A sad truth about myself

[Fairportfan]

Despite how utterly wrong it looks a if it'll inevitably be ... i'll likely still spend the $8 to see it the week it comes out.

I mean, it took me two tries to realise what a load of old cobbler's the Nolan "Batman" films were and wait for the third on DVD...

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Eh, DC is pissed off about how rich Marvel is getting off of the movies they've been making lately, and are trying to gear up to do a JLA movie. So Green Lantern 2, Man of Steel, they've finished the Batman Dark Knight movies... gonna have to probably do a Flash movie, Martian Manhunter would have lots of SFX, who knows what others they're gonna bring in. The Green Arrow TV series has been surprisingly good, if GRIMDARK.

So let's see how they try to butcher the old Superman movies this time around...

[Atomic]

Oh. My. Gourd.

The meme-du-jour in Hollyweird for the past few DECADES has been Hero = Defective. Not quirky, not odd, not unique, not rare, not a cut above, just plain defective. And the more heroic, the more defective.

Being an epileptic orphan school girl who's good with animals is not heroic. Being a loud, self-righteous with "good intentions" and a trail of disasters (the good fight!) behind you is not heroic. Being a self-hating undead vampire who's managed to find a decent job putting her unique skills to good use (Suzi) to seek justice for those unknown lost to murder is not heroic - yet. But when she starts to succeede, at great personal risk, then she's getting there.

Risk.

Heroism requires both courage and achievement. You risk your life, your wealth, your reputation, your survival, your circumstance, in the face of opposition, meddling, threat, danger, destruction, malice, -- just plain Doom. And you achieve. Despite the situation, you get results. You face your fears, deal with the danger, and get results. The plain old schlub who decks the guy with a knife in the subway car is a hero. If he was a martial arts teacher or an office gopher, he's still a hero. He made a difference.

At this point, I'd like to raise Sayer's Objection.

Miss Rose Sayer, a missionary's daughter, was being escorted to safety from a war zone by Charles Allnut, a local riverboat captain who very much enjoyed his drink.

Charlie Allnut: A man takes a drop too much once in a while, it's only human nature.

Rose Sayer: Nature, Mr. Allnut, is what we are put in this world to rise above.

Compare that sentiment with:

Baby, I was born this way.

My response would be, "That's nice -- what are you going to do about it?"

Do you judge someone by their circumstance, or what they've done to change it? By their past, or how they act today? By their intentions, or their actions? By their attempts, or their results? By their warts, or by their arts? By the standards of the times, or by the standards of today?

Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner, in an era where slavery was normal. He also designed a political structure both ensuring personal liberty, and permitting changes to that structure to further maximize personal liberty.

Good guy, or bad guy? Do you focus on the warts he had, or the arts he made?

The heroes of old were known for their deeds, and who was affected by them. They changed something -- for the better -- for others, not just or necessarily for themselves.

Has Hollywood shown anyone doing anything like that lately? Who wasn't batshit insane to begin with?

Achievement is not a defect. Deficiency is not a prerequisite for heroism.

Evil to those who evil think.

Boy, am I cranky before I've had my coffee!

[Atomic]

Boy! What a way to kill a thread. Not even a "have you considered" counterpoint! That, or nobody really cares about Superman around here.

[MerchManDan]

Well, since you asked.

Baby, I was born this way.

My response would be, "That's nice -- what are you going to do about it?"

I'd counter that with: "Why should she do anything about it? Who's to say she isn't doing anything about it?" I'm quite sure you didn't mean to sound so judgemental there (the same way Ms. Sayer didn't mean to seem judgemental of Mr. Allnut), but the tone was there.

"Human nature" is used as a crutch by many who tend to overindulge, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad thing. Humans are humans, for good or for ill. Yes, heroes tend to rise above human nature; that's why they're called "heroes" while everyone else remains everyone else. Defective heroes are venerated because there's a chance - however small - that someone among the "everyone else" might recognize such a flaw within his/herself, and work to rectify it. Perhaps not becoming a hero, but still improving upon the original; "rising above" their nature, if you wish.