considered stronger than the Hulk)? Iron Man for Communism? Sounds like you're exaggerating. And if he was such a "glaring example", chances are, Doomsday wouldn't be a memorable character. As I said, you don't need to be a complex character to be a good character. The particular purpose, and beyond that, further cemented his status as a memorable character for that very simple reason, which makes Doomsday a good character design, both in appearance and purpose.
Click to expand...

Doomsday was created to be a creature whose ability is to survive. To be the ultimate being. Nothing but rage and violence. There is no calming him down. And if he is killed, he will return to kill and destroy again. He cannot die by the same means twice.

Doomsday was born on Krypton before it was habitable.

He was subjected to many cruel experiments, most of which resulted in his death. The experiments went on for a hundred years...until he learned how to adapt.

Doomsday is an unstoppable being. Other than Kryptonite, nothing and no one can kill him. Superman can kill Doomsday but he would have to accept that he wouldn't survive, either.
 
Cw7TKPFWIAALSzT.jpg





Wished I lived on Earth 2. lol.
 
Doomsday cannot die from Kryptonite at all. It wasn't born in Krypton because when it was an infant, Krypton was an uninhabitable, wild environment way before the modern Krypton we know and love. It's race is unknown, actually, since it was pretty much a science experiment for Bertron. It's a bit of a misconception, since the Doomsday being from Krypton only applies to the 30+ years of being cloned and evolution, thus the birth part was defined.

Also, it's virtually impossible to kill him and Superman knows this, so the only thing he could actually do, is send Doomsday to the end of time.

Gorath said:
Doomsday was created to be a creature whose ability is to survive. To be the ultimate being. Nothing but rage and violence. There is no calming him down. And if he is killed, he will return to kill and destroy again. He cannot die by the same means twice.

Doomsday was born on Krypton before it was habitable.

He was subjected to many cruel experiments, most of which resulted in his death. The experiments went on for a hundred years...until he learned how to adapt.

Doomsday is an unstoppable being. Other than Kryptonite, nothing and no one can kill him. Superman can kill Doomsday but he would have to accept that he wouldn't survive, either.
Click to expand...
 
I do find that argument rather myopic, since people often miss the point about DC superheroes. You are correct that Marvel superheroes are more relate-able compared to those in the DC Universe, but I would argue that the characters in the DC Universe should not be considered characters whom you could relate to, as much as characters that embodies, personifies, or even symbolizes a certain trait or quality that one should strive for. Perhaps that's what comic book fans often forget nowadays and that seems to be lost on them.

That's why I can appreciate characters of the Marvel, DC, Image, and Valiant universes, because they all have characters being made for various reasons, and it shouldn't be compartmentalized by one particular thing, otherwise you're not fully appreciating the reasoning behind their characters. Superman was long established as a symbol of hope in his beginnings and writers have always reinforced that throughout his adventures. He is still a rather relate-able character in a sense that he's a person who is conflicted between his home and his heritage, which would draw parallels with the two creators - both whom are Jewish by background and would have to wade through the horrors of discrimination and such. And that is why I have a greater sense of appreciation for why DC characters are made the way they are.

andreboba said:
Comic characters without human foibles and vulnerabilities are really hard as a reader to root far, is all I'm saying.

That's why in many ways Superman was so dry as a comic book hero.
There's a downside to giving a comic book hero godlike powers.

No wonder Marvel's superheroes were always more popular, because most of them were mortal and could be killed if they weren't careful.
Click to expand...
 
andreboba said:
Is her character a cyborg or an android????
Click to expand...


The character is a military cyber operative who has had her entire mind digitized so that she is able to literally inhabit any computer, robotic or cybernetic device. She no longer has a real flesh and blood body but is able to download her mind into cybernetic bodies to interact in the real world. Hence the name "Ghost in the Shell".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom