X-men 3 Pics: Beast And Angel Revealed

[1/1 LowViz Lurker]

I think that's an extremely narrow definition of what makes a "hero", or at least a good one, and Wolverine's whole does-not-play-well-with-others, Clint Eastwood persona is in some ways closer to the anti-hero that's been made popular in the last few decades. I think a hero is better defined as one who's committed to the well being of others, even if it requires his own sacrifice, and in that vein, Cyclops and Xavier are just as much heroes as Wolverine and Spiderman. Sometimes, that sacrifice includes being "cool". Not to mention that the biggest boyscout of them all, Superman, is as much of a hero as any other that comes to mind.

Ok but it shows that the leader that can't see beyond thier own idealism and selfishly believes he is the bearer of all truths is misguided. (because he is a hypocrite) He may be compassionate but so is Magneto, or even Darth Vader. That can be a flaw that allows the enemy to exploit as a weakness that must be pointed out. Whereas the "team" wants to make thier leader happy and do good, the lone wolf is able to challenge that leaders' methods by at least questioning: was this the right way to go about this mission? Was what we are doing really the right for my friend (leaving him) or just escaping to save our own skins for someone else? (xavier wants to use wolverine to help stop magneto but won't let wolverine get sabretooth, even though sabretooth is lying and "acting" and able to break through the "justice" system through trickery or good acting in front of the crowd changing his behaviour while no one is around to see his true color)

IMO being grounded in reality is one of the important skills and can come from experience or just having sharper and more accurate judgement skills. This is why people like the anti-hero. Just because Cyclops or Xavier have higher rank, they will automatically think he is just responding by letting anger "control" him, denying emotion when it is convenient to thier own ideal or way of doing things. So naturally they come off as the "do gooder", and the more straight-thinking ones come off as the violent one who can't control thier anger or is too mean or harsh. A good example is Judge Dredd, where he can come off as almost too scary.

Anyway, while Xavier is telling wolverine that it is bad to let your berserker rage to get out of control, the enemies themselves are able to take advantage of that situation (being too soft is not good either) and harm others. (ie in that particular instance in the cartoon, we see jubilee buys into sabretooth's act too and sympathises with him for a while in a moment of poor judgement allowing her to get herself into a dangerous situation)

After that event we see the bad side of xavier: even though he is a psychic he could not have seen all ends and predicted that a situation like that could have gotten out of control and learns something from that mistake. I'm not saying he is not a hero too, but that a more marketable hero is one that thinks with sharp instincts and can make the right judgements when apropriate.

So a mass murderer that laughs at the system that allowed him to get off easily and keep commiting more crime and murdering and slaughtering more innocent people, is much easier to hate, and an anti-hero is much easier (and preffered) to like in this situation than a softy, or a by-the-book hero. Because the latter assumes playing by the system will always get the person and is perfect from the begining.

They are just "going through the motions" as if they were part of the machine itself rather than thinking, "is this method the best?" "are my ideals flawed?" "do I have a right to judge others in how they go about crime fighting and use them, when I myself failed to protect my own people and even conveniently break my own rules to get my arch villain?"

The anti hero can see all the flaws from experience from fighting the criminal, and is sick of seeing the bad guy have his way each time, so because as an audience you are cynical about the system yourself, (and the hypocrisy in the idealist) you are more likely to want to root for the "ass-kicking" type of characters like batman, dredd, or wolverine because they use common sense rather than abiding by some stupid rule "just cuz its there".

Often we make the assumption that the anti-hero is the guy with no compassion when the opposite is true: he is just choosing to fight in his own way and method and looking at it from experience. (ie that the character has gone up against some evil and cunning villains before and can smell the BS and trickery and wants to nip it in the bud early ignoring the beauracracy and getting things done.) By going underground for a time they might be able to get more work done than if they had played into any traps. If taking the defensive posture and assuming you can't trust something until you can confirm it is worthy of trusting, (through experience and knowledge of that person's past) you ensure much more safety than being optimistic about what you don't know and believing them on thier word.

That's one of the important skills of the team, wolverine is able to sense and sniff the bullshit and act as a early warning bullshit detector in that sense. (because the world isn't perfect, people don't play by the rules, you need gut instinct and experience to guide your action) That I think is the reason people are attracted to the antihero characters because they look at the world through more realistic perspective and not blinded by this belief you can shoulder the whole worlds problems yourself and take respeonsbility for everything. People can take responsbility for themselves through mistakes and experiences and listening to thier instinct. As the rules can be bended when it suits the idealist, they sometimes don't want to see what is infront of them until it is too late. Xavier is trying to capture this dangerous "Magneto" guy when all this time one of his henchmen, Sabretooth, is right at your doorstep, and you have gone soft on him and played into Magneto's scheme all along, and even prevented the antihero from protecting the team from him, allowing things to get even worse and put Jubilee in danger.

I think that is why in a team you need one character that can check what the others are doing is really the right or wrong thing and even choose to be against thier way of doing something when it goes against thier better, more experienced judgement and sense of morals. (ie abandoning morph because you are scared the casualty for taking the risk might not be worth it - a brave heroic person would be reckless and choose to go against the book/orders/wisdom which is usually the trait of the more popular heroes who have the skill to beat the odds. What might seem reckless and tactically stupid isn't reckless if they are doing it for the right reasons and makes for a good show)

Edited June 7, 2006 by 1/1 LowViz Lurker

[Sundown]

IMO being grounded in reality is one of the important skills and can come from experience or just having sharper and more accurate judgement skills. This is why people like the anti-hero. Just because Cyclops or Xavier have higher rank, they will automatically think he is just responding by letting anger "control" him, denying emotion when it is convenient to thier own ideal or way of doing things. So naturally they come off as the "do gooder", and the more straight-thinking ones come off as the violent one who can't control thier anger or is too mean or harsh.  A good example is Judge Dredd, where he can come off as almost too scary.

See, again it seems that your analysis is a bit too one-sided. Of course leaders have flaws. And that's why they occasionally need others to call them out, just as figures like Wolverine work best alongside someone with a bigger picture and who has more imagination than sticking everyone who's a problem through with claws. But to assume that the pessmistic, cynical, loner, anti-hero always has a more accurate grasp of every situation and what constitutes "real life", and that they're the only ones that "think stright" seems a little bit simplistic a view as well. I don't believe either Cyclops or Xavier deny the X-men emotion. They simply value control over them in the performing of one's duties. It's the same case with police officers and military personel, many of which we would consider heroes, and many of whom must also cooly and professionally use violence in the service of others.

Even Batman, who would fit your perferred mold of "hero", has come close to losing his status as such when he allows his emotions to win over. In those moments, someone has to pull him back from the brink. And guess who does that? Usually a big boyscout, in the form of Superman or Commissioner Gordon, although Gordon's sort of a big, cynical boyscout, who manages to hold to his ideals even though he's seen and gone through it all.

The whole appeal of the anti-hero is that they're fraught with flaws, make mistakes, and that they possess our very real human frailties. Their cynicism from "experience" is their justification for doing sometimes unheroic things. Sure, we're glad to have them around when they're on our side, but it's like we've watched them for so long that we have a hard time recognizing their flaws as flaws. Instead, their cool demeanors lull us into thinking that they can no longer do wrong so long as their actions, however mistaken, can be backed by a dry, quippy one-liner.

Edited June 7, 2006 by Sundown

[realdeal]

For all the complaints about wolvy hogging the movie, realise that he is one of the main characters in the x-men everyone likes.

In the cartoon when it was believed morph died I sympathised poo loads more for wolverines courage (wanting to go back for his friends) than cyclop's duty to follow orders and complete a mission. The impression I get is that cyclops is the goody-goody teacher's pet who everyone hated at school when he would dob their classmates in, while wolveringe is grounded in reality and will face any fight despite danger to himself. Cyclops methods of course being the more practical, but still being less likable traits in a "hero".

The one weakness of wolverine is he hates teamwork and like all the "cool" super heroes/heroes like batman and spiderman, he is a loner. All comic geeks love the loner characters more than the boy scout types. Even if cyclops is cool I can say he is less marketable to comic fans who go for the "clint eastwood" tough guy as thier model. What makes the loner "cool" is that they are survivors who think independantly of the group and can sometimes come in handy when the leader of the group is a hypocrite. (ie even in the cartoon wolverine was proven right when xavier tried a soft apraoch at trying to tame sabretooth, knowing absolutely nothing of SB past actions and being wrapped up in so much idealism he ignored the safety to the others for his dreams)

Xavier is a dreamer living in a fantasy, whereas Wolverine is the common sense one when it comes to sniffing other people's bullshit (when the vilains take advantage of Xaviers softness) or using gut instinct. When they others accuse wolverine of being too agressive they automatically dismiss it as him just liking violence and overlook that he is the more perceptive of the group.

I can agree that I don't think wolverine should be leader, but he should be the focus because that is who most people see in a hero. (there is more to it than super powers, but things like giving up ideals to protect and help a friend, seeing through other's deceptiveness and calling them on it, not mindlessly agreeing with orders given above just for brownie points, choosing to fight one on one instead of needing help from others - this is a thing all boys go through to prove themselves at some stage in thier life -, and niping a problem in the bud before it has a chance to gets worse and the villain can get away on an easy punishment while laughing that the leader is a softy and won't really do anything to stop them the next time, etc)

Those were the qualities that I liked about wolverine in the cartoon. Unlike the other members on the team, (who are just going through the motions and taking orders) it was always wolverine do the "common sense thing" and going after the bad guys the old fashioned way by hunting them down and beating the poo out of them. (if he can) Xavier's main weakness is that just because he is the founder of the school and he is nice, that niceness can sometimes be taken advantage of and endanger people and it was shown he was not "always right" and his judgement was often off because he was blinded by ideals and poo.

405952[/snapback]

I'm going to have to politely rebut your argument a little bit. The Wolverine I know in the comics was an out of control team member who butted heads with authority. I remember in X-men issue #1 when he went into a berserker rage, forcing Cyclops into shooting him with his optic blasts. Wolverine is a violent, dark, almost animal like character from what I remember, and not charimatic to his fellow team members. Sure he's a loner, but only because he was cold and kind of a dick to his fellow team members.

I'm sure fans realize after X3 that the Wolverine in the movie is very different from the Wolverine in the comics, and they will come to realize that the movies aren't the real X-men. Sure the next movie will be a blockbuster, but I fear the franchise is moving towards how the first Batman franchise ended (really bad movies that didn't resemble the comics at all).

BTW I really like Wolverine, he is one of my favorite characters in the comics. He totally kicks ass in a fight. But the movie version guy became kind of a wuss. He was like, "I love you Jean" and stuff at the end, it was kind of uncomfortable to watch. I kept thinking 'for goodness sake get over her already.'

[Sundown]

I'm going to have to politely rebut your argument a little bit. The Wolverine I know in the comics was an out of control team member who butted heads with authority.

I'm sure fans realize after X3 that the Wolverine in the movie is very different from the Wolverine in the comics, and they will come to realize that the movies aren't the real X-men.

It occurs to me now that Low Vis might be referring to the Wolverine of the movies and cartoons, who's probably sort of watered down and who's more right than not in his judicious rage, because a often misguided, violent beaver-man probably wouldn't make a very good hero to the kiddies, at least not while their parents are also watching.

So instead, he's angry at all the right times, and the other characters are made more wooden and stupid to give him room to be expressive and emotional.

Edited June 7, 2006 by Sundown

[1/1 LowViz Lurker]

And that's why they occasionally need others to call them out, just as figures like Wolverine work best alongside someone with a bigger picture and who has more imagination than sticking everyone who's a problem through with claws.

But that's what I mean by marketability:

Would you rather watch a show where the main character is trying to reason with the villain when the villain is just acting and 'playing a game' to get close enough to cheat you?

Or one where the guy actually sees the evil for what it is and acts on stopping it go any further? There are other people's asses on the line which is why the loner is more appealing. It's why characters who know better, never trust the by-the-book way of doing things (they are just boring and whiny and come off as mindless robot) and can go beyond what others have told them is right or wrong ways of behavior by thinking for themself and thier own instinct.

My only goal was to point out that people prefer those who use common sense to solve the problems rather than playing into the hands of the enemy by taking a soft aproach. It's why Wolverine get his own movie because he is more marketable. Maybe also give the others more space to develop, but I think as a lone character he can survive because he fits the tough guy archetype.

Same reason why a person might worship a sporting superstar and ignore a great poet or painter. It's just that maybe the feat of courage or physical strength is more exciting to watch. They want to see someone able to cut through the BS (no psychoanalysis) and fight the villain who they know is able to outsmart the authorities which "normal" people in the story can't because thier abilities are average.

Like in macross plus you can think of Dyson as a reckless irresponsible pilot or see him as a person with unique ability that allows him to overcome problems in his own way to save people. (he lectures Myung on this later) The weakness of him is that he probably hates teamwork (it might seem 'weak' to need help, james bond doesn't get rescue, he is usually in control and able to rescue others) but this need to go against the limits (break the rules that ordinary people must follow and are "safe") in extraordinary circumstances are necessary for an audience to give a poo and to be of any use in the real world. In a way he is pioneer we all "look up to". That's what a hero is (it's my own definiation): they can go above the ordinary and stand out amongst all the other heroes. Usually the tough characters hate others getting in the way of something because it might slow them down.

eg

Luke isn't just a jedi tied to rules, but is defiant enough to act on his own and solve the problem his way. All the jedi are heroes but just not as "marketable" as the main character. The main character is asked to kill his dad. As if. A knight would do this for his "duty" a common sense person would say "forget that, I'll do this my own way".

Similarly Dyson in macross plus isn't going to just accept that the ghost is too hard and whine about it, he will take the risk and do the dangerous thing and still manage to beat the odds (and save the girl on the way) despite it being against common sense and against orders to take those risks - just to prove he is better. He is more "marketable" this way because it makes him look strong. Like a cowboy who has taken on all comers and survived by his own ability. (the loner doesn't like recieving help, or told how to do the job) The weak thing would be to be a good little boy and listen to the manipulative black guy (who probably only cares about himself looking good) and that would be the end of the story - but it would be crap to watch.

And lastly wolverine is popular because he can challenge the idealism of all these "intellects" who are less likely to be a good judge of a situation they are not experienced in. (too focused on other things) It might be a "narrow definition of hero", but in order for a character to stick out from the rest, these are things important to most people and whether they "like" the character or not. It's not that I don't give a poo about the other xmen but that by focusing on wolvy I think they have positioned themselves to capitlise on his tough guy attitude to things and attract the most people. If it were a movie with cyclops I think I would be bored because like the hulk I don't think he is that interesting a character imo.

To illustrate what I mean there is an episode in the cartoon where beast is actually in jail for a crime he didn't commit. He chooses to serve time in jail, despite this. Magneto offers to break him from the jail, but he refuses and decides to stay. Now there is several reaction you can have:

1. he follows principles this is admirable.

2. he should do everything he can to prove innocence

3. "what a boring bookworm, I would never read his comic! Why doesn't he just break free? He is innocent dammnit"

I would probably be thinking along the lines of the 3rd option because, the other two would be boring to watch. It doesn't translate well to an action movie. It's not a popular thing to do. It's not "cool" response to take. Whereas a character that breaks the law, (realising the system failed) but does things his own way is a more appealing character for a comic. (these are just my own theories where I think the best characters tend to be those who have control of thier own fate, and get revenge on the characters that had set them up and managed to gain the leverage by exploiting the imperfect system to gain an unfair advantage using thier cunning. In many way I think this is why I like to think Guile was the major character in the street fighter animated movie because we all can sympathise with him from the start, whereas Ryu wasn't likeable because there was no reason to really care if he lost or won any fights and there is no emotional charge - merely that he is the main character in the game.)

Edited June 7, 2006 by 1/1 LowViz Lurker

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

Its all nice and good to be the bad-arse and cool arse-kicker with no questions asked in movies where you have good guys and bad guys clearly delineated. Doesn't work that way in real life.

[Sundown]

Would you rather watch a show where the main character is trying to reason with the villain when the villain is just acting and 'playing a game' to get close enough to cheat you?

Or one where the guy actually sees the evil for what it is and acts on stopping it go any further? There are other people's asses on the line which is why the loner is more appealing. It's why characters who know better, never trust the by-the-book way of doing things (they are just boring and whiny and come off as mindless robot) and can go beyond what others have told them is right or wrong ways of behavior by thinking for themself and thier own instinct.

You don't have to be a loner, jerk, or anti-hero that bucks and distrusts all authority as a rule to see evil for what it is. You simply need to be perceptive. Boyscouts and goody-two-shoes can also be perceptive, and not everyone who agrees and complies with certain authorities is automatically a mindless robot who hasn't thought through the issues. The irony is, I find some classic heroes more heroic in the diluge of anti-heroes we see today, because the ideals they stand for are still virtues today, and because they don't have to chomp on cigars and spit expletives to do their jobs, as cool as it is to do that kind of thing.

My only goal was to point out that people prefer those who use common sense to solve the problems rather than playing into the hands of the enemy by taking a soft aproach. It's why Wolverine get his own movie because he is more marketable.

A "soft", or rather, more subtle approach doesn't necessarily mean one devoid of common sense. And I'm sure there's more than one instance where Wolverine's stab first, ask questions later approach ended up being the incorrect one. You make it sound like Wolvie can do no wrong, which, ironically is what the classical heroes were accused of when the anti-hero became popular.

You're also equating anti-hero and "loner" with common sense and flawless perception, when the two are completely different things. The anti-hero tends to distrust all authority, sometimes to his and others' detriment. The perpetual cynicism many anti-heroes are stricken with is a very one-sided way of looking at things that also fails to account for reality.

Like in macross plus you can think of Dyson as a reckless irresponsible pilot or see him as a person with unique ability that allows him to overcome problems in his own way to save people. (he lectures Myung on this later) The weakness of him is that he probably hates teamwork (it might seem 'weak' to need help, james bond doesn't get rescue, he is usually in control and able to rescue others) but this need to go against the limits (break the rules that ordinary people must follow and are "safe") in extraordinary circumstances are necessary for an audience to give a poo and to be of any use in the real world.

Again, in the real world, no one gets very far bucking all authority, and no one gets very far without cooperating and relying on others... the real heroes in my opinion know which authorities to buck and which to comply with. But respecting well-intentioned authority and at least attempting to work with it is in my opinion, a noble cause, especially when many of these rules and limits are there to protect others in the first place.

A "hero" who blatantly ignores authority and complies with it only when it's convenient, is in my opinion, a bit of a lazy-man's hero. =P He doesn't deal with any of the realities we have to deal with, so we end up sitting back and letting him do all our work for us. I just think that heros, both real and fictional, should ultimately inspire action, rather than be figures that fulfill our wishes, because their fictional hands aren't tied by real life.

In a way he is pioneer we all "look up to". That's what a hero is (it's my own definiation): they can go above the ordinary and stand out amongst all the other heroes. Usually the tough characters hate others getting in the way of something because it might slow them down.

I'm not sure how that makes sense. A hero isn't a hero unless he stands above heros? Tough, rough and tumble characters are fun... but again, I think that's an extremely narrow definition of "hero". And I do happen to like thinking heroes (even brainy ones), because "common sense" is often wrong, especially when everyone thinks they've got it.

Luke isn't just a jedi tied to rules, but is defiant enough to act on his own and solve the problem his way. All the jedi are heroes but just not as "marketable" as the main character.

I agree that one can't be an unthinking slave to rules, but rules are also there for a reason. The balanced hero considers both truths. And there's also an anti-anti-hero emerging: the hero who does it "by the book" even though he's constantly being told by "common sense" and society that it's already a lost cause to try that sort of thing. It's the hero who stands above base emotions and understands the spirit and heart behind the rules, even when the rules themselves fail.

I guess in the end, we both agree that what makes a hero is personal intiative, rising above the crowd, and self-sacrifice. I just don't think that you have to be a jerk, loose cannon, or be prejudiced against all forms of authority to be one. But yes, the latter's more marketable nowadays, at least until we get tired of it.

To illustrate what I mean there is an episode in the cartoon where beast is actually in jail for a crime he didn't commit. He chooses to serve time in jail, despite this. Magneto offers to break him from the jail, but he refuses and decides to stay. Now there is several reaction you can have:

1. he follows principles this is admirable.

2. he should do everything he can to prove innocence

3. "what a boring bookworm, I would never read his comic! Why doesn't he just break free? He is innocent dammnit"

I would probably be thinking along the lines of the 3rd option because, the other two would be boring to watch. It doesn't translate well to an action movie. It's not a popular thing to do. It's not "cool" response to take.

And see, here I would be thinking beast incredibly cool, because what makes him cool here is that he's not another action puppet, but a character of reasoned mind and integrity despite the beastly nature of his physical powers. And I do find integrity and character very cool. Especially when one refuses to do the "cool" thing. And especially in my comics.

Edited June 7, 2006 by Sundown

[1/1 LowViz Lurker]

You don't have to be a loner, jerk, or anti-hero that bucks and distrusts all authority as a rule to see evil for what it is.

You need to be able to question the person leading a team as a person looking at it from outside. I gave a good example of how a system can fail and how a person who is innocent can be seen as the wrong doer and a person who is guilty can manage to seem "good".

For a character to be interesting to me, he should be able to question the leader (eg about xavier taking action against magneto, but denying wolverine the right to go after sabretooth) and stand up for himself rather than merely do as he is told and be an obedient robot. Without conflict Xmen is just another super hero comic and loses its appeal for me. We just have to agree to disagree on this.

I never said an anti hero had to be 'perfect', just a realist with some truth to what they do and ability to make better judgement than the ones he has to take orders from. His own experience is just as valid as others. You can think of them as being a dick all you want but that is just your opinion. My opinion is that: He is not at all bad, just that the society itself might paint him as that within the world they are in. (a good example is how, say the patlabor teams In Patlabor can sometimes get a bad reputation as being a waste of tax payers money and being "reckless and dangerous" in the public eye thanks to the press - even though they are saving lives and catching the bad guy)

And really, what difference does it make if you do have to fight someone one on one vs controlling thier mind and persuading them? They are both immoral! They are both forms of fighting and forcing people to do things against thier will. I would feel no less violated by xavier stopping time (in the movie) as he sees fit as wolverine beatine me up.

There is a good example in Record of Lodoss War, where the character must learn that to be a leader, to make something of yourself, requires that you not merely take orders and learn to take the best path you think allows you to protect people you care for. Going back for morph in the xmen cartoon is not BAD. I can sympathise more with wolverine in this instance! He is not merely being selfish, he wants to fight the battle his own way which makes him more interesting to me than the by-the-book cyclops is all I am saying. It is what makes a character marketable and stand out from the rest. You have to be prepared to go against a leader's judgement if you think they have made a bad decision and by speaking up, you are doing the right thing. I think even at one point cyclops had to question Xavier on his beliefs. Because if the leader is shown to go against thier own teachings, can't you say they are being a hypocrite and a bad example to the rest of the students following?

In the instance I pointed out where sabretooth managed to use jubilee as a hostage and wolverine happened to be there at the right time, Xavier realised he WAS wrong and wolverine got injured because of his idealism getting in the way of things. It's sorta pissed me off to see wolvie pay the price for xavier's incompetence in this part of the show, because it highlights that he is NOT above everyone else and makes mistakes. (wolverine was trying to warn xavier about the danger of trusting sabretooth which Xavier thought was wolverine merely having the grudge against him, when in actual fact Sabetooth was magneto's henchmen all along and was only acting nice in front of xavier. )

What is my point in all of this?: People go for the hereos that don't make those kinds of mistakes. We root for Guile, Wolverine, Punisher etc for the very reason that there are some who CAN get away due to the system not being 'perfect'. The uber villain might be good at escaping, take control of more people, and be able to outsmart the system that, in order to take them down, practical method takes higher priority than trying to be nice and follow regulations put there for political reasons. You know what I am saying? If I was Dyson, I wouldn't give a crap about having stolen the YF19 to go fight the ghost. I would be furious that all the hard work was for nothing and care more about pushing the limit to prove if the ghost was worthy. People would rather see a character who is bold and able to make decisions for themselves and take risks that are worth taking if it is for good.

The real world:

Why haven't we got world peace free from suffering? Are humans truly perfect? Do all villains everywhere always get caught? NO! Does injustice still exist within the world at large that we don't see? Yes. So these anti heroes are often misunderstood as being almost like 'villains' themselves when in fact they are more like the common sense fighters of justice in the world they live in, just choosing to fight as they see fit with thier own moral code and thier own judgement.

It's just that black and white idealism can sometimes get in the way of things (wolverine told to calm his anger as if the issue was him and not the danger sabretooth can cause) against the anti-heroes' better judgement. Not all the time but sometimes: knowing what the enemy is capable of and preventing the evil plan from fruition early on (nipping it in the bud) is better than waiting for it to be too late and having to fix it later. Which is more reckless? Preventing a disaster (going back for morph to save him, and taking risks to attempt to beat the odds) or running away cowardly? Some characters are just different at handling the same problem. I agrue that it was my right to like wolverines method more than the retreating method because it seemed much more humane to save morph and go back for the guy.

I think that is the reason why people like the anti hero to begin with.

Yeah yeah, "you are one-sided, biased" and "I disagree". "You don't have to be this way to get this done" That's ok. I just said that I prefer characters that are like that. I'm only speaking for me and bringing my own theory as to why wolverine is popular to a lot of people because of the fact that the dirty harry type maverick characters tend to get a lot of attention. This might be why wolverine hogs all the time. The anti-hero doesn't always have to take a lecture because it is a case of "been there done that, but I still think I'm right, and it is not just a mere anger management issue, but it is because of the experiences I have had". "Sabretooth is a dangeros bastard so stop trying to appeal to his good side (he has betrayed others in the past and I know what he is like) or something bad might happen".

Yes it is a "gut" instinct but that is what makes wolverine special. (as I mentioned in my "bullshit detector" rant above) A team needs one character that is like that to at least question the main leader's own methods. "Are they right? Are they doing the right thing? Why can we break the rules when it suits him, but not break a rule when it suits me?"

These are all important questions to the thinking reader. Without all this conflict it wouldn't be half as interesting. But it takes a grounded character to point it out the mistakes that the others would overlook because they were trained to think along a certain line by the teacher and told not to challenge or question what was taught by Xavier. The world is not perfect. A dream is worth striving for but not if it comes at the expense of others or if it is going to endanger the other people in the team and you can't do anything to prevent the damage caused from your mistake due to an error in judgement. But an anti hero never demands perfection so they are grounded in the realism. Why beat yourself up for one or too minor things like upsetting a person, if you can also do more good or prevent more harm than any bad you do? As an anti-hero, you are not god or someone who even claimed to be able to shoulder the world's problems all by yourself, looking down at the others from a pedastel with a sign telling people you should be everyone's role model.

Its all nice and good to be the bad-arse and cool arse-kicker with no questions asked in movies where you have good guys and bad guys clearly delineated. Doesn't work that way in real life.

Some would argue that Xmen actually attempts to make characters more 3d dimensional but that is another topic. Sure they are still 'characters' in a comic book but you could say someone like Rogue is akin to a person with AIDS for example. Really she must go through the same thing a disease infected person must go through everytime she touches people and can't get close to anyone.

And why do people always try to make the connection between Xmen and racism? There are no super powers in RL but the same sorts of themes I think run in the comic that do in real world. I mean Magneto could be a symbol of those who think they are a higher evolved form of human and have hatred for those they see as inferior but just a fantasy world equivalent. Maybe there is parrallels there with reality and how hate groups think? I can see why they give him a movie all his own. Although you might think he is generic bad guy, there is good and bad about him just like there is in the real world. I still relate much better to characters in a movie that act on thier instincts and common sense over those who typically hold ideals (like don't endanger people with your anger) yet do a 180 and can't live up to thier own rules (getting magneto for personal reasons, not work) and can cost lives by being too trustworthy. (being too nice with sabretooth, not listening to warnings)

Honestly you people can't see misuse of power when Xavier stops time like that? Or probes the mind of someone who doesn't want his memories available to strangers? You could reason "the ends justify the means", but then I could say the same goes for wolverine you hypocrites.

Edited June 7, 2006 by 1/1 LowViz Lurker

[Sumdumgai]

Cool, a debate that's being kept clean and civil. Congratulations guys, you rock!

[Dangard Ace]

Applegeeks lite take on X3.

http://applegeeks.com/lite/strips/aglite15.jpg

Har har!

[jardann]

Hey LowViz,

I agree with a lot of your points, especially about Wolverine being the more popular character and that's the reason he gets so much of the spotlight in the X-Men movies. That is something we have to accept, because the studios worry very much about making a return on their investment and don't want to take chances with characters in the movies. (As I said before though, I wish the studios would have a little more understanding about the fan bases for these kind of movies.) Make decent movies, and we will always come back. They have plenty of time to explore better, deeper and longer storylines. (Wow, sound like my wife's wishlist there! )

I think you are missing a point about Xavier though, and it is something that almost everyone has complained about in this thread. If they kept Xavier "in character" through out this movie, he would not have done many of the things he did. Yes, Xavier has "meddled" with other people's minds before in the comics, but in the comics it has always been explained that he uses that as only a last resort and he always regrets it later. He also (to my knowledge) in the comics has never had the attitude that "I'm Charles Frickking Xavier and I know best so don't worry about what I do because I can do no wrong and you are a stupid heathen!!!!" Like he seemed to exhibit in the movie. Heck, he almost let Wolverine die in the comics, because he was so torn about whether to use his mind control powers on Magneto or whether that was wrong to do. This has actually come up repeatedly and was probably the biggest point of contention between Wolverine and Xavier in the comics. Wolverine always wanted Xavier to use his powers more aggressively or to let Wolverine go crazy on some villain. Charles exhibits restraint until he has no other choice. It is the classic theme of Might vs Right and that theme exhibited and taught by Xavier has created much growth in the Wolverine character over the years.

Also, in the comics they take time to explore the results of Woverine's aggressive nature by showing the torment he goes through when he thinks back of the mistakes he has made in fits of rage or even just when he had to hurt someone to get a more important job done. The movies and comics need the other characters to illustrate those differences. The comics do a much better job. Wolverine also takes many unsavory duties on himself so that he can be sure the other team members don't have to. That way, he can save other characters from the guilt of actions that he himself regrets later. This is a quality that is very hard to express in the movies, but I think X-men 1 actually did a good job with.

Anyway, this is a fun discussion. Please keep up the input everyone!

OOps, thought of one more thing,

In the comics, Wolverine greatly respects Xavier. Much like a father figure. A big reason he can keep Xavier in such high regard, is because of Xavier's self control. Wolverine would do anything for Xavier in the comics and Xavier would not betray Wolverine's trust. The first two X-Men movies worked on setting up this relationship, but X3 really broke down in this department because of Xavier's character problems.

Edited June 7, 2006 by jardann

[azrael]

Also, in the comics they take time to explore the results of Woverine's aggressive nature by showing the torment he goes through when he thinks back of the mistakes he has made in fits of rage or even just when he had to hurt someone to get a more important job done. The movies and comics need the other characters to illustrate those differences. The comics do a much better job. Wolverine also takes many unsavory duties on himself so that he can be sure the other team members don't have to. That way, he can save other characters from the guilt of actions that he himself regrets later. This is a quality that is very hard to express in the movies, but I think X-men 1 actually did a good job with.

406169[/snapback]

Of course the comics do a better job. There's more room, per se to expand on storylines, characters, etc. Movies don't have that room. When the movies do it, they've got to do in a truncated form. Books (novels, comics, etc.) in general, will always seem better in that respect. But that is because it is allowed.

[Sundown]

You need to be able to question the person leading a team as a person looking at it from outside. I gave a good example of how a system can fail and how a person who is innocent can be seen as the wrong doer and a person who is guilty can manage to seem "good".

Of course. But you don't have to be a Guile, Punisher, or Wolverine to do it. You yourself mentioned Cyclops doing that in moments. I think jerk=sensible/team player=idiot is a false dichotomy.

For a character to be interesting to me, he should be able to question the leader (eg about xavier taking action against magneto, but denying wolverine the right to go after sabretooth) and stand up for himself rather than merely do as he is told and be an obedient robot. Without conflict Xmen is just another super hero comic and loses its appeal for me. We just have to agree to disagree on this.

Err, super hero comics are fraught with internal conflict, or at least they've been for the last 20 years. X-men isn't the only title to feature conflicted stars-- I think more do than dont-- and some titles that feature a very classic Superman have issues of conflict and tension for him to resolve.

My opinion is that: He is not at all bad, just that the society itself might paint him as that within the world they are in. (a good example is how, say the patlabor teams In Patlabor can sometimes get a bad reputation as being a waste of tax payers money and being "reckless and dangerous" in the public eye thanks to the press - even though they are saving lives and catching the bad guy)

I actually agree with your opinion on the anti-hero archtype. He sees many things as they are, because he's been through them on the ground level. And sometimes, he can do things that others can't, because he's not shackled with certain sensibilities. But I also think those characters have blindspots and their instincts aren't always right, nor is their perception of the world (or at least one we live in) always accurate. And sometimes, their disregard for convention can be used selfishly or impulsively.

However you seem deny all other types of heroes the ability to be thinking or perceptive (which I think is inaccurate, and in cases where you're right, it's due mostly to bad writing, not to a bad character concept). And I also don't agree what you seem to imply: that a thinking reader must love unconventional, jerk, loners over all other types of heroes. I would think that a thinking reader would see the truths in viewpoints held by all character types, and might especially enjoy an otherwise "boring" character like Beast.

Yeah yeah, "you are one-sided, biased"  and "I disagree". "You don't have to be this way to get this done" That's ok. I just said that I prefer characters that are like that. I'm only speaking for me and bringing my own theory as to why wolverine is popular to a lot of people because of the fact that the dirty harry type maverick characters tend to get a lot of attention.

I love these characters myself. But to paint all other characters as stupid, unthinking, mindless followers of rules is to misunderstand them in order to prop up the faults of the anti-hero/rogue/jerk architype.

Superman is again, as big a boyscout as they come. In Kingdom Come, he becomes detached from the humanity that he was once sworn to serve, and begins to lay down the law on villains as he sees fit. In some ways, here he becomes the by-the-book hero, but one without heart or understanding. His attempts fail. Then villains and heroes rumble in Kansas, and due to the danger of the power that could be released in this battle, the UN decides to nuke all the heros and metahumans once and for all. In anger, Superman decides to bring down the roof of the UN upon its members-- and here Superman becomes a bit of the anti-hero, or maybe simply unheroic.

Who brings him back from the brink? An ordinary man-- a pastor no less. And Superman again discovers what he's about-- his responsibility is to work alongside mankind, and not to do his work for him. Through this journey, Superman questions his beliefs, questions authority, and man in general, and discovers that the giant boyscout he used to be was who he needed to be. He finds that he can serve men only by identifying with them. The moment he abandons Clark Kent is the moment he fails.

What I'm trying to say is that what makes heroes interesting, heroic, and in some part real-- being able to question, being able to perceive, and being able to take initiative, is not something limited to the loner/gruff/detached stereotype. Just because Superman prefers law and order and Wolverine leans towards emotion and impulse does not mean that one or the other is automatically more or less thinking. And frankly, both types of personalities can have their own blind spots.

I love Law and Order: SVU. Detectives Stabler and Benson face the usual shackles law enforcement officers do, and while they've both seen it all and know that the system is far from perfect, they attempt to serve justice within the system as best they can. Occasionally, they may take a questionable step outside, and when they do, they face consequences for doing so. But by and large, they're police officers respectful of the law and even more respectful for the law's spirit and intent. To me, they're "heroes", because they have to use all their savvy to do the right thing, even when the powers that enable them to do that end up working against them. And more than once, I've thought about law-enforcement as a career, but I've never been compelled to tape steak knives to my wrist, get a bad haricut, and go on a rampage for great justice.

So these anti heroes are often misunderstood as being almost like 'villains' themselves when in fact they are more like the common sense fighters of justice in the world they live in, just choosing to fight as they see fit with thier own moral code and thier own judgement.

One thing I know I would not want is real life vigilantes fighting for "justice" according to their own moral code. Comics have the luxury of scripting the setups and outcomes so that vigilantes are proved right more than not, but in real life, vigilante justice is extremely problematic on its own, and frankly, most people who attempt such a thing do so when the common sense they believe they have fails them.

Another Law and Order example: A child is abducted, and "common sense" tells a child safety activist that it's obviously the work of a registered sex offender that lives nearby. Frustrated by what he perceives as the inadequacy of law enforcement, he poses as a detective and convinces another child to be the perfect witness against the offender to the real detectives. Of course he's wrong, and ends up obstructing justice, and the wrong man is accused. Vigilante justice, at least in America, simply does not work on any appreciable scale, because common sense is simply what we label our own beliefs and outlook when we assume that others agree with it. But because everyone has a different outlook, following what one thinks is "common sense" blindly is a sure way for many folks to be wrong.

A dream is worth striving for but not if it comes at the expense of others or if it is going to endanger the other people in the team and you can't do anything to prevent the damage caused from your mistake due to an error in judgement.

I still relate much better to characters in a movie that act on thier instincts and common sense over those who typically hold ideals (like don't endanger people with your anger) yet do a 180 and can't live up to thier own rules (getting magneto for personal reasons, not work) and can cost lives by being too trustworthy. (being too nice with sabretooth, not listening to warnings)

Wait, so it's okay to endanger people with your anger, but it's not okay to endanger people for a cause? =) For what it's worth, I do believe some causes are worth dying for, but the choice to sacrifice has to be made by each person themselves.

Honestly you people can't see misuse of power when Xavier stops time like that? Or probes the mind of someone who doesn't want his memories available to strangers? You could reason "the ends justify the means", but then I could say the same goes for wolverine you hypocrites.

I have to admit that I haven't seen X3 yet, so I'm arguing primarily from what I know of the comics. As mentioned by someone else, Xavier shys away from intrusive use of his powers except when necessary. But let me play devil's advocate and flip that around... why is Xavier's use of his power "abuse" when Wolverine's instinctual rage isn't? Why can't Xavier use his abilities to control others, seeing that it's necessary "by experience" but Wolverine can throw principles out the window at his own convenience? Is it because Xavier talks in a snooty accent and doesn't chomp on cigars? Is it because he's not "cool" enough to break rules and principles? Or is it because he's the leader and must set an example, the very thing that frustrates some in the first place?

But it's a bit unfair to ask someone to be a leader, call him a dirty hypocrite when he makes an occasional mistake, call him unbending and unflexible even when he doesn't, all while on the sidelines naysaying one decision after another because the shackles of responsibilities aren't on him. I understand that the comic Wolverine doesn't do that though.

Edited June 8, 2006 by Sundown

[1/1 LowViz Lurker]

It just seems like a lot of people have an axe to grind against wolverine.

Right so wolverine is wrong all the time because he is the anti hero and you think I'm biased.

As I already mentioned Xavier admits he was WRONG in that instance in the show when it was found that sabretooth was actually a henchman of magneto (not working alone) sent infiltrate and to pretend to be nice and a "victim" of his mutation. (ST was trying tp spin it off as if he has anger management issues and not that he is responsible for his past actions himself, which worked on jubilee) When what was happening was he was taking advantage of xavier being nice to get the mission done. Sabretooth boasted that it was so easy to trick everyone and that nobody would believe wolverine. If wolverine wasn't there at the time and just trusted xaviers judgement that sabretooth is helpless, and listened to his advice to "don't go near sabretooth", it is quite possible that jubilee would not have been saved.

No that is not my opinion, it was in the show. I'm talking about how xaviers idealism got in the way of common sense and for once it was not actually wolverine's rage clouding his judgment on that issue, it was that Sabretooth was a genuinely dangerous character who could not be trusted - going easy on him could have cost life. And wolverine knew this from his past experience (sabretooth betraying his own people in a flashback sequence) and saw through the game. It might have been that his bullshit detector was on and went against xavier's advice for this reason.

This make wolverine less of a mindless beast and I like that portrayal of him. That his view is just as valid as the other team members due to his experience with Sabretooth and his villainy in the past, which was dismissed by Xavier as wolverine "merely having this grudge and wanting to start a fight".

You are only seeing it in black and white. "Wolverine is a beast, is cruel, and that he is not out to protect others in his own way."

I'm sorry but I still think he is a more appealing character to me. The rules and regulations are only there as a guide only. In the real world you can bend them if there are good valid reasons. I'm not saying the others are not ALSO heroic (I ws saying the appeal of the antihero might be what makes wolverine so popular) but that in the instance when xavier shows hypocrisy (for example wolverine trying to fight sabretooth to stop him from endangering others but not being able to because xavier thinks wolverine is this violent person) yet at the same time magneto is roaming around cuasing trouble and gaining more power and endangering others, Xavier reserves the exclusive right to be allowed to stop?

Please answer that question! Why is wolverine not allowed to stop sabretooth, but xavier able to fight magneto? What difference is there between a guy controlling your mind and manipulating you and a guy knocking you over the head to stop you from harming others? They are fighting the same thing.

Xavier in that instance in the cartoon was dead wrong and he saw the error in his judgement and apologises for it. The lesson was that: "yes idealism is ok but not at the expense of endangering others."

What you want is for me to say that an anti hero like wolverine (even in instances when he IS right) is lower than other members, (his experiences are not valid) and still agree with thier methods when their judgment was off. I agree that an antihero is not perfect. But neither is the real world, so long as the character's intent is to help it matters very little.

It would be like saying Guld was still right for his past mistakes (endangering myung) and because Dyson is "reckless" (stealing a yf19) Dyson must then sit lower than Guld because guld is more "well behaved" and followed orders from the top. (persues Dyson to stop his "recklessness" which might endanger people)

It is a case of only seeing what is directly in front of you over the bigger picture. Dyson is merely choosing to fight in his own unique way. What might appear reckless to you, is him being in control of the situation through his skills. (which other pilots wish they had - it might take great bravery and courage to 1. go back for your buddy in a hopeless situation where the odds are stacked up against you 2. fly a plane that may be inferior to the rival. Sure it is "reckless" and makes no tactical sense to go back and rescue Morph who is probably dead, or to challenge another person higher in abilty than yourself but to a hero or a pioneer we see in that a great achievement if successful - in other words it take balls to do those reckless things and still come out of it, which brings me back to why wolverine is so popular as they admire the bravery in that action. It's why when cyclops tells everone to leave him behind I can sympathise more with wolverine because it made the leader seem like he would let his own member die to save his own skin.)

No offense but I think you are more biased than me.

Edited June 8, 2006 by 1/1 LowViz Lurker

[Sundown]

It just seems like a lot of people have an axe to grind against wolverine.

Right so wolverine is wrong all the time because he is the anti hero and you think I'm biased.  

Where did I ever say that? I'm not sure where I even came close to suggesting Wolverine was always wrong in my last few posts, and I'm not sure where this idea that I'm attacking Wolverine comes from (aside from some silly jabs earlier on).

Often he's perceptive. But sometimes his instincts and feral nature leads him to take courses of action that might not be the best (IMO). Highlighting the potential bad sides of a character concept in response to unqualified praise of its pros does not necessarily mean bias. I was simply countering the assertion that Wolverine's loner nature and baser senses somehow makes him unable to be wrong, and that everyone else is thus necessarily an idiot.

And for what it's worth, anti-hero does not mean "not hero". It just means a character who doesn't carry a squeaky-clean image and might engage in questionable behavior. Anti-heroes can be heroes. Just as heroes can be heroes. And my point has always been that both can be heroes, even according to your own definition of what makes one a hero.

No that is not my opinion, it was in the show.

Then we're talking about two different things. Many of us are talking about the characters presented as a whole in the comics, and not one particular episode in the animated series, and we're looking at their histories, and not boxing the characters in entirely upon evidence from one animated episode that we (or I) haven't seen.

You are only seeing it in black and white. "Wolverine is a beast, is cruel, and that he is not out to protect others in his own way."

Where am I seeing it in black and white? I've already noted Wolverine's perceptiveness in certain moments but I'm not willing to buy that his instincts can never be wrong and that he can't have blind spots. You're using an episode of the cartoon as your case study and as evidence that Wolverine can do no (real) wrong, but I think it's important to look at their entire histories in whole.

Just because I don't buy that Wolverine is flawless doesn't mean that I believe him a raging, cruel lunatic 100% of the time. Again, false dichotomy. Sometimes, he can be a bit of one, and he can be wrong, even if he's right in other moments. Same goes with Xavier and Cyclops. Hence why the X-men make for a good team in the comics. They compliment each others' weaknesses, and they bring their own strengths.

But if one's idea is that the X-men are, for the most part, a bunch of idiots and Logan has to constantly set them straight, then I think one misses what the X-men are actually about. I haven't seen the movie yet, but it's starting to sound like this is how the team's presented. And if that's the case, that's just crappy writing.

Please answer that question! Why is wolverine not allowed to stop sabretooth, but xavier able to fight magneto? What difference is there between a guy controlling your mind and manipulating you and a guy knocking you over the head to stop you from harming others? They are fighting the same thing.

Xavier was wrong, in that particular instance, in an animated episode that I've never seen. Happy? But him being wrong in that instance doesn't brand him uber-softy-idiot for life, nor does it invalidate his preferred approach, and Wolverine being right doesn't make him smell like roses eternally, nor does it discount the times he'd been mistaken himself in comic history.

Xavier needs a Wolvie, and Wolvie needs an Xavier.

What you want is for me to say that an anti hero like wolverine (even in instances when he IS right) is lower than other members, (his experiences are not valid) and still agree with thier methods when their judgment was off. I agree that an antihero is not perfect. But neither is the real world, so long as the character's intent is to help it matters very little.

No, what I hoped was that you'd acknowledge an anti-hero's cynical perspective isn't the only one that's right, and that as much as you enjoy the archtype, you might be able to see that the things you value (initiative, thoughtfulness, perception) has been exemplified by traditional heroes as well. Here you seem to admit that the anti-hero isn't perfect, but then imply that his imperfection is actually the perfect thing in an imperfect world. Yet we have no real-life anti-hero role-models in this world, because they only function well in fiction where the setup is fabricated and the outcome is predetermined.

I'm not trying to rank the characters on a ladder. I'm trying to show the validity of each of their concepts and the validity of their differing and sometimes warring perspectives. I love it when Batman and Superman knock heads, where both sides are presented fairly, and so much truth is seen from both sets of eyes. And I hate it when Miller writes Superman like a big dumb errand-boy for Batman just because he doesn't know how to express Superman's nobility in a compelling way.

I guess you might in this instance say "Batman's awesome, and Superman's an idiot." I guess I'd say "In Kingdom Come Waid's treatment of Superman is awesome, and in All-Star Batman & Robin, Miller's treatment of Superman's kind of idiotic."

No offense but I think you are more biased than me. 

If using counterexamples to shed light on both sides of each archtype makes me baised, okay, then guilty as charged.

So there's no confusion, do I like Wolverine? Yes. Do I enjoy anti-heroes? Heck yes. But I like Beast and I like Superman when they're well written as well, and I don't believe the anti-authorian cynicism of the former, as valid as it is sometimes, is the only accurate way to see things. And I don't think it makes me biased to say so.

Edited June 8, 2006 by Sundown

[wolfx]

I'm not sure if this was mentioned, but I read in a magazine somewhere that the reason Nightcrawler doesn't appear in the X3 movie was because of something that happened in the Xmen PS2/Xbox game that prequels X3 but sequels X2.

Anyone played that game (that apparently sucked ass) and don't mind sharing what happened to our lil blue friend?

[Graham]

Just rewatched X2 on TV over the weekend. I'd forgotten that in the movie, Nightcrawler was portrayed as being very religious.

From my memory of the comics though, I don't recall him being religious at all. Was this something that was added for the movie?

Please bear in mind that I stopped reading X-Men comics (and superhero comics in general) in the mid-1980s, so I've no idea about what's been happening with any of the characters in the last 20 years.......LOL!

Graham

[jardann]

I understand completely what LowViz is saying. 1) People in this thread ARE moaning that all three X-men movies could just be called Wolverine movies becasue they focus a lot on Wolverine. 2) Wolverine IS the most popular and marketable character from the X-men. That is why he is featured so heavily in the films so far. I am NOT trying to say that your opinion is not valid. It definitely is and I actually agree with you for the most part.

I think what Sundown and myself are trying to say is that Wolverine is made better because of the other characters and the other characters are made better because of Wolverine. I think this is the weak part of your opinion we are trying to point out to you. I would really suggest you take a look at the comics to get a much deeper understanding of these characters and what the writers are trying to develop with them. If you like what you have seen in the cartoons and movies, you will probably love the comics. (At least the older ones, I haven't read any comics in aobut five years or more so I don't know what's going on with them right now) Yes, Beast or Superman may not be as interesting in a movie (or cartoon) setting, but they are not less important. In fact they serve as very important bases for characters like Wolverine to grow from. They also serve to embody many of the virtues most real people wish they could live up to. That is what gives us the ability to relate to all of the characters in these stories.

Please note that I am simply trying to expand your thoughts and share my opinions. It is definitely your right to like or dislike any of the characters in these stories and as I said before, I agree with you for the most part. The people griping about too much Wolverine are going to just have to live with it because the movie studios are not going to take too great of a risk with this franchise. Wolverine is definitely the most popular X-men character and they will milk the character (jsut as the comics have done) for all it is worth.

[Dangard Ace]

Kurt was always portrayed as a religious man in the comics. There would be dialogue once in awhile regarding him believing in god while looking like the devil. Recently in the last few years he also became a priest(for a few books).

[KingNor]

posts are too big for my blood, i'm outy

[1/1 LowViz Lurker]

I was more an 80s fan of the comics.

I particularly liked the cartoon portrayal of wolverine. In the cartoon they made wolvie the tough guy but he wasn't really a beast at all. In fact his actions were what made him the ballsy one who argued a lot with cyclops and xavier over the right or wrong choices. When they left morph to die, wolverine was pissed because he had actually wanted to go back for him. If you didn't watch the cartoon I can see where you are all are coming from but my comments were about how Xaviers own idealism led to mistakes, that then lead to the bad guy having thier way which led to a situation getting worse.

Sundown you do make some valid points, but you make it out like the only reason he is popular is because he is "anti-authoritarian". I was saying that the reason we are attracted to the anti-hero, has to do with the fact that characters that only follow rules without question are boring to watch.

I would much rather watch a show where wolverine is kicking someone's ass using his skill, than to watch a scientist in a lab or some guy in a prison waiting for his sentence. (and he isn't likable as much to ME) For the last time I am not denying you to like beast, but I do prefer (and I think an audience reacts better) to someone who will stick to thier own beliefs over trying to follow orders. To me cyclops was like the black guy in macross plus trying to control his team, but sometimes not sympathising with the others feelings or experience.

So wolvy ended up being nagged about "controlling temper" and poo, and then Xavier would go off free to take on magneto or in the movie control time. It just seems like hyposcrisy. He is good guy still, just not as honest on the surface the way wolverine is by being direct.

He is out to save lives but wolverine is as well. One method of fighting it is not more valid than another method of fighting which is proven in instance where the enemy is allowed to cheat. If the enemy has the advantage, gets away with it for time, then I say it is important to at least have one character who is a "rogue" that is able to disagree based on thier own experience fighting those enemies. It is like in a role playing game how a team of heroes must fight a dark wizard and one of them is a thief or an assasin and even though the members don't get along, it is still for a common cause. The thief might use his skills to sneak by guards and steal the key to free his friends. Does it matter he breaks the law to me? No.

It's like how the "good" guys say "killing is bad killing is bad", but then we have our own assasins and what not and go right ahead and kill someone when it suits us. If the price is great enough then we suddenly break the rules because of this "ends justify the means" idea. (ie Xavier stopping time and trying to control minds by invading a character's privacy to do good)

......Which is why I argue that the anti hero is just being honest about it. They will go right ahead and beat up whoeever tries to endanger innocents. Caring more about the victims who got harmed or killed to prevent it from happening. Each time cyclops or xavier says to calm your temper or control anger it is like they are being a hypocrite and telling the other members "I can go against my own teachings, but you can't."

Do you understand what I mean? Xavier has some moments even in the second movie where he breaks the law and stop time and manipulates people with his powers. If I were human I would see that as illegal use of mutant power. But does Xavier end up in prison because of it? No. Same thing with wolverine.

Sorry to drag the conversation out. This will be my last post on anti heroes and my theory on why they were able to hog the limelight. (I figure hollywood already makes lots of violent movies so why not let the anti-hero be the central focus and appeal to the majority?)

Edited June 8, 2006 by 1/1 LowViz Lurker

[Mog]

I'm not sure if this was mentioned, but I read in a magazine somewhere that the reason Nightcrawler doesn't appear in the X3 movie was because of something that happened in the Xmen PS2/Xbox game that prequels X3 but sequels X2.

Anyone played that game (that apparently sucked ass) and don't mind sharing what happened to our lil blue friend?

Kurt came back from a hard-ass mission and discovered that Logan had drank all the beer. Including Kurt's hidden stash of home-made brew from the Deutschland.

[Graham]

Kurt was always portrayed as a religious man in the comics.  There would be dialogue once in awhile regarding him believing in god while looking like the devil.  Recently in the last few years he also became a priest(for a few books).

406270[/snapback]

I don't remember him being religious at all in the early to mid-80's comics, but I may just be remembering wrongly, as that was a long, long time ago and a lot of beer has passed under the bridge since then.

Graham

[Sundown]

Sundown you do make some valid points, but you make it out like the only reason he is popular is because he is "anti-authoritarian". I was saying that the reason we are attracted to the anti-hero, has to do with the fact that characters that only follow rules without question are boring to watch.

Anti-heroes are popular because partly because of a distrust of authority that our culture has developed since the 60's. They're also popular because watching someone kick arse and cut through the "BS" is refreshing. And they also appeal because they have the grit and flaws we have as real people, when some traditional heroes are so perfect as to be uncompelling and unrelatable.

I agree that characters that only follow rules are boring to watch. But it's not mindless to have real convictions and ideals that one's thought through and remains faithful to. Xavier of the comics is not mindless, and it sounds to me like Xavier of X3 is just badly written.

Each time cyclops or xavier says to calm your temper or control anger it is like they are being a hypocrite and telling the other members "I can go against my own teachings, but you can't."

People aren't perfect, despite their teachings, and leaders are the most scrutinized. But I'd rather someone have teachings and principles than to do with them altogether, just because they fail them on occasion. Does Cyclops or Xavier regret their hypocracy? Or do they just ignore it altogether? If it's the former, I see them as real men trying to live under a standard that they sometimes fail but are determined to live up to. And I think there can be plenty of honesty in that. But if it's the latter, then that's just hypocracy or maybe poor writing.

Edited June 8, 2006 by Sundown

[Dangard Ace]

I don't remember him being religious at all in the early to mid-80's comics, but I may just be remembering wrongly, as that was a long, long time ago and a lot of beer has passed under the bridge since then. 

Graham

That's cause you remember him and Wolverine being the beer drinking, beer wagering, drinking duo. (I don't think they ever managed to bring back that awesome chemistry between the two after the Inferno storyline). When they focused the stories on Kurt he talked about his persecution and his belief in god pulling him through.

I loved the 80's comic though. Original appearance of the Starjammers, Brood, Shi'ar, Hellfire Club, Dark Phoenix....X-men at it's best.

[1/1 LowViz Lurker]

But it's not mindless to have real convictions and ideals that one's thought through and remains faithful to. Xavier of the comics is not mindless, and it sounds to me like Xavier of X3 is just badly written.

I agree here. My only thing is when a character seems to go against thier own ideal. Not when they admit the mistake and apologise. If you are in a position of responsibility you are held to a much higher standard than someone who isn't. So the scrutiny comes with the job. As I said he is nice but sometimes that niceness can get in the way and it is up to a good student to actually question the teacher's actions. If not to learn "why?" it is ok to bend a rule, then at least to understand what it is that takes higher priority:

1. duty to the ideals like a knight (trying to aspire to perfection to bring so called peace to the rest of the world even though you are causing pain in an attempt to correct things - a good example is in kenshin when the main character thinks he can save the world from evil using power but ends up making new enemies. I view xavier a bit like an "idealist" who thinks he can rescue the world itself from evil when in fact he must use power to prove his point which risks making more enemies like the kenshin character)

or

2. the main picture: protecting people even if it means not following the rules or teachings given despite that you will be punished/penalised for it. Punishment is a small price to pay for protecting something important. It is just a matter of how important. If a friend is dying and cyclops tells you to run, wouldn't you sympathise more with the character that chooses to stay and fight, or the one that flees? I would say "screw the order to leave, I'm going back to get my friend!" But that's just me.

People aren't perfect, despite their teachings, and leaders are the most scrutinized. But I'd rather someone have teachings and principles than to do with them altogether, just because they fail them on occasion. Does Cyclops or Xavier regret their hypocracy? Or do they just ignore it altogether? If it's the former, I see them as real men trying to live under a standard that they sometimes fail but are determined to live up to. And I think there can be plenty of honesty in that. But if it's the latter, then that's just hypocracy or maybe poor writing.

This goes back to the "we are only human" reason. They may have powers but we like them when they are wrong too. But I'm just explaining that seeing wolverine beat up his enemy (knowing from the beginning he can help in his own way) is why it is entertaining, similar to why I like to see a boxing match or watch a kung fu movie.

If a person even tougher than yourself starts bullying you, the "cooler" option is to choose to fight back, not try to negotiate with them when you know they are wrong for picking an unfair fight with someone who is at a disadvantage. A brave person will choose to take the risk. The villains don't play by the rules and only choose a battle they know they have a chance of winning. The hero will choose to do a risky or very brave/reckless thing that might cost them something in order to deal with the problem (which they compensate for with skill or experience)

In an exciting story you would have that character use his skill to overcome that problem not have the teacher, god, or some random event come along, intervene or beat up the enemy for that guy and restrain him from fighting. This is partly why I like the "loner" or independant type of hero. They can take all the credit if successful. It is just more entertaining! What happens if you are in a country where there are no police? No protection? No government to help you? People need a typical "tough guy" hero who won't go easy because it is a matter of life and death if you go too easy on them. (the villain might see it as a weakness)

So for example if Dyson gets pwned by the SDF1 in macross plus it is his own incompetence that caused him to fail and he can't blame an outside source for failing. It's about manliness and proving you can do something yourself which is what makes them popular. I'm saying that every little kid goes through that stage in his life to prove himself so I theorise that characters who show this onscreen make for an exciting show. It is like how everyone can't stand ultramagnus in transformers because he doesn't have the mojo that optimus prime has to be competent to make the right decisions. He's just a soldier without the ability to think for himself and no experience. He doesn't have "the touch".

Now I know that every character in a team fills a gap (and that wolverine can learn from xavier and the reverse) but there is always one 'favourite'. I just choose to like the loner who has everything in control or at least takes that common sense approach. These are the ones that usually question thier leader and occassionally have to bend the rules or break whatever limits were handed down to them by one of the idealists for practical common sense reasons. (ie guld needing to disregard his own health to take the ghost out, dyson stealing the yf19 and getting past the defences using skill instead of using intelligence or hacking which would cheat the audience of an excuse for an exciting action scene)

"Common sense" means the job was done, the risks were high, but the result after success was worth it because the audience can agree his actions will save a life or save the world or be worth breaking the rules for. Those who don't take risks, show a bit of recklessness, show a bit of balls and do something that goes against the established rules and law usually don't stand out in a team of others - those ones will only blend in not stand out. That does not mean the reckless guy with the bad ass attitude and one liners and humor are suddenly more "important", just that people favour those types of characters because they make for good entertainment, so focusing on them means you will attract alot of people.

Edited June 8, 2006 by 1/1 LowViz Lurker

[Sundown]

2. the main picture: protecting people even if it means not following the rules or teachings given despite that you will be punished/penalised for it. Punishment is a small price to pay for protecting something important.

Protecting others and self-sacrifice can be a teaching and an ideal itself, so, I think we invariably follow one teaching or another. It might seem like "common sense" to some, but the drive towards self-preservation and self-benefit appears to be a whole lot more common. In fact, it's so rare and uncommon that we need heroes, both fictional and real, to exemplify and live it out for us.

Anyway, I guess what you're saying here is that you place protection of others as a higher ideal than say peaceful human/mutant co-existence. Guess that makes sense. But Xavier probably believes that if peaceful co-existence and understanding isn't established, many more will suffer and die than just his own friends, and that's something he can't live with.

It is just a matter of how important. If a friend is dying and cyclops tells you to run, wouldn't you sympathise more with the character that chooses to stay and fight, or the one that flees? I would say "screw the order to leave, I'm going back to get my friend!" But that's just me.

Of course. What if your friends were wounded and retreating, and Cyclops ordered you to stay, knowing that the cost of losing the battle would mean the untold suffering of yet others-- but you yourself knew that if you stayed, your friends might perish while retreating without your aid? What if Cyclops wasn't set up like a patsy, only ever giving one-sided orders we'd disagree with-- but instead, gave orders that made us choose between one ideal, protecting our friends, and another ideal, protecting those you were fighting for in the first place?

Just because Cyclops isn't as entertaining a character doesn't mean that he's only allowed give stupid orders for us to disagree with all the time, just so we can go nuts about Wolverine. And if that's all he gets to do, then that's just crummy writing.

If a person even tougher than yourself starts bullying you, the "cooler" option is to choose to fight back, not try to negotiate with them when you know they are wrong for picking an unfair fight with someone who is at a disadvantage. A brave person will choose to take the risk.

I have to disagree that negotiation is somehow always cowardly, and that physical response is the only brave option. I would say that it takes just as much chutzpa to reason with a bully while standing your ground, and some of the bravest individuals we know were those who defiantly and with dignity refused to fight back. And I'd also say that it takes some amount of courage to remember that "cool" and the opinion of others is often highly over-rated. =)

"Common sense" means the job was done, the risks were high, but the result after success was worth it because the audience can agree his actions will save a life or save the world or be worth breaking the rules for.

But then "common sense" becomes whatever the author decides it is, and gets conveniently labelled as that after the fact.

If Xavier's persistent kindness and insight somehow got to Sabertooth, and he began to see the error of his ways despite his past, and then they became one big happy mutant family, then Xavier's "soft approach" would have been "common sense". I know, it would have been a lame story to an audience wanting tension and action, but this sort of stuff happens in real life-- so if we define "common sense" as whatever philosophy works in the end and that a vague "we" can agree with, it doesn't only mean kicking arse and taking names.

Anyway, I think I'm finding the comic Wolverine that someone described a lot more interesting a character. He sometimes does things that he himself regrets and feels guilt for, in order to shield his teammates from it. He doesn't always come out smelling like roses, doesn't always have perfect vision, doesn't always end up doing the exact right thing, and can't always excuse his methods with a smug and cynical "I know better", but his mistakes are still made for the right reasons.

Edited June 8, 2006 by Sundown

[1/1 LowViz Lurker]

Just because Cyclops isn't as entertaining a character doesn't mean that he's only allowed give stupid orders for us to disagree with all the time, just so we can go nuts about Wolverine. And if that's all he gets to do, then that's just crummy writing.

That is true. I guess my main feeling about him from the cartoon was that he comes off a bit too bossy.

I think for a movie to just centre around wolverine, maybe they were going for that crowd that likes the reckless but caring person? Who is prepared to take dangerous risks because he is able to handle them using skills?

A good example is in how in the movie "lethal weapon", the character martin riggs is a bit psycho at the beginning of the movie, and it has a very dark tone to it (not comedic) and this makes us afraid of him. We then realise after all he is not crazy, he is not just a mindless berserker, and just chooses to deal with problems differently to how the older, more calm, murtaugh handles things. We caught him at a bad time in his life. He is reckless, but "in control" when the time calls for him to perform. (like dyson, there is an element of skill for him to have survived the crazy things, maybe they "needed it" to win)

But he is also exciting to watch because he also has skills that others wish they possessed so it is important to set up a situation where he actually gets to "show them off". Things like being able to shoot from a great distance, escaping capture after being tortured, rescuing someone, and still having a sense of humor about it. Similar to the climax in macross plus when Dyson steals a plane to take on the ghost. The thing they do is an emotional response, and the actions are bold, but feels right, for an audience who likes to see a lot of action where there is danger and stunts. A crazy person choosing an unusual unconventional method of handling a crazy situation would fit right in if it means that the method they used was crucual to being able to get the bad guy. A robot would only choose them most logical thing. But I argue it might not be as "cool" to an audience to just choose the most logical thing if it robs them of showing a character able to show off.

At the end of the movie, after capturing the criminal, Riggs releases the bad guy from his restraints, and offers a challenge to a one-on-one fight to see who is the man. Although that sounds stupid, if you think about it, it is a macho way of dealing with things. Wouldn't you feel robbed if they created a situation where the other cops intervened and broke up the fight? It would be sensible to quickly hand him over, but doing the sensible thing would not have been as entertaining to watch than a one-on-one fight.

I guess this is the type of character that would be appealing to an audience who likes the loner who likes to prove to himself that he can beat other guys up and do a job the hard way, by themself without wanting help or hating to work in a team following orders and going by the book all the time, because it can make for an exciting finish to a movie when you see someone beating another guy up like that, instead of rolling the credits after the bad guy is caught. As much as I can say the riggs character does a lot of crazy poo (jumping off a building instead of talking with the person who is threatening to commit suicide ) I can also respect that by showing it, we are entertained by that action and it keeps us from falling asleep. When they handle a situation in a more reckless uncertain fashion (requires a bit of luck and a bit of skill and is risky to your own life) there is an excuse to see some interesting fights. (ones that end where a decisive win is hard-fought, and there is only a thin margin between victory or defeat)

It is the same reason I didn't feel fullfilled when guile in the animated street fighter movie didn't actually get the chance to face M.bison one-on-one and actually beat him, because I thought he had the most to gain if he could prove to himself if he could actually successfully beat bison from what bison had done to his friend. (ryu steals the show and takes all the glory the same way wolverine steals the show from the other x-men in the x-men movies)

In the game "metal gear solid" they handled it beautifully where you actually fight the enemy hand to hand. In that: Snake works alone, is in control of the situation, and his unique skill is required. Although calm, many situations in the story are setup where he has massive disadvantages and he must work it all out by himself with no help from others. At the end you feel fullfilled after defeating the bosses because you know as a loner he was not robbed of any of the credit as it requires just him. When under a lot of pressure (time limit, fighting an enemy with advantages, having limited resources) sometimes doing unconventional things is required to win. If at any time the enemy was able to outsmart the guy you take orders from, (using cunning disguise and fooling them all) does it make sense to trust the orders you are given from that person who was able to be tricked and (unintentionally) set you up to arm the nuke for them? If those at the top make mistakes, costing the lives of many more others, is it safe to mindlessly follow that order? In that instance, no.

Similarly maybe there is more to it than just calling a character a mindless beast, and wolverine has the nose to smell when something is up based on his experience from the past with sabretooth, and he is warning xavier I DO know best in this particular instance? And instead of being a mindless beast, he is actually kind of aware of the situation in those instances where the villain is cheating and tricking the leader which gives the orders. The leader might not be aware that he is being soft or going easy and letting someone trick him until too late when it cost a life. This is when I reason it is ok to break the law using common sense, go against an order, (from someone who has underestimated your ability and not take you seriously) or ignore the advice of people who know less than you,.... if it means you can get the job done and stop the bad guy from manipulating the leader above you without the leader being aware of it, ..not because I care about anti-authoritarian characters but that for some anti-hero they realise they just work better alone or have been betrayed by a lot of people in the past and want to avoid that happening. So there experience is valuable because not all is as it seems on the surface. In metal gear solid for example, the bad guy outsmarts the people you are taking the orders from, and you end up arming the weapons for them. It's an extreme example but a valid one worth highlighting because you can't assume the villain isn't manipulating things from within. Without somebody to at least question the order it can sometimes lead to a much worse situation.

The intent of the person giving the order doesn't matter, so long as the result is catastrophic that is what the person's competency will be judged on. This is where common sense defeats duty. Sometimes the "guy on the ground" can sense things that the higher ups can't. Like thier "gut instinct" tells them it is a trap or if it just seems "too easy" and the enemy is just playing with them. (from thier experience fighting against a particular enemy they know in the past) And it pays to voice that concern and express that doubt.

Edited June 9, 2006 by 1/1 LowViz Lurker

[Sundown]

In the game "metal gear solid" they handled it beautifully where you actually fight the enemy hand to hand. In that: Snake works alone, is in control of the situation, and his unique skill is required. Although calm, many situations in the story are setup where he has massive disadvantages and he must work it all out by himself with no help from others. At the end you feel fullfilled after defeating the bosses because you know as a loner he was not robbed of any of the credit as it requires just him.

Actually, I was satisfied just because Snake is a bad ass and looks cool doing what he does best, not because he's a loner. He's so bad ass that he doesn't even fear having credit robbed from him, and he isn't so insecure that he has to work alone. Credit doesn't matter. Only the mission does. Sounds a little like a certain Cyclops I know.

That's why he eventually lets Otacon, Meryl, and Raiden tag along, and if he doesn't, it's mainly for their own good or because he's afraid they'd get in the way. Even playing as Raiden, and helping Snake, you couldn't help but feel how big a badass he was, and that you wish you were playing him instead. If Kojima did anything right, it's making us envy Snake even as his companion. I also think hostage rescue teams are badasses, and just because they actually have to cooperate and work together to save lives in extreme situations doesn't lessen their accomplishment any.

It's kind of funny that you mention Snake not receving any help, when he in fact receives constant help through his codec, and sometimes even has to be told out to eat, how to fire his weapon, how to do a pullup, and how to make himself throw up when he eats something he shouldn't have.

And again, I'm not sure why you equate lone wolf and tough guy with questioning authority, and why questioning must necessitate being a gruff, private, loner. I mean, there's probably some correlation between questioning and personality type, but I personally question authority as a rule (even while acknowledging the validity of their principles) and I've never felt the need to chomp on cigars or do the tough guy bit when I do.

Edited June 9, 2006 by Sundown

[1/1 LowViz Lurker]

And again, I'm not sure why you equate lone wolf and tough guy with questioning authority, and why questioning must necessitate being a gruff, private, loner. I mean, there's probably some correlation between questioning and personality type, but I personally question authority as a rule (even while acknowledging the validity of their principles) and I've never felt the need to chomp on cigars or do the tough guy bit when I do.

? At one point Cyclops actualy questions xavier on what xavier himself taught. This isn't limited to Wolverine. Just that if leaving a friend to die means going against orders then I will sympathise more with the guy who goes against that order. If it is a friend of yours you would probably do the same not be some mindless robot programmed to just follow a command if it goes against your belief or way of fighting.

I equate the loner with independance and competence to handle the situation single handedly. That is to say they are the characters that dont necessarily like working in a team even though they can see the advantages. (wolverine would fall into that category)

For example if Dyson can recieve help yang when it comes to hacking and is support, but the main tasks like taking down the sdf1 require great skill to accomplish. So in many ways by focusing on the main character and his need to take on that challenge singlehandedly (yang did not have anything to do with the piloting) it is proof to himself that he was up to the task. This is very important to his manly ego. If he fails, he can't put the blame on a poor leader, only blame himself.

Riggs beat down the bad guy in hand to hand combat without outside assistance. Audience respond better to the hero that can prove himself through the actions. I'm sure it would still be an interesting movie if someone just shot the bad guy in the head and that was it, but I felt like this was the part that riggs had to prove he could take this guy on in a fist fight.

When snake fights the metal gear he gets all kinds of tactical information (shoot the radome) but it is up to him to use his skill to do this. Knowing what to do and having the skill to do it are two different things.

As I mentioned above that does not mean the other characters are unimportant but the "fan favourite" has to stand out to be of any entertainment value so I reason they focused on wolvering because he is usually the clint eastwood type that wants to do things his own way. (going against the rules and bending them a little to catch the cunning ones that keep getting away by exploiting the weakness in the system)

I was let down that guile got his butt whupped by bison because I felt he deserved to be the one to "kick his ass". But because ryu and ken were the one to do it kinda robs him of the limelight.

But I thnk that if snake had to call for help to beat up liquid, it would make snake look really weak and unmanly. You are focusing so much on the questioning authority and I am trying to point out that isn't the only thing that makes them stand out. (in other words you want me to paint "not following orders for a good reason" with "being a jerk and never following orders")

It's just that in certain instances when the guy in charge is dead wrong, then I can sympathise with the guy who has to do all the hard work to undo the damage that came from the top from poorly made decisions, due to the leader being tricked by the bad guys so easily. In the case of the toon, sabretooth was mocking how easy it was to take advantage of the situation because of the softness of xavier which lead to jubilee being in danger.

IE in the case of metal gear solid snake was used as a pawn to disarm the nuke, he disarms the freakin thing, the govenrment realises the bad guy had tricked them all along and instead of disarming it, it is now armed and ready to fire, ...and now it is snake's tasks to undo the mistake the government made in the first place by commanding him to "disarm it", which actually armed it to the joy of the bad guys. This isn't so bad! But.... after he does it, the government is prepared to kill snake after all the hard work he did with no care that he survives or not. The last thing on my mind is following orders from people I don't trust, just to be a good boy. There are some bad people in authoritive positions and there are some good people there too, it is just that the loner is more cynical and suspicious so they naturally want to question "why should I do this? Why should I be the pawn for things I was not supportive for in the first place?" They are not thinking just about doing a good job and getting brownie points or thier career or money or anything like that.

Wouldn't you feel pretty pissed at having been used like that and be more careful next time and want to only work with people whose judgement you trust or whose beliefs/orders you follow and think are right? This is what I mean by going too soft and the enemy tricks them. If you are too soft, you open yourself up for disapointment and the bad guy sees that vulnerability. Usually they are "hard", "mean" or "crazy" for a reason. But that doesn't mean they "are out of control". That is just them being angry because they don't want to follow the same path that the guy above wants them to because they know they are different. In macross plus Dyson has every right to be pissed at being told all the training was for nothing and I can sympathise with him having to steal the plane to prove himself. It makes him a bold, interesting character. But that's why it was entertaining to watch..because it sets up a situation where we get to see him fight the ghost or the sdf1 using thier skills rather than ending the story in a boring way.

If the character ends up defeated, it kind of makes them weak to the audience. So in my street fighter example I thought guile was cheated a bit when he was pwned by bison because they built up that he was gonna "kick bison's ass".

So my theory about why wolverine is popular and why he hogs the screen is because he fits that mold of a guy who "does things his own way". "He goes where he wanna goes!" If you order him to retreat, he isn't likely to do it anymore than dyson is going to return the ghost and allow himself to be manipulated because it would look unmanly. So it's about trying to prove yourself at the expense of having to break the petty rules, since taking those bold risks might be worth the reward if you are successful at it. (if he beats the ghost it destroys the image of the ghost, just as if you beat the enemy in a one-on-one fight it will prove you were better than them - it is a male ego thing)

In macross plus the black guy even smirks at how easy it is to manipulate him and make Dyson angry. I thought this was funny because in the end he gets the last laugh and goes off on his own and secretly the black guy suports him but isn't in a position to do anything.

Edited June 9, 2006 by 1/1 LowViz Lurker

[Sundown]

I guess we're pretty much saying the same thing. Questioning is good, initiative is good, and thinking is good. And I can totally see the appeal of the lone wolf.

I just don't quite understand why all your examples of legitimate questioning must necessarily be by loners, when examples, both in fiction and real life show plenty of other personalities that do the exact same thing.

The Lone Gunmen from the X-Files are three decidedly un-loner, un-macho, concerned citizens who rightfully question the government and attempt to expose conspiracies for what they are. They're even fun to watch, or at least fun enough to get their own TV show, which, unfortunately got cancelled after awhile.

There are some bad people in authoritive positions and there are some good people there too, it is just that the loner is more cynical and suspicious so they naturally want to question "why should I do this? Why should I be the pawn for things I was not supportive for in the first place?"

Again, doesn't take a loner. I give you many disillusioned war vets who have done plenty of questioning, many of them who fought for and alongside others, and many of them who aren't loners.

(in other words you want me to paint "not following orders for a good reason" with "being a jerk and never following orders")

No, I've already agreed repeatedly that questioning is a good thing, and not following orders when those orders shouldn't be followed is a good thing.

The only thing I'm hoping that you would concede is that it doesn't always require a "jerk" or a loner to do so (as much as that sort of personality might help), because if it did, it necessarily means that everyone else is an idiot. That sort of flies in the face of other fictional characters the same way it flies in the face of reality. You do seem very focused on just one type of character personality, when some of the same things you value are key to characters like the Lone Gunmen, Superman, Stabler and Benson, Gloval, Hikaru, and so forth.

One of my favorite characters is Yang Wen Li from Legend of the Galactic Heroes. Brilliant tactician who'd rather study history than make it. He's a team player and reluctant leader, but still manages to be an innovative, independent thinker who accurately perceives how to win battles as well as he perceives what makes people tick. He can see the validity of opposing viewpoints and can express them so well you think he's bought into them.

He's obeyed orders that he's disagreed with, because he recognizes that it's his duty and responsibility, and what he signed up for when he accepted his post-- and that as right as he might be, he knows that the Alliance can't survive if orders could be disobeyed on a whim, so he makes his objections, retreats when he'd rather attack, and plans for the future. He thinkingly obeys orders he'd rather not, because he regards the big picture and holds his personal commitments sacred. There are probably orders that he wouldn't follow, but few orders that he disagrees with would actually qualify. And when some in his own government attempt to assasinate him, he remains loyal to the Alliance, still planning, because its still democracy's best hope.

I guess I just tend to be drawn towards characters that can think for themselves and recognize the idiocy in a lot of things, but haven't withdrawn and haven't given up on dealing with other people and the system, however stupid they and it are. And I would agree that a lone-wolf mentality paired with a rightful distrust of authority makes for a compelling character. I just don't think the former has an exclusive monopoly of the latter or that they necessarily mean the same thing.

But I thnk that if snake had to call for help to beat up liquid, it would make snake look really weak and unmanly.

If Solid Snake needed help against Liquid, he would be less of a man, because he would have needed help against a clone of himself. Now I wouldn't fault him for needing help against a walking tank of nuclear destruction, and in fact, thought it rediculous and borderline stupid that Raiden would take on 30 of them by himself.

Oh, and the Ninja/Grey Fox actually sacrifices himself so Snake could destroy Metal Gear Rex. So he didn't quite do it alone.

Edited June 9, 2006 by Sundown

[1/1 LowViz Lurker]

Ok but the loner part has to do with needing to prove your skills alone.

If when riggs went one-on-one asked for Murtaugh to help him, this means he is asking for help from another person. That's a team. Traditionally a man shouldn't ask for other people to help bail him out. He should be able to deal with that person one-to-one like a man by fighting using his own skills. If someone interferes it won't be a fair fight. Its about proving yourself to ther other guy that I can pwn you. It's ok to recieve some kind of support but not help in the fighting itself otherwise it makes the audience think he had an unfair advantage. It's the same reason the aliens in predator movie don't want to look like weaklings if they prey on a weak target, only one that is equal in ability or is worth bragging about.

It would be downright unfair to the other guy if snake/riggs/wolverine loses a fight and then expects his team to help with the actual fighting because that is his job. It is much more exciting to see the fight when it is a close and evenly matched.

Just as you look up to beast for standing by his convictions for serving his sentence (even though he is innocent!) I look up to a more traditional hero that will take a problem head on, see beyond duty or petty rules and just do what they believe is right in thier own heart. When guile got beaten by bison there was no excuse: guile came out looking less cool to me for not being the one to beat the crap out of bison. (this is the villain that killed charlie)

I'm just saying an audience would react better to a person who succeeds in a fight at least within the span of the movie. So the focus on the clint eastwood macho man archetype makes the most business sense. I agree there are other types of heroism, for example cyclops can be considered one, but I was only highlighting a popular one. I personally thought that in the cartoon it was a bit cold of cyclops to reatreat and leave morph behind. I admit this is just my opinion so I don't mean to offend any fans of him. Maybe he thought his own team couldn't fight anymore, but maybe they could? We'll never know because they retreated.

Oh, and the Ninja/Grey Fox actually sacrifices himself so Snake could destroy Metal Gear Rex. So he didn't quite do it alone.

That's true. But snake does makes up for this by having that fight earlier with fists and beating the ninja fair and square. I was actually disapointed he had to die. Just like when Ivanov got beaten by the afos in macross zero or when roy died from a stray shot from the grunt Qrau in SDF:Macross.

Edited June 9, 2006 by 1/1 LowViz Lurker

[Jolly Rogers]

Found this interesting link, didn't even realize the subtle FX work that was done:

http://www.fxguide.com/article357.html

[Sumdumgai]

I had read a rumor about that fx work so knew to keep my eyes open in advance. Man it blew me away in the theater, while almost everyone else didn't seem to notice.

[David Hingtgen]

Anyone who didn't notice is IMHO blind. I was like "TNG first season Picard!" the second the movie started, and I knew they'd spent a lot of money.