Jupiter‘s Legacy

[polishgenius]

1 hour ago, Arakan said:

The show tries to ask the right question and deconstruct the whole wish fulfillment superhero genre. This alone made it worthwhile for me to watch. 

 

 

This is a genuine question, not a snarky one though context might make it seem so without this qualifier, how many superhero comics do you read/shows other than this one have you seen? Coz this isn't even the first superhero deconstruction tv show to hit this year, and Invincible got an overall much better reception. And we had The Boys of course. Comics-wise both those are of course adaptations same as this, and you've also got the likes of Kingdom Come (which I joked about above but really does seem to have some similar ideas to this series), heck Warren Ellis as well as the book Ran mentioned was examining comic-book superhero exceptionalism way back with his run on Stormwatch.


I mean, to each their own, if you've seen/read some of these and enjoy this, fair play, I haven't seen it yet so I cain't judge and even if I had, hey, to each their own, it's just your phrasing made it seem like you've not encountered too many subversions of superhero stuff in this manner before and that's what puts it over.

[Heartofice]

That’s my whole issue with this and Invincible . The deconstruction of super heroes has been happening for decades in the comics and even Marvel and DC movies sometimes examine the ethics of superheroes. 
 

With The Boys being such a success I don’t understand why studios think there is a gap for stuff like this. Or maybe they just look at what is popular and copy it.

 

[polishgenius]

To be fair Invincible existed as a comic before The Boys and started development as a show before The Boys came out. It wasn't a copycat and in any case I don't really see why there can't be more than one take on an idea? You don't have to watch it if you've had your fill?

 

[Rippounet]

1 hour ago, Arakan said:

There is a reason why there are no traditional superhero comic stories from Germany or France. 

You've obviously never met Super Dupond and Soeur Marie-Thérèse.

[Arakan]

12 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

You've obviously never met Super Dupond and Soeur Marie-Thérèse.

No I didn’t. As said I am not really into Superhero comics. I know Inspector Gadget and he is cool. 

[Arakan]

30 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

 

This is a genuine question, not a snarky one though context might make it seem so without this qualifier, how many superhero comics do you read/shows other than this one have you seen? Coz this isn't even the first superhero deconstruction tv show to hit this year, and Invincible got an overall much better reception. And we had The Boys of course. Comics-wise both those are of course adaptations same as this, and you've also got the likes of Kingdom Come (which I joked about above but really does seem to have some similar ideas to this series), heck Warren Ellis as well as the book Ran mentioned was examining comic-book superhero exceptionalism way back with his run on Stormwatch.


I mean, to each their own, if you've seen/read some of these and enjoy this, fair play, I haven't seen it yet so I cain't judge and even if I had, hey, to each their own, it's just your phrasing made it seem like you've not encountered too many subversions of superhero stuff in this manner before and that's what puts it over.

I am honest I don’t know much about Superhero Comics. I know the movies as I watch most of them due to entertainment value. I really liked the Watchmen (comic). It hit a nerve. And The Boys (TV) is also ok but maybe sometimes comes across as trying to be „too edgy or cool“ (I don’t know how to explain, like Guy Ritchie movies). 
 

So as I understood you all, deconstruction is something happening quite a lot in comics already? That’s good. I wish this would happen more on screen as well. Falcon and the Wintersoldier tried but ultimately failed. I liked Zemo in that he asked some challenging questions but they didn’t go far enough. I liked this video essay 

 

[Rippounet]

31 minutes ago, Arakan said:

No I didn’t. As said I am not really into Superhero comics. I know Inspector Gadget and he is cool. 

'twas a joke, these are parodies.

[Kalbear]

2 hours ago, Arakan said:

The show tries to ask the right question and deconstruct the whole wish fulfillment superhero genre. This alone made it worthwhile for me to watch. 

The show didn't bother asking any real questions. Compare this to watchmen - where in JL the world hasn't changed at all, everything is exactly the same, it just has superheroes in it. 

 

2 hours ago, Arakan said:

The Code is stupid. Interesting opinion. It might be naive (and it is) but stupid it is not. But hey I also am not a fan of American (or any other superpower) exceptionalism, military raids, imprisonments without legal representation or the death penalty. 

The part of the Code that is stupid - no killing no matter what - is not followed by anyone, including France. The idea that you can't kill combatants is ridiculous on its face and the show shows quite clearly how stupid that is. It works if you're as powerful as utopian and can't be killed, but even then it just works out for him.

The interesting part of the Code - the choosing to not interfere in politics or leading - is more interesting. And the show does nothing with it at all. It instead focuses on the very shallow never kill no matter what and gives trolley problems af nauseum. 

2 hours ago, Arakan said:

The Code is there for a reason. A reason which in all standard superhero stories is totally ignored. Because those superheroes of course always know what’s right or wrong. 

There is not a moral framework on the planet that tells people killing in the act of self defense or defense of others who are about to be killed is wrong. 

2 hours ago, Arakan said:

Zemo in the new series put it best: did you visit the memorial for Sokovia? 

Pretty sure zemo killed a whole lot of people.

2 hours ago, Arakan said:

Utopian is not stupid. He is in principle totally correct. Superheroes without strict accountability are just a few steps away from fascist overlords. 

He isn't providing accountability. He's providing a leash. This kind of accountability is not free will either - it is forcing everyone to do things only one way no matter what. Their conversation about how they could have stopped ww2 years early is a good counterpoint to this illusion of accountability - when they had chances to do the absolute right thing, they chose to do nothing at all. The only time they do anything appears to be when they are fighting shitty crime (which is also in support of something and is a choice) or fighting supervillains over and over again.

 

[Arakan]

14 minutes ago, Karlbear said:

He isn't providing accountability. He's providing a leash. This kind of accountability is not free will either - it is forcing everyone to do things only one way no matter what. Their conversation about how they could have stopped ww2 years early is a good counterpoint to this illusion of accountability - when they had chances to do the absolute right thing, they chose to do nothing at all.

I mean you watched the conversation. So you do know the counter argument: once you start where do you stop? Where?

Once you engage on a political level where is the line, the point of no Return? Should they also remove Stalin? What then? What about Apartheid in South Africa? Jim Crow in USA? What about all other dictatorships? Is Mao then next?

You see, this is the thing. It’s the same mentality which led to the Iraq War or Lybia. Where do you draw the line? I mean sure, for the US it’s easy in the end. Just get the fuck out and leave countries in ruins (Iraq, Afghanistan).

The answer is: once you get involved, you never get out. Utopian was right in this regard. You remove all free will, you remove all agency of the people, you install basically God-Kings on earth. 

[divica]

11 minutes ago, Karlbear said:

The show didn't bother asking any real questions. Compare this to watchmen - where in JL the world hasn't changed at all, everything is exactly the same, it just has superheroes in it. 

 

The part of the Code that is stupid - no killing no matter what - is not followed by anyone, including France. The idea that you can't kill combatants is ridiculous on its face and the show shows quite clearly how stupid that is. It works if you're as powerful as utopian and can't be killed, but even then it just works out for him.

The interesting part of the Code - the choosing to not interfere in politics or leading - is more interesting. And the show does nothing with it at all. It instead focuses on the very shallow never kill no matter what and gives trolley problems af nauseum. 

There is not a moral framework on the planet that tells people killing in the act of self defense or defense of others who are about to be killed is wrong. 

Pretty sure zemo killed a whole lot of people.

He isn't providing accountability. He's providing a leash. This kind of accountability is not free will either - it is forcing everyone to do things only one way no matter what. Their conversation about how they could have stopped ww2 years early is a good counterpoint to this illusion of accountability - when they had chances to do the absolute right thing, they chose to do nothing at all. The only time they do anything appears to be when they are fighting shitty crime (which is also in support of something and is a choice) or fighting supervillains over and over again.

 

That is most of my problems with the show. It starts with a good idea but fails miserably to actually explore the themes it should. 

And another big problem is that after 90 years of fighting crime and supervillains most of the problems they face in the show would have appeared several times over the years. We aren't talking about heroes that just started saving the world. These guys have been doing it for longer than superman comics are around. Whatever mundane thing that could happen surelly has already hapened. 

And as you mentioned, the no killing code doesn't really make sense if supers are acepted and representatives of the justice department. We aren't talking about vigilantes. They can be held acountable for their actions just like any cop should. And they should also be forced to undertake some kind of course before being acepted in their supers league and be oficial crime fighters. Similarly to what happens with cops.

 

[Ran]

10 minutes ago, Arakan said:

once you start where do you stop? Where?

Yes, it's rather like someone asked, "How do I have a god-like hero who is as explicitly as possible not a fascist". So you give him a moral code that's so strict that the only thing he involves himself in are the things that humanity cannot handle , and he and his are purely law enforcement.

 

[Arakan]

I would agree that never killing even in self-defense might be noble but ultimately naive. Though please consider one thing: even in our own reality there are very different value systems when it comes to self-defense. Killing someone in self-defense seems to be much „easier“ in the US than for example Europe. From a German perspective I might be easier to understand where the Utopian is coming from than your average Texan or whatever. 

[divica]

3 minutes ago, Arakan said:

I mean you watched the conversation. So you do know the counter argument: once you start where do you stop? Where?

Once you engage on a political level where is the line, the point of no Return? Should they also remove Stalin? What then? What about Apartheid in South Africa? Jim Crow in USA? What about all other dictatorships? Is Mao then next?

You see, this is the thing. It’s the same mentality which led to the Iraq War or Lybia. Where do you draw the line? I mean sure, for the US it’s easy in the end. Just get the fuck out and leave countries in ruins (Iraq, Afghanistan).

The answer is: once you get involved, you never get out. Utopian was right in this regard. You remove all free will, you remove all agency of the people, you install basically God-Kings on earth. 

You are confusing removing free will with defending the US and its allies.

If the US is in a war against an enemy why shouldn't the supers help the US armed forces? Because one thing the show makes clear is that these aren't global heroes but american citzens that want to help their country.

 

However, one thing very diferent is supers deciding a president is evil and acting against him. The code is there to prevent supers from being judge, jury and executioner. They must uphold human laws instead of trying to force their opinions on society.

 

So yeah, not participating in ww2 was very weird.

[Arakan]

Just now, Ran said:

Yes, it's rather like someone asked, "How do I have a god-like hero who is as explicitly as possible not a fascist".

 

Yes. That‘s why I think Zemo in the Falcon was right. Once you have super humans it’s just a matter of time until they will demand supremacy. 

[divica]

3 minutes ago, Ran said:

Yes, it's rather like someone asked, "How do I have a god-like hero who is as explicitly as possible not a fascist".

When his country goes to war against another country and he lets his country soldiers die when he could have prevented it?

[Ran]

5 minutes ago, divica said:

When his country goes to war against another country and he lets country soldiers die when he could have prevented it?

Sure, because his powers are not there to solve mankind's problems that mankind have made, as he sees it. They are there to defend humanity against the things humanity cannot deal with, like supervillains with powers beyond mortal ken. Throwing themselves into wars is the same as throwing themselves into politics. 

I'm not saying I agree with the Utopian, but his very scrupulous efforts to avoid anything like being a political force ("War is simply the continuation of political intercourse with the addition of other means...") and anything like being anything more than a guard against supervillainy and maybe natural disaster is actually something that's actually a bit unique in superhero depictions. 

[Arakan]

4 minutes ago, divica said:

You are confusing removing free will with defending the US and its allies.

If the US is in a war against an enemy why shouldn't the supers help the US armed forces? Because one thing the show makes clear is that these aren't global heroes but american citzens that want to help their country.

 

However, one thing very diferent is supers deciding a president is evil and acting against him. The code is there to prevent supers from being judge, jury and executioner. They must uphold human laws instead of trying to force their opinions on society.

 

So yeah, not participating in ww2 was very weird.

The Union is not a black ops department of the US state department. They are US citizens but this changes nothing. It would be different maybe if the US got invaded. Which never happened. 

I don’t think that’s really hard to understand. 

[red snow]

31 minutes ago, Ran said:

Sure, because his powers are not there to solve mankind's problems that mankind have made, as he sees it. They are there to defend humanity against the things humanity cannot deal with, like supervillains with powers beyond mortal ken. Throwing themselves into wars is the same as throwing themselves into politics. 

I'm not saying I agree with the Utopian, but his very scrupulous efforts to avoid anything like being a political force ("War is simply the continuation of political intercourse with the addition of other means...") and anything like being anything more than a guard against supervillainy and maybe natural disaster is actually something that's actually a bit unique in superhero depictions. 

It's odd because most superheroes of the Justice League and Avengers ilk actually do this all the time. Batman doesn't use his money to tackle poverty in Gotham, Superman doesn't dictate US policy etc. I guess the difference with this show is it actually acknowledges this lack of involvement as a plot point - which is kind of interesting. 

I still found the "never kill" even when a villain is killing off your team-mates a bit odd. Police, soldiers and security are all permitted to use lethal force when protecting life so it's a bit odd that Utopian insists on no killing ever. But again, this is something most traditional super heroes do all the time.

[Arakan]

I am astounded at some level about not understanding Utopian‘s Code (except the not killing part maybe). 

I mean people here watch news I am sure. You can make a very good real world example: 2003 US invasion of Iraq or 2002 Invasion of Afghanistan. In both cases the US Military basically was Superman. Their enemies didn’t stand even a iota of a chance from a military perspective. But what after? It’s easy to destroy, much harder to build something up. So hard that the US in the end gave up, leaving both countries in a perpetual state of civil war. This is the reality. And this is the Utopian‘s line of thinking. Once you engage you cannot just leave the field and give up, you have to see it through till the end. Which in case of superhuman beings means: basically taking over world affairs. Which as the Utopian pointed out again and again would remove all free will and agency of the people. 
 

I mean come on, the show gave a clear example of that. One of the original superheroes (Skyfox) took the US Vice President as hostage because he wanted US troops removed from Vietnam! Which resulted in the Utopian doubling down even more on his Code. 

[Arakan]

44 minutes ago, divica said:

When his country goes to war against another country and he lets his country soldiers die when he could have prevented it?

You portray it as if superhuman beings would like to become puppets of a government. What if they don’t agree with the war itself? Maybe you should think the whole scenario through.