Personally, I'm a fan of the old Larry Niven Superman tale positing the problems of reproduction for our hero: Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex. http://www.rawbw.com/~svw/superman.html
Joe is spot-on with his take on Superman. I greatly prefer the old movies because the character of that guy was what Superman is supposed to be. The sources for his conflicts should be different from these dark, cynical takes on superheroes. Writers can be creative without going to such dark places, and who knows, audiences might eat it up!
In the old movies, it was the ingenious Lex Luther developing a plan for two nuclear bombs to detonate on opposite sides of the country simultaneously. Even Superman can't travel faster than light, can't be in two places at once. That's just PHYSICS.
He made a PROMISE that he would go after the on heading to Hackensack, NJ even though the other one would probably destroy the entire West Coast. And Superman is nothing if not a man who keeps promises, so there you are. (Full disclosure: My mother ALSO lived in Hackensack, so I guess I'm glad he went after that one.) It was a classic conundrum! The writer had to literally disobey the laws of time and space to help him fix it!
In the second movie he struggled with his love for Lois Lane and wanting to just be normal and enjoy life, but realized eventually that the cat was already out of the bag, it was too late for that. He can't be That Guy, because it would not be GOOD to have access to all those powers and not use them for good.
In the third film Superman must contend with the classic problem of trying to make a good movie out of ham-fisted, juvenile-humored Richard Pryor slapstick vehicle and anyway you can't win them all.
But I would take an updated version of that over this depressing dreck they've been rolling out for Superman in the last decade or so.
Joe, regarding your baseball 100 series: When you start posting can you also post your original baseball 100 post and your new and improved (including shadow ball) baseball 100 post- or provide links to both. That way we would see three versions of 100, 99, 98, ...Obviously as you get closer to “No. 1” those prior versions will disappear because you never made it all the way thru either of the first two versions. I don’t think either of these versions show up in the archives anymore? Perhaps I’m wrong? I would be deliriously happy to read all three and see how your thinking has evolved.
I have a file of the lists and might post the previous ranks sometime. For example, #100 on his first list was Curt Schilling, #100 on his 2nd try was Zack Greinke, and #100 on "Shadowball" was Duane Kuiper. (I was interested to see if Schilling didn't make the 2nd list at all (seems unlikely), or was at #65 or higher (seems too high).)
Your Superman comments are really interesting. Preface: I didn't really grow up (born in '82) a superhero guy - I didn't read comics, and only watched the occasional superhero movie (until the Marvel Universe became ubiquitous). I did watch some of the old Superman stuff, and watched some of the Lois and Clark TV show.
That said, I have two very competiing thoughts about Superman. The first is that I, like you, love GOOD characters. I like characters who want to help people, who are upstanding and generous and selfless. I don't need my characters to have a dark side or to be "complicated." I want someone I can root for unequivocally. Superman is that, or, at least, should be that.
The opposing thought is that I don't care about Superman as a hero because he's completely uninteresting. It's way too easy for him. Other superheroes have to be creative with their skill set because they only have limited powers. Superman has them all. That seems, in the parlance of the kids nowadays, totally OP. Maybe I haven't consumed enough Superman stuff to appreciate that there are real dangers he struggles to overcome; on the surface, it seems like he should be able to flick his wrist and solve any problem he might face.
But I do like the thought of a superhero that's simply good.
Yeah, the overpowered-ness of Superman has been something that writers have struggled with for decades. He wasn't originally nearly that powerful--he had super-strength and super-speed, could deflect bullets, and could leap tall buildings in a single bound, but that's about it. He was kind of an upgraded Captain America who didn't need a shield. Over the years, some writers have attempted to bring back that original version of Superman, but I don't know if it ever took. It seems like a better movie could be made with limited powers.
But even the all-powerful Superman does have a few problems other than kryptonite. His secret identity of Clark Kent must be protected, or his loved ones, like Lois Lane, could be in grave danger. There's a classic story, "Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?", written by the great Alan Moore, which takes this particular idea to a logical conclusion, and is considered one of the greatest comic book stories ever. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superman:_Whatever_Happened_to_the_Man_of_Tomorrow%3F
Re: The Irishman. We are again reminded that it's easier for a 45 year old actor to portray a 77 year old character than a 77 year old actor to portray a 45 year old character.
I was going to post something similar. DeNiro was too old for this film. He was the muscle, but he, even when de-aged, looked 60-something at minimum. Why would the mob randomly approach a 60 year old man with stiff legs to be their muscle?
You’ve already proved that good people can make good biographies when you wrote The Soul of Baseball. Buck O’Neil was undoubtedly a good man and that might be the best biography I’ve ever read.
A flying Mr Rogers!!
What a great line! States it perfectly and I see nothing wrong with a super powered Mr Rogers! That might just be what this world needs!
I feel exactly the same about Superman.
So ... am I going to miss out on the Baseball 100 unless I subscribe to the Athletic?
Personally, I'm a fan of the old Larry Niven Superman tale positing the problems of reproduction for our hero: Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex. http://www.rawbw.com/~svw/superman.html
Joe is spot-on with his take on Superman. I greatly prefer the old movies because the character of that guy was what Superman is supposed to be. The sources for his conflicts should be different from these dark, cynical takes on superheroes. Writers can be creative without going to such dark places, and who knows, audiences might eat it up!
In the old movies, it was the ingenious Lex Luther developing a plan for two nuclear bombs to detonate on opposite sides of the country simultaneously. Even Superman can't travel faster than light, can't be in two places at once. That's just PHYSICS.
He made a PROMISE that he would go after the on heading to Hackensack, NJ even though the other one would probably destroy the entire West Coast. And Superman is nothing if not a man who keeps promises, so there you are. (Full disclosure: My mother ALSO lived in Hackensack, so I guess I'm glad he went after that one.) It was a classic conundrum! The writer had to literally disobey the laws of time and space to help him fix it!
In the second movie he struggled with his love for Lois Lane and wanting to just be normal and enjoy life, but realized eventually that the cat was already out of the bag, it was too late for that. He can't be That Guy, because it would not be GOOD to have access to all those powers and not use them for good.
In the third film Superman must contend with the classic problem of trying to make a good movie out of ham-fisted, juvenile-humored Richard Pryor slapstick vehicle and anyway you can't win them all.
But I would take an updated version of that over this depressing dreck they've been rolling out for Superman in the last decade or so.
Joe, regarding your baseball 100 series: When you start posting can you also post your original baseball 100 post and your new and improved (including shadow ball) baseball 100 post- or provide links to both. That way we would see three versions of 100, 99, 98, ...Obviously as you get closer to “No. 1” those prior versions will disappear because you never made it all the way thru either of the first two versions. I don’t think either of these versions show up in the archives anymore? Perhaps I’m wrong? I would be deliriously happy to read all three and see how your thinking has evolved.
I have a file of the lists and might post the previous ranks sometime. For example, #100 on his first list was Curt Schilling, #100 on his 2nd try was Zack Greinke, and #100 on "Shadowball" was Duane Kuiper. (I was interested to see if Schilling didn't make the 2nd list at all (seems unlikely), or was at #65 or higher (seems too high).)
Your Superman comments are really interesting. Preface: I didn't really grow up (born in '82) a superhero guy - I didn't read comics, and only watched the occasional superhero movie (until the Marvel Universe became ubiquitous). I did watch some of the old Superman stuff, and watched some of the Lois and Clark TV show.
That said, I have two very competiing thoughts about Superman. The first is that I, like you, love GOOD characters. I like characters who want to help people, who are upstanding and generous and selfless. I don't need my characters to have a dark side or to be "complicated." I want someone I can root for unequivocally. Superman is that, or, at least, should be that.
The opposing thought is that I don't care about Superman as a hero because he's completely uninteresting. It's way too easy for him. Other superheroes have to be creative with their skill set because they only have limited powers. Superman has them all. That seems, in the parlance of the kids nowadays, totally OP. Maybe I haven't consumed enough Superman stuff to appreciate that there are real dangers he struggles to overcome; on the surface, it seems like he should be able to flick his wrist and solve any problem he might face.
But I do like the thought of a superhero that's simply good.
Yeah, the overpowered-ness of Superman has been something that writers have struggled with for decades. He wasn't originally nearly that powerful--he had super-strength and super-speed, could deflect bullets, and could leap tall buildings in a single bound, but that's about it. He was kind of an upgraded Captain America who didn't need a shield. Over the years, some writers have attempted to bring back that original version of Superman, but I don't know if it ever took. It seems like a better movie could be made with limited powers.
But even the all-powerful Superman does have a few problems other than kryptonite. His secret identity of Clark Kent must be protected, or his loved ones, like Lois Lane, could be in grave danger. There's a classic story, "Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?", written by the great Alan Moore, which takes this particular idea to a logical conclusion, and is considered one of the greatest comic book stories ever. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superman:_Whatever_Happened_to_the_Man_of_Tomorrow%3F
I've always been very pro-Superman and a couple of years ago saw a scene that perfectly encapsulates why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cl_5UwS57X8
But really, how hard is it to make a "Truth, Justice, and the American Way" Superman? People will see it in droves.
I've probably said it before, but you express my sentiments exactly when you explain why Superman will always be such a source of joy. Thanks.
Re: The Irishman. We are again reminded that it's easier for a 45 year old actor to portray a 77 year old character than a 77 year old actor to portray a 45 year old character.
I was going to post something similar. DeNiro was too old for this film. He was the muscle, but he, even when de-aged, looked 60-something at minimum. Why would the mob randomly approach a 60 year old man with stiff legs to be their muscle?
I think the point was that people are conditioned to believing that DeNiro is ALWAYS the muscle. It's movie logic, not real logic.
Have you read Superman: Red Son? Definitely an interesting way to see how Superman's sense of duty is shaped by his surroundings and childhood.
You’ve already proved that good people can make good biographies when you wrote The Soul of Baseball. Buck O’Neil was undoubtedly a good man and that might be the best biography I’ve ever read.
Super, man.