₦airaland Forum

AfricaGalactic:
List the traits please

Minemrys:
n0w, how do u see yourself in c0mic b0ok barry allen or bruce wayne or diana or clark kent?

Minemrys:
n0w, b4 we use words, we need to be sure as to the c0ntext we are using it. And, i never said DC characterz in a plural sense or in a collective sense. I said the Dc big guns and i went to list such characterz. I also during my argument menti0n a few Dc characterz like green arrow who were actually relatable. So, bro. Check the c0ntext of the statement b4 u c0me up with a narrative. B4 n0lan's film, i've never found batman relatable and that's becos of the c0mics. As in batman is t0o g0od that u never feel a sense of danger or stakes against him. The writerz present him as to0 perfect. Yea, he has anger issues, yes, his parents were killed. But they never show us the c0nsequences to his acti0ns atimes. They never make batman deal with n0rmal human shites like tax, cops poking n0se into his issue or that kinda thing. But that's being t0ned down n0w as m0re intelligent writerz enter the fold. Then again, that doesn't change the fact that, batman has been t0o hyped and over powered that i can't c0me off the thought that it's weird to see batman smile or attempt to do s0mething funny out of the blue. Example, when batman showed he was happy to see clark alive and as superman in Jl, people were like, batman's never happy. And i was like, if he was expressi0nless, how then would we relate to him? In the Tdk trilogy, we saw batman be genuinely afraid, doubt, be em0ti0nal, that's what makes a character relatable and feel real to the audience.

Minemrys:
i believe, relatability has to do with going thr0ugh a literary or artistic work and creating a mental picture of it; in this case, actually see a character as an actual being than just an entertainment, propagandist i.e capt america, and plot device i.e the wayne murder. As in, when u read a b0ok, u see an actual face. For example, chike and the river or things fall apart or purple hibiscus. When we read these b0oks we can actually imagine being Chike or imagine a cousin of ours being Kambili or that Uncle of ours who is Ok0nkwo. Watching Sam Raimi's spiderman and even the amazing spiderman, i can see aspects of myself in Peter Parker. And i could see a friend of mine as Harry Osborn. I believe that's what relatability is. That mental picture that's so real. As in, you haven't been to a war before but when s0me0ne who has, describes it to u, it kinda bec0mes real. L0ok at the black lightning show, am n0t a father or a principal or anything but i can relate to Jeffers0n pierce. It's that c0nnecti0n u kn0w? It's n0t abt having ur parents shot in an alley that u could relate to batman or being an alien to relate to superman. Chris N0lan really made batman relatable if n0t i've never been a fan of batman. And so did smallville. They made clark kent relatable in that show.

AfricaGalactic:
Aren't you tired of your ad nauseum routine? Are you saying the editors of the DC wiki page have no evidence to back up their assertions. Besides, Wikipedia isn't the only place that backs up my assertion. Google it anywhere and you'll see my assertion still stands. If you want sumthin more practical, you can pick up a 60s Batman and an 80s Batman. Then swear they're not different

TheKingIsHere:
Thanks bro.

**in aquaman's voice**
So my man, pu7pl3 is handling two people and different arguments at the same time, and doing it perfectly well?

Maximum respect to pu7pl3.

Vic2Ree:
I don't know about this. From what i usually read on ComicVine and r/whowouldwin, The Flash Family (infact the entire Flash universe) seem OP

Vic2Ree:
I think there's two arguments

First one: Pu7pl3 vs Minemrys >>> Whose heroes are more relatable? Marvel or DC?

Second one: Pu7pl3 vs AfricaGalactic >>> Which company introduced the heroes with flaws, the relatable heroes? Marvel or DC?

NeededGist:
That is very rude.

Marvel has always been known to have more relatable Characters, why is this suddenly a problem to you guys here

AfricaGalactic:
No. What's pitiful here is that you call yourself a DC fan and you know jackshit about DC's history. Batman hasn't always been the dark, brooding loner you're so used to now. There was a time Batman was as campy as Home Alone. Did you ever watch Adam West Batman? Batman comics in the 60s were modelled after its campy, happy-go-lucky, ridiculous atmosphere. Frank Miller changed that in 1986 with The Dark Knight returns. I can even let the whole "Batman relatability" thing slide. But claiming that Batman never changed character wise since his introduction in 1939 is outright ridiculousness.

AfricaGalactic:
Ask him to define "relatable". Ultimately, i think what is going on here is either
1. He doesn't know the meaning of "relatable".
OR
2. We have different ideas of the word "relatable".
OR
3. He's conflating character traits and plot points with relatability. Which makes no sense.

My guess is either 2 or 3.

AfricaGalactic:
Lol . I really don't care bro. Can't take you serious. It is clear from my interactions here that you just want to hear yourself talk. I never said Batman and Superman were unrelatable. The way they're being written in comics is different from when they were first introduced. You just want to strawman and make dumb ad absurdum arguments while slyly interjecting ad hominem. Funnily enough Batman is one of my favorite heroes but i don't read him because i can relate to him. Y'all are acting as if being unrelatable means a fella is trash. That's a false equivalence. I simply stated that Marvel introduced the relatable hero trope and no one has disproved it. Instead you just strikethrough my comments like i'm shitting on DC when am really not. In your feelings much?

Wth is that @ the bolded its doing you no favours in relation to this arguement

If batman is one of your favourite characters it's a pity you know so little about him then

AfricaGalactic:
You don't read my posts. Just skim over it to regurgitate the same trash over again. I never said Batman and Superman weren't relatable.

Vic2Ree:
Pu7pl3, wait. They are not saying that DC characters are not relatable. They are saying that Marvel were the first to make their characters relatable. It's not hard to grasp, bruh. Come on. Abi, minemrys and africagalactic, correct me if i'm wrong.

Minemrys:
let me ask a questi0n, you kn0w that m0ment when u read a n0vel, then a character is presented, and when u keep reading, u form a mental picture of that character fr0m s0me0ne you've met or kn0wn?

hulk616:
real madrid treated him like garbage. we deserve it

hulk616:
Has a professor, my words always look foolish to the ...... ones

you mean AS not HAS mumu boy

hulk616:
first class cancellation

you said uneducated garbage, are there educated garbage?

Yes,like when you making a little bit of sense but in a foolish way,that can be categorised as educated garbage

AfricaGalactic:
[s]It's funny how people think Batman never changed in characterization. Read some 30s, then 60s Batman comics and then read Frank Miller's run where he basically and entirely revamped the character from scratch. The change in tone and even some character traits is unmistakable. It's not a coincidence that the most iconic Batman stories and moments like Knightfall, Long Halloween, The Killing Joke came around the 70s and up to this day. Unlike Spider-Man where stories like If This Be My Destiny, Spider-Man No More, How Green Was My Goblin came shortly after Spidey's debut.

edit
TLDR: Marvel was the first to introduce the flawed, relatable heroes. Thus, the term "relatable" is usually affixed to Marvel. DC didn't catch up until later on. With the exception of Captain America, Torch & Namor, Marvel heroes have always been relatable. DC's major heroes on the other hand were always mostly straightlaced in characterization.

Quod Erat Demonstradum.[/s]

AfricaGalactic:
Batman: Year One was the comic which introduced most of these points except maybe number 3. When Peter was struggling with rent, bullies, and failing grades in the 60s, Batman comics were in full camp mode. Batman changed whether you like it or not

Struggling with bills and bullies are not the only things that can make a character relatable so don't be naive and act like you only reason linearly

And from your arguements it's obvious you don't even read comics,you just check Wikipedia and blogs and pick whatever point that suits you..talm bout batman changed were you the one that changed him If anything he was even much more relatable back then cos he used to kill and was really vengeful..is that the definition of a perfect man

Batman and superman are Very very relatable and have always been whether you like it or admit it or not it doesn't matter and that's why they are 2 of the most iconic characters ever in comics

BankyGee:
Riddles can be literal or non-literal, like I said before. Presence of FEET in the riddle is what makes it a non-literal riddle bruh. LEGS would make it more literal

AfricaGalactic:
[s]Said powers constantly cause him suffering. Enstranging him from friends and family. Said powers can't afford him his rent money. Said powers couldn't save Gwen Stacy. Said powers often feel like a curse. Even with the "powers", he's still a youth struggling with his powers and place in the world. Parker Industries didn't come about via Spider powers. If you read most Spidey comics, you'll notice that the "powers" almost always prove irrelevant when it matters the most. Peter worked hard to earn that status of billionaire industrialist. He's already a genius without his powers.

Fun fact: Spider-Man isn't actually powerful enough to face 75% of the members of his rogues gallery. He always beats the likes of Electro, Carnage and Sandman thru intellect & tech made with the budget of a high schooler. Not raw strength.[/s]

AfricaGalactic:
Yeah. You also need to be the son of a billionaire couple and inherit all their wealth when they kick the rocks

Am just saying. Current Peter Parker's more self made IMO.

God, I need to sleep.

Yea cos a radioactive spider can bite you and give you powers which makes more sense to you?

Bruh go and sleep

BankyGee:
Well, The Riddler said that is the answer.

Had it been no one got the answer it'd've been a different case, but hulk616 hit the nail on the head. He might've used the same Google you used bruh... Riddle is dynamic, some questions you think are literal may not be literal and vice-versa
Like the other riddle having 'matches' as the answer, the question was direct. You said the answer was too obvious, that you were suspecting it, but it turned out to be the correct answer.
That is just how it is

BankyGee:
A yardstick is equal to three feet, it does not have three feet. That's where you are getting it wrong. Read the riddle again

AfricaGalactic:
Actually Batman (1939) =/= Batman (1966) =/= Frank Miller's Batman.

I don't see how I can relate to Bruce Wayne. Yeah he's driven by revenge and angst. But that's pretty much where his humanity ends for me. Man just seems to perfect for my liking. Maybe you can relate but i can't.

Agree to disagree?

AfricaGalactic:
What does this even mean?

AfricaGalactic:
Blackspider
Just for re-iteration & clarity sake.[b] I'm aware DC characters are relatable but that wasn't how they were initially written. Batman and the gang have all evolved. Yes. However, the classic (golden age) versions of these heroes were the epitome of perfection.[/b]That is why the stigma is still there. DC always had this stuff about legacy and it still rings true today. Marvel was always the underdog in every sense of the word. Stan Lee's 60s creations targetted college aged audiences. Johnny Storm, Spider-Man & The X-Men started the new wave of teens who weren't sidekicks and who weren't younger versions of major heroes. They didn't call it the "Marvel Age Of Comics" for nothing.

AfricaGalactic:
Go back to my original post. Absolutely NO ONE said DC's characters are unrelatable (except maybe TheKingIsHere). Now let me start over

DC, as we know it (Superman, Batman et al) started out in the 30s all thru to the 50s. Marvel, as we know it began in the 60s. Pre-marvel, heroes were written as one-dimensional. Flawless. Stan Lee & Jack Kirby changed that with Spider-Man, Fantastic Four, X-Men etc. DC has tons of relatable characters like Wally West & Jason Todd. But Marvel kicked it off. THIS IS THE REASON that "relatability" stigma remains. DC characters became more grounded later on but by then it was too late. The original characterization of Superman and Batman and WW and GL and Flash etc were one dimensional. But Spidey, x-men, f4, hulk, iron man, ant man were all flawed since day 1. Thor was the sole exception.

Miremoses1:
i was so shocked when i saw the news on tv. Poch has been working with the same set of players for years without making any star signings but still made top 4 every season and just last season he took them to the finals.
Poch deserved to stay, they should have backed him up after what he did last season. F**k! Levy and his gang made the wrong call.

FergieRaww:
Damn! i’m in tears rn

AfricaGalactic:
And you missed my point. Again. It basically comes down to this: Which company introduced superheroes with flaws? Marvel or DC?

Both have relatable characters. Marvel's are just more well known. Twist in anyway you want, Supes & Bats aren't more relatable than Spidey & The X-Men

Lmao

This basically means "I see your point and you are right but I rather die than admit that"