yeah, it's sad really

But then again, I love the feeling of getting something, as in understanding something new

that's my kinda high

*grins*  Yes, me too.   Sadly, that's considered much too much work for most people, who want instant gratification.

instant gratification, that is to clean something really really dirty, you know a floor that looks grey, you wipe a little on it with a wet-cloth and it's voila green

and then you wash all of it, and it feels so awesome

*chuckles*  if only more people got that kind of satisfaction from good, honest work.

I suspect I was brought up just right...

I love cleaning and making stuff go from dirty to, oooh my, is it really that color?

also, reading, is another kind of high, but it is so bothersome when one character is killed of, or damaged, so you cry, and no one around you know why the crazy with a book is bawling her eyes out

That's why we have the internet, so we can find other book nerds to commiserate with about our favorite books.  :)

I couldn't read past the first "Game Of Thrones" book, for example, because of that.

ah yes, I stay away from the game of thrones so much

they scary, or well, bad for once tear-ducts

I've watched some of the shows  and, while I'll admit that they're very well done, I just get a bit overwhelmed that nearly EVERYONE is evil and vicious, with the few characters with any morals or scruples treated like chickens in a wolf den.

Nearly everyone has had such a horrible life in their backstory that it's a bit much.

it's like the maker wanted to make the worst story ever, and see if anyone would buy it

weirdly enough, he succeeded

There's been a lot of "everyone suffers" stories on television in the last decade or so.  Many that have so much drama that there's barely time to catch ones breath between episodes, with lots of "unexpected twists and turns" and such.

There's also a comedy bit called "How 'Game of Thrones' should end".
As the last scene ends, the camera pans up, higher and higher, until the city becomes a map of the city, which expands to show a map on a table surrounded by six teenagers, all playing Dungeons and Dragons.

Then the audience realizes that "Game of Thrones", with its angry, maladjusted homicidal knights, its parade of half naked women (most of them bisexual) and its unending scenes of people killing each other for not good reason, that OF COURSE THE ENTIRE THING MUST A HORNY TEENAGER'S D&D GAME!!!!   *smiles*

some of them are rather clever

I was hoping it was because we suddenly demand viewers to think and be attentive to get what is happening

might also be, it has to be much drama, so explosive, to keep attention...

Yes, there's so much competition that everything has to be over the top with drama, just to get people's attention.

yesh, drama used to be in the soap-operas and them only

now it has arrived in 'normal' tv-series

aaaalso, it bothers me, that every time there is a 'strong' female character, she is strong because something bad happened in her past, and she is damamged and hides it by being strong and blaha blaha...

why can't we have a strong female character that just is strong, without some traumatizing event?

and let her not be attacked and traumatized, so she'll stay strong because she wants to be strong

or am I asking for too much?

*grins*  I totally agree, though I suspect you're asking too much.   I was just reading about how there have been enough Superman and Batman remakes to fill a video store, but no Wonder Woman movie, and even not live TV show since the 70s.

Many people, mostly men, are still threatened by strong female characters, and need to give them flaws to keep them humble, it seems.

Though some of the flaws make them more interesting than some generic strong character.

flaws I accept, everyone has to have a flaw

but does it have to be traumatizing and weird? Like female character falls in love with someone, that someone dies horribly, it has to be avenged?

okay Batman had the same deal, so bad example

why not a female the phantom?

well, there is several of the phantom that has been female, but only when the real phantom is hurt, never from beginning to end

The Phantom came from an "old school" of heroes who were more four color and straight forward.   They were good, but they were, no offence, somewhat bland, too.
They were entertaining, but they tended to be somewhat two dimensional and generic, with only their enemies or locations giving them any real depth.

I just watched a documentary about Stan Lee, and Marvel Comics.   He was a pioneer at giving superheroes flaws and human failings, and while many in recent times have been competing for "most traumatized", it's good to see some flaws in a person to make them relatable and interesting.

These things swing back and forth like a pendulum.  I've seen it before, especially with DC and Marvel comics.

In the 60s, DC was very bland and cartoony, fighting bland aliens and goofy villains, while Marvel was being angsty and dramatic.
Then DC got dramatic in the 70s and 80s, getting into race relations and drug use, while Marvel got more comical and lighthearted.
DC got more comical in the 90s, while Marvel got darker and more melodramatic.

It's just a matter of what people want.

The backstory of Deadpool, a popular Marvel anti-hero/villain, reads like a story that is secretly a cry for help from a suicidal 12 year old sociopath.

Even Batman's story varied since his creation, from mildly determined in the 50s and 60s to dark and driven in the 80s and 90s.

But that kind of drama will get old eventually, and people will enjoy more confident and well adjusted heroes soon enough.
This message was last edited by the player at 12:57, Fri 14 Feb 2014.

I love the phantom

*sad face*

But yes, I do understand that he was bland, now he is more "Oh my gawd can't die yet, kids aren't old enough to take over yet"

as it is a family-thing, to be the phantom, so he used to be all head into danger and no regard for safety, now he is a little... well, he still heads into danger like a maniac, but now he questions, did I go too far?

I don't get the marvel and DC thingy, it's two different printers of comics, yes?

*smiles*   Sorry, I didn't mean to insult the phantom.   I like him, too.  As I do The Lone Ranger and many other heroes of that kind.
Like the old superhero stories where the hero would see a bad guy, fly off to defeat him, and then fly into the sunset.   No character development, no insight into the character, no change in the character from episode to episode, except who he was against that week.

The Phantom has gotten better, as most heroes have, that might be a bad example.  I think his older stuff was less developed, though.

The old serials were fun, but in a non-threatening, "The hero will always win, so don't worry about that" kind of way.

Well heroes always win, otherwise they'd met deadpool

I heard somewhere online that there was a story-line where he killed everyone, even the makers and the readers...

but yes, phantom has had a few story-lines where one isn't quite sure if he is dead this time, or his wife is dead... and this allows for character development

To be honest, there's a difference between the suspense of not knowing if the hero will live (though we all know he will), and the drama of character development.     Many heroes face death all the time, and seem totally unchanged,  and that's the way we like them.

it'd be pretty horrible if they all got PTSD

it is a horrible thing to have, but seeing a hero get it, would feel even worse

Yes, we want the heroes to have flaws, like we would, and even to react to things a bit like we would, but we don't want them to be totally traumatized like we would be.
If I were a superhero, I'd probably have a bit of stress.   If, on the other hand, some super villain tried to murder me, I'd probably never sleep again.   :)

well, the thing with super villains, if they kill their opponent, wouldn't life be boring?

ever heard of the movie "megamind" ?

it is rather awesome

Yes, I loved that movie.   All the more so because of the realism of the situation.

In the comics, the villain is always trying to kill the hero, but there are usually plenty of other heroes or obstacles, so the ramifications are never considered.


It's like in the old cartoon (well, not 'old' exactly, it was from the 1990s) called "Earthworm Jim", a very funny and strange cartoon that made fun of some of the superhero stereotypes.
One had a super villain who's only goal was to blow up the entire universe, destroying everything and everyone.
One time his henchman asked "What are you going to do after that, boss?"
The Villain paused, a little confused by the question.
"Hmmmm...I dunno..."  He replied.  "I've never really thought about it.   Dance around a bit, I suppose.  Gloat for a while.  That kind of thing."


Still, in the comics, the bad guys are always trying to kill the good guys, and that would be a little scary after a while.

I am always amazed how they keep doing it, as humans rarely have a long enough attention-span to make toast, then why do villains be so determined?

and not just go for the easier targets, like the non super-people, everyone in the town, to get to super-person