DC versus Marvel

By -
One of the main differences between DC and Marvel comics is that in the former, the good guys are loved by the masses while in the latter, very often the good guys are hated or at least viewed with suspicion. (Yes I've used the passive voice all over the place in that sentence.) When I was younger, I thought this a point in favor of Marvel, because its creators were sophisticated enough to realize that the public can be morons (just look at democracy).

However, after watching Superman Returns, I have to revisit that. I think the Superman movies very accurately depict the Man of Steel as a hero to the masses. (I don't want to spoil anything, but there's a great ending to the opening action sequence where Superman receives applause, and this is completely believable.)

What's the difference? I think at least two things: One, Superman doesn't wear a mask, whereas Spiderman does. Second, Superman can hang out with the masses if he wants; he doesn't need to run away quickly like Spiderman. This is because Superman (in contrast to just about all others) can choose to leave whenever he wants; even if the entire police force shows up to detain him, he can just fly away. In contrast, Spiderman has to skedaddle after foiling the bad guys, and so people can't be so sure of what happened.

(Granted, you can say DC is unrealistic because Superman really would need to wear a mask if he wanted to be Clark Kent.)

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more