Movie Discussion Thread

[Bert Macklin]

Originally Posted by Ness

I'd say anyone can dress up like a crime fighter and do their best to try and save the planet. But not the Batman we've come to know which exists because of Bruce's unique experiences.

I don't think you need to have super powers to be considered a superhero either.

If you don't have super powers you aren't a superhero. You're just a hero.

[Caddy]

First nine words of the Batman wiki page.

Batman is a fictional character, a comic book superhero

[Ness]

Originally Posted by Bert Macklin

If you don't have super powers you aren't a superhero. You're just a hero.

Really? This is what you believe? Then Batman, Green Arrow, and Iron Man aren't superheroes.

And personally I just don't believe that. I think it's not as black as white. I'd say if you wear a costume and are able to do something or have an extra ordinary ability or set of abilities that are extremely unique (either cosmic or just based on contrived circumstances like Batman) to that point where no one else can pretty much emulate what you do, you're a superhero.

[Bert Macklin]

Originally Posted by Ness

Really? This is what you believe? Then Batman, Green Arrow, and Iron Man aren't superheroes.

And personally I just don't believe that. I think it's not as black as white. I'd say if you wear a costume and are able to do something or have an extra ordinary ability or set of abilities that are extremely unique (either cosmic or just based on contrived circumstances like Batman) to that point where no one else can pretty much emulate what you do, you're a superhero.

Batman knows martial arts and tony stark is super smart. Neither super human abilities.

Batman is my favorite character of all time and there's nothing he can do that can't be duplicated. I mean a regular city cop is the next "superhero" in TDKR.

[Caddy]

I completely disagree that you need 'super-human' powers to be a 'super-hero'. The super doesn't just refer to powers, it refers to abilities which can justifiably include gadgets, martial arts skills, acrobatics, high intelligence etc etc.

[Ness]

Originally Posted by Bert Macklin

Batman knows martial arts and tony stark is super smart. Neither super human abilities.

Batman is my favorite character of all time and there's nothing he can do that can't be duplicated. I mean a regular city cop is the next "superhero" in TDKR.

Right, but there is no law that says you have to have some cosmic abilities that literally no one else on the planet can do in order for you to be a super hero. For me personally, it's a combination of certain tropes plus how they are used that are seen in super hero stories that can make a person a superhero.

I wouldn't consider Zorro a superhero for instance. He wears a costume, has a secret identity, and knows sword fighting plus he also has money. But I think the circumstances for Batman are a lot harder to duplicate for any person that gave it a shot. I would classify Bruce Wayne as having "extraordinary" abilities compared to a normal human being.

[themaninblack]

I always thought that in order to be a superhero you had to have a super power. Thus, Batman and Iron Man are not superheros in my mind.

[Caddy]

When I think of a hero I think of someone people idolize, like a famous athlete or somebody who does something courageous in combat or during a catastrophic event like 9/11.

[Rosebud]

Originally Posted by Ness

Really? This is what you believe? Then Batman, Green Arrow, and Iron Man aren't superheroes.

And personally I just don't believe that. I think it's not as black as white. I'd say if you wear a costume and are able to do something or have an extra ordinary ability or set of abilities that are extremely unique (either cosmic or just based on contrived circumstances like Batman) to that point where no one else can pretty much emulate what you do, you're a superhero.

So is Liam Neeson a superhero?

[Ron]

That's a bad example and you know it.

Liam neeson is obviously a ******* superhero.

[Rosebud]

Originally Posted by Ron

That's a bad example and you know it.

Liam neeson is obviously a ******* superhero.

Yeah, but Ness said you need to wear a costume to be a superhero.

[Ron]

Originally Posted by Rosebud

Yeah, but Ness said you need to wear a costume to be a superhero.

Then good point. Any theory that involves Liam Neeson not being a superhero is clearly ******* wrong.

[Brent]

I can't believe we're using wikipedia as a legitimate source.

[vidae]

Originally Posted by Rosebud

Yeah, but Ness said you need to wear a costume to be a superhero.

Ness says a lot of things.

And that movie is awesome. Liam Neeson just goes alpha on the entire god damn operation.

[Rosebud]

Originally Posted by vidae

Ness says a lot of things.

And that movie is awesome. Liam Neeson just goes alpha on the entire god damn operation.

I know he does. That's why I feel it's up to us to let him know when his opinions are wrong. This way he can learn and fix them.

Taken is one of my favorite action movies of all time. Like Shoot Em Up it's just perfectly over the top awesome.

[Ness]

Originally Posted by Rosebud

So is Liam Neeson a superhero?

Originally Posted by Rosebud

I know he does. That's why I feel it's up to us to let him know when his opinions are wrong. This way he can learn and fix them.

If you're talking about his character in that film then no. And it isn't just because he isn't wearing a costume. You should re-read my opinion on what I said. Those characters are completely different.

I'm not sure if you're just being an asshole as per usual or if you're actually this stupid. Again, there is no law that says X, Y, and Z have to be in place in order to qualify as a superhero. It's a fictional circumstance left up to personal interpretation.

[Brodeur]

Originally Posted by Brent

I can't believe we're using wikipedia as a legitimate source.

Oh hey look, a teacher being snobby about wikipedia.

[Jvig43]

Originally Posted by Brent

I can't believe we're using wikipedia as a legitimate source.

Seriously idk what it is but when I was coming out of high school every teacher told us colleges wouldn't count Wikipedia as a legitimate source. I got to college and pretty much every professor has allowed wikipedia to be counted as a source.

[Rosebud]

Originally Posted by Ness

If you're talking about his character in that film then no. And it isn't just because he isn't wearing a costume. You should re-read my opinion on what I said. Those characters are completely different.

I'm not sure if you're just being an asshole as per usual or if you're actually this stupid. Again, there is no law that says X, Y, and Z have to be in place in order to qualify as a superhero. It's a fictional circumstance left up to personal interpretation.

See, this is why your opinion needs to be corrected.

EDIT: and I'm being serious. Batman and Iron Man are superheros and like them Liam Neeson has a specific set of skills, that make him superhuman.

[Brent]

Originally Posted by Jvig43

Seriously idk what it is but when I was coming out of high school every teacher told us colleges wouldn't count Wikipedia as a legitimate source. I got to college and pretty much every professor has allowed wikipedia to be counted as a source.

[jrdrylie]

Batman is a Super-hero. Anyone who thinks otherwise can **** off.

As for Wikipedia as a source, you just have to be smart about it. Wikipedia has plenty of legitimate information. But don't be an idiot and cite Wikipedia. Cite the link that Wikipedia cites at the bottom of each page.

[Brodeur]

Agree with you on both accounts, drylie.

[Ness]

Originally Posted by Rosebud

See, this is why your opinion needs to be corrected.

EDIT: and I'm being serious. Batman and Iron Man are superheros and like them Liam Neeson has a specific set of skills, that make him superhuman.

You again didn't read what I said correctly.

My point was never just having a specific set of skills making you be considered a superhero to me. This is what I said:

Those characters are completely different.

Which they are. Please address how they aren't since you're clearly trying to make the comparison. Neeson's character in that film has a lot more basis in reality than Bruce Wayne as Batman from the comic books, which is pretty much impossible. It's contrivance to the core. Bruce's circumstances are unique and convenient to the point of absurdity. This isn't the case with the character set up from Taken.

I also said this:

And personally I just don't believe that. I think it's not as black as white. I'd say if you wear a costume and are able to do something or have an extra ordinary ability or set of abilities that are extremely unique (either cosmic or just based on contrived circumstances like Batman) to that point where no one else can pretty much emulate what you do, you're a superhero.

And most importantly this:

Again, there is no law that says X, Y, and Z have to be in place in order to qualify as a superhero. It's a fictional circumstance left up to personal interpretation.

So you can stop with the "needs to be corrected". mantra It's my personal opinion on what I consider to be a superhero in accordance to subjective fictional material. There is no black and white answer like you're trying to insinuate.

[themaninblack]

I think the thing that makes the Dark Knight such an intriguing character IS the fact that he has no superpowers. He's essentially just an incredibly moral(ish?) vigilante with some serious ass-kicking abilities.

[niel89]

Just put on Warrior. Never seen it before but I've heard good things on here.